Tolkien was a Christian Englishman who saw huge value in tradition and pursuing the greater good. The hobbits in my opinion would be best described as traditionalists.
Hobbits if anything were the "common people", not the cityfolk but the ones living in the countryside that keep things going during both wars that since werent directly affected by the Blitz didnt had a full understanding of the effects of war but they were also considering Tolkien time, the ones a lot of the enlisted come from so they were willing to fight. Its a theme of community and how tight are the smaller villages in the countryside. This is part why the Hobbits werent interested as a whole in the War against Sauron since he wasnt (yet) directly threatening then but individual Hobbits were willing to do so. This is why the Burning of the Shire is important, its a "footnote" but it shows the Hobbits when threatened were willing to fight and they did, I also think its to show how Sam, Frodo, Merry, and Pippin changed from when they left the Shire, just like the people that left to fight the war returned changed but not in a bad way, after all only Frodo eventually leaves as the other 3 simply return to their old life.
@@drakron Well said. It's also worth noting that Tolkien was against modern industrialisation and enjoyed the more old fashioned traditions of agriculture and industry... Even though you cannot stop modern trends... He hoped they would not destroy the world (You see this in how Saruman treats Isengard and how the Ents react when they see what he did.)
@@Kalamain There are different paradigms of “order” and opposing visions on what “conservatives” ought to conserve. Hobbits could be compared to rural conservatives while Saruman represents neoconservatism, ESPECIALLY nowadays. Contrast the Amish with the likes of Liz Cheney. Both would identity as “conservatives” but their opposition was made manifest.
No one really said they couldn't be described as traditionalists. But then again, Peterson never actually said the hobbits were leftists. He was actually just comparing the peaceful state of the Shire and the potential dangerous outcome of believing that security without adventure doesn't always guarantee continued security.
@@drakronwell put. common folk who value tradition, culture and community. It harps back to the Englishmen of old very proud and protective of their way of life and against any fast change. Sam does eventually leave middle earth and meet Frodo in Valanor after the passing of Rosie.
I found Tolkien’s description of the Hobbits as ordinary men must come from his appreciation of the ordinary farming and industrial workers he commanded as a junior officer in WW1 and on his countryside walks. Very interesting
@@seangriffin5524 Basically Tolkien lamented the industrialisation and the erosion of the traditional ways of life in the rural areas surrounding Birmingham (which were fast being gobbled up by the city). I do believe he was also influenced by some of the men he commanded. But broadly speaking the Shire serves as his romantic English arcadia prior to the arrival of the forces that would transform that world in the service of money and power.
I think it's really nice and cozy. Just an appreciation for regular working people who have a deep intrinsic appreciation for peace. In our real world they still sent many of their sons to war so they aren't really utopian in the real world and neither are they in arda because a bad harvest or a group of hungry dwarves could really mess things up for them.
Hobbits living and enjoying the simple pleasures of life, passing on traditions and reaping the rewards of their labour is something to strive for. The idea of wanting to live a happy life and pass things down to your progeny isn't political.
Classical Liberal wants to focus on cultural issues instead of economic issues and becomes a conservative > Conservative becomes a Catholic to avoid adopting a certain ideology from the 1930s > Catholic becomes a monarchist TradCath that loves Aquinas, Chesterton, Lewis, and Tolkien "because the Pope is woke."
I don't think Peterson is implying that hobbits are liberals. He is comparing, in a general sense, the Hobbits' ignorance of who and what keeps their lands relatively free of conflict so that they can enjoy their contented lives to ignorance commonly found amongst purveyors of leftist ideologies like socialism and communism. It is plain, to me at least, that Peterson is not suggesting this is Tolkien's explicit or even implicit meaning, but rather that the ignorance of the hobbits is analogous to the ignorance of the left. Also, British liberalism is a school of thought. Classic liberalism as referenced by Peterson and Rubin is not 'liberal' as we describe it in American politics. To frame the liberalism of the French and American Revolutions as you have is inaccurate.
They are NOT left, when tolkien himself comprared them in one of his letters with the average conservative brit of his time. If anything, they might be anarchic, but thats nostly because there is no real power or authority structure in action and people are self governing but adhering to old customs and norms of their society.
@@gil-gaergaladriellion9188You’re confused the same way the guy who made the video is, Peterson isn’t saying that they are leftist (both literally in that he never uses that word and figuratively in the sense that they hold that political view) he is saying they can be looked at as representing liberals (which is an ideology that both the left and right can hold btw) as in classically liberal and making the comparison that people can have a liberal mindset because the more traditionalist minded minded people are protecting them. It’s like if he said the strippers at the strip are like the liberals but they can only be free to do this because of the bouncers and police who protect them, it’s an apt analogy but it’s confusing the point to say “so you’re saying a guy who works as a bouncer at a strip club is a traditional conservative? I highly doubt it” because that is missing the point entirely
I've always had so much sympathy for Boromir. Desperate leader seeing his country losing - sees a wondrous weapon that can turn the tide and save his people. He didn't seek the ring for glory, but for service, speaking of a life spent in glorious service. Tragic.
He is the folly of the noble man. When he is tempted by the ring, I would say he falls into the madness and personifies "the ends justify the means" in a way as well.
@@Liquidsback but it wasn't Boromir's fault, the nature of the ring itself is dark as has Sauron essence in it... the ring had an aura of power and corruption because that was its only purpose dominion and control, naively Boromir and in desperation he thinks using the one ring as a weapon or war, but because of ignorance he doesn't understand the implications of it, then there at the Council of Elrond further is elaborated on the matter of the usage of the One Ring by whoever wields it, it is a test for Galadriel at Lorien if you remember that...
Boromir reminds me very much of Isuldir. A flawed man, with good intentions, fighting for the survival of his people against the forces of great and seemingly unassailable Evil.
He may be using the classical definition of 'Liberal'; one who does not seek to impose his rules on others, or force his outcomes. The word 'Liberal' seems to have been re-defined for modern Left-Right uses, as indeed have Left and Right.
Yes, Liberalism created the modern left and right ... socialism for example in Europe doesnt have the same charge as it does in America and the whole "left-right" division is a lot due to the political landscape in the Anglophone countries that lead to the current balkanization of politics. That if, of course, great to galvanize people when its "Us" vs "Them" and why I very much dislike it considering the amount of power the US over the rest of the world due to their cultural weight, their current neurosis just managed to find their way in countries that shouldnt have such problems.
Not "may" - he explicitly does. Both by using the definition of "British liberal" (to discard the north American popular & wrong usage of the term), and by focusing on "liberal individualism" and freedoms of the hobbits - two distinct pillars of classical liberalism which are fundamental for the ideologies of both sides of the American aisle.
@@thebign2398 It all depends on what any given generation is trying to conserve or further liberalize. The moment you find your most comfortable balance, like Dave Rubin did with gay rights, but don’t like what’s being proposed for further liberalization, SURPRISE! You are now a “conservative” conserving your preferred balance! How does it go over most people’s heads that Peterson is a Chatician, (or Chaologist), or a psychologist in the same way Michael Crichton’s character “Ian Malcolm” was a mathematician. Peterson is focused on the psychology side of chaos theory, instead of the mathematical side of it.
@@Antropovichso you would actually understand what the talks are about. Why would you not read classics and form your own opinion rather than relying on the opinions of others (who may well even be wrong)?
While Tolkien was certainly a social conservative he also very much anti technology and hated the direction the world was going. You can’t really peg him with model political compasses.
I'm not sure what country you're in, but Tolkien's politics seem fairly consistent with a tradition of conservativism in the UK - from Edmund Burke up to people like Roger Scruton and Maurice Glassman.
Hating technology is pretty normal for the more stubborn conservatives. JRRT wanted to go back to living in an agrarian feudal society. He mentioned this in an interview with the BBC back in 1965. He could get pretty extreme, he supported Francisco Franco in 1944 and expressed admiration for the British fascist poet Roy Campbell for fighting for Franco in the Spanish Civil War. He would even compare Campbell to Aragorn, then named Trotter. Overall, Tolkien was an interesting and complicated historical figure. A simpler man could never have written LOTR.
@@IndusRiverFlow Tolkien's vocal support for Franco was based on the Republicans un-aliving Catholics. (As Tolkien was not a socialist, it is unlikely he would have supported the Republicans in any event, but that was the causal effect).
Why, it makes MUNEY!!! That's what all this is about, that is why things that are not "woke" are labeled "woke" for outrage to the algorithmic gods and "representation" is just something shallow to get people/ a new audience to see product. "Cause it's all....part of the plan"
@@ericjohnson7234 Letter to his son "My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) - or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy." [...]"Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. And at least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo efiscopari as the best reasona man could give to others for making him a bishop. Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers. "
Peterson's point is that the Hobbit's lifestyle is ultimately at the mercy of better men who are both willing to commit defensive violence that benefits their peaceful society (holding of Sauron and the orc hordes) and overall tolerate the Hobbit's existence within their province. The orcs would absolutely DECIMATE the shires if they successful pushed through the border of Mordor, and if literally ANY of the other races/kingdoms just decided to put the Hobbits beneath their metaphorical and quite literal boots beneath them for WHATEVER reason, chances are that Hobbit's aren't going to be able to do anything to really stop it because of how inexperienced they are to violence due to their ignorance of the possible dangers outside the shire. They wouldn't see it coming, they would be completely unprepared for it and it would most likely be their downfall because of it.
Indeed. Look at how much harm and death greatly diminished Saruman did with his bandit horde to the Shire until war veterans Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin came back; rallied them to fight and throw off the bargain basement dark lord.
You missed the point, I think. There's so much here I disagree with, but I'll humbly make what I think Petersons point is. You have a boadered land, a simple individualistic people, a liberal culture blind to the outside world, provided the freedom to be such by the rightful and just protector of all they hold dear. Jordan Peterson is expanding upon Galdors quote to Frodo, "the world is wide and all around you. You can fence yourselves in, but cannot forever fence it out" The Hobbits are oblivious to the world, their simple way of life is protected by the rightful and just lineage of kingly guard.
before criticizing someone you need to understand, or at least try to understand what he is trying to say. JP is trying to make a point about the nature of culture, that leisure, comforts and peace require structure, protection of borders by men of war.. One cannot exist without the other, and people the "liberals" he claims are people who ignore that fact of life. He is not trying to analyze LOTR. His points still stand, because he uses that story as example, you totally missed the point.
Tolkien was nothing if not a conservative traditionalist with a great love for England and its ordinary people. The Hobbits represent England and it's ordinary people whose enormous courage and humility inspired Tolkien in the trenches. It is an ethnic thing and has nothing to do with politics, no matter how much people try to make it so.
Ever since the 1960s we have struggled to deal with the growing ideology that "everything is political." These people are insufferable. They twist everything into their political viewpoints, no matter how baseless the idea is. If I want to smoke a Cuban cigar, it does NOT mean I support the politics of Fidel Castro. But they will insist it is so. I say this thinking is a mental disorder that needs rooted out...
The irony here is there is a valid and lore accurate right-wing-friendly way of describing the Hobbits as traditionalists who just want to be left alone but are surprisingly competent if roused. Not my thing but it's a perfectly acceptable reading. it's not the one that appeals to Peterson so he'll describe them as hippy losers who probably don't make their own beds and have never even seen a lobster instead.
@@eschizas Fundamentally, the Hobbits and Hobbiton represent the archetype of the perfect 'Home'. They represent home to the psyche - exactly what someone in the trenches on the Somme dreamed of....
Indeed and given that Tolkien was born at the tail end of the 19th century? His version of being a conservative traditionalist has very, very little in common with 21st century American Conservatism and Traditionalism.
Tolkien's works are so expansive. I'm an above average, I think, enjoyer of Tolkien, but i'm NO scholar by any means. Yet I am surprised that the Shire would be considered liberal in anyway.
The Shire is an idealized (not utopian, as this video mentions) rural England. Its system of aristocracy would be unacceptable to most liberals. Liberalism as an ideology started with beheading aristocrats.
They are literally those that pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They are farmers and gardeners and builders. But they are also aristocratic and theives and murders. There are hard workers and lazy people. But mostly, they just enjoy simple pleasures in life. They don't need more than they need. Their wants are mostly not outlandish. It was one of the things that saved Samwise from the ring. He didn't need to make a garden out of middle earth. A small plot of land to tend was all he ever needed.
@@IndusRiverFlow “Liberalism as an ideology started with beheading aristocrats” errrrm what? Liberalism was born from hundreds of years of development of the English political system and its constitutional body of common law. Perhaps you mean that *revolutionary* ideology was started with beheading aristocrats eg French Revolution?
I wouldn’t place our politics on to anyone from Tolkien’s universe, he hated that. But I would think if you force it they have pretty conservative values. Want to be left alone to live the way they want and live and don’t like any change or things out of the ordinary. Again though, to place our politics in that world is the last thing we should ever do.
It wasn't about the hobbits per se. It was just saying that the hobbits couldn't live their lives without the other races keeping the others from their borders...He just used it since most people have seen the Lord of the Rings and understand what hobbits are...
@@eowynsisterdaughter You are quite right. I'm sorry I didn't explain myself more fully. When the king granted the Shire as a fief to the hobbits they became the his vassals. In answering the king's call to arms they were fulfilling the conditions of their vassalage. What was Peterson thinking? That the king had his own army in the way modern nation states do? His arguments seem to show that he has no clue regarding feudal obligation. Or he didn't realize that Aragorn was not king at the time when he alluded to his rangers protecting the Shire and Bree.
@missanne2908 I was by no means offering criticism. It was more like, "oh I get the reference he's making, sweet! I'll offer what I remember about it." It does come across like Peterson just isn't very familiar with Tolkien and Tolkien's works, and that he's unaware that Tolkien is an author who cordially despises allegory in all its iterations.
They say they did. Nobody else seems to have noticed, which could be just a case of overlooking a small (in both meanings of the word) contingent in a very large battle.
If we're arguing intentions of the author, Tolkien believed firmly in tradition, God, and duty, none of which are concurrent with modern left-leaning politics. Tolkien would absolutely be right of centre, and quite staunchly so.
I get the criticism against Peterson but his analogy isnt wtong if you understood what he meant There was a scene in the second movie of LOTR where i think represents what peterson was saying. when merry snd pippin were in the forest with the ents. Pippin the most hobbit of the group said,"we should just go home. we dont belong here. in war." But amerry replied, " You don't get it. if something is not done there will be no home for us go back to." Which i think captures what Peterson is saying the Utopia and idealism of liberals can only exists kin the pragmatism and blood of a conservative mind set.
11:19 - As a Bible-reading Christian, no, we have the same issue with Peterson. He cannot exegete a passage to save his life. When he comments on Tolkien, you're experiencing what we have seen for years when he tries to psychoanalyse the Bible. Welcome to the land of frustration.
@@Adam-TheLiftedKing The people using the Bible for Good outweigh those using it for Ill by orders of magnitude. Easy to spit on the Bible when the society it produced is so tolerant.
Petterson was drowned so much in the cultural war he cleary can't see well and his political bias is not allowing him a precise interpretation of Tolkien... I can see that by how he is seeing the Hobbits.
Jordy tries so damn hard to be relevant, nomatter how, that he ends up with the brutally impaired Rubin and this excruciatingly dimwitted Nonsense. Good Grief! How Embarrassing! 🤦
I’m someone who likes him, generally. But I think he’s fame went to his head and so he tries to have an opinion of everything, instead of sticking to his lane. I like his Jungian psychology and mythological stuff that his professionally trained in, but beyond that, I take his opinion with a pinch of salt.
Tempest in a teapot. Peterson was just referring to the fact that a careless, naive and idealistic community (or subculture, „let's say liberals") can only exist in a larger community that has pragmatic, hard-headed, down-to-earth people around, who defend the gates of their "paradise".
Okay, so everyone who doesnt serve in the army is now a liberal. Got it, chief. You know there's an ideology that very narrowly aligns with your world view. Just let go of the pretense and embrace what you are. It starts with an F.
Jordan Peterson adores what he calls "dominance hierarchy" - he thinks it's an immutable law of nature that inherently superior men, like him, should make the rules and boss everyone around. The way to get ahead, in his mind, is to emulate guys like that! Anyone with the slightest understanding of Tolkien knows that he was quite the opposite: he utterly despised tyranny, bullying and the love of power.
Surely the hobbits are an affectionate take on what liberal metropolitan Brits would call "little englanders" i.e. people who are happy with their simple way of life, broadly suspicious of outsiders and who unfortunately get caught up in the schemes of their betters and end up on the battlefield. The Shire is clearly a romantic English idyl prior to the forces of industrialisation and modernisation. Tolkien greatly lamented the gobbling up of the countryside around Birmingham (where he lived) and seemed to have a fondness for the rural folk who lived there. He was also probably influenced by the loyalty and steadfastness of some of the men he commanded in the trenches . Pretty much all the hobbit surnames are anglo-saxon (i.e. non-norman).
That is correct, and because nothing in LotR is a simple morality tale, they also have some of the potential flaws of Little Englandism, such as a lack of interest in international relations which eventually exposes them to danger, and a narrow-mindedness towards other cultures. Tolkien was no imperialist, but the times made it clear that just sitting at home ignoring the outside world would not necessarily be enough to protect England from war.
I like JP. I like Tolkien. I like Frank Herbert. They are all very smart, and they have takes on each other's work; that I don't entirely agree with. I know a smart man, very knowledgeable in the works of other smart men. I think we were talking about Neitzche or Freud. He told me that many geniuses, have one insight - one perfectly clear insight into the nature of the world; and it's brilliant. And then they spend the rest of their lives, chasing another revelation, or applying the one they had to everything - whether it fits or not. I've found that broadly to be true. JP's insight was about the nature of self-efficacy; which is why he's clashed with people over pronouns, and helped so many young men lift themselves up out of depression and life failure. It's the same idea, that *other people cannot be relied apon to give you the validation you need, no matter how strongly you feel you need it.* The only way to guarantee your success, is to find validation through *control of your own environment, and actions.* Same idea, applied to all. Now he's gone on to politics and philosophy, and he's not dumb - so he makes it work, but it's not the same level of quality as the one insight he really *got.*
People who shared Peterson’s ideology in Tolkien’s day actually called LotR and The Hobbit and even some of C.S.Lewis’s work “satanic” and corrupting. The notion in his works that the heroes did the right thing simply because it was the right thing to do (not because they were seeking an eternal reward or trying to avoid eternal torment) is probably the theme that makes his works so beloved by so many people.
It was only satanic to some modern Protestants. Tolkien was always immensely popular amongst Catholics because, as the Tolkien himself put it: his work is filled with Catholic symbolism and meaning
@@crimsonthumos3905 Protestants accuse of Catholicism of absorbing certain aspects of paganism. That's why in America you get strange cults like Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Messianic Judaism (Hebrew Roots people that can't decide if they want to say Yah, Yeshua, Yashua, Yashuah, Yahushua, etc).
Jesus himself has a parable about how doing the right thing is its own reward. It’s not even one of the most obscure ones, like, it’s not easy to misinterpret. Sometimes I wonder if these people even read their own Scripture😅
@@crimsonthumos3905 It's satanic in the sense that the Hobbit and LOTR are totally free of organized religion. No temples or churches, no religious services or worship, not even warriors calling on or cursing the gods in battle.
What? Liberals!? They represented the common people. People that the reader related to. Living day to day, social circles, blah blah! The problem with Peterson is that he tries to boil everything down to black and white, and, like Freud, it is painted by his own beliefs. That’s not how people work.
Yea was about to comment the same... I actually see the hobbits as a conservative society with a pacifist complex but it still rings true you can't have a pacifist society without a strong structured world. Ie a military or a planet wide bureaucracy or something else that allows the society to do as they wish. Think you might both be wrong... And right
Interesting as always on Tolkien, but JSG clearly hasn't read up on the French Revolution. Edmund Burke's critique laid the principles for modern conservativism, and he's considered correct on this by both the right and left in the Anglophone tradition. Why? Because the Terror followed, then Napoleon's wars (after which the British were the dominant power in Europe), and the destabilisation of France continued forth from that point (it's had 15 constitutions between the French Revolution and today). By contrast, the British have had one (although some argue Blair fundamentally changed it) and led the world for 100 years after Napoleon fell. This meant that the French were still living under the tyranny of kings long after the British (anti-revolutionaries) had left this behind - it's difficult to specify the exact point they left it behind, some would say The Glorious Revolution, others after George III.
France lived under the tyranny of kings because the British and its few allies decimated plans for a democratic Europe by Napolean by warring against him. The British actively reinstalled puppet crowns across Europe, France included, because it wanted to maintain a status quo in which it maintained a stranglehold on the Global economy. This myopic policy would come back to bite as soon Prussia would industrialize and soon Germany would emerge and the European economy would be ravaged under WW1, shifting power to the U.S. The British prevented democracy in Europe.
It might be argued that the British still have a ruling class in a way that the French do not, because the French killed enough of them to break the continuity. I mean, how many people in positions of power in Britain aren't rich people who went to Oxford? The old boys network continues. Which might help explain why to this day, Britain has significantly higher inequality than France (although both are getting worse, so maybe France will catch up at some point). And while the Terror was certainly real, it is rarely remembered that even at its height it didn't actually judicially kill more people per year than the Ancien Regime did, and didn't generally torture them to death the way the Ancien Regime did. The status quo immediately before the Revolution was extremely bloody. It's just that the people the Ancien Regime would "break on the wheel" or draw and quarter or whatever were little people who didn't matter, so to this day nobody really cares . . . they're not considered to count. Suddenly if it's nobles getting it in the neck, that's Terror.
@@purplelibraryguy8729 The continuity was broken to an extent by Napoleon's new Nobility of the Empire (though, even there, some old nobility were allowed back in). There was the Bourbon Restoration, however. I'm just not sure of the raw numbers to know either way - something for me to look into. If you have a source for the claim about comparative deaths, I'd very much like to look it up. I'm sceptical, though, and your focus is strange: why would only judicial killing be important? If the revolution leads to more extrajudicial killing (in mob violence), that is surely noteworthy. According to a 'The Conversation' piece I found on this, there were 15,000-17,000 guillotine executions in the revolution - most occurring during the Terror. Then there were another 20,000 shot, stabbed, or drowned during the Terror. 85% of those killed were commoners, 6.5% clergy, and only 8.5% nobility. Then let's also consider the consequences down the line: 170,000 civilians killed in the Wars of the Vendée, and 700,000 French soldiers dead from 1792-1815.
The British constitution is way smaller in scope than any of those French constitutions and did way less to limit the power of the king and the aristocracy. Bad comparison. The first chamber of the british government is still called the house of lords lmao.
@@TheSuperappelflap "The British constitution is way smaller in scope than *any* of those French constitutions and did way less to limit the power of the king and the aristocracy." - Okay, let's take the July Monarchy. Louis-Philippe had actual powers of appointment. In Britain, William IV's powers of appointment were ceremonial. "Bad comparison." They're both comparable qua constitutions. "The first chamber of the british government is still called the house of lords lmao" -The first chamber of the British government is called the House of Commons; basic research can help you.
6:56 so… you think the exact point that Peterson is making would sound weird to Peterson and his ilk? He never said they did it because they were superior or anything, his point was that the hobbits were free to be LIBERAL (not “leftist”) because they were being protected by traditionalists
If the hobbits represent anything, they represent infancy. They're (mostly) simply creatures who enjoy simple pleasures, unconcerned with the world at large. Until one of them acquires powers and he's forced to leave and venture into a world he doesn't know or understand with the help of several mentors. The reasons why reading the LOTR as a kid is such a powerful experience (at least one of the reasons) is that it's a coming of age story. My two cents
@lokiopensloloc5680 There are deep thinkers on both sides as well as simple minded, childish folks who struggle with anything more complex than a political leaftet. Hobbits may be children in the biblical sense - the image of a simple, pure, humble, sinless faith.
Splitting hairs here, but do you ascribe the term "infancy" for traditional cultures, say rural Tibetans for example? Naivete or innocence I can see, but we can assume Hobbits had to deal with death and disease (and definitely some unpleasant relations), and Frodo was 50 when setting off. Merry and Pippin certainly came of age during the story. It's a heroes' quest story.
Ironically Tolkien was socially conservative and the LOTR does to some extent reflect that, but I fancy he would have despised the likes of JBP especially because of his running "intellectual cover" for Trumpism.
I thought Aragorn was also patrolling the Shire because Gandalf suspected Bilbo’s ring was the One Ring. Anyway, sad to see Peterson hasn’t read some of the most important works of fiction in human history. I thought he was intelligent but using a major work to explain something, when you clearly haven’t read the major work, is very stupid.
I fear Peterson is not the same calibur of academic nor intellectual as Tolkien. Again, thank you for defending him (Tolkien) from political misappropriation from all sides.
He's not far off. Or rather he wasn't far off in his early years. Either way I blame his government for his downfall. Trudeau is a piece of shit and literally everyone sees it now. It's tragic he ended up with the daily wire and not his own thing but I cannot blame him. Despite his choice he is compromised either way. This is what politics do to academics.
@@tooslow4065 Cute. Fanboying again? What did Benzo-Petey lost again? 🤔 His License? Or was it something else...? Ah, who cares?! For an Incel he may be something Special, but in the real World he's just a Smartass who runs for the Dollar after his 15 Minutes are long gone. To compare Tolkien who wrote the most read Novel in Human History and this whiny Has-Been is as if one compared A. Einstein with G. W. Bush. The greatest Insult imaginable. Bye 👋 u🤡
@@tooslow4065 Tolkien will be remembered as one of the greatest writers in history as long as there are humans to remember. Peterson will be remembered as a fad for 13 year old edge lords.
A sad reminder that intellect can be blinding. Jordan Peterson is highly intelligent, yet he clearly lacks wisdom, and he has grown ideologically captured. Quite sad, because I thought he was more discerning and nuanced.
@@deliaschuster2395 Indeed. He does tend to overreach on occasion. I respect Peterson for all the good that he has done and is doing, but I'm disillusioned about the amount of wisdom he actually brings to the table. This is a good lesson about not putting people on pedestals, and watching and listening with a critical, questioning mindset.
@@genovayork2468 He is a celebrated psychologist with many years of experience. He lacks wisdom in some areas, but possesses much in others. He's been a very positive influence on many young men, inspiring them to live good, meaningful lives, especially in this day and age where society tends to denigrate them. He has also generated as well as kept alive conversation about many important topics (his many youtube interviews are worth checking).
Shire is Tolkien era England. Isolated island which hard to acces with king protector and with homogene population which cooperate on everything and dont really need goverment or ruler.
"To control the opposition we must lead it ourselves" Lenin Peterson is a perfect example of that tactic, he doesn't really care about tradition he just pretends to, which probably explains why his knowledge of Tolkien mirrors that of Amazon.
It’s funny cause it seems like the Paradigm Shift is affecting BOTH sides. Obviously the loony left needs to be gone yesterday, but these type of Anti-Fun guys like Peterson who I really enjoy from time to time and Walsh who brings up some good points need to chill out too
@@Lultschful I wouldn’t go that far lol the Paradigm Shift IS the Conservatives bring new stuff while the Left are set in their old antiquated ways, the new Punk is the Right while the fuddy diddy old heads are the Left.
I agree with Jordan on a few things but this is a bad take on Tolkien and his work. He’s smart but as we all know even smart people say the dumbest things. He clearly doesn’t understand Tolkien and doesn’t intend to.
The last few years, he seems to have gone down a Christian/Jewish rabbit hole as the answer to everything. Now it colours everything he says. The clip in the video alludes to the Garden of Eden (imo), for example.
The shire exists because it's far away from any power bases that would want to claim it. That's really it, Saruman took it over after being crushed during the war, during the Scouring.
The term "liberal" has a classical connotation that does not harmonize with the contemporary "left". Jordan Peterson uses the word to describe himself. As do I. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, right to privacy, etc. These are liberal values.
you are reading too much into it. Peterson is just using the hobbits as an example. The hobbits are indeed individualists in that they don't want to care about the big events of the world. They want to be left alone. This mentality can represent both letist hippie mentality or right libertarian mentality, that is not the point. The thing is you can allow yourself to not care about the rest of the world, wars, politics, power, until the events care about you. Reading the hobbits as the left would not mean they are inferior in the eyes of Peterson. You can see what Frodo and Sam were able to do precisely as part of typical hippie spirit: caring for others from a purely empathic point of view, willing to sacrifice themselves in a somehow idealistic way, not to be heroes or to gain fame, fortune, prestige or wealth but because is the right thing to do. That would not change the fact that they are a kind of nature loving hippies that don't want to care about what is beyond their bubble. Kingdoms, power, wealth, influence, hyerarchies, industries, armies, exist whether they like it or not and you would not be able to live as a hobbit if it were not for all those things creating a specific kind of world. I think using Tolkien and the hobbits to exemplify this idea is not that wrong
Jordan Peterson is living proof that the "political spectrum" is just a circle. All the cluelessness of the Rings of Power writers, all the same devotion to pushing an anti-individualistic and totalitarian ideology that falls apart under scrutiny, but somehow he's considered "opposed" to them despite being functionally interchangeable.
Jordan Peterson is about as knowledgeable on the Bible as he is in LotR. He hasn't done enough study on either to be considered as subject matter proficient. Most of his learning on both subjects comes from conversations with other people and their opinions, rather than direct studies on the original texts.
I thought Peterson's categorizing the Hobbits as "liberals" was a little strange, too, but let's not pretend that what he and Rubin were saying is that hard to discern: You can't have a society without an agreed-upon set of rules, and nearly all of those rules will have been established before you were born. What conservatives by and large oppose is the changing of these rules in the service of ideology without regard for consequences. As Chesterton wrote, "Before you tear down a fence, ask why the fence was put up." Peterson sees the Striders as the keepers of the fence. And it's clear from the Scouring of the Shire that the Hobbits were themselves defenseless against Saruman and Wormtongue's new ideas.
Saruman didnt come along with "new ideas" he came along with better weapons. So the argument boils down to, might is right, and whoever doesnt seek to wield and exercise more power is naive and weak. Which checks out exactly considering its Peterson saying it.
@@TheSuperappelflap Saruman came along with a willingness to pretend that he had powers that he didn’t. Chesterson’s fence is (at least partly) about defending institutions from the kinds of demagogues who would destroy them with dangerous rhetoric. I know Saruman and Wormtongue use threats of violence rather than rhetoric. And no, Dr. Peterson isn’t saying anything even remotely similar to the claim that might as right. He’s saying for individualism to survive, society needs good collective institutions and those need to be protected from aggression sometimes through violent means. Nothing about that says might makes right
@matityaloran9157 Yes, it does say that if you think it through. What he is saying is that militarism is the solution to achieve a free and open civil society. You know who else said that? Hitler.
to add, it was nixons administration that desegregated louisiana. your comparing the conservatives during the 60s to the conservatives today. two entirely different camps of people. not a fair comparison specially considering the very same politians who were democrats then are either still democrats now or died democrats. youre also comparing the classical liberals to the modern liberals. two also entirely oposite groups of people.
Jordan explains Pinocchio Me: "Hey this guy really understands a work of fiction, even one that's a morality tale." Jordan explains Lord of the Rings Me: "Are you saying that I read maybe the first book, watched the films, saw tidbits of Analyzing Evil, and still understand it better than this guy?"
As a former Peterson fan who knows his work pretty well (he's cringe now), and HUGE Tolkien fan, I think your interpretation of what he's saying is pretty inaccurate. What he means by conservative and liberal, when talking about the Rangers and Hobbits, isn't strictly in the modern political sense. It's about the ancient and almost forgotten structures that hold up society (values, ideals, laws, social institutions etc., here: Rangers) and the more accidental, everyday people who can live in this society and have a nice time without thinking too much about their protection (Hobbits). The idea was to say that they both have the tendency to take those ancient structures for granted because they're so used to living within them. I also don't think Peterson peddles an ideology of control and domination (basically the evil flipside of the benevolent Rangers), but rather thinks that we are losing our Rangers and need them back. That we're forgetting our structuring foundations and will fall if we don't renew them.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Peterson doesn’t read sources, he reads summaries and Cliff’s Notes. He speaks extensively about Marxism, but apparently hasn’t read Marx. He speaks extensively about post-modernism, but apparently hasn’t read any post-modernists. It doesn’t surprise me that he hasn’t read Tolkien. But how can this be? Isn’t Peterson the product of rigorous academia? Not really. Peterson is a psychologist and originally a professor of psychology. What we are witnessing is a person with specialty expertise that has a lot of opinions in areas where he is ignorant, but who has the delusion that he has mastered these other areas.
Good video. I obviously get what Peterson is saying (the modern libs can only be lib as long as the conservatives are doing the important man stuff), but that was a poorly considered analogy. He just compared the liberals to some of the most humble, courageous and isolationist people in Tolkien's world, while ignoring the arrogance and flaws of Men.
In that one way, there's a valuable comparison: like today's complacent liberals and leftists, the hobbits live a day's ride from foes that would freeze their hearts, and have little to no understanding of what has to be done to keep them safe. They are parochial and prefer to have little to do with the occasional strange men who come up the Greenway or Dwarves travelling to the western hills. Eccentrics like Gandalf, and still worse Bilbo, are looked at askance. The four hobbits of the Fellowship soon come to realise how limited the perspective of their countrymen was; and so do they, once Sharkey's men come, and the outside world, in which they took little interest, starts taking an interest in them.
@@karlsweeney2328 bahaha though if someone did have a limited intellect then they would think word salad doesnt exist and is somehow valid. Peterson has been mocked for his word salad use for years and rightfully so.
@@karlsweeney2328 "he's been mocked by people who can't keep up with him." Although this might be true for some, most of the people I have seen mocking him are far from stupid, and able to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. In the early days, you might have had a point, but since then, Peterson has disappeared up his own arse, and anyone attempting to defend the nonsense he comes out with only manages to undermine their own credibility.
Hes speaking of the ignorance that the hobbits are blessed/cursed (depending how you see it) with because of the efforts of others that allow them that mindset. Also that adding of so much extra that JP never even talked about was just weird and projecting.
The Hobbits of the Shire were highly conservative and didn't think highly of other Hobbits such as the ones from Bree. The Bree Hobbits thought Shire Hobbits were country bumpkins. It is clear that Peterson didn't read the books.
They were tribalistic, and, daresay, simplistic, enjoying their own ways and company, and anyone who lived more than a couple days ride from them were considered "queer" and strange. It took four of them stepping outside their bubble (one, Frodo, had already been taught non-hobbit lore and language by Bilbo) and traveling to other lands and meeting other people to open their eyes to a less narrow-minded way of thinking. Then they traveled for months with a multi-racial group, learned the value of ideals and beliefs outside their own while still maintaining cooperation, cohesion, and respect as well as risking their lives in combat together. Almost like they joined the military or something. I know Tolkien said he disliked allegory, but an author can't help but be influenced by their personal experiences.
He was never highly respected. Hes a psychologist who failed upward after getting famous for telling 15 year old boys to clean their rooms and get a job. The man has published a few papers of relevance in his field, but the media attention he got was entirely unconnected with that. Also, psychology as a whole is a joke in academia, 75% of the papers published in psych journals are complete nonsense and cannot be replicated. Calling any psychologist in the 21st century a "highly respected intellectual" is probably incorrect.
That was a really good ending to your video. "...but we should also remember that gates aren't only built to keep people out. They're often built to keep people in. And we should always be wary of the person so eager to be the gatekeeper." Well said!
@@TheSuperappelflap - Very well! But would you have, if you were? I have found that most non-Americans have an opinion about the US president. Just curious -- which country are you a citizen of? I'm a dual citizen of US and UK, living in the UK
@@cyberherbalist I favor Trump, for the sole reason that he actually pulled out of the middle east, and to me, living on the European mainland, that is the part of American foreign policy that has the most impact on my life. We are having a bit of an issue with the refugees from all those American escapades in the middle east, and a lot of people pretending to be refugees to get asylum in the EU.
So when Peterson identifies as English liberal he may have meant English as apposed to French: "While the British liberal tradition has emphasized expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasized rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building." What I've heard is that the spirit of British liberalism is about freedom from government and French liberalism is about freedom from nature. So British liberalism acknowledges an existence of the way the world works and that actions have consequences where French liberalism believes anyone can be anything and the only reason someone isn't what they want to be is because government or society stopped them. They believe there is no such thing as bad people for example and all people that do bad things are victims of society and or government (sounds familiar) and in no way can they be held responsible for any bad choices they made. I think British liberalism allows to make bad choices but if you bother others with the consequences of those bad choices then you'd be punished. His words at 7:35 I think translate to: Liberal individualism can only exist in a homogeneous society where most most people agree and their disagreement would not cause large conflicts. To then jump from there to liberals can only exist as long as conservatives protect them doesn't sound right to me. Especially not in the sense of soldiers protecting them. It makes some sense to me to say that a moral backbone protects you from liberalism in the sense that when "the science" tells you a certain thing it doesn't automatically mean that eugenics becomes a good thing. Especially in the kind of liberalism that seeks freedom from nature/reality.
British liberalism was generally in favour of the free market and manufactures and industrialism; British conservatism was generally based among rural landowners opposed to capitalism and advocating for rural Tory values, even if if meant the government doing the job for them.
Most of the observations about LOTR are recieved opinions from bad faith actors. The issue is that The Rings of Power opened the floodgates for a political tug of war which only damages the IP, what's the point when Peter Jackson's adaptation is never ever going to be bested?
Jackson's adaptation of The Lord of the Rings is one of the worst literary adaptations ever made. Jackson has, at best, a six year old child's understanding of Tolkien's works.
I think what he meant at 7:40, emphasis on think, who knows what he meant, was that the type of liberal individualism ignores basic needs that the collective provides. Basically calling them commies. That's based on what he might think as an anti-""liberal"".
I was unfamiliar with the phrase "liberal individualism", but it sounds a lot like... libertarianism? At first I thought Peterson was trying to explain that libertarians benefit from a system that provides for the common good, which is a luxury they wouldn't have if society was run by libertarians. I could've agreed with that, but he went off the rails and lost me with his nonsense analogies.
@@faynarawn4164 libertarianism is just a new word for classical liberalism. Peterson btw doesnt argue against liberalism, he just argues for totalitarian fascism.
Unfortunately Peterson is misusing a offhandedly sketched version of the Shire as a (bad) allegory. He doesn't literally mean the Hobbits are liberals, nor that the Shire is a kingdom. He's trying (poorly) to talk about a small insular homogenous group that has some similarities with the Shire as a conceptual space. But there are better examples that don't make you sound like an ignoramus, so it's just bad all around.
if you fail to communicate your point you are wrong. Peterson doesn't get a "actually he's right he just said it wrong" get out of being wrong card, specifically becuase literally his ENTIRE SCHTICK is "let's be precise, words matter!!!!!"
Hmm yeah, I would like to know what he actually meant there. He DID call the Shire a 'little kingdom' which shows heavy lore misunderstanding, but it could also be his way of talking/joking. But even so, 'the West' isn't what it represents, the human realms of Gondor and Rohan are also, and moreso, part of that 'West' allegory. The hobbits represent humble, happy smallfolk who prefer simple lives more than any singular real world culture. I think Jeff's horrible show has put back attention to the Tolkien world, so now it is again being used and talked about in the culture war, like it was in the 70s.
@@glanni No, he did not call the shire a 'little kingdom", he said the Hobbits were content to keep to themselves, with no care for the outside world. They cared only for 'their own little kingdoms" is not a Literal phrase. The saying 'a man's home is his castle" does not literally mean everyone lives in a castle...
You're comment "he says he viewed himself as a British Liberal, even though he's Canadian" is as stupid as anything JBP hypothetically said or implied here. That's as dumb as saying "the striders". It's a category mistake.
@@johnjackson9767 (bad Kermit voice) What Beowulf was facing with Grendel were the woke Jutes telling the Geats what to do, because the Jutes were obsessed with Gender and King Hrothgar wouldn't clean his room. So clean your room everyone or the liberal Jutes will come with the son of Cain.
The Hobbit's of the shire were small c Consevatives, insular and mostly uninterested in the outside world. But that has little or nothing to do with modern politics as they were old school Respectable folk who largely minded their own business, apart from some gossiping about neighbors (such as Bilbo and Frodo) who weren't proper Respectable folk.
A good argument well put. Peterson across the board constantly bends and twists these stories into his odd little box. To anyone with a mind peterson is a joke.
10:00 i'm sorry to be that guy, but it was more like 19 years that Frodo had it before it broke him. Boromir broke after a couple with out even direct contact
No, I think he's right. If it weren't in the nature/will of the big people (the Men of Gondor & the Dunedain) to face up to the big fight of the world, the shirefolk wouldn't have had the freedom to remain "little". Hobbits don't enlist with the Rangers of Ithilien or send relief riders to the Eorlingas. They stay in their homes and gardens where its comfortable. The conservative struggle to defend Eriador's borders (borders they too depend upon) is far away and strange to them. When true evil arrives on their doorstep and asks for directions, they graciously provide them and slam the door.
I have scarce few times in my adult life inadvertently found myself imitating a churchgoer at an AME Church. Every other word out of your mouth JSG, was accompanied by an amen from mine.
Jordan p, has just become a political populist pushing conservative and right wing stances, as someone who now only inspires people that are in desperate need of inspiration. He has simply eaten his own pie, and thinks he’s the greatest mind in modern times. This however, neither makes him right or good. Lord of the rings makes far more sense in analysis within its own context than it ever will in an ideological one, as it represents all aspects of human nature, not human ideology. I hate when its universalism is undermined by people who have no love for the universe or author…
Jordan isn't analyzing LotR, he is using it as an Allegory for his points about society. That is what you and JSG are completely missing. You are taking him literally and mistaking him as describing the books/films, when he is using the books/films as an example to convey a concept.
Nice conclusion! In the past I've sadly made the mistake of confusing Peterson's "philosophy" with a sort of humble conservative nice-guy attitude, like many others. But over the last two years it seems to me that he always has been around to make excuses for megalomania and authocracy preying on easy targets by bashing hardcore Communism and promoting mental gymnastics for incels.
This video comes as a surprise. Never would've thought you'd fail in content about LotR... The most atrocious part to me is when you consider Boromir as a representative of the "conservatives", who gives in the to the desire for one ring, while hailing hobbits as "leftists" who saved everyone. Why are you being disingenuous? Boromor ultimately did not get the ring and then gave his life to protect the "leftist" hobbits. Consequences for one's actions - foreign concept for the leftists, by the way. Also, remember a guy called Gollum? A hobbit. Went pretty mad after encountering the ring. So, according to your own theory - we have a "leftist" who killed a fellow "leftist" because of greed, and we have a "conservative" who wanted power to protect his people. How interesting. Do us all a favor and stick to pure LotR content. Avoid commenting on politics, because frankly, you suck at it.
Tolkien asked that the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit not be used as allegories but pompous folk like Lord Peterson pay no attention. Rather then Fool of a Took. in Peterson's case it's Fool of a egotist. No, we won't call Hobbit's liberals but we will can call Peterson a right wing agitator.
There is a noted point in Tolkien's work... That of the town folk and the country folk. Not all town folk are bad, and not all country folk are stupid... But enough are to form a stereotype. The fact is that Tolkien didn't follow that and so the Hobbits, these are the simple country folk who will help anyone they find that needs it, don't hesitate when the world needs their help. There are also analogies between the haves and the have-nots.
Sorry my guy I love your content but I think you maybe don't understand liberals don't have to be leftists? Not that I would ever want to be even what was considered a classical liberal, but those that would from basically the 70s on back would be horrified at what the modern idea and identity of a liberal is. Peterson is using the classical definition which still many people go by.
Tolkien was a Christian Englishman who saw huge value in tradition and pursuing the greater good.
The hobbits in my opinion would be best described as traditionalists.
Hobbits if anything were the "common people", not the cityfolk but the ones living in the countryside that keep things going during both wars that since werent directly affected by the Blitz didnt had a full understanding of the effects of war but they were also considering Tolkien time, the ones a lot of the enlisted come from so they were willing to fight. Its a theme of community and how tight are the smaller villages in the countryside. This is part why the Hobbits werent interested as a whole in the War against Sauron since he wasnt (yet) directly threatening then but individual Hobbits were willing to do so.
This is why the Burning of the Shire is important, its a "footnote" but it shows the Hobbits when threatened were willing to fight and they did, I also think its to show how Sam, Frodo, Merry, and Pippin changed from when they left the Shire, just like the people that left to fight the war returned changed but not in a bad way, after all only Frodo eventually leaves as the other 3 simply return to their old life.
@@drakron Well said.
It's also worth noting that Tolkien was against modern industrialisation and enjoyed the more old fashioned traditions of agriculture and industry... Even though you cannot stop modern trends... He hoped they would not destroy the world (You see this in how Saruman treats Isengard and how the Ents react when they see what he did.)
@@Kalamain
There are different paradigms of “order” and opposing visions on what “conservatives” ought to conserve. Hobbits could be compared to rural conservatives while Saruman represents neoconservatism, ESPECIALLY nowadays. Contrast the Amish with the likes of Liz Cheney. Both would identity as “conservatives” but their opposition was made manifest.
No one really said they couldn't be described as traditionalists. But then again, Peterson never actually said the hobbits were leftists. He was actually just comparing the peaceful state of the Shire and the potential dangerous outcome of believing that security without adventure doesn't always guarantee continued security.
@@drakronwell put.
common folk who value tradition, culture and community.
It harps back to the Englishmen of old very proud and protective of their way of life and against any fast change.
Sam does eventually leave middle earth and meet Frodo in Valanor after the passing of Rosie.
I found Tolkien’s description of the Hobbits as ordinary men must come from his appreciation of the ordinary farming and industrial workers he commanded as a junior officer in WW1 and on his countryside walks. Very interesting
Exactly
Tolkien himself said he’s most like the hobbits.
@@seangriffin5524 Basically Tolkien lamented the industrialisation and the erosion of the traditional ways of life in the rural areas surrounding Birmingham (which were fast being gobbled up by the city). I do believe he was also influenced by some of the men he commanded. But broadly speaking the Shire serves as his romantic English arcadia prior to the arrival of the forces that would transform that world in the service of money and power.
I think it's really nice and cozy. Just an appreciation for regular working people who have a deep intrinsic appreciation for peace.
In our real world they still sent many of their sons to war so they aren't really utopian in the real world and neither are they in arda because a bad harvest or a group of hungry dwarves could really mess things up for them.
Hobbits living and enjoying the simple pleasures of life, passing on traditions and reaping the rewards of their labour is something to strive for. The idea of wanting to live a happy life and pass things down to your progeny isn't political.
"All analogies are flawed, but some analogies are more flawed than others." - J.R.R Orwell [probably]
Proudfeet good - two towers baaaaad! George Tolkien (possibly)
Classical Liberal wants to focus on cultural issues instead of economic issues and becomes a conservative > Conservative becomes a Catholic to avoid adopting a certain ideology from the 1930s > Catholic becomes a monarchist TradCath that loves Aquinas, Chesterton, Lewis, and Tolkien "because the Pope is woke."
😂
All analogies are equal, but some are more equal than others
I don't think Peterson is implying that hobbits are liberals. He is comparing, in a general sense, the Hobbits' ignorance of who and what keeps their lands relatively free of conflict so that they can enjoy their contented lives to ignorance commonly found amongst purveyors of leftist ideologies like socialism and communism. It is plain, to me at least, that Peterson is not suggesting this is Tolkien's explicit or even implicit meaning, but rather that the ignorance of the hobbits is analogous to the ignorance of the left. Also, British liberalism is a school of thought. Classic liberalism as referenced by Peterson and Rubin is not 'liberal' as we describe it in American politics. To frame the liberalism of the French and American Revolutions as you have is inaccurate.
This is a perfect comment, and you saved me from having to watch a video from a schmendrick.
Exactly...
Best me to it,. especially the differences between classical liberal and modern American liberal
They are NOT left, when tolkien himself comprared them in one of his letters with the average conservative brit of his time. If anything, they might be anarchic, but thats nostly because there is no real power or authority structure in action and people are self governing but adhering to old customs and norms of their society.
@@gil-gaergaladriellion9188You’re confused the same way the guy who made the video is, Peterson isn’t saying that they are leftist (both literally in that he never uses that word and figuratively in the sense that they hold that political view) he is saying they can be looked at as representing liberals (which is an ideology that both the left and right can hold btw) as in classically liberal and making the comparison that people can have a liberal mindset because the more traditionalist minded minded people are protecting them. It’s like if he said the strippers at the strip are like the liberals but they can only be free to do this because of the bouncers and police who protect them, it’s an apt analogy but it’s confusing the point to say “so you’re saying a guy who works as a bouncer at a strip club is a traditional conservative? I highly doubt it” because that is missing the point entirely
I've always had so much sympathy for Boromir. Desperate leader seeing his country losing - sees a wondrous weapon that can turn the tide and save his people. He didn't seek the ring for glory, but for service, speaking of a life spent in glorious service. Tragic.
He is the folly of the noble man. When he is tempted by the ring, I would say he falls into the madness and personifies "the ends justify the means" in a way as well.
@@Liquidsback but it wasn't Boromir's fault, the nature of the ring itself is dark as has Sauron essence in it... the ring had an aura of power and corruption because that was its only purpose dominion and control, naively Boromir and in desperation he thinks using the one ring as a weapon or war, but because of ignorance he doesn't understand the implications of it, then there at the Council of Elrond further is elaborated on the matter of the usage of the One Ring by whoever wields it, it is a test for Galadriel at Lorien if you remember that...
yes, but that was because of ignorance about the One Ring, he doesn't understand how it works...
Boromir reminds me very much of Isuldir.
A flawed man, with good intentions, fighting for the survival of his people against the forces of great and seemingly unassailable Evil.
@@Nexus-6
Isildur was depicted incorrectly in the movie. So was Faramir.
He may be using the classical definition of 'Liberal'; one who does not seek to impose his rules on others, or force his outcomes. The word 'Liberal' seems to have been re-defined for modern Left-Right uses, as indeed have Left and Right.
Yes, Liberalism created the modern left and right ... socialism for example in Europe doesnt have the same charge as it does in America and the whole "left-right" division is a lot due to the political landscape in the Anglophone countries that lead to the current balkanization of politics. That if, of course, great to galvanize people when its "Us" vs "Them" and why I very much dislike it considering the amount of power the US over the rest of the world due to their cultural weight, their current neurosis just managed to find their way in countries that shouldnt have such problems.
Oh yes, Peterson is known for using whichever definitions suit his argument at the moment, and pretending like everyone's following his definitions.
Yeah. Left and right was more concerning state operated vs free market. Now there seems to be more concern with how you feel about trannies.
Not "may" - he explicitly does. Both by using the definition of "British liberal" (to discard the north American popular & wrong usage of the term), and by focusing on "liberal individualism" and freedoms of the hobbits - two distinct pillars of classical liberalism which are fundamental for the ideologies of both sides of the American aisle.
@@thebign2398
It all depends on what any given generation is trying to conserve or further liberalize. The moment you find your most comfortable balance, like Dave Rubin did with gay rights, but don’t like what’s being proposed for further liberalization, SURPRISE! You are now a “conservative” conserving your preferred balance!
How does it go over most people’s heads that Peterson is a Chatician, (or Chaologist), or a psychologist in the same way Michael Crichton’s character “Ian Malcolm” was a mathematician. Peterson is focused on the psychology side of chaos theory, instead of the mathematical side of it.
"A classic is a book that everyone talks about but no one ever reads."
--Mark Twain
Yeah, but a classic is talked about. Why would you read it if you knew about it already through numerous talks?
@@Antropovichso you would actually understand what the talks are about. Why would you not read classics and form your own opinion rather than relying on the opinions of others (who may well even be wrong)?
@@birgittabirgersdatter8082 Yes, Agreed. I wasn't supporting the idea, I was explaining it. It takes effort to read.
Ask literally everyone you meet ... "have you ever read a book written by Mark Twain."
You're going to get 99% Nos and 1% lies.
@@AColonDashSix Yeah, I'm in the minority who actually has read his work.
While Tolkien was certainly a social conservative he also very much anti technology and hated the direction the world was going.
You can’t really peg him with model political compasses.
I'm not sure what country you're in, but Tolkien's politics seem fairly consistent with a tradition of conservativism in the UK - from Edmund Burke up to people like Roger Scruton and Maurice Glassman.
Hating technology is pretty normal for the more stubborn conservatives.
JRRT wanted to go back to living in an agrarian feudal society. He mentioned this in an interview with the BBC back in 1965.
He could get pretty extreme, he supported Francisco Franco in 1944 and expressed admiration for the British fascist poet Roy Campbell for fighting for Franco in the Spanish Civil War. He would even compare Campbell to Aragorn, then named Trotter.
Overall, Tolkien was an interesting and complicated historical figure. A simpler man could never have written LOTR.
Traditionalist best describes Tolkien
He also opposed the idea of allegory, so it's a pointless play overall.
@@IndusRiverFlow Tolkien's vocal support for Franco was based on the Republicans un-aliving Catholics. (As Tolkien was not a socialist, it is unlikely he would have supported the Republicans in any event, but that was the causal effect).
The Hobbits aren't left or right. Keep modern politics out of the LOTR.
Yep yep... We can't have nice things nomore
he was just making an example and putting things in a political light for those that are interested.
the lefty progressives broke his brain... sigh. enjoyed his early work with rogan
@@tooslow4065 True, but Tolkien would disagree.
+1
Can people whose entire identity is based around their political affiliation STOP analyzing Lord of the Rings PLEASE!?
Stopping makes too much sense for people to ACTUALLY do it.
Or ANY & ALL entertainment. Like Starship Troopers.
Why, it makes MUNEY!!! That's what all this is about, that is why things that are not "woke" are labeled "woke" for outrage to the algorithmic gods and "representation" is just something shallow to get people/ a new audience to see product. "Cause it's all....part of the plan"
Spoiler alert: they can't.
Can people whose entire identity revolves around make-believe stories stop making videos about politics
You know Tolkien was a monarchist right?
He was a great man with great thoughts
Based on what evidence? May you produce this evidence?
@@ericjohnson7234 Letter to his son "My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) - or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy." [...]"Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. And at least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo efiscopari as the best reasona man could give to others for making him a bishop. Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers. "
Peterson's point is that the Hobbit's lifestyle is ultimately at the mercy of better men who are both willing to commit defensive violence that benefits their peaceful society (holding of Sauron and the orc hordes) and overall tolerate the Hobbit's existence within their province. The orcs would absolutely DECIMATE the shires if they successful pushed through the border of Mordor, and if literally ANY of the other races/kingdoms just decided to put the Hobbits beneath their metaphorical and quite literal boots beneath them for WHATEVER reason, chances are that Hobbit's aren't going to be able to do anything to really stop it because of how inexperienced they are to violence due to their ignorance of the possible dangers outside the shire. They wouldn't see it coming, they would be completely unprepared for it and it would most likely be their downfall because of it.
Indeed. Look at how much harm and death greatly diminished Saruman did with his bandit horde to the Shire until war veterans Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin came back; rallied them to fight and throw off the bargain basement dark lord.
You missed the point, I think. There's so much here I disagree with, but I'll humbly make what I think Petersons point is. You have a boadered land, a simple individualistic people, a liberal culture blind to the outside world, provided the freedom to be such by the rightful and just protector of all they hold dear. Jordan Peterson is expanding upon Galdors quote to Frodo, "the world is wide and all around you. You can fence yourselves in, but cannot forever fence it out"
The Hobbits are oblivious to the world, their simple way of life is protected by the rightful and just lineage of kingly guard.
before criticizing someone you need to understand, or at least try to understand what he is trying to say. JP is trying to make a point about the nature of culture, that leisure, comforts and peace require structure, protection of borders by men of war.. One cannot exist without the other, and people the "liberals" he claims are people who ignore that fact of life. He is not trying to analyze LOTR. His points still stand, because he uses that story as example, you totally missed the point.
Tolkien was nothing if not a conservative traditionalist with a great love for England and its ordinary people. The Hobbits represent England and it's ordinary people whose enormous courage and humility inspired Tolkien in the trenches. It is an ethnic thing and has nothing to do with politics, no matter how much people try to make it so.
Ever since the 1960s we have struggled to deal with the growing ideology that "everything is political." These people are insufferable. They twist everything into their political viewpoints, no matter how baseless the idea is. If I want to smoke a Cuban cigar, it does NOT mean I support the politics of Fidel Castro. But they will insist it is so. I say this thinking is a mental disorder that needs rooted out...
The irony here is there is a valid and lore accurate right-wing-friendly way of describing the Hobbits as traditionalists who just want to be left alone but are surprisingly competent if roused. Not my thing but it's a perfectly acceptable reading. it's not the one that appeals to Peterson so he'll describe them as hippy losers who probably don't make their own beds and have never even seen a lobster instead.
@@spaceknight793 Exactly. "The private is political" is such an inane and outright destructive approach.
@@eschizas Fundamentally, the Hobbits and Hobbiton represent the archetype of the perfect 'Home'. They represent home to the psyche - exactly what someone in the trenches on the Somme dreamed of....
Indeed and given that Tolkien was born at the tail end of the 19th century? His version of being a conservative traditionalist has very, very little in common with 21st century American Conservatism and Traditionalism.
Tolkien's works are so expansive. I'm an above average, I think, enjoyer of Tolkien, but i'm NO scholar by any means. Yet I am surprised that the Shire would be considered liberal in anyway.
The Shire is an idealized (not utopian, as this video mentions) rural England. Its system of aristocracy would be unacceptable to most liberals. Liberalism as an ideology started with beheading aristocrats.
They are literally those that pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They are farmers and gardeners and builders. But they are also aristocratic and theives and murders. There are hard workers and lazy people. But mostly, they just enjoy simple pleasures in life. They don't need more than they need. Their wants are mostly not outlandish. It was one of the things that saved Samwise from the ring. He didn't need to make a garden out of middle earth. A small plot of land to tend was all he ever needed.
@@IndusRiverFlow “Liberalism as an ideology started with beheading aristocrats” errrrm what? Liberalism was born from hundreds of years of development of the English political system and its constitutional body of common law. Perhaps you mean that *revolutionary* ideology was started with beheading aristocrats eg French Revolution?
I wouldn’t place our politics on to anyone from Tolkien’s universe, he hated that. But I would think if you force it they have pretty conservative values. Want to be left alone to live the way they want and live and don’t like any change or things out of the ordinary. Again though, to place our politics in that world is the last thing we should ever do.
The liberals are soo vile. Noo way the Shire is like them.
It wasn't about the hobbits per se. It was just saying that the hobbits couldn't live their lives without the other races keeping the others from their borders...He just used it since most people have seen the Lord of the Rings and understand what hobbits are...
Didn't the hobbits send a company of archers to aid King Arvedui in the Battle of Fornost?
Yes, though I believe it's also recorded that no one really knows what happened to them.
@@eowynsisterdaughter You are quite right. I'm sorry I didn't explain myself more fully. When the king granted the Shire as a fief to the hobbits they became the his vassals. In answering the king's call to arms they were fulfilling the conditions of their vassalage. What was Peterson thinking? That the king had his own army in the way modern nation states do? His arguments seem to show that he has no clue regarding feudal obligation. Or he didn't realize that Aragorn was not king at the time when he alluded to his rangers protecting the Shire and Bree.
@missanne2908 I was by no means offering criticism. It was more like, "oh I get the reference he's making, sweet! I'll offer what I remember about it."
It does come across like Peterson just isn't very familiar with Tolkien and Tolkien's works, and that he's unaware that Tolkien is an author who cordially despises allegory in all its iterations.
They say they did. Nobody else seems to have noticed, which could be just a case of overlooking a small (in both meanings of the word) contingent in a very large battle.
If we're arguing intentions of the author, Tolkien believed firmly in tradition, God, and duty, none of which are concurrent with modern left-leaning politics. Tolkien would absolutely be right of centre, and quite staunchly so.
I get the criticism against Peterson but his analogy isnt wtong if you understood what he meant
There was a scene in the second movie of LOTR where i think represents what peterson was saying.
when merry snd pippin were in the forest with the ents. Pippin the most hobbit of the group said,"we should just go home. we dont belong here. in war."
But amerry replied, " You don't get it. if something is not done there will be no home for us go back to."
Which i think captures what Peterson is saying the Utopia and idealism of liberals can only exists kin the pragmatism and blood of a conservative mind set.
11:19 - As a Bible-reading Christian, no, we have the same issue with Peterson. He cannot exegete a passage to save his life.
When he comments on Tolkien, you're experiencing what we have seen for years when he tries to psychoanalyse the Bible.
Welcome to the land of frustration.
The Bible is the most evil book ever written. Alongside the Koran.
@@Siegfried5846what’s this coming from lol, the Bible isn’t the most evil book ever written many utilize it towards evil ends however
@@Adam-TheLiftedKing The people using the Bible for Good outweigh those using it for Ill by orders of magnitude. Easy to spit on the Bible when the society it produced is so tolerant.
Peterson did a biblical lecture series were he cited Jung, Dostoevsky, Disneys lion king and Pinocchio and not one biblical scholar.
Strangely, as an atheist, I have the very same problem with him.
Peterson with the "How do you do fellow kids" energy.
Wait, that's Jordan Peterson? I thought Kermit the Frog was just left to dry in the hot sun.
Just like modern "fans" in media, games, books, and comics.
Con$umer$.
Which is hilarious considering Tolkien is 4 generations older than Peterson.
I think you need friends... You have over 100 comments on this channel. :"(
Petterson was drowned so much in the cultural war he cleary can't see well and his political bias is not allowing him a precise interpretation of Tolkien... I can see that by how he is seeing the Hobbits.
The witchhunt really broke him.
@christianschulz1443 yeah and in a bad sense and is sad hoy much
@@christianschulz1443 So did his handlers - Rubin was probably one of them
Jordy tries so damn hard to be relevant, nomatter how, that he ends up with the brutally impaired Rubin and this excruciatingly dimwitted Nonsense. Good Grief!
How Embarrassing! 🤦
I’m someone who likes him, generally. But I think he’s fame went to his head and so he tries to have an opinion of everything, instead of sticking to his lane. I like his Jungian psychology and mythological stuff that his professionally trained in, but beyond that, I take his opinion with a pinch of salt.
Ah Jordan Peterson, world renowned self appointed expert on literally everything.
Except fashion.
The modern-day Professor Irwin Corey -- just, Jordie is UNintentionally funny.
@@nevarmaor “what was the question?” 😂
@@panhradu haha I think I you’ll find he is the world expert on fashion too.
They don't call it 'psychobabble' for naught. He's a 'conservative' sam harris, getting high off his own farts.
Tempest in a teapot. Peterson was just referring to the fact that a careless, naive and idealistic community (or subculture, „let's say liberals") can only exist in a larger community that has pragmatic, hard-headed, down-to-earth people around, who defend the gates of their "paradise".
So... basically, Krakoa is in the l Xmen comics? Lol
No he wasn't. Nice try. I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.
Okay, so everyone who doesnt serve in the army is now a liberal. Got it, chief.
You know there's an ideology that very narrowly aligns with your world view. Just let go of the pretense and embrace what you are. It starts with an F.
And it's still just an assertion, one withan awful lot of holes in it when you start looking at the realities underlying it.
Jordan Peterson adores what he calls "dominance hierarchy" - he thinks it's an immutable law of nature that inherently superior men, like him, should make the rules and boss everyone around. The way to get ahead, in his mind, is to emulate guys like that! Anyone with the slightest understanding of Tolkien knows that he was quite the opposite: he utterly despised tyranny, bullying and the love of power.
He's basically Satanic.
Surely the hobbits are an affectionate take on what liberal metropolitan Brits would call "little englanders" i.e. people who are happy with their simple way of life, broadly suspicious of outsiders and who unfortunately get caught up in the schemes of their betters and end up on the battlefield. The Shire is clearly a romantic English idyl prior to the forces of industrialisation and modernisation. Tolkien greatly lamented the gobbling up of the countryside around Birmingham (where he lived) and seemed to have a fondness for the rural folk who lived there. He was also probably influenced by the loyalty and steadfastness of some of the men he commanded in the trenches . Pretty much all the hobbit surnames are anglo-saxon (i.e. non-norman).
That is correct, and because nothing in LotR is a simple morality tale, they also have some of the potential flaws of Little Englandism, such as a lack of interest in international relations which eventually exposes them to danger, and a narrow-mindedness towards other cultures. Tolkien was no imperialist, but the times made it clear that just sitting at home ignoring the outside world would not necessarily be enough to protect England from war.
I like JP.
I like Tolkien.
I like Frank Herbert.
They are all very smart, and they have takes on each other's work; that I don't entirely agree with.
I know a smart man, very knowledgeable in the works of other smart men. I think we were talking about Neitzche or Freud.
He told me that many geniuses, have one insight - one perfectly clear insight into the nature of the world; and it's brilliant.
And then they spend the rest of their lives, chasing another revelation, or applying the one they had to everything - whether it fits or not.
I've found that broadly to be true.
JP's insight was about the nature of self-efficacy; which is why he's clashed with people over pronouns, and helped so many young men lift themselves up out of depression and life failure. It's the same idea, that *other people cannot be relied apon to give you the validation you need, no matter how strongly you feel you need it.*
The only way to guarantee your success, is to find validation through *control of your own environment, and actions.*
Same idea, applied to all.
Now he's gone on to politics and philosophy, and he's not dumb - so he makes it work, but it's not the same level of quality as the one insight he really *got.*
You just did the same thing Peterson did, but instead called the Hobbits right-leaning.
Jfc, you are no better.
People who shared Peterson’s ideology in Tolkien’s day actually called LotR and The Hobbit and even some of C.S.Lewis’s work “satanic” and corrupting.
The notion in his works that the heroes did the right thing simply because it was the right thing to do (not because they were seeking an eternal reward or trying to avoid eternal torment) is probably the theme that makes his works so beloved by so many people.
It was only satanic to some modern Protestants. Tolkien was always immensely popular amongst Catholics because, as the Tolkien himself put it: his work is filled with Catholic symbolism and meaning
@@crimsonthumos3905 Protestants accuse of Catholicism of absorbing certain aspects of paganism. That's why in America you get strange cults like Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Messianic Judaism (Hebrew Roots people that can't decide if they want to say Yah, Yeshua, Yashua, Yashuah, Yahushua, etc).
Jesus himself has a parable about how doing the right thing is its own reward. It’s not even one of the most obscure ones, like, it’s not easy to misinterpret. Sometimes I wonder if these people even read their own Scripture😅
You really think frodo would have left the shire on his own to do the right thing? Man was drug out of the shire by a warlock.
@@crimsonthumos3905 It's satanic in the sense that the Hobbit and LOTR are totally free of organized religion. No temples or churches, no religious services or worship, not even warriors calling on or cursing the gods in battle.
Peterson - like others - is an expert for everything now.
exactly.
Actually he is the opposite. He’s pathetic.
Nah.. JP is just referencing the Lord of the Rings as a reflection of the positive Western values.
What? Liberals!? They represented the common people. People that the reader related to. Living day to day, social circles, blah blah!
The problem with Peterson is that he tries to boil everything down to black and white, and, like Freud, it is painted by his own beliefs.
That’s not how people work.
7:54, he just said that for individualism to survive, you need to have military protections for society
Yea was about to comment the same... I actually see the hobbits as a conservative society with a pacifist complex but it still rings true you can't have a pacifist society without a strong structured world. Ie a military or a planet wide bureaucracy or something else that allows the society to do as they wish. Think you might both be wrong... And right
@ Exactly
Interesting as always on Tolkien, but JSG clearly hasn't read up on the French Revolution. Edmund Burke's critique laid the principles for modern conservativism, and he's considered correct on this by both the right and left in the Anglophone tradition. Why? Because the Terror followed, then Napoleon's wars (after which the British were the dominant power in Europe), and the destabilisation of France continued forth from that point (it's had 15 constitutions between the French Revolution and today). By contrast, the British have had one (although some argue Blair fundamentally changed it) and led the world for 100 years after Napoleon fell. This meant that the French were still living under the tyranny of kings long after the British (anti-revolutionaries) had left this behind - it's difficult to specify the exact point they left it behind, some would say The Glorious Revolution, others after George III.
France lived under the tyranny of kings because the British and its few allies decimated plans for a democratic Europe by Napolean by warring against him. The British actively reinstalled puppet crowns across Europe, France included, because it wanted to maintain a status quo in which it maintained a stranglehold on the Global economy. This myopic policy would come back to bite as soon Prussia would industrialize and soon Germany would emerge and the European economy would be ravaged under WW1, shifting power to the U.S. The British prevented democracy in Europe.
It might be argued that the British still have a ruling class in a way that the French do not, because the French killed enough of them to break the continuity. I mean, how many people in positions of power in Britain aren't rich people who went to Oxford? The old boys network continues. Which might help explain why to this day, Britain has significantly higher inequality than France (although both are getting worse, so maybe France will catch up at some point).
And while the Terror was certainly real, it is rarely remembered that even at its height it didn't actually judicially kill more people per year than the Ancien Regime did, and didn't generally torture them to death the way the Ancien Regime did. The status quo immediately before the Revolution was extremely bloody. It's just that the people the Ancien Regime would "break on the wheel" or draw and quarter or whatever were little people who didn't matter, so to this day nobody really cares . . . they're not considered to count. Suddenly if it's nobles getting it in the neck, that's Terror.
@@purplelibraryguy8729 The continuity was broken to an extent by Napoleon's new Nobility of the Empire (though, even there, some old nobility were allowed back in). There was the Bourbon Restoration, however. I'm just not sure of the raw numbers to know either way - something for me to look into.
If you have a source for the claim about comparative deaths, I'd very much like to look it up. I'm sceptical, though, and your focus is strange: why would only judicial killing be important? If the revolution leads to more extrajudicial killing (in mob violence), that is surely noteworthy. According to a 'The Conversation' piece I found on this, there were 15,000-17,000 guillotine executions in the revolution - most occurring during the Terror. Then there were another 20,000 shot, stabbed, or drowned during the Terror. 85% of those killed were commoners, 6.5% clergy, and only 8.5% nobility.
Then let's also consider the consequences down the line: 170,000 civilians killed in the Wars of the Vendée, and 700,000 French soldiers dead from 1792-1815.
The British constitution is way smaller in scope than any of those French constitutions and did way less to limit the power of the king and the aristocracy. Bad comparison. The first chamber of the british government is still called the house of lords lmao.
@@TheSuperappelflap "The British constitution is way smaller in scope than *any* of those French constitutions and did way less to limit the power of the king and the aristocracy." - Okay, let's take the July Monarchy. Louis-Philippe had actual powers of appointment. In Britain, William IV's powers of appointment were ceremonial.
"Bad comparison." They're both comparable qua constitutions.
"The first chamber of the british government is still called the house of lords lmao" -The first chamber of the British government is called the House of Commons; basic research can help you.
6:56 so… you think the exact point that Peterson is making would sound weird to Peterson and his ilk? He never said they did it because they were superior or anything, his point was that the hobbits were free to be LIBERAL (not “leftist”) because they were being protected by traditionalists
I came here for Fool of a took! and was not disappointed
If the hobbits represent anything, they represent infancy. They're (mostly) simply creatures who enjoy simple pleasures, unconcerned with the world at large. Until one of them acquires powers and he's forced to leave and venture into a world he doesn't know or understand with the help of several mentors. The reasons why reading the LOTR as a kid is such a powerful experience (at least one of the reasons) is that it's a coming of age story. My two cents
Agree. Children, as naive as they are, are much less corrupt and do not seek power, that's why they are one of the symbols of Christianity.
That's ironic because some would say that leftist views are infantile
@lokiopensloloc5680 There are deep thinkers on both sides as well as simple minded, childish folks who struggle with anything more complex than a political leaftet. Hobbits may be children in the biblical sense - the image of a simple, pure, humble, sinless faith.
Splitting hairs here, but do you ascribe the term "infancy" for traditional cultures, say rural Tibetans for example? Naivete or innocence I can see, but we can assume Hobbits had to deal with death and disease (and definitely some unpleasant relations), and Frodo was 50 when setting off. Merry and Pippin certainly came of age during the story. It's a heroes' quest story.
@@hyvakoira Children are pretty horrible in general hideous bullying etc.
Ironically Tolkien was socially conservative and the LOTR does to some extent reflect that, but I fancy he would have despised the likes of JBP especially because of his running "intellectual cover" for Trumpism.
I thought Aragorn was also patrolling the Shire because Gandalf suspected Bilbo’s ring was the One Ring. Anyway, sad to see Peterson hasn’t read some of the most important works of fiction in human history. I thought he was intelligent but using a major work to explain something, when you clearly haven’t read the major work, is very stupid.
Some of the most important works of fiction like? I've seen none in the video.
I disagree that the Hobbits don't think they're better than everyone else. They certainly do lol.
All your zero evidence is very convincing.
Jordan, is that you?
I fear Peterson is not the same calibur of academic nor intellectual as Tolkien. Again, thank you for defending him (Tolkien) from political misappropriation from all sides.
He's not far off. Or rather he wasn't far off in his early years. Either way I blame his government for his downfall. Trudeau is a piece of shit and literally everyone sees it now. It's tragic he ended up with the daily wire and not his own thing but I cannot blame him. Despite his choice he is compromised either way. This is what politics do to academics.
how many degrees did tolkien have again?
@@tooslow4065 Which of the two actually did something with their lives again?
@@tooslow4065 Cute. Fanboying again?
What did Benzo-Petey lost again? 🤔 His License? Or was it something else...? Ah, who cares?!
For an Incel he may be something Special, but in the real World he's just a Smartass who runs for the Dollar after his 15 Minutes are long gone.
To compare Tolkien who wrote the most read Novel in Human History and this whiny Has-Been is as if one compared A. Einstein with G. W. Bush.
The greatest Insult imaginable.
Bye 👋 u🤡
@@tooslow4065 Tolkien will be remembered as one of the greatest writers in history as long as there are humans to remember. Peterson will be remembered as a fad for 13 year old edge lords.
A sad reminder that intellect can be blinding. Jordan Peterson is highly intelligent, yet he clearly lacks wisdom, and he has grown ideologically captured. Quite sad, because I thought he was more discerning and nuanced.
Not only is "clever" not necessarily wise, but "too clever by half" is the antithesis to wisdom.
@@deliaschuster2395 Indeed. He does tend to overreach on occasion. I respect Peterson for all the good that he has done and is doing, but I'm disillusioned about the amount of wisdom he actually brings to the table. This is a good lesson about not putting people on pedestals, and watching and listening with a critical, questioning mindset.
@@TubeMage13 What good has he done?
@@genovayork2468 He is a celebrated psychologist with many years of experience. He lacks wisdom in some areas, but possesses much in others. He's been a very positive influence on many young men, inspiring them to live good, meaningful lives, especially in this day and age where society tends to denigrate them. He has also generated as well as kept alive conversation about many important topics (his many youtube interviews are worth checking).
@@TubeMage13 No. He says basic 3 year old things.
Shire is Tolkien era England. Isolated island which hard to acces with king protector and with homogene population which cooperate on everything and dont really need goverment or ruler.
"To control the opposition we must lead it ourselves" Lenin
Peterson is a perfect example of that tactic, he doesn't really care about tradition he just pretends to, which probably explains why his knowledge of Tolkien mirrors that of Amazon.
What a burn well done.
I don’t think Lenin is saying what you think he’s saying there.
@@ludviglidstrom6924 When are you people going to stop politicizing Lenin? /s
@@ludviglidstrom6924 No I don't think he means what YOU think he means whatever the F that is 🤷♂
@@akizeta When the families which funded his movement and still continue to fund it today are in jail
It’s funny cause it seems like the Paradigm Shift is affecting BOTH sides.
Obviously the loony left needs to be gone yesterday, but these type of Anti-Fun guys like Peterson who I really enjoy from time to time and Walsh who brings up some good points need to chill out too
They are two sides of the same coin, you may not remember but 20 years ago the Walsh types were pretty bad and kill joys.
@ I would have been only 5 at the time lol but yeah I can see that
Walsh actively spreads misinformation with charged language. He’s a manipulator.
Glad those who thought conservatives were suddenly trying to bring something new to the table are beginning to open their eyes.
@@Lultschful I wouldn’t go that far lol the Paradigm Shift IS the Conservatives bring new stuff while the Left are set in their old antiquated ways, the new Punk is the Right while the fuddy diddy old heads are the Left.
I agree with Jordan on a few things but this is a bad take on Tolkien and his work. He’s smart but as we all know even smart people say the dumbest things. He clearly doesn’t understand Tolkien and doesn’t intend to.
Smart people i know dont say dumbest things. Thats why i think they are smart
Well, thank you for your honesty.
Smart isn't the same as wise
The last few years, he seems to have gone down a Christian/Jewish rabbit hole as the answer to everything.
Now it colours everything he says. The clip in the video alludes to the Garden of Eden (imo), for example.
@@Avtomatik Lol, that's why those "smart" people aren't your friends, you get to look at them from afar cause if you do you'll never say that.
People trying to make Tolkien political as they show they know NOTHING of his work is infuriating.
The shire exists because it's far away from any power bases that would want to claim it. That's really it, Saruman took it over after being crushed during the war, during the Scouring.
And then the hobbits took it back.
Saruman took it because the Rangers left to the last war. With them on their borders Saruman could never.
The term "liberal" has a classical connotation that does not harmonize with the contemporary "left". Jordan Peterson uses the word to describe himself. As do I. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, right to privacy, etc. These are liberal values.
JSG is a LEFTIST, and dislikes liberal values. That is why he hates JBP and cant stand him talking about Tolkien.
you are reading too much into it. Peterson is just using the hobbits as an example. The hobbits are indeed individualists in that they don't want to care about the big events of the world. They want to be left alone. This mentality can represent both letist hippie mentality or right libertarian mentality, that is not the point. The thing is you can allow yourself to not care about the rest of the world, wars, politics, power, until the events care about you. Reading the hobbits as the left would not mean they are inferior in the eyes of Peterson. You can see what Frodo and Sam were able to do precisely as part of typical hippie spirit: caring for others from a purely empathic point of view, willing to sacrifice themselves in a somehow idealistic way, not to be heroes or to gain fame, fortune, prestige or wealth but because is the right thing to do. That would not change the fact that they are a kind of nature loving hippies that don't want to care about what is beyond their bubble. Kingdoms, power, wealth, influence, hyerarchies, industries, armies, exist whether they like it or not and you would not be able to live as a hobbit if it were not for all those things creating a specific kind of world. I think using Tolkien and the hobbits to exemplify this idea is not that wrong
You don't seem to understand hobbits.
Jordan Peterson is living proof that the "political spectrum" is just a circle. All the cluelessness of the Rings of Power writers, all the same devotion to pushing an anti-individualistic and totalitarian ideology that falls apart under scrutiny, but somehow he's considered "opposed" to them despite being functionally interchangeable.
Both sides are controlled.
None push. You are delulu.
Jordan Peterson is about as knowledgeable on the Bible as he is in LotR. He hasn't done enough study on either to be considered as subject matter proficient.
Most of his learning on both subjects comes from conversations with other people and their opinions, rather than direct studies on the original texts.
I think he's had a few puffs too many of longbottom leaf
I thought Peterson's categorizing the Hobbits as "liberals" was a little strange, too, but let's not pretend that what he and Rubin were saying is that hard to discern: You can't have a society without an agreed-upon set of rules, and nearly all of those rules will have been established before you were born. What conservatives by and large oppose is the changing of these rules in the service of ideology without regard for consequences. As Chesterton wrote, "Before you tear down a fence, ask why the fence was put up." Peterson sees the Striders as the keepers of the fence. And it's clear from the Scouring of the Shire that the Hobbits were themselves defenseless against Saruman and Wormtongue's new ideas.
Exactly
Good point
Saruman didnt come along with "new ideas" he came along with better weapons.
So the argument boils down to, might is right, and whoever doesnt seek to wield and exercise more power is naive and weak. Which checks out exactly considering its Peterson saying it.
@@TheSuperappelflap Saruman came along with a willingness to pretend that he had powers that he didn’t. Chesterson’s fence is (at least partly) about defending institutions from the kinds of demagogues who would destroy them with dangerous rhetoric. I know Saruman and Wormtongue use threats of violence rather than rhetoric. And no, Dr. Peterson isn’t saying anything even remotely similar to the claim that might as right. He’s saying for individualism to survive, society needs good collective institutions and those need to be protected from aggression sometimes through violent means. Nothing about that says might makes right
@matityaloran9157 Yes, it does say that if you think it through. What he is saying is that militarism is the solution to achieve a free and open civil society. You know who else said that? Hitler.
This video is right for all the wrong reasons and peterson is wrong for all the right reasons.
I would kill to see Jordie debate this with Professor Tolkien himself
@Just Some Guy
You really missed the mark on this one.
to add, it was nixons administration that desegregated louisiana.
your comparing the conservatives during the 60s to the conservatives today. two entirely different camps of people.
not a fair comparison specially considering the very same politians who were democrats then are either still democrats now or died democrats.
youre also comparing the classical liberals to the modern liberals. two also entirely oposite groups of people.
Jordan explains Pinocchio
Me: "Hey this guy really understands a work of fiction, even one that's a morality tale."
Jordan explains Lord of the Rings
Me: "Are you saying that I read maybe the first book, watched the films, saw tidbits of Analyzing Evil, and still understand it better than this guy?"
The use of the corruption "tidbit" rather than "titbit" is somewhat annoying, but I guess that's US puritanism, again.
No, you actually dont
@@TOAOM123 How would you know?
As a former Peterson fan who knows his work pretty well (he's cringe now), and HUGE Tolkien fan, I think your interpretation of what he's saying is pretty inaccurate. What he means by conservative and liberal, when talking about the Rangers and Hobbits, isn't strictly in the modern political sense. It's about the ancient and almost forgotten structures that hold up society (values, ideals, laws, social institutions etc., here: Rangers) and the more accidental, everyday people who can live in this society and have a nice time without thinking too much about their protection (Hobbits). The idea was to say that they both have the tendency to take those ancient structures for granted because they're so used to living within them. I also don't think Peterson peddles an ideology of control and domination (basically the evil flipside of the benevolent Rangers), but rather thinks that we are losing our Rangers and need them back. That we're forgetting our structuring foundations and will fall if we don't renew them.
Agree. Jordan went into field of culture war and it's there for a while now, bending the logic to his beliefs.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Peterson doesn’t read sources, he reads summaries and Cliff’s Notes. He speaks extensively about Marxism, but apparently hasn’t read Marx. He speaks extensively about post-modernism, but apparently hasn’t read any post-modernists. It doesn’t surprise me that he hasn’t read Tolkien.
But how can this be? Isn’t Peterson the product of rigorous academia? Not really. Peterson is a psychologist and originally a professor of psychology. What we are witnessing is a person with specialty expertise that has a lot of opinions in areas where he is ignorant, but who has the delusion that he has mastered these other areas.
Good video. I obviously get what Peterson is saying (the modern libs can only be lib as long as the conservatives are doing the important man stuff), but that was a poorly considered analogy. He just compared the liberals to some of the most humble, courageous and isolationist people in Tolkien's world, while ignoring the arrogance and flaws of Men.
Peterson doesn't understand liberalism any more than he understands Tolkien. He should stick what little he does know.
So liberals can't be humble, courageous and isolationist? Ok far right nut.
In that one way, there's a valuable comparison: like today's complacent liberals and leftists, the hobbits live a day's ride from foes that would freeze their hearts, and have little to no understanding of what has to be done to keep them safe. They are parochial and prefer to have little to do with the occasional strange men who come up the Greenway or Dwarves travelling to the western hills. Eccentrics like Gandalf, and still worse Bilbo, are looked at askance. The four hobbits of the Fellowship soon come to realise how limited the perspective of their countrymen was; and so do they, once Sharkey's men come, and the outside world, in which they took little interest, starts taking an interest in them.
instead of pipe weed Peterson smokes word salad.
@@karlsweeney2328 bahaha though if someone did have a limited intellect then they would think word salad doesnt exist and is somehow valid. Peterson has been mocked for his word salad use for years and rightfully so.
@@karlsweeney2328 if someone is trying to defend word salad the best you can hope for is a bahahahaha. For shame.
@@karlsweeney2328 then we agree.
@@purefoldnz3070 clearly, Peterson, doesn’t smoke enough good pipe weed🔥☘️👌, ☁️☁️☁️
@@karlsweeney2328 "he's been mocked by people who can't keep up with him."
Although this might be true for some, most of the people I have seen mocking him are far from stupid, and able to point out that the Emperor has no clothes.
In the early days, you might have had a point, but since then, Peterson has disappeared up his own arse, and anyone attempting to defend the nonsense he comes out with only manages to undermine their own credibility.
Hes speaking of the ignorance that the hobbits are blessed/cursed (depending how you see it) with because of the efforts of others that allow them that mindset. Also that adding of so much extra that JP never even talked about was just weird and projecting.
The Hobbits of the Shire were highly conservative and didn't think highly of other Hobbits such as the ones from Bree. The Bree Hobbits thought Shire Hobbits were country bumpkins. It is clear that Peterson didn't read the books.
They were tribalistic, and, daresay, simplistic, enjoying their own ways and company, and anyone who lived more than a couple days ride from them were considered "queer" and strange. It took four of them stepping outside their bubble (one, Frodo, had already been taught non-hobbit lore and language by Bilbo) and traveling to other lands and meeting other people to open their eyes to a less narrow-minded way of thinking.
Then they traveled for months with a multi-racial group, learned the value of ideals and beliefs outside their own while still maintaining cooperation, cohesion, and respect as well as risking their lives in combat together. Almost like they joined the military or something. I know Tolkien said he disliked allegory, but an author can't help but be influenced by their personal experiences.
I'm not even sure if he has even watched the movies
It is clear nobody here, even JSG, watched Jordan's video or understood what he was saying.
“ Stop projecting “. Good advice.
Years ago, Peterson was a highly respected intellectual. Now he’s gone full blown religious extremism
He was never highly respected. Hes a psychologist who failed upward after getting famous for telling 15 year old boys to clean their rooms and get a job. The man has published a few papers of relevance in his field, but the media attention he got was entirely unconnected with that.
Also, psychology as a whole is a joke in academia, 75% of the papers published in psych journals are complete nonsense and cannot be replicated. Calling any psychologist in the 21st century a "highly respected intellectual" is probably incorrect.
In other words, he has come to the same conclusion that our ancestors already knew was correct.
Atheism is destroying humanity, not liberating it.
That was a really good ending to your video. "...but we should also remember that gates aren't only built to keep people out. They're often built to keep people in. And we should always be wary of the person so eager to be the gatekeeper." Well said!
This entire video is JSG gatekeeping LOTR lore
I like Jordan Peterson a lot. But in no way is he correct about everything. This is one of those times.
Every time he opens his mouth is one of those times.
@@TheSuperappelflap If you think that, then I'll bet you voted for Biden and Kamala.
@@cyberherbalist im not american
@@TheSuperappelflap - Very well! But would you have, if you were? I have found that most non-Americans have an opinion about the US president.
Just curious -- which country are you a citizen of? I'm a dual citizen of US and UK, living in the UK
@@cyberherbalist I favor Trump, for the sole reason that he actually pulled out of the middle east, and to me, living on the European mainland, that is the part of American foreign policy that has the most impact on my life. We are having a bit of an issue with the refugees from all those American escapades in the middle east, and a lot of people pretending to be refugees to get asylum in the EU.
The media analysis section of the brains of folks like Peterson is severely lacking, which is indicative of a lot of modern social issues.
So when Peterson identifies as English liberal he may have meant English as apposed to French: "While the British liberal tradition has emphasized expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasized rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building." What I've heard is that the spirit of British liberalism is about freedom from government and French liberalism is about freedom from nature. So British liberalism acknowledges an existence of the way the world works and that actions have consequences where French liberalism believes anyone can be anything and the only reason someone isn't what they want to be is because government or society stopped them. They believe there is no such thing as bad people for example and all people that do bad things are victims of society and or government (sounds familiar) and in no way can they be held responsible for any bad choices they made. I think British liberalism allows to make bad choices but if you bother others with the consequences of those bad choices then you'd be punished.
His words at 7:35 I think translate to: Liberal individualism can only exist in a homogeneous society where most most people agree and their disagreement would not cause large conflicts. To then jump from there to liberals can only exist as long as conservatives protect them doesn't sound right to me. Especially not in the sense of soldiers protecting them. It makes some sense to me to say that a moral backbone protects you from liberalism in the sense that when "the science" tells you a certain thing it doesn't automatically mean that eugenics becomes a good thing. Especially in the kind of liberalism that seeks freedom from nature/reality.
British liberalism was generally in favour of the free market and manufactures and industrialism; British conservatism was generally based among rural landowners opposed to capitalism and advocating for rural Tory values, even if if meant the government doing the job for them.
Most of the observations about LOTR are recieved opinions from bad faith actors. The issue is that The Rings of Power opened the floodgates for a political tug of war which only damages the IP, what's the point when Peter Jackson's adaptation is never ever going to be bested?
Jackson's adaptation of The Lord of the Rings is one of the worst literary adaptations ever made. Jackson has, at best, a six year old child's understanding of Tolkien's works.
Sounds like all Petersons knowledge about lotr comes from rings of power, shame.
Just pretend he didn't say hobbits and instead current people running around right now. Makes perfect sense.
I think what he meant at 7:40, emphasis on think, who knows what he meant, was that the type of liberal individualism ignores basic needs that the collective provides. Basically calling them commies. That's based on what he might think as an anti-""liberal"".
I was unfamiliar with the phrase "liberal individualism", but it sounds a lot like... libertarianism? At first I thought Peterson was trying to explain that libertarians benefit from a system that provides for the common good, which is a luxury they wouldn't have if society was run by libertarians. I could've agreed with that, but he went off the rails and lost me with his nonsense analogies.
@@faynarawn4164 libertarianism is just a new word for classical liberalism.
Peterson btw doesnt argue against liberalism, he just argues for totalitarian fascism.
A lot of terminological confusion here…
Unfortunately Peterson is misusing a offhandedly sketched version of the Shire as a (bad) allegory.
He doesn't literally mean the Hobbits are liberals, nor that the Shire is a kingdom.
He's trying (poorly) to talk about a small insular homogenous group that has some similarities with the Shire as a conceptual space.
But there are better examples that don't make you sound like an ignoramus, so it's just bad all around.
if you fail to communicate your point you are wrong. Peterson doesn't get a "actually he's right he just said it wrong" get out of being wrong card, specifically becuase literally his ENTIRE SCHTICK is "let's be precise, words matter!!!!!"
If Peterson couldn't explain his point himself, he gets no points for someone in a TH-cam comment trying to do it for him.
@@Blisterdude123 Ha! 👍
At 2:05, what makes you think Jordan is saying "liberal" (as in left-wing) and not "Liberal" (the philosophy that underlies "The West")?
Hmm yeah, I would like to know what he actually meant there.
He DID call the Shire a 'little kingdom' which shows heavy lore misunderstanding, but it could also be his way of talking/joking.
But even so, 'the West' isn't what it represents, the human realms of Gondor and Rohan are also, and moreso, part of that 'West' allegory. The hobbits represent humble, happy smallfolk who prefer simple lives more than any singular real world culture.
I think Jeff's horrible show has put back attention to the Tolkien world, so now it is again being used and talked about in the culture war, like it was in the 70s.
The contempt with with he says it. He says classical liberalism when he refers to it.
@@glanni No, he did not call the shire a 'little kingdom", he said the Hobbits were content to keep to themselves, with no care for the outside world. They cared only for 'their own little kingdoms" is not a Literal phrase.
The saying 'a man's home is his castle" does not literally mean everyone lives in a castle...
You're comment "he says he viewed himself as a British Liberal, even though he's Canadian" is as stupid as anything JBP hypothetically said or implied here. That's as dumb as saying "the striders". It's a category mistake.
The Hobbits are probably the ultimate small “c” conservatives.
Peterson is talking about Liberalism as in Enlightenment, not American politics.
@@johnjackson9767 (Bad Kermit voice) Well, what I actually meant was....
@@Liquidsback I find Peterson foolish on a number of things, but this video and comments are peak irony
@@johnjackson9767 (bad Kermit voice) What Beowulf was facing with Grendel were the woke Jutes telling the Geats what to do, because the Jutes were obsessed with Gender and King Hrothgar wouldn't clean his room. So clean your room everyone or the liberal Jutes will come with the son of Cain.
@@johnjackson9767 No he intentionally equivocates on the definition of "Liberal".
The Hobbit's of the shire were small c Consevatives, insular and mostly uninterested in the outside world. But that has little or nothing to do with modern politics as they were old school Respectable folk who largely minded their own business, apart from some gossiping about neighbors (such as Bilbo and Frodo) who weren't proper Respectable folk.
Sorry dude, you’re just wrong on this one. The WHOLE point!
A good argument well put. Peterson across the board constantly bends and twists these stories into his odd little box. To anyone with a mind peterson is a joke.
...the hobbits are typical old-style middle class English gentlemen and women. They are in no way comparable to the modern liberals.
Correct, which is not what JBP said.
10:00 i'm sorry to be that guy, but it was more like 19 years that Frodo had it before it broke him. Boromir broke after a couple with out even direct contact
No, I think he's right. If it weren't in the nature/will of the big people (the Men of Gondor & the Dunedain) to face up to the big fight of the world, the shirefolk wouldn't have had the freedom to remain "little". Hobbits don't enlist with the Rangers of Ithilien or send relief riders to the Eorlingas. They stay in their homes and gardens where its comfortable. The conservative struggle to defend Eriador's borders (borders they too depend upon) is far away and strange to them. When true evil arrives on their doorstep and asks for directions, they graciously provide them and slam the door.
So Tolkien will never be able to Rest In Peace, huh. 😞
I have scarce few times in my adult life inadvertently found myself imitating a churchgoer at an AME Church. Every other word out of your mouth JSG, was accompanied by an amen from mine.
Jordan p, has just become a political populist pushing conservative and right wing stances, as someone who now only inspires people that are in desperate need of inspiration. He has simply eaten his own pie, and thinks he’s the greatest mind in modern times. This however, neither makes him right or good. Lord of the rings makes far more sense in analysis within its own context than it ever will in an ideological one, as it represents all aspects of human nature, not human ideology. I hate when its universalism is undermined by people who have no love for the universe or author…
Jordan isn't analyzing LotR, he is using it as an Allegory for his points about society. That is what you and JSG are completely missing. You are taking him literally and mistaking him as describing the books/films, when he is using the books/films as an example to convey a concept.
Nice conclusion! In the past I've sadly made the mistake of confusing Peterson's "philosophy" with a sort of humble conservative nice-guy attitude, like many others. But over the last two years it seems to me that he always has been around to make excuses for megalomania and authocracy preying on easy targets by bashing hardcore Communism and promoting mental gymnastics for incels.
He doesn't get it? No surprise here, it takes a soul to understand Tolkien
Hobbits are "the little guy".
This video comes as a surprise. Never would've thought you'd fail in content about LotR...
The most atrocious part to me is when you consider Boromir as a representative of the "conservatives", who gives in the to the desire for one ring, while hailing hobbits as "leftists" who saved everyone.
Why are you being disingenuous? Boromor ultimately did not get the ring and then gave his life to protect the "leftist" hobbits. Consequences for one's actions - foreign concept for the leftists, by the way.
Also, remember a guy called Gollum? A hobbit. Went pretty mad after encountering the ring.
So, according to your own theory - we have a "leftist" who killed a fellow "leftist" because of greed, and we have a "conservative" who wanted power to protect his people. How interesting.
Do us all a favor and stick to pure LotR content. Avoid commenting on politics, because frankly, you suck at it.
Tolkien asked that the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit not be used as allegories but pompous folk like Lord Peterson pay no attention. Rather then Fool of a Took. in Peterson's case it's Fool of a egotist. No, we won't call Hobbit's liberals but we will can call Peterson a right wing agitator.
Let me guess, smaug something something, the dragon of chaos something something?
There is a noted point in Tolkien's work... That of the town folk and the country folk.
Not all town folk are bad, and not all country folk are stupid... But enough are to form a stereotype.
The fact is that Tolkien didn't follow that and so the Hobbits, these are the simple country folk who will help anyone they find that needs it, don't hesitate when the world needs their help.
There are also analogies between the haves and the have-nots.
Ouch! It’s rangers not striders…😂
Rangers who stride
Sorry my guy I love your content but I think you maybe don't understand liberals don't have to be leftists? Not that I would ever want to be even what was considered a classical liberal, but those that would from basically the 70s on back would be horrified at what the modern idea and identity of a liberal is. Peterson is using the classical definition which still many people go by.
King of the fools?
He's definitely riffin' with no person able or willing to call him out for jumping the shark!
I love that you made this video.