Jordan Peterson’s Sophomoric Attack on Ayn Rand
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 май 2024
- In this special episode of New Ideal Live, Onkar Ghate and Ben Bayer offer the Ayn Rand Institute’s response to Jordan Peterson’s recent attack on Ayn Rand on his podcast of November 16, 2023.
Among the topics covered:
● Peterson’s recent anti-Enlightenment conservative activism;
● Why Rand’s view of self-interest is not hedonistic but values-based;
● How Peterson argues for collectivism from the non-existence of an enduring self;
● How Peterson sells collectivism by packaging sacrifice with individual responsibility;
● Peterson’s impoverished view of the free market (and of science);
● His shallow reading of Rand’s characters as shallow.
Mentioned in this podcast and relevant to the discussion was Atlas Shrugged, free copies of which readers can order here (aynrand.org/atlas-shrugged/).
The podcast was recorded on November 17, 2023.
0:00:00 Introduction
0:01:11 Peterson’s anti-Enlightenment
0:03:35 Rand’s view of self-interest
0:14:13 Peterson’s views of self and collectivism
0:23:38 Packaging sacrifice with responsibility
0:38:51 Peterson’s impoverished view of free market
0:49:12 Peterson’s on Rand’s characters 
Развлечения
The dystopia Ayn Rand describes in Atlas Shrugged is becoming a reality.
True
Good thing some Hero's refuse to Strike. Until they leave for Mars...
Yes and no, some things were more bad back in the day. There is still a way forward. 😊
I saw a yacht in Fort Lauderdale named Rearden Steel. Impressive. And no, his last name is not Steel.
@@Mytimenow123z- "Remington Reardon Steel" -my first sons name.... 😂😂😂
All attackers must distort Rand's words before they can attack her philosophy, JP is no exception.
Dogma
When you assert that anyone who disagrees with Rand does so by distorting her position, that tells me you have stepped into a cult-like mindset.
@@RCFrizzI think there can be honest disagreements with Rand, even if those disagreements are false. I’m curious, what’s your attack on her philosophy?
@@RCFrizz Not when we can articulate said distortion.
@@sybo59 it's not a philosophy, it's just an attempt at justifying infantile greed.
7:38 "She assumes that self-interest is the appropriate governing principle", she doesn't assume anything JP. "She never really defines what constitutes self-interest" Absolutely dishonest.
This is the first time I've heard someone accuse rand of being too brief lol.
It's funny to hear JBP go on and on for two hours reading into bible stories what they never intended to convey. But is cognitively incapable of picking up an overarching theme that was implicit and intended throughout an entire complex storyline.
@@jj4791 Great point. Just another level of dishonesty on his part.
@@jj4791 Man has the free will power to focus or evade. This is independent of culture, IQ or education. JP evades and rationalizes evasion.
@@jj4791It wasn't implicit. It was head-through-the-windshield explicit and said verbatim ad nauseum in her fiction and non-fiction. The distinction is literally the first sentence of "Virtue of Selfishness".
I was expecting an overreaction to something Jordan said, but his characterization of Rand’s standard is just bizarre. Rand was quite clear about defining man’s self interest in terms of his entire life…not some product of short term gratification. I’m not an Objectivist and have zero need to go to bat for Rand, but Jordan’s take is indistinguishable from a naive sophomore in college. For a man who’s earned a reputation for an appreciation of nuance, this is an antithetical head-scratcher. And he’s read it more than twice?
All attackers must distort Rand's words before they can attack her philosophy, JP is no exception.
I don't think that the Peterson from a few years ago would have the confidence to attack Rand in this manner. He is bolstered by a huge following and people telling him how he has affected their miserable lives to be less miserable. What he doesn't have is any more insight into Rand than he did then - he just feels more stridently that his view is correct.
@@matthewstroud4294 I've on occasion watched some of his "interviews" when the guests seem interesting enough, but in most cases, it is Peterson himself who does most of the talking when asking a question which turns into an incoherent 5 minute rant, then followed by a 1 minute "i completely agree" type of answer, no doubt because the person being interviewed is baffled by the "brilliance" of his word salade and has no idea how to respond to it. It's no wonder he gains confidence, he's hardly ever challenged on his worldview anymore. To be fair, i can't blame him from the position he is in. Objectivism as well had their chance. Yaron, Onkar, Salmieri all that the opportunity to intellectually spar with him in the past.
@@matthewstroud4294you should have said " miserable 'little' lives.. let's keep things in their place shall we?
@@matthewstroud4294 I'm sure he would have had the confidence. She was already dead. He wouldn't want to come up against a live Ayn Rand, now or then. Just my theory.
Yes, these are the kinds of misrepresentations of Objectivism I could have refuted easily in my first month of being an Objectivist, and I've been one since 1985. If you are careful with holding people to the meanings of their words, you'll find yourself saying to Peterson, "Back up there, dude. Here is what you just said..." Peterson's pushback on Objectivism is embarrassingly bad, and he digs himself into a deep hole with some of these formulations.
My take on JP from what I have seen of him is that he is a Post-Modernist masquerading as a proponent of Reason.
Dr. Peterson's misunderstanding of Ayn Rand is difficult to watch. I knew he disagreed. I supposed Rand's atheism is part of that. But his argument is so full of holes and misrepresentations as to disappoint me greatly.
seems dr peters is not as good as he portrays to be
If one believes that an imaginary "benevolent" tyrant in the sky -- or out in space, in another dimension, wherever one wishes to hide the fact that "He" does not exist in any form -- created reality and rules it according to "His" whim, and one holds this fantasy as a necessary validation of oneself, then the sort of nonsense which characterizes Peterson's attack on Rand is only to be expected.
@@LakevusParadicePortrayed by whom exactly? Name names.
@@Libertariun himself. Or pretty much anything you see about this guy paints him as the father of the world at this point. Sort of like bill gates had going for him for a while.
But it seems clear to me that Jordan is not the as good of an image as he portrays to be.
@@LakevusParadice JP is in love with the sound of his own voice. Be wary of people who get some attention and suddenly have opinions about 'everything'. When someone asks you about something that you don't know much about the correct answer is 'I don't know.' When you see someone veering away from that it is usually a bad sign.
I don't always agree with what ARI does, but this response was very necessary, good on you for defending Rand against such an obvious straw man position such as presented by Peterson.
JP's view of Rand would get a F on a freshman philosophy test. You must always make steelman arguments for judging.
I was gob-smacked and dismayed by JP's assessment of Ayn Rand. I was then appalled when his podcast guest, Kevin Roberts - Heritage Foundation CEO, agreed. Quite bizarre. However, so glad to see this quick and comprehensive response. I hope JP sees this. A debate on this between JP and the Ayn Rand Institute would be interesting!
> I was gob-smacked
Try wellness therapy.
> gob-smacked and dismayed
Both at the same time?!
I would like to say thank you for the interesting talk. I think it was very useful for better understanding Ayn Rand. Great job!
Peterson has characterised that people in general, maybe including himself, have no moral compass. Then, doing as you please becomes hedonism. With a moral compass, one does what one thinks is right. That is the freedom for which we can strive.
Jordan Peterson's take: The novel Atlas Shrugged as explained by Floyd Ferris.
There is something very sad about seeng an old man with a smart face eloquently uttering complete bs and honestly believing it.
Given Peterson's intelligence, his claiming that he reads Atlas Shrugged "every 15 years", and his having been on a discussion panel with ARI scholars, he could only be honestly believing what he says about Ayn Rand's philosophy if he's (compartmentally) insane.
Before every clip ended, Onkar and Ben took a shot and a long drag from a cig and wondered "How are her critics STILL this bad?"
I can’t help but remember:
“If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
“Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,”
Long before he became a public figure Peterson often revealed his malevolent universe premise in his recorded UofT lectures.
On the notion of "family lineage as a collective," consider that both Dagny & Francisco sought to rebuild or enhance the respective businesses that were created by the earlier figureheads of the Taggart & D'Anconia families! They chose to do it, not by an obligation to the family collective but because they recognized the real-world value their (recent) ancestors had created and to make it their own achievement to exceed their ancestors' vision.
Good. Ayn Rand is antifragile. Any discussion of her--positive or negative--only serves to increase awareness. Good job on the response, though. You guys are a big part of the strength.
Great job Onkar and Ben! 👏🏻
Very nice presentation!
And I just learned what "sophomore" and "sophomoric" is, including its etymology. I'm Greek, not a native speaker of English...
After watching hours of interviews with Ms. Rand I’m certain that JP has very little true insights on Objectivism and the philosophy set forth by Ayn Rand. I do not enjoy JPs points of view on any topic and do not follow him.
I'm glad someone made this video.
There were some poorly made clips from years back comparing the two. I considered makes a parallel of the two and show he is in fact the opposite of rational.
Omni-intellectualism is the term, I think, that describes the behavior of a person who happens to be an expert in one specific fields, but experiences a need to express his/her opinion on literary everything else.
I use the term pseudo intellectual for that.
Peterson’s hot takes are rarely on point
Thomas Sowell calls them "the Anointed", that is, egomaniac people who excel at their specific profession (mostly in the fields of liberal arts) and self-aggrandize themselves to be (demi)gods.
@@AkiraNakamoto I recently discovered Thomas Sowell and have so far finished Economic Facts and Fallacies, which was excellent. In Objectivism the practice is called compartmentalizing and failing to integrate all of your knowledge into a non contradictory whole.
Bar drunk is the term.
Atlas. It never sounded like my cup of tea but your discussion was enough to convince that maybe a few sips would be good.
If Jordan really is the deep collectivist, it's time to be more wary in the future.
Great talk.
You should invite Peterson to discuss your issues with his analysis.
But would he understand it/?
he would make statements that you can't really prove/disprove rather than talk honest and straight @@tomburroughes9834
This was such a clear strawman on his part. I'm shocked. I suppose he is too scared to look into the objective reality. His mysticism does not allow that.
JP strikes me as an increasingly dishonest thinker. I am glad I never bought into the fandom around this man.
It would be really shocking if someone actually criticized her work who didn't strawman it. I've yet to come across such a criticism.
Nice.
a good video would be
Call him out to respond.
Jordan Peterson reminds me of a Monty Python movie character. Has anyone watched "A fish named Wanda"?
He's just like Otto, who reads Nietsche, but doesn't understand it.
Not really: I expected Jordan Person
@@SpacePatrollerLaser Well played.
@@cas343 I will NEVER forget "NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition" for my entire life. Still, I wonder what Odysseeus' reaction to it was
@@SpacePatrollerLaser This time I expected them.
Having known and spent time with Ayn Rand PERSONALLY, I can tell JP he is totally misunderstanding her on SELFISHNESS, the very point I debated so many students at SF State (then) College (64-66) who insisted on the narcissistic interpretation of the word. Ayn DELIBERATELY deployed that word for the evocative effect she KNEW it would have.
good comment!
Rand wasn't solely playing for effect in using "Selfishness". As used in our culture the concept blurs together things that are not alike, creating a cognitive toxin that pollutes any thinking done with it. Rand knew that cutting right to that issue would serve to clarify a great deal not only with regard to ethics but also in alerting people to the way that a malformed concept can ruin your thinking.
"Narcissistic interpretation" brings in the implication that it's just a matter of agreement about meaning, and this is not the main issue. The main issue is: does the concept unite instances that share the same distinguishing characteristics? If not, then it is invalid as a tool of cognition, and it must be corrected or ejected from use because otherwise it will interfere with clear thinking.
@@AndSendMeYours might be the best comment I've seen on an intellectual subject. Rand's unacceptance of terms as commonly defined was brilliant in my opinion. She analyzed the definition of terms with extreme thoroughness which for me made understanding her ideas as clear as a bell.
She proposed a new definition for the terms left wing and right wing that I consider genius. I imagine you've already discovered it and if so I'm curious what you think of it?
@@mikeb5372 Thanks for your comment. I am aware of her thinking on "right" vs. "left" and "conservatism" vs. "liberalism" (much of which you can see at the Lexicon site). The right particularly has morphed quite a bit since her descriptions of it in the '70s, although her analysis of 'conservatism' is still very clarifying as an explanation for how they got to their current mess. Greg Salmieri gave a great talk on the political spectrum which is on this channel titled "Politics, Liberty and Objectivism".
Using "selfishness" is certainly more provocative, but I think it leads to common misconceptions of her meaning. I always have to explain that IMO a better term is rational self-interest.
Spending time with her must have been enlightening. Care to expound on some of your experiences?
JP would be fine if he wasn't so bent on forcing God to be the ultimate justification.
No he wouldn't. The single and only reason he has not off'd himself is because he innately believes there is a God who will judge him after death.
He has said on no uncertain terms on two different podcasts that suicide is the only rational action a person can perform, when taking everything he believes about misery, suffering and self-sacrifice into account. He shares similar or identical viewpoints with my own father, who is a very intelligent, yet misguided, christian pastor.
It's all lies, the bible, it leads to self loathing, apathy and despair for self and for the family for which they profess to love. Happiness is outlawed, and the only way out of the apocalyptic war on self, is death.
But they, christians, love their family like god loved his... John 3:16 "For god so loved his son, that he gave..."
oh, wait. It doesn't say that at all. God killed his own son to appease his own anger at the world he himself created predisposed to disobey himself even though he is omnipotent, omniscience, omni whatever they claim about him. And therefore guilty of being the author and creator of sin and evil himself.
@@jj4791 >God.... guilty of being the author and creator of sin and evil himself.
Theres not much to do in Heaven. No nightclubs, no cable TV, no WiFi, no pizza. God gets bored, like an indoor cat that chews your furniture. Hes gotta cut loose every once in a while and smite somebody.
Thunder is God laughing at his own absurdity.
This has increasingly been JP's MO. He misses the point and then goes off on word salad diatribes.
Great video! Thanks for doing it❤
Excellent discussion. Even though I appreciate Jordan Peterson, he gets lots of stuff wrong. He got famous for taking on the left and is certainly brilliant but philosophically often wrong.
Jordan read the book. He got triggered by the adultery and now he's responding emotionally.
I used to think JP is smart until Matt Dillahunty crashed his flawed epistemology.
Maybe he meant intellectual hedonism, if there is such a thing.
I stopped trusting Jordan Peterson a few months ago, when I realiized how calculating and cunning he is when he speaks (at first it seems as if he is only being cautious and thoughtful).
underrated comment
He's either mildly interesting or bullshitting. Some people are enthralled by him. 🙄
He meant what it means, seeking personal pleasure.
It's just that self-interest does not rule it out, and usually it boils down to it.
He didn't say that is what Rand thought, that's what those two guys pretend he said, wrongly.
And then they avoid the question of what is self-interest, instead giving something about happiness. But even then, it does not rule it out. It's possible to seek pleasure rationally if one wants. Lots of followers of Rand are hedonists for a reason.
Please get Yaron on Jordan Peterson's show. I can't take this.
bad idea - one shouldn't debate people who do not agree on essentials. IMO
I wish he and Greg had done some long form discussion a few years ago. I think we’re probably past any chance out utility for that now
Maybe this whole issue is similar to the title and ideas behind it, for 1981 the Crosby book "The art of getting your own sweet way (While everyone around you is glad that things are going so well for you!)" Both that book AND Atlas Shrugged are favorites of mine. Maybe some folks got the wrong idea about Atlas Shrugged from a phrase somewhat popular at the time: "I read Atlas Shrugged and then I shrugged".
Thank you very much for this quick and thorough response. I have a very superficial understanding of objectivism, but was shocked and confused by the portrayal of Rand and her philosophy in the podcast, and wondered if there was something I missed in my (long ago and casual) reading of Atlas. I expected such takeaways from the Heritage Foundation, but not from Peterson, with whose views of personal responsibility, finding meaning in shouldering the weight of working tirelessly toward an ideal, and the rationality of playing the game that enables one to keep playing, I would have considered Rand's rational self-interest to be, not the same, but certainly compatible. Again, this is from a very superficial understanding of objectivism, which may well be as flawed as Peterson's (mea culpa).
I (still) consider myself a bit of a Peterson fan, although I was never one of the ones who consider him or his opinions infallible. Despite all that I think he does get right and the good that he has done, there is a lot of small-l-leftism in him (I honestly would peg him as very close to neocon, politically), he is remarkably weak on economics, and his perception of the free market remains nearly pure caricature.
Well said. Thanks.
This is easy. Peterson wants God. Never have i seen the tortured dance like his. He must put Ayn Rand behind him.
I could not have put it better. Spot on.
The contradiction which must be raised: How is it that JP is ratcheting up the laments against hedonism while wearing ever nicer suits?
Good one. Really good. Like women lefties performing in all their finery.
Thanks!
JP seems to be completely dismissive of the idea that a desire to seek the truth and be a good person doesn't have to come from external religion or some "logos", but is a natural end for humans who want to flourish to the full. Aristotle and the better other ancient Greek thinkers knew this and explained it centuries ago. What I find telling is that JP rarely refers to Aristotle and the idea of goodness and happiness being part of the same state, of happiness as being about living a full and rational life, not just blind hedonism. I watched this discussion a second time and my appraisal of JP is that he has gone down a bad path. He's surrounded by people who don't challenge him very seriously.
Prior to this, JP has never demonstrated that he understands objectivism, so it comes as no surprise that he does it again. What is truely staggering is that he uses his 3 readings of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged as some kind of positive evidence. Rather it's disturbing that this is the case as so much straw is coming out from his collar and vest🤔
I'm not an objectivist but respect steel man arguments.
The woke movement is not in the least egalitarian. It's dedicated to privileging some groups over others. Liberalism aims to overcome oppression, but wokism seeks to maintain it, and simply to invert the players.
By “egalitarianism,” they mean equality of outcome. See the Ayn Rand Lexicon on this term for more context.
@@exaltyourself5553 Woke Marxism does not want equality of outcome, either, though. The goal is to privilege a class defined as oppressed class at the expense of the class defined as its oppressor. For example, they don't want equality of outcome for Israeli Jews and Gaza residents, but rather cheer for destruction of the former.
Thanks for the clarification on what is meant by this term in this context.
@@VesnaVKThat IS egalitarianism and Rand means way more than equality of outcome
"I don't think there is any difference in a game theory perspective of the collective that is you across time and other people so I think enlightened self interest and social interest are exactly the same thing and I don't think that Rand understood that". But Rand is not viewing the self from a "game theory perspective", and it's not clear exactly what that even means.
It means nothing. Peterson is attempting to convince irrational people that the person they are today is being altruistic by working for the betterment of the person they will be tomorrow, which he PRETENDS will be a different person. YOU don't believe that any more than Peterson believes that.
Why would ANYONE strive for tomorrow's success at the cost of joy and fulfillment today if they truly believed the benefit would be enjoyed, not by themselves, but by some anonymous stranger that looked like an older version of themselves. It is utter BS and has destroyed ANY respect I previously held for him.
@@johnnynick3621 That is an abysmally bad argument on his part. Even Kant seemed to consider personal continuity to be a postulate of practical reason.
Maybe read about it?
Basically if you consider your self as different than your future self. What you give now, you will get back later. So it's a form of cooperation with yourself.
It's the same with others. When you cooperate and others do as well in a just society that promotes cooperation like capitalism, usually you get better returns than just being selfish. The selfish person will end up less successful.
It's proven mathematically, so there is no need to argue this.
In other words, you have to invest in other people and it's a better form of selfishness.
Ayn Rand didn't get that.
FYI: the free copy only includes the first chapter. For the rest it requests a school name and level so only seemingly for students. I already own a hard copy so I don't care but it might put some others off as a sort of bait and switch. If this is incorrect, feel free to correct me.
Great talk, but I would have appreciated it much more if you would have first laughed out loud for a few seconds after each clip, and then proceeded to calmly explain all of the ways that he was mischaracterizing, misinformed, package dealing, etc. 😉
I wonder, could any kind of rational comparison be made between Mr. Peterson and Mr. Ellsworth Toohey?
I think you’re right there
This was a very good summary of Jordan Petersons's confusion regarding understanding the philosophies and novels of Ayn Rand. I have not regarded Peterson as an interlectual giant. More a right wing nutter. I'm aware that for the purpose of limiting the length of this video you had to speed up his video. Nonetheless I usually find his manner (particularly his voice) unpleasant. Finally, I see him as a media junkie who has written some highly overated self help books.
Some people read the book as a story - just a novel without comprehending the underlying principles - root cause for this is their underlying prejudices.
Onkar has captured it quite well.
One needs to have an uncompromising intellectual integrity to appreciate the underlying principles in the book.
Dr Micheal Sandel's book tyranny of Merit reminded me Dr Simon Perchart (hopefully I have spelled his name correctly)
Similarly Peterson's remarks remind me of Elseworth Toohey in The Fountainhead
Its Simon Pritchett
My Grandmother gave me a copy of Atlas when I was 25. I started reading it as just another novel. I got really angry because the heroes held ideas that were antithetical to how I was raised in the Methodist Church. I remember getting so angry late one night reading it that I threw it across the room against the wall. But, I couldn't put it down. When I finished, I vowed that I would prove the ideas in the book wrong. But Rand won. I couldn't prove them wrong. After a year I vowed that I would learn her philosophy fully.
Jordan regards Rand’s view of self-interest as “doing whatever the hell you want” because the heroes don’t have unchosen duties and unchosen values.
It's a subtle nuance but Peterson's point really resonated with me with the difference of voluntarily picking up a load versus having it unwittingly hoisted onto you.
Ayn had it all figured out. The most sublime, inspiring definition of proper man that anyone has ever articulated. One is not alive fully until they hear her articulate what our existence yearns for; what our lives mean. I do think it might have helped had she coined the "virtue of self-interest", instead of "selfishness", although I don't think the objections to her, are products of sincere human minds. So that probably would not matter. But the foundations of the morality I taught my children were explicitly the virtue of self-interest, and that is exactly what I demanded from my kids, as recompense for my service to their self-interest. And their obligation to teach their children as much. The fastest way to a better world is the morality of self-interest. In fact, it is the only way to a better world.
Her philosophy was rooted in Objectivism. Objectivism emphasizes individualism, self-interest, and laissez-faire capitalism. Rand advocated for the pursuit of one's own happiness & rejected altruism. Her works, such as "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead," explore these philosophical ideas. Her philosophy oversimplifies complex social issues & rejects the importance of collective responsibility.
there is no such thing as collective responsibility .
@@Mr.Witness Except in his unfocused mind.
To exclude the importance of property rights and independence is to nullify every view on a righteous society.
Atlas Shrugged is a big book & took me quite some time to read. Which makes me wonder… why on Earth would someone repeatedly read such a lengthy, philosophically flawed, shallow, hedonistic & morally distasteful cowboy adventure?
It’s interesting that Peterson ‘casually’ brings up Ayn Rand in the first place, only to dismiss her life’s work out of hand. Coming from someone who uses language precisely & with intention, the phrase ‘Ayn Rand _assumes_ …’ is particularly interesting & the first in a number of sly digs. What is Peterson’s intention when he claims that ‘Ayn Rand does not define self-interest?’ Are we really to believe Peterson is unaware that this concept is at the heart of much of her writing? Moreover, the idea that there are metaphysical constraints on what constitutes a person’s self-interest is central to Objectivism. Yet, according to Peterson, Ayn Rand & her heroes ‘do not understand this.’
Yes, everything Peterson says about the free market is B.S. (& just so happens to be a cue to misrepresent Ayn Rand once again) but are we to believe that Peterson is genuinely ignorant on every single one of these points?
My suspicion is that Peterson is an intelligent, politically minded Conservative who often communicates subliminally; who understands deeply that Ayn Rand represents the antithesis & enemy of his own philosophy. He is not merely mistaken, but rather he is using language dishonestly to discredit Ayn Rand whose ideas he recognises as the main threat. The claim that he likes to read her once in a while allows people to buy into his ‘objectivity.’
👍 from northern germany
I would be interested in these two interviewing Jordan Peterson in person on this subject.
Excellent analysis. Jordan Peterson's work, despite his seemingly pro-Western rhetoric, is the most sophisticated anti-Western ideological subversion.
The problem with altruists is that they criticize Rand’s rationally selfish-based morality from an emotional perspective because using reason to do so would automatically lead them to the rejection of their own irrationally selfless-based morality. And because altruistic persons are not ready mentally to accept their own personal responsibility of their own mind and the manifestations of it, they do not seek to correct the faults of their own collective thought process. Therefore they must always seek and find a ruler to submit to who will take personal responsibility off them in exchange for the forfeit of their individual rights by way of consensus. Because they are willing to forfeit their rights, naturally, they simultaneously forfeit their vote (opinion) for freedom because they are not self-confident enough to challenge their own collective-based mind that is apart of imaginary society in which everyone must conform to and accept the duty of sacrificing themselves as individual thinkers to submitting to the cookie cutter societal philosophy. They want to avoid responsibility in hopes someone else within the collective will be penalized more severely than them, again, since they do not accept the personal self-responsibility that would be demanded of them if they embraced the philosophy of reason.
If Peterson thinks suffering is so wonderful, then why did he flyaway to a questionable Russian clinic when no doctor in the US or Canada would put him in an induced coma to sleep out his benzo withdrawal.
There is nothing respectable about Jordan Peterson He has long history of misrepresenting things to the point of total fabrication and making obviously false claims.
His daughter is no better Mikhaila had cosmetic surgery and claimed she fixed the focal length of her camera and this is just how she looks in real life. Strange how every other camera had the same problem but thankfully she must have fixed all the cameras on earth so we can all see her true beauty. If she is willing lie like this why would anyone believe that she’s eaten nothing but beef for six years or any of the claims she’s made about her medical history.
JP is definitely not being honest here, and i am pretty sure he is lying most of the time.
He’s being dishonest or doesn’t know
I’m very fortunate I picked up Ayn Rand at age 25 and started applying principle….
Yup.
Some time ago I thought to myself that Peterson was inclined to lie or at the very least exaggerate when he said in an interview that the reason he takes so long when he writes was that he re-reads every line at least 50 times to see whether it could be said in a better way.
Somehow I couldn’t accept that as literal.
I think that if there were a choice between Ayn Rand and Ellsworth Toohey, Jordan Peterson would prefer Toohey. JP's worldview is of an ever-expanding community, obedient and miserable, in thrall to a leader who understands very well that he can only lead if his subjects think that to be obedient is to have faith, and that faith is a virtue.
Interestingly, the word "islam" translates to "submission." To submit is to obey, and obedience is considered a virtue. I am called "infidel" because, as an atheist, I am free of faith tied to any obligation to obey blindly - to submit, i.e, to surrender my will to the will of another - to the tenets of any religious faith.
Peterson prefers submission to independence in the realm of community. IMO he thinks it as impossible to form a community of independent individuals as would be the herding of cats.
That's where misery comes in. Misery loves company, and that's basically what community is, n'est-ce pas?
Very well said, Hollis. Peterson is actually a religionist, as are most conservatives today. So-called progressives are also religionists, but of a different breed. Instead of genuflecting to a supernatural deity, they worship the collective; equality; the underdog; anti-rationality; etc.
Yes, there is a competition on now for who will be the Right's Ellsworth Toohey. Peterson will have to overtake Dennis Prager.
Wonderfully stated.
@@johnbwill Thank you. On rereading it, I think so, too.
Two main key words jump out at me from Ayn Rand. Individual and Value. Everything is based on value, especially in capitalism. We as individuals are always evaluating things to determine value.
Yes, his characterization of Ayn Rand was sophomoric. The cool thing about Dr. Peterson, unlike a lot of influential intellectuals, is that he's actually open to disagreement. He is capable of admitting when he's been wrong. You have to take the effort to convince him of it, but it can be done. Most other public intellectuals these days aren't capable of that, they just double down and ignore contrary evidence or logic.
That said, it's understandable that Objectivists feel compelled to defend Rand and her work, because few academics take her work seriously. I personally experienced significant disapprobation for even mentioning her as a graduate philosophy student, so I get it. The casual dismissal of her work is tragic and maddening, especially considering its relevance in this present day with global collectivism on the rise. But the problem is exacerbated by the thin skin of Rand's modern champions.
You might defend Objectivism more effectively if you were able to own up to its flaws and acknowledge Rand's own personal faults. Then you could spend more time advancing what is right about Objectivism, illustrating its pertinence, and less time being butt-hurt and defensive about perceived personal slights against Rand.
You guys should challenge JP to a real debate about Rand.
Put Jordan Peterson on… I would love to hear the discussion between you guys.
What about the Fountainhead architect "hero" burning the entire building because his plans were altered against the agreement? Sure he had a legit issue, but destroying the building? That strikes me as fundamentalist and destructive as opposed to productive.
It seems to demonstrate how Objectivism lacks an appreciation or even a coherent concept of social consciousness. Sure, it's the battleground of propaganda and psychological manipulation, but human beings are that way whether you like it or not......
There is also an unabridged audio book of Atlas Shrugged.
Life is the platform on which you build meaning and purpose. It does not have meaning or purpose beyond the basic purpose that is concurrent with biology.
I think the core of a bad reading of Ayn Rand, especially about her fictional characters, is that many new readers really have a very bad psychology and philosophical influences. For such people, the work required to understand the material would strongly resemble the hard work of therapy and reform. Much education is required.
Peterson may not have represented Rand's ideas correctly, but that still does not invalidate the fact that Rand's worship of reason was quite irrational (ironically enough). Reason is of course necessary, but it is far from sufficient. And that is Peterson's point. Now, I do not agree with Peterson that all this necessarily points towards religion, but still, he is closer to the truth than Rand ever was.
Jordan Peterson's Christian fundamentalist position doesn't disappoint in showing his altruistic views. I wonder if he's read any of the other works by Ayn Rand.
Peterson, a fundie? Please.
He probably skimmed through 'Atlas Shrugged' and maybe the Fountainhead. Most Conservatives haven't red Rand. It's apparent whenever they talk about what she wrote. ✌🤟🖖😎
@@williamduffy1227 Nonsense. The vast majority of Rand's readers are conservatives or libertarians of one stripe or another. Few of her fans ever 'convert' to Objectivism, so to speak.
At any rate, calling Jordie Memerson a, "Christian fundamentalist" is deranged hyperbole. There's a reason why you people are to the right what tankies are to the left.
I vaguely remember every moment of "hedonism" in Atlas shrugged coming alongside a disclaimer that they were purposely choosing to relax and enjoy the moment, prior to going right back to work. A break solely for the sake of recharging is not maintainable to the hedonistic man. I should know 🤣
but, to be fair to JP - I do agree with Kierkegaard, who claims there is such a thing as intellectual hedonism. Which Dagny, Francisco, & Hank could potentially fall under. I would have to go read how exactly Kierkegaard defines intellectual hedonism.
What is the objectivist view of hedonism?
"She never clarifies what she means by selfishness..."
1) he might have reread Atlas, but he 'skipped the 60- page boring sermon....' [hilarious irony]
2) he somehow avoided Miss Rand's treatise on the subject "The Virtue of Selfishness," wherein she defines it IN THE INTRODUCTION.
I'm so sick and tired of people misrepresenting Rand. Clearly, she meant something different than the host meant when she used the term self-interest. It wasn't an anything-goes proposition. Then there will be a bunch of second-handed people watching this who are fans of Peterson, who will then write off Rand and not look into her work because Peterson and the host said these things about her work. When you have as large of a following as Peterson does, I think you don't have a right to be so sloppy. It never changes, though. They have to misrepresent her to criticize her.
Everything changed for JP when he got under Shepiro umbrella.
The idea of selfishness in Ian's philosophy and the idea selflessness in the ideas of Christianity are at odds with one another.
As a huge fan o JBP and Ayn too, I honestly got dissapointed yesterday and waited for your reaction. Thanks for that. Ayn 1:0 JBP.
Anyway, its not about winning. I like this discussion, hopefully JBP give it a shot and, accept it and change his view 👍🏼
For those who actually want to understand what was really said, I suggest you watch the original Peterson video and draw your own conclusions
Seems the basic aspects of Rand are
1. No use of force
2. Relationships mutually beneficial
3. There is a reality (no “my truth”)
Her comment on many not worthy of love from Carson and Wallace might be severe - seems she actually means everyone can be worthy of someone’s love - but certainly not worthy of everyone’s love and no one’s property or life without voluntary consent of the other.
Michael Malice tried to straighten him out in a recent interview, with limited success. It's kinda hard to watch Michael explain it like to a 5 YO & Dr. JP barely able to keep up.
To borrow a phrase from Rand, i don't think Peterson is suffering from blindness, but a refusal to see.🤷
🍻🇺🇸
P.s. Don't tell me Malice isn't an Objectivist. I know that.
At least he understands what Rand was trying to say.
This was a very enlightening overview of Jordan Peterson's frequent criticism of Ayn Rand. I think that he feels a deep antipathy towards her, and a lot of fear. I have learned a great deal from him on many topics, but he repeatedly resorts to mysticism and now seems bent on leading his followers to God. I find his slippery use of concepts such as "sacrifice" to be highly evasive at best. I believe he was seventeen when a librarian recommended Ayn Rand to him. She cautioned him to tone down his positive response with warnings about her political views. I wonder if Ayn Rand's influence on his early moral development left a permanent need to repudiate her. As for so many people, the hardest part of atheism is letting down one's parents, especially if they are good people who are religious. Peterson's salt-of-the-earth Dad and his mother are both religious. He loves them. Now his beloved wife is becoming a Catholic, and his daughter has also become a Christian. What pressure!
He is also cursed with an extremely dark sense of life, including severe depression and a tendency towards guilt. Ayn Rand created a self full of joy and the conviction that the pursuit of happiness is real and that we can achieve it through reason alone. Her enlightened sense of life is diametrically opposed to Peterson's and he knows it.
My brain hurt with the second clip.
I'm a fan of both Peterson and Rand and I have to agree that Peterson makes his judgment based on the standard "agreed by historic consensus" view of selfishness. I could argue that Randy's proposal of a new definition of selfishness may not come across so clear in her novels, even less so if people are not aware of what to look for. Anyone simply reading the novels without reading the Virtue of Selfishness before will most probably not see it.
Its dripping from every single page.... and explicitly stated in Galts speech
@@Mr.Witness my ultimate point is that no matter how explicit it is, if whoever sees it, interprets it through the standard framework (for the concept of selfishness in this case) will hardly realize what is really being talked about.
In order to understand that a whole new framework is being used and proposed, one has to either be very attentive and open to new perspectives, so as to put themselves that question when reading or be already aware of Rand's proposed reframing of selfishness (previous reading of philosophy books or Virtue of Selfishness).
@@MrReubenTishkoff disagree , one just had to be active minded. The story itself goes against the conventional conception. Reread atlas
@@Mr.Witness The keywords are "active minded". Most people aren't. Even in those who are, most will still use current paradigms as reference for their judgments.
@@Mr.Witness The amount of evasion must take a lot of energy.
Sorry for my fourth penneth, but here it goes...listen to any talk radio about any issue. What you will notice is that people are led. Being "rational" is just too big. As Leonard Peikoff points out, (paraphrasing) are people rational or are they governed by emotion, intuition and the ancient body in which they exist? For what I think, society needs a myth that advances empathy, forgiveness and ethics explicitly. This is massive. How do you, rationally, acknowledge and celebrate a woman's difference whilst making her equal? I think, at least, Any Rand was too optimistic.
Although there are some things I do agree with Jordan Peterson on but there are also some things I don't agree with him on either. This video has pointed this out. I've always known that JP has been toying along with christian believers and using the bible (a book a filled with 800 contradictions) to spread his message around through his storytelling which paints him as a hypocrite because when he gets asked if he's a christian or does he believe in god he dodges the question by saying "dont box me in" and secondly him talking about how objectivism and rationality is what causing people to give up religion and faith is also hypocritical because he attacks the post modern woke mob for their lack of rationality. You can't have it both ways because that would be a logical fallacy that infringes the law of non-contradiction from the three laws of logic. It appears to me that JP does bit of a switchawoo of where he goes from relativism (arguing for religion & mysticism and carl jung (who is an interesting fellow to read but most of his theories are questionable)) to objectivism (using psychological facts and research to counter the post modern woke) and the two aren't a good mix. Not to mention that he doesn't understand how atheism works either and has taken the christian apologetic view that all atheists are communists yet most atheists are mostly from free western societies.
>the bible (a book a filled with 800 contradictions)
Surely you have better things to do w/your time...BTW, its 799.
How about a debate with JP on this and see where it goes. I wonder who would back down…..
45 minute mark:
You took Peterson's perspective on science having a set of 'faith-based' premises behind it & transformed that idea into 'Christianity' being its root by talking about ancient Greece moving from superstition to evidence-based assessments of reality.
Peterson is putting forth a very different conceptualization for what is at the root mankind's psychology: he posits that the idea of hierarchy, the idea of something beyond the natural world (the 'why' of what happens in nature), is the result of man's own proclivity towards rank-ordered thinking in order to survive. In other words, the concept of a deity, of 'religion' in its broadest sense, of wonderment & awe of forces greater than us, is a fundamental requirement for humanhood & one cannot get around it.
It's in our DNA.
It even becomes rooted in science's so-called 'objective' truths. The faith that with enough knowledge of the natural world (which seems to take on disparate aspects & no uniformity when it comes to Einstein's theories of relativity/space/time & quantum theory entanglements anyway), man would one day know everything & have the answer to life's most pressing questions, or at least be CLOSER TO KNOWING. But, as we know, the more we learn, the more questions are to be asked & the more is meant to be learned. The pursuit of science is as much the pursuit of an ideal that can never be attained as is our pursuit to approach the divine.
I see no contradiction in this analysis when properly framed with intellectual honesty.
You guys should challenge Peterson views on his podcast and confront him.
Yes. And that’s why i say it is fundamentally unfalsifiable. One respondent suggested a possible counter-example to show it could be falsified but i disagreed on the basis that his example involved foreknowledge, which of course, we usually do not have. To summarise my objection, i think Rand’s claim that we can always dig a little bit deeper to discover self-interest is unfalsifiable because it can accomodate any reasonable claims and is therefore not properly testable.
Unfalsifiability is not, by itself, evidence that she is wrong of course, but it should give pause for thought, as she makes such a big deal of her claims as being ‘rational’ and that they follow from her ‘objectivist epistemology’. I maintain not only that they do not, but that her epistemology is based on a number of untestable metaphysical claims. Most reputable philosophers think her epistemological claims about ‘reality’ are naive at best and almost certainly false.
Rands philosophy is an induction from conceptualized observations, not a deduction from subjective or mystical ideals. Its tested every moment of mans 300K year history.
"i think Rand’s claim that we can always dig a little bit deeper to discover self-interest is ..." She made no such claim. As has already been mentioned to you, see the essay in "The Virtue of Selfishness". The title is "Isn't Everyone Selfish?"
@@AndSendMe
I’ve read ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ several times. The problem - as i see it - is that she and her followers appear to define altruism in a way that is totally at odds with common useage. Rand was not a professional philosopher. The first task in any philosophical discussion is to agree on the definition of terms. Perhaps the difficulty then is that she is very unclear what she means by altruism.
@@philipanthony9596 Rand addresses the question of how words are used in her introduction, so that you are forewarned that she is using words as tools of precise thinking, as opposed to common usage which sometimes promotes confusion. After addressing that issue with regard to 'selfishness', she uses the term 'altruism' in its philosophic sense of a particular ethical theory (its name aptly coined by its creator), and she says that this ethical theory has created a great deal of confusion.
It's not as though people in her era did not know that altruism is an ethics of doing good for others at your own expense, they were just confused by the way it obfuscates rational self-interest and usurps good will and benevolence while converting them from value-based well-wishing into an empty duty. Some may well think that altruism simply means benevolence, but this again is exactly the sort of unthinking acceptance of confusion she warns of right at the start. Really the whole book is about clearing up the confusions of "common usage".
@@AndSendMe
Your reply sent me scurrying back to my bookshelf to read read ‘The Virtue of Selfishness.’ I gave up after just a couple pages. Let me tell you why.
How is this for junk philosophy…
‘The validation of value judgements is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity IS, determines what it OUGHT to do. So much for the relation between ‘is’ and ‘ought’.’
That was a pretty easy disposal (in one sentence) of the is/ought gap (or fact/value distinction). It’s obvious that Rand’s knowledge and understanding of even Philosophy 101 is at a very basic level. Bandying around Aristotle’s name isn’t especially helpful to her either as she clearly has only a very superficial understanding of his moral philosophy. Perhaps she should have stuck to novel writing. To those readers of Ayn Rand who want to learn how to do some real philosoohical study i suggest you begin where we should all begin - with Plato. Try The Republic for the real deal and toss Rand’s juvenile musings into the bin.
It’s the weather. Dostoyevsky grew up surviving the Russian winter therefore he knows what suffering is. Likewise Peterson grew up in northern Alberta which experiences the same bone chilling weather.
We need more Leonard Piekoffs…
Hubris, you need to listen to her interviews
If Dr. Peterson is such an enlightened pointy head, you'd think he might take the time to suss out the actual meaning of 'beg the question' instead of using it like every salon intellectual on social media.
But what does self-interest mean??
Think of yourself alone on an uninhabited Island. You have two choices, to live, or perish. To live you must think. You must figure out what values you will need (metaphysics) and how you will go about obtaining those values (ethics). You cannot eat poison and you cannot cheat yourself in order to obtain the values you need.
Google the brief essay The Objectivist Ethics for a complete definition.
According to Objectivism, self-interest means concern with one's own interests. To be self-interested means to think and act rationally.
Peterson has literally list his mind in the last few years
I would say you guys are probably right, I don't know enough myself, but I would say I don't think JP intends to attack Ayn Rand, it sounds like he just didn't read it that thoroughly
If you only understand a tiny bit about Ayn Rand, you may think she has a view that revolves around self-interest and hedonism, and this is the view that I had a while ago and I know next to nothing about what she actually says, so I've since abandoned that view and instead I resolve to find out one day what she actually says in more detail
But yeah I think JP and you guys probably want similar things and are both on the same side, and to me this feels like an instance of friendly fire
Saint Paul in many of his epistles lambastes the wisdom of the Greek and says that God put to shame that wisdom,
"For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness," 1Co 3:19.
Then comes JP with the temerity to claim that axioms of Judeo Christian faith are the ones scientific enterprise has been predicated upon like the cosmic order is good so we can investigate it and understand. How preposterous! JP is finding a positive corollary when the opposite is true. Faith has always been and continue to be the stumbling block for science and its discoveries/achievements.
St. Augustine, whose philosophy caaused the Christian Dark Ages , said, "Science is the lust of the eyes."
Thanks to early Christian theologians, the middle ages were as dark as a black hole. Then came Islamic theologians and made the Islam ad dark as it can get and unfortunately we are picking the tab. @@TeaParty1776
I’ve read a great deal of Ayn Rand’s work, both her fiction and her non-fiction essays. My criticisms arise from my reading of her work.
What are your criticism. And can we at least agree that Peterson did not respond to Rand actual ideas here?
Jordan's ego requires that he is always the smartest man in the room, I'd like to see him and Ayn in the same room, but that will never happen. I picture it as Jordan in a weasel suit and Miss Rand walking into the room as a real live Honey Badger...
Rand’s manifesto is concisely summed up in the principle Her characters are asked to agree yo:
i will not live for or sacrifice for others nor will i expect them to do so for me.
is this a “psychopathic” principle
of uncontrolled hedonistic self interest? i don’t think so.
Christian so-called morality is very
much based on self sacrificing altruism. Sacrifice for a toxic spouse, or family, or community
is NOT noble or “moral”.
Pursuing one’s self interest
by providing service or products
is not selfish. People who call
self interest “selfish” ALWAYS
have a sinister agenda of stealing the benefits of someone else’s
productivity.
Liberty is not good because
the “god” of the free market
ordains it. A free market is good, because it is the fairest economic system yet discovered.