For someone who preaches the virtues of resilience, Jordan Peterson seems awfully sensitive to criticism.
@loganray35032 жыл бұрын
Just like his god.....
@davidfranklin54342 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Shamino12 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@keylanoslokj18062 жыл бұрын
Yeah because he has an agenda to push and masters to answer to.... .
@bradspitt38962 жыл бұрын
How is critiquing someone being sensitive? And how is being sensitive not being resilient? It's always a semantic issue with you people.
@imaliazhar2 жыл бұрын
To everyone saying these two should have a live conversation: Nuance critique like the one Professor Moeller is doing cannot be done live. Live conversations tend to favor those who are flashier and better orators. The best scenario would be a video response by Jordan Peterson and hopefully Professor Moeller can respond back here again.
@rileyhartley3812 жыл бұрын
胆小鬼
@user-nq5wb1cz5e2 жыл бұрын
Good observation.
@666melodeath6662 жыл бұрын
A podcast would be fine.
@DarkFoxV2 жыл бұрын
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.
@HecVD2 жыл бұрын
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.
@kevinbeck88362 жыл бұрын
Im glad we can all agree that Peterson doesn't understand Nietzsche
@modernmyth90502 жыл бұрын
For real! Been saying this for years but his cult members always shoot it down.
@nmackelprang2 жыл бұрын
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.
@pichirisu2 жыл бұрын
Js coming from psych field, he doesn’t understand that very well either.
@pichirisu2 жыл бұрын
@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.
@pichirisu2 жыл бұрын
@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).
@Ghoddal2 жыл бұрын
I find it quite amusing to see how Möller behaves in a way that Peterson seemingly advocates while he himself completely fails to behave appropriately. In both videos, Möller is calm and polite and expresses his thoughts in a mature and easy-to-understand way. Peterson's response in contrast is full of spite, pettiness, and straight-up self-indulgence- not all how any academic should respond to an honest critic. Of course, Peterson doesn't have to agree with Möller but his comment is completely ridiculous and immature. It astounds me how this man can complain over and over again to be misunderstood, yet is seemingly unable to express himself in an understandable way. I mean even his very comment of the video is such a pile of unnecessarily long sentences and elaborate terms that I thought I am reading some sociological article about which Peterson likes to rant about.
@williamfrost35542 жыл бұрын
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.
@Ghoddal2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@mschell80222 жыл бұрын
Peterson is a lot more emotional and chaotic than he will ever admit.
@dasklavierleben2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@DarkFoxV2 жыл бұрын
@@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"
@ronsock17952 жыл бұрын
Your framework of profilicity is one of those frameworks that makes me feel like new possibilities of understanding have opened up for me. It is especially important in regards to understanding how public discourse actually works right now, and the power that figures like Peterson have, as well as the power, and practical limitations, of the whole left tube sphere. I have no doubt that you're gonna be huge on this platform in a year or two yourself if you keep posting.
@gh0s1wav2 жыл бұрын
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.
@heraclitusblacking12932 жыл бұрын
@@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
@albertfaust58392 жыл бұрын
I love how they always flash scihub when showing a paper. Even as a professor, openly supporting the free access of knowledge.
@williamfrost35542 жыл бұрын
They are taking responsibility.
@elipearson81942 жыл бұрын
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
@williamfrost35542 жыл бұрын
@@elipearson8194 They are good people.
@naturarum2 жыл бұрын
@@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.”
@maxkolbl15272 жыл бұрын
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)
@reybladen30682 жыл бұрын
Bruh, i was going to say that Professor Peterson was sounding like a priest and you just addressed it.
@TheControlBlue2 жыл бұрын
Which would be wrong but okay.
@theneoliberal37622 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@gerardtonythomas5072 жыл бұрын
Watch Peterson discussion with Matt Dillahunty.
@hazardousjazzgasm1292 жыл бұрын
@@gerardtonythomas507 Bruh, that debate was a doozy
@hazardousjazzgasm1292 жыл бұрын
@@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
@theonlygoodlookinghabsburg20812 жыл бұрын
I wasn't expecting that ending. Thank you very much professor for curating your profile.
@AnnaPrzebudzona2 жыл бұрын
I figuratively fell off my chair when I heard it
@danielbroening2 жыл бұрын
I like watching someone enjoy what they do. Good way to start off the morning.
@cjwarrington1772 жыл бұрын
What's funny to me is that in Peterson's closing question, he shows that he hasn't taken any time at all to actually try to understand your position. Pretty on-brand for him, really.
@Pllayer0642 жыл бұрын
Peterson doing the Peterson thing, just like the C-14 bill that got him famous.
@liamhackett5132 жыл бұрын
It's all and only about Jordan.
@aralornwolf31402 жыл бұрын
@@Pllayer064 , C-16, not -14.
@gabrielonibudo57102 жыл бұрын
@Colby yh it’s not like tea whole video was made on him or something
@shyguy18452 жыл бұрын
@@Pllayer064 that's literally all he does he never understand people he disagrees with.
@WeBreakTheChain2 жыл бұрын
Hegel says of philosophy that while it is not 'mathematical cognition', it is "not to be replaced by the non-method of presentiment and inspiration, or by the arbitrariness of prophetic utterance, both of which despise not only scientific pomposity, but scientific procedure of all kinds" (pg 29 paragraph 49 of the Phenomenology). This video is a wonderful demonstration of the 'arbitrariness of prophetic utterance' which Hegel speaks of. Such things can be methods of healing but not much of a philosophy. Excellent work.
@Pllayer0642 жыл бұрын
Imma steal that to use later
@7th808s2 жыл бұрын
Damn, there are sentences in that book that are readable?? 🤣🤣🤣 Jokes aside, I whole-heartedly agree.
@liamhackett5132 жыл бұрын
"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".
@HahaDamn2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@werrkowalski29852 жыл бұрын
But there is such thing as political philosophy, do you claim political philosophy doesn't exist?
@Jimmy-zg3ye2 жыл бұрын
dang... that ending is COLD... 😭😭
@Fordtheriver2 жыл бұрын
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 🤣🤣
@adrianmarkstrom66922 жыл бұрын
That made me laugh out loud, brilliant.
@jhairccorimanya18062 жыл бұрын
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. :)
@massacreee30282 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@jhairccorimanya18062 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@diveinnjim2 жыл бұрын
"religion is not for the healthy, it is based on the cultivation of sickness. The question can be asked, Is that also the case for civil religion?" That one is going in my note book.
@Pllayer0642 жыл бұрын
Yeah, literally check out Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.
@TheControlBlue2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@hazardousjazzgasm1292 жыл бұрын
@@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"??
@bradspitt38962 жыл бұрын
The irony is that someone who thinks they aren't sick, well...
@alexh15242 жыл бұрын
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.
@michelangeloswarovski92352 жыл бұрын
Imagine getting Nietzsche less right than PewDiePie lmao
@HxH2011DRA2 жыл бұрын
*wheeze* 🤣
@mouwersor2 жыл бұрын
Imagine making philosophy a tribalist issue.... It really doesn't need that.
@TheControlBlue2 жыл бұрын
Ooga Booga, people in my tribe Smart! People outside my tribe Dum Dum!
@hazardousjazzgasm1292 жыл бұрын
@@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
@danielpinto65042 жыл бұрын
@@hazardousjazzgasm129 what does rortys even mean?
@redtaperecorder12 жыл бұрын
Wow, he completely and cogently dismantled Jordan Peterson’s whole public 'brand' in 30 minutes.
@DarkFoxV2 жыл бұрын
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.
@mnoorist82232 жыл бұрын
@@DarkFoxV jp is not complex.
@Bojoschannel2 жыл бұрын
@@DarkFoxV complex if you're 14 years old lol
@rranka82932 жыл бұрын
@@DarkFoxV "..the same towards wokeism ..btw.." do you think that peterson vs wokeism is all there is to think about? i don't.
@thewildcardperson2 жыл бұрын
@@rranka8293 woke ism is a cancer that needs genocided disagree and will have a civil war
@hosung69362 жыл бұрын
lol calling peterson a brand is gonna piss people off. It's right tho, I see no difference between twilight fangirls and peterson fanboys.
@primevigilante72592 жыл бұрын
exactly
@raijin29502 жыл бұрын
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.
@angelikaskoroszyn84952 жыл бұрын
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
@Godsen52 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@aralornwolf31402 жыл бұрын
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...
@reybladen30682 жыл бұрын
You guys should have an actual live conversation.
@dasritejogger16472 жыл бұрын
This
@jekytck2 жыл бұрын
Why? For the promotion of this channel? A bit too convenient
@thomasdavis68922 жыл бұрын
@@jekytck No, because it'd be both interesting and entertaining.
@mh4oliveira2 жыл бұрын
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
@reybladen30682 жыл бұрын
@@mh4oliveira i know, and that made his debate with Zizek very entertaining. lmao!!!
@steve-ks9df2 жыл бұрын
Prof. Moeller- no critiques today, no nuance- just compliments. Keep doing what you are doing! It seems that Peterson's cultural awareness of the forces that impact our modern Western subjectivity is lacking. Sincerely, an anthropologist
@wonderplaceholder2 жыл бұрын
I see people in the comments talking about the closing remark with Pewdiepie, how it was supposedly "cold" or how it was a "cheap shot". I feel that these comments more reflect the commenter's prejudgement towards Pewdiepie and I feel it misses the previous point that professor made about the therapeutic suggestion of not being too invested in your profile. Jordan Peterson seems to be highly invested in curating his profile; how he interprets Nietzsche has strong implications in the profile he curates. Bringing Pewdiepie into the disscusion (a person he reviewed previously on this exact topic) was more a comparison between two persons that both have a take on Nietzsche, but one of them had less investment in the profile that he curates than the other (an attitude that the professor encourages right at the end). So it makes sense to bring Pewdiepie as an example as he not only has the same interpretation of Nietzsche as the professor (so they are in agreement), but he also has the attitude that the professor encourages (so in a sense, more carefree). I feel that this was the subtext here, not a jab at Peterson.
@wonderplaceholder2 жыл бұрын
@@Insaneslug Thanks!
@TheControlBlue2 жыл бұрын
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?
@Scott-bh2qb2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@TheControlBlue2 жыл бұрын
@@Scott-bh2qb I don't trust people like you.
@Scott-bh2qb2 жыл бұрын
@@TheControlBlue you have trust issues, my friend
@LackingSaint2 жыл бұрын
Hi! as someone who has spent the past year delving much deeper into my own philosophy, I have been getting a tremendous amount of value out of your channel. I was curious if you had any thoughts on Robert M. Pirsig? I was in a bad place a few months ago and found Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance very powerful, but would be curious of the thoughts of someone more versed in the ideas discussed in the book (or its sequel Lila)
@RealProfessionalHumanBeing2 жыл бұрын
Start looking into nondualism more broadly.
@akrbm14252 жыл бұрын
bro
@eternalblue46602 жыл бұрын
What an overlap. Love your videos, Jack and I hope you're doing well.
@vollstaendingennamen2 жыл бұрын
yoooo, love your videos, they are really on point, some of the best content on the platform
@dsa5132 жыл бұрын
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.
@Snafuski2 жыл бұрын
There is a big difference between Peterson and Moeller, I feel... Peterson became, maybe inadvertently, a kind of brand for the conservatives, much in the way Buckley once upon a time morphed into an "intellectual" for the right. He wasn't really. He was a stuck-up and gassy propagandist for pseudo-ideas, his debates were basically tiresome affairs, in which he tried to tu quoque or bothsider his way out of really laying out the conseervative viewpoint. . Mr Moeller on the other hand is one of those systematic, patient thinkers with a large bag of knowledge that he seems at ease with digging into. He does this politely. Of course peterson is not very happy. Try and tell a car manufacturerer that their products are basically the same as any rival brand, only with different shapes and colors... Moeller also sees the "evangelical" prophet-type in Peterson. Most of us see that. What Americans seldom see is the Puritan DNA in their society. It's at the heart of wokeism and conservatism...
@oryx_852 жыл бұрын
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.
@Snafuski2 жыл бұрын
@@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....
@Pllayer0642 жыл бұрын
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 😎
@wolfil80192 жыл бұрын
"What Americans seldom see is the Puritan DNA in their society. It's at the heart of wokeism and conservatism..." Indeed!
@steve-ks9df2 жыл бұрын
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
@Synerco2 жыл бұрын
you can tell moeller really delights in unraveling what peterson passes off as arguments
@kingcookie94852 жыл бұрын
all these comments saying cold ending actually got me watching the entire video just to say, ' godamn that's cold'
@scaratlas33472 жыл бұрын
It really wasn't clickbait lol
@crisgon95522 жыл бұрын
Perfect breakfast video. Thank you Professor!
@bsg8062 жыл бұрын
Nothing better than watching Carefree Wondering while munching those cereals!
@farzanamughal59332 жыл бұрын
@@bsg806 Astaghfirullah
@yeah58742 жыл бұрын
I think it's extremely important to have these discussions. Peterson just doesn't stand up to any serious criticism. the only criticism he normally gets is from media and regular youtubers. My main issue with him is that he just uses big words and tricks and superficial knowledge to trick people into believing anything he's saying. He's a smart man,but I'm tired of these cults of personality where he may say one thing correct, therefore everything else also is, and if you disagree there must be some underlying reason why you dislike him as a person.
@ghfudrs93uuu2 жыл бұрын
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.
@mouwersor2 жыл бұрын
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.
@amardexter99662 жыл бұрын
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?
@jekytck2 жыл бұрын
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
@broken_abi69732 жыл бұрын
@@mouwersor You seem to not understand what "strawmanning" means.
@valaur32 жыл бұрын
when jordan peterson talks about giving people language for stuff they intuitively know to be true I'm struck by how that is a perfect description of confirmation bias.
@farlado54592 жыл бұрын
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.
@TunaTheMiner2 жыл бұрын
It can also be seen as a form of humility.
@navnnavn12262 жыл бұрын
@@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
@StevenOBrien2 жыл бұрын
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.
@hazardousjazzgasm1292 жыл бұрын
@@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
@parkerbarnes77262 жыл бұрын
This is Peterson's entire shtick; he babbles in vague word-salad, then indignantly claims you have misinterpreted/decontextualized what his *actual* views are.
@alfonsoarroyo32832 жыл бұрын
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.
@mouwersor2 жыл бұрын
@@alfonsoarroyo3283 What system causes the problems and how, and how does Peterson perpetuate it?
@TheControlBlue2 жыл бұрын
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..
@kazzz27652 жыл бұрын
@@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
@alfonsoarroyo32832 жыл бұрын
@@mouwersor Capitalism, and by telling his audience that it is good.
@StratEdgyProductions2 жыл бұрын
Here's the one thing I learned... This man has read The Dark Knight: Knightfall. Actually this was very enlightening and has put two new books on my reading list. Including the zhuangzi that's three. Also, damn. That was a sick burn there at the end. Whether intentional or not, that was third degree, skin graft type shit.
@Lotsofleaves2 жыл бұрын
I love seeing you here! Such a fun and unexpected crossover of my interests haha
@bodywithoutorgans1722 жыл бұрын
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.
@propkid2 жыл бұрын
Let's make "philosopher gamers" a thing.
@schwipsy2 жыл бұрын
Welp seeing you here does explain some things of the last video you did haha.
@superheavyballet78682 жыл бұрын
Notice that he also has a copy of Blame! on the shelf in the top right.
@jokunyt2 жыл бұрын
Excellent video! I really feel like I learned something important here. I feel like your encouragement to not be too invested in our identity is a welcome one. Thank you for this and all that you do!
@byzantinegold2 жыл бұрын
This whole 'beef' is very hilarious
@NoJusticeMTG2 жыл бұрын
Salted beef, no less
@s7d7882 жыл бұрын
Peterson follows a beef only diet after all
@willrobinson50972 жыл бұрын
In addition to sounding borderline schizophrenic from time to time, Peterson’s philosophy is so depressing because he’s essentially a traditionalist, but he tries to reconcile that with the prevailing ethos of the political right (which is often anything but “conservative”) which leads him to advocate for a sort of hyper-individualism that is only supposed to service the collective? It’s all the personal sacrifices inherent to collectivism without any of its benefits.
@gabrielonibudo57102 жыл бұрын
what are the benefits of collectivism
@mschell80222 жыл бұрын
Hahahaha this is a great analysis thank you
@adamsekiro27062 жыл бұрын
@@gabrielonibudo5710 look at china
@Pllayer0642 жыл бұрын
T R U E
@FinianFhomhair2 жыл бұрын
@@gabrielonibudo5710 hmmmm let me think about that ... basically all of humans greatest achievments?
@MidwesternMarx2 жыл бұрын
Teaching You and Your Profile for the next month or so to my intro class. Found out about the text through the channel. Love your work! -Carlos
@lostsoul21842 жыл бұрын
Please do video on the one and only Žizek the slavoj himself and so on and son and ("sniff") so on ...
@Senumunu2 жыл бұрын
there is a crisis of commons. there i summarized 50hours of Zizek lectures for you.
@DigitalGnosis2 жыл бұрын
I'm glad that well equipped academics are charitably addressing Peterson. For too long he has only been challenged by radical ideologues who do not understand his position and react in such an abhorrent way that only confirms Peterson's somewhat distorted view of reality which drives *some* of his followers (me included when I was 18) into radical reactionary worldviews. I hope Peterson comes into dialogue with more philosophers and that that can reign in some of his more radical takes on things and hopefully help him in his pursuit of truth, beauty and goodness. He is a good guy with some powerful stuff to say to people who are struggling and it would be great to see that coupled with more rigorous, and hopefully true beliefs, when it comes to philosophy :)
@DigitalGnosis2 жыл бұрын
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.
@JCT19262 жыл бұрын
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.
@hazardousjazzgasm1292 жыл бұрын
@@JCT1926 He also misunderstands lobsters, tons of neuroscientists and marine biologists have debunked his lobster analogy, which he pretty much just ignores
@hazardousjazzgasm1292 жыл бұрын
@@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
@FinianFhomhair2 жыл бұрын
@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.
@nicanornunez97872 жыл бұрын
lol that carefree attitude is going to disturb him
@TheControlBlue2 жыл бұрын
Peterson lives in your head rent-free. So much for being carefree.
@Wokenstein2 жыл бұрын
@@TheControlBlue carefree =/= careless
@thisaccountisdead1682 жыл бұрын
@@TheControlBlue "Peterson lives in your head rent-feee." I mean the same could be said about you.
@alfonsoarroyo32832 жыл бұрын
@@TheControlBlue these two things do not contradict each other. And is someone suppost to pay for you to think about them? Terrible idiom.
@jekytck2 жыл бұрын
@@TheControlBlue What does that even mean? How does "thinking" work in your opinion?
@Judah1322 жыл бұрын
_"Culture and fashion are wracked by pointless ideological wars. Whichever ideology wins immediately becomes cliché."_
@YisYtruth2 жыл бұрын
I love how clear and accessible you are in these videos. It's always a pleasure to watch these.
@lucien47752 жыл бұрын
The Pewdiepie thing was really an excellent bit to close an extremely well constructed video xD But in all seriousness, I sincerely appreciate the quality of this one : it was especially clear and well designed. Thank you professor !
@Io-Io-Io2 жыл бұрын
It was a pile of well arranged shit
@roblade65812 жыл бұрын
@@Io-Io-Io u mad bruv?
@Pllayer0642 жыл бұрын
@@Io-Io-Io stay mad |--|○E
@imonshrooms68662 жыл бұрын
@@Io-Io-Io found the jp fan
@petertreid2 жыл бұрын
@@Io-Io-Io Shite doesn't pile well when fresh despite your best efforts to arrange it.
@January-pt6ci2 жыл бұрын
“We are going to be critical but not judgemental” is worse than “I’m not mad just disappointed”
@thespiritofhegel34872 жыл бұрын
Brilliantly informative and insightful. I have seen quite a few videos of people refuting or attempting to refute Peterson's assertions and arguments but whereas they might work to an extent they all proceed at a rather superficial level whereas you go in deep and have got me thinking about things that just never occurred to me or would ever have occurred to me had I not watched this. And that is what philosophy is all about. As well as occupational therapy :-)
@confusedarmchairphilosopher2 жыл бұрын
@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.
@confusedarmchairphilosopher2 жыл бұрын
@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.
@alistairmaleficent87762 жыл бұрын
@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.
@confusedarmchairphilosopher2 жыл бұрын
@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
@TheControlBlue2 жыл бұрын
@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.
@jenniferbilek49482 жыл бұрын
Nothing short of a brilliant, well thought out analysis. There is so much to think about here, not the least of which is the ways and speed at which these civil religions are spread today via advanced tech/media. I absolutely loved the ending: that it could be helpful for us in sifting through the evolution of these religions and our own identities if we are honest with ourselves about how our identities are being formed but to take identity itself with a bit less importance, fascinating, thank you!
@ricardorangel73012 жыл бұрын
😭 Peterson really thinks he’s a modern day Zarathustra… 🤦🏽♂️
@gravenewworld65212 жыл бұрын
Stratos I you nailed it dude
@Azazello3212 жыл бұрын
"You say 'I' and you are proud of this word. But greater than this -- although you will not believe in it -- is your body and its great intelligence, which does not say 'I' but performs 'I'." - Friedrich Nietzsche, 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'.
@mouwersor2 жыл бұрын
What's the relevance tho?
@adamsekiro27062 жыл бұрын
@@mouwersor replace the "I" with Peterson's "We"
@MynaaMiesnowan2 жыл бұрын
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.
@nativechatter9992 жыл бұрын
The simmered grin at the beginning of this video, my man couldn't contain his excitement
@merocaine2 жыл бұрын
Those videos are a trap, Peterson walked into this one!
@McEffinHat2 жыл бұрын
honestly, I think Moeller's smirk is a net negative for his brand
@ilyakiselev42092 жыл бұрын
The vehement arguing by a few (maybe more to come) Peterson's supporters in the comments low-key shows how polarising he is as a figure and how his dogmatic religious (civil and not) ethics drive people to "fight for the right thing" and for their "prophet".
@joshbaino30872 жыл бұрын
As Zizek would say "pure ideology"
@ilyakiselev42092 жыл бұрын
@@Dan_1348 If you're taking a critical, as opposed to a dogmatic approach, there can be no clear right or wrong.
@Crispman_7772 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@cuckookin2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@cuckookin2 жыл бұрын
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)
@williammcfarlane61532 жыл бұрын
If you ever listen to any Jordan Peterson's talks, you'll notice a theme in which he changes the definition of a word multiple times in a discussion to fit his point. With that one oratory tactic he's often shown himself to be intellectually dishonest in most of his communication.
@miguelzavaleta19112 жыл бұрын
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.
@aralornwolf31402 жыл бұрын
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.
@tramdo34342 жыл бұрын
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.
@alistairmaleficent87762 жыл бұрын
I love your wry smile throughout this. It's rather like watching an adult explain some nonsense that a 5 year old believes.
@11kravitzn2 жыл бұрын
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.
@alistairmaleficent87762 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@11kravitzn2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@shyguy18452 жыл бұрын
Zizek was too soft on Peterson lmao, this guy would've Tore him apart.
@scaratlas33472 жыл бұрын
I really do not like how he conflates a lot of philosophical ideas incorrectly.
@scaratlas33472 жыл бұрын
I mean Jordan Peterson
@miat90392 жыл бұрын
As someone who like to read read foucault(sometimes derrida) i feel you.
@Senumunu2 жыл бұрын
@@scaratlas3347 you did not need to specify that one :D
@Xababla992 жыл бұрын
I would love to hear your thoughts on Buddhism with regards to the final point about identity. Perhaps you have already spoken about this on another video or in your book, but if not I would be very interested.
@Fordtheriver2 жыл бұрын
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.
@Xababla992 жыл бұрын
@@Fordtheriver I have just read John Minford's translation of Tao (Dao) Te Ching, so I would be very interested. Thank you for the recommendation!
@morgoth54602 жыл бұрын
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.
@matthewkopp23912 жыл бұрын
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.
@alicantuncer48002 жыл бұрын
I don't know why but it seems like KZfaq is turning off notifications from this channel. This is the third time I turned them on.
@williampatton74762 жыл бұрын
Maybe they don't like that he is pointing out how the algorithms this website uses get people addicted haha. The truth hurts.
@Yellow.18442 жыл бұрын
@@williampatton7476 honestly very likely
@henryjones82872 жыл бұрын
I always get them from this channel, but I weirdly stop getting them for other movie/music channels I follow. I think KZfaq is just a bit duff; I don't think the Illuminati are behind your lack of notifications.
@Yellow.18442 жыл бұрын
@@henryjones8287 its the algo, they dont have to spy on your house to do it just change the algo so that content with certain words doesn't get very pushed
@henryjones82872 жыл бұрын
@@Yellow.1844 So they changed it you so you can't see notifications for this channel, but left them alone for me?
@dontyoufuckinguwume82012 жыл бұрын
I think it's admirable that you are trying to steelman Peterson. It's not an easy task lol
@peterbedford4492 жыл бұрын
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.
@calendariocalendula71582 жыл бұрын
uwu
@maynardwayward122 жыл бұрын
No one: Absolutely no one, not even Republicans: Jordan Peterson: Our Western society, which is very functional...
@fahadschannel2 жыл бұрын
Unsurprising, since Peterson finds people forced to sell their labour a "miracle"
@Pllayer0642 жыл бұрын
@@fahadschannel it's a miracle they haven't revolted yet 😆
@FinianFhomhair2 жыл бұрын
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'!"
@granudisimo2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@DyceFreak2 жыл бұрын
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.
@supine24912 жыл бұрын
I like the Lacan quote on how a madman is not just the beggar who believes he is king, but the king who believes he is king. In Kanye West really believing he is Kanye West, Donald Trump fantasizing himself as Donald Trump, and Jordan Peterson really regarding himself as Jordan Peterson, overidentifying with their symbolic position granted on them by (imaginary, projected) others is a delusion. Sometimes it's more harmless (not all of us see ourselves as kings and prophets), sometimes its impossibility unravels through nervous breakdowns. We're at a 2/3 minimum on that tally. In other words, maybe one might say that if you really believe you are your profile, that's when you've lost the plot. This fits quite neatly with your concepts of genuine pretending, and the distance we should establish to the profiles we build. We can examine either some deeper notion of the self (looking inwards), or our profile (outwards), indirectly, like we can only look at ourselves in the mirror, but we can comprehend neither as a coherent whole, the sum of all parts of the human subject. Peterson, in blindly believing in this symbolic fantasy of himself, can not even see the mirror.
@hedleybutler97062 жыл бұрын
This was extremely digestible and interesting. I really appreciate your thoughts on identity and anger. I think these concepts are unquestionably normalized in a way that seems to be increasingly dangerous.
@MalditoSeasEstadoDelsrael2 жыл бұрын
Lmao "intelectual tricks", if he were alive 25 centuries ago he would be accusing Socrates
@mullenenterprises2 жыл бұрын
Seems to me that Peterson himself thinks hes Socrates reincarnate
@mullenenterprises2 жыл бұрын
@Azarello Plato preaching his semi religious ideas of the afterlife isnt too far fetched from whatever Peterson thinks hes doing
@pharaohhermenthotip15532 жыл бұрын
@@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
@shinx-hr6uq2 жыл бұрын
Indeed. Plato is interesting at least.
@hazardousjazzgasm1292 жыл бұрын
@@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
@yeahbruvinit2 жыл бұрын
Despite my dislike for most of what Peterson stands for and has to say now, I am admittedly grateful to him because it was through him that I discovered Nietzsche and therefore became interested in philosophy. Funnily enough it was due to Peterson and the philosophical rabbit hole he caused me to fall down that I became disenchanted with him. And I think if there is anything positive to come from Jordan, it is that he has inspired people to read Nietzsche, Sartre, Jung etcetera.
@DarkFoxV2 жыл бұрын
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.
@yeahbruvinit2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@deadmeme24032 жыл бұрын
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.
@chan_irene2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@werrkowalski2985 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@noblesavage1492 жыл бұрын
Apparently the carnivore diet isn't great for physical, mental, emotional or punctuational health.
@DyceFreak2 жыл бұрын
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.
@adamsekiro27062 жыл бұрын
neither did the decades of SSRIs and benzos
@gs78282 жыл бұрын
@@DyceFreak Why not choosing a Mediterranean diet instead of having to choose between artificial sugar and an overdose of meat?
@DyceFreak2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@gs78282 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@diveinnjim2 жыл бұрын
jp seems to have developed a bit of a messiah complex, he's developed a following, been through his own personal turmoil, written a couple of books and come out the other side a little puritanical. I must say that liked him more in 2017.
@tverdyznaqs2 жыл бұрын
Oh my god, academic smarty pants types sometimes come up with the most epic dunks of all time! The fucking 'I personally prefer PewDiePie's take on Nietzsche over Peterson's' bit at the end??? I mean, who would even survive after that? JP might as well be dead after this dude said those words outloud
@thomaswest40332 жыл бұрын
Ok that's a bit much.
@niltomperimneto2 жыл бұрын
I laughed so hard after that
@NateROCKS1122 жыл бұрын
@O. M. it's funny because it's true.
@tyander76902 жыл бұрын
@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
@charlesmcg2 жыл бұрын
@O. M. Pewdiepie is smarter than most people realise
@JaneTheMessage2 жыл бұрын
Individual sovereignty is an illusion. We are extremely socially dependent as a matter of definition. He’s constantly performing for an audience (because that is a central feature of our species and he is no exception) and the reality of our species is still obscured from him. It just seems silly.
@hunterthompson67372 жыл бұрын
i think that only sociopaths are truly 100% individualists
@TheControlBlue2 жыл бұрын
> 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.
@JaneTheMessage2 жыл бұрын
@@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?
@JaneTheMessage2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@trentwolfgram95712 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@ChicagoMonsterPunk2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for raising the bar
@floridaman_85_582 жыл бұрын
6:45 As an ethnic native i take great exception to the way peterson phrases this....he says "our western systems which are quit functional"....as opposed to what? which societies can be understood as being dysfunctional?
@archiem6542 жыл бұрын
The rest of us are barbaric, I guess. 😀 He once said," western civilization is the least tyrannical civilization to ever exist." Umm dude are your sure?
@markpozsar57852 жыл бұрын
What the heck is an ethnic native?
@octavus48582 жыл бұрын
professor Moeller looks like happy cat who got a mouse
@SUAVEcritic2 жыл бұрын
I have actually never come across Peterson accepting any flaws pointed out by somebody who criticises him. Also, wonderful response overall, but I actually don't think Jordan Peterson is genuinely pretending. I think he is very much convinced about the Confucian model of sincerity. His entire dogma is centered around sincerity. He simply changes the word and verbally talks about "nobility" and how it is a value that is very much absent in today's day. Therefore, I think your "Man Up" points are much more convincing. I think Jordan pushes Men to accept their roles and take in the fruits of those roles because of the very existential issue that a lot of men are finding themselves in today's age. So I don't doubt Jordan's ends or his intentions of helping. But the means with which he acts are dogmatic and paradoxical, as you say. He seems to have trapped himself in this cluster of sincerity and authenticity and has been thus "socialised" like Emperor Hundun. That's why he fails to act with humour and responds to your critique by justifying it with the number of comedians he has spoken with. He's trying awfully hard and missing the point in the middle of the road.
@milk.butcher2 жыл бұрын
‘Civil religion’ is the proper term for what Peterson is doing. He present his defense of enlightenment values as natural and inherent, when a properly philosophical approach would recognize it as a dominant ideology. I think he could then still argue that these precepts are necessary for the West to function, or argue that they have something essential to maintain it’s civil order, but then he’d sacrifice the affect that is likely central to his success if he were truthful about his performance. Performativity is a necessary evil if one hopes to appeal widely. Not everyone can accept there is no essential meaning to anything, and such people need support and love too. Two decades on from the rise and decline of New Atheism, it seems clear humans have to delude themselves to some extent to function. It’s a matter of which delusions function the best
@caskinfg2 жыл бұрын
"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.
@No_Avail2 жыл бұрын
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.
@Dystisis2 жыл бұрын
There is an essential meaning to everything. Your nihilism is simply a function of the times.
@markoslavicek2 жыл бұрын
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.
@No_Avail2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@I_can_do_20_push-ups2 жыл бұрын
6:40 this is one of the things that really annoys me about Peterson - his unthinking acceptance of the ideology of the Western world (particularly post-war NATO nations). He spends so much time in his lectures going on about imagining oneself to be a concentration camp guard or an administrator of a Gulag instead of a torturer at Abu Ghraib or a soldier at My Lai. He makes the atrocity an exotic event, a frightening hypothetical, rather than a constant reality for those not fortunate enough to be born into the hegemon class. Sure western societies seem like they’re “quite functional” to a wealthy Canadian, but try pitching that to an Afghan or Iraqi who has actually had to feel the sharp end of that stick.
@MichaelPlatson2 жыл бұрын
Peterson spends a lot of time discussing the concept of a "regular" person becoming a camp guard or gulag administrator to immunize potentially good people from becoming future Abu Ghraib torturers or My Lai soldiers. It's a good thing.
@hazardousjazzgasm1292 жыл бұрын
@@MichaelPlatson Will it even work, though? Let me approach this from a certain angle: Seymour Hersh was the journalist who broke the My Lai Massacre story, and he said the reason the soldiers committed the atrocity in the first place was because of incentives and quotas. Whichever team of soldiers had the most kills would get promoted, so 500 innocent people were raped and sodomized and burned alive because some major wanted to become a colonel. The point being that these soldiers committed this war crime in the name of some of the very values that Peterson constantly upholds: protecting the sanctity of American exceptionalism, individualism, etc. He's naive if he thinks that merely reminding people about past crimes is sufficient to stop them from being criminals later on.
@degeneratedeuterium51642 жыл бұрын
Incredible! This is a simple yet elegant critique of JBP.
@WOJAus2 жыл бұрын
I'm not sure what your point is. Jordan Peterson's point is that ANY person has the capacity to do evil within them. The example he has used on occasion is that of a concentration camp guard or whatever. I would guess because more people would have an understanding of that situation, rather than say the Abu Ghraib personnel etc. Also, a lot of the research he did in his early years focused on WW2, so why wouldn't he use an example he is more familiar with? The point remains the same whether his example is one or the other though.
@WOJAus2 жыл бұрын
@@hazardousjazzgasm129 "...these soldiers committed this war crime in the name of some of the very values that Peterson constantly upholds". What? I can guarantee you, that's wrong. You seem to have a very low resolution, warped understanding of what Jordan Peterson believes, and I also question that you can even accurately say that those soldiers were committing those crimes 'in the name of' those 'values'. Protecting the sanctity of American exceptionalism? What do you even mean by that? And show me one instance where you think Jordan Peterson is upholding this 'value' (if it even can be considered a 'value'). Individualism? How was killing etc hundreds of people a way of 'upholding individuality'?? "He's naive if he thinks that merely reminding people about past crimes is sufficient to stop them from being criminals later on." Bro...look, fair enough, Michael Platson gave a very truncated synopsis of ONE of the take-aways from what Peterson was talking about RE prison guards etc...but, if you really think that Peterson thinks "merely reminding people about past crimes is sufficient to stop them from being criminals later on." then you are just showing that you need to listen to his talks again, because you've missed so much.
@SadCat2212 жыл бұрын
I would love to hear your thoughts on the philosophy of Thomas Ligotti. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with his writing, but much of his horror centers around identity being completely manufactured or false, so Ligotti’s horror takes the perspective that Peterson accused you of holding. I know this only tangentially related, but I just finished reading his short story “The Greater Festival of Masks” so it came to mind.
@alistairmaleficent87762 жыл бұрын
Jonas Čeika has a really great video on Philip Mainlander, who figures very strongly in Ligotti's philosophy.
@hazardousjazzgasm1292 жыл бұрын
@@alistairmaleficent8776 I saw that video months ago, it was really good
@jakubmico87272 жыл бұрын
I need this.
@frankchilds98482 жыл бұрын
I wonder how many holes Petersen thinks anyone can drill in Chaos? Seriously, anger only hurts in the end, and healers are too few!
@JaneTheMessage2 жыл бұрын
If he drills into the Support Beam of Chaos, he can hang a nice painting?
@marqpsmythe2282 жыл бұрын
“Light and Darkness wanted to repay his kindness and said, “All people have seven openings with which they see, hear, eat, and breathe, but Primal Chaos has none. Let us try to give him some.” So every day they bored one hole, and on the seventh day, Primal Chaos died.” ~Zhuangzi
@ilyakiselev42092 жыл бұрын
@@marqpsmythe228 *Hundun :)
@hedleybutler97062 жыл бұрын
It's a bit of a bumper sticker but "hurt people, hurt people" is a little mantra I've always liked.
@Crispman_7772 жыл бұрын
**Stranger of Paradise: Final Fantasy Origin intensifies**
@robledoferreira13892 жыл бұрын
Wonderfull. That's the most politelly way I've seen someone destroy another person on the internet.
@petergray4532 жыл бұрын
I don't think you've watched the video carefully.
@itamarshap2 жыл бұрын
I think it is precisely not 'destroying'. this seems to me the main point. But i get what you are saying :)
@noonebesides2 жыл бұрын
@@itamarshap Deconstructing, disassembling.
@IAmChad72 жыл бұрын
@@noonebesides Can you give an example of what was deconstructed and how?
@thomaharadja53072 жыл бұрын
you should leave the word "destroy" to Ben Shapiro fanboys
@meownover19732 жыл бұрын
Jordan Peterson, before he rose to fame, tried to own a church, he wanted to become a priest, so he is infact trying to be a prophet.
@joshbaino30872 жыл бұрын
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 🙏
@alexwr2 жыл бұрын
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: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d9R8g9uB0arJpJ8.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 KZfaq.
@59mar2 жыл бұрын
Fake news
@bambam180acidpunk2 жыл бұрын
you guys should definitely record a conversation, i'd be very interested to see what you guys could come up with together, i've only watched a handful of your videos here and there but i've liked them all allot and think it would be a shame for your guys to not see what could come of picking each other's minds face to face, i think both you guys and everyone who gets to see will come out of that with sharper more nuanced perspectives about whatever you guys decide to talk about. either way it would be awesome
@byzantinegold2 жыл бұрын
Have you seen his "conversation" with Zizek?
@bambam180acidpunk2 жыл бұрын
@Colby if you're laughing cuz you think one of them should be above talking to the other then you're being a snob, neither you nor either of them know everything. either that or you're afraid they'll agree on something you don't wanna hear, don't be close minded
@bambam180acidpunk2 жыл бұрын
@@byzantinegold yeah i loved it, seen it 2 or 3 times but its been a while don't remember much details, i've watched almost every jp video
@shinx-hr6uq2 жыл бұрын
I think it would be interesting as well, but I think the only reason Peterson sat down with zizek was because Z is big enough to be worth it to him. I'm not a huge Peterson fan, so it might come off as me just hating, but I suspect I'm right that he wouldn't bother with a critical discussion if he could just write another bestseller or what have you. Douglas Lain tried to get Peterson on for months and he kept changing his mind about whether he would come on, never did
@alistairmaleficent87762 жыл бұрын
I hate watching someone actually intelligent try to converse with Peterson.. his word salad and constant evasions make for such a frustrating experience. You can never get anywhere with him because he won't let the conversation proceed beyond defining the terms, because he knows if he lets you nail down anything he's saying with any degree of certainty, it will become starkly obvious how completely full of shit he is.
@edwinsayssomewhere4002 жыл бұрын
Stop doing what you are doing, stop your online classes, stop covid vaccination: this is more important. Out of jokes, im glad that a great channel like your can grow like this an i like this videos by actual professors and not just youtubers.
@primevigilante72592 жыл бұрын
True.
@gh0s1wav2 жыл бұрын
I feel like KZfaqrs 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.
@hazardousjazzgasm1292 жыл бұрын
@@gh0s1wav John Vervaeke is another good example. I'd also shout out John Pageau
@aralornwolf31402 жыл бұрын
@@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 KZfaq.
@TheCedarFresh2 жыл бұрын
Most people don't have to think THAT MUCH when asked if they're a prophet
@davidthe16th902 жыл бұрын
Most people aren't Jordan Peterson
@omarsener84912 жыл бұрын
@@davidthe16th90 Most people don't think they are God's chosen
@hedleybutler97062 жыл бұрын
I can't decide if the fact that a large portion of his followers come from the online atheist community is ironic, poetic, funny or a mix of all 3
@JaneTheMessage2 жыл бұрын
Hard to teach old dogs new tricks, I suppose.
@gh0s1wav2 жыл бұрын
Yes! This is exactly what I've noticed with his audience. People who are so proud of their atheism yet are falling for the same paradigm of the uber religious.
@Pipes8042 жыл бұрын
I find it surprising how many christians follow him too haha
@marciorezende61102 жыл бұрын
So, I don't know how many of his atheist followers are similar to me, but I was his follower for a couple of months and I was fascinated by his ideas precisely because he was able to make me feel religious. Since I was a child I tried to understand why people believed in religion, and going to church with my family didn't help a bit. I tried to read religious books and etc, but neve could get what it was all about. Then I watched Peterson because of a random suggestion on reddit and something clicked! Binged his videos for months, and then, after my curiosity about how it feels to be religious was satisfied, I stopped watching feeling weird because I was liking right wing US bs despite living in Latin America.
@joshbaino30872 жыл бұрын
I would say it's predictable. Online atheists tend to have a very shallow atheism that follows Christian values
@raijin29502 жыл бұрын
I really appreciate this channel, since I first came across it several months ago I've developed a genuine interest in philosophy and have began delve deeper into the topics and the works of the philosophers covered on this channel to (try to) develop a framework for understanding society and the world in general. Rather than just taking on the ideas of others in a very shallow way as I have come to realise that I had done in the past.
@JonWeinand2 жыл бұрын
I would also like to express my appreciation for the channel and just provide general encouragement for this kind of feeling. I particularly appreciate the way in which Professor Moeller handles things politely and with consideration; the tone of it is something that I want to exemplify more in my own life.
@merocaine2 жыл бұрын
This is it, that's the hard work we all should do, drinking deep from the cup of knowledge.
@szymonbaranowski818411 ай бұрын
can you mention other sources on similar level of insights?
@user-qc3dn2el6j2 жыл бұрын
When Peterson uses the term "we" I don't think he's intentionally trying to be divisive but rather he's making an inference on the general emotional reactions most people have when confronted with certain situations or opinions. Thus the "we" isn't supposed to be an us vs them kinda thing but more of an inference on humanity as a whole.
@JS-dt1tn2 жыл бұрын
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.
@jeremybigras19362 жыл бұрын
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.
@matthewkopp23912 жыл бұрын
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.
@umbomb2 жыл бұрын
Peterson is both sincere and dishonest. He says things he doesn't believe in order to advance an agenda in which he does believe. He's a businessman, out to make a buck. He's a conservative, who believes in the value of various aspects of culture that once went unchallenged. He's a Christian- though he avoids saying so because he knows that would alienate a portion of his paying audience and require he come to the defense of innumerable absurdities.
@umbomb2 жыл бұрын
Nice attempt at deflection, Pasta Person. Of course, Nelson Denbigh isn't the topic here- and you know nothing about Nelson Denbigh's work, while Nelson Denbigh knows a lot about Jordan Peterson's (very public) work. If anyone really didn't understand why it's helpful to know the background behind an obscurantist's voluminous babble, I'd be happy to spend some very limited amount of time trying to help him/her understand why that is.
@umbomb2 жыл бұрын
I'm done here. Best to all.
@joshbaino30872 жыл бұрын
He's a prophet and a pusher
@mschell80222 жыл бұрын
A civil conversation between Moeller and Peterson would just be the Zizek vs Peterson debate 2.0 really
@oldtimer76352 жыл бұрын
Waste of everybody´s time!
@AnthonyLilley2 жыл бұрын
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
@heraclitusblacking12932 жыл бұрын
Moeller: A philosopher Peterson: An opportunist.
@vitormarques66702 жыл бұрын
I mean, JP isn't a philosopher in the first place, right?
@hazardousjazzgasm1292 жыл бұрын
Which is fine. The problem is when such a large portion of his fans refer to him as the most important "philosopher" today
@johnclever88132 жыл бұрын
I’d argue that he is, although that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a good one.
@feelingevaporated29122 жыл бұрын
Technically everyone who studies philosophy is a philosopher, it’s not a very useful word in this context. I think the level and depth of understanding within the field of study is more important than a specific title.
@3ras3r1232 жыл бұрын
The "No true Scotsman" fallacy unironically portrayed here by supposed true philosophers is funny
@TheHunterGracchus2 жыл бұрын
He thought he was doing philosophy when he wrote "Maps of Meaning." It's more serious than his 12 rules books, but not nearly as good as the material he draws from.
@CoachApuma2 жыл бұрын
I have been on a 4 hour long binge of listening to your videos in the background while playing videogames. After trying to search for the next video to listen to I'm met with the surprise of another reaction video to Jordan Peterson. What a great day!
@shinx-hr6uq2 жыл бұрын
I listen with dark souls hahha
@yeid44 Жыл бұрын
@@shinx-hr6uq how on earth do u do this lol
@JS-dt1tn2 жыл бұрын
Of course both JP and Wokeism are moralistic in their most operative nature. Nietzsche would dispise JP in the same way he would Wokeism; for their overreliance on moral 'oughts' and 'thou shalts'.
@joshbaino30872 жыл бұрын
Not to mention JP's exaltation of the 'Western way', the very thing Nietzsche sought to dismantle
@NLaw132 жыл бұрын
Philosophy 1. Psychology 0.
@callummilburn82042 жыл бұрын
The first thing I have noticed in watching this is not related to the content. I will press play and continue after typing this. It is something deeper, more symbolic, of something new emerging. I noticed this more recently with a discussion between Paul Vanderklay and John Veveke. It was the discussion done with some genuine intent. Not reflective of the polarisation in the mainstream and the conflict in the culture war. At least by Carefree's response, Though Jorden appears more offended.I still have not seen enough to see the shape of it or or where it is going, or how it is actually forming. But it is meeting of differences in views, or mis understandings, and being resolved in a more healthy manner. Which is no trivial thing in the current global affairs. Keep this going.
@FlashWeedo2 жыл бұрын
Hello, thank you for your video. I´m not certain, if i understood everything correctly. I, as always, have to watch your videos a couple of times. To my point: the link for Derridas Essay is not working. And: what books would you recommend, to understand modern society? Thank you!
@tk83642 жыл бұрын
I can't help but feel that comparing him to Greta Thunberg is very deliberate bait 🎣
@iachtulhu14202 жыл бұрын
Whether that's true or not, I think the analogy is solid.
@DouwedeJong9 ай бұрын
The obsession with identity seems to be required when a person has person struggles.
@doublescoopovanilla58352 жыл бұрын
The use of Ephesians 4:26 is not correct here. Most translations are move along the lines of the NIV : "In your anger do not sin: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold." The KJV translation is a bit unfortunate in that it seems to be advocating that anger is a moral good, and "don't let the sun go down on your wrath" implies that you should hold onto anger. But the reality is the opposite. That said, some spiteful people misapply it in the way described.
@lostsoul21842 жыл бұрын
Do a video on chomsky and language too
@TheLacedaemonian3002 жыл бұрын
Explaining Baudrillard, and how Simulacra and the hyper real are an explanatory lens to make sense of what he is, as well as what we are all experiencing in some form, is very useful. Accepting the notion of simulation, simulacra, hyper real, symbolic exchange and so on, are so much better as reflectors of the modern or postmodern world. It focuses us on the forward instead of trying to go back, and it also helps make us aware of our reality, or rather our hyper reality.
@Pllayer0642 жыл бұрын
Matrix is real and literally inescapable, shieeet 😎😎
@keylanoslokj18062 жыл бұрын
Absurd bs is still absurd bs
@harshitgarg14322 жыл бұрын
Please have a live discussion with him. If he has commented, he might be open to have a discussion.
@Io-Io-Io2 жыл бұрын
That guy here would look even more pale than he naturally does
@mschell80222 жыл бұрын
He doesn't have the strength for another public humiliation after getting dominated by Zizek
@Io-Io-Io2 жыл бұрын
@@mschell8022 you're delusional. . Daffy Duck looks by in that debate
@cristianorentroia66072 жыл бұрын
One of Peterson latest videos is literally a prayer. This reply came in perfect time.
@LeM5022 жыл бұрын
"Philosophy doesn't really aim at formulating self-evident, normative bedrock axioms." Great video, but this part stuck out to me: didn't many philosophers attempt to do precisely what you're claiming they refrain from - to posit some definite axiom upon which to build a comprehensive philosophical system? Couldn't Descartes' cogito, the presupposed existence of monads, etc. all be taken to be axioms?
@siruguri Жыл бұрын
Axioms, yes, but not ones that are normative and self evident, or posited to be the unshakeable bedrock of an entire society. A philospher's axiom is a starting point, an intuition that cannot be further broken down. You can start with the opposite of an axiom and formulate an equally plausible theory. Descartes bases the knowledge of his existence on the sensation of thinking and then draws out what follows. You can disagree and propose something else as your central intuition as long as you can show it is distinct and underivable from thinking. You may well formulate a better metaphysics than Descartes. In contrast, people like Peterson are much more dogmatic about their founding intuitions.
@lexman71792 жыл бұрын
I'm not actually sure that Peterson's point about Western Society being based on the idea of individualism is true. I mean you could make the argument with France and the US although a lot it's still a bit shaky. But other countries are still at least partial under different models and historically it seems as though Monarchism and the religious rule under Catholicism would rule out individualism.
@dumupad3-da2412 жыл бұрын
Indeed. It's nationalist conservative revisionist myth-making to see some kind of civic individualism as a primeval feature of 'Western Society'. 1st, it has not always been true of the West, and much of the West's traditional heritage contradicts it (it developed while fighting that heritage); and, 2nd, it isn't somehow exclusive to the traditional West either.
@hazardousjazzgasm1292 жыл бұрын
Yeah his history on this subject is spotty. He often considers the sanctity of individualism and preeminence of these specific Judeo-Christian values to just be common sense or self-evident, but there's been a lot of pushback to this idea online, which he pretty much just ignores.
@siruguri Жыл бұрын
Peterson and others use this idea in a very loose sense. There's no really defensible academic way of tying such broad concepts together. There's a lot of historical contingency to why Western societies feel more individualistic, to do with things like the Industrial Revolution, the effect of two World Wars where much of the destruction was in Europe, the struggle for power between the Church and monarchies, colonization, etc. The use of individualism in these contexts is political ideology primarily, and not philosophy in a pure sense. Peterson being North American would also be biased towards such a view given its rich history in this region - the Horatio Alger stories, the hagiography of the Independence War, etc. But he can't perhaps notice his own biases the way the signatories to the Declaration of Independence could state all men to be created equal while denying that dignity, on pain if death, to the slaves of the day.
@OneLine122 Жыл бұрын
It's not, but he probably means something else by it, like the hero archetype. But it can be said of every society. I think he simply is confused.
@blackstephan94822 жыл бұрын
Watching the ending made me feel the same way I felt the first time I heard the line “cuz you know who did you know what with you know who…”
@takeshikodama56712 жыл бұрын
This is super eye opening to me. I used to watch Peterson's videos and it got me through tough time. That exact 'Civil Religion' has quite an appeal to me. It's cathartic to shed some tears every now and then. I feel fine listening to the word hyper real idea. Then he went on to say, it was a Civil Religious Rant. My head almost hit the desk at that point. My culture doesn't have this easy to understand civil religious expressions enough in everyday language. To understand the West in general, I tried to open my heart to listen to the higher power and the idea of 'we' in the constitution. I'm an individualist and that could be highly criticized but that's a part of me too.... What's real? Where's the real me? It's not so sovereign, I know how weak my mind is. Not because I was trying to hang on to my old identity nor because I was searching for a new one. I'm trying to see things through multi metaphysical lenses, o' mine. If I need to be educated about the original woke culture, I shall be doing that before I die. In God they trust. I don't care about that though. Does critical thinker have anything to say about 'meaning of life' and stuff? What about those super energetic Stoics? I gotta find out how someone like you can be critical and not judgmental about anything. It's surprisingly fun to be watching this channel. Looking forward to be educated more. Thanks. Edited to Add: Does he talk about COVID vaccine conspiracy/misinformation? Doctors, healers and medicine man are old ideas. Religiously admired.
@szymonbaranowski818411 ай бұрын
my healing comes from preachers of KZfaq 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
@szymonbaranowski818411 ай бұрын
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)
@selvmordspilot2 жыл бұрын
I feel like I struck gold when I found this channel - just as I felt when I, more than 5 years ago (hipster brag, sorry) discovered Jordan Peterson's channel.
@gh0s1wav2 жыл бұрын
I can see your point here but i like the fact that he doesn't present his ideas as facts but rather theories. Like he invites challenges and questions rather than trying to tell you "the truth".
@stuarthicks26962 жыл бұрын
Me too.
@Io-Io-Io2 жыл бұрын
You struck shit and confuse it for gold 😂
@hazardousjazzgasm1292 жыл бұрын
@@Io-Io-Io You have no argument, only emojis and cope
@hwithumlaut82882 жыл бұрын
We need a name for the right wing civil religion
@RoryT10002 жыл бұрын
State cult. It already exists brah
@RoryT10002 жыл бұрын
State cult. It already exists brah
@FinianFhomhair2 жыл бұрын
Ben shapiro told me it's called "facts". I hope its obvious that, that was a joke ^^
@Pllayer0642 жыл бұрын
Talibangelicals
@Senumunu2 жыл бұрын
there is no scale on the right wing. Jordan Peterson gets the most shit from right wingers. most of the anti Jordan Peterson memes were made by right wingers.
@Nathanatos222 жыл бұрын
It certainly is true that anti-wokeness is or at least has become religion, certainly with more volume and rigidity than the subject of its criticism. It’s interesting to see at 23:05 Peterson acknowledge that this anti-wokeness phenomenon is, in fact, a religion, according to him, albeit not a new one. Great video.
@TheControlBlue2 жыл бұрын
"Look we are bad, but those people are even worse!!"
@MistaZULE2 жыл бұрын
@@TheControlBlue what's your deal man? I see you commenting on ever popular comment on this video trying to defend your boy jp. It's weird man. You don't need to be so aggressive. If you don't agree then try to have a discussion about it instead of posting snippy emotion laden comments into the youtube comment void.
@AgorizTribe2 жыл бұрын
Greetings from Bolivia. This type of discussions, or better, contrasts of ideas, are necessary and useful. Thanks for the beautiful explanation. At the same time, I like to address something special in the realm of values. The lack of a hierarchy of values or moral or ethics or even a “sacred book” that synthesize such values in an specific Identity (the case of the Bible, Coran, Buddhist palms, or even Confucius’s books), create a contraction in what we understand as human interaction. A society that lacks a specific realm of values, in other words, a moral code that reduces ambiguity (a type of language), is a society that is set to fail. Fail in human values, in economics, and in identity. (This claim comes from my countries experience). So, the general message of Dr. Peterson is, in many ways, a message that tries to restructure a hierarchy of values. In many cases, a reference to reduce chaos. Therefore, I think, Peterson´s ideas are necessary. Why? Simple, people who struggles with their own identity, or with a society that incentives a “type” of individual based only in power struggles (identity politics over human capacities) creates a necessity to resist. Clearly this not protects the paradoxical contradictions of a “hierarchy of values”, this is very well explained in the video, but at the same time, I ask: What happens when your identity is a mess?. Historically, my country has been dismantled of their own identity, by by the church and by academics. That’s why I understand the simple massage of both professor here. I understand the message of Peterson, the necessity of respect a clear hierarchy of values, ant I understand the professor Hans-Georg Moeller critic of that hierarchy of values. Both, I think, set a clear message: Identity is struggle, is individual and is community, is contradictory and at the same time necessary for “being”. I am not a philosopher (I´m a economist, university professor and behavioral researcher), but this explanations and videos and everything are incredible. Thanks again, Professor Hans-Georg Moeller.