Why Jordan Peterson is Wrong About Responsibility
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Through 12 Rules for Life and Beyond Order, I examine Jordan Peterson’s philosophy of responsibility. First, I try to understand what Peterson says about individual responsibility. Second, I take a look at the philosophy of free will and responsibility. I look at determinism, psychology, and history to begin to draw a between what we’re responsible for and what we’re not. Ultimately, I argue that Peterson holds us individually responsible for too much, and that when we look to the history of social movements, we see that social and collective action is just as necessary.
Peterson emphasizes individual responsibility to an unreasonable degree, while discounting the necessity and power of social or collective responsibility.
We also take a few detours down some familiar routes: feminism, postmodern neo-Marxism, and identity politics.
#jordanpeterson #critique #identitypolitics #responsibility
Then & Now is FAN-FUNDED! Support me on Patreon and pledge as little as $1 per video: patreon.com/use...
Or send me a one-off tip of any amount and help me make more videos:
www.paypal.com...
Buy on Amazon through this link to support the channel:
amzn.to/2ykJe6L
Follow me on:
Facebook: thethenan...
Instagram: / thethenandnow
Twitter: / lewlewwaller
Subscribe to the podcast:
podcasts.apple...
open.spotify.c...
Sources:
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...
Jordan Peterson, 12 Rules for Life
Jordan Peterson, Beyond Order
Michael Katz, The Undeserving Poor: America’s enduring Confrontation with Poverty
Credits
Jordan Peterson image: Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 creativecommon..., via Wikimedia Commons: commons.wikime...
B.F. Skinner image: Silly rabbit, CC BY 3.0, creativecommon..., via Wikimedia Commons, upload.wikimed...
Nelson Mandela image: © copyright John Mathew Smith 2001, upload.wikimed...
Script & sources at: www.thenandnow.co/2023/07/01/why-jordan-peterson-is-wrong-about-responsibility/
► 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
Right on point as far as I'm concerned. He gets some things right within his purview, but his common excursions into philosophy and politics are where he deserves criticism.
You sure the NS were the bad guys? Have you seen western culture lately? We don’t have nations or culture in the west any more. I’d say we lost by winning WW2.
I think you've been more than fair to him. His politics focusing on the individual is a means of fostering and coddling anti-politics. The idea that community and communitarian world views are some how terrible. It also doesn't account for the will of sacrifice. What of jobs that require one to be self-less (nurses, therapists, councilors, teachers, etc.)?
Don't know how you could think 12 rules is in anyway a good book. His baleful truisms are as novel and insightful as a tin of baked beans. The order and chaos subtext is a device used to frame what he distrusts as agents of chaos: feminists , stoners, environmentalists, the needy , etc. What he doesn't distrust therefore must be orderly. The Coda section of 12 rules, cod Messianic guff.
"What shall I do with my wife?. Treat her as if she is the holy mother of God who will give birth to the world redeeming hero"? Paul Thouroux said , " why?, so often does the Bible become the happy hunting ground of an unbalanced mind".
Peterson doesn't deny there is a place for collective action, but believes that change at the individual level is of primary importance. What if all people adopted the maximum amount of responsibility, for themselves, their families, and those around them? If they spoke the truth and acted in a forthright manner. Develop their moral framework and individual competence as best they can. What does society look like?
I'd argue that a grass roots change that might arise from Peterson's approach would have a greater positive impact on society than the social justice activist approach. Is pride month improving anybody's life more than if they got their shit together? BLM/Antifa is led by exactly the bitter and resentful people Peterson describes and has caused a great deal of suffering to black people especially. Homicide rates have tripled in the cities where they are most active. What if they had got their own house in order before they tried to run a society?
I think you've created a false dichotomy of individual vs social change. Changing individuals IS a way to change society in the most profound way. Are the guards at Auschwitz victims of social pressure or individuals who lacked courage and forthrightness, who shirked their responsibility to walk the path of the 'hero.' You mention Ghandi and MLK - heroes, they are exactly the kind of individuals Peterson's philosophy seeks to nurture. People who can think for themselves, make choices, and lead.
What makes a hero and what makes a nazi? What are the limits of a society filled with competent individuals who are willing to take on maximum responsibility? I can't see any.
Also, do you have an explanation for your audiences' deranged refusal to properly engage with Petersons' ideas? He is often portrayed as a right wing white supremacist. A literal nazi in one notable case. Do you agree with that characterisation?
Peterson is a product of his upbringing in small town Alberta, the most conservative, right wing province in Canada.
Not Canadian, but that's what I've been suspecting. The entire struggle with religion as well. The guy us just a mess.
Great video! Thank you. I am interested in Peterson, and in watching a few videos concerned with pointing out less than ideal points he makes I find myself leaning towards the belief that his thoughts are more stepping stones and less permanent fixtures. It is so helpful to have this kind of content that is measured, and honestly points out concerns with Peterson's claims.
If any idea if fixed it becomes like cult then. But then there are eternal truth ideas that can be fixed because they happens all the time.
I’m glad you are seeing the light but you really couldn’t disprove him on your own? Since when have you seen a self made billionaire? Since when have you seen a man find a loving relationship with a decent woman who isn’t using him? Since when have influencers stopped existing? Nothing he says has any material basis and ever has. He might as well be advocating for the divine right of kings
Peterson is coming from the position of “You are fucked anyway, so might as well try.” If you cut out his word salad, that’s what it comes down to. What he doesn’t seem to understand is, everyone already knew that.
actually common sense is not so common anymore. You just bought into the mainstream Media lie because Peterson is telling a whole generation of men to stop moaning and complaining and get their life together and then change the world. The left hates self agency.
Point to add: morality is socially constructed, but it's not *only* socially constructed. The trolley problem is an excellent tool that psychologists have used to parse out what are evolved biological moral emotions versus mere social constructs (ape shall not kill ape vs. don't eat pork, for example). Some of our moral emotions exist because they're useful for the propagation of genes. Broadly:
1) don't hurt people
2) be fair
3) listen to your elders
4) don't eat that, it's dirty
5) the more like family they are, the more you bend/break the rules for them
If we lived like Peterson we’d have a society of drones , neurotically plumping their pillows and cleaning their shoes before going to work and accepting every and any demeaning instruction because one is never perfect enough to question that society.
Thanks for the video. Delighted someone made these points.
Thanks.
It would be interesting to consider Peterson's "philosophy" in the shadow of two Russian authors whom he seems to admire very much. I am talking about Dostoyevsky and Solzhenizin.
Thereby, I think not so much about them as authors of fiction but as leading voices who did provide certain ideas, especially in the area of the harsh anti-Marxism (anti-semitism is also here) etc.
Additionally, both Dostoyevsky and Solzhenizyn alike loved to play a sort of "Christ" bearing his cross to Calvary and suffering for our sins in advance. In order to execute a back-charge in times to come.
I don’t think Solzhenitsyn was an author of fiction
“Free will” is useful ideology for governments to hold as they may hold “individuals” accountable when individual desire counter the “rule of law.”
Love the way Jorpson blows right through the phrase 'we can't use logic because that doesn't exist'
Yeah I was like, *Hold on, what!?* 😆😅😅
22:25 this is gold. I will be using these bits against JP in news comments. Thank you so much!!!
The limit in Peterson is 1960s, he is not reading anything onward the date
Thanks for all the hard work on the video!
Responsibility is the meaning of life. Carry the load. There are some who cannot (my younger sister, for example). That becomes my load.
He just made a community post that starts with "Doing something for others is more rewarding than anything else you can do."
As a fan of Jordan Peterson I do agree with your argument. Definitely not the first person to argue against individual responsibility, yet one of the better perspectives I’ve came across! Great content.
Why would you be a fan of a crytofascist?
Robertson, I appreciate your thoughts. We need more respectful discourse like yours. Different views, but willingness to listen openly
31.16 here I actually found smt l agree with, though he probably views these words in some other way. I've always taken my responsibility to do my best to save animals/nature/our only planet as one of my most important responsibilities, incl in the way I raised my 2 children as environmentally as possible (least amount of waste, plastic, waste in general, reusable nappies/wipes, 2nd hand clothes/toys that you later sell again or donate, cleaning with vinegar/bicarbonate, not buying formula or baby food, carrying them, no car, using the library...when older n of importance some new items; still avoiding extreme fast fashion and focusing more on a new bicycle to go to the beach and have fun etc plus ..not eating meat but whole food/seasonal which saves a lot of habitat/species/resources so on). This I see as something I have to do for the planet, as a whole. Not for anyone individual but at the same time, in a way selfishly as I'd felt bad if I'd neglected it. Approx 32 and no being vegan or now a grandmother doesn't mean that is ALL I am!?
Determinism vs free will argument rather ignores the degree responsibility itself is part of the environment. It is a basic element of all personal and social movements. I think he focuses on the person because the reader can do something about it (rather than being distracted by the various multi causal effects). The issues people have with the exceptions are largely projections of what they read into it. A basic tenet of most ideologies is an acknowledgment that the reader doesn’t measure up to the ideal and never will. Most of this is a justification/ sublimation of motives.
I partially agree with Peterson in that identity politics, although not intentionally, have reduced people simply to their groups (but that isn't necessarily because of postmodernism alone, but also because of racism and right-wing identity politics as well). And what's more, even before "identity politics", people were already divided into groups which were more rigidly defined. So, his idea of a Hobbsian competition between groups is basically a description of human history, not just postmodernism. However, I do believe that individuality as self-expression is among the few things that allow you to break free from the groupthink and rebell against social norms. After all, most social movements started because a group of individuals wished to rebell against the given power structures, and so they banded together to do it; inspiring others in the process, but in all cases it comes from individual free will the need to rebel.
But your rebeling alone will not produce changes. You would be just an outsider prone to all kinds of bullying and segregation, which you would have to face by yourself. However, when organizing and grouping with like mindes people you can make your stance heard. Real changes only happen on a social level.
Hobbesian competition amongst the lobsters.
Yet I have nether seen any republican putting people in groups. It is always the dems doing that stop lying. Right wingers put individuality above everything else thus race doesn't matter. The dems would state their race and gender before even starting a sentence. But for the rest I agree with you.
@@karlalan3806 "It is always the dems doing that...."
Don't you see what you did there?
@@karlalan3806The whole point of the video is to point out that the near total emphasis of individual responsibility blames victims of endemic injustices for their own failure while allowing (for example) people sponsored by a fathers emerald mine wealth to be “a self made man who built himself from nothing”….
I’d be curious to know if anyone has asked Mr. Peterson about duty and obligation? These would seem to be in opposition to personal responsibility. Also, has he talked about the Protestant Work Ethic? He seems to believe in existentialism but he talks about predeterminism (fate). At the end of the day, he seems to be only talking to the white heterosexual middle-aged male.
This is addressing philosophy at a different, deeper level than Jordan Peterson does, one must remember that Jordan Peterson is a psychotherapist and not a philosopher. It's inevitable that there will be inconsistencies between the starting points.
The problem isn't even that there are inconsistencies in the things he says. The problem is that he should be smart enough to see the biases he holds but fails to do so. For a supposed intellectual he sure contradicts himself constantly, and what's more, for somebody who constantly tells people to try and tell the truth always, he lacks the character to consider the other side's viewpoints as well. One of the most outrageous things I've seen from his end is one of the latest tweets that he posted after the recent Texas school shooting. I'm somewhat paraphrasing but it went something along the lines of "In order to stop these attrocities, the media must stop revealing the perpetrator's name. What they seek is attention and as long as they get it, school shootings will ever stop. Nihilism and a lack of meaning is what's bla-bla..." - When I read the tweet I was genuinely left dumbfounded at his stupidity and sheer ignorance. For a supposed intellectual with an IQ of 170, to think that a lack of individual responsibility is what's causing these incidents to happen and that they would suddenly all disappear if we just stopped publizising the names of the shooters is just a level of stupidity that's so amazing that it almost takes your breath away. Australia has introduced harsher gun laws after they experienced a shooting and it actually worked and still continues to do so. Other countries literally experience zero mass shootings, despite their population also suffering from mental illneds. Does he have evidence to suggest that America is so unique in its mental crisis compared to other countries that would lead one to such suggestion? Of course not. Really, I shouldn't even have to argue much further. It's a take so incredibly childish and naive... I really can't with this man. For somebody who constantly "owns" lefties for virtue-signalling while telling them to get their act together first, he sure suffers more from that than the same people he critizises. Out of all the online figures I know, he may genuinely be one of the biggest hypocrites I know of. I just cannot take much of what he says seriously. Oh god, and let's not get started on his poor views of Marxism. I think his debate with Zizek and the pullout against a debate with Richard Wolff are clear indicate of his hypocrisy. He thinks telling people to "Read. More" automatically means he's won the argument, but little does he know: he himself hasn't read enough.
@@MonkeyDIvan What's this got to do with my point?
Wow, I did not realize that I made 7 comments so far. Anyways, this is the 8th one.
I think the video is confused a bit, and probably because Peterson does not explicitly describe how individual responsibility manifests in dealing with the broader social evils. He has focused so much so far on how you should focus completely on the smallest things and take responsibility. Perhaps, he should write a book about stories from history that exemplify this - like Schindler in Nazi Germany and Gandhi in Imperial Britain.
I personally like a lot of the ideas Jordan Peterson talks about, and I think the politicization of him (partially because of himself) has driven people to either support him to the ends of the earth, or hate him so viciously that they wont listen to a single word he says.
I think its important for people to get away from the political polarization and just treat what he says (and anyone else who shares philosophical ideas for that matter) as ideas to think about and discuss.
Even reading through the comments of this video I feel people have just begun picking sides rather than discussing these ideas. The "my team (who is the only team that really knows the truth) against your team (who is stupid and evil) and my team has to win at all costs!" mentality. People need to start thinking for themselves.
@@negativecharisma7583The You doesn't have a single thought which it could call its own. The brain simply repeats views it has picked up from the outside(culture, peers, parents and so on). By that the illusion comes into being, that it is You yourself thinking these thoughts. I emphasize ILLUSION !
His logic is so simplistic, it’s totalitarian.
i thought about this too
I enjoyed this video and appreciated how you presented your critique of Peterson. My only experience.of him was a RUclips a couple of years ago and the impression I was left with was of a shrill pseudo intellectual.
I agree
Frail and hysterical boomer lectures on gender roles and hierarchy lmaoooo
These are clear things to norm ppl. Absurdity is, that while jp rambles quite right about atomization and alienation, he at the same time, worships and embrace the very system that produces this, and fearmonger about marx, Who In part actually critisized system due to alienation it causes.
He's an abused- guy passing it along. Making other sub-perfect types feel ashamed. So boring. Saw this about him from the first second.
Personal responsibility presupposes free will, and free will simply doesn't exist. If someone is in a poor life situation due to bad choices, the next question is to ask WHY that person made those choices. Every choice has reasons behind it and when we understand them, we would see that that was the only choice that the person would have ever made in that situation. There is no magical ability to be able to make a different choice, so the only point in saying someone is responsible for their life choices is to blame them and do nothing to help.
That he sounds like Kermit also helped him with meme power.
First off, determinism has basically been refuted by modern physics, so there's no real scientific backing for that view beyond lingering cultural assumptions from before the discovery of quantum theory. Causality is definitely a thing, but predicting effects is fundamentally a matter of probabilities rather than linear certainty.
Second of all, the fact that one's agency is limited by their capabilities and other circumstantial factors, doesn't change the fact they're ultimately responsible for the quality and exercise of that agency. While Peterson is unreasonably hyperbolic when he calls for getting one's house "in perfect order" before endeavoring to change the world, the essential point remains true:
_One is soley and inespapably responsible for their own agency._
"Social" responsibility is ultimately an outgrowth of one's individual agency. Engagement with cultural and civic life _is_ important, but the value and efficacy of one's contributions is still a function of their own moral and practical development. Improving one's self necessarily improves the world by as much.
At 31:30, you say that his argument is contradicting his advice to think twice before helping others. Well, that is not. To begin with, his idea about "not helping others" is not to say that you care about only yourself, but to say that you are not qualified to help others, you don't understand the psychology of others, and so many times, the person you are trying to help will take themselves will take you down with them. It is about humility and acceptance, not selfishness.
His idea of "not helping others" also does not mean that you should not be responsible for the broader world, only that others have their own psyche and you don't know how to deal with problematic psyche. Elsewhere he makes the point in response to a question, "what can you do when there's someone you love who is going down, but you can't help them", - motivating them by example is your best bet.
You are definitely responsible for the chaos and frigid order that comes your way, and if it is wrong, you try and do something about it - you might not be successful, but that's your best bet.
29:53 Here I agree wholeheartedly with you and disagree with Peterson. Peterson, too, "is" part of a larger movement and you defined it: the self-help movement which focuses on the individual achieving greatness, or a modicum or level of success based on effort. Peterson is also swept into the Free Speech and First Amendment Rights movement by default when he stood up to a law that was going to impose sanctions on free speech.
In fact, Peterson by DNA or social conditioning is swept into the larger "conservative movement" because the progressive liberal movement which used to hold Free Speech as a high moral principle has abandoned it to cow tow to the extreme left who want to mandate what a human can say and what a human can think. So, yes, I agree, many things are beyond the individual's own capacity and control. Peterson agrees too, as he has said so many times.
I really like some of his message. But when blaming Foucault for Marxism (which Foucault vehemently opposed to most of his adult life) I wonder if he has done all of the necessary reading :)
Which video is part 2 of this? It isn't clear from everything on your videos page.
It's a bit embarasing how much I used to follow Peterson.
“Self-help philosophy”… he is a sophist, and you know pretty well what i mean with this, he is just another virtue seller.
Yeah, what folks seem to think is Philosophy from Peterson is a wild mix of Sophistry and Rhetoric
maybe he is, but clearly, today in this time and age, anyone who can sell, or influence us to be more responsible than we are, i would buy it. i believe responsibility is a core problem, and being more aware of that is the only way out for us humans. responsibility and reflexivity. if that is hard to achieve, then i admit there is no free will. and we will all end up under a A.I. pretty much soon.
@@justmauldie I think that it's ASMR. Then they can pat themselves on the back afterwards for being such intellectuals.
putting your room in order can take a life time.
He is a walking contradiction. For a man that is all about staying in your own lane, he is a professor of clinical psychology yet he acts as expert of multiple disciplines. He is so eyeroll worthy that obscurity is all he deserves yet his ego means one cannot.
Additionally, in a strange way, I feel sympathy for him because all his bloviating about personal responsibility has gotten him is a mental breakdown not unlike the great uberman Nietzche himself.
Oh please listen to JP. He is an expert on EVERYTHING. His recent and latest expertise is Christianity. He isn't doing so great on the political front, but never mind, he's switched to religion. I believe everything JP tells me because he uses these big words I don't understand. That tells me right off that he's smarter than I am. Last night I prayed to JP for clarity and in a dream he told me he was god. And I believed him, cuz like I said he uses all these biggly words. And just lately on twitter, he told me which women are beautiful and which are not so that I now know heavier set women are very unattractive, so I am ditching my present girlfriend and looking for one that only eats beef and salt. Also one that doesn't wear makeup because women who wear makeup are inviting sexual harassment. This is something he actually said, (look it up) By his own admission he was accused on three separate instances of sexual harassment. No doubt, those females students were wearing lipstick--the little harlots. And I know he is right about this, because he is god and uses all these big words. I Pray in Jordan Peterson's name, Amen. Bottom line JP fanboys--if you want to swallow this charlatan's advice after he didn't adhere to his own "12 steps" you are beyond help. This is a man who turned to drugs when faced with his personal struggles. He turned to drugs when his wife was diagnosed with cancer--when she probably needed his support the most. Then he went to Russia for a cure. Yeah, that's manning up to life's struggles. People, how can you be so gullible????? TThsaruclips.net/video/Vj_lNRIlctY/видео.html
Nietzsche was far more humble - he never regarded himself as an ubermensch.
@@applewitheveryone
Nietzsche , humble? Are you serious? Zarathustra is overman and teaches it, it is Nietzsches own mask and mouth speak.
But JP , what can you say? Not an original thinker, that one is clear and obvious. Maybe he is charlatan and imposter? Or maybe he ia just too weak to be great ( going beyond good and evil)? Or maybe he is doing all because of money and fame ( same thing).
Thanks for the critic...I personally didnt take Jordan Petersons view to be so absolute either on responsibility or in helping others or on ideology..I have other areas where I would challenge him but not specifically those ...in response to you key points
Responsibility : MY thinking is that he is not blaming a person for their poverty (I don't see any line where he has specified that ) he is only pushing us to the limits to be honest about challenge ourselves to pick up the mantle of what we have power to control (I remember a conversation where he was criticising the USA for their backward social care system, when compared to Europe, for example)..and like you and he say to not get resentful.
Helping others: Although I agree his statement that "the literature is clear" (if one paper was his source) would be unfounded ...I didnt think he was advocating not helping a fellow worker but it was about the impact on someone who was not "playing the same game as the group" ...I think this is a basic animal behaviour...and i have been on the wrong side of that myself it is a lesson in the social rules of the group (although very painful to me and most) on how to integrate.. learn it or be excluded. (obviously it depends upon the circumstances not being ridiculously extreme, such as racism etc)
Ideology : I am probably biased here by familiary experience of feminism , which I humbly believe I fully agree with. However not when it turns into hatred of men per se and tries to make them the cause of all world ills and worth less than women then we have a problem. Don't get me wrong I believe most feminists are reasonable I am just talking the extremes. I felt your reference to Nelson Mandela, MLK, building a bridge etc misleading ....as I understand him, he is not against such movements ....he is not against ideology but against tribalism/extremism of ideology, and definition of their tribal good by comparison to the bad of the other tribe , indeed the creation of the negative "other" is the problem which leads to exclusion and hatred of that other ...something we are seeing more and more of with the current politricks. ...however I will now watch you next episode, on the same, and see :)
Very good post.
Well said mr man
Jordan said he used to be for socialism and said he wasn't anymore. He went to extremes of being people against talking about the problems of prejudice against people like ethnic people and women without learning of what they had to say first and just being close-minded to them.
Kavernacle has a video on Jordan being ok with women getting s3xually assaulted in the workplace and then blaming women for it.
Look at comments from mgtow, red pill men, men rights, conservatives, and Andrew Tate. They also blame all problems on women and advocate to take voting away from women cause they said women ruin society.
When conservative Matt Walsh heard a woman was assaulted, he said he thought she deserved it cause the people in his group think women ruined society and are all libs. I also saw them saying the same of African Americans.
Also, some people exaggerate and lie and say some fems hate men when they don't. When they just say things like criticizing harassment. Or when they don't want people shaming and saying women can only be homemakers, baby machines, and subservient to men. Etc. Which people like conservatives do force those things on women and bully them if they don't do it.
grivers88 - I entirely agree with your points. There is a lot of misunderstanding of JP's philosophy in this video.
In addition I'd say Peterson was a clinician, as well as an academic, and , speaking myself as a psychotherapist, I can confidently assert that helping clients take personal responsibility towards a desired outcome (irrespective of the ultimate success or lack of) is infinitely more empowering than allowing them to stagnate in a self victimising inner orientation (i.e. being the victim of circumstances).
@@Lalallalu How did he misunderstand him?
Jordan Peterson may change his mind about personal responsibility if he was born again as a child laborer mining cobalt using bare hands in Congo in a parallel universe
So, what is the proper mindset for " a child laborer mining cobalt using bare hands in Congo in a parallel universe"?
So you don't have the proper mindset answer. Thanks for playing...
Your challenge was with Peterson. You only offered this extreme situation as a supposed response. You have none, thus far. I'd thought I'd point out that you haven't really responded. Again, since YOU posited the situation and you are trying to be critical, do so in an intellectually honest manner- "What is the proper mindset?"
@@PocketDelicious You first. You never answered the initial query, you just decided that (consciously or maybe by habit?), that you would deflect, and never gave a real response, probably because you can't. Wow Could YOU possibly be missing the point any more than you are?
I'm gonna tell you what's the limit of Peterson, the fact that he has CLEARLY never read a line of Derrida or Foucault, even less Baudrillard and has the spine to critique them.
He's read *The Communist Manifesto* twice though. :D
Collectivists never get any further than how other people should not and should act.
At least invidualists start improving themselves and from there work outwards improving the world by adding value and productivity.
Collectivists are impotent preachers that limmit others.
@@thijsjong Is it possible you are simplifying the stance of Structuralist and Neo-Marxist philosophers? I mean they (Foucault, Derrida, Marcuse and so on) have spent years and years studying, critiquing and expanding Marxist and structuralist literature. We should try to understand where others are coming from and give their work an honest shot, no?
@@thijsjong Now I'm confused. Isn't Peterson also telling people how to be and to act? It is inherent in the meaning of the word "Rule", I'd say.
AMEN AMEN AMEN
The biggest problem with JP is he does not take his own advice. The man went a media tour for years telling everyone who we should live while having a terrible addiction to Benzos. He was not cleaning his room.
But he put out dramatic videos of his suffering and crying over that - my guess is that he felt that emotion in that circumstance balanced out his "rational authorianism", which he seems to cling to.
It's called being a human being. No one is perfect.
Having read self-help when I was younger, I was decidedly underwhelmed by Peterson's self-help. He would often take the long way round to say the same things you find in every second self-help book. Combine it with his dogmatic and inflexible ideology, and you have a recipe for nonsense.
Nice and well-developed arguments. Looking forward to Part II!😊😊
I heard a philosopher say that we transitioned from *agent morality* (ex "how should i act in order to be virtuous"-it’s about the doer) to *patient morality* (ex "how should i act such that my actions don’t cause harm"-it’s about those who live the consequences) and we’re now starting to focus on *relation morality.* This latter paradigm rises from the understanding that everything is a network, your car exists solely as the product of a network of technologies and tools (production lines, welding machines, the internal combustion engine, the mining industry, paved roads, refineries and gas pumps, etc etc-bring a Ferrari back in time before paved roads & gas stations existed and you have a very complex piece of metal) and you yourself exist solely as a member of a network of humans. A human by itself is not even as smart as an ape, which comes almost fully "programmed" as it were, out of the box. A human cannot be human by itself, as opposed to something like a wolf, sheep, zebra. We need to be welcomed amongst society to develop to our human potential-your name, your language, critical thinking, your clothes, your dreams and desires, the music you listen, the computer and internet protocols you use, highways and streets, airplane flights, medicine and dentistry, soap and toothpaste, being a punker or a rapper, etc etc *are stuff you’re receiving/unlocking thanks to the network you’re part of.* Imagine a very dynamic sophisticated person living in San Francisco, trading crypto, developing DeFi, listening to The Weekend while driving his Ferrari to a party, all dressed up with fine clothes and an attitude to stun. Now imagine the same individual if they would’ve grown up on a deserted island (with plenty of food and water at an arm’s length) without taking part in the human network. Yep, take away the network and what remains is the ape. Each node is only as strong as the network, meaning that we’re as complex, resilient and healthy as the social network is. Given this, it means that *in order to serve the individual you have to tend to the nature of social relations.*
Right now, humanity is a mix of moral attitudes that aren’t taking our relational nature into account-instead, our moral attitudes stem from the view that we’re magic individuals, independent and wholly humans by ourselves. This feeds back into the poor quality of life we have. Society today and us as individuals are very primitive compared to our potential, unfortunately we cannot see ourselves any other way but highly (or even "ultimately") evolved.
Passage from an essay tackling this very insight:
**
Interesting! Do you remember the name of the philosopher who talks about relation morality? Thanks
@@LopusArgenteus Sadly no. It might have been an episode on cognitive scientist John Vervaeke’s youtube channel, but i’ve watched many of his themed series and quite a few interviews. Too many to remember specifics.
@@LopusArgenteus Bruno Latours Actor Network Theory talks about it. Alot of Object Oriented Ontology stuff. There's a guy named Adam Miller that wrote something called Speculative Grace which applies A.N.T. to ethics and religion. It's not religion typically thought of at all. It comes from the conversation surrounding Paul right now in the continental tradition.
@@thotslayer9914 is this like an honest question? Or like a I'm trying to be cool, look how stupid this guy is and smart I am, please think I'm cool, kind of question? Both valid, just curious.
this is just act v consequentialist utilitarianism
I don’t think this a good faith argument. Peterson recognizes many mitigating factors that impede success, but calls out flimsy excuses, which only serve to justify mediocrity.
While nobody’s total success or failure is completely up to themselves, it’s also true people are often their own worst enemy through bad habits, counterproductive routines, excuses, over inflated self esteem, and self delusion.
I just recently got to know about this Peterson and, after listening to a few his lectures and interviews, i can't really see the reasons to his huge popularity: he brings nothing new to the table, but he does that with a lot of presumptuous pomp and self righteousness.
To see who are the "stars" of our times, from music to cinema, from politics to philosophy, tells a lot about the fading out of any critical thinking in the decadent west.
He used to be quite self aware & honest about how he achieved popularity - successfully monetising anti-SJW rhetoric by making bigotry sound pseudo-intellectual
Spot on there 🙌
This is sounds so much like correspondence bias or attribution effect.
We need social responsibility too !!
Abused people want personal responsibility...for the people who once abused them. And JP is one perfect example of a very repressed formerly abused-kid
Society runs by individuals.
Society itself cant take responsibility or provide any service. But the individual in it do.
@@averayugen7802 what person understand darkness more then the one who has seen it.
And you don't know what abused people want.
Yes, behind individual responsibility a social responsibility is also important
@@aaad3552 It's messed up that you don't think abused people want their abusers to be held responsible. That's a basic thing everyone should know. So you don't think cops should intervene in assault cause you think the cops can't know what that victim wants? Also, how do you know if averayugen7802 was abused or not.
The “rule” of helping only those who want to help you is ridiculous in my opinion. If you are uncertain, whether or not you want to help someone based on you not being sure of their intent to help you or their usefulness, you clearly do not have their best interest at heart, because otherwise your desire to help them wouldn’t be dependent on their usefulness to you. So if we now apply the same mindset to the person you are deciding on whether or not to help, they wouldn’t help you either because of this very reason, which would lead to the condition of neither yours, nor theirs applying. So all in all we would be living in a society where there can be no cooperation if this rule were to be implemented by everyone.
I'm not sure whether or not Peterson actually makes the best case against himself himself. After all, he doesn't exactly hide the story about his anxiety and severe drug withdrawal symptoms. So whoever actually follows this guy sees that a tidy room won't actually fly you out around the world to take care of you in dire straits.
Well that...
...And comparing human society to the mating hierarchy of a sub species of lobster.
Would definitely be looking for the next part. Great video mate.
I believe your argument is weakened by your incorrect etymological analysis of "responsibility". Characterizing it as equivalent to "ability to respond" allows you to focus on the external moral judgment of a person's ability to respond to a situation, free will, and accountability. Nevertheless "responsibility", from the Latin "respondere", is a combination of "re" (back; again) plus "spondere" (promise, guarantee). The external judgments are secondary to the person's commitment to promise or guarantee something to another person in its two meanings of "duty" and "accountability".
Peterson has a focus on the "duty" aspect and you focus on the "accountability" aspect. Peterson might say "before blaming others fix your part of the blame" as in "it's your duty to address the blame first" which is basically a "cast the first stone
" kind of sentence. You might respond "it's easy to find situations where the individual has no part in the blame and can't be held accountable by others or herself" which is true and a case that matches the "house in perfect order".
Also note that to be responsible, in the sense of being accountable, is not identical to being the cause, as you seem to affirm in 13:12. You can "spondere" for someone else's actions. You can both be held accountable for someone else's actions and take the duty to amend the bad someone else did.
In the few 'Then & Now' videos I've watched, I've found that he argues with semantics instead of arguing with ideas. I still find Jordan Peterson's ideas valid after watching this video, though I can still understand its weaknesses, which I think Jordan would also agree. I think you shortly summed up the main things that are wrong with his argument. People will continue to demonize Peterson by misrepresenting him. His main point still stands: control all the things you can control to the best of your ability and that will position yourself best to deal with things you can’t control.
This video is porn for intellectuals who disagree with right wing ideas, not to mention those who can't think for themselves. I can't blame people for watching it though. I also enjoy watching videos that validate me. But if your going to have beef with Peterson's ideas, it should truly come down to worldview.
@@carlossardina3161 I think this channel made a honest attempt to tackle the issue of responsibility and show the order side of the coin. It may have failed by just a razor's edge. Regardless, calling it "porn for intellectuals" feels unnecessarily harsh.
I viewed it precisely to be challenged, and enjoyed it. No everyone can produce Roger Scruton's On Human Nature in every RUclips video. Recommended, by the way.
¡Best critique of Peterson I've seen! I used to respect him a lot but after listening "talking" about posmodernism and creating a strawman such as "neo-marxism" I saw him as what he is, a pseudo intelectual and more of a showman than anything else.
his point on that is that post modernists tear down grand narratives only to adopt a Marxist viewpoint, that's it and showing their dishonesty from that as even acknowledged by Zezek in his debate. It's not that complicated it's just double speak that just describes inconsistent ideological views, like slavery in a democracy or an anarchic state.
@@charlesramirez587 Tell me you don't know anything about Postmodernism without telling me you don't know anything about postodernism.
@@samij6071 why?
@@charlesramirez587 you already did. Post-modernism is against all grand narratives. Marxism is a grand narrative. There you go.
@@charlesramirez587 with this comment I can see that you have never read any posmodern author and you only "understand" posmodernism through memes, Internet "explanations" and reductionism. If you want to critique something like posmodernism that's fine but you need to study it first, read some Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillard, Deleuze etc. And least read an scholar expert in the field and make your own mind. The issue is, people listen to Jordan Peterson's "explanations" of what postmodernism is and they think that's all they need to know about the subject and just like any dogmatic person following their religious leader, they don't ask questions or investigate further, sheeps basically. Here is very well done video to least start understanding the subject in a more physosophical way (like it should)
ruclips.net/video/cU1LhcEh8Ms/видео.html
Again is even better if you read the authors for yourself. Also to compare posmodernism with marxism or identity politics is to really know anything about what the posmodern is and what authors exposed. And just to be clear I'm not "defending" posmodernism, I'm defending truth and the proper understanding of any subject.
Great video. I hope Jordan Peterson fans and even Peterson himself will see this.
It’s ironic how irresponsible Peterson is as a “public intellectual.” Marxist and Postmodern thinkers like Adorno or Derrida especially have many valuable things to say about personal responsibility, which Peterson simply ignores or vilifies without understanding. It’s a shame because Peterson would likely benefit greatly from reading these other thinkers, but he’s too deeply trapped within his own ideology to do so.
Adorno’s treatises on mass culture and Derrida’s analyses of one’s responsibility to Others are very important. Being truly responsible requires an adequate understanding of how your society functions and how you relate to others within it structurally. Peterson doesn’t seem to care about any of this beyond a shallow fixation on one’s “career” and “family.”
In fact, it's surprising that a wealthy and socially appreciated white male doesn't get that many in this world are not given many possibilities not just to fulfill their wishes or realize themselves, but even just to not live in violence, suffering or deprivation of freedom.
Apart from that, I can't really see in Peterson's "philosophy" something more than a marketing strategy to sell bad self-help books.
@@Godsen5 probably still better than a straight dive into the bible/quran/.. hahah
@@js4_y567 Is your personal library composed only of Jordan Peterson and religious books. Go to a bookshop! Or, if you don't want to, can't spend money on books, find a public library in your area.
@@Godsen5 Full of resentment, what a repulsive comment
@@Godsen5 you misunderstood, i am not a "fan" of jp.. not a hater either
Jordan is living in the same city as myself.....Toronto is having an awakening to racism against our natives and blacks and he doesn't let us heal....He was a fan of Prof. Rushton of London Ontario's who taught racism at Western University.....London Ontario has had serious killings of
If you haven't already, could you do an episode on determinism (soft and hard), how it effects morality and the difference between human choices/causes and a lack of free will.
Yes. This. Please..!
The individual is a product of society. The society that emphasizes individualism is oxymoronic but they may as well because there is verry little to an individual. All his choices are in the scope of a society, his clothes, his language, is food, is religion, on and on without end. There is not much left to emphasize.
Okay, so there is a bit to individual existence. If you were to query most individuals they would say I prefer this color, this taste, this sound and so on. It does not matter if it looks like nothing, it will be precious to those who only have that.
From the beginning the thrust of Christianity was salvation of the soul, the only individual ( theoretically), how it will stand before God. Is it strange that it should play out into individualism on the political stage? No, but it's was compulsion. Now that science is saying there is no soul and people believe, that reasoning is lost but if you have rights without responsibility, you are only an implement of the collective.
Lobsters of all nations, seperate!
Here's one…
Why were the Europeans that first arrived in America unable to do the work that enriched this country themselves?
Did they misplace their "bootstraps"?
Why didn't they see this as an opportunity to actually create something of their own?
As it is… we owe black people for this society from all the work that they did for free on one hand.
On the other… we owe Native Americans & Mexicans for having a place to do it IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Sure… you created a bunch of stuff!
Thank you!
Good to know that OUR hard work on OUR land was put to good use.
We'll take it from here.
I mean… all we needed was steel & animals.
We would probably have created a less divided society… but, it's cool.
He is a cheerleader for the power of the elite when he states “individual responsibility” without the details of reality itself. He is not a biologist nor a physicist. He is a dangerous moralist with limited humanism.
Excellent critic of JP, fantastic channel!
I'm a fan of Jordan Peterson but I think you are nailing his weaknesses. I find his philosophy very useful but he often overstates his case and therefore needs to be read with that in mind. I think the rancor that is encouraged from public intellectuals (especially today) and his own apparent sensitivity has robbed us of a chance to see his weaker arguments fairly challenged in a rigorous way. Bravo!
It’s not philosophy mate.
@Ross Leeson That's just a assertion can you give arguement for your claim.
@@blankname5177 Peterson is a Clinical Psychologist that emphatically states that you should stay in your lane. So logically, he has no standing to discuss philosophy. That right there is both valid and sound based on his own apparent "authority."
@@rossleeson8626 it is philosophy. Yes he ties in his experience as a clinical psychologist, especially when he talks about personality types, but much his work is VERY EXPLICITLY philosophical, he just uses evidence (lol) to justify it. Most of his philosophical arguments follow from Christian philosophy and hand picked studies
@@bruhdabones could you give me a unique philosophical claim made by him? genuinely curious
For how mundane and boring Peterson is, he sure takes up a lot of rent and space in people's heads. I used to think a lot of his claims were BS, but then I actually listened to him, rather than people's sound bites and quips about him.
I do not agree with all his ideas, but he does have some great points, and they would not be controversial if people were not listening. And people are listening, because it resonates with them.
Especially young men. If you want them to listen, you better have ideas that they can relate to. And the left has failed to provide that feeling, those 'rites of passage'.
Individual responsibility does not mean we ALL have to be productive or die off, but that anyone capable takes initiative to do the best they can.As a classical liberal myself, I agree with most of Jordan's ideas about life. Not all, but some. And that is the best we can do.
Especially today.
Great critique!!!
I'm a little late to this vid, though I couldn't resist commenting anyway. While I listened to your criticisms, I was reminded of something said by William Churchill in response to a reporter accusing him of going back on his word. With the aid of a maritime analogy, Churchill explained that his job was to keep the ship of State on a steady course toward its destination. So if the ship begins listing to the left, he shifts balast to the right. If the ship begins listing to the right, he shifts balast to the left. Thus, it is only to the outside observer that his actions appear hypocritical.
It is much the same with Dr. Peterson. As he has explained many times, his emphasis on individual responsibility is due to the absence of such concepts being properly articulated in contemporary society. So why would he pay lip-service to collectivist ideas when they already make up the majority of the discussions being had within the culture. Why would he take the time to articulate points of view different from his own when those views are already over represented?
I rather read Nietzsche than Peterson
Dig it!!!
This is a very good video overall. A few things to consider. I don't think Peterson would land in the deterministic camp. I watched him give a lecture in Ohio where he specifically discussed his perceived differences between Determinism and Free Will and he definitely landed on the side of free will. I don't remember the specifics exactly but I believe the reason you gave is precisely why he didn't land in the deterministic camp. Also I've noted him speak not only about multi variant factors for causation but also on joining political parties and communities in action to affect change. What I think he argues for is which comes first. "Perfectly" was the wrong word to use, you are right imo. Another part you point out, that being the accompanying nuances and facets of potential, are the secondary innumerable factors in each circumstances., How does one write a book about those things exactly? How would anyone apply all potentials in all situations and remain broadly prescriptive (rules or even suggestions) at all?
I've heard him tell a story about a man with a low IQ who came to his practice that he helped get a job stuffing envelopes and the man still failed to perform the task, after many attempts. When should Peterson have stopped, if at all? I think this story highlights the danger of crafting beliefs and narratives. I think you are on the right path to investigating the truth in so far as you can muster such a thing, and I do commend you for that. The story I mentioned could be spun in a multitude of ways, one of which is that Peterson repeatedly stated no one knows what to do with the "13%" of people below the level capable of performing routinized simple tasks. Is he wrong about that? Have you ever encountered someone who repeatedly refused to act in any way but selfishly? How much of ones life should be spent on the people who legitimately refuse to help themselves? How do you specify in a short book exactly how to do what in each of the many potential ways people act nefariously, leech off of other people, or break culturally or legally imposed boundaries?
The reference to the "factors too big to overcome" is a very broad category. Could Peterson have done better to intersperse situations that are outside of our control in these 2 books. Maybe. What would be the utility? Describing the fact that a person whose legs were amputated after a car crash and how it's not their fault the post office didn't have ADA compliant access points brings what relevance to what the average person should do about shaping their expectations of the world around them? If it shouldn't be about what you can control, what should "rules" about life be about? I think what you are looking for generally is what Peterson terms as chaos in Maps of Meaning. There you'd find examples of the kinds of "malevolence that characterizes life outside of your control" you think his philosophy is devoid of. It is hard not to think that after this it was his responsibility to have crafted a "better" philosophy on responsibility.
Mandela, Ghandi, MLK. That's where you took "before you criticize the world" and turned it into "even the greatest among us should have kept cleaning their room." That man isn't even made of straw.
I am a firm believer in individual sovereignty for without it, it would be much more difficult, if not close to impossible to be socially responsible. Taking care of oneself, I believe is sometimes confused with selfishness, which at times can be exactly that, but if we can put our houses in some kind of order ourselves as individuals, even imperfectly, we can be better able to voluntarily collectivize for greater social change which can benefit communities. I am an individual and I stand by it, but as an individual I am also a part of a larger community. No man is an island as once was said( well maybe Simon and Garfunkel did) so responsibly to those around us is in fact preserving the ideal of the individual for the individual. Nice vid. Refreshing to see an actual critique of what was said not an attack on who said it. Looking forward to the next video on ideology.
@@thotslayer9914 That was kinda mean. 😅
Your Simon and Garfunkel reference to one of my favorite songs has pleased me. Great music taste friend
It is still a lie we tell ourselves; And it is not even a useful social tool.
I’m so glad you touched on this. I’m not a 12-stepper, but I know many and have spoken at and attended many an NA meeting. AA 12 steps is more cliquish, but NA here in Florida is ALL abouth the community. Speaking within the context of knowing that much of 12-steps is couched/based in Jungian philosophy (Peterson’s go-to) it is a decent model for the responsibility of each individual and how that plays out in the group dynamic. There’s a reason 12-steppers spend so much free time in these group meetings. Yes, we as individuals must own and take responsibility for ourselves and be the example for the next guy. If everyone in said group is in agreeance that we are all to hold each other’s feet to the fire SECOND to holding our own, then we are being reaponsible to the group as a whole. By being a reaponsible non-using addict/alcoholic you are being yhe best example to be followed by the group. It’s no secret that not one person in an AA/NA meeting is perfect. Far from it. The point is that everyone there is trying to better themselves as humans. Every single person there is putting some effort (some a little, some a lot) to a) recognizing the end goal of becoming a person that society deems worthy, b) becoming a person they themselves can love so they can in turn effectively love others, c)not compare themselves or their situation and/or use someone else’s situation/progress by which to measure their own.
The problem with this is it doesn’t work over large diverse groups of people. We must ALL hold ourselves to the exact same moral standards for this to work, which is true for any utopia. But within it’s given context it can be argued that it works because you can’t effectively love another human being without first learning to love/value yourself. Anyone successfully navigating recovery of any kind knows this; you are your own best advocate.
In his utopian model where everyone is in agreement, it works great.
Edit: CBT is becoming the texhnique of choice among professionals, and it’s what saved me. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is more effective…working on yourself.
The failures that come in 12-steps comes when people do not embrace the dogma; when they don’t live within the greater socail strata and live up to the expectations of the other personalities within that group. AA especially here in the Deep South (where Christianity is king) gets downright cult-like. NA is WAY more laid back and more loose, inclusive, welcoming, etc.
It just seems like a very thin argument. Wer already live in a culture that highly prizes individualism. It's recognized in law, employment, and in culture. So i seriously doubt that there are many people who don't recognize that they are responsible for themselves.
The whole line if thought is a red herring.
Another example of the importance of critique. A lot of what Jordan is saying is "good" but he has an ignorant cult around him that takes his message and his glaring contradictions wholesale. And he is not responsible. I have no idea how a man so dogmatic and dismissed of anything outside of his own mind could complain about dogma. For deeper thinkers, we take the good and leave the bad. He is NOT the new messiah.
Peterson's cadence and assertiveness was the first big red flag and, as a clinician, he is far too opinionated. I have not observed him long enough to determine if he foments the controversy he seems to be known for. I feel he is more of a jail house guru to be honest.
Just stumbled upon your Channel very recently. Couldn't help but binge for hours!
Loving your videos so much, I've been sharing them on the little social media that I have.
Only thing I'm unhappy about...is how late I found you!
Thanks for all the hard work, interesting topics, deep research, and articulate compendious summarizes ^-^
Wish you the best, and that your content will soon be recognized for its high quality! 💙
Peterson’s urgings towards individual responsibility, is really calling for self sufficiency, which negates the balance, understanding, and need for being able to live with interdependence.
Interdependence is a critical part of the modern economic system, a system that thrives on specialisation. Modern production is maximised by not doing everything and concentrating on things one is good at, so if that is truly his calling, it's out of step with the basis of modern capitalism he loves so much.
The limits of JP: too many
Everything has its limits, there is no one size fits all solution and I do think adopting responsibility is a solid foundation for the majority of individuals. But as this video eludes to, there are some limitations of cause there are but it doesnt mean it is wrong. It just means for some people it is not effective. We will never find a solution that works for everyone (although we can keep trying), humans are extremely complex with different contributing factors to their current condition. The best we can hope for is to find something that is a solid starting point to build upon. I think the adoption of responsibility is very beneficial and I know more than a handful of people who have read '12 rules for life: an antidote to chaos' who have turned their lives around from the most awful childhoods. So I dont think it is wrong, as the title suggests but rather it has its limitations which is true for everything.
I think you meant 'alludes to' instead of 'eludes to', am I correct? Sorry, l'm a born schoolmarm. As for the rest of your comment, you seem to be addressing just one problem, when there are many.
@@AlicedeTocqueville That was your contribution? To correct a spelling error. Do you understand the social sciences and how arguments/claims/evidence work?
@@yahyaibnjohn4487 Of course.
Of course. Of course. Of course. To all 3 questions.
If people could create their own world then everyone would be rich and good looking.
We could he's an excellent psychologist, or Jungian of self help guru who shouldn't shut his mouth about politics, but he he isn't in my humble opinion. He is however, a great gaslighter who does verbal gymnastics, when in reality, Americans don't have universal healthcare care, dental care, enough public education, mental health services, paying insane amounts for their medications, working insane hours. He also convinces the average, poor American who has to suffer through, that they don't deserve free healthcare. Talk about being gaslighted. How sad and pathetic that the poorest of the poor support such non sense.
you should have so many more subs. your content is always pure quality. thoughtful and provocative.
Stupendous! Best critique, loved the Zizek bit. "Idiotic...impotent moralization".
You haven't critiqued him properly no. He doesn't detract from social responsibility. He merely joins social responsibility with personal responsibility, usually having the latter precede the former in sequence of action. Individual responsibility is first and foremost. It's essentially the idea of removing the log from your own eye, so that you can see clearly enough to remove the speck from another's. Personal responsibility is the road to humility and fair mindedness and adaptation to the way things are or are going to be. Worry about yourself, then if you're strong enough, bear some of the community. 4/10
Dr. Robert Sapolsky's work in the field of neurobiology adds an interesting voice on the concept of "free will," and might further support that Peterson's ideas are both archaic and invalid.
He’s a frightened old dad, crushing ideas of masculinity haunt his decisions and drive his critique of identity structures. Dad say “Nooo change is bad unless it’s what I did and covers what I have failed on”
Philosophers always try to complicate simple and basic stuff. Take responsibility, a 10 year old can be told "Take responsibility" and act accordingly without having to read a 200pgs book on concept or theory of responsibility. Most of us intrinsically know what it is and know where the boundary lies. All of sane people know that there are things happening outside of their control (The things other people do and that naturally happens) and there are other things that are within their control (They can alter them by actions, behaviors and choices).
But there is some use of such complexities. In the legal and judicial systems, in politics and economics it may be important to dive deeper in such threads. but to normal people just providing for themselves and those they love, the simpler the better. Asking oneself "What can I do?" or "What or who to blame?" have profound difference in life from individual to community even from one lifetime to generations. Coz even major social or economic movement can be traced back to individual choices and actions they just appear to be similar and organized. And most importantly they can be traced further back to few individuals who started such movements and organized them that's absolutely individual responsibility. Movements never just happen, responsible people make them happen. Like, there was someone who first pushed idea of "women should vote" and there were those who took their time to push it harder and harder... Well, there were a million things they'd rather do but they sacrificed all those to shoulder such responsibility.
Pointing out the holes in J.B Peterson's doctrine, The other areas of life it doesn't encompass is like blaming a mallet for not being effective in cutting trees instead of bringing an axe. It is a character building not political or social doctrine.
If you spent even a week somewhere full of people focusing outward and not inward as a common person, you'd probably stop throwing stones at such noble doctrine within a second.
Outstanding video. Thank u for sharing.
this is an absolutely incredible video. normally i don’t comment but i really hope this blows up - so insightful and well put together
not really. It does require groups because that's how humans outperformed species in history. The video has a lot of flaws lol
@@satoshinakamoto7253 Such as.....
-Jordan doesn't like reducing people to their identities, race, gender, class, etc.
-You push back saying people are products of their environments, which is influenced by those characteristics.
-Maybe a better way to word Jordan's point is that we should be careful reducing people to pure _products._
21:55 where peterson reveals his true purpose, maintaining the status quo.
And to leave law making and policys to the elite class
The one point I keep seeing over and over, constantly misunderstood is Peterson saying "you are responsible for your life and circumstances"...
Then it being taken as "you are at *fault* for your life and circumstances"
Now I don't totally agree with Peterson, he goes down the weird path, a little delusional and his followers all repeat back in unison about individual expression and the importance of critical thought (completely missing the irony) but he does have a few, very solid arguments.
Chiefly being that you are responsible for making change. It isn't just going to happen without you, people won't just give you what you want and to rely on the charity of strangers who can't hear your voice is foolish. It isn't your fault that you started here but it's your responsibility to make sure you end up where you need to go.. (but you can't do it alone, you will have to rely on those around you)
Also, I don't know if someone else points out this, but Jordan Peterson have never read Butler or Foucault, he just hate'em cause he ain't them
@@Rude1911 yeah, that doesn't mean he read them, in his books he clearly shows he hasn't
@@Rude1911 yeah, you're good, keep up the good work
Here’s the thing. While you can intellectualise personal responsibility but ultimately the message Peterson is trying to push out is one for people who really need to just take responsibility. I find his usefulness in the world is one of pragmatism rather than accuracy
Here's my thought: the reason Dr. Peterson focuses so much on the responsibility of the individual is because he recognizes the world is a bleak place, and sometimes things happen that are out of our control that leave us in a pit, whether it be financial, psychological, existential, etc,. You may have family, friends, mental and physical health experts or whoever else who can support you and help you out of that pit, but ultimately the decision is yours and yours alone to brush yourself off and start climbing out, or to sit and wallow in it. The hard truth is the only person who truly cares about your life enough to pull you out of the lowest depths of hardship and despair is you. Everyone else WILL give up eventually if they don't see you put in the effort yourself
Something to be considered on your critique. He's a psychologist. His job is to motivate the individual, educate them, and help them out of a degree of symptoms all of which focus on a person's lack of self worth, or self motivation.
These people generally have this because they are crushed by their interpretation of a collective, and do not see the worth of their own decisions. As such his talks are geared specifically towards providing a counterweight to those conditions.
A collective is made of individuals, if each is not motivated, they will either fall in line to those who are, or stagnate.
Jordan isn't wrong for focusing on personal responsibility. Moreover, if he were wrong, why would you feel the personal responsibility to correct him, if you didn't see it as your personal responsibility, which then proves Peterson right?
Responsibility for Libertarians basically means not costing rich people any money.
No, it means being of service and providing value. Society then is made and re-made in our individual efforts... Contrary to demanding the world cater to infantile egos while wanting something for nothing.
13:20 Bro..... Aristotle did NOT reference neurons. He had no concept of such a thing......
How can you tell a North Korean to clean their room?
Zizek
He's a self-appointed philosopher whose professional qualifications are only in psychology. He also seems to like the media spotlight a bit too much, which makes me wonder if he should diagnose himself.
The couple times I've listened to what he had to say, i wasnt impressed at all. He did not demonstrate adequare understanding of the topics he was discussing, first of all. That's a cardinal sin for a PhD of any kind. I left still waiting for an attempt to persuade me to his view with anything other than flat, baseless assertions.
The essence of Peterson’s teaching amounts to this: If your life sucks, it’s your own fault. Don’t blame corporate capitalism and social anomie. That’s what “individual responsibility” boils down to and that’s why it’s advanced by the ruling elite that controls the mass media.
Nup, working harder commie
How does blaming capitalism improve your situation?
@@bt4670 how does doing things like raising the minimum wage, offering workers protections, providing medical care for people who can't afford it help anyone's situation either?
The problem with always shifting blame upwards is the theres an infinite ceiling, the regulator of the regulator of the regulator. Instead responsibility should be relative to the domain of power (position in the chain of causality regardless of 'free will'). Nothing is ever 100% responsible for anything.
You are an individual. In society you deal with individuals. Society is composed of individuals.
It is wrong thinking saying things like, "Society should do X..." Society cannot do X. The individuals in society have to do it. It always comes back to the individual.
Yet the individuals still exist in a network of other individuals whom actions cause directly or indirectly either good or harm to the first individual. When saying "society should do x" people generally mean that people in general should adopt or start promoting certain kinds of ways of being which improve the society, even when the issue on hand is not something that touches them immediately at that moment and time of life.
@makhnothecossack4948 So you're saying society doesn't have responsibility but the people (the individuals that make up society) do. Only people can be held accountable.
You are simply trying to avoid using the term 'individual responsibility'.
@@lonelyb9661 No, I'm trying to say that the individuals have to become conscious of the fact that they do infact, exist in a society, and thus they have societal obligations based on their capabilities and resources.
@makhnothecossack4948
So you're changing the subject away from individual responsibility but agree with individual responsibility without using the term. Ok. Got it.
The next step is for you to have individual responsibility and not everyone else.
@@lonelyb9661 My point is, that every single problem cannot be solved through individual responsibility, people need realism and perspective to understand that things are not as easy as it might look from the outside. It's not easy to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you have no boots at all. Also the proverb originates from criticism to the absurdity of the demand of those who are doing well that you just can just magically improve your state, no matter the external conditions, which is really avoiding responsibility of driving institutional changes to make it so that people can work and truly gain what they need to survive through that work.
He’s a individualist, patriarchal, bigot.
Nice, looking forward to Part 2.
Basically Peterson is the kind of person to mock someone else's accent and then deny that he himself has an accent that could be mocked.