22 thoughts on “Jordan Peterson & Christopher Hitchens | IDEOLOGY

  1. Hitchens would have laughed at Peterson's teachings about religion. Then he would have given him a finely selected series of arguments against it.

  2. Get rid of the loud music, which actually prevents people from hearing a speaker. It's like a strumming noise is supposed to help the human brain to digest difficult philosophical material… Please…

  3. I think a point is the respect for discource they both have. There probably wouldnt be an ultimate knock down. Too many people r lookin for a death blow haha… watch fukin movies cos it doesnt work like that

  4. If those two were to go at it, it would be incredibly entertaining but Peterson would be Hitchen's prey. Sam Harris was impossible for Peterson and I think we can all agree that Hitchens was on a whole new level, compared to Harris.

    That being said, I really appreciate Peterson, especially his motivational work. Hitchens would not have come even close to being as motivational as Peterson. Peterson is also incredibly correct on multiple of today's social issues. He is quite the thinker and I think him and Hitchens would have agreed on most of those issues.

    Anyway, both have areas where they are better than others. Their skills and knowledge compliment each others'. Imagine them working together – they would be unstoppable…

  5. What is the purpose of the video? Divide everyone into islands of their own individualist aspirations? Does might make right as the war film seems to imply? How does the social contract factor into the idea of rugged individualism? Having Hitchens in the second half undermines the Peterson's start. The aim shifts then to reject "socialism" a word that has no meaning except to instill fear about government aberrations due to its conflated use with totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Saying that people need to get their act together and develop personal responsibility is itself an oversimplification and ignores the reality of the developing monopsonies of today destroying market competition.

  6. Christopher Hitchens was extremely ideological. However, as they say "as the waist band expands, the politics moves toward the right", which means, as you get older your political views tend more toward the right than the left. Hitch did seem to disavow himself of any specific PARTY but he did still continue to think in very political and ideological terms.

  7. Two prominent and ever relevant men of our time. Fuck, wouldn't it be great it both Hitch and Jordan could sit down today and have a lengthy discussion about, well, just about anything. How valuable that would be to all of us who (without prejudice) cared to listen.

  8. A staunch atheistic socialist and a renowned religiously inclined libertarian; somehow I find both of them comforting. Sharp minds full of unique insight. Hitch is top dog but Peterson is sort of growing on me.

  9. Christopher Hitchens was brilliant but not very analytical for most of his years. At a later age he disputed marxism and socialism.

  10. Here is what Peterson proposes in relation to ideology:

    He proposes that there are 3 dualistic and 1 non dualistic categories of Being, with Being meaning "experience as such". Look up Heidegger and his concept of Dasein for more.

    Ok, so the categories are:

    – Unknown Unknowns (The Dragon of Chaos): The category of things we don't know we don't know.

    – Known Unknowns (NATURE (The Great Mother/The Devouring Mother)): The category of things we know we don't know. Now, this category is ambivalent (it has possitive and negative affect) since, for instance, men who are not accustomed to talking to women find them extremely alluring and petrifying at the same time (they can't talk to them).

    – Knowns (CULTURE (The Wise Father/The Tyrannical Father)): The category of things we know. This category is also ambivalent since tradition is past adaptative behaviour and must be passed on in order to adapt to the group, therefore is tyrannical (you can't be "yourself" completely), but at the same time wise (you become something in life, you learn a skill/a trade/profession/etc).

    – The Knower (INDIVIDUAL (The Hero/The Adversary)): The category of the knowing agent. This category is also dualistic since the individual can choose if he/she engages in exploratory behaviour or not.

    Here is where ideology comes in: Ideology is a ratonalistic system, based on axioms that can't be themselves proven by the same theory (Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem), but that attempts to explain everything using those axioms.

    Now, ideology, by definition, is refusal of exploratory behaviour. Since denial of exploring leads to, well, not exploring, the amount of Unknown Territory increases, since reality is in constant flux, therefore increasing the amount of negative affect and, therefore, fear in the adversarial individual. This increases the chance of the adversary to double down on his ideology, for he/she is unable of coping with the amount of negative affect acumulating and, sometimes literally, slapping him/her in the face.

    The reason why ideologies are so powerful is that they incorporate archetypal themes into their narrative. However, those themes are only partially represented.

    Feminism states that
    Culture (masculine) is only Tyrannical and not Wise
    Nature (feminine) is only Great and not Devouring
    Therefore they see men as opressors and women as opressed

    When you show them that they're wrong, they rationalize it and double down on their hatred of men.

    There is much more to it, but I think it is a pretty simplified version of what Peterson is saying.

    I took it from his own book Maps of Meaning. It's worth the reading (it's on his website… for free )

  11. Only white people as a group are individualists, we cannot continue to deny this. We evolved that way which helps explain why we created the idea of the individual in the first place. Peterson is white and is insisting on it. Is a brown Sikh man leading the intellectual charge in recommending this feature of Enlightenment thinking? No, its always going to be white people, save for maybe that Francis Fukuyama, who might have praised individualism.

    It's also why democracy exists here and why it cannot be exported to the middle east by the dirtbag neoconservatives, b/c middle easterners are racially tribalist; you can bend the heck out of the contours of someone's genetically influenced behavior but you cannot completely change it. Blank slatism is going to get us all killed and this absurdity that individualism is the way out is too high stakes a risk. We have got to say Western countries are for white people, period. The non-Western world is enormous so nothing is being denied here accept non-Westerner desire to prosper in our nations at our expense. Others are welcome as a small minority but we have to be the supermajority or we are toying with catastrophe, like the yugoslav ethnic wars of the 90s and breakup (slavs are more ethnocentric than "aryans", or northern europeans, yes, Hitler's Germany was hyper-ethnocentric which is why this confounded so many intellectuals in the West, but one of the reasons for that is taboo). We deserve homelands, this is not racism, but reality, this is not offensive behavior but defensive in nature. Think this is wrong and evil? Then keep pushing us all towards the cliff in this hyper-materialistic tower of babel nightmare we can't wake up from to find out what will happen.

  12. A well-integrated individualist is a person with a rational ideology. In fact Ideology and success go hand in hand.

  13. I feel like Jordan gets frustrated easily and in hand ends up simplifying shit. I can't take him seriously on this topic after listening to the Sam Harris podcasts. That being said I still enjoy listening to him as he is intelligent and sufficiently rational.

  14. Hitch really was fucking incredible, he hated to admit when he was wrong, but he did it when he felt the need to change. He was a man who believed in what he experienced, he had to experience waterboarding out of curiosity, to come out as one of the strongest figures against its usage. You can see how he misses the simpler time, when things weren't so complicated, and he could implement labels, but over the course of his life he discovered what ideology does, and how these collectives you're forced into do nothing but eat away at your own critical faculties, your own individuality. For Peterson… I can take or leave him. He says some crazy things I'm not so on board on, but his heart is in the right place. I wouldn't even compare him to Hitch, for me it's no contest, but on this they're right.

Leave a Reply

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