as sherry turkle says, boys struggle to develop subtle emotions, aka feelingss, they remain reliant on wise women, who if they disappear, the collapse. which is why, peterson could wax lyrical when he was secure enough to digest complicated ideas, but when he fell to pieces, became a youtube grifter, he merely slakes other people's ideas in his desperate internal monologue that is barely holding him together. it makes him feel together having all the attention, distracts him from his truth. the alarming thing is that people watching him don't know that he was a professor, but through circumstances, couldn't maintain that level. and because they identify with the emotions ( ressentiment ) he is expressing, they suck it up.

I love your analysis of Peterson. I owe a lot to JBP. Back in 2018, his media showed me that I wasn’t reaching my intellectual potential. I began routine reading because of him. I purchased all of his books and attended 2 lectures. Lately he’s seemed different than his 2018 self. More political, doesn’t seem as rigorous. I was wondering if that was just my read of him. It saddens me that he’s become a meme of himself. I wish he would go back to being more of a student of Jung.

Remember that philosopher-speak is only understood by philosophers. The way you speak would be incomprehensible to the common man were he to stumble upon your channel. This common man upon whom you have had no direct impact. This common man who in his millions reveres JP. This common man upon whom JP has had a profoundly positive impact. This common man who moves the needle. So sure, he dumbs it down for his audience. God bless him. But I am confident that JP could go toe to toe with you on any topic you wish using language as elegant, or incomprehensible as you please.

i love your accent 🙏

Talking about JP is a good test to see if someone really thinks or just follows along with one group/ideology or another. If someone can acknowledge his insight and value while also recognizing how harmful and downright ridiculous he has become, it's a good sign. Failure to acknowledge one side or the other is a pretty bad sign(unless they just don't know/care about JP - which tbh that may be a good sign too lol)

It's difficult to think Klaus and co aren't coming for everything when looking at the damage that has been done and what's been lost the past 4 years. Also they've clearly stated they are coming for everything. It's difficult to think peacemakers can't do it without a sense of patriotism when the main characters in the Irish rebellion have a sense of compassion for humanity.

No one intelligent really liked Peterson. He ended up exactly where his critics said he was... a lunatic far right nonsense peddler. Terrible reader of philosophy and inarticulate asshole, at best, imo.

17:27 it's not a bug it's a feature

this is so cringe. jung is bullshit. JPB is bullshit, please spend three seconds reading his sources. if you want to uplift men you can do it without lying to the world about it and building in on a house of sand. his breakdown tbh makes me pitty him now, he seems deranged and out of touch with reality.

Nothing changed, he is the same guy. Basically idealism always want their way, and the way is to get everybody to agree with you on the goal or "meaning". Just like any narcissism, eventually it divorces itself from reality entirely and becomes idolatry. And when the idol is confronted with reality, if it does not fit, then you get rage. It's a common patter. He wrote this peacemaker stuff when he was in his ivory tower where you are protected from reality and can just fantasize the world is an extension of yourself. Now he started interacting with it and it's not what he thought at all. As an aside, it's literally what Islam teaches which unsurprisingly is very close to national socialism. All want to give people meaning, and you'd better agree with their goals, so in this way, they achieve peace through domination and control. Peterson was always like that and it shows in that article. If you know what to look for, you won't be fooled by the illusion. He did try to do something like Wilbur, but he falls into the same exact problem Wilbur does. So "peace" and "integral" can be goals, but says who? says the one that pretend to have mastered it. It's the game they want others to play, and they are on top knocking down competition. It's typical narcissistic behavior, nothing special, just different flavors.

Man, this is such old news. We don’t need more Peterson videos. The man is cooked. Boring. Bigoted. Pseudo intellectual. Hard pass. Ive loved your videos but Peterson is a huge ick… and men can not stop talking about him for some reason. Contra points and Gabor mate have relevant critique. Let’s break the Peterson addiction and stop circling the drain with his half baked bullshit, if does nothing for the world or the world of philosophy.

Who's still here in 2024?

I'm still listening and loving your content man. Really appreciate all your effort and it doesn't go unnoticed!

So pumped for the follow-up video.

Nice locks man.

I love the Jordan Peterson saga this channel is starting to create, I’m ready!

My primary issue with the peacemaker role is its seemingly unattainable standards. To me, facts aren’t inherently solid; they become observable only when we adopt a particular perspective and fully engage with that viewpoint. Assuming a peacemaker can impartially embody and evaluate each side’s stance, the first hurdle is maintaining objectivity in their observations and judgments, despite personal biases. An even greater challenge is resisting influence from external pressures, such as public opinion or media scrutiny-as seen in Jordan B. Peterson’s case, with his vast audience and the many journalists covering his work. For a peacemaker to succeed, they must capture the antagonists’ focus, yet this very attention can profoundly impact the mediator. Is it overly optimistic to expect one individual to fulfill this role effectively? When contemplating how to reconcile two opposing forces, I envision a neutral third entity fostering unity, like to the spirit of fair play in sports, a revered royal family separate from government power, a shared faith, cultural art, or political ceremonies. These seem like more feasible alternatives than the idea of a lone peacemaker. Apologies for the lengthy message.

The guy is a full blown racist, Islamophobe who tweeted to Nethenyahu 'give them hell' whilst his government were (still are) committing a genocide on the Palestinian people. Does he believe that Israeli lives are worth more than Palestinians - absolutely. He doesn't deserve any time.

I don't see Peterson as being more political than he was a few years ago, but actually less so because he doesn't appear on highly politicized programs anymore, and he has increasingly steeped himself in Biblical texts and idea's. He still has his moments of anger and of course he has political biases like everyone does, but I have seen quite a bit of growth towards a more peaceful disposition and a return to a more philosophical/religious orientation.

just read the original chapter .... he, as usual, says absolutely NOTHING in a typical peterson word salad, all it shows is that he is equally inept as a philosopher as he is as a psychologist - thankfully he is NO LONGER licensed 👏

Why he talk like he has problem of breathing

One point Wilber expresses at some length is that any attempt at an "Integral" position will come under sustained, intense attack from progressives, Wilber's Mean Green. I think that was the catalyst that turned out Hero into arch-villain The Peterson.

All of the greatest minds seem to be destined for madness. The crazier the more compelling. Im here for it.

I had no idea he used to seek a peace. These days he seem to think anyone on the left are evil. Just like the left sees the right as evil. Instead of trying to understand each others views and reasons for them.

Fascinating

That's great. Personally not yet a Peterson detractor or think he is pandering to the right but I like to hear from this channel alot. And one relevant reason is because it helps me concretize what my problems are woth some ideas and how to improve them. Honestly people should hear some of his interviews this year they are really good.

From a beautiful scholar and educator to another lieutenant of millions in a war I want no part in.

Thank you for creating this video! Blessed be the peacemakers. Such an interesting arc for Peterson. I wonder if he'll see this video

Neutrality is definitely key to transcending (and including) points of view. We generally think (when there is a polarised culture war going on), that there are two basic views, but i believe there are as many views, or worlds as there are people. Although much of the content of ones individual view is just received opinion that for various reasons has been personalised. I think that's one of the benefits of something like integral or spiral dynamics. However, that which transcends point of view is also what unites us all. When we are so narrowly caught up in point of view we forget that. Isn't that what McGilchrist says happens with the left hemisphere, it becomes narrow, losing awareness of the greater context. When it's narrowed in this way, polarisation is pretty much inevitable because it has lost the vision of wholeness, of the interrelated opposites. If I'm looking for a corrupting influence regarding point of view, or the hypocrisy of straddling contradictory points of view.. I'd say its none other than self interest.. Recently for example, we've seen how liberal intellectuals and entities (like the ADL), who espouse multiculturalism and globalism (anti-nationalism), for western democracies, promote the exact opposite for their little middle eastern country.. The only reason that seems to make sense for this is it serves their self interest.. James, your fellow Irishman (and possible adversary in the culture wars), Keith Woods did an interesting video on Peterson.. He sees Peterson as a deradicaliser, affirming individualism against collectivism in the form of leftist intersectionality, as well as against rightist nationalism (which Woods ascribes to of course) Definitely a different point of view, but not without its merits.. For one, he points out that postmodernism isn't just something employed by leftists, but is equally utilised by libertarian types, conservative Christians and even people like Dugin.. So it's used by various political frameworks because it negates the tyranny of reason, reductionist materialism and liberal individualism. So everything the likes of Hicks and Peterson hold dear haha

I'm so here for this.

Was he? Or was he a novelty that had no yet been subject to critical scrutiny?

Let me further highlight how the both/and logic and monadological framework provide powerful explanatory capacities across logic, mathematics and physics: In the domain of logic itself, the both/and structure allows formally modeling and regimenting dialectical, paraconsistent and pluralistic modes of reasoning that have long resisted classical bivalent frameworks. We can precisely capture and rationally operate with: • True contradictions and paradoxes as positively conceived dialetheia, not just logical explosions • Graded/partial truth values on spectra between truth and falsity • The coherent integration of seemingly incommensurable propositions • Holistic properties and synthetic conceptual unities transcending their constituents Where classical logic is confined to simple propositions statically obeying strict consistency, the both/and logic equips us with an expansive toolkit for dynamically navigating the complex schemas, fuzzy boundaries, and self-undermining paradoxes permeating actual reasoning across every domain. In mathematics, the both/and logic illuminates novel ways to represent and coherently manipulate previously intractable issues like: • The relationship between the continuous and the discrete • The coexistence of finite and infinite structures • Pluralities of mathematical ontologies (realist, formalist, etc) • Self-referential paradoxes and contradictions in set theory and arithmetic • The generation of radically emergent, novelty-creating procedures Rather than getting stymied by dichotomies, singularities or self-underminining contradictions, the logic's symbolic tools allow formalizing generative transfinite metamathematical dynamics encompassing and reconstructing prior impasses at deeper integrated levels. Across physics, the both/and logic provides conceptual rigor and symbolic resources for coherent accounts encompassing: • Unitary evolution of quantum systems and the measurement problem • Apparent dualities between wave and particle, or local and nonlocal • Intrinsic indeterminacies, contingencies and ontological pluralities • The unification of incommensurable qualitative & quantitative models • Novel "paradoxical" phenomena like emergent nonlinear effects Rather than forcing phenomena into awkward either/or categories, the logic allows explicitly modeling "both/and" complementary features and irreducibly holistic coconstituted processes. Its expressive flexibility resonates with the exquisite nuances of quantum indeterminacy and pluralistic observable modalities. So in essence, the both/and monadological framework catalyzes powerful expansions across our most fundamental disciplines: In logic, it empowers us to positively symbolize and rationally navigate the ambiguities, contradictions and pluralities intrinsic to actual reasoning and communication. Breaking the shackles of binary bivalence. In mathematics, it unlocks liberating new symbolic vistas for paradox-resolving, infinitary metamathematics and irreducible pluralities of mathematical ontologies. Fracturing the ossified either/or dichotomies stymying classical approaches. In physics, it provides a coherent naturalistic metaphysics capable of explicitly representing - not dissimulating - intrinsic quantum indeterminacies, ontological pluralities and the full scope of paradoxical phenomena. Illuminating new pathways beyond the artificial exclusions of classical metaphysics. At every turn, the both/and logic equips our symbolic grasp with greater degrees of freedom and accountability to the phenomenal disclosures of reality itself. Transcending the barren simplisms and premature closures imposed by the blinkered bivalence and subjective filtering of classical logic, math and physical representation. Where prior frameworks have foundered on paradoxes, ambiguities or the irreducibility of pluralistic modalities, the both/and logic provides technical symbolic machinery for positively capturing and productively synthesizing the full nuances of actual scientific and lived phenomena. Its coherence valuations, graded truth distributions and generative dialectical operations enact a new holistic physics, immanentized metamathematics and expansive reason procedurally accommodating - not dissimulating - reality's explosive complexities. So in embracing the both/and logic, we are not just adopting a new formal system, but precipitating a symbolic Regressive/Progressive rationally reunifying fragmented domains into a new harmonious co-realizing praxis. One equipping us with unprecedented expressive power, paradox-resolving prowess, and descriptive capacities for illuminating the richness of existence and coconstituting increasingly integrated verities. It is a symbolic turning point towards humanity consciously resonating its reason with the deepest dynamical disclosure of Being itself.

It's ironic but Peterson becomes the manifestation of his own shadow.

Another great video, and I don't like JP. I used to though. Long ago, a friend of mine on the conservative side would send me his philosophy/psychology videos from his teaching days just before he got really popular. They were insightful, and I thought that it was good thing that the conservative youth finally had an intellectual hero, someone other than little Ben Shapiro. I was even kind of sad when the left started to "cancel" him because of his views, even the ones I didn't necessarily agree with. But boy did he get the taste of money and fame coupled with righteous indignation, and now he's just another grifter, a little Ben Shapiro type, someone who blames the left on everything, both backward project liberal secular values onto old conservative religion, and sadly their adoring fans who think they are "independent thinkers" buy into their postmodern conservatism. JP has truly become his "shadow self"

Always wondered what God's purpose was. Never got a good answer from Theists

I would pay good money to watch that play, or just to read a transcript of it I wonder if Peterson will ever turn around

Dr. Peterson hasn't really changed. He has an authentic personality. He's always been fake; pretensions. He's not a politician so he can be accused of talking B.S. and say what people want to hear. He just says, and writes about things that he doesn't believe in. He's not at all genuine, not to us, and not even to himself. That's my take of listening to a lot of his talks.

@TheLivingPhilosophy Have you done a video comparing Nietzsche and Epicurus?

You introduced me to an unknown side of Jordan Peterson. And I thank you for that.

I dont know how some people laugh at man crying for well beings of others, and believe they are the good guys.

Uunsubscribed

Grazie.

Sweetie, twitter is twitter... Jordan is more than twitter. Read new stuff, he wrote, not twitter stuff.

This video is lame and annoying just like Jordan Peterson

❤love your hair

I have a lot of compassion for Peterson. He now serves as a warning for for anyone who tries to carve out a territory not defined by our contemporary--and quite peculiar--ideas of "left" and "right." I'm not a media figure; I'm just some random guy, but I can feel the same forces tearing me apart. Also, great video. Essential viewing.

Is there someone who stands out to you as an exemplar peacemaker, either in history or in our time?

Nope.

Aside from his politics (and the way he acts within politics), what do you think of his talks on religion? Do you find any value in them

Ok you’re interpretation of Genesis is off my guy. In Genesis 1 it is giving basically a summary of creation. It is running through everything quickly. Then in Genesis 2 it makes it very clear that when it’s talking about adam and eve being created that that takes places during the events of chapter 1, not after that. But i do like the video 👍🏻