Is his understanding of post-modernism accurate?

there is nothing revolutionary about trying to blame french post-structuralism for the writer's perceived problems in society. there were hundreds of articles doing exactly this. jordan peterson is just one such voice and brandishes an equally terrible level of understanding of french post-structuralism.

i really don't care about peterson enough to address everything he says but the idea that post-structuralism completely throws out any sort of structure of truth or whatever is fucking preposterous and intellectually bankrupt. it's the same shit that every other person who takes this party line tries to push as well, and--quelle surprise--it's almost as if he didn't read anything at all.

let's take derrida as an example. in Rogues, derrida writes that politics has no center (recall that Yeats line about 'the center cannot hold' that people like peterson love to point to as the rallying call of 'post-modernism') and operates like a wheel turning around a tower (without the tower). you can read the book if you'd like. long story short, democracy can destroy itself at any time because there is no 'democracy' as such. we've seen, especially in the middle east, that democracy can literally vote for tyranny and religious oligarchy. whatever we call democracy contains its self-annihilation in its very definition.

to peterson, reading Rogues proves his point. but peterson is a shitty reader. because what Rogues is calling for is a thorough defense of democracy, against american fascism (hence the title of the work) with the full acknowledgement that the entire system can break at any moment, with one vote. how anyone can read rogues and come away with anything other than a defense of democracy is beyond me.

same goes for derrida's death penalty lectures. peterson has serious questions to answer here: how could someone who doesn't believe in 'truth' write 600 pages defending abolitionism? (probably the best thing derrida's ever written, btw)

i know that peterson doesn't grapple with derrida that much, but it's just a case study of why peterson can't read between the lines, less what is right fucking there in front of him. same thing for foucault. i don't know of a single foucault scholar who takes peterson seriously because any actual reader of foucault knows that foucault is attempting to *defend* truth from its political perversions. read the fucking late foucault if you don't believe me.

seriously, peterson is one of a thousand voices pushing the same line because they want a scapegoat. he appeals to people who've never read french post-structuralism and makes them the whipping boy for his political aspirations ("everything is shit, also white men are meaningless now") by a pleb-tier, hackneyed reading. no nuance, no defense, no understanding. fuck him.

true. Veeky Forums is neither a blog nor a soapbox. and so this i shall do then. back later.

Welcome to Assisted Thinking. You'll never leave this purgatory of other people's moronic thoughts. Enjoy. Your. Stay.

seems like he has no fucking clue what he is talking about and his own religiosity clouds his ability to understand the writings of others.

I haven't read up on the post modernists since In the current moment I am working on moving my way up there. Although I can't help but to find my self-engaged in modernism vs postmodernism since it seems like a lot of the politcal sphere is heavly influenced by post modernisim. Everything that peterson says seems accurate to my by my experience. The extreme claims that are entailed by social constructivism, for example, is heavily adopted by the kids at my school. The same goes with the overly emphasized need to identify "power structures"( hence the identity politics).

My probelm is that while I can see where peterson is coming from, When ever I ask post modernists to indentify what he says is wrong, I either get
1) insults about how he doesn't explain it, with no explanation of the how or
2) A complete misrepresentation of his criticism by just attacking his claim without addressing how he came to such a conclusion. His explanation of deconstructionism and structuralism seems right to me, and the consequences that apply seem to be true.

video as an example
youtube.com/watch?v=YkmXwByGmjc&t=523s

>Seems like
>makes no counter argument as to what postmodernism actually is
>be French
>write obscurantist drivel
>realize communism is shit
>do sleight of hand
>i-it's about p-power after all!
>write more obscurantist shit
>literally noone can properly explain what postmodernism is
>have a bunch of impressionable and naieve university students
>go full retard as a result of postmodernist / neomarxist thinking
>blame the writers who are the cause of these screeching retards
>state: w-well, Nietzsche was also appropriated and misunderstood by the Nazi's and this is just like that!
>Still fucking no one can properly explain what postmodernism is other than that we are seeing its effects wreak havoc on campus and western society in general

I still haven't read or heard anything that dismisses Peterson's arguments on postmodernism or more specifically neomarxism.

No, he is a retard and he hasnt read Heidegger

>postmodernist / neomarxist thinking

Postmodernism is inherently anti-Marxist. You cannot be a postmodernist and a neo-Marxist at the same time.

Also
He seems to blame Derrida and the other frenchfags for the stupidity of american students
At least he is making people clean their fucking rooms, he is not that bad, but really wrong

The only thing this post did is convince me that Derrida is apparently incoherent.

>I still haven't read or heard anything that dismisses Peterson's arguments on postmodernism or more specifically neomarxism.
I agree. the closest post in this thread that has tried too wasbut where his main point where he says
>let's take derrida as an example. in Rogues, derrida writes that politics has no center (recall that Yeats line about 'the center cannot hold' that people like peterson love to point to as the rallying call of 'post-modernism') and operates like a wheel turning around a tower (without the tower). you can read the book if you'd like. long story short, democracy can destroy itself at any time because there is no 'democracy' as such. we've seen, especially in the middle east, that democracy can literally vote for tyranny and religious oligarchy. whatever we call democracy contains its self-annihilation in its very definition.

to peterson, reading Rogues proves his point. but peterson is a shitty reader. because what Rogues is calling for is a thorough defense of democracy, against American fascism (hence the title of the work) with the full acknowledgment that the entire system can break at any moment, with one vote. how anyone can read rogues and come away with anything other than a defense of democracy is beyond me.
Peterson does hold this belief though.
and
> Peterson has serious questions to answer here: how could someone who doesn't believe in 'truth' write 600 pages defending abolitionism?
I'm not sure how this addresses Peterson. He agrees with Derrida in certain respects. see video of

Of their thinkers? No. Of their followers? Yes. That's why there's enough ambiguity to keep people bickering over a long time over the most pedantic shit while progressive cultists solidify control over academia, the media, and government.

Whatever your opinion about Peterson it's abundantly clear that he isn't retarded and calling him a retard just makes you seem like you're memeing and don't actually know what you're talking about (what a surprise that would be)
Why even make this post? It's absolutely useless on every level.

Derrida thinks that there's no such thing as a center because everything to the right of Lenin is, in their eyes, little better than fascism at best. It is true that what passes for centrism in public discourse is little better than the preferred corporate smorgasboard of random policies that promote neoliberal globalism, but among the population, centrism is alive and well among people who simply don't have blanket ideological answers across their own answers to important political questions.

he has read Heidegger thought.
and
Derrida was a socialist, Jean-François Lyotard was a socialist, Foucault was a socialist, Heiddegar was a socialist, Rorty Richard same thing..

To pretend socialism has no connection to marx is really pushing it

I think the problem with postmodernist thinkers is that they've been appropriated, correctly or otherwise, for the regressive left that seeks to deconstruct or do away with the Western power structures because the impressionable university students have been taught this by their university teachers or whatever influences they are exposed to in college.

It is probable that Peterson is attacking a strawman of postmodernism, but it is a strawman that has been taken up by the regressive Left to further their agenda.

So you might be right in your 'defence' of postmodernism... But this cuts both ways; if Peterson is unaware of what it ACTUALLY is then so are all the retarded neomarxists who use it as a tool for their cause... whatever that may be...

His answer to postmodernism is ironically postmodern.

>Derrida was a socialist
No he wasn't
>Jean-François Lyotard was a socialist
Dunno about him
>Foucault was a socialist
No he wasn't
>Heiddegar was a socialist
Imagine actually getting Heidegger's politics wrong (and spelling his name incorrectly)
>Rorty Richard same thing..
Incorrect (also see above)
>To pretend socialism has no connection to marx is really pushing it
No one said there wasn't, but you clearly don't know what the connection is

Technically not at all, but he nails the zeitgeist perfectly as being hyperfeminized and subverted by slave morality.

How would you know Peterson is correct about post-modern theorists if you haven't even read them yourself? You're simply taking him at his word that his interpretation and presentation is true.

>When ever I ask post modernists

Who are these people? The kids at your school? I've taken plenty of classes on Critical Theory. No one does the reading. No one knows what they're talking about except for the professor and, like, 3 other students. Incidentally, these people, the actually knowledgeable people, are the least vocal about their political opinions because, as they know, *shit's complicated*.

>His explanation of deconstructionism and structuralism seems right to me

Again, how would you know? Having never read anything by them, you have no frame of reference from which to make a valid judgment either way.

>leftist bellyaching that we didn't correctly label each thinker's special snowflake spin on communism
fuck off, minus your correction on Heidegger which is actually true

Is there a suggested reading list for the chill pill?

Derrida
"Derrida was not known to have participated in any conventional electoral political party until 1995, when he joined a committee in support of Lionel Jospin's Socialist candidacy, although he expressed misgivings about such organizations going back to Communist organizational efforts while he was a student at ENS" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida
Jean-Francois Lytorad
a big post modernist thinker "In 1954, Lyotard became a member of Socialisme ou Barbarie, a French political organisation formed in 1948 around the inadequacy of the Trotskyist analysis to explain the new forms of domination in the Soviet Union. "
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-François_Lyotard
Foucault
"Politically, Foucault was a leftist through much of his life, but his particular stance within the left often changed. In the early 1950s he had been a member of the French Communist Party, although he never adopted an orthodox Marxist viewpoint and left the party after three years, disgusted by the prejudice against Jews and homosexuals within its ranks." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault
Heiddegar was a national socialist buddy. part of the nazi party
Rorty Richard
"Rorty is a self-proclaimed romantic bourgeois liberal, a believer in piecemeal reforms advancing economic justice and increasing the freedoms that citizens are able to enjoy. The key imperative in Rorty's political agenda is the deepening and widening of solidarity. Rorty is sceptical toward radicalism; political thought purporting to uncover hidden, systematic causes for injustice and exploitation, and on that basis proposing sweeping changes to set things right. (ORT Part III; EHO; CIS Part II; AC) The task of the intellectual, with respect to social justice, is not to provide refinements of social theory, but to sensitize us to the suffering of others, and refine, deepen and expand our ability to identify with others, to think of others as like ourselves in morally relevant ways. (EHO Part III; CIS Part III) Reformist liberalism with its commitment to the expansion of democratic freedoms in ever wider political solidarities is, on Rorty's view, an historical contingency which has no philosophical foundation, and needs none."
plato.stanford.edu/entries/rorty/

hmmmmm

>How would you know Peterson is correct about post-modern theorists if you haven't even read them yourself? You're simply taking him at his word that his interpretation and presentation is true.

That's why I ask post modernists how he is wrong. But no matter how many tasks I don't get coherent answers. as said in my previous post. So with that I am being forced to accept Peterson's criticisms correct until proved otherwise.
>Who are these people? The kids at your school? I've taken plenty of classes on Critical Theory. No one does the reading. No one knows what they're talking about except for the professor and, like, 3 other students. Incidentally, these people, the actually knowledgeable people, are the least vocal about their political opinions because, as they know, *shit's complicated*.
I go to a really leftist college. I have more Marxist friends that Republican friends. Trust me. I hear A LOT about post modernist thought and their political beliefs that are tied to them.
> Again, how would you know? Having never read anything by them, you have no frame of reference from which to make a valid judgment either way.
From looking into post structualism on websites like Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Great place for philosophy references. My point is that I haven't read the texts themselves but it is pretty easy to understand philosophies such as nihilism and universalism without having to read the direct texts themselves. My problem, as I was trying to say, Is that I can't claim to be an expert on the post modernists. So that's why I am always asking for voices on the matter. If I didn't have my hands too tied up I would be reading them.

Exactly: Derrida and Foucault were into communism when they were young and then gave it up.
Foucault was sympathetic to neoliberalism later in life: jacobinmag.com/2014/12/foucault-interview/
>Rorty
Can you read? it says RIGHT THERE that he was a self-proclaimed bourgeois liberal

peterson needs to go down the technological rabbit hole. only then will we realize his true power.

Peterson is chasing ghosts and bogeymen. He's invented an enemy that doesn't actually exist. Post-modernism is not wreaking havoc on campuses or western society. It's an obscure literary theory that is useless to everyone except a very few people working in literary theory and art theory.

Consider that the havoc you see in western society might have much simpler, more direct causes, like war, climate change, water crises, corporate exploitation etc.

A literary theory is not ruining the world. Stop listening to Peterson, he's a charlatan.

please actually read Foucault

there's a whole series of lectures where all he talks about is Roman history and Christianity

> It's an obscure literary theory that is useless to everyone except a very few people working in literary theory and art theory.
It's not even that. It's a lazy, vague, catch-all term for some French thinkers who had some influence on specifically American literary theorISTS in the 80s, and has long waned.

>Exactly: Derrida and Foucault were into communism when they were young and then gave it up.
Foucault was sympathetic to neoliberalism later in life:
This is literally what Peterson has been saying. They were defenders of it until it basically became impossible.
and liberal bourgeoise is adopting the standard for th best of the middle class. In other words, the common woker. Very similar to socialist thought. Also, it literally said right in the text of the site that he was a big advocate of social issues brought up by marxist thought

What does that have to do with anything

actually read Foucault and you'll understand why other people who have read Foucault are calling you and Peterson an illiterate conman

So you basically think everything ranging from the Stalinist communist left to centrist bourgeois (neo)liberalism are the same? I don't really know what to say ....

wow, a posting worth reading in this alt-lite circlejerk

>pro-immigrant
>pro-global markets

Jordan Peterson is as neoliberal as it gets

No. I think they are all inspired from marxist thought. Not that they are the same.

Bingo. It's funny watching retards bicker in this thread over the fact that Peterson didn't pick the best label to describe the regressive ethos that has dominated politics today. At some point you have to assume whether it is just a product of autism or if it's willful misdirection.

Well then you're objectively wrong. Liberalism predates Marxism and Marx was critical of it. Neoliberalism is explicitly and extremely hostile to Marx and socialism.

Does anyone here like /postmodernism/?

I think it made for some cool art and nice reads

No.
Peterson conflates postmodern philosophical deconstruction for the whole of postmodernism. And now his groupies do the same.
Literally anytime Peterson says "postmodernism" he means postmodern philosophical deconstruction.
If you talk about literally any other aspect of postmodernism or postmodern technique or methodology outside of the philosophical field (art, literature, film, architecture, etc) they look at you sideways and mumble something about jews.
Is he right about postmodernism from the standpoint of philosophical deconstruction? Sure. But that's only a fraction of postmodern thought.

t. Peterson

>waaaaaah Peterson didn't get the labels to describe my special snowflake philosophy quite right, this is far more important of an issue than the rampant political activism destroying academia
what the fuck is with the spergs on Veeky Forums today? go back to Veeky Forums or /leftypol/.

What's the difference exactly?

did you not read the post? Peterson thought it was a good thing he gave up his interest in socialism. His point is that the post modernists did so up until they were btfo about the reality of the soviet munion. (which btw Foucault did extreme mental gymnastics to justify at first)
My mistake friend you are correct. I misunderstood what bourgeoise liberalism was. Although in the post I shared he does share a lot of politcal inspiration with the marxist thinkers.

>His point is that the post modernists did so up until they were btfo about the reality of the soviet munion.
Postmodernism didn't start until the 60s

Right and the soviet union didn't collapse until the 90s. you really think retarded far left intellectuals didn't do eveything they could to justify the soviet union? There was a massive conflict about how bad shit got over there. The Soviet union denied all of it. The leftists tried justifying it until they say it themselves. Hence why foucault changed his mind

>What's the difference
Deconstruction is a postmodern philosophical method, meaning it's a subcategory of a subcategory.
Postmodernism is divided by the fields and mediums in which it's applied, same as modernism and gothic and what have you. So within postmodernism you have art, film, literature, philosophy, animation, etc.
Then within that subcategory is the specific pomo methodology. Deconstruction, metanarrative, contrasting sources, etc.

Peterson essentially cherrypicked one specific component of pomo methodology he doesn't like and said "this is postmodernism and postmodernism is bad" and of course his followers jumped on it with expected levels of blind aggression. Like this guy who certainly couldn't make any valid connections between Peterson's take on pomo and apply it to the work of Jorge Luis Borges or Woody Allen because he's confusing a part of a part as the whole.

I love the guy, I agree with like 65% of what he says(which is a lot) but he's often just full of it and liking him shouldn't change that fact

The brush you paint with is incredibly broad. Out of curiosity, what books have you read by Derrida, Foucault, and the so-called "Marxist thinkers" you mentioned?

Hold up. Pretty sure Peterson is abundantly clear that he is talking about the postmodern philosophy of the movement. He doesn't try to go into the specefics such as the art. He is mainly concerend about what brought it about

I still do not see the difference.
Postmodernism isn't "divided" by fields, it's applied to fields.
Thus you can critique postmodernism and all at once be addressing its art, film, lit, et cetera.
I mean are you really saying Peterson is confused about postmodernism because he isn't taking down Woody Allen?

Point to where I said they were marxists? oh thats right you can't.

It's pretty clear that they were influenced by marx although be it they were also ciritical of SOME things by him. Although we are also forgetting that there are lots of current post modern thinkers that dominate universities that spew lots of marxist bs

Deconstruction isn't the only part of pomo that's trash. It's just the easiest to attack and Peterson harps on it because everyone can understand it. Perhaps he's not attacking the exact thoughts of the original authors, but he's certainly attacking the actions of their present disciples who are trying to actualize what they perceive to be those authors' thoughts. If we have to wrongly attack the authors to rightly attack the modern-day activists who are subverting Western academia then so be it. The danger they present is immediate, the ideas that the authors presented will be around forever and can be revisited.

>Point to where I said they were marxists? oh thats right you can't.
I was referring to here: where you mentioned "marxist thinkers"
>It's pretty clear that they were influenced by marx although be it they were also ciritical of SOME things by him
They (Derrida and Foucault) were influenced by lots of people. Nietzsche is a much bigger influence on postmodernism that Marx is - which is why he's called the father of postmodernism. Foucault's biggest influence was Nietzsche. Derrida's biggest influence was Heidegger - whose biggest influence was Nietzsche. It's true that Derrida wrote about Marx - but that's because he wrote about SHIT LOADS of philosophers.
>Although we are also forgetting that there are lots of current post modern thinkers that dominate universities that spew lots of marxist bs
Like who?

Peterson conflates the crimes of the soviet union and academic philosophy. Most post-modern theory has nothing to say about how a government should function. It's like saying St Augustine shouldn't be trusted because of papal feudalism.

Having read lots of Baudrillard, Lyotard, Virilio, Derrida and other post-modernists, the vast majority of what I've read has zero similarities to JP's characterization of post-modernism.

The idea is that the crimes of marxist regimes become the inevitable consequence of that philosophy in the same way that papal feudalism ends up being the consequence of Augustinian thought.

>criticizing me for not willing to place hairsplitting over action
Sue me faggot. Please tell me more about how Peterson is 100% wrong because he used a label that was slightly off at describing your latest band of degenerate leftists.

I don't think he conflates them, he just realises that post-modernism leads to the type of worldview that allows for such atrocities as were committed by marxists.

You want me to explain the parrell between socialism, marxism, and social justice to you?

Ok socialism came from an inspiration from the class struggle of being oppressed by the ruling class. Post modernists replaced the class struggle with the social struggle being placed upon by rigid social structures enforced by those in power(a Marxist conception).

I haven't seen enough of his videos to say either way, but I'm responding more to his followers than him directly. If he has made a distinction between postmodernism and deconstruction I see no evidence of it in the understanding of his followers. Like this >Postmodernism didn't start until the 60's
Without any form of distinction it turns that sentence into a very ignorant thing to say. So if you mean deconstruction, say deconstruction and not postmodernism on the whole
>Postmodernism isn't "divided" by fields, it's applied to fields.
Fields themselves are divided so by proxy so is pomo.
>Thus you can critique postmodernism and all at once be addressing its art, film, lit, et cetera.
You certainly could, but I've yet to see anyone do so without some ideological slant that pushes their claim out of relevance. Broad scopes demand broad statements, you can't draw a circle around a movement that swept through architecture, imagery, literature, and philosophy and say anything specific without a degree of inaccuracy in your statement.
>I mean are you really saying Peterson is confused about postmodernism because he isn't taking down Woody Allen?
No I'm saying he's taking shots at a very small part of a very large thing; he's attacking something bigger than he understands that he is and without that distinction doesn't even know he's even attacking Woody Allen's film techniques.

Peterson addresses all of this. It seems like you haven't looked into him

>Fields themselves are divided so by proxy so is pomo.
Like saying on the same floor rests several distinct objects so by proxy the floor is divided too.
>No I'm saying he's taking shots at a very small part of a very large thing
He's taking shots at the foundation. I'm pretty sure that he's well aware his attacks have consequences for whatever rests on that foundation like for instance Woody Allen or whatever.

What's the answer to post-modernism philosophers? Is there any new movement in philosophy, or?

Neopragmatism (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopragmatism) which is more of a development of postmodernism than a reaction against it, meaning if you don't like postmodernism then your probably won't like the neopragmatists

I appreciate Peterson cause he got me into Jung and he does offer a practical response to nihilism unlike my philosophy professors, but it's ironic that he decries totalitarian thinking while becoming the same kind of messianic celebrity that Hitler and the like did--most of his success has originated from the support of a large group of disaffected, frustrated young men who need an enemy (SJWs/postmodernists/"neomarxists") but who haven't and probably won't make an attempt to understand the very problems Peterson elucidates for themselves. At this point his thinking has transformed into dogma/memes and his followers probably regurgitate his stuff whenever they get the chance. Kind of like Paul Joseph Watson, who isn't quite a complete idiot, blaming the Frankfurt School for promoting cultural Marxism when it's clear he hasn't given them a proper reading.

Has Peterson ever discussed historical materialism? Every mention he makes of Marxism is entirely pejorative, but Marx at the very least had some interesting things to say.

No, he seems to believe that post-modernism was invented by "bloody Marxists", when several Marxist thinkers have in actuality criticized post-modernity as a symptom of late stage capitalism. Marxism itself is a meta-narrative which post-modernism as it is generally defined opposes. So Peterson has no idea what he's talking about, and that's coming from some one who vehemently dislikes with Marxism as well as post-modernism).

i though post modernism included meta like structures. like isnt it meta to reference the work itself, or break the fourth wall? wouldnt that also be post modern? like for example, don quixote is considered post modern being that the story is really just a story being told by some guy, breaking the flow by talking about the books he picked up about don quixote. isn't that meta? serious question, this stuff gets confusing.

and that squat bar is sick, i didnt even know they made them like that. that would make squats a lot easier

People who study/read philosophy:
>Peterson largely relies on tropes and is unconvincing at best

People who never read philosophy:
>LIBKEKS BTFO!!!! DAE redpill?? Joe Rogan changed my life

Deep Ecology or Accelerationism. I think these are the only legitimate "Grand Narratives" that post-modernism can't easily refute, and both studies take into account most of the developments of the late 20th century deconstruction of humanism.

I always considered postmodern critical theory to be a totally hypothetical branch of philosphy that for some reason claims to be applicable to life in practical ways.

From what I know of postmodernism from literature, though, the things Peterson accuses postmodernists of doing seem like goals that the postmodern worldview can't support. The idea that you could legitimately create a real social utopia by forcing people to use certain pronouns, e.g., is something that the postmodern POV couldn't possibly ratify because it doesn't believe that human beings shaping their own society in broad sweeping authoritarian ways is a good approach to making the world a better place (see: fascism, eugenics, the holocaust, and the modernist worldview that supported those things, all of which postmodernism emerges in response to)

Idk though, I've never studied the critical theory very seriously, so maybe there's a fracture between the idea of the postmodern in art and the idea of the postmodern in philosophy and criticism, which would probably mean that Peterson's right after all

>Deep Ecology

>Accelerationism
Vomit

>postmodern critical theory
you mean just deconstructionism?

Yes? No? Maybe? I think mean postmodernism in the sense of philosophy and cultural criticsm, but really I'm just going off what Peterson calls "postmodernism," whatever that actually is

I think the bigger divide is between post-modern theory as used in the arts and philosophy, and brain dead legislation. Peterson attacks the pronoun bill because it's an easy target. The pronoun bill is not post-modern philosophy, it isn't even neo-marxism or cultural marxism. It's a bill pandering to an interest group. It's politics.

Yes, and it will remain so until someone can provide direct passages from others that prove otherwise.

Fuck 20th century "philosophy".

What would you consider the quintessential version of Peterson's argument against post-modernism? I've seen some youtube clips, I'm not too impressed. Is there a particular lecture, essay, or book, that argues his points most clearly? Honestly interested.

But this:
>Yes, and it will remain so until someone can provide direct passages from others that prove otherwise.

This isn't how debate works. If Peterson has refuted post-modernism, then it's his job to show us how. No one on the other side has to debunk Peterson unless he makes a clear argument. Most of what I've heard are pretty weak arguments that Communism=Gulags therefore Derrida is wrong, which makes no sense.

He's not attacking postmodernism as a philosophical process, he's attacking postmodernism as a personal worldview, which can be fuelled by taking the output of certain people like derrida at face value.

He is also attacking claims that human power dynamics are wrong, that we should try to have equal outcomes, and that any psychological phenomena is a social construct rather than a bio-psycho-social one.

>He's not attacking postmodernism as a philosophical process, he's attacking postmodernism as a personal worldview, which can be fuelled by taking the output of certain people like derrida at face value.

Do go on. What about Derrida do you find particularly dangerous? Be specific, use examples, cite your work.

So what I'm hearing is: He debunks weakly reasoned SJW bastardizations of philosophical writings?

I'm still open to hearing his argument. If someone has an hour to read an essay, or 10 minutes to watch a youtube lecture, and this is your one shot to win them over to Peterson, what do you show them?

Stop being so goddamn obnoxious, I was responding to a question about what Petersons content was like.

>So what I'm hearing is: He debunks weakly reasoned SJW bastardizations of philosophical writings?
Yeah, pretty much. There is a reason he is appealing to the masses. You have to understand that he is coming to this from decades of clinical work, so he is fuelled by his experiences with people for whom these bastardised ideologies have actually had a significant negative impact on their life and mental health. He is also attacking those who have bastardised the philosophical ideologies at a professional level, and turned them into protestor factories to churn out child minded picket wavers instead of well adjusted adults who are able to think and write about social issues with some degree of nuance and rigour (like perhaps derrida did).

At the very foundation he is arguing against all extreme forms of relativism and associated nihilism, and argues that for a lot of people, postmodernism is the trigger that brings these things about, and for the universities, it is quickly becoming the only acceptable scientific and political stance to express.

According to Derrida, any text is to some extent inherently incoherent.

Threadly reminder that you will never understand postmodernism if you don't understand the jewish question. That is the undeniable root of it, friends.

>Deconstruction is a postmodern philosophical method

Deconstruction is neither postmodern nor it is a method.

It were primarily the French, not the Jews who were "behind" postmodernism, but as a Derridean I agree that you cannot understand Derrida's thought in general and deconstruction in particular without understanding Judaism.

>i didnt read lol
fGgot