Did Lobster Daddy's first girlfriend leave him for a French philosopher? His attitude towards them is so hateful, even when he clearly knows next to nothing about their theoretical frameworks.
Ssshhhh, he still hasn't discovered that she went to d&g and the all got high and had an orgy and time was infinite. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
To be fair, and I like my continental's, but Badiou is dense. When twelve different luminaries have 20 different distinct definitions of one very technical word it's hard not to have a 'is this...is this just utter nonsense' moment.
I feel like Felix Guattari always gets shafted in discussions of his collaboration with Deleuze, as if he was just tagging along. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Guattari was responsible for formulating a lot of the concepts that define schizoanalysis (including the term itself and its basis in Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis) such as the machinic unconscious, desiring-production, desiring-machines, subject-groups, and pretty much any other materialist aspect of the philosophy. It is clear from reading the writings of both separately and then together that the collaboration between them was dominated by neither one. Deleuze's familiarity with philosophy complemented Guattari's familiarity with psychoanalysis and sociology and vice versa. Aside from that, great and informative video!
@@PlasticPills Fair enough lol. Though I wasn't necessarily talking about that cause you were pretty careful to always say Deleuze and Guattari throughout the video. It's just something more general that I've noticed with online Deleuzians and even Deleuzian academics.
Maybe Peterson knows about Deleuze and doesn't talk about him because it'll be a contradictory stance thanks to Peterson's own appropriation of Nietzsche and his ideas and Difference and Repetition and much of D&G's philosophy appreciate their own roots in the same. Like he's consciously straw-manning these philosophers to sell a narrative. It just seems like dirty politics.
@@thirstyfish7882 Even then, he prepared poorly by skimming through the Communist Manifesto instead of actually reading Das Kapital. It kinda reveals how poorly he researches whomever he disagrees with, while Zizek actually does the work, which provides him with proper arguments for a debate. Peterson seems like one of those people who read secondary sources (eg Wikipedia) and then complain about not getting it because it doesn't provide easy answers. I wouldn't like having that kind of person as my therapist.
"Emergence of a Peaceful Culture in Wild Baboons" is a great paper that's a far more relevant observation to compare to human behavior than any lobster, and not just because baboons are a much more closely-related animal relative to us.
Wild baboons are hard to corral. Tamed, domesticated, defanged baboons are easier to herd into your factories and schools. The wild baboons are too independent, too creative, not standardized enough. I can already see your eyes moving wider on your face as you become a well-trained, well-tamed, peaceful, good boy, and highly moral baboon.
Because Foucault was a predatory sex tourist of literal children, especially in Tunisia? I disagree with Peterson, but let's not pretend there's nothing wrong with Foucault, dude was fucked up.
@@megadan66 If you are opposed to an ideology, then you consider the ideology reinforced that your enemy considers nightmarish. Because people generally find things nightmarish that are threatening, and people like things that threaten their enemies. Also OP ratioed you
@@henrybemis9956- FWIW, my grandmom and great-aunt and great-uncle, who all either fought in or lost someone to W.W.II, all hated that Reagan hangover/Tom Brokaw nomenclature for their cohort, feeling that it both needlessly glorifies war and also minimizes the ongoing danger fascism poses to the world and further minimizes the contributions subsequent generations have made to the world; their preferred term was “the G.I. generation,” although when they were younger they were still being called “the lost generation” - the years which “delimit” a generation have a way of shifting, for instance “generation X’ getting constantly redefined - but you may want to consider, after giving it some thought, nixing the term you used, and employing “the G.I. generation” instead!
Jordan Peterson: SURRENDER TO THE LOBSTER GOD. ALL HAIL CAPITALISM AND TRADITION. Deleuze: Yo, so what if a lobster was the symbol of growing new things.
@@AL-sd7uz yeah, like da fuck wat, jesus. Capitalism is the death of tradition, the society of merchants are the killers of all tradition around the world.
petersons pscyhology stuff is good, but i remember getting this feeling that "hmm, he really is hatting on postmodernism a whole lot more than seems neccesary" so went to check it out my self and , yup, strawman.
Agreed. I've certainly benefited from his psychological writings. Maybe Peterson hates on postmodernism so much because what he's been exposed to is more fanatical screeching from left leaning people who've themselves only skimmed the subject and (it appears to me) are acting more like caricatures of postmodernism. I've just started getting into the subject via the philosophy of Giorgio Agamben so obviously I'm no expert. But Peterson is an academic and should know better than to judge in haste. Of course he gets the same treatment from large sections of the left who attack caricatures of his views instead of debating his actual views.
I certainly agree with his self help/ psychological stuff being good I bought the 12 rules for life, way back when, just to see what all the fuzz was about It was a good perspective on life, and i can certainly see how can someone benefit from his book That said, i see him as a product of the stream he swims on Reactionary stuff about the ridiculousness of the PC/ SWJ police (I'm using these terms since i do not know any others to describe those caricatures) In my opinion it was the people that rushed him to the big stage, as the patriarch of the noble "house of reason", that forced him to project his political thoughts, no matter how underdeveloped some of them are, through the lens of what made him popular in the first place: Resistance against the cultural establishment By no way am i saying that he is a victim of his circunstances and does is not responsible by his own words, but i can see him being slowly shaped into the man his fans thought/ wanted him to be
Yeah, his understanding of postmodernism is underwhelming, but I think it comes from the notion that modern destructive tendencies come from weaponisation of postmodern ideas to achieve political goals, which coincidentally falls into place with destructive marxist movements he reasonably hates
@@doyoubinoame8483 His understanding of postmodernism is ''practical'' (if he has, actually, read about POSTMODERNISM - as he can be using it as a compound noun and not really thinking of it as ''postmodern'' + ''marxism'', similarly to how neoliberalism or laissez faire capitalism has been emptied of meaning and became ''one thing''), not theoretical, 100%. And that´s why he speak of things such as postmodern marxism - while this nomenclature would be stupid to anyone who actually reads a lot of philosophy, to the ''public at large'' it references something. He recognized something and calls it the way he saw people refering to it. It's a problem of symbol and signifier - he doesn't really care exactly what postmodernism is, and marxism as a word has been bastardized so much it means basically anything, BUT there's this ''A'' that has been called postmodern marxism enough that he refers to it as such, even though there are obviously better terms if you want to ''be proper''.
Listen to Stephen West's "Philosophize This". He did 5 20-30 minute talks on Deleuze. Here's part 1 : ua-cam.com/video/b6RnMHRtos4/v-deo.html I'm not kidding, now I listen to audiobook of Thousand Plateaus (here : ua-cam.com/video/0XYc2scuJrI/v-deo.html ) and I more-or-less understand what's going on.
Read it like poetry! For me, his work is meant to produce both concepts and affects. I believe his thought can be accessed through both ideas and emotions. Often time, when I got frustrated with dense/complex passages, I would just relax and experience them like a poem. It's not about getting all of his concepts "right", it's rather about becoming porous to a new way of approaching life. The more you do it, the more many of his concepts start to make sense. If you read French, his writing is even more beautiful and poetic in the original language, especially Mille-Plateaux. I fucking love that man.
Also in regards to Peterson's conservative message, which is rightly so, book is subtitled "antidote to chaos", and there's a lot of meaning in this subtitle, because it generally highlights those whom it aimed at: people who might need to get their life together, and conviniently conservative stuff is easier when you're totally effd up, because it gives you rigid framework how to put yourself back together. Even to criticise and challenge existing concepts you need good footing to start off. That's why conservative is conservative: it conserves our footing and creates a space of stable comfort. Otherwise we would not have a place to return to, in case if our challenge of norms fails miserably, as it often does
Identifying yourself with such measures is exactly what *could have* attributed to one being in those exact circumstances.. Not living up to these so called "standers", of which are totally and completely relative to begin with. You see someone of "high social status" and you believe that they've acquired said status by living out these articulated "rules".. But they could have just as likely inherited generational wealth and drowned a puppy that very morning.. I agree that in a system in which we live by these archaic fallacies, that these "rules" might help- but they're also the source of the very problem to begin with.. And it's my belief that the later is the bigger societal issue.
@@antihero105 I dunno, I don't really see problems in cleaning up your room, as it tends to get messy when you don't take proper care of yourself, which in itself is often a sign of (early) depression. There's also old stuff you might find which reminds you of good times, sad times, you maybe were trying to hide with the mess subconsciously. I don't agree with all the rules in the book, but they're good tips for people who notice they're not okay but don't have the creativity to get out of this loop by themselves. That doesn't mean though, just because he wrote a self-help book inspired by conservatism, that he should hate postmodern thinkers, because they also provide self-help. It seems more like, because he's conservative, loves capitalism, loves neoliberalism, loves hierarchy, that he's trying to assert his dominance over postmodern thinkers with his easy-to-understand-and-follow rules as a superior product. If you want to understand your enemy, think like them. If Lobster Daddy is selling merch, he thinks of himself as a product, not a critical thinker.
this is very close to spinoza's analysis of tyranny except spinoza says that after you've entered the strongman's territory of safety, you're not going to get out on your own local tyrants live off sadness and incapacity
I had read ATP a few years ago, but recently was repeating my auto-didactic vacation into deleuzian theory and so had checked out ATP from the local library. upon watching this and seeing the quote "god is a lobster" and thinking how funny, but not being able to exactly remember, I opened up ATP and low and behold someone had stuck a bookmark right on that page :P humanity can be depressing sometimes but that restored my faith a little. that is all :) thanks for the great content pills
This was so well explained! Only I did have to have a very small amount of background knowledge on the matter, I felt the words in the graphs could be explained when they are put on the graph, but it was great I can’t believe I have only now found your UA-cam channel, thanks comrade! :)
Since you mention it, it is somewhat peculiar that Deleuze doesn't get included in the usual strawmen the intellectual dark web hacks wheel out to shit on postmodernism. Come to think of it, analytic philosophers, who also like to criticize postmodernism without understanding it very well, also tend to leave him alone. I think the reason might be that Deleuze and Guattari are so fucking weird that it's hard even to make effective strawmen of them.
Thank you so much for educating me. To me you're as revolutionary as the pholosophers you're taking about, taking upon yourself this hard quest of tearing down reality and asking the masses: 'See now? See??' I'm so glad I've found this channel, you're the highlight of my days! And this video definitely deserves more views!
I've watched basically all your videos, so I speak here as a fan of your work. While Peterson does in fact misinterpret many things of the so called ''left philosophers'', and while I do agree the term postmodern marxist is philosophically absurd, he does such while trying to construct something (and, unless you believe him to be a psychopathic liar, he did help a lot of people). Your representation of what the lobster part and ''stand upright with your shoulders back'' mean, for example, showing two probably drunk men fighting, is not only disingenous, but serve only to mock something that actually has been shown to improve people's emotional scores in many scientific works - Even when trying to explain ''better'', you COMPLETELY miss the point of the whole chapter. You are just opening yourself to the same critique you do of him, which is hipocritical at best. I don't want to write a wall of text, so one last argument - ''Do not engage a ''lobster son'' in an argument''... I understand the intention, but these people exist and probably affect you directly and indirectly. This means their actions and your will create tensions that have to be solved. How do you plan to solve them? You exclude the possibility of conversation by creating this illusional separation between two groups, which we all know how always ends up, specially in the internet (and hellnet, also known as Twitter), so...?
Wow I’d never read those rules but some of them are actually awesome. Peterson may be a douchenozzle who doesn’t know much about philosophy, but “pet a cat when you encounter one on the street” is a god-tier rule
Except most of them will run way from you (which might lower your self-esteem if you know nothing about cats) and the ones who don't probably have fleas (and other harmful parasites and diseases). Of course, you can take care of stray cats in your neighbourhood, but I would strongly advise against petting them if you have cats at home. It's much better to just ask people if you can pet their dog, which will also help you get to you know the people who live in your neighbourhood. :)
This video made some parts of Gaddafi's Green Book make more sense, particularly his beef with constitutions. I never would have imagined that sentence would come out of my mouth.
I understand Jordan’s simplified and generalized ideas are an easy target, but if you actually read Jung, Deleuze and Guattari are very much neoJungians, with much more fuzzy archetypes (rhizome).
@@fafo867D and G don't want to "smash" psychoanalysts. In a way, they are lacanians. They just think there is more than the oedipal and the neurotic's intercourse, they attempt to take psychoanalysis beyond the oedipal, beyond the social, beyond phallic signification.
makes sense he would use a lobster analogy, since they are a nice example of capital. a once considered garbage animal gutter food, becomes rebranded as decadent highly priced seafood.
So he is trying to get me to use self actualisation to stagnate in a good set of norms. But with a bit of that lobster courage you can also head out and put yourself in some wholly different frameworks and actually learn. 🤔😍
Stay tuned for my next video on Deleuze... not sure what you're asking, but the summed premise of the video is that Peterson wants things the same, Deleuze wants things new.
@@Nashandme74 tbh if you referencing psychoschizon theory as well non duality and some of the more secular and philosophical depictions of Buddhism Especially with a material analyses of the historical context and translation barriers and the way in which Hegel, dialectical concepts snd in general leftist philosophy csn be used to fill in the gaps. Rupert Spiru is generally favored by this camp of philosophy/people who consume snd sre familiar with this channel. It’s definitely a little different and requires a level of willingness to engage with it snd this might be my own weirdo mind making absurd connections but damn idk it’s been a fascinating discovery to add to my scope. If you’re down to be a nomad then I would just jump into his vids without context tbh he has tons on UA-cam and then make of it what you will snd go from there
@@sad-qy7jz thanks for the tip I will definitely check him out. TBH I was not referencing pscychochison but rather a personal POV than espouses Daoist and Anarchist philosophies but personalized to fit the individuals needs, beliefs, and situation. Just remember that schizos are people too, different but still better people than the ones forcing a nomadic lifestyle om people that just want to be left alone or that dont conform to stylized outdated norms of comportment that are evocative of fasc mentality and methodology. again thankd for the help
@@Nashandme74 yeah I don’t think the term refers to people as “schizo” has its own distinct meaning schizophrenia or schizotypal diagnoses reference the term, but I think schizoanalysis gives merit to snd can validate this experience as long as the genuine experiences of people who do experience that and live the label are accounted for and people don’t mistake the meaning. I’m close to a couple of people w schizophrenia snd SPD and although I don’t just ask them ab their experience w psychosis or other obnoxious questions, when they have confided in explaining certain aspects of their experience i like... idk get it? Not like I could ever understand or know how they feel exactly but moreso, I can completely understand the validity and context. Either way though I see schizoanalysis and it’s use of delusions to kind of conceptulize how to a nuerotypical person, one could break free. They use the term nomad and being raised secular Buddhist and as a slazo enthusiast it reminded me so much of eastern depictions of liberation from the ego. Non duality is very similar to dialectal assertions of leftists thought, and I almost feel like Hegel most def had to have been influenced by it slightly whether he realized it or not. The context is different, I mean ancient Tibet was materially very different than like 18th century Europe lol but point being it’s a way to embrace collectivism and empathy and the nature of us as being connected and social but a way to find comfort in the suffering, and depending on how you look at it or what this even means to you, leave your ego behind. Not in the sense that you’re constantly like in some psychedelic inner world lol I couldn’t explain it and don’t claim to fully experience it, but you csn def live peacefully and in a way that betters humanity and the planet without feeling the dreadful snd endless sense of desire and loneliness etc of capitalism. I like thsy it existed long before capitalism but definitely during harsh material conditions and is so easy to work into philosophy But ya good luck comrade
I quite liked this video. I think one point you did not take into account well enough is the target demographic for Petersons talks. The first self-help book's second half of the name is "an antidote to chaos". You are right that the book is about reterritorialization, but that's intended as an antidote to chaos or deterritorialization. The book has no real message for someone who has stable enough ground under them. I think ideas of Deleuze and Guattari are only of value for someone that has a territory to begin with, so viewing them as good continuation for someone who has had a Peterson phase would be quite constructive.
"The goal of any age is to rethink what is possible" without reference to the eternal or true is just circular thinking, circular activity ..advancing in eternal categories is what's really creative.
I was wondering if there are some articulations out there that use Deleuze and Guattari theory of knowledge in the crossing between the scientism worldview and the metaphysic behind Sufis like religious experiences. I guess this may be a weird/cringy question from the eyes of westerns (mainly because of the episteme shift I guess), but this is relevant in order to articulate social issues in other parts of the world where the religion has a huge presence and the anti-religious (scientism) rising discources carry with it a huge anti-science reaction from a big chank of the social body. I ponder that a lot, but I am not a trained philosopher :).
I don't know much of anything about sufism, but Deleuze and Guattari are interested in new ways of seeing the world. We discuss Deleuze and Guattari's view of science in this podcast interview if you're interested open.spotify.com/episode/2318SV4jIhCKKhxHWy4Ls3?si=ffFdyul1QT6L0mfqW-ZOLw
While Peterson is too closed minded about postmodernism and some of the French thinkers, he is right nonetheless that these thinkers are only capable of deconstruction, which does make them dangerous. The divergence has grown too great for people to even communicate. All the French thinkers were capable of was deterritorializing. I can relate to their resentiment but it's expressive potentials, if you will, have gone too far. Peterson is helping people in this process of reterritorializing back into some meaningful world, whether it is imaginary or some other thing is now beyond the point.
I would argue that they are only capable of deconstruction, but to make it shorter let's quote Bakunin “the urge for destruction is also a creative urge!” - Mikhail Bakunin. But nonetheless I agree a lot with you. You can't just take people out of a coma like that. Academy is just too distant from regular people's world.
the point is that "ordinary people" are influenced by ideas from academia, ideas that come from the elites (it's the same since the enlightenment and the french revolution) All the revolutions of the 70s are based on one or two ideas, reduced to a pamphlet, to a couple of inspiring phrases and propaganda (forbidden to prohibit; women are not born, they are made; revolution or death, etc.) mutated according to the convenience of the revolutionaries on duty, and taken to the streets. The same thing happens with ideas about the economy, about justice, social roles, etc. Complex theoretical bodies (that are born in the academic/economic/political elite) are reduced, transformed and absorbed by large human groups, regardless of the evident contradictions and paradoxes that appear (many times, moving away from the "original" meaning of those theoretical bodies)
😂😂😂 Oh sh*t "Derridevil" lol I had to pause the video and get this laugh out. And again for the pronouns flag lmao Jesus Christ I'm about to throw my money at your Patreon
Great fucking video man! What’s the name of the tracks you used? Working on a video about memory in an anime I really liked. I think these songs set a somber but redemptive mood, which is kind of what I’m going for.
You don't need to justify hierarchy since it already plainly exists - JBP's point is to point it's existence out, and acknowledge the fact that it's easier to ascend the dominance hierarchy than it is to change the rules and dismantle the hierarchy - if you want to stay a loser, be my guest - no one is stopping you.
@@thegamingchannel5956 who determines what is a "loser"? You? "Common sense"? Please. There is no inherent value to reality. That means there is no objective way to determine what is success in this life or another, and so on. The difference between donald trump and a broke average joe is no other than easy money and opportunity, implying anything else is disonest and useless. You're probably one of those people who cling to the hope that the passive conformity of your worldviews is some sort of god given, self evident truth and falsely believes that anyone who thinks different to you is just stupid. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that means the stupid one is you, bro.
thanks for this clear defining of deterritorialization. it ironically seems similar to what JBP says of the Order Chaos dialectic, that Order can become to rigid and requires revitalization through Chaos - the territory must be de-mapped and reimagined. Peterson, a typical conservative, biases towards the importance of Order, seeing Chaos as a dragon to be slaughtered, but some middle ground of adaptability and flexibility is the goal, which must include making Chaos your ally - as life naturally does
Love this vid. Although, from what I understand of Jordan Peterson (not having actually read him), he is worried that not everybody is able to cope with the kind of lateral/creative thinking required by deterritorialising social structures. And that if these, I guess mostly, men are left to swim without any firm strata underfoot they will turn turn to massively destructive behaviour. I'm sure we can all think of some examples... Of course, this kind of thinking apparently disregards the damage caused by historical territorialisations in the first place, which is what conservatism always seems to do. I have seen bits of Peterson's lectures in which is he seems much more inclined towards a phenomenological indeterminism that would probably sit alright with Deleuze. Anyway, Jordan Peterson's oversized online presence has never made a lot of sense to me. His at times vicious public persona is completely at odds with any reasonable expectations of good teaching or academic credibility. Then again, perhaps that is exactly what works on social media.
He was more of a therapist who taught on the side than he was an academic with an outside practice. He got his following with the tripe about 'resisting' preferred pronouns.
@@Xanaduum I don't know what the great unwashed is, but it sounds like something I should be scared of. In any case, I meant that Peterson himself is mostly worried about men who struggle with that kind of thinking. But I guess my sentence wasn't super clear. Personally, I'm not sure if men are worse at lateral/creative thinking, although that's certainly the cliché.
You should dive deeper on Peterson, he actually goes into the duality of chaos and order in alot of his work. The interviews and debates are clickbait, critique the lectures.
Came here via Epoch Philosophy and your podcast (listened to E1 yesterday), I like both so far and am very interested in learning more. I figured coming into this that you would be anti-Peterson based on how you briefly mentioned him in your podcast. I get the dislike, even as a big admirer of him. I've turned my life around in my own unique way, is some part due to the practical nature of Peterson's advice concerning psychology, and finding meaning when facing adversity. I've spent enough time (not a ton, but enough for me) to see where he goes off the rails, particularly when spits so much venom at the ideas and people associated with Postmodernism and Neo-Marxism. I'm not very knowledgeable on either but I'm in the process of educating myself, yet I get the sense he is out of his element and overly simplistic in his appraisals of that line of thought. What I don't understand is your approach. You claim at the beginning that you would try to be a little charitable in your critique, but you literally spend the first 10-12 minutes doing exactly what the JP fanboys do on reddit, you make him into a caricature and a meme. You don't seem interested at all in engaging with his ideas, you simply make them into a shallow prop-up in order to discuss Deleuze and Guattari, if you were trying an honest attempt at comparing two perspectives (which I don't think you were), I think it falls short. With all that being said, I look forward to watching and listening to more of your content, just thought you might appreciate some feedback. Take care.
I completely agree with you, the entire desperate attempt to involve Peterson into a deeper philosophical debate is pretty shallow. The man is known for helping individuals on a practical level, not to study and philosophically examine human reality.
@@SUAVEcritic unfortunately, structure of comtemporary media does not allow to engage in a such deep debate. Its imposible now to meet in person and just speak. Everybody is inprisoned in simulacrum.
Ernst Junger always called himself an Anarch. Which I think comes from his ideas of Nietzsche and reminds me of this Deleuze idea of unlocking our own creative potential. Junger went from a beloved war hero, revolutionary conservative, writing about cosmic fascism, Nazi general to dismissing Nationalism, to writing to Trotsky and writing in German Communist news papers, to becoming more liberal minded, too an environmentalist, to experimenting with acid in his 90s to becoming a catholic at the end of his life. An Anarch is someone who shifts and finds new forms and agitates. I find myself like this I can digest anything from the radical philosophy of Evola and Deleuze and not find myself saying I'm left or right. I mean socially I'm more right wing reactionary but I'm open to post modern thinkers on the left. I'm just an anarch. I can float between worlds which I see is hard for most folk today without them having an emotional response being provoked or they are too liberalised to really go to the edges.
The stupidity of the lobster analogy is that its like saying the reason you're not a success is because you aren't boneheaded enough -- you could just turn around any time you want can pull yourself up the dominance hierarchy by tugging at your own bootstraps, but until now you just didn't have the good fortune to be told by Peterson that you can become a winner by changing your standing posture. Maybe it helps, but it's nothing insightful: "Wow -- I never though to try to be a success! I though just lying around feeling sorry for myself was the way. How foolish of me!" At it's core, it doesn't reflect a truth so much as an attitude; a myth. The myth of hard work. I don't call hard work a myth because it doesn't work but rather the idea that anything can be accomplished with a can-do attitude. There is some truth to it, but there is just as much about it that the conscientious among us would only wish to be true, as Peterson knows because of the Matthew principle. The top ten percent does half of the work in every company. This is embedded in the wider myth of "the upward path" towards; the grand narrative of progress. The problem with the myth of late Christianity as an ascend of ever increasingly sophisticated civilization founded on ever increasingly realized truth towards some kind of _utopia_ heaven is that the whole point of a myth, or a "guiding story" as Peterson might like to call it, is that it is not true. If it were true, it would not be a sustaining narrative. All myths are an interplay of truth and falsehood without either of which it cannot function. *This is why the pursuit of truth inevitably leads to the discrediting of all mythology and metaphysics* and why Peterson's attempt to return to it is necessarily a delusion. This is a psychological fact that science as a whole has neglected with incaution. The point is not that we should be beyond delusions, because society is impossible without a sustaining myth, but that there is a reason for the secularization of society beyond, "the narcissists did it." It means that the epistemology necessarily sets science against psychological structures that sustain us. This has the far more pressing implication that the pursuit of truth might actually be suicidal, like Schopenhauer's philosophy of pessimism. But far more central to Peterson's entire outlook on life is not his lobster analogy but his chimp analogy which more or less states that the system of _western society_ the dominance hierarchy in chimp social groups is perfectly flawless but that there is this fly in the ointment called _post-modern-neo-marxists_ dark triad chimps who are essentially psychopaths who are able to gaslight the hapless majority of agreeable chimps into letting them do what they want because they're just too nice for their own good. But, fortunately, there are chad disagreeable chimps who will gang up on a dark triad who manage to appoint himself the alpha of the troop, so this is only a successful strategy for about 3% of the population. The issues one could raise for this model are inexhaustible, but one never need worry oneself about taking it at all seriously because of how demonstrably false this particular mythology is: a central purpose of the myth is to make it possible for Peterson to explain why people he doesn't like are worthy of ridicule i.e why post-modern-neo-marxists are a threat to society, and to motivate people towards a solution that would scrub their influence from public consciousness. Unfortunately, the myth has outdone itself because it contains its own solution; dark triad chimps are destined to fail as soon as anyone with half a spine offers any resistance. So, in parallel, there is the very visible contradiction in Peterson's thinking that the evil post-modernists are treated simultaneously as exerting an all-powerful corrosive influence over western civilization, and yet are utterly powerless and incompetent at the same time. So smart that they can infect the minds of every academic institution on the planet, but so stupid that they don't beileve in reason and couldn't possible sustain their rule for more than a few days before collapsing under their own idiocy. In one breath we are told to watch out for them. In another, we are told not to despair because of how frail and impotent they are. Once this is recognized it becomes obvious that this is a device of rhetorical charlatanry and a scientific evaluation of the facts.
Can we deteritorialize deteritorializing as a territory in an of itself and in consequence settle in some certain territory without the need to nomadic pursuits?
Thank you. I am walking around for some Deleuzian metaphysics. I think JP provides critiques more as a scientist who knows something, even if it might be too little for some people, about post-modern philosophy, while GD is, of course, more philosophically interesting, as that is exactly his expertise. That said, we can remark, for example, GD uses terms from diverse domains sometimes without properly understanding the term. This should not be a direct denial of his philosophy. JP, for exactly the same reason, as amateur philosopher, has used a public vocabulary to build an interpretation-fused view on the general thoughts of post-modern philosophers. Another thing is that, I think the jump of GD from metaphysics to ethics is far from natural. The concept of territorialization/deterritorialization is NOT immediately followed by that we should deterritorialise then reterritorialise, lest the criteria to do which and what. He never spent enough strokes to actually establish what you said as "women are more restricted"(paraphrased), which, as should be evident, is a claim on the actual history of society and needs scientific treatment. JP has an answer that completely changed my mind on the gender issue. To paraphrase his answer, I would give an analogy of bank and water of a river. A river has a certain shape, a certain structure, which is the counterpart of a given social structure. We might impose on it a hierarchy, say, water over bank. This structure, however, is first of all a cognitive construct (which does not mean that it is not real, but that there are many other possible perspectives to give a construct of the same kind). Second, we can of course say that water is restricted by the bank, or reciprocally, the bank is eroded or hit by the water. This is exactly the same in the social structure, in most binaries, such as man/woman, capitalist/proletariat. All take advantages and all suffers from the system. Oppression is not one half against the other. While this may not be the complete pictures of all binary categories, for genders, viewing that both men and women can greatly benefit from the so-called patriarchy, I think this makes a huge part of its explanation. This immediately undermines the argument feminists usually made. Deleuze, without providing actual argument, does not have a dominating win here. Additionally, I don't think Deleuze would think that scientists should aim to work "creatively" or to create fancy concepts, because this point of view is a very partial and layman type of thinking in science. New concepts are only good if it is pragmatically useful or conceptually "plausible". Deleuze actually only talked about what a PHILOSOPHER should do but not scientists. For the philosopher part, I can see where GD comes from. However, this kind of "should", again, is telling us how GD cannot grasp fully his own concept. Philosophy is a multiplicity that has a highly complex internal structure and external relations with other entities in the society. Philosophers should create concepts but also assume the role of populating important ideas. They need to refine the structure of theories and select those to stay, versus those to throw. The community of philosophers from this perspective serves as a machine. A machine of institution like many other subjects. Philosophers' work is far from just creating novel concepts. Deleuze in this regard is wrong for his own theory.
Jordan Peterson taking a stance as a scientist? But he has shared a lot of pseudo-scientific ideas. For starters, if you read the published paper that he based his lobster theory(?) on, you'll see that he takes... some liberties on what should be interpreted from that paper. For instance, he said and I paraphrase, "the brain of the looser lobster basically melts and regrows to better take the role as a submissive" and then he goes and says something among the lines of "if you ever lost at a fight or at romance, you may share this feeling with the lobster." But NOTHING on the scientific paper suggests such things about the lobsters let alone anyone else. He also has suggested that there's something... divine or mystical about the double helix because the pattern has been used in ancient art and it just so happens the DNA is a double helix. He has cast doubt on climate change as well... Scientist he is not.
@@Lambda_Ovine Thank you for your reply. But he is a psychologist (which is in my concept of a scientist). All the things scientists write are not rigorous, for the sake of popularising an idea. See many other best-sellers in science, even the hardest theoretical physics ones. They are full of personal interpretation as well. In the one I recently read, the Order of Time by Carelli (not sure the spelling) who is the definition of a theoretical physicist. He makes a great deal of speculation in the book as well. But otherwise, I can't even understand what he would be saying. JBP is for sure not a biologist, but for example, when he says "share this feeling with the lobster", he is not saying we are experiencing the melting and regrowing of our brains, but rather, hinting on the possibility that the psychology of recognising our submissive position in society can affect us in a very substantial/material/biological way that most of us did not imagine. Also, I am not saying that he is some new Newton, but Newton believed (I heard) that the Earth rotates around the Sun because god has at the beginning pushed it. You don't need to take the whole package of one's belief to acknowledge that he is a scientist. I don't think that climate change is something that scientists should never cast doubt on, but I should first read about his doubt. But generally, I don't really agree that claiming that he doubts something (except science itself maybe??) is all we need to disqualify one's scientist-ness. Finally, the double helix one, as I read how you describe it, is not a well-founded theory, not a scientific/falsifiable one. But again, scientists are not full-stack. some physicists even believe the ideal that biology and chemistry are unnecessary once physics has advanced enough. Scientists are not jesus-christ-ly scientists. They are lobsters, full of personal unbased, or even faulty beliefs. For me, his hands having been dirty on the data in his domain of expertise are his most interesting assets. And he is a scientist in the most usual sense of today. Or more precisely, he was (he no longer publishes as scientist as I know). His understanding of the psychological dynamics, of alcoholism, of stuffs like these are drawn from both data and models of existing literature. I am not a big fan of his theological stretch, but I can clearly see the trace of his having being a scientist. That is what I see as value in him for me.
Hello~~ Which part of patriarchy benefits men and women the same again? ? If order needs to be re-established among the post-modernist chaos, then maybe it’s time for the water to flow over the bank, in your line of thoughts, which I agreed with right until the patriarchy thing showed up. Let’s say I agree with Peterson’s argument that a balance between order and chaos should be the goal. The struggle between the two forces has always been a dynamic one throughout human history. It’s never remained static, not even within the very institution of masculinity or femininity. Things change. People fight. And order and chaos are in relative terms.
@@Pandoradow Hi~ Thank you for your response. I think what I said is best explained in the previous paragraph of the word, where I pointed out that we all both benefit and suffer from the system. In addition, I called it "*so-called* patriarchy" because, for the same reason, the defects of the system are far from just caused by one gender/one social role (here we tend to blame male/father by using the word "patriarchy") and thus it's better to not use it. In the case of using it, I think it is better to use the term neutrally.
@@clementdato6328 There are 2 important issues when talking about repression and patriarchy. The history of "thought", the development of philosophy and later of all the sciences, is inevitably marked by masculinity. From Plato and Aristotle onwards, most of the definitions, descriptions, classifications, have "man" as a reference and measure (over animals, women, children and even over foreign men (barbarians for the Greeks)). Western rationality (middle ages and church), and the entire construct of the Enlightenment and its heritage, is marked by that specific way of seeing and understanding the world. There is a clear and hegemonic continuity. And it is only from the middle of the last century (40s, 50s, 60s) that forms begin to be "rethought". Historically speaking, that is very recent (taking all "western and rational" human development as a reference off course) Authors like Irigaray, or Butler more recently, make a complete review on the subject (in fact, Butler questions the bases of Irigaray's feminism) They are good readings to rethink the positions on feminism (2nd and 3rd wave), social roles and tensions between individual identity (self, materiality and nature) vs. groups (others, the social and imposed)
Why sink to this? It´s not productive at all. I don’t like JP’s politic but he at least listens and tries to have a rational debate. Even if he don’t have good arguments in several areas, it takes some courage to debate Zizek in front of a huge crowd. I can respect that. It’s so sad that the left is so obsessed with fighting the right and vica versa. Is the right/left divide real or just a construct imposed on us? If we work togheter, the inequalities and injustice in today’s system could be taken down. Who benefits from this growing divide?
On the videos I've seen of Peterson's within the first few minutes he's lying about something, for example 'more men are psychopaths than women are' was one of his abhorrent claims. I wouldn't even bother wasting my time on such a person, he's broken the idea of freedom of speech all that can happen having civil discourse with such a person is he's going to keep bringing in lies while you have your hands tied. The way to deal with him is verbally combatively, but what matters is the content of your evisceration. If I see someone like Russell Brand having a cosy chat with Peterson I know Brand is feeding his own ego.
SMH, Peterson is a transcendental actionable pragmatist and Deleuze and Guattari are immanent artistic philosophers, how can you pit them against each other. Bring Jung in, he's a better fit against Deleuze.
@@SUAVEcritic he misreads the parable of the madman for one, reducing it to a banal commentary on atheism rather than a warning to the developing fields of science to not replace the black priest robes for white lab coats and bastardize science into a new uncritical religion. We call this issue scientivism or scientism today. He seems to "read" Nietzsche like Rand or Hitler "read" Nietzsche, as in they read into the texts what they wanted to hear.
Im curious to see how that movement between and beyond the territory thinking would be when applied to far left vs far right politics. I see similarities, different roots and structures but same critiques just from different viewpoints. Maybe we all need to just embrace shizo
Your presentation would be better if you just focus on the main difference in territorialisation. The first 8mins just pointless dismisses pragmatic ideas like "standing up straight" for an abstract concept like "discussing things." Example I earn less than the global average, problems are general solved through violence and not discussion. Middle-income people have the luxury of discussion and democracy. Low income people cannot afford proper representation in a way you cannot conceive unless you experience it. JP is a psychologist that markets himself towards people who have fcked up in life and needs to fix their problems today. People like me cant afford to wait for middle-income people to spontaneously decide to include my demographic in the democratic process. But I am able to beat the sht of out a wealthy posh boy if they infringe on my personal boundaries.
Talking like Peterson is advocating for political revolution when he actively screams for the very middle income faux democracy that you think he fights against.
@@herstar9510 You're talking like jbp is a pragmatic political agitator, someone who rejects the ivory tower intellectuals for violent action in favor of your rights when that's the complete fucking opposite of what he's doing. He's actively fighting AGAINST that violence, he thinks that our democracy is perfectly fine where it is. It's the whole reason he wrote a self help book and not a political manifesto, because he doesn't think that such lower income people really have any problems that aren't completely self made.
Why isn't it a scorpion? Lobsters are yummy, but just not as aesthetic. I must assume both Deleuze and Peterson were at seafood restaurants when they had these ideas.
I still don't understand the conflict between Peterson and Deleuze & Guattari. Because (if you focus on the book) Peterson's rules seem like basic stuff that anyone should follow regardless of beliefs or gender. And at the same time, Deleuze & Guattari's philosophy encourages people to try new ideas and experiences, which undoubtedly leads to personal growth. To be honest, this whole video seems like an excuse to talk about lobsters!
Did Lobster Daddy's first girlfriend leave him for a French philosopher? His attitude towards them is so hateful, even when he clearly knows next to nothing about their theoretical frameworks.
Ssshhhh, he still hasn't discovered that she went to d&g and the all got high and had an orgy and time was infinite. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
They're all postmodern neo-marxists lol
To be fair, and I like my continental's, but Badiou is dense. When twelve different luminaries have 20 different distinct definitions of one very technical word it's hard not to have a 'is this...is this just utter nonsense' moment.
I guarantee you Peterson has hardly read a page of Kant or Hegel, lets not even mention the French thinkers.
A charlatan he is.
@@thenowchurch6419 agreed, man this is the first time I heard his opinion on foucalt just goes to show that he hasn't read his writings at all.
I feel like Felix Guattari always gets shafted in discussions of his collaboration with Deleuze, as if he was just tagging along. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Guattari was responsible for formulating a lot of the concepts that define schizoanalysis (including the term itself and its basis in Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis) such as the machinic unconscious, desiring-production, desiring-machines, subject-groups, and pretty much any other materialist aspect of the philosophy. It is clear from reading the writings of both separately and then together that the collaboration between them was dominated by neither one. Deleuze's familiarity with philosophy complemented Guattari's familiarity with psychoanalysis and sociology and vice versa.
Aside from that, great and informative video!
Lol the sidekick dig was meant to be tongue in cheek
@@PlasticPills Fair enough lol. Though I wasn't necessarily talking about that cause you were pretty careful to always say Deleuze and Guattari throughout the video. It's just something more general that I've noticed with online Deleuzians and even Deleuzian academics.
Maybe Peterson knows about Deleuze and doesn't talk about him because it'll be a contradictory stance thanks to Peterson's own appropriation of Nietzsche and his ideas and Difference and Repetition and much of D&G's philosophy appreciate their own roots in the same. Like he's consciously straw-manning these philosophers to sell a narrative. It just seems like dirty politics.
rings true, he has never really been that au fait with turning up to debates with people with opposing arguments, save for the Zizek P.R programme ;)
@@thirstyfish7882 Even then, he prepared poorly by skimming through the Communist Manifesto instead of actually reading Das Kapital. It kinda reveals how poorly he researches whomever he disagrees with, while Zizek actually does the work, which provides him with proper arguments for a debate.
Peterson seems like one of those people who read secondary sources (eg Wikipedia) and then complain about not getting it because it doesn't provide easy answers. I wouldn't like having that kind of person as my therapist.
Kanye: I am a god
Ariana Grande: God is a woman
Deleuze and Guatarri: God is a Lobster
"Emergence of a Peaceful Culture in Wild Baboons" is a great paper that's a far more relevant observation to compare to human behavior than any lobster, and not just because baboons are a much more closely-related animal relative to us.
write a self improvement book about it bro
He used lobsters because they are considered a simpler life form, he was trying to show how ancient and how far these instincts go.
There’s a reason why evolutionary biologists study chimpanzees as a model for approximating human behavior instead of lobsters…
Wild baboons are hard to corral. Tamed, domesticated, defanged baboons are easier to herd into your factories and schools. The wild baboons are too independent, too creative, not standardized enough. I can already see your eyes moving wider on your face as you become a well-trained, well-tamed, peaceful, good boy, and highly moral baboon.
where'd you get your primatology degree from?@@JHimminy
The fact that he said that Foucault and Deleuze were nightmares proves how correct their work is
@@loqutor They never tell you how
Because Foucault was a predatory sex tourist of literal children, especially in Tunisia?
I disagree with Peterson, but let's not pretend there's nothing wrong with Foucault, dude was fucked up.
@@megadan66 If you are opposed to an ideology, then you consider the ideology reinforced that your enemy considers nightmarish. Because people generally find things nightmarish that are threatening, and people like things that threaten their enemies.
Also OP ratioed you
@@zack49 they got more than you in this spectacle game
@@irpwellyn Is that your pretentious headass way of saying ratioed?
So-called "boomer" here, nearly as old as Deluze, thanks for the mention.
Deleuze would be 96 years old. Thant's not "boomer", that's "greatest generation".
@@henrybemis9956 wait is he still alive?
@@tesali9554 no 😔
@@henrybemis9956- FWIW, my grandmom and great-aunt and great-uncle, who all either fought in or lost someone to W.W.II, all hated that Reagan hangover/Tom Brokaw nomenclature for their cohort, feeling that it both needlessly glorifies war and also minimizes the ongoing danger fascism poses to the world and further minimizes the contributions subsequent generations have made to the world; their preferred term was “the G.I. generation,” although when they were younger they were still being called “the lost generation” - the years which “delimit” a generation have a way of shifting, for instance “generation X’ getting constantly redefined - but you may want to consider, after giving it some thought, nixing the term you used, and employing “the G.I. generation” instead!
Jordan Peterson: SURRENDER TO THE LOBSTER GOD. ALL HAIL CAPITALISM AND TRADITION.
Deleuze: Yo, so what if a lobster was the symbol of growing new things.
>capitalism
>tradition
holy shit what?
@@AL-sd7uz yeah, like da fuck wat, jesus. Capitalism is the death of tradition, the society of merchants are the killers of all tradition around the world.
@@AL-sd7uz there is an interplay between the virtual and the commodity form in the spectacle
The lobster cares nothing for your...capital
@@johnnyscifi So you guy's worried about lobsters?
petersons pscyhology stuff is good, but i remember getting this feeling that "hmm, he really is hatting on postmodernism a whole lot more than seems neccesary" so went to check it out my self and , yup, strawman.
Agreed. I've certainly benefited from his psychological writings. Maybe Peterson hates on postmodernism so much because what he's been exposed to is more fanatical screeching from left leaning people who've themselves only skimmed the subject and (it appears to me) are acting more like caricatures of postmodernism. I've just started getting into the subject via the philosophy of Giorgio Agamben so obviously I'm no expert. But Peterson is an academic and should know better than to judge in haste. Of course he gets the same treatment from large sections of the left who attack caricatures of his views instead of debating his actual views.
@@MikkoAPenttila agree
I certainly agree with his self help/ psychological stuff being good
I bought the 12 rules for life, way back when, just to see what all the fuzz was about
It was a good perspective on life, and i can certainly see how can someone benefit from his book
That said, i see him as a product of the stream he swims on
Reactionary stuff about the ridiculousness of the PC/ SWJ police (I'm using these terms since i do not know any others to describe those caricatures)
In my opinion it was the people that rushed him to the big stage, as the patriarch of the noble "house of reason", that forced him to project his political thoughts, no matter how underdeveloped some of them are, through the lens of what made him popular in the first place: Resistance against the cultural establishment
By no way am i saying that he is a victim of his circunstances and does is not responsible by his own words, but i can see him being slowly shaped into the man his fans thought/ wanted him to be
Yeah, his understanding of postmodernism is underwhelming, but I think it comes from the notion that modern destructive tendencies come from weaponisation of postmodern ideas to achieve political goals, which coincidentally falls into place with destructive marxist movements he reasonably hates
@@doyoubinoame8483 His understanding of postmodernism is ''practical'' (if he has, actually, read about POSTMODERNISM - as he can be using it as a compound noun and not really thinking of it as ''postmodern'' + ''marxism'', similarly to how neoliberalism or laissez faire capitalism has been emptied of meaning and became ''one thing''), not theoretical, 100%. And that´s why he speak of things such as postmodern marxism - while this nomenclature would be stupid to anyone who actually reads a lot of philosophy, to the ''public at large'' it references something. He recognized something and calls it the way he saw people refering to it. It's a problem of symbol and signifier - he doesn't really care exactly what postmodernism is, and marxism as a word has been bastardized so much it means basically anything, BUT there's this ''A'' that has been called postmodern marxism enough that he refers to it as such, even though there are obviously better terms if you want to ''be proper''.
Great video! I really should start reading Deleuze, but his works are just so intimidating.
What are you interested in knowing? I highly recommend Daniel W. Smith's text "Essays on Deleuze"
Listen to Stephen West's "Philosophize This". He did 5 20-30 minute talks on Deleuze.
Here's part 1 :
ua-cam.com/video/b6RnMHRtos4/v-deo.html
I'm not kidding, now I listen to audiobook of Thousand Plateaus (here : ua-cam.com/video/0XYc2scuJrI/v-deo.html )
and I more-or-less understand what's going on.
trombone7
Yes, West is great, digestible bites... leading to deeper dives!
U gotta read it deliriously...
Read it like poetry! For me, his work is meant to produce both concepts and affects. I believe his thought can be accessed through both ideas and emotions. Often time, when I got frustrated with dense/complex passages, I would just relax and experience them like a poem. It's not about getting all of his concepts "right", it's rather about becoming porous to a new way of approaching life. The more you do it, the more many of his concepts start to make sense. If you read French, his writing is even more beautiful and poetic in the original language, especially Mille-Plateaux. I fucking love that man.
Also in regards to Peterson's conservative message, which is rightly so, book is subtitled "antidote to chaos", and there's a lot of meaning in this subtitle, because it generally highlights those whom it aimed at: people who might need to get their life together, and conviniently conservative stuff is easier when you're totally effd up, because it gives you rigid framework how to put yourself back together. Even to criticise and challenge existing concepts you need good footing to start off. That's why conservative is conservative: it conserves our footing and creates a space of stable comfort. Otherwise we would not have a place to return to, in case if our challenge of norms fails miserably, as it often does
Identifying yourself with such measures is exactly what *could have* attributed to one being in those exact circumstances.. Not living up to these so called "standers", of which are totally and completely relative to begin with. You see someone of "high social status" and you believe that they've acquired said status by living out these articulated "rules".. But they could have just as likely inherited generational wealth and drowned a puppy that very morning..
I agree that in a system in which we live by these archaic fallacies, that these "rules" might help- but they're also the source of the very problem to begin with.. And it's my belief that the later is the bigger societal issue.
@@antihero105 you're exactly who conservatism is necessary for. midwits.
@@0mnislasher1 oh yeah totally, GREAT point.. Might want to consult your own comment dumbass 👍
@@antihero105 I dunno, I don't really see problems in cleaning up your room, as it tends to get messy when you don't take proper care of yourself, which in itself is often a sign of (early) depression. There's also old stuff you might find which reminds you of good times, sad times, you maybe were trying to hide with the mess subconsciously.
I don't agree with all the rules in the book, but they're good tips for people who notice they're not okay but don't have the creativity to get out of this loop by themselves.
That doesn't mean though, just because he wrote a self-help book inspired by conservatism, that he should hate postmodern thinkers, because they also provide self-help. It seems more like, because he's conservative, loves capitalism, loves neoliberalism, loves hierarchy, that he's trying to assert his dominance over postmodern thinkers with his easy-to-understand-and-follow rules as a superior product. If you want to understand your enemy, think like them. If Lobster Daddy is selling merch, he thinks of himself as a product, not a critical thinker.
this is very close to spinoza's analysis of tyranny
except spinoza says that after you've entered the strongman's territory of safety, you're not going to get out on your own
local tyrants live off sadness and incapacity
You're back! Was worried you stopped making content. Loved the video as always 👌
Still breathing!
That beat just slapped my shell clean off 🦞 💀
I had read ATP a few years ago, but recently was repeating my auto-didactic vacation into deleuzian theory and so had checked out ATP from the local library. upon watching this and seeing the quote "god is a lobster" and thinking how funny, but not being able to exactly remember, I opened up ATP and low and behold someone had stuck a bookmark right on that page :P humanity can be depressing sometimes but that restored my faith a little. that is all :) thanks for the great content pills
Holy shit, just discovered your channel and was wondering how long it would take for someone to make a dope video reclaiming lobsters for us!
Love it!
The world is completely stupid, no matter how well you articulate it. Plastic pills your my new fav channel.
"If one knows the coordinates of the [evolutionary] game, then why would you even want to play?" --Bret Weinstein
8:11 "Here's a second lobster for your consideration."
Now that was a quality David Foster Wallace reference right there👉🏻😉👉🏻
The real lobster king
David Foster Wallace appreciation post! 👏
This was so well explained! Only I did have to have a very small amount of background knowledge on the matter, I felt the words in the graphs could be explained when they are put on the graph, but it was great I can’t believe I have only now found your UA-cam channel, thanks comrade! :)
Please read the primary source 🙏
This is the best channel on yt, dont @ me
Since you mention it, it is somewhat peculiar that Deleuze doesn't get included in the usual strawmen the intellectual dark web hacks wheel out to shit on postmodernism. Come to think of it, analytic philosophers, who also like to criticize postmodernism without understanding it very well, also tend to leave him alone.
I think the reason might be that Deleuze and Guattari are so fucking weird that it's hard even to make effective strawmen of them.
You ACTUALLY went through reading this guy's book for us?!?! That's dedication right there.
Let's go ahead and just call that one a skim
PlasticPills not surprised
That’s the bare minimum he should be doing
Ugh I love this channel so much
3:32 made me say this
i swear to god that your content is regenerates brain cells after extensive damage lol . great job and thanks for sharing
Thanks for this, cleared it up a little for me, I am thinking of using Deleuze/Guattari's theory but had no idea where to start.
To suggest Foucault is anti western is ridiculous, his work is an essential part of the west's progress.
Thank you so much for educating me. To me you're as revolutionary as the pholosophers you're taking about, taking upon yourself this hard quest of tearing down reality and asking the masses: 'See now? See??'
I'm so glad I've found this channel, you're the highlight of my days!
And this video definitely deserves more views!
I've watched basically all your videos, so I speak here as a fan of your work.
While Peterson does in fact misinterpret many things of the so called ''left philosophers'', and while I do agree the term postmodern marxist is philosophically absurd, he does such while trying to construct something (and, unless you believe him to be a psychopathic liar, he did help a lot of people). Your representation of what the lobster part and ''stand upright with your shoulders back'' mean, for example, showing two probably drunk men fighting, is not only disingenous, but serve only to mock something that actually has been shown to improve people's emotional scores in many scientific works - Even when trying to explain ''better'', you COMPLETELY miss the point of the whole chapter. You are just opening yourself to the same critique you do of him, which is hipocritical at best.
I don't want to write a wall of text, so one last argument - ''Do not engage a ''lobster son'' in an argument''... I understand the intention, but these people exist and probably affect you directly and indirectly. This means their actions and your will create tensions that have to be solved. How do you plan to solve them? You exclude the possibility of conversation by creating this illusional separation between two groups, which we all know how always ends up, specially in the internet (and hellnet, also known as Twitter), so...?
I see, you did consider the lobster.
Jordan Berndt Peterson ."What shall I do when the great crowd beckons? - stand tall and utter my broken truisms".
Wow I’d never read those rules but some of them are actually awesome. Peterson may be a douchenozzle who doesn’t know much about philosophy, but “pet a cat when you encounter one on the street” is a god-tier rule
Except most of them will run way from you (which might lower your self-esteem if you know nothing about cats) and the ones who don't probably have fleas (and other harmful parasites and diseases). Of course, you can take care of stray cats in your neighbourhood, but I would strongly advise against petting them if you have cats at home.
It's much better to just ask people if you can pet their dog, which will also help you get to you know the people who live in your neighbourhood. :)
This video made some parts of Gaddafi's Green Book make more sense, particularly his beef with constitutions. I never would have imagined that sentence would come out of my mouth.
Have you read any of these books front to back?
Name of background music pretty please...?
Amazing channel. I wonder how would you deal with Simondon's allagmatics ....
"Thanks dad"
-karl marx 1867
I want to listen deleuze 10 hpurs straight by you. It is just fuckin awesome man
Wow dude thanks, there's a lot more to dig through but Deleuze is always my top 5
I understand Jordan’s simplified and generalized ideas are an easy target, but if you actually read Jung, Deleuze and Guattari are very much neoJungians, with much more fuzzy archetypes (rhizome).
insofar as they aspire to smash and bash the entire psychoanalyst tradition
They could be inspired by Jung, but (i think that) the concept of archetype is too theatrical to their desiring machines and desire as production
@@fafo867D and G don't want to "smash" psychoanalysts. In a way, they are lacanians. They just think there is more than the oedipal and the neurotic's intercourse, they attempt to take psychoanalysis beyond the oedipal, beyond the social, beyond phallic signification.
Is this conect with the film the lobster?
makes sense he would use a lobster analogy, since they are a nice example of capital. a once considered garbage animal gutter food, becomes rebranded as decadent highly priced seafood.
Derridevil im dying lmao
So he is trying to get me to use self actualisation to stagnate in a good set of norms. But with a bit of that lobster courage you can also head out and put yourself in some wholly different frameworks and actually learn. 🤔😍
Stay tuned for my next video on Deleuze... not sure what you're asking, but the summed premise of the video is that Peterson wants things the same, Deleuze wants things new.
PlasticPills cool. Yeah reading this back only makes sense for me.
sorry, does Zoe Blade did the music of this video?
How did u get so good at video editing?
What painting is that with the solider in red and the old stone building?
Romantic Landscape with a Temple by Thomas Doughty.
What an incredible bit, add to cart
It's lonely being an Nomad. Good to have an Oasis to visit on-the-Line
Trying to hang on here but I am dead in the waters how do you get outta this shit
@@Nashandme74 Marxist Leninist organization, service to the people
@@Nashandme74 tbh if you referencing psychoschizon theory as well non duality and some of the more secular and philosophical depictions of Buddhism Especially with a material analyses of the historical context and translation barriers and the way in which Hegel, dialectical concepts snd in general leftist philosophy csn be used to fill in the gaps. Rupert Spiru is generally favored by this camp of philosophy/people who consume snd sre familiar with this channel. It’s definitely a little different and requires a level of willingness to engage with it snd this might be my own weirdo mind making absurd connections but damn idk it’s been a fascinating discovery to add to my scope. If you’re down to be a nomad then I would just jump into his vids without context tbh he has tons on UA-cam and then make of it what you will snd go from there
@@sad-qy7jz thanks for the tip I will definitely check him out. TBH I was not referencing pscychochison but rather a personal POV than espouses Daoist and Anarchist philosophies but personalized to fit the individuals needs, beliefs, and situation. Just remember that schizos are people too, different but still better people than the ones forcing a nomadic lifestyle om people that just want to be left alone or that dont conform to stylized outdated norms of comportment that are evocative of fasc mentality and methodology. again thankd for the help
@@Nashandme74 yeah I don’t think the term refers to people as “schizo” has its own distinct meaning schizophrenia or schizotypal diagnoses reference the term, but I think schizoanalysis gives merit to snd can validate this experience as long as the genuine experiences of people who do experience that and live the label are accounted for and people don’t mistake the meaning. I’m close to a couple of people w schizophrenia snd SPD and although I don’t just ask them ab their experience w psychosis or other obnoxious questions, when they have confided in explaining certain aspects of their experience i like... idk get it? Not like I could ever understand or know how they feel exactly but moreso, I can completely understand the validity and context. Either way though I see schizoanalysis and it’s use of delusions to kind of conceptulize how to a nuerotypical person, one could break free. They use the term nomad and being raised secular Buddhist and as a slazo enthusiast it reminded me so much of eastern depictions of liberation from the ego.
Non duality is very similar to dialectal assertions of leftists thought, and I almost feel like Hegel most def had to have been influenced by it slightly whether he realized it or not. The context is different, I mean ancient Tibet was materially very different than like 18th century Europe lol but point being it’s a way to embrace collectivism and empathy and the nature of us as being connected and social but a way to find comfort in the suffering, and depending on how you look at it or what this even means to you, leave your ego behind. Not in the sense that you’re constantly like in some psychedelic inner world lol I couldn’t explain it and don’t claim to fully experience it, but you csn def live peacefully and in a way that betters humanity and the planet without feeling the dreadful snd endless sense of desire and loneliness etc of capitalism. I like thsy it existed long before capitalism but definitely during harsh material conditions and is so easy to work into philosophy
But ya good luck comrade
I really like your videos, and the emphasis you give to Deleuze. Could you recommend me the best books of Deleuze?
ua-cam.com/video/nS_yFF7IkH8/v-deo.html
A thousand plateus, and for an introduction to his overall philosophical project, difference and repetition
This is based and plastic-pilled
I quite liked this video. I think one point you did not take into account well enough is the target demographic for Petersons talks. The first self-help book's second half of the name is "an antidote to chaos". You are right that the book is about reterritorialization, but that's intended as an antidote to chaos or deterritorialization. The book has no real message for someone who has stable enough ground under them. I think ideas of Deleuze and Guattari are only of value for someone that has a territory to begin with, so viewing them as good continuation for someone who has had a Peterson phase would be quite constructive.
Lobsters are fun and all, but I gotta have the sauce for the bgm man, its chill af
"The goal of any age is to rethink what is possible" without reference to the eternal or true is just circular thinking, circular activity ..advancing in eternal categories is what's really creative.
Like the eternal category of the trickster always subverting categories through deterretorialization?
Nice. Btw are you wearing Mardi Gras beads?
I remember when I first read the whole god is a lobster line in ATP and thinking ‘god Peterson would eat this up’
Well yeah, lobsters are pretty common food in Canada.
I have a terrible sunburn. Can I be a lobsterboi now?
I was wondering if there are some articulations out there that use Deleuze and Guattari theory of knowledge in the crossing between the scientism worldview and the metaphysic behind Sufis like religious experiences. I guess this may be a weird/cringy question from the eyes of westerns (mainly because of the episteme shift I guess), but this is relevant in order to articulate social issues in other parts of the world where the religion has a huge presence and the anti-religious (scientism) rising discources carry with it a huge anti-science reaction from a big chank of the social body. I ponder that a lot, but I am not a trained philosopher :).
I don't know much of anything about sufism, but Deleuze and Guattari are interested in new ways of seeing the world. We discuss Deleuze and Guattari's view of science in this podcast interview if you're interested open.spotify.com/episode/2318SV4jIhCKKhxHWy4Ls3?si=ffFdyul1QT6L0mfqW-ZOLw
What if they got a bunch of lobsters together and the winner got to write a new constitution
Eminem's actual lines: "I'm starting to feel like a crabgod, crabgod.. 🦀 🎵 "
While Peterson is too closed minded about postmodernism and some of the French thinkers, he is right nonetheless that these thinkers are only capable of deconstruction, which does make them dangerous. The divergence has grown too great for people to even communicate. All the French thinkers were capable of was deterritorializing. I can relate to their resentiment but it's expressive potentials, if you will, have gone too far. Peterson is helping people in this process of reterritorializing back into some meaningful world, whether it is imaginary or some other thing is now beyond the point.
I would argue that they are only capable of deconstruction, but to make it shorter let's quote Bakunin “the urge for destruction is also a creative urge!” - Mikhail Bakunin. But nonetheless I agree a lot with you. You can't just take people out of a coma like that. Academy is just too distant from regular people's world.
the point is that "ordinary people" are influenced by ideas from academia, ideas that come from the elites (it's the same since the enlightenment and the french revolution) All the revolutions of the 70s are based on one or two ideas, reduced to a pamphlet, to a couple of inspiring phrases and propaganda (forbidden to prohibit; women are not born, they are made; revolution or death, etc.) mutated according to the convenience of the revolutionaries on duty, and taken to the streets. The same thing happens with ideas about the economy, about justice, social roles, etc. Complex theoretical bodies (that are born in the academic/economic/political elite) are reduced, transformed and absorbed by large human groups, regardless of the evident contradictions and paradoxes that appear (many times, moving away from the "original" meaning of those theoretical bodies)
you got a lobster and you got a magnet
😂😂😂 Oh sh*t "Derridevil" lol
I had to pause the video and get this laugh out.
And again for the pronouns flag lmao Jesus Christ I'm about to throw my money at your Patreon
Hey! Thanks for sharing your thoughts and deliver so complex theory in such a quirky way. You are awesome.
Great fucking video man! What’s the name of the tracks you used? Working on a video about memory in an anime I really liked. I think these songs set a somber but redemptive mood, which is kind of what I’m going for.
this is jordan petersons attempt at justifying hierarchy what a joke
@jay ah you must be sufficiently indoctrinated to think that theres no alternative way of organizing humans
You don't need to justify hierarchy since it already plainly exists - JBP's point is to point it's existence out, and acknowledge the fact that it's easier to ascend the dominance hierarchy than it is to change the rules and dismantle the hierarchy - if you want to stay a loser, be my guest - no one is stopping you.
@@thegamingchannel5956 so is it just or not?
@@thegamingchannel5956 who determines what is a "loser"? You? "Common sense"? Please. There is no inherent value to reality. That means there is no objective way to determine what is success in this life or another, and so on. The difference between donald trump and a broke average joe is no other than easy money and opportunity, implying anything else is disonest and useless. You're probably one of those people who cling to the hope that the passive conformity of your worldviews is some sort of god given, self evident truth and falsely believes that anyone who thinks different to you is just stupid. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that means the stupid one is you, bro.
thanks for this clear defining of deterritorialization. it ironically seems similar to what JBP says of the Order Chaos dialectic, that Order can become to rigid and requires revitalization through Chaos - the territory must be de-mapped and reimagined. Peterson, a typical conservative, biases towards the importance of Order, seeing Chaos as a dragon to be slaughtered, but some middle ground of adaptability and flexibility is the goal, which must include making Chaos your ally - as life naturally does
Love this vid. Although, from what I understand of Jordan Peterson (not having actually read him), he is worried that not everybody is able to cope with the kind of lateral/creative thinking required by deterritorialising social structures. And that if these, I guess mostly, men are left to swim without any firm strata underfoot they will turn turn to massively destructive behaviour. I'm sure we can all think of some examples...
Of course, this kind of thinking apparently disregards the damage caused by historical territorialisations in the first place, which is what conservatism always seems to do.
I have seen bits of Peterson's lectures in which is he seems much more inclined towards a phenomenological indeterminism that would probably sit alright with Deleuze.
Anyway, Jordan Peterson's oversized online presence has never made a lot of sense to me. His at times vicious public persona is completely at odds with any reasonable expectations of good teaching or academic credibility. Then again, perhaps that is exactly what works on social media.
He was more of a therapist who taught on the side than he was an academic with an outside practice. He got his following with the tripe about 'resisting' preferred pronouns.
@@douglaspresler3144 that wasn't his standpoint.
I like how you basically said that mainly men struggle with creative/lateral thinking. Are you scared of the great unwashed by any chance?
@@Xanaduum I don't know what the great unwashed is, but it sounds like something I should be scared of.
In any case, I meant that Peterson himself is mostly worried about men who struggle with that kind of thinking. But I guess my sentence wasn't super clear. Personally, I'm not sure if men are worse at lateral/creative thinking, although that's certainly the cliché.
B E A D S
Holy fuck, did that single pillow cost $55?
Academic inflation?
All becoming requires faith, and invites disappointment, de Beauvoir.
You should dive deeper on Peterson, he actually goes into the duality of chaos and order in alot of his work.
The interviews and debates are clickbait, critique the lectures.
Peterson didn't understand Nietzsche, confirmed.
ou probably never even read nietzsche
@@CourageToB lol
Came here via Epoch Philosophy and your podcast (listened to E1 yesterday), I like both so far and am very interested in learning more. I figured coming into this that you would be anti-Peterson based on how you briefly mentioned him in your podcast. I get the dislike, even as a big admirer of him. I've turned my life around in my own unique way, is some part due to the practical nature of Peterson's advice concerning psychology, and finding meaning when facing adversity. I've spent enough time (not a ton, but enough for me) to see where he goes off the rails, particularly when spits so much venom at the ideas and people associated with Postmodernism and Neo-Marxism. I'm not very knowledgeable on either but I'm in the process of educating myself, yet I get the sense he is out of his element and overly simplistic in his appraisals of that line of thought.
What I don't understand is your approach. You claim at the beginning that you would try to be a little charitable in your critique, but you literally spend the first 10-12 minutes doing exactly what the JP fanboys do on reddit, you make him into a caricature and a meme. You don't seem interested at all in engaging with his ideas, you simply make them into a shallow prop-up in order to discuss Deleuze and Guattari, if you were trying an honest attempt at comparing two perspectives (which I don't think you were), I think it falls short. With all that being said, I look forward to watching and listening to more of your content, just thought you might appreciate some feedback. Take care.
I completely agree with you, the entire desperate attempt to involve Peterson into a deeper philosophical debate is pretty shallow. The man is known for helping individuals on a practical level, not to study and philosophically examine human reality.
@@SUAVEcritic unfortunately, structure of comtemporary media does not allow to engage in a such deep debate. Its imposible now to meet in person and just speak. Everybody is inprisoned in simulacrum.
Ernst Junger always called himself an Anarch. Which I think comes from his ideas of Nietzsche and reminds me of this Deleuze idea of unlocking our own creative potential. Junger went from a beloved war hero, revolutionary conservative, writing about cosmic fascism, Nazi general to dismissing Nationalism, to writing to Trotsky and writing in German Communist news papers, to becoming more liberal minded, too an environmentalist, to experimenting with acid in his 90s to becoming a catholic at the end of his life. An Anarch is someone who shifts and finds new forms and agitates. I find myself like this I can digest anything from the radical philosophy of Evola and Deleuze and not find myself saying I'm left or right. I mean socially I'm more right wing reactionary but I'm open to post modern thinkers on the left. I'm just an anarch. I can float between worlds which I see is hard for most folk today without them having an emotional response being provoked or they are too liberalised to really go to the edges.
So this is what prawn song by superorganism was all about.
The stupidity of the lobster analogy is that its like saying the reason you're not a success is because you aren't boneheaded enough -- you could just turn around any time you want can pull yourself up the dominance hierarchy by tugging at your own bootstraps, but until now you just didn't have the good fortune to be told by Peterson that you can become a winner by changing your standing posture.
Maybe it helps, but it's nothing insightful: "Wow -- I never though to try to be a success! I though just lying around feeling sorry for myself was the way. How foolish of me!" At it's core, it doesn't reflect a truth so much as an attitude; a myth. The myth of hard work.
I don't call hard work a myth because it doesn't work but rather the idea that anything can be accomplished with a can-do attitude. There is some truth to it, but there is just as much about it that the conscientious among us would only wish to be true, as Peterson knows because of the Matthew principle. The top ten percent does half of the work in every company.
This is embedded in the wider myth of "the upward path" towards; the grand narrative of progress. The problem with the myth of late Christianity as an ascend of ever increasingly sophisticated civilization founded on ever increasingly realized truth towards some kind of _utopia_ heaven is that the whole point of a myth, or a "guiding story" as Peterson might like to call it, is that it is not true. If it were true, it would not be a sustaining narrative. All myths are an interplay of truth and falsehood without either of which it cannot function. *This is why the pursuit of truth inevitably leads to the discrediting of all mythology and metaphysics* and why Peterson's attempt to return to it is necessarily a delusion. This is a psychological fact that science as a whole has neglected with incaution.
The point is not that we should be beyond delusions, because society is impossible without a sustaining myth, but that there is a reason for the secularization of society beyond, "the narcissists did it." It means that the epistemology necessarily sets science against psychological structures that sustain us. This has the far more pressing implication that the pursuit of truth might actually be suicidal, like Schopenhauer's philosophy of pessimism.
But far more central to Peterson's entire outlook on life is not his lobster analogy but his chimp analogy which more or less states that the system of _western society_ the dominance hierarchy in chimp social groups is perfectly flawless but that there is this fly in the ointment called _post-modern-neo-marxists_ dark triad chimps who are essentially psychopaths who are able to gaslight the hapless majority of agreeable chimps into letting them do what they want because they're just too nice for their own good. But, fortunately, there are chad disagreeable chimps who will gang up on a dark triad who manage to appoint himself the alpha of the troop, so this is only a successful strategy for about 3% of the population.
The issues one could raise for this model are inexhaustible, but one never need worry oneself about taking it at all seriously because of how demonstrably false this particular mythology is: a central purpose of the myth is to make it possible for Peterson to explain why people he doesn't like are worthy of ridicule i.e why post-modern-neo-marxists are a threat to society, and to motivate people towards a solution that would scrub their influence from public consciousness. Unfortunately, the myth has outdone itself because it contains its own solution; dark triad chimps are destined to fail as soon as anyone with half a spine offers any resistance. So, in parallel, there is the very visible contradiction in Peterson's thinking that the evil post-modernists are treated simultaneously as exerting an all-powerful corrosive influence over western civilization, and yet are utterly powerless and incompetent at the same time. So smart that they can infect the minds of every academic institution on the planet, but so stupid that they don't beileve in reason and couldn't possible sustain their rule for more than a few days before collapsing under their own idiocy.
In one breath we are told to watch out for them. In another, we are told not to despair because of how frail and impotent they are.
Once this is recognized it becomes obvious that this is a device of rhetorical charlatanry and a scientific evaluation of the facts.
Can we deteritorialize deteritorializing as a territory in an of itself and in consequence settle in some certain territory without the need to nomadic pursuits?
13:17
wtf rule number 5 is even shittier than i expected from peterson
Some dbd survivor main has this music as their theme 10:00
Thank you. I am walking around for some Deleuzian metaphysics.
I think JP provides critiques more as a scientist who knows something, even if it might be too little for some people, about post-modern philosophy, while GD is, of course, more philosophically interesting, as that is exactly his expertise. That said, we can remark, for example, GD uses terms from diverse domains sometimes without properly understanding the term. This should not be a direct denial of his philosophy. JP, for exactly the same reason, as amateur philosopher, has used a public vocabulary to build an interpretation-fused view on the general thoughts of post-modern philosophers.
Another thing is that, I think the jump of GD from metaphysics to ethics is far from natural. The concept of territorialization/deterritorialization is NOT immediately followed by that we should deterritorialise then reterritorialise, lest the criteria to do which and what. He never spent enough strokes to actually establish what you said as "women are more restricted"(paraphrased), which, as should be evident, is a claim on the actual history of society and needs scientific treatment.
JP has an answer that completely changed my mind on the gender issue. To paraphrase his answer, I would give an analogy of bank and water of a river. A river has a certain shape, a certain structure, which is the counterpart of a given social structure. We might impose on it a hierarchy, say, water over bank. This structure, however, is first of all a cognitive construct (which does not mean that it is not real, but that there are many other possible perspectives to give a construct of the same kind). Second, we can of course say that water is restricted by the bank, or reciprocally, the bank is eroded or hit by the water. This is exactly the same in the social structure, in most binaries, such as man/woman, capitalist/proletariat. All take advantages and all suffers from the system. Oppression is not one half against the other.
While this may not be the complete pictures of all binary categories, for genders, viewing that both men and women can greatly benefit from the so-called patriarchy, I think this makes a huge part of its explanation. This immediately undermines the argument feminists usually made. Deleuze, without providing actual argument, does not have a dominating win here.
Additionally, I don't think Deleuze would think that scientists should aim to work "creatively" or to create fancy concepts, because this point of view is a very partial and layman type of thinking in science. New concepts are only good if it is pragmatically useful or conceptually "plausible". Deleuze actually only talked about what a PHILOSOPHER should do but not scientists. For the philosopher part, I can see where GD comes from. However, this kind of "should", again, is telling us how GD cannot grasp fully his own concept.
Philosophy is a multiplicity that has a highly complex internal structure and external relations with other entities in the society. Philosophers should create concepts but also assume the role of populating important ideas. They need to refine the structure of theories and select those to stay, versus those to throw. The community of philosophers from this perspective serves as a machine. A machine of institution like many other subjects. Philosophers' work is far from just creating novel concepts. Deleuze in this regard is wrong for his own theory.
Jordan Peterson taking a stance as a scientist? But he has shared a lot of pseudo-scientific ideas. For starters, if you read the published paper that he based his lobster theory(?) on, you'll see that he takes... some liberties on what should be interpreted from that paper. For instance, he said and I paraphrase, "the brain of the looser lobster basically melts and regrows to better take the role as a submissive" and then he goes and says something among the lines of "if you ever lost at a fight or at romance, you may share this feeling with the lobster." But NOTHING on the scientific paper suggests such things about the lobsters let alone anyone else.
He also has suggested that there's something... divine or mystical about the double helix because the pattern has been used in ancient art and it just so happens the DNA is a double helix. He has cast doubt on climate change as well...
Scientist he is not.
@@Lambda_Ovine
Thank you for your reply.
But he is a psychologist (which is in my concept of a scientist). All the things scientists write are not rigorous, for the sake of popularising an idea. See many other best-sellers in science, even the hardest theoretical physics ones. They are full of personal interpretation as well. In the one I recently read, the Order of Time by Carelli (not sure the spelling) who is the definition of a theoretical physicist. He makes a great deal of speculation in the book as well. But otherwise, I can't even understand what he would be saying.
JBP is for sure not a biologist, but for example, when he says "share this feeling with the lobster", he is not saying we are experiencing the melting and regrowing of our brains, but rather, hinting on the possibility that the psychology of recognising our submissive position in society can affect us in a very substantial/material/biological way that most of us did not imagine.
Also, I am not saying that he is some new Newton, but Newton believed (I heard) that the Earth rotates around the Sun because god has at the beginning pushed it. You don't need to take the whole package of one's belief to acknowledge that he is a scientist.
I don't think that climate change is something that scientists should never cast doubt on, but I should first read about his doubt. But generally, I don't really agree that claiming that he doubts something (except science itself maybe??) is all we need to disqualify one's scientist-ness.
Finally, the double helix one, as I read how you describe it, is not a well-founded theory, not a scientific/falsifiable one. But again, scientists are not full-stack. some physicists even believe the ideal that biology and chemistry are unnecessary once physics has advanced enough. Scientists are not jesus-christ-ly scientists. They are lobsters, full of personal unbased, or even faulty beliefs.
For me, his hands having been dirty on the data in his domain of expertise are his most interesting assets. And he is a scientist in the most usual sense of today. Or more precisely, he was (he no longer publishes as scientist as I know). His understanding of the psychological dynamics, of alcoholism, of stuffs like these are drawn from both data and models of existing literature. I am not a big fan of his theological stretch, but I can clearly see the trace of his having being a scientist. That is what I see as value in him for me.
Hello~~ Which part of patriarchy benefits men and women the same again? ? If order needs to be re-established among the post-modernist chaos, then maybe it’s time for the water to flow over the bank, in your line of thoughts, which I agreed with right until the patriarchy thing showed up. Let’s say I agree with Peterson’s argument that a balance between order and chaos should be the goal. The struggle between the two forces has always been a dynamic one throughout human history. It’s never remained static, not even within the very institution of masculinity or femininity. Things change. People fight. And order and chaos are in relative terms.
@@Pandoradow Hi~ Thank you for your response. I think what I said is best explained in the previous paragraph of the word, where I pointed out that we all both benefit and suffer from the system. In addition, I called it "*so-called* patriarchy" because, for the same reason, the defects of the system are far from just caused by one gender/one social role (here we tend to blame male/father by using the word "patriarchy") and thus it's better to not use it. In the case of using it, I think it is better to use the term neutrally.
@@clementdato6328
There are 2 important issues when talking about repression and patriarchy. The history of "thought", the development of philosophy and later of all the sciences, is inevitably marked by masculinity. From Plato and Aristotle onwards, most of the definitions, descriptions, classifications, have "man" as a reference and measure (over animals, women, children and even over foreign men (barbarians for the Greeks)).
Western rationality (middle ages and church), and the entire construct of the Enlightenment and its heritage, is marked by that specific way of seeing and understanding the world. There is a clear and hegemonic continuity. And it is only from the middle of the last century (40s, 50s, 60s) that forms begin to be "rethought". Historically speaking, that is very recent (taking all "western and rational" human development as a reference off course)
Authors like Irigaray, or Butler more recently, make a complete review on the subject (in fact, Butler questions the bases of Irigaray's feminism) They are good readings to rethink the positions on feminism (2nd and 3rd wave), social roles and tensions between individual identity (self, materiality and nature) vs. groups (others, the social and imposed)
Amazing use of deleuze and guatarri.....
Why sink to this? It´s not productive at all. I don’t like JP’s politic but he at least listens and tries to have a rational debate. Even if he don’t have good arguments in several areas, it takes some courage to debate Zizek in front of a huge crowd. I can respect that. It’s so sad that the left is so obsessed with fighting the right and vica versa. Is the right/left divide real or just a construct imposed on us? If we work togheter, the inequalities and injustice in today’s system could be taken down. Who benefits from this growing divide?
Thanks 😊
I for one am actually desperate to be able to be more creative with my tax return and wish for more space in this matter...
this is tricky, i almost gave it a dislike
the lobster works with lots of
Philosophy
On the videos I've seen of Peterson's within the first few minutes he's lying about something, for example 'more men are psychopaths than women are' was one of his abhorrent claims. I wouldn't even bother wasting my time on such a person, he's broken the idea of freedom of speech all that can happen having civil discourse with such a person is he's going to keep bringing in lies while you have your hands tied.
The way to deal with him is verbally combatively, but what matters is the content of your evisceration. If I see someone like Russell Brand having a cosy chat with Peterson I know Brand is feeding his own ego.
SMH, Peterson is a transcendental actionable pragmatist and Deleuze and Guattari are immanent artistic philosophers, how can you pit them against each other. Bring Jung in, he's a better fit against Deleuze.
Peterson considers both Jung and Nietzsche as big influences, not that he understood Nietzsche at all.
@@madprole5361 what didn't he understand about Nietszche? I found his commentary on Nietszche quite independent and solid.
@@SUAVEcritic you found Petersons comments on Nietzsche solid?
@@madprole5361 personally, yes. But I'm open to be proven wrong
@@SUAVEcritic he misreads the parable of the madman for one, reducing it to a banal commentary on atheism rather than a warning to the developing fields of science to not replace the black priest robes for white lab coats and bastardize science into a new uncritical religion. We call this issue scientivism or scientism today. He seems to "read" Nietzsche like Rand or Hitler "read" Nietzsche, as in they read into the texts what they wanted to hear.
So lobster-kind constitute a massive rhizome? Nice!
omfg how did I not know that D&G also talk about a lobster. sksksksksk I better get on not not reading it.
It wasn't a rock, it was a rock lobster! Dun dun da da dun
Im curious to see how that movement between and beyond the territory thinking would be when applied to far left vs far right politics. I see similarities, different roots and structures but same critiques just from different viewpoints. Maybe we all need to just embrace shizo
Hjelmslev’s net has nothing to do with “thinking beyond” territory. This video is kind of wrong.
Speak of his book “beyond order”
its actually about content and expression
I used to work with lobsters.
It was my job to slowly watch them starve and then kill them once they'd lost the will to live.
Your presentation would be better if you just focus on the main difference in territorialisation. The first 8mins just pointless dismisses pragmatic ideas like "standing up straight" for an abstract concept like "discussing things."
Example I earn less than the global average, problems are general solved through violence and not discussion. Middle-income people have the luxury of discussion and democracy. Low income people cannot afford proper representation in a way you cannot conceive unless you experience it.
JP is a psychologist that markets himself towards people who have fcked up in life and needs to fix their problems today. People like me cant afford to wait for middle-income people to spontaneously decide to include my demographic in the democratic process. But I am able to beat the sht of out a wealthy posh boy if they infringe on my personal boundaries.
Talking like Peterson is advocating for political revolution when he actively screams for the very middle income faux democracy that you think he fights against.
@@singleoneonly thats a projection. not related to my comments.
@@herstar9510 You're talking like jbp is a pragmatic political agitator, someone who rejects the ivory tower intellectuals for violent action in favor of your rights when that's the complete fucking opposite of what he's doing. He's actively fighting AGAINST that violence, he thinks that our democracy is perfectly fine where it is. It's the whole reason he wrote a self help book and not a political manifesto, because he doesn't think that such lower income people really have any problems that aren't completely self made.
haha, the last line is hilarious!
Sartre took mescaline and hallucinated lobsters for years afterwards. How do these snappy lads get everywhere?
Crabby - ha ha
Why isn't it a scorpion? Lobsters are yummy, but just not as aesthetic. I must assume both Deleuze and Peterson were at seafood restaurants when they had these ideas.
I still don't understand the conflict between Peterson and Deleuze & Guattari. Because (if you focus on the book) Peterson's rules seem like basic stuff that anyone should follow regardless of beliefs or gender. And at the same time, Deleuze & Guattari's philosophy encourages people to try new ideas and experiences, which undoubtedly leads to personal growth. To be honest, this whole video seems like an excuse to talk about lobsters!
Another pill video tonight for me. Playing catch up. JP vs D&G. Too much fun. Need to add to true foot soldiers, the disciples of JRE.
im on the best side of utube.. finally