I have a Jungian interpretation of Peterson's position. Everyone, interpretes and I mean everyone, loves in Nietzsche something that represents their True Self - this is why people can be sworn enemies and yet be birthed by the same intellectual father. The Ideological Radicalized Far-Left may love Nietzsche for his "there are no truths, only interpretations" to justify their moral relativism. Whereas; the Ideological Radicalized Far-Right love the "will to power of the blonde beasts of prey" which sanctified Nazism. Peterson is no exception. He extracts from Nietzsche that which reflects his authentic Self, I do not hold him in contempt for that. In fact I encourage it. Ask yourself: 'what is revealed about me, to me, in my misunderstandings?'. I this sense, misinterpretations are quite charming and endearing.
Philosophizing with a hammer was not about him smashing things but checking the quality of idols… hence: Twilight of the Idols or How to Philosophize with a Hammer. Just one thing.
before any of these criticisms can even matter, it has to be established that Peterson purports to be some type of orthodox Nietzschean rather than an admirer who is influenced by Nietzsche's ideas. otherwise, it's NOT a misinterpretation to depart from the consensus interpretation and to flesh out your own idea that were INFLUENCED by the work of another. it would almost be like criticizing the Young Hegelians for misinterpreting Hegel or the Frankfurt School philosophers for twisting Marx.
Nietzsche was right in many aspects and in others horribly wrong! Just to say he was wrong or right is a little bit superficial.....and the alledgedly arrogant quote in the beginning.....i guess he wanted to point out the significance of his aphoristic approach to philosophy which is a fine tradition of brilliant thinkers before him, who were able to concentrate their thoughts in a few lines........just think about ingenious men like La Rochefoucauld, Chamfort, Vauvenargues or after Nietzsche, E.M.Cioran and Nicolas Gomez Davila, the two most brilliant aphorists of the 20th century. I guess that some modern philosophers and especially academic philosophy has a problem with a non- systematical philosophy that is presented in aphorisms. But what higher art, if a philosopher makes you deeply think over a few lines, while others need a whole book to say less or almost nothing?
I have a Jungian interpretation of Peterson's position. Everyone, interpretes and I mean everyone, loves in Nietzsche something that represents their True Self - this is why people can be sworn enemies and yet be birthed by the same intellectual father. The Ideological Radicalized Far-Left may love Nietzsche for his "there are no truths, only interpretations" to justify their moral relativism. Whereas; the Ideological Radicalized Far-Right love the "will to power of the blonde beasts of prey" which sanctified Nazism. Peterson is no exception. He extracts from Nietzsche that which reflects his authentic Self, I do not hold him in contempt for that. In fact I encourage it. Ask yourself: 'what is revealed about me, to me, in my misunderstandings?'. I this sense, misinterpretations are quite charming and endearing.
Great comment! 🙏
But the biggest question still is, is there such a thing than " true self"?
Well spoken point, but I must ask why you insist on characterizing the nazis as "right". They were a national socialist party.
Philosophizing with a hammer was not about him smashing things but checking the quality of idols… hence: Twilight of the Idols or How to Philosophize with a Hammer.
Just one thing.
Maybe that’s mentioned in the video. I just got annoyed when I heard that bit. I’m only a few minutes in.
I may be a philosophical midwit but i can still feed the algirithm!
Simpler subtitles would look better
And the vhs effect damage your video
Great video btw
Thanks 🙏 for the feedback I really appreciate it! Cheers
before any of these criticisms can even matter, it has to be established that Peterson purports to be some type of orthodox Nietzschean rather than an admirer who is influenced by Nietzsche's ideas. otherwise, it's NOT a misinterpretation to depart from the consensus interpretation and to flesh out your own idea that were INFLUENCED by the work of another. it would almost be like criticizing the Young Hegelians for misinterpreting Hegel or the Frankfurt School philosophers for twisting Marx.
Nietzsche was right in many aspects and in others horribly wrong!
Just to say he was wrong or right is a little bit superficial.....and the alledgedly arrogant quote in the beginning.....i guess he wanted to point out the significance of his aphoristic approach to philosophy which is a fine tradition of brilliant thinkers before him, who were able to concentrate their thoughts in a few lines........just think about ingenious men like La Rochefoucauld, Chamfort, Vauvenargues or after Nietzsche, E.M.Cioran and Nicolas Gomez Davila, the two most brilliant aphorists of the 20th century. I guess that some modern philosophers and especially academic philosophy has a problem with a non- systematical philosophy that is presented in aphorisms. But what higher art, if a philosopher makes you deeply think over a few lines, while others need a whole book to say less or almost nothing?
War