Reply to Jordan Peterson: Individualism, Wokeism, and Civil Religion

[@imaliazhar]

To everyone saying these two should have a live conversation: Nuance critique like the one Professor Moeller is doing cannot be done live. Live conversations tend to favor those who are flashier and better orators. The best scenario would be a video response by Jordan Peterson and hopefully Professor Moeller can respond back here again.

[@rileyhartley381]

胆小鬼

[@user-nq5wb1cz5e]

Good observation.

[@666melodeath666]

A podcast would be fine.

[@DarkFoxV]

Very true. A lot of people take "who is the quickes speaker" to be "who is the more right" of via "well why didn't you say that then?"-style gotchas. It's not very true or critical. I wouldn't say Peterson is particularly flashy, but some collaborative where they pre-work out a dialogue or something like that, or a video tag correspondence would be by far the most conducive as a serious and authentic format.

[@HecVD]

Peterson is clearly worst with his prepared statements, like having a mixup on terminology on a written response. That's pretty forgettable while debating but very demeaning if you actually sit and wrote something.

[@Ghoddal]

I find it quite amusing to see how Möller behaves in a way that Peterson seemingly advocates while he himself completely fails to behave appropriately. In both videos, Möller is calm and polite and expresses his thoughts in a mature and easy-to-understand way. Peterson's response in contrast is full of spite, pettiness, and straight-up self-indulgence- not all how any academic should respond to an honest critic. Of course, Peterson doesn't have to agree with Möller but his comment is completely ridiculous and immature. It astounds me how this man can complain over and over again to be misunderstood, yet is seemingly unable to express himself in an understandable way. I mean even his very comment of the video is such a pile of unnecessarily long sentences and elaborate terms that I thought I am reading some sociological article about which Peterson likes to rant about.

[@Ghoddal]

@William Frost I think you slightly missed my point. I did not state that Peterson used informal speech, quite the opposite actually. I wasn't critiquing his ductus as being informal but as being spiteful and angry. Peterson just ridiculous himself by reacting like a stubborn teenager who has just learned some fancy words. Writing an angry comment rejecting his characterization as "angry" is quite...revealing shall we say. And yes there are places and occasions where informal language is appropriate (also in academic or intellectual circumstances) but this is not the issue here. By the way, Peterson makes a habit out of using sometimes obscure terms so exceedingly that he becomes almost unintelligible and a human Rohrschach test. And then he claims to be misunderstood. Oh, how unfortunate; I wonder why this happens all the time to him. Terms like Baudrillardesque spectacle do not scream informality but intellectual grandiosity.

[@mschell8022]

Peterson is a lot more emotional and chaotic than he will ever admit.

[@dasklavierleben]

@@Ghoddal I'm not taking a broader position here but I want to point out that Baudrillard was specifically referenced in Moeller's video regarding simulacra and spectacle. No other word used used by Peterson in his response should seem obscure to someone with a college education.

[@DarkFoxV]

@@Ghoddal that's an immensely terrible view of what distinguishes formal and informal speech. Informal speech in english isn't characterised by avoiding technical lexicon. You can use technical lexicon and talk like a trucker, or you can use it in a formalised debate forum. Specifc terms represent specific ideas, and levels of ideas, and without them our concepts would be lost. It's a stupid and petty argument to make towards someone. "Oh no, I mentioned spleen I'm suddely speaking formally" to phrase it differently. Using a 'high conceptualisation' of ideas is a separate cocept. "Plate techtonics bro, are you picking up fhat I'm putting down my mann"

[@Ghoddal]

@@DarkFoxV Well, you may be right but it wasn't me who made this distinction between formal and informal language and specifically wrote that this is not my point. I get what you are saying but I don't think it has much to do with my view with which one surely can disagree.

[@davidfranklin5434]

For someone who preaches the virtues of resilience, Jordan Peterson seems awfully sensitive to criticism.

[@Frosty_Cat614]

Just like his god.....

[@davidfranklin5434]

@@priapulida I'm sorry, but I don't see anything dishonest or manipulative about pointing out someone's hypocrisy. Peterson preaches the value of being strong in the face of adversity, and yet at the same time acts prickly and hypersensitive when he's the object of modest and rational criticism. If he's going to present himself as a guru with a program for psychologically healthy living, then it's perfectly fair game to point to his own emotional instability. He's like a personal trainer who doesn't work out and eats Big Macs everyday.

[@Shamino1]

@@davidfranklin5434 Peterson speaks of strength of order and cleanliness, and his personal office looks worse than my room when I was 13. He speaks about the strength of will, but has to be put into a medical coma for a month in Russia to get over his Benzos addiction. He speaks of diversity of experiences being a means to develop empathy and understanding, yet only eats grain and meat. Like a true philosopher, his writings are a criticism of himself. Neither Nietzsche nor Peterson could never be the super man, and so he fabricated one onto his pages.

[@keylanoslokj1806]

Yeah because he has an agenda to push and masters to answer to.... .

[@bradspitt3896]

How is critiquing someone being sensitive? And how is being sensitive not being resilient? It's always a semantic issue with you people.

[@diveinnjim]

"religion is not for the healthy, it is based on the cultivation of sickness. The question can be asked, Is that also the case for civil religion?" That one is going in my note book.

[@Pllayer064]

Yeah, literally check out Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.

[@TheControlBlue]

@@Pllayer064 "I only know one thing about Nietzsche, and it's the thing that confirm my bias!!" That's literally you, right now! But don't worry you are not alone, it's easy to weaponize Nietzsche, I've done that mistake too.

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@@TheControlBlue What on earth are you babbling about? Haven't you ever read Nietzsche? He makes this parallel between religion and medicine all the time, even as late in the game as Ecce Homo when he talks about the connection between pity and nihilism, or the connection between revenge and justice in Genealogy of Morals. How is this "weaponization"??

[@bradspitt3896]

The irony is that someone who thinks they aren't sick, well...

[@alexh1524]

With all due respect to Moeller, but his take on anger and Christianity is not correct. Christianity does not endorse anger as he seems to imply with a reference to Ephesians 4:26. Rather, Christian disciples are cautioned about giving into anger because it leads to evil, and is one of many fruits of the flesh that separates man from God. See Galatians 5:19-26. I know that there are some supposedly Christian writers that, like Peterson, justify 'righteous' anger. I've read the Bible. I don't see it. Interestingly, Peterson seems to be more aligned with Nietzsche on this issue than he is with New Testament theology. I've seen other videos where Peterson advocates one to first become a 'monster' before stepping back to control it. Christianity, on the other hand, counsels humility, loving your enemy, and being 'harmless as doves' - precisely what Nietzsche considers a slave mentality.

[@albertfaust5839]

I love how they always flash scihub when showing a paper. Even as a professor, openly supporting the free access of knowledge.

[@elipearson8194]

Some of my lecturers at uni would *drop* their microphone to tell us off record where to find the textbooks for free. Always a cool move

[@naturarum]

@@elipearson8194 haha. one professor of mine would silently write the libgen address on the board and say something extremely vague like: “there’s a website where you can find a lot of books for free, I won’t give you the name but if you are observant, it will be easy to find it.”

[@quicksanddiver]

I also believe that the main motivation for the support of stuff like Scihub or libgen by actual scholars is the fact that free knowledge is important to them. However, it also helps to know that if you publish a paper, the only thing you'll get in return is bragging rights. So there's literally no harm done (except to the publishing houses of course)

[@shyguy1845]

@@naturarum Holy shit i love your professor.

[@MWBOOKS]

I remember that there were no copyrights in China for long time maybe there still aren’t. It should be the same in Macau then I think 🤔

[@ronsock1795]

Your framework of profilicity is one of those frameworks that makes me feel like new possibilities of understanding have opened up for me. It is especially important in regards to understanding how public discourse actually works right now, and the power that figures like Peterson have, as well as the power, and practical limitations, of the whole left tube sphere. I have no doubt that you're gonna be huge on this platform in a year or two yourself if you keep posting.

[@gh0s1wav]

Yeah it's really a paradigm shift. I've been watching these videos since like the first three and there hasn't been a day where I haven't contemplated the implications that theory of profilicity presents if it is as accurate as I think it is.

[@heraclitusblacking1293]

@@gh0s1wav I've been reading the book. It's fantastic. It treads the line between sophistication and accessibility. It's both challenging and fun. I'll cash that check now, Dr. Moeller lol

[@reybladen3068]

Bruh, i was going to say that Professor Peterson was sounding like a priest and you just addressed it.

[@TheControlBlue]

Which would be wrong but okay.

[@theneoliberal3762]

​@@ghfudrs93uuu ​ Sam Harris is also a christainity smuggler he takes all of the moral progress of christanity (slave morality) and then trys to strip religion/myth out of it and pretend his new morality is not christain while being nearly identical in function. There is very little difference between sam and a christain's thoughts on morality fundamentally. His critique of christainity is hollow he didnt go as far as he needed to.

[@gerardtonythomas507]

Watch Peterson discussion with Matt Dillahunty.

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@@gerardtonythomas507 Bruh, that debate was a doozy

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@@TheControlBlue Have you read Peterson's books? I haven't read his new third one, but 12 Rules for Life does have a very self-help and preachy vibe to it. His first book was a much more philosophically grounded book, and while I respected its goal, I don't think he achieved it as well as some of his contemporaries like John Vervaeke

[@WeBreakTheChain]

Hegel says of philosophy that while it is not 'mathematical cognition', it is "not to be replaced by the non-method of presentiment and inspiration, or by the arbitrariness of prophetic utterance, both of which despise not only scientific pomposity, but scientific procedure of all kinds" (pg 29 paragraph 49 of the Phenomenology). This video is a wonderful demonstration of the 'arbitrariness of prophetic utterance' which Hegel speaks of. Such things can be methods of healing but not much of a philosophy. Excellent work.

[@Pllayer064]

Imma steal that to use later

[@7th808s]

Damn, there are sentences in that book that are readable?? 🤣🤣🤣 Jokes aside, I whole-heartedly agree.

[@liamhackett513]

"Not be replaced by.... the arbitrariness of prophetic utterance". Wonder what Hegel would make of Jordan's final line in 12 rules : "What shall I do when the great crowd beckons?: stand tall and utter my broken truths".

[@HahaDamn]

@@7th808s it's actually very nicely worded, most people will find themselves consulting a dictionary at times, but it's coherent and a good piece of literature/translation.

[@werrkowalski2985]

But there is such thing as political philosophy, do you claim political philosophy doesn't exist?

[@theonlygoodlookinghabsburg2081]

I wasn't expecting that ending. Thank you very much professor for curating your profile.

[@AnnaPrzebudzona]

I figuratively fell off my chair when I heard it

[@wonderplaceholder]

I see people in the comments talking about the closing remark with Pewdiepie, how it was supposedly "cold" or how it was a "cheap shot". I feel that these comments more reflect the commenter's prejudgement towards Pewdiepie and I feel it misses the previous point that professor made about the therapeutic suggestion of not being too invested in your profile. Jordan Peterson seems to be highly invested in curating his profile; how he interprets Nietzsche has strong implications in the profile he curates. Bringing Pewdiepie into the disscusion (a person he reviewed previously on this exact topic) was more a comparison between two persons that both have a take on Nietzsche, but one of them had less investment in the profile that he curates than the other (an attitude that the professor encourages right at the end). So it makes sense to bring Pewdiepie as an example as he not only has the same interpretation of Nietzsche as the professor (so they are in agreement), but he also has the attitude that the professor encourages (so in a sense, more carefree). I feel that this was the subtext here, not a jab at Peterson.

[@wonderplaceholder]

@@Insaneslug Thanks!

[@TheControlBlue]

So, I'm supposed to expect that the guy who wants to absolutely reduce Peterson to a guru, a prophet, and akin to a "civil religion" (and trust me, the only part that matters to Mueller here is "religion") cult leader ("look, he makes people cry!!"), and that after being forced to drop the "self-help" misnomer he tried to tag on Peterson multiple times (akin to "he's in only in for the money" or "he only cares about his profile"), I have to trust that this guy didn't just make another petty jab?

[@Scott-bh2qb]

@@TheControlBlue you don’t have to trust anyone. I recommend you relax and spend some time reading widely. It doesn’t require trust to quickly learn that Peterson often misinterprets Neitsche to fit into his sermons. Go to the primary texts and stop relying on trusting or distrusting YT videos. If you want to paint this guy doing the video as a ‘bad faith’ actor to make you feel better then bash on - but not even your man JP nor Neitsche would respect you for doing that. You are alone.

[@TheControlBlue]

@@Scott-bh2qb I don't trust people like you.

[@Scott-bh2qb]

@@TheControlBlue you have trust issues, my friend

[@danielbroening]

I like watching someone enjoy what they do. Good way to start off the morning.

[@cjwarrington177]

What's funny to me is that in Peterson's closing question, he shows that he hasn't taken any time at all to actually try to understand your position. Pretty on-brand for him, really.

[@Pllayer064]

Peterson doing the Peterson thing, just like the C-14 bill that got him famous.

[@liamhackett513]

It's all and only about Jordan.

[@aralornwolf3140]

@@Pllayer064 , C-16, not -14.

[@gabrielonibudo5710]

@Colby yh it’s not like tea whole video was made on him or something

[@shyguy1845]

@@Pllayer064 that's literally all he does he never understand people he disagrees with.

[@steve-ks9df]

Prof. Moeller- no critiques today, no nuance- just compliments. Keep doing what you are doing! It seems that Peterson's cultural awareness of the forces that impact our modern Western subjectivity is lacking. Sincerely, an anthropologist

[@redtaperecorder1]

Wow, he completely and cogently dismantled Jordan Peterson’s whole public 'brand' in 30 minutes.

[@DarkFoxV]

Could do that to anyone. He did the same towards 'wokeism' within the same video btw. Now obviously Dr JP is more complex than just what we saw, but it is a good analysis in particular of tnn conflict between the self and society, especially when in the spot light in media or even on say Instagram or fb or tiktok etc.

[@mnoorist8223]

@@DarkFoxV jp is not complex.

[@Bojoschannel]

@@DarkFoxV complex if you're 14 years old lol

[@rranka8293]

@@DarkFoxV "..the same towards wokeism ..btw.." do you think that peterson vs wokeism is all there is to think about? i don't.

[@thewildcardperson]

@@rranka8293 woke ism is a cancer that needs genocided disagree and will have a civil war

[@StratEdgyProductions]

Here's the one thing I learned... This man has read The Dark Knight: Knightfall. Actually this was very enlightening and has put two new books on my reading list. Including the zhuangzi that's three. Also, damn. That was a sick burn there at the end. Whether intentional or not, that was third degree, skin graft type shit.

[@Lotsofleaves]

I love seeing you here! Such a fun and unexpected crossover of my interests haha

[@bodywithoutorgans172]

Excuse me what? What in the HECK are you doing in this corner of youtube? What a pleasant surprise! Well, it's not that much of a surprise, but a welcome one nonetheless.

[@propkid]

Let's make "philosopher gamers" a thing.

[@schwipsy]

Welp seeing you here does explain some things of the last video you did haha.

[@superheavyballet7868]

Notice that he also has a copy of Blame! on the shelf in the top right.

[@LackingSaint]

Hi! as someone who has spent the past year delving much deeper into my own philosophy, I have been getting a tremendous amount of value out of your channel. I was curious if you had any thoughts on Robert M. Pirsig? I was in a bad place a few months ago and found Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance very powerful, but would be curious of the thoughts of someone more versed in the ideas discussed in the book (or its sequel Lila)

[@RealProfessionalHumanBeing]

Start looking into nondualism more broadly.

[@akrbm425]

bro

[@eternalblue4660]

What an overlap. Love your videos, Jack and I hope you're doing well.

[@vollstaendingennamen]

yoooo, love your videos, they are really on point, some of the best content on the platform

[@dsa513]

He was a philosophy teacher for a while. I forget what his particular system was based in. I think it had something to do with his 'ontology' that he ultimately was working on in Zen and the Art. Of course he's famous for his syncretic take on human metaphysics that dealt with the issue regarding its utility.

[@hosung6936]

lol calling peterson a brand is gonna piss people off. It's right tho, I see no difference between twilight fangirls and peterson fanboys.

[@primevigilante7259]

exactly

[@raijin2950]

I think a more apt comparison would to a celebrity brand like Nikki Minaj and her fanbase, the so called "Barbz." Often when she is criticized her fans respond very aggresively in the same way I see Peterson fans do. Like they have assimilated part of the curated profile of Minaj or Peterson into their own personas so they respond to criticisms of them as if it is a personal attack on themselves.

[@angelikaskoroszyn8495]

The difference is that Twillight girls grew up and now they can recognize many not perfect aspects of their book series. I see many Peterson fans doing similar growing up. I wish everyone the same level of emotional maturity

[@Godsen5]

@@angelikaskoroszyn8495 Well Twilight's fangirls could more easily grow out of the fandom as an emancipation movement that grants a net gain of power in the form of political self-consciousness. Twilight sublimates is (literally and literarily) 50 shades of grey; girls by becoming (in the feminism-charged sense of the word) 'women' exit the fandom by acknowledging it passivize the female, it makes her gravitate toward the partner, to fetishize an evident imbalance of power and to experience "growth" in the form of class-escalation through marriage (quite literally). For fanboys to grow out of the fandom of Peterson would mean to gain political self-consciousness, but it would put them in a position of renouncing power/safety, the possibility to play the victim (which is the highest aspiration of the civil religion highlighted in this and other videos of this channel both on the woke and the lobster side). It would be a renounce of one's own defense mechanism, something psycho-analysis has shown to be among the most difficult tasks in general.

[@aralornwolf3140]

I do... Twilight Fangirls like fairies... er... 200 year old high school boys... and Peterson sells a conservative view point that is at odds with reality in his "self help" books...

[@Synerco]

you can tell moeller really delights in unraveling what peterson passes off as arguments

[@ilyakiselev4209]

The vehement arguing by a few (maybe more to come) Peterson's supporters in the comments low-key shows how polarising he is as a figure and how his dogmatic religious (civil and not) ethics drive people to "fight for the right thing" and for their "prophet".

[@joshbaino3087]

As Zizek would say "pure ideology"

[@ilyakiselev4209]

@@Dan_1348 If you're taking a critical, as opposed to a dogmatic approach, there can be no clear right or wrong.

[@Crispman_777]

@@Dan_1348 No it's the difference between black and white and greyscale. Through a critical lens an action can be more or less correct according to your moral framework but you have to go to severe extremes to find actions that _might_ be considered as 100% right or wrong.

[@cuckookin]

@@Dan_1348 the question is more akin to "which hill are you willing to die on". Because of you're going to start or participate in a fight over X, presumably because you think X is right and not-X is wrong, you should critically examine if the value of successfully defending X is bigger than the cost of fighting over X or of the value from alternatives such as finding middle ground. All in all, the position "you should fight for what is right" is clearly dogmatic and uncritical.

[@cuckookin]

It is equally plausible that in certain situations you should *not* fight over what is right (for example which direction should the toilet paper roll be facing)

[@Jimmy-zg3ye]

dang... that ending is COLD... 😭😭

[@Fordtheriver]

Read this comment halfway through the video. Then 10 seconds from the end, I'm sitting here disappointed like: where's the juice? The anticipation made for a good hard laugh. Tbf he had plenty of good things to say about pewtypies take, not to say he didn't know exactly what he was doing 🤣🤣

[@adrianmarkstrom6692]

That made me laugh out loud, brilliant.

[@jhairccorimanya1806]

Why? It was not meant as a jab at Peterson, he was only stating his opinion. If it was somewhat insulting (I don't see how) that would also be insulting for PewDiePie because I guess the insult is: the take of a dumb youtuber on Nietzsche has more value than this trained psychology professor. People need to chillax. :)

[@massacreee3028]

@@jhairccorimanya1806 not really, its more like: youtuber with no professional background in philosophy has a better take on a philosopher than an addicted psychology professor that uses and misinterprets this philosopher for over 30 years to push his neoconservative agenda.

[@jhairccorimanya1806]

@@massacreee3028 is that an opinion or a fact? I think you are misinterpreting what the video is about, and misinterpreting what JP is if you believe your claim of him being a neoconservative.

[@kevinbeck8836]

Im glad we can all agree that Peterson doesn't understand Nietzsche

[@modernmyth9050]

For real! Been saying this for years but his cult members always shoot it down.

[@nmackelprang]

I don't understand how people read Nietzsche as endorsing Christianity or religion in general. In GoM I read him as saying that Christianity is a nihilist religion not that religious values are needed to guard against nihilism the later being what Peterson seems to think.

[@pichirisu]

Js coming from psych field, he doesn’t understand that very well either.

[@pichirisu]

@Tracchofyre I am psych worker. I promise he sounds like a psychology 101 class who’s taught by a professor who hasn’t used his psych degree in 20 years and decides to teach part time. I agree he does not know much of those topics either, nor does he properly present or understand Jungian concepts and their functions outside of a pop-culture self-fulfilling-prophecy application, a stripped down and cherry picked version of Jung he includes in his half-worked gospel on uni campuses. What he is very good at(and what most Machiavellian/Clinically narcissistic individuals) is saying the right things at the right time to the right audience to attain whatever status and/or goal they want to claim.

[@pichirisu]

@Tracchofyre I'm not reading that. He is a Machiavellian pseudo-intellectual and rationalizing it any other way is only promoting such behavior and action(s).

[@lucien4775]

The Pewdiepie thing was really an excellent bit to close an extremely well constructed video xD But in all seriousness, I sincerely appreciate the quality of this one : it was especially clear and well designed. Thank you professor !

[@Io-Io-Io]

It was a pile of well arranged shit

[@roblade6581]

@@Io-Io-Io u mad bruv?

[@Pllayer064]

@@Io-Io-Io stay mad |--|○E

[@imonshrooms6866]

@@Io-Io-Io found the jp fan

[@petertreid]

@@Io-Io-Io Shite doesn't pile well when fresh despite your best efforts to arrange it.

[@Snafuski]

There is a big difference between Peterson and Moeller, I feel... Peterson became, maybe inadvertently, a kind of brand for the conservatives, much in the way Buckley once upon a time morphed into an "intellectual" for the right. He wasn't really. He was a stuck-up and gassy propagandist for pseudo-ideas, his debates were basically tiresome affairs, in which he tried to tu quoque or bothsider his way out of really laying out the conseervative viewpoint. . Mr Moeller on the other hand is one of those systematic, patient thinkers with a large bag of knowledge that he seems at ease with digging into. He does this politely. Of course peterson is not very happy. Try and tell a car manufacturerer that their products are basically the same as any rival brand, only with different shapes and colors... Moeller also sees the "evangelical" prophet-type in Peterson. Most of us see that. What Americans seldom see is the Puritan DNA in their society. It's at the heart of wokeism and conservatism...

[@oryx_85]

I really enjoyed your comment. I agree with you on the puritan nature of Americans and I have heard that before. I think I recognize it in myself and my own hyper independence. Though I have heard others speculate that it is a symptom of truma. Either way. I must admit I enjoy the asthetics of wokeism though the underlying principal of women's complete freedom and a love of the LGBT is where it stems from for me. I really appreciate Mollers videos and all I can personally do is keep reading and growing my own bag of knowledge, as you put it.

[@Snafuski]

@@oryx_85 Thank you. I was made aware of the power of the puritan mind on American society by reading a lot, notably Mencken who in his rather unfriendly but funny way exposed Puritanism wherever he saw it... But I later studied rhetoric and that is where it b ecame clear that it nlies at the heart of many movements in the USA. But it bears exploring further....

[@Pllayer064]

Moeller is like a hydraulic machine grinding Peterson's bones slowly but steadily and he's unstoppable no matter what smoke, mirrors and magician's bunnies Peterson keeps in his deep pockets, the conveyor belt keeps rolling kachunk kachunk, kachunk kachunk 😎

[@wolfil8019]

"What Americans seldom see is the Puritan DNA in their society. It's at the heart of wokeism and conservatism..." Indeed!

[@steve-ks9df]

Most people who live in a certain society do not fully see how their history and culture impact them individually. Its the proverbial "water that we swim in." So if you are not American, that may be very easy for you to see, but maybe not your own society. But as an American, I am also routinely frustrated by American religious impulses, but as a student of American religious history, religiosity in the states has changed deeply since the Puritans arrived on the Mayflower. The real story here is the Great Awakening and the fundamentalist movement

[@michelangeloswarovski9235]

Imagine getting Nietzsche less right than PewDiePie lmao

[@HxH2011DRA]

*wheeze* 🤣

[@mouwersor]

Imagine making philosophy a tribalist issue.... It really doesn't need that.

[@TheControlBlue]

Ooga Booga, people in my tribe Smart! People outside my tribe Dum Dum!

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@@mouwersor You're not wrong, but the whole analytic/continental divide unfortunately goes way back, and we don't have enough Rortys in the world to fix it

[@danielpinto6504]

@@hazardousjazzgasm129 what does rortys even mean?

[@kingcookie9485]

all these comments saying cold ending actually got me watching the entire video just to say, ' godamn that's cold'

[@scaratlas3347]

It really wasn't clickbait lol

[@valaur3]

when jordan peterson talks about giving people language for stuff they intuitively know to be true I'm struck by how that is a perfect description of confirmation bias.

[@farlado5459]

It's a therapy thing. The therapist's role is more in understanding the patient and being able to reflect it back at them in a more workable form, one which can guide them to a path of healing. When I hear Peterson say things like showing to people what they intuitively already knew to be true, I think more of the clinical psychology experience he has, than his theories of meaning-formation and social psychology.

[@TunaTheMiner]

It can also be seen as a form of humility.

[@navnnavn1226]

@@farlado5459 I agree with this. Among young people, I hear quite a lot of people attributing their difficult feelings simply either to depression or anxiety, greatly clouding what their real issues are, because they lack the language and understanding to truly express their feelings

[@StevenOBrien]

I don't think it is? Where is he advocating that people ignore or avoid seeking out information that conflicts with their preconceived notions? Isn't one of his rules "don't say things you know to be false"? I mean, if you "know something to be true", the statement necessarily implies that you don't know anything which would make it untrue.

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@@farlado5459 The problem is that he applies his clinical psychology methodology in a very broad and sociological way, despite the fact that clinicians are, not exclusively but primarily, designed for one on one scenarios. He only ends up muddying the waters and ends up stepping outside of his comfort zone multiple times, failing to realize that the perspective of a clinician or therapist can't be used for every problem, much like how if all you have is a hammer, everything becomes nails. He is categorically not a social psychologist (he himself claims to be a behavioural psychologist) but tries to act like one anyway. People like Erich Fromm or Paul Tillich were able to successfully pull off what Peterson tries to do

[@diveinnjim]

jp seems to have developed a bit of a messiah complex, he's developed a following, been through his own personal turmoil, written a couple of books and come out the other side a little puritanical. I must say that liked him more in 2017.

[@YisYtruth]

I love how clear and accessible you are in these videos. It's always a pleasure to watch these.

[@yeahbruvinit]

Despite my dislike for most of what Peterson stands for and has to say now, I am admittedly grateful to him because it was through him that I discovered Nietzsche and therefore became interested in philosophy. Funnily enough it was due to Peterson and the philosophical rabbit hole he caused me to fall down that I became disenchanted with him. And I think if there is anything positive to come from Jordan, it is that he has inspired people to read Nietzsche, Sartre, Jung etcetera.

[@DarkFoxV]

We are never meant to rest wholely on one background and perspective, we are meant to learn from them - and others - not seek to condemn those who aren't "complete", none of us are "complete". These things, philosophy, psychology, etc. are a process. When I look at Peterson, I respect him, he is kind and intelligent and well-spoken and there is a lot to learn from him. Taking him, just as taking anyone, as a godly end all be all is however a misstep. Learn and contribute, there's no need to tear down people, we can build tnem up and that is what we should do. I would love to have a discussion with Peterson, there are additional angles from my background I feel would be helpful too him, and which he might feel the same feeling about. Alas, the internet and media are incredibly toxic. People look to "trounce" others rather than accepting we all live together and someone can be correct without having a while picture, or someone can be kind and not syncophantic, or heck that people are allowed to have different views. We should be focused on helpful and respectful discource and not looking for reasons to virtue signal why _ is bad - usually even before we've heard them, and definitely before we've listened. I don't feel someone who is truly listening would approach another serious and well-intentioned person with the negative and violently hostile commentaries we see. And while Dr JP may have more to learn, so do we all. We are not alone, and we shouldn't resort to barbarous "us vs them" sentiments, but see people as people.

[@yeahbruvinit]

@@DarkFoxV okay this reply is interesting because I don’t know if you’re replying to me or just making a general statement. But the first thing I will say is, I don’t criticise Peterson because he’s not “complete” nor do I think anyone else does because of exactly what you said, none of us are complete ourselves. I have quite a lot of problems with Peterson but my main problem can be summarised this way. He makes vague often vacuous statements so that if any of his points are arraigned he can simply say “that’s not what I meant” and accuse the other person of strawmanning him. I also feel like when he does say something of value it’s just a cliche presented profoundly with sesquipedalian prose which is then followed by unfounded statements. However I do agree with pretty much everything you have to say. We should strive for respectful and valuable discourse and not be hostile. And the media certainly promotes and begets unhealthy discourse or even no discourse at all.

[@deadmeme2403]

OMG, thats literally me too. I dropped my IT degree (on my 2nd semester) to pursue philosophy because of JP's. Now that I'm in my third year of philosophy, I'm completely dissenchanted. It's like me being helped by peterson was a necessary step to grow out of his influence.

[@chan_irene]

​@@yeahbruvinit When you supported Jordan Peterson, did you support him because his arguments were testably logically right or because they emotionally made you feel good? If emotion (gut feelings) are the root of your support for someone, your support will just as quickly evaporate when your internal feelings change.

[@werrkowalski2985]

@@yeahbruvinit Old comment, but I will say that it is true there is really not much to learn from Peterson. But what Hans-Georg Moeller has said is true, he is a religious figure. He also takes a rather postmodernist approach. So that means that he has a message to spread, and so his statements should be seen as having an aim of pushing a certain ideology. In his case that is the ideology of individualism, and the ultimate goal is deflating radicalism as a threat to the current system, particularly leftist radicalism, because he thinks, or at least has thought, that the radical right has been sufficiently managed for now. And the main threat he sees with left-wing radicalism is that it will case a rise of the right - fascism if you will, he has said that in one interview and he has made it pretty clear that it's radicalism that he fears. That is pretty much all you need to know about Peterson. He is a leader of a religious movement, that was created to oppose another religious movement, so that it doesn't cause a rise of the right-wing ideology (which also, per Schmitt, you would expect to have some religious elements). From that perspective it makes sense for him to make vague statements if his goal is to push a religious movement. It's a failed perspective to look at him as a failed thinker, and not, as Hans-Georg Moeller and others have observed, a religious figure pushing his movement.

[@yeah5874]

I think it's extremely important to have these discussions. Peterson just doesn't stand up to any serious criticism. the only criticism he normally gets is from media and regular youtubers. My main issue with him is that he just uses big words and tricks and superficial knowledge to trick people into believing anything he's saying. He's a smart man,but I'm tired of these cults of personality where he may say one thing correct, therefore everything else also is, and if you disagree there must be some underlying reason why you dislike him as a person.

[@ghfudrs93uuu]

He really just wants to engage with the people screaming at him and come out as *rational man*. If you wanna have a conversation you need to trick him like Zizek did.

[@mouwersor]

If you're strawmanning Peterson as being dishonest you're falling into the same trap. The thing is: he is VERY genuine and lives his philosophy. It's hard to attack his character because character is what he focusses on the most. Go for his underlying philosophical assumptions instead, like the objectivity of morality.

[@amardexter9966]

Although I would agree that there are certain type of his followers who accepts everythings he says without any judgement, I wouldn't say that's what he intends to, he wants people to actually think for themselves, and those who follow him like that ironically opposes Peterson's philosophy, and I thinks it's mainly due to his personna, political opinions and public speaking abilities. Furthermore, I don't agree with the 'just uses big words and tricks and superficial knowledge' claim. For "Big words", if you want to analyse moral, political, or psychological problems in depth through certain academic discipline, it is inevitable that you use certain academic jargons to deal with heavy concepts. Just because one uses big words doesn't mean that they are trying to obscure their ideas so as to hide their shallowness. And superficial knowledge?? I would suggest you to his channel, and some academic videos. There are +100 hours of lectures recorded about widely ranging subjects (psychology, philosophy, analysis of Bible etc.). I don't necessarily agree with all his opinions, but you have to give him credit for how much he knows, and don't you think one wouldn't be allowed to teach at Harvard and UofT with mere "superficial" knowledge?

[@jekytck]

That's because Dr Peterson knows exactly what he's doing and why. He's not just another philosopher for the sake of being one, he had a plan and a strategy that had to do with "regular" people, not with philosophers. This, of course, is true only if we're talking about his lectures and, generally speaking, his youtube videos. Besides: " serious criticism"? Have you even read the "Warning" at the beginning of every video of this channel? These should be, admittedly, not "serious" criticism for the sake of arriving to a profound point, but rather for entertainment and, I assume, with the goal to teach "regular"(and this is important to note) people something. I could drag this explanation way longer than this, but this should be very clear already. TL;DR Saying this is like complaining that a magician came to a Michael Jordan's party and beat Michael at throwing spherical objects into something from afar, for, then, proceeding at mocking Michael for beating him. Edit: the example with the magician is very bad, but it still makes sense if you don't take it literally

[@broken_abi6973]

@@mouwersor You seem to not understand what "strawmanning" means.

[@Azazello321]

"You say 'I' and you are proud of this word. But greater than this -- although you will not believe in it -- is your body and its great intelligence, which does not say 'I' but performs 'I'." - Friedrich Nietzsche, 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'.

[@mouwersor]

What's the relevance tho?

[@adamsekiro2706]

@@mouwersor replace the "I" with Peterson's "We"

[@MynaaMiesnowan]

I was going to say, looks like most people here missed those discourses on madness. Maybe in a few thousands more years, humanity will be out of the cave ages, and man will be the goal, instead of the problem that is to be overcome. Until then, warped and twisted animal physiology reigns supreme.

[@reybladen3068]

You guys should have an actual live conversation.

[@dasritejogger1647]

This

[@jekytck]

Why? For the promotion of this channel? A bit too convenient

[@thomasdavis6892]

@@jekytck No, because it'd be both interesting and entertaining.

[@mh4oliveira]

i dont really think we would get much out of it. peterson has consistently proved throughout his career that he is not very interested in actually studying views that contradict his own. He literally admited that he hasnt read marx, foucault, and so on, even though straw manning them for young reactionaries under the pretense of self help has been his whole thing since his rise to stardom. He is a joke

[@reybladen3068]

@@mh4oliveira i know, and that made his debate with Zizek very entertaining. lmao!!!

[@MidwesternMarx]

Teaching You and Your Profile for the next month or so to my intro class. Found out about the text through the channel. Love your work! -Carlos

[@maynardwayward12]

No one: Absolutely no one, not even Republicans: Jordan Peterson: Our Western society, which is very functional...

[@fahadschannel]

Unsurprising, since Peterson finds people forced to sell their labour a "miracle"

[@Pllayer064]

@@fahadschannel it's a miracle they haven't revolted yet 😆

[@FinianFhomhair]

That was a good one :D Peterson always equates Western Culture (which is as we now learned "very functional") to christianity, which is the basis for his whole theory of "universal values" and I find that just so odd and (sorry for the harsh words) ignorant. The "Western Culture" is the peak of all civilisations and its all due to "underlying christian motives"? I mean like srsly? Apart from the fact that most of "western values" decend from the enlightenment, which was nearly always opposed to christianity, I thinks it's just so blind sighted, to believe that there couldnt have been a similiar development in other nations that did not involve christianity. Like "Sorry guys, you didnt put 'christianity' in your civil research tree, now you stuck and can't level up to the 'Industrial Age'!"

[@granudisimo]

@@fahadschannel He what? Is that how he tried to debunk the theory of labor surplus value or what? I'm legit curious, I know the guy is a crackpot surrounding himself in fancy words uttered by a mostly mild mannered speech (a dumb person's idea of a smart person), but I never imagined he would stretch the grift so tight.

[@DyceFreak]

It's not optimal, but it IS functional. All of your ideologies and arguments are in terms of optimism, not function. Since you typed this on a device using electricity and the internet, your 'not-functional' viewpoint is immediately disqualified.

[@willrobinson5097]

In addition to sounding borderline schizophrenic from time to time, Peterson’s philosophy is so depressing because he’s essentially a traditionalist, but he tries to reconcile that with the prevailing ethos of the political right (which is often anything but “conservative”) which leads him to advocate for a sort of hyper-individualism that is only supposed to service the collective? It’s all the personal sacrifices inherent to collectivism without any of its benefits.

[@gabrielonibudo5710]

what are the benefits of collectivism

[@mschell8022]

Hahahaha this is a great analysis thank you

[@adamsekiro2706]

@@gabrielonibudo5710 look at china

[@Pllayer064]

T R U E

[@FinianFhomhair]

@@gabrielonibudo5710 hmmmm let me think about that ... basically all of humans greatest achievments?

[@alistairmaleficent8776]

I love your wry smile throughout this. It's rather like watching an adult explain some nonsense that a 5 year old believes.

[@11kravitzn]

I wish he would say what he really thinks without couching it as a tactful, systematic critique. I have a feeling he thinks JP is a quasi religious, opportunist, poorly-read demagogue.

[@alistairmaleficent8776]

@@11kravitzn He said what he thinks is true to the greatest extent. Peterson may be those things to you or I, and he may be a prophet to others. That stuff is flatly subjective and uninteresting. You're displaying quite an authenticity complex when you say "Say what you mean!" That kind of statement is really cringey in a philosophical sense these days I think.

[@11kravitzn]

@@alistairmaleficent8776 I don't think he said what he thinks is true to the greatest extent. He's saying what can be well defended, what is relevant to say, what is effective and constructive to his argument. But I don't think he's showing all his cards. The professor seems to be choosing his words very carefully, staying detached and professional, as objective as possible. I'd say it verges on cagey, cautious, self-censoring. And there's nothing wrong with that. I don't hold it against him: it suits what he's trying to do. But I'm very curious what he'd say when the cameras are off, over some beers, off the record. I don't consider it merely subjective and thus uninteresting. Being human means being subjective.

[@shyguy1845]

Zizek was too soft on Peterson lmao, this guy would've Tore him apart.

[@tverdyznaqs]

Oh my god, academic smarty pants types sometimes come up with the most epic dunks of all time! The fucking 'I personally prefer PewDiePie's take on Nietzsche over Peterson's' bit at the end??? I mean, who would even survive after that? JP might as well be dead after this dude said those words outloud

[@thomaswest4033]

Ok that's a bit much.

[@niltomperimneto]

I laughed so hard after that

[@NateROCKS112]

@O. M. it's funny because it's true.

[@tyander7690]

@O. M. a majority of people in the comments interpreted it as a dunk. if it wasn't intended to be poking fun, it was badly miscalculated. that said I thought it was hilarious

[@charlesmcg]

@O. M. Pewdiepie is smarter than most people realise

[@hedleybutler9706]

This was extremely digestible and interesting. I really appreciate your thoughts on identity and anger. I think these concepts are unquestionably normalized in a way that seems to be increasingly dangerous.

[@supine2491]

I like the Lacan quote on how a madman is not just the beggar who believes he is king, but the king who believes he is king. In Kanye West really believing he is Kanye West, Donald Trump fantasizing himself as Donald Trump, and Jordan Peterson really regarding himself as Jordan Peterson, overidentifying with their symbolic position granted on them by (imaginary, projected) others is a delusion. Sometimes it's more harmless (not all of us see ourselves as kings and prophets), sometimes its impossibility unravels through nervous breakdowns. We're at a 2/3 minimum on that tally. In other words, maybe one might say that if you really believe you are your profile, that's when you've lost the plot. This fits quite neatly with your concepts of genuine pretending, and the distance we should establish to the profiles we build. We can examine either some deeper notion of the self (looking inwards), or our profile (outwards), indirectly, like we can only look at ourselves in the mirror, but we can comprehend neither as a coherent whole, the sum of all parts of the human subject. Peterson, in blindly believing in this symbolic fantasy of himself, can not even see the mirror.

[@DigitalGnosis]

I'm glad that well equipped academics are charitably addressing Peterson. For too long he has only been challenged by radical ideologues who do not understand his position and react in such an abhorrent way that only confirms Peterson's somewhat distorted view of reality which drives *some* of his followers (me included when I was 18) into radical reactionary worldviews. I hope Peterson comes into dialogue with more philosophers and that that can reign in some of his more radical takes on things and hopefully help him in his pursuit of truth, beauty and goodness. He is a good guy with some powerful stuff to say to people who are struggling and it would be great to see that coupled with more rigorous, and hopefully true beliefs, when it comes to philosophy :)

[@DigitalGnosis]

Also I wish someone would introduce Peterson to the late Wittgensteins view of religion. I think it would resonate deeply with Peterson and some of the things that he is attempting to articulate but in a more rigorous way.

[@JCT1926]

All of the obscurantism aside, I can't take a guy seriously who is interested in lobsters, lipstick, and misunderstanding Canadian Law. I just can't. Those things do not require 200iq to figure out and it's just embarrassing that people take a purveyor of that kind of stuff seriously. Also, the guy didn't have the basic bare minimum humility to say "no I'm not a prophet". To even go that direction in 2021 is madness. Peterson is a false idol nothing more.

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@@JCT1926 He also misunderstands lobsters, tons of neuroscientists and marine biologists have debunked his lobster analogy, which he pretty much just ignores

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@@DigitalGnosis Why Wittgenstein in particular? Don't get me wrong I love Witt, but I've always seen Rollo May, Paul Tillich, Henri Corbin and Erich Fromm to be more compatible with Peterson

[@FinianFhomhair]

@Digital Gnosis I wish you were right, but I can hardly imagine anything like that ever to happen. First Peterson would have to acknowledge flaws in his theories and I dont mean that as a to harsh critique, a lot of people tend to do this, but for Peterson there is no "grey area" that allows for uncertainty. Second,I think (and thats just my opinion), that if Peterson would sincerely try to change his outlook on things, his whole believe system would probably come crashing down. Petersons whole system is like an pyramid, that stands upside down. His core beliefes are build on the notion that there is a "christian value rooted" order in everything which is the basis for his ideas of radical self-determination and everything else thats build on top of it. And it's build like its made out of glass, its quite hard and durable (thats probably why it attracts so many people), but only one small crack in the structure and everything splinters. And thats the reason, why I think it's so hard for him to change his views even a little bit. Sidenote: Thats not to say, that he is "wrong" in everything hes saying. There are a lot of helpful messages. But for him they are only legit, because for him they are derived from his fundamental core of believes. If this core is shatterd, so are his reasons to believe in his own messages. I thinkthat if that would happen, there would be little left of the "old" Jordan Peterson.

[@Bln-f9u]

_"Culture and fashion are wracked by pointless ideological wars. Whichever ideology wins immediately becomes cliché."_

[@ricardorangel7301]

😭 Peterson really thinks he’s a modern day Zarathustra… 🤦🏽‍♂️

[@gravenewworld6521]

Stratos I you nailed it dude

[@crisgon9552]

Perfect breakfast video. Thank you Professor!

[@bsg806]

Nothing better than watching Carefree Wondering while munching those cereals!

[@farzanamughal5933]

@@bsg806 Astaghfirullah

[@byzantinegold]

This whole 'beef' is very hilarious

[@NoJusticeMTG]

Salted beef, no less

[@s7d788]

Peterson follows a beef only diet after all

[@noblesavage149]

Apparently the carnivore diet isn't great for physical, mental, emotional or punctuational health.

[@DyceFreak]

It lowers insulin and in turn dopamine and cortisol resistance, making you more sensitive to floods of hormones. Science has found resistance to these hormones is actually more harmful than sensitivity. Though I encourage your sugar addicted self to continue eating your starchy cellulose, more protein for me.

[@adamsekiro2706]

neither did the decades of SSRIs and benzos

[@gs7828]

@@DyceFreak Why not choosing a Mediterranean diet instead of having to choose between artificial sugar and an overdose of meat?

[@DyceFreak]

@@gs7828 Because all plant matter and the pesticides they are sprayed with have the potential to trigger the immune system in sensitive individuals. Personally I eat Mediterranean, but carn is still less inflammatory and you aren't able to "overdose" on it, whether you like it or not.

[@gs7828]

@@DyceFreak In the EU it's safer to eat vegetables and fruit than in many other places. You don't need a lot of meat, just a balanced amount, like every other component of a proper healthy diet (you should be concerned about American hormons in meat then, I suppose). If you wanna build muscles massively, that's another story.

[@Xababla99]

I would love to hear your thoughts on Buddhism with regards to the final point about identity. Perhaps you have already spoken about this on another video or in your book, but if not I would be very interested.

[@Fordtheriver]

He has written and co-written several books on the subject, I think it may be one of his focuses. If you're interested in it as related to Eastern philosophy I highly recommend Genuine Pretending. It's a commentary/analysis of Zhuang Zi, an anthology of writings that are somewhat foundational to Daoism. I know it's not Buddhism but historically they've intersected so I'm assuming you'd find something relevant there. Regardless, it was an extremely entertaining, engaging and therapeutic read that had eased my existence over the last year.

[@Xababla99]

@@Fordtheriver I have just read John Minford's translation of Tao (Dao) Te Ching, so I would be very interested. Thank you for the recommendation!

[@morgoth5460]

If you’re interested in Buddhism and the self, I would definitely recommend Mark Siderits “Buddhism as Philosophy An Introduction”! It’s very clear and easy to read for beginners, but at the same time has a lot to offer for those who are more experienced.

[@matthewkopp2391]

Also not Buddhism, Ramm Dass was a psychoanalyst who studied with Neem Karoli Baba. When coming back to the USA and asked about enlightenment and the total surrender of the ego, Dass said it’s good to reach enlightenment but also good to know your address. In other words he synthesized Eastern and Western ideas and acknowledges that he was performing his persona with awareness of things outside of his persona. While someone like Eckart Tolle did not make this distinction at all in his early work. Jung made a similar distinction as Ramm Dass did. It is impossible to be all of our potentialities we can only perform. But if a painter only has one color to paint with he can only paint with one color. Similar to psychology if we are aware of many many aspects of ourselves we have more chooses as to how we may wish to behave/perform.

[@jokunyt]

Excellent video! I really feel like I learned something important here. I feel like your encouragement to not be too invested in our identity is a welcome one. Thank you for this and all that you do!

[@nativechatter999]

The simmered grin at the beginning of this video, my man couldn't contain his excitement

[@merocaine]

Those videos are a trap, Peterson walked into this one!

[@McEffinHat]

honestly, I think Moeller's smirk is a net negative for his brand

[@January-pt6ci]

“We are going to be critical but not judgemental” is worse than “I’m not mad just disappointed”

[@user-qc3dn2el6j]

When Peterson uses the term "we" I don't think he's intentionally trying to be divisive but rather he's making an inference on the general emotional reactions most people have when confronted with certain situations or opinions. Thus the "we" isn't supposed to be an us vs them kinda thing but more of an inference on humanity as a whole.

[@JS-dt1tn]

Either way, it is clearly rhetorical. If it is only naively the type of we you imply, just a human 'we', then its failing to realize that the 'we' is far less universal that JP presupposes. The 'we' of a South American tribe is unbelievably different from the 'we' of silicon Valley or the 'we' of the KKK. JP's 'we' is no more universal than any of these others.

[@jeremybigras1936]

I dont think we can use "we" like that in the peterson sense because he's making such bold claims about reality. I think cultures view these questions very differently and can't, be put under a "we" this easily. Even alot of western philosophers wouldn't agree with these claims.

[@matthewkopp2391]

The issue is the “we” proclaims a political agenda which Peterson presents as common western values. One of Peterson’s arguments is that “equality of outcome” is a horrible doctrine while “equality of opportunity” is a good idea. He does this while claiming he is a classical liberal. Adam Smith said he was for equality of condition which is a type of equality of outcome namely in basic conditions of housing, food, education etc. and against equality of opportunity. And Marx said that absolute equality of outcome was impossible. So Peterson is presenting a complete straw man on various subjects but this os an important example. Peterson uses the word “we” as if it were “common sense” or “common values” when it is not. So Peterson’s “we” is simply a propaganda in support of a corporate neoliberal agenda which has captured the USA. It is not even classical liberal or conservative. What did the “classical liberal” Jefferson propose? Anti-monopoly, progressive real estate tax on wealthy land ownership and land grants for the poor, education for the poor, publicly funded infrastructure. Neoliberals likes to rewrite history to obscure and rewrite what were once common values.

[@thespiritofhegel3487]

Brilliantly informative and insightful. I have seen quite a few videos of people refuting or attempting to refute Peterson's assertions and arguments but whereas they might work to an extent they all proceed at a rather superficial level whereas you go in deep and have got me thinking about things that just never occurred to me or would ever have occurred to me had I not watched this. And that is what philosophy is all about. As well as occupational therapy :-)

[@confusedarmchairphilosopher]

@Daniel Vonau at the end of the clip, Peterson said "that is the responsibility" so he does seem to mean it that way. But even if it had nothing to do with political leadership, it doesnt take away anything from moellers overall point, that the Peterson phenomena is a civil religious project. Just like wokeness is, just from another political point of view. Petersons comments didnt even adress that point.

[@confusedarmchairphilosopher]

@Daniel Vonau @Daniel Vonau there isnt neccesarilly a problem with it, Moeller was just pointing out that Peterson engages in the same moralized, political practice as wokism, that being civil religion, but with other values. in terms of metaphysical claims, that is all that he does. His very point on civil religion is metaphysical. Same with his epistomology.

[@alistairmaleficent8776]

@Daniel Vonau He makes metaphysical claims all the time, like the "divine logos", or his waffling on whether Christ actually rose from the dead, or that the bible is "more true than true". None of these things are empirically, physically substantial.

[@confusedarmchairphilosopher]

@Daniel Vonau fair question. the answer is neither. And it is not really that Petersons teaching are bad or wrong (it is to some extend, but thats besides the point), the point is that the moralization we see with wokeness in the form of political correctness and so on, he embodies himself, just with different values

[@TheControlBlue]

@Daniel Vonau People like that only exist to destroy Meaning, except theirs of course. Someone would have to be seriously deluded to think the guy who actually got attacked, smeared, denounced by Wokeness "just embodies it", like a certain "''Carefree''" professor is with his fixation. Don't expect answers about what is good from people like that, they are just in to win, and they have tagged Peterson as the Enemy.

[@frankchilds9848]

I wonder how many holes Petersen thinks anyone can drill in Chaos? Seriously, anger only hurts in the end, and healers are too few!

[@JaneTheMessage]

If he drills into the Support Beam of Chaos, he can hang a nice painting?

[@marqpsmythe228]

“Light and Darkness wanted to repay his kindness and said, “All people have seven openings with which they see, hear, eat, and breathe, but Primal Chaos has none. Let us try to give him some.” So every day they bored one hole, and on the seventh day, Primal Chaos died.” ~Zhuangzi

[@ilyakiselev4209]

@@marqpsmythe228 *Hundun :)

[@hedleybutler9706]

It's a bit of a bumper sticker but "hurt people, hurt people" is a little mantra I've always liked.

[@Crispman_777]

**Stranger of Paradise: Final Fantasy Origin intensifies**

[@milk.butcher]

‘Civil religion’ is the proper term for what Peterson is doing. He present his defense of enlightenment values as natural and inherent, when a properly philosophical approach would recognize it as a dominant ideology. I think he could then still argue that these precepts are necessary for the West to function, or argue that they have something essential to maintain it’s civil order, but then he’d sacrifice the affect that is likely central to his success if he were truthful about his performance. Performativity is a necessary evil if one hopes to appeal widely. Not everyone can accept there is no essential meaning to anything, and such people need support and love too. Two decades on from the rise and decline of New Atheism, it seems clear humans have to delude themselves to some extent to function. It’s a matter of which delusions function the best

[@caskinfg]

"Not everyone can accept there is no essential meaning to anything [...] it seems clear humans have to delude themselves to some extent to function." I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head.

[@No_Avail]

These are abstract concerns though, not enough to make a difference in terms of functionality/dysfunctionality. In my experience, whether watching people directly or going through the social science literature, people are overwhelmingly in the grips of purely practical affairs. From creature comforts to recognition and self-esteem, have them secure those and they won't fret over meaning, let lone anything else deeper in philosophy. If they're raised on metaphysical extravagance and have fond memories of it, then and only then will they need to cling to it as adults just to function.

[@Dystisis]

There is an essential meaning to everything. Your nihilism is simply a function of the times.

[@markoslavicek]

Nietzsche addresses this too when discussing Apollonian in the Birth of Tragedy. We need to delude ourselves to act. He further uses the example of Hamlet as someone who doesn't postpone his actions to correct the chaos of reality, but sees no point in doing so. Even if he avenged his father, the world would *not* become a better place. Hamlet is disgusted by the state of things which leaves him hesitating for the length of a play.

[@No_Avail]

@@Dystisis My nihilism? I didn't disclose any of my philosophical views here. But even if I had gotten into that, to attribute something as overarching as nihilism to a random commenter after reading a paragraph from them suggests you're on some serious hammer/nail stuff with this. All I did was explain why a belief in meaning doesn't necessarily confer functionality and why a belief in meaninglessness doesn't necessarily confer dysfunctionality. That's simply not how the majority of people operate. They're simpler than that.

[@lostsoul2184]

Please do video on the one and only Žizek the slavoj himself and so on and son and ("sniff") so on ...

[@Senumunu]

there is a crisis of commons. there i summarized 50hours of Zizek lectures for you.

[@jenniferbilek4948]

Nothing short of a brilliant, well thought out analysis. There is so much to think about here, not the least of which is the ways and speed at which these civil religions are spread today via advanced tech/media. I absolutely loved the ending: that it could be helpful for us in sifting through the evolution of these religions and our own identities if we are honest with ourselves about how our identities are being formed but to take identity itself with a bit less importance, fascinating, thank you!

[@floridaman_85_58]

6:45 As an ethnic native i take great exception to the way peterson phrases this....he says "our western systems which are quit functional"....as opposed to what? which societies can be understood as being dysfunctional?

[@archiem654]

The rest of us are barbaric, I guess. 😀 He once said," western civilization is the least tyrannical civilization to ever exist." Umm dude are your sure?

[@markpozsar5785]

What the heck is an ethnic native?

[@AliCanTUNCER8]

I don't know why but it seems like KZbin is turning off notifications from this channel. This is the third time I turned them on.

[@williampatton7476]

Maybe they don't like that he is pointing out how the algorithms this website uses get people addicted haha. The truth hurts.

[@Yellow.1844]

@@williampatton7476 honestly very likely

[@henryjones8287]

I always get them from this channel, but I weirdly stop getting them for other movie/music channels I follow. I think KZbin is just a bit duff; I don't think the Illuminati are behind your lack of notifications.

[@Yellow.1844]

@@henryjones8287 its the algo, they dont have to spy on your house to do it just change the algo so that content with certain words doesn't get very pushed

[@henryjones8287]

@@Yellow.1844 So they changed it you so you can't see notifications for this channel, but left them alone for me?

[@FlashWeedo]

Hello, thank you for your video. I´m not certain, if i understood everything correctly. I, as always, have to watch your videos a couple of times. To my point: the link for Derridas Essay is not working. And: what books would you recommend, to understand modern society? Thank you!

[@JaneTheMessage]

Individual sovereignty is an illusion. We are extremely socially dependent as a matter of definition. He’s constantly performing for an audience (because that is a central feature of our species and he is no exception) and the reality of our species is still obscured from him. It just seems silly.

[@hunterthompson6737]

i think that only sociopaths are truly 100% individualists

[@TheControlBlue]

> We are extremely socially dependent *For now* You are acting like this is some kind of eternal truth. I can see an evolution toward more and more individual as our technology and our reason has more sway over our environment and our social determinism.

[@JaneTheMessage]

@@TheControlBlue you will still be dynamically interdependent on your environment and we actually have no evidence to think our hyper socially dependent brains will manage to do what you seem to be describing. Like, look at us right now. You are compelled to argue with me. That’s weird, yes?

[@JaneTheMessage]

@@TheControlBlue Also, it’s not an eternal truth, but a layperson (me) summarizing everything I’ve read from contemporary neuroscience, which is a special interest of mine. If you’d like to know what perspective I appreciate and am attempting to summarize the painstaking research of, MIT recently posted to their open courseware channel a whole course of an intro to current neuropsychology, and cog sci more generally. You could start there.

[@trentwolfgram9571]

@@TheControlBlue Well, from my reckoning, not a single one of us would be here, arguing about this stuff, if our parents hadn't fed, taught, and cared for us. There's no profit it in, as a parent of 3 I can confirm that, and no real individual reason to want kids unless you're some sicko trying to make your kid be you. It's a simple, basic example, but to me, unshakable in it's truth. We need and care for each other, basically and intrinsically, and that's our defining feature. Without each other, we never could have made it here.

[@parkerbarnes7726]

This is Peterson's entire shtick; he babbles in vague word-salad, then indignantly claims you have misinterpreted/decontextualized what his *actual* views are.

[@alfonsoarroyo3283]

Hmmm yes, let me make unfalsifiable claims that sound good but don't mean much and make millions off of it, claiming to fix people's problems but perpetuating the system that cause them.

[@mouwersor]

@@alfonsoarroyo3283 What system causes the problems and how, and how does Peterson perpetuate it?

[@TheControlBlue]

His actual views *have* been misinterpreted, and that from obvious malignant actors. Plenty of people understand *really well* what he says, weird that so many people have his books and have watched his videos without any problem..

[@kazzz2765]

@@TheControlBlue He speaks in a way that is understandable and relatable, but on such an ambiguous and abstract level, that he can easily get away with any criticism by claiming them to be misinterpretations

[@alfonsoarroyo3283]

@@mouwersor Capitalism, and by telling his audience that it is good.

[@t-timewithartemis4174]

Personally, I agree that it may be best not to become too dogmatic and invested in an identity... the problem I see is that the vast majority of humans need a religion, of whatever sort that looks like, as a system to justify their existence, or else they face the ultimate question Camus posed and confront nihilism. I believe that it's a rare individual who can both temper the urge for passionate meaning and still find reason to live for themselves.

[@t-timewithartemis4174]

@@Azrael__ I agree with everything you said. If you notice, the only thing I said about my personal stance was that it may be best not to be too dogmatic in an identity... and even that I say in the context of how the average human seems to operate. I do believe that philosophy can create a mental prison, and I believe that's a bit of what Peterson talks about when he speaks of "confronting the dragon", of which some people never seem to recover because they become lost in their heads. As for myself, I learned to observe my beliefs and emotions rather than get stuck in them. Choosing to go on versus offing yourself is the question I alluded to that Albert Camus penned. And quite honestly, in the words of Shopenhauer, it's because of my lack of reading and studying too much that I'm able to keep this sort of distance between myself and taking myself too seriously; when I muse like I did in my first comment, it's just that; a-musing 😆

[@galahadsoundscape6365]

That’s fair enough. I just don’t know if the vector Peterson uses to get that message across is a positive one in the long term.

[@t-timewithartemis4174]

@edgar allan hoe mmhmm, yes. This is why I added "of whatever sort that looks like", because the degree to which someone dedicates themselves to their work, family etc in lieu of a traditional religion will take on many of the definitive qualities of a religion, and in my opinion, may as well be a form of the concept, you know?

[@t-timewithartemis4174]

@edgar allan hoe haha well there you go! Thank you for sharing 😊

[@drodsou]

Meditation is the middle ground. With it one finds emotional agitation is always self delusion, that there is no individual soul to save, there is no inner evil, there is just discorganized parts with conflicting purposes and clumsy came-up-with solutions, because no one has ever coached them. And also that there are parts that are always in state of compassion, connection, purpose, awe, honor to be alive and feeling that are life itself, parts that are not spiritual or special, but in my opinion basic states of biological consciousness, that are not intrínsically better that the common ones, but do are valuable members of the inner team once one get to incorporate them to the "counselling board". Once one have those kind of personal experiences, the idea of being a unique configuration of a life and social "coprocesor" feels motivating and purposeful beyond the fakeness needed to shove down one's throat to achive a similar poor surrogate through any faith based religion or "passionate" way of living. I agree with Peterson in the need of cultivation of self responsibility, but he fail to address and impersonate how: it is not about "sacred principles" and getting beligerant about them, but about realizing the lie of emotions and the subsequent pull to emotional self responsibility.

[@ChicagoMonsterPunk]

Thanks for raising the bar

[@edwinsayssomewhere400]

Stop doing what you are doing, stop your online classes, stop covid vaccination: this is more important. Out of jokes, im glad that a great channel like your can grow like this an i like this videos by actual professors and not just youtubers.

[@primevigilante7259]

True.

[@gh0s1wav]

I feel like KZbinrs can make videos of the same depth and quality, it's just that most haven't been taught the techniques to create a great essay. People with PhDs have. Tom Nicholas (i think that's how you spell his name lol) has a whole playlist on writing essays as a PhD student. Anyone can learn how without getting a degree but it is true that most don't.

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@@gh0s1wav John Vervaeke is another good example. I'd also shout out John Pageau

[@aralornwolf3140]

@@gh0s1wav , My Favourite is Cass Eris... she actually has a... 40-50 video series dissecting "12 Rules for Life". She was a professor of Cognitive Psychology, until she decided that her PhD. was better used on KZbin.

[@callummilburn8204]

The first thing I have noticed in watching this is not related to the content. I will press play and continue after typing this. It is something deeper, more symbolic, of something new emerging. I noticed this more recently with a discussion between Paul Vanderklay and John Veveke. It was the discussion done with some genuine intent. Not reflective of the polarisation in the mainstream and the conflict in the culture war. At least by Carefree's response, Though Jorden appears more offended.I still have not seen enough to see the shape of it or or where it is going, or how it is actually forming. But it is meeting of differences in views, or mis understandings, and being resolved in a more healthy manner. Which is no trivial thing in the current global affairs. Keep this going.

[@bambam180acidpunk]

you guys should definitely record a conversation, i'd be very interested to see what you guys could come up with together, i've only watched a handful of your videos here and there but i've liked them all allot and think it would be a shame for your guys to not see what could come of picking each other's minds face to face, i think both you guys and everyone who gets to see will come out of that with sharper more nuanced perspectives about whatever you guys decide to talk about. either way it would be awesome

[@byzantinegold]

Have you seen his "conversation" with Zizek?

[@bambam180acidpunk]

@Colby if you're laughing cuz you think one of them should be above talking to the other then you're being a snob, neither you nor either of them know everything. either that or you're afraid they'll agree on something you don't wanna hear, don't be close minded

[@bambam180acidpunk]

@@byzantinegold yeah i loved it, seen it 2 or 3 times but its been a while don't remember much details, i've watched almost every jp video

[@shinx-hr6uq]

I think it would be interesting as well, but I think the only reason Peterson sat down with zizek was because Z is big enough to be worth it to him. I'm not a huge Peterson fan, so it might come off as me just hating, but I suspect I'm right that he wouldn't bother with a critical discussion if he could just write another bestseller or what have you. Douglas Lain tried to get Peterson on for months and he kept changing his mind about whether he would come on, never did

[@alistairmaleficent8776]

I hate watching someone actually intelligent try to converse with Peterson.. his word salad and constant evasions make for such a frustrating experience. You can never get anywhere with him because he won't let the conversation proceed beyond defining the terms, because he knows if he lets you nail down anything he's saying with any degree of certainty, it will become starkly obvious how completely full of shit he is.

[@williammcfarlane6153]

If you ever listen to any Jordan Peterson's talks, you'll notice a theme in which he changes the definition of a word multiple times in a discussion to fit his point. With that one oratory tactic he's often shown himself to be intellectually dishonest in most of his communication.

[@miguelzavaleta1911]

That has always been one of my main reasons for disliking Peterson (both as a thinker, and in general as person). He'll intentionally equivocate on key words during his speeches to the point where any criticism of him becomes impossible -- he can claim to be misrepresented as a response to any criticism and essentially be right regardless of what the criticism is. It's impossible to argue against that. He may have helped many people, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a sophist whose philosophy is of little value.

[@aralornwolf3140]

Or... he uses a definition of a word that no one else ever uses. See Rationality Rules videos on Jordan Peterson's "Truth", "Religion", God", "Atheism"... or, if you don't want to watch all of them, just watch his video "Jordan Peterson is a Marxist". If I was his debate opponent, and I learn that the entire time Jordan was using his own, completely arbitrary and ill defined versions of words that everyone else agrees have completely different meanings in a debate... I would call him out on his dishonesty to his face, tell him he's a liar, and a fraud (and explain to the audience _why_ he is)... and tell him he can strut about once I'm off stage, but I refuse to be shat on by a pigeon.

[@tramdo3434]

Not to mention the man lacks proper foundational knowledge in almost everything he suggested that he knows. And please don’t say he wasn’t like that in the past, he’s changed because of his personal tragedy. His incoherence and ignorance have always been there since the beginning. His debates and speeches might carry some kind of charisma rooted in reactionary sentiments. But that’s all to it, just oratory façade laden with fallacies . They are self-contradictory, lacking in nuances and substance, and dangerously subjected to interpretations that are bigoted, discriminatory, misogynistic, and toxic.

[@Dystisis]

It is important to note that one can disagree with what's labeled "woke" discourse without buying into Peterson's individualism or other things he says. I sometimes see "woke" discourse conflated with collectivism, as if it were a simple negative to individualism and there was no third alternative, but that's very simplistic and misguided (as you implicitly point out).

[@mahman543]

I swear in the US everything is conflated with collectivism

[@praz7]

Woke is individualism of the highest order, even more than Edmund Burke's classical conservatism or John locke's classical liberalism

[@darkdrift0r124]

@@praz7 thats an odd claim, highest order? How

[@darkdrift0r124]

@@mahman543 Doesnt mean theyre wrong in the RELATIVE sense i feel

[@tomsmith6513]

@@praz7 Individualism of the highest order? That can't be true if they see people as belonging to a group identity. That's less individualistic than those who oppose them. It's more individualistic to not see yourself as part of a group, to not care. As an individual, you are the master of your own destiny. If you see yourself as belonging to a group, however, you are less of a master of your own destiny. Your group identity influences your sense of self. You are not a master of that. You are a slave to that.

[@takeshikodama5671]

This is super eye opening to me. I used to watch Peterson's videos and it got me through tough time. That exact 'Civil Religion' has quite an appeal to me. It's cathartic to shed some tears every now and then. I feel fine listening to the word hyper real idea. Then he went on to say, it was a Civil Religious Rant. My head almost hit the desk at that point. My culture doesn't have this easy to understand civil religious expressions enough in everyday language. To understand the West in general, I tried to open my heart to listen to the higher power and the idea of 'we' in the constitution. I'm an individualist and that could be highly criticized but that's a part of me too.... What's real? Where's the real me? It's not so sovereign, I know how weak my mind is. Not because I was trying to hang on to my old identity nor because I was searching for a new one. I'm trying to see things through multi metaphysical lenses, o' mine. If I need to be educated about the original woke culture, I shall be doing that before I die. In God they trust. I don't care about that though. Does critical thinker have anything to say about 'meaning of life' and stuff? What about those super energetic Stoics? I gotta find out how someone like you can be critical and not judgmental about anything. It's surprisingly fun to be watching this channel. Looking forward to be educated more. Thanks. Edited to Add: Does he talk about COVID vaccine conspiracy/misinformation? Doctors, healers and medicine man are old ideas. Religiously admired.

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

my healing comes from preachers of KZbin but only by adding more healing saints I don't stay in one echo chamber one fruit of knowledge is a cage 😂 if you learn limits of our free will, brain, thinking modes you start thinking differently you start seeing yourself as a sum of your best habits and decisions not fixed in one form at all times and not conscious at every moment we exist like electron jumping on spectrum between individual me(s) and group me(s) you are like a signal on a pack of wires and not one wire and not often not aware of your signal whereabouts (like while dreaming or being distracted or drunk or hypnotized by app algo) distance to things and planning to let story drive you less being more a driver of own story is everything for me if I don't plan and strengthen my will muscles, automaticism of habits I don't feel like being me at all 😂 I'm also pondering on ways to use the variability of world around us the randomness to my advantage doing small little effort irrelevant things that add chances for big things to happen out of nowhere to me I love Taoism because of this but the cost is becoming too tolerant to irrational ideas 😂 but you can't be totally rational anyway so some fun dosed is ok

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

try naturalist thinking too that's the deepest rabbit hole out there after considering everything as a system with endless adaptive compensatory feedback loops especially human body (PRI is awesome)

[@dazpatreg]

The problem with Peterson is you could quote back to him verbatim what he just said and he would immediately retort "no that's not what I said!"

[@nicanornunez9787]

lol that carefree attitude is going to disturb him

[@TheControlBlue]

Peterson lives in your head rent-free. So much for being carefree.

[@Brobese]

@@TheControlBlue carefree =/= careless

[@thisaccountisdead168]

@@TheControlBlue "Peterson lives in your head rent-feee." I mean the same could be said about you.

[@alfonsoarroyo3283]

​@@TheControlBlue these two things do not contradict each other. And is someone suppost to pay for you to think about them? Terrible idiom.

[@jekytck]

@@TheControlBlue What does that even mean? How does "thinking" work in your opinion?

[@heraclitusblacking1293]

Moeller: A philosopher Peterson: An opportunist.

[@raijin2950]

I really appreciate this channel, since I first came across it several months ago I've developed a genuine interest in philosophy and have began delve deeper into the topics and the works of the philosophers covered on this channel to (try to) develop a framework for understanding society and the world in general. Rather than just taking on the ideas of others in a very shallow way as I have come to realise that I had done in the past.

[@JonWeinand]

I would also like to express my appreciation for the channel and just provide general encouragement for this kind of feeling. I particularly appreciate the way in which Professor Moeller handles things politely and with consideration; the tone of it is something that I want to exemplify more in my own life.

[@merocaine]

This is it, that's the hard work we all should do, drinking deep from the cup of knowledge.

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

can you mention other sources on similar level of insights?

[@Nathanatos22]

It certainly is true that anti-wokeness is or at least has become religion, certainly with more volume and rigidity than the subject of its criticism. It’s interesting to see at 23:05 Peterson acknowledge that this anti-wokeness phenomenon is, in fact, a religion, according to him, albeit not a new one. Great video.

[@TheControlBlue]

"Look we are bad, but those people are even worse!!"

[@MistaZULE]

@@TheControlBlue what's your deal man? I see you commenting on ever popular comment on this video trying to defend your boy jp. It's weird man. You don't need to be so aggressive. If you don't agree then try to have a discussion about it instead of posting snippy emotion laden comments into the youtube comment void.

[@scaratlas3347]

I really do not like how he conflates a lot of philosophical ideas incorrectly.

[@scaratlas3347]

I mean Jordan Peterson

[@miat9039]

As someone who like to read read foucault(sometimes derrida) i feel you.

[@Senumunu]

@@scaratlas3347 you did not need to specify that one :D

[@tiagoleal3052]

Your videos have reached Brazil. You have a profound analysis on important topics. I wish to know what are your thoughts on stoicism. And also on this new arise of stoicism. Is stoicism a civil religion? Keep the good work!

[@Not_that_Brian_Jones]

"JP said I misunderstood or oversimplified his thought." Lol, get used to that. He's going to say that a lot. My suspicion is that there is no actual thought underlying that rhetoric. Is he an empty shell? Who can say. I'm just asking questions.

[@SadCat221]

I would love to hear your thoughts on the philosophy of Thomas Ligotti. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with his writing, but much of his horror centers around identity being completely manufactured or false, so Ligotti’s horror takes the perspective that Peterson accused you of holding. I know this only tangentially related, but I just finished reading his short story “The Greater Festival of Masks” so it came to mind.

[@alistairmaleficent8776]

Jonas Čeika has a really great video on Philip Mainlander, who figures very strongly in Ligotti's philosophy.

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@@alistairmaleficent8776 I saw that video months ago, it was really good

[@jakubmico8727]

I need this.

[@TheLacedaemonian300]

Explaining Baudrillard, and how Simulacra and the hyper real are an explanatory lens to make sense of what he is, as well as what we are all experiencing in some form, is very useful. Accepting the notion of simulation, simulacra, hyper real, symbolic exchange and so on, are so much better as reflectors of the modern or postmodern world. It focuses us on the forward instead of trying to go back, and it also helps make us aware of our reality, or rather our hyper reality.

[@Pllayer064]

Matrix is real and literally inescapable, shieeet 😎😎

[@keylanoslokj1806]

Absurd bs is still absurd bs

[@SUAVEcritic]

I have actually never come across Peterson accepting any flaws pointed out by somebody who criticises him. Also, wonderful response overall, but I actually don't think Jordan Peterson is genuinely pretending. I think he is very much convinced about the Confucian model of sincerity. His entire dogma is centered around sincerity. He simply changes the word and verbally talks about "nobility" and how it is a value that is very much absent in today's day. Therefore, I think your "Man Up" points are much more convincing. I think Jordan pushes Men to accept their roles and take in the fruits of those roles because of the very existential issue that a lot of men are finding themselves in today's age. So I don't doubt Jordan's ends or his intentions of helping. But the means with which he acts are dogmatic and paradoxical, as you say. He seems to have trapped himself in this cluster of sincerity and authenticity and has been thus "socialised" like Emperor Hundun. That's why he fails to act with humour and responds to your critique by justifying it with the number of comedians he has spoken with. He's trying awfully hard and missing the point in the middle of the road.

[@majuli8420]

A clear-eyed analysis, as well as polite in tone. Respectful, yet critical. Excellent.

[@CoachApuma]

I have been on a 4 hour long binge of listening to your videos in the background while playing videogames. After trying to search for the next video to listen to I'm met with the surprise of another reaction video to Jordan Peterson. What a great day!

[@shinx-hr6uq]

I listen with dark souls hahha

[@yeid44]

@@shinx-hr6uq how on earth do u do this lol

[@mschell8022]

A civil conversation between Moeller and Peterson would just be the Zizek vs Peterson debate 2.0 really

[@oldtimer7635]

Waste of everybody´s time!

[@AnthonyLilley]

The Zizek debate resulted in JBP wandering the globe looking for a magic rehab cure. A Moeller encounter would result in a padded cell with the key being thrown away

[@MalditoSeasEstadoDelsrael]

Lmao "intelectual tricks", if he were alive 25 centuries ago he would be accusing Socrates

[@mullenenterprises]

Seems to me that Peterson himself thinks hes Socrates reincarnate

[@mullenenterprises]

@Azarello Plato preaching his semi religious ideas of the afterlife isnt too far fetched from whatever Peterson thinks hes doing

[@pharaohhermenthotip1553]

@@mullenenterprises Other than the fact that Peterson makes absolutely no claim that there is an eternal afterlife, which would be mere metaphysical speculation, and instead grounds his religious claims, which is more a mode of consciousness than a hypostatic essence, in well-backed, empirical, psychological research… So yes, the comparison is very far-fetched

[@shinx-hr6uq]

Indeed. Plato is interesting at least.

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@@pharaohhermenthotip1553 Dude, Peterson's lobster pseudo-science has been debunked a million times. You should also look into that crazy stuff about ancients discovering DNA he believes in, it comes from a book that's been heavily criticized for shoddy citations and evidence

[@JS-dt1tn]

Of course both JP and Wokeism are moralistic in their most operative nature. Nietzsche would dispise JP in the same way he would Wokeism; for their overreliance on moral 'oughts' and 'thou shalts'.

[@joshbaino3087]

Not to mention JP's exaltation of the 'Western way', the very thing Nietzsche sought to dismantle

[@meownover1973]

Jordan Peterson, before he rose to fame, tried to own a church, he wanted to become a priest, so he is infact trying to be a prophet.

[@joshbaino3087]

When he was asked "are you a prophet", I expected him to at least smile, but instead, we got his blank expression as he saw himself being given his righteous title. Prophet Peterson 🙏

[@alexwr]

If you're referring to 'The Church of the Spirit of St. Joachim of Flora', then he was ordained so he could officiate somebody's wedding. He's clearly talking about it in jest rather than a serious proposition for becoming a legitimate church, but here's the video of him talking about it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5-vgauGoamYqs0 If that is indeed what you meant by "...he is in fact trying to be a prophet." then I think you've completely taken that out of context, as anyone could see by doing a simple search on KZbin.

[@59mar]

Fake news

[@AgorizTribe]

Greetings from Bolivia. This type of discussions, or better, contrasts of ideas, are necessary and useful. Thanks for the beautiful explanation. At the same time, I like to address something special in the realm of values. The lack of a hierarchy of values or moral or ethics or even a “sacred book” that synthesize such values in an specific Identity (the case of the Bible, Coran, Buddhist palms, or even Confucius’s books), create a contraction in what we understand as human interaction. A society that lacks a specific realm of values, in other words, a moral code that reduces ambiguity (a type of language), is a society that is set to fail. Fail in human values, in economics, and in identity. (This claim comes from my countries experience). So, the general message of Dr. Peterson is, in many ways, a message that tries to restructure a hierarchy of values. In many cases, a reference to reduce chaos. Therefore, I think, Peterson´s ideas are necessary. Why? Simple, people who struggles with their own identity, or with a society that incentives a “type” of individual based only in power struggles (identity politics over human capacities) creates a necessity to resist. Clearly this not protects the paradoxical contradictions of a “hierarchy of values”, this is very well explained in the video, but at the same time, I ask: What happens when your identity is a mess?. Historically, my country has been dismantled of their own identity, by by the church and by academics. That’s why I understand the simple massage of both professor here. I understand the message of Peterson, the necessity of respect a clear hierarchy of values, ant I understand the professor Hans-Georg Moeller critic of that hierarchy of values. Both, I think, set a clear message: Identity is struggle, is individual and is community, is contradictory and at the same time necessary for “being”. I am not a philosopher (I´m a economist, university professor and behavioral researcher), but this explanations and videos and everything are incredible. Thanks again, Professor Hans-Georg Moeller.

[@harshitgarg1432]

Please have a live discussion with him. If he has commented, he might be open to have a discussion.

[@Io-Io-Io]

That guy here would look even more pale than he naturally does

[@mschell8022]

He doesn't have the strength for another public humiliation after getting dominated by Zizek

[@Io-Io-Io]

@@mschell8022 you're delusional. . Daffy Duck looks by in that debate

[@Deletaste]

A suggestion: put the name of the author that you are referring/citing on the screen when you are talking about them.

[@blackstephan9482]

Watching the ending made me feel the same way I felt the first time I heard the line “cuz you know who did you know what with you know who…”

[@MartB1979]

"genuine identity is produced through performance, it is not at the bottom". I agree entirely. And I find that comment exceptionally insightful. Are we possibly stating genuine identity = bad faith? That's the way I interpret this comment. But also, allowing ourselves to let go of attachment to our built identity, what is actually at the bottom then? Anything? We need identity to function in the world. So if that is a must, I would like to build an identity of benevolence only. I think for all his lack of acceptance of criticism Peterson does try to help people with a sincerely held belief. So that is something I respect. And evidently a lot of people have become better people through listening to his words. He has some good things to say, but nothing to get obsessed about. As there is a dogma to it too like you say.

[@LeM502]

"Philosophy doesn't really aim at formulating self-evident, normative bedrock axioms." Great video, but this part stuck out to me: didn't many philosophers attempt to do precisely what you're claiming they refrain from - to posit some definite axiom upon which to build a comprehensive philosophical system? Couldn't Descartes' cogito, the presupposed existence of monads, etc. all be taken to be axioms?

[@siruguri]

Axioms, yes, but not ones that are normative and self evident, or posited to be the unshakeable bedrock of an entire society. A philospher's axiom is a starting point, an intuition that cannot be further broken down. You can start with the opposite of an axiom and formulate an equally plausible theory. Descartes bases the knowledge of his existence on the sensation of thinking and then draws out what follows. You can disagree and propose something else as your central intuition as long as you can show it is distinct and underivable from thinking. You may well formulate a better metaphysics than Descartes. In contrast, people like Peterson are much more dogmatic about their founding intuitions.

[@doublescoopovanilla5835]

The use of Ephesians 4:26 is not correct here. Most translations are move along the lines of the NIV : "In your anger do not sin: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold." The KJV translation is a bit unfortunate in that it seems to be advocating that anger is a moral good, and "don't let the sun go down on your wrath" implies that you should hold onto anger. But the reality is the opposite. That said, some spiteful people misapply it in the way described.

[@selvmordspilot]

I feel like I struck gold when I found this channel - just as I felt when I, more than 5 years ago (hipster brag, sorry) discovered Jordan Peterson's channel.

[@gh0s1wav]

I can see your point here but i like the fact that he doesn't present his ideas as facts but rather theories. Like he invites challenges and questions rather than trying to tell you "the truth".

[@stuarthicks2696]

Me too.

[@Io-Io-Io]

You struck shit and confuse it for gold 😂

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@@Io-Io-Io You have no argument, only emojis and cope

[@lancewalker2595]

Something I find interesting about Peterson: he frequently recommends the writings of Nietzsche in his lectures and podcasts, while personally maintaining the idea that there is such a thing as an objective metaphysics to which all human beings are bound. While it wouldn't be quite fair to say that Peterson has ever explicitly defined a particular "correct" (from his perspective) metaphysics, it is clear that he does believe such a thing exists; I would say that Nietzsche's primary legacy in philosophy is the invalidation of ALL metaphysics as objective and empirical aspects of reality (from Beyond Good and Evil mostly). I actually began reading Nietzsche because of Peterson's recommendation, and after having done so, can state self-assuredly that I fundamentally disagree with Peterson on many issues. I just wish people (generally) weren't so damn quick to condemn Peterson as a sophist, moron, and/or monster. Just because I have respect for Peterson, and actually take him seriously as a thinker, does not make me a believer or follower of Peterson; and just because I disagree with him on many things does not mean I've discounted the value of his perspective either. I'm (primarily) on the Sam Harris side of their now famous debate; regardless, I still watch Peterson's podcast on occasion and have never once found it anything but of absolute value to myself in my thinking.

[@SOLOcan]

The problem is that Peterson got famous and remains famous for calling people sophists and monsters. It’s fair play frankly. Sam Harris is not a credible philosopher either

[@lancewalker2595]

@@SOLOcan I'll just leave the Peterson topic alone, we're probably at an impasse there. Regarding Sam Harris, what makes you say he's not a "credible" philosopher? It might be useful for you to first give your criteria of what exactly makes someone a credible philosopher.

[@SOLOcan]

@@lancewalker2595 someone who engages and is engaged with the larger body of work in their field. For instance, in the Moral landscape despite believing to have created a universal scientific moral and ethical system he seems to have no knowledge on what any other ethicists have to say. For instance, does he know that Jeremy Bentham also posed an ethical system on which science could provide a basis to morality through measuring happiness? Is he aware of the existing arguments for and against Bentham or the historical movement to a more “rights based” ethical system like what our legal system is based on? I dunno, he bearably engages with the literature at all. He claims to have resolved long standing ethical issues like the “is/ought” distinction by just dismissing all arguments out of hand. For example he says Hume version of ought “seems to be another dismal product of Abrahamic religion”. No further argumentation from Harris. In a footnote in the introduction he explains why he doesn’t bother engaging with ethical literature “I am convinced that every appearance of terms like “metaphysics”, “deontology”,”non-cognitivism”,”anti-realism”,”emotivism”, directly increase the amount of Boredom in the universe” That is Sam Harris describing how little interest he actually has in the field of ethic, and also a childish way of dismissing all criticism

[@SOLOcan]

​@@priapulidaI don't see how they are equivalent. Sam Harris doesn't talk about the field of ethics, while saying he does. That is my issue. Like imagine if a philosopher did come into the field of Science. He claims to have found a new way to describe motion in the universe. He begins to vaguely describe the Newtonian Physics, without actually calling it that and does not engage with any historical or contemporary studies in physics, calling it "boring" and of interest to only academic scientists. Is it tribalism to condemn them? Is it because of jealousy that we don't call that person a scientist?

[@SOLOcan]

@@priapulida Is he going to revise his book then?

[@hedleybutler9706]

I can't decide if the fact that a large portion of his followers come from the online atheist community is ironic, poetic, funny or a mix of all 3

[@JaneTheMessage]

Hard to teach old dogs new tricks, I suppose.

[@gh0s1wav]

Yes! This is exactly what I've noticed with his audience. People who are so proud of their atheism yet are falling for the same paradigm of the uber religious.

[@Pipes804]

I find it surprising how many christians follow him too haha

[@marciorezende6110]

So, I don't know how many of his atheist followers are similar to me, but I was his follower for a couple of months and I was fascinated by his ideas precisely because he was able to make me feel religious. Since I was a child I tried to understand why people believed in religion, and going to church with my family didn't help a bit. I tried to read religious books and etc, but neve could get what it was all about. Then I watched Peterson because of a random suggestion on reddit and something clicked! Binged his videos for months, and then, after my curiosity about how it feels to be religious was satisfied, I stopped watching feeling weird because I was liking right wing US bs despite living in Latin America.

[@joshbaino3087]

I would say it's predictable. Online atheists tend to have a very shallow atheism that follows Christian values

[@gradualdecay]

lmao peterson got so butthurt. he couldn't even limit his response to a single comment. very unprofessional from him

[@mschell8022]

He once got so upset at Zizek he repeated sent angry tweets to a "random Zizek quotes" twitter account run entirely by a bot

[@TheIllcaster]

Thank you for the video. Even as a layman your videos have been very thought provoking and informative. Also is that Volume 1 of Blame! by Tsutomu Nihei on your shelf?!

[@FreddyDaleginds]

Lol this whole mess is beautiful, never imagined JBP would be so butthurt One thing I miss in a lot of criticism is the extrapolation of prescriptive individual behaviour to the behaviour of large groups of people. It's perfectly fine to tell an individual not to steal and take responsibility for their actions, and at the same time take seriously the sociological and socio-econimic reasons why people steal and base policy on that. I think JBP is probably a fine psychologist for people to regain control of their life, but by no means do does individual solutions automatically translate societal solutions.

[@rodrigoalcocerdegaray]

sir, your and your associate's work on profilicity as the pre-eminent method of contemporary identity building has truly become a tool for me to try and make sense of our shared spectacular simulacra and best of all: it hasn't made me go and pick up my room or wish I was a lobster... Your position regarding the weight we place on identity needs to be essential nowadays, it also reminds me of a phrase by Rem Koolhaas: Identity is junkfood for the masses, globalization's fodder for the disenfranchised. Cheers.

[@unknowninfinium4353]

There also was in an interview which I forgot but the interviewer asked if he saw himslef as a prophet and he paused, then replied no but a psychologist. If you take a normal everyday psychologist and ask him if he thought he was a prophet then immediately the answer would be no.