Peterson Misses The Point of Postmodernism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- Start building your ideal daily routine! The first 100 people who click on the link will get 25% OFF on Fabulous Premium: thefab.co/wise...
Jordan Peterson is infamous for his contrarian takes on everything from psychology, to education, to the importance of making your bed. But does he have anything interesting to say about French philosophy? And more importantly, does he even understand it? Let's find out in this Philosopher Reacts to Jordan Peterson on Postmodern Philosophy.
=== Watch More Episodes! ===
Is Netflix Ruining Film? ► • Is Netflix Ruining Film?
Don't Look Up: Satire or Something Else Entirely? ► • Don't Look Up: Satire ...
What Makes a Documentary Ethical (Or Not)? ► • What Makes a Documenta...
Hosted by Michael Burns
Directed by Michael Luxemburg
Produced by Olivia Redden and Griffin Davis
Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound
#wisecrack #jordanpeterson
Start building your ideal daily routine!
The first 100 people who click on the link will get 25% OFF a
Fabulous subscription! thefab.co/wisecrack3
Join the hyper liberal poison boy army. Defend communism, embarrass your ancestors and peers. Why do you come off so soft?
Any chance we can get philosophy of Henri Lefebvre more specifically his works like Realm of shadows, State, Space, World: Selected Essays,Metaphilosophie: Prolegomena.
Or alternatively a Philosophy of Primal Season 1,2.
We must be kind to the individual and ruthless to the institutions. -Micheal Brookes
You can tell this is a hit piece because it contains nothing but Critiques if you cared about truth you would find common ground an work from there as no philosophy is all encompassing. You seem to want to misunderstand on the basis of semantics.
@@ayriangoodrich9815 I appreciate that as a tactic, but Peterson's whole project is based on fictions. Lobsters aren't even social creatures for pete's sake. I understand why he might be comfortable doing so, since Maps of Meaning is essentially an attempt to divine something useful from comparative compilation of legends and myths, and arcana, he's used to playing in a domain of fiction that's meant to represent the truths of the world. But he's more than semantically wrong here. Peterson is just flat wrong about the whole thrust and character of the work he's using as an example, that's a much more orthogonal problem than can be explained by a difference of opinion about the meanings of a few words.
I'm a psychologist reacting to a philosopher reacting to a psychologist pretending to be a philosopher. Fun times.
Anyone can be a philosopher
*Especially when they have a couple too many*
As he misquotes and misunderstand Sociologists
@@AzygousWolf Nah socialists are scum
@@allahbless2278 Oh dear... Sociologists and socialists are two different things...
I love how a brief introduction to Foucault is immediately followed by an ad for an app that disciplines the micro-scheduling of your everyday life
THE PANOPTICON SEES YOU
Biopower off the charts
I swear that Wisecrack juxtaposes their ads with content that completely undercuts those ads on purpose - but they can't make it explicit because *then their sponsors will stop funding them*. I think it's clever.
The panopticon strikes again.
Lol exactly, like the concept of technologies of the self
Peterson’s problem (at least in this context) has always been that he tries to insert his own current political interpretations into philosophy that existed before said ‘problem’ did. When he says postmodernists “don’t believe in biology” what he means is that the people he believes have taken up postmodernism as a core philosophy have in turn done something that invalidates biology (of course he’s talking about trans and non-binary people). Then what he does is incorrectly pushes that ‘problem’ onto the original philosophers’ works and citing it as intrinsic truth of the philosophy itself.
Which is just not how any of that works. He uses multiple verticals that have nothing to do with each other to invalidate each one
post modernists push an ideology that revolves around removing long time constructs of society out, hes not inserting hes extrapolating. Traditional gender norms were attacked by post modernism, democracy, capitalism all hallmarks of the current system have been attacked by the philisophical ideologies of post modernist thought and Jordan explains all that in his full lectures.
Couldn't have put it better myself! You really articulate why watching him talk about this stuff is so frustrating.
I wish the temperature where I lived was as low as your IQ.
there is intrinsic truth to biology how hard is that to understand.
What matters is how old ideas are interpreted and used in the PRESENT. Nobody gives a fuck what those pedophiles were actually saying. What matters is how the insane leftists that prowl the universities are using those ideas
Its crazy how he equally seems and feels like he's going deep into details while not explaining anything at the same time. It feels like a cartoon version of a philosopher.
Not at all, rather like a cartoon version of a political con artists, doomsday prophet, snake oil peddler or cult leader.
@@elevenseven-yq4vu aww that's a little harsh to say about wisecrack
It's like JBP's parodying a philosopher. And it's deliberate. He's cosplaying what his target audience thinks a philosopher sounds like.
It is just a repackaging of Cultural Marxism. Even the idea of race identity was already something they accused cultural Marxism of, that Cultural Marxism made blacks identify with their race. Of course that is completely dismissing the idea that they might identify with their race because they were being oppressed.
It's important to remember that people don't like to think of themselves as bad. Most Americans in the 1930's didn't think they were oppressing blacks and a lot of the systemic racism happened behind closed doors in quite subtle ways and most popular resistance against desegregation was build on lies.
@@elevenseven-yq4vu Even better!
As a previous fan of Peterson who eventually found the truth, I want to layout why I got hooked to him in the first place.
-I was a man, and felt I was under attack. He soothed my anxiety and paranoia.
-I felt my own father was meek, and I knew in my head I wanted him as a father figure
-He expressed his ideas in ways that seemed reasonable at the time, the way he talked.
-That video of him and that news reporter willfully trying to twist his words seemed like proof he was right
I think far too many members of society focus on the people, rather than the ideas. We live in an age where we have access to so much information at our fingertips and we're able to confirm or corroborate almost anything that anyone says, so it's rather ironic that people can still be so gullible and instead put their (blind) trust in individuals who are in positions of power or authority, including those in a position to spread their message to a wide audience via mainstream and social media. This happens when these individuals discuss something that resonates with you or is intuitively obvious to "hook" you in, and next thing you know you're also accepting ideas that are misleading, or just plain false.
That this happens is arguably a failure of our education system (specifically here in Canada and the US), which does a piss poor job or guiding our students to be strong critical thinkers. Critical thinking, at it's heart, is challenging authority - not necessarily because one might think the authority is wrong, but because one wishes to develop and understanding of the topics at hand rather than accepting them without question just because they are coming from someone one might be conditioned to trust.
Having said that, I think Peterson's rise to fame and his broaching of a wide variety of subjects that are relevant to modern Western societies is a net positive specifically because it sparks investigation and discussion (although quite frankly the video we're commenting under does a rather poor job criticizing Peterson's ideas regarding postmodernism, even though Peterson does demonstrably make claims that are factually incorrect). Yes, he has his "fans", but so does practically any individual with a large enough social media audience, and I would wager that the overwhelming majority of these modern day "influencers" present information or opinions that are orders of magnitude worse than what you hear from Peterson. But in the end all that should matter is the truth of it all, and not who says what, and given that there is often a jarring clash of claims and opinions and ideologies one would hope this would prompt the audience to try to resolve who is right and who is wrong for themselves instead of trusting any one side.
I am a cis gender woman and I wholeheartedly agree and I'm literally praying that there's a gender transitional movement (the one which Dr Warren Farrell suggested) which will actually provide all the genders Equality in areas where they lack it... Earlier I might have supported the bs 'all men are evil' rhetoric but After studying some of Dr. Warren Farrell, Dr. Terrance Real and Bell Hooks ....It turns out men are experiencing more or less the same purposelessness and anguish that women did in the starting of the women liberation movement.... turns out that these Black pill sorta movements may be very destructive for men...I hope men's rights movement helps men without turning them into senseless misogynists...like Some toxic forms of Feminism have turned women into misandrists ...Even though Men's and Women's anger and fears are valid...we need a space where they can reconnect and share this pain with eachother instead so far the gender politics seems to be tearing us apart...
@@joeprice2813 I'm curious about this whole thing, can't find anything wrong with his logic at my current level of knowledge. Can you give me an example of something Peterson gets wrong? Any info appreciated.
@@McDonaldsCalifornia No, I am not interested in investing many hours to find any inconsistencies in the arguments of a man who is telling people all over the world to take responsibility for themselves and to not buy into the idea that the entirety of society is evil. I don't see this as a matter of deep, technical intellectual thinking; it's cute that you assume that I know nothing of debates and arguments just because of one UA-cam comment, but I assert that anyone who has a problem with him is just angry that he's telling them to take responsibility.
I do definitely appreciate that you resorted to ad hominem attacks rather than leaving one singular example of him using bad logic. You have done a wonderful job of proving him right just like most of the other lazy morons who don't like him :)
@@bonitabromeliads just say you've only seen clips 🤣 typical generalizer
This is literally why I quit being a philosopher.
Not because my ideas didn't bring anything to the table (I mean they didn't. They were rubbish)
But because people started taking my ideas out of context. And on one occasion quoted them back to me. Not knowing I was the author. And when they found out. Literally argued that I didn't understand my own work.
there is an argument for misreading as a possibility for advancement of thought, but it probably sucks if it happens to you
What was your philosophy about?
@@LibertarianLeninistRants I do subscribe to a death of the author approach to most writing. And would say that the value the individual derives from the work. Is more important than the authors original meaning. But not when it comes to philosophy, and the ideas aren't exactly hidden in subtext.
@@lucmoore6176 it's really not worth mentioning. It's was a doctrinal set of rules towards expression of free will and personal furfillment.
Boiled down to their most simple and universal principles.
Basically I talked to social workers, therapists, theologians, public and, and religious figures. Basically anyone I felt had influence over other people. Studied alot of historical and societal shaping individuals.
Took this massive pool of data and ideas. And then wrote it down into....I think it was 28 or so small chapters of "rules" as I call them.
Then argued why I felt they were important from both a personal to societal level as a positive influence.
@@Palemagpie Is there a place to read the rules? Sounds like a cool project. Lots of good data.
It's remarkable how so many of Peterson's takes are based on like a half-remembered skim of wikipedia, and then just flatly projecting his personal grievances on the topic at hand and outright making up any connective tissue to make it fit.
That's why he would never have a filmed discussion with a post-structuralist. He makes money playing around the "woke postmodern left" instead of acknowledging others. He's rediscovering warm water. But given the elitist attitude of the US system towards college access, he provides some generally good tips on how to improve one's life.
It also carries over into his psych work. His whole work in self-help is just CBT, as taught by someone who thinks it can fix every mental health issue.
Pretending to be any kind of authority figure with enough confidence to fool the masses is the key to success in influence related areas.
That's Peterson's expertise. Not even alcoholism like his work suggests.
Absolutely!
@@azarinevil you and I must have different reads on Jorbo's approach to psychology. That, or we think and mean very different things when we say CBT.
Reminds me of Ayn Rand in the utter cluelessness of his commentary. He has no idea what he's talking about, and yet Peterson pronounces his verdicts with absolute confidence.
Lol yep and they/their work are both part of the right wing libertarian extremist pipeline 🙄
Same level of hypocrisy as well. Rand ranted against social programs and raved about how great libertarian -capitalism is ,eventhough she studied in the Soviet Union for free, , and then used the U.S system to pay her hospital bills. Peterson enjoyed the affordable Canadian education, and used some expensive way to get rid of addiction ,while ranting against social democratic programs and telling people they should 'man up 'and face the consequences of their actions. Just a few examples, but it;s all so silly.
@@spiritualanarchist8162
Well, to be fair, he went to Russia to be put in a coma to be cleaned of his barbiturates addiction, because the western healthcare wouldn't subscribe to such practices. Still not defending his other arguments, far from it, just thought I'd leave that here.
oh the irony.. you have no idea what you're talking about
@@andreww4751 'you have no idea what you're talking about ''
Well, you I must say do give good arguments why it's supposed to be 'ironic'.
"There are times when we’re like horses, we psychologists, and get restless: we see our own shadows bobbing up and down in front of us. Psychologists need to stop looking at themselves if they want to see anything at all." - Friedrich Nietzsche
This was the correct quote for this comments section, thanks
Wow it's nuts how much this quote applies to Peterson
@@FryJones His biggest thing is wanting to help other people and talking about other peoples problems and how hard it is for them. But…ok
@@joshnic6639 Sure. And I am fully willing to believe at some level Peterson is totally sincere in that sentiment.
The thing is, a sincere desire to help people does not automatically equip you with the ability to actually help people.
Many malignant narcissists, for instance, want to help people. And sincerely believe that they can. Not only that they can, but they can help better than anyone else. That if people would just listen to them, and their specific ideas, Utopia could be attained by next Tuesday!
This historically has worked out about as well as you'd expect.
Some of Peterson's advice is completely unobjectionable and good. But it's not unique to Peterson or to people like him. And some of his advice is essentially a quackery fusion of badly understood science and philosophy at best, when it's not outright harmful at worst.
@@joshnic6639 If helping people was his biggest thing not many would have a problem with him. Unfortunately what few bits of sound self-help advice he gives is mashed up with hysterical McCarthyism, far-right conspiracy theories, hyper partisan politics, fear mongering about largely imaginary problems that make him blubber like a baby every five minutes and the overriding view that his self-help advice is ultimately insufficient unless society can be reverted back to some reactionary utopia that looks much more like the Islamic world than the West he claims to care about.
The recurring theme seems to be that JP doesn't really actually understand *philosophy* whatsoever, despite considering himself a practitioner
bingo!!
When listening to Peterson, the issue is you have to continually note some statements are just factually incorrect. If you interpret something starting from an incorrect fact, the interpretation is going to be incorrect.
That’s why it’s always so important to never be charitable in interpreting him
Example?
Example?
Example?
The best example of him being wrong is his lobster theory and its his core argument for hierarchy
Listening to Jordan Peterson’s psychological analysis helped me immensely. I bought his future authoring program which I full heartedly believe contributed to the strengthening of my relationship with my partner, and with my estranged dad. JP gave me tools that I needed to become a force for good in my own life and that cannot be understated.
However, I still don’t and probably never will have the tools to critically understand his opining about all of this post modernism stuff. Hearing him taken down like this by someone with a PhD in philosophy is painful, but I do need to understand the limits of JPs real knowledge. He’s not a politician, he’s not a philosopher, and he’s probably a huckster to some extent.
But he did in a way, help me to save my life. And I’ll not forget that.
This is a really weird paradox. Just like you, listening to JP’s self-help advice has truly helped me.
On one hand, he is a great orator and his psychology lectures really are amazing. But on the other hand, he’s infamous for discussing economic, political and philosophical matters of which he clearly knows little about.
He saves some people and misinforms others. Sometimes both.
I think Peterson is a great psychologist who has a lot to offer, especially to lost (younger) men.
His ideas there seem solid and practical.
But his analysis and thinking seems to quickly fall apart when he tries to extend his ideas to sociology and philosophy.
He suddenly just becomes very cherry picking when it comes to his facts and interpretations...
I hope this comment might help you accept two thoughts that seem to contradict each other initially.
But it's perfectly reasonable to respect him in one field while discarding his opinion in another.
(much like I wouldn't want a gardener, surgeon, and car mechanic to switch places when I need their help)
I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s had this internal schism to deal with. It does go to show that you have to be the ultimate arbiter of when you listen to someone deeply because they have real practical wisdom, and when you just have to disregard what someone is saying because it’s just not useful, even if both of these things come from the same person.
In a way, it makes me relax about feeling like I have to have some unrealistic amount of knowledge about multiple disciplines, which I just don’t.
@@williamcharnley5558
I think that's a very wise conclusion to take away from this!
And yeah, you're not alone :)
I had a phase where I really liked Jordan's psychology stuff, and because that seemed so good, I figured that maybe he's right about the cultural/societal stuff too. That perhaps I was missing something that he saw.
But over time I noticed that his conclusions became harsher while his evidence/reasoning got weaker. And eventually it reached a point where the dichotomy was too wide to continue to ignore.
Which then made me question everything he'd covered before, of course. But I still think the psychological stuff tends to hold up.
In the end, I saw it as a great lesson to always remain curious and humble about my own (lack of) knowledge.
And that good/well-meaning people can be wrong too, especially outside their main field.
@@MrNicoJac “But over time I noticed that his conclusions became harsher while his evidence/reasoning got weaker. And eventually it reached a point where the dichotomy was too wide to continue to ignore.”
Yeah this is exactly what I experienced. Well put.
It's as simple as this: he is treating postmodernist thought as though it is a monolithic ideological framework, when it is really a niche intellectual metaframework. It's fear mongering that deconstructing systems of power and knowledge is a slippery slope into burning it all down. In my opinion it is akin to the way that Christianity fearmongers about disbelief in God as temptation of evil.
it's probably not akin to it so much as exactly that but in long round about way. Peterson is by admission a traditionalist christian.
He’s not even arguing against Derrida and Foucault. I’ve never even heard him mention either philosopher.
Just substitute "post-modernists/ cultural Marxists/ globalists" with "Jewish people" and it makes more sense. And becomes less tolerable.
@@bloodaonadeline8346 He mentions them a lot, and he doesn't like them, but then again, neither did Chomsky. Chomsky sits very much on the same page as Peterson when it comes Post Modern critique, as does Zizek in many aspects. They rally against the fundamental base of Post Modernism, which essentially says that there is no real truth or meaning. Peterson see's Post Modernism as an extension of Marxism. And I can see why, I mean the very people that came up with PM (Derrida etc) were all Marxists. Post Modernism is a foolish attempt to evade nature itself.
This right here!!!!
Descartes walked into a bar. The bartender asked him if he would like a beer. Descartes responded, “I think not.” Immediately, Descartes disappeared.
As someone who has enjoyed a lot of Jordan Peterson's discussions in the past, I find this very fascinating. I love it when arguments by pop culture philosophers get deconstructed and I think you did a pretty good job breaking down his arguments. I think you are absolutely right that it very much seems like JP is making up some kind of straw man to fight against in a lot of his lectures. It was especially enlightening for you to break down his sources. Keep up the good work!
I mean, he's basically like "If you have a different idea of how humanity should be, that's borderline Nihilist."
Soooooorrrrryyyy that I think I can have better ideas than my ancestors lol
@@Nverdis we stand on the shoulders of giants haha. I think your right that we can have better ideas as we go along. I think it's very fatalistic to think we cant develop something better
@@DantePallidio I do believe it’s more of a conversation on the retention of tradition witch may have its side effects but so does the complete abandonment of tradition. I don’t think ether of these people are wrong just different opinions.
Strawmen? Peterson's a hay field....corporate sized.
@@randyt3558 hey hey hey. Your not wrong
This just goes to show how important proper academic writing and formatting are! I bet if Peterson had to submit a list of references for what he had said about post-modernism, he would be a lot less radical and a bit more nuanced. But at the same time, he would not have become famous.
How is he radical he just has a different perception and take on the philosophy there’s a difference between disagreement and radicalism
James Lindsey has written extensively on “woke culture.”
And his books are heavily cited.
Look into critical theory. It's filled to the brim with postmodernism masking itself as science. And it ussually has activism as its purpose for students taught it. So i don't reckon he did get it wrong.
@@Theobserver6897 How is he not radical with his different perception? There's a difference between radical and disagreement. So put up.
@@emilsundbaum5221 Critical theory is just a fox and rightwing talking point because you have nothing substantive.
This work is so so important.There cannot be enough videos deconstructing Peterson's views on philosophy because he is leading so many people astray. I remember reading a book he recommended called Explaining Postmodernism, which is riddled with incorrect statements about philosophy and the history of philosophy. At the time, I didn't know that and took the contents of the book at face value, as I was new to philosophy. In one of my philosophy class discussions at university, I mentioned that Kant's philosophy was postmodern, which is so laughably wrong. My professor looked at me funny but was kind enough to refrain from tearing me a new one in front of class. Needless to say, I looked into it more and learned how bad the book that Peterson had recommende was.
Inexcusable for him to be promoting and parroting such sloppy thinking. Great work on discussing these philosophical ideas.
The only people who’s being led astray is the idiots who have no idea how to extract wisdom where it’s present.
Seems like Peterson is to philosophy as Dr Oz is to medicine. And politics.
@@hattielankford4775inda the dude steals most of his shit from Joseph Campbell’s mono myth and William S Linds writing on “political correctness”. I’d imagine reading Pat Buchanan’s book on cultural Marxism and probably Andrew Breitbart’s biography would elucidate more.
There’s a whole whacky world of conservative philosophy like the New Thought movement, Ayn Rand’s objectivism, the Bell Curve etc. they maintain their own separate universities, think tanks, media, and literature so it’s often difficult to understand why people like Peterson are the way they are.
Strangely they all seem to not talk about their intellectual roots. The Bell Curve takes research from literal white supremacists and neo nazis who like used data on black student’s educational attainment in occupied African nations or apartheid South Africa. They only ever talk about the Bell Curve which launders that crap.
I’ve never seen Peterson mention Campbell or Lind by name despite clearly plagiarizing their work. He only ever mentions Jung and like Russian novelists. I guess those are safer sources?
You're a person of honor. Thank you for your story.
Focault IS a fake.
When I was studying philosophy decades ago "Western philosophy" was a study of a very diverse spectrum of ideas and perspectives, often in stark contrast to each other. Speaking of "Western philosophy" as a monolithic thing is laughable at best, ignorant at worst. JP doesn't "defend" "Western philosophy", but some particular subset of "rugged Westernized idealism" that he confuses with the broader class of Western philosophy. Ultimately, I think JP loves the sound of his own voice, and seeks the praise of others who listen to him in order to feel themselves to be smart for the listening. He, like Shemp Bapiro, rarely truly engages in any kind of formal, long form debate, seeming to know he would find it too difficult in exchange for little recognition and even less praise.
Honestly when we try to group things into "East vs. West" it kind of feels more like a form of xenophobia in a way to alienate cultures that don't fit a eurocentric view of the world because how often when talking about "Western society" has the conversation ever included indigenous American populations or Latin America?
Or what about Celtic groups like the Irish and the Welsh who were considered uncivilized by Anglicized cultures.
Or even Greece which is considered the bedrock of western philosophy and civilization and yet in of itself was composed of so many squabbling city states with vastly different views from the Athenians to the Spartans to the Macedonians who were barely considered Greek. So much so that they warred with themselves more than they did with cities outside of Greece.
It just feels like an attempt to alienate non-European ways of thinking and make them seem other as if there is any homogeny to be found between Ireland, Estonia, Sweden, Italy, France, England, and Lichtenstein when these countries have completely different cultures.
@@CollinMcLean 100% agree. So many political media figures, American conservatives like JP in particular, like to use co opt phrases with the prefix of "Western" to propagate American exceptionalism and xenophobia, (most often sacrificing any grounded definition along the way) by treating it as an unquestionable good, equating it to democracy and basic morality, and any critique of it is an affront to civilized society itself
It's gotten to the point where I can't hear those phrases in any context without wincing a little bit
@@KippyDemo It's like when conservatives say "Judeo-christian values" as if Judaism doesn't have a distinct set of rules and it's own form of worship. It's their way of pulling Judaism into their BS while alienating Islam by avoiding the term "abrahamic" because yes Christianity did branch from Judaism but it ignores how Judaism is fundamentally a culture and not just a religion with it's own set of values and has often clashed with christian faith in history.
I disagree, with the last part. Jordan Peterson does engage in long form debates, quite a lot, with individuals that are arguably more respected then himself, such as Sam Harris. Take in consideration that it takes a lot of energy and time to prepare for such debates, at least, if you want to do them well, which I believe peterson does.
So Jordan Peterson doesnt debate as much as your standard. I think its unwaranted to conclude that he does so because of recognition and praise. How often do people jump on someone elses character when they dont agree with them, before considdering that the other might actualy be doing their best? And how often is the character actually at fault? I think rarely. Considder the possibility that you are simpely attacking peterson on his character instead of his arguments as an easy way out. You would not be the first to do so
@@jemangerrit1747 the original comment pretty much debunked Jordan Peterson’s take on philosophy before attacking his character. He was not just attacking his character.
Peterson is so laughably uninformed on philosophy it’s a joke. He is a moron.
I used to listen to Jordan Peterson quite regularly, when I was 16-17. The things he said made quite a lot of sense to me at the time, because I didn't know any better. Now coming here and watching your video, and seeing all the criticisms of the person I used to admire, is a weird experience. However, I relish the opportunity to learn, so thank you for explaining how he is wrong in some of his ideas and rhetoric, sometimes dangerously so
Everyone has blind spots. Peterson is certainly no exception, and it's important to listen to others people's criticisms so that you can have a fuller picture of situations, world views, and the like. This is going to be even more important going forward after Peterson chose a very clear side in the culture war after he partnered with Daily Wire. The motivation and ability for people to poke holes in his world view is going to be much higher now. I personally welcome this opportunity, but it's important to keep in mind that the majority (or at least plurality) of people giving their opinions on Peterson these days are going to be politically motivated one way or another. That doesn't invalidate criticism, but knowing what motivates someone tells you their potential blind spots and helps one get a fuller picture of things going forward.
Nobody over the age of 16 should take Peterson seriously.
@@Joram647 I agree. Knowing that a lot of what JP says about philosophy, Marxism, and postmodernism comes from Stephen Hicks, a Randian Objectivist whose seems equally ignorant of post-Kantian philosophy as Ayn Rand herself (which is saying a lot), clarifies a lot about why JP has the gaping blind spots and political motivations that he does.
Tell me about what he’s saying that’s “dangerous”
Jp was either always a bad faith actor couching his ideas under a guise of self-help, or he might genuinely have drifted that way and took his fans along for the ride
Long time ago, I thought he was pretty on point, along with sam Harris and others of the intellectual dark Web. Critical thinking is they key and I think some of these guys have let their egos take control
You could probably make an entire series called "Peterson misses the point of" and never run out of material
Basically Jordan Peterson is just a social media influencer now, that’s how he makes money and that’s why he constantly exaggerates and always does the sky is falling thing.
Screams too much too, and he gets heavenly aggressive if it's not his favorite position
His daughter has done some interviews and is even more transparently grinding an axe. Good choice of videos here. He makes a lot of irresponsible errors in one place.
He does not "constantly exaggerate", he downright lies constantly. There is a huge difference between the two.
I like you doing a video like this. You should do more stuff on modern real-world people. Don't get me wrong I love the Rick and Morty and pop-culture stuff, but it was cool to see a rebuttal to people that use philosophers to talk about their own beliefs.
Yes! Pleas more!
Thanks Robert! We'll definitely try more videos like this in the future.
@@WisecrackEDU But do take care of yourselves! It seems this took a lot of effort!
@@WisecrackEDU Jordan Peterson needs to stay in his lane. Westerners need to stay away from Africa. Their philosophies don't apply. When people are individualistic in Africa it's a disaster because there are often no regulation and predatory third parties involved and no protection for the locals
@@WisecrackEDU Maybe the reason why the Left does this is because The Right is unaccommodating to the needs of the Left. A lot of black people are Conservative but don't feel welcomed by the Republican side so they defer to the Left.
He takes everything very personal (even with dead people) because he doesn't know where he ends and everything else begins so he internalizes everything to where the world revolves around him in his perception. This is how he can be attacked by anything, because its "all about him".
I’ve never heard anyone speak absolute BS and somehow make it seem accurate by using scholarly verbiage the way Peterson does. He’s good at seeming intellectual when he isn’t.
You could be talking about Trump with this comment.
I have a feeling you struggle with this too.
@@chasinggoats8155 well since you're not psychic and no nothing about me keep your feelings to yourself. Maybe go to sleep next time instead of writing something so vapid.
@@chasinggoats8155 I have a feeling you struggle with this too. 🥺
I am getting my Masters in Marriage and Family Therapy and we learn a lot about postmodernism from the beginning. The framing in this field is that postmodernism is a recognition that what have learned from psychology research so far has been heavily based on majority populations. Meaning, for much of psychology md medical research history, the people conducting, analyzing, publishing, criticizing, and even subjects within research were predominantly cis white men of status. However, modernists still hold to research as the end all be all of absolute truth. Thus, to be an inclusive and competent therapist, we need to broaden our ideas about experiences that might not have been represented and have not had a voice but ate equally valid to those reflected in research. There is more to it but this was a major part of what we learned. It is the humility of knowing what research says, and respecting the validity of it when applied to some, but not assuming it applies to all people in all contexts. Ethical application of treatments, for example, needs to include the comfort level and unique needs of the individual client, given their particular experience. Early therapists and modern based therapies prescribe what will be helpful for all people but this claim is only based on that group who were researched. Thus, ethical treatment needs to not claim the therapist as the absolute expert above what the client knows about themselves or chooses as their treatment goal. The best therapy helps clients determine what they want and helps them get there. It doesn't force them toward outcomes they do not consent to.
This comment deserves more praise. So well stated.
Well stated. Wish I could remember the particular medical issue - but it's a matter of medical history that some female medical procedures 7were devised without any women participating.
The men assumed that they understood more about the women's bodies than the women did. Y'know, because they're women.
The same hubris can be found throughout history, often with devastating unconsidered consequences- which is how the error of that mode of thinking was eventually recognized.
We're talking many many many unnecessary deaths.
Mammogram X-rays is one of the examples.
I disagree with the statement about making clients do what they want. What if what they want is ultimately harmful?
Like that lady who convinced her therapist to make her blind. Mental illness is in it of itself at odds with reality and should not be accommodated.
This is an incredibly well written comment and insightful. Thank you for sharing it. I’ve been watching UA-cam videos of newer therapists with master’s degree credentials and they have been continuously impressing me and it just brings me so much hope and joy thinking of all the people who will have the potential to be helped. The last part of your comment really resonates with me because it’s a recognition of personhood and autonomy for the client. So the client isn’t poked and prodded like a specimen or is invalidated or talked at.
Also, (I know this isn’t the same thing but it brings this to mind for me) the part where you said “Meaning, for much of psychology md medical research history, the people conducting, and even subjects within research were predominantly cis white men of status” made me think of how women and female anatomy were placed in relation to men and the male body. Which is so absurd I can’t not laugh at it lol it makes me think of Americans only thinking of other countries in relation to America and American culture 🤦🏻♀️
Thanks for doing this. I am a psychologist and I know that many of the claims that JP makes about our field are often overstatements, misinterpretations, or accurate-enough, but one-sided. But I lack the background to critique his handling of philosophy (and some other topics he wades into). This helps me to see that he is even less reliable the further from psychology he strays.
Surprised he makes such claims about the field of psychology considering he himself is a professor if clinical psychology, which frankly I'm surprised he even is as I can point out many of the inaccuracies in his understanding of the field.
No one on this blue turning rock hurling through multiversal space ever took time out of their God forsaken day to ever to patiently yet intelligently tell him that quantity of perfunctory thesaurusical words vehemently spoken does not necessarily directly perfectly correlate to the overall empirical quality of said words. Like, less it's more, brah.
@@teenkitsunemay I get an example?
He constantly rants about psychometrics but has no background or publications in psychometrics. As for his philosophy it’s basically just hysterics about leftism in general. He’s annoying, and his acolytes are the worst.
@@hogannull7022 yeah he’s big into word salads.
"I'm gonna stay in my lane today."
Something JP hasn't thought in a long time.
It’s so exhausting to react on Peterson, because most of his output is propelled by just this inability to accept counterarguments as arguments, if those might be able to contradict the petrified dogma. His denial is so painful to me.
Edit (German boor forgot): Thank you for your fine education ❤ I enjoyed it a lot!
it's painful to many, I feel you
If that's what you say of a professional who constantly engages in dialogue with diverse kinds of people, as well as participate in actual research to the point he is one of the most quoted psychologist in North-America, shouldn't you also admit to yours and Wisecrack's own bias? When was the last time you have seen Wisecrack engaging in a dialogue instead of taking a couple excerpts from a 30 minute long lecture and then taking your sweet time picking it apart before recording a one-sided response with the luxury of having Google while you write your essay?
If Jordan misinterprets Post-Modernist philosophy, don't you think it is possible for you or Wisecrack to misinterpret Jordan's philosophy. After all, you seem to believe Jordan is a simple defender of the status quo, even though anybody that actually knows his beliefs also knows Jordan understands the importance for our current knowledge and wisdom to be actualized constantly through challenge.
@@JavierGomezX lol no. Maybe he was some serious psychologist but he has no clue of philosophy. And this is actually pretty easy to spot, e.g., as he completely fails to »debunk« the communist manifest by simply not knowing any of it. He might indeed have some pretty decent expertise in some field - but philosophy ain’t it. For sure!
@@JavierGomezX All your arguments are simply rhetorical and have no substance whatsoever. He's a psychologist mostly working with personality questionnaires such as EPQ (Big Five) which is actually considered to be quite an easy job as these kinds of things always bring some kind of results and it's highly quotable as it's what most of the outside world wants from psychology scholars: evaluation tests. I won't deny his expertise on that, he's got quite an impressive impact factor and maybe his work advanced the field in some way: though not to a degree that got his name into any textbooks I read during my education and outside of his shenanigans with being a (alt-)right-wing influencer almost nobody would hear of him. The fact that he feels that he can present himself as an expert in terms of postmodernism, cultural marxism (is that even a scientific term? I don't think so) and the rest of this stuff is just appaling.
@@alexlubinski7795 (alt) right wing influencer !! AHAH ! That made me laugh, thank you!
I love it when JP so clearly demonstrates why no one should take what he has to say seriously.
Most critiques of Peterson are like this. Just dismissive and unsubstantiated. I think that's part of the reason why he gets away with his rubbish.
@@thesilverbrow2382 when he says such outright blatent lies and twists, the only response is... "nope, that's not correct, BS" 😂 it's really hard to respond to someone who is making shit up
The Tucker Carlson paradox
@@thesilverbrow2382 I know right... its a group of brainwashed 18 year olds fresh out of sociology and gender studies class who think they are the next world genius. "He is wrong"- they say with no explaination, because to explain their argument is beneath them. Egotistical pricks... best to avoid them and their kind, watching them never get employed is the best retribution. I also know the owner of wisecrack would never bring his arguments to Jordan directly, he couldnt insult him and mis-understand him so easily and get away with it. Jordan would wipe the floor with this greasy egotistical retard
@@thesilverbrow2382 This video is 34 minutes what do you mean unsubstantiated?
The thing he said about postmodernists not believing in biology is just a dig at trans people
or the truth.
@@republitarian484 If you read some actual biology that's more than your high school textbook you might change your mind.
@@RuneDrageon . . . so the entirety of human history has been a social construct right?
@@republitarian484 Since civilization is techincally a social construct, yes. But that is now what you were about. Remember, sex and gender are different and gender is a social construct that doesn't or barely exists in other species.
@@RuneDrageon . . .LOL. . . OK. . .whatever you say.
Sex and Gender are closely aligned and that alignment has much to do with biology. Only a fool would look at the entirety of human history as an oppressive patriarchal construct.
Listening to JP is like being in a museum where western culture and philosophy is in a glass case where you can look at it but you can't touch it.
a museum where each of the exhibits is just a child's drawing of the subject in question
That's a good way of putting it. I always feel like when I hear him speak, I never really hear any real claims. Everything is so vague and abstract that it barely feels like he's talking about anything.
@@cadekachelmeier7251 he really won't let himself get pinned down but he is always sort of working to these really problematic points. Yet when called out he always has an out that way.
Incredibly dishonest
What is perfect,Christina. It's sacred. I hate the left, because they want to destroy the world and Western culture. Next it's nihilistic. The french revolution was the begin of the end and diabolic
@Max We so you'd actively rather have wealth and power exclusively in the hands of a degenerate and deeply self-interested, nepotistic, ruling class? Because that's what the french revolution overthrew. I mean, you know in that system you would be serf right?
It's a shame robespierre was a complete fuckin psychopath.
“Postmodernism was on its way out when I started grad school.”
Anybody else dying to know what was on its way in???
Postpostmodernism.
We don't quite have a name for it, but in general it's a scattering of Critical Theory, which attempts to acclimate and swap between historical theory lenses as you observe any particular subject.
Another good name is Metamodernism.
obviously a prequal - premodernism
That’s the beauty of post modernism, they can change its definition at any point. So he was right, the definition was probably on it’s way out but post modernism definitely stayed! 😂
he is so good at making stupid people feel smart
I guess I’m stupid
@@guccimane8941 I mean, if you did research, you wouldn't have to guess. XD
French postmodern ponderings make smart people look dumb in equal measure if you're not looking for validation.
As a PhD candidate in philosophy of education with a French bachelor and master degree in philosophy, I'm quite familiar with both Foucault and Derrida, and have been consistently provoked by Jordan Peterson's oversimplified critique of 'post-modernism' (even more considering how secure he seems to be when speaking of it, in spite of his lack of formal education in philosophy). It is very valuable for public deliberation to have people like you that nuance bombastic claims about the vast field of philosophical thinking.
Yeah, but, like... that means people have to, like... think and stuff. That's not fun.
Loving the more “off the cuff” teacher vibes Michael.
Thanks so much!
I second this!
@@WisecrackEDU this video was nice, you did good.
Keep on keeping on.
yessssss! found myself kinda in that style too, teaching swimming and art. so much more engaging and casual, especially when learning new thing
So when Peterson is talking about postmodernists not accepting biology, he’s most likely talking about trans people. And when he’s talking about privilege there’s a good chance he’s talking about white privilege and/or patriarchy. He has said he’s “horrified” by the idea that people believe that western society could really contain such things.
precisely what I came here to see if anyone had said yet. If you know about him & other far right propagandists like him, you can read between the lines. I guess if you don't, it seems especially baffling.
@@KaelWrit
Patriarchy: "a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line."
This doesn't exist in the West, but even if it did how is it bad? Are you capable of giving examples of what the "far-right" is and how Peterson fits that mold?
@@joebenson528 Um, what do you mean by Patriarchy not existing in the West? The idea of sons inheriting their Father's position, power, and belongings in incredibly common, and that is descent through the male line. The idea of someone's family name being carried on (only possible with a male heir they will say, because the male's name takes precedence) is incredibly common.
Heck, I was quite uncomfortable at my uncle's wedding some years ago when they went hard into the Bible for Ephesians 5:22-24 and the idea of the woman being subservient to the man as the Church is subservient to Jesus, and how she should worship the man as the man worships Jesus. If I didn't know my Uncle was a good man who would treat his wife with love, kindness and respect, I'd have been beyond horrified by the language they used in their wedding. Which is entirely based upon this idea of the Patriarchy.
Thinking of wedding traditions, the Father gives the Bride to the Husband, that is Patriarchy right there, the family Head is the Father and then the Husband, and so the wife is passed from one Head to another, in a completely subservient form. So... it definitely exists.
As for why that is bad, it explicitly declares that half of all human beings are subservient to the other half. It leads to incredibly toxic things, such as machismo and men who declare things such as the fact they never would allow their wife or girlfriend to have her own opinion. You can perhaps say that isn't the patriarchy, but it is a natural occurence when you place the value solely on maleness and the position of primacy taken by a Father (not a Grandfather, notably, who often is depicted as having lost the physical might and fervor of his youth) and tracing the family primarily through Father-Son relations.
@@Chaosmancer7 As a bi black member of the woman delegate I STAN this comment 💯😂🙌🏽
@@Chaosmancer7 I'd also point out that people who are part of some religious sects (Mormons, Some branches of Evangelical Christianity, for example) also exemplify the patriarchy.
Daddy-daughter dances (which if anyone hasn't seen, it's horribly cringworthy and bordering on ick) where daughters are given 'promise' rings to hold themselves 'pure' for their future husbands.
So yes, the patriarchy is DEFINATELY still alive and well in the West.
Having watched Jordan Peterson over the years, I have found a way to understand him. I think he is personally petrified at the idea of democratization of thought. This comes from his fear that order comes from chaos through natural paths. To Peterson, there must be a supreme something that guides the cosmos.
How that plays out in his philosophy is reflected in his desire for conformity to traditional structures and religion based practices. He objects to the people collectively directing society and civilization - which requires we accept the wide variety of views and beliefs, without necessarily endorsing any of them; and would gladly replace, nay, demands that we comport ourselves to some traditional model. The model that he advocates for is the Judeo-Christian one that has been a part of western civilization for many centuries.
Over the years, when challenged by other thinkers who point out errors in his messaging (like you've done well here), he responds by filling the air with word salad and impossibly nuanced clarification. This is done only to avoid admitting errors in the claims he makes. This is because it is not important to Peterson to find the truth, but only to claim to be right about the truth. He is, as I see him, a narcissist who cannot cope with being wrong on anything but the most trivial points.
Once I understood this, it became easier to see through the flack he fills the sky with. It is about conformity to traditional patriarchy and rejection of individuality that varies from those norms.
Peterson would gladly replace our modern open society which allows and embraces different beliefs, with something akin to the later Eastern Roman antiquity of the Byzantine Empire, where orthodox Christianity dominated the lives of the people through forced compliance.
Phenomenal. It is actually pretty darn scary seeing just how obviously and willfully wrong Kermit’s views and interpretations are.
They're reductive, but not necessarily wrong.
@@ttt69420 Did you watch the video you are commenting under? At best he was being reductive. At other points he was just straight up lying and putting words in other philosophers mouths.
@@josephnapolitano5864 Not really. Just saying how his philosophy is being applied to politics.
Kermit was always problematic. He even married a pig, going against the rule of marrying within the same species.
@@ttt69420 let it go, your old wise sage on a mountain turned out to be a pill popping narcissist
This is so interesting, thank you for this video. I love that you know Rancière!
As a German philosophy student I usually expect for some things to get lost in translation (for example how I read Rancière might reduce the content of his work or how the French read Marx and Hegel). But I feel like Peterson deliberately reads them wrong and it makes me sad. "Don't question authority! Hierarchy is good! If you believe in biology, you have to believe in hierarchy!"
He's kind of like the fox news version of Nietzsche screaming at me how the strong have the right to rule because they're strong.
An irony being Nietzche would likely frown upon that viewpoint since one of the major teachings of Nihilism is that things such as Hierarchies and social classes are pointless and have no meaning beyond what we assign them. Peterson's version feels more like Cynicism and Defeatism disguised as Nihilism.
Ok I'm not a part of Peterson's PR team, but this hierarchy strawman really grinds me. He doesn't and never has advocated for hierarchies, only emphasized the importance of recognizing your inherent biological biases lest you allow them to control you. Are you sure you are not the one intentionally reading him wrong?
He never said don't question Authority or that all hierarchy's are good. He said that hierarchy's are inevitable and that all authority is not based on power and strength. Instead it is competence and merit that govern a hierarchy. You obliviously haven't heard him speak because he has defended your same accusation for years now.
This 😂😭💀👌🏽
@@CollinMcLean tbf Nietzsche would frown upon 90% of the stuff people him say
The point isn't to be coherent or logically consistent, it's to make people scared so he can grift off of them by giving out solutions to problems that don't exist.
he's just a better educated Alex Jones.
@@paultapping9510 Or at least one that sounds coherent because his articulation gives it the patina of erudition and it's peppered with a mélange of verifiable facts and truisms that give the illusion that all of it is like that if you're not well-informed on those specific topics and assume he's acting in good faith
@@garrettwilson4754
And then there are UA-cam commenters following him everywhere he goes.
Nah things like cleaning your room and standing up straight are helpful for real problems.
@@snoozyq9576 Things your parents should have taught you. They're so basic they're actually pre-basic.
If you say Mr Jordan Peterson can be wrong, then riddle me this, before I knew of Mr Peterson my bed was messy, after Mr Peterson, my bed is made! That just happened! Mind blown?! I think so.
If Peterson (the person) were to engage in self-reflection and personal growth, he'd cease being Peterson (the personality).
postmodernism in Canada was not particularly popular in academics during my undergraduate. Certainly, it was studied but I did my Masters in Europe where i found it was far more popular. particularly post Structuralism. so I think you are correct in your assumption about it being out of vogue up hear as well.
For sure. In my experience of being in grad school (2007 - 2015) most folks I knew almost treated postmodernism as a "passing fad" from another generation. I've since come to really appreciate the work of Derrida and Lyotard (among others), but at the time it felt far from cutting edge or radical.
I completed my university degree in 1999 from u of t when peterson was just starting there. I never met him but I took a film studies course there by a professor Bart Testa who told us "some of you have a course with Dr Peterson who says a lot of wrong things about Post Modernism which will confuse you when studying Post Modernism in my course" . Then he had a whole lecture about how and why Peterson was wrong and what you should know about post modernism in film. THIS IS LONG BEFORE PETERSON WAS FAMOUS.
@@johnnygoodman2003 Wow, he had just started teaching there and already had a bad reputation among the faculty? That's almost impressive.
@@austinluther5825 I know. I never heard of the guy. And professor Testa had been there for years before peterson and was already telling his students how he was wrong. But Testa is a real stickler for getting things right and for reducing confusion in his class, even if it was just film class.
This is just one of JP's buzzwords.
His definition of Post Modern is anything that conflicts with status quo economics/thinking.
The main thing i took from this is: he mentions Foucault and Derrida, but he isn't talking about their Postmodernism. It seems to me like he read somewhere that the "far left extremist" ideas derived from Postmodernism, that those two were the main philosophers behind it, and puts their name it to sound like he went to the source and studied to be able to fight it effectively. this video illustrates pretty well that the only thing he does is simplify too much, strip away all the complexity so much that it becomes absurd, and use the fact that it is now absurd to win the argument.
His lectures on Maps of Meaning and 12 Rules for life resonated with me a lot, but the more i see his speeches being analyzed and debunked like here the more i realize outside of his own little corner, he is just a man with very strong ideas and very good speech, but with little to no knowledge or regard for other's ideas.
he's probably a good self help psychologist for individuals. His FOS-ness is because of everything else he talks about
He seems to make a lot of statements of fact, "X is Y, A thinks B", but often if you start digging those statements are a lot more complicated then he presents. I doubt all postmodernists agree on everything but he presents it as if they do.
Who's doing collective identity and neglecting the individual now?
I am pretty sure he got most of his critiques of post modernism from William S Lind’s “political correctness: a short history of an ideology” and maybe associated works by people like Pat Buchanan on cultural Marxism.
Pretty sure maps of meaning is just Joseph Campbell’s work in “the power of myth” and his idea of the so called Mono myth with a bit Jungian philosophy thrown in for good measure. (It’s been awhile since I’ve listened to him extensively).
I read PoM a decade ago and conservative writing I don’t really have the stomach to read I mostly have to go by critique. I should try harder though. Conservative intellectuals read these things (I mean they sell or get distributed so someone’s reading them).
Even just paying attention to the essayists working for some of the snooty conservative papers and think tanks can go a long way because the panic over Critical Race Theory (not entirely new) was largely the brain child of one conservative writer whose goal was to create a term like “social Justice warrior” a poison pill that could evoke the bad stuff about the people we don’t like.
So like gay sexuality in sex Ed ends up suddenly being called “CRT” and it’s not a coincidence. This idea of using obscure intellectual theories and during them into poison pills by attaching them “to all the bad stuff you shouldn’t like” seems like a common tactic abusing peoples semantic understanding - a sort of categorical terrorism that further erodes shared understanding.
Now the same thing is being done with the word groomer. Right now it could mean democrat, gay person,
Trans person, teaching sex Ed of any type, drag shows, drag, and anything taught to kids you don’t approve of.
So teaching kids about say the bombing of black Wall Street is teaching children to hate America which isnt indoctrination but grooming which evokes some of the most negative semantics possible - sexual abuse of children.
I imagine people don’t even see it. It’s really clever 1984 pink is green language manipulation. It’s 100% driving people to anger and ultimately violence.
If Peterson is doing this same sort of trick of negative dumping on post modernism you want nothing to do with him. Go watch Tony Robinson or something.
@@wearwolf2500 that's true but it's far worse than that as well. He makes patently false claims about huge things that are easily checkable, like saying communism was permanently discredited in Europe and France, so "postmodernists" couldn't open claim. marxism . But in reality the publishing dates of all the big "pomo" works happen both during and before large membership numbers for marxist and communist parties in france and europe.
If you look into the far right's history you can see it's actually pretty simple what he is doing. He is basically trying to modernize the cultural Marxist conspiracy theory of the 1930's to our modern time. Many of the things he says like low level bureaucrats being under it's sway and it being pushed by western hating radical leftists is pretty much word for word from the 1930's Cultural Marxists.
Yes, Jordan, we understand you don’t like Affirmative Action. Can you now stop going on inaccurate rants about post-modernism and just say what you really mean for a change.
My interpretation of Jordan Peterson as a public intellectual is an old man who finds comfort in the status quo and is intensely opposed to any change of that status quo and uses philosophical sounding technobabble as a means to justify that resistance to changing of the old guard, which power and capital find useful.
This is it.
change is extremely board term. What you may call change, I may call "you, forcing the reality to accommodate your insecurities by labeling it as whatever makes you comfortable". "capitalism bad" you may say "look at all these poor people in debt", while I say that I've been poor, and then I climbed up the capitalism ladder a bit and now I enjoy all of its fruits.. I didn't demand the change of capitalism, I changed myself.
@@giorgisopromadze3655 "and then I climbed up the capitalism ladder a bit and now I enjoy all of its fruits."
Are you familiar with survivorship bias?
Plus he started making money and being recognized for it thus decided to play the part. He does a bad job though because he's too lazy. What a fraud.
Not even today's status quo. He likes the status quo of the time he grew up in - back when no-one was talking about race, the feminists were happy that equality was achieved, and it was only natural that Christianity was the one religion worth recognising.
Hey guys, "Michael here." Wanted to let everyone know that we had to leave a lot on the cutting room floor when making this video, so tomorrow (Thursday, Sept 29th) I am going to take some time on our weekly stream, Wisecrack Live, to watch some of the Peterson clips we couldn't get into this video. If you can't catch the stream live (11 am pacific) it will be available as a VOD afterwards.
Thanks again for all the engagement with the video and the really thoughtful comments!
Can confirm.
Compared to some more news covering peterson. This video feels like it doesn't really cover anything. Just a couple reaction clips. Feels quite odd for this channel. He's a psychologist that thinks he's a philosopher that's not right wing when he clearly is.
I love both channels and i really wish if there can be a way for both of you to have a conversation tbh.
It fascinates me how he disguises the emptiness and simplicity of what he is actually saying behind unnecessary sophisticated sounding language. It seems like a manipulation tactic to persuade people who don't have a clue what he is talking about to begin with. "This guy sounds super smart, just like all those other smarty-pants I don't like. I have no idea what he's talking about, but I guess I'll just go with him!"
I am glad that I ain't the only one who thinks that. Why people fall from this? 😂😂😂
So you're argument is he sounds super smart he must be a fraud?
@@LunaticReason No, that's not even close. 😂
As a university student in Toronto myself, I can say that Marx and Foucault were very popular in my anthropology BA, and to a lesser extent Derrida
What Jordan Peterson misses the point of I could just about squeeze into the Grand f***in' Canyon.
This topic has always frustrated me because I don’t know enough from my one college course in philosophy to judge Peterson’s conclusions. What I do know is that when Peterson goes outside of his area of expertise he says a lot of stupid things-about climate change, politics, biology, foreign affairs, etc. This man’s analysis was so well communicated that I now have a better foundation upon which to form an opinion on the post-modernist claptrap. Unfortunately, the people who need to hear this are so enthralled by Peterson’s intelligence and the way he frames things to resonate with their bias that they take what he says at face value. Peterson’s hard right turn made him a darling of that constituency and he has been leaning into his fame harder all the time, branching out into areas he knows nothing about and applying his ideas inappropriately to issues the right is trying to push for political reasons. Unchangeable hierarchies and gender norms and so forth. His schtick struck a huge chord and made him famous and he is running with it with maniacal zeal. These days one should be more concerned about his mental health than his weird ideas. This video was very helpful in deconstructing some of those. I would love to see Peterson debate somebody like this who appears to actually know what he is talking about.
He's a full on grifter. The most dangerous are those who can assign a veil of intellectualism to regressive concepts.
@@ianvance1647 That's exactly right. The right loves people who can sound smart while justifying their regressive talking points. To Peterson it's the unchangeable hierarchy's fault that things are the way they are. Men can't help being better at things and women should know their place. You can identify the time when things clicked for Peterson, and he realized he could appeal to a huge group with most of them not educated enough to identify all of his errors in judgment. All you need to do is listen to somebody who actually understands postmodernism to see how Peterson misrepresents the concept. Now he is into climate change and geopolitics because it feeds his fanbase who take anything he says as gospel.
@@glovere2 JP is such a grifter that hearing him talk about the war in Ukraine might give you a headache, he goes around and around trying to justify that Russia should be allowed to invade and it sounds so dumb but he masks it around these intellectual contexts to sound convincing.
@@rickj.392 'masks it around these intellectual contexts'...hmmmm i'd like to hear a few seconds of what u mean but i'd guess that's all i can stomach. He is clearly ill if he can pull that off
@@18_rabbit well its been awhile but he if i recall he basically goes into some historic contexts , stuff that you see on reddit that justifies invasion as in "they were part of russia once" and "they were getting more western which is an afront to a former empire" etc etc
Thank you so much for this! It's also appreciated that you took one for the team and actually sat through (at least!) one of JP's bizarre rants. I can't manage more than a minute or two before turning him off. Something about his mixture of ignorance, bigotry, wilful misunderstanding, and patronising certainty is just deeply disturbing.
I teach critical theory at the tertiary level (which includes looking at both Derrida and Foucault) and am encountering more and more students who seem to have picked up some very weird, pre-conceived ideas about "postmodern Marxism" from somewhere. Your video goes a long way to explaining a possible source for their confusion.
>all commies are some sort of postmodernist
>communism is by nature postmodernist
It's not a very hard leap
I mean as much as you filth try to obfuscate it evolution has granted us pattern recognition
@@bocchithean-cap3404 🤣Excellent reply! One assumes it's satire, but, even if not, it's made my day!!!
Bizarre rants is a very good description of any of Petersons speeches. He uses names of philosophers to give a patina to his misogynistic and reactionary speech.
Young men drink it as mana.
I think it's become more prevalent among conservatives and "libertarians" to talk about "postmodern" or "cultural Marxism," no thanks to ignorant mouthpieces like Peterson and Ben Shapiro. There's a deep hatred of Marx and anything remotely derived from his work or Hegel because to many of them, Marx = communism, and communism = bad, without realizing that Marxism is about more than politics and economics. Therefore, everything related to the Frankfurt School and critical theory is also bad, because Marx bad.
That might be another explanation for the misinformation around Marxist and postmodernist theories that expands a little on the deeper source of Peterson's hate for postmodernism. It's not just his perceived impact of these philosophies, but because they're connected to a "deeper evil."
bingo! You really illuminated JP well. Nauseating and riddled with muddled thinking and actual thought-errors. Jarring to me and i only took two philosophy courses, one ethics
As an auditory learner I cannot stress how much I appreciate your videos, thank you!
Thank you for taking the time and the energy to research and share with us. Yes. It matters that public intellectuals are held responsible for sharing accurate information. Truth is the new Sensationalism. It seems sometimes people say stuff without first doing enough research before going public. And, there are soooo many NON- mealy apples out there.
Reminds me of Alex Jones
Whatever I love all these delusional comments 🙄
I'm curious if I'm missing something. I don't see how you prove this. I wrote a post just now discussing the problem with this idea
Socialism + Darwinism = Genocide.
Darwin is undeniable, so we must reject Socialism. The individual must be considered Holy for civilization to progress.
Peterson gained fame by not being able to properly read and understand legislation about pronouns, why would anyone think that he was capable of reading and understanding complex philosophy?
bingo!
What I want to know is why a clinical psychologist who clearly hasn't the knowledge to speak on the subject is hailed as some amazing lecturer. Every person I have seen or spoken to who actually studied philosophy points out how arse ways he has gotten it and how "post modernism" seems to be no more than, as you say, a straw man, while he tries to market repackaged Christian values that preserve those hierarchies at all costs.
Me thinks that if they hasn't already, there be anti semitic conspiracy theories incoming in the doctor's near future...
because he is touching on a real social problem, expressing pain about it in a way that was banned in the mainstream media before he got big, and offers the laziest, most hateful and stupidest possible explanation for that problem.
@@emilianosintarias7337 I dunno, for him the "real social problem" seems to be the criticism and attempts to move away from cis hetero normative patriarchy.
And don't get me started on the hypocrisy, have you seen Cass Eris break down his books? Dude can't even reference properly and he's supposed to be an academic.
@@PyroGiz The real thing is a crisis of meaning, alienation, and exploding identity politics. Conservatives are right to bring those up, they simply propose the very things that cause them, and want only other forms of identity politics. I am just as worried about Cass Eris and other left liberal bourgeois reactionaries who talk about cis heteronormative patriarchy as I am about Peterson. Well, I guess not really, I might be if I lived in the western world, but the average person in the east and south will never fall for that stuff. So I am more worried about Peterson's alliance of economic right wingers, nationalists, centrist liberals, traditionalists, and theocrats.
@@emilianosintarias7337 which is exactly what Petersen *is*. What he refers to as "identity politics" is people who have been disenfranchised advocating for their equality.
To take some heat out of this, what Petersen is effectively doing when he complains about "identity politics" is giving out about the inconvenience caused to him while the university he was teaching at installs wheelchair ramps for the sake of access for disabled people. These ramps are there solely to facilitate access for those using wheelchairs so that they too can access the building - but the work needed to install them means he has to use a different entrance that is not as close to his office, and that bugs the hell out of him.
If I have read you correctly you kinda hit on that yourself, as in, when it is *his* identity then that matters, when it is a woman, or a gay person or heaven forbid, a trans person? Well their identities are inconvenient and to him, take something from his position on the top.
As for Cass Eris, not sure why you referred to her as such, she's a cognitive psychologist and is looking at his works through that lens, including answering his contentions with actual science. It does appear like you dismissed her without even considering the context there and that seems a little silly.
@@PyroGiz No offense to you personally, but I have no time for these type of left wing politics which i consider to be right wing in the end.
"What he refers to as "identity politics" is people who have been disenfranchised advocating for their equality."
This is untrue most of the time I claim, he mostly complains about middle class woke politics and people who use words like center, space, identity, patriarchy etc. Though sometimes he simply and wrongly calls social struggles and progress and even marxism identity politics.
Identity politics is an elite project, even when it's an elite of color.
I don't take the idea of identity seriously as central to social issues at all, because i am a socialist, in the traditional sense. The idea that all politics are identity politics, that fights for civil rights of say Dubois is idpol, is BS of the highest order.
So I am not hinting that when it is his identity that has to adjust, he whines. I am saying his politics sneaks in some bits of idpol campaign (for some imagined anglo civilization, but not the people inside it). Though mostly it is just a kind of anti-politics in service of the bare bones of the status quo. And I don't think that it serves any particular gender or skin color fundamentally, meaning if Africa or Asia becomes the next "west" in 50 years and impose coffee plantations on Ohio, it will ultimately be fine with Peterson.
Cass Eris is a well behaved Peterson for the center left woke capitalist side, she simply can cite more but the citations are either nonsense, or sound ones you don't need her for. I have seen her work. Afro-pessimism, blackness studies, whiteness studies, intersectionality is supported only by itself and its investment in fields as citation mills and career rackets. It's totally conservative, untrue nonsense sold to a generation too young to have ever seen how social movements that win work.
But it sits in the background of her work as matter of fact reference points.
Anyone who thinks women are marginalized in the US/Canada, is just not in possession of basic facts. Oppressed? Sure, yes, all genders are. But women are marginalized relative to men? that's a pure performance of paternalism. It isn't going to survive analysis, we don't believe it we perform it.
Well. Most people following Peterson came to him through his Bible and psychology lectures. To bad most bible followers just want to hear what suits them. Which includes mostly a conservative mindset. And he knows this. Because one thing is for sure. Mr. Peterson isn't stupid. He taught psychology. He knows his audience. And as he would describe: as someone high in conscientiousness, it is no wonder he is more on the side of order rather than chaos. Also you can get people who are like this easier to pay for shit. Make people believe we are in chaos who love order. Tell them you are on the frontline of defeating that chaos, or even better, be humble, say you don't want to fight the fight, but you have to. Makes you even more heroic. Which is exactly what Peterson has done.
But this just shows how good he was at teaching. If you know his shit, you are capable of deconstructing him yourself. It's not like his knowledge on personality is bullshit.
I have just one thought about the way you described 'logocentrism'. As per my understanding, Derrida said that Logocentrism is Western philosophy’s greatest illusion. Given that each grounding concept-Plato’s Forms, Descartes’ cogito, structuralism’s innate structures of human consciousness, and so on-is itself a human concept and therefore a product of human language, and by the idea of difference of Derrida we can understand that it cannot be outside of the ambiguities of language. That is, no concept can be outside the dynamic, evolving, ideologically saturated operations of the language that produced it. One of the starting points of Derrida’s argument is that Derrida is talking about the beginning of beginning. Derrida’s argument is that there is nothing called an Origin; because there will always be an Origin of the origin and this idea of Origin emanates from the idea of center which Derrida calls the biggest illusion of Western Philosophy. Thus, there is no final point i.e., the transcendental signifier, and so, we assume the center to be the transcendental signifier, which again, now is decentered.
And another thing.. when Peterson talks about postmodernists' belief that biology does not exist he is probably hinting towards Judith Butler and their claim that there is no sex (as a biological entity) and thereby also extending the idea of Sexuality and Gender connecting from Lacan and Foucault.
And really the hierarchy thing he talks about I think he is talking about the concept of Hegemony of Gramsci (not Foucault) and the non-coercive force which operates to hegemonize some things and the other.
I think the reason he only cites these two philosophers and credits them for all the ideas he talks about is really because of the popularity of these two philosophers across the departments of humanities especially in the postcolonial worlds where perhaps because of the colonial lack the popularity of the later philosophers who 'really' critique them has not been reached (Like Haberman, Kristeva, Chomsky, Baudrillard among others)
I don not really know if I am wrong.. Please correct me if you can
You’re much more on point than the creator.
Yes, you're correct. I think Peterson is also using Lyotard in the way of reading literature, who was a primary postmodern thinker. He is talking about a whole tradition and, like you said, name drops Foucault and Derrida for familiarity rather than extensive critique of their works.
@@starfoxnesBasically you are saying that Peterson's line of argument is lazy, sloppy, shoddy, full of holes, jumps, false conclusions and overstated suggestions, lacks consistency and logic sequence. Which indeed is the case.
We all agree that Michael brought up the Gilmore Girls because he wants to be a Gilmore Girl, right?
it's true.
I dont understand how a person can speak with such confidence About things he has no idea about. And how do people not fact check anything they listen that has enough force in the rhetoric... sad.
Great analysis and thanks for summing up these things, made it a lot easier
I'm not sure if Jordan Peterson's confidence is a product of the Dunning-Kruger effect, that he knows just enough about philosophy to believe he understands postmodernism well but not enough to understand what he doesn't know, or sheer opportunism. He realizes he has an audience who has been spoon fed the idea that certain "left leaning" forces are a threat to all that they hold dear. He knows that he has a lot to gain if he can find a sophisticated way of telling these people that their fears are right and is therefore incentivized to find a way to turn things that right wingers tend to disdain (like modern philosophy) into a clear and present danger. I'm not sure how much he really understands about post-modernism but he seems to know what his audience wants to hear and that telling them that can get him what he wants.
People do that all the time, salesman, stephen seagal, trump... the real mystery is how a sensitive, empathetic person like Peterson can have this trait. But this combo made him rich, people believe in him because he seems real to lie.
There is basically two options: 1. He actually believes he is right, which might be possible, but would make him simply stupid or 2. He knows exactly how to influence a gullible audience of mostly young men through rhetorical means, no matter the facts, as long as they line up with the outdated worldview he's trying to push forward.
Might be 1 but personally I believe it's mainly reason 2.
@@laszlo161 Your conclusion lines up with my own version of Occam's razor which suggests that if there are multiple explanations of a person's behavior, the most cynical is most likely to be correct.
Imagine fact checking philosophy
Thanks for breaking down these videos, I benefitted from some of Peterson's principles, but I think it is important to fact check and contrast what he is saying. Keep going!
What makes him insidious is he spends a lot of time taking about personal care, and cleaning your room, and setting goals... And that pulls you in as it's all fundamental self help stuff that is not really good stuff.... But then he trots out all this regressive crap after, like sex rationing and other bizarre ideas like caring about people is wrong.
Peterson is a complete hack who uses a thesaurus to pretend he knows what he's talking about.
@@mattp6953 ehmm no?
@@mattp6953 Which is sad because there are many other self-help gurus that have better formats for the basic stuff like that without going into personal commentary on social and political issues.
@@marvin2678 yup
This is a good presentation of the kinds of mistakes and virtual-admissions-of-not-reading-the-text that Peterson often makes. His near total lack of curiosity or charity on the topics presented is a peculiar mix with his calm, patient self-presentation. I would love to see a follow up to crystalize the topic of postmodernism, postmodernity, and why folk like Peterson seem so motivated to link the former to social justice advocacy instead of the latter.
In one sense, the phenomena of Peterson's success is very post-modern. I very much doubt he could make it through a second or third year undergrad analytic philosophy class, and yet because he's brimming with all the surrogate indicators of the "powerful intellectual" - he's a suit-wearing old male professor, he speaks with a passionate yet exacting and stern manner etc. - people accept that what he says is cutting-edge scholarship.
In practice, while he has some niche expertise in personality psychology, you don't have to look far to find actual experts in all the fields he comments on - from Biblical studies to political science - not just disagreeing with him, but pointing out how his "profound" views are precisely the sort of thing one would think if they had only engaged with very specific sources.
This critique is addressed by JP long ago "Campus Indoctrination: The Parasitization of Myth" ua-cam.com/video/VJMy_BWD3CI/v-deo.html
@@mil401 interesting, could you recommend me some of those experts in those fields?
No isn't inaccurate at all he's completely right, try reading properly.
@@hornytoad1978 look at your reply contrasted to the OP and ask yourself "Am I out of my depth?"
I, and many others who have become frustrated with Petersons clear ignorance, really appreciate this video! He goes on podcasts with hosts who know nothing of philosophy to ever correct him so he’s never pulled up on the shit he chats
wrong pleese reserch this is just one debate ua-cam.com/video/qsHJ3LvUWTs/v-deo.html
@@mihael333 aha i love that you've linked to a video that wisecrack have already done an analysis on in which Peterson, again, outs himself as being utterly ignorant of the source material he references
Don't know how you can listen to so much JP and not go crazy....
Yo, now I didn't go to college, Military convinced me I'd be better carrying a weapon than speaking out against them. Then a poorer more foolish version of myself was convinced to sell my GI Bill back cause why would I ever need to go to College cause I was going to be a career military man. Fast forward 2 years later and I'm honorably medically discharged with no college and no college degree and I often think back on that and find it a bit depressing. So I say all that to give some context I guess. I've never read a philosophy text book, or really any of these guys published works. I've read some but mostly just find that I already by accident through life experience agreed with a lot of these philosophers. So I'm not going to talk about the specific work here cause I don't feel I have the expertise. What I will say is when I listen to your work and your philosophies, how they're presented on this channel I feel very engaged. I feel like you speak in a way that is both intelligent and articulate and I find I digest the material better. In truth occasionally I look up some of the people you mention and check out some of their stuff. Now with that said, maybe because I didn't even know JP existed until a few years ago and perhaps I'm too old now to be sucked in by his bullshit, I find his style for formulating an argument and articulating a point to be exhausting and uninteresting. I find myself tuning him out and so I end up dissecting it in real time and it never seems even reasonable to me. Anyways, just wanted to say Micheal, if I had gone to college I would've liked to take your course and I look forward very much to your videos, so thanks! @wisecrack
As a learned man but one naive to the tools of rhetoric and the body of work of philosophers, I really appreciate the work put into these and the way you cite your sources. Thank you for all of this.
Also, YOU'RE EATING THE WRONG KINDS OF APPLES, DUDE
Thought about that too. Most apples aren't mealy and American apples are generally pretty bad because of all the wax.
@@Adski975 hehe. Wax . . . I'm more concerned about the wax in people's ears. Too much preaching and not enough listening. It's going to lead to a huge problem in our society. We'd better enjoy it while it lasts. After that, all we'll have left is regret.
Socialism + Darwinism = Genocide.
Darwin is undeniable, so we must reject Socialism. The individual must be considered Holy for civilization to progress.
I noticed that almost everyone he ever cites is a Marxist. Which leads me to believe he has no idea what he's talking about
@@Adski975 tbh I always liked how the wax tastes
After coming off a semester in post-secondary where we specifically addressed postmodernism, I can confidently say, without being an expert on postmodernism, is that Peterson engages in a strawmaning of Marxism and Post-modernism. His descriptions are neither relatable nor are they even remotely accurate. It makes one wonder if he's actually read ANY of the text at all----have you "done the work, JP?" (though, we know he's not read any Marxism except for the Communist Manifesto).
This strawmaning makes it easy for him to attack them for something they aren't, and it's pure red meat for a fan base that also doesn't understand the theories he discusses but knows intimately their strawman versions.
Further, as a Canadian and still in post-secondary, I can assure you our universities are not chock full of Marxist professors, churning out legions of angry leftists. One Poli Sci course tried to teach us that communism and fascism are the same, and our prime minister is a leftist (he's a neoliberal capitalist). So it appears our uni's are actually producing the opposite of what Peterson claims.
Peterson, truly, is the lowest-hanging fruit.
I dated and lived with a philosopher for 5 or 6 years. I had to actually learn this kind of things just to hold my own in discussion/argument with her. She would utterly mangle him. We didn't make it as a couple, but I give her all the credit for the knowledge and interest in philosophy and debate of said philosophy.
Jordy Pordy has, down at the studs, an in-built assumption that the pre-lapserian society he imagines he lives in (or used to live in) is the proverbial "best of all possible worlds" and thus it is insulated from all crticism. Criticism in the sense of proposing different ways that the world could be. He likes his idea of the world very much, and seems to be convinced that people who disagree with him do so because they KNOW he is right secretly and are trying to hoodwink the sheeple into destroying themselves. I don't think he can conceive that a person could genuinely, in good faith, have different ideas about what they want the world to be. There is no room for more than one idea in Jordy's world. There is "the way things are and should be," and "various wrong corrupted versions of that way that some bad people invented to attack us (read: attack me personally)." That's the sense I get from listening to him.
it took a couple days but i watched the entire 3+ hour episode of some more news on jp and just, wow. it’s shocking how much he bloviates and yammers on, insisting that what he says is truth and that other ideas are “just wrong” but without providing any evidence as to why. it’s very sad that ppl just hear things they like and so support him despite him not even really saying anything except that poverty exists because it’s natural to have humans suffer economically and it’s basically their fault.
That was a remarkable expose on him. He's not just frustrating, he's a fraud plain and simple. He's a snake oil salesmen.
Some more news is fantastic
I think he has a lot of interesting things to say in terms of his own analysis and ideology. When talking about history or the various bogeymen that frighten him, he’s nonsensical, but his take on phenomenology and it’s effect on a good life is interesting. I can’t confirm or deny whether that take is novel, though.
@@jiffylou98 ??? bro hes nothing more then a bad self help christian using big words to sound smart. Nothing he says is unique when it comes to self help. The dude values "CLEANING UR ROOM" and "speak clearly" as some tenets of self help.
@@kimplin having read some self help he could be worse. At least he takes a pseudo intellectual tone instead of a spiritual mumbo jumbo tone with his chore lists.
And the moral of the story is don't go to psychiatrist if you want to learn about philosophy. It's a bit like going to a dentist to have your eye exam. Yes, he's doctor but he's not the right kind of doctor. Or in Peterson's case: yes, he's a professor but he's not the right kind of professor.
Best comment
Apparently he wasn't good at teaching his field either.
Capitalists: *describes in detail why capitalism is historically and philosophically horrible*
Capitalists: "And that's why communism is evil."
Yo, get Peterson on the channel for a debate about postmodernism or just a more general podcast, i'm sure he would be down for it.
I appreciate this deconstruction of Petersons flawed view of philosophical structures and views. When I originally discovered Peterson, I was like... wow, he makes a lot of good points (not just philosophy). The further I listened, the more inconsistencies and outright falsehoods he peddles.
He feels a lot like a pseudo-intellectual who has read some stuff but only has a base, at best, understanding of the works and then twists everything else to fit whatever narrative view he deems "important".
And that's the best intelectual the right has now
@@rodzeroher You wish.
@@rodzeroher it’s shows how dumb y’all are if that’s the smartest person you know, read Noam Chomsky
@@rozzgrey801 exactly, being a right winger and an intellectual is impossible
@@Vivi_9 Again, you only wish it were so. I used to be a left wing intellectual, but now I'm a right wing intellectual, since the left have collectively lost their minds to the religious dogma of identity politics.
Funny how Mr. Peterson is so firmly confident and determined about his strict opinions, largely based on cherry picking, while his usual reaction to any doubts about them is "well, it depends what you mean about it...", "Well, it's more sophisticated...". Not mentioning his best performance: you can't make projections about climate because "is about everything". What a snake oil salesman.
@Mike Fuller lol
reminds me how he was talking about the war on Ukraine to be honest. It just felt like im listening to a 13 year old trying to sound as deep as its physically possible lol.
But is intelligent than you
@@pil5357 well, it depends what you mean about "intelligent".
I respect Peterson's views on this subject more than the nay-sayers for one simple reason: Peterson confused the philosophy of Postmodernism with what it was describing, while the nay-sayers focus only on his interpretive errors while missing the point. I am always surprised by philosophers' inability to see philosophical theories at play in the world around them. For example, the philosophy student in this video claims that postmodernist thought is yesterday's news. No. Postmodernist thought has been hindered by postmodernism, which means it is more relevant than ever and will continue to be for many years.
For example, Peterson's point about biology does seem funky and is, literally, erroneous. However, his argument is valid viz. the effect of Pluralism and simulacra on the concept of biology (btw, he's talking about transgender people, mostly). I often wonder what Baudrillard would have to say about how we've relativized gender, creating simulacra of the binary gender framework (the map becomes the topography it is meant to represent).
There are other points that went over this UA-camr's head, but I don't really have the time. Maybe I will write a detailed paper on it since this comment is not going to do justice for people willing/intelligent enough to understand what I am trying (failing) to say.
TL;DR Jungian that he is, Peterson is trapped in the symbolic realm of postmodernism and is confusing it for the concrete philosophy and its philosophers. How this UA-camr didn't see that is beyond me.
Jordan Pererson's whole thing becomes so much simpler when you realize he's working backwards. He claims to criticize post-modernism, post-modernists, and philosophy and _thereby_ critique feminism, lgbtq+ politics, and critiques of patriarchy, colonialism, romanticization of the western canon, etc. In truth it's precisely the other way around: he _wants_ to criticize the politics of the left and particularly the will of anyone who isn't a well-off white man, and so he travels back in time and awkwardly attempts to graft all of the things he dislikes onto philosophers who can't argue back (on account of being dead) and a philosophy that's no longer in vogue. This way, he provides his audience the illusion of _philosophically_ owning the libs with facts and logic by attacking something that pretty much nobody cares to defend. He does not care about engaging with the philosophy, he only cares about it to the extent that he can mangle it into an attack on the modern left without actually engaging with their ideas and beliefs in an honest way. His supporters are convinced they're watching him deal heavy blows to the left, but all he's doing is shadowboxing.
Exactly, he is a reactionary. He believes society exists as a beautiful and righteous order, and problems are caused by insidious deviants who just aren't good enough to succeed, so they want to tear everything down. Any arguments that support this deviant behaviour or criticize the Order in any way are obviously being spread by treacherous foreigners in a conspiracy that has apparently infiltrated our society up the the mid-high levels or something. Scary stuff, but not really anything new.
Brilliant analysis. ❤
I think Jordan Peterson is talking about an amalgamation of a variety of different ideas which have weaved into each. He is definitely referring to something real. But post modernism is only a small aspect of this tapestry.
Deconstructionism is such an idealism-benign thought system... I think he probably experienced some frustrations in his youth where he couldn't fit in with the popular thought and the trends in academia at the time because he is naturally a more conservative person, and now he is just mashing up everything from the 70s, related or not, into some... ball of stuff that he hates. It's a weird mix of leftist movements, Marxist ideas, liberal ideas, as you said, postmodern philosophy, culture in academia, popular culture, and other vaguely related stuff... And all of it is postmodern Marxism and postmodern Marxists :)
the man has been having a very public midlife-crisis for some time now.
I love how Peterson, as a psychologist, trained by positivism, is going through a public mid-life crisis by talking about ideas that challenges the fundamental principles and constructs in modern day psychology
How can you say deconstructionism is an idealism-benign thought system? I would like to hear a genuine reason that doesn’t involve an insult or a personal dig.
@@toddaho9781 Deconstructivism is all about finding methods to gain a deeper understanding of a concept, ideal or idea not by comparison with something completely outside of it or by judging it against another idea, but from within itself, by going deeper into it, trying to find out where it comes from, what it consists of, how it has been described by its proponents, what it takes for granted, how it comes about, unfolds, describes or preserves itself, or how it might be in conflict with itself, has evolved or might evolve further, how it (re-)defines itself or refuses to be (re-) defined, what it stands in opposition to or what it is distinct from, a subset of, etc. It means looking at the consistencies and inconsistencies of a thing or thought or concept, on how it behaves towards itself, rather than making assumptions from the outside. The method is "benevolent" (figuratively speaking) by taking it seriously on its own terms rather than by thinking about how you (or others) think it "should" be (defined); think of a deconstructionist looking at an ideal much like an adult looking at a child and not thinking about what might be best for it from the hindsight perspective of a once-child-now-adult but rather trying to find out how the child thinks about itself. Not by actively asking it adult questions but by observing its child expressions.
Sounds like JP is butthurt because Foucault and Derrida had the gall to criticize his precious western society. Im sorry but, western society is not beyond criticism.
a perfect example of how you can be a smart intellectual but still have no idea what you are talking about even if you know how to string along big words together
I think he's a smart businessman, but an intellectual? Probably not. His sentences are full of psudo-intellectual gibberish that over complicate his arguments so that he gives off the appearance of intelligence. It's the kind of stuff you get marked down for on a college paper because it doesn't enhance your argument and just makes it worse to read.
He's the white Dr. Umar Johnson 🤣🤣
@@fangfactory1 this!
( And I have totally written THAT paper 😂💯)
@@imaginethat3026 😩💀😂💯
@@imaginethat3026 He is the Dr. Nick Riviera of grand universal theory doctrine, with "doctorates" in philosophy, linguistics, politology, history, sociology, cosmic evolution, biology, anthropology, ontology, and also a "honorary doctorate" in the propaedeutics of the scientific method, although this last one has been disputed as there is no academic record of the institution that supposedly gave it to him, the Nick Riviera Institute of Western Civilisation, Good Faith and Almost Everything.
I hardly know anything about these subjects. Use to listen a lot to Peterson as an informative source and because he is a very good narrator it didnt cross my mind that he didnt do his homework or only use part of his sources to strengthen his own ideas. Thanks for clearing this stuff up! :)
ps. By the way Michael, there are apples that are less meally. Try Royal Gala, Fuji or Junami for example. ;)
I want to add honeycrisp apples to your list. They're not mealy at all!!!
This channel is woke tho. Be mindful
@@leonardodealmeida5087 Woke apples? The horror.
@@leonardodealmeida5087 could you explain what you mean by 'woke'?
@@leonardodealmeida5087 seriously what do you JP fans mean when you say woke? What is the woke media? What do you really mean? Is it just code for something that would be inflammatory?
The problem with deconstructing Peterson's takes on anything is that you have to somehow determine what he's saying at every moment are based on either his biased bad faith takes, his feigned expertise hiding his absolute ignorance on the subject or the fact that he is very much locked into selling a brand to the alt-right. Before you can determine that for literally everything he says you cannot deconstruct what he is saying.
Oh my gawd this is so spot on 😂😂😂
So accurate it hurts. 😂😂😂
The problem with deconstruction is that it itself is fundamentally flawed. You are pretending to be unbiased when deconstructing something, but you cannot really be unbiased, only unconscious to your own bias, which you unwittingly project onto what you are studying. Post-modernism is just a way of kidding yourself that you're outside culture and can see it with unfailing objectivity.
He is the holy trinity of all of it at once.
He's essentially using a new label for othering reasonable people. "Post-modernist" now rests besides "groomers", "pedophiles", "leftists", "libtards", "liberals", "pinkos", and "commies". It's nothing more than a title for him to word vomit insults and wild suppositions at, while clarifying often that these people are to be associated with the left. As an actual philosopher, he sickens me. But I suppose the Radical Right need someone to pretend they know philosophy as well as multiple people who pretend they know how to reason and multiple people who pretend they would know how to run a country well.
Very specific on the gilmore girls fanfic. Sure you haven't been writing any drafts Michael?
Definitely never wrote fanfic about an alternate universe where Rory and Jess ended up together . . . yep, not me.
@@WisecrackEDU Again oddly specific, but going to have to take your word on that. For now.
I also like Jack Caputo's reading of Derrida, which is that deconstruction opens a concept (democracy, justice, hospitality, etc.) to its future (l'avenir). It is the recognition that any legal act of justice, for example, must necessarily appeal to singular justice, but justice is never completely present in general legal articulations. We can appeal to the ideal of democracy, but our current iterations of democracy are always somewhat undemocratic. A deconstruction of democracy opens the concept to its future, the democracy to come (la démocratie à venir). This is what drew me to Derrida's philosophy.
Thanks for this.
I love this. Caputo's work is what introduced me to Derrida and I've always found his reading of those concepts to be super helpful.
I’m down to clown with any JP debunk, but I gotta say, dude, imho you are WAY too generous to him. JP knows exactly what he’s doing.
Especially re the “Derrida and Foucault don’t believe in biology”thing. JP is pretty blatantly just making a quick transphobic jab, not looking at any real text that they produced.
Especially re the “Derrida and Foucault don’t believe in biology”thing. JP is pretty blatantly just making a quick transphobic jab, not looking at any real text that they produced.
No he doesn't. He doesn't know. He has cut off any investigation so as to keep himself from facing reality
@@ThePapaDragon
You need to look up the word "phobia". No one is fearful of disturbed people with unfortunate upbringings. They're scared of the indoctrination of minors.
I think Jordan merely claimed that Marxists don't believe in "biology" because of modern day Leftists generally being on the side of gender-queer individuals and denying that there is a strict gender-binary. He's been vocal enough about transpeople to let us know which side of that discussion he's on.
Thank goodness someone put this video together. I’ve been saying forever about Peterson “You keep using that word... I don’t think it means what you think it means...”
You should try to get an interview with him and flesh some of these ideas out
"Anything that challenges my Personal Mythology is Bad"-JP
Had you listened to him you would see that is clearly not the case.
@Lary Mcfart Anyone who has a different opinion from you must not have done their research. That's a very comforting delusion you're wallowing in, isn't it!
"...and I will reject any part of reality that says otherwise!"
@@larymcfart4034 “if you disagree with Jordan Peterson then you must not have listened to him!”
-any delusional JBP fan.
People like JP mischaracterizing postmodernism, justify a postmodernist critique of JP.
You said when you were an academic postmodernism was already unfashionable, do you have any resources that you’d recommend to get an overview of the post-postmodern academic discourse? (Which will of course be followed by post-post postmodernism etc.)
Would love to see a reply on this, I was curious about the same.
You can't really have that, because it would be too large imho (unless you're a philosopher or a student). I personally really like Baudrillard's hyper-reality [0], even though it's quite old and better criticism of post-structuralism have probably been done (i just don't have the time to read more than a book a monthm so i must make some choices).
The reason why i think Baudrillard is the first one to read for postmodern/poststructuralism criticismis because his hyper-reality theory is really on point imho. The last 4 years proved to me that philosophy can make models that predict the future as well as any model-based science
[0] Simulacra and Simulation
30 -40 hours of listening to Peterson!?! Thank you for sacrifice. Hopefully you watched something calming afterwards. I barely made it through this video without wanting to punch something.
I think of Peterson as the philosopher of the status quo. Meaning that he will argument anything without fundament (as viewed here) to legitimize any situation on which power is involved. Thats why he attacks any claim from any groups with the tag of identity group. I do think its important to highlight his errors in thinking like this, because of his huge influence.
your language tells me that you have no idea what you're doing by invoking the phrase "the status quo" to call Peterson the philosopher of the status quo is to fundamentally not understand philosophy and the culture that we are currently embedded in.
"Lobsters in captivity get aggressive when injected serotonin, therefore, human hierarchies are an unchangeable part of nature, and not malleable, made up social constructs, it's only natural that when the king catches a cough the peasants catch a cold, I'm wearing a tuxedo and I say a lot of 5 dollar words, I'm very smart and not at all a charlatan whose often proven wrong by his own sources upon reading beyond the hand picked quotations I provide."
@@TheRoyalWe762 Your language tells me you're too pretentious to admit you don't even know what the status quo is (his entire lobster quackery is basically a naturalist fallacy to justify the capitalist status quo, I mean, you must be one of those who think everybody is as stupid as themselves, if you really think your making anything resembling of a point).
Basically the right leaning mentality, it is down to the individuals to improve their situation, there is nothing wrong with the system.
@@baishihua Margareth Thatcher went as far as to say that society doesn't exist, it's just an optical illusion from looking at interconnected, individual personal interests.
That's not just right leaning mentality, it's straight up an American Psycho level take, or alternatively, a Bateman's revving chainsaw engine hot take.
Hey I have been contemplating an idea for a while and would love to hear your take on it.
It is the idea that rational discussion and factual evidence seems to be utterly ineffective when it comes to changing minds and conveying ideas these days.
I would love to see a video about why this might be and what we might be able to do about it in our day to day lives.
But would that video actually change anyone's mind? 😋
@@Hurricayne92 it would by nature counter the trend and at the same time provide real time examples ! 🎉😅
You might find something interesting in this video:
ua-cam.com/video/kI-un8rHP14/v-deo.html
Ooo i like this
@@blakebyles2159 Hey, thanks for sharing the video, it was an interesting watch. I would be careful with the ideas proposed there though. It brings memories of the Nazis use of eugenics as a justification for some of their atrocities.
I think a more appropriate video for the topic is this one I found on the channel you shared: ua-cam.com/video/zFfWv0EnHQw/v-deo.html&ab_channel=BigThink
Looking forward to a civil comment section.
It's not that bad so far . . . enjoy it while we can.
I have a thought that perhaps he's not directly asserting that those in power or that the majority of current society follow post-modernism directly, but rather he's doing as a psychologist would and, based on patterns being expressed by the subject and hence observed, classifying the behavior under a generally established category. So for a topic to be prevalent in modern society as, to para-phrase, that the individual is dead and that you are noticed by your societal or group identity, I don't believe he's saying that the General society practices Post-modernism (Or even knows what post-modernism is for that matter) but are rather exhibiting patterns that he would categorize as such.
Peterson had me fooled in the beginning when I thought he was a thinker and really knew what he was talking about. Well it’s like my boss once told me, let people keep talking, they’ll eventually tell you who they are.
A whilst ago I was really into Jordan. Patreon Backer, Maps of Meaning reader and completed his Future Authoring programme.
Looking back I cringe. I applied for his Scholarship which was a promise of his view of what an education should be. A month and a half long process (IQ tests, Video interviews and essays) and I got in.
So excited! Turns out this “scholarship” was a reduction of $0. Not a cent. This “scholarship” Peterson often tweeted about was merely a brand deal with zero input by him or any deductions made to students.
After that I can’t help but see him as the huckster it appears more are waking up to.