@Rosencreutzzz yeah unfortunately this specific topic was heavily covered between like 2017-2019/2020 (for obvious reasons) and most old guard essayists have given their take on it three times over ,: ] I quite like your video thus far and really appreciat your fresh point of view and additional context! but it's coming into an already quite saturated environment. I will say, though, if you feel the oversaturation is significant enough to warrant some marketing changes, F.D. has had success changing the title and thumbnail for his videos to draw in new viewers not drawn by prior ones. But im not a video creator or a marketer so that note should be taken with skepticism 😅
Also not to be a dick, but how does he spend most of his life with crippling depression, get addicted to benzos, and then have the balls to write self help books to undisciplined young men about cleaning their rooms?
Jordan Peterson is the postmodern parody of the "modernist artist". The individual who tries to move forward becomes a conservative romanticist, the mystique of modernist artists is changed to a 24/7 soap opera of craziness, whisky is exchanged for benzodiazepines and the rational metanarratives become surface level feelings shoved in a blender of dead metanaratives. He is a symptom of our postmodern world and every time he wallows at it, he just becomes a mirror of it.
Someone pointed out to me once that - as psychoanalysis is unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific - that Jung studied the opposite of science then dropped out to become a wizard.
You are a monster for making me watch part of a debate between Dawkins and Peterson and then, on top of that, making me immediately agree with Peterson.
The debate between Peterson and Dawkins is so fucking funny, Richard is staring at him in such utter bewilderment, he has no idea how to respond to the sheer lunacy of Peterson's whole deal.
There's a book 'Blindsight' where an alien spaceship parks itself around Jupiter and humans go out to see what's up with it. Eventually it starts responding to communications. But there's something weird about it. Like what it says is technically human language and seems to be responding to the other side correctly. But it's just off. Eventually they realize that this species of alien is sort of non-sentient and is sort of responding in a super complex form of instinct. And that it doesn't actually understand anything that it's been saying and it's just learned human language without understanding what any of it means or that it even has meaning. That is what Jordan Peterson sounds like to me. He's almost like an IQ test. How long does it take you to realize that while these are grammatically correct sentences they mean literally nothing.
@thewhitefalcon8539 That's exactly what came to mind when I was writing this. The book came out in 2006 so it seems so. Although the concept of a 'Chinese Room' isn't new.
I am a leftwing archaeo-mystic doing pre-renaissance magic and trying to do hermeneutics on neo paganism. I understand Jorples Bleep Porples's speak as a L1 rambler. But honestly he's a crank even in the lofty strange mindspace. He overstates & overliteralizes his ideas
The layercake of reaction against is well painted Pomo to mo to romantic to rationalist to humanist to medieval scholasticism to medieval mysticism to late antiquity christianity to neoplatonism to platonism... to the first minds pondering
Peterson and Spengler is exactly the connection I've been privately making for years. Both being double-talkers who throw sandstorms of erudite-sounding allusions into the air, make no discernible logical connections between any of the little stinging grains of sand therein, then state an a priori conclusion and challenge the listener to refute an argument which has not actually been made. Every paragraph of Spengler I've ever read and every paragraph of Peterson I've ever heard follows exactly this same tiresome, "irrefutable" pattern. "Postmodern Neomarxism" is pounding on an empty steel drum meant to drown out all possible actual conversation about the present moment and Karl Marx.
I’m pleasantly surprised by how much I have to rewind and think about all this. Taking me 5x as long to finish the video. The fact I actually understand and have more stuff to reflect about makes this a 12/10. It explains my blind spots in trying to explain post modernism myself
This is a fantastic video, kudos. I think the main divide that makes Jung a valuable pioneer and Peterson a total nutcase is that Jung embraced the postmodern tendencies of his era and built a psychological (and later, metaphysical and ontological) framework that accommodated them, while Peterson utterly failed in this, and declared postmodernism his sworn enemy. This is probably why he loves Dostoevsky so much, because Dostoevsky's best characters are warriors against nihilism-and it's Peterson's folly to see nihilism where Jung saw a new, exciting from of truth. That said, though I disagree with some of your criticisms of Jung, I'm very glad that you didn't just kick off with relating Jung to Peterson's ass-backwards interpretations of him and instead engaged with his ideas directly. I feel most modern thinkers boil Jung down and unfairly call him "disconnected from the world" (he was a practicing and extremely successful clinical psychologist after all), and I do think you fall partially into that trap too-for example, the definition you give of "archetype" is extremely far from what Jung meant when he used the word, and is more so related to the later humanities' appropriation of the term. I assume you did this to fit it all within the video, but it might be that you only have second-hand knowledge of many of these ideas. Still, your identification of his ideas with Kant is spot on in that Jung very much spent the first decades of his career attempting to bring Kant down to Earth (which is another point against calling Jung a "disconnected"). P.S. Nice attempt at pronouncing "Can Uğursal", best attempt at Turkish I've ever heard from an American :)
Channel owner is just like picking a random Western college kid and taking their opinion seriously about these made up topics. Jung was a good man with a good legacy, Peterson is a troubled individual still trying to sort himself out, it's unfair and counter productive to constantly criticise and pick on others while being a "nobody" in real life.
Yeah, sorry Jeff, I'll be sure to leave it to my betters to discuss the impact and ideology of a man with millions of followers worldwide. To be less facetious, your argument is strikingly backwards. I've subjected myself to public scrutiny in posting this on the internet, I'm a relatively nobody, but in your framework, the only people who should be discussing Peterson (not "pick on" as you unfairly ascribe here) are his peers. Peterson *is* troubled, and often by monsters of his own making, that's a core point for me. I'm giving his his ideas their context, and probably one of only times the "dragon debate" will ever be brought up in this space without being a punchline. It would be picking on him to be like "yeah this guy is just an idiot, what do you mean dragons are real lmao" and then talk about exclusively his tweets for 20 minutes and call it a day. I'm taking him serious. Troubled or not, he's got a massive platform, has sold millions of books, and also has an ill-formed political outlook that he shares with such aggression it merits embarrassment from the people whom his books have helped. That isn't something to just tut-tutt at and go "oh well he's troubled such a shame"
@@RosencreutzzzWas excited that you had replied, turns out it was to snuff out an inflammatory reply... Sorry my criticism ended up being a vehicle for that. I wrote what I wrote in good faith and am a fan of your work. Please keep making videos like this.
@@myilmazalper Apologies. I did read your comment, but then I saw the other one and, well, felt like I had to respond more pointedly to it. I do think the Dostoevsky remark is very on point. In fact, I think between my youth fixation on a lot of Romantic era culture and being a Dostoevsky nerd, that's part of why I kinda... empathize with Peterson, in a way. I don't think his interests are silly, but I do think he's approached a lot of things from a sour angle. I'm not personally very convinced in the contemporary value of Jung, but I do see his historical impact and some of the value of terms, the same way I do with Freud. I think my bone to pick with him, however, comes from the people who cite him as their inspiration, and then end up being fixated on heroes, or universalities. His disconnect I think comes from his era. And I know that gets said a lot about people from the past, but I think the fact that psychology has moved past generalizations to a degree is a sign that it's not an inherent truth of the field, and that he'd probably have grown past them himself.
Wonderfully said. Also another reason why the whole Jung being "disconnected" argument is quite silly is because based on his works like The Red Book and the Seven Sermons to the Dead, Answer to Job and several others it can be clearly seen that Jung throughout his life was torn between his scholarly side and the striving for metaphysical knowledge/wisdom side. Trying to say that he belonged only to one sphere of knowledge and proclaiming that it was the essential core of his entire worldview is quite unfair and dishonest in my honest opinion.
I would like it if you talked about Peterson's other influence other than Jung, which is Mircea Eliade, a "former" fascist, historian of religions, philosopher and propagandist member of Romania's fascist government during WW2, which ended up just regurgitating Julius Evola's vague generalizations on religion in his book The Sacred and the Profane, you might've heard Peterson talk and have lectures on this book before. So this video was about Peterson's Jungian side, there should be another about his fascist side, further evidencing fascism's and (Evola's coined) Traditionalism's post-modernism, seeing how Evola came from a post-modernist art background (only as a way to criticize The Church as Curtis Yarvin would say to his techno-fascists), ironically the postmodern movement he was a part of Dadaism was a Romanian movememt too
Maybe I'll chain that to a video about how Joseph Campbell was influenced by Spengler... but I also feel like I've read enough Spengler and JP for a lifetime now.
Watching Peterson talking to somebody that is both smarter than him and feels no need to prove themselves to/in relation to him, is beautiful. Its just a drugged up madman trying to redefine words until he sounds right.
I get the sense that he's a specific variety: "I'm smart and well-informed in this specific field, so any opinion I have about anything is smart and well-informed."
@@M_M_ODonnell No, not really, I cannot speak about his psychology practice, but he got his license revoked because he told ppl to ktms multiple times online, and also had complaints from clients. So he isn't even that smart in his original field.
@@nickmargaritis3263 I was overly optimistic, then. IIRC he might have done some reasonably respectable research in the field, but yeah, it doesn't sound like he should ever have been a clinical psychologist.
So postmodern thinking is an acceptance of the complexity of the world, that it resists easy categorization, and that it always was that way. That the grand narratives of today, and the past, are essentially exclusive. We chop off what doesn't fit?
Conservatives have a fundamental drive to simplify the world until they can understand it. That's why marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of reproduction.
At least one flaw of Frye's analysis of the "bible", is that it treats the christian bible as one cohesive unit. The end times aren't part of the original biblical (mikracal, to separate the Jewish original text from later Christian additions) text.
Oh that's an excellent point! He does take it as having "one author" and work backwards from there. And that is a natural conclusion from the "word of God" angle, but those works were "delivered" to us across a long span of time. And evem further still, the Gospels were not written in the moment, after all. Tangentially, by that argument, one might as well apply Frye's "narrativization" to the Quran and get the most "updated" version of "The Abrahamic Narrative"
@Rosencreutzzz 1. I wrote as a ethnic jew, so to defend my cultural heritage from outside distortion. 2. Jesus isn't the son of god in Islam, and the quran is anyway an alternate version of the, at least Jewish mikra, so it isn't a continuation of the Christian testament.
I kinda feel like I just finished a Metal Gear Game. I'm a confused, depressed,full of questions.and yet enjoyed the ride. Maybe that's the feeling of post modernism.
I only disagree because I don't like V much, though it does have a fixation on language at least-- BUT that does remind me that there's a kinda cool video kicking around that has like... redeemed Survive in my eyes (I thought it was impossible to do that) LambHoot is the one with the video, I think it's presently called "Metal Gear Survive’s Twist Ending"
@@Rosencreutzzz I need to look that up. And I can relate to not liking V. I didn't like it either until a video pointed out to me that it being not finished and contradictory is kinda the point of it. Than I became unhealthy obsessed with it for quite some time.
Really enjoyed the video! I appreciate the effort put into an actual and multifaceted explanation of the issue of post-modernism. I was however quite a bit disappointed in the section on Marxism, I don't think it would be a very bad faith interpretation of the video that you take Marxism very much as a simple concept that can be explained "under 30 seconds", or just in a single section. I would disagree with just about everything you describe in the video about Marxism, and I hope this doesn't come across as aggressive. First of all, you note that Leotard, ""founder"" of post-modernism was one that opposed the concept, and I think in that sense it is rather weird to not mention that Marx very famously also opposed the concept of Marxism on several occasions, such as the famous "Je ne suis pas marxiste" phrasing, but this is also an issue that people have written several books on, such as Tom Rockmore's "Marx after Marxism" (pretty good towards the middle, somewhat lackluster at the beginning and end). But much more significantly, whilst the starting sentence of a pamphlet written early on in Marx's career (the Communist Manifesto) may give the impression that the matter is rather easy with regards to "stages", this has in fact been one of the most widely discussed issues in the study of Marxism and amongst Marxists. If the matter is clear cut, I would like to suggest that it is "clear cut" in the other direction. Marx opposed the idea of a "march of history", let's look at a few texts. In the German Ideology, one of the earlier texts where he very clearly takes up the "idea" of communism, he also does so in a context of arguing against a march of history, or of a goal to push history towards: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes [sublates] the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." To make the point a bit clear, for Marx the question of communism has mainly to do with asserting that; (1) we live under capitalism, a certain arrangement of society, (2) if we can identify what sort of society we live under, so we should point out the things which we would need to get rid of such that we no longer live under that society. Shortly put, "communism" for Marx refers to "not-capitalism". Here, Marx doesn't need to speak about a narrative (explicitly arguing against one) but rather just claim various things about how society is about today. But Marx made a sort of historical analysis that included, famously, concepts like "primitive communism", or "feudalism" etc. So, he needs to clearly be furthering a universal narrative, right? Well, Marx's writings on this topic are complicated and have evolved in various ways (his Ethnological Notebooks are especially relevant in this regard), but luckily for us, he has answered this issue himself. Whilst Russian "populist" socialists (Narodniks) were discussing on the issue of whether or not Russia had to go through a capitalist stage, some have used Marx's theories to defend the idea that history moved in stages and thus it was a necessity for Russia to go through capitalism in order to get to socialism. Marx disagreed, here is an excerpt from his letter to the journal/newspaper Otocestveniye Zapinksy: "Now what application to Russia can my critic make of this historical sketch? Only this: If Russia is tending to become a capitalist nation after the example of the Western European countries, and during the last years she has been taking a lot of trouble in this direction - she will not succeed without having first transformed a good part of her peasants into proletarians; and after that, once taken to the bosom of the capitalist regime, she will experience its pitiless laws like other profane peoples. That is all. But that is not enough for my critic. He feels himself obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labour, the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. (He is both honouring and shaming me too much.)" So, what he is saying here is that, if Russia is moving towards capitalism, then it will need to go through such and such social transformations, not because there is a stage called "feudalism" and the next stage is "capitalism", but because capitalism as a system involves a few things and becoming a capitalist country involves those things, importantly he goes on to demonstrate how he believes Rome had a similar situation at one point but did not develop a capitalist system. For very little that has been said about Marxism in the video, I feel that there is a lot that could be criticised, although it is really nice to see such a nuanced discussion of the relationship between Peterson and post-modernism, but I just wish that it did not engage in Marxism as most every other academic text tends to, considering it a settled issue that can just be ignored by reductions so simplistic that I feel they are hardly justified.
I would like to discuss this issue in more nuance and detail, but unfortunately I feel (temporarily) this is as much nuance a comment section on RUclips allows (because of how painful it is to write a long text on the RUclips comment section)
Great video! I had heard of Lyotard before but this has given me quite an interest to look and read into what he has written, very provocative and in a way kind of creates a more cohesive, line in the post modernist thought at least that I have checked out, since the other post modernist philosophers I've been checking out felt in a way quite distant from eachother, this makes a lot of it make even more sense. Thank you!!
Actually, I am not sure I would be able to say what "Hercules figure of [insert pantheon" means as an archetype... Is that simply a heroic demigod who ascends into divinity after death? Is it the idea of incredibly gifted individual, who misuses their gifts in fits of rage and ruins their life in a process? Is it the idea of a figure performing petty, meaningless, yet otherwise completely impossible tasks to atone for their crimes? Is it somebody very strong who's good at fighting monsters? What part of Herakles' mythos is crucial to his archetype?
1:40 Successfully convince people that “everything is political”. Some time later, a wide range of movements begin to grow and assimilate under the banner of hate for both “political” and “everything” including any and all definitions of these
I wonder about Peterson's Quixote-level fight against nihilism. He called Nietzche's work "dangerous to read" and I feel like that's actually very accurate. In the last few years Doctor P. really revealed a lot of his insecurities and fears, which I think is actually great both for him and for the longer health of his career and legacy. His ideas are as wrong as they are fascinating. He sometimes can arrive at really deep and interesting thoughts and in the next sentence commit such thought-killing cliches that it can be really stunning. Though I don't know if his fans are capable of recognizing that. Not because they're stupid, but because they don't want to see the truth of what he is. I feel like philosophers should be more vulnerable, it's become really easy to see them as these 'Great Men' of great thought, treat them like heroes or saints, or villains, when they are ultimately humans who just arrived at strange and fascinating thoughts.
@@BlueGamingRage I mean that's not quite it. Lysenko hardly used Marxist anything to determine what he did about predisposing seeds to the cold. Also it had little to do with evolution.
I can feel the gears in my head turning over while and after watching this. I feel like bits of this will end up influencing my thoughts and personal phylosophies for the rest of my life and i will be the better for it. Absolutely excellent work.
31:54 I do concur with your framing of the topic, but I do have some nitpicks. Did you consider the medulla oblongata effect on the avada kedavra when it realigns itself with the mitochondria, the powerhouse of the cell?
13:40 - one could argue that fire is a living being as it matches the most important signifiers of life, that being: A. Fire consumes energy to sustain itself B. Fire breathes, consuming oxygen and releasing carbon gasses the same way we do C. Fire is self replicating D. Fire is able to move to new energy sources if available And although it doesn't seem like fire should be treated as a living being, since it lacks a lot of other elements life as we know it needs to earn this title, such as a genome, it's not a stretch of the imagination to say that fire is in fact a creature. That being said I don't like Peterson and don't agree with him, and this is just a fun little thing I wanted to point out.
About to go ruin Christmas dinner by attempting to clarify the modern and historic ontological foundations of "We wish you a Merry Christmas" as a carol based in Christian Imperialist concepts of community and celebration with my drunk conspiracy-mongering uncle, wish me luck In honor of this video inspiring the idea I'll be sure to sprinkle in a few references to post-modernist thinkers and philosophers referenced here throughout the discussion, and maybe a reference or two to Marx if things need spicing up
If you wanted the term explained, you could have gone for Perry Anderson's Origins of Postmodernity instead of Lyotard, especially for an infinitely stronger historical account. Plus his discussion of Jameson's division of the term, with post-modenity as the economic-historical determinant and post-modernism as the cultural logic of that period, is very helpful for these kinds of arguments.
I think there's definitely value in other scholars, but Lyotard is the one I spent the most time with, by far and had a far more internalized impact on me, so on that front alone it was the only choice. Beyond that, I don't know if I can really get into nor contest the idea of a "stronger historical account" but at the least I did consider bringing Jameson up. On another level still, I've wanted to give Lyotard more dedicated space in one of my videos (he's had stray mentions) since the start, and this seemed like the proper venue to do so. And it's not like he's overplayed, certainly not on this platform, so I think it's kinda... fun, to be honest, to just share a philosopher more in-depth here. I like his framing, even if it's hard to articulate at times, and when I read his work I feel like it makes me think in the right patterns.
Paraphrasing the video, "Did we not learn something by asking the question?" No actually, we didn't. Language can be interrogated via meta-language, that is, language about language. Meta-language can in turn be interrogated by further meta-languages, ad infinitum. Meta-languages can be arbitrarily complex, thus you can discuss language by means of language to an artificial level of specificity and abstraction to no actual end or relation to reality. There is no reason to believe that the infinite analysis of symbols by means of symbols will ever actually accrue new insight or knowledge, especially if the meta-language is self-referential like it is in much of philosophy and has no basal relation to sensuous experience. What you have is not "philosophy" or science, but scholasticism in a new set of clothes.
I agree. The point made that you can find more questions by breaking the question down into more questions is just pointless to me. There are infinite ways to explore an idea. The method of what does 'is' mean is just about the worst one and just serves as a self indulgent way to make oneself feel smart while not actually doing anything meaningful.
Oh, this was very much something I needed but didn't know I wanted! I'm not super familiar with Lyotard and the history of Postmodernism, but I did know enough to know the conclusion at least. It was an enjoyable way to get there.
For your consideration, neo-marxism means something pretty specific to Peterson. I'm not sure it's particularly significant, but it isn't as empty as you are suggesting. JP believes the Stalinist nightmare so thoroughly discredited Marxism as a political movement that it's intellectual champions (in his view: Foucalt and Derida) were forced to pivot. Instead of capital being the roadblock to progress, capital was taken as just one form of coercive power, and power itself was the problem. Power could come in a variety of forms (money, religion, government, culture) and where Marxism suggests utopia can be achieved by workers seizing the means of production, neo-marxism demands seizing the means by which social power is produced. There's a lot to critique about this concept (like, how is it different than anarchism, is there not a meaningful difference between Marxism as a tool of analysis vs Marxism as a specific political project, etc). But it's not a concept entirely devoid of meaning, and it IS comparable with post modernism (and especially post structuralism).
I'm unconvinced that one line from The Manifesto, a pamphlet he wrote around the age of 30, is the definitive statement that Marx's work is incompatible with French post-structuralism for several reasons. 1. It ignores later works that problematize this assertion. For example, in one of the prefaces to Capital, Marx states, "There is no royal road to science." 2. It ignores that both Engels and Paul Lafargue, Marx's son-in-law, argue against the notion that Marx's work is deterministic. 3. It ignores that the inspiration for Marx in the relation of class struggle and history comes from Giambattista Vico; who's seen as the forefather of constructivism in the social sciences. 4. It ignores that several of the post-structuralists were Marxists, Barthes, Guattari, and Deleuze (according to Guattari) This is not to give credit to Peterson of course, it seems that both Peterson and Dawkins are unaware that Popper shares a significant amount of postmodern tendencies as well
Minor point that does not affect your argument/ analysis here (which I very much enjoy) but that you might find interesting: Frye isn't really that unique if you look wide enough, and the pure literalist reading you describe here in opposition to him is also pretty recent. If you pick up Augustine's De Doctrina, you'll see (what we'd consider) a bible-as-literature approach was something that coexisted with (and was often intertwined with) bible-as-literalist-history in earlier centuries; see Dante's letter to Cangrande as a turning point where Bible-as-literature-stuff actually began to transfer over to literature beyond scripture.
I agree he isn't that unique in the broader context of biblical study, but this is the angle of the impact he had on Peterson, and while what he was doing wasn't necessarily the most groundbreaking thing, it is to an extent a modernist lens. He's one of the people Peterson (and a few other "notables" like Margaret Atwood) cite as an inspiration for their own work. Amusingly, Lyotard has a whole book on the Confessions of Augustine, as well as some referential essays. In some ways, he feels like a modernist before his time, but that's not an argument I would make seriously so much as a *vibe*
@@Rosencreutzzz I get what you mean; he feels similarly positioned at the beginning/ end of eras, looking back and reworking/reclaiming things that came before, and so on. Very much the modernist vibe.
12:30 really nails it. Someone really swayed by Jungian psych through discovering Persona and chewing on comparative mythology and superficial occult primed me to be easily convinced that his word salad always made sense. In a way it can make sense by the nonsense getting filled in by post hoc rationalizing of what he means
Hi, know you're probably also familiar with the texts but Lyotard's postscript to the "postmodern condition" is also really interesting in how it looked at postmodernism both preceding and being a prerequisite to the production of the modernism, as a way to open up space. He also does something in "heidegger and 'the jews'" - probably one of my favourite of his works, but it's little read - in how the production of any story requires a certain forgetting (which takes on a freudian double-bind character, similair to the incomensurability of the differend). soz for the ramble lyotards just a fav of mine
He talks to an extent about the forgetting in Postmodern Explained as well, though I don't remember exactly where. There's a segment about how "you have not read what you have read" and doing "justice" to an idea that taps into that forgetting notion. No worry on the ramble, I personally find him underdiscussed in a lot of spaces, and in the spaces where he is discussed, it feels like pure PhD Power Hour and gets kinda draining
@@RosencreutzzzI havent actually read hte Postmodern Explained but it seems a cool collection - i'll fit it in after I finish 'just gaming' probably. The ethics of forgetting (and the forgetting of forgetting, and the politics of memory are basically Lyotard's whole deal in "heidegger and 'the jews'", specifically in how Heidegger interacts with the volke iirc. It's really good but only comprehensible if uve got grounding in Heidegger probably. Personally he's not my favourite author on the whole discussion abt memory etc. because of a kind of affected passivity thats oddly self-contradictory in his sublime period after his break with early anti-colonial/pro-algerian wriitng - James Williams talks abt it in "lyotard and the political" i think. I'd really recommend some of Derrida's work on this kinda stuff, if you can manage it lol.
Great video - I very nearly didn't watch it because I was thinking 'yet another dig against Peterson', but glad I gave it the benefit of the doubt anyway. As somebody who has a somewhat distant appreciation for Peterson, and also matches up with a number of the manners which you've analysed him with, it's given me a lot to think about. I think what you said on the atomisation of 'we' and metanarratives and the like is probably the most important (yet underdiscussed) topic of the modern day political world - whatever comes next after post-modernism (in so far as anything will come next), it will be yet another chain in the cultural reactions, this time to post-modernism and the atomisation that it has come alongside.
I just call him a "post-truth prophet". Maybe I'm wrong in putting that label on him, but I find it funnily fitting and JP did enough for me to stop caring about what he thinks and what he says.
Postmodernism is very interesting because of all of this though I do find that the "deconstruction of meta-narratives" version of postmodernism is the one that is appropriate in most contexts. And I also think that the other forms of postmodernism can be rather painlessly subsumed by this framing of what it means for something to be postmodern. I like to joke that I am in act the post-modern neomarxist that peterson talks about because I strongly subscribe to the belief that meta-narratives cannot be universal and also tend to think that marxism provides a narrative through which many things can be effectively understood.
As someone who's kind of been on both sides of the gender debate now there is a good faith reason to challenge the ideas behind how people see themselves as identities are ideological. you never "Just are" you "perceive yourself to be in the context of your society" Still even this relatively neutral trans-negative argument is rooted in the idea that the person should accept your way of seeing themselves - that it is a debate- and their self-perception is somehow "wrong" or inferior to yours which is why I gave up doing this. People ultimately have the freedom to believe what they want about themselves. It is fundamental to human experience.
I'm surprised you didn't touch on the figure who is arguably the single most important source of Peterson's understanding of postmodernism - Stephen Hicks. Peterson simply repeats the arguments Hicks popularised, and has been instrumental in the cospiracy theory that postmodern theory originated as a backdoor to get Marxism back into the academy.
I always interpreted post modern neo Marxism as placing the new “We” in a phenomenological - structural-materialism lenses for causation of phenomena/reality which is infinite (universe) and always changing (matter- “unimaginable in a absence of form” I think it was described). I think this is the root to the elevation of sublime in “post modern”. with the placing of the relationship between classes as the superpositioned main causative variable of social phenomena - the intersections are the narratives always morphing in real time with humanities material condition at any time.
iirc there was a brief period (i wanna say this was in the 90s or 00s) where the socal post-structuralist crowd referred to _themselves_ as neo-marxists, which i always joked meant "marxism minus class analysis." i wouldn't be surprised if that's where a young, fedora-topped jordan beterson peterson picked it up. doesn't change that it's still utterly meaningless 🤷
Geuine I would like and dislike to hear his thoughts on the persona series. I can see him ether him liking and install his out there briefs to it or call a corruption of jung ideas.
@@starmaker75 jordan peterson is one of those right wingers i want to sit down and actually try to engage with, not because i agree with him, but because he always frames it in such an interesting, damn near unhinged, perspective. I want to see him trying to figure out how in the megami tensei universe we managed to use the internet and computers to summon mythical, historical and philosophical figures including gods
i kinda feel like jbp trying to play video games would go a lot like that short-lived tommy wiseau video game review show where he could barely start the game, much less actually play it. and like, don't get me wrong, that would be funny in it's own way, but i don't think he'd have anything "constructive" to say.
I welcome the ambitious attempt to tackle ALL of realism, modernism and postmodernism in art & literature - basically the last 100 years - and the political dimension of that. But I feel you underestimated how difficult this subject is for those who aren't prepared for it with a grounding in philosophy and aesthetics as well as cultural theory. So large chunks of text from Lyotard are just too hard to absorb without a more complete explication and discussion. Basically, this is an entire university-level course's worth of material crammed into 1 hour, so too dense for most viewers, I feel.
I tried my best to ground the concepts without having to sacrifice too too much complexity, knowing that it's less about balance than it is about what one chooses to sacrifice in the depth-comprehension-brevity triangle. So far a lot of people seem positive about it, and some people have had to rewatch a bit of it, so I'm hoping it's dense but approachable to some people, at least moreso than just picking up The Postmodern Condition without a guide.
@@BlueGamingRage If you think Marxism - an analysis of class society and political economy - is "for people who like big words", that says things about you and you only.
If I ever get the chance to ask Peterson a question. "Ms. Peterson, is there anything you're not an expert on? And would you begin your response with the phrase, "Will I've thought about this a lot ..?"
Int ssj goku was overhated more than overrated. People were acting like he was useless when he was laying out RedZone bosses. One of the biggest skill issue units ever
5:56 Ah hell naw you just ruined Linguistic Turn for me. Now I have to cope with the fact that one of my favorite historiographical currents was influenced by a Jungian 💀
Maybe Peterson fully understood post-modernism, rejected both nihilism and the pursuit of whatever’s next and just embraced a weird amalgam of what he knew (he took the blue pill mixed with some psychedelics). I think neo-marxism may “exist” It could be the use of Marx’s analytical tools to extend beyond simple economics and proletariat-bourgeoisie and into other realms (AKA feminism, blackness, etc) and is still paradoxical with post-modern unless you interpret “neo-marxism” as still being nihilistic and that communism = collapse (It’s stupid but it kinda makes sense from their perspective, otherwise why would Peterson use it instead of just “marxists” or “post modernists”? Maybe I’m making the opposite of a strawman, but I assume he must have at least some reasons to use a term that, as far as I know, _only he_ uses). If anyone could have an actual (and complex) logic to his statements, rather than it just being obscurantism/grift/PR, it could be Peterson The Confused The questions begged by trying to understand “post modern neomarxism” has given me a better understanding of both as well as Peterson’s own ideas than any video on either of them individually would. I gotta write this ish down.
You know as someone rather firmly right-wing this was actually a rather interesting watch. I had always felt Peterson was a bit, bumbling I guess is a good way to put it? Never able to just say what he was thinking. But putting it in this lens was very interesting and illuminating on well, quite a few things, this video was rather dense ahaha. But dense in a way I like. Thank you! Edit: I think what I dislike about him is that he embodies a lot of, just nostalgia-blinded people I see on the right. Can’t just roll back the clock. It’s utterly foolish of them and it grinds on me. I just feel like we’re in some period of transition. Well we’re always transitioning to somewhere but I just firstly feel society hasn’t “digested” the shift that is the internet. As it needed time for other changes to filter through and new beliefs resulted. I’ll openly admit I can’t even solidly tell you what sort of overarching beliefs or vision I push for because I’m still thinking that out. And in that I think a lot of the “trad” right wingers are just foolishly drowning in nostalgia for older times when that’s just impossible to recreate with the way things are. And secondly if you’re trying to solve it just rolling back the clock is pointless because those past conditions created the ones they whinge about! Peterson is a big figure in that I think. Hilariously this is a bit bumbling myself but that’s what I get for trying to fit this into the end of a lunch break!
I’d say that the systematic theology that is most apparent in the Reformation and Medieval scholasticism but also appears in the works of the Church Fathers is not, by most definitions, modern. The conception of the Bible as a unified narrative is the traditional view in Western Christendom, and the Baptist departure from it in favor of a “verse by verse fact book of unconnected things that God did” is truly much more modern. Still, applying the particulars of Jungian literary analysis to the Bible is a new approach to this
Post-Modern Neomarxism is definitely my favorite Victoria 3 leader ideology
WTH? Mister gigachad histories is here. I love your videos man. And this channel I am currently watching too :)
that'll have to be hoi4 time period
merry christmas
Really glad i went against my immediate instinct of “oh god its the same video essay ive seen tens of times before”
Oh no I didn't even consider people might have that reaction.
Hmm
@Rosencreutzzz yeah unfortunately this specific topic was heavily covered between like 2017-2019/2020 (for obvious reasons) and most old guard essayists have given their take on it three times over ,: ] I quite like your video thus far and really appreciat your fresh point of view and additional context! but it's coming into an already quite saturated environment.
I will say, though, if you feel the oversaturation is significant enough to warrant some marketing changes, F.D. has had success changing the title and thumbnail for his videos to draw in new viewers not drawn by prior ones. But im not a video creator or a marketer so that note should be taken with skepticism 😅
you cant be too careful with those videos
@ its not a bad essay. Ive just seen that essay too many times
it's amazing how Jordan Peterson YTPs managed to make me fundamentally unable to take anything he says seriously
I mean, the dude does plenty of the work himself in that regard, lol.
You're going to get splashed by the icy, salty slush sprayed by his Ford Bronco SUV for that one, woke moralist.
Also not to be a dick, but how does he spend most of his life with crippling depression, get addicted to benzos,
and then have the balls to write self help books to undisciplined young men about cleaning their rooms?
@@Grogeous_Maximus have the ball?? I think criticizing young men are pretty normal.
What does YTP mean?
Jordan Peterson is the postmodern parody of the "modernist artist". The individual who tries to move forward becomes a conservative romanticist, the mystique of modernist artists is changed to a 24/7 soap opera of craziness, whisky is exchanged for benzodiazepines and the rational metanarratives become surface level feelings shoved in a blender of dead metanaratives. He is a symptom of our postmodern world and every time he wallows at it, he just becomes a mirror of it.
The irony of anti-post modernist become a example of post modernism
I thought the correct nomenclature for such was 'wanker'?
I've fallen behind in my reading.
@@starmaker75 There are few things postmodernism describes with more devastating accuracy than knee-jerk anti-postmodernists
@@NarcissistAU No, I think you're right
Well put
Someone pointed out to me once that - as psychoanalysis is unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific - that Jung studied the opposite of science then dropped out to become a wizard.
Ah yes, the old "Stuff I don't like" definition.
Is someone calling others "fascist" again?
@@BlueGamingRage man i love intellectual dishonesty you're the best ;P
Hey!! New Rosencreutz! I wonder how Paradox games will wriggle their way into this one
Postmodern neomarxism is a secret ideology Canada can unlock in Hoi4 via a focus tree only unlocked by tag switching to Neo-Quebec
@@Rosencreutzzz chat is this real?
@@ThePiotrekpecet Unless something weird has happened to Canada games since last I played (Not that long ago), then no, not in Vanilla at least.
Vic3's design philosophy
@@LeDoctorBonesI can imagine a Jordan Peterson mod for hoi4 focused on making Canada whacky
You are a monster for making me watch part of a debate between Dawkins and Peterson
and then, on top of that, making me immediately agree with Peterson.
The debate between Peterson and Dawkins is so fucking funny, Richard is staring at him in such utter bewilderment, he has no idea how to respond to the sheer lunacy of Peterson's whole deal.
@@KTL-351yeah it's hilarious lmao
@@KTL-351 If predators are real how aren't dragons real? And you see dawkings going in his mind. WTF is this guy on!
@@koenvandiepen7651 how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real
@@rhael42j. Smith, the great philosopher
50:46 "Please, Mr. Marxism was my father. Call me Karl."
my name
is _neo_
Pam, pam, pam, pam... Mr.Marxism make me a dream...
There's a book 'Blindsight' where an alien spaceship parks itself around Jupiter and humans go out to see what's up with it. Eventually it starts responding to communications. But there's something weird about it. Like what it says is technically human language and seems to be responding to the other side correctly. But it's just off. Eventually they realize that this species of alien is sort of non-sentient and is sort of responding in a super complex form of instinct. And that it doesn't actually understand anything that it's been saying and it's just learned human language without understanding what any of it means or that it even has meaning. That is what Jordan Peterson sounds like to me. He's almost like an IQ test. How long does it take you to realize that while these are grammatically correct sentences they mean literally nothing.
They predicted chatgippity?
@thewhitefalcon8539 That's exactly what came to mind when I was writing this. The book came out in 2006 so it seems so. Although the concept of a 'Chinese Room' isn't new.
dang i read that one like 15 years ago and maybe should give it a reread, it's a good one.
I am a leftwing archaeo-mystic doing pre-renaissance magic and trying to do hermeneutics on neo paganism. I understand Jorples Bleep Porples's speak as a L1 rambler. But honestly he's a crank even in the lofty strange mindspace. He overstates & overliteralizes his ideas
The layercake of reaction against is well painted
Pomo to mo to romantic to rationalist to humanist to medieval scholasticism to medieval mysticism to late antiquity christianity to neoplatonism to platonism... to the first minds pondering
Take it easy
What is L1?
@@NBH-xh3nq as in first language, as in being a native speaker of circumlocutory abstractions
I genuinley cannot tell if this is satire or mental illness.
The fundamental flaw of Peterson is thinking that because language describes reality, language is reality.
@deathsheadhawkmoth1 everything is predisposed on your own understanding of ideas. Which can only theorised and explored through language. English +
Peterson and Spengler is exactly the connection I've been privately making for years. Both being double-talkers who throw sandstorms of erudite-sounding allusions into the air, make no discernible logical connections between any of the little stinging grains of sand therein, then state an a priori conclusion and challenge the listener to refute an argument which has not actually been made. Every paragraph of Spengler I've ever read and every paragraph of Peterson I've ever heard follows exactly this same tiresome, "irrefutable" pattern.
"Postmodern Neomarxism" is pounding on an empty steel drum meant to drown out all possible actual conversation about the present moment and Karl Marx.
I’m pleasantly surprised by how much I have to rewind and think about all this.
Taking me 5x as long to finish the video.
The fact I actually understand and have more stuff to reflect about makes this a 12/10. It explains my blind spots in trying to explain post modernism myself
Before even watching the video, from the thumbnail and title alone I can tell this is gonna be a banger.
I did AB testing, which thumbnail did you get? Red background or white?
@@Rosencreutzzz red.
This is a fantastic video, kudos. I think the main divide that makes Jung a valuable pioneer and Peterson a total nutcase is that Jung embraced the postmodern tendencies of his era and built a psychological (and later, metaphysical and ontological) framework that accommodated them, while Peterson utterly failed in this, and declared postmodernism his sworn enemy. This is probably why he loves Dostoevsky so much, because Dostoevsky's best characters are warriors against nihilism-and it's Peterson's folly to see nihilism where Jung saw a new, exciting from of truth.
That said, though I disagree with some of your criticisms of Jung, I'm very glad that you didn't just kick off with relating Jung to Peterson's ass-backwards interpretations of him and instead engaged with his ideas directly. I feel most modern thinkers boil Jung down and unfairly call him "disconnected from the world" (he was a practicing and extremely successful clinical psychologist after all), and I do think you fall partially into that trap too-for example, the definition you give of "archetype" is extremely far from what Jung meant when he used the word, and is more so related to the later humanities' appropriation of the term. I assume you did this to fit it all within the video, but it might be that you only have second-hand knowledge of many of these ideas. Still, your identification of his ideas with Kant is spot on in that Jung very much spent the first decades of his career attempting to bring Kant down to Earth (which is another point against calling Jung a "disconnected").
P.S. Nice attempt at pronouncing "Can Uğursal", best attempt at Turkish I've ever heard from an American :)
Channel owner is just like picking a random Western college kid and taking their opinion seriously about these made up topics. Jung was a good man with a good legacy, Peterson is a troubled individual still trying to sort himself out, it's unfair and counter productive to constantly criticise and pick on others while being a "nobody" in real life.
Yeah, sorry Jeff, I'll be sure to leave it to my betters to discuss the impact and ideology of a man with millions of followers worldwide.
To be less facetious, your argument is strikingly backwards. I've subjected myself to public scrutiny in posting this on the internet, I'm a relatively nobody, but in your framework, the only people who should be discussing Peterson (not "pick on" as you unfairly ascribe here) are his peers. Peterson *is* troubled, and often by monsters of his own making, that's a core point for me. I'm giving his his ideas their context, and probably one of only times the "dragon debate" will ever be brought up in this space without being a punchline.
It would be picking on him to be like "yeah this guy is just an idiot, what do you mean dragons are real lmao" and then talk about exclusively his tweets for 20 minutes and call it a day. I'm taking him serious.
Troubled or not, he's got a massive platform, has sold millions of books, and also has an ill-formed political outlook that he shares with such aggression it merits embarrassment from the people whom his books have helped. That isn't something to just tut-tutt at and go "oh well he's troubled such a shame"
@@RosencreutzzzWas excited that you had replied, turns out it was to snuff out an inflammatory reply... Sorry my criticism ended up being a vehicle for that. I wrote what I wrote in good faith and am a fan of your work. Please keep making videos like this.
@@myilmazalper Apologies. I did read your comment, but then I saw the other one and, well, felt like I had to respond more pointedly to it. I do think the Dostoevsky remark is very on point. In fact, I think between my youth fixation on a lot of Romantic era culture and being a Dostoevsky nerd, that's part of why I kinda... empathize with Peterson, in a way. I don't think his interests are silly, but I do think he's approached a lot of things from a sour angle. I'm not personally very convinced in the contemporary value of Jung, but I do see his historical impact and some of the value of terms, the same way I do with Freud. I think my bone to pick with him, however, comes from the people who cite him as their inspiration, and then end up being fixated on heroes, or universalities.
His disconnect I think comes from his era. And I know that gets said a lot about people from the past, but I think the fact that psychology has moved past generalizations to a degree is a sign that it's not an inherent truth of the field, and that he'd probably have grown past them himself.
Wonderfully said. Also another reason why the whole Jung being "disconnected" argument is quite silly is because based on his works like The Red Book and the Seven Sermons to the Dead, Answer to Job and several others it can be clearly seen that Jung throughout his life was torn between his scholarly side and the striving for metaphysical knowledge/wisdom side. Trying to say that he belonged only to one sphere of knowledge and proclaiming that it was the essential core of his entire worldview is quite unfair and dishonest in my honest opinion.
people don't talk enough about premodern paleo fascism
Varg? Is that you?
Jordan Peterson: we should go back to the tradtion they exist many years ago.
*see the tradtion*
*go back at the furthest at the early 1800s*
Cherry picked traditions, and only those that uphold "western civilisation" of the industrial revolution.
I would like it if you talked about Peterson's other influence other than Jung, which is Mircea Eliade, a "former" fascist, historian of religions, philosopher and propagandist member of Romania's fascist government during WW2, which ended up just regurgitating Julius Evola's vague generalizations on religion in his book The Sacred and the Profane, you might've heard Peterson talk and have lectures on this book before.
So this video was about Peterson's Jungian side, there should be another about his fascist side, further evidencing fascism's and (Evola's coined) Traditionalism's post-modernism, seeing how Evola came from a post-modernist art background (only as a way to criticize The Church as Curtis Yarvin would say to his techno-fascists), ironically the postmodern movement he was a part of Dadaism was a Romanian movememt too
Maybe I'll chain that to a video about how Joseph Campbell was influenced by Spengler... but I also feel like I've read enough Spengler and JP for a lifetime now.
14:47 I’m a naturalist and skeptic… I do not think the humanities set us back or are a waste to pursue.
Watching Peterson talking to somebody that is both smarter than him and feels no need to prove themselves to/in relation to him, is beautiful. Its just a drugged up madman trying to redefine words until he sounds right.
Jordan Peterson is something I often fall trap to in uni classes: *think I am smart but am actually very dumb*
I get the sense that he's a specific variety: "I'm smart and well-informed in this specific field, so any opinion I have about anything is smart and well-informed."
@@M_M_ODonnell No, not really, I cannot speak about his psychology practice, but he got his license revoked because he told ppl to ktms multiple times online, and also had complaints from clients. So he isn't even that smart in his original field.
@@nickmargaritis3263 I was overly optimistic, then. IIRC he might have done some reasonably respectable research in the field, but yeah, it doesn't sound like he should ever have been a clinical psychologist.
The real postmodern Neo Marxist or the friends we made along the way.
"spectre haunting Peterson"
COMMUNIST MANIFESTO REFERRENCE 🥳
So postmodern thinking is an acceptance of the complexity of the world, that it resists easy categorization, and that it always was that way. That the grand narratives of today, and the past, are essentially exclusive. We chop off what doesn't fit?
Conservatives have a fundamental drive to simplify the world until they can understand it. That's why marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of reproduction.
At least one flaw of Frye's analysis of the "bible", is that it treats the christian bible as one cohesive unit.
The end times aren't part of the original biblical (mikracal, to separate the Jewish original text from later Christian additions) text.
Oh that's an excellent point! He does take it as having "one author" and work backwards from there. And that is a natural conclusion from the "word of God" angle, but those works were "delivered" to us across a long span of time. And evem further still, the Gospels were not written in the moment, after all.
Tangentially, by that argument, one might as well apply Frye's "narrativization" to the Quran and get the most "updated" version of "The Abrahamic Narrative"
@Rosencreutzzz 1. I wrote as a ethnic jew, so to defend my cultural heritage from outside distortion.
2. Jesus isn't the son of god in Islam, and the quran is anyway an alternate version of the, at least Jewish mikra, so it isn't a continuation of the Christian testament.
I kinda feel like I just finished a Metal Gear Game. I'm a confused, depressed,full of questions.and yet enjoyed the ride. Maybe that's the feeling of post modernism.
I would btw. argue that if there is such a thing as Postmodern Videogame than it's MGS V. (And Disco Elysium)
I only disagree because I don't like V much, though it does have a fixation on language at least-- BUT that does remind me that there's a kinda cool video kicking around that has like... redeemed Survive in my eyes (I thought it was impossible to do that) LambHoot is the one with the video, I think it's presently called "Metal Gear Survive’s Twist Ending"
@@Rosencreutzzz I need to look that up. And I can relate to not liking V. I didn't like it either until a video pointed out to me that it being not finished and contradictory is kinda the point of it. Than I became unhealthy obsessed with it for quite some time.
MGS2 imo
also that Takeshi's Castle game for Famicom
One of my favorite video essays I've ever seen, thank you
Every time you drop a video it makes my week. Thanks bro!
Originally he was mad about "cultural Marxism", but then pointed out where that term comes from.
Really enjoyed the video! I appreciate the effort put into an actual and multifaceted explanation of the issue of post-modernism. I was however quite a bit disappointed in the section on Marxism, I don't think it would be a very bad faith interpretation of the video that you take Marxism very much as a simple concept that can be explained "under 30 seconds", or just in a single section. I would disagree with just about everything you describe in the video about Marxism, and I hope this doesn't come across as aggressive. First of all, you note that Leotard, ""founder"" of post-modernism was one that opposed the concept, and I think in that sense it is rather weird to not mention that Marx very famously also opposed the concept of Marxism on several occasions, such as the famous "Je ne suis pas marxiste" phrasing, but this is also an issue that people have written several books on, such as Tom Rockmore's "Marx after Marxism" (pretty good towards the middle, somewhat lackluster at the beginning and end). But much more significantly, whilst the starting sentence of a pamphlet written early on in Marx's career (the Communist Manifesto) may give the impression that the matter is rather easy with regards to "stages", this has in fact been one of the most widely discussed issues in the study of Marxism and amongst Marxists. If the matter is clear cut, I would like to suggest that it is "clear cut" in the other direction. Marx opposed the idea of a "march of history", let's look at a few texts. In the German Ideology, one of the earlier texts where he very clearly takes up the "idea" of communism, he also does so in a context of arguing against a march of history, or of a goal to push history towards:
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes [sublates] the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."
To make the point a bit clear, for Marx the question of communism has mainly to do with asserting that; (1) we live under capitalism, a certain arrangement of society, (2) if we can identify what sort of society we live under, so we should point out the things which we would need to get rid of such that we no longer live under that society. Shortly put, "communism" for Marx refers to "not-capitalism". Here, Marx doesn't need to speak about a narrative (explicitly arguing against one) but rather just claim various things about how society is about today.
But Marx made a sort of historical analysis that included, famously, concepts like "primitive communism", or "feudalism" etc. So, he needs to clearly be furthering a universal narrative, right? Well, Marx's writings on this topic are complicated and have evolved in various ways (his Ethnological Notebooks are especially relevant in this regard), but luckily for us, he has answered this issue himself. Whilst Russian "populist" socialists (Narodniks) were discussing on the issue of whether or not Russia had to go through a capitalist stage, some have used Marx's theories to defend the idea that history moved in stages and thus it was a necessity for Russia to go through capitalism in order to get to socialism. Marx disagreed, here is an excerpt from his letter to the journal/newspaper Otocestveniye Zapinksy:
"Now what application to Russia can my critic make of this historical sketch? Only this: If Russia is tending to become a capitalist nation after the example of the Western European countries, and during the last years she has been taking a lot of trouble in this direction - she will not succeed without having first transformed a good part of her peasants into proletarians; and after that, once taken to the bosom of the capitalist regime, she will experience its pitiless laws like other profane peoples. That is all. But that is not enough for my critic. He feels himself obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labour, the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. (He is both honouring and shaming me too much.)"
So, what he is saying here is that, if Russia is moving towards capitalism, then it will need to go through such and such social transformations, not because there is a stage called "feudalism" and the next stage is "capitalism", but because capitalism as a system involves a few things and becoming a capitalist country involves those things, importantly he goes on to demonstrate how he believes Rome had a similar situation at one point but did not develop a capitalist system.
For very little that has been said about Marxism in the video, I feel that there is a lot that could be criticised, although it is really nice to see such a nuanced discussion of the relationship between Peterson and post-modernism, but I just wish that it did not engage in Marxism as most every other academic text tends to, considering it a settled issue that can just be ignored by reductions so simplistic that I feel they are hardly justified.
I would like to discuss this issue in more nuance and detail, but unfortunately I feel (temporarily) this is as much nuance a comment section on RUclips allows (because of how painful it is to write a long text on the RUclips comment section)
This was really interesting to read. Is the second long quote (the letter) available to read online?
This is one of the best and clearest description and breakdown of postmodernism I’ve seen on the internet yet. Very good job 👍🏾
Great video! I had heard of Lyotard before but this has given me quite an interest to look and read into what he has written, very provocative and in a way kind of creates a more cohesive, line in the post modernist thought at least that I have checked out, since the other post modernist philosophers I've been checking out felt in a way quite distant from eachother, this makes a lot of it make even more sense. Thank you!!
Actually, I am not sure I would be able to say what "Hercules figure of [insert pantheon" means as an archetype...
Is that simply a heroic demigod who ascends into divinity after death? Is it the idea of incredibly gifted individual, who misuses their gifts in fits of rage and ruins their life in a process? Is it the idea of a figure performing petty, meaningless, yet otherwise completely impossible tasks to atone for their crimes? Is it somebody very strong who's good at fighting monsters?
What part of Herakles' mythos is crucial to his archetype?
1:40 Successfully convince people that “everything is political”.
Some time later, a wide range of movements begin to grow and assimilate under the banner of hate for both “political” and “everything” including any and all definitions of these
that about sums it up
I wonder about Peterson's Quixote-level fight against nihilism. He called Nietzche's work "dangerous to read" and I feel like that's actually very accurate.
In the last few years Doctor P. really revealed a lot of his insecurities and fears, which I think is actually great both for him and for the longer health of his career and legacy. His ideas are as wrong as they are fascinating. He sometimes can arrive at really deep and interesting thoughts and in the next sentence commit such thought-killing cliches that it can be really stunning. Though I don't know if his fans are capable of recognizing that. Not because they're stupid, but because they don't want to see the truth of what he is.
I feel like philosophers should be more vulnerable, it's become really easy to see them as these 'Great Men' of great thought, treat them like heroes or saints, or villains, when they are ultimately humans who just arrived at strange and fascinating thoughts.
Good comment. Liked.
as a biologist, i think you could actaully have some success applying marxist framing to evolution, but i don't know if i want to or if anyone has
Lysenko
@@BlueGamingRage I mean that's not quite it. Lysenko hardly used Marxist anything to determine what he did about predisposing seeds to the cold.
Also it had little to do with evolution.
I can feel the gears in my head turning over while and after watching this. I feel like bits of this will end up influencing my thoughts and personal phylosophies for the rest of my life and i will be the better for it. Absolutely excellent work.
31:54 I do concur with your framing of the topic, but I do have some nitpicks. Did you consider the medulla oblongata effect on the avada kedavra when it realigns itself with the mitochondria, the powerhouse of the cell?
13:40 - one could argue that fire is a living being as it matches the most important signifiers of life, that being:
A. Fire consumes energy to sustain itself
B. Fire breathes, consuming oxygen and releasing carbon gasses the same way we do
C. Fire is self replicating
D. Fire is able to move to new energy sources if available
And although it doesn't seem like fire should be treated as a living being, since it lacks a lot of other elements life as we know it needs to earn this title, such as a genome, it's not a stretch of the imagination to say that fire is in fact a creature.
That being said I don't like Peterson and don't agree with him, and this is just a fun little thing I wanted to point out.
About to go ruin Christmas dinner by attempting to clarify the modern and historic ontological foundations of "We wish you a Merry Christmas" as a carol based in Christian Imperialist concepts of community and celebration with my drunk conspiracy-mongering uncle, wish me luck
In honor of this video inspiring the idea I'll be sure to sprinkle in a few references to post-modernist thinkers and philosophers referenced here throughout the discussion, and maybe a reference or two to Marx if things need spicing up
This feels like the kind of video I'd need to rewatch again in a month...
I need that banner at 54:00
If you wanted the term explained, you could have gone for Perry Anderson's Origins of Postmodernity instead of Lyotard, especially for an infinitely stronger historical account. Plus his discussion of Jameson's division of the term, with post-modenity as the economic-historical determinant and post-modernism as the cultural logic of that period, is very helpful for these kinds of arguments.
I think there's definitely value in other scholars, but Lyotard is the one I spent the most time with, by far and had a far more internalized impact on me, so on that front alone it was the only choice. Beyond that, I don't know if I can really get into nor contest the idea of a "stronger historical account" but at the least I did consider bringing Jameson up.
On another level still, I've wanted to give Lyotard more dedicated space in one of my videos (he's had stray mentions) since the start, and this seemed like the proper venue to do so.
And it's not like he's overplayed, certainly not on this platform, so I think it's kinda... fun, to be honest, to just share a philosopher more in-depth here. I like his framing, even if it's hard to articulate at times, and when I read his work I feel like it makes me think in the right patterns.
Paraphrasing the video, "Did we not learn something by asking the question?" No actually, we didn't. Language can be interrogated via meta-language, that is, language about language. Meta-language can in turn be interrogated by further meta-languages, ad infinitum. Meta-languages can be arbitrarily complex, thus you can discuss language by means of language to an artificial level of specificity and abstraction to no actual end or relation to reality. There is no reason to believe that the infinite analysis of symbols by means of symbols will ever actually accrue new insight or knowledge, especially if the meta-language is self-referential like it is in much of philosophy and has no basal relation to sensuous experience. What you have is not "philosophy" or science, but scholasticism in a new set of clothes.
I agree. The point made that you can find more questions by breaking the question down into more questions is just pointless to me. There are infinite ways to explore an idea. The method of what does 'is' mean is just about the worst one and just serves as a self indulgent way to make oneself feel smart while not actually doing anything meaningful.
I love postmodern neomarxist national trans-facist super liberalism
(If I keep adding words it makes me seem smarter)
”Just as wolves were a threat.”
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?
Look up the statistics for it. You will feel very stupid.
...are you implying that people never feared being eaten by wolves in the distant past?
*slowly realizing that I sound like jordan peterson when I talk about Elden Ring lore*
Why would you do this to me, on Christmas of all days
oh hell yeah new rosencreutz video
This was really good. I really enjoyed this.
Oh, this was very much something I needed but didn't know I wanted! I'm not super familiar with Lyotard and the history of Postmodernism, but I did know enough to know the conclusion at least. It was an enjoyable way to get there.
For your consideration, neo-marxism means something pretty specific to Peterson. I'm not sure it's particularly significant, but it isn't as empty as you are suggesting. JP believes the Stalinist nightmare so thoroughly discredited Marxism as a political movement that it's intellectual champions (in his view: Foucalt and Derida) were forced to pivot. Instead of capital being the roadblock to progress, capital was taken as just one form of coercive power, and power itself was the problem. Power could come in a variety of forms (money, religion, government, culture) and where Marxism suggests utopia can be achieved by workers seizing the means of production, neo-marxism demands seizing the means by which social power is produced.
There's a lot to critique about this concept (like, how is it different than anarchism, is there not a meaningful difference between Marxism as a tool of analysis vs Marxism as a specific political project, etc). But it's not a concept entirely devoid of meaning, and it IS comparable with post modernism (and especially post structuralism).
I say this torn between a deep sincerity and a trite comedic tone but people really need to read and appreciate Hegel.
A video for the pure love of the game. Love it
I'm unconvinced that one line from The Manifesto, a pamphlet he wrote around the age of 30, is the definitive statement that Marx's work is incompatible with French post-structuralism for several reasons.
1. It ignores later works that problematize this assertion. For example, in one of the prefaces to Capital, Marx states, "There is no royal road to science."
2. It ignores that both Engels and Paul Lafargue, Marx's son-in-law, argue against the notion that Marx's work is deterministic.
3. It ignores that the inspiration for Marx in the relation of class struggle and history comes from Giambattista Vico; who's seen as the forefather of constructivism in the social sciences.
4. It ignores that several of the post-structuralists were Marxists, Barthes, Guattari, and Deleuze (according to Guattari)
This is not to give credit to Peterson of course, it seems that both Peterson and Dawkins are unaware that Popper shares a significant amount of postmodern tendencies as well
i don't know those idea things sound like a spook
I believe the Wizards With Guns skit of JP on Rogan sums it up pretty nicely.
Mr Rosen… you are in my mind atm.
Thank you for being my end point before the leave this rabbit hole.
Minor point that does not affect your argument/ analysis here (which I very much enjoy) but that you might find interesting: Frye isn't really that unique if you look wide enough, and the pure literalist reading you describe here in opposition to him is also pretty recent. If you pick up Augustine's De Doctrina, you'll see (what we'd consider) a bible-as-literature approach was something that coexisted with (and was often intertwined with) bible-as-literalist-history in earlier centuries; see Dante's letter to Cangrande as a turning point where Bible-as-literature-stuff actually began to transfer over to literature beyond scripture.
I agree he isn't that unique in the broader context of biblical study, but this is the angle of the impact he had on Peterson, and while what he was doing wasn't necessarily the most groundbreaking thing, it is to an extent a modernist lens. He's one of the people Peterson (and a few other "notables" like Margaret Atwood) cite as an inspiration for their own work.
Amusingly, Lyotard has a whole book on the Confessions of Augustine, as well as some referential essays. In some ways, he feels like a modernist before his time, but that's not an argument I would make seriously so much as a *vibe*
@@Rosencreutzzz I get what you mean; he feels similarly positioned at the beginning/ end of eras, looking back and reworking/reclaiming things that came before, and so on. Very much the modernist vibe.
How many million innocent lives are Freud and Jung responsible for ending
12:30 really nails it. Someone really swayed by Jungian psych through discovering Persona and chewing on comparative mythology and superficial occult primed me to be easily convinced that his word salad always made sense. In a way it can make sense by the nonsense getting filled in by post hoc rationalizing of what he means
what i learned - jordan peterson himself is a post modern neo marxist
Every accusation from a conservative is a confession
Hi, know you're probably also familiar with the texts but Lyotard's postscript to the "postmodern condition" is also really interesting in how it looked at postmodernism both preceding and being a prerequisite to the production of the modernism, as a way to open up space. He also does something in "heidegger and 'the jews'" - probably one of my favourite of his works, but it's little read - in how the production of any story requires a certain forgetting (which takes on a freudian double-bind character, similair to the incomensurability of the differend).
soz for the ramble lyotards just a fav of mine
He talks to an extent about the forgetting in Postmodern Explained as well, though I don't remember exactly where. There's a segment about how "you have not read what you have read" and doing "justice" to an idea that taps into that forgetting notion.
No worry on the ramble, I personally find him underdiscussed in a lot of spaces, and in the spaces where he is discussed, it feels like pure PhD Power Hour and gets kinda draining
@@RosencreutzzzI havent actually read hte Postmodern Explained but it seems a cool collection - i'll fit it in after I finish 'just gaming' probably.
The ethics of forgetting (and the forgetting of forgetting, and the politics of memory are basically Lyotard's whole deal in "heidegger and 'the jews'", specifically in how Heidegger interacts with the volke iirc. It's really good but only comprehensible if uve got grounding in Heidegger probably.
Personally he's not my favourite author on the whole discussion abt memory etc. because of a kind of affected passivity thats oddly self-contradictory in his sublime period after his break with early anti-colonial/pro-algerian wriitng - James Williams talks abt it in "lyotard and the political" i think. I'd really recommend some of Derrida's work on this kinda stuff, if you can manage it lol.
Marble art can be photo realistic...
So can a painting
I always knew Nostalgia was bad, But DAMN that final final quote hit it outta the park!
Great video - I very nearly didn't watch it because I was thinking 'yet another dig against Peterson', but glad I gave it the benefit of the doubt anyway. As somebody who has a somewhat distant appreciation for Peterson, and also matches up with a number of the manners which you've analysed him with, it's given me a lot to think about.
I think what you said on the atomisation of 'we' and metanarratives and the like is probably the most important (yet underdiscussed) topic of the modern day political world - whatever comes next after post-modernism (in so far as anything will come next), it will be yet another chain in the cultural reactions, this time to post-modernism and the atomisation that it has come alongside.
Unironically a pragerU transgenderism ad while watching this vid, so wild
We have truly RETVRNED to 2016 huh
@ something about time and a flat circle and all that jazz
I just call him a "post-truth prophet".
Maybe I'm wrong in putting that label on him, but I find it funnily fitting and JP did enough for me to stop caring about what he thinks and what he says.
Postmodernism is very interesting because of all of this though I do find that the "deconstruction of meta-narratives" version of postmodernism is the one that is appropriate in most contexts. And I also think that the other forms of postmodernism can be rather painlessly subsumed by this framing of what it means for something to be postmodern. I like to joke that I am in act the post-modern neomarxist that peterson talks about because I strongly subscribe to the belief that meta-narratives cannot be universal and also tend to think that marxism provides a narrative through which many things can be effectively understood.
As someone who's kind of been on both sides of the gender debate now there is a good faith reason to challenge the ideas behind how people see themselves as identities are ideological. you never "Just are" you "perceive yourself to be in the context of your society"
Still even this relatively neutral trans-negative argument is rooted in the idea that the person should accept your way of seeing themselves - that it is a debate- and their self-perception is somehow "wrong" or inferior to yours which is why I gave up doing this. People ultimately have the freedom to believe what they want about themselves. It is fundamental to human experience.
what a wonderfull pre-christmas present. Thank you :3
I'm surprised you didn't touch on the figure who is arguably the single most important source of Peterson's understanding of postmodernism - Stephen Hicks.
Peterson simply repeats the arguments Hicks popularised, and has been instrumental in the cospiracy theory that postmodern theory originated as a backdoor to get Marxism back into the academy.
I always interpreted post modern neo Marxism as placing the new “We” in a phenomenological - structural-materialism lenses for causation of phenomena/reality which is infinite (universe) and always changing (matter- “unimaginable in a absence of form” I think it was described). I think this is the root to the elevation of sublime in “post modern”.
with the placing of the relationship between classes as the superpositioned main causative variable of social phenomena - the intersections are the narratives always morphing in real time with humanities material condition at any time.
I feel more confused at the end than I began with, but that's a probably a good thing for a complicated topic.
"Jordan, don't make me tap the sign."
*Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.*
Comedy Answer: Jordan Peterson is a postmodern conservative. In conclusion, he is a man of contrasts
Babe wake up, new video talking about Jordan Peterson in 2024.
you should make a video on camille paglia
iirc there was a brief period (i wanna say this was in the 90s or 00s) where the socal post-structuralist crowd referred to _themselves_ as neo-marxists, which i always joked meant "marxism minus class analysis." i wouldn't be surprised if that's where a young, fedora-topped jordan beterson peterson picked it up.
doesn't change that it's still utterly meaningless 🤷
i truly want to see Jordan Peterson play Shin Megami Tensei, it'd blow his mind
Maybe if people post enough we can make it happen.
@Rosencreutzzz it would be truly incredible
Geuine I would like and dislike to hear his thoughts on the persona series. I can see him ether him liking and install his out there briefs to it or call a corruption of jung ideas.
@@starmaker75 jordan peterson is one of those right wingers i want to sit down and actually try to engage with, not because i agree with him, but because he always frames it in such an interesting, damn near unhinged, perspective. I want to see him trying to figure out how in the megami tensei universe we managed to use the internet and computers to summon mythical, historical and philosophical figures including gods
i kinda feel like jbp trying to play video games would go a lot like that short-lived tommy wiseau video game review show where he could barely start the game, much less actually play it. and like, don't get me wrong, that would be funny in it's own way, but i don't think he'd have anything "constructive" to say.
I welcome the ambitious attempt to tackle ALL of realism, modernism and postmodernism in art & literature - basically the last 100 years - and the political dimension of that. But I feel you underestimated how difficult this subject is for those who aren't prepared for it with a grounding in philosophy and aesthetics as well as cultural theory. So large chunks of text from Lyotard are just too hard to absorb without a more complete explication and discussion. Basically, this is an entire university-level course's worth of material crammed into 1 hour, so too dense for most viewers, I feel.
I tried my best to ground the concepts without having to sacrifice too too much complexity, knowing that it's less about balance than it is about what one chooses to sacrifice in the depth-comprehension-brevity triangle. So far a lot of people seem positive about it, and some people have had to rewatch a bit of it, so I'm hoping it's dense but approachable to some people, at least moreso than just picking up The Postmodern Condition without a guide.
So post-modernism is just woke but for people who like big words
Yes. Marxism but with race, sex, sexuality, and gender instead of class
@@BlueGamingRage *in addition to (though all as specifics of a more general category)
@@BlueGamingRage If you think Marxism - an analysis of class society and political economy - is "for people who like big words", that says things about you and you only.
@@BlueGamingRagethat's just neomarxism
Compassionate, Pacifist Neo-Fashionism is definitely a real ideology that we have to guard against.
I wish you were on fediverse as opposed to bluesky ;_; Thank you for the great video tho! :3
If I ever get the chance to ask Peterson a question. "Ms. Peterson, is there anything you're not an expert on? And would you begin your response with the phrase, "Will I've thought about this a lot ..?"
He can't complain about misgendering because that would be gender ideology
Lore of Jordan Peterson & "Postmodern Neomarxism" momentum 100
0:26 yeah dude that's like what the scp guys say right keter and all that stuff
Int ssj goku was overhated more than overrated. People were acting like he was useless when he was laying out RedZone bosses. One of the biggest skill issue units ever
14:51 "Those people are on the same side as the rationalist skeptic, who are themselves often graduates of militant atheism"
Citation needed.
5:56 Ah hell naw you just ruined Linguistic Turn for me. Now I have to cope with the fact that one of my favorite historiographical currents was influenced by a Jungian 💀
4:35 I now require a scooby is the r demiurge video lmfao
putting this into my HoI4 adderall binge playlist
Maybe Peterson fully understood post-modernism, rejected both nihilism and the pursuit of whatever’s next and just embraced a weird amalgam of what he knew (he took the blue pill mixed with some psychedelics).
I think neo-marxism may “exist”
It could be the use of Marx’s analytical tools to extend beyond simple economics and proletariat-bourgeoisie and into other realms (AKA feminism, blackness, etc) and is still paradoxical with post-modern unless you interpret “neo-marxism” as still being nihilistic and that communism = collapse
(It’s stupid but it kinda makes sense from their perspective, otherwise why would Peterson use it instead of just “marxists” or “post modernists”? Maybe I’m making the opposite of a strawman, but I assume he must have at least some reasons to use a term that, as far as I know, _only he_ uses). If anyone could have an actual (and complex) logic to his statements, rather than it just being obscurantism/grift/PR, it could be Peterson The Confused
The questions begged by trying to understand “post modern neomarxism” has given me a better understanding of both as well as Peterson’s own ideas than any video on either of them individually would. I gotta write this ish down.
Peterson? Nietzsche? Jung? Aren't they the guys that declare "god's death" and "god's rebirth" whenever they feel like to?
Watching this while working was a big mistake, because I didn't understand a thing about post-modernism 😅
P.S.: Yeah, I a dumb. No shame in that.
New HOI5 ideology
You know as someone rather firmly right-wing this was actually a rather interesting watch. I had always felt Peterson was a bit, bumbling I guess is a good way to put it? Never able to just say what he was thinking. But putting it in this lens was very interesting and illuminating on well, quite a few things, this video was rather dense ahaha. But dense in a way I like. Thank you!
Edit: I think what I dislike about him is that he embodies a lot of, just nostalgia-blinded people I see on the right. Can’t just roll back the clock. It’s utterly foolish of them and it grinds on me. I just feel like we’re in some period of transition. Well we’re always transitioning to somewhere but I just firstly feel society hasn’t “digested” the shift that is the internet. As it needed time for other changes to filter through and new beliefs resulted. I’ll openly admit I can’t even solidly tell you what sort of overarching beliefs or vision I push for because I’m still thinking that out. And in that I think a lot of the “trad” right wingers are just foolishly drowning in nostalgia for older times when that’s just impossible to recreate with the way things are. And secondly if you’re trying to solve it just rolling back the clock is pointless because those past conditions created the ones they whinge about! Peterson is a big figure in that I think. Hilariously this is a bit bumbling myself but that’s what I get for trying to fit this into the end of a lunch break!
Hello 28:30 I am here for the side essay, send it directly to my face
Babe wake up new rosencreutz !
I’d say that the systematic theology that is most apparent in the Reformation and Medieval scholasticism but also appears in the works of the Church Fathers is not, by most definitions, modern. The conception of the Bible as a unified narrative is the traditional view in Western Christendom, and the Baptist departure from it in favor of a “verse by verse fact book of unconnected things that God did” is truly much more modern. Still, applying the particulars of Jungian literary analysis to the Bible is a new approach to this
I'm sorry but your takes on Jung and Campbell were just outright wrong and blatant misrepresentations.