Why Jordan Peterson is WRONG about Nietzsche’s metaphor, “God is Dead”

Jordan Peterson is a fascinating public intellectual, and one which I think has been unfairly attacked in many ways. But, when it comes to Nietzsche, I’m afraid that he’s responsible for more distortions and damage to the popular understanding of Nietzsche than anyone else in recent memory. Rather than using the metaphor of God’s death in a “sorrowful” manner as Peterson suggests, Nietzsche saw the death of God as a beautiful opportunity for free spirits, and welcomed it on that account. Even though God’s death will lead to horrifying developments, like the collapse of the moral values system of the West, there is the possibility for us to overcome the old values and create something new. In many respects, Peterson harnesses Nietzsche’s ideas for the exact opposite purposes intended by Nietzsche himself.

Overall, the message is to try reading a damn book for once, and not to get your ideology from the internet.

[lamp-stand]

Peterson's interpretations of Nietzsche, Jung, the Bible, etc. do seem forced. The reason is his apparent effort to reconcile and to harmonize what are incompatible philosophies. In so doing, he abandons his role as an academian, to become a truth-voucher, whose listeners are not educated, but indoctrinated.

[tomjones]

that was useful - no need to read the book now

[erudite.]

Yes, you are right, Peterson misunderstood Nietzsche.

[Albeit_Jordan]

I wonder what Nietzsche thought about lobsters

[eddiebeato]

This narrator is one of the finest I have ever heard on YouTube. I realize that his subjects on philosophy, however expressed in a clear, euphonious, cogent style, are for heavyweight thinkers, and this may explain why quality is often wanting for quantity.

A principle of criticism that may express the current state of things throughout history, it is this golden one: that the rarest gems are often left untouched. Therefore, you must have confidence in your talents and skills, for “the world is a mad house, ” and too late we may bask in a sunshine of fame and recognition. Of course, fate has always the upper hand, and perhaps an unpredictable event could make you a celebrity overnight!

But what a celebrity among such crowds!!!

Philosophy and archeology, like two stranded sisters, have this in common, that the greater masses of people, today enjoying the platform of the social media,
are so late to recognizing the greatest treasures hidden from view in plain sight!

Another theory (on judgement and criticism) is that the said gems and nuggets of gold are often grimed or covered with the rust and muds of time, and so we can neither suspect nor recognize the two sisters in their quaintly attractive anachronistic attires, and both going about incognito!

Just think about the case of Dante, Bach and Schopenhauer! Three giants completely ignored by their contemporary!

Have I eyes?

You may say: “well, that was only in the past, today we have the social media of Google, Instagram and YouTube, and quality would soon find an audience.”

If we are to appraise a YouTube channel for its content, quality and (not for quantity, views), then this channel is wanting for kindred listeners. And here once again, genuine philosophy is not for the greater-number of people, but for the few, the selected, and the choicest crowd among the crowds!

[normality]

Very well put argument. Thank you for the video. I would like to share with you my own interpretation of events, which are a little different.

First of all, I agree with your argument that Peterson misrepresents Nietzsche's ideas. However, I don't necessarily think that it is due to his misunderstanding of Nietzsche's writings, but mainly because he disagrees with their conclusions. Although Peterson give the impression of holding Nietzsche in high regard, he appears to describe himself as a follower of Jung, and that Jung superseded Nietzsche in many respects.

The most stark disagreement seems to be regarding the creation of values. Peterson states that Nietzsche was simply wrong by believing humanity can create its own values. Peterson is adamant that we cannot create values ourselves, 'all values have already been created'. When listening to Peterson talking about values, his voice sounds to me like the voice of the great dragon called 'Thou shalt'.

Destroying your traditional values in the hopes of becoming the lord of your own desert is an extremely dangerous task. Yes, Nietzsche most certainly does not lament the death of God, but all his proclamations underlie the looming dangers facing humanity in the wake of God's demise. In the video, you do allude to this danger, however I believe it should be more pronounced within the boundaries of this argument.

This quote from BGE speaks to as a cautionary recommendation for the creation of values:

"It is the powerful who understands how to honour, that is the art, their realms of invention. Deep reverence for age and the traditional - all law rests on this twofold reverence - belief in and prejudice in favour of ancestors and against descendants, is typical of the morality of the powerful..."

I interpret this as him saying that “in the wake of God's demise, the 'noble' people are exposed to the highest risk of becoming 'destroyers' instead of creator”. The Three Metamorphoses of the spirit reads like a guideline for creation. The spirit of lion who yearns for freedom and self-ruling seeks to slay the great dragon of tradition. To create freedom, a sacred No is needed, a sacred No to even duty. However, what values does a sacred No have without a subsequent sacred Yes?

Later, in the chapter ‘Of the Tree on the Mountainside’, this distinction becomes more apparent. Zarathustra talks about the ‘good man’ and the ‘noble man’. The noble man is not yet enlightened, is not yet a child. He cannot create. The good man does not want to create in the first place. He ‘wants the old things and that old things shall be preserved’. He does not yearn to become a lion to slay his dragon but wants to preserve the hitherto created values. Sounds like Peterson to me.

Nonetheless, the danger for the noble man is not that he may become a good man – ‘but that he may become an impudent one, a derider, a destroyer’. Some noble men turn against all high hopes with the loss of their own highest hope (i.e. God and tradition alike). The destroyer murders not for creation, but for the pleasures of the knife. Therefore, Nietzsche says it is better to have a ‘good man’ of the old traditions rather than an impudent destroyer and derider. Given Peterson’s disagreement with Nietzsche on the creation of values, I believe this conclusion is exactly what he uses to interpret Nietzsche. Because he himself does not find the creation of values possible, he warns people against becoming a destroyer and promotes the preservation of old values.

Having said that, even if my interpretation of events were true, Peterson still does a terrible job clarifying on what levels he disagrees with Nietzsche. Someone with no prior first-hand experience of Nietzsche would most likely assume that Peterson’s own philosophy aligns with that of Nietzsche, when their ‘pathos of distance’ could not be further apart.

[eddiebeato]

On Jordan Peterson and His Followers:

Jordan’s mind is able to muster an impressive array of muscular jargon, for the most part, loaded with heavy-weight erudition, but I can scarcely understand what he is saying: either I am a dumb or, as yet, unacquainted with his thoughts.

What is power?

First and foremost, one ought to trace it back to the will-to-exist from Schopenhauer’s Magnus opus “World As Will And Idea.”

But it seems that Dr. Robison and Dr. Peterson would make reference to Fr. Nietzsche as the progenitor of our “idea of power, ” in the intellectual circus of our colleges and universities.

Another semi-plagiarism from Schopenhauer’s philosophy is Darwin’s “survival of the fittest, ” which is another paraphrase for “the will-to-exist.”

It is daunting task to understand Dr. Peterson at first hearing, his academic jargon would have to be carefully squared with the serious arguments and linguistics of previous writers:

Sic:

“Structured Values”

“Values” are instilled upon us, at an early age, anymore than the dint of fate stamps her ineluctable will upon our destinies and lives.

Whether these “values” be political or religious or social, they are framed and impressed upon us beyond our power to calibrate them accordingly.

“Power” cannot be calibrated as mere coercion, expansion, affectional or causal, it is far beyond the scope of human activities…because it encompasses everything that moves, “expands and contracts, ” in all the operations of Mother Nature and cosmic phenomena at large.

We, humanly speaking, would like to christen this “all-encompassing potency” with our all-too-human comprehension, and from such attempts Dr. Peterson fails to either find Schopenhauer’s blind will (which is irrational) or the God of Spinoza and Aristotle from the most complex system of things to the most amazingly minute facsimiles of the mind of God!!!

Nietzsche and Schopenhauer rarely speak of power as tantamount to coercion composure, but they both wrote “a great deal about religion, ” and I think this is where Dr. Peterson has to be very careful when unmasking the charades of society and the phantasmagoria of what is truth or false.

There is no way to finding a cosy fire-proof place betwixt Nietzsche or Schopenhauer, you either reaffirm the will to live or the will to power.

[untimelyreflections]

@truthPOWERlove I don't know why, but all of your replies to me and your initial comment were deleted. I am not the one who is doing this; either youtube is doing it, or you decided to nuke the whole convo for some reason. Was really enjoying our discussion, and don't know why this happened. Sucks because I got notified for all of your replies but can't view any of them. Hope you find this comment.

[Ash-sosr]

Agree, God is dead was not a theological matter for nietzsche, nietzsche knew God didn't exist, is obvious is a metaphor for the moral north religion provided and now due to science and modernity to believe in such a God wholeheartedly is basically impossible for the European man. And as you said nietzsche didn't propose to go back to Christian morality.

[allenandrews]

Peterson praises Nietchzes intellect, but definitley disagrees with Nietchze frequently on purpose. Like Jung, he believes we are bound by our nature when it comes to " creating our own values" I do respect that he doesnt just lock on to all his philosophies.

[iraholden]

Your narration style and voice is great, I'd love to hear better background music

[longcastle]

Just to be honest, music too distracting for me

[wanderingmustang]

Dr. Peterson is almost right up there with Elisabeth Nietzsche.

[GabrielCipriano-ol]

The Budha's shadow part of Nietzsche its a misreading on the history of Bodhidharma, who after his biological death, his shadow could still be seen, Nietzsche make a misteka in confusing Bodhidharma for Sidartra Gautama (the Sakyamuni Budha founde rof Budhism), so i dont think the shadow in this case is related to the Shadow in Plato's cave

[milascave]

Peterson also had Nietzsche say things like "The roots of science are in Christianity." And he may well have said something like that. He tried to look at things from every possible perspective, which makes it very hard to draw a consistent ideology from his writings.
But anybody who says that Nietzsche was pro-Christian either has read very little of him or is simply speaking in bad faith. He wrote n entire book, "The AntiChrist" which is, from beginning to end, nothing but a rant against Chrisitainity and all the bad things that it ha done.
He did seem to realize that the metaphorical death of God, meaning that it is now not difficult to believe that there is no God, will be unpleasant for many people and will have all sorts of chaotic and destructive negative effects. AND THIS Prophesies PROVED TO BE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. But he was, well, not exactly an optimist. He called himself "A strong pessimist." Meaning that he believed in seeing things as they really are, but preserving anyway. And he believed that there would be many positive effects of the death of the universal death of God in the western world. One of which would be that he, and other, future philosophers, would now have the freedom to not only examine things, as they really are, but to explore all sorts of other possible ideas, perspectives, and possibilities for how to live ones life and what to live it for. And this prophesy came true, too.

[Troynjk]

To me Peterson always seems only to scratch the surface when talking about Nietzsche. It’s like he takes a drop of Nietzschian philosophy and dilutes it in a gallon of interpretations.

[thenowchurch]

Thank you for a good correction of Peterson's gaslighting.
Nietzsche was by no means a fan of Christianity, nor did his apprehension of the "Death of God" mean that he wanted a return to Christian tradition.

[karlnord]

<3


In a certain way Peterson is correct because he is explaining Jung's theory of individuation. The integration of the shadow is a positive phenomena; however, the contents of human nature are somewhat limited. This comes out of us being determined beings. There is only so much shadow.

This is just a certain way of looking at the issue though---of course there are new heights, and we do need a reformulation of our values that is better in step with our nature---but I agree with Peterson, and conservatives broadly, that too much of the tradition has been lost. The proletariat needs a clear view of the world---and since they don't have it, they are stumbling.

Love the outro, lol.

[damianbylightning]

I haven't read JP on Nietzsche - but I haven't read JP at all. I have heard him and he seems like a 'nice and sensible chap' sort. I'd not be surprised he's wrong on Nietzsche - as all seem wrong on Nietzsche. I'm certain I'm wrong on FN. Nietzsche seems wrong on Nietzsche, when you compare him to Nietzsche.
Given that it's only groups like Trotskyites and Maoists who seem resistant to Nietzsche, how can we say people like JP are wrong on FN? I've heard Anglican Bishops and other leaders talk in surprisingly and odd pseudo-Nietzschean terms. How is all of this false? If we live in an age of dumbed-down Nietzsche, how can it all be wrong? Aren't these elites following Nietzsche's advice - perhaps his style too? Why can't FN be used in Christian thinking? When discussing purity - a discussion on 'pure Nietzsche' seems inevitable here - FN is generally clear about its use and meaning in western religion. The rest is up to us and our use of common sense. On purity, FN makes room for dissenters in fragments, here and there. There's plenty of space for a hermeneutics shindig, where you can pick out whatever you want?
Btw, I'm not a Christian or a Marxist, but I can see why both mine Nietzsche. Both should be fundamentally opposed to FN - but are drawn as flies to shit.

[kingyellow]

Peterson miss reads almost everything he reads due to his huge confirmation bias problems, that is how he comes of to me anyways.