I've noticed a lot of comments here that feel I am using Conspiracy Theory in an entirely dismissive way. This is not entirely true (though it has led me to reflect on the extent to which it might be true). I thought it would be worthwhile to link to some earlier episodes where I looked at the fledgling field of the Pscyhology of Conspiracy Thinking and try to give a balanced take on Conspiratorial thinking: 1. Why people believe conspiracies according to this new field of psychology: th-cam.com/video/oXWLm4IE0ho/w-d-xo.html 2. My own hypothesis of Conspiracy Theorists as cultural white blood cells: th-cam.com/video/f_w5UJNtJLM/w-d-xo.html
The many, many errors in the Hicks book. And perhaps we might clarify for full disclosure that Mr S Hicks is none other than a professor of philosophy! to make a start... Please, hear me out... Jonas Ceika key point number 1 is that this professor of philosophy S Hicks didn't do his homework properly with respect to MacKinnon and Dworkin, that they are not postmodernists. But this is a rather basic academic device - and used by the left regularly for no particular reason - that invites the reader to think. If they have double checked who these people are or what they have been saying, then perhaps, perhaps, sensible, intelligent people and scholars alike, might give the said professor of philosophy the benefit of the doubt, and ask why he appears to have misrepresented these two persons? Perhaps they have interesting things to say - some of which is complementary to what Hicks has to say, and perhaps top level additions... But wait! Perhaps they are of the left/other lefts? Engaging in Butterfly politics!? But nonetheless Hicks does say these two are an aid to the postmodernist movement, via their feminist legal criticism, which if my grammar from primary school is still good, doesn't say they are "postmodernists" it says those two things are linked and to a significant extent. And besides they are allowed to criticise postmodernism even if merely to add to the muddle and mix of discursive dialetic discourse? All of which is nothing remotely to do with shoddy scholarship. Unless of course you want it to be. So that was number 1 in the "many, Many errata..." All it took was a glance, a glance at these happening philosophical minds... that is Living and Jonas. And they seem to think they need to lie to win the argument, which should tell you something... what's my next line? errr have a think? i mean even "homo philosophicus" would know when he is wrong.
As a follow-up to the issue of MacKinnon & Dworkin from the Ceika TH-cam video, there is "Tucked away in 'Derrida & Feminism' 1997, an essay by John Caputo called 'Dreaming the Innumerable: Derrida, Cornell & the Dance of Gender'.
Instead of citing proof and evidence to shut down claim you believe are false, you site information to convince the opposition that they are crazy conspiracy theorists. and therefore weaponized the word instead of justifying it… which is what they are claiming you are doing?🤨
Literally the first clip you played mentioned nothing about race, sex, or sexual orientation. I don’t see your point with showing that clip and it doesn’t prove your claim… in fact he doesn’t mention anyone’s oppression what so ever. Instead you see a white man discussing the gratitude of a specific ideology and automatically assume he’s talking down on oppressed people? Where do you even get off making that claim dawg🤦♂️ it seems to come from a racist view of white people.
Absolutely fantastic. It's hard to find genuine, good faith, in depth criticisms of JP. As someone who really appreciates Jordans ideas this is incredibly valuable.
Thanks Harry! Can't ask for kinder words than that. I wanted to be fair to him and both criticise and express admiration for him so glad you feel I had some success!
Amen. This video is, by far, the best critique of JP I have seen. It’s honest and doesn’t want to destroy him, just to correct or clarify important subjects. I hope JP look at it one day, I guess he will find it at least interesting.
Love this channel man, great work! Do you think that James Lindsay is on something? Even though he came from the Stephen Hicks's circle (j.b.p, Kevin O'fallon, Brett Weinstein, etc.)
@@philipperodier8414 I really don't know. Could be though. I'm a big fan of Bret and have been for years and I know he's a good faith commentator so his version of this is definitely something that I'm sympathetic to especially with his story around what happened at Evergreen. I'll be curious to hear what Lindsay has to say
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Sure, it's why ask the man! Thanks for your insight thought, I felt the same thing for Bret. If you have some time to kill; Thaddeus Russell, historian and founder of his Renegade University, did a podcast with James Lindsay (Postmodernism criticism and clarification) and Aleksandr Dugin (Explanation of the 4th political theory). I'm trying to understand if Dugin's philosophy overlaps with Metamordenism, so I started to read the latest book of Jason Ānanda Josephson Storm (Metamodernism: The future of theory), to figure it out. Anyways, I'll be glad if it can inspire you, but don't change a thing and have a good one!
@@philipperodier8414 Ah awesome Philippe! This sounds like a tasty recommendation!! Thanks for putting it on my radar. Any idea what the podcast is? I couldn't find it on youtube
@@TheLivingPhilosophy there you go: Unregistered Podcast on TH-cam -- -Unregistered 193: Alexander Dugin (VIDEO) -Unregistered 196: James Lindsay (VIDEO)
I recently had a discussion with a slightly older colleague of mine who is self-proclaimed to be more conservative. It's primarily due to his skepticism towards today's identity politics, and claims that a lot of progressive discourse puts too much emphasis on victimhood and oppression. Naturally, he likes what Peterson has to say for the same reason you do: stop focusing on the bigger structures that take away your autonomy, and focus on your own, inner-world of control. I noticed an interesting thread in the conversation: the topic of what you can control. Conservative politics is more inclined to focus attention inwards- finding your best self and getting your own life in order, while Progressives express control in a kind of "outward activism", since the oppressive structures at large are exactly what prevents us from finding stability in our own lives. I'm sympathetic to both sides, and it's probably best to strike a good balance in the middle. My personal issue with Peterson is his dismissal of the harm that our world-structures are imposing. Climate Change and third-world exploitation are easy ones to point to, and I find it understandable that our Gen Z populations find it difficult to "point their attention inwards" when the world they've inherited is burning down. They are met with a kind of urgency that Peterson's philosophy doesn't address. And when these issues are raised- he simply responds by calling them ungrateful. Not sure how much these thoughts have any bearing in actual reality, but I thought I'd share nonetheless. Top quality content as usual! Loving the addition of graphics ;)
Thanks for sharing Stian and actually I am very sympathetic to your point of view. In the past couple of years I've come to realise the limitations of this personal responsibility path. It no longer seems enough to me although it seems like a good foundation. In one way that's an argument you could make for Peterson: if you feel like you have no agency then make your bed and once you can do that add a little more and a little more and your circle of influence expands until you can potentially have some effect on the currents of the culture. But that of course is a self-transcendence of the philosophy by itself and an admittance that it is incomplete PS I have a first draft of Heraclitus written I've been meaning to give it a decent first edit so and I'll be in touch!
well after a year of this video i dont know what changed for you regarding some of the things going on in our world but i have something to say anyway first of all nobody knows the whole truth of our existence or its problems and its solutions not jp ..and definitely not the left and the woke activists who are mostly very self righteous and ideological in there way of thinking and also they take it for granted that they know the whole story which is one of those mistakes humanity keeps repeating... second of all also nobody is completely wrong even jp when u analyse the way this sjw and the left's reductive analyses of the world and its problems through the lenses of "us vs them" either white vs black (im not white and i thing its foolish that so many fall for this one) or men vs women or .... so i dont really blame jp for thinking this is done intentionally as a way to impose some sort of an ideology it did happen through out history like religions.. its naive to thing its just jp "conspiracy theory" thirdly the idea that u need to work on ur self inwardly is very logical u can see with identity politic and collective movements things could get pretty chaotic ... and working on ur self individually is not to just have good foundation (emotionally and mentally and psychologically )but also to have critical thinking and good knowledge of the cause and the problem so u would have wider perception and not to perceive things through the lenses of race and gender and victimhood or guilt …so u wouldn't be emotionally manipulated into radical self righteous movements and extremism… things do get tainted by politicians and even human ego….so u wouldn't be driven by despair and fear monger like whats happening now with climate change its not crazy to thing there could be some agenda behind it…its good to be able to see all the angles …to be grateful and use what u have (that's what he meant ) and use it to be better and pay forward is much better than anger and resentment and guilt im from a a third world country and i find funny that the argument for our exploitation and victmizing us by the west is more harmful (i call it pretentious white guilt 😁 ) we have a lot of problems here we are not just victims to the west and all of history is full of bad things all of humans did to each other this binary game of (this vs that( is not innocent that's my opinion and i have the feeling its not been done with good intension its just a form of pleading to pathos and guilt tripping that wouldn't lead to much good there form a western point of view ...i would prefer learning from history and move on but like i said we take it for granted that we know the whole story and tha we see the big picture and all the angels.... basically to know the absolute truth which is one of those dangerous mistakes we keep falling in to as humans specially collective emotional self righteous movements and sjw's and we have to understand that we are talking about very complex intertwined thing "the individual psychology the collective psychology and the existential and spiritual world problems and plenty more variables we cant possibly cover know all about it and cover it in a video or comment or in person like jp we still have a lot to work on as humans specially individually and specially spiritually .sorry if its to long English is not my first language
Peterson has the answer for this: young people’s problems aren’t real and they’ve just been infected by the Neo-Marxist plague. There really is no angle you can squint at Peterson and see anything but a charlatan if your acting in good faith.
@@algerianfan8404 Consider that those annoying activists have been able to achieve nearly every one of their goals while the other side is being systemically excluded from being able to accomplish what they want for themselves. Radical individualism is a su i cide pact when opposing an organized collective. Even if you don't care that they make themselves miserable by externalizing all their distorted self-views, you should at least care that they're doing the same to you.
@@mynameisjeffff His understanding is factually and conceptually wrong. There's only so far you can filter and misinterpret a text; after a certain point, it's safe to say you don't understand it. I recommend looking up Peterson in the Nietzsche subreddit for some concrete examples.
Great video! Definitely agree with the overall message, have always found it strange how JP loves the work of Nietzsche but is so hard of the postmodernists. However, I do think it's worth pointing out how JP's study of evil contributes to his dislike of what he perceives to be a post-modernism. JP regularly talks about the psychology of a concentration camp gaurd or the motivation of dictators like Hitler or Stalin and I get the sense his disdain for someone like Foulcalt stems from him attributing to him the same psychological profile. He essentially sees him as a Dostoyevsky villain, very intelligent but resentful and bitter at a world he feels doesn't accept him. Under this reading it is less that JP believes some grand conspiracy, more he believes that Foucalt doesnt value his society or tradition and resents his place in it so his overall aim is to over throw it. He rightly or wrongly believes him to have the psychological profile of a tyrant.
That’s a very valid point. As someone trying to navigate the ideological sphere in the waters of superficiality, I think JP became popular because of a conversation on the deeper foundations of societal makeup. You made a great point about profiles of evil figures. Perhaps one of the greatest critiques of any sociological system is that it is made up of humans. Therefore, utopias are only as great as the people within them. I remember hearing a JP talk where he talked about how even if the “good” people came into power of a uniting political system, there will be someone driven by X (power, bitterness, nihilism, trauma) who will take control of that system because that is often a common coping response to feeling weakened, hurt, angered, or traumatized. Perhaps this is a reason why JP and Gandhi have a message of working on your individual self as an important foundation to taking on bigger societal problems. “Be the change you want to see in the world.” But there needs to be a compelling REASON to agree to this responsibility. This is probably why religions such as Christianity (though people have used it as a means to oppress, control, and hurt) have contributed to the blessings and issues we have today. I believe humanity has been struggling within themselves and has made an assumption that there is ultimate hope in social systems, philosophies, cultures, etc. I think it is the case that the burden of humanity is trying to find collective homeostasis and there are moments, evidenced in history, where our differing collective ideologies/archetypes war against each other (evidenced by historical unrests and maximized today by internet-where archetypes are warring against each other without wisdom and proper and accurate exposure/communication with one another). Some people want to sustain the burden of collective homeostasis and hope in a utopia, while other want to end the burden through nihilism.
Brilliantly said! I just wrote a big response to this in defence of Jordan, much longer than yours, and used the Dostoevsky analogy. Read your comment afterwards and you have summarised my sentiments much more succinctly. I believe Foucault and people like him are intelligent resentment driven antisocial characters much like Dostoevsky's villains and the overthrow part is integral to their motivation albeit more subtle and less radical on the surface anyway.
This is probably the best criticism of JP I've ever seen. It's non-antagonistic, yet it dives deeply at one of the major downsides in the way that he has used social media to date. His long form content is the best, but his short form social media interactions tend to be very lacking in what actually makes him unique.
As many have said here, you are one of the few who hasn't simply 'taken sides' for or against Peterson. I'd be fascinated to hear Peterson giving a considered response to your critique of his thought, or even a dialogue between you. Your discussion of the shadow was full of echoes of Plato. Philosophy has grown and developed from Plato but can't ultimately escape his question about what truth is and how we can or can't reach it.
YOU SAID IT? I'm Confused to see Peterson Confused more than usual and can't stand by his accusations and other accusations Against Him . How would the educated only in his diagram be so Fruitful? Critical theory and Psychoanalyst existentialism Galore for what true benefits to satisfy the living in Normal lower grade realities'🤔😁🙄.@@bugzyhardrada3168
Ya ,How to be a Critique in Petersons Diagram ? We can discuss like all way's riding the Same Squeaky Marry- Go- Round Till we get some satisfaction or Blue in the Face psychoanalytic existentialist?🤔🙂🙄
Wow. Perfect. Really spot on. I really like JP too. When he first came in the scene it really was brain/ear candy. I’m still a big fan but he’s really gone sideways. I even tried to reach out to him and discuss his existential crisis, and the medication problems. The shadow projection couldn’t be more accurate, well done. I wish I had your perspective around and available for me and my mystic stuff! Would really love for you to point out anything and everything as pithy as you’d like. I promise to laugh:). Anyway, watch out for your own rise, it’s coming quick. How will your shadow manifest without you being aware of it? I’ll do my best to opine as honestly and lovingly as possible. Thanks again, you knocked this one out of the park.
@@priapulida I love and respect your right to see it however you’d like. I just disagree with you. Whenever I’m conflicted (or emotional or upset or angry) the first thing I look at is that I’m the one who’s conflicted. Why am I conflicted? Is it because of my view, my insistence that the world is not how I would have it be, that it’s them, those people, that group? I think that’s more the problem today than anything else. JP still is held in my mind in the highest regard but he’s starting to sound a little like the things he’s seeing. But it’s fine to disagree with me and this channel. Or anyone else for that matter. Thanks for the response.
Haha thanks Aaron I can only hope that I do rise and that I might have the wisdom to look into my shadow and that you'll be there to point it out. I'm not yet convinced I'll have any such wisdom it makes me nervous but hey you don't know till you try. Gold is only revealed by the touchstone
You’ve a huge amount to say- worth saying and I, too , look forward to witnessing your rise, my only feedback , is to slow down, please!…( slow your delivery) I can’t swallow all your gems , without splitting my head and heart ….this poet, feels thoughts and thinks, feelings
Just discovered your wonderful channel!…I love a “ Jung brew” and, while admiring of Peterson, I’ve always felt a suspicion about his position ….I’m not learned enough to catch your insights but I’m a willing student ….thank you
Awesome analysis of JP's shadow complex. But I do have a question for you, whether you answer it or not, I will be subscribing. Firstly, I completely agree with you a lot of JP's critiques of communism, socialism, post-modernism, and neo-Marxism are the result of unconscious shadow projections.. but I also think that many of them aren't and that a lot of what JP has to stay really does hold true. It may not be to the conspiratorial extent that he makes it out to be, but it's very clearly evident within academic discourse how much post-modern and Marxist/neo-Marxist thinking has influenced our generation. I am a Master's of Social Work candidate who was born in 1993 and you wouldn't believe how emphatically Marxism, identity politics, power and hierarchy being inherently white supremacist structures, racial and sexual identity, and the idea that "if we just got the right people in power, the abolition of capitalism would solve all of our problems!" reigns supreme. I actually see that as part of the issue. Many of my colleagues would rather spit on Carl Jung's grave than read anything he has to say, simply because JP mentions him so much. It's a battle between shadow projections and I don't think that enough people, without the understanding of Jung's psychology, will ever understand. it really is a battleground. Within your theoretical analysis, I don't disagree with much of what you say, but many of us see and feel it tangibly in our day to day lives. Do you?
There's no doubt there's something going on I definitely see that and was really stirred by what Peterson was saying at first but I think that his discourse around it is only throwing petrol on the fire rather than accurately diagnosing and bringing a solution to the problem
Good vid. Peterson definitely has a vague view on postmodernism, and I agree it's obvious that he projects his shadow on the idea. But at the same time, there is a crazy proliferation of hegelian/marxian thinking going on. Communists did try to take over the world, as did the nazis. So these ideologies that Nietzsche predicted are capable of possessing nations and they are dangerous. I think your vid is great. But I also think that if he just bothered to read postmodernists and neo marxists (I mean critical theorists), Peterson would have a more nuanced but still compelling case to make
Ah, but then he would know that the solution is actual individual by individual each of us introspecting and realizing that we are all part of One Being and are interdependent , thereby reducing the egotism/materialism that plagues our species today, and not angry rantings on Twitter and whining about being persecuted and creating conspiratorial bogey men.
@@thenowchurch6419 the conspiratorial bogey man is already there, he just named it and made it real, maybe 10 yrs prior it would have been just a conspiracy.
What you didn't mention but what I think is absolutely crucial: His traumatized reaction when learning at an early age that a (Soviet) nuclear bomb could vaporize himself and everything he held dear in an instance. His reaction when recounting this realization is harrowing, and to me explains a lot of his shadow.
@@mckinnonbathie5945 unfortunately I can't find the clip I believe to remember where he specifically refers to himself growing up, but I even think I read about it in one of his books... But my memory is unreliable. Here someone at least posted a clip of him talking about nukes and the cold war: th-cam.com/video/hrgCiNn17DI/w-d-xo.html
2 questions: 1. Which work should I read if i want to understand JBP's take on Jung and Nietzsche? 2. You used a phrase "shadow villain". What work would you suggest i go thru to understand more about shadow psychology? Great video as always!
Thanks Rahul! For 1 I would suggest Maps of Meaning. It's a long read but it is well worth it and you can see how it knits all of these things together - his spiel about chaos and order, how that maps over onto neuroscience and Jung and as ever a solid side of Nietzche served throughout For 2. I actually don't have THE book on the shadow. You learn a lot of it in primers about Jung. I'd recommend his autobiography myths dreams reflections to anyone as it gives a great overview of his whole philosophy. Also man and his symbols can be a great entrypoint and von Franz's essay on individuation on that is a good place to learn about the shadow. Other than that...Robert Johnson's book on the shadow is quite good though it's just a small little thing and lacked the depth that I wanted
Great video. I appreciate you come in good faith, an increasingly rare thing. I'm going to chime in on Peterson's behalf. As you pointed out, Peterson admits that when he was younger he was taken in by socialism and the Jungian shadow argument likely has more than a kernel of truth to it. It is what he called "luciferian intellect," which he says in reference to Dostoevsky's character Raskolnikov and the Peterson weelterschaung is overwhelmingly influenced by Dostoevsky far more than anyone else. His idea about postmodernism and neomarxism is really framed as a spiritual question. It's about an ideological possession to undermine established institutions and attitudes, one that traditionally manifested itself in an economic anti establishment struggle, but when Marxism was put into practise and eventually became indefensible, that same spirit, the spirit that Dostoevsky identified as "the possessed" in his titular novel, changed the way it manifested itself. This is the "sleight of hand," but it's underlying resentful motivations remained the same and is a story as old as time. Peterson calls this "the spirit of Cain" and both him and Dostoevsky were obviously very fond of biblical wisdom, (Peterson with ancient wisdom in general). It is about usurping established social hierarchies, and in the developed sphere after the world wars it became about identity politics rather than economics. Identity politics is Afterall an overwhelmingly bourgeois phenomenon emanating mostly from academia and is no longer about feeding hungry mouths like traditional Marxism. There is a nasty vicious authoritarian element to it that cloaks itself under the guise of progressivism and a conviction that it is on the right side of history, no matter what. In a revolutionary atmosphere, it can be harder to determine what is true positive progress and what is resentment fueled ideological revenge. This is where the interest in left wing authoritarianism is of far greater interest, because it's much harder to discern. Right wing authoritarianism is axiomatically bad. It's bad in theory and in practice. Left wing authoritarianism is often wonderful in theory and uses clever litigious intellectual language, like an Ivan Karamazov or Raskolnikov. Who doesn't want to be an anti fascist Afterall? Who doesn't think black lives matter? But just because the communist bloc refered to the Berlin Wall and inner border wall as an anti fascist protection barrier, doesn't mean it was, just like the penchant for autocratic states to use "democratic" or "people's republic" in their official titles accounts for nothing and is infact classic doublethink. The most famous example of this is probably Orwell, a man who was a democratic socialist and who literally physically fought fascists, but came to the realisation that there was extremely sinister people amongst his ranks disguising themselves as caring and righteous. Currently these people usually go around calling themselves empaths, and many progressives are motivated by empathy and social awareness, but many aren't. Many are just resentful, sometimes understandably so sure, but they have no sensible ideas about how to bring about actual positive change, and the real socially aware citizens, someone like Orwell, can be easily swept away and lost in this ideological tribalism driven by people who don't really stand for anything and literally just hate the world. We all know these people when we encounter them, and they usually don't have "their house in order," and have a poor ability to introspect and understand the forces driving them which can lead to abominable contrarian ideas like the pedophilia movement these french intellectuals gave us. If established institutions say the sky is blue, they will argue it's red. If the consensus of society is that pedophilia is bad, they will literally try and deconstruct it and accuse such notions of being social constructs that aren't worthy of respect and can be dismantled overnight. Currently one of the most absurd examples of neomarxism that is driven purely by anti-establishment resentment is the push to defund the police in America, which is pure insanity. But the most quintessential example of neomarxist postmodernism is Netflix's blatant disregard for objective truth by portraying Cleopatra as a black woman. Perfect example of the spirit of resentment and vanity dressing itself up in an intellectual cloak despite its pure disdain for truth. It is driven by someone who absolutely does not have their house in order. This is Neomarxist post modernist identity politics to a tee and it is in no way motivated by the social concerns that seek to improve opportunities for inner city poverty stricken blacks by improving education and healthcare, and a noble cause such as the latter is in real danger of being lumped in with the former and dismissed as deranged liberalism. Hence Peterson describes himself as a classical liberal, a liberal who moves forward with a bit more apprehension and consideration for proposed changes, rather than immediately considering all forms of change to be good, especially when driven by groups that have questionable people with questionable motives in the same tribe and fighting in the same trenches as those who are true social justice warriors in the true sense, rather than hate filled resentful self described empaths who only want to see power change hands, but with more focus on identity rather than economics, but nevertheless, it is the same driving force, disguised as something else, and this is the sleight of hand. I really do sympathise with the OG Marxists who were actually hungry and homeless I would like to hear him talk more about that. Edit: I don't think postmodernism is a conspiracy to bring down western culture, not in the true sense of conspiracy where people have collaborated to do so and I'm not sure Peterson has ever said that? Certainly there are revolutionary elements and always will be but I don't think this involves the intellectuals Peterson has a gripe with. Rather the case is a group who arrived at similar conclusions independently, likely because they didn't fit in for one reason or another and there is a vengeful element to their ideology, not unlike a school shooter who couldn't fit in and blamed the school as a whole rather than looking inward. There is a similar spirit to the two.
brilliant. i am no philosopher, only interested in it, and peterson was the first to really grab my attention. like yourself, it was the jungian and personal responsiblity aspects of peterson that really captured my attention. But i got caught up in his savaging of post-modernism, backed up by the whole IDW at the time. But that part faded with time, and I became more concerned at petersons bitterness. Why do i spend so much time listening to such anger? That it is as you say his Jungian shadow is somehow a beautiful ouroboros and puts it all nicely into perspective. Thank you for this!
Great work. As a psychology student, I've always been soo unconfortable with JP conspiracy tendencies, cause he's work as a clinical psychologist (especially in personality traits field) always looked really good to me. But when he comes and put Foucault, Derrida and Marx in the same group as devils trying to destroy westerns civilization (as if this is actually a thing without fundamental problems as a concept itself) really does make me feel sad. Great takes at that.
I think we are at the mercy of secular ethics in our conclusions. For Peterson, it is at the center a matter of Theology. The Living Philosophy here ironically is guilty of what he ascribes to Peterson as having repressed sight. He has always maintained, by arguing the threat to Western Values, he investigated and discovered the source of them which is the Bible, with Christ as its Central figure, the Logos, John 1:1. He then observes in Foucault as is with Neitzsche the necessity for self-determination by inventing values to replace the moral void left by the death of Godin Europe..." who gave us the sponge to wipe away the horizon," "is there no longer up or down left?" "God is dead and we have killed Him"...so everything is opened to redefinitions that were previously established in Christianity...So now what is life? we today say "let the woman decide" which she has determined that a baby in the womb is only a life and a beautiful miracle when she wants to have it and at the same breath calls it a parasitic clump of cells when she does not want it...what is a man/woman? The current secular Presidential administration renamed mothers as "birthing persons"... This is Peterson's qualm which seems to be inaccessible to you guys because perhaps you have no God in your considerations....whatever similarities Living Philosophy drew are but common human superficialities but the mark is completely missed on the fundamentals as regards worldviews. Theologically speaking, when you do away with God, Western values collapse, and no human values have ever been invented that could compete with scriptural foundations of ethics. We tried it in the 20th Century and found just how bereft the human will is. If you don't get it you might start by considering God as a hypothesis at the very least and go from there.
@@angru_arches You are falling in the very dangerous trap that is thinking that there are no morals without god. Even the notion of a "western culture" isn't self evident as people like Peterson made it out to be. What is western culture? Derives from the greeks ? So it can't be christian right ? The whole idea that the only way to have morals is God is absolutely flawed, and the link beetween Nietszche, Derrida and Foulcault is far from that. Also, not being american, is very obvious to me that a Country sooo deeply build in bigotry like tha USA history shows us isn't, not even close, a standard for good morals. I mean, Jim Crow Laws inspired Nazis, and you know as much as I do know that the ethos that guide that country in that time was really less secular than it is know that you don't have this kind of horror.
@@fernandoalcantud8388 1. "You are falling in the very dangerous trap that is thinking that there are no morals without god." I never said 'no morals', I echoed Neitzsche's and Foucault's sentiments that man would have to INVENT morals after the DEATH OF GOD...The West's morals were Christian, and since Christianity "Died by its own hand"(Neitzsche) there was created a moral void which human invention would have to fill somehow, the Nazis tried it, Marxists who hate religion also tried it, and see their fruits...without God, essentially, there's no Objective Morality. Rape and murder becomes a matter of preference. You can't condemn anybody objectively speaking coz we are all animals dancing to the drum of our DNA (Dawkins). 2. "What is western culture? Derives from the greeks ? So it can't be christian right ? " No,it's not Greek, it's Christian particularly over the conversion of Constantine I in the 300s and made the entire empire Christian..Atheist revisionists have tried to erase Christianity's shaping of the Western Ethos just to discredit and diminish its impact. I'm not saying you're doing this on purpose. The Greek influence is on account of it being the Lingua France, coming after their unification of their conquest before their Empire's collapse...the Romans preserved it for the common language...that's why the New Testament is written in Greek. But even so, the Greek's insistence on Reason led them, with Aristotle, to conclude theat there must be an 'Unmoved Mover', a first cause, the Logos of John 1:1..like every society since man has posited a God, coz reason dictates that out of nothing, nothing comes. The UN Human Rights,the creations of Hospitals, Universities, Modern Science, all started by the Church. 3. "a Country sooo deeply build in bigotry like tha USA history shows us isn't, not even close, a standard for good morals." Now this is upsetting...you think because you are soo familiar with America's history you can sum their entire history up as inherently boggoted?? How about the fact that slavery is a human universal? That it's still ongoing as we speak in Africa, RIGHT Now? How about White slaves in North Africa? You know that history? You know about how slaves were acquired in Africa? That it was Africans who enslaved Africans and sold them to Arab traders who transported them in chains across the Sahara desert and then Traded them to the Europeans before the first slave set foot in the Americas? Did you know that it was Great Britain that abolished the Slave trade in Africa? Did you know America is the only country in history to have a civil war, NOT AN UPRISING BY THE SLAVES, but ordinary Americans, and lay down 320,000+ lives to liberate slaves??? Then give lives to helpand win both World Wars, Protect Europe from Soviet conquest in the Cold War, give 50,000+ lives to liberate South Korea, and give more in the attempt to liberate Vietnam... I don't think you realize how much the ingratitude and resentment of all things Western ha saturated your thinking. Do you extend the same criticism for the Indian religious Cast system that keeps people perpetually separated by class? Do you call all of Africa deeply biggoted for enslaving weaker tribes?? How about the Arabs, bigots too? Or do you only villify the West? That's the safe acceptable villains of the Secular Liberal Left.
@@angru_arches I havent said that slavery and Jim Crow is exclusive, let alone worse in America than in the rest of te world;~I've said time and time again that there's no superior morality in western (particularly U.S) powers. Not the India, Africa or Native aren't flawed with deep violations themselves; the difference is that there are no superiority culture like supremacists do in the US. The Arabs, Indians, Americans, Africans did all comitted atrocious things. Now, to look at the Nazi experience and think that they're trying to create any morals is absolutely misguided.
I like Jordan Peterson. I don’t actively listen to him, but when I do I often find myself agreeing with him, and take what he says to heart. But I have truly never been able to understand his talks on the “culturally Neo-Marxist”. It almost seemed to be random words grouped together, solely just for political gain.
Thing is, it's hard to trust his analysis of things because he consistently misinterprets or misrepresents others in general, not just a small group of French philosophers. He somehow came to the conclusion based on his reading that Orwell was anti-socialist when Orwell explicitly defends socialism multiple times.
@@priapulida Just because a possibility of totalitarianism exists does not mean one is inevitable, nor are different political movements inherently more prone to it than another. You can have totalitarian right wingers and totalitarian left wingers. I think JP is drawing unsuitable parallels between extremely different phenomena without providing enough substantial evidence to back up those claims.
@@priapulida Y'know what's really woke? Going on twitter and catastrophizing because an interview of yours from years ago has been removed from TH-cam by proclaiming it as being book burning while there are literally book burnings happening in the southern states of the US taking place at the time of the tweet. Big brain time.
@@priapulida Why would you pretend to know about the situation when you clearly haven't done even the most cursory examination of it? How shameless a prevaricator can you be?
I saw an interesting video of a journalist called Glen Greenwald titled "the mountain of data showing how authoritarian democrats have become". Obviously this pertains to the American situation, but it seems that the religion of wokeness coupled with rising authoritarianism is a contemporary plague arising out of the US and unleashed upon us all.
@@michaelmcclure3383 Glenn "off the wall" Greenwald? Personally, I can't rule out the possibility that Greenwald is doing an incredibly long-game satirical performance art bit. Especially when you know how his editorial line to his Brazilian audience differs from what he puts out in the west.
As far as 'post-modern neo-marxist' goes, a similar thing exists with Objectivists describing Kant and Comte, and students of their philosophies: a person who believes that reality is whatever you make of it, that facts and the laws of reality are at best tools and actively disregarded at worst, that the individual should be eliminated and that the state should be an active participant in your life. Sowell's 'The Vision of the Anointed' (as well as elsewhere) also talks about these same kinds of people. Now how it is that all these kinds of people (the ARI, Peterson and Sowell) can point the finger at basically the same kind of person... well calling it a conspiracy theory implies the people involved are conspiring together, so it's probably more accurate to think of it like the Crusades (especially the First) than a planned internal coup to seize power. At anyrate, I find Peterson to be at his best when he's being a psychologist and not a philosopher, alas his particular field of interest and the very nature of philosophy require him to be in that field when he has to figure out what on earth are the people that advocate the things he opposes so frequently.
On the strength of something you said in the closing section, I checked out Peterson's conversation with John Vervaeke. Unfortunately, I couldn't get more than 25 minutes into it before closing it in frustration. Peterson doesn't let Vervaeke finish a sentence, constantly interrupting and interjecting like a child on a sugar rush, constantly derailing Vervaeke's train of thought. I guess it gets better eventually, given what you say here, but my patience ran out. I've genuinely enjoyed some of Peterson's conversations in the past, but it was painful to listen to.
Yeah y'know what I'm the same. I think I just stuck it out because I like Vervaeke so much but it's one of the few bits of Peterson I've listened to since his return and this was one that put me off watching any more. It seems that this episode was an exceptional case of it but with that little listening going on it was very offputting. It made me question whether Peterson had fully recovered. I saw a clip of him on JRE recently where he seemed more present and coherent but yeah it's true the Vervaeke episode was tough watching
I've always had misgiving about Peterson well before Dr. Gabor Mate pointed out a year ago or so that he believes Peterson has a lot of unresolved pent up anger. I believe this fuels his shadow hence he projects it out on Postmodern scholars or anyone who disagrees with him.....as if they were intentionally out to dupe the masses with evil intentions. So glad TLP addressed this issue so clearly. It gets much closer to the truth of that which drives Peterson's state of mind. It truly is unfortunate that Peterson has no idea of the degree in which his shadow has possessed his heart and mind. What makes it worse is that, if you were to call him out on it out of genuine concern for his well being, he would, as most people do, deny it. Tragically, and unbeknownst to himself, he is defending the indefensible and does not know it. He is unwittingly subjecting himself to a very toxic shadow that, I fear, will, in the future, make his life far more difficult and he will never know its true cause UNLESS he sees the truth about "the long bag he is dragging behind himself". I respect and admire Peterson, but I do not take him seriously nor his advice on relationships or how to be a better person. Mainly because, as an INFJ, I intuitively felt his anger from the get go which often taints his best intentions. And his knowledge of amorous relationships pales in comparison to Esther Perel who sees ALL interpersonal relations with greater nuance and with a deeper humanistic understanding of what it means to be human. Peterson also spreads himself out too thin on issues that are not within his "domain" of knowledge (as he would put it). I can only hope that Peterson will take a very hard and deep look within himself and see that which is keeping him in a state of arrested development.
I don't think « deny » is the best word to describe the position he would take concerning your arguments. He would debate the case you're trying to make, rather. I would be interested to hear his response to your arguments, and see what truths you could both take out of the conversation. However I must ask about « Defending the indefensible ». What are examples of occurances where he defended something indefensible and how did/do his arguments fail to make his « defensive » case legitimate (apart from the fact that he doesn't really understand postmodernism, which mosts of his statements do NOT completely depend on) ?
by what perfection of self-knowledge do you grant yourself licence to say what "drive's Peterson's mind" how do you "respect and admire" and yet not "take seriously"? is your admiration silly and frivlous? are you conflicted?
As a long time JBP observer I found this take to be very interesting although I just don't have a good enough knowledge of Derrida and Foucault to decide either way. A question: what if we focus on the motivations of the followers of Derrida and Foucault rather than the men themselves, especially in America. Could the sleight-of-hand be a collective response, a misreading of these post-modernists, conscious or not, by Neo-Marxists in order to save their basic world view? I say this because I believe that Marxism really does have a great talent for morphing its basic world-view into other forms like certain camps of feminism and environmentalism and Catholic liberation theology (or maybe we could say it is good at hijacking anything it can use politically)......Anyway, another great video; food for thought; loved the Jung quotes. Cheers.
Good point. Is what we see from Peterson a missinterpretation of Post modern filosofers or a good reaction to the interpretation od these filosophers by certain groups? Btw. I watch his podcast regularly and I liked this video. There is something to it, but I don't have the knowlegde to tell where the truth lies. I would like someone to dig deeper in this direction.
Post-modernism is opposed to grand narratives like Marxism, so JP is off his rocker! Pomo is more about the relativism of world-views. JP conceals that problem of oppressors vs oppressed by not identifying the contexts of oppression which are frequently in the family institution, in the household, and in the marital relation. And, this oppression involves a monetary inequality. As for sleight of hand, the sleight of hand occurs when the state bails out banks but not homeowners, a clear pejorative supporting the bourgeoisie. How about addressing tax cuts, wages, subsidies? Tell us, defenders of JP, what is the purpose of salaries in the hundreds of millions and billions for corporate executives?
So you've identified two issues, the need for a genealogy of current thought and how it differs now, and what aspects of ideologies overlap. You know who was really good at investigating the "underlying motive" at work in thought? Foucault. Do you know what's a framework for separating different ideologies relationally and along material grounds? Marxism This is ultimately why you cannot save Peterson's thought. Great he wants to critique modern society, but he then just goes and blames the critics of society for critiquing society. Thus the deeper you go into his arguments the more non-sensical it becomes until you come out the other side and realize the next step is to actually read the authors he talks about. EDIT: Final point, once you identified JBP though as insufficient to critique society or understand philosophy in general, why not just move on? Could you not say that excuse you provide for him is just a sleight-of-hand on your part to continue to derive any value from his thought as a justification for the emotional investment you put in him? You can always come back to his work after you have a better understanding.
Recently discovered your channel during a search for modernism. You are doing a superb job, producing intelligent and compelling videos. Keep it up. Thank you!
Your unwavering loyalty to “truth” rather than “my team” is the most crucial element when approaching anything that resembles “truth”. Your intentions so to speak is in the right place and I pray you continue to have this balanced approach with all philosophical subjects.
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Love everything you do brother! Wishing you longevity, love and peace. Keep the great works coming as you’re doing a service for the greater good IMO.
Thank you for putting into words what I have long been uncomfortable with about JP. I too find his “make your bed” ideas sage advice, but the oversimplification of complex philosophy to promote FUD to be concerning. Brilliant job unpacking this with empathy and depth!
This was absolutely brilliant fair play. Peterson was a life saver for me when I discovered him and I mean that literally and I've always admired his ideas. You could have hit the nail on the head about Peterson projecting his shadow but one thing I'd take issue with is the conspiracy theory part. Is it not true that there are new groups coming up through the universities in the west whose goals are quite literally 'deconstruct the patriarchy' etc. I'd love to hear your critique of the actual details of this conspiracy theory and why he's wrong. Cheers
Postmodernism starting point ,is the rejection of marxism. As pomo like right wing worldview also is based on idealism, while marxism is the materialism based analysis/ historical materialism. The diffetence between idealism and materialism, essentially is tha other one is purely subjective, while other is very much an objective view of the world. Marxism is comprehensive understanding of the world, ie grand narrative, wich Postmodernism rejects totally. So to slam these 2 totally contradictory ideas together, is simply oxymoronic. But bcoz petersons, like idealists In general claims are abstract feelings based without any specific, thats why it sounds right, untill one start to look for specifics. But they and their listeners do not mind the vague abstract nature of those claims. Hence petersons pomo neo marxism or cultural marxism, is precicely the same claim, that Hitlers and nazis, cultural judeo bolshewism was. Not just in name, but In substance. Wich i argue, is enough to prove that it belongs to cathegory of conspiracy theory. Also note for. Peterson constantly cry about alienation and social atomization , yet he somehow makes the left to be responsinble for it, while he praises and worship the very system of, consumerism, greed ,wealth ie capitalism. That we know to produce these kind of results. Hell even Marx over 150y ago, wrote the theory of alienation. But peterson dont know ,how it was Marx that spoke about these same concerns. To cry for for meaninglesness alienation etc, while worshipping the system that naturally produces it, makes him totally unqualified to ever speak thos again. Not to mention peterson is the very postmodernist, by hes own standards even, in hes absurd relativist statements about, what is truth. What do you mean by christ or god etc. They are extremely far away, from mainstream christians views. Ie too far from every norm ppls definitions of them. The pathological fear and hatred of Marx is totally unwarranted. The dude did nothing but had the nerve to analyze how capitalism works. So when you speak about communists etc in schools do this somehow validate the pathological hate of Marx? Then should we also condemn Adam Smith, John locke etc, early capitalist thinkers?, due to all wars In Last 350years, and over billion of death. Does this make sence? Of coz not. Then why Marx is different, eventhough he newer had anything to do with bolshewists, communists etc. Only thing he did, was that he made the work, wich gave ppl an understanding of how the system works. So i ask should someone that calls himself an honest intellectual, Who is at war against marxism. (Eventhough making same arguments again and again, that Karl Marx himself made also), and postmodernism (while himself being the actual caricatyre of a postmodernist), should that someone at least understand some basics, before speaking against them. ? And it is clear he do not wish to correct hes lack of knowledge, this proves that we are dealing a kind of pathology, that do not only wish to answer to otherside, but views them as evil ,and unhumane I think, that thus it is not mere opinion but an objective fact that mr JP is first and foremost a conspiracy theorist God bless. Peace n solidarity
You are too general in your statements. There is much nuance in these topics. Various academics and scholars pursuing their careers and sharing views and thoughts with others of their ilk is NOT a conspiracy; it is just a movement. It is also not a monolithic movement but has much variation and disagreement. J.P.B.'s hyper emotionalism and constantly implying it is a conspiracy is ridiculous and dangerous.
@@thenowchurch6419 I'm not saying the rise of post modernism is a conspiracy, I was just using the creators terminology. Jordan Peterson doesn't claim it's a conspiracy either so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I think you're getting confused with who is using the conspiracy terminology here which was the OP in regard to Peterson's ideas about post modern neo Marxism.
@@123brizy You might want to watch the video again as well as Jordan's speeches on the topic. He does everything but use the word conspiracy. Certainly you are not suggesting that one must use the word conspiracy to be implying that there is one? Jordan clearly accuses Post Modern Neo-Marxists of seeking to overthrow the foundational principles of the West, that they are monolithic and "know exactly what they are doing". Surely you are aware of his rants about the Sports Illustrated cover being an intentional agenda and that there is a agenda by some at Twitter against him. He calls them and their project "evil". That suggests that they are not accidentally or naturally doing what they are doing but have an evil intent. That is the definition of a conspiracy.
@@tenholindberg9862 Excellent analysis. It is the height of irony that JPB embodies elements of all the isms he is fighting against and is possessed by the ideas he has adopted to a pathological degree, yet he acts like he understands Jung and the possibility of such possession.
Excellent video and to me it seemed you enjoyed making it! Great! This really made me want to learn more about Jung. What could be a good book to start from?
I did indeed Vanha! For a starter on Jung I'd highly recommend his autobiography Myths Dreams Reflections which does a good job of showing the evolution of his thought and of showing what he thinks in a very easy to read way. Man and his symbols is another great entry point which is a number of essays by Jung and a few others that captures the various key points of his school - the unconscoius, mythology and individuation. Both are great points to start from
As a JP fan I love this video but want to point out that’s it’s the people JP calls out that condemn us JP fans as bad people when we are all here enjoying this criticism yet those opposed tend to not be able to hear criticisms. I believe it’s this point that shows what drew JP into his “conspiracy” period. It’s maddening when people are so arrogant in their points and won’t accept critics points. I don’t believe JP is perfect but I do believe he has great lessons to be learned and I like his idea of the online university not bound by the educational system that is corrupt, at least in America, to an extent.
I’ve never heard Peterson before, as he seems to be the product of social media popularization, but it sounds like his argument is essentially the same as Allan Bloom’s “Closing of the American Mind” from the eighties- the “Nietzscheanization of the Left”.
Interesting stuff Stephen I am going to check out this Allan Bloom. The Nietzscheanisation of the left sounds like a different thesis than the Marxist one and more accurate in terms of Foucault and Derrida so I wonder if it'll give me a better understanding of how we got to where we are
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Bloom was also known as a great translator of Plato- his translation of Republic was standard text in graduate level courses. I don’t agree with his politics, but I do believe any followers of the postmoderns needs to have an understanding of Heidegger’s philosophy and it’s political implications before fully accepting their arguments. He is who they are responding to (particularly via Sartre.) Peterson’s critique seems pretty superficial and addressing contemporary trends, rather than a serious philosophical critique. As Arendt said, after the rise of totalitarianism and the failure of western culture to resist it , the thread of history has been irreparably broken. Appropriation and relativism are the only possible approach. Is Peterson unaware of artistic/literary movements of the twentieth century?
Great videos, really balanced perspective. Like the analytical approach. Would really like it if the text on screen would appear at once instead of along with narration because I like to screenshot it. it disappears too quickly. I could just get the whole script from the browser version of TH-cam. Regardless, like the energy that goes into this, your digging into these topics with the fervor that people dig into hiphop beefs and internet drama, your presentation is just measured and dare I say based(in fact). Keep it going and take care of yourself so I get to enjoy many more years of this.👍👊🖖
Good feedback Percy let me see if there's some way of doing both. And thank you for the kind words. As I cozy in for the long haul I'm trying to be more attentive to my health and balance so I can stay at this forever
This channel is so good. You analysis is one of the few honest ones you might find in the Internet about Peterson. Normally, you will find people to advocate for anything he says or to attack him for anything he says. Both of them aren't constructive at all. But you were, my friend! He has great ideas and insights and sometimes he directs his energy and focus into the wrong path, imo. And in my understanding of your video, you might just think of him something close to that. Thank you for your service. Keep your honesty and your great work. Cheers!
Ah thanks Emmanuel! I was only chatting with a friend about this yesterday. It's rare you find good faith critique of Peterson and while I think I came down a bit hard on him at times I still think there was an attempt to show my love while pointing out where I think he could be better so thank you for reaffirming my belief in it!
Why love person who teaches how everyone else should live their lives, like they know. I think Petersons shadow is a priest, a moralist, like Carl Jung, Peterson teaches virtues.
I could be wrong but I think that JP basically uses the term ‘postmodern neomarxist’ as a way of describing the general attitude and ideology that has taken a hold of universities. It’s characterized by a dismissal of truth and objective morality but ironically includes heavy moralizing based on identity politics. So perhaps JP mischaracterizes the early postmodernists, but to his credit, even they were extremely hesitant to define postmodernism. What matters I think is that he is justly criticizing the current attitudes and beliefs being taught in universities which certainly stemmed from these writers’ work.
Amazing video! I generally like Peterson, but there were many mind-blowing moments sprinkled throughout your video. He talks a good talk about balance and bridging polarities, but mere talk can be a smokescreen shielding the ego from the fact that the hardest work is yet to be tackled.
Possibly also worth a review of James Lindsay's new discourses who charts the conspiracy. I do think JP is aware of and does discuss his own shadow at times which gives him some nuance. I think if his first and second book had address the necessity of, and life affirming as much as life destroying nature of, chaos and order then I would give him more nuance overall
I enjoyed the video! I appreciate you trying to stay unbiased. However (lol) I do feel like you missed out on some nuance by not mentioning that the idea behind the Robert Moore quote is the EXACT criticism Peterson has against the “woke”. I think adding that would add so much to more depth to your interpretation. Btw did you ever think or feel like it might be unfair or imprecise to compare JP to a conglomerate of Ideas? I feel like that’s bound to paint the single person ( in this case JP) as a conspiracy theorist in the same way it would paint Olivia Wilde as a conspiracy theorist if you put her up against a conglomeration of conservative ideas. Don’t know if I made sense lol Anyways… you got a new sub! 🫡
Thank you for this video. Like many, JP's ideas resonated with me at low point in my life when I needed his verbose dad advice to move forward, but I can't seem to give any kind of credit to him without being accused of idolotry by his haters. Perhaps they too are projecting shadow content about their academics of choice 🤔
@@TheLivingPhilosophy How do you recognize when you're shadow possessed? It's something I worry about because I don't want to wind up projecting on people. They don't really deserve that.
@@Jay_Hendrix Really good question Mitchy. Off the top of my head I would suggest that a good way of keeping an eye on your shadow is in how your project it. When you feel hatred for someone and particularly when you see someone as evil I would suggest treading carefully. You are in the land of the shadow then. But there;s another pitfall to be mindful of and that is the common reaction to this realisation that you'll find in the hippie subculture: seeing any such emotions as being your problem and not to do with the other person. This idea of total agency is dangerous and is a recipe for abuse. Tread carefully but still be mindful that the other person may be in fact an asshole and you may need to act accordingly. That's all to do wtih shadow projection. You've tripped me a little with the idea of shadow possession. The seems like a different animal. That might be more connected to the idea of enantiodromia - opposites flipping into each other like the ideter gorging on a cheesecake - but this isn't something I'd have to think about more before coming up with a good response on how to deal with. Hope this helps to some extent
@@TheLivingPhilosophy It does, thank you. I find myself leaning more towards being a hippie myself. I just want everyone to love each other and get along, but I fear that may make me blind to people exploiting my tendency to give them a second, third, fourth chance ad infinitum. Even the idea of blocking someone on social media makes me feel a pit in my stomach because I know how important being there for people is, even if they exploit it. But I really do fear what kind of projection that might manifest. I'm terrified to imagine that people genuinely can't change and that I'll do more harm than good by trying to integrate them into my life and friend groups. I don't want to live in a world where even one person is beyond redemption.
Haha thanks Kevin. That would be an interesting one to do. I'm planning on doing a living philosophy of Ken Wilber at some point so might do that as part of it or else do a supplementary one maybe a moratorium on why Integral fizzled out
Haha it was a substantial enough rabbit hole Jan. I've seen enough Peterson to have a sense of what I was looking for so it wasn't like researching from scratch but still quite a lot of work in it!
Just recently discovered the channel, and it’s quickly becoming my favorite philosophy channel/podcast. This one is especially phenomenal. Handled with such grace and eloquence. While I won’t go so far as to say I’m a “fan” of Peterson’s (though I do dig his lectures on mythology sometimes), his “Neo-Marxist postmodernism” schtick is absolutely ridiculous. I like how Zīzek called him out on it during their debate, and Peterson’s only response was to shrug and be like “well I can just tell you both ideas are very popular in academia” lol
This is good and honest criticism. I must say though, after reading much and writing a thesis that touched on those subjects for about 200 pages (not in English), that there is some truth to what Peterson says about "postmodern neo-marxism"; it's just that he should be much more careful about it. There are indeed postmodern (as vague as the term is) elements and also roughly Neomarxist (Frankfurtian, post-structuralist, identitarian theories-activisms etc.) elements to the acid soup that has been corroding much of Western thought, narratives, culture and even epistemology for some decades now. It's an extremely confusing acid soup, though.
@@priapulida what ideologues specifically? I’ve never heard of anyone openly saying they are plotting to destroy enlightenment values. “Woke totalitarianism” is not a real thing. It’s fear mongering rhetoric meant to terrorize people who are slightly negatively affected by small, often well intended, changes in society that are inevitable in a constantly evolving culture.
Thank you friend! Trying to walk those grounds between the polarities and defy the idea that you can love both Peterson and Foucault. Ends up with rather contentious comment sections it seems!
@@priapulida I know, I've watched the video twice over now and have yet to glean what argument is even being made here against Peterson's ideas. Literally half of this video is him comparing Peterson to Foucault, which is completely irrelevant to any of the arguments made. At best, this video is philosophically interesting. At worst, it's a shameless attempt to generate revenue from fervent fans and enemies of Peterson.
@@priapulida I appreciate Peterson’s ideas about taking responsibility for your life, stopping blaming others for your predicament, and starting to order it yourself. It’s quality, helpful stuff. Where he loses me is on things like climate change denial and the red scare of postmodern neomarxists. Look up “scientists react to Jordan Peterson on climate.” As for the postmodern neomarxists, who exactly are they? And don’t list a couple of prominent, dead, 20th century French philosophers. Peterson speaks of them as an organized group with a deliberate, sinister, extremely pervasive agenda-those are literally terms of a conspiracy theory. So, where is this extremely well-organized and all-pervasive organization? As a side note, Peterson dishonestly misrepresents Nietzsche. Nietzsche was for everything that makes man stronger, both as an individual and a species. He hated Christianity because (in his opinion) it nursed man’s weaknesses, and he certainly didn’t fear or regret the “death of God”; if anything, Nietzsche celebrated it. On the one hand, Peterson calls Nietzsche a “genius”; on the other, he says he was absolutely wrong about perhaps his most important idea: that God is dead and man is free to create his own values. Peterson says the “postmodernists” are absolutely wrong because they think “everything is power.” Nietzsche: _”This world is the will to power-and nothing besides!_ And you yourselves are also this will to power-and nothing besides!” Peterson has a lot of good to offer, but he (like everyone else) is far from perfect, and being as publicly prolific as he is, he is bound to speak some idiocy here and there. Do we discount the good he does because of it? Certainly not. But we need to critically evaluate the things he says and not elevate him to the status of infallibility.
ปีที่แล้ว
@@sollux13 LOL you really have learned the Peterson lesson "I'm thick, therefore conspiracy".
Even though I agree with JBP deeply, I can say this is a well done critique. Even though some of his arguments were a little straw-manned and not carried out fully enough to convey the essence of his points (to my understanding), they were still kept in tact to a decent enough extent in order to take your thoughts and responses seriously. One thing that rubbed me the wrong way is that you start off with the statement about JBP's Jungian shadow rather than building up to it. However, it's apparent you mean well in your exploration of various ideas and you tackle them with near-appropriate caution. The slight recklessness at certain spots don't discredit your insights, though. Thanks for giving a massive JBP fan an additional leg to stand on, if I ever lean on the need to do so.
I came in expecting to find just another emotion and opinion fueled takedown of Peterson but found a grounded and logical argument for why Peterson might not be right in some of the things he says. As a Peterson admirer I personally love this kind of take and it shows me to always remain grounded and examining everything before making a judgement.
Beautifully said. Can't say how excited I am to happen upon you and others discussion on Foucault - such a powerful source of inspiration and perspective that is so needed now. You put this all together so well. I minored in philosophy and this video was at least equal to the best lectures I attended. So excited to live in a world where information like this is being subscribed to by 200k others. The future is looking brighter. Thank you!
Great video! I am fan of JP but I think what is important in life is to keep an open mind and try to "think for yourself", whatever that means. You are a great presenter of ideas and your videos are not vitriolic or sensational like some of the JP criticism videos. I am excited to see where you take this channel!
I wouldn't have thought there was anything left to say about JP, but this video proves otherwise. I've never liked him at all, but even I'm shocked to see him condemn in a bitter rage -- with no awareness at all of the irony -- those who refuse to be grateful that this is the best of all possible worlds. As for JP being able to critically examine himself and what he thinks he knows, I would have assumed that was all-but-impossible, not least because he doesn't seem to have engaged Marx, Derrida, or Foucault directly at all, but only knows of them through Stephen Hicks and other ideologues. But at the end you suggest otherwise. This left me with the question: what was the answer when JP asked earnestly if he had gotten Foucault and Derrida wrong?
@@priapulida Please tell me where these dastardly villains admit their goal is the total destruction of reason, dialogue, motherhood, kittens, and all the other good things JP lists. Gimme a quote. Gimme a specific citation. I'll wait.
@@priapulida That's fine, don't engage. But after reading a bunch of your comments here, I suggest you respond to the specific arguments made in the video. You seem to be ignoring the video and instead are defending the general notion that JP is criticizing "critical social justice" discourse. That's not what the video is about -- it's about the specific claims JP makes about Marxists (including Derrida and Foucault, who actually were not Marxists) engaging in deliberate deception in order to replace discourse about class with discourse about identity, with the explicit goal of destroying western civilization. JP's claims here are complete nonsense, and that should be admitted even if you dislike critical theory generally.
Thanks for the great responses Frank. In answer to you original question about the response peterson got I was unfortunately a non answer. Really didn't correct him at all which is a shame (not sure why Vervaeke didn't do so maybe he didn't know enough?) But I do think peterson was open to a software update on his pomo programming
I'm more comfortable believing that current moral failings (in my opinion) are driven by philosophical wrong turns rather than grand conspiracies. Rather than eliminating a shadowy enemy we need to confront our own conception of the world.
I have a serious problem with you saying he expressed legitimate sincerity on being corrected. He absolutely does not. He manipulates any correction into his own direction. Peterson is at best a master manipulator. He says things in his talks that are contradictory to his quotes and when he makes a mistake he pulls the age old bull of "no you're right I was wrong .. but I am still right because of -insert convoluted manipulation- see that means what I meant all along as well" Hes tactics are closer to a young earth creationist than a philosopher. I think you are too forgiving. There is absolutely no reason someone who is put a position as him should be making such mistakes. He is too old and too "knowledgeable" to be making such basic mistakes. These are things you get rung out of you in high school debate class. Just because he said some stuff everyone likes doesn't mean he should even be respected. Lots of random people have a lot of good to say. But this man should not be the talking head for any group. He is just the only one talking. You can't let someone be your music teacher for your child just because they got a couple things right when they can't even tell you what intervals are. His ramblings don't accomplish anything when he won't stop manipulating everything into his own twisted world view and tacking on horrible shit onto good ideas. He is so guilty of trying to adulterate every good thought he has with his own biased insane delusions he should be treated like a young earth creationist and ignored.
I think I mostly agree with this. There was a great explanation from a Current Affairs article called, "The Intellectual We Deserve" how JP's MO amounts to making grandiose generalizations and then using its inherent vagueness to get himself out of contradictions or other logical fallacies. Furthermore, what makes it worse is that JP is consistently not engaged with fairly by many of his critics and so his supporters justify JP's claims by arguing that critics don't take him seriously or exemplify the very generalizations he speaks of. The Cathy Newman interview is the prime example, but even as uncharitable as she was to him, he still directly compared trans-activists to Mao's cultural revolution and then implied that the very significant difference between the deaths of millions in China and trans rights activism was inconsequential because to him both movements exemplify group identity. Absolutely bizarre.
@@priapulida This video highlights JP's conspiratorial rhetoric as a significant criticism of his public engagement, and you're in here telling me that woke activists *somewhere* are creating an army of neo-comm's in schools?? What schools?? What activists? What army? Leaders on far right and far left are committed to silencing sensible dialogue and access to information. In a predominantly Republican Tennessee county, award winning literature on the Holocaust was removed from schools because it used some swear words and depicted some nudity. In other right leaning counties in Texas, swaths of literature on gender, race, and sexuality are removed or banned. This is not healthy. On the other end, you have left leaning colleges and institutions like the Administrators at the University of Illinois punished Law Professor Jason Kilborn for presenting a case study to his class that also contained offensive words. This is not healthy either. Am I running around shouting that Conservatives in Tennessee and Texas are Neo-Fascist Nazi sympathizers that are creating an army to revolutionize America? No. Because that would be ridiculous. These kinds of behaviour are always problematic but not indicative of some collapse of society. I am concerned about further political polarization and what effect it will have on national and international levels. I think bridges can be built in a lot of places people have already abandoned. I do not believe that JP is doing anything remotely helpful to restore the order he so greatly longs for.
@@priapulida yikes. I'm starting to think that a productive, good faith conversation is becoming less likely. It seems I have angered you and I feel as if I am being misunderstood. I guess I am willing to continue but I'm worried where the conversation is turning.
@@priapulida You are literally the issue stated in this video. You are talking like a moon lander denier and saying insane things with no basis. You're in a cult bro.
@@priapulida "the abuse/lies/Gaslighting gets to me" You are referring to people speaking from an outside perspective on a man who has created a cult of personality by misrepresenting countless authors, scholars and information. If you feel abused lied to or gaslighted when someone points out that JP is saying things that are incorrect or not in line with reality.. please check yourself because you may be falling into that cult mentality and you are most likely the one lost. If everyone on earth is telling you JP is full of shit the most logical answer is that he is full of shit and not that we are all part of a grand conspiracy to manipulate and control you.
This is one of the most impressive videos I've come across. I couldn't understand and put together congruently the JP of his personality lectures and the latter unhinged ravings. Currently looking into Heidegger and trying to fit his nationalism with his existential authenticity. There is the same smell here with JP, Heidegger and Enoch Powell. First rate minds that get warped into intellectually feeble positions because of personality / maybe shadow. It feels like there is some primordial sense of identity that must express itself and burns through. PS I love the metaphors in this video bellows of the algorithm is fantastic. Thank you for the education.
I appreciate this critique, however I remain baffled at Peterson's mainstream appeal. He has a very complicated way of saying, ''be responsible and be kind''. That's fine and useful in almost any context. What I don't get is why he thinks that a critique of systemic problems (power structures) is some huge threat. If we fix systemic problems that cause massive inequality, more people will have the time and opportunity to follow Peterson's advice. What he brands as Marxism is basically a generation of people asking why they can barely afford (or not afford) a safe and comfortable life while there are individual people flying around in private spaceships, buying whole islands, and lobbying politics to get whatever they want. Can we not both work on ourselves AND demand a more equitable society at the same time?
If I may, there's ultimately nothing stopping us from living like Buddhists but our familiarity with the comforts of modernity. We only really *need* to survive. We don't need to own a home, or a new car, or any of that. There's no shame in living a humble life. In a sense, being responsible means recognizing that reality. The equity folks seem to think that you need material to live a full life, but you don't. You just need love for yourself and those around you and a healthy fear of death to motivate you to find food when you get hungry.
@@Jay_Hendrix That's philosophically true. However, it's not a solution to inequality and poverty within our system. We're surrounded by the narratives and requirements of a free market capitalist system. Saying, "just be a Buddhist" to those for whom the system has failed absolves the collective of our responsibility to each other.
His problem with the obsession of doing away with all structural elements of our society is the inevitability of over correcting the problem. The baby will be thrown away with the bath water
@@thucydides7849 Only anarchists would argue for removing all structural elements of society, and there are very few of them. Societies always change over time.
@@EricBurnetMusic 100%. The Buddha had literally no understanding of trauma or systems of power. Saying "live like Buddhists" as a solution to all our social problems is a very naive and priveleged take, much like Siddhartha before he left the palace.
I enjoyed this very much and the critical observations are well placed. However what about the stated aims of Gramsci/Dutschke to gain cultural hegemony over the established institutions of the West? what about the aims of the Frankfurt School? ... they're quite explicit in their aims and have had a huge influence in the formation of the identity politics phenomenon. Virtually all aspects of western culture have become an ideological tool of indoctrination and critical thinking is actively discouraged.
If I get your argument right, then the main theme seems to be that Peterson's depiction of Foucault and Derrida does not match the way they would describe themselves. But, I wonder, why would you foreground someone's self-description rather than focus on what the actual consequences of their actions was? The postmodernist branch of philosophy paved the way for what has, in recent years, come to be known as all kinds of variations of Critical Theories and "Grievance Studies". Those are, without a doubt, heavily Marxist in their thinking (and in their activist goals). However, and I wanna be clear that this, of course, is not to say that people should be characterized by what other people made of their ideas. The best example for this might be Nietzsche who was by no means a Nazi fanatic but was employed as one of their intellectual pillars by keeping those ideas of his that were expedient, and omitting those that would have torpedoed their whole ideology. So, sure, Foucault and Derrida might not be the marxist conspirators that Peterson portrays them as. Nonetheless, the fruits of their philosophy, in the form of outright marxist Critical Theories, does have the (often explicitly stated) goal of undermining Western values that emerged from hundreds of centuries of philosophical, religious and scientific endeavors, the most foundational of which: freedom, equality, and the idea of the sovereign individual. Instead, in their view, freedom should be subject to the ideological cause so that individual liberty doesn't thwart the ideological mission; equality is supposed to be replaced by equity which is supposed to ensure that the right people get what they deserve - for better and worse - of course, who is the "right" person and what they "deserve" is defined by the ideology and their functionaries; and the individual ought to be subject to the group. If all of this doesn't ring a bell, I don't know what will. Peterson might be wrong in depicting this development as some sort of plot and attributing to it a will when it actually is "just" a dynamic process of its own accord. But in any case, i.e. whether this ideological phenomenon is instructed or not, the consequences are the same: We stand before a precipice that we have encountered multiple times before. And we can either recognize that, and decide to turn around and look for another way, or we can ride straight into yet another large-scale catastrophy.
Justice has been an historical issue since the beginning. For JP to exclaim that justice is a fault of marxism is ridiculous. Are you trying to say that Derrida and Foucault are marxist functionaries? The key problems today and in the 20th are over humanism and the subject. Both of these topics involve the problems of injustice, inequality, and ideology. The focus on one ideology, marxism, masks the other ideologies like fascism and neoliberalism. But, in no way has JP enlightened us on what is ideology, or on injustice. In one take, we can understand the injustice of the Gulag, do we likewise gasp at the incarceration system in the US? The Grievance Studies affair is nonsense and has nothing to do with Critical Theory. The latter is a sustained cultural criticism which ultimately points to the problem of murder regardless whether it occurs in households, on public streets or during tactical operations in combat. Not to understand the thrust of Critical Theory - a sustained critique against the right and its injustices, is naive.
This video reminds me of Aamon’s Animation own “Jordan Peterson: 12 More Rules” and can even be complementary to it. A cinematic storytelling masterpiece, it uses animation and recordings of things Peterson has said to detail Peterson’s own noble intentions at the beginning, but it later shows the moment an d reasons he is overtaken by his own “shadow” in a very interesting (and heartbreaking, I never expected it would make me cry for him lol) way. Spoilers I think it would be very difficult for Peterson to escape (let go of(?)) mis shadow, as he has big social and economic incentives to not do so. And it also I think should be done when he is away from the spotlight, so he would have to do another long hiatus. A big part of his fan base would probably abandon him or even become a hate-base because they might feel he “betrayed” them, but an also big part would probably get greatly benefited from seeing him let go of his shadow, as they idolize him or see him as an “archetype” to imitate/seek council from. A very interesting thought piece and informative piece of the ideas of Derrida, Foucault and Peterson. Thank you ( ^ω^ )
I used to pay not much attention to "postmodern neomarxists", but Helen Pluckrose sold me on late postmodernism (what she calls applied postmodernism), and now recently James Lindsay is selling me on neomarxism. Could you cover their arguments?
Interesting perspective, id suggest there is a difference in pointing out the difference in perspective of the subject matter to an academic listening ear which can weigh up a point without risk of applying it in the real world and a non academic listener who wants to understand in a way that it directly affects an individual and how it may consider the subject as they live their life - it creates two very different dynamucs and i think this content and Petersons material quoted here are aimed for different audiences though perhaps not intentionally - in providing useable information as peterson regularly does his popularity with non academics is seen in finding relatable arguments that may eell be deserving of further scrutiny if going deeper in making broader brush strokes more finely tuned - i see both as useful but at different stages of awareness
Interesting video, well edited and structured. Still trying to figure out my own opinion on some of these matters but you definitely had some good criticisms regarding Peterson's militancy. Nearly 14k subs! Keep it up!
Thanks for the video. One thing that really becomes clear while listening to JP’s more unhinged pronouncements about the shadowy foes he perceives to threaten and vex him (and from whom he gallantly protects us) is just how much EVERY ACCUSATION HE MAKES IS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT on behalf of the various “cultural” and social and political and even psychological institutions he claims to represent; the “conservation” of which he fights for, and for which he argues he should all feel such “gratitude” (presumably no matter how much more impoverished our lives have become year after year while in the service of these institutions). Listen through the video again, and think to yourself; “did the various Christian Churches do that?”; “does Capitalism do that?”; “did white men seeking only to enrich themselves and their king during the otherwise great age of Enlightenment do that, and in bad faith concoct a “scientific proof” of a hierarchy of races to justify their economic desires to enslave one race in spite of their Enlightenment principles?”; “Does Jordan Peterson and psychiatrists do that themselves?” It’s shocking to review JP’s more unhinged and emotional accusations and hear them as admissions; the accuracy is unnerving in many cases and one cannot help but want to join in the struggle AGAINST the man when you realize how he’s transformed his and his conservative compatriots crimes into a dangerous program of politically targeted attacks against anyone who would question their “natural right” to rule employing the alleged “common sense” and “traditional values” they claim supports their political program. Ugh. It’s such a shame that he chose this path; a traditional I’d rather dull and quiet Jungian analyst and cultural and literary critic. Or … make a name and LOTS MORE MONEY for himself by doing what he’s chosen to do by making the BAD FAITH decision to LIE and MISLEAD and MISCHARACTERIZE those he disagrees with in the way he’s chosen to do. Like almost ALL “conservatives” whose names you know these days he chose the DIRTY MONEY and the notoriety … he sells out the suffering citizens he claims to care about (indeed his medical oath demands he care about in BODY and MIND) and he chose to lie and pick the notoriety and the money. He’s become a transparent loathsome man from a man whose writing I recall reading a couple decades ago and finding some value. Now … he’s chosen to turn on the people’s future material prosperity by adopting the old tried and true conservative trick of taking the right hand side of the rich ruler … where the priests once stood. Just for personal enrichment and maybe for the fame. Disgusting man.
I have also been attracted by JPs intellect but also by his genuine desire to help people that are struggling. However, an early tell-tale sign of his own shadow was the unified sentiment of anger and spite of his followship. He has become the intellectual instrument for his young male acolytes to win their debates for them. Maybe he genuinely helps these people somehow through the depression, lack of purpose and insecurity of their masculinty and that he actually reaches these people, which no one else does. As long as the collective shadow and pain body is so huge, we may need people like JP to provide some relief and structure for the mess we are in.
I discovered JP before he exploded with the post modern thing and when that happened I was shocked that he didn't see the projection he was taking part in, him being both a clinical psychologist and professor of psychology. It's strange, and whether one is right or not, that's not how we should portray those we stand in opposition to no matter their violations of our morality, etc, bc whatever we experience within ourselves is ours to confront. It's too easy to project the problems of the world onto someone else and it solves nothing, whereas trying to understand, humanize, and relate to those you stand in opposition to strikes me as the right way to resolve this 'problem of opposites', as Jung put it. In general, 'Conspiracy theory' functions as a kind of categorical deflection that undermines dialogue and promotes cynicism, so it's meaningless drivel in my mind. While the phenomena it seeks to describe is akin to an unrefined or intellectually lazy critical thinking that suffers from a kind of information overload, and high suggestibility due to the modern access to info that hijacks intuition and keeps the mind outwardly focused, presumably at the expense of the self reflection needed to clarify and refine ones thinking - the hard part.
i am healthy young man, once very unhealthy young man, then become student of jordan peterson and you should see me now. i read his 24 rules & listen many times & maps of meaning is not just high scholarship but also a great work of art. many time, when i am early/mid 20s, i observe myself discredit Foucault with ease, and Derrida and more, no reading of their work necessary, because they seek to destroy something i love, but then it turns out they did not. first i learn this from cool older woman in book store who hates way jordan peterson is misrepresented, we both agree, but also is bit annoyed because he misreads Foucault… gave me pause for thought and so must be more critical…. now, many years later in my late 20s, your astute assessment teach me that the post modern neo marxists really did not seek to destroy and were actually really cool. this has been very important to me so thank you very much. because now i can read these thinkers? all hail Lobster King.
Even if the details, motivations & organisation is incorrect; I do believe what Peterson describes as happening, as accurate enough. Every ideology and set of beliefs inherently want to be on top, and to either replace or destroy its competition. What happens in certain left-wing circles has active examples of what Peterson describes as happening.
This is the best critique. I study Jung all my life. And when I went to graduate school I was confronted by a lot of post-modern haters of both Jung and Freud. Who refute all Universals all a priori ideas. This refutation is in fact in Foucault. But Foucault is not an enemy of Jung. In fact his friend Deleuze who was inspired by Jung himself compared ideas he gleaned from Jung to Foucault. Following Deleuze’s lead I did the same. It is much more fruitful to find common ground than ti be a reactionary. I also IMO have a very different criticism of the origin of left social movements and their real origins. The most influential are often unconscious Christianity and liberalism.
Much Love for this unpopular Peterson Criticism. His followers see the grain of dust in every opponent of Peterson, but never the wood in his own head.
seeking help to remove the large beam in my eye must have no point-of-view and be certified by the un-biased to have removed all bias those with motes need not appeye
You have done a great service by adding the Jungian framing for the problem that has become JP. Thank you. Rebel Wisdom called him something like a gangster and shut down the channel. Some More News @SMN did 3 hours of tragicomedy and end by just recommending he get help. You and Mr Verveke are more pragmatic and by having empathy show the willingness to help. Life is complex and the crowds out there are chaotic.
Thanks for this. I admire JP save for his recent penchant for Judeo-Christian allegorical come Jungian fusion. This analysis gave me food for thought and I'll take it with me as I continue to delve deeper into French philosophy gathered under the umbrella of postmodernism, saliently, Foucault and Derrida, among others. I agree with you. JP can come across as conspiratorial at times, yet ultimately, as you concede - he is open to criticism and change. I'd be keen to listen to your analyses of the pseudo-philosopher Judith Butler by the way. She is all manner of incoherent and certainly responsible, for her part, along with Paolo Freire for the dissemination and popularisation, even institutionalisation of what I and others (James Lindsay, Helen Joyce, et al) consider to be very dangerous educational and social deconstructions and reforms. New subscriber. Brilliant analysis and I look forward to more..
Fascinating analysis and critique. JP was in large part the reason for me starting my way into philosophy and knowing the issues in the roots of your philosophy is very important. And I'm once more reminded that there are no simple answers in a complex world. Thank you for your work.
Peterson knows the roots and he knows that Postmodernism and Marxism isn't a natural pairing. There aren't simple answers and JP knows that perfect terms aren't always available.
Thank you. You have managed to put the problems I have with JP in perspective. No matter how frustrating it has become to watch him advance arguments which one suspects even he, himself, must see through, or speak in circles in some apparent attempt to avoid taking a positive stance on one subject or another, one hesitates to right the man off as just another rightwing grifter. Certainly much of his advice is useful. He is competent on some issues. He has read widely, obviously, if not always deeply. Understanding how he may have a logical reason for simply failing to grasp the true aims of those he denigrates on the side of post modernism makes it easier to avoid accusing the man of false motives. I may be donning some rose colored lenses here, but I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt
This was so great to watch. There was a time in my early interest in philosophy that JP held my interest but I fairly quickly noticed he was not the intellectual giant I thought at first glance
My pleasure! Glad you enjoyed it! I still think in the realm of Jung and Nietzsche he has a LOT of value but yeah unfortunately when it comes to the Continental tradition he comes up short from what I can see
@@TheLivingPhilosophy it seems that Peterson is directing his criticism in the wrong direction. Neo Marxism morphed into the current woke ideology (a proletariat based more on race and identity than class), but not through Faucault or Derrida, but can better be traced back the frankfurt school.. especially Marcuse and then Angela Davis and so on. Davis still considers herself a Marxist. Faucault had a much bigger impact on the queer theorists. Funny how Peterson hasn't opened that can of worms yet, but they are behind the enforcement of the use of pronouns that was the very catalyst for Peterson's rise. The woke have none of the scepticism and relativism of continental postmodernism, they are "full of passionate intensity".
@@michaelmcclure3383 Yeah I think that's a much more accurate assessment although it seems that with Habermas the whole school took a very different direction. I think this will be something I'll be digging deeply into in future episodes they sound much closer to the mark. This was kind of my point though Peterson ruins his argument by getting the facts completely wrong. This is the foundation of his popularity yet he's extremely dodgy on the details. It's very frustrating because that just sows more division. He too is full of passionate intensity but I suppose the ones who lack all conviction aren't exactly going to end up front and centre in the age of outrage
@@TheLivingPhilosophy right, yes. As you say Peterson does himself no favours by misrepresenting postmodernism. He's probably hesitant to take a deep dive into it for fear of infection leading to the rupture of his certainty of mission Haha You're right, they're both full of passionate intensity!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Habermas seems to have a much more balanced view of things. It will be interesting to explore how and why he diverges from the Frankfurt school.
I expected this comment section to be a battleground, but I found instead a space where nearly everyone has harmonized the relationship between the agent and the arena. Nearly everyone exalting you for your rigorously developed content almost always also acknowledged the tug of wars within their own perspectives on Peterson between the respect for his experience, his intentions, his intellectual approach, and the seemingly hypocritical, overly simplified, and bizarre takes he has on other incredibly complex indiviudals. I was at first eager to manifest that very same white knight archetype in defense of your rhetorical goals amidst this battlefield, but then you tied the video up with the need to disassociate from that behavior altogether as it disrupts the harmony of the perspective that allows us to overcome our subjective limitations. The thing about hate is that we so easily become a relfection of that which we loathe most. I believe that there is a humility obligated by the limitations of our flaws and finitudes and i am thankful that your content obstructed me from that hellbent journey. I am eager to dive into more of your content sir, thank you! Also, your hair is glorious my friend. I have recently grown mine and the journey in of itself has proved to be one of great cultural deconstruction.
The psychoanalytic method isn't enough to conclude on this one I think. I have a question as well. What about when the projection JP 'does', coincidentally holds true? How would it be distinguished from the action of an integrated shadow which empowers us to recognise the darkness manifest in others by direct comparison to our own?
Yes - the gradual decline of a bright mind into its own shadow, and the subsequent projection of that shadow onto a whole cultural paradigm is sad yet stands out a mile in JP's arc. It's a good video & well put together, and doesn't come from an enemy. If JP could watch something like this I'd be glad.
As a french man : about the argument that marxism didn't really collapse in the 70s : I agree, and would like to add that social François Mitterand won the presidential election in 1981, and a second time in alliance with the PCF (french communist party) won the 1988 election. Also, from 2012 to 2022, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, someone who qualifies himself as a marxist, has been doing great scores at the presidential elections. I don't consider the term "marxism" being taboo in my social class (Parisian student).
As one who is a Jungian owning his complete works and more, having read through a great number of Jung's works, with still others to go I must say Peterson does not present Jungian concepts correctly and certainly isn't following in his footsteps but muddying the waters. Peterson and I have similar I.Q's, I would enjoy debating him one day. Either way, Peterson uses Jung to support that what he wants but wouldn't bluber a word out if it would be an unsaid truth that Peterson is not mentioning simply to serve his argument, not for actual truth the be seen. This is also a topic I had desired to cover yet it seems one better known has put this out. It is important as it shows Peterson is far from a Jungian who works on himself, his Ego is dangerously inflated to the point he views himself a prophet all while he hasn't the vaguest control over his actual Shadow, he's some good techniques to utilize when needing things to go a desired route, so too do I. Perhaps my Book release will give me enough of a boost to be on his radar. Speaking of which I need get to it, have quite a lot to do.
15:06 "So I'm saying again: You're a mean, mad white man, and the viciousness is evident!" Imagine if JP said that to him: "You're a mean, mad black man, and the viciousness is evident!" Career over.
I think he was just acting out on JP in a general manner but not saying it as a direct personal offense. I think JP interpreted it that way, he didn’t look overly perturbed, well, at least, that’s my take!
I was always wondering, why there is internal need to have an enemy or some kind of object of revolt in human's mind. May someone know some films, articles or books about this issue? Have a nice day!
This was quite excellent. I love Jordan, have read all the books, listened to all the lectures twice or thrice through. I knew something was a little bent. You spotted it and explained it so well without reducing my great regard for the man one bit. Thank you.
I've noticed a lot of comments here that feel I am using Conspiracy Theory in an entirely dismissive way. This is not entirely true (though it has led me to reflect on the extent to which it might be true). I thought it would be worthwhile to link to some earlier episodes where I looked at the fledgling field of the Pscyhology of Conspiracy Thinking and try to give a balanced take on Conspiratorial thinking:
1. Why people believe conspiracies according to this new field of psychology: th-cam.com/video/oXWLm4IE0ho/w-d-xo.html
2. My own hypothesis of Conspiracy Theorists as cultural white blood cells: th-cam.com/video/f_w5UJNtJLM/w-d-xo.html
The many, many errors in the Hicks book. And perhaps we might clarify for full disclosure that Mr S Hicks is none other than a professor of philosophy! to make a start...
Please, hear me out...
Jonas Ceika key point number 1 is that this professor of philosophy S Hicks didn't do his homework properly with respect to MacKinnon and Dworkin, that they are not postmodernists. But this is a rather basic academic device - and used by the left regularly for no particular reason - that invites the reader to think. If they have double checked who these people are or what they have been saying, then perhaps, perhaps, sensible, intelligent people and scholars alike, might give the said professor of philosophy the benefit of the doubt, and ask why he appears to have misrepresented these two persons? Perhaps they have interesting things to say - some of which is complementary to what Hicks has to say, and perhaps top level additions... But wait! Perhaps they are of the left/other lefts? Engaging in Butterfly politics!? But nonetheless Hicks does say these two are an aid to the postmodernist movement, via their feminist legal criticism, which if my grammar from primary school is still good, doesn't say they are "postmodernists" it says those two things are linked and to a significant extent. And besides they are allowed to criticise postmodernism even if merely to add to the muddle and mix of discursive dialetic discourse? All of which is nothing remotely to do with shoddy scholarship. Unless of course you want it to be.
So that was number 1 in the "many, Many errata..."
All it took was a glance, a glance at these happening philosophical minds...
that is Living and Jonas. And they seem to think they need to lie to win the argument, which should tell you something...
what's my next line? errr have a think? i mean even "homo philosophicus" would know when he is wrong.
As a follow-up to the issue of MacKinnon & Dworkin from the Ceika TH-cam video, there is "Tucked away in 'Derrida & Feminism' 1997, an essay by John Caputo called 'Dreaming the Innumerable: Derrida, Cornell & the Dance of Gender'.
Instead of citing proof and evidence to shut down claim you believe are false, you site information to convince the opposition that they are crazy conspiracy theorists. and therefore weaponized the word instead of justifying it… which is what they are claiming you are doing?🤨
Literally the first clip you played mentioned nothing about race, sex, or sexual orientation. I don’t see your point with showing that clip and it doesn’t prove your claim… in fact he doesn’t mention anyone’s oppression what so ever. Instead you see a white man discussing the gratitude of a specific ideology and automatically assume he’s talking down on oppressed people? Where do you even get off making that claim dawg🤦♂️ it seems to come from a racist view of white people.
On top of that you miss represented Peterson claim…
Absolutely fantastic. It's hard to find genuine, good faith, in depth criticisms of JP. As someone who really appreciates Jordans ideas this is incredibly valuable.
Thanks Harry! Can't ask for kinder words than that. I wanted to be fair to him and both criticise and express admiration for him so glad you feel I had some success!
Amen. This video is, by far, the best critique of JP I have seen. It’s honest and doesn’t want to destroy him, just to correct or clarify important subjects. I hope JP look at it one day, I guess he will find it at least interesting.
Indeed.
Wes Cecil has a very good critique of JP on his channel as well. JP does just make stuff up though… he really does. He’s a B rated philosopher at best
This aged like milk.
Love the channel? Love supporting things? Check out the Patreon page:
💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
⌛ Timestamps:
00:00 Introduction
04:06 Peterson’s Postmodern Neo-Marxist Argument
09:04 Counterargument I: Peterson’s Misunderstandings
11:40 Foucault as Peterson’s Shadow Double
20:23 Counterargument II: The Neomarxist Conspiracy
Love this channel man, great work! Do you think that James Lindsay is on something? Even though he came from the Stephen Hicks's circle (j.b.p, Kevin O'fallon, Brett Weinstein, etc.)
@@philipperodier8414 I really don't know. Could be though. I'm a big fan of Bret and have been for years and I know he's a good faith commentator so his version of this is definitely something that I'm sympathetic to especially with his story around what happened at Evergreen. I'll be curious to hear what Lindsay has to say
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Sure, it's why ask the man! Thanks for your insight thought, I felt the same thing for Bret.
If you have some time to kill; Thaddeus Russell, historian and founder of his Renegade University, did a podcast with James Lindsay (Postmodernism criticism and clarification) and Aleksandr Dugin (Explanation of the 4th political theory).
I'm trying to understand if Dugin's philosophy overlaps with Metamordenism, so I started to read the latest book of Jason Ānanda Josephson Storm (Metamodernism: The future of theory), to figure it out.
Anyways, I'll be glad if it can inspire you, but don't change a thing and have a good one!
@@philipperodier8414 Ah awesome Philippe! This sounds like a tasty recommendation!! Thanks for putting it on my radar. Any idea what the podcast is? I couldn't find it on youtube
@@TheLivingPhilosophy there you go:
Unregistered Podcast on TH-cam --
-Unregistered 193: Alexander Dugin (VIDEO)
-Unregistered 196: James Lindsay (VIDEO)
I recently had a discussion with a slightly older colleague of mine who is self-proclaimed to be more conservative. It's primarily due to his skepticism towards today's identity politics, and claims that a lot of progressive discourse puts too much emphasis on victimhood and oppression. Naturally, he likes what Peterson has to say for the same reason you do: stop focusing on the bigger structures that take away your autonomy, and focus on your own, inner-world of control.
I noticed an interesting thread in the conversation: the topic of what you can control. Conservative politics is more inclined to focus attention inwards- finding your best self and getting your own life in order, while Progressives express control in a kind of "outward activism", since the oppressive structures at large are exactly what prevents us from finding stability in our own lives. I'm sympathetic to both sides, and it's probably best to strike a good balance in the middle.
My personal issue with Peterson is his dismissal of the harm that our world-structures are imposing. Climate Change and third-world exploitation are easy ones to point to, and I find it understandable that our Gen Z populations find it difficult to "point their attention inwards" when the world they've inherited is burning down. They are met with a kind of urgency that Peterson's philosophy doesn't address. And when these issues are raised- he simply responds by calling them ungrateful.
Not sure how much these thoughts have any bearing in actual reality, but I thought I'd share nonetheless.
Top quality content as usual! Loving the addition of graphics ;)
Thanks for sharing Stian and actually I am very sympathetic to your point of view. In the past couple of years I've come to realise the limitations of this personal responsibility path. It no longer seems enough to me although it seems like a good foundation. In one way that's an argument you could make for Peterson: if you feel like you have no agency then make your bed and once you can do that add a little more and a little more and your circle of influence expands until you can potentially have some effect on the currents of the culture. But that of course is a self-transcendence of the philosophy by itself and an admittance that it is incomplete
PS I have a first draft of Heraclitus written I've been meaning to give it a decent first edit so and I'll be in touch!
well after a year of this video i dont know what changed for you regarding some of the things going on in our world but i have something to say anyway first of all nobody knows the whole truth of our existence or its problems and its solutions not jp ..and definitely not the left and the woke activists who are mostly very self righteous and ideological in there way of thinking and also they take it for granted that they know the whole story which is one of those mistakes humanity keeps repeating... second of all also nobody is completely wrong even jp when u analyse the way this sjw and the left's reductive analyses of the world and its problems through the lenses of "us vs them" either white vs black (im not white and i thing its foolish that so many fall for this one) or men vs women or .... so i dont really blame jp for thinking this is done intentionally as a way to impose some sort of an ideology it did happen through out history like religions.. its naive to thing its just jp "conspiracy theory"
thirdly the idea that u need to work on ur self inwardly is very logical u can see with identity politic and collective movements things could get pretty chaotic ... and working on ur self individually is not to just have good foundation (emotionally and mentally and psychologically )but also to have critical thinking and good knowledge of the cause and the problem so u would have wider perception and not to perceive things through the lenses of race and gender and victimhood or guilt …so u wouldn't be emotionally manipulated into radical self righteous movements and extremism… things do get tainted by politicians and even human ego….so u wouldn't be driven by despair and fear monger like whats happening now with climate change its not crazy to thing there could be some agenda behind it…its good to be able to see all the angles …to be grateful and use what u have (that's what he meant ) and use it to be better and pay forward is much better than anger and resentment and guilt im from a a third world country and i find funny that the argument for our exploitation and victmizing us by the west is more harmful (i call it pretentious white guilt 😁 ) we have a lot of problems here we are not just victims to the west and all of history is full of bad things all of humans did to each other this binary game of (this vs that( is not innocent that's my opinion and i have the feeling its not been done with good intension its just a form of pleading to pathos and guilt tripping that wouldn't lead to much good there form a western point of view ...i would prefer learning from history and move on but like i said we take it for granted that we know the whole story and tha we see the big picture and all the angels....
basically to know the absolute truth which is one of those dangerous mistakes we keep falling in to as humans specially collective emotional self righteous movements and sjw's and we have to understand that we are talking about very complex intertwined thing "the individual psychology the collective psychology and the existential and spiritual world problems and plenty more variables we cant possibly cover know all about it and cover it in a video or comment or in person like jp we still have a lot to work on as humans specially individually and specially spiritually .sorry if its to long English is not my first language
Peterson has the answer for this: young people’s problems aren’t real and they’ve just been infected by the Neo-Marxist plague. There really is no angle you can squint at Peterson and see anything but a charlatan if your acting in good faith.
@@algerianfan8404 Consider that those annoying activists have been able to achieve nearly every one of their goals while the other side is being systemically excluded from being able to accomplish what they want for themselves. Radical individualism is a su i cide pact when opposing an organized collective. Even if you don't care that they make themselves miserable by externalizing all their distorted self-views, you should at least care that they're doing the same to you.
Spotted the boertjie.
Peterson’s understanding of Nietzsche is mostly wrong as well.
@@mynameisjeffff His understanding is factually and conceptually wrong. There's only so far you can filter and misinterpret a text; after a certain point, it's safe to say you don't understand it. I recommend looking up Peterson in the Nietzsche subreddit for some concrete examples.
@@mynameisjeffff Oh yeah I understand your perspective. I just genuinely think he doesn't understand what he's talking about.
Great video! Definitely agree with the overall message, have always found it strange how JP loves the work of Nietzsche but is so hard of the postmodernists.
However, I do think it's worth pointing out how JP's study of evil contributes to his dislike of what he perceives to be a post-modernism. JP regularly talks about the psychology of a concentration camp gaurd or the motivation of dictators like Hitler or Stalin and I get the sense his disdain for someone like Foulcalt stems from him attributing to him the same psychological profile. He essentially sees him as a Dostoyevsky villain, very intelligent but resentful and bitter at a world he feels doesn't accept him. Under this reading it is less that JP believes some grand conspiracy, more he believes that Foucalt doesnt value his society or tradition and resents his place in it so his overall aim is to over throw it. He rightly or wrongly believes him to have the psychological profile of a tyrant.
That's an astute observation actually. The connection with his philosophy of evil is a key part of his attitude here
That’s a very valid point. As someone trying to navigate the ideological sphere in the waters of superficiality, I think JP became popular because of a conversation on the deeper foundations of societal makeup.
You made a great point about profiles of evil figures. Perhaps one of the greatest critiques of any sociological system is that it is made up of humans. Therefore, utopias are only as great as the people within them.
I remember hearing a JP talk where he talked about how even if the “good” people came into power of a uniting political system, there will be someone driven by X (power, bitterness, nihilism, trauma) who will take control of that system because that is often a common coping response to feeling weakened, hurt, angered, or traumatized.
Perhaps this is a reason why JP and Gandhi have a message of working on your individual self as an important foundation to taking on bigger societal problems. “Be the change you want to see in the world.” But there needs to be a compelling REASON to agree to this responsibility. This is probably why religions such as Christianity (though people have used it as a means to oppress, control, and hurt) have contributed to the blessings and issues we have today.
I believe humanity has been struggling within themselves and has made an assumption that there is ultimate hope in social systems, philosophies, cultures, etc. I think it is the case that the burden of humanity is trying to find collective homeostasis and there are moments, evidenced in history, where our differing collective ideologies/archetypes war against each other (evidenced by historical unrests and maximized today by internet-where archetypes are warring against each other without wisdom and proper and accurate exposure/communication with one another).
Some people want to sustain the burden of collective homeostasis and hope in a utopia, while other want to end the burden through nihilism.
Brilliantly said! I just wrote a big response to this in defence of Jordan, much longer than yours, and used the Dostoevsky analogy. Read your comment afterwards and you have summarised my sentiments much more succinctly. I believe Foucault and people like him are intelligent resentment driven antisocial characters much like Dostoevsky's villains and the overthrow part is integral to their motivation albeit more subtle and less radical on the surface anyway.
JP doesn't even come close to doing Nietzsche justice and sometimes he's just flat out wrong.
It's completely absurd to compare Foucault's thinking to the psychology of a concentration camp guard 😂😂😂 Did he even read anything by Foucault? 😅
This is probably the best criticism of JP I've ever seen. It's non-antagonistic, yet it dives deeply at one of the major downsides in the way that he has used social media to date. His long form content is the best, but his short form social media interactions tend to be very lacking in what actually makes him unique.
It's been rumored that Makayla runs his social media accounts and speaks for him
@@bjtucker5 people acting in good faith don't peddle in rumor.. in my opinion.
@@rosemadder5547 Peddling in rumour is fine as long as it is clarified that rumour is being peddled. Nothing bad faith about that.
>social marxist criticizes idea of social marxism
classic. dont trust these scumbags like this pseudoiintellecual pseudo-spiritual scamartist
His long form content such as his " Message ro Muslims"? Real deep sh!t alright.
As many have said here, you are one of the few who hasn't simply 'taken sides' for or against Peterson. I'd be fascinated to hear Peterson giving a considered response to your critique of his thought, or even a dialogue between you. Your discussion of the shadow was full of echoes of Plato. Philosophy has grown and developed from Plato but can't ultimately escape his question about what truth is and how we can or can't reach it.
He has very much taken sides. The side of the Marxist that has had his agenda exposed by someone that sees right through it
@@mimisides Why it almost takes 11 months for someone to respond for or against Peterson.
It would truly be interesting to see Peterson analyse this critique of himself
YOU SAID IT? I'm Confused to see Peterson Confused more than usual and can't stand by his accusations and other accusations Against Him . How would the educated only in his diagram be so Fruitful? Critical theory and Psychoanalyst existentialism Galore for what true benefits to satisfy the living in Normal lower grade realities'🤔😁🙄.@@bugzyhardrada3168
Ya ,How to be a Critique in Petersons Diagram ? We can discuss like all way's riding the Same Squeaky Marry- Go- Round Till we get some satisfaction or Blue in the Face psychoanalytic existentialist?🤔🙂🙄
Wow. Perfect. Really spot on. I really like JP too. When he first came in the scene it really was brain/ear candy. I’m still a big fan but he’s really gone sideways. I even tried to reach out to him and discuss his existential crisis, and the medication problems. The shadow projection couldn’t be more accurate, well done. I wish I had your perspective around and available for me and my mystic stuff! Would really love for you to point out anything and everything as pithy as you’d like. I promise to laugh:). Anyway, watch out for your own rise, it’s coming quick. How will your shadow manifest without you being aware of it? I’ll do my best to opine as honestly and lovingly as possible. Thanks again, you knocked this one out of the park.
@@priapulida I love and respect your right to see it however you’d like. I just disagree with you. Whenever I’m conflicted (or emotional or upset or angry) the first thing I look at is that I’m the one who’s conflicted. Why am I conflicted? Is it because of my view, my insistence that the world is not how I would have it be, that it’s them, those people, that group? I think that’s more the problem today than anything else. JP still is held in my mind in the highest regard but he’s starting to sound a little like the things he’s seeing. But it’s fine to disagree with me and this channel. Or anyone else for that matter. Thanks for the response.
Haha thanks Aaron I can only hope that I do rise and that I might have the wisdom to look into my shadow and that you'll be there to point it out. I'm not yet convinced I'll have any such wisdom it makes me nervous but hey you don't know till you try. Gold is only revealed by the touchstone
@@TheLivingPhilosophy perfect
You’ve a huge amount to say- worth saying and I, too , look forward to witnessing your rise, my only feedback , is to slow down, please!…( slow your delivery) I can’t swallow all your gems , without splitting my head and heart ….this poet, feels thoughts and thinks, feelings
You tried to reach out. How good of you.
Just discovered your wonderful channel!…I love a “ Jung brew” and, while admiring of Peterson, I’ve always felt a suspicion about his position ….I’m not learned enough to catch your insights but I’m a willing student ….thank you
Awesome analysis of JP's shadow complex. But I do have a question for you, whether you answer it or not, I will be subscribing.
Firstly, I completely agree with you a lot of JP's critiques of communism, socialism, post-modernism, and neo-Marxism are the result of unconscious shadow projections.. but I also think that many of them aren't and that a lot of what JP has to stay really does hold true. It may not be to the conspiratorial extent that he makes it out to be, but it's very clearly evident within academic discourse how much post-modern and Marxist/neo-Marxist thinking has influenced our generation. I am a Master's of Social Work candidate who was born in 1993 and you wouldn't believe how emphatically Marxism, identity politics, power and hierarchy being inherently white supremacist structures, racial and sexual identity, and the idea that "if we just got the right people in power, the abolition of capitalism would solve all of our problems!" reigns supreme. I actually see that as part of the issue. Many of my colleagues would rather spit on Carl Jung's grave than read anything he has to say, simply because JP mentions him so much. It's a battle between shadow projections and I don't think that enough people, without the understanding of Jung's psychology, will ever understand. it really is a battleground.
Within your theoretical analysis, I don't disagree with much of what you say, but many of us see and feel it tangibly in our day to day lives. Do you?
There's no doubt there's something going on I definitely see that and was really stirred by what Peterson was saying at first but I think that his discourse around it is only throwing petrol on the fire rather than accurately diagnosing and bringing a solution to the problem
Interesting take on JP's shadow. It would be great to hear JP respond.
Good vid. Peterson definitely has a vague view on postmodernism, and I agree it's obvious that he projects his shadow on the idea. But at the same time, there is a crazy proliferation of hegelian/marxian thinking going on. Communists did try to take over the world, as did the nazis. So these ideologies that Nietzsche predicted are capable of possessing nations and they are dangerous.
I think your vid is great. But I also think that if he just bothered to read postmodernists and neo marxists (I mean critical theorists), Peterson would have a more nuanced but still compelling case to make
Ironically, marxist and especially hegalien schools of thought are distinctly modern and not post-modern.
The capitalists didn't try to take over the world?
Ah, but then he would know that the solution is actual individual by individual each of us introspecting and realizing that we are all part of One Being and are interdependent , thereby reducing the egotism/materialism that plagues our species today, and not angry rantings on Twitter and whining about being persecuted and creating conspiratorial bogey men.
@@thenowchurch6419 the conspiratorial bogey man is already there, he just named it and made it real, maybe 10 yrs prior it would have been just a conspiracy.
@@ironmind258 If naming it made it real now, how would naming it 10yrs prior not make it real?
What you didn't mention but what I think is absolutely crucial: His traumatized reaction when learning at an early age that a (Soviet) nuclear bomb could vaporize himself and everything he held dear in an instance. His reaction when recounting this realization is harrowing, and to me explains a lot of his shadow.
Can you share where you saw this reaction to the bomb? I've never seen it
@@mckinnonbathie5945 unfortunately I can't find the clip I believe to remember where he specifically refers to himself growing up, but I even think I read about it in one of his books... But my memory is unreliable. Here someone at least posted a clip of him talking about nukes and the cold war: th-cam.com/video/hrgCiNn17DI/w-d-xo.html
I think Peterson seems terrified often and of many things.
He's like the stereotype of a chihuahua.
Instance?
2 questions:
1. Which work should I read if i want to understand JBP's take on Jung and Nietzsche?
2. You used a phrase "shadow villain". What work would you suggest i go thru to understand more about shadow psychology?
Great video as always!
Thanks Rahul! For 1 I would suggest Maps of Meaning. It's a long read but it is well worth it and you can see how it knits all of these things together - his spiel about chaos and order, how that maps over onto neuroscience and Jung and as ever a solid side of Nietzche served throughout
For 2. I actually don't have THE book on the shadow. You learn a lot of it in primers about Jung. I'd recommend his autobiography myths dreams reflections to anyone as it gives a great overview of his whole philosophy. Also man and his symbols can be a great entrypoint and von Franz's essay on individuation on that is a good place to learn about the shadow. Other than that...Robert Johnson's book on the shadow is quite good though it's just a small little thing and lacked the depth that I wanted
Meeting the Shadow by Connie Zweig is a great one
Great video. I appreciate you come in good faith, an increasingly rare thing. I'm going to chime in on Peterson's behalf. As you pointed out, Peterson admits that when he was younger he was taken in by socialism and the Jungian shadow argument likely has more than a kernel of truth to it. It is what he called "luciferian intellect," which he says in reference to Dostoevsky's character Raskolnikov and the Peterson weelterschaung is overwhelmingly influenced by Dostoevsky far more than anyone else. His idea about postmodernism and neomarxism is really framed as a spiritual question. It's about an ideological possession to undermine established institutions and attitudes, one that traditionally manifested itself in an economic anti establishment struggle, but when Marxism was put into practise and eventually became indefensible, that same spirit, the spirit that Dostoevsky identified as "the possessed" in his titular novel, changed the way it manifested itself. This is the "sleight of hand," but it's underlying resentful motivations remained the same and is a story as old as time. Peterson calls this "the spirit of Cain" and both him and Dostoevsky were obviously very fond of biblical wisdom, (Peterson with ancient wisdom in general). It is about usurping established social hierarchies, and in the developed sphere after the world wars it became about identity politics rather than economics. Identity politics is Afterall an overwhelmingly bourgeois phenomenon emanating mostly from academia and is no longer about feeding hungry mouths like traditional Marxism. There is a nasty vicious authoritarian element to it that cloaks itself under the guise of progressivism and a conviction that it is on the right side of history, no matter what. In a revolutionary atmosphere, it can be harder to determine what is true positive progress and what is resentment fueled ideological revenge. This is where the interest in left wing authoritarianism is of far greater interest, because it's much harder to discern. Right wing authoritarianism is axiomatically bad. It's bad in theory and in practice. Left wing authoritarianism is often wonderful in theory and uses clever litigious intellectual language, like an Ivan Karamazov or Raskolnikov. Who doesn't want to be an anti fascist Afterall? Who doesn't think black lives matter? But just because the communist bloc refered to the Berlin Wall and inner border wall as an anti fascist protection barrier, doesn't mean it was, just like the penchant for autocratic states to use "democratic" or "people's republic" in their official titles accounts for nothing and is infact classic doublethink. The most famous example of this is probably Orwell, a man who was a democratic socialist and who literally physically fought fascists, but came to the realisation that there was extremely sinister people amongst his ranks disguising themselves as caring and righteous. Currently these people usually go around calling themselves empaths, and many progressives are motivated by empathy and social awareness, but many aren't. Many are just resentful, sometimes understandably so sure, but they have no sensible ideas about how to bring about actual positive change, and the real socially aware citizens, someone like Orwell, can be easily swept away and lost in this ideological tribalism driven by people who don't really stand for anything and literally just hate the world. We all know these people when we encounter them, and they usually don't have "their house in order," and have a poor ability to introspect and understand the forces driving them which can lead to abominable contrarian ideas like the pedophilia movement these french intellectuals gave us. If established institutions say the sky is blue, they will argue it's red. If the consensus of society is that pedophilia is bad, they will literally try and deconstruct it and accuse such notions of being social constructs that aren't worthy of respect and can be dismantled overnight. Currently one of the most absurd examples of neomarxism that is driven purely by anti-establishment resentment is the push to defund the police in America, which is pure insanity. But the most quintessential example of neomarxist postmodernism is Netflix's blatant disregard for objective truth by portraying Cleopatra as a black woman. Perfect example of the spirit of resentment and vanity dressing itself up in an intellectual cloak despite its pure disdain for truth. It is driven by someone who absolutely does not have their house in order. This is Neomarxist post modernist identity politics to a tee and it is in no way motivated by the social concerns that seek to improve opportunities for inner city poverty stricken blacks by improving education and healthcare, and a noble cause such as the latter is in real danger of being lumped in with the former and dismissed as deranged liberalism. Hence Peterson describes himself as a classical liberal, a liberal who moves forward with a bit more apprehension and consideration for proposed changes, rather than immediately considering all forms of change to be good, especially when driven by groups that have questionable people with questionable motives in the same tribe and fighting in the same trenches as those who are true social justice warriors in the true sense, rather than hate filled resentful self described empaths who only want to see power change hands, but with more focus on identity rather than economics, but nevertheless, it is the same driving force, disguised as something else, and this is the sleight of hand. I really do sympathise with the OG Marxists who were actually hungry and homeless I would like to hear him talk more about that.
Edit: I don't think postmodernism is a conspiracy to bring down western culture, not in the true sense of conspiracy where people have collaborated to do so and I'm not sure Peterson has ever said that? Certainly there are revolutionary elements and always will be but I don't think this involves the intellectuals Peterson has a gripe with. Rather the case is a group who arrived at similar conclusions independently, likely because they didn't fit in for one reason or another and there is a vengeful element to their ideology, not unlike a school shooter who couldn't fit in and blamed the school as a whole rather than looking inward. There is a similar spirit to the two.
Thanks for the very excellent comment.
Could you run that by me again.
brilliant. i am no philosopher, only interested in it, and peterson was the first to really grab my attention. like yourself, it was the jungian and personal responsiblity aspects of peterson that really captured my attention. But i got caught up in his savaging of post-modernism, backed up by the whole IDW at the time. But that part faded with time, and I became more concerned at petersons bitterness. Why do i spend so much time listening to such anger? That it is as you say his Jungian shadow is somehow a beautiful ouroboros and puts it all nicely into perspective. Thank you for this!
Great work. As a psychology student, I've always been soo unconfortable with JP conspiracy tendencies, cause he's work as a clinical psychologist (especially in personality traits field) always looked really good to me. But when he comes and put Foucault, Derrida and Marx in the same group as devils trying to destroy westerns civilization (as if this is actually a thing without fundamental problems as a concept itself) really does make me feel sad. Great takes at that.
Thanks Fernando I think we share the same outlook on it: he's got great chops but then somehow ends up in very suspicious waters
I think we are at the mercy of secular ethics in our conclusions. For Peterson, it is at the center a matter of Theology. The Living Philosophy here ironically is guilty of what he ascribes to Peterson as having repressed sight. He has always maintained, by arguing the threat to Western Values, he investigated and discovered the source of them which is the Bible, with Christ as its Central figure, the Logos, John 1:1. He then observes in Foucault as is with Neitzsche the necessity for self-determination by inventing values to replace the moral void left by the death of Godin Europe..." who gave us the sponge to wipe away the horizon," "is there no longer up or down left?" "God is dead and we have killed Him"...so everything is opened to redefinitions that were previously established in Christianity...So now what is life? we today say "let the woman decide" which she has determined that a baby in the womb is only a life and a beautiful miracle when she wants to have it and at the same breath calls it a parasitic clump of cells when she does not want it...what is a man/woman? The current secular Presidential administration renamed mothers as "birthing persons"...
This is Peterson's qualm which seems to be inaccessible to you guys because perhaps you have no God in your considerations....whatever similarities Living Philosophy drew are but common human superficialities but the mark is completely missed on the fundamentals as regards worldviews. Theologically speaking, when you do away with God, Western values collapse, and no human values have ever been invented that could compete with scriptural foundations of ethics. We tried it in the 20th Century and found just how bereft the human will is.
If you don't get it you might start by considering God as a hypothesis at the very least and go from there.
@@angru_arches You are falling in the very dangerous trap that is thinking that there are no morals without god. Even the notion of a "western culture" isn't self evident as people like Peterson made it out to be. What is western culture? Derives from the greeks ? So it can't be christian right ? The whole idea that the only way to have morals is God is absolutely flawed, and the link beetween Nietszche, Derrida and Foulcault is far from that. Also, not being american, is very obvious to me that a Country sooo deeply build in bigotry like tha USA history shows us isn't, not even close, a standard for good morals. I mean, Jim Crow Laws inspired Nazis, and you know as much as I do know that the ethos that guide that country in that time was really less secular than it is know that you don't have this kind of horror.
@@fernandoalcantud8388
1. "You are falling in the very dangerous trap that is thinking that there are no morals without god."
I never said 'no morals', I echoed Neitzsche's and Foucault's sentiments that man would have to INVENT morals after the DEATH OF GOD...The West's morals were Christian, and since Christianity "Died by its own hand"(Neitzsche) there was created a moral void which human invention would have to fill somehow, the Nazis tried it, Marxists who hate religion also tried it, and see their fruits...without God, essentially, there's no Objective Morality. Rape and murder becomes a matter of preference. You can't condemn anybody objectively speaking coz we are all animals dancing to the drum of our DNA (Dawkins).
2. "What is western culture? Derives from the greeks ? So it can't be christian right ? "
No,it's not Greek, it's Christian particularly over the conversion of Constantine I in the 300s and made the entire empire Christian..Atheist revisionists have tried to erase Christianity's shaping of the Western Ethos just to discredit and diminish its impact. I'm not saying you're doing this on purpose. The Greek influence is on account of it being the Lingua France, coming after their unification of their conquest before their Empire's collapse...the Romans preserved it for the common language...that's why the New Testament is written in Greek. But even so, the Greek's insistence on Reason led them, with Aristotle, to conclude theat there must be an 'Unmoved Mover', a first cause, the Logos of John 1:1..like every society since man has posited a God, coz reason dictates that out of nothing, nothing comes.
The UN Human Rights,the creations of Hospitals, Universities, Modern Science, all started by the Church.
3. "a Country sooo deeply build in bigotry like tha USA history shows us isn't, not even close, a standard for good morals."
Now this is upsetting...you think because you are soo familiar with America's history you can sum their entire history up as inherently boggoted?? How about the fact that slavery is a human universal? That it's still ongoing as we speak in Africa, RIGHT Now? How about White slaves in North Africa? You know that history? You know about how slaves were acquired in Africa? That it was Africans who enslaved Africans and sold them to Arab traders who transported them in chains across the Sahara desert and then Traded them to the Europeans before the first slave set foot in the Americas? Did you know that it was Great Britain that abolished the Slave trade in Africa? Did you know America is the only country in history to have a civil war, NOT AN UPRISING BY THE SLAVES, but ordinary Americans, and lay down 320,000+ lives to liberate slaves??? Then give lives to helpand win both World Wars, Protect Europe from Soviet conquest in the Cold War, give 50,000+ lives to liberate South Korea, and give more in the attempt to liberate Vietnam...
I don't think you realize how much the ingratitude and resentment of all things Western ha saturated your thinking. Do you extend the same criticism for the Indian religious Cast system that keeps people perpetually separated by class? Do you call all of Africa deeply biggoted for enslaving weaker tribes?? How about the Arabs, bigots too? Or do you only villify the West? That's the safe acceptable villains of the Secular Liberal Left.
@@angru_arches I havent said that slavery and Jim Crow is exclusive, let alone worse in America than in the rest of te world;~I've said time and time again that there's no superior morality in western (particularly U.S) powers. Not the India, Africa or Native aren't flawed with deep violations themselves; the difference is that there are no superiority culture like supremacists do in the US. The Arabs, Indians, Americans, Africans did all comitted atrocious things. Now, to look at the Nazi experience and think that they're trying to create any morals is absolutely misguided.
I like Jordan Peterson. I don’t actively listen to him, but when I do I often find myself agreeing with him, and take what he says to heart. But I have truly never been able to understand his talks on the “culturally Neo-Marxist”. It almost seemed to be random words grouped together, solely just for political gain.
Not just political gain, he has openly stated on a Joe Rogan episode that he found a way to monetise the radical left.
Thing is, it's hard to trust his analysis of things because he consistently misinterprets or misrepresents others in general, not just a small group of French philosophers.
He somehow came to the conclusion based on his reading that Orwell was anti-socialist when Orwell explicitly defends socialism multiple times.
@@priapulida Just because a possibility of totalitarianism exists does not mean one is inevitable, nor are different political movements inherently more prone to it than another. You can have totalitarian right wingers and totalitarian left wingers. I think JP is drawing unsuitable parallels between extremely different phenomena without providing enough substantial evidence to back up those claims.
@@priapulida Y'know what's really woke?
Going on twitter and catastrophizing because an interview of yours from years ago has been removed from TH-cam by proclaiming it as being book burning while there are literally book burnings happening in the southern states of the US taking place at the time of the tweet.
Big brain time.
@@priapulida Why would you pretend to know about the situation when you clearly haven't done even the most cursory examination of it?
How shameless a prevaricator can you be?
I saw an interesting video of a journalist called Glen Greenwald titled "the mountain of data showing how authoritarian democrats have become". Obviously this pertains to the American situation, but it seems that the religion of wokeness coupled with rising authoritarianism is a contemporary plague arising out of the US and unleashed upon us all.
@@michaelmcclure3383 Glenn "off the wall" Greenwald?
Personally, I can't rule out the possibility that Greenwald is doing an incredibly long-game satirical performance art bit. Especially when you know how his editorial line to his Brazilian audience differs from what he puts out in the west.
Superb analysis. For a long time I've felt JP's misunderstanding of Foucalt and especially Nietzsche very dusturbing.....
As far as 'post-modern neo-marxist' goes, a similar thing exists with Objectivists describing Kant and Comte, and students of their philosophies: a person who believes that reality is whatever you make of it, that facts and the laws of reality are at best tools and actively disregarded at worst, that the individual should be eliminated and that the state should be an active participant in your life. Sowell's 'The Vision of the Anointed' (as well as elsewhere) also talks about these same kinds of people. Now how it is that all these kinds of people (the ARI, Peterson and Sowell) can point the finger at basically the same kind of person... well calling it a conspiracy theory implies the people involved are conspiring together, so it's probably more accurate to think of it like the Crusades (especially the First) than a planned internal coup to seize power.
At anyrate, I find Peterson to be at his best when he's being a psychologist and not a philosopher, alas his particular field of interest and the very nature of philosophy require him to be in that field when he has to figure out what on earth are the people that advocate the things he opposes so frequently.
Sowell talks a lot about describing the social justice movement as a modern day crusade. And goes into past crusades as well, very interesting.
On the strength of something you said in the closing section, I checked out Peterson's conversation with John Vervaeke. Unfortunately, I couldn't get more than 25 minutes into it before closing it in frustration. Peterson doesn't let Vervaeke finish a sentence, constantly interrupting and interjecting like a child on a sugar rush, constantly derailing Vervaeke's train of thought. I guess it gets better eventually, given what you say here, but my patience ran out. I've genuinely enjoyed some of Peterson's conversations in the past, but it was painful to listen to.
Yeah y'know what I'm the same. I think I just stuck it out because I like Vervaeke so much but it's one of the few bits of Peterson I've listened to since his return and this was one that put me off watching any more. It seems that this episode was an exceptional case of it but with that little listening going on it was very offputting. It made me question whether Peterson had fully recovered. I saw a clip of him on JRE recently where he seemed more present and coherent but yeah it's true the Vervaeke episode was tough watching
I've always had misgiving about Peterson well before Dr. Gabor Mate pointed out a year ago or so that he believes Peterson has a lot of unresolved pent up anger. I believe this fuels his shadow hence he projects it out on Postmodern scholars or anyone who disagrees with him.....as if they were intentionally out to dupe the masses with evil intentions. So glad TLP addressed this issue so clearly. It gets much closer to the truth of that which drives Peterson's state of mind. It truly is unfortunate that Peterson has no idea of the degree in which his shadow has possessed his heart and mind. What makes it worse is that, if you were to call him out on it out of genuine concern for his well being, he would, as most people do, deny it. Tragically, and unbeknownst to himself, he is defending the indefensible and does not know it. He is unwittingly subjecting himself to a very toxic shadow that, I fear, will, in the future, make his life far more difficult and he will never know its true cause UNLESS he sees the truth about "the long bag he is dragging behind himself".
I respect and admire Peterson, but I do not take him seriously nor his advice on relationships or how to be a better person. Mainly because, as an INFJ, I intuitively felt his anger from the get go which often taints his best intentions. And his knowledge of amorous relationships pales in comparison to Esther Perel who sees ALL interpersonal relations with greater nuance and with a deeper humanistic understanding of what it means to be human. Peterson also spreads himself out too thin on issues that are not within his "domain" of knowledge (as he would put it). I can only hope that Peterson will take a very hard and deep look within himself and see that which is keeping him in a state of arrested development.
I don't think « deny » is the best word to describe the position he would take concerning your arguments. He would debate the case you're trying to make, rather. I would be interested to hear his response to your arguments, and see what truths you could both take out of the conversation.
However I must ask about « Defending the indefensible ».
What are examples of occurances where he defended something indefensible and how did/do his arguments fail to make his « defensive » case legitimate (apart from the fact that he doesn't really understand postmodernism, which mosts of his statements do NOT completely depend on) ?
by what perfection of self-knowledge do you grant yourself licence to say what "drive's Peterson's mind"
how do you "respect and admire" and yet not "take seriously"? is your admiration silly and frivlous? are you conflicted?
Carl Jung, who Peterson is so fond of quoting, once said "a one-sided, extreme concious attitude always arouses suspicion of its opposite."
As a long time JBP observer I found this take to be very interesting although I just don't have a good enough knowledge of Derrida and Foucault to decide either way. A question: what if we focus on the motivations of the followers of Derrida and Foucault rather than the men themselves, especially in America. Could the sleight-of-hand be a collective response, a misreading of these post-modernists, conscious or not, by Neo-Marxists in order to save their basic world view? I say this because I believe that Marxism really does have a great talent for morphing its basic world-view into other forms like certain camps of feminism and environmentalism and Catholic liberation theology (or maybe we could say it is good at hijacking anything it can use politically)......Anyway, another great video; food for thought; loved the Jung quotes. Cheers.
Good point. Is what we see from Peterson a missinterpretation of Post modern filosofers or a good reaction to the interpretation od these filosophers by certain groups?
Btw. I watch his podcast regularly and I liked this video. There is something to it, but I don't have the knowlegde to tell where the truth lies. I would like someone to dig deeper in this direction.
Well I read thru a lot here but that did not satisfy me 😀
How exactly does Marxism have a talent for morphing its world-view into other forms?
Post-modernism is opposed to grand narratives like Marxism, so JP is off his rocker! Pomo is more about the relativism of world-views. JP conceals that problem of oppressors vs oppressed by not identifying the contexts of oppression which are frequently in the family institution, in the household, and in the marital relation. And, this oppression involves a monetary inequality. As for sleight of hand, the sleight of hand occurs when the state bails out banks but not homeowners, a clear pejorative supporting the bourgeoisie. How about addressing tax cuts, wages, subsidies? Tell us, defenders of JP, what is the purpose of salaries in the hundreds of millions and billions for corporate executives?
So you've identified two issues, the need for a genealogy of current thought and how it differs now, and what aspects of ideologies overlap.
You know who was really good at investigating the "underlying motive" at work in thought? Foucault. Do you know what's a framework for separating different ideologies relationally and along material grounds? Marxism
This is ultimately why you cannot save Peterson's thought. Great he wants to critique modern society, but he then just goes and blames the critics of society for critiquing society. Thus the deeper you go into his arguments the more non-sensical it becomes until you come out the other side and realize the next step is to actually read the authors he talks about.
EDIT: Final point, once you identified JBP though as insufficient to critique society or understand philosophy in general, why not just move on? Could you not say that excuse you provide for him is just a sleight-of-hand on your part to continue to derive any value from his thought as a justification for the emotional investment you put in him? You can always come back to his work after you have a better understanding.
At 4:00, you make the most accurate description I've ever heard. Well done, indeed!
Recently discovered your channel during a search for modernism. You are doing a superb job, producing intelligent and compelling videos. Keep it up. Thank you!
Thanks Zac
Your unwavering loyalty to “truth” rather than “my team” is the most crucial element when approaching anything that resembles “truth”. Your intentions so to speak is in the right place and I pray you continue to have this balanced approach with all philosophical subjects.
Me too Pseudo Ra!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Love everything you do brother! Wishing you longevity, love and peace. Keep the great works coming as you’re doing a service for the greater good IMO.
@@pseudo_ra the truth is dictated by the team.
Thank you for putting into words what I have long been uncomfortable with about JP. I too find his “make your bed” ideas sage advice, but the oversimplification of complex philosophy to promote FUD to be concerning. Brilliant job unpacking this with empathy and depth!
This was absolutely brilliant fair play. Peterson was a life saver for me when I discovered him and I mean that literally and I've always admired his ideas. You could have hit the nail on the head about Peterson projecting his shadow but one thing I'd take issue with is the conspiracy theory part. Is it not true that there are new groups coming up through the universities in the west whose goals are quite literally 'deconstruct the patriarchy' etc. I'd love to hear your critique of the actual details of this conspiracy theory and why he's wrong. Cheers
Postmodernism starting point ,is the rejection of marxism. As pomo like right wing worldview also is based on idealism, while marxism is the materialism based analysis/ historical materialism. The diffetence between idealism and materialism, essentially is tha other one is purely subjective, while other is very much an objective view of the world.
Marxism is comprehensive understanding of the world, ie grand narrative, wich Postmodernism rejects totally. So to slam these 2 totally contradictory ideas together, is simply oxymoronic.
But bcoz petersons, like idealists In general claims are abstract feelings based without any specific, thats why it sounds right, untill one start to look for specifics. But they and their listeners do not mind the vague abstract nature of those claims.
Hence petersons pomo neo marxism or cultural marxism, is precicely the same claim, that Hitlers and nazis, cultural judeo bolshewism was. Not just in name, but In substance. Wich i argue, is enough to prove that it belongs to cathegory of conspiracy theory.
Also note for. Peterson constantly cry about alienation and social atomization , yet he somehow makes the left to be responsinble for it, while he praises and worship the very system of, consumerism, greed ,wealth ie capitalism. That we know to produce these kind of results. Hell even Marx over 150y ago, wrote the theory of alienation. But peterson dont know ,how it was Marx that spoke about these same concerns.
To cry for for meaninglesness alienation etc, while worshipping the system that naturally produces it, makes him totally unqualified to ever speak thos again.
Not to mention peterson is the very postmodernist, by hes own standards even, in hes absurd relativist statements about, what is truth. What do you mean by christ or god etc. They are extremely far away, from mainstream christians views. Ie too far from every norm ppls definitions of them.
The pathological fear and hatred of Marx is totally unwarranted. The dude did nothing but had the nerve to analyze how capitalism works. So when you speak about communists etc in schools do this somehow validate the pathological hate of Marx?
Then should we also condemn Adam Smith, John locke etc, early capitalist thinkers?, due to all wars In Last 350years, and over billion of death. Does this make sence? Of coz not.
Then why Marx is different, eventhough he newer had anything to do with bolshewists, communists etc. Only thing he did, was that he made the work, wich gave ppl an understanding of how the system works.
So i ask should someone that calls himself an honest intellectual, Who is at war against marxism. (Eventhough making same arguments again and again, that Karl Marx himself made also), and postmodernism (while himself being the actual caricatyre of a postmodernist), should that someone at least understand some basics, before speaking against them. ?
And it is clear he do not wish to correct hes lack of knowledge, this proves that we are dealing a kind of pathology, that do not only wish to answer to otherside, but views them as evil ,and unhumane
I think, that thus it is not mere opinion but an objective fact that mr JP is first and foremost a conspiracy theorist
God bless. Peace n solidarity
You are too general in your statements.
There is much nuance in these topics.
Various academics and scholars pursuing their careers and sharing views and thoughts with others of their ilk is NOT a conspiracy; it is just a movement.
It is also not a monolithic movement but has much variation and disagreement.
J.P.B.'s hyper emotionalism and constantly implying it is a conspiracy is ridiculous and dangerous.
@@thenowchurch6419 I'm not saying the rise of post modernism is a conspiracy, I was just using the creators terminology. Jordan Peterson doesn't claim it's a conspiracy either so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
I think you're getting confused with who is using the conspiracy terminology here which was the OP in regard to Peterson's ideas about post modern neo Marxism.
@@123brizy You might want to watch the video again as well as Jordan's speeches on the topic.
He does everything but use the word conspiracy.
Certainly you are not suggesting that one must use the word conspiracy to be implying that there is one?
Jordan clearly accuses Post Modern Neo-Marxists of seeking to overthrow the foundational principles of the West, that they are monolithic and "know exactly what they are doing".
Surely you are aware of his rants about the Sports Illustrated cover being an intentional agenda and that there is a agenda by some at Twitter against him.
He calls them and their project "evil".
That suggests that they are not accidentally or naturally doing what they are doing but have an evil intent.
That is the definition of a conspiracy.
@@tenholindberg9862 Excellent analysis.
It is the height of irony that JPB embodies elements of all the isms he is fighting against and is possessed by the ideas he has adopted to a pathological degree, yet he acts like he understands Jung and the possibility of such possession.
my dude, you gotta use audio transitions when you put together different clips it gets rid of the "pop" effect.
Excellent video and to me it seemed you enjoyed making it! Great! This really made me want to learn more about Jung. What could be a good book to start from?
I did indeed Vanha! For a starter on Jung I'd highly recommend his autobiography Myths Dreams Reflections which does a good job of showing the evolution of his thought and of showing what he thinks in a very easy to read way. Man and his symbols is another great entry point which is a number of essays by Jung and a few others that captures the various key points of his school - the unconscoius, mythology and individuation. Both are great points to start from
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thank you for the recommendations! I will start from there
As a JP fan I love this video but want to point out that’s it’s the people JP calls out that condemn us JP fans as bad people when we are all here enjoying this criticism yet those opposed tend to not be able to hear criticisms. I believe it’s this point that shows what drew JP into his “conspiracy” period. It’s maddening when people are so arrogant in their points and won’t accept critics points. I don’t believe JP is perfect but I do believe he has great lessons to be learned and I like his idea of the online university not bound by the educational system that is corrupt, at least in America, to an extent.
I’ve never heard Peterson before, as he seems to be the product of social media popularization, but it sounds like his argument is essentially the same as Allan Bloom’s “Closing of the American Mind” from the eighties- the “Nietzscheanization of the Left”.
Interesting stuff Stephen I am going to check out this Allan Bloom. The Nietzscheanisation of the left sounds like a different thesis than the Marxist one and more accurate in terms of Foucault and Derrida so I wonder if it'll give me a better understanding of how we got to where we are
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Bloom was also known as a great translator of Plato- his translation of Republic was standard text in graduate level courses. I don’t agree with his politics, but I do believe any followers of the postmoderns needs to have an understanding of Heidegger’s philosophy and it’s political implications before fully accepting their arguments. He is who they are responding to (particularly via Sartre.) Peterson’s critique seems pretty superficial and addressing contemporary trends, rather than a serious philosophical critique. As Arendt said, after the rise of totalitarianism and the failure of western culture to resist it , the thread of history has been irreparably broken. Appropriation and relativism are the only possible approach. Is Peterson unaware of artistic/literary movements of the twentieth century?
Will you be attempting to listen to Jordan at all after this introduction?
Great videos, really balanced perspective. Like the analytical approach. Would really like it if the text on screen would appear at once instead of along with narration because I like to screenshot it. it disappears too quickly. I could just get the whole script from the browser version of TH-cam. Regardless, like the energy that goes into this, your digging into these topics with the fervor that people dig into hiphop beefs and internet drama, your presentation is just measured and dare I say based(in fact). Keep it going and take care of yourself so I get to enjoy many more years of this.👍👊🖖
Good feedback Percy let me see if there's some way of doing both. And thank you for the kind words. As I cozy in for the long haul I'm trying to be more attentive to my health and balance so I can stay at this forever
This channel is so good. You analysis is one of the few honest ones you might find in the Internet about Peterson. Normally, you will find people to advocate for anything he says or to attack him for anything he says.
Both of them aren't constructive at all. But you were, my friend!
He has great ideas and insights and sometimes he directs his energy and focus into the wrong path, imo. And in my understanding of your video, you might just think of him something close to that.
Thank you for your service. Keep your honesty and your great work.
Cheers!
Ah thanks Emmanuel! I was only chatting with a friend about this yesterday. It's rare you find good faith critique of Peterson and while I think I came down a bit hard on him at times I still think there was an attempt to show my love while pointing out where I think he could be better so thank you for reaffirming my belief in it!
I’m a new subscriber- have you discussed Chomsky’s dissection of the euro postmodernists?
Why love person who teaches how everyone else should live their lives, like they know. I think Petersons shadow is a priest, a moralist, like Carl Jung, Peterson teaches virtues.
I could be wrong but I think that JP basically uses the term ‘postmodern neomarxist’ as a way of describing the general attitude and ideology that has taken a hold of universities. It’s characterized by a dismissal of truth and objective morality but ironically includes heavy moralizing based on identity politics. So perhaps JP mischaracterizes the early postmodernists, but to his credit, even they were extremely hesitant to define postmodernism. What matters I think is that he is justly criticizing the current attitudes and beliefs being taught in universities which certainly stemmed from these writers’ work.
Amazing video! I generally like Peterson, but there were many mind-blowing moments sprinkled throughout your video. He talks a good talk about balance and bridging polarities, but mere talk can be a smokescreen shielding the ego from the fact that the hardest work is yet to be tackled.
Possibly also worth a review of James Lindsay's new discourses who charts the conspiracy. I do think JP is aware of and does discuss his own shadow at times which gives him some nuance. I think if his first and second book had address the necessity of, and life affirming as much as life destroying nature of, chaos and order then I would give him more nuance overall
I think this is the best analysis of Peterson's thought that I've ever seen. Fantastic work.
Oh wow that's very very high praise Mark thank you!
I enjoyed the video! I appreciate you trying to stay unbiased. However (lol) I do feel like you missed out on some nuance by not mentioning that the idea behind the Robert Moore quote is the EXACT criticism Peterson has against the “woke”.
I think adding that would add so much to more depth to your interpretation.
Btw did you ever think or feel like it might be unfair or imprecise to compare JP to a conglomerate of Ideas? I feel like that’s bound to paint the single person ( in this case JP) as a conspiracy theorist in the same way it would paint Olivia Wilde as a conspiracy theorist if you put her up against a conglomeration of conservative ideas.
Don’t know if I made sense lol
Anyways… you got a new sub! 🫡
Thank you for this video. Like many, JP's ideas resonated with me at low point in my life when I needed his verbose dad advice to move forward, but I can't seem to give any kind of credit to him without being accused of idolotry by his haters. Perhaps they too are projecting shadow content about their academics of choice 🤔
I think that's definitely the case Good Mitchy
@@TheLivingPhilosophy How do you recognize when you're shadow possessed? It's something I worry about because I don't want to wind up projecting on people. They don't really deserve that.
@@Jay_Hendrix Really good question Mitchy. Off the top of my head I would suggest that a good way of keeping an eye on your shadow is in how your project it. When you feel hatred for someone and particularly when you see someone as evil I would suggest treading carefully. You are in the land of the shadow then. But there;s another pitfall to be mindful of and that is the common reaction to this realisation that you'll find in the hippie subculture: seeing any such emotions as being your problem and not to do with the other person. This idea of total agency is dangerous and is a recipe for abuse. Tread carefully but still be mindful that the other person may be in fact an asshole and you may need to act accordingly. That's all to do wtih shadow projection. You've tripped me a little with the idea of shadow possession. The seems like a different animal. That might be more connected to the idea of enantiodromia - opposites flipping into each other like the ideter gorging on a cheesecake - but this isn't something I'd have to think about more before coming up with a good response on how to deal with. Hope this helps to some extent
@@TheLivingPhilosophy It does, thank you. I find myself leaning more towards being a hippie myself. I just want everyone to love each other and get along, but I fear that may make me blind to people exploiting my tendency to give them a second, third, fourth chance ad infinitum. Even the idea of blocking someone on social media makes me feel a pit in my stomach because I know how important being there for people is, even if they exploit it. But I really do fear what kind of projection that might manifest. I'm terrified to imagine that people genuinely can't change and that I'll do more harm than good by trying to integrate them into my life and friend groups. I don't want to live in a world where even one person is beyond redemption.
@@Jay_Hendrix Thanks and it's the hardest thing to try and keep the evil most damaging effect out from among us.
This is so good. Thanks for existing. Can you do a video on criticisms of Ken Wilber?
Haha thanks Kevin. That would be an interesting one to do. I'm planning on doing a living philosophy of Ken Wilber at some point so might do that as part of it or else do a supplementary one maybe a moratorium on why Integral fizzled out
Damn this must have been quite the workload... great job, hope more people see this
Haha it was a substantial enough rabbit hole Jan. I've seen enough Peterson to have a sense of what I was looking for so it wasn't like researching from scratch but still quite a lot of work in it!
You had me at “intellectual catnip “ on from the “Charles Bukowski of the Philosophers” video. So good
Hahaha I'd forgotten about that one 😆
Just recently discovered the channel, and it’s quickly becoming my favorite philosophy channel/podcast.
This one is especially phenomenal. Handled with such grace and eloquence. While I won’t go so far as to say I’m a “fan” of Peterson’s (though I do dig his lectures on mythology sometimes), his “Neo-Marxist postmodernism” schtick is absolutely ridiculous. I like how Zīzek called him out on it during their debate, and Peterson’s only response was to shrug and be like “well I can just tell you both ideas are very popular in academia” lol
Thanks a million Bree! Glad you enjoyed it!
This is good and honest criticism. I must say though, after reading much and writing a thesis that touched on those subjects for about 200 pages (not in English), that there is some truth to what Peterson says about "postmodern neo-marxism"; it's just that he should be much more careful about it. There are indeed postmodern (as vague as the term is) elements and also roughly Neomarxist (Frankfurtian, post-structuralist, identitarian theories-activisms etc.) elements to the acid soup that has been corroding much of Western thought, narratives, culture and even epistemology for some decades now. It's an extremely confusing acid soup, though.
Kudos for keeping the video fair and unbiased! Your discussion on the shadow applied to Peterson himself was super interesting
@@priapulida what ideologues specifically? I’ve never heard of anyone openly saying they are plotting to destroy enlightenment values.
“Woke totalitarianism” is not a real thing. It’s fear mongering rhetoric meant to terrorize people who are slightly negatively affected by small, often well intended, changes in society that are inevitable in a constantly evolving culture.
Thank you friend! Trying to walk those grounds between the polarities and defy the idea that you can love both Peterson and Foucault. Ends up with rather contentious comment sections it seems!
@@priapulida I know, I've watched the video twice over now and have yet to glean what argument is even being made here against Peterson's ideas. Literally half of this video is him comparing Peterson to Foucault, which is completely irrelevant to any of the arguments made. At best, this video is philosophically interesting. At worst, it's a shameless attempt to generate revenue from fervent fans and enemies of Peterson.
@@priapulida I appreciate Peterson’s ideas about taking responsibility for your life, stopping blaming others for your predicament, and starting to order it yourself. It’s quality, helpful stuff.
Where he loses me is on things like climate change denial and the red scare of postmodern neomarxists. Look up “scientists react to Jordan Peterson on climate.”
As for the postmodern neomarxists, who exactly are they? And don’t list a couple of prominent, dead, 20th century French philosophers. Peterson speaks of them as an organized group with a deliberate, sinister, extremely pervasive agenda-those are literally terms of a conspiracy theory. So, where is this extremely well-organized and all-pervasive organization?
As a side note, Peterson dishonestly misrepresents Nietzsche. Nietzsche was for everything that makes man stronger, both as an individual and a species. He hated Christianity because (in his opinion) it nursed man’s weaknesses, and he certainly didn’t fear or regret the “death of God”; if anything, Nietzsche celebrated it. On the one hand, Peterson calls Nietzsche a “genius”; on the other, he says he was absolutely wrong about perhaps his most important idea: that God is dead and man is free to create his own values.
Peterson says the “postmodernists” are absolutely wrong because they think “everything is power.” Nietzsche: _”This world is the will to power-and nothing besides!_ And you yourselves are also this will to power-and nothing besides!”
Peterson has a lot of good to offer, but he (like everyone else) is far from perfect, and being as publicly prolific as he is, he is bound to speak some idiocy here and there. Do we discount the good he does because of it? Certainly not. But we need to critically evaluate the things he says and not elevate him to the status of infallibility.
@@sollux13 LOL you really have learned the Peterson lesson "I'm thick, therefore conspiracy".
Even though I agree with JBP deeply, I can say this is a well done critique. Even though some of his arguments were a little straw-manned and not carried out fully enough to convey the essence of his points (to my understanding), they were still kept in tact to a decent enough extent in order to take your thoughts and responses seriously.
One thing that rubbed me the wrong way is that you start off with the statement about JBP's Jungian shadow rather than building up to it.
However, it's apparent you mean well in your exploration of various ideas and you tackle them with near-appropriate caution. The slight recklessness at certain spots don't discredit your insights, though. Thanks for giving a massive JBP fan an additional leg to stand on, if I ever lean on the need to do so.
I came in expecting to find just another emotion and opinion fueled takedown of Peterson but found a grounded and logical argument for why Peterson might not be right in some of the things he says. As a Peterson admirer I personally love this kind of take and it shows me to always remain grounded and examining everything before making a judgement.
Beautifully said. Can't say how excited I am to happen upon you and others discussion on Foucault - such a powerful source of inspiration and perspective that is so needed now. You put this all together so well. I minored in philosophy and this video was at least equal to the best lectures I attended. So excited to live in a world where information like this is being subscribed to by 200k others. The future is looking brighter. Thank you!
Great video! I am fan of JP but I think what is important in life is to keep an open mind and try to "think for yourself", whatever that means. You are a great presenter of ideas and your videos are not vitriolic or sensational like some of the JP criticism videos. I am excited to see where you take this channel!
Ah thank you Pierce that's exactly the sweet spot I was going for!
Peterson doesn't have an open mind???
@@rogerjohnson2562 absolutely not.
JP a life example of Nietzsche's famous saying:
If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you
"The deeper you stare into the abyss, the deeper the abyss stares into you"
I wouldn't have thought there was anything left to say about JP, but this video proves otherwise. I've never liked him at all, but even I'm shocked to see him condemn in a bitter rage -- with no awareness at all of the irony -- those who refuse to be grateful that this is the best of all possible worlds. As for JP being able to critically examine himself and what he thinks he knows, I would have assumed that was all-but-impossible, not least because he doesn't seem to have engaged Marx, Derrida, or Foucault directly at all, but only knows of them through Stephen Hicks and other ideologues. But at the end you suggest otherwise. This left me with the question: what was the answer when JP asked earnestly if he had gotten Foucault and Derrida wrong?
@@priapulida Please tell me where these dastardly villains admit their goal is the total destruction of reason, dialogue, motherhood, kittens, and all the other good things JP lists. Gimme a quote. Gimme a specific citation. I'll wait.
@@priapulida That's fine, don't engage. But after reading a bunch of your comments here, I suggest you respond to the specific arguments made in the video. You seem to be ignoring the video and instead are defending the general notion that JP is criticizing "critical social justice" discourse. That's not what the video is about -- it's about the specific claims JP makes about Marxists (including Derrida and Foucault, who actually were not Marxists) engaging in deliberate deception in order to replace discourse about class with discourse about identity, with the explicit goal of destroying western civilization. JP's claims here are complete nonsense, and that should be admitted even if you dislike critical theory generally.
Thanks for the great responses Frank. In answer to you original question about the response peterson got I was unfortunately a non answer. Really didn't correct him at all which is a shame (not sure why Vervaeke didn't do so maybe he didn't know enough?) But I do think peterson was open to a software update on his pomo programming
I'm more comfortable believing that current moral failings (in my opinion) are driven by philosophical wrong turns rather than grand conspiracies. Rather than eliminating a shadowy enemy we need to confront our own conception of the world.
I have a serious problem with you saying he expressed legitimate sincerity on being corrected. He absolutely does not. He manipulates any correction into his own direction. Peterson is at best a master manipulator. He says things in his talks that are contradictory to his quotes and when he makes a mistake he pulls the age old bull of "no you're right I was wrong .. but I am still right because of -insert convoluted manipulation- see that means what I meant all along as well" Hes tactics are closer to a young earth creationist than a philosopher. I think you are too forgiving. There is absolutely no reason someone who is put a position as him should be making such mistakes. He is too old and too "knowledgeable" to be making such basic mistakes. These are things you get rung out of you in high school debate class. Just because he said some stuff everyone likes doesn't mean he should even be respected. Lots of random people have a lot of good to say. But this man should not be the talking head for any group. He is just the only one talking. You can't let someone be your music teacher for your child just because they got a couple things right when they can't even tell you what intervals are. His ramblings don't accomplish anything when he won't stop manipulating everything into his own twisted world view and tacking on horrible shit onto good ideas. He is so guilty of trying to adulterate every good thought he has with his own biased insane delusions he should be treated like a young earth creationist and ignored.
I think I mostly agree with this. There was a great explanation from a Current Affairs article called, "The Intellectual We Deserve" how JP's MO amounts to making grandiose generalizations and then using its inherent vagueness to get himself out of contradictions or other logical fallacies.
Furthermore, what makes it worse is that JP is consistently not engaged with fairly by many of his critics and so his supporters justify JP's claims by arguing that critics don't take him seriously or exemplify the very generalizations he speaks of. The Cathy Newman interview is the prime example, but even as uncharitable as she was to him, he still directly compared trans-activists to Mao's cultural revolution and then implied that the very significant difference between the deaths of millions in China and trans rights activism was inconsequential because to him both movements exemplify group identity.
Absolutely bizarre.
@@priapulida This video highlights JP's conspiratorial rhetoric as a significant criticism of his public engagement, and you're in here telling me that woke activists *somewhere* are creating an army of neo-comm's in schools?? What schools?? What activists? What army?
Leaders on far right and far left are committed to silencing sensible dialogue and access to information. In a predominantly Republican Tennessee county, award winning literature on the Holocaust was removed from schools because it used some swear words and depicted some nudity. In other right leaning counties in Texas, swaths of literature on gender, race, and sexuality are removed or banned. This is not healthy.
On the other end, you have left leaning colleges and institutions like the Administrators at the University of Illinois punished Law Professor Jason Kilborn for presenting a case study to his class that also contained offensive words. This is not healthy either.
Am I running around shouting that Conservatives in Tennessee and Texas are Neo-Fascist Nazi sympathizers that are creating an army to revolutionize America? No. Because that would be ridiculous. These kinds of behaviour are always problematic but not indicative of some collapse of society.
I am concerned about further political polarization and what effect it will have on national and international levels. I think bridges can be built in a lot of places people have already abandoned. I do not believe that JP is doing anything remotely helpful to restore the order he so greatly longs for.
@@priapulida yikes. I'm starting to think that a productive, good faith conversation is becoming less likely. It seems I have angered you and I feel as if I am being misunderstood. I guess I am willing to continue but I'm worried where the conversation is turning.
@@priapulida You are literally the issue stated in this video. You are talking like a moon lander denier and saying insane things with no basis. You're in a cult bro.
@@priapulida "the abuse/lies/Gaslighting gets to me" You are referring to people speaking from an outside perspective on a man who has created a cult of personality by misrepresenting countless authors, scholars and information. If you feel abused lied to or gaslighted when someone points out that JP is saying things that are incorrect or not in line with reality.. please check yourself because you may be falling into that cult mentality and you are most likely the one lost. If everyone on earth is telling you JP is full of shit the most logical answer is that he is full of shit and not that we are all part of a grand conspiracy to manipulate and control you.
This is one of the most impressive videos I've come across. I couldn't understand and put together congruently the JP of his personality lectures and the latter unhinged ravings. Currently looking into Heidegger and trying to fit his nationalism with his existential authenticity. There is the same smell here with JP, Heidegger and Enoch Powell. First rate minds that get warped into intellectually feeble positions because of personality / maybe shadow. It feels like there is some primordial sense of identity that must express itself and burns through. PS I love the metaphors in this video bellows of the algorithm is fantastic. Thank you for the education.
Really appreciate that comment David thanks for that. Always great to hear when something lands
I appreciate this critique, however I remain baffled at Peterson's mainstream appeal. He has a very complicated way of saying, ''be responsible and be kind''. That's fine and useful in almost any context. What I don't get is why he thinks that a critique of systemic problems (power structures) is some huge threat. If we fix systemic problems that cause massive inequality, more people will have the time and opportunity to follow Peterson's advice. What he brands as Marxism is basically a generation of people asking why they can barely afford (or not afford) a safe and comfortable life while there are individual people flying around in private spaceships, buying whole islands, and lobbying politics to get whatever they want. Can we not both work on ourselves AND demand a more equitable society at the same time?
If I may, there's ultimately nothing stopping us from living like Buddhists but our familiarity with the comforts of modernity. We only really *need* to survive. We don't need to own a home, or a new car, or any of that. There's no shame in living a humble life. In a sense, being responsible means recognizing that reality. The equity folks seem to think that you need material to live a full life, but you don't. You just need love for yourself and those around you and a healthy fear of death to motivate you to find food when you get hungry.
@@Jay_Hendrix That's philosophically true. However, it's not a solution to inequality and poverty within our system. We're surrounded by the narratives and requirements of a free market capitalist system. Saying, "just be a Buddhist" to those for whom the system has failed absolves the collective of our responsibility to each other.
His problem with the obsession of doing away with all structural elements of our society is the inevitability of over correcting the problem. The baby will be thrown away with the bath water
@@thucydides7849 Only anarchists would argue for removing all structural elements of society, and there are very few of them. Societies always change over time.
@@EricBurnetMusic 100%. The Buddha had literally no understanding of trauma or systems of power. Saying "live like Buddhists" as a solution to all our social problems is a very naive and priveleged take, much like Siddhartha before he left the palace.
I enjoyed this very much and the critical observations are well placed. However what about the stated aims of Gramsci/Dutschke to gain cultural hegemony over the established institutions of the West? what about the aims of the Frankfurt School? ... they're quite explicit in their aims and have had a huge influence in the formation of the identity politics phenomenon. Virtually all aspects of western culture have become an ideological tool of indoctrination and critical thinking is actively discouraged.
If I get your argument right, then the main theme seems to be that Peterson's depiction of Foucault and Derrida does not match the way they would describe themselves. But, I wonder, why would you foreground someone's self-description rather than focus on what the actual consequences of their actions was? The postmodernist branch of philosophy paved the way for what has, in recent years, come to be known as all kinds of variations of Critical Theories and "Grievance Studies". Those are, without a doubt, heavily Marxist in their thinking (and in their activist goals). However, and I wanna be clear that this, of course, is not to say that people should be characterized by what other people made of their ideas. The best example for this might be Nietzsche who was by no means a Nazi fanatic but was employed as one of their intellectual pillars by keeping those ideas of his that were expedient, and omitting those that would have torpedoed their whole ideology.
So, sure, Foucault and Derrida might not be the marxist conspirators that Peterson portrays them as. Nonetheless, the fruits of their philosophy, in the form of outright marxist Critical Theories, does have the (often explicitly stated) goal of undermining Western values that emerged from hundreds of centuries of philosophical, religious and scientific endeavors, the most foundational of which: freedom, equality, and the idea of the sovereign individual. Instead, in their view, freedom should be subject to the ideological cause so that individual liberty doesn't thwart the ideological mission; equality is supposed to be replaced by equity which is supposed to ensure that the right people get what they deserve - for better and worse - of course, who is the "right" person and what they "deserve" is defined by the ideology and their functionaries; and the individual ought to be subject to the group. If all of this doesn't ring a bell, I don't know what will. Peterson might be wrong in depicting this development as some sort of plot and attributing to it a will when it actually is "just" a dynamic process of its own accord. But in any case, i.e. whether this ideological phenomenon is instructed or not, the consequences are the same: We stand before a precipice that we have encountered multiple times before. And we can either recognize that, and decide to turn around and look for another way, or we can ride straight into yet another large-scale catastrophy.
Justice has been an historical issue since the beginning. For JP to exclaim that justice is a fault of marxism is ridiculous. Are you trying to say that Derrida and Foucault are marxist functionaries? The key problems today and in the 20th are over humanism and the subject. Both of these topics involve the problems of injustice, inequality, and ideology. The focus on one ideology, marxism, masks the other ideologies like fascism and neoliberalism. But, in no way has JP enlightened us on what is ideology, or on injustice. In one take, we can understand the injustice of the Gulag, do we likewise gasp at the incarceration system in the US?
The Grievance Studies affair is nonsense and has nothing to do with Critical Theory. The latter is a sustained cultural criticism which ultimately points to the problem of murder regardless whether it occurs in households, on public streets or during tactical operations in combat. Not to understand the thrust of Critical Theory - a sustained critique against the right and its injustices, is naive.
This video reminds me of Aamon’s Animation own “Jordan Peterson: 12 More Rules” and can even be complementary to it. A cinematic storytelling masterpiece, it uses animation and recordings of things Peterson has said to detail Peterson’s own noble intentions at the beginning, but it later shows the moment an d reasons he is overtaken by his own “shadow” in a very interesting (and heartbreaking, I never expected it would make me cry for him lol) way.
Spoilers
I think it would be very difficult for Peterson to escape (let go of(?)) mis shadow, as he has big social and economic incentives to not do so. And it also I think should be done when he is away from the spotlight, so he would have to do another long hiatus. A big part of his fan base would probably abandon him or even become a hate-base because they might feel he “betrayed” them, but an also big part would probably get greatly benefited from seeing him let go of his shadow, as they idolize him or see him as an “archetype” to imitate/seek council from.
A very interesting thought piece and informative piece of the ideas of Derrida, Foucault and Peterson. Thank you ( ^ω^ )
I totally agree with mr. Peterson
I used to pay not much attention to "postmodern neomarxists", but Helen Pluckrose sold me on late postmodernism (what she calls applied postmodernism), and now recently James Lindsay is selling me on neomarxism. Could you cover their arguments?
You never cease to amaze kind Irish man
Hahaha thanks Sal I'm delighted to hear I haven't grown too predictable 😄
Interesting perspective, id suggest there is a difference in pointing out the difference in perspective of the subject matter to an academic listening ear which can weigh up a point without risk of applying it in the real world and a non academic listener who wants to understand in a way that it directly affects an individual and how it may consider the subject as they live their life - it creates two very different dynamucs and i think this content and Petersons material quoted here are aimed for different audiences though perhaps not intentionally - in providing useable information as peterson regularly does his popularity with non academics is seen in finding relatable arguments that may eell be deserving of further scrutiny if going deeper in making broader brush strokes more finely tuned - i see both as useful but at different stages of awareness
Interesting video, well edited and structured. Still trying to figure out my own opinion on some of these matters but you definitely had some good criticisms regarding Peterson's militancy.
Nearly 14k subs! Keep it up!
Thanks for the honest input Bill just happy to have some people listen to my ramblings and the numbers of them keep growing it seems 😂
Thanks for the video.
One thing that really becomes clear while listening to JP’s more unhinged pronouncements about the shadowy foes he perceives to threaten and vex him (and from whom he gallantly protects us) is just how much EVERY ACCUSATION HE MAKES IS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT on behalf of the various “cultural” and social and political and even psychological institutions he claims to represent; the “conservation” of which he fights for, and for which he argues he should all feel such “gratitude” (presumably no matter how much more impoverished our lives have become year after year while in the service of these institutions).
Listen through the video again, and think to yourself; “did the various Christian Churches do that?”; “does Capitalism do that?”; “did white men seeking only to enrich themselves and their king during the otherwise great age of Enlightenment do that, and in bad faith concoct a “scientific proof” of a hierarchy of races to justify their economic desires to enslave one race in spite of their Enlightenment principles?”; “Does Jordan Peterson and psychiatrists do that themselves?”
It’s shocking to review JP’s more unhinged and emotional accusations and hear them as admissions; the accuracy is unnerving in many cases and one cannot help but want to join in the struggle AGAINST the man when you realize how he’s transformed his and his conservative compatriots crimes into a dangerous program of politically targeted attacks against anyone who would question their “natural right” to rule employing the alleged “common sense” and “traditional values” they claim supports their political program.
Ugh. It’s such a shame that he chose this path; a traditional I’d rather dull and quiet Jungian analyst and cultural and literary critic. Or … make a name and LOTS MORE MONEY for himself by doing what he’s chosen to do by making the BAD FAITH decision to LIE and MISLEAD and MISCHARACTERIZE those he disagrees with in the way he’s chosen to do.
Like almost ALL “conservatives” whose names you know these days he chose the DIRTY MONEY and the notoriety … he sells out the suffering citizens he claims to care about (indeed his medical oath demands he care about in BODY and MIND) and he chose to lie and pick the notoriety and the money.
He’s become a transparent loathsome man from a man whose writing I recall reading a couple decades ago and finding some value. Now … he’s chosen to turn on the people’s future material prosperity by adopting the old tried and true conservative trick of taking the right hand side of the rich ruler … where the priests once stood. Just for personal enrichment and maybe for the fame.
Disgusting man.
I have also been attracted by JPs intellect but also by his genuine desire to help people that are struggling. However, an early tell-tale sign of his own shadow was the unified sentiment of anger and spite of his followship. He has become the intellectual instrument for his young male acolytes to win their debates for them. Maybe he genuinely helps these people somehow through the depression, lack of purpose and insecurity of their masculinty and that he actually reaches these people, which no one else does. As long as the collective shadow and pain body is so huge, we may need people like JP to provide some relief and structure for the mess we are in.
Well said Sascha!
I discovered JP before he exploded with the post modern thing and when that happened I was shocked that he didn't see the projection he was taking part in, him being both a clinical psychologist and professor of psychology. It's strange, and whether one is right or not, that's not how we should portray those we stand in opposition to no matter their violations of our morality, etc, bc whatever we experience within ourselves is ours to confront. It's too easy to project the problems of the world onto someone else and it solves nothing, whereas trying to understand, humanize, and relate to those you stand in opposition to strikes me as the right way to resolve this 'problem of opposites', as Jung put it.
In general, 'Conspiracy theory' functions as a kind of categorical deflection that undermines dialogue and promotes cynicism, so it's meaningless drivel in my mind. While the phenomena it seeks to describe is akin to an unrefined or intellectually lazy critical thinking that suffers from a kind of information overload, and high suggestibility due to the modern access to info that hijacks intuition and keeps the mind outwardly focused, presumably at the expense of the self reflection needed to clarify and refine ones thinking - the hard part.
i am healthy young man, once very unhealthy young man, then become student of jordan peterson and you should see me now.
i read his 24 rules & listen many times & maps of meaning is not just high scholarship but also a great work of art.
many time, when i am early/mid 20s, i observe myself discredit Foucault with ease, and Derrida and more, no reading of their work necessary, because they seek to destroy something i love, but then it turns out they did not. first i learn this from cool older woman in book store who hates way jordan peterson is misrepresented, we both agree, but also is bit annoyed because he misreads Foucault… gave me pause for thought and so must be more critical….
now, many years later in my late 20s, your astute assessment teach me that the post modern neo marxists really did not seek to destroy and were actually really cool. this has been very important to me so thank you very much.
because now i can read these thinkers?
all hail Lobster King.
Even if the details, motivations & organisation is incorrect; I do believe what Peterson describes as happening, as accurate enough.
Every ideology and set of beliefs inherently want to be on top, and to either replace or destroy its competition.
What happens in certain left-wing circles has active examples of what Peterson describes as happening.
An excellent video on an individual who I respect deeply by an individual I respect deeply. Thank you for the insight and the opportunity to learn!
Ah thanks Andrew! That's a top quality review!
This is the best critique. I study Jung all my life.
And when I went to graduate school I was confronted by a lot of post-modern haters of both Jung and Freud. Who refute all Universals all a priori ideas.
This refutation is in fact in Foucault. But Foucault is not an enemy of Jung. In fact his friend Deleuze who was inspired by Jung himself compared ideas he gleaned from Jung to Foucault.
Following Deleuze’s lead I did the same. It is much more fruitful to find common ground than ti be a reactionary.
I also IMO have a very different criticism of the origin of left social movements and their real origins. The most influential are often unconscious Christianity and liberalism.
Much Love for this unpopular Peterson Criticism. His followers see the grain of dust in every opponent of Peterson, but never the wood in his own head.
seeking help to remove the large beam in my eye
must have no point-of-view and be certified by the un-biased to have removed all bias
those with motes need not appeye
You have done a great service by adding the Jungian framing for the problem that has become JP. Thank you.
Rebel Wisdom called him something like a gangster and shut down the channel. Some More News @SMN did 3 hours of tragicomedy and end by just recommending he get help.
You and Mr Verveke are more pragmatic and by having empathy show the willingness to help.
Life is complex and the crowds out there are chaotic.
A fantastic analysis. I don't know much about Peterson so it was interesting to hear an analysis of what he says.
Thanks for this. I admire JP save for his recent penchant for Judeo-Christian allegorical come Jungian fusion.
This analysis gave me food for thought and I'll take it with me as I continue to delve deeper into French philosophy gathered under the umbrella of postmodernism, saliently, Foucault and Derrida, among others.
I agree with you. JP can come across as conspiratorial at times, yet ultimately, as you concede - he is open to criticism and change.
I'd be keen to listen to your analyses of the pseudo-philosopher Judith Butler by the way. She is all manner of incoherent and certainly responsible, for her part, along with Paolo Freire for the dissemination and popularisation, even institutionalisation of what I and others (James Lindsay, Helen Joyce, et al) consider to be very dangerous educational and social deconstructions and reforms.
New subscriber. Brilliant analysis and I look forward to more..
Fascinating analysis and critique. JP was in large part the reason for me starting my way into philosophy and knowing the issues in the roots of your philosophy is very important. And I'm once more reminded that there are no simple answers in a complex world. Thank you for your work.
Peterson knows the roots and he knows that Postmodernism and Marxism isn't a natural pairing.
There aren't simple answers and JP knows that perfect terms aren't always available.
Thank you. You have managed to put the problems I have with JP in perspective. No matter how frustrating it has become to watch him advance arguments which one suspects even he, himself, must see through, or speak in circles in some apparent attempt to avoid taking a positive stance on one subject or another, one hesitates to right the man off as just another rightwing grifter. Certainly much of his advice is useful. He is competent on some issues. He has read widely, obviously, if not always deeply. Understanding how he may have a logical reason for simply failing to grasp the true aims of those he denigrates on the side of post modernism makes it easier to avoid accusing the man of false motives. I may be donning some rose colored lenses here, but I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt
This was so great to watch. There was a time in my early interest in philosophy that JP held my interest but I fairly quickly noticed he was not the intellectual giant I thought at first glance
My pleasure! Glad you enjoyed it! I still think in the realm of Jung and Nietzsche he has a LOT of value but yeah unfortunately when it comes to the Continental tradition he comes up short from what I can see
@@TheLivingPhilosophy it seems that Peterson is directing his criticism in the wrong direction. Neo Marxism morphed into the current woke ideology (a
proletariat based more on race and identity than class), but not through Faucault or Derrida, but can better be traced back the frankfurt school.. especially Marcuse and then Angela Davis and so on. Davis still considers herself a Marxist.
Faucault had a much bigger impact on the queer theorists. Funny how Peterson hasn't opened that can of worms yet, but they are behind the enforcement of the use of pronouns that was the very catalyst for Peterson's rise.
The woke have none of the scepticism and relativism of continental postmodernism, they are "full of passionate intensity".
@@michaelmcclure3383 Yeah I think that's a much more accurate assessment although it seems that with Habermas the whole school took a very different direction. I think this will be something I'll be digging deeply into in future episodes they sound much closer to the mark. This was kind of my point though Peterson ruins his argument by getting the facts completely wrong. This is the foundation of his popularity yet he's extremely dodgy on the details. It's very frustrating because that just sows more division. He too is full of passionate intensity but I suppose the ones who lack all conviction aren't exactly going to end up front and centre in the age of outrage
@@TheLivingPhilosophy right, yes. As you say Peterson does himself no favours by misrepresenting postmodernism. He's probably hesitant to take a deep dive into it for fear of infection leading to the rupture of his certainty of mission Haha
You're right, they're both full of passionate intensity!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Habermas seems to have a much more balanced view of things. It will be interesting to explore how and why he diverges from the Frankfurt school.
I expected this comment section to be a battleground, but I found instead a space where nearly everyone has harmonized the relationship between the agent and the arena. Nearly everyone exalting you for your rigorously developed content almost always also acknowledged the tug of wars within their own perspectives on Peterson between the respect for his experience, his intentions, his intellectual approach, and the seemingly hypocritical, overly simplified, and bizarre takes he has on other incredibly complex indiviudals. I was at first eager to manifest that very same white knight archetype in defense of your rhetorical goals amidst this battlefield, but then you tied the video up with the need to disassociate from that behavior altogether as it disrupts the harmony of the perspective that allows us to overcome our subjective limitations. The thing about hate is that we so easily become a relfection of that which we loathe most. I believe that there is a humility obligated by the limitations of our flaws and finitudes and i am thankful that your content obstructed me from that hellbent journey. I am eager to dive into more of your content sir, thank you!
Also, your hair is glorious my friend. I have recently grown mine and the journey in of itself has proved to be one of great cultural deconstruction.
I love you work, please never stop. Greetings from Mexico!
Ah thanks Diego! That means a lot
The psychoanalytic method isn't enough to conclude on this one I think.
I have a question as well. What about when the projection JP 'does', coincidentally holds true? How would it be distinguished from the action of an integrated shadow which empowers us to recognise the darkness manifest in others by direct comparison to our own?
I'm curious, what's your profession? By the way, I loved your question.
@@TimTheHuman-br1nl Thanks, Tim. I am just a university student right now.
Precise, good hearted and honest critique. Such an spectacular video; the best I've seen on the matter.
Thanks a million Marcos!
At the start I thought it was a boring video, then, I changed my mind. What an amazing video! Keep it up!
Haha glad to hear it Alex thank you
Yes - the gradual decline of a bright mind into its own shadow, and the subsequent projection of that shadow onto a whole cultural paradigm is sad yet stands out a mile in JP's arc. It's a good video & well put together, and doesn't come from an enemy. If JP could watch something like this I'd be glad.
As a french man : about the argument that marxism didn't really collapse in the 70s : I agree, and would like to add that social François Mitterand won the presidential election in 1981, and a second time in alliance with the PCF (french communist party) won the 1988 election. Also, from 2012 to 2022, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, someone who qualifies himself as a marxist, has been doing great scores at the presidential elections. I don't consider the term "marxism" being taboo in my social class (Parisian student).
Very interesting. Love Peterson, I learn a lot from him.
This video shows an alternative view.
I love the balanced assessment F S thanks for watching!
As one who is a Jungian owning his complete works and more, having read through a great number of Jung's works, with still others to go I must say Peterson does not present Jungian concepts correctly and certainly isn't following in his footsteps but muddying the waters. Peterson and I have similar I.Q's, I would enjoy debating him one day.
Either way, Peterson uses Jung to support that what he wants but wouldn't bluber a word out if it would be an unsaid truth that Peterson is not mentioning simply to serve his argument, not for actual truth the be seen.
This is also a topic I had desired to cover yet it seems one better known has put this out. It is important as it shows Peterson is far from a Jungian who works on himself, his Ego is dangerously inflated to the point he views himself a prophet all while he hasn't the vaguest control over his actual Shadow, he's some good techniques to utilize when needing things to go a desired route, so too do I. Perhaps my Book release will give me enough of a boost to be on his radar. Speaking of which I need get to it, have quite a lot to do.
I hope Peterson sees this, well done.
It's about time someone made a video about this. I only hope that JP takes heed.
15:06 "So I'm saying again: You're a mean, mad white man, and the viciousness is evident!"
Imagine if JP said that to him: "You're a mean, mad black man, and the viciousness is evident!"
Career over.
I think he was just acting out on JP in a general manner but not saying it as a direct personal offense. I think JP interpreted it that way, he didn’t look overly perturbed, well, at least, that’s my take!
I was always wondering, why there is internal need to have an enemy or some kind of object of revolt in human's mind. May someone know some films, articles or books about this issue?
Have a nice day!
This was quite excellent. I love Jordan, have read all the books, listened to all the lectures twice or thrice through. I knew something was a little bent. You spotted it and explained it so well without reducing my great regard for the man one bit. Thank you.
Excellent video. As a JP fan it’s helpful to see where he is missing the mark. Subscribed.
How can anyone see Drag Queen Story Hour and not know that conspiracy is real?
I'm so happy to have found your channel. This is seriously good stuff.