I see that Veeky Forums's criticism of JP lies mostly with his broad-brushing of post-modernism and blaming it for the faults of western civilization.
A lot of people here claim JP doesn't understand postmodernism.
Well he recently did a video detailing his views on it. What does Veeky Forums think?
I'm not clicking this.
your a fagot
Why? Afraid you were just a pseud all along and can't handle Peterson's fleshed out arguments against pomo?
I was actually gonna respond to this but
>1:27:26
ugh.
Also that Stephen Hicks guy doesn't understand pomo either
>PhD professors don't understand pomo but I do
what's the problem?
do you know how much criticism is levied against that book? basing your entire knowledge of postmodernism on it and making out postmodernists to be some boogeyman because of it is pathetic. i'm not wasting my time watching his video when the cover of the book is the thumbnail and it's clear that peterson has no knowledge of postmodernism outside that book
>be idiot
>get interested in Saussure through Wittgenstein and Frege
>hey semiotics is pretty interesting
>read Barthes hey this guy is pretty cool
>read Zizek hey this is ok
>read Lacan hey this is great
>read Derrida lol there's no author everything I say is purposefully obscure because it's meaningless lol >meaning haha what a fag
pomo is so much of a meme that joke/ignorant opinions on it are exactly as valid as "expert" opinions.
you clearly didn't read Derrida
wait, is the idiot part that he liked zizek and lacan and noped out at derrida out of stupidity? just leaving zizek and lacan there would be enough to get the joke across.
also, not to pile on the criticism too much, but why include the modernists? is it supposed to indicate that modernism necessitates postmodernism and that's why barthes is pretty cool? or is this whole post just supposed to indicate your life is memes and not only was derrida right about protecting his work from you but baudrillard is spamming Veeky Forums with a turing complete experience of an American?
Answer me ELIZA.
This is the best JP meme Ive ever seen
>are you too dumb to understand Derrida
no
>why include modernists
why have a meme classification debate?
>modernism necessitates postmodernism
why are you bringing up predetermination?
>why is barthes cool
Because he wasn't stupid enough to think he alone determined meaning.
>protecting his work from you
Magical thinking at it's finest. Unsurprising then that your first instinct is to think I'm the ghost in the machine.
It seems JBP really enjoys hearing himself putting together all these specialist words. My favourite so far is when he rattles off in 'defense of the modernists', "I would say that we have instantiated within us an an priori perceptual structure that's a consequence of millions -- billions of years for that matter -- of biological evolution. And yet it has emerged in tandem with continual correction of its presuppositions by the selection process." After reading/hearing this I struggle to see how anti-postmodernists could attack 'obscurantism' in the continentals. In any case, he interjected this belief into the discussion of modernists before, even though the discussion was centering around the early development of the scientific method with the empiricists and with Kant. Which is odd. The postmodernists he is discussing (which he and Hicks named) are talking about this past sequence of philosophy rather than JBP's self-admitted own thoughts presented in defense of the modernists.
Hicks picks up that JBP is putting him in the position of 'defending the postmodernists' so really in his diagnosis of postmodernism (or whatever that JBP is trying to achieve) it is just trying to see how postmodernists would respond to JBP's own ideas, even though those ideas didn't necessarily exist in the late 20th century when the postmodernists were writing. JBP seems like a kid in this video trying to get verified by Hicks who in comparison seems like a solid dude with a decent understanding of what he's talking about. By this I think it's safe to assume JBP is a pseud only looking for credit.
Back to watching this embarrassing man.
Barthes wrote about death of the author, not Derrida. Are you trolling?
>Derrida lol there's no author
what
>Veeky Forums: Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism
>Peterson: Here is a 90-minute video in which i detail my opinion on postmodernism
>Veeky Forums:
... and?
wow such an accurate representation, truly written by someone who has read derrida
>How can you say it tastes like shit if you haven't eaten the whole cake?
yowtch the pseud levels are off the charts
I think what pisses me off more than him misunderstanding postmodernism (even when you take into account he studied the branch of psychoanalysis which is the most postmodern), is that he's literally trained in recognizing people susceptible to suggestion and entrusted in two fields with not abusing that power to misguide the vulnerable. The second one's a very big moral failing, while the first is obviously okay with people having novel interpretations even if they would academically be unfounded or incorrect.
Evidentially it's his opinion on what postmodernism means, rather than a 'zeroing in' or whatever it is supposed to mean by general consensus -- something which he says plays a major part in, I don't know, his idea of modernism or something. Not sure how he can even attempt this (he even admits the term 'postmodernism' covers 'a lot of territory') without at least acknowledging that politics don't sit outside and separate from attempts at 'truth claims'. He claims to have read Foucault but spends most of his time attacking Derrida. Not for anything Derrida has actually said (I doubt he's read him) but what he apparently represents in all the other people trying to apply Derridean theory (without understanding it, like himself actually!)
I have no idea what JBP fans are trying to claim. The Western project is uncovering truth. When the postmodernists show that our created structures interfere with this search for truth, suddenly its more valuable 'why' you are doing something i.e. to conquer nihilism or whatever (which is a nihilistic position), rather than the end result of seeking truth, of emancipation, of realisation of will or whatever. This is a postmodern claim!
I thought the postmodernists were supposed to be the dragon of chaos or whatever, not the arguments against postmodernism.
It does sound like he dated a chick who was taking a class in Derrida and it ended very badly. It makes more sense than the hypothesis he got interested in the school and pursued it to this conclusion.
>pisses me off
muh fee fees
If you'd prefer I'd say it's objectively unethical which is why it pisses me off so much.
Completely invalid in the context of philosophical discussion. If you haven't read the material or heard the arguments then you have no say in the matter.
I honestly wonder if JP is a stealth fascist like zizek. Maybe even more so.
For example how talk on Hitler being "pure evil" he basically engages in Holocaust skepticism unless you accept Hitler wanted to kill his own men and Jews and lose as fast as possible.
In the presentation he sides with Hitler being cartoon evil, but the listener is left to wonder huh yeah that makes zero sense.