Reply to Jordan Peterson: Individualism, Wokeism, and Civil Religion 

Just like his god.....

@@priapulida I'm sorry, but I don't see anything dishonest or manipulative about pointing out someone's hypocrisy. Peterson preaches the value of being strong in the face of adversity, and yet at the same time acts prickly and hypersensitive when he's the object of modest and rational criticism. If he's going to present himself as a guru with a program for psychologically healthy living, then it's perfectly fair game to point to his own emotional instability. He's like a personal trainer who doesn't work out and eats Big Macs everyday.

@@davidfranklin5434 Peterson speaks of strength of order and cleanliness, and his personal office looks worse than my room when I was 13. He speaks about the strength of will, but has to be put into a medical coma for a month in Russia to get over his Benzos addiction. He speaks of diversity of experiences being a means to develop empathy and understanding, yet only eats grain and meat. Like a true philosopher, his writings are a criticism of himself. Neither Nietzsche nor Peterson could never be the super man, and so he fabricated one onto his pages.

Yeah because he has an agenda to push and masters to answer to.... .

How is critiquing someone being sensitive? And how is being sensitive not being resilient? It's always a semantic issue with you people.

胆小鬼

Good observation.

A podcast would be fine.

Very true. A lot of people take "who is the quickes speaker" to be "who is the more right" of via "well why didn't you say that then?"-style gotchas. It's not very true or critical. I wouldn't say Peterson is particularly flashy, but some collaborative where they pre-work out a dialogue or something like that, or a video tag correspondence would be by far the most conducive as a serious and authentic format.

Peterson is clearly worst with his prepared statements, like having a mixup on terminology on a written response. That's pretty forgettable while debating but very demeaning if you actually sit and wrote something.

While I agree that the defense strategies are different between the two, there is a place for informal speech. I don't think there should be a prescribed way to respond. The reason, is that it shuts out any voice that doesn't conform to the specific space designed by the people that prescribed the parameters of a specific formal event. This means one would have to give complete control to one side or the other in order to participate. I supposed just "be" a profile"? On the other hand, this is entertainment, so you do have a solid point. The crowd enjoys the good 'ol "bad" guy vs "good" guy dichotomy.

@@williamfrost3554 I think you slightly missed my point. I did not state that Peterson used informal speech, quite the opposite actually. I wasn't critiquing his ductus as being informal but as being spiteful and angry. Peterson just ridiculous himself by reacting like a stubborn teenager who has just learned some fancy words. Writing an angry comment rejecting his characterization as "angry" is quite...revealing shall we say. And yes there are places and occasions where informal language is appropriate (also in academic or intellectual circumstances) but this is not the issue here. By the way, Peterson makes a habit out of using sometimes obscure terms so exceedingly that he becomes almost unintelligible and a human Rohrschach test. And then he claims to be misunderstood. Oh, how unfortunate; I wonder why this happens all the time to him. Terms like Baudrillardesque spectacle do not scream informality but intellectual grandiosity.

Peterson is a lot more emotional and chaotic than he will ever admit.

@@Ghoddal I'm not taking a broader position here but I want to point out that Baudrillard was specifically referenced in Moeller's video regarding simulacra and spectacle. No other word used used by Peterson in his response should seem obscure to someone with a college education.

@@Ghoddal that's an immensely terrible view of what distinguishes formal and informal speech. Informal speech in english isn't characterised by avoiding technical lexicon. You can use technical lexicon and talk like a trucker, or you can use it in a formalised debate forum. Specifc terms represent specific ideas, and levels of ideas, and without them our concepts would be lost. It's a stupid and petty argument to make towards someone. "Oh no, I mentioned spleen I'm suddely speaking formally" to phrase it differently. Using a 'high conceptualisation' of ideas is a separate cocept. "Plate techtonics bro, are you picking up fhat I'm putting down my mann"

I figuratively fell off my chair when I heard it

They are taking responsibility.

Some of my lecturers at uni would *drop* their microphone to tell us off record where to find the textbooks for free. Always a cool move

@@elipearson8194 They are good people.

@@elipearson8194 haha. one professor of mine would silently write the libgen address on the board and say something extremely vague like: “there’s a website where you can find a lot of books for free, I won’t give you the name but if you are observant, it will be easy to find it.”

I also believe that the main motivation for the support of stuff like Scihub or libgen by actual scholars is the fact that free knowledge is important to them. However, it also helps to know that if you publish a paper, the only thing you'll get in return is bragging rights. So there's literally no harm done (except to the publishing houses of course)

Yeah, literally check out Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.

@@Pllayer064 "I only know one thing about Nietzsche, and it's the thing that confirm my bias!!" That's literally you, right now! But don't worry you are not alone, it's easy to weaponize Nietzsche, I've done that mistake too.

@@TheControlBlue What on earth are you babbling about? Haven't you ever read Nietzsche? He makes this parallel between religion and medicine all the time, even as late in the game as Ecce Homo when he talks about the connection between pity and nihilism, or the connection between revenge and justice in Genealogy of Morals. How is this "weaponization"??

The irony is that someone who thinks they aren't sick, well...

With all due respect to Moeller, but his take on anger and Christianity is not correct. Christianity does not endorse anger as he seems to imply with a reference to Ephesians 4:26. Rather, Christian disciples are cautioned about giving into anger because it leads to evil, and is one of many fruits of the flesh that separates man from God. See Galatians 5:19-26. I know that there are some supposedly Christian writers that, like Peterson, justify 'righteous' anger. I've read the Bible. I don't see it. Interestingly, Peterson seems to be more aligned with Nietzsche on this issue than he is with New Testament theology. I've seen other videos where Peterson advocates one to first become a 'monster' before stepping back to control it. Christianity, on the other hand, counsels humility, loving your enemy, and being 'harmless as doves' - precisely what Nietzsche considers a slave mentality.

For real! Been saying this for years but his cult members always shoot it down.

I don't understand how people read Nietzsche as endorsing Christianity or religion in general. In GoM I read him as saying that Christianity is a nihilist religion not that religious values are needed to guard against nihilism the later being what Peterson seems to think.

Js coming from psych field, he doesn’t understand that very well either.

@Tracchofyre I am psych worker. I promise he sounds like a psychology 101 class who’s taught by a professor who hasn’t used his psych degree in 20 years and decides to teach part time. I agree he does not know much of those topics either, nor does he properly present or understand Jungian concepts and their functions outside of a pop-culture self-fulfilling-prophecy application, a stripped down and cherry picked version of Jung he includes in his half-worked gospel on uni campuses. What he is very good at(and what most Machiavellian/Clinically narcissistic individuals) is saying the right things at the right time to the right audience to attain whatever status and/or goal they want to claim.

@Tracchofyre I'm not reading that. He is a Machiavellian pseudo-intellectual and rationalizing it any other way is only promoting such behavior and action(s).

Could do that to anyone. He did the same towards 'wokeism' within the same video btw. Now obviously Dr JP is more complex than just what we saw, but it is a good analysis in particular of tnn conflict between the self and society, especially when in the spot light in media or even on say Instagram or fb or tiktok etc.

@@DarkFoxV jp is not complex.

@@DarkFoxV complex if you're 14 years old lol

@@DarkFoxV "..the same towards wokeism ..btw.." do you think that peterson vs wokeism is all there is to think about? i don't.

@@rranka8293 woke ism is a cancer that needs genocided disagree and will have a civil war

Imma steal that to use later

Damn, there are sentences in that book that are readable?? 🤣🤣🤣 Jokes aside, I whole-heartedly agree.

"Not be replaced by.... the arbitrariness of prophetic utterance". Wonder what Hegel would make of Jordan's final line in 12 rules : "What shall I do when the great crowd beckons?: stand tall and utter my broken truths".

@@7th808s it's actually very nicely worded, most people will find themselves consulting a dictionary at times, but it's coherent and a good piece of literature/translation.

But there is such thing as political philosophy, do you claim political philosophy doesn't exist?

Yeah it's really a paradigm shift. I've been watching these videos since like the first three and there hasn't been a day where I haven't contemplated the implications that theory of profilicity presents if it is as accurate as I think it is.

@@gh0s1wav I've been reading the book. It's fantastic. It treads the line between sophistication and accessibility. It's both challenging and fun. I'll cash that check now, Dr. Moeller lol

Which would be wrong but okay.

​@@ghfudrs93uuu ​ Sam Harris is also a christainity smuggler he takes all of the moral progress of christanity (slave morality) and then trys to strip religion/myth out of it and pretend his new morality is not christain while being nearly identical in function. There is very little difference between sam and a christain's thoughts on morality fundamentally. His critique of christainity is hollow he didnt go as far as he needed to.

Watch Peterson discussion with Matt Dillahunty.

@@gerardtonythomas507 Bruh, that debate was a doozy

@@TheControlBlue Have you read Peterson's books? I haven't read his new third one, but 12 Rules for Life does have a very self-help and preachy vibe to it. His first book was a much more philosophically grounded book, and while I respected its goal, I don't think he achieved it as well as some of his contemporaries like John Vervaeke

Peterson doing the Peterson thing, just like the C-14 bill that got him famous.

It's all and only about Jordan.

@@Pllayer064 , C-16, not -14.

@Colby yh it’s not like tea whole video was made on him or something

@@Pllayer064 that's literally all he does he never understand people he disagrees with.

Read this comment halfway through the video. Then 10 seconds from the end, I'm sitting here disappointed like: where's the juice? The anticipation made for a good hard laugh. Tbf he had plenty of good things to say about pewtypies take, not to say he didn't know exactly what he was doing 🤣🤣

That made me laugh out loud, brilliant.

Why? It was not meant as a jab at Peterson, he was only stating his opinion. If it was somewhat insulting (I don't see how) that would also be insulting for PewDiePie because I guess the insult is: the take of a dumb youtuber on Nietzsche has more value than this trained psychology professor. People need to chillax. :)

@@jhairccorimanya1806 not really, its more like: youtuber with no professional background in philosophy has a better take on a philosopher than an addicted psychology professor that uses and misinterprets this philosopher for over 30 years to push his neoconservative agenda.

@@massacreee3028 is that an opinion or a fact? I think you are misinterpreting what the video is about, and misinterpreting what JP is if you believe your claim of him being a neoconservative.

*wheeze* 🤣

Imagine making philosophy a tribalist issue.... It really doesn't need that.

Ooga Booga, people in my tribe Smart! People outside my tribe Dum Dum!

@@mouwersor You're not wrong, but the whole analytic/continental divide unfortunately goes way back, and we don't have enough Rortys in the world to fix it

@@hazardousjazzgasm129 what does rortys even mean?

exactly

I think a more apt comparison would to a celebrity brand like Nikki Minaj and her fanbase, the so called "Barbz." Often when she is criticized her fans respond very aggresively in the same way I see Peterson fans do. Like they have assimilated part of the curated profile of Minaj or Peterson into their own personas so they respond to criticisms of them as if it is a personal attack on themselves.

The difference is that Twillight girls grew up and now they can recognize many not perfect aspects of their book series. I see many Peterson fans doing similar growing up. I wish everyone the same level of emotional maturity

@@angelikaskoroszyn8495 Well Twilight's fangirls could more easily grow out of the fandom as an emancipation movement that grants a net gain of power in the form of political self-consciousness. Twilight sublimates is (literally and literarily) 50 shades of grey; girls by becoming (in the feminism-charged sense of the word) 'women' exit the fandom by acknowledging it passivize the female, it makes her gravitate toward the partner, to fetishize an evident imbalance of power and to experience "growth" in the form of class-escalation through marriage (quite literally). For fanboys to grow out of the fandom of Peterson would mean to gain political self-consciousness, but it would put them in a position of renouncing power/safety, the possibility to play the victim (which is the highest aspiration of the civil religion highlighted in this and other videos of this channel both on the woke and the lobster side). It would be a renounce of one's own defense mechanism, something psycho-analysis has shown to be among the most difficult tasks in general.

I do... Twilight Fangirls like fairies... er... 200 year old high school boys... and Peterson sells a conservative view point that is at odds with reality in his "self help" books...

I really enjoyed your comment. I agree with you on the puritan nature of Americans and I have heard that before. I think I recognize it in myself and my own hyper independence. Though I have heard others speculate that it is a symptom of truma. Either way. I must admit I enjoy the asthetics of wokeism though the underlying principal of women's complete freedom and a love of the LGBT is where it stems from for me. I really appreciate Mollers videos and all I can personally do is keep reading and growing my own bag of knowledge, as you put it.

@@oryx_85 Thank you. I was made aware of the power of the puritan mind on American society by reading a lot, notably Mencken who in his rather unfriendly but funny way exposed Puritanism wherever he saw it... But I later studied rhetoric and that is where it b ecame clear that it nlies at the heart of many movements in the USA. But it bears exploring further....

Moeller is like a hydraulic machine grinding Peterson's bones slowly but steadily and he's unstoppable no matter what smoke, mirrors and magician's bunnies Peterson keeps in his deep pockets, the conveyor belt keeps rolling kachunk kachunk, kachunk kachunk 😎

"What Americans seldom see is the Puritan DNA in their society. It's at the heart of wokeism and conservatism..." Indeed!

Most people who live in a certain society do not fully see how their history and culture impact them individually. Its the proverbial "water that we swim in." So if you are not American, that may be very easy for you to see, but maybe not your own society. But as an American, I am also routinely frustrated by American religious impulses, but as a student of American religious history, religiosity in the states has changed deeply since the Puritans arrived on the Mayflower. The real story here is the Great Awakening and the fundamentalist movement

I love seeing you here! Such a fun and unexpected crossover of my interests haha

Excuse me what? What in the HECK are you doing in this corner of youtube? What a pleasant surprise! Well, it's not that much of a surprise, but a welcome one nonetheless.

Let's make "philosopher gamers" a thing.

Welp seeing you here does explain some things of the last video you did haha.

Notice that he also has a copy of Blame! on the shelf in the top right.

Start looking into nondualism more broadly.

bro

What an overlap. Love your videos, Jack and I hope you're doing well.

yoooo, love your videos, they are really on point, some of the best content on the platform

He was a philosophy teacher for a while. I forget what his particular system was based in. I think it had something to do with his 'ontology' that he ultimately was working on in Zen and the Art. Of course he's famous for his syncretic take on human metaphysics that dealt with the issue regarding its utility.

It really wasn't clickbait lol

Nothing better than watching Carefree Wondering while munching those cereals!

@@bsg806 Astaghfirullah

Unsurprising, since Peterson finds people forced to sell their labour a "miracle"

@@fahadschannel it's a miracle they haven't revolted yet 😆

That was a good one :D Peterson always equates Western Culture (which is as we now learned "very functional") to christianity, which is the basis for his whole theory of "universal values" and I find that just so odd and (sorry for the harsh words) ignorant. The "Western Culture" is the peak of all civilisations and its all due to "underlying christian motives"? I mean like srsly? Apart from the fact that most of "western values" decend from the enlightenment, which was nearly always opposed to christianity, I thinks it's just so blind sighted, to believe that there couldnt have been a similiar development in other nations that did not involve christianity. Like "Sorry guys, you didnt put 'christianity' in your civil research tree, now you stuck and can't level up to the 'Industrial Age'!"

@@fahadschannel He what? Is that how he tried to debunk the theory of labor surplus value or what? I'm legit curious, I know the guy is a crackpot surrounding himself in fancy words uttered by a mostly mild mannered speech (a dumb person's idea of a smart person), but I never imagined he would stretch the grift so tight.

It's not optimal, but it IS functional. All of your ideologies and arguments are in terms of optimism, not function. Since you typed this on a device using electricity and the internet, your 'not-functional' viewpoint is immediately disqualified.

Salted beef, no less

Peterson follows a beef only diet after all

what are the benefits of collectivism

Hahahaha this is a great analysis thank you

@@gabrielonibudo5710 look at china

T R U E

@@gabrielonibudo5710 hmmmm let me think about that ... basically all of humans greatest achievments?

As Zizek would say "pure ideology"

@@Dan_1348 If you're taking a critical, as opposed to a dogmatic approach, there can be no clear right or wrong.

@@Dan_1348 No it's the difference between black and white and greyscale. Through a critical lens an action can be more or less correct according to your moral framework but you have to go to severe extremes to find actions that _might_ be considered as 100% right or wrong.

@@Dan_1348 the question is more akin to "which hill are you willing to die on". Because of you're going to start or participate in a fight over X, presumably because you think X is right and not-X is wrong, you should critically examine if the value of successfully defending X is bigger than the cost of fighting over X or of the value from alternatives such as finding middle ground. All in all, the position "you should fight for what is right" is clearly dogmatic and uncritical.

It is equally plausible that in certain situations you should *not* fight over what is right (for example which direction should the toilet paper roll be facing)

@@Insaneslug Thanks!

So, I'm supposed to expect that the guy who wants to absolutely reduce Peterson to a guru, a prophet, and akin to a "civil religion" (and trust me, the only part that matters to Mueller here is "religion") cult leader ("look, he makes people cry!!"), and that after being forced to drop the "self-help" misnomer he tried to tag on Peterson multiple times (akin to "he's in only in for the money" or "he only cares about his profile"), I have to trust that this guy didn't just make another petty jab?

@@TheControlBlue you don’t have to trust anyone. I recommend you relax and spend some time reading widely. It doesn’t require trust to quickly learn that Peterson often misinterprets Neitsche to fit into his sermons. Go to the primary texts and stop relying on trusting or distrusting YT videos. If you want to paint this guy doing the video as a ‘bad faith’ actor to make you feel better then bash on - but not even your man JP nor Neitsche would respect you for doing that. You are alone.

@@Scott-bh2qb I don't trust people like you.

@@TheControlBlue you have trust issues, my friend

It's a therapy thing. The therapist's role is more in understanding the patient and being able to reflect it back at them in a more workable form, one which can guide them to a path of healing. When I hear Peterson say things like showing to people what they intuitively already knew to be true, I think more of the clinical psychology experience he has, than his theories of meaning-formation and social psychology.

It can also be seen as a form of humility.

@@farlado5459 I agree with this. Among young people, I hear quite a lot of people attributing their difficult feelings simply either to depression or anxiety, greatly clouding what their real issues are, because they lack the language and understanding to truly express their feelings

I don't think it is? Where is he advocating that people ignore or avoid seeking out information that conflicts with their preconceived notions? Isn't one of his rules "don't say things you know to be false"? I mean, if you "know something to be true", the statement necessarily implies that you don't know anything which would make it untrue.

@@farlado5459 The problem is that he applies his clinical psychology methodology in a very broad and sociological way, despite the fact that clinicians are, not exclusively but primarily, designed for one on one scenarios. He only ends up muddying the waters and ends up stepping outside of his comfort zone multiple times, failing to realize that the perspective of a clinician or therapist can't be used for every problem, much like how if all you have is a hammer, everything becomes nails. He is categorically not a social psychologist (he himself claims to be a behavioural psychologist) but tries to act like one anyway. People like Erich Fromm or Paul Tillich were able to successfully pull off what Peterson tries to do

Those videos are a trap, Peterson walked into this one!

honestly, I think Moeller's smirk is a net negative for his brand

This

Why? For the promotion of this channel? A bit too convenient

@@jekytck No, because it'd be both interesting and entertaining.

i dont really think we would get much out of it. peterson has consistently proved throughout his career that he is not very interested in actually studying views that contradict his own. He literally admited that he hasnt read marx, foucault, and so on, even though straw manning them for young reactionaries under the pretense of self help has been his whole thing since his rise to stardom. He is a joke

@@mh4oliveira i know, and that made his debate with Zizek very entertaining. lmao!!!

Stratos I you nailed it dude

What's the relevance tho?

@@mouwersor replace the "I" with Peterson's "We"

I was going to say, looks like most people here missed those discourses on madness. Maybe in a few thousands more years, humanity will be out of the cave ages, and man will be the goal, instead of the problem that is to be overcome. Until then, warped and twisted animal physiology reigns supreme.

Peterson lives in your head rent-free. So much for being carefree.

@@TheControlBlue carefree =/= careless

@@TheControlBlue "Peterson lives in your head rent-feee." I mean the same could be said about you.

​@@TheControlBlue these two things do not contradict each other. And is someone suppost to pay for you to think about them? Terrible idiom.

@@TheControlBlue What does that even mean? How does "thinking" work in your opinion?

He really just wants to engage with the people screaming at him and come out as *rational man*. If you wanna have a conversation you need to trick him like Zizek did.

If you're strawmanning Peterson as being dishonest you're falling into the same trap. The thing is: he is VERY genuine and lives his philosophy. It's hard to attack his character because character is what he focusses on the most. Go for his underlying philosophical assumptions instead, like the objectivity of morality.

Although I would agree that there are certain type of his followers who accepts everythings he says without any judgement, I wouldn't say that's what he intends to, he wants people to actually think for themselves, and those who follow him like that ironically opposes Peterson's philosophy, and I thinks it's mainly due to his personna, political opinions and public speaking abilities. Furthermore, I don't agree with the 'just uses big words and tricks and superficial knowledge' claim. For "Big words", if you want to analyse moral, political, or psychological problems in depth through certain academic discipline, it is inevitable that you use certain academic jargons to deal with heavy concepts. Just because one uses big words doesn't mean that they are trying to obscure their ideas so as to hide their shallowness. And superficial knowledge?? I would suggest you to his channel, and some academic videos. There are +100 hours of lectures recorded about widely ranging subjects (psychology, philosophy, analysis of Bible etc.). I don't necessarily agree with all his opinions, but you have to give him credit for how much he knows, and don't you think one wouldn't be allowed to teach at Harvard and UofT with mere "superficial" knowledge?

That's because Dr Peterson knows exactly what he's doing and why. He's not just another philosopher for the sake of being one, he had a plan and a strategy that had to do with "regular" people, not with philosophers. This, of course, is true only if we're talking about his lectures and, generally speaking, his youtube videos. Besides: " serious criticism"? Have you even read the "Warning" at the beginning of every video of this channel? These should be, admittedly, not "serious" criticism for the sake of arriving to a profound point, but rather for entertainment and, I assume, with the goal to teach "regular"(and this is important to note) people something. I could drag this explanation way longer than this, but this should be very clear already. TL;DR Saying this is like complaining that a magician came to a Michael Jordan's party and beat Michael at throwing spherical objects into something from afar, for, then, proceeding at mocking Michael for beating him. Edit: the example with the magician is very bad, but it still makes sense if you don't take it literally

@@mouwersor You seem to not understand what "strawmanning" means.

I wish he would say what he really thinks without couching it as a tactful, systematic critique. I have a feeling he thinks JP is a quasi religious, opportunist, poorly-read demagogue.

@@11kravitzn He said what he thinks is true to the greatest extent. Peterson may be those things to you or I, and he may be a prophet to others. That stuff is flatly subjective and uninteresting. You're displaying quite an authenticity complex when you say "Say what you mean!" That kind of statement is really cringey in a philosophical sense these days I think.

@@alistairmaleficent8776 I don't think he said what he thinks is true to the greatest extent. He's saying what can be well defended, what is relevant to say, what is effective and constructive to his argument. But I don't think he's showing all his cards. The professor seems to be choosing his words very carefully, staying detached and professional, as objective as possible. I'd say it verges on cagey, cautious, self-censoring. And there's nothing wrong with that. I don't hold it against him: it suits what he's trying to do. But I'm very curious what he'd say when the cameras are off, over some beers, off the record. I don't consider it merely subjective and thus uninteresting. Being human means being subjective.

Zizek was too soft on Peterson lmao, this guy would've Tore him apart.

there is a crisis of commons. there i summarized 50hours of Zizek lectures for you.

That has always been one of my main reasons for disliking Peterson (both as a thinker, and in general as person). He'll intentionally equivocate on key words during his speeches to the point where any criticism of him becomes impossible -- he can claim to be misrepresented as a response to any criticism and essentially be right regardless of what the criticism is. It's impossible to argue against that. He may have helped many people, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a sophist whose philosophy is of little value.

Or... he uses a definition of a word that no one else ever uses. See Rationality Rules videos on Jordan Peterson's "Truth", "Religion", God", "Atheism"... or, if you don't want to watch all of them, just watch his video "Jordan Peterson is a Marxist". If I was his debate opponent, and I learn that the entire time Jordan was using his own, completely arbitrary and ill defined versions of words that everyone else agrees have completely different meanings in a debate... I would call him out on his dishonesty to his face, tell him he's a liar, and a fraud (and explain to the audience _why_ he is)... and tell him he can strut about once I'm off stage, but I refuse to be shat on by a pigeon.

Not to mention the man lacks proper foundational knowledge in almost everything he suggested that he knows. And please don’t say he wasn’t like that in the past, he’s changed because of his personal tragedy. His incoherence and ignorance have always been there since the beginning. His debates and speeches might carry some kind of charisma rooted in reactionary sentiments. But that’s all to it, just oratory façade laden with fallacies . They are self-contradictory, lacking in nuances and substance, and dangerously subjected to interpretations that are bigoted, discriminatory, misogynistic, and toxic.

Also I wish someone would introduce Peterson to the late Wittgensteins view of religion. I think it would resonate deeply with Peterson and some of the things that he is attempting to articulate but in a more rigorous way.

All of the obscurantism aside, I can't take a guy seriously who is interested in lobsters, lipstick, and misunderstanding Canadian Law. I just can't. Those things do not require 200iq to figure out and it's just embarrassing that people take a purveyor of that kind of stuff seriously. Also, the guy didn't have the basic bare minimum humility to say "no I'm not a prophet". To even go that direction in 2021 is madness. Peterson is a false idol nothing more.

@@JCT1926 He also misunderstands lobsters, tons of neuroscientists and marine biologists have debunked his lobster analogy, which he pretty much just ignores

@@DigitalGnosis Why Wittgenstein in particular? Don't get me wrong I love Witt, but I've always seen Rollo May, Paul Tillich, Henri Corbin and Erich Fromm to be more compatible with Peterson

@Digital Gnosis I wish you were right, but I can hardly imagine anything like that ever to happen. First Peterson would have to acknowledge flaws in his theories and I dont mean that as a to harsh critique, a lot of people tend to do this, but for Peterson there is no "grey area" that allows for uncertainty. Second,I think (and thats just my opinion), that if Peterson would sincerely try to change his outlook on things, his whole believe system would probably come crashing down. Petersons whole system is like an pyramid, that stands upside down. His core beliefes are build on the notion that there is a "christian value rooted" order in everything which is the basis for his ideas of radical self-determination and everything else thats build on top of it. And it's build like its made out of glass, its quite hard and durable (thats probably why it attracts so many people), but only one small crack in the structure and everything splinters. And thats the reason, why I think it's so hard for him to change his views even a little bit. Sidenote: Thats not to say, that he is "wrong" in everything hes saying. There are a lot of helpful messages. But for him they are only legit, because for him they are derived from his fundamental core of believes. If this core is shatterd, so are his reasons to believe in his own messages. I thinkthat if that would happen, there would be little left of the "old" Jordan Peterson.

It's the only way to deal with him as himself and his followers are so devout at avoiding criticism. They hate discussing any criticism of themselves, which is ironic because that is one best ways to improve yourself.

uwu

Seems to me that Peterson himself thinks hes Socrates reincarnate

@Azarello Plato preaching his semi religious ideas of the afterlife isnt too far fetched from whatever Peterson thinks hes doing

@@mullenenterprises Other than the fact that Peterson makes absolutely no claim that there is an eternal afterlife, which would be mere metaphysical speculation, and instead grounds his religious claims, which is more a mode of consciousness than a hypostatic essence, in well-backed, empirical, psychological research… So yes, the comparison is very far-fetched

Indeed. Plato is interesting at least.

@@pharaohhermenthotip1553 Dude, Peterson's lobster pseudo-science has been debunked a million times. You should also look into that crazy stuff about ancients discovering DNA he believes in, it comes from a book that's been heavily criticized for shoddy citations and evidence

He has written and co-written several books on the subject, I think it may be one of his focuses. If you're interested in it as related to Eastern philosophy I highly recommend Genuine Pretending. It's a commentary/analysis of Zhuang Zi, an anthology of writings that are somewhat foundational to Daoism. I know it's not Buddhism but historically they've intersected so I'm assuming you'd find something relevant there. Regardless, it was an extremely entertaining, engaging and therapeutic read that had eased my existence over the last year.

@@jacobfarley805 I have just read John Minford's translation of Tao (Dao) Te Ching, so I would be very interested. Thank you for the recommendation!

If you’re interested in Buddhism and the self, I would definitely recommend Mark Siderits “Buddhism as Philosophy An Introduction”! It’s very clear and easy to read for beginners, but at the same time has a lot to offer for those who are more experienced.

Also not Buddhism, Ramm Dass was a psychoanalyst who studied with Neem Karoli Baba. When coming back to the USA and asked about enlightenment and the total surrender of the ego, Dass said it’s good to reach enlightenment but also good to know your address. In other words he synthesized Eastern and Western ideas and acknowledges that he was performing his persona with awareness of things outside of his persona. While someone like Eckart Tolle did not make this distinction at all in his early work. Jung made a similar distinction as Ramm Dass did. It is impossible to be all of our potentialities we can only perform. But if a painter only has one color to paint with he can only paint with one color. Similar to psychology if we are aware of many many aspects of ourselves we have more chooses as to how we may wish to behave/perform.

It was a pile of well arranged shit

@@Io-Io-Io u mad bruv?

@@Io-Io-Io stay mad |--|○E

@@Io-Io-Io found the jp fan

@@Io-Io-Io Shite doesn't pile well when fresh despite your best efforts to arrange it.

i think that only sociopaths are truly 100% individualists

> We are extremely socially dependent *For now* You are acting like this is some kind of eternal truth. I can see an evolution toward more and more individual as our technology and our reason has more sway over our environment and our social determinism.

@@TheControlBlue you will still be dynamically interdependent on your environment and we actually have no evidence to think our hyper socially dependent brains will manage to do what you seem to be describing. Like, look at us right now. You are compelled to argue with me. That’s weird, yes?

@@TheControlBlue Also, it’s not an eternal truth, but a layperson (me) summarizing everything I’ve read from contemporary neuroscience, which is a special interest of mine. If you’d like to know what perspective I appreciate and am attempting to summarize the painstaking research of, MIT recently posted to their open courseware channel a whole course of an intro to current neuropsychology, and cog sci more generally. You could start there.

@@TheControlBlue Well, from my reckoning, not a single one of us would be here, arguing about this stuff, if our parents hadn't fed, taught, and cared for us. There's no profit it in, as a parent of 3 I can confirm that, and no real individual reason to want kids unless you're some sicko trying to make your kid be you. It's a simple, basic example, but to me, unshakable in it's truth. We need and care for each other, basically and intrinsically, and that's our defining feature. Without each other, we never could have made it here.

We are never meant to rest wholely on one background and perspective, we are meant to learn from them - and others - not seek to condemn those who aren't "complete", none of us are "complete". These things, philosophy, psychology, etc. are a process. When I look at Peterson, I respect him, he is kind and intelligent and well-spoken and there is a lot to learn from him. Taking him, just as taking anyone, as a godly end all be all is however a misstep. Learn and contribute, there's no need to tear down people, we can build tnem up and that is what we should do. I would love to have a discussion with Peterson, there are additional angles from my background I feel would be helpful too him, and which he might feel the same feeling about. Alas, the internet and media are incredibly toxic. People look to "trounce" others rather than accepting we all live together and someone can be correct without having a while picture, or someone can be kind and not syncophantic, or heck that people are allowed to have different views. We should be focused on helpful and respectful discource and not looking for reasons to virtue signal why _ is bad - usually even before we've heard them, and definitely before we've listened. I don't feel someone who is truly listening would approach another serious and well-intentioned person with the negative and violently hostile commentaries we see. And while Dr JP may have more to learn, so do we all. We are not alone, and we shouldn't resort to barbarous "us vs them" sentiments, but see people as people.

@@DarkFoxV okay this reply is interesting because I don’t know if you’re replying to me or just making a general statement. But the first thing I will say is, I don’t criticise Peterson because he’s not “complete” nor do I think anyone else does because of exactly what you said, none of us are complete ourselves. I have quite a lot of problems with Peterson but my main problem can be summarised this way. He makes vague often vacuous statements so that if any of his points are arraigned he can simply say “that’s not what I meant” and accuse the other person of strawmanning him. I also feel like when he does say something of value it’s just a cliche presented profoundly with sesquipedalian prose which is then followed by unfounded statements. However I do agree with pretty much everything you have to say. We should strive for respectful and valuable discourse and not be hostile. And the media certainly promotes and begets unhealthy discourse or even no discourse at all.

OMG, thats literally me too. I dropped my IT degree (on my 2nd semester) to pursue philosophy because of JP's. Now that I'm in my third year of philosophy, I'm completely dissenchanted. It's like me being helped by peterson was a necessary step to grow out of his influence.

​@@yeahbruvinit When you supported Jordan Peterson, did you support him because his arguments were testably logically right or because they emotionally made you feel good? If emotion (gut feelings) are the root of your support for someone, your support will just as quickly evaporate when your internal feelings change.

@@yeahbruvinit Old comment, but I will say that it is true there is really not much to learn from Peterson. But what Hans-Georg Moeller has said is true, he is a religious figure. He also takes a rather postmodernist approach. So that means that he has a message to spread, and so his statements should be seen as having an aim of pushing a certain ideology. In his case that is the ideology of individualism, and the ultimate goal is deflating radicalism as a threat to the current system, particularly leftist radicalism, because he thinks, or at least has thought, that the radical right has been sufficiently managed for now. And the main threat he sees with left-wing radicalism is that it will case a rise of the right - fascism if you will, he has said that in one interview and he has made it pretty clear that it's radicalism that he fears. That is pretty much all you need to know about Peterson. He is a leader of a religious movement, that was created to oppose another religious movement, so that it doesn't cause a rise of the right-wing ideology (which also, per Schmitt, you would expect to have some religious elements). From that perspective it makes sense for him to make vague statements if his goal is to push a religious movement. It's a failed perspective to look at him as a failed thinker, and not, as Hans-Georg Moeller and others have observed, a religious figure pushing his movement.

Ok that's a bit much.

I laughed so hard after that

@O. M. it's funny because it's true.

@O. M. a majority of people in the comments interpreted it as a dunk. if it wasn't intended to be poking fun, it was badly miscalculated. that said I thought it was hilarious

@O. M. Pewdiepie is smarter than most people realise

It lowers insulin and in turn dopamine and cortisol resistance, making you more sensitive to floods of hormones. Science has found resistance to these hormones is actually more harmful than sensitivity. Though I encourage your sugar addicted self to continue eating your starchy cellulose, more protein for me.

neither did the decades of SSRIs and benzos

@@DyceFreak Why not choosing a Mediterranean diet instead of having to choose between artificial sugar and an overdose of meat?

@@gs7828 Because all plant matter and the pesticides they are sprayed with have the potential to trigger the immune system in sensitive individuals. Personally I eat Mediterranean, but carn is still less inflammatory and you aren't able to "overdose" on it, whether you like it or not.

@@DyceFreak In the EU it's safer to eat vegetables and fruit than in many other places. You don't need a lot of meat, just a balanced amount, like every other component of a proper healthy diet (you should be concerned about American hormons in meat then, I suppose). If you wanna build muscles massively, that's another story.

I don't think you've watched the video carefully.

I think it is precisely not 'destroying'. this seems to me the main point. But i get what you are saying :)

@@itamarshap Deconstructing, disassembling.

@@noonebesides Can you give an example of what was deconstructed and how?

you should leave the word "destroy" to Ben Shapiro fanboys

"Not everyone can accept there is no essential meaning to anything [...] it seems clear humans have to delude themselves to some extent to function." I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head.

These are abstract concerns though, not enough to make a difference in terms of functionality/dysfunctionality. In my experience, whether watching people directly or going through the social science literature, people are overwhelmingly in the grips of purely practical affairs. From creature comforts to recognition and self-esteem, have them secure those and they won't fret over meaning, let lone anything else deeper in philosophy. If they're raised on metaphysical extravagance and have fond memories of it, then and only then will they need to cling to it as adults just to function.

There is an essential meaning to everything. Your nihilism is simply a function of the times.

Nietzsche addresses this too when discussing Apollonian in the Birth of Tragedy. We need to delude ourselves to act. He further uses the example of Hamlet as someone who doesn't postpone his actions to correct the chaos of reality, but sees no point in doing so. Even if he avenged his father, the world would *not* become a better place. Hamlet is disgusted by the state of things which leaves him hesitating for the length of a play.

@@Dystisis My nihilism? I didn't disclose any of my philosophical views here. But even if I had gotten into that, to attribute something as overarching as nihilism to a random commenter after reading a paragraph from them suggests you're on some serious hammer/nail stuff with this. All I did was explain why a belief in meaning doesn't necessarily confer functionality and why a belief in meaninglessness doesn't necessarily confer dysfunctionality. That's simply not how the majority of people operate. They're simpler than that.

Matrix is real and literally inescapable, shieeet 😎😎

Absurd bs is still absurd bs

He does have a book. I am really enjoying it. "You and Your Profile: Identity After Authenticity"

Hmmm yes, let me make unfalsifiable claims that sound good but don't mean much and make millions off of it, claiming to fix people's problems but perpetuating the system that cause them.

@@alfonsoarroyo3283 What system causes the problems and how, and how does Peterson perpetuate it?

His actual views *have* been misinterpreted, and that from obvious malignant actors. Plenty of people understand *really well* what he says, weird that so many people have his books and have watched his videos without any problem..

@@TheControlBlue He speaks in a way that is understandable and relatable, but on such an ambiguous and abstract level, that he can easily get away with any criticism by claiming them to be misinterpretations

@@mouwersor Capitalism, and by telling his audience that it is good.

I mean Jordan Peterson

As someone who like to read read foucault(sometimes derrida) i feel you.

@@scaratlas3347 you did not need to specify that one :D

Hoping Peterson to understand a point of view that contradicts Peterson's reality is... unwise.

Most people aren't Jordan Peterson

@@davidthe16th90 Most people don't think they are God's chosen

Waste of everybody´s time!

The Zizek debate resulted in JBP wandering the globe looking for a magic rehab cure. A Moeller encounter would result in a padded cell with the key being thrown away

I listen with dark souls hahha

@@shinx-hr6uq how on earth do u do this lol

Either way, it is clearly rhetorical. If it is only naively the type of we you imply, just a human 'we', then its failing to realize that the 'we' is far less universal that JP presupposes. The 'we' of a South American tribe is unbelievably different from the 'we' of silicon Valley or the 'we' of the KKK. JP's 'we' is no more universal than any of these others.

I dont think we can use "we" like that in the peterson sense because he's making such bold claims about reality. I think cultures view these questions very differently and can't, be put under a "we" this easily. Even alot of western philosophers wouldn't agree with these claims.

The issue is the “we” proclaims a political agenda which Peterson presents as common western values. One of Peterson’s arguments is that “equality of outcome” is a horrible doctrine while “equality of opportunity” is a good idea. He does this while claiming he is a classical liberal. Adam Smith said he was for equality of condition which is a type of equality of outcome namely in basic conditions of housing, food, education etc. and against equality of opportunity. And Marx said that absolute equality of outcome was impossible. So Peterson is presenting a complete straw man on various subjects but this os an important example. Peterson uses the word “we” as if it were “common sense” or “common values” when it is not. So Peterson’s “we” is simply a propaganda in support of a corporate neoliberal agenda which has captured the USA. It is not even classical liberal or conservative. What did the “classical liberal” Jefferson propose? Anti-monopoly, progressive real estate tax on wealthy land ownership and land grants for the poor, education for the poor, publicly funded infrastructure. Neoliberals likes to rewrite history to obscure and rewrite what were once common values.

When he was asked "are you a prophet", I expected him to at least smile, but instead, we got his blank expression as he saw himself being given his righteous title. Prophet Peterson 🙏

If you're referring to 'The Church of the Spirit of St. Joachim of Flora', then he was ordained so he could officiate somebody's wedding. He's clearly talking about it in jest rather than a serious proposition for becoming a legitimate church, but here's the video of him talking about it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AnLPxPlDetk.html If that is indeed what you meant by "...he is in fact trying to be a prophet." then I think you've completely taken that out of context, as anyone could see by doing a simple search on RU-vid.

Fake news

Not to mention JP's exaltation of the 'Western way', the very thing Nietzsche sought to dismantle

True.

I feel like RU-vidrs can make videos of the same depth and quality, it's just that most haven't been taught the techniques to create a great essay. People with PhDs have. Tom Nicholas (i think that's how you spell his name lol) has a whole playlist on writing essays as a PhD student. Anyone can learn how without getting a degree but it is true that most don't.

@@gh0s1wav John Vervaeke is another good example. I'd also shout out John Pageau

@@gh0s1wav , My Favourite is Cass Eris... she actually has a... 40-50 video series dissecting "12 Rules for Life". She was a professor of Cognitive Psychology, until she decided that her PhD. was better used on RU-vid.

my healing comes from preachers of RU-vid but only by adding more healing saints I don't stay in one echo chamber one fruit of knowledge is a cage 😂 if you learn limits of our free will, brain, thinking modes you start thinking differently you start seeing yourself as a sum of your best habits and decisions not fixed in one form at all times and not conscious at every moment we exist like electron jumping on spectrum between individual me(s) and group me(s) you are like a signal on a pack of wires and not one wire and not often not aware of your signal whereabouts (like while dreaming or being distracted or drunk or hypnotized by app algo) distance to things and planning to let story drive you less being more a driver of own story is everything for me if I don't plan and strengthen my will muscles, automaticism of habits I don't feel like being me at all 😂 I'm also pondering on ways to use the variability of world around us the randomness to my advantage doing small little effort irrelevant things that add chances for big things to happen out of nowhere to me I love Taoism because of this but the cost is becoming too tolerant to irrational ideas 😂 but you can't be totally rational anyway so some fun dosed is ok

try naturalist thinking too that's the deepest rabbit hole out there after considering everything as a system with endless adaptive compensatory feedback loops especially human body (PRI is awesome)

@Daniel Vonau at the end of the clip, Peterson said "that is the responsibility" so he does seem to mean it that way. But even if it had nothing to do with political leadership, it doesnt take away anything from moellers overall point, that the Peterson phenomena is a civil religious project. Just like wokeness is, just from another political point of view. Petersons comments didnt even adress that point.

@Daniel Vonau @Daniel Vonau there isnt neccesarilly a problem with it, Moeller was just pointing out that Peterson engages in the same moralized, political practice as wokism, that being civil religion, but with other values. in terms of metaphysical claims, that is all that he does. His very point on civil religion is metaphysical. Same with his epistomology.

@Daniel Vonau He makes metaphysical claims all the time, like the "divine logos", or his waffling on whether Christ actually rose from the dead, or that the bible is "more true than true". None of these things are empirically, physically substantial.

@Daniel Vonau fair question. the answer is neither. And it is not really that Petersons teaching are bad or wrong (it is to some extend, but thats besides the point), the point is that the moralization we see with wokeness in the form of political correctness and so on, he embodies himself, just with different values

@Daniel Vonau People like that only exist to destroy Meaning, except theirs of course. Someone would have to be seriously deluded to think the guy who actually got attacked, smeared, denounced by Wokeness "just embodies it", like a certain "''Carefree''" professor is with his fixation. Don't expect answers about what is good from people like that, they are just in to win, and they have tagged Peterson as the Enemy.