To everyone saying these two should have a live conversation: Nuance critique like the one Professor Moeller is doing cannot be done live. Live conversations tend to favor those who are flashier and better orators. The best scenario would be a video response by Jordan Peterson and hopefully Professor Moeller can respond back here again.

For someone who preaches the virtues of resilience, Jordan Peterson seems awfully sensitive to criticism.

I find it quite amusing to see how Möller behaves in a way that Peterson seemingly advocates while he himself completely fails to behave appropriately. In both videos, Möller is calm and polite and expresses his thoughts in a mature and easy-to-understand way. Peterson's response in contrast is full of spite, pettiness, and straight-up self-indulgence- not all how any academic should respond to an honest critic. Of course, Peterson doesn't have to agree with Möller but his comment is completely ridiculous and immature. It astounds me how this man can complain over and over again to be misunderstood, yet is seemingly unable to express himself in an understandable way. I mean even his very comment of the video is such a pile of unnecessarily long sentences and elaborate terms that I thought I am reading some sociological article about which Peterson likes to rant about.

I love how they always flash scihub when showing a paper. Even as a professor, openly supporting the free access of knowledge.

I wasn't expecting that ending. Thank you very much professor for curating your profile.

Your framework of profilicity is one of those frameworks that makes me feel like new possibilities of understanding have opened up for me. It is especially important in regards to understanding how public discourse actually works right now, and the power that figures like Peterson have, as well as the power, and practical limitations, of the whole left tube sphere. I have no doubt that you're gonna be huge on this platform in a year or two yourself if you keep posting.

Bruh, i was going to say that Professor Peterson was sounding like a priest and you just addressed it.

I like watching someone enjoy what they do. Good way to start off the morning.

"religion is not for the healthy, it is based on the cultivation of sickness. The question can be asked, Is that also the case for civil religion?" That one is going in my note book.

Hegel says of philosophy that while it is not 'mathematical cognition', it is "not to be replaced by the non-method of presentiment and inspiration, or by the arbitrariness of prophetic utterance, both of which despise not only scientific pomposity, but scientific procedure of all kinds" (pg 29 paragraph 49 of the Phenomenology). This video is a wonderful demonstration of the 'arbitrariness of prophetic utterance' which Hegel speaks of. Such things can be methods of healing but not much of a philosophy. Excellent work.

Wow, he completely and cogently dismantled Jordan Peterson’s whole public 'brand' in 30 minutes.

Imagine getting Nietzsche less right than PewDiePie lmao

Prof. Moeller- no critiques today, no nuance- just compliments. Keep doing what you are doing! It seems that Peterson's cultural awareness of the forces that impact our modern Western subjectivity is lacking. Sincerely, an anthropologist

What's funny to me is that in Peterson's closing question, he shows that he hasn't taken any time at all to actually try to understand your position. Pretty on-brand for him, really.

dang... that ending is COLD... 😭😭

Here's the one thing I learned... This man has read The Dark Knight: Knightfall. Actually this was very enlightening and has put two new books on my reading list. Including the zhuangzi that's three. Also, damn. That was a sick burn there at the end. Whether intentional or not, that was third degree, skin graft type shit.

Hi! as someone who has spent the past year delving much deeper into my own philosophy, I have been getting a tremendous amount of value out of your channel. I was curious if you had any thoughts on Robert M. Pirsig? I was in a bad place a few months ago and found Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance very powerful, but would be curious of the thoughts of someone more versed in the ideas discussed in the book (or its sequel Lila)

Excellent video! I really feel like I learned something important here. I feel like your encouragement to not be too invested in our identity is a welcome one. Thank you for this and all that you do!

I see people in the comments talking about the closing remark with Pewdiepie, how it was supposedly "cold" or how it was a "cheap shot". I feel that these comments more reflect the commenter's prejudgement towards Pewdiepie and I feel it misses the previous point that professor made about the therapeutic suggestion of not being too invested in your profile. Jordan Peterson seems to be highly invested in curating his profile; how he interprets Nietzsche has strong implications in the profile he curates. Bringing Pewdiepie into the disscusion (a person he reviewed previously on this exact topic) was more a comparison between two persons that both have a take on Nietzsche, but one of them had less investment in the profile that he curates than the other (an attitude that the professor encourages right at the end). So it makes sense to bring Pewdiepie as an example as he not only has the same interpretation of Nietzsche as the professor (so they are in agreement), but he also has the attitude that the professor encourages (so in a sense, more carefree). I feel that this was the subtext here, not a jab at Peterson.

The Pewdiepie thing was really an excellent bit to close an extremely well constructed video xD But in all seriousness, I sincerely appreciate the quality of this one : it was especially clear and well designed. Thank you professor !

I love how clear and accessible you are in these videos. It's always a pleasure to watch these.

Nothing short of a brilliant, well thought out analysis. There is so much to think about here, not the least of which is the ways and speed at which these civil religions are spread today via advanced tech/media. I absolutely loved the ending: that it could be helpful for us in sifting through the evolution of these religions and our own identities if we are honest with ourselves about how our identities are being formed but to take identity itself with a bit less importance, fascinating, thank you!

Perfect breakfast video. Thank you Professor!

This whole 'beef' is very hilarious

The vehement arguing by a few (maybe more to come) Peterson's supporters in the comments low-key shows how polarising he is as a figure and how his dogmatic religious (civil and not) ethics drive people to "fight for the right thing" and for their "prophet".

You guys should have an actual live conversation.

you can tell moeller really delights in unraveling what peterson passes off as arguments

lol calling peterson a brand is gonna piss people off. It's right tho, I see no difference between twilight fangirls and peterson fanboys.

Im glad we can all agree that Peterson doesn't understand Nietzsche

Teaching You and Your Profile for the next month or so to my intro class. Found out about the text through the channel. Love your work! -Carlos

all these comments saying cold ending actually got me watching the entire video just to say, ' godamn that's cold'

“We are going to be critical but not judgemental” is worse than “I’m not mad just disappointed”

_"Culture and fashion are wracked by pointless ideological wars. Whichever ideology wins immediately becomes cliché."_

when jordan peterson talks about giving people language for stuff they intuitively know to be true I'm struck by how that is a perfect description of confirmation bias.

I love your wry smile throughout this. It's rather like watching an adult explain some nonsense that a 5 year old believes.

Please do video on the one and only Žizek the slavoj himself and so on and son and ("sniff") so on ...

The simmered grin at the beginning of this video, my man couldn't contain his excitement

lol that carefree attitude is going to disturb him

Despite my dislike for most of what Peterson stands for and has to say now, I am admittedly grateful to him because it was through him that I discovered Nietzsche and therefore became interested in philosophy. Funnily enough it was due to Peterson and the philosophical rabbit hole he caused me to fall down that I became disenchanted with him. And I think if there is anything positive to come from Jordan, it is that he has inspired people to read Nietzsche, Sartre, Jung etcetera.

"You say 'I' and you are proud of this word. But greater than this -- although you will not believe in it -- is your body and its great intelligence, which does not say 'I' but performs 'I'." - Friedrich Nietzsche, 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'.

Thank you for the video. Even as a layman your videos have been very thought provoking and informative. Also is that Volume 1 of Blame! by Tsutomu Nihei on your shelf?!

Hello, thank you for your video. I´m not certain, if i understood everything correctly. I, as always, have to watch your videos a couple of times. To my point: the link for Derridas Essay is not working. And: what books would you recommend, to understand modern society? Thank you!

This was extremely digestible and interesting. I really appreciate your thoughts on identity and anger. I think these concepts are unquestionably normalized in a way that seems to be increasingly dangerous.

I enjoyed the outro music. Thank you for uploading some academic WWE.

There is a big difference between Peterson and Moeller, I feel... Peterson became, maybe inadvertently, a kind of brand for the conservatives, much in the way Buckley once upon a time morphed into an "intellectual" for the right. He wasn't really. He was a stuck-up and gassy propagandist for pseudo-ideas, his debates were basically tiresome affairs, in which he tried to tu quoque or bothsider his way out of really laying out the conseervative viewpoint. . Mr Moeller on the other hand is one of those systematic, patient thinkers with a large bag of knowledge that he seems at ease with digging into. He does this politely. Of course peterson is not very happy. Try and tell a car manufacturerer that their products are basically the same as any rival brand, only with different shapes and colors... Moeller also sees the "evangelical" prophet-type in Peterson. Most of us see that. What Americans seldom see is the Puritan DNA in their society. It's at the heart of wokeism and conservatism...

Brilliantly informative and insightful. I have seen quite a few videos of people refuting or attempting to refute Peterson's assertions and arguments but whereas they might work to an extent they all proceed at a rather superficial level whereas you go in deep and have got me thinking about things that just never occurred to me or would ever have occurred to me had I not watched this. And that is what philosophy is all about. As well as occupational therapy :-)

Great video. Thank you!

You are very very very good. Very good. Very very good. I’m going to get better at presenting philosophy. The way you order out everything so clearly is really both entertaining and makes it very easy to follow as well as ponder as the video goes on.

Thanks for raising the bar

Lmao "intelectual tricks", if he were alive 25 centuries ago he would be accusing Socrates

I'm binge watching this whole channel. But the fact that you have "the three body problem" book in your library just made subscribe.

Thank you for such a great videos, but by the way could you tell me who is the author of the drawing of lion behind your back?

😭 Peterson really thinks he’s a modern day Zarathustra… 🤦🏽‍♂️

I would love to hear your thoughts on Buddhism with regards to the final point about identity. Perhaps you have already spoken about this on another video or in your book, but if not I would be very interested.

As an enjoyer of both of you, this is absolutely amazing. Do you have a patreon where we could support you?

I like the Lacan quote on how a madman is not just the beggar who believes he is king, but the king who believes he is king. In Kanye West really believing he is Kanye West, Donald Trump fantasizing himself as Donald Trump, and Jordan Peterson really regarding himself as Jordan Peterson, overidentifying with their symbolic position granted on them by (imaginary, projected) others is a delusion. Sometimes it's more harmless (not all of us see ourselves as kings and prophets), sometimes its impossibility unravels through nervous breakdowns. We're at a 2/3 minimum on that tally. In other words, maybe one might say that if you really believe you are your profile, that's when you've lost the plot. This fits quite neatly with your concepts of genuine pretending, and the distance we should establish to the profiles we build. We can examine either some deeper notion of the self (looking inwards), or our profile (outwards), indirectly, like we can only look at ourselves in the mirror, but we can comprehend neither as a coherent whole, the sum of all parts of the human subject. Peterson, in blindly believing in this symbolic fantasy of himself, can not even see the mirror.

No one: Absolutely no one, not even Republicans: Jordan Peterson: Our Western society, which is very functional...

Stop doing what you are doing, stop your online classes, stop covid vaccination: this is more important. Out of jokes, im glad that a great channel like your can grow like this an i like this videos by actual professors and not just youtubers.

sir, your and your associate's work on profilicity as the pre-eminent method of contemporary identity building has truly become a tool for me to try and make sense of our shared spectacular simulacra and best of all: it hasn't made me go and pick up my room or wish I was a lobster... Your position regarding the weight we place on identity needs to be essential nowadays, it also reminds me of a phrase by Rem Koolhaas: Identity is junkfood for the masses, globalization's fodder for the disenfranchised. Cheers.

This is a great and truthful video. You don’t contradict Peterson, but rather meet him on is level and are able to respond to him coherently in a framework he can (hopefully) understand.

Apparently the carnivore diet isn't great for physical, mental, emotional or punctuational health.

If you ever listen to any Jordan Peterson's talks, you'll notice a theme in which he changes the definition of a word multiple times in a discussion to fit his point. With that one oratory tactic he's often shown himself to be intellectually dishonest in most of his communication.

I'm glad that well equipped academics are charitably addressing Peterson. For too long he has only been challenged by radical ideologues who do not understand his position and react in such an abhorrent way that only confirms Peterson's somewhat distorted view of reality which drives *some* of his followers (me included when I was 18) into radical reactionary worldviews. I hope Peterson comes into dialogue with more philosophers and that that can reign in some of his more radical takes on things and hopefully help him in his pursuit of truth, beauty and goodness. He is a good guy with some powerful stuff to say to people who are struggling and it would be great to see that coupled with more rigorous, and hopefully true beliefs, when it comes to philosophy :)

This was a fantastic analysis

Oh my god, academic smarty pants types sometimes come up with the most epic dunks of all time! The fucking 'I personally prefer PewDiePie's take on Nietzsche over Peterson's' bit at the end??? I mean, who would even survive after that? JP might as well be dead after this dude said those words outloud

One of Peterson latest videos is literally a prayer. This reply came in perfect time.

I really like your way of thinking and would love a video we're you lay down your personal Metaphysiks and how you see the world

Watching the ending made me feel the same way I felt the first time I heard the line “cuz you know who did you know what with you know who…”

This is super eye opening to me. I used to watch Peterson's videos and it got me through tough time. That exact 'Civil Religion' has quite an appeal to me. It's cathartic to shed some tears every now and then. I feel fine listening to the word hyper real idea. Then he went on to say, it was a Civil Religious Rant. My head almost hit the desk at that point. My culture doesn't have this easy to understand civil religious expressions enough in everyday language. To understand the West in general, I tried to open my heart to listen to the higher power and the idea of 'we' in the constitution. I'm an individualist and that could be highly criticized but that's a part of me too.... What's real? Where's the real me? It's not so sovereign, I know how weak my mind is. Not because I was trying to hang on to my old identity nor because I was searching for a new one. I'm trying to see things through multi metaphysical lenses, o' mine. If I need to be educated about the original woke culture, I shall be doing that before I die. In God they trust. I don't care about that though. Does critical thinker have anything to say about 'meaning of life' and stuff? What about those super energetic Stoics? I gotta find out how someone like you can be critical and not judgmental about anything. It's surprisingly fun to be watching this channel. Looking forward to be educated more. Thanks. Edited to Add: Does he talk about COVID vaccine conspiracy/misinformation? Doctors, healers and medicine man are old ideas. Religiously admired.

A clear-eyed analysis, as well as polite in tone. Respectful, yet critical. Excellent.

We need the conversation to happen!!

I loove your easily digestible explanation 👍❤️

jp seems to have developed a bit of a messiah complex, he's developed a following, been through his own personal turmoil, written a couple of books and come out the other side a little puritanical. I must say that liked him more in 2017.

Greetings from Bolivia. This type of discussions, or better, contrasts of ideas, are necessary and useful. Thanks for the beautiful explanation. At the same time, I like to address something special in the realm of values. The lack of a hierarchy of values or moral or ethics or even a “sacred book” that synthesize such values in an specific Identity (the case of the Bible, Coran, Buddhist palms, or even Confucius’s books), create a contraction in what we understand as human interaction. A society that lacks a specific realm of values, in other words, a moral code that reduces ambiguity (a type of language), is a society that is set to fail. Fail in human values, in economics, and in identity. (This claim comes from my countries experience). So, the general message of Dr. Peterson is, in many ways, a message that tries to restructure a hierarchy of values. In many cases, a reference to reduce chaos. Therefore, I think, Peterson´s ideas are necessary. Why? Simple, people who struggles with their own identity, or with a society that incentives a “type” of individual based only in power struggles (identity politics over human capacities) creates a necessity to resist. Clearly this not protects the paradoxical contradictions of a “hierarchy of values”, this is very well explained in the video, but at the same time, I ask: What happens when your identity is a mess?. Historically, my country has been dismantled of their own identity, by by the church and by academics. That’s why I understand the simple massage of both professor here. I understand the message of Peterson, the necessity of respect a clear hierarchy of values, ant I understand the professor Hans-Georg Moeller critic of that hierarchy of values. Both, I think, set a clear message: Identity is struggle, is individual and is community, is contradictory and at the same time necessary for “being”. I am not a philosopher (I´m a economist, university professor and behavioral researcher), but this explanations and videos and everything are incredible. Thanks again, Professor Hans-Georg Moeller.

This is beautiful, I’m in awe at all the ideas being discussed here. Seriously considering becoming a philosopher xD

Your videos have reached Brazil. You have a profound analysis on important topics. I wish to know what are your thoughts on stoicism. And also on this new arise of stoicism. Is stoicism a civil religion? Keep the good work!

It certainly is true that anti-wokeness is or at least has become religion, certainly with more volume and rigidity than the subject of its criticism. It’s interesting to see at 23:05 Peterson acknowledge that this anti-wokeness phenomenon is, in fact, a religion, according to him, albeit not a new one. Great video.

professor Moeller looks like happy cat who got a mouse

Brilliant analysis. Thank you.

The professor's reaction to Pewdiepie's video on Nietzsche is here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/idOEiLqG17uwp3U.html

‘Civil religion’ is the proper term for what Peterson is doing. He present his defense of enlightenment values as natural and inherent, when a properly philosophical approach would recognize it as a dominant ideology. I think he could then still argue that these precepts are necessary for the West to function, or argue that they have something essential to maintain it’s civil order, but then he’d sacrifice the affect that is likely central to his success if he were truthful about his performance. Performativity is a necessary evil if one hopes to appeal widely. Not everyone can accept there is no essential meaning to anything, and such people need support and love too. Two decades on from the rise and decline of New Atheism, it seems clear humans have to delude themselves to some extent to function. It’s a matter of which delusions function the best

I have been on a 4 hour long binge of listening to your videos in the background while playing videogames. After trying to search for the next video to listen to I'm met with the surprise of another reaction video to Jordan Peterson. What a great day!

Great video, thank you professor

Man, i can't wait for the day when your channel becomes massive. I am telling everyone I know who cares about seeking objective truth to check out your work. Wise humans should observe your demeanor and pause. It's not about screaming your revelation, it's about being truly consistent and skeptical about your argumentation. To the observant, intellectual Flaws are self evident. They poke you "like a splinter in your mind".

I really appreciate this channel, since I first came across it several months ago I've developed a genuine interest in philosophy and have began delve deeper into the topics and the works of the philosophers covered on this channel to (try to) develop a framework for understanding society and the world in general. Rather than just taking on the ideas of others in a very shallow way as I have come to realise that I had done in the past.

I really do not like how he conflates a lot of philosophical ideas incorrectly.

Explaining Baudrillard, and how Simulacra and the hyper real are an explanatory lens to make sense of what he is, as well as what we are all experiencing in some form, is very useful. Accepting the notion of simulation, simulacra, hyper real, symbolic exchange and so on, are so much better as reflectors of the modern or postmodern world. It focuses us on the forward instead of trying to go back, and it also helps make us aware of our reality, or rather our hyper reality.

In addition to sounding borderline schizophrenic from time to time, Peterson’s philosophy is so depressing because he’s essentially a traditionalist, but he tries to reconcile that with the prevailing ethos of the political right (which is often anything but “conservative”) which leads him to advocate for a sort of hyper-individualism that is only supposed to service the collective? It’s all the personal sacrifices inherent to collectivism without any of its benefits.

I don't know why but it seems like KZfaq is turning off notifications from this channel. This is the third time I turned them on.

6:45 As an ethnic native i take great exception to the way peterson phrases this....he says "our western systems which are quit functional"....as opposed to what? which societies can be understood as being dysfunctional?

What do you think of Wittgenstein's On Certainty regarding hinge propositions as a means to make knowledge claims, which one cannot do without the hinge, or using your word, pillars. Although in principle, the certainties can become fluid and harden, in practice we may have to stick to some foundations. How would you differentiate this position from dogmatic approaches in other areas?

I can see how the ideas of this video would be difficult to respond to, because essentially, most opposing ideas in our modern world are often conceived as moral judgements against the person whose ideas you're opposing. We lack any form of nuance.. which makes it really hard to discuss ideas with good faith, let alone try to understand things from new perspectives, so I'm glad this video exists because it calmly challenges that notion.

A civil conversation between Moeller and Peterson would just be the Zizek vs Peterson debate 2.0 really

Wonderfull. That's the most politelly way I've seen someone destroy another person on the internet.

The first thing I have noticed in watching this is not related to the content. I will press play and continue after typing this. It is something deeper, more symbolic, of something new emerging. I noticed this more recently with a discussion between Paul Vanderklay and John Veveke. It was the discussion done with some genuine intent. Not reflective of the polarisation in the mainstream and the conflict in the culture war. At least by Carefree's response, Though Jorden appears more offended.I still have not seen enough to see the shape of it or or where it is going, or how it is actually forming. But it is meeting of differences in views, or mis understandings, and being resolved in a more healthy manner. Which is no trivial thing in the current global affairs. Keep this going.

This video made me think, and I like that :)

I feel like I struck gold when I found this channel - just as I felt when I, more than 5 years ago (hipster brag, sorry) discovered Jordan Peterson's channel.

This is such a sober analysis. I remember cringing when Peterson wrote 'Baudrillard's spectacle', as it betrays such a profound ignorance of the evil post-modern types which Peterson loves droning on about - I love that you covered it!

Whenever I listen to your videos, I'm reminded of "Le balcon" by Genet

That last point was a mic drop moment. Bravo