Jordan Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ย. 2024
- Please consider supporting us on Patreon if you enjoy the content: / cuck
In this video I use the terms "postmodernism" and "postmodern philosophy" to refer to late 20th century philosophies that reject the presuppositions of modern philosophy, universal meta-narratives, universal values, essentialism and the like, which includes philosophers such as Foucault, Derrida and Deleuze.
Here are the full Jordan Peterson clips I show in the video:
Jordan Peterson on Foucault, Derrida & Nietzsche: • Video
Jordan Peterson on Milo, Free Speech & Postmodernism: • Jordan Peterson on Mil...
Jordan Peterson - Foucault The Reprehensible & Derrida The Trickster: • Jordan Peterson - Fouc...
Dr. Jordan Peterson -- Beyond Marxism & Postmodernism: • Dr. Jordan Peterson --...
I quoted Derrida from "Twentieth-Century Literary Theory: An Introductory Anthology”, page 56: books.google.n...
and I quoted Foucault from “Discipline and Punish”, page 27: zulfahmed.file...
Here's my analysis of Sonic Adventure 2, which involves a brief explanation of binary deconstructions:
• Sonic Adventure 2 - A ...
Just a quick thing about Zizek:
In the clip where he's showing the portrait of Stalin in his house he's explaining that he doesn't keep it hung up there and that he just puts it up for guests as a means of being needlessly inflammatory.
Yyy Yyy Why do you have to be so angry? I doubt there are lots of victims of Stalin's regime that visit his house.
Yyy Yyy Zizek isn't a Stalin sympathizer and I didn't want to imply he is.
Yyy Yyy You're the only one that ever said anything related to the Holocaust. I don't know why you're posting stuff in Hebrew and Cyrillic, I can't read either.
Yyy Yyy Sorry for not answering your question, I didn't see it.
First of all, yeah, that's what I understand by "Holocaust", because that's what is referred to as "Holocaust". Holocaust isn't a term that refers to mass killing and prosecution in general, there is only one Holocaust, the one commited by Nazi Germany. It's not a matter of importance, I consider all of the events you mentioned equally disgusting.
As to your question, it really depends. It's a bit disingenuous to make a comparison like that, Zizek has said he thinks Stalinism was even worse than Nazism. If I didn't know he was strongly opposed to the ideology, I would be pretty pissed at the guy who hung the Hitler picture. Doing it at the present of someone of jewish descent would be in poor taste too. I wouldn't be so angry though if I knew tney were just doing it to be inflammatory, or ironically. It would be hypocritical, as I've used myself both nazi and stalinist imagery ironically, without any sympathy for either ideology. In itself, it means nothing, it's all about intent.
Yyy Yyy he was just explaining.. its not michael thomas has a picture of stalin lol.. chill dude.
The fact people disagree on what post-modernism means is in itself the best example of post-modernism.
People disagree on what quantum mechanics means.
@@restonthewind People now disagree on what woman means.
@@pslanez You win.
@@pslanez no they fkn don’t. Crawl on back to Shapiro or some shit
@@Noba46688 Huh? People seem to also disagree that there is any disagreements
The lesson we need to learn: Research what people say. I did that and found Derrida saying to me something very different to what Peterson was suggesting Derrida said.
well, Peterson has a very limited understanding of philosohpy in general..
@@LoisKl thats because lobsters dont practice philosophy. Therefor it is unnatural and bad.
You simply did not read enough...read more.
Derrida is a word-salad generating fraud.
Is what u just said subjective or objective? It’s basic philosophy 101 don’t fall into self refuting world views or else everything u think and say is meaningless therefore nothing you say or do matters yet in reality it shows the opposite lol it’s pretty simple shit
The fact that Peterson can't cite certain thinkers without referring to them as "treacherous" or some other variation of the term tells you exactly what kind of public intellectual he is
What does that mean? Thinkers should not be called treacherous by principle? What if a thinker is treacherous? Or is it impossible for a thinker to be treacherous?
@@nIrUbU01 I mean that whether he means to or not, JP's emotive language fills the gaps in knowledge of what he is talking about. The way he describes postmodernism and the thinkers who adhere to it, despite it being a nebulous concept, and also conflates it with Marxism (an entirely different school of thought) reveals how much of JP's arguments rely on buzzwords for things he doesn't like, because they're mostly too lazy to have any kind of properly informed and subjective substance.
@@officialmasqq_594 emotive language isn't necessarily bad, it's powerful and I think it conveys what he's trying to say well. After all the term "treacherous" has a very distinct meaning.
He doesn't conflate postmodernism with Marxism, he explicitly acknowledged countless times that both of those ideologies are contradictory (in theory). But there is some kind of doublethink going on with people who try to adhere to both of them at the same time (for certain reasons). And there is a lot of those nowadays.
You mention postmodernism being nebulous (on purpose?). My guess is that's also why there's a lot of people accusing each other of not understanding postmodernism correctly (like many are doing with Peterson). Maybe it's simply not made for being understood correctly.
@@nIrUbU01 my understanding of postmodernism is that it is a philosophy that rejects all encompassing narratives previously preached by religion, governments and monarchies, and that essentially no one understanding of our universe can be objectively correct. Take the concept of beauty in art for example, traditionally the objective beauty of something is determined by a consensus usually determined by an authority, and usually relied upon a replication or exaggeration of things seen in nature, as art advanced it grew apart from this naturalistic vision, and now the beauty of an art piece can reflect almost anything.
@@nIrUbU01 because no thinker is essentially treacherous simply by virtue of being a thinker. If Peterson wants to claim that "treachery" is an accident which applies to a thinker, he needs to point to some motive or course of action which indicates treachery, or simply explain how a academic, engaged in honest discourse, in a free society, is capable of treachery simply by his work. He might as well have been on the Athenian juries which accused Socrates and Aristotle of blasphemy. But even then, the fault for the growing distance between the principles of Greek philosophy and political life was laid upon the unstable foundations of Greek spiritual culture.
From the famous philosopher
"It doesn't matter who's wrong or right
Just beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it"
Michael Jackson
Whaa?
From his hit thesis "shamona"
TJ the DJ I don’t want to think about Michael Jackson beating anything given recent news...
Anticonny Got something to say?
Anticonny Could you please sound a little more condescending?
"Your iPhone wouldn't work without physics. Checkmate, Marxists." - Jordan Peterson
@@finchbevdale2069 I'll add my 2 cents to what you said making it 4 cents.
@@finchbevdale2069 What's more complex an human or a human society.
We know how macro systems work but not micro.
I would argue the same is true for society.
For example you and i know how a religious group would react if you burn a fundamental book to his faith.
In other words, Peterson talks too much and says so little.
I thought you were joking until I heard him basically saying that. How are leftists against physics? If anything they want more funding.
Lmao Zedong
Yeah I always felt like Peterson wasn’t critiquing the actual postmodernists, but just like the soupy contradictory mix of ideas that the typical undergrad has trying to average out all the texts they are reading
You are right. This video assumes the word "post-modernism" properly refers to what a few key people from the mid 20th century said. In reality the word is applied to a wide range of people, just like the word "Marxist" is applied to many people who have views that are different from what Marx himself believed.
This makes the job of those of us who are trying to understand what is going on a lot harder, but it is just the way it is. The usages of words are constantly changing over time, and it is an error to assume a word used 20 years ago means exactly the same thing when it is used today.
I think this is spot on. He's framing it around the undergrad's perspectives, rather than getting very anal and in-depth about the original postmodernists. He cares more about the more nihilist post-interpretation post-meaning aspects of it where there's no "correct answer" .
+A Neg - But Peterson is making a claim about "Marxist" intellectuals purposely passing themselves off as "postmodernists." That's a different story entirely from what might be going on with undergrads.
If we interpret what he's saying strictly, he's wrong. If we don't, we have to know what people he's talking about to even make sense of what he's saying, much less evaluate its accuracy.
[He probably is just springboarding off his impression of the academic zeitgeist, and concocting a myth to put villains behind it, pulling the puppet strings]
I guess that's more or less what I was thinking. I can't get over the impression that Peterson got his feelings hurt dealing with a certain type of representative of the academic zeitgeist, and proceeded to wade just far enough into philosophy to build a straw man and vilify them.
so postmodernITY. he needs to get it right. He directly attributes it to theorists of the movement instead of the cultural shift the movement wrote about. its completely illogical. Its like saying Nietzsche said 'god is dead'- so we must be total nihilists and go around killing eachother, or was that exactly what Nietszche opposed. He's making the same mistake.
This is what happens when you project what you know of your field of expertise (psychology in Peterson's case) onto other fields you have little understanding of
A problem which is exacerbated by the false assertion that one’s field is a science when it is demonstrably not. We end up with dogmas fueling dogmas fueling ever more dogmas.
Not really. What this video misses is the fact that Peterson refers to what is called 'cultural Marxism', which kind of undermines the entire point of this video.
@@addammadd Which hilariously is exactly what Baudrillard predicted for the postmodern state. And yes, sadly most people do not understand, that the only REAL science that we do is natural science [physics, chemistry and biology]. Everything else is a terrible attempt at making academic "knowledge" scientific, which actually defeats the purpose of science. No wonder that people nowadays reject basic natural science
@@DevonRyeTheDragonfly No, one could argue that all those fields are just applied philosophy, philosophy is the core of academic knowledge
@@user-oz8oh1bn9b In what sense ? Enlighten me :)
Manray: This is Posmodernism.
Peterson: Yup
Manray : A philosophy that rejects historical materialism, class conflict, dialectical progression of history and a worker's revolution.
Peterson: Yep.
Manray : Things that marxism is known for.
Peterson : Makes sense to me.
Manray: So there you have it!
Peterson : Posmodernism is Marxism in disguise.
Manray : *Sends him to gulag*
That escalated quickly
I never thought about it till just now, but that whole scene is essentially a mini-Socratic dialogue, but instead of the questioned person leaving, they just arrive at an illogical position
Ugh these comments do not actually take into account what he says about the two. He KNOWS the paradoxical nature of the mix.
@@DuskAndHerEmbrace13 so what's his excuse? And where does he acknowledge this? You can't just say stupid shit and then claim that you KNOW its stupid.
@@DuskAndHerEmbrace13
Links to sources, please.
Peterson uses Marxism as a catch-all term to mean "resentful left wing people".
sean jonson bitch it doesnt exist
So true!
Odd that so many people think like a Marxist and talk like a Marxist, yet use Postmodern theory to deny being a Marxist.
@@anthonynichols3857
Provide exactly one example of this.
I'll wait.
@@tonycampbell1424 There are millions of examples, so limiting me to just one is impossible... Anyway, everyone who denies that the murders of 100 million people did not happen under the tenets of Socialism is the first of many examples. Then there is the vast support by the Leftists for an egalitarian society under the guise of fairness and compassion...we see how that worked out, but the Postmodernist is focused on changing that history. Also, those using Catalonia, the Zapistitas, and/or other tribal communities as subjective examples of the success of Socialism for a vast and diverse populace. And other issues where the proponents of Socialism promote it as a political ideology when it's the economic theory that supports Communism (which is its goal)...or another variant of Collectivism like Fascism or Anarcho-Syndicalism. Maybe, the obvious is not obvious to you. Rather than wasting your time waiting, you should read the words written by the culprits of Socialism, research their carnage, and compare that with the words and goals of the new Leftist culprits...I have things to do, so I won't be waiting for that to happen.
The Stalin thing is a joke, Zizek thinks Stalin was an idiot. Just saying.
yeah, but i dont think it would be the same if someone had a pic of hilter hanging up as a joke so the point still stands
What was the point exactly? I'm just making the point that the picture is hung in an ironic way. This isn't really subjective, it's what Zizek himself stated the picture was there for.
Not sure what the point was, but I'm just highlighting that Zizek doesn't agree with Stalin in either theory or practice.
I'd hang a shop of hitler and stalin kissing on my wall
Karl...Stalin was like, fucking TEN when you died! Zizek wasn't even conceived! What the fuck would you know??
If you've watched more than a few appearances of Zizek, you would know not to take what he says or does at face value.
What amazes me so much about Peterson is how he so often un-self-awarely engages in exactly what he criticizes in others. He very rightly criticizes "low-resolution thinking", but this is precisely what he engages in whenever he talks about marxism or post-modernism.
Yeah, when he talks about this topic you can't really give the same credit as when he is talking about psychology and moral
@@tiago.suares the position he has with the ideology espoused by the Marxist and post modernists is based in its consequences and the effect they will have and have had historically I don't find that small minded in a world of repeating histories. To say an idealogy and philosophy is wrong when it proves itself to damage society and its progression isn't small thinking or misinformed if you derive morality from secular sources.
@@cherryvapr6969 foucault and Derrida have done no damage to society, in fact other than those who actually read them and study them nobody including Peterson has a fucking clue what the were tslking about and you certainly dont see their philosophy deeply represented in western society but for academics.
To be fair, hypocrisy is hardly a rare trait in people - almost all of us are perpetrators of things that disgust us the most because it was our experience with the consequences of those things that taught us to hate them, or at least value their opposite so fervently. Jordan is a very passionate person, and I credit most of his worst moments to that fact - he can't let his deeper feelings about the things he talks about not affect his work when talking about them and being heavily criticized for every word he says is his daily existence. We have to give the guy some credit, he's just as hated as he is venerated and it must be herculean to keep his feelings in check when you're under that kind of scrutiny.
@@cherryvapr6969 The question is how can you be so certain that a philosophy or idea has damaged society when you cannot even say what it is, explain it or prove its harmful effects. It would be like saying funny moustaches have harmed society without even being able to tell what a moustache is, how it works, and how it harms society.
At best this is a mistaken belief, and at worst it is a lie. Now I don't know how much you have to gain by lying but I know Peterson certainly gains far more than a psychology professor's salary can provide. Now if we add to that the plain fact that he has been caught lying and misinforming people by multiple experts in a number of fields, I wonder why you still believe him.
In former socialist Yugoslavia, the prominent communist Milovan Djilas denounced Marxism and become postmodernist.
So he was expelled from the party.
Mussa Ibragimov nothing parallels the death toll of liberal capitalism. Indeed, the imperialist interventions that broke up former Yugoslavia resulted in many deaths through genocide and war.
Furthermore, liberal capitalism is the *embodiment* of postmodernism: the false assumptions of modern notions of “progress”, subversion of popular institutions, relativism and nihilism (don’t worry just buy product and get exited for next product), politics as farce, and so on.
It's the same. You all are like the people who tried to debate me that socialism and communism aren't the same when socialism is just an undeveloped communism.
@@eve3363 There are a range of socialist tendencies, even within Marxism.
Communism is just one of them. Ableit a marginal one at that.
Your comment just reflects your own inability/unwillingless to understand what is being presented to you. Like you think we're all one homogeneous blob, singing from the same hymm sheet.
@@jd8808 Unfortunately, that's how it is presented.
@Mussa Ibragimov I think above all they thought a union of compassionate fellow man would occur leading to a utopia where everyone truly loves and cares. I think they admitted defeat because they are confronted with the reality that it only created less of true love and less care . It was now just the machine of society in which they found themselves cogs for degeneration. Ultimately they confuse their fight againts capitalism with that againts of monarchy.
As a huge fan of Peterson, thank you for this video. I also feel that Peterson hasn’t read enough on Postmodernism and its history. I still believe deconstruction is incorrect, but I applaud you for writing a specific and professional critic. Also, I love how you specifically invited us Peterson fans, it shows that you actually care about truth an knowledge rather than just hating Peterson.
Learn what deconstruction is first maybe
@@joeyrasmussen8394 as in not making somthing good look bad for the sake of it.
I like it because it shows other ways of looking at things but i also think that deconstructing every just for the sake of it defeats the point of deconstruction. Which i belive is to highlight an authors/individuals problems/ ideas about with what ever is being deconstructed but highlighting every thing as an area of improvment at the same time has no direction.
sorry if what i wrote is a bit waffly/vague, i dont quite know where you stand so its generalised
@@boser2562It seems to me that you are talking about the vaguely defined way people on the internet use the word deconstruction (you know, stuff like "Madoka Magica is a deconstruction of magical girls") instead of the form of semiotic analysis developed by Derrida.
Although I must admit that most of my knowledge on the subject comes from a previous video Cuck Philosophy mentioned: th-cam.com/video/8F5PUEbCRQI/w-d-xo.html
I should probably start reading the original works at some point if I intend to engage in meaningful discussion. ^^;
@@boser2562 My understanding of the concept is that we should deconstruct things in order to discover if there is value in what we find in that somethings "opposite", not to go into it with the presumption that what we will find will definitely be valuable. Plenty of things have "opposites" that harbor nothing of value whatsoever, but we don't know until we look.
@@boser2562 However, what usually happens is the void is filled with more Kripkean dogmatism...which is why, if we disregard everything Peterson, we are still stuck with those that believe Socialism/Marxism/Bernstrinism/Anarcho-Syndicalism (or whatever collectivist ideology) is good. I was reading Proudhon's "What is Property" earlier this evening and couldn't get past his arrogance and repetitive digressions when he attempts to set a premise. It reminded me of the clickbait stories online with too many slides never getting to the point. And many people use him as the kind version of Socialism...along with Bernstein...who has the same issue as Proudhon. When I think about it Marx, Lenin, and Hitler wrote the same way. Anyway, maybe the goal was to nauseate the reader into agreement. The Postmodernists manipulate the meaning of the words so it's difficult to argue.
Jordan Peterson is always struck me like a academic preacher And if reports I've heard are true when The Dean sat in on one of his classes they were sort of shocked by how he taught. Essentially they said he passes off opinions as tough truths of the world
The monumental narcissistic method.
what's wrong with giving out opinions? And i am sure he isn't saying that if anyone has any opinion other than his then its wrong. every professor in every class is there to teach students on what the professor has learned from his experience and what the people before them have discovered and experienced. He is there to teach students what he has learned in psychology. He is an educated person and was hired as a professor by giving interviews and stuff. You make it sound like he somehow cheated his way through his education, ended up as a professor somehow and is now forcing his ideologies on his students. i am also pretty sure you haven't watched any of his recorded lectures from his college classes.
@@guyinyourphone7426 Read the comment twice but carefully this time.
@@guyinyourphone7426 how did you manage to miss the entire point of something only two sentences long?
@@Ryan30z how did I miss the point exactly???
The first two minutes of this convinced me to watch the entire video.
Your "you should watch this even if you're in Petersons camp so you can hear from both sides" is something all of us should do. Thanks for sharing this video!
Yeah huge surprise the guy with the channel "philosophy with the hammer and sickle" is highly critical of Jordan Peterson I'm totally shocked. Glad I came here for an unbiased point of view. I would listen to the dude more if he was a normal person but he's a communist and you can't trust communist or fascist. I want to find a independent thinker who is a critic of Jordan Peterson they're hard to come by so far I've only found wannabe communists
I first was convinced to watch it, but the way the arguments where actually hard to understand, because so much philosophical background was assumed, forgotten (or consciously circumvented ?) :/
@@seanglennon4012 what do you think bias is? because it's not the same thing as having "normal opinions". you're showing a strong bias here because you've already assumed that anyone who subscribes to marxist philosophy must not have something of value to say on JBP's understanding of postmodernism.
why is it that you assume that his marxist views must be biasing his view of JBP and postmodernism? what about the possibility that he has his marxist views because he has considered all the things he talks about as unbiased as he can?
I'm not a marxist by the way - i know i haven't read nearly enough of the different philosophical and political theory schools of thought to really be firm on my own beliefs. i'm just saying that if you're already going to go in thinking that extremes of thought must be inherently wrong (which is appeal to the middle fallacy) then you're organizing your beliefs within the overton window and won't be able to take any value, even partial value, from points of view foreign to you.
@@seanglennon4012 three arrows has a few videos that talk about JBP and he seems socdem and that's well within the "normal". genetically modified skeptic has some videos on JBP too and he's one of those apolitical (well as much as you can get because i'd argue politics is very hard to separate from a lot of issues) atheist guys. big joel has a good video on JBP and he's probably socdem too. it's definitely not only communists that have valid criticisms of JBP unless you think they're all communists but then we've come back full circle that you can't just collapse all your opponents into one homogenous blob.
@@jasonale that's a lot to respond to. For the last part you're going off the assumption that I haven't studied Marxism or socialism. I actually thought it was a great idea and I would say completely arrogant things like "communism just hasn't been done correctly yet" I decided to consider the things I talked about after being confronted separate times throughout my twenties by individuals who actually experienced communism and socialism. People from Russia, Cuba, Hungary, Poland, women who took care of baby refugees from massacres in Cambodia thanks to communist revolutionary Pol Pot. How many more ruthless dictators and innocent poor people need to die for the utopia? Communism is an ideology for close minded resentful, self righteous, intellectuals, I know becauseI was very similar at a young age. I definitely have a strong bias against horrendous ideas that fail miserably again and again and again. Dictator after Dictator. I decided to listen to those people and admit I was wrong. It's part of growing up. I stopped rolling my eyes everything someone challenged my views with valid data
i think the essence of postmodernism is that no one knows what it is
Well most of the writers who we'd define as postmodernist rarely or never used the word to describe themselves. It's more of a broad approach than an ideology or concrete set of ideas
Ye and change it to their benefit🤷♂️
Hmm, sounds a lot like communism...
The best comment in this section. The most sane one.
Am Ham And what the fuck is your name supposed to mean? Do you want me to make racist assumptions about you too? Ignorant pig
This is exactly the reason why academic tribalism is dangerous - an interdisciplinary approach that demands that people learn to hear opposing views is paramount if our culture is to get anywhere.
Uh, that's what Peterson is advocating. Wow!
Sailor He actually preaches discourse, bur also realises this generation we’re living in is nowhere close to achieving it.
@@eve3363 Sure, but he can't see his own tribalistic behavior
@@prunonz479 Can you explain how his ideas are tribalistic, also disregarding the fact that it is human nature to be a part of a group.
@@eve3363 I didn't say his ideas are tribalistic as much as they are skewed, but I'm refering to his behavior is tribalistic. He's had ONE debate with someone one the left who's got a brain cell (Slavoj Zizek, who basically ripped him a new one) apart from that he's been giving long speeches like a preacher to a choir, or talking to people who are intellectually inferior(e.g students, or dimwitted journalists who there to put him down.) He thrives in debative scenarios, ...where his opponent normally is a dimwit. But where are e.g. the cultural marxists or the biology-denying social constructivists? Sure, there are kids in the twenties - but that's not really what he's referring to. In fact, Marxists hate identity politics, it's not their creation (the few of them who exist, and no, I don't agree with them). He's basically creating a fiction of his opponent without allowing them to defend themselves. It's typical tribal behavior.Then look at how he handles the important question of whether God would exist if mankind ceased to be..(asked by Sam Harris) well, he weasled himself out of that one, then says it depends on how it looks like it. Funny. That's the method his alleged postmodern reality-denying boogie men use. So where's the integration, the non-tribal behavior in that? He's basically never gone into unknown waters, since he's defensive, by default, he's strategic, i.e tribal. He doesn't see his own mix of Christianity, Evoltionary theory and Jungian psychology as ideological, because people don't see their own opinions as "ideologies".. A tribalistic behavior, i.e WE know the truth, THEY are odd. Richard Dawkins at least dares to debate those who oppose his views. Peterson stays in his comfort zone and paints up an enemy whom he fails to discuss with. He talks about them, but that's it. Let him talk about Foucault with someone who studies Foucault for instance.. It's not gonna happen.
People often forget that JP is only educated in psychology. He isn’t a philosopher and he isn’t a political theorist. His understanding of both subjects is genuinely below the standard demanded by an undergraduate degree.
There is no such thing as a poitical theorist. It just a position that people who sucked at being a lawyer fall back into to justify the money they spent at law school. It makes them sound cool. Like "political scientist" or "Professor of Political scientist" when they are just civics teachers.
@@gbonkers666 Yeah, this might just be the dumbest thing that I read today.
I would say that even as a psychologist he is far below par. 😀
@@MartijnHover You’re not wrong at all. I found out since positing my original comment that he is only trained as a councilor.
@@ME-gs6yn Sure. lol
Nice try, Ethan from H3H3
Lol nice
Glink double agent
I'm subscribed to you and h3h3, and I don't get it.
pill dolan he just sounds like Ethan. Like his voice.
he sounds like FrankJavCee.
So, turns out Peterson has even less grasp of postmodernism than those campus tutors he is always slating. Best critique of Peterson so far.
its actually kind of weak.
@@Averyofthemain that's the saddest part, if you only need this weak rebuttal to counter your points then that's really really sad
@@benjaminperez6756 below i left a comment detailing the speakers weakness in the rebuttal, take a look.
This is the last Jordan Peterson video of yours I'm gonna watch... every time I watch one my recommended videos get flooded with goddamn Peterson videos for days lol
Take is as a blessing. You might smarten up
@@max2beuz ok simp
Take it as a message from God
@@baltzarbonbeck3559 which one?
@@max2beuz hah, smarten up by learning how to employ red herrings and beat around the point we are trying to convey untill it's close enough that people aren't able to point out us doing it? I believe that the best way to convey a message is the most simple and straightforward one, which doesn't exclude future deeper discussion or more technical terms, as long as they aren't misused and the audience has an idea of what they mean. Peterson is great at employing double speak and false analogies to strengthen the audiences emotional connection to what he's saying to avoid actual discussion, because he knows that his points are sometimes wrong or unpopular. Intellectual dishonesty isn't a good thing to learn, and if you think that all these techniques in place to make him honestly just sound "complicated" and "convoluted" are cool and intelligent you are just pushing the "fake deep" narrative.
maybe the woke-transgender-post-modern-neo-marxism was the friends we made along the way
Thank you for providing actual quotes from Derrida and Foucault that are truly coherent and reasonable. This is a compelling antidote to the common perception that these two only wrote word salad.
🤣 Derrida bragged about how much word salad he was able to serve. I don't think anyone used the word "only", that was you.
Yay
No quote from Deridat and Foucault are reasonable - how gullible are you? Peterson understands postmodernism very well, to a tea, and shreds it. Post modernism is a farce - a French Farce and was constructed largely by a gay man who had sex with young boys - Foucault. Due to power structures not at the time catering to his interest.
The moronic narrator here overlooks a significant point made by Peterson - postmodernism appeals to the less intellectual - and only infiltrates up to 5% of many ppls perspective (most specifics aren’t known by adherents but the gist permeates their perspective) and naturally postmodern thought - the French brand of it, compliments each other and whilst hard to define, all essentially reiterate the same illogical themes. So regarding postmodernism generally is simply regarding it in the way in which it pervades universities. Thematically, and without too much appraisal - whether it’s the patriarchy, discourse emphasis or male gaze, the perspectives run off each other and are not for real intellectuals. They’re simply insane and anti the west
interesting how many postmodernists, including focoult, were pro paedophilia. Mark Twain famously said something along the lines"if you're on the side of paedophilia, you may want to reconsider your thoughts".
Please make a second video on this. The way you introduce basic information on the different philosophers by contrasting Peterson’s understanding is amazing!
When you don't know what postmodernism is, so you decide that it's Marxism because you don't know what that is either
I guess both are a form of personal hygiene...
@F K Lol, they rarely stop at being wrong twice!
Enlighten me how Peterson does not know what Marxism is?
Postmodernists still aren't sure what Postmodernism is
When you come from the future and you realize jbp was right and predicted that the far left would rise, out of the marxist training centers they call universities.
He continually confuses campus activism with theory. Straw men all the way. It's like he based his argument on some SJW-manifesto rather than the writings of Foucault and Derrida.
Or maybe he based his arguments on how it actually manifests itself in the world but what do I know
@@maxfern5701 nothing, evidently
@@tilltronje1623 Indeed.
@@maxfern5701 @Till Tronje You two are the definition of pretentious
Foucault is a pedo
Shoulda seen my conservative friend’s face when I told him South Park is post modern.
South Park is actually a spoof of postmodernism. But you'd actually need a grasp of nuance to understand that.
@@zeenuf00 r/iamverysmart
@@zeenuf00 how is it a spoof of post modernism? It engages in very post-modern fictional tropes, the juxtaposition of spectacular worldviews from different characters towards either a sterile or inconcievable reality none of them can grasp, anti-authoritarian themes, self-referentiality and use of metanarratives, and most importantly the use of Pastiche is heavily relied upon in South Park. South Park is an aggressively post modern work of fiction.
@@fruitylerlups530 it's a cartoon
@Ben J Yes, a cartoon which happens to be a post modern work of fiction.
Just because some adjectives are "complicated words" doesn't mean they can't be properties of "simple things like cartoons".
"Which means that, according to Peterson, any ideology involving group conflict is Marxism"
Close, but actually it should read "Any ideology that challenges the status quo is marxism"
I feel that those statements are almost interchangeable I suppose your reading is more specific however any challenge of the status group must involve conflict between at least one group challenging the status quo and at least one upholding it
More accurate would be: any ideology that wants to annihilate the status quo and not solve any problems that this inevitably causes is Marxism
@lagooned Power hierarchies is a marxist idea ?
Just think about this phrase for a minute.
“They transform the marxist dialogue of rich vs poor into oppressed vs oppressor” Hegel wouldn’t like this
Exactly Jordan is in fact correct
MrLuckyMuffin So all the conservatives crying about “the swamp” are Marxists??
Mike Appleget no when did I say that
@@MrLuckyMuffin "Draining the swamp" was one of the campaign promises of Donald Trump. It's how he convinced people he was on the side of the "every man".
Jamie McInally he is draining it dude. At least in part
Hearing Jordan Peterson speak on these subjects is like submerging your head in a huge bowl of letter spaghetti.
With a side of word salad
And mashed syllables
Shame is not a healthy response to ignorance.
One may have exactly same sensations when he or she reads postmodernist philosophers. They pretend to be scientists but mostly demagogs. As it was pointed in one comment above science is physics, biology and chemistry. Generally speaking postmodernism is fruitless chase of its own tale. Philosophy in general, in difference with scientific data, is pure chimera created by someone else brain. Our knowledge of human brain is so primitive that one follow postmodernism only as brain treadmill and nothing else. Don’t let blind men to lead blind people into the cave with fire.
That's just what it's like hearing Peterson speak in general. Dude probably takes 30 minutes to say hello.
Whenever I have researched what academics or experts say about their field vs what people outside of that field of study say, I have found that the people outside of the field don't understand it and the people inside it are making very reasonable claims that are hard to argue with. Moral of the story, if someone tells you that a group of academics or experts believe or claim something, go read actual literature by them first, then get tired of having to do so much research to learn that academics and experts in many cases know what they are talking about and are better equipped to talk about it than people outside of the group. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Why doesn’t anyone ever think about this
I've been thinking about this trying to figure out what should I think. My father used to talk about conspiracy theories since I was 13, so I've gained some distrust because of that and tried to think about things all by myself in fear of the possibility that humanity has been thinking with false information and I didn't want to be influenced by it. And after some life events and a major depression I gave up on this intelectual isolation to be happy and come to realize the reasons why conspiracy theories exist and that humanity has been thinking about stuff for thousands of years and someone has already thought a solution to the stupid thing you're stuck on overthinking.
Oh boy sorry for the life story.
It seems you think academics have some empirical restraint and that whole fields can't have an irrational bias towards one philosophy or another, if this was ever true it hasn't been true for a very long time.
Averyofthemain exactly man
ITS LIKE SAYING HARD ROCK IS HEAVY METAL...
*PURE LOBSTER IDEOLOGY*
This guy
Kaylee Gregory Me~
hehe
it is funny because he has illustrated his statement about why hierarchies aren't essentially bad by simple example in his simplified self-help book.
Kathy Newman, is that you?
Deepak Chopra would be proud: th-cam.com/video/qDSwjYTrsB8/w-d-xo.html
Glad to see there are more people that recognize how loose is Peterson's use of the term Marxism. Another thing he does very frequently is to equate Marxism, neo-marxism and the left with his ideal of people who inspire to be professional victims. As if any of these terms could be equated, as if the "left" in any country could be seen as a monolith with the same agenda or ideology nowdays.
He's a clinical psychologist, he's aware of the overlapping demographic.
@@jail13ot63 The thing is, the center left (majority of the 'left' in Canada and the US) is capitalistic, aggravatingly so to actual Marxists, who are quite proud of the label. I'm not entirely convinced by Marx alone, but I'd say I'm a socialist.
The issue isn't to say that those on their countries ideologically 'left of center' aren't somewhat related, insofar that minorities are still systemically disadvantaged, among other very wide demographical trends, but that conflating the ideas of the center left liberals with Marxists, who aren't hiding anything, trust me, and then jumbling post-modernism in a serious philosophical context is ridiculous. Furthermore, in any context such statements would be very disingenuous, as post-modernists and Marxists and liberals disagree a lot, and in many cases, fundamentally. Funnily enough, if you look carefully at the positions of the center right 'liberal' parties in Europe or Canada, they conflate similarly with center left views in the US. How are the same demographics of the US left of center then so different from those in the UK? Even the assumption that there are recognizable ideological demographics is tenuous at best.
@@jail13ot63
Psychologist, not historian.
Nuff said.
I like and agree on JBP's point on how to understand and improving life a lot, but I agree with you here. I think his use of terms marxism can be quite loose and unfair. This criticism is fair, and I hope JBP can improve his thinking after meeting Zizek
@Ked Taczynski "They view history fundamentally as oppressor vs oppressed."
Which is an *incredibly* loose connection, so much so that to make that the sole critique I had of that particular group of people, becomes meaningless.
Peterson is a lightweight. The people who listen to him have never opened a philosophy book in their lives.
Its so funny how everything you said here become obvious in his debatte with Slavoj Zizek this month
11:25 Peterson mentioning Quantum Mechanics as some supposed opposition towards "social justice warriors" whom love postmodernism is rather strange. Deleuze was heavily influenced by Henri Bergson, an early architect of Quantum Mechanics, and so much so that he wrote an entire work compiling concepts and philosophical systems around the philosophical and scientific thought of Bergson, this piece being called "Bergsonism." To think that postmodernists reject science, and using quantum mechanics as an example, is a rather subtle indicator to me that Peterson doesn't know much at all about postmodernism and it's wider purpose within philosophical dialogue and the history of ideas. Deleuze, in the vein of Nietzsche, questioned science's use in a political manner; with ideas such as social darwinism being justified with skewed perceptions of scientific research. This also served to question the widely held belief that science was "objective" in every aspect. Rudolf Hess infamously stated that Nazism was just "applied biology." Modernism was filled with such perceptions of science, and using scientific ideas to incredibly questionable political ends. How could any reasonable person not question this? It appears that Peterson doesn't want to.
It is not at all strange that Peterson would make the connection and critizise it given his outlook and use of words. It is rather well-known that there are plenty of student groups in identity politics that believe science as we know it is inherently relative to culture and context, and as such should be deconstructed. This is very reminiscent of post-modernism, and it might very well be that they themselves would claim it to be post-modern thinking. Peterson's point is that there must be something *universal* about quantum mechanics, since the science behind it can be used to power iPhones in the US, Kongo, the Phillipines, on Mars, whether you believe in Odin or Allah - really in whatever context you want to put it. This universality is seeminly rejected by these student activists and from his point of view by extension post-modernists.
"This also served to question the widely held belief that science was "objective" in every aspect." You just admitted his point. Postmodernists reject the objectivity of science. Yet, an iPhone wouldn't work if quantum mechanics was wrong. You're just illustrating his point. And I have no idea what you mean by Henri Bergson being an 'early architect of Quantum Mechanics'. Bergson perpetuated the same anti-rationalist garbage Deleuze did. Bergson was the dumbass who didn't understand relativity, and helped ensure Einstein didn't get a Nobel Prize for the greatest discovery of our age. I'm not even sure what you mean by 'architect': it's a science, not a construction job. Planck, Born, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and yes, even Einstein, these were the early scientists of quantum mechanics.
"This universality is seemingly rejected by these student activists and from his point of view by extension post-modernists" I think the "seemingly" is why we're in a mire here. Those who want to discredit the whole entirety of everything that Petersen opposes, see far more rejection there than the core of any of that 'movement' actually supposes. There are, among some portions New Wave, hippie types who believe in a metaphysics that's rather less tied down, but they aren't the driving force of anything significant. I like to point at Fritjof Capra's "the Tao of Physics" as one of those pieces that may be responsible for some hippy thinkers eventual dissociation. But anyway, the real point is that IF there's really some sort of tied together movement against people like him, it's not that they disbelieve the universality of the cosmic background radiation, or quantum tunnelling, but that anthropological studies suffer deeply from cognitive biases, and the so called field of "evolutionary psychology" operates on tenuous grounds at best and it's impossible for it to be rigorous. And much of the world view espoused by Petersen supporters relies on an assumption that science tells us that societies were a very specific way, all the way back to the dawn of humans. Which is frankly, pretty fucking bananas. It's an unscientific field that has piss all to do with electrons bouncing around and higgs fields.
All of this gets compounded by every side pointing to the fallibility of the peer review process.
I am bumbling my way through the history of philosophy now and it seems to me that the postmodern view arises in large part BECAUSE of science--that is, theories of relativity within science caused some philosophers to question things that we had long felt were absolute.
That's a misunderstanding of relativity, then.
13:54 This is the greatest sentence of all time.
As Ray said at the Integral community website *_"Jordan Peterson is one of a number of public figures who have discovered that it is extremely profitable to feed off of the shadows of weak men with fragile egos and rather than fixing themselves, focus externally on attacking wokeness (then alternating with describing their victim status to legitimize their attacks). Yes, he is popular - and he also makes money by teaching mental gymnastics to avoid any real self improvement or self accountability - and instead drag them into a victim-persecutor dynamic"_*
I believe that Ray is right. I also believe that Peterson is acting out a lot of unresolved repressed anger as it manifest itself in his over-the-top attack on postmodernism as if it was concocted intentionally by a bunch of mad scientists. Then he calls Derrida a *treacherous* thinker but the real treacherous one is Peterson, as Ray points out. Derrida and the other scholars on postmodernism were not intentionally out to treacherously indoctrinate the masses with evil intentions. They were trying to make sense of the world and our place in it. Did they make mistakes in their theories? Of course they did! But that does not make them treacherous. I wish Peterson would shut the FUCK up about postmodernism, Marxism, climate change, and other issues he knows very little of. If being humble is among Peterson's moral values, he should act on it.
Underrated comment.
He also has some big $$ backers.
Just a funny thing to point out: Zizeck has that one picture of Stalin, but Peterson has said on multiple occasions that his house is full of Soviet propaganda paintings.
not propoganda paintings, just soviet artwork.
Jordan Peterson is either the Canadian Ben Carson, or this is all some sort of social experiment testing group think and cognitive dissonance.
@@ib7566 Propaganda paintings they are, as Peterson says.
@@areez22 Yeah, but Peterson thinks Disney's "Frozen" is deeply propagandist. So his house could be full of soviet street signs for all we know - and he thinks they're propaganda.
Not only do Marxists have strong opposition to postmodernism, they were the first to criticize postmodernism generally, and holy shit that Peterson lecture is bad. It's self-contradictory and borderline slanderous toward the philosophers he talk about.
That you point out Peterson's worldview is "pure ideology" (*sniffs*) is interesting, because Peterson himself talks about ideology, even using the word, as something negative that stifles the individual he values so much, which is a glorious lack of self-awareness on his part.
post modernism is born out of marxism you dumb shit
GoreQuill NachoVidal - Well! There you have it. Never mind.
GoreQuill NachoVidal doesn’t appear to be.
Anarchism was born out of conservatism. Does that make antifa conservatives?
Could you explain that one? Is this because of Proudhon's own shittiness about almost everything or did you mean something else?
Some remarks:
I was going to respond to every single point made in the comment section, but the video got an unexpectedly large amount of views and I can't keep up with the comments anymore. I'm sorry, but thank you for all the views and the constructive comments both critical and not.
One frequent criticism is that on the first point, I should have talked about what was going on in academia at the time, rather than in the general public. That's a fair point, and my brief comment that the movement "included prominent academics" should've been elaborated. During the 60s, one major movement in French academia was structural Marxism, represented by Althusser, who also collaborated with marxists such as Étienne Balibar, Jacques Rancière
and Pierre Macherey. This was a major academic movement and these theorists never abandoned Marxism.
There were other popular Marxists, for example Henri Lefebvre. Later also the influential and still living Badiou.
So, yes, it was not just the general public that kept Marxism alive. There were many prominent Marxist academics who were popular and influential.
One more remark I'd like to make is that Peterson being a clinical psychologist doesn't mean people are not allowed to criticise him, like some people in the comments think. This video is about philosophy, not psychology.
Why do you have to keep up ..? Just let the comments run. You want the debate conducted on your own terms -a device you inherited from the Marxists . In it's modern guise it is called 'no platforming ' and where do we see that but among the SJW crowd. No connection between Marxism and post modernism then...
A lot of the comments directly address me with questions and criticisms. Replying to peoples' points isn't part of a marxist conspiracy
Also the Situationists were essentially Marxists on acid...
Good video. I need to watch more stuff like this to be sure I am not unfairly criticizing post modernism.
Your JP imitation makes me feel dirty.
Labeling "non-conservatives" as "Marxist" is a common trope in the conservative world. Helps them manufacture irrational fear.
That is actually so true. I suspected as such that they just put the lable of Marxism on any of their "foes"! I'm glad someone else has noticed that as well.
Yup, just how the left calls all their opponents fascist bigots. It's just two big cults having a go at each other
And has been for over a century
It's the rights equivalent of the word "fascist".
Anyone who disagrees with me is automatically part of the group that was most unsuccessful and unethical in their practice.
It's basically saying "ah, you are one of those evil loosers" 😂
The actual content of fascist/Marxist believe is irrelevant, it's used as a slur.
When most people on either side have intelligence falling far short of the ability for original, critical thought (I mean that literally as an observation, not as sarcasm or negative judgment), both the idea that "there's lots of Marxists on the Left" and "there's an overdiagnosis of Marxism on the Right" seem credible.
I identify as a lobster but I find this critique fair and well-based.
Volvox down with the bourgeois carapaciens.
I don't find it fair or well-based. Dr. Peterson may make some trite statements in the short clips cut here, but he more than backs them up in other locations. Derrida himself stated "Deconstruction never had meaning or interest, at least in my eyes, than as a radicalization, that is to say, also within the tradition of a certain Marxism, in a certain spirit of Marxism."
Peterson is also correct that during the 60's it was increasingly difficult to intellectually defend Marxism, regardless of whether or not the third most popular party in France was the communist party. Popularity among the ignorant does not reflect intellectual rigor.
The fact that Marxists take advantage of the politics of envy, which post-modernists self admittedly continued only serves as an illustration of their ulterior motives. Criticizing Peterson by citing examples of oppression throughout history is incoherent. Derrida already confessed.
It's not surprising that any criticism of post-modernism, which rejects any formal definition, is said to miss the mark. Post-modernism can never be what anyone says it is, since it rejects the existence of truth and any objective reality. The first smack of your head on concrete should convince anyone that objective reality and truth exist. The key premises of post-modern thought are falsified by our inescapable encounters with suffering.
Post-modern thought is little more than a manipulative tool.
Much of Dr. Peterson's criticisms are shared by Dr. Steven Hicks. Here is their discussion: th-cam.com/video/oyzSrtr6oJE/w-d-xo.html
The lobster point can be used to justify any hierarchy regardless of how unjust. Including slavery.
Abe Lewis pomo does not reject truth and obj reality it just shows us that these things r subjective and can never be totally complete. No system of ideas can ever be formed witout using some unprovable axioms that must be accepted as truths without proofs.
Abe Lewis I think u r taking derrida out of context and being a complete opportunistic prick ,can u cite me which page and book so i can c it for myself(bet its spectres of marx)
Damn man, the Hegel jump scare really got me 6:33
I bet it would be a surprise to Peterson to learn that Marxists referred to Foucault as the “young conservative.”
They would of course because the original postmodernism is different from the modern postmodernism, they are two different versions, one is theoretical and the other is practical, Peterson disagrees with the second and agrees on the first, as well as historians and postmodernists themselves (like Bell Hooks who is postmodernist and she calls the modern postmodernism "radical postmodernism" and she thinks it is to their credit). Peterson has clips explicitly agreeing with the theory, but not with the methods (today's evolved theory).
It is not a surprise to know that Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault explicitly had opposing ideas to the afterward new postmodernism who is more toward the left-wing than the theory itself.
I want to give an example of this. Remember how the evolutionary theory was completely a different theory than what it grew later and it became more than simply what its original founding fathers stated. Well, I like to give this example because it is so relevant to the "French, philosophical, original postmodernism" to the new postmodernism, they are completely different and should not even be related at all.
@@Tahycoon In what ways has original postmodernism changed into radical postmodernism?
The Jew: Probably not. The complimentary components of Foucaults theory (a Marxist himself) to Marxism was the themes around oppressor vs oppressed. If you’re going to talk about gays and women being oppressed through discourse, instead of economic oppression of the working class, then actual orthodox Marxists who remained orthodox Marxist’s are going to call this divergent view conservative - as it did and does serve corporate interests - whereas economic focused Marxism does not. (Even though corporations sponsored the Bolsheviks - they too were divergent). Both - or all opposed the structure of society. Just one did in a rational sense the other in an irrational sense
@@mikeno8192 the parts of the video starting at 4:11 completely debunks your bullshit
@@Tahycoon "the *original* postmodernism is different from the *modern* postmodernism"
POST-POST-MODERNISM??????
I love how nicely and politely and...respectful you have spoken in this video.
You haven’t called him an idiot or dishonest or anything, which is something I see a lot when people try to answer someone they disagree with or someone who is wrong, which is of course a wrong move because it usually doesn’t make people change their mind, or at least that applies to me.
People get to say wrong agressively or idiot to those who are wrong or idiot because it is hard to stand when you know the truth and when you see the evil.
th-cam.com/video/cU1LhcEh8Ms/w-d-xo.html
"you haven't called them wrong"
I think there must be a compilation video somewhere out there of Peterson aggressively (and I mean that) saying "WRONG" as his the main thrust of his argument.
These segments rarely have anyone in the comment sections saying "I'm glad he's making his point, but maybe if he could be less aggressive about this." Instead, we usually get his supporters saying how glad they are for someone who is well-spoken finally standing up for themselves.
It has to work both ways. Not that I would have preferred someone calling Peterson an idiot instead of arguing, but rather that his supporters would be as critical of his own forceful tactics as they are of anyone who disagrees with him.
Summary: Peterson is as much a product of the emotional platforming which online influencers depend upon to make their millions (and Peterson does make millions). Appraise his rhetoric and debates with the same rigour you would his most direct opponents.
@@EarlofSedgewick I don't find his aggressiveness to be condescending, which is what I was commenting on 2 years ago, that's what annoys me about all of these debunk videos. "This idiot academic knows nothing like I, this random guy from youtube who read about the subject for 2 minutes because I dislike this specific academic and not for any other reason".
That aggressiveness is nothing more than passion in something you truly sense is wrong, and something you can really argue about.
"Not that I would have preferred someone calling Peterson an idiot instead of arguing, but rather that his supporters would be as critical of his own forceful tactics as they are of anyone who disagrees with him."
Yeah I can understand that, I agree, but it's what happens with anyone who discovers some type of an ideal or someone they admire, it's inevitable and it's not a Peterson-fans only thing, it's a human universal.
Respectful? 😃 Is using Kermit reference respectful? You have a very strange idea about respect.
His analysis of quantum mechanics basically being a universal truth is not something anyone studying quantum mechanics would assume. This is why string theory popped up because it's incomplete. To assume it's a universal truth would be making a lot of leaps of faith. Quantum mechanics works in most imaginable situations but is unlikely a universal truth.
String theory is just a pure mathematical game and still can't come to the phenomenology level !!
@edgar allan hoe that joke doesnt make any sense. mathematicians know what a convergent series is
@edgar allan hoe Feels like a very poor joke from somebody that does not understand mathematics. I doubt there are many mathematicians that do not know about the geometric series.
While I agree with everything else, string theory is just pseudo-science
It's funny how peterson himself does the "so you're saying that..." thing on the postmodernists.
@@csb8447 it's a goog thing if it's done correctly. Like if you are making an honest effort to understand what the other is saying. Cathy Newman didn't do that when she interviewed Jordan and she received a ton of justified criticism for it. Here we se Jordan doing the same thing, with the difference that the people whose points of view he is deliberately representing aren't in the room to correct him.
13tuyuti wrong, if the person explaining the theories has an understanding of said philosopher’s theory; they should be able to correct Jordan if his understanding is incorrect. But this simply doesn’t happen. To say Jordan doesnt have an understanding of postmodernism is silly. He doesn’t speak on anything he doesn’t understand. I’d love to see a debate between this guy and JP though, I predict Jordan on top. He doesn’t usually lose if you haven’t noticed.
@@Xzsxztreiii one thing is that Peterson is never specific about which post modern philosopher said what. Another thing is that the guy who made this video does address what few points Peterson actually made.
@@Xzsxztreiii 😂 He constantly speaks on things he doesn't understand.
Thank you! The reductionist way he's referred to postmodernism has irritated me for some time and no one has called him up on it. His understanding of it is extremely superficial and naive, but gets away with it because most of the people interviewing him have no idea what postmodernism is either. He presents himself as an intellectualist, yet resorts to stereotypes and generalizations whenever talking about postmodernism and marxism.
Yeah, how reductionist of someone rejecting the rejection of rationality, objectivty, and universality of truth (and fact), and refuting the paraded 'alternative' of relativistic 'multiplicity' of views. Views don't make or replace facts, nor are they observable and falsifiable.
@@AA-yc8yr You're conflating so many things into one bag and actually making my point about people who have no clue about postmodernism thinking it can be boiled down to that simplified viewpoint.
@@cptpepper7731 Another muppet who can't formulate an argument for the life of you. You've got no point worth making, let alone one you can intellectually define or defend. Claiming I am somehow confusing something with something is as vacuous as the whole post-modernist drivel, so if nothing else you do maintain a level (of vapidity).
@@doyourownresearch7297 No, as an intellectual, he doesn't just get to get to manipulate a philosophy he doesn't understand for his ideological purposes. It's disingenuous and underhanded.
@@cptpepper7731I mean, I'm not justifying his reductionism, and convoluted speech here, but he kind of can bend philosophy all over the place if he pleases.
He's not playing that game here. He's not really even trying to be a conservative hero or anything for that matter. He's left behind the intellectualism and stepped into the weird world of motivational speech. He's trying to loosely hold to an image of the conservative hero so he can draw young conservative men away from the depths of far right, incel despair, and hit them with the fundamental issues that are keeping them there. His entire narrative can be summed up in a few simple statements: Get your house in order, take care of yourself, and go make an adventure out of your life.
Sometimes you have to make an ass out of yourself if you want to get the attention of assholes and if you rewind a couple years to him defending the crowd of young people following him, you can see he felt pretty passionate about encouraging them to go back out into the world and getting over themselves and their perceived problems.
Psychologists pretend to sympathize with obvious issues all the time just to hit their patients where it really hurts so they'll change and he's doing a really good job at that on the conservative side of things.
Slavoj Zizek is doing something pretty similar on the left and motivating a lot of young leftists to, for lack of a better term (I'm sure he would appreciate it lol), nut up, act like a grown adult, and stop sobbing because their ideal isn't being taken seriously.
These types of speakers aren't to be looked at as philosophers in the traditional sense. People like Jordan Peterson may not look outwardly eccentric all the time but he's taken on an eccentric character to address what he's really getting at.
This is why people who he's not addressing directly look at him like he's an odd and horribly mistaken guy, while those who make up the majority of his fan base are almost hypnotized by him. Trump worshippers aren't the type of conservatives that absolutely love Peterson. The young guys who could have wound up turning into basement dwelling Nazis for the rest of their lives but changed are and if his approach doesn't make any sense to you, that's a good thing. He's not addressing you.
I don't think the description of Peterson having a "misunderstanding" of Post-Modernism is inaccurate. That implies some naivety or ignorance through lack of exposure on his part. I think he mis-characterizes these ideas intentionally because he has contempt for the intelligence of his audience and he knows he has found a niche he can profit from. If anything, his audience has a misunderstanding of Post-Modernism which he preys on and exploits to his advantage.
Couldn’t be more true.
-Use of “scary” academic language that vaguely implies some form of uncertainty
-Connecting everything to bogeyman “Marxism”
- *Careful, methodical misinterpretation of everything he criticizes designed to make it seem absurd/untenable*
nahhhh i don’t think he’s disingenuous at all
I thought peterson was a psychology professor.....why is he lecturing about philosophy?
$$$$$$$$$
Because he has tenure. He can do whatever he wants.
He also has the pretence of being an expert on the economics of fuel.
I presume if you were in the humanities you would have figured out by now that philosophy is taught. Philosophy and Psychology are interdisciplinary to some extent.
@@stressohnegrund1933 apparently they are not interdisciplinary enough for this clinical psychologist to be able to say anything sensible about late 20th century philosophy.
I love Peterson calling „rich vs poor“ a „presupposition“ as if it doesn’t really exist in his world.
It’s not that he doesn’t believe that rich and poor people come into conflict. He has talked about the gini coefficient many times.
What he means is that, if you view the world through the lens of there are only us and the rich and that it’s a zero sum game puts you in a position to try to topple that hierarchy that is keeping you down. Something that can only come of an ignorance or ignoring how reality works in that hierarchies form naturally.
@@DDD-wt7ly If by naturally you mean by pure chance then yeah. Some of us dont want to live under the boot of the lucky for their pleasure
@DDD-wt7ly lol, he mentions that hierarchies form "natually." But somehow he forgot to mention that resistance to them also forms "naturally." I'm not saying he's a shill, but....
@@RubyRidge-ez2te you either engage with the hierarchy or try to tear it down. If you want to tear down the hierarchy that has formed based on merit then you have to find a better hierarchy to replace it. Almost everyone who does this replaces it with a power hierarchy. In other words, hierarchies are either based on power or merit, name me another type… I’ll wait.
@DDD-wt7ly You responded with an either-or fallacy: You either do X or you do Y. Please try again.
I'm getting some light Ayn Rand vibes from Stephen Hicks and Jordan Peterson. Nothing shows how little you know about philosophy than calling your personal philosophy "objectivism," as if what you have to say is objective truth while other philosophies are all subjective.
But to be fair, i don't think thats accidental or mere narcissism. Giving your ideology the air of being objective, of being the "hard truth", that those who hold other views deny in their idealized dreamworld, is one of the most common tricks of demagogery. Whenever they can't uproot someones moral compass by appealing to a divine or quasi divine moral authority (which is really just this same thing with an extra abstraction), they do it by invoking realism and pragmaticism. This not only holds the lure of "being the seeing one among the blinded", but it also overwrites peoples moral compass and can be used to make people do, support and justify actions that they wouldn't otherwhise for ethical concerns. Because "that's what the situatiom demands".
There is a famous speech of Heinrich Himmler to his SS-troops in Posen 1943 where he acknowledges that they have done things that make every moral fibre in their bodies revolt, but praises it as a true sign of virtue that they did it anyway, because they knew it was the thing that needed to be done. Today, you find far right politicians like Björn Höcke write that"a policy of well calculated cruelty" was neccessary and that "measures are neccessary, that will go against the ethical sentimentalities of the indigenous population" but it needs to be done to secure their own future. (In his book "Nie zweimal in den selben Fluss".) This rhetoric is the anatomy of atrocity.
That's how CIA torturers talk. That's how a russian assassin speaks to himself before murdering an opposition leader. That's how you make workers and peasants, who revolted against their bosses and governments repression, support another repressive government/workplace structure, because they think this is the scientifically correct step towards a classless society. This is how you make people in an east german marketplace chant "Drown! Drown! Drown!" when the speaker mentions refugee and rescue boats in the mediterranean, because they think the people in those boats may endanger the humanist and humanitarian values of europe. This is how you make people fill Cyklon B into a chamber full of people, because your "biologists" say they are a different, lesser, kind of human that your kind of human is struggling with in an evolutionary battle. This is how you make people support economics of cruelty, because they think that economy is a science with hard laws, like physics, that demand obedience, like gravity does.
"Knowing" you're being the objective one in the conversation gives a feeling of superiority and makes it easy to just dismiss others criticisms. And it makes it possible to justify things that you know are ethically wrong, because for you, they are now demanded by reality and ethics or ideals are now a luxury for those daydreamers.
Peterson has a real problem with Marxism, yet his critique shows that he's never read Marx.
I’m not sure you understand quite the frame Jordan often speaks from. When he talks about post modernists in general he talks more about the invasion of their ideas into academia. And the bringing over of their philosophy to North America. Occasionally he will talk about origins, but it’s usually more about the blend of the two cultures and how academia accepted a sort of watered down version of the philosophy that made criticism essentially an easier tool to wield. This is what the majority of his lectures on early transfer from neo Marxism to postmodern more or less centers on. So ur comparison between Marxist philosophy and post modern is somewhat misguided. One I think you assume the best versions of all which ignores the underbelly as to why these philosophies struggle. Two: Petersen more or less centers his argument around two ideas. The first being the new blend has created an idea that does nothing but reduce all things to power hierarchies. He doesn’t argue that’s unique. He argues that its prolific and all encompassing. Two the blend has adopted the hierarchy but reject canon and historical progress part. Making criticism and deconstructionism far easier to accomplish because it becomes almost entirely internally based and relies on no grand narratives or historical progressions. He mostly argues that the blend created a more efficient destructive philosophy and it’s tool was identity. I think you give less credence to his notion of the bastardization of the two sources he utilizes when he speaks about these.
Spot on Michael
To put it simply Peterson is in perpetual argument with SJW and leftie students. From there on it's all just an intellectual veneer. He doesn't understand any of the more complicated concepts.
A Like?
@@ronjames9759 postmodernism! (I mean the very video we're commenting on is about this topic!) , history of wwII. International politics, etc. he struggles with anything that is remote from psychology.
A that’s subjective in my opinion and the comment we’re commenting on also has some pretty good points
He hates the vague idea of the vague idea he has of postmodernism
postmodernism is a vague idea
Give us the true definition of postmodernism then please.
As an academic, Peterson should know -- maybe he does and purposefully portraits as the opposite -- that 1) Marxism is very alive in academia, not only orthodox but those influenced by Critical Theory (with a lot of criticism of the Soviet Union, for christ sake) and 2) the relationship between them and postmodernists is very harsh, especially on the topic of identity politics with debates such as race x class or gender x class and so on. To call a Marxist a postmodernist and the other way around is a huge mistake.
Also, I mainly work with the philosophy of Sartre. Peterson really misrepresented Sartre in the video. Yes, Sartre was very frustrated with stalinism after Stalin's death and Khrushchev accusations, but that doesn't mean he abandoned Marxism at all. He actually started supporting maoism and by the time of May, 1968 he was on the streets distributing maoist newspapers. He died a marxist.
Structuralism and post structuralism or post modernism retain consistent themes, both are influenced by early Marxism - one aspect simply continues it and refined it, the other rebrands itself completely. Of course they’re at heads with each other. But whilst Orthodox Marxism remains - post-modernism is what dominates and is supported by corporations and the media. You can be pro gay, anti white, secular and anti the west and still be a big supporter of corporations. A bit like how Bolsheviks were supported by corporations - because it served them, whereas Mensheviks, other types of Marxism don’t do this as much - for corporate interests. They might be nuts potentially too, but fixating on economic oppression rather than liberating gays and non conformist women from the male gaze is less likely to receive corporate backing, and easier for the latter to exist without being quashed
@@mikeno8192 What's this? Someone talking sense in my leftist comment section? Begone, knave!
They are many on Left who profess Marx but are influenced by Foucault, Dedera or even Horkheimer. They are all over the place. That is contradictory, but so are many people.
Amazing how anyone can think a philosopher who supported the greatest genocidal maniac of all time was a good philosopher.
The mistake is engaging with the society and the subversive programming therein.
So essentially Peterson is doing here what I've always felt coming from him: strawmen & red herring arguments. He makes a claim that is not based in an historical or textual understanding of the subject - he stands up something he doesn't like (i.e. "Marxism" or "social justice warrior") as examples of postmodernism thinking - then conveniently redefines what postmodernism is, what postmodernists said or supported & then equates his false narrative of racial politics etc with his false idea of what postmodernism even is. He's a fairly clever debator but I think the funny thing about his speaking is he's actually guilty of something he constantly accuses others of: inserting his politics into everything he discusses, even when totally unrelated.
If you reached out to Peterson for a conversation, I think he might agree to speak with you. I would be interested to see that.
Nah, people like Peterson like pseudo-debates, not real debates, were they have full control and have all the cards, mostly with people with similar or equal ideology as him, people like him are to proud to be let themselves put in a situation were they were show as frauds and be humiliated, they like to live in their own bubble.
lol you are so full of shit, you just have to watch the debate arund bill c16 to see how stupid what you say is
Lachy T+ Please don't come with that bullshit, intelligence is not equal wisdom, and seeing that Peterson himself proclaimed himself Christian, not matter degrees he has under his belt, he is letting his own ideology and religious beliefs rule his thinking. Anyone that known the basic of debate, known that you need that to be out of the door, you are debating arguments, your opponent personal ideology and beliefs are out of question, but Peterson is always unable to do that, his ideology and his religiosity are his only arguments. And who are in this loaded panels, people that have his own opinion, as say before, he never would risk being humiliated in public, and easily debunk his bullshit ideas.
Keyser94 your statement says much more about you as a person than it does about jordan
@CalvinT H How postmodernist of you.
"After a while of watching videos by him"
the things you've seen
I still run into people saying postmodernism is responsible for feminist and marxist theory and are seemingly what's wrong with society today. I always accuse them of being a Jordan Peterson fan and tell them to watch this video or one like it. Not sure if any of them have though.
While a lot of what Peterson said made sense to me when I watched him a few years ago, I thought that he might be right, but that he also talks about a lot of fields that he is no expert in. I was especially cautious of his statements on philosophy because from my experience philosophy is not an easy thing to understand if you haven't throughly studied it. This video seems to confirm my doubts.
That doesn't mean that he is completely wrong with everything he says, but that people should be aware when someone is talking about things that they are no expert in. Expert aren't always right of course, but the chances of them being wrong in their field of expertise are far lower than for everybody else.
As someone with both philosophy and psychology degrees, I can tell you that Peterson is wrong about philosophy most of the time and wrong about psychology often enough for me to question whether he should even viewed as an expert in his own field. Politics-and perhaps substance abuse-really did a number on him.
@@likenedthus good too know. Thanks.
@@likenedthus I'll take JPs credentials over yours any day.
@@seanmcdonald5076, see, this is the problem with being uneducated. You fall in to this trap of thinking that credentials matter, because you have no other way of evaluating whether someone is giving you accurate information. Credentials don't mean shit in science, chief. If your research doesn't demonstrate your claims, then it doesn't matter how accomplished or smart you are, because the experts in your field are simply not going to accept your claims. And the funny thing is Jordan Peterson was never very accomplished to begin with. He had a rather normal looking academic career before he decided to be perpetually mad about trans people. But since you're so concerned with credentials, you should know that JP has precisely zero credentials in philosophy, not even a degree. So based on your own concept of credibility, you still shouldn't be listening to him on this subject.
@Sean McDonald
a benzo addict who had to be put into a coma to save his fucked up brain is a guiding figure in your life. very cool 🤠
For some reason my sleepy brain is going "Derrida said trans rights"
Why do u people always make things about urselves?
@@fruitylerlups530 ?
I think Peterson's biggest error is to imply deception behind philosophical teaching. At the same time this is what attracts followers, people who don't like certain things so feel validated when they're explained as a conspiracy towards Marxism.
It is quite ironic that Peterson's squeals of conspiracy are themselves deliberately disingenuous.
Great video btw 👍
You got that wrong. Peterson believes in systems of thought having an "animating spirit". Or you could use Dawkins' idea of "memes" and how they are shaped by a force similar to evolution. Deception may well be an aim of that animating spirit, even when it is not a conscious aim of the people driving the idea. When you get enough people executing the idea, there may be unintended consequences that nevertheless are direct and unavoidable consequences of the idea being acted out. Like communism leading to murderous dictatorships despite the conscious intention being an ideal society.
Peterson's rhetoric tends to give people wrong ideas about his views. A really good presentation of the deceptiveness of cultural marxism can be found in James Lindsay's speech at the European Parliament: th-cam.com/video/OVZPYQS1dFA/w-d-xo.html
@@Volkbrecht It is precisely that emotional wishy-washy vagueness like an "animating spirit" that has it's own "aims" that smacks of "frightened old man." Damn kids.😉
Are there "direct and unavoidable consequences?" Are there consequences to everything? Sure, but they are not mandated to be "murderous dictatorships," or such paranoia. Best to keep a less emotional eye on things maybe. A little less hyperbole, and a little less (willful?)misinterpretation to bolster chicken little squawking. (not you)
You make an interesting observation, and I will pay attention to it. Thanks for the link too, I will have a look.
@@Volkbrechtanimating spirit, sure. Oh God, did you even watch the video?
Let me guess, you are a progressive and you are vaccinated
The intent of the philosopher is irrelevant.
Noam Chomsky has some good material that is anti-postmodern
Cool I'll check it out.
he failed to give a cogent rebuttal to Foucault's critique of proletariat revolution during their debate. Appealing to an undefined and implicit notion of justice. I was not impressed
I rather Michael Parenti
Michael Sieger Chomsky was not “appealing to an undefined notion of justice”. He stated that morality is a biologically innate system within human beings. That, as a result, justice is not particularly hinged upon institutions of power.
@@michaelsieger9133 at least his critiques are leads better than Peterson tho
It's not that he doesn't understand. It's that post-modernism evolved to something that is not the text book definition of it. Saying "post-modernd marxist" is a contradiction in and of itself. But those people, that group of people, is not known for their logic and reasoning.
it's a contraddiction because every real marxist would reject the post modern view and would label it as reactionary andnot revolutionary
No. He is literally saying that the OG postmodernist philosophers were actually marxists in disguise. Did you even watch the video?
Very well made video. His generalizations bother me-- foucault and derrida hated each other, Deleuze is wacky (i love him so much) and seems to be a classic style metaphysician at times, and all of them and the frankfurt school have produced critiques of “marxism”.
I am also skeptical of marxism and how linked it actually is to “marx”.
JP is the king of over-simplistic generalizations that tend to suit a right wing agenda. His drivel on race is rife with half-truths and blatant omissions that leads to the outright farces he promotes. Alt-right eats it up to promote white supremacist agendas. JP is a scumbag.
Cowicide accidentally contributing to the most idiotic people on this platform... he’s not always bad but on “postmodern neo marxist cultural marxist” philosophy he’s so fucking bad it’s unbearable.
Except JP hates the Alt-Right and has stated as much. If they eat up his ideas then they're fucking stupid, because he hates identitarian politics no matter who is playing it.
Matthew Frazier
What if we called it Applied Postmodernism? His confusion between PoMo in general and FS are difficult to bear, but this bizzaro combination of the two is very real in it's own right. I was following it long before JBP arrived. He's also quite open that he respects some ideas from Lacan and Derrida.
Ok, I'm assuming that if you're commenting here, you've watched JBP's "debate" with Nicolas Matte... Can you give me a better explanation of those lovely fellows than JBPs explanation?
(If your alternate explanation includes Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, a time-travel machine, and a large bet, save it, I'm still looking into the possibility. But until it can be verified by my team, JBP's narrative remains my current working hypothesis.)
Yyy Yyy Well, it seems very unfair to treat the people who are misused as if they are the people misusing the ideas. For example, racists like JBP, but it’s not fair to say he’s racist or his ideas suck because of that. See what I mean? Secondly, I think that it’s still not a good hypothesis. Do you want to go into it? I think pragmatism and pluralism coming out of american philosophy are actually more important here than any “postmodern” philosophy.
Jordan Peterson seems like he skimmed the first little bit of the Wikipedia for Postmodernism once a couple years ago and figured he understood it.
He woulda been betrer off with Wikipedia than hicks and rand.
To echo Khaled, he has read one book which he parrots endlessly. Notice how he has very limited vocabulary and has repeated the same few lines so many times. Also notice how Peterson has never had a discussion with someone who actually knows a thing or two about postmodernism? Same with Marxism. Anyone can look smart reading off a script.
Even worse; he read a book by a Randian Objectivist which, among other things, claims that Kant was an anti-enlightenment philosopher. That sums up the entirety of his sources and reading list.
@@georgepantzikis7988 Rand operates from a blatant misinterpretation of Kants ideals
When there is nothing more to post-modernism than that, why put more time into it.
I find one of Peterson's most frustrating tendencies to be the way in which he moralizes everything. It's so crazy how he can be so passionately against something which he knows so little about.
I think that's pretty common. People who are passionate against Nazism don't read Mein Kampf and devout atheists don't study the Bible. Peterson moralizes everything because he thinks the question of how we live a meaningful life is paramount. In a sense, all our significant decisions are moral choices.
@@jrd33 Yeah, i don't think that this flaw should discredit everything he says. He is human, and that one of the forms in wich he fails. Also he sucks talking about postmodernism in comparison to his lectures in psychology or moral
Yes imagine, the man argues about marxism without even being a marxist! Its like talking about fishes without being a fish.
@@redneckster6639 No, he's saying you can't talk about something you don't *know,* not something you *are* not
having looked into the matter further, it appears Peterson's view of postmodernism apes the content of "Postmodernism: A Very Brief Introduction" which was written by Christopher Bulter, who was a modernist academic and a critic of postmodernism
Stephen Hicks as well...can't remember the name of the book, but its a Randian embarrassment
This was a really interesting video.
I've found Peterson a really compelling speaker and agreed with a number of his points however I found myself agreeing with too many so was hungry from an opposing position to help inform my thoughts around Peterson and his views.
I think was your video is helping conclude for me is that Peterson does have some ideas I agree with however his sociopolitical stance on things may not have the firm basis which he proports it to.
Basically be critical to some degree of most things especially if you agree with them too much lol.
dancingpotplant you are an intellectual coward. Even after grasping the hollowness and outright idiocy of Peterson, you still cling to the idea that there must be merit to his ideas, simply because the thought that you might be completely wrong is too scary.
@@l4l01234 thank you for your reply Cushion. It's taken me so many years to be insulted by someone online who makes sweeping assumptions about myself based on a single statement. You are the first I think 😁.
That said I take on your charge of cowardliness and will reflect on it, heck maybe you are right and there are some ideas I've held onto without wanting to think too deeply about.
Being scared to let go of an idea is no reason not to let go of the idea.
May I suggest however that you in return think about one thing Peterson has said, despite his numerous flaws. That to insult someone is a very poor way to challenge their wrong thinking and change their mind.
I honestly hope you have a good day/evening 😊👍.
@@l4l01234 well he did say that he does not agree with his sociopolitical ideas. He probably agrees with Peterson's psychological ideas (wich are more or less universal, but I'm no expert). So it's unfair that you'd jump to calling him a coward without knowing what he actually agrees with, specially considering that he was actively looking for opposing views because he was worried that he was agreeing too much with Peterson.
@@l4l01234 i will say what these other two gentleman would not because they are benevolent souls, I on the other hand am more malicious. You are wrong and you should feel like an idiot for making assumptions that have no merit.
Never outright reject anything without first weighing each argument by its own merits. On the other hand, Peterson is an annoying twat who has a preconceived agenda that forms itself into most, if not all of his arguments. Identification of that agenda should be enough to dissuade most people from granting undue weight to his arguments.
I just wanted to say that I thought the section dismantling Peterson's attempt to blur the differences between Marxism and postmodernism in order to create a straw man amalgam of them was wonderfully clear and concise.
Except it wasn’t…
@@mikeyt7880 Now that is a concise criticism
Clear…? naw
The problem with his argument is that Jordan peterson never said that French scholars adopted Marxism into post moderism. He said thers similarities. Marxism socialism facisim all try to desimanate dominatnce hiarcheys. The guy making the video fails to prove Jordan peterson wrong on that point. He just stops the video and takes his speach out of context and just says he's wrong. Neo Marxist do try to dismantle talent skill and so do post modernists. Ie post modern art. Sonic adventure 2 isn't a valid source of research and it's vary post modern of him to try and use sonic the hedgehog as such.
@@jarastafaria3088 Dude, he literally said that Marxists disguised themselves as post-modernist when it was no longer "morally acceptable" to be Marxists.
@@quinceelysee1303 yes he did say that and I'd agree with that. Not all French scholars are Marxist, he never used the word French scholars as an entire group of people that are Marxist. also he's sad that (and I from what I can tell is correct) post moderism was a construct of French scholars that encompassed a small segment of art and philosophy. I don't believe he has ever called all French scholars post modernists or all French scholars Marxist. He just says it's there. And it is there. And post moderism got its start in French art than leaked into other aspects of their academia. I'd also agree that alot of people that identified as Marxist or flirted with communism then identified as things post modern and this happend from the bottom to the top of culture. Now it seems you see alot of blending between the 2 Marxist and postmodernists. I used to love Che gravra read motorcycle diary buy the way, Then I went to cuba.
He’s a grifter, nothing more.
A more apt word to describe him would be a dilettante.
I've never read into what post-modernism or marxism actually are. All I know is, when I hear Jordan Peterson speak, I hear a person with an agenda grabbing anything they can to try to support what they want to believe as opposed to a series of things learned over time that lead to an epiphany. If I learned anything from this video it's that I need to read more to understand this video.
Peterson is a great example of empty rhetoric and double-speaking. There is an agenda Peterson must speak around because his ideas are either not well formed or his ideas are not publicly acceptable. I can only assume that people have been sniffing Petersons farts for so long that Peterson thinks everyone enjoys the smell and calls it perfume.
Yes, he starts by motivating them to clean their room and the like, fills their head with fragmented, cherry-picked views of Jung and ties them into empirical Christian-based self-determinism and then attacks woke culture by accusing them of using a branch of philosophical study that has nothing to do with them. I watched his videos round '18 and became fascinated with Jung and then realized that Jung's work doesn't have much to do with Peterson's agenda and that's what turned me off of him which I then read postmodern thinkers and realized he doesn't understand them.
Funny thing is, his characterization of postmodernism also applies to his own defense of Christianity.
@Filipe Bastos.
Pragmatic and obscurantist.
@Filipe Bastos. Define things as vaguely as possible ✔
Obfuscate whenever confronted on you're contradictions✔
Redinine terms whenever it fits you✔
@@MrCmon113 Redifine the word "God" as vaguely as possible
Good video. I'm a fan of Peterson myself but it's been clear to me that his understanding of postmodern philosophy is somewhat reductive and anachronistic. I do think he has some reasonable points on the subject, but it's certainly far too simplistic to be philosophically rigorous.
I think you should take a look at Stephen Hicks' book "Explaining Postmodernism", which is Peterson's main source for his claims, and the conversation between the two is certainly an interesting listen. It might elucidate more specifically where some of his main errors lie.
Stephen Hicks is a libertarian Objectivist ideologue who is just as ignorant as Peterson.
That's not an argument though
Gabriel Lucas
Did... did you just say "not an argument"..?
Yes. Am I wrong?
So it is an argument then?
Thanks for your analysis.
Found it super helpful. As someone who was introduced to post modernism through Peterson and only saw it as “bad”
I genuinely think Peterson has some important insights into some things, and can miss the mark completely at times. I hope videos like yours will influence people to think more clearly about the ideas being discussed and I appreciate how you introduced the video.
He has some really interesting things to say about how myths and narratives inform the performance of masculinity. He is way out of his depth when he extrapolates it into politics.
@@davidmonaghan7926 I agree, he does delve into politics that he has no clue about. But he has good insights on myths, afterall he sights Jung as a great influence on him.
@@nachiketh3650 glad to hear I'm not alone in my assesment!
Do you have any examples of such important insights? So far all I have seen are embarassments like in this video, historical revisionism and rampant bigotry. Not that insightful imo
@@tilltronje1623 well he complained that he didn’t find thicc girls attractive and pointed out that anyone who likes big butts is an authoritarian. Truly his greatest insight.
I love the way pictures looked in the 60s. The camera technology peaked then. Whenever I think of good philosophers doing good philosophizing I always picture them in this crisp greyscale with high contrast.
Uh....... what? You may like it aesthetically, but 'peaked' is an extraordinarily strong word and is not true by like..... any metric. You could say that about like... the audio space in the 80-90s, but cameras?
@@DanielLopez-ob9jz this comment should not be taken to be a serious treatise or discourse on camera technology.
This is a good reminder of the fact that philosophy and psychology diverged well over a century ago- expertise in one field has no credence in the other.
They diverged because one field developed into a more exact science. And it was not philosophy.
@@scepticalchymist Well, only one of them ever purported to be a science. Science itself is an offshoot of empirical philosophy, or the epistemological belief that knowledge is derived from observation. Per those same empirical systems, science is purely a set of predictive models. Science makes no claims about the underlying truth of a phenomenon, only about the observable characteristics it exhibits. This is why, for example, the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are both widely accepted despite being mutually contradictory. It doesn’t matter, because they both _work_ .
So when I say psychological expertise does not make one an expert philosopher, I say that while one may have a complex, empirically-backed model of the mind, but it does nothing to extend or detract from their ability to make any claims beyond that. Even if you don’t like postmodernism, which is a valid position, your critique cannot possibly merit serious consideration until you actually understand the source material.
@@scepticalchymistwhat are you trying to say lol. Are you actually trying to discredit philosophy as a concept 💀
@@MEGAsporg12 Not all of philosophy. Only that part that never evolved from the "how many angels fit onto the tip of a needle" question (scholastics and postmoderns).
@@scepticalchymist tell me how you never read postmoderns without telling me lol
"If you want to learn more about deconstructing binaries, watch my video on sonic adventure 2."
God, what a sexy sentence
How could a postmodernist identify a “misrepresentation” of JPs or anyone else?
Right?
Reading post modern philosophy gives you the impression that they don't want to be understood; at least not easily.
Doesn’t most philosophy
@@nielsnielsen9013 no. Most philosophers in the analytic tradition attempt to be as clear amd concice as possible. Their obscurity comes from the extant of vocabulary and complexity of ideas, the merits of which depend on the arguaments in question.
You cant really blame the classics for being abscure either if you are reading a translation and not the original text, as a something is always lost in translation.
Most of the abscurity of philosophers can be attributed to the use of concepts and language foreign to the reader, which is only accidental confusion not intentional confusion. Other philosophers steeped in that academic tradition will understand what they are saying and be in a better place to determine the cogency of their colleague's work.
And people can easily understand Maps Of Meaning?
@@postdeliberately5641 sure, but i didn't say that. lots of communacative projects try to be clear and concise. i was highlighting them as an example by contrast.
@@postdeliberately5641 The difference is that classic philosophers were trying to untangle & explicate extraordinarily complex ideas, so it wasn't possible to avoid using complex language. The postmodernists took simple ideas and invented a whole vocabulary of unnecessarily complicated jargon to make the ideas sound infinitely more complicated than they actually are. It's not difficult to rephrase postmodernist concepts in plain language. The same cannot be said for the classic philosophers in the analytical tradition. Period.
I’ve been looking for a video like that, I like Jordan Peterson but I know he’s not right about everything, and this video was useful for that thank you.
@i get it Dude no 😂
He's not exactly wrong, I get the idea he's trying to convey, even if the delivery is flawed. Marxism and Post-modernism aren't mutually exclusive and Peterson is essentially talking about where they converge
@@Hyumifu the thing is, marxism and post-modernism are, for the most part, mutually exclusive
Reminds me of an old EA slogan:
"Challenge everything".
These days it's more like "Please give us money, we're such a poor megacorporation!"
None of you are listening. Jordan prefaces many of his comments with, " . . . and I've thought a lot about this, buddy." What more could one want?
I thought he was wrong about something but the limit of my knowledge had prevented me to argue against him
lol you wanted him to be wrong
I would guess that most people who believe this guy know just as little about postmodern or Marxism, as the people who believe Peterson. Most of the people who are engaged in these issues are mostly Ignorant about the subjects. If you have no means grounds for believing Peterson, then you have no grounds for believing this guys criticism.
@@jasonemery3618 Whilst on the face of it this line of thinking is correct and I agree. In this video specifically the creator didn't seek to establish any views as fact or instil any beliefs in the audience. All he did was demonstrate that Jordan Peterson claimed various philosophers espoused a specific idea, using video evidence of Peterson saying exactly that, and provide written evidence of the actual writings of the philosophers demonstrating that what Peterson claimed was untrue.
It does not rely on understanding of the whole ideas to demonstrate in simple points that Peterson misrepresented their arguments. And he does not attempt to make any claims himself as to the philosophy someone should live by.
Whilst I agree that without individual research we are reliant on the speaker to have researched accurately and represent the information honestly, in this video specifically the evidence was presented to us such that we aren't reliant on trust. It is merely a collection of evidence presented to us. We are shown a claim by Peterson and a corresponding piece of evidence showing that claim to be false.
You "thought" but you don't know what it is? Then "feeling" is a better term. You are not thinking at all there.
@@Habasmall93 nobody likes a pedant
So why the hell is Peterson teaching this BS at Universities?
Of choice he doesn't understands postmodernism because no one understands postmodernism
I wonder where Peterson gets all that straw for all those men he is creating.
James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose have a lot to say about this. They, rather sufficiently imo, explain how postmodernism (being merely an analysis of society) Transformed into an actionable form (Applied Postmodernism), and was Made politicized. It was then merged with Communism to make Critical Theory and now here we are. That's what Jordan Peterson is missing in this example, it's the point of merger between the two ideologies, when postmodernism became political. And those ideas all have their own ideological thinkers too.
I'd argue, tho, that postmodernism was always inherently political. It aimed to deconstruct mostly Western, capitalist society and you can't deconstruct something without then offering, or letting someone offer, an actionable solution. And that's where Neo-Marxism comes in, because it did the same thing. The Neo-Marxists realized that socialism and communism are Not inevitable (like the Vulgar Marxists did) and that it has to be forced on the people. They asked "How do we do that without violence then?" And then Boom! Postmodernism came about.
Someone gets it, and after a year of it being up still no replies til now. There's no need to guess why.
Deconstructionalism comes from Derrida and he was neither Marxist or political. He was primarily a philosopher of ethics. Lindsay and Pluckrose have been cited for over-generalizing postmodern thinkers and misinterpreting their views.
Critical theory did not emerge from a merger of communist thought with postmodernism. I would encourage you to look into the history and developement of critical theory
6:47 "capitalism exists as a contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie"
Nope capitalism gives rise to the distinction between these two classes. The dialectical contradiction is between the forces of production and the current mode of production, as all historical conflicts have ever been
Thank you for this. I've sensed for a while that there was something here he was missing, but so few people make the effort to engage in rational dialogue that almost all criticism of him had consisted of partisan screeching. This video, however, rings much more true from what I've studied so far. This gives me some good pointers for continued research. Thank you for putting it together.
@@fred7883 …you casually mention double-digit IQ as though you didn’t just post a reply that didn’t respond to the comment it was under.
@@fred7883 It’s difficult to respond to such a long comment, but I guess chronologically addressing points is probably the best course of action. First of all, I read the same comment you did- obviously. But you know that already, so I won’t dwell on it.
My problem, the central critique, IQ jab you seem to have taken far too personally aside, is that your entire response was relating to Marxism, which does associate with the topic of the comment, but is not a reasonable response to the content of the comment itself. Simply put (and I know you need it that way), you’re responding to the video itself as if the person commenting had made each point themself. As they never claimed that the video was in entirety logically salient, your comment simply assumes that they are 100% aligned with claims they made no mention of specifically.
Now, as for the logic I “has selectively chosen not to refute”. To be honest, I was tired and didn’t want to bother going through your mindless babbling point by point as I am now and grant your word salad the legitimacy of being worthy of refutation. Alas, you made the mistake of responding, so now I have to go to the trouble of dragging you through it by the wrist.
Your vocabulary is probably too large for your IQ to actually be below 100. Not that you use all the words entirely correctly, or understand what you’re talking about, but the mere ability to retain the words counts for something. I never actually thought your IQ was that low, as (again) someone with double-digit IQ couldn’t engage in the level of discourse you are. The purpose of my insinuation was primarily to hurt your feelings (something it appears to have been successful in), because in my experience people who bring up IQ offhand, as you did, tend to be overly fixated on their own. The purpose was not, as you suggest, to meaningfully refute anything you said. _Obviously_ . I figured it wasn’t necessary. But here we are.
Now, I have to go back a bit to your mention of the strawman fallacy. Because you aren’t exactly misinterpreting my words. Moreover, you’re responding to claims I never made. Again, you seem to think that being on the same side as someone/defending them means that you wholeheartedly agree with the entirety of their philosophy. Not so, OBVIOUSLY. I never even mentioned anything about JP, postmodernism, OR Marxism, actually. I just noted that your comment was not a direct response to his and needlessly insulted your intelligence (because I’m a dick, but also because you are wrong and because people like you get defensive about IQ jabs) . Even if I was on your side, even if I was still a fan of Peterson as I once was, I would have called you out because you would make my side look bad.
Long story short, you are strawmanning so aggressively that you completely fabricated my entire philosophical perspective from scratch.
In essence, you are arguing against yourself (and barely winning).
Last thing: subjective causation doesn’t mean what you think it does. Causation is subjective because the subject is what enacts cause upon the object. It’s not like the bastardized popular definition of subjective where it simply means nothing.
Thanks for making me look good, hope you find your way out of the JP rabbit-hole eventually.
@@fred7883 I’d love to respond but perhaps I’ve reached my intellectual limit, as this is almost entirely unintelligible to me. Like, I can’t make rhyme or reason of what you mean by half of these sentences. I don’t know if it’s sleep deprivation or if you are truly being incoherent; either way, there’s not much refutation to do as I can’t isolate a claim to oppose.
Except, well… it’s not pretentious, it’s condescending🙂
Peterson has something to say about everything. He is a victim of representational thought and believes he is someone. Maybe he should read Krishnamurti "freedom of the known" and liberate himself from himself.
Well done. Thank you.
RE your conclusion, i do believe he is being intentionally disingenuous to service his specific ideological motivations, and he seems to be playing a long game, which slightly concerns
I agree.
His long game being the promotion and establishment of fascism as far as I can currently see.
It's kind of funny how ends up agreeing a lot with Derrida and Foucault, albeit unknowingly.That's something I've seen quite constantly, not only the example you provided. I don't remember the specifics, but Foucault's opinion on the role of language in describing and assessing is one of the most important talking points Peterson has, and he seems clueless about the fact that was kind of said by Foucault, just way better. I've also seen Peterson praising Nietzsche, pretty much on the same grounds that Foucault did. He's basically selling postmodernism as antipostmodernism to his followers, so weird. He is pretty much a "postmodern neomarxist" himself.
Anyway you earned a new subscriber, I'm going to watch that Sonic 2 video.
Rarity Sparkle not unknowingly, I remember him saying they got some stuff right.
I doubt he has ever cracked one of those philosophers' books. His reading on postmodernism, poststructuralism, marxism, and neo-marxism is highly superficial. Also, since the majority of his audience demands immediacy and simplicity, trying to convey the complex history of thought of the so-called postmodernist thinkers is useless. Peterson is the perfect "intellectual" for the unfocused, impatient and attention-deficient.
Bunnydancer x i don't exclude the possibility that Peterson knows postmodern philosophy fairly well but that he misrepresents it on purpose because he needs a scapegoat to make his views more marketable.
TheKlink, he gives them far less credit than they deserve
I'd totally agree. He echoes too much of what he criticises it's ridiculous to be fair. One minute the left is thrown out the bathwater, the next he uses their ideas. But he doesn't credit them when he does. I'm wondering if that's a calculated intention "oh i better not mention I got my theory about Nazis from Arendt here, she was a bit of a marxyist".
One of the major reasons why JP became so huge as he is in the media today is from the angle at which the aforesaid media approaches him and his character which he can and have dismantled effortlessly because that strawman they built doesn't happen to be his character in the end. I suppose as a professor of psychology and someone who's recently become a recurring public speaker, sometimes used as a poster boy for certain groups, he relies too often on broad generalizations to get his points across; leading to the criticisms this video has highlighted.
@PRIMO I think you missed what op said. Jp speaks in generalities and that upsets those who think they are special
@@Sp1n1985 it literally says "strawman built for him", read more I guess?
@@bobbiecat8000 A generality isn't a "strawman". It's the median. Have fun learning.
@@Sp1n1985Glad too see someone who understands
Last year he posted a video of himself on instagram being drunk and singing. 🤣🤣 His daughter also posted a video where she promotes drugs and she tells how she used lots of them before then she deleted it 🤣🤣
I wonder what people from 3000s call their philosophy: Post-apocalyptic post(13) modernism?
JP is one of those people who manage to speak without actually saying anything.
Just to review your 1st and 2nd arguments, you know JBP does NOT think Marxism is or is some derivative of PM right?
In fact he believes that the alliance between the 2 camps is a strange one. One should be able to see then that indicates he not only knows they're not just different but REALLY different! Different enough to not belong together.
If you watch the Joe Rogan interview with him (forget which one) he clearly expresses this sentiment..