Hi Brian thanks for your excellent comment - I've taken a screenshot of it and will include it in an upcoming Q&A. I'll drop you a comment here, or anywhere else you like, with a link once it drops. Probably later this year. Meanwhile, some remarks. It's a principle of interpretation, really, for Nietzsche, that certain things might be both necessary and truthfully unavailable for us. In his video Hans implies that there may be no deep problem here, except letting go of illusion. On the other hand, Jordan is much more exercised by what we stand to lose. At the same time, I don't see Jordan as facing the problem. I see him recognising the problem, but then turning his back to it. I say a little more here - kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qrp7qdCg0d2ofok.html (about a 5 min watch) I'm currently sharing a mini series of videos on Nietzsche and I anticipate a long form video on Jordan which will cover this in more depth. Now Nietzsche. One of his major presentations of the problem is Gay Science 344, a famous section in which he asks what is this 'unconditional will to truth'? Another famous line, that life isn't an argument, occurs in Gay Science 121. And one more, now in BGE, is 177, a sentence about being 'truthful about truthfulness' And one more, about the absence of a pre established harmony between truth and well being, is in Human, All Too Human, 517. Then we might jump to book 3 of Genealogy, for example section 26 And I would read Will To Power section 5 - even though this is not a book by Nietzsche proper and we must approach it with a pair of pliers. This may be all too familiar for you, depending on what you work on. Take good care for now!

@@VladVexler I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Yes, I agree. I always get the impression that Peterson appears and sounds like the angry father, beckoning to the village iinhabitants to return to an idylic state of the past... maybe the tradtional world of his own past ?

@@josephzsoka874 Which is by nature dependent on the labor and marginalization of others, and idyllic only to those privileged within. Often this mythic past is described as a pastoral one. Agricultural societies are well known to anthropologists as more hierarchical and oppressive than hunter-gatherer ones. It's not as much collective tribalism they seek as it is a simplistic, walled-off minor aristocracy, I believe.

@@VladVexler Humans require a healthy dose of delusion (faith/superstition/religion) to survive. Every neurobiologist can tell you this. We live with oxytocin and serotonin flowing through our synapses offering a buffer to stark, objective reality. Facing one's true nature and mortality fully would be mentally intolerable.

That is why he's so beloved by INCELS

What do I think? To be honest I was a little disappointed how little actual critique of Peterson is in this. I would even go so far as to say that stating from the outset that all of his many critics have been intellectually unable to engage with his work is a pretty bad case of poisoning the well and quite dishonest an approach. To remind ourselves here, the man became widely known by lying about a law that simply added transgender people as a separate protected group to an already existing law. And then he cried foul when he was legitimately criticised for it. Ever since he has repeatedly deflected often legitimate criticisms of his by insisting his free speech was attacked. You can not separate his arguments from his behaviour. I feel like you are trying so hard to come across as a reasonable actor who is cognisent of nuance that you over compensate.

@@SpielkindFR sloppy, blind, and self indulgent comment. This video does one thing- if JP is taken seriously as an intellectual. An intellectual, not a public intellectual, what is the key fault? Nobody has outlined this yet, bec nobody serious responds to JP. So you’ve received a meditation on a flaw in cultural conservatism via the example of JP. But your reaction isn’t remotely adequate to the content.

@@VladVexler I'm sorry, but the content isn't remotely adequate to the subject. Peterson is not primarily known for his intellectual endeavours. So what is his key fault, how about repeated dishonesty? His initial claim to fame was his highly public opposition to legilature in canada that introduced trans people as a protected class under an existing law. He then publicly proclaimed that the law constituted an attempt by the government to mandate speech. A fundamentally political act and also a falsehood. I wil repeat this once more. The man is not known for his clinical practice or his lecture series. The man is primarily known for taking controversial political positions and as such he is very much a political actor. And a dishonest one at that.

I politely disagree in part. Self destruction is self destruction. Regardless of profession or method. As you say, he would have been hyper aware of the potential for addiction. My theory is that he was taking them before in a safe and measured way before his relationship with them would have changed due to significant challenges/life changes. Text book cause of addiction that often happens to anyone in society. An interesting part I think is that people who previously followed him will trust him MORE due to his self destruction and apparent recovery. You don't need the person treating you for cancer to be a cancer survivor but it would sure as hell feel better? I agree with the last part of your comment in caps completey 😂 THERE'S BETTER HEROES

Anecdotal so could be wrong but many people with mental health problems become mental health practitioners themselves - though for sure theres irony in his self help

I'm not sure he had addiction

For me personally, the red flag about his trustworthiness as a mental health professional was before the addiction issues came to light. I think it was in his interview with that one feminist where he bluntly refused to even consider the idea of peer pressure (and caving in to *perceived* peer pressure) on the issue of makeup for women that made me question his qualifications. How can you not grasp, let alone not take into account, such a fundamental social concept that has such outreaching effect on the mental health and the social behavior of individuals whom you are supposed to help? He instead decided to go on a rant about women trying to make themselves sexually attractive to men and turning them on, because I guess that's the only thing on a woman's mind when going to work, or even when going to an all-women party or event. I think he's even said things like how men and women working alongside each other in one environment negatively impacts productivity or sth. Very funny that he considers (considered?) himself a centrist, as he outdoes some conservatives where it comes to women. And it seems that his inability to grasp this is entirely gender-based, as I'd also seen his lecture about young men who are unable to understand that they are "supposed to give in" to such social pressures when they aren't acting like "one of the guys". It was sth or another about bringing a lunchbox to work, I think. It's weird that he thinks only men have such experiences.

The other experience ha has that we lack is having one's brain soaked in benzodiazepenes for years and fried by withdrawal symptoms. I take no pleasure in saying this, but Peterson we saw calmly dismantling Cathy Newman is a very different person than Peterson we see nowadays cursing angrily at a webcam in his basement.

@@mikek9297 I disagree! Recently I saw a one-hour interview with Piers Morgan and Peterson seemed very calm, happy, and rational.

But he seems to think his experience as a clinician gives him a special insight into all people's minds, not just those who deal with a clinician

Thank you for writing this! And for watching.

Recommend you Paul Ricker books

just read. are you under the age of 21?

Well said. While a clean room may be a metaphor, it's a sign of a mind with too little to do, and satisfaction with superficial things.

Like Trotsky, you cannot discuss the dialectic with someone who makes the sign of the cross. But did you ever consider that he may make the sign for exactly that reason?

I hardly dare to comment here. I am a common German (at the moment) housewife. I agree with you, I just never liked Peterson. I never could look a video of his to the end, I get nuts at once. I am surprised he really is that intelligent; for me he was a self loving normal intellectual like millions of other persons who went to University. He found out how to make much money! And the Trucker videos and the telling nonsense about Trudeau being a tyrant to not let the truckers torture the citizens? He is selling himself, is an actor playing a thinker more than a thinker who dives into his own universe. One sentence you said, reminds me of our politics teacher. He said to us, an all women class…Unemployed, foreigners, women and other marginalized groups. LOL. He was a very nice man though, all were laughing. You said the worst people, Republicans, Russians and Muslims. The GOP at the moment actually has a lot of the worst people, but Russia no doubt has wonderful people. I do not know many Muslims, but as I have gotten to know them, they were to my surprise just thinking like me, also concerning religion. I am a convinced Christian, I have read just the New Testament lots of times, I am not going to church. The evangelical Christians I have no idea what they do, I think their pastors lots of them are fascists. So Peterson saying things about the Bible made me feel, he did not read it. Like with other things he says I disagree, I seem to have a Peterson derangement syndrome.

@@anjaoldnettle2841 Hey Anja, and thank you for your reply. I get your point of view. And I'm sorry if I insulted republicans, russians, and muslims. It's always bad to paint people with a wide brush. I meant the same people you are talking about. Fundamentalists. I didn't mention christians, but yeah, them too. Not all christians, not all muslims, not all republicans, and not all russians. Just the fundamentalist ones. More and more as time goes by, I tend to see people in 2 categories. People who like and love progress and think the world about it. And people who value tradition. The latter category would like a world how it was in the 1500s. They will often cite before the "new man". Before enlightenment. Peterson himself has said this. Things were much better pre-englightment. Before the new man of Da Vinci. I heard him say it in several videos. And he knows exactly what that means. He was always a closeted traditionalist, even though, like you, I saw him for what he was ever since the beginning. Now he is exposed. As what he is. He's also banned from twitter. The traditionalists are loosing their minds about it. I just like the fact that Peterson himself, as the briliant psihologist that he is, couldn't stop himself from twitter, so instead he got himself banned. And that guy is treating others for addiction. I find that endlessly funny.

@@anjaoldnettle2841 You're welcome here, and certainly as qualified as anybody since you have seen his work and have an opinion!

I think you are absolutely on the money with your assessment - what I suggest we add is the expanding existential crisis among men aged 25-50. I think it's this crisis that is part of the story of Peterson expanding into southern Europe. In Greece or Italy, he wasn't so popular to begin with, but it gaining popularity in the last year or two. A lot of what Nathan says is excellent, but a lot of it I reject because it fails to take account of a point I repeat often, that you don't get to choose who your fellow citizens are. I am thinking of his badly put together critique of Saagar Enjeti and Krystall Ball. I think the Peterson pieces was better than that, but I really struggled with it. He failed to identity what Peterson stood for, what Peterson thought he stood for, and made several irresponsible claims in and around the article. Which nullified credibility with anyone who didn't already agree. Peterson uses Pragmatism as sticky tape to attach teleology to the modern world. I'm afraid that single sentence above does more to explain Peterson than Nathan's very long article. Then, once you have captured Peterson, you can make Nathan's point about evasiveness and vagueness. But it makes no sense to make it first. Making it first externalises your analysis - you are focused on how the culture is impacted by Peterson's utterances in a way that severs those utterances from what is going on in Peterson's head. But that won't do, either as a political rejection of Peterson or as a causal explanation of his popularity. I am planning a series or a long video on Peterson!

because southeastern Europe is the Alabama of Europe

I look for the reasons in reginal history and more specific the local version of culture wars. Southeastern Europe hasn't been a particularly progressive place. Part of the Ottoman empire, shredded by post colonial wars, just to end up as a soviet satelite - the region did not experience big historical generation defining periods like the renaissance, like the industrial revolution, the 60ties culture wars and many many more. Instead it was stuck between a religious agricultural society and political systems promoting conservative and even homophobic values. There was a big earthquake with end of commuism of course, but the transition to western values stopped half the way by the mafia and corruption infused post soviet turmoil. This transition to western like values and econony never finished, but also never fully regressed, so this is where the current conflict of ideas is coming from. With non progressive history, but with a desire to modernise, and with a present stuck between Russia and the EU, Southeastern Europe entered its own culture wars. If the USA has North vs South, southeastern Europe has west vs east (where east is not just Russia but also middle east). And this is where Peterson comes in - the champion of the conservative side of the culture war ring. A raise in popularity of Peterson, I am sure comes with drop in popularity with "the west" and raise of popularity of "the east". Which is ofc ironic considering that Peterson is suppose to be a champion of western values. However his belief system aligns way more with that of the Russian government and the middle east. Hence why his role in the southeastern culture wars.

@@ekaterinastaneva9922 Yes, good point. A conservative thinker for a conservative society. What Peterson consideres Western values are outdated concepts stil favoured in the less progressive areas of the world, such as Southeastern Europe. These values may have played an important role at some point in history in the West, but now need _at least_ an update. In other words, the problem of chronology: what are Eastern values today _used to be_ Western values quite a while ago. On top of it all, Peterson justifies his apologetic perspective by the historical "success" of the West, completely ignoring other factors like colonialism, for example.

@@markoslavicek yes absolutely correct. Also southeastern Europe was actually colonised by Ottoman empire, while the "West" was colonising the rest of the world. Hence this delay of evolution of values and lack of economic progress. He also draws direct correlation between values and success, whereas I don't think there is a direct such relationship in practice. The richest and most successful people in the west in the last century were not notoriously religious, righteous, moral etc. Not that they were inheritably bad or anything, just this image that JP portraits fits more a portion of the middle and working class. Humble, religious, devoted family folks, working hard on often cr-ppy jobs.

I hope to address this in future videos. Here I just left out my views about why Peterson is popular, and my views of what it's like to be him. It's hard to not be a bit manipulative for anybody in his position. The question is whether the manipulation is ethically tethered or not. But in the end I actually think Peterson is not emotionally stable enough to be systematically insincere. But me saying that raises more questions than answers, without much more context.

@@VladVexler it’s like when the grifter starts falling for his own grift

@@VladVexler its not ethically tethered by anything but the way he feels in the moment he is speaking. he happens to be both a psychologist and a “conservative” stringing buzzwords and memes together like a bad virginia wolfe poem with no clear point. Its not hard to get to the bottom of him. He is just Milo Yianapoulis with a degree. Eventually he will talk himself out of existence

@@BigHeartMusicOfficial Ah, so Humpty Dumpty AND the Cheshire Cat!

@@AndrewBlucher Haha basically. That's honestly a good analogy. Imagine the cheshire cat beguiling you with nonsensical wordplay, and then imagine it falling suddenly onto the floor and splatting like an egg. That will be Peterson

A contrarian on a mission to make money! In the ''old'' days they called them snake oil salesmen.

It's funny you say he encourages arrogance when one of his main points is "you could be so much more than you are". And he knows very well that for that you have to confront your weaknesses. I heard him use the phrase "satanic arrogance" more than once. You could look at his 2017 or 18 Maps of Meaning lectures to see what his core work is about.

@@burt2800 no thanks. I’ve seen enough of his “core” work. Do you mean when he was telling people to get their own life in order first before trying to put the world to rights? While at the same time being a benzodiazepine addict? He was vaguely interesting when his work was about psychology and religious analogy. Now that he’s he’s become a full on right wing pundit I’m not interested. Climate change denial, against socialism, exaggeration of transgender identity issues, covid vaccine mandate scepticism, etc etc. Every far right talking point is on his menu. He can’t help himself. Making a public statement that a larger woman isn’t attractive on the cover of a sports magazine?? Why should a woman’s attractiveness be an issue on the cover of a sports magazine unless you’re a chauvinist? And in a recent interview with Piers Morgan he’s an apologist for incels! He’s not right in the head.

Good morning! Nietzsche’s 1873 On Truth and Lies in an Extra Moral Sense has had a huge influence, esp in literature departments. It is an essay he chose not to publish. And of course quotes typically fly around from The Will to Power, which is not a book by Nietzsche at all. The Nietzsche that matters most is Nietzsche in his greatest works. BGE, Genealogy, Gay Science. I will do an episode on Nietzsche and Truth in the near future. It’s an issue not unconnected with a current book project of mine. Thank you for engaging and I hope your coffee was delicious.

A valuable psychological insight...you expressed it very well ...ideas have origins ....like Dickens wrote, sometimes the senses (and the intellect) are influenced by a bit of underdone potato....lol

@UClkgYzHWge06zMeP-rwsNiQ I also don’t buy into the semi-Jungian, quasi-mysterious underpinnings of a lot of it. The guys I know who sorta buy into it, are usually ones who maybe feel like they could have used a stern but present father in their lives, and who tend hold some fairly traditional views about what a man is supposed to be. Usually intelligent guys, but perhaps without the academic background knowledge to spot some of the traps and wider implications or the origins and foundations of certain ideas. Anyway - he seems at times kinda sincere and generally reasonably intellectually honest, but he also comes across as someone playing that off his stuff in certain cultural contexts for his own benefit or to further various causes. He is not a person I would personally take deeper life advice from, there is an odd, kinda cynical lack of creativity, joy of life and cultural criticism to it a and frankly a lot of it is pretty basic stuff, that you wouldn’t need academia for anyway, if such ideas should appeal to you ….

benzos arent meds baby

@@elizabethbennet4791 Better read the little piece of paper that comes with them …

@@whynottalklikeapirat no , he has no right to this "medication". People this broken deserve simple suicide, not all these grand, heroic measures while he ruins the world.

That’s a lovely comment!

Would a rosé by any other name taste as sweet?

Sorry, that's not sound. Either in respect of what you've just watched, or in respect of making sense of moments of moment in our culture. There is no non philosophical understanding of Jung, or Freud. I'll have a look at what Cass has done, I haven't yet. Nor is there any understanding of the phenomenon of Peterson without an historical sense of Western culture. Don't forget JP is not a Jungian psychotherapist - he's a clinical psychologist whose clinical practice was closer to coaching than psychoanalysis. Meanwhile his thoughts about Jung - and his psychoanalytic thoughts - are intimately connected with his thoughts about Nietzsche, and so on. Rating Peterson is in itself not interesting, because it implies that he is an important thinker. Nobody thinks that he is an important thinker who is an important thinker. But he is a vastly important cultural phenomenon. I'll be doing a long form on JP in 2022, but again, you may legitimately not be interested in that. That's cool. But others are.

@Jeff, Disagree completely.

@@williamgill_esq.6487 No doubt you will agree with the latest rants from Peterson on Trans and Wokeism. Intellectual?

@@jeffbetts9420 The Trans madnes sis exactly what it is. Madness. He's had enough and many do. I only await the lawsuits that will rain down feom Detrans people.

@@arnowisp6244 I repeat what I have said previously. Very little credence should ever be given to the use Peterson makes of evidence supporting his claims. He simply misuses the evidence he quotes. His politics since he first came to prominence has been dominated by an anti social justice stance which clearly appeals to a certain demographic. The irony of course is the fact the Republican party from Lincoln through to Teddy Roosevelt was very concerned with things such as equal opportunity, social justice and supporting the human rights of marginalised individuals. Because there are obviously people who wish they had not transitioned Peterson suggests that anyone who assists a person to transition is a criminal. This is clearly an absurd stance because it is based on a false premise that most people who transition will regret it. But I never expect much common sense to emanate from Peterson or many others of his political persuasion.

Such a lovely comment - take good care!

In my opinion, Peterson's real ideological underpinnings are completely irrelevent to the ill educated people using his work as a pseudo-intelectual club to assert their own regressive views of patriarchy. There's a difference between understanding Peterson's work, and understanding the uses to which that work is put.

so, your philosophy teacher was 1. a Jesuit, 2. a Lebovich rebbi, or 3. a kinky dominatrix?

@@chicagofineart9546 definitely No.3 - he seemed to come from the set of "How I learned to love the Bomb'

Hitchens is heaven (sorry CH, I know you were an atheist) and Jorden P is ... well, Purgatory? ;-)) Sorry, such an easy joke!!

Yes, he is trying to convince himself. Desperately. You might not be an academic, but for sure you are a natural.

My pleasure - I will be doing a bigger explanation of JP as a phenomenon. He is still not at his peak of popularity!

@@VladVexler I guess he has something more to cry about 🤷🏻‍♀️ Nothing wrong with crying, but I don’t know or understand why Jordan Peterson has to express himself so emotionally and let it all hang out and cry, when talking publicly in front of a camera. Just unusual. His hand batting too. 🤭 I guess if someone else did it, it would really make me cringe.

@@BubblegumCreepydoll That's what puts me off too, it's like he's begging for pity as a shield. Straight up church manipulator vibes.

@@VladVexler May I ask that you share some observation about JP haters too? His popularity grows bigger and bigger somehow. :D

"very well educated but a bit stupid", that's the best description. that's also why he's beloved by trumpters: he's what a stupid person thinks a smart person sounds like.

He partly wanted that stuff for himself, and partly for resale. I think JP is not utilising his intellectual talent, but as a pop intellectual his stock is still growing. I look forward to talking about this. About why.

He markets evoking emotions.

You should know that like Hume regardless if it's spelled out you are expressing it in your behavior

The criticism is not that Jordan doesn’t explain historical context. It’s that he is neutral, or doesn’t take a view, on how far the modern world is a special explanatory category. For a Nietzsche admirer, that’s almost an amazing evasion.

@@VladVexler Thank you. Not having studied Philosophy I have little knowledge of Nietzsche. But to not see the age of information and other technology we have today as historically unique seems naive or even foolish. it is also part of the reason for having to explain historical contexts of the past when dealing with our contemporary issues, since so much is rather different. But I will admit that the individual hasn't changed as such. Group dynamics are also basically the same, although the availability of information does somewhat influence the operations of groups. As foremost a psycholigist for the individual, I guess JP might have a tendency to see human beings as a constant.

"while the smarter people say little" because he's not worth the effort

Many who watch him come from broken homes due to divorce. But rather than give up on marriage Peterson offers them a redemption arc for their parents. And while it is true that monogamy is not universal, most people on the globe function within this framework. Even openly atheist societies like China uphold monogamy as an ideal.

He described himself being very feminine, you're not that much of a detective. Bizarre how you concluded he's trying to prove his machoism. Unconsciously maybe, but he opely describes himself as more feminine man.

You naturally dislike him because you adopted the ideas he stands against. One of JPs often repeated main points is that, while freedom and progress allow us to reach our human potential, in our current culture many experimental ideas are unfairly treated as equally useful as proven concepts. Here is a short list of ideas you mentioned that are advertised more than their success justifies: - There are viable and competitive alternatives to monogamy - There are viable and competitive alternatives to the nuclear family - It is a simple lifestyle choice to not want children and people aren't likely regret the decision later - Sex changes are a simple lifestyle choice BTW, I am not a complete fanboy. I completely reject his stance on climate change, where we have the opposite case: A proven idea that is not advertised and taken seriously enough. He unfortunately mixes it in with the other unproven ideas, because unfortunately the green movement tends to do the same by mixing fighting climate change with social experiments. There he probably makes the error of opposing the whole set of proposed changes from green movements instead of finding the one useful idea. Here is some elaboration in case you are interested: - Monogamy has been at the core of the majority of viable civilizations. Fringe counter examples don't change this. Especially not from tribal settings that are just not comparable. Also, just consider the game theory of non-monogamy. It creates too many losers and too little stability. (I invite you to cite counter examples of big successful civilizations with different relational organization). - We currently do not have a competitive alternative to the nuclear family. Alternative models may be possible, but bring no clear advantages. Things are changing, especially around gender relations, but the change is incomplete and imperfect. No developed country has yet reached a stable demography. So what we have culturally right now is not yet sustainable, but still at the experimental stage. It is an experiment and should be treated as one. This does not mean the past was perfect. But it definitely means we should not overvalue our present thoughts because so far they are not suitable for long-term success. - As a clinician, he probably saw a lot of women change their opinions on children considerably once the time window started to close. MOST humans want to procreate on some level, evolution selected us for that. Just because you can find some fringe group who either lacks or denies this instinct, basic statements in this direction don't become completely invalid. Change 100% to 90% (or a number of your choice) and the argument still stands. - Okay, he is a feminine and emotional man with addiction issues. It's probably true that questions of masculinity and assertiveness are difficult to him. He probably does have a degree of self-hate, but that might be biological since his family has a history of depression and tragedy. So what? This just makes him very vulnerable to demoralizing cultural currents that especially affect depressed and feminine men. For example currents that see human existence itself or masculinity in particular as bad. Just because he is more sensitive, his arguments don't become invalid. BTW, Nietzsche went mad, so don't shoot the messenger here. - Sex changes are a personal choice that adults should be free to make. But we cannot ignore that the technology is completely experimental and very far from perfect. Again, an experimental idea is advertised as a simple lifestyle option, while the real results are still deeply flawed. Especially JP himself is probably much better served by being a feminine man. So in summary, he criticises many ideas you see as self evident because in his opinion they are still experimental and thus should be propagated more carefully. Him being somewhat feminine may be funny, but changes nothing. Greetings

@@spambot_gpt7 Your argument is predicated on an assumption that "[I] naturally dislike him because [I] adopted the ideas he stands against." That is a wild assumption to make, given that you don't know me at all. And it's incorrect. I went down the JP rabbit hole shortly before he became famous, and for several months I wasn't sure how I felt about him. It was only after watching a deluge of his videos and considered many of his central points that I came to my conclusions about him. -" Monogamy has been at the core of the majority of viable civilizations." You are exposing your prejudice about the meaning of "viable" civilizations. Indeed, you're leaving out the Muslim Golden age and the ancient Roman empire, for instance. But what is your definition of "viable"? Are you attributing the success of modern societies to monogamous social organization? That's a big logical leap, and you have not provided any evidence that there is a causal link here. But if that is your definition, then you are ignoring the fact that monogamous societies have thus far been incredibly short-lived. One key criterion I would bring up for viability is is longevity. And the non-monogamous societies have lasted far, far longer than any exclusively monogamous one. Finally, you are ignoring that civilization is moving away from monogamy as women get more rights. The whole idea behind sexual exclusivity is controlling access to women's uteruses to guarantee that men can be sure they are passing down their property to their genetic children. But equal rights for women is a cornerstone of any modern society. As JP himself has argued, women taking control of their own rights is always followed by a gigantic economic boom. Which supports the conclusion that while obligate monogamy may have helped to create the large-scale societies we have now through guaranteed property inheritance, it is incompatible with a digital age society--which needs the contributions of both men and women to thrive. -The polyamorous community is a perfectly functional community--generally with a lot more self-awareness and social wisdom than the monogamous community--and it's an excellent model for the digital age. It creates social networks that are more flexible than monogamous networks, as well as a richer and more resilient community. -If you take a dataset where 90% of people act one way, and then immediately conclude that the remaining 10% must be pathological because they do not perform according to the norm, you are not qualified to be a clinician. This is how neurodivergent people and gay people ended up with frontal lobotomies in the fifties. This is a shameful blot on the record of clinical psychology. Modern clinicians understand that neurodiversity is healthy and adaptive. Human societies rely heavily on specialization--if everyone behaved the same way, large-scale economies would not be possible. -I bring up Peterson's femininity in concert with his misogynist views to hypothesize a motivation for his patriarchal extremism. In the same way that many of the most prominent anti-gay politicians have been caught naked with a member of the same sex, I am suggesting that Peterson's illogical behavior is the result of self-hatred. -I personally feel that sex changes are an unfortunate stop-gap measure to cope with too deeply internalizing the gender binary. It is my opinion that gender dysphoria is the result of trauma--specifically, the trauma of being indoctrinated by the idea that if you have a penis, you must behave according to the socially-constructed ideas of how a man is supposed to behave. We as a society must recognize that there is a difference between sex and gender. Sex is your genitals. Gender is the set of characteristics that TENDS to correlate with sex about 70-80% of the time. We need to acknowledge that the remaining 20-30% of people are wonderful just as they are, and that they have a valuable place in society. If that happened, I don't think anyone would feel the need for a sex change. For example, I--like Peterson--have a male sex and a female gender. But when my parents noticed that I was naturally gentle and nurturing and would rather play with dolls than cars, my dad built me a doll house instead of trying to pressure me into "bEiNg A mAn". So I have very little gender dysphoria and feel no need to transition, despite being transgender. I am suggesting that Peterson probably had a similar experience as a child, but instead of supporting his divergent gender expression, his parents probably tried to force him to conform to gender norms. I believe that his recent activism and obsession with achieving masculinity (to the point of eating an exclusively steak diet) is a reaction to that trauma.

@@WillowGardener ​ Hi, thanks for your thoughtful reply. Can you give me more info about polygamy in the ancient Roman empire? I thought it wasn't really mainstream there at the time. In the Muslim Golden Age, there probably was polygyny, right? To me, that looks like a basis of monogamy with a bit of "winner takes all" sprinkled in. And it seems to be sustainable only if you find something to do for all the undesired men. Probably war? (I get that this is my prejudice. Do you have contradictory info?) Which exact non-monogamous society would you say has lived especially long? How developed were/are they? I see the economic drive towards equal labor force participation and consequently equal rights in modern society. It's kind of inevitable because otherwise there is untapped potential. I also see the social drive towards lifting traditional restrictions on sexuality as political power shifts. So far, I am not convinced the polyamorous community presents a model that could work as a sustainable mainstream. (Everyone should have the right to enjoy their lifestyle though.) I think they are socially aware and wise because they have to be to handle the complexity of their lifestyle - and on a level that is not easily attainable for average people. Also, I would be interested in polyamorous birthrate statistics. Sorry for repeatedly coming back to birth rates. But until modern developed countries fix this problem, they are not sustainable. And I personally would be sad to see a reversion to traditionalism because of this. There must be a modern, free and sustainable model, but I don't see it in practice yet. We should be careful about thinking we have it all figured out while this is unsolved. I do not think neurodivergent people are pathological. I also think that diverse lifestyles are a good thing for those who need them and can pull them off. But there also needs to be a social default that is attainable for most average people. And that default should be as respected and cherished as the diversity at the fringes. As a bad example, telling people to not have children hurts the average person who would enjoy a family, but is momentarily confused. Of course, if someone is really sure about this, they should not be pressured. But it is not a decision to be taken as lightly as it is sometimes presented. Where is Peterson misogynist? I think he tries very hard to stay balanced. I would need quotes you care about to say more about this. Congrats to your dad and to you! You bring up some interesting points, but I think Peterson is quite open about being somewhat feminine, so it looks to me like he accepted that part of himself. The steak diet comes from family trauma about his daughter's terrible health that apparently was stabilized by it, after many experiments and failures. Immune systems are crazy and diverse. His obsession with gender seems to me to come from his obsession with politics. This in turn may come from his family history of depression that brings a mental focus on negativity (and the greatest negativity you can find is the WWII area). Or he got into it as an adjacent topic of psychology. Once you are deep in politics and specifically authoritarianism, you become sensitive to attempts to introduce new control mechanisms and legal boundary crossings. I think he is serious about the "compelled speech" thing being a matter of principle. The unspoken part that adds to this is that, since sex changes do not fully work (yet), trans people necessarily stick out, in a way that is clearly related to sexuality. Putting your kinks into other people's faces is normally considered rude. Forcing others to participate in a game where you can invent and change the rules/pronouns is even more invasive. Choosing a different lifestyle is fine and causing awkwardness is sometimes unavoidable, but in other areas of life it would come with a certain expectation of awareness and politeness instead of straight demands. (I bet clinicians have many experiences from different contexts where clients try to get other people to play along in their stories.) I think Peterson cannot voice this disappointed expectation of politeness out loud, so he focuses on the principles part. And that part is the desire of some Canadian regulators to force other people to say certain things. Forcing conformity at the level of speech is something many of the worst authoritarian regimes in history could agree on. If someone is deeply sensitive about authoritarianism, I think that boundary crossing is enough to cause an obsession with the topic, at least until something changes.

Hi Marko, thanks so much for your comment. So, in professional philosophy there is a bit of divide between those who take Nietzsche to have given up on truth and those who don't. I'm strongly in camp 2, so please be warned - that does colour my picture of Nietzsche. Nietzsche's greatest works are the Genealogy, Beyond Good and Evil, and the Gay Science. Nietzsche's concern that I am referring to is that our special historical self consciousness leaves us with a dilemma. That truths which we find epistemically convincing are culturally, psychologically and politically destructive. In Human All Too Human Nietzsche says that 'there is no pre established harmony between the furthering of truth and the well being of humanity'. He is too brilliant to say that this is the end of the story - rather the dilemma is an open one and Nietzsche leaves it open how we will handle it. For a few references you could look to Gay Science 344 or 121, or Genealogy III 24. An ongoing book project of mine looks at the political implications fo this, so I will be talking about this more on this channel! Hope you are well.

@@VladVexler I'd be *very* interested to hear what you take to be the political implications of Nietzsche's philosophy. Is that video already available to watch, are you still working on it, or have you abandoned the idea?

JP is a very important pop phenomenon. He’s obvious not an important thinker. Although he does have more intellectual potential than he has been able to realise. He could do with some coaching.

It's my quote. I think Lasch's cultural commentary evades the question of whether the modern world is an important explanatory category or not.

@@VladVexler I'm really on board with this quote. Very well put!

@@LouigiVerona great taste!!

It’s not weird. Virtually no serious intellectual has engaged with Jordan. Certainly no serious philosopher has. It’s a fact.

@@VladVexler What designates someone as a "serious intellectual" and how are they exclusively qualified for respect in critiquing Jordan Peterson? It's absolutely strange framing.

@@TrueNeutral if you don’t discriminate between better and worse intellectually, you can’t think. This channel is about quality and discrimination. Telling apart an average chair from a well made one. The greatest Canadian thinker is Charles Taylor, who hasn’t and won’t speak to Jordan.

@@VladVexler Did it occur to you that this is because JP is a joke and so not worth the time debunk

Wasn’t meant to explain why he is popular - I will in future

This makes much sense to me. I would love you to hint at new stories that are being drowned, just to orientate me. Thank you.

@@timgoode3342 Stories that originate from the unconscious come out as fairy and folk tales, which are hard to come by in our industrialized society. You probably won't like this, but one I noticed was the 2015 Tomorrowland movie. The undertone that came out in that movie was not what the writers initially intended. They intended for it to be about hope, but below the surface was an unconscious story about the patriarchy and what was required to heal it. The movie did not do well. If you ever watch it, think of Athena as the "helpful animal" and Frank as the "wounded prince", "bear prince", or "the beast". It is a straight up fairytale and all fairytales are healing messages from the unconscious.

@@kimwelch4652 Thank you for your reply. The Parsifal myth.

"Around the hero everything becomes a tragedy, around the demi-god everything becomes a satyr play, and around God everything becomes - what? Perhaps a "world"?- " "Having a talent is not enough: one must also have your permission to have it - isn't that so, my friends?" Friedrich Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil Part IV - Aphorism # 150, 151 Is he a hero or a villain? He's a guy who integrated his shadow so he represents both, I guess. Thanks for the insight.

I'm hoping to speak to your excellent question. In a way it was Nietzsche's worry - that we may need to believe in a coherence to our culture that might not be available. A few episodes on Nietzsche are coming over the next couple of weeks where I'll at least touch on this.

Compassion is the most obvious answer to me. But that is uncontroversial so it probably wouldn't gain philosophical interest. Compassion is active whether in order or chaos, and the greatest source for nuanced and intelligent observations. But the source of compassion is after all consciousness of the self and others like the self. The ability to realize the other as equal to yourself in all fundamental ways but the superficial should be sufficient to value the other as one value the self. To many this is obvious, but if it was as obvious as one would think, then society would have it's foundation. Chaotic or not. I would argue our society contradict compassion. One way it does this is by promoting competition and strife as a fundamental must. It is held almost as a fact and a necessary factor for progress. But myself i believe in ingenuity, curiousness and passion would bring about progress even if we did not divide us in winners and loosers.

@@tahwsisiht I believe i understand you. But i still don't see the need for competition. Competition implies division. And if the self competes with itself, for the gain(improvement) of the self. Then the self, the 'i' is liable to create images that it wants to attain, and if it fails it will generate hurt and confusion. Too see this you must study the workings of the self, the nature of the self. Can we entertain a self without valuating itself? And if we do, there is acceptance and not competition. To my experience 'evil' is a small affair if there is true compassion. Evil to compassion is what a child's anger is to a mature adult. And whether we agree on competition or not, our society as a concept fosters division and competition between the divided, the other. Between good and bad. Strong and weak. Success and unsuccessful. The good and the evil. The Russian and the European. If there is compassion, one does not see division, one sees whole, the whole. There is no other, there is the world, and fundamentally we are the same. If there is compassion you will see what is not constructive, and you will act upon what is not constructive, act to be constructive. Cause the world is you and you take responsibility to better it. Evil is not a concept that hold to much value, evil disappears if there is understanding. The pain of human misunderstanding may cause sorrow of course. And again if, there is compassion there is understanding, and when there is understanding one can deal with his sorrow without being conquered by it. A curious smile untouched by any storm Thanks for taking the time to write. It was very fruitful

@@jonber9411 May I ask you a question?: Do you still watch Vlad's Videos? I am not implying anything here, I am just curious.

@@juliarichter6987 No. Why?

Thank you very much for seeing it.

Thank YOU!

But what is "sanity"?

Peterson is to public discourse what professional wrestling is to Olympic sports

Nietzsche would say that we can no longer believe in it, truthfully. Is it necessary? Nietzsche would swap that for 'can we live without it and not despair?" His answer to that is: maybe!

@@VladVexler Nobody can truly fein belief, even if they claim to. What’s the point of getting out of bed? This is something Bret Weinstein has alluded to. The exigency of a godless ritualism

That doesn't mean that's the correct thing to do.

... which will devastate people even more and drive them into more loneliness and more depression. If everyone just is supposed to live for oneself and not enageg in any collective demands and confront power positions, the powerful will have it easy. JP is a tool, paid by rich people to tell people that they shouldn't care about the business of the powerful, so they can keep exploiting the workin class.