Yes, mental illness is on the rise

Lmao

Molyneux is smarter.

AS SOLZENTISJUNG ONES SAID

>tfw you watch Peterson's lecture to learn and suddenly your youtube recommended is filled with videos with titles like "JORDAN PETERSON DESTROYS POSTMODERNISM AND FEMINISM IN 12 SECONDS"

why humans gotta ruin a good thing

SORT

YOURSELF

OUT

OOT

>logos

Molyneux and Peterson are smarter than 9/10 of this board imo
>people who unironically read plath think they're on par with a man who taught at harvard
lol
>b-but he doesn't have le original ideas
A person need only have ideas to be above you people

Its a pseud filler word, makes it sound like they're actually saying something and it amazes plebs

Peterson himself seems like a postmodernist

>going on youtube without being logged in

What the fuck? people actually watch this shit. hundreds of millions of people are watching this utterly banal bullshit and basing their world view off it. It makes one sick

>haven't cleaned their rooms

Anyone got any specific examples of what they think is wrong with his psychological or cultural analyses?

No. He just understands their entire movement down to its foundation.

Peterson does not believe the world has no meaning in it beyond a struggle for power between artificial kinds.

>2017
>not a Jungian Marxist Kabbalah man

I'm pretty sure that's not a compatible combination.

No. They're just angry because their rooms are dirty and he exposes either their faulty postmodernist philosophy or their meaningless logical positivist existence.

>Why yes I am a fan of Jordan Peterson, how could you tell?

You clearly don't understand post-modernism, if that's what you take it to be.

Autism

yes I do, you faggot weeb.
If you think you can explain it better in 15 words, then go ahead and do it.
Or you can just post anime girls.

>tfw you take the self-authoring programme

>Tolkien

lol this guy is such a pleb magnet

postmodernism is merely the cultural logic of late capitalism.

>peterson fans

He's actually genuinely brilliant and has a fantastic understanding of Jung.
It's not his fault his fanbase is autistic.

>mfw petersons fanbase

it's the only thing that makes sense
cscs.res.in/dataarchive/textfiles/textfile.2010-11-02.7672177498/file

>postmodernism is where we currently are in history
That doesn't explain what it is, you dumb triple nigger, you just explained its context. That answer is enough to tell me that you are a postmodernist yourself, and thus a faggot.

>Tolkien is pleb-taste
neck yourself

>pic related its jordan

>Tolkien is pleb-taste

True my reddit friend

>logos

>precept position

>substrait

>dominance hierarchies

>clean your room

>bucko

By 'postmodernism' Peterson seems to refer mostly to a strawman version of Foucault, based more on his Californian disciples than on the man himself, who was actually a nietzchean edgelord faggot who didn't even like leftists that much.

I actually agree with Peterson on some things, such as the need for religion as a way out from late capitalist relativism.

Molyneux is smart but he's a sophist. He argues dumb ridiculous shit but he's just smart enough to make it sound reasonable

Someone explain post-modernism to me again? Somehow everyone's definition collides and to me logos is a key part of post-modernism through the absence of it when it becomes circular. Logos is unavoidable in any argument if it's intelligent and critical in questioning.

when autism goes too far

>I actually agree with Peterson on some things, such as the need for religion as a way out from late capitalist relativism.

Kill yourself. That's literally the worst pack of this hack. God is dead

Idiot

pretty much this.
He has a lot of really good old stuff, but most of his current events stuff is fucking tiresome, even when I agree with it.

The idea of god in and of itself give it life. Just a little quip Nietzsche said is always taken out of context. The only variable is change, my friend.

mate learn some respect

Moron

Imbecile

I am humbled due to the fact that I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean.

>Anytime Nietzsche said something that I don't like its actually just a popular misinterpretation

Yeah I've come across a lot of faggots like you in my time

paul joseph watson is beetter btw

Fool

Gone too far, retard. I'm sorry but there is no redemption for you now.

*infects you with treatment-resistant lice*

Zero intelligence in any of those words no matter what order you put them in, with the exception of Nietzsche. Take him into historical context and stop projecting his thoughts to our world. Things are different and have always been different. Nietzsche wasn't wrong but it's people reading his work whom misinterpret his work.

>Can you dumb down postmodernism for me into a single sentence
No, you idiot.
Let's start with negative definitions
Postmodern is not
>Nihilistic (though Nihilism is postmodern)
>Driven by "Arrogance or Resentment"
>SJWs
>Marxism
>Leftism

Postmodernism IS a rejection of the previous, modern and pre-modern, western tradition, mainly that which believed that truth is objective---which is to say that there is a single, absolute underlying "thing" or "single principle" from which all else derives, or that there is a single moral or metaphysical axiom, law, etc that defines everything, from which the subject, in the world of the senses/phenomena, gains or catches glimpses of, through modern-phil-theory filtration. This is Kant, this is Plato, this is Descartes.

Pre-postmodernist metaphysics was largely tasked with trying to properly divide realms of phenomena from rational/true/forms, postmodernism rejects this duality. There is no "world out there", there is only the "Subject" and the world it is inherently embedded within and indivisibly a part of. Postmodernists claim that dividing the subject from its context kills the meaning of the subject. For Heidegger (who, arguably, birthed this whole thing), in stupid terms, Humans literally do not make any sense, lack definition, are not humans or anything at all, without their being in the world. Husserl's development of phenomenology (Which would be picked up by Heidegger, Sartre, etc), and Heidegger's critique of science and math, lead to a conception of the world only understandable via our senses, our point of view, our context, rather than through rigorous "science".

So, what does this mean? Well, it depends who you want to read. Largely this means that meaning is no longer any objective unchanging thing "out there" to be discovered, but instead is inherently tangled up with the subject, it changes with the subject: Subjectivity. The meaning of the subject is inherently bound up with its context: this does not necessarily mean muh White Guilt.

cont.

lol. this is literally what I said but longer.
>no truth
>no reality except what I perceive
>only artificially constructed kinds engaging in power politics
thanks for taking the time to write it all out autistically tho.
>>/trash/

Now, this is NOT nihilism. Nihilism is postmodern, but postmodernism isn't nihilistic. Neither is it a rejection of individuality or free-will, as Peterson likes to characterize it. He also characterizes Marxism and Post-Modern, using a pretty amazingly dumb argument "Workers live better than they did, therefore they're not oppressed and dehumanized." While many major post-modernists were Marxists, and Marxism lends itself to Post-modernism, but Carl Schmitt and Heidegger were fuckin nazis, so, again, characterizing Post-modernism as inherently leftist is plain ignorant.

While people like to term postmodernism "Post-Truth", it's a misleading term. It's post Objective Truth, post-discernible, scientific truth; it is a rejection of previous understanding that truth can be understood, or understood through logic, rationality, and the various forms of dualism, whatever have you. Instead, it presents a world that is inherently complex and, for many, beyond human understanding. This is NOT NECESSARILY a rejection of ethics, or of states, or of anything else, it does, however, complicate them.

If the subject cannot be divided from its context, does not make sense without its context, then you have, potentially, an entire species of subjects, for which each context slightly overlaps, and yet their worlds greatly differ. Misinformed SJWs who think this proves relativist-ethics are idiots. Aut-Rightists who think this means the end of morals are even dumber.

Peterson doesn't tackle any of these things, let alone hint at its complexity, and the lack of any single, continuous post-modern view. Postmodernism is a fucking mess and can hardly be called an ironed out or hegemonic view, much less so than I did of "Modernism", which, I know, can vary massively.

However, Peterson just says "THEY'RE NIHILISTS, CAN'T CLEAN UP THEIR ROOM, LOGIC IS INHERENTLY PATRIARCHAL, THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN DISCOURSE" Which is total and absolute nonsense. It's hard to find views that even Judith Butler, who, arguably, helped cause the recent SJWs (Gender Trouble is worth a read though) would agree with.

He's a fucking sophist trying to push a bullshit ideology. If the rest of his work is like those 12 minutes, then Harvard is a sham. This entire lecture is the description of a strawman.

I completely agree with the exception of there not being an objective subjective about certain systems, ideologies, civilizations, etc. because everything has a historical context. Post-modernism is essentially an angstie teenager hating their life of puberty and awkwardness. Arguably, any post-modernist in any era would find themselves hating the world.
That being said there is still an objectivity to subjective frames of thought, e.g. tastes in art

>LAlalalalala Nietzsche wouldn't think I'm a pathetic retard lalalalalalla

Dude just stop, there's plenty of dumb religious meme philosophers out there for you, I don't get why people like you feel the need to try sock puppet Nietzsche of all figures

>anime poster on a Bhutanese aluminum origami forum thinks he's smarter and knows more about philosophy than Jordan Peterson
>accuses others of strawmanning at the end of that post

Stop arguing like you're on /pol/. This forced incredulity is tiresome. Just state your ideas without pretending you're gonna be in some epic btfo screencap.

Anyway, you are just labelling those ideas as inherently "bad" without explaining why.

You joyless user.

>mfw all these pseudointellectuals

le persian stalin impersonator face

This guy here.
I am a post-modernist dude. Hope off the dick.
I'm just able to discern the difference between nihilism and post-modernism like what Nietzsche stood for.
You've been browsing too much Veeky Forums and haven't dove into enough books if you think Nietzsche's entire philosophy is fuck the world literally. It's more of a don't care about things that keep you from achieving Ubermensch.
>Muhh Nietzsche would throw a fit Muhhh he would CARREEE about my opined tantrum.
Eat a jizz sock faggot

>knows more about philosophy than Jordan Peterson

Oh wow, a liberal arts psych self help guru

>It's more of a don't care about things that keep you from achieving Ubermensch.

Yeah like believing in God

>no reality except what I perceive
Misconstrued. Even a postmodernist would agree that humans, largely, interact with the word in the same way. (Heidegger does exactly this). This is not necessarily highly individualized, but instead creates a species-subject, whose truth can only be defined within the confines of Humanity's context.
Therefore, if this is true, and I think it is, you can't have SJWs claiming that whatever they think or say goes because, y'know, postmodernism. It doesn't make sense. But you're making the same mistake, and even worse, can't even refute it.

> the exception of there not being an objective subjective about certain systems
Can you re-write this? What does the "not being an objective subjective about" mean?
>Post-modernism is essentially an angstie teenager hating their life of puberty and awkwardness
Can you explain this?

I'm not claiming to have read any of his work. I only watched those 12 minutes "Postmodernism: How and why it must be fought", and it's bullshit. It's clearly a straw man aimed confirming the beliefs of his audience. You'd have to be blind to not see it.

>I have to explain that there is a reality outside of your perception
>I have to explain that there is an objective reality that we describe by categories, even if they are created socially and sometimes imperfect.

Yes. Context of the subject is always relevant, but it doesn't overwrite the reality itself, even if everything we know comes through the lens of our subjectivity.

>I only watched those 12 minutes
Well I recommend you look into him more.

>There's only one path to Ubermensch
Little do you know... Buddha would NOT be so disappointed because he'd let it go

>knows more about philosophy than Jordan Peterson

peterson is a psychologist, not a philosopher; most of the figures (like jung, solzhenitsyn) he discusses are not philosophers, and most of the political, psychological and aesthetic trends he comments on are not primarily the domain of philosophers. even postmodernism is not a serious movement in philosophy, it lives mostly in literary theory with influence from a few, now largely outdated philosophers.

i doubt peterson knows much of anything about husserlian phenomenology or fregean formal logics or deleuzian interpretations of spinoza or tarskian theories of truth or the differences between late and early heidegger or lewisian semantics for counterfacuals and so on and so on. it's not hard to know more about philosophy proper than peterson, i'd expect that your average grad student in philosophy knows more about the subject than peterson does

*le leader of the kurdish independence movement face

youtube.com/watch?v=Cf2nqmQIfxc

I can't believe what an idiotic polemic he's launching. Jesus christ, what the fuck is he talking about. Does he know nothing about post-modernism?

>"The first thing you should know about post-modernists is they don't have a shred of gratitude!"

Oh boy! You sure taught us a lesson!

>I have to explain that there is a reality outside of your perception
>I have to explain that there is an objective reality that we describe by categories, even if they are created socially and sometimes imperfect.
Please try.
>I recommend you look into him more.
This dude's a psychologist. Why should I look to his opinion on philosophy and politics?

He's a jaded conservative whos afraid that postmodernists will eliminate sensible conservatism among young people (while allowing idiot /pol/ tier reactionary conservatism to flourish). Can you blame him for saying the things he does? I think his fears are genuine, if a bit grouchy

It's the conservative's fault that conservatism isn't flourishing anyway. Guy's successful, has a whole league of underage /pol/lacks to support him for the time being. Can't say I especially pity him

What's genuine about his fears? If anything, he's supporting the autistic /pol/tards by creating an unnecessary opposition with no shred of merit. The way he talks about people of a different thought as if they are enemies is quite alarming. He even opens his shallow speech by stating how fortunate it is that the major post-modernists are all dead, which mainly seems fortunate for him so they can't address his critique (not that they would). Zizek, as meandering as he can be, would take Peterson to task in a discussion of the post-moderns. Christ, this is truly pitiful. The fact that this guy has any kind of following is disheartening for the state of knowledge. He's essentially marketing himself as some kind of life guru - here lies about the dangerous egomaniac.

Also
>implying SJWs are post-modern

>>There's only one path to Ubermensch

Absolutely true

Yeah, this.
SJWs are basically capitalist liberals who want more brown people and enjoy irony too much

Zizek likes to hang out with garbage,
As an academic its the least he could do.
Peterson is just a opportunist that gets offended that everyone gets offended. Maybe he has a righeous purpose but i think hes already jumped the shark for being too hasty in spreading conclusions.

...

>The way he talks about people of a different thought as if they are enemies is quite alarming
So... just like every leftist speaker then?

>-Rupi Kaur

Any actual leftist lecturer presents the other side as rational and tries to understand their point of view before making fun of them. Postmodernism is pretty helpful for, you know, actual discourse.

It's presupposition retard.

>Postmodernism is pretty helpful for, you know, actual discourse.

if they refuse to even understand the other person's point of view, it's not subjectivity and not pomo