Is Jordan Peterson right about post-modernism? Is it cancer?

>Stirner
>Postmodernist
What?

And yes, Peterson's right. Postmodernists are absolute pseudo-intellectual trash

Name 2 post modern authors and why they are trash

That's because Peterson has either had a very poor reading of post-structuralism or didn't read the authors at all, only american academics who went to some pretty retarded places with post-structuralism (aka the people who started calling it postmodernism in the first place).

I also remember my polish art history teacher from back when I was 13 hating post-modern art and used Tracey Emin's "My Bed" and Marcel Duchamp's Fountain as examples.

So what is post-modernism then?

Oh my bad, I thought I read on wikipedia that he's a post-modernist. I must have got that mixed up with something else

>Danielewski
Wrote a pretty good popcorn book and then went back and filled it with unbearable rambling bohemian nothingness, effectively ruining his work
>Derrida
Needless obscuring of language without any meaningful or aesthetic benefits

virtually every serious academic today considers Derrida to be an obscurantist with strictly facile arguments.

Postmodernism is a separate beast, though. But Derrida is a joke.

That's what happens when you think wikipedia works better than actually reading. Duchamp is modern art, Tracey Emin's career started after post-modernism had already begin it's decline and what you read is that Stirner is a huge influence on post-modern philosophy - something you would know if you had actually read any philosophy and not browsed wikipedia and youtube mindlessly for days on end.

It's great that in two examples you showed you don't understand at least three things (post-modernity, literature, philosophy)

>Name 2 post modern authors and why they are trash

How about you ask a full fucking question if you want a specific answer, retard?

>I studied engineering at (uni) so religion, philosophy and literature has always been missing.

Don't fucking use that as an excuse you sorry sack of shit. What are you a fucking Biomed brainlet.

Same shit, pick a different name for your identity-group those are gone.

I honestly don't get how people have such a hard time reading Derrida.

I think the main issue is the labor of reading vs quality of work ratio, not just the labor of reading

>postmodernism

nobody seriously gives a fuck about the so called "post debates" for nearly two decades......apart from undergraduates.

can we stop having these threads?

>apart from undergraduates.
They are our future graduates, user

He's not hard to read and he is rewarding. What's the issue?

I just don't know where to begin. A few years ago I got about a quarter way through Das Kapital Vol. 1 but stopped. I'm not so big into economics so it was incredibly dull.

I am interested in Liberalism, so I guess that means reading JSM and maybe Bentham since he founded the uni I went to.

What are robust post-modern philosophers that people should read?

Electronic Engineering with Nanotechnology. But you're right, its not excuse. I'm a bad person

>and he is rewarding
that's where you're pee pee poo poo, friendo

Holy ....

>foucault is alright
>postmodernism is cancer though (by postmodernism i'm referring to post-structuralists like derrida or deleuze)
???

@9515001
(You)

I believe what he said was that the post-modernists had some brilliant minds among them even if JBP disagreed with them

Yeah, he said that Derrida is extremely intelligent. Perhaps he meant he was sinister

I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to go any more specific out of fear of a defamatory lawsuit, a lot of post-structuralists are extremely sensitive to criticism, it happened to Bloom and it'll happen to Peterson.

Most post-structuralists aren't even alive anymore, you fucking retard. I mean, most of them didn't even care for american academics either, the only time I've ever seen any of them react to criticism was when Derrida (rightfully) called Sokal dishonest.

It's also okay to admit that he makes mistakes. I quite like him, I find his lecture fascinating and his more self-helpy stuff has actually helped me turn my life around to some extent. But he's made plenty of mistakes. He can't know everything.

Of course, that's what I thought about the Bill C-16/OHRC fiasco but after looking into it further I realized he was 100% right

No one hasn't recommended any good post-modern literature

>No one hasn't recommended any good post-modern literature
Re-read your sentence

Gravity's Rainbow.

how about half-decent then?

>no one hasn't
You're saying every single person so far has recommended good post-modern literature

oh yeah my bad

It's okay dude grammar is a social construct :)

no bully pls

He is half-right about Derrida, but I would urge anyone who hears criticism of other people from people they respect to read the actual works of the people they criticize.

>Is Jordan Peterson right about post-modernism?
if you haven't read anything about postmodernism how would you know?

peterson is okay tho.

thats why i made this thread, to ask people who have read stuff about postmodernism

I'll read derrida like I intend to finish Marx. Its on the list

>to finish Marx
What the fuck do you mean by that

Marx wrote faster than most people can read, there are entire shelves in libraries devoted to his bibliography

Mainly Das Kapital, since that's the work that is lauded as his most important

>thats why i made this thread, to ask people who have read stuff about postmodernism
yeah but our opinions will only be based on our subjective ones. you yourself need to start reading the works and then critic petersons and ours.
if not you're just wasting time.

Why do these fucking philosophers always grasp for some boogeyman to blame for all misery? Maybe people just aren't very happy species. Maybe being a biblecuck and cleaning your room 24/7 won't magically solve your depression. Maybe the age of plenty gave humans time for good, long introspection, and they didn't find much inside.

No, it's all gotta be ebil marxist/postmodernist/globalist plan to overtake humanity for reasons

>postmodernism is cancer though (by postmodernism i'm referring to post-structuralists like derrida or deleuze)
why does he like budget-Deleuze, but not Deleuze himself?

Even if you think Peterson is badly misinterpreting post-structuralist thought, which he probably is considering he's pretty much admitted he hasn't read them properly, you can't deny there are american academics who do interpret these thinkers as saying exactly these things and who do not recognise any difference between post-modernism and post-structuralism, and that these academics form the mainstream of (US at least and I would say anglo) university culture in the humanities and social sciences, as well as having a disproportionate influence in the media etc.

What I don't like about Peterson though is more to do with the way he performs these mental gymnastics with his reading of Nietzsche to make him out to be something other than proto-postmodern. Plus, related to this, his "the dominance heirachy is the oldest and most basic thing there is" spiel is exactly the kind of postmodern reducing complex human behaviour to ooga booga power relations, that he claims to be against and the exact same idea that's created the current sitch regarding free speech and discourse (i.e. that everythings just about power so when we engage in dialogue, it's ALWAYS a destructive violent struggle and NEVER a constructive thing where we both come away with new ideas and stuff).

That's my two cents anyway

Well Nietzsche the philosopher certainly was proto-postmodern.

But Nietzsche was trying to solve problems that was beyond mere philosophizing though, which is obviously why he wrote Thus Spake Zarathustra.

Deleuze is actually often the exception for a lot of people who dislike Post-modernism.

>proto-postmodern
Stop.

looks like postmodernism became this new thing for the "intellectually superior" to obsess about

timeline:

>religion
>game journalism
>feminism
>social justice warriors
>"cultural marxism"
>postmodernism

what will be 2018's spooky trend ? my bet is on some misinterpreted take on accelerationism or deep ecology

>>proto-postmodern
>Stop.
Name 1 (One(Uno(A Single))) problem with my assertion

REDDIT

SPACING

>Deleuze is actually often the exception for a lot of people who dislike Post-modernism.
makes sense really, you can't hate this legends philosophy.

I don't know much about Deleuze, but I've heard him referred to as basically an old school metaphysician. How much truth is there to that and does that have something to do with it?

Jesus would be a proto-postmodernist under most definitions.

Well it should bother anyone that universities are spewing out political propaganda to impressionable 18 year olds, regardless of what the content of that political propaganda is.

>Peterson is charismatic
I really don't see how people can find him charismatic. He's not a boring or bad speaker sure, so in that sense maybe he's charismatic, but he just seems really anxious to me.

somewhat, I remember reading a conference text of him and he criticized philosophers after Plato for not questioning "what is." He's an enjoyable thinker once you start piecing his philosophy together, and read his essays on Proust, Cinema and other philosophers.

That's not what he says about the dominance hierarchy at all. He says that we transcended the violent and destructive nature of this domination and worked together, the two beta chimps overpowering the tyrant alpha chimp being an example. In this sense he's basically restating Hobbes' Leviathan that the chaotic nature of human beings can only be avoided with a covenant.

Can you explain to me why Badiou thought Deleuze was a crypto-fascist?

Deleuze was a crypto-fascist.

I haven't read Badiou yet, and I'm still in the process of reading Deleuze himself. I'm only giving you my basic understanding of him thus far.

What he actually says is that competition and cooperation aren't mutually exclusive, which is something he took from Jean Piaget.

The idea that a social hierarchy must always depend on the domination of one group over the other is wrong, because social hierarchies are maintained by the tacit cooperation of everyone.

Like he says, nobody brings a basketball to play chess, which by definition constitutes cooperation, even though playing chess automatically means there's only 1 winner of the game.

t. Badiou

Yes, but Jesus might be distantly proto-postmodern in some sense, but Nietzsche is one of the thinkers that almost all the postmodernists namecheck as a direct influence, much much more so than Marx, or even Freud.

jordan pee-pee tear son

I dunno, I didn't read any of that shit. I'll take his word for it though, sounds good.

you guys are far more well read than I am, its inspiring. I have same feeling as I did when I first went on /mu/ back in 2011

When did Peterson discuss anything with Sam Harris a second time?

It's the same in every board - about 15% of its population actually knows their shit and is well versed in the subject, 50% are well-intentioned meme-spewing marionettes, 20% are shitposting retards and the other 15% are blogposters who want a friendship simulator.

Its especially interesting on Veeky Forums, every general on there is like a microcosm of a board.

i don't respect any belief that is not postmodernism or postmodern christianity.

>we transcended the violent and destructive nature of this domination and worked together, the two beta chimps overpowering the tyrant alpha chimp being an example
This is true definitely, and important to emphasise, but it's still reductionist.

We haven't even in this case escape asserting that even cooperation results as a means of defending ourselves from domination. Which it obviously does. But this also ignores the fact that there is something else going on regarding communication which has nothing to do with power or domination except on some very abstract and clutching reading of the communicative act.

Namely, meaningful and informative communication has its instrumental worth, to avoid domination, but also an intrinsic worth, simply to bridge horizons with other people. Communication/cooperation has to have an intrinsic worth, or we would only ever communicate with people on the same level of the dominance hierarchy as us, and experience tells you that this isn't the case.

>The idea that a social hierarchy must always depend on the domination of one group over the other is wrong, because social hierarchies are maintained by the tacit cooperation of everyone.
Sure, this is a step up from the simplistic idea that everything is just domination, but it's still just power relations, as if no other motivations for communication exist. And the bridging impulse might not be as old as the dominating impulse, but it's certainly just as pronounced.

>tfw all profesors are modernists that believe in progress, ethics and morals.
>tfw smug postmodernist not giving a fuck

A local conclusion to Anti-Oedipus is that basically fascism is the most natural state of man, the problem arises is that you can also read Deleuze as a Transcendentalist, combine theses two readings and well, Deleuze basically becomes Anarcho-hilter.

>Sure, this is a step up from the simplistic idea that everything is just domination, but it's still just power relations,

So a basketball game is just "power relations" ?

wat.

Apply postmodernism to postmodernism and watch postmodernism break down.

ohh boy. I now know why the "aestheticization of politics" always sounded like a good/not fundamentally bad idea to me.

No what I was saying is that getting the conclusion that Deleuze is a fascist runs counter to his idea of a body without organs.

No, but the things that make it more than just about dominance lie outwith any conversation about rules etc. and are more about the personal content of the game for the players and viewers. This personal content can't be accounted for with reference to "dominance hierarchies".

I'm not disagreeing with anything he's said, I just don't think it's the whole picture of human behavior to say that there is only competition and cooperation and nothing outside that. And I don't think he believes that, just that he's way overdeveloped the dominance/power aspect of our behavior and way underplayed that intrinsic and communicative aspect.

Not really explaining this well, but hopefully you get what I mean

Yeah but that is his critique though. That there's more about "the game" than just domination and power.

It's pretty straightforward in my opinion. He is obviously 'not well read' on 'postmodernism'. But postmodernism is a vague concept. He's just decided to dismiss a load of writers which he, and many others, vaguely classify as 'postmodernist'.

The question is, is he justified in dismissing those writers? In my opinion, pretty much yes. There is a lot of content in those writers that is worth looking in to, but there are also alot of dead ends and especially, endless mazes.

He is trying to 'start again' in his study of humans, using Jung seriously and so forth, which in my opinion is great. Jung seems to be ignored by most of Peterson's anglo-american positivist colleagues, and the 'postmodern' writers he vaguely refers to are also antithetical to Jung.

The main writer he dismisses which I would recommend is Foucault. Not that the others are not worth reading, but Foucault adds to the areas which Peterson talks about rather than detracts from them.

Sure, but his account of the part of "the game" that isn't domination and power, i.e the team-playing, cooperative part, is portrayed by him, as far as I can tell. as being basically a reaction to the threat of being dominated and not something that people do without needing to for any pragmatic reason, just because it's intrinsically worthwhile.

I'm not an expert on him and I haven't read Piaget so maybe I'm wrong about this, but I haven't ever heard him talk about communication etc. except as something we do to avoid domination and power being exercised over us.

JP is right in the sense that a good knowledge of reality is incompatible with human flourishing.

But I think he is wrong in the side he chooses, memes and ignorance to keep monkeys happy in denial of truth.

Ray Brassier chooses truth over monkey comfy and sees philosophy itself, knowledge itself, as leading to human extinction. That seems like the way to go because intelligent people can not deny truth, it's a pathological thing.

>Stirner, post modernist

What did OP mean by this.

I like him because he seems extremely sincere. Last time he was on JRE he started tearing up talking about sorting yourself out and archetypes and sheit.

He's a really well intentioned man. I think he's full of shit but he is sincerely trying to make the world better.

Charismatic in that he conveys that what he is talking about is DEADLY, DEADLY serious. Its NO JOKE and you bloody well better get yourself sorted out because, evil EXISTS, It DOES and if you think you couldn't be a nawzi, you're DEAD WRONG, bucko.

more like post moron lmao

He really is, read him carefully.

Obviously. 10 men fight over a ball. They group into two teams of 5. Each team is trying to dominate the other. Within a team, each player is trying to work towards the goal of dominating the other by taking turns dominating and submitting to each other. Every time you pass, you are submitting to your team mate. Each time you drive, you are asserting dominance. Only one player ever controls the ball at any point in time. At that moment, they are the most dominant player. Everyone else is literally fighting over position in order to either be the next one to dominate, or to help a teammate be the next one to dominate. But it's all a game. As soon as people walk away, the power structures (mostly) disappear. Power relationships are real. Doesn't make them the most effective way to compartmentalize the world though. There's hardly a point to examining the existence or types of power structures in basketball, unless that somehow helps you discover better tactics and strategies for winning the game. It's really complicated to try and analyze anything from this perspective. Trying to deconstruct a single basketball game could take a book. Trying to catalog all the power interactions in society is a fool's errand. And what's the point of it? Knowing how things are can't tell you anything about how things ought to be. The modernists built a beautiful machine. The postmodernists realized it didn't really do anything. The problem isn't really postmodernism itself, but the people who use the complexity and ambiguity of post-modernism to hide their untethered ambition. Fascism and nihilism are often seen as modernist extremes, but that's not true. They are the only possible reactions to modernism, to the machine. Absurdism is the last stop of modernism, because you face the meaningless and basically act like it isn't there while openly acknowledging it--you work the machine because, why not? Fascism is the worship of the machine--you work the machine because the machine is beautiful and transcendent. Nihilism is the worship of the do-nothing--you neither work the machine, nor abandon it, doing whatever you will, for it is all the same. It's all true, but if we don't come up with another answer, we all die. Some argue with how best it should be done, but maybe we should simply answer the question we've been afraid to ask--why?

I agree with this. I'd rather clean my room and get laid than continue my search for truth, which Will probably lead to human extinction, but at the same time it seems childish to concern myself with something that large

I agree with most of what you say, but lets not kid ourselves.

Firstly, you are playing basketball. Which means that 10 people agreed to play basketball and follow the rules. This constitutes cooperation by definition. Then there is the overarching meta-game going on if you're a basketball player. What happens in the court obviously has the characterizations that you are describing, but if you are playing the game, so to speak, only by yourself(e.g being egotistic with the ball and trying to gain all the glory for yourself), you will be hated by your team mates, and not invited to the next game, which means that when you are playing basketball, you are simultaneously playing basketball but also playing at being a specific kind of human being.

And you need to do both things correctly in order to continue being invited to further games. Which begs the question if there is a way to correctly play the game, but also to correctly play a human being, such that you will be invited to all sets of possible games?

This is Piaget's theory of an "equilibrated state". You get what you want, but so does everyone else.

I always get a lump in my throat when I see him staring to tear up during a discussion. I do the exact same thing sometimes, I start tearing up during conversations I'm really passionate about even if they aren't sad. I had always felt foolish for doing it but seeing someone else like him doing the same made me feel a lot better

>Marx wrote faster than most people can read
so did L Ron Hubbard