That idea about the church once being the highest building in the town is a super important symbol. I think you should make a video on that and show that it has been replaced by financial buildings or communication towers etc
Living in China: often the largest, if not the most significant center of a community is the 6-8 story shopping mall. To get to the restaurants on the top floor (that’s where all the restaurants are), one rides a winding labyrinth of escalators that traverses the entire mall’s length and height. As you ride, your eyes are drawn to all the luxury brands on each level. Clothing, watches, bags, shoes, makeup, jewelry, perfume, cosmetics, everything. If you’d rather grab a quick eat, you must descent into the basement, where you will find your typical fast food fare, as well as some basic Chinese alternatives. The shopping center is the center of life for most middle class and wealthy Chinese. It is also filled with kids day care centers, English training schools, movie theaters, and technology shops, including Apple repair shops, where they can replace the cracked screen of your iPhone XS Max. Young adult couples will spend the day at these malls - a perfect date. Families will go to the mall for a stroll to walk around. It really has become the center of Chinese society from what it seems. The communist government is trying to change that, obviously, upset at the degree of corruption introduced by raw capitalism. But when the government’s values only go as deep as Marx (religion is against the law for party members), the Chinese people don’t buy the messages from the government. “Temperance, moderation, a normal middle class life.” Nah, they’d rather stick to what they know and understand all too well: money. And the shopping center is the perfect symbol of that. The Chinese have successfully imported capitalism from the west, but have failed to consider that the western Judeo-Christian value structure is essential in tempering it.
Now that's telling...and those structures no longer create awe like the tall Christian cathedrals of Europe but feel somehow oppressing. One where looking up isn't something you feel like doing compared to those cathedrals where you have to look up to witness their beauty.
Wow.. this was 3 years ago.. and how paramount this is for the discussion for today as we just experienced another shooting in Tennessee. Lord have mercy 🙏🏻
The other day I had a revelation. I was standing on the metro platform where I am living in Tbilisi Georgia. And slowly I realized that is didn't matter how close I stood. And I didn't have to worry about who was standing behind me. Unlike some other big cities. I knew that no one would push me in. I suddenly looked around realized that there are no crazy people here. I look around and I do see serious poverty. Begging on the streets. And I'm not saying that mental health is perfect here. Yet you just don't see what we see in the states. And it's not that that the asylums are full. There just aren't that many insane people. And I wondered why? And then I realized a couple of things. It's an Orthodox Christian society. And that has real meaning even for the secular folks here. Next, the family structure, which includes live-in grandparents, is strong here. They often live together or very close. In America we are quite isolated. Everyone is supposed to be choose their own path. And so we leave our families, our homes, our cities, our churches, overloaded with choice, without responsibility, except to ourselves. And if there is a seed of insanity there is nothing to stop it from growing. And our multiple isolations are the perfect soil. And when I point this out to Georgians they know the family and church hold everything together. So here is a little proof for you Jonathan.
And the breakdown of those important binding institutes has lead to a social decay where insanities like drag kid lactatia and Desmond is amazing become the new "in".
I don't think Peterson says the individual is sufficient, I think he says recognizing we are all Images of God is the key. Then from there you get responsibility, free will, and meaning. Then he talks about taking on responsibility and the individual. But, he always starts with the Divine Image as the core.
This is my perspective too. I think jbp just stresses the importance of the individual as something necessary, not sufficient. While he is definitely too soft on the importance of developing and maintaining institutions, he's definitely not blind to the necessary interconnectedness of us all. That's one of the most important lessons I learned from him, through his channeling of Jung on the importance of collective beliefs shaping us and notably his rebuke to the nihilistic implications of raw individualism. That "oh I'm just one insignificant speck of dust" line of thought, to which he replies that that's wrong, you're a node in a network. You're EMBEDDED necessarily in the social fabric in a much more meaningful way than standard individualism ever implies. Probably one of the most important ideas that I've personally gotten through him, helped reshape my worldview so that someone like Pageau could even be intelligible.
I feel that you may either misunderstand or misinterpret Jordan's idea that the correct level of remedy is the individual. It comes down to choices, only an individual can actually choose to move forward to lessen or increase suffering. If the society is in a state of degradation it is still on the individual to push back against it if not for the world; for their own "soul, essence, Being." It takes the individual to make ethics, virtue, "saints," the core of their focus. As long as there is one standing up all is not lost, history/humanity shows us this time and again. Plus, the story is not over the clown is the jester or fool after that comes the Hero.
Yeah, I got the same impression here. Odd that he would classify the guy as a friend, but not know him well enough to understand that the kind of individualism being discussed here is not the kind that Peterson encourages..
Rugby is religion in New Zealand. The most dominant provincial team in the Southern hemisphere is the Canterbury Crusaders - from Christchurch, where the shooting occurred. The team is currently engaged with a marketing firm about what to change their name to. The shooter did succeed in his aim of developing the culture war.
Ooh I see you've invested in some new lighting, very nice. I would suggest to decrease the strength a bit, because it's rather harsh right now. If there's a dial then use that, otherwise a softening screen or filter of somekind will work, and shouldn't be expensive to get.
Great video Jonathan. I can't help but feel like the upcoming Peterson vs. Zizek debate is the """internet intellectual""" manifestation of this infinitely pervasive celebrity culture. It just stresses how much we need a unified hierarchy again. Every day I realize more and more the significance of "Our Father, who art in heaven"...
@@jarlnicholl1478 well it's 3 years later and people still refrain from making clear assertions. And now that Peterson is saying things outright, people who used to love him are calling him unhinged.
I'm really interested in your theory of "The tyranny of the individual". You should make a book of this subject, i'm sure it will be profound and great.
@@yellowbrand Being wary of individualism doesn't equate to fascism, many non-liberal groups have all critiqued classical liberal notions of the individual from Aristotle, to Leo XIII and Solzhenitsyn. Further, isn't the fact that individualism is a force that encourages the break down of society from cohesive groups to loosely bound atoms a cause for concern? Individualism encourages us to think of me and my own and makes things like the common good and social responsibility foreign concepts which seem to be one of the biggest ills of the modern age. You'll see people litter on the public roads, you'll see them insult and denigrate the working class, hell, you'll even see people scorn the very institutions that give them their rights such as hatred for the military and dislike for the Constitution. Clearly, encouraging people to regard themselves as islands in a foreign, seemingly hostile sea is not working out as well as how the Enlightenment thinkers philosophized it to be.
Finally I hear someone say and point out , how and why worshiping our little gods from the entertainment world is wrong. I stopped watching celebrity news few years ago, and this was one of the reasons. I just can't understand and see WHY is that even a topic in our daily lives, what some person who can model, sing, or act nicely ok( sadly they don't even have to do that anymore , we have reality stars now😑) , did today in their kitchen, bedroom, or what he or she thinks about love, sex, world crisis or women rights, whatever.... Thank you Jonathan!
Dr Peterson makes comment (somewhere) that we are nodes in a network. I think that's the right way of visualizing it. Individual points of agency, which cannot be divorced from the whole. Each node still has to perform its own function though.
You explicated the issue of individualism by contrasting it with a transcendent vision. As much as I like JBP, I feel he would apply the disease to the disease. Would like to hear more from you about this.
1)She languishes who has born seven. 2) She has breathed her last. 3)Her sun has gone down while it was yet day. 4)She has been ashamed and confounded.
JBP's real problem is that he won't commit himself to a story. He understands perfectly well how the transcendent works in the psyche, but can't take the leap of faith needed to access it for himself in anything but bite sized chunks. I think he hopes that by inspiring individuals to personal responsibility and self knowledge, the "market" of belief will produce confidence in an ideal he isn't comfortable embracing (or at least publicly defending) himself. I'm skeptical.
@@luc432 Yes. I wonder how the West is going to go down, or if it will at all. Either we burst out in civil war, or we slowly go in to that dark night, with technology replacing is and with a few ruling cast left. At least that is my take...
Rogan lacks any opinion of his own due to how he just nodds away at whatever his guest says. But there was anything good, it's that his guest can speak freely.
@@arnowisp6244 Joe doesn't debate, he listens. His podcasts are easily the best because he's a genuinely curious person. And he's the first to admit he's not a genius
There is very much a position and an agenda behind him, whatever both his fanboys and detractors say, and Jonathan's POV isn't compatible with it. So, no.
True: “the common transcendent ideal” has been replaced with social justice intersectionality and global warming catastrophism. These being pushed by self important “celebrities”
I don't think the desire for power or violence is something that's inherent to human beings, but rather a consequence of the way our society's structured. So essentially we're being taught to behave this way
I don't think people like Peterson say the Individual is enough, just that it is the starting point, the foundation of a just worldview for humanity. The now cliche "start by cleaning your room" exemplifies this. The society and culture is important, but we heal and maintain that by maintaining and respecting the sovereignty of the individuals within.
So if the individual isn't the primary focal unit of society, what is? There are many different answers people will give to this, but I think it's the family. The traditional family is the smallest unit of social organization and I think that restoring the dignity and importance of family in the culture is a major step in combating the meaning crisis. It starts with an integrated, masculine man finding his love and opposite in an integrated feminine woman and they both properly orient themselves towards the highest good. They then have kids and their family eventually grows into an extended family. Then similarly oriented families live in small, mutually beneficial communities. Then on from there. In other words, the problem needs to solved from the bottom up, not the top down. There are many, many factors in the meaning crisis, but the breakdown of the traditional family is one of the big ones in my opinion.
We have removed character education and replaced it with values clarification which means individuals have to make their own choices to decide what is right and what is wrong for them. So we have turned each individual into little gods. (See Haidt: The happiness hypothesis, The Coddling)
It seems to me that protecting the constitutional or legal rights of the individual against mob mentality is different than so-called individualism. And I think the difference between the two gets confused.
Fascinating, I have experienced in my own life how a lack of an unifying principle or transcendent ideal has given so much power to my earthly desires, it was almost as if some had taken a life of their own. Freaky I tell you.
This really makes sense. In the future, everyone will be a "little center" for 15 minutes. One method we do have, and what smarter journalists mention is keeping the shooter's identity anonymous. But our media does not have the desire to implement this (which I guess is a tyranny) One way to look at Peterson's 'forthright individual" is that he is inextricably linked with the community. All individuals desire most is the equilibrated state of Piaget in which we are regulated by inputs from others. So what Good is that which works on every level.- individual family, group, society etc... Also, what the forthright individual brings back from the belly of the beast is for the benefit of the community.
Love your videos. Not sure I see Peterson's take on individualism as you or especially others in the comments here do. As I see it, what he is pointing out (although with his focus on certain aspects more than others I can see where one might misread him) is that the individual co-exists in a balance with the larger group. He is obviously against collectivism but he is not an individualist in the extreme sense either. What he seems to show is that (unlike societies past where each member was subservient to the group and only select chosen royalty had influence over the group) the optimal setup is where the group keep the individual in line with respect to culture, tradition and shared values, and at the same time each individual can speak out against the group if they feel the group has become too tryannical, without the fear of reprisal. This distribution of the logos to all members is ingenious as it maximizes the chance that the correct message from God will be heard, anyone can be a prophet. Yes there are downsides such as bad cults of personality that can fool people, but it is still better than assignment of all wisdom, judgement and prophecy to a select few. If an individual gets out of control with bad ideas sweeping people up with them, other individuals are there to challenge them. This does not detract from the unified beliefs. The dangerous individualism talked about here only takes hold when we dispence with our beliefs (an imbalance) that ultimately we are supposed to unite under, which Peterson cleary does not advocate either directly or indirectly.
It was worth to scroll down this far to see this comment of yours. We cannot return to feudal society, just because it is so much harder nowadays to find the true "center". Yes, anyone can be a prophet of God. We have a capacity to find logos that unites us on a psychological level and we also can find logos that will unite and lead to the higher order people within our group. Be it family, be it our neighborhood, our town, country and even the whole species. That's true at least in principle, I think. But I totally agree with Jonathan Pageau when he says that we shouldn't stop our quest for the purpose/center/logos at the level of an individual person, because that makes the whole thing futile. Unless we can establish higher goals that will unite more and more people, everything we keep falling apart. I don't understand how can some people think that Peterson would want an atomized individualistic "society" either. All he advocates for is to start at the basic level of being. Clean your room, before you fix the world. I believe that's the right order of action too. And then, you are prepared for the search for higher meaning.
As an actor, I am under no delusion that anyone cares what I think about politics, religion, anything. Our opinions and stances value should be based on the merit of the underlying logic, not the identity of the person offering it. That goes for actors, teachers, politicians, etc.
I tend to agree with that. I'll sometimes put it like this - If Hitler invented sliced bread, I'm pretty sure I'd still eat sandwiches. The problem that exists here though, I think, is that society has a difficult time living up to ideals like this. There will be many individuals making up part of the whole which either lack the tools or the willingness to evaluate the logic of another's opinion. Compounding the issue presently, in this society of prevalent celebrity worship these pop culture figures are regarded as authorities on whatever it might be they're giving their opinion. Everything they say is taken as gospel truth. Unless, of course, what they say happens to conflict with the individual's ideological predisposition. Once that happens, everything that celebrity figure might have ever said can be dismissed or disregarded at will. I find this way of thinking deeply troubling..
SineEyed 2020 couldn’t agree more. The issue, as Jonathan pointed out, is society putting these celebrities in that position of authority. Even if their opinions were more diverse, there would still be issue with celebrities being the arbiters of accepted opinion
i'm afraid I don't understand the problem with individuality. The christian bible, the new testament is individualistic. It makes the individual the centre of the universe, it makes it divine. It says, that there is no redemption, unless the individual makes the proper sacrifice. How should a community/society be healthy and thrive, if the individuals are not, or they are ? I don't think the individualism is the problem, I think Jordan hits nail on the head with that. But I agree, that he doesn't emphasize enough, that a sophisticated, polished individual should take his/her service to something greater than him. Such as his/her family, culture, church, etc The problem is not individualism itself, but when it stands alone, as a value, or worse, it stands with "values" such as egoism, and arrogance.
Dear Johnathan, if at all possible, please try to get Victor Davis Hanson on your channel for an interview and discussion. I believe that between the both of you, there can arise a powerful narrative on this very subject you are talking about today... Communities take 1000s or perhaps 100s of years to evolve, grow and become cohesive. Ok, I'll shut up now and Finnish listening... :)
I think a specific cultural aspect that can be addressed is that almost all modern mainstream stories in film or TV have a protagonist that resolves conflict through violence; specifically justifiable violence. I know the argument for it being cathartic, and I wouldn’t deny that, but if the solution to all issues is justifiable violence, it’s only a matter of time before anyone can justify anything in their own minds as needing a violent resolution. I think it’s just one aspect of culture that’s not helping and one that isn’t changing anytime soon.
Terrific analysis. It's so sad to see that politicians have done exactly what the mass shooter said that he wanted to happen. They followed his desires step-by-step. What an irresponsible way to promote new such crimes. I'm afraid outrage culture and mass media love such mediatic crimes too and they help their business. Please talk with Paul VanderClay again. He's also been on fire lately.
Jonathan, have you looked into Ken Wilber's Integral Theory? Rebel Wisdom recently interviewed Ken in relation to Jordan Peterson's approach being Integral in nature. I am curious, as the topic of this video is very much related to a person's worldview being stuck in the Internal Individual - rumination, resentment and hate, and manifesting behaviour that is totally External - Individual. this tyranny fails to address the Internal-Collective and the External Collective. I am very new to Integral Theory and have limited knowledge of it, but there are real connections present, it seems. Your explanations are much more beautiful, though. Love your work, thank you.
Thank you once again for an amazing video! I was wondering if you could touch on how the cult of the individual has influenced the world of art (art movements, media, form, etc.) and what art means to us a society. Please allow me to explain where I am coming from, and I apologise in advance for the lengthy comment. I am currently studying a philosophy unit at university in which we are exploring the philosophy of Stanley Cavell. Without going into too much detail, the thesis of my professor is that Cavell wanted to rescue philosophy from logical positivism, and scientism in general, by re-framing philosophy as art-criticism. The idea is that we will be able to humanise philosophy by legitimising the use of aesthetic reason (think Kant's Critique of Judgement) in philosophical discussions. The acceptance of aesthetic reason will allow us to offer our subjective experience as legitimate philosophical arguments (rather than pretending that a detached objective "voice of reason" is the only legitimate philosophical voice), so that, through inter-subjectivity and aesthetic agreement, we may come to an understanding of one another. As an Orthodox Christian, what is troubling is that all of the art being discussed was created in a society which has already embraced the cult of individualism under the guise of "artistic freedom". Therefore, this entire approach would have me enter a contemporary art gallery, look at incomprehensible conceptual art, verbalise my subjective experience, and hope that someone somewhere somehow sees things as I do. Only then can there be the beginnings of some sort of community. The entire enterprise seems to neglect the existence of liturgical art, which is borne in a matrix of symbolism and meaning, and which can therefore only be properly understood *within* an existing religious community. You simply cannot do "art criticism" on an individual icon that may have been part of a wider iconographical program within a sacred space in which hymns were sung and sacred texts read out as you would a Jackson Pollock painting in a gallery. The icon is anagogical since it points to a transcendent unifying principle, whereas modern art (and this is a generalisation) not only fails to do so, but intentionally works against any notion of transcendent universal ideals, including, most obviously, that of Beauty. It seems to me that this approach to art and philosophy is flawed from the start because it implicitly accepts individualism as its foundation. If the very foundation of art in our post-modern world hinges upon breaking with past conventions, I can only see this leading to the fetishisation of novelty (think hipsters), which can only ever lead to chaos. I know that you have created modern art in the past and so I was hoping you could give a measured and informed response. Thanks! And keep up the brilliant work! :)
"The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: 'Everything for the individual.' The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: 'Everything for the masses.' " - J. V. Stalin
Your insight into our fragmentation of the Hierarchy into many tyrannical hierarchies truly helps in understanding the modern historical situation. Thank you. However I suspect that your interpretation of JBP in this video is too low resolution, and that in fact JBP’s own thinking is indeed in line with everything you put forth in this video. In short, JBP, in my understanding offers a distinction between the Tyrannical Subject who tries to subjugate the world to his/her “own” desires (e.g. mass shooters and/or pure atheists) and the Divine Individual who understandingly finds his/her proper place in the world with others by voluntarily bearing one’s own cross for the sake of *the world* (Jn 3:16) and not oneself. Psychologically the Divine Individual seems to be best understood in terms of Piaget’s equilibrated state and identification of one’s ownmost self with the whole (redeemed) world itself. And practically THE example and IDEAL of this is of course Christ Jesus, whose own name (Yeshua-YHWH [is] Salvation) even glorifies not himself as a man but the Father who sent Him.
Good video. I agree with everything except the part that equates musicians with clowns. Saying that the purpose of musicians is to entertain is like saying the purpose of Michelangelo was to paint ceilings so that they look less bland. Art has a much higher purpose than entertainment and I'm sure you know it.
I think of Individualism more as each individual is taking responsibility for his own existence, thus, like J.P say, the individual is the foundation of society. The problem is when the individual is taking the throne of God and say I can rule over life with my opinion and there is no truth and no ideal to look up to, I decide what is good and bad and if something don't work the way I want it to I will force it in to submission! This is the battle of space and time and the reason there is a battle, for instead of guiding the serpent with song and music we force it in to submission. As I say that I remember that line from the second book of Adam and Eve when the descendants of Seth descend from the mountain because they didn't know music yet, only the Cainites did :)
To be fair to Peterson, I think he is not advocating the supremacy of the individual as such... but the 'supremacy' of the collection of individuals. His book is called 12 rules for Life. aka 12 'Disciplines' for Life. aka 12 'disciple's for Life. The words at the end there are important too... 'FOR' life aka in submission to LIFE / GOD / ETERNITY. I think this is his idea of the church... 12 disciples - together - in submission to Gods will for life. Its an image of the church.
I really appreciate Your opinion and mostly agree with it, but isn't it like that, that the rejection of transcendent values, nihilism, hedonism, and so on, are outcome of actions of individuals? I would say that individuals build up society which then rebuilds individuals (and the process is repeated constantly as far as whole system doesn't burn to the ground). To address the problem of rebuilding society in a manner that we would be united again: don't You think that morally strong individuals are necessary to achieve that goal? I think that it is not sufficient (in which we agree), but necessary for sure.
Here in the United States, many such mass shooting have happened in the public schools either by students or recent alumni. How does this square with the role of "individualism" you say drives these shooting? In public school you do not not deal with each other as "economic units" or "atomized individuals" but rather as part of a rigid, authoritarian collectivist hierarchy. Do you see them as "individualists" who want revenge against the collectivist public school system?
It's a collectivist hierarchy that is seen as opposed to them rather than something they have in common with. They don't even see themselves as part of the hierarchy but those below it. Other than that, doesn't the feeling of isolation go along with highschool life for many?
American schools have long left that system you describe and the students (through individualist, narcissistic, demanding parents) are running the school and hence public education has gone to shit.
I was think about your concept of the mass shooter as representing our fringe desires. Could another way of looking at the shooter is manifestation of our collective shadow. The unexceptable aspect of the crowd turned into a mob wanting to see someone die like in the Rome Colosseum.
Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us,2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame,and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. Hebrews 12: 1-3
I see you're point Mr.Pageau and you made very valid criticisms of the idea of individualism. However, I respectively have some criticisms of my own on you're notions of individualism. And why I believe the true path to a transcendental being lay at the level of the individual. I believe the gist of you're argument is something like this. You believe if people were to choose there own path to transcendence they would choose many wrong ones based on their individual values. Therefore creating a fractured and collapsing society with very few people having the right aim on the correct path. Hopefully I'm not miss framing you're argument and I'm doing it Justice. This is a valid point. However the problem begins when you try to collectivize a transcendent goal. The more you collectivize an idea the more the true essence of the idea is lost. When it's largely collectivized it becomes a lot like a half assed summary or a Imitation of the original idea. For example, I am a geek. I have been since early teen hood. That's a part of my individual identity and there something about it that deeply and profoundly resonates with me. However since Geek culture has become more main stream in the recent years Geek culture has never been more dead. This is ironic since geek culture has never been more broadly accepted then ever before. Thanks to Movies, Video games and Company's Capitalizing on it. All the time I come in contact with a person who buys all the Clothing and products Speaks the lingo and can name all the characters. However these conversations stop dead in their tracks when taken in depth In upon further inspection you find out that this person has no idea what you or they themselves are talking about. They never read any of the books. They never played any of the games. They've seen a movie or 2 but that's really about it. Not only that but they can't even articulate Many of the core concepts that lie at the heart of what they're consuming and buying up. It's because they don't embody the idea of what they're consuming. But instead they're wearing the dead corpse of what corporations are selling to them. And it's all done to To integrate themselves within a Collective identity In the hopes to achieve a higher status in society (Ergo Following Trends). However when an individual decides to walk a path despite, this status despite the ridicule But because there's something about it that speaks to their individual Experience. That's the only way you know someone's heart and soul is in it. In conclusion, You may get a Community to collectively follow the right transcendent path. However it will be a dead community that is only capable of mimicry. And Incapable of understanding and embodying the essence of what it means to live a transcendental being. Only in individual with a personal interests in the transcendent is capable of becoming more than just a corpse of the original idea.
I think you got the wrong idea about a dead community. You're referring to the trends done to hook an individual. These are designed to acquire the attention of them as they try to find something to cling to feel a desire to belong. This is largely different to what he means in his own idea a community. One with a common transcendental ideal they aspire. This ideal isn't a trend that changes but rather is stable allowing the community to linger and learn together and fully understand this ideal. As such they eventually embody this ideal with the older elders passing this on to the future generations. This entire process creates a cohesive community that doesn't wear a corpse of an idea but rather embodies a living idea that had grown and nourished within thanks to the wisdom of the elderly. It is far more substantial than a simple easy to market trend given how this grew up and developed in the community.
@@arnowisp6244 Ideals can stabilize and help society cohabitate. And they can guide a society to work in harmony towards a goal. However, the fact still stand that eventually the Ideals will erode. By the way, This idea about "trends" Jonathan has put forward, I have a problem with it. You see it's not at all true in a literal sense or a metaphorical one. Now I'm not some Literalist. I know things can be true in a literal and metaphorical all most metaphysical way. Infact I agree with Jordan Peterson that metaphorical statements are sometimes realer than literal. But Jonathan's notion of trends is Incorrect In both ways of interpretation. Trends are patterns of change Literally and metaphorically. Trends can capture a person's attention and possess them to follow it. Guiding that said person away from a common identity or belief idea. etc. This is a fact. However, this is not a intrinsic feature of a trend. A trend is not a thing that which guides a person away from a common idea. Trends are technically collective phenomena. When a video trends on TH-cam it's because a bunch of people have viewed it. When a trend is started in pop culture its because a bunch of people are Mimicking it. You would never say, "a trend has started" if someone is doing something by themselves in the silence of their own home and no one else other than this person has picked up on it. Trends have almost nothing to do with individual or individualism in a causal sense. Yes, in individual can follow a trend based on their values. But again, this isn't a Inherent feature of it. Lastly, Not all ideas are trends but ideas can be trendy.
Your points are well-taken regarding the excesses of individualism. But the great liberal tradition places the supremacy of the individual in accordance to their will. That is the center. Celebrity culture and the kind of tribalism you describe is so far at the margin that I doubt anyone would argue against the idea that culture is diseased. It may even be an Inevitable manifestation of the necessary independence of the individual but without it, there is no purpose or significance for faith, personal responsibility or choosing to follow a path of righteousness. When I returned to Orthodoxy, I felt like I wanted to give something to God, but realized that all I had... the only thing of importance was my self. Two words. My will. My desires. Aligned with God’s as far as is possible for such a messed up person like me. But at least I could try with an absolute anchor as my center. It seems to me the problem with mass shooters is that they do not have such a center... a center that is the source of all meaning.
I agree that the nihilistic individualism is at the core of a lot of it, especially that whole will to power stuff. However isn't Dr.Peterson's conception of the individual more centered towards a message of personal responbility but also one that emphasis that you're a "node in a network" in the sense that it is you that has to take into account your malevolence and the good that you can bring in the world because it will propagate. Also that you want to have a goal that satisfies both yourself, your immediate surroundings and the world writ large? Once again, I agree with the nihilistic power grab attention seeking part, I"m just trying to figure out the details.
Yes, you're right. I'm not sure why Jonathan even needed to bring Peterson into this, as nothing he discussed here could really be taken as a counterpoint to Peterson's position. If he knows him well enough to call the guy his friend, I would think he'd know him well enough to know that Peterson's message is not one of philosophical individualism at all. And if Jonathan _does_ know this, then I think he could have done a better job in conveying that to his viewers. Just take a look through the comments to find plenty of people ascribing some version of individualism to Peterson that is not the one he promotes. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my 'friends' doing that sort of thing to me..
Great video, Jonathan. I do not know if it is official (it appears to be), but I have subscribed to your BitChute page as well and would love for you to upload your content there, as well. Provided it is not too much work.
i think perhaps another way to see this is as a type of mediocrity of the individual. these figures do represent the transcendent, its just that the 'transcendence' is loaded on a structure that's too delicate to actually handle transcendence, and both the individual and the image of the transcendent distort as a side effect (neil gaiman's 'american gods' plays with this idea). another part of this is that this quality of people to 'pay attn to the clowns' is much older than a modern creation of individualism. theres a deeper response/reaction going on, and we can in a sense choose to make war with that mechanism or attempt to change the context it's occuring in (are not the prophets and such in some sense the 'clowns of god'?)
You and big bear would have a great talk. Also, seeing your videos on unauthorized.tv would be great. Symbolism category launched by you is a good idea.
@@lightninginmyhands4878 Because I've seen tens of his videos over the years. Saw every bridge he burned (Rogan, Peterson, Rubin, Jones, Crowder, etc). Late drunken rants about the moon, flat earth and the jews. His uneducated/eretical biblical interpretations, his denial of science (recently he said that light is only a wave not also a particle and that the psysicists are liars) etc. Also, watch Porsalin's documentary "Smarter than the avarage bear" if you haven't seen it, it's about Owen.
Clowns, like George Carlin, Jon Stewart or King Lear's jester? I take your point but to be fair I wish our MSM was as conscientious as some of these clowns.
Thanks for this video. I think you would enjoy the works of Iain McGilchrist. He talks about the left and right hemisphere and their difference. He argues that the left hemisphere is for focused narrow attention and is separating, trying to achieve the whole by putting together all the parts. While the right hemisphere has a unifying look on the world, sees that everything is connected. His book (The master and his emissary) is great, but a bit long. There are lots of his talk on youtube, i think they give a good overview of his work and ideas. For example th-cam.com/video/uEB68f8kvnY/w-d-xo.html
Individualism is an ideology that picks sides under a guise of a universal idea. Some ethnics, corporations, classes, institutions, some collectives are allowed to exist within the "individualist" ideological spectrum, and others are not. This is the fatal weakness to individualism, it is by it's very nature, a double standard. It's safe to say that most, including my self, agree that militant imperialism is something we should steer clear of. But supporting your family, neighbors, church, culture, nation, etc. is not militant imperialism. If you were told it was, you were lied too. We can be proud in supporting these "collectives," but if you're proud of an ideology that keeps your family down, that harms your kids, while simultaneously looking the other way for others. You're just a fool; as foolish as those who will try to blame the others when it's their own naivety and ignorance responsible for the mess they are in.
2 things. #1 You talk about disagreeing with Peterson on somethings and it is like the rest of the video would be one of those things. It is not. Peterson says the individual and NOT the group identity is the proper level of analysis. Please don't tell me you disagree with this. I expect you to disagree with him on some religious things though. If you are going to say you disagree with Peterson then say what he believes and how it is wrong. #2 the real problem is we all don't have the same TELOS. A christian's telos should be the joining of heaven and earth. Mass shooters telos is to get fame and cause as much misery as possible. People who worship celebrity have the wrong telos as well.
Well...that title is an automatic demonetised video
Indeed.
You are really improving. Your videos are relevant without being gimmicky. Not easy.
That idea about the church once being the highest building in the town is a super important symbol. I think you should make a video on that and show that it has been replaced by financial buildings or communication towers etc
Ooo nice
Living in China: often the largest, if not the most significant center of a community is the 6-8 story shopping mall. To get to the restaurants on the top floor (that’s where all the restaurants are), one rides a winding labyrinth of escalators that traverses the entire mall’s length and height. As you ride, your eyes are drawn to all the luxury brands on each level. Clothing, watches, bags, shoes, makeup, jewelry, perfume, cosmetics, everything. If you’d rather grab a quick eat, you must descent into the basement, where you will find your typical fast food fare, as well as some basic Chinese alternatives. The shopping center is the center of life for most middle class and wealthy Chinese. It is also filled with kids day care centers, English training schools, movie theaters, and technology shops, including Apple repair shops, where they can replace the cracked screen of your iPhone XS Max. Young adult couples will spend the day at these malls - a perfect date. Families will go to the mall for a stroll to walk around. It really has become the center of Chinese society from what it seems. The communist government is trying to change that, obviously, upset at the degree of corruption introduced by raw capitalism. But when the government’s values only go as deep as Marx (religion is against the law for party members), the Chinese people don’t buy the messages from the government. “Temperance, moderation, a normal middle class life.” Nah, they’d rather stick to what they know and understand all too well: money. And the shopping center is the perfect symbol of that. The Chinese have successfully imported capitalism from the west, but have failed to consider that the western Judeo-Christian value structure is essential in tempering it.
Now that's telling...and those structures no longer create awe like the tall Christian cathedrals of Europe but feel somehow oppressing. One where looking up isn't something you feel like doing compared to those cathedrals where you have to look up to witness their beauty.
@Miguel, check out Sacred Space in Secular Terms. I think it goes over this. th-cam.com/video/AequEqC5Fec/w-d-xo.html
Yes! I went to the main Catholic cathedral in my city for the first time yesterday and was struck by that fact walking out.
Wow.. this was 3 years ago.. and how paramount this is for the discussion for today as we just experienced another shooting in Tennessee. Lord have mercy 🙏🏻
The other day I had a revelation. I was standing on the metro platform where I am living in Tbilisi Georgia. And slowly I realized that is didn't matter how close I stood. And I didn't have to worry about who was standing behind me. Unlike some other big cities. I knew that no one would push me in. I suddenly looked around realized that there are no crazy people here. I look around and I do see serious poverty. Begging on the streets. And I'm not saying that mental health is perfect here. Yet you just don't see what we see in the states. And it's not that that the asylums are full. There just aren't that many insane people. And I wondered why? And then I realized a couple of things. It's an Orthodox Christian society. And that has real meaning even for the secular folks here. Next, the family structure, which includes live-in grandparents, is strong here. They often live together or very close. In America we are quite isolated. Everyone is supposed to be choose their own path. And so we leave our families, our homes, our cities, our churches, overloaded with choice, without responsibility, except to ourselves. And if there is a seed of insanity there is nothing to stop it from growing. And our multiple isolations are the perfect soil. And when I point this out to Georgians they know the family and church hold everything together. So here is a little proof for you Jonathan.
And the breakdown of those important binding institutes has lead to a social decay where insanities like drag kid lactatia and Desmond is amazing become the new "in".
Loving the increase in frequency of content!
I really respect your perspective Jonathan.
I don't think Peterson says the individual is sufficient, I think he says recognizing we are all Images of God is the key. Then from there you get responsibility, free will, and meaning. Then he talks about taking on responsibility and the individual. But, he always starts with the Divine Image as the core.
This is my perspective too. I think jbp just stresses the importance of the individual as something necessary, not sufficient. While he is definitely too soft on the importance of developing and maintaining institutions, he's definitely not blind to the necessary interconnectedness of us all. That's one of the most important lessons I learned from him, through his channeling of Jung on the importance of collective beliefs shaping us and notably his rebuke to the nihilistic implications of raw individualism.
That "oh I'm just one insignificant speck of dust" line of thought, to which he replies that that's wrong, you're a node in a network. You're EMBEDDED necessarily in the social fabric in a much more meaningful way than standard individualism ever implies. Probably one of the most important ideas that I've personally gotten through him, helped reshape my worldview so that someone like Pageau could even be intelligible.
I feel that you may either misunderstand or misinterpret Jordan's idea that the correct level of remedy is the individual. It comes down to choices, only an individual can actually choose to move forward to lessen or increase suffering. If the society is in a state of degradation it is still on the individual to push back against it if not for the world; for their own "soul, essence, Being." It takes the individual to make ethics, virtue, "saints," the core of their focus. As long as there is one standing up all is not lost, history/humanity shows us this time and again. Plus, the story is not over the clown is the jester or fool after that comes the Hero.
Yeah, I got the same impression here. Odd that he would classify the guy as a friend, but not know him well enough to understand that the kind of individualism being discussed here is not the kind that Peterson encourages..
Rugby is religion in New Zealand. The most dominant provincial team in the Southern hemisphere is the Canterbury Crusaders - from Christchurch, where the shooting occurred. The team is currently engaged with a marketing firm about what to change their name to. The shooter did succeed in his aim of developing the culture war.
I pray that the world can turn back towards that ideal, and move away from this chaos.
Thank you again
'inverted icon'...dang, doesnt get much darker than that.
Thank you. Too many people in our society are dominated by the television set. This is partly how we get celebrity culture.
Ooh I see you've invested in some new lighting, very nice. I would suggest to decrease the strength a bit, because it's rather harsh right now. If there's a dial then use that, otherwise a softening screen or filter of somekind will work, and shouldn't be expensive to get.
Although it did serve the purpose of the video since the theme was pretty dark.
Great video as well! Much appreciated.
Great video Jonathan. I can't help but feel like the upcoming Peterson vs. Zizek debate is the """internet intellectual""" manifestation of this infinitely pervasive celebrity culture. It just stresses how much we need a unified hierarchy again. Every day I realize more and more the significance of "Our Father, who art in heaven"...
We shall see how long two educated men can talk without saying anything concrete or unambiguous.
@@jarlnicholl1478 well it's 3 years later and people still refrain from making clear assertions. And now that Peterson is saying things outright, people who used to love him are calling him unhinged.
Society begins with an "I" but must end with a "we"
I'm really interested in your theory of "The tyranny of the individual". You should make a book of this subject, i'm sure it will be profound and great.
@@yellowbrand
Being wary of individualism doesn't equate to fascism, many non-liberal groups have all critiqued classical liberal notions of the individual from Aristotle, to Leo XIII and Solzhenitsyn. Further, isn't the fact that individualism is a force that encourages the break down of society from cohesive groups to loosely bound atoms a cause for concern? Individualism encourages us to think of me and my own and makes things like the common good and social responsibility foreign concepts which seem to be one of the biggest ills of the modern age. You'll see people litter on the public roads, you'll see them insult and denigrate the working class, hell, you'll even see people scorn the very institutions that give them their rights such as hatred for the military and dislike for the Constitution. Clearly, encouraging people to regard themselves as islands in a foreign, seemingly hostile sea is not working out as well as how the Enlightenment thinkers philosophized it to be.
Finally I hear someone say and point out , how and why worshiping our little gods from the entertainment world is wrong. I stopped watching celebrity news few years ago, and this was one of the reasons. I just can't understand and see WHY is that even a topic in our daily lives, what some person who can model, sing, or act nicely ok( sadly they don't even have to do that anymore , we have reality stars now😑) , did today in their kitchen, bedroom, or what he or she thinks about love, sex, world crisis or women rights, whatever.... Thank you Jonathan!
The tyranny of the state has resulted in far greater suffering and death than any/all tyrannies perpetrated by the individual.
Awesome!
Dr Peterson makes comment (somewhere) that we are nodes in a network.
I think that's the right way of visualizing it. Individual points of agency, which cannot be divorced from the whole. Each node still has to perform its own function though.
You explicated the issue of individualism by contrasting it with a transcendent vision. As much as I like JBP, I feel he would apply the disease to the disease. Would like to hear more from you about this.
1)She languishes who has born seven.
2) She has breathed her last.
3)Her sun has gone down while it was yet day.
4)She has been ashamed and confounded.
JBP's real problem is that he won't commit himself to a story. He understands perfectly well how the transcendent works in the psyche, but can't take the leap of faith needed to access it for himself in anything but bite sized chunks.
I think he hopes that by inspiring individuals to personal responsibility and self knowledge, the "market" of belief will produce confidence in an ideal he isn't comfortable embracing (or at least publicly defending) himself. I'm skeptical.
Great commentary Jonathan, food for thought💭
"The clowns are the top attention grabbers in our society." 8:48. A lot can be extrapolated from that statement. Lol
@@luc432 Yes. I wonder how the West is going to go down, or if it will at all. Either we burst out in civil war, or we slowly go in to that dark night, with technology replacing is and with a few ruling cast left. At least that is my take...
I love your channel. You’re doing wonderful work and making me think 🤔
I wanna see you on Rogan
Me too.
Rogan lacks any opinion of his own due to how he just nodds away at whatever his guest says.
But there was anything good, it's that his guest can speak freely.
@@arnowisp6244 Joe doesn't debate, he listens. His podcasts are easily the best because he's a genuinely curious person. And he's the first to admit he's not a genius
There is very much a position and an agenda behind him, whatever both his fanboys and detractors say, and Jonathan's POV isn't compatible with it. So, no.
True: “the common transcendent ideal” has been replaced with social justice intersectionality and global warming catastrophism. These being pushed by self important “celebrities”
Excellente analyse, merci Jonathan.
I don't think the desire for power or violence is something that's inherent to human beings, but rather a consequence of the way our society's structured. So essentially we're being taught to behave this way
Great as usual
I don't think people like Peterson say the Individual is enough, just that it is the starting point, the foundation of a just worldview for humanity. The now cliche "start by cleaning your room" exemplifies this. The society and culture is important, but we heal and maintain that by maintaining and respecting the sovereignty of the individuals within.
So if the individual isn't the primary focal unit of society, what is? There are many different answers people will give to this, but I think it's the family. The traditional family is the smallest unit of social organization and I think that restoring the dignity and importance of family in the culture is a major step in combating the meaning crisis.
It starts with an integrated, masculine man finding his love and opposite in an integrated feminine woman and they both properly orient themselves towards the highest good. They then have kids and their family eventually grows into an extended family. Then similarly oriented families live in small, mutually beneficial communities. Then on from there.
In other words, the problem needs to solved from the bottom up, not the top down. There are many, many factors in the meaning crisis, but the breakdown of the traditional family is one of the big ones in my opinion.
I think you and Jordan Peterson should sit down and have a conversation about this topic.
Hear hear, it's been a while
We have removed character education and replaced it with values clarification which means individuals have to make their own choices to decide what is right and what is wrong for them. So we have turned each individual into little gods. (See Haidt: The happiness hypothesis, The Coddling)
It seems to me that protecting the constitutional or legal rights of the individual against mob mentality is different than so-called individualism. And I think the difference between the two gets confused.
Fascinating, I have experienced in my own life how a lack of an unifying principle or transcendent ideal has given so much power to my earthly desires, it was almost as if some had taken a life of their own. Freaky I tell you.
This really makes sense. In the future, everyone will be a "little center" for 15 minutes. One method we do have, and what smarter journalists mention is keeping the shooter's identity anonymous. But our media does not have the desire to implement this (which I guess is a tyranny)
One way to look at Peterson's 'forthright individual" is that he is inextricably linked with the community. All individuals desire most is the equilibrated state of Piaget in which we are regulated by inputs from others. So what Good is that which works on every level.- individual family, group, society etc... Also, what the forthright individual brings back from the belly of the beast is for the benefit of the community.
Glad to hear Vervaeke mention both you and PVDK on Rebel Wisdom
Love your videos.
Not sure I see Peterson's take on individualism as you or especially others in the comments here do.
As I see it, what he is pointing out (although with his focus on certain aspects more than others I can see where one might misread him) is that the individual co-exists in a balance with the larger group. He is obviously against collectivism but he is not an individualist in the extreme sense either.
What he seems to show is that (unlike societies past where each member was subservient to the group and only select chosen royalty had influence over the group) the optimal setup is where the group keep the individual in line with respect to culture, tradition and shared values, and at the same time each individual can speak out against the group if they feel the group has become too tryannical, without the fear of reprisal. This distribution of the logos to all members is ingenious as it maximizes the chance that the correct message from God will be heard, anyone can be a prophet.
Yes there are downsides such as bad cults of personality that can fool people, but it is still better than assignment of all wisdom, judgement and prophecy to a select few. If an individual gets out of control with bad ideas sweeping people up with them, other individuals are there to challenge them. This does not detract from the unified beliefs.
The dangerous individualism talked about here only takes hold when we dispence with our beliefs (an imbalance) that ultimately we are supposed to unite under, which Peterson cleary does not advocate either directly or indirectly.
It was worth to scroll down this far to see this comment of yours. We cannot return to feudal society, just because it is so much harder nowadays to find the true "center". Yes, anyone can be a prophet of God. We have a capacity to find logos that unites us on a psychological level and we also can find logos that will unite and lead to the higher order people within our group. Be it family, be it our neighborhood, our town, country and even the whole species. That's true at least in principle, I think. But I totally agree with Jonathan Pageau when he says that we shouldn't stop our quest for the purpose/center/logos at the level of an individual person, because that makes the whole thing futile. Unless we can establish higher goals that will unite more and more people, everything we keep falling apart. I don't understand how can some people think that Peterson would want an atomized individualistic "society" either. All he advocates for is to start at the basic level of being. Clean your room, before you fix the world. I believe that's the right order of action too. And then, you are prepared for the search for higher meaning.
mind blowing as always
Nobody is talking about hate is EARNED
As an actor, I am under no delusion that anyone cares what I think about politics, religion, anything. Our opinions and stances value should be based on the merit of the underlying logic, not the identity of the person offering it. That goes for actors, teachers, politicians, etc.
I tend to agree with that. I'll sometimes put it like this - If Hitler invented sliced bread, I'm pretty sure I'd still eat sandwiches.
The problem that exists here though, I think, is that society has a difficult time living up to ideals like this. There will be many individuals making up part of the whole which either lack the tools or the willingness to evaluate the logic of another's opinion. Compounding the issue presently, in this society of prevalent celebrity worship these pop culture figures are regarded as authorities on whatever it might be they're giving their opinion. Everything they say is taken as gospel truth. Unless, of course, what they say happens to conflict with the individual's ideological predisposition. Once that happens, everything that celebrity figure might have ever said can be dismissed or disregarded at will.
I find this way of thinking deeply troubling..
SineEyed 2020 couldn’t agree more. The issue, as Jonathan pointed out, is society putting these celebrities in that position of authority. Even if their opinions were more diverse, there would still be issue with celebrities being the arbiters of accepted opinion
i'm afraid I don't understand the problem with individuality. The christian bible, the new testament is individualistic. It makes the individual the centre of the universe, it makes it divine. It says, that there is no redemption, unless the individual makes the proper sacrifice. How should a community/society be healthy and thrive, if the individuals are not, or they are ? I don't think the individualism is the problem, I think Jordan hits nail on the head with that. But I agree, that he doesn't emphasize enough, that a sophisticated, polished individual should take his/her service to something greater than him. Such as his/her family, culture, church, etc
The problem is not individualism itself, but when it stands alone, as a value, or worse, it stands with "values" such as egoism, and arrogance.
The New Testament does show individuals to hold infinite value, as JBP points out. But it makes AN individual the center of the Universe.
Have you ever thought about making a Discord server?
I'd join
Can you make videos about anime?
Anime's like Berserk, HunterxHunter!
Dear Johnathan, if at all possible, please try to get Victor Davis Hanson on your channel for an interview and discussion. I believe that between the both of you, there can arise a powerful narrative on this very subject you are talking about today...
Communities take 1000s or perhaps 100s of years to evolve, grow and become cohesive.
Ok, I'll shut up now and Finnish listening... :)
Keep up the good work!
I think a specific cultural aspect that can be addressed is that almost all modern mainstream stories in film or TV have a protagonist that resolves conflict through violence; specifically justifiable violence.
I know the argument for it being cathartic, and I wouldn’t deny that, but if the solution to all issues is justifiable violence, it’s only a matter of time before anyone can justify anything in their own minds as needing a violent resolution.
I think it’s just one aspect of culture that’s not helping and one that isn’t changing anytime soon.
Terrific analysis. It's so sad to see that politicians have done exactly what the mass shooter said that he wanted to happen. They followed his desires step-by-step. What an irresponsible way to promote new such crimes. I'm afraid outrage culture and mass media love such mediatic crimes too and they help their business. Please talk with Paul VanderClay again. He's also been on fire lately.
The problem is not clowns with political opinions, the problem is putting the clown in charge of the country...
Jonathan, have you looked into Ken Wilber's Integral Theory? Rebel Wisdom recently interviewed Ken in relation to Jordan Peterson's approach being Integral in nature. I am curious, as the topic of this video is very much related to a person's worldview being stuck in the Internal Individual - rumination, resentment and hate, and manifesting behaviour that is totally External - Individual. this tyranny fails to address the Internal-Collective and the External Collective.
I am very new to Integral Theory and have limited knowledge of it, but there are real connections present, it seems. Your explanations are much more beautiful, though.
Love your work, thank you.
That was a great interview and I do want to read that guys material.
Overly systematized and rutted in anglo modernity, hence useless to anyone who isn't.
Thank you once again for an amazing video! I was wondering if you could touch on how the cult of the individual has influenced the world of art (art movements, media, form, etc.) and what art means to us a society. Please allow me to explain where I am coming from, and I apologise in advance for the lengthy comment.
I am currently studying a philosophy unit at university in which we are exploring the philosophy of Stanley Cavell. Without going into too much detail, the thesis of my professor is that Cavell wanted to rescue philosophy from logical positivism, and scientism in general, by re-framing philosophy as art-criticism. The idea is that we will be able to humanise philosophy by legitimising the use of aesthetic reason (think Kant's Critique of Judgement) in philosophical discussions. The acceptance of aesthetic reason will allow us to offer our subjective experience as legitimate philosophical arguments (rather than pretending that a detached objective "voice of reason" is the only legitimate philosophical voice), so that, through inter-subjectivity and aesthetic agreement, we may come to an understanding of one another. As an Orthodox Christian, what is troubling is that all of the art being discussed was created in a society which has already embraced the cult of individualism under the guise of "artistic freedom". Therefore, this entire approach would have me enter a contemporary art gallery, look at incomprehensible conceptual art, verbalise my subjective experience, and hope that someone somewhere somehow sees things as I do. Only then can there be the beginnings of some sort of community.
The entire enterprise seems to neglect the existence of liturgical art, which is borne in a matrix of symbolism and meaning, and which can therefore only be properly understood *within* an existing religious community. You simply cannot do "art criticism" on an individual icon that may have been part of a wider iconographical program within a sacred space in which hymns were sung and sacred texts read out as you would a Jackson Pollock painting in a gallery. The icon is anagogical since it points to a transcendent unifying principle, whereas modern art (and this is a generalisation) not only fails to do so, but intentionally works against any notion of transcendent universal ideals, including, most obviously, that of Beauty. It seems to me that this approach to art and philosophy is flawed from the start because it implicitly accepts individualism as its foundation. If the very foundation of art in our post-modern world hinges upon breaking with past conventions, I can only see this leading to the fetishisation of novelty (think hipsters), which can only ever lead to chaos. I know that you have created modern art in the past and so I was hoping you could give a measured and informed response. Thanks! And keep up the brilliant work! :)
"The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: 'Everything for the individual.' The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: 'Everything for the masses.' " - J. V. Stalin
Your insight into our fragmentation of the Hierarchy into many tyrannical hierarchies truly helps in understanding the modern historical situation. Thank you. However I suspect that your interpretation of JBP in this video is too low resolution, and that in fact JBP’s own thinking is indeed in line with everything you put forth in this video. In short, JBP, in my understanding offers a distinction between the Tyrannical Subject who tries to subjugate the world to his/her “own” desires (e.g. mass shooters and/or pure atheists) and the Divine Individual who understandingly finds his/her proper place in the world with others by voluntarily bearing one’s own cross for the sake of *the world* (Jn 3:16) and not oneself. Psychologically the Divine Individual seems to be best understood in terms of Piaget’s equilibrated state and identification of one’s ownmost self with the whole (redeemed) world itself. And practically THE example and IDEAL of this is of course Christ Jesus, whose own name (Yeshua-YHWH [is] Salvation) even glorifies not himself as a man but the Father who sent Him.
I am loving these shorter more focused videos.
Is there any hope of re-unifying something which is so fragmented? Or is the only hope in building an ark to make it through the flood?
@John Galt An appropriate response from someone named John Galt on a video about the flaws of Individualism. :)
collectively looking at Christ and pointing others to him, that is our hope
Good video.
I agree with everything except the part that equates musicians with clowns. Saying that the purpose of musicians is to entertain is like saying the purpose of Michelangelo was to paint ceilings so that they look less bland. Art has a much higher purpose than entertainment and I'm sure you know it.
I think of Individualism more as each individual is taking responsibility for his own existence, thus, like J.P say, the individual is the foundation of society. The problem is when the individual is taking the throne of God and say I can rule over life with my opinion and there is no truth and no ideal to look up to, I decide what is good and bad and if something don't work the way I want it to I will force it in to submission!
This is the battle of space and time and the reason there is a battle, for instead of guiding the serpent with song and music we force it in to submission. As I say that I remember that line from the second book of Adam and Eve when the descendants of Seth descend from the mountain because they didn't know music yet, only the Cainites did :)
To be fair to Peterson, I think he is not advocating the supremacy of the individual as such... but the 'supremacy' of the collection of individuals. His book is called 12 rules for Life. aka 12 'Disciplines' for Life. aka 12 'disciple's for Life. The words at the end there are important too... 'FOR' life aka in submission to LIFE / GOD / ETERNITY. I think this is his idea of the church... 12 disciples - together - in submission to Gods will for life. Its an image of the church.
I really appreciate Your opinion and mostly agree with it, but isn't it like that, that the rejection of transcendent values, nihilism, hedonism, and so on, are outcome of actions of individuals? I would say that individuals build up society which then rebuilds individuals (and the process is repeated constantly as far as whole system doesn't burn to the ground). To address the problem of rebuilding society in a manner that we would be united again: don't You think that morally strong individuals are necessary to achieve that goal? I think that it is not sufficient (in which we agree), but necessary for sure.
Here in the United States, many such mass shooting have happened in the public schools either by students or recent alumni. How does this square with the role of "individualism" you say drives these shooting? In public school you do not not deal with each other as "economic units" or "atomized individuals" but rather as part of a rigid, authoritarian collectivist hierarchy.
Do you see them as "individualists" who want revenge against the collectivist public school system?
It's a collectivist hierarchy that is seen as opposed to them rather than something they have in common with. They don't even see themselves as part of the hierarchy but those below it.
Other than that, doesn't the feeling of isolation go along with highschool life for many?
American schools have long left that system you describe and the students (through individualist, narcissistic, demanding parents) are running the school and hence public education has gone to shit.
I was think about your concept of the mass shooter as representing our fringe desires. Could another way of looking at the shooter is manifestation of our collective shadow. The unexceptable aspect of the crowd turned into a mob wanting to see someone die like in the Rome Colosseum.
Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us,2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame,and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. Hebrews 12: 1-3
I see you're point Mr.Pageau and you made very valid criticisms of the idea of individualism. However, I respectively have some criticisms of my own on you're notions of individualism. And why I believe the true path to a transcendental being lay at the level of the individual. I believe the gist of you're argument is something like this. You believe if people were to choose there own path to transcendence they would choose many wrong ones based on their individual values. Therefore creating a fractured and collapsing society with very few people having the right aim on the correct path. Hopefully I'm not miss framing you're argument and I'm doing it Justice. This is a valid point. However the problem begins when you try to collectivize a transcendent goal. The more you collectivize an idea the more the true essence of the idea is lost. When it's largely collectivized it becomes a lot like a half assed summary or a Imitation of the original idea. For example, I am a geek. I have been since early teen hood. That's a part of my individual identity and there something about it that deeply and profoundly resonates with me. However since Geek culture has become more main stream in the recent years Geek culture has never been more dead. This is ironic since geek culture has never been more broadly accepted then ever before. Thanks to Movies, Video games and Company's Capitalizing on it. All the time I come in contact with a person who buys all the Clothing and products Speaks the lingo and can name all the characters. However these conversations stop dead in their tracks when taken in depth In upon further inspection you find out that this person has no idea what you or they themselves are talking about. They never read any of the books. They never played any of the games. They've seen a movie or 2 but that's really about it. Not only that but they can't even articulate Many of the core concepts that lie at the heart of what they're consuming and buying up. It's because they don't embody the idea of what they're consuming. But instead they're wearing the dead corpse of what corporations are selling to them. And it's all done to To integrate themselves within a Collective identity In the hopes to achieve a higher status in society (Ergo Following Trends). However when an individual decides to walk a path despite, this status despite the ridicule But because there's something about it that speaks to their individual Experience. That's the only way you know someone's heart and soul is in it. In conclusion, You may get a Community to collectively follow the right transcendent path. However it will be a dead community that is only capable of mimicry. And Incapable of understanding and embodying the essence of what it means to live a transcendental being. Only in individual with a personal interests in the transcendent is capable of becoming more than just a corpse of the original idea.
I think you got the wrong idea about a dead community. You're referring to the trends done to hook an individual. These are designed to acquire the attention of them as they try to find something to cling to feel a desire to belong.
This is largely different to what he means in his own idea a community. One with a common transcendental ideal they aspire. This ideal isn't a trend that changes but rather is stable allowing the community to linger and learn together and fully understand this ideal. As such they eventually embody this ideal with the older elders passing this on to the future generations.
This entire process creates a cohesive community that doesn't wear a corpse of an idea but rather embodies a living idea that had grown and nourished within thanks to the wisdom of the elderly. It is far more substantial than a simple easy to market trend given how this grew up and developed in the community.
@@arnowisp6244 Ideals can stabilize and help society cohabitate. And they can guide a society to work in harmony towards a goal. However, the fact still stand that eventually the Ideals will erode.
By the way, This idea about "trends" Jonathan has put forward, I have a problem with it. You see it's not at all true in a literal sense or a metaphorical one. Now I'm not some Literalist. I know things can be true in a literal and metaphorical all most metaphysical way. Infact I agree with Jordan Peterson that metaphorical statements are sometimes realer than literal. But Jonathan's notion of trends is Incorrect In both ways of interpretation. Trends are patterns of change Literally and metaphorically. Trends can capture a person's attention and possess them to follow it. Guiding that said person away from a common identity or belief idea. etc. This is a fact. However, this is not a intrinsic feature of a trend. A trend is not a thing that which guides a person away from a common idea. Trends are technically collective phenomena. When a video trends on TH-cam it's because a bunch of people have viewed it. When a trend is started in pop culture its because a bunch of people are Mimicking it. You would never say, "a trend has started" if someone is doing something by themselves in the silence of their own home and no one else other than this person has picked up on it. Trends have almost nothing to do with individual or individualism in a causal sense. Yes, in individual can follow a trend based on their values. But again, this isn't a Inherent feature of it.
Lastly, Not all ideas are trends but ideas can be trendy.
Your points are well-taken regarding the excesses of individualism. But the great liberal tradition places the supremacy of the individual in accordance to their will.
That is the center.
Celebrity culture and the kind of tribalism you describe is so far at the margin that I doubt anyone would argue against the idea that culture is diseased. It may even be an Inevitable manifestation of the necessary independence of the individual but without it, there is no purpose or significance for faith, personal responsibility or choosing to follow a path of righteousness.
When I returned to Orthodoxy, I felt like I wanted to give something to God, but realized that all I had... the only thing of importance was my self.
Two words.
My will.
My desires.
Aligned with God’s as far as is possible for such a messed up person like me. But at least I could try with an absolute anchor as my center.
It seems to me the problem with mass shooters is that they do not have such a center... a center that is the source of all meaning.
I agree that the nihilistic individualism is at the core of a lot of it, especially that whole will to power stuff. However isn't Dr.Peterson's conception of the individual more centered towards a message of personal responbility but also one that emphasis that you're a "node in a network" in the sense that it is you that has to take into account your malevolence and the good that you can bring in the world because it will propagate. Also that you want to have a goal that satisfies both yourself, your immediate surroundings and the world writ large? Once again, I agree with the nihilistic power grab attention seeking part, I"m just trying to figure out the details.
Yes, you're right. I'm not sure why Jonathan even needed to bring Peterson into this, as nothing he discussed here could really be taken as a counterpoint to Peterson's position. If he knows him well enough to call the guy his friend, I would think he'd know him well enough to know that Peterson's message is not one of philosophical individualism at all. And if Jonathan _does_ know this, then I think he could have done a better job in conveying that to his viewers. Just take a look through the comments to find plenty of people ascribing some version of individualism to Peterson that is not the one he promotes.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my 'friends' doing that sort of thing to me..
@@SineEyed we'll see, hopeful this gets fleshed out
Great video, Jonathan. I do not know if it is official (it appears to be), but I have subscribed to your BitChute page as well and would love for you to upload your content there, as well. Provided it is not too much work.
i think perhaps another way to see this is as a type of mediocrity of the individual. these figures do represent the transcendent, its just that the 'transcendence' is loaded on a structure that's too delicate to actually handle transcendence, and both the individual and the image of the transcendent distort as a side effect (neil gaiman's 'american gods' plays with this idea). another part of this is that this quality of people to 'pay attn to the clowns' is much older than a modern creation of individualism. theres a deeper response/reaction going on, and we can in a sense choose to make war with that mechanism or attempt to change the context it's occuring in (are not the prophets and such in some sense the 'clowns of god'?)
You and big bear would have a great talk. Also, seeing your videos on unauthorized.tv would be great. Symbolism category launched by you is a good idea.
Stop promoting a ignorant, damaged individual "147 iq because my mom told me so when I was 6" Owen Benjamin.
How do you know that he is damaged and that he is ignorant?
@@lightninginmyhands4878 Because I've seen tens of his videos over the years. Saw every bridge he burned (Rogan, Peterson, Rubin, Jones, Crowder, etc). Late drunken rants about the moon, flat earth and the jews. His uneducated/eretical biblical interpretations, his denial of science (recently he said that light is only a wave not also a particle and that the psysicists are liars) etc. Also, watch Porsalin's documentary "Smarter than the avarage bear" if you haven't seen it, it's about Owen.
Great video btw sorta reminds me of the jihadist problem in Islam, there is no real cure since the issue is so deep.
I’ve thought for a while that serial killers have become the saints of our culture of death.
Let's see....one of the most popular videos on TH-cam are those about serial killers for one.
Ask infographics how much ad money they get from those.
Yep. Morbid curiosity is driving the world. Not a good thing.
Who would be the first massmurderer in history?
God, or did you mean humans only
Clowns, like George Carlin, Jon Stewart or King Lear's jester? I take your point but to be fair I wish our MSM was as conscientious as some of these clowns.
Clowns have a specific role to play. Once they are made king though we will have problems.
First two examples are ideologues, hardly conscientious.
MK Utra
pantokrator = instant like
The _tyranny of my sexual desires_ is my favourite tyranny for sure.
Frogs
NPC's
Clowns
What's next?
Thanks for this video.
I think you would enjoy the works of Iain McGilchrist. He talks about the left and right hemisphere and their difference. He argues that the left hemisphere is for focused narrow attention and is separating, trying to achieve the whole by putting together all the parts. While the right hemisphere has a unifying look on the world, sees that everything is connected. His book (The master and his emissary) is great, but a bit long. There are lots of his talk on youtube, i think they give a good overview of his work and ideas. For example th-cam.com/video/uEB68f8kvnY/w-d-xo.html
modern rappers are literally covered in face tattoos, aka face paint like clowns
Individualism is an ideology that picks sides under a guise of a universal idea. Some ethnics, corporations, classes, institutions, some collectives are allowed to exist within the "individualist" ideological spectrum, and others are not. This is the fatal weakness to individualism, it is by it's very nature, a double standard.
It's safe to say that most, including my self, agree that militant imperialism is something we should steer clear of. But supporting your family, neighbors, church, culture, nation, etc. is not militant imperialism. If you were told it was, you were lied too. We can be proud in supporting these "collectives," but if you're proud of an ideology that keeps your family down, that harms your kids, while simultaneously looking the other way for others. You're just a fool; as foolish as those who will try to blame the others when it's their own naivety and ignorance responsible for the mess they are in.
2 things. #1 You talk about disagreeing with Peterson on somethings and it is like the rest of the video would be one of those things. It is not. Peterson says the individual and NOT the group identity is the proper level of analysis. Please don't tell me you disagree with this. I expect you to disagree with him on some religious things though. If you are going to say you disagree with Peterson then say what he believes and how it is wrong. #2 the real problem is we all don't have the same TELOS. A christian's telos should be the joining of heaven and earth. Mass shooters telos is to get fame and cause as much misery as possible. People who worship celebrity have the wrong telos as well.
This was insightful. Your articulation of the orthodox worldview does a lot to lend it credibility as Truth...the explanatory power is immense.