Peterson's interpretations of Nietzsche, Jung, the Bible, etc. do seem forced. The reason is his apparent effort to reconcile and to harmonize what are incompatible philosophies. In so doing, he abandons his role as an academian, to become a truth-voucher, whose listeners are not educated, but indoctrinated.

that was useful - no need to read the book now

Yes, you are right, Peterson misunderstood Nietzsche.

This narrator is one of the finest I have ever heard on KZfaq. I realize that his subjects on philosophy, however expressed in a clear, euphonious, cogent style, are for heavyweight thinkers, and this may explain why quality is often wanting for quantity. A principle of criticism that may express the current state of things throughout history, it is this golden one: that the rarest gems are often left untouched. Therefore, you must have confidence in your talents and skills, for “the world is a mad house,” and too late we may bask in a sunshine of fame and recognition. Of course, fate has always the upper hand, and perhaps an unpredictable event could make you a celebrity overnight! But what a celebrity among such crowds!!! Philosophy and archeology, like two stranded sisters, have this in common, that the greater masses of people, today enjoying the platform of the social media, are so late to recognizing the greatest treasures hidden from view in plain sight! Another theory (on judgement and criticism) is that the said gems and nuggets of gold are often grimed or covered with the rust and muds of time, and so we can neither suspect nor recognize the two sisters in their quaintly attractive anachronistic attires, and both going about incognito! Just think about the case of Dante, Bach and Schopenhauer! Three giants completely ignored by their contemporary! Have I eyes? You may say: “well, that was only in the past, today we have the social media of Google, Instagram and KZfaq, and quality would soon find an audience.” If we are to appraise a KZfaq channel for its content, quality and (not for quantity, views), then this channel is wanting for kindred listeners. And here once again, genuine philosophy is not for the greater-number of people, but for the few, the selected, and the choicest crowd among the crowds!

I wonder what Nietzsche thought about lobsters

Very well put argument. Thank you for the video. I would like to share with you my own interpretation of events, which are a little different. First of all, I agree with your argument that Peterson misrepresents Nietzsche's ideas. However, I don't necessarily think that it is due to his misunderstanding of Nietzsche's writings, but mainly because he disagrees with their conclusions. Although Peterson give the impression of holding Nietzsche in high regard, he appears to describe himself as a follower of Jung, and that Jung superseded Nietzsche in many respects. The most stark disagreement seems to be regarding the creation of values. Peterson states that Nietzsche was simply wrong by believing humanity can create its own values. Peterson is adamant that we cannot create values ourselves, 'all values have already been created'. When listening to Peterson talking about values, his voice sounds to me like the voice of the great dragon called 'Thou shalt'. Destroying your traditional values in the hopes of becoming the lord of your own desert is an extremely dangerous task. Yes, Nietzsche most certainly does not lament the death of God, but all his proclamations underlie the looming dangers facing humanity in the wake of God's demise. In the video, you do allude to this danger, however I believe it should be more pronounced within the boundaries of this argument. This quote from BGE speaks to as a cautionary recommendation for the creation of values: "It is the powerful who understands how to honour, that is the art, their realms of invention. Deep reverence for age and the traditional - all law rests on this twofold reverence - belief in and prejudice in favour of ancestors and against descendants, is typical of the morality of the powerful..." I interpret this as him saying that “in the wake of God's demise, the 'noble' people are exposed to the highest risk of becoming 'destroyers' instead of creator”. The Three Metamorphoses of the spirit reads like a guideline for creation. The spirit of lion who yearns for freedom and self-ruling seeks to slay the great dragon of tradition. To create freedom, a sacred No is needed, a sacred No to even duty. However, what values does a sacred No have without a subsequent sacred Yes? Later, in the chapter ‘Of the Tree on the Mountainside’, this distinction becomes more apparent. Zarathustra talks about the ‘good man’ and the ‘noble man’. The noble man is not yet enlightened, is not yet a child. He cannot create. The good man does not want to create in the first place. He ‘wants the old things and that old things shall be preserved’. He does not yearn to become a lion to slay his dragon but wants to preserve the hitherto created values. Sounds like Peterson to me. Nonetheless, the danger for the noble man is not that he may become a good man - ‘but that he may become an impudent one, a derider, a destroyer’. Some noble men turn against all high hopes with the loss of their own highest hope (i.e. God and tradition alike). The destroyer murders not for creation, but for the pleasures of the knife. Therefore, Nietzsche says it is better to have a ‘good man’ of the old traditions rather than an impudent destroyer and derider. Given Peterson’s disagreement with Nietzsche on the creation of values, I believe this conclusion is exactly what he uses to interpret Nietzsche. Because he himself does not find the creation of values possible, he warns people against becoming a destroyer and promotes the preservation of old values. Having said that, even if my interpretation of events were true, Peterson still does a terrible job clarifying on what levels he disagrees with Nietzsche. Someone with no prior first-hand experience of Nietzsche would most likely assume that Peterson’s own philosophy aligns with that of Nietzsche, when their ‘pathos of distance’ could not be further apart.

On Jordan Peterson and His Followers: Jordan’s mind is able to muster an impressive array of muscular jargon, for the most part, loaded with heavy-weight erudition, but I can scarcely understand what he is saying: either I am a dumb or, as yet, unacquainted with his thoughts. What is power? First and foremost, one ought to trace it back to the will-to-exist from Schopenhauer’s Magnus opus “World As Will And Idea.” But it seems that Dr. Robison and Dr. Peterson would make reference to Fr. Nietzsche as the progenitor of our “idea of power,” in the intellectual circus of our colleges and universities. Another semi-plagiarism from Schopenhauer’s philosophy is Darwin’s “survival of the fittest,” which is another paraphrase for “the will-to-exist.” It is daunting task to understand Dr. Peterson at first hearing, his academic jargon would have to be carefully squared with the serious arguments and linguistics of previous writers: Sic: “Structured Values” “Values” are instilled upon us, at an early age, anymore than the dint of fate stamps her ineluctable will upon our destinies and lives. Whether these “values” be political or religious or social, they are framed and impressed upon us beyond our power to calibrate them accordingly. “Power” cannot be calibrated as mere coercion, expansion, affectional or causal, it is far beyond the scope of human activities…because it encompasses everything that moves, “expands and contracts,” in all the operations of Mother Nature and cosmic phenomena at large. We, humanly speaking, would like to christen this “all-encompassing potency” with our all-too-human comprehension, and from such attempts Dr. Peterson fails to either find Schopenhauer’s blind will (which is irrational) or the God of Spinoza and Aristotle from the most complex system of things to the most amazingly minute facsimiles of the mind of God!!! Nietzsche and Schopenhauer rarely speak of power as tantamount to coercion composure, but they both wrote “a great deal about religion,” and I think this is where Dr. Peterson has to be very careful when unmasking the charades of society and the phantasmagoria of what is truth or false. There is no way to finding a cosy fire-proof place betwixt Nietzsche or Schopenhauer, you either reaffirm the will to live or the will to power.

@truthPOWERlove I don't know why, but all of your replies to me and your initial comment were deleted. I am not the one who is doing this; either youtube is doing it, or you decided to nuke the whole convo for some reason. Was really enjoying our discussion, and don't know why this happened. Sucks because I got notified for all of your replies but can't view any of them. Hope you find this comment.

Your narration style and voice is great, I'd love to hear better background music

Dude. I absoltely love your breakdowns of Nietchze. I think it would be fun to attempt to research the history of sarcamsm and do an in- depth analysis of its evolution and use. Just a thought. Nietchze was playing such an interesting game in his presentation. I feel like i can recognize some of his deeper sentiment , because, like he said i am one who " almost succumbed to it" lol. Thanks again.

Awesome work, I´m glad i found your channel.

The descriptive aspects of this presentation are very informative and quite helpful for those of us who enjoy and appreciate gaining a better understanding of issues and problematic concerns relating to properly interpreting such differing characters as these men. The narration, graphics, and overall format serves the subject(s) covered quite well but the level of the background piano music needs to be minimized or replaced. At many intervals, the key strikes are predominant and more distracting than productive ... when the subject matter being discussed deserves as much contextual attention and retention as possible. An alternate essentialsalts approach that stands well above this video is found here ... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n6iFq6SqzJvch3k.html ... solid stuff without a distraction one.

Why music!

I've read "Thus Spoke Zarathustra," "The Gay Science," "Ecce Homo," and "The Dawn of the Idols." I've also watched your videos and J.P.'s videos, and I've read his books. I don't think he misunderstands Nietzsche or that his interpretations hurt the legacy of this great philosopher. J.P. can't take the side of the free spirits because his concerns are with the majority. He is engaged in a political war, so he addresses one side of Nietzsche's view: that the death of God brings chaos and destruction. Yes, he has a Christian morality, but he is not blind to it. His argument, from game theory and the evolution of behavior, is that an altruistic strategy is win-win. So he's not selfishly using the chaos spectacle as an opportunity for insight into human nature, morality, or new values. He serves order. But he needs allies in the form of great thinkers to make his message strong enough to reach, as you do when you use him to promote your channel.

Interesting video!

Please do this with a live piano, as a live set, in a hotel lounge lobby, as a residency. Thank you. (A. Fan.)

I would posit that Fred would lament since we created the idea of god - to act as inspiration - and we never did, or simply no longer saw the benefit... Lament our lost potential, rather than the death of anything. Similar to the ego death in Buddhism : the ego cannot die since it was never alive, it never existed. But I do think we should discuss these ideas rather than settle on one interpretation. * I agree that he saw potential in some who could act as their own inspiration and carve their own values/path - but he also knew that was rare - if at all possible - since we lack the faith in our own potential - I mean we did not listen to God ;)

Great lesson, thanks!

Agree, God is dead was not a theological matter for nietzsche, nietzsche knew God didn't exist, is obvious is a metaphor for the moral north religion provided and now due to science and modernity to believe in such a God wholeheartedly is basically impossible for the European man. And as you said nietzsche didn't propose to go back to Christian morality.

Peterson praises Nietchzes intellect, but definitley disagrees with Nietchze frequently on purpose. Like Jung, he believes we are bound by our nature when it comes to " creating our own values" I do respect that he doesnt just lock on to all his philosophies.

Thank you for this

Read the book. It makes sense to start there.

I haven't read JP on Nietzsche - but I haven't read JP at all. I have heard him and he seems like a 'nice and sensible chap' sort. I'd not be surprised he's wrong on Nietzsche - as all seem wrong on Nietzsche. I'm certain I'm wrong on FN. Nietzsche seems wrong on Nietzsche, when you compare him to Nietzsche. Given that it's only groups like Trotskyites and Maoists who seem resistant to Nietzsche, how can we say people like JP are wrong on FN? I've heard Anglican Bishops and other leaders talk in surprisingly and odd pseudo-Nietzschean terms. How is all of this false? If we live in an age of dumbed-down Nietzsche, how can it all be wrong? Aren't these elites following Nietzsche's advice - perhaps his style too? Why can't FN be used in Christian thinking? When discussing purity - a discussion on 'pure Nietzsche' seems inevitable here - FN is generally clear about its use and meaning in western religion. The rest is up to us and our use of common sense. On purity, FN makes room for dissenters in fragments, here and there. There's plenty of space for a hermeneutics shindig, where you can pick out whatever you want? Btw, I'm not a Christian or a Marxist, but I can see why both mine Nietzsche. Both should be fundamentally opposed to FN - but are drawn as flies to shit.

Just to be honest, music too distracting for me

This rules!!!!

Peterson also had Nietzsche say things like "The roots of science are in Christianity." And he may well have said something like that. He tried to look at things from every possible perspective, which makes it very hard to draw a consistent ideology from his writings. But anybody who says that Nietzsche was pro-Christian either has read very little of him or is simply speaking in bad faith. He wrote n entire book, "The AntiChrist" which is, from beginning to end, nothing but a rant against Chrisitainity and all the bad things that it ha done. He did seem to realize that the metaphorical death of God, meaning that it is now not difficult to believe that there is no God, will be unpleasant for many people and will have all sorts of chaotic and destructive negative effects. AND THIS Prophesies PROVED TO BE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. But he was, well, not exactly an optimist. He called himself "A strong pessimist." Meaning that he believed in seeing things as they really are, but preserving anyway. And he believed that there would be many positive effects of the death of the universal death of God in the western world. One of which would be that he, and other, future philosophers, would now have the freedom to not only examine things, as they really are, but to explore all sorts of other possible ideas, perspectives, and possibilities for how to live ones life and what to live it for. And this prophesy came true, too.

Dr. Peterson is almost right up there with Elisabeth Nietzsche.

To me Peterson always seems only to scratch the surface when talking about Nietzsche. It’s like he takes a drop of Nietzschian philosophy and dilutes it in a gallon of interpretations.

To me "God is dead" basically means abolishment of the great signifier, and therefore Nietzsche is the godfather of "postmodernism", and that is good news for Nietzsche, because life is about making not placing ideals above heads, which is negative nihilism (Christianity, science, nationalism etc.) for Nietzsche. I think this is quite accurate video. I also find for anglo-saxons difficult to understanding Nietzsche and "postmodernism", continental philosophy as a whole, don´t really know the real reason, maybe loving their universal ideas of the french revolution too much, as mentioned in the video too? Truth and knowledge are perspectical for Nietzsche, not universal nor objective.

Finally someone has brought to the fore the ignorance of Jordan Peterson vis-à-vis Nietzsche. I remember Peterson attributing to Jung a quote by Nietzsche; Mr. Peterson carries too much water to the Jungian watermill.

Is there anything JP doesn’t distort for his own purposes Read The Book- Always

You seem to contradict yourself by first telling us that Nietzsche did not believe in free will but then you go on to talk about people using their free will. No I do not think you’ve accurately corrected Jordan Peterson, but rather you’ve decided on your own specific ideals which contrast with his.

It's hard to believe that people still think they can create their own values. Freud completely dismantled that nonsense a long time ago.

Thank you for a good correction of Peterson's gaslighting. Nietzsche was by no means a fan of Christianity, nor did his apprehension of the "Death of God" mean that he wanted a return to Christian tradition.

I have not read the book, so I should not be f*%#ing commenting. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that view given here is the correct interpretation even though I happen to be a Jordan Peterson fan. Now I think I'll go read the book.

I learned about Nietzsche from Peterson. Heard about Foucault and Derrida from Peterson too. Once I found out he bastardized their philosophies I learned more about Nietzsche and was flabbergasted about how narrow JP’s interpretation was. He’s just not a very good philosopher is all.

Peterson seems like the kind of guy who is excellent at arguing with himself when he doesn't understand something. So he has what must be a crowd of people in his head to bicker with and eventually he finds the answer...yet doesn't realize his answer is only as good as the brain he was arguing with in the first place. Am I projecting this on him? Yes, but I think it is still true...with the brain I argue with. Truth is, I have been listening to your podcasts because Jordan sparked my interest in the first place. Yes, I am only partially educated...but did go to college and enjoyed philosophy.

Peterson needs a lesson from Reza Jorjani😉

A little bit of advice here: I could do without the jazz music; it's distracting and, frankly, frivolous, and stupid.

This is a trifling point to make and it doesn't prove that Peterson didn't read Nietzsche. Nietzsche did lament the death of God because it would lead to nihilism, which Nietzsche sought a cure for.

wait wait wait JP's still correct in the sense that the death of God is a bad thing for the common man. That's who he was addressing not the philosopher. But I get it this might lead to People misinterpreting Nietzche and his work. Your argument is fair in that sense.

Peterson thinks he is prophet. Rarely do I see him trying allying himself with other academics, to be a force for good.

Heiddeger did it worse.

Your opening statement; "There has perhaps no one who has done more to damage and distort the message of Friedrich Nietzche than Jordan Peterson..." Elisabeth Nietzsche, Hitler, Heidegger ect. Peterson is wrong about Nietzsche, yes, but how disproportionate that statement is is hillarious. Also this comment section is such a shit show

You can't create your values. Period.

Peterson miss reads almost everything he reads due to his huge confirmation bias problems, that is how he comes of to me anyways.

Peterson is really just interested in using Nietzsche as an authority to argue for his own reactionary agenda than a true expanding social philosophy or spirituality.

JP is the lazy man's intellectual, a blabbering fool with little in depth knowledge of what he chooses to speak on. "Go make your bed " Omg what an insight!

This interpretation is more about being a dick than providing something useful. When you deal with a profound thinker, one interpretation is hardly ever the case. Insisting that it is so, it’s actually what is simplistic. I always interpreted the death of God as a lament; as the loss of Man’s centrality in the universe because modernism threw the baby out with the bathwater. But also a good riddance to that god and fairytale. And to say that “no one” has done more to harm the legacy of Nietzsche than Peterson? TF, how can anyone speaking philosophy use this hyperbole and still expect to be taken seriously. But that’s how in this day and age you increase traffic leeching off the algorithm by hashtaging Peterson and philosophy. A man’s gotta eat, I guess.

Read the book!! Lol

Peterson is wrong about virtually everything in philosophy, literature, economics, biology, history, political science, climatology, and all other fields he love to tout expertise. He even is dubious with his psychology.

I am impressed by your eclectic knowledge and ability to speak off the cuff. I am not impressed by Nietzsche or Peterson. Their knowledge, like yours is ok but not that impressive. What is impressive is your eloquence at the same time that you are a stoner. Jordan is primitive. You are a little better. But the last time I was impressed by KZfaq was a site that said 'evolution is the waking up of God'. Btw God being dead or not dead is irrelevant. Knowing what it is to be God is what it's all about.

You had me at “Jordan Peterson is WRONG” … 😏😁. Seriously, this is an excellent takedown of his misreading of this particular point.

Jordan Peterson guilty of a misreading? Which philosopher is not so guilty? Cannot great things arrive from misunderstandings - errors of interpretation? While I would agree that Jordan Peterson did not read Nietzsche any further than he could I do not feel any moral animosity toward him for it. Glad to see you don't either.

maybe Jordan interpreted Nietzsche's "god is dead" not the way you wanted it, but as much as you try to prove Peterson wrong, i have the impression that you misinterpreted the new testament... if there's ANYTHING which is stressed there, it is "don't be afraid"! I like Nietzsche's curiosity, but it is not without reason he wrote "also sprach Zaratustra" as a novel.. maybe Nietzsche had his own doubts...after all: he is NOT God.

Well done. Back to grifting, JP.

Nonsense this is classic click bait

When do you explain how Jordan Peterson is wrong? You argued for Jordan's position with your 3 point summary and needlessly hyper fixated on adjectives that are barely relevant to the point of the phrase. The sorrow/lament is clearly directed at the impending consequences of nihilism, not the idea that "god is dead" or the now open sea. You equivocate at least 5 times and that was the worst example of it. And your analysis at the end is not close to correct, N never argues that a value is bad due to its source being Christianity or that a value needs to be overcome due to being a "Christian value". Truth is a Christian value and a Nietzschean value for example.

I really like Peterson, but he really is a fear mongerer on this one

Normally Jordan Peterson misunderstands all he reads, he is ""the buffoon that got himself teen seriously"" as Nietzsche said of Socrates... and he misreads so much bc he is not wiling to examine anything outside his christian morality and mores, so he must go incredible gymnastics to make all he read fit into it. I have been saying for years, from before he became famous and was just a professor in Toronto posting his "lectures" that were effective in confusing his unread and naive YOUNG students. All his lectures and travelings still mostly impress his YOUNG audience. He misread Jung, Marx, and even Freud... he misreads everyone!! And this will continue to be so if the level of education in general continues to decrease, no one reads a damn ting anymore, I was so concerned YEARS BEFORE college that I would be behind the rest, so I studied mathematics history and philosophy and the hard sciences as much as possible for YEARS, only to be incredibly disappointed that ALL my college party students and dorm roommates had not read s single book cover to cover!! Not a single book!! And they didn't read a single book in all the years I was in college. I was surprised that I was an entering student but knew more about philosophy than philosophy majors, I seemed them out precisely bc I liked philosophy, but as my older sister said, "ok so you go into philosophy, but what are you going to eat from after graduation!!"'

Peterson seems to me to be willing to use any tool necessary to manipulate people in order to do what he believes is right that includes philosophy and religion those things are just tools for him

Total BS

An opinion isn't false or wrong. It's an opinion. And your interpretation of the text is as subjective as JPs. Get over yourself.