12
Jun

Zizek Exposes Defect In Jordan Peterson's Beliefs



you have unfairly tasked me with three very difficult questions and so I'm hoping that I can alright so on Friday was the Slav og Jack vs. Jordan Peterson debate about happiness capitalism versus Marxism with Jordan Peterson representing the capitalism side and slob Logie Jack representing the Marxism side now I was there in person it was entertaining I think there were some great moments but largely it wasn't really a debate about capitalism or Marxism it was more of a discussion and it was kind of around the edges on on these issues I do think if you're gonna debate Marxism you should have a Marxian economists like Richard Wolff there to debate Jordan Peterson and really I don't think Peterson is even the best representative of someone to debate capitalism so I mean really the whole premise and the people and the the two people in this debate weren't necessarily the best people to have this discussion but with that said I may be doing multiple videos on this because it's that there are many moments I want to touch on but in this video I really want to focus on Peterson's argument of focusing on the individual in in terms of clean your own room before really doing anything else and how there's a fatal flaw in his argument and really there is no reason why you can't both work on yourself and work on improving society at the same time but let me start here with G Jack's argument where he he questions Peterson's focus on this whole idea why do you put so much access to this we have to begin with a person with personal change I mean this is also the second or which one I don't remember forgive me of your slogans in your book you know first set your house in order then extremely common sense naive question here but what is in trying to set your house in order you discover that your housing is in disorder precisely because the way the society is messed up which doesn't mean okay let's forget about my house but you can do both at the same time and I would even say I will give you now the ultimate example yourself that you are so socially active because you realize that it's not enough to tell to your to your to your patient set your house in order much of the reason of why they are in disorder their house is that there is some crisis in our society and so on and so on so my reproach to you benevolent would have been another joke tea or coffee yes please like individual or social yes please because this is obvious in extreme situation like I hope we agree to say to somebody in in North Korea set your house in order how do we usually deal with ecology by this false personalization you know they tell you ah what did you do did you put all the coke cans on the side did you recycle old paper and so yes we should do this but you know like I in a way this is also a very easy way to describe yourself like you say okay I do the recycling show up you know I did my duty let's go on so I would have straight white choice yeah all right so uh jeez like quite a character he before I even get to his argument here he is sort of like he has fantastic many fantastic ideas but I think he's not able to communicate them as effectively as I wish he would because he really could have cut that whole you know piece down to a couple sentences it didn't really have to be as as long-winded as it was but with that said so to me this is like one of the major issues with Jordan Peterson now I have no issue with Peterson and his focus on self-help I think it's good self-help is important it's important to if you need that it's important to have people like Jordan Peterson to be able to to figure out how to improve your own life but Peterson really has this lack of awareness in terms of the effects of society as a whole on the individual and how that creates issues so to be solely focused on improving yourself I mean it gets exposed perfectly when Dziedzic brings up North Korea I mean the idea of telling somebody in North Korea to clean your room or get your house in order it's just absurd because that isn't the problem in North Korea the problem North Korea is the society as a whole so look that is an extreme example but that's also true in in Western countries as well I mean it's it's not only about the individual again you can do both it's important to focus on improving yourself and ensuring that you are as best as you can be but at the same time you can also help with societal change and be inform yourself on the issues that may lead to problems like climate change so the other great example there from Dziedzic recycling the way recycling story that sort of lulls allows us all to sleep to thinking that oh well I'm recycling so we're we're helping the world now forget about you know like fuck you forget about anything else in terms of climate change I I'm doing my part by recycling but in reality the real problem are the big polluters and they know subsidies to oil companies these are issues that society we as a society should be facing and we should be discussing on a larger level like this is it's not simply about your own actions again like being vegan is helps with the environment because the I mean factory farming is a huge polluter but again the individual action of not eating meat is not what's going to save the planet what will save the planet our large societal ships that will require those that have the power to change the way that they are doing business and the way that they are making money so again it's not simply about the individual and you can do both focus on the individual focus on yourself while also being aware and focused on the societal issues that may have put you in certain situations that you don't have full control of because you don't because of the situation that exists within society so to me this is really Peterson's biggest issue is he tries to be more than what he is he's a self-help guy he's really not more than that and you know for a lot of Peterson supporters or fans that may bother you to hear that but I think jejak throughout this debate clearly exposed that are clearly expose what Peterson's strengths are and what his weaknesses are now let me show you um Peterson's response to this and again why I see an issue with this you have unfairly tasked me with three very difficult questions and so I'm hoping that I can look there's a very large clinical literature that suggests that if you want to develop optimal resilience what you do is you lay out a pathway towards somewhere better someone comes in they have a problem you try to figure out what the problem is and then you try to figure out what might constitute a solution and so you have something approximating a map right and it's a it's a tentative map of how to get from where things aren't so good to where they're better and then you you have the person go out in the world and confront those things that they're avoiding that are stopping them from moving towards that higher place and there's an archetypal reality to that it's you're in a fallen state you're attempting to redeem yourself and there's a process by which that has to occur and that process involves voluntary confrontation with what you're afraid of disgusted by and inclined to avoid and that works every psychological school agrees upon that is that exposure-therapy the psychoanalysts expose you to the tragedies of your past you know and and redeem you in that manner and the behaviorists expose you to the terrors of the present and redeem you in that manner but there's a grip broad agreement across psychological schools that that's that works and my sense is that were called upon as individuals precisely to do that in our life but I do believe that the best bet for most people is to solve the problems that beset them in their own lives the ethical problems that beset them that they know our problems and that they can set themselves together well enough so that they can then become capable of addressing larger scale problems without falling prey to some of the errors that characterize let's say over optimistic and intellectually arrogant ideologue so look nothing here that Peterson says is wrong focusing on yourself improving yourself is good and yes it can benefit society at large so for example I would through cognitive behavioral therapy because I suffered from social anxiety and because I did that in part I was able to or in part because of that I was able to then eventually you know years later go on and run as a candidate in politics and now do what I'm doing now but this sort of this sort of approach doesn't impact every issue so simply because I went through cognitive behavioral therapy didn't somehow help poverty or didn't somehow address wealth inequality I mean these are issues that you can tackle at the same time you can both be aware of societal issues and try and tackle them through various social means or our I mean and you can also help to improve yourself and look a lot of Peterson's self-help stuff you notice his from his from his supporters from his fans it's a lot of white guys a lot of younger white men now it's that isn't always the case obviously yes of course he has older supporters and younger or and female supporters but it's largely younger white men younger white men from suburbs that are middle-class so I mean like I'm the perfect I'm the perfect example of somebody who would be into Jordan Peterson so this is where I think he doesn't quite grasp what life is like for people outside of these situations where you are already born into a life that is pretty good and sure it could be better but it could also be much worse so like if you are if you are born into a family that is incredibly poor that doesn't or can't afford health care that you live in the middle of a food desert and there isn't a grocery store for miles and miles and miles I mean this is the kind of situation where sure you can clean your room but it's only gonna do so much you actually have to be engaged with society as a whole and trying to improve society as a whole to ensure that those kinds of situations are more and more rare so you can't simply be focused on yourself and the individual you have to be doing both at the same time yes improve yourself but also work to improve society as a whole now I'm gonna get to so this is a and this is sort of related to what we're talking about here but Peterson also goes on to talk about meaning and I'm showing you this because Dziedzic I think has a this was maybe the one of the best moments after Peterson's clip that I'm going to show you ggx response to this is maybe one of the best moments of this entire debate but first let me show you Peterson discussing the importance of meaning see the sophisticated one it's not that I'm making a case for the individual like Iran makes a case for the individual that's not it I'm making a case for individual responsibility that's not the same thing it's like there is something that's good for you but it has to also be good for your family and it's just good for you that's not good enough and if it's good for you and your family and it's not good for society then that's not good enough either and so the responsibility is to find a pathway that balances these things in harm oh nice Manor it's like a I got a lot of dis thinking from jean piaget and his idea of elaborated states right is you're attempting to find something like a game that everyone is willing to play that can be played in an iterative manner and not degenerate hopefully actually ascend if that's possible hopefully become a better and better game across time and I do believe that I do believe that you can do that I do believe that you can do that if you're guided by truth and I do believe that the pathway to that is the phenomenology of meaning so this was actually a moment that made me I don't say empathize but maybe understand Peterson a little bit better because in the past for me it was sort of hard to tell if he was simply you know in some ways a grifter and using his newfound fame to make money in various ways for himself and simply push a certain narrative because he found that to be popular or if he actually believed what he's saying and I do think he truly believes what he's saying because here what he is showcasing is that without even realizing it he is saying that he thinks people are inherently good and that they are going to do what's good for a society if they do what's good for themselves and what's good for them what's good for their family they also have to do what's good for a society but who chooses what's good I mean this is the problem here everybody has their own idea of what is right or wrong so if you are doing what you think gives you meaning what you think is good for society because maybe you've been told what's good for society again it's hard to know what exactly motivates people so this is where jejak gets in and honestly I mean this is one of the the best points I think that Dziedzic made throughout the entire debate and this is it's kind of long because jejak tends to be long-winded but it's it's worth listening to and grasping what he's really saying here here the ology can massively enter you describe a nice situation you are tempted or ordered or whatever to do something that you know it's wrong but so-called totalitarian ideologies step in at this point and try to present to you that the true greatness is to do what you individually think it's wrong for the higher course you know who says this wonderfully horrible Heinrich Himmler of SS sorry seriously he knew the problem German officers must do horrible things till truth and his solution was double first to let them know as he put it somewhere every idiot idiot okay ordinary men can do something great maybe not all sacrifice himself for his country but his reply was his point was but it takes a truly great men to be ready to lose his soul and to do horrible things for his country and I read some good memoirs of relatively honest communists who broke down whenever sent to the countryside from in in early thirties and this is what this is what they were told by apparatchik you will see horrible things children starving and so on remember there is a higher course and your highest ethical duty is to is to overcome this small bourgeois sentimentality and so here I see the danger of again my pessimism false meaning which can massively cover this false narrative ii think also the solution by I wonder if you share this pessimism finds another one by Himmler you know what was his sacred book I read he all the time had a special leather-bound copy in his pocket Bravo God Geeta he massively he said his problem of this one he puts it perfectly Nazi officers have to do SS horrible things how to enable them to do it without themselves becoming horrible beings his solution was oriental wisdom to learn to act from distance I'm not really there and this is the shock of my life based on this new wrote the book I found a book the Gaiden wrote many books Bryan Victoria Seine at war it's a shocking book especially horrible from any so called anti Eurocentric who claim our monotheism is guilty of everything we need oriental evidence book is about the apart from a couple of exceptions the behavior of Zen Buddhist community in Japan in the thirties early forties not only they totally supported Japanese expansion in to include China they even provided properly Zen Buddhist justification for it for example the one you know who did this no you are not as old as me I remember him DT Suzuki the Great Tree yeah but okay he was doing this in the sixties but as a younger guy he was fully supporting Japanese militarism and one of his justifications was this one the advice of Japanese military to them to support Zen Buddhist training because he says it's one of the most horrifying thing that I've ever read he said sorry don't take it personally but let's say an officer orders me if I were to tell this to you it would be too obvious so I'll pick you I have to kill you stab you with mine and he says if I remain in this illusionary self then I feel responsible I kill you but he says if you are enlightened by Zen Buddhism then you know there is no substantial reality you become a neutral observer of your life just a flow of phenomena and you tell your else it's not that I am killing you but in the cosmic dance of phenomena my night is floating and somehow your knife Falls you know what I'm saying is I'm not disputing some spiritual greatness of Zen Buddhism I'm saying how even the most enlightened literal experience can serve a terrible cost all right so as I said it's kind of long winded there but this this is Dziedzic describing false meaning and how you know if you simply follow what you've believed to be what you're supposed to be doing it's not really a clear indication that what you're doing is actually good so even if you're following following what you think is is right for yourself that doesn't mean that's what is actually a good thing to be doing so when you have like the example of the the Nazis like imagining themselves outside of their own body in order to be able to kill people I mean that's the kind of thing where Peterson's entire idea of focusing on yourself and finding your meaning kind of falls apart because it shows that you it's not simply about the the individual is not simply about finding your own meaning it's also about really truly understanding what is good for society as a whole and some people are incapable of understanding what is actually good for society or they or not it's not that they're incapable they are misinformed they are being influenced by whatever forces that are around them to think that what they are doing is actually good this is what I talk about all the time when with people that are that do bad things I say I really in most cases except for like Roger stone for me is always like the perfect example of somebody who is who actually knows they're an evil person but in most cases most people that do bad things don't think that they are doing bad things they think that they have convinced themselves that they are doing what is correct that they are doing what is right and even if even if they they view something okay well I could be better in this way they think that well to be to be pragmatic or to do what to actually get things done properly I have to do it this way and this is something that is it's pervasive in politics it's it's all I mean this is our society right now so this is why it's important to build movements and have and really have these these people powered movements that are designed around various ideas now in that's you know in that same vein you're gonna have people are you gonna have movements that are also negative like white nationalist movements and they think what they're doing is correct but that's why if you truly believe in the ability for people to overcome and and really figure out what is best for society right now and go and going into the future then you have to be involved and educate yourself in some way about society as a whole and not simply just focus on yourself which again yes focus on yourself yes self-improvement is important and that's where Jordan Peterson comes it but he misses a Peterson is absent of that idea that society evolves now look there is so much more in this debate I can get into but there's a part of this debate where Peterson really doesn't understand that hierarchies change over time that he thinks he looks at lobsters oh they're you know lobsters have hierarchies animals have hierarchies that means it's completely normal for us to have a hierarchy right now in this capitalist society but that hierarchy has changed over time it was different under feudalism it was different under hunter-gatherers it can be different in the future I mean you put Peterson back in like the early 1900s he'd be the guy talking about how ohm no woman shouldn't vote because this is the this is the way society is hierarchies are just normal right now men are at the top that's how it should be but I mean he really does not I'm not it's hard to explain because I don't understand how he doesn't get it hierarchies are not permanent they evolve they change meaning changes the the way society is is designed changes and evolves based on the various needs of that society so to simply think that we are doing exactly what we should be doing right now and that we shouldn't be addressing larger societal issues I think it it shows you the serious flaw in Jordan Peterson's thinking despite the fact that I do think he has I'm sure he has helped people and has the potential to help people with his self-help work but missing that larger picture and really not understanding that the importance of society as a whole shows you that Peterson is just completely lacking I think as a public intellectual you

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

32 Comments

  • Nathan James says:

    I've heard Peterson say there has always been hierarchies but were there even hierarchies before the Neolithic period 10 thousand years ago? I thought they were egalitarian. The earliest human uncovering is over 200,000 years old so most of human history has been spent in egalitarian society.

  • yes … there is no grocery store for miles … let's watch some jordan peterson videos … duh.

  • Stahl says:

    Not a Marxist but Peterson got fucking nuked.

  • pripyatian says:

    Hate to be trite but you're missing the point. Trying to make the points that CBT for social anxiety didn't affect society as a whole and that those struggling with the very bottom rung of Maslow's hierarchy of needs have bigger fish to fry than self-development are bordering on completely off topic. I agree with both those points because they are not what Peterson is talking about. We are in the mire of a suffocating PC culture because those precisely with means and opportunity to do deep self-development work have eschewed it in favour of instead telling society what to do and say. Had they done the work on themselves we would be discussing and focusing on much deeper societal issues than what is or isn't "offensive" to someone. Yes, we need to work on society but to get to the issues of consequence we need better developed people who don't get bogged down thinking words and semantics are the most pressing social issues we face today.

  • The emphasis Peterson puts on hierarchy is in opposition to the (marxist, according to him) idea that it is possible to not have hierarchy, live in a (nearly) perfectly equal world. Then, to him, the best way to arrange a hierarchy (which is inevitable) is with competence, rather than arbitrary power like it has always been in the past. He perceive the attack of capitalism from the "radical left" as a dangerous negation of this ideal in which he believes. It was a horrendous journey to discover the fairest hierarchy structure (in his opinion) and the way it is questionned (not the questionning itself) is a dangerous path to authoritarianism. I do agree to Jordan Peterson's perspective on that. I believe it is naive to believe a world without hierarchy to be possible and that is a way to an authoritarian regime. My critique of Peterson, though, is that he underestimates the amount (and impact) of actual arbitrary factors in today's hierarchical organization.

    Also, as weird as it might sounds, Peterson is a liberal. He wanted to be a canditate for the Liberal party in Ontario, but thought it was better if he kept his professoral position. He believes in certain wealth redistribution and criticize the negative impacts of disproportionate income inequality, like it is currently the case in the U.S.. So he isn't blind to that problematic either.

    Regarding his view of the poors, I think his experience as a psychologist qualifies him on that matter. In certain videos, he explains how he's seen miserable people overcome impossible amount of arbitrary bad luck and succeed to find a meaningful life.

    Other than that, I believe your critique (or Zizek's) was very fair and well thought. Though I would invite you to take a look (if you haven't already) at Peterson's participation in H3H3's podcast and the discussion with Joe Rogan and Bret Weinstein (where he's a bit annoying in the beginning) if you really want to understand his points, because that seemed like lacking a little bit in this video. Keep on working!

  • Hay Dude says:

    This host is highly contradicting and doesn't allow himself to see the valid points Peterson is making.
    He keeps saying, "if you truly believe something is good", which is not what Peterson teaches. Peterson DOESN'T teach "what others bring you to believe" or what society brings us to believe is true, but teaches a self-described sense of self and meaning that allows a person to be fully present in issues outside him/her self.

  • Sprax says:

    I guess the lobster army has lost its steam

  • Yeah the thing with the Manifesto was a little weak, but reading Zizeks Books is hard especially if you don't have a strong background knowledge regarding people like Kant, Hegel, Marx, Heidegger and Critical Theory. I really hope Peterson gets over his grudge with some of these thinkers.

  • Peterson don't understand what it means privilege. Too much for him.

  • Peterson never said you should only focus on yourself and then stop going further, he is just saying that it doesn't make sense that you are trying to fix large scale problems when you can't even take care of small scale problems around you. You start with yourself as an individual and then you focus on trying to help those that are close and dear to you with it's obvious limitation, then you try to help your community being aware of the limitations, by this time if you have proven to yourself and those around you that you are capable to fix problems of small and large scale, society itself pushes you up to take positions in society that will allow you to make significant changes that will have a large scale impact. If you proclaim yourself to have the answer and the solution to fix very complex large scale social problems but you can't even keep your room clean or a good relationship with those around you, nobody will take you seriously or trust you. When those around you proclaim that you are capable of this because they have seen and experienced how much good you have done in your life as an individual and as a "leader" in a community, then you can be taken seriously, but not by self proclamation.

    Yes, what is good and bad is subjective, BUT if you have a crazy idea of what is good, like totalitarian regimes, the majority of people will disagree with you. Most people in the world agree that totalitarian regimes are BAD. Again, if you are doing "good" in your community and you self proclaim it, loses credibility. But if the people around you claims that you do good things, then the statement has some meaningful weight.

    For the North Korean example, even if they have a large scale social problem due to the regime they live in, it's still a good idea to try to be the best individual you can regardless of the situation you live in. No it won't fix the social problem a north korean has, but is certainly not gonna harm them to try to fix themselves as an individual, on the contrary. At the end of the day, being able to fix your individual problems helps you in any grand scale situation.

    You think a rapist doesn't know what he is doing is seeing as bad in society? or a murderer? maybe they don't believe it is wrong as an individual but they are aware that it is seen as something bad in society, otherwise they wouldn't try to cover it up or do it secretly. A soldier in 1939-1945 Germany is doing horrible things that they think are good, because they have been brainwashed, but the rest of the world told them "HEY YOU NEED TO STOP OR WE WILL STOP YOU, WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS WRONG". Society self regulates itself on what is good and bad by consensus, and digging deeper into why they choose what is good and bad can make us dwell in philosophical issues and ancient history and archetypal stories passed on in humanity.

    Peterson never claims that hierarchy structures in society never change or never should change, he says that they are not a human invention, you can see them in animals, it is part of nature. He makes the point (maybe not in this debate but he has many times before) that hierarchies are not perfect but they aren't inherently bad either, and that it is good that there are people (usually the left) critiquing it so it doesn't fall in corruption and abuse of those on the lowers positions of the structure. I agree they have evolved and they should continue to do so, but he has said on many occasion that they shouldn't be removed, because that is a dumb idea, because they WORK, is good to keep them in check, but they work VERY well. So his argument is that if you want to remove hierarchies from society, then you better have a good idea on what to replace it with, and a communist replacement is a bad idea because there is no evidence that it works, not ONCE. It has been tried many times and it always fails to yield better results than our current "capitalist" structure, which by the way isn't purely capitalist, it has evolved, because like you say, hierarchies evolve and change over time.

  • wrarmatei says:

    The "debate" is a spectacle; it is doubtful at best that any viewer's worldview or how they think about ideas is going to be effected by Zizek and Peterson performing for their followings. I think Zizek's manner matches his writing, but if the context for one's introduction to him is as a participant in a conversation with someone who's easier to identify with, has fewer [noticeable] unusual mannerisms, validates pre-existing beliefs and/or is already someone they support. I could keep naming reasons he's arguably one of the worst choices for a discussion if its purpose is genuinely *epistemic improvement*(look it up).

    Zizek undoubtedly has better odds than a female, non-white, disabled and/or lgbtq person, but they're still very slim. He's so unusual that he might as well be a black transgender person to Peterson people. There are plenty of white men, in their 40-50s that would embarrass the fuck out of Peterson, but none of his people would probably notice anyway.

    Honestly, I think the contagion of intellectual cowardice that social media brought with it is what will make humanity be a virtually imperceptible, unusual layer on earth's geological timescale. Hubristic idiocy is humanity's cancer. The internet gave it a brain to infect. We're fucked. I've been trying very gently to get people I know to learn about shit that would destabilize Peterson's shit for 5+ years to literally no effect. Even if they figure out a way to foster intellectual honesty in K-12 public schools, how long would it take to see the effects and morons' bedlam isn't the loudest? There was the Arab Spring, Maidan, Occupy and countless other encouraging social movements that made it seem like I'd live to see things improve…the sea of shit's tide inevitably comes back though. I look forward to being dead and spared from the sight of humanity's death-spiral.

  • You keep saying that one needs to engage with society and to find what's good for the society but you do not argue effectively to show why that's the case so it seems like you are simply reflecting your own biases, I suggest you rehearse your videos before criticizing so that you can deliver a convincing argument. You also say that Peterson misunderstands what's important for the society but once again, that's just your own judgement, maybe that's not necessarily the universal truth, maybe the personal evolution is prioritized precisely for the better good of the whole society on the long run…

  • Aaron James says:

    I can't tell if you're missing Peterson's point or if you're just disregarding it. The main idea being "unfuck yourself before trying to unfuck everything else. " Sure, try both at once. If you've got a plan and are following it (even if you haven't reached your end goal) then you've already cleaned your room. Nobody wants to hear financial advice from a crack addict. I think maybe you're just being disagreeable to gain a platform.

    You say his plans don't work for poor people. Find a poor person. Sit down with. Find out their problems. Develope a reasonable plan for a better life from an outside perspective. If that person can follow the plan, through thick or thin, then the glass ceiling was really just plastic wrap. You can't make excuses for everybody.

  • rey bladen says:

    I thought "clean your room first" means look at yourself first because you and your ideas might also be messed up like society has been.

  • rey bladen says:

    I thought "clean your room first" means look at yourself first because you and your ideas might also be messed up like society has been.

  • rey bladen says:

    I thought "clean your room first" means look at yourself first because you and your ideas might also be messed up like society has been.

  • Cheeck says:

    Jordan Peterson grew up in an era where the media and government were so paranoid, weapons of mass destruction were a daily threat, there are many retro aged unused bomb shelters in the most gunned up country on the planet, America, an entire industry dedicated to xenophobia. He grew up when the government wss telling people that communists 'could be your neighbour' or even under your beds so he is recycling these allusions to the next generation it is pretty narcissistic.

  • Pensi Ring says:

    20:55 You argument does not really make sense. Peterson only says that you should get yourself into a stable state before you can attempt to help others. And no, most people who do evil things know that what they are doing is wrong, hence they justify it, through religion or ideology. Anyways, you are attacking a kind of strawman here (and I know that thats a meme in itself with Peterson), but he is not saying that you should not care about society, but that you should solve solvable personal problems first. Get yourself into a state in which you don't hate yourself, and then try to better sosciety. He lays that out everytime: Help yourself, help your family, help your community. And if you have power left, well, then help society as a whole. But don't take your personal problems, blame then on society, and then proceed to try and change society. And that even goes for disadvantaged people. Yes, if you are born poor, into a criminal family, your first duty is to yourself, to not become a criminal as well. Stay clean, order your life, have goals, educate yourself. Only then can you attempt to help society. You can not help society when you are a drug addicted criminal, but also go to some protests. You are not helping. As soon as the protest is over, you will hurt society and yourself. So get yourself in order first.

  • MrArchy108 says:

    What on earth this guy is talking about. I'm sure you didn't understand Peterson's position. I'm not defending him though, he definitely looked weaker.

  • Aleksander says:

    When policy change doesn’t occur – many result to veganism. It has helped and meat consumption + dairy consumption has gone down in many places since many are sick of the fact that Zero policies are put in place to begin to change the fact. In the same way I will never buy a diesel/gasoline driven car – my first car Will be a Tesla. Until then it’s the Subway.

    I wholeheartedly agree with you. But individual choices on a large scale make a big difference and hopefully pushes society toward a better whole. And maybe toward policy change.

  • Patrick says:

    What? Seriously dude. Veganism? Climate change?
    I'm pretty sure JP does more thinking in a day than you do in a month. Your statements about him made you look foolish.

  • Different says:

    I haven't read JP's book but I assume what he means by get your house in order is to get the minor thing that has a huge impact to your life settled first.

    Many people with big problems end up skipping their household in order tackle the harder problem when in reality their house doesn't even require much time and does set the mood and the stage for dealing/thinking about your serious issues. So maybe you should get your house in order first in North Korea.

  • Kris Renfrow says:

    Every truth is a half truth. People need to stop viewing reality as black and white.

  • YOU FILTHY (DECEPTIVE) TRANSGENDER SHILL. 'CLIMATE CHANGE' IS A HOAX. YOU CREEP.

  • THESE ARE ALL DECEPTIVE TRANSGENDERS.

  • pomyao says:

    I think Peterson's argument still holds up. He claims three checks on to whether something is good: good for you, good for your family, good for society. The Nazi, Communist, and Zen examples of Zizek were examples of forceful tricks used to BYPASS the first check: is it good for you.
    And regarding hierarchies – Peterson is not disputing that they grow and evolve. Not at all. He is disputing what he considers an incorrect assertion from the extreme left: 1) that hierarchies are themselves simply an oppressive product of Western male-centric culture; 2) that they all need to be done away with; and 3) that humanity's egalitarian future will be non-hierarchical. He sees the first as simply wrong, and the later two as genuinely impossible.

  • It always starts with the individual, it should be a mix of both. I am truly a centrist

  • fg says:

    Maybe Peterson like many capitalist are unable to grasp the concept of coercion being inherent to the system.
    They areN't able to not because they lack the intellect, but simply because they don't want to know that, they don't want to see the data.
    Capitalism is fine for them, but needs some finetuning, that is their believe.

  • This video is exactly why you need to clean up your room and know thyself before you try to fix the world. Otherwise you mistakenly think that Roger Stone is evil and the problem is in oil subsidies and white nationalists. When in reality the greatest harm to the environment was done by 20+200 trillions of governmental debt spent on consumption. And the greatest harm to people was also done by governments that in the last century alone killed more than 250 millions of their own citizens not counting wars!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *