*Incompleteness theorem. Embracing Godel will be his ultimate Hegelian death because Godel allows the deconstruction of Plato's precious mathematical forms. Maybe he is trying to reterritorialize Godel's name? Idk, but it is a huge miss step of him to bring up Godel. A regressive Materialism is their only refuge once Rationalism's supposed certainty in forms is deconstructed.
the question you should ve asked is "what is Cultural Marxism?" and would you look at that?! it s the american version of the cultural bolshevism conspiracy theory made up by the nazis
all these post modern, neo freudian, pseudo intellectual, non herculean, quasi pseudo symbolic COMMUNIST are making me not clean my room while i write a book telling others to 😎
@@ummin3872 one thing i find really funny about peterson cultists is that they legitimately need a visibly aging opioid addict who can barely string a sentence together to tell them to clean their rooms. and then they don't even do it
Kind of baffling how Peterson claims to follow in the footsteps of Nietzsche. You know, Nietzsche who was arguably the original postmodernist, and who was the main inspiration for the work of the philosophers Peterson demonizes (especially Foucault but also Deleuze, Derrida, etc)
You mean the same Nietzsche guy that criticized (dogmatic) Rationalism, Modernity, Capitalism (yes Socialism too) and Christianity? Yeah important figure for JP. But I don't think that he would've liked Nietzsche if he didn't wear a nice suit in his photos or was born in France a century later, that's what makes you Anarchist I guess.
not even mentioning how proud he was of being a yungian based psychologist which hinges on an idea of human behaviour being somewhat sporadic and open to interpretaion - and yet half the time hes talking about rats and lobster to illustrate hierarchies and instinctive programing which is Freud to a T. He's even pointed out in older lectures that Nietzsche was a noted socialist - i think at this moment Peterson gets paid too well to not contradict himself, i dont take any of his takes seriously anymore
I don't think Peterson claims that he is following in the footsteps of Nietzsche. I think he mainly likes Nietzsche's take on individualism, his empowering attitude towards suffering and his very deep psychological thoughts. But yeah, I agree with @KopKop-g6s. JP would absolutely hate Nietzsche overall. Nietzsche's attacks against structures JP loves or at least finds necessary would be just too much for him.
Well not only nietzsche, but also heidegger. And while nietzsche's morals may have directed him to postmodernesque critique, heideggers method made absolutely clear that the basis of self actualization requires them (as 'thrownness' itself seems to point at meta narratives of the 'they' as something contrived and inauthentic). Ie: no one Peterson likes in philosophy would like him very much.
As a psych student, I really enjoyed Peterson’s class lectures on the subject. It was a nice way to get more depth on some concepts that I didn’t feel like I was getting from my actual professors. I always enjoyed him as just that. A college professor. He’s got his quirks but at least he loves what he does. It was when he moved out of that sphere and became a political talking head that I think I got some distaste for him. I just wish he stuck to his area of expertise
he made the classic smart person mistake of thinking that knowing a lot about one thing means you automatically know a lot about other things. Arrogance is a hell of a drug
@@tbg750 he is openly transphobic and anti-democratic. he literally uses nazi talking points to push a regressive, reactionary agenda. you must be deaf and blind
@@ccrews4 Bingo! My BA is in psych & Peterson is great when talking about psychology. And, it's my assessment too that he starts to fall on his face when he leaves the territory of psychology. But beyond that, he's mostly just a conservative who uses big words to sound a lot smarter than he really is. At worst, he's carrying water for a political regime that's intent on destroying America & its allies.
and he didn't. Just like he didn't read Marx, since he doesn't even understand what is meant by "exploitation" in Marxist terms. He claims there is no exploitation in a capitalistic society.
@@iloveyoufromthedepthofmyheart nuh uh, he read marx! he said it right there in the zizek debate. he read the manifesto once when he was 18, and once in prep for their debate.
@@longjohnjimmie1653 what did he read since he did not knew what Marx meant by exploitation? Those are the basics...He looked like a scared school kid on that debate when Zizek asked him who are those "Marxists" you are refering to? BTW you can't read one book of Marx once when you are 18 and then critiquing it, without even understanding it and without reading his whole work..what the hell.
I find it highly ironic that any attempt to reject postmodernism turns into an exercise in postmodernist thought. Like in order to reject the idea there is no truth, you have to construct a truth, which just confirms that truths are made up and not part of some essential part of reality
@@sandshark2 it’s the reverse thought actually, in trying to assert that truth does not exist you have just made a truth claim. It gets even funnier when they try to say that language can't express thoughts properly, like, how did you formulate that then, nigga?
@@sandshark2 in fact it is the opposite, in trying to assert that truth does not exist you have just made a truth claim. It gets even funnier when they try to say that language can't express thoughts properly, like, how did you formulate that then, dawg?
@ Youre talking 2 fundamentally different concepts of truth, here: specifically capital T Truth, and truth. The difference is pretty obvious if you bother reading the literature on it. Truth does not exist, and thats a truth - to an anti-realist. Funnily enough this concept is older than both postmodernism and anti-realism And of course language cant express thoughts properly, thats how misunderstandings occur. If language could properly communicate thoughts between individuals without error, then definitions would be the same across everyone. Language would be 1 language, not multiple. And drama wouldnt be a thing. The existence of the above-mentioned attributes of language is cause for belief in its imperfection, and therefore inability to express thoughts “properly”, since here I have to guess what you mean by “properly”. Did I misunderstand your language? Were your thoughts not expressed properly?
Illustrating the tenet of unconditional hospitality by focusing on the two groups’ similarities rather than differences. Brilliant. One of your best videos to date
That's because when Peterson says it he means take responsibility for your life. When your mom says it she's just annoyed her own house is dirty and messy.
@@spiritualanarchist8162 Bro.. I hate to defend Peterson... But his self help is literally the only thing that actually has some validity. Ironically it's also nothing he came up with... and unfortunately he can't help but insert some politics into it... That said. Your mother is telling you to clean up your mess because that's something you should do, because it's the right thing to do. This without actually saying it or communicating it in those terms [most often]. J.P. has written a self help book. Meaning the audience is a person that's down, feels unfulfilled and lost. It is presented as a first step towards reaching something the audience wants. Success and regained self respect. Cleaning your room is a step towards your goal, rather than a chore you're just supposed to to because it's what you should do. What JP sneaks into his self help later is a conservative mindset of what you should be. Kind of like how Andrew Tate and the likes does. They're all different brands of the same thing. JP just sounds like he's smart, and his fans - especially those who feel like they've been helped by his mostly pretty standard self help method - will eat whatever shit he spewes because; it helped them. He sounds smart and insightful. And because he helped them, they can trust him. And trust him they do! Nothing good JP says is his idea. Beyond the basic self help stuff what he says seem to be stemming from him believing he is intelligent enough to guess what people have written without actually reading anything. Which is why he *never* survives being on stage with people who know even a little bit about the subject he's trying to debate/engage in.
@@bouncepsycho Well yes I get how he has touched something basic by addressing a certain group of young men with insecurity problems. With very basic tips. however, as a 'former young man ' who now works with young people on managing their debts , I think 80% of young people always have been insecure. That's just part of being a teenager. Hormones racing around, feeling awkward around nice looking girls. wanting acknowledgement, etc. And I guess it also depends on how one's relation with one's parents is . However the problem I have with Peterson, is how he uses hierarchy and competition as THE way to succes. Forget rich parents or genetic good looks..It's all up to you. But If you see life as a competition, this means for every winner there will be losers. Didn't manage to get one of the top 10% prettiest girls in bed ?. Loser ! Don't make easy money like those influencers ? Loser ! So my point is that all positive pep-talk self help books often work short term. And some will benefit. But long tern it can create even more disappointment. Young men can become hostile because they feel as if they'r owned something. They did what Peterson told them to do, but they'r still not on top of the lobster foodchain. So it's the feminist. Marxist....whatever that are to blame for them not succeeding.
I've been a Marxist for over 20 years, and I've been at many meetings and schoolings. Anything from Trotskyism, Orthodox Marxism, Anarcho-syndicalism, council-communism to so-called "Marxism-Leninism"... Yet I have never met anyone who identified themselves as a "post-modern Neo-Marxist". I keep looking for them, but I cannot find them. Also I have never heard any of the comrades talk about wanting to destroy western culture. Unless you want to equate "western culture" with capitalism... Though if one thinks that western culture is nothing more than capitalism... Well, that would be kind of sad. Wouldn't it?
"Yet I have never met anyone who identified themselves as a "post-modern Neo-Marxist". " It's almost as if that is a term being used to describe them. Like how, Marxists would not describe themselves as being "no better than National Socialists, but I would.
@@VRSVLVS What an utterly substanceless, useless response. Like, you could copy+paste that to anyone, on any topic. How embarrassingly lazy. Ya got anything specific to say to the fact that your ideology caused the Holodomor?
@AlexReynard My ideology did not cause the holodomor. Stalinism is anticommunism. The crimes of Stalinism were committed in contradiction with Marxist ideology. Also, the crimes of Stalinism do not diminish the truthfulness of Marxist analysis of capitalist political economy. Frankly, stating that I am no better than a nazi is deeply insulting and utterly deranged. So FU.
>postmodernist says they reject metanarratives >I ask if they reject metanarratives or if they created a new metanarrative >they laugh and say "we deconstruct ideology and create space for subjective truth" >look inside >it's just a new metanarrative
This is really more of a criticism of the typical surface level explanation of postmodernist thought. The category itself is also kind of problematic, and many thinkers placed under it didn't like the label.
I really drank the juice when I first started listening to him years back. His concepts were shallower and he was reasonable. I just ignored his Twitter where he would chime in on topics he wasn’t well informed on. Soon though his Twitter feed was his whole output, and all he could do was spout brain poison garbage.
@@Liliputian07no. Before he was audience captured he even frustrated conservatives by saying he would call trans people individually by their chosen pronouns.
@Icynova incorrect. he lied about canadian bill c-16 and claimed that regular misgendering, which constitutes harrassment, was made into a felony (it already was one)
If y’all want a REAL critique of post-modernism, just search Zizek “on postmodernism” his critique is on point. Zizek essentially argues against postmodernisms for its relativism, lack of political engagement, and inability to effectively address structures of power. Postmodernism isn’t the big scary ideology as Jordan Peterson claims it is
"Postmodernism isn’t the big scary ideology as Jordan Peterson claims it is" Except that the people who defend it and follow it behave abhorrently. So...
@@muhammadyaseer9673 Political engagement and philosophy are intertwined ever since the beginning, like the first seminal text of Western philosophy is Plato's Republic, a text concerned with pursuing the answer to the question "What is justice?", which is certainly a question important for both the individual and the society in which all of us partake in.
@muhammadyaseer9673 I can broadly tell you how I think about it, but this is still an oversimplification (and maybe not accurate): I like to took at it in 4 steps: -philosophy -ethics -ideology -politics Each of which is a step more practical than the former. Philosophy would be about the fundamentals of reality, there are the questions like objective reality, free will and consciousness. Ethics is about what matters, what we ought to think of as good and bad in which context. It's about some baseline moral ideas. I think it's in the range from "experiencing pain is bad" to "torture is a wrong thing to do." Ideology is about broader ideas of values and maybe the ideas of rights. We can start putting inherent value things like life, freedoms from certain things, freedoms to certain things. General ideas on where authority should be, what duties and rights people have in society. Politics then is about how to effectively implement those ideologies. One reason why some political discussions seem to go completely passed each other can be led back to a difference in belief about free will. Free will-believers (gonna call them deontologists from now on) tend to believe every person is ultimately completely responsible for their own actions, people who don't believe in free will (gonna call them determinists) tend to believe people are much more a result of their circumstances. Even in situations where both parties might agree some action should be considered a crime, deontologists are likely to argue that the law should exist to punish criminals, consequentialists would argue that the law should exist to prevent future crimes from happening. My definitions are probably not very accurate and my description might be broad, but I hope I got the idea across.
@@stephendaley266 did you see his debate with Zizek? It was such a perfect example of the culture war as a whole. Peterson's shadow is in full control.
These videos are pretty unnuanced. Sisyphus seems to write poor, oversimplified analysis with a façade of sufficiency. This video is largely a mishmash of entry-level quotes and definitions that don't convey the actual difference in philosophies happening here. Derrida is spinning in his grave.
@@AlexReynard Wat? That makes no sense. How does him having people who are [allegedly] experts in their specific fields say anything about what he says? "He has smart people on his podcast and because of that he is right" If I manage to get a scientist to have a recorded conversation with me about lobsters, will I be able to shut people up like that too? Sounds like you surely do. Since you're too deep in and likely loot JP's trash in hopes of getting your hands on something with his stink still on it I'll take this opportunity to tell you that JP's comments about lobsters are based on him not understanding how lobster brains work and react to serotonin as opposed to humans.... and how he tries to draw the connection that because of this we can learn about how hierarchies are good since lobsters. When he talks about the nazis being driven by "the mark of Caine" in *a fucking lecture* and only wanted to create chaos in the world, because the logical thing wouldn't be to kill them, but to enslave them! Somehow not knowing that the nazis killed those who couldn't work, and enslaved those who could. When he talks about how women who wear makeup in the workplace share the blame when being sexually assaulted... Know who you're chilling for. Or maybe you do know, but don't care...
It's just beautiful that postmodern and Marxist are totally unequivocally mutually exclusive. It is a complete oxymoron. Peterson and Marx would love each other as structuralists, thinking all of history and activity is directed at a single purpose, based on a single underlying and overarching universal immutable foundation.
"It's just beautiful that postmodern and Marxist are totally unequivocally mutually exclusive." Yes. that's why he thinks that people who combine ideas from both idea systems are confused and harmful.
@@AlexReynard That's why, when asked for real-world examples of postmodern neomarxist individuals, he can only vaguely gesture towards people who have been dead for 50 years. JP is a neo-McCarthyist. He sees secret Marxists everywhere. And just so you understand, senator McCarthy was an evil SOB.
I feel like this essay too literally engaged with the specific words he says ("postmodernism neomarxist") rather than what he means by them-- the idea that popular postmodernism and critical theory can and has become a new power structure in its own right. This risks forming an ossified nihilistic ideology, where critical theory loses its dynamic, questioning nature and becomes a static framework that rejects alternative perspectives. (I’ve personally taken to calling this the 'orthodox heterodox paradox.') I feel like Peterson is grasping for words that don’t exist within the public sphere to describe how deconstruction, when institutionalized, risks becoming an ideology. In doing so, he critiques critical theory using its own tools of power analysis and deconstruction. The idea is ultimately Heideggerian; We must not burn down power structures because the power structures are the only shared context we have. Instead we can only interact with them authentically and pursue justice. This is consistent with Peterson’s advocacy for centering individual responsibility and resisting the overreach of ideological systems, emphasizing that justice is best pursued on a case-by-case basis within shared contexts.
@@FunkMcLovinwillful ignorance is different from misunderstanding. Maybe the author doesn't understand the motif, but I felt it was mildly inauthentic critique. Are you engaging in discourse to further the discourse or to somehow "win"?
@AndrewLeCain I just see a lot of people defending Peterson from an angle of "his critics simply don't understand." What I'm trying to explain is that we do understand we just don't like his ideas. I think you're the one being willfully ignorant, frankly.
@@FunkMcLovin Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of this video but I feel like it was actually just about postmodernism via Derrida and Nietzsche with a few jabs at Peterson rather than a serious engagement with his ideas. I agree that Peterson is overly polemic and incendiary, but I also think he has a serious point below that that was not engaged with in a sense of "unconditional hospitality" as advocated in the video, and I tried to address in my comment without trying to take on the entire baggage of Peterson's politics. If you have something to add there, I'd love to hear it.
@AndrewLeCain You are overestimating the threshold for "seriously engaging with" Peterson's ideas. Again this is the trick that is always used when discussing Peterson, there is always some reason he is beyond reproach that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
****Hey everyone, here is the correct quote and source for Peterson’s stance on free speech @8:37: "Freedom of speech is not just another principle, it is the mechanism by which we keep our psyches and our societies organized and we have to be unbelievably careful about infringing upon that because we are infringing upon the process by which we keep chaos and order balanced and if chaos and order go out of balance then all hell breaks loose and the situation is not good." University of Toronto. (2023, November 10). The psychology of innovation: Why it’s hard and why it matters - Jordan Peterson [Video]. RUclips. ruclips.net/video/ZCzKpz7Lm2U/видео.html&ab_channel=UniversityofToronto The placeholder text was accidentally left in the video and, from my memory, came from an interview that I cannot find. It is nowhere to be found in “12 Rules” While the sentiment is the same in each statement, I understand that it is important to quote and source sincerely. My sincere apologies and thank you to those who have pointed this out :)
Derrida didn’t say, “there is nothing outside of the text”, he said something that can be loosely translated to something like, “there is no outside-text”.
He’s following in the footsteps of Heidegger with his concept of Destruktion, which is where his de-construction comes from for Derrida. To oversimplify things to a fault, meaning is always fluid and context based for Derrida.
There is a huge différance. “There is nothing outside the text” implies that all understanding is bounded by text - this is somewhat consistent with what he believed, but of course, “text” refers not just to language or words. “There is nothing outside outside-text”, implies something more like, there is no universal structure or context that bounds all understanding.
for whatever it's worth, jordan peterson is all for acknowledging that your self-concept isn't fixed and that the stories we tell about the how the world works reflect the drives of human psychology. his objection to postmodernism is that it relishes in picking stories apart, that it doesn't put stories back together again. i know lots of postmodernists claim they think these stories are essential to functionining in the world, but that doesn't change how much of their work focuses on the ways existing stories are flawed, without posing good alternatives. and then, some postmodernists, like baudrillard, will hold that actually it's impossible to put a good story back together. others, like deleuze and guattari, will argue that the chaos is *good* in a lot of ways. the uniting aesthetic fixation of postmodernism *is the chaos itself.* (you can even see this in postmodern paintings; it's why it feels right to use the same name for the philosophy and the artistic movement). and chaos is the thing peterson can't stand. 12 Rules for Life is subtitled "An Antidote to Chaos" for this reason. his entire schtick is about how people learn to face the dragon of chaos and create meaningful models of how the world works anyway. his ethos, though it acknowledges most of the same philosophical truths as postmodernism itself, is dramatically more solution-oriented than postmodernism; he sees building solutions as *the entire project of the human race,* "roughly speaking." he hates postmodernism's ethos (which is different than the stated philosophy of some of its ahderents) for undermining that project.
Well written comment. I think this is why Peterson was so exciting and inspiring for so many. Nobody was putting the stories together for a mainstream, non-academic audience. Unfortunately, I would argue that Peterson's stories struggle to stand up against the scrutiny of post-modernism. Evo-psych justifications for hierarchy (historically used to subordinate minority groups) and Judeo-Christian virtues (pulled apart by Peterson's idol Nietzsche) are fairly weak responses to the issues addressed by postmodernism. And Foucault/Deleuze did make suggestions in terms of moving forward (i,e,schizoanalysis). But they were careful not to replicate the ideologies they were criticizing and avoided ever carving out anything too systematic or declarative. I think a more honest response to post-modernism is to take up Nietzsche's call to carve out new values rather than declare, as Peterson does, that the West really has it figured out. There I think the suggestion for schizoanalysis/rhimozonal thinking is a more honest and creative suggestion, by giving us the tools to come to our own conclusions rather than have them spoon-fed to us by the good doctor himself.
@@Sisyphus55 i think there's a lot to be said for standing on the shoulders of giants, meow. like... i see the value of postmodernism as basically just being a reminder of the various difficulties in trying to create a comprehensive map of how the world works, which is something people ought to glance at every now and then to keep themselves from getting eaten by hubris, but making it the cornerstone of your entire approach to thought sounds like a recipie for an intellectual life characterized by noise and the rejection of legitimate progress. the human kind has had a lot of great ideas, in its run so far. and while there's reasons to think some of those ideas are laced with poison (or simply unfinished as projects), having those ideas "spoonfed" to you will hopefully at least give you a massive head start over e.g. early humans. (really, the accumulation and transmission of knowledge via culture across generations is like, the central reason humanity has become the dominant lifeform on the planet.) so like... i probably agree that peterson defers a bit too much to established ways of looking at the world. in fact i wish he'd do more work in e.g. analyzing the psychological drives behind racism or patriarchy or whatever, because i think he's smart and curious enough that he could actually do a much better job at comprehensively explaining those phenomena than most leftists, if he were actually motivated to do so. but like, i see the schizoanalytic approach of being extremely eager to throw entire edifices away as basically tossing out the enormous intellectual and cultural progress humans have made over the millennia. surely it's not perfect (and in some ways we might be worse now than we were in hunter-gatherer tribes...) but it's undeniable that we've learned a lot as a species, and that knowledge can help us navigate the world today. ig, overall, maybe peterson should encourage people to Do Their Own Research a bit more, but like... for anyone who already has that attitude, why not also grab up all the low-hanging cultural and intellectual fruit he (along with all those who came before him) have prepared for us? (and honestly i don't think peterson fosters a lack of curiosity anyway; you can see him trying to puzzle his way through thinigs in real time in some of his lectures, for example.)
@@Sisyphus55 Peterson has contended with Nietzsche's call to carve out new values, but in turn found through people like Jung that people can't just bend themselves in any particular way and that we have a certain nature. Ultimately, we still need a unifying narrative that works for both the layman and more 'philosophical types'. It should be unifying at a the level of most fundamental principles such as recognition for the divinity of the individual, and recognising an ideal way of living as being a mode of living that itself is transformative and adaptive. Above that, people will and should have their differences in the narratives that construe their lives. The call for a unifying narrative isn't a call for everyone to return to Christianity. You can draw out much of the same across religions and from a secular perspective (which is what Peterson is trying to do). Christianity is a good exemplar of these 'fundamental principles' though. People are in no ways 'beyond Christianity'. There is so much traditional wisdom that modern people have lost touch with. The degree to which Christianity has failed is the degree to which the people or institutions representing it have gone against its fundamental principles or misused power, and hasn't been the essence of the religion itself.
Yes I agree that Peterson takes great ispiration from postmodernists but he rarely admits that (sometimes it does). He uses deconstruction a lot and imho he might be considered as a conservative postmodernist (that's why he likes to attack neo-marxists together with postmodernists, and focus just on Foucault and Deridda, because he dislike the use of postmodernist tools to support anticapitalism)
Maybe they both have some good points and some bad and, like we all claim say we want, we should attempt to find them rather than tribalizing and attacking each other. The post modernist idea that all things are deconstructable and ultimately destroyable is similar to Nietzsches ideas of how now Gods dead, all things lose meaning because everything is built on a foundation that can and has been destroyed, there not wrong nothing really matters and everything is in some way a construct that doesn't really exist. The problems with this Nietzsche, Camus and Frankl have outlined when you've destroyed all meaning what happens next. Humans need to do things and have structures and abstractions to live through and now everythings meaningless we're found lost. Peterson it seems originally was trying to remedy this by rebuilding structures and meanings and pushing that just because nothing truly made sense at its core that positives could still be created from systems built upon "untrue" ideas, you don't need to believe in god for the commandments to be useful for a society. This however comes with a host of problems, Nihilism can easily return it's hard to push forward now you know it's all sort of a lie. Also the systems you make up to generate truth are made by humans with bias and can cause huge amounts of harm and death (e.g to people, animals the environment). Peterson then is stuck if he goes back he returns to meaninglessness, extremely dangerous Nihilism returns and nothing matters. If he keeps going then we forget that the rules were made to help people and add meaning and they can spiral out of control becoming hard arbitrary lines and ultimately causing more harm than good. Ultimately both are right, everything is a lie built by a messy bias imperfect human but we need structures and meaning to survive. Personally I like Frankl and Tolestoys ideas adjacent to absurdism, always remembering its all untrue and meaningless but still choosing to do good and move forward, free to change the rules and ideas can develop and progress but also given purpose and promted to do good and respect life
@@Liliputian07 well...burden of proof is on you. I've seen him explain that it is a term that shouldn't make sense but instead does because of how both philosophies/ideologies are modified in their contemporary use and practice.
@@thedappermagician6905 Why is the burden of proof on them? You first made the claim that Peterson has properly defined it, many times even. Not only does that place a burden of proof on you, it should be very easy for you to provide the proof if your claim is true. Whereas the other person would have to prove a negative, which is nearly impossible.
"Post-modern neo Marxism" you say? Marx was not a post-modernist! Post-modernism was not Marxism! JP is simply mashing scary sounding words together and ranting about nothing.
Just goes to show that JP does not have a clue what is going on in leftist discourse. The Marxists and the post-modernists are always constantly at each other's throats.
Isn't the point that Marxists accidentally follow meta narratives while also rejecting them and thus produce no real change and don't fight the prevailing meta narratives in society
Foucault disagreed with Derrida that there was nothing outside of the text. Probably one of the biggest points of disagreement in postmodernism, which importantly neither of them claimed to practice (most of their influences are from radical modernists anyway. Nietzsche, Bataille, Blanchot, Wittgenstein). Also I always thought Derrida was more anti-truth/science than Foucault but I may be wrong! Foucault always had an empiricist streak to him because his brand of discourse analysis demanded rigorous archival research
Post-modernism seems like, generally speaking, simply a practice of applying critical thinking to a worldview. I don't understand why any scholar would be so against that. Even religious people like Peterson engage in that process through learning and self-examination. Christianity (sometimes) encourages reflection and continued learning. The problem with the narratives of religions is that sure, while they sort-of-sometimes teach good values, on top of that, they throw so much other mental noise at people that it's hard to separate the good from the bad. Cultural norms, social expectations, group-think. The opinions and beliefs of other church-goers. Thousands of years of fables, stories, historical accounts, and skewed interpretations that necessarily come about through the process of translating thousands of pages of scriptures. It's impossible to separate religions from the people they are practiced by. They were at one point the authors and founders of the religion itself and continue to be the propagators of it throughout history. "Narrative" implies a story, which implies a main character. Shouldn't each person then construct their own narrative? It's so much easier and practical to teach values, and let people construct the narratives for themselves. Your narrative should be based on your own actual life, not weird, ancient, sometimes-brilliant sometimes-terrifying manuscripts. You don't need an outside source to learn empathy or the value of learning. To put it in other words, if you need a book to tell you how to be a good person, you're probably not a good person. If I was taught as a child to analyze my own actual experiences, talk through them, and ask questions about them with the help of a mature adult, I think I would've been years ahead of where I am now in life. I would've been taught to build my own narrative instead of force-fed one. The religion I grew up in, while well-meaning and useful in some regards, ultimately held me back with the confusion, angst, and social pressure that it caused. In religion the ultimate answer wasn't to think through anything myself - it was to pray. To ask the sky man to simply make it all better. Which as we all know, makes for a pretty boring narrative.
@logan7882 sure it's fine to critize or at least think about "mainstream" narratives. People need a mental model to understand the world, and this is an imperfect approximation. The part where I disagree is that postmodernism rejects the existence of objective truths. This is rejection of truth as a concept is at least part of what I understand to be postmodernism.
"Post-modernism seems like, generally speaking, simply a practice of applying critical thinking to a worldview. I don't understand why any scholar would be so against that." Because it's useless. Any child can say, "I don't like that." It takes actual understanding and effort to say, "I don't like that, and here's my proposed solution. Let's test it." There's a reason why art critics are held in much lower regard than art creators.
Aw, that's cute how you wokies only know one insult. As soon as someone disagrees with you, "Fascist! Fascist! Fascist!" It's almost as if you've abandoned your responsibility to be an individual human being, and you just let other people's opinions steer you like a go-kart.
Entirely ai written script is crazy. Didn’t even change the gpt cadence. More and more I am finding these video-essay/pop philosophy RUclipsrs obviously just copy pasting ai written slop- in a way I am happy bout it tho- kind of automatizes separating the wheat from the chaff
@milan045 bro has college sophomore philosophy-minor knowledge at best. A decent amount - but there are way better ppl to watch if you’re genuinely into philosophy and stuff.
@@milan045 also I’m not rlly making the claim that he is not well read or smart or whatever the fuck. I’m saying this vid is lazy - and is entirely ai generated, which it is.
@ if you’re seriously interested you should stop watching these pop philosophy RUclipsr types in general. Slavoj Zizek is a great guy to check out- there’s a lot of RUclips content with him in it- he does podcasts and there are a ton of lectures of his online. Unironically Haz Al-din (infrared) has several really great lectures on philosophers, post modernist thinkers, psychoanalysts, etc, (Derrida, Foucault, Karl Popper, even like Plato and Heraclitus, etc) you kind of have to look for these tho as he mainly debates ppl and talks about communism and his politics and stuff. If u want a straight up RUclipsr, Cosmic Skeptic has always been relatively decent and genuine imo. Many ppl talk philosophy on RUclips but most of their vids could be substituted by reading the subjects Wikipedia page. Unfortunately Sisyphus55 is no different. If u like to read and are interested in learning about philosophers you could check out Alexandre Kojève, or Alain Badiou perhaps.
The ultimate message of post-modernism is, if anything exists, it is merely what you say it is. Nobody with a degree in this principle can bulid a bridge that supports the weight of a truck.
Since Peterson often seems to refer to Dostojevskij, I’ve always viewed his critique of postmodernism more as a question of “could all this deconstruction make us miserable?”. Think of the underground man, being essential forced to a stand still because every action would require the believe in some truth, yet he can’t justify that to himself. So deconstruction taken too far could make it hard to settle for any decision at all. A sort of directionless that I believe many of us do experience first hand at times. I’m neither trying to argue for Peterson nor post-modernists here, this is just something that came to mind.
The primary factor that _comepletely_ shut down Peterson for me (After being exposed to his transphobia but feeling like there _might_ be worthwhile bits to pick from his worldview) was a clip, that _I wish_ I had onhand, about privilege. It would be an insult, Peterson argued, to _refuse_ your privilege, as to doing so would be akin to wasting a resource. A 'You owe it to those incapable, to utilize your privilege', type of sentiment.. Lobsters, on the other hand; Structure themselves according social hierarchy, devoid of _empathy.._ because they are incapable. Therefore- *Do we not owe it then,* not only to ourselves, _but to the lobsters by extension,_ to be as _empathetic as possible?_ Because, as humankind.. That is our privilege. From that point, the foam blocks fell - And if I had the sound bites, I would pay the toll, play them through the mic before asking said question at a live event, and alter the perspectives of 80% of the people in that damn room.
Probably he knows that, he uses deconstruction a lot, and that's why he likes to accuse neo-marxism together with postmodernism and just focus on Foucault and Deridda. What he doesn't like is the use of postmodernist tools to support anticapitalism (aka critical theories). He doesn't like posmodernists mainly for their political alignement. He thinks that their relativism is just an excuse to create a political weapon. We can consider Peterson as a conservative postmodernist
It always worth noting that Jordan’s claim to fame was misinterpreting Canadian law in an attempt to gain notoriety that was inevitably going to harm trans people, most everything he’s done since then has been done in my opinion with the same degree of bad faith and blunderbuss, not to mention giving a voice to, among other people, Tommy Robinson, formerly of the BNP, the British fascist party.
@@dimitriskokoretsis3195 Or because he believes in a higher being, but doesn't know for certain if it's the Christian god. Only that Christians have gotten closest to understanding its nature.
one thing i found really ludicrous and ironic about his talkings is that he often constructs very well-thought and articulate logic on the spot, but the next moment when he starts to criticise literally anything he becomes the manifest of the very logical fallacy he just laid out.
Love the video, I thought it was interesting that you only implicitly highlight the fact that both Derrida and Peterson are strongly influenced by Nietzsche, only explicitly mentioning the latter's connection. Just personally I always find it fascinating how frequently Peterson constantly seems angered by people he often ignores have remarkably similar philosophical backgrounds to him. Foucault especially was a hardcore Nietzschean not to mention the very idea of textual deconstruction is more or less predicated on a specific formulation of the will to power as a force of meaning which humans construct through group conflict.
Why would you be proud of believing the most intellectually-lazy idea possible? "Hey, if we all agree that there's no objective truth, then we never have to test our hypotheses ever again!"
@@AlexReynard "No objective truth" is the strawman. You are lost because you trust JP. You are really certain that you are right, because you believe "hard relativism" = post modernism... because that's what JP, who has not read a single word from any post-modern thinker, has told you. You are not being critical what so ever of what JP tells you. Jordan Petersen can't tell Marxists and post modernists apart, because post modernists critique the things around them. The systems they live in. We live in the thing Petersen likes. He likes gender norms, capitalism, social hierarchies, etc. He does not want things to change so anyone who challenge the way things are, are a threat. Marxism is a model of how our human world works and analytic tool used to understand and solve societal issues. A Marxist is a person who accept the model and who's opinions/views are based on it. A Marxist is critical of the way things are [capitalism] and wants to change it. It also comes with beliefs about what you need to do for things to change. The way we get our resources/our material conditions [the "base"] decides our social relations and institutions [the "superstructure"]. Only by changing how we get our food etc. [capitalism] can we change our social relations. This is not a post modernist... Jordan can only see two schools of thought both challenging the status quo, reads nothing about them more than they are saying uncomfortable things about the things he likes and mashes them together into the "post-modern neo-marxist"... Post modernists analyze and/or critique how things are, so that we may change things to serve our goals better. Are gender norms really "natural", or are they social constructs? If they are social constructs, should we adapt to something that serves individuals better? People who do not fit the traditional gender roles certainly do! They allow for change, which is a threat if you do not want anything to change. How does this translate to "no objective truth"? It doesn't.
@@AlexReynard Yeah... and youre somehow capable of comprehending objective truth? the whole point is that mainstream narratives subliminally (or directly) enforce oppressive and restrictive paradigms to marginalised groups and assume themselves as the wholesale truth of reality. "its just facts bro" like no. it isn't.
@HxghPxnda because postmodernism isnt a position or an ideology. it WAS an artistic and philosophical movement. WAS. it doesnt even fucking exist anymore. everything peterson says is embarrassingly uneducated
I agree with your exposition of post-modernism. However, I have one question: Why do post-modernists subconsciously act out the meta-narratives they aim to deconstruct? For example, consider biological sex. Even in the most post-modern ecosystems, on average, biological males and females tend to make different choices. The more freedom of choice (what post-modernists might call a compassionate ecosystem) is provided, the greater the differences in personality and choices between males and females. Doesn't this undermine post-modernism and instead support the existence of meta-narratives like biological sex?
I think thats an interesting point meta-narratives seem inescapable, i dont think I can agree with you on the particular that more post modern societies have greater difference bettween biological sexes. I cant speack for all post modernists but personly Id consider conforming to meta narratives just a part of human phycology. I dont think this invalidates trying to deconstruct them thou. Perhaps from a PM's it might be seen as a bad habit. Also I think biological sex is a scientific defintion and I dont know if all Post-modetnists would consider it a meta narrative. (Appolgise for all the spelling errors)
Extremely based Sisyphus 55 subtly suggests that Peterson has links to postmodernism and shares criticism while opening the door to the idea of its proximity to Derrida's thought.
Peterson could've gone down in history as one of the most talented professors in his field, but he became a partisan hack instead. Hard to take someone like that seriously
@Liliputian07 I don't like Peterson personally, but that's not true at all. He was a Harvard professor for one thing, and he's had over 100 academic papers published. Obviously he was held in high regard at one point
@@Liliputian07 Yeah. I had arrived to that conclusion but hearing Chomsky and Chris Hedges, really just not even consider him at all confirmed a lot for me.
Yeah, instead he'll go down in history as the most famous professor/author/podcaster in history instead. What a shame. Seriously, why don't you understand that, if someone is vastly successful beyond your wildest imagination, it doesn't make any sense for them to listen to people like you who think they shouldn't have done the thing that made them successful?
Video goes off the rails at around 9:30 or so. Peterson has engaged with critique in calling people "postmodern neomarxists". He faced it with Slavoj, and he's done interviews where someone has brought it up saying "haha, postmodernism and marxism are two different things" - and he responded something along the lines of "I know that they contradict themselves". He's also repeatedly been interviewed and said something to the effect of "there are many narratives I know, there are infinite narratives, but they don't have equal importance" - His book maps of meaning was (partly) about this topic. And yes it is an irony, because Peterson is often an anti-realist, though it's extremely hard to pin him down as he's often a strict biological realist, or at least veers close to it. The stats you bring up afterwards are therefore partly irrelevant - "3.3% accepted scientific anti-realism" - and so on, I can't find the paper, but that's only showing me that people don't know what they self-identify as - I'd also have to see the sample population.. Peterson was critiquing the "all narratives have equal moral weight AND also here's my narrative about white heteronormative patriarchy" - which I'm sorry you'd have to have your head in the sand, or just be blatantly biased towards it to say that narrative didn't exist up until about 3 years ago. You can call it a phantasm if you want, or you can say "the stats don't show this" but Peterson was pointing to a very real academic trend at the time - I suggest you go and look at lexus nexus or something like that if you want the stats on how many people talk about these concepts, which became extremely salient concepts around 2012 and academics, journalists, activists and online discourse became obsessed with all of these concepts. Peterson and others like him faced numerous cancellation and deplatforming attempts, and ironically become household names due to the observable far left and feminist trends of the mid 2010s - I think if you're investigating this issue it can't go without mentioning.
Agreed. Peterson is a fascist clown, but also there is a real problem in leftist academia which makes it less effective at actually producing systemic change, or even communicating leftist ideas. For example, there's a great anthropology channel "What Is Politics" with a meta-narrative on the causes of social hierarchy and how to prevent them[1]. It's based on observations of hundreds of cultures and it's not deterministic, it just argues that these causes make hierarchy more likely. You'd think that leftists would love this, yet it provokes such a strong negative reaction because it seems too meta-narrative-y. But the alternative is that we continue to do nothing and fail to spread our ideas because we try to communicate without any narrative somehow. This only serves the ruling class whose meta-narratives already run rampant. [1] If you're interested, start with episode 6 "When communism works".
Loving the video! No criticism on you, but I would recommend turning the gain down on your microphone. There’s some harsh peaks here for example on the word emPowerment 6:56 Much love
All you have to do is type in “Jordan Peterson postmodernism” and you will find countless videos where he explains clearly his issue with postmodernism without laying out straw man arguments
I have been trying to understand this as well, what have you read on post modernism that resonated with you and why? Perhaps you could give me some recommendations on works by philosophers and cultural commentators if they are valuable in any way? Thanks in advance
@@sangmadewira4726 Zizek's “on postmodernism” is a text on the problems of post modernism that's better suited. It's a cornerstone of sociology (big enough that in a 100 level sociology class the prof had us read it even though he thinks it's more a graduate level text) and is better at defining postmodern flaws.
@@atlas944 I really liked Jonas Čeika videos about post modernism. For example critique of Explaining Postmodernism ruclips.net/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/видео.htmlsi=PPDXYlA5_hPRWPXZ).
I was a Jordan Peterson fan until 2021 and now I'm applying to gradate school for philosophy with a writing sample on Marx, Foucault, and Achille Mbembe. Shit's crazy.
For me, science radicalized me. Just plain combination of being a nerd and looking at just how absurd right wing scientific views are. One thing leads to another, social democracy one day, socialism tomorrow, and actual socialist leanings the next day.
The worst part about Peterson, is that it’s clearly a grift. He’s 100% smart and involved enough to understand these these things, and form “good faith” arguments but he rarely does relying on obstruction, vagueness, and dishonesty to keep his supporters championing him.
I also think on top of being a grifter that Jordan Peterson is severely mentally ill. I listen to his lectures and I watch him on the screen and I see how dead eyed he looks. Even during the rise of his fame many years ago when he was lying about Bill C 16 you could see him putting on a dramatic display of the “eccentric intellectual“. Everything from the way he sat, looked at the camera, spoke to interviewers or addressed the audience: it was a mix between theater and a man that is just simply not mentally stable.
It's becomes annoying after a while when intellectual centrists say that post modern marxism is not a real thing, and Peterson is fighting windmills. It is definitely a real thing, It has now become so ingrained in the Metanarrative that people take it as a given, as if he is critiquing air.
That's really proving the idea that some ideas are so stupid, only a high IQ can believe them. "I am absolutely certain that reality doesn't exist. I sure am smart, because I believe the opposite of what the sheeple believe. I am an underdog renegade."
Derrida himself referred to deconstruction as a radicalization of a certain spirit of Marxism [cfr. Derrida (1976) Where a Teaching Body Begins, English translation 2002, p. 72. Derrida, Jacques (1993). Spectres of Marx (in French). p. 92.
As a Marxist, I always hated postmodernism because of its blatant liberal opposition to material truth, hilarious to see Peterson assert that that is somehow Marxist
"blatant liberal opposition to material truth": the whole truth... still, postmodernism isn´t THAT bad... but when I hear "Marxist postmodernism", a laugh overcomes me...
That's funny, because as a post-modernist, i aways tought that marxism is oversimplistic, almost reducing every epistemological knowledge to the "material truth".
@@lululul454 u mean, being mature enough to reduce every "epistemological knowledge" to the material truth, for the time being at least... Cause every other battle is a luxus-battle. None gives a f*** about "identity", when they are poor and (therefore) oppressed. "identity"-issues only distract, and marxists are not amused constantly getting stabbed in the back by real infants.
peterson would be a million times better at his job if he stuck to talking about psychology and personal advice, when he gets out of his range he goes off the rails pretty bloody quick
"Weakness is not a virtue." "Go out and make something of yourself." "Climb to the top of whatever heighrarchy you want to climb on top of." "Be a light on the world instead of a blight" Some gems of Petersonism
nobody makes a virtue of weakness, except christians. something something Neitzshe something something going out and making something of yourself with what means or tools when they've been stripped away by neoliberalism? how is one expected to climb when said hierarchy is built to not be climbed, and indeed, why would you validate an unjust hierarchy by seeking to climb it, and not bring it down? a single star doesn't light up the night, only when they work together do they make the darkness and eachother, beautiful. only a conman tells you to be another sun. heres a gem from Adler instead: "if we under the obligation to make something of our lives and ourselves, then we have the right to all of the things to make that possible that are otherwise out of our control."
nobody makes a virtue of weakness, except xtians. going out and making something of yourself with what means or tools when they've been stripped away by neolibcap? how is one expected to climb when said hierarchy is built to not be climbed, and indeed, why would you validate an unjust hierarchy by seeking to climb it, and not bring it down instead? a single star doesn't light up the night, only when they work together do they make the darkness and eachother, beautiful. only a conman tells you to be another sun. heres a gem from Adler instead: "if we under the obligation to make something of our lives and ourselves, then we have the right to all of the things to make that possible that are otherwise out of our control."
*here's a gem from Adler instead as a remedy to that piffle:* "if we under the obligation to make something of our lives and ourselves, then we have the right to all of the things to make that possible that are otherwise out of our control."
6:14 ngl, just a lil honest feedback here, I might not have skipped through that ad like a little girl through some tulips if I had seen photographic depictions of the bare naked human anatomy throughout. Hope this was helpful 😸👍
So many words to basically say Jordan Peterson is a very silly man. Love your videos, coming up on finishing my bachelors in Econ and Philosophy. You helped me through it!
@@AlexReynard I mean the church in the feudal era presented itself as the all-knower of truth despite falling under subjective idealism. Same with postmodernism and how it's used by the ruling class to state that the world is just chaos and all we can do is liberate/fix ourselves and our own mindset.
@@jyotektosgaimur >I mean the church in the feudal era presented itself as the all-knower of truth despite falling under subjective idealism That does absolutely nothing to show that Peterson's a postmodernist. There's a difference from a church saying, "We own the truth", and JP saying, "The truth is out there, and we should all go seek it in our own way." > Same with postmodernism and how it's used by the ruling class to state that the world is just chaos and all we can do is liberate/fix ourselves and our own mindset. Then that's another substantial difference. That's an incredibly selfish mindset. Fitting, as it goes along with people who believe there is no one truth, only personal truths. So any self-centered airhead can believe that their random squawking is equal in validity to someone who's put real effort into their tested observations. When JP talks about seeking objective truth, it's not just so that you become a better person. That's only step one towards a goal of betting others around you as well. He says the whole point of Christianity is self-sacrifice. Not as literal as execution, but in sacrificing your time or effort to do work that benefits others. There's a huge difference between 'the shared common good' and 'everyone go your own way because no path is more or less valid than any other.'
Ideology, for the most part, does provide a consistent framework for the most part, but anything can be taken too far, and we humans seem to be well versed in that regard. Peterson's critique points out how they can completely miss the nuance and provide an individual with a false sense of moral superiority. Activism and movements in modern age seem to be highly radicalised where people demand rights but refuse to take responsibilities that come with them.
That was an incredibly reasonable take on Peterson. Or rather, how he used to be. I don’t even recognize him anymore as he has been taken in and consumed by his own Ideology.
@@Liliputian07 What has got you so worked up? Who wants to begin a discussion with someone who immediately begins their response with demands and accusations? Put the phone down and walk around for a while homie. Really disrespectful of you.
Eh. The main critique I have of Peterson's tradcon is it invariably ends up back here, with people adrift to find (hopefully) new narratives, i.e.- tradcon doesn't work (at least not in the way it says on the tin). And what about Peterson's moral superiority? Pretty damn bold to take the pre-history prior to Marxist post-moderism and hold that up as some scale of justice. Again, defaulting to the status quo just leads back here, but with the insistence of not trying hard enough as being the undoing of western civilization. Yeah, I'm not taking responsibility for that.
what are the fruits of repackaging preexisting biases and hierarchies as transgressive? in other words, what are the fruits of being a status quo warrior. nothing.
I don't know what Peterson thinks "postmodernism" actually is. He seems to use the word as a catch-all term for any social or ideological development that upsets him. So I don't know what its "fruits" have been.
I swear we've been doing the "Jordan Peterson doesn't know what postmodernism is" schtick for like 10 years now. Niether JP nor postmodernism are even relevant anymore. Can we please move on?
@@AJX-2 but people still think his thoughts and words are valuable. you can see it in this comment section. he permanently ruined a huge number of - let's face it - fatherless young men, for no reason other than to foster his own ego
"Niether JP nor postmodernism are even relevant anymore." That's astonishing that you can actually type that. Jordan just wrote another bestseller, and is on yet another international speaking tour. Meanwhile people whose ideas are rooted in postmodernism just suffered one of the most humiliating repudiations in the history of American elections. Bruh.
@@crazydavebrasil so what's post-postmodernism. what's metamodernism. what's trans-postmodernism. what's post-irony. what's maximalism. do you even know about stuckism? do you even care? are you at all curious about the world?
it's the absolute worst. Up there with Ben Shapiro for worst voices of all time (I'd say Ben's is worse; at least Peterson has the slightly funny "angry Kermit" thing going on)
4:11 This is only a fragment of the buddhist view and is where the postmodern understanding of this idea falls short. Ultimately this notion is archetypal of most religious perspectives on self, which is that the notion that singularity and plurality are distinct from one another is merely imagined, or in other words the very idea of 'degrees' of a thing, are a type of inperfection that is observed from the perspective of man. So to say that the self doesn't exist you would be correct, but to say it does exist, you would still be correct. This is baked into religious constructs in both abrahamic and east asian religions, for example in christianity, the trinity, is very emblamatic of this concept.
Peterson's critique of postmodernism is quite clearly reductionist at best and plain wrong at worst in relation to the portal figures you mention, but is it not fitting when applied to those who claim to follow it without understanding it themselves? There seems to be plenty of people, after all, who claim to fight the injustices of pervasive discourses while reducing their own identities to simple metrics or a combination of a few in a rigid fixed selfhood accompanied by a rigid set of black and white morals. I am no supporter of Peterson, but it seems to me there's something to the critique even if it is poorly phrased, deliberately or no. Much the same as the bastardization of Nietzsches critique of grand narratives placed the nation in place of God in the fascist movements of the 20s and 30s, the work of the early postmodernists seem to me to have been co-opted by people on the left today, perpetuating the cause of a marxist meta narrative by turning it on it's head - discourse, or superstructure creates the material structure and modes of oppression etc. - in a way that is no less doctrinal and no more open for debate or moral discussion. This is no vindication of Peterson, of course, since he despite his claims fail to express himself with precision and truthfulness, but there is still reason to ponder the gist of the general critique, if we apply it on whom it really concerns.
Peterson also throws aside his realistic worldview when it comes to religion, there he is very open to different interpretations of truth and himself participates in deconstructing the meanings of truth in for example the bible.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
The first 500 people to use my link skl.sh/sisyphus5511241 will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare premium!
*Incompleteness theorem. Embracing Godel will be his ultimate Hegelian death because Godel allows the deconstruction of Plato's precious mathematical forms. Maybe he is trying to reterritorialize Godel's name? Idk, but it is a huge miss step of him to bring up Godel. A regressive Materialism is their only refuge once Rationalism's supposed certainty in forms is deconstructed.
the question you should ve asked is "what is Cultural Marxism?" and would you look at that?! it s the american version of the cultural bolshevism conspiracy theory made up by the nazis
all these post modern, neo freudian, pseudo intellectual, non herculean, quasi pseudo symbolic COMMUNIST are making me not clean my room while i write a book telling others to 😎
@@ummin3872
one thing i find really funny about peterson cultists is that they legitimately need a visibly aging opioid addict who can barely string a sentence together to tell them to clean their rooms. and then they don't even do it
@@Liliputian07 That is a gross mischaracterization of Jordan Peterson....he was addicted to benzos not opiates 😂
@@adabsurdum5905
WHY WAS HE TAKING BENZOS IN THE 2010S
What people don't get is that Jordan Peterson is an intellectual amoeba and that his thought is evolving as he is talking about it......'>......
@@lzzrdgrrl7379interesting way of saying "he'll say whatever the dorks will pay the most for"
Kind of baffling how Peterson claims to follow in the footsteps of Nietzsche. You know, Nietzsche who was arguably the original postmodernist, and who was the main inspiration for the work of the philosophers Peterson demonizes (especially Foucault but also Deleuze, Derrida, etc)
You mean the same Nietzsche guy that criticized (dogmatic) Rationalism, Modernity, Capitalism (yes Socialism too) and Christianity?
Yeah important figure for JP. But I don't think that he would've liked Nietzsche if he didn't wear a nice suit in his photos or was born in France a century later, that's what makes you Anarchist I guess.
not even mentioning how proud he was of being a yungian based psychologist which hinges on an idea of human behaviour being somewhat sporadic and open to interpretaion - and yet half the time hes talking about rats and lobster to illustrate hierarchies and instinctive programing which is Freud to a T.
He's even pointed out in older lectures that Nietzsche was a noted socialist - i think at this moment Peterson gets paid too well to not contradict himself, i dont take any of his takes seriously anymore
I'm 100% convinced Peterson doesn't read/doesn't understand what he reads.
I don't think Peterson claims that he is following in the footsteps of Nietzsche. I think he mainly likes Nietzsche's take on individualism, his empowering attitude towards suffering and his very deep psychological thoughts.
But yeah, I agree with @KopKop-g6s. JP would absolutely hate Nietzsche overall. Nietzsche's attacks against structures JP loves or at least finds necessary would be just too much for him.
Well not only nietzsche, but also heidegger. And while nietzsche's morals may have directed him to postmodernesque critique, heideggers method made absolutely clear that the basis of self actualization requires them (as 'thrownness' itself seems to point at meta narratives of the 'they' as something contrived and inauthentic).
Ie: no one Peterson likes in philosophy would like him very much.
As a psych student, I really enjoyed Peterson’s class lectures on the subject. It was a nice way to get more depth on some concepts that I didn’t feel like I was getting from my actual professors.
I always enjoyed him as just that. A college professor. He’s got his quirks but at least he loves what he does. It was when he moved out of that sphere and became a political talking head that I think I got some distaste for him. I just wish he stuck to his area of expertise
he made the classic smart person mistake of thinking that knowing a lot about one thing means you automatically know a lot about other things.
Arrogance is a hell of a drug
@@idontwantahandlethough
he doesnt know a lot about anything though
I wonder where this distaste came from. Whether you can cite him, or only criticisms of him when referencing its origin.
@@tbg750
he is openly transphobic and anti-democratic. he literally uses nazi talking points to push a regressive, reactionary agenda. you must be deaf and blind
@@ccrews4 Bingo! My BA is in psych & Peterson is great when talking about psychology. And, it's my assessment too that he starts to fall on his face when he leaves the territory of psychology.
But beyond that, he's mostly just a conservative who uses big words to sound a lot smarter than he really is. At worst, he's carrying water for a political regime that's intent on destroying America & its allies.
Jordan Peterson sounds like a hallucinating generative AI
when i heard Peterson talk about postmodernism it almost sounded like he never read any of the big writers of the postmodernist movement
@@IgniteZs
shocker.
He read Stephen Hick's "Explaining Postmodernism" and stopped there
and he didn't. Just like he didn't read Marx, since he doesn't even understand what is meant by "exploitation" in Marxist terms. He claims there is no exploitation in a capitalistic society.
@@iloveyoufromthedepthofmyheart nuh uh, he read marx! he said it right there in the zizek debate. he read the manifesto once when he was 18, and once in prep for their debate.
@@longjohnjimmie1653 what did he read since he did not knew what Marx meant by exploitation? Those are the basics...He looked like a scared school kid on that debate when Zizek asked him who are those "Marxists" you are refering to? BTW you can't read one book of Marx once when you are 18 and then critiquing it, without even understanding it and without reading his whole work..what the hell.
Thesis: Marxism is when no iPhone
Antithesis: Postmodernism is when iPhone
Synthesis: Postmodern neo-marxism is when android.
Metathesis: anti-hierarchy is when linux
I find it highly ironic that any attempt to reject postmodernism turns into an exercise in postmodernist thought. Like in order to reject the idea there is no truth, you have to construct a truth, which just confirms that truths are made up and not part of some essential part of reality
@@sandshark2 it’s the reverse thought actually, in trying to assert that truth does not exist you have just made a truth claim. It gets even funnier when they try to say that language can't express thoughts properly, like, how did you formulate that then, nigga?
@@sandshark2 in fact it is the opposite, in trying to assert that truth does not exist you have just made a truth claim. It gets even funnier when they try to say that language can't express thoughts properly, like, how did you formulate that then, dawg?
@@rilberth_lusca_MD
did you even know there are movements AFTER postmodernism
@@Liliputian07 look who came back to another spanking
@ Youre talking 2 fundamentally different concepts of truth, here: specifically capital T Truth, and truth. The difference is pretty obvious if you bother reading the literature on it. Truth does not exist, and thats a truth - to an anti-realist. Funnily enough this concept is older than both postmodernism and anti-realism
And of course language cant express thoughts properly, thats how misunderstandings occur. If language could properly communicate thoughts between individuals without error, then definitions would be the same across everyone. Language would be 1 language, not multiple. And drama wouldnt be a thing.
The existence of the above-mentioned attributes of language is cause for belief in its imperfection, and therefore inability to express thoughts “properly”, since here I have to guess what you mean by “properly”. Did I misunderstand your language? Were your thoughts not expressed properly?
Illustrating the tenet of unconditional hospitality by focusing on the two groups’ similarities rather than differences. Brilliant. One of your best videos to date
When my mom tells me to clean up my room:CRINGE
When J.P. tells me to clean up my room:OMG,LIFE CHANGING!
😂
That's because when Peterson says it he means take responsibility for your life. When your mom says it she's just annoyed her own house is dirty and messy.
@@treetoon_ So you need Peterson to tell you to how cleaning up your own mess is your responsibility ?
@@spiritualanarchist8162 Bro.. I hate to defend Peterson... But his self help is literally the only thing that actually has some validity. Ironically it's also nothing he came up with... and unfortunately he can't help but insert some politics into it... That said.
Your mother is telling you to clean up your mess because that's something you should do, because it's the right thing to do. This without actually saying it or communicating it in those terms [most often].
J.P. has written a self help book. Meaning the audience is a person that's down, feels unfulfilled and lost. It is presented as a first step towards reaching something the audience wants. Success and regained self respect. Cleaning your room is a step towards your goal, rather than a chore you're just supposed to to because it's what you should do.
What JP sneaks into his self help later is a conservative mindset of what you should be. Kind of like how Andrew Tate and the likes does. They're all different brands of the same thing. JP just sounds like he's smart, and his fans - especially those who feel like they've been helped by his mostly pretty standard self help method - will eat whatever shit he spewes because; it helped them. He sounds smart and insightful. And because he helped them, they can trust him. And trust him they do!
Nothing good JP says is his idea. Beyond the basic self help stuff what he says seem to be stemming from him believing he is intelligent enough to guess what people have written without actually reading anything. Which is why he *never* survives being on stage with people who know even a little bit about the subject he's trying to debate/engage in.
@@bouncepsycho Well yes I get how he has touched something basic by addressing a certain group of young men with insecurity problems. With very basic tips.
however, as a 'former young man ' who now works with young people on managing their debts , I think 80% of young people always have been insecure. That's just part of being a teenager. Hormones racing around, feeling awkward around nice looking girls. wanting acknowledgement, etc.
And I guess it also depends on how one's relation with one's parents is .
However the problem I have with Peterson, is how he uses hierarchy and competition as THE way to succes. Forget rich parents or genetic good looks..It's all up to you.
But If you see life as a competition, this means for every winner there will be losers.
Didn't manage to get one of the top 10% prettiest girls in bed ?. Loser !
Don't make easy money like those influencers ? Loser !
So my point is that all positive pep-talk self help books often work short term. And some will benefit.
But long tern it can create even more disappointment. Young men can become hostile because they feel as if they'r owned something.
They did what Peterson told them to do, but they'r still not on top of the lobster foodchain.
So it's the feminist. Marxist....whatever that are to blame for them not succeeding.
I've been a Marxist for over 20 years, and I've been at many meetings and schoolings. Anything from Trotskyism, Orthodox Marxism, Anarcho-syndicalism, council-communism to so-called "Marxism-Leninism"... Yet I have never met anyone who identified themselves as a "post-modern Neo-Marxist". I keep looking for them, but I cannot find them.
Also I have never heard any of the comrades talk about wanting to destroy western culture. Unless you want to equate "western culture" with capitalism... Though if one thinks that western culture is nothing more than capitalism... Well, that would be kind of sad. Wouldn't it?
Make feudalism great again!
"Yet I have never met anyone who identified themselves as a "post-modern Neo-Marxist". "
It's almost as if that is a term being used to describe them.
Like how, Marxists would not describe themselves as being "no better than National Socialists, but I would.
@@AlexReynard You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?
@@VRSVLVS What an utterly substanceless, useless response. Like, you could copy+paste that to anyone, on any topic. How embarrassingly lazy.
Ya got anything specific to say to the fact that your ideology caused the Holodomor?
@AlexReynard My ideology did not cause the holodomor. Stalinism is anticommunism. The crimes of Stalinism were committed in contradiction with Marxist ideology. Also, the crimes of Stalinism do not diminish the truthfulness of Marxist analysis of capitalist political economy.
Frankly, stating that I am no better than a nazi is deeply insulting and utterly deranged. So FU.
>postmodernist says they reject metanarratives
>I ask if they reject metanarratives or if they created a new metanarrative
>they laugh and say "we deconstruct ideology and create space for subjective truth"
>look inside
>it's just a new metanarrative
Okay, Mr. Chomsky
Yes. :chad_face:
This is really more of a criticism of the typical surface level explanation of postmodernist thought. The category itself is also kind of problematic, and many thinkers placed under it didn't like the label.
what is the metanarrative of post-modernism?
@@williampan29 i think it's the future ngl
I can only recognise how your editing skills and your capacity to present your content more aesthetically has expanded.
Thank you for this video!
The editing is done by his bro and friend
Peterson is proof that drugs are a hell of a drug
Being surrounded by far right sycophants and enablers is a hell of a drug too
What do you think he's taking
@@kevinmurphy5878 he’s taking Dennis Prager’s fat one from behind
@@kevinmurphy5878 benzodiazepines
@@kevinmurphy5878 He had a severe benzodiazepine addiction and went to a specialized russian rehab to get off of them
I really drank the juice when I first started listening to him years back. His concepts were shallower and he was reasonable. I just ignored his Twitter where he would chime in on topics he wasn’t well informed on. Soon though his Twitter feed was his whole output, and all he could do was spout brain poison garbage.
@@Icynova
wasnt his main thing being transphobic
@@Liliputian07no. Before he was audience captured he even frustrated conservatives by saying he would call trans people individually by their chosen pronouns.
@Icynova
incorrect. he lied about canadian bill c-16 and claimed that regular misgendering, which constitutes harrassment, was made into a felony (it already was one)
@@Icynovaaka the absolute bare minimum
@@Liliputian07 yes thats what got him fame
If y’all want a REAL critique of post-modernism, just search Zizek “on postmodernism” his critique is on point. Zizek essentially argues against postmodernisms for its relativism, lack of political engagement, and inability to effectively address structures of power.
Postmodernism isn’t the big scary ideology as Jordan Peterson claims it is
then gabriel rockhill after that, crucial upgrade
I have a question why does political engagement relevant in philosophy?
"Postmodernism isn’t the big scary ideology as Jordan Peterson claims it is"
Except that the people who defend it and follow it behave abhorrently. So...
@@muhammadyaseer9673 Political engagement and philosophy are intertwined ever since the beginning, like the first seminal text of Western philosophy is Plato's Republic, a text concerned with pursuing the answer to the question "What is justice?", which is certainly a question important for both the individual and the society in which all of us partake in.
@muhammadyaseer9673
I can broadly tell you how I think about it, but this is still an oversimplification (and maybe not accurate):
I like to took at it in 4 steps:
-philosophy
-ethics
-ideology
-politics
Each of which is a step more practical than the former.
Philosophy would be about the fundamentals of reality, there are the questions like objective reality, free will and consciousness.
Ethics is about what matters, what we ought to think of as good and bad in which context. It's about some baseline moral ideas. I think it's in the range from "experiencing pain is bad" to "torture is a wrong thing to do."
Ideology is about broader ideas of values and maybe the ideas of rights. We can start putting inherent value things like life, freedoms from certain things, freedoms to certain things. General ideas on where authority should be, what duties and rights people have in society.
Politics then is about how to effectively implement those ideologies.
One reason why some political discussions seem to go completely passed each other can be led back to a difference in belief about free will. Free will-believers (gonna call them deontologists from now on) tend to believe every person is ultimately completely responsible for their own actions, people who don't believe in free will (gonna call them determinists) tend to believe people are much more a result of their circumstances. Even in situations where both parties might agree some action should be considered a crime, deontologists are likely to argue that the law should exist to punish criminals, consequentialists would argue that the law should exist to prevent future crimes from happening.
My definitions are probably not very accurate and my description might be broad, but I hope I got the idea across.
Anti-communism is an ideology.
J P is guilty of what he accuses others of.
Lispy voice: "it's pure ideology!"
@@stephendaley266 did you see his debate with Zizek? It was such a perfect example of the culture war as a whole. Peterson's shadow is in full control.
It's a damn good ideology
Exactly.
I dont think hes an anti-communist
Always killing it with these videos Sisyphus
These videos are pretty unnuanced. Sisyphus seems to write poor, oversimplified analysis with a façade of sufficiency. This video is largely a mishmash of entry-level quotes and definitions that don't convey the actual difference in philosophies happening here. Derrida is spinning in his grave.
I used to take peterson seriously. But then i stopped smoking weed for a while, and it became impossible to believe what he said.
I guess you know better than all the internationally-known scientists who go on his podcast.
@@AlexReynard Jordan get off your alt brother. Hes a climate change denier, hes brought and paid for.
@@AlexReynard Wat? That makes no sense. How does him having people who are [allegedly] experts in their specific fields say anything about what he says?
"He has smart people on his podcast and because of that he is right"
If I manage to get a scientist to have a recorded conversation with me about lobsters, will I be able to shut people up like that too? Sounds like you surely do.
Since you're too deep in and likely loot JP's trash in hopes of getting your hands on something with his stink still on it I'll take this opportunity to tell you that JP's comments about lobsters are based on him not understanding how lobster brains work and react to serotonin as opposed to humans.... and how he tries to draw the connection that because of this we can learn about how hierarchies are good since lobsters.
When he talks about the nazis being driven by "the mark of Caine" in *a fucking lecture* and only wanted to create chaos in the world, because the logical thing wouldn't be to kill them, but to enslave them! Somehow not knowing that the nazis killed those who couldn't work, and enslaved those who could.
When he talks about how women who wear makeup in the workplace share the blame when being sexually assaulted...
Know who you're chilling for. Or maybe you do know, but don't care...
Brainrot
@AlexReynad, you have brainrot
It's just beautiful that postmodern and Marxist are totally unequivocally mutually exclusive. It is a complete oxymoron. Peterson and Marx would love each other as structuralists, thinking all of history and activity is directed at a single purpose, based on a single underlying and overarching universal immutable foundation.
"It's just beautiful that postmodern and Marxist are totally unequivocally mutually exclusive."
Yes. that's why he thinks that people who combine ideas from both idea systems are confused and harmful.
@@AlexReynard That's why, when asked for real-world examples of postmodern neomarxist individuals, he can only vaguely gesture towards people who have been dead for 50 years.
JP is a neo-McCarthyist. He sees secret Marxists everywhere.
And just so you understand, senator McCarthy was an evil SOB.
beautiful video, as always
I feel like this essay too literally engaged with the specific words he says ("postmodernism neomarxist") rather than what he means by them-- the idea that popular postmodernism and critical theory can and has become a new power structure in its own right. This risks forming an ossified nihilistic ideology, where critical theory loses its dynamic, questioning nature and becomes a static framework that rejects alternative perspectives. (I’ve personally taken to calling this the 'orthodox heterodox paradox.') I feel like Peterson is grasping for words that don’t exist within the public sphere to describe how deconstruction, when institutionalized, risks becoming an ideology. In doing so, he critiques critical theory using its own tools of power analysis and deconstruction.
The idea is ultimately Heideggerian; We must not burn down power structures because the power structures are the only shared context we have. Instead we can only interact with them authentically and pursue justice. This is consistent with Peterson’s advocacy for centering individual responsibility and resisting the overreach of ideological systems, emphasizing that justice is best pursued on a case-by-case basis within shared contexts.
Why would he not engage with the words Peterson says? If Peterson is failing to be descriptive is that not on him?
@@FunkMcLovinwillful ignorance is different from misunderstanding. Maybe the author doesn't understand the motif, but I felt it was mildly inauthentic critique. Are you engaging in discourse to further the discourse or to somehow "win"?
@AndrewLeCain I just see a lot of people defending Peterson from an angle of "his critics simply don't understand." What I'm trying to explain is that we do understand we just don't like his ideas. I think you're the one being willfully ignorant, frankly.
@@FunkMcLovin Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of this video but I feel like it was actually just about postmodernism via Derrida and Nietzsche with a few jabs at Peterson rather than a serious engagement with his ideas. I agree that Peterson is overly polemic and incendiary, but I also think he has a serious point below that that was not engaged with in a sense of "unconditional hospitality" as advocated in the video, and I tried to address in my comment without trying to take on the entire baggage of Peterson's politics. If you have something to add there, I'd love to hear it.
@AndrewLeCain You are overestimating the threshold for "seriously engaging with" Peterson's ideas. Again this is the trick that is always used when discussing Peterson, there is always some reason he is beyond reproach that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
****Hey everyone, here is the correct quote and source for Peterson’s stance on free speech @8:37:
"Freedom of speech is not just another principle, it is the mechanism by which we keep our psyches and our societies organized and we have to be unbelievably careful about infringing upon that because we are infringing upon the process by which we keep chaos and order balanced and if chaos and order go out of balance then all hell breaks loose and the situation is not good."
University of Toronto. (2023, November 10). The psychology of innovation: Why it’s hard and why it matters - Jordan Peterson [Video]. RUclips. ruclips.net/video/ZCzKpz7Lm2U/видео.html&ab_channel=UniversityofToronto
The placeholder text was accidentally left in the video and, from my memory, came from an interview that I cannot find. It is nowhere to be found in “12 Rules” While the sentiment is the same in each statement, I understand that it is important to quote and source sincerely. My sincere apologies and thank you to those who have pointed this out :)
Derrida didn’t say, “there is nothing outside of the text”, he said something that can be loosely translated to something like, “there is no outside-text”.
like that makes a difference
@@mentalitydesignvideo I think that there is a difference, even if it's a subtle one.
He’s following in the footsteps of Heidegger with his concept of Destruktion, which is where his de-construction comes from for Derrida. To oversimplify things to a fault, meaning is always fluid and context based for Derrida.
@@mentalitydesignvideoread The Animal that therefore I am for more context
There is a huge différance.
“There is nothing outside the text” implies that all understanding is bounded by text - this is somewhat consistent with what he believed, but of course, “text” refers not just to language or words.
“There is nothing outside outside-text”, implies something more like, there is no universal structure or context that bounds all understanding.
for whatever it's worth, jordan peterson is all for acknowledging that your self-concept isn't fixed and that the stories we tell about the how the world works reflect the drives of human psychology. his objection to postmodernism is that it relishes in picking stories apart, that it doesn't put stories back together again. i know lots of postmodernists claim they think these stories are essential to functionining in the world, but that doesn't change how much of their work focuses on the ways existing stories are flawed, without posing good alternatives. and then, some postmodernists, like baudrillard, will hold that actually it's impossible to put a good story back together. others, like deleuze and guattari, will argue that the chaos is *good* in a lot of ways. the uniting aesthetic fixation of postmodernism *is the chaos itself.* (you can even see this in postmodern paintings; it's why it feels right to use the same name for the philosophy and the artistic movement). and chaos is the thing peterson can't stand. 12 Rules for Life is subtitled "An Antidote to Chaos" for this reason. his entire schtick is about how people learn to face the dragon of chaos and create meaningful models of how the world works anyway. his ethos, though it acknowledges most of the same philosophical truths as postmodernism itself, is dramatically more solution-oriented than postmodernism; he sees building solutions as *the entire project of the human race,* "roughly speaking." he hates postmodernism's ethos (which is different than the stated philosophy of some of its ahderents) for undermining that project.
Well written comment. I think this is why Peterson was so exciting and inspiring for so many. Nobody was putting the stories together for a mainstream, non-academic audience. Unfortunately, I would argue that Peterson's stories struggle to stand up against the scrutiny of post-modernism. Evo-psych justifications for hierarchy (historically used to subordinate minority groups) and Judeo-Christian virtues (pulled apart by Peterson's idol Nietzsche) are fairly weak responses to the issues addressed by postmodernism. And Foucault/Deleuze did make suggestions in terms of moving forward (i,e,schizoanalysis). But they were careful not to replicate the ideologies they were criticizing and avoided ever carving out anything too systematic or declarative. I think a more honest response to post-modernism is to take up Nietzsche's call to carve out new values rather than declare, as Peterson does, that the West really has it figured out. There I think the suggestion for schizoanalysis/rhimozonal thinking is a more honest and creative suggestion, by giving us the tools to come to our own conclusions rather than have them spoon-fed to us by the good doctor himself.
@@Sisyphus55 i think there's a lot to be said for standing on the shoulders of giants, meow. like... i see the value of postmodernism as basically just being a reminder of the various difficulties in trying to create a comprehensive map of how the world works, which is something people ought to glance at every now and then to keep themselves from getting eaten by hubris, but making it the cornerstone of your entire approach to thought sounds like a recipie for an intellectual life characterized by noise and the rejection of legitimate progress. the human kind has had a lot of great ideas, in its run so far. and while there's reasons to think some of those ideas are laced with poison (or simply unfinished as projects), having those ideas "spoonfed" to you will hopefully at least give you a massive head start over e.g. early humans. (really, the accumulation and transmission of knowledge via culture across generations is like, the central reason humanity has become the dominant lifeform on the planet.)
so like... i probably agree that peterson defers a bit too much to established ways of looking at the world. in fact i wish he'd do more work in e.g. analyzing the psychological drives behind racism or patriarchy or whatever, because i think he's smart and curious enough that he could actually do a much better job at comprehensively explaining those phenomena than most leftists, if he were actually motivated to do so. but like, i see the schizoanalytic approach of being extremely eager to throw entire edifices away as basically tossing out the enormous intellectual and cultural progress humans have made over the millennia. surely it's not perfect (and in some ways we might be worse now than we were in hunter-gatherer tribes...) but it's undeniable that we've learned a lot as a species, and that knowledge can help us navigate the world today.
ig, overall, maybe peterson should encourage people to Do Their Own Research a bit more, but like... for anyone who already has that attitude, why not also grab up all the low-hanging cultural and intellectual fruit he (along with all those who came before him) have prepared for us? (and honestly i don't think peterson fosters a lack of curiosity anyway; you can see him trying to puzzle his way through thinigs in real time in some of his lectures, for example.)
Stories come "put together"
@@Sisyphus55
Peterson has contended with Nietzsche's call to carve out new values, but in turn found through people like Jung that people can't just bend themselves in any particular way and that we have a certain nature.
Ultimately, we still need a unifying narrative that works for both the layman and more 'philosophical types'.
It should be unifying at a the level of most fundamental principles such as recognition for the divinity of the individual, and recognising an ideal way of living as being a mode of living that itself is transformative and adaptive.
Above that, people will and should have their differences in the narratives that construe their lives.
The call for a unifying narrative isn't a call for everyone to return to Christianity. You can draw out much of the same across religions and from a secular perspective (which is what Peterson is trying to do). Christianity is a good exemplar of these 'fundamental principles' though.
People are in no ways 'beyond Christianity'. There is so much traditional wisdom that modern people have lost touch with.
The degree to which Christianity has failed is the degree to which the people or institutions representing it have gone against its fundamental principles or misused power, and hasn't been the essence of the religion itself.
@@Sisyphus55 Nietzsche absolutely did not pick apart Jude’s-Christian virtues
I don’t think I know any popular speaker more postmodern in his thinking as Jordan Peterson. Can anyone think of one?
Yes I agree that Peterson takes great ispiration from postmodernists but he rarely admits that (sometimes it does). He uses deconstruction a lot and imho he might be considered as a conservative postmodernist (that's why he likes to attack neo-marxists together with postmodernists, and focus just on Foucault and Deridda, because he dislike the use of postmodernist tools to support anticapitalism)
@ he’ll get found out eventually. Shapiro and Walsh have already been figured out for what they are and he’s next.
Maybe they both have some good points and some bad and, like we all claim say we want, we should attempt to find them rather than tribalizing and attacking each other.
The post modernist idea that all things are deconstructable and ultimately destroyable is similar to Nietzsches ideas of how now Gods dead, all things lose meaning because everything is built on a foundation that can and has been destroyed, there not wrong nothing really matters and everything is in some way a construct that doesn't really exist.
The problems with this Nietzsche, Camus and Frankl have outlined when you've destroyed all meaning what happens next. Humans need to do things and have structures and abstractions to live through and now everythings meaningless we're found lost.
Peterson it seems originally was trying to remedy this by rebuilding structures and meanings and pushing that just because nothing truly made sense at its core that positives could still be created from systems built upon "untrue" ideas, you don't need to believe in god for the commandments to be useful for a society.
This however comes with a host of problems, Nihilism can easily return it's hard to push forward now you know it's all sort of a lie. Also the systems you make up to generate truth are made by humans with bias and can cause huge amounts of harm and death (e.g to people, animals the environment).
Peterson then is stuck if he goes back he returns to meaninglessness, extremely dangerous Nihilism returns and nothing matters. If he keeps going then we forget that the rules were made to help people and add meaning and they can spiral out of control becoming hard arbitrary lines and ultimately causing more harm than good.
Ultimately both are right, everything is a lie built by a messy bias imperfect human but we need structures and meaning to survive. Personally I like Frankl and Tolestoys ideas adjacent to absurdism, always remembering its all untrue and meaningless but still choosing to do good and move forward, free to change the rules and ideas can develop and progress but also given purpose and promted to do good and respect life
I just wanna know what a post modern neo Marxist is
@@Hobokip
queers and people who know what democracy is
A postmodernist that is also a neo-Marxist.
@vege4920
okay. im a metamodernist and a post-marxist. so you know what the differences between all these terms are, right?
I don't! Can you please explain?
@@ivanahr26
me? i certainly will as soon as this dork embarrasses himself trying
I've yet to see Peterson properly define postmodernism in his long rants against it.
Have you looked? He has, many times when confronted on the issue.
@thedappermagician6905
no he hasnt
@@Liliputian07 well...burden of proof is on you. I've seen him explain that it is a term that shouldn't make sense but instead does because of how both philosophies/ideologies are modified in their contemporary use and practice.
@@thedappermagician6905
no, it isnt. it's on you. please define postmodernism in his words. go ahead
@@thedappermagician6905 Why is the burden of proof on them? You first made the claim that Peterson has properly defined it, many times even. Not only does that place a burden of proof on you, it should be very easy for you to provide the proof if your claim is true. Whereas the other person would have to prove a negative, which is nearly impossible.
"Post-modern neo Marxism" you say?
Marx was not a post-modernist!
Post-modernism was not Marxism!
JP is simply mashing scary sounding words together and ranting about nothing.
Just goes to show that JP does not have a clue what is going on in leftist discourse. The Marxists and the post-modernists are always constantly at each other's throats.
Isn't the point that Marxists accidentally follow meta narratives while also rejecting them and thus produce no real change and don't fight the prevailing meta narratives in society
Foucault disagreed with Derrida that there was nothing outside of the text. Probably one of the biggest points of disagreement in postmodernism, which importantly neither of them claimed to practice (most of their influences are from radical modernists anyway. Nietzsche, Bataille, Blanchot, Wittgenstein). Also I always thought Derrida was more anti-truth/science than Foucault but I may be wrong! Foucault always had an empiricist streak to him because his brand of discourse analysis demanded rigorous archival research
Post-modernism seems like, generally speaking, simply a practice of applying critical thinking to a worldview. I don't understand why any scholar would be so against that. Even religious people like Peterson engage in that process through learning and self-examination. Christianity (sometimes) encourages reflection and continued learning.
The problem with the narratives of religions is that sure, while they sort-of-sometimes teach good values, on top of that, they throw so much other mental noise at people that it's hard to separate the good from the bad. Cultural norms, social expectations, group-think. The opinions and beliefs of other church-goers. Thousands of years of fables, stories, historical accounts, and skewed interpretations that necessarily come about through the process of translating thousands of pages of scriptures. It's impossible to separate religions from the people they are practiced by. They were at one point the authors and founders of the religion itself and continue to be the propagators of it throughout history.
"Narrative" implies a story, which implies a main character. Shouldn't each person then construct their own narrative? It's so much easier and practical to teach values, and let people construct the narratives for themselves. Your narrative should be based on your own actual life, not weird, ancient, sometimes-brilliant sometimes-terrifying manuscripts. You don't need an outside source to learn empathy or the value of learning. To put it in other words, if you need a book to tell you how to be a good person, you're probably not a good person.
If I was taught as a child to analyze my own actual experiences, talk through them, and ask questions about them with the help of a mature adult, I think I would've been years ahead of where I am now in life. I would've been taught to build my own narrative instead of force-fed one. The religion I grew up in, while well-meaning and useful in some regards, ultimately held me back with the confusion, angst, and social pressure that it caused. In religion the ultimate answer wasn't to think through anything myself - it was to pray. To ask the sky man to simply make it all better. Which as we all know, makes for a pretty boring narrative.
@logan7882 sure it's fine to critize or at least think about "mainstream" narratives. People need a mental model to understand the world, and this is an imperfect approximation. The part where I disagree is that postmodernism rejects the existence of objective truths. This is rejection of truth as a concept is at least part of what I understand to be postmodernism.
All ideologies have a two sentence elevator pitch, and most sound reasonable. It's when you go deeper they become weird.
"Post-modernism seems like, generally speaking, simply a practice of applying critical thinking to a worldview. I don't understand why any scholar would be so against that."
Because it's useless. Any child can say, "I don't like that."
It takes actual understanding and effort to say, "I don't like that, and here's my proposed solution. Let's test it."
There's a reason why art critics are held in much lower regard than art creators.
Jordan Peterson. The Deepak Chopra of modern fascists.
hahaha that's the best and most accurate comment
Aw, that's cute how you wokies only know one insult.
As soon as someone disagrees with you, "Fascist! Fascist! Fascist!"
It's almost as if you've abandoned your responsibility to be an individual human being, and you just let other people's opinions steer you like a go-kart.
@@AlexReynard lol
Oh skillshare, when will you leave me alone?
Entirely ai written script is crazy. Didn’t even change the gpt cadence. More and more I am finding these video-essay/pop philosophy RUclipsrs obviously just copy pasting ai written slop- in a way I am happy bout it tho- kind of automatizes separating the wheat from the chaff
This person is one of the best read and most knowledgeable people on this platform. Just clearing up the wild misunderstanding.
@milan045 bro has college sophomore philosophy-minor knowledge at best. A decent amount - but there are way better ppl to watch if you’re genuinely into philosophy and stuff.
@@milan045 also I’m not rlly making the claim that he is not well read or smart or whatever the fuck. I’m saying this vid is lazy - and is entirely ai generated, which it is.
@@parxart mhm, like?
@ if you’re seriously interested you should stop watching these pop philosophy RUclipsr types in general. Slavoj Zizek is a great guy to check out- there’s a lot of RUclips content with him in it- he does podcasts and there are a ton of lectures of his online. Unironically Haz Al-din (infrared) has several really great lectures on philosophers, post modernist thinkers, psychoanalysts, etc, (Derrida, Foucault, Karl Popper, even like Plato and Heraclitus, etc) you kind of have to look for these tho as he mainly debates ppl and talks about communism and his politics and stuff. If u want a straight up RUclipsr, Cosmic Skeptic has always been relatively decent and genuine imo. Many ppl talk philosophy on RUclips but most of their vids could be substituted by reading the subjects Wikipedia page. Unfortunately Sisyphus55 is no different. If u like to read and are interested in learning about philosophers you could check out Alexandre Kojève, or Alain Badiou perhaps.
There is a difference in believing somebody said something and believing somebody said something.
The ultimate message of post-modernism is, if anything exists, it is merely what you say it is.
Nobody with a degree in this principle can bulid a bridge that supports the weight of a truck.
'if anything exists, it is merely what you say it is.' which postmodernist did you get this from?
@Celestina0 Foucault, and, to a lesser extent, Derrida.
But like I said, I think it is a theme that runs throughout the movement.
i am the dragon of chaos
...Says the 14 year old, to piss off mommy and daddy.
Since Peterson often seems to refer to Dostojevskij, I’ve always viewed his critique of postmodernism more as a question of “could all this deconstruction make us miserable?”.
Think of the underground man, being essential forced to a stand still because every action would require the believe in some truth, yet he can’t justify that to himself. So deconstruction taken too far could make it hard to settle for any decision at all. A sort of directionless that I believe many of us do experience first hand at times.
I’m neither trying to argue for Peterson nor post-modernists here, this is just something that came to mind.
The primary factor that _comepletely_ shut down Peterson for me (After being exposed to his transphobia but feeling like there _might_ be worthwhile bits to pick from his worldview) was a clip, that _I wish_ I had onhand, about privilege.
It would be an insult, Peterson argued, to _refuse_ your privilege, as to doing so would be akin to wasting a resource. A 'You owe it to those incapable, to utilize your privilege', type of sentiment..
Lobsters, on the other hand; Structure themselves according social hierarchy, devoid of _empathy.._ because they are incapable.
Therefore- *Do we not owe it then,* not only to ourselves, _but to the lobsters by extension,_ to be as _empathetic as possible?_ Because, as humankind.. That is our privilege.
From that point, the foam blocks fell - And if I had the sound bites, I would pay the toll, play them through the mic before asking said question at a live event, and alter the perspectives of 80% of the people in that damn room.
"A heart filled with hate will always find someone to blame rather than look inward for the reason why".
I think Postmodernism is stupid. The problem I have with Jordan Peterson is that he's a Postmodernist without even realizing it.
Probably he knows that, he uses deconstruction a lot, and that's why he likes to accuse neo-marxism together with postmodernism and just focus on Foucault and Deridda. What he doesn't like is the use of postmodernist tools to support anticapitalism (aka critical theories). He doesn't like posmodernists mainly for their political alignement. He thinks that their relativism is just an excuse to create a political weapon. We can consider Peterson as a conservative postmodernist
It always worth noting that Jordan’s claim to fame was misinterpreting Canadian law in an attempt to gain notoriety that was inevitably going to harm trans people, most everything he’s done since then has been done in my opinion with the same degree of bad faith and blunderbuss, not to mention giving a voice to, among other people, Tommy Robinson, formerly of the BNP, the British fascist party.
Criticizes ideologies, yet claims to believe in christian god.
Yes. And?
No, he categorically refuses to say that he does. Because that's not his point.
He also categorically refuses (to my knowledge at least) to say that he doesn't, because that would alienate most of his fanbase.
@@dimitriskokoretsis3195 Or because he believes in a higher being, but doesn't know for certain if it's the Christian god. Only that Christians have gotten closest to understanding its nature.
Hey look a new Sisyphus 55 video!!! Yay!!!
that was an awesome, nuanced take. Great to see in the world
one thing i found really ludicrous and ironic about his talkings is that he often constructs very well-thought and articulate logic on the spot, but the next moment when he starts to criticise literally anything he becomes the manifest of the very logical fallacy he just laid out.
Love you Sisyphus
Love the video, I thought it was interesting that you only implicitly highlight the fact that both Derrida and Peterson are strongly influenced by Nietzsche, only explicitly mentioning the latter's connection. Just personally I always find it fascinating how frequently Peterson constantly seems angered by people he often ignores have remarkably similar philosophical backgrounds to him.
Foucault especially was a hardcore Nietzschean not to mention the very idea of textual deconstruction is more or less predicated on a specific formulation of the will to power as a force of meaning which humans construct through group conflict.
I find the fact that Peterson accuses his opponents of being inflexible and radical the most ironic thing in the world.
The ending is giving "teach the crocodile to eat grass"
God. I'm not on twitter at all but i need to know how peterson reacts to this if he does so publicly at all
Thank you Peterson ! Ive now come to realise I am a postmodernist and I love it.
Why would you be proud of believing the most intellectually-lazy idea possible?
"Hey, if we all agree that there's no objective truth, then we never have to test our hypotheses ever again!"
Alex, go touch some grass!
You are on a desperate reply bender to defend JP's honor.
Forget it, Jake!
@@AlexReynard "No objective truth" is the strawman. You are lost because you trust JP. You are really certain that you are right, because you believe "hard relativism" = post modernism... because that's what JP, who has not read a single word from any post-modern thinker, has told you. You are not being critical what so ever of what JP tells you.
Jordan Petersen can't tell Marxists and post modernists apart, because post modernists critique the things around them. The systems they live in. We live in the thing Petersen likes. He likes gender norms, capitalism, social hierarchies, etc. He does not want things to change so anyone who challenge the way things are, are a threat.
Marxism is a model of how our human world works and analytic tool used to understand and solve societal issues. A Marxist is a person who accept the model and who's opinions/views are based on it. A Marxist is critical of the way things are [capitalism] and wants to change it. It also comes with beliefs about what you need to do for things to change. The way we get our resources/our material conditions [the "base"] decides our social relations and institutions [the "superstructure"]. Only by changing how we get our food etc. [capitalism] can we change our social relations. This is not a post modernist...
Jordan can only see two schools of thought both challenging the status quo, reads nothing about them more than they are saying uncomfortable things about the things he likes and mashes them together into the "post-modern neo-marxist"...
Post modernists analyze and/or critique how things are, so that we may change things to serve our goals better. Are gender norms really "natural", or are they social constructs? If they are social constructs, should we adapt to something that serves individuals better? People who do not fit the traditional gender roles certainly do! They allow for change, which is a threat if you do not want anything to change.
How does this translate to "no objective truth"? It doesn't.
@@AlexReynard Yeah... and youre somehow capable of comprehending objective truth? the whole point is that mainstream narratives subliminally (or directly) enforce oppressive and restrictive paradigms to marginalised groups and assume themselves as the wholesale truth of reality. "its just facts bro" like no. it isn't.
peterson is probably one of the least intelligent public "academics". he genuinely doesnt even know what the words he uses means
What makes you so sure of that?
@HxghPxnda
because postmodernism isnt a position or an ideology. it WAS an artistic and philosophical movement. WAS. it doesnt even fucking exist anymore. everything peterson says is embarrassingly uneducated
That all meat diet and the drug addiction and almost dying of COVID has burnt out his brain.
@@Liliputian07 Sure, and all his followers are just equally dumb as him and you are the only smart one, am I right?
This is a poor argument that is easily refutable. But first...for clarity...what are the "words" in question?
I agree with your exposition of post-modernism. However, I have one question: Why do post-modernists subconsciously act out the meta-narratives they aim to deconstruct? For example, consider biological sex. Even in the most post-modern ecosystems, on average, biological males and females tend to make different choices. The more freedom of choice (what post-modernists might call a compassionate ecosystem) is provided, the greater the differences in personality and choices between males and females. Doesn't this undermine post-modernism and instead support the existence of meta-narratives like biological sex?
I think thats an interesting point meta-narratives seem inescapable, i dont think I can agree with you on the particular that more post modern societies have greater difference bettween biological sexes.
I cant speack for all post modernists but personly Id consider conforming to meta narratives just a part of human phycology. I dont think this invalidates trying to deconstruct them thou. Perhaps from a PM's it might be seen as a bad habit.
Also I think biological sex is a scientific defintion and I dont know if all Post-modetnists would consider it a meta narrative.
(Appolgise for all the spelling errors)
Postmodernist Peterson would be a force to be reckoned with
Extremely based Sisyphus 55 subtly suggests that Peterson has links to postmodernism and shares criticism while opening the door to the idea of its proximity to Derrida's thought.
Peterson could've gone down in history as one of the most talented professors in his field, but he became a partisan hack instead. Hard to take someone like that seriously
@@mawtymawty9010
no academic takes him seriously or ever has
@Liliputian07 I don't like Peterson personally, but that's not true at all. He was a Harvard professor for one thing, and he's had over 100 academic papers published. Obviously he was held in high regard at one point
@@Liliputian07 Yeah. I had arrived to that conclusion but hearing Chomsky and Chris Hedges, really just not even consider him at all confirmed a lot for me.
100 papers, how many peered reviewed and such?@@mawtymawty9010
Yeah, instead he'll go down in history as the most famous professor/author/podcaster in history instead. What a shame.
Seriously, why don't you understand that, if someone is vastly successful beyond your wildest imagination, it doesn't make any sense for them to listen to people like you who think they shouldn't have done the thing that made them successful?
Peterson is excellent 👌
Video goes off the rails at around 9:30 or so.
Peterson has engaged with critique in calling people "postmodern neomarxists". He faced it with Slavoj, and he's done interviews where someone has brought it up saying "haha, postmodernism and marxism are two different things" - and he responded something along the lines of "I know that they contradict themselves".
He's also repeatedly been interviewed and said something to the effect of "there are many narratives I know, there are infinite narratives, but they don't have equal importance" - His book maps of meaning was (partly) about this topic.
And yes it is an irony, because Peterson is often an anti-realist, though it's extremely hard to pin him down as he's often a strict biological realist, or at least veers close to it.
The stats you bring up afterwards are therefore partly irrelevant - "3.3% accepted scientific anti-realism" - and so on, I can't find the paper, but that's only showing me that people don't know what they self-identify as - I'd also have to see the sample population.. Peterson was critiquing the "all narratives have equal moral weight AND also here's my narrative about white heteronormative patriarchy" - which I'm sorry you'd have to have your head in the sand, or just be blatantly biased towards it to say that narrative didn't exist up until about 3 years ago.
You can call it a phantasm if you want, or you can say "the stats don't show this" but Peterson was pointing to a very real academic trend at the time - I suggest you go and look at lexus nexus or something like that if you want the stats on how many people talk about these concepts, which became extremely salient concepts around 2012 and academics, journalists, activists and online discourse became obsessed with all of these concepts.
Peterson and others like him faced numerous cancellation and deplatforming attempts, and ironically become household names due to the observable far left and feminist trends of the mid 2010s - I think if you're investigating this issue it can't go without mentioning.
@@eleccy Postmodernism is not only diferent but contrary to marxism.
The scientific realism is the most important philosophical position. You can find it in Bunge or Popper, for example.
@@juanchymartin7824 Yeah I know, that's why I paraphrased "I know that they contradict themselves".
Agreed. Peterson is a fascist clown, but also there is a real problem in leftist academia which makes it less effective at actually producing systemic change, or even communicating leftist ideas.
For example, there's a great anthropology channel "What Is Politics" with a meta-narrative on the causes of social hierarchy and how to prevent them[1]. It's based on observations of hundreds of cultures and it's not deterministic, it just argues that these causes make hierarchy more likely.
You'd think that leftists would love this, yet it provokes such a strong negative reaction because it seems too meta-narrative-y.
But the alternative is that we continue to do nothing and fail to spread our ideas because we try to communicate without any narrative somehow. This only serves the ruling class whose meta-narratives already run rampant.
[1] If you're interested, start with episode 6 "When communism works".
Loving the video! No criticism on you, but I would recommend turning the gain down on your microphone. There’s some harsh peaks here for example on the word emPowerment 6:56
Much love
Let's just say Peterson don't fully understand what he's going against with lol
I want you to read that sentence out loud, and then ask yourself, "Is it possible that I don't understand him because I'm stupid?"
All you have to do is type in “Jordan Peterson postmodernism” and you will find countless videos where he explains clearly his issue with postmodernism without laying out straw man arguments
Peterson's understanding of postmodernism comes almost entirely from Stephen Hick's "Explaining Postmodernism" which is unfortunately very flawed.
@@Baan616 what would you suggest then?
I have been trying to understand this as well, what have you read on post modernism that resonated with you and why? Perhaps you could give me some recommendations on works by philosophers and cultural commentators if they are valuable in any way? Thanks in advance
@@sangmadewira4726 Zizek's “on postmodernism” is a text on the problems of post modernism that's better suited. It's a cornerstone of sociology (big enough that in a 100 level sociology class the prof had us read it even though he thinks it's more a graduate level text) and is better at defining postmodern flaws.
I'm sure it doesn't come, at all, from having had innumerable postmodernists try to censor his speech and threaten to kill him.
@@atlas944 I really liked Jonas Čeika videos about post modernism. For example critique of Explaining Postmodernism ruclips.net/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/видео.htmlsi=PPDXYlA5_hPRWPXZ).
I was a Jordan Peterson fan until 2021 and now I'm applying to gradate school for philosophy with a writing sample on Marx, Foucault, and Achille Mbembe. Shit's crazy.
For me, science radicalized me. Just plain combination of being a nerd and looking at just how absurd right wing scientific views are. One thing leads to another, social democracy one day, socialism tomorrow, and actual socialist leanings the next day.
It's Bilbo
3:55 I usually ignore mispronounced words, but *assemblage*? My, aren't we fancy.
The worst part about Peterson, is that it’s clearly a grift. He’s 100% smart and involved enough to understand these these things, and form “good faith” arguments but he rarely does relying on obstruction, vagueness, and dishonesty to keep his supporters championing him.
I also think on top of being a grifter that Jordan Peterson is severely mentally ill. I listen to his lectures and I watch him on the screen and I see how dead eyed he looks. Even during the rise of his fame many years ago when he was lying about Bill C 16 you could see him putting on a dramatic display of the “eccentric intellectual“. Everything from the way he sat, looked at the camera, spoke to interviewers or addressed the audience: it was a mix between theater and a man that is just simply not mentally stable.
Could you review Helen Pluckrose's take on postmodernism? Thanks
It's becomes annoying after a while when intellectual centrists say that post modern marxism is not a real thing, and Peterson is fighting windmills. It is definitely a real thing, It has now become so ingrained in the Metanarrative that people take it as a given, as if he is critiquing air.
Finally I video about me 😊
My favorite meta nnarrative is the absence of a meta narrative. To me the most believable absolute truth is the impossibility of a absolute truth.
From the first bits of the video, with this, emerges a facet of postmodernism
That's really proving the idea that some ideas are so stupid, only a high IQ can believe them.
"I am absolutely certain that reality doesn't exist. I sure am smart, because I believe the opposite of what the sheeple believe. I am an underdog renegade."
Great video
jp could never say hawk tuah
The first four words were like reading out my full name
At the Incoherence Olympics.
Derrida himself referred to deconstruction as a radicalization of a certain spirit of Marxism [cfr. Derrida (1976) Where a Teaching Body Begins, English translation 2002, p. 72.
Derrida, Jacques (1993). Spectres of Marx (in French). p. 92.
As a Marxist, I always hated postmodernism because of its blatant liberal opposition to material truth, hilarious to see Peterson assert that that is somehow Marxist
"blatant liberal opposition to material truth": the whole truth... still, postmodernism isn´t THAT bad... but when I hear "Marxist postmodernism", a laugh overcomes me...
He isn't. He's saying that when college students try to follow both postmodernism and Marxism at the same time, their ideas are pure chaotic bullshit.
That's funny, because as a post-modernist, i aways tought that marxism is oversimplistic, almost reducing every epistemological knowledge to the "material truth".
@@lululul454 u mean, being mature enough to reduce every "epistemological knowledge" to the material truth, for the time being at least... Cause every other battle is a luxus-battle. None gives a f*** about "identity", when they are poor and (therefore) oppressed. "identity"-issues only distract, and marxists are not amused constantly getting stabbed in the back by real infants.
@ cool, that’s infinitely preferable to Peterson not understanding either of them
peterson would be a million times better at his job if he stuck to talking about psychology and personal advice, when he gets out of his range he goes off the rails pretty bloody quick
Jordan Peterson, the hoarder that wants to teach you how to clean your room.
9:01 I think a good question might be how should we go about hearing said voices? How should those voices be heard?
"Weakness is not a virtue."
"Go out and make something of yourself."
"Climb to the top of whatever heighrarchy you want to climb on top of."
"Be a light on the world instead of a blight"
Some gems of Petersonism
@Meandbroafter2
these are all inane and shallow and you are revealing yourself to have a freezer-temp IQ
nobody makes a virtue of weakness, except christians. something something Neitzshe something something
going out and making something of yourself with what means or tools when they've been stripped away by neoliberalism?
how is one expected to climb when said hierarchy is built to not be climbed, and indeed, why would you validate an unjust hierarchy by seeking to climb it, and not bring it down?
a single star doesn't light up the night, only when they work together do they make the darkness and eachother, beautiful. only a conman tells you to be another sun.
heres a gem from Adler instead:
"if we under the obligation to make something of our lives and ourselves, then we have the right to all of the things to make that possible that are otherwise out of our control."
nobody makes a virtue of weakness, except xtians.
going out and making something of yourself with what means or tools when they've been stripped away by neolibcap?
how is one expected to climb when said hierarchy is built to not be climbed, and indeed, why would you validate an unjust hierarchy by seeking to climb it, and not bring it down instead?
a single star doesn't light up the night, only when they work together do they make the darkness and eachother, beautiful. only a conman tells you to be another sun.
heres a gem from Adler instead:
"if we under the obligation to make something of our lives and ourselves, then we have the right to all of the things to make that possible that are otherwise out of our control."
*here's a gem from Adler instead as a remedy to that piffle:*
"if we under the obligation to make something of our lives and ourselves, then we have the right to all of the things to make that possible that are otherwise out of our control."
@@Liliputian07 I do not follow Peterson but these certainly aren’t shallow
6:14 ngl, just a lil honest feedback here, I might not have skipped through that ad like a little girl through some tulips if I had seen photographic depictions of the bare naked human anatomy throughout. Hope this was helpful 😸👍
You forgot to mention Peterson is a crank and a grifter who would love to own and operate a “private prison” on behalf of supreme leader Trump…
that private prison is your sexual fantasy, I assume? Because that's all the evidence for it so far, this comment of yours.
@@mentalitydesignvideo Wait... what? When was sexuality mentioned?
@@chris-io9zt you obviously get a thrill of prisons, a little jolt out of the idea of getting imprisoned. Admit it.
You honestly don't have any idea how crazy you sound, do you?
So many words to basically say Jordan Peterson is a very silly man. Love your videos, coming up on finishing my bachelors in Econ and Philosophy. You helped me through it!
it's funny that Peterson has this supposed endless tirade against 'postmodernism' when he's literally the epitome of postmodernism.
Please explain how someone whose entire point is getting people to believe that there is an objective, knowable truth, is a postmodernist.
@@AlexReynard I mean the church in the feudal era presented itself as the all-knower of truth despite falling under subjective idealism. Same with postmodernism and how it's used by the ruling class to state that the world is just chaos and all we can do is liberate/fix ourselves and our own mindset.
@@jyotektosgaimur >I mean the church in the feudal era presented itself as the all-knower of truth despite falling under subjective idealism
That does absolutely nothing to show that Peterson's a postmodernist. There's a difference from a church saying, "We own the truth", and JP saying, "The truth is out there, and we should all go seek it in our own way."
> Same with postmodernism and how it's used by the ruling class to state that the world is just chaos and all we can do is liberate/fix ourselves and our own mindset.
Then that's another substantial difference. That's an incredibly selfish mindset. Fitting, as it goes along with people who believe there is no one truth, only personal truths. So any self-centered airhead can believe that their random squawking is equal in validity to someone who's put real effort into their tested observations. When JP talks about seeking objective truth, it's not just so that you become a better person. That's only step one towards a goal of betting others around you as well. He says the whole point of Christianity is self-sacrifice. Not as literal as execution, but in sacrificing your time or effort to do work that benefits others. There's a huge difference between 'the shared common good' and 'everyone go your own way because no path is more or less valid than any other.'
What's Godel's infinity theorem?? Isn't it incompleteness? Does Peterson call it that by mistake?
There's no infinity theorem, he means to say 'incompleteness'
Ideology, for the most part, does provide a consistent framework for the most part, but anything can be taken too far, and we humans seem to be well versed in that regard. Peterson's critique points out how they can completely miss the nuance and provide an individual with a false sense of moral superiority. Activism and movements in modern age seem to be highly radicalised where people demand rights but refuse to take responsibilities that come with them.
That was an incredibly reasonable take on Peterson. Or rather, how he used to be. I don’t even recognize him anymore as he has been taken in and consumed by his own Ideology.
@@chriswilliams8159
you know nothing about anything, huh
define "capitalism." i dare you. i know for a dead fact that you cannot
@@Liliputian07 What has got you so worked up? Who wants to begin a discussion with someone who immediately begins their response with demands and accusations? Put the phone down and walk around for a while homie. Really disrespectful of you.
@@raiylab
i dont respect you, so
Eh.
The main critique I have of Peterson's tradcon is it invariably ends up back here, with people adrift to find (hopefully) new narratives, i.e.- tradcon doesn't work (at least not in the way it says on the tin).
And what about Peterson's moral superiority? Pretty damn bold to take the pre-history prior to Marxist post-moderism and hold that up as some scale of justice. Again, defaulting to the status quo just leads back here, but with the insistence of not trying hard enough as being the undoing of western civilization. Yeah, I'm not taking responsibility for that.
Al meaning is contingent and shaped by power dynamics outside of books.
Peterson is smarter than his audience and knows how to manipulate their emotional intelligence.
@sonofsocrates9899
okay i agree with this one. except i wouldnt call peterson cultists even "emotionally intelligent"
@@Liliputian07 he is just going mad because of his grandiosity and god complex
@@iloveyoufromthedepthofmyheart
thats a quaint way to phrase it
@@Liliputian07 well, watch more of his videos and the level of rage and arrogance in them
Was the skate footage at ~8:23 from a GX1000 video?
You can know something by it's fruits. What are the fruits of postmodernism?
@@avengingme
post-postmodernism.
that's it.
i believe that's called "the future"
what are the fruits of repackaging preexisting biases and hierarchies as transgressive? in other words, what are the fruits of being a status quo warrior. nothing.
@@avengingme
bonus points:
*its
I don't know what Peterson thinks "postmodernism" actually is. He seems to use the word as a catch-all term for any social or ideological development that upsets him. So I don't know what its "fruits" have been.
I looked through the comments and realised that i do not understand any of this.
I swear we've been doing the "Jordan Peterson doesn't know what postmodernism is" schtick for like 10 years now. Niether JP nor postmodernism are even relevant anymore. Can we please move on?
to where
@@AJX-2
but people still think his thoughts and words are valuable. you can see it in this comment section. he permanently ruined a huge number of - let's face it - fatherless young men, for no reason other than to foster his own ego
"Niether JP nor postmodernism are even relevant anymore."
That's astonishing that you can actually type that. Jordan just wrote another bestseller, and is on yet another international speaking tour. Meanwhile people whose ideas are rooted in postmodernism just suffered one of the most humiliating repudiations in the history of American elections. Bruh.
Postmodernism is to this day the mainstream school of thought in western humanities.
@@crazydavebrasil
so what's post-postmodernism. what's metamodernism. what's trans-postmodernism. what's post-irony. what's maximalism. do you even know about stuckism? do you even care? are you at all curious about the world?
that BP money hitting harder than the benzo's did
Much appreciated that you did not use any clips of him speaking and did his quotes yourself. There is something super triggering in his voice 😅
@@Tienkou111
kermit the frog triggers you?
it's the absolute worst. Up there with Ben Shapiro for worst voices of all time
(I'd say Ben's is worse; at least Peterson has the slightly funny "angry Kermit" thing going on)
@@idontwantahandlethough
erm hypothetically erm
@@idontwantahandlethough absolutely! Ben is the more squeaky speedster version. Petterson is the mumbling wordsalad version.
4:11 This is only a fragment of the buddhist view and is where the postmodern understanding of this idea falls short. Ultimately this notion is archetypal of most religious perspectives on self, which is that the notion that singularity and plurality are distinct from one another is merely imagined, or in other words the very idea of 'degrees' of a thing, are a type of inperfection that is observed from the perspective of man. So to say that the self doesn't exist you would be correct, but to say it does exist, you would still be correct. This is baked into religious constructs in both abrahamic and east asian religions, for example in christianity, the trinity, is very emblamatic of this concept.
what font are you using ?? It is very pleasing to the eye
Peterson's critique of postmodernism is quite clearly reductionist at best and plain wrong at worst in relation to the portal figures you mention, but is it not fitting when applied to those who claim to follow it without understanding it themselves? There seems to be plenty of people, after all, who claim to fight the injustices of pervasive discourses while reducing their own identities to simple metrics or a combination of a few in a rigid fixed selfhood accompanied by a rigid set of black and white morals. I am no supporter of Peterson, but it seems to me there's something to the critique even if it is poorly phrased, deliberately or no. Much the same as the bastardization of Nietzsches critique of grand narratives placed the nation in place of God in the fascist movements of the 20s and 30s, the work of the early postmodernists seem to me to have been co-opted by people on the left today, perpetuating the cause of a marxist meta narrative by turning it on it's head - discourse, or superstructure creates the material structure and modes of oppression etc. - in a way that is no less doctrinal and no more open for debate or moral discussion. This is no vindication of Peterson, of course, since he despite his claims fail to express himself with precision and truthfulness, but there is still reason to ponder the gist of the general critique, if we apply it on whom it really concerns.
Peterson also throws aside his realistic worldview when it comes to religion, there he is very open to different interpretations of truth and himself participates in deconstructing the meanings of truth in for example the bible.