Joe is intelligent, he has access to his whole brain, logic and creativity. This is a problem with most of us, we think that being able to remember trivial facts is intelligent , but it is only smart. An intelligent individual is always learning and is aware of their ignorance. A smart person thinks they are smart and reacts like a child when they cannot comprehend the intellect of another. We see this all the time in the comments section when someone replies to a comment by assaulting their grammar errors instead of sticking to the point of the argument.
+ThenicholasWayne I think Joe tries to make it clear he knows he doesn't know everything and doesn't claim to. It seems like his way of passively asserting he's open-minded.
@The Complaining Channel No. Joe Rogan is like 5 times the intellectual as Jordan Peterson. Peterson got a doctorate in psychobabble pseudoscience and thought that gave him the intellectual expertise to comment on any social topic, or even scientific topic, like anthropogenic climate change. Which he thinks is a hoax. I guess the Big Windmill Lobby must have paid off all the climate scientists in the world to lie about the climate change 🙄
I get pissed listening to such good information being presented when i think of my public education experience and a child. It was years of fragmented bullshit to memorize.
Holy Shit, this is insightful. I'm a student of Social Work in Germany and I like the way he can present his analysis of postmodernism, which is very present here in my city in particular (it's called Bielefeld and has one the most reknown faculties of sociology in Germany).Well I have been struggling with my thesis because I had these issues about the assumptions of Judith Butler and Foucault. Now I see more clearly. In my studies of psychology and sociology I've come to see the two disciplines intertwined (I guess one could say that? My english sometimes has its borders) As Jordan Peterson seems to do too. His reasoning is perfect as far as I can tell and he has read and thought about this issue a lot. Real Kritik as we would say.
Hi as a SW student from Australia, I believe in listening, reading & understanding all theories and ideas. I take from them all that works and discard what doesn't, and not be a slave to any of them.
Core tenets of post modernist philosophy is undeniable. It’s true we only know reality as we perceive it with the senses we were given and we can’t absolutely know our capacity to perceive reality as fundamental. However, it’s a way of thinking that is completely impractical. Embracing such thinking in it’s entirety immediately destroys any impetus to learn or engage in anything. Also the current groups labeled as post modernists like SJW’s completely misinterpret the philosophy as they’re trying to enforce their own fixed perception of reality, instead of just saying , “I have no idea what’s true and neither does anybody else” which is what a true post modernist thinker believes.
I think that a lot of the discourse going on about post modernism has the tendency to falsely equate the post modern condition with post modern thinkers. When Foucault and the likes were talking about how the very notions of truth were a direct product of power structures, institutions, language etc. he was merely making an observation about how postmodern society operates rather than promote a sense of disjointed thinking in which "anything goes" or where the very notion of truth no longer matters. I think it's better to look at postmodern philosophy as a way of understanding how our perceptions of reality are formed and not as an invitation to dismantle it, because at the end of the day these social constructs are an essential part of what constitutes our reality and how we perceive it. Going back to what you said at the start stating "We only know reality as we perceive it with the senses we were given and we can't absolutely know our capacity to perceive reality as fundamental" That notion is not something inherently unique or particular to postmodernism as a whole. Those ideas are something that is integral to Metaphysics as well, most of the great thinkers who dabbled in metaphysics like Kant, Schopenhauer, and Spinoza.
It's amazing how someone so smart is Saying things that the common person with common sense has always said. But it will take someone like him to make others realize the inconsistency of this current mindset that is ruining our lives
except none of what he says is true lol. Derrida never talked about identity politics, his main work was on post-structuralism and deconstruction which are linguistic techniques. I dont know where he gets these ideas from about post-modernists because they have no real basis in reality; he simply mentions names to try and get across a sense of truthfulness to people who dont actually know what post modernism is
As an English lit major, I can confirm that the programs tend to be entirely corrupt. However, as an undergraduate, I can mentally spar with my professors on their Marxist feminist bullshit because I'm paying them.
I studied literature in college in the 80s, when many of the post modern thinkers were just being introduced. I was generally acknowledged to be the most brilliant student in the department, so I was assigned to do a paper and presentation on deconstructionism, which even my professor admitted that he didn't understand. I waded into the swill of Derrida and concluded it was garbage, so I focused on several key fallacies in his thought and explained that the theory was really about taking communication out of context and deliberately confusing it, the same way comics use puns and such to create humor. I basically said the same stuff that Jordan Peterson says here. The reaction of the class to my presentation was a lot of violent screaming, and I was accused of making everyone sound like fools. I was downgraded on my paper, not because the professor could find any flaws, but because he said that I must have misrepresented Deconstructionism. Although some professors urged me to become a college professor, I didn't think it was a good gamble. I would have had to borrow thousands of dollars only to find myself working in a system that was thoroughly hostile to everything I had to say. I was already getting exhausted from working my way through college and fighting daily with students and professors alike. It is hard enough to work your way through the system when you are desperately poor, but so much more difficult when the system daily rages with hatred against you and downgrades you for expressing unpopular thought. It heaps artificial burdens on top of your natural burdens, and devises one stumbling block after another to throw in front of you, while it pets and advances its favorites in front of your face to spite you. There is no telling how many intelligent and talented people were crushed and discouraged from seeking work in that system. The few who may have tried were probably easily eliminated by affirmative action. In seeking work, I was passed over countless times in favor of people who did no better than half as well as I did on exams, civil service exams, etc. Unless the system itself is reformed, it will continue to produce nothing but buffoonery and corruption. Good luck with that.
Wow! Very interesting response. Most modern day professors are pawns in a game they don’t know they are playing. But I’m optimistic, I believe that this system is not sustainable. Systems that are not sustainable will end, its just a matter of time. In the end it takes people such as Jordan Peterson to fight back and expose the system of the evil lies that it proclaims to be gospel.
I compare postmodernists as a cult, much like Scientology, with their own sacred words, forbidden speech, rituals, and ideology, which is meted out by a few powerful leaders, in such a way as to keep as many in the movement as possible for as long as possible. I found myself swept up into this for a time, but as I got older, and became more informed, I saw the Marxist socialist roots, and have been outspoken against it since I learned what the SJW movement is really about.
Its profoundly clear you havent read any books written by marxist or post modernist thinkers. Instead you have been brainwashed by a far-right cult that just pushes the cultural marxism conspiracy theory. Keep drinking the koolaid buddy, youre totally informed.
@@t00bgazer in the last 30 years, I have started 2 communes and had been a part of another 3 cooperatives. I spent most of my life around these types. I have read some, however I find the ideas expressed in words on paper far less important the the praxis and manifestation of these ideas by real people into the real world. Factis ut credam facis.
The natural progression of post modernism is compete disorder and chaos. Since to them order is seen as oppressive. Peace is seen as oppressive. Being civil is seen as oppressive.
11:45 I was waiting for him to mention Foucault. Foucault is the elephant in the room that people seldom mention. He's highly influential at UC Berkeley.
Had this Foucault idea quoted in a lecture on war as part of my politics degree: “Relations of power are indissociable from a discourse of truth, and they can neither be established nor function unless a true discourse is produced, accumulated, put into circulation, and set to work. Power cannot be exercised unless a certain economy of discourses of truth functions in, on the basis of, and thanks to, that power.” Lecturer encouraged us to ‘think critically about war.’ It’s incredible the grip these ideologies have on the social sciences across the world (I’m in the UK.) The temptation to just shout out ‘so Hitler could’ve been right, and to battle him was merely to exert power over the oppressed groups within the allied countries, and to legitimise the power of the oppressor?’ 😂 So what you’re saying Mr. Postmodernist, is ‘Hitler was good?’
You have to be careful, though, that you don't use postmodernism as something to simply label ideas you disagree with. Just because one dislikes an idea doesn't mean it's postmodernism. An important point that doesn't get mentioned.
The problem of crumbling values and ideas into a postmodern mess is a bigger threat than I ever thought. It is like a philosophical meltdown. I’ve been influenced to think that my inner force is not good. But a good man is a strong person all around. J Peterson reminds me that my fire can destroy everything around me, but also it can bring warmth and light.
Boy is Jordan right about a "hatred of competence". I have encountered that in every new agey liberal workplace I've ever had the misfortune to work in. And I was drawn to work in those places because of the rhetoric of fairness and honesty they pretended to embrace.
Not succinct? This is a three hour podcast. Petersen comes up with answers to questions and eloquently and honestly answers them in seconds. I would call that succinct.
My friend Mike is a retired Secret Service Agent who eventually was assigned to safeguarding the President and family (PPD I think it’s called). Anyway, he told me there were two types they worried about; 1). A person with NOTHING to lose. 2). A deep thinker. Their characteristics = Jordan Peterson.
This is so good. I have listened to Peterson on a million videos and I think he must have smoked pot before this interview (the tangential nature of his talking, and his catering it to Joe's sensibility).
This analysis of postmodernism is very good, but I've noticed many analyses of postmodernism miss a crucial point. Class is rarely discussed as one of the power hierarchies in postmodernism; it's all about race, gender, sexuality. And the working-class white male is a favorite target of SJW types. Also, notice how university administrators, many of whom are affluent white males, side with the SJWs and postmodernists when push comes to shove. And global corporations push diversity and inclusion and all that, too, and hate Trump and despise the Alt-Right/nationalism/defenses of Western Civilization. What I suggest is that postmodernism, no matter its origins and motivations, has been allowed to thrive because it accommodates the goals of the ideology of globalist neoliberalism that was forming at the same time as postmodernism back in the 70s and 80s. Downgrading the status of the West through constant criticism, insulting white males and denigrating the working class, opposing any sort of cultural consensus that you'd have seen before the late 1960s back when nationalism was stronger etc. are all very effective ideological tools for people whose interests lie in cultivating markets in non-Western countries, exporting industry, bringing hundreds of millions of women into the workforce in Western countries, opening borders, and in general tearing down the pre-60s society. People like the college administrators and corporate executives who have benefited mightily from these economic changes, because they're members of the cosmopolitan professional class that's grown so dominant since the 80s, are motivated to support the overall thrust of what postmodernism is doing because the kind of world the postmodernists are creating is the kind of world that benefits cosmopolitan technocrats.
I think it's the point. They even invented the phrases “class reductionism” and “economic reductionism”. Yet, the dynamics of the class war makes them perfectly blind to their supposed concern of race and gender when it suits the dominant class. They don't seem to realize that Soros and Biden are white men for instance
Aw man I wanted to know about the best personality predictor at the end there. Maybe this is stealth advertising to try and get me to the main video (it worked).
There's a video called "Jordan Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism" which presents the case and spares me the time, but do let me know if you're still unconvinced
this clip is so important, it contains valuable informations that you will not find in any class! postmodernism is based on hatred, division rather than forward,clear,rational,scientific thinking.
You guys have no clue what postmodernism is and nor does Peterson. You can search for ‘how Jordan Peterson doesn’t understand post modernism’ on RUclips and see for yourself. Also the idea that Peterson is ‘scientific’ and ‘rational’ or that the ideas he presents are is just wrong. He consistently gets the basics wrong on the ideologies he critiques, he is a textbook sophist.
How I read it ( literally too) Postmodernism calls into question the powers of reason, asserts the importance of nonrational forces such as sensations and emotions, rejects humanism and the traditional philosophical notion of the human being as the central subject of knowledge, champions heterogeneity and difference. “The Postmodernists' tyranny wears people down by boredom and semi-literate prose.” -Christopher Hitchens “Hell hath no fury like a coolly received postmodernist.” -David Foster Wallace, Girl With Curious Hair
P.S. to my last comment. Stalin is a very good example (not that I ever met him!) When you read about his early life, his mother was always disappointed in him and wanted him to become a priest. In her final years she was nursed and looked after by Beria who was a friend of the family!! And we all now that he was one of the most humane people of the 20th century, the only person to make Himmler look like a teddy bear at a picnic!!!!!
If Jordan wasn't such a proud Canadian, I'd urge him to become an American citizen and run for office yes. The man makes the most sense of anyone on the internet
The great quality of a speaker would be that when he or she would articulate about an idea then the listners couldn't be able to deduce their inclinations and prejudices which isn't the case with Jordan Peterson. Noam Chomsky is way better in this aspect.
David Bentley Hart puts it better than anyone: "the absurdity of the postmodern approach is that under the pretense of a tender regard for difference, it in fact converts every particularity into an instance of the same meaninglessness. This is not hospitality to the other, it is conquest, if of an especially dissembling kind."
At 19:00 minutes this is where we Christians get the Word. John 1:1 "in the beginning was the Logos. The Logos was with God and the Logos was God." Logos is where we get the word logic and "word" is derived from logic. John 1:14 "and the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us" The Logos, the Logic and the Word is Christ. "The manifestation of truth in speech" -JordanBP
I love hearing Jordan speak and I am no post-modernist but Jordan's arguments are all over the place here. Is his central argument that post-modernists hold no value in the individual or that it doesn't exist? As he says, "There's no individual for god's sake!" Well he goes on to make the critique that the natural product of the post-modern/new wave feminist doctrine is that the marginalized group can be delineated on and on and on until each individual is recognized as marginalized and that that is in some way chaotic (although easily you can make the argument that we have always had a society where each individual is a composite of their marginalized/hero vs. marginalizer/snake stories). Or is his central argument that the post-modernists believe, as he mentions as pertaining to the evolution of Marxism, that society is broken up into oppressed vs. oppressor and that is as far as that will go and can only change in the subjects of the comparison? That would seem very consistent with his proclamations of the natural development and organization of human societies into categories of good vs. evil or as I quoted before, the hero vs. the snake. It would seem to me then that you could easily frame the social justice warrior male allies as being, in their own way, the hero against the snake which in this case would be whoever they deem to be responsible for their and their community's unrest. The same would apply to all of the social justice warrior types, they immediately fall into the very categories that Jordan took as true and omnipotent. I'm not exactly sure why Jordan isn't able to acknowledge that the products of evolution as he sees it, in terms of navigating our dominance hierarchy or identifying threats in a group (most interestingly his example of human's amazing ability to see that the "snake" in individuals is somehow the same one across all evil individuals), doesn't apply to the very group he is talking about. I would like clarification on this and I'd like to hear anyone's thoughts about this.
As usual with Peterson , a short and concise statement is wrapped in vague asides and tangents which serve to relay his education at the price of ours ! No mention of the context of when Fouccoult, Derrida ,Baudrillard et al were discussing these points .
While we are on the subject, PTSD can occur from having something terrible be done to you too, not just of your own action. But now that i think about it, i guess that terrible cause, in this case, would be the battle.
@@walterkruger5348 JBP totaly missed what (especially) Foucault meant by "Power". He is not necessarily concern about the origin or whether everyone wants it or playing a power game, he wants to study the fact that in modern society we often end up governing even the individual; whether it's a person to person, govt. to its people, society, medicinal institutions in regards to how it treats the "sick". It's about the surveillance and literally governing individuals by whoever. Which is unlike the middle ages for example.
Interested in discussion here... Peterson claims to refute a tenant of postmodernism, which he calls the "frame problem". His claim is : whatever interpretation of an event you come to, you are limited by social things, like being able to repeat them, others will be able to cooperate/compete with us, etc. "We must live and thrive in this environment while others are doing the same thing.." something along those lines. But he says the postmodernists say there is no ONE interpretation, nothing canonical. His statement seems to prove the postmodernists correct, in that just because some interpretations are not possible there are still a nearly unlimited number of ways to achieve the goal. There is still nothing canonical about a wide variety of choices, limited by external factors. If anything here is unclear, feel free to ask for clarification.
Amazing Grace, the story behind the hymn, a slaver is on deck during a storm and hears the prayers below deck muttered by the slaves, hears them crying out in fear and has an epiphany, they are also people he thinks and like me the are afraid of the storm, they are individuals like me and they know fear like I do, they are not simply unthinking animals and so he becomes an abolitionist fighting for the freedom of individuals like him and writes the hymn praising that idea. If the slaver had been a post modernist he would have been unable to reach this conclusion. Because they would not have been a part of his group and so the hymn and the idea within it would never have extended to the human beings below deck.
Only that postmodernism is not equal to "I want to destroy everyone with identity different than mine". It's equal to "You can disprove an interpretation of the world only through the axioms it holds " and therefore "All interpretations of the world that do not hurt the rest are okay". If he was a postmodernist he would've not be a slaver in the first place.
Yes postmodernist do not like that one claim challenged. Because they like a strong argument with which to prevent ideologues claiming the dominance of their particular ideology. Postmodernism is anti-ideological by it's nature. It's aggresive towards anyone who claims his way of seeing the world is the only true way AND this is the only claim which they will defend so blindly because if we leave it than the next Schmuck like Peterson will come with his vague religious traditionalist ideas and forced them on to people as truth (when he never backs anything he is saying with data)
I read deconstruction, not destruction my bad. On the contrary. The postmodernist movement claims that people should have equal rights, because every interpretation that gives someone power over someone else is invalid.
Post modernists go further than equal rights, therein lies the problem, they hold the notion that all things are equally valid and that belief invalidates all progress or cohesion. As for Petersons beliefs, I'm not nearly clever enough to refute his points, but I believe in this, you cannot replace something with nothing and in effect the premise of post modernism taken to it's natural conclusion is nihilism since post modernism has no cohesive belief to order the world and the place of individuals in it.
He says postmodernists do not believe in dialogue at 6:55. He has obviously not read Mikhail Bakhtin (A Russian Postmodernist). Please look up Bakhtin and his essay The Dialogic Imagination. I would love to have an intelligent dialogue with this guy as he is misrepresenting postmodernism.
I know a lot of people really love Jordan, and I could might just be ignorant on the subject matter he discusses, but i dont understand 90% of what he says. It often sounds like a giant word salad to me.
Derrida was a major blow-hard, never enjoyed his writing or thinking. Lyotard was bland but informative. Foucault was a brilliant historian and a master of language, despite his radical politics. But Baudrillard, oh man. I'll probably never stop reading him. Absolute mind-bending conceptions of the world. Everyone should check him out. Start with Fatal Strategies, Simulacra & Simulations, Ecstasy of Communication, The Transparency of Evil, they're all good. Although I agree with what Peterson is saying, for the most part, he doesn't even begin to touch the complexity in Baudrillard's work. Baudrillard doesn't let anyone get away from his radical criticism - progressives, conservatives, feminists, christians, muslims, humanists, transexuals, etc. If he were still alive he would have a fucking hayday with the sjw world, social media, recent elections, etc.
I don't hear this man referencing perspective of experience. Every player on the feild is going to have a different strategy. Isnt that the point of evolutionary selection?
why does peterson call marxism postmodernist? postmodernism is a rejection of ideologies as far as i know? so right there he's wrong. and lyotard wrote that postmodernism is about the rejection of "grand narratives" which means that any art that is postmodernist, is actually very individualist, and not ideological, or part of any group. it's anti-collectivist.
@@anthonyrich4104my comment was an attempt to enunciate my understanding of what Dr. Peterson had said, while explaining the social justice point of view. sorry to have confused you.
Derrida's opacity always worked against him. If you can't explain something simply then you yourself don't understand it. Nonetheless, French postmodernism isn't just bullshit. Guy Débord's 'society of the spectacle', Jean Baudrillard's 'hypperrealism' and Pierre Bordieu's 'field/space' concept are not invalid and help understand the environmental situation of what the "postmodern"/post-industrial condition of Man is. By deconstructing what we see before us;images and otherwise we can decant a meaning of sorts, derive a history or more often as we see unfortunately, a historiography...
None of the post-modernists actually called themselves post-modernists because they knew if they did, the masses would easily be able to trace their thought processes straight back to Marxism, of which Derrida was pretty much a card carrying member.
www.stephenhicks.org/2018/01/06/peterson-hicks-discussion-on-pomo-transcription/ Jordan Peterson and Stephen Hicks diagnose Post-modernism. *The full blow-by-blow transcript of Jordan Peterson's August 2017 interview of Prof. Stephen Hicks, author of "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism from Rousseau to Foucault."*
The stuff this dude has to say and the manic flow of it give me a weird vibe. More power to anyone who's been personally helped by anything he's said or written. But I feel like I'm watching someone who's read a lot and thought a lot and taken a lot of speed (manic talking a la adderal / modafinil...maybe he's not on any but good god SLOW DOWN, BRO) and is talking a lot and the point is post modernism is evil and I don't get it but he talks with such speed and confidence he surely gets it so go with it I mean he's really talking a lot and the chunks are quite cogent even though the jumps seem to happen before any thought reaches completion and overall it feels like some sort of chaotic whirlwind that short circuits the brain into saying "yes, he's right" If you read that, you probably feel something like how I feel watching this....
I will say that this manic aspect is in a lot of popular/celebrity intellectual clips and writings. I think taking in this kind of manic intellectual spew makes people feel good but doesn't actually add to a person's wisdom or intelligence. That's my experience anyway, I feel like I just watched 30 minutes of intense porn. It sorta got me off, but my sexuality (which for this parallel/analogy = intellect) is probably not benefited and possibly stifled in some way. I mean, look at the way I'm spewing these comments lol. Dear lord. Someone spew on my brain face plz.
lol i totally understand what you’re saying but i disagree. but it’s also probably bc my temperament is similar to jp’s and i too tend to think and talk at very fast manic speeds and spew a lot of organized chunks
the comparison to AI is a shallow explanation of the ideas which arise out the work of people like Derrida, Deleuze, Heidegger etc.. Reading and thinking philosophically is hard work, it takes time and the ability to question all your presuppositions. Whenever I hear someone harking like this, I know they haven't questioned their presuppositions and that they want to defend them dogmatically at any cost. Also, to take the work of Marx and then use the name Marx as a blanket term for all authoritarian governments is just a sad excuse for an intellectual. Marx is Marx, if you cannot understand his work, too bad for you.
Peterson's analysis of post-modernism through Derrida is simply inaccurate. First, I'm not sure how accurate it is to say that Derrida is a post-modernist because of how difficult it is to define what post-modernism is. Derrida is, however, a post-structuralist. Second, Derrida's contention is not simply that there are simply an indefinite number of ways to interpret a text, and therefore all interpretations are valid (i.e. there's no right way to interpret a text). Derrida's contention is that interpretation is a constructive act. In other words, a reader doesn't "discover" or "unlock" meaning from a text; rather, he or she produces it, constructs it, using tools available to him or her (i.e. inherited from the culture, history, body, environment in which he or she is situated). This, to me, could not be further dislocated from the "moral relativist" position that Peterson is trying to pin on Derrida. Derrida is not a moral relativist, for the very fact that both moralists and moral relativists are heavily invested in producing and provoking moral discourse, which Derrida is not really interested in. Derrida is much more interested in looking at what creative interpretations can we produce and looking at the creative possibilities and dangers inherent in these interpretations. That, more than anything, is the task of deconstruction.
Ironically, I think Derrida would definitely be on board with what Peterson is saying about deriving tools from our interpretations that we can use. In fact, that is the WHOLE point of deconstruction: to be able to tease out certain creative solutions while also admitting that these tools may contain certain dangers. For Derrida, we have to constantly negotiate between implementing solutions, being aware of dangers, and being open to new solutions as new situations arise. I cannot see how this is at odds with what Peterson is saying.
That italian university reprimand...It's probably an exception because their universities rarely do that. Maybe the person the student challenged had connections to the university board...In Italy many popular loud mouths do. I mean hell most of their legislature is composed of people who are in the parliament thanks to favours they did to their party leaders. It's a pretty corrupt country so it doesn't surprise me. Universities are still pretty indipendent though. And many are top notch too
I have the theory that a truly developed AI system will eventually evokve inti its own consciousness onto the point of having its ownbpersonality. It will be a thinking individual like all of us. But once it absorbs many worldviews whos origins and validity we ourselves dont know, the AI might develop multiple personalities. Not necessarily a thing to be afraid of. It might becone like a Council of Ricks from Rick & Morty, or something even more exotic. Thecnext interesting observation may be at this time and see how the AI evolves then. Will it somehow culminate all it has learned into a newly composed personality? Become almost godly? Or something unimaginable entirely?
I need help here ...I’m a grad student who finds the universities corrupt, similar to Peterson. Love Peterson. However, I use a post modern theory that I’m in love with to help my clinical clients !
Joe Rogan is smarter than the average bear and the reasons are because he is a comedian and his specialty is speech. Now if you have the creativity in the intellect to perform comedy do you understand speech very well hell it can be used in very many ways. So maybe he’s more inclined to understand that speech in the bearing abilities to understand it are the root of all problems and miracles and the responsibility is on an individual understand his own ignorance in the field of linguistics and his awareness of the origin of speech
Joe always says hes dumb but i agree hes not a genius but hes smarter than your average cookie.
Joe is intelligent, he has access to his whole brain, logic and creativity. This is a problem with most of us, we think that being able to remember trivial facts is intelligent , but it is only smart. An intelligent individual is always learning and is aware of their ignorance. A smart person thinks they are smart and reacts like a child when they cannot comprehend the intellect of another. We see this all the time in the comments section when someone replies to a comment by assaulting their grammar errors instead of sticking to the point of the argument.
+ThenicholasWayne I think Joe tries to make it clear he knows he doesn't know everything and doesn't claim to. It seems like his way of passively asserting he's open-minded.
He's a great interviewer that's for sure.
If you'r talking about IQ I have to disagree but he uses what he has well i'l give him that.
@@furnacefire Even the word 'knowledgeable" is in the dictionary xD
Joe Rogan is a Bro and an intellect, that's such a great combo
I would say he’s more of a great lister and learned rather than a great intellectual(though I guess there are many similarities between the two).
lmao this is so embarrassing
@The Complaining Channel No. Joe Rogan is like 5 times the intellectual as Jordan Peterson. Peterson got a doctorate in psychobabble pseudoscience and thought that gave him the intellectual expertise to comment on any social topic, or even scientific topic, like anthropogenic climate change. Which he thinks is a hoax.
I guess the Big Windmill Lobby must have paid off all the climate scientists in the world to lie about the climate change 🙄
@@michaelterrell5061 He's great at listening, terrible at choosing whose worth listening to.
Agree 👍🏿
I get pissed listening to such good information being presented when i think of my public education experience and a child. It was years of fragmented bullshit to memorize.
Haha well said & if you think that was bad- you should see hear what they dish out in liberal arts college classes 🙅🏻♂️🙅🏻♂️🙅🏻♂️
maybe you were just stupid
Holy Shit, this is insightful. I'm a student of Social Work in Germany
and I like the way he can present his analysis of postmodernism, which
is very present here in my city in particular (it's called Bielefeld and
has one the most reknown faculties of sociology in Germany).Well I have
been struggling with my thesis because I had these issues about the
assumptions of Judith Butler and Foucault. Now I see more clearly. In my
studies of psychology and sociology I've come to see the two
disciplines intertwined (I guess one could say that? My english
sometimes has its borders) As Jordan Peterson seems to do too. His
reasoning is perfect as far as I can tell and he has read and thought
about this issue a lot. Real Kritik as we would say.
(Just for affirmation) In terms of formulating your thoughts, your English was spot on.
Hi as a SW student from Australia, I believe in listening, reading & understanding all theories and ideas. I take from them all that works and discard what doesn't, and not be a slave to any of them.
@@leebouldog that's the way to go about it. It's all a subjectivist matrix.
You should know then that Peterason is a Post Modernist.
Karl Marx was a modernist
When I was young we had a different word for postmodernism. We called it *Bullshit!*
Core tenets of post modernist philosophy is undeniable. It’s true we only know reality as we perceive it with the senses we were given and we can’t absolutely know our capacity to perceive reality as fundamental. However, it’s a way of thinking that is completely impractical. Embracing such thinking in it’s entirety immediately destroys any impetus to learn or engage in anything. Also the current groups labeled as post modernists like SJW’s completely misinterpret the philosophy as they’re trying to enforce their own fixed perception of reality, instead of just saying , “I have no idea what’s true and neither does anybody else” which is what a true post modernist thinker believes.
I think that a lot of the discourse going on about post modernism has the tendency to falsely equate the post modern condition with post modern thinkers. When Foucault and the likes were talking about how the very notions of truth were a direct product of power structures, institutions, language etc. he was merely making an observation about how postmodern society operates rather than promote a sense of disjointed thinking in which "anything goes" or where the very notion of truth no longer matters. I think it's better to look at postmodern philosophy as a way of understanding how our perceptions of reality are formed and not as an invitation to dismantle it, because at the end of the day these social constructs are an essential part of what constitutes our reality and how we perceive it. Going back to what you said at the start stating "We only know reality as we perceive it with the senses we were given and we can't absolutely know our capacity to perceive reality as fundamental" That notion is not something inherently unique or particular to postmodernism as a whole. Those ideas are something that is integral to Metaphysics as well, most of the great thinkers who dabbled in metaphysics like Kant, Schopenhauer, and Spinoza.
It's amazing how someone so smart is Saying things that the common person with common sense has always said. But it will take someone like him to make others realize the inconsistency of this current mindset that is ruining our lives
what common person thinks about this stuff? dafuq? people r still stuck on memes and explicit nonsense on social media
except none of what he says is true lol. Derrida never talked about identity politics, his main work was on post-structuralism and deconstruction which are linguistic techniques. I dont know where he gets these ideas from about post-modernists because they have no real basis in reality; he simply mentions names to try and get across a sense of truthfulness to people who dont actually know what post modernism is
@@lastjager4108 you're correct. I think he forgot to take his medication.
As an English lit major, I can confirm that the programs tend to be entirely corrupt. However, as an undergraduate, I can mentally spar with my professors on their Marxist feminist bullshit because I'm paying them.
It seems so daunting to take on the institutionalized Marxism/postmodernism of academia. What are some of the most effective points you use?
Your degree is useless anyway so who cares if they fail you!
I would get depressed that im paying them lol
@@LordJagd basic logic, biology,data and ethic
Blows my mind everytime
I studied literature in college in the 80s, when many of the post modern thinkers were just being introduced. I was generally acknowledged to be the most brilliant student in the department, so I was assigned to do a paper and presentation on deconstructionism, which even my professor admitted that he didn't understand. I waded into the swill of Derrida and concluded it was garbage, so I focused on several key fallacies in his thought and explained that the theory was really about taking communication out of context and deliberately confusing it, the same way comics use puns and such to create humor. I basically said the same stuff that Jordan Peterson says here.
The reaction of the class to my presentation was a lot of violent screaming, and I was accused of making everyone sound like fools. I was downgraded on my paper, not because the professor could find any flaws, but because he said that I must have misrepresented Deconstructionism.
Although some professors urged me to become a college professor, I didn't think it was a good gamble. I would have had to borrow thousands of dollars only to find myself working in a system that was thoroughly hostile to everything I had to say. I was already getting exhausted from working my way through college and fighting daily with students and professors alike.
It is hard enough to work your way through the system when you are desperately poor, but so much more difficult when the system daily rages with hatred against you and downgrades you for expressing unpopular thought.
It heaps artificial burdens on top of your natural burdens, and devises one stumbling block after another to throw in front of you, while it pets and advances its favorites in front of your face to spite you.
There is no telling how many intelligent and talented people were crushed and discouraged from seeking work in that system. The few who may have tried were probably easily eliminated by affirmative action. In seeking work, I was passed over countless times in favor of people who did no better than half as well as I did on exams, civil service exams, etc. Unless the system itself is reformed, it will continue to produce nothing but buffoonery and corruption.
Good luck with that.
spiral of silence theory. Imagine what it's like now. I'm scared to talk in class.
Wow! Very interesting response. Most modern day professors are pawns in a game they don’t know they are playing. But I’m optimistic, I believe that this system is not sustainable. Systems that are not sustainable will end, its just a matter of time. In the end it takes people such as Jordan Peterson to fight back and expose the system of the evil lies that it proclaims to be gospel.
This guy watches Rick and Morty for SURE
This just blew my mind
But that is what Petersonb does, Peterson is a Post Modernist.
I compare postmodernists as a cult, much like Scientology, with their own sacred words, forbidden speech, rituals, and ideology, which is meted out by a few powerful leaders, in such a way as to keep as many in the movement as possible for as long as possible. I found myself swept up into this for a time, but as I got older, and became more informed, I saw the Marxist socialist roots, and have been outspoken against it since I learned what the SJW movement is really about.
Its profoundly clear you havent read any books written by marxist or post modernist thinkers. Instead you have been brainwashed by a far-right cult that just pushes the cultural marxism conspiracy theory. Keep drinking the koolaid buddy, youre totally informed.
@@t00bgazer in the last 30 years, I have started 2 communes and had been a part of another 3 cooperatives. I spent most of my life around these types. I have read some, however I find the ideas expressed in words on paper far less important the the praxis and manifestation of these ideas by real people into the real world. Factis ut credam facis.
@@t00bgazer Conspiracy theory?....prove it
The natural progression of post modernism is compete disorder and chaos. Since to them order is seen as oppressive. Peace is seen as oppressive. Being civil is seen as oppressive.
Pol Pot learned his stuff in France in 60s. We all know where that ended.
11:45 I was waiting for him to mention Foucault. Foucault is the elephant in the room that people seldom mention. He's highly influential at UC Berkeley.
Had this Foucault idea quoted in a lecture on war as part of my politics degree: “Relations of power are indissociable from a discourse of truth, and they can neither be established nor function unless a true discourse is produced, accumulated, put into circulation, and set to work. Power cannot be exercised unless a certain economy of discourses of truth functions in, on the basis of, and thanks to, that power.”
Lecturer encouraged us to ‘think critically about war.’ It’s incredible the grip these ideologies have on the social sciences across the world (I’m in the UK.)
The temptation to just shout out ‘so Hitler could’ve been right, and to battle him was merely to exert power over the oppressed groups within the allied countries, and to legitimise the power of the oppressor?’ 😂 So what you’re saying Mr. Postmodernist, is ‘Hitler was good?’
I was praying we'd get clips tonight
Jordan Peterson, our prayers answered, eh?
Jordan Peterson is right on the money!
dude nailed it right there
"The ultimate mansplaining"
Joe takes a brilliant man's explanation and distills it to three words. This is a great exchange.
You have to be careful, though, that you don't use postmodernism as something to simply label ideas you disagree with. Just because one dislikes an idea doesn't mean it's postmodernism. An important point that doesn't get mentioned.
The problem of crumbling values and ideas into a postmodern mess is a bigger threat than I ever thought. It is like a philosophical meltdown. I’ve been influenced to think that my inner force is not good. But a good man is a strong person all around. J Peterson reminds me that my fire can destroy everything around me, but also it can bring warmth and light.
Sounds like your confronting & coming to terms with your own malevolence. It's tough, good for you
Jordan nails it. "Yes a bit. But NO!" This is how Satan deceives and divides. Mixing truth with lies
This is a little gem of a clip.
Boy is Jordan right about a "hatred of competence". I have encountered that in every new agey liberal workplace I've ever had the misfortune to work in. And I was drawn to work in those places because of the rhetoric of fairness and honesty they pretended to embrace.
Brilliant. I would never say that Peterson is succinct, but he explains what I have observed and fought against in such a better way than I could.
Not succinct? This is a three hour podcast. Petersen comes up with answers to questions and eloquently and honestly answers them in seconds. I would call that succinct.
@@jpbernie72show me where derida and foocult say the things he says they say(book refrences, seminars etc...) much appreciated
@@ASH-su6nbwell, in their books they've written?
I could listen to this dude and Sam Harris talk for hours.
if you are not going to kill them, the only way to deal with postmodernists is by trolling them to death. That's why the trolling army is essential
Sorry but I'm with Ben Shapiro on this one: pissing off the Leftists does absolutely nothing to defeat the Leftists.
It does though. It shows how reactionary and humorless many leftists are.
Jordan Peterson = competent
I'm glad the clips are still up but what happened to the first 2 Jordan Peterson podcasts?
Who can possibly watch a regular talk show anymore with this gold readily available?
This is the mentor I needed during my 15 years and 3 degrees at an elite American university
My friend Mike is a retired Secret Service Agent who eventually was assigned to safeguarding the President and family (PPD I think it’s called). Anyway, he told me there were two types they worried about; 1). A person with NOTHING to lose. 2). A deep thinker. Their characteristics = Jordan Peterson.
This is so good. I have listened to Peterson on a million videos and I think he must have smoked pot before this interview (the tangential nature of his talking, and his catering it to Joe's sensibility).
Jamie pull up that video of Jaque Derrida fighting with a grizzly.
He's saying that it conflicts with the values that people said you should have
This analysis of postmodernism is very good, but I've noticed many analyses of postmodernism miss a crucial point. Class is rarely discussed as one of the power hierarchies in postmodernism; it's all about race, gender, sexuality. And the working-class white male is a favorite target of SJW types. Also, notice how university administrators, many of whom are affluent white males, side with the SJWs and postmodernists when push comes to shove. And global corporations push diversity and inclusion and all that, too, and hate Trump and despise the Alt-Right/nationalism/defenses of Western Civilization.
What I suggest is that postmodernism, no matter its origins and motivations, has been allowed to thrive because it accommodates the goals of the ideology of globalist neoliberalism that was forming at the same time as postmodernism back in the 70s and 80s. Downgrading the status of the West through constant criticism, insulting white males and denigrating the working class, opposing any sort of cultural consensus that you'd have seen before the late 1960s back when nationalism was stronger etc. are all very effective ideological tools for people whose interests lie in cultivating markets in non-Western countries, exporting industry, bringing hundreds of millions of women into the workforce in Western countries, opening borders, and in general tearing down the pre-60s society.
People like the college administrators and corporate executives who have benefited mightily from these economic changes, because they're members of the cosmopolitan professional class that's grown so dominant since the 80s, are motivated to support the overall thrust of what postmodernism is doing because the kind of world the postmodernists are creating is the kind of world that benefits cosmopolitan technocrats.
What is a cosmopolitan technocrat?
I think it's the point. They even invented the phrases “class reductionism” and “economic reductionism”. Yet, the dynamics of the class war makes them perfectly blind to their supposed concern of race and gender when it suits the dominant class. They don't seem to realize that Soros and Biden are white men for instance
It seems to me that you are conflating postmodernism with neoliberalism.
Aw man I wanted to know about the best personality predictor at the end there. Maybe this is stealth advertising to try and get me to the main video (it worked).
This is amazing. I could figure it out when learning about Derrida and Marxist ideology, but to put it so articulate as Jordan Peterson did - amazing.
Peterson has not read Derrida, and if you think what he says has resonance you haven't been taught it well
@@withnail-and-i maybe if you shared why you think what Peterson said about Derrida is wrong why its wrong for me to agree, I could change my mind.
@@kostiantynponomarov1692 I mean one just needs to watch his debate with Zizek
There's a video called "Jordan Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism" which presents the case and spares me the time, but do let me know if you're still unconvinced
I haven't read any philosophy past Neitzsche, the French philosophers are not worth reading. It all comes down to "embrace hedonism".
this clip is so important, it contains valuable informations that you will not find in any class!
postmodernism is based on hatred, division rather than forward,clear,rational,scientific thinking.
It is for the have nots. It is for those that want power without the need for merits. It is for those that are envious, spiteful, and jealous.
@@user-oz6rl3jx9x corporations in bed with the federal government? Correct. Government is the issue.
You guys have no clue what postmodernism is and nor does Peterson. You can search for ‘how Jordan Peterson doesn’t understand post modernism’ on RUclips and see for yourself. Also the idea that Peterson is ‘scientific’ and ‘rational’ or that the ideas he presents are is just wrong. He consistently gets the basics wrong on the ideologies he critiques, he is a textbook sophist.
Shit, this man is so damned intelligent!!!
Someone needs to explain to me this connection between french scholars (or undergraduates or graduates or thinkers), marxism and postmodernism.
check his talk with Camille Paglia
Read “explaining postmodernism” by Steven Hicks.
How I read it ( literally too) Postmodernism calls into question the powers of reason, asserts the importance of nonrational forces such as sensations and emotions, rejects humanism and the traditional philosophical notion of the human being as the central subject of knowledge, champions heterogeneity and difference.
“The Postmodernists' tyranny wears people down by boredom and semi-literate prose.”
-Christopher Hitchens
“Hell hath no fury like a coolly received postmodernist.”
-David Foster Wallace, Girl With Curious Hair
P.S. to my last comment. Stalin is a very good example (not that I ever met him!) When you read about his early life, his mother was always disappointed in him and wanted him to become a priest. In her final years she was nursed and looked after by Beria who was a friend of the family!! And we all now that he was one of the most humane people of the 20th century, the only person to make Himmler look like a teddy bear at a picnic!!!!!
PTSD analysis is spot on. Thanks!
If Jordan wasn't such a proud Canadian, I'd urge him to become an American citizen and run for office yes. The man makes the most sense of anyone on the internet
Holy Shit! That puts things in its place and makes sense.
An accurate assessment. This type of pollution is everywhere.
The great quality of a speaker would be that when he or she would articulate about an idea then the listners couldn't be able to deduce their inclinations and prejudices which isn't the case with Jordan Peterson.
Noam Chomsky is way better in this aspect.
That's why they think rich people don't help others etc.
RIP Vince Foster
Let us never forget!
Love you Norm
David Bentley Hart puts it better than anyone: "the absurdity of the postmodern approach is that under the pretense of a tender regard for difference, it
in fact converts every particularity into an instance of the same meaninglessness. This is not hospitality to the
other, it is conquest, if of an especially dissembling kind."
Rogan is spellbound by this brilliant Canadian.
At 19:00 minutes this is where we Christians get the Word. John 1:1 "in the beginning was the Logos. The Logos was with God and the Logos was God." Logos is where we get the word logic and "word" is derived from logic. John 1:14 "and the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us" The Logos, the Logic and the Word is Christ. "The manifestation of truth in speech" -JordanBP
I love hearing Jordan speak and I am no post-modernist but Jordan's arguments are all over the place here. Is his central argument that post-modernists hold no value in the individual or that it doesn't exist? As he says, "There's no individual for god's sake!" Well he goes on to make the critique that the natural product of the post-modern/new wave feminist doctrine is that the marginalized group can be delineated on and on and on until each individual is recognized as marginalized and that that is in some way chaotic (although easily you can make the argument that we have always had a society where each individual is a composite of their marginalized/hero vs. marginalizer/snake stories).
Or is his central argument that the post-modernists believe, as he mentions as pertaining to the evolution of Marxism, that society is broken up into oppressed vs. oppressor and that is as far as that will go and can only change in the subjects of the comparison? That would seem very consistent with his proclamations of the natural development and organization of human societies into categories of good vs. evil or as I quoted before, the hero vs. the snake. It would seem to me then that you could easily frame the social justice warrior male allies as being, in their own way, the hero against the snake which in this case would be whoever they deem to be responsible for their and their community's unrest. The same would apply to all of the social justice warrior types, they immediately fall into the very categories that Jordan took as true and omnipotent.
I'm not exactly sure why Jordan isn't able to acknowledge that the products of evolution as he sees it, in terms of navigating our dominance hierarchy or identifying threats in a group (most interestingly his example of human's amazing ability to see that the "snake" in individuals is somehow the same one across all evil individuals), doesn't apply to the very group he is talking about. I would like clarification on this and I'd like to hear anyone's thoughts about this.
i get him. You just have to have a feeling for these times. He's trying his best to put it into english, but it's hard
As usual with Peterson , a short and concise statement is wrapped in vague asides and tangents which serve to relay his education at the price of ours ! No mention of the context of when Fouccoult, Derrida ,Baudrillard et al were discussing these points .
While we are on the subject, PTSD can occur from having something terrible be done to you too, not just of your own action. But now that i think about it, i guess that terrible cause, in this case, would be the battle.
"People interpret the world in a way that facilitates their acquisition of power." - Jordan Peterson
I want to show this to my Spanish speakers friends. Do anyone here knows where I can find it with captions?
Nailed it !
I was just about to explain the exact same thing in the comments and this guy beat me to it...
This is exactly what’s going on today
7:10 Foucault and Chomsky's discussion/DIALOGUE would say otherwise.. lool
GOTTEM! Stop on! What a comment!❤️❤️
@@walterkruger5348 JBP totaly missed what (especially) Foucault meant by "Power". He is not necessarily concern about the origin or whether everyone wants it or playing a power game, he wants to study the fact that in modern society we often end up governing even the individual; whether it's a person to person, govt. to its people, society, medicinal institutions in regards to how it treats the "sick". It's about the surveillance and literally governing individuals by whoever.
Which is unlike the middle ages for example.
Ah foucault, the brilliant mind that wanted to abolish age of consent laws. 🙄
What you have to do practically doesn't falsify an analytical claim.
postmodernism was a healthy critique to the establishment, but as the dominant ideal is shaky
Interested in discussion here... Peterson claims to refute a tenant of postmodernism, which he calls the "frame problem". His claim is : whatever interpretation of an event you come to, you are limited by social things, like being able to repeat them, others will be able to cooperate/compete with us, etc. "We must live and thrive in this environment while others are doing the same thing.." something along those lines. But he says the postmodernists say there is no ONE interpretation, nothing canonical. His statement seems to prove the postmodernists correct, in that just because some interpretations are not possible there are still a nearly unlimited number of ways to achieve the goal. There is still nothing canonical about a wide variety of choices, limited by external factors. If anything here is unclear, feel free to ask for clarification.
The problem with postmodernists is that they hate substrates!
I am here to learn
Its all true. So trippy. So F%ckin trippy.
Amazing Grace, the story behind the hymn, a slaver is on deck during a storm and hears the prayers below deck muttered by the slaves, hears them crying out in fear and has an epiphany, they are also people he thinks and like me the are afraid of the storm, they are individuals like me and they know fear like I do, they are not simply unthinking animals and so he becomes an abolitionist fighting for the freedom of individuals like him and writes the hymn praising that idea.
If the slaver had been a post modernist he would have been unable to reach this conclusion.
Because they would not have been a part of his group and so the hymn and the idea within it would never have extended to the human beings below deck.
Only that postmodernism is not equal to "I want to destroy everyone with identity different than mine". It's equal to "You can disprove an interpretation of the world only through the axioms it holds " and therefore "All interpretations of the world that do not hurt the rest are okay".
If he was a postmodernist he would've not be a slaver in the first place.
Who talks about destruction, it's they way of the world and no post modernist would ever dare challenge that.
Yes postmodernist do not like that one claim challenged. Because they like a strong argument with which to prevent ideologues claiming the dominance of their particular ideology.
Postmodernism is anti-ideological by it's nature. It's aggresive towards anyone who claims his way of seeing the world is the only true way AND this is the only claim which they will defend so blindly because if we leave it than the next Schmuck like Peterson will come with his vague religious traditionalist ideas and forced them on to people as truth (when he never backs anything he is saying with data)
I read deconstruction, not destruction my bad.
On the contrary. The postmodernist movement claims that people should have equal rights, because every interpretation that gives someone power over someone else is invalid.
Post modernists go further than equal rights, therein lies the problem, they hold the notion that all things are equally valid and that belief invalidates all progress or cohesion.
As for Petersons beliefs, I'm not nearly clever enough to refute his points, but I believe in this, you cannot replace something with nothing and in effect the premise of post modernism taken to it's natural conclusion is nihilism since post modernism has no cohesive belief to order the world and the place of individuals in it.
He says postmodernists do not believe in dialogue at 6:55. He has obviously not read Mikhail Bakhtin (A Russian Postmodernist). Please look up Bakhtin and his essay The Dialogic Imagination. I would love to have an intelligent dialogue with this guy as he is misrepresenting postmodernism.
It's weird that he loves Nietzsche but never mentions his will to power.
French intellectuals have a lot to answer for
Peterson has never read any of them
@@withnail-and-i😂😂
Glad he is on You Tube. I hope all the left will start hearing him.
me when I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about
How can you dislike this?
I know a lot of people really love Jordan, and I could might just be ignorant on the subject matter he discusses, but i dont understand 90% of what he says. It often sounds like a giant word salad to me.
I was the same, but starting to pick up what he says quicker these days. His ideas move pretty fast and he has a lot of references.
because it is a lot of the time
Well a lot of it is, he is a psychologist who ventures into disciplines that he personally doesn't seem to fully grasp (like philosophy, ecology etc)
people embody malevolence AND benevolence
Why does Joe act like he knows Postmodernism?
Why does jordan act like he knows post modernism?
@@t00bgazer why do you two act like you know post modernism ?
Derrida was a major blow-hard, never enjoyed his writing or thinking. Lyotard was bland but informative. Foucault was a brilliant historian and a master of language, despite his radical politics. But Baudrillard, oh man. I'll probably never stop reading him. Absolute mind-bending conceptions of the world. Everyone should check him out. Start with Fatal Strategies, Simulacra & Simulations, Ecstasy of Communication, The Transparency of Evil, they're all good. Although I agree with what Peterson is saying, for the most part, he doesn't even begin to touch the complexity in Baudrillard's work. Baudrillard doesn't let anyone get away from his radical criticism - progressives, conservatives, feminists, christians, muslims, humanists, transexuals, etc. If he were still alive he would have a fucking hayday with the sjw world, social media, recent elections, etc.
I'm interested to know what makes Baudrillard so interesting and different
I don't hear this man referencing perspective of experience. Every player on the feild is going to have a different strategy. Isnt that the point of evolutionary selection?
How much of everyone's behavior is simply subconscious habits learned before consciousness, playing out daily?
'Yates has been pretty brilliant.' Lolz. Yeah no. not even close.
why does peterson call marxism postmodernist? postmodernism is a rejection of ideologies as far as i know? so right there he's wrong. and lyotard wrote that postmodernism is about the rejection of "grand narratives" which means that any art that is postmodernist, is actually very individualist, and not ideological, or part of any group. it's anti-collectivist.
jurgen habermas is a better critic of post-modernism than jordan peterson is.
sure marxism was a rejection of some ideologies, (but what ideologi is not a rejection of other ideologies?) like most of capitalism.
Chivalry is where it's at. Time to make a comeback.
Hold on hes basically saying post modernism is gaming philosophy?
10 minutes in an Rogan’s first question is: “is this a conspiracy?” Unbelievable.
In light of this topic, I would like to hear Peterson discuss Justin Trudeau's leftism and its root in Pierre Truddau's educatiion in France.
i made a post a while back on the Artificial Intelligence podcast...the point made up to 5:30 touches on my point.
God I love Peterson, 15:08 is an unfortunate fact though
if i even engage in dialog, with someone with whom i disagree, i'm participating in their evil construct, and i'm perpetuating that evil.
Spoken like a true faithful follower of the marxist doctrine
@@anthonyrich4104my comment was an attempt to enunciate my understanding of what Dr. Peterson had said, while explaining the social justice point of view. sorry to have confused you.
@ anthonyrich thank for providing me with the opportunity to re-watch this vid
Derrida's opacity always worked against him. If you can't explain something simply then you yourself don't understand it. Nonetheless, French postmodernism isn't just bullshit. Guy Débord's 'society of the spectacle', Jean Baudrillard's 'hypperrealism' and Pierre Bordieu's 'field/space' concept are not invalid and help understand the environmental situation of what the "postmodern"/post-industrial condition of Man is. By deconstructing what we see before us;images and otherwise we can decant a meaning of sorts, derive a history or more often as we see unfortunately, a historiography...
Someone should translate or subtle this for a better understanding of this
If I remember correctly he (Derrida) wasn't actually a postmodernists, but a deconstrctionist.
None of the post-modernists actually called themselves post-modernists because they knew if they did, the masses would easily be able to trace their thought processes straight back to Marxism, of which Derrida was pretty much a card carrying member.
@matrix3509 is 100% right. they all resented that title
www.stephenhicks.org/2018/01/06/peterson-hicks-discussion-on-pomo-transcription/
Jordan Peterson and Stephen Hicks diagnose Post-modernism.
*The full blow-by-blow transcript of Jordan Peterson's August 2017 interview of Prof. Stephen Hicks, author of "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism from Rousseau to Foucault."*
The stuff this dude has to say and the manic flow of it give me a weird vibe. More power to anyone who's been personally helped by anything he's said or written. But I feel like I'm watching someone who's read a lot and thought a lot and taken a lot of speed (manic talking a la adderal / modafinil...maybe he's not on any but good god SLOW DOWN, BRO) and is talking a lot and the point is post modernism is evil and I don't get it but he talks with such speed and confidence he surely gets it so go with it I mean he's really talking a lot and the chunks are quite cogent even though the jumps seem to happen before any thought reaches completion and overall it feels like some sort of chaotic whirlwind that short circuits the brain into saying "yes, he's right"
If you read that, you probably feel something like how I feel watching this....
I will say that this manic aspect is in a lot of popular/celebrity intellectual clips and writings. I think taking in this kind of manic intellectual spew makes people feel good but doesn't actually add to a person's wisdom or intelligence. That's my experience anyway, I feel like I just watched 30 minutes of intense porn. It sorta got me off, but my sexuality (which for this parallel/analogy = intellect) is probably not benefited and possibly stifled in some way.
I mean, look at the way I'm spewing these comments lol. Dear lord. Someone spew on my brain face plz.
lol i totally understand what you’re saying but i disagree. but it’s also probably bc my temperament is similar to jp’s and i too tend to think and talk at very fast manic speeds and spew a lot of organized chunks
the comparison to AI is a shallow explanation of the ideas which arise out the work of people like Derrida, Deleuze, Heidegger etc.. Reading and thinking philosophically is hard work, it takes time and the ability to question all your presuppositions. Whenever I hear someone harking like this, I know they haven't questioned their presuppositions and that they want to defend them dogmatically at any cost. Also, to take the work of Marx and then use the name Marx as a blanket term for all authoritarian governments is just a sad excuse for an intellectual. Marx is Marx, if you cannot understand his work, too bad for you.
Peterson's analysis of post-modernism through Derrida is simply inaccurate. First, I'm not sure how accurate it is to say that Derrida is a post-modernist because of how difficult it is to define what post-modernism is. Derrida is, however, a post-structuralist.
Second, Derrida's contention is not simply that there are simply an indefinite number of ways to interpret a text, and therefore all interpretations are valid (i.e. there's no right way to interpret a text). Derrida's contention is that interpretation is a constructive act. In other words, a reader doesn't "discover" or "unlock" meaning from a text; rather, he or she produces it, constructs it, using tools available to him or her (i.e. inherited from the culture, history, body, environment in which he or she is situated).
This, to me, could not be further dislocated from the "moral relativist" position that Peterson is trying to pin on Derrida. Derrida is not a moral relativist, for the very fact that both moralists and moral relativists are heavily invested in producing and provoking moral discourse, which Derrida is not really interested in. Derrida is much more interested in looking at what creative interpretations can we produce and looking at the creative possibilities and dangers inherent in these interpretations.
That, more than anything, is the task of deconstruction.
Ironically, I think Derrida would definitely be on board with what Peterson is saying about deriving tools from our interpretations that we can use. In fact, that is the WHOLE point of deconstruction: to be able to tease out certain creative solutions while also admitting that these tools may contain certain dangers. For Derrida, we have to constantly negotiate between implementing solutions, being aware of dangers, and being open to new solutions as new situations arise.
I cannot see how this is at odds with what Peterson is saying.
That italian university reprimand...It's probably an exception because their universities rarely do that. Maybe the person the student challenged had connections to the university board...In Italy many popular loud mouths do. I mean hell most of their legislature is composed of people who are in the parliament thanks to favours they did to their party leaders. It's a pretty corrupt country so it doesn't surprise me. Universities are still pretty indipendent though. And many are top notch too
I have the theory that a truly developed AI system will eventually evokve inti its own consciousness onto the point of having its ownbpersonality. It will be a thinking individual like all of us. But once it absorbs many worldviews whos origins and validity we ourselves dont know, the AI might develop multiple personalities. Not necessarily a thing to be afraid of. It might becone like a Council of Ricks from Rick & Morty, or something even more exotic. Thecnext interesting observation may be at this time and see how the AI evolves then. Will it somehow culminate all it has learned into a newly composed personality? Become almost godly? Or something unimaginable entirely?
The way he dismissed Michel Foucault was disingenuous. The commentaries Foucault made on the power structures in society are complex and important.
In what way are they?
SJWs just sound like the average American chick to me lol
I need help here ...I’m a grad student who finds the universities corrupt, similar to Peterson. Love Peterson. However, I use a post modern theory that I’m in love with to help my clinical clients !
When youre a pretty smart guy whos done lots of hallucinogens and you talk to a PhD who did the same, but less of them 😂
Joe Rogan is smarter than the average bear and the reasons are because he is a comedian and his specialty is speech. Now if you have the creativity in the intellect to perform comedy do you understand speech very well hell it can be used in very many ways. So maybe he’s more inclined to understand that speech in the bearing abilities to understand it are the root of all problems and miracles and the responsibility is on an individual understand his own ignorance in the field of linguistics and his awareness of the origin of speech