At a certain point in this video I say something like "the view that all social relations are nothing but power is a fringe view on the left". I should have elaborated further. It's clear that people on the left don't typically view their personal relationships as solely based on power. However, it's also true that the broader ethos of the left is totally influenced by an analysis of power dynamics.
Your intellectual stamina is superhuman. I can't listen to Brand for more than a minute before it just becomes just white noise to me. The fact that you can not only keep listening, but can actively contextualize it, is beyond impressive.
Thank you man, I love you. I tried to be super-charitable from the start of my commentary (perhaps at times too much) because I wanted to try to engage in the best faith possible.
To knock your attitude of modern society but still retain a determined mentality like that blonde guy in rocky but some skinny weirdo antithesis of contextualized personal content its in your locker they mean business about writing the mind
It is ironic that Peterson is so anti-postmodernism given that when asked questions about the historisity of the bible, he immediately becomes one. He instantly starts deconstructing the language, all in an effort to avoid actually answering the question.
It's amazing to believe that the solution to being a slave is to be a better person. I don't think Peterson is actually saying that he would tell a slave to make their bed and things would be okay. But he says it here as though it's the solution to being chained and forced into labor by violence.
@@Mon000 Of course, the primary purpose of a conversation is to communicate with your partner, but neither Brand nor Peterson seem to be talking to each other. I think that the rhetorical setting of the podcast has so overcome the faux setting of the conversation that they are simply talking to their perceived audiences. So when Brand brings up slavery, and Jordan responds, neither of them is talking about chattel slavery nor a slavery that aligns with the form that the other is talking about, but instead the slavery which currently suits their rhetorical point (for Brand, it seems to be unattenuated hedonism and for Peterson, unthinking behavior) which is similar but of course not the same.
Watching the actually intelligent Mon0 attempt to extract a charitable and coherent point from the word salad of charlatan Russel Brand is kinda like watching a master chef try to salvage a dish made from plastic fruits a child gave him. No matter how skilled you are, it's simply not going to work if the base ingredients have no substance.
If someone wants the reasoning of their argument to be followed, they will work to express themselves clearly. When they don't, they might as well be speaking in tongues. Please don't melt your brain trying to make sense of blather.
I recently watched a conversation where Peterson claimed there's such a thing as "darwinian truth" (i.e. there are "kinds" of truth) and how he was training an AI on biblical and islamic literature so they could debate each other. He's also a self avowed (although not the most astute) Nietzschean.. He's a "postmodernist" as well if anyone is. He's also apparently interested in hermeneutics, but he seems to take stories and poetry a little too literally if you ask me.
For the record I watched videos of Peterson from when he first got notice for refusing to comply with policy forcing people to use particular pronouns etc. and I think he sounded quite reasonable. I think popularity and public scrutiny has just kind of destroyed him. He doesn't make any sense anymore. I also at least respect his commitment to helping people. At this point however aside from people who find his words encouraging, I can't imagine anyone associates with him for any reason aside for his immense success. I don't think any kind of academic or intellectual can really take the guy seriously, not just "liberal" academics. He just is talking about topics he doesn't really know about all the time. There's no reason also to always defer to the age of ideas to determine their truth. The oldest ideas are not always (or even often, if you take science into consideration at all) the truest
Th idea that Russell’s isn’t saying anything here is stupid, sure it’s very poetic, but it’s also insightful 100% does address the question. The silly part is that the volume of his poetry is turned up to 11 and appears he is showing off his acumen as a response to the mention of his giftedness. That’s the silly part. To say that what he’s saying isn’t coherent is just wrong, but I absolutely am laughing at the inappropriate use of such extreme linguistic decoration.
around 9 min... i think he meant that it should be every individual thinking not to use force at all... so if we would all act and think in that manner imagine ... but ofcourse that the force should be last resort
Russel’s diatribe was absolutely ridiculous but it was not word salad, although his language is flowery, he addresses the subject and he give and unexpected insight that somewhat challenges the premise of the question, that you can have certainly that what your doing is for the good. He instead says that by letting the Holy Spirit work in him, he has faith,, not certainty that it’s towards the good.
@@Mon000 I think its the closest thing to a "religious" text born out of logos i can even conceptualize. It is a very interesting framework that is in simple language and is less than 200 pages. I also think one of the reasons logos suffers online is that many of these ethos & pathos dependent speakers ground their whole arguments in things like the bible which have ethos and pathos built into them. I get looking for meaning in our stories, maybe we should try stories that are more accessible to everyone and I think Finite & Infinite Games might be that.
AIs see characters like stats on the back of playing cards. Their story is the average pathway the characters take. AIs see facts as metaphors. All facts are just correlations.
I think Brand is saying that he doesn't feel any responsibility for his use of language since he believes it is the voice of god flowing through him. His role is to keep that channel as pure as possible and therefore must reject logos or any human process that would diminish the flow or alter its message. You're right bout it being hedonistic but its also so much worse because he's backing up his impulses with the authority of god. He thinks he's a prophet. I also get the same vibes form Brand that I do from my family members who have found relief from a hedonistic life in Buddhism. Its like they're convincing themselves they can transcend their own humanity while at the same time needing so desperately to tell everyone around them that they're doing it. I think its what hedonism becomes when your body gets too old for the pleasures to outweigh the pain but now i'm really just positing.
I actually don't see how everything isn't about power. What even is power? It's the degreee to which you can persist in your existence and expand your capcity to exist. Isn't this what characterizes the existence of all things in the universe? I think people don't like this because it sounds bad but it's actually obvious if you're honest with yourself. All relationships are built on power dynamics with the implicit understanding that force could be used if things get out of hand. Peterson even said this about men that there's always an underlying threat of physical force that keeps men civil with one another. I don't see any area of life where this is not the case. Everything in civilised society is built off of laws with the implication that if these laws are not followed then force will be used against you. This is even true in tribal societies and even chimpanzee societies. The implicit threat to have your capacity to survive taken away is always there. Even in parent child relationships, why are children afraid of their parents? Because their survival is in their parents hands which means they have the power to take it away. This doesn't mean they ever would but they could in theory
At a certain point in this video I say something like "the view that all social relations are nothing but power is a fringe view on the left". I should have elaborated further. It's clear that people on the left don't typically view their personal relationships as solely based on power. However, it's also true that the broader ethos of the left is totally influenced by an analysis of power dynamics.
Your intellectual stamina is superhuman. I can't listen to Brand for more than a minute before it just becomes just white noise to me. The fact that you can not only keep listening, but can actively contextualize it, is beyond impressive.
Thank you man, I love you. I tried to be super-charitable from the start of my commentary (perhaps at times too much) because I wanted to try to engage in the best faith possible.
To knock your attitude of modern society but still retain a determined mentality like that blonde guy in rocky but some skinny weirdo antithesis of contextualized personal content its in your locker they mean business about writing the mind
The look of peterson trying to make sense out of brands word salad is priceless.
It is ironic that Peterson is so anti-postmodernism given that when asked questions about the historisity of the bible, he immediately becomes one. He instantly starts deconstructing the language, all in an effort to avoid actually answering the question.
really funny and insightful, make more long form critiques like this! earned a sub
It's amazing to believe that the solution to being a slave is to be a better person. I don't think Peterson is actually saying that he would tell a slave to make their bed and things would be okay. But he says it here as though it's the solution to being chained and forced into labor by violence.
Yep, at some points it becomes so fuzzy that it is hard to even really know what they are saying in a "real world" sense.
@@Mon000 Of course, the primary purpose of a conversation is to communicate with your partner, but neither Brand nor Peterson seem to be talking to each other. I think that the rhetorical setting of the podcast has so overcome the faux setting of the conversation that they are simply talking to their perceived audiences. So when Brand brings up slavery, and Jordan responds, neither of them is talking about chattel slavery nor a slavery that aligns with the form that the other is talking about, but instead the slavery which currently suits their rhetorical point (for Brand, it seems to be unattenuated hedonism and for Peterson, unthinking behavior) which is similar but of course not the same.
So that's why I think it's fuzzy. Maybe I'm missing something because I didn't watch the whole podcast and have no desire to.
Watching the actually intelligent Mon0 attempt to extract a charitable and coherent point from the word salad of charlatan Russel Brand is kinda like watching a master chef try to salvage a dish made from plastic fruits a child gave him. No matter how skilled you are, it's simply not going to work if the base ingredients have no substance.
If someone wants the reasoning of their argument to be followed, they will work to express themselves clearly. When they don't, they might as well be speaking in tongues. Please don't melt your brain trying to make sense of blather.
This is way easier than you think.
Don't swim against the current, swim across it.
43:23 Fun way of thinking about deepity that John Vervaeke used:
“Love is, a four-letter word”
???
I recently watched a conversation where Peterson claimed there's such a thing as "darwinian truth" (i.e. there are "kinds" of truth) and how he was training an AI on biblical and islamic literature so they could debate each other. He's also a self avowed (although not the most astute) Nietzschean.. He's a "postmodernist" as well if anyone is. He's also apparently interested in hermeneutics, but he seems to take stories and poetry a little too literally if you ask me.
For the record I watched videos of Peterson from when he first got notice for refusing to comply with policy forcing people to use particular pronouns etc. and I think he sounded quite reasonable. I think popularity and public scrutiny has just kind of destroyed him. He doesn't make any sense anymore. I also at least respect his commitment to helping people. At this point however aside from people who find his words encouraging, I can't imagine anyone associates with him for any reason aside for his immense success. I don't think any kind of academic or intellectual can really take the guy seriously, not just "liberal" academics. He just is talking about topics he doesn't really know about all the time. There's no reason also to always defer to the age of ideas to determine their truth. The oldest ideas are not always (or even often, if you take science into consideration at all) the truest
9:05 The key in that statement is "when we can".
Th idea that Russell’s isn’t saying anything here is stupid, sure it’s very poetic, but it’s also insightful 100% does address the question. The silly part is that the volume of his poetry is turned up to 11 and appears he is showing off his acumen as a response to the mention of his giftedness. That’s the silly part. To say that what he’s saying isn’t coherent is just wrong, but I absolutely am laughing at the inappropriate use of such extreme linguistic decoration.
around 9 min... i think he meant that it should be every individual thinking not to use force at all... so if we would all act and think in that manner imagine ... but ofcourse that the force should be last resort
1:45 perhaps he is saying AI has a narrative fed into what's been uploaded. What, No bias?
Russel’s diatribe was absolutely ridiculous but it was not word salad, although his language is flowery, he addresses the subject and he give and unexpected insight that somewhat challenges the premise of the question, that you can have certainly that what your doing is for the good. He instead says that by letting the Holy Spirit work in him, he has faith,, not certainty that it’s towards the good.
Hi man, nice video! I'm wondering if you have ever read Finite and Infinite Games by James P. Carse?
Im also curious if you have a favorite book?
Nope, should I?
@@Mon000 I think its the closest thing to a "religious" text born out of logos i can even conceptualize. It is a very interesting framework that is in simple language and is less than 200 pages. I also think one of the reasons logos suffers online is that many of these ethos & pathos dependent speakers ground their whole arguments in things like the bible which have ethos and pathos built into them. I get looking for meaning in our stories, maybe we should try stories that are more accessible to everyone and I think Finite & Infinite Games might be that.
Jordan is right here as again. Dont know what u ppl on about...
Totally agree, people hate him so much they either don't listen correctly, can't understand or are just being dishonest.
Jordan Peterson doesn't know wtf he's talking about, ever...
or you j dont have the mental capacity to comprehend him
@@awehellnah if you believe you comprehend the gibberish he says that even he himself can't comprehend, then that makes you delusional my friend.
I find many of his ideas extremely coherent and helpful.
@@env0x don’t project your insecurities on me bro
@@rjim1 tell me 1 of his ideas that had a real impact on your life in such a way that it changed your life for the better.
It's hilarious that he's the same guy who is on record on Twitter mentioning the genocidal Bibi Netanyahu, saying, "Give them hell."
AIs see characters like stats on the back of playing cards. Their story is the average pathway the characters take. AIs see facts as metaphors. All facts are just correlations.
I think Brand is saying that he doesn't feel any responsibility for his use of language since he believes it is the voice of god flowing through him. His role is to keep that channel as pure as possible and therefore must reject logos or any human process that would diminish the flow or alter its message. You're right bout it being hedonistic but its also so much worse because he's backing up his impulses with the authority of god. He thinks he's a prophet. I also get the same vibes form Brand that I do from my family members who have found relief from a hedonistic life in Buddhism. Its like they're convincing themselves they can transcend their own humanity while at the same time needing so desperately to tell everyone around them that they're doing it. I think its what hedonism becomes when your body gets too old for the pleasures to outweigh the pain but now i'm really just positing.
So sad that people focus on "Peterson word salad" Russel Brand is a WAY better target.
I actually don't see how everything isn't about power. What even is power? It's the degreee to which you can persist in your existence and expand your capcity to exist. Isn't this what characterizes the existence of all things in the universe? I think people don't like this because it sounds bad but it's actually obvious if you're honest with yourself. All relationships are built on power dynamics with the implicit understanding that force could be used if things get out of hand. Peterson even said this about men that there's always an underlying threat of physical force that keeps men civil with one another. I don't see any area of life where this is not the case. Everything in civilised society is built off of laws with the implication that if these laws are not followed then force will be used against you. This is even true in tribal societies and even chimpanzee societies. The implicit threat to have your capacity to survive taken away is always there. Even in parent child relationships, why are children afraid of their parents? Because their survival is in their parents hands which means they have the power to take it away. This doesn't mean they ever would but they could in theory
FYI, Jesus Christ is the Logos of God. It is likely he his meaning it that way here.
That's the way I took it too.
@@rjim1 I'm not sure video creator was talking in the same context.