@Vasonviper

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Honestly, what the fuck is the guy on the right talking about
@Ciaran-777

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Peterson complicates everything
@Philjamon

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Now I am sure that Jordan P has lost the plot!
@mmr1412

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Jordan Peterson is the actualization of actual lunacy and gaslighting.
@mattevans8416

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

I'm stunned reading the comments. I feel insane because i feel like the only one that agrees completely with Peterson on this. This way of thinking helped me a lot and still helps me.

From my point of view these two are not understanding quite an important deeper point he's eloquently trying to make.
@matthewrigby1319

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Whilst the comments are funny, do this many people genuinely not appreciate the analogous value in the story of overcoming the dragon and finding the treasure? Overcome adversity in life and grow as an individual.

It’s actually really cool the way Peterson deconstructs stories as methods for individual living and self-affirming perspective, and also posits the evolution of dialogue.

Unlike most intellectuals, Peterson actually cares about the common man and their role, and the irony of the common man ignoring this rare character within academia and intellectualism, and instead choosing to ridicule him, is honestly funny.
@doughooper9918

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Maybe the dragon is god.
@jamieoneill4960

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Just stick to pronouns Jordan
@aeronius

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Jordan Peterson has lost it, if he ever had it.
@lizheard2119

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

This is complete gibberish from Peterson. I think he’s more than a bit crazy
@nathano1599

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

wtf was that?
@BLAB-it5un

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

That Peterson is still given a platform is disgraceful. Why not have a panel that also includes Flat Earthers, Holocaust denyers and Elvis worshippers. Peterson is on this level. He has no academic or intellectual integrity, nor credentials really, and threw his life away demanding that people accept a delusional fantasy. Then when he finally dies he'll never have the conscious realization that he was wrong. A clear example that fast talkers that appeal to superstition and emotion win over those with intellect and reason. This is the defining challenge of humanity. How do we get billions of dumb people to embrace being thinkers? Oh, of course. It"s a <nudge, nudge, wink-wink> "smart" phone….
@Destrolll

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

JP really gone crazy
@strawman80

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Peterson doesn't seem all there.
@Julia-jk4hw

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

im ctfo why is peterson’s blazer printed with the phrase “clean your room”
@Julia-jk4hw

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

my new favorite quote is: fire is trying to kill you
@benjamindorsey2058

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

I think one of the visibly disturbing issues with is Petersons inability to understand that analogizing between frameworks does not show one how to find truths based on analogies in different frameworks. If you want to abstract something, mathematics is the most effective tool for doing so, thus far. And when we abstract with mathematics we very commonly have to apply boundaries and restrictions based on real world data or analytical deduction to accurately model the real world.
@RedAmberFox

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Wow, even if I didnt always agree with Peterson he at least sounded like a logical person to a large degree. Now… I was literally laughing the entire interview, man what happened to this guy? He is constantly shouting, almost crying and red faced!
@timeaddict

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Poor Dawkins. What does he do here? With a sheer idiot.
@envybartowski8519

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

i missed a few points because he's using big words (not a native) but I definitely liked what he said so flip you
@umairahmad9533

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

WHAT JORDAN PETERSON MEANS WHEN HE SAYS DRAGONS ARE REAL? (No BS)

1️⃣ What Mr. Peterson is trying to say, is that ancient religious ideas (like dragons, devil etc.) are metaphors that form an abstract category for actual experiences that ancient humans had. For example, telling the story of a dragon imprints the abstract idea of a predator or enemy or fear etc. and prepares their progeny to anticipate such a thing (which is not an actual dragon but things lying in that category). With this most people can agree and understand, and so did Alex.

2️⃣ But, where Mr. Peterson's idea is radical (although not completely nonsensical, I'll explain) is to give these abstract categories/metaphors (i.e dragon) an ontology (that is, these abstractions do exist in some way). It seems radical but can be justified by realising that we already believe in the existence of other abstract categories as well, such as a 'Predator'. If I ask 'Do predators exist', we will probably answer with 'Yes'. So, Just as we accept that Predators exist similarly Dragons exist.

3️⃣ Now, why is this radical? Because, this opens the door to all abstractions, whether it's the Number '1' or 'God' to be accepted ontologically (i.e they exist as much as a dragon, predator or even a lion exists as 'lion' itself is a category of all animals with certain features). Whereby number '1' is an abstraction of all things in their unitary form. Similarly, God is an abstraction of maximal Goodness, Power, Knowledge etc.

4️⃣ Humans naturally learned to form words/symbols/figures categorizing more and more of the world they experience (into categories e.g hot, hard, beautiful etc.). And many of these categories we seriously believe to exist (e.g Lion). So, we can make an abstraction of a 'lion' then a 'predator', then 'threat' etc. and we agree that all three exist, but notice that they seem different ontologically (wrt their existence) with a 'lion' seemingly much more real than 'threat' in an experiential way.

5️⃣ But that's where Mr. Peterson says 'Why? Why give one abstraction superior ontology then the other? It seems arbitrary'.

6️⃣ Well, his point isn't void in the sense that all abstractions derived from experience should have equal ontological value because all of them have phenomenological experience backing them. (Nothing is out of thin air)

7️⃣ Modern philosophy, differentiates the abstractions such as 'lion' and '1' into different domains of reality but either one is more ontologically real or not is an ongoing debate. 🤝🏻
@Planzenbieter

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Peterson out there speaking in tongues while wearing shorts
@renatovieira4472

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Jordan Peterson should stick to his trade and discuss psychology, its cause & effects. Anything beyond this subject and he's out of his depth.
@Moisesireyes

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

I hope Dr. Peterson can see just how much of a waste of time and attention this was. I could have watch and hour and a half of porn.
@SutterKrump

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Lock him up in a mental institution! This lunatic is off his meds or high on speed or something
@gtor6994

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Exhausting.
@neilcolligan9025

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

JP at his finest woffle peak right there. What the fuck what that about?
@khalila6995

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Jordan's has a twisted mind
@doctorstrangelove8815

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Where is the part where Dawkins talks and Peterson listen?
@danielboyd4079

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

I want to understand Peterson. He seems to be genuinely excited by what he's trying to convey. But it's just … totally inscrutable. And that leads me to an uncomfortable conclusion because obfuscating intentionally is really a quite evil thing to do. Anyone who is taken in by someone like that has their critical faculties materially damaged. People like Dawkins want to teach you how to think and how to think clearly.

I've read a few of Daniel Dennett's books. I'm not big into philosophy, but I do really like Dennett. Dennett is like Dawkins in that he wants to be understood and he wants to equip his readers with the tools for them to do their own critical thinking. 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' is one of the most complex books I've ever read. There were passages that I had to read 3 and 4 times, engaging the fullness of my attention and cognition just to wrap my head around what he was saying. It really was a wonderful exercise because the concepts were just within my grasp, even if it does occasionally push me close to my limits.

When I listen to Peterson, I find my brain trying to do the same kind of gymnastics that I do with Dennett, but at the end of the rainbow, there's no there there. His goal appears to be to lose you in the mists of the limits of your cognition to the point where you give up and just nod because it sounds smart. He tries to hook you by making some interesting point, and from then on, it's dragons all the way down.
@alexanderheynen4779

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Two great minds, and a confused, old man.
@makramayache6887

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

This reminds me of that chat Dawkins had with Deepak Chopra
@Zacq768

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Dawkins is unfortunately too smug for his own good

Yes its easy to say "dragons dont exist" but hes not thinking big enough
@RedRebel008

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

I often tease my opponents with absurdly complicated framing, but I swear to the God I don't believe in, watching Jordan Peterson made me realise how much I have to learn about obscurity 😂 I have never seen a man use more complicated sentences than a Doctor, that amount to absolutely nothing. Infact the only way I have to decode whatever the f**k he's saying is to watch a video of Alex, an Atheist explaining what he means 😂
@noID457

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Most of you commenters here don't know what the hell they were talking about. You're just blindly cheering for one side or the other like cult fanatics 🙂
@brother2thenight885

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Why does Peterson have a platform?
@MattiaVagnarelli

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Bro thought he was cooking
@dennischiapello3879

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

He’s making it up as he goes along. The only thing he expresses is his own conviction. I’m aghast at how worked up he allows himself to get, shouting, gesticulating and talking as fast as he can.
@rationaljohn6966

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Lol Peterson defending santa Claus.
@markdavidII

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

I used to think Jordan Peterson had some pretty good points. Then I looked at a written transcript of one of his little rants and realized he’s a modern day snake oil salesman. So much to talk about yet so little to say.
@mauriceshanahan149

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Bullshit
@TheRealHerbaSchmurba

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

1:42 – 1:47 and 1:48– 1:56. Him not seeing the difference is an issue. When he says exploratory truth, even in science and philosophy, truth is found in consistency of principles and laws not being contradicted and being constantly reaffirmed. In the bible an exploratory thread of truth continues to fragment of truth is the force holding the thread together. The contradictions cause fragmentation.
@IridescentPlanet

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

What drug can we agree on Jordan took before this interview?
@jokerfluffy9005

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Peterson's favorite game is saying that definitions depend on context, but only when is not applied to the definition he decides to stick with

The man doesn't know what is talking about half the times

I don't mean that he is ignorant, I think he is willingly not coherent
@lwglg

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

"What do you mean by problem?"
@peidoatomico

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

Cmon, Peterson is using psychology here and it's valid.

Dawkins is being disengenous by pretending that only reality is "real".

Most of human history was taught orally, hence the fantasy tales and creatures that give meaning to all analogies.
@skampster

January 18, 2026 at 6:25 am

I used to respect Jordan a lot. Not these days.