I'm already seeing a possible conflation of terms there : 1) you need a purpose, something challenging to strive for 2) you need a purpose greater than yourself, a greater good to work for These are often sold as if it's one just one thing , but these are separate things. You could just truly strive for the betterment of yourself, your skills, your mind, etc... and this itself as already an incredible challenge of a lifetime, that can give you plenty of purpose and meaning.
For me, the opposite of suffering is not bliss, but the state of flow. To the extent I can, I propagate the possibility of flow state inind and action.
The ultimate discussion would involve Peterson or someone representing his viewpoint to get the most out of this. However I did get great value out of this discussion and it was thought provoking which is why I love to study Rand.
Jordan B. Peterson has published his arcane, religious based viewpoint in several books, and has had several long-format interviews and podcasts from both the left and right. And those people have challenged him with varying lines of questioning. He also has his own podcast, on this very site, where he has clarified his opinions to the extent his long rambling digressions can be considered "clarification" and not obfuscation. The latter being the precise technical term for his trademark psycho-babel which begins around the 2hr mark any time someone allows him to continue for that duration. I have found his sentence structure and word choices tend to diverge into the same incomprehensible gibberish associated with AI hallucinations. So, it would seem he has more in common with a computerized word salad mixer than a philosopher. This discussion would be out of context 10 years ago when he was first in the public spotlight. But there is no mystery about his views. They are public record.
Jordan B. Peterson has published his arcane, religious based viewpoint in several books, and has had several long-format interviews and podcasts from both the left and right. And those people have challenged him with varying lines of questioning. He also has his own podcast, on this very site, where he has clarified his opinions to the extent his long rambling digressions can be considered "clarification" and not obfuscation. The latter being the precise technical term for his trademark psycho-babel which begins around the 2hr mark any time someone allows him to continue for that duration. I have found his sentence structure and word choices tend to diverge into the same incomprehensible gibberish associated with AI hallucinations. So, it would seem he has more in common with a computerized word salad mixer than a philosopher. This discussion would be out of context 10 years ago when he was first in the public spotlight. But there is no mystery about his views. They are public record.
Great video! Learning to differentiate between challenge, pain and suffering properly was particularly enlightening to me. I wanted to be an Olympian when I was younger. But I mistakenly thought about the physical discomfort and pain of training as the purpose of training. Instead of focusing on improving and challenging myself to greater heights, focus on growth, I focused in a Stoicist loop of making training a search for more discomfort and pain. Differentiating between the physical discomfort that is necessary to improve human fitness vs. unnecessary and avoidable discomfort and pain that serves not objective purpose. Obviously, I could not train with the standard of seeking discomfort and pain very long. That way of thinking destroyed the purpose of my training and harmed my self-esteem by making me evaluate myself as "weak" for not making trainings more painful or uncomfortable than they already were. Indepedently of whether the activity causing the discomfort and pain was conductive to better fitness or not. Pain and discomfort became the essentials, not growth and improvement. Thanks Onkar and Nikos for helping me finally identify this error!
Good conversation. I agree with all you said. I have long tried to live by arete, the pursuit of excellence. I like, "Success is achieved in inches, not miles." Suffering giving meaning in a Christian sense is more commonly held by Roman Catholics and its progeny whereas the Eastern church focuses on light and life of resurrection. Humans in the West are born into original sin whereas Orthodox humans are born innocent. For purposes of brevity, this is my horribly simplified generalization. All thoughtful humans struggle with purpose therefore we are seeking answers and continue having this conversation our entire life.
Jordan Peterson’s psychophilosophical perspective stands on the shoulders of foundational thinkers who deeply explored the complexities of human nature, morality, and societal structures. While Peterson’s work surpasses the narrow focus of Ayn Rand’s libertarianism, it owes much of its depth and realism to intellectual giants such as Carl Jung, Friedrich Nietzsche, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and even religious and mythological traditions. Rand’s emphasis on individual rights is a critical advancement over Marx’s collectivist erasure of personal sovereignty, and her framework leans toward libertarian ideals, which should indeed be the default balance wherever possible. However, Rand’s vision, like Marx’s, is incomplete because it romanticizes a single facet of human existence-self-interest for Rand, collective equality for Marx. Both fail to account for the intricacies of human psychology, culture, and morality. Peterson, by contrast, builds upon Jung’s exploration of the unconscious mind and archetypes, Nietzsche’s critique of nihilism and the dangers of ideological extremism, and Solzhenitsyn’s firsthand accounts of the human spirit’s resilience under totalitarianism. These influences ground Peterson’s work in the lived realities of human struggle, aspiration, and fallibility. His integration of these perspectives allows him to address the full spectrum of human experience, including the tension between individual freedom and societal order. Peterson’s approach is deeply pragmatic. He acknowledges the importance of individual responsibility-a core libertarian principle-but tempers it with a recognition of human imperfection and the need for social structures to mitigate chaos. Unlike Rand’s idealized view of the rational actor, Peterson’s work reflects a profound understanding of the emotional, psychological, and cultural forces that drive behavior. His philosophy does not aim to construct a utopia but to help individuals navigate the realities of existence meaningfully and responsibly. In this way, Peterson transcends Rand and Marx alike. While the libertarian balance of minimal interference and maximal personal freedom is preferable wherever it can be sustained, Peterson’s insights ensure that this balance remains grounded in the complexities of the human condition, as illuminated by the thinkers who came before him. This foundation makes Peterson’s work not only a critique of ideological extremes but a realistic and actionable framework for modern life.
*"However, Rand’s vision...is incomplete because it romanticizes a single facet of human existence-self-interest.... [She fails] to account for the intricacies of human psychology, culture, and morality."* No. "Self-interest" (aka the FACT of reality that EVERY living thing - in this case, a human being - requires the gaining and keeping of values in order to live and flourish AS that thing IN reality) sets the table FOR "human psychology, culture, and morality". *"Rand’s idealized view of the rational actor...[Peterson's] philosophy does not aim to construct a utopia..."* This seems to be a variant of the "Is/Ought dichotomy" which Miss Rand and Dr Peikoff have addressed at length and refuted. It also seems to be a variant of the 'Life isn't 'simple'. Life is "complex". So what I judge to be 'simple' principles MUST be wrong' so-called 'argument'. Of course, in your lengthy post, you didn't see fit to identify a SINGLE example of a 'complexity' of some sort which supposedly contradicts or reveals a 'hole' in ANY of Miss Rand's so-called 'simple' and "incomplete" principles. In other words, you provided absolutely NO evidence WHATSOEVER for ANY of your MANY assertions here. Instead you simply made EMPTY declaration after EMPTY declaration - about both Miss Rand and Dr. Peterson. And, while the words you used were certainly very erudite, that doesn't change the fact they are NOT the stuff of rational arguments. At this point, since you have failed to support a single one of your complaints about Miss Rand's 'narrowly focused' ideas about the ENTIRETY of ALL existence, there is NO argument to address or refute here. There are just the EMPTY assertions about generic complexity and a supposed failures to grasp it. As such, one can only suggest you have mistaken great feats of integration - of integrating a world of 'complexity' into seemingly 'simple' principles (such as the VERY 'simple' equation E=MC2) - for a failure to properly grasp existence in all "its depth and realism". They are NOT the same.
Anyone who thinks carrying a heavy burden and suffering is a virtue unto itself should watch a few seasons of Married With Children. Al Bundy suffers the whole series, yet there's no upside or sense of fulfillment. He only goes on because he doesn't see any alternative. Sure, he's a fictional character, but he's based on a real phenomenon.
JP is ridiculous and never makes sense in any of his videos. I did have a question about referring to characters. Why do majority of objectivists tend to refer to Rand’s fictional characters when they’re trying to make a point? I get that she created those characters as her ideal images of man/woman, and they are great novels, but they’re fictional. Why always refer back to them rather than examples of real life individuals who embody values that actually embody specific values? I’m surprised that Viktor Frankl, author of “Man’s Search for Meaning, and survivor of the Holocaust, wasn’t mentioned in relation to this topic of finding meaning in life. In my opinion, his explanation was the best.
*"Why...refer back to [Rand's fictional characters] rather than examples of real life individuals who embody values that actually embody specific values?"* Because, when trying to get a person to understand a concept via example, it is helpful if one can eliminate any contradictions or non-sequiturs in the example. That serves to eliminate an extraneous ideas which might make it more difficult to grasp the concept. Unfortunately, because the predominant philosophy today is that of Altruism/Collectivism/Statism, it can be difficult to find someone who does not contradict himself in an important way in regard to Objectivist principles. Thus using such an individual as an example could have the effect of confusing the person trying to understand the principle, or make them think a combination of ideas is involved in the concept (some of them valid, some of them not), etc. With Miss Rand's characters, one doesn't run into that problem in general. Thus the ideas can be communicated much more clearly by reference to those fictional characters than can be communicated by real life people with their conflicting principles, premises, and actions.
I think Jordan Peterson doesn't really want to get into a long form discussion with someone like Onkar, in the same way that Elon Musk wouldn't want to sit down with Alex Epstein. And if that were true, in both cases neither of them are thinking it through correctly. And if it were true I think both would believe they have something to lose.
Hello. We human beings are not taking part 'In Life'. We 'Are Life'. We are 'Life Appearing In The Form Of Humans'. I mean, otherwise our bodies would be dead. You know, as in 'Life-less'. Oh! And what we (Life) are taking part in here is called 'Living'. Hence exactly why we (Life) when we are 'Living' are said to be 'Alive'. 'Life' is not something separate from us outside of our bodies. 'Life' is what we are inside of our bodies. 'Eternal Life'. Best wishes 🙏
I thought that once Peterson endorsed faith, which is a central and defining issue of human existence since it pertains to the acquisition of knowledge, we had already labelled and dismissed him "Live for something bigger than yourself" is a meaningless phrase since it has so many "meanings, like "free will", most false as they imply some form of Altruism but some true because they recognize that the world exists apart from and prior to, ond's consciousness and that is where the things from which to forge happiness can be found. In it's vagueness, it joins "You can't see the firest for the tress" and "we have nothing in common" as the "lines" in "I'll just hand him a line". The vagueness and multiplicity of meanings makes it impossible to argue against by most persons and undesirably tedious for those wh can but usually choose not to
Peterson sounds great until he gets to the solution being a return to feudalism. I think I read a book about a guy who wakes up one day and decides that he wants to be a knight and be chivalric and reinvigorate the feudal estates. Someone named Quick Oat.
Raising children isn't beneficial for the parent from an objective standpoint. The fact that we're biochemically wired up so we perceive the raising of children as beneficial is what Peterson is playing on, and setting the world up so our children can succeed within it is an extension of the task of child-rearing. Genetically self-centered, but bigger than oneself.
I like Peterson for his analysis of the psyche through story telling. But I stopped listening to him cuz he keeps nudging people into religion without outright saying that he’s all for religion.
5:13 Taking orders from others empties life of meaning? I thought this was a pro-capitalism channel. Suddenly, employees have no meaning because they have to obey the orders of their employers?
I view this discussion as devolving into the old rationalization of, "I live for something bigger because it makes me feel better in my own life," therefore it must be self-interested, and therefore I'm an Objectivist. That reduces the discussion of virtue back to pure collectivist motives. Onkar touched on this fact early on but didn't drive it home when Nikos doubled down. That was disappointing.
Peterson isn't an Altruist who believes in self-sacrifice like they make him out to be. Peterson believes in being responsible for oneself primarily - a competent productive member of society. I don't think Rand would disagree. There is some tension in holding up Jesus as an avatar for good. But Peterson doesn't do it because suffering is good. He thinks taking on responsibility and burdens is an antidote to suffering the way an Objectivist would say living a productive life makes life worthwhile.
I find it very odd that Objectivists would speak of meaning. Surely, if there is no ultimate meaning to life, then ultimately, there is no true meaning. It's all a meaningless facade - in the ultimate sense.
Objectivists believe that the meaning of life is life, that life provides its own meaning, that the goal or purpose of one’s life is to advance or further itself. For human beings, advancing one’s life requires living by specific principles, such as rationality, productiveness, honesty, long-range planning, and engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.
I'm not sure how you can work at the ayn rand institute and say life has no inherent meaning. the whole point of her work is that there is an inherent good in creation as manifest in humans, corresponding to the broader natural world. if you say there is no universal syntax from which an ethic may be derived, you're simply a wonk relativist who doesn't understand Leibniz preharmony, evolution, interaction, or anything for that matter, since if theres no universal syntax, there is no UNIverse and nothing actually exists, because existence is relational and you cant have relations in that case. rand outlined perfectly the reciprocal dynamic and fundamental similarity between communism and fascism, and by extrapolation the fallacy of 'right-wing' populism. the fact that you aren't making videos about that in application to contemporary forces like the islamists, authoritarian (modern progressive) left, and the union between them. Not to mention the fascism of people like JD, etc. Thats what you should be talking about. Please
There is no inherent meaning to life other than to survive and reproduce. You can do that while living in caves or in a thriving city. I think that is what they were conveying. There is no starting point that says, “you must do X or you must do Y” which is counter to what Catholicism says for people. Saying that as someone raised in a very catholic household and went to a Jesuit high school
The "universal syntax from which an ethic can be derived" is the living God who guides each of us personally; showing us true morality, the details of the Greatest Commandments of Jesus.
@@soundphilosophy nah god isnt man, although we are made in his image in virtue of creation. Everything must happen, every way. Jesus died for our sins because the correlative good couldn't exist unless someone had the worst life - that enables the best possible one, the non vacuous contrast between them what defines both individually. thats descartes. if you like the idea of a spirit you should read the monadology and probably more so theodicy.
@@DUNC8888 yes. very good you've seen the Jordan Peterson promo in your RUclips adds. anyways, you should consider what it means for the 'word' to be anterior relative physical matter and creation. What is a 'word' when no ones around to hear it, and would god having a physical voice not constitute a limitation?What precedes action in every instance is thought. and its implications for the nature of reality is amenable to Leibniz, Spinoza, Langan, etc. so you should check them out if you're interested. Dont get lost in the dogma of an organized religion which christ never sought to organize. ask some questions.
Any Rand was right about a lot of things, but she was dead wrong about materialism. She never considered that reason and the scientific method proves the existence of a designer. She decided one fine day at the age of 18 that she was going to be an atheist. How's that for reasoned analysis.
Reason and the scientific method are based on the principle of objective reality, or how she puts it, “the primacy of existence over consciousness,” which means that the “subject” (the conscious being) has no power to determine the nature of the object of their consciousness, which would reject the concept of a consciousness creating a universe. Facts are facts, no matter what a consciousness desires, which would deny the existence of a designer. Consciousness is merely awareness, which presumes that there must be something that already exists to be aware of. Consciousness depends on reality, not the other way round. Reason and the scientific method are methods of gaining knowledge where an individual places the primacy of their observations of reality and logical inference therefrom over a conscious being’s say-so, which is because a conscious being’s say-so cannot change the facts. Facts don’t care about your wishes or desires.
This is an absolute fire discussion! Appreciate you guys!
I'm already seeing a possible conflation of terms there :
1) you need a purpose, something challenging to strive for
2) you need a purpose greater than yourself, a greater good to work for
These are often sold as if it's one just one thing , but these are separate things. You could just truly strive for the betterment of yourself, your skills, your mind, etc... and this itself as already an incredible challenge of a lifetime, that can give you plenty of purpose and meaning.
I couldn't agree more. I'm in my 60's doing a Phd.
Thank you Nikos and Onkar - another wonderful video from New Ideal
For me, the opposite of suffering is not bliss, but the state of flow. To the extent I can, I propagate the possibility of flow state inind and action.
Excellent video.
New subscriber here.
I just discovered Ayn Rand. Thank you for the explaination.
The ultimate discussion would involve Peterson or someone representing his viewpoint to get the most out of this. However I did get great value out of this discussion and it was thought provoking which is why I love to study Rand.
Jordan B. Peterson has published his arcane, religious based viewpoint in several books, and has had several long-format interviews and podcasts from both the left and right. And those people have challenged him with varying lines of questioning.
He also has his own podcast, on this very site, where he has clarified his opinions to the extent his long rambling digressions can be considered "clarification" and not obfuscation.
The latter being the precise technical term for his trademark psycho-babel which begins around the 2hr mark any time someone allows him to continue for that duration. I have found his sentence structure and word choices tend to diverge into the same incomprehensible gibberish associated with AI hallucinations. So, it would seem he has more in common with a computerized word salad mixer than a philosopher.
This discussion would be out of context 10 years ago when he was first in the public spotlight. But there is no mystery about his views. They are public record.
Jordan B. Peterson has published his arcane, religious based viewpoint in several books, and has had several long-format interviews and podcasts from both the left and right. And those people have challenged him with varying lines of questioning.
He also has his own podcast, on this very site, where he has clarified his opinions to the extent his long rambling digressions can be considered "clarification" and not obfuscation.
The latter being the precise technical term for his trademark psycho-babel which begins around the 2hr mark any time someone allows him to continue for that duration. I have found his sentence structure and word choices tend to diverge into the same incomprehensible gibberish associated with AI hallucinations. So, it would seem he has more in common with a computerized word salad mixer than a philosopher.
This discussion would be out of context 10 years ago when he was first in the public spotlight. But there is no mystery about his views. They are public record.
There is only one fundamental mission that has any glory: living one’s life to the fullest. Any other mission outside of that context is worthless.
Asking a psychologist about philosophy is like asking a doctor to fix a broken computer or asking a computer techie to cure a disease.
It's like calling up an electrician from the phone book to ask about Quantum Electrodynamics.
Great discussion!
Great video!
Learning to differentiate between challenge, pain and suffering properly was particularly enlightening to me. I wanted to be an Olympian when I was younger. But I mistakenly thought about the physical discomfort and pain of training as the purpose of training. Instead of focusing on improving and challenging myself to greater heights, focus on growth, I focused in a Stoicist loop of making training a search for more discomfort and pain. Differentiating between the physical discomfort that is necessary to improve human fitness vs. unnecessary and avoidable discomfort and pain that serves not objective purpose. Obviously, I could not train with the standard of seeking discomfort and pain very long. That way of thinking destroyed the purpose of my training and harmed my self-esteem by making me evaluate myself as "weak" for not making trainings more painful or uncomfortable than they already were. Indepedently of whether the activity causing the discomfort and pain was conductive to better fitness or not. Pain and discomfort became the essentials, not growth and improvement.
Thanks Onkar and Nikos for helping me finally identify this error!
Good conversation. I agree with all you said. I have long tried to live by arete, the pursuit of excellence. I like, "Success is achieved in inches, not miles."
Suffering giving meaning in a Christian sense is more commonly held by Roman Catholics and its progeny whereas the Eastern church focuses on light and life of resurrection. Humans in the West are born into original sin whereas Orthodox humans are born innocent. For purposes of brevity, this is my horribly simplified generalization.
All thoughtful humans struggle with purpose therefore we are seeking answers and continue having this conversation our entire life.
I love this discussion.
Jordan Peterson’s psychophilosophical perspective stands on the shoulders of foundational thinkers who deeply explored the complexities of human nature, morality, and societal structures. While Peterson’s work surpasses the narrow focus of Ayn Rand’s libertarianism, it owes much of its depth and realism to intellectual giants such as Carl Jung, Friedrich Nietzsche, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and even religious and mythological traditions.
Rand’s emphasis on individual rights is a critical advancement over Marx’s collectivist erasure of personal sovereignty, and her framework leans toward libertarian ideals, which should indeed be the default balance wherever possible. However, Rand’s vision, like Marx’s, is incomplete because it romanticizes a single facet of human existence-self-interest for Rand, collective equality for Marx. Both fail to account for the intricacies of human psychology, culture, and morality.
Peterson, by contrast, builds upon Jung’s exploration of the unconscious mind and archetypes, Nietzsche’s critique of nihilism and the dangers of ideological extremism, and Solzhenitsyn’s firsthand accounts of the human spirit’s resilience under totalitarianism. These influences ground Peterson’s work in the lived realities of human struggle, aspiration, and fallibility. His integration of these perspectives allows him to address the full spectrum of human experience, including the tension between individual freedom and societal order.
Peterson’s approach is deeply pragmatic. He acknowledges the importance of individual responsibility-a core libertarian principle-but tempers it with a recognition of human imperfection and the need for social structures to mitigate chaos. Unlike Rand’s idealized view of the rational actor, Peterson’s work reflects a profound understanding of the emotional, psychological, and cultural forces that drive behavior. His philosophy does not aim to construct a utopia but to help individuals navigate the realities of existence meaningfully and responsibly.
In this way, Peterson transcends Rand and Marx alike. While the libertarian balance of minimal interference and maximal personal freedom is preferable wherever it can be sustained, Peterson’s insights ensure that this balance remains grounded in the complexities of the human condition, as illuminated by the thinkers who came before him. This foundation makes Peterson’s work not only a critique of ideological extremes but a realistic and actionable framework for modern life.
*"However, Rand’s vision...is incomplete because it romanticizes a single facet of human existence-self-interest.... [She fails] to account for the intricacies of human psychology, culture, and morality."*
No. "Self-interest" (aka the FACT of reality that EVERY living thing - in this case, a human being - requires the gaining and keeping of values in order to live and flourish AS that thing IN reality) sets the table FOR "human psychology, culture, and morality".
*"Rand’s idealized view of the rational actor...[Peterson's] philosophy does not aim to construct a utopia..."*
This seems to be a variant of the "Is/Ought dichotomy" which Miss Rand and Dr Peikoff have addressed at length and refuted.
It also seems to be a variant of the 'Life isn't 'simple'. Life is "complex". So what I judge to be 'simple' principles MUST be wrong' so-called 'argument'.
Of course, in your lengthy post, you didn't see fit to identify a SINGLE example of a 'complexity' of some sort which supposedly contradicts or reveals a 'hole' in ANY of Miss Rand's so-called 'simple' and "incomplete" principles. In other words, you provided absolutely NO evidence WHATSOEVER for ANY of your MANY assertions here. Instead you simply made EMPTY declaration after EMPTY declaration - about both Miss Rand and Dr. Peterson. And, while the words you used were certainly very erudite, that doesn't change the fact they are NOT the stuff of rational arguments.
At this point, since you have failed to support a single one of your complaints about Miss Rand's 'narrowly focused' ideas about the ENTIRETY of ALL existence, there is NO argument to address or refute here. There are just the EMPTY assertions about generic complexity and a supposed failures to grasp it. As such, one can only suggest you have mistaken great feats of integration - of integrating a world of 'complexity' into seemingly 'simple' principles (such as the VERY 'simple' equation E=MC2) - for a failure to properly grasp existence in all "its depth and realism".
They are NOT the same.
Interesting discussion
I accept the verifiability criterion of meaning.
Anyone who thinks carrying a heavy burden and suffering is a virtue unto itself should watch a few seasons of Married With Children. Al Bundy suffers the whole series, yet there's no upside or sense of fulfillment. He only goes on because he doesn't see any alternative. Sure, he's a fictional character, but he's based on a real phenomenon.
JP is ridiculous and never makes sense in any of his videos.
I did have a question about referring to characters. Why do majority of objectivists tend to refer to Rand’s fictional characters when they’re trying to make a point?
I get that she created those characters as her ideal images of man/woman, and they are great novels, but they’re fictional. Why always refer back to them rather than examples of real life individuals who embody values that actually embody specific values?
I’m surprised that Viktor Frankl, author of “Man’s Search for Meaning, and survivor of the Holocaust, wasn’t mentioned in relation to this topic of finding meaning in life.
In my opinion, his explanation was the best.
*"Why...refer back to [Rand's fictional characters] rather than examples of real life individuals who embody values that actually embody specific values?"*
Because, when trying to get a person to understand a concept via example, it is helpful if one can eliminate any contradictions or non-sequiturs in the example. That serves to eliminate an extraneous ideas which might make it more difficult to grasp the concept.
Unfortunately, because the predominant philosophy today is that of Altruism/Collectivism/Statism, it can be difficult to find someone who does not contradict himself in an important way in regard to Objectivist principles. Thus using such an individual as an example could have the effect of confusing the person trying to understand the principle, or make them think a combination of ideas is involved in the concept (some of them valid, some of them not), etc.
With Miss Rand's characters, one doesn't run into that problem in general. Thus the ideas can be communicated much more clearly by reference to those fictional characters than can be communicated by real life people with their conflicting principles, premises, and actions.
I think Jordan Peterson doesn't really want to get into a long form discussion with someone like Onkar, in the same way that Elon Musk wouldn't want to sit down with Alex Epstein.
And if that were true, in both cases neither of them are thinking it through correctly. And if it were true I think both would believe they have something to lose.
I think Elon would be OK with a sit-down with Alex Epstein.
@@robo45h Well he blocked him because Alex said the Tesla is a great fossil fuel made car. Which it is.
The only problem with JP is that he is not a philosopher, and he is selling philosophy
Hello. We human beings are not taking part 'In Life'. We 'Are Life'. We are 'Life Appearing In The Form Of Humans'. I mean, otherwise our bodies would be dead. You know, as in 'Life-less'. Oh! And what we (Life) are taking part in here is called 'Living'. Hence exactly why we (Life) when we are 'Living' are said to be 'Alive'. 'Life' is not something separate from us outside of our bodies. 'Life' is what we are inside of our bodies. 'Eternal Life'. Best wishes 🙏
I thought that once Peterson endorsed faith, which is a central and defining issue of human existence since it pertains to the acquisition of knowledge, we had already labelled and dismissed him
"Live for something bigger than yourself" is a meaningless phrase since it has so many "meanings, like "free will", most false as they imply some form of Altruism but some true because they recognize that the world exists apart from and prior to, ond's consciousness and that is where the things from which to forge happiness can be found. In it's vagueness, it joins "You can't see the firest for the tress" and "we have nothing in common" as the "lines" in "I'll just hand him a line". The vagueness and multiplicity of meanings makes it impossible to argue against by most persons and undesirably tedious for those wh can but usually choose not to
people still take JP seriously? he believes in the supreme fairy.
Peterson sounds great until he gets to the solution being a return to feudalism. I think I read a book about a guy who wakes up one day and decides that he wants to be a knight and be chivalric and reinvigorate the feudal estates. Someone named Quick Oat.
Raising children isn't beneficial for the parent from an objective standpoint. The fact that we're biochemically wired up so we perceive the raising of children as beneficial is what Peterson is playing on, and setting the world up so our children can succeed within it is an extension of the task of child-rearing. Genetically self-centered, but bigger than oneself.
Life without harmony is meaningless
I like Peterson for his analysis of the psyche through story telling. But I stopped listening to him cuz he keeps nudging people into religion without outright saying that he’s all for religion.
5:13 Taking orders from others empties life of meaning? I thought this was a pro-capitalism channel. Suddenly, employees have no meaning because they have to obey the orders of their employers?
If you encounter a contradiction, you should rethink your premise.
I view this discussion as devolving into the old rationalization of, "I live for something bigger because it makes me feel better in my own life," therefore it must be self-interested, and therefore I'm an Objectivist. That reduces the discussion of virtue back to pure collectivist motives. Onkar touched on this fact early on but didn't drive it home when Nikos doubled down. That was disappointing.
I dont get this discussion at all
Peterson is totally correct and they didn’t say anything that actually contradict him lol
Peterson isn't an Altruist who believes in self-sacrifice like they make him out to be. Peterson believes in being responsible for oneself primarily - a competent productive member of society. I don't think Rand would disagree.
There is some tension in holding up Jesus as an avatar for good. But Peterson doesn't do it because suffering is good. He thinks taking on responsibility and burdens is an antidote to suffering the way an Objectivist would say living a productive life makes life worthwhile.
I just “suffered” through this “meaningless” conversation.
I find it very odd that Objectivists would speak of meaning. Surely, if there is no ultimate meaning to life, then ultimately, there is no true meaning. It's all a meaningless facade - in the ultimate sense.
Objectivists believe that the meaning of life is life, that life provides its own meaning, that the goal or purpose of one’s life is to advance or further itself. For human beings, advancing one’s life requires living by specific principles, such as rationality, productiveness, honesty, long-range planning, and engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.
You make meaning by your choices and actions.
I'm not sure how you can work at the ayn rand institute and say life has no inherent meaning. the whole point of her work is that there is an inherent good in creation as manifest in humans, corresponding to the broader natural world. if you say there is no universal syntax from which an ethic may be derived, you're simply a wonk relativist who doesn't understand Leibniz preharmony, evolution, interaction, or anything for that matter, since if theres no universal syntax, there is no UNIverse and nothing actually exists, because existence is relational and you cant have relations in that case. rand outlined perfectly the reciprocal dynamic and fundamental similarity between communism and fascism, and by extrapolation the fallacy of 'right-wing' populism. the fact that you aren't making videos about that in application to contemporary forces like the islamists, authoritarian (modern progressive) left, and the union between them. Not to mention the fascism of people like JD, etc. Thats what you should be talking about. Please
There is no inherent meaning to life other than to survive and reproduce. You can do that while living in caves or in a thriving city. I think that is what they were conveying.
There is no starting point that says, “you must do X or you must do Y” which is counter to what Catholicism says for people. Saying that as someone raised in a very catholic household and went to a Jesuit high school
The "universal syntax from which an ethic can be derived" is the living God who guides each of us personally; showing us true morality, the details of the Greatest Commandments of Jesus.
@@soundphilosophy nah god isnt man, although we are made in his image in virtue of creation. Everything must happen, every way. Jesus died for our sins because the correlative good couldn't exist unless someone had the worst life - that enables the best possible one, the non vacuous contrast between them what defines both individually. thats descartes. if you like the idea of a spirit you should read the monadology and probably more so theodicy.
@@OptimusPowell Jesus is the Word of God and God and the Word became flesh, this is the first chapter of John's Gospel, basic Christian doctrine.
@@DUNC8888 yes. very good you've seen the Jordan Peterson promo in your RUclips adds. anyways, you should consider what it means for the 'word' to be anterior relative physical matter and creation. What is a 'word' when no ones around to hear it, and would god having a physical voice not constitute a limitation?What precedes action in every instance is thought. and its implications for the nature of reality is amenable to Leibniz, Spinoza, Langan, etc. so you should check them out if you're interested. Dont get lost in the dogma of an organized religion which christ never sought to organize. ask some questions.
The absurdity of asserting, that you have to create meaning to life. ARE YOU NOT NECESSARILY PRESUPPOSING THE VERY THING THAT YOU IMPLY IS CONTINGENT.
Any Rand was right about a lot of things, but she was dead wrong about materialism. She never considered that reason and the scientific method proves the existence of a designer. She decided one fine day at the age of 18 that she was going to be an atheist. How's that for reasoned analysis.
Your proof?
Rand was not a materialist. Materialists deny the human mind, the total opposite of Objectivist epistemology.
dont come here an lie about reason and scientific method proving the existence of a supreme boss fairy.
Reason and the scientific method are based on the principle of objective reality, or how she puts it, “the primacy of existence over consciousness,” which means that the “subject” (the conscious being) has no power to determine the nature of the object of their consciousness, which would reject the concept of a consciousness creating a universe. Facts are facts, no matter what a consciousness desires, which would deny the existence of a designer. Consciousness is merely awareness, which presumes that there must be something that already exists to be aware of. Consciousness depends on reality, not the other way round.
Reason and the scientific method are methods of gaining knowledge where an individual places the primacy of their observations of reality and logical inference therefrom over a conscious being’s say-so, which is because a conscious being’s say-so cannot change the facts. Facts don’t care about your wishes or desires.
Maybe you should inform "Any Rand" of her error!