And a gynocentric projection of self-misandry too. Here's a good response on Peterson's psychological character which reveals the basis behind such a claim: ruclips.net/video/CZrLbAF0chM/видео.html
Hello Samuli, I don't think you will find a lot of antinatalists in Zimbabwe, if anything it is just the opposite its full of natalists bringing more and more mortals in the game only to experience sufferings like hunger, poverty, disease, despair, violence and ultimately an early death.....
@papaJueJue I worked it out before I got to my teens in the 1970s, i suppose it was using logic. I didn't know the word untill later, but not sure when I first heard it👍
His argument against Benatar was terrible. The worst was the way he twisted what Benatar was saying and THEN tried to connect it to mass slaughter. Peterson isn't good at representing other people's ideas.
Indeed. He did that, I am hearing that debate again now and he strategically twisted it all around... Peterson is a psychologist so beware he might know. a fe thing or two about dark psychology and there are books on dark psychology and how to interpersonally manipulate.
Mary actually didn't have a choice. She was impregnated without her consent and was then informed by an angel that she was pregnant with the messiah. Where in any of this is she given a choice?
And yet for some reason folk like Peterson say we ought to celebrate that kind of reproductive coercion as though it were some kind of holy, altruistic miracle and clearly not at all self-serving rape. Shame though it is a clear-cut case of self-serving rape.
Mary was told she is going to have a baby. God does not need consent from mere mortals. What you should ask is if He got consent from His Son Jesus. The answer to that question is yes.
Jordan Peterson is good with rhetoric. That is why people like David Benatar or Shelly Kagan should appear in public more often to demolish the idea that charismatic influence means truth.
Can confirm that you CANNOT impose your views about how to live life on the client, neither can you judge them and say something so humiliating like - you must have thought that up when you're 16, you should be validating the client not belittling them, imagine the client having to hear this coming from the one person who she'd hope to be non judgmental, so unprofessional
Antinatalism is the worlds greatest litmus test to discover whether or not intellectuals/high IQ people are philosophically consistent or biased in their thinking.
Anti-natalism is obviously a biased ideology, anyone with basic skill in philosophical logic know that and can debunk any anti-natalist doctrines in a couple minutes. You're only the victim of the illusions of logic you want to believe in, anti-natalism is a cult disguised (cheaply I might say) in a logical proposition.
eiserlish Ok, go ahead and debunk Benetar's Asymmetry, the Imposition of Risk, and Non-Consent arguments then. I didn't see a single counter-argument in all of that.
@@eiserlish Philosophy is a bunch a bullshite bro there is only 2 things on this universe Physics and Maths and derivatives of them Biology and Chemistry
@@DenseCortex What’s any of that gotta do with the fact that antinatalism is a dumb philosophy that only socially outcasted losers follow? 💀 Just admit y’all are cowards. If there was a 50/50 shot that a baby would end up living a life of suffering maybe you’d have a point. But the actual odds of an offspring living that kind of life is like 1%. Someone who has kids and is financially stable isn’t a selfish POS for taking a tiny risk like that when the much more likely outcome is that the offspring will end up relatively normal and live a fairly normal life preferable to never having been born. I get it, you probably don’t have a social life, no real friends, almost certainly a virgin, you get bitter seeing people go out to parties and bars on weekends because deep down you know you’re a loser that wouldn’t say a word in a social setting. Instead of just accepting this or better yet actually working on your self, you parade around pretending you’re an intellectual who’s above the “sheep” that enjoy life because YOURE a critical thinker and see their mindless activities for what it is: meaningless. You are the personification of “The Fox and the Grapes” The reality is you’re the fucking weirdo that no one wants to be around. You watched True Detective and decided to make Rust Cohle your personality because you think it’s edgy and mysterious and “cool”. This isn’t about trying to stop suffering, you don’t genuinely care about any of that. If you actually have a fuck about suffering you’d realize that 99.99% of the world thinks you’re pathetic and that antinatalism would never be adopted. Knowing this, you’d do your best to try to make the world a better place instead of pretending you’re smart on RUclips. Seriously bro, get some pussy before you go around acting like nothing means anything and that parents who want to raise a child of their own and give it a good life are somehow “immoral” Being different is cool, being the weird kid everyone thinks is a school shooter is not Sorry for rambling I could literally smell the BO just reading your comment and got carried away
This isn't even the worst thing Peterson has said on the issue of antinatalism if you can believe it. He at one time gave a rambling response to someone who asked if not giving birth is an ideal solution to preventing suffering. Peterson ultimately said no yet additionally said people should just birth new persons anyway as a means to make their life less miserable. Seriously. He openly and ashamedly said we should be foregoing any deconstructive consideration of our ability to give birth and its consequences in favor of blindly engaging in it to achieve what amounts to self-serving animal husbandry. That isn't the advice of an intellectual; that is the advice of a callous sociopath. And before any spooked Jordan sycophants demand evidence their reactionary demigod on earth said that, here's a citation: ruclips.net/video/imkVLmvwiuwb/видео.html
I don't think he actually says, "No, it is not morally right to have children", he says "No, if you are not going to do it "right"". If you do it "right", then it is morally right to have children. He doesn't get it.
Peterson has this traditionalist view of life which he advocates and will twist and bend over backwards to defend. Glynos properly dissected Peterson’s arguments and shown their flaws. How did Peterson become so highly thought of when he displays such poor reasoning?
@Sam Anthony Because most people are stupid and don't know what a real genius is. Many people who think Peterson is a great philosopher also think that Donald Trump is a great politician.
I will pay you 30 euros if you call in to Stefan Molyneux's show, Glynos. The only thing I ask is that you come prepared, Stefan is a master manipulator and language expert. He knows all of the logical fallacies and has no reservations about using them to win arguments if he deems you a threat to his ego. Anticipate that he will twist your ideas and refuse to move on with the conversation until you agree with his perversions. Everything you say can, and likely will, be used against you at some point. I highly recommend you watch some of his prior videos with callers to get a feel for his arguing style. A prime example of Stefan's manipulation can be seen in the video titled: "Always Be Nice Fail." As you can see, several responses have been made calling him out on that video.
PumpkinSeedButter don't know if this is still open but I would shop in 10 pounds. Although I'm not antinatalists I just want to see the discussion of ideas.
Because he is rationializing are fucked up situation. He is like the drug addict who death sentence and say getting sent to death row was the best thing that happened to him because now he is drug free! Yay. LOL
Artificer I can, Peterson is one of the few outspoken rightists in academia, a sector predominately controlled by the left. He is a strong advocate for traditionalism, and deconstructs the leftist establishment through a psychoanalytical lens, which is related to his area of expertise. He primarily appeals to the alt-right, and being relatively far-right himself, I'm sure you can understand why.
+D-CLASS 88 Agreed, D-C. One thing I learned in life is to never try to psychologize the motives of an opponent, for any presumptions of mental health are more often than not just plain wrong-headed. That's a Genetic Fallacy at best, outright Ad Hominem at worst.
Not really. The "left" now are not the left of 50 or 60 years ago. Even with all the resources of Hansard at your fingertips you will search the speeches of, say, Sydney Silverman, Nye Bevan or Richard Crossman (once famous figures of the British left) for the slightest reference to identity politics. There are no references to same-sex marriage or "transphobia", no anathemas pronounced against "Islamophobia", "heteronormativity" or the "Patriarchy", no impassioned pleas for Multiculturalism and open borders. Jordan Peterson is a complex figure, who is broadly correct about the issues of identity politics while extremely naive about economics (his rejection of Postmodernism - which I also find deeply sinister and pernicious in its effects - is grounded, unfortunately, in the Randian analysis of Steven Hicks). However, he is certainly not - by any sane standards - a figure of the "far right" simply because of his traditionalism and distrust of identity politics; the venerable gentlemen referred to above, Messrs Silverman, Bevan and Crossman, would have stood shoulder to shoulder with Peterson on social and cultural issues.
As if at the age of 16 we are completely incapable of rational thought. I figured out at the age of 16 that the notion of a loving god sending people to hell is ludicrous. I guess we should dismiss that thought simply because it was produced by a 16 year old brain.
I agree with Peterson on many topics such as the dominance hierarchy and developmental psychology. But this...this is just dismissive and pseudointellectual of him. He takes natalism as an irrefutable axiom and does not bother to scrutinize it as should all deep thinkers and philosophers. Worst of all, his argument is ad hominem. What is this, grade school? I am so disappointed.
this video should be watched by everyone !!!!! this video is a true gift to humanity. It is sooooo... hard to believe how ignorant , Jordan Peterson is !!!!! Thank you for sharing this great video with us.
Great presentation 👍 Antinatilsm is morally superior as it insures that you don't impose any potential suffering. i really don't like Jordan Peterson, his 12 rules book was very bad. Anyone like him who goes on about their IQ possibly doesn't really understand how useless it is, and especially if it's far lower than mine😉which was taken suffering chronic pain and the serious debilitating side affects of analgesics, suffering for over a decade now unfortunately😁
Until this morning I considered myself a peterson fan. Then met Benabar's ideas. Then heard them debate. Then got here. Surprised by the shits JP said. Nice video, you got a new sub!!
With the last sentence of Peterson I have lost so much admiration for his intellect and persona. Maybe he is also extremly biased because of his job as a psychologist, if nobody gets children, he will not have enough fucked up clients in the future.
Fantastic response Glynos! From the looks of it, the popularity of Peterson seems to be due to that fact that he says what people really want to hear. Nobody gives a fuck about the truth or suffering, everyone wants to hear what they already have assumed. Between an icecream seller and a seller of healthy juice of bitter gourd it is the former who would sell more with the difference inversely proportional to intellect of customers.
I love you david. I felt deeply Compassionate at your words when i first heard them. Althought painful to bear But holds strong kindness towards human condition. It even liberate that part of us which keeps link between the misery and bad deeds. Human are not bad, they always act in response to gain more or alleviate their existantial suffering
Double entry is a glitch, it's not intentional. From experience I've found that trying to delete one deletes both. Unfortunately I'm disabled and typing takes ages and causes more physical pain so I'm not going to risk it💚🐕🎵🎸
Oh, and Stefan will probably bring up his pet secular ethical theory: "Universally Preferable Behavior" I can see Stefan saying something along the lines of "existence is preferable to nonexistence." and using that to justify pro-natalism. Also, I'd like to note that Stefan at least concedes that the unborn have a welfare. In fact, he's said that government debt is immoral because unborn will have to pay it. "Selling off the unborn" and such. You could probably use that line of logic against him, I dono.
Although I don't agree with him all the time, I have to say that, to his credit, he listens to what other people have to say. But this was upsetting and downright wrong on so many levels. When he shames his client for having serious concerns he shows a total lack of understanding and compassion. I don't mind him uttering his opinions in front of a cheering (and perhaps a little uncritical) audience, but when a vulnerable human being come to you to express concerns of any kind this is not what you are supposed to be doing.
Thankyou very much for this video, I remember seeing another video where he discussed antinatalism: ruclips.net/video/imkVLmvwiuw/видео.html And was gobsmacked by the intellectual dishonesty. (Of course I left a comment and had to contend with the 'huh huh why don't u kill urself' bullshit. My fault for thinking I could have a reasonable conversation on the RUclips channel 'Bite Sized Philosophy'.) I'll just quickly re iterate a summary of what I wrote there: Peterson makes some great arguments for raising a child, but makes no attempt to refute an argument for not bringing a child into existence in the first place. Not too surprised as he seems to be a devout survivalist, and doesn't make effort to understand even the more accessible MGTOW or similar childfree movements. This guy knows perfectly well the practical issues with the legal system in Canada re divorce laws and still feels the need to berate guys (and gals, I guess) that won't throw themselves at the altar. 150 IQ? I dunno man. Nevermind the ethical and moral issues of procreation, which he can't actually address in any coherent way. No talk of asymmetry or consent. He doesn't actually understand the anti natalist position, much less any of the nuance or the distinctions between the humanist and sentiocentric 'denominations'. At least Peterson doesn't seem to take the line of reasoning that the non-existent can be deprived, so that's nice, but it's of little comfort when he then says that the woman will inevitably feel deprived and regretful for the rest of her days. To which one has to ask, so? If you're so emotionally fragile that you have to birth your own emotional happiness then I'm not sure that person is fit to be a parent in the first place. I can't understand how this guy is so popular; when you strip back the new age mythology what you're left with is essentially a hearty mix of biological determinism and individualism. 60's conservativism, with new packaging!
"Abortion is clearly wrong." - J. B. Peterson And *that* is a thought, my friend. 20+ Christians out of 30 will say the same thing, but it is a thought nonetheless! Not like those cliché memes that life-negating bores entertain.
Etienne-Emile Antikatastaseis To finish the quote he continued to say “you would never wish someone you cared about had to get one” (paraphrase) Which i think thats an almost universally true statement And considering this comment was made to criticize his critique of his client who said a “cliche” about having children its important to note that even though his abortion statement is also a cliche its not evident that he hasnt thought through his position on it. And even in that same comment on abortion he did not fully codemn it to be illegal and noted that it is a complicated issue.
Peterson is so "tough" that he recently checked himself into a drug rehab center.... He had family issues - and reality sank in....so he did drugs... After all his talk...
The only part I agree with him on is the virus metaphor. That primes people for the misanthropic arguments for antinatalism, which is the bitter pill that anyone with self-respect will spit out. You can't get a species to hate itself, and I don't think we should either. The philanthropic arguments for antinatalism are in our own interests, and thereby much more convincing.
Poor Peterson can't rationalize his own children. His ego believes he can change everyone's mind? They must be pretty stupid if the do change their minds
His a genius!!! What a man. He not only shamed her he be littles her views . His procreation was a waste! What's he talking about? Most of third world nations can barely eat. The country I live over half of the population can't afford there meals a day. Most have one meal only. Some nothing
11:34 Is that what Peterson's supposed IQ is? Well, I'm a woman with an IQ of 148 (measured under exam conditions through MENSA) and I'm an antinatalist
I wonder if Peterson is actually that stupid. Maybe it's just that he's come up with a very lucrative gig and it's a necessary part of his particular scam.
Has Dr. Peterson seen 'The God Who Wasn't There'? It argues that Jesus, Mary etc. weren't even real and are just the continuation of the same mythological figures we've seen in other mythologies. I'm surprised Dr. Peterson as someone aware of myth isn't already informed of this theory of Jesus.
+Reticence9 It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis that has been defeated repeatedly and not taken serious by any credible historian in a university position
+Mad Shangi Please know I'm very much informed on this issue. So enter this at your on risk. One we shouldn't expect many early sources for Jesus Christ or ANYONE from the ancient time before Jesus was born. Most cases for Jesus back than are settled on two independent sources. Hell one source is passable. For Jesus we have 11 for his crucifixion. Even prominent Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann says "Jesus crucifixion is an indisputable fact." It follows logically that if Jesus was crucified then he existed. J.D Crossan is a Christian so he obviously believes Jesus existed. All the article says at best is that he's disappointed by the work done on Jesus and how it's not as good as it can be which is true with any field. Also the criterion of embarrassment is perfectly well suited. That's one way we know the crucifixion had to have happened because at the time it would've been hard to convince Jews of a dying and rising Messiah because of the fact crucifixion was the ultimate form of embarrassment. Again we shouldn't expect contemporary accounts. We have none of that from Genghis Khan,Socrates,Alexander The Great,etc. Once Richard Carrier was brought up I stopped reading. That man is pseudo historian and I'd trust my high school history teacher over him on this matter. Antiquities XVIII.63-64 and Antiquities XX.200 mention him. Antiquities XX.200 is universally considered authentic by almost all Josephus scholars and they mention Jesus We can also be sure from the Gospels themselves. We know Jesus was baptized because the Gospel writers struggled deeply with it. Why? Because Jesus was suppose to be God and being baptized was suppose to be a way of connecting with God. Why would God need to connect with God? Different accounts were given and different views were given. If Jesus wasn't a real person it would've been easy to make him up and have him fit the mold. The amount of stretching the Gospels had to do to make the Jesus narrative work is great. Also the article lies about Paul not supporting a human Jesus. Galatians 4:4 tells he was born as a human, of a human mother and a Jew. Says he has a human nature and was the descendant of King David (Romans 1:3), Abraham (Gal 3:16), Israelites (Romans 9:4-5), and Jesse (Romans 15:12) He says Jesus was born as a human, of a human mother and born a Jew (Galatians 4:4). He repeats that he had a “human nature” and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans 1:3) of of Abraham (Gal 3:16), of Israelites (Romans 9:4-5) and of Jesse (Romans 15:12). Talks about earthly ministry on divorce (1 Cor 7:10), preachers (1 Cor 9:14), apocalypse (1 Thess 4:15), crucified (1 Cor 1:23. 2.2,2.8, 2 Cor 13:4) and that he was buried (1 Cor 15:3-4). It also mentions how Paul himself met his brother James (Galatians 1:19)
I am one of those antinatalists who loves the carnivore diet (it keeps me healthy and non-depressed), loves economic growth, wants AI (labour abundance) and nuclear fusion (energy abundance), likes money and wealth, believes that human impact on nature is on-balance good for us (and helps us consider things like leisure, ethics, and antinatalism), believes that untouched nature is a cruel and bad thing (I mean watch any Animal Planet documentary), is selfish (I do not want to take care of a child, a pet, or a plant) BUT don't want children because of the asymmetry of pain and pleasure, asymmetry of wish and wish-fulfillment (an ideal state vs what we can achieve), and the fact that life doesn't have any inherent meaning. I feel I do not really have a country.
glynos thank you for the video but please be kind and respond to my panpsychism argument. I came up with the best argument against antinatilism, it's pa go like this: since we don't understand what's consciousness & what is really the relation between consciousness and matter so the best thing to do is to postpone the antinatilism project until we do understand consciousness, as for the moment we have no way to tell if things like the sun the moon & rocks are not conscious.
Even if we do not fully understand how consciousness arises... yet, we already fully understand what consciousness generally must do/display to qualify as the thing called consciousness, or better yet, what consciousness at minimum requires to exist and how it minimally manifests, announce itself for us to perceive it. Rocks and other inanimate objects display/betray none of the identifiable signs whatsoever of even the minimal features of possessing consciousness and there can not meaningfully be construed any mechanism which would explain producing entirely inert and undetectable consciousnesses which has no commonality whatsoever with the cases of consciousness of which we do have access to at least identify. Saying that rocks may be conscious is like saying that maybe the color black has a sound of its own. In other words is a false expectation based on several logical fallacies, it is an unfalsifiable category error containing a huge array of unsubstantiated assumptions even about the degree of our lack of knowledge. Consciousness is not a primary element in the universe, its only known instances are observed in sufficiently complex, evolved biological systems which have a sufficiently complicated brain. Anything having consciousness should therefore be expected to have a brain or an analogue of a brain. Consciousness is an emergent property of complex material systems, specifically biological ones, and maybe computer-based in the future. It is recognized, that consciousness possesses some minimally necessary and obligatorily present, general features, features which makes consciousness behave as consciousness. If it were not so, then we could not even talk about it as a discreet, observably real phenomena, we could not point at its most obvious cases. Consequently, there may be truly few things about which we can be more sure about than about the case that inanimate, simple-structured objects are not conscious. Obviously with a self-deluding, crypto-religious, baseless fantasy conception like panpsychism being accepted, being convinced about the validity of antinatalism is the last thing anyone should be worried about. The level of self-deception, faulty thinking and reality-denial on that level is something obscenely antithetical to the intellectually honest and brutal realism antinatalism axiomatically builds upon, that the two can not even meaningfully be placed on the same plane of reference. It would be as futile to even try to square the two as a physicist having to accommodate the objections made by subjective idealists. Your best argument against antinatalism is "not even wrong", as Feynman would have said.
Starting with consciousness requires some form of philosophical idealism, even if its disguised in analytical language, something which I find to be a ridiculously outdated system. Physical-ism, naturalism, and other forms of updated materialisms and/or philosophies which are ontologically neutral/or based on naturalism are without doubt the only accurate ontological backgrounds for any intellectually honest questioning. We are biological beings who evolved due to natural and random physical forces interacting with each other. This is no longer a thing up for debate. If consciousness could predate our (or any other being`s) evolutionary preconditions, that would contradict not only our most advanced forms of philosophical, but many of the most basic scientific understandings of the world and such propositions are literally drenched in latent religious impulses and wish-fulfillment type immortality projects and death denials Becker speaks about. The most likely route towards a theory of consciousness lies somewhere in the direction of a combined effort by biology, cognitive+information science + philosophies dealing with system`s theory, phenomenology and physicalism. Instead of goof-balls like Terrence McKenna or David Chalmers, there is the direction shown by the efforts of Francisco Varela, Ned Block and Daniel Dennett, based on a more realistic frame of reference in their ontology, much less idle, non-empirical speculation and a much more promising understanding of both phenomenology, gestalt psychology, science and systems theory. For me idealisms of any form are simply dishonest religious remnants from ages long past with not a shred of evidence for their position whatsoever, in the historiography of the schools of thought is now only alive as fringe mysticisms of our understanding-gaps and as an affront to any good philosophical achievements of the past century. How can anyone after Schopenhauer, Marx, Heidegger and Wittgenstein, Russell and Darwin, etc be a philosophical idealist is something of a bad joke for me, which I can`t take seriously at all and which offers no reason to halt or suspend judgment and it only represents an infertile and infantile stagnation of thinking, which elects to deny drawing general and dis-favorable conclusions about the human condition based on desperate, speculative injections of baseless doubts, subservient and beholden to our biological survival mechanism and crypto-religious surrogates, rather than to any form of rigorous and historically apt systems of thoughts. Its intellectual dishonesty and masturbation, motivated by personal fear-based psychologies, by wish-fulfillment fantasies rather than keeping up with the history and current state of thinking, the horizon of sciences and/or any honest dealings with our actual existential conditions.
Hypatia thank you for your reply, I've read both of them. I can't claim to fully understand everything you wrote but at least we both agree that the current science have not yet explained the relation between matter and consciousness, I only infer that we should hold on the antinatilism project until we achieve a better understanding of the subject matter, just lookup the split Brian phenomenal and my be you can appreciate how much we currently don't know.
JP: Life is suffering Also JP: Lets make more 2:35 a psychotherapist make a good critique of Jordan Peterson’s parenting advice in ruclips.net/video/GtwP6AbbAUc/видео.html
a better debate would be Steven Pinker (who is childless, thrice divorced) vs. David Banatar. Pinker has mentioned antinatalism philosophy and has written in favor of human progress...Better Angels, "Enlightenment Now"...personal take-if determinism is true we are just playing an empty ego game scoring points pointing out why humans are not 100% rational, we are not...HOPE the greatest weakness and simultaneously the greatest strength of the species? of our species is based on irrational hope...we are stuck in the "life trap" (thank you True Detective) find the whole debate oddly life affirming for now...like Neo in the Matrix when asked why he persists even though he knows logically existience is "meaningless" his answer is "Because I choose to." nothing to do with logic & reasoning just a "choice" if there is such a thing as "freewill" or "responsibility"
1) I think he might be talking about population pyramids, not considering age, but considering ethnicity, demographic trends in reproductivity. 2) Which, if is the case, would then make him perhaps deceitful or teaching according to a "hidden agenda". 3) People may blame him for this, but in this society there is really no way to say what Peterson is saying unless by saying it in a very roundabout or covert way. 4) Blame censorship and our dialogue-less society, not Peterson (?)
10:04 JP also engages in this fallacy making it seem like parents either have to be careless "take your god damn lumps" or perpetually coddling "stay down there in your bedroom." I'm not impressed with JP or your assessment of him. I suppose you are an antinatalist. It seems to be as extreme a position as the one that Peterson takes.
@@IdFightMyDad stub it's toe, get raped, have a horrible disease, become disabled, die in a freak accident etc all these no matter how small or big can be prevented by not procreation such child. Your rebuttals are absurd
We understand math and percentages, so let's go! 50% of existence to say the least, it's a good sense of reality. 30% of existence it's let's say, neutral from an emotional point of view. The rest is supposedly what ''antinatalists'' call, the burden of existence. Depression, fix depression because numbers points against your stance.
Of course it's important to treat depressions. But did you know that depression can occur in a chronic form that perhaps leaves you for some time, but then it comes back with suffering over and over again until death? Additionally, not only depression can make you feel miserable, but also other diseases and illnesses (chronic ones as well), strong hunger, strong thirst, homelessness, rape, abuse, loss of a loved one, divorce, etc. Furthermore, where did you get your percentages? It might be true for your life, but it's definitely worse for so many lives.
If a person is here of course they don't need to weigh themselves down with to much obsession over the negatives, but this worship of the over coming ego in our culture breeds a mindset that actual creates tension in those who are suffering. These self congratulates don't even know the ugly whip they wield for their own smug glory, sickening.
Hey Glyn! Good vid man, although it was pretty tough for me to watch since I've still got deep respect for Peterson & take him very seriously... your arguments seem solid from an intellectual point of view, but I'm still inclined to think it's not the whole story... Peterson was giving pretty unfounded & off-the-cuff comments here, but I'm still inclined to take them seriously because he's making them based on 30+ odd years of solid experience, both as a clinician and a thinker. It might sound like he was recounting a time when he was insulting a patient, but I have my doubts that the client was shamed by this at all. I think if he had a history of treating his clients badly we'd know about it by now, especially given how popular he's become. The fact seems to me that his treatment works- so if he is short or even judgemental with his clients it seems to actually be the right & healthy approach to take. His general advice also seems to work for people based on the accounts I keep reading, and the effects I've observed in my own life. Anyway, thanks for the food for thought man- take care!
Thanks Tywi. Regarding his anecdote about the patient - I can only go by his words. And if his account is accurate, then he's a jackass for calling a patient immature and clichéd for having doubts about having children. I also get that these comments were off the cuff, but this isn't the first time he's expressed this pro-natalist sentiment. If a public figure is making the claim that we should have children, or that we need to have children to be happy, then I'm going to contest that. I don't know much about his work in psychology. I thought he sounded a bit silly in his talks with Sam Harris, I think he's patently wrong on abortion and his comments on veganism were unfair. Anyway, thanks again for the comment and I hope you stick around and watch some of my other videos.
No worries Glyn! And yes: for sure he's a died-in-the-wool anti-anti-natalist... I've also noticed his habit of dropping sweeping statements into his talks without much foundation or qualification, and it is something that can grate on me. His comments about veganism came across a lot like that. Also agree that he came off pretty poorly in the discussions with Sam Harris... I still enjoyed them, but I get the feeling JBP's fans were expecting him to deliver some amazing knockout punch to Harris' atheistic worldview, and that clearly didn't happen by any measure, which was pretty embarrassing. I'll hopefully watch more of your vids, but I'll be honest that I do find anti-natalism a very troubling position... not least because many of the arguments are very compelling and difficult to refute. I did think of you when I first watched this JBP talk, as I know it's a position you hold with conviction. Like I said: you've given me plenty to think about at least! Thanks again, and all the best from the rainy island.
Evidence: a world full of misery. The certainty of death and the near-certainty of grave suffering at least at some point in one's life, the guaranteed loss of loved-ones, the reality of extreme suffering befalling a fairly large number of people and no surefire way to protect one's children from it... JP: you can't do any better than that? That 'cliché' (the problem of evil and the value of life) has been expanded on and pondering by humanity's greatest minds but to self-appointed Übergenius and conservative prophet JP that carries no weight at all. Methinks his claim to an IQ of 150 is greatly exaggerated but as has been hinted at quite eloquently by playonwords55 it seems likely JP is blinded by emotional issues of a personal nature. Which is ironic for a clinical psychologist. Psychology along with psychiatry and other 'society centered' disciplines have always taken a pro-life stance no matter what aking to the blanket religious condemnation of childlessness, abortion and suicide that preceded it. In a way they are secular religions starting with Freud's elaborate 'psychodynamic' mythology with its obsession by sex and incest.
He might actually have a high IQ. My IQ was 132 the last time I was tested, though I have known people with as high IQs as 170 who were less honest than I am.
people should be placed in parks within ecosystems instead of parks placed in human communities. We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference. We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion. We should not be living in human communities that enclose tiny preserved ecosystems within them. Human communities should be maintained in small population enclaves within linked wilderness ecosystems. No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas. Communication systems can link the communities.
__________He said it was a story that's an amalgam but you're taking it as a literal, word for word report of a past event. He probably just made her up in order to convey a larger point.
I have a few things I want to criticise about your video: - In the beggining section you argued that Peterson shamed her client in response to her view regarding having children. While he expressed himself in am argueably arrogant manner, he didn't quote what he said to har but rather heavily paraphrased what he said in the context of his own opinion, giving no real clue as of how he offered this advice - In the video you analysed in the beggining, Peterson never stated that the woman he was consulting actually thought through or not the ethical implications of creating a new life. Therefore, saying that he "went on the offensive" in response to her who, you say, considered this implications, is unfounded, given that we don't actually have any info whether she thought it through or not. - You said that "those who hold this belief [that they shouldn't procreate] are often told that they're in the wrong, that life is a gift,etc.", which is hard to believe it actually happens in the western world, considering the vast influence of the progressive, leftist ideas which go against traditional values. - You stated a number of things that an antinatalist often supposedly suffers regularly (which again, I don't think apply to modern western cultures), without adding any value to the criticism of Peterson's words. This makes me think that you didn't actually want to criticise his idea justly but rather subtly portray him as an accusatory, extremist figure, by falsely suggesting he may be part of the extremist, far-right segment of the population - You said that "it is mind-boggling idiocy" refdering to the fact that Peterson doesn't like the argument that there are too many people on the planet, missing the fact that he (as you would have induced if you would have watched other, more comprehensive views of his) was reffering actually to the poteantial pathological implications of such statements. In other words, such statements and beliefs, when combined with other factors, such as trauma, may lead to a person having an unusual resentment towarda human life, which might conduce that person to an aggresive/misanthropic/sociopathic set of convictions and actions, harmful to others as well. -Similarly, the statement of the club of Rome that we are akin to a virus or cancer falls under the same category as the one above, being a potential sigm of pathological, ill convictions that lead to destruction and death, because they encourage the death of mankind. Thus, your statement that "the metaphore is obviously meant to highlight the fact that humans overconsume" is entitely unfounded, given that we don't know what the club of Rome exactly thought when he used it and also given the potential pathological implications that it might have. - You stated that by letting people die and not creating new others, we would end all suffering. What you're proposing here is that we should get rid of the problem of human suffering by eliminating all humans, not considering that exterminating all humankind will lead to the destruction of all the meaningfull, beautiful things that humans do, things which may really give life meaning (primarily, I can state knowledge and understanding as prime examples of the intellectual elevations which humans are marvelously capabale of). - After you said that Peterson wrongfully interpreted a metaphor, you immediatly attack a metaphor of his (the one that stated that a som should be "sacrificed"), cleraly not preceiving it's metaphorical essence. What he actually wanted to say (in a more plausible interpretation) is that the mother must let his son out into the world in order for him to fully develop himself as a human being and to do something wothwhile with his life but also that life has inevitable pain in it, pain which must be conquered in order to make existance worhwhile. Also, Peterson never said that we should breing pople into being just to make the worls a better place but rather that the pain and suffering is inevitable and therefore necessary in order to reach fullfilment. - You said that "There's no harm in an Earth devoid of life". There is also no good either. The absence of bad doesn't automatically imply the presence of good. Lack of existence isn't something that can be praised, given that it eliminates, besides all of humanity's problems, all of humanities achievements and efforts of betterment. Lack of existence only brings about a neutral state. - Giving birth to someone doesn't do any harm to the person given birth. What is done to him/her from that point on harms him/her. - Bringing someone into the world, "codemning" the person to hardship and pain is not something evil as you said, given the fact that life has a plethora of bright sides along the bleak ones. Thus, the decision of bringing someone into being is a morally grey one, not one outright evil as you have portrayed it. Also, simply not procreatinfgis neither good or bad because it eliminates the posibility of both good and bad, thus creating a neutral state which cannot be moral or immoral, given that morality is bases around good and evil. Last, but not least, almost all throughout the video you bashed Peterson without any reason, stating that he's a "pandering twat" and stressing his "idiocy", statements which do not critique his arguments, but rather his personality, something completely unrelated to the discussion. This, coupled with some of the criticism that I have previously made in this post and the fact that you cherrypicked sections of Peterson's videos (especially the last bit) brings me to the conclusion that you are severly biased in your argumentation, condemning a person based on insufficient evidence and constructing a video which isn't really meant to response to a set of arguments, but rather to bash someone baselessly and unnecessarly. I would recommend exposing yourself to opposing viewpoints more often and to be more objective about your own beliefs.
It always strikes me as interesting that the people who want to live the most are the ones going through the most pain. (At least I see this in my own life) Just look at the suicide rates of third world countries.
_"It always strikes me as interesting that the people who want to live the most are the ones going through the most pain. (At least I see this in my own life) Just look at the suicide rates of third world countries."_ People in third world countries often don't live long enough to contemplate suicide....so the suicide rates of those who are deprived doesn't mean a thing. But again we are talking about bringing a new life into existence and not ending an already existing life.
I'm kind of a Peterson fanboy, but you have a point, he fails to give a convincing argument for his "pro-life" stance in these clips and might come across as irrational or arrogant. After watching many of his lectures, my impression is, that he deems Being/consciousness a great mystery and in his view unraveling it is worth the suffering, if properly mitigated. I find this a much more respectable and intellectually honest position, than the kind of tired, bleak and rather snobbish materialism you seem to operate from. Sure, if sentient life is a mere accident, one could make an ethical case for ending it, at least on utilitarian grounds (which is not the end-all of moral philosophy by the way), but I don't think we have sufficient knowledge to conclude that, let alone bail on the human project right now, when living standards are soaring and millions are being lifted out of poverty every year. We just don't know, what we could achieve, if we pulled ourselves together as a species.
Dávid Varga Since we do not know, then we shouldn't mess with the system. Because the risk is too high so we do not play a game for which we know nothing. We do not impose it on others. No known purpose means not acceptable. The rest are just rationalizations so as to keep chasing your fun ( which is not an excuse for your kids )
Hey man. I love the idea not bailing out on the human project in order to continuing humanity's investigation about the inherent nature of consciousness. On the other hand, I think antinatalism conclusion about the nature of existence is correct. My only reservation to your opinion is about the 'sufficient' part. How sufficient knowledge is enough to determine the nature of consciousness? The price is extremely high. However, I think sentient organism will not extinct in the near future no matter how persuasive antinatalist arguments are. The biological imperative to life is simply too strong. I really hope there is something about consciousness that worth all the sentient organism''s suffering in the world. past, present, and future.
Pain and negative emotions are life's way of telling us to take action, to do something different. How we view any event depends on the story we tell ourselves about it, on the meaning we give to it. Undergoing water boarding as the final test towards become a marine for example can be a transformative event. Someone we know not saying hi back on the street can make us sad that they don't like us, mad that they were rude or simply a little frustrated or stoic that they didn't hear us. This makes it extremely hard to quantity how good or bad something is. As Shakespeare said nothing is good or bad only thinking makes it so. The Buddhist assertion that life is suffering is only the beginning of their philosophy. They propose that we accept that suffering is a part of life. To not compound physical suffering, which we have less control over, with mental suffering, over which we have a greater degree of control.
Dávid Varga tell that to the raped, starved, abused children and people... I’m sure it’ll comfort them well. It’s always easy from a place of comfort to make such assertions. Just as the General barks orders for his soldiers to forge ahead, while he sips a latte in his office and they get slaughtered. Then the General gets promoted for “winning” that battle”, while the parents bury their kids. Great idea 👍... ugh.
First off, he's stating his frustration with the response to the crowd. I doubt he really acted like that with the client. He puts on a more casual face (not too casual) for his lectures to make them entertaining. His response, even if he does say it, does draw out a better explanation from the client. Any person living in a society where they have the resources to see an individual who is professionally trained to help you sort out your problems will likely not birth their child into a world of torment. That woman probably wasn't bearing a child in a country with no government or gureilla fighters or terrorists or environmental hazards. Yes, being born comes with all the anxieties of being alive, diseases to accidents, but what other alternative is there to these problems? To live is to make mistakes and learn from it, hopefully being open enough to take all the advice and guidance you can at every turn. Does the average person who becomes a parent not understand what it means to be a parent? What kind of logic is that? They will never live a day in their life the same way. They understand that every mistake the child makes is somehow a result of the parent not guiding the child properly. They understand it better than anyone. It is why people leave when they have kids because they cannot handle it. I don't think lots of people have children without regard to what they are doing but a better emphasis on the role as a parent would do our society wonders. Overpopulation is not a valid answer to why you should not have a child. Over population is an issue for our society, not for your life fulfillment. This one woman in therapy asking whether or not she wants a child is not the issue with high population, its lower economic income levels of individuals having more children then they themselves can support. This woman could probably have 4 or 5 kids that would lead healthy lives if there was a proper father figure in the mix, especially in 21st century canada. Put this situation in a poverty stricken country where workers are exploited and/or the government sucks and/or their is only a limited economy, that individual should consider if they could manage to feed another child. About one in every two people taken randomly throughout the world, on a quick google search are in poverty. I know ancient history it was considered regal to have furniture. I also imagine that just 200 years ago the economic distribution was probably like 2 out of 3 people were impoverished. Just phrasing that in that manner of parasites is dangerous though. The most memorable person who thought of other humans as parasites killed like 6 million human beings, and there are countless others throughout history who saw some humans as burdens and irredeemable entirely. ITs not an off chance that your kid is successful. You know if you are ready to have kids, and if you want them then you will do everything in your power so that when you have them they get your ideal childhood. Attention and bonidng, socialized with family, encouragement and caution, and what you can't figure out you have all of human knowledge at your fingertips. There has never been a better chance for anyone to have a kid. If you can face the trouble, and so has everyone else in your family who has arguably only had a harder time the further back you go, then how can a child really be born into a world thats worse? Is this what you think of life? If it isn't even worth it to start a life cause "all they will do is suffer" then how the fuck are you living life? Editing people more successful than you interspersed with your shitty drawings, with the purpose of convincing other youtubers that stumble on this shit that life is as miserable as you say it is. I'm sure you would love some company in this pit of despair you have made for yourself, but i think you are being a melodramatic child who suffers a usual amount like hte rest of us and then over thinks and analyzes and creates untold levels of suffering.
This is my first time reading this term "antinatalism", but I've had this thought occur to me. However, how do you answer the critique that bringing a new life isn't cruel, but is actually rather neutral? I mean sure life has suffering, but life has happiness too, and whether or not your life has more suffering or more joy doesn't matter in the end anyway because death wipes everything away. The only way you could think that creating life is just creating suffering is if you're a very negative and depressed person, but that's not everyone's experience.
"If you're a mother who is worth her salt you offer your son to be destroyed by the world". Pure evil that is!
This reminds me of my mother throwing things at my direction. A great mother according to Peterson, I guess.
And a gynocentric projection of self-misandry too. Here's a good response on Peterson's psychological character which reveals the basis behind such a claim: ruclips.net/video/CZrLbAF0chM/видео.html
More like grade-school shaming tactics.
Having/wanting kids is infinitely more cliche than being antinatalist.
@Samuli Matilainenoh look we found a guy with existence bias
Hello Samuli, I don't think you will find a lot of antinatalists in Zimbabwe, if anything it is just the opposite its full of natalists bringing more and more mortals in the game only to experience sufferings like hunger, poverty, disease, despair, violence and ultimately an early death.....
wanting so badly not to be cliché is so cliché... and the mark of a teenager’s mind really
Yeah...it's so cringe I'm gonna make a reddit post about it
Way to be hip and edgy. Life is suffering yet you go on living. Quite the contradiction.
I'm male, in my 50s, and proud to be a lifelong antinatalist!
Thank you.
Thank you. You should be proud.
Man.. you're an inspiration. Thank you very much.
@papaJueJue I worked it out before I got to my teens in the 1970s, i suppose it was using logic. I didn't know the word untill later, but not sure when I first heard it👍
Same here, born in the mid 1960s.
His argument against Benatar was terrible. The worst was the way he twisted what Benatar was saying and THEN tried to connect it to mass slaughter. Peterson isn't good at representing other people's ideas.
Agree, that argument was such a nonsequir.
Indeed. He did that, I am hearing that debate again now and he strategically twisted it all around... Peterson is a psychologist so beware he might know. a fe thing or two about dark psychology and there are books on dark psychology and how to interpersonally manipulate.
All I could think of after hearing his last comment is: "misery loves company".
Wow that’s a great statement
Mary actually didn't have a choice. She was impregnated without her consent and was then informed by an angel that she was pregnant with the messiah. Where in any of this is she given a choice?
And yet for some reason folk like Peterson say we ought to celebrate that kind of reproductive coercion as though it were some kind of holy, altruistic miracle and clearly not at all self-serving rape.
Shame though it is a clear-cut case of self-serving rape.
Mary was even underage
Mary was told she is going to have a baby. God does not need consent from mere mortals. What you should ask is if He got consent from His Son Jesus. The answer to that question is yes.
@@zimdollar3229 then cleary mary didn't choose anything but merely accepted her faith.....
@@zimdollar3229 sooo your rebuttal is a confirmation of his argument.
Jordan Peterson is good with rhetoric. That is why people like David Benatar or Shelly Kagan should appear in public more often to demolish the idea that charismatic influence means truth.
Hard to comprehend what anyone sees in Peterson.
L Cincinnatus 😐 bro do you even know where you are
Can confirm that you CANNOT impose your views about how to live life on the client, neither can you judge them and say something so humiliating like - you must have thought that up when you're 16, you should be validating the client not belittling them, imagine the client having to hear this coming from the one person who she'd hope to be non judgmental, so unprofessional
This was a brilliant takedown of the pompous and irrational frogman.
You are very articulate and make some very sharp and cogent arguments.
Antinatalism is the worlds greatest litmus test to discover whether or not intellectuals/high IQ people are philosophically consistent or biased in their thinking.
Anti-natalism is obviously a biased ideology, anyone with basic skill in philosophical logic know that and can debunk any anti-natalist doctrines in a couple minutes. You're only the victim of the illusions of logic you want to believe in, anti-natalism is a cult disguised (cheaply I might say) in a logical proposition.
eiserlish
Ok, go ahead and debunk Benetar's Asymmetry, the Imposition of Risk, and Non-Consent arguments then.
I didn't see a single counter-argument in all of that.
"philosophical logic " That's where you blew it. Just thought I'd let you know.
@@eiserlish Philosophy is a bunch a bullshite bro
there is only 2 things on this universe Physics and Maths
and derivatives of them Biology and Chemistry
@@DenseCortex What’s any of that gotta do with the fact that antinatalism is a dumb philosophy that only socially outcasted losers follow? 💀
Just admit y’all are cowards. If there was a 50/50 shot that a baby would end up living a life of suffering maybe you’d have a point. But the actual odds of an offspring living that kind of life is like 1%.
Someone who has kids and is financially stable isn’t a selfish POS for taking a tiny risk like that when the much more likely outcome is that the offspring will end up relatively normal and live a fairly normal life preferable to never having been born.
I get it, you probably don’t have a social life, no real friends, almost certainly a virgin, you get bitter seeing people go out to parties and bars on weekends because deep down you know you’re a loser that wouldn’t say a word in a social setting. Instead of just accepting this or better yet actually working on your self, you parade around pretending you’re an intellectual who’s above the “sheep” that enjoy life because YOURE a critical thinker and see their mindless activities for what it is: meaningless. You are the personification of “The Fox and the Grapes”
The reality is you’re the fucking weirdo that no one wants to be around. You watched True Detective and decided to make Rust Cohle your personality because you think it’s edgy and mysterious and “cool”.
This isn’t about trying to stop suffering, you don’t genuinely care about any of that. If you actually have a fuck about suffering you’d realize that 99.99% of the world thinks you’re pathetic and that antinatalism would never be adopted. Knowing this, you’d do your best to try to make the world a better place instead of pretending you’re smart on RUclips.
Seriously bro, get some pussy before you go around acting like nothing means anything and that parents who want to raise a child of their own and give it a good life are somehow “immoral”
Being different is cool, being the weird kid everyone thinks is a school shooter is not
Sorry for rambling I could literally smell the BO just reading your comment and got carried away
This isn't even the worst thing Peterson has said on the issue of antinatalism if you can believe it.
He at one time gave a rambling response to someone who asked if not giving birth is an ideal solution to preventing suffering.
Peterson ultimately said no yet additionally said people should just birth new persons anyway as a means to make their life less miserable.
Seriously. He openly and ashamedly said we should be foregoing any deconstructive consideration of our ability to give birth and its consequences in favor of blindly engaging in it to achieve what amounts to self-serving animal husbandry.
That isn't the advice of an intellectual; that is the advice of a callous sociopath.
And before any spooked Jordan sycophants demand evidence their reactionary demigod on earth said that, here's a citation: ruclips.net/video/imkVLmvwiuwb/видео.html
💯
I don't think he actually says, "No, it is not morally right to have children", he says "No, if you are not going to do it "right"". If you do it "right", then it is morally right to have children. He doesn't get it.
Peterson has this traditionalist view of life which he advocates and will twist and bend over backwards to defend. Glynos properly dissected Peterson’s arguments and shown their flaws.
How did Peterson become so highly thought of when he displays such poor reasoning?
Cause that's what sells....
@Sam Anthony Because most people are stupid and don't know what a real genius is. Many people who think Peterson is a great philosopher also think that Donald Trump is a great politician.
this deserves more views
I will pay you 30 euros if you call in to Stefan Molyneux's show, Glynos.
The only thing I ask is that you come prepared, Stefan is a master manipulator and language expert. He knows all of the logical fallacies and has no reservations about using them to win arguments if he deems you a threat to his ego. Anticipate that he will twist your ideas and refuse to move on with the conversation until you agree with his perversions. Everything you say can, and likely will, be used against you at some point. I highly recommend you watch some of his prior videos with callers to get a feel for his arguing style. A prime example of Stefan's manipulation can be seen in the video titled:
"Always Be Nice Fail."
As you can see, several responses have been made calling him out on that video.
PumpkinSeedButter don't know if this is still open but I would shop in 10 pounds. Although I'm not antinatalists I just want to see the discussion of ideas.
Fuck yeah Glynos, you did it! I'm so happy right now I'm delirious!!
I can't for the life of me understand what draws people to Mr. Peterson.
Because he is rationializing are fucked up situation. He is like the drug addict who death sentence and say getting sent to death row was the best thing that happened to him because now he is drug free! Yay. LOL
Artificer
I can, Peterson is one of the few outspoken rightists in academia, a sector predominately controlled by the left. He is a strong advocate for traditionalism, and deconstructs the leftist establishment through a psychoanalytical lens, which is related to his area of expertise. He primarily appeals to the alt-right, and being relatively far-right himself, I'm sure you can understand why.
+D-CLASS 88 Agreed, D-C. One thing I learned in life is to never try to psychologize the motives of an opponent, for any presumptions of mental health are more often than not just plain wrong-headed. That's a Genetic Fallacy at best, outright Ad Hominem at worst.
Not really. The "left" now are not the left of 50 or 60 years ago. Even with all the resources of Hansard at your fingertips you will search the speeches of, say, Sydney Silverman, Nye Bevan or Richard Crossman (once famous figures of the British left) for the slightest reference to identity politics. There are no references to same-sex marriage or "transphobia", no anathemas pronounced against "Islamophobia", "heteronormativity" or the "Patriarchy", no impassioned pleas for Multiculturalism and open borders.
Jordan Peterson is a complex figure, who is broadly correct about the issues of identity politics while extremely naive about economics (his rejection of Postmodernism - which I also find deeply sinister and pernicious in its effects - is grounded, unfortunately, in the Randian analysis of Steven Hicks). However, he is certainly not - by any sane standards - a figure of the "far right" simply because of his traditionalism and distrust of identity politics; the venerable gentlemen referred to above, Messrs Silverman, Bevan and Crossman, would have stood shoulder to shoulder with Peterson on social and cultural issues.
intelligence, courage, eloquence, honesty
As if at the age of 16 we are completely incapable of rational thought. I figured out at the age of 16 that the notion of a loving god sending people to hell is ludicrous. I guess we should dismiss that thought simply because it was produced by a 16 year old brain.
👍
Even if you believe in an afterlife of justice, bringing a child into the world means risking they'll go to hell
I was 3 or 4 when I realized that I'd die some day and that all my life was totally in vain.
@@konyvnyelv. especially nowadays!
It is sad that some of the popular thinkers cannot even think critically and logically. Maybe that is why they are popular.
Ha,ha,ha you nailed it
Please release more videos 😭
Evil: creating unnessary suffering.
That idea isn't an orgininal of my own but it is such a useful definition.
Man, I would like to have this patient as a friend, sounds like she might be thoughtful like me.
Thanks 4 the video Glynos... I don't know how I missed this upload
I agree with Peterson on many topics such as the dominance hierarchy and developmental psychology. But this...this is just dismissive and pseudointellectual of him. He takes natalism as an irrefutable axiom and does not bother to scrutinize it as should all deep thinkers and philosophers. Worst of all, his argument is ad hominem. What is this, grade school? I am so disappointed.
this video should be watched by everyone !!!!! this video is a true gift to humanity. It is sooooo... hard to believe how ignorant , Jordan Peterson is !!!!! Thank you for sharing this great video with us.
You should open a Patreon, because I would pay good money for more videos like this one.
Around 4:25 -- to repeat glynos's comment to Peterson's claim, "this is genuinely mind-boggling idiocy".
Great presentation 👍 Antinatilsm is morally superior as it insures that you don't impose any potential suffering.
i really don't like Jordan Peterson, his 12 rules book was very bad.
Anyone like him who goes on about their IQ possibly doesn't really understand how useless it is, and especially if it's far lower than mine😉which was taken suffering chronic pain and the serious debilitating side affects of analgesics, suffering for over a decade now unfortunately😁
Until this morning I considered myself a peterson fan. Then met Benabar's ideas. Then heard them debate. Then got here. Surprised by the shits JP said.
Nice video, you got a new sub!!
Did you become an antinatalist?
Me too 😭
With the last sentence of Peterson I have lost so much admiration for his intellect and persona. Maybe he is also extremly biased because of his job as a psychologist, if nobody gets children, he will not have enough fucked up clients in the future.
Love your videos. Wish you got more views, you deserve it. Keep up the good work mate. :)
Fantastic response Glynos!
From the looks of it, the popularity of Peterson seems to be due to that fact that he says what people really want to hear. Nobody gives a fuck about the truth or suffering, everyone wants to hear what they already have assumed. Between an icecream seller and a seller of healthy juice of bitter gourd it is the former who would sell more with the difference inversely proportional to intellect of customers.
Bro you are so woke right now, I can't even handle all the wokeness
Intellect is a badly constructed concept.
prime example of an intellectual fraud
I love you david. I felt deeply Compassionate at your words when i first heard them. Althought painful to bear But holds strong kindness towards human condition. It even liberate that part of us which keeps link between the misery and bad deeds. Human are not bad, they always act in response to gain more or alleviate their existantial suffering
Good job. Can you please name the original Peterson video (0:30)? Thanks :-)
Double entry is a glitch, it's not intentional. From experience I've found that trying to delete one deletes both. Unfortunately I'm disabled and typing takes ages and causes more physical pain so I'm not going to risk it💚🐕🎵🎸
Hoi, i am here from r/antinatalism. Just dropping a hi ¡
Oh, and Stefan will probably bring up his pet secular ethical theory:
"Universally Preferable Behavior"
I can see Stefan saying something along the lines of "existence is preferable to nonexistence." and using that to justify pro-natalism.
Also, I'd like to note that Stefan at least concedes that the unborn have a welfare. In fact, he's said that government debt is immoral because unborn will have to pay it. "Selling off the unborn" and such.
You could probably use that line of logic against him, I dono.
Although I don't agree with him all the time, I have to say that, to his credit, he listens to what other people have to say. But this was upsetting and downright wrong on so many levels. When he shames his client for having serious concerns he shows a total lack of understanding and compassion. I don't mind him uttering his opinions in front of a cheering (and perhaps a little uncritical) audience, but when a vulnerable human being come to you to express concerns of any kind this is not what you are supposed to be doing.
I am pissed.
Thankyou very much for this video, I remember seeing another video where he discussed antinatalism: ruclips.net/video/imkVLmvwiuw/видео.html
And was gobsmacked by the intellectual dishonesty.
(Of course I left a comment and had to contend with the 'huh huh why don't u kill urself' bullshit. My fault for thinking I could have a reasonable conversation on the RUclips channel 'Bite Sized Philosophy'.)
I'll just quickly re iterate a summary of what I wrote there:
Peterson makes some great arguments for raising a child, but makes no attempt to refute an argument for not bringing a child into existence in the first place.
Not too surprised as he seems to be a devout survivalist, and doesn't make effort to understand even the more accessible MGTOW or similar childfree movements. This guy knows perfectly well the practical issues with the legal system in Canada re divorce laws and still feels the need to berate guys (and gals, I guess) that won't throw themselves at the altar. 150 IQ? I dunno man.
Nevermind the ethical and moral issues of procreation, which he can't actually address in any coherent way. No talk of asymmetry or consent. He doesn't actually understand the anti natalist position, much less any of the nuance or the distinctions between the humanist and sentiocentric 'denominations'.
At least Peterson doesn't seem to take the line of reasoning that the non-existent can be deprived, so that's nice, but it's of little comfort when he then says that the woman will inevitably feel deprived and regretful for the rest of her days. To which one has to ask, so? If you're so emotionally fragile that you have to birth your own emotional happiness then I'm not sure that person is fit to be a parent in the first place.
I can't understand how this guy is so popular; when you strip back the new age mythology what you're left with is essentially a hearty mix of biological determinism and individualism.
60's conservativism, with new packaging!
"Abortion is clearly wrong." - J. B. Peterson
And *that* is a thought, my friend. 20+ Christians out of 30 will say the same thing, but it is a thought nonetheless! Not like those cliché memes that life-negating bores entertain.
Etienne-Emile Antikatastaseis To finish the quote he continued to say “you would never wish someone you cared about had to get one” (paraphrase)
Which i think thats an almost universally true statement
And considering this comment was made to criticize his critique of his client who said a “cliche” about having children its important to note that even though his abortion statement is also a cliche its not evident that he hasnt thought through his position on it. And even in that same comment on abortion he did not fully codemn it to be illegal and noted that it is a complicated issue.
Jordan Hughes Oh look someone who isn't an absolute ideologue in the comment section.
thank you for this!
Good psychologists aren't pop psychology gurus. They keep their practice private.
Nice arguments ! Thanks for bringing this to light
was waiting for the OHH NOO.... ending but i still laughed hard at the final line
I never got why people like this Peterson guy, but he doesn't even understand what a thought is apparently lol
VegAnimation thought: a combination of words in the brain.
Peterson is so "tough" that he recently checked himself into a drug rehab center....
He had family issues - and reality sank in....so he did drugs...
After all his talk...
The only part I agree with him on is the virus metaphor. That primes people for the misanthropic arguments for antinatalism, which is the bitter pill that anyone with self-respect will spit out. You can't get a species to hate itself, and I don't think we should either. The philanthropic arguments for antinatalism are in our own interests, and thereby much more convincing.
Never seen Peterson looking more like a scarecrow- ever!
Poor Peterson can't rationalize his own children. His ego believes he can change everyone's mind? They must be pretty stupid if the do change their minds
What else would something that lives in your mind be except a thought? 😂
His a genius!!! What a man. He not only shamed her he be littles her views . His procreation was a waste! What's he talking about? Most of third world nations can barely eat. The country I live over half of the population can't afford there meals a day. Most have one meal only. Some nothing
He had only two children himself.
Appealing to people's egos using the expression: "and if you're awake...". Dangerous demagoguery.
11:34
Is that what Peterson's supposed IQ is?
Well, I'm a woman with an IQ of 148 (measured under exam conditions through MENSA) and I'm an antinatalist
IQ is bullshit lmao
Do you want to peg me?
I wonder if Peterson is actually that stupid. Maybe it's just that he's come up with a very lucrative gig and it's a necessary part of his particular scam.
He's not stupid. He's lying, because his fan boys wouldn't like him if he were honest and an antinatalist.
I have an atheist friend who is enamored by him and I don't know why?
1:21
Hm, I suppose this comment was made sometime before Peterson was discovered in Russia after a harrowing-run of benzodiazepine (ab?)use.
Has Dr. Peterson seen 'The God Who Wasn't There'? It argues that Jesus, Mary etc. weren't even real and are just the continuation of the same mythological figures we've seen in other mythologies. I'm surprised Dr. Peterson as someone aware of myth isn't already informed of this theory of Jesus.
+Reticence9 It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis that has been defeated repeatedly and not taken serious by any credible historian in a university position
+Mad Shangi Please know I'm very much informed on this issue. So enter this at your on risk.
One we shouldn't expect many early sources for Jesus Christ or ANYONE from the ancient time before Jesus was born. Most cases for Jesus back than are settled on two independent sources. Hell one source is passable. For Jesus we have 11 for his crucifixion. Even prominent Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann says "Jesus crucifixion is an indisputable fact." It follows logically that if Jesus was crucified then he existed.
J.D Crossan is a Christian so he obviously believes Jesus existed. All the article says at best is that he's disappointed by the work done on Jesus and how it's not as good as it can be which is true with any field.
Also the criterion of embarrassment is perfectly well suited. That's one way we know the crucifixion had to have happened because at the time it would've been hard to convince Jews of a dying and rising Messiah because of the fact crucifixion was the ultimate form of embarrassment.
Again we shouldn't expect contemporary accounts. We have none of that from Genghis Khan,Socrates,Alexander The Great,etc.
Once Richard Carrier was brought up I stopped reading. That man is pseudo historian and I'd trust my high school history teacher over him on this matter.
Antiquities XVIII.63-64 and Antiquities XX.200 mention him. Antiquities XX.200 is universally considered authentic by almost all Josephus scholars and they mention Jesus
We can also be sure from the Gospels themselves.
We know Jesus was baptized because the Gospel writers struggled deeply with it. Why? Because Jesus was suppose to be God and being baptized was suppose to be a way of connecting with God. Why would God need to connect with God? Different accounts were given and different views were given. If Jesus wasn't a real person it would've been easy to make him up and have him fit the mold. The amount of stretching the Gospels had to do to make the Jesus narrative work is great.
Also the article lies about Paul not supporting a human Jesus. Galatians 4:4 tells he was born as a human, of a human mother and a Jew.
Says he has a human nature and was the descendant of King David (Romans 1:3), Abraham (Gal 3:16), Israelites (Romans 9:4-5), and Jesse (Romans 15:12)
He says Jesus was born as a human, of a human mother and born a Jew (Galatians 4:4). He repeats that he had a “human nature” and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans 1:3) of of Abraham (Gal 3:16), of Israelites (Romans 9:4-5) and of Jesse (Romans 15:12). Talks about earthly ministry on divorce (1 Cor 7:10), preachers (1 Cor 9:14), apocalypse (1 Thess 4:15), crucified (1 Cor 1:23. 2.2,2.8, 2 Cor 13:4) and that he was buried (1 Cor 15:3-4). It also mentions how Paul himself met his brother James (Galatians 1:19)
I am one of those antinatalists who loves the carnivore diet (it keeps me healthy and non-depressed), loves economic growth, wants AI (labour abundance) and nuclear fusion (energy abundance), likes money and wealth, believes that human impact on nature is on-balance good for us (and helps us consider things like leisure, ethics, and antinatalism), believes that untouched nature is a cruel and bad thing (I mean watch any Animal Planet documentary), is selfish (I do not want to take care of a child, a pet, or a plant) BUT don't want children because of the asymmetry of pain and pleasure, asymmetry of wish and wish-fulfillment (an ideal state vs what we can achieve), and the fact that life doesn't have any inherent meaning. I feel I do not really have a country.
glynos thank you for the video but please be kind and respond to my panpsychism argument.
I came up with the best argument against antinatilism, it's pa go like this:
since we don't understand what's consciousness & what is really the relation between consciousness and matter so the best thing to do is to postpone the antinatilism project until we do understand consciousness, as for the moment we have no way to tell if things like the sun the moon & rocks are not conscious.
John Yin
not bad, thank you 😉
Even if we do not fully understand how consciousness arises... yet, we already fully understand what consciousness generally must do/display to qualify as the thing called consciousness, or better yet, what consciousness at minimum requires to exist and how it minimally manifests, announce itself for us to perceive it. Rocks and other inanimate objects display/betray none of the identifiable signs whatsoever of even the minimal features of possessing consciousness and there can not meaningfully be construed any mechanism which would explain producing entirely inert and undetectable consciousnesses which has no commonality whatsoever with the cases of consciousness of which we do have access to at least identify. Saying that rocks may be conscious is like saying that maybe the color black has a sound of its own. In other words is a false expectation based on several logical fallacies, it is an unfalsifiable category error containing a huge array of unsubstantiated assumptions even about the degree of our lack of knowledge.
Consciousness is not a primary element in the universe, its only known instances are observed in sufficiently complex, evolved biological systems which have a sufficiently complicated brain. Anything having consciousness should therefore be expected to have a brain or an analogue of a brain. Consciousness is an emergent property of complex material systems, specifically biological ones, and maybe computer-based in the future. It is recognized, that consciousness possesses some minimally necessary and obligatorily present, general features, features which makes consciousness behave as consciousness. If it were not so, then we could not even talk about it as a discreet, observably real phenomena, we could not point at its most obvious cases. Consequently, there may be truly few things about which we can be more sure about than about the case that inanimate, simple-structured objects are not conscious.
Obviously with a self-deluding, crypto-religious, baseless fantasy conception like panpsychism being accepted, being convinced about the validity of antinatalism is the last thing anyone should be worried about. The level of self-deception, faulty thinking and reality-denial on that level is something obscenely antithetical to the intellectually honest and brutal realism antinatalism axiomatically builds upon, that the two can not even meaningfully be placed on the same plane of reference. It would be as futile to even try to square the two as a physicist having to accommodate the objections made by subjective idealists.
Your best argument against antinatalism is "not even wrong", as Feynman would have said.
Starting with consciousness requires some form of philosophical idealism, even if its disguised in analytical language, something which I find to be a ridiculously outdated system. Physical-ism, naturalism, and other forms of updated materialisms and/or philosophies which are ontologically neutral/or based on naturalism are without doubt the only accurate ontological backgrounds for any intellectually honest questioning.
We are biological beings who evolved due to natural and random physical forces interacting with each other. This is no longer a thing up for debate. If consciousness could predate our (or any other being`s) evolutionary preconditions, that would contradict not only our most advanced forms of philosophical, but many of the most basic scientific understandings of the world and such propositions are literally drenched in latent religious impulses and wish-fulfillment type immortality projects and death denials Becker speaks about.
The most likely route towards a theory of consciousness lies somewhere in the direction of a combined effort by biology, cognitive+information science + philosophies dealing with system`s theory, phenomenology and physicalism. Instead of goof-balls like Terrence McKenna or David Chalmers, there is the direction shown by the efforts of Francisco Varela, Ned Block and Daniel Dennett, based on a more realistic frame of reference in their ontology, much less idle, non-empirical speculation and a much more promising understanding of both phenomenology, gestalt psychology, science and systems theory.
For me idealisms of any form are simply dishonest religious remnants from ages long past with not a shred of evidence for their position whatsoever, in the historiography of the schools of thought is now only alive as fringe mysticisms of our understanding-gaps and as an affront to any good philosophical achievements of the past century. How can anyone after Schopenhauer, Marx, Heidegger and Wittgenstein, Russell and Darwin, etc be a philosophical idealist is something of a bad joke for me, which I can`t take seriously at all and which offers no reason to halt or suspend judgment and it only represents an infertile and infantile stagnation of thinking, which elects to deny drawing general and dis-favorable conclusions about the human condition based on desperate, speculative injections of baseless doubts, subservient and beholden to our biological survival mechanism and crypto-religious surrogates, rather than to any form of rigorous and historically apt systems of thoughts. Its intellectual dishonesty and masturbation, motivated by personal fear-based psychologies, by wish-fulfillment fantasies rather than keeping up with the history and current state of thinking, the horizon of sciences and/or any honest dealings with our actual existential conditions.
Hypatia
thank you for your reply, I've read both of them. I can't claim to fully understand everything you wrote but at least we both agree that the current science have not yet explained the relation between matter and consciousness, I only infer that we should hold on the antinatilism project until we achieve a better understanding of the subject matter, just lookup the split Brian phenomenal and my be you can appreciate how much we currently don't know.
He is just butt hurt and get insecure about his life choices he made, like bringing his daughter in to this world.
JP: Life is suffering
Also JP: Lets make more
2:35 a psychotherapist make a good critique of Jordan Peterson’s parenting advice in ruclips.net/video/GtwP6AbbAUc/видео.html
a better debate would be Steven Pinker (who is childless, thrice divorced) vs. David Banatar. Pinker has mentioned antinatalism philosophy and has written in favor of human progress...Better Angels, "Enlightenment Now"...personal take-if determinism is true we are just playing an empty ego game scoring points pointing out why humans are not 100% rational, we are not...HOPE the greatest weakness and simultaneously the greatest strength of the species? of our species is based on irrational hope...we are stuck in the "life trap" (thank you True Detective) find the whole debate oddly life affirming for now...like Neo in the Matrix when asked why he persists even though he knows logically existience is "meaningless" his answer is "Because I choose to." nothing to do with logic & reasoning just a "choice" if there is such a thing as "freewill" or "responsibility"
i am an anti natalist who in there right mind would bring a child in a cruel world like this
1) I think he might be talking about population pyramids, not considering age, but considering ethnicity, demographic trends in reproductivity.
2) Which, if is the case, would then make him perhaps deceitful or teaching according to a "hidden agenda".
3) People may blame him for this, but in this society there is really no way to say what Peterson is saying unless by saying it in a very roundabout or covert way.
4) Blame censorship and our dialogue-less society, not Peterson (?)
8:23 Fallacy of the excluded middle. There are other solutions to reducing suffering.
10:04 JP also engages in this fallacy making it seem like parents either have to be careless "take your god damn lumps" or perpetually coddling "stay down there in your bedroom."
I'm not impressed with JP or your assessment of him. I suppose you are an antinatalist. It seems to be as extreme a position as the one that Peterson takes.
The aim of antinatalism isn't about reducing suffering, its about eliminating all together
@@ahmadumeta4 The antinatalist position is absurd. "It is immoral to have a child because it might stub its toe."
@@IdFightMyDad stub it's toe, get raped, have a horrible disease, become disabled, die in a freak accident etc all these no matter how small or big can be prevented by not procreation such child. Your rebuttals are absurd
How could he know what Merry thought ? what the picture is about? JP well that's JUST like your opinion man
We understand math and percentages, so let's go!
50% of existence to say the least, it's a good sense of reality.
30% of existence it's let's say, neutral from an emotional point of view.
The rest is supposedly what ''antinatalists'' call, the burden of existence.
Depression, fix depression because numbers points against your stance.
Of course it's important to treat depressions.
But did you know that depression can occur in a chronic form that perhaps leaves you for some time, but then it comes back with suffering over and over again until death? Additionally, not only depression can make you feel miserable, but also other diseases and illnesses (chronic ones as well), strong hunger, strong thirst, homelessness, rape, abuse, loss of a loved one, divorce, etc.
Furthermore, where did you get your percentages? It might be true for your life, but it's definitely worse for so many lives.
11:34
savage, lmao
If a person is here of course they don't need to weigh themselves down with to much obsession over the negatives, but this worship of the over coming ego in our culture breeds a mindset that actual creates tension in those who are suffering. These self congratulates don't even know the ugly whip they wield for their own smug glory, sickening.
Hey Glyn! Good vid man, although it was pretty tough for me to watch since I've still got deep respect for Peterson & take him very seriously... your arguments seem solid from an intellectual point of view, but I'm still inclined to think it's not the whole story... Peterson was giving pretty unfounded & off-the-cuff comments here, but I'm still inclined to take them seriously because he's making them based on 30+ odd years of solid experience, both as a clinician and a thinker. It might sound like he was recounting a time when he was insulting a patient, but I have my doubts that the client was shamed by this at all. I think if he had a history of treating his clients badly we'd know about it by now, especially given how popular he's become. The fact seems to me that his treatment works- so if he is short or even judgemental with his clients it seems to actually be the right & healthy approach to take. His general advice also seems to work for people based on the accounts I keep reading, and the effects I've observed in my own life.
Anyway, thanks for the food for thought man- take care!
Thanks Tywi.
Regarding his anecdote about the patient - I can only go by his words. And if his account is accurate, then he's a jackass for calling a patient immature and clichéd for having doubts about having children.
I also get that these comments were off the cuff, but this isn't the first time he's expressed this pro-natalist sentiment. If a public figure is making the claim that we should have children, or that we need to have children to be happy, then I'm going to contest that.
I don't know much about his work in psychology. I thought he sounded a bit silly in his talks with Sam Harris, I think he's patently wrong on abortion and his comments on veganism were unfair.
Anyway, thanks again for the comment and I hope you stick around and watch some of my other videos.
No worries Glyn! And yes: for sure he's a died-in-the-wool anti-anti-natalist... I've also noticed his habit of dropping sweeping statements into his talks without much foundation or qualification, and it is something that can grate on me. His comments about veganism came across a lot like that.
Also agree that he came off pretty poorly in the discussions with Sam Harris... I still enjoyed them, but I get the feeling JBP's fans were expecting him to deliver some amazing knockout punch to Harris' atheistic worldview, and that clearly didn't happen by any measure, which was pretty embarrassing.
I'll hopefully watch more of your vids, but I'll be honest that I do find anti-natalism a very troubling position... not least because many of the arguments are very compelling and difficult to refute. I did think of you when I first watched this JBP talk, as I know it's a position you hold with conviction. Like I said: you've given me plenty to think about at least!
Thanks again, and all the best from the rainy island.
9:52
THE BEST EXISTENCE IS NONE EXISTENCE.
KNOW LIFE, KNOW PAIN.
NO LIFE, NO PAIN.
Thanks so much for making this. I actually like JBP but his arguments on this point are appallingly bad
I'll become a multimillionaire in 5 years. What kind of car did you want again glynos?
wow.
Evidence: a world full of misery. The certainty of death and the near-certainty of grave suffering at least at some point in one's life, the guaranteed loss of loved-ones, the reality of extreme suffering befalling a fairly large number of people and no surefire way to protect one's children from it... JP: you can't do any better than that? That 'cliché' (the problem of evil and the value of life) has been expanded on and pondering by humanity's greatest minds but to self-appointed Übergenius and conservative prophet JP that carries no weight at all.
Methinks his claim to an IQ of 150 is greatly exaggerated but as has been hinted at quite eloquently by playonwords55 it seems likely JP is blinded by emotional issues of a personal nature. Which is ironic for a clinical psychologist. Psychology along with psychiatry and other 'society centered' disciplines have always taken a pro-life stance no matter what aking to the blanket religious condemnation of childlessness, abortion and suicide that preceded it. In a way they are secular religions starting with Freud's elaborate 'psychodynamic' mythology with its obsession by sex and incest.
He might actually have a high IQ. My IQ was 132 the last time I was tested, though I have known people with as high IQs as 170 who were less honest than I am.
Bwa ha ha ha, Peterson.
LOL.
He isn't a good person. I doubt he truly knows suffering. I didn't realize he was this arrogant.
people should be placed in parks within ecosystems instead of parks placed in human communities. We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference. We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion. We should not be living in human communities that enclose tiny preserved ecosystems within them. Human communities should be maintained in small population enclaves within linked wilderness ecosystems. No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas. Communication systems can link the communities.
912 subs you can't even monetize yet :'(
not bad
is glynos David Benatar? He sounds like him.
working for the 'tiny hats' he is....
he is much cleaver!
You totally ruined him! I wish he would be forced to watch this video
Peterson is pretty smart for a dummy.
Peterson's a sadist.
__________He said it was a story that's an amalgam but you're taking it as a literal, word for word report of a past event. He probably just made her up in order to convey a larger point.
I have a few things I want to criticise about your video:
- In the beggining section you argued that Peterson shamed her client in response to her view regarding having children. While he expressed himself in am argueably arrogant manner, he didn't quote what he said to har but rather heavily paraphrased what he said in the context of his own opinion, giving no real clue as of how he offered this advice
- In the video you analysed in the beggining, Peterson never stated that the woman he was consulting actually thought through or not the ethical implications of creating a new life. Therefore, saying that he "went on the offensive" in response to her who, you say, considered this implications, is unfounded, given that we don't actually have any info whether she thought it through or not.
- You said that "those who hold this belief [that they shouldn't procreate] are often told that they're in the wrong, that life is a gift,etc.", which is hard to believe it actually happens in the western world, considering the vast influence of the progressive, leftist ideas which go against traditional values.
- You stated a number of things that an antinatalist often supposedly suffers regularly (which again, I don't think apply to modern western cultures), without adding any value to the criticism of Peterson's words. This makes me think that you didn't actually want to criticise his idea justly but rather subtly portray him as an accusatory, extremist figure, by falsely suggesting he may be part of the extremist, far-right segment of the population
- You said that "it is mind-boggling idiocy" refdering to the fact that Peterson doesn't like the argument that there are too many people on the planet, missing the fact that he (as you would have induced if you would have watched other, more comprehensive views of his) was reffering actually to the poteantial pathological implications of such statements. In other words, such statements and beliefs, when combined with other factors, such as trauma, may lead to a person having an unusual resentment towarda human life, which might conduce that person to an aggresive/misanthropic/sociopathic set of convictions and actions, harmful to others as well.
-Similarly, the statement of the club of Rome that we are akin to a virus or cancer falls under the same category as the one above, being a potential sigm of pathological, ill convictions that lead to destruction and death, because they encourage the death of mankind. Thus, your statement that "the metaphore is obviously meant to highlight the fact that humans overconsume" is entitely unfounded, given that we don't know what the club of Rome exactly thought when he used it and also given the potential pathological implications that it might have.
- You stated that by letting people die and not creating new others, we would end all suffering. What you're proposing here is that we should get rid of the problem of human suffering by eliminating all humans, not considering that exterminating all humankind will lead to the destruction of all the meaningfull, beautiful things that humans do, things which may really give life meaning (primarily, I can state knowledge and understanding as prime examples of the intellectual elevations which humans are marvelously capabale of).
- After you said that Peterson wrongfully interpreted a metaphor, you immediatly attack a metaphor of his (the one that stated that a som should be "sacrificed"), cleraly not preceiving it's metaphorical essence. What he actually wanted to say (in a more plausible interpretation) is that the mother must let his son out into the world in order for him to fully develop himself as a human being and to do something wothwhile with his life but also that life has inevitable pain in it, pain which must be conquered in order to make existance worhwhile. Also, Peterson never said that we should breing pople into being just to make the worls a better place but rather that the pain and suffering is inevitable and therefore necessary in order to reach fullfilment.
- You said that "There's no harm in an Earth devoid of life". There is also no good either. The absence of bad doesn't automatically imply the presence of good. Lack of existence isn't something that can be praised, given that it eliminates, besides all of humanity's problems, all of humanities achievements and efforts of betterment. Lack of existence only brings about a neutral state.
- Giving birth to someone doesn't do any harm to the person given birth. What is done to him/her from that point on harms him/her.
- Bringing someone into the world, "codemning" the person to hardship and pain is not something evil as you said, given the fact that life has a plethora of bright sides along the bleak ones. Thus, the decision of bringing someone into being is a morally grey one, not one outright evil as you have portrayed it. Also, simply not procreatinfgis neither good or bad because it eliminates the posibility of both good and bad, thus creating a neutral state which cannot be moral or immoral, given that morality is bases around good and evil.
Last, but not least, almost all throughout the video you bashed Peterson without any reason, stating that he's a "pandering twat" and stressing his "idiocy", statements which do not critique his arguments, but rather his personality, something completely unrelated to the discussion. This, coupled with some of the criticism that I have previously made in this post and the fact that you cherrypicked sections of Peterson's videos (especially the last bit) brings me to the conclusion that you are severly biased in your argumentation, condemning a person based on insufficient evidence and constructing a video which isn't really meant to response to a set of arguments, but rather to bash someone baselessly and unnecessarly.
I would recommend exposing yourself to opposing viewpoints more often and to be more objective about your own beliefs.
It always strikes me as interesting that the people who want to live the most are the ones going through the most pain. (At least I see this in my own life) Just look at the suicide rates of third world countries.
_"It always strikes me as interesting that the people who want to live the most are the ones going through the most pain. (At least I see this in my own life) Just look at the suicide rates of third world countries."_
People in third world countries often don't live long enough to contemplate suicide....so the suicide rates of those who are deprived doesn't mean a thing. But again we are talking about bringing a new life into existence and not ending an already existing life.
Love you...
@@Stonedtosheep not to mention that they are more religious
I would respect Peterson more for pointing out a possible wrong rather than just agreeing with me.
I'm kind of a Peterson fanboy, but you have a point, he fails to give a convincing argument for his "pro-life" stance in these clips and might come across as irrational or arrogant. After watching many of his lectures, my impression is, that he deems Being/consciousness a great mystery and in his view unraveling it is worth the suffering, if properly mitigated. I find this a much more respectable and intellectually honest position, than the kind of tired, bleak and rather snobbish materialism you seem to operate from. Sure, if sentient life is a mere accident, one could make an ethical case for ending it, at least on utilitarian grounds (which is not the end-all of moral philosophy by the way), but I don't think we have sufficient knowledge to conclude that, let alone bail on the human project right now, when living standards are soaring and millions are being lifted out of poverty every year. We just don't know, what we could achieve, if we pulled ourselves together as a species.
Dávid Varga Since we do not know, then we shouldn't mess with the system. Because the risk is too high so we do not play a game for which we know nothing. We do not impose it on others. No known purpose means not acceptable. The rest are just rationalizations so as to keep chasing your fun ( which is not an excuse for your kids )
It's already perfect in non-existence. This living is contingent and absurd. We only desire what we don't posses, it's addictive lust stupid rubbish.
Hey man. I love the idea not bailing out on the human project in order to continuing humanity's investigation about the inherent nature of consciousness. On the other hand, I think antinatalism conclusion about the nature of existence is correct.
My only reservation to your opinion is about the 'sufficient' part. How sufficient knowledge is enough to determine the nature of consciousness? The price is extremely high.
However, I think sentient organism will not extinct in the near future no matter how persuasive antinatalist arguments are. The biological imperative to life is simply too strong. I really hope there is something about consciousness that worth all the sentient organism''s suffering in the world. past, present, and future.
Pain and negative emotions are life's way of telling us to take action, to do something different.
How we view any event depends on the story we tell ourselves about it, on the meaning we give to it.
Undergoing water boarding as the final test towards become a marine for example can be a transformative event.
Someone we know not saying hi back on the street can make us sad that they don't like us, mad that they were rude or simply a little frustrated or stoic that they didn't hear us.
This makes it extremely hard to quantity how good or bad something is. As Shakespeare said nothing is good or bad only thinking makes it so.
The Buddhist assertion that life is suffering is only the beginning of their philosophy. They propose that we accept that suffering is a part of life. To not compound physical suffering, which we have less control over, with mental suffering, over which we have a greater degree of control.
Dávid Varga tell that to the raped, starved, abused children and people... I’m sure it’ll comfort them well. It’s always easy from a place of comfort to make such assertions. Just as the General barks orders for his soldiers to forge ahead, while he sips a latte in his office and they get slaughtered. Then the General gets promoted for “winning” that battle”, while the parents bury their kids. Great idea 👍... ugh.
Maybe use fewer character attacks when saying counterpoints.
ngl peterson is good but his views on this are terrible lmao
you should have high enough IQ to recognize the irony
First off, he's stating his frustration with the response to the crowd. I doubt he really acted like that with the client. He puts on a more casual face (not too casual) for his lectures to make them entertaining. His response, even if he does say it, does draw out a better explanation from the client.
Any person living in a society where they have the resources to see an individual who is professionally trained to help you sort out your problems will likely not birth their child into a world of torment. That woman probably wasn't bearing a child in a country with no government or gureilla fighters or terrorists or environmental hazards. Yes, being born comes with all the anxieties of being alive, diseases to accidents, but what other alternative is there to these problems? To live is to make mistakes and learn from it, hopefully being open enough to take all the advice and guidance you can at every turn.
Does the average person who becomes a parent not understand what it means to be a parent? What kind of logic is that? They will never live a day in their life the same way. They understand that every mistake the child makes is somehow a result of the parent not guiding the child properly. They understand it better than anyone. It is why people leave when they have kids because they cannot handle it. I don't think lots of people have children without regard to what they are doing but a better emphasis on the role as a parent would do our society wonders.
Overpopulation is not a valid answer to why you should not have a child. Over population is an issue for our society, not for your life fulfillment. This one woman in therapy asking whether or not she wants a child is not the issue with high population, its lower economic income levels of individuals having more children then they themselves can support. This woman could probably have 4 or 5 kids that would lead healthy lives if there was a proper father figure in the mix, especially in 21st century canada. Put this situation in a poverty stricken country where workers are exploited and/or the government sucks and/or their is only a limited economy, that individual should consider if they could manage to feed another child.
About one in every two people taken randomly throughout the world, on a quick google search are in poverty. I know ancient history it was considered regal to have furniture. I also imagine that just 200 years ago the economic distribution was probably like 2 out of 3 people were impoverished.
Just phrasing that in that manner of parasites is dangerous though. The most memorable person who thought of other humans as parasites killed like 6 million human beings, and there are countless others throughout history who saw some humans as burdens and irredeemable entirely.
ITs not an off chance that your kid is successful. You know if you are ready to have kids, and if you want them then you will do everything in your power so that when you have them they get your ideal childhood. Attention and bonidng, socialized with family, encouragement and caution, and what you can't figure out you have all of human knowledge at your fingertips. There has never been a better chance for anyone to have a kid.
If you can face the trouble, and so has everyone else in your family who has arguably only had a harder time the further back you go, then how can a child really be born into a world thats worse? Is this what you think of life? If it isn't even worth it to start a life cause "all they will do is suffer" then how the fuck are you living life? Editing people more successful than you interspersed with your shitty drawings, with the purpose of convincing other youtubers that stumble on this shit that life is as miserable as you say it is. I'm sure you would love some company in this pit of despair you have made for yourself, but i think you are being a melodramatic child who suffers a usual amount like hte rest of us and then over thinks and analyzes and creates untold levels of suffering.
This is my first time reading this term "antinatalism", but I've had this thought occur to me. However, how do you answer the critique that bringing a new life isn't cruel, but is actually rather neutral? I mean sure life has suffering, but life has happiness too, and whether or not your life has more suffering or more joy doesn't matter in the end anyway because death wipes everything away. The only way you could think that creating life is just creating suffering is if you're a very negative and depressed person, but that's not everyone's experience.