Jordan Peterson - Why Comparing our System to a Utopia is a BAD Idea
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2018
- original source: • College Conservatism 2...
Comparing our current capitalist system to an ideologically driven, hypothetical utopia is a very bad idea.
If you want to support Dr. Peterson's work,
you can make a donation on his website:
www.jordanbpeterson.com/donate
If you like his lectures, you will enjoy his recent book:
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: amzn.to/2yvJf9L
We should aim for a functional society and not an ideal one.
A lot of systems can function, political relativism is just begging for disaster. And it's essentially what we already have.
An ideal that I personally strive for is different than an ideal that I force upon others at the point of a gun.
We should aim for a moral society and the rest will take care of itself.
_"An ideal society is simply one in which the culture consistently applies your moral principles."_
I disagree with that because I, as an individual, cannot calculate the outcome of any moral system on such a large scale. Neither can I calculate the effects on just me, nor on society at large.
Galt's Gooch
You said that (paraphrasing) *my moral principles being applied consistently in culture* makes for an ideal society. In my argument I disagree with the bold part, regardless of which existing definition of "ideal" we're using, and regardless of what the moral principles are.
In other words: no matter how you define "ideal society", it's impossible to figure out a moral system that will create such an ideal society.
On top of that I'd also like to add another argument: an *ideal society* does not exist because what's ideal is subjective. Thus there can only be societies that are ideal for some individuals, but not for society at large.
I would always err on the side of freedom as opposed to some concept of Utopia. Peterson, and others like him, resonate with people who recognize that life is not fair. We can look to our own lives for examples of that.
Macedonian Content Farmers underrated comment👍🏼
Why do so many people genuinely believe that "capitalism" should be perceived as a dirty word?
Because it's based on debts and owing something to the world the moment you're born. And you can't even die in peace, you have to take life insurances, prepare a legal testament, pay your obligatory funerals, and hope the medical system doesn't decide you will have to "survive", keeping you alive forcefully with legal statements, stuck in the hospital for 3-4 years unable to do anything else but watch TV.
Fictional Debts we can NEVER refund. It's about looking forward to a possible future: forever preparing and anticipating it, without ever really being able to fully enjoy a present moment.
Your world used to be your parents, your family and your friends. Now your world is a system and a complexity of ideas and bureaucratic procedures to authentify your existence and approve you are a "functional" individual. At some point everything seems like an illusion of "being in control" of the very limited few things you are allowed to be in control of. "Be in control of your mind state, wear the personae, be responsible of your emotional state". Sure, reasonable. But push a little too much near the extreme and you'll have to admit we shouldn't be surprised of the massive wave of unstable anxiety-driven, depressive and intellectually nihilistic youth after that.
On a more stupid side : The interests principle concieved by banks.
Result on a longterm scale : The rich gets richer, the poor gets poorer. I don't know much about economy, but it seems to me this concept of national debt is just "slowing down" this fact growing exponentially.
I will , too, give my two cents on why capitalism of today is seen as "dirty":
I as a worker provide value to society. The value I give and the value I take differs if I work for a company who profits from the difference between the two. They are able to do so because they have the means of production for me to provide such value. I don't. I can be a very good car mechanic but if I don't have the shop or the tools I can't provide my services and give value to society.
Capitalists are the enablers of people working for society. They have the means and we have the skills. Problem is that there often is power imbalance between worker and employer, favoring the employer, because they are the ones with the resources. A lot of people can be trained to be mechanics but having the means to build and own a factory is certainly not for everyone... They are in control over the production and use you as a tool to extract more resources from the products you make with the help of their investments.
Again, the problem with capitalism here is the imbalance and the inequality between a working class and an owner class... I am not against private property but I guess one good way to have a fair society would be to have groups of working classes (car mechanics, economists, blue collar, white collar, everyone who works for a living) uniting and jointly buying or owning their means of production or service provision and would run themselves democratically. These are called worker co-ops.
In co-ops, the destination of the rents taken from the products everyone produced would be democratically chosen: "Do WE want to use this money to invest in more machinery, high tech computers or pay ourselves more this year?" Instead of that being decided by a few people in a board of directors who love to give themselves huge bonuses because they cut costs (at the expense of the workers or consumers many times) for the owners of capital who got so much dividends as such... This current system incentivizes parasitic behaviour from those at the top which isn't actually good for society...
The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is for me based on the fact that the means of production are concentrated in the hands of the few who make the machine work for their benefit more and more.
I am not against capitalist owners but I want the capitalist owners to be every worker and the power of having resources to be dilluted by all. For that we also need educated workers, capable of managing their role as a decision maker and cooperative member of these co-ops.
I believe if you own something you got to work on it. If not it means someone is working for you and you are probably leveraging your ownership status and exploiting them...
@@MrJackPeppers You know, i judge the merit of ANY system by whether it would fail or succeed in the real world. So yeah, go make your worker co-ops and see if it could compete. If the whole thing is a major success then more power to you. But if the whole thing fails then... well, it's ok atleast you've tried.
Because it is. No, it’s not dirty. It’s ABJECT.
channel should be called Bite-sized Peterson
or Bite-sized Peterson's diiiiick.
cause this channel is just climbing jordan peterson's dick!
am I right guys?
ba dum tss
"Cringe"
Definitely have not taken 99% of fish from the ocean, I'm sure populations have been damaged but not to that degree by simple logic
In my mind, one of the clearest solutions to the problem of inequality of opportunity, which Jordan recognizes as a valid problem, is a universal basic income. If everyone pays taxes into a basic wage for everyone based on survival necessity, those who are hopelessly impoverished have the chance to earn a profit above basic survival, and those who earn disproportionately much are forced to distribute a needs-based percentage of their surplus wealth, limiting their ability to monopolize. I consider it a kind of economic socialism without recourse to identity-not even economic identity, because even the highest income earners would receive the same basic income. The poor would still have incentive to work, because no one wants to only earn enough to eat and sleep indoors, and the rich would still have incentive to work, because they would still end up earning much more than most. It's a way of maintaining the existing hierarchy while mitigating the unbounded unfairness of power imbalances. It would also replace most current social security spending, simplifying the system and eliminating many of its costly bureaucratic complications. For these reasons and more, I'm in full support of it.
*Edit:* J.P. disagrees with universal basic income. He also acknowledges that there is a significant portion of the population, as high as 10%, who are simply incapable of taking a productive role in society due to low IQs. For them, the choice is between taking a counter-productive role in society by assuming responsibilities they are unable to meet, accepting social assistance, or having no income at all. Until productive roles for these people become available, social assistance is their only viable option.
change_my_mind.jpg
Thats is what they do with taxes.... however allow the money can't be used for that one problem police and other things are necessary also. The super rich find ways around these systems and the poor are left to deal with them.
Majority of wealthy people( and not middle class).use tax avoidance to stop the system u speak of from working they hide their true wealth and use their influence on the government to further avoid paying tax.
What you are saying isn't viable and isn't possible its wishful thinking.
To be honest, we can't reach the level of Utopia. The only thing we can do is focus on making our life better with a very small action with positive energy. Comparing us to others only intensifies the sense of discontent with the life one is currently living.
Even if peterson is right about hierarchies, does that justify the levels of extreme poverty we experience today?
No, and it doesn't even try to justify them. That's another topic
There is an argument that you cannot have justice and equality at the same time. I will give you an example.
Two people play a game:
If they play with the same rules(justice) the best player is going to win (inequality).
To achieve equal results you will have to give to the "weaker" player an advantage, but this would make the game unfair.
The problem in the real world is that the "game" is unfair and at the same time the results are unequal (It fails in both)
Wealthy people for example tend to have more and better opportunities to succeed in life. This is like giving an unfair advantage to the "stronger" player and as such the result is both unfair and unequal. Maybe not the best example but I hope you understand what I am trying to say.
I hate fish, it taste awful
Батрић Гарић good reason for eradicating fish!
So you're saying depleting the oceans is a good thing?
I love fish, it taste great
Oh come on.... you don't actually believe there is no "hypothetical" answer to dealing with the "value claim?"
...
Tyler Johns ... if Peterson starts with the presumption that "people aren't taught..." what makes you think that those same people don't have a hypothetical rationale to solve a fictitious, straw man problem within the vacuum of their own minds?
Tyler Johns ... you think you can tell people what they "aren't taught?"
Unlimited Resources with helping Jarvis Robots from Iron Man and Irobot. Thank you
It is really good to hear this myth every now and then that the sociocultural conditions in the West is the most productive any where in the world. I admire professors too who market capitalism and neoliberal economics rigorously as him.
The point I disagree with is that he considers that capitalism is very well implemented worldwide it is a better system than all the others but it has flaws that must be corrected but corruption is very imminent and puts shackles to creative people not to advance in life at least creatively in science
If capitalism is so great why arent all capitalist countries bustling rich? Last time i checked africa is still a third world continent.
Second
Is the idea that people working in large cities are entitled to live in those cities rather than commute - and among other things, add to the carbon emissions problem, is that Utopian? Is it an example of free markets and capitalism that houses are bought up by speculator cabals who rent them out at prices workers can't afford to pay? Are monopolies capitalist? Life isn't fair is a maxim only evil people subscribe to: it was never meant as a rational for gross injustice.
First!!! Great video
Congratulations
Yeah no shit.
well... from the title... who is calling it that? its clearly not that, so who is comparing it to that? need a better bait title, ben
What about europe though? A lot of socialist countries there are pretty much on top of the list when it comes to wealth. I'm not talking about communism, but maybe socialism actually gives poor people a better chance to compete at society.
They're socialist democratic, not purely socialist.
Accept structural inequalities and huge actors controlling every detail of your life. Or, to put it succinctly, "clean your room". Donate to my Patreon, buy my book.
"Controlling every detail of your life"
What the hell are you talking about? Do you live in North Korea or what?
Galt's Gooch
Yeah, you're right. I'm Austrian and we have very high taxes here. A quick glance:
to 11 000 EUR - 0%
11 000 EUR - 18 000 EUR - 25%
18 000 EUR - 31 000 EUR - 35%
31 000 EUR - 60 000 EUR - 42%
60 000 EUR - 90 000 EUR - 48%
90 000 EUR - 1 000 000 EUR - 50%
over 1 000 000 EUR - 55%
But in America, tax rates are much more favorable. In that area you guys really don't have much to complain about compared to European countries.
However, I agree you guys (I'm assuming you're American) also have work to do. Way too many regulations pressing down on small businesses.
That being said, it is undoubtably one of the best times to live in for the average citizen in the west. Living standards have increased dramatically and social mobility has rarely been better. We're blessed to be alive today.
And yet, hardly anyone seems interested in breaking huge countries (de facto empires) up into, less overreaching, smaller states, with more transparent and directly democratic governments and manageable populations (let's say, between Uruguay 3M and The Netherlands 16M). Turkey, Mexico, Iran, Brazil, Russia, USA are virtually unfixable, impossible to govern, no matter how hard things are pushed into the right directions.
Besides pro athletes, this guy HAS to have the worlds record for flyer miles built up. Has to lol
Can you please explain why your channel is called bite-sized philosophy yet you only post Jordan.
I have responded to this question a lot of times, but I'll bite: When I made this channel I had no idea where I was going with this and I still have no idea what this channel will end up being in a year. I chose the name to keep my options open and to not give the impression that this is some official channel if I called myself anything with Peterson, I think that would border on impersonation. I am still open to other speakers, but I purely follow my own interest and I found nothing as good, except some audiobooks, but those have issues with licencing and I don't want to do anything illegal. I don't want to rename it and honestly I don't want to let the name dictate what I do with the channel. Keep in mind that I am just a random Bucko with a clip channel, I don't take myself too seriously with this and I don't want to be uptight with everything because I tend to kill the fun out of everything if I decide to be too professional. It is what it is and I don't mean to insult philosophy or any philosophers.
You don't have to spam every video, I usually respond to most sincere questions that I catch and I take the time to respond and/or to help out anyone who is looking for links/videos, which is, in my opinion, one of the strong points of this channel.
Ali quit being an annoying, obnoxious idiot. Get some direction in your life. Get a purpose.
As much as I love Jordan Peterson, I just got so attuned to his voice, and I know many of you can relate. Just to clarify, it’s not that I don’t like listening to him, I do. But it just isn’t as magical as it was the first time. I’m dying to hear someone else’s “bite-sized” philosophy, aren’t you guys too?
Ali
There are plenty of channels. Some really good ones looking at the works of great philosophers. Takes less than a minute to search.
I think the list could grow once the Candace Owens, Kanye and Scott Adams' ball starts rolling. There are many others to include and I think the amazing Jordan Peterson has really fanned the flames of something big here. Thanks for the clips and reminders of how to live and think in a better way.
Statism is utopianism.
'Since there is inevitably some level of inequality then extremes of inequality are good.'
Peterson is a poor philosopher because he doesn't understand basic logic. I could increase the inequality in that argument by quite a margin, but he should really start from there.
I don't think he's arguing that extreme inequality is a good thing, I think he's arguing that trying to eradicate the idea of inequality is more destructive than inequality itself.
Where the fuck did he say that?
Nishant Ganesh Jordan B. Strawmanson said this
He's arguing from a point of relativism, countering the critique that inequality is bad/corrupt by saying 'There is always inequality.' At the end he says "'because it produces inequality then it's a corrupt system,' it's like no, every system produces inequality..." Take that to its logical conclusion and what do you get? 'There is always inequality, which implies that contrasting levels of inequality is in error, thus...'
It is a reduction to the absurd based on his own straw man of the 'Leftist' position (and confusing inequality with hierarchy). And on top of these layers of fallacies you have to consider his position: he is a liberal, a capitalist, and he praises wealth. The conclusion of all this is a defense of inequality from a relativistic position. It's really just a confounding argument built up on numerous fallacies.
Ed Va, oh boy, a reddit cultist...
And, not an argument.