Jordan Peterson vs. Deleuze & Guattari: Lobster God
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 10. 2019
- A tale of two lobsters; of lobsters, man, and God. Readings from 12 Rules for Life (amzn.to/2D1wa8t), which I don't recommend, and A Thousand Plateaus (amzn.to/32UPeQa) which I do .
If you like the work there's more at spoti.fi/3f0OIXD and / plasticpills
I feel like Felix Guattari always gets shafted in discussions of his collaboration with Deleuze, as if he was just tagging along. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Guattari was responsible for formulating a lot of the concepts that define schizoanalysis (including the term itself and its basis in Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis) such as the machinic unconscious, desiring-production, desiring-machines, subject-groups, and pretty much any other materialist aspect of the philosophy. It is clear from reading the writings of both separately and then together that the collaboration between them was dominated by neither one. Deleuze's familiarity with philosophy complemented Guattari's familiarity with psychoanalysis and sociology and vice versa.
Aside from that, great and informative video!
Lol the sidekick dig was meant to be tongue in cheek
@@PlasticPills Fair enough lol. Though I wasn't necessarily talking about that cause you were pretty careful to always say Deleuze and Guattari throughout the video. It's just something more general that I've noticed with online Deleuzians and even Deleuzian academics.
Did Lobster Daddy's first girlfriend leave him for a French philosopher? His attitude towards them is so hateful, even when he clearly knows next to nothing about their theoretical frameworks.
Ssshhhh, he still hasn't discovered that she went to d&g and the all got high and had an orgy and time was infinite. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
They're all postmodern neo-marxists lol
To be fair, and I like my continental's, but Badiou is dense. When twelve different luminaries have 20 different distinct definitions of one very technical word it's hard not to have a 'is this...is this just utter nonsense' moment.
I guarantee you Peterson has hardly read a page of Kant or Hegel, lets not even mention the French thinkers.
A charlatan he is.
@@thenowchurch6419 agreed, man this is the first time I heard his opinion on foucalt just goes to show that he hasn't read his writings at all.
"Emergence of a Peaceful Culture in Wild Baboons" is a great paper that's a far more relevant observation to compare to human behavior than any lobster, and not just because baboons are a much more closely-related animal relative to us.
write a self improvement book about it bro
He used lobsters because they are considered a simpler life form, he was trying to show how ancient and how far these instincts go.
There’s a reason why evolutionary biologists study chimpanzees as a model for approximating human behavior instead of lobsters…
Wild baboons are hard to corral. Tamed, domesticated, defanged baboons are easier to herd into your factories and schools. The wild baboons are too independent, too creative, not standardized enough. I can already see your eyes moving wider on your face as you become a well-trained, well-tamed, peaceful, good boy, and highly moral baboon.
where'd you get your primatology degree from?@@JHimminy
Maybe Peterson knows about Deleuze and doesn't talk about him because it'll be a contradictory stance thanks to Peterson's own appropriation of Nietzsche and his ideas and Difference and Repetition and much of D&G's philosophy appreciate their own roots in the same. Like he's consciously straw-manning these philosophers to sell a narrative. It just seems like dirty politics.
rings true, he has never really been that au fait with turning up to debates with people with opposing arguments, save for the Zizek P.R programme ;)
@@thirstyfish7882 Even then, he prepared poorly by skimming through the Communist Manifesto instead of actually reading Das Kapital. It kinda reveals how poorly he researches whomever he disagrees with, while Zizek actually does the work, which provides him with proper arguments for a debate.
Peterson seems like one of those people who read secondary sources (eg Wikipedia) and then complain about not getting it because it doesn't provide easy answers. I wouldn't like having that kind of person as my therapist.
The fact that he said that Foucault and Deleuze were nightmares proves how correct their work is
@@loqutor They never tell you how
Because Foucault was a predatory sex tourist of literal children, especially in Tunisia?
I disagree with Peterson, but let's not pretend there's nothing wrong with Foucault, dude was fucked up.
@@megadan66 If you are opposed to an ideology, then you consider the ideology reinforced that your enemy considers nightmarish. Because people generally find things nightmarish that are threatening, and people like things that threaten their enemies.
Also OP ratioed you
@@zack49 they got more than you in this spectacle game
@@irpwellyn Is that your pretentious headass way of saying ratioed?
So-called "boomer" here, nearly as old as Deluze, thanks for the mention.
Deleuze would be 96 years old. Thant's not "boomer", that's "greatest generation".
@@henrybemis9956 wait is he still alive?
@@tesali9554 no 😔
@@henrybemis9956- FWIW, my grandmom and great-aunt and great-uncle, who all either fought in or lost someone to W.W.II, all hated that Reagan hangover/Tom Brokaw nomenclature for their cohort, feeling that it both needlessly glorifies war and also minimizes the ongoing danger fascism poses to the world and further minimizes the contributions subsequent generations have made to the world; their preferred term was “the G.I. generation,” although when they were younger they were still being called “the lost generation” - the years which “delimit” a generation have a way of shifting, for instance “generation X’ getting constantly redefined - but you may want to consider, after giving it some thought, nixing the term you used, and employing “the G.I. generation” instead!
Kanye: I am a god
Ariana Grande: God is a woman
Deleuze and Guatarri: God is a Lobster
Great video! I really should start reading Deleuze, but his works are just so intimidating.
What are you interested in knowing? I highly recommend Daniel W. Smith's text "Essays on Deleuze"
Listen to Stephen West's "Philosophize This". He did 5 20-30 minute talks on Deleuze.
Here's part 1 :
czcams.com/video/b6RnMHRtos4/video.html
I'm not kidding, now I listen to audiobook of Thousand Plateaus (here : czcams.com/video/0XYc2scuJrI/video.html )
and I more-or-less understand what's going on.
trombone7
Yes, West is great, digestible bites... leading to deeper dives!
U gotta read it deliriously...
Read it like poetry! For me, his work is meant to produce both concepts and affects. I believe his thought can be accessed through both ideas and emotions. Often time, when I got frustrated with dense/complex passages, I would just relax and experience them like a poem. It's not about getting all of his concepts "right", it's rather about becoming porous to a new way of approaching life. The more you do it, the more many of his concepts start to make sense. If you read French, his writing is even more beautiful and poetic in the original language, especially Mille-Plateaux. I fucking love that man.
Jordan Peterson: SURRENDER TO THE LOBSTER GOD. ALL HAIL CAPITALISM AND TRADITION.
Deleuze: Yo, so what if a lobster was the symbol of growing new things.
>capitalism
>tradition
holy shit what?
@@AL-sd7uz yeah, like da fuck wat, jesus. Capitalism is the death of tradition, the society of merchants are the killers of all tradition around the world.
@@AL-sd7uz there is an interplay between the virtual and the commodity form in the spectacle
The lobster cares nothing for your...capital
@@johnnyscifi So you guy's worried about lobsters?
This was so well explained! Only I did have to have a very small amount of background knowledge on the matter, I felt the words in the graphs could be explained when they are put on the graph, but it was great I can’t believe I have only now found your CZcams channel, thanks comrade! :)
Please read the primary source 🙏
You're back! Was worried you stopped making content. Loved the video as always 👌
Still breathing!
8:11 "Here's a second lobster for your consideration."
Now that was a quality David Foster Wallace reference right there👉🏻😉👉🏻
The real lobster king
David Foster Wallace appreciation post! 👏
Holy shit, just discovered your channel and was wondering how long it would take for someone to make a dope video reclaiming lobsters for us!
Love it!
That beat just slapped my shell clean off 🦞 💀
Thanks for this, cleared it up a little for me, I am thinking of using Deleuze/Guattari's theory but had no idea where to start.
I had read ATP a few years ago, but recently was repeating my auto-didactic vacation into deleuzian theory and so had checked out ATP from the local library. upon watching this and seeing the quote "god is a lobster" and thinking how funny, but not being able to exactly remember, I opened up ATP and low and behold someone had stuck a bookmark right on that page :P humanity can be depressing sometimes but that restored my faith a little. that is all :) thanks for the great content pills
"If one knows the coordinates of the [evolutionary] game, then why would you even want to play?" --Bret Weinstein
Also in regards to Peterson's conservative message, which is rightly so, book is subtitled "antidote to chaos", and there's a lot of meaning in this subtitle, because it generally highlights those whom it aimed at: people who might need to get their life together, and conviniently conservative stuff is easier when you're totally effd up, because it gives you rigid framework how to put yourself back together. Even to criticise and challenge existing concepts you need good footing to start off. That's why conservative is conservative: it conserves our footing and creates a space of stable comfort. Otherwise we would not have a place to return to, in case if our challenge of norms fails miserably, as it often does
Identifying yourself with such measures is exactly what *could have* attributed to one being in those exact circumstances.. Not living up to these so called "standers", of which are totally and completely relative to begin with. You see someone of "high social status" and you believe that they've acquired said status by living out these articulated "rules".. But they could have just as likely inherited generational wealth and drowned a puppy that very morning..
I agree that in a system in which we live by these archaic fallacies, that these "rules" might help- but they're also the source of the very problem to begin with.. And it's my belief that the later is the bigger societal issue.
@@antihero105 you're exactly who conservatism is necessary for. midwits.
@@0mnislasher1 oh yeah totally, GREAT point.. Might want to consult your own comment dumbass 👍
@@antihero105 I dunno, I don't really see problems in cleaning up your room, as it tends to get messy when you don't take proper care of yourself, which in itself is often a sign of (early) depression. There's also old stuff you might find which reminds you of good times, sad times, you maybe were trying to hide with the mess subconsciously.
I don't agree with all the rules in the book, but they're good tips for people who notice they're not okay but don't have the creativity to get out of this loop by themselves.
That doesn't mean though, just because he wrote a self-help book inspired by conservatism, that he should hate postmodern thinkers, because they also provide self-help. It seems more like, because he's conservative, loves capitalism, loves neoliberalism, loves hierarchy, that he's trying to assert his dominance over postmodern thinkers with his easy-to-understand-and-follow rules as a superior product. If you want to understand your enemy, think like them. If Lobster Daddy is selling merch, he thinks of himself as a product, not a critical thinker.
this is very close to spinoza's analysis of tyranny
except spinoza says that after you've entered the strongman's territory of safety, you're not going to get out on your own
local tyrants live off sadness and incapacity
Superb! Thank you! Enlightening.
petersons pscyhology stuff is good, but i remember getting this feeling that "hmm, he really is hatting on postmodernism a whole lot more than seems neccesary" so went to check it out my self and , yup, strawman.
Agreed. I've certainly benefited from his psychological writings. Maybe Peterson hates on postmodernism so much because what he's been exposed to is more fanatical screeching from left leaning people who've themselves only skimmed the subject and (it appears to me) are acting more like caricatures of postmodernism. I've just started getting into the subject via the philosophy of Giorgio Agamben so obviously I'm no expert. But Peterson is an academic and should know better than to judge in haste. Of course he gets the same treatment from large sections of the left who attack caricatures of his views instead of debating his actual views.
@@mikkopenttila7604 agree
I certainly agree with his self help/ psychological stuff being good
I bought the 12 rules for life, way back when, just to see what all the fuzz was about
It was a good perspective on life, and i can certainly see how can someone benefit from his book
That said, i see him as a product of the stream he swims on
Reactionary stuff about the ridiculousness of the PC/ SWJ police (I'm using these terms since i do not know any others to describe those caricatures)
In my opinion it was the people that rushed him to the big stage, as the patriarch of the noble "house of reason", that forced him to project his political thoughts, no matter how underdeveloped some of them are, through the lens of what made him popular in the first place: Resistance against the cultural establishment
By no way am i saying that he is a victim of his circunstances and does is not responsible by his own words, but i can see him being slowly shaped into the man his fans thought/ wanted him to be
Yeah, his understanding of postmodernism is underwhelming, but I think it comes from the notion that modern destructive tendencies come from weaponisation of postmodern ideas to achieve political goals, which coincidentally falls into place with destructive marxist movements he reasonably hates
@@doyoubinoame8483 His understanding of postmodernism is ''practical'' (if he has, actually, read about POSTMODERNISM - as he can be using it as a compound noun and not really thinking of it as ''postmodern'' + ''marxism'', similarly to how neoliberalism or laissez faire capitalism has been emptied of meaning and became ''one thing''), not theoretical, 100%. And that´s why he speak of things such as postmodern marxism - while this nomenclature would be stupid to anyone who actually reads a lot of philosophy, to the ''public at large'' it references something. He recognized something and calls it the way he saw people refering to it. It's a problem of symbol and signifier - he doesn't really care exactly what postmodernism is, and marxism as a word has been bastardized so much it means basically anything, BUT there's this ''A'' that has been called postmodern marxism enough that he refers to it as such, even though there are obviously better terms if you want to ''be proper''.
The world is completely stupid, no matter how well you articulate it. Plastic pills your my new fav channel.
Derridevil im dying lmao
I see, you did consider the lobster.
i swear to god that your content is regenerates brain cells after extensive damage lol . great job and thanks for sharing
Lobsters aren't red until they are murdered by humans.
Seeing as Peterson hates veganism and animal rights and seems to consider sadism upon animals as a good in of itself....
Amazing channel. I wonder how would you deal with Simondon's allagmatics ....
Great fucking video man! What’s the name of the tracks you used? Working on a video about memory in an anime I really liked. I think these songs set a somber but redemptive mood, which is kind of what I’m going for.
This video made some parts of Gaddafi's Green Book make more sense, particularly his beef with constitutions. I never would have imagined that sentence would come out of my mouth.
Hey! Thanks for sharing your thoughts and deliver so complex theory in such a quirky way. You are awesome.
So he is trying to get me to use self actualisation to stagnate in a good set of norms. But with a bit of that lobster courage you can also head out and put yourself in some wholly different frameworks and actually learn. 🤔😍
Stay tuned for my next video on Deleuze... not sure what you're asking, but the summed premise of the video is that Peterson wants things the same, Deleuze wants things new.
PlasticPills cool. Yeah reading this back only makes sense for me.
This is the best channel on yt, dont @ me
Ugh I love this channel so much
3:32 made me say this
What an incredible bit, add to cart
How did u get so good at video editing?
I want to listen deleuze 10 hpurs straight by you. It is just fuckin awesome man
Wow dude thanks, there's a lot more to dig through but Deleuze is always my top 5
Since you mention it, it is somewhat peculiar that Deleuze doesn't get included in the usual strawmen the intellectual dark web hacks wheel out to shit on postmodernism. Come to think of it, analytic philosophers, who also like to criticize postmodernism without understanding it very well, also tend to leave him alone.
I think the reason might be that Deleuze and Guattari are so fucking weird that it's hard even to make effective strawmen of them.
Jordan Berndt Peterson ."What shall I do when the great crowd beckons? - stand tall and utter my broken truisms".
I really like your videos, and the emphasis you give to Deleuze. Could you recommend me the best books of Deleuze?
czcams.com/video/nS_yFF7IkH8/video.html
A thousand plateus, and for an introduction to his overall philosophical project, difference and repetition
Name of background music pretty please...?
You ACTUALLY went through reading this guy's book for us?!?! That's dedication right there.
Let's go ahead and just call that one a skim
PlasticPills not surprised
That’s the bare minimum he should be doing
What painting is that with the solider in red and the old stone building?
Romantic Landscape with a Temple by Thomas Doughty.
It's lonely being an Nomad. Good to have an Oasis to visit on-the-Line
Trying to hang on here but I am dead in the waters how do you get outta this shit
@@Nashandme74 Marxist Leninist organization, service to the people
@@Nashandme74 tbh if you referencing psychoschizon theory as well non duality and some of the more secular and philosophical depictions of Buddhism Especially with a material analyses of the historical context and translation barriers and the way in which Hegel, dialectical concepts snd in general leftist philosophy csn be used to fill in the gaps. Rupert Spiru is generally favored by this camp of philosophy/people who consume snd sre familiar with this channel. It’s definitely a little different and requires a level of willingness to engage with it snd this might be my own weirdo mind making absurd connections but damn idk it’s been a fascinating discovery to add to my scope. If you’re down to be a nomad then I would just jump into his vids without context tbh he has tons on CZcams and then make of it what you will snd go from there
@@sad-qy7jz thanks for the tip I will definitely check him out. TBH I was not referencing pscychochison but rather a personal POV than espouses Daoist and Anarchist philosophies but personalized to fit the individuals needs, beliefs, and situation. Just remember that schizos are people too, different but still better people than the ones forcing a nomadic lifestyle om people that just want to be left alone or that dont conform to stylized outdated norms of comportment that are evocative of fasc mentality and methodology. again thankd for the help
@@Nashandme74 yeah I don’t think the term refers to people as “schizo” has its own distinct meaning schizophrenia or schizotypal diagnoses reference the term, but I think schizoanalysis gives merit to snd can validate this experience as long as the genuine experiences of people who do experience that and live the label are accounted for and people don’t mistake the meaning. I’m close to a couple of people w schizophrenia snd SPD and although I don’t just ask them ab their experience w psychosis or other obnoxious questions, when they have confided in explaining certain aspects of their experience i like... idk get it? Not like I could ever understand or know how they feel exactly but moreso, I can completely understand the validity and context. Either way though I see schizoanalysis and it’s use of delusions to kind of conceptulize how to a nuerotypical person, one could break free. They use the term nomad and being raised secular Buddhist and as a slazo enthusiast it reminded me so much of eastern depictions of liberation from the ego.
Non duality is very similar to dialectal assertions of leftists thought, and I almost feel like Hegel most def had to have been influenced by it slightly whether he realized it or not. The context is different, I mean ancient Tibet was materially very different than like 18th century Europe lol but point being it’s a way to embrace collectivism and empathy and the nature of us as being connected and social but a way to find comfort in the suffering, and depending on how you look at it or what this even means to you, leave your ego behind. Not in the sense that you’re constantly like in some psychedelic inner world lol I couldn’t explain it and don’t claim to fully experience it, but you csn def live peacefully and in a way that betters humanity and the planet without feeling the dreadful snd endless sense of desire and loneliness etc of capitalism. I like thsy it existed long before capitalism but definitely during harsh material conditions and is so easy to work into philosophy
But ya good luck comrade
Lobsters are fun and all, but I gotta have the sauce for the bgm man, its chill af
Thanks 😊
I was wondering if there are some articulations out there that use Deleuze and Guattari theory of knowledge in the crossing between the scientism worldview and the metaphysic behind Sufis like religious experiences. I guess this may be a weird/cringy question from the eyes of westerns (mainly because of the episteme shift I guess), but this is relevant in order to articulate social issues in other parts of the world where the religion has a huge presence and the anti-religious (scientism) rising discources carry with it a huge anti-science reaction from a big chank of the social body. I ponder that a lot, but I am not a trained philosopher :).
I don't know much of anything about sufism, but Deleuze and Guattari are interested in new ways of seeing the world. We discuss Deleuze and Guattari's view of science in this podcast interview if you're interested open.spotify.com/episode/2318SV4jIhCKKhxHWy4Ls3?si=ffFdyul1QT6L0mfqW-ZOLw
Eminem's actual lines: "I'm starting to feel like a crabgod, crabgod.. 🦀 🎵 "
haha, the last line is hilarious!
Is this conect with the film the lobster?
Thank you so much for educating me. To me you're as revolutionary as the pholosophers you're taking about, taking upon yourself this hard quest of tearing down reality and asking the masses: 'See now? See??'
I'm so glad I've found this channel, you're the highlight of my days!
And this video definitely deserves more views!
sorry, does Zoe Blade did the music of this video?
Amazing use of deleuze and guatarri.....
I have a terrible sunburn. Can I be a lobsterboi now?
Have you read any of these books front to back?
Nice. Btw are you wearing Mardi Gras beads?
I understand Jordan’s simplified and generalized ideas are an easy target, but if you actually read Jung, Deleuze and Guattari are very much neoJungians, with much more fuzzy archetypes (rhizome).
insofar as they aspire to smash and bash the entire psychoanalyst tradition
They could be inspired by Jung, but (i think that) the concept of archetype is too theatrical to their desiring machines and desire as production
@@fafo867D and G don't want to "smash" psychoanalysts. In a way, they are lacanians. They just think there is more than the oedipal and the neurotic's intercourse, they attempt to take psychoanalysis beyond the oedipal, beyond the social, beyond phallic signification.
I remember when I first read the whole god is a lobster line in ATP and thinking ‘god Peterson would eat this up’
Well yeah, lobsters are pretty common food in Canada.
Wow I’d never read those rules but some of them are actually awesome. Peterson may be a douchenozzle who doesn’t know much about philosophy, but “pet a cat when you encounter one on the street” is a god-tier rule
Except most of them will run way from you (which might lower your self-esteem if you know nothing about cats) and the ones who don't probably have fleas (and other harmful parasites and diseases). Of course, you can take care of stray cats in your neighbourhood, but I would strongly advise against petting them if you have cats at home.
It's much better to just ask people if you can pet their dog, which will also help you get to you know the people who live in your neighbourhood. :)
"The goal of any age is to rethink what is possible" without reference to the eternal or true is just circular thinking, circular activity ..advancing in eternal categories is what's really creative.
Like the eternal category of the trickster always subverting categories through deterretorialization?
I've watched basically all your videos, so I speak here as a fan of your work.
While Peterson does in fact misinterpret many things of the so called ''left philosophers'', and while I do agree the term postmodern marxist is philosophically absurd, he does such while trying to construct something (and, unless you believe him to be a psychopathic liar, he did help a lot of people). Your representation of what the lobster part and ''stand upright with your shoulders back'' mean, for example, showing two probably drunk men fighting, is not only disingenous, but serve only to mock something that actually has been shown to improve people's emotional scores in many scientific works - Even when trying to explain ''better'', you COMPLETELY miss the point of the whole chapter. You are just opening yourself to the same critique you do of him, which is hipocritical at best.
I don't want to write a wall of text, so one last argument - ''Do not engage a ''lobster son'' in an argument''... I understand the intention, but these people exist and probably affect you directly and indirectly. This means their actions and your will create tensions that have to be solved. How do you plan to solve them? You exclude the possibility of conversation by creating this illusional separation between two groups, which we all know how always ends up, specially in the internet (and hellnet, also known as Twitter), so...?
Another pill video tonight for me. Playing catch up. JP vs D&G. Too much fun. Need to add to true foot soldiers, the disciples of JRE.
So this is what prawn song by superorganism was all about.
thanks for this clear defining of deterritorialization. it ironically seems similar to what JBP says of the Order Chaos dialectic, that Order can become to rigid and requires revitalization through Chaos - the territory must be de-mapped and reimagined. Peterson, a typical conservative, biases towards the importance of Order, seeing Chaos as a dragon to be slaughtered, but some middle ground of adaptability and flexibility is the goal, which must include making Chaos your ally - as life naturally does
B E A D S
What if they got a bunch of lobsters together and the winner got to write a new constitution
omfg how did I not know that D&G also talk about a lobster. sksksksksk I better get on not not reading it.
Some dbd survivor main has this music as their theme 10:00
Can we deteritorialize deteritorializing as a territory in an of itself and in consequence settle in some certain territory without the need to nomadic pursuits?
makes sense he would use a lobster analogy, since they are a nice example of capital. a once considered garbage animal gutter food, becomes rebranded as decadent highly priced seafood.
you got a lobster and you got a magnet
I for one am actually desperate to be able to be more creative with my tax return and wish for more space in this matter...
Ernst Junger always called himself an Anarch. Which I think comes from his ideas of Nietzsche and reminds me of this Deleuze idea of unlocking our own creative potential. Junger went from a beloved war hero, revolutionary conservative, writing about cosmic fascism, Nazi general to dismissing Nationalism, to writing to Trotsky and writing in German Communist news papers, to becoming more liberal minded, too an environmentalist, to experimenting with acid in his 90s to becoming a catholic at the end of his life. An Anarch is someone who shifts and finds new forms and agitates. I find myself like this I can digest anything from the radical philosophy of Evola and Deleuze and not find myself saying I'm left or right. I mean socially I'm more right wing reactionary but I'm open to post modern thinkers on the left. I'm just an anarch. I can float between worlds which I see is hard for most folk today without them having an emotional response being provoked or they are too liberalised to really go to the edges.
It wasn't a rock, it was a rock lobster! Dun dun da da dun
this is jordan petersons attempt at justifying hierarchy what a joke
@jay ah you must be sufficiently indoctrinated to think that theres no alternative way of organizing humans
You don't need to justify hierarchy since it already plainly exists - JBP's point is to point it's existence out, and acknowledge the fact that it's easier to ascend the dominance hierarchy than it is to change the rules and dismantle the hierarchy - if you want to stay a loser, be my guest - no one is stopping you.
@@thegamingchannel5956 so is it just or not?
@@thegamingchannel5956 who determines what is a "loser"? You? "Common sense"? Please. There is no inherent value to reality. That means there is no objective way to determine what is success in this life or another, and so on. The difference between donald trump and a broke average joe is no other than easy money and opportunity, implying anything else is disonest and useless. You're probably one of those people who cling to the hope that the passive conformity of your worldviews is some sort of god given, self evident truth and falsely believes that anyone who thinks different to you is just stupid. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that means the stupid one is you, bro.
this is tricky, i almost gave it a dislike
the lobster works with lots of
Philosophy
Please do Jane Bennett vs Graham Harman
Speak of his book “beyond order”
Aye Ronnieeee
Sartre took mescaline and hallucinated lobsters for years afterwards. How do these snappy lads get everywhere?
Crabby - ha ha
great!
So lobster-kind constitute a massive rhizome? Nice!
"Thanks dad"
-karl marx 1867
There is a point to be made, though, that Peterson is first and foremost a psychaiatrist. His main concern with books like 12 Rules is to help young men live better and be more happy by helping them fit an identity of which they can be proud of. Having an identity of which you can be proud of, and setting your life in order following certain rules, is something that has saved countless young men from slupms and depression. I agree that this is a kind of objectification of human, and doesn't leave space for creativity and invention, and i also recognize how lots of people bring conservatism to the extremes and push against social progress and general well-being; but i wouldn't shit on how much his philosophy (intellectually limited, conservative etc) has concretely helped so many people to live much better lives. What do you think?
All becoming requires faith, and invites disappointment, de Beauvoir.
This is based and plastic-pilled
13:17
wtf rule number 5 is even shittier than i expected from peterson
its actually about content and expression
Come on, the crabby joke went hard.
Holy fuck, did that single pillow cost $55?
Academic inflation?
love the jersey shore lol
Im curious to see how that movement between and beyond the territory thinking would be when applied to far left vs far right politics. I see similarities, different roots and structures but same critiques just from different viewpoints. Maybe we all need to just embrace shizo
Hjelmslev’s net has nothing to do with “thinking beyond” territory. This video is kind of wrong.
I quite liked this video. I think one point you did not take into account well enough is the target demographic for Petersons talks. The first self-help book's second half of the name is "an antidote to chaos". You are right that the book is about reterritorialization, but that's intended as an antidote to chaos or deterritorialization. The book has no real message for someone who has stable enough ground under them. I think ideas of Deleuze and Guattari are only of value for someone that has a territory to begin with, so viewing them as good continuation for someone who has had a Peterson phase would be quite constructive.
All hail the Lobster God.
Peterson didn't understand Nietzsche, confirmed.
ou probably never even read nietzsche
@@CourageToB lol
Me.
(Lobster daddy at your service.)
Came here via Epoch Philosophy and your podcast (listened to E1 yesterday), I like both so far and am very interested in learning more. I figured coming into this that you would be anti-Peterson based on how you briefly mentioned him in your podcast. I get the dislike, even as a big admirer of him. I've turned my life around in my own unique way, is some part due to the practical nature of Peterson's advice concerning psychology, and finding meaning when facing adversity. I've spent enough time (not a ton, but enough for me) to see where he goes off the rails, particularly when spits so much venom at the ideas and people associated with Postmodernism and Neo-Marxism. I'm not very knowledgeable on either but I'm in the process of educating myself, yet I get the sense he is out of his element and overly simplistic in his appraisals of that line of thought.
What I don't understand is your approach. You claim at the beginning that you would try to be a little charitable in your critique, but you literally spend the first 10-12 minutes doing exactly what the JP fanboys do on reddit, you make him into a caricature and a meme. You don't seem interested at all in engaging with his ideas, you simply make them into a shallow prop-up in order to discuss Deleuze and Guattari, if you were trying an honest attempt at comparing two perspectives (which I don't think you were), I think it falls short. With all that being said, I look forward to watching and listening to more of your content, just thought you might appreciate some feedback. Take care.
I completely agree with you, the entire desperate attempt to involve Peterson into a deeper philosophical debate is pretty shallow. The man is known for helping individuals on a practical level, not to study and philosophically examine human reality.
@@SUAVEcritic unfortunately, structure of comtemporary media does not allow to engage in a such deep debate. Its imposible now to meet in person and just speak. Everybody is inprisoned in simulacrum.
What a perfect final cut haha
algorithm
alright i just got done reading the thousand plateau's chapter. What the fuck did I read lmfao. I mean it was kinda worth it, but still what the fuck was the lobster chapter? Like i just laughed at the end, because i never encountered anything that absurd ever.
Tank top life
Fucking Hilarious.