@@1906Farnsworth Peterson of coarse. Rand is a great mind there is nothing to say other wise. And for Peterson a man with such “intellect” to say otherwise is telling and eyebrow raising
Well he does depise rationalists and objectivists simply because they're not into fictional storytelling like he is. Which is why he becomes an easy target for skeptics, rationalists, empiricists and objectivists to squash...and rightly so.
Rand definitely wins Question 2 but Question 1 is a hard one and Peterson has a point about the reality of pain, but I agree with Rand's emphasis that pain should be fought and humans should stand upright.
Ayn rand way of thinking is clear and strait forward. Peterson way have contradictions and that mean it's not right. 1 + 1 = 2. There shouldn't be any contradiction. If there is, "Check your premises" - from atlas shrug "People that worship pain" - from atlas shrugged
I enjoyed this critique of Peterson's ideas. This is not a counterpoint to the speaker's points, but it might be worth exploring the intended audience for his perspective. Peterson has stated many times that he is (I'm paraphrasing) reaching out to the disenfranchised and the lost. These folks already have a miserable view of existence and Peterson seems to share that view. His approach doesn't seem to be an attempt to alter their worldview, but to give them a framework and toolbox for navigating misery and finding purpose. It can be difficult for others without this worldview to understand the need for structure in the lives of people like his intended audience. I read 12 Rules less as a philosophy of sorts and more as a type of self-help book for the helpless and forgotten.
Peterson definitely has found an audience. In our culture there are two major orientations of living. One, is to recognize that all values, especially those that created this country, are suspicious or immoral. Two, is to recognize that you are a member of an oppressed minority whose values can be derived by reading the great books of literature and taking religion seriously after you clean your room. Rand promotes a third alternative. Man can achieve happiness on this earth through the proper use of his mind. All values that man depends on were made through his efforts. Productive work, as your central purpose, will bring great joy. You are worthy of living and owe no man no unchosen obligations. Suffering is not required and when you are working long term, the temporary setbacks do not matter.
@@BalugaWhale37 I won't speak to the first two orientations you outline, other than to say that they miss a lot of what people actually think. Some folks orient themselves along both lines, some along neither and some along lines I can't imagine. With respect to Rand's alternative, I don't think Peterson's worldview conflicts with the idea that productive work, and finding a central purpose, can bring joy. He may differ in opinion about our obligations to one another, but I don't want to put words in his mouth. The problem with Rand's thesis is that "great joy" and the scope and potential for joy, differ immensely between individuals. Many people will suffer internally and externally, even when they work towards a goal, irrespective of their accomplishments. The cause of this suffering could be social expectations, mental health, or economic conditions. Whatever the case, many people are in a state of "not joy" and will remain so despite any philosophical orientation or pursuits. Peterson acknowledges these people and attempts to give them the tools to chart a path toward a more rewarding life. Peterson himself is obviously one of these people and has spoken candidly about his worldview and the daily struggle it brings and the joy he gets from his work. One of the reasons he resonates with so many is that he doesn't shy away from the internal conflict he feels daily. He let's them know that it's okay to work through their current conditions and grounds them in actionable and rewarding goals. To say that suffering "isn't required" kind of misses the point. It is required for those who feel it and for many it won't go away. Peterson isn't talking to those for whom suffering "isn't required." It doesn't matter whether value is derived from a divine source or from the efforts of man in the pursuit of joy. I don't agree with Peterson on much of anything, but its important to acknowledge what he is attempting to accomplish, even if we don't agree with his theological or symbolic positioning. If it works, it works. People aren't logical, they are rational. He is appealing to the rational and universal elements of our shared experiences. Everyone experiences suffering and everyone experiences joy. I don't think it much matters which is more essential.
Suffering is a bit like heat. Some think it's a thing of it's own, some think it's the goal in life, in avoiding it, without realizing it's a product of something that is actually a thing.
The essential difference is that Objectivism requires a rational view of life whereas Peterson follows a religious doctrine with its assumed faith in a premise for our existence. It is difficult for him because he is one of the few rational voices in the social sciences..
7:26 “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the Glory that will be revealed in us. For our momentary ‘light’ affliction is preparing us bear an eternal ‘weight’ of Glory far beyond all comparison, . . . II Corinthians 4: 16-17.
When your method of knowing the world is corrupted by religious tradition, you will experience suffering. The trouble with mystical thinking is that you cannot reliably distinguish between practices that are effective and practices that are not. While Peterson can conserve good ideas like cleaning your room before you the criticize the world, he cannot tell you why it's a bad idea to revere a common symbol of torture set on your bedroom wall.
Petersen is too Christian in his beliefs. He's either pandering to that certain crown to profit or he believes it and is a funny example of a "scientist/psycologist" who subverts himself with religion. Sort of like Christian scientists, using a totally different belief system to justify their existing system of belief.
Suffering and pain are the heat of the forge. Both Peterson and Rand are off target. Not enough pain, you will always be soft. Too much pain, you will be brittle. The right amount of pain--you become tempered steel. But that doesn't mean that suffering makes steel. If you don't have enough carbon in the metal, it will never get hard. And if you have too much carbon, the metal is nearly unworkable.
5:02 I think Jordan is closer to what is revealed in the Scriptures than Rand. The wounds Jesus suffered on a Roman gibbet are that and not scars! Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the cosmos, - slain, from the foundation of the cosmos!
@@kenjohnson5124 No, really. If you're self esteem or whatever is welded to your notion of a supernatural being that created and runs everything and will take care of you because Lamb of God etc., why are you even bothering with reality and reason oriented people?
@@lefantomer Where did you come from? Why do you exist? How is your consciousness attached to your molecules? Where does the code come from that operates every function of every cell in your body? How can you trust the thoughts of your brain?
@@lefantomer If you have an open mind, and we’re assuming we have minds and our thoughts are not matter and energy, but operating in the realm of matter and energy, go read “The Abolition of Man”, by C.S.Lewis.
@@TeaParty1776 The "pain" that you are talking about is the only thing that will get you to that "view" to actually see what is important in your life. So pain is important.
@@MrSix9Three Pain is nature's warning sign of failure in living. Importance exists only because life exists and can cease existing. Nothing is important to matter which changes form (wood to ash) but always exists. Only life requires successful action to continue existing. Food is important for life to continue. Your hidden context is death-worship. Mans independent, focused mind is important for his life.
@@TeaParty1776 You are correct. Food is important for life to continue. The pain of hunger makes you search for food and that is what is important, is all i am saying. Have a good day.
![[Bad] - YouTube ВСЁ? (победа VK и прощание с подписчиками)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pQ1bCOW5270/mqdefault.jpg)
Ever since I saw Jordan say Ayn Rand was “not a great mind” I’ve been skeptical ever since
Skeptical of Rand or Peterson?
@@1906Farnsworth Peterson of coarse. Rand is a great mind there is nothing to say other wise. And for Peterson a man with such “intellect” to say otherwise is telling and eyebrow raising
Well he does depise rationalists and objectivists simply because they're not into fictional storytelling like he is.
Which is why he becomes an easy target for skeptics, rationalists, empiricists and objectivists to squash...and rightly so.
A credible explanation here is that in the passages highlighted in the video, Peterson speaks in terms of "is"... Rand speaks in terms of "ought".
Rand definitely wins Question 2 but Question 1 is a hard one and Peterson has a point about the reality of pain, but I agree with Rand's emphasis that pain should be fought and humans should stand upright.
Peterson has said in speeches that achieving happiness in life should not be the goal of life
Rand said just the opposite
He said the goal in life is to minimize suffering as much as possible.
@Marco N.V.T I agree with Ayn Rand. But I also agree With Jordan Peterson
@@stratinolampino No contradictions in reality
@@TeaParty1776 what contradictory statements have I made?
@@stratinolampino Both happiness and minimizing suffering as goal of life.
Ayn rand way of thinking is clear and strait forward. Peterson way have contradictions and that mean it's not right.
1 + 1 = 2. There shouldn't be any contradiction. If there is, "Check your premises" - from atlas shrug
"People that worship pain" - from atlas shrugged
I enjoyed this critique of Peterson's ideas. This is not a counterpoint to the speaker's points, but it might be worth exploring the intended audience for his perspective. Peterson has stated many times that he is (I'm paraphrasing) reaching out to the disenfranchised and the lost. These folks already have a miserable view of existence and Peterson seems to share that view. His approach doesn't seem to be an attempt to alter their worldview, but to give them a framework and toolbox for navigating misery and finding purpose. It can be difficult for others without this worldview to understand the need for structure in the lives of people like his intended audience. I read 12 Rules less as a philosophy of sorts and more as a type of self-help book for the helpless and forgotten.
Peterson definitely has found an audience. In our culture there are two major orientations of living. One, is to recognize that all values, especially those that created this country, are suspicious or immoral. Two, is to recognize that you are a member of an oppressed minority whose values can be derived by reading the great books of literature and taking religion seriously after you clean your room. Rand promotes a third alternative. Man can achieve happiness on this earth through the proper use of his mind. All values that man depends on were made through his efforts. Productive work, as your central purpose, will bring great joy. You are worthy of living and owe no man no unchosen obligations. Suffering is not required and when you are working long term, the temporary setbacks do not matter.
@@BalugaWhale37 I won't speak to the first two orientations you outline, other than to say that they miss a lot of what people actually think. Some folks orient themselves along both lines, some along neither and some along lines I can't imagine. With respect to Rand's alternative, I don't think Peterson's worldview conflicts with the idea that productive work, and finding a central purpose, can bring joy. He may differ in opinion about our obligations to one another, but I don't want to put words in his mouth. The problem with Rand's thesis is that "great joy" and the scope and potential for joy, differ immensely between individuals. Many people will suffer internally and externally, even when they work towards a goal, irrespective of their accomplishments. The cause of this suffering could be social expectations, mental health, or economic conditions. Whatever the case, many people are in a state of "not joy" and will remain so despite any philosophical orientation or pursuits. Peterson acknowledges these people and attempts to give them the tools to chart a path toward a more rewarding life. Peterson himself is obviously one of these people and has spoken candidly about his worldview and the daily struggle it brings and the joy he gets from his work. One of the reasons he resonates with so many is that he doesn't shy away from the internal conflict he feels daily. He let's them know that it's okay to work through their current conditions and grounds them in actionable and rewarding goals. To say that suffering "isn't required" kind of misses the point. It is required for those who feel it and for many it won't go away. Peterson isn't talking to those for whom suffering "isn't required." It doesn't matter whether value is derived from a divine source or from the efforts of man in the pursuit of joy. I don't agree with Peterson on much of anything, but its important to acknowledge what he is attempting to accomplish, even if we don't agree with his theological or symbolic positioning. If it works, it works. People aren't logical, they are rational. He is appealing to the rational and universal elements of our shared experiences. Everyone experiences suffering and everyone experiences joy. I don't think it much matters which is more essential.
>navigating misery
Ie, evading happiness
@@TeaParty1776 Respectfully, this comment illustrates my point.
@@giodif Evidence would only weaken your faith. Stay strong.
Suffering is a bit like heat. Some think it's a thing of it's own, some think it's the goal in life, in avoiding it, without realizing it's a product of something that is actually a thing.
The essential difference is that Objectivism requires a rational view of life whereas Peterson follows a religious doctrine with its assumed faith in a premise for our existence. It is difficult for him because he is one of the few rational voices in the social sciences..
Faith is an evasion of reason.
7:26 “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the Glory that will be revealed in us. For our momentary ‘light’ affliction is preparing us bear an eternal ‘weight’ of Glory far beyond all comparison, . . . II Corinthians 4: 16-17.
When your method of knowing the world is corrupted by religious tradition, you will experience suffering. The trouble with mystical thinking is that you cannot reliably distinguish between practices that are effective and practices that are not. While Peterson can conserve good ideas like cleaning your room before you the criticize the world, he cannot tell you why it's a bad idea to revere a common symbol of torture set on your bedroom wall.
Petersen is too Christian in his beliefs. He's either pandering to that certain crown to profit or he believes it and is a funny example of a "scientist/psycologist" who subverts himself with religion. Sort of like Christian scientists, using a totally different belief system to justify their existing system of belief.
I see no contradiction, just paradox.
Your intuition is noted. Now try focusing your mind.
Why do you use sexist language?
Suffering and pain are the heat of the forge. Both Peterson and Rand are off target. Not enough pain, you will always be soft. Too much pain, you will be brittle. The right amount of pain--you become tempered steel. But that doesn't mean that suffering makes steel. If you don't have enough carbon in the metal, it will never get hard. And if you have too much carbon, the metal is nearly unworkable.
5:02 I think Jordan is closer to what is revealed in the Scriptures than Rand. The wounds Jesus suffered on a Roman gibbet are that and not scars! Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the cosmos, - slain, from the foundation of the cosmos!
I fail to understand why people with your view of existence even spend time here.
@@lefantomer The sentiment is mutual!
@@kenjohnson5124 No, really. If you're self esteem or whatever is welded to your notion of a supernatural being that created and runs everything and will take care of you because Lamb of God etc., why are you even bothering with reality and reason oriented people?
@@lefantomer Where did you come from? Why do you exist? How is your consciousness attached to your molecules? Where does the code come from that operates every function of every cell in your body? How can you trust the thoughts of your brain?
@@lefantomer If you have an open mind, and we’re assuming we have minds and our thoughts are not matter and energy, but operating in the realm of matter and energy, go read “The Abolition of Man”, by C.S.Lewis.
Well,humanity approaching 10 billion. The answer to this number is a war. Peterson like Ayn are both right and wrong.hahahaha
More people, more reasoning, more life
Pain is important of course. It’s then only you can think of it’s unimportance and work towards a comparatively less painful life.
No, pain is unimportant as part of a view of what is important in mans life.
@@TeaParty1776 The "pain" that you are talking about is the only thing that will get you to that "view" to actually see what is important in your life. So pain is important.
@@MrSix9Three Pain is nature's warning sign of failure in living. Importance exists only because life exists and can cease existing. Nothing is important to matter which changes form (wood to ash) but always exists. Only life requires successful action to continue existing. Food is important for life to continue. Your hidden context is death-worship. Mans independent, focused mind is important for his life.
@@TeaParty1776 You are correct. Food is important for life to continue. The pain of hunger makes you search for food and that is what is important, is all i am saying. Have a good day.
@@MrSix9Three the pleasure of satisfying the need for food makes you search for food. Life basically requires values, , not avoidance of disvalues