postmodernism

Thanks m8, I'd like to hear more of Peterson on Adler and Lacan.

>Adler
I never got into Adler, but I hear he's kind of a commie which makes absolutely no sense if you remember his brand of psychology is called "individual psychology"

He's not factually wrong, but he didn't reveal anything we were unaware of or anything that couldn't be learned from a quick google search. What's so mind blowing here again?

Postmodernism was untouched by his critique. He hasn't accurately described what postmodernists were reacting against and is using misleading equivocation by using terms as we understand them now compared to how the postmodernists understood them in the context of 60s modernism. Enlightenment ideas, capitalist ideas, etc aren't eternal and have meaning depending on the time and place they are used.

>rebel media
>gay fayza
lol

In your opinion then, what is an accurate description of what postmodernists reacted to and claimed? What you're describing doesn't seem useful today, whereas Jordan's explanation provides others who don't know anything to understand the bad ideas of postmodernists.

bless this man

Slowly but surely I'm starting to find Peterson annoying.

Jordan's explanation isn't useful today except in misleading people.

The sky is clearly orange and that's what I think.

What were you hoping to demonstrate?

The rare fact that he's a man who can continue on to say coherent sentences. No matter whether he's left or right. Tbh I don't know where he stands on the spectrum.

>Rebel Media
>boo hoo we're being oppressed

Look I hate abortion and pomo as much as the next guy but RM is so unprofessional and shit at their jobs it makes me want to just give up and kill myself. Just watching this interviewer dude holding the microphone way too low so JP has to hunch over to get sort of close to it.

SORT

YOURSELF

nope

>Rebel Media

Instead of saying anything of substance you dismissed the premise entirely! LOL!

>Gender studies psychologist
This is the intellectual of 2017

>Peterson thread

great, I need some peterson reaction pics, care to post some, lads? I lost the one about the beasts lurking in the lake

No he doesn't. For one, he doesn't understand post-modernism at all. The fucker thinks it originated in the 1970s, for one.
Secondly, he thinks it's all about muh weakness. Doesn't he know his beloved nee chee was the first post-modernist, who adored hierarchy when done properly and also adored value systems when done properly.

muh red pill bullshit, confirmed furthermore when a fucking Sargon of Akkad video about him came up in the recommendations.

>-lions kill it
>...
Kek

Why is every single gripe about Peterson something like this, where the person bitches that in a 20min interview with an incompetent nu-journalist, Peterson didn't painstakingly and exactly define every single one of the terms he uses, in a situation where given the tiniest hint of epistemic charity the meaning becomes clear as daylight?

>I'm gonna tell you a story, alright?

Oh jesus christ here we go

He was a post-structuralist.

Post modernism is simply used to describe the state of affairs in advanced capitalist society after modernism, which can be roughly understood as the period of time stretching from Descartes to Wittgenstein.

there's nothing that's necessarily wrong with that especially when the premises are so fucking retarded

...

>Lacan and Foucault

a little embarrassing that you think these have anything to do with each other theoretically

>that's the postmodernist stance! there are no overarching truths!
>muh marxism

this guy is a oaf. no historical sense. no understanding of the degree to which french theory reacts against marxism. utterly embarrassing the degree to which he collapses the robust ethical dimensions of derrida's thought under a term that is basically an american invention. "postmodernism" as articulated in only comes up in a positive sense in lyotard, for whom it is not a "movement" in the sense peterson would like, but a paradigm, a social formation, and a set of ideas triggered by the after-war years but especially by 1968. peterson disavows any political or indeed material determination of thought—an idealism that is symptomatic in his naive, manifesto-derived understanding of marxism. "the narrative of oppressor versus oppressed"—give me a break. that is nowhere in the writings of marx from which marxism in the west, but especially in france, would develop. but putting that aside, in the anglophone academic environment peterson grew up in, "postmodernism" is either used in jameson's sense as an aesthetic, again, accompanying the radical social changes following world war 2 (people disagree as to the content of the aesthetic but its usage in an aesthetic context predominates) or as peterson is using it here: as a polemical phrase to be slung at anything you dont care for and dont want to think about.

this man is not a philosopher. he is an absolutely asinine, ignorant, and stupid rhetorician who had the great fortune of being picked up by people stupider than he.

>as articulated in only

as articulated in france*

sorry

>the postmodernists have hijacked that question [as to the variety of possible interpretations] to say that there is no real stability of viewpoint

this is such illiterate horseshit. putting aside my earlier remarks on his bastardized, rhetorically suggestive, and intellectually vacuous use of the term "postmodernism," it is quite clear that this man has not read a lick of the philosophers he alleges to be criticizing. for if he had, he would have at least sampled one of derrida's shortest texts, limited inc, where he succinctly, repeatedly, and lucidly spells out that while context is radically indeterminate, there are a range of contexts upon which a community of interlocutors could forseeably agree, and that before any of the deconstructive machinery begins spinning, those determined/determinate contexts must be staked out. """postmodernism""" in peterson's childish use of the phrase does not at all absolve one of responsibility to the interpreted text—on the contrary, it is ONLY the shifting, slippery nature of context that can be said to secure that responsibility. in a world in which meaning, value, what have you, are relatively stable, it is unbelievably easy to impute any meaning you like on the text, and to lean for support on your transcendental signifier—just look at the early Christian response to pagan/Hellenist philosophers. on the other hand, if you accept the derridean thesis that context is not determined and that the intention behind a sign is not communicated with that sign, then you have to do a lot more legwork to set your own readings in motion—you have to respect the text much more when something greater than it cannot be appealed to.

>the postmodernists also dont take into account the fact that... there is a multiplicity of value structures within a complicated society like ours

just further proof that he has not read a word of the stuff he's critiquing. read marx. read foucault. read derrida. read your own guy, nietzsche, for fucks sake. this is central difficulty french theory is concerned with!

Didn't people conclude that "postmodernism" was a bullshit term nearly two decades ago?

talks out of both sides of his mouth, too: on the one hand suggests "postmodernists" recognize no value structure, while on the other hand suggesting that "if you are a loser in one or two or ten games there's no reason you cant be a winner in others," and this is precisely the reason for all "postmodernist" gestures of critique of socially-determined rationalities, which is that they tend to delimit the value systems and "games" playable. peterson wants to critique neglect of value while neglecting the objectivity of certain values himself. truly moronic.

>he's a trickster figure archetypally speaking

well there you have it folks. peterson believes in spooky "archetypes" that determine our reception by and response to our peers from a transcendent, neo-platonic store house of social Forms. he's deeply spooked, and only really able to believe in these spooks because of the pervasiveness of "postmodernism" of which he complains.

>comedians say what everyone is thinking, but wont say

this guy wants to tell you who is good and bad at thinking, while his level of thinking is literally on par with high school sophomores who just discovered george carlin.

Good post, actually made me think.

Absolutely no insight as usual. I've sat through video after vaunted video of this shit in hopes of finding substantive criticism and I'm consistently disappointed.

The (alt-)right needs to choose smarter darlings.

t. butthurt circle-jerking pseudo-intellectual fags who haven't rescued their father from the underworld yet.

you sound pretty mad, dude and you should really check your sauce since nietzsche wasn't a postmodernist, he was a traditionalist and pragmatist (easily mistaken for postmodernism if you read him superficially) and highly inspired by german idealism. jordan is also right that postmodernism had a revival in the 70s due to the hippy culture movement

>fags
>more than one
smuganimugril.jpg

To the one asspained man spamming this thread as he watches the video: you realize he's talking about postmodernism in a cultural/societal context, not a philosophical one, right?

You've created false categories to justify his position. He said himself that he was referring to postmodernism in an academic context.

>b-but the academics are just absorbing it in a cultural/societal context

Go to school.

Question. How would Peterson respond if you asked him if he has rescued his father from the underworld?

Isn't what he's doing the same thing as what Zizek is doing? With a substitution of the political/Hegelian/Marxist/whatever Event for the archetypal journey of the individual?

It seems sometimes like they're saying the same thing. It's not even necessarily a bad thing, I'm just wondering if they're basically looking at the same thing - the suffering of the individual, the subject supposed to know - from two different perspectives, one socially constructed and one archetypally constructed.

The *further* irony of this - if it is true - is that both sides in this way would be causing the problems of the other. Wouldn't a realized Petersonian being be a person of (in Zizek's mind) pure ideology? And wouldn't Peterson reply that Zizek's political subject is attempting to reconcile themselves to history and mass society when they should be trying to reclaim their father from the underworld, or otherwise look at themselves in this mythic sense instead?

Just a thought.

Hmm. And yet, everything he says makes sense if you put it in that context, whereas your complaints are only valid if you assume the opposite. So maybe, just possibly, he actually means

>the academics are just absorbing it in a cultural/societal context

after all :^)

Post-modernism ultimately rejects value structures and says that they simply don't matter

Go to school. You clearly don't understand academia. You're forever doomed to pandering pop intellectuals like Peterson otherwise.

Peterson once more sets the precedent for zombies to follow.

Here's a question you cuck, do postmodernists espouse relativism and constructionism? Yes or no?

Been to school. Not particularly impressed with Peterson. Not particularly impressed with you either.
There are legitimate counterpoints to the things he says, but you'll never know because you depend on purposeful misunderstanding and pedantic bad faith to address his point.
:^)

I need to know everything this man can teach me. I deeply regret not being able to attend his classes.

everyone on rebel media looks like they were bullies in high school

i'd fuck laura southern tho
i'd cum on her qt face

I agree with a lot of what he says...
But he needs to seriously step back when he talks about PoMo... he's trying to define a movement that prides itself in being undefinable.

not him, but i assume that he is trying to demonstrate that your replies have no substance

>I have no idea what I'm talking about

>you realize he's talking about postmodernism in a cultural/societal context, not a philosophical one, right?

ignoring for the moment the fact that those categories are themselves explicitly called into question by postmodernism, a questioning that cant so easily be handwaived away if one means to critique postmodernism to begin with, unless by critique one means bastardize and ignore, as peterson has done—charitably leaving all that aside (and it does take charity to restrain myself to parentheses on this account), you'll note that all of peterson's references to postmodernism, however he understands it, are couched in philosophical language concerning "values," "interpretations," "meanings," etc—all the objects of philosophical inquiry. but if that weren't enough, you could simply have noted in passing that he explicitly associates the postmodernism with which he takes issue with a certain set of names, among them jacques derrida and jacques lacan, both—though the latter only secondarily—philosophers. so, if we allow, for the moment, your absurd distinction between "culture and society" and "philosophy" (as though philosophy could exist without culture and society? as though their fields do not meaningfully intersect in mutually determinative capacities?) then even on those terms, blockheaded though they are, it remains to be seen to what extent peterson is grappling with postmodernism in the context you would prefer.

There's no question he is playing a role or capitalizing on the spirit of the times. Either way he's is making a name for himself and gaining followers.

i'm also interested as to WHY you are invested in repressing or at the least ignoring the philosophical nature of a philosopher's critique of a certain philosophy or set of philosophers. could it be that you know even less about than philosophy than peterson does? surely not on Veeky Forums.

you're talented at typing long sentences without really saying anything

Is it just me, or are advocates of postmodernism truly obtuse and hard to understand? It's just a bunch of sophistry to me, they can't seem to make a coherent claim that doesn't involve some pseudo historical or cultural bullshit.

try to answer objections before dismissing them, it helps your credibility

Try to make objections before you expect me to dismiss them
>condescending obscurantism

alright, since you're unable to process an english sentence of more than two clauses, i'll spell it out for you, then you can answer at your leisure, or continue to object on stylistic grounds, exposing further your own illiteracy

1. i think the whole split you (or the other poster if you aren't him) are relying on between culture and philosophy is bunk. this is reiterated parenthetically throughout the paragraph.

2. peterson's language in his references to postmodernism are couched in philosophical language: his understanding of it, and his objections to it, are based on notions of value, interpretation, meaning—all objects of philosophical inquiry

3. but the simpler point, which i implicitly lambast you for not noticing (perhaps i here go too far, but, i mean, really), is that his whole narrative explanation of postmodernism based on associating it with derrida and lacan, both philosophers, though lacan is only, as i say, secondarily a philosopher. it also occurs to me now that he mentions marxism, which has been in the history of philosophy construed as a philosophy

this way of doing things is a lot uglier, more cumbersome.

>>condescending obscurantism

>you're talented at typing long sentences without really saying anything

the intellectual life isn't for everyone

this series of shitposting didn't deserve this response

>i think the whole split between culture and philosophy is bunk.

this is sport

Then wouldn't that be how you beat that movement? By obstinately refusing to humour their pretension?

this. How can anyone take this postmodern sophist seriously? he's literally arguing in circles

Why is his book so god damn expensive?

this lmao

this is exactly the problem with him: that he refuses to really engage the thing he's taking issue with. if he did, he'd realize it doesnt really exist as he understands it. he's groping around in the dark for an empty signifier to fill with all his problems and complaints about academia, like scruton and sokal before him.

the objections i raise to peterson and to his defenders are simple. if we can so easily dismiss them as circular, then it ought to be equally simple to explain their flaws.

Academic books usually are.

But you can just download the pdf on his site for free.

>be on the most intelligent board on Veeky Forums
>still not on bibliotik.me

philosophy =/= culture as christianity understand it. there.

Probably because Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about. He keeps saying 'postmodernists' believe all these things but he'd be better off at least saying which of the postmodernists holds what belief instead of thinking they're all connected because they have issues with modernism.

Any actual understanding of postmodernism would have him see that their approach was more 'objective' than that claimed by modernists, i.e. that there is some underlying, transcendental and metaphysical reality beneath everything. The "postmodernists" who allegedly say "there is no such thing as absolute truth" are referencing this exact thought rather than that objectivity doesn't exist, just that if it exists it is unreachable.

Basically he's not right about anything and even if he was given time to elaborate on his thoughts about postmodernism his understanding is so misinformed he wouldn't be able to arrive at a comprehensive criticism of any postmodernists let alone the entire intellectual project.

Culture is symbolic, it's essentially language. Philosophy is the critique of the meaning, content and use of language.

>all the postmodernists are marxists to begin with

Lol

>that there is some underlying, transcendental and metaphysical reality beneath everything
That's transcendentalism or epiphenomenalism. Either way, postmodernism rejects this claim entirely. You seem to have confused pragmatism with postmodernism.

Well he is kind of right. If you deconstruct and destroy all narratives, the only thing you're left with is power-games.

Hence it practically reduces to Marxism, which is also in it's essence a power game.

so. those are still two very separate things

not even relevant, because i've already granted the distinction provisionally for the sake of discussion. the main point is that even assuming a world where that distinction is operable, you can't really say that peterson isn't discussing philosophy. i've twice now mentioned my reasons for believing this. i mention them a third time: he is attacking postmodernism on its relation to certain philosophical topics or objects (value, meaning, interpretation), and he defines it in relation to key philosophers. please explain your complaint with this reasoning.

this picture makes me lol every time

are you on aderall?

My view of postmodernism is the same as Marxism: they both are useful in a critical sense. They point out valid problems with existing ideology. But it's a far cry from that to some positive program to fix these problems. A critical ideology offers no solutions other than "something different".

A practical person, however, needs more than anything to build a positive program. So these things get confused, and people try to build practical, prescriptive programs off of the critical ideologies of Marxism and post-Marxism or critical theory or whatever.

For postmodernism, those are the programs based on relativism and nihilism, social constructivism. Basically SJW. And you can say these people don't fully understand the material they're trying to use as a justification, but the vulgar understanding of these ideas are what really matters in the real world, since that's what gets people to act on a mass scale. So it doesn't matter if postmodernism doesn't justify SJWs, and it doesn't matter if "true Marxism" doesn't justify totalitarianism and gulags.

In a way, this idea even ties back to the postmodern idea of truth as relative and contingent. What matters is not the abstract reasoning and whether it's accurate, but what matter is whether people find it useful.

Postmodernists take a relativist and post-structuralist stand. It all comes from Wittgenstein's first book, of which the Vienna Circle obsessed about and continued to influence French intellectuals way into the 70s. The foundation upon which it's based, philosophically, are piss poor and tasteless. It doesn't matter what philosopher you pull up, their ideas have less value than Alan Watts.

Yeah this.

"This moment of doubling commentary should no doubt have its place in a critical reading. To recognize and respect all its classical exigencies is not easy and requires all the instruments of traditional criticism. Without this recognition and this respect, critical production would risk developing in any direction at all and authorize itself to say almost anything."

Obviously Derrida means that there is no meaning to anything and we must supplement this nihilism with Marxism and overcome the oppressors.

It has its uses, like 'Renaissance' and 'Romanticism'.

>cultural/societal context, not a philosophical one

So since postmodernists are all Marxist (his words) he's not talking about philosophical Marxism, he's talking about cultural Marxism.

All you need to know about this hack.

>value, meaning, interpretation
>I've only ever read these words in Wittgenstein!
kys monomath

Maybe you're not used to reading long sentences. I can make sense of these posts.

>Nietzsche was a pragmatist
Wrong. Also, pragmatists are actually post-modernists.