Rate how pseudo this guy is on post-modernism

but we're supposed to celebrate those flaws because it's the motivation to try that gets my dick hard.

He's wrong about the post-modern, and right about the -ism

explain

Because they don't offer any solutions other than those that have failed and led to the unprecedented bloodshed of the 20th century.

Explain yourself bucko

There is an -ism that misuses certain ideas of late 20th century French philosophy, more here:

youtube.com/watch?v=fAPvgybAJQU

>but we're supposed to celebrate those flaws
Build a better one, don't bulldoze the old ones.

Why does Peterson claim to be a follower of Nietzsche? Nietzsche aimed to destroy metaphysics and take rationality and empiricism down a peg or two.

The post-modernists are his fucking successors.

iirc he talks about the frech postmodernists being different from the postmodernists of today on joe rogans 2nd podcast with him

His problem is that theyre tearing down these structures in order to replace them with communism, which he believes is murderous and will only lead to greater suffering. I dont think his problem is with postmodernism, rather the communists who walk hand in hand with it

>theyre tearing down these structures in order to replace them with communism,

They're doing a piss poor job at it.

Does this guy even read any of the guys he criticizes?

How can he say postmodernism is an assault on everything when nodoby can define postmodernism?

>Tearing down these structures....in order to replace them....
That's not what pomo is about I'm afraid

The way he talks about postmodernism as if it's a clear, agreed upon ideology meant to subvert and construct its own agenda is a good clue he has no clue what he's talking about, and is yet another example of a right winger creating a boogeyman scapegoat. Substitute "postmodernism" with "Judaism" and the argument is exactly the same. Because fearmongering is all capitalist brainlets are good at doing

youtube.com/watch?v=Q_zr_PU9iC8

He doesn't agree with the ubermensch meme and he has mentioned that Nietzsche kind of gave the first push for the development of post-modernism

He doesnt mean pomo is the obsessed with tearing down social structures. He meant more along the lines that commies have adapted tenets of pomo in order to justify their actions iirc.

Im not entirely sure if im getting his argument right, i havent listend to him speak in a while but i vaguely remember this being his point

I agree with the sentiment someone else expressed about him confronting an "-ism" that isn't exclusively post-modernism; he's confronting an ideology of anti-rationalism (kind of akin to what people might consider SJW) which he conflates with post-modernism. I don't think it's justified to explain away the rise of far left "liberalism" as post-modern development, and I think equating the two would be a big injustice in attempting to understand just what it is to be "post-modern."

In short I think Peterson is trying to bridge the gap between two buzzwords.

Oh boy another thinly veiled political thread on Veeky Forums. Just what we needed! Remember to sage and report all offtopic philosophy threads like this.

So is this guy a perspectivist or not? Post-modernism is just the next logical step in the philosophy that teaches man is the measure of all things.

It seems like Peterson isn't interested in the actual ramification of Nietzsche. Either he doesn't understand what he is reading or rejects it on an emotional level. Rejecting the successors of Nietzsche, having a nostalgia for Christianity. He also seems like he didn't learn a damn thing from Jung except how to play spot-the-archtype.

Modern commies are people who have never built anything with their hands and it shows

>and I would say that the metaphysical substrate looks something like a religious substrate, so it’s a direct assault on that

that sounds pseudo af

i haven't listened to the guy much, is he more of an ambitious modernist or a classic conservative?

Unlike I, a redpilled working class NEET who posts on anime imageboards. Damn those workers!!

I browse /po/, that counts

>..
I fucking hate that so much.

Why are you saying he didn't learn anything from Jung? And what is wrong with defending christian ideals? If you want to know of his views you can simply watch his videos.

youtube.com/watch?v=naWWzn2fxWc
youtube.com/watch?v=MCOw0eJ84d8

In regard to your Jung comment, I also get that impression. Jung can be so profound on many levels, and there is so much to learn from his Collected Works. Jung is most likely one of Peterson's biggest influences, but during the conversations with Sam Harris the only thing that he brought up was the "dominance hierarchy" and its relation to archetypes, something like that, not actually Jung on his own. Peterson is a clinical psychologist, but he never sees the clinical in Jung, which there is an abundance of.

>i haven't listened to the guy much, is he more of an ambitious modernist or a classic conservative?
Definitely the former.

You cannot be a follower of Nietzsche and be Christian. Christianity is pretty much the definition of slave morality and represents everything Nietzsche fights against. You do know in Nietzsche's Antichrist he calls it "worst than any vice" and says that there is not a single word of wisdom or kindness in the New Testament other than one line by Pilate?

From what I have seen he seems to have completly neglected Jung's theory of the inner universe. I have never seen him talk about the Anima, dream analysis, how the collective unconscious can be accessed directly, the meaning of day dreams or sudden urges/instincts. Nothing about cultivating inner strength. Anything to do with power from inside one's self. He seems to suggest all power comes from outside yourself. Which is how helpless losers think: incidentally this is a very Christian thing. Christians are helpless losers that need a savior figure. This is why Jung saw Gnostics as the good guys, they taught people to be their own savior. The myth analysis he talks about is Jungian, it's the type of power that comes from outside yourself.

The clinical side of Jung is very personal. All problems tend to get contextualized as an imbalance in your inner mind. Usually by overburdening one part of your mind with too much responsibility or by having other parts of your mind undeveloped and thus unable to take up their own responsibility. it's not the environments fault but how you are reacting to it.

His argument with Harrison seemed to be about epistemology of which Jung had very little to say.

0

he isn't a pseud on post-modernism, he's a pseud on psychology

>Still don't think people should worship in them of course.
What a faggot.

>it’s an assault on is everything that’s been established since the enlightenment; rationality, empiricism, science

Why does a Jungian existential psychologist have such a hard-on for the Enlightenment?

youtube.com/watch?v=naWWzn2fxWc

He explains himself way better in this video.

It's because he cherrypicks the arguments of various meme philosophers in order to sound sage-like or profound. A better question would also be "why is such an ardent anti-postmodernist so attracted to Nietzsche?" It's because Nietzsche is where he gets his "pull yourself out of the gutter" talk, and Jung is where he gets his existentialist talk, and Wittgenstein is where he gets his language stuff, and somehow he's able to wrap it up neatly in a shitty diagram like pic related and pseuds slurp it up like chicken soup because they genuinely believe he is some kind of a genius connecting all the dots for them

The better question is why Veeky Forums has such a hard-on for picking on this nobody.

Sounds good to me.
Based Peterson

He's pseudo when he tries to say anything else though. Post some of his stream of consciousness on religion. It takes some laughably broad steps

He always makes that Shakespeare argument, and I find it to be a really disingenuous logic that leaps from "interpretation is limited in that it cannot offer interpretations that kill the interpreter" to "the role of interpretation is to produce a reading that helps you live in some vaguely defined humanistic sense." He then goes even further and says you have to "extract useful tools from the literature."

So we go from

>You cannot interpret yourself to death.
>You must interpret in a way that keeps you alive.
>Interpretation must be useful in a pragmatic/utilitarian sense.

It's a pretty dramatic jump from is to ought, to say the least, but not even in a coherent direction. To go from self-preservation to utility totally excludes the fact that literature, interpretation, and philosophy only exist because self-preservation had already been met in more primitive social formations. This is important because neglecting that order of determination also neglects the fact that postmodernism is never an "endorsement" of the collapse of meaning, but very precisely is a reaction to an "philosophication" thereof. Derrida is not saying, woo hoo, read whatever you like into Shakespeare. He's saying that context has drifted so dramatically since Shakespeare wrote, that the very language we are reading him in is no longer the same, and even if historicist readings could perfectly reconstruct "what Shakespeare meant," that intention to mean is ontologically vanished from the writing: Shakespeare is dead, he doesn't "want to say" (vouloir dire) anything. It's honestly a weird kind of spiritualism that assumes intention can be hermeneutically recovered. This is probably why Derrida is so interested in ghosts later in life.

Now, why has context drifted in this way? Not simply because of semantic drift of which context is a reflection, but more because of social drift that becomes possible once necessity has been met. A society that no longer needs to bind itself together through a shared mythology, or, in a more modern sense, that no longer needs to actively pursue the means to overmaster natural necessity, can no longer agree as to what the world means. Its members no longer have any shared interest in it because their needs are met by other people quite independent of them. This results in the broad destabilization of context, which Derrida, Baudrillard, and Foucault are only symptoms of at worse and self-conscious reflections of at best.

>disingenuous logic

Dude what?

it has the appearance of logic, but i am trying to keep peterson's image of being intellectual intact by assuming he is being rhetorically persuasive and not stating his premises, rather than illogical and not having premises.

>You cannot be a follower of Nietzsche and be Christian. Christianity is pretty much the definition of slave morality and represents everything Nietzsche fights against.
You don't understand Nietzsche. He wasn't fighting against slave morality. He just questioned its legitimacy and argued that it is mentally unhealthy to believe in slave morality. A Christian can question the foundations of their moral system and also question whether its unhealthy just like Peterson does.

So what are you even saying? On one hand you acknowledge Nietzche thinks slave morality is unhealthy than you say he isn't fighting it. He makes it pretty damn clear the Christians and slave moralists are his sworn enemy.

>Christian can question the foundations of their moral system and also question whether its unhealthy just like Peterson does

You seem to be dodging the question. I'll ask directly. Does Peterson support slave morality? Does he think Christianity is slave morality? If the answer to the second question is no what are his responses to Nietzche and Jung's unholy ass-kicking? He's going on the side of their enemy while still claiming them as his teachers. It's like saying your a Marxist and you support the bourgeoisie.

Listen to his lectures on Dostoyevsky, he's clearly just a mediocre mind. Passionate and (because of his accent) honestly adorable, but mediocre

So what are you even saying? On one hand you acknowledge Nietzche thinks slave morality is unhealthy than you say he isn't fighting it. He makes it pretty damn clear the Christians and slave moralists are his sworn enemy.

>Christian can question the foundations of their moral system and also question whether its unhealthy just like Peterson does

You seem to be dodging the question. I'll ask directly. Does Peterson support slave morality? If he does than it's settled. He is not a follower of Nietzche.

If he does not think Christianity is slave morality he would need to seriously explain that (mostly by addressing Nietzche's historical and psychological critic of the religion's foundation). It's like saying your a Marxist and you support the bourgeoisie.

This is embarrassing

>On one hand you acknowledge Nietzsche thinks slave morality is unhealthy than you say he isn't fighting it.
I'm saying although he thinks its unhealthy for people he's not saying that the values of slave morality are incorrect. He just didn't think any of the justifications for Christian values were justified. In Peterson's case he found other justifications for the values of Christianity which had not been questioned by Nietzsche.

>Does Peterson support slave morality? If he does than it's settled. He is not a follower of Nietzsche.
Again you're trying to argue that Nietzsche thinks the values of slave morality are wrong when all he's saying is that it's unhealthy and he sees no justification for the values. Peterson is a follower of Nietzsche because he agrees that all of the older justifications for Christian values that Nietzsche was aware of are wrong. Peterson did what Nietzsche advised and sought out justification for Christian values and the justifications that Peterson found led him to the conclusion that it isn't actually unhealthy.

>It's like saying your a Marxist and you support the bourgeoisie.
No. What I'm saying is more like saying you're a Marxist but disagree with Marx on how socialism will be achieved. Plenty of Marxists disagree with him on that point.

Postmodernism doesn't argue 'for' anything, but it does clearly argue against many of the bases of Western culture, and it can be critiqued as destructive because of this.

>Make a whole book about being anti-christian and hating christianity
>Psueds 150 years later say you're views are compatible with christianity

good post

about two hundo leafbucks

if person A attacks thing B for reasons C and person D agrees with person A's attacks on B but defends thing B for reasons E then that means person A's views are compatible with thing B.

Nietzsche attacked Christian values and Peterson agreed with his attacks but then found other justification for it that were entirely unrelated to Nietzsche's attacks.

>being so autistic that you reply with bizarre algebraic bullshit

lol

>but then found other justification for it that were entirely unrelated to Nietzsche's attacks.
His "justification" is called being a fucking pussy

It fulfills many of the bases of Western culture. What is "anything can be art" if not objectivity taken to its logical conclusion? -- i.e. everything has an involved process in its creation, so what makes something more legitimate than the other? How can you claim that Western though is humanist when it privileges certain humans over others? etc. Postmodernism dispels any mystical shit and duplicity from the European tradition so the fields can go fallow, so to say. What we choose to build now will be more rational and fair than trying to reconcile fanciful religious thinking with material reality. No one is ever their ideals.

stop posting any time.

triggered?

replace kant with peterson

you're the one that through civility out the window and resorted to memes. I'm still just waiting here for someone to argue against what I said because all I've gotten so far have been emotional outbursts from people like you.

>civility
A modern and bourgeois value

Everything I said was correct, I dont treat you with respect because you do not deserve it. An honest insult is better than a polite lie

you're arguing against your own hallucination of what I said. I didn't demand respect or complain about your incivility

If you think nietszche and christianity is compatible you are retarded

I don't but peterson does. seems like you're hallucinating again

Now you're the one using memes

what meme is in that post?

muh hallucinating

it isn't a meme. I first said it above to say how you are arguing against something I never said. I said it again because you were doing that again

It is a meme, you are lying again

'Western Culture' self immolated 1939-45. Whatever was left has little connection to 'The West' ie. Christian, European civilisation. Many in the right as well as on the left(3rd worldists) conflate capital with 'western civilisation'. But capital is a phenomenon that transcends any notion of 'Western Civilisation'.

>The West
>Christian

>He just didn't think any of the justifications for Christian values were justified

Have you read ANY Nietzsche? The Anti-Christ is the single greatest attack on the religion ever produced. Like you think those youtube atheists or Sam Harris clones had some negative things to say about Christianity. They are practically Christians themself as far as Nietzsche is concerned. This man literally believes that every single Christian value is a war on life itself and a declration of hate for the universe itself. Let me repeat. There is no human being in history with worst things to say about Christianity than Friedrick Nietzsche. If you are a Christian you are his enemy and he really doesn't give a shit if it's because you misunderstand or his work. If he could he would personally nail every Christian to a cross and give them their own crown of thorns. He would have Saint Paul be raped in the ass by goats in the name of Dionysus.

>Peterson did what Nietzsche advised and sought out justification for Christian values and the justifications that Peterson found led him to the conclusion that it isn't actually unhealthy.

Nietzsche didn't ask his followers to justify Christianity. He asked them to destroy it and build the Overman on the ruins of the churches.

There's a fundamental discontinuity between classical Antiquity and the later medieval west, though. Something you don't see with Chinese civilisation for example.'The West' deliberately attempted to fashion itself after a half remembered antiquity, an antiquity that remained fundamentally alien to it.

>There's a fundamental discontinuity between classical Antiquity and the later medieval west, though.

Exactly, the "west" became less western as it became more christian. This is true both racially and spiritually.

Fact: Pajeets are the only pure aryans

Fact: You have no idea what aryan means

Pajeet is like 5% aryan and 95% who knows what

Persians are more aryan though...

*iranians

>If he could he would personally nail every Christian to a cross and give them their own crown of thorns. He would have Saint Paul be raped in the ass by goats in the name of Dionysus.
Nietzsche may have been bombastic but he wasn't a literal sociopath.

"I do not even want to nay-say the nay-sayers." Famous quote by Nietzsche.

In fact, Nietzsche saw slave morality and Christians as necessary to make a certain intellectual elite more deeper by setting themselves off against them, arguing against them. Nietzsche saw everything as necessary. Ironically enough, he really "loved his enemies" because of the stimulus they provided him to make his thought.

>If he could he would personally nail every Christian to a cross and give them their own crown of thorns. He would have Saint Paul be raped in the ass by goats in the name of Dionysus.
I'll just go ahead and assume you're being hyperbolic because he wouldn't do that at all.

> This man literally believes that every single Christian value is a war on life itself and a declration of hate for the universe itself. Let me repeat. There is no human being in history with worst things to say about Christianity than Friedrick Nietzsche
Yes and Peterson agrees with what he had to say. It's just htat there is stuff that can be used to justify christian values outside of what Nietzsche attacked.

>Nietzsche didn't ask his followers to justify Christianity. He asked them to destroy it and build the Overman on the ruins of the churches.
I should have said that Nietzsche thought it good for people seek justifications for any values before believing in them. Peterson did that with the christian values in a way that was compatible with Nietzsche. As I said above Peterson's justification for those values lead him to disagree with Nietzsche on whether or not it's unhealthy for people to believe in.

Yes Christians are nessiary to distinguish lower life forms and higher ones. The thing is his "love your enemy" isn't the pacifist kind. It's the type where you sit in the coliseum and watch Christians being tortured for fun. Whether or not he actually intended

The thing is that unless you are being downright decepetive and marketing non-Christian values as Christian (as Jung did). You would need to really fucking rework Nietzche to make Christianity NOT be the worst thing ever. Like a counter attack against Anti-Christ would be needed at the very minimum. Or you could just be a hack and cherry pick out the Nietzsche you like and ignore the rest. I have only some exposure to Peterson so I can't say which he did but my money is on the second one.

All of this nonsense dissipates once you realize that most of our behavior is subconsciously motivated and most of our preferences are inherent. A person's preference for Wagner over random white noise isn't culturally instantiated, it's a byproduct of their own biologically evolved preferences.

Postmodernism is Cultural Marxism

Another pseud

>In 2011, internet journalist Daniel Villarreal advocated queer acceptance by writing: "I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT." [26]

It's real, though

This post doesn't really deal with what I was saying.

Marxism is modernism, postmodernism is post-Marxism.

Got nothing to do with postmodernism though

Doesn't trust individual genius and its power to have supreme influence on cultural processes, and therefore considers the critique of popular modalities as worthwhile.

Didn't Foucault say Marxism was a dead ideology?
You might just have to accept that there are some people who really are just gross and degenerate

All of the cultural traditions postmodernism attempts to dismantle are the result of evolved processes rather than arbitrary dogmas, so you can use Western rationality to dismiss them

Still nothing to do with my post.

Postmodernism uses contradictions in Wesern rhetoric to critique Western culture, which is what you said. My point is that despite whatever Western rhetoric says Western culture did not form by rational means, but used rational language post hoc in order of justify itself. So even if Western rhetoric contradicted itself, that wouldn't say much about Western culture per se.

It critiques the ad hoc rational language i.e. modernism.

Communism is the Dialectical culmination to 4000 years of European culture. All of Western philosophical thought converges in communism. The omega point. If you want to truly 'fight for the west' you will fight for communism.

Naw, I'm good. Hierarchies are perfectly natural and need to exist.