https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv1 7a0uIX2Y Jordan Peterso

> postmodernism

Oh cool....it's the early 90's again.

Why does he look like he's on a major comedown?

I love this man.

>>9166058

Oh look, Kermit the Frog is crying again.

I thought I was redpilled, then I started listening to J. Peterson.

>If you're not handling something with a light touch, then you haven't mastered it completely.

Is Lacan even a postmodernist?

>>9166189
No, he's a fraud

>>9166058
>The Rebel

fuck outta here

File: 1487670828406.png (1MB, 1668x932px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1668x932px

>>9166058

Thanks m8, I'd like to hear more of Peterson on Adler and Lacan.

>>9166257
>Adler
I never got into Adler, but I hear he's kind of a commie which makes absolutely no sense if you remember his brand of psychology is called "individual psychology"

>>9166058
He's not factually wrong, but he didn't reveal anything we were unaware of or anything that couldn't be learned from a quick google search. What's so mind blowing here again?

>>9166058
Postmodernism was untouched by his critique. He hasn't accurately described what postmodernists were reacting against and is using misleading equivocation by using terms as we understand them now compared to how the postmodernists understood them in the context of 60s modernism. Enlightenment ideas, capitalist ideas, etc aren't eternal and have meaning depending on the time and place they are used.

>>9166058
>rebel media
>gay fayza
lol

File: russian spy.jpg (68KB, 852x640px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 852x640px

>>9166325
In your opinion then, what is an accurate description of what postmodernists reacted to and claimed? What you're describing doesn't seem useful today, whereas Jordan's explanation provides others who don't know anything to understand the bad ideas of postmodernists.

bless this man

>>9166058
Slowly but surely I'm starting to find Peterson annoying.

>>9166342
Jordan's explanation isn't useful today except in misleading people.

>>9166452
The sky is clearly orange and that's what I think.

>>9166464
What were you hoping to demonstrate?

>>9166298
The rare fact that he's a man who can continue on to say coherent sentences. No matter whether he's left or right. Tbh I don't know where he stands on the spectrum.

>>9166058
>Rebel Media
>boo hoo we're being oppressed

Look I hate abortion and pomo as much as the next guy but RM is so unprofessional and shit at their jobs it makes me want to just give up and kill myself. Just watching this interviewer dude holding the microphone way too low so JP has to hunch over to get sort of close to it.

SORT

>>9166689
YOURSELF

>>9166724
nope

File: jew_magi.png (693KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 1280x720px

>Rebel Media

>>9166063
Instead of saying anything of substance you dismissed the premise entirely! LOL!

>>9166058
>Gender studies psychologist
This is the intellectual of 2017

>Peterson thread

great, I need some peterson reaction pics, care to post some, lads? I lost the one about the beasts lurking in the lake

No he doesn't. For one, he doesn't understand post-modernism at all. The fucker thinks it originated in the 1970s, for one.
Secondly, he thinks it's all about muh weakness. Doesn't he know his beloved nee chee was the first post-modernist, who adored hierarchy when done properly and also adored value systems when done properly.

muh red pill bullshit, confirmed furthermore when a fucking Sargon of Akkad video about him came up in the recommendations.

>>9166058
>-lions kill it
>...
Kek

File: blade.png (29KB, 500x464px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x464px

>>9166325
Why is every single gripe about Peterson something like this, where the person bitches that in a 20min interview with an incompetent nu-journalist, Peterson didn't painstakingly and exactly define every single one of the terms he uses, in a situation where given the tiniest hint of epistemic charity the meaning becomes clear as daylight?

>>9166058

>I'm gonna tell you a story, alright?

Oh jesus christ here we go

>>9166189
He was a post-structuralist.

Post modernism is simply used to describe the state of affairs in advanced capitalist society after modernism, which can be roughly understood as the period of time stretching from Descartes to Wittgenstein.

>>9166789

there's nothing that's necessarily wrong with that especially when the premises are so fucking retarded

File: 1487545847909.png (767KB, 399x1152px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 399x1152px

>>9166982

>>9166058
>Lacan and Foucault

a little embarrassing that you think these have anything to do with each other theoretically

>that's the postmodernist stance! there are no overarching truths!
>muh marxism

this guy is a oaf. no historical sense. no understanding of the degree to which french theory reacts against marxism. utterly embarrassing the degree to which he collapses the robust ethical dimensions of derrida's thought under a term that is basically an american invention. "postmodernism" as articulated in only comes up in a positive sense in lyotard, for whom it is not a "movement" in the sense peterson would like, but a paradigm, a social formation, and a set of ideas triggered by the after-war years but especially by 1968. peterson disavows any political or indeed material determination of thought—an idealism that is symptomatic in his naive, manifesto-derived understanding of marxism. "the narrative of oppressor versus oppressed"—give me a break. that is nowhere in the writings of marx from which marxism in the west, but especially in france, would develop. but putting that aside, in the anglophone academic environment peterson grew up in, "postmodernism" is either used in jameson's sense as an aesthetic, again, accompanying the radical social changes following world war 2 (people disagree as to the content of the aesthetic but its usage in an aesthetic context predominates) or as peterson is using it here: as a polemical phrase to be slung at anything you dont care for and dont want to think about.

this man is not a philosopher. he is an absolutely asinine, ignorant, and stupid rhetorician who had the great fortune of being picked up by people stupider than he.

>>9167182
>as articulated in only

as articulated in france*

sorry

>>9166058

>the postmodernists have hijacked that question [as to the variety of possible interpretations] to say that there is no real stability of viewpoint

this is such illiterate horseshit. putting aside my earlier remarks on his bastardized, rhetorically suggestive, and intellectually vacuous use of the term "postmodernism," it is quite clear that this man has not read a lick of the philosophers he alleges to be criticizing. for if he had, he would have at least sampled one of derrida's shortest texts, limited inc, where he succinctly, repeatedly, and lucidly spells out that while context is radically indeterminate, there are a range of contexts upon which a community of interlocutors could forseeably agree, and that before any of the deconstructive machinery begins spinning, those determined/determinate contexts must be staked out. """postmodernism""" in peterson's childish use of the phrase does not at all absolve one of responsibility to the interpreted text—on the contrary, it is ONLY the shifting, slippery nature of context that can be said to secure that responsibility. in a world in which meaning, value, what have you, are relatively stable, it is unbelievably easy to impute any meaning you like on the text, and to lean for support on your transcendental signifier—just look at the early Christian response to pagan/Hellenist philosophers. on the other hand, if you accept the derridean thesis that context is not determined and that the intention behind a sign is not communicated with that sign, then you have to do a lot more legwork to set your own readings in motion—you have to respect the text much more when something greater than it cannot be appealed to.

>>9166058

>the postmodernists also dont take into account the fact that... there is a multiplicity of value structures within a complicated society like ours

just further proof that he has not read a word of the stuff he's critiquing. read marx. read foucault. read derrida. read your own guy, nietzsche, for fucks sake. this is central difficulty french theory is concerned with!

File: bc1e2bb6470385d5ff3d0918338c5451.jpg (11KB, 229x276px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 229x276px

Didn't people conclude that "postmodernism" was a bullshit term nearly two decades ago?

>>9166058

talks out of both sides of his mouth, too: on the one hand suggests "postmodernists" recognize no value structure, while on the other hand suggesting that "if you are a loser in one or two or ten games there's no reason you cant be a winner in others," and this is precisely the reason for all "postmodernist" gestures of critique of socially-determined rationalities, which is that they tend to delimit the value systems and "games" playable. peterson wants to critique neglect of value while neglecting the objectivity of certain values himself. truly moronic.

>>9166058

>he's a trickster figure archetypally speaking

well there you have it folks. peterson believes in spooky "archetypes" that determine our reception by and response to our peers from a transcendent, neo-platonic store house of social Forms. he's deeply spooked, and only really able to believe in these spooks because of the pervasiveness of "postmodernism" of which he complains.

>>9166058

>comedians say what everyone is thinking, but wont say

this guy wants to tell you who is good and bad at thinking, while his level of thinking is literally on par with high school sophomores who just discovered george carlin.

>>9167227
Good post, actually made me think.

>>9166058
Absolutely no insight as usual. I've sat through video after vaunted video of this shit in hopes of finding substantive criticism and I'm consistently disappointed.

The (alt-)right needs to choose smarter darlings.

>>9167227
>>9167233
>>9167241
>>9167251
>>9167257
>>9167349

t. butthurt circle-jerking pseudo-intellectual fags who haven't rescued their father from the underworld yet.

>>9167041
you sound pretty mad, dude and you should really check your sauce since nietzsche wasn't a postmodernist, he was a traditionalist and pragmatist (easily mistaken for postmodernism if you read him superficially) and highly inspired by german idealism. jordan is also right that postmodernism had a revival in the 70s due to the hippy culture movement

File: busta.png (134KB, 239x387px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 239x387px

>>9167381
>fags
>more than one
smuganimugril.jpg

To the one asspained man spamming this thread as he watches the video: you realize he's talking about postmodernism in a cultural/societal context, not a philosophical one, right?

>>9167384
You've created false categories to justify his position. He said himself that he was referring to postmodernism in an academic context.

>b-but the academics are just absorbing it in a cultural/societal context

Go to school.

File: pjt-slavoj_zizek-4_.jpg (11KB, 401x260px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 401x260px

>>9167381
Question. How would Peterson respond if you asked him if he has rescued his father from the underworld?

Isn't what he's doing the same thing as what Zizek is doing? With a substitution of the political/Hegelian/Marxist/whatever Event for the archetypal journey of the individual?

It seems sometimes like they're saying the same thing. It's not even necessarily a bad thing, I'm just wondering if they're basically looking at the same thing - the suffering of the individual, the subject supposed to know - from two different perspectives, one socially constructed and one archetypally constructed.

The *further* irony of this - if it is true - is that both sides in this way would be causing the problems of the other. Wouldn't a realized Petersonian being be a person of (in Zizek's mind) pure ideology? And wouldn't Peterson reply that Zizek's political subject is attempting to reconcile themselves to history and mass society when they should be trying to reclaim their father from the underworld, or otherwise look at themselves in this mythic sense instead?

Just a thought.

>>9167394
Hmm. And yet, everything he says makes sense if you put it in that context, whereas your complaints are only valid if you assume the opposite. So maybe, just possibly, he actually means

>the academics are just absorbing it in a cultural/societal context

after all :^)

>>9166058
Post-modernism ultimately rejects value structures and says that they simply don't matter

>>9167411
Go to school. You clearly don't understand academia. You're forever doomed to pandering pop intellectuals like Peterson otherwise.

>>9167422
Peterson once more sets the precedent for zombies to follow.

>>9167430
Here's a question you cuck, do postmodernists espouse relativism and constructionism? Yes or no?

>>9167430
Been to school. Not particularly impressed with Peterson. Not particularly impressed with you either.
There are legitimate counterpoints to the things he says, but you'll never know because you depend on purposeful misunderstanding and pedantic bad faith to address his point.
:^)

File: 1cps50.jpg (99KB, 598x499px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 598x499px

I need to know everything this man can teach me. I deeply regret not being able to attend his classes.

>>9166576
everyone on rebel media looks like they were bullies in high school

i'd fuck laura southern tho
i'd cum on her qt face

I agree with a lot of what he says...
But he needs to seriously step back when he talks about PoMo... he's trying to define a movement that prides itself in being undefinable.

>>9166473
not him, but i assume that he is trying to demonstrate that your replies have no substance

>>9167182
>I have no idea what I'm talking about

>>9167384
>you realize he's talking about postmodernism in a cultural/societal context, not a philosophical one, right?

ignoring for the moment the fact that those categories are themselves explicitly called into question by postmodernism, a questioning that cant so easily be handwaived away if one means to critique postmodernism to begin with, unless by critique one means bastardize and ignore, as peterson has done—charitably leaving all that aside (and it does take charity to restrain myself to parentheses on this account), you'll note that all of peterson's references to postmodernism, however he understands it, are couched in philosophical language concerning "values," "interpretations," "meanings," etc—all the objects of philosophical inquiry. but if that weren't enough, you could simply have noted in passing that he explicitly associates the postmodernism with which he takes issue with a certain set of names, among them jacques derrida and jacques lacan, both—though the latter only secondarily—philosophers. so, if we allow, for the moment, your absurd distinction between "culture and society" and "philosophy" (as though philosophy could exist without culture and society? as though their fields do not meaningfully intersect in mutually determinative capacities?) then even on those terms, blockheaded though they are, it remains to be seen to what extent peterson is grappling with postmodernism in the context you would prefer.

>>9167439
There's no question he is playing a role or capitalizing on the spirit of the times. Either way he's is making a name for himself and gaining followers.

>>9167384
>>9167504

i'm also interested as to WHY you are invested in repressing or at the least ignoring the philosophical nature of a philosopher's critique of a certain philosophy or set of philosophers. could it be that you know even less about than philosophy than peterson does? surely not on /lit/.

>>9167504
you're talented at typing long sentences without really saying anything

Is it just me, or are advocates of postmodernism truly obtuse and hard to understand? It's just a bunch of sophistry to me, they can't seem to make a coherent claim that doesn't involve some pseudo historical or cultural bullshit.

>>9167515

try to answer objections before dismissing them, it helps your credibility

>>9167521
Try to make objections before you expect me to dismiss them
>condescending obscurantism
>>>/r/eddit

>>9167527

alright, since you're unable to process an english sentence of more than two clauses, i'll spell it out for you, then you can answer at your leisure, or continue to object on stylistic grounds, exposing further your own illiteracy

1. i think the whole split you (or the other poster if you aren't him) are relying on between culture and philosophy is bunk. this is reiterated parenthetically throughout the paragraph.

2. peterson's language in his references to postmodernism are couched in philosophical language: his understanding of it, and his objections to it, are based on notions of value, interpretation, meaning—all objects of philosophical inquiry

3. but the simpler point, which i implicitly lambast you for not noticing (perhaps i here go too far, but, i mean, really), is that his whole narrative explanation of postmodernism based on associating it with derrida and lacan, both philosophers, though lacan is only, as i say, secondarily a philosopher. it also occurs to me now that he mentions marxism, which has been in the history of philosophy construed as a philosophy

this way of doing things is a lot uglier, more cumbersome.

>>9167527
>>condescending obscurantism

>>9167515
>you're talented at typing long sentences without really saying anything

>>9167551
the intellectual life isn't for everyone

>>9167547
this series of shitposting didn't deserve this response

File: figure2.png (101KB, 408x381px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 408x381px

>>9167547
>i think the whole split between culture and philosophy is bunk.

>>9167566

this is sport

>>9167483
Then wouldn't that be how you beat that movement? By obstinately refusing to humour their pretension?

>>9167578
this. How can anyone take this postmodern sophist seriously? he's literally arguing in circles

File: 1484434019154.jpg (40KB, 400x388px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 400x388px

>>9166058
Why is his book so god damn expensive?

>>9167595
this lmao

>>9167483
>>9167585

this is exactly the problem with him: that he refuses to really engage the thing he's taking issue with. if he did, he'd realize it doesnt really exist as he understands it. he's groping around in the dark for an empty signifier to fill with all his problems and complaints about academia, like scruton and sokal before him.

>>9167592

the objections i raise to peterson and to his defenders are simple. if we can so easily dismiss them as circular, then it ought to be equally simple to explain their flaws.

>>9167595
Academic books usually are.

But you can just download the pdf on his site for free.

>>9167595
>be on the most intelligent board on 4chan
>still not on bibliotik.me

>>9167600
philosophy =/= culture as christianity understand it. there.

>>9167082
Probably because Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about. He keeps saying 'postmodernists' believe all these things but he'd be better off at least saying which of the postmodernists holds what belief instead of thinking they're all connected because they have issues with modernism.

Any actual understanding of postmodernism would have him see that their approach was more 'objective' than that claimed by modernists, i.e. that there is some underlying, transcendental and metaphysical reality beneath everything. The "postmodernists" who allegedly say "there is no such thing as absolute truth" are referencing this exact thought rather than that objectivity doesn't exist, just that if it exists it is unreachable.

Basically he's not right about anything and even if he was given time to elaborate on his thoughts about postmodernism his understanding is so misinformed he wouldn't be able to arrive at a comprehensive criticism of any postmodernists let alone the entire intellectual project.

>>9167607
Culture is symbolic, it's essentially language. Philosophy is the critique of the meaning, content and use of language.

>all the postmodernists are marxists to begin with

Lol

>>9167620
>that there is some underlying, transcendental and metaphysical reality beneath everything
That's transcendentalism or epiphenomenalism. Either way, postmodernism rejects this claim entirely. You seem to have confused pragmatism with postmodernism.

>>9167622
Well he is kind of right. If you deconstruct and destroy all narratives, the only thing you're left with is power-games.

Hence it practically reduces to Marxism, which is also in it's essence a power game.

>>9167621
so. those are still two very separate things

>>9167607

not even relevant, because i've already granted the distinction provisionally for the sake of discussion. the main point is that even assuming a world where that distinction is operable, you can't really say that peterson isn't discussing philosophy. i've twice now mentioned my reasons for believing this. i mention them a third time: he is attacking postmodernism on its relation to certain philosophical topics or objects (value, meaning, interpretation), and he defines it in relation to key philosophers. please explain your complaint with this reasoning.

>>9166058
this picture makes me lol every time

>>9167638
are you on aderall?

>>9167600
My view of postmodernism is the same as Marxism: they both are useful in a critical sense. They point out valid problems with existing ideology. But it's a far cry from that to some positive program to fix these problems. A critical ideology offers no solutions other than "something different".

A practical person, however, needs more than anything to build a positive program. So these things get confused, and people try to build practical, prescriptive programs off of the critical ideologies of Marxism and post-Marxism or critical theory or whatever.

For postmodernism, those are the programs based on relativism and nihilism, social constructivism. Basically SJW. And you can say these people don't fully understand the material they're trying to use as a justification, but the vulgar understanding of these ideas are what really matters in the real world, since that's what gets people to act on a mass scale. So it doesn't matter if postmodernism doesn't justify SJWs, and it doesn't matter if "true Marxism" doesn't justify totalitarianism and gulags.

In a way, this idea even ties back to the postmodern idea of truth as relative and contingent. What matters is not the abstract reasoning and whether it's accurate, but what matter is whether people find it useful.

>>9167638
Postmodernists take a relativist and post-structuralist stand. It all comes from Wittgenstein's first book, of which the Vienna Circle obsessed about and continued to influence French intellectuals way into the 70s. The foundation upon which it's based, philosophically, are piss poor and tasteless. It doesn't matter what philosopher you pull up, their ideas have less value than Alan Watts.

>>9167227
Yeah this.

"This moment of doubling commentary should no doubt have its place in a critical reading. To recognize and respect all its classical exigencies is not easy and requires all the instruments of traditional criticism. Without this recognition and this respect, critical production would risk developing in any direction at all and authorize itself to say almost anything."

Obviously Derrida means that there is no meaning to anything and we must supplement this nihilism with Marxism and overcome the oppressors.

>>9167240
It has its uses, like 'Renaissance' and 'Romanticism'.

>>9167384
>cultural/societal context, not a philosophical one

So since postmodernists are all Marxist (his words) he's not talking about philosophical Marxism, he's talking about cultural Marxism.

All you need to know about this hack.

>>9167638
>value, meaning, interpretation
>I've only ever read these words in Wittgenstein!
kys monomath

>>9167515
Maybe you're not used to reading long sentences. I can make sense of these posts.

>>9167382
>Nietzsche was a pragmatist
Wrong. Also, pragmatists are actually post-modernists.

>>9167630
> Either way, postmodernism rejects this claim entirely.

Yes that is what I said.

If postmodernism says that all text is able to be interpreted however the reader desires regardless of the desire of the author, then can I interpret postmodernist texts as being in defense of fascism and have it be equally valid to any other interpretation?

>>9167679
What postmodernism says that? If you include Derrida then no that's not what he says:

>>9167653

>>9167679
Holy shit... I want more

What is "postmodernism" exactly?

I agree with Jordan that certain nihilistic people are precisely like he characterizes, but isn't the irony of postmodernism that it refuses to be defined in some way?

I've also heard him critique Derrida's phallogocentrism, which I found to be well argued, but other than that I don't precisely understand why this thread is so mad.

>>9167632

1. how do "deconstruct" and "destroy" as verbs merit their conjunction through "and?" in other words, and assuming the relation your conjunction implies to be causal, then in what sense do you mean "deconstruct" if you believe it leads to the thing deconstructed being "destroyed?"

2. what are "power-games?"

3. what logical or interpretive operations are you eliding via that word, "Hence," in your second paragraph? what chain of causes are being implied to which the assertions following the Hence are assumed to be the effects?

>>9167645

no, just coffee and reluctance to do busywork

>>9167646

>>9167650
i refer your dull complaints to this post: >>9167653

>>9167646

alright, but 2 problems

1. if it is in fact the case that the only thing that matters in a philosophy is its popular reception, then why does peterson bother in the first place to associate it with particular philosophers of a particular time and place? if some kind of culture critique were really intended, wouldnt he be better served referring to specific cultural phenomena?
a. or could it be that the distinction between culture and philosophy is bunk, and that to articulate postmodernism in those terms is to miss the phenomenon entirely?
b. or is it rather that the distinction is useful, but only insofar as it is understood that culture subsumes philosophy, but in such a way as to imply a certain genealogical connection, whereby philosophies are seen to influence or produce social movements? but in that case one would be compelled to admit that it does in fact matter what the philosophers said, over and above their popular reception. and then one would be obliged to explain the process of transformation whereby a philosophy becomes a social movement that does not resemble its source material. this of course would be to take the philosophers mentioned (lacan, derrida) seriously, ie, to read them, something that seems beyond peterson's range of attention, effort, what have you.

2. the point you raise about the distinction between positive and negative projects and their relation to critique is an important one—but it is not clear that marxism lacks a positive project, or that it is incumbent on it to articulate one anyway; nor is it clear that postmodernism thus construed IS NOT ALREADY a positive project, with a definite image of society projected out from it. i would say that "SJW," if this is what is really meant by you and peterson when you sling around this word postmodernism, does in fact contain a positive project, and is actively in the process of realizing it, much to the distaste of peterson et. al.

>>9167669
LOOOOOL. I've never laughed this hard at someone on /lit/ before. How on earth is Nietzsche a postmodernist? Pragmatic ethics may be misunderstood as relativist, as failing to be objective, but that is like suggesting that science fails to be objective. Ethical pragmatists, like scientists, can maintain that their endeavor is objective on the grounds that it converges towards something objective.

>>9167710

who is Richard Rorty

>>9167706
>it is in fact the case that
>in the first place
>of a particular time and place
good lord man learn to write before you spew chunky paragraphs like that

>>9167710
>but that is like suggesting that science fails to be objective
It does. How the hell are you so incredibly stupid?

good bye stupid anon dont come back until you move past your >reads philosophy once, stage

>>9167706
>how do "deconstruct" and "destroy" as verbs merit their conjunction through "and?"

Because when you deconstruct value, which unfortunately is possible and something people do all the time, not only postmodernists, you are destroying it's Sacredness.

It actually matters to people that love for example is a transcendent value and not reducible to oxytocin, or the interplay between domination and submission.

>>9167696
Postmodernism is a variety of critiques against various aspects of a unified 'modernist' theory, which was seen as the development of Enlightenment thinking but became so academicised its proponents thought it beyond the test of the present. Postmodern criticism is defined by what it is not -- modernism -- rather than sharing any common theoretical ground. Some critiques reveal issues in the praxis of idealist liberalism either so they can be resolved or to scrap the whole idea altogether, others take claims made by modernists and continue them to their logical extremes, others look at modernism's tendency to be reductive or metaphysical, etc. It coincides with developments in linguistics, anthropology, psychoanalysis, feminist theory, civil rights and the like, as well as disappointments in Stalinism, consumer culture, formalist art.

>>9167733

i'm posting online, quickly, to keep abreast of the thread—so i apologize for the lack of rhetorical polish. but i dont think my crimes there are as egregious as youre making them seem; i think you just dont want to answer my objections

>>9167747
Deconstruction destroys writing (the text) but not value.

>>9167743
>it does
>how u so stubbid??? hehe
>bye bye
not an argument, kid

>>9167706

1. he does refer to the cultural phenomena, in fact I think he talks about these more often than the postmodern philosophers, and to someone like myself, rightly or wrongly, these philosophers mostly serve as an explanation to help me understand where these people are coming from who implement these cultural ideas, moreso than trying to understand the philosophers in their own words. It's not that I'm uninterested, but that it seems more of a vital question to understand what the activists are thinking, rather than to understand the philosophers who they may or may not have misunderstood.

a. seems obviously false to me to suggest philosophies don't get misinterpreted in the ways they're implemented. they get used by opportunists or demagogues. might as well compare good novels vs. those that sell the most books.
b. you bring up an important question. I do think Peterson is lacking in this area, but I think he's doing some useful work to make up for it. But especially in cases like postmodernism, you have to question whether the philosophy is intentionally hiding behind obscurantism in order to avoid criticism. Do you need to fully understand every fine point of ancient Egyptian religion to say that slavery is bad? Or do you just generalize based on what results from it?

2. if the postmodernism or SJW positive project does exist, then it seems to invalidate the defense of postmodernism which goes "peterson isn't attacking the postmodernists on their terms, but rather he's attacking the actions of those who claim to be influenced by them" which is what I thought I was responding to, unless you're saying that there is an intended positive project in the philosophy of postmodernists, and it's getting distorted or something by those implementing it. If there is a positive project, it seems fair to just attack it on its results. But I guess attacking it would require understanding it. But the problem with postmodernism and french theory and such is that some of it is so confusing that there's a big question of whether it can be understood at all or whether there's anything behind it. Although people who adhere to it will say it certainly can be understood, but it's almost certain some of them are faking it. I guess that's the source of division, whether it makes sense at all.

>>9167788

ok, i'm glad someone finally took the time to respond.

i'm going to answer only your reply to my 1b, because i think such a reply would also reply to 1 and 1a. my only answer to 2 is that the "obscurantism" often attributed to the french theorists of the 70s and 80s is somewhat overstated in my opinion. perhaps it's because i come at it from a poetical perspective: i expect to work to wrest something from these texts, not to have arguments trotted out that i may salute them in passing and digest them easily. i dont think texts in any field should be judged by their lucidity, but if we must do so, then i think that lucidity can be a negative just as often as an affirmative judgment. i would not read coleridge and praise the clarity of his verse; and i do not think i should always have to do the same with philosophy.

but as to 1b: my question for you then is what exactly does a philosopher purport to be doing when he analyzes culture and blames a set of philosophers for it, especially if he isn't interested in understanding those philosophers and the social factors that lead to (what you seem at least willing to admit may be) the societal distortion of their views, work, values, etc? this is why i cannot help but mention the culture/philosophy divide being used here, if i don't feel like deconstructing it myself: peterson himself cannot help but elide it, it seems, and this is worthy of investigation, especially given that that deconstruction (which one of the objects of critique he lumps under postmodernism) is concerned with binaries of exactly this sort.

why is it, in other words, that in attack a mode of thinking that includes suspicion in re: binaries like culture/philosophy, peterson himself can't help but slip over it, in effect deconstructing in a very "practical" sense, to use your word: practical in that it pragmatically assists him in making his point

>>9167824

i'm omitting pronouns all over the place; im sorry: i do this when i am tired, typing quickly on the internet, and havent really thought through what im writing about. in any case it's a real pleasure to be able to participate in thoughts bubbling up and finding formulation with you, anon (>>9167788)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvM13sLG2bI

is this postmodernism?

>>9167824
well, what peterson is doing in his words is trying to guard against arguments that will lead to devaluing human suffering, or that will justify totalitarianism. i'm not sure why that's his ultimate goal, I guess it's just a liberal tendency he doesn't question.

>what exactly does a philosopher purport to be doing when he analyzes culture and blames a set of philosophers for it
I guess he's just trying to explain why the culture is how it is. To call that deconstructionism is a little broad, since we always deconstruct our opponent whenever we're arguing, since our worldview wouldn't be complete unless we could explain why our opponents hold a view that's contrary to ours. So people always try to psychoanalyze their opponents a little although that too often turns into just a way to insult and dismiss your opponent.

I think there's a difference between doing nothing but deconstructing your opponent, vs. having to deconstruct your opponent in order to explain why people have been convinced to have that viewpoint, in light of your competing viewpoint which is based on something other than simply deconstruction.

Also the philosophy/culture binary isn't expressed by Peterson explicitly that I know of, I'm just trying to formulate why I don't think it's necessary for him to contend with postmodernism on postmodernists' terms, in order to criticize them.

>>9167771
>arguments are good
I'm 29, you're the kid here

>>9167984
shouldn't you be downloading cp from the darkweb?

>>9168026
>anybody i dont like is le pedo criminal xdddddd

>>9168027
not an argument

>>9167041
Stop retroactively labeling people. He died before the label existed. Nietzsche speaks on a broad range of things and his ideas can be interpreted to fit almost anything. Just because you can interperet him as a postmodernist doesn't mean he was one.

There's a good passage in BGE about how certain things shouldn't be questioned. Something about how when a man starts questioning reason he's gone too far. He has pretty grand romantic ideals that postmodernism rejects. He was a big influence on their thought, but don't insult the man with such a label.

>>9168054
He fucking defined the label and fits well enough into it.

Just because postmodernism strayed from him, does not mean that he wasn't the first.

>>9167182
'he's not using the word in the right context, even though I know exactly what he means by it'
'he's not being specific enough in a short interview with a bad interviewer'
Also 'manifesto-derived' understanding of Marxism is the funniest thing I've read all day. You're complaining he's drawing too much on the communist manifesto for his understanding of communism. Please give us all a literature recommendation because obviously the communist manifesto isn't good enough.

>>9166063
>Oh cool....it's the early 90's again.
not realising this says a lot about you but nothing at all about postmoderism.
many such cases.
sad!

File: 949rhw4943mfw0lleE.jpg (68KB, 350x530px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 350x530px

>>9166325
>Enlightenment ideas, capitalist ideas, etc aren't eternal and have meaning depending on the time and place they are used.
mfw

>>9167182
>string random-ass words together and hope nobody notices you didn't actually say anything concrete
I can't tell if you actually have no idea what you're talking about or if you drank so much kool-aid you're turning into Derrida

>>9168061
No he didn't. Modernism was hardly a thing at the time of his writing. How could he possibly define the label? You're very broadly interpreting both Nietzsche and Postmodernism and saying they overlap.

>>9168081
>modernism was hardly a thing at the time of his writing

>>9168086
As a label

>>9166063

Just think of it as nu-marxism

File: 1473136133602.gif (1MB, 440x187px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 440x187px

>>9166211

this is the worst thread on /lit/ since the trolley threads. bunch of fucking pseuds trying to redefine reality

>>9166544

He's not on any specific part of the spectrum because he's a normal person with integrity and not an ideologue.

>tfw when reactionary and I love Lacan(not the zizek Lacan and not the butler Lacan)

Peterson is too much of a softy and that;s why he even has a job at teaching despite his views.

File: image.jpg (159KB, 800x649px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 800x649px

>tfw plebs still associate pomo with post-structuralism instead of scientism

Why bother?

>>9168130
if you can make a clear distinction in aggregate, please do cause i sure as fuck can't

>>9168137
>post-structuralism
>although the may be unclear at times, the critic is still solid and precise

>scientism
>if you can't measure it it doesn't make sense talking about it, ethics and morals din't exist and the same applies to any sort of metaphysical concept, there is only the scientific truth (wich does tell tou NOTHING about human affairs)

Post-structuralists still talked about truth (both Lacan and Derrida, who are mentioned in that video by JP, believed in both physical and metaphysical objective truth).

File: 1474155151716.jpg (116KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 500x500px

>>9166058
So I'm currently watching the vid, almost done, and I have a question.
Was post-modernism ever, at the very least, well intentioned? Because although it certainly has spiraled out of control, its strikes me that in some ways it began as a deconstruction of old systems.
Don't misunderstand. I have no love for post-modernism and dislike the way it disregards progress and convention. I'd go so far as to say I hate it in a lot of ways.
I'm just not very familiar with movement outside of literature, and even then not so much.

>>9168171
>Was post-modernism ever, at the very least, well intentioned?

It's a buzzword for continentals, it is inherently meaningless and only pop-pseudo-philosophers and redpilled youtubers use it.
It makes sense to talk about pomo only when you're talking about the art movement, but there has been no such movement in philosophy. It's just a way to say "SJW leftie philosophers I don't agree with".

>>9168149
>wich does tell tou NOTHING about human affairs

Uh what? We base a shit ton of our ethics on science, especially in medicine. There is clear ethical guidelines that are guided by scientific discoveries. What else is there except objective, scientifically determined truth? I'm not trying to be asinine, I'm legit confused.

>>9166296
adler is basically freud but power instead of sex

both cases completely miss the point on human life, but adler didn't even bother to be original about it

>>9168182
Funny, since Adler basically stole most of Nietzsche's ideas, namely the will to power. I think Kierkegaard's and Frankl's idea of meaning makes much more sense in regards to human beings.

>>9168180
We use scientific discoveries as a guideline, but that's it. No medicine notion, by itself, tells me anything about human affairs: I still have to organize this knowledge somehow, and people blinded by scientism will, at best, do so by using unexamined common sense.
Rejecting scientism does not imply rejecting science.

>What else is there except objective, scientifically determined truth?
If you believe in the scientific method, no scientific truth is determined. The same applies to metaphysical truths.
That said we can still talk about approximations of truths (wich is the best we will ever get in this universe). In that sense there are, for example, extremely strong arguments for ethical and moral realism, and you can be very concrete when talking about subjects such as epistemology. If you know literally nothing about these subjects start with their SEP articles.

>>9167240
Let's hear it, this mythical refutation?

>>9167251
>no such thing as archetypes
Do you not believe in evolution in either?

>>9168196
>implying archetypes can somehow be put equal to evolution

you can take your archaic remnants up your ass and go home. taking some trend in people's ideas such as "hero" or "mother figure" is hardly evidence of some mental force that's guiding human progress

>>9168180
You're confusing which informs which. Science is a body of knowledge about the physical world, not values.

>>9168206

>could not reply to the post due to excess amounts of euphoria

>>9168206
>Evolution only applies to everything below the neck

>>9168220
i never claimed that? but if your hypothesis is that somehow our psyche has evolved these constructs or that they exist independent of our psyche or even better, they are shared among all of us (what about animals?), then you got a shit ton to prove. what's your evidence? any experiments?

oh right. Jung and his ilk never made scientific claims because even he knew none of this could be proven, ie. it's spooks

>>9168224
>spooks
Opinion discarded

File: And this is a japanese bird cooking BIOS.jpg (208KB, 692x463px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 692x463px

>>9168227
I knew you'd say that, which is why I put it there to test you and you fell for it. I'd love to see you embarass yourself in front of people by bringing up "archetypes" and spill your spaghetti explaining them to anyone with a highschool degree.

>>9168224

would you mind posting a picture of yourself?
I'd like to know what the guy I'm laughing at looks like.

>>9168233
btw I'm not that guy, and with your mindset literally no statement about psychology can be made.

File: areyoudumb.jpg (94KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 500x500px

>>9168235
All you've given me is some pseudo intellectual buzzword called "archetypes" which cannot be proven nor objectively defined. I bet you don't even know about the psychoid archetype, yet you use words you claim to understand.

>>9168240
>what is cognitive behavioral theory
>what is neuroscience
>what is social psychology
No credible psychologists talk about archetypes or "the unconscious" as perpetrated by the psychonalaytics

>>9168206
>t. brainlet
Psychological archetypes are a direct product of evolution.

File: 1371975026948.png (348KB, 600x922px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 600x922px

>>9168224
The proof is in that many and every major known group has developed similar archetypes in their observable culture, and that every kind of people respond sympathetically when presented with a medium that appeals to said archetypes. And anyway, I would readily this sort of thing is manifest. Since human beings have the same fundamental biological needs it follows that we would develop in a similar fashion, the social contract and all its niceties doesn't come to be in a vacuum.

>>9168258
readily say*

>>9168224
Actually read The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious instead of being comfortable with being an idiot.

>>9168244
>>what is cognitive behavioral theory
It's a therapeutic practice, not a descriptive one.
>>what is neuroscience
In the stages we're in it's basically data entry.
>>what is social psychology
In 30 years current social psychology will be as respected as archetypes today.

>>9166058
Stop posting pseuds.

File: distorted kek.png (814KB, 604x717px) Image search: [Google]

814KB, 604x717px

>>9168258
>the social contract

>>9168175
It's as much a movement in philosophy as it is in the arts. It develops earlier in the arts than philosophy (arguably) but by the 80s October journal had introduced the French thinkers commonly associated with postmodernism to contemporary art and its artists. Maybe it's through the arts 'movement' (however diverse) that we come to think of it as a philosophical one as well.

>>9167710
>Ethical pragmatists, like scientists, can maintain that their endeavor is objective on the grounds that it converges towards something objective.

And what objective thing would that be for ethics?

>>9168308
>"i never signed no social contract!"
>*tips fedora with Ron paul stickers*

File: luxe.jpg (384KB, 1280x1266px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1280x1266px

>>9166058
i'm so excited to listen! will try tonight if not tomorrow morning, thank you thank you thank you for posting this you're the best! ^^

>>9167381
Literally all the same fag

File: image.jpg (174KB, 669x429px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 669x429px

>>9166982

>>9166234
DELETE THIS

>>9167517
I genuinely believe it's a sort of pseud-smug ivory tower defense mechanism. If you make your argument intentionally hard to understand you can attack people for misunderstanding it, or for just not being smart enough to understand and thus not worthy of having a true discussion.

>>9167547
I don't understand why someone would take such pride in the their construction of English sentences and yet never capitalize properly.

>>9168322
Name 5 philosophers that define themselves as postmodernist.

>>9167517
>>9168432
Would you say the same thing about Kant or Hegel?

>>9167679
>implying you would need to reinterpret foucault to turn him into a defender of fascism

>>9166058
Tbf people itt are critiquing Peterson's misinterpretation of Post-structuralist theory, when literally all North Americans misinterpret the Post-structuralists in exactly the same way.

It's a valuable critique bc yanks are now trying to spread their misinterpretation to the academia of other countries.

>inb4 an amerifat comes in with "hurr durr there is no misinterpretation under postmodernism hurr durr
That's exactly what I'm talking about

>>9168453
I was refering to proponents of a philosopher and not the philosopher themselves. Their own understanding of the issues may not be fully developed, and if they continually write in complex and unclear manner it is easy to suspect they are attempting to conceal their own misunderstanding of the subject. It would be mutually beneficial to write or speak as clearly as possible.

Also Kant and Hegel are centuries old, and their language reflects that.

>>9166230
You first faggot

>>9167182
>>9167227
>>9167504
>>9167547
>>9167638
>>9167706
>>9167788
>>9167824
i used to know people who would talk like this in highschool. they were autistic(literally) robots who would drone on and on about nothing and would pull this "philospher king" persona out of their asses whenever you would try to talk to them about anything they didn't enjoy like getting laid and going to parties because they were pasty skinny shits and had nothing else going for them. we would hold them down and shit on them during lunch break, it was was great.

>>9168500
>Tfw not smart enough to be made into a human toilet.

>>9166576
>boo hoo we're being oppressed
Did you even watch the fucking video?

>>9168500
i'm happy i've kept my autism for myself

File: IMG_0081.png (1MB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 750x1334px

>>9168505
Feels fucking bad man

>>9168476
So how did it get to this point? Why do they have such a vulgar understanding of these thinkers?

What Peterson is describing here sound like real phenomena, but "Postmodernism" is a bad substitute for an explanation of their origin

LMAO

FRIENDLY REMINDER THAT POST-MODERNISM IS A RESULT OF CAPITALISM AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PHILOSOPHERS OF THE 20TH CENTURY

FRIENDLY REMINDER PETERSON WON'T ADMIT THIS BECAUSE HE RELIES ON CAPITALISM SO HE'LL CREATE A STRAWMAN IN THE FORM OF """OHHHHH LACAN/MARX"""" TO RUB THE STOMACHS OF HIS AUDIENCE

((IM NoT A COMMIE OR JEW BTW))

>>9166058

Jordan peterson is a fucking idiotic pseud worshipped by /pol/tards. He's actually a fucking idiot who doesn't even understand marxism.

Isn't Milo the embodiment of post-modernism par-excellence?

>Gay
>Jew
>Greek
>British
>Catholic
>Interracial sex
>Edited a website which had a bias towards portraying black crime
>Hates trannies and lesbians
>Wears female clothing
>Claims pedophilia will be the new norm and we should fight against it
>Often exclaims about being abused as a child and enjoying it

>>9167914

well this is excactly my point, and the point i have been reiterating throughout this thread, that if he actually did engage these "postmodernists" on their terms he would find a much more robust ethical system than he gives credit for, and that his reluctance to do so is taken as enlightened erudition by nincompoops here who believe that 3 clause sentences are "obscurantist," that marxism and communism are identical, etc, and not as the intellectual laziness and dishonesty it really is.

>>9168432
I understood every single post in this thread. I guess you're just a mad ass brainlet.

>>9168500

>implying you aren't still in high school

>>9168807

yeah this. none of the writing in this thread would win essay contests, but none of it was opaque or "obscure" either

>>9168453
>Name 5 philosophers that define themselves as postmodernist.

When I say "the French thinkers commonly associated with postmodernism" I obviously don't mean that philosophers describe themselves as postmodernists. The point I'm making is more along the lines of me asking you to name 5 artists that define themselves as postmodernist, then you being like "ooooh I see" and then we both agree that it's equally as useful a term when talking about certain artists as it is for talking about philosophers. We're using common parlance rather than assigning strict labels

>>9168588
He's probably (mis)characterising some academic thought but specifically calling out Derrida, Foucault, Lacan as though they're a) alive b) in academia, is baffling

>>9168244
>>what is cognitive behavioral theory
>>what is neuroscience
>>what is social psychology
All irrelevant and invalid nonsense.

>>9167602
How can I register there?

>>9166058
>interviewing an intellectual giant

top fucking kek
why do people rate peterson so highly? he has zero original ideas, and isn't particularly good at defending the ones he borrows from past psychologists and philosophers

>>9168842
It's not like there are any living "philosophers" or "postmodernists" worth mentioning, yet every mediocre pleb professor assigns the works of those you mentioned.

>>9166058
>what can you say about academia and freedom of speech?
>I'm going to tell you a story about zebras

>>9169449
At least they weren't Marxist zebras.

>>9169425

put your money where your mouth is and tell us where you study then

>>9169449
>/lit/ doesn't understand metaphors

Color me surprised.

>>9168820
The writing wouldn't win writing contests because it isn't good writing because it isn't clear. That doesn't mean it isn't understandable--it means that is overly complicated for the sake of being self-indulgently verbose. Many of the posts by the guy refuses to capitalize properly (you) could have been easily stated in much simpler language and lost none of it's meaning.

>>9169449
>Zizek, tell me about X
>*humorous anecdote about Hungarian brothel-goer*

is JP the negazizek?

>>9167122
I'm pretty sure Lacan insisted that he was just a structuralist. But I don't know the exact difference between structuralism and poststructuralism.

>>9167469
He has a bunch of lectures on YouTube. There's a good one about Dostoevsky, too.

See, just look at this thread and you'll see what >>9167082
was saying. Objections to JP are deliberate misunderstandings 99 out of 100 times.

>Oh, Postmodernism is actually just a system of criticism, it makes no actual proscriptions for what to do once you've deconstructed everything.
Except every adherent of pomo seems to come to the same fucking conclusions about what needs to happen in society. How can anyone honestly look at this situation, see a bunch of pomo acolytes all endorsing the same series of actions, and then say Peterson isn't making sense when he groups the descriptive and the proscriptive sides of this movement under a single label? Only by deliberate and disingenuous misinterpretation of JP's arguments can this conclusion be reached.

>>9167758
>in a thirty-second soundbite, JP did not explicitly cover every single base of what could ever possibly be termed postmodernism and instead simply spoke in a general sense, referring to the main tenets that most postmodernists tend to share

>>9168244
>Who could ever possibly know what is meant by a word like archetype? I refuse to find out, therefore Peterson is a hack.

>>9168842
>Psh how is he even criticizing the works of dead authors whose same ideas are currently massively influential, so ridiculous theyre not even alive lmao

Honestly embarrassing.

>>9168149
>scientism
>if you can't measure it it doesn't make sense talking about it, ethics and morals din't exist and the same applies to any sort of metaphysical concept, there is only the scientific truth (wich does tell tou NOTHING about human affairs)

Isn't this just empiricism? How does empiricism different from scientism? Does empiricism draw a more clear line between descriptions of the world versus values, ethics, etc than scientism does?

What a great man

>>9166234
FUCKING FACIST

Jordan Petersen is LITERALYL and in no ways figuratively ADOLF FUCKING HITLER

he wants to HOLOCAUST LGBTQATFMDSZ's and TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION

File: 1471223817437.jpg (39KB, 387x411px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 387x411px

>>9166342
>>9167082
>>9168076

Im not the guy who you are responding to but they are completely right. An obvious example of how he is right is the entire Romantic period, which was a rejection of the Enlightenment

This ends by at least the 1860's, a century before the 1960's where postmodernism is taking off.

An entire century and two world wars have occurred. People in 1960's were not reacting to the Enlightenment as if they were the romantics of the first half of the 1800's.

That is fucking retarded.

>>9169425
No they don't, they assign writers relevant to the subject. Postmodernism is too interdisciplinary, and when it's relevant, like Foucault is relevant to political science, he's presented in the context of politics amongst other relevant writers.

It shouldn't be hard to work out why there are no living postmodernists, because it's not current theory.

>>9171061
>>Psh how is he even criticizing the works of dead authors whose same ideas are currently massively influential, so ridiculous theyre not even alive lmao

Do you have some sort of brain issue? Maybe you should read the post again.

File: 1488245471600.png (343KB, 471x441px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 471x441px

>>9167547
Jesus Christ, if this text was a person it would wear a fucking fedora.

>>9167547

I tried paying a hooker to implicitly lambast me once and she slapped me in the face

>>9167504
It really is incredible that you could type all this and still not make a legitimate point or argument outside of "b-but he uses 'postmodernism' wrong!"

>>9166108
this

>>9166126
Lacan would have a feild day

>>9167129
Quality

>>9167585
The funny this is that most PoMo writers don't consider themselves PoMo. Their lack of value correlates to the immense power structures' lack of values after WWII. It's really hard to hoist up honest human morals when the ones in charge have concocted a industrial complex worth trillions with the sole purpose to end human life.

>>9166063
Awesome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFaR6O3L6ZU

>>9166576
Let the normies have their redpills, desu.

>>9171061

>adherent of pomo

Again just refusing to understand what anyone who takes the phrase seriously means by it, but when I try to explain it, I'm accused of either being "obscurantist," or explaining things that are simple in overly complex ways. And yet the only defense of peterson's use of the phrase postmodernism again boils down to uncritically accepting his use of it and deliberately ignoring anyone saying otherwise. So it's almost as though you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, and are just wooed by an ideologue.

>>9167082

The complaint is not that he doesn't explain himself rigorously, it's that the explanation he does give is not even in the realm of relevance to what the term is used to refer to in actual academic discourse communities. But when people try to explain what this use is, they get ignored or accused of being obscurantist. Now again I'm not asking for a total explanation of postmodernism—many people who spend their lives studying it have written books on it. What I am suggesting is that Peterson is a gutless rhetorician only interested in dismissing things he doesn't like, things that aren't backed by outright mysticism, i.e., materialist discourses like Foucault's and Marx's, and that he uses this word "postmodernism" in a context invented for that purpose. And again, the only way of making that clear is to explain that the people to whom the term "postmodernism" refers to when he uses it are not described by his use of it; nor are the described by the academic use of it I mentioned earlier. But if you try to explain any of this, you are, as I have said, either dismissed as obscurantist or as pedantic—in other words, of being postmodern in precisely the sense in which literally no one using the term BUT 4chan and Peterson mean.

File: aj.png (831KB, 796x682px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 796x682px

>>9167041
>muh muhs
u mad faggot u mad u so fucking mad

>>9166211
how so?

inb4 Popperian unfalsifiable

File: 1481307992108.jpg (143KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1000x1000px

>>9167227
Good post, learnt something.

>>9173585
no
but empty poles will always vomit management

>>9166108
unironically a good post and youtube comment

>>9166544
He claims to be apolitical but he's the closest thing to a political centrist I've ever seen

>>9173969
He's not apolitical, and it's obvious that he doesn't claim to be either.

I mean, the guy was a member of a social democratic party in Canada for 20 years.

>>9171354
Empiricism doesn't value common sense when a statement has to be made, scientism instead has to do so because it doesn't have the philosophical foundations to do otherwise.

Scientism is empiricism for dumb people. Imagine hacks like Dawkins, NDT, Sam Harris.

>Also Kant and Hegel are centuries old, and their language reflects that.
Not true, they were hard to understand 300 years ago too, and countless philosophers have criticized that.

>I was refering to proponents of a philosopher and not the philosopher themselves. Their own understanding of the issues may not be fully developed, and if they continually write in complex and unclear manner it is easy to suspect they are attempting to conceal their own misunderstanding of the subject. It would be mutually beneficial to write or speak as clearly as possible.
i wont talk about Lacan, since I havent read anything written by him.
The guy who is mentioned very often (hell, even the OP did it) is Derrida, and in that case that criticism is almost null, since Derrida (and many others) write in the way they write usually to make a point: in the specific case of Derrida, he writes the way he writes to make apparent that language is entirely contextual. Had you read him you would have noticed that what he is saying is actually quite easy to understand, and that is bizarre use of language is easier to decypher when compared to Kant's language.

Why would we blame post structuralists for being so hard to understand when, for example, Heideggerian existentialism is based on the same premise? Heidegger used a very difficult language in order to escape from Descartes paradigms, wich are now completely engraved in the way we talk to each other.

You should question the value of clarity and concision more, especially when you consider that these books are not written for the general public.

>>9168829
Yet the definition JP gives of postmodernism does not fit almost any major post structuralist thinker philosophy.
At this point I'm 99% sure that when people think about pomo they think about an ideal mixture of Foucault (subjectivism and scepticism toward general narratives, even the more intuitive ones) and Derrida (very contextual language), wich does not describe any major philosopher of the last century.
Stop using buzzwords as the foundation of your philosophical view of the world.

>>9173977
Somewhere he described himself as not political, but religious

>>9173986
Heidegger is hard to understand, but part of that is because he has created so many neologisms, so you have know what those mean to understand his text. But once you have done so, it's not that hard.

Unlike Derrida who seems deliberately obscurantist.

give money to his patreon and maybe he'll make a series of lectures discussing the finer points of derrida, foucault and lacan

https://www.patreon.com/jordanbpeterson

>I want to address postmodernism, and the history of the west (particularly with regards to philosophical and political development).

thre rebel media people are even more retarded than milo. at least he can fake intelligence

>>9173994

it seems actually that you're just illiterate

milo yhiannopolous is a pedophile

>>9174029
And it seems that you're a huge faggot.

File: 1488007351332.png (274KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 500x500px

This thread is hurting my brain, start with the Greeks?

>>9168659
confirmed SJW socialist elitist globalist cultural marxist schlomo shekelberger (((you)))
not an argument kek I wonder who is behind this post
did you get your soros paycheck yet you KEK ?!?:?

read the gulag archipelago son and learn basic economics

>>9174029
There it is.

>Derrida's not deliberately obtuse, ur just dum lmao

>>9173033
Okay, so it's pretty clear who he means when he says Postmodernists.
>French post-structuralists and related ideas.
>Marxist notions of materialist dialiectics
>People who feel the anarchic need to deconstruct anything they don't like but leave their favorite ideas alone.
>etc

This would have been obvious given:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

The fact that you cannot accept that is evidence of either severe autism or deliberate misinterpretation in an attempt to avoid engaging with JP's ideas at all.

>>9173049
Peterson describes postmodern philosophy as not acknowledging moral truths.

From the fucking wikipedia entry for pomo phil:

Postmodern philosophy is a philosophical direction which is critical of certain foundational assumptions of Western philosophy and especially of the 18th-century Enlightenment. It emphasizes the importance of power relationships, personalization and discourse in the "construction" of truth and world views. Postmodernists deny that an objective reality exists, and deny that there are objective moral values.[1]

>Nobody uses JP's definition of pomo except 4chan and JP
>and enough people for the wiki page to agree, I guess

Literally obscuratinism.

>>9173994
>Unlike Derrida who seems deliberately obscurantist.

His language choices are a fundamental point he has always tried to make through his philosophy. It may be a low-brow consideration, but just consider his usage of the word ''différance'', wich is a cornerstone of his thought.
It's not a very smart critique of his philosophy, since it immediatly shows that you haven't even understood his core concepts.

>>9174164
>French post-structuralists and related ideas.
Wich is a very diverse movement, who is not homogeneus when you consider the politics (wich go from complete political neutrality to hardcore maoism) and epistemics (wich go from complete scepticism to pragmatism).
Deconstruction is a tool, not an ideology.

>Marxist notions of materialist dialiectics
Wich are not inherent to post-structuralism (if anything it's inherent to post-halfXIX century philosophy almost in its entirety)

>People who feel the anarchic need to deconstruct anything they don't like but leave their favorite ideas alone.
Again, post-structuralism is not a cohesive movement. Countless people have deconstructed communism, capitalism, liberalism, you name it. It's a tool, not an ideology.

>The fact that you cannot accept that is evidence of either severe autism or deliberate misinterpretation in an attempt to avoid engaging with JP's ideas at all.
From these critiques what emerges is that most critics of ''post-modernism'' are completely ignorant when it comes to contemporary philosophy. There is no critique made by JP that is worth debating over, since none of them are specific in the slightest.
They're as valuable as me picturing every entepreneur in the world as a capitalist pig who gets off exploiting slaves in sweatshops. Why should you give any sort of attention to such a statement? It doesn't refer to anything in particular, and its premises are completely dissociated from the real world.

>>9174149
>Basic economics
>Not reading only Austrian economics

THIS GUY IS A KEK

>>9174294
>His language choices are a fundamental point he has always tried to make through his philosophy.
Different anon, but wouldn't this just be literally deliberately obscurantist? If he's doing it on purpose then surely it's deliberate.

>>9167595
you can literally download it from his own website

>>9174577
>but wouldn't this just be literally deliberately obscurantist?

He is just being coherent with the point he is trying to make (and since that point comprehend language as a whole it make sense for him to stick to it).
That said, the difficulty in Derrida's writing is grossly overstated. The first 4-5 hours will be a mess, but at some point you'll get used to it and you will realize that he is actually right, language is THAT contextual.
Again, the difficulty of his writings are grossly overstated by
a) people who have never read him
b) people who have, at best, read a couple pages by him

Also, since it's IT: Derrida doesn't fit JP's definition of pomo, since he believes in both physical and metaphysical objective truths.

File: Lacan.jpg (114KB, 528x381px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 528x381px

>Jungian

lmao nu/lit/ is embarrassing

>>9174957
would suck his [SPOILER] bank account and send him to prison [/SPOILER]

File: 1488142575701.jpg (9KB, 237x239px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 237x239px

>>9166102
Underrated

>>9167122
So, post-modernism ended before it begun?

>>9169414
Because he refused to call some people xir or some shit.

This is literally all you need to become a right wing darling these days, not liking trannies (although I do think his social darwinism revival gives him some credit with /pol/lacks).

I love how /lit/ pretty much only hates this guy because /pol/acks started liking him. It's pretty pathetic. The guy isn't alt right at all, he's pretty liberal.

>>9175227
>his social darwinism revival

Yeah but his conception of social darwinism is straight up loony bin tier

>>9175234
/lit/ hates pseudo philosophers in general.
Sam Harris is hated as much as JP, and he has nothing to do with /pol/.

>>9175234
>he's pretty liberal
Who cares? His insight is still worhtless to anyone who has actually read more than 0.5 books.

>>9175242
Has he ever even claimed to be a philosopher?

>>9175234
I hate him because he's a Jungian and by definition thrash worthy

>>9175237
Well, social darwinism as a whole is shit, his is only worse because it also uses fucking Jung as science.

I mean, I love some jungian mumbo jumbo, but that's mostly because I wish magic was real than because it's true.

>>9175256
He gets payed to give lectures about philosophers, if he's not claiming to be one he's a huckster

>>9175256
He does philosophy publicly, wether he claims it or not is irrelevant.

>>9175257
>I hate him because he's a Jungian
Like everyone who has not been absorbed by the Jung cult he quotes him conservatively, usually sticking with the concepts that can still be supported with modern psychology (the shadow self, killing the dragon etc.).

>>9175242
It's funny because everyone on /lit/ is likely themselves a pseudo-philosopher.

>>9175645
No one here gives lectures in universities about philosophical movements they know nothing about, nor anyone is asking money through patreon for said lectures.

>>9175645
And so what if we are, we're just dudes on a forum.
We're not abusing a position in a completely different field to act like you've any right to dismiss canonical philosophers

File: 285ea9ac2c124e712dd20d05ca2d8b294a27bc7fbf555fedbf8845d56d2a150a.png (527KB, 520x525px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 520x525px

>>9175663
>>9175665 (you)
My nigga

>>9175663
>>9175665
I assume you have actually watched some of his lectures beyond a short interview right?

peterson is a legitimate retard

>teleological view on truth applied in retrospect

retarded

>>9175709
>lectures

We /tv/ now? Regardless I have, nothing he has said has ever impressed me as an actual philosophy grad, he speaks like a freshman and is clearly out of his depth

>>9166058
It must be really nice being such a sentimental pseudointellectual. His beliefs are so artistic, so nonsensical and beautiful and founded on nothing.

>>9175789
>actual philosophy grad
Anal autistics are not 'philosophy grads'

>>9175881
Peterson is heavily analytic in his approach so I don't see your point. That aside I graduated from one of the top universities in Europe which had a department with significant representation from both schools.

>>9175898
>top universities
You do realize popularity or acclaim does not equate to quality, correct?

>>9175913
Not a serious person. Have a nice day

>>9175709
I've watched 3 long videos of him: a very long interview (in wich, as usual, he dismissed entire philosophical movements using bonker definitions and strawmans), a psychology lecture (wich wasn't actually about academical psychology, but sounded more like a self-help course) and a personal video he released on his channel (wich was again self-help shit).

I may be wrong, but at this point I can't not think that there is no actual psychology lecture by him on the internet, but only self-help stuff on the line of ''how to sort yourself out'', ''how not to procrastinate'' or ''humans can be horrible, this is what you have to do to not fall in that hole''.

>>9175920
Why is being serious 'good'.

>>9175881
>>9175898
>>9175913
>>9175920
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Top Philosophy Program in the world, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Jordan Peterson and Alt-Right, and I have over 300 confirmed arguments won. I am trained in Philosophical warfare and I’m the top rhetorician in the entire PoMo-IDF. You are nothing to me but just another Pseud. I will blow you the fuck out with intellectual precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking arguments. You think you can get away with saying that about Derrida over the Internet? Think again, Pseud. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of Philosophers across the USA and your logic is being traced right now so you better prepare for the argument, block-head. The argument that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your personal values. You’re fucking dumb, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can argue with you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my keyboard. Not only am I extensively trained in Rhetoric, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the PoMo-IDF and I will use it to its full extent to argue your miserable ass off the face of /lit/, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn block-head. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking btfo, kiddo.

>>9175795
it's hilarious when he uses ideology as a slur while being the (pseudo)intellectual front of christian neo-fascist conservatives.

>>9175932
Thats mostly all psychology actually is, its a subject rife with horseshit.
Medical Psychiatry is the only field worth a damn to have a claim to natural science

>>9175933
not that guy but peterson is pretty damn serious, on the verge of tears most of the time it seems.

>>9166058
>tfw Jordan is crying because he knows that he will be remembered for being an hacks, clowning out for the lowest common denominator available on the internet

He has studied enough to be that self-aware. He knows what a charlatan he is, and it's killing him.

Most postmodernists don't understand half the stuff they talk about either to be fair

>>9166075
he works like a dog..

>>9177124
He really doesn't, his academical record is pathetic at best

>>9176228
>implying the lowest common denominator aren't fans of his
>implying you aren't part of the lowest common denominator
>>9177124
dogs love him.

>>9176444
Fucking true.

>>9178472
>>implying you aren't part of the lowest common denominator
I'm not a anti-SJW redpilled /pol/hack, if that's what you're asking.

>>9175951
This is not how psychology is taught. Do you really think that to master this field you have to attend countless lectures in wich a guy tells you "dude! Stop procrastinating! Sort yourself out?"? That's just delusional.

He's a self-help guru mate

>>9178588
yea i misread your post

The bitter rage this man produces in snotty marxist pseuds is like fine wine.

>>9171923
>The guy with a Goblin Slayer pic-related is an idiot
Unsurprising

>>9178650
>You don't like him so he must be right!

>>9179261

Go ahead and quote the part where I said anything about him being right or wrong. Nice job being an example of what I said though, keep it flowing.

>>9178588
I agree with you, just saying that he's far from alone in humanities psychology, its a joke subject

>>9175946
he doesn't like christian neo-fascist conservatives

>>9179338
Then why does he talk to them, lol?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KWXdDYEz10

>provocateur
>alt right
>es jay doubleyous
>culture wars
>western civilizashun

I miss it when people just had their emo/goth phase for a while and moved on to become adults

>>9179348
why are you talking2me?

>>9167122

I had a bunch of pop-science fags tell me on facebook that me calling the period of thought before post-modernism, "modernism" is incorrect as that is an art movement.

like fuck man I hate pop-science fags thinking that there is no god other than science.

>>9179358
You're being incredibly disingenuous if you don't see his obvious association with right wing media online, especially so with his sudden apologeticism for Milo of all people
>The joke is a precurser to the savior

Fucking dunce

>>9179358
bc im trying to troll u......... guessi fucked up orz

milo yiannopoulos is a pedophile

>>9179367
Milo is a right-wing SJW and pedophile

>>9179354

>being unable to be grateful for and mocking towards western civilization

dumb and blind fag dwelling in his ignorant slumber who hasn't gone to the underworld to revivify his father to sort himself out before taking the weight of the world on his shoulder confirmed

>>9179367
You'd also be astoundingly disingenuous to deny post-modernism's association with Marxism.

>>9180150
I've no clue what you're trying to say with that statement. Marxism as structural analytic approach to society is inherently incompatible with how Peterson is describing Post-Modernism. Its intrinsically modernist in perspective.
What is it you mean by "association" here?

>>9180177
They are separate things but they tend to attract the same people for the same reasons.

>>9180187
The difference is however is that Leftists don't make any disguise about that. You'll find Marxist figures like Zizek in conversations and lectures alongside Judith Butler who casually falls under his post-modern label.
Peterson is increasingly courting the alt-right for exposure yet people are still pretending as if he is a member of the centre-left

>>9180220
I won't deny that. But the fact the Marxists and Postmodernists seem to get along so well despite their adamant claims they are separate things has created the conflation that so many in this thread have become offended by.
From the perspective of many on the right postmodernism and Marxism appear as you see Peterson and the Alt-right. Different arms of the same beast, if not the same beast entirely.

>>9166325
>what postmodernists were reacting against
You mean for. The answer being KGB money.

>>9180268
[citation needed]
I can however cite the CIA directly promoted post-modern artists in the US such as Jackson Pollock due to their inherent apolitical perspective that was incompatible with Communist ideals

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

Read more dipshit

>>9167240
>Implying it's possible to deem a term as being bullshit

>>9167233

I found that he was quite ill informed on a lot of what he spoke about, but I continued to listen to his lectures and interviews when they popped up on my feed. More than anything, it felt refreshing to know that there are intellectual thinkers still getting attention through the media -- for the right reasons or not.

With that being said, I started to really understand how deep his facade ran when I picked up Maps Of Meaning.

It was the BIGGEST load of bullshit I have ever read, and perhaps the only book I have considered ripping up and throwing in the trash. (And that's saying a lot. I sat through the entirety of Tom Robbin's Fierce Invalids)

There were points that were quite accurate, and he offered some very interesting perspectives in regards to his interpretations on particular mythological patterns.

He lost me when he touched on Godel's Incompleteness theorem.

Not only did he grossly oversimplify it, but he also had no fucking understanding of what he was talking about.

At that point, I was quite sure I was in my right to question the validity of the rest of the book, and I just put the garbage down.

I want my time and my 60 dollars back.