Why Jordan Peterson is Wrong About Ideology

Jordan Peterson is famously critical of ideology. He has a particular distain for Marxism, Stalinism, Nazism, Postmodernism, Feminism, in fact, any ism. Instead, he argues, that the individual is sovereign, ideology should be renounced, and that, quote, ‘If we each live properly, we will collectively flourish.’
Rule VI of Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life is 'Abandon Ideology'.
Drawing on the Russian novelist Dostoevsky, Peterson interprets ideology as ‘rigid, comprehensive, utopian’ and predicated on a few ‘apparently self-evident axioms’. An ism theorist, he argues, ‘generates a small number of explanatory principles of forces’ that can supposedly ‘explain everything: all the past, all the present, and all the future.’ An ideologue, he continues, ‘grants these small number of forces primary causal power, while ignoring others of equal or greater importance.’
The result of this is that ‘an ideologue can consider him or herself in possession of the complete truth.’ I take a look at what philosophers say ideology is, what Jordan Peterson’s ideology - a type of Juedo-Christian Mythic Conservatism - look at its limits, and finally, ask why we need ideology.
#jordanpeterson #peterson #ideology #politics #philosophy
Then & Now is FAN-FUNDED! Support me on Patreon and pledge as little as $1 per video: patreon.com/user?u=3517018
Or send me a one-off tip of any amount and help me make more videos:
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
Buy on Amazon through this link to support the channel:
amzn.to/2ykJe6L
Follow me on:
Facebook: thethenandnow
Instagram: / thethenandnow
Twitter: / lewlewwaller
Subscribe to the podcast:
podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
open.spotify.com/show/1Khac2i...
Sources
Selected writings from Reason and Responsibility, Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy, Joel Fienberg and Russ Shafer-Landau
From ‘Social Dimensions of Moral Responsibility’ ed. by. Katrina Hutchinson, Catriona MacKenzie, Marina Orshana:
‘Power, Social Inequities, and the Conversational Theory of Moral Responsibility’ by Michael McKenna
‘Moral Responsibility and the Social Dynamics of Power and Oppression’ by Catriona Mackenzie
‘The Social Constitution of Agency and Responsibility: Oppression, Politics, and Moral Ecology’ by Manuel R . Vargas
plato.stanford.edu/entries/mo...
Jordan Peterson, 12 Rules for Life
Jordan Peterson, Beyond Order
Michael Katz, The Undeserving poor: America’s enduring Confrontation with Poverty
John Gerring, Ideology: A Definitional Analysis, Political Research Quarterly
Credits:
Jordan Peterson image: Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/..., via Wikimedia Commons: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
B.F. Skinner image: Silly rabbit, CC BY 3.0, creativecommons.org/licenses/..., via Wikimedia Commons, upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
Nelson Mandela image: © copyright John Mathew Smith 2001, upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
Second Jordan Peterson image: Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/..., via Wikimedia Commons, upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...

[@ThenNow]

Script & sources at: www.thenandnow.co/2023/05/21/why-jordan-peterson-is-wrong-about-ideology/ ► Sign up for the newsletter to get concise digestible summaries: www.thenandnow.co/the-newsletter/ ► Why Support Then & Now? www.patreon.com/user/about?u=3517018

[@SimaanFreeloader]

All ideologies are bad, except my ideology, because it's natural and the objective truth.

[@TheLethalIntrospectionCrew]

Nice! Where do I sign up and side-question: can I still eat crustaceans?

[@5driedgrams]

I know that you're being ironic but natural doesn't mean good. And everyone believes that they hold the truth. The conservative ideology (the one that Peterson advocates) became a cult of leader in my country. People are embracing antivaxx propaganda to defend the president while more than ~3000 people die everyday of covid-19.

[@PapaSmurf11182nd]

I’ve definitely felt that I’ve fallen into that trap. Important to laugh at oneself

[@Wingedmagician]

I’m sure he doesn’t deny he’s at least a little ideological.

[@joewesterland5697]

Watch the video again. The guy does a vey good job at explaining exactly why Jordan Peterson thinks that religious texts are a good place to derive actionable truth from.

[@mogts]

People who think they are free of ideology are often completely ruled by an ideology.

[@elipearson8194]

But we also inevitably explain the world to ourselves, by philosophy or whatever stories, which risk the pitfalls of falling into an ideology. So ideology is a given, and therefore so is the need to get past it. Is it impossible that a way out of ideology exists? Or are we doomed to subjectivism?

[@Catlover69633]

Even living by no ideology is an ideology LOL, ah what a paradox we live by.

[@M4ruta]

How do you know this is true?

[@Wealthforthe99Percent]

Precisely 👌

[@mabaker]

just like Peterson himself.

[@MegaLuros]

Jordan Peterson: "let's not be dogmatic" - proceeds to immediatly praise standard religious dogma.

[@bakasta5992]

@@Rude1911 In my opinion, his judeo-Christian ideals are dogmatic in their own right. His bias towards the west and general distain for collectivism are all very dogmatic. Honestly, Jordan Peterson is one of the most dogmatic people I know of, dude literally wrote a book lecturing people on why his views on life are the truest and best lol. As for my motivation? I’m a woke moralist roasting an old man, because we all know who’ll cancel who 😉

[@christoph4977]

@@Rude1911 "you can't" - are you serious? Anyone can. For the bit "let's not be dogmatic" ... well maybe not in those exact words. I would have to rewatch some of his videos to give a quote. But his critisizm of ideologies includes his critzcizm of ideological dogmas pretty clearly. And regarding his religious dogmas? Just watch his talks with either Sam Harris or Ben Shapiro. If you can't spot the dogma there, you are either blind or willfully ignorant of what JP is saying. So, on the contrary. There are clear examples. Luros' motivation was probably simply to point out JP's cognitive dissonance, at least that is my motivation. What is your motivation to ignore the reality of this?

[@merbst]

@@christoph4977 I likely have more wasted more hours of mt lufe watching KZbin videos than most others have, including watching all of the videos on Jordans Peterson's 12 Rules for Life + 12 more rules created by KZbinr Cass Eris, and ley me relay that Jordan Peterson is indeed a dispicable charlatain, but he genuinely has embedded many far more toxic appeals to the very worst instincts afflicting sizable numbers of humanity in the guize of dog whistles exposing his truly miserably misanthropic internal life, but in the video I have linked, he was quite candid about the nightmares of his youth, apparently in response to the suicide his childhood comp io he experiences morivatations, which come from the suicife of his childhood companion, a native American boy ho lived a lufe of of being denied human dignity xhe go his ancestral Identity!

[@boembo6627]

Oh dear, someone insulted your daddy?

[@ztimbo]

As an atheist, I find the dismissal of ideas repugnant. If you are unable to glean wisdom from the expression of ideas, the problem is with you.

[@maplenutbutter4336]

Hit the nail on the head. It is laughable how much he (correctly) rails against the dogmatic image of thought and yet absolutely embraces it. Like any ideologue, Peterson does not see himself as having a contingent ideology, just possessing the Actual Truths

[@abishaicampbell2187]

Peterson believes the fundamental truths of living a meaningful life can be found in the archetypal lessons of stories that humans have been kept for thousands of years, “and for good reason”, as he says. However he doesn’t claim that those ideas are “actual truths”. He claims that those ideas are the best “modes of being” that we currently have for living. That’s why they are still around in the first place. Maybe there isn’t much difference between saying “the best we have” and “actual truth” but I think differentiating between the two is important. There’s still some humility in it at least. Peterson also uses the terms “ideologues” and “the ideologically possessed” interchangeably which he shouldn’t because there is a difference. Having an ideology to live by is different from being possessed by an ideology. For example, many radical Democrats and Republicans are ideologically possessed and are completely identified with their party and completely look past the faults of their political party just to justify their sense of identity and perhaps belonging. Ideology is necessary, that’s quite obvious. But there is a line that can be crossed and we’ve seen what happens when it is.

[@OjoRojo40]

@@abishaicampbell2187 I think generally there is a confusion between "ideals" and "ideology". You don't chose an ideology, it comes with the setup. You don't know it, but you do it :) Cheers!

[@jameswatkins7763]

No. An Ideologue has core ideas that are immutable. It becomes a part of their self and they are not willing to discuss them in any critical way. Peterson is not an ideologue, as he is perfectly willing and able to discuss his ideas critically, he welcomes challenges and admits when he doesn't know something or when he's wrong. When he takes a strong anti-Marxism stance for example, it's because he studied it for most of his career and understands it better than the average Latte Liberal. It's NOT because he accepted the anti-Marxism stance without proper justification.

[@tonyburton419]

@@jameswatkins7763 That assertion, that JP has studied Marxism more than most is very dubious.

[@jameswatkins7763]

@@tonyburton419 You could say that. But then you could also say what exactly JP gets wrong about it and see what happens lol

[@vandaylen]

6:38 "an ideology is a worldview, a system of belief, a map of meaning." - nice subtle inclusion of the title of Peterson's big academic publication, "maps of meaning"

[@zootsoot2006]

It's not a map of meaning, that's the point, it's a map becoming meaning. You know when someone is ideologically possessed when they get angry if you point out its flaws, since then they lose all their sense of meaning.

[@nylpurfi9896]

@@zootsoot2006 thats such a good point

[@50733Blabla1337]

@@zootsoot2006 Meh I think this "huh you got emotional so youre dogmatic and irrational" is way to le reddit. There are numerous reasons people can get emotional for example hearing for the 300x time an old talking point that was disproven ages ago. Which happens a lot in political and economical layman discourse, getting annoyed at that doesnt mean at all that you are dogmatic and "cant handle criticism".

[@howardpope3932]

Lol!!! 😆

[@W4ll_fl0w3r]

​@@50733Blabla1337maybe not.... tho as much as we wouldn't think so in those moments and many sadly wouldn't see at any point after then either ... If said frustration escapes ones control chances are they should likely revisit the topic from another perspective bc although they we maybe right we've oblivious missed something if we are unable to calming and easily debate ... Tho may also mean a need for self reflection in that we may have gotten trapped by ideology ourselves

[@internationalgolfconstruction]

I try so hard to be a rational thinker but I always end up arguing from a conclusion and criticize my peers. Lol.

[@Orion225]

You're not alone lol.

[@Pensnmusic]

It's an easy trap to fall into. Verbal arguments can be especially difficult because you probably won't think of all the evidence and reasoning that led to your current position. You'd have to explicitly practice talking about, and remembering, all of the important things you'd want to bring up if you wanted to make a logically grounded argument. Most things we do operate on feelings. It's a non intuitive process, so don't worry too much if you make mistakes.

[@ckwind1971]

MEEEEE TOOOOO

[@chiflinator]

What does rational mean? I consider beliefs are our first engine in order to create a rational framework, without beliefs we cannot develop an ideology. And why we believe? I am not sure but probably has emotional roots.

[@Maxarcc]

The fact you're self-aware about this is a good sign you can learn to get better at it.

[@Daniel-Strain]

It seems like thoughtful people have put a lot of analysis and logic into reaching conclusions - the very thing Peterson praises. And then, when they have to convey it in a direct, easy, and motivating way, have to simplify it to its conclusions. Peterson then looks at progressive ideologies 'from the outside' and sees only the simplistic and dogmatic. When he looks at his own, he sees the sausage being made, but doesn't give the same charitable possibility to others. In this, he is simultaneously blind to the foundational reasoning behind other ideologies while also blind to how his ideology can become adopted only at that simplistic, dogmatic level as well.

[@lorettagreen6794]

This is because he never reads any of the writers he critiques. He views Stephen hicks as some sort of authority on post modernism. And to prepare to debate zizek he read the communist manifesto pamphlet. He’s a Freud. He epitomizes the pseudo intellectual.

[@lorettagreen6794]

Sorry he is a fraud not a Freud lol

[@amerel-samman9929]

@@lorettagreen6794 same thing :P just kidding

[@benitolazio8193]

@@lorettagreen6794 You are the only pseudo intellectual here sweetheart.

[@user-is3yn7xr4c]

In other words, even if one have a PhD certificate, if one's keep talking with frogs, lobsters, snakes, and dragons, then one is gonna end-up being psychologically blinded in regards to one's ideological perception and immature social behavior.

[@mntnwzrd66]

"People who think they know everything are sure irritating to those of us that do." JP

[@linachao5]

Summarizing, the conservative ideology is that which doesn't address itself as ideology; that is certainly its main feature.

[@TheLethalIntrospectionCrew]

Like a good vampire fears garlic.

[@nomoresunforever3695]

Bullshit. But thanks for trying.

[@voxomnes9537]

@@nomoresunforever3695 No.

[@pgunders1973]

Ideologies are like accents--everyone has one but you.

[@elipearson8194]

Well put. Do you think we can escape ideology or are we doomed to it?

[@dionysianapollomarx]

@@elipearson8194 doomed. The moment you reach adulthood, you can't not have ideology, without relinquishing social or individual responsibility completely.

[@Gregory-ud6zq]

Oof that's good

[@burnttoast111]

@@dionysianapollomarx Ideology is like philosophy. Everyone has them, and you can't function without them. The insoluble problem is that humans don't directly experience objective reality and have direct access to objective truth. We experience reality through our subjective senses and experiences, so we need some way to try to understand and interpret the world. Also, we depend on values pretty heavily, which as Hume pointed out a very long time ago, cannot be derived from 'what is', in his famous is-ought problem. If anything, we are doomed *without* ideology. We just wouldn't be able to survive and function. EDIT: I should probably clarify I am not talking about ideology in the way Peterson defines it, but more broadly as cohesive belief systems.

[@nic9356]

Imo a proper understanding of the mythological landscape (nature/culture , great father/ divine mother tyrannical father / devouring mother the hero, the virgin, the dragon of chaos) can armor the individual to see and resist ideological possession. Granted it’s easy to fall into ideological thinking especially when emotionally vulnerable but I don’t think we are doomed to it.

[@workingproleinc.676]

_Ideologie is when you pop up with a pamplet of 23 pages from 1848 against an Hegelian/Lacanian/Marxist_

[@ivandafoe5451]

And still put an edited version of the debate on your website...to further mislead your followers.

[@michaelmcclure3383]

You mean Slobberjov Žižek?

[@raresmircea]

16:12 "emotion-laden, myth-saturated" - That’s Peterson alright!

[@frozenfenix0]

You sound salt-saturated.

[@georgekostaras]

That’s the core truth of Kermit the Fraud

[@benitolazio8193]

@@georgekostaras cry

[@benitolazio8193]

Hardly

[@Wkumar07]

This is an excellent introduction to the thinking of Jordan Peterson. Ever since his arrival on the public stage I found Peterson to be somewhat confusing. I wasn't sure why he was both so controversial and so beloved. If anything, as this video points out, he is little different from the same ideologues that he criticizes. In the end, he is just another cultural conservative saying the same things we have heard before. To rely on stories and metaphors from the past is hardly enough to build a rational, moral worldview.

[@PapaSmurf11182nd]

Why is he so controversial and so beloved? In my opinion, it is because, in no small part, to ideology that Peterson puts out

[@Wkumar07]

@@PapaSmurf11182nd It's a strange philosophy that either one loves or finds mystifying.

[@gabitheancient7664]

I think he is beloved because he speaks like an academic besides talking bullshit or just saying nothing with a lot of words

[@gabitheancient7664]

and also "own the libs" with facts and logic

[@ellengran6814]

I totally agree. Why was Hitler so popular ? Because he had an ideology , an ideology build on myths in which many wanted to believe. In my view, Hitler used many of the same myths as Peterson : the strong, pure, diciplined man conquering the world. The purpose of life is to «win», not to enjoy, cooperate and love.

[@tonyburton419]

Fascinating, and one of the better summations of JP in terms of ideology l have heard: fine Steelman explanation. Food for thought. Just discovered this channel, see there is interesting content to enjoy...

[@joewesterland5697]

I was thinking the same thing. Its shocking how few genuine critiques there are of Jordan Peterson out there. I think his summery of Jordan Peterson's theory of how to derive actionable truth was also very accurate and gave his later critiques a lot more credibility in my eyes.

[@rjill7000]

Here is a similarly well put together critique: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jGPLmaWLfbh3bNE

[@tonyburton419]

@@rjill7000 Thanks for the link

[@zadig08]

Glad I was able to get back on patreon and help fund this one! Thanks for all the hard work. Love the music selection too.

[@raresmircea]

Great job zadig, thanks for contributing to great content🤘

[@screachog-reilige]

This video was expertly put together Lewis! Thank you for all the effort you put into this critique, there's a lot of polemic videos about peterson that do more harm than good in my opinion, but I feel like these videos are much more likely to break through to someone who currently takes his word as gospel.

[@lorettagreen6794]

I thinks it’s valuable to those who have placed some preliminary trust in him and are interested in considering his ideas with a deeper intellectual engagement… but to people who treat it as gospel… that won’t change in the face of any argument. ironically Peterson appeals to people looking for justification for already existing beliefs or self help mojo/motivation… that’s not the same as authentic intellectual engagement.

[@arsenelupin123]

"When someone writes a new story, it cannot be that they are writing a new story, because I know all stories must fit with my archetypes. Therefore, they must be dogmatic ideologues trying to force the world to fit their worldview" Ideology.

[@z115zt7]

You’re criminally underrated my man, loving these vids they’re sooo well made

[@kuroazrem5376]

As always, great video; keep it up!

[@williamwebster7985]

I absolutely love how charitable and kind you were, yet analytically (as Peterson would love) you highlight his thoughts. Some of his ideas are indeed hypocritical and I LOVED the end - “archetypical”.

[@coracaovagabondo6548]

Would love to see an episode of "Who said it" with the possibilities being Peterson, Marx, or Derrida.

[@Bojoschannel]

I've seen many people baffled at how someone like Jordan Peterson got so famous, "what happened to intellectuals that we get this now?" they say, but reading the Anti-Dühring by Engels (1877) made me realize that Dühring not only sounds awfully a lot like JP, but that this clowns have existed for a long time and their purpose is the same: to help maintain the status quo

[@9000ck]

And to grift at the same time.

[@Bojoschannel]

@@9000ck that too lol

[@CJ-rb3do]

Everything said here 👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿

[@M4ruta]

Calling someone a clown and making assumptions about their purpose is not a good way to carry a debate. Especially when it concludes with such a poorly defined and populist phrase as "maintain the status quo". You can't fight assumed faux-intellectualism with anti-intellectualism

[@ivandafoe5451]

@@M4ruta The intent was not to "carry a debate" it was to offer a opinion...one that I concur with. You are obliviously doing the very same thing that you pompously condemn here. If "maintain the status quo" doesn't aptly cover what JP is all about for you, then you haven't properly decyphered the gist of his jargon-laden gobble-de-goop. The weapon of choice against faux-intellectualism is always optional...in this case, an appropriate level of disdain concisely cuts to the chase.

[@JohnMoseley]

Or as Zizek spent most of the '90s saying, 'But surely this is ideology at its finest.'

[@samzeng159]

Peterson is not totally wrong about ideology but what I thought was ironic was that he has a very similar thesis to the Frankfurt school; ideology as a obstacle to human freedom. The tragedy of Peterson was his inability to properly identify the faults in his own self created ideology. Which created a messianic version for him self and his followers; its a view that everyone can actually become Christ (A Hero). This then created a ever spiraling inward view and regression. He can never break out of the prison he created for him self, there is no opportunity for overcoming. Resentment and scapegoating abound in him self and followers.

[@Redrage-gl6pv]

This is a feature of many critiques of the Frankfurt school. They often essentially agree with the very school of thought they're critiquing.

[@burnttoast111]

@@Redrage-gl6pv The purpose of the Frankfurt school was to critique Marxism. Historically, things didn't go down as Marx expected them to. They wanted to find out what went wrong, what Marx didn't take into account, and how to fix it.

[@burnttoast111]

@sam zeng I don't think the idea of "ideology as a obstacle to human freedom" means quite what you think it does. I could be wrong, but I think they meant that ideology can block people off from understanding new or different ideas, rather than ideology is just intrinsically bad. Kind of like how religion can cause harm, but that doesn't mean that religion is intrinsically always harmful.

[@burnttoast111]

@Little Red Riding Hood Freedom is kind of complicated, as there is the freedom to do things (positive freedom), and the freedom from things (negative freedom). The freedoms of two people can conflict. I'll give a very simple example: One person might want the freedom to punch another person in the nose. The other person might want the freedom from being punched in the nose. There is a quote by Matt Dillahunty, which he has said many times, that 'my freedom to swing my arm ends at your nose'.

[@burnttoast111]

@Little Red Riding Hood How is talking about positive and negative freedom a platitude?

[@micmac13ful1]

The type of ideology Peterson is after is the type that is violent, overly simplistic, and fundamentally closed off to the possible truth of other worldviews. We all need ideology (a narrative) to understand the world, but I think Peterson is right in calling out this particular type of "close-minded," increasingly rampant ideology that leads to divisive, hateful, and violent behavior.

[@Maxarcc]

He is right when he calls it out, but he's also a hypocrite for sowing that same division he condemns. He is incredibly spite driven when it comes to progressives and alarm bells should go off in your head when an academic uses terms like "sleight of hand", "malicious" and "depraved" to describe the intellectuals they disagree with. This should be especially the case when they don't seem to have a good grasp on the literature they are critiquing, which, in the case of Peterson, are Marx, as well as Foucault and Derrida.

[@micmac13ful1]

@@Maxarcc I agree. He is in no way perfect, and we can never pull ourselves outside of our views and be perfectly objective. I'm still inclined to think he's done more good than harm though. His heart is ultimately, I believe, about helping people get into a better place (he's a clinical psychologist), and I respect him for that more than anything. He's at his best there. He's at his worst when he tries to fight culture wars and start critiquing Marxism or Post-Modernism because you're right, those are beyond his field of expertise. He seems to critique more the bastardized cultural phenomenon of these ideas, which is ultimately long-hanging fruit.

[@The_Wanderer_And_His_Shadow]

Your videos are truly wonderful. I would very much like if you write a book with philosophical essays. I'm sure that, like me, a lot of your followers are going to buy it instantly. I see some other channels use KZbin to promote their book and I think it works. Wish you all the best!

[@vtrungkien1998]

I only know a few of your videos bout Deleuzian concepts, so pardon me for not watching much, but superb writing, and a perfect closing line.

[@nguyeninh7370]

ok

[@Mr.Nichan]

At some point in school I think I was told that "ideology" is related to "idealistic" and "ideal", and thus, I've always simply thought of a person's "ideology" as meaning what that person thinks would be the ideal thing for the world to be or the ideal actions that people should take.

[@redwardstone3651]

This is something I’ve wanted to do for awhile. This is a well done video. Thank you.

[@lameemo]

"Ideology for thee, but not for me" -Jordan Peterson, probably

[@raresmircea]

17:37 Peterson should fare well among communities like the Amish. Tried and tested principles, no progressivism

[@MrAustanian]

That would ignore his reverence for the need for dialog between the progressives and the conservatives to determine the proper balance in the world. Hierarchies become ridgid and corrupt overtime and they need updated. Updates with out respect to tradition run the risk of chaos.

[@raresmircea]

@@MrAustanian agreed!

[@devanshrathore9112]

I think its very possible that the amish live more fulfilling lives than most of the rest of us.

[@raresmircea]

@@devanshrathore9112 I occasionally use them as an example of a good life. But to all reading this message, before praising the Amish life they should ask themselves if they can live an agrarian lifestyle with no bustling creativity, no advertising, no stock exchange news, no internet, no VR, no gaming, no longboard or gravel bike excursions in the week-end, no clubs, no music streaming, no phones, no racing supercars on the street, no waiting for that dream bike to go on sale, no crypto-trading, no visits at the museum, no shrooms, no weed, no dmt, no neat clothes, no overseas vacation, no spending nights tipsy with friends, no eating at 3 am on the street, no rap or dance or techno or whatever you’re into, no kinky sex, no ebay trades, no city parks, no adventure parks, no bungee jumping, no parachuting, no headphones, no micro-led 8k TVs, no Tesla, no cocktails on the roof, no city skylines, etc etc. And although the Amish can sometimes visit the doctors, they can do so *only* because they are a tiny insignificant minority while the rest of the people on earth aren’t Amish and they manifested their creativity within a progressive spirit. So, no painkillers, no high-tech dentistry, no anesthesia, no surgery. I’ve personally had 3 surgeries until now, so besides my personality, comfort, sense of excitement, knowledge, entertainment, i also owe my life to the totally non-Amish modern spirit.

[@benitolazio8193]

I'm guessing you equate progressivism with the backward unworkable ideology of marxism .

[@aaron2709]

Excellent job. Your video shown a light on one of the many things that bother me about Peterson... his penchant for redefining words to suit his myth-entangled worldview.

[@graemelaubach3106]

Well done. Insatiably interesting as always.

[@lovesees4320]

Thank you It was a dirty job But someone had to do it You took it on & did it beautifully 🙏

[@phillipdoyle3055]

Great video, thanks. Biologically, as humans we're cognitively disposed to simplifying, sorting and arranging things to make any progress. Totally agree that ideologies are shorthand and necessary, without which no-one could ever 'agree in principle'. The alternative is to daily cross reference your belief system with every other persons beleief system! We do 'swim' in ideologies, whether we like it or not.

[@themorrishouseofwizardry3555]

We all need filtering mechanisms. Reality is too complex. But we don't all filter through ideology. The word implies an overly rigid simplification of reality; not a filter that helps us better sort the complexity. The reason being called 'an idealogue ' is insulting is because it implies a lack of critical judgement; an anti-intellectual religious zeal that is destructive.

[@erdood3235]

@@themorrishouseofwizardry3555 many people use "gay" as an insult. so?

[@Pensnmusic]

I picked one when I was 5 and I'm sticking to it. Girls have cooties and adults are dumb. Ice cream for dinner every night. It hasn't failed me yet so I'm not changing!

[@Charles-pf7zy]

@@jalemairliha this is all-or-nothing thinking. Just because it’s impractical to try to view reality from an infinite number of ideologies doesn’t mean you shouldn’t put in some effort into challenging your own occasionally

[@50733Blabla1337]

@@Charles-pf7zy Literally nobody is advocating for that

[@MoralGovernment]

I'm glad I found your channel!

[@David-lv4pf]

Excellent work, thank you.

[@Dom_Tunes]

Hey, I've enjoyed your show for a few years now, it's been nice seeing you peak out a bit more in confidence and express from your own body, your own space, and slowly, even your own mind. I thought you did excellent analysis on Jordan Peterson, somebody needed to do it, and as properly as you have. I enjoyed you speaking up more, critiquing the contemporary & living. I also like how you've re-worked the aesthetics of ideology as well, you reformulated something for me... pulled ideology a bit out of the shadow and integrated it into the social process as a sort of subjective tool to be flowed with. It makes me interested for you to release more of your own philosophy. I was surprised you stuck to the structuralist vs poststructuralist binary rather than dive deeper into the philosophical aspects of essence and form as it relates to humanism (which is what I think Jordan Peterson wants to get at but he's a bit too rushed). Thank you, and cheers, DC

[@kjronning1]

What is the name of the flag at 7:15? Its beautiful

[@unlearningeconomics9021]

Good video man

[@Ba-pb8ul]

There is, however, nothing more ideological than the belief that we are transparent to ourselves (unfettered by a subconscious, unimpeded by a power rationale in our decisions, or unencumbered by the fetishization of the modern world of capital). For me, Petersen's idea of the world is strangely unpopulated. If one considers that we build and inhabit institutions from our values (and those values come to have control over us: Marx's idea of alienation), an inevitable consequence of this is a sense of feeling trapped, and wanting to overthrow those systems that surround us (hence the constant change, iteration, communicability of texts and beliefs). For Petersen, there is a death instinct, an engagement with Freud's idea of Thanos, of bring change to a close, that's kind of puzzling.

[@SunshineCompanyLtd]

I knew Marvel was inpired by Freud! Sometimes you just want to wipe out half the population

[@mattgilbert7347]

@@SunshineCompanyLtd Awww snap!

[@devanshrathore9112]

I don't think all institutions are developed systematically from values. They arise organically over time to solve problems. Which makes them robust, time tested, and unlikely to be driven by radical ideology.

[@joewesterland5697]

I'm not sure if your saying this but Jordan Peterson in no way believes that we are transparent to our self's. A common phrase of his is "you are not the master in your own house". I see what your saying but I don't think that the inevitable consequence of being surrounded by structures predicated on a value system is alienation and the desire to overthrow it. This is because not all value systems are equal. They exist on a spectrum between naturally emerging and rationally generated. Peterson argues that value systems that are naturally emerging will have passed through a process of natural selection and will be more inline with actual reality and therefore will iterate positively. Because of this they will also be more inline with the innate instinctual obligations of humans. Obviously there will always be some level of coercion in order to keep a society stable. Also, could you explain the end where talk about Freud's idea of Thanatos as I'm not sure exactly what you mean?

[@BygoneT]

It has been a long time since I read Marx I don't think that's what alienation is, and those exact words sound like Jung, the ones about alienation.

[@PryorGaming]

I really didn’t want to click on this video because Jordan Peterson has been a huge influence on my life for the better, but I was curious about your critique. I have watched the video twice and I would like to say that you make compelling points. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your main idea appears to be that Jordan Peterson is critical of ideology but seems to promote one of his own that’s largely rooted in ancient wisdom. This is certainly a valid point and I’ve failed to see this apparent inconsistency until now which now seems glaringly obvious. And I can see why someone would see his views as a “those views are false, mine are objectively true”. However, my interpretation of this matter is different from you and many of the people in this comments section and I’m going to explain why. Ultimately, we need some framework within which we view the world. As we are younger, we tend to gravitate to unsophisticated, dogmatic, simplistic views to be consistent with the crowd. This can be explained also by the fact that most people don’t have the time or mental capacity to contemplate these matters in a logical fashion so shortcuts need to be made. It’s not Jordan Peterson, but many of those he influences that take his words at face value and turn to them in a dogmatic fashion (which is only natural despite it not being something that JP supports). My view is that Jordan Peterson is promoting a framework with much more validity, maturity, and safety but also encourages people to use it as a tool and not become controlled by it. The critique can become a bit weak if you add another layer to the question. The layer being that the danger lies in a certain TYPE of ideology. Throughout human history we’ve had countless ways of viewing the world. As JP says, there are a finite amount of valid worldviews (or at least those that won’t get you killed until you reproduce), which implies a spectrum of valid worldviews. The sort of worldview that JP promotes is based on what’s worked best over thousands of years for mankind. His criticism is that these new ideologies are just religious fervor distilled into retread utopian visions where everyone who isn’t with you is against you. The difference between what Jordan Peterson is opposing and supporting is that what he promotes isn’t some mantra to drill into everyone’s head and coerce others into submission. An ideologue is someone who dogmatically supports an ideology without putting it into practice. Essentially a puppet echoing what the puppet master speaks. What JP is encouraging is to focus inward and fix yourself before you try to fix society. “It’s more difficult to rule yourself than to rule a city”. Rather than being controlled by ideology, you become the puppet master and the captain of your own destiny. I can understand the critique that Jordan Peterson is just trying to replace one thing with another that he deems to be superior. And in a way, you’re right because he is doing that. But his central message isn’t that ideology in its purest form is bad and should never be touched. It sounds like he says that because of what he says in his book, 12 rules for life. But as I stated previously, he’s referring to a type of ideology. Also, his central idea is really to not be CONTROLLED by ideology, but rather use it as a tool and be open. He often recounts the story of Exodus in the Bible and a frequent point he makes is the similarity of the cycle of enslavement of the Israelites to the cycle of ideological enslavement of mankind. The Israelite people wandering in the wilderness are used as an allegory to human history. A common cycle is for humans to fall prey and become enslaved to a dogmatic worldview that the crowd enforced upon everyone. The Israelites complained in the wilderness because having a totalitarian ideology is better than not having any cause or belief structure to take comfort in. They had to go through constant cycles of oppression and breaking free to find the promise land. The promise land can be interpreted as the worldview that brings vitality to all of humanity. My point in bringing this up is that Jordan Peterson knows very well what you’re saying and doesn’t address it in a direct way, but rather answers your critique through story. I think the critique lies in consistency of language rather than hypocrisy. Jordan Peterson is a highly intelligent man and has spent his entire life studying this matter. While there is potential that he is, in fact, wrong about ideology, I don’t agree that he is. Lastly, I have something to say that isn’t related to the main point. This video is full of statements that aren’t backed up but said in a conclusive manner like they are. Like the fundamental accusation that Mr Peterson is stuck to a unchanging dogmatic views of the past. When really he recognizes the value of ancient wisdom but is still open to new ideas. He talks constantly of new discoveries and science. TLDR; I do understand the criticism presented in this video, but the world view that Jordan Peterson promotes isn’t the ideology that he preaches against and ultimately his message is against being controlled by ideology. If you need clarification on what I’m saying, let me know. If you disagree or have feedback, I would love to hear it.

[@anemoia8010]

One point you bring up multiple times is that Peterson encourages us not to be controlled by ideology, but rather use it as a tool. But can we even use an ideology for self betterment without, at least in some sense, being controlled by it? Maybe in the spirit of: "Look these myths have common themes. There seems to be wisdom in them and we should try to learn from the life lessons they contain." But Peterson goes further than that, doesn't he? Correct me if I'm wrong, but he appears to attempt to derive objective normative truths from those myths, calling them a natural ethic. The stories can still contain valuable lessons of course, but if you follow these lessons based on that conviction can you truly still claim to only use them without being controlled by them?

[@PryorGaming]

@@anemoia8010 Yes, I think you can use ideology without being controlled by it. The way to do that is to accept the wisdom of the past while also being open to the potential of the future. Peterson's criticism of ideology is of blind, dogmatic adherence. Something having influence over you isn't necessarily being controlled by it.

[@abelabel3664]

One can use Marxist analysis without "being controlled" by it. JP, however, misrepresents what Marxism is and what people actually do with it. He seems to think that it is a "theory of everything" when it is, as people who studied it know, simply an analysis method that has provided valuable results and insights. JP refuses to use this "ideology" or to engage with its relevance at all. Additionally, I'd argue that Marxism exerts way less control over people than the conservatism and religious ideologies JP defends. P.S.: Peterson did not spend his entire life studying philosophy, ideology, marxism, sociology, anthropology or geopolitics. He did study Jungian psychology. P.S.2: Very ironic that his message is allegedly that one should not be controlled when his book literally poses "rules"...

[@PryorGaming]

@@abelabel3664 Sure, you can utilize Marxist thinking without becoming an ideologue. But let's be honest, few do. Most Marxists become hateful of the rich, and everything they do is viewed through that lens. It appears we disagree on this and logic can only go so far since it's a matter of perception. I hold the same view as Mr. Peterson that it's a dangerous ideology. You could say that Marxism exerts less control over the sort of ideology that JP promotes but ultimately it's not about the ideology, it's about the people. Those who adhere to the conservative, structuralist, religious type of ideology that JP defends don't bully others into believing the same thing. Because it's a change that comes from within people. Most Marxists and other ideologues don't have that same reputation. In response to your first "P.S.", my point was only that I doubt he would be so shortsighted on such a structural element in his life's work. The criticism in the video is founded purely on a terminology discrepancy and what JP means by "Ideology". In response to your second "P.S.", JP frequently talks about how the law of the Bible is a guideline for living the noble life. It's not about control, but knowledge. That's the same with his book; it's a guideline.

[@abelabel3664]

@@PryorGaming "Few do". Citation needed. Where are all the people engaging with marxist analysis that view it as a theory of everything and refuse to recognize its short-comings? Have you read marxist intellectual production made in the past 30 years? You are mischaracterizing and strawmanning your "opponents". Being hateful of the rich is certainly not the same as critiquing the existence of poverty and class structures. It is much easier to dismiss the later if you argue against the former. There is nothing dangerous in analyzing society through the lens of class struggle and it has PROVEN to explain well many phenomena in societies. Being afraid of an analysis method rooted in proven phenomena is childish and, more importantly, dogmatic. About P.S.1: There isn't a discrepancy in terminology. There is a contradiction in what Peterson says. He simply sees his views as a default devoid of ideology, which is obviously not true. About P.S.2: One could make the exact same argument on Marxism - it is a useful tool to examine the world around you and, therefore, good knowledge to live "a noble life" (whatever that means). More so than the bible, since it was shown to be correct time and again. Much less controlling than the bible, since it does not contain "guidelines", but simply an analysis method from which you can conclude whatever.

[@paulsmart4672]

Explaining things Jordan Peterson doesn't understand is an underserved genre of KZbin video. It has so much untapped potential.

[@dirkbastardrelief]

What is "ocka-tipple" and is it legal in CA?

[@Wealthforthe99Percent]

All of Peterson's complaints about "the left" ignore the core of dialectic materialism or Marxism, which isn't utopian. JP is just too deep in enlightenment idealism to know what he is talking about.

[@troywalkertheprogressivean8433]

yeah he's deep in something. 💩

[@jameswatkins7763]

Sounds like someone hasn't read the Gulag Archipelago. It absolutely destroys the practical or even theoretical validity of Marxism.

[@Wealthforthe99Percent]

@@jameswatkins7763 Spunds like reading one anecdotal accpunt of something is pretty academically lazy. 😘

[@jameswatkins7763]

@@Wealthforthe99Percent hm. So can you tell me one example where Marxism was successful?

[@Wealthforthe99Percent]

@@jameswatkins7763 Sovyou reall just want to ignore the original claim then? Lol. Sure, the 2 fastest growing exonomies in history, one of which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other.

[@abishaicampbell2187]

The basic gist of Peterson’s ideology is that beliefs, values, and ideas from the past are worth preserving and have been preserved for good reason and that radical ideologues who believe that they will be nearly as effective as let’s say Jesus and Christianity (because Jesus was considered a radical ideologue in his time), should be considered dangerous for the reason that effective radical ideologues are extremely rare and your shiny new ideology has more of a chance to lead to death and destruction than anything close to a utopia.

[@dereksteven2052]

That does sound kind of reasonable tbh.

[@Daniel-Strain]

That may be, but the fact is that were we to apply Peterson's ideology in Jesus' time, we would need to place ourselves against Jesus. And that may be ok too - because we can only act on what we know at the time. But what that indicates is the necessity of anti-Peterson elements in society. Peterson leaves out the moderating forces of consensus and democratic input on new ideologies. Evolution requires mutation, and not all mutations are beneficial. Peterson looks only at those ideologies he dislikes and uses these arguments as a means to support the status quo at every turn. And as his very examples point out, the onslaught of contesting ideologies is absolutely essential to the whole. Thus, a filtering argumentation by nature, reason, and necessity should be developed in the marketplace of ideas - not merely using his model of conservative ideology to discredit any and all radical ideals from the start. Peterson tries to avoid coming to that level to assess the particulars of competing ideologies to his own, and prefers trying to nip it in the bud before it can begin. Besides, if he were to investigate and refute at the level of particular arguments, he would then have to participate in revealing those ideologies to have foundations as carefully considered and thoroughly arrived at (rightly or wrongly) as his own. This would destroy his claim of their simplicity.

[@it6647]

@@dereksteven2052 it might for most human civilization But modern life is a complete far cry from the past The scope of our actions The technological development and its impacts on society have been profound These are the problems our ancestors didn't even think about, and so applying their solutions to modern problems is, imo, unreasonable

[@BygoneT]

@Roa change of values has been the least efficient way of bettering people's lives.

[@50733Blabla1337]

@@BygoneT Bs

[@androgyme]

I know it's a non sequitur, but can someone remind me which episode of T&N mentions 'the ones who walk away from Omelas'? I've been rewatching videos all morning and haven't found it yet

[@ThenNow]

I would imagine I talked about it in Mill - Utilitarianism

[@androgyme]

YOU'RE THE BEST

[@androgyme]

Oooh, since I've got your ear/eye, I want you to know I found your channel whilst casting about for some kind of explanation that would help me understand differential ontology, and stumbled across your video on Deluze, and finally seed of understanding finally began to take root. I watched it again, then noticed the video on Derrida. BOOM! I got it. I've been religiously following your channel ever since.

[@ThenNow]

@@androgyme Great to hear! So glad to have helped :)

[@liamhackett513]

@@ThenNow that was a fantastic piece of work on ideology. Much appreciated.

[@alfredflorin4419]

6:40 ''A map, of meaning'' very subtle, I like it. Great video!

[@goingforgold_8536]

I am a Peterson fan, and I thoroughly enjoyed your rebuttal here, you were sincere, polite, and succinct. At no point did I think you were disingenuous; which is something I truly appreciate. Definitely have much to consider condensed into a relatively short video, thank you.

[@jackbartzen9133]

it’s crazy how much peterson is able to straw man his opposition and make them all seem like ignorant, naive, spoiled kids. i used to be a big fan of his until i actually interacted with genuine leftists rather than just twitter and it was mind blowing, i’ve done a complete 180 from being a huge JP fan lol

[@JackDSquat]

@@jackbartzen9133 I’m the exact opposite. I was a leftist until I met real life conservatives 😅

[@andyroobrick-a-brack9355]

@@JackDSquat I think as someone who has known conservatives all of my life, I think that's what's pulled le toward the left. IDK if it's novelty, but I'm frankly tired of the same ideology. I think the way to counter ideology is not to replace it with a new, shiny one to guide us, but rather to intuitively explore every ideology available to us. Instead of being rational, we need an irrational approach. This is hard, we're social creatures who operate off of thinking and feeling, but if one person can change things, everyone can.

[@hopeintruth5119]

@@JackDSquat idk how you could become conservative but ok

[@Ryan-ob6gp]

@@hopeintruth5119 empty promises, delivered with a handshake, a comforting southern twang and a glint in their wrinkled eye ;) There will always be people who need things boiled down for them into insanely simplistic, black/white good/evil terms. The stress of always having to check sources and investigate huge claims is just so ...dry and boring... compared to being proud of a flag and terrified and furious about everything else all the time because ________ is "under attack". There's just so much less about the world to have to accept and think about and debate if you take the conservative route.

[@relaxbro5605]

Brilliant work! Best explainer video on the meaning of ideology on KZbin!

[@Lenon1924]

You make great videos

[@prismaticsignal5607]

Simply great!

[@harryeight7703]

The clip you used of Peterson at Oxford joking about being a right-wing psychologist, you've taken it as he was being serious? I haven't watched any further yet, just wanted to establish that this is the case.

[@gamezswinger]

Superb. Keep the videos coming. ❤

[@GreekHouseEffect]

what a great channel!

[@GabeNode21]

Possibly the most polite, yet devastating dissection of Peterson's work I've seen so far. You take apart his hypocrisy and shallowness with an ease and clarity which is impressive to watch.

[@happygucci5094]

Agreed!

[@hhhuthhhjj5599]

Being wrong doesn't mean you are devastated

[@deborahhamsho4799]

I simply could never stomach him and his cult

[@a.bagasm.7253]

@@deborahhamsho4799 owh you might be suprise that "genetic modefied skeptic"(an atheist tuber) did a video on that and conclude it depends on what you mean by "cult" lol and no

[@jameswatkins7763]

Not in the slightest. This video is terrible. It pretends to debunk certain principles, but only achieves to beat around the bush. Ideologies have a set of core beliefs that are immutable, because the ideology would lose coherence if those beliefs are challenged. Example: "all white people have benefitted from exclusive privilege" or "sex is a social construct". A central idea becomes an axiom that doesn't require proof and doesn't deserve debate because it is accepted as dogma. This is the kind of ideology Peterson warns about.

[@lost_boy]

"You need to abandon ideology!" ... he said, ideologically.....

[@lost_boy]

I guess it's easy for Peterson to be anti-ideology when the ideologies he subscribes to (individualism & conservatism) are so poor at interpreting reality it probably feels to him that he doesn't have an ideology at all. I guess it's like a geologist who's also a flat-earther.... they would have to ignore so many aspects of reality to get their observations to match their beliefs.... they'd have to ignore the existence of gravity, for example.

[@Pedro-bk8pr]

You're videos are absolutely amazing in every respect. If you allow me to point to one flaw: sometimes the sound of your voice is not very good, although I've noticed you're improving it.

[@z0uLess]

The Jordan Peterson phenomena revolves around whether or not truth or emotion is the most important beacon to gather social movements around and towards.

[@elipearson8194]

Great vid. It bothers me that the definition of ideology would include any comprehensive philosophy of life. Or if that's to vague a philosophical system whose adoption enhances life. Aren't we all here building philosophical systems in our minds with an eye toward truth or growth? But then we are inevitably heading to ideology. Why are we pursuing philosophy if whatever we find we will reject as ideology?

[@fluentpiffle]

We are not considering that 'life' is itself an ideal of universal being, and that this planet is ideal for creating and sustaining 'life', then the evolution of the Human form is also the ideal for evolution of understanding. All this will be missed if we have some kind of allergic reaction to words such as 'evolution'.. This is what makes Peterson essentially a hypocrite, dismissing things that are essential to genuine understanding whilst pretending to be 'genuine' himself..

[@elipearson8194]

@@fluentpiffle I wouldn't have thought that Peterson was allergic to evolutionary ideas. Why do you say that?

[@fluentpiffle]

@@elipearson8194 Not specifically Peterson but a large chunk of ‘believers’ who are influenced by him, and take ‘scripture’ as less of a metaphor. Being a psychologist he knows this will happen..

[@nasar8480]

Great video man. One of the better critiques of Peterson's intellectual position that I've seen in a while. Love your content. Thank you, mate. Your efforts are highly appreciated.

[@paulmitchell6602]

big thumbs up for your tone.. and a clever punchline too.

[@TheNinja6600]

I both follow you and peterson, and would love to have the knowledge of both points being given from you and him. As it will be a very interesting, and intellectual talk that we can all benefit from learning and digging deeper into these subjects :) for me if need be, my ideology follows many suites as I tend to learn as much as possible from many sides as I am very curious.

[@owkee6347]

you're addressing the terms on the wrong reference, outside what Peterson has laid out. the ideology Peterson addresses is the one that is birthed from the Platonic Zeitgeist (the line of dualism) and one that has individuated too much from the spirit; an 'archetypal possession'. that is why it is monotheistic

[@emmashalliker6862]

Absolute wordy nonsense. No wonder you're a fan.

[@TomDOW2]

Outstanding video

[@JohnMoseley]

'Taxi Driver' always seems to me the greatest critique going of the hero's journey.

[@hatoffnickel]

Whoever chooses one ideology over another implicitly acknowledges a hierarchy of better and worse ideologies, thereby constructing a framework upon which logically sits one best ideology, which must be, by definition, the most true ideology and is therefore no longer the idea per se but the logos in propria se

[@neurojitsu]

I favour neuroscientist Iain McGilchrist's framing of the 'problems of thought' (as David Bohm called it) which are explored in his book, "The Master and his Emissary." McGilchrist's book paints a compelling and fascinating picture of human history - understood from the lens of neuroscientific understanding of the brain's two hemispheres - as a struggle between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. His central thesis of the book is that our modern world is too left-brain dominated, and so we are in need of a more (right brain) holistic and integrated way of thinking and learning and acting in the world. For example, he criticises the over-segmentation of knowledge into siloes of uber-specialism which fail to integrate their combined knowledge.

[@NeoRipshaft]

I think a critical distinction that needs to be made is that we analyze individual's Ideologies, much like individual's political views, as lens of analysis, and not as extant things operating upon thoughts and behavior, but as capturing the character of the thoughts and behaviors themselves. How people relate to this characterization is a separate affair - the only relevant question is if the characterization and its necessary predictions are consistently reliable or not.

[@derantiobskurant]

Großartig erklärt!

[@damianbylightning6823]

“The typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. He becomes primitive again.” -- Joseph A. Schumpeter This applies to Peterson as well - but it'd help if the left could lose its weirdo obsession with him. Btw, Burke was a Whig - he is cited as an inspiration in both the liberal and conservative tradition.

[@daviddziuk9806]

This is so spot on. I find that I to see a lot of substance in what Peterson offers in his world view and rules for living. But I also see a rigidity that hamstrings him in his ability to see that there is real change over time in human knowledge and perspective, a growing understanding about how the world works best. Not so long ago the ownership of other human beings was nearly universally accepted even in his precious Western Tradition and that maybe some of the things he feels we need to return to are just as mislaid ideas as slavery was. While I agree that somethings may be tried and true others like the idea that Man and Nature are separate, or that the Individual is paramount, are things a lot of other worldviews, perhaps most, don't agree with. To me, the flaw of his conservatism is it is threatened by change when that may be exactly what is needed for the system he believes in to continue while improving the answers it has for how things should be done.

[@ashleydickson62]

In one place he says that at the moment we have too much "chaos" and not enough order, not that "chaos" is not all inherently bad, and is very much necessary. Sounded like he meant change and newness, things not yet understood or ordered, but his "antidote to chaos" come across as rigid finger wagging , although may not be meant that way. Meanwhile his capitalist mates are busy disrupting order constantly, which is perhaps why he thinks young minds full of novelty need to develop their own.

[@ahmedminhal8924]

This channel is the best thing I have found on the internet

[@jurgenvonstrengel1312]

I really hope he sees this, I find him incredibly interesting because of the contradicting things he says. Great video!

[@lsobrien]

Another brilliant, well-informed video. I can't get over the absolute gall of Peterson attacking "dogmatic ideologues". His overwhelming fear of leftists, and the Bolsheviks he assumes they all really are, is garnered primarily from his veneration of pseudo-scientific Jungian archetypes (which once he was candid enough to compare with star signs). And is reinforced by a dogmatic interpretation of Russian literature and a neoconservative reading of the Cold War. For the latter he cites the Black Book of Communism. He tells audiences that Marx’s utopian schemes have led to 100 million deaths, “and that’s just a conservative estimate”. Given that the Black Book’s compiler has been criticised for inflating his estimate in order to get such a ‘nice,’ round figure (it lends the speeches of demagogues far more punch), Peterson is again eschewing the thorny matter of facts. Funnily enough, this total denunciation of an economic system, along with the messianic reaction entailed, in fact mirrors something from the early 20th century. Those who, citing the carnage of the First World War, Tran-Atlantic slavery, the virtual disappearance of the red races, Leopold’s Congo, the left-over feudal superstitions and pogroms, the millions dying as a result of either the limits of free markets, or the wilful malice of its practitioners (take the British response to the potato plague and multiple Indian famines), declared capitalism irredeemable. Followed by the pronouncement that their tragically compromised guidelines would solve all. But they, persecuted by the tsar’s secret police and hounded by armed right-wing thugs, perhaps had better justification when they succumbed to paranoia.

[@rjwasser8312]

I'm not in complete disagreeance with you on many of these points, but I would like to note that it is one thing to criticize Marxism and Marxists-most of whom who clearly have never read lick of Marx-and Marx's philosophy, which, as you point out, is a speculative philosophy about the logical succession of economic systems from the perspective (operative phrase) of historical materialism. So let's not pretend like Peterson is completely off about "Marxists"-if anything Peterson would do well to amend his position by using the term "Leninist-Marxist," as that's a more apt description of the people he's concerned with.

[@firebrand9578]

I’ve read that scholars don’t label Soviet Russia or Maoist China as communist, but rather categorise them both as state capitalist systems. I’m not an economist by any means, but I’ve been trying to learn a bit more lately about capitalism and communism. It definitely seems to me that Peterson, having grown up during the red scare, believes that there is something in Marx’s works that paved the way straight to the gulags and interprets them through that lens. It’s better in my view to simply read a book and try to understand it than to be afraid and endeavour to compel others to be afraid as well; books are meant to make us think.

[@lsobrien]

@@firebrand9578 Good points.

[@niclasromanski7920]

If you wouldn't called the Jungian archetypes pseudo science, i maybe could have agreed with you

[@burnttoast111]

@@niclasromanski7920 How can you scientifically falsify Jungian archetypes? What sort of an experiment could you run? What results would indicate those archetypes are not real? For that matter, how do you scientifically falsify the collective unconscious?

[@krampusz]

The sad thing is that Peterson seems to be so motivated by resentment it's really hard to see otherwise.

[@ronalddesiderio7625]

Live and Let Live Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong

[@chawaphiri1196]

spotify can't find your podcast

[@TheVikke2]

This is an interesting critique. Some notions that came to my mind while watching: 1. My understanding of Peterson is that he is not a political figure, but identifies as classical liberal (this is what I have seen him answer). Though he speaks a lot about tradition and archetypes, I would not call him conservative. The reason why is that he also talks about liberal topics. Furthermore, in my understanding he acknowledges that a healthy society (and indeed a individual) consists of both, liberal and conservative parts working together. Conservatives to keep the already working things as part of the system and liberals to bring in new ideas and improvements. His criticism towards especially the left at this time is because, in his view the left is misaligned and ideologically driven. 2. On the topic of ideology. My understanding of why Peterson doesn't regard his own beliefs and teaching as ideological is that, he believes the ideas he is conveying are archetypes, which means that they are fundamental truths of human behavior. Now this is interesting, because you can make the case that they are as much ideological as any other ideology. However, the counter argument to that is, not all ideologies are created equal, some are better than others. Hence why Peterson seems to think that ideology and religion are differentiated in that, ideology is fragile and unbalanced, and religion is not. 3. My understanding of Peterson's view of collectivism and individualism is that we should not group under the banner of group identity, but rather under the banner of individual, because that is the smallest unit of society. You criticize Peterson's critic of collectivism, because collectives have managed to develop many great things such as vaccines and health care. However, Peterson does not say that we should not form collectives, but rather that the collective needs to be composed of individuals rather than from group identities. This is because a group does not suffer and does not bare responsibility, only individuals suffer and bare responsibility for making things better. My understanding from this video is that it is unfair for Peterson to claim things to be "true" in a fundamental sense if ideological people can't do that (in his own words). Because Peterson is just as ideological as they are in that sense. If you believe Peterson's archetypes to be true because of their age and traditional worth Peterson is not an ideologist, but if you don't believe him then he is an ideologist. Through that he is or isn't a hypocrite since he himself criticizes ideologues. Side note, this video could be cut into three parts to make it more concise and increase viewership.

[@chakritlikitkhajorn8730]

Peterson view idealogue that have been tested through time as more worthy than the new. If we apply this to Greece era, we would not have democracy. Democracy hadn’t been tested yet. If we apply this to the time when Jesus born, Christian would be a bad idea. It hadn’t been tested yet. You can see that Peterson view on world is pretty much “conserve what we had over new idealogue”. That is why I think he is conservative.

[@terrystevens3998]

JPs knows that he has an ideology, he knows that idiots don’t recognize that ideology as an ideology because they lack the knowledge to understand what an ideology is. He manipulates uneducated people into believing they are above having a belief system while the strongly advocate to protect the current mainstream conservative ideology and the framework the past ideologies were built upon. JP also doesn’t apply the idea that forming groups is good if they are based on individual identities instead of group identities evenly to all people, he has no issue with men having a collective group, capitalists having a collective group, the church having a collective group, he only has an issue when oppressed groups form because he sees that as a threat to the current power hierarchical structure.

[@ethanstaunton3977]

​@@chakritlikitkhajorn8730 not mention he constantly aligns himself with self declared conservatives, he also in basically every clip on social media is banging on about cultural Marxism and he seems to downplay the actions of the far right particularly of those that claim to be his followers, I personally think he's basically a grifter he's just a self help guide wrapped up in the illusion of intellectualism basically saying the world is fine any problem you might face is all on you what are you going to get up and do about it. Which is fine in the context of giving people agency to sort their lives out, but not when it seems he's motivating a significant amount of his followers to become actively hateful, especially when he constantly claims he's non confrontational and hates having to challenge people, he's built his whole career on it, he loves it. Deluded narcissist

[@nigelpalmer9248]

I unsubbed from Peterson a long time ago he was saying stuff that had my bullsht mte going mental I can't even remember what it was but I know I can't watch him anymore he is a contaminant.

[@cbkm0]

You deserve more subs

[@ellengray8293]

Thank you for your work

[@michaelwu7678]

Awesome video. You’re doing a really good job explicating Peterson’s ideology and worldview. I hope these 2 videos spark some conversations within Peterson’s fan base and encourage some more critical evaluations. For those interested in seeing some more critiques, I’d recommend the following channels as well: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eIK6m6ylZtJjj8k kzbin.info/www/bejne/mYaUfZuZes1rg9U

[@mohamedmilad1]

My apologies for too much details. Jordan Peterson based his premises on his belief that the sucess of Anglo-Saxon western civilization has Christian morality at its roots, and why knock down something that works very well from western culture points of view. He believes that human beings achievements under current Anglo-Saxon protestant capitalism, has been the pinnacle of human history of achievement, and why knock it down at its roots of moral structure. What's missing here, and in my modest opinion, is the archeology of his understanding of the history of modern western civilization. In my modest opinion, if not for the industrial revolution, that was fuelled and started after the creation of credit lending, and the acceptance and legalisation of the banking system and credit lending, in Italy 14th and 15th century by Madici family with its first bank, followed by Holland in the 17th century then the UK, in succession, there will be no current western civilization. As Clinton famously said ' its the economy stupid " that created current Anglo-Saxon dominant capitalism, and It's not Christianity . For that banking revolution to happen, a reformation of the church needed to happen, which allowed for the making of money out of money, which was prohibited for melliniums by Aristotle, the Greek philosophers, the Catholic Church and Islam (except for certain judiastic interpretation of old testament, that allowed certain jews to lend to the gentile ) (something Christ himself rose against when he turned the table at the temple where the practice of lending money was happening). What's JP missing is, if not for abandoning Christian Church moral dogma and the reformation of the Christian moral code , by abandoning the concept of 7 sins and the the human philosophy (of the fight against NARCISSISTIC human traits of Greed, Lust, Anger.....etc) which famously advocted by the Dutch Dr. Bernard Mandevil, in his poem " the fable of the Bees " which famously immortalised in the film the wall Street, when Michael Douglas stated" Greed is Good". Its this version of societal reformation,and of the principle that Greed is good and Mandevil assertion that human Greed leads to capital adventure , and his famous assertion that sins propel humans more than virtue, and virtue is a reason for poverty, which behind human sins, which is later taking on by Neitzche and his philosophy. After consulting Augustinian and Aquinus position on lending " you are borrowing time not money " that led to non- prohibition of banking and the lending of money revolution, the printing of Money and credit and the inevitable industrialization of western world, which brought with it more Greed (that communism has failed to change). It's the victory of mandevillian ideology in the 18th century and triumph of human Greed over Catholic virtue of communalism, the sins of lending money became virtue of human development, that brought us to this point, and it has nothing to do with the 10 commandments or 7 sins or altruistic self sacrifice of Christians or the idealism of Eastern religions or believes in mythical religion. " its the economy stupid "...its the economy of money lending that continues to fuel our western civilization. If you want more details on the subject , watch professor Nial Ferguson 5 hours documentary on history of ascent of money....and Bernard Mandevil controversial assertion that Sins are better than virtue in tackling human poverty, which is the toppling of melliniums of socratic moral teaching of virtue...hence Neitzche spoken in zarathustra which influenced Peterson indirectly..... postmodernism trying to alert to the imbalance of power under unlimited institutional financial power and the helplessness of individualism, modern slavery and the perpetual anxiety in the modern world that can only be managed by alcohol and sedative medication, as happened to Jordan Peterson case. Kirkagard did warn us against existential anxiety ....

[@ten_tego_teges]

That's a fascinating take, thank you for writing it. It is honestly sth I have been thinking about for a while: how capitalism is in so many ways incompatible with Christianity and that early conservatives were opposed to industrialisation on the grounds that it uproots social order on so many fundamental levels. The fact that this founding myth of modern society is so entrenched could also be traced to the Anglo-centrism of our culture and intellectual thought. Yet another thing that nobody seems to talk about.

[@dirkbastardrelief]

If you join his Patreon does he undo more of his shirt buttons?

[@greyswandir2807]

"No! That's not what I'm saying! It's kwomplicated." Actual transcript of Jorby responding to this video.

[@Gabriel-mz8fk]

I was expecting more dislikes... Seems like the Peterson mob hasn't seen this video yet...

[@baroquecat2295]

Just came across his cult members, a group of Christians, they seemed like genuine people but they just couldn’t handle ANY critisism of Peterson, I pointed that out and the reaction was hilarious! People worship him and it’s really fucking insane

[@Gabriel-mz8fk]

@@baroquecat2295 It's a fucking cult... I'm not kidding... Some of his followers thinks he's a prophet or something...

[@HFTYKCK]

We see it.. Its just empty & not worth a response.. It seems like anyone who doesn't join along in careless denigration is part of his "mob" but from here it appears like if your not pray of this cult your part of his cult. Kinda like politics we've left no room for center discussion. It can only be insults from here. Plenty of people simply want to understand more about both perspectives of these cults but to raise questions on either sides "ideology" is sensitive & warrants defensive responses. Why be defensive if you can think as an individual & not belong to an ideology. The fact we cant have these discussions proves how real this is.

[@lorettagreen6794]

The idea that anyone “thinks as an individual” just shows how naive Peterson followers you are and how ignorant you are of the massive ideological filter you see the world through. Your very capacity to think and the language you think in come from outside of you. From the moment you opened your eye your world and impression of them were mediated by others. You preach of responsibility and don’t even acknowledge That your hyper individualism the EPITOME of irresponsibility. Keep serving yourself and blaming others as the world burns.

[@HFTYKCK]

@@lorettagreen6794 talk about ideological filters in wich individuals view the word followed up with they don't exist. 🍻 do you hear yourself?

[@YggdrasilAudio]

For me, Peterson is a clear case of someone who, due to success in one area, has equated that to being a genius who knows the answer to everything.

[@sam-cn8tu]

This was fantastic

[@joeburkeson8946]

On a personal level ideology is box of things where more or less our biases are in agreement, coherence comes from our artistic ability to shave the puzzle piece so it fits good enough, and the walls of the box create the rigidity observed. In other words our baggage.

[@fatpotatoe6039]

Although I suspect I would fundamentally disagree with you ideologically, I always love and appreciate your open-minded, thoughtful takes with quality visuals, analogies, integration of philosophy and explanation. Proud to have discovered this channel last year; practically every video is brilliant. Keep up the great work, and keep up the patronage to Then & Now!

[@Daniel-Strain]

While 'ideology' is not necessarily simplistic or extreme, Peterson's approach ironically promotes that very type of ideology. By referring to all other ideologies as "ideology" and claiming his ideology is "free of ideology", Peterson simultaneously promotes a simplistic, dogmatic ideology while covering its tracks, making it more like the unnoticed 'water' to his fellow fish. The most insidious of ideologies are those which are invisible to their adherents.

[@MrBenbenky]

It is also funny, how his in-depth analysis, logic and research of things that matter resulted in only 12 rules for life. Ideology-free rules.

[@devanshrathore9112]

what exactly is his ideology then?

[@Daniel-Strain]

@@devanshrathore9112 They explain it in the video.

[@JDRS77]

Hey there! Gotta say that I love your videos, good production value for a KZbin account. In defense of JP I like the fact that he decided to publish a couple of books with (I want to think) the honest intention of promulgating that ancient wisdom somehow forgotten in this "interconnected" world of today, that has to be admired. Must of us only care for ourselves and to hell with the rest, so I find the advice he offers valuable, as mistaken and perhaps contradictory in some parts as you've proven in your two videos. Keep it up, it's awesome to see fair criticism with real arguments without ad hominem attacks (hard to find these days).

[@Charles-pf7zy]

@Through the Looking Glass “Self-ownership, also known as sovereignty of the individual or individual sovereignty, is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity and be the exclusive controller of one's own body and life.” -do you agree with this or not?

[@Charles-pf7zy]

@Curiouser and Curiouser in what situation would it be okay to violate individual bodily autonomy? Ab0rtion?

[@Charles-pf7zy]

@Curiouser and Curiouser ok. So you’d agree all adults have personal sovereignty

[@Charles-pf7zy]

@Curiouser and Curiouser how could i be making a fallcy if i was not making a statement? i was asking you if you agree that all adults have personal sovereignty. lets take convicts and soldiers out of the equation and assume we're dealing with the 95% of adults who don't fit into a special category. Do they have personal sovereignty or not?

[@Charles-pf7zy]

@Curiouser and Curiouser Ok, good you clarified that not only do “some” people not have bodily autonomy, you go a step further and claim it’s ridiculous to believe “anyone” has bodily autonomy. Do you believe the law should recognize bodily autonomy as a right, regardless of whether you believe it actually exists or not? If you disagree, what changes would you make to our system that reflects a disbelief in personal sovereignty? Or are you simply stating that you personally do not believe personal sovereignty exists just for the sake of expressing that opinion?

[@garymorgan75]

Absolutely I agree we will all flourish

[@romanmanner]

Regarding the idea that chaos is inherently feminine: I've never understood this. In my experience, women were and are caregivers, teachers, producers of real value. Men are often quick to anger, boastful, arrogant and until they have children - and sometimes even then - they do not regulate themselves. I simply fail to see how Peterson's embrace of an outdated patriarchal view will make my life better.

[@jimarjoshualongcob3379]

Thank you somebody said it. He is generalizing that masculinity brings about order and femininity is chaos. JP seriously needs to re-educate himself with history. it also seems to me that everything JP says and do boomerangs back to him.

[@MrAustanian]

You are strawmanning his views. His argument is that the feminine is represented as change and creation which is inherently chaotic, but necessary. That the masculine is represented in order. An over abundance of order results in tyranny. His beliefs is that society needs a constant dialog between the two to find "the balance between chaos and order".

[@DrBrandold]

@@MrAustanian Is it also not masculine to have the strength and aggression to destroy tyrants?

[@ShirDeutch]

Peterson: chaos is feminine. Also Peterson: it really sucks that hitting women who disagree with me isn't an option anymore.

[@KnotsOfWonders]

@@DrBrandold Yes, but the act of destroying is chaos, you need the will to destroy the tyrant first before you raise the sword. We all have masculine and feminine traits, chaos and order, yin and yang, balance.

[@BA.77777]

That last sentence about ideology being archetypal had some sweet mustard on it. Well played 😂

[@jeffpicklo525]

Well done without being “ low resolution “

[@walterramirezt]

"Ideology is a map of meaning"... I see what you did there 👀

[@jameswatkins7763]

Except it's not accurate. All ideologies have one thing in common: a set of core beliefs or axioms that are immutable. The core beliefs are then used to justify or encourage certain actions and behaviors. The problem is when the axioms are inherently flawed and ideologues are not willing to debate or challenge their beliefs.

[@walterramirezt]

@@jameswatkins7763 Isn't the assumption that there's a meaning, a structure and hierarchy to it an ideology?

[@jameswatkins7763]

@@walterramirezt I don't mean to say it's wrong to claim ideologies are "maps of meaning" but it's an inaccurate representation. Its a lot more fitting to the title of Peterson's book, which describes how people develop meaning in their lives, which doesn't necessarily involve ideology in the classic sense.

[@themorrishouseofwizardry3555]

This is a really interesting analysis of Peterson and of ideology in general. I think my problem with your analysis is the way you have defined ideology. Of course it is difficult to define, but its also difficult to define common words like cup or dog without reference to the object in question. We are still able to converse about them even though its difficult to rigorously define them. The way you have used"ideology" is too broad. Your definitions could refer to any abstraction, schema or mental map that helps us interpret reality. Are religions ideologies? Is science an ideology? What about math or literary theory. You mentioned recipes could be a type of ideology. Could they really? No one uses the word this way. And because you began with this problem of definition the entire video suffered from concept drift. Peterson's problems arise from his religiosity and emotional excesses, but I find the charge of being overly ideological a strange one. But great video- thoughtful, and really entertaining. Definitely gets a thumbs up!

[@badnoisebebopblackoutnetwo3348]

I think his definition works great. It's broad because ideology itself is a broad concept, at times spanning to a totalising scale in it's ambition. Yes, recipes can be ideological. There are certain ways to kill and animal and drain it's blood so as not to eat the blood, in Judaism for instance, because 'the life is in the blood'. Or you may be required to use more sustainable foods instead of red meat for instance, according to certain climate change corrective ideas. Or some recipes could tell you to put a spike or something through a lobster's head when you prepare it, so that it will not feel pain when you boil it alive (whether this works or not is beside the point for this conversation) -- something inspired by ideological concerns over the minimization of 'pain' to animals, as an extension of harm reduction ideologies developed by and for humans. There was an internet storm about whether or not you can have pineapple in pizza. And there's a miniature culture war in Texas around whether or not there should be beans in chilli. Curtains ways of preparing and cooking foods can most definitely ideological, Peterson's all meat diet -- and the constraint it puts on preparation of said meat, or how you'd have to cook anything else in order for him to reintegrate it into his diet -- is one such example of his ideology showing up on his plate. Edit: Also yes, given certain of these definitions, things like science, literary study, math etc., are ideologies. I don't see what's wrong with that, as they are coherent models with which to interpret the world. There are 'good' ideologies and 'bad'.