Jordan Peterson understands postmodernism perfectly well (as far as that is possible)

You Kant prove that.
>Descartes your opinion

>Enlightenment
>Objective knowledge is possible.

>mfw

You realize all science since Newton is postmodern under your definition with the exception of leaving out politics and talk of power. Many other anons have also noticed this, pointing out that Plato, Descartes, and Kant are all postmodernists under your defintion

No one believes in a mechanical world anymore, if thats what you mean by objective truth.

You are simplifying doubt, certainty, knowledge, and truth, far too much. I agree that a lot of bad philosophy and thinking occurred between roughly the 1920's to now, and I also have a disdain for German Idealism, but you arent making sense.

Like Jordan Peterson said, you need to be precise with your language.

by this criteria literally descartes is a postmodernist lol. back to your pram sweetie

MY DADDY IS NOT WRONG, RIGHT? MY DADDY IS STILL STRONG, RIGHT?

DERRIDA LITERALLY WROTE ABOUT AND DEFENDED JUSTICE AS "THE UNDENIABLE"

>I'm not going to write up a comprehensive history of philosophy starting from Hegel and Kant, or delve into the intricacies of individual contemporary postmodern thinkers like Derrida, Foucault, et al.,

because you haven't fucking read them

you literally wrote a post attempting to defend peterson's interpretation of works that you haven't even read. how fucking stupid can you be.

this is what peterson does to people: make them feel confident enough to argue shit they have absolutely fucking no idea about whatsoever. you've never read lyotard, you've never read baudrillard, you've never read kant, you've never read hegel, you've never read derrida, you've never read foucault, you've never read agamben, you've never read benjamin, you've never read gadamer, deleuze, you've never read anything you dumb piece of shit. get the fuck off of the internet and open a book you dumb shit. you really don't think any of those fucking people have thought about the enlightenment?

lyotard: has a book on kant
derrida: has a book on kant
benjamin: has a fucking book on kant
gadamer: has a fucking book on the enlightenment
deleuze: has a fucking book on kant
foucault: WROTE ON on kant

you literally cited sokal you fucking hack

Not OP. Do you know which book speaks about how Fashionable Nonsense is actually postmodern? I found it once on the internet, but can't remember what it's called.

peterson got demolished by this dude and you all ignore it

wot? link, please

Ooh I'd be interested in this too

Postmodernism is so bunk. Do something new already

Book is called "After Poststructuralism: Reading, Stories and Theory"

Post postmodernism

>lyotard

lmao

>postmodern doctrine
your postmodernism definitions are all fucked. start off ok with skepticism but then go full retard. if you take out the political biases you've embedded into the positions (and weird shit out of thin air like "emotions of oppressed are more valid" - how does that fit with the rest of this shit at all) then there's nothing particularly exceptionable about them. also postmodernism is, to put it simply, skeptical of "progress" which is a narratological view of history.

>postmodernism is, to put it simply, skeptical of "progress" which is a narratological view of history

this is a sweeping generalization and also incorrect. sartre for example rejects progress because he rejects the moral absolutism that would underpin the very concept of progress. not to mention there are plenty of 'postmodern' authors that very ardently defend the notion of progress like jean-luc nancy

That's one thing, but you (and the brainwashed reactionaries) tend to ignore the fact that we can only operate on absolutes.
For example, in your description you cleverly put 'power' and 'oppression' as absolute. This is, in fact, what political goons do. They don't have two philosophical cells in their bodies. Of course, this also means that they worship their image of satan. Be it 'white man', 'jew', 'representative of the patriarchy' - they are the only people responsible for any events. Now of course, the truth is that both the 'white man' and 'the jew' are in fact, responsible for their actions and play a part in the wild mechanisms of culture - but so do 'victims'.

Post modernism is the disbelief in grand unifying narratives.

That disbelief in grand unifying narratives has various implications in different practices. For example, in music and architecture, it means sampling and mashing lots of different styles together. Bc there's no one teleological narrative about stylistic progress anymore!

Truth-capital-T could be another of those grand unifying narratives

lots of post-modern fiction on his reading list:
jordanbpeterson.com/2017/10/great-books/

Yep and he loves the first and most influential post-modernist philosopher ever in Nietzsche

That's because the alt-right likes him so he's a Nazi. AND NAZIS GET PUNCHED.

The two are not unrelated but arguably someone like Nietzsche would be more relevant. Post modernism is a result of the death of god, rather than some desire to examine reality.

>Nietzsche
>post-modern
>while predating WW1 let alone modernity
user, I...

>Nietzsche
>predating modernity

You didn't take a class. You're so goddamn off base it's hilarious.
You're namedropping and giving an analysis that's lower than Sparknotes-tier.
You do realize your definition of postmodernism shares most, if not all to a degree, of the characteristics of existential philosophy?
You haven't read any of the names you've dropped.
You contradict your Peterson fanaticism by including this DFW "postclever metaformal hooey." If it's all just metaformal crap, then why is Peterson basing so much of his philosophy of life upon it? How is it that it's actually destroying western civilization?
How is taking a moral panic, which have happened before, very regularly, unfolding exactly as they did with this new SJW-craze, and attaching a broad cultural monolith to describe the ways society is affected by technological growth?

>reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/7vy9h4/jordan_peterson_understands_postmodernism/

>OP is getting BTFO even by the peterson subreddit

>All in all, when a parody is taken seriously and the serious work reads like a parody, the situation is highly postmodern.
Does this make The Prince postmodern?

>Modernism is a philosophical movement that, along with cultural trends and changes, arose from wide-scale and far-reaching transformations in Western society during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Among the factors that shaped modernism were the development of modern industrial societies and the rapid growth of cities, followed then by reactions of horror to World War I. Modernism also rejected the certainty of Enlightenment thinking, and many modernists rejected religious belief.[2][3]

>late 19th
hmm... also modernism and modernity are not exact correlates.

You're so off base desu, would have been more accurate to say first continental philosopher but it was a jab towards peterson who confuses the two

Jesus christ the state of this board

sorry... i don't google retarded shit when I see retarded shit.

OP got us! Trolled!

>excerpt mentions time nietzsche lived/wrote
>>doesnt matter bc user thinks modernity and modernism are synonymous
truly pathetic how stupid and ignorant you are

Underrated

I shouldn't have laughed at that.

>all these fucking pseuds stroking one another off while doing their best to posture and paraphrase wikipedia for upboats
holy fucking hell

why is it ok to have a thread where we are literally posting from reddit

the state of Veeky Forums these days, jesus

>Yep and he loves the first and most influential post-modernist philosopher ever in Nietzsche
Why do people who have clearly never read or at least understood Nietzsche feel the need to invoke his name? Nietzsche would have nothing but overwhelming disgust for post-modernists, he literally warns against them 100 years before they came to exist.
>the strong must be protected from the weak

OP hits a few points on post modernism, but certainly he misses some as well. There's a chronology to it, it's evolved since the 60s, and really who could ever fully define a hydra, or even want to, considering the type of people who it concerns.

> skepticism is a product of the postmodern era

begone forever

partisan dilletante
>the strong must be protected from the weak
whats the relevance of this paraphrasing to postmodernism

>I understand pomo because I took a college class

No wonder your a Beterman fanboy, brainlet

I'm a philosophy PhD and Peterson is right about everything. There it's settled then. Finally.

I'm the one who needs to read Nietzsche?! You fucking people I swear to god. Nietzsche undertook the first major effort of deconstruction (geneology) and transvaluation of morals, and also interpreted social dynamics through power. He was incredibly influential on Foucault and Derrida for reasons that should be fucking obvious if you understood either

eat a dick frog fucker

>ITT: OP is three weeks into his Philosophy 101 unit and he thinks he has solved postmodernism.

>whats the relevance of this paraphrasing to postmodernism
Ugh. Really? Ok...Ok...

Ressentiment fueled Marxists failures co-opted the idea of post modernism in the 60s after witnessing the West flourish rather than fail while the USSR was recognized for the atrocity it was. Realizing their own tenets untenable, they went on to develop the idea of subjectivity and relativism to attack the dominant narratives, if you couldn't have equality of capital, you would at least have equality of ideas. This was the new Marxist frontier, they couldn't construct something greater than the West, so they sought to deconstruct the West. This line of thinking evolved heavily over time in academia where it amassed dominance, people grew up with this sort of thinking and began to demand "more", resulting in today's idea that not only are classic western authors and ideas built upon exploitation and other narratives require representation, the western narrative, the white male narrative, in fact owes a sort of debt for that exploitation, that equality isn't enough, it needs to be silenced to better allow other groups and ideas. This is the weak, encroaching upon the strong, very much in line with what Nietzche describes. I can't believe I have to explain this in a discussion about Nietzsche and post modernism, ressentiment literally built the post modern school as we know it.

Look dumbass, the fact that post-modernists think Nietzsche was one of them and borrow from his style and his idea of (dis)guises calling it deconstruction doesn't fucking make it so. He is deeply antithetical to basically all of their conclusions. Foucault and Derrida are obscurantist con-men, their claiming Nietzsche is a better discredit than anything else.

>implying there is something left to solve
Alan Sokal completely dismantled it in the fucking 90s dude.

Nice dude

>peterson

>soyboys
>liking peterson
god I hate neo marxists

>hahaha it doesn't care if it's remotely true the accusation alone is hurtful hahaha I do this for freeeeeeeeee

>soyboy denies he's a soyboy for some reason

most metal fags i know would be soyboys desu

Confusing a lot of intellectual developments - understandably - but in a way that compromises your ability to view them as a whole and critique them.
I think it is a mistake to view Marxism and Marxist thought as the genesis of postmodernism. Rather, Marxism, springing from Enlightenment and modernist philosophy, sustained by it, develops alongside it. It is true that Marx's predictions that the workers in the industrialised West would be receptive to Communism proved false, and that radical intellectuals became disillusioned with the Communist project. But this is one current in the whole of Western thought among many, not the decisive one. In the 20th century we see people become disillusioned with both nationalism and internationalism following the first world war, that sort of shit, a whole host of back-and-forth intellectual developments in response to and alongside historical events. The structuralist debate in France. The failure of liberal democracy. The growing realisation (that had begun ever since the French Revolution, and 1848 and so on) that the aim of human perfectability in accordance with "rationality" and state control could not make heaven on Earth etc. Nazism, world war as a result of this and industrialisation, etc. Mass communication, information, special relativity, quantum physics.
Postmodernism is not fun for Marxists...

Nietzsche was terrifyingly prescient. Perhaps Germany in the latter half of 19th century Europe could be considered the "eye of the storm", giving rise to a flurry of stunningly insightful philosophers and artists.

stop posting anime and (((scott pilgrim))) pics

I don't get why this photo keeps getting posted when it gets shut down every single time it's posted here.
An entire generation of boys was raised in a feminised society, many are the children of single mothers. Most didn't have a single male teacher until the age of 13, and even upon entering secondary school, the ratio of male to female, still favoured females.
With an epidemic of participation awards and cultivation of feelings rather than skills, boys have grown up without strong male role models and a lack of discipline from an authority figure which is be feared and admired in equal parts.

bullshit

>I don't have a daddy pls be patient :(

>Postmodernism is not fun for Marxists...
It is in so far as it hurts the West/capitalists too, no-one claimed more than that. Marxists are sore losers, that's about it.

yeah seriously, every generation since ww2 have been raised as huge posies.

Have you by chance read that mark manson book, models?

The midwit zone is real holy shit

>I think it is a mistake to view Marxism and Marxist thought as the genesis of postmodernism.
and who suggested that? no-ones sincerely a communist anymore but the collateral damage is ever present in leftist thought

this whole thread is trying to explain what Peterson means when he says "bloody post modernists" which I think it's done a decent job of

>no-ones sincerely a communist anymore
says you

So basically agreed with the comic? Okay

No, because there are males who are against said masculinity represented by Peterson, and that's what a soyboy is. It doesn't make any sense on any level.

I think today's neo-Marxists have appropriated the postmodern memes of social constructs, hegemony, and oppression without even realizing it's postmodernism after being taught these terms by their bourgeois professors. Hence, the unholy, unthinkable, and impossible fusion of Marxism and Postmodernism.

>It doesn't make any sense on any level.
lol it happened to you didn't it
you screamed at mommy when she asked you to throw out the trash but when kermit said "clean your room bucko" you started working that broom didn't you

It's purely a question of convenience, you can be as Marxist as you want despite all the evidence, because what is evidence anyway?
youtu.be/WwTfHv5dpPw
Postmodernism is such a fucking blight on intellectualism, not because of something fundamentally wrong with t, but because of how it's been understood and propagated within institutions of learning by leftists who occupy them.

It's truly bizarre that Marxists of all people appeal to this shit when Marxism is basically a religion all its own.

>soyboys
>liking peterson
god I hate neo marxists

>hahaha it doesn't care if it's remotely true the accusation alone is hurtful hahaha I do this for freeeeeeeeee

>marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists marxists

your own assertions are empty claims without any proof, retard, I'm just doing as you've done

nou

I’d say you missed the single biggest difference, arguably the one from which all the others derive, which is the view of the self.

The enlightenment view is the Cogito, the unified, self-transparent, thinking thing, capable of reason, knowledge and the attainment of truth.

The postmodern self is fragmented, decentred, illusory etc, things like commodity fetishism (Marx), Christian resentment (Nietzsche), and the Unconscious (Freud) all act as forces which drive our behaviour and understanding of the world, yet are not transparent to our conscious mind. Whatever it is that thinks is structured not aprori, but as a result of contact with the world.

Also there is a big difference with the view of language. For the enlightenment language is a straightforward tool with which we represent things in the world, and upon which we can apply reason. Actually that view is only really true for the rationalists.

After the modernist period both continental and English thought comes to recognize that there is nothing transparent about how language works to represent concepts, and that language itself needs to be interrogated if we are to better understand our basic philosophical problem. You are reading 10 steps ahead to political implications, things that actually wouldn’t be advocated for by the major French theorists we are referring to.

For Lacan, for example, language isn’t oppressive per se, but it is traumatic. Language is an alien thing that is forced on to us from others, and which comes to symbolically structure our whole understanding of the world. This doesn’t mean we can get ‘outside language’, there really isn’t any meaninful outside for Lacan, instead coming to reconcile that alienated lack is what Psychoanalysis is for.

The rejection in the power of pure reason has nothing to do with it being ‘inherently oppressive’, I dare you to actually cite a text on that claim, it’s that our minds themselves are not self-transparent and we do not actually represent the world in our linguistic concepts. Thus, what we can do with pure reason is limited by this.

And in postmodernism there is no “goal”, the very notion of a goal, or telos is the sort of thing that is rejected when we reject metanarratives. Postmoderns don’t believe in the concept of progress, and anybody that does is stepping significantly outside postmodernism.

This is pretty unnecessary. Post modernism can be summed up far easier: it's a lack of understanding of science. Everything about the natural world refutes it.

Good post.

i propose that we ban americans from using the term 'marxism' and from making any reference no matter how indirect to the man, his writings or what they inspired

while you and Peterson are right in pointing out the flaws in what you call "post-modernism," I think you're both confusing it with Critical Racial Theory, Queer Theory and SJW-tier pseudo theory in general. I think they are the modernists in that they do have a metanarrative they are pushing and they heavily rely on structural analysis (which they do very little of in actuality, they just cite structures of power as matter of fact). I simply don't understand how skepticism of objective knowledge and metanarratives is a bad thing, and how the denial of reason and retarded shit like "Progress is made by fighting oppression through the exposure of meta-narratives that are used by the powerful to oppress the weak" follows from that. Post-modernism in that sense is the ultimate radical centrist approach. However(!), if you are you looking at post-modernism in the sense of a cultural epoch and were to argue that SJW leftism and its academic concurrents are a product of that epoch I would agree with you.

>yfw half the people are dumber than that

Yeah, but I don't like how postmodernism makes me feel, so how can it be real?

What a shit show. Go away reddit.

>Ressentiment fueled Marxists failures co-opted the idea of post modernism in the 60s after witnessing the West flourish rather than fail while the USSR was recognized for the atrocity it was. Realizing their own tenets untenable, they went on to develop the idea of subjectivity and relativism to attack the dominant narratives, if you couldn't have equality of capital, you would at least have equality of ideas. This was the new Marxist frontier, they couldn't construct something greater than the West, so they sought to deconstruct the West. This line of thinking evolved heavily over time in academia where it amassed dominance, people grew up with this sort of thinking and began to demand "more", resulting in today's idea that not only are classic western authors and ideas built upon exploitation and other narratives require representation, the western narrative, the white male narrative, in fact owes a sort of debt for that exploitation, that equality isn't enough, it needs to be silenced to better allow other groups and ideas. This is the weak, encroaching upon the strong, very much in line with what Nietzche describes. I can't believe I have to explain this in a discussion about Nietzsche and post modernism, ressentiment literally built the post modern school as we know it.

You literally got your entire idea of what postmodernism is from that Stephen Hicks book that Peterson shills all the time and related nonsense. This is a narrative which you have had fed to you by people you idolize and not one which you have at all researched or conceived of yourself. Stop being a mouthpiece for other people's ideas.

>He is deeply antithetical to basically all of their conclusions.

Can you talk for a a bit about their conclusions, and refer to when and where they argued for said conclusions? Or do you just not have a clue what you're talking about?

Nice try, but don't even bother. The Peterson posters won't even begin to understand the essential differences you have just pointed out. I don't think they are capable of engaging in serious philosophical discussion. They argue ideologically and seek attention so they never reflect their own premises. Epistemology is a foreign word to them.

the contrast in quality, intellect, and education of these two posts is telling

I think the Postmodernists are on the right track on recognizing the illusions and the false nature of reality, and their explanations are the closest we have to a Phenomenology of Maya, however. They flat out reject the Logos, and lack a transcendent metaphysic. If they accepted the transcendent, we would have had a spiritual rejuvenation in the West.

I'm just being efficient, those who understand understand. Those who don't can't be convinced, they are ideologues. I'm not here to convince anyone.

>I am here not to discuss but to virtue signal

All philosophy is postmodern. Everyone is both Socrates and a sophist.

Underrated. I don't understand postmodernism haven't had read anything of it, but it seems to me it is almost by definition non-redpillable in that you can't construct a representative formula describing it without either breaking its rules or dumbing it down. Do you think post-modernism can have a broader and justifiable presence in the society if shaken off of its popular image? Is po-mo just an invitation to consider things in a multifaceted manner while being aware of your toolset's limitations, primarily propensity to bias. If we accept this, nothing stops someone else coming and refuting it through ridicule as inapplicable in practical terms thus breaking the one rule you shouldn't. Humanity is too brainlet en masse for much straighter things than postmodernism.

people who complain about crap like this don't seem to understand how completely disposable males have been through the course of human history
no one has ever cared about men being feminized if they're just going to get their legs blown off by an artillery shell at the age of 18.
feminized men are easier to control, and you should be happy that you recognize that you aren't one (well if you aren't one, but you're on Veeky Forums so you're probably more soy than the gay buzzfeed bloggers)

This here describes the mistake that many even on this board are making in linking neo-Marxism with leftism, postmodernism, and whatever else they fucking happen to dislike.

Liked your previous post, but this is fedora-tier.

>The absolute state of Veeky Forums