When I watched Dr. Peterson's much celebrated lecture series on the Book of Genesis I was struck by his insistence on the psychological need, explicitly pragmatic as far as I could tell, to commit to the mythos therein. He did not seem to me to be especially concerned as to the veridical character of these stories -- there "objective" truth, as it were -- so much as he was concerned to speak to our psychological need for them. You acknowledge Dr. Peterson's pragmatism and make a brief remark as to its problematic character but do not elaborate. Then, at roughly 12:38 seconds in you appear to suggest that Peterson is being more consistent with Nietzsche than Dr. Moeller, I presume, insofar -- and, please correct me if I've interpreted you improperly -- as Dr. Peterson is openly willing to accept the prospective loss of an objective locus of value while also attempting to posit one at the same time. Am I correctly understanding you? And may I ask from what original source material by Nietzsche are you drawing this conclusion? Thank you.
@VladVexler2 жыл бұрын
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!
@dr.briank.cameron74722 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
@josephzsoka8742 жыл бұрын
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 ?
@elizabethbennet47912 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@elizabethbennet47912 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@clareoclareo2626 Жыл бұрын
I liked JP lectures and early work. Now he says things that, as a women, puts fear in me. I fear for the next generation growing up now.
@DSAK55 Жыл бұрын
That is why he's so beloved by INCELS
@tiffmeek Жыл бұрын
To my mind, the biggest problem is that people 'follow' certain personalities, and forget to think for themselves. People say 'I like Jordan Peterson' and then proceed to behave as if everything that falls out of his mouth is gospel. That's a very dangerous form of human behaviour that leads to all kinds of suffering. I almost never see comments under his videos saying "I agreed with this part, but I disagreed with that part". People become fanatical converts and these social media personalities become almost religious figureheads. I have also watched Jordan himself become less healthy as an individual over the years. He can turn the tears on and off for dramatic effect like a consumate professional. He has completely lost all humility, believing he has the intellectual capacity to educate all humanity on any topic. And there's no getting 'round the fact that he is not a happy man. In other words, he's human. And he's fallable. As are many of his arguments.
@VladVexler3 жыл бұрын
What do you think? 💭 CHAPTERS- 00:00 Jordan Peterson's critics 01:35 Hans-Georg Moeller aka Carefree Wandering and his video 'Jordan Peterson: The Mirror of Wokeism' 03:05 Hans Georg Moeller and Freud - 3 insults to human vanity 04:17 Hans Georg Moeller on Jordan Peterson and individualism 05:45 Hans Georg Moeller claims Jordan Peterson's success contradicts his own rational commitments 06:38 Critique of Jordan Peterson by Vlad Vexler 07:42 Vlad pours wine 08:17 Christopher Lasch and Jordan Peterson 09:45 Jordan Peterson - Pragmatism in philosophy 10:58 Jordan Peterson climate denial 11:50 Jordan Peterson and Friedrich Nietzsche 12:40 Nietzsche on politics & liberal democracy
@SpielkindFR2 жыл бұрын
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.
@VladVexler2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@SpielkindFR2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@uppercut1472 жыл бұрын
My critiques of Peterson are manifold, but I think the most straightforward way I could convey my distrust of him to the average person is to ask how do you trust a trained mental health professional who didn't stop to think carefully about his use of benzos? Would you trust a cook who didn't stop to think about the importance of washing his hands? Red flag #1 right there. But more importantly, how do you trust someone who had such a humbling and humanizing experience as drug addiction and hard core detox/rehab, and survived it, only to continue on "angrily moralizing" everyone else? Is it a low blow to go after his addiction problems? Perhaps. But if he wanted his humanity treated with nuance and dignity, perhaps he should have done the same for others. PLUS HE SOUNDS LIKE A MUPPET. GET BETTER HEROS, FELLAS.
@funhousebaby31042 жыл бұрын
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
@imapimplykindapimp Жыл бұрын
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
@balsarmy Жыл бұрын
I'm not sure he had addiction
@giverdend14168 ай бұрын
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.
@christopherellis26632 жыл бұрын
I rather lost interest in JP some time ago. His topics are insipid, rather than inspired.
@OscarCuzzani2 жыл бұрын
I think JP is more Jungian than Freudian. His development of the archetypes and god-like needs departs from that. And, don't forget he's a clinician and he has experiences we lack.
@mikek9297 Жыл бұрын
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.
@ryokan9120 Жыл бұрын
@@mikek9297 I disagree! Recently I saw a one-hour interview with Piers Morgan and Peterson seemed very calm, happy, and rational.
@andrewpenfold7777 Жыл бұрын
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
@HomoAesteticus2 жыл бұрын
Love your pointing out of the tension possibly inherent to the human condition, of the nietzschean sigh over our need for narrative and belonging in cosmic order to live, and our need to free ourselves from the very same thing to survive. This is something i feel so many thinkers overlook, though I might be wrong, my horizon is relatively limited. One of the more frustrating things about philosophy (at least popular philosophy done by lay-people) is the prevalence of either/or thinking, the incessant wanting to categorize clearly and define definitely. This human attribute is of course useful in the natural sciences and mathematics, but can trip us up when we talk about the meanings of our own concepts and metaphysical worldviews.
@VladVexler2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for writing this! And for watching.
@balsarmy Жыл бұрын
Recommend you Paul Ricker books
@timsullivan4566 Жыл бұрын
As you finished and swirled the rose, I was inexplicably intent on learning what it was like. Your critique took me totally by surprise and caused me to hoot aloud! (but upon reflection, the bottle was already opened and your praise for the rose at the time of pouring should attract more credibility than your final review. This suggests that you are actually a far more clever writer and performer than you would intend we be conscious aware - I've got my eye on you from now on!)
@TomekSw2 жыл бұрын
The only problem with this video is that, somehow, have only 6k views.
@thomaschad182 жыл бұрын
Be good to have a new Peterson video in light of his recent unhinged videos
@ehlowgovna2 жыл бұрын
You sir have restored my faith in humanity's ability to understand nuance.
@elizabethbennet47912 жыл бұрын
just read. are you under the age of 21?
@axlslak2 жыл бұрын
I never liked Peterson. My gripe with him was always religion. The dude actually believes in miracles. I can't possibly take someone seriously when he chants about the architype of the man and christianity. Based simply on observation, the worst possible people flock to him. Republicans, russians and muslims. They love him and his male dominated view of the world. And the dude is father of a daughter. Has to have a wife and a mother. Still holds that view. Am also certain it's telling why his fans love him so much since his first book basically tells them to clean their act and their room. Do you think they cleaned their room before posting comments about how much they love JP? I was just wondering. Personally I have to confess I didn't clean my room. But then again that's why. You can find a weird like Peterson in a lot of places btw. The Kellog guy was one. The AA guy. The scientology guy. There's all sorts of Petersons. And no, I didn't clean my room :P
@AndrewBlucher2 жыл бұрын
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.
@BrianStanleyEsq2 жыл бұрын
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?
@anjaoldnettle28412 жыл бұрын
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.
@axlslak2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@AndrewBlucher2 жыл бұрын
@@anjaoldnettle2841 You're welcome here, and certainly as qualified as anybody since you have seen his work and have an opinion!
@Nebris11 ай бұрын
Dear Vlad, this was both informative and hysterical, especially the Petersonian hand gestures. Bravo!
@markoslavicek2 жыл бұрын
I have a remark and a question, if that's okay. Regarding the map at the beginning of the video - the increasing popularity of Peterson in southeastern Europe - I believe it is because of the cultural context of this region. As someone who is originally from there, I can notice few parametres that may play an important role. First, the society in the region is still quite conservative, and Peterson seems to gain popularity among such groups. Religion is still taken very seriously there, particularly because of its plurality (Orthodox Christians, Catholic, and Muslims) and recent wars in which religion identity has been equalized with ethnic/national identity. On top of that, the societies of this area still struggle economically and quite of a lot of young and educated people move to the West, leaving the concentration of more conservative types back home. Peterson surely speaks to those desparate groups who have hard time accepting the chaos that surrounds them (to use JP's terminology), or cannot keep up with contemporary cultural trends. So that is only my observation, you don't have to take it seriously, but if you should have a comment or counterargument, I would like to hear it and reconsider my view. The question I would like to ask is if you are familiar with Nathan Robinson's critique of Peterson (The Hero We Deserve)? I would be interested in hearing your opinion on it. Thanks and keep up the good work, looking forward to future uploads.
@VladVexler2 жыл бұрын
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!
@DSAK552 жыл бұрын
because southeastern Europe is the Alabama of Europe
@ekaterinastaneva9922 Жыл бұрын
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.
@markoslavicek Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@ekaterinastaneva9922 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@LouigiVerona3 жыл бұрын
I think a lot of this criticism assumes Peterson's sincerity. But isn't it possible that, a smart man, Peterson understands that by being evasive and vague, he is able to never expose his actual views to critics. The reason why he is not a billion steps away from admitting something can be trivially explained by the fact that as soon as he distances himself away from certain views completely, he loses part of his audience and he becomes vulnerable. One can try to analyze this as a complicated worldview. But it is also possible this is just a rhetorical trick. In fact, I personally think that this is very likely.
@VladVexler3 жыл бұрын
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.
@rentaltoast22012 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler it’s like when the grifter starts falling for his own grift
@BigHeartMusicOfficial2 жыл бұрын
@@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
@AndrewBlucher2 жыл бұрын
@@BigHeartMusicOfficial Ah, so Humpty Dumpty AND the Cheshire Cat!
@BigHeartMusicOfficial2 жыл бұрын
@@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
@dh13802 жыл бұрын
I feel like lumping Peterson in with the field of philosophy is doing him waaaaaay too much credit, personally. The man is little more than a contrarian.
@crazypaulinquebec2 жыл бұрын
A contrarian on a mission to make money! In the ''old'' days they called them snake oil salesmen.
@authoritarianism41222 жыл бұрын
academese - An artificial form of communication commonly used in institutes of higher education that is designed to make small, irrelevant ideas appear important and original. Proficiency in academese is achieved when you begin inventing your own words for use in academic journal articles.-Tameri Guide for Writers
@iamg07 Жыл бұрын
I have an uncanny knack of being a bit stupid and then redeeming myself quite profoundly after a period of self reflection. For this reason I liked Peterson when I first came across him then after a period of time started to see through him for what he is. If you take away his political views his work is still quite interesting. It’s his political views that have made him famous though. If he’d never ventured into controversial political views he would not be who he is today. He’d just be an eccentric psychologist that hardly anyone had heard of. His main appeal is to socially impotent arrogant young men. If he was offering help by teaching young men how to have better reasoning skills and critical thinking skills he’d be a better influencer. He’s not though, he encourages arrogance and closed mindedness.
@burt2800 Жыл бұрын
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.
@iamg07 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@nicolascostello72762 жыл бұрын
wonderful video to enjoy with my first coffee of the day :) really like the last comments on Nietzsche. I read lots of Nietzsche at university, and it was always through the lense of his skepticism, iconoclasm - a very postmodern Nietzsche for whom truth is not important. however i always noted the complexity of his comments regarding our great "errors" - it's like he's saying "yes! throw them out" but because "they are not true enough! more truth!".
@VladVexler2 жыл бұрын
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.
@whynottalklikeapirat2 жыл бұрын
Peterson is also a suicidally depressive person with medication addiction issues creating the stories he needs to circumscribe his own highs and lows and claw his way ‘out of darkness and into the light’. It’s all very proactive, admirable, clever and entertaining, but should not really trusted out of hand, especially when it comes to proposed needs or solutions to real life problems. Especially when he takes on the guise of the “stern father”. Maybe he has had to be stern with himself about the basics of maintaining everyday existence, but why that would be relevant to everyone else, just for sprinkling a bit of moderately coherent psychologi and philosophy on top I am sure I don’t know. Frankly it seems to me he is often using philosophy to dramatize his own condition and inscribe it into a sort of overarching existential narrative spanning the full arc of human existence. That’s an easy way to appear to really tackle the fundamental issues of everyday life if you’ve got half a brain …
@lenhindle1108 Жыл бұрын
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
@whynottalklikeapirat Жыл бұрын
@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 ….
@elizabethbennet4791 Жыл бұрын
benzos arent meds baby
@whynottalklikeapirat Жыл бұрын
@@elizabethbennet4791 Better read the little piece of paper that comes with them …
@elizabethbennet4791 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@BigHeartMusicOfficial2 жыл бұрын
i think it lends peterson too much credit to analyze him as if hes a rational thinker. yes, he has a large following and i see why you think it is necessary. But once most people realize that hes just mixing psych jargon with history in a sort of random, stream of consciousness sort of way, they realize how intellectually bankrupt he rly is.
@whysoserious86662 жыл бұрын
Peterson has said something to the effect of you shouldn’t be telling people how to live if you don’t have it together yourself. Peterson clearly doesn’t have it all together so I hesitant to take any of his advice. Besides, he is a bit of a grifter. You refer to this as media savvy.
@howtoappearincompletely97392 жыл бұрын
I found your contrast between the culture of complaint and the mode of explanation especially illuminating here. And I was charmed to an unreasonable extent by the rôle played by your rosé. 😀 Thanks for the video.
@VladVexler2 жыл бұрын
That’s a lovely comment!
@PEHook Жыл бұрын
Would a rosé by any other name taste as sweet?
@YenZek2 жыл бұрын
The Peterson hand movements haha perfect ~ Nathanael
@jeffbetts94202 жыл бұрын
Analysing Peterson from a philosophical viewpoint seems pointless to me. We go around in circles. By far the most valuable critiques in my view come from Cass Eris who unpacks Petersons word salads and researches the references he uses when making the many controversial statements he makes. Because her expertise is psychology she is able to judge Peterson on territory he is supposed to be expert on, psychology. Why get bogged down in philosophy when Peterson simply uses it to make himself sound intellectual. In short Cass rates several chapters E and if I recall no chapter higher than a C. Important for those of us who find Petersons political rants a little hard to stomach.
@VladVexler2 жыл бұрын
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.
@williamgill_esq.64872 жыл бұрын
@Jeff, Disagree completely.
@jeffbetts94202 жыл бұрын
@@williamgill_esq.6487 No doubt you will agree with the latest rants from Peterson on Trans and Wokeism. Intellectual?
@arnowisp62442 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@jeffbetts94202 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@LaurentParis4303 жыл бұрын
Thank you for sharing your thoughts Vlad, please continue to do so. I love how you take a moment to mention the beautiful natural rose :)
@VladVexler3 жыл бұрын
Such a lovely comment - take good care!
@edmundfreeman72032 жыл бұрын
As near as I can figure about JP, his deep philosophy is: Life is about men in conflict with other men, and the place to win that conflict is in your own mind. On issues, he chooses positions that lets him make strident arguments that he can convince himself that he has won. Making a more fundamental critique of our society that can lead to better lives is irrelevant.
@theothermorgan2 жыл бұрын
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.
@takeshikodama56712 жыл бұрын
Was this shot after the 'I adjudicate' video? I like this one better. Graphics, the script, the microphone, they are all working. You seem to be growing on me. I don't recognize any of those smart people and I'd love to familiarize myself with their ideas through your channel as a layperson. For the amount of work that must be going into making this video, I think your video deserve move views. When does that hand gesture of yours become yours and not from imitation of Peterson's? Funny yet Serious. It's quite enjoyable to watch but you're quite intense. And the thing you speak about are on point. So much so, I'm not retaining much after watching the video... Are you friends with Hans Georg Moeller? Your production and ideas are as addictive as his. The pinned comment and your reply was super helpful, thank you. _"Life no Argument. We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we can live - by the postulating of bodies, lines, surfaces, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content: without these articles of faith no one could manage to live at present! But for all that they are still unproved. Life is no argument; error might be among the conditions of life."_ Friedrich Nietzsche - The Gay Science Book III - Aphorism # 121 As far as the life's condition goes, isn't that the language that goes head to head with the basic condition of life we have? The unconditional will sounds like the direction, as in everything will lose the energy eventually and DIE. Yes, we try to tell us that there's a trial and error method. Life, live, Live! life. Life is a no-where argument? Life knows arguments. But hey, you are the thing-in-itself, right? I don't know what sovereign rationality is exactly. For someone like Dr.Peterson, it becomes his business to step inside of your head, almost uninvited. He's riveting tough. One last note. Have you thought about commenting about his other stuff? Jung and Dostoevsky?
@danwylie-sears11342 жыл бұрын
"Peterson is such a big phenomenon that we've got to acknowledge that unless we get him right, we're not going to understand something about us ourselves ..." Get him right in terms of what he actually says, or in terms of what makes him a phenomenon? Either way, he's only been a phenomenon for a bit over a decade, and most of us have been trying to understand stuff about ourselves for considerably longer. Having to get Marx right would make sense -- I don't think we have to get Marx right, but the thesis that we have to get him right is one that I find intelligible -- because of the influence that Marx had on others who have had influence on us. I don't see how anything similar could apply to Peterson. ... Maybe it's that I'm now part of a different "us" than I used to be? And now the climate crisis. I guess I'll go watch the problem with climate messaging, before I finish this video.
@helmutgensen47382 жыл бұрын
Did one semester of philosophy in 1973 with a professor who limped up and down the long desk in a long leather coat and black sombrero: Q 'Can we prove that God exists?' A 'No but we can't prove that God doesn't exist!' Peterson is like a pneumatic drill in my teeth. I much prefer to listen to Kiri Te Kanawa singing Richard Stauss' Four Last Songs. Or reading Iain McGilchrist (whom you know) on new ways of thinking. My point here is that culture isn't just done to us. In order to transform - if not - transcend our spiritual poverty, we must actively participate in culture from a young age. It starts with the toys we give our children to play with and ends with the glass of 'natural rosé' which didn't appear to agree with you?
@chicagofineart95462 жыл бұрын
so, your philosophy teacher was 1. a Jesuit, 2. a Lebovich rebbi, or 3. a kinky dominatrix?
@helmutgensen47382 жыл бұрын
@@chicagofineart9546 definitely No.3 - he seemed to come from the set of "How I learned to love the Bomb'
@eskokauppila1327 Жыл бұрын
"...friedrich nietzsche was perhaps in my theologianstudies, it has to be atheist, but when philosophier began outside in the "mountins" behind the walls in atena, it was a 'feeling of oxygen':" people love how inteligently they could discuss."
@seht19122 жыл бұрын
I'm not an academic, a musician and fine arts person so hardly qualified to judge Peterson but I find his talks difficult to follow, and self serving as if he's trying to convince himself. Others I could listen to with ease was Christopher Hitchens. His arguments were supremely comfortable.
@crazypaulinquebec2 жыл бұрын
Hitchens is heaven (sorry CH, I know you were an atheist) and Jorden P is ... well, Purgatory? ;-)) Sorry, such an easy joke!!
@juliarichter6987 Жыл бұрын
Yes, he is trying to convince himself. Desperately. You might not be an academic, but for sure you are a natural.
@MR-intel2 жыл бұрын
On the charlatan: "The question arises whether Peterson deceived himself, hypnotized by his own inspiring jargon, or whether he boldly set out to deceive and bewitch others. I am satisfied that the latter is the case." "Peterson's argument is full of logical mistakes and of tricks, presented with pretentious impressiveness. This undermines and lowers the traditional standards of intellectual responsibility and honesty."
@juliarichter6987 Жыл бұрын
I refuse to use anything else than psychology to explain Jordan Peterson, as I believe in poetic justice (whenever possible): Being (constantly) angry is a trick to not get a depression, means he is depressive, means, everything he says, in realidad, is about him.
@richardoldfield67142 жыл бұрын
My own view is that it's *far more* than just Freud's "three insults to vanity" (plus Hans Georg Moeller's claimed 4th insult) that make the conditions of the modern world special and have led to loss of belief in any "cosmic" or over-arching human narrative. And although these four insults have certainly fed into today's state of affairs, one might argue that their effect is not so much “God is dead”, but more “human vanity is dead”, which is something quite different.
@BubblegumCreepydoll2 жыл бұрын
I have listens to Jordan Peterson somewhat, and it’s not that I don’t understand what he’s saying, but that I find him at a paradox within himself. I didn’t think too much about it, because I’m just not that interested in thinking about Jordan Peterson, but I do find him perplexing enough that I couldn’t really explain it. I thought maybe he was just very well educated but a bit stupid. But I wasn’t really satisfied with that answer. Sometimes he seems to go on talking and it leads nowhere or like he’s having a circular argument with himself. I’m really not sophisticated enough to explain this, but something feels so off with him. Thank you for this video.
@VladVexler2 жыл бұрын
My pleasure - I will be doing a bigger explanation of JP as a phenomenon. He is still not at his peak of popularity!
@BubblegumCreepydoll2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@meregaming17702 жыл бұрын
@@BubblegumCreepydoll That's what puts me off too, it's like he's begging for pity as a shield. Straight up church manipulator vibes.
@takeshikodama56712 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler May I ask that you share some observation about JP haters too? His popularity grows bigger and bigger somehow. :D
@DSAK55 Жыл бұрын
"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.
@ABB56. Жыл бұрын
You really should do more videos like this. I love all the videos on russia but occasionally would like something more like this.
@Fanaro2 жыл бұрын
Even Zizek was very meh in his debate with JP.
@BrianStanleyEsq2 жыл бұрын
I was struck by a JP video showing the interior of his house, which is dominated by Soviet-era posters, several portraying or quoting Lenin. Why this fascination? Even before the fall of the USSR, the problems of thoroughgoing materialism hardly received the serious attention they deserve. "Peterson uses Pragmatism as sticky tape to attach teleology to the modern world"-- accurately observed and well said, but if I may psychologize I think Peterson is repressing his own inner "thoroughgoing materialist." This kind of repression produces gaps and conflicts of the kind his few thoughtful critics have observed, gaps and conflicts that would be there even if JP were an "important thinker." (Is there a pragmatic yardstick of importance?)
@VladVexler2 жыл бұрын
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.
@crazypaulinquebec2 жыл бұрын
Very interesting analysis Vlad! Thanks!! Oh, just by the colour of the ''wine'' I would have abstained myself ;-)
@Buccaneer196811 ай бұрын
Peterson is fast food for the the masses. He's neither a particular thoughtful thinker or of above average intelligence. He just popular because he has the kind of hubris which makes the shallow points he makes seem noteworthy. It's varnish.
@dionysian22214 күн бұрын
He markets evoking emotions.
@lenhindle1108 Жыл бұрын
Hahaha .....Profundity and comedy....an unusual blend.....you are man of many talents..... I would never say your contributions even vaguely resemble watermelon candy, but you can be sweet.... not cringingly sweet just endearingly so.. thanks for the entertainment and the education. Keep up the amazing work Vlad.
@TrassseB Жыл бұрын
The amount of prophetic personalities that have emerged this last decade is interesting tells us a little about the state of humanity right now
@sausage4mash2 жыл бұрын
Peterson is a mix of evolutionary psychology and Christian apologetics for me that's like oil and water, no wonder he comes across so vexed
@davidgalloway2662 жыл бұрын
Interesting analysis. I don't mind Jordan except that he seems allergic to evidence. He draws on fiction to try to prove points about the world. As an empiricist (once a scientist always a scientist) I find that a bit silly. Enjoy your wine.
@LoneWolf-wp9dn Жыл бұрын
Easiest philosophy to justify is nihilism
@danieljulian46762 жыл бұрын
You're a very patient man, Vexler, but I think it is unwise to waste this much energy on a shyster like Peterson, unless you're just trying to grow your channel. You should get to know people who really do know what they're doing, like engineers. When their ideas are bad, their designs blow up or collapse. No one can tell what happens to the bad ideas of shysters. Some of them even get rich. Peterson has an academic post, and you do not, which is not the only difference between the two of you. You're better off not having such a post, in more ways than one.
@meregaming17702 жыл бұрын
I don't think JP is particularly intelligent (not stupid, not noteworthy) or that he even really has a philosophy, he's smoke and mirrors. JP's philosophy is like the enlightenment of somebody tripping on acid, always one thought out of reach, circling endlessly around a core of something that probably is real, but which the thinker only grasps as an emotion or a dream rather than a structured thought. I'll see if I change my mind after the video.
@adaptercrash Жыл бұрын
You should know that like Hume regardless if it's spelled out you are expressing it in your behavior
@erlinggaratun67262 жыл бұрын
I agree with your qritique of JP's inability to properly explain historical context. This is clear when he brings up religion. What I find in his arguments on religion is a lack of historical context as well, and it seems to be the result of intellectual laziness, in my opinion. He simply does not know the history of religion (one of my favourite topics), even his own religion, which I guess is Catholisism (not important). He goes out on a limb that consists of having read a book or two, and claims to understand the subject. I am sure he knows psychology well, when honestly given the context of the patient/client. Fine. But I am also sure he does not really analyze history or religion, either due to laziness, or to bias. The result is the same in either case.
@VladVexler2 жыл бұрын
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.
@erlinggaratun67262 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@petercampbell25362 жыл бұрын
Where did the critique of JP: Is The West at Civil War video go? I can’t find it, but wanted to share it with a friend.
@ChristianrnstrupRasmussen2 жыл бұрын
You should do some b-rolls. Maybe showing your nice sign or the books you have in background with the lo-fi music as an overlap between topics. Your talks are good and reflective by the way.
@TheFlutecart2 жыл бұрын
Peterson's perpetual projection of angry individualism and pretentious mannerisms obviously intended to emanate his "alpha -male" identity have turned me off from much of what he says. I don't find him to be as intelligent as he is he is presented. He is pretty smart to make money on it, no easy feat, but I hear no wisdom in his thoughts and words. I'm a student of the old Stoic and Taoist meditations, so I'm just stumbling around with modern schools of thought But I personally find all the parlor tricks and use of baseless belief for purpose to be tedious and selfish. Good video, it helped me define more precisely what it is about that dude that I mistrust.
@chrisanderson78202 жыл бұрын
Hmmmm, I am absolutely a layman and not a student of philosophy but I'm not sure I agree with 5:00 regarding the lack of ability to steer society directly and not just through an ego-fueled need to feel in control. IMHO there is a significant variance in different individual's ability to be "effective" in steering society, we see it in the past history of revolutionaries, in current day technologists and demagogues, while yes they are a product of our society and are funneling larger systemic trends we still have a very large component of driving those trends. Whilst most people might be caught up and captive to this complexity it doesn't stop a certain percentage of the population from being exceptionally effective in driving society compared to their peers. I understand he says we have agency but insufficient to effect the system but I don't see any proof of that, just a statement that SEEMS to contradict history. Hope I am not misunderstanding his point.
@g3air32 жыл бұрын
where we are at.....
@joshuadavis58998 ай бұрын
Hello, on the general subject of philosophy, in the video game "Deux Ex", an AI talks about humans having created god as an idea of perfect government and the need for humans to be observed and judged that the AI shall now conveniently assume. I think is interesting and was wondering what your take on that is.
@seanferguson5460 Жыл бұрын
Appreciate the discussion. Peterson interests me as an academic and as a clinical psychologist. I find him less interesting when he steps outside that sphere but I agree that many of his critics lack intellectual rigour.
@matthewmulkeen5 ай бұрын
I love the graphic showing lobsters in southern Europe 😂
@user-ov5nd1fb7s Жыл бұрын
It's very hard for me to accept philosophers as intellectuals. Intellectualism is in the hard sciences and engineering. Philosophy is a form of auto eroticism.
@slavapoltava2 жыл бұрын
Rose? Get yourself a proper whiskey, Vladimir.
@PRAR19662 жыл бұрын
I wish I'd been here for this and would have dropped my cat among your pigeons - Something like - You are misguided in your attempts to interpret JP as you've brought the wrong tools and you may well be standing with both feet in academia rather than society . I came to JP after Robert Sapolsky lectures so my process is different. Lastly - academics are a lovely bunch but they drive the worst cars and in a dodgy fashion - something about practical application, as if a set of mental cogs have been usurped. Love ya work Vlad
@rumination23992 жыл бұрын
as someone who used to closely follow JBP prior to his pronouns infamy I was instantly struck by the truth of your opening comment that everyone criticising him is mostly dumber while the smarter people say little. I watched him crash into the culture wars, initially with relish but increasingly with exhaustion and concern. Sad to see how rigid he's become in his conservatism (the way he uses 'postmodern' is hopelessly calcified and you're right about his environmental minimalism). To hear you describe his problem specifically as a lack of historic specificity feels very close to the mark. Thanks for the good laugh you gave me in this video with the wine rush yet taking the time to smell it. A dose of the Dionysian for the angry Jungian.
@DSAK55 Жыл бұрын
"while the smarter people say little" because he's not worth the effort
@DSAK552 жыл бұрын
Probing his philosophy should be done by a proctologist
@gemeinschaftsgeful Жыл бұрын
A friend of mine that watches Tucker Carlson all the time recommended that I watch Jordan Peterson so that recommendation made me leery of him and his bent.
@WillowGardener2 жыл бұрын
I think there are much more concrete, less abstract criticisms to level at Jordan Peterson. Most notably--and I think you started to touch on this--he frequently confuses Western norms with human norms due to a very poor understanding of anthropology. For example, in one lecture he started talking about how monogamy is both a key tenet of Western social organization and also a human default--when even a cursory study of human culture reveals a very wide array of relational organization. In another video of his, I saw him speaking about how a study found that terminal cancer patients, when given hallucinogenic mushrooms, did not have a higher rate of "bad trips" than a control group. From this he concluded that environment has no beating whatsoever on whether a person will have a bad trip. Of course any person with any experience at all in psychedelics can immediately see the flaw in that logic--namely that your likelihood of having a bad trip depends much more on the conditions of your immediate environment than on the base conditions of your life (e.g. bad trips are more common when you are cold). Once you notice this tendency in Peterson's thinking, you start to see it in almost everything he says. He very quickly jumps to global conclusions about issues he has limited knowledge of based on limited context. You can see this in his conflation of Leninism with Postmodernism, in his obsession with the nuclear family as the only viable family unit, and so on. Peterson is obsessed with the cultural default within which he was raised--he starts with a sense of nostalgia toward and glorification of the Western world of the twentieth century, and seeks evidence to support his conclusion that "20th century Western World = good". Of course this is fundamentally the reverse of how an intellectual should approach a topic. Peterson is frightened of change and lashing out at a world that he finds uncomfortable. This has made him a demagogue, leading him to do things like rejecting an ethics board review of his research and claiming that he is the only one who can judge the morality of his work. Some of the initial data Peterson has researched or compiled actually is very interesting, and I find that when I watch his videos, he is often starting from a very sane and rational place. But the more analysis he puts into a topic, the more he allows his personal prejudice to warp the interpretation of data. I would even go so far as to hypothesize that much of Peterson's concern with the issue that made him famous--that of trans rights--is a discomfort with his own femininity. One of the topics Peterson is obsessed with is delineating the differences between men and women. In one lecture, he claims that ALL women have a desperate need to have a child (then follows it up by saying any woman who doesn't is mentally ill--of course this is indulging in the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy and, in my opinion, illustrates that Peterson is acting out of prejudice rather than reason). In another video, he talks about how much he loves children, how he used to work in a preschool and found the work incredibly rewarding. He is very concerned with gendered tendencies in the Michigan Multiphasic Personality Index, and in one lecture notes that women tend to be more neurotic, more empathetic, and more agreeable. In another lecture, he speaks to his neuroticism; in another, he speaks to his extreme empathy for his clients (indeed, I believe empathy is a major driving force for him); in another lecture, he notes that he is specifically ashamed that he is naturally agreeable. By Peterson's own definition of gender, his personality would be categorized as highly feminine. This information clarifies his obsession with traditional masculinity, especially his youthful attempts to perform masculinity in a flamboyant manner. He has spoken about how he used to wear a Sherlock Holmes cape everywhere, and I have seen him wearing a flashy fedora on his public access channel TV show, before he was famous. In my personal experience, these sort of aesthetic-oriented attempts at portraying the masculinity of a bygone era are very typical of naturally feminine men who are trying to convince the world that they are in fact extremely macho. Once you start viewing Peterson's rhetoric through the lens that he is a self-hating transgender woman, his positions start to become much more consistent.
@764Kareltje2 жыл бұрын
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.
@Edvinas9112 жыл бұрын
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.
@spambot_gpt72 жыл бұрын
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
@WillowGardener2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@spambot_gpt72 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@tommitchell63072 жыл бұрын
Have you released a box set?
@graham197103010 Жыл бұрын
Ahh, Vlad, this is a little gem to keep coming back to. Reminds me of what I find wrong with Jordan Peterson but can't put my finger on. Thank you 😊
@buggerall Жыл бұрын
While an interesting watch there is a premise assumed here that when wrong basically makes the entire argument moot. First of all, while you may not consider other critiques of JP worthwhile, they have IMO dissected JP quite well. None of these critiques however were shown in your video. That said, I doubt you would take them serious either. And I consider that to be your loss, candidly speaking. Secondly you claim that he is more intelligent then the ones critiquing him. I would say that he isn't. At least not in philosophy and argumentation. Thirdly you consider him to be not too political. That's a big mistake and leads to a misunderstanding of what drives him and what is his actual goal. I am reminded of an article in a Canadian Newspaper around the time he became a media figure where a journalist reacted quite surprised about the hype: "He's a conservative hack! What did you expect?" Not understanding that is a grave mistake. You can philosopher about him as much as you like but that's the purpose of his media existence. And he certainly isn't the only one at that. Jordan Peterson is not so much a philosopher. He's above all a conservative. His philosophical explanations are just there to patch the holes in his ideas. Or, better said to disguise the true meaning of what he is trying to accomplish. His goal is the same goal all conservative talking heads have: protecting his assets, his fans. I don't think he is trying to help them. I think he's is trying to keep them where they are. He thrives in the current climate.
@markoslavicek3 жыл бұрын
I read quite a few, but not all Nietzsche's works, and when I stumble upon the thoughts I'm not familiar with, such as the ones you mention here, I wish to correct this mistake and cover his entire bibliography. Would you mind directing us to the exact source of the topics you touched in this video (to live without despair)? Thanks in advance and looking forward to future uploads.
@VladVexler3 жыл бұрын
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.
@howtoappearincompletely97392 жыл бұрын
@@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?
@TLMS654 Жыл бұрын
Without an understanding of the soul and a faculty psychology you can't resolve arguments for and against subjectivism and objectivism. It is not that man is the measure of all things, but it is that things which exist are measurable and man made measures exist - taller, younger, more beautiful, more truthful perhaps etc. Could there be other measures that would be proportional to the intellect of man - unknowable/subject to faith. Something often omitted from very high level intellectual type conversations is that without a faculty psychology there is no causing of ethics, there is no maintaining of ethics and there is no discussion possible on ethics. Philosophy began with a notion of a soul and consequent on this the further the notion of the soul recedes from the centrality of discourse the less the particular discourse is philosophical.
@UltimaCorvus2 жыл бұрын
I would like to ask about the wine; what is it? I need to know.
@jgolbitz2 жыл бұрын
I'm enjoying your channel Vlad... You may have heard the anecdote about a great student of politics referring to John Rawl's Theory of Justice as being "partly new and partly good." I've never read Peterson, and as I have finite time and there's Nietzsche, I have no plans to.
@VladVexler2 жыл бұрын
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.
@throfur3489 Жыл бұрын
Jordan petersons debate vs matt dillahunty explored enough for me to show the errors in petersons thinking.
@ghfudrs93uuu Жыл бұрын
Nietzsche may be superficial political thinker, but ignoring his very clear politics doesn't serve anyone but those who want our democracies to die(like Nietzsche himself).
@JoeJohnston-taskboy Жыл бұрын
Peterson's thinking is muddled and shallow. PZ Myers and others have covered this. He recycles Jung and Campbell without adding much and examining less. He takes his pot reveries seriously. He is gamergate with a thesaurus. He is, however, a talented pitchman for angry young man. I doubt he believes much of what he says publicly.
@nataliiateteruk585 Жыл бұрын
Hey Vlad l, the channel PARALLAX they talk much about philosophy stance of Jordan Peterson. Mostly notarius is Alexander Bard who is a Swedish philosopher in eventology. Please contact Parallax.
@LouigiVerona3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for the video, Vlad! And thank you for exposing us to Hans Georg Moeller. What is the quote about Lasch complaining that you show in the video at 8:18?
@VladVexler3 жыл бұрын
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.
@LouigiVerona3 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler I'm really on board with this quote. Very well put!
@VladVexler3 жыл бұрын
@@LouigiVerona great taste!!
@TrueNeutral2 жыл бұрын
Pretty weird and off putting framing at the beginning calling everyone who has critiqued Jordan Peterson thus far as less intelligent than him. I can't say thats objectively true.
@VladVexler2 жыл бұрын
It’s not weird. Virtually no serious intellectual has engaged with Jordan. Certainly no serious philosopher has. It’s a fact.
@TrueNeutral2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@VladVexler2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@DSAK55 Жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler Did it occur to you that this is because JP is a joke and so not worth the time debunk
@wordscapes5690 Жыл бұрын
I do not understand people's attraction - even after your video.
@VladVexler Жыл бұрын
Wasn’t meant to explain why he is popular - I will in future
@ppemusic236 Жыл бұрын
Your affectation of pouring yourself a glass of wine in the middle of your critique makes it seem more like satire.
@davidkeepman45702 жыл бұрын
Your fantastic! It’s a lovely conversation. I’m glad you agree… like I said before
@seantiz Жыл бұрын
Peterson uses his psychology expertise to bolster his political agenda. I’d like to hear an analysis of his religious beliefs which are the underpinnings for his political beliefs.
@serious4170 Жыл бұрын
Just lovely analysis and perhaps a good wine🤗❤👍🤣
@kimwelch46522 жыл бұрын
"Can we invent new stories that justify our old institutions?" No. Stories that contain life originate in the organic realm of the unconscious. You cannot consciously invent them. Worse, you cannot put new wine in old wine skins. I know we do not use wine skins anymore so nobody really understands that metaphor, but our old institutions will crack, break and burst under the weight of new stories even if we could put our hands on such stories. Alchemically, the old king is dying--the old king is dead, and until the new king arises from the old king's ashes, we must wander aimlessly through the wreckage. I have seen hints of new stories out there, but they are drowned in the effluvia of our current social babble. Maybe we need to re-learn the lost art of being still and listening with the heart rather than the head.
@timgoode33422 жыл бұрын
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.
@kimwelch46522 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@timgoode33422 жыл бұрын
@@kimwelch4652 Thank you for your reply. The Parsifal myth.
@kimbo5030 Жыл бұрын
Glue his door shut again
@sethmortimer11612 жыл бұрын
I’m very much on board with undoing the deceit of “sovereign individual but Im having trouble visualising the “social spheres” which comprise the 4th insult. And having identified these ‘spheres of group agency’ is Nietzsche BG&E #151 a neat example of this modern reality?
@takeshikodama56712 жыл бұрын
"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.
@burt2800 Жыл бұрын
I wonder who here knows about Jonathan Pageau
@elizabethbennet47912 жыл бұрын
JayPee is phenomenally lowbrow. Ugh.
@itamarshap2 жыл бұрын
I really appreciate the remark about Moeller not engaging in our need to believe SOME story. If there is such a need (?). I definitely tend to Moeller's approach rather than Peterson's, but I do find myself clueless about what CAN or SHOULD tie us together, as a society, when everything is chaotic by nature
@VladVexler2 жыл бұрын
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.
@jonber94112 жыл бұрын
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.
@jonber94112 жыл бұрын
@@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
@juliarichter6987 Жыл бұрын
@@jonber9411 May I ask you a question?: Do you still watch Vlad's Videos? I am not implying anything here, I am just curious.
@jonber9411 Жыл бұрын
@@juliarichter6987 No. Why?
@Ophaganestopolis2 жыл бұрын
While I don't have the knowledge to critizise or analyze Jordan Peterson's philosophical ideas, I know what my instinct tells me about him: He says two truths (or apparently solid arguments) and, between them, he hides one toxic idea (in regards to women, in regards to the hability of different cultures to live peacefully over time, etc.) that sounds like a personal opinion, without citing any example or source, like some sort of hidden misanthropic micro axiom. Truth, poison, truth, repeat. In my view, that makes him a dangerous kind of communicator, because many people in his audience might not be able to distinguish what is toxic and what not, and over time they themselves get infected by his toxicity.
@williamfrost35543 жыл бұрын
Great upload. Thank you for sharing.
@VladVexler3 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much for seeing it.
@wordscapes5690 Жыл бұрын
Do DB Hart - there's a REAL challenge. ;)
@crystalratclffe32582 жыл бұрын
I enjoy your videos very much
@VladVexler2 жыл бұрын
Thank YOU!
@adimo66732 жыл бұрын
Jordan Peterson is rather an angry agitator than a philosopher. He is intelligent and articulate but also confusing, shallow and ready to emit platitudes while having succumbed to the very issues he should be able to fix in others as a clinical psychologist. Unfortunately, he is empowering the disenfranchised and confused young white males who lost their racial and gender supremacy and are looking for a guru figure to restore their superiority. Even worse, he is doing it obviously on purpose, because it confers him a certain status of stardom, and that is the real danger of Jordan Peterson, the agitator.
@mandyshanks23272 жыл бұрын
No idea what you are talking about. Individuals have to be sane in order to interact in peace and harmony.
@jnagarya5192 жыл бұрын
But what is "sanity"?
@elizabethbennet47912 жыл бұрын
DANGIT THAT FREUD QUOTE ABOUT THE THREE BLOWS TO EGO IS SO FUCKIN A!!!
@tiffmeek Жыл бұрын
While I agree or disagree with various statements that Peterson makes on the field of psychology, I do enjoy and appreciate the debates that he produces. But on the topic of climate change he has absolutely no idea whatsoever. He should stick to his field.
@DSAK55 Жыл бұрын
Peterson is to public discourse what professional wrestling is to Olympic sports
@Samsgarden3 жыл бұрын
So the idea of a cosmic schema is both redundant and necessary? Do we require a superposition of teleological thinking and post modernism?
@VladVexler3 жыл бұрын
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!
@Samsgarden3 жыл бұрын
@@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
@Mnnwer Жыл бұрын
Jordan has spent his whole life EXPLAINING how to solve these cultural ills, because he believes that the root of all societal problems are psychological. So the line: "clean your room before you criticize the world", sums up his whole theory of how to obtain individualism and a better functioning society.
@AmandaFromWisconsin Жыл бұрын
That doesn't mean that's the correct thing to do.
@TheLeftPath6 ай бұрын
... 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.
@holgerstark9654 Жыл бұрын
I like the "angry moralisation" description of JP. He does indeed shout his views and conclusions to the audience as if there can't be any possibility for an alternative interpretation or a possibility of minor errors in his assessments. In Science it is actually evident that having not all the right and full information about a given problem will always make you draw wrong conclusions. This is why leaving out information in a scientific study is considered as fraud. Now considering the complexity of the topics that he discusses, it seems to me somewhat overly self confident to draw conclusions without being possibly in the position of knowing everything that is needed to draw such strong conclusions. It is also shocking that the complete absence of error bars in these assessments about highly complex topics that have an outragesly large parameter space seems not to cause any doubts either. Maybe your entire field should consider to work with error bars in your assessments and assign probablities that you might be wrong. My guess would be that if you did, the entire error propagation model would teach yourself a lot about being more modest in your final assessments. Ultimately, this would maybe also reduce the unpleasant shouting to the audience or how you call it "angry moralisation"