@Rosencreutzzz yeah unfortunately this specific topic was heavily covered between like 2017-2019/2020 (for obvious reasons) and most old guard essayists have given their take on it three times over ,: ] I quite like your video thus far and really appreciat your fresh point of view and additional context! but it's coming into an already quite saturated environment. I will say, though, if you feel the oversaturation is significant enough to warrant some marketing changes, F.D. has had success changing the title and thumbnail for his videos to draw in new viewers not drawn by prior ones. But im not a video creator or a marketer so that note should be taken with skepticism 😅
@@RosencreutzzzThe topic might be not new, but the perspective you bring and execution certainly is an invaluable contribution to the conversation. If only the subject of a conversation were worthy of all this attention..
Also not to be a dick, but how does he spend most of his life with crippling depression, get addicted to benzos, and then have the balls to write self help books to undisciplined young men about cleaning their rooms?
Jordan Peterson is the postmodern parody of the "modernist artist". The individual who tries to move forward becomes a conservative romanticist, the mystique of modernist artists is changed to a 24/7 soap opera of craziness, whisky is exchanged for benzodiazepines and the rational metanarratives become surface level feelings shoved in a blender of dead metanaratives. He is a symptom of our postmodern world and every time he wallows at it, he just becomes a mirror of it.
There's a book 'Blindsight' where an alien spaceship parks itself around Jupiter and humans go out to see what's up with it. Eventually it starts responding to communications. But there's something weird about it. Like what it says is technically human language and seems to be responding to the other side correctly. But it's just off. Eventually they realize that this species of alien is sort of non-sentient and is sort of responding in a super complex form of instinct. And that it doesn't actually understand anything that it's been saying and it's just learned human language without understanding what any of it means or that it even has meaning. That is what Jordan Peterson sounds like to me. He's almost like an IQ test. How long does it take you to realize that while these are grammatically correct sentences they mean literally nothing.
@thewhitefalcon8539 That's exactly what came to mind when I was writing this. The book came out in 2006 so it seems so. Although the concept of a 'Chinese Room' isn't new.
You are a monster for making me watch part of a debate between Dawkins and Peterson and then, on top of that, making me immediately agree with Peterson.
The debate between Peterson and Dawkins is so fucking funny, Richard is staring at him in such utter bewilderment, he has no idea how to respond to the sheer lunacy of Peterson's whole deal.
I’m pleasantly surprised by how much I have to rewind and think about all this. Taking me 5x as long to finish the video. The fact I actually understand and have more stuff to reflect about makes this a 12/10. It explains my blind spots in trying to explain post modernism myself
I am a leftwing archaeo-mystic doing pre-renaissance magic and trying to do hermeneutics on neo paganism. I understand Jorples Bleep Porples's speak as a L1 rambler. But honestly he's a crank even in the lofty strange mindspace. He overstates & overliteralizes his ideas
The layercake of reaction against is well painted Pomo to mo to romantic to rationalist to humanist to medieval scholasticism to medieval mysticism to late antiquity christianity to neoplatonism to platonism... to the first minds pondering
Peterson and Spengler is exactly the connection I've been privately making for years. Both being double-talkers who throw sandstorms of erudite-sounding allusions into the air, make no discernible logical connections between any of the little stinging grains of sand therein, then state an a priori conclusion and challenge the listener to refute an argument which has not actually been made. Every paragraph of Spengler I've ever read and every paragraph of Peterson I've ever heard follows exactly this same tiresome, "irrefutable" pattern. "Postmodern Neomarxism" is pounding on an empty steel drum meant to drown out all possible actual conversation about the present moment and Karl Marx.
It’s funny because when I deal with the concept of “reality” I just use the axiom “all things are real.” But it doesn’t have any legitimizing factor besides we get to stop worrying about if things are real or not. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to start insisting dragons are real in the same sense as a biological thing. I will grant that dragons are real conceptions that have real consequences on human behavior. It just redundant to insist on the reality of things. It’s funny to hear Peterson because we are very close when we explain certain ways of understanding but then again we are sooooo far away. But I think you summed it up, he tends to think that language is reality rather than understanding language’s place in reality. I really like Susanne Langer. Brilliant philosopher. Her work on the concepts of signs and symbols really helped shape my understanding. It helped me contextualize a lot of the discourse going on around me, including Peterson. I tend to think most people, and I’m no exception at times, are just terribly uncomfortable with the complexity of reality and trick themselves that what they believe and think IS reality. It’s just an intense coping mechanism. Henry Bergson, with his thesis on free will, pushed me into that sort of thought as well. Anyways, thanks for listening to my short rant here 😅
@@jamespires3383 And our own understanding and ideas are affected by what we learn, and by how we learn form a relationship with our bodies, nature and society in a very lenghty and complex series of intertwining relations through learning from our ancestors. Other societies and cultures see certain aspects differently as their perception of reality reached a certain point through a different path, and language is a fundamental piece of evidence of this. Using terms of a specific language as absolute values to talk about broader aspects of reality usually leads to gross mistakes. That doesn't mean we can't use language to narrow down the simplest meanings, as that's literally how computers work.
First time seeing your videos and it is very refreshing to see someone being so open with how they interpret and read difficult or obscure passages, as opposed to simply hand-waving something that fits your own narrative. More on topic: It is a testament to Peterson's legacy as a public thinker that videos like these can still be made. His underlying misunderstanding of philosophy, coupled with his fame and subsequent real-time transformation into a social-media-poisoned-attention-obsessed-click-goblin is a mirror to many aspects of our time. Somehow he himself has attained archetypal status. As the archetype of the audience locked self-aggrandizing genius who succeeds in maintaining relevance through becoming more and more a parody of himself.
So postmodern thinking is an acceptance of the complexity of the world, that it resists easy categorization, and that it always was that way. That the grand narratives of today, and the past, are essentially exclusive. We chop off what doesn't fit?
Conservatives have a fundamental drive to simplify the world until they can understand it. That's why marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of reproduction.
This is a fantastic video, kudos. I think the main divide that makes Jung a valuable pioneer and Peterson a total nutcase is that Jung embraced the postmodern tendencies of his era and built a psychological (and later, metaphysical and ontological) framework that accommodated them, while Peterson utterly failed in this, and declared postmodernism his sworn enemy. This is probably why he loves Dostoevsky so much, because Dostoevsky's best characters are warriors against nihilism-and it's Peterson's folly to see nihilism where Jung saw a new, exciting from of truth. That said, though I disagree with some of your criticisms of Jung, I'm very glad that you didn't just kick off with relating Jung to Peterson's ass-backwards interpretations of him and instead engaged with his ideas directly. I feel most modern thinkers boil Jung down and unfairly call him "disconnected from the world" (he was a practicing and extremely successful clinical psychologist after all), and I do think you fall partially into that trap too-for example, the definition you give of "archetype" is extremely far from what Jung meant when he used the word, and is more so related to the later humanities' appropriation of the term. I assume you did this to fit it all within the video, but it might be that you only have second-hand knowledge of many of these ideas. Still, your identification of his ideas with Kant is spot on in that Jung very much spent the first decades of his career attempting to bring Kant down to Earth (which is another point against calling Jung a "disconnected"). P.S. Nice attempt at pronouncing "Can Uğursal", best attempt at Turkish I've ever heard from an American :)
Channel owner is just like picking a random Western college kid and taking their opinion seriously about these made up topics. Jung was a good man with a good legacy, Peterson is a troubled individual still trying to sort himself out, it's unfair and counter productive to constantly criticise and pick on others while being a "nobody" in real life.
Yeah, sorry Jeff, I'll be sure to leave it to my betters to discuss the impact and ideology of a man with millions of followers worldwide. To be less facetious, your argument is strikingly backwards. I've subjected myself to public scrutiny in posting this on the internet, I'm a relatively nobody, but in your framework, the only people who should be discussing Peterson (not "pick on" as you unfairly ascribe here) are his peers. Peterson *is* troubled, and often by monsters of his own making, that's a core point for me. I'm giving his his ideas their context, and probably one of only times the "dragon debate" will ever be brought up in this space without being a punchline. It would be picking on him to be like "yeah this guy is just an idiot, what do you mean dragons are real lmao" and then talk about exclusively his tweets for 20 minutes and call it a day. I'm taking him serious. Troubled or not, he's got a massive platform, has sold millions of books, and also has an ill-formed political outlook that he shares with such aggression it merits embarrassment from the people whom his books have helped. That isn't something to just tut-tutt at and go "oh well he's troubled such a shame"
@@RosencreutzzzWas excited that you had replied, turns out it was to snuff out an inflammatory reply... Sorry my criticism ended up being a vehicle for that. I wrote what I wrote in good faith and am a fan of your work. Please keep making videos like this.
@@myilmazalper Apologies. I did read your comment, but then I saw the other one and, well, felt like I had to respond more pointedly to it. I do think the Dostoevsky remark is very on point. In fact, I think between my youth fixation on a lot of Romantic era culture and being a Dostoevsky nerd, that's part of why I kinda... empathize with Peterson, in a way. I don't think his interests are silly, but I do think he's approached a lot of things from a sour angle. I'm not personally very convinced in the contemporary value of Jung, but I do see his historical impact and some of the value of terms, the same way I do with Freud. I think my bone to pick with him, however, comes from the people who cite him as their inspiration, and then end up being fixated on heroes, or universalities. His disconnect I think comes from his era. And I know that gets said a lot about people from the past, but I think the fact that psychology has moved past generalizations to a degree is a sign that it's not an inherent truth of the field, and that he'd probably have grown past them himself.
Wonderfully said. Also another reason why the whole Jung being "disconnected" argument is quite silly is because based on his works like The Red Book and the Seven Sermons to the Dead, Answer to Job and several others it can be clearly seen that Jung throughout his life was torn between his scholarly side and the striving for metaphysical knowledge/wisdom side. Trying to say that he belonged only to one sphere of knowledge and proclaiming that it was the essential core of his entire worldview is quite unfair and dishonest in my honest opinion.
At least one flaw of Frye's analysis of the "bible", is that it treats the christian bible as one cohesive unit. The end times aren't part of the original biblical (mikracal, to separate the Jewish original text from later Christian additions) text.
Oh that's an excellent point! He does take it as having "one author" and work backwards from there. And that is a natural conclusion from the "word of God" angle, but those works were "delivered" to us across a long span of time. And evem further still, the Gospels were not written in the moment, after all. Tangentially, by that argument, one might as well apply Frye's "narrativization" to the Quran and get the most "updated" version of "The Abrahamic Narrative"
@Rosencreutzzz 1. I wrote as a ethnic jew, so to defend my cultural heritage from outside distortion. 2. Jesus isn't the son of god in Islam, and the quran is anyway an alternate version of the, at least Jewish mikra, so it isn't a continuation of the Christian testament.
It's really fascinating, narcissistic move. Imposing univocality on a collection of texts made over millennia means you think any reader of a given text in, say 50 BC was reading an incomplete work, while you, the modern reader, have the final truth in your hands.
It's a different approach. Some scholars call it semiotic. So they don't care about authorship in itself, but how it's presented to us now, so it includes those that created the unit. I don't think it's a flaw, it's more sensible this way than trying to cut the thing up.
Someone pointed out to me once that - as psychoanalysis is unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific - that Jung studied the opposite of science then dropped out to become a wizard.
@@secretasiandan basically, Karl Popper thought that psychoanalytic claims were not testabile by empirical evidence. Psychoanalysis holds, for example, anxiety fear guilt and shame are all manifestations of repressed sexual desire. However, Freud arrives at that conclusion pretty much without empirical testing and his conclusions can't really be tested by experiment: you can't take someone with social anxiety and run them through a second simulated life where they can be horny on main unrestricted and see if they're no longer socially anxious. Freud's conclusions are "just so" stories.
@@secretasiandanits the black box problem. we cant see inside peoples minds so we can only rely on self report and observation, but because every observation (even those done by the subject) is filtered through a biased perspective theres no way to confirm whether or not anything said is actually taking place. its basically schrodingers cat but for your emotions and thoughts
Actually, I am not sure I would be able to say what "Hercules figure of [insert pantheon" means as an archetype... Is that simply a heroic demigod who ascends into divinity after death? Is it the idea of incredibly gifted individual, who misuses their gifts in fits of rage and ruins their life in a process? Is it the idea of a figure performing petty, meaningless, yet otherwise completely impossible tasks to atone for their crimes? Is it somebody very strong who's good at fighting monsters? What part of Herakles' mythos is crucial to his archetype?
My gut feeling is "12 tasks of Hercules" - impossible tasks given by the gods to a mortal for said mortal to ascend to demigodhood or godhood, probably male mortals only, would create an "archetype" to stretch and torture into fitting incompatible tales into it (like one of Sun Wukong's missions where he was given I think three of them after he broke shit? or the ones that the monk who got stuck with Wukong, the pig and the water horse guy).
@@neoqwerty In that sense we can probably see Monkey King following Tripitaka the whole Journey to the West as the one big "don't screw this one, or else" task, I guess. Can you think of any other examples of Remedial Public Service Heroics? 🤔
I'm unconvinced that one line from The Manifesto, a pamphlet he wrote around the age of 30, is the definitive statement that Marx's work is incompatible with French post-structuralism for several reasons. 1. It ignores later works that problematize this assertion. For example, in one of the prefaces to Capital, Marx states, "There is no royal road to science." 2. It ignores that both Engels and Paul Lafargue, Marx's son-in-law, argue against the notion that Marx's work is deterministic. 3. It ignores that the inspiration for Marx in the relation of class struggle and history comes from Giambattista Vico; who's seen as the forefather of constructivism in the social sciences. 4. It ignores that several of the post-structuralists were Marxists, Barthes, Guattari, and Deleuze (according to Guattari) This is not to give credit to Peterson of course, it seems that both Peterson and Dawkins are unaware that Popper shares a significant amount of postmodern tendencies as well
A jp fan called be a postmodern neo Marxist once and it was really funny explaining to him that I’m just a boring old Marxist Leninist nothing neo or post modern abt it
jordan peterson argued to a classroom that hitler should have used slave labor as if he didn't ... as others commented, i am also glad i watched this despite other videos with peterson's misunderstandings and reactionary conservatism as the subject ; it engages with Jung well and Lyotard's postmodernism in detail .
I get the sense that he's a specific variety: "I'm smart and well-informed in this specific field, so any opinion I have about anything is smart and well-informed."
@@M_M_ODonnell No, not really, I cannot speak about his psychology practice, but he got his license revoked because he told ppl to ktms multiple times online, and also had complaints from clients. So he isn't even that smart in his original field.
@@nickmargaritis3263 I was overly optimistic, then. IIRC he might have done some reasonably respectable research in the field, but yeah, it doesn't sound like he should ever have been a clinical psychologist.
1:40 Successfully convince people that “everything is political”. Some time later, a wide range of movements begin to grow and assimilate under the banner of hate for both “political” and “everything” including any and all definitions of these
That talk with Dawkins made me realize Peterson is seemingly incapable to engage with people on their own terms. I could understand what what he was talking about, but his interlocutor clearly wasn't so, like, just drop the metaphor? Or explain it is a metaphor in the first place. The point of metaphors is to help communication, to condense larger ideas into a more digestible images. But if people think you are talking literally than it is worse than useless, it loses the entire purpose! I don't know if Peterson is so invested into seeming smart he refuses to ever drop jargon (which is a problem with a lot of people in academy) or if he is so immersed into the jargon he doesn't get that not everyone understand it (also a problem in academy). Or maybe he just doesn't respect people who don't understand jargon and refuses to "dumb down" his language for them. Whichever is the case, it is no surprise he come across as a lunatic as he insist on only ever talking in what is functionally an unknown code, which come across as gibberish for most people. (also his politics are crazy, so that doesn't help either)
Watching Peterson talking to somebody that is both smarter than him and feels no need to prove themselves to/in relation to him, is beautiful. Its just a drugged up madman trying to redefine words until he sounds right.
About to go ruin Christmas dinner by attempting to clarify the modern and historic ontological foundations of "We wish you a Merry Christmas" as a carol based in Christian Imperialist concepts of community and celebration with my drunk conspiracy-mongering uncle, wish me luck In honor of this video inspiring the idea I'll be sure to sprinkle in a few references to post-modernist thinkers and philosophers referenced here throughout the discussion, and maybe a reference or two to Marx if things need spicing up
@Testimony_Of_JTF shit, cultural analysis of modern media through a critical philosophical lens was on the ballot? Must've missed that one while looking at the ballot measures. Think I can vote to bring it back next year? Based on your other comments here, I wish you luck with your efforts to either do religious ragebait or genuinely convince people of some absolutely buckwild theories about the world. Either way, I feel like you'd have better luck in-person than on the internet, at least irl most people won't just laugh at you and walk away.
But seriously, there is no civilisation without what one may call Catholic Imperialism. It's the idea at the core of all historically expansive polities.
I would like it if you talked about Peterson's other influence other than Jung, which is Mircea Eliade, a "former" fascist, historian of religions, philosopher and propagandist member of Romania's fascist government during WW2, which ended up just regurgitating Julius Evola's vague generalizations on religion in his book The Sacred and the Profane, you might've heard Peterson talk and have lectures on this book before. So this video was about Peterson's Jungian side, there should be another about his fascist side, further evidencing fascism's and (Evola's coined) Traditionalism's post-modernism, seeing how Evola came from a post-modernist art background (only as a way to criticize The Church as Curtis Yarvin would say to his techno-fascists), ironically the postmodern movement he was a part of Dadaism was a Romanian movememt too
Maybe I'll chain that to a video about how Joseph Campbell was influenced by Spengler... but I also feel like I've read enough Spengler and JP for a lifetime now.
Great video! I had heard of Lyotard before but this has given me quite an interest to look and read into what he has written, very provocative and in a way kind of creates a more cohesive, line in the post modernist thought at least that I have checked out, since the other post modernist philosophers I've been checking out felt in a way quite distant from eachother, this makes a lot of it make even more sense. Thank you!!
I kinda feel like I just finished a Metal Gear Game. I'm a confused, depressed,full of questions.and yet enjoyed the ride. Maybe that's the feeling of post modernism.
I only disagree because I don't like V much, though it does have a fixation on language at least-- BUT that does remind me that there's a kinda cool video kicking around that has like... redeemed Survive in my eyes (I thought it was impossible to do that) LambHoot is the one with the video, I think it's presently called "Metal Gear Survive’s Twist Ending"
@@Rosencreutzzz I need to look that up. And I can relate to not liking V. I didn't like it either until a video pointed out to me that it being not finished and contradictory is kinda the point of it. Than I became unhealthy obsessed with it for quite some time.
@@BlueGamingRage I mean that's not quite it. Lysenko hardly used Marxist anything to determine what he did about predisposing seeds to the cold. Also it had little to do with evolution.
the dinosaurs were in class conflict with the mammals, until a giant meteor slammed into the earth and forced the dinosaurs to become birds (petite bourgeoisie)
This is very dense and I love it. I'll go down that hermeneutic circle a few more times but let me tell you right now: I haven't had my brain tickled like that since finishing my humanities studies - thank you :)
For your consideration, neo-marxism means something pretty specific to Peterson. I'm not sure it's particularly significant, but it isn't as empty as you are suggesting. JP believes the Stalinist nightmare so thoroughly discredited Marxism as a political movement that it's intellectual champions (in his view: Foucalt and Derida) were forced to pivot. Instead of capital being the roadblock to progress, capital was taken as just one form of coercive power, and power itself was the problem. Power could come in a variety of forms (money, religion, government, culture) and where Marxism suggests utopia can be achieved by workers seizing the means of production, neo-marxism demands seizing the means by which social power is produced. There's a lot to critique about this concept (like, how is it different than anarchism, is there not a meaningful difference between Marxism as a tool of analysis vs Marxism as a specific political project, etc). But it's not a concept entirely devoid of meaning, and it IS comparable with post modernism (and especially post structuralism).
Oh, this was very much something I needed but didn't know I wanted! I'm not super familiar with Lyotard and the history of Postmodernism, but I did know enough to know the conclusion at least. It was an enjoyable way to get there.
I wonder about Peterson's Quixote-level fight against nihilism. He called Nietzche's work "dangerous to read" and I feel like that's actually very accurate. In the last few years Doctor P. really revealed a lot of his insecurities and fears, which I think is actually great both for him and for the longer health of his career and legacy. His ideas are as wrong as they are fascinating. He sometimes can arrive at really deep and interesting thoughts and in the next sentence commit such thought-killing cliches that it can be really stunning. Though I don't know if his fans are capable of recognizing that. Not because they're stupid, but because they don't want to see the truth of what he is. I feel like philosophers should be more vulnerable, it's become really easy to see them as these 'Great Men' of great thought, treat them like heroes or saints, or villains, when they are ultimately humans who just arrived at strange and fascinating thoughts.
Isn't it just "cultural marxism" but one step less explicitly nazi in nature? I've not heard these guys come up with any term at all which isn't the same one. Woke, cultural marxism, degenerate, DEI, postmodern neomarxism, literally all of them mean the same thing and have meant that one exact thing since the early days of the NSDAP
I can feel the gears in my head turning over while and after watching this. I feel like bits of this will end up influencing my thoughts and personal phylosophies for the rest of my life and i will be the better for it. Absolutely excellent work.
Really enjoyed the video! I appreciate the effort put into an actual and multifaceted explanation of the issue of post-modernism. I was however quite a bit disappointed in the section on Marxism, I don't think it would be a very bad faith interpretation of the video that you take Marxism very much as a simple concept that can be explained "under 30 seconds", or just in a single section. I would disagree with just about everything you describe in the video about Marxism, and I hope this doesn't come across as aggressive. First of all, you note that Leotard, ""founder"" of post-modernism was one that opposed the concept, and I think in that sense it is rather weird to not mention that Marx very famously also opposed the concept of Marxism on several occasions, such as the famous "Je ne suis pas marxiste" phrasing, but this is also an issue that people have written several books on, such as Tom Rockmore's "Marx after Marxism" (pretty good towards the middle, somewhat lackluster at the beginning and end). But much more significantly, whilst the starting sentence of a pamphlet written early on in Marx's career (the Communist Manifesto) may give the impression that the matter is rather easy with regards to "stages", this has in fact been one of the most widely discussed issues in the study of Marxism and amongst Marxists. If the matter is clear cut, I would like to suggest that it is "clear cut" in the other direction. Marx opposed the idea of a "march of history", let's look at a few texts. In the German Ideology, one of the earlier texts where he very clearly takes up the "idea" of communism, he also does so in a context of arguing against a march of history, or of a goal to push history towards: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes [sublates] the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." To make the point a bit clear, for Marx the question of communism has mainly to do with asserting that; (1) we live under capitalism, a certain arrangement of society, (2) if we can identify what sort of society we live under, so we should point out the things which we would need to get rid of such that we no longer live under that society. Shortly put, "communism" for Marx refers to "not-capitalism". Here, Marx doesn't need to speak about a narrative (explicitly arguing against one) but rather just claim various things about how society is about today. But Marx made a sort of historical analysis that included, famously, concepts like "primitive communism", or "feudalism" etc. So, he needs to clearly be furthering a universal narrative, right? Well, Marx's writings on this topic are complicated and have evolved in various ways (his Ethnological Notebooks are especially relevant in this regard), but luckily for us, he has answered this issue himself. Whilst Russian "populist" socialists (Narodniks) were discussing on the issue of whether or not Russia had to go through a capitalist stage, some have used Marx's theories to defend the idea that history moved in stages and thus it was a necessity for Russia to go through capitalism in order to get to socialism. Marx disagreed, here is an excerpt from his letter to the journal/newspaper Otocestveniye Zapinksy: "Now what application to Russia can my critic make of this historical sketch? Only this: If Russia is tending to become a capitalist nation after the example of the Western European countries, and during the last years she has been taking a lot of trouble in this direction - she will not succeed without having first transformed a good part of her peasants into proletarians; and after that, once taken to the bosom of the capitalist regime, she will experience its pitiless laws like other profane peoples. That is all. But that is not enough for my critic. He feels himself obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labour, the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. (He is both honouring and shaming me too much.)" So, what he is saying here is that, if Russia is moving towards capitalism, then it will need to go through such and such social transformations, not because there is a stage called "feudalism" and the next stage is "capitalism", but because capitalism as a system involves a few things and becoming a capitalist country involves those things, importantly he goes on to demonstrate how he believes Rome had a similar situation at one point but did not develop a capitalist system. For very little that has been said about Marxism in the video, I feel that there is a lot that could be criticised, although it is really nice to see such a nuanced discussion of the relationship between Peterson and post-modernism, but I just wish that it did not engage in Marxism as most every other academic text tends to, considering it a settled issue that can just be ignored by reductions so simplistic that I feel they are hardly justified.
I would like to discuss this issue in more nuance and detail, but unfortunately I feel (temporarily) this is as much nuance a comment section on UA-cam allows (because of how painful it is to write a long text on the UA-cam comment section)
Watching Jordan Peterson being absolutely insufferable outside of his natural habitat (the stage), explaining The Dragon, is both hilarious and uncomfortable. "Humanity should be defunded" summarizes very well the "fiscally conservative" program. The "not to be taken literally" "postmodern explained to children" is actually quite helpful in explaining postmodern: it is, in itself, an example.
31:54 I do concur with your framing of the topic, but I do have some nitpicks. Did you consider the medulla oblongata effect on the avada kedavra when it realigns itself with the mitochondria, the powerhouse of the cell?
iirc there was a brief period (i wanna say this was in the 90s or 00s) where the socal post-structuralist crowd referred to _themselves_ as neo-marxists, which i always joked meant "marxism minus class analysis." i wouldn't be surprised if that's where a young, fedora-topped jordan beterson peterson picked it up. doesn't change that it's still utterly meaningless 🤷
If I ever get the chance to ask Peterson a question. "Ms. Peterson, is there anything you're not an expert on? And would you begin your response with the phrase, "Will I've thought about this a lot ..?"
I just call him a "post-truth prophet". Maybe I'm wrong in putting that label on him, but I find it fittingly funny and funnily fitting and JP did enough for me to stop caring about what he thinks and what he says.
Great video - I very nearly didn't watch it because I was thinking 'yet another dig against Peterson', but glad I gave it the benefit of the doubt anyway. As somebody who has a somewhat distant appreciation for Peterson, and also matches up with a number of the manners which you've analysed him with, it's given me a lot to think about. I think what you said on the atomisation of 'we' and metanarratives and the like is probably the most important (yet underdiscussed) topic of the modern day political world - whatever comes next after post-modernism (in so far as anything will come next), it will be yet another chain in the cultural reactions, this time to post-modernism and the atomisation that it has come alongside.
I didn't expect this to be a serious video, but now I see it is I want to watch. The trouble is it's really really tough to listen to him and hear anything through the extreme emotion he elicits. Even the way he pronounces nomenclature provokes very dark thoughts.
Geuine I would like and dislike to hear his thoughts on the persona series. I can see him ether him liking and install his out there briefs to it or call a corruption of jung ideas.
@@starmaker75 jordan peterson is one of those right wingers i want to sit down and actually try to engage with, not because i agree with him, but because he always frames it in such an interesting, damn near unhinged, perspective. I want to see him trying to figure out how in the megami tensei universe we managed to use the internet and computers to summon mythical, historical and philosophical figures including gods
i kinda feel like jbp trying to play video games would go a lot like that short-lived tommy wiseau video game review show where he could barely start the game, much less actually play it. and like, don't get me wrong, that would be funny in it's own way, but i don't think he'd have anything "constructive" to say.
13:40 - one could argue that fire is a living being as it matches the most important signifiers of life, that being: A. Fire consumes energy to sustain itself B. Fire breathes, consuming oxygen and releasing carbon gasses the same way we do C. Fire is self replicating D. Fire is able to move to new energy sources if available And although it doesn't seem like fire should be treated as a living being, since it lacks a lot of other elements life as we know it needs to earn this title, such as a genome, it's not a stretch of the imagination to say that fire is in fact a creature. That being said I don't like Peterson and don't agree with him, and this is just a fun little thing I wanted to point out.
fire self-replicates, but the process of self-replication is non-selective. a spark that drifts higher than the rest of the sparks set off by a fire doesn't convey that higher drift to future sparks if that fire catches. in a sense, life is defined by its ability to evolve, and fire does not do that.
Fire is not a being in the first place. If it did, all fires would be self-contained, but they don't have a self. It does not consumes energy, it is energy, so A does not work. C does not work either because it has no self. If it did, it would also replicate the wood or whatever is burning. Also consider living beings don't burn their structure, only the fuel, it's why they are being and can replicate that structure. Some people considered it life itself, because of B.
Minor point that does not affect your argument/ analysis here (which I very much enjoy) but that you might find interesting: Frye isn't really that unique if you look wide enough, and the pure literalist reading you describe here in opposition to him is also pretty recent. If you pick up Augustine's De Doctrina, you'll see (what we'd consider) a bible-as-literature approach was something that coexisted with (and was often intertwined with) bible-as-literalist-history in earlier centuries; see Dante's letter to Cangrande as a turning point where Bible-as-literature-stuff actually began to transfer over to literature beyond scripture.
I agree he isn't that unique in the broader context of biblical study, but this is the angle of the impact he had on Peterson, and while what he was doing wasn't necessarily the most groundbreaking thing, it is to an extent a modernist lens. He's one of the people Peterson (and a few other "notables" like Margaret Atwood) cite as an inspiration for their own work. Amusingly, Lyotard has a whole book on the Confessions of Augustine, as well as some referential essays. In some ways, he feels like a modernist before his time, but that's not an argument I would make seriously so much as a *vibe*
@@Rosencreutzzz I get what you mean; he feels similarly positioned at the beginning/ end of eras, looking back and reworking/reclaiming things that came before, and so on. Very much the modernist vibe.
Postmodernism is very interesting because of all of this though I do find that the "deconstruction of meta-narratives" version of postmodernism is the one that is appropriate in most contexts. And I also think that the other forms of postmodernism can be rather painlessly subsumed by this framing of what it means for something to be postmodern. I like to joke that I am in act the post-modern neomarxist that peterson talks about because I strongly subscribe to the belief that meta-narratives cannot be universal and also tend to think that marxism provides a narrative through which many things can be effectively understood.
I always interpreted post modern neo Marxism as placing the new “We” in a phenomenological - structural-materialism lenses for causation of phenomena/reality which is infinite (universe) and always changing (matter- “unimaginable in a absence of form” I think it was described). I think this is the root to the elevation of sublime in “post modern”. with the placing of the relationship between classes as the superpositioned main causative variable of social phenomena - the intersections are the narratives always morphing in real time with humanities material condition at any time.
12:30 really nails it. Someone really swayed by Jungian psych through discovering Persona and chewing on comparative mythology and superficial occult primed me to be easily convinced that his word salad always made sense. In a way it can make sense by the nonsense getting filled in by post hoc rationalizing of what he means
As someone who's kind of been on both sides of the gender debate now there is a good faith reason to challenge the ideas behind how people see themselves as identities are ideological. you never "Just are" you "perceive yourself to be in the context of your society" Still even this relatively neutral trans-negative argument is rooted in the idea that the person should accept your way of seeing themselves - that it is a debate- and their self-perception is somehow "wrong" or inferior to yours which is why I gave up doing this. People ultimately have the freedom to believe what they want about themselves. It is fundamental to human experience.
If i declare myself a king, and sincerely believe to be one, even digging up old family records and having the mandate of heaven placed upon me ( revealed to me in a dream), would it be then bigoted for the rest of society to try to somehow prove my identity is "wrong" or my thinking inferior? As someone who admitted to flip-flopping between so many positions its funny you arrived at the conclusion that people cannot simply be delusional and their belief about themselves wrong. There are people who sincerily believe they are a part of different race, and even when they try everything they can do to pass culturally and look the part, they have always been discriminated against in queer circles, despite the fact that "race" is a made up social construct, and everyone trying to connect it to biology (eugenicists and fascists) debunked and defeated, thankfully. How is it then that you can somehow transition into another gender, which should be way harder due to the difference between men and women being magnitudes bigger than differences between races, valid? Or do you believe transracialism should be fought for, just as people fought and still fight for the plight of trans peoples existence to be recognized and not discriminated against?
I'm surprised you didn't touch on the figure who is arguably the single most important source of Peterson's understanding of postmodernism - Stephen Hicks. Peterson simply repeats the arguments Hicks popularised, and has been instrumental in the cospiracy theory that postmodern theory originated as a backdoor to get Marxism back into the academy.
It colloquially means to raise a question, and I started getting this comment, pointing towards its use in rhetoric, in maybe my third video. At this point whenever I say it, I know it'll be bait for this comment, not even for engagement, just to feel a sense of consistency.
Hi, know you're probably also familiar with the texts but Lyotard's postscript to the "postmodern condition" is also really interesting in how it looked at postmodernism both preceding and being a prerequisite to the production of the modernism, as a way to open up space. He also does something in "heidegger and 'the jews'" - probably one of my favourite of his works, but it's little read - in how the production of any story requires a certain forgetting (which takes on a freudian double-bind character, similair to the incomensurability of the differend). soz for the ramble lyotards just a fav of mine
He talks to an extent about the forgetting in Postmodern Explained as well, though I don't remember exactly where. There's a segment about how "you have not read what you have read" and doing "justice" to an idea that taps into that forgetting notion. No worry on the ramble, I personally find him underdiscussed in a lot of spaces, and in the spaces where he is discussed, it feels like pure PhD Power Hour and gets kinda draining
@@RosencreutzzzI havent actually read hte Postmodern Explained but it seems a cool collection - i'll fit it in after I finish 'just gaming' probably. The ethics of forgetting (and the forgetting of forgetting, and the politics of memory) are basically Lyotard's whole deal in "heidegger and 'the jews'", specifically in how Heidegger interacts with the volke iirc. It's really good but only comprehensible if uve got grounding in Heidegger probably. Personally he's not my favourite author on the whole discussion abt memory etc. because of a kind of affected passivity thats oddly self-contradictory in his sublime period after his break with early anti-colonial/pro-algerian wriitng - James Williams talks abt it in "lyotard and the political" i think. I'd really recommend some of Derrida's work on this kinda stuff, if you can manage it lol.
@@BlueGamingRage If you think Marxism - an analysis of class society and political economy - is "for people who like big words", that says things about you and you only.
I feel like “post modernism” in the end is a wastebasket taxon for a bunch of different philosophical ideas. We struggle to make sense of it because it doesn’t make sense. And to be “post modernist” about it, the world has always had a competition of ideas, the enlightenment struggled against religious movements and that struggle continues today (though the blood is mostly spilled in Islamic countries, you can look at the church-state fight in the US that the religious faction achieved dominance in as another arena). The idea that the meta narrative is uniquely dead now is foolish. How can you say it’s dead when people think we’re “post-racism” and that the rich earned their wealth by being superior people (meritocracy)? Those are meta narratives that may not be universal but are so pervasive as to be inescapable. Just as in the past we live with ideologies that pervade our everyday lives, and competition between those ideologies.
5:56 Ah hell naw you just ruined Linguistic Turn for me. Now I have to cope with the fact that one of my favorite historiographical currents was influenced by a Jungian 💀
Post-Modern Neomarxism is definitely my favorite Victoria 3 leader ideology
WTH? Mister gigachad histories is here. I love your videos man. And this channel I am currently watching too :)
that'll have to be hoi4 time period
merry christmas
Hell yeah, I love trying for like Siri Laken NeoMarx
Really glad i went against my immediate instinct of “oh god its the same video essay ive seen tens of times before”
Oh no I didn't even consider people might have that reaction.
Hmm
@Rosencreutzzz yeah unfortunately this specific topic was heavily covered between like 2017-2019/2020 (for obvious reasons) and most old guard essayists have given their take on it three times over ,: ] I quite like your video thus far and really appreciat your fresh point of view and additional context! but it's coming into an already quite saturated environment.
I will say, though, if you feel the oversaturation is significant enough to warrant some marketing changes, F.D. has had success changing the title and thumbnail for his videos to draw in new viewers not drawn by prior ones. But im not a video creator or a marketer so that note should be taken with skepticism 😅
you cant be too careful with those videos
@ its not a bad essay. Ive just seen that essay too many times
@@RosencreutzzzThe topic might be not new, but the perspective you bring and execution certainly is an invaluable contribution to the conversation.
If only the subject of a conversation were worthy of all this attention..
it's amazing how Jordan Peterson YTPs managed to make me fundamentally unable to take anything he says seriously
I mean, the dude does plenty of the work himself in that regard, lol.
You're going to get splashed by the icy, salty slush sprayed by his Ford Bronco SUV for that one, woke moralist.
Also not to be a dick, but how does he spend most of his life with crippling depression, get addicted to benzos,
and then have the balls to write self help books to undisciplined young men about cleaning their rooms?
@@Grogeous_Maximus have the ball?? I think criticizing young men are pretty normal.
What does YTP mean?
Jordan Peterson is the postmodern parody of the "modernist artist". The individual who tries to move forward becomes a conservative romanticist, the mystique of modernist artists is changed to a 24/7 soap opera of craziness, whisky is exchanged for benzodiazepines and the rational metanarratives become surface level feelings shoved in a blender of dead metanaratives. He is a symptom of our postmodern world and every time he wallows at it, he just becomes a mirror of it.
The irony of anti-post modernist become a example of post modernism
I thought the correct nomenclature for such was 'wanker'?
I've fallen behind in my reading.
@@starmaker75 There are few things postmodernism describes with more devastating accuracy than knee-jerk anti-postmodernists
@@NarcissistAU No, I think you're right
Well put
50:46 "Please, Mr. Marxism was my father. Call me Karl."
my name
is _neo_
Pam, pam, pam, pam... Mr.Marxism make me a dream...
Hey!! New Rosencreutz! I wonder how Paradox games will wriggle their way into this one
Postmodern neomarxism is a secret ideology Canada can unlock in Hoi4 via a focus tree only unlocked by tag switching to Neo-Quebec
@@Rosencreutzzz chat is this real?
@@ThePiotrekpecet Unless something weird has happened to Canada games since last I played (Not that long ago), then no, not in Vanilla at least.
Vic3's design philosophy
@@LeDoctorBonesI can imagine a Jordan Peterson mod for hoi4 focused on making Canada whacky
There's a book 'Blindsight' where an alien spaceship parks itself around Jupiter and humans go out to see what's up with it. Eventually it starts responding to communications. But there's something weird about it. Like what it says is technically human language and seems to be responding to the other side correctly. But it's just off. Eventually they realize that this species of alien is sort of non-sentient and is sort of responding in a super complex form of instinct. And that it doesn't actually understand anything that it's been saying and it's just learned human language without understanding what any of it means or that it even has meaning. That is what Jordan Peterson sounds like to me. He's almost like an IQ test. How long does it take you to realize that while these are grammatically correct sentences they mean literally nothing.
They predicted chatgippity?
@thewhitefalcon8539 That's exactly what came to mind when I was writing this. The book came out in 2006 so it seems so. Although the concept of a 'Chinese Room' isn't new.
dang i read that one like 15 years ago and maybe should give it a reread, it's a good one.
I was going to _that sounds a lot like the "Chinese translator" thought experiment,_ but ChatGPT is more relatable.
You are a monster for making me watch part of a debate between Dawkins and Peterson
and then, on top of that, making me immediately agree with Peterson.
The debate between Peterson and Dawkins is so fucking funny, Richard is staring at him in such utter bewilderment, he has no idea how to respond to the sheer lunacy of Peterson's whole deal.
@@KTL-351yeah it's hilarious lmao
@@KTL-351 If predators are real how aren't dragons real? And you see dawkings going in his mind. WTF is this guy on!
@@koenvandiepen7651 how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real
@@rhael42j. Smith, the great philosopher
I’m pleasantly surprised by how much I have to rewind and think about all this.
Taking me 5x as long to finish the video.
The fact I actually understand and have more stuff to reflect about makes this a 12/10. It explains my blind spots in trying to explain post modernism myself
Ah yes, the old "Stuff I don't like" definition.
Is someone calling others "fascist" again?
@@BlueGamingRage man i love intellectual dishonesty you're the best ;P
@@amberhide04 If it's dishonest then can you provide a counter argument to it
@@dean_l33 To what?
Before even watching the video, from the thumbnail and title alone I can tell this is gonna be a banger.
I did AB testing, which thumbnail did you get? Red background or white?
@@Rosencreutzzz red.
I am a leftwing archaeo-mystic doing pre-renaissance magic and trying to do hermeneutics on neo paganism. I understand Jorples Bleep Porples's speak as a L1 rambler. But honestly he's a crank even in the lofty strange mindspace. He overstates & overliteralizes his ideas
The layercake of reaction against is well painted
Pomo to mo to romantic to rationalist to humanist to medieval scholasticism to medieval mysticism to late antiquity christianity to neoplatonism to platonism... to the first minds pondering
Take it easy
What is L1?
@@NBH-xh3nq as in first language, as in being a native speaker of circumlocutory abstractions
I genuinley cannot tell if this is satire or mental illness.
Peterson and Spengler is exactly the connection I've been privately making for years. Both being double-talkers who throw sandstorms of erudite-sounding allusions into the air, make no discernible logical connections between any of the little stinging grains of sand therein, then state an a priori conclusion and challenge the listener to refute an argument which has not actually been made. Every paragraph of Spengler I've ever read and every paragraph of Peterson I've ever heard follows exactly this same tiresome, "irrefutable" pattern.
"Postmodern Neomarxism" is pounding on an empty steel drum meant to drown out all possible actual conversation about the present moment and Karl Marx.
The fundamental flaw of Peterson is thinking that because language describes reality, language is reality.
@deathsheadhawkmoth1 everything is predisposed on your own understanding of ideas. Which can only theorised and explored through language. English +
It’s funny because when I deal with the concept of “reality” I just use the axiom “all things are real.” But it doesn’t have any legitimizing factor besides we get to stop worrying about if things are real or not. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to start insisting dragons are real in the same sense as a biological thing. I will grant that dragons are real conceptions that have real consequences on human behavior. It just redundant to insist on the reality of things. It’s funny to hear Peterson because we are very close when we explain certain ways of understanding but then again we are sooooo far away. But I think you summed it up, he tends to think that language is reality rather than understanding language’s place in reality.
I really like Susanne Langer. Brilliant philosopher. Her work on the concepts of signs and symbols really helped shape my understanding. It helped me contextualize a lot of the discourse going on around me, including Peterson. I tend to think most people, and I’m no exception at times, are just terribly uncomfortable with the complexity of reality and trick themselves that what they believe and think IS reality. It’s just an intense coping mechanism. Henry Bergson, with his thesis on free will, pushed me into that sort of thought as well.
Anyways, thanks for listening to my short rant here 😅
@@jamespires3383 And our own understanding and ideas are affected by what we learn, and by how we learn form a relationship with our bodies, nature and society in a very lenghty and complex series of intertwining relations through learning from our ancestors. Other societies and cultures see certain aspects differently as their perception of reality reached a certain point through a different path, and language is a fundamental piece of evidence of this. Using terms of a specific language as absolute values to talk about broader aspects of reality usually leads to gross mistakes.
That doesn't mean we can't use language to narrow down the simplest meanings, as that's literally how computers work.
First time seeing your videos and it is very refreshing to see someone being so open with how they interpret and read difficult or obscure passages, as opposed to simply hand-waving something that fits your own narrative.
More on topic: It is a testament to Peterson's legacy as a public thinker that videos like these can still be made. His underlying misunderstanding of philosophy, coupled with his fame and subsequent real-time transformation into a social-media-poisoned-attention-obsessed-click-goblin is a mirror to many aspects of our time. Somehow he himself has attained archetypal status. As the archetype of the audience locked self-aggrandizing genius who succeeds in maintaining relevance through becoming more and more a parody of himself.
So postmodern thinking is an acceptance of the complexity of the world, that it resists easy categorization, and that it always was that way. That the grand narratives of today, and the past, are essentially exclusive. We chop off what doesn't fit?
Conservatives have a fundamental drive to simplify the world until they can understand it. That's why marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of reproduction.
This is a fantastic video, kudos. I think the main divide that makes Jung a valuable pioneer and Peterson a total nutcase is that Jung embraced the postmodern tendencies of his era and built a psychological (and later, metaphysical and ontological) framework that accommodated them, while Peterson utterly failed in this, and declared postmodernism his sworn enemy. This is probably why he loves Dostoevsky so much, because Dostoevsky's best characters are warriors against nihilism-and it's Peterson's folly to see nihilism where Jung saw a new, exciting from of truth.
That said, though I disagree with some of your criticisms of Jung, I'm very glad that you didn't just kick off with relating Jung to Peterson's ass-backwards interpretations of him and instead engaged with his ideas directly. I feel most modern thinkers boil Jung down and unfairly call him "disconnected from the world" (he was a practicing and extremely successful clinical psychologist after all), and I do think you fall partially into that trap too-for example, the definition you give of "archetype" is extremely far from what Jung meant when he used the word, and is more so related to the later humanities' appropriation of the term. I assume you did this to fit it all within the video, but it might be that you only have second-hand knowledge of many of these ideas. Still, your identification of his ideas with Kant is spot on in that Jung very much spent the first decades of his career attempting to bring Kant down to Earth (which is another point against calling Jung a "disconnected").
P.S. Nice attempt at pronouncing "Can Uğursal", best attempt at Turkish I've ever heard from an American :)
Channel owner is just like picking a random Western college kid and taking their opinion seriously about these made up topics. Jung was a good man with a good legacy, Peterson is a troubled individual still trying to sort himself out, it's unfair and counter productive to constantly criticise and pick on others while being a "nobody" in real life.
Yeah, sorry Jeff, I'll be sure to leave it to my betters to discuss the impact and ideology of a man with millions of followers worldwide.
To be less facetious, your argument is strikingly backwards. I've subjected myself to public scrutiny in posting this on the internet, I'm a relatively nobody, but in your framework, the only people who should be discussing Peterson (not "pick on" as you unfairly ascribe here) are his peers. Peterson *is* troubled, and often by monsters of his own making, that's a core point for me. I'm giving his his ideas their context, and probably one of only times the "dragon debate" will ever be brought up in this space without being a punchline.
It would be picking on him to be like "yeah this guy is just an idiot, what do you mean dragons are real lmao" and then talk about exclusively his tweets for 20 minutes and call it a day. I'm taking him serious.
Troubled or not, he's got a massive platform, has sold millions of books, and also has an ill-formed political outlook that he shares with such aggression it merits embarrassment from the people whom his books have helped. That isn't something to just tut-tutt at and go "oh well he's troubled such a shame"
@@RosencreutzzzWas excited that you had replied, turns out it was to snuff out an inflammatory reply... Sorry my criticism ended up being a vehicle for that. I wrote what I wrote in good faith and am a fan of your work. Please keep making videos like this.
@@myilmazalper Apologies. I did read your comment, but then I saw the other one and, well, felt like I had to respond more pointedly to it. I do think the Dostoevsky remark is very on point. In fact, I think between my youth fixation on a lot of Romantic era culture and being a Dostoevsky nerd, that's part of why I kinda... empathize with Peterson, in a way. I don't think his interests are silly, but I do think he's approached a lot of things from a sour angle. I'm not personally very convinced in the contemporary value of Jung, but I do see his historical impact and some of the value of terms, the same way I do with Freud. I think my bone to pick with him, however, comes from the people who cite him as their inspiration, and then end up being fixated on heroes, or universalities.
His disconnect I think comes from his era. And I know that gets said a lot about people from the past, but I think the fact that psychology has moved past generalizations to a degree is a sign that it's not an inherent truth of the field, and that he'd probably have grown past them himself.
Wonderfully said. Also another reason why the whole Jung being "disconnected" argument is quite silly is because based on his works like The Red Book and the Seven Sermons to the Dead, Answer to Job and several others it can be clearly seen that Jung throughout his life was torn between his scholarly side and the striving for metaphysical knowledge/wisdom side. Trying to say that he belonged only to one sphere of knowledge and proclaiming that it was the essential core of his entire worldview is quite unfair and dishonest in my honest opinion.
Jordan Peterson: we should go back to the tradtion they exist many years ago.
*see the tradtion*
*go back at the furthest at the early 1800s*
Cherry picked traditions, and only those that uphold "western civilisation" of the industrial revolution.
At least one flaw of Frye's analysis of the "bible", is that it treats the christian bible as one cohesive unit.
The end times aren't part of the original biblical (mikracal, to separate the Jewish original text from later Christian additions) text.
Oh that's an excellent point! He does take it as having "one author" and work backwards from there. And that is a natural conclusion from the "word of God" angle, but those works were "delivered" to us across a long span of time. And evem further still, the Gospels were not written in the moment, after all.
Tangentially, by that argument, one might as well apply Frye's "narrativization" to the Quran and get the most "updated" version of "The Abrahamic Narrative"
@Rosencreutzzz 1. I wrote as a ethnic jew, so to defend my cultural heritage from outside distortion.
2. Jesus isn't the son of god in Islam, and the quran is anyway an alternate version of the, at least Jewish mikra, so it isn't a continuation of the Christian testament.
It's really fascinating, narcissistic move. Imposing univocality on a collection of texts made over millennia means you think any reader of a given text in, say 50 BC was reading an incomplete work, while you, the modern reader, have the final truth in your hands.
It's a different approach. Some scholars call it semiotic.
So they don't care about authorship in itself, but how it's presented to us now, so it includes those that created the unit. I don't think it's a flaw, it's more sensible this way than trying to cut the thing up.
Someone pointed out to me once that - as psychoanalysis is unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific - that Jung studied the opposite of science then dropped out to become a wizard.
Why is psychoanalysis unfalsifiable?
@@secretasiandan basically, Karl Popper thought that psychoanalytic claims were not testabile by empirical evidence.
Psychoanalysis holds, for example, anxiety fear guilt and shame are all manifestations of repressed sexual desire. However, Freud arrives at that conclusion pretty much without empirical testing and his conclusions can't really be tested by experiment: you can't take someone with social anxiety and run them through a second simulated life where they can be horny on main unrestricted and see if they're no longer socially anxious.
Freud's conclusions are "just so" stories.
@@secretasiandanits the black box problem. we cant see inside peoples minds so we can only rely on self report and observation, but because every observation (even those done by the subject) is filtered through a biased perspective theres no way to confirm whether or not anything said is actually taking place. its basically schrodingers cat but for your emotions and thoughts
@@tayzers69well shit, there may or may not be a cat inside me, gnawing away at my emotions and thoughts
@@tayzers69 does that mean you believe that nobody can say "if this psychoanalytic is correct than there should be this other observable phenomenon"?
Actually, I am not sure I would be able to say what "Hercules figure of [insert pantheon" means as an archetype...
Is that simply a heroic demigod who ascends into divinity after death? Is it the idea of incredibly gifted individual, who misuses their gifts in fits of rage and ruins their life in a process? Is it the idea of a figure performing petty, meaningless, yet otherwise completely impossible tasks to atone for their crimes? Is it somebody very strong who's good at fighting monsters?
What part of Herakles' mythos is crucial to his archetype?
My gut feeling is "12 tasks of Hercules" - impossible tasks given by the gods to a mortal for said mortal to ascend to demigodhood or godhood, probably male mortals only, would create an "archetype" to stretch and torture into fitting incompatible tales into it (like one of Sun Wukong's missions where he was given I think three of them after he broke shit? or the ones that the monk who got stuck with Wukong, the pig and the water horse guy).
@@neoqwerty In that sense we can probably see Monkey King following Tripitaka the whole Journey to the West as the one big "don't screw this one, or else" task, I guess.
Can you think of any other examples of Remedial Public Service Heroics? 🤔
I'm unconvinced that one line from The Manifesto, a pamphlet he wrote around the age of 30, is the definitive statement that Marx's work is incompatible with French post-structuralism for several reasons.
1. It ignores later works that problematize this assertion. For example, in one of the prefaces to Capital, Marx states, "There is no royal road to science."
2. It ignores that both Engels and Paul Lafargue, Marx's son-in-law, argue against the notion that Marx's work is deterministic.
3. It ignores that the inspiration for Marx in the relation of class struggle and history comes from Giambattista Vico; who's seen as the forefather of constructivism in the social sciences.
4. It ignores that several of the post-structuralists were Marxists, Barthes, Guattari, and Deleuze (according to Guattari)
This is not to give credit to Peterson of course, it seems that both Peterson and Dawkins are unaware that Popper shares a significant amount of postmodern tendencies as well
people don't talk enough about premodern paleo fascism
Varg? Is that you?
A jp fan called be a postmodern neo Marxist once and it was really funny explaining to him that I’m just a boring old Marxist Leninist nothing neo or post modern abt it
But he is right you are a neo Marxist.
jordan peterson argued to a classroom that hitler should have used slave labor as if he didn't ...
as others commented, i am also glad i watched this despite other videos with peterson's misunderstandings and reactionary conservatism as the subject ; it engages with Jung well and Lyotard's postmodernism in detail .
Jordan Peterson is something I often fall trap to in uni classes: *think I am smart but am actually very dumb*
I get the sense that he's a specific variety: "I'm smart and well-informed in this specific field, so any opinion I have about anything is smart and well-informed."
@@M_M_ODonnell No, not really, I cannot speak about his psychology practice, but he got his license revoked because he told ppl to ktms multiple times online, and also had complaints from clients. So he isn't even that smart in his original field.
@@nickmargaritis3263 I was overly optimistic, then. IIRC he might have done some reasonably respectable research in the field, but yeah, it doesn't sound like he should ever have been a clinical psychologist.
"WHAT DO YOU MEAN 'DO' " - the guy who says he hates deconstruction and relativism
1:40 Successfully convince people that “everything is political”.
Some time later, a wide range of movements begin to grow and assimilate under the banner of hate for both “political” and “everything” including any and all definitions of these
that about sums it up
That talk with Dawkins made me realize Peterson is seemingly incapable to engage with people on their own terms. I could understand what what he was talking about, but his interlocutor clearly wasn't so, like, just drop the metaphor? Or explain it is a metaphor in the first place. The point of metaphors is to help communication, to condense larger ideas into a more digestible images. But if people think you are talking literally than it is worse than useless, it loses the entire purpose!
I don't know if Peterson is so invested into seeming smart he refuses to ever drop jargon (which is a problem with a lot of people in academy) or if he is so immersed into the jargon he doesn't get that not everyone understand it (also a problem in academy). Or maybe he just doesn't respect people who don't understand jargon and refuses to "dumb down" his language for them. Whichever is the case, it is no surprise he come across as a lunatic as he insist on only ever talking in what is functionally an unknown code, which come across as gibberish for most people.
(also his politics are crazy, so that doesn't help either)
Watching Peterson talking to somebody that is both smarter than him and feels no need to prove themselves to/in relation to him, is beautiful. Its just a drugged up madman trying to redefine words until he sounds right.
Every time you drop a video it makes my week. Thanks bro!
One of my favorite video essays I've ever seen, thank you
About to go ruin Christmas dinner by attempting to clarify the modern and historic ontological foundations of "We wish you a Merry Christmas" as a carol based in Christian Imperialist concepts of community and celebration with my drunk conspiracy-mongering uncle, wish me luck
In honor of this video inspiring the idea I'll be sure to sprinkle in a few references to post-modernist thinkers and philosophers referenced here throughout the discussion, and maybe a reference or two to Marx if things need spicing up
This was rejected at the ballot box
@Testimony_Of_JTF shit, cultural analysis of modern media through a critical philosophical lens was on the ballot? Must've missed that one while looking at the ballot measures. Think I can vote to bring it back next year?
Based on your other comments here, I wish you luck with your efforts to either do religious ragebait or genuinely convince people of some absolutely buckwild theories about the world. Either way, I feel like you'd have better luck in-person than on the internet, at least irl most people won't just laugh at you and walk away.
But seriously, there is no civilisation without what one may call Catholic Imperialism. It's the idea at the core of all historically expansive polities.
I would like it if you talked about Peterson's other influence other than Jung, which is Mircea Eliade, a "former" fascist, historian of religions, philosopher and propagandist member of Romania's fascist government during WW2, which ended up just regurgitating Julius Evola's vague generalizations on religion in his book The Sacred and the Profane, you might've heard Peterson talk and have lectures on this book before.
So this video was about Peterson's Jungian side, there should be another about his fascist side, further evidencing fascism's and (Evola's coined) Traditionalism's post-modernism, seeing how Evola came from a post-modernist art background (only as a way to criticize The Church as Curtis Yarvin would say to his techno-fascists), ironically the postmodern movement he was a part of Dadaism was a Romanian movememt too
Maybe I'll chain that to a video about how Joseph Campbell was influenced by Spengler... but I also feel like I've read enough Spengler and JP for a lifetime now.
14:47 I’m a naturalist and skeptic… I do not think the humanities set us back or are a waste to pursue.
The real postmodern Neo Marxist or the friends we made along the way.
Great video! I had heard of Lyotard before but this has given me quite an interest to look and read into what he has written, very provocative and in a way kind of creates a more cohesive, line in the post modernist thought at least that I have checked out, since the other post modernist philosophers I've been checking out felt in a way quite distant from eachother, this makes a lot of it make even more sense. Thank you!!
Im usually not a fan of using video as basically subtitles but brother I needed them for this 🤯
I kinda feel like I just finished a Metal Gear Game. I'm a confused, depressed,full of questions.and yet enjoyed the ride. Maybe that's the feeling of post modernism.
I would btw. argue that if there is such a thing as Postmodern Videogame than it's MGS V. (And Disco Elysium)
I only disagree because I don't like V much, though it does have a fixation on language at least-- BUT that does remind me that there's a kinda cool video kicking around that has like... redeemed Survive in my eyes (I thought it was impossible to do that) LambHoot is the one with the video, I think it's presently called "Metal Gear Survive’s Twist Ending"
@@Rosencreutzzz I need to look that up. And I can relate to not liking V. I didn't like it either until a video pointed out to me that it being not finished and contradictory is kinda the point of it. Than I became unhealthy obsessed with it for quite some time.
MGS2 imo
also that Takeshi's Castle game for Famicom
as a biologist, i think you could actaully have some success applying marxist framing to evolution, but i don't know if i want to or if anyone has
Lysenko
@@BlueGamingRage I mean that's not quite it. Lysenko hardly used Marxist anything to determine what he did about predisposing seeds to the cold.
Also it had little to do with evolution.
the dinosaurs were in class conflict with the mammals, until a giant meteor slammed into the earth and forced the dinosaurs to become birds (petite bourgeoisie)
@@Crueltycretin to be fair to a terrible man, it had something to do with evolution, just a very stupid understanding of it.
@@elen5871 goated comment imo
"spectre haunting Peterson"
COMMUNIST MANIFESTO REFERRENCE 🥳
This is one of the best and clearest description and breakdown of postmodernism I’ve seen on the internet yet. Very good job 👍🏾
This feels like the kind of video I'd need to rewatch again in a month...
12:16
I'm glad you included that context, the quote sounded insane but the paragraph sounds nearly self-evident
*slowly realizing that I sound like jordan peterson when I talk about Elden Ring lore*
Why would you do this to me, on Christmas of all days
I was gonna play DE while listening to this but had to back out immediately. This required a lot more attention than Tequila Sunset would allow me.
This is very dense and I love it. I'll go down that hermeneutic circle a few more times but let me tell you right now: I haven't had my brain tickled like that since finishing my humanities studies - thank you :)
For your consideration, neo-marxism means something pretty specific to Peterson. I'm not sure it's particularly significant, but it isn't as empty as you are suggesting. JP believes the Stalinist nightmare so thoroughly discredited Marxism as a political movement that it's intellectual champions (in his view: Foucalt and Derida) were forced to pivot. Instead of capital being the roadblock to progress, capital was taken as just one form of coercive power, and power itself was the problem. Power could come in a variety of forms (money, religion, government, culture) and where Marxism suggests utopia can be achieved by workers seizing the means of production, neo-marxism demands seizing the means by which social power is produced.
There's a lot to critique about this concept (like, how is it different than anarchism, is there not a meaningful difference between Marxism as a tool of analysis vs Marxism as a specific political project, etc). But it's not a concept entirely devoid of meaning, and it IS comparable with post modernism (and especially post structuralism).
He means the Frankfurt school conspiracy.
His fans may be talking about the Frankfurt school, but he honestly doesn't bring it up much.
urgh, I love your content @Rosencreutz but making me watch anything with Jordan Peterson on Christmas is just cruel and unusual punishment
Oh, this was very much something I needed but didn't know I wanted! I'm not super familiar with Lyotard and the history of Postmodernism, but I did know enough to know the conclusion at least. It was an enjoyable way to get there.
I wonder about Peterson's Quixote-level fight against nihilism. He called Nietzche's work "dangerous to read" and I feel like that's actually very accurate.
In the last few years Doctor P. really revealed a lot of his insecurities and fears, which I think is actually great both for him and for the longer health of his career and legacy. His ideas are as wrong as they are fascinating. He sometimes can arrive at really deep and interesting thoughts and in the next sentence commit such thought-killing cliches that it can be really stunning. Though I don't know if his fans are capable of recognizing that. Not because they're stupid, but because they don't want to see the truth of what he is.
I feel like philosophers should be more vulnerable, it's become really easy to see them as these 'Great Men' of great thought, treat them like heroes or saints, or villains, when they are ultimately humans who just arrived at strange and fascinating thoughts.
Good comment. Liked.
i warned you about stairs bro
Isn't it just "cultural marxism" but one step less explicitly nazi in nature?
I've not heard these guys come up with any term at all which isn't the same one. Woke, cultural marxism, degenerate, DEI, postmodern neomarxism, literally all of them mean the same thing and have meant that one exact thing since the early days of the NSDAP
"Cultural marxism" is not a nazi concept and Peterson is a radical philosemite. Your sophistry was rejected at the ballot box.
Thank you for breaking this stuff down. It’s incredibly interesting.
I can feel the gears in my head turning over while and after watching this. I feel like bits of this will end up influencing my thoughts and personal phylosophies for the rest of my life and i will be the better for it. Absolutely excellent work.
Really enjoyed the video! I appreciate the effort put into an actual and multifaceted explanation of the issue of post-modernism. I was however quite a bit disappointed in the section on Marxism, I don't think it would be a very bad faith interpretation of the video that you take Marxism very much as a simple concept that can be explained "under 30 seconds", or just in a single section. I would disagree with just about everything you describe in the video about Marxism, and I hope this doesn't come across as aggressive. First of all, you note that Leotard, ""founder"" of post-modernism was one that opposed the concept, and I think in that sense it is rather weird to not mention that Marx very famously also opposed the concept of Marxism on several occasions, such as the famous "Je ne suis pas marxiste" phrasing, but this is also an issue that people have written several books on, such as Tom Rockmore's "Marx after Marxism" (pretty good towards the middle, somewhat lackluster at the beginning and end). But much more significantly, whilst the starting sentence of a pamphlet written early on in Marx's career (the Communist Manifesto) may give the impression that the matter is rather easy with regards to "stages", this has in fact been one of the most widely discussed issues in the study of Marxism and amongst Marxists. If the matter is clear cut, I would like to suggest that it is "clear cut" in the other direction. Marx opposed the idea of a "march of history", let's look at a few texts. In the German Ideology, one of the earlier texts where he very clearly takes up the "idea" of communism, he also does so in a context of arguing against a march of history, or of a goal to push history towards:
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes [sublates] the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."
To make the point a bit clear, for Marx the question of communism has mainly to do with asserting that; (1) we live under capitalism, a certain arrangement of society, (2) if we can identify what sort of society we live under, so we should point out the things which we would need to get rid of such that we no longer live under that society. Shortly put, "communism" for Marx refers to "not-capitalism". Here, Marx doesn't need to speak about a narrative (explicitly arguing against one) but rather just claim various things about how society is about today.
But Marx made a sort of historical analysis that included, famously, concepts like "primitive communism", or "feudalism" etc. So, he needs to clearly be furthering a universal narrative, right? Well, Marx's writings on this topic are complicated and have evolved in various ways (his Ethnological Notebooks are especially relevant in this regard), but luckily for us, he has answered this issue himself. Whilst Russian "populist" socialists (Narodniks) were discussing on the issue of whether or not Russia had to go through a capitalist stage, some have used Marx's theories to defend the idea that history moved in stages and thus it was a necessity for Russia to go through capitalism in order to get to socialism. Marx disagreed, here is an excerpt from his letter to the journal/newspaper Otocestveniye Zapinksy:
"Now what application to Russia can my critic make of this historical sketch? Only this: If Russia is tending to become a capitalist nation after the example of the Western European countries, and during the last years she has been taking a lot of trouble in this direction - she will not succeed without having first transformed a good part of her peasants into proletarians; and after that, once taken to the bosom of the capitalist regime, she will experience its pitiless laws like other profane peoples. That is all. But that is not enough for my critic. He feels himself obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labour, the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. (He is both honouring and shaming me too much.)"
So, what he is saying here is that, if Russia is moving towards capitalism, then it will need to go through such and such social transformations, not because there is a stage called "feudalism" and the next stage is "capitalism", but because capitalism as a system involves a few things and becoming a capitalist country involves those things, importantly he goes on to demonstrate how he believes Rome had a similar situation at one point but did not develop a capitalist system.
For very little that has been said about Marxism in the video, I feel that there is a lot that could be criticised, although it is really nice to see such a nuanced discussion of the relationship between Peterson and post-modernism, but I just wish that it did not engage in Marxism as most every other academic text tends to, considering it a settled issue that can just be ignored by reductions so simplistic that I feel they are hardly justified.
I would like to discuss this issue in more nuance and detail, but unfortunately I feel (temporarily) this is as much nuance a comment section on UA-cam allows (because of how painful it is to write a long text on the UA-cam comment section)
This was really interesting to read. Is the second long quote (the letter) available to read online?
Watching Jordan Peterson being absolutely insufferable outside of his natural habitat (the stage), explaining The Dragon, is both hilarious and uncomfortable.
"Humanity should be defunded" summarizes very well the "fiscally conservative" program.
The "not to be taken literally" "postmodern explained to children" is actually quite helpful in explaining postmodern: it is, in itself, an example.
31:54 I do concur with your framing of the topic, but I do have some nitpicks. Did you consider the medulla oblongata effect on the avada kedavra when it realigns itself with the mitochondria, the powerhouse of the cell?
I love postmodern neomarxist national trans-facist super liberalism
(If I keep adding words it makes me seem smarter)
iirc there was a brief period (i wanna say this was in the 90s or 00s) where the socal post-structuralist crowd referred to _themselves_ as neo-marxists, which i always joked meant "marxism minus class analysis." i wouldn't be surprised if that's where a young, fedora-topped jordan beterson peterson picked it up.
doesn't change that it's still utterly meaningless 🤷
If I ever get the chance to ask Peterson a question. "Ms. Peterson, is there anything you're not an expert on? And would you begin your response with the phrase, "Will I've thought about this a lot ..?"
He can't complain about misgendering because that would be gender ideology
oh hell yeah new rosencreutz video
I just call him a "post-truth prophet".
Maybe I'm wrong in putting that label on him, but I find it fittingly funny and funnily fitting and JP did enough for me to stop caring about what he thinks and what he says.
Unironically a pragerU transgenderism ad while watching this vid, so wild
We have truly RETVRNED to 2016 huh
@ something about time and a flat circle and all that jazz
Great video - I very nearly didn't watch it because I was thinking 'yet another dig against Peterson', but glad I gave it the benefit of the doubt anyway. As somebody who has a somewhat distant appreciation for Peterson, and also matches up with a number of the manners which you've analysed him with, it's given me a lot to think about.
I think what you said on the atomisation of 'we' and metanarratives and the like is probably the most important (yet underdiscussed) topic of the modern day political world - whatever comes next after post-modernism (in so far as anything will come next), it will be yet another chain in the cultural reactions, this time to post-modernism and the atomisation that it has come alongside.
I didn't expect this to be a serious video, but now I see it is I want to watch. The trouble is it's really really tough to listen to him and hear anything through the extreme emotion he elicits. Even the way he pronounces nomenclature provokes very dark thoughts.
what i learned - jordan peterson himself is a post modern neo marxist
Every accusation from a conservative is a confession
This was really good. I really enjoyed this.
i truly want to see Jordan Peterson play Shin Megami Tensei, it'd blow his mind
Maybe if people post enough we can make it happen.
@Rosencreutzzz it would be truly incredible
Geuine I would like and dislike to hear his thoughts on the persona series. I can see him ether him liking and install his out there briefs to it or call a corruption of jung ideas.
@@starmaker75 jordan peterson is one of those right wingers i want to sit down and actually try to engage with, not because i agree with him, but because he always frames it in such an interesting, damn near unhinged, perspective. I want to see him trying to figure out how in the megami tensei universe we managed to use the internet and computers to summon mythical, historical and philosophical figures including gods
i kinda feel like jbp trying to play video games would go a lot like that short-lived tommy wiseau video game review show where he could barely start the game, much less actually play it. and like, don't get me wrong, that would be funny in it's own way, but i don't think he'd have anything "constructive" to say.
A video for the pure love of the game. Love it
Had the intro page of Skyrim open while watching and the music from it made watching this video real epic. 😂
13:40 - one could argue that fire is a living being as it matches the most important signifiers of life, that being:
A. Fire consumes energy to sustain itself
B. Fire breathes, consuming oxygen and releasing carbon gasses the same way we do
C. Fire is self replicating
D. Fire is able to move to new energy sources if available
And although it doesn't seem like fire should be treated as a living being, since it lacks a lot of other elements life as we know it needs to earn this title, such as a genome, it's not a stretch of the imagination to say that fire is in fact a creature.
That being said I don't like Peterson and don't agree with him, and this is just a fun little thing I wanted to point out.
fire self-replicates, but the process of self-replication is non-selective. a spark that drifts higher than the rest of the sparks set off by a fire doesn't convey that higher drift to future sparks if that fire catches. in a sense, life is defined by its ability to evolve, and fire does not do that.
Fire is not a being in the first place. If it did, all fires would be self-contained, but they don't have a self.
It does not consumes energy, it is energy, so A does not work.
C does not work either because it has no self. If it did, it would also replicate the wood or whatever is burning.
Also consider living beings don't burn their structure, only the fuel, it's why they are being and can replicate that structure.
Some people considered it life itself, because of B.
Minor point that does not affect your argument/ analysis here (which I very much enjoy) but that you might find interesting: Frye isn't really that unique if you look wide enough, and the pure literalist reading you describe here in opposition to him is also pretty recent. If you pick up Augustine's De Doctrina, you'll see (what we'd consider) a bible-as-literature approach was something that coexisted with (and was often intertwined with) bible-as-literalist-history in earlier centuries; see Dante's letter to Cangrande as a turning point where Bible-as-literature-stuff actually began to transfer over to literature beyond scripture.
I agree he isn't that unique in the broader context of biblical study, but this is the angle of the impact he had on Peterson, and while what he was doing wasn't necessarily the most groundbreaking thing, it is to an extent a modernist lens. He's one of the people Peterson (and a few other "notables" like Margaret Atwood) cite as an inspiration for their own work.
Amusingly, Lyotard has a whole book on the Confessions of Augustine, as well as some referential essays. In some ways, he feels like a modernist before his time, but that's not an argument I would make seriously so much as a *vibe*
@@Rosencreutzzz I get what you mean; he feels similarly positioned at the beginning/ end of eras, looking back and reworking/reclaiming things that came before, and so on. Very much the modernist vibe.
I need that banner at 54:00
Mr Rosen… you are in my mind atm.
Thank you for being my end point before the leave this rabbit hole.
Postmodernism is very interesting because of all of this though I do find that the "deconstruction of meta-narratives" version of postmodernism is the one that is appropriate in most contexts. And I also think that the other forms of postmodernism can be rather painlessly subsumed by this framing of what it means for something to be postmodern. I like to joke that I am in act the post-modern neomarxist that peterson talks about because I strongly subscribe to the belief that meta-narratives cannot be universal and also tend to think that marxism provides a narrative through which many things can be effectively understood.
what a wonderfull pre-christmas present. Thank you :3
I always interpreted post modern neo Marxism as placing the new “We” in a phenomenological - structural-materialism lenses for causation of phenomena/reality which is infinite (universe) and always changing (matter- “unimaginable in a absence of form” I think it was described). I think this is the root to the elevation of sublime in “post modern”.
with the placing of the relationship between classes as the superpositioned main causative variable of social phenomena - the intersections are the narratives always morphing in real time with humanities material condition at any time.
12:30 really nails it. Someone really swayed by Jungian psych through discovering Persona and chewing on comparative mythology and superficial occult primed me to be easily convinced that his word salad always made sense. In a way it can make sense by the nonsense getting filled in by post hoc rationalizing of what he means
I always knew Nostalgia was bad, But DAMN that final final quote hit it outta the park!
Originally he was mad about "cultural Marxism", but then pointed out where that term comes from.
Where did it come from?
@handsomeboi3767 it was from Mein Kampf. Hitler accused the Jews of unleashing "cultural Marxism".
I believe the Wizards With Guns skit of JP on Rogan sums it up pretty nicely.
I say this torn between a deep sincerity and a trite comedic tone but people really need to read and appreciate Hegel.
Could you do a video on Post-Marxist neomodernism next please
i don't know those idea things sound like a spook
The video should go like this:
"It doesn`t exist... Thanks for watching!"
New HOI5 ideology
I feel more confused at the end than I began with, but that's a probably a good thing for a complicated topic.
I wish you were on fediverse as opposed to bluesky ;_; Thank you for the great video tho! :3
As someone who's kind of been on both sides of the gender debate now there is a good faith reason to challenge the ideas behind how people see themselves as identities are ideological. you never "Just are" you "perceive yourself to be in the context of your society"
Still even this relatively neutral trans-negative argument is rooted in the idea that the person should accept your way of seeing themselves - that it is a debate- and their self-perception is somehow "wrong" or inferior to yours which is why I gave up doing this. People ultimately have the freedom to believe what they want about themselves. It is fundamental to human experience.
If i declare myself a king, and sincerely believe to be one, even digging up old family records and having the mandate of heaven placed upon me ( revealed to me in a dream), would it be then bigoted for the rest of society to try to somehow prove my identity is "wrong" or my thinking inferior? As someone who admitted to flip-flopping between so many positions its funny you arrived at the conclusion that people cannot simply be delusional and their belief about themselves wrong. There are people who sincerily believe they are a part of different race, and even when they try everything they can do to pass culturally and look the part, they have always been discriminated against in queer circles, despite the fact that "race" is a made up social construct, and everyone trying to connect it to biology (eugenicists and fascists) debunked and defeated, thankfully. How is it then that you can somehow transition into another gender, which should be way harder due to the difference between men and women being magnitudes bigger than differences between races, valid? Or do you believe transracialism should be fought for, just as people fought and still fight for the plight of trans peoples existence to be recognized and not discriminated against?
I'm surprised you didn't touch on the figure who is arguably the single most important source of Peterson's understanding of postmodernism - Stephen Hicks.
Peterson simply repeats the arguments Hicks popularised, and has been instrumental in the cospiracy theory that postmodern theory originated as a backdoor to get Marxism back into the academy.
"Jordan, don't make me tap the sign."
*Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.*
Comedy Answer: Jordan Peterson is a postmodern conservative. In conclusion, he is a man of contrasts
17:54 heartbreaking - the clever sounding UA-camr doesn't know what begging the question means
It colloquially means to raise a question, and I started getting this comment, pointing towards its use in rhetoric, in maybe my third video. At this point whenever I say it, I know it'll be bait for this comment, not even for engagement, just to feel a sense of consistency.
@Rosencreutzzz linguistic prescriptivism DESTROYED by consistent playful use??
I guess I have to learn to like it
Hi, know you're probably also familiar with the texts but Lyotard's postscript to the "postmodern condition" is also really interesting in how it looked at postmodernism both preceding and being a prerequisite to the production of the modernism, as a way to open up space. He also does something in "heidegger and 'the jews'" - probably one of my favourite of his works, but it's little read - in how the production of any story requires a certain forgetting (which takes on a freudian double-bind character, similair to the incomensurability of the differend).
soz for the ramble lyotards just a fav of mine
He talks to an extent about the forgetting in Postmodern Explained as well, though I don't remember exactly where. There's a segment about how "you have not read what you have read" and doing "justice" to an idea that taps into that forgetting notion.
No worry on the ramble, I personally find him underdiscussed in a lot of spaces, and in the spaces where he is discussed, it feels like pure PhD Power Hour and gets kinda draining
@@RosencreutzzzI havent actually read hte Postmodern Explained but it seems a cool collection - i'll fit it in after I finish 'just gaming' probably.
The ethics of forgetting (and the forgetting of forgetting, and the politics of memory) are basically Lyotard's whole deal in "heidegger and 'the jews'", specifically in how Heidegger interacts with the volke iirc. It's really good but only comprehensible if uve got grounding in Heidegger probably.
Personally he's not my favourite author on the whole discussion abt memory etc. because of a kind of affected passivity thats oddly self-contradictory in his sublime period after his break with early anti-colonial/pro-algerian wriitng - James Williams talks abt it in "lyotard and the political" i think. I'd really recommend some of Derrida's work on this kinda stuff, if you can manage it lol.
So post-modernism is just woke but for people who like big words
Yes. Marxism but with race, sex, sexuality, and gender instead of class
@@BlueGamingRage *in addition to (though all as specifics of a more general category)
@@BlueGamingRage If you think Marxism - an analysis of class society and political economy - is "for people who like big words", that says things about you and you only.
@@BlueGamingRagethat's just neomarxism
Can we get Fs in chat to stabilize the referent?
you should make a video on camille paglia
0:26 yeah dude that's like what the scp guys say right keter and all that stuff
46:50 I don't know why you're giving Peterson so much credit; he doesn't really care about any of that.
I feel like “post modernism” in the end is a wastebasket taxon for a bunch of different philosophical ideas. We struggle to make sense of it because it doesn’t make sense. And to be “post modernist” about it, the world has always had a competition of ideas, the enlightenment struggled against religious movements and that struggle continues today (though the blood is mostly spilled in Islamic countries, you can look at the church-state fight in the US that the religious faction achieved dominance in as another arena).
The idea that the meta narrative is uniquely dead now is foolish. How can you say it’s dead when people think we’re “post-racism” and that the rich earned their wealth by being superior people (meritocracy)? Those are meta narratives that may not be universal but are so pervasive as to be inescapable. Just as in the past we live with ideologies that pervade our everyday lives, and competition between those ideologies.
5:56 Ah hell naw you just ruined Linguistic Turn for me. Now I have to cope with the fact that one of my favorite historiographical currents was influenced by a Jungian 💀