I have fallen into infatuation with this channel. I've watched a couple dozen videos so far and I find Vlad to be utterly compelling and interesting. We are about the same age but he has read and digested so much more than I, it's a treat to be here dude so thank *you* for the content.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT: Just got Hans Georg-Moeller Paul D'Ambrosio's book You and Your Profile. My first impressions are positive - I will be doing a review on this channel soon after the Nietzsche series. Love to everybody. Meanwhile this video is an impromptu response to the exchange between JP and HGM! This works as a free standing video too, covering these topics: 00:00 Can religion and philosophy coexist? (Philosophers Charles Taylor and Alasdair Macintyre) 02:32 What does WE mean when philosophers use that term 04:18 Jordan Peterson and the crisis of men 06:42 Hans Georg Moeller on profilicity vs authenticity 08:36 Carefree Wandering on sovereign individual 09:37 My advice to Jordan Peterson 10:18 Nietzsche, Jordan Peterson, logos, teleology - a key gap in JP's thought about the modern world. 16:44 Why does Jordan Peterson cry?
@raswartz
2 жыл бұрын
Carefree Wandering's critique of Peterson seemed relatively fair. Of course, HGM is not even saying that JBP is "wrong," just that there are some ironies in that JBP unconsciously exhibits some of the same characteristics as the people he claims he's opposed to. It's no wonder JBP had an adverse reaction to HGM's critique - the very premise of which is that JBP lacks some self-awareness.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Yes I think that's fair, HGM argues Peterson's self conception is wrong.
@elizabethbennet4791
2 жыл бұрын
he massively lacks self-awareness, a trait of privileged people.
@yellowgreen5229
2 жыл бұрын
And yet Peterscum is a proven liar, drug addict who admits he doesn't even do the least amount of work.
@ehlowgovna
2 жыл бұрын
@@elizabethbennet4791 I think he might just need some proper intellectual sharpening
@ericconnor8419
2 жыл бұрын
He lectures people about willpower and morality, but when he was secretly hooked on benzos he had to go to Russia to be put into a coma to stop. Now he is on religion instead.
@frusia123
2 жыл бұрын
JP has been a mess recently. And by recently I mean the last few years. He needs to sort his emotions and thoughts out before he goes out to speak publicly, especially that his audience are in a large part people who are messed up themselves. For many of those men he's a father figure and by babbling whatever comes to his mind while he's trying to sort himself out, he's letting those people down. KZitem can be your therapist when you're a nobody. JP is no longer a nobody, so he should take more responsibility for what he's publishing.
@MarioSanchez-ze2wq
2 жыл бұрын
The older I become the easier it is for me to cry. I've seen men cry at their retirement party. It may be the transitional nature of life from thinking about the past to the present day and the limitless future. I have seen Jordan Peterson tear up a few times on his podcasts. It seems to me that mortality has gotten very close to him and he has had to face the end of life. He has so many days left and he wants all of them to count. I don't think he is afraid of what is coming. Some of his tears are from self reflection and some are from what he encounters on the streets, classrooms and his observations of the world. The senile ramblings of a soon to be (maybe) 71 year old man. I've have lived to witness the passing of many of my mates. Redemption is an ongoing task.
@SianaGearz
2 жыл бұрын
I think it's hormones. Testosterone declining with age or something.
@zeitgeist5134
2 жыл бұрын
When Chomsky was asked, "What do you think about Jordan Peterson?", he replied, "I don't think about Jordan Peterson.". I envy him. I myself am afflicted with a morbid fascination for JP. I suspect that it is his suffering due to his lack of self-awareness that fascinates. In the April 2021 issue of The Atlantic magazine, there was an article titled "What Happened to Jordan Peterson?". The article describes JP's catastrophic addiction to a drug prescribed for anxiety and his consequent breakdown. The author remarked that JP seemed to be oblivious to the need to apply his own advice to himself, and that while he was sliding into crisis, he could not step back from the media limelight, could not resist the next opportunity to be interviewed on TV.
@toby9999
2 жыл бұрын
Chomsky is massively overrated. He's super predicable. Every starts with hating America and continues from there. There's nothing deep about Chomsky. He should have stayed with language theory. He was good at it. As for JP and his addiction... it can sneak up on anyone. I wouldn't judge him on it. I know what it can be like from personal experience. That he was able to dig himself out of a whole is something to respect. That said, I'm no longer a JP fan. His message has changed in a way that doesn't sit right with me.
@zeitgeist5134
2 жыл бұрын
@@toby9999 You did not notice, Toby, that I did NOT judge Peterson for his addiction to the anti-anxiety drug. I was remarking, in fact, on JP's inability to take his own advice. I was also remarking on his inability to recognize the seductive toxicity of being a celebrity. Even as he was descending into a severe crisis, he continued to accept invitations to be interviewed on TV, interviews which increased his stress, his anxiety, hastening his slide into a complete breakdown. A wise man would not have craved the flattering attention of the camera, would have admonished himself to focus on cleaning up his psychic room instead of flitting from one TV studio to another. Do take the time to read the article in Atlantic Magazine (April 2021): "What Happened to Jordan Peterson?" You have been, previously, a fan of Jordan Peterson? I myself find him to be a woeful mediocrity. There is a reason that Harvard did not take him on as a member of their faculty. Peterson actually thinks that Disney animated movies are intellectually important. And Peterson, who claims to be an expert on folklore, does get it wrong. For example, he lectures on the Disney version of Beauty and the Beast, oblivious to the fact that it is based on a bowdlerized, sanitized Christian retelling of a pagan myth. The pagan myth was threatening to patriarchal society; it described a fundamental threat. I am talking about Bacchantes running off into the woods to have ecstatic, passionate sex with a satyr (in reality, no doubt, a sexy, virile goatherd). Well, duh. The Christians had to suppress THAT idea. Turn the alarming pagan story (of women breaking loose from patriarchal propriety) into an innocent Christian virgin taming the satyr, transforming him into a docile married man, humbly obedient to Christian society. Problem solved! Does Peterson lecture on the subversive ;pagan of the story? Uh-h-h....no. He only lectures on the Disney pablum. Some folklore expert. Don't get me wrong. I delight in the early Disney animated movies...as charming entertainment. My favorite is the parody of Hollywood romantic comedies, i.e., "Lady and the Tramp", which happens to be the LAST Disney animated film worth watching. The early ones have contributed a plethora of useful pop-culture tropes. These tropes, like those of the "Wizard of Oz" movie, are a lot of fun. Fun is good.
@vaughanmerrick
2 жыл бұрын
Your closing statement about Peterson’s tears I believe to be generous although mostly accurate. To be sure, their source is self involved but like any great actor, Peterson knows that for the camera, a slight lack of discipline never hurt a performance particularly if one plays a short bit of internal negotiation before relenting to the camera. The tears are both self-reflective in their origin and performative in their exhibition and that’s why they appear so genuine. This is a man-child masterfully manipulative but childish in his abstractions, conclusions and prescriptions. His emotions override his cognitive abilities at crucial moments that might otherwise endear him to a more discriminating audience.
@garyjenson8262
2 жыл бұрын
Peterson is clever at wordsmithing. He is also a genius at if A and B then C. Which seems fine until you realize that he always puts a supposition in the B slot. Don't see it? Watch another of his videos. He will first say a thing that sounds profound but it really just an obvious thing said well. Then he will imply or say a small supposition and finally draw a conclusion based on those two things. It's intellectually disingenuous. The scary thing is that I don't think he has the perspective to even see it himself...and crying about your ideas doesn't make them more valid.
@susansawarin5776
2 жыл бұрын
In an effort to keep my own mind open to new ideas, and with not even a basic instruction in philosophy, I have tried to watch JP's videos from different times. I find him to be a pompous, entitled white man, pushing a victim mentality to others - sure they learn to make their beds, ... This video piqued my curiosity a bit more about him. But I expect to get better questioning positions from your channel. Your interview with Dr. Campbell Re:Putin was fascinating, despite an unbalanced audio - from his end, I think.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Yes I want to apologise to you- my audio was too quiet which made John’s slightly unbalanced audio too loud. There will be a huge breakdown of the JP phenomenon later in 2022 in this channel. We are missing a definitive picture of why he is so popular that’s objective.
@yuppers1
2 жыл бұрын
Yes he seems to make people feel better about their issues by helping them externalize them (blame others/society) instead of dealing with them. Which probably helps them move on to his more practical next steps.
@Tarkusine
2 жыл бұрын
I used to be a big fan of JP back in 2015-2017. That is until I started to realize that he doesn't have much to say about anything. He gestures in various directions and claims that this or that is very, very important but he never definitively proposes solutions or even non-vague causes to problems. He just rattles off complaints, attaches some mysticism to it and claims that it is 'very very dangerous' or 'very very important' or 'very very complicated'. Why is it 'very very whatever'? Who knows, he never really says except to rattle off a new complaint. I think that engaging with his more recent work with any seriousness is a mistake. JP doesn't need to be logical or consistent, he needs to sell merch and start his new cult.
@godlessheathen100
2 жыл бұрын
"Existential fragility..." seems to encapsulate what JBP is struggling with in such a very public way. It seems to me that he has a sort of cognitive, rational understanding of the indifference of the universe and of existence, yet cannot seem to emotionally process it. I think it is, in some ways, exactly what Nietzsche was pointing to with "God is dead." Perhaps JBP understands that to a point, but in his revulsion to what he sees as the inevitable implications of such a scenario he seems to respond with "...but it'd be better if God were not dead." It's like he knows there are comforting lies we tell ourselves because they act as a heuristic to get us through life. But then maybe he realizes that using such self-deception may be worse than even the death of God, and he can't see a resolution to this problem. Enter Camus...
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Ha ha ha I think this needs a longer conversation. I see JP fragility as quite biological. I can't - briefly - comment on what is a good evolution for JP psychologically. But intellectually he needs to face the central dilemma Nietzsche left him, to do with the special conditions of the modern world. Instead of facing the loss of e.g. teleology, JP risks re sticky taping it to our world via pragmatism. More on all this later!
@philmckenna5709
2 жыл бұрын
I doubt that there's anyone alive who is free of "self-deception". The ultimate existential hardman Nietsche, who so many venerate, who taught that it was the right of the strong to do as they wished with the weak, even he was literally driven to madness by witnessing a horse being mercilessly flogged.
@juansenaranjo
Жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler Could you please expand on this Vlad?
@randydavis8090
2 жыл бұрын
My initial impression of Jordan Peterson is that he is FRIG'N CRAZY
@fatjellyfish9478
2 жыл бұрын
I feel he's gotten a bit nut over the years.Not quite unhinge but in need of some grounding. He's all meat diet might be the cause ,Keto diet are not good long term and can cloud judgement
@jonber9411
2 жыл бұрын
The anger and frustration in him, tells a compassionate person very much about his state of mind. Best avoided, as a thinker at least. As a human being one should be understanding of his suffering.
@bubbercakes528
2 жыл бұрын
I believe his greatest strength is to bring the disenfranchised under his wing. He is the “Donald Trump” of philosophers. He is very scary to me.
@jonber9411
2 жыл бұрын
@@bubbercakes528 interesting observation. The Trump comparison is valid. There are much anger to tap into, and both of them do a good job of it. Although, I have studied philosophy, and Jordan Petersons name is never brought up. Most philosophers i believe dont fint him serious. And he is much too opinionated when he argues. I actually would rather call him a thinker and political psychiatrists.
@SianaGearz
2 жыл бұрын
We do all have our own gremlins, don't we. And yet he has gone quite a bit off the rails recently in particular.
@jeffbetts9420
2 жыл бұрын
I freely confess I have always found Jordan Peterson problematic. On the one hand I have no problem with anyone trying to assist anyone and the world has always succumbed to saviours. On the other hand Jordan Peterson has often derided people who are concerned with social justice. He was the person who introduced me to SJWs and I found his stance weird, especially for someone who claims he is helping people. The more I looked at Jordan Peterson the more he seemed like a political activist with a very right wing agenda and a pathological dislike of Justin Trudeau. There is now an industry disecting his every word but it doesn't alter the fact he is a highly divisive character provoking very strong emotions for and against. I certainly prefer the thoughtful presentations by carefree wanderings and do wonder why people are still attracted to over emotional displays that are clearly manipulative IMHO. But then I am over 75 and have seen it all before.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
I do think there are plenty of historical analogies for Jordan, mostly with social conservative cultural critics. What Jordan taps into very powerfully, for good or for ill, is the crisis of men aged 30-50 in the West. That's the main vehicle for this fame. I still think what on earth the Peterson phenomenon is hasn't been captured. I'll be sharing a long form take soon!
@frogmorely
2 жыл бұрын
Yes yes. I’m fifty going on seventy and am of the firm opinion that there is no crisis of men, merely a crisis of philosophically pedestrian brittle misogynists. Peterson’s views are insincere hackneyed misappropriations of Nietzsche, and Nietzsche is not a healthy archetype. I’m horrified that people are taken in by Peterson’s childish impersonation of academic authority, which really seems to play to the gullible.
@getme2morenow565
2 жыл бұрын
Wonderful comment Jeff. Thanks
@toby9999
2 жыл бұрын
SJWs are not helping people. Undestandng that is the key. They're hypocrites who present themselves are people fighting for social justice all the while creating division and sowing the seeds of hatred. These people now referred to as woke, they tick all the boxes, presenting themselves as do-gooders while doing no good.
@thomaslove6494
2 жыл бұрын
But Jordan doesn't criticize social justice activists... He only criticizes those activists who seek to create a system based on equality of outcome ... He welcomes the fight of left wing politics and Even calls it necessary in order to bolster the voice of the people who are stuck at the bottom of social and economic status. I'm not sure you've truly delved into Peterson's philosophy.
@richardoldfield6714
2 жыл бұрын
I see Peterson as one of those people who thinks they are much smarter than they actually are. And whilst he has some interesting things to say, some of which I can agree with, in general I think he's something of an apologist for the Trump-cultists/the alt-right and (in my view) mistaken on a number of subjects. For example, in countering some feminist views he says that competence and authority is the basis for most hierarchies, including that of the patriarchy. But this of course - and quite apart from the fact that confidence is often confused with competence - ignores the fact that many hierarchies are based more on *power* than on competence. This includes the power that stems from the use of brute force or the threat of it - a point which is particularly relevant when it comes to discussing men in relation to women. On Nietzsche, I agree that many of the main human problems lie fundamentally in the nature of modern society - in my view due to the dominant global culture (and its values) of our time. I won't go into this more here, partly because it won't fit inside a nutshell, and partly because I'm currently writing a book that's about this dominant global culture (which is not any of the usual "isms" that most people put forward).
@toby9999
2 жыл бұрын
There's a lot of rubbish said and written about Trump on the far right (who think he's some kind of messiah figure) and the far left (who think he's some kind of orange monster who wants WW3). In reality he's neither. He's just a rather brash but charismatic figure who was in the right place at the right time to capitalise on the madness coming out of the woke movement. He was basically a centrist who didn't want more wars and believed in his country.
@richardoldfield6714
2 жыл бұрын
@@toby9999 A centrist? Centrists do not try and overturn election results by egging on an assault on the Capitol building. Centrists do not undermine faith in democracy by telling lies about election fraud. Centrists do not call Putin a "genius". Trump is a a compulsive liar, a con-man, and a not very bright populist demagogue who doesn't believe in or want democracy. He wants authoritarian dictatorship with himself as dictator. This is why he admires Putin.
@kevinmccahill7522
2 жыл бұрын
I think that there is something of major importance that may be under represented in this discussion concerning Jordan Peterson, at least in the United States. There is a sense among some men here that the feminist movement in particular has impacted the value of western masculinity. Gender theory, by complicating feminism has also complicated this problem extrapolating the perceived assault on ‘maleness’. You may be correct in that Peterson’s pragmatic ‘clean your room and stand up straight’ philosophy helps lost men feel better but doesn’t perhaps address the possibility that feminism was never the identity assault in the first place. Meanwhile feminists of course perceive Peterson as stumping for the paternal hegemony, cementing his role in the culture war that rocketed him to fame and fortune
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
I think you are raising a very important issue. It's one of the many important issues I have kept off the page here. I will be talking about both the current crisis of men in details, about the the latest state of feminism. My colleague Kathleen Stock has recently resigned from her University in rather public and painful circumstances here in the UK, and she has a book out called Material Girls. I will use the debate about conflict of trans rights with biological women's rights to explore the latest state of feminism. And the impact on the relations between men and women.
@kevinmccahill7522
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for your reply. I remember reading self-help type books on the subject over 20 years ago, with a similar Youngian archetype theme frequently applied by JP. I think part of it is a counter shock from psychoanalytic thinking but I certainly suggested in my previous post that Peterson and the others are more than happy to capitalize on the rift and therefore are suspect as to whether they actually feel like solving the problem
@TheKarotechia
2 жыл бұрын
Feminists have been quite busy the last century or so, trying to formulate how to be an emancipated woman in a changing world, often in conflict with other feminists. Most of the percived attacks on masculinity is mainly a question of women doing their own thing, while men refuse to work with themselves and get stuck in old ideals created for another world.
@CarmellaMulroy
Жыл бұрын
Maybe don't get into the trans debate. If you say anything pro feminist you could get cancelled or even arrested by UK police. A woman was arrested in northern Ireland for having an adult human female sticker on the back window of her car. It didn't matter that she was a nursing mom and had two autistic kids at home. A disabled elderly woman was arrested in wales for posting stickers and had her house searched. Meanwhile in 2021 360 rapes were reported in wales and only 8 convictions. So there is a very anti woman movement in the police force in the UK and you don't want to run foul of it. The coppers over in the UK won't care about your health issues. Just a warning I don't want anything to happen to your channel or you.
@geoffreydesena587
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for your wonderful commentary, Vlad. I read Maps of Meaning twice over the course of about three years and I’m still wrestling with its ideas daily. It is obvious that Peterson was wrestling with the ideas too, but as far as I know, he never published anything that develops them rigorously. I would absolutely love to hear your take on Maps of Meaning when you’ve had a chance to work through it!
@hpaulbryant729
2 жыл бұрын
I really appreciate the issue that you raise (starting at 13:00). For no particular reason, my gut directs me towards thinking that, maybe, "modernity" (i.e., the hyper-connected social/political structures of the 21st centruy) has the effect of "amplifying" our perception of certain human experiences. Thinking this way, I see where you might be going. Could it be that Jordan Peterson (and his followers) attribute this amplification of attitudes/thoughts/behaviors to "Modernity" itself. Thus, reinforcing the perception that the ills of life are the result "the modern world" (as constitutued); and keeping us blind to the parts of ourselves that have caused the amplification. This narrow focus would certainly support the self-delusion that all would be well if we coud just "Make [pick-your-favorite-country] Great Again!" Or, as Putin might believe, "Make the Soviet Union Great Again!!!
@josephgreen7606
2 жыл бұрын
I find this whole debate (and even topic) incredibly confusing. It doesn't feel confined to any one field of discussion. Philosophy, psychology, sociology, individualism, wokesim, political philosophy. I feel like we dab our toes into one pool before wrenching them out into another before it's possible to understand and appreciate any trail of thought. You have of course simplified this, as always. But it remains complicated - which I suppose will not change.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
I quite agree. I am hoping to do a 1 hour long, maybe longer, video on JP from beginning to end. To really frame where he strands philosophically and how how intersects with the culture. It needs a big story. I feel that would be worth it because his followship is so broad and deep. Meanwhile, the next videos here will be on Nietzsche and then a bit of Mozart. But I will I will do a presentation on JP. Hans also enters this conversation with a very particular interest - to share his special perspective on profilicity vs authenticity.
@markpovell
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler I identify with that confusion in one sense but welcome the deepening of the discussion including the 'slippage' across topic and discipline. However, perhaps I would replace one 'c' word with another - complexity. I don't think the Peterson Project is easily captured or contained, so I am looking forward to the longer look and listen. Without, I hope sounding obsequious, can I just use this reply as an opportunity to sincerely thank you for the quality of your work. I have only just discovered the channel but as a retired art college studio floor teacher (art & design education should not be in the 'university' sector) now exploring Depiction in practice and in theory through digital media, I benefit from exposure to a far sharper mind than mine thinking across the piece; silos suck!
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
@@markpovell Mark that's not obsequious but very generous! Thank you for sharing a tiny bit about you - I look forward to more conversations to come! Yes silos suck and the state of our online public squares is a big worry! I think confusion and complexity often go together, especially when we offer a degree of engagement that is prepared not to understand! I hope you have been safe through this time.
@jeanjoubert3074
2 жыл бұрын
I find this debate and topic very useful in pointing to the multiple branch points along which to think further to find paths through the sometimes seemingly confusion. Confusion is to be expected at some point when final answers remain elusive. When someone like Vlad creates a sense of confusion in some viewers, it can be a sign that he is opening windows to more vistas. Vlad's explanations not only open pathways for thinking further and even clearer but also, along the way, stimulate and fertilise one's spin-off thoughts branching off from his main train of discussion.
@markpovell
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler Cheers... be careful of what you wish for ..ha Ha!! Seriously, I look forward to the possibility of further exchange.
@JUNNY923
2 жыл бұрын
From my perspective (I am no philosopher), Dr. Peterson is a brilliant psychoanalyst who has been able to package a product that has helped many men and women (some who I know personally) deal with their problems. However, I think he needs to start taking his critics more seriously (sometimes I feel like he conflates legimate critique of his work from intellectuals with that of opportunistic woke vultures trying to make a name for themselves by sullying Peterson's). I don't think Carefree Wandering's critique of his work was unfair at all - this is coming from somebdy who considers himself a sort of 'disciple' of Jordan Peterson. There is a sort of fundamentalist element to his approach to psychoanalysis that he either he fails to recognize or refuses to admit publicly. This is compounded by his unwillingless to defend his position when called out- it feels like he thinks all his critics are out to get him. It also doesn't help that he has holes in his grasp of political theory, particularly Marxism and Post-modernism (Yes, technically they are not really political theories, but I am an engineer - give me a break :)).
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting you are a fan of JP. Has he helped you somehow? Beyond just intellectual curiosity? Thanks so much for sharing your perspective. One of Peterson's problem's is that no major philosopher has reached out to him in public or in private (at least not that I know of, and I think I would be told) and framed his intellectual journey for him. Offering critique and reassurance, and so on. Moreover, JP's fans who follow him on culture wars, on personal development, don't actually know his philosophical views. Indeed even Sam Harris or the Weinstein brothers aren't well read enough to really take a view on JP's philosophical views. I will offer a comprehensive treatment of this sometimes in the next year - I hope! Maybe JP will see it.
@telkmx
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler I think Peterson "Vs" Harris showed a lot of flaws in Peterson reasoning. To me it was a turning point regarding Peterson. It wasnt clear because i always heard him talk in his echo chamber on the maps of meaning and biblical stories classes that he actually was often saying simple stuff in a really complicated manner like the weinstein brother do. His redefinition of truth was the pinacle in the discussion imo. I appreciate Peterson as a human and i think he is genuinely not trying to feed this culture war and his group individual capitalist ideology he is presenting most of the time but he's been circle jerking his idea for a few years with too many positive feedback loop and he seems to think his small knowledge of philosophy makes him ready to not be schooled by people with philosophy degree like H.G Muller. It's clearly visible that he isnt well versed in philosophy. His marxism critique is hilarious at best and his political critique is pretty terrible. I'm pretty sure "deeper" intellectuals reached on to him looking at how famous he is now but he is probably the problem not wanting to have people he disagree with on. Congrats on the 1k i enjoy your video a lot. I hope you can "exchange with H.G Muller in a live video someday :)
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
@@telkmx I think what a lot of people struggle to process - not passing judgment on it at this moment - is that Peterson attaches teleology, or even the logos, to our world via the sticky tape of a pragmatist epistemology. I don't actually think that JP lost that debate to SH clearly. But I do think there were huge cross purposes, and JP didn't succeed in revealing the reductionism in Harris's thought. I'm sure we'll exchange with HGM when I read his book. Thanks so much for the 1K congrats. I am happy about it! Look forward to more conversation. What I didn't like about JP's comment is that here he is - a guys with 23084370437 followers and he doesn't want to encourage a smaller sized channel like Carefree W. Even if he disagrees with how he is portrayed.
@Krasbin
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler Responding to your last point. The fact that JBP is responding to HGM, says 2 things about JBP's thinking: 1. It is worth responding to HGM, so the wider frame is agreed upon. (Criticism can also give people more followers. So in a way, JBP is promoting him with.) 2. Since it is a criticism of a position of HGM, the narrower frame of the discussion is disagreed upon. These are 2 levels to be satisfied in an engagement between people: is it worth engaging with at all (broad frame) and do I agree with the point(s) of view I consider worth engaging with (narrow frame)?
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
@@Krasbin Yep I agree with you. I am also pointing out that Jordan’s response was mildly persecutory. Which is predictable.
@markoslavicek
2 жыл бұрын
Regarding the crisis of men in the West, what is actually the "screwedupedness" we are refering to in these debates? Where does this crisis come from it and how does it manifest? And of course, is it a uniquely western thing and is it anyhow special compared to the other crises we may have experienced in the past? I'd just like to have the terminology clear, as the topic keeps emerging.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Marko these are all the right questions as always. I think the biggest issue is to figure out if there is a crisis of men, that is more than just a male expression of our wider cultural crises. I accept 'crisis' may be too strong a word, albeit it's OK by the standards of relatively peaceful and privileged societies. I will be talking about exactly what it is at some point, as well as about my unusual methodology for measuring it (I look at dating profiles of heterosexual men in Europe aged 25-50)! Geographically, I think the crisis if men is moving south. I know it's not happening in Russia (Russia is screwed up enough already), and it doesn't feel like it has hit South America. But it is hitting Greece, Italy and Spain in the last year or two. It's still more of a north western Europe and N American phenomenon, with urban centres of UK, Canada, USA very badly affected 🤣
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
@Singlespeedpunk there is a crisis of men. It’s obvious, deep, and growing. I will speak more about this in future. It doesn’t matter how moronic the voices might be that proclaim a truth, if it’s true it’s true.
@mistasomen
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler thanks for that! One of the many aspects of this is that in the role model we got handed down we men are not allowed to be in identity crisis - which of course makes it hard to express. So, unconventional voices are needed to speak up.
@andrewdavidson5209
Жыл бұрын
Excellent. In this video you had the microphone much nearer you mouth and you spoke louder. Please always do this is so much clearer and even more dynamic. Do not apologise for shouting into the mic. Regards Andrew
@broark88
2 жыл бұрын
In moral philosophy there are two domains: ethics which concerns intersubjective conflicts, and aesthetics which concerns intrasubjective conflicts. Jordan Peterson specializes in the latter; the nature of preference, the choices we make, how we view and express ourselves and form identifies. It's easily one of the most significant and complex fields of philosophy and as such it's not attempting to divine the mysteries of the universe, but of the self.
@pillmuncher67
2 жыл бұрын
Regarding Peterson's comment at 7:37 - Moeller is a self confessed Daoist. The Daoists (similar to the Buddhists) reject the concept of a genuine self at the bottom. The whole point of Daoism is to get you to not act as if you had such a self, only then will you be able to live in accordance with the Dao. Peterson, who I remember talking about his admiration for the Daoists, should know that. Also, both his Christian and Jungian persuasions seem to lead him to a point where he misses Nietzsche's point about the Hinterwelten. Nietzsche and Daoism are compatible - neither is there a world besides the actual, real one in its historical contingencies, nor is there a self behind the contingencies of one's individual history. All we'd have to do is give up on all these otherworldly concepts and turn towards life. It's that easy. And no, I'm not saying that's right. Or wrong, for that matter. I'm just comparing these ideas with Peterson's and they seem kinda incompatible with many of his. Disclaimer: I'm not a professional philosopher. I just happen to think that Laozi and Zhuangzi were awesome and that Wittgenstein was brilliant. Peterson, OTOH, annoys me to no end, for example because his ideas about masculinity are a regression compared to where we teenagers already were in the 80s. Really, I don't understand all that talk about a crisis of masculinity. If you're a decent person and happen to be male, you're masculine enough. I also suggest watching a few videos by Beau of the Fifth Column on the topic, he has a whole playlist about men's issues.
@DjKryx
2 жыл бұрын
Peterson is not a philosopher. He now plays this role of a pop icon, where the people who read him read every single thing he puts out and think every single thing he said is right and just. Again, he is not a philosopher. He plays the role of the pastor that spreads his believes almost like a Christian pastor would. His newest writing is self help, there is no question about it. He can introduce the archetypes to back his ideas up, but archetypes, at the end of the day, are categorization of continuous ideas humanity had over times-and every mathematician will tell you, especially the ones working with information theories and data analysis, you can categorize information in the way it fits you without changing the percentage of the phenomena the new, categorized model explains.
@HahaDamn
2 жыл бұрын
Archetypes are not transcendental though, different societies have had different mythological stories and ideas, even where they borrow myth, like second temple Judaism borrowing from Persian and Hellenistic mythology, drew different ideas and developed different archetypes, than those other civilisations they encountered. But not only that, interpretation of those archetypes has changed as the history has progressed and the social order in which individuals found themselves, changed.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
What I would say briefly - there are many important issues you raise in your comment which I hope to address in future videos - is that JP's fans associate him with personal transformation. Which is why it is so unbearable for many of them to see JP criticised.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
JP is interestingly a pragmatist on the key epistemological questions which for non pragmatists settle the epistemic issues of purposes in the world which transcend human purposes - much more to be said and I'm looking forward to more conversation
@RogerValor
2 жыл бұрын
Categorizing information is handling values. phenomena are results of interactions, and therefore rules the data is transformed through. So highlighting, that explanations are not changed by re-arranging how you cluster your datapoints together, does not really highlight anything profound; the data in science is measurement, the explanation is a series of functions the data is expected to be transformed in. What you can do however, is, to find new rules of interaction, by recognizing how data relates. But if two different "functions" do not add anything relevant on how dataset a relates to dataset b, it does not add new information. If all objects fall, because little demons push them around in the ether, it does not change how gravity works, and the whole layer of invented rules are probably not required, and adding this new oddity does not expand our horizon, it only clutters the board. However, if you discover, that two interactions relate through a third one, you can discover new relationships or dependencies, and that might become obvious by arranging data into different clusters. Additionally, all this might lead to personal insight, about personal misconceptions, anytime. I mean, the sentence, that it does not change the percentage of phenomena is only true, until you happen to find something true, you did not see before. And this might have profound changes in your understanding, like relativity did. Otherwise I find it interesting that OP thinks the role of a pastor is to "spread belief". It certainly can be the role, but I would say, most theologians would probably challenge that assessement. Evangelist, better even Televangelist or Guru might be more to the point. And yes, this does lead to the question of cultism, but it already highlights the one thing that always makes JP such a different topic: he seems to be somewhat of a religious figure. And on that regard, I do want to remark, that denying intellectuals' credibility due to their beliefs is present just as much, as defending the cult leader through loyalty. This is why I very much found it refreshing, that Vlad opened with how philosophy relates to religion. - As disclaimer, why I might be a deist who somewhat identifies as a Christian, and I might have had some good memories about some of the online lectures of JP, I am not a follower of his, never read his book, but I happen to follow both critics and fans of his losely, and ponder his career and change over time out of curiosity. -
@kevinmccahill7522
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent video! I love the Baudrillard/Deleuze side of critical theory and so far I like Hans as well but I do wonder at times if the playfulness of the style tends to distort the subject matter a little, seeking nails to fit one’s particular brand of critical hammer.. Greetings from US keep em coming
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you! Great to have you aboard and I too look forward to clarifying Hans's views when I have a look at his co written book.
@stevenrichardscott1622
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks again for another thought-provoking video, and I must admit I am only vicariously knowledgeable of Peterson, the Wanderer, and Nietzsche. I would like to respond to your question about whether our problems are due to the general human condition or to modernity. It seems to me this is a variation on whether our problems are due to nature (= basic way humans are put together by their genes) or nurture (culture). Correct me if I am wrong. You also seem to make it an either-or question, but I do not think that is your intent. Regarding, the nature-nurture debate, it is as far as I can see a mixture: our problems are due to both. Nature causes us to respond in certain ways and culture modifies how the response. Take, for example, the question of masculinity and emotions. Nature supplies emotions and perhaps base responses to them, but culture can define how we respond to them. The question then becomes, "What is the best way to respond to them, with an understood "in our culture"?" Which is more a question of psychology rather than philosophy. Naturally, psychology and philosophy cross paths, because psychological problems are often due to how we think about the world and some sort of cognitive dissonance. Finally, and I hope I am not digressing too much, what do we mean by modernity? Is it simply the general culture of the modern world? Or is it simply a time reference meaning right now? If the first, can one speak of general culture? I would answer, "no." We all participate in multiple cultures, and this multiplicity is part of our profiles as individuals; for example, I participate in gay culture, fine arts culture, university culture, foodie culture, various left-wing cultures, Anglican church culture, and on and on and on and on. Each supplies a certain way of looking at the world, and they are integrated (hopefully well) into who I am and how I perceive myself. These are also entwined with my likes and dislikes etc. All of these make me unique, yet, I am still fundamentally human. As the saying goes, people are people, which from my participation in foreign film watching culture, I know is true: despite the various different cultures, we remain humans with similar desires and responses to the world. Thus, in response to your question on our problems, the answer is "yes." because we are all the same yet different.
@MrJohnverkerk
2 жыл бұрын
The problems we face today are fundamentally no different than those we faced in all history. Collectively and individually we have always been selfish and greedy. What has always set ourselves apart from each other, are the gifts and talents that make every human being ever born, so amazingly unique. sets us apart from each other
@unreasonable3589
2 жыл бұрын
Less screwed up vs managing being screwed up better: that distinction works if you think of mental "screw up" as being analogous to a physical disability, such as having a club foot. It is not at all obvious that it works for many mental processes, such as the crushing lack of a sense of purpose in the "crisis of masculinity", unless it in turn is caused by a physical intervention, eg a concussion. I am not an expert on psychoanalysis, but my understanding is that Freud thought that what he was doing was helping people manage their internal conflicts, not actually reducing them at a fundamental level. Just finished reading Rieff's "The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith after Freud" 1966. He also had a lot to say about how modernity strips out meaning and neither Freud nor Jung etc had satisfactory answers. You can explain the loss of meaning critically, but by doing so you also create the loss of meaning. If meaning comes from committing to normative ideals, and these cannot be derived from any non-normative framework, (ie utilitarianism, state of ignorance etc are all flawed) and indeed are always undermined by critical analysis, the only way forwards is to pick a set of normative ideals with some emotional resonance and stick to them, analysis be damned. Just found your channel BTW - glad to see more good quality philosophy content on the net. Subscribed.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
I'm going to talk in detail about Freud and his legacy to us via Melanie Klein. He is perhaps the most culturally misrepresented figure we have. Not to say he was flawless - he was far from flawless!! What I am saying here is a distinction between two options entirely consistent with any psychological picture. (1) men helped by Peterson become less pathological - the hold of psychopathology over them diminishes. (2) they don't become less pathological at all, but become more functional within their pathological limitations - for instance, get their life in order a bit. This distinction is vital to understanding the cultural effect of JP. Patly because we need to answer the question of whether JP helps men only in so far as they are and stay pathological. No quick answer will do here.
@unreasonable3589
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler Appreciate the engagement with your audience! I understand what you are saying in the two cases - I just do not see, yet, how you can tell the difference; as you say they are both "entirely consistent with any psychological picture". You will have to somehow reify a purely psychological pathology as something other than the sum of it's symptoms, and that reification will be open to the same critical attack as one of Freud's constructs, such as the Oedipus complex; ie that it is an invented "just so story" without predictive value, perhaps revealing more about it's inventor than about any of his subjects. I am also unclear why we need to answer this question to understand the cultural effect of JP. So I will be interested to see how you unpack this idea in later videos. Always keen to tackle a new puzzle. (I am 65 BTW, and find philosophy and related subjects a much better way to spend my retirement and fend off senility than crosswords!)
@robertbrennan2268
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you Vlad. Interesting on Nietzsche as the key figure in opening up a critique of "our situation" in a world fundamentally altered in its challenges by modernity - where purposes are solely human and not a cosmic "telos" - as opposed to a generically "human" condition. Peterson, I gather from your piece, it appears fudges this fundamental question. I must confess I have b=never found Pterson a "must read" "thinker" unlike Alasdair MacIntyre or Charles Taylor. Your work is always stimulating and serious. Thanks.
@Astuar
2 жыл бұрын
For me, as a non native English speaker and a person, who has only a small experience with proper philosophie, this all talk feels so enigmatic and irrelevant. It feels like people just created this massive logical constructs, that become more detached from reality and actual topics the bigger this construct growths. (Even if it's not actually). One must collect all of this context and literatural background to even start to understand the discussion.
@MsRainingDays
2 жыл бұрын
How do you feel about advancement math? How about special relativity? Or US tax forms? From all the above the US tax system is probably the most unnecessarily complex construct made by human kind. And the entire population must deal with it. At least no one forces anyone to do philosophy.
@MathieuDeVinois
Жыл бұрын
How can it be I find that channel only now !? Better late than never.
@shochre6497
2 жыл бұрын
I am a graphic designer and the tumbnail made me very worried lol
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Ha ha ha !!!!
@pitzboechannel
2 жыл бұрын
I am actually very fond of JBP's work. I think he's exceptionally good in the pattern recognition skill (which I regard as one of the most important skills for a human being) and he's also pointed out problems in our post-modernist way of living that would have probably never reached such a big worldwide audience. I am Italian, so I am one of those in Southern Europe who have discovered JBP's work in the last year. I have to admit that I disregarded every piece of content with his face on for a long time in the last 3 years because I thought he was just an alt-right activist. When I immersed myself in his content I actually found out about a much more moderate-leaning man, with whom I feel a deep intellectual connection. Now, is he the best philosopher alive? No, I am not even sure he can be considered a philosopher to begin with. He's just a fine thinker. Should he be the best philosopher alive to be allowed to do the work he does or otherwise keep shut? No, I don't think so. Is his work doing more bad than good to his worldwide audience? No, again, I think he's doing a lot of good. I myself was going through a major depressive rut that could have easily slipped into suicide further down the years. And yet, his speeches gave me at least the necessary power to pick myself up. It showed me where I was lacking, and how to handle depression and anxiety when I don't have immediate access to a professional. Is that sufficient? No, you'll need personal psychoanalytic work to fully function. But did this bring me from a very dysfunctional state to a more functional state where I can now work, enjoy social gatherings, and keep physically active? Yes, it did. And this sprouted into me being motivated to do more research, learn more about myself, and keep exploring. I think we shouldn't hold JBP accountable to philosophy's standards. Even his famous debate with Slavoj Zizek was not on a fair level, to begin with, even if I found it a pleasant dialogue and a wonderful showcase of how distant schools of thought can come together and respect each other. We should regard JBP for what he is: a thinker, who provides his take in a public arena. He's just a public figure, not a philosopher. What should we do with his work, then? Enjoy it, and pass it through your critical reasoning as with anything else.
@philmckenna5709
2 жыл бұрын
" I have to admit that I disregarded every piece of content with his face on for a long time in the last 3 years because I thought he was just an alt-right activist." In other words, you succumbed to the dictates of the mob.
@takeshikodama5671
2 жыл бұрын
Hello Vlad. Thanks for introducing me to Carefree. He looks interesting, so thanks. This video was a bit too difficult for me. But I like philosophy in general so I think I'm gonna stick around for some more video of yours. Edited to Add: JP is accessible. Like shown n Carefree's video, he's good looking and charismatic. Exactly like an apostle. His credential, every personal info of his is understandably speaks to younger generations because they are all starved for family oriented daddy love. He's becoming the safe space and not the strong mommy lion. You could be rebellious against your mother but "Listen to your father!" is just reminiscent of good ole' time. Was the adjudication necessary? I question that. What does the numbers say? I've read that you have plans to speak about more about him because of his increasing popularity in Europe. This idea of traditional wholesome picture he presents won't go away. Most audiences seem rather radical in their political and religious views, it's worrisome. His emotional instability seems genuine and he can't help it, right? He's got THE big clout. I'd love to see he does better with haters. Those earlier videos spoke enough about him though. That's his tough love philosophy too, right? He's also playing this enabler role, I guess.
@bdjshwbwhdhh1991
2 жыл бұрын
You know, I live in a world where I seem to be cleverer than those around me. Then I come here.
@olympiaelda1121
2 жыл бұрын
*more clever
@guygeorgesvoet4177
2 жыл бұрын
dear Vlad, why do you not confront McIntyre and Taylor in their core. They both think from, and also for, at least that is my contention, their faith. The whole of both of their philosophies could be said to be an inmense reconstruction of the history of philosophy and in this they demonstrate precisely the huge heuristic force of their faith driven intellectual practice in what it pushed them toward when faced with the challenges to reason and rationality in modern history. There is no reason why one would feel, camel-like, having to assume the whole of history as somehow salvageable for a continued tradition of reason if it were not because of Christianity proclaiming to be able to saveguard all of truth the Logos initiated the availability of in and through time. They are the most talented: what does that mean here? The ones that proved the most fertility concerning their basic stand in showing how their basic stand made them do what they accomplished. Nietzshe was terribly talented but also an unbelievable philosophical asshole that accomplished nothing of value in the end - Heideggers interpretation makes a very good case of proving him to be "destinaly" an inverted metaphysician of the worst sort. How is it simply possible still to not believe there is definitively nothing better in philosophy than what McIntyre and Taylor profess to? If you know them, can you possibly have any way of hoping to be able to withstand their basic stand, that is, the more than forcefull amount of reasoning they display to consider affirming that no rationality can be considered to stand it's proper trial if it is not carried in some way by the metaphysical beliefs fundamental to orthodox christianity. Where is it precisely and why that you cannot follow Taylor and McIntyre all the way? i do not pretend in embracing faith, as that is God's gift, but to embrace their philosophy figuring it all out in the light of what faith accepts there to be, foremost. I cannot get beyond them. Can you? And why should that be? Is it perhapsgranted by some ultimate decision of yourmost personal liking and still irretrievable limit that cannot be accounted for by assuming Taylor and McIntyre while pretending to outbid them in such a way that its pretended more than rational certainty has still not done the real work of verifying its possible truth? "What about all the books and shit they have written, when it should turn out there is no God". What kind of a nonsensical question is that? They can precisely tell you all the shit they've written because they assume intellectually, much the way Hegel did really, there is a God in the precise way orthodoxy has figured out the metaphysical implications of heuristically assuming the truth of Revelation as such, meaning as divinely revealed, thus meeting in time, as the tradition of metaphysical realism restated it over and again in a most convincing sort of continuous way, cfr. Mcintyre and Taylor- all and every possible transcendentalist formulation of exigencies a rational subject is to be able to rationally meet if he is ever to respond to the question of God-there-being or not. If there were no God, then all the shit they've written would be in dire trouble, would it not, but then again, they tried to let you see in their much fertile and critically uneneding tradition of thought, that there is a God being the way he decided to have Himself revealed to reasonable people, as they showed that assumption was only capable of producing the precise body of work they produced!. After all these books they could not possibly understand the question I above qualified as nonsensical. One can never leave one´s hermeneutical circle defining its horizons of rational inquiry, only widen and broaden and deepen them and then it becomes inpossible to even understand such a question in that kind of a horizon and that is why it is not possible to go beyond Taylor and McIntyre in a stringent way of cogitation if one has not effectively, really done that work and shown it to have been done. There is no possible beyond formulable in any rational way, in that sort of question, that pretends to go beyond or outbid Taylot and McIntyre...take the time to take them to their core, and then you wil not want anymore to formulate such a little question that gives you away so fully...
@ivans4035
2 жыл бұрын
Hey Vlad, I recently discovered your channel(s) and really enjoying thorough and stimulating. Keep up great work
@stefanomarconi4675
2 жыл бұрын
I really like your insight,very strong but very clear
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Stefano, thank you.
@boudivv
2 жыл бұрын
I think our education system is the problem. Not modernity itself but the toolset we get from education to deal with it. For example history is educated as a description of the past. While before one can understand the past, you need to understand some psychology and anthropology first. Consequently a lot of primary education is indoctrination as far it is not about mathematics, physics an practical skills. A lot of people get well indoctrinated (educated). But get confused if the world changes away from the imprented. They leak the foundation to think for them selfs. There are of cause exceptions like the Montessori and Rudolph Steiner based schools.
@ricagambeda
2 жыл бұрын
Your KZitem skills are not poor. Virtually every other KZitemr’s output is characterised by continuous jump cuts on account of their inability to do what you do so well - a continuous take (and on far from trivial subject matter) which stays on point and is free of errors. Actually you are too good for KZitem, evidently. Although I would have cut the tailpiece on Jordan’s tears, which I thought ill-judged and unworthy. We shouldn’t claim to peer into others’ souls. And of course a person’s tears are primarily about themselves. That is obvious and does not need to be pointed to, less still deployed as a kind of criticism. But keep it up. I love your work.
@wadadli4sun
Жыл бұрын
Keep on coming back to your old videos. Amazing you only had a thousand followers here 14 months ago! Keep up the interesting work and views 👍🏼
@LouigiVerona
2 жыл бұрын
Enjoyed both your reaction to the Carefree Wandering video and the video itself. I find it difficult to agree that wokeism is a civil religion. Wokeism, as far as I can see, is a derogatory term invented by the right, to name call people fighting for human rights. Calling Greta a prophet is just weird to me. I understand where he's coming from, but I feel it's so unnecessary. She's an activist who says governments should act on clear science. There's nothing religious about that at all.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Well I don't think Greta is particularly woke. I do of course have several videos on the channel trying to capture what wokeism is, but I think you just disagree. My own view is that it's not just a term hijacked by the right, but rather a kind of identity politics which is currently immobilising centrist and left political forces all over the West. I'm aware you don't recognise that, from previous comments! How are you enjoying the Carefree Wandering channel? What are your thoughts about it?
@LouigiVerona
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler It's not that I don't recognize that it's being politicized by both the left and the right (and maybe center too), but I am sad to see the conversation about human rights be just swept aside and called a civil religion. I mean, almost every social movement is politicized at some point in history. It doesn't mean that we can just dismiss those movements as mere "religions". Since when begging people to go with scientific consensus is religion? It's not. Religion is refusing to accept climate change in the face of clear scientific evidence. That's why I protest designating the fight for human rights and accepting scientific data as wokeism or religion. And it's difficult to not see thr introduction of the term "wojeism" as a successful political project of the right. As for the Carefree Wandering, I am enjoying the channel, although some videos are a bit over my head, I suppose. I think I understood very well his points about Peterson. I also watched his video on whether Kant's ideas are still relevant, and he lost me very quickly, since I just don't understand many of the terms that he uses.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
@@LouigiVerona So - I can't speak for Hans, but it seems to me he is not dismissing civil religion as a social reality and a social good. Have I not watched enough of his videos? Thanks for sharing your experience of CW - interesting you have it time even though it felt not fully accessible.
@LouigiVerona
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler Right, but why call a social movement "religion"? Religion is something irrational and something not epistemologically valid. However, social injustice is demonstrable and not based on mythology or made up ideas. And the reason why one would want to oppose the pejorative use of the word "woke", is because the right has changed its meaning and succeeded in it being used to denote unreasinable zealousness about exaggerated social injustices. I also can't speak for Hans and I haven't watched enough of his videos, but I think that he ends up doing the right's bidding by dismissing the fight for human rights as a "religion" akin to what Peterson is doing. I mean, I have transgender friends. I have friends who are POCs. I work with women and I have, with my own eyes, seen gender pay gap in action. Do you and Hans want to tell me that fighting for the rights of these people and demonstrating evidence of the injustices towards them that have been propagated for centuries - that this is somehow religion? You mentioned Russia. I can imagine that someone in Russia or a country like Russia can look at your desire to preserve democracy and say: "Ah, right, this is this civil religion, western liberalism. They want to conquer all other countries and force them to live like them." You probably wouldn't even know where to start, because al they say is just wrong. But imagine this being the mainstream view and philosophers saying that your longing for democracy is just a religion, based on irrationality, and you are trying to be a prophet for that religion and whatnot. I mean.... WUT? Same with wokeness. Wikipedia actually has a really nice article on the subject.
@josephg.3771
2 жыл бұрын
@@LouigiVerona notions of justice are always predicated on some sort of myth making. For example, "human rights" per se is not demonstrable but rather it is an axiom that people assume to be real and valuable through myth. I think your lexical bias is coming from equivocating myth with malicious lying or a conscious act of scamming. I think the point was that the core of "civil religion" is mythological in the sense it is highly abstract and contigent with the axiological priorities of an age, and maintained through second-order reaffirmations
@sandytimewell
2 жыл бұрын
I'd be interested to hear more on your views of the sovereign individual. Are we ever truly sovereign individuals? We start life physically part of another person - our mother. Only at around age 2 or 3 do we develop a sense of ourselves as separate. Even then, the very language we learn to use to think with is dependant on our closest care givers. Throughout life we are constantly being shaped and reshaped by our interactions with wider society. How much room is there for our own agency? Is agency different from the concept of the sovereign individual? Is individual sovereignty maybe a useful fiction to protect against coercive collectivist demands? Is there a philosophical connection between the concept of the sovereign individual and the concept of national sovereignty; and personal egotism with nationalistic xenophobia? Oh, whoops so many questions, lol. Individual sovereignty as a concept, seems to me to have inherent within it a denial of our vulnerability - that we need others to get our needs met. Yet, it is nevertheless a concept it would be difficult to do without if we want to keep our individual 'human rights'.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
I'm going to keep your comment safe for a future Q&A episode - a way to engage with the most interesting questions, like the ones you ask! So, thank you! For the moment two things. My philosophical preference is to keep agency a much more modest and universal concept than the 'sovereign individual'. A shorthand might be this: the 'sovereign individual' is a particular, culturally specific, and highly ambitious idea about how we express our agency. If someone argues that we move toward 'individual sovereignty' in so far as we are socially engaged in the right kind of way, all you say could be compatible with that concept. It's not a term I used to describe any of my own views of course. There is a lot more I'd love to say, and I shall! Warm wishes to you.
@toby9999
2 жыл бұрын
It's not possible to be a sovereign individual and be a function part of a community. There is always going to be compromise. There has to be. The pandemic laid this bare. The most indivualistic communities suffered the most.
@charlestaylor8624
11 ай бұрын
Willam Faulkner says it is the human condition, though he deals with it through US southern slavery and it's aftermath. In Jordan's case he does seem to blame it on the modern world. The fact that men are falling behind in the US in college degrees and careers is disturbing. It must be both, not an either or, both the human condition and modernity. Maybe Jordan will recognize that.
@OscarCuzzani
2 жыл бұрын
Wow! Friederich would be rejoicing! Thank you Vlad for taking this argument and trying to explore it to the limits. I’m absolutely taken by your discourse and now look forward to the next chapter! You’re becoming addictive to a small crowd!
@GaiatheSage
8 ай бұрын
you introduced this autodidact polymath to philosophers I have never heard of and are talking about interesting topics. liked and subscribed. keep up the work 👍.
@brighton_dude
2 жыл бұрын
I’m a gay man. Is Jordan Peterson helping me with my identity and my life?
@MsRainingDays
2 жыл бұрын
How clean is your room after watching JP? XD
@jrd33
2 жыл бұрын
Surely that is a question only you can answer. I'm not sure whether "gay" is relevant as I haven't heard Peterson say much about homosexuality.
@thomasnesmith5426
2 жыл бұрын
Complaining, not explaining made me realize so much time is wasted pointing things out and not thinking about ways forward.
@polomis27
2 жыл бұрын
Yes!! You got it! How does the worldview of someone who believes in God react to a world with no God? It reminds me of when Jordan Peterson, (A proponent of the idea that "cultural Marxists" had captured Acadamia) was asked by Slavoj Žižek (A "cultural Marxist"), to tell him where were all these "cultural Marxists" in Acadamia? He asked for names.... To which Peterson replied that he had read Jonathan Haidt say something to that effect. Peterson has made a fortune by pretending that "Wokeism" is an enemy that is capable of destroying all of society. You have stated that Putin, by saying that, "Our society will be stronger for being purged of the traitors", has veered into overt facism, and yet you still, remorselessly, take Peterson, and the horrific threat of the "woke", seriously. I find that troublesome. Now, to be fair you do have a standard preamble about how you feel that the right is more dangerous than the "woke", but no critique has been offered. I would ask you to put some flesh on the bones of that argument, or, at least, put any bones on its marrow.
@andrewblake2254
2 жыл бұрын
The thing that has struck me about Peterson is the extreme irony of his story with his severe health problems. That the only place he could get his body and soul healed (according to Jordan and his somewhat codependent enablers) was a clinic near Moscow. It might as well have been in the lair of Beelzebub himself. Personally i would feel like psychological idiot if the only place I could find healing was in the centre of the world I was obsessed with and utterly condemned. Like you Vlad and like Jordan I have had very far reaching health problems that have needed fixes. So I do get it. But I am not sure if Jordan has yet got the irony of it all.
@jrd33
2 жыл бұрын
Peterson condemns communism, not the people of Russia. He also loves Russian literature.
@CarmellaMulroy
Жыл бұрын
I think some of Jordan's are self inflicted. like me that all meat diet. I sure it's okay for short term but why would anyone want to eat only animal products? I have been vegan for years so I suppose I am biased but eating certain things like pig would turn my stomach
@telkmx
2 жыл бұрын
I also thought about this before sleep and I’m not sure how proving that two of the main philosopher of our time are Christian’s proves that religion and philosophy can coexist is useful there since HG Muller was more so saying that they are incompatible while they can obviously coexist (many great philosopher of thoses 300 years were religious and he probably knows this too). Alisdair became Christian catholic at 50 years old. He was probably raised in Christianity and to me it shows more than someone even that smart and well versed can live in contradictions. I think religion can coexist but it’s not in favor of philosophy it’s detrimental to it. The fact that he chosed to be a catholic christian is even weirder since it’s connected to his upbringing and pretty arbitrary, why Catholicism?. If he can reason why doesn’t he reason when it comes to god. Everyone has blind spot but one being that big can probably has impact someplace else even so for someone as smart. And sorry for being all over the place but I can’t grasp how someone reconcile all the issues surrounding the ideas around religious Christianity and reasoning even more so on the topic of morality which seemed to be one of the main focus in his carrier. I think Christianity and Catholicism have axioms which if you get out of makes way less sense to frame oneself upon thoses terms. Peterson used to manage being christian while not believing in it by some mental gymnastic around meaning and images which doesn’t really fit the useful way we use thoses terms
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Peterson uses pragmatism as an epistemological link to connect teleology to the modern world. MacIntyre reasons deeply about God. All the time! And he reasons in philosophy. And he reasons about how the two connect and the degree to which philosophy has to be a secular enterprise. My sense is that what I've said about religion and philosophy in this video can be agreed to by Moeller. I am assuming that's the case for the moment.
@telkmx
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler I'm not sure how someone who believe that the ideas in the bible are true, even in the postmodernist truth peterson frames it can actually deeply analyze the said ideas and truths without being out of the loop which made them believer in the first place. I'm not sure where hard beliefs in things that cannot be proven physically lay in philosophy. If you think the existence of god can be as true as it's inexistence it's a bit weird to say you are christian because you don't believe in god as much as you believe it. They may be christian in a new sense but i feel like it's doing something similar that Jordan Peterson was doing saying to Sam Harris that he actually is a christian because he was raised in "the west" and that his moral and values are derived from it which is a pretty silly thing to say because it erase meaning from a lot of ideas/words we use. But i should read more about the 2 philosophers you spoke about because i've heard them and never read anything from them :)
@chrisschneiders6734
2 жыл бұрын
I'm a nobody, but agree 100 percent.. religion has no place in the big picture of how and why.
@Ancient_4
2 жыл бұрын
The belief in a higher being in general opens up many philosophical discussions. It is a way we thinkers can unbound ourselves from the finite possibilities on earth and perhaps transcend our thinking.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
I think once we have unbounded ourselves from the finite possibilities on earth, we have stopped doing philosophy!
@venrakkhita
2 жыл бұрын
My two cents... Jordan Peterson.. as far as I am aware has a great amount invested in the ideas and views, practices and methods of Carl Jung. I personally found that unraveling the ideas of Jung was greatly enhanced by combining reading 'The Aryan Christ' by Dr Richard Knowles [ a very full expose of Jung's career and personal life, and supplemented by watching 'A Dangerous Method'. The film gave a humanistic portrayal that gave a snap view of the two founder psychoanalysts, Jung & Freud, in contrast and comparison without having to read too much. I felt much more confident to see behind Perterson's psychological basis after that.
@jonber9411
2 жыл бұрын
The question about whether Jordan Peterson screws people up more or if he helps them being less screwed up is a false dilemma. There are many people and he are probably affecting them in various ways. Whats probably closer to the relation between him and his listeners is that he is confusing them with a plethora of "do and don'ts' that obviously has not helped himself. He is confused but very successful with being confused. And the measure of success are regarded by most as his career and fame. I say he is confused and i am then referring to is his state of mind. He is successful in his pursuits and spreading his views and a inspirational leader for some. And he is teaching well being, order, discipline, ideals and how to shape up ones mind and life. And he himself is not successful in having an ordered mind and healthy mind, so that is why i argue he is confused, and a confused mind can say rational things by chance and teaching, but it can't teach order, since it don't know order. Knowledge is not understanding.
@williamfrost3554
2 жыл бұрын
Congrats on the 1.k. I always look forward to your uploads. What do you mean by modern? I hate ask, but "modernity" is confusing. I will have to think about if this current situation can only be expressed through a specific filter of some kind. I am assuming late 19th- early 21st century? I am not sure post modernism or post post-modernism has arrived, of course it is quite likely I am missing something.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks so much! By modern I mean - frustratingly vaguely - the special conditions of life in the last two centuries in the West. Including the loss of faith in teleology, the loss of faith in a cosmic scheme of things, the naturalistic scepticism about our moral values, a culture of compartmentalisation, and above all the high degree of reflectiveness and historical self consciousness of the modern world. I will say a bit more on this in the Nietzsche videos coming up.
@williamfrost3554
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler Excellent. Thank you for setting the context and thank you for providing yet another topic to think about.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
@@williamfrost3554 pleasure!
@jeanjoubert3074
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler What are your views on the ever increasing information overload on humans, through increasingly efficient technological devices (for example, internet connected mobile phones and laptops), contributing to modern humans' sense of alienation, discontent and even confusion? Does the unnaturalness and artificiality of the heavy use of such info devices dislocate modern humans from the authenticity one associates with earlier humans two and more centuries ago living closer or more fully with their naturally endowed faculties?
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
@@jeanjoubert3074 What a magnificent question. I've just responded to you on the Dovgan video after hearing the Pogorelich interpretation! I would love to discuss it at length - I'll save your question and perhaps make an episode on it. So far I haven't addressed it directly. I've only spoken about how the algorithms on social media are impacting the health of our politics. I see independent and democratically legitimate oversight over the algorithms as key to preserving democracy. More directly on your question: I think if this is a big problem, it will get much much worse. I'd struggle to say more without saying a lot more! What do you think? Meanwhile on authenticity, I might get to it when looking at Hans's book. My suspicion is that Hans will need to propose a mechanism for how we have lost the value of authenticity, but no such mechanism is available to him. IF that's true - I don't want to prejudge that - then his concept of profilicity will just be a species of authenticity. An expression and distortion of authenticity, but not it's overcoming.
@MagneticNorthbound
2 жыл бұрын
Vlad you make my mind fully awake and alive. Your curiosity and empathy are as strong as your analytical rigor. Would you ever do a video on A.N. Whitehead / Process Philosophy/ Theology?
@urielpena585
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent video but don't forget to blink😂👌🏻
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
You can't be perfect at everything ! 🤣
@hughkelly9073
2 жыл бұрын
I have met several young people who have said that Jordan Peterson’s lectures has helped them get their life on track.
@Ukraineaissance2014
2 жыл бұрын
I.e told them its all women's fault they couldn't get their life together before
@MsRainingDays
2 жыл бұрын
I think the nature of the track is relevant here
@hughkelly9073
2 жыл бұрын
@@Ukraineaissance2014 how ignorant you are if his advice to all people. It is more like - be responsible for actions - pick up a heavy load and take it where it should be.
@christopherellis2663
2 жыл бұрын
God, as a hypotheses, is acceptable, yet I know of no way to test it, after seven decades. Therefore, to argue, pro or con, is a nonsense. Heraclitus is good enough.
@pedtrog6443
Жыл бұрын
Have saved this to watch later when I've got a bit more energy. Vlad is quite animated from the little I've watched
@barbeonline351
2 жыл бұрын
First, I do not follow everything being said here. But, to me, there is a lesson in that which applies here. Second, to the framework question you finish with--is The Problem unique to the current incarnation of modernity or is it instead recurring--I would assert the response is fairly obvious. But I am indebted to JBP, and I am an engineer not a philosopher (aka "my biases"). I would respond that the struggles are repeating and the perceived distinctions are merely akin to having a different language to confront these struggles with. Hence my first point, if I don't understand all the words you are using, I can be of marginal use to you and vice versa. The world is exposed by mathematics, which fortunately has preserved its vocabulary over the millennia. So the truths are handed down and the frontiers fairly obvious. Not so in the struggles of life, and why I am so grateful to Peterson. We repeat having to discover the necessity of courage, the shield of purpose, and the supremacy of the collective. Mr. Peterson may not be pushing his philosophical frontiers (but I can show you videos where he does), but he communicates. It is more important to him IMHO that he is a clinician rather than a philosopher.
@hikerJohn
2 жыл бұрын
To quote Van Til "The burden of the Easter promise will be fulfilled in the future, in the life to come. But the life to come, as we understand it, is excluded from the modern scheme of life and death. How, then, can its appeal reach and urge to action him who does not know it? How beautifully does Dr. Bavinck picture to us the modern man who either with Nietzsche strives to become an *Uebermensch* condemning the common herd, or otherwise with Tolstoi reduces life to mere passivity. Neither knows the meaning of life. Now if life is only that which we see on earth, if death is nothing but decomposition of the body, why rejoice in the resurrection of Christ? It has then no meaning for our lives." Would Cornelius Van Til be an interesting topic on a future video? I searched your content and found nothing on him. I read a lot of Cornelius Van Til but don't have the vocabulary to fully digest it all. It would be interesting to hear opinions from a non-theologian
@halfalligator6518
2 жыл бұрын
I'd love to listen to this stuff as a podcast... are you able to upload these as a podcast? I see you have one but it became inactive after 2 episodes (I know it's no small ask and might not work well when you rely on visual guides).
@Telly234
2 жыл бұрын
I understood Jordan Peterson a bit better after reading Philip Rieff.
@unreasonable3589
2 жыл бұрын
Coincidence: just posted (in a more long winded way) something similar.
@roderbergis4038
Жыл бұрын
I think the basic problem with biologic determinism is that you just lack any concept of sociological problems at all: Either society is a direct projection of our biology and can thus not be changed OR there is something else which differs from our biology / there is a contradiciton in society itself, namely class struggle etc. Just as you point out JP tries to harvest both: On one side he uses biology or basic human concepts to argue against his neo-marxist paranoia while having no explanation how these phenomens constituted themselves in the first place.
@parsley8554
2 жыл бұрын
i look forward to hearing
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@AndreBiza
Жыл бұрын
Why would any serious intellectual take the narcisist, misoginist and chauvinist creator of the lobster fallacy seriously? A great part of our ethical problems and moral voids as a society are emerging from the relevance we've offering to irrelevant thinkers and public speakers. JP is surely one of the best examples of that.
@howardcurtis9138
2 жыл бұрын
At 1:17 you say that religion is incompatible with philosophy if one takes one’s religious beliefs and can’t question them. Now I remember, in my youth, Fr. Mallarkey (maybe it was McInerney?) from the pulpit saying, “A mind is a tragedy to waste,” and then proceeding to tell us that to question the teachings of the Catholic church was wasting one’s mind. So, did these two Catholic philosophers you’re talking about get some kind of dispensation?
@GUSCRAWF0RD
Жыл бұрын
I don’t understand fully who is paying philosophers
@PillayAllRounders
2 жыл бұрын
Hi from South African vloggers 🇿🇦 😀 ❤️ 🌍
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Hi!
@AndrewBlucher
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for another thought provoking episode! The question you ask bears deep consideration. But I have a question about your use of the word modern. can you elaborate a little please? Some fields make a distinction between modern and post-modern. The sense I get from you is that by modern you simply mean the current world and political situation.
@ip6289
Жыл бұрын
I think Vlad referes to the modernity in the same sense as Nizshe when he proclaimed the God is dead
@Silly2smart
Жыл бұрын
I believe the realm of God is linked with the quantum dimension at least on some level. Both seem to disregard time or are loosely connected to space-time.
@billybobwombat2231
2 жыл бұрын
Try as I may listening to the JP dude leaves me very unsettled, there is something wrong with that old guy, his humanity comes across as an angry mouse getting lost in a maze and pouring scorn on every turn that in his mind shouldn't be on his path.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for sharing your reaction!
@billybobwombat2231
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler 🦘
@philmckenna5709
2 жыл бұрын
@Billy Bob Wombat Yes. Thanks for sharing your reaction. Sounded like you were projecting, though. And for someone who talks disapprovingly about "pouring scorn", you dipped distastefully into casual, ignorant ageism. I bet you're dead against "prejudice" though, aren't you?
@billybobwombat2231
2 жыл бұрын
@@philmckenna5709 I'm a pretty similar age to him, I also grew up in a commonwealth country that had an undercurrent of elitism and righteousness over folks that weren't of our skin tone or culture, I was of his religious faith , a faith that was largely responsible out right callous destruction of indigenous cultures and rampant paedophilia, a culture of outright entitled arrogance towards the right to destroy natural systems in the pursuit of greedy wealth and I find people like him that struggle to grow and realise that those destructive ways need to be recognised for what they were and what they still are , some people can move freely with change some find it a bulwark that they need to yell at every day , a bit like a tiny angry mouse trying to negotiate through a maze and screaming at the walls for being in there way , have a good day 🙂
@pfflam
Ай бұрын
JP talks about very major Philosophers in ways that immediately reveals he has no idea what he is talking about - and as for the usefulness of any of his 'psychology',? imo, it's worse than 'helping' it harms - it's pasting layers of colorful paper-mache on what could be real problems for people and reinforcing clicheed types as aspirational goals thus ensuring both failure to attain those goals and increasing whatever psychic pains that are real and could use actual counseling.
@hamiltonmackenzie3340
2 жыл бұрын
I think you underestimate Jordan’s persistent commitment to learning and growing as a human being.
@tigerpjm
Жыл бұрын
I find that the issue is not so much the zero-sum argument over the existence or non-existence of God but, rather, the definition of God. Which creates so many more arguments that a zero-sum argument just seems so much easier. That's the problem.
@alexpatterson5471
Жыл бұрын
I feel like Peterson is more salesman than philosopher. His bigotry drowns out whatever mashup of Joseph Campbell and Nietzsche he is espousing when he isn’t telling other humans they have no right to exist. I think he’s immersed himself in the IDW and alt-right that I cannot salvage whatever is left. I love your channel and content Vlad! Please don’t interpret my narrow mindedness about Peterson as a condemnation of you, your channel or your views! I simply cannot take a sled-styled public intellectual like Peterson seriously when he’s making second rate Joseph Campbell rip off programs for the Daily Wire. This might not be fair to a year old video. Thank you! I hope you are well, and look forward to more “New York Review of Books” type content!
@idicula1979
2 жыл бұрын
I see death as a kind of sublimation, physically you die, but the question is do you have a spirit that lives on after your death? Like a person living in an unconscience state what is the life of the mind, is death just a deep slumber what you can’t wake from and are our dreams have a deeper reality then just our resting states? I believe God is real, or he is not it’s all in ones image of a wider world lost to our mere everyday realities, Only when we die will we enjoy the fruits of our emotional and spiritual labors.
@idicula1979
2 жыл бұрын
But one thing is for sure we live in, take from, and are inspired by our many mental room that we create. Much like the Jesus of the Bible spoke of the many room in his fathers house. And those are what makes a person his true self, much more then the physical laws and being that confines us and the fraction, of a fraction of the time and space that we have the joy to live in.
@janvisagie231
2 жыл бұрын
Would be really nice seeing you have this convo with John Vervaeke.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
I suspect that will happen.
@janvisagie231
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler That's gonna be epic.
@chrisschneiders6734
2 жыл бұрын
I First heard peterson a couple of years ago obviously on you tube, listened to a few podcasts and was pretty impressed and wondered who he was and what was his story, as l listened more and more l actually found him very me me me type, it's hard for me to describe the feelings but he definitely lost me and it was almost like what other people see of you rather than the big picture of society and care for other people, l other strange thing for me is as my health gets worse and worse and more days are a struggle l actually like the average everyday person more and more..the elites less .. lve also come to the conclusion that many problems in the world are caused by people with big ambitions.. there ego and ambitions are much greater than their brains and the welfare of others.
@pauljmeyer1
2 жыл бұрын
Brain food. I don't believe that people have changed while circumstances have. While most people enjoy the cumulative benefits of generations of endeavor there is still the very basic animal behavior of people and their basic needs are the same as they ever were. The way circumstances are met determines the way people live.
@PaulVanderKlay
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this. Very helpful.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Pleasure!
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
I enjoyed your commentary on Hans's Wokeism video! Thank you for it! I do look forward to more.
@fatjellyfish9478
2 жыл бұрын
13.40 its okey i found it quite endearing and non angry unlike how some other youtuber or personalities would shout in their lecture streams or wherever
@ryanautomator5760
2 жыл бұрын
I do think that the modern world affects our mental state in the way we live day to day, but we've evolved with it. Living in fear or being afraid is part of the human condition. Am I afraid of technology? Yes. Can I blame the modern world 2022 for this fear? Every year will bring changes but the challenges we face are the same challenges people before us have been through In the past. I often think of them when I struggle for belonging in the world I'm facing now.
@liamhackett513
2 жыл бұрын
Look at Petersons discussion with John Vervaeke on yt. It's no wonder he spends a lot of time talking to comedians.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
I put it aside to have a look later - what’s your impression of that episode?
@liamhackett513
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler watch the discussion. Is he in command of himself?, Peterson doesn't seem too comfortable or capable of taking other discourses seriously. Accommodating them would pretty much compromise his own adamantine uncompromising sthick. He is parked in a corner that I don't think he has any intentions of leaving. I've read 12 rules and cannot understand why anybody takes him seriously as a thinker. A kid having a tantrum in airport is used as a pretext to bash liberals. There are many other examples of this sort of hyperbole that he resorts to. The Coda in 12 rules? Can a sane person write this shit. At the end of the day its a very lucrative music he plays to conservative ears. You tubers falling over themselves to coat tail his dubious slipstream. It's beyond pathetic.
@liamhackett513
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler you
@liamhackett513
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler you don't need to have a copy of maps of meaning. It's available online as a pdf.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
@@liamhackett513 I like a physical copy, especially if I am going to browse more than read!
@BubblegumCreepydoll
2 жыл бұрын
That’s it! The open-ended-ness in Jordan Peterson’s speeches. I left a comment in your last video about him. This one refers to that one. You provided me with an a-ha moment here. You make me think and feel (or realize) that I actually have more intellectualism that Jordan Peterson. LoL that’s funny 🤭Thank you.
@pawelolender3709
Жыл бұрын
IF JP were to help us get unscrewed he would need to teach kids :) I also think JP is quite open about that he doesn't have all the answers yet.
@elizabethbennet4791
2 жыл бұрын
jordan has a serious benzo addiction which is why he's so depressed.. he had to go to russia to have the rehab doctors not treat him like they have to legally do here in the US, he was looking for some quack stuff. I'm saying this because my bf used to have the same addiction and explained this to me
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Plus, JP has always been depressed - it runs in their family in a pretty brutal way, mediated by auto immune disease.
@elizabethbennet4791
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler oh he also has auto immune disease? well sadly with all these problems, he is not going to see things too clearly. his view is colored by bitterness and frustration, and he takes it out on women and people of color with his angry traditionalist views and tears over the supposed fall of "Western" (code= white) civilization.
@philmckenna5709
2 жыл бұрын
Tbf I'd be on the gear if I was your bf.
@elizabethbennet4791
2 жыл бұрын
@@philmckenna5709 right, as opposed to the healthy male who scans youtube comments sections of philosophy tube for females to insult. Good thing people like me spend a good amount of time and energy during our lifespans avoiding eye contact. But you believe what you want, subhuman.
@carlloeber
2 жыл бұрын
Vlad always excellent.. please no four letter words in English.. German, Spanish or Russian okay.
@thomaslove6494
2 жыл бұрын
Vlad... You start off by assuming the men that Peterson is helping are screwed up. Why do you start with this distinction to begin with?
@dbeaton1111
2 жыл бұрын
Are the problems people face fundamentally because of human nature or the modern world? Human nature is something of a constant, while "the modern world" is a construct. Unless one determines that human nature is hopeless and and therefor humanity is doomed to be tormented because of who we are, you have to say that the "modern world" is the problem. JP is a clinical psychologist as well as a scientist and philosopher. We know that communism and socialism do not produce healthy, happy societies because we are not worker bees. Men are happiest and most productive when they have a sense of responsibility and their contributions are valued. Tribalism and group division is destructive in any society that values the individual. Competence is a natural human hierarchy. Insofar as the "modern world" rejects these basic premises, JP says, the world is at fault. The best thing one can do as an individual, is to reject those flawed modern worldly values, accept responsibility for one's own actions, and get on with life. All this business of "finding one's self" is best done after getting one's life in order first. Hard to argue with any of that.
@dukejivetalker7541
Жыл бұрын
I love your content vlad. Nothing clever to add, just appreciate the heck out of the thinking and ideas you are putting forward.
@Redrios
Жыл бұрын
Lacanians rise!
@jasentenney6907
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, our problems are fundamentally due to the modern world. See “Industrial Society and Its Future”.
@raphaeldias5502
2 жыл бұрын
I think something most people failed to notice about Jordan Peterson is that he is one of the few intelectuals that stood for what he believes. It is really hard to see intelectuals/scientists leaving the "Ivory Towers" and questioning things in the public realm, and people support him because of that.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Charles Taylor stands for what he believes, in public. Michael Ignatieff stands for what he believes in public. There are public intellectuals far superior to Jordan in judgment, intellect and seriousness. A version of what you say may be true though - very few public intellectuals have taken a stance in the culture wars. And none have done so as vehemently and emotionally as Jordan.
@raphaeldias5502
2 жыл бұрын
@@VladVexler ah yes, didn't mean other intellectuals are completely invisible to the public eye (social media is a thing after all) or the fact he is a popular figure means he is intellectualy superior from others, rather that he goes beyond the "consultant" role and doesn't shy away from polemic subjects (if it is wise or not for him to do this is another matter). By the way, I appreciate you mentioning those two gentleman, I didn't know them so I will have new things to learn with some cups of coffee. Have a good New Year!
@philmckenna5709
2 жыл бұрын
"...And none have done so as vehemently and emotionally as Jordan." And few, if any, have suffered as much for it. So I think you could've added, "...as courageously..." But I get why you wouldn't.
@PandemoniumMeltDown
Жыл бұрын
It feels like he's greasing vulnerable people minds to prepare them for the injection of his overlord fiction.
@ivangohome
Жыл бұрын
Lol "You've assembled all the books but what if there's no God" made me laugh 😊
@IronComrade
2 жыл бұрын
The civil religion critique is novel. I think there's some validity to the emphasis on the individual that's universal in all legal codes. It's obvious why Moeller is in general disagreement because he's using an anti-humanist method of critique. I'd hesitate to say he's antihumanist outright because he'd likely deny that as being an incomplete representation of his being, rather than a temporarily held mask in this professorial role, per Taoism's and postmodernism's insistence on the word being insufficient to represent realty. However, he ignores Peterson's reliance on neuropsychology and evolutionary psychology in favor of reducing him to verbal ploys to fulfill unjustified desire or at most desire tautologically based on its own ends. Anger isn't just a tool, it's a biological reality along with all of our other emotions. Being angry isn't justified because of this, but it's more than a tool, so that metaphor isn't appropriate. Maybe it could be classified as an "evolutionary tool" as its an evolved response to countless stimuli over time, but that wouldn't support Moeller's conception because he paints it as a rhetorical tool. It would seem Moeller's interest in Taoism is relevant because he seems to consider emotion as something to be removed and lessened in order to promote harmony at the individual, familial, social, environmental, etc. levels. The difference between wokeism and Peterson's view is that Peterson places the responsibility with the individual and how the individual defines their goals, thus structuring one's reality and links that to various traditional philosophies to demonstrate its universality. I would imagine there'd be some agreement between Moeller and Peterson on this point, in that the individual's goals will determine action, but Moeller would chafe at any notion of universality preferring historical context instead. Peterson also invokes Taoism in his Maps of Meaning work. The parallels I see for possible agreement are the isomorphic nesting of goals and their effects, the balance that is needed between order and chaos rather than the dominance of one over the other, and the necessity of handling problems individually, not for the sake of authenticity as Moeller views Peterson and wokeism, but for the broader benefits to both the individual, society, and nature.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks so much for such a long and thoughtful comment. I have read it carefully. I follow most of what you have said, but in one or two places I don't fully grasp what you mean.
@fh5926
Жыл бұрын
If you want to get me to cry, get me thinking about the absurdity of life: the futility of existence. That may lurk in the back of Peterson's mind at a not-quite-conscious level.
@ReinisZumbergs
2 жыл бұрын
I came to this channel for explanations on Russia, but looks like I'm going to stay for philosophy.
@VladVexler
2 жыл бұрын
Don’t forget about the new philosophy channel ! vlad vexler philosophy
Пікірлер: 353