Joe Rogan - What Jordan Peterson Thinks About Protestors

I want to talk to you about activists because it's something that you brought up earlier saying that you you you know you find them unappealing like I want to know what you think the motivation of a lot of these like particularly radical left-wing activists that want to shut down lectures and scream people down and you know in these auditoriums what do you think the motivation of these people is and what do you what do you think is the root of it well I think that it's a quick route to moral virtue you know like it's actually really hard to put yourself together and you have to do that in ways that you can't trump it you know because most of the things that are wrong with you are kind of low what would you call it second-rate and embarrassing your all your stupid little habits and your proclivity to procrastinate and all the things that your minorly ashamed of and then you have to work on those slowly because you're the probability that you're going to be able to fix them quickly is it slow and you can't really brag about it because it's so embarrassing just to admit that they exist to begin with it you can hardly brag about it and it's sort of painstaking private work and you you don't get a lot of social you don't get a lot of quick social status for it it's effortful embarrassing humbling and difficult and then you can do something like be an activist and you get all that public acclaim for being on the good side with no effort whatsoever and so it's a yes do you think that there's any motivation at all to try to make the world a better place yes I think your son's that's part of it sure why do you think it's flavored by this desire to broadcast your virtue yes because it's very difficult to make the world a better place you know that's the thing is no I mean young people have a messianic impulse that's another thing that was documented by Piaget that there's a stage you know and late adolescence where you want to make the world a better place and I would say that's probably part of the impulse to you know establish a permanent relationship and have a family and and and take care of people you know and and to take on some of the burden of life it's it's the psychological precursor to that and it's reasonable for smart young people to be concerned about broader philosophical issues if they tilt in that direction as well but it's all too easy for that to be pathologized into resentment for for those who seem to have more unfairly and also to take the easy route out and there aren't easy routes there are only difficult routes to doing useful things and it's better just to do that and then so I think that there's some impulse to you know there's some wish that things could be less unfair and that fewer people could suffer but it's kind of a low-level virtue that that reflects of compassion you know I I'm not saying it's what it's without merit because it's the that compassion is the basis for the ability to take care of people who are ill and and an infant woman so for this low level like where's that it's not thought through mmm things are complicated it's hard to it's hard to make complicated systems work better and it's really make them work worse what about activists that want to shut down certain speakers like someone who's in my opinion fairly innocuous in terms of the net like here's one Christina Hoff Sommers yes I don't see a good argument for shutting her down she's so polite she's a feminist she's well-read yep she's a really nice person yeah Janis fit Mancos like that too in the Canada sort of person doesn't make sense that people would shout her down yet they do oh yeah horrible things about her they mischaracterize her in a really brutal way that it completely invalidates their argument or their opposition to her to anyone is paying attention to what she said oh well a lot of it is a lot of it is a lot of it is also just immature acting out yes you know and there's an arrogance tolerated inside I know very strange way yeah it is it is it is well yeah it's it's it's part of our doubt I suppose about Authority and about its and our will this to assume that all authority is contaminated by power it's this notion heckling - it's almost like like you're if you're doing a play you know or a musical or you're singing a song someone just decide to start screaming out well that person is an but you're espousing an opinion yeah and that person decides to scream out and they do so under the guise of moral virtue yeah undeserved access to power yes you know and it's no wonder that radical leftists in particular concentrate on power everything's about power well then it's okay if they use power as part of their means of expression it's like well you're just playing power games it's perfectly reasonable even appropriate for me to play power games because you know I'm oppressed compared to you if everything's power then everybody gets to yell right and there's no one of the things I realized about about recently as well as that there isn't a debate about free speech exactly not the way that we think about it you know you know because the there's the classical defense of free speech so the classical defense of free speech is that it's better for both of us if we're able to exchange our opinions because I have the opportunity to learn from you and you have the learner tunity to learn from me and you have the opportunity to learn from your own mistakes and social feedback and so do i and negotiation beats war okay so that's kind of the classical now but that's predicated on some assumptions and those are you're an autonomous being you're capable of formulating an opinion that that's actually unique to you and that in dialogue we can mutually modify each other's unique opinions in a way that produces a mutually harmonious and beneficial outcome that's all the predicates well that the people who are opposed to free speech you see it's not that they're trying to shut down people whose opinions are different than theirs exactly it's that they're opposed to the idea that free speech exists it's a way deeper problem because at the bottom of the postmodernist mess is the following assumption is that well there's no there's no one way of interacting with the world that's preferable to any other way and what people do is organize themselves into hierarchies of power and then struggle for dominance within the hierarchies and then the hierarchy struggle between each other so it's a landscape of warring hierarchies that's all it is and you think that you're a person and that you have an opinion but you're not you're just the mouthpiece of your privileged hierarchy and so am i and so and that's in commensurate if we're from different hierarchies there isn't that you talking to a me that could come to an agreement there's just you acting as a mouthpiece for your power and me acting as a mouthpiece for my power and so since I'm part of my group and I want to win because it's all about power then why the hell would I ever want you to talk it's not like I have anything to learn from you or even that learning is possible or even that there are two people having a discussion there's nothing but the mouthpiece of power there's two mouthpieces of power warring and so that why should I listen to you I'll just shut you down because then I win and so this this free speech debate isn't about who's whose opinions should be allowed within you know an overarching framework where free speeches is a real thing it's a debate about whether there's such a thing as free speech at all the the radical postmodernist types they deny even that there's such a thing as an autonomous individual in any way you're just you're just the Nexus of economic forces economic and social forces you're entirely socially constructed there's no you these are deep criticisms like I've made this case before that the postmodern types although they have to ally themselves with the Marxist for four reasons that we don't have to go into they are going after things that are so fundamental you can't believe it they don't there is no autonomous individual in the postmodern world that's a that's a modernist or an Enlightenment viewpoint that's or a Christian viewpoint or a judeo-christian viewpoint or maybe an Abrahamic religion viewpoint who the hell knows it might be that that that deep your the nexus of sociological forces there's no integrated self you don't have ideas or opinions and there's no dialogue between us exist there's your group your identity your struggle for power and that's all this is your interpretation no this is this is the fundamental essence of post-modernism especially it's especially true in the format espoused by Derrida and Foucault Foucault everything's about power everything's about power and Derrida was definitely that's why he criticized the idea of logo centrism logos is that ability of the individual to engage in dialogue route for dialogue is logos or logic that's all criticized that's all gone the identity politics players the serious the people who are serious about this philosophically they don't believe in the idea of the autonomous individual that's gone so it's not like they're playing a game within you know you think well this is a game we're all playing a game where we agree on some things and we're just disagreeing about the details it's like oh no no no no do you don't want to make that mistake this this critique is way way deeper than that which is why Derrida was opposed to the idea of logo centrism he didn't believe in the idea of an autonomous individual that didn't exist that's just a fiction set up by those who have used the idea of the autonomous individual to advance their power manoeuvring within the confines of the colonialist the colonialist West

Channel: JRE Clips

Views: 1,586,573

Keywords: Joe Rogan, JRE, Joe Rogan Experience, JRE Clips, PowerfulJRE, Joe Rogan Fan Page, Joe Rogan Podcast, podcast, MMA, Joe Rogan MMA Show, UFC, comedy, comedian, stand up, funny, clip, favorite, best of, Jordan Peterson

Id: S065EPk1ypE

Length: 10min 20sec (620 seconds)

Published: Fri Nov 30 2018