Finally someone puts Peterson in his place

NO! Just wait until Peterson responds, he will BTFO this post-modern marxist!

>thinks it's about the people rather than the underlying ideas

Paglia literally who'd him. He's a non entity when it comes to attacking postmodernism or even knowing what postmodernism is. It sounds like he read a couple of Paglia quotes and assumed you didn't need some substance behind her philippics to understand why she's mad about it or even what she's mad about besides that they're French. You don't need another youtube video to tell you that; Veeky Forums has been giving Petersonfags simple one to two sentences definitions of postmodernism so they can understand what Peterson is doing is not just disingenuous but also postmodern in itself.

We've also been explaining why Jung is postmodern which compounds his debt to postmodernism as literally every leafcent he's earned stems from that.

Read more books and watch less youtube.

>Jung is postmodern
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
GTFO

>rejects Freud's modernist approach
>favours one which bases itself in an antimodernist approach rejecting the concept of progressive civilisation and materiality in favour of pluralism, self referentiality, and ahistoricity
>not postmodernist
kek, do you want me to insult you in Heideggerean terminology?

>rejects Freud

>bases itself in an antimodernist approach

>rejecting the concept of progressive civilisation

>materiality
>modernism

>in favour of pluralism, self referentiality, and ahistoricity
>antimodernist

You are dumb as shit or just aren't familiar with Jung or with modernism at all.
What do you think modernism is?
Is fascism postmodern in your view?

>he doesn't understand the modernist period is everything from the enlightenment including the ideas of physically discrete beings and entities such as evidence based medicine, mechanism, rejection of religion, and futurism
>doesn't realize the fascists came out of futurism's enthusiasm for modernism
>think Jung wanted us to scientifically measure things instead of psychically
so you've read no fascists, no Jung, no modernists, no Kant, and still have no idea what postmodernism is. you've missed everything since the 18th Century, not just the postmodern period. go back to Kant and start with What is Enlightenment and work forwards through to Charcot and Freud's praise of him as a student in France. It won't get you as far as the nazis, who are modernists par excellence believing that society could be engineered to a stable golden age, as Freud believes also in his last book before his death, but you won't sound like a complete retard who doesn't even know what the foundations of modernism is.

Disliked. Thanks!

What's the narrative of postmodernism lol, don't be dumb

>pomo readers

>>in favour of pluralism, self referentiality, and ahistoricity
>>antimodernist
Those are three of the main markers of postmodernism, man. They are antimodernist. Are you objecting to basic fact? V postmodern.

LOL
>physically discrete beings and entities
Proletariat, Burgeoise, Volks, People, Fatherland, Motherland, Capital, Markets, Motion, Industry, Advertisement, Propaganda, Technology
Is any of those things a physically discrete entity?
Modernism is about movement, structure, and systems, the main defining art of modernism is cinema, pic related is the epitome of modern visual arts

>doesn't realize the fascists came out of futurism's enthusiasm for modernism
Yes i do, but you clearly don't understand what the fuck futurism is either

>think Jung wanted us to scientifically measure things instead of psychically
Jung never rejected Freud, Freud rejected Jung, Jung saw himself as continuing Freud's work, and he wanted to scientifically measure collective psychic structures

> It won't get you as far as the nazis, who are modernists par excellence believing that society could be engineered to a stable golden age
Thats communism, Nazis believed that the species could be engineered into a stable golden being

Your whole understanding of this things is based on a politically difused view of the world

Lol no its not, pluralism is communist, and ahistoricity is traditionalism/ur-fascism, self referentiality is older than modernism, you got las meninas as a huge proof for that.

Post modernism is about the "destruction of big narratives" via the introduction of things like chaos theory and probabilistic systems; what you refer to as self-referentiality is actually cybernetics.

If both were shapes, modernism is a circle and postmodernim is a spiral

Literally read wikipedia if you're too dumb for books, you utter retard filled with memes.

>$50k a month
It's true. Holy fuck

>Jung never rejected Freud
Yup, never read Jung.
>doesn't know Marxism is based in historical materialism, which is the basis of modernism
>doesn't know that fascism starts with the futurists or what their ideals were
You're dumb even for /pol/, did you come from /mlp/?

kek, yeah I didn't even notice he doesn't understand either lefty OR right /pol/
Normally it's only the marxists who don't understand their own shit, but getting both wrong is fucktarded.

Well, he's blindly committed to Peterson, and that's probably a worse education than /pol/ considering his posts. I didn't think there was one, but... jesus.

Uh, look, another thread about Memerson

So you have no answers, as i figured, two dumb pseuds getting ass-blasted and not being able to go beyond wikipedia dropping and saying "no you"

What did you expect from two Peterson's spectators?

>get proven wrong by an intro paragraph of wikipedia
>cry about how it's just other people's ignorance
are you a transblack transwoman unicorn?

>Marxism is based in historical materialism
>Motorhead is based in the beatles

Now try think why being based in sth doesn't mean its the same or even similar

Marx literally created the idea. It's like saying The Beatles are based in The Beatles. Or is Marx not Marxist enough?

lol you can practically hear the memersonfags brains breaking ITT

Was one of the most lovely videos I've seen for Post-modernism. Wasn't Snarky, wasn't ironic, wasn't reductionist (where it was , it is clarified that you'll find arguments for either sides, and to save time it's keeping it at that) doesn't demonize Peterson , unlike how Peterson demonizes Pomo thinkers, and sticks to the counter-arguments given by him.

Recommended for newbies to pomo who have 1 hour to expend for better understanding and starting point.

Marx isn't Marxist you dumb fuck, Marx is Marx, those who expand on Marx are Marxists

And they all included historical materialism too. It's almost like Beatles tribute bands don't play Ace of Spades as part of their set list, and tend to play Beatles music. Weird that, huh?

lol I hear their unbearable shouting from here

Great, more material to make "Veeky Forums cringe compilation 2017"

Can't wait

kek does it sound like francis to you too? www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnsSzp4oxds

Can you guys stop misusing "based in"?
Marx was based in London. Marxism wasn't "based in" anything.
Jesus.

Now you are just walking in circles, Marxists don't just copy paste Marx, they analize their current era through a Marxist foundation, which is literally what Motorhead does with Beatles music

m8 there's too much dumb in this thread to tell if you're being funny. nice dubs tho

>the USSR refused to accept science that doesn't fit in with the historical materialist narrative
>all Marxists use the historical materialist frame to interpret their current era or else they're not Marxists
>it's the one thing that unites political Marxism with critical Marxism
cry more faggot, maybe the 20th Century will listen and not happen the way it did.

haha yeah, almost like that!

...

>Modernism is about movement, structure, and systems, the main defining art of modernism is cinema, pic related is the epitome of modern visual arts

Idk man, art is closer to being 'postmodern' when it includes those things. System art, kinetic art, installation, institutional critique, land art escaping the gallery, etc. I think painting was still the primary art of the modern period (especially true of the 18th and 19th centuries), the 'triumph of modernism' being ab ex, surrealism and futurism finding it crucial to include the visual arts (though both did film too). Photography and cinema got big in the 60s and 70s so they seem more postmodern to me

>Post modernism is about the "destruction of big narratives" via the introduction of things like chaos theory and probabilistic systems; what you refer to as self-referentiality is actually cybernetics.

I've seen it argued that Bateson is a good lead-in to the US pre-continental 'post-modernism' as a counter to conscious volition, like structures and systems which you say Modernism is about. Things like chaos theory problematise these structures, and in the arts it was the inability of academic formalism to meaningfully discuss the contemporary art (Neo-dada, Pop, minimalism) because it wasn't adhering to the rules of autonomous painting and opted to revive duchamp (not literally), who had been excluded from the formalist canon of cezanne - picasso - american art

>self referentiality is older than modernism, you got las meninas as a huge proof for that.

Also this is true but postmodernism is a 'tendency' towards it rather than using it as a device very rarely

we should try to literally revive duchamp. it seems like it would work for him.

Yeah I'm half way through it, I don't disagree with anything

>if youre against modernism you're postmodernist
>rejecting the concept of progressive civilisation is postmodernist

Marx was based in Jesus, bearded Jew that critiqued the established system, think about it

I'd love to see what you'd consider a Heideggerian insult after gleaning the relevant Cliffnotes.

>>rejecting the concept of progressive civilisation is postmodernist
it is especially when it favours the other things user listed in place of the modernist approach.

That would be so wild

Postmodernism:
1) Attitude, ideology, and mindset of the New Left throughout academia, journalism, and politics. aka "The School of Resentment", "Critical Theory", etc.
2) A school of French philosophy that existed throughout the 1960s-1980s. Influential and popular among many thinkers, including those belonging to 1).

Peterson focuses on attacking 1), not 2). Every critic of him using the label "postmodernism" chastises him for attacking 2) but ignores the possibility that he was attacking 1). Just because many people in 1) like reading Foucault doesn't mean that Foucault was responsible for all of society's ills today. He didn't write the playbook, nothing in Foucault's work suggests we ought to debase current society, and I'm sure that Peterson is aware of that, but nobody really has a better label for the latest political movement that is taking over except by what tends to be a good indicator. This is why I can't stomach the pedantic whining, because they all know what he's trying to talk about, but they don't offer any real solutions. I immediately ignore any critic of Peterson who tries to avoid taking any responsibility for the situation by refusing to address Peterson's purpose and offer an alternative that doesn't downplay the problem.

>becoming such a They person
ew

1) isn't postmodern. They're modernists. That's why they're feminazis. They too are on a crusade for the perfect race, which is defined as their own version of the truth which everyone else must adhere to or be swept away and disposed of for the sake of "progress". Veeky Forums doesn't want to support them, they just also don't want to call them postmodern, which doesn't include 1), but does include a lot more than 2).

2) wouldn't agree with 1) either, and would see them as a problem too because they try to force their narrative on others, when 2) was against that.

i think the bride is a map for the necromancy ceremony

Das Man isn't a monolithic concept that's good or bad you fucking dilettante.

They're "modernists" who love to read and identify as followers of Butler and Foucault. See the contradiction? How do we explain away these problems?

Just shitposting in a miserable shit-thread

2) Directly caused 1) since they prevented healthy ideologies like the Christian one to take root in the newer generations. Without God, feminism. The noble lie must be enforced for society to function. 2) Should be attacked just as harshly if not more harshly than 1). Labeling them all as postmodernists is a useful convention. Like "tares" refers to all sort of bad grass, which should be bound in bundles to be burned. Let postmodernists be our tares.

>Das Man isn't a monolithic concept that's good or bad you fucking dilettante.
>calling someone a dilettante when they pointed out your major mode of apprehension is exactly how They use newspapers and other factoids
>not seeing what that reveals about your self reveiling
k good luck with that if you ever read Heidegger

>They're "modernists" who love to read and identify as followers of Butler and Foucault. See the contradiction? How do we explain away these problems?
Could it possibly be that they're idiots who like to self identify as all kinds of things and frequently get it wrong? Could it possibly be that they know as much about postmodernism as Peterson, which is nothing more than what their headmates told them? Why trust them that they're postmodern, when they act like modernists, when you wouldn't trust them they're women if they refuse to shave their beard off at least?

>all this greentext for nothing

Modernism wasn't pro-Christian either. It actively used what it considered the best grand narrative, science, to disprove pre-Modern ideas like a Christian God. You might as well believe that the Modern period was more into building churches than trains.

I'll add, post-Modernists, like Jung, realised how impoverished the Modernist view of the world was without god, and so actively try to reintroduce the transcendent and immanent spiritual experience. That's why Jung turning back to myth and psychic shit is a reaction to modernism that makes him postmodern.

>le intellectual youtube video essay with trendy beat as background and pretentious editing
pic related, creator of this video and everyone in Veeky Forums. You retards think being contrarian will fool anyone into thinking you're smart.

>trendy beat as background and pretentious editing
Holy shit, thank god I didn't click on that link
Kek, what a joke this board is

Keep up with the Cliff Notes understanding of Heidegger, especially with the idea that "the they" has anything directly to do with self-disclosure. Dilettante.

Somebody has to speak out against this widespread idiocy, and the only way to do so is to identify it by examining the context that gave birth to the people in this movement. They often identify as Marxists. Hence, "neo-Marxist", to distinguish them from more serious Marxists of the past. They often identify as readers of postmodern authors. Hence, "postmodernists", in a way fitting because they believe the modernist approach was too oppressive and they want to move beyond that. And this is the language that these idiots speak, that all you need to do to identify as a particular group is to will it so.

Labeling is a matter of convenience and intelligibility. If you didn't want a massive movement of retarded students regurgitating philosophers they don't understand, you should have failed them out of university when they had the chance. Now they're professors at many universities with enormous influence into the future education of college students. When you say postmodernist, you immediately know that you're referring to a bunch of special snowflake cringemasters who take umbrage at anything that can be identified with Western civilization. Even if their existence angers you because they don't take themselves or their so-called influences seriously, you cannot deny that they don't exist, and arguing a "No True Scotsman" argument is a moot point.

>basic definitions of a large school of philosophy is just being contrarian
prescriptivism is probably the least contrarian you can get.

>he thinks he stops disclosing himself because he's talking about Heidegger
kekekekek that's precious. incredibly wrong, but precious as hell

spoken like a true edgyboy
>edgy edgy edgy edgy edgy edgy edgy edgy edgy edgy edgy edgy edgy xD xD XD!!!

You're abusing and misusing terms to the point where you're talking gibberish. It's actually quite disgusting. Heidegger, especially his first volume, was a great read, and it's a shame that memesters like you try their hardest to destroy his reputation by acting like such an ignorant cunt.

hahahahahaha

He's not a valuable ally since he is as dumb as misinformation filled as what he's attacking. Proof of his misinformation of the movement you want to rise against those feminazis is all over this thread: it's why user doesn't know what postmodernism to question him either, when it should be the first thing user questions either the feminazis or Peterson over for their obvious misuse of the term. It's why you think they're neo-Marxists, which just shows people you bought some serious bullshit. This is like when Jews tried to prove Icke really didn't mean alien lizard people but Jews. It makes you look as retarded as the people you are against because you have the same retarded definitions of terms, and accept their definitions while claiming the last thing you would want is to accept their retarded definitions.

Again, the problem isn't that Veeky Forums likes those retards. It's that Peterson is as retarded as the multigender idiots who want to raise their kids as a science experiment rather than a kid. He's spreading as much misinformation as them, and he's as retarded on postmodernism as them. Only he actually *is* a postmodernist, and relies on it as his job. Fighting idiots with more idiocy doesn't make you look smart; it makes it look like you fall for the same bullshit SJWs spout, because you *do* and refuse to let it go as bullshit even when multiple anons provide reasons why Peterson doesn't know what his favourite word means.

you really think asking to stick to dictionary definitions is edgy? christ.

disclosure is a pretty easy process to understand out of all of Heidegger's terms. he's saying that what you say reveals a lot about your world view. it's not even an esoteric part of Heidegger's terminology he's using, user.

>i don't understand Heidegger so nobody does
precious as hell

>_and_ misinformation
>what postmodernism _is_ to
Phone typing, typos/missing words etc.

>Idk man, art is closer to being 'postmodern' when it includes those things.

>Movement
Futurism
>Structure
Cubism
>Systems
This has evolved into cybernetics, but previous to that the industry-line it was a very common modern theme, Metropolis, Modern Times, not to forget the countless Russian movies about societal systems. And fascist italian art is full on state systems and hierarchies of all kind being represented with a mixed aesthetic of cubism and fascism.

>System art, kinetic art, installation, institutional critique, land art escaping the gallery, etc
System art is based on cybernetics, kinetic art as far as i know is pre xx centhury and literally situated on the interwar period as an offshoot of futurism

>Photography and cinema got big in the 60s and 70s so they seem more postmodern to me
Cinema got big in the 20s, the russian revolution is literally responsible for half of the montage techniques

>Things like chaos theory problematise these structures
Thats to me the break of postmodernism, chaos theory, computers and probabilistic systems introduce randomness and curvature into stuff that was obsessed with capturing and replicating "movement".

To me the difference is postmodernist "self-referentiality" is actually cybernetics

>postmodernism has never been tried
its biopolitics faggot

samefag retard, take course on Heidegger

>disclosure is a pretty easy process to understand out of all of Heidegger's terms. he's saying that what you say reveals a lot about your world view. it's not even an esoteric part of Heidegger's terminology he's using, user.
Protip: I referenced disclosure in order to throw him a bone. I'm the only person using correct terminology, not him. He couldn't even properly reference Das Man or The They, instead making meandering gestures towards them that sounded like total gibberish.

I knew what he was trying to do. But his attempt at a "Heideggerian" insult was garbage because it wasn't a coherent reference to how Dasein interacts with The They to generate meaning. Heidegger hardly even talks about language in Being and Time, and not in ways where he focuses on language except in how it contributes to Dasein's understanding in its everyday dealings. If you think that anything in Heidegger's philosophy is about revealing "worldview", then you haven't read him properly.

>To me the difference is postmodernist "self-referentiality" is actually cybernetics

You mean 'memetics'. This is conceptual feedback and recursion.

>They call themselves Marxists.
>They brag about reading Marx's Das Kapital, other Marxist works, and works by those considered postmodern philosophers.
>They vote leftist or at least center-left.
>They call for a revolution of the oppressed proletariat classes and overthrowing imperialism, only that they incorporated identity politics and critical theory into the mix.
>I am an idiot for believing that they are Marxists or have Marxist sympathies.
What did he mean by this?

samefag retard, take course on Heidegger

>disclosure is a pretty easy process to understand out of all of Heidegger's terms. he's saying that what you say reveals a lot about your world view. it's not even an esoteric part of Heidegger's terminology he's using, user.
Protip: I referenced disclosure in order to throw him a bone. I'm the only person using correct terminology, not him. He couldn't even properly reference Das Man or The They, instead making meandering gestures towards them that sounded like total gibberish.

I knew what he was trying to do. But his attempt at a "Heideggerian" insult was garbage because it wasn't a coherent reference to how Dasein interacts with The They to generate meaning. Heidegger hardly even talks about language in Being and Time, and not in ways where he focuses on language except in how it contributes to Dasein's understanding in its everyday dealings. If you think that anything in Heidegger's philosophy is about revealing "worldview", then you haven't read him properly.

Ignore my doubleposting. This board is fucked right now.

>defend Foucault from association with SJWism
>Dude literally advocated for pedophile rights

The narrative that there's no narrative.

>some psychologist sees a left-wing ideology hijacking his beloved profession
>cant even do research, even if it helps people, if it's "politically incorrect" or "oppressive"
>sees that the main proponents of this ideology always reference "Marx", "Foucault", "Derrida", "Butler", "Althusser", etc.
>does some of his own reading, finds that they're either "Marxists" or "Postmodernists"
>starts advocating against "neo-Marxism" and "postmodernism"
who can blame the guy honestly. I ended up reading Foucault and liking what he had to say about biopower, punishment, history, etc., but somebody has to throw him a bone and just find a better way to label the cancer that we ALL know what he's talking about

>Jung never rejected Freud, Freud rejected Jung
false, read their correspondence

heh

Funny how many leftist pseuds and third raters slide by on this board without any controversy whatever. One slightly conservative man does the same, and this board attacks him on pretense of outrage at his "misunderstanding" most of which are misconstrued anyway.

>hat we ALL know what he's talking about
Yeah, exactly. But good luck telling that to some of the posters on this board.
The other day, I had a guy argue that environment, not genetics, is the principle thing in shaping a person, but that no culture anywhere in the world should do anything to preserve itself.

1 preceded 2. Foucault's first book was published in English in 1964 well after social justice was a thing in the US, and Of Grammatology was published in English 1976. Publications like October in the mid-70s is when the US was largely introduced to the French thinkers.

That's not a narrative since it has no end. Narrative proposes an end state of humanity, at least that's the idea of narrative that postmodernists are skeptical of

Why has nobody called this guy out for shilling his video here?

Ok, the difference between modernism to me then is it plays as 'closed systems' and postmodernism 'open', at least in the context of art. The US transition from modern to postmodern, as the critics saw it, can be seen with the shift away from the large-scale painting to other media and materials that test new aesthetic systems. The old system was a fallible one, because it relied on that conscious imposition I was talking about. The new systems, the postmodern one, involved serialisation, arrangement, etc. in parallel to ideas of systems theory, from cybernetics. I still think that painting was the primary medium of modernism and the cinematic/photographic being postmodern, especially the TV. Modern art was a move away from the industry-line but postmodern art embraces the process of systems, as early as the factory readymade but most notably in Warhol's Factory and the minimalist/conceptualist art that relied on the gallery system to legitimise the work as art.

he's not saying postmodernism has never been tried. he's saying one of those things is not like the other, and only one of those things is postmodern.

he called you a they person, which is pretty clearly a Heideggerean insult. from your posts it looks like you not only can't read Heidegger but you're the kind of retard who in first year complains they have to learn the history of philosophy before writing their special stoner thoughts. your characterization of history is just purple prose bullshit that has no bearing on the history of philosophy, and i strongly suggest you don't try to pretend you got through a course on Heidegger and instead actually take up a 101 course.
>if I say Dasein it'll look like I know what I'm talking about
They are necessarily enframed, though you will likely give a lecture about shit you read in a Gibson sci-fi novel to try to disprove it's an insult.

all your posts are one long wew lad. the post I'm responding to is as far as I could get before feeling genuine pity at your narcissistic waste of life, and I'm in a department where some people still think analytics are going to crack language any day now.
t. someone who gives courses in Heiddegger

>but somebody has to throw him a bone and just find a better way to label the cancer that we ALL know what he's talking about
i think the guy saying they're modernists is pretty spot on. it's a good way of attacking them for several reasons:
>it makes them obviously regressive
>it destroys their inadequate self identitfication
>it places many of their arguments in perspective (e.g. their biological claims about gender and race where they make them, their love of systematic power, the focus on legalism)
>it presents what Peterson is actually about- Jungian postmodernism and a return to the religious sense of transcendence and usefulness of the personally pragmatic- as a development and cure

the faggot who is really against calling the SJW bullshit modern and superduper against actually fucking reading postmodernism [still eyerolling at his telling other people off for knowing more about Heidegger than him] is shooting himself in the foot. he's too attached to the idea of attacking postmodernism [which he probably likes considering his novel interpretation of history] to actually know what he's attacking or to be successful at it. [frankly, i'm thinking about sharing his posts at break for the lulz his definition of self reference as sekretly cybernetics to the private language crowd]

if he's typical of the people who want to bring down the SJW bullshit, then they're not really a group which will get rid of SJW bullshit. it's just going to be more of the same grandstanding bulshit and misuse of terms. what we really need is someone who knows their terms and doesn't buy their bullshit. instead we have someone who's fallen hook line and sinker for the idea that any SJW ever read Marx or even Engels. honestly, if most SJWs read Foucault they would probably ban him for paedophilia, so I find it implausible that either those who are gungho for their bullshit or gungho against it have any idea what their words mean.

any conservative would be insulted to be represented by an incompetent. and this guy is definitely incompetent and spreading his misuse to an enclave of fellow incompetents. the user arguing that Peterson is incompetent isn't arguing that leftism is competent either. I'm probably more conservative than Peterson, which is why I find Jungians wankers like him to be filled with as much leftist feely bullshit as a blue haired SJW screamer. I view him the same way I would any psychology lecturer who believes in psychic mysticism, though I can at least admit I am a modernist unlike the blue haired screamers who like to believe they're postmodern while demanding a top-down definition of standard social practice.