POSTMODERNISM critique; Dr. Jordan Peterson on Jacque Derrida & Marxist corruption
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 мар 2018
- Consider Subscribing
New Uploads DAILY
Support Dr. Jordan Peterson
Jordan Peterson's Links:
Events: /
Patreon:
Self Authoring: /
Jordan Peterson Website: /
Podcast:
Derrida is Jordan’s sleep paralysis demon
LOL
lmao
😩😩😩
Hahahaha he lives rent free in his head
@@steamplist9113 🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂 accurate
tell me you haven't read derrida without telling me you haven't read derrida.
Tell me you haven't either without telling me you haven't either.
@@seanmurphy7011 I am obligated to read and familiarise myself with Derridean thought - his writings on deconstruction and hospitality are central to my thesis on immigration. I would criticise you but it wouldn't be worth the effort.
@@yiennchandeconstructing much?
It's ultimately crypto-nihlism through anarchy, disguised as sophisticated critical thinking. Splitting hairs, then splitting the split hairs. It doesn't solve anything. It's simply a power play based in obscuring everything.
derrida desedimented the assumptions behind truth; he made no judgement on whether truth is valid or not
Peterson didn’t say Derrida made judgements. Peterson’s critique, actually, is that the goal of deconstruction is ONLY to subvert assumptions, he KNOWS there aren’t really any truth claims at all, the only real postmodernist claim is that because reality is filtered through the senses, truth cannot be reliably accessed. Peterson’s issue is that this basically is the same as saying “truth doesn’t exist.” On a functional level, whether truth exists or not, if you cannot reliably access truth, or cannot know for certain due to the subjective nature of consciousness, it’s the same as moral relativism, because there’s no measurable way to determine who’s perspective is better. That’s no good for anyone.
@@akallstar5 I like you ended that with a with modified Petersonism. He’s fond of saying “that’s not good”.
@@frimports it is similar I suppose appreciate the comparison
@@akallstar5 derrida was not a moral relativist though
@@SP-ri7jo I’ve heard this before, I do not believe post structuralism and anything but moral relativism is compatible.
Derrida made certain key statements. Yes he noticed that there were multiple interpretations, but his main observation on that obvious fact was that texts deconstruct themselves. Which is also obvious when you think of it. One text read by one person in one era will have different interpretation than another person in a different era etc. but Derrida was also interested in what the authors actually meant outside of our conditioned biases. So one way to approach a text so that we might step out of our conditioned biases would be to artificially deconstruct them by playing with and entertaining possible other meanings. Afterwords we can than chose the most authentic interpretation, or the most useful interpretation, or interpretations of various qualities. It’s not a nefarious plot.
He also is mistranslated as saying “there is nothing outside the text” when he actually originally said “there is nothing outside the context.” Perhaps he liked the double meaning and spontaneous deconstruction. But the original idea was to go back to original texts and understand their context. Without the context we can’t approach better interpretations.
But the thing that influenced me the most in regards to Derrida was his ideas of the differences between written and spoken text. As an interdisciplinary artist this was very revolutionary for me because I understood the parameters of different media created unique meanings. I worked in visual art, film, video, theater, poetry, and with every art form the media had a different character and different potentialities for meaning making.
Derrida can be used politically, I suppose, but I consider a rather benign philosopher.
The idea of phallogocentricism is not a negative attitude towards penises, or men, or spoken words, or the Logos. It is just intended to convey that might have a particular condition bias. Someone political might exaggerate that observation, but we do have conditioned biases.
Freud and Jung also believed we had a specific conditioned bias. In fact Jung was racked under the coals as racist for even suggesting the fact. But it too is rather obvious.
Derrida has the sad sin of being rather obtuse. But the major concepts are relatively clear. It is definitely a far cry from secret Marxism.
As far as not engaging in dialogue both Derrida and Deleuze actually advocated dialogue over polemics. With multiple interpretations there is mainly dialogue. Deconstruction became an alternative to hermeneutics which often resulted in polemics.
Interesting ... Thx for taking the time of such an answer , I will take it in concern...
Great breakdown thank you... I'm reading through Platos Pharmacy right now in Disseminations and I guess just decided to surf some JP videos to see if he mentioned anything about Derrida's works... Plato's Pharmacy is a masterpiece! Hands down
so he said "Il n'y a pas de hors-contexte" or did he say "Il n'y a pas de hors-texte" ??
What must be noted is that Derrida admits deconstruction has a Marxist spirit. I guess that his followers interpreted his ideas in more radical ways, for example Judith Butler. I dont think Peterson is totally fair in blaming Derrida for the rise modern feminism and gender theory, although he definitely was a big inspiration.
I think that a lot of people are coming in with philosophical backgrounds and not understanding Peterson from a psychological perspective. He is critiquing Derrida based on Derrida's perspective that 'people are ego driven'. I haven't read Derrida but already I feel this in him. People are accusing Peterson of being reductionist when it seems to me Derrida is the reductionist. Derrida is not presenting a FULL VIEW OF THE HUMAN PSYCHE. It is like Derrida is reducing people to tools. I will know more after I actually read him. For example, how does Derrida describe love? Or something like qualia?
As someone who recently did a Masters on Deconstruction, I can say with confidence that Peterson doesn't understand Derrida. I even read Peterson's critique of Derrida in 12 Rules to Life. I was shocked by the fact that he doesn't even have a single reference of Derrida's work to show exactly where Derrida says the things that Peterson claims he says. At best, he didn't understand Derrida when he read him (which is hard to believe considering how incredibly intelligent Peterson is). At worst he has never read a book by Derrida (cover to cover) and is just reproducing the criticisms of the people he has read.
What’s Derrida’s best book to understand deconstruction?
@@florenzini7212 definitely 'Of Gramatology' but that book is very complicated. I would recommend starting with 'Deconstruction in a Nutshell' by John D Caputo. The first half of the book I a transcript of a round table discussion with Derrida and several other philosophers. You'll probably never find Derrida speak more clearly than that. The second half is Caputo's commentary on everything Derrida said.
@@silakhesingata7370 You don't get Derrida right if you don't read Heidegger and so on.
Hey bro, did you happen to read his critique of levinas in violence and metaphysics?
Jordan is “incredibly intelligent”?!
He can speak for sure, but idk about being incredibly intelligent.
JP missed a crucial point about interpretation which is that the seemingly infinite number of possibilities comes not from the diversity of the material world but from the diversity of human experience that shapes every perspective. And that’s no small point to misunderstand, bucko.
I was deeply shocked when I first read Luther’s thoughts against the Hebrews back in 1995; and I wondered how I could follow a religious leader who spoke so callously on these matters? But I was in denial in a sense. It was really one of the first times I had full access to the Internet. So I almost didn't believe what I was reading. I didn't want to believe it. But as years went by I did more solid research.
I had already had some doubts regarding Luther's theology. I agreed with many things he taught. There is a lot I agree with. But there were some critical things Luther taught that I could never fully agree with to the point they seemed damnable. And in some cases Luther’s erroneous teachings were so obstinately against what my inspiration of what the Gospel was all about. As other teacher’s later explained, Luther seemed to be advocating an authoritarian system committed to the worship of power qua power. When I started having all those dreams which were more in agreement with Catholic thought, this eventually led toward my conversion toward the Catholic Church.
Ironically this sounds much more like his hero, Friedrich, than Jaques.😁
If this is what you think then you have very poor understanding of Nietzsche
@@thelonespeaker He is not entirely wrong. Many of the postmodern thinkers were heavily influenced by Nietzsche. The key ideas were drawn from Nietzsche focus on subjectivity and his repeated critique of rationalist thinking all over his texts but of course, there is a much broader spin on these matters to reach the full scope of Derrida, Foucalt for example, at which point it would be inaccurate to call it a complete successor to Nietzsche, which is obviously not a bad thing.
Yeah Nietzsche was the last modernist/first postmodernist. The Scientific Revolution caused a chasm in modernist thought because science/logic and morality couldn’t coexist. When Nietzsche says “God is dead and we have killed him.” He is referring to how modernism brought about its own demise and left its subjects without the ability to PROVE morality. Post-modernism is the project of accepting that and rediscovering faith in a deeply personal and subjective fashion.
There is NO metaphysical substrate of our culture. One doesn't have to be a postmodernist to see that.
01:35 On the infinity of ways to interpret reality.
For one to be a hero there must be one who is villain.
Who said this please ?
I would be impressed if this was yours
Aaaah yes. The postmodernists would therefore be the villains.
Jordan derived conservatism and consistent order in order to function and AI requires that and I learned a better understanding of verbal chaos theory from Derrida. Chaos causes order in my lessons. An inspection causes order in chaos and chaos is cynical. Derrida simply explained how infinity works in language. His political views didn't Interest me but he explained the art of random activity to me using language. I adore Derrida. If you wrote a stationary object like a book. Derrida can tare it to pieces using infinity and chaos is the result. Every word in the book has that much perception. Derrida spotted the oddities of languages and expression. A conservative would fall over dead after understanding Derrida 😁
understanding is a facade. you agree or disagree
I don’t think Peterson has read much Derrida lmao
I dont think Peterson has read much of anything tbh
amazing counterpoint
@@karrde666666 that’s the best you got lol
@@theman44ful that's all that's needed apparently. here i'll do it to you now. I dont think Jake Hall reads much... I won yay
@@karrde666666 lmao you’re really trying here aren’t y’a, first of all wasn’t a counterpoint it was a statement I made, one that is pretty clearly objectively correct. Second, You’re up and down these comments trying to start shit with people and your method of doing so is passive aggressive bitching haha, please tell me how Peterson is correct on his assertions about Derrida I’ll be waiting bud
Peterson has not read Derrida and its very frustrating. It doesn’t sound like he’s actually read any postmodernism at all if I’m honest.
He has, he just doesn't look at it through a philosophical lens, which is why he's able to expose its flaws.
@@mirr1984 they’re works of philosophy, to read them in another lens is to completely misunderstand them. What exactly is Peterson’s expertise? Talking incoherently about Lobsters and Gender?
@@regularsherlock6237 I didn't say read them in another lens, I said view them. Philosophy is a generic subject which is accessible to everyone. You don't need special training, you just need the ability to interpret and analyse. You don't even have to read Derrida or Foucault to realise that postmodern thought has substantial flaws. Browsing over the highlights is more than adequate to come to that conclusion.
Also, your comment on lobsters is smug and ignorant.
@@mirr1984 Petersons’ point about Lobsters being some evidence of natural hierarchies that can be compared to humans because anti-depressants produce effects on Lobsters is nothing short of quack-nonsense. The fact that he’s constantly putting out such ridiculous takes on things that he’s supposed to know something about makes me very suspect of how much he’s even made an attempt to understand postmodernism which you’ve echoed pretty well. In his debate with Zizek he seemed to confuse postmodernism with neo-Marxism, this is absolutely stupid it requires no elaboration. Derrida’s deconstruction can’t be understood in any great detail without at least attempting to abandon naive normative presuppositions which Peterson doesn’t do, hence why I don’t believe he’s even read any of it. If you think reiterating Christian conservatism is a convincing rebuttal to postmodernism then I honestly don’t know what to tell you.
@@regularsherlock6237 The fact that you're incapable of seeing the parallels between neomarxism and postmodernism suggests that maybe it's YOU who doesn't understand postmodernism. Also, before you make such claims about the lobster experiment, learn something about how serotonin works in biology and social interaction.
Also, I dislike Christian conservatism. I'm a hardline atheist. However, I don't disregard everything that JP says because I disagree with him on one thing. The truth is, you can extract wisdom and knowledge from Christianity, and it's important to acknowledge that.
7:34 JP demonstrating that he's obviously never read Derrida's theory of hospitality...
Maybe true (even when I doubt it) but this is also true for the majority of the postmodern acolytes who constantly use postmodern terminology like "deconstruction" and those often operate exactly in the way JP here describes.
@@historynerd6630 Oh, absolutely. It's the same for many self-proclaimed Marxists also. There was a JP fan commenting beneath his video about The Communist Manifesto, arguing that we should use deconstruction theory on Marxism. The irony was completely lost on him.
However, I can just about forgive the casual Marxist or Petersonite if they haven't read the material. I struggle to forgive that sort of incompetence from a fully qualified academic.
@@PsilentMusicUK He lost his credibility when he first stated that Derrida was a Marxist...
@@PsilentMusicUK and you are a qualified academic? did you even listen to what he said in the video?
kids..full of themselves..
@@yassine4982 You don't have to be a fully qualified academic to know Derrida wasn't a Marxist.
I sometimes get the feeling that Derrida’s ghost has possessed Peterson’s unconscious and produced an interpretation of his own work so perfectly wrong that it works like a kind of dark joke. I don’t even think Derrida would even be mad about this, I think he would find it amusing. Exhausting perhaps, in the way children are exhausting; but amusing, in the way children are amusing.
@Andrei Georgescu "No, you."
...would be the postmodernist response, and then he/she would call you a "homophobe."
Mitchell, I’m sorry, but this overwhelmingly pretentious and snarky drivel beautifully crafted within an unearned sense of certainty ironic for someone who’s a Derrida enthusiast, is basically exactly how anyone would expect someone who disagrees with these critiques to sound. You’re the perfect stereotype, thank you for this.
Not Derrida, but those who followed him…big difference.
@@akallstar5 you're welcome brother. Thanks for calling it "beautifully crafted".
I have no desire to stand beyond the system of the argument, or to present an interpretation which pretends towards objectively--(I would submit to you this is the most simple meaning of pretention, of being pretentious)
I have no claim to the "essence". Maybe some people do. Maybe some people should. This is not for me to say.
Either way I'm happy to play my part. I'll admit it-- I think Derrida's writing is some of the best I've ever read. I've also heard Dr. Peterson claim that it literally "can't be understood." So, given that I have understood it, and know others who also have-- please excuse me if I come to the conclusion that he simply failed to apprehend the text. If you're genuinely amused by this then you're welcome. God knows my intention is laughter, not war.
Btw if you've actually read Derrida and wish to discuss it then let's talk. But if you've never cracked open a single volume then excuse me if I come to the conclusion that you simply have no idea of anything Derrida actually wrote.
@@mitchellmcgill138 Perhaps you’re used to sarcasm in your circles, I’m not sure, but maybe re-read what I said, I meant every single word. No sarcasm whatsoever, if you detected any perhaps lower your sensitivity to it. I could see how someone who embraces postmodern thought might be hypersensitive to deceptive language. None needed, really. I have read Derrida, was forced to in college unfortunately. I appreciate the offer but I have to decline, there are other better writers of far more consequence I’d prefer to spend my time on.
As to whether you come away from this presuming Jordan, or I, haven’t understood him simply because we loathe his writing, or whether you can embrace the notion that others can understand the concepts as deeply as you while also disliking them as much as you like them, or not, I can’t say. I’ll have to take the risk that you’ll presume everyone who doesn’t like him is ignorant in exchange for avoiding a massively lengthy conversation that I reasonably don’t feel like spending my time doing.
Well, Peterson definitely hasn't read Derrida then....he totally gets it wrong on all levels!!!
Dude... you don’t even link to the original video.
Peterson has clearly not read Derrida, and yet he just keeps yammering away. An intellectual featherweight trying to critique the work of one of the greats without doing the work. What a joke.
The moment Jordan called Derrida a Marxist, you know already he doesn’t understand anything about Derrida. What is presence is always in constant contact with the trace, the memory that refuses to die, and to interpret is to always mourn the finitude of space.
Derrida identifies with a lot of modern Marxists , he agrees his project 'deconstruction' has some affinities with Marx his project is neither Marxist or non-Marxist . Just as he says he is not a theists or atheist . . that is Derrida way of dealing with binaries , i think you should revisit Derrida use of binaries . Derrida presence is his metaphysics ,memory as ghost without the body it had when living the reality .
@@artlessons1 Funny you say that...Derrida's book "Spectres of Marx" is all about how a guy who died a century-and-a-half ago and whom hardly anyone really understands haunt millions of folks day and night. He found it to be a quaint and vaguely interesting phenomenon.
Distinction w/o a difference, the deconstructionist's best friend
Even using word Really tells that you are fooled by the sign.
If only I had his bloated self-confidence to talk out of my butt like this. It so obvious he has never even bothered to read as much of a half a page from Derrida.
This video is laugh out loud funny. Has Peterson ever read Derrida? No way! Calling Derrida a Marxist is absurd at best. Peterson just rambles on and on saying nothing. This is priceless, the full intellectual bankruptcy of the right on display in all its glory. Bravo!
What Jordan Petersen understands of what Derrida wrote is dangerous!
I've just started reading about deconstruction, and once I got to the point where Derrida explicates the fault in the commonly held conception of binary opposition I thought to myself...is this where the current gender ideology got it its legs?? Does anybody know if his work served as inspiration?
Spinoza laid, in some way, the theoretical basis to question "cartesian dualism" (Deleuze worked hard on it)
Gender stuff is based on far older stuff.
Essentially all our ideas and perceptions are shaped or even created by language/signs. You can navigate the world because you have internalized a word + concept to everything you see.
TLDR version is that man and woman are just words, therefor language concepts, therefor culturally determined. Sure we have physical bodies but the words we gave it are cultural since they are language. Naming something instantly differentiates it from other things, a man is by definition not a woman. This shapes our perception of bodies with their respective labels.
@@user-yo8ql4zl6q spot on , and inter bloody sectionalism ...
@@LesterBrunt all the po mo ideas were succesfully decapitated in the 60's , structuralism was 'deconstructed' , and derrida sown vitriolic narcissistic nihilism shown out to be a huge blind alley . Like most terrible ideas in philosophy , foucaly, derrida et al , its invective action , to simply reduce any/all arguments into atoms, pulling apart the threads of philosophys carpet just does one thing . Create a hude mess of tangled threads , in a heap , which can never be made useful again, eg repaired back into a recognised carpt which is useful , its just a ball of random threads which should be chucked into the bin ... drridas legacy is truely hateful , and serves no purpose that to divide and destroy.. NOT 'analyse'
He's a truely prnicious figure , and sowed the seeds of resentment and fear as a terrible legacy ...
just sayin
@@mickyvionsellinas6743 So your argument boils down to “thinking man scary!”.
Always amazes me how JP neglects to acknowledge Nietzsche's influence on postmodernism, perhaps more than Marx, especially given how much he likes Nietzsche.
Postmodernism is a rejection of the “Great Stories”. The oversimplified idealizations that present themselves as accurate representations of history. exactly like “The Enlightenment”. Those kinds of great stories are just nostalgia. Of course great stuff happened during that time but it is always far more complex. But people like stories so The Enlightenment turns into “the world was a dark evil place before they discovered reason in Europe, since the divine discovery of enlightened reasoninngthe world has been amazing and everything turned out for the better, a Golden Age for all of humanity”. Of course there is a sliver of truth to it, the 17-18th centuries had some amazing moments. But this idealized story is not much more than that, a story. There is far more to reality than that, golden ages happened all the time all over the world and it wasn’t all that golden for most people.
Those kind of stories distort the world and should therefor be rejected.
Everybody has that memory of something that was just “perfect”. Some song, location or movie from decades ago. And then you experience it again after all that time and you realize the memory is better than the actual thing. You made up a story about it and got lost in it.
That also happens constantly on a cultural level.
The enlightenment switched the great story of religion for the great story of nationalism. And that turned out to be worse in many ways. Great Stories should be deconstructed so they can be properly entertained for the fiction that they are.
In 1972 Jacques Derrida wrote "Signature Event Context", an essay on J. L. Austin's speech act theory; following a critique of this text by John Searle in his 1977 essay Reiterating the Differences, Derrida wrote in the same year Limited Inc abc ..., a long defense of his original argument.
The substance of Searle's criticism of Derrida in relation to topics in the philosophy of language -referenced in Derrida's Signature Event Context-was that Derrida had no apparent familiarity with contemporary philosophy of language nor of contemporary linguistics. Searle explains, "When Derrida writes about the philosophy of language he refers typically to Rousseau and Condillac, not to mention Plato. And his idea of a "modern linguist" is Benveniste or even Saussure." Searle describes Derrida's philosophical knowledge as pre-Wittgensteinian-that is to say, disconnected from the tradition established by Frege and continued through the work of Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Tarski, Quine-and consequently naive and misguided, concerned with issues long-since resolved or otherwise found to be non-issues.
Searle argues that the ideas upon which deconstruction is founded are essentially a consequence of a series of conceptual confusions made by Derrida as a result of his outdated knowledge or are merely banalities. For example, Derrida's conception of iterability and its alleged "corrupting" effect on meaning stems from Derrida's ignorance of the type-token distinction that exists in current linguistics and philosophy of language. As Searle explains, "Most importantly, from the fact that different tokens of a sentence type can be uttered on different occasions with different intentions, that is, different speaker meanings, nothing of any significance follows about the original speaker meaning of the original utterance token."
According to Searle, the consistent pattern of Derrida's rhetoric is: (a) announce a preposterous thesis, e.g. "nothing exists outside of text" (il n'y a pas de hors-texte); (b) when challenged on (a) respond that you have been misunderstood and revise the claim in (a) such that it becomes a truism, e.g. ″"il n'y a pas de hors-texte" means nothing else: there is nothing outside contexts"; (c) when the reformulation from (b) is acknowledged then proceed as if the original formulation from (a) was accepted. The revised idea-for example-that everything exists in some context is a banality but a charade ensues as if the original claim-nothing exists outside of text-had been established. Searle wrote in The New York Review of Books that he was surprised by "the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial."
Schon Palina
To blame Derrida for what people who claim to be influenced by Derrida think, say, and do is akin to blaming Jesus for everything that people who claim to be influenced by Jesus think, say, and do.
I really think he should read the text before speaking on it. Strange that people consider him an "intellectual". An intellectual for dummies? Maybe
He did. It's just dog shit.
@@jbulletc spoken like a real academic lmao
@@theman44ful I'm not the academic. Jordan is. And yes he's read Derrida. Sorry you're so mad that he points out Derrida's sloppy thinking. Maybe you need better role models and thinkers.
As concerned as it may make you, Peterson tries to articulate left academic elitism in such a way that the estranged Other can understand it too. With that, he does Derrida's work for him, since Derrida preferred to stay in his elite bubble.
@@bremzen4777 maybe he should read fucking Derrida before explaining him.
Peterson is an intellectual lightweight compared to Derrida. He is not a serious thinker.
He's a good generalist but I don't think he fully appreciates how deconstruction is the obvious, technical response to phenomenology, on the one hand, and structuralism on the other. It maybe has been diluted and misused over the years, but Derrida himself always had his sights on philosophy.
Talk to an AI about deconstruction if you want to understand it
If anything is against rationality and science it’s definitely the religion itself, not post-modernism. Also, he blames post-modernists as being Neo-Marxist which a post modernist person would be totally against any type of Marxism. Clearly, Peterson is as smart as to know this but his biases towards diversity holds him back from understanding what Derrida and Foucault was actually saying. I try to get to know Peterson better lately, but damn he won’t make it enjoyable.
thats such a worn out escape .the blame it on the other namely religion . Derrida had his jaws well dug into Genesis . word ( logos) transcendence , binary .just as Nietschie by intent played the knowledgable anti christ . They deconstruct their own ideas .
No, Derrida was not a Marxist. Is Peterson just making shlt up about stuff he never read? Do better, please.
that settles it then. alexander williams has spoken
wow he said nothing about Derrida, Peterson is all about not being censored yet censors others, he just did what Derrida warned people about, binary logic and paternal hierarchy of language, just use labels to discredit them Peterson. There is no way to see the world through another persons eyes or lexicon, that's Derrida's point, we all have different interpretations of, what is meaning? Only the ego says, I am really different than you. The truth is I am very much like you and not like you, or I am neither like you nor not like you. Western logic is stuck in binary. There is neither god nor not god, something else.
To psychoanalyze Peterson, he seems to fear the reality that Nietzsche saw and in the end drove him insane. He fears that christian logic will be deconstructed (again, again and again) and with it the ground under him. Peterson fights everyone who is making him open his eyes to the darkness that surrounds him, Nietzsche couldn't run from it and tried valiantly to fight it with his own philosophy, and I believe Peterson will suffer the same faith, it seems like he's halfway there, yet nothing he does will be as elegant as Nietzsche's work.
@Andrei Georgescu Your summary is correct if only life itself was nihilistic which it isnt. To critique, to analyze and to change is directly tied to life, and thus our own behaviour. I do agree with you though that many many people don't grasp the philosophies they're reading (the "postmodernists" which doesnt really exist) and turn towards nihilism, moral relativism and a infinity of subjectiveness. But this was never the goal of the philosophers they missunderstand.
That complex and sofisticated can complexly end in my lap not somwhere across the ocean ... And key words marx...isam.... Bible Shekspear gender power. Ok.... They have so much why dont give a pice of funding to me... Some tuition...ok maybe new job .. whats he askin in there?????
PETERSON DOES NOT UNDERSTAND DERRIDA IN REGARDS WHAT HE SAYS IN THIS VIDEO. WHAT HE SAYS, SAYS MORE ABOUT HIMSELF THAN IT DOES ABOUT DERRIDA. ALL HE DOES IS LOOK TO MAKE GENERALIZATIONS THAT WILL LOOK TO SHAPE AND PROVE HIS OWN POINT
Hehe… Saying that JP never read Derrida it’s the kind of argument people that have a big problem to read and understand what they are reading have… Good luck with your reading.
tbh derrida’s work are one of the most complicated materials out there comparable to Kant and Hegel. Imo its the fact that its not clear what is he advocating for and people just can’t seem to accept that he is demonstrating instead of advocating. However a slight careful read of Derrida will make it apparent that none of the things JP said is actually what derrida meant. It’s even more apparent when the very thing JP is explaining is considered to be the most common way of misunderstanding Derrida. I’m a fan of JP but in some philosophical discussions that are not psychoanalysis, he is quite uninformed.
I wonder if there’s anyone who actually takes Jordan seriously.
This guy belongs to talk shows, twitter, political events but definitely not to philanthropy.
He has no clue to Derrida, just offering an oft-repeated rubbish without having studied him. Saying things like English literature is one of things that hot corrupted is an appalling display of ignorance. In any case, Derrida never used descriptions like postmodernism. At least, read him properly before making any comments. Derrida's scholarship is formidable and most commentators would probably not have comparable scholarship which is fine.
I'm a fan of JP but not at all impressed with what he has to say in this clip. The following is a far more intellectually honest interpretation of Derrida in relation to my own reading of his works: ruclips.net/video/HKJlSY0DBBA/видео.htmlsi=I5qgAk2NUvJdZJaa
his critique of bad faith and stupidity is great but it has NOTHING to do with Derrida or his fantasy of postmodern decadence.
How is he pointing out a flaw with postmodernism? He's literally saying we must interpret things in the way that functions best for us. Sounds a lot like what he says he's trying to criticize.
I don't identify with postmodernism but the more I listen to Peterson describe it the more I am convinced by its argument that words and concepts have no meaning and it's impossible to really understand anything.
I like how he self-marginalizes in an attempt to prove a point and then plays the role of a victim. He appears more than anxious that others want to have a place at the table of ideas, and Derrida has indicated in his work that traditionally, every identity marker mentioned in this man's diatribe regarding the supposed marginalization of straight, white males have been markers of individuals who have favored their own voices and worked to exclude others. This is the very meaning of power and dominance, and I can't see where Derrida ever suggests such voices be "destroyed", but simply that these voices are no longer favored over others. What is true is that this man is anxious of being reduced to the same level of ideas in dialogue as women, gays, lesbians, or communists and there is no potential way to use reasoning to resolve the conflict. He needs to maintain the favored status in order to simply dismiss other thinking, not only as communist or villainous but as emotionally tainted revolutionary jargon. Yet he points out zero supportable facts. This is why rhetoric is so necessary to maintaining power and control structures. When writing, one can easily be shown to be wrong and the entire conflict or discussion is recorded for scrutiny. Rhetoric allows folks to say anything at any time they want without support, a very emotional and unreasonable way of discussing some sort of postmodernism that he defines as though ti is something tangible enough to define and target as corrupt.
Peterson believes in hierarchies of value and that among the things that people value, they value most that which most likely leads directly to the continuation of a given society-this would explain the general tendency to place married people with children higher on the hierarchy than divorced people with children, childless single people, or childless single, gay people.
He believes that ideals must not be inverted-which is in opposition to some fundamental elements of deconstructionism and of Derrida’s writings.
He is certainly nervous about a shift in hierarchy where people with worldviews “inferior” to his would eventually come to enjoy more influence in society-but I hardly think that this is peculiar to Peterson.
He doesn’t seem to believe that some voices will ever, in the aggregate, not be “favored over others”. In essence, any attempt at flattening the hierarchy will simply result in a new hierarchy just with a different order.
,,To be destroied ! That's the goal !"
We realized a little late.
We already have laws that contain these concepts.
What's the next, 1984 ?
5:00 No, we interpret the world in a way which facilitates the ones WITH power.
As a Dutchman I don’t benefit from a king and I am consciously against it, yet I still internalized the idea that it is ‘normal’ that a single dude who happens to have a certain surname gets to be king of the country. The dominant ideology is shaped by the people in power and is internalized unconsciously.
Seems rather indisputable. Peterson is a Christian because that is the dominant ideology and it facilitates the people in power, the clergy, conservative politicians, etc. If he was born in India he would’ve been Hindu because there the dominant ideology is not Christianity.
it's your opinion i spose , as dutchman its of no moment ...
How does Christianity ever justify earthly power? Of course the religion is abused as a way of maintaining power, but that has nothing to do with the actual religion...
@@ragtagdb97that only if we were to agree that there is god and religion coming from him (or her).
You have to wonder about a guy who sees so many charlatans, villains, and devils crouching behind the hedges. Is Peterson seeing himself?
How can this man say this? He is a poor reader of Derrida. Disappointing, but not surprising
In 1972 Jacques Derrida wrote "Signature Event Context", an essay on J. L. Austin's speech act theory; following a critique of this text by John Searle in his 1977 essay Reiterating the Differences, Derrida wrote in the same year Limited Inc abc ..., a long defense of his original argument.
The substance of Searle's criticism of Derrida in relation to topics in the philosophy of language -referenced in Derrida's Signature Event Context-was that Derrida had no apparent familiarity with contemporary philosophy of language nor of contemporary linguistics. Searle explains, "When Derrida writes about the philosophy of language he refers typically to Rousseau and Condillac, not to mention Plato. And his idea of a "modern linguist" is Benveniste or even Saussure." Searle describes Derrida's philosophical knowledge as pre-Wittgensteinian-that is to say, disconnected from the tradition established by Frege and continued through the work of Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Tarski, Quine-and consequently naive and misguided, concerned with issues long-since resolved or otherwise found to be non-issues.
Searle argues that the ideas upon which deconstruction is founded are essentially a consequence of a series of conceptual confusions made by Derrida as a result of his outdated knowledge or are merely banalities. For example, Derrida's conception of iterability and its alleged "corrupting" effect on meaning stems from Derrida's ignorance of the type-token distinction that exists in current linguistics and philosophy of language. As Searle explains, "Most importantly, from the fact that different tokens of a sentence type can be uttered on different occasions with different intentions, that is, different speaker meanings, nothing of any significance follows about the original speaker meaning of the original utterance token."
According to Searle, the consistent pattern of Derrida's rhetoric is: (a) announce a preposterous thesis, e.g. "nothing exists outside of text" (il n'y a pas de hors-texte); (b) when challenged on (a) respond that you have been misunderstood and revise the claim in (a) such that it becomes a truism, e.g. ″"il n'y a pas de hors-texte" means nothing else: there is nothing outside contexts"; (c) when the reformulation from (b) is acknowledged then proceed as if the original formulation from (a) was accepted. The revised idea-for example-that everything exists in some context is a banality but a charade ensues as if the original claim-nothing exists outside of text-had been established. Searle wrote in The New York Review of Books that he was surprised by "the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial."
ironic your saying how can this man say this . He is a poor reader of Derrida ... when in fact Derrida deconstruction is all about the meaning is in your interpretation .
@@artlessons1 It would be fair to stick to what Derrida has written.
@@mirceavbumbesti2098 I see you are referring to Derrida's use of " everything is in the text " he also means by that even his work deconstructs within its text ' Derrida is all about deconstructing what others have written.
Amen
This is very embarrassing for Peterson!
it's funny how, in the beginning, JBP opens with calling Derrida a villain, showing his bias and revealing the rest of the 8 minutes within the first 30 seconds
Thanks Dr Jordan
Which postmodernist said what he says they say lol
None
does he know how to read?
Clearly not
Probably better than you lol
What kind of question is that?
@Hasan Piker He's a cuckserveative that's all.
another sentence on which part was wrong would have been too much I guess.
Can u imagine those two face to face😂😂😂😂
You actually have to work really hard to completely miss the point Derrida was making and if there was anyone in the world who could do that it would be Peterson. He should really just stick to crying on talk shows about how the left is attacking him while calling them weak and snowflakes.
lol
Imagine thinking Derrida was a marxist.
How about a "pee dough file"?
Postmodernism - the pit that Jordan Peterson got lost
I love how everyone is exclaiming that Peterson doesn't understand Derrida without presenting any evidence where he got it wrong? But then again , Marxist aren't exactly the brightest of intellectuals.
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahaahhahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahah.
Well when you read and cherry pick comments then you will reach that conclusion.....a shit ton of comments are in the video showing how he got Derrida wrong ....and a guy who did masters on deconstruction also commented how he got Derrida wrong....and here you are sucking up to peterson...good going!
And Peterson doesn't seem to even qualify as an intellectual. Are you suggesting that Cornell West lacks intellect? Are you suggesting that Derrida lacks intellect? Have you written, published, or produced anything of value that has made the world a better place? If so, that is good, why worry about intellectual acumen when you are a productive being who is capable of authenticity and experiencing joy. Video presentations like this are the very reason that Derrida suggested we consider writing, arts, and the avante garde as equally viable contributors to the rhetoric of reason. Reason alone has shown to be less than able to produce resolutions to conflict. Derrida suggests that one can engage in conflict and find suitable or superior solutions when opening the mind to other perspectives and experiences that we normally reject out of hand due to anxiety over what these perspectives might actually produce that threaten our own concepts of favorable outcomes. This man really doesn't even give a defense of conservatism as a means of responding to the tyranny inherit in communism. he attacks communism without ever mentioning that it is not postmodern, nor is it deconstruction, but rather a power-motivated response to the less-than-favorable outcomes produced by capitalism. Everything he criticizes here is just as much a behavior of Trump supporters as communists. At the very worst, this man is a liar and misrepresents Derrida, whose very concept of producing outcomes within the reality of power and domination games is addressed in books on Hospitality, the economics and historical concepts of friendship, and the need to be passionate about change for the better without doing violence to others, even when coercion is at the very least an integral part of rhetoric. This is a basic fact of both democracy and tyranny that conservatives not only miss but dismiss even when it is happening before their eyes and is being played out in their contemporary ethical behaviors. The fact that rhetoric is designed to convince and win political victory - power over the distribution of resources according to a favored group who happens to hold power. But when reasonable people disagree, rhetoric turns toward lies and personal attacks in order to discredit what is in fact someone's legitimate claim with intellectual and justified support of veracity. This guy had never read most of Derrida, or, is simply a liar motivated to win arguments against windmills.
Peterson has not read Derrida and makes a big confusion whe he calls everybody of "postmodernist". He speaks like an idiot! Hahahaah
People are don’t understand that Jorden Peterson is critique the effects of Post-Modernism, and not the ideas. This is part of what critique is supposed to do, and the post-modernists also critiqued effects. That’s the real problem, if you don’t understand Jordan Peterson’s critique you don’t understand who he is actually critiquing either. See, Jorden Peterson actually has more respect of thinkers like Derrida, when even his critics do. He loves it, that’s why he criticizes it.
Baloney.
One of the best deconstructions of Jacques Derridas entire view of language and definitions is reductio ad absurdism.
Derrida believed that every word ,say W1, has no meaning beyond the words it is defined by.So W1 ,for hypothetical purposes, is defined by W2, W3 and W4.And W2, by W4,W5,W6.And if we take this all the way back to birth , then it is clear that a baby would never be able to speak.This short paragraph by itself invalidates Derridas entire philosophy of language. It also proves Kant & Chomsky in regards to INNATE. Poor Derrida never considered he could be put.into.philisophical checkmate by this deconstruction technique of reductio ad absurdism. Q.E.D