Jordan Peterson

>marxism
Start with the communist manifesto
Then on the jewish question and critique of the gotha programme
Then the state and revolution by lenin and probably some of gramscis stuff
Then you will have a grasp of marxism
Dont read capital, its ridiculously long, unfinished and only relevant in an abstract sense today

>postmodernism
This word has lost all meaning in the last 10 years

Because he's a good psychologist and a bad philosopher

I'll still listen to his psychological stuff. Who are some good philosophers or channels to listen too?

It's hard to make time to read but I'll try. WTF is post modernism though? Or what was it supposed to mean? What is modernism anyway?

>Don't read capital
neck yourself pseud, Marx's value analysis is the basis of everything marxism stands for, you can't have even a basic grasp of marxism without reading the first volume of capital.

this. fucking this is the correct answer

no, he does not. you're right.

>Who are some good philosophers or channels to listen too?

the fucking library. listen to the classics on audiobook. START W THE GREEKS

also, don't cling to Peterson, he's a fad. Ya he's got cool ideas about symbols but, in all honesty, he's not revolutionary. he's an edgelord

Peterson, R Dawkins, S Harris, S Zizek...these are mostly fads

(you)

>Who are some good philosophers or channels to listen too?

If you like Peterson, check out Camile Paglia, Douglas Murray, both of the Peterson brothers, and Stephen Hicks

youtube.com/watch?v=KbA9ALOrHaA

>bitching about Peterson being a fag

>unironically suggesting fucking Zizek

its so easy to tell when leftypol gets into a thread about Peterson just to shit on him

>both of the Peterson brothers

*Hitchens brothers rather.

user, he was saying Zizek is a fad

>unironically suggesting fucking Zizek
reading comprehension m8.

they're fads bro, can't argue with that

its so easy to tell when /pol/ gets into a thread about Peterson just to suck his dick instantly no matter what

Which Greeks should I start with? Im sorry if I sound stupid but I literally have no clue about this stuff. That's why I was saying the original post that I know I'm barley scratching the surface.

Postmodernism is a philosophical movement which, to be very general, argues that reality can be experienced differently by different people, and that each view of reality should be considered equally valid. However, certain oppressive power structures in society enforce specific versions of reality. For example, they will argue that in America the power structure that exists is based on the reality experienced by straight white men and discards realities experienced by women, black people, trannies, etc. Postmodern analysis often focusses on deconstructing ideas and concepts (this is what people are usually referring to when they say "cultural Marxism"). Deconstruction mostly focusses on extrapolating alternative meanings of what an author writes which run counter to what was the intended meaning. A lot of people disagree with deconstructionism because you can basically extrapolate anything from anything if you try hard enough.

Marxism is a form of sociological analysis but in the context of Peterson he uses Marxism to refer to those who espouse leftist thought originating from Marxist ideas. Not entirely correct but not exactly incorrect either, it makes sense in his context.

Wait, doesn't he already?

SORT

>Million Dollar Extreme was not good, not good at all.

go to bed brett gelman

He conflates the actual Marxists with the social justice crowd (sometimes calling the latter "neomarxists"). Marxist analysis views history and society largely through the modes of production and class division under the assumption/conclusion that history has been a series of class struggles in which the bourgeois exploits the proletariat, arguing that the proletariat must unite and overthrow capitalism, fascism/collaboration, or traditionalism depending on the setting. The neomarxists flip the dialect from bourgeois vs proletariat to oppressor vs oppressed and argue that identities such as race, ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual orientation have a larger impact on individual experience than class or wealth do. In the end they are anti-marxist because they want minorities to unite against majorities (dividing the proletariat) instead of the proletariat uniting against the bourgeois (a multi-racial revolution). I would also add that neomarxists are constructionists/neocreationists who believe humans are separate from other organisms in that they are not affected by evolution, only by their surroundings and culture. This is a major reason why psychologists are so persecuted in academia, they rely heavily on evolution which is a concept that neomarxists do not believe in.

holy fucking shit, this post was painful to read

Do better then bitch nigga

and this is an example of being objectively wrong, everyone

>Also check out Sargon of Akkad

The state of people. Why not check out Thunderf00t while you're at it? Maybe Sam Harris for his in comprehensible philosophy too.

I thought pol doesn't like him because he doesn't call out the jews.

Homer, then move onto Herodotus.

Well I would start at actually reading some po-mo philosophers before saying they are some kind of subjectivists. Postmodernism does not mean relativism, it means the end of grand-narratives, deconstruction is not destruction of a concept or work, it is a re-interpretation as so new meanings can be derived that were not intended or by the author, in doing so what was it is leaving a trace that was not there in the original texts thus generating tension between what was signified and the signifier of the text. It is not a "counter-meaning" in any sense, because that would be a reply or counter-position. Also you cannot extrapolate anything from everything, that is something shitty lit departments do, but it is not a "thing" in real philosophy, because deconstruction has to do with ethics, semiotics and metaphysics

>I really don't know what the mean honestly.
Neither does Jordan Peterson. The dude just spouts stuff that appears smart but is essentially is "these people are bad and wrong because I don't like them". His arguments aren't logical. He's intentionally really vague to mask that his arguments are just unrelated statements It's "intellectual" validation for people who don't like SJW's

>the state of Veeky Forums right now
Bahahaha.

Obvious bait

I think MDE is funny and had potential, but was ruined by the grandstanding autism of Sam Hyde

they liked him at first for shitting over SJW culture, then they projected their own stormfaggotry onto him like they do with everyone, then they found videos of him shitting on Hitler and fascism as well and also videos where he basically calls out manchildren so now they hate him. Theres also the contrarian factor in that now that hes pretty well known, he suddenly is a hack fraud

MDE was fucking hilarious you niggerfaggot

his name is petey pete
he's the king of the rhumba beat

This. Anytime someone talks about terms like "postmodernism" and "Marxism" by relating them to one another and implying they're the same thing, or have similar goals (like Peterson does), you know they don't know what they're talking about. The two movements are basically opposed to each other (postmodernism is against meta-narratives, Marxism IS a metanarrative), and they don't get along very well. In the 1970s when this debate was actually relevant, the two camps hated each other and had tons of debate; people now, like Peterson, just use both terms as interchangeable words for "things I don't like" and don't understand either.

The really funny thing about that usage of the words is that it's exactly the kind of thing people like Peterson say they're opposed to. Words are supposed to have objective meanings by their standards, but there they go, redefining words to make whatever point they want to.

But he differenciate them, user. You haven't proven him wrong here.

ignore him he's a retard

CLEAN YOUR FUCKING ROOM
he reminds me of my mum

Give some examples of illogical arguments by him.

and this is an example of being a shill,everyone.

Postmodernism is nothing more than a rejection of Modernism.

He's just repacking boomerism for millenials.

Post modernist is essentially being after or "post" the things we consider to be of our era. To be post modern is to be beyond this era. However, it's toxic and throws away all tradition. Look at SJW culture.

>gender is a social construct
>all races are exactly the same thing
>no countries or borders
>no religion
>no God

Really kind of just does away with everything that makes humans distinguishable. However, to do away with our individualities and our separations would also do away with our art and our culture, which is why Jordan Peterson is very much against it.

This Peterson is trying to save muh neo-liberal boomer values in an age where they have clearly failed

Why the hell do people like this guy? Everything I've ever heard from him was either basic as shit or just him misunderstanding relatively simple ideas.

I like the mythological explanations he gives.
Also he offers interesting insight in SJW(or whatever you want to call them) mentality along with other totalitarian peoples.
He speak up against the sjw agenda too.

>There are certain terms like "post-modernism" and I really don't know what the mean honestly.
ok.
during the middle ages people lived under horrible oppression. Autocracy, theocracy, and tradition were the way people organized their lives, and for 1000 years everything sucked. if you were a peasant and you asked a king, "why are you the king and why am i a peasant?" he would say, "because thats the way tis always been, becasue god said so, and because i have armies that can kill and torture you o death."

Then the enlightenment happened. people began to use reason and science and individualism to organize their lives. from those things the entire modern world sprouted. democracy, science, technology, industry, freedom, capitalism, and peace and prosperity.

but the enlightenment had enemies, from the very begining. The counter enlightenment philosophers wanted to preserve monarchies and theocracies. They began attacking the foundation of the entire enlightenment project, reason. Over 200 years the counter enlightenment, centered in germany, became more irrationalist, and more relativist untill it eventually evolved into the nazis.

after WWII, communism which was originally an enlightenment ideology, began to fail under the standards of enlightenment thought. It became indefensible using reason and empiricism. But some communists were incapable of just switching sides because of how much that hated liberal democracy. So, just like the counter enlightenment philosophers, they began attacking the entire enlightenment project.

They discovered over 200 years worth of the most powerful arguments against the enlightenment in far right wing german philosophy. So they simply adapted those arguments to attack the enlightenment from the far left.

1/2?

postmodernists dont think that language is connected to reality. a normal person uses language to communicate knowledge about reality to other people. but postmodernists dont really believe in knowledge, and they dont really believe in reality. so the normal prupose of language, to communicate knowledge, does not apply to them.

a postmodernist is utterly unconcerned with whether or not what they say is true. They only care if what they say is effective. They do not speak to disocver truth, they speak to excercise political power. Most often this means dominating the racial, sexual, class, and political enemies. Because almost all of them are far left, that means their enemies are the liberals, the right, men, whites, christians, the wealthy, and western civilization in general.

2/2

"SJWs" are the lowest hanging fruit of our times. Speaking out against them is hardly heroic or particularly smart. I haven't read his mythological explanations so I really can't comment there. My main problem with psychologists is that they tend to pull stuff out of their ass and assert it as proper science without proper empirical evidence. When you base anything on Freud (Coked up Madman) Jung (Pretty much Mystic/Guru) and try to call it "Science" of any kind you've pretty much lost me forever.

Bumping
Enjoying this thread a lot.
Pic unrelated

3/2
so what does this all actually mean?
goto /r/askphilosophy and ask a question that is critical of islam or mexico or feminism or whatever. none of the continental philosophers will engage with your question. they will not argue with you. they will immediately go through your post history and find something objectionable and call you a racist or sexist or bigot or whatever. they do that because all they want to do is shut you up, they want to dominate you, and to wield power over you. they do not want to discover or distribute knowledge.

they only want power.

>muh horrible Christian Middle Ages and enlightenment
This narrative has been debunked now. Check /r/askhistorians

>This narrative has been debunked
k, then get off your computer and go live as a peasant.
>no! i like living in comfortable houses with electirciy and plumbing and democracy and peace.
well that takes a giant shit on your argument then doesnt it?

>Post-modernism is SJWism
>I know this because I learned it from eminent philosopher Jordan Peterson who clearly knows what he's talking about and isn't just making shekels by being a pseudo intellectual who panders to the /pol/flakes

>>Post-modernism is SJWism
>>I know this because I learned it from eminent philosopher Jordan Peterson who clearly knows what he's talking about and isn't just making shekels by being a pseudo intellectual who panders to the /pol/flakes

so this post is a perfect example of a postmodernist. he doesnt even attempt to correct what he thinks is incorrect knowledge, because he doesnt care. he just attacks the poster, creates a meme, or shitposts.

If Peterson is to be considered a philosopher, he is clearly a continental

>because he doesnt care. he just attacks the poster, creates a meme, or shitposts
Wew lad.
Discourse has always been like since before Pomo.

its so easy to tell when /pol/ gets into a thread about reading comprehension just to shit on it

>Start with the Greeks
Meme

Peterson has actually been pretty upfront on the failures of capitalism to prepare the work force and by extension the economy for an automated age. The problem is he offers no discernible solutions even as hypotheticals.

Not him but is this supposed to be your excuse? Or just showing that now you can argue but before you could only shitpost?

Pretty sure some guy got fired from google from speaking out against the SJW.

Today a newfag realizes that in an anonymous imageboard, every reply in a reply chain cannot be assumed to be from the same two people. Congrats newfag and lurk more

>Then the enlightenment happened. people began to use reason and science and individualism to organize their lives. from those things the entire modern world sprouted. democracy, science, technology, industry, freedom, capitalism, and peace and prosperity.
I'm pretty sure the whole project quickly devolved into jacobin terror and the Vendee genocide before that, but nevermind, I guess that was just a small detour that had nothing to do with the enlightment values.

There are clear similarities between the two though. Both of them use the opressor-opressed power dynamics as a dumbed down tool to explain every single phenomena in society. They just switched classes to race, gender and sexual orientation.

But he knows and even says all of that, so in the end if the message is the same and only the tools are different, that's not much of a difference.

holy fucking shit, this post was painful to read

Holy shit. Someone on the chans actually described a relatively deep topic like "post modernism" succinctly.

I'd argue that what they're really responding to is a kind of "charlatanism" that has plagued social psychology, English studies, sociology, and political philosophy in the 20th century. The French model of making intellectuals into public figures, and the Anglophone model of making academic tenure based on publication impact, has lead to works that are judged based on how "interesting"(yet false) they are rather than truth or even pragmatic value. I don't know how else to put it but the best way to get good grades in a college literature class is to use psychoanalysis/Marx/derrida to say what you know to be bullshit. The goal of the CATO institute and other rightwing think tanks has been to develop a similar incubator for right wing charlatans. You can usually tell when you're dealing with charlatans because they cannot follow the principle of rhetorical charity. It's a really nasty disease as fighting it makes you infected with it.

>enlightement
>peace
My sides

i am not suprised that a fucking humanities major has no concept of the MASSIVE decline of violence that occured due to the enlightenment

>I'm pretty sure the whole project quickly devolved into jacobin terror and the Vendee genocide
unsuprisingly, continentals cant correctly employ the enlightenment, and fuck it up. and anyway, who cares if the useless aristocracy gets killed off.

>people actually taking the bait

if you're not alt-right your'e not paying attention.

>WW1
>WW2
>Holodomor
>US Civil war
>French revolution
>Napoleonic wars
Nice "decline" faggot

>humanities major
Stop projecting

"Clearly failed"? How? The West is in a better situation currently than any large society that has ever existed.

...

Sam hyde's entire shtick is just stating his political views and hiding behind a layer of irony.
MDE is only funny if you agree with him.

You can become less stupid by avoiding the bullshit that Jordan Peterson has to say. If you lack the motivation to look up basic terms like postmodernism or Marxism, you're gonna remain ignorant forever, you retard.

Literally what is the harm in questioning grand narratives? if you can't stand up to critique then maybe you're just fucking wrong.
How did this become the boogeyman it is today?

>Speaking out against them is hardly heroic
It actually is.
Although i agree it's pretty old hat and uninteresting doing it on the internet these days.

>>WW1
>>WW2
>>Holodomor
>>US Civil war
>>French revolution
>>Napoleonic wars
>Nice "decline" faggot
all of those wars were extremely tame compared to the wars of the past. you know nothing about history. go home.