Modernization Hub

Modernization and Improvement

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:

  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.

  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." 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,

  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

  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:

  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:

  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)

    ETC. ETC.

  47. After Postmodernism??? here's episode 1:

  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;

  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 *