📺 Watch next episode "Mistborn Jordan Peterson" on Patreon now: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy ⌛ Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 3:50 Peacekeeping Among Higher Order Primates 7:40 What Separates Them 9:50 Different Localities as Different Paradigms 11:56 As Sowellian Visions 13:53 Patreon Aside 14:26 The Peacemaker 16:41 Reflections
I must say that after watching nearly every JP video on RUclips, including his university lectures and the myriad debates and talks he's participated in, I agree that he has transformed in these past several years to something other than an entertaining speaker and deep thinker. As he took up the mantel for salvaging religion and its necessary cultural and social underpinnings, his discussions take on a couple of odd bedfellows: that religion is a development of many thousands of years of child play imitating a father figure, which evolved to manifest into a god of worship; and the idea that one can (as he does) "act as if god exists" without actually acknowledging a "belief". To me, such a dichotomy of pointed thought over actual belief creates a schism, or perhaps even cognitive dissonance, for one struggling to accept an archetypal metaphor such as god, but then, not really believing directly that such even exists. And to all of this, he certainly has no hestance to attack the left-wing liberalists, and the constant siloing of groups of people by the far left. He brings to his discussions a level of animated disgust, anger, bewilderment, and chagrin for those who challenge him. He has every desire to enjoin in such pugelism, as his social media seems to attest. To me, he discredits himself with these antics that play to a limited (albeit large) audience. JP has said that he believes others believe sincerely in god, an overarching grand meta narrative, and that is enough for him , and because so many have such a level of sincerity, then for those who believe, it IS the truth. Yet he only needs to "act as if" in order to validate such beliefs, and be accepted as something of an oracle, advising those who will listen to his speech and language being delivered with great philosophical weight and authority.
I don't see Peterson as being more political than he was a few years ago, but actually less so because he doesn't appear on highly politicized programs anymore, and he has increasingly steeped himself in Biblical texts and idea's. He still has his moments of anger and of course he has political biases like everyone does, but I have seen quite a bit of growth towards a more peaceful disposition and a return to a more philosophical/religious orientation.
I think so too. And speaking of Iain McGilchrist (mentioned in the video), Peterson seems to be very interested in his hemisphere hypothesis, as far as I can tell from their chats on RUclips.
*I have seen quite a bit of growth towards a more peaceful disposition* I've seen the opposite. he seems angrier and more 'short' than the Cathy N interview era.
@@RhetoricalMuse Yes but the Cathy N interview era was a time when people were scarce to criticism postmodernism and feminism etc. He was charting new territory and had to proceed with caution. Now that the hypocrisy of the left has been well fleshed out, most conversative thinkers have a licence to call it out for what it is. However, lest the conservatives go to far, they will have created a need for the very thing they are trying to destroy.
I think no matter of how much of a peacemaker you are, and how willing you are to understand both antagonists, your heart usually lies in one of the sides. If the pressure is too much, sooner or later you will end up polarizing in one side. Peterson may tried to be exploring and understanding and whatever, but there is a deep principle that he has...the principle of "how thing are supposed to be" (some normative of nature or something). With that principle he gets the identity of a conservative. And when the pressure was too much, this identity overpowered any other identity (maybe of peacemaker).
There is a stage in life when what you describe is very true, but a person will find that the possibility of growing beyond choosing one side or the other is offered to him somewhere along the path when he realizes/feels deeply that most things in Life do not matter that much. They are, instead, distractions....but distractions from what?
@@grantsmythe8625 I kind of agree that you can select to be on neither side, but maybe this will lead to no-action. If you want to be "peacemaker", like the bridge between the two worlds is different then. You already invested and matters to you for whatever reason. My point is mostly that you cannot always bridge two worlds. some times one may engulf the other. Like for example if you take the question of private property vs public property, capitalism vs some form of socialism...how do you bridge this?
@@vaioslaschos Carl Jung says that we usually do not solve our problems but rather we outgrown them, we transcend them. I am old now and now can see that many things that I once believed very strongly that they just HAD TO BE decided one way or the other. I now see that most of those things have been, not so much resolved, but rather transcended.
man, peterson's story really is tragic. I know he would hate to view himself as the victim but from any outside observers with compassion, it's hard not to feel for the circumstances he's in. A peacemaker with a great vision that much of society wasn't ready for, so instead they vilified him. And he did a great job in the face of the mob for the longest time, but then the doctors get him hooked to meds and he gets incredibly ill... I guess with his return something in him just broke, he couldn't take the pure malice directed at him anymore and had to cope by falling to the safeguard of the political right. I think old peterson would hate the fact that he's lost the courage and strength to step into the abyss and attempt to build a bridge there.
Beautifully put. I’m highly suspect of the ‘political safeguard of the right’ comment. But I think you used the abyss metaphor very well. I’m sure that with a little effort you could understand why stepping into the abyss to build a bridge is a fool’s errand. That endeavor is too much for any man; it would be a miracle.
Even before his break he was going on about the post-modern neo-marxist conspiracy; which gave me a bad feeling about him not long after I became a fan in 2018. I think that something was wrong even before his break. He got swept up in his righteous saviour complex. He's always taken himself way too seriously
@@yaboisartre5844 Not really. I mean, many figures in history have suffered far worse and still done much more than Peterson, including building much more difficult bridges.
@@LeNZian Yeah, he's always been problematic. Even his old academic lectures were full of fallacies, poor research, and conservative ideology albeit more subdued.
One point Wilber expresses at some length is that any attempt at an "Integral" position will come under sustained, intense attack from progressives, Wilber's Mean Green. I think that was the catalyst that turned out Hero into arch-villain The Peterson.
Yeah and this definitely fits with what you were saying in our interview (and in Fuller's article as well if I recall) about the nervous system overload of being a culture wars lightning rod even for a day never mind for years as Peterson was. It looks to me like all the Integral was shocked out of him
That's great. Personally not yet a Peterson detractor or think he is pandering to the right but I like to hear from this channel alot. And one relevant reason is because it helps me concretize what my problems are woth some ideas and how to improve them. Honestly people should hear some of his interviews this year they are really good.
The difference between a local and the peacemaker is that the local thinks he has the facts. When the peacemaker thinks he has the facts, you get Peterson.
Remember that philosopher-speak is only understood by philosophers. The way you speak would be incomprehensible to the common man were he to stumble upon your channel. This common man upon whom you have had no direct impact. This common man who in his millions reveres JP. This common man upon whom JP has had a profoundly positive impact. This common man who moves the needle. So sure, he dumbs it down for his audience. God bless him. But I am confident that JP could go toe to toe with you on any topic you wish using language as elegant, or incomprehensible as you please.
except that JP is confidently WRONG in mist cases no matter the type of speach used, as proven by his take on BILL C-16. so wrong that the Canadian Law society had to make a statement about his "claims" then there's all the other topics that he feels compelled to comment on that are well beyond his qualifucations - climate, diet, women, islam, lgbtqia ..... peterson is the walking embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger theory. Hardly a positive impact more Machiavelian as I'm sure history will show. So my guess is that youre a white, male, christian, divorced, 50+ american ?
as sherry turkle says, boys struggle to develop subtle emotions, aka feelingss, they remain reliant on wise women, who if they disappear, the collapse. which is why, peterson could wax lyrical when he was secure enough to digest complicated ideas, but when he fell to pieces, became a youtube grifter, he merely slakes other people's ideas in his desperate internal monologue that is barely holding him together. it makes him feel together having all the attention, distracts him from his truth. the alarming thing is that people watching him don't know that he was a professor, but through circumstances, couldn't maintain that level. and because they identify with the emotions ( ressentiment ) he is expressing, they suck it up.
Neutrality is definitely key to transcending (and including) points of view. We generally think (when there is a polarised culture war going on), that there are two basic views, but i believe there are as many views, or worlds as there are people. Although much of the content of ones individual view is just received opinion that for various reasons has been personalised. I think that's one of the benefits of something like integral or spiral dynamics. However, that which transcends point of view is also what unites us all. When we are so narrowly caught up in point of view we forget that. Isn't that what McGilchrist says happens with the left hemisphere, attention becomes narrow, losing awareness of the greater context. When it's narrowed in this way, polarisation is pretty much inevitable because it has lost the vision of wholeness, of the interrelated opposites. If I'm looking for a corrupting influence regarding point of view, or the hypocrisy of straddling contradictory points of view.. I'd say its none other than self interest.. Recently for example, we've seen how liberal intellectuals and entities (like the ADL), who espouse multiculturalism and globalism (anti-nationalism), for western democracies, promote the exact opposite for their little middle eastern country.. The only reason that seems to make sense for this is it serves their individual self interest.. James, your fellow Irishman (and possible adversary in the culture wars), Keith Woods did an interesting video on Peterson.. He sees Peterson as a deradicaliser, affirming individualism against collectivism in the form of leftist intersectionality, as well as against rightist nationalism (which Woods ascribes to of course) Definitely a different point of view, but not without its merits.. For one, he points out that postmodernism isn't just something employed by leftists, but is equally utilised by libertarian types, conservative Christians and even people like Dugin.. So it's used by various political frameworks because it negates the tyranny of reason, reductionist materialism and liberal individualism. So everything the likes of Hicks and Peterson hold dear haha
Everything can be solved once we actually target materialism itself and for a holistic interconnected spiritual ecological ideal. This ideal instead deals heavily with the form and the content is basically methaphysics, this way it cannot be abused neither used for other purposes, because it is too innocent instead of the inherent cynicism and epistemological mess of post modernism.
@@Nature_Consciousness The jury is still out on postmodernism. Better to concentrate on immediate post-Enlightenment boo-rah e.g. Kant's assertion existence cannot be a predicate (-Russel's rationale for rehecting Anselm's argument).
well I agree with you on materialist reductionism. I am rather of the view that form and subtle manifestations like mind all share a common ground. This is why we aren't really atomised individuals, cut off from each other and the rest of life. We share a common ground and ultimately we are that common ground in which all appears and disappears. When we grasp a particular point of view so tightly, especially a relative and necessarily partial view.. it obviously tends to obscure this wide angle view of wholeness because we become entangled in dualistic thinking. As the sixth patriarch of Zen said.. "The Great Way* is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised. Make the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart. If you wish to see the truth, then hold no opinions for, or against, anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind. When the deep meaning of things is not understood, the mind's essential peace is disturbed to no avail" This doesn't mean we can't take a position on things, but maybe a little more lightly, provisionally.. or at least being aware that it's an opinion and not absolute truth.. Absolute truth should be reserved for something worthy of the name.. not a mere belief.
Man, this is such old news. We don’t need more Peterson videos. The man is cooked. Boring. Bigoted. Pseudo intellectual. Hard pass. Ive loved your videos but Peterson is a huge ick… and men can not stop talking about him for some reason. Contra points and Gabor mate have relevant critique. Let’s break the Peterson addiction and stop circling the drain with his half baked bullshit, if does nothing for the world or the world of philosophy.
Honest question: Does anybody in his field take his work seriously? Obviously, not the red meat culture war version, but, prior to that. How was his work received by his peers? Even this paper seems like weak tea to me.
If you look him up on google scholar he did a LOT of work on the big 5 personality system. That is where he would have had chops as an academic thinker as far as I can tell
I've not read it, but it seams this paper is outside of the scope of scientific methods of scrutiny, but it looks like it operates outside of such methods by design. It's highly literary and poetic in nature.
His separation of the conscientiousness personality type into two subtypes is the only thing of note I believe he made. Some work on addiction. I doubt he made those things himself, probably student projects he took credit for. As for the rest, it's not. Jung is not seen as serious either at this point. Nietzsche is not part of the field, nor is Dostoevsky. So it's not serious work he does, not even close. And he misrepresents true studies as well, use debunked ones or just cherry pick to make politics.
What's the beauty of it though? His work on order and chaos and hierarchies - was it beautiful? You might say there were some interesting aspects, you might say his mind analyses the society in a interesting way. But but boy oh boy, was is flirting with some dangerous ideologies. And let's not forget the elephant in the room - he is Jung fan and hates postmodernism, it takes such a central part of his work. And it all smells of Shaddow projections.
@@ekaterinastaneva9922the Jung aspect is indeed something he should be confronted with more. But now that he has the armor of celebrity and protection of friends in high places, I doubt there will ever be a day that he answers to that critique, let alone hears it.
I have a lot of compassion for Peterson. He now serves as a warning for for anyone who tries to carve out a territory not defined by our contemporary--and quite peculiar--ideas of "left" and "right." I'm not a media figure; I'm just some random guy, but I can feel the same forces tearing me apart. Also, great video. Essential viewing.
To be honest i think twitter can make anyone look like a fool. It's 200 characters and it's too easy to just write any bullshit and send. It uses the best of our primitive brains and makes us too impulsive. There was not such thing in 2005 and Peterson is brilliant but he is one of those guys that need time above anything else
True. And I think he recognised this with twitter but lacks the discipline to follow through. In general though I think the Pareto distribution warped his mind and led him to expose himself more and more seeing that there would be exponential returns in a power law distribution of attention. Thus it works against any inclination to withdraw and reflect and reconsider. He is trapped in a left hemispheric paradigm and can’t break out
Peterson was always a loon. Has anybody seen his public access tv rant about his son not being allowed to throw snowballs in school. The libs concern for thwarting aggression will feminise boys to the point that women will only reproduce with psychopaths spawning another generation of psychopaths. Litigation was probably the real reason why they didn't want kids throwing snowballs. Peterson loves bashing libs any way he can.
I love your analysis of Peterson. I owe a lot to JBP. Back in 2018, his media showed me that I wasn’t reaching my intellectual potential. I began routine reading because of him. I purchased all of his books and attended 2 lectures. Lately he’s seemed different than his 2018 self. More political, doesn’t seem as rigorous. I was wondering if that was just my read of him. It saddens me that he’s become a meme of himself. I wish he would go back to being more of a student of Jung.
If i had a coin every time a social engineer colappsed into himself, how many times do we have to try the top down approach? People dismiss politicians, but these philosophers, psychologers and pedagogs get a free pass
That's what an authentic person looks like... the idea that anyone is the pathologically one sided image they portray is a lie. JP is refreshing in that way but I certainly do get the frustration over the years. It's like watching a man struggle with himself... and that's exactly what we're seeing.
I know it's a little mean 😬 I guess it's that all the crying feels performative after a certain point. When there's compilation upon compliation of you crying over the same thing online it stops looking like a genuine wow this is a revlation of deep heartfelt emotion and it starts to look like a performative oversharing in the public sphere and begins to smell a bit funny. I reckon that's why it's become such a meme-worthy trope. I could write a whole thing about it since it's quite interesting the reactions to it and the phenomenon itself
I disagree with you, he really feels the weight of responsibility with every word he says about our people and culture. It's a bit presumptuous of you to state that he's faking crying.
haha, comparing a book that took 10 years to write to tweets that took 10 seconds to write and judging the character of the individual. C'mon my guy, this is unreasonable. It's like saying thta he cannot do anything worthwhile anymore because of stupid tweets.
Another great video, and I don't like JP. I used to though. Long ago, a friend of mine on the conservative side would send me his philosophy/psychology videos from his teaching days just before he got really popular. They were insightful, and I thought that it was good thing that the conservative youth finally had an intellectual hero, someone other than little Ben Shapiro. I was even kind of sad when the left started to "cancel" him because of his views, even the ones I didn't necessarily agree with. But boy did he get the taste of money and fame coupled with righteous indignation, and now he's just another grifter, a little Ben Shapiro type, someone who blames the left on everything, both backward project liberal secular values onto old conservative religion, and sadly their adoring fans who think they are "independent thinkers" buy into their postmodern conservatism. JP has truly become his "shadow self"
Thank you for another great video. I'm French and apart from the mortally boring analytical philosophers I know almost nothing of the Anglo/American thinkers you mention like Ken Wilber. Could you for that reason drop the names of these authors you refer to in the video description? Have a great day, stay creative!
Thank you so much! As someone that sincerely used to love his lectures, to the point that I’d put them on for hours while I did chores around the house and took walks listening to them, his transformation into who he is now still bothers me. It’s just SO DISTURBING. I know it’s the money. I keep telling myself that. But still, what a long fall. Heartbreaking to watch.
As INFJ's (Jung's typology, not the MBTI), our vice is often that our Fe strongly attaches to whatever superficial belief can make us apart of a community. It is a sort of gregarian reflex when we feel isolated or overly vulnerable. It has nothing to do with politics, really. Politics are a pretext here. It actually has everything to do with psychology and the fondamentally human yearning for security. I've been through it myself...So I don't feel anything else other than empathy towards him. And I think he will come back to reason when the times come. (Sorry for the possible typos, English isn't my first language).
"I'd like to offer a new image of the world which can unite all quarters of the political specturm . . . so anyway -- this is why the ultraconservative standpoint is the only perspective that has any claim to validity whatsoever."
It would be refreshing to see an accurate depiction of Peterson in fiction for a change - rather than whatever demonisation of him some feminist celebrity came up with. I think I’ve said before that you manage to talk to Peterson in his own words (through myths and stories). So if you can demonstrate in a piece of fiction how his own life might be a tragedy (which is what he always warned his audience against), without having to create strawmen of his positions in the process - I think Jordan Peterson should be able to appreciate that. Unless the Daily Wire drags him further down the rabbit-hellhole in the meantime, until his worldview is entirely closed off.
The peacemaker seems to fail once all the mutually-agreed-upon facts are laid out in between the two antagonists, then one side starts bringing in their judgment of this set of facts (the subjective ought to the shared is), arguing why some things shouldn’t be the way they are - and then, the other side goes, “Actually, I think that’s based.”
Nicodemus’ crowning What do you see As you keep yourself awake With dreams of monsters under your bed The blood and rain dipping from the brushes Onto the forgotten canvas- half fears, half dreams- What do you see The mind of the unborn Painting with his fingers the cave of the womb Monsters with monsters with monsters For the promise of a Peace- full Hero That’s the shield of my youth Old stains of blood I’ve been dreaming of Victories that are not mine Those are the armies of clouds Unleashing storms looking for old seeds of Peace With words like teeth biting and chewing the earth Digging for the alchemists’ gold that is not mine Gold glistening like a false sun Venomous death squeezed From the honeycombs of libraries of Old That are not mine Under a sky full of dragons Fighting shadows of wounded angels Plucking the shards of thoughts That ploughed my brain with a mind that is not mine But none is mine And the night is deep. As you get your first kiss from the Sun Hidden in a word not yet screamed In the mouth of The Serpent coiled around The thousand Suns of the Milky Way You see
Jordan Peterson lost my respect. He's superstitious. He's conservative. He's desperate for external validation (narcissist). What's up with those sport coats? Have you read the manifesto of the Unabomber? Check that out.
It would be interesting to compare Jordan’s concept of peacemaker with his own understanding of the person of Christ. It seems to be something he’s been wrestling with in recent years. I think there is a lot of intellectual laziness that can occur in a person when these religious yearnings (submitting to the religious narrative of Christianity) clash with this vision of the peacemaker. Today I find that the modern religious accentuate the fact that Christ didn’t come to bring peace, but a sword (which is true). However, I find that so much gets discarded in this low resolution vision, which is something that adds to the idea of “2 different sets of facts or realities”.
What happened to blessed are the peacemakers then. I thought bringing a sword was more the sword of discrimination or of cutting attachments... If it was truly a sword of violence then why didn't Jesus try and raise an army and convert by force.. like Muhammad did... and why did he reprimand Peter for using a sword to defend him from the Roman soldier. I think Pauline Christianity is very different to the early church version, at least I've been convinced of this while listening to David Bentley Hart. Those who are attracted to Christianity, it begs the question which version do they find attractive, the death cult of Pauline Christianity where Jesus is the ultimate sacrificial lamb, Crucified to save you from sin.. or the actual teachings and sayings of Jesus.
@@michaelmcclure3383 The reprimand to Peter has to do with Christ's knowledge of his impending crucifixion. He allowed Peter and the others to bring weapons, presumably to defend themselves but not him because he was aware of what needed to happen. The sword passage I still mull over. It is clearly a metaphorical sword and right now I lean towards seeing it as an expression of binging a harsh choice for people - either they choose to accept Christ and his word or they reject it.
@@dale6947 I think it is certainly a metaphorical sword.. not that the bible is read metaphorically by the majority, as they prefer a literal reading, especially if it chimes with their self interest.
Unitarian minister here again. The phlogiston theory came from a forerunner of mine in our ministry - the revolutionary Joseph Priestley. I *have* the spiral dynamics bug!
Wow step on your little meta modern suede shoes and Rooaahh! The man actually shows how to help yourself with real remedies that can make changes. You just talk. It reminds me of when Robin Williams psychologist character in “Good Will Hunting”realises the criticisms coming from Matt Damon’s character were coming from a hurt child with little life experience or that of raising a family. He then slept soundly with that knowledge.
The idea of different fact-worlds seems to me to generous, it implies that they get their facts right, I think I am a little bit more cynical about this, I would simply say that they live in different bubbles of delusions. Humans engage in motivated reasoning all the time and in the end they just believe in whatever they want to believe anyway no matter how far removed from reality. From desires arises values, from values arises beliefs and their ontology is a reflection of their axiology.
Many people have a spiritual awakening and they become vegetarians. Peterson has a spiritual awakening, and then he eats nothing but meat. The guy is a trip. He is the opposite of the norm.
just read the original chapter .... he, as usual, says absolutely NOTHING in a typical peterson word salad, all it shows is that he is equally inept as a philosopher as he is as a psychologist - thankfully he is NO LONGER licensed 👏
have you actually read the article, which is barely a mid sized chapter ?? Cite the metaphors used or poetic style incorporated in the actual piece. It is a protracted circle jerk of biblical proportions. There is no introduction or conclusion it is the manifestation of Jordans epic ego on high rotation. I'm indebted to this channel for highlighting Jordans historical delusional ramblings. but please prove me wrong with real references to the work in question CIAO
@@danielmacdougall2697 When people dismiss a text as a "word salad", it aways means that their understanding of it didn't correlate with the author and other's understanding of it, so they project their own arbitrary interpretations as absolute to everyone else, as if they didn't have any faith the author is a human being who had real ideas which were translated into the text. It is one thing to say you didn't understand, it is another to act so morally superior knowing more about the nature of the text than anyone else.
So have you actually read the original text or not ? Where are the metaphors and what type of poetic device is at play, please answer this question rather than engaging in passive aggresive ad hominen attacks. Two can play at that game. Rather than engage in attacks on you I'd rather attack peterson and I'm certainly not alone in describing petersons work as a meaningless word salad, people of far superior intellect than my own have used these exact words, or are suggesting that they are also lacking in understanding ? Can I finish by invoking BILL C-16 as a wonderful example of petesons inability to understand basic facts. ciao 🙃 ps I'm fascinated sbout your take on metaphor and poetry .... please explain to me from your lofty pulpit 🫡
@@danielmacdougall2697 I am just pointing out how dishonest the whole concept of "word salad" is, it it is just your opinion, I don't like Jordan Peterson but doesn't mean I will be dishonest and non nuanced at anything involved him and other people I don't like. The part shown in this video clearly wasnt that, people just have different preferences of how something should be written.
Nothing changed, he is the same guy. Basically idealism always want their way, and the way is to get everybody to agree with you on the goal or "meaning". Just like any narcissism, eventually it divorces itself from reality entirely and becomes idolatry. And when the idol is confronted with reality, if it does not fit, then you get rage. It's a common patter. He wrote this peacemaker stuff when he was in his ivory tower where you are protected from reality and can just fantasize the world is an extension of yourself. Now he started interacting with it and it's not what he thought at all. As an aside, it's literally what Islam teaches which unsurprisingly is very close to national socialism. All want to give people meaning, and you'd better agree with their goals, so in this way, they achieve peace through domination and control. Peterson was always like that and it shows in that article. If you know what to look for, you won't be fooled by the illusion. He did try to do something like Wilbur, but he falls into the same exact problem Wilbur does. So "peace" and "integral" can be goals, but says who? says the one that pretend to have mastered it. It's the game they want others to play, and they are on top knocking down competition. It's typical narcissistic behavior, nothing special, just different flavors.
It's difficult to think Klaus and co aren't coming for everything when looking at the damage that has been done and what's been lost the past 4 years. Also they've clearly stated they are coming for everything. It's difficult to think peacemakers can't do it without a sense of patriotism when the main characters in the Irish rebellion have a sense of compassion for humanity.
I am critical of Jordan Peterson for oversimplifying complex sociopolitical issues, such as gender dynamics and cultural phenomena, by presenting them through a reductionist lens. Rather than engaging with nuanced academic perspectives, he often resorts to sweeping generalizations and dichotomous thinking, which can lead to a distortion of the complexities inherent in these topics. For instance, his characterization of "postmodern neo-Marxism" as a pervasive force in academia lacks empirical evidence and misrepresents the diverse range of critical theories within the social sciences.
Talking about JP is a good test to see if someone really thinks or just follows along with one group/ideology or another. If someone can acknowledge his insight and value while also recognizing how harmful and downright ridiculous he has become, it's a good sign. Failure to acknowledge one side or the other is a pretty bad sign(unless they just don't know/care about JP - which tbh that may be a good sign too lol)
@@TheLivingPhilosophy it is very good. you can find the condensed version here on youtube, like many books, but unfortunately it is read by a computer "voice". Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell are pretty much intellectual descendants of hayak. Austrian school & Chicago schools of economics being in the same camp of economics, with more similarities than differences. good video!
Haha maybe you’re right Peter. I guess I had a chasm in mind and was thinking of the two sides of a chasm/abyss. I’ll strive to be more accurate in my metaphors in future
I enjoyed the first couple of Genesis ones but I was moving past my comparitive religion and Jungian phase at that point so it wasn't the right time. But I enjoyed the book Maps of Meaning and I enjoyed what I saw of the Genesis episodes
My primary issue with the peacemaker role is its seemingly unattainable standards. To me, facts aren’t inherently solid; they become observable only when we adopt a particular perspective and fully engage with that viewpoint. Assuming a peacemaker can impartially embody and evaluate each side’s stance, the first hurdle is maintaining objectivity in their observations and judgments, despite personal biases. An even greater challenge is resisting influence from external pressures, such as public opinion or media scrutiny-as seen in Jordan B. Peterson’s case, with his vast audience and the many journalists covering his work. For a peacemaker to succeed, they must capture the antagonists’ focus, yet this very attention can profoundly impact the mediator. Is it overly optimistic to expect one individual to fulfill this role effectively? When contemplating how to reconcile two opposing forces, I envision a neutral third entity fostering unity, like to the spirit of fair play in sports, a revered royal family separate from government power, a shared faith, cultural art, or political ceremonies. These seem like more feasible alternatives than the idea of a lone peacemaker. Apologies for the lengthy message.
I don't think there can be a third party in this case. Everyone is too polarized, people cannot agree on a single thing for their own common good (at least in Western Europe and the US). Perhaps Peterson getting caught up into it is a symptom of our time. Because obviously everyone has opinions, but when you present them as impartial and absolute, you lose credibility
@@okplay9446 I see what you mean. Polarization by definition comes from a lack of unity. I think the internet as a medium has alowed us to grow further and further apart. You get more access to what you like to see (which ia obviously what comforts you instead of what conflicts you) and what we get are these obvious echo chambers wherever we look. Then again I would argue that cultural phenomenons, or ceremonies are the answer. If there are spaces (could be literal or abstract) where all members of society gather, and celebrate a common entity, this could bring unity. I think these types of spaces are vanishing each day. I don't think the peacemaker could be something other than this deliberate exposure to the other in spite of your conflicting values, in order to celebrate something transcendent.
@@hamidmoradi1340Before the internet we had total conformity of the population and control over ourselves, you couldnt talk about these things before.
Let me further highlight how the both/and logic and monadological framework provide powerful explanatory capacities across logic, mathematics and physics: In the domain of logic itself, the both/and structure allows formally modeling and regimenting dialectical, paraconsistent and pluralistic modes of reasoning that have long resisted classical bivalent frameworks. We can precisely capture and rationally operate with: • True contradictions and paradoxes as positively conceived dialetheia, not just logical explosions • Graded/partial truth values on spectra between truth and falsity • The coherent integration of seemingly incommensurable propositions • Holistic properties and synthetic conceptual unities transcending their constituents Where classical logic is confined to simple propositions statically obeying strict consistency, the both/and logic equips us with an expansive toolkit for dynamically navigating the complex schemas, fuzzy boundaries, and self-undermining paradoxes permeating actual reasoning across every domain. In mathematics, the both/and logic illuminates novel ways to represent and coherently manipulate previously intractable issues like: • The relationship between the continuous and the discrete • The coexistence of finite and infinite structures • Pluralities of mathematical ontologies (realist, formalist, etc) • Self-referential paradoxes and contradictions in set theory and arithmetic • The generation of radically emergent, novelty-creating procedures Rather than getting stymied by dichotomies, singularities or self-underminining contradictions, the logic's symbolic tools allow formalizing generative transfinite metamathematical dynamics encompassing and reconstructing prior impasses at deeper integrated levels. Across physics, the both/and logic provides conceptual rigor and symbolic resources for coherent accounts encompassing: • Unitary evolution of quantum systems and the measurement problem • Apparent dualities between wave and particle, or local and nonlocal • Intrinsic indeterminacies, contingencies and ontological pluralities • The unification of incommensurable qualitative & quantitative models • Novel "paradoxical" phenomena like emergent nonlinear effects Rather than forcing phenomena into awkward either/or categories, the logic allows explicitly modeling "both/and" complementary features and irreducibly holistic coconstituted processes. Its expressive flexibility resonates with the exquisite nuances of quantum indeterminacy and pluralistic observable modalities. So in essence, the both/and monadological framework catalyzes powerful expansions across our most fundamental disciplines: In logic, it empowers us to positively symbolize and rationally navigate the ambiguities, contradictions and pluralities intrinsic to actual reasoning and communication. Breaking the shackles of binary bivalence. In mathematics, it unlocks liberating new symbolic vistas for paradox-resolving, infinitary metamathematics and irreducible pluralities of mathematical ontologies. Fracturing the ossified either/or dichotomies stymying classical approaches. In physics, it provides a coherent naturalistic metaphysics capable of explicitly representing - not dissimulating - intrinsic quantum indeterminacies, ontological pluralities and the full scope of paradoxical phenomena. Illuminating new pathways beyond the artificial exclusions of classical metaphysics. At every turn, the both/and logic equips our symbolic grasp with greater degrees of freedom and accountability to the phenomenal disclosures of reality itself. Transcending the barren simplisms and premature closures imposed by the blinkered bivalence and subjective filtering of classical logic, math and physical representation. Where prior frameworks have foundered on paradoxes, ambiguities or the irreducibility of pluralistic modalities, the both/and logic provides technical symbolic machinery for positively capturing and productively synthesizing the full nuances of actual scientific and lived phenomena. Its coherence valuations, graded truth distributions and generative dialectical operations enact a new holistic physics, immanentized metamathematics and expansive reason procedurally accommodating - not dissimulating - reality's explosive complexities. So in embracing the both/and logic, we are not just adopting a new formal system, but precipitating a symbolic Regressive/Progressive rationally reunifying fragmented domains into a new harmonious co-realizing praxis. One equipping us with unprecedented expressive power, paradox-resolving prowess, and descriptive capacities for illuminating the richness of existence and coconstituting increasingly integrated verities. It is a symbolic turning point towards humanity consciously resonating its reason with the deepest dynamical disclosure of Being itself.
do you mean "Simplified Summary of Both/And Logic and Monadological Framework Logic True Contradictions: Allows working with contradictions without issues. Graded Truth: Supports a range of truth values, not just true/false. Combining Propositions: Integrates seemingly incompatible ideas. Holistic Concepts: Captures complex, unified concepts. Dynamic Reasoning: Handles complex and fuzzy scenarios better than classical logic. Mathematics Continuous and Discrete: Explains the relationship between continuous and discrete elements. Finite and Infinite: Supports coexistence of finite and infinite structures. Multiple Perspectives: Embraces various mathematical views. Paradoxes: Addresses paradoxes in set theory and arithmetic. Emergent Procedures: Facilitates new and innovative mathematical methods. Physics Quantum Systems: Explains quantum evolution and measurement. Dual Nature: Accommodates both wave and particle aspects. Indeterminacy: Represents quantum uncertainties and multiple realities. Unified Models: Combines different types of models. Nonlinear Effects: Models complex phenomena effectively. Conclusion Both/and logic and the monadological framework provide flexible and coherent tools for understanding and integrating the complexities and paradoxes of logic, mathematics, and physics.
I remember Peterson once saying something like, "every human life is a tragedy". The climax of his own tragic arc will be the moment when he realizes what he became.
Dr. Peterson hasn't really changed. He has an authentic personality. He's always been fake; pretensions. He's not a politician so he can be accused of talking B.S. and say what people want to hear. He just says, and writes about things that he doesn't believe in. He's not at all genuine, not to us, and not even to himself. That's my take of listening to a lot of his talks.
Even the Maps of Meaning Peterson was pretty fargone which is abuindently clear if you actually read _Maps of Meaning_ because of how unreadible it is. This 2005 Peterson is not only unrecognizable in his aims and rhetoric -- he can actually write. Terra Incognita has been throught of throughout history as an external place that people need to literally travel to, but all it actually is what you're weak at: the inferior function. It has the character of a desert because all of yout accustomed modes of adaptation run afoul. It has the aspect of the unwshed masses because it is the collective herd-like atavisim within yourself. It is the psychological manue that "hosts the worm" Jung mentions at the end of the Red Book. So the place Peterson needed to go to to find the alchemical gold and because who he was meant to be was exactly the opposite of where he went: the "Woke Mob." If he went to the Left without preconceptions "as a child" he would take on the capacity of the peacemaker and not the agitator.
Fair. But I guess for me Maps of Meaning wasn’t much more unreadable than a lot of Jung so maybe I was more charitable when reading it. He’s certainly no Neumann
I have never found a word of Peterson to be worth a breath. My opinion has not changed. You on the other hand are almost always worth listening to. This was excellent. On Wilber, it is interesting for someone from his generation to see you take him seriously. I am not saying you shouldn't. He is a very smart guy. I would take a careful look at his biography too, though. As always, the biographies of philosophers are the fastest route to the soft spots in their philosophies. Anyway, this was great.
I appreciate the compliment Patrick. I’ve plenty of bones to pick with Wilber that have taken me away from the integral neck of the woods (I’ll probably cover this in a revisit to metamodernism soon) but I did find a great of load of novel insights and perspectives in Wilber so like Nietzsche I can continue to enjoy and take from him even if I’ve dismissed a whole hunk of his vast thought
📺 Watch next episode "Mistborn Jordan Peterson" on Patreon now: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
⌛ Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
3:50 Peacekeeping Among Higher Order Primates
7:40 What Separates Them
9:50 Different Localities as Different Paradigms
11:56 As Sowellian Visions
13:53 Patreon Aside
14:26 The Peacemaker
16:41 Reflections
"Misborn"?
@@James-ll3jb oops my bad meant to be Mistborn (Brandon Sanderson novel series) thanks for spotting that. Misborn sounds rather offensive 😂
I must say that after watching nearly every JP video on RUclips, including his university lectures and the myriad debates and talks he's participated in, I agree that he has transformed in these past several years to something other than an entertaining speaker and deep thinker.
As he took up the mantel for salvaging religion and its necessary cultural and social underpinnings, his discussions take on a couple of odd bedfellows: that religion is a development of many thousands of years of child play imitating a father figure, which evolved to manifest into a god of worship; and the idea that one can (as he does) "act as if god exists" without actually acknowledging a "belief".
To me, such a dichotomy of pointed thought over actual belief creates a schism, or perhaps even cognitive dissonance, for one struggling to accept an archetypal metaphor such as god, but then, not really believing directly that such even exists.
And to all of this, he certainly has no hestance to attack the left-wing liberalists, and the constant siloing of groups of people by the far left.
He brings to his discussions a level of animated disgust, anger, bewilderment, and chagrin for those who challenge him. He has every desire to enjoin in such pugelism, as his social media seems to attest. To me, he discredits himself with these antics that play to a limited (albeit large) audience.
JP has said that he believes others believe sincerely in god, an overarching grand meta narrative, and that is enough for him , and because so many have such a level of sincerity, then for those who believe, it IS the truth.
Yet he only needs to "act as if" in order to validate such beliefs, and be accepted as something of an oracle, advising those who will listen to his speech and language being delivered with great philosophical weight and authority.
"In the future the strongest man will be he richest in contradictions." - Nietzsche
I don't see Peterson as being more political than he was a few years ago, but actually less so because he doesn't appear on highly politicized programs anymore, and he has increasingly steeped himself in Biblical texts and idea's.
He still has his moments of anger and of course he has political biases like everyone does, but I have seen quite a bit of growth towards a more peaceful disposition and a return to a more philosophical/religious orientation.
I think so too. And speaking of Iain McGilchrist (mentioned in the video), Peterson seems to be very interested in his hemisphere hypothesis, as far as I can tell from their chats on RUclips.
*I have seen quite a bit of growth towards a more peaceful disposition*
I've seen the opposite. he seems angrier and more 'short' than the Cathy N interview era.
@@RhetoricalMuse Yes but the Cathy N interview era was a time when people were scarce to criticism postmodernism and feminism etc. He was charting new territory and had to proceed with caution. Now that the hypocrisy of the left has been well fleshed out, most conversative thinkers have a licence to call it out for what it is. However, lest the conservatives go to far, they will have created a need for the very thing they are trying to destroy.
I think no matter of how much of a peacemaker you are, and how willing you are to understand both antagonists, your heart usually lies in one of the sides. If the pressure is too much, sooner or later you will end up polarizing in one side. Peterson may tried to be exploring and understanding and whatever, but there is a deep principle that he has...the principle of "how thing are supposed to be" (some normative of nature or something). With that principle he gets the identity of a conservative. And when the pressure was too much, this identity overpowered any other identity (maybe of peacemaker).
There is a stage in life when what you describe is very true, but a person will find that the possibility of growing beyond choosing one side or the other is offered to him somewhere along the path when he realizes/feels deeply that most things in Life do not matter that much. They are, instead, distractions....but distractions from what?
@@grantsmythe8625 I kind of agree that you can select to be on neither side, but maybe this will lead to no-action. If you want to be "peacemaker", like the bridge between the two worlds is different then. You already invested and matters to you for whatever reason. My point is mostly that you cannot always bridge two worlds. some times one may engulf the other. Like for example if you take the question of private property vs public property, capitalism vs some form of socialism...how do you bridge this?
@@vaioslaschos Carl Jung says that we usually do not solve our problems but rather we outgrown them, we transcend them.
I am old now and now can see that many things that I once believed very strongly that they just HAD TO BE decided one way or the other. I now see that most of those things have been, not so much resolved, but rather transcended.
man, peterson's story really is tragic. I know he would hate to view himself as the victim but from any outside observers with compassion, it's hard not to feel for the circumstances he's in. A peacemaker with a great vision that much of society wasn't ready for, so instead they vilified him. And he did a great job in the face of the mob for the longest time, but then the doctors get him hooked to meds and he gets incredibly ill... I guess with his return something in him just broke, he couldn't take the pure malice directed at him anymore and had to cope by falling to the safeguard of the political right. I think old peterson would hate the fact that he's lost the courage and strength to step into the abyss and attempt to build a bridge there.
Beautifully put. I’m highly suspect of the ‘political safeguard of the right’ comment. But I think you used the abyss metaphor very well.
I’m sure that with a little effort you could understand why stepping into the abyss to build a bridge is a fool’s errand. That endeavor is too much for any man; it would be a miracle.
Even before his break he was going on about the post-modern neo-marxist conspiracy; which gave me a bad feeling about him not long after I became a fan in 2018. I think that something was wrong even before his break. He got swept up in his righteous saviour complex. He's always taken himself way too seriously
@@yaboisartre5844 Not really. I mean, many figures in history have suffered far worse and still done much more than Peterson, including building much more difficult bridges.
@@LeNZian Yeah, he's always been problematic. Even his old academic lectures were full of fallacies, poor research, and conservative ideology albeit more subdued.
You have no idea what it was like for Peterson to endure all that... he's lucky he didn't die...
One point Wilber expresses at some length is that any attempt at an "Integral" position will come under sustained, intense attack from progressives, Wilber's Mean Green. I think that was the catalyst that turned out Hero into arch-villain The Peterson.
Yeah and this definitely fits with what you were saying in our interview (and in Fuller's article as well if I recall) about the nervous system overload of being a culture wars lightning rod even for a day never mind for years as Peterson was. It looks to me like all the Integral was shocked out of him
That's great. Personally not yet a Peterson detractor or think he is pandering to the right but I like to hear from this channel alot. And one relevant reason is because it helps me concretize what my problems are woth some ideas and how to improve them.
Honestly people should hear some of his interviews this year they are really good.
The difference between a local and the peacemaker is that the local thinks he has the facts.
When the peacemaker thinks he has the facts, you get Peterson.
Except he DOES have the facts!
@@James-ll3jb _some_ facts
@@ximono I know you don't like facts, but they nevertheless are. No educated person disputes this lol.
@@James-ll3jb I didn't say they weren't facts, or that I don't like facts.
@@ximono lol. No? Then what did you mean? Lol
Remember that philosopher-speak is only understood by philosophers. The way you speak would be incomprehensible to the common man were he to stumble upon your channel. This common man upon whom you have had no direct impact. This common man who in his millions reveres JP. This common man upon whom JP has had a profoundly positive impact. This common man who moves the needle.
So sure, he dumbs it down for his audience. God bless him.
But I am confident that JP could go toe to toe with you on any topic you wish using language as elegant, or incomprehensible as you please.
except that JP is confidently WRONG in mist cases no matter the type of speach used, as proven by his take on BILL C-16. so wrong that the Canadian Law society had to make a statement about his "claims" then there's all the other topics that he feels compelled to comment on that are well beyond his qualifucations - climate, diet, women, islam, lgbtqia ..... peterson is the walking embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger theory. Hardly a positive impact more Machiavelian as I'm sure history will show. So my guess is that youre a white, male, christian, divorced, 50+ american ?
You’re yapping my guy.
@@WayTooUnderated What? Is that a retort? Not much meat on those bones.
Was he? Or was he a novelty that had no yet been subject to critical scrutiny?
as sherry turkle says, boys struggle to develop subtle emotions, aka feelingss, they remain reliant on wise women, who if they disappear, the collapse. which is why, peterson could wax lyrical when he was secure enough to digest complicated ideas, but when he fell to pieces, became a youtube grifter, he merely slakes other people's ideas in his desperate internal monologue that is barely holding him together. it makes him feel together having all the attention, distracts him from his truth. the alarming thing is that people watching him don't know that he was a professor, but through circumstances, couldn't maintain that level. and because they identify with the emotions ( ressentiment ) he is expressing, they suck it up.
Neutrality is definitely key to transcending (and including) points of view. We generally think (when there is a polarised culture war going on), that there are two basic views, but i believe there are as many views, or worlds as there are people. Although much of the content of ones individual view is just received opinion that for various reasons has been personalised. I think that's one of the benefits of something like integral or spiral dynamics.
However, that which transcends point of view is also what unites us all. When we are so narrowly caught up in point of view we forget that. Isn't that what McGilchrist says happens with the left hemisphere, attention becomes narrow, losing awareness of the greater context. When it's narrowed in this way, polarisation is pretty much inevitable because it has lost the vision of wholeness, of the interrelated opposites.
If I'm looking for a corrupting influence regarding point of view, or the hypocrisy of straddling contradictory points of view.. I'd say its none other than self interest.. Recently for example, we've seen how liberal intellectuals and entities (like the ADL), who espouse multiculturalism and globalism (anti-nationalism), for western democracies, promote the exact opposite for their little middle eastern country.. The only reason that seems to make sense for this is it serves their individual self interest..
James, your fellow Irishman (and possible adversary in the culture wars), Keith Woods did an interesting video on Peterson.. He sees Peterson as a deradicaliser, affirming individualism against collectivism in the form of leftist intersectionality, as well as against rightist nationalism (which Woods ascribes to of course) Definitely a different point of view, but not without its merits.. For one, he points out that postmodernism isn't just something employed by leftists, but is equally utilised by libertarian types, conservative Christians and even people like Dugin.. So it's used by various political frameworks because it negates the tyranny of reason, reductionist materialism and liberal individualism. So everything the likes of Hicks and Peterson hold dear haha
Being rich in contradictions is. Neutrality is indifference.
Everything can be solved once we actually target materialism itself and for a holistic interconnected spiritual ecological ideal.
This ideal instead deals heavily with the form and the content is basically methaphysics, this way it cannot be abused neither used for other purposes, because it is too innocent instead of the inherent cynicism and epistemological mess of post modernism.
@@Nature_Consciousness The jury is still out on postmodernism.
Better to concentrate on immediate post-Enlightenment boo-rah e.g. Kant's assertion existence cannot be a predicate (-Russel's rationale for rehecting Anselm's argument).
@@James-ll3jb Everything that exists must have an essence, which post modernism already rejects, so I don't know what even say about them.
well I agree with you on materialist reductionism. I am rather of the view that form and subtle manifestations like mind all share a common ground. This is why we aren't really atomised individuals, cut off from each other and the rest of life. We share a common ground and ultimately we are that common ground in which all appears and disappears.
When we grasp a particular point of view so tightly, especially a relative and necessarily partial view.. it obviously tends to obscure this wide angle view of wholeness because we become entangled in dualistic thinking.
As the sixth patriarch of Zen said..
"The Great Way* is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised. Make the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart. If you wish to see the truth, then hold no opinions for, or against, anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind. When the deep meaning of things is not understood, the mind's essential peace is disturbed to no avail"
This doesn't mean we can't take a position on things, but maybe a little more lightly, provisionally.. or at least being aware that it's an opinion and not absolute truth.. Absolute truth should be reserved for something worthy of the name.. not a mere belief.
Who else is watching now?
Casper the friendly ghost.
@@jeffkitson9565 peterson
I am now. But not when you posted that
Man, this is such old news. We don’t need more Peterson videos. The man is cooked. Boring. Bigoted. Pseudo intellectual. Hard pass. Ive loved your videos but Peterson is a huge ick… and men can not stop talking about him for some reason.
Contra points and Gabor mate have relevant critique. Let’s break the Peterson addiction and stop circling the drain with his half baked bullshit, if does nothing for the world or the world of philosophy.
So we're just going to make fun of people here now?
Make fun of people? Can you indicate where, using time-markers?
0:21 😂
Honest question: Does anybody in his field take his work seriously? Obviously, not the red meat culture war version, but, prior to that. How was his work received by his peers? Even this paper seems like weak tea to me.
If you look him up on google scholar he did a LOT of work on the big 5 personality system. That is where he would have had chops as an academic thinker as far as I can tell
I've not read it, but it seams this paper is outside of the scope of scientific methods of scrutiny, but it looks like it operates outside of such methods by design. It's highly literary and poetic in nature.
His separation of the conscientiousness personality type into two subtypes is the only thing of note I believe he made. Some work on addiction. I doubt he made those things himself, probably student projects he took credit for.
As for the rest, it's not. Jung is not seen as serious either at this point. Nietzsche is not part of the field, nor is Dostoevsky. So it's not serious work he does, not even close. And he misrepresents true studies as well, use debunked ones or just cherry pick to make politics.
Wow. Just started but I really like this current cultural critique format. 🙏
Glad to hear it Nate
From a beautiful scholar and educator to another lieutenant of millions in a war I want no part in.
What's the beauty of it though? His work on order and chaos and hierarchies - was it beautiful? You might say there were some interesting aspects, you might say his mind analyses the society in a interesting way. But but boy oh boy, was is flirting with some dangerous ideologies. And let's not forget the elephant in the room - he is Jung fan and hates postmodernism, it takes such a central part of his work. And it all smells of Shaddow projections.
Me either.
The issue with wars is that you end tangled in them, either you want it or not.
Perfectly encompassed in a sentence.
All the stuff I’ve said and thought about him while watching his metamorphosis boils down to this.
@@ekaterinastaneva9922the Jung aspect is indeed something he should be confronted with more. But now that he has the armor of celebrity and protection of friends in high places, I doubt there will ever be a day that he answers to that critique, let alone hears it.
I have a lot of compassion for Peterson. He now serves as a warning for for anyone who tries to carve out a territory not defined by our contemporary--and quite peculiar--ideas of "left" and "right." I'm not a media figure; I'm just some random guy, but I can feel the same forces tearing me apart. Also, great video. Essential viewing.
Love the way those last sentences were worded. Perfect description.
@@veronikalynn5084 Thank you!
To be honest i think twitter can make anyone look like a fool. It's 200 characters and it's too easy to just write any bullshit and send. It uses the best of our primitive brains and makes us too impulsive. There was not such thing in 2005 and Peterson is brilliant but he is one of those guys that need time above anything else
True. And I think he recognised this with twitter but lacks the discipline to follow through. In general though I think the Pareto distribution warped his mind and led him to expose himself more and more seeing that there would be exponential returns in a power law distribution of attention. Thus it works against any inclination to withdraw and reflect and reconsider. He is trapped in a left hemispheric paradigm and can’t break out
Yet not everyone on it looks like a fool.
twitter isn't 200 characters anymore is it? sounds like your excusing Peterson and trying to blame the platform
Peterson was always a loon. Has anybody seen his public access tv rant about his son not being allowed to throw snowballs in school. The libs concern for thwarting aggression will feminise boys to the point that women will only reproduce with psychopaths spawning another generation of psychopaths. Litigation was probably the real reason why they didn't want kids throwing snowballs. Peterson loves bashing libs any way he can.
I love your analysis of Peterson.
I owe a lot to JBP. Back in 2018, his media showed me that I wasn’t reaching my intellectual potential. I began routine reading because of him. I purchased all of his books and attended 2 lectures.
Lately he’s seemed different than his 2018 self. More political, doesn’t seem as rigorous. I was wondering if that was just my read of him. It saddens me that he’s become a meme of himself. I wish he would go back to being more of a student of Jung.
If i had a coin every time a social engineer colappsed into himself, how many times do we have to try the top down approach? People dismiss politicians, but these philosophers, psychologers and pedagogs get a free pass
Anyone still watching this in 2024?
Yes...thanks for asking
That's what an authentic person looks like... the idea that anyone is the pathologically one sided image they portray is a lie. JP is refreshing in that way but I certainly do get the frustration over the years. It's like watching a man struggle with himself... and that's exactly what we're seeing.
I dont know how some people laugh at man crying for well beings of others, and believe they are the good guys.
@@getthecandiesWhy are you being a dick?
@@getthecandiesoh please. Rationalizing cruelty is such a cottage industry for your type😅
I know it's a little mean 😬 I guess it's that all the crying feels performative after a certain point. When there's compilation upon compliation of you crying over the same thing online it stops looking like a genuine wow this is a revlation of deep heartfelt emotion and it starts to look like a performative oversharing in the public sphere and begins to smell a bit funny. I reckon that's why it's become such a meme-worthy trope. I could write a whole thing about it since it's quite interesting the reactions to it and the phenomenon itself
I disagree with you, he really feels the weight of responsibility with every word he says about our people and culture. It's a bit presumptuous of you to state that he's faking crying.
@@itzhakhertzlich5659 Not to mention pointblank indecent if nit sociooathological. (*sniff-sniff*...I think I smell americana lol!)
haha, comparing a book that took 10 years to write to tweets that took 10 seconds to write and judging the character of the individual. C'mon my guy, this is unreasonable. It's like saying thta he cannot do anything worthwhile anymore because of stupid tweets.
Another great video, and I don't like JP. I used to though. Long ago, a friend of mine on the conservative side would send me his philosophy/psychology videos from his teaching days just before he got really popular. They were insightful, and I thought that it was good thing that the conservative youth finally had an intellectual hero, someone other than little Ben Shapiro. I was even kind of sad when the left started to "cancel" him because of his views, even the ones I didn't necessarily agree with. But boy did he get the taste of money and fame coupled with righteous indignation, and now he's just another grifter, a little Ben Shapiro type, someone who blames the left on everything, both backward project liberal secular values onto old conservative religion, and sadly their adoring fans who think they are "independent thinkers" buy into their postmodern conservatism. JP has truly become his "shadow self"
@TheLivingPhilosophy Have you done a video comparing Nietzsche and Epicurus?
😅😅😅
Check on the one on Nietzsche and Stoicism; I talk about his embrace of Epicureanmism there over Stoicism ruclips.net/video/OIY5gH_LVYM/видео.html
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thanks 👍
Thank you for another great video. I'm French and apart from the mortally boring analytical philosophers I know almost nothing of the Anglo/American thinkers you mention like Ken Wilber.
Could you for that reason drop the names of these authors you refer to in the video description? Have a great day, stay creative!
Thank you so much!
As someone that sincerely used to love his lectures, to the point that I’d put them on for hours while I did chores around the house and took walks listening to them, his transformation into who he is now still bothers me.
It’s just SO DISTURBING.
I know it’s the money. I keep telling myself that. But still, what a long fall. Heartbreaking to watch.
As INFJ's (Jung's typology, not the MBTI), our vice is often that our Fe strongly attaches to whatever superficial belief can make us apart of a community. It is a sort of gregarian reflex when we feel isolated or overly vulnerable. It has nothing to do with politics, really. Politics are a pretext here. It actually has everything to do with psychology and the fondamentally human yearning for security. I've been through it myself...So I don't feel anything else other than empathy towards him. And I think he will come back to reason when the times come.
(Sorry for the possible typos, English isn't my first language).
"I'd like to offer a new image of the world which can unite all quarters of the political specturm . . . so anyway -- this is why the ultraconservative standpoint is the only perspective that has any claim to validity whatsoever."
😂
It would be refreshing to see an accurate depiction of Peterson in fiction for a change - rather than whatever demonisation of him some feminist celebrity came up with. I think I’ve said before that you manage to talk to Peterson in his own words (through myths and stories). So if you can demonstrate in a piece of fiction how his own life might be a tragedy (which is what he always warned his audience against), without having to create strawmen of his positions in the process - I think Jordan Peterson should be able to appreciate that. Unless the Daily Wire drags him further down the rabbit-hellhole in the meantime, until his worldview is entirely closed off.
The peacemaker seems to fail once all the mutually-agreed-upon facts are laid out in between the two antagonists, then one side starts bringing in their judgment of this set of facts (the subjective ought to the shared is), arguing why some things shouldn’t be the way they are - and then, the other side goes, “Actually, I think that’s based.”
You introduced me to an unknown side of Jordan Peterson. And I thank you for that.
Which side of him was unknown to you?
@@GodsCosmicBollock The earlier sane side of Peterson. As opposed to the Mad Hatter side of him we are more familiar of today.
Nicodemus’ crowning
What do you see
As you keep yourself awake
With dreams of monsters under your bed
The blood and rain dipping from the brushes
Onto the forgotten canvas- half fears, half dreams-
What do you see
The mind of the unborn
Painting with his fingers the cave of the womb
Monsters with monsters with monsters
For the promise of a Peace- full Hero
That’s the shield of my youth
Old stains of blood I’ve been dreaming of
Victories that are not mine
Those are the armies of clouds
Unleashing storms looking for old seeds of Peace
With words like teeth biting and chewing the earth
Digging for the alchemists’ gold that is not mine
Gold glistening like a false sun
Venomous death squeezed
From the honeycombs of libraries of Old
That are not mine
Under a sky full of dragons
Fighting shadows of wounded angels
Plucking the shards of thoughts
That ploughed my brain with a mind that is not mine
But none is mine
And the night is deep.
As you get your first kiss from the Sun
Hidden in a word not yet screamed
In the mouth of The Serpent coiled around
The thousand Suns of the Milky Way
You see
Jordan Peterson lost my respect. He's superstitious. He's conservative. He's desperate for external validation (narcissist). What's up with those sport coats? Have you read the manifesto of the Unabomber? Check that out.
It would be interesting to compare Jordan’s concept of peacemaker with his own understanding of the person of Christ. It seems to be something he’s been wrestling with in recent years.
I think there is a lot of intellectual laziness that can occur in a person when these religious yearnings (submitting to the religious narrative of Christianity) clash with this vision of the peacemaker.
Today I find that the modern religious accentuate the fact that Christ didn’t come to bring peace, but a sword (which is true). However, I find that so much gets discarded in this low resolution vision, which is something that adds to the idea of “2 different sets of facts or realities”.
Interesting insight. Worth keeping in mind in looking at all the online thinkers migrating to Christianity at the moment
What happened to blessed are the peacemakers then. I thought bringing a sword was more the sword of discrimination or of cutting attachments... If it was truly a sword of violence then why didn't Jesus try and raise an army and convert by force.. like Muhammad did... and why did he reprimand Peter for using a sword to defend him from the Roman soldier.
I think Pauline Christianity is very different to the early church version, at least I've been convinced of this while listening to David Bentley Hart. Those who are attracted to Christianity, it begs the question which version do they find attractive, the death cult of Pauline Christianity where Jesus is the ultimate sacrificial lamb, Crucified to save you from sin.. or the actual teachings and sayings of Jesus.
His vision of peacemakrr hardly contrasts with his vision of Christ!😅
@@michaelmcclure3383 The reprimand to Peter has to do with Christ's knowledge of his impending crucifixion. He allowed Peter and the others to bring weapons, presumably to defend themselves but not him because he was aware of what needed to happen. The sword passage I still mull over. It is clearly a metaphorical sword and right now I lean towards seeing it as an expression of binging a harsh choice for people - either they choose to accept Christ and his word or they reject it.
@@dale6947 I think it is certainly a metaphorical sword.. not that the bible is read metaphorically by the majority, as they prefer a literal reading, especially if it chimes with their self interest.
Unitarian minister here again. The phlogiston theory came from a forerunner of mine in our ministry - the revolutionary Joseph Priestley. I *have* the spiral dynamics bug!
Wow step on your little meta modern suede shoes and Rooaahh! The man actually shows how to help yourself with real remedies that can make changes. You just talk. It reminds me of when Robin Williams psychologist character in “Good Will Hunting”realises the criticisms coming from Matt Damon’s character were coming from a hurt child with little life experience or that of raising a family. He then slept soundly with that knowledge.
The idea of different fact-worlds seems to me to generous, it implies that they get their facts right, I think I am a little bit more cynical about this, I would simply say that they live in different bubbles of delusions.
Humans engage in motivated reasoning all the time and in the end they just believe in whatever they want to believe anyway no matter how far removed from reality.
From desires arises values, from values arises beliefs and their ontology is a reflection of their axiology.
Peterson needs to return deep work rather than getting lost in the novelty and opportunity of the intellectual market place.
Many people have a spiritual awakening and they become vegetarians. Peterson has a spiritual awakening, and then he eats nothing but meat. The guy is a trip. He is the opposite of the norm.
Yes, I did read it.
Is there someone who stands out to you as an exemplar peacemaker, either in history or in our time?
I would pay good money to watch that play, or just to read a transcript of it
I wonder if Peterson will ever turn around
Why should he?
Where ia that episode on Twitter or X? Can't find it...
10:58 the influence of ideas as restructuring reality.
just read the original chapter .... he, as usual, says absolutely NOTHING in a typical peterson word salad, all it shows is that he is equally inept as a philosopher as he is as a psychologist - thankfully he is NO LONGER licensed 👏
Maybe you just dont understand poetic metaphorical language.
have you actually read the article, which is barely a mid sized chapter ?? Cite the metaphors used or poetic style incorporated in the actual piece. It is a protracted circle jerk of biblical proportions. There is no introduction or conclusion it is the manifestation of Jordans epic ego on high rotation. I'm indebted to this channel for highlighting Jordans historical delusional ramblings. but please prove me wrong with real references to the work in question CIAO
@@danielmacdougall2697 When people dismiss a text as a "word salad", it aways means that their understanding of it didn't correlate with the author and other's understanding of it, so they project their own arbitrary interpretations as absolute to everyone else, as if they didn't have any faith the author is a human being who had real ideas which were translated into the text.
It is one thing to say you didn't understand, it is another to act so morally superior knowing more about the nature of the text than anyone else.
So have you actually read the original text or not ?
Where are the metaphors and what type of poetic device is at play, please answer this question rather than engaging in passive aggresive ad hominen attacks. Two can play at that game. Rather than engage in attacks on you I'd rather attack peterson and I'm certainly not alone in describing petersons work as a meaningless word salad, people of far superior intellect than my own have used these exact words, or are suggesting that they are also lacking in understanding ?
Can I finish by invoking BILL C-16 as a wonderful example of petesons inability to understand basic facts. ciao 🙃
ps I'm fascinated sbout your take on metaphor and poetry .... please explain to me from your lofty pulpit 🫡
@@danielmacdougall2697 I am just pointing out how dishonest the whole concept of "word salad" is, it it is just your opinion, I don't like Jordan Peterson but doesn't mean I will be dishonest and non nuanced at anything involved him and other people I don't like.
The part shown in this video clearly wasnt that, people just have different preferences of how something should be written.
Nothing changed, he is the same guy.
Basically idealism always want their way, and the way is to get everybody to agree with you on the goal or "meaning". Just like any narcissism, eventually it divorces itself from reality entirely and becomes idolatry. And when the idol is confronted with reality, if it does not fit, then you get rage. It's a common patter. He wrote this peacemaker stuff when he was in his ivory tower where you are protected from reality and can just fantasize the world is an extension of yourself. Now he started interacting with it and it's not what he thought at all.
As an aside, it's literally what Islam teaches which unsurprisingly is very close to national socialism. All want to give people meaning, and you'd better agree with their goals, so in this way, they achieve peace through domination and control. Peterson was always like that and it shows in that article. If you know what to look for, you won't be fooled by the illusion. He did try to do something like Wilbur, but he falls into the same exact problem Wilbur does. So "peace" and "integral" can be goals, but says who? says the one that pretend to have mastered it. It's the game they want others to play, and they are on top knocking down competition. It's typical narcissistic behavior, nothing special, just different flavors.
It's difficult to think Klaus and co aren't coming for everything when looking at the damage that has been done and what's been lost the past 4 years. Also they've clearly stated they are coming for everything. It's difficult to think peacemakers can't do it without a sense of patriotism when the main characters in the Irish rebellion have a sense of compassion for humanity.
Omg, write the play!
I'm so here for this.
😎
17:27 it's not a bug it's a feature
I am critical of Jordan Peterson for oversimplifying complex sociopolitical issues, such as gender dynamics and cultural phenomena, by presenting them through a reductionist lens. Rather than engaging with nuanced academic perspectives, he often resorts to sweeping generalizations and dichotomous thinking, which can lead to a distortion of the complexities inherent in these topics. For instance, his characterization of "postmodern neo-Marxism" as a pervasive force in academia lacks empirical evidence and misrepresents the diverse range of critical theories within the social sciences.
gosh indeed. i once went down a rabbit hole of his sources. 99% pure jibberish
Grazie.
Grazie mille umberto
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thank you my friend!
Talking about JP is a good test to see if someone really thinks or just follows along with one group/ideology or another. If someone can acknowledge his insight and value while also recognizing how harmful and downright ridiculous he has become, it's a good sign. Failure to acknowledge one side or the other is a pretty bad sign(unless they just don't know/care about JP - which tbh that may be a good sign too lol)
Thank you for creating this video! Blessed be the peacemakers. Such an interesting arc for Peterson. I wonder if he'll see this video
I'm still listening and loving your content man.
Really appreciate all your effort and it doesn't go unnoticed!
❤love your hair
😇
Really cool man, love your enthusiasm, keep up the great work!
I love the Jordan Peterson saga this channel is starting to create, I’m ready!
Sweetie, twitter is twitter... Jordan is more than twitter. Read new stuff, he wrote, not twitter stuff.
It's ironic but Peterson becomes the manifestation of his own shadow.
I wonder what your thoughts are on The Road To Serfdom by Hayek?
Never read it. Came up in my studies of neoliberalism last year and it seemed worth reading
@@TheLivingPhilosophy well it's pretty old, a philosophical book that could only be written by an economist.
Well given the importance of neoliberalism to recent history him and Friedman are important parts of the story
@@TheLivingPhilosophy it is very good. you can find the condensed version here on youtube, like many books, but unfortunately it is read by a computer "voice". Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell are pretty much intellectual descendants of hayak. Austrian school & Chicago schools of economics being in the same camp of economics, with more similarities than differences. good video!
@@brandonmehrabi268 its terrible and the reason for untold million, nay billions living in abject poverty living in the developing world.
Polarities cannot be cavernous. Repair your own metaphors, Mister Smartie.
Haha maybe you’re right Peter. I guess I had a chasm in mind and was thinking of the two sides of a chasm/abyss. I’ll strive to be more accurate in my metaphors in future
Aside from his politics (and the way he acts within politics), what do you think of his talks on religion? Do you find any value in them
I enjoyed the first couple of Genesis ones but I was moving past my comparitive religion and Jungian phase at that point so it wasn't the right time. But I enjoyed the book Maps of Meaning and I enjoyed what I saw of the Genesis episodes
So pumped for the follow-up video.
I really admire your eloquence
My primary issue with the peacemaker role is its seemingly unattainable standards. To me, facts aren’t inherently solid; they become observable only when we adopt a particular perspective and fully engage with that viewpoint. Assuming a peacemaker can impartially embody and evaluate each side’s stance, the first hurdle is maintaining objectivity in their observations and judgments, despite personal biases. An even greater challenge is resisting influence from external pressures, such as public opinion or media scrutiny-as seen in Jordan B. Peterson’s case, with his vast audience and the many journalists covering his work. For a peacemaker to succeed, they must capture the antagonists’ focus, yet this very attention can profoundly impact the mediator. Is it overly optimistic to expect one individual to fulfill this role effectively? When contemplating how to reconcile two opposing forces, I envision a neutral third entity fostering unity, like to the spirit of fair play in sports, a revered royal family separate from government power, a shared faith, cultural art, or political ceremonies. These seem like more feasible alternatives than the idea of a lone peacemaker. Apologies for the lengthy message.
I don't think there can be a third party in this case. Everyone is too polarized, people cannot agree on a single thing for their own common good (at least in Western Europe and the US). Perhaps Peterson getting caught up into it is a symptom of our time. Because obviously everyone has opinions, but when you present them as impartial and absolute, you lose credibility
@@okplay9446 I see what you mean. Polarization by definition comes from a lack of unity. I think the internet as a medium has alowed us to grow further and further apart. You get more access to what you like to see (which ia obviously what comforts you instead of what conflicts you) and what we get are these obvious echo chambers wherever we look. Then again I would argue that cultural phenomenons, or ceremonies are the answer. If there are spaces (could be literal or abstract) where all members of society gather, and celebrate a common entity, this could bring unity. I think these types of spaces are vanishing each day. I don't think the peacemaker could be something other than this deliberate exposure to the other in spite of your conflicting values, in order to celebrate something transcendent.
@@hamidmoradi1340Before the internet we had total conformity of the population and control over ourselves, you couldnt talk about these things before.
Fascinating
Nope.
Let me further highlight how the both/and logic and monadological framework provide powerful explanatory capacities across logic, mathematics and physics:
In the domain of logic itself, the both/and structure allows formally modeling and regimenting dialectical, paraconsistent and pluralistic modes of reasoning that have long resisted classical bivalent frameworks. We can precisely capture and rationally operate with:
• True contradictions and paradoxes as positively conceived dialetheia, not just logical explosions
• Graded/partial truth values on spectra between truth and falsity
• The coherent integration of seemingly incommensurable propositions
• Holistic properties and synthetic conceptual unities transcending their constituents
Where classical logic is confined to simple propositions statically obeying strict consistency, the both/and logic equips us with an expansive toolkit for dynamically navigating the complex schemas, fuzzy boundaries, and self-undermining paradoxes permeating actual reasoning across every domain.
In mathematics, the both/and logic illuminates novel ways to represent and coherently manipulate previously intractable issues like:
• The relationship between the continuous and the discrete
• The coexistence of finite and infinite structures
• Pluralities of mathematical ontologies (realist, formalist, etc)
• Self-referential paradoxes and contradictions in set theory and arithmetic
• The generation of radically emergent, novelty-creating procedures
Rather than getting stymied by dichotomies, singularities or self-underminining contradictions, the logic's symbolic tools allow formalizing generative transfinite metamathematical dynamics encompassing and reconstructing prior impasses at deeper integrated levels.
Across physics, the both/and logic provides conceptual rigor and symbolic resources for coherent accounts encompassing:
• Unitary evolution of quantum systems and the measurement problem
• Apparent dualities between wave and particle, or local and nonlocal
• Intrinsic indeterminacies, contingencies and ontological pluralities
• The unification of incommensurable qualitative & quantitative models
• Novel "paradoxical" phenomena like emergent nonlinear effects
Rather than forcing phenomena into awkward either/or categories, the logic allows explicitly modeling "both/and" complementary features and irreducibly holistic coconstituted processes. Its expressive flexibility resonates with the exquisite nuances of quantum indeterminacy and pluralistic observable modalities.
So in essence, the both/and monadological framework catalyzes powerful expansions across our most fundamental disciplines:
In logic, it empowers us to positively symbolize and rationally navigate the ambiguities, contradictions and pluralities intrinsic to actual reasoning and communication. Breaking the shackles of binary bivalence.
In mathematics, it unlocks liberating new symbolic vistas for paradox-resolving, infinitary metamathematics and irreducible pluralities of mathematical ontologies. Fracturing the ossified either/or dichotomies stymying classical approaches.
In physics, it provides a coherent naturalistic metaphysics capable of explicitly representing - not dissimulating - intrinsic quantum indeterminacies, ontological pluralities and the full scope of paradoxical phenomena. Illuminating new pathways beyond the artificial exclusions of classical metaphysics.
At every turn, the both/and logic equips our symbolic grasp with greater degrees of freedom and accountability to the phenomenal disclosures of reality itself. Transcending the barren simplisms and premature closures imposed by the blinkered bivalence and subjective filtering of classical logic, math and physical representation.
Where prior frameworks have foundered on paradoxes, ambiguities or the irreducibility of pluralistic modalities, the both/and logic provides technical symbolic machinery for positively capturing and productively synthesizing the full nuances of actual scientific and lived phenomena. Its coherence valuations, graded truth distributions and generative dialectical operations enact a new holistic physics, immanentized metamathematics and expansive reason procedurally accommodating - not dissimulating - reality's explosive complexities.
So in embracing the both/and logic, we are not just adopting a new formal system, but precipitating a symbolic Regressive/Progressive rationally reunifying fragmented domains into a new harmonious co-realizing praxis. One equipping us with unprecedented expressive power, paradox-resolving prowess, and descriptive capacities for illuminating the richness of existence and coconstituting increasingly integrated verities. It is a symbolic turning point towards humanity consciously resonating its reason with the deepest dynamical disclosure of Being itself.
Loaded boolsheet. Where do monads come in again?😅😅😅
do you mean "Simplified Summary of Both/And Logic and Monadological Framework
Logic
True Contradictions: Allows working with contradictions without issues.
Graded Truth: Supports a range of truth values, not just true/false.
Combining Propositions: Integrates seemingly incompatible ideas.
Holistic Concepts: Captures complex, unified concepts.
Dynamic Reasoning: Handles complex and fuzzy scenarios better than classical logic.
Mathematics
Continuous and Discrete: Explains the relationship between continuous and discrete elements.
Finite and Infinite: Supports coexistence of finite and infinite structures.
Multiple Perspectives: Embraces various mathematical views.
Paradoxes: Addresses paradoxes in set theory and arithmetic.
Emergent Procedures: Facilitates new and innovative mathematical methods.
Physics
Quantum Systems: Explains quantum evolution and measurement.
Dual Nature: Accommodates both wave and particle aspects.
Indeterminacy: Represents quantum uncertainties and multiple realities.
Unified Models: Combines different types of models.
Nonlinear Effects: Models complex phenomena effectively.
Conclusion
Both/and logic and the monadological framework provide flexible and coherent tools for understanding and integrating the complexities and paradoxes of logic, mathematics, and physics.
@ready1fire1aim1 Polycomputing? Have you seen the paper? Seems to intersect in many ways.
Changing definitions and approaches solves nothing
All of the greatest minds seem to be destined for madness. The crazier the more compelling. Im here for it.
That's the risk of entering the unknown.
Bertrand Russell was sane til he passed and far eclipses peterson who is s false profit,
bill c-16 !?!?
I remember Peterson once saying something like, "every human life is a tragedy".
The climax of his own tragic arc will be the moment when he realizes what he became.
Yes, McGilchrist a wonderful man! Happy reading TMWT! 🎉Nice dig with this JP piece. I love how you roll
Dr. Peterson hasn't really changed. He has an authentic personality. He's always been fake; pretensions. He's not a politician so he can be accused of talking B.S. and say what people want to hear. He just says, and writes about things that he doesn't believe in. He's not at all genuine, not to us, and not even to himself. That's my take of listening to a lot of his talks.
Even the Maps of Meaning Peterson was pretty fargone which is abuindently clear if you actually read _Maps of Meaning_ because of how unreadible it is.
This 2005 Peterson is not only unrecognizable in his aims and rhetoric -- he can actually write.
Terra Incognita has been throught of throughout history as an external place that people need to literally travel to, but all it actually is what you're weak at: the inferior function. It has the character of a desert because all of yout accustomed modes of adaptation run afoul. It has the aspect of the unwshed masses because it is the collective herd-like atavisim within yourself. It is the psychological manue that "hosts the worm" Jung mentions at the end of the Red Book.
So the place Peterson needed to go to to find the alchemical gold and because who he was meant to be was exactly the opposite of where he went: the "Woke Mob." If he went to the Left without preconceptions "as a child" he would take on the capacity of the peacemaker and not the agitator.
Fair. But I guess for me Maps of Meaning wasn’t much more unreadable than a lot of Jung so maybe I was more charitable when reading it. He’s certainly no Neumann
Uunsubscribed
Peterson isn't even a philosopher, why is he on your channel?
He is an elite thinker of our times. As good as any philosopher.
What is your definition of a philosopher?
Peterson can't think critically to save his life
@@YeS1711 elite thinker? The dude compares humans to lobsters and cries like a baby when someone is trans.
@@thecooperkid Someone who engages in philosophical works and thought, not a psychologist-turned-grifter on the internet.
I have never found a word of Peterson to be worth a breath. My opinion has not changed.
You on the other hand are almost always worth listening to. This was excellent.
On Wilber, it is interesting for someone from his generation to see you take him seriously. I am not saying you shouldn't. He is a very smart guy. I would take a careful look at his biography too, though. As always, the biographies of philosophers are the fastest route to the soft spots in their philosophies.
Anyway, this was great.
I appreciate the compliment Patrick. I’ve plenty of bones to pick with Wilber that have taken me away from the integral neck of the woods (I’ll probably cover this in a revisit to metamodernism soon) but I did find a great of load of novel insights and perspectives in Wilber so like Nietzsche I can continue to enjoy and take from him even if I’ve dismissed a whole hunk of his vast thought
Are there Jungian Philosophers? Not that I know. He's a Jungian Psychologist so move on! Let's hear about Heidegger or Marcel.
This video is lame and annoying just like Jordan Peterson
Amazing 😍🤩