Why do people like Jordan Peterson?

I'd reconsider going too hard against the postmodernists. If you've ever spent time with actual commies you'll know there's nothing they hate more than postmodernists, which they see as 'liberals' rather than leftists. To problematise them, they put them in an equivalent category with classical liberals (the good kind, as redpillers read it). A lot of the most free-thinking, openly rightwing literature I've seen reach acceptance on campuses is postmodern literature. Claiming there are no truths isn't the worst thing when the primary social threat is forced adherence to untruths: on campus, postmodernists alone can get away with not being anti-racist etc. Playing games like, 'They're racist and they're not racists.'

It's meant to just be about art and aesthetic attitudes, anyway, which is a pretty rightwing stance to begin with (the stance that anything can be 'just art' and ergo can absent itself from politics).

>OP

postmodernists, liberals, and communists are all the same = useful Satanic idiots

I'm dumbfounded by this comment.

How the fuck is the deconstruction of art right-wing?

I was excited to hear an academic intellectual talk against SJW, not necessarily because I anticipated agreeing with the guy but because you never hear refined criticism toward SJWs. I used to consider myself a liberal, but ever since Trump won I began distancing myself from both parties and putting liberalism under an unclouded microscope.

But this guy really doesn't know what he's talking about, building his claims off of shit like what OP mentioned. The more I listened the more he betrayed a vast ignorance of western philosophy. I wish there was somebody who can deconstruct how "safe spaces" and the echo-chamber of liberalism are bunk and only estranges people from one another. Sam Harris is damn good at it, maybe I'll hear what he has to say instead of this chump.

>But this guy really doesn't know what he's talking about

Several people keep saying this over and over again, and yet they never supply a single argument.

Just like SJWs.

It can or cannot be right wing. Consider Heidegger.

No post-modernist, or post-structuralist, however, has ever argued that everything is relative in the radical sense we often claim. None.

Marxism is ruining my country, fuck that german fag

>Why do people like Jordan Peterson?
>>Marxism lead to the atrocities of the Soviet Union!
>>Derrida poisoned current society!
>>Post-modernists say there are no such thing as facts!
>The guy is a fucking idiot.

OP is a fucking idiot.

>has ever argued

No, of course not, because post-modernists don't "argue" for anything. Argumentation and logic is obviously phallogocentric, and only exists to further the power structure of Western civilization.

You don't have to be relativistic to be an idiot.

Communists aren't useful idiots. You're not going to win the the West if you only focus on American politics.

Wow! You really turned the tables on him!

>Argumentation and logic is obviously phallogocentric, and only exists to further the power structure of Western civilization
This level of hyperbole is beyond the boundaries of civilised conversation. I'm not going to embarrass myself by having this dialogue.

he brings up the same handful of books/thinkers in every interview/lecture leading me to believe they're the only ones he's ever read. i feel like he just read the gulag archipelago once and ran with it desu

It's not even hyperbole. It's literally Jacques Derrida's claim you fucking moron.

Derrida still believed in objectuve truth, therefore he doesn't fit your pomo definition.

>Derrida still believed in objectuve truth

>"Postmodern philosophy is a philosophical direction which is critical of certain foundational assumptions of Western philosophy and especially of the 18th-century Enlightenment. It emphasizes the importance of power relationships, personalization and discourse in the "construction" of truth and world views. Postmodernists deny that an objective reality exists, and deny that there are objective moral values.[1]"

What does that even mean?
Post-modernists are anti-realist idealists?

Nice job supporting what said.

It means they're critical of the notion of truth, as it is often constructed to preserve power.

No, it says right there they deny the existence of objective truths.
That's a contradiction if the statement "there are no objective truths" cannot be objective itself.

Name an objective truth and I guarantee that some pomo philosopher will have figured out a way that it is reducible to the power relationship between humans.

wow it's almost as if lumping a disparate group of radical thinkers under a single banner of 'postmodernist philosophy' makes it impossible to discuss any definable features of the group

You can deduct the reality of objective truths by attacking every notion of anti-realism.
The statement "everything is subjective" can be proven wrong quite easily.
Assuming one cannot produce a third option, the existence of objective truths becomes obvious.

Well it's time for you to actually read a book by him, rather than echoing what you saw on internet

>implying any postmodernist believes in the subject-object dichotomy

back to the cogito with you

This isn't an argument you faggot. If you can't deal with arguments simply because they aren't produced through a manner that you find acceptable, you should fuck off.

By definition an object is something that can be objectified, which means it can be registered by some form of subject.

If something cannot be objectified it's nothing and nothing can be said about it.

Plato already addressed this in the Parmenides.
Something that withdraws from all determinations is nothing.

saying that an object exists because it can be observed is no better than saying an object exists because god made it. giving the onus of ontotheology to man's perception is circular reasoning, user

This is pure trash. Please stop posting.

That's not what's being said, an object by definition can be objectified IE it can be addressed in one way or another.
There are many objects that will never ever be addressed in any sense, this isn't an anti-realist idealist position, it's realist to the core.

Addressed doesn't imply epistemic practices btw.

I'm mostly posting what Plato has said and modern realists believe to be true.
Address their positions coherently please.

i think jordan peterson reads these threads

i don't know why i just feel it

i feel like he's reading this right now...

>real communism hasn't been tried!
k

you're just saying that an object exists because it has the potential to be addressed, meaning that human activity is still prized as the determining factor of what does and does not exist.

your references to plato do nothing to help your cause. plato diverted the pure ontologies of the presocratics into the sad metaphysical quibbling over beings instead of Being that ruined western philosophy for 2000 years!

>you're just saying that an object exists because it has the potential to be addressed
No I'm precisely not, I'm saying that when an object exists, it can be registered potentially.
If something is absolute and for that reason wholly transcendental, then we have a contradiction here because I can at least make the claim it is wholly transcendental, again pulling up a determination IE the thing is no longer absolutely withdrawn from my perception.

You are confusing correlation with causation here.
You know little about philosophy suggesting from the rest of your post.

>suggesting communism is the only way marxism can be actualized into a political system
lol

if you dont recognize my posts as literally just parroting heidegger, you have no business posting anything about postmodernism, user

Marxism is literally just resentment at not being at the top of the hierarchy.

It's not fucking Heidegger, just because you bring up Being it doesn't mean you have reproduced Heidegger.
Heidegger himself delivers a counter-argument to anti-realism with the notions of Vorhandenheit und Zuhandenheit.
Hell all forms Being itself is something that exists objectively regardless of registration, but they all can be addressed potentially.

being against anti-realism does not mean you believe in objective truth.

your reference to Vorhandenheit and Zuhandenheit has it backwards: these dispositions toward Being does not prove that the beings themselves exist, but instead open a world unto which Dasein has a relationship with Being. there is no inherent Vorhandenheit in an object--i can use a hammer any which way i want and a different world is projected by it. same goes for Zuhandenheit. the "object" taken up in these dispositions does not objectively exist, but is projected by the world in which a composite is taken up. Why is a hammer considered as one thing and not instead a head attached to a handle? because the equipmental totality with which Dasein has a relationship has projected "hammer" as a single "object" in its Being-in-the-world.

saying that there is an "objective truth" means that Truth itself has to become an object, which, since Truth exists outside the subject and object, cannot be the case.

sounds like u only read Being & Time and skipped out on the harder and more profound stuff after it user.

Yes it is.

>In analytic philosophy, anti-realism encompasses any position involving either the denial of an objective reality or the denial that verification-transcendent statements are either true or false. This latter construal is sometimes expressed by saying "there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not P".

Zuhandenheit is a Seinszustand, Sein is according to Heidegger an inherent quality of objective reality.
>since Truth exists outside the subject and object, cannot be the case.
Again you are confusing correlation with causality.
Being able to be determined in any sense by a subject does not mean something is not objective, objective does not mean unrelated to the subject, objective merely means a subject cannot change the texture of whatever it is you're describing.
Existence can be part of that texture.

Sometimes I wonder whether these threads are made by Harris and Peterson's marketing teams, Veeky Forums is the ideal demographic, young, kind of stupid, sexually frustrated men who need somebody to hate in order to consitute their stunted, oedipal, teenager phase ego.

>analytic philosophy
>Heidegger
No. Also please refrain from referring to wikipedia in anything regarding philosophy

>objective does not mean unrelated to the subject
yes, thats the problem. you cannot have an object without a subject so therefore "objective reality" can only exist by reference to an observing subject

all in all i dont think you're that wrong about heidegger but he's pretty clear that the distinction between "object" and "subject" is untenable given that a subject is really just there-being that is inseparable from the "objects" that it perceives. Being-in-the-world is one thing. there are "objective" aspects of Being but the world "objective" misleads us into confusing beings for Being

Woah dude... You just redpilled me. Enlightening.

I think he's got students that read this shit for him, and then present him the relevant things.

He's pretty good tho, might even expand on some Jungian concepts once he stops caring what people think of him.

Why the fuck are you bringing any of this up, none of this is related.
I never claimed Heidegger was an analytical and it doesn't even fucking matter.

You said anti-realists don't deny objective truth when that is -exactly- what defines an anti-realist.
And who else would I quote to bring you a satisfying understanding of anti-realism?
You're really just arguing for the sake of arguing, this is dishonest.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/#7

>you cannot have an object without a subject so therefore "objective reality" can only exist by reference to an observing subject

For the last time, this is wrong and not what I'm saying.
When someone says a thing can be objectified it doesn't pre-suppose the existence of something that objectifies it, merely that all objects happen to be things that can be objectified, hence the fucking word object.

Stop confusing correlation with causation, I'm not even making a correlationist point but you're pinning me down to a correlationist argument (which is already a faulty reading of what I'm saying) and then you make logical mistakes building on top of that premise.

Things do not exist because they can be addressed.
Things that exist can be addressed.

What do you actually think you gain by making comments like this?

Do you think you appear smart by using armchair psychology, or reducing every other person's motivations to primal urges and principles?

>he's pretty clear that the distinction between "object" and "subject" is untenable given that a subject is really just there-being that is inseparable from the "objects" that it perceives. Being-in-the-world is one thing. there are "objective" aspects of Being but the world "objective" misleads us into confusing beings for Being

You have just convinced me that Heidegger is either a mong or a massive fraud, which he is often convinced of being. Thanks for saving me the time friend.

I like his ideas when he's not pandering to memers by making Pepe videos. I hope he writes a book on history and religion.

I'm not entirely with him so far, but his talk of attributes like "openness" is really interesting to me. Seems like a more refined version of Jungian psychology.

At least he doesn't blame the Frankfurt School for everything under the sun. I guess that's a sign of improvement for these popular, redpilled social critic types.

Well, he talks all the time about how both sides of the political spectrum can become corrupt and totalitarian, they just manifest themselves in different ways.

Someone who thinks Peterson is some right-wing pundit who is only after the radical Left obviously has never watched any of his lectures.

>For the last time, this is wrong and not what I'm saying
you dont think it be like it is but it do

>When someone says a thing can be objectified it doesn't pre-suppose the existence of something that objectifies it, merely that all objects happen to be things that can be objectified, hence the fucking word object.
it does, however, presuppose the concept of Object that in your rendering is only justified by circular reasoning. this concept does not come from nowhere--it began as a grammatical construct that was raised to an ontological category in the translation from greek to latin. you may not -think- that an object doesn't presuppose a subject, but it does. it's written into the very concept of "object" and exacerbated when science adapts the subject-object divide and then becomes the ontological standard by which everything "real" is decided.

im not saying objects dont exist, im saying that reality is not an object and therefore cannot be objective. Being can be modeled by "objects" but it's ultimately an unsatisfying construction that puts discrete objects above deeper truths about the world. maybe all truths can be objectified, but im disagreeing that this should be the STANDARD by which things gain their truth

apologies if you think im memeing but the point im trying to make is a subtle one

have fun staying locked in the poisonous ontotheology of modernity, friend

A D H O M I N E M

I've watched a few, and he adheres to the ideological framework of our day pretty relentlessly. He seems to be acting with his solemn monologues and crying episodes. He just seems like the most recent of these """"prophets"""" of degeneracy. I even agree on some points, but I have to question his motives and whether anyone is behind him or hes just an opportunist.

thanks, friend :^)

>somebody to hate

if anything he teaches to learn to blame yourself and look at your own faults.

>and he adheres to the ideological framework of our day pretty relentlessly

Well, anything else would be incoherent to most people.

Derrida is objectively garbage. Only pseuds disagree.

>""""prophets"""" of degenerac
How can you take yourself seriously.

Ikr, I'm good at this sort of things

He has the potential to get people out of the nihilism, depression, and suffering.

He can give a person's life meaning and make them truly happy for years upon years, making them feel accomplished as they lay on their deathbed.

Maybe listening to him will benefit you .

>but his own philosophy is a kind of nonsense too
Psychology is a science.

I've listened to him. He deliberately misunderstands and misrepresents determinism and Darwinism for the core of his argument, he won't save anyone with an iota of discernment. And is it really salvation if you're being duped? I think not.

Full force in mouth pussy and asshole

>implying it's not true

It appears your words are either meaningless or purposefully negative/harmful.

"Listen" more and you might fix that.

I always find it strange when critics of the left like Peterson claim that subjects such as gender or queer studies are a kind of rampant post-modernist disease burning through academia. The majority of these courses have nothing to do with post-modernist thought - in fact, I've found that most progressive academics believe post-modernism has reached a kind of terminal dead end point. If its still possible to define a thinker as 'post-modernist', they'd almost certainly disagree with the notion of inventing gender pronouns. The act of categorisation is still an expression of fidelity to a system which proceeds by division and domination, so its absurd that those who consider themselves oppressed by heteronormative cultures want to label themselves. its almost a kind of self-repression. "Society, friends and family can't dictate who I am! Only my own spooky and fallible judgement can do that!".

But it's true. Peterson clearly props up ideas no-one believes, even Peterson, because they are convenient. For example, he takes the Standford Prison experiment seriously as a proof of evil. Isn't this guy a trained clinical psychologist? A bunch of college kids taking every liberty to fuck with so informal a study does not a conclusion on the human race make. I mean, it lasted like a fucking week.

>deflecting

>the institutionalization of anti-institutionalism
>not post modern
ok user

it's the taking of subjectivity to a perverse extreme, promulgating it like a new virtue, I'd say it more than qualifies.

>The guy is a fucking idiot.
He defines truth where it clearly needs defining.

How can Marxism be implemented outside of the model of Marxism-Leninism of some flavor? Not a gotcha question, I've been looking for an answer to this from Marxists for a while.

Are you the student from this video?

youtube.com/watch?v=WDLIR71Pe0A

I mean, outside the manifsto, which is more of a historical document than anything, Marx gave very little actual instruction on how to establish some kind of post-capitalist society. So if you take marxism as a critique of capitalism first and foremost, you have a lot of room on what to actually do. And if you look at the history of the workers rights movement, it wasn't some monolithic marxist-leninist block from the beginning, there were a LOT of different ideas and discussions going on, a lot of people disagreed with Lenin's approach and there were specific historic circumstances in which marxist-leninism eventually become the "standard" approach, it could have all gone quite differently.

You keep talking about groups or movements he's misinterpreted instead of specific issues. Fucking no one is pointing out any idea or point he's made that's wrong or fallicious. Why not talk about a specific argument he's made that you disagree with and why?
Comments which are nothing but generalizations are almost always bullshit. I feel like i'm being baited when I respond to faggots like you.

Postmodernism was a reaction against the muh eternal values that are totally not a fad.

Re: Estheteics.

youtube.com/watch?v=DKHH-vXxSzo

>implying there is such a thing as facts

>platonists
>knowing anything about philosophy

I got to a faaaaar left art school (one of the actual legitimate ones, unlike the daycare centers like Rutgers) and I don't care what people want their pronouns to be. The way I see it, it belongs to them just as much as their actual name. It doesn't complicate or lessen my life to call people what they wanna be called. The only time I see it being an issue is when the person with a nonbinary pronoun or whatever are SUPER self-involved, only wanting to talk about themself and having an almost Objectivist kind of mentality.

But those people are sparse, and even then their use of nonbinary pronouns seems to be symptomatic of some deeper issue or mental illness. But some people don't identify with either of the binary genders and just wanna be called "they." I don't see any reason to have a problem with it and Peterson sure hasn't illuminated any reason either.

he updated his reading list; added some stuff.
but he also removed Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment, I'm curious as to why.
someone make a thread about it, I'm too lazy

jungians are pretty interesting and peterson is also pretty interesting
i don't agree with everything he says but he has ideas worthy of consideration

The issue isn't people being allowed to use incorrect pronouns, the issue is people being disallowed from using the correct ones.

You want someone to pretend you're another sex and create a false more comfortable reality? Fine. But it's my decision whether or not I take part in that. I call the sky blue because that's what it is. If I want to address the reality that you're not a girl, or a wolf inside a humans body I should be allowed to without being accused of discrimination and kicked out of a college. Why do I have to pretend the sky is red because someone else can handle a basic reality?

Why is "don't be a dick" so hard for some people?

Why is "be honest" so hard for some people?

For a movement that preaches being yourself there sure is a lot of roleplaying.

>look him up
>his videos average 30,000 views apiece
>largest fluke video is 200,000

You told me this guy was a big deal, Veeky Forums.

meaningless drivel you've invented yourself you fucking idiot

Pretty transexual: She
Ugly trans: He

Someone had to say it, that's how it works in the real world.

The part about old-school communists who've actually read their Marx hating postmoderns is legit, though.

What "movement"? I'm just saying you don't need to be a dick. It matters to them, it doesn't hurt you.