It's great to see an american christian who really knows this stuff. I used to be deep into this stuff (now catholic trying to be humble) and read alot of Althusser, Deleuze and so on. I love to see that you can for instance just namedrop Gramsci here, I really appreciate the depth and real understanding. God bless
Yeah the Frankfurt School was such a major influence and doesn't get recognized nearly enough by the people decrying 'woke ideology'... Then again, if they did, I doubt they'd give it proper consideration and just strawman the history
Peterson seems well aware that: *1.* Postmodernism rejects grand narratives And, *2.* (Neo-)Marxism is a grand narrative. He’s addressed this many times: the folks he’s referring to don’t care about coherence.
Hey man do you know that the term "grand narratives"/universalist narratives, or metanarratives is actually a concept introduced and worked by one of the most famous (non marxist, i would say) post modern social theorists? Search for Lyotard, on his Postmodern Condition. Its good to read. On that concept he gives some examples: Marxism, Christianity and there many others... (Like the Patriarchal family conservative man). So if you dont think youre a postmodern maybe search more on the topic. Peterson hasnt read a page neither of Marx, nor Adam Smith (and this is disappointing for a so called conservative liberal or wtv). He doesnt know what hes talking about. Maybe watch his debate with zizek and ear what he has to say to peterson about political correctness and so called 'cultural marxism'
I studied critical theory at UC San Diego. I was on the Dean’s list and I was allowed to enroll in a few graduate level courses in my junior year. At the time I was retired US Navy Master Chief in my mid-40s. I felt like I was on probation even though I was getting high marks. I did a research project for one of my professors which was a Marxist critique of Moby Dick. The project was quite a lot of fun and I learned that Marxist literary theory is a fantastic approach to writing interesting and engaging stories. Hollywood is full of them, of course. I still think that is true. The Marxist social critique, or the Marxist “system “ is definitely not one that I can agree with. In fact, I think it would be hard for anyone to agree with because they couldn’t possibly know what they are agreeing with. What is the clear conclusion of Marxist social revolution ? I don’t think that has ever been clearly explained. Hence Post-Modernism with the whole “we don’t know what words mean”.
What don't you like about the social critique? In my experience it usually helps make complex realities more comprehensible, it just requires precise articulation that pushes the limits of language. Just my pov, though, I'd love to learn more and absorb your perspective given your experiences in academia
@@kevinmurphy5878 I'm no expert, either, but I'll do my best to hit the big notes. Marxism basically argues for the primacy of history and environment (environment is taken broadly to include geography, social institutions, etc.). Inspired by Hegel, Marx probes contradictions and explores self-critique in what has come to be known as 'dialectical materialism.' In short, our world is best understood through the examination of social, economic, political, technological, demographic, and geographic conditions in which our worldviews developed.
My favorite part of Peterson is that he basically admitted he has never read Marx and thus he has to invent new words like Neo-marxism. Peterson himself might be a post modernist.
You have no idea what your talking about. Neomarxism is a whole school of thought also known as the Frankfurt school. They are also known as critical theorists. Theador adorno, max horkheimer and herbert Marcus's are the main neomarxist intellectuals. It is very clearly behind the new identity politics movement. Just read an introduction to critical race theory by Jean stephancic and Richard Delgado. They will tell you straight forward that they draw from postmodernism and neomarxism.
@@jasonemery3618Frankfurt school, western Marxism early figures were very very different from woke post modernists who are more responsible for cancel culture type politics Infact when western marxists opposed soviet socialism, the post modernists were stalinists and later changed Neo Marxism as I gather derives more from mid century discourse theorists Derrida, Foucault than western marxism
I think philosophers can’t understand something like postmodernism. Philosophers can often be to propositional. But postmodernism is meant to slip and slide. To show how definitions can’t capture margins. I think someone like Jonathan pageau perfectly understands postmodernism and sees it’s connection to Marxism.
Yes Pageau is very good. His talks on monsters, zombies, and postmodernism are very good because he knows how to interrelate them. He has a clip called "Understanding the Fringe" or something like that. It is very, very good in terms of understanding the breaking binaries. He is also helping JP understand better. Pageau gives a very good explanation of what the hell is going on with postmodernity: th-cam.com/video/E5F4oOlAK8w/w-d-xo.html
I think some good points are mad here. I wonder though if we may be falling into the trap of seeing our opponents as more similar than they are. I think about how people will paint all protestants with the same brush. Although certainly among pop-culture leftism you will get a mishmash of ideas.
I like Deely's reformulation of Postmodernism: What is commonly called "postmodern" is more suitably named Hypermodern, because it has pushed modernism to it's inevitable extreme. The name Postmodern, then, is instead given to the advent of semiotics*, which repairs the mind-body dualistic schism by constructing an ontological bridge between brute realism and constructivist nominalism. (take that, jargon algorithm, lol) * ie: Peircean semiotics; over-and-above Saussurean semiology
I would like to applaud you with actually reading the works that you comment on, something Peterson has failed to do. I agree in the sense that these ideas are very influential in academia, across the intellectual spectrum and disciplines. But I disagree with some of your understanding of Foucault and also the relationship between Marxism and the discourse of power. To be a very nerdy and stingey person, what you are wrong about is that Foucault does indeed focus a lot on power and is well known for his theory of power. But, Foucault's main interest and topic of study is not on Power alone. He was interested in the Subject and how locations of power can interpellates Subjects. One way Foucault's theory on power can contradict Marxist and even Neo-Marxist thinkers is that for Foucault power is a web that one cannot hold for themselves. This contradicts the oppressed/oppression binary that Peterson would group with Foucault. To begin, I think the fundamental question that we are dealing with is whether or not we can ascribe people terminologies based on their influences. Should we call Marxism, Hegelian because of its influences on Marxist theory? Or gender performance Hegelian based on its influence on Judith Butler. What about Foucault and Kant? Postmodern thinkers and Neo-Marxists thinkers derive their ideas from modernity. The same issue exists when the we think about what does it mean for people to be influenced by postmodern and neo-marxist thinkers. As you correctly claim, many are influenced by these thinkers. But does that mean they are post-modern neo-marxists. We must examine critically what it means to use those terms, because very rarely do you see people call themselves post-modern neo-marxist. We can make these claims on their influence, which is not wrong, but it can obscure the nuances and diversity of thoughts that stemed from the influences from these ideas. In your conversation about gender, Foucault finds what some may call "strategic essentialism" as a possibility to use taxonomical and oppressive frameworks to change the world aroudn you. Butler would reject the nature of what some may call gender politics. Peterson would group these thinkers with "gender politics" when they are very skeptical of it. One side note is that you mention that there are contradictions between postmodernist claims. Well, Derrida and Foucault hated each other so much and disparaged each others ideas. Post-modernists tend to reject the term itself, and we must also consider how Postmodernism is not a concrete idea. Foucault influenced a lot of people and many have considered and cited his ideas to later critique or modify. Orthodox Marxists subscribe to the basic ideas of Marx, but could reject and expand on his claims. In the end this could be a question of semantics, but these categories means things to many people, and can even scare them. I must also say, I understood your references to which thinkers, but I think it would be helpful for the audience to make clear who's ideas are you refering to. Your command of these diverse views are commendable once again. I am glad you actually read the works of these authors. As for the main thing, what Peterson is saying. One. I would appreciate a little more specific examples of where Peterson fails in his analysis. Two. I think it would be neat to ask that question, so what? Why does it matter? For Peterson, it matters because the universitise are tainted with woke identity politics (post-modern and neo-marxist thinkers alike) despite how strongly Foucault and Butler would reject identity politics. He rests upon an unduly geneaology of the ideas of Foucault and postmodern thinkers, where Marxism's alleged decline (which is factually untrue) replaces this old marxist regime so continue justifying its existence. Do you agree with Peterson here? What are your thoughts on this discipline? If you do find yourself influenced by these modes of thinking and analysis, much like Peterson's unconscious use of Derridean deconstruction in an interview, then are you a post-modernist? What are your thoughts on Peterson's cultural marxism and its relationship with cultural bolshevism? Since I am not predisposed to disparaged these views just by the very name of it, I may not be able to fully understand Peterson's understanding of academia. From my experience, it is true that you read works of post-modern and neo-marxist thinkers, but the relationship they have with popular discourse is much limited than one may presume and much less strictly post-modern or strictly neo-marxist. Since I cannot find a place to put this, Peterson does not treat neo-marxism as drastically distinct from orthodox marxism. He sees it as a rebranding and articulates its differences rather superficially and incorrectly. Though again, even neo-marxist thoughts like postmodernism is a very very broad field.
I haven't watched the video yet but James Linsdey's book provides an interesting distinction of the original postmoderns like Foucault, applied postmodernism starting in the 80's and then Social Justice movement as a 3rd wave. Skimming your comment. I wouldn't fault anyone for lumping them all together in conversation.
@@playswithbricks James Lindsey is a known hack as a scholar and the main reason that Peterson has such uneducated and simplistic opinions in the first place is because he got almost all his ideas from Lindsey and also Stephen Hicks, without actually reading the original sources for himself, the first comment is actually spot-on.
This is a great lecture; I think though that in the middle of this, you ignore the fact that many of these Postmodernists actually CELEBRATE contradiction itself, for example Lyotard with his ideal of a variety of discourses, or Derrida with the differAnce, or even Paul de Man, his friend, with the idea that 'error is the source of truth' (which I am also drawn to, to be honest, trained in mathematics to search for 'proof by contradiction'!) ... What if it is the case that 'existence is a contradiction'??? And furthermore... what if as a Christian, you can see that this 'centre without a centre' that Derrida demands, might leave a place for the LOGOS? I think that at least as an 'anchor' to brace ourselves against and help us get past the 'smothering' and 'flattening' of modernity, we must USE postmodernity; read Baudrillard for example on the commodification and systems of value towards the symbolic exchange and without using any use, and how RELEVANT this is for the ALIENATION of today...
can you provide examples of these post modernist neo marxist thinkers in our modern day? yes this is their vague understanding in popular culture. But he also advocates that thier is this whole movement in academia that is brain washing college kids about it. what are your examples of that?
It's not really brain washing it's just teaching what the commonly accepted philosophy of the day (which is in constant flux and changes every couple of years, by the way) is to young, impressionable people. They're trying to figure out the world and these concepts are really intriguing so they latch onto them. The problem with it from my point of view is that people for the most part do desire truth and consistency in their identity and want to know what's going on. Telling them that truth is unknowable, there is no objective morality, and life is just about doing whatever feels meaningful to you until you pass into an eternal existenceless void is a pretty depressing foundation to build your worldview on.
In the social sciences, we usually distinguish between gender (a social construct) and gender identity (inwardly defined) in order to avoid that kind of contradiction you mention. All of the leftist academics I know think that post-modernism is a joke (especially the ones who are Marxists), so what JP says doesn't seem even remotely true. Of course, this is just based on my own experiences studying and teaching in the humanities/social science departments at several schools, so this might not be representative of the typical college/university. Excellent video!
Problem is that JP plunders his ideas in an undergrowth of anti-intellectual answers to a popular interpretation of academic positions. When i read JP the first time about Jungian archetypes he was like myself, 17 years old, reading the Opera Omnia of the author and taking out from it my personal interpretation. I was not a genius in 2000, neither i am now, so when i stumbled in JP twenty years later i asked myself: how? JP simply calls on what is already popular and in wich people can easily identify; the fact that a professor aligns with what his public already identify as true/right is just a way to justify they complete lack of curiosity, confirming a worldview well established.
@@biackopsspokciab6849 about what specifically? Like Jung? He doesn't get ANYTHING wrong, he does exactely what he needs: he takes a popularized version of Jung and uses it not to help people to self-analyze but to make his analysis fit into others. He's, in a sort of way, a Procrustes, with his bed in wich he feels compelled to make people fit. I think his history, his compulsion to feel accepted by a strong cultish group, to feel the pleasure of leadership obsessing with an enemy inside of his vision of the West, his obsessive attention on diets without a specific pathology, his passage from perfectly controlled expressionless debates to sudden cry on cam etc. are all signals that he should get by himself being an analyst.
@@biackopsspokciab6849 if you're interested, this gives some answers. It's too short but gives some basis in a better way than i can give (i'm not a scholar of Jung in particular, i just identify my 17 yo vision of Jung with that of JP and i find very strange that in my immaturity i got what a grown man preaches): th-cam.com/video/8AVp1LYAds0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=G8dCrS8C5Z5ybwUl
@@mavrospanayiotis Are you criticising his character, claiming he's hungry for attention and mimicks Jung, and will suddenly cry during debate? Those are your claims. Firstly, this doesn't degrade his political & philosophical claims. It strictly discredits his intentions. You provided no examples of things he's said that are off, anything. You've only attacked his character, and fair enough -- you could be correct. Secondly, he's on such a restrictive diet because he has to be. You call it "obsessive" lol. Naw, he has severe reactions. He, similar to his daughter & wife, is allergic to a laundry list of foods. When his daughter convinced him to go on the diet, his gum disease vanished, his depression plummeted, he was far healthier & more energetic, and various other symptoms disappeared. Regarding the claim about crying, it shows he has great compassion. He wasn't debating. It was an interview.
@novinceinhosic3531 That's a pretty conservative process that you are describing, trying to understand and analyze something before changing it. Postmodern deconstruction is more like: your words, morals, knowledge doesn't actually mean anything, these are all man made concepts of societal organization, and we should just do away with the farce that these things matter, as the human experience is so rich and varied, that trying to define it with the above concepts is inherently limiting the possibilities
I've been in academia for 40 years. The "postmodern" as event and definition has shapeshifted so many times that I don't know how to wrestle the protean mess down now. "I've changed my hairstyle so many times, I don't know what I look like."
Nah communism kinda refers to the economic system and Marxism more often refers to the overarching philosophy of Marx which both provided the basis and was informed by his economic views and does include many cultural ideas. The two terms are often used interchangeably, but Marx had ideas about things outside of economics which were very influential and those ideas are usually referred to as "marxism" they refer to historical dialectical materialism, destruction of hierarchies, etc.
It does in the sense that later Marxists decided to add this dimensions to it, especially since class conflicts are circumstances and relative from place to place. People like Frantz Fanon and Antonio Gramsci drove this really far in terms of race and popular culture, respectively. Then the Frankfurt School went nuts with it. People like Peterson or James Lindsay, as courageous as they are, know very little about this stuff. It is very sad because we need their courage but also need them to understand the enemy. Writers like Erich Fromm and Lewis E. Gordon are much better in explaining this area and are more salutary
@@epicphailure88 You read a little too presumptuously and insincerely. I was speaking rhetorically and in their own terms. They consider an enemy as such and yet fail to understand them properly in order to combat them. My use of "enemy" was merely to use their own words. Not even sure what you mean by "crypto fascist" and how could anyone with such a wide range of connotations and uses. Do I think Marx was mostly good or correct? No. Do I think his admirers were? No. Can we still learn from them and make sincere efforts to understand them on their own terms? Yes.
Considered that in Marxism the economic system gives rise to cultural system as superstructure it's inevitable that producing in a certain way gives rise to functional hierarchies and ways to justify them. But that happens when the economic system is actually existing. This doesn't mean that changes in the conflict between classes can't produce cultural effects.
Your focus on this unbelievers' ramblings on subjects he has no expertise in is sad to see. Its crazy how someone's popularity can give them authority in the believing world when they arent even believers.
It's not about authority but influence. Whether you like him or not, his ideas are all over the place, and therefore worth engaging. My paying attention to Peterson came from my ministry to college aged men who consistently ask about him. So whether or not you think he *should* have influence on Christians, he does.
I don't think it's all that radical to say that he shouldn't, and I think there's a difference between paying attention to his ideas and making them a regular area of focus. You lend authority to his ideas by propagating them, and when you engage in fawning over being followed by him (and referencing him in almost every crossover I see), I think you're caught up in a bit of his cult of personality. If I'm completely wrong on that, I apologize for misrepresenting you. I just find the cognitive dissonance inherent in his worldview dangerous.
@St Bindo in every crossover? I mean, I did that with VanderKlay and Pageau because their work is largely done in connection with Peterson, so that just makes sense. Everhard specifically told me he wanted to talk about Peterson. It's not like I spend an extensive amount of time watching his lectures. I think you're significantly overestimating his influence on me.
@@DrJordanBCooper You may well be right in my overestimating it. I admit by bias against Peterson, so I may well focus too much on the little you do say about him.
@@StBindo I have a love-hate relationship with Peterson myself but please don't castigate a brother in Christ like this; Jordan Cooper obviously has the freedom to use his time as he wishes and I really thank him for the engaging discussions he puts on these relevant topics that will be the types of things people search for on TH-cam and may just lead others to Christ; whether I agree or disagree with certain points he makes I can't fault his efforts and I welcome the discourse.
I think it was full-hearted. I think he's just assuming good-faith and from someone, Peterson, who has always been satisfied to engage with these ideas at face value. This video does feel like apologia though.
Post-Marxism as a name just seems like a shortening of "Postmodern Neo-Marxism" anyway. Cut out the "modern" and "neo" and there you go. It's all such redundant language. Post: after; Modern: now; Neo: new. Just a bunch of slight variations of the same concept... "now" always follows then, so "now" naturally encompasses both "after" and "new" since "now" is always a unique moment in time. Consequently, anything "new" is also "after" something that came before. There is no point to all this leftist jargon but to sow confusion.
The problem isn't with postmodernism per se, but that college students exposed to it misunderstand and misuse postmodern philosophers (similar to how people misused Psychoanalysis in the past). Few 18-22 year olds are really able to understand postmodernism, since they lack the cognitive maturity to do so, typically. Even some older people cannot understand it, because understanding postmodernism requires embodying Enlightenment rationality fully, first.
Neo-Marxism doesn't exist. Taking a Marxist analysis and applying it to one's own country and its conditions is Marxism. Cultural Marxism is not Marxism, trying to resolve oppression without class struggle is impossible.
It's great to see an american christian who really knows this stuff. I used to be deep into this stuff (now catholic trying to be humble) and read alot of Althusser, Deleuze and so on. I love to see that you can for instance just namedrop Gramsci here, I really appreciate the depth and real understanding. God bless
Yeah the Frankfurt School was such a major influence and doesn't get recognized nearly enough by the people decrying 'woke ideology'... Then again, if they did, I doubt they'd give it proper consideration and just strawman the history
Peterson seems well aware that:
*1.* Postmodernism rejects grand narratives
And,
*2.* (Neo-)Marxism is a grand narrative.
He’s addressed this many times: the folks he’s referring to don’t care about coherence.
Great comment.
Hey man do you know that the term "grand narratives"/universalist narratives, or metanarratives is actually a concept introduced and worked by one of the most famous (non marxist, i would say) post modern social theorists? Search for Lyotard, on his Postmodern Condition. Its good to read.
On that concept he gives some examples: Marxism, Christianity and there many others... (Like the Patriarchal family conservative man). So if you dont think youre a postmodern maybe search more on the topic. Peterson hasnt read a page neither of Marx, nor Adam Smith (and this is disappointing for a so called conservative liberal or wtv). He doesnt know what hes talking about. Maybe watch his debate with zizek and ear what he has to say to peterson about political correctness and so called 'cultural marxism'
Would be so great for Dr. Cooper to have JBP on the show. Let's make it happen!
eh IDK. I feel like the conversation wouldn't get far. Peterson wouldn't be able shut up and when he would talk it would just be heretical nonsense
I studied critical theory at UC San Diego. I was on the Dean’s list and I was allowed to enroll in a few graduate level courses in my junior year. At the time I was retired US Navy Master Chief in my mid-40s. I felt like I was on probation even though I was getting high marks. I did a research project for one of my professors which was a Marxist critique of Moby Dick. The project was quite a lot of fun and I learned that Marxist literary theory is a fantastic approach to writing interesting and engaging stories. Hollywood is full of them, of course. I still think that is true. The Marxist social critique, or the Marxist “system “ is definitely not one that I can agree with. In fact, I think it would be hard for anyone to agree with because they couldn’t possibly know what they are agreeing with. What is the clear conclusion of Marxist social revolution ? I don’t think that has ever been clearly explained. Hence Post-Modernism with the whole “we don’t know what words mean”.
Popppppñpp
Popppppñppp0pñpp00 0ñpp
What don't you like about the social critique? In my experience it usually helps make complex realities more comprehensible, it just requires precise articulation that pushes the limits of language. Just my pov, though, I'd love to learn more and absorb your perspective given your experiences in academia
That's outside my area of expertise by a longshot, but what is Marxist social theory? How do you use Marxist theories to analyze stories?
@@kevinmurphy5878 I'm no expert, either, but I'll do my best to hit the big notes. Marxism basically argues for the primacy of history and environment (environment is taken broadly to include geography, social institutions, etc.). Inspired by Hegel, Marx probes contradictions and explores self-critique in what has come to be known as 'dialectical materialism.' In short, our world is best understood through the examination of social, economic, political, technological, demographic, and geographic conditions in which our worldviews developed.
Reminds me of what Tony Soprano said in The Sopranos, “There is no mafia!”
My favorite part of Peterson is that he basically admitted he has never read Marx and thus he has to invent new words like Neo-marxism. Peterson himself might be a post modernist.
I am not a fan of JP (in fact I hate him) but Neo-Marxism is a real political ideology that emerged during the New Left movement in the 20th century.
@@Mika-IBO its called liberalism
I'm no Peterson fan but neo-Marxism has existed long before Peterson adopted the name for his purposes
You have no idea what your talking about. Neomarxism is a whole school of thought also known as the Frankfurt school. They are also known as critical theorists. Theador adorno, max horkheimer and herbert Marcus's are the main neomarxist intellectuals. It is very clearly behind the new identity politics movement. Just read an introduction to critical race theory by Jean stephancic and Richard Delgado. They will tell you straight forward that they draw from postmodernism and neomarxism.
@@jasonemery3618Frankfurt school, western Marxism early figures were very very different from woke post modernists who are more responsible for cancel culture type politics
Infact when western marxists opposed soviet socialism, the post modernists were stalinists and later changed
Neo Marxism as I gather derives more from mid century discourse theorists Derrida, Foucault than western marxism
I think philosophers can’t understand something like postmodernism. Philosophers can often be to propositional. But postmodernism is meant to slip and slide. To show how definitions can’t capture margins. I think someone like Jonathan pageau perfectly understands postmodernism and sees it’s connection to Marxism.
Yes Pageau is very good. His talks on monsters, zombies, and postmodernism are very good because he knows how to interrelate them. He has a clip called "Understanding the Fringe" or something like that. It is very, very good in terms of understanding the breaking binaries.
He is also helping JP understand better. Pageau gives a very good explanation of what the hell is going on with postmodernity:
th-cam.com/video/E5F4oOlAK8w/w-d-xo.html
I think some good points are mad here. I wonder though if we may be falling into the trap of seeing our opponents as more similar than they are. I think about how people will paint all protestants with the same brush. Although certainly among pop-culture leftism you will get a mishmash of ideas.
I like Deely's reformulation of Postmodernism: What is commonly called "postmodern" is more suitably named Hypermodern, because it has pushed modernism to it's inevitable extreme. The name Postmodern, then, is instead given to the advent of semiotics*, which repairs the mind-body dualistic schism by constructing an ontological bridge between brute realism and constructivist nominalism. (take that, jargon algorithm, lol)
* ie: Peircean semiotics; over-and-above Saussurean semiology
Yes, I do tend to think that the "hyper modern" label is appropriate.
I would like to applaud you with actually reading the works that you comment on, something Peterson has failed to do. I agree in the sense that these ideas are very influential in academia, across the intellectual spectrum and disciplines. But I disagree with some of your understanding of Foucault and also the relationship between Marxism and the discourse of power. To be a very nerdy and stingey person, what you are wrong about is that Foucault does indeed focus a lot on power and is well known for his theory of power. But, Foucault's main interest and topic of study is not on Power alone. He was interested in the Subject and how locations of power can interpellates Subjects. One way Foucault's theory on power can contradict Marxist and even Neo-Marxist thinkers is that for Foucault power is a web that one cannot hold for themselves. This contradicts the oppressed/oppression binary that Peterson would group with Foucault.
To begin, I think the fundamental question that we are dealing with is whether or not we can ascribe people terminologies based on their influences. Should we call Marxism, Hegelian because of its influences on Marxist theory? Or gender performance Hegelian based on its influence on Judith Butler. What about Foucault and Kant? Postmodern thinkers and Neo-Marxists thinkers derive their ideas from modernity. The same issue exists when the we think about what does it mean for people to be influenced by postmodern and neo-marxist thinkers. As you correctly claim, many are influenced by these thinkers. But does that mean they are post-modern neo-marxists. We must examine critically what it means to use those terms, because very rarely do you see people call themselves post-modern neo-marxist. We can make these claims on their influence, which is not wrong, but it can obscure the nuances and diversity of thoughts that stemed from the influences from these ideas.
In your conversation about gender, Foucault finds what some may call "strategic essentialism" as a possibility to use taxonomical and oppressive frameworks to change the world aroudn you. Butler would reject the nature of what some may call gender politics. Peterson would group these thinkers with "gender politics" when they are very skeptical of it.
One side note is that you mention that there are contradictions between postmodernist claims. Well, Derrida and Foucault hated each other so much and disparaged each others ideas. Post-modernists tend to reject the term itself, and we must also consider how Postmodernism is not a concrete idea. Foucault influenced a lot of people and many have considered and cited his ideas to later critique or modify. Orthodox Marxists subscribe to the basic ideas of Marx, but could reject and expand on his claims. In the end this could be a question of semantics, but these categories means things to many people, and can even scare them.
I must also say, I understood your references to which thinkers, but I think it would be helpful for the audience to make clear who's ideas are you refering to. Your command of these diverse views are commendable once again. I am glad you actually read the works of these authors.
As for the main thing, what Peterson is saying. One. I would appreciate a little more specific examples of where Peterson fails in his analysis. Two. I think it would be neat to ask that question, so what? Why does it matter? For Peterson, it matters because the universitise are tainted with woke identity politics (post-modern and neo-marxist thinkers alike) despite how strongly Foucault and Butler would reject identity politics. He rests upon an unduly geneaology of the ideas of Foucault and postmodern thinkers, where Marxism's alleged decline (which is factually untrue) replaces this old marxist regime so continue justifying its existence. Do you agree with Peterson here? What are your thoughts on this discipline? If you do find yourself influenced by these modes of thinking and analysis, much like Peterson's unconscious use of Derridean deconstruction in an interview, then are you a post-modernist? What are your thoughts on Peterson's cultural marxism and its relationship with cultural bolshevism?
Since I am not predisposed to disparaged these views just by the very name of it, I may not be able to fully understand Peterson's understanding of academia. From my experience, it is true that you read works of post-modern and neo-marxist thinkers, but the relationship they have with popular discourse is much limited than one may presume and much less strictly post-modern or strictly neo-marxist. Since I cannot find a place to put this, Peterson does not treat neo-marxism as drastically distinct from orthodox marxism. He sees it as a rebranding and articulates its differences rather superficially and incorrectly. Though again, even neo-marxist thoughts like postmodernism is a very very broad field.
I haven't watched the video yet but James Linsdey's book provides an interesting distinction of the original postmoderns like Foucault, applied postmodernism starting in the 80's and then Social Justice movement as a 3rd wave. Skimming your comment. I wouldn't fault anyone for lumping them all together in conversation.
@@playswithbricks James Lindsey is a known hack as a scholar and the main reason that Peterson has such uneducated and simplistic opinions in the first place is because he got almost all his ideas from Lindsey and also Stephen Hicks, without actually reading the original sources for himself, the first comment is actually spot-on.
The TH-cam channel wisecrack claims Jordan Peterson misunderstands Marxism. Can you review it
That lit candle is awfully close to those books.
He’s probably also verifying if 451 F is the precise number.
In your Makers series, will you also cover, Derrida, Foucault - maybe even Eco ?? 🙂 Hope to talk with you sometime !
Derrida and Foucalt, yes, certainly. Eco? That's definitely a possibility.
@@DrJordanBCooper Great ! 😀 Would love to discuss with you some time
+1 for Eco! (no pun intended, lol)
Jordan peterson misrepresents post modernism which has nothing to do with marxist communism.
Might this thinking in powers also be what gave rise to the Evangelical "powers in the sky" thinking about the heavenly?
This is a great lecture; I think though that in the middle of this, you ignore the fact that many of these Postmodernists actually CELEBRATE contradiction itself, for example Lyotard with his ideal of a variety of discourses, or Derrida with the differAnce, or even Paul de Man, his friend, with the idea that 'error is the source of truth' (which I am also drawn to, to be honest, trained in mathematics to search for 'proof by contradiction'!) ...
What if it is the case that 'existence is a contradiction'???
And furthermore... what if as a Christian, you can see that this 'centre without a centre' that Derrida demands, might leave a place for the LOGOS?
I think that at least as an 'anchor' to brace ourselves against and help us get past the 'smothering' and 'flattening' of modernity, we must USE postmodernity; read Baudrillard for example on the commodification and systems of value towards the symbolic exchange and without using any use, and how RELEVANT this is for the ALIENATION of today...
JBC on point!
can you provide examples of these post modernist neo marxist thinkers in our modern day? yes this is their vague understanding in popular culture. But he also advocates that thier is this whole movement in academia that is brain washing college kids about it. what are your examples of that?
It's not really brain washing it's just teaching what the commonly accepted philosophy of the day (which is in constant flux and changes every couple of years, by the way) is to young, impressionable people. They're trying to figure out the world and these concepts are really intriguing so they latch onto them. The problem with it from my point of view is that people for the most part do desire truth and consistency in their identity and want to know what's going on. Telling them that truth is unknowable, there is no objective morality, and life is just about doing whatever feels meaningful to you until you pass into an eternal existenceless void is a pretty depressing foundation to build your worldview on.
In the social sciences, we usually distinguish between gender (a social construct) and gender identity (inwardly defined) in order to avoid that kind of contradiction you mention.
All of the leftist academics I know think that post-modernism is a joke (especially the ones who are Marxists), so what JP says doesn't seem even remotely true. Of course, this is just based on my own experiences studying and teaching in the humanities/social science departments at several schools, so this might not be representative of the typical college/university. Excellent video!
Problem is that JP plunders his ideas in an undergrowth of anti-intellectual answers to a popular interpretation of academic positions. When i read JP the first time about Jungian archetypes he was like myself, 17 years old, reading the Opera Omnia of the author and taking out from it my personal interpretation. I was not a genius in 2000, neither i am now, so when i stumbled in JP twenty years later i asked myself: how? JP simply calls on what is already popular and in wich people can easily identify; the fact that a professor aligns with what his public already identify as true/right is just a way to justify they complete lack of curiosity, confirming a worldview well established.
@@mavrospanayiotisWhat did he say that's wrong, specifically?
@@biackopsspokciab6849 about what specifically? Like Jung? He doesn't get ANYTHING wrong, he does exactely what he needs: he takes a popularized version of Jung and uses it not to help people to self-analyze but to make his analysis fit into others. He's, in a sort of way, a Procrustes, with his bed in wich he feels compelled to make people fit. I think his history, his compulsion to feel accepted by a strong cultish group, to feel the pleasure of leadership obsessing with an enemy inside of his vision of the West, his obsessive attention on diets without a specific pathology, his passage from perfectly controlled expressionless debates to sudden cry on cam etc. are all signals that he should get by himself being an analyst.
@@biackopsspokciab6849 if you're interested, this gives some answers. It's too short but gives some basis in a better way than i can give (i'm not a scholar of Jung in particular, i just identify my 17 yo vision of Jung with that of JP and i find very strange that in my immaturity i got what a grown man preaches):
th-cam.com/video/8AVp1LYAds0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=G8dCrS8C5Z5ybwUl
@@mavrospanayiotis Are you criticising his character, claiming he's hungry for attention and mimicks Jung, and will suddenly cry during debate? Those are your claims.
Firstly, this doesn't degrade his political & philosophical claims. It strictly discredits his intentions. You provided no examples of things he's said that are off, anything. You've only attacked his character, and fair enough -- you could be correct.
Secondly, he's on such a restrictive diet because he has to be. You call it "obsessive" lol. Naw, he has severe reactions. He, similar to his daughter & wife, is allergic to a laundry list of foods. When his daughter convinced him to go on the diet, his gum disease vanished, his depression plummeted, he was far healthier & more energetic, and various other symptoms disappeared.
Regarding the claim about crying, it shows he has great compassion. He wasn't debating. It was an interview.
My one sentence understanding of postmodern neo-Marxism:
The way to distrupt bourgeoisie haegemony is through posztmodern deconstruction.
@novinceinhosic3531 That's a pretty conservative process that you are describing, trying to understand and analyze something before changing it.
Postmodern deconstruction is more like: your words, morals, knowledge doesn't actually mean anything, these are all man made concepts of societal organization, and we should just do away with the farce that these things matter, as the human experience is so rich and varied, that trying to define it with the above concepts is inherently limiting the possibilities
What about Stephan Hicks?
I've been in academia for 40 years. The "postmodern" as event and definition has shapeshifted so many times that I don't know how to wrestle the protean mess down now. "I've changed my hairstyle so many times, I don't know what I look like."
No, he's too kind.
Doesn’t Marxism not really have any cultural aspects to it?? Isn’t it just an economic system??
Nah communism kinda refers to the economic system and Marxism more often refers to the overarching philosophy of Marx which both provided the basis and was informed by his economic views and does include many cultural ideas. The two terms are often used interchangeably, but Marx had ideas about things outside of economics which were very influential and those ideas are usually referred to as "marxism" they refer to historical dialectical materialism, destruction of hierarchies, etc.
It does in the sense that later Marxists decided to add this dimensions to it, especially since class conflicts are circumstances and relative from place to place. People like Frantz Fanon and Antonio Gramsci drove this really far in terms of race and popular culture, respectively.
Then the Frankfurt School went nuts with it. People like Peterson or James Lindsay, as courageous as they are, know very little about this stuff. It is very sad because we need their courage but also need them to understand the enemy.
Writers like Erich Fromm and Lewis E. Gordon are much better in explaining this area and are more salutary
@@Verulam1626 "The enemy?" Are you a crypto fascist? Lol.
@@epicphailure88 You read a little too presumptuously and insincerely. I was speaking rhetorically and in their own terms. They consider an enemy as such and yet fail to understand them properly in order to combat them. My use of "enemy" was merely to use their own words.
Not even sure what you mean by "crypto fascist" and how could anyone with such a wide range of connotations and uses.
Do I think Marx was mostly good or correct? No. Do I think his admirers were? No. Can we still learn from them and make sincere efforts to understand them on their own terms? Yes.
Considered that in Marxism the economic system gives rise to cultural system as superstructure it's inevitable that producing in a certain way gives rise to functional hierarchies and ways to justify them. But that happens when the economic system is actually existing. This doesn't mean that changes in the conflict between classes can't produce cultural effects.
Postmodernism is the cultural logic of late Capitalism
~Fredric Jameson
I don’t grasp the full significance this statement has for Jameson, but I have some limited idea.
Your focus on this unbelievers' ramblings on subjects he has no expertise in is sad to see. Its crazy how someone's popularity can give them authority in the believing world when they arent even believers.
It's not about authority but influence. Whether you like him or not, his ideas are all over the place, and therefore worth engaging. My paying attention to Peterson came from my ministry to college aged men who consistently ask about him. So whether or not you think he *should* have influence on Christians, he does.
I don't think it's all that radical to say that he shouldn't, and I think there's a difference between paying attention to his ideas and making them a regular area of focus. You lend authority to his ideas by propagating them, and when you engage in fawning over being followed by him (and referencing him in almost every crossover I see), I think you're caught up in a bit of his cult of personality.
If I'm completely wrong on that, I apologize for misrepresenting you. I just find the cognitive dissonance inherent in his worldview dangerous.
@St Bindo in every crossover? I mean, I did that with VanderKlay and Pageau because their work is largely done in connection with Peterson, so that just makes sense. Everhard specifically told me he wanted to talk about Peterson. It's not like I spend an extensive amount of time watching his lectures. I think you're significantly overestimating his influence on me.
@@DrJordanBCooper You may well be right in my overestimating it. I admit by bias against Peterson, so I may well focus too much on the little you do say about him.
@@StBindo I have a love-hate relationship with Peterson myself but please don't castigate a brother in Christ like this; Jordan Cooper obviously has the freedom to use his time as he wishes and I really thank him for the engaging discussions he puts on these relevant topics that will be the types of things people search for on TH-cam and may just lead others to Christ; whether I agree or disagree with certain points he makes I can't fault his efforts and I welcome the discourse.
What a long winded, yet half hearted and goofy attempt to translate Peterson’s babbling into something cogent.
I think it was full-hearted. I think he's just assuming good-faith and from someone, Peterson, who has always been satisfied to engage with these ideas at face value. This video does feel like apologia though.
Post-Marxism as a name just seems like a shortening of "Postmodern Neo-Marxism" anyway. Cut out the "modern" and "neo" and there you go. It's all such redundant language. Post: after; Modern: now; Neo: new. Just a bunch of slight variations of the same concept... "now" always follows then, so "now" naturally encompasses both "after" and "new" since "now" is always a unique moment in time. Consequently, anything "new" is also "after" something that came before. There is no point to all this leftist jargon but to sow confusion.
The problem isn't with postmodernism per se, but that college students exposed to it misunderstand and misuse postmodern philosophers (similar to how people misused Psychoanalysis in the past). Few 18-22 year olds are really able to understand postmodernism, since they lack the cognitive maturity to do so, typically. Even some older people cannot understand it, because understanding postmodernism requires embodying Enlightenment rationality fully, first.
political post modernism
can anyone give a time in this word salad where he explains his definition of Neo-marxism and why it doesn't exist?
Neo-Marxism doesn't exist. Taking a Marxist analysis and applying it to one's own country and its conditions is Marxism. Cultural Marxism is not Marxism, trying to resolve oppression without class struggle is impossible.