Will this go down in history as the discussion that definitively buried postmodernism as a literary and philosophical...

Will this go down in history as the discussion that definitively buried postmodernism as a literary and philosophical movement?

youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=6aqGYYBwKbQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No. It won't go down with just one discussion.

Digest it and share your thoughts on the matter clearly with your friends and loved ones.

Maybe one day user, maybe one day.

>Protestant """intellectuals"""

None of them are Protestants

They are in spirit

I felt that Paglia did not uphold her end of the conversation.
She just rambled. I know that's her trademark or whatever but her little tirades felt rehearsed and often time they didn't even address what Peterson had said. Also a lot of them were juvenile. Going on and on about how academics are "stupid" and a flurry of other insults isn't interesting or insightful. If I wanted that I could talk to Cletus down the road. I guess the thrill is supposed to be that it's an ACADEMIC calling other academics stupid. Wow! Hard to think of something more played out.

t. university student who's spent the better part of his life studying arcane details of Foucault's inane works

This. She talks a lot but doesn't say much.

Not that I was expecting much from a woman, I just started skipping the parts where she talked.

t. redditor brainlet

she's a man in a woman's body, as are most high-profile right-wing women, ironically

>Hard to think of something more played out.

Says the guy who still unironically goes with the name "Cletus" as an archetypal representation of those critical of academia. I'm not even American and I can tell how played out and biased you're being right now.

Bad post all round desu.

no

Better start cleaning your bedroom.

it's over for them this time!

Are you serious? She was deadly spot on. Attacking the inconsistencies and character flaws of the "so called leftist". What you seem to fail to understand is that the rudimental error of these hypocrites is based in their vicious flaws in character.

Daily reminder that most of what Peterson does is postmodern.

>tfw JP has just admitted that he has quite literally never read a book written by a "postmodern" philosopher
>tvw JP has just asmitted that all of his knowledge about pomo comes from Hick's book "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault"
>tfw this is why he has literally (LITERALLY) never approached any pomo text, not even in the form of quotations (!!!)

This is RICH.

>what do you think about Postmodernism?
>HERES A STORY ABOUT MY COLLEGE DAYS AND HOW I SAW REAL MARXISTS!

I haven't ever read Paglia, but I've heard that she was supposed to be somewhat smart and unorthodox. This was painful to watch, and I couldn't get past 20 minutes. It really seems that anti PC crusaders always end up wallowing in reactionary nonsense.
It's a funny thing, this recent fascination with Jung among right wingers. Sorry, 'classical liberals'. Never mind Paglia, I guess she's all about being contrarian, but there's this article from Quilette that I find more interesting. And it spectacularly misses the point with Jung. Then again, defenders of Western Civilization™ and Reason™ tend to do that with everything.
Jung was very into things like astrology and I Ching, and in a very literal way. His last book was about flying saucers. For the most part of his career he was hesitant about it, but gradually sort of stopped caring and went more and more about alchemy, gnosticism and synchronicity.
What's funny is that, under scientific pretensions and obtuse prose on one side, and esoteric ideas about spiritual wholeness and 'psychoid dimensions' on the other, he was the ultimate trickster figure. And now these people take him as a their hero of Western Reason and Spirituality in a war against 'postmodernist academic tricksters'. Well, considering the fact they don't actually read anything, the irony is not surprising.
That trickster-like (almost postmodern) reluctance to make final conclusions or take anything literally, to the point of being deliberately obscure and enigmatic, is what is most interesting in Jung. Of course, reactionary simpletons are interested only in most banal things like psychological modeling and vapid New Age spirituality. Archetypes=memes, like, totally dude!
There's a great anecdote that Zizek relates in one of his book, about Freud - always more sophisticated and lucid than Jung - unwittingly seeing through this whole jungian archetypal business (ironically, through synchronicity and wordplay) and the primordial lie than lies in its supposed depths. And in this anecdote, not surprisingly, the lie takes the well known disguise of anti-semitism.
Freud was actually interested in the occult and possibly thought there was something to it, but considered it detestable. On a related note, there are some (usually insignificant and overblown) grains of truth in the arguments of these crusaders against political correctness. But their whole agenda is intellectually and ethically bankrupt and reprehensible. No matter how they dress it, same kind of ugliness is always underneath and it shows quickly.
I don't like many things in identity politics and PC, but reasonable people understand that certain forms of PC 'hypocrisy' are not only unavoidable, but sometimes indeed necessary (as it shows these days), parts of a civilized society. This semi-literate mixture of vulgar essentialism and social darwinism is nothing but a thinly veiled fascism, but I'm afraid it is very seductive for uneducated and gullible.

Except in this very interview he talks about some of Foucault's works that he's read, and he's done so elsewhere too. Try again, bucko, but next time prepare a little better.

>she's a man in a woman's body
lol

>Foucault
>postmodernism
He probably made this correlation because it was written on the only book about postmodernism he has ever read. For you guys, I guess you think Foucault is pomo because he used to operate in the 20th century as a continental philosopher. That said, if anything, Foucault is at times even excessively empirical, he always thought in a strictly logical sense and genuinely believed in the existence of objective truths. He was a reactionary stuck in the late 18th century, when compared to those guys so hated by Peterson (although he will only mention Derrida, very rarely Marcuse).

This become even more ridicolous coming from a man who identifies himself as (also) a Nietzscheian and a Jungian. Compared to them Foucault was a dogmatist and a metaphysician.

No True Scotsman. Is it necessary to read every book by every postmodern philosopher in order to criticise it? Why don't you address the actual points Peterson and Paglia make instead?

With regards to the ridiculousness of jungian thought i agree with you on the failings to consider Jung's mumbo-jumbo to be, from his perspective, in earnest.

But that's about what you get right. The "thinly-veiled fascism" you talk about is a weak argument. And how you fail to see what Paglia rants about in the beginning as near enlightened, tells me you have little experience with the real world. (or at least real thoughts). The leftist are careerist, cowardly hiding behind institutions and doesn't have concern for truth. Only personal utility. This destroys any attempts to move things forwards since theoretical knowledge and personal excellence are one and the same thing for the left-leaning person.

except Foucault, in his own time, wrote a ton about structuralism, and when post-structuralism was rising, about post-structuralism. later on, the postmodernists used his gibberish-based essays and speeches as means of promoting their movement (and bear in mind, they ended up perfectly fitting the pomo style)

>stumble upon Peterson 6 months ago
>initial impressions - articulate, depressed, intelligent, deeply sincere, actively striving for an answer, vaguely heroic
>can't quite figure it out
>keep thinking about his ongoing battle with the direction society is headed
>listen to his critics, can't find anyone who pinpoints exactly what is going on
>finally realize the reason he seems vaguely heroic is not because he's the champion of an underheard voice, and not because he is battling a pervading destructive ideology, but rather because what he is up against is the nature of reality itself, and that the post-modernists were right about everything, that there is no meaning, no truth, no discourse, no communication, and everything is a power game

I've listening to everything he has to say. He has spent the majority of his life thinking about how to tackle this problem and he has made the best possible case for the technical flaws in his opponent and it's still not sufficient. How the fuck do I deal with this feel? Are we simply doomed to tragedy? How can Peterson face this?

Oh snap thanks for alerting me to this meeting OP.

Lmao niggas ain't realizing postmodernism fizzled out in 1990

>>>/rickandmorty/

Thanks for letting us know, xir.

>paglia
>right-wing
w e w

He's talked directly about Deridda and Foucalt before. You're not going to get far by claiming he isn't well read.

why she pretending thats north america is relevant to the histort of philosophy?

>Nietzsche
>not just plagiarized Emerson
Lol

I didn't say she was right-wing.

It's been the primary driver of real philosophy in the postwar era.

>real

>what is pragmatism

why is she shouting at him?

Sorry, I should have said "legitimate".

>Is it necessary to read every book by every postmodern philosopher in order to criticise it?
What about reading at least some of them? JP has admitted that his entire knowledge on the movement is based on a single book, and since he has not read its sources he can't even be sure that what he has read was actually true. It's just a little step above formulating an argument over a wiki page you have misread.

>Why don't you address the actual points Peterson and Paglia make instead?
I haven't mentioned Paglia. I have just pointed out, after one year of people complaining about the vagueness of JP's criticism on pomo, that he based his entire critique on a single book of which he has not even explored the sources.
This is a a fact. Why me mentioning it bothered you so much?

>wrote a ton about structuralism, and when post-structuralism was rising, about post-structuralism
You're not mentioninf the fact that he was not writing in support of these philosophical tendencies. Marcuse wrote about capitalism, this does not make him a capitalist.

>later on, the postmodernists used his gibberish-based essays and speeches as means of promoting their movement (and bear in mind, they ended up perfectly fitting the pomo style)
Ah yeah? Have we seen an insurgence of postmodernist delving into historical records to actually prove their points, in a completely empirical and logical way? Foucault was a Nietzscheian, just like Petersom, he wasn't part of the movemenrs you are ascribing him too. What plebs like you always do is thinking that him pointing out the existence of power structures implies that he does not see them favorably, too bad that he saw them as necessary, in the same way Peterson does, the difference here being that Peterson analyzes them psychologically, while Foucault analyzes them sociologically: just like JP he is jaded enough to know that society necessarily needs guidance, and that arbitrary needs often override principles (of which Foucault is infinitely skeptic, but still willing to employ them in our society for their guiding properties) in societal management.
He is a much more and at the same time less radical thinker than you might think.

Mentioning Derrida (by attaching to him vague criticism which, as we now know, were not founded in anything substantial) does not equal having read him. Is this really how you think?

Did you write this, or did you just find this on reddit?

I wrote this on reddit and copypasted it here, since I was basically responding to the same OP.

In which reddit thread?

Can I get a quick rundown on postmodernist?
Btw this how you stop postmodernism
youtube.com/watch?v=6aqGYYBwKbQ

you stop postmodernism by being even more postmodern?

>You're not mentioninf the fact that he was not writing in support of these philosophical tendencies
it's really hard to tell from his tone alone. and, even if he was not writing in support, plenty of pomos used his contributions for their own gain, don't you think?

He likely read somebody who wrote about them.

you can try to dodge and say that REAL postmodernism is something other than what camille is talking about, and i'd agree. camille and jordan are shitting on shitty middlebrow people using the powerful tools of postmodernism to their own shitty ends; a sort of pseudo-postmodernism. it's the same thing that happens when traditionalists critique modernism; it's always against pseudo-individualism, not real individualism. despite that, you can't blame paglia for just calling it what the people who do it call it, and she viciously BTFO those people.

maybe try pausing, briefly, between bites so you can more succinctly voice your opinions

How can JP stop postmodernism when he *is* a postmodernist?

>two jews sitting around, talking about academia
no thanks. camille has my eternal respect for devoting a significant amount of attention to the sexiness of my Veeky Forumsfu, however.

why should i care about postmodernism

As a woman, I need to know: Men, is it true that the underlying possibility that a conflict might erupt in physical confrontation keeps conversation civil (with other men)?

By association plenty of people have used Nietzsche's and Spinoza's writings to promote their agenda, but I'm not seeing you railing against him.

Are you asking if all of our social relationships are conditioned by fear of physical confrontation?

If so, no. That's silly, do you think men are ogres? Well, maybe you do. I wouldn't blame you for thinking men are at least two-faced about their relationships with women, but they aren't always on the edge of a fight.

This just makes me feel more postmodern.

In most cases: absolutely not, but there are some situations in which attempting to "talk down" someone from a fight can occur.

You just know when the person you're talking to is combative, you need to play it a little softer when speaking to them in order to prevent a fight.

So TL;DR, yes and no, but mostly no; like 99% of the time no.

Peterson seems to think men are on the verge of fighting one another when they have conflict/conversation and that men don't know how to be in competition with women. I was asking cause I had never seen it that way as a woman.

this

I enjoyed reading this more than I'd like to admit. I would love to see this extended into a full blown novel. I feel like I know this person.

that is a thing, for sure, but the way you asked implies that it is a thing for every single male-to-male conflict, which I wouldn't say is true at all.

and then there's the other end of it, where the possibility of a fight DOESN'T keep it civil, because you don't really give a damn about the other dude and wouldn't really mind fighting him if it came down to it.

>fascists are pointing out things that are wrong
>let's keep doing those things because they're fascists
the only options aren't actually redpill or bluepill

who would that be?

you're a good boy and a like you

dunno

em-dash dickinson

Good goy

This postmodern discussion really postmoderns my postmodernisms.

There is no such thing as postmodern philosophy, except in the heads of American academics. So why should I care about it at all?

because Americans rule the world

Sorry sweetie, but American academia doesn't rule *my* world. Never read any secondary literature written by an American or a Brit, never will.

>there is nothing more dangerous than a weak man

why do you retards get so hung up on whether theyre calling what theyre criticizing by the right name

Missing out from Brits there

I'm not talking about the name, I'm talking about the thing. It doesn't exist.

title 9 isn't a piece of legislation? protest art hasnt been co-opted?

What does that have to do with philosophy? And what you call "coopting" is something that was conceptualized at least as back as 18th century by the first economistes. It has been a technique of government for more than 2 centuries.

you probably think peterson and paglia are middlebrow (because they are), but you already seem to be way out of your depth. you're babbling

jordan peterson: it's impossible to reason with women because it's illegal to knock them out

The people at badphilosophy are the biggest pseuds there are

What do you study?

Agreed. Suspect Peterson is an Anglican (agnostic, mind), though. Which is much better

Swear he's talked about Heidegger before

>talked about
Yeah, a lot of people talk about a lot of philosophers. Most have never read them though because that would require too much effort. I mean, why even bother reading something you dismiss in advance? It's not like your audience has read it either, nobody will notice.

Jung was a huge influence on the real radical right. Sunic, Benoiste are clearly influenced by him, and he wrote an excellent essay on Hitler. In this space, and Traditionalists also, wacko views like that are par the course.

To be honest, I think the Classical Liberal thing is a smokescreen. "We're the real progressives, guys!" For many people its a first step towards a more coherent (and obviously more extreme and taboo) right wing opinion, for others its just a fairly reactionary sentiment about longing for the days when you could be a progressive liberal and not have to deal with other groups.

You're wrong to call in thinly veiled fascism though. Its imperialistic I guess, but the radical right was about overturning what these figures consider "Western Civilisation". Fascism was a fundamentally anti-Modern movement. Peterson etc are not anti-modern,

damn you postmodernist twerps really try hard to insult Jordan Peterson yet you fall flat on your faces every time

Spoken like the kind of bore who no-doubt thinks Momigliano some kind-of sauce.

Good post.
Reddit is better than Veeky Forums.

Then go and stay there. You can even downvote things that trigger you.

That's part of why nobody respects physically weak guys.

Confrontation with women is a lose-lose situation for men. You can't actually escalate with a woman so you just keep playing bullshit mind games forever.

>PC hypocrisy is necessary

No, that's actually how you got so many reactionaries who felt rightfully threatened and joined the other side out of self-preservation. They were worried about where things were going if the hypocrisy remained unchallenged. It amazes me that so many are blind to this, and don't realize they were the ones who caused it.

Preaching to the choir won't cause a paradigm shift.

I think Paglia is a bit of a loon, she addressed things well enough, but then went on these long and mostly unrelated tirades that just seemed like her going on verbal autopilot.

...

Can you actually link imperialism to what you are criticising?
Also, can you explain why fascism was "fundamentally anti-Modern" without the obvious reality that it was less culturally tolerant than Wiemar Germany?

>I could talk to Cletus
That's her point. Your academic of today is not above cletus by any measure.

>those comments
>omg these people are so smart
>wow I am truly honored I can listen to these two MAJESTIC minds talk

This is so fucking Reddit.

One of the dumbest posts I've read in a long time. Saved.

That isn't quite what he meant. He was just making the obvious point that in conversations between men, there are certain lines that won't be crossed in general. Those are generally lines of physical or blatant verbal confrontation and they mark an end of contention. When two women are enemies, the rivalry perpetuates itself through passive aggressive nonsense and innuendo.