Modernization Hub

Modernization and Improvement
Jordan Peterson Explains Postmodernism

Jordan Peterson Explains Postmodernism


was here we could lay it out quickly okay you know because I’ve been I’ve been thinking about how to communicate this properly and so the thing about the post modernists and I’m going to speak mostly about Jacques Derrida because I’ll consider him the central villain now he actually he he may they make a point explain who he is please well he’s a he’s a French philosopher French intellectual who became quite popular in the late 1970s and then was introduced to North America through the Yale Department of English and of course English literature is one of the disciplines that has become entirely corrupt and so Derrida was a Marxist to begin with but that fell out of favor because it turned out that Marxist political doctrine kept producing evil empires and even radical left French intellectuals were forced to admit that by the mid-1970s you know they put their head in there in the sand for 20 years 50 years really thoroughly in the sand and made sure their ears were full too but by the mid 1970s the evidence that that was the case was so overwhelming that even a French intellectual couldn’t deny it anymore and so they started to play sleight of hand with the Marxist ideas so instead of trying to promote the revolution of the working class against the against the capitalist class let’s say they started to play identity politics and said well we can just separate everybody into a pressed versus oppressor but we don’t have to do it on economic grounds and so we can we can call it power instead of economics so that was part of it and then the other thing but the fundamental critique that Derrida focused on this is this is this is really worth laying out because that the problem that he discovered the post modernists discovered was discovered by a variety of other people at the same time in other disciplines so for example among the people who were studying artificial intelligence since the early 1960s it was always supposed that we’d be able to make machines that could move around in a natural environment without too much problem and the reason we could do that was because the world in some sense was just made out of simple objects there they are and all you have to do is look at them and you see them and that’s vision and then the complex problem is not how to see or what to see but how to act in reference to what you see but it turned out that the AI people ran into this problem essentially sometimes known as the frame problem the frame problem is is that there’s almost an infinite number of ways to look at a finite set of objects so the fact that that vision for example it turns out to be way way way more complicated than anybody ever our ever estimated in fact you can’t actually solve the vision problem until you solve the embodiment problem so an artificial intelligence that doesn’t have a body can’t really see because seeing is actually the mapping of the world onto action and so that was figured out more or less by a robotics engineer called Rodney Brooks but but what’s at the bottom of this is the idea that any set of phenomena can be seen a very large number of ways so like there’s a bunch of pens in front of me here you know and when I look at the my brain basically notes that there agrippa Ballabh jekt with which i can write so I see the function like like if you look at a beanbag you see a chair not because it’s got four legs and a seat in the back but because you can sit on it and most of what we see in the world we actually see functionally rather than see as an object and then interpret the object and then figure out what to do so the function of the object constrains our interpretation but there’s an endless number of interpretations so for example if I was going to paint that you know paint on canvas this set of pens and try to do it in a photorealistic way I would be looking at tiny details of these objects that the multiple shades red that are there in the multiple shades of of white and black and you know I would decompose it and many went many ways and so the AI guys ran into this problem which was that looking at the world turned out to be exceptionally complex and that’s still being solved now okay in literature the same thing happened what what the post modernists realized was that if you took a complex book let’s say the Bible for example or a Shakespeare play there’s an endless number of potential interpretations that you can derive from it because it’s so complex and so sophisticated so imagine that well you can interpret the word you can interpret the phrase you can interpret the sentence you can turbit the paragraph you can interpret the chapter let’s say you have to interpret that within confines of the entire work then of the entire tradition and then within the context of discussion that you’re currently having and all of those things affect how you’re going to interpret the play so there’s a know so that their conclusion was well there’s an infinite number of ways to interpret a text and then their conclusion was well there’s an infinite number of ways to interpret the world and there’s there’s a way in which that’s correct and so the next conclusion was there’s no right way to do it so you could do it any old way and then their next conclusion was oh and this is where the Marxism creeped up again Oh people interpret the world in a way that facilitates their acquisition of power now that’s where the bloody theory starts to get corrupt because yes a bit but also no right because and this is why they’re wrong this is why they’re wrong you see the world is complicated beyond our ability to comprehend so there is a very large number of ways you can interpret it but but you have to extract out from the world a way a game from your interpretation that you can actually play so if the lesson that you extract from Hamlet is you should kill your family and yourself then we might say that that’s not a very functional interpretation right because first of all people are going to object to that right it ends your life it ends many people’s lives people are going to object to it and it isn’t a game that you can play over and over again in the world so when we’re when we’re interacting with the world you see what we’re trying to do is to extract out a set of tools that we can use to function in the world because we’re constrained by the world so that we don’t suffer too much and so that the things that we need in order to continue can be provided and we need to extract those out in a way that other people will so that other people will cooperate and compete with us in a peaceful and maintainable way so then you think well we have to extract out an interpretation that allows us to live and thrive over multiple periods of time in multiple environments well we’re doing the same thing with other individuals who are motivated the same way so there’s a tremendous number of strengths on our interpretations and the post modernists don’t care about that at all all they do is say well no no you can interpret the way the world the world any way you want all people are ever doing is playing power games based on their identity and there’s going to be no crosstalk between the power hierarchies it’s not even allowed that’s why they don’t engage in dialogue see just to talk to like let’s say if you’re a if you’re a postmodernist just to have a discussion with someone like you you know a heterosexual what do they call a cisgendered male of power you know and white to boot it’s like that’s that’s an evil act in and of itself because all you’re doing by engaging in dialogue with that person is validating their their power game that’s all you see and this isn’t this isn’t this is no aberration that these people don’t engage in dialogue that it’s no aberration it’s built right into the philosophical system they regard the idea of the idea that if you’re in one power group and I’m in another the idea that we can step out of that group engage in a dialogue have our worlds meet and produce some sort of understanding yeah yeah some sort of negotiated understanding no that’s part of your your oppressive patriarchal game that idea that whole idea is part of your game so if I even engage in the dialogue I’m playing your game you win it’s a completed so it’s complete you people don’t understand that post-modernism is a complete assault on two things one it’s an assault on the metaphysical substrate of our culture and I would say that the metaphysical substrate looks something like a religious substrate so it’s a direct assault on that and the second thing it’s an assault on is everything that’s been established since the Enlightenment rationality and parasitism science everything clarity of mind dialogue the idea of the individual all of that is is not only you see it’s not only that it’s up for grabs that’s not the thing it’s to be destroyed that’s the goal to be destroyed just like the Communists wanted you know wanted the revolution to destroy the capitalist system it’s the same thing these people now you might say well there’s every social justice warrior activists know this it’s like well no of course not it’s not luck not any more than any every Muslim knows the entire Muslim doctrine or Islamic doctrine or every Christian knows the entire Christian doctrine you know its fragmented among people but then when you bring them together the fragments unite and the entire philosophy acts itself out so you don’t think that this is a nefarious plot by a few well planned out individuals that have some sort of an agenda that they’re going to promote this ideology because they and they understand what they’re doing you you feel like it’s what you’re saying that there’s a bunch of different factions a bunch a bunch of different parts to this and it could be a lot of it is that people feel disenfranchised socially they they are empowered by their positions in universities and by these insulated environments and groups they’re intoxicated by the power that they have over young people and shaping their minds and and in imposing their ideologies they receive feedback from these kids it builds up everything strengthens they shore up the walls around them and they push this forward and then when they have something like this speech that you gave that Nick masters and they get to actually act it unites them unites them and this is what you’re getting from this glazed eye you know coddlers yeah yeah well it’s as if it’s like Richard Dawkins idea of meme you know if you imagine that in your in your neural neural structure whatever idea is that you’re manifesting are represented neuron by neuron let’s say it’s a web of neurons not any one neuron has the entire idea set this is obviously an oversimplification but you get the point there’s a network from which the idea emerges well the meme idea is is that an idea can rest upon multiple individuals as if each individual is a neuron and so I mean there are people who are more or less fully informed as to the nature of postmodern doctrine and they’re pushing it forward consciously and unconsciously they’re they’re consciously pushing for and acting it out and so there are individuals who are more representative of the entire set of ideas and individuals who are less representative but if you get them together in a group the thing that animates them and unites them is the common set of ideas and those ideas were produced by the postmodern French intellectuals in the in the mid 70s roughly speaking Jacques Derrida Michel Foucault Foucault was the person who famously pronounced that psychiatric diagnostic categories were primarily social in origin rather than biological and you know I read the flucos work I think it was madness and civilization where he advanced that particular doctrine you can actually read Foucault and like Derrida and Lacan but I just found what he was writing obvious it’s I knew from my clinical training that psychiatric categories have a heavy sociological construction partly because psychiatry is into science medicine isn’t a science it’s an applied science so they aren’t the same thing at all and you know a pure science is pure science it deals with scientific categories like atoms but an applied science well it’s a compromise between all sorts of different things and mental illnesses themselves are shaped by the social environment even though often they have a biological root the way they manifest themselves is clearly shaped by society and language I didn’t find his work the least bit surprising I thought well really I mean everyone who’s a sophisticated medical professional psychiatrists psychologists everyone knows that it’s like meaning there’s a book called discovery of the unconscious by a guy named Andre Allen Burgess that was written in the leave in the 60s great book on history of psychoanalysis and like he covers the shift in diagnostic categories across time it’s self-evident so anyways there’s all these friends post modernists they were all Marxist most of them were student revolutionaries in France in the late 1960s before that all fell apart and they did two things they they pulled out this frame problem issue the issue of multiple interpretations and said well there’s nothing that’s canonical there’s no overarching narrative there’s no real interpretation and I already said why that’s wrong and then the other thing they said was they did this sleight of hand so instead of the working class against the version was he it was it was race against race or gender against gender unbelievably divisive it’s all they believed in his identity there’s no individual man that’s gone with post-modernism that this isn’t that accident all of this stuff it’s not random it’s driven by these ideas like ideas are always at war always and we’re in a war between these ideas I mean Marxism we already know was tremendously powerful doctrine and this is its newest manifestation what is the motivation behind the individuals that are at the heart of this movement well I would say that the motivations are as complex as as human motivations are in general but they seem to have solidified into a movement right well I think the dangerous part of it is that the it’s a kind of it’s almost like a scapegoat mentality it’s almost like psychoanalytic projection that’s another way of thinking about it it’s like what are the things that I’ve come to learn and one of the things I talk about a lot is that the the battle between good and evil so to speak isn’t between States and it’s not between individuals precisely although it manifests itself at those levels it’s an internal battle a moral battle that happens inside people and so people have a broad capacity for malevolence and for and for benevolence and that’s a terrible war for people and it’s a terrible thing to understand and realize in fact often when people realize their capacity for malevolence if they’re not prepared for it they develop post-traumatic stress disorder so that happens to soldiers and battlefields so they go out there innocent guys you know naive guys young guys and they go out onto the battlefield and they get put in a really stressful situation and you know they they step outside themselves and they do something unbelievably vicious and brutal and then they’re broken they can’t take that manifestation of themselves and put it with like Iowa corn-fed you know nice guy and no wonder because one is like a flesh-eating chimp chimpanzee on a war rampage and the other is you know was relatively well brought up and polite farm boy from the middle of the United States it’s like how in the world you’re going to put those two things together well you can’t that’s post-traumatic stress disorder and to treat that my experience with post-traumatic stress disorder is that you have to teach people a philosophy of evil of good and evil because otherwise they can’t recover and I’ve had I’ve had by the way in the last four months I’ve had two letters from people from soldiers with PTSD and I met two personally who said that watching my lectures had had brought them back it together because they couldn’t understand what they had become before looking looking deeply at at the at their malevolence now so I would say with regards to this movement this postmodern movement the malevolent aspect of it there’s a there’s a couple of them wanted unbelievably authoritarian I got a letter today from a university student in Italy I don’t know what university but she’d been having kind of a flame war on Facebook with with the social justice warrior and at the end she recommended that this particular social justice warrior seek out a local mental health counseling unit and put a link to it in in the exchange and then she got a letter from the University I guess the other person that the SJW type turned her in but she got a letter from the university saying that that violated university policy and constituted harassment and that she should seriously consider retracting it and that you know future employees employers might be looking at what she posted and it was inappropriate to put that on a public site and it’s like I thought wow if you how could you be so clueless as a as a administrator say to think that you’re monitoring of your students private utterances you’re monitoring it at an institutional level and your intervention and threat at an institutional level is less dangerous than letting two students you know troll each other on on a on a public social forum just I just I don’t know what to think about it it’s just unbelievable it happened and it’s happening all over the place this sort of thing and so there’s the authoritarian element to it which is a hatred of I think it’s a hatred of competence because competence produces hierarchies that aren’t based on power I think it’s a hatred of clear intellect hatred of clear interlink how so what do you know when you say clear in the level you have a clear intellect as far as I’m concerned I think that’s why you’re so popular it’s because you pay attention and say what you see and you’re not too concerned about doing anything other than that I mean of course you have an agenda because everyone has an agenda you can’t help but have an agenda if you’re alive but you can temper the agenda like you can be clued in enough to try to listen and learn and watch and pay attention to what your own senses are telling you and try to articulate that and now that’s what the logos is technically speaking and the reason I’m bringing this up is because Jacques Derrida described Western culture in a famous phrase he described it as fellow PHAL-Logo-Centric P-H-A-L logo L-O-G-O geocentric PHAL logo centric and it needs to be brought down well a phallus part that’s MALE, the LOGO part that’s logos now that’s partly logic because the word logic comes from the word logos but logos is a deep made much much older concept than logic like logos is it’s essentially it’s a theological concept and that’s where things get complicated but you could describe it as as the manifestation of truth in speech and the postmodernist they don’t like any of that so foul logo centers our logos it would be the ultimate mansplaining yes as our yeah it’s like any man who Jordan Peterson Explains Postmodernism – Transcribed expresses or tries to correct a woman in any way becomes a man so maybe to correct anything in any way hmm remedy particularly with what you

100 comments on “Jordan Peterson Explains Postmodernism

  1. JBP is a brilliant wordsmith. Few can express themselves as clearly as JBP. I disagree with him on the importance of using the bible as a teaching tool, we have many modern stories of wonderful people.

  2. Peterson is a sloppy scholar. A lot of the stuff he says doesn't ring true with the people he is citing. I know people are taken with him but read the source material from the actual writers before concluding anything said in this video.

  3. Interesting that every comment here begins as just a snippet… breaking into the middle of a sentence with the comment “read more”

    I don’t know many who have read more than Jordan Peterson. The man is a voracious reader and it produces startlingly ‘clear thought’ which produces very. clear. communication.

  4. I don't know about what some of these people are putting forward in the name of "post-modernism" but it certainly is not what can be found for example in a book like Lyotard's "the postmodern condition". Peterson corrects the post-modern vision by referring to a game theoretical way of deriving a functional viewpoint, which constrains your interpretation of the world. This is literally what Lyotard argued for in this book. With regard to dialogue, the idea is not to reject consensus, but to see it as either a momentary state of a discussion (rather than the only possible goal), or as impossible, with a respected dissensus as the alternative. This does not mean at all that discussion is wrong! It's rather: if you choose to live by your rules that define (e.g.) the game of love in your way (e.g. not monogamous) then I shall respect that. The goal of this model of dialogue is to develop a new practice of justice (!) that explicitly rejects violence, terror, or destroying the system. Lyotard writes the aim is to tolerate a diversity of language games (it is based on Wittgenstein) where taking responsibility for one's own game rules and their effects is the central issue – this is the only possible condition that a dissensus may be justified.

  5. Derrida's claim was that one should engage in a dialogue to subvert their presumptuous tendencies as our opinions are a hierarchal amalgamation of binary responses and privileges. His point was not to avoid dialogue but to understand that the objective truth, if there is such a thing, is more likely found between two opposing opinions than two very similar ones. His popularisation of aporia was the main point of contention for JP I believe, his willingness to state I don't know thus rendering all opinions equally wrong on he matter in spite of their relative usefulness. Derrida was quite clear in stating however in his propositions regarding logocentrism that obvious privileges must necessarily be made in the name of practicality, for example compassion over cruelty.

  6. Let me see if I've got this. Post-modernism – there is an infinite number of ways to interpret the world, but yours is wrong.

  7. Doesn’t understand Marxism, not about rich vs poor or opressed vs oppressor. He sure likes to use big words. Too bad they all contradict each other.

  8. I still don’t understand what Postmodernism is. I bought a book about it and found it impregnable. What is Postmodernism?

  9. You directly assault an entire movement after admitting that it's flawed only in the interpretation of infinite interpretability. It's not Postmodernism, but it's hedonistic adherent's hypocrisy which directly assaults anything. What kind of interpretation is your's JP? Is it any different?

  10. Meditation is when you are just aware of what's going on within and around you without assigning a frame of reference or judgment as to what to do about it. It can become a default mode where you consciously choose when and how to respond to your environment. Most human action is reaction according to a prescribed set of protocols. Conscious action isn't the norm. I agree though, that to act, you need to make an interpretation somewhere along the line. Structures of interpretation are one of the contentions between Peterson and Harris.

  11. I love this I got seduced by all this postmodernism crap years ago, but then used planes, cars and rode bicycles. I don't want to rely on a postmodernists' interpretation of an aeroplane wing when Im boarding a plane but it takes a long time to cement the idea in people's minds. The world has truth and meaning I like that idea now

  12. Listening to Jordan Peterson one realizes that MANY things have gone amazingly wrong through the years. Postmodernism is certainly one of them …

  13. I used to be thoroughly muddled in postmodern and post-Marxist philosophies. Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Laban, Jameson, you name them, I read them. I like Peterson, and I appreciate the mind-splitting, ear-aching, thankless (and often dangerous) work he is doing by exposing the intellectual dishonesty of postmodernism and its charlatans and trying to help college students who have become unknowingly indoctrinated to this philosophical farce, rubbish, and absurdity, exactly what their “ideas” and beliefs are, where they come from, and what they actually mean. What I dislike about Jordan, is that while under the pretext of guiding people to more rationality, he substitutes his own obscurities, fancies, and intellectual postulations. He’s deep down a romantic and has admitted it elsewhere. That’s why him and Sam Harris (who I have my criticisms of as well, of course), don’t jive like they should. They both preach similar messages, but they arrive at completely different conclusions.

  14. As a university English student in the UK I can confirm that the English department is absolutely corrupt as Jordan put it. The professors are nothing more than self-righteous peddlers of postmodernist propaganda; the material is taught in such a way that it impossible for the student to read a text without making it a sexual/racial/gender politics issue.

  15. I've been writing for Sputnik International on the disease of postmodernism in US academia:
    https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201812061070455154-dna-postmodernism-homosexuality-destruction-culture/

  16. part of my job is to edit videos for an online courses for a university that does teach Postmodernism to new teacher graduates, and its extremely alarming knowing how the future generation will be brought up.

  17. I don't think Jordan Peterson explains Post Modernism very well.
    Try this video to give everyone a chance at actually getting an introduction to Post Modernism.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL8MhYq9owo

  18. Hahah. The way Joe responds with that question of agenda makes it clear that both persons don't understand the concept. And while I get that the the postmodern critical lens can be used to fight againts logical and objective arguments its obviously not what the french philosophers had in mind when talking about it. Jordan never mentions death of the author or how it connects with surrealism. This means that its a different concept that Jordan is talking about, and I do feel that it is a different concept that intelectuals are using as a weapon to specially in pseudo science that involves the human psyche but it gets confusing with people like Jordan Peterson.

  19. Jordan Peterson is the embodiment of right-wing post-modernism in 2018. I have always attacked and disliked post-modernism, because it can be very dangerous. But the new form of it is Jordan Peterson's strange relativistic flexible theism with a sauce of misogynism.

  20. I love that after Peterson rants for 15 minutes, completely incoherent even to those familiar with some of the people, fields of study, and subjects he name drops, Rogan asks him "What are the motivations."? And then rather than saying "I don't know." he says "I would say that the motivations are as complex as human motivations are in general." What does that fucking mean? And then he starts to explain it "because of the battle between good and evil". So I guess post-modernists are post-modernists because they are evil?

  21. Idk why so many people seem to worship the man, not like he have any original ideas. Even his series on the Bible is a spinoff of Joseph Campbell.
    As for postmodernism he either doesn't know much or found a good narrative that sells well, or what's more likely a mixture of both

  22. Let me tell you aboot — marxism. What is this guy even talking about? I thought he was going to talk about art. Jesus fucking christ. I don't care about identity politics or radical leftist ideology. I can feel my brain cells dying. It's like informational septic shock. I'm sure there's a sane person who can better describe postmodernism without turning it into an alt-right political discussion. When I think of postmodernism I think of Star Wars and Tarrantino flicks. Honestly, this is worse than listening to a vegan shame me while I eat a steak.

  23. LOL, First he says postmodernism is incompatible with Marxism then he says the Marxism "creeps up" on postmodernism. This guy doesn't even understand how to differentiate the postmodern trajectory with postmodern philosophy. In reality both of these dudes are capitalist apologists. Totally transparent.

  24. Dr. Peterson really hits the nail on the head when it comes to postmodernism and neo-Marxism in universities. I started my degree as joint subject, including a language and a social science. In the end I had to drop the social science subject as I just couldn't sit with the wishy washy frames of reference, as well as the inspid left wing ideology lurking beneath the material . You start questioning yourself… at times I felt like it was me that was the problem… that I was missing something or just didn't 'get' it. It was a very demoralizing and confusing experience. Thanks Dr. Peterson for articulating this problem.

  25. If people are surrounded by things that make them think that power and wealth are the ultimate goals (think corporate culture, celebrities, etc.), then the path of least resistance for the mind is to follow those goals. It takes education and a higher level of thought to understand that those things are not all-important, but rather knowledge and contentment are. He disproved his own point by saying that there are constraints on the way we interpret the world because those constraints are created by the society around us, not logic or reason.

  26. I have read a lot of comments and there are a lot of criticisms of Petersons re-counting of "Postmodernism" not being accurate. I studied physics for 5 years are university and until now hadn't realized that my thinking was (in general) as Jordan describes quite "Postmodern". Relativity – Einstein, Uncertainty – Quantum Theory. Obviously these things are embedded in our fundamental understanding of the universe and so it seems that there is a lot of truth to relativity and statements like "what is truth" which is why my thinking was quite "Postmodern". I think the problem that he is getting at, is less a specific description of what "Postmodernism" is and more a critique in its lack of utility for the average person and society. From wikipedia "While encompassing a wide variety of approaches, postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward the meta-narratives and ideologies of modernism.. common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism There is nothing wrong with that in theory and if anything we can attribute aspects to our understanding of how the universe works. In general what Jordan is criticizing is its lack of utility and for me personally it resonates a lot. He talks a lot about responsibility and making decisions, again this happens in physics, approximations to theories in more local settings e.g. newtonian gravity from general relativity. This is necessary for getting things done and making sense of the world. Again what I hear from Jordan. So yeh, I understand the criticism and maybe those people aren't being hindered by philosophical thinking that prevents them making decisions and getting things done but I know I have and thats why his stuff resonates so much with me. Also what wikipedia says about postmodernism seems to be what I hear from him so I don't really understand peoples beef with that.

  27. It may sound stupid, but when jp starts talking about things like this and i can tell how passionate he is, i honestly start to tear up. Here is a man who makes so much sense and is saying something so many people need to hear and should know, yet everything continues to fall apart and remain corrupt. It is sad how many people have been brainwashed by these ideologies which are only created to divide and destroy. It is saddening

  28. I'm centrist left, definitely not a conservative. But I`m first and foremost a Science man. I idolize Einstein, Descarte, Gallileo. Postmodernists are the ennemy of science, they shouldnt be allowed in any schools and be kept away FAR from students.

  29. … but is there such thing as a Iowa corn-fed nice guy? Come on dudes. these "pop philosophers" are too often apologists for white privilege, racism, libertarianism and other ignoble missions

  30. I don't trust him to give a correct interpretation of postmodernism, nor do I even think it is prevalent in academia anyway.

  31. dont trust pm, but am too unfamiliar with it still. dont trust his analysis of it, too simplistic sounding. dont like Steven Hicks lecture on pm either. still searching the web for a good explanation of it.

  32. This is entirely wrong. Deleuze, for instance, completely rejected the very existence of identity and Foucault thought it was a bad thing to embrace identity politics at all.

  33. No, Jordan. French intellectuals did not depart from Marxism out of fear that it would somehow, everywhere, produce Stalinist nightmares. That is pure bull. It happened because they saw the workers revolt they had unconsciously unleashed during May 1968 as threatening their privileges as middle class wannabees. In the words of David North, "When the working class went on strike, its intervention overwhelmed the petty-bourgeois movement, which faded into insignificance. Overnight, the revolutionary potential of the working class was demonstrated. However, it remained under the leadership of the Communist Party. But the experience had a traumatic effect on broad sections of French intellectuals. They recoiled in fear. They asked themselves, “What are we, for God’s sakes, playing at? A few protests here and there… okay. But the overthrow of capitalism? The dictatorship of the proletariat? Mon Dieu, heaven forbid!” In May-June 1968, the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia looked over the abyss, and they were terrified. Their brush with revolution set into motion a sharp movement to the right." [into post-modernism.–David North, Origins of the Pseudo-Left, http://www.srwolf.com/reports/OriginsofPseudoLeft.pdf

  34. 1. It's interesting to see how the dislike to like ratio is completely out of sync with the positive and negative comments ratio.
    2. I would caution those who believe they are an authority on postmodernism (unless you are than more power to your arguments) because they've read some books or watched some videos. Peterson has thoroughly explored the relevant literature on this subject and has thought about these ideas for decades.
    3. Peterson clearly is not talking about (in this video) Postmodern artists, etc. In fact, when talking about postmodernism in a non-political sense, he actually has great admiration for the works that it has created.
    4. People accuse him of conflating postmodernism and Marxism. Yes, he gets that they are not the same. But you're not getting the point. He is giving somewhat of a history lesson that is that most of the original founders of political postmodernism were ex-Marxists, and that they're prior beliefs contaminated their otherwise pure (even if still invalid) postmodern works.
    5. Point 4 and a whole lot more has resulted in the SJW and postmodern hijacking of the education system in the present day.
    6. The point is that he isn't wildly conflating ideas, he is just explaining a complex concept in what may not be the most clear manner.
    7. People attacking him for being scatterbrained, just… Whatever. If you can't follow along fine. Most of us can.
    8. I feel like point 7 is a bit lacking. You see, going of on tangents is often a sign of scatterbrained thinking (which isn't necessarily bad, it's brilliant for creative endeavors), but in this case, Peterson goes off on tangents because he is attempting to clarify each of the many points/ideas he is weaving into his statement/answer. This characteristic is common of his articulation so as he always endeavors to be as precise as possible. Precise does not necessarily mean short or concise, it means little room for confusion – if you follow along and remember all the tangents and are able to put them all back together into a single idea.
    9. I know how he speaks from experience, I speak like that myself. It is because he spent so much of his life writing (as have I), he often speaks in a way one might write. Instead of picturing tangents, he pictures hyphens – like this – as he is simply clarifying a thought within a thought.
    10. Have a good day, and give someone you may have developed a distaste for the benefit of the doubt. "Seek not why someone is wrong, but why they might be right, for you may be wrong. Often it is the self that understands not the speech of others, not others who are incoherent."

  35. Most postmodernists critiqued Marxism seeing how it is a grand narrative which post modernism rejects. They also rejected identity politics
    https://youtu.be/cU1LhcEh8Ms

  36. I really wish Peterson would have brought moral relativism to the surface here as I think it would have given a clearer definition of where he stands.

  37. this is just stupid he doesn't even answer Joe's questions just monologue to blame post-modernism as evil.

  38. Postmodernism is the continuation of the enlightenment. As a theory it gives too much way to Liberalism. But…..why does he thinks that Marxism is similar to Postmodernism the big difference is that Marxism still taking things as essential instead of constructed. Marxism uses what it finds in the world to create its theory while postmodern thinkers do deconstruct the world around them. Him himself is a Marxist, if that's the type of Marxism he is talking about. He cannot blame Marxism for….the acts of the Soviet Union, what kind of joke is that. Let's blame Jesus for the transatlantic slave trade!!!! What's wrong with his thinking here? Bolshevicks wanted to end capitalism?? Hold on..they were financed by capitalist countries, and then they use centralize capitalism to become the second strongest economy in the world. They pretty much showed how Capitalism works when the people completely depend on the government.

  39. Jordan Peterson totally misquoted Derrida. It’s sad that this guy receives the credit that he does.

  40. An oversimplified half-pie argument. To hear a well informed dialogue on post-modernism listen to Jason Reza Jorjani: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVZhE8zN6aU

  41. Blows my fukn mind that every time Joe opens his mouth turds fall out like a river flows. Why would anyone listen to this man? Dude's seriously fukn stupid, and entirely not self aware.

  42. Peterson doesn't realize that no matter how much he tried to claim to have an objective framework It will always be subjective to his view and everything he extrapolated from it would be his postmodernism interpretation. He is trap in postmodernism not matter how much he denies that is what he doing.

  43. I wonder if the fact that there's only one valid interpretation of the speed of light destroys post-modernism.

    Not that the rhetoric doesn't destroy itself. To establish that everything is subjective requires being objective.

  44. shameless (although at least relevant) self-promotion: JORDAN PETERSON IS CLUELESS ABOUT POST-MODERNISM: https://youtu.be/r_WJpkC_VV0

  45. Believing in some identity based on a property would imply the existence of essence. Postmodernism denies the existence of such an essence, in the sense that there must exist an object or individual having that property while not conforming to its essence. This contradicts Peterson's point that the individual would not exist, as he states that postmodernists would say that such an individual is simply an identity (or may be referred to as such). It is a misinterpretation at a fundamental level.

  46. Basically,
    1) EVERY SENTENCE IS JUST AN OPINION (including all the established science)
    2) YOUR OPINION IS EQUAL TO MY OPINION WHICH MEANS EVERYONE IS EITHER CORRECT OR INCORRECT.
    3) THERE IS NOTHING AS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH,
    JUST THE RELATIVE TRUTH.

    ETC. ETC.

  47. After Postmodernism??? here's episode 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmWeczD4bg.

  48. My view may be very foolish, but as I see it, you can either have strong beliefs and ideas, think that there is something more, then us, like God, state, nation etc and be modernist, or you can be an individualist, egocentric person and question everything, and be postmodernist. Thing is, strong beliefs and modernism led humanity into trenches and totalitarian regimes, questioning everything and postmodernism led humanity into creating Matrix and South Park, so it is quite obvious, what's better. Yeah, I hear the idea, that it is corrupt by Marxism, but for me postmodernism is the only philosophy, that puts individualism and freedom above anything else, besides, postmodernism was originally created by Marxists, that were disappointed by Marxism and decided to abandon collectivism and move towards individual freedoms, so sjws aren't the result of postmodernism, the are more like a downgrade of it.

  49. I wish I could explain this to my old friends but they’re so fucking dumb I don’t think I could get passed the first point

  50. Everything that Peterson has said here Ive come to understand on my own by just observing the world though logic and the key understanding that everyone has a motivation for their acts. Once you start to see the reasons why people do the things they do, literally all the pieces fall in to place. You understand the world and you begin to predict how people act. Once you can do that, truth is literally self evident.There is a reason why intelligence is measured in adaptability and not in books.

  51. Couldn’t understand the severity of post modernist indoctrination in Universities until experiencing it for myself! Had a lecturer who was blatantly post modern (she was quite obsessed with language and the idea that everything was a social construct) and had a clear hatred for so called “authority” and any sort of hierarchy – even though she was playing a power game herself. I found it (and the whole class) impossible to engage in dialogue or friendly debate with her as she would just shut you down with a “no, you’re wrong” statement which is just plain hypocritical and contradictory to post modern ideology of multiple truths. I can finally understand the rejection of dialogue now, and that’s just absolutely absurd and rude. Completely devalues conversation and human connection through dialogue. Post modernism is a completely contradictory philosophy that is based on an irrational paranoia of “power games” while self righteously imposing power over the other.

  52. When Jordan mentions it started in English literature and I’m an English literature student 😂 I want no association

  53. Postmodernism and Nihilism are not Left Wing ideas, they are ideas that are contrary to any narrative Right or Left or Centre, etc.
    They are philosophies based on criticism, they, by their nature, subvert whatever context you put them in, including Marxism.

    What looks like disorder can become the order. Deviations can become the norm.
    Disorder itself isn't inherently wrong, it's just different.

    The Left does have ideas about objective identity, the ideas are just not what you agree with. They are not without order they are just ordered contrary to your perspective which is why you label them as postmodern and nihilist because it's easier to call people disordered then to actually see order in their complex point of view, because it doesn't fit your narrative. It is not a lack of narrative, it is a different narrative. In order for one narrative to be placed, the other contrary narratives must be dismantled, this is something that both sides do, it's called arguing. It's not that there is no meaning, it's just that people disagree with what the meaning is.

    Not a defense of Marxism, Nihilism, or Postmodernism, but an argument against conflating Postmodernism and Marxism.

  54. Shallow, narcissistic and ignorance create the best enemy to destroy. One must pick a side and some will pick the wrong side on purpose.

  55. I'm need to listen to this several times. I was hoping for a paper airplane explanation and Jordan Peterson just flew over my head at 40,000 feet.

  56. Jordan Peterson explaining what postmodernists do… Except they don't.
    He is literally telling you that people fighting for those without power don't want a conversation with people with power, excusing the powerful from not having a conversation with those they tread on.
    He is the most insidious creature I have ever witnessed.

  57. Bags philosophers that came before him by agreeing with them after they're dead and saying "Well, I knew that.". Fuck, you're a pathetic little cunt.

  58. This is where Peterson and half the whole fucking world gets it wrong. Postmodernists are not saying it's race against race, gender against gender. They are saying there needs to be a balancing of the power. And he doesn't get it wrong accidentally. He gets it wrong so that his listeners will make it race against race, gender against gender. With his race and gender having the power. I am a white male but I do not fall for his poisoning of the mind. Postmodernists do not want to kill white males, they want everyone to be happy. Except for Peterson, I'm fed up with his vitriol.

  59. He has no idea what post modernism is- his thinking is premised off an incredibly misleading book by stephen hicks. Both are unpacked here;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHtvTGaPzF4

  60. There is nothing political in the concept of deconstruction introduced by Derida. It just shows the limitation of language and therefore the limitations of logic and the current stage of empirical science. As we live in a reality which is growing in complexity and where extremely polarized concepts and ideas are always contradicting each other but seem true, for me it looks like a linguistic recipe of if-else logic will not serve to make it more clear. This doesn't mean we should dismiss scientific theories, and on the contrary we should build upon them with more powerful abstract concepts such as mathematics, machine learning, quantum theory etc. Even more science is needed now when you regard Derida from this angle. Take a look at an example: what does 3% GDP growth means? Basically doesn't tell anything, maybe some financial transactions have pumped it, or maybe the healthcare percentage have risen from 20 to 23%? But are people 3% more healthy now, or they were sicker and spent more on health? You don't know until you analyse it deeper, define measures based on your values, not somebody else's values and apply computation to it. You cannot rely on old man's economic theories about interest rates and inflation for example, because now we live in global world. So the people dismissing science and logic probably just hide from complexity or fears applying postmodernist ideas blindly. But the opposite is equally obvious that science and logic loose credibility in a world of complexity, fake news, and people trying to condense the reality trough a couple of logical principles or ideologies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *