*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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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)
"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.
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.
Illustrating the tenet of unconditional hospitality by focusing on the two groups’ similarities rather than differences. Brilliant. One of your best videos to date
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!"
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.
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?
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
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.
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's godel's infinity theorem? quick search only gave incompletness results, but i know godel didn't only do that, so was wondering if i could get more info if it's a different theorem, or if its just a different name for incompletness theorem
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
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
My brother in Christ, this one video has more thought about JP's beliefs than he himself has ever had. It's also worth noting that no Marxist (that is, a historic, dialectic materialist) would come to the table with anything but contempt for his beliefs. Breaking bread with an ideologue pot who makes a career out of calling the kettle idealistic isn't very productive, to say the least.
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.
Being skeptical of meta-narratives isn’t is post modern. This is stuff that Buddhism was talking about two and a half millennia ago. If anything it’s pre-modern thought. I also think daoism skeptical of meta-narratives as well.
@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
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 😸👍
for anyone who wants to see Post-modernism in real time look at Australian federal election, Liberals vs Labor (like republicans vs demos) is switching to greens and labor. post-moderism in real time, next election will show how gen z votes, and then the next 4 years the results will be an actual post-modernism vote
Hope I'm not too late to the party, but it took me a while to formulate what I wanted to say and how I wanted to say it. Jordan Peterson is terrible at communicating with the public on a large scale. While he is very careful with which words he uses, he fails to establish his ground rules efficiently and instead relies on the pre-existing assumptions in the listener's world view. In other words he's not really trying to convince any post-modernists that they are wrong, but rather give a voice to those disillusioned by the current state of the world. While, yes, he uses the Bible often in his argumentation, it is never in blind belief, but rather as an intricate source of stories from millennia ago, teaching us about fundamental truths of the human experience. As in, it is not the fact that Judaeo-Christians have figured it out, it is just that their texts are most familiar and readily available to both him and most of his audience. With that out of the way we can actually discuss why J. Peterson hates post-modernism, and I believe that can be summarised in 2 points that are the basis of his entire worldview. 1. we must strive towards nature and our natural state of being. And 2. we must strive to be functioning members of society for the sake of everyone involved. When you combine those two statements you get, very simplified, that everything we do in life must be done out of the sheer necessity to be productive in a way that is as universal as possible. That, in my understanding, means to be an egoistic individual, who seeks to better their own life first, but always do it through moral ways(aka ways which would be acceptable if everyone did it). And now to finally get to the point I've been trying to lay the ground for - JP does not hate post-modernism as a school of thought, he hates what it does to society. When what you value the most is a person's contribution to society and their growth as a socialised individual who respects and follows the same rules as everybody, an anarchistic philosophy is your nemesis. Post-modernism challenges the notion of a universal truth, which in turn makes you question the basis of our civilisation and society. And to JP, there is nothing more evil. To undermine the work of generations of people trying their best to craft a system which provides for others the largest amount of personal freedom possible, only for them to go ahead and use that freedom to create a world-view, which destroys that society from within is what he sees as the ultimate sin. Basically, removing the idea of a fundamental truth creates so much instability in the mind of the average person, that it makes society dysfunctional and slowly causes decadence. That's at least my view on things, I can't say I'm an expert on either philosophies, but I consider myself a fan of JP's psychological analysis of the human mind and I enjoy listening to his podcasts occasionally, and his advice has helped me become a better person overall. Feel free to add to my analysis.
I think you've missed the chunk of Peterson's thought which aligns with and is to some extent derived from Jonathan Pageau. Regarding unconditional hospitality, Pageau explains this with reference to identity, and how indentity functions. An example is this: if I have a guitar group, I'm happy to invite other guitarists to join in. But, if someone brings a dart board and some darts, I'm somewhat less happy, as if others follow suit, my guitar group is in danger of turning into a darts club over time. You got close to this when you talked about mainting the structures which create the space for hospitality. In a case of unconditional hospitality, what you have is mixture, and you cannot tell ahead of time what will emerge. Pageau says that the image for this situation in scripture is the whore, i.e., a whore is a place of mixture, and you don't from which seed comes her child, or which purpose the child will follow. This is a definition of chaos. Peterson's aversion to characters like Laqan and Derrida seems to be that he doesn't believe that they're guitarists as are characters such as Nietzsche, Kant, and Heidegger. Rather, they want to play darts. I.e., they're doing something different. Peterson has said multiple times that when he tried to read Laqan, he had to put him down as he suspected and was enraged to think that Laqan was playing a game, and was motivated by some destructive spirit which was other to that which seeks, in a self-sacrificial manner, for truth.
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.
"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."
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).
If you listen closely to any of peterson's speaking tours you can hear the ruffling of the russian rubles in his pockets as he patrols the stage like a paranoid gorilla.
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.
I'm not saying what I'm about to say out of love for Peterson, to the contrary I don't align with him on a lot of subjects. I really don't appreciate the direction which this channel is headed lately. In my opinion political positionings and non-constructive criticisms with the intent of proving someone wrong is poison for any kind of idea and theory analysis, most specially in philosophy! It' in direct opposition with your own epilogue. I hope we get the objective idea based content back; because I really liked that era while it lasted.
I’m not sure what I think of Peterson, but this video feels off. It’s not what this channel is usually about, in my opinion. It seems like a weird fixation. The video I’d like to see is one that explains why you want to talk about Peterson so much. Postmodernism is interesting, but why include Peterson? It feels like this video is more about proving Peterson wrong than discussing postmodernism itself. Why should we care so much about what Peterson says? A big reason Peterson rose to fame is because he says something controversial, and people take the bait.
"metanarrative is a comprehensive, all-encompassing worldview or ideology" is like, a rectangle is square. yeah a worldview is a metanarrative but only an example of the class--not necessarily the outer-most class... and ideology? not even close 😂 regardless, I expect to agree with the point trying to be made! 😁
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."
I would like to add that Peterson seems to believe that those who subscribe to Post-modernist thought are more likely to seek censorship of opposing thoughts which I can agree with. Be warned, I'm going to say the c word. See cancel culture. Those aiming to discredit a person's entire being based on one opinion or statement they dislike are more often than not people of the Post-modern camp. And also: I see that Petersons philosophy and that of post-modernists are as opposite as can be. Sure the initiators philosophies don't sound like what Peterson describes but it definitely laid the fundament of the "leftists" we have today. One side seeks for a sort of spine of society. Something that you can always rely on, something to wrap the fibres of society around not only for the big community but also for the internal network of a person. The other side, from what I can tell, says there is no such thing, which I find alarming. Individualism and social fluctuation is great and all but they still need to be based on something no? Otherwise we'd be running rampant in search of a meaning that will never come.
![ROSÉ (로제) - number one girl [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A9oByH9Ci24/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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
When my mom tells me to clean up my room:CRINGE
When J.P. tells me to clean up my room:OMG,LIFE CHANGING!
😂
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.
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
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 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?
Anti-communism is an ideology.
J P is guilty of what he accuses others of.
Lispy voice: "it's pure ideology!"
Thesis: Marxism is when no iPhone
Antithesis: Postmodernism is when iPhone
Synthesis: Postmodern neo-marxism is when android.
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
"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.
I think Postmodernism is stupid. The problem I have with Jordan Peterson is that he's a Postmodernist without even realizing it.
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
Illustrating the tenet of unconditional hospitality by focusing on the two groups’ similarities rather than differences. Brilliant. One of your best videos to date
I can only recognise how your editing skills and your capacity to present your content more aesthetically has expanded.
Thank you for this video!
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.
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.
beautiful video, as always
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.
Always killing it with these videos Sisyphus
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
There is a difference in believing somebody said something and believing somebody said something.
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 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
Hey look a new Sisyphus 55 video!!! Yay!!!
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
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.
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's godel's infinity theorem? quick search only gave incompletness results, but i know godel didn't only do that, so was wondering if i could get more info if it's a different theorem, or if its just a different name for incompletness theorem
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'
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
what font are you using ?? It is very pleasing to the eye
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
that BP money hitting harder than the benzo's did
i am the dragon of chaos
...Says the 14 year old, to piss off mommy and daddy.
Criticizes ideologies, yet claims to believe in christian god.
Yes. And?
My brother in Christ, this one video has more thought about JP's beliefs than he himself has ever had.
It's also worth noting that no Marxist (that is, a historic, dialectic materialist) would come to the table with anything but contempt for his beliefs. Breaking bread with an ideologue pot who makes a career out of calling the kettle idealistic isn't very productive, to say the least.
Great video
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.
Was the skate footage at ~8:23 from a GX1000 video?
Finally I video about me 😊
The ending is giving "teach the crocodile to eat grass"
Jordan Peterson, the hoarder that wants to teach you how to clean your room.
Could you review Helen Pluckrose's take on postmodernism? Thanks
Being skeptical of meta-narratives isn’t is post modern. This is stuff that Buddhism was talking about two and a half millennia ago. If anything it’s pre-modern thought. I also think daoism skeptical of meta-narratives as well.
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?
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 😸👍
9:01 I think a good question might be how should we go about hearing said voices? How should those voices be heard?
for anyone who wants to see Post-modernism in real time look at Australian federal election,
Liberals vs Labor (like republicans vs demos)
is switching to greens and labor. post-moderism in real time, next election will show how gen z votes, and then the next 4 years the results will be an actual post-modernism vote
thank you for this video. the rest too. but also this one.
Hope I'm not too late to the party, but it took me a while to formulate what I wanted to say and how I wanted to say it.
Jordan Peterson is terrible at communicating with the public on a large scale. While he is very careful with which words he uses, he fails to establish his ground rules efficiently and instead relies on the pre-existing assumptions in the listener's world view. In other words he's not really trying to convince any post-modernists that they are wrong, but rather give a voice to those disillusioned by the current state of the world. While, yes, he uses the Bible often in his argumentation, it is never in blind belief, but rather as an intricate source of stories from millennia ago, teaching us about fundamental truths of the human experience. As in, it is not the fact that Judaeo-Christians have figured it out, it is just that their texts are most familiar and readily available to both him and most of his audience. With that out of the way we can actually discuss why J. Peterson hates post-modernism, and I believe that can be summarised in 2 points that are the basis of his entire worldview. 1. we must strive towards nature and our natural state of being. And 2. we must strive to be functioning members of society for the sake of everyone involved. When you combine those two statements you get, very simplified, that everything we do in life must be done out of the sheer necessity to be productive in a way that is as universal as possible. That, in my understanding, means to be an egoistic individual, who seeks to better their own life first, but always do it through moral ways(aka ways which would be acceptable if everyone did it).
And now to finally get to the point I've been trying to lay the ground for - JP does not hate post-modernism as a school of thought, he hates what it does to society. When what you value the most is a person's contribution to society and their growth as a socialised individual who respects and follows the same rules as everybody, an anarchistic philosophy is your nemesis. Post-modernism challenges the notion of a universal truth, which in turn makes you question the basis of our civilisation and society. And to JP, there is nothing more evil. To undermine the work of generations of people trying their best to craft a system which provides for others the largest amount of personal freedom possible, only for them to go ahead and use that freedom to create a world-view, which destroys that society from within is what he sees as the ultimate sin. Basically, removing the idea of a fundamental truth creates so much instability in the mind of the average person, that it makes society dysfunctional and slowly causes decadence.
That's at least my view on things, I can't say I'm an expert on either philosophies, but I consider myself a fan of JP's psychological analysis of the human mind and I enjoy listening to his podcasts occasionally, and his advice has helped me become a better person overall. Feel free to add to my analysis.
This is what a postmodern-neomarxist will say
And not even ONCE did this video adress, WHY Peterson calls postmodernists neomarxists!
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?"
Jordan Peterson vs Jordan Peterson
I think you've missed the chunk of Peterson's thought which aligns with and is to some extent derived from Jonathan Pageau. Regarding unconditional hospitality, Pageau explains this with reference to identity, and how indentity functions. An example is this: if I have a guitar group, I'm happy to invite other guitarists to join in. But, if someone brings a dart board and some darts, I'm somewhat less happy, as if others follow suit, my guitar group is in danger of turning into a darts club over time. You got close to this when you talked about mainting the structures which create the space for hospitality. In a case of unconditional hospitality, what you have is mixture, and you cannot tell ahead of time what will emerge. Pageau says that the image for this situation in scripture is the whore, i.e., a whore is a place of mixture, and you don't from which seed comes her child, or which purpose the child will follow. This is a definition of chaos. Peterson's aversion to characters like Laqan and Derrida seems to be that he doesn't believe that they're guitarists as are characters such as Nietzsche, Kant, and Heidegger. Rather, they want to play darts. I.e., they're doing something different. Peterson has said multiple times that when he tried to read Laqan, he had to put him down as he suspected and was enraged to think that Laqan was playing a game, and was motivated by some destructive spirit which was other to that which seeks, in a self-sacrificial manner, for truth.
seeing the pedro sw hillbomb in a sisyphus video is crazy
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.
Didn't you already post that video years ago?
Good job
Ayeee lets gooo
"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
Ah, the paradox of relying on others to believe in your own words as the truth to convince them that truth doesn't exist
Postmodern theorists suggest
*speaks in ancient aliens*
That ad is way too long for such a short video
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).
If you listen closely to any of peterson's speaking tours you can hear the ruffling of the russian rubles in his pockets as he patrols the stage like a paranoid gorilla.
2 mins ago is crazyyy
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.
Postmodernist Peterson would be a force to be reckoned with
I fucking read that in JPs voice
Amazed by the video, disgusted by the comments
The will to power radicalized me
I'm not saying what I'm about to say out of love for Peterson, to the contrary I don't align with him on a lot of subjects.
I really don't appreciate the direction which this channel is headed lately. In my opinion political positionings and non-constructive criticisms with the intent of proving someone wrong is poison for any kind of idea and theory analysis, most specially in philosophy! It' in direct opposition with your own epilogue.
I hope we get the objective idea based content back; because I really liked that era while it lasted.
that was an awesome, nuanced take. Great to see in the world
I wonder if they had access to data from corpos callosectomies when they formulated their idea of the fragmented self.
Love you Sisyphus
I’m not sure what I think of Peterson, but this video feels off. It’s not what this channel is usually about, in my opinion. It seems like a weird fixation. The video I’d like to see is one that explains why you want to talk about Peterson so much. Postmodernism is interesting, but why include Peterson? It feels like this video is more about proving Peterson wrong than discussing postmodernism itself. Why should we care so much about what Peterson says? A big reason Peterson rose to fame is because he says something controversial, and people take the bait.
"metanarrative is a comprehensive, all-encompassing worldview or ideology"
is like, a rectangle is square. yeah a worldview is a metanarrative but only an example of the class--not necessarily the outer-most class... and ideology? not even close 😂
regardless, I expect to agree with the point trying to be made! 😁
[Picture of Carnap captioned what you said is not merely false, but literally meaningless].jpeg
jp could never say hawk tuah
ok but i still love the stupid way that he talks
i want to keep looking at him like a little funny bug in a cup
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."
what is godel infinity theorem
Want to cite someone not off their meds.
It's Bilbo
Superb
Audio swells like crazy.
My shell fowl cult
I would like to add that Peterson seems to believe that those who subscribe to Post-modernist thought are more likely to seek censorship of opposing thoughts which I can agree with. Be warned, I'm going to say the c word.
See cancel culture. Those aiming to discredit a person's entire being based on one opinion or statement they dislike are more often than not people of the Post-modern camp.
And also:
I see that Petersons philosophy and that of post-modernists are as opposite as can be.
Sure the initiators philosophies don't sound like what Peterson describes but it definitely laid the fundament of the "leftists" we have today.
One side seeks for a sort of spine of society. Something that you can always rely on, something to wrap the fibres of society around not only for the big community but also for the internal network of a person.
The other side, from what I can tell, says there is no such thing, which I find alarming.
Individualism and social fluctuation is great and all but they still need to be based on something no?
Otherwise we'd be running rampant in search of a meaning that will never come.
Classy way to call Peterson an idiot.
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