Nonsense. You can't tolerate intolerance. The woke sees the mainstream as intolerant and treat it with utter intolerance. Who's going to win in that situation? The side that has not created Gulags and isn't currently mutilating young children, that's who.
Your channel will boom one day and we'll be here celebrating it with you! Keep up the good work! Would love to see you have a talk/debate with anyone really. Signed, one of the oarsmen
The Yates quote reminded me of the famous Bertrand Russell quote about, "the problem with the world is the wise people are so full of doubts while the not so wise are so full of confidence." That's a rough paraphrase. Anyway, I will remember your quote, "hold your belief lightly and be curious of others." That's the best mantra for the times, IMO. Unlikely but really needed.
I recently discovered this channel, and it is excellent. Your Jungian take on JB is one of the best and fairest critiques of his ideology I've come across. I got into JB way before he blew up after the stance he took on the C16 trans issue, loved how he used Jungian theory in his teaching, but found is 'down with commies' stuff to be mccathyist in tone and politically/culturally evangelical. Your video on JB was great because it remined me, its ok to like , some of what, JB says, and like Derrida.
"The antidote to polarity is curiosity" loved that quote! Regarding the video, I am actually unsure if Peterson creates polarity or if he weakens polarity: one has to consider the fact that the right has few "intellectuals", listening to Peterson might be the only thing that gets some people on the right acquainted with debates, citing scientific papers and steelmanning the arguments of the opposition. But yes, it does not pay to get too entrenched in one's ideas and JP is not immune to the bias, that is always knocking on our doors, of getting enamored with our own thoughts. Oh and don't worry about blocking people going overboard on the internet, it can be healthy to do so!
Haha thanks mon0 I'll keep that in mind next time I'm blocking. And I can see where you're coming from with Peterson but I still feel that there are better examples out there. Dan Webber brought up Thomas Sowell who I find a much more level-headed right wing thinker but yeah I guess how many people on the right are intellectually oriented compared to the left? It seems likely it's a lot less. Which also makes sense if you think that right wing is conservative so it's about preserving things as they are which doesn't take much thought while the Left is more about Progressivism and that requires thinking about things in new and different ways which is a more intellectually demanding endeavour
Peterson is not really conservstive, center-right maybe as most thinkers don't lean into extremes (as we know it in modernity, there are definitely intellectuals through history who took specific ideas to extreme like Diogenes, but most brilliant mind are more reasonable then that and Peterson is no different in that regard.) Sadly occasionally ideological ideas will persevere over rational outlook. We can all benefit from some more introspection. As for blocking this individual, it's important to separate individual right to expression from fostering branching ideas in philosophical community you are trying to create. So don't worry, blocking this individual is completely reasonable.
Framing LGBT-rights and womens rights always as the downfall of civilization is quite polarizing. People like John Milbank are conservative intellectuals who are less polarizing. Peterson tends to strawman his opponents into oblivion. We see his overt alarmism when it comes to C16 ... Nothing of the things he warned about actually happened. It is kind of inherently polarizing when you think the existence of a group is up for debate, since people in this group might not "agree to disagree" about their right to be free from discrimination.
I am someone who was addicted to Jordan Peterson on and off for 3 years. I won't tell people not to listen to him, but I will recommend additional resources. I recommend people read "The Intellectual We Deserve" by Nathan J. Robinson. I recommend people listen to the "Decoding the Gurus" Podcast, especially the episode on Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein in conversation. When he is speaking alone, ask yourself if it is possible that every other academic is really as deceived or malicious as he seems to think (conspiracy element), and when he speaks with someone else (like Lawrence Krauss on The Origins Podcast, for example), ask yourself why he is answering every question in such a roundabout way. If you think you understand what Jordan says, ask yourself if you could answer questions in a much simpler manner. I'm not completely against Jordan Peterson, but I think he mixes science with piles of speculation that build on one another so that he can get a complete narrative. The key to listening to him is differentiating when he is talking about something that is generally known, and when he is pushing his own private (and much less substantiated) beliefs.
Notice how much his narrative relies on redefining commonly known words. He redefines words like "theology", for example, or even "god", so that within his system and with his definitions you are more inclined to agree with him. And yet I have noticed with Peterson fans that they tend to use the colloquial definitions of these words in the bailey of their discussions and retreat to his motte when pressed. Ask yourself why Jordan does not differentiate his ideas from traditional theology despite saying clearly different things. The same could go for someone like Jonathan Pageau. They have a bailey in which they look almost like a traditional Christian, and they have a motte within which they more or less just believe in an innate hierarchy of ideas. They call religion "non-propositional" but push back not a bit on those who clearly push religious propositions. Jonathan Pageau goes so far as to make religion unquestionable based on a presupposition of the universality of his hierarchy of ideas. This kind of stuff can be very interesting, but listeners should know how thin the ice that they walk on really is.
In the mid-1980s, I was teaching my first art history courses on a college level. One day, circumstances prevented me from being prepared for the first lecture of the week, a very early Monday morning. I decided to go in there and riff on what we had covered the previous week. After all, I was glib and affable, with hair then maybe half as long as yours is now, which gave me a great deal of cred with the students. The problem was, of course, being unprepared. I'm sure it looked like it to at least some of the 100 students sitting there during a heavy snowfall at 7:45 in the morning. What were my options? None really. I filled up the time the best I could to stay on schedule and meet expectations. Except that I didn't quite meet them, and I knew it. My prepared talks were light years beyond my stand-up. You have the great advantage of not having to show up in the snow because 100 other people are going to, and it simply wouldn't do to be absent. Next time, you could simply post a notice to the effect that your current episode is taking longer to produce. That's all. A true statement, one everyone will respect and relate to. We can all wait another week or two for the polished presentation. You needn't come out and apologize, nor less give us the details of how you choose to manage your website. We're not tuning in for HR discussions. But rather because you are good at discussing the nuts and bolts and phantasms of the irrational that make up philosophy.
Dang you've never been one to mince your words Will! I do appreciate the sentiment though and without a doubt you have a point. I guess I'm putting a sort of pressure on myself in my head and then feel the need to explain myself but as you say this isn't necessary. Aside from the HR announcement though I do think there is value in this more casual style and it'll create more room for my own reflections on the topics. No doubt it won't be for everyone but I think to put what I'm doing into context it could be good (if a bit tighter structurally in future)
“I’m afraid to say anything…” my thoughts exactly. It is what brought me back to philosophy and thereby to your channel. I have written about four comments only to delete them later, because I didn’t think that my words added much. I like to listen to Peterson too as he does have some points, but I have also felt that the polarization of the landscape it getting untenable. I have wanted to run to change things in my community, but it has gotten to the point, “if you don’t believe 100% of what I think, we cannot have common ground.” As a conservative, I have been shut out of the conversation for 20 years that I have gotten to the point of immobility. I fear that too many people are in this same boat. Keep up the channel. Next semester, I am retaking Renaissance Philosophy (after 25 years) and I am going to need help getting past it. Happy New Year and here’s to a great 2023.
I really like your approach of exploring ideas and provisionally taking a position, knowing it's going to be partial and likely have to be reassessed. I think it shows openness and an ability to not hold ones opinions too tightly. It also allows one to go into areas that are no go zones for idealiogues and in this way growth, rather than indoctrination is possible.. Forums like the one you are creating are a very valuable antidote to the current polarization. As for Cassandra, I think she was ticked off at the suggestion that Peterson was caught in a conspiracy theory. I guess for many its considered a noble mission to fight against the neo Marxist barbarians, fearing that they will descend on ones culture, disrupt all of ones certainties and open the door to chaos. Conversely the wokeish are inspired by their mission to deconstruct the old ways without much consideration of what will emerge, just hoping its something better.. i think you're right, that the intoxicating allure of belonging to one side in the holy war is great.. Rare it seems is there an ability to integrate both concerns without taking sides.
I couldn't have said it better myself michael it's the feeling of justification that comes from the jihad I guess (the lesser one of course since it's a turning of the back on the greater jihad). I like what you say about this approach having the potential to go where the polarities can't. That's an exciting thought and I can see what you mean. A synthesis is lucky enough to see something that is missing to the thesis and antithesis
It seems like you're genuinely doing your best. What a great channel to stumble upon! The only blindspot so to speak that comes to mind is that your openness is huge, and so it might be worth thinking about things you're not so open about, and using that to understand the perspectives of someone like Kassandra. You are so open that you're able to hold the two extreme sides at the same time, and it's easy to feel like that's only a good thing. But is it always a good thing? What is the happy middle ground between the polarity of peaceful cooperation and savage murder? In this extreme example it's actually not good to be open, but to be closed and protective. Yes? So yeah I am a fan already, but that just came to me and I thought it might be something worth meditating on for you.
Very interesting thought thanks for the input. And I think you are right it's definitely not just an Aristotelian golden mean situation. That just ends up being another point of tension to set up on the map. I would still say that the openness is a good thing (although definitely it has its disadvantages since it takes more time to digest and leads to a more ongoing state of limbic uncertainty) because it gives a possibility of empathising with everyone at the table. It certainly shouldn't be disentangled from valuations and fall into a relativism but...yeah I think there's a new phrasing here required
I have not but just reading the wikipedia page it sounds like a very interesting thesis. I've watched a few interviews with Sowell and quite like the guy so this might be right up my street
A vision of the living philosophy: Be good, Noble +impressive now- While it is still matter. The adventure of life is to learn what I find interesting and remember what matters to me; To me, Fighting means conquering my self because self-mastery is das ultimate form of power.
The are two great moral dangers that are the most fundamental ad to be avoided at all cost: 1. Presupposing evil does not exist 2. Making the distinction between good and evil so radical that you commit idolatry and project evil onto good.
Haha glad you're enjoying it Ali. It's actually my own reaction to a video I made on JP's shadow - something that I did not make clear in any way at all in this video (I'm going to update the description now)
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I did indulge in that video as well, which was wonderfully concise. Your knowledge and presentation are admirable to say the least and I couldn't be more pleased to have the chance to tell you!
As soon as I knew for certain that KK wasn't ready to engage in a good faith argument, I just excused myself lol. Moderating is tough and I don't envy the decisions you have to make for the health of your channel. Thanks for producing accessible and well thought out content, I'm glad that my engagement with KK was encouraging/interesting/helpful to you.
Haha probably the wisest move Colin. Once you know it's not good faith it's wise to disengage. Thanks for getting involved in the debate and for saving me from having to learn that good faith was lacking in KK's case
We have to look at JP in context in my opinion. His strident approach is off-putting admittedly but, considering the cultural battles going on in the universities it make sense. I’m a pretty conservative religious person however left leaning politically. If your going to try and be a maverick in that environment you have be a good counter-puncher. Peterson resonates with a lot of people who value fee-thinking. Just like when Sam Harris starts to talk about the moral landscape, when Peterson starts to to talk about philosophy I cringe a bit. Nevertheless these are conversations that are important and while I think Sam Harris’s attempt to ground ethics in the cognitive sciences failed at least he’s trying. I think it’s good for these conflicts of ideas to be expressed and examined. I want to agree and understand Peterson but when he tries to be a philosopher I find some of his ideas to be overly complex and honestly it sounds like someone trying to baffle em’ with bullshit. Maybe I’m just too stupid to get his point, I like that he presses the is/ought problem but doesn’t really follow through with a cohesive conclusion. As Robert Hunter said “when you get confused listen to the music play”.
“You have overcome yourself: but why do you show yourself to me only as the one overcome? I want to see the victor: throw roses into the abyss and say: 'here is my thanks to the monster who didn't succeed in swallowing me alive.'" ― Friedrich Nietzsche I feel Peterson has a huge shadow. I feel there should be equality with everyone but the human race far from this. Disagreement are healthy to form a better World and everything is a give and take. Great video, remember you aren't rambling you just sharing your ideas and I like hearing different opinions on different topics.
Oh my lord! As something of a Nietzsche connoisseur it's rare that someone throws a quote out there that I haven't heard before but for it to be this amazing a quote as well god damn that's epic! Thank for the kind words and support. I appreciate the comment about the rambling I've noticed I say that quite a bit and can see the insecurity it's tied to so thanks for pointing it out I'm going to try and reel that thought pattern in in future
@@renaissancefairyowldemon7686 Haha he's a good man to be full of. I'm surprised to hear that you got a lot of Hegel as well. I don't come across a lot of Hegel quote surprisingly. My day is going well I'm actually leaving Athens today for a few days in Switzerland so a busy day ahead!
Hey 👋🏻 your videos really enlighten me, thank you very much, your channel is already a valuable, interesting and fulfilling part of my life. I’ve been reading philosophy since I’m 16 years old but previously I was interested in some philosophy themes which were mainly introduced to me by my grandmother. One of the philosophers I’ve read the most is Nietzsche but I also read a lot of stoicism. Also Jung is a big thinker in my life to whom I look up to, but obviously there are many more. I’m always curious and eager to deepen my knowledge. Thank you!
Ahh! Dialectics are so intense sometimes. I know that with tools to censor it's a very tough to strike the balance between one's community intention and the most generalized essence of freedom. I'm not going to complain about it even if I disagree about making those correspondences hidden. I understand the pressure that you're under and your reasoning. The growth of your channel is one reason why I don't always comment or make shorter ones because there's enough to consider already and the sheer volume of everything can become exhausting. I totally agree about your opinions on revolution, couldn't say it better myself. In my opinion people ought to be able to conserve their own values and reserve their own communities, alchemically speaking the solvent is the solution. Yet I don't think disagreements need to be so intense, the one idea is not forcing people to conform to just one ideology. Not two or three either. Rather every nuance deserves some place for their own experiments and developments. Therefore it's understandable when something is too radical and disrespectful of boundaries that it is inline with psychopathy and therefore needs to be somewhat controlled or if too violent extinguished. However there always needs to be a way out for everyone but the kinds of criminals that [practically] everyone agrees are criminals. And not to forget this entire world, among all its troubling technicalities, it's something that indeed we're different in yet in it altogether. So even where boundaries are established there still needs to be a fair amount of communication kept up. If someone then doesn't fit a social convention in one place they probably can fit in somewhere if not many places. So to the individual I recommend that they try to build homes everywhere that shows them kindness back and let us foster understanding and maintain the intentions of what's honorable even as we all subtly change our views. - Your Quality Anarchist
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thank you James! I try my best. There's a reason why I believe you're of the cream of the crop for the discussions of philosophy in all of youtube. You are running a good channel and doing good things. I am excited for your developments. Don't give up! And I know it's only a para-social relationship and all, but I say the following as a fellow human who cares about you. Really it's okay to take a breather if that improves your quality of the channel if not only your health. I think you can bust out content or even take your time, either way I think your success is practically guaranteed. If that gives you any assurance in security as well as knowing that you have many respectful followers. Take care until next time and enjoy Athens 😁 - YQA
Your openness and honesty (opening intro) is great. Very relatable fella. Really enjoyed this format. I could see you sort of exploring things in the open, outside of your head! Feels more personal too, like you’re having a conversation with the viewer rather than explaining a concept/idea. I’m in favour of this style or a mix of this and the older way. I consider myself to be a free thinker rather than being ‘signed up’ to a particular way or ideology. By extension I’m a classic ‘floater’ 😂 a floating voter. I think I’ve voted for almost every party over the years depending on which one has the most manifesto pledges I can relate to. Most years I really struggle as those I like are balanced fairly equally to those things I really don’t align with. Then inevitably I’m disappointed as none of the things I valued actually happen! 🙄 I’m the same with most things. I pick & choose ideas I like, that make sense to me I look for/notice similarities between them & I’ve noticed how they are very similar in lots of ways. Cool you’re going to Athens. I had a day there a fair few years ago…was part of a cruise 🚢. Visited the Parthenon 🏛 and did a few classic tourist things! I swore I’d go back for longer…to date I haven’t, it’s still in my ‘bucket’ to do though.
Thanks Danny! I have a similar sense of this format as well after doing it I quite like the casual freeness it allows so I think I'll be doing more of it in future. I'll keep them separate I think so that the other videos can be faithful explorations of the topic and this can be its own thing. Athens is indeed a charming city I was blown away by the Parthenon the first time I went up the Acropolis. Truly spectacular
Thanks for your commentary. I am grappling with dampening polarity in dialogue too. My feedback to you video is that you may need to apply a higher level of contrast exposing both ends of the shadow. It may not have been you intent but by not more explicitly applying concern for actions on the other end of the polarity you risk not getting the viewer to properly question both sides and decide for themselves if they will land in the middle.
I don't know if you are going to see this comment but I just wanted to share my thoughts with you. Several days after I watched Zizek "vs." Peterson video and today I watched your Jordan Peterson's Shadow, and then discovered that you have this video as well. Initially I thought you received important feedback or there were more stuff to cover but after watching the video I realized this video is somewhat individualistic. And I like this. Just today, I asked people on the internet if there are intellectual content creators (like you) and people recommended a lot of channels. I liked none of them. Some of them seemed as if they were involved too much in popular culture, and although I am not against popular culture, I just don't want the hear biased opinions about intellectual discourses. I always prefer people who know that they have an ideology, as it can be the indication that I am going to hear biased opinion or it means that they are very well aware that ideologies can be biased, so choosing to be skeptical instead. On top of that, the other channels they recommended me created content in a way that is similiar to a technician or a scientist. I don't understand how people can talk philosophy, something so full of life, with terms that inspire nothing at all. When you talk about philosophy, seeing the flash in your eyes, for some reason, inspires me and makes me happy for you and myself. So I was glad to see this video. You probably don't like being praised and this probably came off a lot like praising (maybe it is), so sorry for that.
This was a beautiful thing to read and I really appreciate you sharing it. It really means the world to me to hear that my work can inspire some feeling of the beauty of philosophy in someone else so I am really grateful to you thank you
Hi, I have just arrived at your channel, and I want to congratulate you on the excellent content. I was intrigued when I saw the title Postmodern Neo-Marxism - Jordan Peterson's Shadow and couldn't help but watch the video. I am not a fan of JP and have always found it difficult to listen to him because I have always sensed in his tone an inauthenticity that I don't like, and he has become so aggressive that I can't keep up with him. I was curious about that video you spoke of, where he puts himself in a humble posture. The only debate I managed to watch to the end was with Slavoj Žižek, so baffling that it was comical, but a good debate. But I leave this comment to propose the following thought: What if, instead of possession by the shadow, what is happening to JP is an identification with the Self? If we take Jung's analysis of Nietzsche as an example, Jung states: "(...) the great psychic danger which is always connected with individuation, or the development of the Self, lies in the identification of ego-consciousness with the Self. This produces an inflation which threatens consciousness with dissolution". (Archetypes and the collective unconscious). In his psychic theory of individuation, Jung proposes five stages, the 4th stage which Jung calls "Man in search of his Soul", projections become extinct and the worldview is stripped of symbols and meaning. The ego becomes self-critical and reflective. However this is a dangerous stage, in which the ego can identify with the Self and enter into megalomaniacal delirium, making it impossible to evolve to the 5th stage, called The Unified Psyche (The manifestation of the Self, in which the unification of the conscious and the unconscious occurs, the ego no longer identifies with the archetypes and the transcendent function occurs). What Jung proposes in his analysis of Nietzsche is that his introverted Intuition as a primary function has not integrated his lower function, extroverted sensation (I would say his Dionysius have been stifled), and leads Nietzsche to a hyper subjectivation of the consciousness of the Self. Nietzsche creates his Übermensch, Zarathustra (the Self as the archetype of the wise man), and identifies with him. He becomes his truth. This identification with the Self is illusory in its greatness and tends to create 'saviours' who catalyse, and awaken, the collective shadow. Sorry for the huge message :) P.S. Your personal opinion? Yes please, it is in the exchange of ideas that we grow as individuals.
Fascinating take Carla. I don't actually think of it as Shadow possession so much as this bit of his intellectual landscape is dominated by his shadow. But with the bits of his more recent work I think you might be on to spot on. I think it's always a danger when you're anyone's guru that with the weight of projection "inner gold" as Robert Johnson calls it being cast upon you it's difficult not to begin to believe that you are special. I remember when he first came on the scene I was so hopeful because he was older before he got any fame and being steeped in Jungian thought and psychology I reckoned here's a man who has done his work and thus a great canditate to carry that weight without succumbing to it. But alas he ain't no hobbit with the one ring and he has it seems collapsed under the energy. He does seem to have given in to an ego inflation. I've begun questioning the Self aspect a bit so I won't go there but I would say that he is carrying the Ideal of a particular subset of his followers who have become gatekeepers driving the more moderate fans away and shaping him with that weight of inner gold until he has become a warped version of what he once was. No longer wise and equanimous but angry and resentful. At least that's my current opinion (and you did ask!)
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thank you for your reply. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought you were talking about shadow possession. I agree with you, it is not easy to sustain such popularity and the guru path is an easy slide to the "dark side of the force". However, I try to listen to him without prejudice, but his weeping voice makes me wonder what he's performing. Like he's playing christ or something like that. Perhaps you've already seen this, but if not, (10:17 - 14:28) th-cam.com/video/j0GL_4cAkhI/w-d-xo.html. After seeing this and other things like that, I thought he might have been inflating his ego and getting caught in the trap of identification of ego-consciousness with the Self. But I don't know, maybe I'm exaggerating, maybe because I really like Jung's work, and it blurs my vision. Anyway, enough of JP :)
@@carlafonseca1017 Yeah I love his maps of meaning lecture. That subpersonality is amazing and insightful. It's the popular intellectual that dresses like a villain and is beginning to take on the mannerisms of one that I can no longer listen to. I just watched the clip you sent on and that along with some other pepperings of the comparison of himself to Christ that I've come across would certainly point to a Self possession. There's certainly a lack of a container around the christ idea and that is dangerous and has perhaps infected him. I don't think it's just your fondness for Jung the same thought has crossed my mind in the past with his language around Christ and narrativising his own story. I think he's playing with fire and we may already be seeing the beginnings of some serious burns on his psychology. It's sad. The man had so much potential in my eyes
Great channel man, I just started watching and I'm super interested in what you have to say. You've clearly got some deep incites into what you're talking about and you've got a very healthy balanced outlook and that's obvious from the content you've been explaining and the order it's come in. I'm excited to see what you do next and I think this is a great way to express you're opinions on the content you've been covering. I really like your channel because you do keep your opinion out of the explanation but again I'm also interested in your thoughts on the matter. Edit: Also thanks for introducing me to some new philosophy, I've been pretty burnt out on it because I'm very burnt out on postmodernism. Metamodernism is fascinating to me and encapsulates a lot of the ideas that have been rolling around in my head in a very concise way. It's led me into post-postmodernism in general and I've been engaged with philosophy in a way that I haven't been for a very long time.
Wow thank you so much David that's really amazing to hear. Delighted to have added some new vitality to the philosophical journey for you that's above and beyond my expectations! Thank you for the kind words and support especially on this new format which I'm still trying to figure out the place of!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thanks for replying! Another thought I've had for you that I think you might be able to use. It's perfectly reasonable to not engage with people like Kasandra. It takes headspace to do so and you have no obligation of your time to people. You engage with them at your leisure and don't let them consume more headspace than you can offer without deviating from the goals you're trying to achieve. Not engaging with them doesn't invalidate your views and it doesn't make you a hypocrite, it simply means you don’t have the time and it's not your responsibility. As you saw other people are more than happy to and they're perfectly capable of doing so. This gets into a more broad concept that I've been toying with and developing myself. I see a lot of my own personal philosophy reflected in your words. I believe that most everyone has a value system that they have arrived at sincerely and you can learn something by charitably interacting with them and trying to understand why they hold their truths. That being said, understanding does not mean you're obligated to agree with or believe in their values. Take what you can from them and use them to make you a more well rounded person but also stick to your convictions. If someone is presenting ideas that are diametrically opposed to yours then you do not have to engage with them. Again it doesn't make you a hypocrite it makes you principled. Also keep in mind that there are people out there who do not engage in good faith, they're pushing an agenda and not being honest about it and they may have true ill will towards the world. There are people out there who fall on the psychopathic spectrum, who do not have empathy and good will as their default. There is true evil in this world, it is rare but it does exist and it's important to recognize it when you see it as it must be opposed. Evil can also be measured by someone's impact in the world, if they sow discord, division, and vitriol through their actions and words then they have become an agent of evil regardless of their intentions or beliefs. The ultimate measure of a man is not what lies in his head but what he creates in his world. Edit: And I don't mean to sound polarizing myself, I 100 percent believe in your philosophy of engaging in good faith with people who have opposing views to you and I think it should be done as often as you have the capacity to do it. It helps heal the division we have in our world and it helps the people you do it with to do the same. I've used it to very good effect and have de-radicalized a couple conspiracy theorists in my life with the technique. Just be aware that some people don't engage in good faith and the best thing to do with that is walk away.
@@davidpilibosian I really respect that David. We definitely have a shared view on the world there. The bad faith is the main reason that I will not interact and I think the undeniably legitimate reason not to interact. I think the thing with the other people who are communicating in good faith but who totally disagree are more challenging. I question myself as to why I'm not interacting and whether I'm avoiding learning something so I try when I have the energy to explore it and digest their perspective but as you say there's limited headspace so perhaps I shouldn't feel so bad about staying aloof
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I don't think you should feel bad at all, and after a while you start to see the patterns in their communication and that they're really just trying to tear you down and get you to be angry like they are. You do it so many times and you just kind of get tired of it because the conversation always ends up going the same way, frequently with them resorting to personal attacks instead of logic or reason and it never ends with them taking anything from it. I've done it many many times on Reddit and have bean learning the hard way that it's best not to feed the trolls. Edit: I think I may have misunderstood your last part about feeling bad. I think you may have been talking about being aloof to people who are engaging in good faith. This is something that's also perfectly fair, give what you have to give but take care of yourself and your mental health first so you have more to give in the future. Sustainable realistic output is much more important than instant gratification or obligation.
@@davidpilibosian That's a really good way of looking it David. I think the long term attitude is the right perspective to take and seeing that over time it will all reveal itself rather than feeling the urge to be understood right now. Thanks for the input and the support it's deeply appreciated
Great video! 👍 your walking the line better than I could 😆 much respect 👏 If it was me I'd have left them comments there. If a crow wants to squawk let them squawk. If a songbird wants to sing let them sing! 🙂 and your correct about the algorithms selection process and in a funny turn of events it can be a really cool thing for that persons polarised comments to be the elevator of your more balanced and curious pontifications! 😀 maybe your ideas can surf the algorithm to reach the people who need it. Maybe I'm just nieve 😊
Thanks for the input. I know what you mean about the squawking I guess my fear was that the squawking was becoming the only audible noise and was drowning out the rest of the birdsong
@@TheLivingPhilosophy what's this they said in the tao de ching, "a bad man is a good man's work" is it not through the struggle to find it that it's discovered? Is not what's in the way the way? 😜
Watching this 6 months later, we've all witnessed a bit of a slip in jordans, uh, credibility. Seen a few extra biases crop up and a few cracks through the big ideas into the pettyness of the man peddling them. I wonder if this would have got the same response now.
It wasn't just the French Revolution. It was the Haitian revolution, the American revolution, the English Civil War, and the chaos of the fall of the Spanish Empire
If you are intending to create a platform that you can use as a school for philosophy, like it or not you need to cultivate a space which is open to people participating. Kassandra was pretty corrosive to that vision for your channel. You've gotta do what you've gotta do. Kassandra put you into a difficult position and you did what was necessary imo. Unfortunately the choice _not_ to censor those comments is not a neutral choice either and too often people look at situations like this as if inaction is an acceptable default or that it is "morally pure" in an extremely dogmatic way without considering the impacts of _not_ choosing to act. For example, there are people who are so dogmatic about free speech who will defend acts like blackmail, intimidation, slander, libel and so on without considering how these actions can be used to attack free speech itself. I wouldn't lose too much sleep over people who criticize you for what you chose to do from this sort of unprincipled and dogmatic angle. I hope your studies in philosophy provide you with what you need to navigate the practical choices you are presented with when building your channel and the culture of the comments section of your videos.
Thanks for the input Jess and you make a very good point about the neutrality of not censoring. As you point out it's the case here as everywhere else that once you leave behind the comfortable black and white of zero censorship judgement is necessary. I suppose you're also right that philosophy is a good field to be in when faced with problems like this. Thanks for the input it is much appreciated
Keep chin up. The work on JBP is solid and in my mind fair. Your agenda for Ken Wilbur may be set. I've found value in the discussion beyween Dave Snowden and Nora Bateson on Spiral Dunamics. Hint - it brings out a particular kind of shadow from it's followers. Batson has persuaded Snowden to view with the perspective of a eugenics framing. The work Complexity science and Complexity philosophy has opened my eyes to new ways of seeing grounded in natural science.
Don’t feel bad about blocking that toxic person and other toxic people that might appear in the future. It’s the paradox of tolerance. To maintain a tolerant society/space, we must be intolerant to intolerant ideas. In other words sometimes the rod is required to maintain a space safe for discourse. And hey it’s your channel, your rules. Also, your vision to make this a channel a place to create bridges, and reduce polarity by helping your viewers see the humanity of “the other side”, is a very worthwhile endeavor! I look forward to what new videos you have planned, and will do my best to contribute constructively to the discourse. As someone who has been trying to get into stoicism, but still can’t completely... click with it, your videos about stoicism and the countercurrents (some that I have seen but some that I still plan to see) seem/where helpful in understanding it better. I’m also thankful for your videos about Buddhism. In my philosophy circle we are also learning about it, but your video about the religious nature of Buddhism was a very important wake up call (I actually discovered this channel with that video, but was distracted by the Peterson one ^_^; haha). Oh yeah, have fun in your travel to Athens. I have been told that their pastries are pretty good, so it’s worth a try! :D
Ah awesome Melanie! Welcome aboard! Thanks for the input already I can definitely see your point with the attitude towards intolenace. I actually have some ideas for videos on Stoicism and hoping to do some on location in Athens while I have the opportunity! (though we'll have to see about the parties 😆) Glad the Buddhism video spurred the grey cells for you and I appreciate your input
I completely disagree with this dogmatic and simplistic notion that we must be "intolerant to intolerant ideas". That's the sort of radical far-left justification for heavy handedness that one finds on Reddit.
People who are outright disrespectful and have nothing sensible to say about the content, people who follow others without ever questioning what those leaders are truly about, should not be bothered with at all, and blocked immediately. "never argue with a fool" as the adage goes. We cannot let any of our emotional energy be diverted away from our purpose of unveiling/uncovering Truth which is a lifelong cause as it is.
I mostly agree with your views on Peterson, and how his disgust resposnse to phenomenon is clear reflection on undealt shadow work. However I dont think he demonizes the whole left. He normally is addressing the radicals within it, that are clearly overstepping bounds. So some would say his active shadow is justified because its battling a real world threat. The real question boils down to do you think it is an actual threat? And that issue is what's polarising society. Fanstasic video, I love your careful nuance. Keep it up brother. Love from the royal county of Meath
Hmm interesting point not sure if it justifies it since I feel like it does more damage to be dealing with a real problem acting out of your shadow becuase then you're not seeing the reality but a mix between the reality and your fears/hates being projected onto it. It does create a dynamism though that's for sure. Also can I just say that I love you calling it the royal county of Meath!! Was reading through Lady Gregory's irish mythology a couple of years ago and feel like Meath's noble past is too often forgotten! Certainly among us Limerick vikings anyway!
Man, I think you do great wee videos, don’t get too much into thinking about crazies. They exist, you can’t change them, just keep on keeping on, Irish Jesus!
The thing is, if we we were (are) in a dire cultural political crisis, I would trust Jordan for a sense of the truth of things. If I wanted to cogitate on a lot of ideas, philosophical underpinnings, conjectures on ontology, psychology, you are interesting, academic, and in some senses make a satisfying, useful, in-my-head debate. My left brain sings. So maybe a different kind of truth. But in pursuit of a being grounded in the issues in our times who I would trust for guidance, even leadership maybe? That shortlist would include JBP. The whole is more than the parts, and a deconstruction of anything is just that - not the whole, not the essence, not the man.
I loved this video! Just some thoughts ahead: I don't know, this seem to imply that the solution is to virtually complain about everything and everyone... Which I am kind of guilty of myself, but I digress: Wouldn't that mean that even choosing to criticize all sides and encouraging into others would lead to stagnation as well? In my opinion: Yes. But luckily we have those who antagonize to function as some sort of counter-weight.
I don't think that you should feel bad about blocking people who behave like that. Interacting with them is a waste of energy; our time is better spent having good-faith discussions.
@@TheLivingPhilosophy That's definitely a valid concern, and not an easy line to walk. Maybe it's best to assume good faith until the evidence leaves no other reasonable conclusion than to the contrary, such as if the person becomes obsessive or starts launching personal attacks (as happened in this case). Regardless, as difficult as that line is to walk, I think you made the right call here.
Hi James, I would suggest highlighting the fact that the video is not filled with "content" but more a META video in the title, better yet also keep this kind of videos for patreons only. People don't necessarily go to the description first. I didn't and struggled for the first 15 minutes or so listening and trying to figure out what you were referring to, who's Cassandra etc... Then you started talking about J. Peterson but still I couldn't follow (was expecting a more classic/didactic explanation of his position). This is the 3rd video I watch on your channel, following YT recommendations. The first one was great (subscribed) second one was awesome (became a patreon) the third one... if this would have been the first video I would have watched I would have asked YT NOT to recommend your channel again due to the induced confusion
Very interesting input Luigi. I guess I was thinking more of the subscribers I already had when making this video so I'll have to think about how I can make it clearer in future that these are reaction videos. Maybe just a disclaimer at the start would do the job. Thanks for the feedback much appreciated!
As a suggestion would love to hear you give an overview and explanation of the presocratic age. Moving to Athens I'd imagine you may have some thoughts on it.
Yeah Dáithi I've been thinking about doing a broader overview after returning to it again with Heraclitus last week. I think an episode on Parmenides and maybe on Anaximander and then I might do a full overview of the whole period
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Diogenes always stuck out to me. The rejection of all culture. The disdain for it. The mockery of it. What we fear is the black hole we must all eventually fall into. He embraced it. Like U. G. Krishnamurti in a way (you should try check out his videos sometime if you're so inclined). I look around and see humans fighting and killing and screaming at the top of their lungs for causes that ultimately mean nothing. One age kills for and ridicules what another age defends and honours. Rationality, logic, science, all seem to exist only within their own umwelt. Outside of that is chaos and disorder. Jordan Peterson has planted his flag and is ready to die on his hill against equally shrill voices ready to die on the opposite hill. But for what? We cannot seem to end human suffering, only displace it. I'm sure whatever struggles the dinosaurs were having 65+ million years ago seemed very real to them at that point. I'm not for or against living but the whole endeavour is a sham at the end of the day. We suffer for nought. We struggle and strive. A few of us might be lucky to enjoy the ride but as I look out I see a mass of human suffering and everyone is looking for a cause. A cause to blame and a cause to hope in. Our shadow goes right down to our very fear of death, which we choose to ignore and waffle on and on about the value of life and human rights while we abort 50 million babies a year. Again, not making a case for or against but the irony is thick. We view those we disagree with as somehow less than human and our heroes as near gods. We hope to educate the masses but as soon as they get a little education they either get busy with surviving or they die and another generation of ignorant children take their place. I try to take some pleasure in the process and learn just for the enjoyment in learning but I'm wearying of it all. But it's interesting to try and trace the history of thought and work out the inner motives that drive us as human beings. Thanks for your insights. I'm a new sub and I'm enjoying your content. Edit: I'm wondering now if Diogenes was truly presocratic but he might fit a certain definition of the term. What do you think? But I could be totally wrong on that point. It seems Socrates would already have been an old man when Diogenes was born.
@@daithiocinnsealach1982 Very interesting stream of thoughts Dáithi and one of the best encapsulations of the nihilistic perspective that I've come across. I guess the thing about meaning for me is that it will look trivial if viewed from the objectivist point of view of cold hard matter. I guess the real challenge is multiculturalism. It's the confrontation with a completely different tablet of values that brings home how contingent our own and our own culture's is. There's no easy way out of it but I do think it's only a problem when viewed through a certain lens or with respect to certain problems. The experience of being human is self-evidently meaningful. You're hungry and that drives you to eat you fall in love and that drives you to write poetry. The experience of living brings up meaning as the values shuffle and dance around each other. The nausea comes when the veil slips and you no longer trust in the meaning under your feet. Hmm...I feel like I'm talking in circles. Really your comment is a great one and has me dancing around in my own head to figure out my relationship to the problem so I appreciate the interaction. I'm glad you're enjoying the content. And as for the Diogenes question he is indeed a post-Socratic. His teacher Antisthenes was a student of Socrates. The Cynic branch of Socratic thought followed through less on the logical side of Socrates's thinking than on the radicalness of it and the uncompromising approach to ethics. He's a fascinating cookie though admittedly while I find parts of him admirable and enjoy every story of him I don't find him to be an ideal type
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thanks for the clarification on Diogenes. Definitely need to do some more learning on the Greeks. I have this idea in my mind to do a study of philosophy from the start right up to our day. But I came across Buddhism a few years ago and learned how it influenced Chinese Taoism and so forth and now it bothers me that we ascribe the beginnings of philosophy to the Greeks when the Indians and Chinese were clearly grappling with the idea of being and meaning and what constitutes the world in about the same time frame, maybe before them. Primarily through meditation practices. Anyway, yes, Nihilism for me looks at the big picture in a cold, unemotional way and sees it is not human-centric. Society is completely absorbed with itself so much so that we refer to humanity as "the world", which bothers me. I see interlocking systems at every level. No inherent meaning. We find meaning in the doing. It is a deeply complex algorithm. We get hungry and eat. I'd say love is for the purpose of procreation though. Our bodies are chemical bags and we have urges that feel amazing to satisfy. We are basically organic robots reproducing ourselves that seek to extend our own existence by extinguishing the existence of other life forms. Walking reproductive units with incredibly complex central processing units we call brains that require energy to keep going. As to the idea of meaning and beauty I find Taoism a nice fit. It's a kind of spiritual Nihilism. A soft, accepting, resignation of the self to the universe. The verse of the Tao Te Ching that sticks with me is "The universe treats the various creatures as straw dogs". State dogs were apparently ceremonial effagies that were discarded after the celebrations were over. Point being I guess is to just try and enjoy the party before the universe recycles you. 😅 Have a good night
I heard the troll was JP himself with a throwaway account! Did you not hear about that? He's doing it everywhere they say, he's up day and night just surfing the net looking to hunt down those who haven't sworn the oath 😁 You know, Mr. JP and I are having lunch later this week. I'll tell him about your encounter and sus out if that really was him in disguise. Don't you worry, I will get to the bottom of this allegation as soon as possible, and I will report back. 🤣😉 Glad you handled it so well and boundary blocked the knucklehead. Nobody has time for that troll stupidity. It's boring as hell. I hope someone suggested that the troll should just shut up and go clean their room. Anyway, safe travels to Athens, James. I am excited for you! It's going to be marvelous to see how Greece will color your upcoming videos.
Yeah, that's why I like you because you are objective and don't show your ideology much. I watched the Peterson video, and was a little ticked. But I understood exactly where you were coming from.
Check out Richard Rorty’s approach. He attempted to use aspects of Continental philosophy with American Analytic/Pragmatic tradition. That was a schism that defined much of 20c. Philosophy. Btw, my old pol. Phil professor, Robert Paul Wolff, who posts almost everyday on Philosophers Stone and put his lecture on Marx, Freud, and Ideology on TH-cam, runs into similar problems with commenters monopolizing the conversation. However, those people are more sophisticated, as some are philosophers and law professors, who know how to argue their positions with much knowledge and facts. He was an actual Anarchist philosopher, but still shuts someone down if they are out of line. His reason-IT’S HIS BLOG. Check him out. He published a relevant book with Marcuse called a Critique of Pure Tolerance, arguing that tolerance is not always a positive value. (Unlike you, those guys really ARE Marxists. Wolfff has been a convicted Marxist for a long time-he’s 86!) Keep up the good work!
Fascinating stuff Stephen. Rorty is someone with special appeal because he is someone that has actively straddled both worlds so I feel confident that at some point I'll be going through a Rorty phase. Very interesting stuff about your professor I think I remember you mentioning him before actually I must check out some of his stuff
I just discovered your channel and I find it great. I like that you are able to admire and also be very critical of the people that you talk about in your videos. I also admire (or admired) Peterson, and I'm thankful to him for helping me realize the value of sacrifice and responsibility, but I'm starting to notice that I's starting to feel disappointed about his attitude more and more. Something I'd like to add is that from a Jungian perspective, I would say he is suffering an Ego inflation. He is no longer able to see the world as it is, rather as the "Jordan Peterson" would see it. I think that's why he repeats the same words and phrases all the time, because that's what the "Peterson" persona would say. I think it's way beyond of trying to make a point or an idea clear. Anyway, I'd like to hear your troughs on Ego inflation and if you agree that it is what's happening to him. BTW: You are probably familiar with the term, but here is the definition (also for everyone in the comments): Jung's Definition of Inflation C. G. Jung defined inflation - an unconscious psychic condition - as expansion of the personality beyond its proper limits by identification with the persona or with an archetype, or in pathological cases with a historical or religious figure.
Thanks Marías! Finding that balance is my goal so thanks for that! As for ego inflation that's a good observation. I''ve written down ego inflation in my video ideas list because that's a juicy and very important topic. I remember when Jordan was first emerging onto the big stage I was delighted because, I thought, here's a man who's done the self-work; he knows the dangers of the Shadow and of Ego Inflation and he has had years to prepare himself for this. Unfortunately I think that this was too simple a story to tell. It's hard to imagine anyone keeping a healthy ego intact under the weight of such cultural projection. It reminds me of Marilyn Monroe who could never be seen for herself and was destroyed by the weight of an entire culture's projections. The Ulysses loving girl could never be seen beneath the cultural projection of sex icon. That's the tragedy of celebrity I guess
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thanks for your response. I agree with you. I had the same feeling when I started to know Peterson. However, the façade started to fell for me and I started to see him more and more as a reflection of his own persona. A mirror that reflects only himself and doesn't let anything new inside. It's such a shame. I think success can be confused as fame, and that being a celebrity means the death of the transcendent function, probably because of what you say, that being exposed to the subconscious projections of that many people is too much of a burden for the ego of anyone. I think that, specially today when fame could mean being admired by millions, instead of perhaps thousands like in previous centuries, and also that one is constantly connected with those followers, means that for someone to keep transcending, it's necessary to sacrifice that fame. Or to keep a low profile. I think it could be seen as the ultimate sacrifice for someone in that position. A personal responsibility in Peterson's words. When I see Peterson followers that seem like brainwashed, repeating what he says like a mantra and with a negative altitude against every other point of view, it makes me wonder if what he is doing isn't doing as much damage as good it could have done. (Sorry if there are any typos. I'm not a native English speaker. Greetings from Argentina!)
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thank you my friend. I've been watching your videos, and it's great to have a channel that's not biased and gets the best and the worst of every philosopher and way of thinking. We need more than ever to bring the opposites together in this chaotic world. It's time to stop thinking about what's right and what's wrong and do what's best for humanity, otherwise we would be doomed as a species. These are frightening times, and we need people like you who brings out knowledge as tools for self realization and not as a dogma.
@@matias-sosa-h thank you so much Matías I think there's a growing appetite for balance these days I think most of us are getting sick of the polarisation and its effects so here's to a movement towards balance!
Good work. I too would struggle with blocking, but sometimes you have to draw the line, I guess. I do think Peterson's views are (coincidentally?) amenable to a certain tribal ideational community, and he has sometimes seemed to be responding to their adulation in his talks, so objectivity seems somehow compromised in some of his statements. But it ultimately becomes counterproductive for him when he inadvertently encourages that tribalism, I think.
You will find out that blocking Kassandra will only intensify his resentment. It's preferable to avoid that unless he is doing some very low, personal stuff. I mean he will just create another account and come back to attack you on every new video you put out for no good reason. Better would be to just let him talk to himself or to his friends in the comments and let this go. Fanboys are sometimes in this way that they built their personality so depended on their idol that once you attack their idol, it's like you are attempting against their own life. It's silly but it's how it is.
Yeah that was one stream of thought in me. To be honest I wish there was just a silence for a day function. The more I think about it the more it was about the intensity of it than about the content but yeah your point is definitely a valid one. I can only imagine how problems like this look like at scale
I am not that well read re Jordan Peterson, but I have enjoyed some of his psychology lectures. I'm just thinking out loud here, but I'm wondering whether a middle ground is putting people before ideology.
Don’t confuse (or equate) the process of the transformation to a new system with the objectives or practices of the new system. If it’s given that the process of change (revolution) will necessarily be resisted, even to the point of violence, by the existing system, then it follows that all revolutions will be bloody. That should not be necessarily equated with the practice of the new system coming into power. If we were to grant, for argument sake, that the bloody revolutionary process of the communist regime under Lenin/Stalin was equivalent to the bloody revolutionary process of the federalist/republic regime under Washington, we could not then conclude the the results of those respective revolutions were equivalent.
"the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity" Yeats post WW1. That lack of conviction, what is that lack of conviction? IMHO this is upward pressure of the individual, rubbing against the downward pressure of a failed politics, failed, within the frame of the individual. If this is true. Is it still playing out 100 years later and is it going end? When does the political becomes as small as the individual? How does the political become as small as the individual? Can the political become as small as the individual? Do we have political answers to the individual? Democracy has tried and has actually managed to broaden the church, but has not solved the problem of collective economics and collective violence. (That is, to the satisfaction of the current membership.) I would change the line for modern political times as per below. "most of us lack all conviction, while the least of us are full of passionate intensity"
I don't know much about him Elaine. Another commenter mentioned that he had a more substantial and accurate criticism so I'll be curious to check that out
loving your content (I stumbled today looking into metamodernism) The idea of revolution is very much alive in the periphery of capitalism. LATAM, Africa, and some places in middle-east. What could it be....? 🤔Maybe it's just a phase.
I like the direction of the content for these new video types. It has value. As a whole are we really that immature? I have 6 sons ranging in age from 12 to 26, first hand experience of the stages of maturity. Collective consciousness is a brilliant immature cocky teen. Clearly an over generalization but useful perspective regardless. It might be that simple. Global village mentality means work it out, it’s all us, fight nice.
Hahaha I can see what you mean Aaron I've had similar thoughts in the past and I do believe there's something in psychology about a group's intelligence being much lower than the intelligence of the individuals within it. It leans towards the lowest rather than the highest something like that so it makes sense
Brother, thanks for your analysis. Your channel is needed. If incels were an anthill, Peterson would be there queen. He's like an angry guy who wants to be the Joseph Campbell for paranoid budding fascists. Keep up the good fight. We are outnumbered by a world angry morons looking for a scapegoat.
Hey man! Didn't know that you live (or lived) in Athens. If you ever visit anything north of Thessaloniki, you are welcome to visit me and see another side of Greece, the mountains. Personally I follow your channel for educational purpose.
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thessaly is little bit more to the south, but as I said, my invitation will be open even if you would come by in the future! Keep up the good work, from a person that "identifies" as a stoic but really enjoys your content.
@@TheLivingPhilosophy oh, and one last thing. Visit Meteora. Google it before and you will understand why. The most beautiful place in Greece when it comes to gifts from nature.
I have great sympathy for your comments about Peterson’s moral dismissal of Foucault and Derrida and like figures. I want to hazard revealing my abysmal American education by pointing you toward a work with which you are likely already familiar on the off chance that you have not heard of it, namely the essay “Repressive Tolerance” by Herbert Marcuse, a prominent member of the Frankfurt school and, as I understand it, a key figure in the student movements of the late American 1960s. Some of the comments he makes in that essay can take on a conspiratorial bend; at one point he says that in the future all right-wing movements must not be tolerated because they all lead necessarily to Nazism, whereas all left-wing movements must be tolerated, no matter their excesses, because they point the way toward a better world: “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theater audience when somebody cries: 'fire'. It is a situation in which the total catastrophe could be triggered off any moment, not only by a technical error, but also by a rational miscalculation of risks, or by a rash speech of one of the leaders. In past and different circumstances, the speeches of the Fascist and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre. The distance between the propaganda and the action, between the organization and its release on the people had become too short. But the spreading of the word could have been stopped before it was too late: if democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War.” I arrived at this passage via James Lindsay, a figure who I find both useful and intensely irritating, who spins much of the work of the Frankfurt School in conspiratorial language. But I must admit, the above passage seems to conform pretty immediately to the interpretation of the American/NATO political scene put forward by right-leaning figures who feel they are being institutionally disenfranchised, and if James Lindsay’s arguments about how Marcuse’s ideas became the dominant arguments of the post-WWII Western Left are true, then this passage provides a bracing perspective on how we have come to be in the political climate in which we fond ourselves. Have you encountered Marcuse and his colleagues? If so, what do you make of them? If not, what do you make of this paragraph, and does it spark your interest in reading more material like it?
I only know Marcuse by name and from what other people have been saying the Frankfurt School is a much more valid avenue to explore in pursuit of this thesis. It's what makes Peterson's view more shocking though that he has the details completely wrong and yet is so certain about it. There's still a lot I'd have to be convinced of. This quote of Marcuse is interesting but it doesn't have any of the hallmarks of the Postmodern Neomarxist thesis. The main point of the quote seems to be about the danger we find ourselves in where the distance between the mobilising and the catastrophe has disappeared. The part I'm guessing that Lindsay is worried about is what Marcuse means by withdrawal of democratic support. I'd have to understand what he means by that and what the greater context is of this piece before I'd be lending any credence to the scary narrative of the postmodern neomarxist thesis. The other point I would want to investigate is the influence of Marcuse. I barely know the name (not that that's saying much) so I'd be surprised to find out that Marcuse had managed to take over academia and hatch a plot to overthrow the West from the inside. He might have anti-democratic trends at times (which isn't all that appalling when you look at what passes for democracy these days - 300 million people and the best America could come up with is Trump and Biden) but does that mean he's plotting to destroy the West. I would have to be convinced. Still it's much more on the right track than Peterson's thesis so it'd be nice to wrestle with someone who actually does hold this position or something resembling it. Thanks for bringing him and James Lindsay to my attention!
The only thing I have against JP is that he tries to justify his stance by an appeal to faith and mysticism. And gets very emotional about it. Looks like he is trying to save Christianity. I have only seen three of your vids. This one and the JP shadow one, and the one about pedophilia and the French intellectuals. From these three I get that you are a centrist-an immoralist . I am no philosopher. I am a businessman. I see things as black and white. And I have notice that the middle is the most dangerous path. It always justifies evil. From the three vids I have seen, you do try to be partial has hell. But I can tell you do not like Capitalism and favor collectivism. You are a smart guy. Ask yourself how the extreme left sees you and how the extreme right does. Who do you think is your friend? Check yourself, dig deep at your shadow. The beast is there for a reason.
I'm unsure of the etymology of the term " discourse" but to me it sounds like two (or more) I.e. a potential collective's attempt to chart a course towards a goal still under consideration. As for "narrative" ,well , implies a narrator. Your mention of shadow is oh-so-close to the mark in light of Jung's recommendation to neither send it hither as in projection, nor embrace it too tightly as with neuroses. It is to me like(yeah , out of Neitzshe's context) Zarathustras tightrope walker being assailed by the dwarfish figure urging and kicking at his heels , hup hup,lamefoot etc.(Quite the materialist this dwarf I'd bet) Anyway, having read Peterson's first two public works, I'm a bit surprised at his foray ,back, into more collectivist areas. His political sight could be improved . No doubt ,though I feel for some reason we'd do well to send him a copy of Heidegger and a case of beer. (Note: his earlier teachers, for some still undefined reason warned him off Jung. Advising not to speak too loudly of him.)
I knew you were a dirty communist, but now I have Kassandra to confirm it. 😂 In all seriousness, in moments like these when dealing with people like that, I think of Jesus saying “If they do not receive you, shake the dust off your sandals and leave that place.” Some people simply aren’t worth the energy. I think as a creator, you have a responsibility to allow people to comment their ideas, and as viewers, we have a responsibility to be respectful and constructive on someone else’s content. Once a viewer breaks that contract, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to get rid of them. Comparing that to censorship is ridiculous. As for your take on the communists and revolution, I think you’re right about revolution sometimes being necessary, but as a last resort. JP actually comments a similar thing saying sometimes it’s necessary, but be very careful when deciding to break those kinds of rules. In Maoist China, Mao tried to keep the revolutionary spirit in the peasantry against anyone remotely successful, even when the peasants didn’t want any sort of revolution themselves. When you have ideologies predicated on power and revolution built into the system, that’s a serious problem. And I think that is more bound to happen in communist systems than any other but that’s just me. Great video, like you already know I think it’s a great idea to give your own opinion and I personally love hearing it. 👍🏻
Hahaha you got me red handed (pun 100% intended). That's a great quote from JC I'd never actually heard that one before and I really appreciate the take on the commenter interaction it's a good balanced view I feel that strays away from the polarities and tries to create good community.
What do you mean “ideologies Predicated on power.” Power for oneself or collective ? Power in autonomy to have a right in their sense of self? Are not ideas derived by the power that is oneself ? Or is power a fragment to one’s sense of self ? Can you have no power in idealism? Would that be a state of neurosis and/or psychosis ? I’m just trying to figure out the context of communism being dangerous in revolting vs other systems of governance enforced by power ?
@@alexandriacorral7494 Ideologies that are only concerned with the class power struggle narrative. Those with power must be revolted against those with no power. And then once those with power are disposed of (besides the government itself of course), then new people are targeted because of any bit of success. Other systems, such as capitalism, has more to do with competence than power. Those with power are usually the most competent… usually. In Maoist China, even when all of the landlords, people with the most power, were killed or imprisoned, the government kept the “power struggle” narrative alive. No matter the cost, Mao made sure to keep the narrative in the culture.
That facebook page you are talking about is honestly disappointing. I joined a couple months back. It's mostly out of context quotes, long winded rants and confusingly phrased questions, and all of it is steeped in anti-communism. Just see the way they speak about Sartre if he is ever brought up. Lol IDK what I was expecting from a facebook group, maybe some actual discussion of philosophical texts. I think you handled that particular individual well. There are critiques to be discussed about Peterson, Marxism, and Post Modernism. Days of great conversation could be had. But the blatant hate of leftist theory and ideology is not a discussion. It absolutely is a conspiracy theory and paradoxical to say that Post Modernism is trying to establish "Neo-Marxism." And people that think is happening haven't actually looked into either ideology and are taking Peterson's words as complete truth. Marxism does want to pursue the restructuring of society and values, which has happened multiple times throughout society and is an evolving dialectical process. And he tries to equate this with some sort of "post modern nihilistic" destruction of society. This is non-material in theory because it presupposes that there is a specific way society should be organized that is unchanging and always true. So it really is incompatible with Marxist thought. I'm not sure where else to take this except I did appreciate your critique of Peterson. It wasn't the typical full on hatred you hear from leftist circles and you do give him his credit where it is due.
@@wolfofossory7 a very good question indeed. I'm not quite sure what the answer is. I think there was his original rage and then there was the feedback loop of people hating on him increasing his rage and the sharpness of the rhetoric and onwards till his current peak. But that still doesn't answer the question of the original anger.
Can't believe this guy claims to "like" Peterson. He clearly has him pegged as a very influential hateful and bitter thought leader who just ratchets up the vitriol of society.
Aye bro. Plan is to evolve the mind. The soul and the body. I know all 4 quadrants it's weird. But. E mc2. So energy can never be destroyed or create so are we imortale second. Am trying to evolve this world. So we can start civilization 1 we evolve people we have less problems in the world and. We can play with our solar system putting. Iron inside mars making it a gravity field. And doing other things to other planets lets make a whole inside the moon and Pluto
I won't. I've actually been thinking a lot about that. It's the easiest way to undermine a movement. It was something that got me after the Cathy Newman interview - that Peterson could be dismissed because some of his supporters were not nice. The same cherrypicking of the worst elements happens with Peterson when it comes to the other side of course and that's when you get runaway polarisation. Rather than looking for the best you look for the worst and you go some way towards creating it
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I tend to agree with JP obviously so I can get pretty triggered by negative videos of him. But so long as they’re fair enough I don’t go on the defense, start attacking and downvoting and all the rest.
@@Wingedmagician That's the exact kind of interaction I'm looking for Rob. I've done more than my own share of defending Peterson with people and wanted this not to be an attack but a critique of an element of his thinking while still affirming him in general
What type in jungian cognitive functions is Jordan Peterson? Is he an INTP or ENTP? Then his shadow will be either a ENTJ (Te, Ni, Se, Fi) or INTJ (Ni, Te, Fi, Se).
About Kassandra, I would like to bring up the subject of the "Paradox of tolerance" by Karl Popper. "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant" -- Vol. 1 of The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper. Freedom of speech must have its limits to be considered free. And that's why social media platforms promote freedom of speech, but at the same time put their guidelines to maintain a free community.
I've had some time to think since I've watched the first video. What I found fascinating then and still do, is how far off Peterson seems to be about the original post modernists, especially Foucault and Derrida. That said, I'm not so sure he's far of the mark with the current crop. With what was said of Foucault's understanding of Power, I get the feeling that there has been a shift in the definition of that word, as it doesn't align with the way people like DiAngelo or Kendi use that word. Another point is that while Foucault and Derrida may have been deeply suspicious of grand narratives, today there very definitely IS a grand narrative. It may not be a conspiracy of people trying to deliberately destroy western civilization, yet there seems to be a deep hatred - or at least disgust - with nearly everything that got us all to the point where we can have this discussion with total strangers who we don't even know where they live, but are still able to fling insults at each other (which happens far to often in most comment sections). Another point is that in what I have been able to observe, he always debated honestly and accepted stronger arguments. And I've definitely never seen him stoop to straw-manning or even insults like Dyson did with his infamous "mean mad white man". Considering that so many achievements that where won with blood are now under threat - the value of the individual (intersectionality firmly places the value on the group), the right to free speech (cancel culture) and many others - I can certainly understand the rage he sometimes carries. You say the antidote to polarity is curiosity. To an extent that is true. The deciding factor seems to be if you can create reciprocal curiosity. A good example of this is Daryl Davis who, as a black man, befriended and de-radicalized many KKK members. Yet when he sought dialogue with radical BLM protestors to try the same, he was shut down and didn't achieve anything. To me it seems that at least certain elements of today's post modernist thinkers and the far left are aimed squarely at the destruction of anything modernity has built.
Nah don’t block unless it’s flagrant madness or death threats. Open dialogue and conflict is the surest path to truth. Just don’t read the comments of rude people if it gets to you
"The antidote to polarity is curiosity" - excellent phrase, and a great channel!
Thanks Ben!
Indeed. Nietzsche said we must stop thinking of everything in terms of opposites.
Peterson: "The antidote to tyranny is tWo cHiMpS."
@@amanofnoreputation2164 lol!
Nonsense. You can't tolerate intolerance. The woke sees the mainstream as intolerant and treat it with utter intolerance. Who's going to win in that situation? The side that has not created Gulags and isn't currently mutilating young children, that's who.
Your channel will boom one day and we'll be here celebrating it with you! Keep up the good work! Would love to see you have a talk/debate with anyone really.
Signed, one of the oarsmen
Haha thanks Modded one can only hope!
The Yates quote reminded me of the famous Bertrand Russell quote about, "the problem with the world is the wise people are so full of doubts while the not so wise are so full of confidence." That's a rough paraphrase.
Anyway, I will remember your quote, "hold your belief lightly and be curious of others." That's the best mantra for the times, IMO. Unlikely but really needed.
I recently discovered this channel, and it is excellent. Your Jungian take on JB is one of the best and fairest critiques of his ideology I've come across. I got into JB way before he blew up after the stance he took on the C16 trans issue, loved how he used Jungian theory in his teaching, but found is 'down with commies' stuff to be mccathyist in tone and politically/culturally evangelical. Your video on JB was great because it remined me, its ok to like , some of what, JB says, and like Derrida.
Awesome Eamonn sounds we've got a very similar sense of the situation: appreciation doesn't mean blind adoration
You are the best down to earth philosophy teacher I have ran into on TH-cam!!!!! Thank You for your effort...
"The antidote to polarity is curiosity" loved that quote!
Regarding the video, I am actually unsure if Peterson creates polarity or if he weakens polarity: one has to consider the fact that the right has few "intellectuals", listening to Peterson might be the only thing that gets some people on the right acquainted with debates, citing scientific papers and steelmanning the arguments of the opposition. But yes, it does not pay to get too entrenched in one's ideas and JP is not immune to the bias, that is always knocking on our doors, of getting enamored with our own thoughts.
Oh and don't worry about blocking people going overboard on the internet, it can be healthy to do so!
Haha thanks mon0 I'll keep that in mind next time I'm blocking. And I can see where you're coming from with Peterson but I still feel that there are better examples out there. Dan Webber brought up Thomas Sowell who I find a much more level-headed right wing thinker but yeah I guess how many people on the right are intellectually oriented compared to the left? It seems likely it's a lot less. Which also makes sense if you think that right wing is conservative so it's about preserving things as they are which doesn't take much thought while the Left is more about Progressivism and that requires thinking about things in new and different ways which is a more intellectually demanding endeavour
@Heehlend Interesting though Heehlend that may definitely be another factor in the equation
Peterson is not really conservstive, center-right maybe as most thinkers don't lean into extremes (as we know it in modernity, there are definitely intellectuals through history who took specific ideas to extreme like Diogenes, but most brilliant mind are more reasonable then that and Peterson is no different in that regard.) Sadly occasionally ideological ideas will persevere over rational outlook. We can all benefit from some more introspection. As for blocking this individual, it's important to separate individual right to expression from fostering branching ideas in philosophical community you are trying to create. So don't worry, blocking this individual is completely reasonable.
@@nurudinnuhefendic8951 Thanks for the input nurudin
Framing LGBT-rights and womens rights always as the downfall of civilization is quite polarizing. People like John Milbank are conservative intellectuals who are less polarizing. Peterson tends to strawman his opponents into oblivion.
We see his overt alarmism when it comes to C16 ... Nothing of the things he warned about actually happened. It is kind of inherently polarizing when you think the existence of a group is up for debate, since people in this group might not "agree to disagree" about their right to be free from discrimination.
I am someone who was addicted to Jordan Peterson on and off for 3 years. I won't tell people not to listen to him, but I will recommend additional resources. I recommend people read "The Intellectual We Deserve" by Nathan J. Robinson. I recommend people listen to the "Decoding the Gurus" Podcast, especially the episode on Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein in conversation. When he is speaking alone, ask yourself if it is possible that every other academic is really as deceived or malicious as he seems to think (conspiracy element), and when he speaks with someone else (like Lawrence Krauss on The Origins Podcast, for example), ask yourself why he is answering every question in such a roundabout way. If you think you understand what Jordan says, ask yourself if you could answer questions in a much simpler manner.
I'm not completely against Jordan Peterson, but I think he mixes science with piles of speculation that build on one another so that he can get a complete narrative. The key to listening to him is differentiating when he is talking about something that is generally known, and when he is pushing his own private (and much less substantiated) beliefs.
Notice how much his narrative relies on redefining commonly known words. He redefines words like "theology", for example, or even "god", so that within his system and with his definitions you are more inclined to agree with him. And yet I have noticed with Peterson fans that they tend to use the colloquial definitions of these words in the bailey of their discussions and retreat to his motte when pressed. Ask yourself why Jordan does not differentiate his ideas from traditional theology despite saying clearly different things. The same could go for someone like Jonathan Pageau. They have a bailey in which they look almost like a traditional Christian, and they have a motte within which they more or less just believe in an innate hierarchy of ideas. They call religion "non-propositional" but push back not a bit on those who clearly push religious propositions. Jonathan Pageau goes so far as to make religion unquestionable based on a presupposition of the universality of his hierarchy of ideas. This kind of stuff can be very interesting, but listeners should know how thin the ice that they walk on really is.
In the mid-1980s, I was teaching my first art history courses on a college level. One day, circumstances prevented me from being prepared for the first lecture of the week, a very early Monday morning. I decided to go in there and riff on what we had covered the previous week. After all, I was glib and affable, with hair then maybe half as long as yours is now, which gave me a great deal of cred with the students. The problem was, of course, being unprepared. I'm sure it looked like it to at least some of the 100 students sitting there during a heavy snowfall at 7:45 in the morning. What were my options? None really. I filled up the time the best I could to stay on schedule and meet expectations. Except that I didn't quite meet them, and I knew it. My prepared talks were light years beyond my stand-up. You have the great advantage of not having to show up in the snow because 100 other people are going to, and it simply wouldn't do to be absent. Next time, you could simply post a notice to the effect that your current episode is taking longer to produce. That's all. A true statement, one everyone will respect and relate to. We can all wait another week or two for the polished presentation. You needn't come out and apologize, nor less give us the details of how you choose to manage your website. We're not tuning in for HR discussions. But rather because you are good at discussing the nuts and bolts and phantasms of the irrational that make up philosophy.
Dang you've never been one to mince your words Will! I do appreciate the sentiment though and without a doubt you have a point. I guess I'm putting a sort of pressure on myself in my head and then feel the need to explain myself but as you say this isn't necessary. Aside from the HR announcement though I do think there is value in this more casual style and it'll create more room for my own reflections on the topics. No doubt it won't be for everyone but I think to put what I'm doing into context it could be good (if a bit tighter structurally in future)
“I’m afraid to say anything…” my thoughts exactly. It is what brought me back to philosophy and thereby to your channel. I have written about four comments only to delete them later, because I didn’t think that my words added much.
I like to listen to Peterson too as he does have some points, but I have also felt that the polarization of the landscape it getting untenable. I have wanted to run to change things in my community, but it has gotten to the point, “if you don’t believe 100% of what I think, we cannot have common ground.” As a conservative, I have been shut out of the conversation for 20 years that I have gotten to the point of immobility. I fear that too many people are in this same boat.
Keep up the channel. Next semester, I am retaking Renaissance Philosophy (after 25 years) and I am going to need help getting past it.
Happy New Year and here’s to a great 2023.
Thanks for the kind words Kevin and good luck with Renaissance philosophy sounds like it should be an interesting course!
I really like your approach of exploring ideas and provisionally taking a position, knowing it's going to be partial and likely have to be reassessed. I think it shows openness and an ability to not hold ones opinions too tightly. It also allows one to go into areas that are no go zones for idealiogues and in this way growth, rather than indoctrination is possible.. Forums like the one you are creating are a very valuable antidote to the current polarization.
As for Cassandra, I think she was ticked off at the suggestion that Peterson was caught in a conspiracy theory. I guess for many its considered a noble mission to fight against the neo Marxist barbarians, fearing that they will descend on ones culture, disrupt all of ones certainties and open the door to chaos. Conversely the wokeish are inspired by their mission to deconstruct the old ways without much consideration of what will emerge, just hoping its something better.. i think you're right, that the intoxicating allure of belonging to one side in the holy war is great.. Rare it seems is there an ability to integrate both concerns without taking sides.
I couldn't have said it better myself michael it's the feeling of justification that comes from the jihad I guess (the lesser one of course since it's a turning of the back on the greater jihad). I like what you say about this approach having the potential to go where the polarities can't. That's an exciting thought and I can see what you mean. A synthesis is lucky enough to see something that is missing to the thesis and antithesis
Wouldn't a liberal democracy (the US) or maybe a social democracy be the synthesis?
It seems like you're genuinely doing your best. What a great channel to stumble upon!
The only blindspot so to speak that comes to mind is that your openness is huge, and so it might be worth thinking about things you're not so open about, and using that to understand the perspectives of someone like Kassandra.
You are so open that you're able to hold the two extreme sides at the same time, and it's easy to feel like that's only a good thing. But is it always a good thing?
What is the happy middle ground between the polarity of peaceful cooperation and savage murder? In this extreme example it's actually not good to be open, but to be closed and protective. Yes?
So yeah I am a fan already, but that just came to me and I thought it might be something worth meditating on for you.
Very interesting thought thanks for the input. And I think you are right it's definitely not just an Aristotelian golden mean situation. That just ends up being another point of tension to set up on the map. I would still say that the openness is a good thing (although definitely it has its disadvantages since it takes more time to digest and leads to a more ongoing state of limbic uncertainty) because it gives a possibility of empathising with everyone at the table. It certainly shouldn't be disentangled from valuations and fall into a relativism but...yeah I think there's a new phrasing here required
Are you familiar with Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions"? I would really like to hear what you think of it.
I have not but just reading the wikipedia page it sounds like a very interesting thesis. I've watched a few interviews with Sowell and quite like the guy so this might be right up my street
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I'd love to hear your perspective on this.
@@mmiv37 I'll take that as a bump in its favour! I would like to look at some Sowell so this could be a good one
@@TheLivingPhilosophy another bump here XD will be looking forward to it
I was hoping to hear about JPs shadow
A vision of the living philosophy:
Be good,
Noble
+impressive now-
While it is still matter.
The adventure of life is to learn what I find interesting and remember what matters to me;
To me,
Fighting means conquering my self because self-mastery is das ultimate form of power.
You better stop with those big words, someone with enough curiosity might try that theory out. " self mastery is the ultimate form of power" awsome.
Love it satnamo
The are two great moral dangers that are the most fundamental ad to be avoided at all cost:
1. Presupposing evil does not exist
2. Making the distinction between good and evil so radical that you commit idolatry and project evil onto good.
I came for the titular content and have only gotten you so far...I really like it.
Haha glad you're enjoying it Ali. It's actually my own reaction to a video I made on JP's shadow - something that I did not make clear in any way at all in this video (I'm going to update the description now)
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I did indulge in that video as well, which was wonderfully concise. Your knowledge and presentation are admirable to say the least and I couldn't be more pleased to have the chance to tell you!
@@alitomblison1808 Haha thanks a million Ali it's greatly pleasing to my ears to hear it
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity,"
A variant of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
As soon as I knew for certain that KK wasn't ready to engage in a good faith argument, I just excused myself lol. Moderating is tough and I don't envy the decisions you have to make for the health of your channel. Thanks for producing accessible and well thought out content, I'm glad that my engagement with KK was encouraging/interesting/helpful to you.
Haha probably the wisest move Colin. Once you know it's not good faith it's wise to disengage. Thanks for getting involved in the debate and for saving me from having to learn that good faith was lacking in KK's case
We have to look at JP in context in my opinion. His strident approach is off-putting admittedly but, considering the cultural battles going on in the universities it make sense. I’m a pretty conservative religious person however left leaning politically. If your going to try and be a maverick in that environment you have be a good counter-puncher. Peterson resonates with a lot of people who value fee-thinking. Just like when Sam Harris starts to talk about the moral landscape, when Peterson starts to to talk about philosophy I cringe a bit. Nevertheless these are conversations that are important and while I think Sam Harris’s attempt to ground ethics in the cognitive sciences failed at least he’s trying.
I think it’s good for these conflicts of ideas to be expressed and examined. I want to agree and understand Peterson but when he tries to be a philosopher I find some of his ideas to be overly complex and honestly it sounds like someone trying to baffle em’ with bullshit. Maybe I’m just too stupid to get his point, I like that he presses the is/ought problem but doesn’t really follow through with a cohesive conclusion. As Robert Hunter said “when you get confused listen to the music play”.
I am about 99% with what you have offered. Thank you for sharing it.
I watch you from Russia. Many thanks to you for the channel. I really like the content, and your presentation, and your personal charm. Thank you.
Thanks Еленой!
keep up this kind of quality content man, love it!
Thanks Alvin!
“You have overcome yourself: but why do you show yourself to me only as the one overcome? I want to see the victor: throw roses into the abyss and say: 'here is my thanks to the monster who didn't succeed in swallowing me alive.'"
― Friedrich Nietzsche
I feel Peterson has a huge shadow. I feel there should be equality with everyone but the human race far from this. Disagreement are healthy to form a better World and everything is a give and take. Great video, remember you aren't rambling you just sharing your ideas and I like hearing different opinions on different topics.
Oh my lord! As something of a Nietzsche connoisseur it's rare that someone throws a quote out there that I haven't heard before but for it to be this amazing a quote as well god damn that's epic!
Thank for the kind words and support. I appreciate the comment about the rambling I've noticed I say that quite a bit and can see the insecurity it's tied to so thanks for pointing it out I'm going to try and reel that thought pattern in in future
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I love Nietzche I'm full of his quotes and Hegel too. Hope your day is going well.
@@renaissancefairyowldemon7686 Haha he's a good man to be full of. I'm surprised to hear that you got a lot of Hegel as well. I don't come across a lot of Hegel quote surprisingly. My day is going well I'm actually leaving Athens today for a few days in Switzerland so a busy day ahead!
I love that attitude. It's where I am these days. So frustrating that so many people want to turn it all into a war.
Hey 👋🏻 your videos really enlighten me, thank you very much, your channel is already a valuable, interesting and fulfilling part of my life. I’ve been reading philosophy since I’m 16 years old but previously I was interested in some philosophy themes which were mainly introduced to me by my grandmother. One of the philosophers I’ve read the most is Nietzsche but I also read a lot of stoicism. Also Jung is a big thinker in my life to whom I look up to, but obviously there are many more. I’m always curious and eager to deepen my knowledge. Thank you!
Ahh! Dialectics are so intense sometimes. I know that with tools to censor it's a very tough to strike the balance between one's community intention and the most generalized essence of freedom.
I'm not going to complain about it even if I disagree about making those correspondences hidden. I understand the pressure that you're under and your reasoning.
The growth of your channel is one reason why I don't always comment or make shorter ones because there's enough to consider already and the sheer volume of everything can become exhausting.
I totally agree about your opinions on revolution, couldn't say it better myself.
In my opinion people ought to be able to conserve their own values and reserve their own communities, alchemically speaking the solvent is the solution.
Yet I don't think disagreements need to be so intense, the one idea is not forcing people to conform to just one ideology. Not two or three either.
Rather every nuance deserves some place for their own experiments and developments.
Therefore it's understandable when something is too radical and disrespectful of boundaries that it is inline with psychopathy and therefore needs to be somewhat controlled or if too violent extinguished.
However there always needs to be a way out for everyone but the kinds of criminals that [practically] everyone agrees are criminals. And not to forget this entire world, among all its troubling technicalities, it's something that indeed we're different in yet in it altogether.
So even where boundaries are established there still needs to be a fair amount of communication kept up. If someone then doesn't fit a social convention in one place they probably can fit in somewhere if not many places.
So to the individual I recommend that they try to build homes everywhere that shows them kindness back and let us foster understanding and maintain the intentions of what's honorable even as we all subtly change our views.
- Your Quality Anarchist
Thanks Apologist you've put words a lot of the sentiments I was wrestling with and your input is valued
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thank you James! I try my best.
There's a reason why I believe you're of the cream of the crop for the discussions of philosophy in all of youtube. You are running a good channel and doing good things. I am excited for your developments. Don't give up!
And I know it's only a para-social relationship and all, but I say the following as a fellow human who cares about you. Really it's okay to take a breather if that improves your quality of the channel if not only your health. I think you can bust out content or even take your time, either way I think your success is practically guaranteed. If that gives you any assurance in security as well as knowing that you have many respectful followers. Take care until next time and enjoy Athens 😁
- YQA
@@yqafree Wow thanks yqa I really appreciate that and thanks for taking this journey with me!
Your openness and honesty (opening intro) is great. Very relatable fella.
Really enjoyed this format. I could see you sort of exploring things in the open, outside of your head! Feels more personal too, like you’re having a conversation with the viewer rather than explaining a concept/idea.
I’m in favour of this style or a mix of this and the older way.
I consider myself to be a free thinker rather than being ‘signed up’ to a particular way or ideology.
By extension I’m a classic ‘floater’ 😂 a floating voter. I think I’ve voted for almost every party over the years depending on which one has the most manifesto pledges I can relate to. Most years I really struggle as those I like are balanced fairly equally to those things I really don’t align with. Then inevitably I’m disappointed as none of the things I valued actually happen! 🙄
I’m the same with most things. I pick & choose ideas I like, that make sense to me I look for/notice similarities between them & I’ve noticed how they are very similar in lots of ways.
Cool you’re going to Athens. I had a day there a fair few years ago…was part of a cruise 🚢. Visited the Parthenon 🏛 and did a few classic tourist things! I swore I’d go back for longer…to date I haven’t, it’s still in my ‘bucket’ to do though.
Thanks Danny! I have a similar sense of this format as well after doing it I quite like the casual freeness it allows so I think I'll be doing more of it in future. I'll keep them separate I think so that the other videos can be faithful explorations of the topic and this can be its own thing. Athens is indeed a charming city I was blown away by the Parthenon the first time I went up the Acropolis. Truly spectacular
Thank you excellent concepts and dialogue.
Thanks for your commentary. I am grappling with dampening polarity in dialogue too. My feedback to you video is that you may need to apply a higher level of contrast exposing both ends of the shadow. It may not have been you intent but by not more explicitly applying concern for actions on the other end of the polarity you risk not getting the viewer to properly question both sides and decide for themselves if they will land in the middle.
I don't know if you are going to see this comment but I just wanted to share my thoughts with you. Several days after I watched Zizek "vs." Peterson video and today I watched your Jordan Peterson's Shadow, and then discovered that you have this video as well. Initially I thought you received important feedback or there were more stuff to cover but after watching the video I realized this video is somewhat individualistic. And I like this.
Just today, I asked people on the internet if there are intellectual content creators (like you) and people recommended a lot of channels. I liked none of them. Some of them seemed as if they were involved too much in popular culture, and although I am not against popular culture, I just don't want the hear biased opinions about intellectual discourses. I always prefer people who know that they have an ideology, as it can be the indication that I am going to hear biased opinion or it means that they are very well aware that ideologies can be biased, so choosing to be skeptical instead.
On top of that, the other channels they recommended me created content in a way that is similiar to a technician or a scientist. I don't understand how people can talk philosophy, something so full of life, with terms that inspire nothing at all. When you talk about philosophy, seeing the flash in your eyes, for some reason, inspires me and makes me happy for you and myself. So I was glad to see this video. You probably don't like being praised and this probably came off a lot like praising (maybe it is), so sorry for that.
This was a beautiful thing to read and I really appreciate you sharing it. It really means the world to me to hear that my work can inspire some feeling of the beauty of philosophy in someone else so I am really grateful to you thank you
14k! Congraaaaatuuuuulations!!! Keep it up!
Hahaha thanks Bill!!
Hi, I have just arrived at your channel, and I want to congratulate you on the excellent content.
I was intrigued when I saw the title Postmodern Neo-Marxism - Jordan Peterson's Shadow and couldn't help but watch the video. I am not a fan of JP and have always found it difficult to listen to him because I have always sensed in his tone an inauthenticity that I don't like, and he has become so aggressive that I can't keep up with him. I was curious about that video you spoke of, where he puts himself in a humble posture. The only debate I managed to watch to the end was with Slavoj Žižek, so baffling that it was comical, but a good debate.
But I leave this comment to propose the following thought: What if, instead of possession by the shadow, what is happening to JP is an identification with the Self? If we take Jung's analysis of Nietzsche as an example, Jung states: "(...) the great psychic danger which is always connected with individuation, or the development of the Self, lies in the identification of ego-consciousness with the Self. This produces an inflation which threatens consciousness with dissolution". (Archetypes and the collective unconscious).
In his psychic theory of individuation, Jung proposes five stages, the 4th stage which Jung calls "Man in search of his Soul", projections become extinct and the worldview is stripped of symbols and meaning. The ego becomes self-critical and reflective. However this is a dangerous stage, in which the ego can identify with the Self and enter into megalomaniacal delirium, making it impossible to evolve to the 5th stage, called The Unified Psyche (The manifestation of the Self, in which the unification of the conscious and the unconscious occurs, the ego no longer identifies with the archetypes and the transcendent function occurs).
What Jung proposes in his analysis of Nietzsche is that his introverted Intuition as a primary function has not integrated his lower function, extroverted sensation (I would say his Dionysius have been stifled), and leads Nietzsche to a hyper subjectivation of the consciousness of the Self. Nietzsche creates his Übermensch, Zarathustra (the Self as the archetype of the wise man), and identifies with him. He becomes his truth.
This identification with the Self is illusory in its greatness and tends to create 'saviours' who catalyse, and awaken, the collective shadow.
Sorry for the huge message :)
P.S. Your personal opinion? Yes please, it is in the exchange of ideas that we grow as individuals.
Fascinating take Carla. I don't actually think of it as Shadow possession so much as this bit of his intellectual landscape is dominated by his shadow.
But with the bits of his more recent work I think you might be on to spot on. I think it's always a danger when you're anyone's guru that with the weight of projection "inner gold" as Robert Johnson calls it being cast upon you it's difficult not to begin to believe that you are special. I remember when he first came on the scene I was so hopeful because he was older before he got any fame and being steeped in Jungian thought and psychology I reckoned here's a man who has done his work and thus a great canditate to carry that weight without succumbing to it. But alas he ain't no hobbit with the one ring and he has it seems collapsed under the energy. He does seem to have given in to an ego inflation. I've begun questioning the Self aspect a bit so I won't go there but I would say that he is carrying the Ideal of a particular subset of his followers who have become gatekeepers driving the more moderate fans away and shaping him with that weight of inner gold until he has become a warped version of what he once was. No longer wise and equanimous but angry and resentful. At least that's my current opinion (and you did ask!)
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thank you for your reply.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought you were talking about shadow possession. I agree with you, it is not easy to sustain such popularity and the guru path is an easy slide to the "dark side of the force". However, I try to listen to him without prejudice, but his weeping voice makes me wonder what he's performing. Like he's playing christ or something like that.
Perhaps you've already seen this, but if not, (10:17 - 14:28) th-cam.com/video/j0GL_4cAkhI/w-d-xo.html. After seeing this and other things like that, I thought he might have been inflating his ego and getting caught in the trap of identification of ego-consciousness with the Self. But I don't know, maybe I'm exaggerating, maybe because I really like Jung's work, and it blurs my vision.
Anyway, enough of JP :)
@@carlafonseca1017 Yeah I love his maps of meaning lecture. That subpersonality is amazing and insightful. It's the popular intellectual that dresses like a villain and is beginning to take on the mannerisms of one that I can no longer listen to. I just watched the clip you sent on and that along with some other pepperings of the comparison of himself to Christ that I've come across would certainly point to a Self possession. There's certainly a lack of a container around the christ idea and that is dangerous and has perhaps infected him. I don't think it's just your fondness for Jung the same thought has crossed my mind in the past with his language around Christ and narrativising his own story. I think he's playing with fire and we may already be seeing the beginnings of some serious burns on his psychology. It's sad. The man had so much potential in my eyes
Also your channel is great. Thanks.
Great channel man, I just started watching and I'm super interested in what you have to say. You've clearly got some deep incites into what you're talking about and you've got a very healthy balanced outlook and that's obvious from the content you've been explaining and the order it's come in.
I'm excited to see what you do next and I think this is a great way to express you're opinions on the content you've been covering. I really like your channel because you do keep your opinion out of the explanation but again I'm also interested in your thoughts on the matter.
Edit: Also thanks for introducing me to some new philosophy, I've been pretty burnt out on it because I'm very burnt out on postmodernism. Metamodernism is fascinating to me and encapsulates a lot of the ideas that have been rolling around in my head in a very concise way. It's led me into post-postmodernism in general and I've been engaged with philosophy in a way that I haven't been for a very long time.
Wow thank you so much David that's really amazing to hear. Delighted to have added some new vitality to the philosophical journey for you that's above and beyond my expectations! Thank you for the kind words and support especially on this new format which I'm still trying to figure out the place of!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thanks for replying!
Another thought I've had for you that I think you might be able to use.
It's perfectly reasonable to not engage with people like Kasandra. It takes headspace to do so and you have no obligation of your time to people. You engage with them at your leisure and don't let them consume more headspace than you can offer without deviating from the goals you're trying to achieve. Not engaging with them doesn't invalidate your views and it doesn't make you a hypocrite, it simply means you don’t have the time and it's not your responsibility. As you saw other people are more than happy to and they're perfectly capable of doing so. This gets into a more broad concept that I've been toying with and developing myself. I see a lot of my own personal philosophy reflected in your words. I believe that most everyone has a value system that they have arrived at sincerely and you can learn something by charitably interacting with them and trying to understand why they hold their truths. That being said, understanding does not mean you're obligated to agree with or believe in their values. Take what you can from them and use them to make you a more well rounded person but also stick to your convictions. If someone is presenting ideas that are diametrically opposed to yours then you do not have to engage with them. Again it doesn't make you a hypocrite it makes you principled. Also keep in mind that there are people out there who do not engage in good faith, they're pushing an agenda and not being honest about it and they may have true ill will towards the world. There are people out there who fall on the psychopathic spectrum, who do not have empathy and good will as their default. There is true evil in this world, it is rare but it does exist and it's important to recognize it when you see it as it must be opposed. Evil can also be measured by someone's impact in the world, if they sow discord, division, and vitriol through their actions and words then they have become an agent of evil regardless of their intentions or beliefs. The ultimate measure of a man is not what lies in his head but what he creates in his world.
Edit: And I don't mean to sound polarizing myself, I 100 percent believe in your philosophy of engaging in good faith with people who have opposing views to you and I think it should be done as often as you have the capacity to do it. It helps heal the division we have in our world and it helps the people you do it with to do the same. I've used it to very good effect and have de-radicalized a couple conspiracy theorists in my life with the technique. Just be aware that some people don't engage in good faith and the best thing to do with that is walk away.
@@davidpilibosian I really respect that David. We definitely have a shared view on the world there. The bad faith is the main reason that I will not interact and I think the undeniably legitimate reason not to interact. I think the thing with the other people who are communicating in good faith but who totally disagree are more challenging. I question myself as to why I'm not interacting and whether I'm avoiding learning something so I try when I have the energy to explore it and digest their perspective but as you say there's limited headspace so perhaps I shouldn't feel so bad about staying aloof
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I don't think you should feel bad at all, and after a while you start to see the patterns in their communication and that they're really just trying to tear you down and get you to be angry like they are. You do it so many times and you just kind of get tired of it because the conversation always ends up going the same way, frequently with them resorting to personal attacks instead of logic or reason and it never ends with them taking anything from it. I've done it many many times on Reddit and have bean learning the hard way that it's best not to feed the trolls.
Edit: I think I may have misunderstood your last part about feeling bad. I think you may have been talking about being aloof to people who are engaging in good faith. This is something that's also perfectly fair, give what you have to give but take care of yourself and your mental health first so you have more to give in the future. Sustainable realistic output is much more important than instant gratification or obligation.
@@davidpilibosian That's a really good way of looking it David. I think the long term attitude is the right perspective to take and seeing that over time it will all reveal itself rather than feeling the urge to be understood right now. Thanks for the input and the support it's deeply appreciated
Great video! 👍 your walking the line better than I could 😆 much respect 👏
If it was me I'd have left them comments there. If a crow wants to squawk let them squawk. If a songbird wants to sing let them sing! 🙂 and your correct about the algorithms selection process and in a funny turn of events it can be a really cool thing for that persons polarised comments to be the elevator of your more balanced and curious pontifications! 😀 maybe your ideas can surf the algorithm to reach the people who need it. Maybe I'm just nieve 😊
Thanks for the input. I know what you mean about the squawking I guess my fear was that the squawking was becoming the only audible noise and was drowning out the rest of the birdsong
@@TheLivingPhilosophy what's this they said in the tao de ching, "a bad man is a good man's work" is it not through the struggle to find it that it's discovered? Is not what's in the way the way? 😜
@@TheLasTBreHoN Haha maybe you've got a point there
Watching this 6 months later, we've all witnessed a bit of a slip in jordans, uh, credibility. Seen a few extra biases crop up and a few cracks through the big ideas into the pettyness of the man peddling them. I wonder if this would have got the same response now.
You are doing great, please keep doing this!
Thanks Azeem will do!
Love your channel
It wasn't just the French Revolution. It was the Haitian revolution, the American revolution, the English Civil War, and the chaos of the fall of the Spanish Empire
If you are intending to create a platform that you can use as a school for philosophy, like it or not you need to cultivate a space which is open to people participating.
Kassandra was pretty corrosive to that vision for your channel.
You've gotta do what you've gotta do. Kassandra put you into a difficult position and you did what was necessary imo. Unfortunately the choice _not_ to censor those comments is not a neutral choice either and too often people look at situations like this as if inaction is an acceptable default or that it is "morally pure" in an extremely dogmatic way without considering the impacts of _not_ choosing to act.
For example, there are people who are so dogmatic about free speech who will defend acts like blackmail, intimidation, slander, libel and so on without considering how these actions can be used to attack free speech itself. I wouldn't lose too much sleep over people who criticize you for what you chose to do from this sort of unprincipled and dogmatic angle.
I hope your studies in philosophy provide you with what you need to navigate the practical choices you are presented with when building your channel and the culture of the comments section of your videos.
Thanks for the input Jess and you make a very good point about the neutrality of not censoring. As you point out it's the case here as everywhere else that once you leave behind the comfortable black and white of zero censorship judgement is necessary. I suppose you're also right that philosophy is a good field to be in when faced with problems like this. Thanks for the input it is much appreciated
Keep chin up. The work on JBP is solid and in my mind fair.
Your agenda for Ken Wilbur may be set. I've found value in the discussion beyween Dave Snowden and Nora Bateson on Spiral Dunamics. Hint - it brings out a particular kind of shadow from it's followers. Batson has persuaded Snowden to view with the perspective of a eugenics framing. The work Complexity science and Complexity philosophy has opened my eyes to new ways of seeing grounded in natural science.
Don’t feel bad about blocking that toxic person and other toxic people that might appear in the future. It’s the paradox of tolerance. To maintain a tolerant society/space, we must be intolerant to intolerant ideas. In other words sometimes the rod is required to maintain a space safe for discourse. And hey it’s your channel, your rules.
Also, your vision to make this a channel a place to create bridges, and reduce polarity by helping your viewers see the humanity of “the other side”, is a very worthwhile endeavor! I look forward to what new videos you have planned, and will do my best to contribute constructively to the discourse.
As someone who has been trying to get into stoicism, but still can’t completely... click with it, your videos about stoicism and the countercurrents (some that I have seen but some that I still plan to see) seem/where helpful in understanding it better.
I’m also thankful for your videos about Buddhism. In my philosophy circle we are also learning about it, but your video about the religious nature of Buddhism was a very important wake up call (I actually discovered this channel with that video, but was distracted by the Peterson one ^_^; haha).
Oh yeah, have fun in your travel to Athens. I have been told that their pastries are pretty good, so it’s worth a try! :D
Ah awesome Melanie! Welcome aboard! Thanks for the input already I can definitely see your point with the attitude towards intolenace.
I actually have some ideas for videos on Stoicism and hoping to do some on location in Athens while I have the opportunity! (though we'll have to see about the parties 😆) Glad the Buddhism video spurred the grey cells for you and I appreciate your input
I completely disagree with this dogmatic and simplistic notion that we must be "intolerant to intolerant ideas". That's the sort of radical far-left justification for heavy handedness that one finds on Reddit.
People who are outright disrespectful and have nothing sensible to say about the content, people who follow others without ever questioning what those leaders are truly about, should not be bothered with at all, and blocked immediately. "never argue with a fool" as the adage goes. We cannot let any of our emotional energy be diverted away from our purpose of unveiling/uncovering Truth which is a lifelong cause as it is.
Peter is a Communitarian, he's agent of synarchy
I mostly agree with your views on Peterson, and how his disgust resposnse to phenomenon is clear reflection on undealt shadow work. However I dont think he demonizes the whole left. He normally is addressing the radicals within it, that are clearly overstepping bounds. So some would say his active shadow is justified because its battling a real world threat. The real question boils down to do you think it is an actual threat? And that issue is what's polarising society. Fanstasic video, I love your careful nuance. Keep it up brother. Love from the royal county of Meath
Hmm interesting point not sure if it justifies it since I feel like it does more damage to be dealing with a real problem acting out of your shadow becuase then you're not seeing the reality but a mix between the reality and your fears/hates being projected onto it. It does create a dynamism though that's for sure. Also can I just say that I love you calling it the royal county of Meath!! Was reading through Lady Gregory's irish mythology a couple of years ago and feel like Meath's noble past is too often forgotten! Certainly among us Limerick vikings anyway!
Man, I think you do great wee videos, don’t get too much into thinking about crazies. They exist, you can’t change them, just keep on keeping on, Irish Jesus!
Haha thanks Al St
Great video. Very insightful
Thank you kindly J D!
It's really not a problem to block people that aren't in the mode for a constructive argument. They need time to cool off and clear their mind.
The thing is, if we we were (are) in a dire cultural political crisis, I would trust Jordan for a sense of the truth of things. If I wanted to cogitate on a lot of ideas, philosophical underpinnings, conjectures on ontology, psychology, you are interesting, academic, and in some senses make a satisfying, useful, in-my-head debate. My left brain sings. So maybe a different kind of truth. But in pursuit of a being grounded in the issues in our times who I would trust for guidance, even leadership maybe? That shortlist would include JBP. The whole is more than the parts, and a deconstruction of anything is just that - not the whole, not the essence, not the man.
I loved this video! Just some thoughts ahead: I don't know, this seem to imply that the solution is to virtually complain about everything and everyone... Which I am kind of guilty of myself, but I digress: Wouldn't that mean that even choosing to criticize all sides and encouraging into others would lead to stagnation as well?
In my opinion: Yes. But luckily we have those who antagonize to function as some sort of counter-weight.
I don't think that you should feel bad about blocking people who behave like that. Interacting with them is a waste of energy; our time is better spent having good-faith discussions.
This was my thinking but I'm wary of where to draw the line and the danger of mistaking dissenting voices for bad faith voices
@@TheLivingPhilosophy That's definitely a valid concern, and not an easy line to walk. Maybe it's best to assume good faith until the evidence leaves no other reasonable conclusion than to the contrary, such as if the person becomes obsessive or starts launching personal attacks (as happened in this case).
Regardless, as difficult as that line is to walk, I think you made the right call here.
@@scholberger Thanks scholberger the good faith and ad hominem signs are good red flags to keep an eye out for actually. Thanks for the support
BTW, love your videos. Would like to see your take on Metamodernism as a way to view the world... Thanks for the content
Hi James, I would suggest highlighting the fact that the video is not filled with "content" but more a META video in the title, better yet also keep this kind of videos for patreons only. People don't necessarily go to the description first. I didn't and struggled for the first 15 minutes or so listening and trying to figure out what you were referring to, who's Cassandra etc... Then you started talking about J. Peterson but still I couldn't follow (was expecting a more classic/didactic explanation of his position). This is the 3rd video I watch on your channel, following YT recommendations. The first one was great (subscribed) second one was awesome (became a patreon) the third one... if this would have been the first video I would have watched I would have asked YT NOT to recommend your channel again due to the induced confusion
Very interesting input Luigi. I guess I was thinking more of the subscribers I already had when making this video so I'll have to think about how I can make it clearer in future that these are reaction videos. Maybe just a disclaimer at the start would do the job. Thanks for the feedback much appreciated!
As a suggestion would love to hear you give an overview and explanation of the presocratic age. Moving to Athens I'd imagine you may have some thoughts on it.
Yeah Dáithi I've been thinking about doing a broader overview after returning to it again with Heraclitus last week. I think an episode on Parmenides and maybe on Anaximander and then I might do a full overview of the whole period
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Diogenes always stuck out to me. The rejection of all culture. The disdain for it. The mockery of it. What we fear is the black hole we must all eventually fall into. He embraced it. Like U. G. Krishnamurti in a way (you should try check out his videos sometime if you're so inclined).
I look around and see humans fighting and killing and screaming at the top of their lungs for causes that ultimately mean nothing. One age kills for and ridicules what another age defends and honours. Rationality, logic, science, all seem to exist only within their own umwelt. Outside of that is chaos and disorder. Jordan Peterson has planted his flag and is ready to die on his hill against equally shrill voices ready to die on the opposite hill. But for what? We cannot seem to end human suffering, only displace it. I'm sure whatever struggles the dinosaurs were having 65+ million years ago seemed very real to them at that point. I'm not for or against living but the whole endeavour is a sham at the end of the day.
We suffer for nought. We struggle and strive. A few of us might be lucky to enjoy the ride but as I look out I see a mass of human suffering and everyone is looking for a cause. A cause to blame and a cause to hope in. Our shadow goes right down to our very fear of death, which we choose to ignore and waffle on and on about the value of life and human rights while we abort 50 million babies a year.
Again, not making a case for or against but the irony is thick. We view those we disagree with as somehow less than human and our heroes as near gods. We hope to educate the masses but as soon as they get a little education they either get busy with surviving or they die and another generation of ignorant children take their place.
I try to take some pleasure in the process and learn just for the enjoyment in learning but I'm wearying of it all. But it's interesting to try and trace the history of thought and work out the inner motives that drive us as human beings.
Thanks for your insights. I'm a new sub and I'm enjoying your content.
Edit: I'm wondering now if Diogenes was truly presocratic but he might fit a certain definition of the term. What do you think? But I could be totally wrong on that point. It seems Socrates would already have been an old man when Diogenes was born.
@@daithiocinnsealach1982 Very interesting stream of thoughts Dáithi and one of the best encapsulations of the nihilistic perspective that I've come across. I guess the thing about meaning for me is that it will look trivial if viewed from the objectivist point of view of cold hard matter. I guess the real challenge is multiculturalism. It's the confrontation with a completely different tablet of values that brings home how contingent our own and our own culture's is. There's no easy way out of it but I do think it's only a problem when viewed through a certain lens or with respect to certain problems. The experience of being human is self-evidently meaningful. You're hungry and that drives you to eat you fall in love and that drives you to write poetry. The experience of living brings up meaning as the values shuffle and dance around each other. The nausea comes when the veil slips and you no longer trust in the meaning under your feet. Hmm...I feel like I'm talking in circles. Really your comment is a great one and has me dancing around in my own head to figure out my relationship to the problem so I appreciate the interaction. I'm glad you're enjoying the content. And as for the Diogenes question he is indeed a post-Socratic. His teacher Antisthenes was a student of Socrates. The Cynic branch of Socratic thought followed through less on the logical side of Socrates's thinking than on the radicalness of it and the uncompromising approach to ethics. He's a fascinating cookie though admittedly while I find parts of him admirable and enjoy every story of him I don't find him to be an ideal type
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thanks for the clarification on Diogenes. Definitely need to do some more learning on the Greeks. I have this idea in my mind to do a study of philosophy from the start right up to our day. But I came across Buddhism a few years ago and learned how it influenced Chinese Taoism and so forth and now it bothers me that we ascribe the beginnings of philosophy to the Greeks when the Indians and Chinese were clearly grappling with the idea of being and meaning and what constitutes the world in about the same time frame, maybe before them. Primarily through meditation practices.
Anyway, yes, Nihilism for me looks at the big picture in a cold, unemotional way and sees it is not human-centric. Society is completely absorbed with itself so much so that we refer to humanity as "the world", which bothers me. I see interlocking systems at every level. No inherent meaning. We find meaning in the doing. It is a deeply complex algorithm. We get hungry and eat. I'd say love is for the purpose of procreation though. Our bodies are chemical bags and we have urges that feel amazing to satisfy. We are basically organic robots reproducing ourselves that seek to extend our own existence by extinguishing the existence of other life forms. Walking reproductive units with incredibly complex central processing units we call brains that require energy to keep going. As to the idea of meaning and beauty I find Taoism a nice fit. It's a kind of spiritual Nihilism. A soft, accepting, resignation of the self to the universe. The verse of the Tao Te Ching that sticks with me is "The universe treats the various creatures as straw dogs". State dogs were apparently ceremonial effagies that were discarded after the celebrations were over. Point being I guess is to just try and enjoy the party before the universe recycles you. 😅
Have a good night
I heard the troll was JP himself with a throwaway account! Did you not hear about that? He's doing it everywhere they say, he's up day and night just surfing the net looking to hunt down those who haven't sworn the oath 😁
You know, Mr. JP and I are having lunch later this week. I'll tell him about your encounter and sus out if that really was him in disguise. Don't you worry, I will get to the bottom of this allegation as soon as possible, and I will report back. 🤣😉
Glad you handled it so well and boundary blocked the knucklehead. Nobody has time for that troll stupidity. It's boring as hell. I hope someone suggested that the troll should just shut up and go clean their room.
Anyway, safe travels to Athens, James. I am excited for you! It's going to be marvelous to see how Greece will color your upcoming videos.
Hahaha I wasn't aware hope you two enjoy your lunch XD
@@TheLivingPhilosophy --- You believe him?
Yeah, that's why I like you because you are objective and don't show your ideology much. I watched the Peterson video, and was a little ticked. But I understood exactly where you were coming from.
Check out Richard Rorty’s approach. He attempted to use aspects of Continental philosophy with American Analytic/Pragmatic tradition. That was a schism that defined much of 20c. Philosophy. Btw, my old pol. Phil professor, Robert Paul Wolff, who posts almost everyday on Philosophers Stone and put his lecture on Marx, Freud, and Ideology on TH-cam, runs into similar problems with commenters monopolizing the conversation. However, those people are more sophisticated, as some are philosophers and law professors, who know how to argue their positions with much knowledge and facts. He was an actual Anarchist philosopher, but still shuts someone down if they are out of line. His reason-IT’S HIS BLOG. Check him out. He published a relevant book with Marcuse called a Critique of Pure Tolerance, arguing that tolerance is not always a positive value. (Unlike you, those guys really ARE Marxists. Wolfff has been a convicted Marxist for a long time-he’s 86!) Keep up the good work!
Fascinating stuff Stephen. Rorty is someone with special appeal because he is someone that has actively straddled both worlds so I feel confident that at some point I'll be going through a Rorty phase. Very interesting stuff about your professor I think I remember you mentioning him before actually I must check out some of his stuff
You may not conflate the French Revolution and the gulags, but many do.
I just discovered your channel and I find it great. I like that you are able to admire and also be very critical of the people that you talk about in your videos.
I also admire (or admired) Peterson, and I'm thankful to him for helping me realize the value of sacrifice and responsibility, but I'm starting to notice that I's starting to feel disappointed about his attitude more and more.
Something I'd like to add is that from a Jungian perspective, I would say he is suffering an Ego inflation. He is no longer able to see the world as it is, rather as the "Jordan Peterson" would see it. I think that's why he repeats the same words and phrases all the time, because that's what the "Peterson" persona would say. I think it's way beyond of trying to make a point or an idea clear.
Anyway, I'd like to hear your troughs on Ego inflation and if you agree that it is what's happening to him.
BTW: You are probably familiar with the term, but here is the definition (also for everyone in the comments):
Jung's Definition of Inflation
C. G. Jung defined inflation - an unconscious psychic condition - as expansion of the personality beyond its proper limits by identification with the persona or with an archetype, or in pathological cases with a historical or religious figure.
Thanks Marías! Finding that balance is my goal so thanks for that! As for ego inflation that's a good observation. I''ve written down ego inflation in my video ideas list because that's a juicy and very important topic. I remember when Jordan was first emerging onto the big stage I was delighted because, I thought, here's a man who's done the self-work; he knows the dangers of the Shadow and of Ego Inflation and he has had years to prepare himself for this. Unfortunately I think that this was too simple a story to tell. It's hard to imagine anyone keeping a healthy ego intact under the weight of such cultural projection. It reminds me of Marilyn Monroe who could never be seen for herself and was destroyed by the weight of an entire culture's projections. The Ulysses loving girl could never be seen beneath the cultural projection of sex icon. That's the tragedy of celebrity I guess
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thanks for your response. I agree with you. I had the same feeling when I started to know Peterson. However, the façade started to fell for me and I started to see him more and more as a reflection of his own persona. A mirror that reflects only himself and doesn't let anything new inside. It's such a shame. I think success can be confused as fame, and that being a celebrity means the death of the transcendent function, probably because of what you say, that being exposed to the subconscious projections of that many people is too much of a burden for the ego of anyone. I think that, specially today when fame could mean being admired by millions, instead of perhaps thousands like in previous centuries, and also that one is constantly connected with those followers, means that for someone to keep transcending, it's necessary to sacrifice that fame. Or to keep a low profile. I think it could be seen as the ultimate sacrifice for someone in that position. A personal responsibility in Peterson's words. When I see Peterson followers that seem like brainwashed, repeating what he says like a mantra and with a negative altitude against every other point of view, it makes me wonder if what he is doing isn't doing as much damage as good it could have done.
(Sorry if there are any typos. I'm not a native English speaker. Greetings from Argentina!)
@@matias-sosa-h Hello from Ireland Matías and thanks for the thought-stimulating comments!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thank you my friend. I've been watching your videos, and it's great to have a channel that's not biased and gets the best and the worst of every philosopher and way of thinking. We need more than ever to bring the opposites together in this chaotic world. It's time to stop thinking about what's right and what's wrong and do what's best for humanity, otherwise we would be doomed as a species. These are frightening times, and we need people like you who brings out knowledge as tools for self realization and not as a dogma.
@@matias-sosa-h thank you so much Matías I think there's a growing appetite for balance these days I think most of us are getting sick of the polarisation and its effects so here's to a movement towards balance!
Video starts at 13:00
Good work. I too would struggle with blocking, but sometimes you have to draw the line, I guess. I do think Peterson's views are (coincidentally?) amenable to a certain tribal ideational community, and he has sometimes seemed to be responding to their adulation in his talks, so objectivity seems somehow compromised in some of his statements. But it ultimately becomes counterproductive for him when he inadvertently encourages that tribalism, I think.
Lol. I haven't even seen your previous video yet, but this one's good 👍🏽
Hahaha brilliant! Hope it lives up to the hype 😂
@@TheLivingPhilosophy it was great! It sent me down a rabbit hole (including Peterson's rules and a ton of your videos). Very enlightening stuff!
@@imorokr Awesome! Delighted to hear it!
You will find out that blocking Kassandra will only intensify his resentment. It's preferable to avoid that unless he is doing some very low, personal stuff. I mean he will just create another account and come back to attack you on every new video you put out for no good reason. Better would be to just let him talk to himself or to his friends in the comments and let this go. Fanboys are sometimes in this way that they built their personality so depended on their idol that once you attack their idol, it's like you are attempting against their own life. It's silly but it's how it is.
Yeah that was one stream of thought in me. To be honest I wish there was just a silence for a day function. The more I think about it the more it was about the intensity of it than about the content but yeah your point is definitely a valid one. I can only imagine how problems like this look like at scale
I am not that well read re Jordan Peterson, but I have enjoyed some of his psychology lectures. I'm just thinking out loud here, but I'm wondering whether a middle ground is putting people before ideology.
Don’t confuse (or equate) the process of the transformation to a new system with the objectives or practices of the new system. If it’s given that the process of change (revolution) will necessarily be resisted, even to the point of violence, by the existing system, then it follows that all revolutions will be bloody. That should not be necessarily equated with the practice of the new system coming into power. If we were to grant, for argument sake, that the bloody revolutionary process of the communist regime under Lenin/Stalin was equivalent to the bloody revolutionary process of the federalist/republic regime under Washington, we could not then conclude the the results of those respective revolutions were equivalent.
"the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity" Yeats post WW1.
That lack of conviction, what is that lack of conviction? IMHO this is upward pressure of the individual, rubbing against the downward pressure of a failed politics, failed, within the frame of the individual. If this is true. Is it still playing out 100 years later and is it going end? When does the political becomes as small as the individual? How does the political become as small as the individual? Can the political become as small as the individual? Do we have political answers to the individual? Democracy has tried and has actually managed to broaden the church, but has not solved the problem of collective economics and collective violence. (That is, to the satisfaction of the current membership.)
I would change the line for modern political times as per below.
"most of us lack all conviction, while the least of us are full of passionate intensity"
Yeats, do it!
Haha alright then you got me!
I’m curious to know what you think of James Lindsay. If anyone has done a deep dive on the history of our current cultural upheaval, it’s James.
I don't know much about him Elaine. Another commenter mentioned that he had a more substantial and accurate criticism so I'll be curious to check that out
@@TheLivingPhilosophy His TH-cam channel New Discourses is the best place to check him out.
Awesome Elaine thank you!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy You’re welcome. I just discovered your channel and I love it. You are a wonderful presenter.
@@elainehiggins713 That's put a smile on my face Elaine thank you for the kind words!
Hahaha, this was great you should do more freestyle like this. 👍
Haha glad you enjoyed it Trevor! Planning on making it a regular feature at the very least on Patreon but probably here as well
Eh fuck the haters, you're doing great.
Haha thanks Sean!
Would you ever be willing to discuss your thoughts on Peterson with Peterson himself?
God I'd love to Steven that would be awesome
loving your content (I stumbled today looking into metamodernism)
The idea of revolution is very much alive in the periphery of capitalism. LATAM, Africa, and some places in middle-east. What could it be....? 🤔Maybe it's just a phase.
I like the direction of the content for these new video types. It has value. As a whole are we really that immature? I have 6 sons ranging in age from 12 to 26, first hand experience of the stages of maturity. Collective consciousness is a brilliant immature cocky teen. Clearly an over generalization but useful perspective regardless. It might be that simple. Global village mentality means work it out, it’s all us, fight nice.
Hahaha I can see what you mean Aaron I've had similar thoughts in the past and I do believe there's something in psychology about a group's intelligence being much lower than the intelligence of the individuals within it. It leans towards the lowest rather than the highest something like that so it makes sense
@@TheLivingPhilosophy the Mystics dilemma, ultimately everyone’s dilemma, my drug of choice, me. How mature can I be if all I think about is me.
@@OneConsciousnessWithAaron Haha very true Aaron!
I support you big time. Evolve all quadrants reach the highest like nitchel can't spell his name ha keep getting smart bro I support you
Brother, thanks for your analysis. Your channel is needed. If incels were an anthill, Peterson would be there queen. He's like an angry guy who wants to be the Joseph Campbell for paranoid budding fascists. Keep up the good fight. We are outnumbered by a world angry morons looking for a scapegoat.
Hey man! Didn't know that you live (or lived) in Athens. If you ever visit anything north of Thessaloniki, you are welcome to visit me and see another side of Greece, the mountains.
Personally I follow your channel for educational purpose.
Thanks Anastasios! I was only in Athens a month and Crete for another month but if I'm over Thessaly way anytime soon I'll let you know!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thessaly is little bit more to the south, but as I said, my invitation will be open even if you would come by in the future!
Keep up the good work, from a person that "identifies" as a stoic but really enjoys your content.
@@TheLivingPhilosophy oh, and one last thing. Visit Meteora. Google it before and you will understand why. The most beautiful place in Greece when it comes to gifts from nature.
@@anastasioskellidis8704 Thanks Anastasios!
It’s hard to ignore the irony of Petersons criticism of ideological possession when he is so clearly ideologically possessed in his own way.
Decent move to put a differenciated, non polarising take on Peterson out there
Thank you! I feel I'll be harvesting some lessons out of this engagement for a while. Definitely a learning experience
See my comment on the first JP critique here.
I have great sympathy for your comments about Peterson’s moral dismissal of Foucault and Derrida and like figures. I want to hazard revealing my abysmal American education by pointing you toward a work with which you are likely already familiar on the off chance that you have not heard of it, namely the essay “Repressive Tolerance” by Herbert Marcuse, a prominent member of the Frankfurt school and, as I understand it, a key figure in the student movements of the late American 1960s. Some of the comments he makes in that essay can take on a conspiratorial bend; at one point he says that in the future all right-wing movements must not be tolerated because they all lead necessarily to Nazism, whereas all left-wing movements must be tolerated, no matter their excesses, because they point the way toward a better world:
“Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theater audience when somebody cries: 'fire'. It is a situation in which the total catastrophe could be triggered off any moment, not only by a technical error, but also by a rational miscalculation of risks, or by a rash speech of one of the leaders. In past and different circumstances, the speeches of the Fascist and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre. The distance between the propaganda and the action, between the organization and its release on the people had become too short. But the spreading of the word could have been stopped before it was too late: if democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War.”
I arrived at this passage via James Lindsay, a figure who I find both useful and intensely irritating, who spins much of the work of the Frankfurt School in conspiratorial language. But I must admit, the above passage seems to conform pretty immediately to the interpretation of the American/NATO political scene put forward by right-leaning figures who feel they are being institutionally disenfranchised, and if James Lindsay’s arguments about how Marcuse’s ideas became the dominant arguments of the post-WWII Western Left are true, then this passage provides a bracing perspective on how we have come to be in the political climate in which we fond ourselves.
Have you encountered Marcuse and his colleagues? If so, what do you make of them? If not, what do you make of this paragraph, and does it spark your interest in reading more material like it?
I only know Marcuse by name and from what other people have been saying the Frankfurt School is a much more valid avenue to explore in pursuit of this thesis. It's what makes Peterson's view more shocking though that he has the details completely wrong and yet is so certain about it.
There's still a lot I'd have to be convinced of. This quote of Marcuse is interesting but it doesn't have any of the hallmarks of the Postmodern Neomarxist thesis. The main point of the quote seems to be about the danger we find ourselves in where the distance between the mobilising and the catastrophe has disappeared. The part I'm guessing that Lindsay is worried about is what Marcuse means by withdrawal of democratic support. I'd have to understand what he means by that and what the greater context is of this piece before I'd be lending any credence to the scary narrative of the postmodern neomarxist thesis.
The other point I would want to investigate is the influence of Marcuse. I barely know the name (not that that's saying much) so I'd be surprised to find out that Marcuse had managed to take over academia and hatch a plot to overthrow the West from the inside. He might have anti-democratic trends at times (which isn't all that appalling when you look at what passes for democracy these days - 300 million people and the best America could come up with is Trump and Biden) but does that mean he's plotting to destroy the West. I would have to be convinced. Still it's much more on the right track than Peterson's thesis so it'd be nice to wrestle with someone who actually does hold this position or something resembling it. Thanks for bringing him and James Lindsay to my attention!
Peterson's fan base is full of crybabies. We have to accept that some of the people we love can get things wrong.
Agreed on the part of the people we love getting things wrong and I would add the qualifier "some" to the comment on Peterson's fanbase
The only thing I have against JP is that he tries to justify his stance by an appeal to faith and mysticism. And gets very emotional about it. Looks like he is trying to save Christianity. I have only seen three of your vids. This one and the JP shadow one, and the one about pedophilia and the French intellectuals. From these three I get that you are a centrist-an immoralist . I am no philosopher. I am a businessman. I see things as black and white. And I have notice that the middle is the most dangerous path. It always justifies evil. From the three vids I have seen, you do try to be partial has hell. But I can tell you do not like Capitalism and favor collectivism. You are a smart guy. Ask yourself how the extreme left sees you and how the extreme right does. Who do you think is your friend? Check yourself, dig deep at your shadow. The beast is there for a reason.
This kassandra person might be animus possessed or something
I'm unsure of the etymology of the term " discourse" but to me it sounds like two (or more) I.e. a potential collective's attempt to chart a course towards a goal still under consideration. As for "narrative" ,well , implies a narrator.
Your mention of shadow is oh-so-close to the mark in light of Jung's recommendation to neither send it hither as in projection, nor embrace it too tightly as with neuroses.
It is to me like(yeah , out of Neitzshe's context) Zarathustras tightrope walker being assailed by the dwarfish figure urging and kicking at his heels , hup hup,lamefoot etc.(Quite the materialist this dwarf I'd bet)
Anyway, having read Peterson's first two public works, I'm a bit surprised at his foray ,back, into more collectivist areas. His political sight could be improved . No doubt ,though I feel for some reason we'd do well to send him a copy of Heidegger and a case of beer.
(Note: his earlier teachers, for some still undefined reason warned him off Jung.
Advising not to speak too loudly of him.)
Hahaha a copy of Heidegger and a case of beer I love it!
Where was the stuff about the shadow? By the way.
Yeah my bad I didn't make it clear in this one that it was a reaction video. The shadow stuff is more in the original video - Jordan Peterson's Shadow
6 minutes in does this video have or get to a.point..??
I knew you were a dirty communist, but now I have Kassandra to confirm it. 😂
In all seriousness, in moments like these when dealing with people like that, I think of Jesus saying “If they do not receive you, shake the dust off your sandals and leave that place.” Some people simply aren’t worth the energy. I think as a creator, you have a responsibility to allow people to comment their ideas, and as viewers, we have a responsibility to be respectful and constructive on someone else’s content. Once a viewer breaks that contract, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to get rid of them. Comparing that to censorship is ridiculous.
As for your take on the communists and revolution, I think you’re right about revolution sometimes being necessary, but as a last resort. JP actually comments a similar thing saying sometimes it’s necessary, but be very careful when deciding to break those kinds of rules. In Maoist China, Mao tried to keep the revolutionary spirit in the peasantry against anyone remotely successful, even when the peasants didn’t want any sort of revolution themselves. When you have ideologies predicated on power and revolution built into the system, that’s a serious problem. And I think that is more bound to happen in communist systems than any other but that’s just me.
Great video, like you already know I think it’s a great idea to give your own opinion and I personally love hearing it. 👍🏻
Hahaha you got me red handed (pun 100% intended). That's a great quote from JC I'd never actually heard that one before and I really appreciate the take on the commenter interaction it's a good balanced view I feel that strays away from the polarities and tries to create good community.
What do you mean “ideologies Predicated on power.” Power for oneself or collective ? Power in autonomy to have a right in their sense of self? Are not ideas derived by the power that is oneself ? Or is power a fragment to one’s sense of self ? Can you have no power in idealism? Would that be a state of neurosis and/or psychosis ? I’m just trying to figure out the context of communism being dangerous in revolting vs other systems of governance enforced by power ?
@@alexandriacorral7494 Ideologies that are only concerned with the class power struggle narrative. Those with power must be revolted against those with no power. And then once those with power are disposed of (besides the government itself of course), then new people are targeted because of any bit of success. Other systems, such as capitalism, has more to do with competence than power. Those with power are usually the most competent… usually. In Maoist China, even when all of the landlords, people with the most power, were killed or imprisoned, the government kept the “power struggle” narrative alive. No matter the cost, Mao made sure to keep the narrative in the culture.
That facebook page you are talking about is honestly disappointing. I joined a couple months back. It's mostly out of context quotes, long winded rants and confusingly phrased questions, and all of it is steeped in anti-communism. Just see the way they speak about Sartre if he is ever brought up. Lol IDK what I was expecting from a facebook group, maybe some actual discussion of philosophical texts.
I think you handled that particular individual well. There are critiques to be discussed about Peterson, Marxism, and Post Modernism. Days of great conversation could be had. But the blatant hate of leftist theory and ideology is not a discussion. It absolutely is a conspiracy theory and paradoxical to say that Post Modernism is trying to establish "Neo-Marxism." And people that think is happening haven't actually looked into either ideology and are taking Peterson's words as complete truth. Marxism does want to pursue the restructuring of society and values, which has happened multiple times throughout society and is an evolving dialectical process. And he tries to equate this with some sort of "post modern nihilistic" destruction of society. This is non-material in theory because it presupposes that there is a specific way society should be organized that is unchanging and always true. So it really is incompatible with Marxist thought. I'm not sure where else to take this except I did appreciate your critique of Peterson. It wasn't the typical full on hatred you hear from leftist circles and you do give him his credit where it is due.
I like the postmodernists (espacially Derrida) and Peterson. I´m very interesting in Julius Evola. Maybe you can check them out.
Woah he sounds like a mad cat must have a poke around him and see what comes up. Thanks for the thoughts as ever
Der Bücherwurm
Have you seen Gabor Mate's take on Petersens shadow?
th-cam.com/video/oiGt9Xon3yM/w-d-xo.html
Very interesting take. I definitely see the point about anger
@@TheLivingPhilosophy The real question is where is it coming from?
@@wolfofossory7 a very good question indeed. I'm not quite sure what the answer is. I think there was his original rage and then there was the feedback loop of people hating on him increasing his rage and the sharpness of the rhetoric and onwards till his current peak. But that still doesn't answer the question of the original anger.
Can't believe this guy claims to "like" Peterson. He clearly has him pegged as a very influential hateful and bitter thought leader who just ratchets up the vitriol of society.
i fear Peterson may become Ahab
Hahaha now that's a thought! What a comparison
Aye bro. Plan is to evolve the mind. The soul and the body. I know all 4 quadrants it's weird. But. E mc2. So energy can never be destroyed or create so are we imortale second. Am trying to evolve this world. So we can start civilization 1 we evolve people we have less problems in the world and. We can play with our solar system putting. Iron inside mars making it a gravity field. And doing other things to other planets lets make a whole inside the moon and Pluto
pls don’t let the bad ones give us JP fans a bad name lol
I won't. I've actually been thinking a lot about that. It's the easiest way to undermine a movement. It was something that got me after the Cathy Newman interview - that Peterson could be dismissed because some of his supporters were not nice. The same cherrypicking of the worst elements happens with Peterson when it comes to the other side of course and that's when you get runaway polarisation. Rather than looking for the best you look for the worst and you go some way towards creating it
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I tend to agree with JP obviously so I can get pretty triggered by negative videos of him. But so long as they’re fair enough I don’t go on the defense, start attacking and downvoting and all the rest.
@@Wingedmagician That's the exact kind of interaction I'm looking for Rob. I've done more than my own share of defending Peterson with people and wanted this not to be an attack but a critique of an element of his thinking while still affirming him in general
What type in jungian cognitive functions is Jordan Peterson? Is he an INTP or ENTP? Then his shadow will be either a ENTJ (Te, Ni, Se, Fi) or INTJ (Ni, Te, Fi, Se).
Kassandra Kairos is just the ancient Greek for Karen. 😉
But I have to know: Is Kassandra Kairos a real name?
whoops, should have finished the video before commenting!
Hahaha in this case Paul: no
About Kassandra, I would like to bring up the subject of the "Paradox of tolerance" by Karl Popper.
"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant" -- Vol. 1 of The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper.
Freedom of speech must have its limits to be considered free. And that's why social media platforms promote freedom of speech, but at the same time put their guidelines to maintain a free community.
Absolutely Taha. The trouble once you move away from the black and white polarities is where to draw the line and that's never a neat or final process
I've had some time to think since I've watched the first video.
What I found fascinating then and still do, is how far off Peterson seems to be about the original post modernists, especially Foucault and Derrida. That said, I'm not so sure he's far of the mark with the current crop. With what was said of Foucault's understanding of Power, I get the feeling that there has been a shift in the definition of that word, as it doesn't align with the way people like DiAngelo or Kendi use that word.
Another point is that while Foucault and Derrida may have been deeply suspicious of grand narratives, today there very definitely IS a grand narrative. It may not be a conspiracy of people trying to deliberately destroy western civilization, yet there seems to be a deep hatred - or at least disgust - with nearly everything that got us all to the point where we can have this discussion with total strangers who we don't even know where they live, but are still able to fling insults at each other (which happens far to often in most comment sections).
Another point is that in what I have been able to observe, he always debated honestly and accepted stronger arguments. And I've definitely never seen him stoop to straw-manning or even insults like Dyson did with his infamous "mean mad white man".
Considering that so many achievements that where won with blood are now under threat - the value of the individual (intersectionality firmly places the value on the group), the right to free speech (cancel culture) and many others - I can certainly understand the rage he sometimes carries.
You say the antidote to polarity is curiosity. To an extent that is true. The deciding factor seems to be if you can create reciprocal curiosity. A good example of this is Daryl Davis who, as a black man, befriended and de-radicalized many KKK members. Yet when he sought dialogue with radical BLM protestors to try the same, he was shut down and didn't achieve anything. To me it seems that at least certain elements of today's post modernist thinkers and the far left are aimed squarely at the destruction of anything modernity has built.
Nah don’t block unless it’s flagrant madness or death threats. Open dialogue and conflict is the surest path to truth. Just don’t read the comments of rude people if it gets to you
Ah yes, the internet schizo commenter.