Is it not the funniest thing of all time this average iq show business intellectual has gotten 'postmodernism' in the...

No you clown

The irony is he plays more fast and loose with the idea of truth than the real postmodernism. The truth is whatever works bucko, religion is useful therefore it's true, save your dad!

You just don’t know it?

Don't project your stupidity, Intersectional deconstructionism is the most accurate label
Post Modernism is a broad artistic/literary/philosophical category
Post-Structurialism is more accurate but defines the French philsophers in response to structuralism
Neo-marxism is already a thing and relies on interpretation of orthodox marxism, obviously
Cultural Marxism is Gramsci Hegenomy based on class
If you misuse any if these terms, like Peterson, you lack a fundamental understanding of 20th century thought and deserve to be embarassed then ignored.

>Veeky Forums poster calls someone who lectured at harvard average iq
oh my sides

anyway, his definition of postmodernism is right on, only tards disagree

>anyway, his definition of postmodernism is right on, only tards disagree

just another hack for 16 year old boys like harris and dawkins
he doesn't even buy his shit, its manufactured for maximum pseud audience

go ahead and supply the true meaning of the word then

I get your point, I but I always sense in the way he talks that he's not saying, "Because it's useful, that's why it's true," but rather trying to convey the idea that, "It exists because it is useful."

iq is a shit meme

Idiot, this stuff is intuitive
What Peterson is doing is like calling Marxism Modernism

Are you too dense to pick up on sarcasm?

He often uses the both words to describe the same people, but never in the same sense. In all of these threads bitching about Peterson, I've never come across a single working definition or sense of the word more accurate then his.

He could speak clearly, he's deliberate obscurantist about it.

Didn't David Foster Wallace get the word "postmodernism" to the mainstream? Everyone was using it in like 1998.

I don't get that impression at all. He puts a lot of value in things that have survived through hundreds of generations because, if they were not valuable and useful and practical, it's a fair assertion that they would not continue to exist.

That's because it's a broad label, like Modernism, that's how it functions, but becomes even more loose because it's defined by breaking convention. Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about, then brings a bunch of newfaggots who know even less, then assume thats normal. The ultimate irony of Peterson is his entry level understanding of Nietzsche, who exerted a massive influence on Focault's theory of power in superstructures and Derrida's conception of truth. The latter comes from the same place as Petersons own notion of truths. It's frankly an embarassing level of misunderstanding for an otherwise intelligent academic

>normies squawk about postmodernism with having no idea what the fuck they're talking about
Postmodernism has always been like that.

>That's because it's a broad label, like Modernism, that's how it functions
Great, then stop puling about his use of the word.
> is his entry level understanding of Nietzsche, who exerted a massive influence on Focault's theory of power in superstructures and Derrida's conception of truth. T
Nietzsche influenced everyone from Derrida to Jack London to HL Mencken. His reading Nietzsche isn't any sound accurate than theirs.

That's a fair point, but he refuses to use the proper language. Just say useful instead of true.

Listen to the first podcast he did with Harris, pure sophistry and deliberately so.

>Nietzsche influenced everyone from Derrida to Jack London to HL Mencken
Entirely different you fucking moron, you have no idea about French Nietzscheism and it is getting annoying to have to deal with Peterson newfags who are completely ignorant about 20th century philosophy but still feel they have the right to vaguely weigh in. Imagine someone doing that whatever it is you actually know about. Fuck off

>Imagine someone doing that whatever it is you actually know about. Fuck off
Nothing you said goes beyond the obvious. Mencken and London also had interpretations of Nietzsche's theories respecting truth. Does that mean they can't criticize each other?

I don't believe Peterson actually engages with Derrida's work, otherwise link me an essay or article Peterson has written actually adressing the theories of any of the French PostStructuralists, Peterson's vague and innacurate condemnation through video gets about 100 times as many viewers as the scholars who actual write about them

This is what Peterson says about Derrida in his latest book:

According to Derrida, hierarchical structures emerged only to include (the beneficiaries of that structure) and to exclude (everyone else, who were therefore oppressed). Even that claim wasn’t sufficiently radical. Derrida claimed that divisiveness and oppression were built right into language—built into the very categories we use to pragmatically simplify and negotiate the world. There are “women” only because men gain by excluding them. There are “males and females” only because members of that more heterogeneous group benefit by excluding the tiny minority of people whose biological sexuality is amorphous. Science only benefits the scientists. Politics only benefits the politicians. In Derrida’s view, hierarchies exist because they gain from oppressing those who are omitted. It is this ill-gotten gain that allows them to flourish.

> Reducing Derrida to a SJW

honestly, that's flattery for someone like him

He's conflating Derrida's transvaluation of Binary into contemporary intersectionality, which is similar. I'll actually respond this at length when I get off work, might make a post about it. Think if someone used Nietzsche's famous example of deconstruction of the good and evil binary, then blamed him for idiots missapropiating it

Piss poor writing like this is probably why peterson neglects to read derrida and his fans

Right back at ya buddy, we're on a anime imageboard

there’s literal fashion bloggers and rapper who lecture at harvard

...

What does that have to do with anonymous imageboards

IQ doesn't equal right ideas, good writing, or even interesting thought. It's essentially just mathematical power in thinking.
All you have to do is listen to some of the 200-IQ people who advocate dumb shit: pure autism which detracts from the core of an argument, advocating nuclear power, gambling to settle other planets while this one rots, JUST SEND THE GARBAGE INTO SPACE BRO!
These people tend to run away with rationalisation rather than take a moment to contemplate the situation. And these are the people pushing out the great mind problems BUT WOULD YA HIT DA SWITCH N KILL ONE PERSON INSTEAD OF 5 BABIES?
Basically retards with a status allowing them to manage evil.
AI IS A DEMON WHICH THREATENS HUMANITY.
GUESS WE SHOULD PUT AI CHIPS IN EVERY BRAIN THEN!

There's an article out there pointing out both how wrong this is, and (even more damning in my eyes) that he doesn't actually cite any Derrida texts for this- he cites a single, critical, secondary source. It's called something like 'Postmodernism did not take place'.

>damning in my eyes
lol

>mfw Peterson has to go on Oprah, I mean Joe Rogan, and publicly admit that he doesn't understand Derrida's works

Damn you in my eyes

*dabs*

that’s where he exaggerates derrida. he never claims who should tear apart hierarchies, he just wanted to say we should listen to the weaker part of every binary. you can as easily exaggerate him as a taoist.

I wish people would keep their wokness to themselves

derrida literally wanted foreigners to vote, we all know what "listen" means lad

>Make a bunch of 201 level tier courses free on the internet to get people interested in learning
>This triggers the Veeky Forumsfag

Interesting

He was a "foreigner". His main works were written while Algeria was at war with France, you can't forget that.

point is that the man's actual desires for society probably weren't far from what peterson ascribes to him. Only exception would be the extremist zhe/zher pronoun people. The rest, he would probably have agreed with, or criticize for going too softly

The 60s were a different time desu that is the first thing you learn about French neo-marxist progeny

i’m not denying he was a rovent leftist, just not the delirious caricature some make him.

Jesus you're the epitome of a hipster.

>I won't listen to this artist because their fans are so annoying

I bet you're some boring twat who intellectually masturbates all day.

>advocating nuclear power
>space exploration
>bad things
I think you may be the actual idiot, lad

>probably
>would probably

Seems that Peterson is talking about things that Derrida never said.

true, why would someone with marxist leanings favor marxism today. Peterson btfo pedantic Veeky Forums halfwit

>hierarchical structures emerged only to include (the beneficiaries of that structure) and to exclude (everyone else, who were therefore oppressed)
I'm sure this is a misinterpretation of Derrida, but it also seems kind of incoherent. How could hierarchies only include 'beneficiaries', and exclude 'everyone else'? Surely if a hierarchy oppresses people, it has to include them (at the bottom), not exclude them.

nope! pomos weren’t enablers of forced acceptance. they weren’t “we must call things this and that” types, they didn’t believe in a sort of social fiat via changing words, they just understood how meta narratives and the mediatic power of tv, radio, books etc could shape people. which is the same of what flymon of peach activist/anti sjw/gamer gaters/alt righters state, in a sense that the right wingers now recognize how medias lie and people are eager to believe it.

>pomos weren’t
the statement alone shows a complete lack of understanding

Peterson is more reknowned for talking about PM in a more political sense whereas DFW spoke more of it's providence in general, modern attitudes, how it manifested itself in culture etc.

>bad sarcasm

You should talk to people, you'll see a lot of ex lefties bashing on identity politics.

Christ a mod just make Peterson a sticky by now? Every fucking day more Peterson threads clog up this board when it's better off for Veeky Forums or a singular thread to contain everything

everything leftist brought to its extreme consequences ends up in destroying equally everyone

>marxism as something homogeneous

>is it not the funniest thing of all time
no, blazing saddles was probably funnier

show me please

Where are you seeing his fans? I haven't seen any. Stop watching the comments on his YouTube or stop going to reddit. Also stop being a whiny bitch.

implying a world exists outside the internet

Post-modernism is the purposeful subversion of the values and ideas that were dominant in western civilization up until the 50/60s. Are you faggots seriously going to deny this?

BUT THAT'S JUST A THEORY

it’s the understanding of that subversion due to death of god and defragmentation of authority (due to technology and capitalism)

>due to technology and capitalism
Also do the actions of the ruling elite.
The elite have agency, faggot.
And it's more than just an explanation, the post-modern have logically pushed this breakdown even further, for various reasons, some of them do it because they just hate the west, others want to further destabilise the system, and so on.

great bait

Post-modern left**

Who said it was? You people have nothing but desperate nitpicking

lmao you guys living entirely in your Veeky Forums-redditsphere bubble. i haven't met a single person outside of an English literature class who talks about postmodernism and I've never heard anyone talk about Jordan Peterson IRL. i'm even from his country. stop taking the social media posts of radicals and larpers to be a good measure of the masses. it's only giving you brain damage.

i’m not saying there wasn’t resentment on their parts but if you think the words of philosophers actually change the curse of history you’re being solipsistic. the shithole of a wolrd we have now is because of uncontrolled technological advancement and mass alphabetizion which makes people even more guillable than when they were just listening to the church. but if you really think people become trans because they read the cyborg manifesto than ok... it’s up to you

Math is a philosophy

You keep nitpicking, you desperate twat. Post-modern leftists are the cancer of the world, just as JP says.

thank you for the ontological reduction, we’re clearly talking about the verbose pomos. i’m sure you’re already knowledgeable at how good lacan and deleuze were at maths.

Why is people missing the point? He's a psychiatris, he's trying to make people live a happier life, not solve western philosophy

yeah sure it’s not the marketing and the cap which just want to make us happy and customized

>implying I'm wrong
The people in power are in the same mileu as these philosophers. Same schools, same dinner parties, same newspapers, etc. Additionally many of our rulers were exposed to these ideas as students in the 60s, 70s, and now they have the levers of power.

exactly, they’re all ruling class. the ruling class isn’t an homogeneous blob, it’s made by billions of different interests in contrast opposition square and so on but they all agree on something fundamental which is... the very contour of the wolrd...

You should stop posting, you didn't disprove me.

tried making a peterson general a few days ago and it got 404'd

Yeah, they both admitted that it bogged down the conversation. Their second conversation was really good though.

disprove what? you think i’m defending post modernism when i’m just trying to say they hadn’t the symbolic power you and Peterson ascribe to them.

But they did, though.

tell one thing you think they ruined beyond the general “western civilization”

hey man I'm just saying

>What's the big deal? Haven't you ever not known what you were talking about?

i dont think postmodernism even applies to today's society, we're at least postpostmodern now

because his preach is often rooted in philosophical critiques which are dilettantesque

Not in any fundamental way

deep...