I recently got into a rather heated discussion with a man in the youtube comments about the recent push to codify Griswald v. Connecticut. He, for some reason, thought that by writing our right to contraception into law that the government was overreaching, inserting itself into our private lives, and forcing us to be sexually active. He said that people should just take personal responsibility for their actions instead of being taken care of by the state. It genuinely baffled me that he didn't understand contraception to be an act of personal responsibility and that the government wasn't about to send every citizen a box of condoms and force us to fornicate. He must have been a sovereign citizen, Jordan Peterson type person because how does one even begin to think of protecting our rights to contraception as government overreach? To top it off, this person was pro-life and pro-gun.
“Right to a fair trial” is pretty much the end of the conversation. Yes, you have several rights spelled out by the constitution that involves someone else being required to give you something.
@@bradrandel1408 Fair trial. Humans make mistakes. Which is why I am opposed to the death penalty & think everyone has the right to a second trial. Vsause2 has a great series of how even objective math can both be used to catch criminals but also put inocente people behind bars. A perfect system is impossible, but we can try to make the criminal justice as fair as possible.
Hi Lewis. I like this style of less produced video on this new channel ☺️ It saddens me that anyone 'cosplaying' as 'outraged libertarian from Romford' needs to have Berlin's paper explained to them. However, it makes me want to go nuclear that someone like Peterson can create a profile from the misunderstanding of C-16 such that Romford's Mr Outraged Libertarian will uncritically accept and repeat ad infinitum. I do not think Peterson has or has had anything of note to say. His lectures were poor quality, matching his intellect and his post academic 'work' is just right wing agrievement principally aimed at an audience that will pay to 'stick it to the libs' Anyway, like the new format. Keep up the good work. All the best
Agreed. It doesn't help that while Peterson is a decent clinical psychologist, his focus in psychology is on the pseudoscientific branch of Jungian psychology, which is just unfalsifiable mystical woo shit. Cass Eris, a cognitive psychologist and TH-camr who has frequently criticized Peterson in the past, has 2 videos about Freud and Jung that explain what Frued and Jung proposed, the very apparent flaws in their thoughts, and how their ideas are as relevant to modern psychology as bloodletting is to modern medicine. I also know 4-5 really good written critiques of Peterson, which all critique him from different perspectives. You interested in reading them?
@CJAN Sure thing. First, to recommend someone who does really good critiques of Peterson's ideas from an academic standpoint in video form, I'd recommend Cass Eris and her videos, where she'll break down Peterson's books chapter by chapter and provide her perspective and critiques as a cognitive psychologist. I find them very interesting, refreshing, and not as hyperbolic as others. As previously mentioned, she also critiques 2 of the central psychologist figures that majorly influenced Peterson's ideology, namely Freud and Jung. Then there's of course Peterson's laughably bad performance against Slavoj Zizek. But anyways, now on to written wrod critiques of Jordan Peterson. If you wanted some other fantastic and well-reasoned critiques of Jordan Peterson , I can provide some links to some that I've found to be pretty compelling. They are from the perspectives of 2 Leftists/Socialists, Secular Skeptic, Masculinist, and Spiritualist respectively so there's a diversity of different perspectives in the critiques. (Direct linking always leads to this comment getting deleted so just search the titles up with the writer and you'll find it. The first one can be found on Medium. The third one has links to the 4th and 5th one sources.). 1) "The Dark Vision of Jordan Peterson" and "12 Rules for Social Totaliarianism" by John-Pierre Maeli: 2) "The Intellectual We Deserve" by Nathan J. Robinson on Current Affairs: 3) "That Jordan Peterson Is a Crank: A Handy Guide" by Richard Carrier: 4) "The Shadow of Jordan Peterson: Snake-oil, lobsters and lazy-thinking" by Jamie Wrate: 5) "A Critique of Jordan B. Peterson" by Alexander Blum: I found the 4th and 5th critiques because they were linked in Richard Carrier's article, the second to last paragraph under the "Con Man of the People" section. The Medium article of Jamie Wrate is a condensed excerpt from his Kindle Short of the same name, "The Shadow of Jordan Peterson: Snake-oil, lobsters and lazy-thinking" which I did buy for $3 for 42 pages of content which I found to be well worth the small monetary price. I didn't want to make anyone have to pay money to be able to read that critique, so that's why I linked the free condensed excerpt Medium article version. I also hope people can enjoy the diversity of perspectives of these critiques. Nathan J. Robinson, John-Pierre Maeli, and Richard Carrier are both secular atheists, with Nathan J. Robinson and John-Pierre Maeli being leftists/socialists and Richard Carrier "being a professional historian and published philosopher with a Ph.D. from Columbia University in ancient history, where he specializes in the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, particularly ancient philosophy, religion, and science, with emphasis on the origins of Christianity and the use and progress of science under the Roman empire." Meanwhile, Jamie Wrate and Alexander Blum are both Spiritual, with Jamie Wrate being a masculinist and Alexander Blum being an ex-fan of Jordan Peterson who even still buys a lot of Peterson’s woo, who has made some disturbingly on-point observations about his flawed philosophy. So I hope no one can claim that my sources of critiques are too biased or anything like that. I hope the diversity of perspectives in the critiques of Jordan Peterson are helpful and enlightening for them as it was for me. The second Maeli article and the Nathan J. Robinson article are pretty lengthy essays, so be prepared for that. Obviously, this is a lot of reading, but I'd be really keen to hear your thoughts on each critique as you go through them, if you don't mind me asking. Anyways, if you're still interested in reading these critiques, feel free.
It would seem Peterson attempts to redefine 'rights' as only inalienable and ignores the more common definition that includes legal, social, and ethical agreements between people to form a society. I do not accept this redefinition.
100% agree - well explained Its obviously true that in order for me to exercise my right to cross the road without being run over others have to take the responsibility to drive within the speed limit. Without speed limits and taxes to maintain a shared road network and without the enforcement of traffic laws there would be a lot more road accidents and death. I think that's a bad thing. At its most basic level, infants have a positive right to nourishment and intellectual stimulation from their parents (like their parents also received from their parents) because these infants were involuntarily forced into existence. They will probably also support their parents in old age either directly or indirectly via taxes / employment in the care industry. So by extension, children should also expect education and all the trappings of a dignified and reasonably comfortable life as they grow and as adults. Not just because it's nice but because these are the prerequisites for them to in turn raise the next generation. The pairing of rights and obligations is not optional or ideological - it's a practical necessity for our collective dignity and survival as a species. Silly sovereign citizen style libertarians want all the rights without any of the responsibilities. They want the right to bare arms without regulation but don't like it if mentally ill people kill their children in schools. They want freedom to earn money without paying taxes but they would find that a lot harder without a court system to persuade people to pay their bills. They don't want the police to prevent them from harming others when they're angry but probably wouldn't like all dangerous criminals released back on the streets. It's not a political stance, its basically a lack of ideas. If they had their way they would soon rediscover the need to reinvent many of the institutions they currently preach against. Of course society can always be improved, but it cannot be avoided. This kind of libertarianism is just a cop out. Simple solutions to complex problems are seductive but seldom work.
Libertarianism is similar to Milton Friedman’s ideology of how free enterprise will fix the corruption of the state. It won’t. There is no perfect system will remove human evil, and there is no perfect system that will enhance human good. It will be left for the elites to decide, because normal people want to enjoy their lives and pursue their individual interests. Most people have no interest in politics, let alone economics. People will gather themselves into communities, and the most elite and powerful of them will establish organisations and sophisticated hierarchies. State and Free Enterprise are two sides of the same coin.
I was reminded of Boris Johnson wanting to be king then upon becoming PM realising the position has obligations and duties which he semed unwilling to carryout.
Great video. I roll my eyes when people start proclaiming that “I have rights, you can’t force me to do X”. Keep wanting to respond with “No ones forcing you to do anything, but we’ve agreed to certain things, so either go elsewhere or justify why this is bad”
all a bit communitarian - all this stuff about not being bigger than the community. Hopefully, an individual within a community of religious zealots, for example, continues to have rights. Even as someone on the Left, I don't hold Liberty to be a dirty word.. I prefer Rawls argument over Nozick that liberty is only gained through positive rights (and a minimal of duty, such as progressive taxation); that, the negative rights argument falls apart because the structures of privilege, inheritance and so on (and growing up with a lack of amenities, education and so on) impede individual liberty.
The way I like to think about it is that the freedom of the individual is the priority, but you cannot have freedom for the individual without freedom for the collective.
@@jeffengel2607 Yes! Individual autonomy can only be truly granted through a collective provision, and if not granted in such a way is not true individual autonomy. That's a good way to frame it.
According to Jordan’s idea, it appears he’s basically saying, for example, that a newborn baby doesn’t have the right to good care because someone else has to provide it. Doesn’t make sense to me….
Nicely said. Peterson has a very regressive and self serving view of these issues, and it does a lot of damage. The intelligent constructive modern view is pretty simple- it is simply incorrect to create a false tension between the individual and the collective, as both are undefined abstractions if not illusions. We exist a part of a process that's bigger than both and if we find our responsibilities there many of the issues are easily solved.
Its elite definition of freedom, meaning freedom from tyranny coming from below. As they view ppls democratic system as a threat to their intrests.hence jp play this sophistry with words, and terms. But is quite clear, that when observed the totality of hes claims, its complete mess of incosistent and contradictory ideas. Ideas That sound good when listening one at the time, but at the moment you listen them together, the whole construction falls apart. Also its absurd that jp does not seem to understand, that constantly using buzz words like radical left etc, isnt something that genuine intellectuals do. Wich shines light on, how he must engage with bad faith, due to othervice hes whole worldview crumbling In front of everybody. Starting from the fact, that he starts and in finish In hes ideological prison. And wich why he starts from conclusion and work backward from there. Thanks for great content bro.
Oh so I don't owe them my labor as a right they're entitled to great yo wait what are these little pieces of paper ???? U telling me I can't get food without these????????
This was great! Kept relatively brief but chock-full of relevant and interesting information. I might prefer this to the original channel’s format, but I’m sure I’m not the norm haha
Thank you. This thought process of Jordan is so simple. Its a shame to see him fall apart in the way that he has in recent months but hopefully it is a learning experience for his fans
@@marcrodriguez345 he became very sick. He apparently is following alternative medical procedures such as travelling to Russia for treatment and an all beef diet. When he was still teaching at University he was a much more logical thinker. It is distressing to watch. I wish him peace. It’s disappointing to hear a fellow Canadian take this position. Particularly as a comment on the US system. I lived under both. Medical care and public education is wonderful here and the pressure under the US system is unsustainable.
I've been wondering about the social mechanisms that prevent this "King" mentality. In Australia, for example, there is notoriety in the "Tall Poppy Syndrome" (TPS) being used to bully people. However, I think that Australians respect success, but also egalitarianism due to the history of the country. I think TPS served an important societal role, which has been eroded by American exceptionalism being promoted in media for a long time now, as well as the victim mentality that has become more prevalent in modern society (some sort of co-opting of Marx's oppressor/oppressed dialectic). Maybe you would like to do a look into this? There is an academic called Bert Peeters who does some interesting work in this field, that you may use as a jumping off point.
@@thomasbeaumont3668 I heard of it a long time ago, in about 1997. I imagine the TPS you heard about on the JRE was the distorted "successful victim/victim of success" version of it, i.e. the bullying form, not the "pull your head in" form that Australians (used to?) practice. Think of it in terms of the old Roman "Memento Mori"/Auriga role of reminding victors/heroes of Rome "Remember thou art mortal".
Good video but I have a criticism. You're right that conservatives like Jordan Peterson often demand freedoms like "freedom of expression" but they deny that right to adults who want to choose their own free expression of gender identity (in fact Peterson has said this in interviews). However, I also cannot help but agree with philosophers like Kierkegaard on his rejection of being just another "cog in the machine". Is there not a sense of being in a social "prison" with no room for creativity if we are all just meant to conform with society's "rules" and "obligations", with no questions asked? Does this sort of "herd mentality" not diminish our own authenticity? It seems that freedoms for some individuals require its opposite for others - i.e. taking away their liberties and freedoms. Perhaps it is, as Derrida would say, undecidable. Thanks for your great work Lewis.
Those people, ones that think that they are above others, are, what is funny, the most dependant on others, they need other to force them to activities or some states of mind.
Lol a "right" itself is something granted to someone from someone else! Which is why I dont understand what is so special about rights. I will take freedom over rights anyday. JP has gone off his rocker and Twitter is a cesspool. Great talk, you always help me see things in a different light even if there is an initial tinge of pain and disagreement.
I'll be honest; I don't like being told what to do. I want to be comfortable in my own world and not have to deal with other people's problems. But I get; I can't stand alone, I need some measure of community and care which can only be obtained from other people. And so I engage with society and negotiate social contracts etc... for better or for worse.
I think one of the most prominent manifestations of being this "sovereign individual" that doesn't want the duties that come with being a sovereign is the employer. As bad as even chattel slavery was, the slave owners had to make a big investment to the maintenance of their slaves in order to keep them at optimal performance. The employer, on the other hand, can simply fire an employee at will and hire another person from a humongous pool of desperate people without nearly as much overhead as the slave owner.
Consideratiins. Do we have the right to live in a stolen country? If someone steals my stuff do I have the right to make them give it back to me? Or would that be reverse thievery?
You are conflating a right with it's articulation, acceptance and enforcement. That something is pupular or widespread doesn't mean it bears the truth. I could then say that Coca Cola is healthy, because so many people consume it. Or i could say that baseball is better sport than swimming because more people are fans of it.
Jordan Peterson is a great psychologist. His book 12 Rules for life helped me cope with the death of my mother at age 21. However, his popularity has pushed him into the limelight where he can spread his uninformed opinions. Unfortunately, that isn't uncommon. Linus Pauling a brilliant Chemist and twice Nobel prize winner (Chemistry & Peace) ventured into the field of medicine when he promoted high doses of Vitamin C as a cureall (common cold, cancer, HIV). Eventually, he died of cancer.
You put my feelings into words. It is a simplistic, childish view of the world. It is very much black and white without the subtle grey shades adults understand exist.
Who are you? What is your educational background? What companies have you founded? What jobs have you held? What patents have you filed? What books have you published? I disagree with pretty much everything you said in this video, but I appreciated the approach you took until you descended into ad hominem arguments, which weakened your rhetoric considerably. Which is too bad, because I actively seek out contrary views from articulate, knowledgeable people. You're clearly articulate, but -- who are you?
Why did we make a hero out of someone didn’t want to contribute.… The Christian methos, Jesus was kind of a non-conformist. Look what his sovereignty, Got him.… I don’t understand but I do like to compensate for things that are afforded me… Play in the sovereign card is pretty selfish and stubborn… Not the easier of two paths… I am trying to grow up at 60 piece to all no matter what path you choose 🦋🕊🌹
The right to a fair trial isn't supposed to be provided by anyone. It's just supposed to be a right from unjust accusation and punishment. At the time it was written, it wasn't uncommon for trial to be held in the town square and if no one showed up to complain, then good for you, you're free.
This might be true. But you have to go back to a much older, simpler time for this to be the case. Today, the right to a trial, the right to travel freely, the right for someone to be punished and brought to justice if you're attacked/stolen from/house is broken into, all have to provided for by a system that we all pay for. Even if the trial was held in a town square (not always the case, anyway, differed from place to place, country to country), surely a judge, official, guard, prison, and so on, had to be paid for with taxes
@@lewlewwaller I would say that assuming things were to be provide, the correct response would be to say you cannot be held in jail, holding and whatever else. A lot of the modern issue comes from you can and will be held in jail unless you have like a lawyer in retainer and cash for bail and you don't work weekends when the courts are closed. A big issue is being held over the weekend when you cannot see a judge or anything while forcibly missing work. If you cannot afford bail then you can be held for years. Actually the state of Maine has a class action lawsuit over its lack of legal protection in a timely manner.
@@user-hm4yi7um9d It was written down, so it was a right that was given - and people has over time been able to deny or enforce that right. It’s only a right if we agree that it is! Like all other rights!
@@gorillaguerillaDK most of the founding fathers didn't want a bill of rights, because they thought it would limit freedom. The bill of rights was mostly that monarchist cuck Hamilton's idea. Outside of that, it's still not something that we should have to deal with since our system should have never been able to become the abusive confounded mess that it is. There should be 3 laws. No rape. No murder. No theft. Done.
Professor Jordan Peterson was talking about the 'INDIVIDUAL' point of view. For example, If I am required to show I am an individual who is a caring person, it is not 'Your right' that I do it, it's something you expect. There is no law mandating it is your right that I do something for you just because you want it. Now, if you are talking about a company, let's say pharmaceutical, then yes you have a 'Right' to know what is in the drug you are taking; that is the 'LAW'. In this case Biden is stipulating that he believes, 'BY LAW' you have a right to medical care. Currently, there is no law or anything in the constitution that gives you that 'Right'. Know your politics and the 'rights' of the individual before you make such insidious comments. The Sovereign Individual is NOT CREATED by society, they are BORN as Sovereign Individuals and therefore the right to choose how they live. Your argument staes that I have the right to FREE HEALTHCARE, when in actual fact - I don't! Yes, I get it. You don't like Jordan, or conservative views, nor do you allow the normal process of individual thought cloud your group thinking mind. The 'Democrat' State you want, tells you what you can do, say, go, and can restrict you in any way they wish, and form your minds to their ideology without question. If that is your idea of a 'FREE AMERICA' you are welcome to it. Disclaimer: The above is my personal opinion. Maybe you should try saying that as well.
"Nothing that someone else has to provide can Be a right." is correct. the point is you have no right to another man's talent and labor without Fair compensation. that would be slavery!!! You said " so all rights are provided by the community" YOU ARE WRONG!!!!! Your sovereign rights are what you are born with and are secured and protected by the government through laws. read Thomas Payne "Common sense". you speak agents Sovereign kings but endorse a sovereign Government over the people this is such childish garbage that any undergraduate similar could take apart. you want to talk about Arrogance, Let's talk about arrogance.you sir sufer from the Dunning Kruger effect. "Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them;" Thomas Payne common sense
Of course you aren't forced to become a teacher or doctor. Teachers and doctors aren't even forced to 'produce' the right, because they wouldn't if they didn't get paid. Instead the government forces you to pay even more taxes, so they can in turn pay these people. You yourself are the one that provides the service you and others have a right to. They effectively make the application of force less personal, and indirect. There wouldn't be a problem with this, if it was the only way to get healthcare or education. The thing is, there are other ways and places people can spend their (otherwise taken) money, where they might get a better service, or even get it cheaper. Another important point related to this issue in general (I haven't watched the entire video yet, so please excuse me if you covered it there) is that a right to healthcare can be negative (so far I feel like you implied it is positive by nature, again, could be my mistake). This would mean that no one is forced to provide it to you, but that none can stand in your way if you seek it. No one can prevent you from seeing a doctor, but the doctor who is to check on you. In the same way that you have a right to feed yourself, but not a right to bread. Edit 1: same with freedom of movement =\= right to good roads Edit 2: interesting argument (re. There are no negative rights). Interestinf point, will think about that. Do not yet agree with it though, but my reasons for it are not condensed enough to put into text. Edit 3: Towards the end you make some generalizing statements that I feel do not really apply to this topic (controlling women, foreign intervention, etc.). I might make some edits in this comment as I finish the video.
Youre not actually attacking his moral claim. Just because we live in a society, doesnt mean we ought to give out these rights. You are just making a factual claim about how things are, not how they should be. Rights are an ought claim not an is claim.
The point is that society INHERENTLY provides rights for people at the cost of someone working to uphold them. The reason we "ought" to give people health care is because it produces a healthier, robust population that is less impeded by debt. The entire point of a right is to improve wellbeing and freedoms through a social contact. Trying to make a moral argument out of that is a losing battle, and avoids the logic of the proposal (entirely because Peterson is a conservative who doesnt want people to have free HC).
It sounds like you’re looking for a handout. What you’re feeling is shame and the knowledge that people look down on you as pathetic. That’s what people think of you.
@@cybercab You're not correct. Wanting a basic level of health care that doesn't drive you to bankruptcy - as many other developed nations have succeeded in doing - has nothing to do with handouts, shame, or any of that other nonsense. It has to do with creating a more intelligently designed society. That's like making people pay $100 for every 8oz of water they drink, and saying "you're just looking for a handout, because you feel shame and don't like being seen as pathetic" when people who can't afford the rate speak out for not wanting to die of dehydration. It's idiotic.
*"They think they can be kings of the world. They think they can be in control of their own choices."* Yeah... how dare anyone believe they should be able to control their own choices. I can't believe you actually said that out loud. After making a statement like that you have absolutely ZERO business ever questioning anyone's commitment to freedom. Your words and micro-expressions in this video make it abundantly clear that you're deeply offended by there mere idea of individual liberty, and that you're outraged by the existence of people who believe in it. I watched your entire video on the psychology of genocide and got the strong impression that you were a good guy, but oh boy was I wrong... Nevermind your outrageous mischaracterization of libertarian/conservative beliefs and your hateful demonetization of libertarians/conservatives as individuals. That was absolutely disgusting and quite frankly I'm shocked that somebody who spent so much time making a video about the psychology of genocide would say the things you said in this video. People like you are the reason why hyper-partisanship and political bigotry has taken over the entire western world.
I recently got into a rather heated discussion with a man in the youtube comments about the recent push to codify Griswald v. Connecticut. He, for some reason, thought that by writing our right to contraception into law that the government was overreaching, inserting itself into our private lives, and forcing us to be sexually active. He said that people should just take personal responsibility for their actions instead of being taken care of by the state. It genuinely baffled me that he didn't understand contraception to be an act of personal responsibility and that the government wasn't about to send every citizen a box of condoms and force us to fornicate. He must have been a sovereign citizen, Jordan Peterson type person because how does one even begin to think of protecting our rights to contraception as government overreach? To top it off, this person was pro-life and pro-gun.
“Right to a fair trial” is pretty much the end of the conversation. Yes, you have several rights spelled out by the constitution that involves someone else being required to give you something.
That’s corrupt…
How many witches got burned at the stake..
A lot of false imprisonments
Indeed
@@bradrandel1408 Fair trial. Humans make mistakes. Which is why I am opposed to the death penalty & think everyone has the right to a second trial. Vsause2 has a great series of how even objective math can both be used to catch criminals but also put inocente people behind bars.
A perfect system is impossible, but we can try to make the criminal justice as fair as possible.
Hi Lewis. I like this style of less produced video on this new channel ☺️ It saddens me that anyone 'cosplaying' as 'outraged libertarian from Romford' needs to have Berlin's paper explained to them. However, it makes me want to go nuclear that someone like Peterson can create a profile from the misunderstanding of C-16 such that Romford's Mr Outraged Libertarian will uncritically accept and repeat ad infinitum.
I do not think Peterson has or has had anything of note to say. His lectures were poor quality, matching his intellect and his post academic 'work' is just right wing agrievement principally aimed at an audience that will pay to 'stick it to the libs'
Anyway, like the new format. Keep up the good work. All the best
Agreed. It doesn't help that while Peterson is a decent clinical psychologist, his focus in psychology is on the pseudoscientific branch of Jungian psychology, which is just unfalsifiable mystical woo shit. Cass Eris, a cognitive psychologist and TH-camr who has frequently criticized Peterson in the past, has 2 videos about Freud and Jung that explain what Frued and Jung proposed, the very apparent flaws in their thoughts, and how their ideas are as relevant to modern psychology as bloodletting is to modern medicine.
I also know 4-5 really good written critiques of Peterson, which all critique him from different perspectives. You interested in reading them?
@CJAN
Sure thing.
First, to recommend someone who does really good critiques of Peterson's ideas from an academic standpoint in video form, I'd recommend Cass Eris and her videos, where she'll break down Peterson's books chapter by chapter and provide her perspective and critiques as a cognitive psychologist. I find them very interesting, refreshing, and not as hyperbolic as others. As previously mentioned, she also critiques 2 of the central psychologist figures that majorly influenced Peterson's ideology, namely Freud and Jung. Then there's of course Peterson's laughably bad performance against Slavoj Zizek. But anyways, now on to written wrod critiques of Jordan Peterson.
If you wanted some other fantastic and well-reasoned critiques of Jordan Peterson , I can provide some links to some that I've found to be pretty compelling. They are from the perspectives of 2 Leftists/Socialists, Secular Skeptic, Masculinist, and Spiritualist respectively so there's a diversity of different perspectives in the critiques.
(Direct linking always leads to this comment getting deleted so just search the titles up with the writer and you'll find it. The first one can be found on Medium. The third one has links to the 4th and 5th one sources.).
1) "The Dark Vision of Jordan Peterson" and "12 Rules for Social Totaliarianism" by John-Pierre Maeli:
2) "The Intellectual We Deserve" by Nathan J. Robinson on Current Affairs:
3) "That Jordan Peterson Is a Crank: A Handy Guide" by Richard Carrier:
4) "The Shadow of Jordan Peterson: Snake-oil, lobsters and lazy-thinking" by Jamie Wrate:
5) "A Critique of Jordan B. Peterson" by Alexander Blum:
I found the 4th and 5th critiques because they were linked in Richard Carrier's article, the second to last paragraph under the "Con Man of the People" section. The Medium article of Jamie Wrate is a condensed excerpt from his Kindle Short of the same name, "The Shadow of Jordan Peterson: Snake-oil, lobsters and lazy-thinking" which I did buy for $3 for 42 pages of content which I found to be well worth the small monetary price. I didn't want to make anyone have to pay money to be able to read that critique, so that's why I linked the free condensed excerpt Medium article version. I also hope people can enjoy the diversity of perspectives of these critiques. Nathan J. Robinson, John-Pierre Maeli, and Richard Carrier are both secular atheists, with Nathan J. Robinson and John-Pierre Maeli being leftists/socialists and Richard Carrier "being a professional historian and published philosopher with a Ph.D. from Columbia University in ancient history, where he specializes in the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, particularly ancient philosophy, religion, and science, with emphasis on the origins of Christianity and the use and progress of science under the Roman empire."
Meanwhile, Jamie Wrate and Alexander Blum are both Spiritual, with Jamie Wrate being a masculinist and Alexander Blum being an ex-fan of Jordan Peterson who even still buys a lot of Peterson’s woo, who has made some disturbingly on-point observations about his flawed philosophy. So I hope no one can claim that my sources of critiques are too biased or anything like that. I hope the diversity of perspectives in the critiques of Jordan Peterson are helpful and enlightening for them as it was for me. The second Maeli article and the Nathan J. Robinson article are pretty lengthy essays, so be prepared for that. Obviously, this is a lot of reading, but I'd be really keen to hear your thoughts on each critique as you go through them, if you don't mind me asking.
Anyways, if you're still interested in reading these critiques, feel free.
It would seem Peterson attempts to redefine 'rights' as only inalienable and ignores the more common definition that includes legal, social, and ethical agreements between people to form a society. I do not accept this redefinition.
100% agree - well explained
Its obviously true that in order for me to exercise my right to cross the road without being run over others have to take the responsibility to drive within the speed limit. Without speed limits and taxes to maintain a shared road network and without the enforcement of traffic laws there would be a lot more road accidents and death. I think that's a bad thing.
At its most basic level, infants have a positive right to nourishment and intellectual stimulation from their parents (like their parents also received from their parents) because these infants were involuntarily forced into existence. They will probably also support their parents in old age either directly or indirectly via taxes / employment in the care industry. So by extension, children should also expect education and all the trappings of a dignified and reasonably comfortable life as they grow and as adults. Not just because it's nice but because these are the prerequisites for them to in turn raise the next generation.
The pairing of rights and obligations is not optional or ideological - it's a practical necessity for our collective dignity and survival as a species.
Silly sovereign citizen style libertarians want all the rights without any of the responsibilities. They want the right to bare arms without regulation but don't like it if mentally ill people kill their children in schools. They want freedom to earn money without paying taxes but they would find that a lot harder without a court system to persuade people to pay their bills. They don't want the police to prevent them from harming others when they're angry but probably wouldn't like all dangerous criminals released back on the streets. It's not a political stance, its basically a lack of ideas. If they had their way they would soon rediscover the need to reinvent many of the institutions they currently preach against.
Of course society can always be improved, but it cannot be avoided. This kind of libertarianism is just a cop out. Simple solutions to complex problems are seductive but seldom work.
Libertarianism is similar to Milton Friedman’s ideology of how free enterprise will fix the corruption of the state. It won’t. There is no perfect system will remove human evil, and there is no perfect system that will enhance human good. It will be left for the elites to decide, because normal people want to enjoy their lives and pursue their individual interests. Most people have no interest in politics, let alone economics. People will gather themselves into communities, and the most elite and powerful of them will establish organisations and sophisticated hierarchies. State and Free Enterprise are two sides of the same coin.
I was reminded of Boris Johnson wanting to be king then upon becoming PM realising the position has obligations and duties which he semed unwilling to carryout.
I'd like to imagine Jordan Peterson annoyed you so much that you created a second channel to vent about it. Great video!
I have thought about doing exactly that myself.
Excellent.
Just recently discovered your channel and you. 🎉 Thank you. What an intellectual enjoyment. 😊
JP provide Karen mentality
Love the more laid back and quick response type of videos to compliment your polished videos.
Great video. I roll my eyes when people start proclaiming that “I have rights, you can’t force me to do X”. Keep wanting to respond with “No ones forcing you to do anything, but we’ve agreed to certain things, so either go elsewhere or justify why this is bad”
You roll your eyes when somebody tells you they have rights and that you can't force them to do something? What???
@@uthmanibn-jafar1159 You know what they mean.
@@YggdrasilAudio Yeah, I do know what they mean. They said it quite clearly.
@@uthmanibn-jafar1159....then why did you end your comment with "What?"?
Peterson is wrong about a pillar of his ideology? Colour me surprised!
all a bit communitarian - all this stuff about not being bigger than the community. Hopefully, an individual within a community of religious zealots, for example, continues to have rights. Even as someone on the Left, I don't hold Liberty to be a dirty word.. I prefer Rawls argument over Nozick that liberty is only gained through positive rights (and a minimal of duty, such as progressive taxation); that, the negative rights argument falls apart because the structures of privilege, inheritance and so on (and growing up with a lack of amenities, education and so on) impede individual liberty.
Hello Lewis! Please make a video essay about Emmanuel Levinas' ethics and encountering another person. That would be great!
100%. Even the right to private property needs to be enforced. they just don't want to mention that because it weakens their argument.
The way I like to think about it is that the freedom of the individual is the priority, but you cannot have freedom for the individual without freedom for the collective.
Individual freedom lives and survives in the collective provision of elbow room for people to be themselves and do their things.
@@jeffengel2607 Yes! Individual autonomy can only be truly granted through a collective provision, and if not granted in such a way is not true individual autonomy. That's a good way to frame it.
According to Jordan’s idea, it appears he’s basically saying, for example, that a newborn baby doesn’t have the right to good care because someone else has to provide it. Doesn’t make sense to me….
13 and a half minutes in I realize that I am not watching a video on the channel Then & Now :)
I didn’t realize that until your comment lol
I actually regularly disagree with the things you post, but I listen to a lot of your videos for alternative view points. So I am a free subscription.
Thanks for watching
@@lewlewwaller I kind of wish I had said this differently. I really appreciate the effort you put into your videos and responses. You are awesome.
By their ideology it’s perfectly valid for a doctor to refuse to help others due to color of skin, gender or gender expressions, or sexuality!
Nicely said. Peterson has a very regressive and self serving view of these issues, and it does a lot of damage.
The intelligent constructive modern view is pretty simple- it is simply incorrect to create a false tension between the individual and the collective, as both are undefined abstractions if not illusions. We exist a part of a process that's bigger than both and if we find our responsibilities there many of the issues are easily solved.
"Nothing that requries to be provided by another can be a right."
A good argument for pro-choice abortion.
Its elite definition of freedom, meaning freedom from tyranny coming from below. As they view ppls democratic system as a threat to their intrests.hence jp play this sophistry with words, and terms. But is quite clear, that when observed the totality of hes claims, its complete mess of incosistent and contradictory ideas.
Ideas That sound good when listening one at the time, but at the moment you listen them together, the whole construction falls apart.
Also its absurd that jp does not seem to understand, that constantly using buzz words like radical left etc, isnt something that genuine intellectuals do. Wich shines light on, how he must engage with bad faith, due to othervice hes whole worldview crumbling In front of everybody. Starting from the fact, that he starts and in finish In hes ideological prison. And wich why he starts from conclusion and work backward from there.
Thanks for great content bro.
Oh so I don't owe them my labor as a right they're entitled to great yo wait what are these little pieces of paper ???? U telling me I can't get food without these????????
This was great! Kept relatively brief but chock-full of relevant and interesting information. I might prefer this to the original channel’s format, but I’m sure I’m not the norm haha
Maybe you are. 🙂
Thank you. This thought process of Jordan is so simple. Its a shame to see him fall apart in the way that he has in recent months but hopefully it is a learning experience for his fans
His fans are being handed over to Ben Shapiro.
Explain how JP has fallen apart in the last few months
@@marcrodriguez345 he became very sick. He apparently is following alternative medical procedures such as travelling to Russia for treatment and an all beef diet. When he was still teaching at University he was a much more logical thinker. It is distressing to watch. I wish him peace. It’s disappointing to hear a fellow Canadian take this position. Particularly as a comment on the US system. I lived under both. Medical care and public education is wonderful here and the pressure under the US system is unsustainable.
I've been wondering about the social mechanisms that prevent this "King" mentality. In Australia, for example, there is notoriety in the "Tall Poppy Syndrome" (TPS) being used to bully people. However, I think that Australians respect success, but also egalitarianism due to the history of the country. I think TPS served an important societal role, which has been eroded by American exceptionalism being promoted in media for a long time now, as well as the victim mentality that has become more prevalent in modern society (some sort of co-opting of Marx's oppressor/oppressed dialectic).
Maybe you would like to do a look into this?
There is an academic called Bert Peeters who does some interesting work in this field, that you may use as a jumping off point.
I an Australian first heard about TPS on JRE
@@thomasbeaumont3668 I heard of it a long time ago, in about 1997. I imagine the TPS you heard about on the JRE was the distorted "successful victim/victim of success" version of it, i.e. the bullying form, not the "pull your head in" form that Australians (used to?) practice.
Think of it in terms of the old Roman "Memento Mori"/Auriga role of reminding victors/heroes of Rome "Remember thou art mortal".
Good video but I have a criticism. You're right that conservatives like Jordan Peterson often demand freedoms like "freedom of expression" but they deny that right to adults who want to choose their own free expression of gender identity (in fact Peterson has said this in interviews). However, I also cannot help but agree with philosophers like Kierkegaard on his rejection of being just another "cog in the machine". Is there not a sense of being in a social "prison" with no room for creativity if we are all just meant to conform with society's "rules" and "obligations", with no questions asked? Does this sort of "herd mentality" not diminish our own authenticity? It seems that freedoms for some individuals require its opposite for others - i.e. taking away their liberties and freedoms. Perhaps it is, as Derrida would say, undecidable. Thanks for your great work Lewis.
Those people, ones that think that they are above others, are, what is funny, the most dependant on others, they need other to force them to activities or some states of mind.
Lol a "right" itself is something granted to someone from someone else! Which is why I dont understand what is so special about rights. I will take freedom over rights anyday. JP has gone off his rocker and Twitter is a cesspool. Great talk, you always help me see things in a different light even if there is an initial tinge of pain and disagreement.
I wonder what JP thinks of the 6th amendment. I feel my brain collapsing whenever I hear people give this absolutist anti-positive right take
They will invent an a-historical original intent to justify their views.
My borders my choice.
I'll be honest; I don't like being told what to do. I want to be comfortable in my own world and not have to deal with other people's problems. But I get; I can't stand alone, I need some measure of community and care which can only be obtained from other people. And so I engage with society and negotiate social contracts etc... for better or for worse.
He's Bourgeois
Jordan Peterson is the epitome of suburbia and suburban thinking.
Why did you start a new channel?
YES.
I think one of the most prominent manifestations of being this "sovereign individual" that doesn't want the duties that come with being a sovereign is the employer.
As bad as even chattel slavery was, the slave owners had to make a big investment to the maintenance of their slaves in order to keep them at optimal performance. The employer, on the other hand, can simply fire an employee at will and hire another person from a humongous pool of desperate people without nearly as much overhead as the slave owner.
Did JP go further with his statement?
Consideratiins.
Do we have the right to live in a stolen country?
If someone steals my stuff do I have the right to make them give it back to me? Or would that be reverse thievery?
You are conflating a right with it's articulation, acceptance and enforcement. That something is pupular or widespread doesn't mean it bears the truth. I could then say that Coca Cola is healthy, because so many people consume it. Or i could say that baseball is better sport than swimming because more people are fans of it.
Thanks so much for this! Really well explained. Love the idea of the occasional shorter, snappy video.
I was in engaged and in agreement until towards the later end of the video I was quite perplexed 🤷🏾♂️ however nice video 💯
What were you perplexed by?
Jordan Peterson is a great psychologist.
His book 12 Rules for life helped me cope with the death of my mother at age 21. However, his popularity has pushed him into the limelight where he can spread his uninformed opinions. Unfortunately, that isn't uncommon. Linus Pauling a brilliant Chemist and twice Nobel prize winner (Chemistry & Peace) ventured into the field of medicine when he promoted high doses of Vitamin C as a cureall (common cold, cancer, HIV). Eventually, he died of cancer.
You put my feelings into words. It is a simplistic, childish view of the world. It is very much black and white without the subtle grey shades adults understand exist.
Jordan Peterson is wrong everytime he speaks.
Who are you? What is your educational background? What companies have you founded? What jobs have you held? What patents have you filed? What books have you published?
I disagree with pretty much everything you said in this video, but I appreciated the approach you took until you descended into ad hominem arguments, which weakened your rhetoric considerably. Which is too bad, because I actively seek out contrary views from articulate, knowledgeable people.
You're clearly articulate, but -- who are you?
Why did we make a hero out of someone didn’t want to contribute.…
The Christian methos, Jesus was kind of a non-conformist. Look what his sovereignty, Got him.…
I don’t understand but I do like to compensate for things that are afforded me…
Play in the sovereign card is pretty selfish and stubborn…
Not the easier of two paths…
I am trying to grow up at 60 piece to all no matter what path you choose
🦋🕊🌹
The right to a fair trial isn't supposed to be provided by anyone. It's just supposed to be a right from unjust accusation and punishment. At the time it was written, it wasn't uncommon for trial to be held in the town square and if no one showed up to complain, then good for you, you're free.
This might be true. But you have to go back to a much older, simpler time for this to be the case. Today, the right to a trial, the right to travel freely, the right for someone to be punished and brought to justice if you're attacked/stolen from/house is broken into, all have to provided for by a system that we all pay for. Even if the trial was held in a town square (not always the case, anyway, differed from place to place, country to country), surely a judge, official, guard, prison, and so on, had to be paid for with taxes
@@lewlewwaller I would say that assuming things were to be provide, the correct response would be to say you cannot be held in jail, holding and whatever else. A lot of the modern issue comes from you can and will be held in jail unless you have like a lawyer in retainer and cash for bail and you don't work weekends when the courts are closed. A big issue is being held over the weekend when you cannot see a judge or anything while forcibly missing work. If you cannot afford bail then you can be held for years. Actually the state of Maine has a class action lawsuit over its lack of legal protection in a timely manner.
@@user-hm4yi7um9d
It was written down, so it was a right that was given - and people has over time been able to deny or enforce that right.
It’s only a right if we agree that it is!
Like all other rights!
@@gorillaguerillaDK most of the founding fathers didn't want a bill of rights, because they thought it would limit freedom. The bill of rights was mostly that monarchist cuck Hamilton's idea. Outside of that, it's still not something that we should have to deal with since our system should have never been able to become the abusive confounded mess that it is. There should be 3 laws. No rape. No murder. No theft. Done.
@Lewis Waller Why do you keep talking about conservatives and libertarians? Jordan Peterson identifies as a classical liberal.
Misleading titles
This. Thank you for spreading your message, it is well-needed today.
Professor Jordan Peterson was talking about the 'INDIVIDUAL' point of view. For example, If I am required to show I am an individual who is a caring person, it is not 'Your right' that I do it, it's something you expect. There is no law mandating it is your right that I do something for you just because you want it.
Now, if you are talking about a company, let's say pharmaceutical, then yes you have a 'Right' to know what is in the drug you are taking; that is the 'LAW'. In this case Biden is stipulating that he believes, 'BY LAW' you have a right to medical care. Currently, there is no law or anything in the constitution that gives you that 'Right'. Know your politics and the 'rights' of the individual before you make such insidious comments.
The Sovereign Individual is NOT CREATED by society, they are BORN as Sovereign Individuals and therefore the right to choose how they live. Your argument staes that I have the right to FREE HEALTHCARE, when in actual fact - I don't!
Yes, I get it. You don't like Jordan, or conservative views, nor do you allow the normal process of individual thought cloud your group thinking mind. The 'Democrat' State you want, tells you what you can do, say, go, and can restrict you in any way they wish, and form your minds to their ideology without question. If that is your idea of a 'FREE AMERICA' you are welcome to it.
Disclaimer: The above is my personal opinion.
Maybe you should try saying that as well.
"Nothing that someone else has to provide can Be a right." is correct. the point is you have no right to another man's talent and labor without Fair compensation. that would be slavery!!!
You said " so all rights are provided by the community" YOU ARE WRONG!!!!! Your sovereign rights are what you are born with and are secured and protected by the government through laws. read Thomas Payne "Common sense".
you speak agents Sovereign kings but endorse a sovereign Government over the people this is such childish garbage that any undergraduate similar could take apart. you want to talk about Arrogance, Let's talk about arrogance.you sir sufer from the Dunning Kruger effect.
"Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them;"
Thomas Payne common sense
The end of your video wasn't accurate. Too biased. Here's an idea. Why not talk with someone who disagrees with you.
More vids more vids
Of course you aren't forced to become a teacher or doctor. Teachers and doctors aren't even forced to 'produce' the right, because they wouldn't if they didn't get paid.
Instead the government forces you to pay even more taxes, so they can in turn pay these people. You yourself are the one that provides the service you and others have a right to. They effectively make the application of force less personal, and indirect.
There wouldn't be a problem with this, if it was the only way to get healthcare or education. The thing is, there are other ways and places people can spend their (otherwise taken) money, where they might get a better service, or even get it cheaper.
Another important point related to this issue in general (I haven't watched the entire video yet, so please excuse me if you covered it there) is that a right to healthcare can be negative (so far I feel like you implied it is positive by nature, again, could be my mistake).
This would mean that no one is forced to provide it to you, but that none can stand in your way if you seek it.
No one can prevent you from seeing a doctor, but the doctor who is to check on you.
In the same way that you have a right to feed yourself, but not a right to bread.
Edit 1: same with freedom of movement =\= right to good roads
Edit 2: interesting argument (re. There are no negative rights). Interestinf point, will think about that. Do not yet agree with it though, but my reasons for it are not condensed enough to put into text.
Edit 3: Towards the end you make some generalizing statements that I feel do not really apply to this topic (controlling women, foreign intervention, etc.).
I might make some edits in this comment as I finish the video.
Youre not actually attacking his moral claim. Just because we live in a society, doesnt mean we ought to give out these rights. You are just making a factual claim about how things are, not how they should be. Rights are an ought claim not an is claim.
The point is that society INHERENTLY provides rights for people at the cost of someone working to uphold them. The reason we "ought" to give people health care is because it produces a healthier, robust population that is less impeded by debt. The entire point of a right is to improve wellbeing and freedoms through a social contact. Trying to make a moral argument out of that is a losing battle, and avoids the logic of the proposal (entirely because Peterson is a conservative who doesnt want people to have free HC).
Nonsense socialist.
Kermit the fraud is wrong about something? I'm lost for words.
It sounds like you’re looking for a handout. What you’re feeling is shame and the knowledge that people look down on you as pathetic. That’s what people think of you.
You're the textbook Jordan Peterson fan. Superficial analysis and a dumbed down interpretation of anything with detail and nuance.
@@KodakKid …but I’m correct.
@@cybercab You're not correct. Wanting a basic level of health care that doesn't drive you to bankruptcy - as many other developed nations have succeeded in doing - has nothing to do with handouts, shame, or any of that other nonsense. It has to do with creating a more intelligently designed society.
That's like making people pay $100 for every 8oz of water they drink, and saying "you're just looking for a handout, because you feel shame and don't like being seen as pathetic" when people who can't afford the rate speak out for not wanting to die of dehydration. It's idiotic.
*"They think they can be kings of the world. They think they can be in control of their own choices."*
Yeah... how dare anyone believe they should be able to control their own choices. I can't believe you actually said that out loud. After making a statement like that you have absolutely ZERO business ever questioning anyone's commitment to freedom. Your words and micro-expressions in this video make it abundantly clear that you're deeply offended by there mere idea of individual liberty, and that you're outraged by the existence of people who believe in it. I watched your entire video on the psychology of genocide and got the strong impression that you were a good guy, but oh boy was I wrong...
Nevermind your outrageous mischaracterization of libertarian/conservative beliefs and your hateful demonetization of libertarians/conservatives as individuals. That was absolutely disgusting and quite frankly I'm shocked that somebody who spent so much time making a video about the psychology of genocide would say the things you said in this video. People like you are the reason why hyper-partisanship and political bigotry has taken over the entire western world.