These lectures have reignited my desire to learn as an adult. I wish everyone would watch these at least once.

53:10 - Where the talk on Heidegger and Phenomenology starts.

I think a good way to introduce Heidegger is through the metaphysical reversal he undertakes. Rather than knowledge or meaning being an object "out there" to be grasped ex post facto by a rational subject "in here," the "subject" (Dasein) always already "possesses" meaning to the extent that prior to any rational thought or contemplation of things, things must appear in the first place. So to say that the world is meaningless is contradictory because the world IS meaning. Now you could still say that there is no ULTIMATE meaning, but the mere fact that things manifest themselves at all indicates that there is meaning.

So thankful JP posted these lectures.

Love listening to this Prof. while im working. Thanks for posting!

Dear professor Peterson, Is it wise for an easily impressionable college student to read books that are radically different from his original opinion? Is it better to wait until one first cultivates his or her own cohesive thought (i.e. religion or politics) then read books that are actively trying to destroy one's presuppositions? Or is fear (of becoming a monster) something I need to face and conquer like the knight who slays the dragon? Is being content with oneself a form hubris or should I wait until I feel I'm able to confront the beast? Thank you Professor Peterson for allowing us to watch your invaluable lectures. It has been such a joy to hear your message.

@jordanbpeterson thank you for a thoroughly engrossing lecture.

Hi Dr. Peterson! Thanks for your lectures, a real gift. What book would you recommend from Boss?

Professor Peterson does not understand Heidegger -- at all. Not phenomenology, not Dasein.

Life changing experience.

So incredibly valuable!

I enjoyed talking to the God Squad but now I must move on and find a new crowd to talk to. Thank you for your interesting lectures Dr. Peterson.

I like how you describe phenomenology as almost a particular strand of "Pragmatism". As William James said, a belief or choice should be adopted based on its fruits, not its roots. In other words, choose the beliefs and lens which bring the most meaning to your life and world. I have loved your videos and you work, being myself a JD and MA in Philosophy. I wish I had access to a teacher like you in undergrad, or anytime :) Keep up "the great work"!

1:16:00 finding your path

This discourse from Peterson is remarkably coherent and well developed over a good span of time - not the case in most of his extended lectures. This is not to say that his ideas here are properly extrapolated and vigorously argued - but he does maintain a line of inquiry that is logically reasonable.

Thank you for spurring my love for philosophy! Your lectures are astonishing!

damn i always listen to these lectures when i gotta do some boring stuff like cooking and its the best! and at the end of the day lying in my bed and thinking about the stuff and how it fits to my life!! thx gospodin Peterson

and that's, THAT!!!

this course should be called "observing the beard growth on a sapian while he talks about important stuff"

I agree about Sartre, heh, but I find Camus much more appealing.

Thank you Doctoriye :-)

I wish I was smarter!

it would be great to have a transcription option for youtube videos.

"He who has nothing to die for has nothing to live for; he does not know what life is." --A.W. Tozer There are a great many paradoxes in life, but one of the most profound and significant is the fact that a person's reason for living is often also their reason for dying. Although life and death seem diametrically opposed, you can't justify the one without justifying the other, and people are often killed by the very thing that made their life seem worth living.

He didn't start this particular lecture with the word "okay!" I am hurt 😂, this is not what I am accustomed to.

The last half hour is breathtaking!

Dr. Peterson I don't know how to reach you. I have tried different ways and will keep looking for it. Please teach me how to become more focused on my jobs. I am not industrious at all but I am very talented.

lol, how many of you commenting here have more credentials on this subject than Jordan Peterson? If you do I'll watch your lectures instead. Links, please. XD

the appeal to consequences is strong in this one

I would love to sit down and bounce ideas off of you, I'm enjoying the little bit that's on KZfaq so far.

Phenomenology: glad to have learned this term since it’s been such a big benefit in my life, in large part thanks to Peterson’s 12 rules.

pretty gr8

This is so brilliant - Peterson is at his best when he is mixing philosophy with psychology. I reckon he could write a brilliant book on this kind of theme - his interpretation of the great philosophers and their implications in psychology.

It was mentioned, that radical reconfiguration of society is almost always a catastrophe, however it may be the only option for people placed at the bottom of hierarchy, especially if establishment is set to exploit. It may be the only way to move forward and sometimes it works. For instance, French revolution brought human rights, overthrow absolute monarchy and allowed to establish republics. It may be the case, that revolution is inevitable unless the system gradually delegates power and allows climbing hierarchy.

"Dasein" being there or existence. I like it

1:15:27 Dr. Peterson explains how he became Dr. Peterson.

53:56 Dasein is not the totality of your experience or the experience of the natural world etc. It is the being whose being is an issue for it.

great lecture definitely needs multiple listens

We want both highs and lows, we our highs the highest and our lows the lowest.

what about unifying yourself? integrating everything within yourself?

"See you Thursday"

You can very easily tell the difference between 60hz and 144hz. Hell even 100hz and 144hz is a massive difference.

10:46 “Large scale belief systems are not very fast…predicated on MUTUAL AGREEMENT…social interactions within…useful and JUST…splinter movements.” This reminded me of regular broadcast TV and cable TV. It’s been trending towards, “a la carte.” Moving away from a focused, cultural gathering, around a “set” of values or common discussion. I don’t believe it EVER will or SHOULD ever will…because if there is NOTHING a society can gather around, nothing a culture can relate to with one another… You will have tribal, segregated and unfamiliar CHAOS…at a NATIONWIDE MACRO LEVEL. JUST a thought. 😌 SCARY, if there is NO BASELINE substance to ASSIMILATE to.

In Qubec, "when Catholicism fell apart, people, who still needed structured belief systems just turned to nationalism as a structured alternative, and that's part of what accounted for the regidity and utopianism of the Quebec movement towards independence". Any Scots watching? (I say this as a Yes voter)

You cannot psychologize Heidegger. He warns throughout his book that you can't do this, he openly attacked all such readings. You can absolutely not confound the ontological and the ontic. Once again, this is intro class material. He hasn't read this book.

I increased the speed to 1.5, and ..it.. still ...sounds ...slow

Love it, especially at 1:00:18, and beyond. It's like philosophy porn, where the great money shot comes at the end.

Jordan P. I´m still unsure of what you exactly define by meaning. If we constantly and naturally give meaning to all we live, then what do you understand by something being meaningless?

"Freud noticed (this is in the aftermath of Nietzsche) that you're not the master of your own psyche. There's many sub 'you's inside of you and they don't all want the same thing. So the idea that you can generate your own meaning is an insufficiently developed idea, because theres a lot of meaning making generators residing within you. And not only do they not all point in the same direction (which is a huge problem) but they don't even necessarily lay themselves out in some integrated fashion across time. And they dont necessarily operate together in way thats going to enable you to find your place with other people and in society. So, you know; "make your own meaning". Well; which part of you, you know? You're not a unified thing."

Was this in UTM??

I found Professor Peterson as he was a guest on Joe Roman’s podcast. Who knew the cohost of the imbecilic manshow could be the gateway to such great knowledge.

Speaking of dreams I'm going to randomly describe one from my early teens that has just stuck with me. (Feel free to interpret this if you want) Now before we start let me explain my dream neighborhoods. Whenever I am outside in a dream and can see the surrounding structures it's always a blur of houses or buildings I have seen or been too. I understand that, the dream is filling in the blanks with familiar buildings. The buildings should be along this sidewalk otherwise the world is broken, let's just check the files on buildings and copy/paste. Originally it was houses and the like but more recently businesses and video game/media buildings, so things from movies and such. Basically any place I actually document as special I could dream of in this neighborhood. Well in this dream it was a collection of houses, my mothers work, and my church (Which is across the street from my mothers business) This neighborhood actual consisted mostly actual houses from the block around my mothers business, just one or two were different. I don't remember half the dream, only the part that terrified me and the parts before that. For some reason a tiger was sleeping on a swing in front of one of the houses that actually exists next to my mothers work. I did everything I could to sneak past that big bengal tiger. I reached a house that didn't belong there and tried to enter thinking it the house of my mothers current secretary. Surely she would help me. Problem is the concrete porch was missing up close to the door and I fell making a loud noise and waking the tiger. I turned and ran a distance before it caught me, tackled me, and bit into my stomach. The whole thing woke me up screaming because my blanket bunched around my stomach making it feel like something was actually biting down on my stomach. I threw my blanket off and went running. This dream disturbs me to this day and I don't know why.

Are nihilism and totalitarianism dimorphic like gender, where the presence of one in an individual necessitates a shadow of the other?

Appears hungover in this one.

20:21 A consequence of our neglect of moral principle, neglect of the idea of Truth as a Primary Value, is that our economic system rewards harmful behavior. We don't insist that the market operate honestly. We don't demand that industries account for externalities. (There's no generall fee charged proportional to pollution emitted, resources depleted or habitat destroyed.) This means that harmful practices bring profit. IF we charged appropriate fees, then we'd be able to take random polls and find that environmental impacts of various kinds are being held within limits that most people think are acceptable. We can make the policy fair by sharing fee proceeds (a measure of the value of natural resources--a gift from God or the product of natural processes) to all people.

I suspect Heidegger was trying to teach fellow dons how to communicate with each other. Most folk, including JP, don't need it. The Sheldrakes and their fellow thinkers will give viewers better leads.

8:20 Is not factor in Judaism. We use shadchan.

1:12:56

45:00 horror of the domination of every creative landscape

PTSD doesnt only come from observing oneself commit atrocities, it also can come about from witnessing something that makes you realize "how damn bloody arbitrary the universe is" as Dr. Peterson might say.

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAHAHAH the "da sein" HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHA wie er es ausspricht! herbe der lachkick!

The analysis of how power relations form is pretty bad and he takes what Marx said out of context, along with implying that Marx explained capitalism as a moral system of entitlement, which he didn't. I would suggest going through Marx's earlier writings (from his critique of Hegel's theory of the state to the German Ideology).

Argh! You just crushed my ubermenchian dreams! But is your work not it's own revaluation of values? You have spent your life (so far) doing so, but perhaps creation of new values and convincing others to hold them to be sacred is a project that can progressed toward, passed down and eventually completed and protected? This of course would include of a method of adapting the value system to changes in the environment. I don't see what other choice we have.

Starting to sound like Course in Miracles?

The type of his thinking is very confusing, conclusive . In other words he doesn’t let the thinking do it’s job , always he fills them with his subjective biases world view

Never have i seen a lecture on heidegger start with discussions around birth control. I am probably not watching the rest of this video...

You're missing 2 points for the perfect notes

👍

This teacher says that Dasein is the "totality of experiencing" in which everyone is "encapsulated". This statement makes no sense to me. Heideggers term Dasein simply refers to humans, in what makes humans human, which is that they relate to their being. "Dasein versteht sich in irgendeiner Weise in seinem Sein" - Dasein comprehends itself in some manner in its being and makes it amenable in the sense of "I am". On top of that reasoning may or may not appear (animal rationale / zoon logon echon). That is a very central element in his philosophy and it doesn't seem adequately grasped in this strange lecture that claims to be about phenomenology while consisting of one hour of anecdotal insights and twenty minutes of phenomenology. And some of his statements are downright outrageous. Marx certainly never argued that the people who gained a status of elite in a system created the system. That's paradoxical. And the proposition of this teacher that music business being dominated by few musicians and one percent of the world population owning more than half of the worlds wealth would be basically the same and sort of an inevitable natural development makes me utterly speechless. BTW the "film footage" of Nietzsche is an animated collage of photographies by Hans Olde.

God I love Jordan Peterson.

40:47 you’re not the master of your psyche? There’s many sub yous inside you and they don’t all necessarily point in the same direction 45:38 in any domain there’s always a minority that has more than the 50% 52:00 you don’t want too negative not too positive in a relationship 1:03:06 what’s nihilism is doing is twisting certain elements of

nitsch live on video 1899?

I feel that letting Nietzsche 'off the hook', so to speak, for parts of his philosophy that are easily applicable to totalitarian culture is a cherry-picking view of his commentary. You discuss his idea of value-creating, but we shouldn't forget that he said quite clearly that the value-creating was a function of very rare "higher men". He also said that lesser men [which comprise the vast majority of us] didn't just NEED to be dominated by man with the strength and will to dominate, but that they WANTED to be. With that axiom in place, it isn't stretch at all for the rationalization and application of the dark deeds that came not long after. I think a more effective argument against his idea of value-creating [if you agree that such a thing is possible in the first place] is that most people aren't able or willing to do it - a view that is congruent with his actual work and a more practical real-world counterpoint. I think that - even if one can't create truly new values - that Nietzsche's 'higher men' are capable of adopting a set of values that sometimes will discard parts of the social contract. This can be valuable and positive for an actualized person, but can also be an effective tool and downright dangerous in the hands of extremists. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Nietzsche is to blame for the rise of totalitarian culture, but pretending that his message was merely warped, or misinterpreted by the 20th century idealouges isn't a fair analysis of the work. He had a lot dangerous ideas; he said so himself.

give them Buddhism where you don't need super being. there are people who think like that but still sane and normal.

29:00 stress damage from hormones implied

Who would win in a fist fight? Freud or Jung? (Both in their prime).

These lectures are very interesting and informative. Thanks for posting them for free! I do have one issue, however. I don't agree with the idea that if people are left to define there own moral codes and how to live in the world, or civilization, that they will have to spend an inordinate amount of time doing so. I think you contradict yourself a little here. If evolutionary processes are the foundation of the shared moral substrate, and these commonalities are what led to archetypes, and archetypal stories, then those defining their own moral code, subjectively let's say, without the guidance of a religious doctrine, would, looking within, still find the same values. Because, as you say, they are encoded genetically. Furthermore, you seem to support my assertion with references to "Crime and Punishment" as well as the effects of war on soldiers. It is precisely because the moral code is embedded in our genetic makeup and, subsequently, or perhaps simultaneously, results in the social order, that people end up damaged by in the ways you describe. It seems to me as well, that the archetypal stories don't simply exist in religious texts, and I don't believe you have said that either. You frequently refer to Harry Potter, as well as many other modern stories portraying the heroic archetype. It is, to me, evident that religion is not in fact necessary for these stories to remain ever present in the collective conscience and, therefore, relevant. They are not dependent on a religious or spiritual belief because they are part of the genetic structure. The religious texts are the articulation of the a priori moral substrate. They are, perhaps, only more potent due to their status, however unreasonably founded, as literally divinely inspired. Rejecting religion is perilous when the stories are rejected as well, but, in my opinion, would be beneficial for the sake of truth and reason. It seems entirely possible to have a secular, non-religious society, without confusing people or leaving them lost in the wilderness, so to speak, by explaining our relationship to morality as an articulation of social constraints and expectations as determined and derived by evolutionary processes. I believe this, largely in part, because that is exactly what myself, and many listeners are gleaning from your lectures...and it isn't so terribly difficult. In any case. You're a busy man and I don't expect a reply, but wanted to write all this nevertheless.

Just one insignificant correction: Nietzsche was not captured on video as such was an invention of the 1950s. Neitzsche was captured on film.

Interesting how in the 2017 lecture he introduces Dasein pretty much right away but in this lecture he waits till 54:00 to introduce Dasein.

Meaning collapses without a "model" to which a given topic or dialog can refer. Without a "reality model", science is dogma, plain and simple. The scientific model of reality is "Cognitive-Theoretic", meaning the CTMU, but it's not "PC" enough for academics. As with the past, the "laymen" will force the issue and "authorities" will find some way to water-down the truth, but the game is not at the "make or break" point in history. In the near future, we either side with humanity and therefore America, or else follow the Communist dogma towards an automated technocratic totalitarianism. Elites will control the Earth and masses of illiterates, via self-building robots, and without the possibility of human rebellion since literacy will be forever controlled by a tiny class of overlords. Btw Jordan, Canada may need to be leveled and rebuilt, if you hose heads can't get rid of Justin Castro.

If life is a dream, Peterson is my subconscious playing the voice of god :)

This is a really awful video. Especially starting at 15:03.

all that you should know about communism is that it is worst then nazi

8:00 tinder produced a spike in stds

25:00 So we shouldn’t do away with evil so long as we’re satiated and numb? Don’t rock the boat? The separatists aren’t saying “we just FEEL it would be better”. They have concrete reasons why it would be better, and those are well-founded in the history of economics and culture prior to State intervention AND the evils of the current system. Canada has only gotten worse since this video was recorded, too. That’s one of the few times I’ve heard JBP actually make a straw man argument to ‘shut down’ someone he disagreed with. But he still believes in politics so...well using his logic I could say it’s not worth having a discussion with someone like that (even though I think it IS worth it). Not that separatists are anarchists, but if you think an anarchist is anything close to a utopian I suggest questioning the utopian belief that some benevolent government that can point a gun at whomever they choose will magically restore order, rather than allowing people to voluntarily choose who they want to interact with. Anarchy is not Utopianism. Belief in politics is, and JBP sounded like far more of a utopian here than that ‘separatist’ he was talking to.

I blame all the evils of the world on contraception (contraceptive mentality). Yup. Let that marinate for a while.

That's not what Sartre meant by "Hell is other people"! That's also not what Marx meant by "religion is the opiate of the masses"! Marx didn't write that religion "laid out so that a small elite could control the population." This guy is a professor at one of the most respected universities in the world. Wow. It's kind of amazing that a professor can get away with cherry picking quotes, giving them the interpretation that accords with his ideology. Where is the rigor?

This existential nonsense turned me towards the Unabomber.

This is not a lecture, just a waste of time. :(

Wow, it gets worse. He explains Heidegger (whom he says is avoiding the "subject-object game") using the language of Western metaphysics! In other words, he explains Heidegger falsely. He's so confused. I'm sure his students must be, too. This is unbelievable to me. How can this guy be teaching such falsities to undergraduates!

This guy, an academic, has a 1950s popular understanding of Marx: Base is the cause of superstructure. But Marx had a much more complicated "dialectical" understanding of the relationship between ideas and practices. Read and think before you spew your ideas, professor!