Why does he hate Postmodernists so much lit?

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 (810x500, 28K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=i5qeouQwb1w
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

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

because he is a classical modernist

classical art has been dead since the impressionists you turboplebian

>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

....

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.

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.

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.

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

In what sense user please elaborate?

Holy shit

>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.

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

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

>Evil
According to you buckoo

LMAO

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

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.

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

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

>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.

Prepare to die, postmodernist.

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

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

>Prepare to die, postmodernist.

Ok

*Gulps hemlock*

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

kek

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

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 (885x516, 41K)

>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.

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

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

>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

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

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?

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.

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

dumb sissy whiteboi

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Imagine being this braindead

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.

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

toppest kek

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

>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.

>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.

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.

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

>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 (492x449, 48K)

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.

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 (728x546, 77K)

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

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

economic*

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

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

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.

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

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

>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?

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?

>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.

>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.

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

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?

>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.

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.

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.

>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!

>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

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

>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 (468x349, 121K)

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

>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.

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.

>>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.

>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.

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

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

I am completely serious.

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.

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.

>>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.

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

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.

>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.

>>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.

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.

>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.