Jordan Peterson:

Oh Sokal didn't claim that misuse of scientific Jargon out of context invalidates all of ideas of pomo thinkers.

Like Literally read the preface to Intellectual Imposture:
" We show that famous intellectuals such as Lacan, Kristeva, Irigaray, Baudrillard and Deleuze have repeatedly abused scientific concepts and terminology: either using scientific ideas totally out of context, without giving the slightest justification – note that we are not against extrapolating concepts from one field to another, but only against extrapolations made without argument – or throwing around scientific jargon in front of their non-scientist readers without any regard for its relevance or even its meaning. We make no claim that this invalidates the rest of their work, on which we suspend judgment."

>tfw the alt-right cancer is leaking to my comfy board

you could literally read a SEP article on it, but it's quite clear from the way you post that you are primarily interested in shit flinging

interesting to mention Sokal, I wonder what he would think about Peterson's treatment of Godel

When you make complete strawmen of the entirety of "pomo" thinkers and then claim the trend is bankrupt. There's little to go on for discussion. Atleast read their works and try to understand what is being said.

Also the Sokal Hoax wasn't peer reviewed. So wow bamboozled again that Jargon of authenticity got published in a non peer reviewed journal.

Again from the same book , the following paragraph

" We are sometimes accused of being arrogant scientists, but our view of the hard sciences’ role is in fact rather modest. Wouldn’t it be nice (for us mathematicians and physicists, that is) if Gödel’s theorem or relativity theory did have immediate and deep implications for the study of society? Or if the axiom of choice could be used to study poetry? Or if topology had something to do with the human psyche? But alas, it is not the case."

>asks for an agreed upon definition of pomo to display that if it can mean anything it means nothing and there is no agreed upon definition, just myriad interpretation
>gets told he doesn't understand pomo and he's alt-right

Wow we have some real heavy hitting intellectuals on here

Coincidentally they can't define anything

Tfw Sokal called out Peterson out on his abuse of Godel's Theory before he even wrote his Maps of Meaning.

Tfw Peterson is now part of Intellectual Imposture

Tfw Peterson is legitimately part of Pomo trend now.

Gee what do now user

Nobody ever in these threads never makes a video reply / post reply to Peterson. He accepts debates and a reasoned argument. Why don't you do it?

Besides there's almost never hardly critique of JP's critique of post modern. It's essentilally this, triggered left leaning parasites.

On Veeky Forums, Peterson is associated with /pol/

So many don't give him a proper chance as a serious thinker, I guess

That's cause someone else already did.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuEccEYvaE

This tard doesn't even know what postmodernism is.

Veeky Forums is such a fucking meme.

Everywhere else beside youtube comments people are fully aware that the only reason his name gets brought up is his relentless pandering to the /pol/ type crowd.

>wanting to be an essentialist
why? if essence precedes existence then you can never accomplish anything for yourself.

i mean, if you have rich parents, like rich in saudi terms of rich, that might be comforting to explain your situation and of no real consequence, but i doubt the bitches that follow him are read for existentialism either.

it reminds me of the YA mary sue girls whose special powers are being utterly mediocre and still having the supernatural creatures coming both in and out of her vagoo who all look suspiciously like the guys who turned her down in high school ten years before she found fanfiction and low fat icecream.

at least his fans are dumb so when jung's claims about everyone being bisexual and bigendered come up, it's going to make their transformation into their enemies all the more hilarious.

>are read for
are _ready_ for

>So many don't give him a proper chance as a serious thinker
because he isn't one
he's a depressed middle aged college professor who rants and cries in front of a webcam

>he's a depressed middle aged college professor who rants and cries in front of a webcam
well to be fair to depressed middle aged college professors, they won't let them on quiz shows for undeserved fame any more since that "how to read a book" guy

>he's a depressed middle aged college professor

Most great thinkers were

like heidegger?

Heidegger, Kant, Hegel, Adam Smith, Barthes, Foucault, Chomsky, the list goes on ...

If anything, being a somewhat awkward teacher/professor qualifies, rather than disqualifies you as great western thinker

fine, then he's not a thinker cause anyone who waves the gulag archipelago around as proof of anything other than "gulags = shit" is a shit thinker

your memes are all over the place, but you are trying. extra points if you're a letterist or alia

Well at least he's now differentiating between neo-Marxism and postmodernism.

Broke: Agreeing with Peterson's ideas on PoMo
Woke: Agreeing with Styx's take on PoMo

youtube.com/watch?v=1cX-e-htckc

Solid definitions get posted pretty much every thread there's a discussion of it. And also for some reason people saying 'they don't ever agree' gets posted every thread as well. I think you're just an idiot. Postmodernism isn't hard to understand.

Peterson namedropped Gulag Archipelago? Where?
I believe the message of the book to be "authoritarianism, totalitarian government = shit"

>Letterist or Alia

I didn't know what that was, thanks for the interesting terms

man who looks like a bleached dog turd in a leather jacket: "Pomo is just a celebration of ugliness"

>Peterson namedropped Gulag Archipelago? Where?
in some of his previous vids
that's probably why it's been mentioned more and more

>I believe the message of the book to be "authoritarianism, totalitarian government = shit"
yeah

Postmodernism is thinly veiled nihilism.

Things like that image don't actually tell me 'postmodernism' is fundamentally 'malevolent' or whatever like Peterson says, just that in the early days of having fat-positive movements the academies will, I guess, trim the fat off these movements where the logic contradicts itself, because they are fundamentally Western and still use the same manner of determining truth from non-truth. For example, there's no point saying there's no obligation to be healthy while you're saying fat people aren't necessarily unhealthy. That's what reactionary arguments do. But that doesn't mean you engage in the same stupid reactionary sophistry like scientism (even though yes 'science' is important, even more important than the dweebs who invoke it to win arguments in a culture war instead of understand the world)

Everyone needs to fucking chill out and write a book or something, spend more time cultivating yourself and your views instead of engaging in shallow, rapid-fire flamewars

If you want someone to define it for you, just ask. Use your words.

Pretty much everything is thinly-veiled nihilism. Even being religious for the sake of needing to believe in something is fundamentally nihilistic.

Postmodernism either means something identifiable or JP is attacking... nothing? JP clearly thinks postmodernism means something, if someone says he doesn't understand it you fail to defend him by claiming postmodernism never actually meant anything in the first place.

>While encompassing a broad range of ideas, postmodernism is typically defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony or rejection toward grand narratives, ideologies and various tenets of universalism, including objective notions of reason, human nature, social progress, moral universalism, absolute truth, and objective reality. Instead, it asserts to varying degrees that claims to knowledge and truth are products of social, historical or political discourses or interpretations, and are therefore contextual or socially constructed. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, irreverence and self-referentiality.

Yes postmodernism is a broad and nebulous term and thus people will disagree and debate about what exactly it does or should mean. This is the nature of language. Regardless it is a tool to facilitate communication. Getting hung up on language to exploit biases is a political/rhetorical tool(pro-life vs anti-choice) labels can and do matter, but don't change the things being discussed. The movement outlined above is very real and has been refereed to as postmodernism for some time by many people. What JP attacks when he talks about postmodernism seems to be something quite different, if he isn't referring to the above movement perhaps he should state that specifically and tell people what term he will use when he is talking about it(If he has done this please feel free to link me). However it seems he really is referring to this movement because he names thinkers associated with it(in this particular video Foucault(though Foucault himself rejected the label(not to say he is misrepresenting Foucault, he was a postmodernist, simply a point about language))). Now that we have hopefully cleared some of the ambiguities of the discussion away I hope I can convince you, if not to read actual postmodernist work, to at least read the Wikipedia page on postmodernism quoted(even the quote might be enough). You will then perhaps see why many people believe JP might not understand it, his criticisms seems off the mark to the degree that the alternative to lack of understanding is intentional misrepresentation.

>there's an infinite number of ways of interpreting any set of data

This is such a misleading 'postmodernist' argument. Yes there's infinite ways of interpreting data in a vacuum but a key postmodernist point is that all this interpretation happens in specific historical, political and social contexts. If he read Nietzsche and read Foucault he should know this.

Wow I was going to talk about some topics but it's a big cluster fuck

Imagine being so arrogant to presume a tenured professor can't comprehend the concept of postmodernism as well as you, user, the college freshman addicted to anonymous imageboards

>can't look up wikipedia by himself
you only have to read the first couple paragraphs before the contents section. if you can't manage that, you're probably most useful by raging against whatever that picture is. water finds its own level and all that.
>yfwywnb based enough to be an actual postmodernist and have french bitches paint wrestle for your art
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj9nHa7FtQQ

>he's older, so he must understand a concept better

really?

Reading even one chapter of a postmodernist text should make you aware that he is talking about something that postmodernism isn't. What is 'there are infinite ways of interpreting data' if not an interpretation of data?

>it's only user that can argue with him
there's plenty that can, they just write books with heideggerean terminology that would probably lose peterson.

try pat bracken's postpsychiatry he's a psychiatrist, not just a psychology professor, and has a philosophy degree, so imagine the arrogance kermit must have to argue with someone even more qualified in both disciplines compared to him.

or, like the wikipedia guy is saying, you can try the top of that page if reading a whole chapter is hard for you.

>all old people are tenured professors

except that is one of the basic tenets of postmodernism: the deconstruction of narratives ie the idea of meaning as sociohistorical construction. the way he puts it forward might not be the most apt, but he's certainly talking about pomo

>the deconstruction of narratives ie the idea of meaning as sociohistorical construction.
like jungian dream analysis?

see? you immediately assume i'm not acquainted with the subject. you guys are so fucking arrogant, it almost reminds me of myself as an early 20 something

okay, what are your arguments against bracken? i'll expect them fast since you're au fait.

Yeah, it's simply mind boggling how people who have actually read postmodern philosophers think they comprehend the concepts they are writing about better than some random schmuck who clearly didn't.

But user, Peterson has a philosophy degree and is a active practising psychiatrist. Your being incredibly petty as well, It wouldn't be nice to argue that Kermit is more qualified because he has been cited a hundred times more than Bracken would it?

>Peterson's an MD
No, no, he's not, user. If he's practising psychiatry, he's breaking the law just as much as selling crack as a psychiatric intervention doesn't hold up in court.

>he doesn't know the difference between and MD and a PhD
kek that has wonderful possibilities

But if Peterson goes on to say, which he does, that the number of 'viable' interpretations is limited to minimising suffering, repeatability, being non-objectionable, functional, etc., then isn't he describing socially constructed interpretations? Each of his points describes how societies function, but he says that postmodernists 'haven't grappled' with these limits on interpretation, despite it being a 'basic tenet' of postmodernism that meaning is limited to sociohistoric contexts rather than being near infinite.

it seems like postmodernism is just another label like existentialism
where it clearly means something
but it may or may not be related to another set of ideas

its just a generalization that says yeah it exists, and its clearly not modernist thought.

existentialism is considered a subset of postmodernism.

Both jordan peterson and pomo are shit.

philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf

Well, your right, I lied, I spent exactly 30 seconds on google and it seems like his clinical practices are outsourced to other psychiatrists and he's just a director/manager.

I think a lot of anons into him are spending less than 30 seconds on google, so you're good by comparison. Peterson's not really a good source and he can lead to very lazy thinking and a lot of misconceptions (even of Jung).

For instance, there's a reason when he's dealing with feminism that he uses the "essential" female pathology from Freud. He is an essentialist, but Jung doesn't have that concept as essentially feminine. He's against collective identity, which goes against essentialism and Jung; essentialism because if there is a feminine pathology, then they do share at least a pathological identity if not more traits; and Jung because his most famous idea is the collective unconscious.

You don't want to imitate his cherrypicking because you'll never get good that way.

I'm not actually a fan of Peterson (he's too much of a Libertarian for me personally) or previously involved in the thread, I just thought user's argument was terrible.

He's not too much of a libertarian for me, but then the equivalent in my country are living in caves and forests. He's just too much of an obvious dumbass. He should just say he dislikes tumblrites or SJWs etc. Postmodernism outlined some of the positions he backs, so that he really thinks its his enemy is bizarre.

I don't know why he thinks the idiots who care about IdPol are sitting at home reading Derrida and getting IdPolpilled. They'd probably cry if you made them read Derrida and try to sue you for cruel and unusual punishment and misogynistic violence.

will leftypol ever fuck off?
Isn't there a tranny that needs defending?

I'm not a leftist. I'm a hardcore traditionalist, and part of that is demanding you read the fucking dictionary if you need to know what a word means.

>I'm a hardcore traditionalist
>complaining about "idpol"
>defending pomo
sure thing

>not wanting monarchy
>thinks defining something is defending it
lel peasant

m8 come on, the only ones who complain about idpol are le edgy leftists from leftypol

>Peterson is an edgy leftist from leftypol
He does seem about as confused.

>Peterson has a philosophy degree
no he doesnt

He actually has a B.A in Political Science and has previously mentioned in a interview he has a unspecified qualification in English Literature (probably a associate's?).

>Political Science

What? depending on what country, or even what university Political Science can come under the banner of Philosophy (which it did in his case, hence why he didn't continue and switched to psychiatry), Unlike in America where Political Science is basically economic and law combined into one unified subject.

iktf

Peterson isn't alt-right.

I really wish post-modernist writing was some evil conspiracy to destroy the world. It'd be way cooler.

The beauty he failed to see is that there's no way to demonstrate that he's wrong.

That's because he isn't wrong, many Pomo artists outright admit their art is about making the ugly beautiful, some will also admit it's entirely about making money, so people not know the hilarious hypocrisy of Warhol? that guy was great.

I think he meant to imply pic related.

postmodernism is such a loosely connected catch all term that you cant really define it.
>If clouds are real why dont you hand me one?
This is what youre essentially asking

That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning.

The term “postmodernism” first entered the philosophical lexicon in 1979, with the publication of The Postmodern Condition by Jean-François Lyotard. I therefore give Lyotard pride of place in the sections that follow. An economy of selection dictated the choice of other figures for this entry. I have selected only those most commonly cited in discussions of philosophical postmodernism, five French and two Italian, although individually they may resist common affiliation. Ordering them by nationality might duplicate a modernist schema they would question, but there are strong differences among them, and these tend to divide along linguistic and cultural lines. The French, for example, work with concepts developed during the structuralist revolution in Paris in the 1950s and early 1960s, including structuralist readings of Marx and Freud. For this reason they are often called “poststructuralists.” They also cite the events of May 1968 as a watershed moment for modern thought and its institutions, especially the universities. The Italians, by contrast, draw upon a tradition of aesthetics and rhetoric including figures such as Giambattista Vico and Benedetto Croce. Their emphasis is strongly historical, and they exhibit no fascination with a revolutionary moment. Instead, they emphasize continuity, narrative, and difference within continuity, rather than counter-strategies and discursive gaps. Neither side, however, suggests that postmodernism is an attack upon modernity or a complete departure from it.

How can you watch that video and then say this? He explains for you exactly what his goal is. It's not to thoroughly understand all of the inner workings of pomo but to provide a low resolution snapshot for an angle of criticism via a particular moral stance based on his own value structure.

And that is what philosophy is about. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with all philosophy, because it is all about value judgments. The self-proclaimed amoral philosophers are not amoral in the slightest. We are all moral and living creatures and this has a serious impact on what we think. From Peterson's POV the implications he derives from his study of pomo are completely valid. Now, you can disagree and have your own POV that does not see these implications, but that in no way means that his POV and what he is seeing is wrong.

I don't see what is endangering about what he says either. I assume he gets attacked on here a lot because there's some perceived endangerment. He talks about and promotes individuation and that's mostly it. Individuation is beneficial to everyone. He also points out the shadow of certain ideas as a warning and form of guidance. He's not putting down anyone speaking out for the gender fluid pronouns, for example, it is more like a lecture of warning on what problems it could lead to and trying to steer people in the direction of a healthier outcome. If your response is that he has no right over the domain of what is healthy, then you need to demonstrate why you have the right over the domain of claiming that.

fpbp

>The term “postmodernism” first entered the philosophical lexicon in 1979
This is just like objectively wrong, the fuck.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

That's nice and all, It's still wrong, "Post-Modern(ism)" as a descriptive term has been in use since at least the early the 20th century.

I'm not the postmodernist gatekeeper of when something is officially included in the philosophical lexicon.

>He's not putting down anyone speaking out for the gender fluid pronouns, for example, it is more like a lecture of warning on what problems it could lead to and trying to steer people in the direction of a healthier outcome.
this is the same thing, the lecture you mention is just the pputdown in different terms
it's like saying "I'm not gonna fuck you in the ass, I'm just gonna anally penetrate you"

It's the same thing if you're that insecure about it. The former actually doesn't care about your welfare at all while the latter is criticising you with concern for your future self and children.

>"I'm not gonna fuck you in the ass, I'm just gonna anally penetrate you"
Is that an analogy for compelled special pronouns?

And unique social construct/cultures do not exist.
"All" heterosexual women want men taller than themselves. All cultures are fundamentally extremely similar at their cores.
That's why pomo is bad. You can't change "human nature".

Here's a simple way of thinking about pomo
>its the reaction to modernism
>modernism was defined by its adherence to fixed values and ideas about the world
>pomo rightfully criticizes modernism's its austerity
>pomo begins experimenting with how to tear down and manipulate modernism's value systems
>they realize they obvious: wait, in fact, nothing matters lol
>pomo authors now deal within the space of irony, self-awareness and self referentiality because modernist authors were being spooky as shit
>no more God and no more inherent value meant individual journey towards your own value
>^^ is this where we get the idea that pomo is supposed to be an ideology that accepts anything
>pomo is dictated by its acceptance of nihilism.. but if modernism was what directly succeeded nihilism what brought about nihilism and why didn't it affect it?
t. Gleamed a couple wiki pages.

I'm personally interested in how modernism because a thing. Was it a way for authors during the chaos of the world wars to find a solace and a wish to live under its threat?

Yeah I'm retarded so these generalizations are probably wrong but I feel like I'm somewhere in the ball park.

Fuck Peterson though.

>You can't change "human nature".
yes, that's why we're living in the same society as 100k years ago

You know he doesn't understand postmodernism?
Because there's such fucking thing as "postmodernism". It's literally just a snarl word to lump together a bunch of disparate thinkers and write them off in one go because people can't be bothered to read difficult prose.

...

>a tenured professor with no background or expertise in philosophy
hm

That cap doesn't actually say anything at all