Postmodern Neo-Marxism - Jordan Peterson’s Shadow

Jordan Peterson’s idea of Postmodern Neo-Marxism is a conspiracy theory. It is also the Shadow in the Jungian sense of Jordan Peterson. Nothing whips Peterson into a more passionate frenzy than the Postmodern Neo-Marxist idea. And to hear the way he talks about the “main villains” of the Postmodern Neo-Marxist movement - Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida - this diagnosis becomes all the more obvious. Peterson goes beyond the bounds of reason and strays into the possession of his Shadow. Little wonder then that Peterson’s discourse has captivated all sides of the political spectrum. It constellates the Shadows both of his supporters and of his detractors. In this episode we explore Peterson on Postmodern Neomarxism - his argument, where it's wrong and what it tells us about Peterson.
______________
Sources:
Jordan Peterson Clips
1. Jordan Peterson Manning Centre speech: • 2017/02/25: Jordan Pet...
2. Joe Rogan Episode 958 clip: • Jordan Peterson on the...
3. Postmodernism in a Nutshell - Jordan Peterson: • Video
4. Postmodernism Diagnosis and Cure: • 2017/06/28: Postmodern...
5. Jordan Peterson: You’re Oppressed! The Dangers of Postmodernism • Jordan Peterson - You´...
6. Interview with John Vervaeke (timestamped to relevant point): • A Conversation so Inte...
7. Postmodernism in a nutshell: • Video
8. Why Postmodernism is so Dangerous • Jordan Peterson: Why P...
9. Foucault the Reprehensible clip: • Jordan Peterson - Fouc...
Other sources:
1. Joan Ceika: • A Critique of Stephen ...
2. Jordan Peterson “why the rage bruh” clip: • Jordan Peterson DESTRO...
3. Jacobin article on Foucault’s experimentation with neoliberalism jacobinmag.com/2019/09/michel...
4. Psychology and Religion by Carl Jung / 123636.psychology_and_...
5. Jung 1939 Lecture (source of the bete noire quote) carljungdepthpsychologysite.b...
6. Foucault quote about Marxism from Didier Eribon’s biography of him / 1385058.michel_foucault
7. Maps of Meaning by Jordan Peterson / 2218102.maps_of_meaning
8. Robert Johnson’s (Jungian psychologist) book on the shadow: Owning Your Own Shadow / 9544.owning_your_own_s...
9. French elections and the Communist Party: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_...
10. Conspiracy theory definition: Goertzel T. (1994). Belief in conspiracy theories. Political Psychology, 15, 731-742.
____________________
⭐ Support the channel (thank you!)
▶ Patreon: / thelivingphilosophy
▶ Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/thelivingphilosophy
________________
Audio Used:
1. Despair & Triumph - Kevin MacLeod
2. Lost Frontier - Kevin MacLeod
3. There’s Probably No Time - Chris Zabriskie
4. Drums of the Deep - Kevin MacLeod
Subscribe to Kevin MacLeod / kmmusic
Subscribe to Chris Zabriskie / chriszabriskie
_________________
⌛ Timestamps:
00:00 Introduction
04:06 Peterson’s Postmodern Neo-Marxist Argument
09:04 Counterargument I: Peterson’s Misunderstandings
11:40 Foucault as Peterson’s Shadow Double
20:23 Counterargument II: The Neomarxist Conspiracy
________________
#jordanpeterson #thelivingphilosophy #postmodernism #neomarxist #postmodernneomarxism

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

I've noticed a lot of comments here that feel I am using Conspiracy Theory in an entirely dismissive way. This is not entirely true (though it has led me to reflect on the extent to which it might be true). I thought it would be worthwhile to link to some earlier episodes where I looked at the fledgling field of the Pscyhology of Conspiracy Thinking and try to give a balanced take on Conspiratorial thinking: 1. Why people believe conspiracies according to this new field of psychology: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYm6faBqfqpjntE 2. My own hypothesis of Conspiracy Theorists as cultural white blood cells: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJDaZoiAg9l9gq8

[@richarddelanet]

The many, many errors in the Hicks book. And perhaps we might clarify for full disclosure that Mr S Hicks is none other than a professor of philosophy! to make a start... Please, hear me out... Jonas Ceika key point number 1 is that this professor of philosophy S Hicks didn't do his homework properly with respect to MacKinnon and Dworkin, that they are not postmodernists. But this is a rather basic academic device - and used by the left regularly for no particular reason - that invites the reader to think. If they have double checked who these people are or what they have been saying, then perhaps, perhaps, sensible, intelligent people and scholars alike, might give the said professor of philosophy the benefit of the doubt, and ask why he appears to have misrepresented these two persons? Perhaps they have interesting things to say - some of which is complementary to what Hicks has to say, and perhaps top level additions... But wait! Perhaps they are of the left/other lefts? Engaging in Butterfly politics!? But nonetheless Hicks does say these two are an aid to the postmodernist movement, via their feminist legal criticism, which if my grammar from primary school is still good, doesn't say they are "postmodernists" it says those two things are linked and to a significant extent. And besides they are allowed to criticise postmodernism even if merely to add to the muddle and mix of discursive dialetic discourse? All of which is nothing remotely to do with shoddy scholarship. Unless of course you want it to be. So that was number 1 in the "many, Many errata..." All it took was a glance, a glance at these happening philosophical minds... that is Living and Jonas. And they seem to think they need to lie to win the argument, which should tell you something... what's my next line? errr have a think? i mean even "homo philosophicus" would know when he is wrong.

[@richarddelanet]

As a follow-up to the issue of MacKinnon & Dworkin from the Ceika KZbin video, there is "Tucked away in 'Derrida & Feminism' 1997, an essay by John Caputo called 'Dreaming the Innumerable: Derrida, Cornell & the Dance of Gender'.

[@jakexavier4958]

Instead of citing proof and evidence to shut down claim you believe are false, you site information to convince the opposition that they are crazy conspiracy theorists. and therefore weaponized the word instead of justifying it… which is what they are claiming you are doing?🤨

[@jakexavier4958]

Literally the first clip you played mentioned nothing about race, sex, or sexual orientation. I don’t see your point with showing that clip and it doesn’t prove your claim… in fact he doesn’t mention anyone’s oppression what so ever. Instead you see a white man discussing the gratitude of a specific ideology and automatically assume he’s talking down on oppressed people? Where do you even get off making that claim dawg🤦‍♂️ it seems to come from a racist view of white people.

[@jakexavier4958]

On top of that you miss represented Peterson claim…

[@HarryBinstead]

Absolutely fantastic. It's hard to find genuine, good faith, in depth criticisms of JP. As someone who really appreciates Jordans ideas this is incredibly valuable.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Harry! Can't ask for kinder words than that. I wanted to be fair to him and both criticise and express admiration for him so glad you feel I had some success!

[@wacawaca3]

Amen. This video is, by far, the best critique of JP I have seen. It’s honest and doesn’t want to destroy him, just to correct or clarify important subjects. I hope JP look at it one day, I guess he will find it at least interesting.

[@jamesbarlow6423]

Indeed.

[@tigerlilysoma588]

Wes Cecil has a very good critique of JP on his channel as well. JP does just make stuff up though… he really does. He’s a B rated philosopher at best

[@greysnake2903]

This aged like milk.

[@carlosjosejimenezbermudez9255]

This is probably the best criticism of JP I've ever seen. It's non-antagonistic, yet it dives deeply at one of the major downsides in the way that he has used social media to date. His long form content is the best, but his short form social media interactions tend to be very lacking in what actually makes him unique.

[@bjtucker5]

It's been rumored that Makayla runs his social media accounts and speaks for him

[@rosemadder5547]

@@bjtucker5 people acting in good faith don't peddle in rumor.. in my opinion.

[@dannyarcher6370]

@@rosemadder5547 Peddling in rumour is fine as long as it is clarified that rumour is being peddled. Nothing bad faith about that.

[@jonsegerros]

>social marxist criticizes idea of social marxism classic. dont trust these scumbags like this pseudoiintellecual pseudo-spiritual scamartist

[@stianvanwyk5465]

I recently had a discussion with a slightly older colleague of mine who is self-proclaimed to be more conservative. It's primarily due to his skepticism towards today's identity politics, and claims that a lot of progressive discourse puts too much emphasis on victimhood and oppression. Naturally, he likes what Peterson has to say for the same reason you do: stop focusing on the bigger structures that take away your autonomy, and focus on your own, inner-world of control. I noticed an interesting thread in the conversation: the topic of what you can control. Conservative politics is more inclined to focus attention inwards- finding your best self and getting your own life in order, while Progressives express control in a kind of "outward activism", since the oppressive structures at large are exactly what prevents us from finding stability in our own lives. I'm sympathetic to both sides, and it's probably best to strike a good balance in the middle. My personal issue with Peterson is his dismissal of the harm that our world-structures are imposing. Climate Change and third-world exploitation are easy ones to point to, and I find it understandable that our Gen Z populations find it difficult to "point their attention inwards" when the world they've inherited is burning down. They are met with a kind of urgency that Peterson's philosophy doesn't address. And when these issues are raised- he simply responds by calling them ungrateful. Not sure how much these thoughts have any bearing in actual reality, but I thought I'd share nonetheless. Top quality content as usual! Loving the addition of graphics ;)

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks for sharing Stian and actually I am very sympathetic to your point of view. In the past couple of years I've come to realise the limitations of this personal responsibility path. It no longer seems enough to me although it seems like a good foundation. In one way that's an argument you could make for Peterson: if you feel like you have no agency then make your bed and once you can do that add a little more and a little more and your circle of influence expands until you can potentially have some effect on the currents of the culture. But that of course is a self-transcendence of the philosophy by itself and an admittance that it is incomplete PS I have a first draft of Heraclitus written I've been meaning to give it a decent first edit so and I'll be in touch!

[@algerianfan8404]

well after a year of this video i dont know what changed for you regarding some of the things going on in our world but i have something to say anyway first of all nobody knows the whole truth of our existence or its problems and its solutions not jp ..and definitely not the left and the woke activists who are mostly very self righteous and ideological in there way of thinking and also they take it for granted that they know the whole story which is one of those mistakes humanity keeps repeating... second of all also nobody is completely wrong even jp when u analyse the way this sjw and the left's reductive analyses of the world and its problems through the lenses of "us vs them" either white vs black (im not white and i thing its foolish that so many fall for this one) or men vs women or .... so i dont really blame jp for thinking this is done intentionally as a way to impose some sort of an ideology it did happen through out history like religions.. its naive to thing its just jp "conspiracy theory" thirdly the idea that u need to work on ur self inwardly is very logical u can see with identity politic and collective movements things could get pretty chaotic ... and working on ur self individually is not to just have good foundation (emotionally and mentally and psychologically )but also to have critical thinking and good knowledge of the cause and the problem so u would have wider perception and not to perceive things through the lenses of race and gender and victimhood or guilt …so u wouldn't be emotionally manipulated into radical self righteous movements and extremism… things do get tainted by politicians and even human ego….so u wouldn't be driven by despair and fear monger like whats happening now with climate change its not crazy to thing there could be some agenda behind it…its good to be able to see all the angles …to be grateful and use what u have (that's what he meant ) and use it to be better and pay forward is much better than anger and resentment and guilt im from a a third world country and i find funny that the argument for our exploitation and victmizing us by the west is more harmful (i call it pretentious white guilt 😁 ) we have a lot of problems here we are not just victims to the west and all of history is full of bad things all of humans did to each other this binary game of (this vs that( is not innocent that's my opinion and i have the feeling its not been done with good intension its just a form of pleading to pathos and guilt tripping that wouldn't lead to much good there form a western point of view ...i would prefer learning from history and move on but like i said we take it for granted that we know the whole story and tha we see the big picture and all the angels.... basically to know the absolute truth which is one of those dangerous mistakes we keep falling in to as humans specially collective emotional self righteous movements and sjw's and we have to understand that we are talking about very complex intertwined thing "the individual psychology the collective psychology and the existential and spiritual world problems and plenty more variables we cant possibly cover know all about it and cover it in a video or comment or in person like jp we still have a lot to work on as humans specially individually and specially spiritually .sorry if its to long English is not my first language

[@xIQ188x]

Peterson has the answer for this: young people’s problems aren’t real and they’ve just been infected by the Neo-Marxist plague. There really is no angle you can squint at Peterson and see anything but a charlatan if your acting in good faith.

[@MrD1cks]

@@algerianfan8404 Consider that those annoying activists have been able to achieve nearly every one of their goals while the other side is being systemically excluded from being able to accomplish what they want for themselves. Radical individualism is a su i cide pact when opposing an organized collective. Even if you don't care that they make themselves miserable by externalizing all their distorted self-views, you should at least care that they're doing the same to you.

[@dannyarcher6370]

Spotted the boertjie.

[@catchingmangoes4545]

Great video! Definitely agree with the overall message, have always found it strange how JP loves the work of Nietzsche but is so hard of the postmodernists. However, I do think it's worth pointing out how JP's study of evil contributes to his dislike of what he perceives to be a post-modernism. JP regularly talks about the psychology of a concentration camp gaurd or the motivation of dictators like Hitler or Stalin and I get the sense his disdain for someone like Foulcalt stems from him attributing to him the same psychological profile. He essentially sees him as a Dostoyevsky villain, very intelligent but resentful and bitter at a world he feels doesn't accept him. Under this reading it is less that JP believes some grand conspiracy, more he believes that Foucalt doesnt value his society or tradition and resents his place in it so his overall aim is to over throw it. He rightly or wrongly believes him to have the psychological profile of a tyrant.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

That's an astute observation actually. The connection with his philosophy of evil is a key part of his attitude here

[@user-yn2ct2ie9m]

That’s a very valid point. As someone trying to navigate the ideological sphere in the waters of superficiality, I think JP became popular because of a conversation on the deeper foundations of societal makeup. You made a great point about profiles of evil figures. Perhaps one of the greatest critiques of any sociological system is that it is made up of humans. Therefore, utopias are only as great as the people within them. I remember hearing a JP talk where he talked about how even if the “good” people came into power of a uniting political system, there will be someone driven by X (power, bitterness, nihilism, trauma) who will take control of that system because that is often a common coping response to feeling weakened, hurt, angered, or traumatized. Perhaps this is a reason why JP and Gandhi have a message of working on your individual self as an important foundation to taking on bigger societal problems. “Be the change you want to see in the world.” But there needs to be a compelling REASON to agree to this responsibility. This is probably why religions such as Christianity (though people have used it as a means to oppress, control, and hurt) have contributed to the blessings and issues we have today. I believe humanity has been struggling within themselves and has made an assumption that there is ultimate hope in social systems, philosophies, cultures, etc. I think it is the case that the burden of humanity is trying to find collective homeostasis and there are moments, evidenced in history, where our differing collective ideologies/archetypes war against each other (evidenced by historical unrests and maximized today by internet-where archetypes are warring against each other without wisdom and proper and accurate exposure/communication with one another). Some people want to sustain the burden of collective homeostasis and hope in a utopia, while other want to end the burden through nihilism.

[@shanokely3690]

Brilliantly said! I just wrote a big response to this in defence of Jordan, much longer than yours, and used the Dostoevsky analogy. Read your comment afterwards and you have summarised my sentiments much more succinctly. I believe Foucault and people like him are intelligent resentment driven antisocial characters much like Dostoevsky's villains and the overthrow part is integral to their motivation albeit more subtle and less radical on the surface anyway.

[@mistadopeyy]

JP doesn't even come close to doing Nietzsche justice and sometimes he's just flat out wrong.

[@hellucination9905]

It's completely absurd to compare Foucault's thinking to the psychology of a concentration camp guard 😂😂😂 Did he even read anything by Foucault? 😅

[@OneConsciousnessWithAaron]

Wow. Perfect. Really spot on. I really like JP too. When he first came in the scene it really was brain/ear candy. I’m still a big fan but he’s really gone sideways. I even tried to reach out to him and discuss his existential crisis, and the medication problems. The shadow projection couldn’t be more accurate, well done. I wish I had your perspective around and available for me and my mystic stuff! Would really love for you to point out anything and everything as pithy as you’d like. I promise to laugh:). Anyway, watch out for your own rise, it’s coming quick. How will your shadow manifest without you being aware of it? I’ll do my best to opine as honestly and lovingly as possible. Thanks again, you knocked this one out of the park.

[@OneConsciousnessWithAaron]

@@priapulida I love and respect your right to see it however you’d like. I just disagree with you. Whenever I’m conflicted (or emotional or upset or angry) the first thing I look at is that I’m the one who’s conflicted. Why am I conflicted? Is it because of my view, my insistence that the world is not how I would have it be, that it’s them, those people, that group? I think that’s more the problem today than anything else. JP still is held in my mind in the highest regard but he’s starting to sound a little like the things he’s seeing. But it’s fine to disagree with me and this channel. Or anyone else for that matter. Thanks for the response.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Haha thanks Aaron I can only hope that I do rise and that I might have the wisdom to look into my shadow and that you'll be there to point it out. I'm not yet convinced I'll have any such wisdom it makes me nervous but hey you don't know till you try. Gold is only revealed by the touchstone

[@OneConsciousnessWithAaron]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy perfect

[@christinareihill]

You’ve a huge amount to say- worth saying and I, too , look forward to witnessing your rise, my only feedback , is to slow down, please!…( slow your delivery) I can’t swallow all your gems , without splitting my head and heart ….this poet, feels thoughts and thinks, feelings

[@TheGerogero]

You tried to reach out. How good of you.

[@GnosisMan50]

I've always had misgiving about Peterson well before Dr. Gabor Mate pointed out a year ago or so that he believes Peterson has a lot of unresolved pent up anger. I believe this fuels his shadow hence he projects it out on Postmodern scholars or anyone who disagrees with him.....as if they were intentionally out to dupe the masses with evil intentions. So glad TLP addressed this issue so clearly. It gets much closer to the truth of that which drives Peterson's state of mind. It truly is unfortunate that Peterson has no idea of the degree in which his shadow has possessed his heart and mind. What makes it worse is that, if you were to call him out on it out of genuine concern for his well being, he would, as most people do, deny it. Tragically, and unbeknownst to himself, he is defending the indefensible and does not know it. He is unwittingly subjecting himself to a very toxic shadow that, I fear, will, in the future, make his life far more difficult and he will never know its true cause UNLESS he sees the truth about "the long bag he is dragging behind himself". I respect and admire Peterson, but I do not take him seriously nor his advice on relationships or how to be a better person. Mainly because, as an INFJ, I intuitively felt his anger from the get go which often taints his best intentions. And his knowledge of amorous relationships pales in comparison to Esther Perel who sees ALL interpersonal relations with greater nuance and with a deeper humanistic understanding of what it means to be human. Peterson also spreads himself out too thin on issues that are not within his "domain" of knowledge (as he would put it). I can only hope that Peterson will take a very hard and deep look within himself and see that which is keeping him in a state of arrested development.

[@alexcrowbz]

I don't think « deny » is the best word to describe the position he would take concerning your arguments. He would debate the case you're trying to make, rather. I would be interested to hear his response to your arguments, and see what truths you could both take out of the conversation. However I must ask about « Defending the indefensible ». What are examples of occurances where he defended something indefensible and how did/do his arguments fail to make his « defensive » case legitimate (apart from the fact that he doesn't really understand postmodernism, which mosts of his statements do NOT completely depend on) ?

[@kilgoretrout4408]

by what perfection of self-knowledge do you grant yourself licence to say what "drive's Peterson's mind" how do you "respect and admire" and yet not "take seriously"? is your admiration silly and frivlous? are you conflicted?

[@andrewg.carvill4596]

As many have said here, you are one of the few who hasn't simply 'taken sides' for or against Peterson. I'd be fascinated to hear Peterson giving a considered response to your critique of his thought, or even a dialogue between you. Your discussion of the shadow was full of echoes of Plato. Philosophy has grown and developed from Plato but can't ultimately escape his question about what truth is and how we can or can't reach it.

[@mimisides]

He has very much taken sides. The side of the Marxist that has had his agenda exposed by someone that sees right through it

[@trafficjon400]

@@mimisides Why it almost takes 11 months for someone to respond for or against Peterson.

[@bugzyhardrada3168]

It would truly be interesting to see Peterson analyse this critique of himself

[@trafficjon400]

YOU SAID IT? I'm Confused to see Peterson Confused more than usual and can't stand by his accusations and other accusations Against Him . How would the educated only in his diagram be so Fruitful? Critical theory and Psychoanalyst existentialism Galore for what true benefits to satisfy the living in Normal lower grade realities'🤔😁🙄.@@bugzyhardrada3168

[@trafficjon400]

Ya ,How to be a Critique in Petersons Diagram ? We can discuss like all way's riding the Same Squeaky Marry- Go- Round Till we get some satisfaction or Blue in the Face psychoanalytic existentialist?🤔🙂🙄

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Love the channel? Love supporting things? Check out the Patreon page: 💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy ⌛ Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction 04:06 Peterson’s Postmodern Neo-Marxist Argument 09:04 Counterargument I: Peterson’s Misunderstandings 11:40 Foucault as Peterson’s Shadow Double 20:23 Counterargument II: The Neomarxist Conspiracy

[@philipperodier8414]

Love this channel man, great work! Do you think that James Lindsay is on something? Even though he came from the Stephen Hicks's circle (j.b.p, Kevin O'fallon, Brett Weinstein, etc.)

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@philipperodier8414 I really don't know. Could be though. I'm a big fan of Bret and have been for years and I know he's a good faith commentator so his version of this is definitely something that I'm sympathetic to especially with his story around what happened at Evergreen. I'll be curious to hear what Lindsay has to say

[@philipperodier8414]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy Sure, it's why ask the man! Thanks for your insight thought, I felt the same thing for Bret. If you have some time to kill; Thaddeus Russell, historian and founder of his Renegade University, did a podcast with James Lindsay (Postmodernism criticism and clarification) and Aleksandr Dugin (Explanation of the 4th political theory). I'm trying to understand if Dugin's philosophy overlaps with Metamordenism, so I started to read the latest book of Jason Ānanda Josephson Storm (Metamodernism: The future of theory), to figure it out. Anyways, I'll be glad if it can inspire you, but don't change a thing and have a good one!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@philipperodier8414 Ah awesome Philippe! This sounds like a tasty recommendation!! Thanks for putting it on my radar. Any idea what the podcast is? I couldn't find it on youtube

[@philipperodier8414]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy there you go: Unregistered Podcast on KZbin -- -Unregistered 193: Alexander Dugin (VIDEO) -Unregistered 196: James Lindsay (VIDEO)

[@stephencarroll230]

I’ve never heard Peterson before, as he seems to be the product of social media popularization, but it sounds like his argument is essentially the same as Allan Bloom’s “Closing of the American Mind” from the eighties- the “Nietzscheanization of the Left”.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Interesting stuff Stephen I am going to check out this Allan Bloom. The Nietzscheanisation of the left sounds like a different thesis than the Marxist one and more accurate in terms of Foucault and Derrida so I wonder if it'll give me a better understanding of how we got to where we are

[@stephencarroll230]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy Bloom was also known as a great translator of Plato- his translation of Republic was standard text in graduate level courses. I don’t agree with his politics, but I do believe any followers of the postmoderns needs to have an understanding of Heidegger’s philosophy and it’s political implications before fully accepting their arguments. He is who they are responding to (particularly via Sartre.) Peterson’s critique seems pretty superficial and addressing contemporary trends, rather than a serious philosophical critique. As Arendt said, after the rise of totalitarianism and the failure of western culture to resist it , the thread of history has been irreparably broken. Appropriation and relativism are the only possible approach. Is Peterson unaware of artistic/literary movements of the twentieth century?

[@elipearson8194]

Good vid. Peterson definitely has a vague view on postmodernism, and I agree it's obvious that he projects his shadow on the idea. But at the same time, there is a crazy proliferation of hegelian/marxian thinking going on. Communists did try to take over the world, as did the nazis. So these ideologies that Nietzsche predicted are capable of possessing nations and they are dangerous. I think your vid is great. But I also think that if he just bothered to read postmodernists and neo marxists (I mean critical theorists), Peterson would have a more nuanced but still compelling case to make

[@Musik-cs5nd]

Ironically, marxist and especially hegalien schools of thought are distinctly modern and not post-modern.

[@drunkenmonkey254]

The capitalists didn't try to take over the world?

[@thenowchurch6419]

Ah, but then he would know that the solution is actual individual by individual each of us introspecting and realizing that we are all part of One Being and are interdependent , thereby reducing the egotism/materialism that plagues our species today, and not angry rantings on Twitter and whining about being persecuted and creating conspiratorial bogey men.

[@ironmind258]

@@thenowchurch6419 the conspiratorial bogey man is already there, he just named it and made it real, maybe 10 yrs prior it would have been just a conspiracy.

[@thenowchurch6419]

@@ironmind258 If naming it made it real now, how would naming it 10yrs prior not make it real?

[@fernandoalcantud8388]

Great work. As a psychology student, I've always been soo unconfortable with JP conspiracy tendencies, cause he's work as a clinical psychologist (especially in personality traits field) always looked really good to me. But when he comes and put Foucault, Derrida and Marx in the same group as devils trying to destroy westerns civilization (as if this is actually a thing without fundamental problems as a concept itself) really does make me feel sad. Great takes at that.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Fernando I think we share the same outlook on it: he's got great chops but then somehow ends up in very suspicious waters

[@angru_arches]

I think we are at the mercy of secular ethics in our conclusions. For Peterson, it is at the center a matter of Theology. The Living Philosophy here ironically is guilty of what he ascribes to Peterson as having repressed sight. He has always maintained, by arguing the threat to Western Values, he investigated and discovered the source of them which is the Bible, with Christ as its Central figure, the Logos, John 1:1. He then observes in Foucault as is with Neitzsche the necessity for self-determination by inventing values to replace the moral void left by the death of Godin Europe..." who gave us the sponge to wipe away the horizon," "is there no longer up or down left?" "God is dead and we have killed Him"...so everything is opened to redefinitions that were previously established in Christianity...So now what is life? we today say "let the woman decide" which she has determined that a baby in the womb is only a life and a beautiful miracle when she wants to have it and at the same breath calls it a parasitic clump of cells when she does not want it...what is a man/woman? The current secular Presidential administration renamed mothers as "birthing persons"... This is Peterson's qualm which seems to be inaccessible to you guys because perhaps you have no God in your considerations....whatever similarities Living Philosophy drew are but common human superficialities but the mark is completely missed on the fundamentals as regards worldviews. Theologically speaking, when you do away with God, Western values collapse, and no human values have ever been invented that could compete with scriptural foundations of ethics. We tried it in the 20th Century and found just how bereft the human will is. If you don't get it you might start by considering God as a hypothesis at the very least and go from there.

[@fernandoalcantud8388]

@@angru_arches You are falling in the very dangerous trap that is thinking that there are no morals without god. Even the notion of a "western culture" isn't self evident as people like Peterson made it out to be. What is western culture? Derives from the greeks ? So it can't be christian right ? The whole idea that the only way to have morals is God is absolutely flawed, and the link beetween Nietszche, Derrida and Foulcault is far from that. Also, not being american, is very obvious to me that a Country sooo deeply build in bigotry like tha USA history shows us isn't, not even close, a standard for good morals. I mean, Jim Crow Laws inspired Nazis, and you know as much as I do know that the ethos that guide that country in that time was really less secular than it is know that you don't have this kind of horror.

[@angru_arches]

@@fernandoalcantud8388 1. "You are falling in the very dangerous trap that is thinking that there are no morals without god." I never said 'no morals', I echoed Neitzsche's and Foucault's sentiments that man would have to INVENT morals after the DEATH OF GOD...The West's morals were Christian, and since Christianity "Died by its own hand"(Neitzsche) there was created a moral void which human invention would have to fill somehow, the Nazis tried it, Marxists who hate religion also tried it, and see their fruits...without God, essentially, there's no Objective Morality. Rape and murder becomes a matter of preference. You can't condemn anybody objectively speaking coz we are all animals dancing to the drum of our DNA (Dawkins). 2. "What is western culture? Derives from the greeks ? So it can't be christian right ? " No,it's not Greek, it's Christian particularly over the conversion of Constantine I in the 300s and made the entire empire Christian..Atheist revisionists have tried to erase Christianity's shaping of the Western Ethos just to discredit and diminish its impact. I'm not saying you're doing this on purpose. The Greek influence is on account of it being the Lingua France, coming after their unification of their conquest before their Empire's collapse...the Romans preserved it for the common language...that's why the New Testament is written in Greek. But even so, the Greek's insistence on Reason led them, with Aristotle, to conclude theat there must be an 'Unmoved Mover', a first cause, the Logos of John 1:1..like every society since man has posited a God, coz reason dictates that out of nothing, nothing comes. The UN Human Rights,the creations of Hospitals, Universities, Modern Science, all started by the Church. 3. "a Country sooo deeply build in bigotry like tha USA history shows us isn't, not even close, a standard for good morals." Now this is upsetting...you think because you are soo familiar with America's history you can sum their entire history up as inherently boggoted?? How about the fact that slavery is a human universal? That it's still ongoing as we speak in Africa, RIGHT Now? How about White slaves in North Africa? You know that history? You know about how slaves were acquired in Africa? That it was Africans who enslaved Africans and sold them to Arab traders who transported them in chains across the Sahara desert and then Traded them to the Europeans before the first slave set foot in the Americas? Did you know that it was Great Britain that abolished the Slave trade in Africa? Did you know America is the only country in history to have a civil war, NOT AN UPRISING BY THE SLAVES, but ordinary Americans, and lay down 320,000+ lives to liberate slaves??? Then give lives to helpand win both World Wars, Protect Europe from Soviet conquest in the Cold War, give 50,000+ lives to liberate South Korea, and give more in the attempt to liberate Vietnam... I don't think you realize how much the ingratitude and resentment of all things Western ha saturated your thinking. Do you extend the same criticism for the Indian religious Cast system that keeps people perpetually separated by class? Do you call all of Africa deeply biggoted for enslaving weaker tribes?? How about the Arabs, bigots too? Or do you only villify the West? That's the safe acceptable villains of the Secular Liberal Left.

[@fernandoalcantud8388]

@@angru_arches I havent said that slavery and Jim Crow is exclusive, let alone worse in America than in the rest of te world;~I've said time and time again that there's no superior morality in western (particularly U.S) powers. Not the India, Africa or Native aren't flawed with deep violations themselves; the difference is that there are no superiority culture like supremacists do in the US. The Arabs, Indians, Americans, Africans did all comitted atrocious things. Now, to look at the Nazi experience and think that they're trying to create any morals is absolutely misguided.

[@elem3ntkid]

Awesome analysis of JP's shadow complex. But I do have a question for you, whether you answer it or not, I will be subscribing. Firstly, I completely agree with you a lot of JP's critiques of communism, socialism, post-modernism, and neo-Marxism are the result of unconscious shadow projections.. but I also think that many of them aren't and that a lot of what JP has to stay really does hold true. It may not be to the conspiratorial extent that he makes it out to be, but it's very clearly evident within academic discourse how much post-modern and Marxist/neo-Marxist thinking has influenced our generation. I am a Master's of Social Work candidate who was born in 1993 and you wouldn't believe how emphatically Marxism, identity politics, power and hierarchy being inherently white supremacist structures, racial and sexual identity, and the idea that "if we just got the right people in power, the abolition of capitalism would solve all of our problems!" reigns supreme. I actually see that as part of the issue. Many of my colleagues would rather spit on Carl Jung's grave than read anything he has to say, simply because JP mentions him so much. It's a battle between shadow projections and I don't think that enough people, without the understanding of Jung's psychology, will ever understand. it really is a battleground. Within your theoretical analysis, I don't disagree with much of what you say, but many of us see and feel it tangibly in our day to day lives. Do you?

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

There's no doubt there's something going on I definitely see that and was really stirred by what Peterson was saying at first but I think that his discourse around it is only throwing petrol on the fire rather than accurately diagnosing and bringing a solution to the problem

[@artofthepossible7329]

As far as 'post-modern neo-marxist' goes, a similar thing exists with Objectivists describing Kant and Comte, and students of their philosophies: a person who believes that reality is whatever you make of it, that facts and the laws of reality are at best tools and actively disregarded at worst, that the individual should be eliminated and that the state should be an active participant in your life. Sowell's 'The Vision of the Anointed' (as well as elsewhere) also talks about these same kinds of people. Now how it is that all these kinds of people (the ARI, Peterson and Sowell) can point the finger at basically the same kind of person... well calling it a conspiracy theory implies the people involved are conspiring together, so it's probably more accurate to think of it like the Crusades (especially the First) than a planned internal coup to seize power. At anyrate, I find Peterson to be at his best when he's being a psychologist and not a philosopher, alas his particular field of interest and the very nature of philosophy require him to be in that field when he has to figure out what on earth are the people that advocate the things he opposes so frequently.

[@NullParadigm]

Sowell talks a lot about describing the social justice movement as a modern day crusade. And goes into past crusades as well, very interesting.

[@jpruhu7662]

Interesting take on JP's shadow. It would be great to hear JP respond.

[@ScottMaclaren]

brilliant. i am no philosopher, only interested in it, and peterson was the first to really grab my attention. like yourself, it was the jungian and personal responsiblity aspects of peterson that really captured my attention. But i got caught up in his savaging of post-modernism, backed up by the whole IDW at the time. But that part faded with time, and I became more concerned at petersons bitterness. Why do i spend so much time listening to such anger? That it is as you say his Jungian shadow is somehow a beautiful ouroboros and puts it all nicely into perspective. Thank you for this!

[@shanokely3690]

Great video. I appreciate you come in good faith, an increasingly rare thing. I'm going to chime in on Peterson's behalf. As you pointed out, Peterson admits that when he was younger he was taken in by socialism and the Jungian shadow argument likely has more than a kernel of truth to it. It is what he called "luciferian intellect," which he says in reference to Dostoevsky's character Raskolnikov and the Peterson weelterschaung is overwhelmingly influenced by Dostoevsky far more than anyone else. His idea about postmodernism and neomarxism is really framed as a spiritual question. It's about an ideological possession to undermine established institutions and attitudes, one that traditionally manifested itself in an economic anti establishment struggle, but when Marxism was put into practise and eventually became indefensible, that same spirit, the spirit that Dostoevsky identified as "the possessed" in his titular novel, changed the way it manifested itself. This is the "sleight of hand," but it's underlying resentful motivations remained the same and is a story as old as time. Peterson calls this "the spirit of Cain" and both him and Dostoevsky were obviously very fond of biblical wisdom, (Peterson with ancient wisdom in general). It is about usurping established social hierarchies, and in the developed sphere after the world wars it became about identity politics rather than economics. Identity politics is Afterall an overwhelmingly bourgeois phenomenon emanating mostly from academia and is no longer about feeding hungry mouths like traditional Marxism. There is a nasty vicious authoritarian element to it that cloaks itself under the guise of progressivism and a conviction that it is on the right side of history, no matter what. In a revolutionary atmosphere, it can be harder to determine what is true positive progress and what is resentment fueled ideological revenge. This is where the interest in left wing authoritarianism is of far greater interest, because it's much harder to discern. Right wing authoritarianism is axiomatically bad. It's bad in theory and in practice. Left wing authoritarianism is often wonderful in theory and uses clever litigious intellectual language, like an Ivan Karamazov or Raskolnikov. Who doesn't want to be an anti fascist Afterall? Who doesn't think black lives matter? But just because the communist bloc refered to the Berlin Wall and inner border wall as an anti fascist protection barrier, doesn't mean it was, just like the penchant for autocratic states to use "democratic" or "people's republic" in their official titles accounts for nothing and is infact classic doublethink. The most famous example of this is probably Orwell, a man who was a democratic socialist and who literally physically fought fascists, but came to the realisation that there was extremely sinister people amongst his ranks disguising themselves as caring and righteous. Currently these people usually go around calling themselves empaths, and many progressives are motivated by empathy and social awareness, but many aren't. Many are just resentful, sometimes understandably so sure, but they have no sensible ideas about how to bring about actual positive change, and the real socially aware citizens, someone like Orwell, can be easily swept away and lost in this ideological tribalism driven by people who don't really stand for anything and literally just hate the world. We all know these people when we encounter them, and they usually don't have "their house in order," and have a poor ability to introspect and understand the forces driving them which can lead to abominable contrarian ideas like the pedophilia movement these french intellectuals gave us. If established institutions say the sky is blue, they will argue it's red. If the consensus of society is that pedophilia is bad, they will literally try and deconstruct it and accuse such notions of being social constructs that aren't worthy of respect and can be dismantled overnight. Currently one of the most absurd examples of neomarxism that is driven purely by anti-establishment resentment is the push to defund the police in America, which is pure insanity. But the most quintessential example of neomarxist postmodernism is Netflix's blatant disregard for objective truth by portraying Cleopatra as a black woman. Perfect example of the spirit of resentment and vanity dressing itself up in an intellectual cloak despite its pure disdain for truth. It is driven by someone who absolutely does not have their house in order. This is Neomarxist post modernist identity politics to a tee and it is in no way motivated by the social concerns that seek to improve opportunities for inner city poverty stricken blacks by improving education and healthcare, and a noble cause such as the latter is in real danger of being lumped in with the former and dismissed as deranged liberalism. Hence Peterson describes himself as a classical liberal, a liberal who moves forward with a bit more apprehension and consideration for proposed changes, rather than immediately considering all forms of change to be good, especially when driven by groups that have questionable people with questionable motives in the same tribe and fighting in the same trenches as those who are true social justice warriors in the true sense, rather than hate filled resentful self described empaths who only want to see power change hands, but with more focus on identity rather than economics, but nevertheless, it is the same driving force, disguised as something else, and this is the sleight of hand. I really do sympathise with the OG Marxists who were actually hungry and homeless I would like to hear him talk more about that. Edit: I don't think postmodernism is a conspiracy to bring down western culture, not in the true sense of conspiracy where people have collaborated to do so and I'm not sure Peterson has ever said that? Certainly there are revolutionary elements and always will be but I don't think this involves the intellectuals Peterson has a gripe with. Rather the case is a group who arrived at similar conclusions independently, likely because they didn't fit in for one reason or another and there is a vengeful element to their ideology, not unlike a school shooter who couldn't fit in and blamed the school as a whole rather than looking inward. There is a similar spirit to the two.

[@peronomuchannel]

This channel is so good. You analysis is one of the few honest ones you might find in the Internet about Peterson. Normally, you will find people to advocate for anything he says or to attack him for anything he says. Both of them aren't constructive at all. But you were, my friend! He has great ideas and insights and sometimes he directs his energy and focus into the wrong path, imo. And in my understanding of your video, you might just think of him something close to that. Thank you for your service. Keep your honesty and your great work. Cheers!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Ah thanks Emmanuel! I was only chatting with a friend about this yesterday. It's rare you find good faith critique of Peterson and while I think I came down a bit hard on him at times I still think there was an attempt to show my love while pointing out where I think he could be better so thank you for reaffirming my belief in it!

[@ahobimo732]

I think this is the best analysis of Peterson's thought that I've ever seen. Fantastic work.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Oh wow that's very very high praise Mark thank you!

[@Motorlizard]

Interesting video, well edited and structured. Still trying to figure out my own opinion on some of these matters but you definitely had some good criticisms regarding Peterson's militancy. Nearly 14k subs! Keep it up!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks for the honest input Bill just happy to have some people listen to my ramblings and the numbers of them keep growing it seems 😂

[@piercest.claire194]

Great video! I am fan of JP but I think what is important in life is to keep an open mind and try to "think for yourself", whatever that means. You are a great presenter of ideas and your videos are not vitriolic or sensational like some of the JP criticism videos. I am excited to see where you take this channel!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Ah thank you Pierce that's exactly the sweet spot I was going for!

[@rogerjohnson2562]

Peterson doesn't have an open mind???

[@chickensalad7199]

​@@rogerjohnson2562 absolutely not.

[@epsilonzeromusic]

2 questions: 1. Which work should I read if i want to understand JBP's take on Jung and Nietzsche? 2. You used a phrase "shadow villain". What work would you suggest i go thru to understand more about shadow psychology? Great video as always!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Rahul! For 1 I would suggest Maps of Meaning. It's a long read but it is well worth it and you can see how it knits all of these things together - his spiel about chaos and order, how that maps over onto neuroscience and Jung and as ever a solid side of Nietzche served throughout For 2. I actually don't have THE book on the shadow. You learn a lot of it in primers about Jung. I'd recommend his autobiography myths dreams reflections to anyone as it gives a great overview of his whole philosophy. Also man and his symbols can be a great entrypoint and von Franz's essay on individuation on that is a good place to learn about the shadow. Other than that...Robert Johnson's book on the shadow is quite good though it's just a small little thing and lacked the depth that I wanted

[@Preetvnd]

Meeting the Shadow by Connie Zweig is a great one

[@PhilosophyToons]

Kudos for keeping the video fair and unbiased! Your discussion on the shadow applied to Peterson himself was super interesting

[@danh5368]

@@priapulida what ideologues specifically? I’ve never heard of anyone openly saying they are plotting to destroy enlightenment values. “Woke totalitarianism” is not a real thing. It’s fear mongering rhetoric meant to terrorize people who are slightly negatively affected by small, often well intended, changes in society that are inevitable in a constantly evolving culture.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thank you friend! Trying to walk those grounds between the polarities and defy the idea that you can love both Peterson and Foucault. Ends up with rather contentious comment sections it seems!

[@sollux13]

@@priapulida I know, I've watched the video twice over now and have yet to glean what argument is even being made here against Peterson's ideas. Literally half of this video is him comparing Peterson to Foucault, which is completely irrelevant to any of the arguments made. At best, this video is philosophically interesting. At worst, it's a shameless attempt to generate revenue from fervent fans and enemies of Peterson.

[@CrazyLinguiniLegs]

@@priapulida I appreciate Peterson’s ideas about taking responsibility for your life, stopping blaming others for your predicament, and starting to order it yourself. It’s quality, helpful stuff. Where he loses me is on things like climate change denial and the red scare of postmodern neomarxists. Look up “scientists react to Jordan Peterson on climate.” As for the postmodern neomarxists, who exactly are they? And don’t list a couple of prominent, dead, 20th century French philosophers. Peterson speaks of them as an organized group with a deliberate, sinister, extremely pervasive agenda-those are literally terms of a conspiracy theory. So, where is this extremely well-organized and all-pervasive organization? As a side note, Peterson dishonestly misrepresents Nietzsche. Nietzsche was for everything that makes man stronger, both as an individual and a species. He hated Christianity because (in his opinion) it nursed man’s weaknesses, and he certainly didn’t fear or regret the “death of God”; if anything, Nietzsche celebrated it. On the one hand, Peterson calls Nietzsche a “genius”; on the other, he says he was absolutely wrong about perhaps his most important idea: that God is dead and man is free to create his own values. Peterson says the “postmodernists” are absolutely wrong because they think “everything is power.” Nietzsche: _”This world is the will to power-and nothing besides!_ And you yourselves are also this will to power-and nothing besides!” Peterson has a lot of good to offer, but he (like everyone else) is far from perfect, and being as publicly prolific as he is, he is bound to speak some idiocy here and there. Do we discount the good he does because of it? Certainly not. But we need to critically evaluate the things he says and not elevate him to the status of infallibility.

@@sollux13 LOL you really have learned the Peterson lesson "I'm thick, therefore conspiracy".

[@manueljohn456]

What you didn't mention but what I think is absolutely crucial: His traumatized reaction when learning at an early age that a (Soviet) nuclear bomb could vaporize himself and everything he held dear in an instance. His reaction when recounting this realization is harrowing, and to me explains a lot of his shadow.

[@mckinnonbathie5945]

Can you share where you saw this reaction to the bomb? I've never seen it

[@manueljohn456]

@@mckinnonbathie5945 unfortunately I can't find the clip I believe to remember where he specifically refers to himself growing up, but I even think I read about it in one of his books... But my memory is unreliable. Here someone at least posted a clip of him talking about nukes and the cold war: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nqPKdJyEo5Zqeqs

[@tmtb80]

I think Peterson seems terrified often and of many things.

[@tmtb80]

He's like the stereotype of a chihuahua.

[@doctorcrafts]

Instance?

[@pseudo_ra]

Your unwavering loyalty to “truth” rather than “my team” is the most crucial element when approaching anything that resembles “truth”. Your intentions so to speak is in the right place and I pray you continue to have this balanced approach with all philosophical subjects.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Me too Pseudo Ra!

[@pseudo_ra]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy Love everything you do brother! Wishing you longevity, love and peace. Keep the great works coming as you’re doing a service for the greater good IMO.

[@yj9032]

@@pseudo_ra the truth is dictated by the team.

[@Jay_Hendrix]

Thank you for this video. Like many, JP's ideas resonated with me at low point in my life when I needed his verbose dad advice to move forward, but I can't seem to give any kind of credit to him without being accused of idolotry by his haters. Perhaps they too are projecting shadow content about their academics of choice 🤔

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

I think that's definitely the case Good Mitchy

[@Jay_Hendrix]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy How do you recognize when you're shadow possessed? It's something I worry about because I don't want to wind up projecting on people. They don't really deserve that.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@Jay_Hendrix Really good question Mitchy. Off the top of my head I would suggest that a good way of keeping an eye on your shadow is in how your project it. When you feel hatred for someone and particularly when you see someone as evil I would suggest treading carefully. You are in the land of the shadow then. But there;s another pitfall to be mindful of and that is the common reaction to this realisation that you'll find in the hippie subculture: seeing any such emotions as being your problem and not to do with the other person. This idea of total agency is dangerous and is a recipe for abuse. Tread carefully but still be mindful that the other person may be in fact an asshole and you may need to act accordingly. That's all to do wtih shadow projection. You've tripped me a little with the idea of shadow possession. The seems like a different animal. That might be more connected to the idea of enantiodromia - opposites flipping into each other like the ideter gorging on a cheesecake - but this isn't something I'd have to think about more before coming up with a good response on how to deal with. Hope this helps to some extent

[@Jay_Hendrix]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy It does, thank you. I find myself leaning more towards being a hippie myself. I just want everyone to love each other and get along, but I fear that may make me blind to people exploiting my tendency to give them a second, third, fourth chance ad infinitum. Even the idea of blocking someone on social media makes me feel a pit in my stomach because I know how important being there for people is, even if they exploit it. But I really do fear what kind of projection that might manifest. I'm terrified to imagine that people genuinely can't change and that I'll do more harm than good by trying to integrate them into my life and friend groups. I don't want to live in a world where even one person is beyond redemption.

[@trafficjon400]

@@Jay_Hendrix Thanks and it's the hardest thing to try and keep the evil most damaging effect out from among us.

[@jokunyt]

Excellent video and to me it seemed you enjoyed making it! Great! This really made me want to learn more about Jung. What could be a good book to start from?

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

I did indeed Vanha! For a starter on Jung I'd highly recommend his autobiography Myths Dreams Reflections which does a good job of showing the evolution of his thought and of showing what he thinks in a very easy to read way. Man and his symbols is another great entry point which is a number of essays by Jung and a few others that captures the various key points of his school - the unconscoius, mythology and individuation. Both are great points to start from

[@jokunyt]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thank you for the recommendations! I will start from there

[@AutoAlchemy]

Amazing video! I generally like Peterson, but there were many mind-blowing moments sprinkled throughout your video. He talks a good talk about balance and bridging polarities, but mere talk can be a smokescreen shielding the ego from the fact that the hardest work is yet to be tackled.

[@melaniey.5596]

This video reminds me of Aamon’s Animation own “Jordan Peterson: 12 More Rules” and can even be complementary to it. A cinematic storytelling masterpiece, it uses animation and recordings of things Peterson has said to detail Peterson’s own noble intentions at the beginning, but it later shows the moment an d reasons he is overtaken by his own “shadow” in a very interesting (and heartbreaking, I never expected it would make me cry for him lol) way. Spoilers I think it would be very difficult for Peterson to escape (let go of(?)) mis shadow, as he has big social and economic incentives to not do so. And it also I think should be done when he is away from the spotlight, so he would have to do another long hiatus. A big part of his fan base would probably abandon him or even become a hate-base because they might feel he “betrayed” them, but an also big part would probably get greatly benefited from seeing him let go of his shadow, as they idolize him or see him as an “archetype” to imitate/seek council from. A very interesting thought piece and informative piece of the ideas of Derrida, Foucault and Peterson. Thank you ( ^ω^ )

[@sniperelite360]

A fantastic analysis. I don't know much about Peterson so it was interesting to hear an analysis of what he says.

[@Keiranful]

Fascinating analysis and critique. JP was in large part the reason for me starting my way into philosophy and knowing the issues in the roots of your philosophy is very important. And I'm once more reminded that there are no simple answers in a complex world. Thank you for your work.

[@RichardEnglander]

Peterson knows the roots and he knows that Postmodernism and Marxism isn't a natural pairing. There aren't simple answers and JP knows that perfect terms aren't always available.

[@lllordllloyd]

Peterson simply ignoires his critics. He spouts a few basic and uninteresting truths, then makes a few much more dubious assertions, then builds a tower on that. He is a fraud, really beneath being called a philosopher. He's a preacher, or entertainer. But, here he is, so I'm glad you made this episode.

[@mbragajr]

Precise, good hearted and honest critique. Such an spectacular video; the best I've seen on the matter.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks a million Marcos!

[@MatthewShute]

On the strength of something you said in the closing section, I checked out Peterson's conversation with John Vervaeke. Unfortunately, I couldn't get more than 25 minutes into it before closing it in frustration. Peterson doesn't let Vervaeke finish a sentence, constantly interrupting and interjecting like a child on a sugar rush, constantly derailing Vervaeke's train of thought. I guess it gets better eventually, given what you say here, but my patience ran out. I've genuinely enjoyed some of Peterson's conversations in the past, but it was painful to listen to.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Yeah y'know what I'm the same. I think I just stuck it out because I like Vervaeke so much but it's one of the few bits of Peterson I've listened to since his return and this was one that put me off watching any more. It seems that this episode was an exceptional case of it but with that little listening going on it was very offputting. It made me question whether Peterson had fully recovered. I saw a clip of him on JRE recently where he seemed more present and coherent but yeah it's true the Vervaeke episode was tough watching

[@jamesbarlow6423]

Superb analysis. For a long time I've felt JP's misunderstanding of Foucalt and especially Nietzsche very dusturbing.....

[@johnnytarponds9292]

At 4:00, you make the most accurate description I've ever heard. Well done, indeed!

[@andrewwebster5913]

An excellent video on an individual who I respect deeply by an individual I respect deeply. Thank you for the insight and the opportunity to learn!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Ah thanks Andrew! That's a top quality review!

[@annamari7863]

A question for you: how can you like someone who is so wrong in so many things, does not have an original idea of his own, and all the value attributable to him is that he cares for men and traditional values? Aren't there many other people (thinkers, intellectuals) who provide this? What is so special about JP? Are you really scared that feminism somehow deprives you of something?

[@123brizy]

This was absolutely brilliant fair play. Peterson was a life saver for me when I discovered him and I mean that literally and I've always admired his ideas. You could have hit the nail on the head about Peterson projecting his shadow but one thing I'd take issue with is the conspiracy theory part. Is it not true that there are new groups coming up through the universities in the west whose goals are quite literally 'deconstruct the patriarchy' etc. I'd love to hear your critique of the actual details of this conspiracy theory and why he's wrong. Cheers

[@tenholindberg9862]

Postmodernism starting point ,is the rejection of marxism. As pomo like right wing worldview also is based on idealism, while marxism is the materialism based analysis/ historical materialism. The diffetence between idealism and materialism, essentially is tha other one is purely subjective, while other is very much an objective view of the world. Marxism is comprehensive understanding of the world, ie grand narrative, wich Postmodernism rejects totally. So to slam these 2 totally contradictory ideas together, is simply oxymoronic. But bcoz petersons, like idealists In general claims are abstract feelings based without any specific, thats why it sounds right, untill one start to look for specifics. But they and their listeners do not mind the vague abstract nature of those claims. Hence petersons pomo neo marxism or cultural marxism, is precicely the same claim, that Hitlers and nazis, cultural judeo bolshewism was. Not just in name, but In substance. Wich i argue, is enough to prove that it belongs to cathegory of conspiracy theory. Also note for. Peterson constantly cry about alienation and social atomization , yet he somehow makes the left to be responsinble for it, while he praises and worship the very system of, consumerism, greed ,wealth ie capitalism. That we know to produce these kind of results. Hell even Marx over 150y ago, wrote the theory of alienation. But peterson dont know ,how it was Marx that spoke about these same concerns. To cry for for meaninglesness alienation etc, while worshipping the system that naturally produces it, makes him totally unqualified to ever speak thos again. Not to mention peterson is the very postmodernist, by hes own standards even, in hes absurd relativist statements about, what is truth. What do you mean by christ or god etc. They are extremely far away, from mainstream christians views. Ie too far from every norm ppls definitions of them. The pathological fear and hatred of Marx is totally unwarranted. The dude did nothing but had the nerve to analyze how capitalism works. So when you speak about communists etc in schools do this somehow validate the pathological hate of Marx? Then should we also condemn Adam Smith, John locke etc, early capitalist thinkers?, due to all wars In Last 350years, and over billion of death. Does this make sence? Of coz not. Then why Marx is different, eventhough he newer had anything to do with bolshewists, communists etc. Only thing he did, was that he made the work, wich gave ppl an understanding of how the system works. So i ask should someone that calls himself an honest intellectual, Who is at war against marxism. (Eventhough making same arguments again and again, that Karl Marx himself made also), and postmodernism (while himself being the actual caricatyre of a postmodernist), should that someone at least understand some basics, before speaking against them. ? And it is clear he do not wish to correct hes lack of knowledge, this proves that we are dealing a kind of pathology, that do not only wish to answer to otherside, but views them as evil ,and unhumane I think, that thus it is not mere opinion but an objective fact that mr JP is first and foremost a conspiracy theorist God bless. Peace n solidarity

[@thenowchurch6419]

You are too general in your statements. There is much nuance in these topics. Various academics and scholars pursuing their careers and sharing views and thoughts with others of their ilk is NOT a conspiracy; it is just a movement. It is also not a monolithic movement but has much variation and disagreement. J.P.B.'s hyper emotionalism and constantly implying it is a conspiracy is ridiculous and dangerous.

[@123brizy]

@@thenowchurch6419 I'm not saying the rise of post modernism is a conspiracy, I was just using the creators terminology. Jordan Peterson doesn't claim it's a conspiracy either so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I think you're getting confused with who is using the conspiracy terminology here which was the OP in regard to Peterson's ideas about post modern neo Marxism.

[@thenowchurch6419]

@@123brizy You might want to watch the video again as well as Jordan's speeches on the topic. He does everything but use the word conspiracy. Certainly you are not suggesting that one must use the word conspiracy to be implying that there is one? Jordan clearly accuses Post Modern Neo-Marxists of seeking to overthrow the foundational principles of the West, that they are monolithic and "know exactly what they are doing". Surely you are aware of his rants about the Sports Illustrated cover being an intentional agenda and that there is a agenda by some at Twitter against him. He calls them and their project "evil". That suggests that they are not accidentally or naturally doing what they are doing but have an evil intent. That is the definition of a conspiracy.

[@thenowchurch6419]

@@tenholindberg9862 Excellent analysis. It is the height of irony that JPB embodies elements of all the isms he is fighting against and is possessed by the ideas he has adopted to a pathological degree, yet he acts like he understands Jung and the possibility of such possession.

[@Bbbbbbbbbbbbb728]

As a JP fan I love this video but want to point out that’s it’s the people JP calls out that condemn us JP fans as bad people when we are all here enjoying this criticism yet those opposed tend to not be able to hear criticisms. I believe it’s this point that shows what drew JP into his “conspiracy” period. It’s maddening when people are so arrogant in their points and won’t accept critics points. I don’t believe JP is perfect but I do believe he has great lessons to be learned and I like his idea of the online university not bound by the educational system that is corrupt, at least in America, to an extent.

[@petec5536]

Wow, a case well made - brilliant. Many of us see JP as erudite on psychology and inspirational on personal responsibility, but cannot avoid a nagging hunch that he is surprisingly weak (generic, exaggerated, conspiratorial) on politics. The simple Jungian approach taken here explains precisely what that hunch picks up on, and why it's justified. And it doesn't let the rest of us off the hook either, illustrating how easily we transform a little useful knowledge into projection - how we caricature others in ways that say more about ourselves than about them. Remember - every time somebody gets you wrong, portraying you unfairly without adequate justification - they're signalling something about themselves, not about you. If we could all remember this simple truth when facing our detractors, and also apply it to ourselves, then online debate would be a LOT more constructive. But then .... we wouldn't be doing vital inner work expressing our shadow selves, would we? ;o)

[@tartarus1478]

This was so great to watch. There was a time in my early interest in philosophy that JP held my interest but I fairly quickly noticed he was not the intellectual giant I thought at first glance

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

My pleasure! Glad you enjoyed it! I still think in the realm of Jung and Nietzsche he has a LOT of value but yeah unfortunately when it comes to the Continental tradition he comes up short from what I can see

[@michaelmcclure3383]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy it seems that Peterson is directing his criticism in the wrong direction. Neo Marxism morphed into the current woke ideology (a proletariat based more on race and identity than class), but not through Faucault or Derrida, but can better be traced back the frankfurt school.. especially Marcuse and then Angela Davis and so on. Davis still considers herself a Marxist. Faucault had a much bigger impact on the queer theorists. Funny how Peterson hasn't opened that can of worms yet, but they are behind the enforcement of the use of pronouns that was the very catalyst for Peterson's rise. The woke have none of the scepticism and relativism of continental postmodernism, they are "full of passionate intensity".

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@michaelmcclure3383 Yeah I think that's a much more accurate assessment although it seems that with Habermas the whole school took a very different direction. I think this will be something I'll be digging deeply into in future episodes they sound much closer to the mark. This was kind of my point though Peterson ruins his argument by getting the facts completely wrong. This is the foundation of his popularity yet he's extremely dodgy on the details. It's very frustrating because that just sows more division. He too is full of passionate intensity but I suppose the ones who lack all conviction aren't exactly going to end up front and centre in the age of outrage

[@michaelmcclure3383]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy right, yes. As you say Peterson does himself no favours by misrepresenting postmodernism. He's probably hesitant to take a deep dive into it for fear of infection leading to the rupture of his certainty of mission Haha You're right, they're both full of passionate intensity!

[@michaelmcclure3383]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy Habermas seems to have a much more balanced view of things. It will be interesting to explore how and why he diverges from the Frankfurt school.

[@peterlynley]

As a long time JBP observer I found this take to be very interesting although I just don't have a good enough knowledge of Derrida and Foucault to decide either way. A question: what if we focus on the motivations of the followers of Derrida and Foucault rather than the men themselves, especially in America. Could the sleight-of-hand be a collective response, a misreading of these post-modernists, conscious or not, by Neo-Marxists in order to save their basic world view? I say this because I believe that Marxism really does have a great talent for morphing its basic world-view into other forms like certain camps of feminism and environmentalism and Catholic liberation theology (or maybe we could say it is good at hijacking anything it can use politically)......Anyway, another great video; food for thought; loved the Jung quotes. Cheers.

[@zaky173]

Good point. Is what we see from Peterson a missinterpretation of Post modern filosofers or a good reaction to the interpretation od these filosophers by certain groups? Btw. I watch his podcast regularly and I liked this video. There is something to it, but I don't have the knowlegde to tell where the truth lies. I would like someone to dig deeper in this direction.

[@zaky173]

Well I read thru a lot here but that did not satisfy me 😀

[@jessl1934]

How exactly does Marxism have a talent for morphing its world-view into other forms?

[@fredwelf8650]

Post-modernism is opposed to grand narratives like Marxism, so JP is off his rocker! Pomo is more about the relativism of world-views. JP conceals that problem of oppressors vs oppressed by not identifying the contexts of oppression which are frequently in the family institution, in the household, and in the marital relation. And, this oppression involves a monetary inequality. As for sleight of hand, the sleight of hand occurs when the state bails out banks but not homeowners, a clear pejorative supporting the bourgeoisie. How about addressing tax cuts, wages, subsidies? Tell us, defenders of JP, what is the purpose of salaries in the hundreds of millions and billions for corporate executives?

[@SOLOcan]

So you've identified two issues, the need for a genealogy of current thought and how it differs now, and what aspects of ideologies overlap. You know who was really good at investigating the "underlying motive" at work in thought? Foucault. Do you know what's a framework for separating different ideologies relationally and along material grounds? Marxism This is ultimately why you cannot save Peterson's thought. Great he wants to critique modern society, but he then just goes and blames the critics of society for critiquing society. Thus the deeper you go into his arguments the more non-sensical it becomes until you come out the other side and realize the next step is to actually read the authors he talks about. EDIT: Final point, once you identified JBP though as insufficient to critique society or understand philosophy in general, why not just move on? Could you not say that excuse you provide for him is just a sleight-of-hand on your part to continue to derive any value from his thought as a justification for the emotional investment you put in him? You can always come back to his work after you have a better understanding.

[@ramisamman5674]

JP a life example of Nietzsche's famous saying: If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you

[@AlexS-bi7of]

"The deeper you stare into the abyss, the deeper the abyss stares into you"

[@lefmouchinaski]

Beautifully researched and presented analysis. You really summed up the thing that bothers me with JP, although i'm a big fan of his.

[@janjakopic3277]

Damn this must have been quite the workload... great job, hope more people see this

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Haha it was a substantial enough rabbit hole Jan. I've seen enough Peterson to have a sense of what I was looking for so it wasn't like researching from scratch but still quite a lot of work in it!

[@cfriesen222]

Thing is, it's hard to trust his analysis of things because he consistently misinterprets or misrepresents others in general, not just a small group of French philosophers. He somehow came to the conclusion based on his reading that Orwell was anti-socialist when Orwell explicitly defends socialism multiple times.

[@cfriesen222]

@@priapulida Just because a possibility of totalitarianism exists does not mean one is inevitable, nor are different political movements inherently more prone to it than another. You can have totalitarian right wingers and totalitarian left wingers. I think JP is drawing unsuitable parallels between extremely different phenomena without providing enough substantial evidence to back up those claims.

[@jessl1934]

@@priapulida Y'know what's really woke? Going on twitter and catastrophizing because an interview of yours from years ago has been removed from KZbin by proclaiming it as being book burning while there are literally book burnings happening in the southern states of the US taking place at the time of the tweet. Big brain time.

[@jessl1934]

@@priapulida Why would you pretend to know about the situation when you clearly haven't done even the most cursory examination of it? How shameless a prevaricator can you be?

[@michaelmcclure3383]

I saw an interesting video of a journalist called Glen Greenwald titled "the mountain of data showing how authoritarian democrats have become". Obviously this pertains to the American situation, but it seems that the religion of wokeness coupled with rising authoritarianism is a contemporary plague arising out of the US and unleashed upon us all.

[@jessl1934]

@@michaelmcclure3383 Glenn "off the wall" Greenwald? Personally, I can't rule out the possibility that Greenwald is doing an incredibly long-game satirical performance art bit. Especially when you know how his editorial line to his Brazilian audience differs from what he puts out in the west.

[@santerisatama5409]

Well done! Jungian game, the shamanic game, is therapeutic philosophy. To theoretically otherize, to externalize, to objectify, can function as diagnosis, but diagnosis alone is not therapeutic. Peterson has been a focal nexus of a major healing process, and also reconciliation between First Nations and Europeans - the public discussion between Jordan and his brother was good talk. To be able to function in the therapeutic role as JP has done, his audience, conditioned as it has been, needs to be able to identify with him - stay integrated instead of alienate. You can't sell the living philosophy of Foucault etc. to "mainstream" audience unless you live and breath it, and also point a blaming finger against Academin icon making of "PoMo names" which are still mainly used in the teen age oedipal ritual, from which kinda need to grow out, to earn elders we can again genuinely respect and love. Only if I knew how to grow into such... :D

[@randywaldron2715]

Thank you. This was the most balanced and insightful spotlight on JP I've witnessed yet. This is not the first time I've learned from your videos

[@bretta7057]

Just recently discovered the channel, and it’s quickly becoming my favorite philosophy channel/podcast. This one is especially phenomenal. Handled with such grace and eloquence. While I won’t go so far as to say I’m a “fan” of Peterson’s (though I do dig his lectures on mythology sometimes), his “Neo-Marxist postmodernism” schtick is absolutely ridiculous. I like how Zīzek called him out on it during their debate, and Peterson’s only response was to shrug and be like “well I can just tell you both ideas are very popular in academia” lol

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks a million Bree! Glad you enjoyed it!

[@wagz72]

It's not a conspiracy when they come out and say what their plans are. Gramschi Paolo freire

[@notmyrealpseudonym6702]

Possibly also worth a review of James Lindsay's new discourses who charts the conspiracy. I do think JP is aware of and does discuss his own shadow at times which gives him some nuance. I think if his first and second book had address the necessity of, and life affirming as much as life destroying nature of, chaos and order then I would give him more nuance overall

[@percysykes7549]

Great videos, really balanced perspective. Like the analytical approach. Would really like it if the text on screen would appear at once instead of along with narration because I like to screenshot it. it disappears too quickly. I could just get the whole script from the browser version of KZbin. Regardless, like the energy that goes into this, your digging into these topics with the fervor that people dig into hiphop beefs and internet drama, your presentation is just measured and dare I say based(in fact). Keep it going and take care of yourself so I get to enjoy many more years of this.👍👊🖖

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Good feedback Percy let me see if there's some way of doing both. And thank you for the kind words. As I cozy in for the long haul I'm trying to be more attentive to my health and balance so I can stay at this forever

[@michaelwu7678]

Peterson’s understanding of Nietzsche is mostly wrong as well.

[@michaelwu7678]

@@mynameisjeffff His understanding is factually and conceptually wrong. There's only so far you can filter and misinterpret a text; after a certain point, it's safe to say you don't understand it. I recommend looking up Peterson in the Nietzsche subreddit for some concrete examples.

[@michaelwu7678]

@@mynameisjeffff Oh yeah I understand your perspective. I just genuinely think he doesn't understand what he's talking about.

[@hytbuvbyvg1148]

You never cease to amaze kind Irish man

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Hahaha thanks Sal I'm delighted to hear I haven't grown too predictable 😄

[@zacbharucha8496]

Recently discovered your channel during a search for modernism. You are doing a superb job, producing intelligent and compelling videos. Keep it up. Thank you!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Zac

[@timmcdraw7568]

This was wonderful wonderful. I am a massive critic of Jordan Peterson (massive to myself, not to the world), but I have always been extremely … Idk what… fascinated? sympathetic? sometimes even obsessed if I were to be fully honest. While I happen to be on the side of thinking that believes he is dangerous in a lot of ways, it hasn’t been lost on me that this says as much about me as it does him, and not in a way where I am more morally “good”. That is, I could feel that my judgement and fear of him was a product not just of the way that ive come to understand the world and my place in it, but also the way that my side of this divide has come to describe the world (these are different things, though often intersecting) . I have been in jungian analysis for over ten years now, and it’s helped me through absolute true madness as well as times of absolute flatness and I feel when watching JP struggle with the biggest questions of self and society … true kinship and empathy and fear and outrage. You are spot on to say that he in many ways becomes archetypal of my shadow.

[@tonybaker2968]

This was quite excellent. I love Jordan, have read all the books, listened to all the lectures twice or thrice through. I knew something was a little bent. You spotted it and explained it so well without reducing my great regard for the man one bit. Thank you.

[@FS-qk5kp]

Very interesting. Love Peterson, I learn a lot from him. This video shows an alternative view.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

I love the balanced assessment F S thanks for watching!

[@alexjordi4739]

At the start I thought it was a boring video, then, I changed my mind. What an amazing video! Keep it up!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Haha glad to hear it Alex thank you

[@ReignSherrington-sl3bz]

Carl Jung, who Peterson is so fond of quoting, once said "a one-sided, extreme concious attitude always arouses suspicion of its opposite."

[@thenowchurch6419]

Fantastic analysis and exemplary message about us all seeing our own shadows and loving ourselves, as a start. You are bringing well needed attention to the very critical issue of extreme polarization not just in the West, but humanity. Thank you.

[@zootsoot2006]

I don't see any conspiracy theorising in JP's attitude towards the postmodernists. They're doing exactly what he says they're doing, in broad daylight, no conspiracy theory required. They do plan to overthrow Western society, quite unashamedly so, they do decry reason, logic, punctuality even, as phallologocentric totalitarian doctrines. If anyone has a shadow in this regard, it's the host's shadow in relation to Peterson, preventing him from seeing what's staring him and all of us blank in the face.

[@edthompson3772]

Yes - the gradual decline of a bright mind into its own shadow, and the subsequent projection of that shadow onto a whole cultural paradigm is sad yet stands out a mile in JP's arc. It's a good video & well put together, and doesn't come from an enemy. If JP could watch something like this I'd be glad.

[@dagon7479]

well, he who stares into the abyss and all that... I feel for the man, for the blows of his journey and the constant disdain by many can shape one as the currents shape the seaside. Still, while I can see your points, and honestly think they are of much merit, im just glad someone is dissenting, be that in favor of or against Peterson. To honor the honest dissident, even those that make the stomach turn, is important. I do feel the man has a good moral character, for what thats worth.

[@christinareihill]

Just discovered your wonderful channel!…I love a “ Jung brew” and, while admiring of Peterson, I’ve always felt a suspicion about his position ….I’m not learned enough to catch your insights but I’m a willing student ….thank you

[@saschaaegerter1784]

I have also been attracted by JPs intellect but also by his genuine desire to help people that are struggling. However, an early tell-tale sign of his own shadow was the unified sentiment of anger and spite of his followship. He has become the intellectual instrument for his young male acolytes to win their debates for them. Maybe he genuinely helps these people somehow through the depression, lack of purpose and insecurity of their masculinty and that he actually reaches these people, which no one else does. As long as the collective shadow and pain body is so huge, we may need people like JP to provide some relief and structure for the mess we are in.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Well said Sascha!

[@godblesspupdog]

i am healthy young man, once very unhealthy young man, then become student of jordan peterson and you should see me now. i read his 24 rules & listen many times & maps of meaning is not just high scholarship but also a great work of art. many time, when i am early/mid 20s, i observe myself discredit Foucault with ease, and Derrida and more, no reading of their work necessary, because they seek to destroy something i love, but then it turns out they did not. first i learn this from cool older woman in book store who hates way jordan peterson is misrepresented, we both agree, but also is bit annoyed because he misreads Foucault… gave me pause for thought and so must be more critical…. now, many years later in my late 20s, your astute assessment teach me that the post modern neo marxists really did not seek to destroy and were actually really cool. this has been very important to me so thank you very much. because now i can read these thinkers? all hail Lobster King.

[@psychonaut689]

It's about time someone made a video about this. I only hope that JP takes heed.

[@thismeofmine9696]

You had me at “intellectual catnip “ on from the “Charles Bukowski of the Philosophers” video. So good

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Hahaha I'd forgotten about that one 😆

[@FCB_Tani]

Much Love for this unpopular Peterson Criticism. His followers see the grain of dust in every opponent of Peterson, but never the wood in his own head.

[@kilgoretrout4408]

seeking help to remove the large beam in my eye must have no point-of-view and be certified by the un-biased to have removed all bias those with motes need not appeye

[@anisvalimbe5480]

I came in expecting to find just another emotion and opinion fueled takedown of Peterson but found a grounded and logical argument for why Peterson might not be right in some of the things he says. As a Peterson admirer I personally love this kind of take and it shows me to always remain grounded and examining everything before making a judgement.

[@Runenut]

not a huge fan of peterson in almost any capacity, but i find him intriguing. excellent analysis, glad it didn't end up a ceaseless dunk session as is so common.

[@bizmogrowth9081]

Excellent video. As a JP fan it’s helpful to see where he is missing the mark. Subscribed.

[@marsthelewis]

Thank you - outstanding! I am personally most challenged by the vehement side-taking culture I feel around me. When half of a group love something or someone, and the other half hate it/them, to me this suggests a social-anthropological phenomenon and not a rational engagement of ideas. The average ‘hater’ seems incapable of articulating the position of the other side without straw-manning in simple and silly ways. There are things I admire about JP, which I can do without agreeing with him on everything. I like his transparent honesty, although he doesn’t always express this well; I like his love of dialogue and engagement and enjoy his longer conversations - not so much his presentations or interviews.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Yes! This is the attitude I strive for - not being blindly on one side of the fence or the other but being able to see someone's strengths and weaknesses

[@jonnyblamey]

I think the “half hating and half loving” is an illusion based on detached reactions being ignored. If you have a choice between like or dislike or no comment then you are going to see polarity if only the likes and dislikes have a voice. Removing the number of dislikes is a bad move too, since now you just videos with loads of likes and twenty times as many views, so you just see polarity everywhere whereas the true norm is indifference.

[@aaronlatif52]

Solid video. I'm rushing before work hopefully I come off coherently enough. While JP may be wrong and creating devils that he may not fully understand, I do think his conclusion that the same spirit that attracted the proletariat vs bourgeoisie has morphed into oppressed and oppressors. I think Im arguing that people borrow what they like Marx or the post modernists and then mix them together to form their own views while leaving out certain parts that disagree and highlighting certain parts that they use to justify their own beliefs. I also do think there is indoctrination going on but I also think indoctrination is inevitable to create culture. Like is it indoctrination to be taught to think reasonably and rationally or other axioms of the cultures we are raised in. Like we are indoctrinated to be nice or civil and while both have certain disadvantages, its probably a good thing that its most peoples expectation. So as a society I do think we have the right to indoctrinate and to oppose indoctrination. I'm not necessarily arguing the middle path but I do think these culture shifts push back and forth to hopefully land on ideas to put into practice to test and then adjust off of. I believe we have adjusted off of certain things that JP finds important and haven't filled the benefits we have received from different sources and at the same time there are "dangerous" paths we might've gone down that might not be filled but I personally believe those paths are necessary for a healthy, balanced society that can reach a better balance of power between that of the individual, the family, the community, the institution, the corporation, the city, the state, the nation, the alliances, the world of men, and man in nature. I don't believe the perfect balance exists so forever the rules and power must shift.

[@benmatthews6015]

This is an excellent critique and thought provoking. Your points on his potential misunderstandings of what the influential post modern thinkers are well made, but there is the problem that his misunderstanding is characterized by how the philosophies came to be understood in the academic milieu into which they were deployed. I can say from recent personal experience that versions of the post-modern neo-marxist arguments that he vilifies are not uncommon among both students and faculty at universities. So, what he is contending with is not the theoretical necessarily, but rather the practical outcomes of those theories once deployed in the wild, so to speak. I tend to agree with you when you say that marxism never became an untenable position. I have met too many people who explicitly and proudly declare themselves as marxists to believe that it is in any way untenable. In this regard, however, I think Peterson simply has it backwards. He says that post-modernists were left with no over-arching narrative so they turned to marxism, but I rather think that marxism continued to exist and those who are proponents of it took ideas and tenets from post modern thought and used it to girder the foundations of marxism, moving subtly away from the economic axiom onto the power axiom even as that deviates away from Foucault's use of the term as you point out in the video. Excellent video. Thank you for the great content

[@clkvlk]

Brilliant analysis, it's indeed his shadow archetype. I think Jordan must see this. I wonder about how his response would be

[@Vak_g]

This was one of the most interesting videos I have seen in my whole life! I really loved how you used the Jungian shadow to understand Peterson! Thank you very much for this analysis!

[@TheDirolo]

I love you work, please never stop. Greetings from Mexico!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Ah thanks Diego! That means a lot

[@richiekeane7730]

Interesting perspective, id suggest there is a difference in pointing out the difference in perspective of the subject matter to an academic listening ear which can weigh up a point without risk of applying it in the real world and a non academic listener who wants to understand in a way that it directly affects an individual and how it may consider the subject as they live their life - it creates two very different dynamucs and i think this content and Petersons material quoted here are aimed for different audiences though perhaps not intentionally - in providing useable information as peterson regularly does his popularity with non academics is seen in finding relatable arguments that may eell be deserving of further scrutiny if going deeper in making broader brush strokes more finely tuned - i see both as useful but at different stages of awareness

[@sheldonking1743]

Wow. When you get into Jungian philosophy about the shadow and projection, awesome. Thanks for helping me understand Peterson a little more and helping me with my own confirmation bias as he sucks me right in with his narrative. Enjoying your podcast thus far ....

[@dandee6331]

The Entire Western World is being sucked into a Post Modern/Marxist Wet Dream. Peterson just called it out. Blame mainstream media and universities for sucking you in

[@colonelweird]

I wouldn't have thought there was anything left to say about JP, but this video proves otherwise. I've never liked him at all, but even I'm shocked to see him condemn in a bitter rage -- with no awareness at all of the irony -- those who refuse to be grateful that this is the best of all possible worlds. As for JP being able to critically examine himself and what he thinks he knows, I would have assumed that was all-but-impossible, not least because he doesn't seem to have engaged Marx, Derrida, or Foucault directly at all, but only knows of them through Stephen Hicks and other ideologues. But at the end you suggest otherwise. This left me with the question: what was the answer when JP asked earnestly if he had gotten Foucault and Derrida wrong?

[@colonelweird]

@@priapulida Please tell me where these dastardly villains admit their goal is the total destruction of reason, dialogue, motherhood, kittens, and all the other good things JP lists. Gimme a quote. Gimme a specific citation. I'll wait.

[@colonelweird]

@@priapulida That's fine, don't engage. But after reading a bunch of your comments here, I suggest you respond to the specific arguments made in the video. You seem to be ignoring the video and instead are defending the general notion that JP is criticizing "critical social justice" discourse. That's not what the video is about -- it's about the specific claims JP makes about Marxists (including Derrida and Foucault, who actually were not Marxists) engaging in deliberate deception in order to replace discourse about class with discourse about identity, with the explicit goal of destroying western civilization. JP's claims here are complete nonsense, and that should be admitted even if you dislike critical theory generally.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks for the great responses Frank. In answer to you original question about the response peterson got I was unfortunately a non answer. Really didn't correct him at all which is a shame (not sure why Vervaeke didn't do so maybe he didn't know enough?) But I do think peterson was open to a software update on his pomo programming

[@shoopinc]

I hope Peterson sees this, well done.

[@edmendelowitz]

These cogent presentations are lovely: intelligent, eloquent, and uniformly turned-on. "All true grace is economical," muses Beckett somewhere . . .

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Haha thanks Ed I'm quite fond of a Beckett mediated compliment!

[@benthornhill7903]

I'm so happy to have found your channel. This is seriously good stuff.

[@Ykpaina988]

Wow this was really well thought out as another JBP admirer who’s grown a lot because of his example I’ve grown suspicious of his own shadow and this was just great thanks great content

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks a million Roman!

[@yj9032]

A rare JBP fanboy who is not a rabid hero worshipper.

[@Kevin-rg7kl]

This is so good. Thanks for existing. Can you do a video on criticisms of Ken Wilber?

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Haha thanks Kevin. That would be an interesting one to do. I'm planning on doing a living philosophy of Ken Wilber at some point so might do that as part of it or else do a supplementary one maybe a moratorium on why Integral fizzled out

[@sethboyd2217]

I enjoy your critique quite a bit and agreed with you on certain points and disagreed on other points. I most enjoyed the part about the collective shadows. The problem with the collective shadows is not the fact that they are a grand narrative entirely built on false premises and completely separate from reality. The problem is these collective shadows is the totality of their answers to complex and mostly individual decisions that influence the unconscious group actions. Thier is just enough of the truth in these collective shadows to make them appealing and easy to be swayed by. In reality these shadows are not the shadows of the people you so fear or the other side, but the deepest and most hidden reflections of your own beliefs. The parts of you that are selfish and tyrannical, and the reason you can even perceive these evil plans and moves by the other side is because unconsciously you know your own potential to act this way and conclude that if this evil resides in your soul it must reside in the soul of others. The thief above everyone else jealously guards his possessions for being a thief fears all other men to have the temptations of his heart. The irony is this fear of what you perceive to be the other sides shadows inevitably forces the people fearful of them to embrace the attitudes contained in this shadow while blinding them to thier own possession. Inevitably becoming the monster, you fear in others. for example, feminism believes in a conspiracy by powerful men to create a system that disempowers and holds women back. The kernel of truth in this argument is that society is built off of life itself and the nature of evolution which is inherently a competitive endeavor. Instead of concluding that this endless obsession with competition is unhealthy and taken too far in our society, feminist have embraced the competitive nature and masculine traits to the point where they have integrated into the fabric of the masculine or competitive society. The ultimate feminist victory is not the destruction of the overly competitive company, it is rising to the top of the company and shattering some glass ceiling. In this way you are not changing the system or criticizing its flaws you are just transferring the power and position of these perceived elites to yourself and your group.

[@prboddington]

This is a really insightful analysis and it's also really refreshing to see some constructive critique of Peterson from somebody who wishes to be fair to him and sees his good points. I have often felt that there are multiple occasions when Peterson seems to provoke his opponents, and your analysis in terms of the shadow makes sense of this. For example he's often criticised for being anti-women or whatever e.g. in his appeal to young men (which is a bit daft in my opinion because surely women have a strong interest in having decent well-adjusted men in the world); but on the other hand over and over he seems to provoke feminists or attack women in ways that stray off the mark, often, I suspect, by paying unwarranted attention to the kind of psychological data that he's most at ease with. For instance in his recent video with Dr Julie Ponesse about the Canada situation, he made the interesting and important point that politics over the pandemic was being led by opinion surveys, noting how these are not an accurate representation of what people think; he cited a survey finding that those most likely to support the lockdowns are women over 55; discussed this response in terms of females more likely to be motivated by compassion; and ended the video by saying 'so Grandmas, calm down' as if it's Grandmothers who are the prime group to blame for the catastrophes of the pandemic, which quite frankly comes across as amazingly patronising and personally made me want to punch him (even though I generally like his work and think he's a basically decent bloke). What he missed out is that he seems to have totally forgotten that he said earlier that survey responses are inaccurate, and seems to have omitted to blame the prime culprit, the politicians who are basing policy on them. Moreover, there are other questions to ask, such as, isn't it odd to single out women over 55 since they have lower levels of oestrogen and of oxytocin so are likely to be less driven by knee-jerk compassion? Something has gone wrong with this but he so often fails to probe and leaves great doors open for people to attack him as being anti-woman. He has left me with the impression that he somehow likes having fights with women. LOL. (Could be wrong of course!)

[@artpoet9915]

If anything, and you're included in this, those who accuse Peterson of being antiwoman are projecting their shadow upon the man. Is there some kind of unconscious checklist that he must complete in your head for you to consider him pro woman? Must you see him clean a lady's foot? Or how about him say "women are the bestest"? What kind of arbitrary and petty example do you expect? This kind of thinking is what is behind "anti-racism". This pernicious idea that one has fallen by the original sin of racism and must spend every waking second making up for this by devaluing themselves as an individual. Peterson has done nothing to suggest he is a misogynist. He has said nothing nor acted in a manner that would suggest him to be "anti-women". By virtue of him being a male, low IQ sexists may believe him to be anti female but that is only due to a horrid generalization of sexist thought (namely that men are against women). The man has a wife and daughter as well. He is a father and husband. So no, he's not anti-women.

[@prboddington]

@@artpoet9915 So, you didn't read my post. You didn't understand it one tiny, tiny bit. Thank you for confirming my ideas. I don't think he's anti women. I think he says things which, possibly unconsciously, provoke people into thinking he is.

[@guydude4124]

​@@artpoet9915 Hey look a JP fan. It is obvious you worship the man because you committed every sin JP does in that comment. You have done everything JP does wrong in an argument in the above statement. It baffles me on why JP fans word things the way they do without understanding what they are saying. Maybe its because you don't expect anyone to have actually listened to him or watched his talks? Its like a cult.

[@artpoet9915]

@@prboddington I read what you posted and responded to it. I understand what you are saying and may have unnecessary included you in the grouping of those who believe him a misogynist. If you remove yourself from what I've written (ie, remove you ego) you will see that we agree. I have taken your idea of them unconsciously picking up on things and called it a projection. There are an infinite and arbitrary amount of variables people subconsciously compute to derive an identity for another. Those who think him to be a feminist must have a different operational definition of feminism than those who think of him as misogynist.

[@artpoet9915]

@@guydude4124 Yeah? And what did I do wrong? Oh arbiter of intelligence. Oh petty ant wandering through the grass of knowledge. Let's see your pitiful interpretation of Jordan Peterson. Let's watch your shadow come to life as you describe a man that only exists in the abysmal depths of your shallow mind. I don't write like anyone. You write like a barely lucid ape with dyskinesia. Let us hear one final roar from your insignificant and trembling lips and then you can go back to your cave of illusions and waste away like you deserve

[@rme36]

If I get your argument right, then the main theme seems to be that Peterson's depiction of Foucault and Derrida does not match the way they would describe themselves. But, I wonder, why would you foreground someone's self-description rather than focus on what the actual consequences of their actions was? The postmodernist branch of philosophy paved the way for what has, in recent years, come to be known as all kinds of variations of Critical Theories and "Grievance Studies". Those are, without a doubt, heavily Marxist in their thinking (and in their activist goals). However, and I wanna be clear that this, of course, is not to say that people should be characterized by what other people made of their ideas. The best example for this might be Nietzsche who was by no means a Nazi fanatic but was employed as one of their intellectual pillars by keeping those ideas of his that were expedient, and omitting those that would have torpedoed their whole ideology. So, sure, Foucault and Derrida might not be the marxist conspirators that Peterson portrays them as. Nonetheless, the fruits of their philosophy, in the form of outright marxist Critical Theories, does have the (often explicitly stated) goal of undermining Western values that emerged from hundreds of centuries of philosophical, religious and scientific endeavors, the most foundational of which: freedom, equality, and the idea of the sovereign individual. Instead, in their view, freedom should be subject to the ideological cause so that individual liberty doesn't thwart the ideological mission; equality is supposed to be replaced by equity which is supposed to ensure that the right people get what they deserve - for better and worse - of course, who is the "right" person and what they "deserve" is defined by the ideology and their functionaries; and the individual ought to be subject to the group. If all of this doesn't ring a bell, I don't know what will. Peterson might be wrong in depicting this development as some sort of plot and attributing to it a will when it actually is "just" a dynamic process of its own accord. But in any case, i.e. whether this ideological phenomenon is instructed or not, the consequences are the same: We stand before a precipice that we have encountered multiple times before. And we can either recognize that, and decide to turn around and look for another way, or we can ride straight into yet another large-scale catastrophy.

[@fredwelf8650]

Justice has been an historical issue since the beginning. For JP to exclaim that justice is a fault of marxism is ridiculous. Are you trying to say that Derrida and Foucault are marxist functionaries? The key problems today and in the 20th are over humanism and the subject. Both of these topics involve the problems of injustice, inequality, and ideology. The focus on one ideology, marxism, masks the other ideologies like fascism and neoliberalism. But, in no way has JP enlightened us on what is ideology, or on injustice. In one take, we can understand the injustice of the Gulag, do we likewise gasp at the incarceration system in the US? The Grievance Studies affair is nonsense and has nothing to do with Critical Theory. The latter is a sustained cultural criticism which ultimately points to the problem of murder regardless whether it occurs in households, on public streets or during tactical operations in combat. Not to understand the thrust of Critical Theory - a sustained critique against the right and its injustices, is naive.

[@m.talley1660]

You have done a great service by adding the Jungian framing for the problem that has become JP. Thank you. Rebel Wisdom called him something like a gangster and shut down the channel. Some More News @SMN did 3 hours of tragicomedy and end by just recommending he get help. You and Mr Verveke are more pragmatic and by having empathy show the willingness to help. Life is complex and the crowds out there are chaotic.

[@matthewkopp2391]

This is the best critique. I study Jung all my life. And when I went to graduate school I was confronted by a lot of post-modern haters of both Jung and Freud. Who refute all Universals all a priori ideas. This refutation is in fact in Foucault. But Foucault is not an enemy of Jung. In fact his friend Deleuze who was inspired by Jung himself compared ideas he gleaned from Jung to Foucault. Following Deleuze’s lead I did the same. It is much more fruitful to find common ground than ti be a reactionary. I also IMO have a very different criticism of the origin of left social movements and their real origins. The most influential are often unconscious Christianity and liberalism.

[@TheLasTBreHoN]

Can you live in the light without having a shadow? I'd love to ask this the JP. It would be awesome to see what he would think of this video criticism ☺

[@OneConsciousnessWithAaron]

Great question. Like really great. I’m a mystic and I maintain that I’m no more holy than anyone else. I also maintain that there’s no such thing as being in this world and not having an ego, it is simply laid aside unused by me, or integrate accepted and thus is “transcended” in a sense. The champion for God that JP is going for is his shadow. God is God JP, he doesn’t need a champion, why do you think you do?

[@kevinsherman5018]

I deeply appreciate this analysis. The shadow is not only a constructive what of framing it, but it also allows a level of compassionate and thoughtful discourse between thinkers we have some commonality. At the risk of being adversarial myself, I find Peterson to be self contradictory. Espousing personal liberty while in the next breath denying the humanity of my transgender friends. Gratitude while also espousing selfishness and arrogance. He does it with a style that is disarming and seems well intentioned, and perhaps that's exactly what it is. However, I can't help but detect sophistry. For example; Having a house in "perfect order" sounds a whole lot like a way to shut down anyone who has flaws, and this is what I personally fear the most. It is a form of Ad Hominem argument disguised so well it makes such Sophistry look reasonable. Much of what he says sounds good. Stand up straight. Treat yourself like you are someone you are responsible for helping. These are all good ideas, and there is certainly value to be found. The problem is where he takes it. As you point out, straw man arguments that paint well intentioned feminists as demons. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but my fear is that sophistry inevitably leads to the death of truth. Once truth dies, the unthinkable becomes possible. Perhaps this is my shadow :)

[@peronomuchannel]

"Having a house in "perfect order" sounds a whole lot like a way to shut down anyone who has flaws". Does it? Really? Well, you're surely entitled to your take, but it seems really poor to me. When he talks about order, he is much more into the scientifical points it has, such as the importance of having an organized outside space to help you organize yourself in the inside. Also, the "clean your room" thing also brings the aspect that completing a task, for as small as it might be, helps get you in the track of completing more stuff, as your brain gets rewards for completing any small task. And calling that a form of "Ad Hominem argument" is just plain wrong, not even a matter of interpretation. You just went all over the place. Btw, your common use of the word "sophistry" is really badly educated due to the readings that we make nowadays of the sophists. You might wanna have a look into that, perhaps. Cheers!

[@kevinsherman5018]

@@peronomuchannel please reply with the definitions of Ad Hominem and Sophistry. I suspect neither mean what you think they mean.

[@peronomuchannel]

@@kevinsherman5018 Sophistry, in the common sense, might be understood as the art of saying what is false in a deceivable way that it might sound as truth. That is, because sophists, were called specially by Plato and interpreted by the tradition for a very long time as people that weren't philosophers because they had no commitment to the "truth" in a platonic sense of the truth. That is considered, nowadays, a very bad and shallow interpretation of a big number of thinkers of that time. As said before, you can call it as you want, surely. But as other things you pointed out, to me, it just seems very uneducated.

[@kevinsherman5018]

@@peronomuchannel hmmm, the guy with the philosophy degree seems uneducated. Not to say that one must have a degree to have expertise, but claiming that one with a degree is uneducated is a hard position to hold. Oddly enough, your line of thinking is both sophist and Ad hominem. Instead of identifying the flaw in the argument, you claim I'm uneducated and inherently flawed. Jordan Peterson's exact line. Ironic indeed. Sophists are indeed more interested in winning the argument than getting to the truth. That was the meaning a century ago and will be centuries from now. There is no "new" sense of the word. Sophists win by attacks such as the Ad Hominem argument. Ad Hominem is to base your argument on the other person as opposed to the content of their argument. In short, you can't be right because you are Of X, Y or Z attributes. Until you can substantiate your commentary with a specific and measurable flaw in either the soundness or validity of my concerns, consider yourself refuted.

[@peronomuchannel]

@@kevinsherman5018 You totally refuted me!!!! Thank you for your kind greatness and for taking your time for lecturing me! I Your dog is also really cute. You are kind, magnanimous and incredibly educated and smart. Have a great life, my friend! Wish you the best!

[@BenKingOfMonkeys]

The title made me hesitate to click ( for reasons you might understand), but by the end of the intro I was hooked

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Haha glad you gave it a chance Ben thanks for watching it!

[@justinludeman8424]

Thanks for this. I admire JP save for his recent penchant for Judeo-Christian allegorical come Jungian fusion. This analysis gave me food for thought and I'll take it with me as I continue to delve deeper into French philosophy gathered under the umbrella of postmodernism, saliently, Foucault and Derrida, among others. I agree with you. JP can come across as conspiratorial at times, yet ultimately, as you concede - he is open to criticism and change. I'd be keen to listen to your analyses of the pseudo-philosopher Judith Butler by the way. She is all manner of incoherent and certainly responsible, for her part, along with Paolo Freire for the dissemination and popularisation, even institutionalisation of what I and others (James Lindsay, Helen Joyce, et al) consider to be very dangerous educational and social deconstructions and reforms. New subscriber. Brilliant analysis and I look forward to more..

[@ivanjaksic2892]

While he may be wrong in coupling french philosophers with marxism, he is right about post modern ideas and marxism influencing the todays mainstream of culture. Good video overall, its good to be able to criticise people we agree with, and ive always felt an unnerving feeling in a minority of jordans claims, never was able to put my finger on it exactly but this may be it, reason probably being my admiration for the man for all he has done and opened up for me.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Agreed Ivan. Whole lot of love for the man and while there's some truth in what he says it's important to disentagle it from a Shadow dance that seems to be going on in the culture and doesn't serve to make the situation clearer or solvable. At least that would be my take

[@matthewkopp2391]

There is definitely an academic post-modernist hegemony in the humanities. But it is not Marxist in the classical sense. And I would argue hardly at all. At best people use the Pomo rhetoric in a sophist fashion to give credibility to rather mundane arguments. And as this video says Foucault was anti-Marxist. In fact Foucault should be categorized with Max Sterner and Nietzsche in his intentions of radical individualism. In this way Foucault is actually more aligned with the right, and to such a degree he actually taught neoliberal economic theory, as he was against repressive state institutionalism. He was also anti-identity politics. He was gay and criticized the gay movement as conformist so therefore not a real liberation politics. The right could in fact take Foucault’s ideas and direct quotes to attack identity politics if they wanted to. That’s why I find all of this rather silly. As far as the real new interest in Marx it is happening mostly outside of universities and colleges. I did not read a single sentence of Marx until after graduate school. And Marx was mentioned once pejoratively. So this is a weird Strawman. The reason why there is interest in Marx is he provided a coherent criticism of capitalism and the majority of the population actually experiences the contradictions. But all of this is happening outside of academia. And although there some ML’s most of what is talked about is cooperative work which is also discussed by John Stuart Mill.

[@villevanttinen908]

Why love person who teaches how everyone else should live their lives, like they know. I think Petersons shadow is a priest, a moralist, like Carl Jung, Peterson teaches virtues.

[@Jaunyus]

Thank you for keeping me balanced. Peace

[@Rimas.Kirslys]

Even though I agree with JBP deeply, I can say this is a well done critique. Even though some of his arguments were a little straw-manned and not carried out fully enough to convey the essence of his points (to my understanding), they were still kept in tact to a decent enough extent in order to take your thoughts and responses seriously. One thing that rubbed me the wrong way is that you start off with the statement about JBP's Jungian shadow rather than building up to it. However, it's apparent you mean well in your exploration of various ideas and you tackle them with near-appropriate caution. The slight recklessness at certain spots don't discredit your insights, though. Thanks for giving a massive JBP fan an additional leg to stand on, if I ever lean on the need to do so.