Script & sources at: www.thenandnow.co/2023/07/01/why-jordan-peterson-is-wrong-about-responsibility/ ► Sign up for the newsletter to get concise digestible summaries: www.thenandnow.co/the-newsletter/ ► Why Support Then & Now? www.patreon.com/user/about?u=3517018

I heard a philosopher say that we transitioned from *agent morality* (ex "how should i act in order to be virtuous"-it’s about the doer) to *patient morality* (ex "how should i act such that my actions don’t cause harm"-it’s about those who live the consequences) and we’re now starting to focus on *relation morality.* This latter paradigm rises from the understanding that everything is a network, your car exists solely as the product of a network of technologies and tools (production lines, welding machines, the internal combustion engine, the mining industry, paved roads, refineries and gas pumps, etc etc-bring a Ferrari back in time before paved roads & gas stations existed and you have a very complex piece of metal) and you yourself exist solely as a member of a network of humans. A human by itself is not even as smart as an ape, which comes almost fully "programmed" as it were, out of the box. A human cannot be human by itself, as opposed to something like a wolf, sheep, zebra. We need to be welcomed amongst society to develop to our human potential-your name, your language, critical thinking, your clothes, your dreams and desires, the music you listen, the computer and internet protocols you use, highways and streets, airplane flights, medicine and dentistry, soap and toothpaste, being a punker or a rapper, etc etc *are stuff you’re receiving/unlocking thanks to the network you’re part of.* Imagine a very dynamic sophisticated person living in San Francisco, trading crypto, developing DeFi, listening to The Weekend while driving his Ferrari to a party, all dressed up with fine clothes and an attitude to stun. Now imagine the same individual if they would’ve grown up on a deserted island (with plenty of food and water at an arm’s length) without taking part in the human network. Yep, take away the network and what remains is the ape. Each node is only as strong as the network, meaning that we’re as complex, resilient and healthy as the social network is. Given this, it means that *in order to serve the individual you have to tend to the nature of social relations.* Right now, humanity is a mix of moral attitudes that aren’t taking our relational nature into account-instead, our moral attitudes stem from the view that we’re magic individuals, independent and wholly humans by ourselves. This feeds back into the poor quality of life we have. Society today and us as individuals are very primitive compared to our potential, unfortunately we cannot see ourselves any other way but highly (or even "ultimately") evolved. Passage from an essay tackling this very insight: **

I'm gonna tell you what's the limit of Peterson, the fact that he has CLEARLY never read a line of Derrida or Foucault, even less Baudrillard and has the spine to critique them.

Thanks for the critic...I personally didnt take Jordan Petersons view to be so absolute either on responsibility or in helping others or on ideology..I have other areas where I would challenge him but not specifically those ...in response to you key points Responsibility : MY thinking is that he is not blaming a person for their poverty (I don't see any line where he has specified that ) he is only pushing us to the limits to be honest about challenge ourselves to pick up the mantle of what we have power to control (I remember a conversation where he was criticising the USA for their backward social care system, when compared to Europe, for example)..and like you and he say to not get resentful. Helping others: Although I agree his statement that "the literature is clear" (if one paper was his source) would be unfounded ...I didnt think he was advocating not helping a fellow worker but it was about the impact on someone who was not "playing the same game as the group" ...I think this is a basic animal behaviour...and i have been on the wrong side of that myself it is a lesson in the social rules of the group (although very painful to me and most) on how to integrate.. learn it or be excluded. (obviously it depends upon the circumstances not being ridiculously extreme, such as racism etc) Ideology : I am probably biased here by familiary experience of feminism , which I humbly believe I fully agree with. However not when it turns into hatred of men per se and tries to make them the cause of all world ills and worth less than women then we have a problem. Don't get me wrong I believe most feminists are reasonable I am just talking the extremes. I felt your reference to Nelson Mandela, MLK, building a bridge etc misleading ....as I understand him, he is not against such movements ....he is not against ideology but against tribalism/extremism of ideology, and definition of their tribal good by comparison to the bad of the other tribe , indeed the creation of the negative "other" is the problem which leads to exclusion and hatred of that other ...something we are seeing more and more of with the current politricks. ...however I will now watch you next episode, on the same, and see :)

I'm a fan of Jordan Peterson but I think you are nailing his weaknesses. I find his philosophy very useful but he often overstates his case and therefore needs to be read with that in mind. I think the rancor that is encouraged from public intellectuals (especially today) and his own apparent sensitivity has robbed us of a chance to see his weaker arguments fairly challenged in a rigorous way. Bravo!

Having read self-help when I was younger, I was decidedly underwhelmed by Peterson's self-help. He would often take the long way round to say the same things you find in every second self-help book. Combine it with his dogmatic and inflexible ideology, and you have a recipe for nonsense.

He is a walking contradiction. For a man that is all about staying in your own lane, he is a professor of clinical psychology yet he acts as expert of multiple disciplines. He is so eyeroll worthy that obscurity is all he deserves yet his ego means one cannot. Additionally, in a strange way, I feel sympathy for him because all his bloviating about personal responsibility has gotten him is a mental breakdown not unlike the great uberman Nietzche himself.

Would definitely be looking for the next part. Great video mate.

Peterson is a product of his upbringing in small town Alberta, the most conservative, right wing province in Canada.

If you haven't already, could you do an episode on determinism (soft and hard), how it effects morality and the difference between human choices/causes and a lack of free will.

Great video. I hope Jordan Peterson fans and even Peterson himself will see this. It’s ironic how irresponsible Peterson is as a “public intellectual.” Marxist and Postmodern thinkers like Adorno or Derrida especially have many valuable things to say about personal responsibility, which Peterson simply ignores or vilifies without understanding. It’s a shame because Peterson would likely benefit greatly from reading these other thinkers, but he’s too deeply trapped within his own ideology to do so. Adorno’s treatises on mass culture and Derrida’s analyses of one’s responsibility to Others are very important. Being truly responsible requires an adequate understanding of how your society functions and how you relate to others within it structurally. Peterson doesn’t seem to care about any of this beyond a shallow fixation on one’s “career” and “family.”

The “rule” of helping only those who want to help you is ridiculous in my opinion. If you are uncertain, whether or not you want to help someone based on you not being sure of their intent to help you or their usefulness, you clearly do not have their best interest at heart, because otherwise your desire to help them wouldn’t be dependent on their usefulness to you. So if we now apply the same mindset to the person you are deciding on whether or not to help, they wouldn’t help you either because of this very reason, which would lead to the condition of neither yours, nor theirs applying. So all in all we would be living in a society where there can be no cooperation if this rule were to be implemented by everyone.

Just stumbled upon your Channel very recently. Couldn't help but binge for hours! Loving your videos so much, I've been sharing them on the little social media that I have. Only thing I'm unhappy about...is how late I found you! Thanks for all the hard work, interesting topics, deep research, and articulate compendious summarizes ^-^ Wish you the best, and that your content will soon be recognized for its high quality! 💙

I'm not sure whether or not Peterson actually makes the best case against himself himself. After all, he doesn't exactly hide the story about his anxiety and severe drug withdrawal symptoms. So whoever actually follows this guy sees that a tidy room won't actually fly you out around the world to take care of you in dire straits.

I just recently got to know about this Peterson and, after listening to a few his lectures and interviews, i can't really see the reasons to his huge popularity: he brings nothing new to the table, but he does that with a lot of presumptuous pomp and self righteousness. To see who are the "stars" of our times, from music to cinema, from politics to philosophy, tells a lot about the fading out of any critical thinking in the decadent west.

I am a firm believer in individual sovereignty for without it, it would be much more difficult, if not close to impossible to be socially responsible. Taking care of oneself, I believe is sometimes confused with selfishness, which at times can be exactly that, but if we can put our houses in some kind of order ourselves as individuals, even imperfectly, we can be better able to voluntarily collectivize for greater social change which can benefit communities. I am an individual and I stand by it, but as an individual I am also a part of a larger community. No man is an island as once was said( well maybe Simon and Garfunkel did) so responsibly to those around us is in fact preserving the ideal of the individual for the individual. Nice vid. Refreshing to see an actual critique of what was said not an attack on who said it. Looking forward to the next video on ideology.

Great video! Thank you. I am interested in Peterson, and in watching a few videos concerned with pointing out less than ideal points he makes I find myself leaning towards the belief that his thoughts are more stepping stones and less permanent fixtures. It is so helpful to have this kind of content that is measured, and honestly points out concerns with Peterson's claims.

The biggest problem with JP is he does not take his own advice. The man went a media tour for years telling everyone who we should live while having a terrible addiction to Benzos. He was not cleaning his room.

Nice and well-developed arguments. Looking forward to Part II!😊😊

The piece on responsibility here focuses on "Who's at fault? Who's to blame? Is it the individual, or the events and society around the individual?" But the ethic of personal responsibility is about the opposite of blame -- it's about creating, regardless. To take personal responsibility for yourself, your community, and the world, is to simply create, and to create without blame. Blame, here, is the opposite of responsibility. A concept of responsibility that is rooted in blame, "You're blaming the victim," etc., is from the get go, not an ethic of responsibility.

We need social responsibility too !!

Nice, looking forward to Part 2.

Thanks for all the hard work on the video!

¡Best critique of Peterson I've seen! I used to respect him a lot but after listening "talking" about posmodernism and creating a strawman such as "neo-marxism" I saw him as what he is, a pseudo intelectual and more of a showman than anything else.

Jordan is living in the same city as myself.....Toronto is having an awakening to racism against our natives and blacks and he doesn't let us heal....He was a fan of Prof. Rushton of London Ontario's who taught racism at Western University.....London Ontario has had serious killings of

Thanks. It would be interesting to consider Peterson's "philosophy" in the shadow of two Russian authors whom he seems to admire very much. I am talking about Dostoyevsky and Solzhenizin. Thereby, I think not so much about them as authors of fiction but as leading voices who did provide certain ideas, especially in the area of the harsh anti-Marxism (anti-semitism is also here) etc. Additionally, both Dostoyevsky and Solzhenizyn alike loved to play a sort of "Christ" bearing his cross to Calvary and suffering for our sins in advance. In order to execute a back-charge in times to come.

you should have so many more subs. your content is always pure quality. thoughtful and provocative.

I'm a little late to this vid, though I couldn't resist commenting anyway. While I listened to your criticisms, I was reminded of something said by William Churchill in response to a reporter accusing him of going back on his word. With the aid of a maritime analogy, Churchill explained that his job was to keep the ship of State on a steady course toward its destination. So if the ship begins listing to the left, he shifts balast to the right. If the ship begins listing to the right, he shifts balast to the left. Thus, it is only to the outside observer that his actions appear hypocritical. It is much the same with Dr. Peterson. As he has explained many times, his emphasis on individual responsibility is due to the absence of such concepts being properly articulated in contemporary society. So why would he pay lip-service to collectivist ideas when they already make up the majority of the discussions being had within the culture. Why would he take the time to articulate points of view different from his own when those views are already over represented?

Great critique!!!

Can't wait for the part-2. Such an eloquent critique!

this is an absolutely incredible video. normally i don’t comment but i really hope this blows up - so insightful and well put together

Point to add: morality is socially constructed, but it's not *only* socially constructed. The trolley problem is an excellent tool that psychologists have used to parse out what are evolved biological moral emotions versus mere social constructs (ape shall not kill ape vs. don't eat pork, for example). Some of our moral emotions exist because they're useful for the propagation of genes. Broadly: 1) don't hurt people 2) be fair 3) listen to your elders 4) don't eat that, it's dirty 5) the more like family they are, the more you bend/break the rules for them

This is a very good video overall. A few things to consider. I don't think Peterson would land in the deterministic camp. I watched him give a lecture in Ohio where he specifically discussed his perceived differences between Determinism and Free Will and he definitely landed on the side of free will. I don't remember the specifics exactly but I believe the reason you gave is precisely why he didn't land in the deterministic camp. Also I've noted him speak not only about multi variant factors for causation but also on joining political parties and communities in action to affect change. What I think he argues for is which comes first. "Perfectly" was the wrong word to use, you are right imo. Another part you point out, that being the accompanying nuances and facets of potential, are the secondary innumerable factors in each circumstances., How does one write a book about those things exactly? How would anyone apply all potentials in all situations and remain broadly prescriptive (rules or even suggestions) at all? I've heard him tell a story about a man with a low IQ who came to his practice that he helped get a job stuffing envelopes and the man still failed to perform the task, after many attempts. When should Peterson have stopped, if at all? I think this story highlights the danger of crafting beliefs and narratives. I think you are on the right path to investigating the truth in so far as you can muster such a thing, and I do commend you for that. The story I mentioned could be spun in a multitude of ways, one of which is that Peterson repeatedly stated no one knows what to do with the "13%" of people below the level capable of performing routinized simple tasks. Is he wrong about that? Have you ever encountered someone who repeatedly refused to act in any way but selfishly? How much of ones life should be spent on the people who legitimately refuse to help themselves? How do you specify in a short book exactly how to do what in each of the many potential ways people act nefariously, leech off of other people, or break culturally or legally imposed boundaries? The reference to the "factors too big to overcome" is a very broad category. Could Peterson have done better to intersperse situations that are outside of our control in these 2 books. Maybe. What would be the utility? Describing the fact that a person whose legs were amputated after a car crash and how it's not their fault the post office didn't have ADA compliant access points brings what relevance to what the average person should do about shaping their expectations of the world around them? If it shouldn't be about what you can control, what should "rules" about life be about? I think what you are looking for generally is what Peterson terms as chaos in Maps of Meaning. There you'd find examples of the kinds of "malevolence that characterizes life outside of your control" you think his philosophy is devoid of. It is hard not to think that after this it was his responsibility to have crafted a "better" philosophy on responsibility. Mandela, Ghandi, MLK. That's where you took "before you criticize the world" and turned it into "even the greatest among us should have kept cleaning their room." That man isn't even made of straw.

Excellent critic of JP, fantastic channel!

Peterson’s urgings towards individual responsibility, is really calling for self sufficiency, which negates the balance, understanding, and need for being able to live with interdependence.

Something to be considered on your critique. He's a psychologist. His job is to motivate the individual, educate them, and help them out of a degree of symptoms all of which focus on a person's lack of self worth, or self motivation. These people generally have this because they are crushed by their interpretation of a collective, and do not see the worth of their own decisions. As such his talks are geared specifically towards providing a counterweight to those conditions. A collective is made of individuals, if each is not motivated, they will either fall in line to those who are, or stagnate. Jordan isn't wrong for focusing on personal responsibility. Moreover, if he were wrong, why would you feel the personal responsibility to correct him, if you didn't see it as your personal responsibility, which then proves Peterson right?

Why did the dam fail? Well, I'm a root cause kinda guy, so my answer would be; because it was built. Nothing built by man can be expected to last forever, failure must be factored in and accounted for. Thanks for the video! Though I appreciate your perspective and that of Peterson... I don't see the purpose, for me personally, to adopt either philosophy, in their entirety. I choose to take what I want, and leave the rest. Yes, you did a good job at pointing out what was missing but these were things that I had already understood. Though I felt you may have been a bit too focussed or went a bit to deep, for some... I believe your thoughts actually compliment his and vice versa. I like to think of responsibility this way: Do the best you can, with what you have to work with when and where you are. When help is needed, ask for it. The more we help ourselves, the more help we can offer others. When I notice a piece of trash on the street I have a choice. I can ignore it, blame it's presence on the person who dropped it (whether on purpose, or accidentally) or I could choose to blame those responsible for cleaning the streets. I believe that my most responsible choice is to pick it up myself and dispose of it properly. This is not only helps me but helps society as well. With an open mind, I have the freedom to borrow bits of wisdom from all those that came before me via the collective consciousness, books, and videos like yours and Peterson's. Philosophies, when adopted verbatim, can be limiting... just like labels. I say, explore them all and take with you, what will serve you and your collective responsibilities the most. Remain teachable, fluid, and open to the ever changing world around us. There's always more to learn and more we can do to help. Thanks again!

This is honestly one of the most professional criticisms of Jordan Peterson I have seen. No ad hominem or other slanderous logical fallacies were present. Just examining and responding purely to his philosophical and ethical stance that he espouses. I also like the approach you took by looking at examples of responsibility at different levels and scopes and determining which level is ultimately responsible for certain causal events.

Great video! There isnt any shortage for JP critique on youtube, but not many go so deep on it.

The problem with always shifting blame upwards is the theres an infinite ceiling, the regulator of the regulator of the regulator. Instead responsibility should be relative to the domain of power (position in the chain of causality regardless of 'free will'). Nothing is ever 100% responsible for anything.

Jean-Paul Sartre actually said: 'We were never as free as we were under Nazi occupation.' or something along those lines. His point was that, under those circumstances, where forces outside your control dictate everything you do, you have the most obligation. He actually said that 'under those circumstances, every act is a committment.' So I'm not sure it follows to say that the more things outside your control are factors dictating your circumstances, the less free will you have. Actually, people tend to engage most with their freedom when it is most under threat.

Everything has its limits, there is no one size fits all solution and I do think adopting responsibility is a solid foundation for the majority of individuals. But as this video eludes to, there are some limitations of cause there are but it doesnt mean it is wrong. It just means for some people it is not effective. We will never find a solution that works for everyone (although we can keep trying), humans are extremely complex with different contributing factors to their current condition. The best we can hope for is to find something that is a solid starting point to build upon. I think the adoption of responsibility is very beneficial and I know more than a handful of people who have read '12 rules for life: an antidote to chaos' who have turned their lives around from the most awful childhoods. So I dont think it is wrong, as the title suggests but rather it has its limitations which is true for everything.

I didn't have responsibility as I was growing up, growing up poor, fear of bullies and no real father role model to look up to to name but a few, that being said things got progressively worse as the years went on, was I responsible? the police seemed to think so, my family and friends also and me saying I don't have free will wouldn't of got me out of any of the mess I found myself in, the truth is I was just a product of my environment growing up and that wouldn't of changed if I hadn't of changed the story I was living, after I wrote out my life story and saw for myself that my life was a tragedy I actually gained a real sense of free will, I was finally able to see cause and affect, being with these friends meant this behaviour in me, working at this place enabled me to act this way and all the while learning that it was my part in all these things that had to change, thinking, feeling, actions made up my character and the best characters in life stand the best chance of having a good life, people do have to wake up, not everyone will for many reasons but I do believe Peterson is helping some people to become more than they are right now and more than they might of been, really enjoyed the video 🙏🏼

The sense I got from Jordan on being careful when helping other. I had similar things happen to me. I am empath so wanting to helping other comes naturally to me. That is my first instinct. But what I have noticed that unless someone wants to be helped no matter how much you do for them its like pouring water in bucket with hole. It just goes to waste. In those situation you are just being enabler and not helping. And often people take advantage of your help and keep wanting your help without them showing any sign of improvement. So I have to be very very careful on who I help and whether if I am making an impact or not. So in that sense I relate to his book

He’s a frightened old dad, crushing ideas of masculinity haunt his decisions and drive his critique of identity structures. Dad say “Nooo change is bad unless it’s what I did and covers what I have failed on”

If we lived like Peterson we’d have a society of drones , neurotically plumping their pillows and cleaning their shoes before going to work and accepting every and any demeaning instruction because one is never perfect enough to question that society. Thanks for the video. Delighted someone made these points.

Here's my thought: the reason Dr. Peterson focuses so much on the responsibility of the individual is because he recognizes the world is a bleak place, and sometimes things happen that are out of our control that leave us in a pit, whether it be financial, psychological, existential, etc,. You may have family, friends, mental and physical health experts or whoever else who can support you and help you out of that pit, but ultimately the decision is yours and yours alone to brush yourself off and start climbing out, or to sit and wallow in it. The hard truth is the only person who truly cares about your life enough to pull you out of the lowest depths of hardship and despair is you. Everyone else WILL give up eventually if they don't see you put in the effort yourself

Cool video, arguments and well-spotted criticism! However, history has shown that social and collective responsibility is often than not based on structural violence models and vague to apply to an individual experience. We experience life through only our thoughts and actions and limited to control generational violence around us rooted in culture, socio-economic factors etc. Taking a broad interdisciplinary picture beyond philosophy, I agree with Peterson anyway since we can be individually responsible for our own happiness and without individual responsibility people end up shifting blame and expectations and internally peaceful social/collective responsibility is mostly a product of people taking individual responsibility in the first place.

Which video is part 2 of this? It isn't clear from everything on your videos page.

He just made a community post that starts with "Doing something for others is more rewarding than anything else you can do."

As a fan of Jordan Peterson I do agree with your argument. Definitely not the first person to argue against individual responsibility, yet one of the better perspectives I’ve came across! Great content.

Kreia's words coming out of JP's mouth at 19:30

Outstanding video. Thank u for sharing.

Basically Peterson is the kind of person to mock someone else's accent and then deny that he himself has an accent that could be mocked.

You are an individual. In society you deal with individuals. Society is composed of individuals. It is wrong thinking saying things like, "Society should do X..." Society cannot do X. The individuals in society have to do it. It always comes back to the individual.

“Free will” is useful ideology for governments to hold as they may hold “individuals” accountable when individual desire counter the “rule of law.”

Just wondering, have you studied philosophy formally? I have no idea who you are, and I cannot find your name, so my apologies if you are a professor or something.There seems to be many oft quoted texts missing from your video essay here. Are you approaching from a sociology background or something?

The limit in Peterson is 1960s, he is not reading anything onward the date

Also, I don't know if someone else points out this, but Jordan Peterson have never read Butler or Foucault, he just hate'em cause he ain't them

I wouldn’t appeal to systems-theory as the source without breaking down each of those systems into their root causes as well; In this the causes remain the human heart. And this is why I agree with Peterson. The truth of the matter remains the same in their effects generationally macro or micro.

Great stuff, by the way.

Hearing peterson quotes is like nails scraping the inside of my skull. This is a man whose conservatism has poisoned is way of thinking so much that he has to make fantastical leaps and bounds in reasoning in order to justify what he already believes. This is why conservatives always have to add extra steps when they try and explain their worldview.

We cannot work with truth if we are motivated by fear..

The one point I keep seeing over and over, constantly misunderstood is Peterson saying "you are responsible for your life and circumstances"... Then it being taken as "you are at *fault* for your life and circumstances" Now I don't totally agree with Peterson, he goes down the weird path, a little delusional and his followers all repeat back in unison about individual expression and the importance of critical thought (completely missing the irony) but he does have a few, very solid arguments. Chiefly being that you are responsible for making change. It isn't just going to happen without you, people won't just give you what you want and to rely on the charity of strangers who can't hear your voice is foolish. It isn't your fault that you started here but it's your responsibility to make sure you end up where you need to go.. (but you can't do it alone, you will have to rely on those around you)

If people could create their own world then everyone would be rich and good looking.

The ironic twist to this video's message is that philosophers and psychologists have a tendency to over-intellectualise everything. As Marshall Ganz teaches, it is EMOTION that drives action in societal change contexts. Think of Greta Thunberg's anger at leaders' collective inaction over climate change, or the emotional appeals of the Brexiters to "take back control." Ganz came from a background in trade union activism, and is now a Harvard professor. He masterminded Obama's election 'movement' that swept him to power, and has advised activist movements all over the world. The "emotion drives action" dynamic is easily understood. What blocks us from taking action on our societal values and principles is our emotion, such as isolation or fear, and so this emotional blockage needs to be overcome. So isolation for example is overcome by solidarity. Fear is overcome by hope. So Peterson is at least partially right, perhaps without knowing why. All human change starts with learning, which in turn starts with a feeling... that shifts our attention.

Responsibility for Libertarians basically means not costing rich people any money.

What he take out of the scheme is Environment. Is like to say that the flower is fully resposible for its full situation. Yes we are not flowers, we have agency, but even agency and choices are dependt of local conditions, for example, a traumatised child will be depleted from much of its power compared with a child who was raised in a house with secure emotionaly mature parents

A lot of very thorough education. Thanks heaps. I will share the shyte of that.

Thank you for sharing light to this topic. I don’t agree with everything Jordan Peterson says, he’s cool and all but there is a flaw. He’s always telling it from a masculine biblical side of a story. Making his philosophical points and perspectives seem more valid than anything else without considering the facts and contexts of the topics and situations surrounded. I like how you base the video on an objective manner. Approaching it in a more honest and upfront way debunking definitions and contexts that are relevant to the topic. I enjoy this court like approach you bring rather than majority of the population who preach personal responsibility not knowing a clue about the context or facts about the situation.

21:55 where peterson reveals his true purpose, maintaining the status quo.

Some of us humans have preference for the most flattering ideologies.

Dr. Robert Sapolsky's work in the field of neurobiology adds an interesting voice on the concept of "free will," and might further support that Peterson's ideas are both archaic and invalid.

I partially agree with Peterson in that identity politics, although not intentionally, have reduced people simply to their groups (but that isn't necessarily because of postmodernism alone, but also because of racism and right-wing identity politics as well). And what's more, even before "identity politics", people were already divided into groups which were more rigidly defined. So, his idea of a Hobbsian competition between groups is basically a description of human history, not just postmodernism. However, I do believe that individuality as self-expression is among the few things that allow you to break free from the groupthink and rebell against social norms. After all, most social movements started because a group of individuals wished to rebell against the given power structures, and so they banded together to do it; inspiring others in the process, but in all cases it comes from individual free will the need to rebel.

I believe your argument is weakened by your incorrect etymological analysis of "responsibility". Characterizing it as equivalent to "ability to respond" allows you to focus on the external moral judgment of a person's ability to respond to a situation, free will, and accountability. Nevertheless "responsibility", from the Latin "respondere", is a combination of "re" (back; again) plus "spondere" (promise, guarantee). The external judgments are secondary to the person's commitment to promise or guarantee something to another person in its two meanings of "duty" and "accountability". Peterson has a focus on the "duty" aspect and you focus on the "accountability" aspect. Peterson might say "before blaming others fix your part of the blame" as in "it's your duty to address the blame first" which is basically a "cast the first stone " kind of sentence. You might respond "it's easy to find situations where the individual has no part in the blame and can't be held accountable by others or herself" which is true and a case that matches the "house in perfect order". Also note that to be responsible, in the sense of being accountable, is not identical to being the cause, as you seem to affirm in 13:12. You can "spondere" for someone else's actions. You can both be held accountable for someone else's actions and take the duty to amend the bad someone else did.

31:01 - To buy his book

22:25 this is gold. I will be using these bits against JP in news comments. Thank you so much!!!

Lobsters of all nations, seperate!

Peterson is coming from the position of “You are fucked anyway, so might as well try.” If you cut out his word salad, that’s what it comes down to. What he doesn’t seem to understand is, everyone already knew that.

Responsibility is the meaning of life. Carry the load. There are some who cannot (my younger sister, for example). That becomes my load.

An interesting and respectful critique.

This is addressing philosophy at a different, deeper level than Jordan Peterson does, one must remember that Jordan Peterson is a psychotherapist and not a philosopher. It's inevitable that there will be inconsistencies between the starting points.

His logic is so simplistic, it’s totalitarian.

I think you are missing the point, missing the forest for the trees per say. It's not about fault, in fact, it's about the difference between those who focus on who or what is at fault vs those who focus on the fact that their own response to issues, regardless of the cause of those issues, is the responsibility of the individual. For example, imagine coming across some trash on the ground, some people will claim it's not their trash as an excuse to leave it alone, while others will recognize that regardless of how the trash got there, they've noticed it and are now presented with the choice of whether to do what is needed (picking it up and putting in a trash can) or to leave it on the ground. To take responsibility means to focus on how you are responsible for your response to issues you encounter regardless of the cause if those issues. Largely this is an issue because of two major aspects of people, first, most people don't do what is needed to make their life better and near always justify not acting to improve their lives because all they think about is how their problems are the fault of somebody or something else, and second, people who focus on what they can do about their problems or how they can better work around their problems are significantly more successful in life than people who are focused on who is at fault for issues. Activists are a good example, as instead of building their own life to resolve a problem within their own sphere of influence, they instead run out into the world to play the blame game, to yell and shout about how others are at fault for the problems of the world. This is actually counter productive. Imagine a bus is hurtling towards a kid in the road clearly unable to stop. We can all see how it would be a virtuous thing to save the child from getting run over, but once you get someone in the crowd demanding that you go save the kid and talking about how bad terrible everyone is for being cowards for not saving the kid just builds resentment towards saving the kid, instead of feeling motivated to save the kid it builds conflict within us, yea we want to save the kid but doing what that [insert pejorative here] is demanding just rankles something fierce, and this internal conflict results in us being weak to fear or even forgetting about the child entirely as our attention gets consumed by the crazy person yelling in our face instead of doing what they preach. On the other hand, someone who focuses on doing the right thing themself becomes an inspiration to others to follow suit. Just consider how Peterson became famous in the first place, he refused to give in to tyrannical pressure, he didn't set out to become famous, and that appearance of doing right for the right reasons regardless of the terrible things that could happen as a result is inspiring, it's what we wish we could do as well. The same occurs for anyone who focuses on their own choices in life. If you can't get a job the normal way, don't sit on the couch blaming the world for your sorry state of affairs, go out and seek a solution, make a sign saying "I'm available for hire, price negotiable" and wander the street corners, or build a mousetrap, from scrap on the roadside if need be, and then go find someone with a mouse problem and sell your mousetrap. Another aspect I think you fail to see is that if everyone, or really most people, deal with problems individually then the problems generally also get solved collectively as a side effect. For example, imagine a pile of litter scattered around a public space that'd take a few hours to clean up, well if you just picked up a single handful everyday on your way to work and inspired three others to do the same who in turn inspired three more each, well in a very short amount of time the whole public space becomes litter-free. Additionally, once those types of issues are on the path to resolution, we end up with more free time with which we can then work on things that actually require collective collaboration, such as infrastructure or going to the moon. But any collaborative project falls apart when everyone involved is constantly distracted by the problems they aren't resolving because they are too busy complaining about how those problems are other people's fault.

Imagine a person with their house in actual perfect order 😂. Since perfection is impossible I guess we should just dissolve government completely since no one should be criticizing the world.

lf my home would be in perfect order, l should live in the other house, and leave my "home" as it - to show visitors that my house is perfectly in order, while l live more freely in another home.

Personal responsibility, the hero journey, are all incredibly flattering.

Just offered to help my neighbor who just became a widow on Saturday to help get her groceries. I obviously have a big ego and she’s not trying hard enough. Maybe I should tell her to get on her bike 🚴. That’s a quote from a Norman Tebbit who blamed individuals for being unemployed in the 80s in the UK despite the fact the unemployment rate was 12%.

I enjoyed this video and appreciated how you presented your critique of Peterson. My only experience.of him was a KZfaq a couple of years ago and the impression I was left with was of a shrill pseudo intellectual.

This is one of the best critiques of Peterson I have seen yet. Can't wait to watch part two!

This channel has be around for years and I only come across it now?!? Shame on you algorithm.

My 8th grade history teacher referred to WWI as the War of the -isms as in Nationalism, Imperialism, and Militarism.

Peterson never seemed to think that it is our responsibility to change the world and make it a more tolerable place.

I rather read Nietzsche than Peterson

Great video

I much admire your ability to be impartial and enjoy ideas without getting emotionally caught up in them. It is a very refreshing perspective.

I watched a lot of Jordan Peterson and i can't really agree with this critique. It might be to much to ask, that everyone spends as much time as I have on his videos, but at some point He always acknowledges this kind of counterpoints, that poeple are limited, depend in each other and are subjected to all kinds of obstacles. And he also talks about the social and societal networks we are embedded in. You can be given everything at birth, but If you don't feel responsible for your own actions you can still wreck your life, as well as the lifes of the poeple who want to support you and demand that everybody else owes you even more. And you can be given an unfair lot but nontheless do your part in supporting your loved ones as much as you can. He talks a lot about tragedy and suffering and that the reduction of unnecessary suffering should be a priority for everybodies actions. The question is, how the sustainable strategy for that purpose looks like. And the problem with political solutions he describes, is that it is all to easy to get swept away by a bunch of activists who demand changes that they do not understand the implications of. I recently listened to "Critical Race Theory - An Introduction" and according to this book his description at the end, that you labled as a strawman, is spot on. Unfavorable, yes, but by no means implausible or unreasonable. The suggestions that the principle of personal responsibility would have meant that black poeple and women wouldn't have got the vote is just nonsense. Equal rights means more souvereign individuals and therefore a greater collective capacity for individual responsibility.

The essence of Peterson’s teaching amounts to this: If your life sucks, it’s your own fault. Don’t blame corporate capitalism and social anomie. That’s what “individual responsibility” boils down to and that’s why it’s advanced by the ruling elite that controls the mass media.

Stupendous! Best critique, loved the Zizek bit. "Idiotic...impotent moralization".

YES! HEARD OF JORDAN PETERSON ! SEEN HIS VIDEOS ! BRILLIANT ! " THEN & NOW" THANKS ! FROM U.K. (2023).