Why does he hate Postmodernists so much lit?

Evilember
Evilember

Why does he hate Postmodernists so much lit?
What happened did Focault or Derrida fuck his wife or something?
And why would anyone in the academy hate Postmodernists?
They literally did nothing wrong!

JP literally calls postmodernism a murderous ideology?
WTF
Here is the link:
youtube.com/watch?v=JVbw4m--NaA

Attached: Peterson-on-sex-ed-810-500-55-s-c1.jpg (28 KB, 810x500)

All urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JVbw4m--NaA
youtube.com/watch?v=i5qeouQwb1w
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
mega.nz/#F!DpAz2IgQ!nW7bPNnpJFk5CAV3ypiaHw
youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

DeathDog
DeathDog

There is literally nothing good about post-modernism, and it is often used as a tool to destroy just about anything that matters.

Like classical art? Well you can't define what's good art. He's a bucket of piss, this is good art too. It goes beyond just the cultural decay of beauty, but also leads to all sorts of attacks on traditionalism and basically allows people to justify doing literally anything cause

Fuck it bro, nothing matters anyways

Post modernism wouldn't be so bad, except for how easy it is to be used for all kinds of havoc

JunkTop
JunkTop

because he is a classical modernist

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

classical art has been dead since the impressionists you turboplebian

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

Post modernism wouldn't be so bad, except for how easy it is to be used for all kinds of havoc

You can apply that statement to everything brain-let look

Religion wouldn't be so bad, except for how easy it is to be used for all kinds of havoc

Science wouldn't be so bad, except for how easy it is to be used for all kinds of havoc

Philosophy wouldn't be so bad, except for how easy it is to be used for all kinds of havoc

Feminism wouldn't be so bad, except for how easy it is to be used for all kinds of havoc

Enlightenment wouldn't be so bad, except for how easy it is to be used for all kinds of havoc

Free speech wouldn't be so bad, except for how easy it is to be used for all kinds of havoc

....

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

Mainly because postmodernism is unreasonable and manifests in destructive ways. People here call it boogeyman and that memerson doesn't understand it but he sees all the suffering people with muh "do everything ur spacedust in an uncaring universe" and how difficult it is right now to choose something that remotely works and will lead to some sort of wisdom. Postmodernism's discoveries are great for an already somewhat established person, not for a hatchling of any age trying to find their place in life.

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

More than that, I have seen lots of classical techniques utilized in interesting ways by postmodern artists. When people talk about hating post-modern art they usually mean modernist.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

Post-modernism is done for its own sake.

You don't pretend a urinal is art because you sincerely believe that it is art, you do it to (get attention) make a "statement" about art.

i.e. postmodernism is wank given legitimacy.

If you're doing art for the sake of making art, but are instead doing art for the sake of COMMENTING on art, you're not really an artist.

You're a commentator.

And that's what post-modernism is. It's not PART of the medium, it's just a commentary by people who failed to hack it in the medium.

Cry more, "artists," but if you were worth half a shit you wouldn't have to tear real down art to the level you're comfortable engaging it on.

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

If you're doing art for the sake of making art
NOT* doing art for the sake

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

In what sense user please elaborate?

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

Holy shit

Spamalot
Spamalot

Postmodenism
Duchamp
Postmodenism
Rick and Morty tier scientism
kek "postmodenism" has basically become a codeword for "everything I don't like". A very american thing this phenomenon of taking something and scapegoating all of your problems on it, first it was "communism", now it's this and "fascist". What can I say, thanks for unleashing an army of retards on the internet Dr. Peterson.

girlDog
girlDog

Postmodernists are the living manifestation of pure evil. Pic related.

Attached: foucault-power.jpg (50 KB, 668x475)

viagrandad
viagrandad

Evil
According to you buckoo

askme
askme

LMAO

likme
likme

Evil in what stance? According to whom? What is Evil? How would you define evil? Is there a such thing as absolute Evil?

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

Peterson is a classical Modernist, because he unironically believes in the empowerment of the individual, in Jungian psychoanalysis and in willful, autonomous self-improvement.

Postmodernists no longer believe in any of that, their truths are much more cultural and sociological, rather than individual.

hairygrape
hairygrape

pomo is valueless
in the void one can create their own values
the masses tho are retards
when pomo infiltrates culture which it has steadily since the 60s
it reaches the masses
thus the masses create retarded value systems i.e. identity politics

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

damn, better remember this the next time I'm talking to an eight year old who's been repeatedly raped over several months

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

They literally did nothing wrong!
They took Heidegger's ideas, took the most insightful things including his concept of authenticity away from them, and made them fashionable enough to be hijacked by the mainstream. Derrida did some good work but he also fucked the western civilization even if it was involuntary.

Methshot
Methshot

Prepare to die, postmodernist.

Attached: B-peterson.png (627 KB, 494x631)

Skullbone
Skullbone

Please point out 1 (one) instance in which Derrida's fairly obscure ideas have made it into the mainstream. I'll wait.
IT'S A FUCKING HARRY POTTER QUOTE YOU ABSOLUTE RETARDS
petersonfags literally get indoctrinated by Foucault photos with Voldemort quotes on it

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

Prepare to die, postmodernist.

Ok

*Gulps hemlock*

Attached: 6f0bcd293c1ac25a655dbe5627228108.jpg (584 KB, 1063x1099)

Emberfire
Emberfire

I'm still wandering if the jukebox meant the death of live music.

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

The whole subverting narratives in pop culture came from people trying to monetize a reductionism of his ideas. Also don't be so pedantic, you autistic piece of shit. Did you forget to take your pills?

DeathDog
DeathDog

The whole subverting narratives in pop culture came from people trying to monetize a reductionism of his ideas.
wot

Skullbone
Skullbone

Post-Modernism is sufficently nebulous in the mainstream to create a bogeyman to explain away the systemic failures of liberal capitalism allowing him access to the booming self help industry.

Emberfire
Emberfire

How did "Post-Modernism" become such an incredibly potent target for projection?

StonedTime
StonedTime

kek

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

It didn't die back then, and impressionism held standards too.

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

Since I'm bored and know a thing or two about the subject, I'll chime in.

In this clip, Peterson (I believe unintentionally) misrepresents postmodernism as an ideological tool which is used to gain power by collapsing commonly held notions of race, gender, class, etc (the mistake, if not clear, being that he believes the purpose of postmodernism is to gain power). He then mistakenly bundles postmodernism with an unwieldy strawman of traditional Marxism—oppressed vs. oppressor—and sets fire to the whole project to cast light on his own supposedly more wholesome, unifying, humanistic, empirical psychoanalytic perspective of people and power, which is bullshit.

He then falsely equates postmodernism with identity politics, which he incorrectly defines as the ideology of those who insist "that the most important element of any student or any person for that matter is whatever racial, gender, or sex identity happens to be flavor of the month" instead of more accurately as an exploration of the tendency of people to align themselves with and promote those aforementioned and other limited ideological factions, which philosophers and even statesmen have been exploring for hundreds of years.

He then expresses an unironic authoritarian lament for authoritarian control of identity categories for which he wishes there were more simplistic guidelines: see his discussion about fractional blackness. He sees, in inversion, the trees for the forest.

Peterson then throws out a homily of questions about who, in the absence of "authority," is going to question, demarcate, catalog, and promote the "correct" solutions to these problems. This shit goes on and on and on, and so that I won't bore you any longer, I'll get to the point.

Peterson confuses contemporary outrage for postmodernism. He sees in uninformed keening the foghorn of a postmodern boogeyman. His outlook seems to be based on viral videos (and, admittedly, experience) of misguided university students screaming for attention. From this he's constructed perverted misinterpretations of their youthful ignorance as stonewalls of postmodernism.

Postmodernism is not ideology. It's not authoritarian. It's not identity politics. It negates all of that, and it's not anything that Peterson or any mission-driven clown says it is. It's a mode of questioning how and why we believe what we do. Its purpose is to probe the assumptions we unwittingly bestow on leaders, institutions, media, and even seemingly minor shit such as "authentic" Mexican recipes. It's a current by which you can bypass the crashing waves and bottomless depths of traditional ideologies. It embraces the type of critical questioning Peterson claims it doesn't, and it employs the type of skepticism of movements and their individuals for which Peterson squawks and burps.

The ultimate irony is that Peterson's goofy little talk in this clip likely wouldn't be possible without postmodernism.

Attached: wew-lad.jpg (41 KB, 885x516)

takes2long
takes2long

people bashing Dadaism 100 years after its relevance and somehow linking it to a grand pomo conspiracy

Peterson is just a self-help writer who's vocal about being an asshole and somehow that makes you a philosopher in the 21st century.
I don't understand why so many non-artists treat art and academia like some sort of secret club, least of all Peterson since he's an academic himself.
youtube.com/watch?v=i5qeouQwb1w
In this video he's having a "dialogue" with the perfect pomo boogeyman, a contemporary academic classical composer. But he seems to be in awe of him, constantly needing to show his own skin-deep knowledge of music. He constantly interrupts Samuel and fails to understand even the most basic of music theory/history, instead perspectivating everything to "the decline of western values", and other of his well-known topics.

It's really just white guys getting angry at imaginary secret clubs they deep-down want to be a part of, nothing new.

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

he is a classical modernist
perpetuates Jungian ideology and boomer tropes
lol

TreeEater
TreeEater

I would say that he may have half a point. I've noticed that a lot of the kind of people he dislikes frequently base their ideas on 'Postmodern' theory, just a really retarded biased reading of it. They do all the questioning of why we believe what we do, but not for their own views.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

The ultimate irony is that Peterson's goofy little talk in this clip likely wouldn't be possible without postmodernism.
You don't whine about twigs getting into your eye in an urban setting.

Firespawn
Firespawn

Postmodernism is the breakdown of the value systems that have been developed since the dawn of mankind. Why the fuck do you think hedonism, depression, suicide, mass shootings, terrorism, and utter disregard for other humans and the self is so rampant. Not saying that any of these things are new, but postmodernism doesn't hold humans to a set of moral values and virtues. Say what you will against Peterson but he does see that we are playing a dangerous game when we casually throw away virtue. However, this is something that has been developing since idk the industrial revolution? At least since the end of WWII.

RavySnake
RavySnake

Exactly. He seems, if I'm not mistaken, to be interpreting modes of critical postmodern dissection through the distorted reversed telescopes of self- or movement-promoting ideologues. He's seems concerned not with postmodernism per se but rather with agenda-driven appropriations of strawmen, and therefore he appears to me to be nothing more than a modern manifestation of critics from the '70s and onward who don't really have expertise in the topics in which they claim to be authorities.

I don't know if you're referring to a philosophical metaphor or making just a vague rebuttal. I'm willing to talk at length about it, but just try to be clearer in your intention. Thanks.

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

Because they are godless monsters whose relativism is destroying the moral foundation of the world and perpetuating misery and injustice. They have killed god but worship money and degeneracy in his stead.

StonedTime
StonedTime

TRUTH is the most important tool we have in a world of bloody postmodern marxists
s-sorry about lying that I was part of an indigenous tribe

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

there is a talk of him with another person about science, the person says something reasonable and jordan answers with "yeah but, did you know what the japanese did in china"

no one fucking asked him about that and it wasn't even important in the context of the conversation

eGremlin
eGremlin

Many of them tend to be godless, sure, but why are they monsters? You'd have to be remarkably naive to think that questioning the origins and foundations of morals necessarily creates misery and injustice. That process has been going on since recorded dialogues. One can question yet uphold.

No one has killed god. You know from where that silly 136-year-old comes, and I'm sure you can see how many billions of religious people still exist. That's nonsense.

The only degeneracy so far introduced is that which your lack of critical thinking has brought to this discussion.

What's your problem?

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

I really can't blame a critic of our contemporary discourse for lying in order to gain the cultural capital (academically recognized status as "oppressed" ) to have a meaningful position in that discourse, and I'm saying that as someone who by and large thinks he's full of shit.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

white guys
excuse me sweetie, it's white MEN thank you very much ~

whereismyname
whereismyname

dumb sissy whiteboi

Illusionz
Illusionz

Why not blame him? Is he exempt from blame? Even if his mode of opportunistic discourse is commonplace, which I think isn't necessarily true, at least in real academic contexts, does that mean he shouldn't be reprimanded?

Supergrass
Supergrass

Moral relativism is the death of the god. The recognition of no absolute authority and the ability to rationalize anything as good or equal is a descent into the inhuman. Hence, monsters. And they are responsible for the dominant politics, personal and otherwise, of the day. They are to be hated.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

Dumb, derivative shit. What are you trying to accomplish?

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

This reminds me of a TLP post. It doesn't matter if your accusation is true, just making it is powerful.

I really can't blame a critic of our contemporary discourse for lying in order to gain the cultural capital
The irony is staggering.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

Sorry I'll start taking this super serious thread seriously, Mr. Important. Please don't cane me sir.

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

Because as an action it it demonstrates the poverty of a discourse mediated by standpoint epistemology. He can really only be blamed for apologizing. What this indicates is that we as a society should seriously reprimand academics for the manner in which they operate.

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

Imagine being this braindead

Soft_member
Soft_member

Okay now. A few things.

You do realize that the history of what I'm sure you're referring to as God (that being the Judeo-Christian God) is based on debates around "His" moral prescriptions, right? Theology, Biblical hermeneutics, etc? None of that is shut and closed.

Postmodernism isn't about a recognition of absolute authority. It's about questioning the premises of authorities that claim to be absolute. Moreover, it doesn't rationalize anything as good or equal or inhuman but instead probes the metrics by which we measure those categories.

Hence, monsters
No. If anything, your rejection of critical inquiry is a monstrous misinterpretation of skeptical discourse.

they
Who?

Your entire post reeks of uninformed, conspiratorial misreadings of secondhand polemics.

girlDog
girlDog

I'm not ine of his acolytes, so his personal inconsistencies don't really nother me.

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

toppest kek

viagrandad
viagrandad

Stop blaming my boi Deleuze and start blaming the right people
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

happy_sad
happy_sad

I don't know if you're referring to a philosophical metaphor or making just a vague rebuttal. I'm willing to talk at length about it, but just try to be clearer in your intention
To speak or not to speak...

You can only whine about the problems you meet, and you only meet the problems you greet. If you see something, it is in your mind. If you have named it, you have structured it. If you have structured it, it is a tool in your disposal; but what has been seen can not be unseen.

massdebater
massdebater

collapsing commonly held notions
exploration
He sees, in inversion, the trees for the forest.
contemporary outrage
keening
stonewalls of postmodernism
negates
mode of questioning how
probe the assumptions we unwittingly bestow
bypass the crashing waves and bottomless depths
squawks and burps
You type like a fucking faggot.

Fuck off back to r/books.

If you can't write concisely and meaningfully then don't fucking write.

Your post was a waste of my time.

iluvmen
iluvmen

Be on your way, son. I'll spare the cane this time.

But he isn't apologizing. He isn't defending the modes of thought against which he rails. He's actively misunderstanding, promoting, and undermining legitimate forms of critical postmodern discussion and making a killing off it. We can speak, as you do, about "academics" in a general manner all day long and accomplish nothing, but the discussion is about Peterson, and as I hope my and other posts show, he is profoundly mistaken about the topics in which he claims expertise.

Inmate
Inmate

He uses the word postmodernism, but in reality he's just annoyed at closet nihilists and cynics.

idontknow
idontknow

He seems, if I'm not mistaken, to be interpreting modes of critical postmodern dissection through the distorted reversed telescopes of self- or movement-promoting ideologues
How can somebody write this fucking sentence?

How can you spend your spare time presumably learning about how to write and still vomit out an abortion of this fucking magnitude?

Are you retarded, user?

Attached: its-all-so-tiresome.jpg (48 KB, 492x449)

Playboyize
Playboyize

What's wrong with intersectional discourse? It's merely an extension of established analytical frameworks whereby thinkers can consider more carefully the influence that public and private discourses have on the lives of those who operate within their parameters. There's nothing inherently wrong with the field, even if you might harbor antagonism against certain practitioners who publish within it.

Techpill
Techpill

JESUS
FUCKING
CHRIST

YOU'RE MAKING MY FUCKING EYES HURT

Attached: aid6115006-v4-728px-Avoid-Using-Purple-Prose-when-Writing-Step-3-Version-2.jpg (77 KB, 728x546)

Methshot
Methshot

It completely ignores class and ecomic dynamics, thus making it the perfect tool of the liberal elite.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

It's biggest problem is that it's language isn't explicit enough, so it exacerbates the oppression olympics it was designed to prevent.

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

economic*

Snarelure
Snarelure

intersectional
extension
established
analytical
framework
thinkers
field
parameter
nothing inherently wrong
I could not write more totalitarian rubbish if I tried.

Skullbone
Skullbone

Postmodenism
Duchamp
Wasn't the whole point of Dada to shit on established objective standards?

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

I agree with you, user. I don't see any issue here.

Great post, user. Fuck metaphor and style. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

I'll keep it simple for you. He seems to understand postmodernism through misinterpretations. You seem to be unfamiliar with specificity and jargon in academic discourse and thus point to style instead of context.

Emberburn
Emberburn

Attached: JordanPetersonMeme.jpg (53 KB, 817x555)

SniperWish
SniperWish

You should have Solzhenitsyn as Sheev, and Peterson as Anakin. The meme should read; "You ever hear the tragedy of 200 years together?"
I can't do it

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

Fuck metaphor and style.
Your metaphors are fucking dead (and unnecessary - you're writing an analysis not a fucking novel) and your style could best be described as oblique.

So yes, fuck your metaphors and fuck your style. You're a shit writer. Git gud.

I'll keep it simple for you.
Complex ideas necessitate simple writing you fucking retard. If you can force me to spend 50% of my brainpower deciphering your stupid fucking metaphors and I can still grasp the content besides then clearly whatever you're writing about can't be that fucking groundbreaking.

You seem to be unfamiliar with specificity and jargon in academic discourse
Nigger, it's not that I can't understand you're writing. It's that your writing is so offensively bad that I am forced to complain about it.

"b-b-b-but it's not bad"
Then why is it full of jargon, dated and dead metaphors, and written in a style so oblique it's very nearly perpendicular?

StonedTime
StonedTime

As far as I'm aware, it doesn't. Intersectional discourses promote inclusive consideration. Class and economic dynamics are welcome considerations, and they have been since Marx (and his forebearers).

Then get glasses, pleb, or go back to school.

Interesting thought. Could you elaborate upon that irony?

You're posting here yet mistaking posts challenging authoritarian thinking as totalitarian because they use certain vocabulary. Do you really have nothing else to offer? At least try to direct your comments to the OP and subsequent criticisms of Peterson. Why are you even here?

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

You're posting here yet mistaking posts challenging authoritarian thinking as totalitarian because they use certain vocabulary.
Your language is so unclear it disguises its totalitarian nature even from its author.

Which, I think, is why you use it. You're a tinpot dictator at heart, you fucking faggot.

TechHater
TechHater

You're posting here yet mistaking posts challenging authoritarian thinking as totalitarian because they use certain vocabulary.
No, those concepts are way too vague, but are used as if they were 'obvious' and precise. Then they are used to push mechanisms on us.

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

I can see how the destruction of boundaries and of established standards could be empowering in a society ruled by crusty old men for several thousand years. But it's been 50 years since the 60s. Shitting on objective morality is not edgy anymore, there is no risk (but plenty of reward) in it. Merda d'artista is 57 years old, Piss Christ is 30 years old. It's getting harder and harder to seem out there and cool with this shit and right now it just shows you're angry at your dad because he wanted you to become a lawyer. Social hierarchy is not an evil plot devised by Rupert Murdoch. People have differing ability and get sorted into differing strata. Pretending that everyone is the same and everything is relative is a cancerous ideology. When people say that postmodernism is about questioning and that's positive, I think of the annoying toddler who justs asks "why" 50 times in a row because he doesn't want to do something

JunkTop
JunkTop

How would prefer that I write? If you understand what I wrote, as you claim, then why haven't you responded to the content of my posts in relation to the OP? Even if you view the style and metaphors as "dated and dead," you've only expressed your own limited preferences instead of contributed to the overarching discussion. Why are you here?

Illusionz
Illusionz

Interesting thought. Could you elaborate upon that irony?
Rather than facilitating an understanding between different "oppressed" groups, the participants try to gain authority by claiming the greatest number of intersecting oppressions. It's among the reason in the discourse that class is so often dismissed for oppressions of a higher priority .

As it's grown in popularity, many of the recognized states of oppression that have been lumped in can only lead to conflicting liberations. Any coalition formed under this paradigm will be inherently unstable. Ultimately it fails to be genuinely challenging and works best as a philosophy/social theory for marketers, middle managers, and those who aspire to become them.

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

I'm sorry that the language is unclear to you. Nothing I've written deviates from common academic discourse about these topics, yet you seem hellbent on crucifying style instead of propping up substantial criticism. Sorry?
dictator
faggot
Just boring shit all around.

My mistake. I thought I was in a thread with people who recognize these concepts as obvious and understand the language used to describe them. It seems you're not one of them. So what do we do when a thread isn't for us? Move on, user. No one is pushing mechanisms on you.

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

99% of retards, including (very much so) the supposed "postmodern neomarxists" this thread's about, are moralists who act as if objective morality is real.

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

My mistake. I thought I was in a thread with people who recognize these concepts as obvious
Western imperialism at work, everybody. He should have used his intersectional analysis and subsumed the local culture before writing a single word. Shame on him!

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

You do realize that the history of what I'm sure you're referring to as God (that being the Judeo-Christian God) is based on debates around "His" moral prescriptions, right? Theology, Biblical hermeneutics, etc? None of that is shut and closed.
literally post-modernist obscurantist flimflam drivel
You are the problem.
hurr durr god's will is open to interpretation, my professor said so in my women's studies 101 class

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

style instead of context
Didn't they teach you to deconstruct dichotomies like this in school?

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

What's wrong with intersectional discourse?

It's a power discourse. Do you think it's a coincidence that the same people who teach intersectional discourse are the same people who whine about the 1%, think that all white people are racists, and support increased immigration into Europe and the United States?

It's not a coincidence. It's a discourse entirely constructed to support a specific political and economic agenda.

Attached: 1378916562650.jpg (121 KB, 468x349)

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

I have finished eating my spaghetti and now I'm sad
As far as I'm aware, it doesn't
In theory, no. In practice? Yes. I have yet to see an intersectional thinker analyze the very obvious mechanism of mass immigration as a creation of an underclass of cheap workers, or the dynamics of a multicultural society like Singapore where voters divide themselves according to their race (this is happening in the US too) or how seemingly "revolutionary" ideas such as feminism are becoming shallow products like with BuzzFeed (the guy who created BuzzFeed is a marxist and I have my theory that he's an accelarionist trying to meme capitalism to its logical end, but I digress). Instead a good deal of them seems to focused on "dismantling whiteness", patriarchy, rebranding racism to be only an institutionary thing and other similiarly shallow position which serves the capitalist elite very well by virtue of
1-creating a climate of divisiveness
2-creating the perfect consumer, an a-historical subject conditioned only by the forces of the market

King_Martha
King_Martha

hurr durr god's will is open to interpretation
Not that guy, but one of the most persistent and lively traditions of Western and Near Eastern religion is DEBATE. Those faggots couldn't stop debating and theorising and arguing to save their lives. A debate about some fucking word split the continent in half.

Spamalot
Spamalot

To elaborate slightly, although it's surely wasted, it isn't about any formal scholarly conception of authority. It's a fundamental belief, an underlying conviction, that ultimately nothing is true and subject to modification as per your convenience. Derivation of facts from conclusions rather than the reverse. It's not far removed from mental illness in fact.

askme
askme

How would prefer that I write?
Like this:

Since I'm bored and know a thing or two about the subject, I'll chime in.

Peterson misrepresents postmodernism as a system which is used to undermine our faith in what he perceives as biologically derived hierarchies so that the underminers can usurp the hierarchy and take the power. He then combines this misrepresentation with a strawman of the modern "radical" left (whom he terms Marxists, because he believes their ideology is a direct continuation of Marxism). He contrasts this ruthless, power-seeking (postmodern) and historically calamitous (Marxist) combination with his own ideology to make the point that his is better because it's neither of those things, which is bullshit.

He then falsely equates postmodernism with identity politics, which he incorrectly defines as the ideology of those who insist "that the most important element of any student or any person for that matter is whatever racial, gender, or sex identity happens to be flavor of the month" instead of correctly defining it as the politics of identity - i.e. how our understanding of identity affects how we distribute resources and treat each other.

Then he whines in one breath about identity politics authoritarians forcing their stupid categories on everyone and in the next breath complains that everyone should just use his own simple categories (the "fractional blackness" part).

This unwitting appeal for authoritarianism so long as its his dogma in place repeats frequently and I won't cover all examples.

The main thrust of Peterson's problem is that he confuses dumb college students for serious intellectuals and reads far too much into their views and opinions, then mistakes what he sees there as the entire field.

Postmodernism is just a term we use to refer to the process of questioning things that might seem too "obvious" to be questioned to make sure they're really right. It's basically just thoroughness. You might think you want to be alive, but have you REALLY thought about it? That's the postmodern argument.

likme
likme

common academic discourse
Garbage. All of it.

If your best defence of your writing ability is that it's no worse than what is "commonly" known to be the worst writing in all of society (political academics on the left) then that's not a defence, that's laughable.

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

I think it also encourages the artistic sterility and the celebration pf bad media as great works of art.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

you cant be serious thinking this is better explained. (im not the guy who you are "correcting")

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

I am completely serious.

Skullbone
Skullbone

Not that guy, just interested in one of your points.

I would say postmodernism represents a certain stage in that argument. Otherwise we can trace the postmodern traditon back to Socrates, which, while not entirely unrelated in spirit, does little to help us understand much about either Socrates or about the postmodern condition. If I were to follow your definition, I would say postmodernism represents a line of questioning (not just questioning the obvious, in itself) occurring in the light of events, conditions and assumptions of the pre- and postmodern period - modernism, the Enlightenment, WWII, science, industry, capital, media, the failure of Marxism, discontent with liberal democracy and so on.

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

Fair point in your first paragraph. I agree that those people are problematic and block meaningful discourse. However, I'd argue they'd have to lack so much self-awareness to view themselves as engaging in postmodern discussion. Same for your second paragraph. People will inevitably choose their anchors and cordon off the surrounding waters. If they claim they are postmodernists, then they are mistaken. If anything, they're using buzzwords as fashionable alternatives to dismissed notions of nationalism, racism, etc.

k, there's no point in continuing. You're offering nothing worth discussing.

Others have already responded to you adequately enough. You seem like a troll. If you really believe what you're saying, though, whew. I don't know if I can bridge that gap in a few posts.

Fair point. They're bound together. I should have been more specific and emphasized the focus on the user's criticism against the style being unbalanced and their not progressing multiple points of discussion.

I don't care what they do and how they misuse modes of thinking for their own agendas. I get what you're saying, but you're confusing philosophy for authoritarianism and academic politics. Just because an ideologue claims a philosophical basis does not mean that person is a representative of those who champion the benefits of that approach.

Those are (unfortunately?) the fashionable subjects, and therefore they get more attention. I don't keep up with contemporary developments these days, but I'm sure if you had sufficient access and knew where to look and knew more languages, you would be able to find answers to the examples you list. Fair criticism, though. Perhaps things are unbalanced.

SniperGod
SniperGod

Others have already responded to you adequately enough. You seem like a troll. If you really believe what you're saying, though, whew. I don't know if I can bridge that gap in a few posts.
Literally my first post itt, keep acting victimized you dunce.

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

you have to understand is only your taste. is not like you have the universal way of "good writing". im sorry.

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

Thanks for sharing your take on things. That certainly is one way to express what I wrote. Your interpretation misses the thrusts and pulls of the original, but if it works for you, great. I'm glad you got some practice out of it. Congratulations.

Yeah, you're not worth talking to. Check the OP and other posts to get back in the game.

Thanks. It's quite amazing how egos can go unchecked. Even if my writing is unclear, that user's post is roughly just as long and merely squeezes the sentiment into what they think is a more digestible pill. This is a ridiculous path to go down.

I am that guy, and I think you're right. Postmodernism has very specific historical impetuses even if we can recognize strains of similar thought in the past.

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

Not that guy, just interested in one of your points.
They're not my points, I actually disagree with most of that. I think its characterisation of Peterson's arguments is lazy and wrong and I think its defence of postmodernism is positively trite (but I think all defences of philosophy are trite).

But I'll answer as best I can.

The thing that distinguishes postmodernism is (in my view, obviously) that it's skeptical of reason itself. Pre-Enlightenment philosophy was an exercise in rationally interpreting the word of God, and Enlightenment philosophy was an exercise in rationally deriving natural law in the absence of God.

Postmodernism says that reason ain't gonna help us.

But you see echoes of this forward in time, because philosophy has been going in circles for 5,000 years. You only ever see a snapshot of the historical philosophical zeitgeist when you look back, not the sum total of everything everyone thought at the time. I'm sure there were postmodernist thinkers hanging around in Greece, but they're ideas didn't catch on because the context didn't support them so their work doesn't survive.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

Thanks for sharing your take on things. That certainly is one way to express what I wrote. Your interpretation misses the thrusts and pulls of the original, but if it works for you, great. I'm glad you got some practice out of it. Congratulations.
Utterly blown the fuck out.

It's simply not. Purple prose is just bad writing. It's not suddenly acceptable in an "academic" field. Writing densely and incomprehensibly is not a stylistic choice it's a fucking mistake. The only point of writing is to communicate meaning - if your writing actively impairs that, you've fucking failed.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

I don't think I'm a victim; I'm just bored with what you have to offer. We agree fundamentally on belief, and I can't address your point if we have to go through the dance of disproving gods. That shit is old hat.

Simply but beautifully put.

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

I'm sure there were postmodernist thinkers hanging around in Greece
The Sophists bear comparison. And I don't mean that in a derogatory sense. That said, as says, we shouldn't be too eager to project our current doctrines and assumptions onto thinkers who lived in a very different intellectual and cultural context. There are important distinctions and evolutions that need to be recognised. Philosophers from different eras, though they may use the same words, are not always precisely talking about the same things.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

If you say it I'll believe it. I don't really give a shit about philosophy. It's a waste of time.

whereismyname
whereismyname

Those are (unfortunately?) the fashionable subjects, and therefore they get more attention. I don't keep up with contemporary developments these days, but I'm sure if you had sufficient access and knew where to look and knew more languages, you would be able to find answers to the examples you list. Fair criticism, though. Perhaps things are unbalanced.
As I said, I have yet to see it, and I doubt I will ever see it since the thinkers in this area are collocated in a very specific position on the political spectrum. Another thing which I find quite irritating is this sort of notion of gnosological incomunicability between races and genders according to which one is doomed to not understand the plights of the others by virtue of being born of a certain race or a certain gender.

Nojokur
Nojokur

Joyce is just as good as the patterns on used toilet paper, it's just your opinion man

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

blown the fuck out
k

I'm surprised you don't realize that your own perspective is what's limiting you here. Do you think purple prose has a fixed definition? Do you think clear writing is a constant? Do you really think that there are established ways of communicating meaning? You didn't prefer how I wrote something, threw a fucking hissy fit instead of addressing my points, and then actually rewrote my post to fit your own taste.
your
own
taste
This is actually the type of shit against which postmodernists would argue: your ironically codified forms of presentation. Come on now. What do you think about my criticisms of Peterson? I'm genuinely curious if I can get something more substantial out of you.

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

yeh man gud writting is lik subjektiv

postmodernism rools

Lunatick
Lunatick

Fair point in your first paragraph
That post was about the flaws I've found in intersectional discourse. I didn't mean to imply that they were necessarily pomo in anyway.

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

i think Joyce would like that simile.
i know maybe is hard for you. but if somebody think like that and feel sincerely like that with her own reasons, what exactly is the problem?.

King_Martha
King_Martha

Lee Edelman has criticisms about the walls of authenticity we put up to keep out others. By presupposing purity of origin and rights of exclusivity, he argues, we enforce a destructive fantasy of "pure culture" and end up producing Others who are objects of abjection and discrimination.

I agree with you. Some people have used postmodernism is fetishize people and identities, but it's telling of the potency of postmodernism that we can still use it to deconstruct their own positions. Those people think they have it right, but they are just pawns of their own biases and misunderstandings.

5mileys
5mileys

k

My apologies. I've gotten mixed up with so many people responding. I didn't necessarily mean to attribute undue pomo to your post. Good point nonetheless.

I feel sorry for the user for losing their footing and having to go from discussion of style to full reductivist defense. I wish we could have had more meaningful discussion.

Playboyize
Playboyize

k
Beautiful.

Now we see the postmodernist in their true form.

When confronted with shit writing that should justifiably be laughed at, they are utterly unable to make a complaint about it on the basis of their dumb ideology.

Postmodernism is the death knell of society because, whether they want to know it or not, humans do have constraints which we need to live inside and these constraints do create optimal behaviours. They even create things like an optimal way to write - to a certain extent.

We know this to be true intuitively. That's why he disparages my counterargument while simultaneously failing to provide an answer to it. His reflex is disdain but he is unable to express disdain intelligently because he has adopted a dumb ideology.

And finally we come full circle, because THIS is all that Peterson said.

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

What is TLP?

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

the life of pablo

JunkTop
JunkTop

Very good post.

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

Their opinion is wrong.

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

TheLastPychiatrist. An extremely patrician blog written by a psychiatrist.

keeps doing it
Pretty pathetic desu.

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

Interesting. When I finally ignored you, you then decided to bite. You contributed nothing of substance when I tried to engage you, but when I declined your offer to participate, you suddenly jumped out of your seat and spouted a nice tirade. Great! Glad you're doing something now.

I'll address each of your points.

This isn't even my final form, but in all seriousness, your generalization is telling: it reveals prejudice, animosity, and a lack of openness for discussion.

I did make complaints about your confrontations. Multiple times. I wrote that you simplified my writing but missed its thrusts, that you made a reductive mess so that you can better understand it according to your own taste, and, most importantly, that you missed the irony of that process in light of your criticisms.

Your claim that postmodernism is the death knell of society puts you in a long line of hysteric reactionaries who repeat what you've heard at rooftops and spit on anyone who dares to speak up from below. Your insistence on an optimal way to write ignores the hundreds of years of history of the language in which you're writing, and that you can't see the irony there is just sad.

I'm not disparaging your counterargument. Well, yeah, I guess I am insofar that I think your criticism is of how I wrote instead of the ideas I put forth. My reflex isn't disdain but rather one of boredom because you're the type of commentator people loath to engage. You present your subjectivity as objective critique and expect others to conform to your limited language instead of engaging their ideas.

Have we come full circle? It seems like we're going in circles. I honestly don't know what to tell you. I hazard to say please revisit my original response and address the points instead of the style you don't like, but I doubt you'll deign to do that.

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

The mods are deleting all peterson threads. Just telling ya.

Spamalot
Spamalot

TheLastPsychiatrist
It seems pretty good just on a cursory glance. Why did you bring him up?

Soft_member
Soft_member

Thanks.

5mileys
5mileys

Oh look, an entire paragraph of irrelevancy.

The central point is that humans have biological constraints that govern how we must live - in particular, which govern hierarchies.

Postmodernist "thought" dissolves in the face of this simple, inarguable truth.

Everything you've said so far is ankle-biting based on your own lazy and wrong characterisation of Peterson's argument, so I wouldn't try to play "contributions of substance" Olympics if I were you. You're too retarded to grasp the central point without someone like me fucking leading you to it.

w8t4u
w8t4u

For the reasons I stated, you fuckwit.

iluvmen
iluvmen

you're the tool desu

Inmate
Inmate

The Last Psychiatrist
dude everything is narcissism lmao...
like one of the earliest natural philosophers of Greece, who considered the world made out of one base element, in this case narcissism...

hairygrape
hairygrape

humans have biological constraints that govern how we must live
Not the guy you responded to. What are these constraints? That we need food and sleep to survive so we created societies centered around this fundamental principle? I think you'll find historically there have been many different ways to satisfy or even overcome our biological constraints (such as medicine towards disease).

TreeEater
TreeEater

It doesn't matter if your accusation is true, just making it is powerful.
What does this have to do with that user's snide remark and why did you bring up TLP?

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

I'll check him out.
What are these constraints?
LOBSTERS

Skullbone
Skullbone

Food and sleep are the least of it.

Unironically lobsters.

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

A paragraph of "irrelevancy" in direct response to your own drawn-out bullshit. Don't be smug.

I agree with you that humans have biological constraints. Was that ever a point of disagreement? No, it wasn't.

Moreover, only you brought up hierarchies. Again, as I wrote, you're shaping the discussion away from my points—by literally rewriting what I wrote—to fit within Peterson's narratives and terminology: I wrote about the categories of identification with which Peterson engages, and you mistranslated my post.

I'm not ankle-biting; I'll go for the throat.

I agree that there are hierarchies of human experience. That's not the point. The whole purpose of my post is that Peterson misunderstands postmodern approaches to questioning those categorizations. Not only that, he projects onto them a conspiratorial fatalism that makes it seem that any engagement with those thoughts is degenerate and destructive.

At this point, now that you've contributed something worth discussing, I fail to see where we disagree. You seem to think that my explaining Peterson's shortcomings means I'm a staunch cheerleader of everything pomo.

Why the generalization, user? We're just engaging with ideas. I'm not trying to take your land or some shit.

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

The modern world is like 75% narcissism, he's really not far off. There isn't a single post-modernist alive who isn't a narcissist, sampling their own farts and getting high off the stink deconstructing it against perfume.

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

Peterson is a narcissist.

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

He wrote an article dealing with the nature of accusations and how people knowingly make false allegations and why they work, and cannot be undone or corrected. This is in response to that dumb user's intentionally repetition of libel against Peterson, who while something of an idiot, isn't a liar. More than I can say for those desperate to repudiate him.

MPmaster
MPmaster

Is that why he's always saying "take a good look at yourself"

Soft_member
Soft_member

Without a doubt. The man thinks his every deed is a battle between good and evil that brings the world closer to either salvation or perdition - - and that others should adopt this view too. I guess it's a useful bit of madness, but if you aren't as self aware as he is you'd be just another dangerous idiot.

happy_sad
happy_sad

Peterson did claim he was inducted in an indigenous tribe and it was revealed recently that he wasn't and he misrepresented the meaning of the ceremony he participated in. Isn't that lying?

takes2long
takes2long

As far as I know that's completely untrue and Peterson spoke truthfully. Feel free to post a source proving otherwise, else shut up already.

massdebater
massdebater

Why bring up TLP then? Why didn't you just say that user was making a false allegation so it would stick in people's minds? TLP wasn't the first to bring up this idea before.

iluvmen
iluvmen

Not the user to which you're responding, but I'd argue that even if that's what he argues, it always come with the caveat that you should look at yourself within his own limited framework. Since postmodernism radically questions those frameworks and the conditions under which they operate, Peterson comes off as supremely narcissistic by suggesting that that field of inquiry is perverse and that his own approach is a supreme ideal.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit