You share your life with a spouse, procreate with them, share resources etc. You LOVE this person. And sometimes you disagree to the point of real anger. WHY would you expect to agree 100% with others? It’s impossible!
This is exactly how I frame arguments with people who agree 100% with a politician. You should be able to find things you both disagree and agree with on both sides or something is very wrong
I found the goal is to better understand the partner you choose. Agree or disagree you don't throw away your family wholesale. Love is not enough. The point is to be honest, kind, and willing to sacrifice.
So you decided listen to what Peterson said and then not take one quote and throw away the book from Nieche but you decided to do it from Bruce Lee....
@@richardschleenvoigt4374 You can quote someone making the same point without throwing away the book. He was saying Nietzsche get's dismissed for one point.
@@Umiyoureup The wild thing is these days a lot of people us this fallacy to justify their positions just to appear like they are in the right. Rampant sciolism.
@@user-77DegreesFahrenheitThe Holy Father (i.e. Pope Francis) experienced corrupt crony capitalism and its effects on people. He never was exposed to a free market economy -- although there is a bit of corrupt cronyism in free markets.
Throw that junk out you didn't get it then. thus spoke Zarathustra on my personal ... they cancelled and we just keep going. My version is all insane about going schizophrenic with dementia why would you want that? And the publisher insurance thinks thats what you want. There's whis weird becoming A fan psychology behind it.
This is a modern way of thinking with people these days. If they disagree with your views or opinion they immediately cancel you. There can be so many things you can see eye to eye but one different view can make them want to discard you.
Trust me, it's not a modern thing at all. This has by and large been the predominant way of thinking. It's only social media that makes it seem so rampant, but again it's also social media that allows us to see those who will disprove this way of thinking.
IQ's have been dropping all across the civilized world since the late 60's. The modern human may live in a society of lights and achievements but, most modern people are little more than barbarians camping out in this civilization.
It’s important to take into consideration the context of the environment in which those authors where. It helps you understand the past so much better.
Best writer I’ve ever read is C.S. Lewis. Probably the greatest intellectual of the last 100 years, and I’ve read every single book and short by him, never once have I agreed with EVERYTHING he wrote in a book, but man you learn so much by keeping reading.
Definitely not the greatest intellectual of the last 100 years. Certainly a great writer and a decently compelling theologian, but nowhere close to the greatest in either prose or theology. Of the last 100 years, only three prose writers I think really have some claim to being the greatest of that era: James Joyce, Vladimir Nabokov, and Marcel Proust. Similarly in philosophy, regardless of what you may think of them, two names have characterized the 20th century of philosophy with the depths of their brilliance and originality to a startling degree-Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger.
Where in this does he say that this is the problem with smart people? It sounds to me like he's describing unintelligent people who just *think* that they're smart.
I know what you mean, but if someone reads Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Tolstoy and others of the sort out of their own volition, they are at least likely to be intellectually-“inclined”. If there’s room for improvement, then I hope they do something about it, and more power to them.
He would sound a little more masculine if he didn’t talk more feminine than my grandma did… Old stuff can seem terribly insensitive, rude, disturbing, racist, whatever. It wasn’t written yesterday by someone with modern moral sensibilities which is thus becoming completely incompatible with everything bc it seeks to be volatile and respect no form of wisdom or study. Mood and opinion over fact, heart over mind, thought over reason. These people need to slapped in the face and told to stfu their parents didn’t do their job and all of society now has to suffer from their pain. Good God I am 40 and I can’t listen to much more of it I am ready to leave to a 3rd world country where I don’t understand anyone at this point… Anywhere they don’t understand liberal democracy but respect property ownership and will fuck off if you slip them some money. Good god enough of these Canadians too all they do is talk go make something! You can’t even keep access to your banks going enough hockey already. Trudeau must go…
...its like getting pissed and calling people from the past gauged by the moral sensibility of today, they were people of their times...its a waste of being pissed...people just like putting down people because of this, it's back seat history...every philosopher has things that people didn't like when they were alive either, but read it because there's wisdom there, with some really uncomfortable things to....
Yes. Though I do think it's important to remember that all throughout time we did have people with different moral values and that there wasn't just an agreed upon universal morality.
Yea. The irony is how your cognitive dissonance inables you to honestly evaluate JP and recognize how irrational and ideological he is. If an ideologically conservative thinker is what you like, then by all means. But, don't ever claim this man is an objective intellectual-he isn't. And, frankly, idk why the hell anyone would listen to an intellectual that is more influenced by ideology and emotion than objectivity (especially, when he claims not to be).
@@mattdrewdrums damn you really went off the deep end with that one 😂. Your bias is showing a little. Like sure I don't agree with everything Jordan says, but he does make some good points
That's insightful. You have to allow smart people to say dumb things sometimes and not throw away everything else because of it. JP has a few brown nuggets of his own.
Long before I ever heard of Jordan Peterson, I was a great admirer of 19th century European writers. I feel less alone when a man like him knows their greatness.
@@katking6820 “usually” but definitely not always. look I like Peterson and value many of his opinions however he is plain wrong about some of his assertions. For example he claims atheists aren’t really atheists because they secretly believe in god. I listen to him on most things but not his religious views. Unfortunately we live in a world were some people believe that an individual knows everything about every subject which is laughable really. Take care Kat 😀
@@livingart2576 I'm going to assume you must be an atheist yourself, or a sensible theist for recognizing how ridiculous some of his religious views are. I see so many atheists write Peterson off completely just as the point he's making in the video. As an atheist myself, I enjoyed Peterson's first book and his videos a lot.
Exactly! I feel the same about "advice" I listen and ask questions , then thank the giver for their insights and take from it what I find useful , then leave the rest behind . Thank you sir for being on this planet , you are ONE of few , voices of reason . ✌️🙈🙊🙉👍
This is very true. There was this brilliant writer in my country Chinua Achebe. Before reading his books, I held him in high reverence. The only reason why I adored him then was because of the fact that professors and writers in the west really spoke well of works. And as a Nigerian, I love to see a fellow Nigerian breaking boundaries. When I actually got to read his books(especially the one about the civil war) I didn't like the way he painted my tribe( the Yorubas). He painted the rest of the ethnic groups in Nigeria as Xenophobic and "Igbo haters". I wanted to dump the book. Then I realized I wasn't born during the war and I certainly could not imagine what it was like to see your people massacred by the rest of ethnic groups in your country.
Ironically, people do this to JP all the time. "Oh please you listen to this professor who once said (whatever)". Like, even if you don't agree with that one thing, that doesn't mean everything else he has said now means nothing.
This happened with me when I was reading the David goggins book. I was so overwhelmed by the shit he went through in his childhood that I attributed his success/character to his childhood suffering
I did kind of the opposite as a kid. I watched Gilligan's Island and laughed off most of the silly content, but also learned that you can make a battery with seawater and what a cumulus cloud is. I never did figure out what they milked to get the cream for coconut cream pie.
I mean, if you want actual answer to how to get coconut milk: You carve out the coconut flesh, shred it, boil it in water and then just .... compress? it for the coconut milk. This might be done multiple time (Using what exactly, I forgot, my mom haven't do it for so long)
Thats the difference between smart people and inteligent people. Inteligence by definition is the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason. Being smart is just knowing a lot.
Baby with the bathwater. You read it until you can see what the author was trying to convey, from his view point. The author can explain it but it's up to the reader to understand. Mr. Peterson is being gracious with the label unsophisticated reader. Lol
Jordan Peterson should knighted. He should have an official title. This man has helped to slowly change the way I think and function. He makes me think!!
@@mattdrewdrums I’d imagine it’s because this person agrees with Peterson even more regularly, and perhaps furthermore enjoys something else about him such as his style of rhetoric. Unless you’re an ideologue or a sheep there’s not going to be any thinker with a large body of work that you don’t occasionally disagree with. Of course from one or two of your other comments in here you seem like a Peterson hater so I don’t see much reason to further engage.
@@Vincent-gl7bs There's virtually no one I don't occasionally disagree with, but do you know what the word "regularly" means? To regularly disagree with someone would imply you don't really align with their views. And, way to go. Why address my criticisms when you can just dismiss me entirely, right lol? You are very unaware if you think Peterson is an objective thinker. The guys views align almost entirely with one ideological spectrum-that's not coincidental.
@@mattdrewdrums I very much appreciate HOW pederson thinks, not necessarily the conclusion he draws. For example. When asked about abortion pederson answered (paraphrased) "abortion is clearly wrong, you wouldn't hope someone you love had one, but should everything that's clearly wrong be illegal?" Now that got me rethinking many other things. I, of course, disagree that abortion shouldn't be illegal, because in the instance of abortion there's an innocent and helpless life involved, so to that regard I disagree with his thinking......however there are SO MANY other things that I also think are "clearly wrong" that I've had to put through the pederson filter of "just because it's wrong, should it be illegal". It's a philosophical question that seams pretty simply, but I've never heard anyone else put it that way and has guided my thinking on many unrelated topics to what he was talking about
@@jdodds1612 Regarding abortion, he's just regurgitating what pro-choice people have been saying, but in a more eloquent and interesting way. That is, that regardless of what you feel morally towards abortion, there are many logical reasons it should be kept legal. Don't act as if pro-choice people are pro-abortion. No one likes to get an abortion, but it is a necessary (or, at the least, useful) evil.
Feel like that’s different tbf. If you think a conspiracy fails at a point that is essential for the rest of it to make sense then you won’t believe in that conspiracy. The best thing to do is look over the previous points and see if you still agree with them after the oversight, and if you do, then try and complete it yourself using everything you agree with and researching other evidence that could lead to a more logical conclusion. Obviously this only really works with theories, as you can’t disagree with solid facts (generally).
I have a degree in classics and ancient history and teach classic literature from the Greeks and Romans (Aristotle, Plato, Vergil...) to more modern writers (Dickens, Dostoevsky etc) and there is most definitely a lot of overlap in skills. You're looking to see truth in a completely different vantage point. You're sifting and weighing and critiquing and learning. Very valuable skill that is fast becoming lost in society because heaven forbid someone reads "fake news" - they'll never be able to make reliable judgement calls using their own brain!!
@@LevatekGaming often the earlier info leads on or hinges on other info to make it true. Like some of those flat earthers are convincing but after them explaining something with a huge oversight or massively out of scale props you can no longer take their argument seriously. They might have a few good points but need to go back and reorganize their ideas so they are more coherent if they are trying to change the current narrative from what we know to what they think.
Jordan Peterson is what helped me understand I could have my faith in God and still be mentally I’ll and disabled, that’s it didn’t mean I was cursed or that God had given up on me. I’m so grateful to have found him while I was finding faith.now I know they can be side by side and play into each other but that they are their own things
I read Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky years ago, I hated it, but it was brilliant. The character repulsed me, but I have never forgotten him. What Jordan Peterson is saying here is so true, because I would say it was the book that provoked me the most and stayed with me for years. Incredible writer.
I do the same thing when I listen to Jordan Peterson. Some things No. But alot of stuff Petersen says makes sense. So you look at the whole and not focus on a smart part and discard everything. True story.
My biggest problem with Peterson is much of what he says sounds impressive, but is solidly rooted in abstractions he claims are concrete. Example: Peterson's views on archetypes is that they are real, not abstract. He believes the Father archetype and Mass attracting Mass are equally concrete.
@@cheftr1 I think most of his claims comes through his practice, journals, books, research, other experts, and experience from others. I don't believe he just makes it up as he goes along. I would expected Petersen as a professor and professional psychologist would cross out all his Ts and dot all his Is before drawing his conclusions on all matters. It still doesn't mean his ideas are 100% concrete. And I'm sure he may overreach with his thoughts in some areas.
@@JohnDoe-zz7on I don't think he makes it up as he goes along, nor do I believe his ideas are concrete. I said he believes abstract objects are concrete objects in much of his thought process. The example I gave was his belief that literary archetypes (father/mother/hero/etc/etc) are not abstractions, but exist as real things outside of the human mind.
@@cheftr1 He may treat some abstractions as concrete, but there is strong logic behind it and it makes sense. Good enough to lay as foundation to build on.
@@JohnDoe-zz7on There is literally zero logic behind treating any abstract object as concrete. They are defined as diametrically opposed. Another way to say it would be: "Jordan Peterson believes some imaginary things are real". Your defense would equate: "He may treat some imaginary things as real, but there is strong logic supporting imaginary things being real".
What a great way of explaining why it’s important to keep your mind open and always be willing to challenge our own views. You can only learn if you are open for the possibility that there where some minds in the past who where greater than we are. This is how you actually learn: By understanding where all of if is coming from.
I feel so grateful to this man for giving me a heads up about this. I’m only in the 5th grade, but Jordan taught me something I would have had to wait until the 6th grade to learn.
This is the second time that this has happened, I have spoken to my therapist about things, having never heard JP’s perspectives on the same things I’ve spoken about myself, then to shortly thereafter, have a video pop into my feed of him talking similarly with what I had been talking to my therapist about. First time it was whether humans are good or evil, I said that we are both good AND evil. Second time it was about separating the wheat from the chaff, separating the good from the bad, or the truth from the lies.
Exactly what many scholars, students, and psychologists are doing with JP. They see something they dislike about his views and discard him entirely. This was a real wake up call for me. I realized then that these scientists - trained to be objective and trained to consider opposing views with curiosity and experimentation - are not really scientifically oriented beyond their narrow area of work. It's a totally new level of thinking. It is a level up in sophistication.
We should not only consider this with writers, or certain philosophers. We should do this with everyone. My moral goes: "Everyone has a good heart. Only the people that neglect this fact will be considered evil people." These two statements aren't exclusive. If you've ever been bullied before, you could say they have a bad heart. That's not true. Even they have a reason to bully you, or they don't mean to bully you at all. If you care a lot, and you think you're able to, maybe try finding that good part in their heart once. Try finding what makes them human, what makes them have a good heart.
You can throw away the whole book (if you want to) When you read, you’re looking into the world view of another person, that writer does not possess some magically profound or ‘true’ world view If you really want to TRY to understand the world (decently) well, you need to examine what they say and the logic/merit to that, and not put so much weight into the NAME behind the position/philosophy If it’s a good argument then it should be able to stand on its own merits, I HATE it when people simply quote some random ‘philosopher’ to try and ‘prove’ they are ‘correct’ in whatever the hell view they’re trying to argue for
I left a similar reply to someone else, but you're misinterpreting what he's saying here. He's asking you to read intelligently which means to accept some parts and reject others. At no point does he say you MUST accept all Nietzsche, or whoever. He's saying such people are worth reading carefully, and then if you still wish to reject them, then do so, but do so after having analysed them from all angles, and not just as a knee jerk reaction. He's not saying is to accept Dostoyevsky because you should do so because he's an immutable and perfect idol. He never once leans on this "magically profound" view you speak of. So why conjure it up? What is it that makes you angry enough to do so?
@@swolemoth What I’m saying is, I don’t care at all if Nietzsche says something (per se) I only really ‘care’ WHAT he said, and if it makes sense Not to sound arrogant (and believe me I KNOW that nobody gives a damn what I think, I’m not pretending to be ‘superior’ or any arrogant bs) but I can think for myself at a sufficient level, and my overall understanding (especially scientifically, and this does inevitably tie in to almost anything) so far exceeds that of any of the famous ‘philosophers’ that I frankly don’t CARE about their philosophy/world view I’m still willing to listen to pretty much any point/argument but, I will evaluate it for its own merit, I don’t place really any weight on the name of the person making said argument Edit: and I fully admit I have a tremendously ‘unfair’ advantage over these philosophers since I grew up in modern times, and have access to scientific understanding they never had available in their era, but oh well, life isn’t fair 🤷🏼♂️ If there is an argument from Nietzsche that makes sense then fine, I’m not going to reject it because his ‘name’ is somehow attached to it, that would be utterly foolish, but again overall I don’t particularly CARE about his philosophy/world view, other than as a window into the history/progression of human philosophy and perhaps how this influenced thinking and events through history Edit 2: I know in this video he’s not saying you have to accept everything they say as some gospel, but if you regularly debate/argue with people you will CONSTANTLY run into idiots who think that building their case/argument for or against something PRIMARILY consists of ‘name dropping’ meaning, finding famous people who agreed with them, and to me this is utterly stupid and a HUGE problem with debate/public discourse Again, he doesn’t tend to do this, this is true, but is a very very common issue nevertheless
@@ifbfmto9338 I agree that some people name drop as if that gives a level of proof, I was merely stating that JP wasn't doing that here. It seems your philosophical interests lean heavily towards the scientific, which is fine. Those of us who read Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, and the likes of Jung and so on do so because they had insight into the human soul, which is something science as yet hasn't reached any degree of maturity on. That's what people like me mean when we say philosophy, not so much the analytic meaning of the word, but as in a philosophy of life. My kind of philosopher is closer to a poet than a mathematician. Well perhaps that isn't entirely true but you get the idea. You may find this to be a wishy-washy and irrelevant take on philosophy, but the soul catches up to most of us in the end. Your rationality will take you so far, but then what? In 10 years time maybe you'll pick up an old book.
@@swolemoth I respect your take Science cannot address issues of morality (because, frankly, there is no ‘objective’ morality) but that does NOT mean morality isn’t an extremely important issue that still must be addressed Science can’t handle ‘everything’ that’s for sure
@@ifbfmto9338 It's also typical that you would split "all that" out from science as mere morality. As a rational person you play to your strengths through science and the like, and when confronted with murky things like strangers babbling on about the soul, you confine it to a category you have in your head, a sort of vault within your mental model: it must be about morality. It's not science and therefore irrelevant, but it would be rude not to respect the beliefs of others. Now you can whip out the word morality whenever you need to discuss all that murky business not explained by quarks and fields. Unfortunately, I am not interested in moral philosophy. It's just something to bear in mind, that my take isn't just a collection of the non-scientific things which you've banished to your vault of morality, but a whole other 50% of being which you have yet to explore. Beyond the rational and logical?! Yes... But don't worry, it will find you when you're ready.
So basically "If you don't like don't like my distasteful conservative views, you should stil buy my book, because it might have value in it." It doesn't.
I like this because the principle can be expanded to all aspects of life. In different areas of life we’re required to think critically about what we see, hear, read, experience. We decide where the thing (information) belongs in the understanding of our own lives and the world around us. As with books, so with life.
And you do the same thing with Dr Jordon B Peterson. He is a very valuable source of knowledge. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with all of us. You are a true blessing .
This is what I do with Jordan's work. I take what I can and what has meaning to me. There are some thing Jordan says I do not agree with, but he's taught me a lot.
Something that bruce Lee said, “take what’s useful and rejects what useless” but take in as much context as possible bc thats what makes us deep human beings and wise human beings
He's so brilliant yet so logical. Like, why haven't I thought of it that way before. It's so simple and we make it complex. I could listen to him speak all day. He's so amazingly enlightening and highlights on concepts most of us find difficult and complex. Yet when he approaches them they appear so easy to understand and compartmentalize. I love how he does that. He also doesn't display any tone of authority or superiority he just yearns to have his opinions and statements backefld by proof to be heard.
It's the same problem with everything else.... we judge people for their flaws or mistakes instead of their virtues..... we are a balance of "good" and "bad".... yet we still judge others like perfect beings....
I feel exactly the same about Jordan Peterson, I agree with about 90% of what he says. A valuable resource to humanity and clearly more intellectual than I. Doesn’t mean I can’t disagree from time to time.
People are idiots. I tried helping someone with useful advice, and they threw away the whole paragraph I texted just because I used an example and then they thought that was my whole damn point.
I do this with Peterson actually, separating the wheat from the chaff. He has been teaching me so much, but some of his opinions and beliefs are wildly opposite of my own.
I disagree with everyone I’ve ever dealt with at some level. Sometimes even bad people make very profound and honest observations. Sometimes stupid people see a thing more clearly than anyone. Fortunately every honest person has an entire lived life worth of a particular unique perspective to share of anyone listens. Thanks JP, I need to remember this myself.
Had a conversation with an Aussie while I stayed in Costa Rica. We got to talking about Alan Watts and he spoke as though he was quoting the Bible. I told him Watts himself said not to subscribe your beliefs to a single person. Buying and appropriating someone else's assumptions is no replacement for your own, so take some and leave some. I loved Watts's teachings of perpective on nature, the universe, and our place in it. I understood his dialogue on enlightenment and decided it was not a solution I would enjoy embodying. I loved his views on life and death, but I disagreed with his views on space travel. One of the most memorable conversations I've had to date. Hope he's doing well.
Exactly! As a Croatian woman who read various famous philosophers in Germany, I love aaaall of them. This are the people I look up to and see them as the best creations of God. They were the CLOSEST to the divine. You rethink what they say and remember the great points.
This is absolutely 💯 true especially when you see the kind of people doing this on the internet trying to appear cool and contrary and intellectual when all they do is appear dumb and cringe.
That's actually why it's hard to judge anything done by a genius. Everyone knows that Mozart was one, and yet you'll find some compositions of his that you won't be crazy about, but you still won't have the nerve to say this stinks because it's Mozart.
Yes to what he said a 100 times. What he is talking about is the current twitter cancel culture and how people view the world there and that is why that platform feels so cancerous.
In Malay culture, we have a saying that translates to (roughly): "Get rid of the muddy water, and take only the clear ones" Which means, you take whatever good, and leave whatever is bad. When I read books, especially those involving morals and those who were written by western authors, some points contradicts with my culture, and often times with my religion. But not all points were necessarily bad. Some seem like they are bad, but in reality its just a different point written from a dissimilar perspective. Hence I found that literary comprehension is really necessary when picking out values of a particular book, something people these days hardly get, me included at times.
This should be common sense to most people. You may disagree with someone or something, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing of value in that thing.
I just want to be better and the best thats the goal of my life nothing else in everything. But i always keep on getting effected by myself so ill come here to remind myself this
I do the same with Jordan Peterson 😅 I don't subscribe to everything he believes, but essentially he's full of good thoughts, advice and skills that I can use.
You don't have to agree with everything someone has said, but having an actual understanding of what they are saying makes you intelligent. Even if you disagree with their view.
