It's really sad to see the tragic downfall of Peterson. I used to believe that he, despite what you think of his ideas, was honest in his quest to make the world a better place, or to be the Peacemaker in his own words. But the man the he has become is only a tool whose role is to further the divide between different islands...
You can read an article written by his mentor and head of the psych dept in Toronto that got him his job up there ( JP and his family actually lived with the guy for a while). The article goes on to tell how his boss man slowly had his eyes opened about JP, after having to go to battle against the whole dept who wanted JP out. JP was just saying BS in class and even after students, professors, his dean all told him to stop, he just kept spewing right along. The other profs were left going, "What?? Who told you that? Where did you hear that? Oh, that mutherf-er again." [Can you imagine being a biology/anthropology/religious studies/sociology professor and the crap he would be telling students: 'climate' doesn't exist, every single person on the planet lives by Judeo Christian values(and always have!), people evolved from lobsters] Freaked the mentor out when JP said he was thinking about buying a church. Mentor thought he meant to rehab it and turn it into their family home....JP was like, "what!? No, so I can have my own church!" Ummm, yeah.
So close to individuating. All his ideas would have been his own, instead he was attracted to the idea of politics and division. THough he knows better.
Love the parallels. I couldnt help but draw parallels with Kelsier more, however, considering that the thunbnail shows a copy of the secret history. Great work, in any case. Would love to see more fantasy/philosophy crossovers
It's all well and good talking about peace, but don't forget, too much peace seeking ends up in appeasement. And appeasement merely delays the apocalypse. Sometimes it's wise to remember that if you want peace you must prepare for war, and when that war comes, to win it. People fucked with Jordan Peterson and tried to ruin his life, he pushed back successfully. More power to him. Did he do it perfectly? no. No human ever does. But I am glad we have a Jordan Peterson.
i wonder if this transcedental state is sustainable. i think its to high of a state to maintain. its maximum chaos, but at some point the dust needs to settle and a person needs to go back to the local, to choose a land to live in.
A person who is lost, has an easy time maintaining a position in the transcendental. As there is no loyalty that holds him back and it makes him able to stand out. but when stability is comming into your life, you will find yourself drawn to a side. And you notice that side actualy accepts you. You notice you are welcomed and loved. the person who did not had a land before to call home, finally finds a home.
I couldn't help click this video due to the hilarious comparison; The worst author I've ever read compared to the worst philosopher I've ever read. A tragedy indeed.
His appearance has become evil over the years? You're calling the man a monster and that's what you bring up? Cmon man. Stay intellectual. Delve into ideas.
I appreciate the archetypal amplification of Jordan’s story-a tragedy of mythical proportions. And I’d imagine deeply painful to live. In his first public appearances, he was able to take a principled stance. I started watching the old lectures he had uploaded here and thought they were excellence. I saw him in a debate recently, and he couldn’t convincingly defend his takes. And by the time he wrote “Still not beautiful” in a retweet of an overweight model, his principles had depleted. One rebuttal to your video is that Jordan hasn’t changed. There is evidence to the contrary: never mind his change in tone and rhetoric, look at his change in how he chooses to present himself. His suites are so boisterous now. Whether or not you dig them, they’re zany in ways he’s never been. The good news to that fact is that he can still change. We can always change. Being true to our best beliefs is an option always and a daily choice. Great video, mate.
Interesting commentary on JP . He is indeed a tragic hero who has looked too long into the abyss . There is no peace or inner stillness within . He is attached to the ‘fruits of his labour ‘ - and his own cleverness . Example is the school of mankind - and I wouldn’t want to be like him .
I don’t even understand how he was a hero to begin with. So many people I’ve graduated college with didn’t do it because they’re curious, they did it for the station and for the money. They focused enough or took as many practice tests that they could, but they cannot speak about or manipulate the information in an innovative way. Jordan Peterson is a doctor of psychology that made a book on personalities. That’s like Einstein making a book on algebra(i really wanted to say “like Einstein writing a book on Newtonian mechanics instead of inventing the theory of relativity”). People are really out here celebrating genius without knowing its mediocrity.
@@VonJay I have thought for a while that the genius of Peterson is not an expected genius, but a display of the true confusion at the interplay of our thought lives, submission to technology, religion, anxieties, politics, and economies at this moment. He doesn't represent a scholarly sort of genius, but something like an embodiment of how our world is culminating in chaos. It's like he's competent enough at enough things and incompetent enough at so many more things that he's actually changed the world more than a dedicated scholar or cynical con artist ever could. It's very relatable.
you showed those tweets like they were self explanatorily "tyrannical" and not in the spirit of the peacemaker. while I do agree that peterson´s tweeets are at times polarising (he also articulates these believes in a less polarising way) I also think that he is not in his conversations and books as you have described him to be. i would be curious about a more direct critique of specifics as opposed to a verdict based on a handfull of unexplained tweets.
sometimes while walking, i think about that time JP quoted Nietzsche on the Lex F. podcast, & i tell myself JP really didn't see it coming, he became what he was fighting. It pleases me to see that someone else thought the same, thank you for this beautiful video, and all the others, I love your work man!
Hey man goood to see you, hope all is better now. You are smiling a lot in this video so that's a good sign. Honestly, screw philosophy. Dont care about that as much as seing you doing well and sharing your passion here.
This was wonderfully well-done! Peterson's emphasis on emulating the hero archetype brought to mind Aristotle's understanding of the implications of that archetype many years ago for me.
Peterson has some interesting and useful things to say, but his main problem is that came to think that he knows a lot more than he actually does. This was/is epitomised by his obsessive attacks on feminism, including (but far from limited to) his absurd - and easily disprovable - claim that civilisation is essentially based on masculine/patriarchal order, whilst chaos is archetypally supposedly feminine.
is it me or The Living Philosophy spends so much time explaining to us the shadow of Jordan Peterson, reminds me of Jungs obsessive depth psychoanalysis of the madness of Nietzsche
Why doesn't Peterson focus on the influence of Nietzsche amongst the postmodernists he blames for the downfall of the west. He likes the concept of ressentiment, which he uses to psycheanalyse the postmodernists, he then attacks them for reducing everything down to power dynamics (apparently forgetting which German philosopher they gleaned this from). They probably also got their anti rationalism from Nietzsche as well as their reluctance to engage in debate. I guess he doesn't want to tick off the wanna be Ubermenschen by being in any way critical of Nietzsche, better to always stand in awe of his genius.
STOP: He is not a monster. He may offend you politically, but he is not a monster. I can't believe you would use that extreme word to describe him. He happens to be a distinguished scholar cited many times by his peers. I am not a fan of his politics myself, but he is a reasonable man who is defending academic freedom, and happens to be a good example for young men who are disoriented and sometimes lost in this modern world. It is very dishonest of you to join the political far left's side on this. You are way off on this one.
He used to be, but no longer. If you watch his recent showings he has become incapable of answering questions. He flees into "what even is...." every time. No opposing point is acknowledged, no other viewpoint considered. It is sad to see how captured his mind has become. He now believes that people are stupid and need to be kept in check by a religion he advocates but does not believe in. The comparison to a well meaning tyrant that lost his way is very apt. Monster is a valid descriptor for Peterson
I just rewatchee Jordan's interview on that Swedish talk show and the way he handles the feminists and Kathy Newman types is a true demonstration of his character. His patience and ability to humanise his opponent just goes to show that his agenda is to demonstrate facts in the face of an ideology that doesn't care for them. This is the same ideology that suggests we should reject grand narratives and yet has become THE grand narrative that rejects all other grand narratives with violent projections of oppression and bigotry. Jordan Peterson paved the way for new discourse by being the ONLY person at the time to push back against the dominant postmodern ideology and did so in a way that was gallant, brave and inspired by the young men he was fighting to protect. This is all to say that while Jordan may have botched a few tweets and at worst, has become an intellectual grifter, we owe it to Jordan for having started a cultural movement that began the push back against an ideology that has mutated from feminism into ideologies that enable things like drag queen story time, woke mathematics and the mutilation of young children. I have many reasons, as of late, no longer hold Jordan in the same esteem I once did, but I find your criticisms a little harsh. Especially since Jordan was/is nothing short of a father figure for millions of men around the globe, and for good reason. I think it's perfectly reasonable to call out Jordan for his mishaps but your assessment is like a cruel discarding of toy that you grew tired of. It's as if your own shame of "oh I can't believe I used to look up to him" is channelled into your videos about Jordan and once again, it's dehumanising. I really enjoy your videos because they are extremely informative and well thought out. I learned a lot from your Jordan Peterson videos too, but I do think you should have a look at your own shadow before you try to summarise Jordan's. Consider "is this really necessary? Am I doing this to serve my audience? How is it serving them? Am I just doing this because it needs to be done? Or am I am doing it because this is a controversial opinion that might get lots of clicks". Maybe I have it all wrong but I just think your assessment of Jordan is a little dehumanising in the sense that you have reduce him to a series of abstractions. Jordan had a way of humanising his opponents and I think that's something we should try to emulate.
Just to speak specifically to the idea of the Mistborn, take a look at story of the Prime minister of Singapore. He's a living version of the same archetype that was indeed successful in his endeavour and employed the same means as the the misborn.
Wow. 🤯 This might actually get to Peterson if he ever sees it. Because you successfully criticise him in his own terms and metaphors, rather than just name-calling him like the Dunning-Kruger types among the left do. Peterson warned people to ponder whether their own life’s story might be a tragedy. But just like “be precise in your speech”, he never applied that to himself, apparently. Just like Ben Shapiro, the staunch defender of children’s bodily integrity… who simultaneously keeps defending circumcision. So I wonder: Is hypocrisy a necessary trait of the tragic hero? Is hypocrisy the internal conflict that foreshadows the clash of good intentions vs. actual actions?
Even though I disagree with him on some things, I would have no problem with Peterson if he didn’t speak so vitriolic, condescendingly, accusatory, and just downright nasty about those whom he disagrees with-“leftists,” “liberals,” “Postmodern neo-Marxists,” “atheists,” “climate change types,” etc. Just keep it respectful and it’s all good. But the minute someone mentions an idea he disagrees with, he gets that dismissive, smug smirk, waves his fingers around, and tries to ridicule that point of view as if it’s absurd, without even really addressing it. Not to mention the wannabe tough guy charade of “bloody hell” this, and “we’ll see about _that!”_ Since his return from the medically induced coma, he has adopted a really off-putting way of addressing people and ideas he disagrees with.
Haha. The mist isn’t what he thinks: Meanwhile the evening came on, and the market-place veiled itself in gloom. Then the people dispersed, for even curiosity and terror become fatigued.
How is Peterson tyrannical? Except looking at his tweets, have you been following up with his latest content and the new books he has been working on? I agree he is deserving of much criticism, but putting asside the surface assessment of his suits and lucrative endeavors, he still is providing much needed content and insight and I appreciate his deep dive into christianity.
Awesome video, I sometimes miss the old peterson myself. I look at Maps of meaning in my shelf and think how it all went wrong, how the hero I thought I had became the very monster of dogmatic beliefs that I hate. You could say he is trying to resurrect an evil deity out of his failure to overcome the stench of the divine corpse, thus, becoming a man controlled by ideas, a one-sided soldier that has renounced to the union of opposites.
I find one-sided idolatries to be incredibly dull. Where is the depth to life within such a belief? Peterson does not have the will which previously caused him to be admired. As a man becomes docile and weak, his soul clings to that which is kindest, and what he believes he deserves, even at the cost of wisdom or foresight. Perhaps a man should rely on his will, as well as his mind and his heart. Fate takes a hold of a man at the cost of his soul.
@@thegoodlife5205 I agree, he lost his way when he abandoned the very will of becoming a "complete man" as Jung would put it, i.e., a man composed of many truths but slave to none, one that relies in everything and nothing at the same time. But as you say, is easier to fall for simple ways to look upon the world, even at the cost of that inner will that demands trascendetal integrations.
@@klounasthejester4036 Yes, very well said. But, what am I to expect from a man who has gone through such things? We cannot always be the, "complete man".
10:35 I would read it differently, the ruler is the guy who thinks he knows what is best for the others and reaching the highest reachable power in his arrogance he screwed his own planet... no empathy for the guy.
This stimulating analysis of Peterson brings to mind that well-worn line from the Dark Knight: "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." The utterer of that line, Harvey Dent, goes on to become Two-Face. Peterson has literally worn a suit that is split down the middle in two colors. I don't mean to be petty in pointing out Peterson's clothing, but I agree that his appearance through the years has become more and more villainous. His gradual transformation is indeed the stuff of novels. To my mind, he's all intellect without an emotional or spiritual core. I'm not saying he is emotionless; obviously he is a passionate man. But he seems to mistrust the emotional life, viewing it as feminine, and leading to chaos. He carries the heaviest, most grim energy that has only intensified over the years. A Canadian monk once told me, while smiling wryly when Peterson came up in our conversation, that he'd like to get him to the monastery and teach him to meditate.
What are Peterson's transcendental values exactly? In the Harris interview he proposes a kind of pragmaticism based on evolutionary theory as the only indicator of truth. So survival, adaptation, selectivity, status and conventional prosperity, they in themselves confirm and validate the purpose of the mission. Isn't that what he's saying? He then rejigs this evolutionary reductionism with a kind of traditional judeo-christian mythos. Is that a reconciliation of the modern and pre-modern paradigms, or just some clever rationalisations for a particularly modernist way of thinking. I'm not sure.
Peterson said that truth is defined by what works; what allows us to survive and reproduce in a Darwinian sense. An idea is true if it improves the probability of one's existence and reproduction.
I think you fail to understand how the discourse is changing. I mean everything, political and philosophical discourse is becoming much less sensitive, closer to how it has been for the vast majority of our recorded history. Overly sensitive discourse, that is leftism for the most part, including "woke", is on it's way out. It has peaked and now it is in decline. People are increasingly less afraid of having controversial opinions on all sorts of subjects, culture valuation, RACE valuation, "trans", etc. Even a "rationalist" pop influencer, Dawkins, has come out recently against "non-binary" genders. A new age of reason and unapologetic honesty is in front of us and I love it!
I'm not so sure Peterson was ever the peacemaker. Everyone likes the _idea_ of bringing peace -- as they would logically need to for the peacemaker's role to be possible -- of being the hero, and that they have the answer to everything, but all that's ever motivated Peterson has been order and security. He see's chaos as fundementally threatening rather than liberating. The Lord Ruler isn't an example of how the peacemaker can fall to evil, but why the Local Winner isn't the Peacemaker.
I really like the sound of that Jordan Peterson essay!! Is it possible to get it as a little booklet?? because I really don't like reading stuff on my phone/laptop...
Sorry Dean doesn't look it's possible. There are some editions out there by the looks of it but they seem to be few and far between. Here's a link to it on Peterson's so unless you print it out it'll be tough to get a paper versionwww.jordanbpeterson.com/docs/230/2014/27Petersonpeacemaking.pdf
I agree, his podcast with Sapolski was such a breath of fresh air. He’s too good for being turned into a Canadian version of Ben Shapiro. He needs to dodge the fray and shut down his own twitter account
An interesting comparative between JP and Paul Atreides. Paul destroyed the very thing he sought to preserve (Arakis), and JP through his often-vitriolic one-liners on X and other media, demonstrate his own desire to transform something he cannot transform within himself. JP resides in the metaphorical human substrate (psyche) he so eloquently articulates when faced with questions of faith and the metaphysical. I've watch literally hundreds of hours of JP - from university lectures to current podcasts - and have observed his transition from eponymous scholar, clinician, and lecturer; into an erstwhile ideologue, and dare I say wishful demigod, and as someone who seems to dance on the edge of hate and spite. Even his general affects changed from relaxed friend to an angry, ready to lash-out at the slightest provocation, and an arbiter of how he thinks everyone must behave in order to bring peace to their lives. His assertion of biblical truth is that if "it" exists manifold and through the stretch of time, human memory, and is within the human realm of consciousness, then it "bloody well is true", mainly because he found a way to make such claims that do not require a prerequisite obligation of "belief" on his part. Just to "act as if it were true". I find the statement of "act as if" to be basically a cop out to the questions of God and religion. He simply does not have to be rational at this point, and can create a narrative that suits his personal beliefs and ideologies. Is this not entirely prevarication in a fancy 3-piece pinstripe suit?
Depends on how you’d define religion and god. To say we should strive for something above ourselves that seems to be leading us towards a higher goal is deeply ingrained within us. It’s no surprise that often the happiest people are people who are somewhat spiritual and are able to see beyond pure reason. Even Immanuel Kant delved into that in his critique of pure reason, we can’t exclude our perceptions and interpretations. And it could be fair to say that those are just as real as the “empirical” parts of life through math physics and matter. From a jungian perspective that’s the collective unconscious, stories deeply ingrained inside of us. His whole biblical lectures was essentially jungian analysis of these profound stories and narratives we act out.
I don't think Peterson can make a pre-rational assertion on the existence of God, based on unverifiable belief. I guess I'm thinking of Wilber and his pre and trans rational fallacy or Jung's declaration of himself as a gnostic theist. There is belief, then there is a kind of agnostic openness and then there is a gnosis. I think Peterson is kind of in the middle.
I certainly appreciate the jungian perspective JP interprets into his own analysis. But within a collective unconscious, the instinctual and primal are first an individual trait. I'm not deep into Carl Jung, but if each individual is driven instinctually, then we have a lot of people needing moderation once the concept of community arises. But who is responsible for such? I would say that the happiest people are often those who have no need for divinity. Spirituality on the other hand does not include a presupposition of religion, or even God-belief. One can certainly be spiritual without inculcating a specific religion or God within their personal domain. But pessimistically, most people don't think in terms of pure reason anyway, and so what is subjective but sensible, is often whatever the observant makes of their own nature. The step into "it must be true" because of our perceptions and intuitions, and that it's a shared experience, excludes the necessity for a materialistic or empirical consideration. While I like the idea of a grand narrative, the truth of the matter may well be that of something far more basic, like biological imperatives overwriting or mapping onto our prefrontal cortex, giving rise to "God" and religiosity through an outward assertion of belief. It is quite easy to say this mapping is of a superior being. I think it is biology working to insure its replication and the need for self preservation. In this particular instance, acting as if something is true only means one doesn't know, but accepts the narrative.
@@garyhome7101I rather think Peterson's issue is his over consideration of empiricism and materialism, primarily a kind a Darwinian worldview rejiged into Christian mythos. I mentioned it in my post, but in the Harris interview he states that something is true only if it serves some evolutionary goal.. to survive, prosper. The important biblical themes he gravitates to are all around biologically based.. what helped man survive, multiply and thrive materially. Truth is the last of his concerns, I mean in the way it might have been for Jesus and Christ, he's a true Nietzschian in that sense..
I tend to think belief is the lowest form of spirituality. As I was saying, the openness of agnosticism is at least a kind of not knowing about what we normally take ourselves to be. Socrates said, "I know that I don't know" Well, normally people think they know all kinds of things about themselves.. like their limitations, their mortality and so on and that would include a whole lot of materialist notions these days. Not knowing obviously means not knowing with absolute certainty any of that not just not knowing about God and whatever else. But there is openness. Being a gnostic theist like Jung said he was, well obviously that just means he claims to have had some degree of experiencial knowledge of what he considers divine, beyond mere belief. I'm not sure Peterson's problem is a lack of materialist, or instinctual considerations. Didn't he state in the Harris debate that his only measure of truth is some kind of Darwinian consideration of survival. So in his view if something leads to survival, prosperity, status, respect or whatever.. then it's true. It seems the biblical stories he draws from only consolidate this biological reductionist worldview, it's not like he's some mystic likeJung. He's just trying to ground his more evolutionary considerations in a broader tradition or something. It's like a square peg in a round hole though.. I mean he describes himself as a pragmatist and certainly not an idealist.
A bit silly to write someone off that quickly... Yes, he has changed... He's gotten older, comes across a little more bitter. His whole spiel is about self-correction, so let's see how he deals with global superstardom. And who says he set out to be a peacemaker, in the first place? In your mind Peterson may have created the pedestal, but it's you who put him on it.
People who overrate his supposed profoundness are just as far off the mark as people who believe they could casually dismiss him. You can’t dismiss someone with a following as huge as Peterson. You can only choose to ignore him - at your own peril. Because that means you leave the field of the debate to him and his followers. Thus rendering them the “local” victors by default.
Most Americans think Hershey's is chocolate. It doesn't make it so. The volume of followers is not an indicator of his profundity. You can indeed dismiss him on the basis of his own words
@@kennybrhouston That’s just saying “I define you as irrelevant”; it’s telling, not showing, and it’s not going to convince anyone who follows him to stop supporting him. Like the mathematician who defines the tin as open but still doesn’t get any food from within it. Whether or not his words have intellectual merit, you can’t dismiss the practical relevance of his ideas. If you engage with them, you can counter them; if you decide to ignore his ideas, you surrender the field to him.
Peterson's tragedy is his recognition of his own (considerable!) cleverness, which he believes to be his super power and with which he can solve all problems encountered. This ability to infer hides from him his lack of access, through arrogance, or quite possibly laziness, to the material he needs to infer with. As a psychologist he is working from material that has been little updated by him since the eighties. He is working with psychological hypotheses from a bygone scientific age.
I was curious about Peterson in the beginning and very much enjoyed his classes when he taught at University, Call me ignorant if you like, but I still think he became a spectacle (including in Debord reference) long ago. Out of curiosity, narcissism doesn't figure into it?
Somebody said that the true magician/alchemist does not waste time in proving to others that he is the alpha and omega, yet people can tell they've turned their "Shadow into Light, Fear into Courage and Humanity into Divinity." Perhaps Peterson's feminine element represents The High Priestess; his inner child, The Fool, and his masculine element _______ (Magician/Hierophant/Emperor/etc)
This video is very well contracted and researched as always, I like your views on things like religions and philosophy even if I don't completely agree with you but I have one problem and that is don't use Taoism symbols for life and death because these symbols are very complex, I think well this is my perspective on the Novel Mistborn was taken from Iranian religions, especially Zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda and Ahriman that had influenced Judeo-Christian Myths about a morally Good God and an Evil God.
Great video, James! I'll once again recommend the work of John Vervaeke as a continuation of Peterson's early work. If you mourn the loss of the old Peterson, you're in for a treat with JV!
Thank you. I will read it. I am curious to see if behind the stains of ink that is obscene as any words only conceal by definition, there is the blood of his Youth. Stupid naivety being one of my sins, I believe that he is a man of spirit. Whether he has managed to kill it by insisting to be a Hero remains to be seen.
Excellent video! I wonder what the role of the media-scape is in all of this? How does one become massively popular on new media and retain a vestige of sanity?
A man that warns others constantly about the perils of having a high intelligence, falling prey to the very Luciferian archetype he so violently warns about. I will never not be grateful for all the things I've learned from him, and the profound effect it had on my life. And I hope that this part of him still lives somehwere inside of him, and that his legacy does not end as a cautionary tale, but as a Hero's Journey should. Coming back home, some day.
I guess the saddest part about this timeline is that Jordan Peterson qualifies as someone worth these many words. He isn’t. He never was. We’re just surrounded by credulous idiots and thus network effect forces this otherwise mediocre intellect into relevance.
Trascendental means literally "above sentience". On the other hand,, immanent theology (vs. transcencental deity) means pleroma of sentience (advaita etc.) Emotional empathy is sentience. To become an empathy blocking monster psycopath, man blocks sentience and escapes into a transcendental thought experiment in which hurting Other does not hurt Self, in which hurt from love hurts less. The theme of this video essay connects deeply what I've been thinking lately, what seems also rationally obvious. Metacognitive aboutness is about sentience, which metacognition considers "content". Yet, mereologicalle metacognition (which can trip abstract transcendence, solipsism etc.) is only part of sentience, nested in sentience, and by denying it's own participatory sentience becomes less aware. Why is cognitive dissonance running so rampart nowadays? By his cautionary example, by his antiguru Fall, is JP teaching his most important lesson of ultimate self-sacrifice of becoming unaware?
I don't think I agree with it's contents but thanks for this text. It helped me expand my dictionary by a few new words. Although I would not, personally, use words such as "Metacognitive" as it sounds a lot like academic philosophy word salad to me.
@@developerdeveloper67 Yes, it's a very academic word. On the other hand "consciousness" has too wide and fuzzy meaning which fails to make the philosophically necessary distinction between sentience as such and the "aboutness-relation", which is less posh expression than "metacognition".
the correlation of low substance and high levels of mental masturbation comments hating on JP is just lol..... it seems all the philosophy majors are irritated by JP having gotten the public recognition they have been craving their whole life
I guess from my point of view if you strip away from JP his pretentious verbosity, his tendency to patch holes in his superficial knowledge with personal fabrications, and his proclivity to choose whatever position on whatever issue best suited to attracting the monetary support of his wealthy benefactors, there’s precious little left. He’s just not as interesting as he tries to sound.
JP rose to fame through being against the woke left, not siding with their speech policing. That was fine and interesting, JP kept this interesting spectacle by knowing a thing or two about lobsters etc. Now he's preaching Christianity as an end all product which always was there. I don't think that does it for the everyday person, we'll see tho huh.
Well, I guess he does have a strong point that masculinity isn't all toxic, or that from a Jungian point of view the feminine and the masculine both have toxic and benign qualities. That seems like an antidote to the kinds of messages they usually get.
Ok first let me say I enjoy your channel, and I enjoyed this video, however there are several fundamental errors in this, mostly in how and why one would engage in a fall arc, which is the best place to start. First, despite what Aristotle said, that is not what a fall arc is. Now, back in his day, this made sense as narratives themselves where story driven, not to say character was not at play, however it was less about character dynamics and more about how they would push against the world. As such, the true definition of a fall arc, which is different than a negative flat arc, is that a character who puts the positive out in the world only to be met with increased amounts of negativity. A positive flat arc, like Captain America or Paddington, would maintain that level of positivity, however I do not disagree that Peterson does indeed have a politically driven fall arc, which in this redefinition holds true as it was his devotion to freedom and peace that created a force that worked against him that had him join with the other front in a defense. As such, it is not his power, but the power of others who drove him to that. I think we clearly see this in Mistborn. To continue, this video postulates power as bad, and I would say it is indeed negative, and negative is not preferred, however negative is indeed the best defense against negativity, something Jordan has learned, not to make him right by any means, however to put forward the idea of peace, one must recognize that war is the best way to stop those who would declare war on peace. You address this yourself. This creates an issue as negativity is messy and create trauma that moves from individual to societal to generational. Now is Jordan's or Daily Wires even, activities going to do anything more than play into the bipedal system that walks America in place? Absolutely not. However, I think it is important to see the fully reality of Peterson's situation in how we can see everyone's. So what is the solution? I believe the solution is communication, a longer discussion to be had of course. However this is why seeing the full picture is so essential, because only through understanding can this take place. The ridiculous side of the right and how they push against the left, which is in no better a place in morals, ethics, or intelligence, is merely to get involved to keep beliefs that they do not agree with at bay. To be clear, I do not believe that any philosopher worth their salt may have political beliefs, as that dilutes any sense of philosophy, but that is merely my opinion. We clearly have a more left leaning belief system with Wilbur, however he does not maintain political beliefs. However, as someone who is interested in peace, and studies from a very...unique angle, while I do not contain Peterson's actions, I do think that to believe that peace can be achieved without war is a bit naive. Though I cannot be sure with what I study. Though I do see that Peterson, who championed freedom, was pushed back against, which led to him choosing a side. As a conclusion, I think that peace requires two things: communication to understand others, and influence to show them their own path but without the negativity that they adapted in defense of the negativity of others. However, only through a nearly perfect system of this communication can war be avoided, and even then, pride is strong. There is a lot of questions to be asked in the near future, and it is a shame to loose Peterson to a side, however there are many who know this truth and we will see if they are enough to bring the peace we fight for.
The man who defends GOD and the British Empire without blushing...he has been a british agent from the start...thats why he was in all media owned by the enemies of everything that's good, pure and just.
I heard that Peterson said this during the tour for his new book: “I came here to kick postmodernists and chew bubblegum… and I’m all out of bubblegum”.
💚 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
⌛ Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
2:16 Summary of Peacemaker
5:54 Mistborn
11:02 The Mapover with Peterson
Where can one find the image shown? 6:56
It's really sad to see the tragic downfall of Peterson. I used to believe that he, despite what you think of his ideas, was honest in his quest to make the world a better place, or to be the Peacemaker in his own words. But the man the he has become is only a tool whose role is to further the divide between different islands...
You can read an article written by his mentor and head of the psych dept in Toronto that got him his job up there ( JP and his family actually lived with the guy for a while). The article goes on to tell how his boss man slowly had his eyes opened about JP, after having to go to battle against the whole dept who wanted JP out. JP was just saying BS in class and even after students, professors, his dean all told him to stop, he just kept spewing right along. The other profs were left going, "What?? Who told you that? Where did you hear that? Oh, that mutherf-er again." [Can you imagine being a biology/anthropology/religious studies/sociology professor and the crap he would be telling students: 'climate' doesn't exist, every single person on the planet lives by Judeo Christian values(and always have!), people evolved from lobsters] Freaked the mentor out when JP said he was thinking about buying a church. Mentor thought he meant to rehab it and turn it into their family home....JP was like, "what!? No, so I can have my own church!" Ummm, yeah.
How should Peterson think and behave so that you think he was true to his original quest?
So close to individuating. All his ideas would have been his own, instead he was attracted to the idea of politics and division. THough he knows better.
Average attempt, but reductionist. Feels like a bit of disappointment because a good man is not perfect.
Love the parallels. I couldnt help but draw parallels with Kelsier more, however, considering that the thunbnail shows a copy of the secret history. Great work, in any case. Would love to see more fantasy/philosophy crossovers
I'm really enjoying your videos and grateful that you're making them.
Thank you.
In our universe, living things are the best agents of entropy.
It's all well and good talking about peace, but don't forget, too much peace seeking ends up in appeasement. And appeasement merely delays the apocalypse. Sometimes it's wise to remember that if you want peace you must prepare for war, and when that war comes, to win it. People fucked with Jordan Peterson and tried to ruin his life, he pushed back successfully. More power to him. Did he do it perfectly? no. No human ever does. But I am glad we have a Jordan Peterson.
i wonder if this transcedental state is sustainable. i think its to high of a state to maintain. its maximum chaos, but at some point the dust needs to settle and a person needs to go back to the local, to choose a land to live in.
A person who is lost, has an easy time maintaining a position in the transcendental. As there is no loyalty that holds him back and it makes him able to stand out. but when stability is comming into your life, you will find yourself drawn to a side. And you notice that side actualy accepts you. You notice you are welcomed and loved. the person who did not had a land before to call home, finally finds a home.
I couldn't help click this video due to the hilarious comparison; The worst author I've ever read compared to the worst philosopher I've ever read. A tragedy indeed.
His appearance has become evil over the years? You're calling the man a monster and that's what you bring up? Cmon man. Stay intellectual. Delve into ideas.
It is just a side point in the video, but he increasingly dresses like a batman villain. It is really weird
I appreciate the archetypal amplification of Jordan’s story-a tragedy of mythical proportions. And I’d imagine deeply painful to live. In his first public appearances, he was able to take a principled stance. I started watching the old lectures he had uploaded here and thought they were excellence. I saw him in a debate recently, and he couldn’t convincingly defend his takes. And by the time he wrote “Still not beautiful” in a retweet of an overweight model, his principles had depleted. One rebuttal to your video is that Jordan hasn’t changed. There is evidence to the contrary: never mind his change in tone and rhetoric, look at his change in how he chooses to present himself. His suites are so boisterous now. Whether or not you dig them, they’re zany in ways he’s never been. The good news to that fact is that he can still change. We can always change. Being true to our best beliefs is an option always and a daily choice. Great video, mate.
Nietzsche's actual quote was "if you gaze long enough into the abyss, it doubles the gaze and gives it to the next person".
What? Is this a joke or reference that I don’t get?
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs double the confusion and give it to the next person
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs sounds like a card you'd pull in a card game
@@troyswierczek4517 lol, thanks. I don’t know how I missed that. I get it now.
@@troyswierczek4517 stay confused lol
Interesting commentary on JP . He is indeed a tragic hero who has looked too long into the abyss . There is no peace or inner stillness within . He is attached to the ‘fruits of his labour ‘ - and his own cleverness . Example is the school of mankind - and I wouldn’t want to be like him .
I don’t even understand how he was a hero to begin with. So many people I’ve graduated college with didn’t do it because they’re curious, they did it for the station and for the money. They focused enough or took as many practice tests that they could, but they cannot speak about or manipulate the information in an innovative way.
Jordan Peterson is a doctor of psychology that made a book on personalities. That’s like Einstein making a book on algebra(i really wanted to say “like Einstein writing a book on Newtonian mechanics instead of inventing the theory of relativity”). People are really out here celebrating genius without knowing its mediocrity.
@@VonJay I have thought for a while that the genius of Peterson is not an expected genius, but a display of the true confusion at the interplay of our thought lives, submission to technology, religion, anxieties, politics, and economies at this moment.
He doesn't represent a scholarly sort of genius, but something like an embodiment of how our world is culminating in chaos. It's like he's competent enough at enough things and incompetent enough at so many more things that he's actually changed the world more than a dedicated scholar or cynical con artist ever could.
It's very relatable.
you showed those tweets like they were self explanatorily "tyrannical" and not in the spirit of the peacemaker. while I do agree that peterson´s tweeets are at times polarising (he also articulates these believes in a less polarising way) I also think that he is not in his conversations and books as you have described him to be. i would be curious about a more direct critique of specifics as opposed to a verdict based on a handfull of unexplained tweets.
sometimes while walking, i think about that time JP quoted Nietzsche on the Lex F. podcast, & i tell myself JP really didn't see it coming, he became what he was fighting.
It pleases me to see that someone else thought the same, thank you for this beautiful video, and all the others, I love your work man!
That's definitely the conclusion I came to about him when he announced that he was going to be a part of the Daily Wire+.
Hey man goood to see you, hope all is better now. You are smiling a lot in this video so that's a good sign.
Honestly, screw philosophy. Dont care about that as much as seing you doing well and sharing your passion here.
Yeah screw philosophy
This was wonderfully well-done! Peterson's emphasis on emulating the hero archetype brought to mind Aristotle's understanding of the implications of that archetype many years ago for me.
Peterson has some interesting and useful things to say, but his main problem is that came to think that he knows a lot more than he actually does. This was/is epitomised by his obsessive attacks on feminism, including (but far from limited to) his absurd - and easily disprovable - claim that civilisation is essentially based on masculine/patriarchal order, whilst chaos is archetypally supposedly feminine.
is it me or The Living Philosophy spends so much time explaining to us the shadow of Jordan Peterson, reminds me of Jungs obsessive depth psychoanalysis of the madness of Nietzsche
Well spotted
Wouldn’t that be fitting? Sometimes Peterson seems to act as if he considers himself Nietzsche’s reincarnation… 😂
Why doesn't Peterson focus on the influence of Nietzsche amongst the postmodernists he blames for the downfall of the west. He likes the concept of ressentiment, which he uses to psycheanalyse the postmodernists, he then attacks them for reducing everything down to power dynamics (apparently forgetting which German philosopher they gleaned this from). They probably also got their anti rationalism from Nietzsche as well as their reluctance to engage in debate. I guess he doesn't want to tick off the wanna be Ubermenschen by being in any way critical of Nietzsche, better to always stand in awe of his genius.
You’re wrong. They simply own him. That’s why he gave up on truth
who is they?
I love this channel but veritably hate Peterson.
STOP: He is not a monster. He may offend you politically, but he is not a monster. I can't believe you would use that extreme word to describe him. He happens to be a distinguished scholar cited many times by his peers.
I am not a fan of his politics myself, but he is a reasonable man who is defending academic freedom, and happens to be a good example for young men who are disoriented and sometimes lost in this modern world.
It is very dishonest of you to join the political far left's side on this.
You are way off on this one.
He used to be, but no longer.
If you watch his recent showings he has become incapable of answering questions. He flees into "what even is...." every time.
No opposing point is acknowledged, no other viewpoint considered.
It is sad to see how captured his mind has become.
He now believes that people are stupid and need to be kept in check by a religion he advocates but does not believe in.
The comparison to a well meaning tyrant that lost his way is very apt.
Monster is a valid descriptor for Peterson
I just rewatchee Jordan's interview on that Swedish talk show and the way he handles the feminists and Kathy Newman types is a true demonstration of his character.
His patience and ability to humanise his opponent just goes to show that his agenda is to demonstrate facts in the face of an ideology that doesn't care for them.
This is the same ideology that suggests we should reject grand narratives and yet has become THE grand narrative that rejects all other grand narratives with violent projections of oppression and bigotry.
Jordan Peterson paved the way for new discourse by being the ONLY person at the time to push back against the dominant postmodern ideology and did so in a way that was gallant, brave and inspired by the young men he was fighting to protect.
This is all to say that while Jordan may have botched a few tweets and at worst, has become an intellectual grifter, we owe it to Jordan for having started a cultural movement that began the push back against an ideology that has mutated from feminism into ideologies that enable things like drag queen story time, woke mathematics and the mutilation of young children.
I have many reasons, as of late, no longer hold Jordan in the same esteem I once did, but I find your criticisms a little harsh. Especially since Jordan was/is nothing short of a father figure for millions of men around the globe, and for good reason.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to call out Jordan for his mishaps but your assessment is like a cruel discarding of toy that you grew tired of.
It's as if your own shame of "oh I can't believe I used to look up to him" is channelled into your videos about Jordan and once again, it's dehumanising.
I really enjoy your videos because they are extremely informative and well thought out. I learned a lot from your Jordan Peterson videos too, but I do think you should have a look at your own shadow before you try to summarise Jordan's.
Consider "is this really necessary? Am I doing this to serve my audience? How is it serving them? Am I just doing this because it needs to be done? Or am I am doing it because this is a controversial opinion that might get lots of clicks".
Maybe I have it all wrong but I just think your assessment of Jordan is a little dehumanising in the sense that you have reduce him to a series of abstractions.
Jordan had a way of humanising his opponents and I think that's something we should try to emulate.
The Chad Local Victor v.s the Virgin Peacemaker
Just to speak specifically to the idea of the Mistborn, take a look at story of the Prime minister of Singapore. He's a living version of the same archetype that was indeed successful in his endeavour and employed the same means as the the misborn.
Wow. 🤯 This might actually get to Peterson if he ever sees it. Because you successfully criticise him in his own terms and metaphors, rather than just name-calling him like the Dunning-Kruger types among the left do. Peterson warned people to ponder whether their own life’s story might be a tragedy. But just like “be precise in your speech”, he never applied that to himself, apparently. Just like Ben Shapiro, the staunch defender of children’s bodily integrity… who simultaneously keeps defending circumcision.
So I wonder: Is hypocrisy a necessary trait of the tragic hero? Is hypocrisy the internal conflict that foreshadows the clash of good intentions vs. actual actions?
Even though I disagree with him on some things, I would have no problem with Peterson if he didn’t speak so vitriolic, condescendingly, accusatory, and just downright nasty about those whom he disagrees with-“leftists,” “liberals,” “Postmodern neo-Marxists,” “atheists,” “climate change types,” etc.
Just keep it respectful and it’s all good. But the minute someone mentions an idea he disagrees with, he gets that dismissive, smug smirk, waves his fingers around, and tries to ridicule that point of view as if it’s absurd, without even really addressing it. Not to mention the wannabe tough guy charade of “bloody hell” this, and “we’ll see about _that!”_ Since his return from the medically induced coma, he has adopted a really off-putting way of addressing people and ideas he disagrees with.
Haha. The mist isn’t what he thinks: Meanwhile the evening came on, and the market-place veiled itself in gloom. Then the people dispersed, for even curiosity and terror become fatigued.
the image you showed at the beginning of French poets - calling an image of WISDOM???? Bad choice, those guys were not wise, quite the opposite!
How is Peterson tyrannical? Except looking at his tweets, have you been following up with his latest content and the new books he has been working on? I agree he is deserving of much criticism, but putting asside the surface assessment of his suits and lucrative endeavors, he still is providing much needed content and insight and I appreciate his deep dive into christianity.
Awesome video, I sometimes miss the old peterson myself. I look at Maps of meaning in my shelf and think how it all went wrong, how the hero I thought I had became the very monster of dogmatic beliefs that I hate. You could say he is trying to resurrect an evil deity out of his failure to overcome the stench of the divine corpse, thus, becoming a man controlled by ideas, a one-sided soldier that has renounced to the union of opposites.
I find one-sided idolatries to be incredibly dull. Where is the depth to life within such a belief?
Peterson does not have the will which previously caused him to be admired. As a man becomes docile and weak, his soul clings to that which is kindest, and what he believes he deserves, even at the cost of wisdom or foresight. Perhaps a man should rely on his will, as well as his mind and his heart.
Fate takes a hold of a man at the cost of his soul.
I'm only interested in Peterson because I believe his ideas could help me in gaining status and attracting women.
@@thegoodlife5205 I agree, he lost his way when he abandoned the very will of becoming a "complete man" as Jung would put it, i.e., a man composed of many truths but slave to none, one that relies in everything and nothing at the same time. But as you say, is easier to fall for simple ways to look upon the world, even at the cost of that inner will that demands trascendetal integrations.
@@klounasthejester4036 Yes, very well said. But, what am I to expect from a man who has gone through such things? We cannot always be the, "complete man".
To think he was a hero in the first place is quite concerning. Be well.
The Wounded Angel by Hugo Simberg! Nice touch, how did you find that?
10:35 I would read it differently, the ruler is the guy who thinks he knows what is best for the others and reaching the highest reachable power in his arrogance he screwed his own planet... no empathy for the guy.
I shared on X with the Title A Tale of Caution When Desire Takes Hold To Do The Good In The Public Square
I was cringing so much when he was moving into daily wire even though I was entertaining myself with Shapiro criticisms of the left on daily wire.
This stimulating analysis of Peterson brings to mind that well-worn line from the Dark Knight: "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
The utterer of that line, Harvey Dent, goes on to become Two-Face. Peterson has literally worn a suit that is split down the middle in two colors. I don't mean to be petty in pointing out Peterson's clothing, but I agree that his appearance through the years has become more and more villainous. His gradual transformation is indeed the stuff of novels.
To my mind, he's all intellect without an emotional or spiritual core. I'm not saying he is emotionless; obviously he is a passionate man. But he seems to mistrust the emotional life, viewing it as feminine, and leading to chaos. He carries the heaviest, most grim energy that has only intensified over the years. A Canadian monk once told me, while smiling wryly when Peterson came up in our conversation, that he'd like to get him to the monastery and teach him to meditate.
What is the video that you speak about Twitter? Can't find it...
As seriously invested as I am, I will read the stormlight archive first.
yeah well thats just.. like... youre opinion man
What are Peterson's transcendental values exactly? In the Harris interview he proposes a kind of pragmaticism based on evolutionary theory as the only indicator of truth. So survival, adaptation, selectivity, status and conventional prosperity, they in themselves confirm and validate the purpose of the mission. Isn't that what he's saying?
He then rejigs this evolutionary reductionism with a kind of traditional judeo-christian mythos. Is that a reconciliation of the modern and pre-modern paradigms, or just some clever rationalisations for a particularly modernist way of thinking. I'm not sure.
Peterson said that truth is defined by what works; what allows us to survive and reproduce in a Darwinian sense. An idea is true if it improves the probability of one's existence and reproduction.
I think you fail to understand how the discourse is changing. I mean everything, political and philosophical discourse is becoming much less sensitive, closer to how it has been for the vast majority of our recorded history. Overly sensitive discourse, that is leftism for the most part, including "woke", is on it's way out. It has peaked and now it is in decline. People are increasingly less afraid of having controversial opinions on all sorts of subjects, culture valuation, RACE valuation, "trans", etc. Even a "rationalist" pop influencer, Dawkins, has come out recently against "non-binary" genders. A new age of reason and unapologetic honesty is in front of us and I love it!
I'm not so sure Peterson was ever the peacemaker.
Everyone likes the _idea_ of bringing peace -- as they would logically need to for the peacemaker's role to be possible -- of being the hero, and that they have the answer to everything, but all that's ever motivated Peterson has been order and security. He see's chaos as fundementally threatening rather than liberating.
The Lord Ruler isn't an example of how the peacemaker can fall to evil, but why the Local Winner isn't the Peacemaker.
I love your accent and your brains, man
I really like the sound of that Jordan Peterson essay!! Is it possible to get it as a little booklet?? because I really don't like reading stuff on my phone/laptop...
Sorry Dean doesn't look it's possible. There are some editions out there by the looks of it but they seem to be few and far between. Here's a link to it on Peterson's so unless you print it out it'll be tough to get a paper versionwww.jordanbpeterson.com/docs/230/2014/27Petersonpeacemaking.pdf
@@TheLivingPhilosophy okay, fair enough, thanks so much!! 🙏
Umm... No.
No? What question are you responding to?
Peterson needs to tear himself away from politics.
I agree, his podcast with Sapolski was such a breath of fresh air. He’s too good for being turned into a Canadian version of Ben Shapiro. He needs to dodge the fray and shut down his own twitter account
An interesting comparative between JP and Paul Atreides. Paul destroyed the very thing he sought to preserve (Arakis), and JP through his often-vitriolic one-liners on X and other media, demonstrate his own desire to transform something he cannot transform within himself.
JP resides in the metaphorical human substrate (psyche) he so eloquently articulates when faced with questions of faith and the metaphysical. I've watch literally hundreds of hours of JP - from university lectures to current podcasts - and have observed his transition from eponymous scholar, clinician, and lecturer; into an erstwhile ideologue, and dare I say wishful demigod, and as someone who seems to dance on the edge of hate and spite. Even his general affects changed from relaxed friend to an angry, ready to lash-out at the slightest provocation, and an arbiter of how he thinks everyone must behave in order to bring peace to their lives.
His assertion of biblical truth is that if "it" exists manifold and through the stretch of time, human memory, and is within the human realm of consciousness, then it "bloody well is true", mainly because he found a way to make such claims that do not require a prerequisite obligation of "belief" on his part. Just to "act as if it were true".
I find the statement of "act as if" to be basically a cop out to the questions of God and religion. He simply does not have to be rational at this point, and can create a narrative that suits his personal beliefs and ideologies.
Is this not entirely prevarication in a fancy 3-piece pinstripe suit?
Depends on how you’d define religion and god. To say we should strive for something above ourselves that seems to be leading us towards a higher goal is deeply ingrained within us. It’s no surprise that often the happiest people are people who are somewhat spiritual and are able to see beyond pure reason. Even Immanuel Kant delved into that in his critique of pure reason, we can’t exclude our perceptions and interpretations. And it could be fair to say that those are just as real as the “empirical” parts of life through math physics and matter. From a jungian perspective that’s the collective unconscious, stories deeply ingrained inside of us. His whole biblical lectures was essentially jungian analysis of these profound stories and narratives we act out.
I don't think Peterson can make a pre-rational assertion on the existence of God, based on unverifiable belief. I guess I'm thinking of Wilber and his pre and trans rational fallacy or Jung's declaration of himself as a gnostic theist. There is belief, then there is a kind of agnostic openness and then there is a gnosis. I think Peterson is kind of in the middle.
I certainly appreciate the jungian perspective JP interprets into his own analysis. But within a collective unconscious, the instinctual and primal are first an individual trait. I'm not deep into Carl Jung, but if each individual is driven instinctually, then we have a lot of people needing moderation once the concept of community arises. But who is responsible for such?
I would say that the happiest people are often those who have no need for divinity. Spirituality on the other hand does not include a presupposition of religion, or even God-belief. One can certainly be spiritual without inculcating a specific religion or God within their personal domain. But pessimistically, most people don't think in terms of pure reason anyway, and so what is subjective but sensible, is often whatever the observant makes of their own nature.
The step into "it must be true" because of our perceptions and intuitions, and that it's a shared experience, excludes the necessity for a materialistic or empirical consideration. While I like the idea of a grand narrative, the truth of the matter may well be that of something far more basic, like biological imperatives overwriting or mapping onto our prefrontal cortex, giving rise to "God" and religiosity through an outward assertion of belief. It is quite easy to say this mapping is of a superior being. I think it is biology working to insure its replication and the need for self preservation.
In this particular instance, acting as if something is true only means one doesn't know, but accepts the narrative.
@@garyhome7101I rather think Peterson's issue is his over consideration of empiricism and materialism, primarily a kind a Darwinian worldview rejiged into Christian mythos. I mentioned it in my post, but in the Harris interview he states that something is true only if it serves some evolutionary goal.. to survive, prosper. The important biblical themes he gravitates to are all around biologically based.. what helped man survive, multiply and thrive materially. Truth is the last of his concerns, I mean in the way it might have been for Jesus and Christ, he's a true Nietzschian in that sense..
I tend to think belief is the lowest form of spirituality. As I was saying, the openness of agnosticism is at least a kind of not knowing about what we normally take ourselves to be. Socrates said, "I know that I don't know" Well, normally people think they know all kinds of things about themselves.. like their limitations, their mortality and so on and that would include a whole lot of materialist notions these days. Not knowing obviously means not knowing with absolute certainty any of that not just not knowing about God and whatever else. But there is openness. Being a gnostic theist like Jung said he was, well obviously that just means he claims to have had some degree of experiencial knowledge of what he considers divine, beyond mere belief.
I'm not sure Peterson's problem is a lack of materialist, or instinctual considerations. Didn't he state in the Harris debate that his only measure of truth is some kind of Darwinian consideration of survival. So in his view if something leads to survival, prosperity, status, respect or whatever.. then it's true. It seems the biblical stories he draws from only consolidate this biological reductionist worldview, it's not like he's some mystic likeJung. He's just trying to ground his more evolutionary considerations in a broader tradition or something. It's like a square peg in a round hole though.. I mean he describes himself as a pragmatist and certainly not an idealist.
So damn close to individuation.
thought this was a collab with brandon sanderson
Couldn't agree more
His flaw was materialism.
A bit silly to write someone off that quickly... Yes, he has changed... He's gotten older, comes across a little more bitter. His whole spiel is about self-correction, so let's see how he deals with global superstardom. And who says he set out to be a peacemaker, in the first place? In your mind Peterson may have created the pedestal, but it's you who put him on it.
incredible take! thank you!
What downfall?
I just do not see the fascination with JP. I think he's a ridiculous embarrassment. There's nothing profound there. He's preposterous
People who overrate his supposed profoundness are just as far off the mark as people who believe they could casually dismiss him. You can’t dismiss someone with a following as huge as Peterson. You can only choose to ignore him - at your own peril. Because that means you leave the field of the debate to him and his followers. Thus rendering them the “local” victors by default.
Most Americans think Hershey's is chocolate. It doesn't make it so. The volume of followers is not an indicator of his profundity. You can indeed dismiss him on the basis of his own words
@@kennybrhouston That’s just saying “I define you as irrelevant”; it’s telling, not showing, and it’s not going to convince anyone who follows him to stop supporting him. Like the mathematician who defines the tin as open but still doesn’t get any food from within it. Whether or not his words have intellectual merit, you can’t dismiss the practical relevance of his ideas. If you engage with them, you can counter them; if you decide to ignore his ideas, you surrender the field to him.
6:29 I had to stop because I haven't read Mistborn Saga, see you in a few months :P
Haha enjoy! You'll be glad you waited. No spoilers for second era so you just half half a million words to read 😆
@@TheLivingPhilosophy haha thanks man, I'm sure I'll enjoy it 👻
Peterson's tragedy is his recognition of his own (considerable!) cleverness, which he believes to be his super power and with which he can solve all problems encountered. This ability to infer hides from him his lack of access, through arrogance, or quite possibly laziness, to the material he needs to infer with. As a psychologist he is working from material that has been little updated by him since the eighties. He is working with psychological hypotheses from a bygone scientific age.
He became his own shadow, and projecting them to the world.
I was curious about Peterson in the beginning and very much enjoyed his classes when he taught at University, Call me ignorant if you like, but I still think he became a spectacle (including in Debord reference) long ago. Out of curiosity, narcissism doesn't figure into it?
He got auidence captured, i believe he thinks that he is selfless and doing it for the world.
Somebody said that the true magician/alchemist does not waste time in proving to others that he is the alpha and omega, yet people can tell they've turned their "Shadow into Light, Fear into Courage and Humanity into Divinity." Perhaps Peterson's feminine element represents The High Priestess; his inner child, The Fool, and his masculine element _______ (Magician/Hierophant/Emperor/etc)
This video is very well contracted and researched as always, I like your views on things like religions and philosophy even if I don't completely agree with you but I have one problem and that is don't use Taoism symbols for life and death because these symbols are very complex, I think well this is my perspective on the Novel Mistborn was taken from Iranian religions, especially Zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda and Ahriman that had influenced Judeo-Christian Myths about a morally Good God and an Evil God.
😆🤣😂
Great video, James!
I'll once again recommend the work of John Vervaeke as a continuation of Peterson's early work. If you mourn the loss of the old Peterson, you're in for a treat with JV!
perfectly sad, thank you for this video. I'm 47 and JP is representing to me everything I do not desire to become.
Excellent video thanks
Thank you.
I will read it. I am curious to see if behind the stains of ink that is obscene as any words only conceal by definition, there is the blood of his Youth. Stupid naivety being one of my sins, I believe that he is a man of spirit. Whether he has managed to kill it by insisting to be a Hero remains to be seen.
Excellent video! I wonder what the role of the media-scape is in all of this? How does one become massively popular on new media and retain a vestige of sanity?
so niche is worth quoting? what perfect logic do you use to avoid everything and comment on all things "where even angels dare not tread"
A man that warns others constantly about the perils of having a high intelligence, falling prey to the very Luciferian archetype he so violently warns about.
I will never not be grateful for all the things I've learned from him, and the profound effect it had on my life. And I hope that this part of him still lives somehwere inside of him, and that his legacy does not end as a cautionary tale, but as a Hero's Journey should. Coming back home, some day.
I'm only interested in Peterson because I believe his ideas could assist me in gaining status and attracting women.
This is a strange bit @@BipolarBear-tc5oe
Nice
That is some unexpected crossover
Jordan the poor lad may hold hope, i wonder with the time being
Oedipus Rex - picture perfect Tragic Hero
When will this book release?
I guess the saddest part about this timeline is that Jordan Peterson qualifies as someone worth these many words. He isn’t. He never was. We’re just surrounded by credulous idiots and thus network effect forces this otherwise mediocre intellect into relevance.
That is due to Jewish networking. There are no worthy modern intellectuals.
Trascendental means literally "above sentience". On the other hand,, immanent theology (vs. transcencental deity) means pleroma of sentience (advaita etc.) Emotional empathy is sentience. To become an empathy blocking monster psycopath, man blocks sentience and escapes into a transcendental thought experiment in which hurting Other does not hurt Self, in which hurt from love hurts less.
The theme of this video essay connects deeply what I've been thinking lately, what seems also rationally obvious. Metacognitive aboutness is about sentience, which metacognition considers "content". Yet, mereologicalle metacognition (which can trip abstract transcendence, solipsism etc.) is only part of sentience, nested in sentience, and by denying it's own participatory sentience becomes less aware.
Why is cognitive dissonance running so rampart nowadays? By his cautionary example, by his antiguru Fall, is JP teaching his most important lesson of ultimate self-sacrifice of becoming unaware?
I don't think I agree with it's contents but thanks for this text. It helped me expand my dictionary by a few new words. Although I would not, personally, use words such as "Metacognitive" as it sounds a lot like academic philosophy word salad to me.
@@developerdeveloper67 Yes, it's a very academic word. On the other hand "consciousness" has too wide and fuzzy meaning which fails to make the philosophically necessary distinction between sentience as such and the "aboutness-relation", which is less posh expression than "metacognition".
I don't care for Peterson; he may say inspiring things to people, but his opinions about women are head-turning. Enlightening video, and thank you.
Wonderful analysis thanks for posting ✌️
If you've heard of someone, you can be reasonably sure they're not the peacemaker.
I get your point but that’s not entirely true. Jesus, Buddha etc. were peacemakers, I guess, and they are extremely well known.
The crossover we never knew we needed
More more!
the correlation of low substance and high levels of mental masturbation comments hating on JP is just lol..... it seems all the philosophy majors are irritated by JP having gotten the public recognition they have been craving their whole life
I guess from my point of view if you strip away from JP his pretentious verbosity, his tendency to patch holes in his superficial knowledge with personal fabrications, and his proclivity to choose whatever position on whatever issue best suited to attracting the monetary support of his wealthy benefactors, there’s precious little left. He’s just not as interesting as he tries to sound.
JP rose to fame through being against the woke left, not siding with their speech policing.
That was fine and interesting, JP kept this interesting spectacle by knowing a thing or two about lobsters etc. Now he's preaching Christianity as an end all product which always was there. I don't think that does it for the everyday person, we'll see tho huh.
He's a poor man's Inane McGilchrist
Perhaps he isn't interesting to you, but there are people out there, particularly young men, who find his ideas valuable.
@@BipolarBear-tc5oe They “think” they find his views valuable.
Well, I guess he does have a strong point that masculinity isn't all toxic, or that from a Jungian point of view the feminine and the masculine both have toxic and benign qualities. That seems like an antidote to the kinds of messages they usually get.
Ok first let me say I enjoy your channel, and I enjoyed this video, however there are several fundamental errors in this, mostly in how and why one would engage in a fall arc, which is the best place to start.
First, despite what Aristotle said, that is not what a fall arc is. Now, back in his day, this made sense as narratives themselves where story driven, not to say character was not at play, however it was less about character dynamics and more about how they would push against the world. As such, the true definition of a fall arc, which is different than a negative flat arc, is that a character who puts the positive out in the world only to be met with increased amounts of negativity. A positive flat arc, like Captain America or Paddington, would maintain that level of positivity, however I do not disagree that Peterson does indeed have a politically driven fall arc, which in this redefinition holds true as it was his devotion to freedom and peace that created a force that worked against him that had him join with the other front in a defense. As such, it is not his power, but the power of others who drove him to that. I think we clearly see this in Mistborn.
To continue, this video postulates power as bad, and I would say it is indeed negative, and negative is not preferred, however negative is indeed the best defense against negativity, something Jordan has learned, not to make him right by any means, however to put forward the idea of peace, one must recognize that war is the best way to stop those who would declare war on peace. You address this yourself. This creates an issue as negativity is messy and create trauma that moves from individual to societal to generational. Now is Jordan's or Daily Wires even, activities going to do anything more than play into the bipedal system that walks America in place? Absolutely not. However, I think it is important to see the fully reality of Peterson's situation in how we can see everyone's.
So what is the solution? I believe the solution is communication, a longer discussion to be had of course. However this is why seeing the full picture is so essential, because only through understanding can this take place. The ridiculous side of the right and how they push against the left, which is in no better a place in morals, ethics, or intelligence, is merely to get involved to keep beliefs that they do not agree with at bay.
To be clear, I do not believe that any philosopher worth their salt may have political beliefs, as that dilutes any sense of philosophy, but that is merely my opinion. We clearly have a more left leaning belief system with Wilbur, however he does not maintain political beliefs. However, as someone who is interested in peace, and studies from a very...unique angle, while I do not contain Peterson's actions, I do think that to believe that peace can be achieved without war is a bit naive. Though I cannot be sure with what I study. Though I do see that Peterson, who championed freedom, was pushed back against, which led to him choosing a side.
As a conclusion, I think that peace requires two things: communication to understand others, and influence to show them their own path but without the negativity that they adapted in defense of the negativity of others. However, only through a nearly perfect system of this communication can war be avoided, and even then, pride is strong. There is a lot of questions to be asked in the near future, and it is a shame to loose Peterson to a side, however there are many who know this truth and we will see if they are enough to bring the peace we fight for.
The man who defends GOD and the British Empire without blushing...he has been a british agent from the start...thats why he was in all media owned by the enemies of everything that's good, pure and just.
I’ve never heard this take before, and to be completely honest it sounds like bullshit. Why British?
@@NegativSpace-pd6cz If its bullshit, dont ask. Thanks for your class.
😃
@@maxaval1240 I said it sounds like bullshit, I’m willing to stand corrected.
British agent 😂😂😂 yeah bullshit
By far my favourite channel
Such great insights & excellently edited videos
Wish you only posted more but quality above quantity
JP is not who you think he is.
I think he's a Time Lord because he has started dressing like Sylvester McCoy's version of Dr. Who.
I heard that Peterson said this during the tour for his new book: “I came here to kick postmodernists and chew bubblegum… and I’m all out of bubblegum”.
Nobody is.
Never thought much of JP now I know why
hmmm4_4 Goood show kinda nice