He claims to be smart but dismisses Jordan Peterson without even watching his lectures on the postmodernists or reading...

>soulless money grubbing con-man
"mum look at me! I posted it again!"

>Jordan Peterson doesn't know Post-Modernism because I read a pomo novel that one time
"mum look at me! I posted it again!"

top zoz

2 bit professor takes a highly visible stance on a controversial piece of legislation and then becomes a meme and surprise self help guru for NEETs

that is literally what he is

His arguments about postmodernism aren't any less informed that Chomsky's, yet the latter gets a pass because of his leftist political activism. Also, like Chomsky and his work on linguistics superseding his political shit, Peterson's political activism shouldn't discount some very interesting work on the psychological bases of myth.

None of that is to the detriment of Peterson. Veeky Forums hates his fans and they take that hatred out on Peterson himself

I don't dismiss Peterson, I dismiss his obnoxious fans

Is post modernism just a synonym for relativism? That seems to be how everyone uses it.

Nah he's the new Nietzsche according to reddit

not for relativism, exactly
But I would say that post-modernism and post-structuralism are synonymous.
A lot of people on Veeky Forums have a 'tism attack because they fail to realise that pomo philosophy and pomo literature are different things.

It shouldn't, no. If you seriously think Chomsky's career as a linguist hasn't suffered negatively from his political activism and extracurricular ""political philosophy"" then you're mistaken.

Peterson will suffer worse because the left has Academia and the North American right-wing is anti-intellectual and powerless to aid him. Chomsky can look dignified while selling his books because his audience is monied and attends the lectures. Peterson's audience are NEETs.

1. Can you fuck off with the postmodernism meme?
It's a word that is extremely context dependent and I'm getting sick of seeing people make bold statements about the spooky, always-unnamed "postmodernists." If you do not have a strong sense of "modern" (and pre-modern for that matter) and a strong sense of where modernism ends and postmodernism begins, you should not use the word at all!

2. Chomsky does not write about "postmodernism." Chomsky is not a theoretician and he's not much of a philosopher. He does not usually engage the issues Peterson brings up. For the most part he is a foreign policy critic.

Postmodernism has almost no meaning except contextually. I hear it used interchangeably with "self-referential" as much as "post-structuralist"

>Veeky Forums spams an author everyday

Yeah, you can save yourself some time and just assume they're not worth your time

Only 5% of the people that post here have anything of value to say

Peterson isn't as Right as some of his detractors think he is. He's concerned about income inequality and spends half of his lectures talking about the atrocities committed by the far Right.

>and the North American right-wing is anti-intellectual
The right-wing's abandonment of the humanities in favor of a scientific and material conception of the world is part of the reason Peterson is so popular. He fills a gap in the sphere of public intellectuals.

I hate people who watch 5 Youtubes and suddenly think they're equipped to engage a discussion on "postmodernism" or to namedrop Carl Jung in a Veeky Forums thread or at a party.

It's embarrassing and stupid. Read a fucking book and stop watching Joe Rogan.

I guess it's annoying because I've been on my little truth-quest for four years or so, I've probably read about 100 books on various humanities topics (which is not a lot but is a hell of a lot more than most people). Because I'm intellectually honest I recognize that I know very little compared to serious thinkers on these topics or even typical academics. Because I'm intellectually honest I keep going, keep asking questions, and try to keep learning. I get nervous if I mention an author in conversation that I haven't read at least 1 book by.

And you fucking internet memesters watch your Jordan Peterson videos, your Sargon of Akkad videos, your Joe Rogan, hell, your Noam Chomsky (if you're not going to go read him ever!), and suddenly you go around talking about Freud or Cultural Marxism or Capitalism or whatever.

It's so fucking dishonest. This isn't a game. Truth is out there and it takes a lot of work to get to. I take it seriously. Anyone who does is vaguely annoyed by someone like Jordan Peterson, and especially his fans.

I only needed to watch 10 minutes of his talk on youtube to know that postcuckernism was BTFO

if the intended audience have a group conceptualised understanding of what is meant by "postmodernist", then what exactly is the issue?
If you and I were brothers, and I said to you "Is mum washing the car?", we would both have an understanding of who "mum" is, and which "car" is being spoken of. If someone who doesn't know us was to overhear this exchange, they could probably figure out the mum part, but they may fail to visualise what type of car is being spoken of.

Not sure if I'm making sense, but what I'm trying to get at is, clearly the intended/engaged audience have an understanding of what is being spoken of, so it may seem odd to us, but the fact that JBP continues the way he does with his popularity, there must be some coherence to it.

Please explain the difference between:

1. premodern
2. modern
3. postmodern

according to Peterson. Then give me 3 examples of "postmodernists." If you can't do that right now without scratching your head, then that's the problem with you using the word.

I probably agree with him on most politics, but why wouldn't you read something you disagree with? I've learned a lot from reading Marxists, Former Trotskyites and people who I don't agree with ideologically. If you don't read the criticisms of your beliefs you will become intellectually lazy and will just end up an idiot like Ben Shapiro, spouting about commies and nazis and whatnot while somebody runs roughshed on your beliefs.

>according to Peterson
no clue how he defines it seeming:
1) I'm not Peterson
2) I'm not a Peterson fan

From what I've seen of his lectures, and from others I've seen use that term, I gather that perhaps they're not referring to a time period like you're implying. Mostly they seem concerned with cultural relativism and critical theory.
It strikes me as very odd that you're so intent on trying to shoot them down rather than trying to understand them.
I don't follow what he or his followers say, but I don't get upset on a Polynesian workers union image board just because someone thinks a certain way.

Does he still cry when he gets associated with the alt-right?

Yet you seem like the perfect example of how someone can read 100 j-left humanities books and end up not only clueless, but prone to write posts that are nothing more than cringe virtue-signaling rants about the importance of truths you don't even appear close to comprehending.

Phrases like "virtue signaling" are merely attempts to duck frank conversations about ethics, tbqh

Garbage post, you don't even know why you're arguing, get out of this thread

(obviously words which are context dependent can be used in contexts where their context is well understood. That is fucking obvious. Do you think "the internet" is a context wherein we may use the term "postmodernism" without having to explain our particular understanding of the term because everyone will automatically know we are referring to Jordan Peterson's postmodernism?)

Already your mind is searching for a retort because you consider me an adversary and you consider yourself correct.

You're a cuck, kid

"Virtue-signaling" perfectly sums up the pop-ethics of leftism.

The only opinions I've stated so far are:

1. I'm not a fan of Jordan Peterson because he doesn't get people to think, he gets them to stop thinking

2. people should read more

You know nothing about the 100 books. My main area of interest is religion. Is this how you think? "He's not a Jordan Peterson fan. He must be some kind of libtard!"

What is the point of thinking like that? I don't get it.

Jordan Peterson is a spook and doesn't real

>he isn't a cuckold

Veeky Forums: The post
How can you possibly be this upset about someone telling you that perhaps trying to understand others is beneficial in the pursuit of knowledge.
No one here is JBP, why not email him to ask for his understanding of the term.
You're upset that someone else itc has used the word, and now you attack anyone who can't give JBP's definition and internal thoughts.
Once you email him, screencap the response and post it here if you're so interested

People not putting in the work is a human universal. You have to be empathetic and socially competent enough to tell people that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about without coming across as an autistic asshole. Instead of hating these dilettantes, engage them and recommend books for them to read. Peterson himself gets normies reading Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn in ways that their college professors were never able to.

broke: bolshevism
woke: millenarian cult of kids who never had real dads led by jordan peterson

Would you let the Jordan P in your GF's V?

This, good poster in this thread, read more before you talk shit. I used to blame cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School after watching a couple Bill Whittle videos, but after picking up a book by a "Marxist" I changed my mind pretty quick and was emberassed that I'd argued about stuff I didn't understand.

>t. namefag who's never actually seen discussing literature despite his continued presence here.

Congrats, you're a retard for ever buying that shit

>I changed my mind pretty quick and was emberassed that I'd argued about stuff I didn't understand and still don't understand.
Ftfy

If you bring up Nabokov, Shakespeare, or Keats, i'm in the thread. The problem is that most the lit you creeps discuss isn't as interesting as the sociological or philosophical questions you guys bring up

>that kekistani comment
Jesus christ mang. That is some of the cringiest shit I've ever seen. I knew /pol/ got invaded by normies but this is something else.

>you're a retard for reading for the sake of educating yourself
literally the absolute state of Veeky Forums

Maybe it's not that one poster is posting it over and over again, but that multiple posters are posting it because it's just obviously true

When said others are already abusing the term that everyone else agreed upon to be something else

Learn to recognize jewish false flaggers, there's quite a bit these days.

My room smells like cum and gay anal sex, lol

You guys think I am a Marxist now? Not really, but I understand Marxist criticisms of Capitalism better. I disagree with Capitalism on religious grounds, regardless. I'm Catholic

Either way you both sound anti-intellectual and ought to do more reading before posting. Jaques Ellul and James Burnham are good places to start. The Managerial Revolution is a great book for getting a quick overview on Capitalism and "bourgeoisie" ideologies that arose to support it. Amd the current transition from Capitalism to Managerialism and the ideologies that will support it.

>Anyone on my side that looks stupid is a Jewish falseflag!

Jordan Peterson fundamentally misunderstands the meaning of the word "postmodern"

youtube.com/watch?v=ya-kIBby-cM

The problem is that so much falls under the purview of postmodernism that you can't really use the term to describe one particular mode of thinking.

reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/6n6rhg/why_are_jordan_petersons_philosophical_opinions/#dk9agi6
I saw this linked in another board and found it interesting, thoughts?

the universal trait of postmodern falls under critical theory, Jürgen Habermas and his scholars like Rick Roderick are examplex of someone who was a critical theorist and student of the Frankfurt school, but who was not necessarily Marxist (and not Jewish, for you dumb /pol/tards)

the problem with Peterson is that he throws all these critiques out the window, and in doing so fails to address world-shaking circumstances like the omniscient military industrial complex, AI, ocean acidifcation, insect die-off, corporate-government conglomerates, and international finance, and no, doing push ups, going to church, and keeping your room clean is not going to solve these problems

Fuck off, he's trying to educate himself.
And they say Veeky Forums isn't a echo chamber.

Curious, what were your misconceptions and how did they get cleared up?

One is before modern, one is modern, and one is after modern.

>and no, doing push ups, going to church, and keeping your room clean is not going to solve these problems
Peterson's contention, which is an interesting one, is that those planet-defining problems can't be dealt with by a person whose immediate vicinity is in shambles because those people are subject to the sort of ideological possession that their failure and insecurity makes them vulnerable to.

Except I have seen his lectures and he's pants on head retarded.

>premodern
the building up of pre-modern civilization: the development of human life from apes, then early agriculture, ending with the industrial revolution, hunter-gatherer and feudal (agrarian) economy, medieval politics

>modern
period leading up to the peak of the industrial revolution and two World Wars where massive technological infrastructure was established, capitalist manufacturing economy, mercantile politics

>postmodern
after World War II to Now, where the infrastructure built up during and after the world wars, radios, telephones, highways, internet, globalism, robots, now dominates our lives at an ever increasing rate, techno-economy and cyber-globalist politics

>Then give me 3 examples of "postmodernists.
Jurgen Habermas
Rick Roderick
Michel Foucault

and a critical theoretic contention, would be that people aren't very motivated to get their shit together if there isn't a larger plan to fix the bigger issues, especially when the guy telling you to do is is acting like a self-help guru from the 80s

Person who's been in therapy since 4th grade here (I can only hope you don't think im LARPing). I've done the whole cleaning your room thing and have seen other people around me that are also in therapy do it. It's more of a personal coping mechanism than a long term solution, my room might be squeaky clean but i still don't know how to deal with heartbreak. I like that JP is getting people to also learn to cope with things but he really should keep his nose out of political problems as he can only give advise from the mind of a psychologist.

>he really should keep his nose out of political problems as he can only give advise from the mind of a psychologist.

problems like the environment, Artificial Intelligence, pollution, healthcare, and the military industrial complex have gone beyond the 'political', they are now /a matter of life and death/, and remaining silent on them in any extent is foolish

nice meme

Right, the problem here is that he's not giving good advise.

A major problem is that so many of the people protesting this shit are women who are 21 and under. Most of these people haven't had a real job, have only ever been in school, and haven't educated themselves on the particularities of the issue they're concerned with. Seeing a 19 year old white female communist (which is a real thing) talk about the structure of our economic system as if they've been studying it for decades is infuriating. It's that type of presumption that Peterson argues against.

I don't think that he suggests that cleaning your room is going to fix your life. That's more of a meme than am actual prescription.

Just watched the second video. Recommended. Don't listen to people who say Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about vis-a-vis postmodernism, he's spot on ... almost. His diagnoses are correct but what he's leaving out, and for understandable reasons I don't fault him for, is that the social agitation and inverted power dynamics he's describing, moving from Marx to Derrida to the present day, were and are jewish-led, dominated, and systematized ideologies and programs. This is why they feature white men as the collective enemy of the various victim groups, of which jews earn top spot. And the results reflect their fears, desires, and the devious strategies they use to obtain power and then depoliticize or attack the opposing male tribe they feel most threatened by. It's really not that complicated, either. I also have a hard time believing Peterson doesn't know this, especially since he goes out of his way to mention the murderous brutality jewish bolsheviks unleashed on the Russians. Worth a watch for those interested in understanding how postmodernism works.

you are completely correct in that the Jordan Peterson's appeal is that of a father figure to a confused or agitated youth, as an alternative culture against SJWs

my answer to the problem of hysterical SJWer is that more sympathy and understanding of the problems is needed on part of more conservative folks, my girlfriend right now has multiple friends in a poor part of my country who got pregnant and because Catholic fundamentalism they don't have access to contraception, birth control, or abortions: now they may have children that they will not fully love with boyfriends who are abusive, their lives are ruined and taxpayers are going to foot the bill, and the vicious cycle may continue with those children, this is not something that the "bootstraps" and return to Tradition philosophy of Petersonites will solve, and in some ways makes worse

Russia was viciously anti-semitic and traditionalist during the Tsardom, and yet it got overthrown by this "postmodernist conspiracy" you and other Petersonites espouse, what makes you think your system will be just as immune? how do you plan on fighting against globalist-funded, AI-fueled "postmodernism"?

>Don't listen to people who say Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about vis-a-vis postmodernism, he's spot on
Wow, okay not many people bite on that point. Let's see what kind of justification this user has laid out
>the social agitation and inverted power dynamics he's describing, moving from Marx to Derrida to the present day, were and are jewish-led,
aannnnnd disregarded. At least you cucks are easy to spot. Have fun with that pathology of yours.

I don't see how the contraception issue relates to Peterson, or even the right wing at large. Female contraception is extremely cheap, and the Republican party has tried to increase its availability by making it over-the-counter, to the consternation of Democrats, who want it to be prescribed in order to get more women to support universal healthcare. This problem isn't a result of right-wing religious fundamentalism, but of both left and right wing political opportunism.

>Russia was viciously anti-semitic and traditionalist during the Tsardom
Russia during that time had the most progressive policies toward jews of any nation in Europe. But even saying you're right, any skeptical person should ask why people didn't like jews and not immediately assume it was because people were bigoted and evil, but ask what jews did to earn such reactions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kishinev_pogrom
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Russian_Empire

"A hardening of official attitudes under Tsar Alexander III and his ministers, resulted in the May Laws of 1882 which severely restricted the civil rights of Jews within the Russian Empire. The Tsar's minister Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev stated the aim of the government with regard to the Jews was that "One third will die out, one third will leave the country and one third will be completely dissolved in the surrounding population".[13] In the event, the pogroms and the repressive legislation did indeed result in the mass emigration of Jews to western Europe and America. Between 1881 and the outbreak of the First World War, an estimated 2.5 million Jews left Russia - one of the largest group migrations in recorded history."

Jews aside for the moment, seriously how do you plan on fighting AI-fueled globalist-postmodernists when your predecessors couldn't even do it when Traditionalist Christianity was the majority?

That is the most bland, stupid, non-definition I've seen.

You're telling me the term postmodern refers to an era that differs from the rest of history by a matter of degree?

Were we postmodern right after the war but modern in July 1945?

I don't think Peterson (or anybody for that matter) uses the term this way, to refer to a stage of history characterized by a higher degree of technology. It's almost always used to refer to a specific development in idealism, typically synonymous with moral relativism or certain chunks of late 20th century philosophy (especially in France).

I don't understand how you can even have a "postmodern thinker" given your ridiculous definition. Is a postmodern thinker a thinker born after the development of interstate highways, radio etc?

I'm aware Habermas and Foucault did their major work in the postwar period. Is this why you have described them as "postmodernist" ?

I'm glad you notice that an understanding of "postmodern" relies on a thorough understanding of "modern", a word which, despite your jest, is by no means obvious (though it's often used as a synonym for "contemporary").

THIS IS THE HETERODOX DEFINITION OF POSTMODERNISM IN PHILOSOPHY LITERATURE

yes, Habermas is one of the famous students of the Frankfurt School of postmodern critical theory, no he isn't a marxist, no he isn't Jewish, now go read him

this is a playlist from Habermas scholar and analyst of postmodernity Rick Roderick (no he's not Jewish, he's a Texan Christian)

youtube.com/watch?v=kjFiU9nDQD4&list=PLA20B690583E9931C

The Russians gave jews the Pale of Settlement in Ukraine and the jews in return overthrew the state then starved ten million of the native Ukrainians to death in the Holodomor.

I don't know why you think I think Christianity is, was, or ever would be a useful tool to bring about what people like myself want, since it was perhaps the detrimental tool, imposed or not, of all.

*sorry Orthodox definition not Heterodox

>self-help yootooobers with lucrative patreon accounts

>the holodomor was a Jewish plot

>I don't know why you think I think Christianity is, was, or ever would be a useful tool to bring about what people like myself want, since it was perhaps the detrimental tool, imposed or not, of all.

let me guess, your plan against AI-fueled postmodern marxism involves "Meme Magic"

1. From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning."

The phrase "orthodox definition of postmodernism" is in itself shocking. It would be a brilliant irony if you weren't such an idiot.

2. I've come across Habermas only tangentially as a secular advocate of a certain kind of inter-religious dialogue. He apparently suggested that interfaith can only occur in a secular space, free from the bonds of insurmountable disagreements and improvable assertions, and encouraged by the common pursuit of healthy democracy. This is all I know about Habermas, in addition to his association with something called the Frankfurt School, which association can be read from his Wikipedia page or Youtube, and which furthermore has caused him to be oddly associated with a certain right ring conspiracy theory regarding "cultural Marxism" that originated in the works of the rather unhinged Lyndon LaRouche and found a popular audience in the advocacy of Pat Buchanan.

I find it odd you've omitted Foucault from your second post. I do not find it odd that you avoided answering the question "how can a thinker even be classified as postmodern given your definition?". That's because it's a good question and you know it, and you know you have no answer for it.

Most if not all of the elements involved in your fictional noun string totalitarian monster adversary are already in decline. But no, more like Jewish Expulsion Order #360.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/postmodern

"Of, relating to, or having the characteristics of postmodernism, especially as represented in art, architecture, literature, science, or philosophy that reacts against an earlier modernism."

The Two World Wars were the utter failure of Modernism, it's why Picasso drew Guernica, it's why French theorists tried to reframe everything entirely, it's why Germans switched from drawing cottages to Expressionism, developed critical theory, it's why Americans went from realist painting to abstract art

>Jewish Expulsion Order #360

56% bruh

I don't see why any of this post is at all relevant to anything. It seems to be here because you felt the need to respond but didn't have an argument.

If you want me to explain why your Wikipedia definition is stupid and less useful than the "definition" I offered above, I can do that. I don't think you would even care though.

I like your analysis of the emergence of modern art. I agree that the horrors of industrial warfare (which caused civilians to take the majority of casualties for the first time in history) caused artists to abandon more traditional forms in favor of shocking, horrifying outbursts that cried out against the alienation of the wars. (Notice I say industrial and not modern. This is because I'm referring to a technological (materialist) development and not an ideological (idealist) development. I would not hesitate to say Marxism (or Capitalism) is a "modern" ideology, for another example.

Be careful not to confuse words as they are used in art history with words as they are used in philosophy/elsewhere.

modern and post modern have fairly simple definitions in, for example, architecture, but these developments have essentially nothing to do with their uses in a philosophical context. As has been pointed out many times, postmodernism describes a shift in how humans think, conceive, critique, behave etc. It does not refer to a chronological period characterized by material developments. I've never seen it used that way by anyone.

>postmodernism describes a shift in how humans think, conceive, critique, behave etc.
>It does not refer to a chronological period characterized by material developments.

that shift happened over a very clear timeline, it is no mistake that the most famous postmodernists (Derrida, Foucault, Lacan, Habermas) were post-war thinkers

I was kind of afraid you would say something along those lines. Do you really want to get into the relationship between materialism and idealism?

That question forms a major theme of discourse for European philosophy since Descartes. It has antecedents in ancient philosophy as well. Marx for example, assumed that all ideas were outgrowths of material phenomena. This is why he thought modes of production produced distinct episodes in the history of man's thought. Hegel described a dialectic between material and spirit (about which I profess to know nothing). Kant has been called an idealist and I think he may perhaps represent the opposite of Marx in this matter but I'm not sure.

But many philosophers have noticed the interplay between thought and material in history (more broadly/metaphysically, the interplay between object and subject). It is a somewhat timeless debate.

Most would agree that the two have some kind of ability to influence each other.

>As has been pointed out many times, postmodernism describes a shift in how humans think, conceive, critique, behave etc. It does not refer to a chronological period characterized by material developments. I've never seen it used that way by anyone.

almost all historical analyses of postmodern thought or postmodern thinkers frame it within a time period and material developments, Joyce (the textbook "postmodern author") explicitly noted his works were influenced by the development of mass information culture, printed books, newspapers, and his favorite: film

postmodernism didn't crawl out of the void, it has clear chronological and material roots

Also please answer this:

"how can a thinker even be classified as postmodern given your definition?"

Put another way, what do the IDEAS of Foucault, Lacan, Habermas etc. have in common?

Please see
and also note

"
Be careful not to confuse words as they are used in art history with words as they are used in philosophy/elsewhere. "

Also note that Joyce is typically labeled a "modernist" but I don't care to get into that. I'm just pointing out that modernism in literature contexts refers to developments in style, theme, aesthetics, prose-writing etc. and does not necessarily or usually overlap with modernism in the history of ideas.

they are reactions to or meta-analysis of modernism

modernism being the embodied (and according to postmodern analysts, flawed) "instrumental reason" of people /and systems/ developed with the enlightenment and its fallout

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_and_value_rationality

Operations Research is the ultimate Modern science, which is why "Gravity's Rainbow", a very postmodern novel, is satirizes and explores the subject as part of the plot so much

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research#Second_World_War

I'm simply not buying your "people use the art definition and philosophy definition non-interchangably", they do use it and part of many analysts of postmodernity like Derrida, Habermas, McLuhan, and Baudrillard rely heavily on using art and culture to discuss their ideas

Damn dude, chillll with the Wikipedia. This is not how you learn. Not my main point but this is nothing like scholarship. Scholarship has to be an ideal you take seriously if you're ever going to get anywhere learning about topics like these.

What you offer here is at least much closer to a reasonable definition than what you offered above, if shamelessly ripped from Wikipedia for the sake of arguing on the internet.

I happen to have studied Operations Research. It focuses mainly on optimization algorithms like the Simplex method. Its methods are typically algebraic and can be done with pre-calculus mathematics. Its earliest theorists worked for the early Soviet government if I'm not mistaken. It has nothing to do with this conversation whatsoever. Labeling it the "ultimate modern science" is completely absurd. It is not a science, it does not represent an apex or ultimate moment in the history of mathematics. It's not even quite what we would call "modern mathematics."