What Postmodernism Got Right & How It Fails | Jordan B Peterson
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 бер 2018
- There are an infinite number of potential interpretations of the world, however, they're not all viable. How postmodernism fails, why Artificial Intelligence is so difficult to develop, and ways cognitive psychologists are addressing the impossibility of perception.
The full video:
• Jordan Peterson | Poli...
Want to support this channel?
Patreon: / jordanbpeterson
Relevant Links: JB Peterson
Online Psychological Programs:
NEW: BFAS Personality Assessment: www.understandmyself.com
Self Authoring: selfauthoring.com/
Books:
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m...
Jordan Peterson Website: jordanbpeterson.com/
Podcast: jordanbpeterson.com/jordan-b-p...
Reading List: jordanbpeterson.com/2017/03/gr...
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
I love watching him in his element. He always start calm, slow, soft spoken and as he goes in, you see the crescendo and and almost fortissimo , definitely forte.
cr35t23 you're right, he's got got great dynamic range and control. He'd make a very expressive musician.
You can see quite easily how he got so burnt out
I lost focus for like 2 seconds and had to back track 2 minutes. I cant imagine having to take this all in live!
So true. If I decide to identify as a lion, and go live with them, I'll become food quite quickly.
Reality punishes stupidity.
This is brilliant. This 5 minutes has condensed more philosophical insight than all the hours I spent earning a minor in Philosophy. He is like a modern-day Kant.
It comes from decades of study
More like Kant-do to me...
JP is looking younger. I'm glad he looks well.
Greyfoxdbz18 I believe this was a couple months back
Greyfoxdbz18 yeah looking at him now this fight is taking a toll on him
He just grew a beard and it makes him look older.
The hair and beard a bit but the dark lines under his eyes is what ive noticed
Cutting out gluten and soy probably helps too
I’m gonna have to watch that a couple more times.
Daniel JonesPT obtain a viable predictive model that usually improves the chance of the thing you want to happen of actually happening. Improve that model based on the outcome of it's prediction. Keep doing this and your model will get really good. Don't listen to post modernists because they believe that the model doesn't matter in the first place which is obviously not a productive thing to assume.
What he describes is seen in everything from the Quality Control center of any factory, to the phrase "The wages of sin is death" from the Bible. Deviating from a set of working, viable parameters results in being taken out of the production line. The more you deviate, the bigger the flaws, and the more quickly the defects are discovered and you are removed from the process.
Triumvirate888 Spoken like a true Instrumentation engineer perhaps?
This really sounds like natural selection taking place live
Just because you have a set of infinite viable answers doesn't mean that any answer goes. If you ask for an even number you can answer withing any item in the infinite set of the even numbers, but you can't answer with 3.
What? 3 is not a solution lol. He's talking about the set of all solutions and how all the elements in a solution set cannot be treated equally.
You can answer with three. You'd just be wrong (and incur some sort of consequence) unless the person asking you for an even number, in their world view somehow also decides upon the words "even number" to somehow include three.
Unbelievable how vibrant Peterson is here. I pray he can return to his own self soon enough.
2:44 Thomists have been saying something like this for centuries, and Aristotelians for longer, with the distinction between potency and act. Matter can take on many forms potentially, but actually is limited to one at a time.
Great analysis :D gonna have to show this some folks close to the edge of identity politics :P
It could be likened to quantum wave states. Yes, every particle is part of a singular field that permeates the universe, and its position has the potential to be infinite. However, the probability of it being in a specific area is very, very high.
Good lord I am so glad I can rewind this to catch the stuff I missed. That was literally 6 mins of brilliant word vomit with no breathing at all!!!
Would have been interesting to see a debate between Peterson and Derrida or Foucalt like the debate between Chomsky and Foucalt
I just saw full version. Very elegant and epic. Apslolutlly beautiful to listen
"Evolution solves the problem by *killing everything that needs to die* "
I feel like making a making a YTP video of this.
Mind = Blown
Where is this? What's the event please?
1.2k likes, 7 dislikes. While this is only one video, I believe this is indicative of the public's true view on Jordan Peterson, postmodernism, etc.. Peterson is helping to bring the world back to reality.
*As of 4/7/2018
I'd really like to see him zoom out and give people, who think they know postmodernism and block him out, a full rundown of what the postmodern structure actually believes, and what statements it produces. For instance, someone possessed by postmodernism can't shut up about the word "culture," but I don't think he mentions culture once . He is addressing the main axioms without contextualizing them, and I understand why he's doing that but it only works for people who are trying to understand him. For people that are NOT trying to understand him they just think he's wrong, oversimplifying, and biased. His argument appears (sound, but) totally ungrounded to what postmodernists think, who learn it from anthropology, social psychology and the lot.
Jacques Derrida and Micheal Foucault, are two french public intellectuals who are both at or near the head of what you might describe as the postmodernist intellectual revolution are extraordinary intellectually capable. That doesn't mean they are correct by any stretch of the imagination but it certainly means that they are able to put together an argument that is difficult to disentangle. So we will start with what i think is the most powerful central claim of postmodernism; a claim which i think is actually correct and which has bedeviled many other fields; including, surprisingly enough , artificial intelligence. The claim is something like "there is infinite number of ways to interpret any finite set of phenomena". And that actually happens to be true, it is part of the reason why it has been so difficult for human beings to develop Artificial intelligence, and for them to develop machines that can operate in a real world environment, because it turns out that the world is so complex that perceiving it appears virtually impossible technically speaking. ..
Perception isn't possible without situating the mind in a body has a certain set of constraints. We also devote a huge amount of our neurological landscape to sensory processing; so that when we look at the world it can manifest itself in the self evident way that it appears to you. But that doesn't mean that it is a simple problem it is a very complicated problem and the postmodernists were technically correct.
There is a near infinite number of ways to perceive and interpret a finite number of phenomena. Now the thing that is interesting about that claim apart from the fact that it happens to be technically true is that you can use it to mount an assault on any interpretation of anything whatsoever because there is a tremendous variability in the number of interpretations you could bring to bear on a situation, Then you can instantly jump to the conclusion or expound the proposition that none of those interpretation should be privileged above all others. Now that is actually wrong and this is why postmodernism is correct in its central assumption but incorrect in its secondary assumption. The reason it is wrong is because although there is a very large number of potential interpretations that does not mean that there is an equally large number of viable interpretations of the world. Well you might say what constitutes a constraint on a viable interpretation and i would say there are a number of them and i think you have to understand this in living creatures viewing and interpreting the world, and also within a broader evolutionary context. The way that evolution solves the problem of the infinite number of interpretations is by killing every single thing that interprets things badly enough to die. This is actually one of the most powerful arguments for the accuracy of the evolutionary theory.
They claim that nothing is certain, but that is certain ☺
Loffy certainly nothing can be certain
As i always say the only certain thing in life is uncertainty
Deepak Chopra claims this LOL in other words he’s never wrong according to his thinking: I am certain that I’m uncertain
Does anyone have the link to this this event? It doesn’t show when I search....you know....UA-cam!
ua-cam.com/video/f5rUPatnXSE/v-deo.html
If you don't want to rewatch what's in this clip, skip ahead to the 12 minute mark.
What is the piano piece that starts at 6:21? I am dying to know.
Yeees, give me that song. I heard it in his bible series the first time. If you would ever happen to find out, please remember this little soul, the soul of me from sweden, who would be eternally grateful! :)
Osquar Osq ditto, I am dying to know and no one will tell me!
where was this?
5:00 Invasion of privacy!!!
lol i was thinking that
*misreads derrida once*
There is something which it is not addressed. Natural selection favours those who can stand for themselves and have offspring but also those (members or aspects) that helps the group even with no descendance. Also nature selects those traits that make life harder for the individual but improve the outcome of selection itself like in the case of those colorful birds that become easy prey but receive more attention from females.
2:42 sounds like chess, infinite moves, some are better than others, many times there's a best move.
coffee and hashbrown and donuts!!!!!!!!!!!!! tea with red bean.
1. get all the surface pokemon and underground pokemon 2. get all the legendary pokemon and small pokemon............. 3. honey trees mr backlots mansion and the great marsh.
It's a totally understandeable thought to come across though, right? Because of existence and how infinite it is you assume there's infinite possibilities and realities which is true in a sense, but is it viable?
Honestly having a small group things that are viable or just more likely to be possible is relaxing. I've always driven myself crazy thinking I could be absolutely anything that I want, but always ended up feeling guilty or pressured because I wasn't doing that. It's better to know that there is a small set of things that are possible that you can orient yourself to, and then work on.
If you would like a more clearer exposition what Post-Modernism is, please see my exposition at the bottom with a link to it.
Post-Modernism is, amongst others an affirming of a greater future of a “will of the people, represented through accountable elected leaders that operates with values of consultation and transparency”. It posits nothing - makes no claims, it merely problematises modernist assumptions of reality, as modernism posits it.
Most commentators do not grasp it because P-M is approached very much how an English-speaker would read, for example French as if it is English and then flee, screaming French is meaningless, not a language at all. In other words, modernism is a paradigm qualitatively different from Post-Modernism to be approached as a distinctly different paradigm. One thus first have to grasp the features of modernism before even attempting to talk about Post-Modernism.
Post-Modernism defies definition, yet many people, invoke a definition of Post-Modernism.
Please read the segments, which are in the process of completion from the bottom to the top, chronologically:
vm.tiktok.com/ZMenfmFkY/
I feel like I'm missing the point, but viable doesn't mean true right? ie there are a limited number of beliefs about the world that will help you survive, but the fact that they help you survive says nothing about their truth value, only that it informs a way to act which happens to increase your survival chances.. eg perhaps believing we have free will means we live in a way that increases our sociability and thus survival chances ( I'm simplifying the link significantly..) but this doesn't mean that it is actually the case right?
I think the point he is making from the Darwinian perspective, is that we adapt ourselves to the world and so the way we are reflects reality; and if we hold beliefs (that we embody and act out) which are not aligned with reality/our nature then things will go badly.
He speaks elsewhere about the inviability of lying as a mode of being, because you’re trying to warp the fabric of reality which we can’t do because we are constained to it in order to survive.
I was looking for a comment about this. Yes, I think you're absolutely correct in your analysis. I wish we had his response to this question. The best I could find is his case that a given solution to a problem can't make the problem worst, therefore if it does, it's false. That's his answer for nihilists as well.
Yay!
this man reminds me of dr house
Ohh... so here is the reasoning that lead to me having to sit through 2 hours of Sam and Jordan debating what truth is. I prefer the 6 min version.
+Richard Kerckhove You obviously don't know Sam, he is very much against the idea that multiple interpretations are equally valid. He has spoken out about this A LOT, particularly in terms of morality.
Whats the name of the song at the end?
But there are people who can put 100 visuals and algorithms in one minds and see the world as a machine.
Up vote down vote ratio is ridiculous lol...professor Peterson is the man😎
9 accords with roommates adn 40 accords with mom............ onelien seuirity devices updates and onlien acccounts ot maintain.
coffee and hasborwn and dontus !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!tea with red bean.
Can I issue a correction?
Made it difficult for states and other similar authority filtering cults to create ai.
Intuitively many individuals outside of the eye that watches to take for itself have created extremely sophisticated Intelligences
How the fuck does he stay so calm sitting alone on that massive couch on the stage with just a bunch of people staring at him, i would freak the fuck out and definetely wouldn't be able to put my thoughts together like he does with such pressure.. i cannot comprehend how he does it lol
get all the surface and underground pokemon get all the legendary pokemon and small pokemon ........ honey trees mr back lots mansion and the great marsh.
He is too SmartBand and I am too drunk. Friday. I try to clean up tomorrow.
pinegulf thank you
Outro?
coffee and hashbrown and donuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
get all the surface and underground pokemon get all the legendary pokemon and small pokemon.................honey trees mr backlots mansion and the great marsh.
The 'infinite number of potential interpretations of the world' was not a new concept of the Postmodernists. It is a mere reworking of the story of the blind men and an elephant.
Also, Dr Peterson may be lending way too credence to the intellectual prowess of French philosophers, Camille Paglia has already stated they were second-rate at best of the talent available.
They have, however, been extraordinarily successful, though this is perhaps less difficult than it seems when their audience was and is (for the most part), made up of low IQ Humanities and Social Sciences students.
It doesn't matter if PM invented 'infinite interpretations', what matter is that it is a core assumption of a very popular philosophy.
get all the surface adn underground pokemon get all the legandary pokemon and small pokemon............. honey trees my backlots and mansions adn the great marsh
Also:
Post modernist: there are an infinite number of ways to interpret something. Like that Apple which seems to floating above my head.
*apple falls on head*
Scientist: Look there. Now we see that the seemingly floating Apple actually wasn’t floating and it struck your head. This is science *puts on shades* we go from an infinite number of interpretations and narrow them down through observation.
Post modernist: Well...yes... but.....
*many hours later*
Fine! But guess what?! What does falling even mean? You interpret falling as something that drops but I interpret it differently. We’re both right I guess. To me, the Apple didn’t fall.
*scientist gets mad and builds a leaning tower x50 and drops 1000 apples from the top floor. The apples fall and crack the post modernists skull*
Scientist: Now what dumbo? Didn’t they fall then? Where’s your interpretation now?!
Except any physicist in accord with Einstein would know that the postmodernist sped to the apple. The apple didn't fall, it merely waited for the Earth (presumably) to hit it.
@@tenebrafer lol, that would be true only if you removed the inertia of the apple relative to the planet itself and the planet happened to be moving in the direction of the apple. also youd have to assume that the rotation of the planet came to a screeching halt without launching the crust and everything on it out into space otherwise that apples going to miss you by a dozen miles or so by the time it makes its way down from the tower given the earths rotational speed.
what you were actually looking for in this example was an explanation of gravitational forces and why the apple didnt fall but instead was attracted and also applied attractive force to the planet and its target individual as they mutually pulled themselves towards one another. either way, we can prolly laugh off such a theory if your trying to apply it to a real world situation as an explanation for an observation.
Don't take notes during the lecture. Take them after.
I agree with almost everything, but there are levels of postmodernism within postmodernism. Not everything is always black and white
4:11 your interpretation may be in your own-self interest and cling to some scientific model of interpretation like evolutionary theory, but that doesn't mean what is happening in the world with people can be reduced to just that. It is your own mind that is reduced and similar to opting for an ignorance that's self-comforting. Capitalism also re-inforces this as it doesn't deliver the idea of dealing with real people but what can you get from people. It overwrites an axiom to human relations and perception.
Funny... Google put an ad here (before the video) about why feminism and gender diversity is the future
get all the sruface adn udnergordun pokemon get all the lengadary pokemon and small pokemon................ honey trees mr backlots mansion and the great marsh.
safety comes first!!!!!! no child porn no sex with minors no illegal drugs and no illegal firearms in any nation. or violence against women and children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He looks like a doll sitting on that big blue loveseat
Karla R lol you think he’s attractive? He really is though
Ho hum...
postlobsterism
no child porn no sex with minors no illegal drugs and no illegal firearms in any nation or violence against women or children never challenge police or government...
5:00 WTF is the camera guy doing ? hahahaha
the cpenhagen interpration the universe woudlnt exist in the way you think witohut your observation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Peterson get right in a lot of things but under estimate creativity which comes from free spirit. the richness of the world..the modern tech. the AI. they are not come from hard work. but from something more deep inside.
Jordan, man, you just are HOT..
I haven't got much more to say
get all the sruuface and underground pokemon get all the legendary pokemon and small pokemon...................... honey trees mr backlots mansion and the great marsh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Has there ever been a communicator as articulate as Jordan, I would like to know.
I know a few, but they’re a probably a bit too controversial for most. Plus they were recently in a world wide scandal and banned entry to many countries (including Britain and Australia) because of the feminists. America didn’t give a damn though, so god bless America and free speech lol.
Terence McKenna
No wonder they're afraid of him...!
He's giving the post modernists too much credit. It's not that scientists or artists ever believed there was only one way of understanding or interpreting phenomena. Post modernism and the Marxist class analysis are probably the biggest factors in the decline of our civilization at the moment. It's reparable but this evil needs to be denounced and put in the dustbin of history where it belongs.
i need a circumcision next month my foreskin is bothering me!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no infinite numbers of interpretations.Post Modernism does not claim that.There are as many interpretations as there are humans.
Yes but why are there as many interpretations as there are humans? Because there is an infinite amount of potential interpretations to draw from.
Wait till everyone in the comments realizes the matrix was heavily inspired by post modernist philosopher Jean baudrillard and was directed by a trans woman 🤣
Peterson is missing the fact that some postmodernists also believe in pragmatism.
Postmodernism combined with pragmatism is good IMO 🤔. I welcome a counter argument.
Postmodernism? What a silly word.
ill need a circumcision next month!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
there are so many options if you want pointless life.
"3.5 billion years of evolution", if only that was true lol.
This is semantic strawmanning.
And yet he's a climate change denier
Verbal sophistry at its finest
Jordan is wrong. No post modernist, though he confuses poststructuralism.w post modernism, ever wrothe any text has infinite interpretations. Thats wrong. Look qt Stanley Fish. Worse, jordan cannot see that an interpretation of a text that is open and supple and perhaps infinite, which is a misreading, is an interpretation. Yep. To jordan, ponchos or Freud is subject to infinite interpretations which is not what any post modernist states. But it's an interpretation. X text is open to infinite interpretations is always, already an interpretation.
Jordan is small minded. Post modernist thougt was best articulated by Lyotard. The death of metanarratives. Which if Jordan were smart would point out is a narrative.
Derrida never said there were infinite interpretations. Simply that language is slippery. Relying on meyanarratives like the Bible is not intellectual. It's ideological. Why nobody challenges Jordan on this is odd. I'll do it tonight. He's possessed by his ideology. And the definition of ideology is thought and action that is antithetical to your community's best interests
get all the surface and underground pokemon get all the legendary pokemon and small pokemon ................ honey trees mr backlots mansion and the great marsh.
get all the surface and underground pokemon get all the legendary pokemon and small pokemon............... honey trees mr backlots mansion and the great marsh.
get all the surface and underground pokemon get all the legendary pokemon and small pokemon.................... honey trees mr backlots mansion and the great marsh.