Jordan Peterson: Why Authority and Morality is Not a Social Invention
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 окт 2020
- It is claimed that morality is merely a social construct. But it seems to underly human behavior much more fundamentally. Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto
It takes a lot of effort to provide added educational value by selecting the videos for this channel, philosophyinsights. Usually, there are hours of work involved to skim through videos and edit it, in order to make a fit to the channel. If you enjoy the selection, consider subscribing! Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto.
#peterson #morality
Check out the full talk from his Biblische Serie III: G_tt und die Hierarchie der • Lecture: Biblical Seri...
--- If you like the content, subscribe!
![MORTAL KOMBAT 1 - KOMBAT PACK 2 REVEAL TRAILER!! [REACTION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Mi2M58zEQVc/mqdefault.jpg)
My man JP at his best
👊✌
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
Is he saying that morality is fundamentally a biological drive to rise in a hierarchy? If so, aren't there moments where a moral decision might compromise your hierarchal position but for the right reasons?
Well, the main point here isn't morality, but hierarchies and how they aren't just predicated on power. First of all, its important to remember that hierarchies are tyrannical. Even Jordan has said this before, but the point he is making here is what he calls "ethical responsibilities" constrain hierarchies. What I would say is that ethical responsibilities are a good way to contain hierarchies, but they are more of a loose guideline, than a hard set of laws. As, for your question, of course! Your position in an hierarchy can fall apart any moment, for all kinds of things you can do. If the hierarchy is already corrupt, then doing the "right" thing is what will get you into trouble. Imagine the mafia, which is also a hierarchy, where someone decides to go to the police. That person will very quickly lose their position and probably a lot more. Also, if a politician decides to be honest and tell the truth...they will likely lose their position as well. Make of it what you will.
Monkey Master
That is rather PRESUMPTUOUS of you, wouldn’t you agree, Slave?
Presumption is evil, because when one is PRESUMPTUOUS, one makes a judgement about a matter, despite having insufficient facts to support one’s position.
🐟 19. THE FOUR SOCIAL CLASSES:
One of the most confronting and difficult lessons one must learn in life is that a person cannot choose his own master. No man or woman is his own master/mistress, despite what most think. EVERY human being (with the possible exception of the current World Teacher) has a master, though it seems most persons have chosen to obey the desires of their fickle minds, rather than their appointed masters.
Even an Avatar (literally, “a descended one”, that is, a male, who is born in the highest state possible for a human being to be born) accepts a master when He incarnates on Earth. Lords Shiva, Krishna, Rama, Jesus, Buddha Siddhārtha Gautama, Shirdi Sai Baba, Bahá’u’lláh, and every other Divine Manifestation who ever descended to earth, WILLINGLY submitted to His legitimate temporal authority.
An ever-increasing proportion of persons believe, in practice, that they are the Lord of all lords, when they claim that they have no superior, and assert that humans are not an inherently hierarchical species. Society is built on the family unit, which is obviously hierarchically-structured (unless, of course, one considers a newborn baby to be the head of the house!). Human society is not dissimilar to ant or bee society, in actual fact - the main difference being that those insect colonies are matriarchal, whilst human society is PATRIARCHAL.
How many men do you know, who would, when taken to a courthouse, challenge the authority of the judge? Very few, I would posit. That is because, when confronted by a (supposed) higher authority, the typical man or woman would grudgingly accede to that authority.
When a man claims that he has no superior/master, an appropriate response is as follows: “I look forward to the day when one of your children say the same to you, Mister Hypocrite”. The funniest thing about such arrogant fools, is that they often submit to their SUBORDINATES, what to speak of their superiors! For instance, uxorious “men” are often seen kowtowing to their womenfolk, yet when admonished or castigated by an obvious superior (such as his employer, his grandfather, a king, or a priest) they often attack those masters.
Society (that is, the males of society) is divided into FOUR classes (“varṇa”, in Sanskrit):
The Priesthood (“brāhmaṇa”, in Sanskrit), which acts as the authoritative head of society;
The Monarchy (“rājanya” or “kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit), which is the only legitimate form of governance;
The Businessmen (“vaiśya”, in Sanskrit), who own agricultural and/or business assets;
and
The Working Class (“śūdra”, in Sanskrit), who serve their employers (normally business owners).
The following handful of chapters of this Holy Scripture fully describe the qualities and duties of the above four classes of (adult) MALES.
Typically, the working-class accounts for approximately 85-90 percent of society, businessmen for about 10-15 percent, with kings and priests obviously being such an insignificant fraction of the totality of the population, that it would not be practical to quote a figure. For instance, out of a million men, there may be only a handful of (genuine) priests, and of those genuine priests, hardly a single one who is an enlightened guru.
There may be a number of men who do not fall neatly into one of the above four classes.
For example, Lord Śri Krishna straddled the two higher classes, since He became the monarch of a kingdom, yet temporarily acted as the spiritual master of some of His close friends. Arguably the greatest President of the United States of America, Mr. Donald. J. Trump, was primarily an entrepreneur but showed himself to be a strong national leader (a quality lacked by previous Presidents, due to them being exclusively working-class men). However, there is a significant divide between a businessman and a monarch, so hopefully, one day, that country (and EVERY nation on earth) will once again be controlled by a good king (or, in the case of the U.S.A., many kings, since that country is far too large in size and population to be competently ruled by a single king).
Three of the most enlightened men in the past century (of writing this) were working-class men who acted as priests - Dr. Alan Watts, Mr. Roger Castillo, and his mentor Mr. Ramesh Balsekar (who began his teaching career only after retiring from administering a bank). As clarified in the next chapter, it is the duty of members of the Holy Priesthood alone to disseminate religious/spiritual teachings to the masses, and not members of the working-class. Such workers may be able to assist others to understand life and realize the true self, but they are unqualified to make authoritative moral pronouncements, and must not fool the public into believing that they are spiritual masters. Indeed, when a working-class chap pretends to be a religious leader (“guru”, in Sanskrit), he is LITERALLY stealing the occupation of a priest. The vast majority of extant religious teachers are actually either members of the lower two classes, or even lower than that (in other words, women).
It is UTTERLY imperative to make clear that a man cannot belong to one of the four classes of society unless he has the natural proclivity to do so. A personal anecdote regarding this point springs to mind: when a former maid and I were once travelling in the back seat of a taxi cab, we engaged in a conversation regarding the Holy Priesthood. I explained to her that, not just any man embodies the necessary prerequisites to become a priest such as I. I asked her: “Do you believe that our uneducated Filipino taxi driver could become a spiritual master?” and she responded in the affirmative. “Of course! If he enters a seminary and completes the course of studies - why not?” That is akin to stating, “If the despotic German National Socialist political leader, Adolf Hitler, had been schooled by a great Rabbi, he would have become a worshipable Deity, like Lord Jesus Christ”. Anyone who believes such a thing is grossly ignorant of how life operates. It is manifestly impossible for a person to act independently of his genetic code and his up-to-date conditioning. Herr Hitler's genes/conditioning forced him to become a fascist dictator, the taxi driver's genes/conditioning impelled him to seek laborious work, whilst my own particular genes/conditioning resulted in me joining the priesthood, and eventually becoming the current World Teacher, despite being born into a staunchly atheistic family, in an extremely irreligious country. In the case of Lord Jesus, He was destined from all eternity to become a Divine Incarnation (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit), likewise, according to the particular genetic code with which He was endowed by His two earthly parents, and to a lesser degree, the way in which He was nurtured and raised by His family and His society (plus every circumstance in which He found Himself during His short life, such as being unknowingly stranded at the Temple at Jerusalem as a child, and being tempted by Satan in the desert).
The fact is, a member of the priesthood (for example) must not only display the personal qualities incumbent on that role, but MUST also work as a priest, in order to be considered one. There is no such thing as a part-time priest/guru/monk/pastor/rabbi/imam.
Likewise, if a man has all the qualities of a king, yet works as a cook or as cleaner, he can hardly be addressed as “Your Majesty”.
So, somewhere in your nation resides at least one or two men with kingly attributes, but who are unable to exercise their divinely-sanctioned reign, due to the inordinate power of modern democracies. The most likely place to find such a prospective monarch is in the military or in the martial arts (most probably the head of an army or the owner of a dojo).
This lack of proper (kingly) leadership is arguably the main cause of the decline of human society.
Cont...
The four classes of society can be compared, albeit simplistically, to parts of the human BODY - the priests being the head (since they direct the rest of society in regards to morals and ethics), the kings being the arms (symbolizing protection of the rest of society), the businessmen being the stomach (since farm owners and business owners govern the supply of the necessities of life, as well as luxuries), and the workers being the legs (since they perform most all the laborious tasks in society).
So, again, it is imperative to emphasize that the four classes of society is a NATURAL phenomenon, no matter the size of a society. Even a small village has its shaman (spiritual guide), it's chief (the wisest, dominant alpha male), it's producers (of at least food, if not some luxuries), and the workers (such as carpenters, healers, warriors and trench-diggers). It has absolutely nothing in common with any hereditary system, such as the so-called “caste” system of India, which is an adulterated form of the original class and life-stage system (“varnāśrama”, in Sanskrit).
The classification of class according to economic status is illogical and nonsensical, because it implies that the more material wealth a person owns, the higher his “class”, even though he may be a veritable troglodyte. By that inane classification system, Lords Buddha and Jesus were the lowest of the low, since they were mendicants, and not the masters of this entire planet, which they claimed (and proved themselves) to be. Whenever I hear the phrase “the middle-class”, my immediate response is: “which of the FOUR classes of society is the 'middle' class?”
Apart from the four classes of (male) society, there are four STAGES of life for men (“cātuḥ-āśrama”, in Sanskrit). Working-class males and business/farm owners begin life as celibate students (“brahmācharyam”, in Sanskrit), then become married until death parts him from his wife (“gṛhastham”, in Sanskrit). Kings begin as chaste students, marry at least one woman, and end their time on earth alone with their queen, ideally retiring with her to a secluded area such as a forest, devoting their twilight years to spiritual pursuits (“āraṇyakam” or “vānaprastham”, in Sanskrit). Priests pass-through the aforementioned three stages of life, but finally end-up as renounced mendicants, giving-up all material possessions and attachments, except, of course, monastic robes, a staff, a water vessel and a begging-bowl (“saṃnyāsa”, in Sanskrit).
“The four classes of society were created by Me, divided according to a man’s inherent qualities and his type of work.
Although I created this, know that I am the imperishable non-doer.”
Lord Śri Krishna,
“Bhagavad-gītā” 4:13.
“If you want to lead the people,
you must learn how to follow them.
The Master is above the people,
and no one feels oppressed.
He goes ahead of the people,
and no one feels manipulated.
The whole world is grateful to him.
Because he competes with no one,
no one can compete with him.”
Ch. 66, "Tao Te Ching" by Laozi (AKA Lao-Tzu).
Monkey Master I see what you’re saying. I’ll have to think more on the topic of ethical responsibilities being a constraint on hierarchies. It makes sense at face value. But I’m cautious of your statement that ethical responsibilities (morality, whatever the term we use) is a loose set of guidelines. To me, that defeats the whole purpose of morality. If not killing a human being is just a loosely held guideline, then that doesn’t hold much weight in terms of the severity of the action. I think it’s a dangerous train of thought, but that’s my opinion. Would be stoked to hear what you think.
De Waal’s work is interesting
My Teacher is back !
Your teacher is a drug addict
Am ain't no chimp, i was created by God with clay
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
A few questions here remain in answered by peterson (and in general not just in this video):
- what is the difference then of chimpanzee ethics/morality to human ethics/morality? Because at some point human choice and invention comes into play and we cannot reduce it to just biological drives, authority/hierarchy or neuropsychology.
- is he saying amorality is a social invention then? To be amoral is to be un-natural, un-biological? Since it is an imperative to behave biologically, i.e. we are all of course biological but to act against it with force is to be un natural
- what does love mean in a peterson metaphysics? If love counteracts the top down biological hierarchy then is that un natural too, since it is again in opposition to his definition of instinct for selecting from the hierarchy, true love is actually a perversion of biological hierarchy usually, in at least some sense. E.g. women choosing lower status men because they are more masculine, such as criminals, who aren't higher in the hierarchy, but are momentarily breaking the hierarchy since they aren't put to the top by the other men but try to negate the other men. Either way they will never reach the heights of 'moral' men since they cannot break such a system forever before they will be thwarted, so why do women still flock to them?
- does his idea effectively make us either fully or mostly deterministic creatures whose ventures into indeterminism are like fish out of water? I.e We are in bad territory then when we invent ourselves out of, or augment, our biological nature
I hope he comes back to life soon to answer these questions and complete his being the new oracle of a new generation... Unless he was just sent here just to confuse us back to life and thought
NO! -- "Jordan Peterson: Why Authority and Morality are Not Social Inventions"
For grammar just as with philosophy DETAILS COUNT!
. : .
Why Authority and Morality *Are Not* Social Invention*s*
Korek ka dyan, SLAVE! ✅
Both authority and morality make sense and provide an evolutionary advantage. They very likely existed long before we became self-conscious!
Korek ka dyan, SLAVE! ✅
This video is very circumlocutory, Gosh
think mess perterson forgot women are equally susptible to corruption as men, andrew tate eh, they see confidence as sign of competence
he's talking about Chads . right?
As much as i disagree with JP's racial perspective, he is a great thinker.
So what is his "racial perspective" in your view?
I am also curious, as I haven't heard anything about racial topics from him.
@@TPerez1021 That makes sense. Indeed he has a strong conviction that marxism is evil, so it makes sense those things would be evil to him also, since they are derivatives.
All animals have different kinds of relationship between their species. You can't generalize everything. This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard
Peterson lacks the self esteem necessary to lead mankind. He’s barely half the man that Ayn Rand was! 🙃
Quite the psychologist, but he needs to leave the philosophy to the individualists. His collectivism is showing by his “duty” that he claims we all share to his arbitrary society. Humans are meant to be free to think, not free to bow down and serve.
Two comments, two swings and two roundhouse misses!
You guys have got to sharpen up your linguistic games ...at least in the comprehension stakes.
[but it's good to see you're thinking]
@Aaron Alfeche Obviously
@Aaron Alfeche Listen "twitchy", you still haven't made any sound postulations of your own, yet. So, climb down from that high horse of yours and get onto yourself.
I told you I was bored with your juvenile intellect substituted with pointless point-scoring ...and your insistence on running argumentativeness, shows your lack of wisdom, regardless of a-a-all the tiny bits of knowledge you have obtained. Grow up.
Sound Chaser you should stop projecting
@@bradbecker8982 you write like a girl, lol
Word salad. Studying animals won’t teach you anything about humans.
...also, if you think that is a "word salad", you probably need to round-out your education.
Studying animals won’t teach you anything about humans? What in the fuq?
There are some implications in that statement that have to be clarified and contested with. One being, “humans are inherently different than animals and to such a degree that we cannot compare a single aspect of our being to them.” That’s a hefty claim my guy. You’re gonna need to back that up with some evidence if that was your argument.