what do you disagree about with Peterson? You mentioned Peterson's conception of the high school shooters is saying they are objecting to God, and you said well that's correct in some sense. There are many, many aspects where I don't uh really agree with Peterson. It's I just

referred to him because he uh is one of the few public intellectuals we have left, for better or worse, right? I'm curious what ways do you defer? We talked about Dennett and you, you said you disagree with him in some sense because he's incomplete. What about Peterson?

that's more commission, right? That's more old mission rather than combination. Uh, I refer to Peterson because he is a common point of reference. We all know about him right now. No, that's fine, that's fine, but I'm curious where you disagree, so um

and where you agree. Yes, so uh, yeah, the interesting thing is for for me when I have to talk about disagreement because disagreement is the default state between minds, isn't it? It's only where we can establish agreement when we are independent thinkers where we see that

we uh understand things in the same way. So uh, Peterson thinks that the best way to interact with a cult that tries to be state religion with some kind of aggregor is to make a stand and to expose yourself, and uh I am not sure if I agree with that, so

basically he is fighting a culture war in an ineffectual way. I think there is also a deeper level. Um, Peterson thinks that growing up consists in making a sacrifice, and the sacrifice is self-actualization. He would like to be happy, but he cannot

afford to be happy, but it was incompatible with being an adult and doing the things that adults have to do, and his sacrifice is incomplete. He has not sacrificed his need for self-actualization, and that's why he appears to be so bitter.

Right, if he had made the sacrifice, he wouldn't be bitter. Would sacrifice of self-actualization, yes. So, uh, he would become a priest. He would have that serene state of somebody who has not lost anything because he doesn't need anything, what he

doesn't have, right? This, if you look at the archetypal priest, it's a person that is serene, that is smiling because they are at peace with themselves and the world, and they might be suffering momentarily because the unbelievers crucify him, but apart

from the moments of, uh, acute pain or the moments of compassion for their flock when they are involved in their dealings with the world and try to help them and fail at doing so because not all things can be helped, right? The priest is supposed to be okay with what he does

and Peterson is not okay with what he does. He is suffering because he, uh, has retained his identity, that the one that he thinks he has, uh, sacrificed. He hasn't. Yes, basically trying to understand, I'm trying to understand this, so you're

saying that he has an identity, and because he's holding on to it, it's like a want, and you should get rid of your wants, and then you'll be placid and serene and tranquil. Yes, so he basically is doing something that he has not fully internalized.

himself, he is expressing the tension between what he thinks he needs to be doing and what he does, what he feels would reward him for doing that right. He he feels pain in doing what he does, and uh, there is, of course, this other thing that he is acting on certain incentives in

this game, and the question is, are these incentives completely pure? So he is a publicist that is filling a certain niche, a certain vacuum. He is trying to give people values, uh, he's trying to project authority in a time that needs authority, and he

might not be projecting exactly the right authority or fitting authority, but he's interacting with the fact that the millennials are the first generation since the post-war generation that are authoritarian again, right? Every generation after World War II was liberal

Joscha Bach on Jordan Peterson

Joscha Bach on Jordan Peterson