I think his discovery rather than creation stuff is just him being a conservative. New stuff is scary, things are only good if they already exist. So if we learn something it's either bad or it already existed. edit: as a non-religious neurodivergent person I'm unsurprised he considers my brain defective cause it doesn't do the religion thingy
Yes on the last part! I’m neurodivergent and I’ve tried to explain to people, like believing in god would be really convenient and comforting, I just can’t force myself to do it when there’s no evidence. I want to, I just can’t. (Then they say “Well how do you explain my brother surviving this horrible car crash??” Then I tell them I believe in coincidences, and that usually does not go over well. 😬 They love to corner people, I hate it so much.) So yeah, I’m glad you said it! I just don’t have the religion brain-parts. Cults, however…man, part of me really seems to want to be in a cult 😅
@@ChucanelliSubstitute cult with tribe and you're describing a universal human need. Us moderns are usually tribeless, which makes us vulnerable to exploitation.
"you have to respect the rules" said the man who famously answered "what rules, sons of bitches?" as soon as he was confronted to a rule he didn't like. 😂
@johnschmitt571 This is either the Twitter debacle or the license fiasco. Both are situations where he threw a fit about having to follow rules to access privileges he seems to have mistaken for rights.
Peterson's use of Jungian psychology is really nothing more than a crutch for his beliefs. He uses Jung's concept of the Collective Unconscious to make things that he agrees with seem much older than they actually are, he does this A LOT with the Bible when he declares it the "oldest story we have" and, when people counter that we have other stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh which he also loves referencing, he can just say "Well, it was floating around in the Collective Unconscious long before it was ever written down!". It's the same with Peterson's insistence that values have to come from SOMEWHERE and you can't just create your own moral structure. If there's a value that Peterson AGREES with, he can just say that it was floating around in the Collective Unconscious and just got pulled out. And, of course, this only works for stuff HE agrees with, anything that anyone else does that he doesn't like doesn't apparently have contact with the Collective Unconscious, I guess. I also find his assertion that there are no Ubermenschs ironic because doesn't that single assertion just completely undermine his entire worldview? His entire thing is that those at the top of hierarchies deserve to be there, but, if they're not there because they're simply the best of the best, then what are they? Pretenders? Just those who got lucky? That sounds to me like a cause to dismantle them entirely, then! Maybe "Ubermensch" are supposed to transcend hierarchies rather than sit on top of them? Either way, it also blows a GIANT hole in Peterson's assertion of the "Creative Conservative", those few people who have done enough work to understand ALL of history and society and so Peterson FINALLY permits them to change it, because what is the "Creative Conservative", but simply an Ubermensch by another name. Peterson here is basically saying that he believes no one exists who has done enough work to change society.
aboriginal myths are probably the oldest stories we have. unfortunately white colonial society forced aboriginal people off their land and forced them to stop speaking their languages. so these stories are no longer intact and complete. i think jordan benzo boys assertion of the superiority of white colonial culture in the context of the destruction of the oldest societies in the world, is simple, brutal 'might makes right.' in other words - authoritarianism. which he loves. just as he loves to make women into animals. he is, in short, quite evil.
JP's use of Gilgabeard is weird too - the wild man of the woods is teaching Gilgachad to value things differently from Gilga's own, very traditional, view that the 'best' people get to be in charge, _and_ the views of Gilga's society. Soooo wherefore is the story of this very powerful and successful person who learns to value personal connection as much as social hierarchy useful in JP's conservative project?
maybe the real ubermensch was the friends we made along the way.. also lmfao "creative conservative" what kinda bs? i see a lot of artists (as an artist myself) and theyre overwhelmingly left leaning and anti institutional.. when I see confirmed conservative art it almost always tends to be some boring unoriginal traditionalist bs, it takes a certain level of openness to be creative with art, which generally seems to be diametrically opposed to keeping the status quo, and the "creative conservative" stuff ive seen has just been whining about what someone else has done or about how things aren't "what they used to be" or thinly veiled bad jokes.
The ridiculous requirement that hallucination is religious experience ties into the premise that personal morality has anything to do with religion. This person was a practicing professional, working with children. How much damage has he caused?
17:40 How does Peterson square this declaration that we've never had an ubermensch against his declarations that we should never try to upset traditional hierarchies? How can we say that we must maintain respect for existing systems of power, which must have arisen for a reason, while also telling us that there's no one in the modern world that's truly virtuous enough to stand atop the hierarchy?
44:50 Holllllllllld up, he comes back around to say that the Communists failed because the ruling leaders of existing hierarchies were so much more virtuous than the working classes? Does he mean that only the ruling classes can produce an ubermensch because they're so much closer to virtue even if they haven't reached it? How can the ubermensch even be possible under this framework? I was about to say, it's Jesus, isn't it? Jesus is the one true ubermensch that we can never achieve? But Jesus was a carpenter! His entire framework on the soul is built on a tradition that says the son of God was born out of the proletariat and was persecuted by the ruling ideology! Is Peterson reading his own book??
I think Peterson ultimately believes ubermench is not something one can achieve, but is something that a limited few can achieve, and to do that they must grow into it. And I firmly believe that he considers himself to be one of the ubermensch. I also think Peterson has an undiagnosed but likely serious mental illness. But that’s just me guessing.
I want to say that he thinks this is a flaw with Nietzsche's work - that an ubermensch is not possible, because of his thinking (I think...) that the person would have to invent novel values, and his assumption that our values are in some way built into us at birth. But again, with his writing style, it's hard to say this with any degree of certainty
@@CassErisThere are some people (most) who actually have a concept of human nature, natural law, ethics, and a basic understanding of Christianity that aspiring to live as Christ is different than believing that one can be Christ. Christian, as in Christ like. Peterson makes far more sense than your contrarisn assumption of literary construed connivance.
I just found your channel and im absolutly amazed by your work :D Also, i finally found someone whos books are even more painted and writin on then mine xP
So Peterson insists on an idiosyncratic definition of "ideology" -- sure, using a word in a specific but unusual way in the context of a particular argument isn't in itself a bad thing (though it can make communication more likely to...oops, foreshadowing!). But then he proceeds to insist that his (shaky) arguments in the context of his idiosyncratic definition must apply to any use of the term "ideology" in the more usual range of senses! ...in other words, long-form weasel-wording. JP's rather fond of that maneuver.
50:12 oh god, I'm sure the Romanovs and the Russian noble families, the slave owners in Haiti or the Batista regime in Cuba were such kind and caring oppressors.
Jordan PeterPrinciple's "scholarship", at least outside his core, is awash with distinctions without differences, non sequiturs, straw men, and any thing that might not misbecome.
Psyche is just the Greek word for Soul. The concept of the soul is not really religious in origin, unless you are counting Greek Philosophy as a religion. It is definitely not something native to the Abrahamic religions. Most Jews at the time of Jesus rejected the idea of a soul and if they believed in an afterlife it depended on a physical resurrection of the body. Christians borrowed the idea from Platonists.
There's a couple of hebrew words for soul: נשמה, נפש, רוח (neshma, nefesh, ruach). They roughly translate as soul, essence, breath. If such a concept didn't exist in the ancient Hebrew systems of believing, and if it was a concept that they borrowed from hellenistic philosophy, it would be reasonable to expect the borrowing of a grek word for it [there are old hebrew words derived from greek, like zug (זוג) which translates to “pair”, borrowed from the Greek word zeûgos (ζεῦγος). This word appears in the Tanach]. This is a common phenomenon in languages in general. When we find a novel concept in another language, we borrow that word and integrate it from origin language to target language, we call them loan words. Phenomenon is an example of it, it's a concept rooted in Greek philosophy and we borrowed a Greek word to refer to it in English. But also, the concept of a soul is not that exclusive to the Greeks. Most cultures have a concept for it, and it's not surprising that most languages have a non-borrowed word for it.
I would argue that the some concepts of soul are religious, but also far far older than the Abrahamic religions. The Ancient Egyptians for example had extremely complex and multifaceted concepts of souls that existed independently and interacted to form a person in both the physical world and the Duat. There was the Ka, which was the embodiment of your will and life force, similar to a “double”, the Ba, which was the personification of your personality and which travelled freely between the physical world and the Duat, and the Akh, which was your fully realized and transcendent self, neither physical nor spiritual. There were many more aspects to the Egyptian soul besides these. Whether or not they were homologous to the later Hellenic or Abrahamic concepts of “soul” is a different question although, but similar concepts did exist outside of Greece and the Levant.
@@wemusthavechannelstocommen619 the anthropomorphising was a later phenomenon. Both psyche, and ruach originally meant "breath", at least with the hellenistic side, the human figure was an allegory of the link between breath and life. Just like we represent France with Marianne, or the US Forces recruitment efforts with a star-spangled Uncle Sam.
psyche is Mind Pneuma is Soul -but u are learning some important pieces. Your knowledge of religious history is not sound, yet, my friend. Just, keep learning. hail Satan
I would be interested to know Peterson's views on racism, given that his idea that we cannot create new values seems to contradict the general trend towards rejecting racism in modern society. He and his ilk go to great pains to claim we've 'solved' racism, presumably thanks to the Civil Rights Act of the 60's - so have we managed to create new values and learned to leave our racist shoes at the door? Or does he think we were never racist in the first place and for some reason put up with hundreds of years of slavery simply because we hadn't figured out that none of us really wanted it?
I think your latter option fits what we've seen from him the best, seeing as how he thinks Christianity solved the "problem" of slavery, despite history arguing otherwise
@@CassEris yeah, I think you're probably right. It 's funny - the amount of evangelical Christians I've seen who try to deny slavery is wrong when they cannot get around the awkward fact that the Bible condones it. The conservative mind has an incredible capacity to withstand cognitive dissonance. Especially if it's padded by ignorance. I had a Babylon Bee fan try to tell me that conservatives got rid of slavery, I'm guessing because he knew the bare minimum about the Republican party. Surely Peterson doesn't have that excuse.
I can't do a full response to your point on this subject, but just generally, I would say that learning to not be racist is probably not what Peterson would consider to be learning a brand new value, it is probably a new manifestation of an existing value, something like kindness/compassion I suppose It's like if you already understand values like justice, but one day you discover a particular crime going unpunished and you then decide to start punishing it, you haven't learned some new value, you have just learned another instance where the existing value, justice, needs to be applied
@@therealjordiano yeah, that probably is what he'd say. I've seen a lot of Christians try to claim that slavery was better than the alternative for ancient people - it was, work for no money or die from not having any food. They actually try to pretend it was some sort of welfare system to help people - especially women - after God had ordered the slaughter of all the men and livestock, just how were they expected to survive on their own? Personally, I'm not sure how you can have a concept of justice and not realise owning someone is wrong from the outset. I don't think Peterson can really account for how slavery started in the first place.
If we had to create "shoes", and we had to create "indoors", then do we need to debate whether we had to create "bad" to understand we created "shoes indoors bad"? Perhaps a better gendanken would be one based on things humanity did not create. However, I understand this is a pitfall of discussion with religious people and Drs. Peterson, as they tend to have trouble admitting that things like language were created by humanity. Thus anything they might suggest would deal with the same issue.
Growing up in a very conservative religion that also emphasized "revelatory" experiences, I think I could maybe give some insight to Peterson's discussions about such things. At the same time, as I've come out of that culture and learned about what those "revelatory" experiences likely are, it seems clear to me that the "patterns" the subjective experiences form are patterns because they are guided by priming and using emotional manipulation techniques that are fairly consistent throughout most humans. ... Then again, maybe I'm just misunderstanding Mr. Peterson's point and what examples he might consider relevant.
I'm not the most versed and read person in the world to comment on this, but I've dabbled a doo. Personally, in my understanding of things and navigating life and philosophy and psychology, I had a breakthrough when I was judged along into accepting, at least my own atheism, as a form of religion or religious belief. It is belief, which is subjective. It's also developed out of the fertile crescent of human inquiry into these things as large and larger than ourselves. It arguably evolved. And, at least according to a former or still current Yale religious studies professor, is included in religious studies modules. Also, to bring Nietzsche kicking and screaming into this, could also be considered a religion because we haven't yet figured out how to ubermensch ourselves out of having structures or society or whatever. Additionally, we have a right to it in most modern modern state constitutions. Our belief (or non belief) is therefore just as sacred a commentary on life and existence and all things as the people and institutions that have a monopoly on that. Accepting these premises deflates a significant amount of Peterson's and theistic arguments. Atheists, are self called to even higher standards as the Christian or Muslim in a lot of respects, and we're more efficient without all of the ritual for appearances. It's as if we remain human, and existence remains existence, and the beyond that is still beyond remains beyond without having to imagine it go further than the viability of the planet or our survival on it. These truths are self evident in a way that's profound but also very mundane. Peterson can stuff it. Especially considering that some of the most nihilistic people on earth today, in practice, are the most fundamentalist religious. They even make fundamentalist atheists run pale.
I've got two theories about why Peterson is seemingly admitting that subjectivity is real. Firstly - it allows him to appear in step with 'science' - something he desperately needs in order to get his foot in the door of the academic intellectual establishment, and appeal to the portion of his audience who cut their teeth on Sam Harris and might be tempted to move further into the realm of the lobster. Secondly - he must have been writing this book at about the same time as he started trying to build bridges with the non Christian believers - those pesky Muslims. By calling religious experience a subjective thing, it allows him to bring all the heretics into the fold - because they're all experiencing the same subjective revelation of the objective 'god'.
Hi Cass! I’m fairly new to the channell, and i was wondering if you are still planning to do/have already done some videos on the topic of free will :3
It is indeed still planned, although it's been slightly back burner-ed with the whole health thing getting sorted. (BTW - it's okay if you didn't know, don't feel guilty or anything)
@@CassEris Oh God! No, in fact i didn’t know there was something going on with your health… i’m so sorry to hear that… How are you now? Are things getting better?
@@FreeWill_is_unintelligible It's looking to be something autoimmune, but not specific enough to nail down (and really start a treatment plan). But the various complaints are starting to be looked into, so progress is happening, albeit slowly. Thanks for asking : )
@@CassEris Hmm, i see. Hope to recieve some good news for the new year then! Also, looking back at it… i’m sorry for asking. I didn’t mean to be indiscreet, though i might have accomplished just that. I was just worried. Either way, i wish you the best of luck with everything, and of course, a happy 2024.❤️
I think a good riposte to Peterson's obsession with lobsters might be to counterpose another crustacean that absolutely contradicts the ridiculous 'natural order' assumptions that he 'concludes' from his one-dimensional interpretation of 'lobster society'. I mean of course the humble woodlouse/slater/pillbug. With the sole exception of the desert pillbug, that is a very atypical example, slaters are peaceful, non-hierarchical but still highly social isopods that live in spontaneously and horizontally organised aggregates of individuals where females outnumber males approximately 10:1. Different species often intermix in their communities and they live on a fully vegetarian/scavenger diet. They have laboriously performed an essential recycling and cleansing duty on our planet for millions of years. Yes, the pillbug is a perfect example from nature that scrupulously 'cleans its room' even to the point of eating its own poo, yet has oddly been overlooked by the erudite professor. Is it because slaters might be perceived as non-ethnocentric, matrifocal, libertarian eco-communists? 🙃😁 So why if he's so keen on crustaceans is Peterson insisting on using the example of the lobster, an 'example of universality' which is even in how he portrays their 'nature', highly questionable? Could a pre-existing ideology have anything to do with it? Food for furthering your critique, Cass 😉
Definitely no shoes inside as a rule but if you expect your guests to take them off you do need to a) tell them and b) provide a space to put the shoes. Don't just glare at people for not behaving exactly how you believe they obviously should. Even the most reasonable things, such as no shoes inside the house, are not obvious to everyone. Always keep in mind, they might be American.
I want to start this with, as a non-religious trans person, I have no love for Jordan Peterson, and I think his writing does a really bad idea of expressing these ideas (I have not even read it directly because it seems like it would just be a pain), but I think I can offer a way of reading while gesturing at where I think this is coming from. The first thing I have to get at is, annoyingly, the hardest thing for me to explain why I think this is an idea. I think it came to me from listening to people talk about JRR Tolkien a bunch of all things. So this might also be the most wrong thing I ever say. I think it might even be literal blasphemy but thankfully that isn't something I worry about. What the hell is God anyway? A lot of people, religious and not, tend to think of God as a dude. He's some guy who made the universe. He spoke to Moses and Abraham and a bunch of other guys. He might also be three dudes, one of whom had to get nailed to a lower case t so he would stop being so mad about a woman eating a fruit. This is a very understandable kind of God, but it is also really limited. What happened at some point in the history of Abrahamic thought is that God got merged with the platonic notion of the Good. Specifically, God is that which is ultimately and universally good. Bonus thing: anamesis (thanks for talking about this earlier in the video so I could work it in easily) means that everyone just needs to be reminded of this concept in order to understand it. Counter examples of people refusing to understand God are sinners in this paradigm and thus can be discounted. Next is this broader notion of values, where I am going to touch on something brought up in a video by the channel Bimbo Philosophy's video on Celebrity (it is great stuff, I really wish folks would check it out, she serve some real golden era Contrapoints style with the academic rigor of Philosophytube). Values are like our desires, they are more complicated than they seem. The notion of valuing "wearing shoes in the house" could be better understood as being an expression of a value, probably something like cleanliness. People value things like "cleanlyness", "freedom", and "authenticity", and they express those values by cleaning their room, creating constitutional democracies, and going on wildly long rants in youtube comment sections where I try to express some perspective I have on the world that I think is a unique synthesis of my experience. One of the most important values that is common to the modern world for the sake of talking about Jordan Peterson's thoughts here is the notion of the universal good. That is to say, we value the thing that was blended into God around 2000 years ago, because it allows for us to have a pluralistic and tolerant society under it. So there is this way we can see modern expressions of what can be seen as long standing abrahamic values of universality as still being a key part of the mainstream of liberal thought. If we can believe in a set of universally good values, then God is not yet totally dead, just suffering from amnesia. Oh, but then non-assimilationist queer people exist, and women who don't want to be pushed into the mold of men-but or any other restrictive role, and people with different cultures don't want to be pressed into the patterns of life that the anglosphere has declared good. So there is almost nothing left to call universally good, except the system of domination through globalized capital. I don't think I need to explain here why that is a problem.
Re 57:29 - This definition is incorrect. Mind, spirit, and soul are not, as popularly thought, interchangeable terms for the same thing. "Spirit" is the Life Force, that animating force that enables existence. "Soul" is the way the various elements of being interact to make each individual unique (well, more or less) - and its not immortal. "Mind" is essentially as described in the definition. The word Psyche, I seem to remember from very long ago, is Greek and meant a butterfly and it was originally used to designate the soul but somehow became associated with the mind when psychology incorporated it into the name of that field of study. I seem to remember that there was a Greek legend of a nymph named Psyche but the Sun is rising and I want to finish watching this video and get to bed so I won't google it just now. Thank you for chipping away at Peterson. He overloads my bullshit detector so totally that I have to avoid him...what we called "Bad Vibes" in my youth.
Specifically for that book, the point it was making (that we can actually study emotion using neuropsychology) is a point that's just accepted now. So it was helpful to push the idea when it was written, when fMRIs were shiny new toys that people weren't quite sold on just yet, but at this point, the argument doesn't need to be made anymore.
@@CassErisSo, which version is in your head? I'm old enough that mine switches between the original and the cover from The Lost Boys :D "Women seem wicked"
Nietzsche was a satirist. His work is literally designed to make people like JP look like fools because if you dig deep enough the stuff JP enjoys comes from Greek poop jokes. Nietzsche was brilliant when you understand the joke.
@@freddiekruger3339 lol are you too lazy to google? Start here: Nietzsche's Last Laugh: Ecce Homo as Satire. When you grow up and learn to read I suggest: The Power of Satire: Magic, Ritual, Art Or you can get the actual poop jokes from Aristophanes. Frogs is fun, Dionysus poops himself in that one.
Do you worry about the time you've lost on the close reading and analysis of a Jordan Peterson text? Real question. I wonder about this a lot. I believe he is a fraud , but he also has so much influence, I feel like it needs to be addressed, like you so very well here.
I feel like I can stay motivated to work through this, and spend the time doing so, because I feel like I'm doing my little part to combat the (what I feel to be) negativity he's putting out into the world.
@@SleepyMatt-zzz I just made the comment for the algorithm to support the creator. It was a good video and I'm here because I wanna hear her opinions. Good day, random internet stranger!
Nietzsche seems to think socialism and progressivism are cut from the same cloth, he went so far to base a huge aspect of his philosophy on the concept of Christian values fundamentally influencing modern culture, so Peterson is on some pretty shaky ground when he tries to use him to justify them being of a fundamentally different type. BGE - Nietzsche: Morality is in Europe today herd-animal morality […], the democratic movement inherits the Christian. But that the tempo of this movement is much too slow and somnolent for the more impatient, for the sick and suffering of the said instinct, is attested by the ever more frantic buying, the ever more undisguised fang-baring of the anarchist dogs which now rove the streets of European culture: apparently the reverse of the placidly industrious democrats and revolutionary ideologists, and even more so of the stupid philosophasters and brotherhood fanatics who call themselves socialists and want a “free society”, they are in fact at one with them all in their total and instinctive hostility towards every form of society other than that of the autonomous herd (to the point of repudiating even the concepts “master” and “servant” - ni dieu ni maître says a socialist formula -); at one in their tenacious opposition to every special claim, every special right and privilege […] at one in their mistrust of punitive justice […] but equally at one in the religion of pity. He does make a distinction that Christianity internalises where socialism externalises, but concludes the distinction "makes no real difference". TotI - Nietzsche: Complaining is never good for anything; it comes from weakness. Whether one ascribes one's feeling bad to others or to oneself-the socialist does the former, the Christian, for example, the latter-makes no real difference. What is common to both and, let us add, what is unworthy, is that it should be someone's fault that one is suffering-in short, that the sufferer prescribes the honey of revenge as a cure for his own suffering.
"It is also by no means self evident that value....is not an integral part of reality, despite the undeniable utility of the scientific method." I took that to be a comment on the issue of the whole subjective v objective morality debate - particularly as it pertains to religious concepts of objective morality (which are really messed up and more often than not are just claims that morality is objective, for obvious reasons, but which often turn out to be subjective by their own metrics when examined closely). If so, then that paragraph is a complete non sequitur, and not just because, as you pointed out, we can use science to investigate value on some level. The basic strategy of the religious apologist is to handwave away science by classifying it as scientism and rely on spurious philosophical claims to support the 'truth' of objective morality. I think that's what Peterson is getting at here - and he's objectively wrong to even mention science, since most modern philosophers are neither scientists, nor moral subjectivists - but they are atheists. So it really doesn't matter that science doesn't, or even cannot 'discover' true value - because we don't need it to. It seems to me that Peterson is, as usual, strapping on the old 'need for religion to solve all our problems' motif that he's so fond of, just like any other apologist out there from William Lane Craig to Jonathon Pageau.
Nietzsche was a funny guy. Also excessively intelligent. His influence is everywhere. Art, literature, philosophy. Also nazis. Relevant modern philosophers have all struggled with or were transformed by him. I don't take people that disregard him very serious. Russell, for example. Too academic. Americans have disregarded him for decades, while he was in the veins of Europe. Nietzsche can only be read with a broad scope, into the past and into the future. He's a most relevant enlightenment thinker. Scientific method. No "behind world" can be invoked. Positivism. Also transcending this: It's all towering constructions built on streaming water. It's all a matter of taste. Very postmodern. Questioning the rational paradigm. He lays it all at the feet of the individual. "First of all I'm a psychologist." Nietzsche is esoteric. He takes shots at Plato and Jesus. Socrates did what he did because he was ugly af. The copium is worse than the hemlock. Wagner is an eruption of unhealthy sentiment. His solutions somewhat Taoistic, I think. He thought Buddhists were passive. Nietzsche is about affirming life. Deal with it. But not cynical. I too think that if one lives and chooses consciously then one can make lemonade out of lemons. Otherwise there is decadence and resentment. Is Nietzsche problematic, to use a euphemism? A little. Less than people think. He is provocative and harsh. In his circle people joked about his takes on women. Nietzsche: I see all these bourgeois women painting all day and it amounts to nothing. It's not art, it's not adventurous. When I started rocking in the nineties I was like: where are you ladies? I can't listen to PJ Harvey all day. Am I too critical? I am also a bit of a warrior. A decent fight clears up a lot of boundaries. This seems necessary. People talk a big deal and imagine their values and strength. Some think I'm rough. I think It's kid gloves. Nietzsche is poking. There are people that say his references to women relate to esoteric notions of wisdom, Sophia. Feminine personification. It wouldn't be out of place but I don't think so. A lot can be projected onto such work. I once read a study explaining how it was a gay manifesto. I thought it was absolutely hilarious. Bordering on abjectly stupid. I've read Nietzsche with the sound of marching boots in the back of my head. Hilarious. I hear Peterson. Hilarious.
It's interesting to note that little miss super smug (and her super mug) agrees with Nietzsche only when he points out the importance of the student or the pupil overcoming the teacher in wisdom. Unfortunately she seems convinced that she can skip the long and arduous student phase altogether and instantly become the all-knowing master thanks to her ideological privilege. No no... The wisdom of the ages doesn't need to be studied 🥱 or laboriously read or put in context 😰 (god forbid we waste so much of our fun-time on the words of an evil white-skinned patriarch!) We can simply reduce it to selected sound bites with an animated Pikachu accompaniment, project our preconceptions onto it, trample on it, cancel it and go straight to the "know-it-all listen-to-me I'm-omniscient" phase. She (and her wokie-dokie soundbite-hungry crew who have never read a philosophy text from cover to cover) reminds me of the old adage "I'm not young enough to know everything".
She's not a student. She already did that and graduated. You're only making assumptions. "Wisdom of the ages" is a meaningless statement. Saying someone is smug is not an argument.
Peterson isn't serving any wisdom of the ages, my friend. Read an actual book if you want. Plenty of ancient texts are getting translated by hardworking archeologists, and oral histories have been recorded from still extant ancient peoples today, if you want real "wisdom of the ages". Peterson is just projecting his own preconceptions onto other authors, which he often doesn't cite, and their works.
She already graduated?... Wow, Amazing! Perhaps she graduated at the age of 9 with a degree in "Gender and Feminist Studies and postmodern Marxist theories" ... and so by implication I guess she has ascended to the realms of divine absolute knowledge? No longer a mere "student" but a master... or rather a mistress... of eternal wisdom. No, you're only making false assumptions if you suppose that her sacred piece of paper from some second grade institution means she is entitled to criticise anything that doesn't accord with her trendy new ideology, while herself being above all criticism. Why is "Wisdom of the ages" a "meaningless statement"? Do you also automatically assume that all writers and thinkers of the past were idiots devoid of wisdom, because they belonged to some "patriarchal tyranny" of "priviledged white males"? It is typical of contemporary intellectual arrogance and infantile narcissism to suppose that all the thinkers of the past have nothing useful to tell us. Do you really believe that because we now have the internet and cellphones (and the virtuous transgender ideology) we are automatically blessed with superior intellects? @@BrennenKing-d5w
I think his discovery rather than creation stuff is just him being a conservative. New stuff is scary, things are only good if they already exist. So if we learn something it's either bad or it already existed.
edit: as a non-religious neurodivergent person I'm unsurprised he considers my brain defective cause it doesn't do the religion thingy
Yes on the last part! I’m neurodivergent and I’ve tried to explain to people, like believing in god would be really convenient and comforting, I just can’t force myself to do it when there’s no evidence. I want to, I just can’t. (Then they say “Well how do you explain my brother surviving this horrible car crash??” Then I tell them I believe in coincidences, and that usually does not go over well. 😬 They love to corner people, I hate it so much.)
So yeah, I’m glad you said it! I just don’t have the religion brain-parts. Cults, however…man, part of me really seems to want to be in a cult 😅
@@ChucanelliSubstitute cult with tribe and you're describing a universal human need. Us moderns are usually tribeless, which makes us vulnerable to exploitation.
"Beyond order: 12 rules"
The book's title is so funny lol
"you have to respect the rules" said the man who famously answered "what rules, sons of bitches?" as soon as he was confronted to a rule he didn't like. 😂
Nice use of misquote & application divoid of any original context.
@@johnschmitt571 Kermit simp.
@johnschmitt571 This is either the Twitter debacle or the license fiasco. Both are situations where he threw a fit about having to follow rules to access privileges he seems to have mistaken for rights.
Is this "Value" In the room with us now, Jeterson?
Peterson's use of Jungian psychology is really nothing more than a crutch for his beliefs. He uses Jung's concept of the Collective Unconscious to make things that he agrees with seem much older than they actually are, he does this A LOT with the Bible when he declares it the "oldest story we have" and, when people counter that we have other stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh which he also loves referencing, he can just say "Well, it was floating around in the Collective Unconscious long before it was ever written down!". It's the same with Peterson's insistence that values have to come from SOMEWHERE and you can't just create your own moral structure. If there's a value that Peterson AGREES with, he can just say that it was floating around in the Collective Unconscious and just got pulled out. And, of course, this only works for stuff HE agrees with, anything that anyone else does that he doesn't like doesn't apparently have contact with the Collective Unconscious, I guess.
I also find his assertion that there are no Ubermenschs ironic because doesn't that single assertion just completely undermine his entire worldview? His entire thing is that those at the top of hierarchies deserve to be there, but, if they're not there because they're simply the best of the best, then what are they? Pretenders? Just those who got lucky? That sounds to me like a cause to dismantle them entirely, then! Maybe "Ubermensch" are supposed to transcend hierarchies rather than sit on top of them? Either way, it also blows a GIANT hole in Peterson's assertion of the "Creative Conservative", those few people who have done enough work to understand ALL of history and society and so Peterson FINALLY permits them to change it, because what is the "Creative Conservative", but simply an Ubermensch by another name. Peterson here is basically saying that he believes no one exists who has done enough work to change society.
aboriginal myths are probably the oldest stories we have. unfortunately white colonial society forced aboriginal people off their land and forced them to stop speaking their languages. so these stories are no longer intact and complete. i think jordan benzo boys assertion of the superiority of white colonial culture in the context of the destruction of the oldest societies in the world, is simple, brutal 'might makes right.' in other words - authoritarianism. which he loves. just as he loves to make women into animals. he is, in short, quite evil.
JP's use of Gilgabeard is weird too - the wild man of the woods is teaching Gilgachad to value things differently from Gilga's own, very traditional, view that the 'best' people get to be in charge, _and_ the views of Gilga's society. Soooo wherefore is the story of this very powerful and successful person who learns to value personal connection as much as social hierarchy useful in JP's conservative project?
maybe the real ubermensch was the friends we made along the way.. also lmfao "creative conservative" what kinda bs? i see a lot of artists (as an artist myself) and theyre overwhelmingly left leaning and anti institutional.. when I see confirmed conservative art it almost always tends to be some boring unoriginal traditionalist bs, it takes a certain level of openness to be creative with art, which generally seems to be diametrically opposed to keeping the status quo, and the "creative conservative" stuff ive seen has just been whining about what someone else has done or about how things aren't "what they used to be" or thinly veiled bad jokes.
Dunno if I've already mentioned this, but I really like your voice. Very pleasant to listen to
The ridiculous requirement that hallucination is religious experience ties into the premise that personal morality has anything to do with religion.
This person was a practicing professional, working with children. How much damage has he caused?
he has told people to unalive themselves via social media. one wonders what he has said in the privacy of the consultation room.
He thought it was some huge revelation when he realized that he should actually _listen_ to his patients... 😬
Loving this series so much I actually clicked the bell
17:40 How does Peterson square this declaration that we've never had an ubermensch against his declarations that we should never try to upset traditional hierarchies? How can we say that we must maintain respect for existing systems of power, which must have arisen for a reason, while also telling us that there's no one in the modern world that's truly virtuous enough to stand atop the hierarchy?
44:50 Holllllllllld up, he comes back around to say that the Communists failed because the ruling leaders of existing hierarchies were so much more virtuous than the working classes? Does he mean that only the ruling classes can produce an ubermensch because they're so much closer to virtue even if they haven't reached it? How can the ubermensch even be possible under this framework?
I was about to say, it's Jesus, isn't it? Jesus is the one true ubermensch that we can never achieve? But Jesus was a carpenter! His entire framework on the soul is built on a tradition that says the son of God was born out of the proletariat and was persecuted by the ruling ideology! Is Peterson reading his own book??
I think Peterson ultimately believes ubermench is not something one can achieve, but is something that a limited few can achieve, and to do that they must grow into it.
And I firmly believe that he considers himself to be one of the ubermensch.
I also think Peterson has an undiagnosed but likely serious mental illness. But that’s just me guessing.
I want to say that he thinks this is a flaw with Nietzsche's work - that an ubermensch is not possible, because of his thinking (I think...) that the person would have to invent novel values, and his assumption that our values are in some way built into us at birth. But again, with his writing style, it's hard to say this with any degree of certainty
@@bethelbethel845Your thoughts are apparently quite disjointed & built in fantasy. Try actually using the message, the parable your are referencing.
@@CassErisThere are some people (most) who actually have a concept of human nature, natural law, ethics, and a basic understanding of Christianity that aspiring to live as Christ is different than believing that one can be Christ. Christian, as in Christ like.
Peterson makes far more sense than your contrarisn assumption of literary construed connivance.
I just found your channel and im absolutly amazed by your work :D
Also, i finally found someone whos books are even more painted and writin on then mine xP
So Peterson insists on an idiosyncratic definition of "ideology" -- sure, using a word in a specific but unusual way in the context of a particular argument isn't in itself a bad thing (though it can make communication more likely to...oops, foreshadowing!). But then he proceeds to insist that his (shaky) arguments in the context of his idiosyncratic definition must apply to any use of the term "ideology" in the more usual range of senses! ...in other words, long-form weasel-wording. JP's rather fond of that maneuver.
💯
50:12 oh god, I'm sure the Romanovs and the Russian noble families, the slave owners in Haiti or the Batista regime in Cuba were such kind and caring oppressors.
Jordan PeterPrinciple's "scholarship", at least outside his core, is awash with distinctions without differences, non sequiturs, straw men, and any thing that might not misbecome.
Psyche is just the Greek word for Soul. The concept of the soul is not really religious in origin, unless you are counting Greek Philosophy as a religion. It is definitely not something native to the Abrahamic religions. Most Jews at the time of Jesus rejected the idea of a soul and if they believed in an afterlife it depended on a physical resurrection of the body. Christians borrowed the idea from Platonists.
There's a couple of hebrew words for soul: נשמה, נפש, רוח (neshma, nefesh, ruach). They roughly translate as soul, essence, breath.
If such a concept didn't exist in the ancient Hebrew systems of believing, and if it was a concept that they borrowed from hellenistic philosophy, it would be reasonable to expect the borrowing of a grek word for it [there are old hebrew words derived from greek, like zug (זוג) which translates to “pair”, borrowed from the Greek word zeûgos (ζεῦγος). This word appears in the Tanach].
This is a common phenomenon in languages in general. When we find a novel concept in another language, we borrow that word and integrate it from origin language to target language, we call them loan words. Phenomenon is an example of it, it's a concept rooted in Greek philosophy and we borrowed a Greek word to refer to it in English.
But also, the concept of a soul is not that exclusive to the Greeks. Most cultures have a concept for it, and it's not surprising that most languages have a non-borrowed word for it.
I would argue that the some concepts of soul are religious, but also far far older than the Abrahamic religions. The Ancient Egyptians for example had extremely complex and multifaceted concepts of souls that existed independently and interacted to form a person in both the physical world and the Duat. There was the Ka, which was the embodiment of your will and life force, similar to a “double”, the Ba, which was the personification of your personality and which travelled freely between the physical world and the Duat, and the Akh, which was your fully realized and transcendent self, neither physical nor spiritual. There were many more aspects to the Egyptian soul besides these.
Whether or not they were homologous to the later Hellenic or Abrahamic concepts of “soul” is a different question although, but similar concepts did exist outside of Greece and the Levant.
obsolete anthropomorphising concept-of-the-gaps nevertheless. there are no souls.
@@wemusthavechannelstocommen619 the anthropomorphising was a later phenomenon. Both psyche, and ruach originally meant "breath", at least with the hellenistic side, the human figure was an allegory of the link between breath and life. Just like we represent France with Marianne, or the US Forces recruitment efforts with a star-spangled Uncle Sam.
psyche is Mind
Pneuma is Soul
-but u are learning some important pieces. Your knowledge of religious history is not sound, yet, my friend.
Just, keep learning.
hail Satan
I would be interested to know Peterson's views on racism, given that his idea that we cannot create new values seems to contradict the general trend towards rejecting racism in modern society. He and his ilk go to great pains to claim we've 'solved' racism, presumably thanks to the Civil Rights Act of the 60's - so have we managed to create new values and learned to leave our racist shoes at the door? Or does he think we were never racist in the first place and for some reason put up with hundreds of years of slavery simply because we hadn't figured out that none of us really wanted it?
I think your latter option fits what we've seen from him the best, seeing as how he thinks Christianity solved the "problem" of slavery, despite history arguing otherwise
@@CassEris
yeah, I think you're probably right. It 's funny - the amount of evangelical Christians I've seen who try to deny slavery is wrong when they cannot get around the awkward fact that the Bible condones it.
The conservative mind has an incredible capacity to withstand cognitive dissonance.
Especially if it's padded by ignorance. I had a Babylon Bee fan try to tell me that conservatives got rid of slavery, I'm guessing because he knew the bare minimum about the Republican party. Surely Peterson doesn't have that excuse.
I can't do a full response to your point on this subject, but just generally, I would say that learning to not be racist is probably not what Peterson would consider to be learning a brand new value, it is probably a new manifestation of an existing value, something like kindness/compassion I suppose
It's like if you already understand values like justice, but one day you discover a particular crime going unpunished and you then decide to start punishing it, you haven't learned some new value, you have just learned another instance where the existing value, justice, needs to be applied
@@therealjordiano
yeah, that probably is what he'd say. I've seen a lot of Christians try to claim that slavery was better than the alternative for ancient people - it was, work for no money or die from not having any food. They actually try to pretend it was some sort of welfare system to help people - especially women - after God had ordered the slaughter of all the men and livestock, just how were they expected to survive on their own?
Personally, I'm not sure how you can have a concept of justice and not realise owning someone is wrong from the outset. I don't think Peterson can really account for how slavery started in the first place.
If we had to create "shoes", and we had to create "indoors", then do we need to debate whether we had to create "bad" to understand we created "shoes indoors bad"? Perhaps a better gendanken would be one based on things humanity did not create. However, I understand this is a pitfall of discussion with religious people and Drs. Peterson, as they tend to have trouble admitting that things like language were created by humanity. Thus anything they might suggest would deal with the same issue.
I came for the Jordan person asmr, thoroughly satisfied.
Growing up in a very conservative religion that also emphasized "revelatory" experiences, I think I could maybe give some insight to Peterson's discussions about such things. At the same time, as I've come out of that culture and learned about what those "revelatory" experiences likely are, it seems clear to me that the "patterns" the subjective experiences form are patterns because they are guided by priming and using emotional manipulation techniques that are fairly consistent throughout most humans. ... Then again, maybe I'm just misunderstanding Mr. Peterson's point and what examples he might consider relevant.
Ah, thank you. It is possible that's what he's alluding to, but with his trademark vagueness, it's hard to know for sure
🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞
UA-cam needs a dancing lobster emoji!
I'm not the most versed and read person in the world to comment on this, but I've dabbled a doo.
Personally, in my understanding of things and navigating life and philosophy and psychology, I had a breakthrough when I was judged along into accepting, at least my own atheism, as a form of religion or religious belief. It is belief, which is subjective. It's also developed out of the fertile crescent of human inquiry into these things as large and larger than ourselves. It arguably evolved. And, at least according to a former or still current Yale religious studies professor, is included in religious studies modules. Also, to bring Nietzsche kicking and screaming into this, could also be considered a religion because we haven't yet figured out how to ubermensch ourselves out of having structures or society or whatever. Additionally, we have a right to it in most modern modern state constitutions. Our belief (or non belief) is therefore just as sacred a commentary on life and existence and all things as the people and institutions that have a monopoly on that. Accepting these premises deflates a significant amount of Peterson's and theistic arguments. Atheists, are self called to even higher standards as the Christian or Muslim in a lot of respects, and we're more efficient without all of the ritual for appearances. It's as if we remain human, and existence remains existence, and the beyond that is still beyond remains beyond without having to imagine it go further than the viability of the planet or our survival on it. These truths are self evident in a way that's profound but also very mundane. Peterson can stuff it. Especially considering that some of the most nihilistic people on earth today, in practice, are the most fundamentalist religious. They even make fundamentalist atheists run pale.
Awesome job, mate.
I've got two theories about why Peterson is seemingly admitting that subjectivity is real.
Firstly - it allows him to appear in step with 'science' - something he desperately needs in order to get his foot in the door of the academic intellectual establishment, and appeal to the portion of his audience who cut their teeth on Sam Harris and might be tempted to move further into the realm of the lobster.
Secondly - he must have been writing this book at about the same time as he started trying to build bridges with the non Christian believers - those pesky Muslims. By calling religious experience a subjective thing, it allows him to bring all the heretics into the fold - because they're all experiencing the same subjective revelation of the objective 'god'.
good theories
If youtube doesn't notice it's obv fine, but you missed a few .... Yatzhee's... near the end :(
Yeah, I'm hoping it's late enough in the video things will be okay, but time will tell I suppose
Hi Cass! I’m fairly new to the channell, and i was wondering if you are still planning to do/have already done some videos on the topic of free will :3
It is indeed still planned, although it's been slightly back burner-ed with the whole health thing getting sorted. (BTW - it's okay if you didn't know, don't feel guilty or anything)
@@CassEris Oh God! No, in fact i didn’t know there was something going on with your health… i’m so sorry to hear that…
How are you now? Are things getting better?
@@FreeWill_is_unintelligible It's looking to be something autoimmune, but not specific enough to nail down (and really start a treatment plan). But the various complaints are starting to be looked into, so progress is happening, albeit slowly. Thanks for asking : )
@@CassEris Hmm, i see. Hope to recieve some good news for the new year then!
Also, looking back at it… i’m sorry for asking. I didn’t mean to be indiscreet, though i might have accomplished just that. I was just worried. Either way, i wish you the best of luck with everything, and of course, a happy 2024.❤️
I think a good riposte to Peterson's obsession with lobsters might be to counterpose another crustacean that absolutely contradicts the ridiculous 'natural order' assumptions that he 'concludes' from his one-dimensional interpretation of 'lobster society'. I mean of course the humble woodlouse/slater/pillbug.
With the sole exception of the desert pillbug, that is a very atypical example, slaters are peaceful, non-hierarchical but still highly social isopods that live in spontaneously and horizontally organised aggregates of individuals where females outnumber males approximately 10:1. Different species often intermix in their communities and they live on a fully vegetarian/scavenger diet. They have laboriously performed an essential recycling and cleansing duty on our planet for millions of years.
Yes, the pillbug is a perfect example from nature that scrupulously 'cleans its room' even to the point of eating its own poo, yet has oddly been overlooked by the erudite professor. Is it because slaters might be perceived as non-ethnocentric, matrifocal, libertarian eco-communists? 🙃😁
So why if he's so keen on crustaceans is Peterson insisting on using the example of the lobster, an 'example of universality' which is even in how he portrays their 'nature', highly questionable? Could a pre-existing ideology have anything to do with it? Food for furthering your critique, Cass 😉
Interesting. Of course I've only directly experienced the desert variety lol
Another incredibly good video about some incredibly bad material.
Definitely no shoes inside as a rule but if you expect your guests to take them off you do need to a) tell them and b) provide a space to put the shoes. Don't just glare at people for not behaving exactly how you believe they obviously should. Even the most reasonable things, such as no shoes inside the house, are not obvious to everyone. Always keep in mind, they might be American.
ooof, lol
Nice! I was rooting for the N is the original incel vibes 😂😂
I am a big fan
mmm bread sticks & ravioli
I want to start this with, as a non-religious trans person, I have no love for Jordan Peterson, and I think his writing does a really bad idea of expressing these ideas (I have not even read it directly because it seems like it would just be a pain), but I think I can offer a way of reading while gesturing at where I think this is coming from.
The first thing I have to get at is, annoyingly, the hardest thing for me to explain why I think this is an idea. I think it came to me from listening to people talk about JRR Tolkien a bunch of all things. So this might also be the most wrong thing I ever say. I think it might even be literal blasphemy but thankfully that isn't something I worry about.
What the hell is God anyway? A lot of people, religious and not, tend to think of God as a dude. He's some guy who made the universe. He spoke to Moses and Abraham and a bunch of other guys. He might also be three dudes, one of whom had to get nailed to a lower case t so he would stop being so mad about a woman eating a fruit. This is a very understandable kind of God, but it is also really limited. What happened at some point in the history of Abrahamic thought is that God got merged with the platonic notion of the Good. Specifically, God is that which is ultimately and universally good. Bonus thing: anamesis (thanks for talking about this earlier in the video so I could work it in easily) means that everyone just needs to be reminded of this concept in order to understand it. Counter examples of people refusing to understand God are sinners in this paradigm and thus can be discounted.
Next is this broader notion of values, where I am going to touch on something brought up in a video by the channel Bimbo Philosophy's video on Celebrity (it is great stuff, I really wish folks would check it out, she serve some real golden era Contrapoints style with the academic rigor of Philosophytube). Values are like our desires, they are more complicated than they seem. The notion of valuing "wearing shoes in the house" could be better understood as being an expression of a value, probably something like cleanliness. People value things like "cleanlyness", "freedom", and "authenticity", and they express those values by cleaning their room, creating constitutional democracies, and going on wildly long rants in youtube comment sections where I try to express some perspective I have on the world that I think is a unique synthesis of my experience. One of the most important values that is common to the modern world for the sake of talking about Jordan Peterson's thoughts here is the notion of the universal good. That is to say, we value the thing that was blended into God around 2000 years ago, because it allows for us to have a pluralistic and tolerant society under it.
So there is this way we can see modern expressions of what can be seen as long standing abrahamic values of universality as still being a key part of the mainstream of liberal thought. If we can believe in a set of universally good values, then God is not yet totally dead, just suffering from amnesia.
Oh, but then non-assimilationist queer people exist, and women who don't want to be pushed into the mold of men-but or any other restrictive role, and people with different cultures don't want to be pressed into the patterns of life that the anglosphere has declared good. So there is almost nothing left to call universally good, except the system of domination through globalized capital. I don't think I need to explain here why that is a problem.
I dunno about the Ubermensch, I'd much rather be a mensch.
What about the Uberwomensch? It just came out recently.
@@FloatingErgonaut I don't know who that is but I suspect I want them to step on me
@@Owesomasaurus Me too, honestly.
Re 57:29 - This definition is incorrect. Mind, spirit, and soul are not, as popularly thought, interchangeable terms for the same thing. "Spirit" is the Life Force, that animating force that enables existence. "Soul" is the way the various elements of being interact to make each individual unique (well, more or less) - and its not immortal. "Mind" is essentially as described in the definition. The word Psyche, I seem to remember from very long ago, is Greek and meant a butterfly and it was originally used to designate the soul but somehow became associated with the mind when psychology incorporated it into the name of that field of study. I seem to remember that there was a Greek legend of a nymph named Psyche but the Sun is rising and I want to finish watching this video and get to bed so I won't google it just now. Thank you for chipping away at Peterson. He overloads my bullshit detector so totally that I have to avoid him...what we called "Bad Vibes" in my youth.
What does it mean, the field has moved past a text ?
Specifically for that book, the point it was making (that we can actually study emotion using neuropsychology) is a point that's just accepted now. So it was helpful to push the idea when it was written, when fMRIs were shiny new toys that people weren't quite sold on just yet, but at this point, the argument doesn't need to be made anymore.
Every time you say Yahtzee instead of Nazi I unfortunately think of Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation
Let's all laugh at philosophy that never says anything tee hee hee
from Second Wind now. And... well, he came up with the "PC masterrace" meme. (see Zero Puctuation for the first witcher)
People look ugly... 🎶
when you're alone
@@CassErisSo, which version is in your head? I'm old enough that mine switches between the original and the cover from The Lost Boys :D
"Women seem wicked"
@@Scriven42 I gotta say the Doors
Nietzsche was a satirist. His work is literally designed to make people like JP look like fools because if you dig deep enough the stuff JP enjoys comes from Greek poop jokes. Nietzsche was brilliant when you understand the joke.
Source?
@@freddiekruger3339 lol are you too lazy to google? Start here: Nietzsche's Last Laugh: Ecce Homo as Satire.
When you grow up and learn to read I suggest: The Power of Satire: Magic, Ritual, Art
Or you can get the actual poop jokes from Aristophanes. Frogs is fun, Dionysus poops himself in that one.
Strange you think he wrote so much as a joke.
@@Redactedlllllllllllll not really the tradition of satire is thousands of years old.
@@Redactedlllllllllllll also, I cited sources. You can read people with PhDs explain this, there’s nothing strange about it at all.
If religion is not an ideology. What good is it?
Do you worry about the time you've lost on the close reading and analysis of a Jordan Peterson text? Real question. I wonder about this a lot. I believe he is a fraud , but he also has so much influence, I feel like it needs to be addressed, like you so very well here.
I feel like I can stay motivated to work through this, and spend the time doing so, because I feel like I'm doing my little part to combat the (what I feel to be) negativity he's putting out into the world.
The first vegan had to invent their values, and veganism is more moral IMO, and doesn't endanger society or whatever
I think therefore i thou :p
M'kay, random internet person
If you don't want to hear the opinions of random internet people, why are you on UA-cam?
@@SleepyMatt-zzz I just made the comment for the algorithm to support the creator. It was a good video and I'm here because I wanna hear her opinions. Good day, random internet stranger!
Yet another bullet dodged by virtue of our good doctor voluntarily taking it to the face. 10/10 would never watch again
Nietzsche seems to think socialism and progressivism are cut from the same cloth, he went so far to base a huge aspect of his philosophy on the concept of Christian values fundamentally influencing modern culture, so Peterson is on some pretty shaky ground when he tries to use him to justify them being of a fundamentally different type. BGE - Nietzsche:
Morality is in Europe today herd-animal morality […], the democratic movement inherits the Christian. But that the tempo of this movement is much too slow and somnolent for the more impatient, for the sick and suffering of the said instinct, is attested by the ever more frantic buying, the ever more undisguised fang-baring of the anarchist dogs which now rove the streets of European culture: apparently the reverse of the placidly industrious democrats and revolutionary ideologists, and even more so of the stupid philosophasters and brotherhood fanatics who call themselves socialists and want a “free society”, they are in fact at one with them all in their total and instinctive hostility towards every form of society other than that of the autonomous herd (to the point of repudiating even the concepts “master” and “servant” - ni dieu ni maître says a socialist formula -); at one in their tenacious opposition to every special claim, every special right and privilege […] at one in their mistrust of punitive justice […] but equally at one in the religion of pity.
He does make a distinction that Christianity internalises where socialism externalises, but concludes the distinction "makes no real difference". TotI - Nietzsche:
Complaining is never good for anything; it comes from weakness. Whether one ascribes one's feeling bad to others or to oneself-the socialist does the former, the Christian, for example, the latter-makes no real difference. What is common to both and, let us add, what is unworthy, is that it should be someone's fault that one is suffering-in short, that the sufferer prescribes the honey of revenge as a cure for his own suffering.
Ah yes, Nietzsche despises socialism, anarchism and christianity all at once
His fantasy was the greek slave society after all...
Y’all really need to remember that Nietzsche was queer af. He is saying that “socialism” in his time was “Christian” because it was homophobic.
@@MandyMoorehol Maybe titles like 'The Gay Science' and 'Ecce Homo' are causing you some confusion 😂
"It is also by no means self evident that value....is not an integral part of reality, despite the undeniable utility of the scientific method."
I took that to be a comment on the issue of the whole subjective v objective morality debate - particularly as it pertains to religious concepts of objective morality (which are really messed up and more often than not are just claims that morality is objective, for obvious reasons, but which often turn out to be subjective by their own metrics when examined closely).
If so, then that paragraph is a complete non sequitur, and not just because, as you pointed out, we can use science to investigate value on some level. The basic strategy of the religious apologist is to handwave away science by classifying it as scientism and rely on spurious philosophical claims to support the 'truth' of objective morality.
I think that's what Peterson is getting at here - and he's objectively wrong to even mention science, since most modern philosophers are neither scientists, nor moral subjectivists - but they are atheists. So it really doesn't matter that science doesn't, or even cannot 'discover' true value - because we don't need it to. It seems to me that Peterson is, as usual, strapping on the old 'need for religion to solve all our problems' motif that he's so fond of, just like any other apologist out there from William Lane Craig to Jonathon Pageau.
ree nihilism nachos
Seems fairly straight forward. Dr. J. Peterson makes more sense, and accurate.
he doofus
Nietzsche was a funny guy. Also excessively intelligent. His influence is everywhere. Art, literature, philosophy. Also nazis. Relevant modern philosophers have all struggled with or were transformed by him. I don't take people that disregard him very serious. Russell, for example. Too academic. Americans have disregarded him for decades, while he was in the veins of Europe.
Nietzsche can only be read with a broad scope, into the past and into the future. He's a most relevant enlightenment thinker. Scientific method. No "behind world" can be invoked. Positivism. Also transcending this: It's all towering constructions built on streaming water. It's all a matter of taste. Very postmodern. Questioning the rational paradigm. He lays it all at the feet of the individual. "First of all I'm a psychologist." Nietzsche is esoteric. He takes shots at Plato and Jesus. Socrates did what he did because he was ugly af. The copium is worse than the hemlock. Wagner is an eruption of unhealthy sentiment. His solutions somewhat Taoistic, I think. He thought Buddhists were passive. Nietzsche is about affirming life. Deal with it. But not cynical. I too think that if one lives and chooses consciously then one can make lemonade out of lemons. Otherwise there is decadence and resentment.
Is Nietzsche problematic, to use a euphemism? A little. Less than people think. He is provocative and harsh. In his circle people joked about his takes on women. Nietzsche: I see all these bourgeois women painting all day and it amounts to nothing. It's not art, it's not adventurous. When I started rocking in the nineties I was like: where are you ladies? I can't listen to PJ Harvey all day. Am I too critical? I am also a bit of a warrior. A decent fight clears up a lot of boundaries. This seems necessary. People talk a big deal and imagine their values and strength. Some think I'm rough. I think It's kid gloves. Nietzsche is poking.
There are people that say his references to women relate to esoteric notions of wisdom, Sophia. Feminine personification. It wouldn't be out of place but I don't think so. A lot can be projected onto such work. I once read a study explaining how it was a gay manifesto. I thought it was absolutely hilarious. Bordering on abjectly stupid. I've read Nietzsche with the sound of marching boots in the back of my head. Hilarious. I hear Peterson. Hilarious.
It's interesting to note that little miss super smug (and her super mug) agrees with Nietzsche only when he points out the importance of the student or the pupil overcoming the teacher in wisdom. Unfortunately she seems convinced that she can skip the long and arduous student phase altogether and instantly become the all-knowing master thanks to her ideological privilege.
No no... The wisdom of the ages doesn't need to be studied 🥱 or laboriously read or put in context 😰 (god forbid we waste so much of our fun-time on the words of an evil white-skinned patriarch!) We can simply reduce it to selected sound bites with an animated Pikachu accompaniment, project our preconceptions onto it, trample on it, cancel it and go straight to the "know-it-all listen-to-me I'm-omniscient" phase. She (and her wokie-dokie soundbite-hungry crew who have never read a philosophy text from cover to cover) reminds me of the old adage "I'm not young enough to know everything".
Someone needs a trip to the chinese milking farm
@@warped_riderhot damn 😂
She's not a student. She already did that and graduated. You're only making assumptions. "Wisdom of the ages" is a meaningless statement. Saying someone is smug is not an argument.
Peterson isn't serving any wisdom of the ages, my friend. Read an actual book if you want. Plenty of ancient texts are getting translated by hardworking archeologists, and oral histories have been recorded from still extant ancient peoples today, if you want real "wisdom of the ages".
Peterson is just projecting his own preconceptions onto other authors, which he often doesn't cite, and their works.
She already graduated?... Wow, Amazing! Perhaps she graduated at the age of 9 with a degree in "Gender and Feminist Studies and postmodern Marxist theories" ... and so by implication I guess she has ascended to the realms of divine absolute knowledge? No longer a mere "student" but a master... or rather a mistress... of eternal wisdom.
No, you're only making false assumptions if you suppose that her sacred piece of paper from some second grade institution means she is entitled to criticise anything that doesn't accord with her trendy new ideology, while herself being above all criticism.
Why is "Wisdom of the ages" a "meaningless statement"? Do you also automatically assume that all writers and thinkers of the past were idiots devoid of wisdom, because they belonged to some "patriarchal tyranny" of "priviledged white males"? It is typical of contemporary intellectual arrogance and infantile narcissism to suppose that all the thinkers of the past have nothing useful to tell us. Do you really believe that because we now have the internet and cellphones (and the virtuous transgender ideology) we are automatically blessed with superior intellects? @@BrennenKing-d5w