What Jordan Peterson Gets WRONG About Nietzsche

[@TheMachiavellians]

Check out this video is you are interested to know why Nietzsche considered Christianity to be nihilistic: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qXWqlaqcr7h2j9k Also check out our video about how to create your own values in the Nietzschean way: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZvElpd7qbWjb9k

[@Stroheim333]

Ridiculous video. Everything you don't agree with, isn't a "misunderstanding."

[@anna_w]

Are you saying that people can create their own values? No, people cannot do that. Same way, you cannot create your own math. You can only discover it. To simplify it, let's put it this way. Peterson thinks you cannot create your own values. Peterson thinks that Nietzsche philosophy claims you can create your own values - so Nietzsche is wrong. 7:40 - “Nietzsche did not believe you could just consciously create your own values as you wish” - so he is in line with Peterson here. Although the words 'just', 'as you wish' are ... well, foggy. Then you are reaching out to some more complex and sophisticated ideas. I think that YOU do not understand Nietzsche. At the end, Peterson identified it correctly. Nietzsche thought it is possible to create your own values. With these kinds of philosophy, concentration camps in Germany were created…

[@Stroheim333]

@@anna_w Good comment! The hypocrisy around Nietzsche amazes me. It is totally obvious why the Nazis loved him; his philosophy _is_ fascist at its core, but you can hardly find one single philosopher in academia who tells you that. Instead, they all pretend that the Nazis "misunderstood" him... It is a complete lie, and no serious philosopher should behave like that. Instead, they should clarify that N. had many interesting thoughts and insights, _but that his CONCLUSIONS were wrong and even dangerous._

[@James-ll3jb]

@@anna_w Lol. Actually you can create your own values. I've been doing it for years!

[@silverback7348]

A well edited video, but as soon you hit on “his psychology is complicated” it was “Here we go again with this line of German idealists and their made up languages of scientistic gnosticism of what Christianity needs to be to fit their new sublimating, subjugating, and obfuscating philosophy of superiority.” JBP’s hero-worship of Nietzsche, Carl Yung, and to a lesser extent Freud due to prideful, Luciferian intellectualism creates a fascinating blind spot, which fascinates me because he often warns against the very thing that captures him in this case.

[@maxpower4215]

A video on Nietzschean psychology? YES PLEASE!

[@saimbhat6243]

Nietzschean psychology!? Freudian psychology!? Jungian psychology!? Lacanian psychology!? i.e. opinions of some people about the intrinsic reasons/causes for "unconscious" motivations and behavior of homosapiens. Can humans have any more hubris? LOL And isn't nietzschean psychology in itself ironical. How did nietzsche get to the "truths" of human psyche? By his personal experience? Then aren't they just opinions, and thus contingent on place, time and people?

[@maxpower4215]

​@@saimbhat6243 I think humans have an intrinsic desire to understand the nature of things, including our own nature. And obviously most our actions are driven by unconscious forces that are yet unknown to us. People like Nietzsche, Freud, Jung and Lacan have spent a lot of time exploring themselves and the psyche of other people to come up with explanations for these unconscious mechanisms that determine our behavior, but of course they are just theories that can be viewed as mere opionions since they can't be proven definitely like a math problem. They do however try to be as independent from time, place, ethnicity etc., like Jung for example, who analysed archetypal symbolisms from various completely independent cultures and over many millenia to come up with his ideas. And you can tell from Nietzsches writings that his extremely abstract ideas are based on a wide knowledge of cultural, albeit predominantly western, stories as well. However, Nietzsche himself critizes the validity of objective truth, particularly in philosophy (read beyond good and evil) and encourages his readers to form his own opinions/truths. One shouldn't try to see their ideas as facts but rather attempts at understanding the human psyche that can aid us in better understanding ourselves.

[@charlesdesobry9446]

@@saimbhat6243Nietzsche offers an interpretation of human action, and he even recognizes this in the preface of BGE. Nietzsche does believe it is absurd to begin with a claim about the human psyche and move toward a theory of action, this is why Nietzsche values genealogical study, and the tracing of ideas

[@NoMoreWhat-Ifs]

​@@saimbhat6243there's never been a psychologist that claimed to have erudite knowledge on the inner workings of the psyche. Most of these relevant psycholocal models are simply metaphysical theorizations on why humans are the way they are. The pursuit of knowledge and understanding isn't hubris, it's humility.

[@RictusHolloweye]

Peterson says we cannot create our own values, and presumably he means that we must therefore consult religion for our values... but what about the people who created that religion? They created those values he espouses. Humans have always created their own values and they can be seen slowly changing and evolving over time with each generation trying (often succeeding, sometimes not) to improve on the values they inherited.

[@y0landa543]

i couldn’t agree more, and seriously wonder how peterson manages to delude himself from that fact? i mean, if you reject the premise that religion and it’s values are man-made, then do you believe that “god” murmured them in some random scholars ear who decided to assign any authority to them just because he felt like it?!

[@Dan-ud8hz]

“As mortals, we're ruled by conditions, not by ourselves.” ― Bodhidharma

[@OGTelos]

The people who founded these religions and the ones beforehand did not “create” values. The correct way to look at it would be that they “discovered” them. Before I continue, I want to preface that I do not understand the complexity or metaphysical underpinnings that undergird such a sophisticated issue (as I am still learning) to the degree where I can say these things with absolute certainty, but I can address your contention. The people who played a hand in forming religions did so by OBSERVING patterns of behavior that seemed to increase fecundity while simultaneously benefiting the polity. A marker for measurement would be the movement up one or multiple social heirarchies. Once we evolved enough from a cognitive perspective, we were able to abstract the meaning and benefits of these behaviors and interpret them through stories. The biology comes first. Society plays a role in shaping these values but the process is bottom-up first. The top-down effects play a role as well but afterwards. That’s why in my estimation these values are “discovered”. By abstraction we can see the effects of these values. You can try and create your own values and maybe one can subjectively, but since we live amongst one another the values of the collective are indicitive of something much more profound.

[@RictusHolloweye]

@@OGTelos - Timeless values against things like murder and theft would have been pre-existing when religion was first invented, but there's a lot of rules in scripture that seem very arbitrary. Almost as if they were edicts from a heavily autistic person. Like not wearing clothing comprised of different types of cloth, certain words being forbidden, calling for gay people to be murdered, etc. A lot of modern values are fairly recent inventions and often seem to have a more logical reasoning behind them, such as settling on a minimum wage for employees or banning torture even during times of war.

[@OGTelos]

@@RictusHolloweye I agree with you to some degree, especially in terms of how deep and far back the rejection of murder and theft go. And though you are correct in pointing out some of the more extreme things that were in these religious treatices, there are very salient and crucial values that have been articulated within these stories. I would air on the side of caution when criticizing these stories and some of the details within them because you do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. The same logic goes for The Enlightment thinkers. We take some of what they say as valuable and relatable while some other claims we discard. It doesn’t mean we don’t acknowledge or even implement some of their ideas. See, I’m not trying to nitpick or be pedantic when I do this, but when you say there are a lot of modern values that have been fairly recent INVENTIONS, I would object to that claim. The logic that is utilized to MODIFY these values are done within a larger and non-logical framework. Values cannot be extracted from rationality. For example, the minimum wage is an instrument that exists within a realm of law. Laws are not rational constructs. At the base of all of our laws is a foundation of morality and ethics. Unless you think morality and ethics are fairly recent or able to be modified, then what you’re saying is a critique from a surface-level perspective and I say that with the upmost respect. I do not want to come across as disrespectful. But there are deeper drives and mechanisms at work than mere rationality.

[@Villainilla]

JP was my gateway drug into philosophy, psychology, and theology. Sadly, he overstepped too often with many of his takes and I moved on. It's strange seeing JP misinterpret the man who inspired his favorite psycho analyst, perhaps willingly... Disappointment tastes very bitter.

[@TheMachiavellians]

I know what you mean. Peterson also got me into philosophy and psychology. I read his first book Maps of Meaning and enjoyed it. It was only after I started to read the authors he talks about that I started to see problems. Especially Nietzsche.

[@Villainilla]

@@TheMachiavellians For me the tipping point was his debate with Zizek. I didn't understand Zizek at the time either but I was so disappointed with how he was treated on stage. It went against the standard I thought Peterson held himself and others to. Years later I am fascinated by Zizek and fell even deeper in love with philosophy and psychoanalysis.

[@michaeldoerksen2841]

​@@Villainilla See I understood Zizek and found him out almost the exact same time as I found out Peterson, well before they "debated" eachother. What got me about Peterson was his absolute infantile understanding of Marxism. And for a while, before that "debate" I thought that he really needed to be tuned up in his lack of understanding of Marxism. Enter Zizek. After that "debate" I couldn't be bothered with anymore Perterson, and now I just find him atrocious, out of touch and being intellectually hijacked by that extremist YT channel he works for now. A sad decline IMO

[@emmanuel8310]

It's interesting how everyone now knows more about psycho-analysis, psychology and philosophy more than Jordan Peterson even though he's formally trained in it, and he actually got most of them into reading about it.

[@tyscam]

​@@emmanuel8310It's because he left academia long ago and became a full time grifter.

[@tetrahydroscope]

He knows full well what N wrote, but he has to obfuscate it for the benefit of his mass audience.

[@nj7556]

I agree. He's been studying existential philosophy way too long to not "get it".

[@00MSG]

I bet you haven't studied either Nietzsche nor Peterson to such a degree to be able to make such a broad statement.

[@tetrahydroscope]

@@00MSG good thing I have a scholar like you around to correct me.

[@00MSG]

@@tetrahydroscope Nope, I'm not gonna teach you about Nietzsche because I don't know enough, but I know something about humility.

[@tetrahydroscope]

@@00MSG I've been through The Gay Science a couple times, it's clear that he was hopeful about the death of God. You, Peterson and I are all sufficiently capable in our reading comprehension to recognize that. This single aspect of N should be one of the least contentious issues amongst his readers and interpreters.

[@johnnysalter7072]

I have never heard Peterson say anything indicating he knows much about Nietzsche. But Peterson holds himself out as an expert on everything. I believe he knows better.

[@riotbreaker3506]

He does know better, but he's found his niche, and it makes him rich.

[@corneliahanimann2173]

@@riotbreaker3506 also made him a drug addict. Poor guy

[@johnnysalter7072]

@@corneliahanimann2173 Poor hell,

[@corneliahanimann2173]

@@johnnysalter7072 it is unfortunately too common among the famous

[@johnnysalter7072]

@@riotbreaker3506 He's pressed up against evil.

[@00MSG]

When I read Nietzsche in high school a lot of it resonated with me and a lot of it I saw as true. I however always struggled to see the practicality in his thought and tried to imagine how a Nietzschean world would actually look like but I never found a real answer. There is a lot of criticism of value systems in his writings but no matter how hard I tried I never could imagine that people could actually live by Nietzsche, or that society would actually work. It seems to me Nietzsche was in a certain way a child of his times in that he was born in the high noon of European civilization, and the stability, practicality and success of the values of his society he failed to recognize, and instead he focused on the negative aspects of it. Also I think Nietzsche failed to think humans as societal creatures, the aspect of our relational existence is almost completely missing from his thought.

[@BlackMantisRed]

I think the first step towards a Nietzschean world is to recognise the great intelligence so many people around us have, people who have spent there life studying a specific thing and then giving them a degree more power to influence how there aria of expertise should be carried out. This would inspire the youth to work hard so that they too have a ability to fix problems they see in their communities.

[@andrewmiller4885]

I'm not an academic, I have never read any of Nietzsche's works. However, I have heard enough about him from people who have studied him and from documentaries , and books I have read about him. I cannot help but feel that Nietzsche was a very hurt and disillusioned man. Losing his father at just 4 years of age to a terrible illness and seeing him suffer so, must have been devastating to such a young child. I guess like all of us we question how a loving and caring creator could permit these horrors, especially we ask, to God fearing committed Christians as Nietzsche's father was. WE do not understand how the wicked can appear to flourish while the good can often suffer untold torments of body and spirit. It's easy to turn on God during times of enormous trials and challenges. I don't know, maybe "life is a burning building" as Tennessee Willams said. However, does all that mean that "God is Dead" Is it feasible to conclude we live in a Godless Universe?..... because that's pretty much what Nietzsche concluded. Nietzsche's father was a Lutheran minister, I can't help but wonder how well his son Friedrich Nietzsche himself knew his Bible. The Bible does after all state we live in a fallen world. The consequence of rebellion against God. The subject is deep and way over my head and I suspect it's a very important subject. I wish I was better educated, but anyway that's just my pennies worth. I must finish by saying that although Nietzsche ended up in a mental institution quite mad, among some of his final words before dying, .... were passages from scripture. I would like to think his faith had returned to him. Rest in peace Mr Friedrich Nietzsche, you had an amazingly brilliant and questioning mind. However, the eradication of a Creator leaves mankind in a most unholy and serious dilemma. It leaves us with a crisis of meaning in this life. Thank you for this video.

[@Tehz1359]

Well you're first mistake is trying to imagine a Nietzschean world. That will never exist, nor did Nietzsche want it to exist. Because he didn't operate in that way. 90% of Nietzschean thought is purely descriptive. Granted, he interjects a lot of his own personal feelings into his work, but he wouldn't want you to get hung up on that.

[@aryaalessia4492]

Dude was on cocaine, opium and amphetamines most of the last couple of decades of his life 😂 it’s no wonder there is a disconnect. One get’s very much Personality Disordered traits from those things. If taking nasal cocaine, that numbs the prefrontal cortex, so high risk taking, impulsivity with very little filter applied. But different when drinking it thou.

[@aryaalessia4492]

@@andrewmiller4885 very few have done or have been in the haze of cocaine, opium and amfetamines. Only then one can really understand why there is such a dark raw disconnect but at the same time so much truth. When being a junkie of that calibre, there is much one does not take into account. He was brilliant, but the chemicals tainted all his work and perceptions. Ofc, the longer time he had been on things, the worse it got.

[@spencerbuck1074]

I respect Jordan quite a lot, I owe him everything that has come from my life changing as a result of hearing his message. As someone also deeply interested in Nietzsche as I feel he is speaking straight to me it frustrates me that on this one point Jordan seems to steer completely clear of what I think he knows Nietzsche was really trying to say.

[@igorszopinski1822]

You are right. Peterson cannot create his own values. He is part of the herd and cannot think outside the herd mentality. Christianity is used to Pacify the herd. So of course as Peterson says it’s the best model for the herd. Except Nietzsche is not writing to the herd. Nietzsche is writing to the individuals, the free thinkers and to the elected leaders of the herd that they should not restrain or limit themselves by herd mentality or values. That is why Nietzsche calls for isolation of the individual and for them to wear masks when walking among the herd. Of course isolation does not mean for ever. It breaks open the graves but that is a different story all together.

[@James-ll3jb]

Peterson also said Nietzsche predicted the rise of authoritarian socialism in writings c. 1850. Nietzsche's first book was published in 1871.

[@destruction1928]

do you have the clip of him saying it?

[@James-ll3jb]

@@destruction1928 It's either in the Zizek debate or his early lecture against postmodernism.

[@destruction1928]

​@@James-ll3jb Anyway, I perceive contradictions in his speech, a great deal of coping, and I discern his intentions; he may prevail in debates, but he cannot triumph in reality. What he desires will prove futile. Similarly, Nietzsche's entire philosophy seems a coping mechanism; he regards himself as superior to the masses yet fails in fundamental human endeavors such as reproduction. He falls short of his own concept of the Übermensch, unable even to effectively engage in warfare. He was a notably weak individual, by his own standards.

[@James-ll3jb]

@@destruction1928 . Everything you've penned here is irrelevant, in essentia. Do you know why?

[@James-ll3jb]

@@destruction1928 You perceive contradictions? "The falseness of a belief is not for us any objection to it: it is here, perhaps, that our new language sounds most strangely. The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps species-rearing, and we are fundamentally inclined to maintain that the falsest opinions (to which the synthetic judgments a priori belong), are the most indispensable to us, that without a recognition of logical fictions, without a comparison of reality with the purely IMAGINED world of the absolute and immutable, without a constant counterfeiting of the world by means of numbers, man could not live - that the renunciation of false opinions would be a renunciation of life, a negation of life....TO RECOGNISE UNTRUTH AS A CONDITION OF LIFE; that is certainly to impugn the traditional ideas of value in a dangerous manner, and a philosophy which ventures to do so, has thereby alone placed itself beyond good and evil." (Nietzsche, "Beyond Good & Evil" #4)

[@domari9459]

Jordan Peterson is a closet believer. A good portion of his comments about religion and philosophy are a result of his closeted religious beliefs.

[@tarhunta2111]

Peterson is the type of Christian worm Nietszche would have loathed with a passion.

[@Mnnwer]

Really? Peterson and Nietzsche has the same philosophy.

[@pillmuncher67]

@@Mnnwer Have you even watched the video?

[@Mnnwer]

@@pillmuncher67 Yes.

[@supernovaversion3.05]

@@Mnnwer he is a tradcon(i am 100% sure). I doubt his thoughts are same as nitzche. BTW he always talks about traditional responsibility of men(and never talks man's authority)and ignores responsibility of other half.

[@supernovaversion3.05]

@@Mnnwer I never seen a tradcon who have similar philosophy as nitzche . Because tradcon are almost like Christian.

[@bgiv2010]

"This has nothing to do with the 'Woke Types' and Jordan Peterson knows this." That gives him way too much credit especially considering how bad he is at handling the simple concept of identity. Even two-year-olds know how to do this intuitively. He understands neither Nietzsche nor modern culture and I'd argue that these deficits are related.

[@realCharAznable]

Beyond Good and Evil is explicitly damning of the entire mode of behaviour that underpins 'woke types', as well as Christianity, feminism, modern academia and philosophy, and many other things. Nietzsche had a bullet for everyone. Let's not be Peterson and try to fit things into our own preconceptions by omitting inconvenient truths.

[@djimiwreybigsby5263]

Yeah, and the post modern Marxists

[@alexzanderschwieger9938]

I believe that we should have more thinkers and philosophers like nietzsche. His beliefs are so very valid

[@alexzanderschwieger9938]

@Dugi forgive my lack of punctuality, I just got the notification. I failed to state that I also think people should have other beliefs. For example, I get the impression that you are either spiritual or religious, I reject religion, do note that by my saying I reject religion doesn't mean I think it's for feeble minded or stupid people. I don't think it's bad at all. To put it bluntly, you have your beliefs, I have mine and I have no intention on forcing them upon others and I hope for others to extend me the same courtesy. Auf wiedersehen

[@JimmyJamesJimbo]

@Dugi I’m with you. Even the guy who wrote this comment (like Nietzsche) is unfamiliar with what Carl, you, and I already know about the metaphysical world. Give him and “them” time. Nietzsche is a great starting point to self realization and self actualization; Carl would agree. But Carl also exceeded Nietzsche’s teachings. He was a student of him but if they were both alive today Carl would be Nietzsche’s teacher. Or, put another way, Carl would be Fredrick’s Zarathustra

[@lebenstraum666]

Absolutely right, but as Nietzsche was not a scientist it is important to read up the views of his most intelligent advocate Georges Sorel, who was a French engineer turned philosopher.

[@hipsabad]

not true@@JimmyJamesJimbo

[@hipsabad]

as do we all...@MrLjubisa75

[@Ashish-ff7lv]

You have earned a subscriber, mate.

[@JoBlakeLisbon]

Peterson is one of the most overrated thinkers out there - perhaps the most overrated. It's self-evident that man can create his own values - even from a Christian perspective - how else does he think the bible came into existence. What was Jesus if not somebody who recreated and reimagined Jewish tradition. Beyond Christianity, literally every community on earth has its own set of values. Families have their own set of values even. There may be constraints that apply to us, but the variation in value systems is monumental when you look across earth.

[@Hackmeister-TV]

Thanks for the Video. It is important that someone clarifies these misconceptions spread by Peterson. As for identity politics, I think it is some kind of onset of nihilism, not an Übermensch gone rouge.

[@kenkaplan3654]

I swear, every time I hear Peterson speak it is a fountain of blather and gobbledygook. The man cannot string two coherent sentences together.

[@martinhagard7401]

Absolutely fascinating! Even though I admire some of Peterson's thinking, you did an excellent job of outlining Nietzsche's philosophy. Please, do more videos on his psychological view of man

[@TheMachiavellians]

Thanks Martin! I have some more in the works.

[@devinbradshaw9756]

Couldn’t agree more

[@fancypants90210]

In a world where you're pretty much encouraged not to think. About anything. I appreciate, so much, videos like these.

[@anthonycarnley2202]

I"ve got a degree in Philosophy and I think Peterson has misunderstood all philosophy.

[@samiam3297]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 - solid! 🙂👍

[@Dan-ud8hz]

🎯

[@mikebrisebois]

Lol Your a fool

[@dutchhondarebel]

Odd comment, we can't read the minds nor feelings of many great philosophers, only attempt to interpret what they've written. What makes your interpretation of certain works the truth vs that of others?

[@tyscam]

​@@dutchhondarebel😂

[@abdallahanwar4324]

he said nietzsche adores judeo christians values , and nietzsche have a whole book called anti-christ , the thing is Petrson deliberately mis-interpret his words

[@villevanttinen908]

Peterson doesn' t understand constructional side of Nietzsche: life is about making , not setting ideals above your head, in another words , praising the virtues.

[@decmurray1096]

Behavioural and Cognitive therapies, of which I believe JP is familiar with, as both practitioner and patient (client), are predicated on personal choice (autonomy) and the resolution of ambivalence in accordance with self determined values (congruence). These are the most effective and evidence based methods being applied by addiction practitioners in most developed countries today. I think Peterson is dishonest, not ignorant.

[@gary.richardson]

"People cannot change who they are because there is no metaphysical will that can direct the project of character development" That is unless the metaphysical will is the embodiment of the underlying physics of our existence. In this metaphysical scenario, the will defined for us to put to the test by learning what the Bible teaches, does direct our character development based on the faith of relevance, and the work out in. Refuting this point of view is limited because no two works for through the exact same struggle.

[@Dan-ud8hz]

“As mortals, we're ruled by conditions, not by ourselves.” ― Bodhidharma

[@HeroicIdeal]

YES. It's like Peterson never even read Nietzsche I think it is possible that Peterson, despite being extremely intelligent, is unable to comprehend Nietzsche I've encountered this several times. It's not intellectual capacity but values/worldview which keeps people from understanding, even with some of his most simple/explicit ideas It's like if you told the Christian story to a Bronze Age Greek. They simply wouldn't get it. Neech is so foreign (to some people) that it's almost like he's speaking another language

[@topheftyr533]

When someone has different values/world views, it’s called “they disagree” with you.

[@HeroicIdeal]

@@topheftyr533 Opinions are different World views and values are almost always unconscious. They are a result of both cultural context and inherent character If you tried to explain the modern conception of the universe to a hunter gatherer, they wouldn't understand because it's completely foreign to their understanding of reality... not because they have a different opinion Similarly, when I try to explain the exhilarating feeling of engaging in physical combat and sports to my mother, she doesn't get it at all, because it's completely foreign to her character and biology. It has nothing to do with opinion If someone does not have the proper soil to resceive a certain worldview, the ideas will bounce off of them-like throwing seeds at a slab of stone

[@topheftyr533]

@@HeroicIdeal I am currently with someone who is from China. As I am from America, our "worldviews" could not be more dichotomous. My point is, she has come a long way in her thinking, as well as my own. We have both come a long way in a rather short period of time. Worldviews and values are foundational sure, but concrete? Unconscious? In people with low IQ or EQ maybe..... I think thats an oversimplification.

[@vladomiljkovic8099]

@@HeroicIdeal What makes you think you know what Nietzsche ment, it's faily possible that you misunderstood him, don't put your self to high.

[@HeroicIdeal]

@@topheftyr533 unconscious doesn't mean unchangeable by any means! probably 90% of behavior and thinking is unconscious, otherwise you wouldn't be able to function Like you’re saying, it's usually only through encountering contrasting world views or people that we become aware of our own behaviors and presuppositions And thinking realistically, most people never change their world view-and there's nothing wrong with that. It's very hard and disruptive to do so. A significant shift in values will often competlety upend someone's life

[@AndrewKieran]

JP being confidently wrong??! Well slap me sideways and call me Sheila

[@syourke3]

A very long book could be written about Jordan Peterson’s misconceptions about great thinkers.

[@enlightenedanalysis]

Thank you for this brilliant video. It’s amazing to me how Peterson can claim that we cannot create or choose our values, when he is writing books on how people can and SHOULD improve and change themselves - to become better individuals. Why would he bother writing a book called “12 Rules for Life” if it was wrong and impossible to change yourself by adopting better or higher values? It seems to me that Peterson’s disgust and fear of the “woke” and identity politics (which is what he referred to in the video) has triggered him to a very high degree. You can see he is angry at them. This explains his dogmatic and odd assertion that you cannot just change yourself because it may upset others around you (such as your wife and friends). So are we supposed to just conform to what others expect of us, lest we offend or upset them? In fact, does Jesus not preach the exact opposite when he says: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace… I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother…”. Jesus himself realised that families would be broken apart if they wanted to follow him. And that is exactly what happened since some of his disciples (e.g. Peter) left their families to follow Jesus. Then Peterson claims that the “sane” people are those who are married (to a wife presumably) and have children and friends. So if you do not have a wife, children or friends, then you are “insane”? By this definition, you can no longer be a free thinker but must stay in the company of the herd (Jesus himself was not married and without children, as far as the Bible tells us). This arbitrary division between what is the norm (the sane) and the abnormal (insane) is, as you say in the video, a personal confession. The philosopher Foucault also warns us about such claims of sanity/insanity in his book “Madness and Civilisation”. Thank you again for this great video.

[@ericknudten7272]

Peterson is a Bible Thumper now so he is pretty much interpreting things through that lens. Cant say I blame the guy after all he's been through but it is just an interpretation just like Nietzsche said. Beyond Good and Evil is a book that has pretty much shaped a good part of my world view after 50 years of being on the planet and watching human behavior. The idea of the Last Man pretty much describes modern day America as does his concept of Master/Slave morality when it comes to modern day progressivism.. Thanks for the video!

[@aryaalessia4492]

Peterson basically does what Jung said. Not take the Bible literary but symbolically. He is rather more of a Jung Thumper.

[@auguste573]

@@aryaalessia4492 Agreed but hes lost the balance and seems to he putting more and more eggs in his bible basket. Edit: It was a phase, his recent videos seem more out of touch and opposite biblical teachings.

[@E23Dav]

He has an interest in philology. Like Nietzsche. The Bible is literature.

[@igorszopinski1822]

Peterson is so wrong. Peterson is herd mentality. Nietzsche states: My philosophy aims at a new order of rank: not at an individualistic morality. The spirit of the herd should rule within the herd - but not beyond it: the leaders of the herd require a fundamental different valuation for their actions, as do also the independent ones or beast of prey, etc. - Will to power par 287

[@goodtothinkwith]

Again really excellent. You’re doing good work here - very useful! I love the interspersed quotes. You’ve mined some great material

[@gerarddearie-zd2gb]

It reminds me of when Bertrand Russell said that despite being an atheist, he is basically a Christian because the entirety of European metaphysics and morals had been Christian for a millennia and half before his birth.

[@veerswami7175]

His christain background is hanging around his neck is describe by nietsecze called guilt

[@TheMachiavellians]

Peterson is at his best when he moderates his religious opinions. I have respect for the guy its just that his Christian fatalism is very alienating sometimes.

[@devinbradshaw9756]

Nietzsche, I believe, would call that Bad Conscience. Jordan Peterson seems to want to teach us how to live within society, become domesticated. Nietzsche would throw society to the rocks. How will the future play out?

[@veerswami7175]

@@devinbradshaw9756 where nietzsche said throw society to the rocks plz go read again he praise knighthood and romantic lov3 etc

[@vladomiljkovic8099]

What is your point, Nietzsch's fateher was pastor, he was brought by Cristanity, so was Jung. So does it mean that all of thes taughts should be descarted?

[@vladomiljkovic8099]

@@devinbradshaw9756 I think JP trys to egnolage calture, and to encorporate normal individual in it.

[@robluxford204]

nihilism is an uncomfortable state of mind that we all have to deal with at sometime

[@mini_worx]

Peterson is actually wrong in a lot of his points. Unfortunately a lot of teenage boys are listening to him and in 5-10 years we'll suffer the consequences.

[@billyscenic5610]

Peterson is just in the long line of reactionaries prepping the ground for new fascism.

[@tigerlilysoma588]

Peterson really does suck. There is a video by Wes Cecil that easily deconstructs his views on the holocaust that are quite weird.

[@jeremygreen2883]

I'm glad to meet a fellow Peterson critic. He's a shill and grifter.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Wes Cecil is a good sounding board & solid thinker. 👍

[@mrmegabuckssongs]

I like Peterson but what gets me is when people, including friends think he has perfect knowledge and understanding of anything he speaks about

[@DeePeeZee]

All of his followers think he's perfect. He also thinks he's entitled to decide for others how they live. I honestly can't stand this guy. And it doesn't help that he sounds like Kermit the frog so whenever I hear him speak I get mad cause he's giving Kermit a bad name. He's really not that smart. All of it is just projection.

[@daseinz]

He's his own worst enemy and losing the battle in terms of any greater value outside the bubble of his followers.

[@S3b0rg]

What gets me is when people including friends think he has knowledge and understanding of the things he speaks about authoritatively

[@JosephFuckinStalin]

Ew. What do you like about him though?

[@jeremygreen2883]

As a fellow psychology educator, I think Peterson is a total hack. He knows little about what he talks about, he waters down overly complex philosophical and psychological ideas to the point which they are nearly unintelligible to make them palatable for his conservative Christian audience. He also does sloppy science and hackneyed research. The guy is a fossil who puts faith in the theories of Freud and Jung, which very few modern psychologists would use as a vehicle for exploring anything in the psychology field. He has embraced his celebrity that he's gained through being the scholar of the alt-right and has put aside any sort of unbiased, true exploration of the human mind through true science to simply be a shill for the Republican party.

[@michaelsiegfried3878]

Great analysis man, good work!

[@anthonydavinci7985]

Excellent information and alternate meaning when level of examination is proper. I'm Glad I came across your thinking .

[@allenandrews2380]

" Only when shot at, do princes once again sit firmly on their thrones" Nietchze 😊

[@Cantbuyathrill]

I have a degree in Bullshitology, so I know BS when I hear it.

[@sen74diehard]

So you’re attacking J. Peterson because he consistently misinterprets Nietzche but are on the same side. Nietzche is really difficult to understand and that’s evident to me even more so after this. Great information on this video. Keep it coming!

[@Galvvy]

"We thought of life by analogy with a journey, a pilgrimage, which had a serious purpose at the end, and the thing was to get to that end, success or whatever it is, maybe heaven after you’re dead. But we missed the point the whole way along. It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing or to dance while the music was being played." - Alan Watts I feel for the people who don't hear the music until they're on their deathbed.

[@maggieadams8600]

If Christianity teaches that nature is corrupt, why does Jesus talk about the birds of the air, the growth of wheat, nature generally when teaching? Why do they sing, "All things bright and beautiful the Lord God made them all."

[@TheMachiavellians]

That implies an inconsistency on the part of Christians not Nietzsche. There are just as many passages where the world is considered evil in the bible. It goes all the way back to Genesis after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. The Christians use anything they can to venerate God but when something is considered evil then it has nothing to do with him. The resurrection of the body and redemption of the world is meant to cleanse them of evil which in the final analysis means nature. Only after they have been purified are they considered good enough. This implies that nature needs to be negated in order to achieve a desirable state. "Life comes to an end where the "Kingdom of God" begins." - Nietzsche

[@Cantbuyathrill]

Peterson says Nietzsche was wrong. The balls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@OnAnotherLeve1]

Great video. Nietzsche is my favorite philosopher as of now but I don’t think that’ll change.

[@idigamstudios7463]

Mengzi is also a good one to look at. While I think the two have significant differences Mengzi also believed that the 'seeds of goodness' exist in everyone and could be cultivated.

[@ericlegge2884]

The ancient Greeks made Socrates kill himself because his method of finding truth was to use dialectics - questioning everything. The Greeks saw that as decadence because they insisted that the instincts built up over the ages provide all of the answers. To go against those instincts by questioning them was the way to corruption of the instincts and consequently leads to the downfall of the culture.

[@polystrophicmusic]

One detail I believe you got wrong. My understanding is that Freud read Nietzsche only late in life. It is true he believed N was on a similar track and was glad he read him later because it would have clouded over his own ideas if read earlier. My source for this is Walter Kaufmann's Discovery of the Mind: Nietzsche, Heideggar and Buber. Otherwise, excellent stuff. As an aside, I'm deeply skeptical of Jung from the same source, Freud, Jung and Adler.

[@MultiStu08]

Anyone who recommends Stephen Hicks has to be looked at with some cynicism; theirs diverse and contentious interpretations and then theirs that. Peterson went down in my estimation when it became evident that his whole edifice constituted hijacking Nietzsche and conflating that with a reductive view of postmodernism in order to attack movements he dislikes (not necessarily left).

[@ericthomas6726]

I think Peterson misconstruing Nietzsche's despair about the death of God. It seems like Nietzsche's fear was just the lack of objective meaning while Peterson probably interprets it in a left-hand path sorta way.

[@brianjanson3498]

When I first heard Peterson talk about Nietzsche, I knew he was a closet Christian even before he did. His interpretation of Nietzsche was terribly flawed.

[@dominiknewfolder2196]

Idea of human mind as city came actually from Plato who explain in "Republic" what is justice by using exactly this metaphor. Some of drives are should be tested and selected to rule over others but every one of a "citizens" have his role. I remember because I was amazed by this explanation how to create justice inside you by selecting right parts of your mind to rule over others. 🙂

[@Soh-Crates]

Carl Jung had 1600 pages worth of thoughts on Nietzshe. JP essentially parrots Jung. So, your criticism of JP is basically criticism of Jung.

[@heronimousbrapson863]

Peterson is a product of his upbringing in small town Alberta, the most right wing part of the most right wing province in Canada (his brief flirtation with left wing ideas in his youth notwithstanding).

[@TheMachiavellians]

Yes that's right. His flirtation with socialism can be explained by his personality, which is also why he was a clinical psychologist. Peterson is a radical conservative. He even admitted it in on the podcast "Rebel Wisdom". He's not really a traditional conservative though. I think the term post-modern conservative is more fitting.

[@tyscam]

Well he's from Northern Alberta which is not as conservative as Southern Alberta. He also grew up at a time and in a particular region where farmer socialism was quite in vogue. As a fellow nerd who grew up in a town very near his, I do indeed find him to be heavily influenced by his upbringing but not in an intellectual way. More like how his insecurities are constructed. Like he even married his high school sweetheart for christ's sakes, the dude is stuck in time. I break out in laughter almost every time I listen to him.

[@tyscam]

​@@TheMachiavellians'Radical conservative' 😂. It's just how Albertans talk after we've spent too much time in Toronto.

[@christopherellis2663]

17:42 i have never confused myself with God, or anything else. A conversation: we speak into the Void, but it does not reply. With what do we speak? Peterson needs more time on carnivore before his thinking is cleared of the effects of phytotoxins.

[@demonicavenger6987]

Hi, peterson fan here. Do you know what watching this video and countless other jordan peterson videos had taught me? Is that i need to read nietzsche

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Good: because the internet & podcast world seems to be full of what people say of others. Using any bodies second hand account is NEVER a good thing, period.

[@Ozscaro]

Sounds like your room need some cleaning...

[@LLPOF]

So many errors regarding Christianity.

[@groopledouche101]

To say he's against creating values is wrong he states we should essentially audit them and treat them hierarchally unless I'm misunderstanding you. It'd be helpful if you had citations in text in your videos even though that'd be a lot of work.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Which - or whose - hierarchy though?

[@TheRealValus]

Much Madness is divinest Sense - To a discerning Eye - Much Sense - the starkest Madness - ’Tis the Majority In this, as all, prevail - Assent - and you are sane - Demur - you’re straightway dangerous - And handled with a Chain - ~ Emily Dickinson

[@lebenstraum666]

JP blind here because he is a monotheist, preaching that there is only one normal human type.

[@davidbryden7904]

I don't even have to watch to know he has it twisted! Lol

[@pillmuncher67]

Is "he" Peterson or the guy who made the video?

[@villevanttinen908]

It's ironic how Peterson praises Nietzsche while opposing postmodernism at the same time, cause Nietzsche is the grandfather of postmodernism. Jung is better for Peterson, both praising virtues.

[@nj7556]

Great video. I had a feeling Peterson "didn't go all the way" in his analysis of Nietzsche. I suspect because his (Nietzsche's) message is anti-christian and Peterson seems to have a lot of Christian sympathisers and fans. Perhaps he doesn't want to alienate people too much in some sense. I don't think he missed the point but just twists it/ ignores it altogether.

[@TheMachiavellians]

Most people tend to go where the algorithms lead. Peterson has been drifting towards the political right more lately. He's even got his own show on The Dailywire. What I admired about Peterson was he was trying to pull people away from politics. But now he has officially joined the culture war. It's disappointing to watch but I also think he feels he has been driven to it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4XOaKh7hJiEebM

[@nj7556]

@@TheMachiavellians You're right. It's unfortunate. And wow I had no idea about the show....let me check the link. Talk about a 180. Oh and also I really appreciate your content. Big fan. Keep up the spectacular work.

[@nj7556]

@Mark Smith I see. Its a pity because he is such an insightful psychologist/philosopher. I wish he could go back to the psychological-biblical lectures and finish up exodus as he said he would. That- to me- was his greatest period of work online.

[@Bane1995]

@@TheMachiavellians He joined the Daily Wire to have more hands on deck because hes been doing it all with just his family for a long time. now he can more effectively organize events. I'm excited to see what he does with his new position. Only time will tell.

[@prayunceasingly2029]

Also the statement "everyone is a child of God" is probably not accurate according to the Christian faith. Because it's possible to reject God and turn away to other "gods", including the god of self idolatry. So while we're all made in God's image with intrinsic value, we're not all equal in God’s kingdom. In the kingdom of God everyone is therefore not actually equal to everyone else. God doesn't judge partially but he will judge us all differently according to what we have done. And our reward/punishment will be different for everyone. There's individuality in the faith too. No two believers are identical. But they are united. There's individualism AND collectivism harmoniously coexisting in the Christian faith. It's not just collective. And it's not supposed to be forced (like it was under catholicism at times).

[@SeamusPendragon]

The Judeo-Christian establishment has been the death of the individual

[@flexwashington638]

Even ppl who have established themselves as a person of higher thinking, they still discard what they dont understand or dont want it to be understood by others. Not saying Peterson is the latter.

[@TheMachiavellians]

That's very true. It happens with the greatest philosophers in history. Nietzsche is no exception. My intention was not to make Peterson seem dishonest in any way. I just think he is a little too committed to his beliefs. It may also be that he doesn't know how to contend with Nietzsche's insights on Christianity.

[@emmanuel8310]

Perhaps the author of this video is doing the same... perhaps you are, perhaps I am. And it all comes down to... what is true??

[@MsPiinkFllamingo]

Yes, more vids on Nietzsche!

[@manfredkandlbinder3752]

Nitzsche, Freud and Jung are to psychology what the alchemists where to modern chemistry. Yeah, they had to be there, they also used some of the tools still used today. Unfortunately, however, they had the wrong theories and wrong methodologies to actually accomplish anything of lasting value. None of their ideas are of any real value in modern psychology or psychotherapy. So reading and studying them in order to understand myself is like studying the works of Dschābir ibn Hayyān to understand the chemistry behind protein synthesis in the cell or photosynthesis, a fruitless endeavour that more often then not leads you astray instead of on the right path.

[@TheMachiavellians]

Couldn't disagree more. Many of Nietzsche's ideas have held up well in recent discoveries of experimental psychology. For example his claim that morality is a sign language of the affects. People with diseases or specific brain injuries give different answers to moral problems than do emotionally normal subjects. Nietzsche was well read in the psychological literature of his time and modern psychology is an outgrowth of that. Its more than just a historical interest that psychology courses still talk about the work of pioneers like Pavlov, Ribot, Janet, Hippolyte Taine who are known today as some of the founders of empirical psychology. Freud, Jung and Nietzsche were inspired by these pioneers of early empirical psychology. History represents the development of knowledge and you can't fully understand current discoveries without placing them in the context of the past. There's a reason we still teach history today. We can't even understand the present without knowledge of the past.

[@manfredkandlbinder3752]

@@TheMachiavellians The reason why he is not relevant is his methodology for the main part. He is applying the tools of philosophy in a realm that emancipated itself already. Psychology is a science that obeys the laws of the scientific method. None of his "insights" offer an experiment to falsify them. All kinds of people are inspired by credible pioneers in the field, that does not lend them or make them inherit any credibility from them. You just have to always keep in mind, none of the things that keep Nietzsche, Jung and Freud relevant today are by any standard scientific. Which is also reflected in psychological practice. No psychiatrist, psychologist or trained therapeut would ever consider or include parts or even single ideas in their diagnosis or treatment. No researcher would base a hypothesis or an experiment on their texts. Many people have said things in the past, without any real training, that were validated by modern research. You will find lots of that in buddhism or other world religions. Guys like Schopenhauer were spot on with their recommendations how to handle sorrow and suffering. Still they are philosophers and philosophy and they can only guide you so far. Start with them, by all means, if you cannot start otherwise to begin your journey to understand yourself and your place in the world, but take them with a grain of salt and don't stop there.

[@TheMachiavellians]

@@manfredkandlbinder3752 I can't agree with the idea that philosophy is irrelevant to science. Because something cannot be proven with the scientific method does not mean it does not exist. Emotion cannot be quantified by the scientific method and yet no one doubts its existence. It can only be studied through its expression as affects, but that doesn't give real insight. Psychology will always have the issue that psychic phenomena cannot be directly observed and therefore a purely empirical explanation will always be superficial. Psychology has gotten a lot of criticism for not being a "hard science" because it lacks empirical insight like, for example, chemistry. However that doesn't make the mind any less real. What this shows is that the scientific method is deficient in explaining phenomena that don't appear in the material world. The divorce of philosophy from science was not progress but a great loss. Philosophy has always informed scientific discoveries. Science gives us facts within a very narrow domain but when these are generalized out this is the realm of philosophy. Every scientist engages in philosophy whether they know it or not. Science doesn't provide an explanation for phenomena, that's what philosophy is for. I don't know if you are aware of the work of Dr. Iain McGilchrist or not but he has made a good case for why philosophy should have never been divorced from science. Science and philosophy are both at their best when working together. Darwinian evolution is a great example of when it's done right. It's also worth mentioning that the scientific method itself is a result of long philosophical debates. When you consider both Nietzsche's and Schopenhauer's view that our true essence is an embodied will, i.e., our physical body and its physiology rather than an immaterial soul, then they are very relevant within current scientific discoveries. Btw thank you for watching the video and keeping the disagreement civil. There's not a lot of that these days. Much respect!

[@LostSoulAscension]

Not here as a Peterson advocate, but to point out in the first few minutes the major misunderstanding and proper due diligence on the claims made about Christianity, such as "Goodness is based on grace has made goodness impossible." The bible shows that goodness is possible through Christ, and that Christ's death on the cross, and by simply believing in Christ, you are saved. Your Faith makes you whole, and imbues you with the Holy Spirit, which is the grace and love of God that can then transform you. So, to say Christianity embodies "The depreciation of life for the sake of a higher purpose and meaning," and referring this to the whole of metaphysics and platonism as being in the same regard is honestly not accurate and reveals your lack of understanding in Christian beliefs. I'm just trying to put those things out there, I can find the verses that express these concepts too! Just tryna share because I think that's a big mistake to make by placing such broad and bold strokes across these schools of thought without really understanding them fully or their depth and how that applies to this very idea of calling them truly Nihilistic, which is arguably a contradiction. A large part of what is being said about Christianity without really knowing what the bible says is an error one must avoid to make. If Nietzsche truly said this about Christianity, then I would say Nietzsche does not understand Christianity fully. What is so debatable about what you said too is, based on the question, "Does having a higher purpose, higher aim, or higher meaning in life depreciate the life that is pursuing it, or depreciating those around the one pursuing that?" I would also like to see more proof on what you refer to Nihilism not being meaningless? Because to the very core of it, even Nietzche searches for a solution for Nihilism, but leaves it up to the individual, and that is, in my understanding, why Nietzche's philosophy is basically the seeds of Existentialism.

[@LostSoulAscension]

And to be candid about it, I could definitely try to understand Nihilism and Nietzche better too! But, I think it's just important to point out important things about Christianity that most people really just don't understand because they don't know the verses and don't read the bible enough to properly assess for themselves the parts where we can fairly debate these ideas rather than say, Christianity is nihilistic, which in my opinion, if it truly was, it would not be around today, but that is an inquiry unfortunately I know is not most convenient for us to have in the comments section. But, if I could share, a lot of the New Testament is really the reason for Christianity, without Christ's death, there is no redemption and no way for the world to be saved because it was impossible for any one to fulfill all the laws of God and be perfect, but Jesus serves as the impetus for the ideals of Christianity to be fulfilled, so I would just say that Goodness is not made impossible in Christianity. It's in fact that goodness is made entirely possible because of Christianity. That is generally what most well read modern Christians believe.

[@Angelorke]

This is a very protestant and even puritan-evangelical understanding of the bible, not necessary THE interpretation of the bible and theology...

[@LostSoulAscension]

@@Angelorke It's not an interpretation. If you wanna good summary, just read the book of Romans.

[@Rk-gh4to]

i mean jordan peterson maybe wrong. so glad to see that we have 167 ubermenchs in comment section.

[@rasmokey4]

Is God mans mistake, or is Man Gods mistake?

[@musselchee9560]

I really dig this channel. Thought provocateur, like your name('s) suggest.

[@perishellas7228]

This video is both well-written and persuasive. Congratulation.

[@saintlybeginnings]

13:40 - perhaps that is what Nietzsche believed about Christianity, but it is a false understanding. Christianity teaches that we were all created by God and have God’s divine spark of life, and therefore, have intrinsic value; but we also have free will, and we chose to live in sin (against God & our rightly ordered nature) or chose to live in harmony w/ God. We can also chose to be lazy, jealous, vengeful, merciful, etc.. and because each of us makes our own choices, our behaviors are not equal.

[@ameer9672]

Great content,continue 🔥

[@TheCommonS3Nse]

I always find it perplexing how Jordan Peterson can disparage the “woke left” for trying to impose their personal identities on the world, while at the same time preaching that you can impose your own personal identity onto the world. It’s like he’s looking into a fun house mirror and talking about the wacky and distorted person he sees reflected back at him. From what I understand, and I believe Nietzsche’s writings support this, our personal identities are determined by those around us, not by us. All we can do is act in the world, and it is up to others to decide what our personal identity is. If that is the case, then both Peterson and the “woke left” are making the same mistake. They are trying to impose whatever they want their personal identity to be onto society. It’s obvious in the woke case because they’re literally trying to change terminology. It’s a little less obvious in Peterson’s case because of his linguistic flourishes, but it is obvious when you look at the advice that he’s giving. Everything is about fixing yourself. Clean your room, stand up straight, surround yourself with people who support you. There is nothing about acting in ways that take into account the desires and expectations of those around you. There are no rules like “support those around you”, “hold the door open for strangers” or “volunteer in your community”. It is all about changing who you think you are, and expecting others to recognize and accept that change. I think that leads people down a rabbit hole where they think they should be viewed as a valuable member of society because they are taking responsibility for themselves, but because they are only taking responsibility for themselves and not for the society they live in they are viewed as self interested and self absorbed. The disconnect between how they want to be seen and how they are actually seen creates a profound crisis of personality, which manifests as anger and resentment. There is a lot of value in taking responsibility for yourself, but that shouldn’t be confused with meeting your obligations to society. Both the woke left and Peterson completely ignore this distinction.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Your fun-house mirror comment is accurate!

[@alexandre1690]

How does all this fit in to the Birth of Tragedy? That's the only Nietzsche book I'm well versed in and the roots of the idea of the death of God is quite present in his view that the rational, truth-seeking "theoretical man" (Socrates) disrupted the Apollo-Dionysus balance sustained by the Classical Greek view of the world. I've always felt that, despite Peterson's persistence on supporting judeo-christian values, it seems that it's the greco-roman influence that turned the West into what it is. After all, the Renaissance was brought about by a rebirth of Classical ideals, thoughts and philosophy. Maybe I'm missing something though.

[@TheMachiavellians]

@alexandre1690 I don't think you are missing anything. The Birth of Tragedy was actually a criticism of Christianity in Nietzsche own words. His break with Wagner was because he gave himself over to Christian sentiments in his Parsifal. Nietzsche viewed the Greek heroes as his antichrist because the hero is guided by masculine instincts as opposed to the effeminate ones of Jesus. The Birth of Tragedy is Nietzsche's first attempt at a revaluation of values. Peterson has latched onto the Nietzschean idea that all western values are based on the Judeo-Christian God. This is true but there is some important context. The Greco-Roman values of wisdom, justice, liberty etc. existed independently of the Judeo-Christian god. The figure of God appropriated these values; they have come to be seen as inseparable from God because of Christianity's victory. They need to be disentangled from Christian theology and this is why Nietzsche returned to the Greco-Roman world. You are right, the Greco-Roman world is what made the west great. Judeo-Christian values have been a slow but effective corruption of classical culture. It was a group of monks that put an end to the Renaissance.

[@AmandaHugandKiss411]

Here is my take on Mr. Jordan Peterson: He doesn't understand himself and I would go as far as saying he has a deep loathing of himself. He's education towards achieving his Physiology degree, his time as a professor and his ever changing role on social media; has been him thinking outloud , trying desperately to seek and reaffirm his ideas are correct but brings him no inner insight to fill his feelings of inadequacy and self loathing. He even will argue outloud about conflicting ideas, he cannot reconcile, while desperately trying to outloud prove he is correct over and over again. He is unable, unwilling to even truly look with true honesty that he has this deeply imbedded sense of dread and inadequacy that he's so frustrated that he, no matter how much he analyzes, searching endlessly for philosophical rationale, he continues to speak endlessly outloud as he tries to figure it out, while simultaneously not actively hearing himself let alone others. He just doesn't see it in himself, what he needs to admit to and it scares him to death, the amount of personal, authentic work that is required as well as cannot accept that ,even if he was to do these things....the realistic amount of change that he would achieve in the process. It will not cure his anxiety, nor his self loathing and frustration and anger, that he is who he is, and will always be Jordan. But he fails to realize that, that isn't the actual goal, for such a life journey....it is the smaller moments of inner peace and calm in between the state of being in which it means to be Jordan (the person, Not the celebrity which also doesn't feel that he is deserving and is frustrated by his inadequacy and self loathing of not being heard. He uses the fact that he's misunderstood as a lie he tries privately in vain, that he is just too smart for anyone to understand him, but deep down he inherently knows that's a lie and he is a fraud). That's my opinion and observation of Jordan Peterson. Sadly, I think he will die a broken man who on his death bed will whisper, but I did everything right, I WAS right and Nobody Heard Me....not realizing that it was He whom He Didn't Hear......

[@RegularSean]

Amazingly everyone knows Nietzsche better than anyone else. Tiresome.

[@sistafila]

I guess two people read a text. Each us allowed to interpret and understand it differently. You have brought forth yours, he has brought forth his. The reason why he is well known is that, he carries a message that makes people better.

[@wanshitong5101]

Well, you can be well known and false. I don’t think that plays a role in it at all. But besides, I do agree. He’s made some people better. Just at the cost of making other people worse.

[@onewithall6946]

Nietzsche was a madman; he was an Animal-Human. His ideas are based on confusing Ancient Greek ideas of God and existence. Nietzsche went mad because of the ideas in his mind. People who follow Nieztzsche's ideas will also be in a dark place when life challenges them.

[@Prandopa]

Great explanation. I wanna learn more about Nietzsche’s philosophy. However, being more into Platonism/Neoplatonism I don’t wanna spend a lot of time on Nietzsche but I see it as an intellectual obligation to learn the point of view that is opposed to the philosophy I follow. So if I could read only one of his books which one would you recommend for me to get the most complete view of his philosophy especially his views regarding nihilism and values?

[@TheMachiavellians]

@Tony-yw2fn That is a difficult question to answer. Nietzsche's ideas are sparsed out over his entire philosophical corpus. To get Nietzsche you have to read everything. There are some places to start however. Nietzsche's book "The Gay Science" is the only book where you can get the most comprehensive view of his philosophy. Personally this is my favorite of his books. If you want a comprehensive analysis of the Nietzschean concept of nihilism I would recommend Gilles Deleuze's "Nietzsche & Philosophy". Here's a link to "The Gay Science" if you are interested. a.co/d/d5K10C4

[@Prandopa]

@@TheMachiavellians Thanks man. I’m definitely gonna get The Gay Science. Your videos have been helpful too

[@Killerbee_McTitties]

@@Prandopa "The genealogy of morals" is also a great read, here nietzsche lays out his own moral framework and substantiates if with an "origin story" of (western) ethics in general. Also the channel "Weltgeist" has some great Nietzsche content here on youtube and does a fairly good job at presenting his philosphy.

[@youssefsmith382]

I like neoplatonism as well

[@youssefsmith382]

​@@TheMachiavellianscould you do a video on neoplatonism, this definitely had great influence on Christianity and compare nietzsche with plato please 🙏🙏

[@nicholaslalvani3395]

It is a brilliant video spoiled a little by the narrator’s use of the phrase ‘What Neitzsche The Ubermench has nothing in common with Woke Types’ - I think a typology of the Woke Agenda has not quite yet been written in seriousness but if traits might include calling out ideological dogma and bigotry, bring free to experiment with one’s identity, sexuality and ethics then actually Nietzsche’s Ubermench would likely have more traits or dives in common with these ‘types’ then those who self-identify as anti-woke. By fighting for racial and gender justice we are not being vengeful nor seeking a mythical equality of outcome and purpose rather we are expressing our right to fight against the historically-mediated suppression of our drive to build our values and actualise our own. Also in the end the oppressor can spend so much time I pressing that they end up oppressing themselves

[@Tehz1359]

As if this is all woke ideology is doing. It may be the case that this is what you want wok ideology to be. But wokeness as an ideology is slave morality par excellence. You say you aren't vengeful or resentful, but this doesn't bear out in reality. "but if traits might include calling out ideological dogma and bigotry, bring free to experiment with one’s identity, sexuality and ethics" This statement is incredibly ideologically loaded on it's own. Its laughable that you think you are somehow opposed to ideological dogmas, when all of these things you talk about, have become the new religion, the new manifestation of slave morality. Which Nietzsche predicted. I think "woke" types, are more akin to the Last Man in reality then the ubermensch. Because woke ideology justifies itself by tying to mitigate suffering in the world, and righting historical perceived "wrongs", destroying "oppression". This is impossible to reconcile with Nietzsche. He may have hated Christianity, but that doesn't mean he would support any of this. I would also argue you are a lot more "Christian" then you think, in a certain sense at least. Especially with how Nietzsche himself describes Christianity.

[@nicholaslalvani3395]

@@Tehz1359 thanks for the detailed reply. I did however beg the question since Peterson, and now you, have used the phrase 'woke types' then that deserves an explication please. What typology is this? A typology of groups wasn't fully finished by Neitzsche. Also with respect to a Slave Morality, late Neitzsche, if I'm not mistaken defines the morality by what it is trying to do as much as who or what it is born from. In this regard the question can be asked what powers does 'wokeness' put to its use and for a drive to what?

[@nicholaslalvani3395]

@@Tehz1359 also thanks for pointing out how vengeful I am. Good to know the CIA still got tabs on me!

[@astaroxslibrary2518]

@@nicholaslalvani3395 The "woke" are the herd asserting equality and pity as virtues which are anti-life.

[@wanshitong5101]

@@Tehz1359I think Nietzsche was woefully mistaken in condemning the Last Man as a bad thing… when the Last Man really channels a lot of early Nietzsche and Schopenhauer in a very healthy manner. What is really so bad about the Last Man? But besides that, really, it’s not that he’s defending ALL woke ideology, but like Nietzsche, he has nuance. There is, in all ideologies, good and bad. As Nietzsche describes, we must look beyond good and evil, and towards the utility of good and bad for the individual.

[@Anon1gh3]

6% of people disliked this video.

[@QuixEnd]

I'm extremely critical of Christianity, but I always get so confused by others interpretations of it. The bible was all I studied for years so to see it in such an unrecognizable light is a bit surprising. I agree with this in a philosophical or analytical way, but in practice Christianity simply never looks or sounds like this at all. It's all highly dependant on what you focus on most, ie the sin or the grace, the fall or the rise of humanity etc.

[@TheMachiavellians]

@quixoticend1847 Nietzsche's argument is fundamentally that Christianity caused a physiological degeneration in human beings because of its opposition to instinctive activity. It is a movement that is heading towards a passivity of all instinctive striving. Christianity was so successful because the soil was ripe for it. Nietzsche says no one is "converted" to Christianity "you have to be sick enough for it". People were already exhausted with activity, with willing. Christianity's promise of a "beyond," or "salvation," are seen as a redemption from the instinctive activity that life requires. Part of this weariness with life involved moving all value into a "beyond" or another world separate from life, nature and history. The real world was reduced to mere appearance. God as the highest value was outside of this world, an external principle guiding the world. What this means is that if you stop believing in God then existence loses its value because the value of existence was posited by things that existed outside of it. The Christian feels that he accords life and the world the highest value but actually he has completely robbed it of its value. The world is only valuable as long as 'his' values are true. Every Christian will tell you that there is no meaning without God. Christians are right only if you except Christian values. This is why Nietzsche calls Christianity nihilistic. "If one shifts the center of gravity of life out of life into the 'Beyond'-into nothingness-one has deprived life as such of its center of gravity". - Antichrist, 43

[@Steve-yn3cs]

@@TheMachiavellians This is exactly why Christianity is dangerous and somewhat justifies the status quo. Because, even if there's something that could be done here, it isn't exactly done with full intent if done(reward-seeking) or not done at all by appealing to Nihilism. But speaking of this, is it exactly logical to say Christianity is Nihilistic, given that there's still something to hold on to: The afterlife? Isn't Nihilism devoid of hope and everything in between? I'm just asking.

[@TheMachiavellians]

@@Steve-yn3cs Nietzsche describes nihilism in two different stages. The first stage is "negative nihilism" (Judeo-Christianity) followed by the second stage "reactive nihilism". Negative nihilism is the practice of emptying the world of meaning and value and anchoring it in an abstract concept like god. The devaluation of the real world in place of a fiction leads to the second reactive stage. Christianity placed ultimate significance on truth which was its ultimate undoing. Once these higher values devalued themselves the world appears to be meaningless because all value and meaning has been appropriated by the conception of God. Reactive nihilism is the stage that devalues higher values. One common feature of both nihilists and Christians is that they both denounce the world in the absence of transcendent values. Every Christian you talk to will insist that the world is meaningless without god. This is because they have made it so. Positing values superior to life leads to the devaluing of the real world. I made a video specifically about this which might be helpful. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qXWqlaqcr7h2j9k

[@Steve-yn3cs]

@@TheMachiavellians Thank you. I'd get back to you when I watch it. Again, I have another question. This is concerning why Nietzcshe hated Schopenhauer and his version of Nihilism: Nihilism as Despair. From what I recall, Nietzcshe acknowledges that Nihilism is necessary for the deconstruction of values, but isn't necessarily advisable to remain there and give in to despair. Something that I think inspired him to write about the Ubermensh. What classifications are Nihilism as Despair under?

[@TheMachiavellians]

​@@Steve-yn3cs The way to think of the different forms of nihilism is not in essence but degree. Nietzsche sees everything existing on a continuum. The difference is in the degree of manifestation not essence. Broadly speaking, in Nietzsche's view, nihilism is the practice of denying life and depreciating existence. This takes many forms, like the Judeo-Christian which posits values superior to life which he refers to as a "will to nothingness". There's the more colloquial form which just denies the existence of higher values altogether. The Schopenhauerian form (which is also the Buddhistic form) advocates a negation of the will because the will is seen as the source of all evil and suffering so its better not to will at all. This is harmful to life for obvious reasons. Passive nihilism is when someone just accepts the senselessness of existence and fades away passively; they usually just become hedonistic. The danger of Schopenhauer's emancipation from the will is that you remain stuck in the passive state of nihilism. Nietzsche doesn't disagree with Schopenhauer's claim that the will is the source of suffering. But Nietzsche also knew that suffering isn't the problem, only the senselessness of suffering. He believed that the will also provides the solution to suffering. He flips Schopenhauer's thesis, and instead encourages the joyfulness of creativity as a way of overcoming suffering which he refers to with the term "will to power". The Ubermensch is one example of this. In Nietzsche's philosophy power is associated with happiness and activity. Not only is the will the source of suffering, but it also offers the solution to this suffering. Whatever increases the power of self determination is considered virtuous in Nietzsche. This virtue/power ethic considers anything that increases our power of acting as objectively good, thus facilitating a happiness in willing. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra he wrote, "willing is the emancipator". Nietzsche thought it was important to negate Schopenhauer in order to restore joy to willing. The will to power is anti Schopenhauer. This was a long comment but I hope it helps make sense of Nietzsche's position.

[@robert-parsifal-finch]

And you like the notion that power is the only aim. That "religion is the opium of the masses" means much more than you imagine, if you have an imagination.

[@robluxford204]

as far as values are concerned we know nothing. all is recalled

[@prayunceasingly2029]

Nietzche was an atheist. Of course he would look at Christianity wrongly and assume that the politics of Socialism is a result. But he doesn't even trust the beliefs Christians trust in. He rejected faith. For that reason I think he misinterpreted the actual faith itself. Because the denial of aspects of life, (which he calls nihilistic I think) like denying sex or food, are not done to deny life itself. The Bible says food is good and sex is also not a bad thing in it's proper context. If i remember correctly the scriptures actually command husbands and wives to help fulfill each other sexually if necessary. What the denial of these good things is for, is for a greater spiritual good, not a negation of those good things. However I think there are times in which negation can become unhealthy. Such as with celibate priests who are unable to be celibate or excessive fasting to the point of bad health results. It's the greater spiritual good nietzche was either ignorant of or just didn't care to acknowledge. Unless of course he did acknowledge that... I am not an expert on the guy

[@aaronhume5335]

Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven is among you. The catholic church hid that until 1988. The dead sea scrolls forced their hand, and now that the gospel of Mary and Judas are available, it doesn't look good for the Judeo Christian connection anymore with the historical Jesus

[@anti506]

Well everybody is different but at the same time everybody is also carrying same perspective biologically to survive and breed. So there must be universal values to keep humanity is alive to many years or humanity gonna collapse at some point.

[@carlharmeling512]

If Jordan thinks that one cannot create one’s own values then that is a sufficient error on his part to justify 86ing his entire spiel. Such an error at the foundational level condemns the edifice built upon it. It’s no surprise this is coming from a ‘famous wise man’ is the public arena of 2024.

[@ericlegge2884]

Obviously Nietzsche got it right and Jung and Jordan Peterson got it wrong.

[@y0landa543]

jordan peterson is the most accurate impersonation of my shadow (in psychoanalytical terms) i know to exist. the intellectual arrogance, sacrificing truth for (in his case religious) ideology (largely unconsciously) or telling a wholistic and all-encompassing, satisfying story, hyper-fixating on patterns that maybe aren’t the grand meta-truth you think it is but just a silly little coincidence, stuff like that, which i despise ever so more because i know i am also prone to falling for it

[@emmanuel8310]

Alright. Next

[@kangmyungjae]

I really empathize with your pov. But what is the alternative?

[@ammocandoit]

Why does anyone listen to Peterson?

[@sen74diehard]

Maybe because he makes sense! No one is 100% perfect and I heard in this video Neitz work is very difficult to understand so it’s a matter of interpretation on these differences of opinions . I do reserve the right to change my mind and if P. Jordan I don’t think he made a misinterpretation with any bad intentions.

[@dante1875]

I'm still quite fuzzy about the video. Can anyone summarize each point of the video and give a brief explaination?

[@lonetobefree5722]

I dont think we can create our own values. We borrow them from our ancestors and their ancestors and so on.

[@danielstrobel3832]

Where does Nitsche say socialism is christianity without good?

[@billyscenic5610]

It's pretty obvious that socialism and communism are the true inheritors of the Christian goal of heaven on Earth.

[@Tehz1359]

I think this is a simple case of Peterson seeing value in Nietzsche, and so he feels the need to reconcile Nietzsche with his own beliefs. When he really doesn't need to do that. He might as well present Nietzsche as he really was, and say he thought he was right about some things and wrong about others.