It irks me that the first things that show up when you search the word "Postmodernism" on UA-cam are a series of interviews with Jordan 🅱 Peterson instead of, well, stuff like this.
@@9206201 Peterson is either wilfully lying or his knowledge of philosophy is that of a child. Even his career in psychology is questionable. Look it up. He makes outrageous claims constantly with absolutely zero evidence or arguments to back them.
On JBP and postmodernism: As a guy writing about postmodern philosophy, I think we should admit that some of the problem is in our own backyard. While it is obvious that Peterson completely misunderstands what postmodernism is, this is also true of a lot of students who identify with it, who use it as a convenient excuse to relativize any fact which counters their dogmatic beliefs. Which is why I am very thankful that you're making these videos, as it is important both to those who too easily dismiss postmodernism because they don't understand it, and those who accept it too easily because they don't understand it.
lethalbee excellent point, but I don’t think it would stop that kind of behavior, certainly not completely. I agree with you, but that’s the difference between honest/good faith actors and dishonest/bad faith actors. Those acting in bad faith will use/misuse whatever they can to justify themselves, whether or not they understand the concept(s) they’re using for that justification. Imo the responsibility ultimately lies more with those misusing a concept (bc, you know, they can just educate themselves), though we should still reach out in good faith to correct/explain why such actions aren’t justified, when we see them. I experience this somewhat often, especially in the cesspool of social media, with folks who misuse/mistake leftist political concepts/philosophy to (attempt to) justify a given stance: sometimes it’s an honest mistake, but often it’s not. If I see it, I tend to respectfully call it out, and explain why/how they’re wrong, but if someone is a bad faith actor, they’re going to still keep doing it (as I’ve seen many times). I guess my only real point is that we can and should do what you’re suggesting, but it’s definitely not going to completely mitigate the problem bc many of the folks who you describe are bad faith actors, full stop, and they’ll misuse whatever concepts they find necessary to justify their bullshit. Cheers ✌🏼
The problem is probably selective postmodernism. Concepts such as race, gender and culture are without a doubt arbitrary social constructs. But that goes for all instances of those identities, even if they signify being part of an underprivileged group. Take gender for example. You can't reject the gender binary (because you don't believe in some sort of "essence", which defines being male and female) and at the same time introduce new identities, which define themselves purely by being distinct from traditional gender roles. Aren't you just "redistributing" male and female traits among these new identities and contrasting them with each other the same way femininity is sometimes defined as an inversion of masculinity? But maybe I'm just overthinking this.
This video gets Post-Modernism largely wrong. Actually, quite completely wrong. The guy talking sounds very young, 16 or something, so it is understandable. I suggest you watch a few lectures on Post-Modernism by Jordan Peterson. He has studied post-modernism for years, and it's ill effects on society, universities, for example via the suppression of free speech by a a bill in Canada called C-16. It's logical conclusion is essentially totalitarianism. Look some of those videos up, it'll actually change the way you view post-modernism.
I can't recommend Rick Roderick's lectures enough. He's very good at making difficult philosophical topics digestible, and his thick southern accent is just icing on the cake because it feels so ironic, I can't help but chuckle when he talks.
17:07 Being (dumb and) uneducated in philosophy, I paused at the end of the quote and just sat there for a minute. Observing the unprecedented bafflement, consternation, and disappointment arising in me. I rewinded back to check if I misheard something. I didn't. I started feeling dizziness. I started imagining adequate contexts and interpretations. I was kinda hesitant to continue watching. When I eventually did, the feeling of profound relief was so intense that I almost slid from my chair. You bloody well got me good. Being dead serious for such a long time finally paid off, huh?
Maybe we could use the term “postmodern philosophy” to refer to an era of philosophy rather than a type. Renaissance writers didn’t think of themselves as being part of the Renaissance (the term was coined after the fact) and they certainly didn’t organize the movement collaboratively, but organizing them into the same category is useful. We can point out similar themes, styles, their patterns of influence on one another, and so on.
I don't think you can really show that such commonality really exists though. On that scale post-modernism is still a relatively new thing and there are many philosophers alive who clearly reject it and I don't think you can say that they're just unwilling to admit it because they do clearly base their stuff on the principles that post-modernism rejects. I think you can do this with modernism since there were some commonalities that we can identify afterwards and maybe in the future we can very clearly say that this was when post-modernism started but that's something only time will tell. It's hard to know whether the philosophers who reject it are supposedly the last embers of modernism or this is just a debate within academia and who knows maybe in the future people won't even see it that way and instead see this entire period as a rough continuation of the same culture that has existed since the start of the industrial revolution.
Really grateful for your effort and the clarity of this overview. Can you please leave the visual aids, quotes, etc. up on the screen for about 5 seconds more? Many of their appearances are too short for me to take in.
The guy, who made the Animating Poststructuralism video, Christopher Bolton is actually a a professor in Williams College. He wrote a book "Interpenetrating Anime". It's an academic (!) book, and it's pretty amazing
As a possible answer to a connection between PoMo and Buddhism, people interested should learn about the Madhyamika interpretation of emptiness promoted by the ancient Buddhist philosophers Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti and still advanced by much of Tibetan Buddhist philosophy. They come to much the same conclusion, my understanding of the main distinctions may be that they apply the contextual and relative framework to all of reality rather than just language or ideology and they take the added step of avoiding a nihilistic worldview by affirming the lawful, orderly functioning of the relational conventional world. They even tie the "Two Truths" (conventional, or relative and ultimate, or things as they actually are) together and say that they rely on and enable each other.
Jamie Dorsey Nice addition. Ken Wilber has a lecture (in the “Integral Spirituality: A Cut Deeper” series) where he describes Nagarjuna as a progenitor of (aspects of) Postmodernism, and he explains Nagarjuna’s distinction of Emptiness, Form and Nondual that you are referring to here in other terms. He also talks about how many American Buddhists are interpreting Nondual realization erroneously, mistaking it as Postmodern relativity, thus throwing out Emptiness and Nondual realization altogether.
Thank you so much for this information. I've been pondering these questions for a while, especially the topic of relativism (and how it relates to Postmodernism), so this has both helped me, and the others that I will share this information with. I used to be dismissive of critical theory, ironically under the guise of supposed 'critical thinking' advocates, so it's nice to see such an eloquent presentation of ideas that I can share.
A lot of the problems, imho, come from the fact that there are three post-modernisms (which is itself a post-modernist kinda thing). There is the post-modernism of the philosophers. There is the post-modernism of the supporters of post-modernism. There is the post-modernism of the detractors of post-modernism. It's super important to understand the philosophers, as they crafted the actual arguments and ideas. However, it is the supporters of post-modernism that cause the ideology to act in the world. Therefore it is the supporters version that is, ultimately, most important. The detractors version is an attempt to mirror the supporters, and then claim that this mirror is exactly what the philosophers meant. So Jordan Peterson is crafting a version of post-modernism and then attributing it both to popular post-modernism followers and post-modern philosophers. My first interaction with post-modernism was in college. I was introduced to Sokol and the book "the science wars" in a philosophy of science class and was introduced to a number of post-modern sociologists in my sociology degree. I then accidentally took a conceptual art class (on writing) which is related to post-modernism. The problem that Sokol is calling out is that many of the sociologists who acted as post-modernists do have some absolutely crazy ideas similar to what Jordan Peterson calls out. My personal bugbear was the sociology reader (a selection of small articles) which came right out and said that some tribe's belief in reading entrails was equally valid to the western belief in object permanence and to claim otherwise is colonialist. I've read a number of the post-modern philosophers and, on the whole, they were on the money. But the problem is how these ideas are disseminated and implemented. I'm not sure how best to solve this.
Hi, thanks for sharing so much time trying to make things clear about postmodernism. I appreciate this and have been trying to make it accessible to Spanish speakers so I've added Spanish subs. Although I've only read secondary sources, I'm still puzzled about how much this has been misunderstood. I've also read the pieces the Sokal squared team has been writing during the last 3 years or so, and it truly strikes the layman as if traditional media have been advertising two very different -one would say incompatible- versions of postmodernism. Of course, very few people will take the time to try and understand beyond the surface, but it seems even knowledgable people in literary theory and philosophy have different/opposed takes on the basic tenets. As a professional biologist I've seen actual denialism and I do understand it must be an oversimplification. The political and social understanding of this branch of philosophy is sooo poorly understood as Darwinian evolution, to be honest. We're basically stuck with the Postmodern Condition, and to many people that means the can dismiss both thick books like the ones you quote and thick proof from -you name which branch of the natural sciences! One is past the time when we'd expect people to get rid of things like Social Darwinism (social survival of the fittest in a capitalist context) or Lysenkoism (denialism of genetics in a forcefully "egalitarian" society), but those interpretations remain in full force today. One gathers that well, politics and social determinants of knowledge do have a tremedous impact in how most people perceive and act upon beliefs, narratives, and several sources of knowledge in general.
This was excellent, thank you! I’m still a beginner with PoMo/poststructuralism/etc, but I’d like to add a couple sources I found very useful for understanding these concepts/thinkers: first, I second the notion to listen to *Rick Roderick’s* lectures (I’d recommend all of them, not just the PoMo and Nietzsche lectures), second, the podcast *“Philosophize This!”* has spent the whole of 2018 working its way through structuralist, poststructuralist and PoMo thinkers and has been invaluable in helping me understand many key concepts/thinkers (I suggest listening to every single episode of 2018, in order, as they build off one another), and finally, I would highly recommend the *Nov. 16th RevLeft Radio podcast episode, “Post-Structuralism, Postmodernism, and...Metamodernism?”,* in which philosopher Austin Hayden Smidt joins Brett (RevLeft, The Guillotine) to talk about these topics and their intersection with leftist politics and Marxism (also, I recommend Austin’s podcast “Owls At Dawn”, an excellent philosophy podcast). Hopefully, this is helpful to someone. For me, these have all been excellent sources for getting my feet wet with these concepts, which I had previously avoided based on a perceived contradiction between leftist politics and PoMo. Granted, there is some contradiction, and I have found myself rejecting some PoMo/PoStruct concepts, but there’s a lot of insight to be found with many of these thinkers, even when you don’t agree with their conclusions, and I gotta say, I think leftists would do well to incorporate some of the ideas of PoMo into their theory, even if you’re still a Marxist at the end of the day... ❤️🏴♾
You are not supposed to understand Post Modernism. There is no one right way any interpretation is as good as any other. Clearly you do not understand Post Modernism is you think you understand it and missed the entire point of this analysis.
In response to the Q. at 23:31 about postmodernism and religion . There is a school of theological thought in Christianity called Radical Orthodoxy that has described it's project as "Postmodern Critical Augustinianism" it engages constructively with postmodern & poststructuralist philosophies and has many similar critiques of modern and positivist foundationalisms. They also tend to be Socialists ;) not that those are inherently related (sorry Mr. Hicks) There are plenty others too but this is one I'm most familiar with.
The Modern Hermeticist RIP indeed... His lectures were what turned me on to wanting to explore PoMo; I love all of his lectures, really. I recently downloaded a .pdf of a book he wrote on Habermas in the late 80s, who I believe he did his dissertation on. I’m definitely excited to dig into that, bc I’ve watched his lectures so many times, and need more Rick! ✌🏼
Philosophy and the mirror of nature is a fantastic book and I'm happy to see Rorty talked about in this video. I feel odd being analytic that reads Heidegger, Dogen, and Pragmatism. Oh well.
I'm in grad school and have heard academics (historians not philosophers or sociologist) refer to themselves as postmodernists, and criticize other older academics for not identifying as such. I'm not sure how to quantify how the term is always used, but its probably closer to 50/50 between those who identify as POMO and those who don't but approach their academic discipline from that perspective. Just a thought. Keep up the good work.
Hi there, I'm writing this comment as a sort of bread crumb for those following a similar path to mine. My first introduction to post-modernism was through Jordan Peterson, and I largely spent the next year believing what he had to say about it and assumed that it was a correct summary. Over time however, I began to poke holes in his theory because the inconsistencies and the rabid nature of his quick rise began to set alarm bells off in my head, I hate cultish behaviour. After completely extricating myself from the Peterson worldview which more properly is Jungian worldview, I began to see his limits as perhaps a useful clinical psychologist for his patients but his extension and understanding of philosophy, economics, and science in general is largely invalid. Since this time I have begun to invest what little free time I have learning what post-modernism really is, but also trying to understand the intellectual origins of claims like the one's you have show tounge in cheek "the while phallo logism influences white sciece" etc. because these are used by real people in all seriousness. I am not a White Man, but I find the continuous reference to white male privilege in every situation even when it is unwarranted odd. Anyway I want to thank you for making these videos, as they will help me continue my journey.
In the next video, could you speak about the relation between postmodern philosophy and postmodern art? It's a tricky topic to talk about because the uses of the term postmodern in both contexts is similar at first glance, but also have important distinctions. Namely in terms of how both relate to the term modernism. It gets confusing because, in philosophy, modernist and postmodernist mean two entirely distinct things. Modernist means relating to the Enlightenment and its legacy, while postmodernist means relating to a critique of certain absolutist modes of Enlightenment thought. While in the arts, modernist and postmodernist actually sort of mean the same thing. By which I mean, postmodern art and literature is a continuation and elaboration upon certain artistic and literary tropes which came from modernism. They're both concerned with the subjective experience of the individual in response to industrial capitalist society. Much of what's called modernist literature and poetry (e.g. Joyce, Conrad, Pound, Elliot, Beckett, Bergman) have all the traits now associated with postmodernism: fragmentation, subjective experience prioritised over objective knowledge, self-referentiality, intertextuality, and plurality in meaning. In the arts, postmodernism might be better called "late modernism", as some critics have suggested.
Awesome video man! Ever since your critics on Jorden Peterson, I began taking an interest more in learning Postmodernism, Post-structuralism, and Marxism a little more despite my disagreements with it. I especially as a fan of Nietzsche, enjoy finding that much of his work became an inspiration aside from Existential Nihilism. Speaking of Nietzsche, will you cover him on his philosophy considering much of his work has influence philosophy in the 20th century and today still?
I'd love to do a video on Nietzsche in the future. I'll just have to wait until I think of a unique way of applying him to some piece of pop culture, since he's been talked about so much by everyone already.
Gonzo Lewd Nietzsche was more concern about the state nihilism in which he was worried it would turn people to a passive state of being. Those who lose their creativity and self-denying of life which he calls the last man in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. On the other hand someone in the state of nihilism can become active and redefine their life and values to make a meaning for themselves which he calls the Übermensch. Nihilism is a way point stage.
It's funny that Jordan Peterson claims to be influenced by Nietzsche. Because Foucault and Deleuze, two of the philosophers most commonly associated with his prime hatred, postmodernism, were themselves die-hard Nietzscheans.
Voltairine Kropotkin yeah it’s funny and kinda weird at the same time. If he took the time learning about it (or maybe he’s intentionally vilifying it and he knows exactly what Postmodernism is) he probably would find some aspects to that would help his ideas. Like when he talks about Carl Yung and Archetypes.
On topic of postmodernism and religion: I think the painter and occult writer Austin Osman Spare, who inspired chaos magic, was pretty postmodern and had the same idea about binaries as derrida. But I do not know if that guy is counted as postmodern.
How do modern linguists tend to feel about concepts from structuralism and post structuralism? I’ve been skimming the Wikipedia page on linguistics, but am having a little trouble getting a clear read on it. It mentions that generativists consider Saussure to have been refuted by Chomsky, but it doesn’t exactly mention what the points of contention were or how they were refuted, and then everything after that seems to mostly be about different schools of thought arguing over whether or not there is an innate universal grammar and what the best ways to represent syntax in a formalized way are, which seems to almost be an entirely different project all together from the structuralists and post structuralists rather than something running counter to them.
good for you little man. Post Modernism will help you immensely sit in your bedroom and not do anything with your life. if anything postmodernism is environmentally friendly as it reduces people's carbon foot print.
Jordan Peterson is a heroic human being at a time when we desperately need same. His psychology competence is unquestionable. He does not present himself as a philosophical expert as he grew up in the materialist maelstrom that still disintegrates the west. I think he is addressing the the philosophical fallout of the western cult very well. I found sanity in Aquinas and Thomism as well of course in the Catholic church which is sanity on stilts. We derive our failing notion of human rights from 12th century canon law from which natural law proceeds. I do not fancy myself an expert on postmodernism but I'm not thrilled with what I see in its absence of Final Causality. The end or purpose of things. Love.
The thing is both "left" and "right" political parties seem to subscribe to some form of essentialism, it's just they disagree on the essence and they don't apply the philosophy to all social constructions. Gender, for instance, is often displayed as binary on the right, and on the left, it is sometimes displayed as not binary. But they both still agree that there is some Thing that makes a man a man and a woman a woman.
For the question on postmodernism and religion, I would recommend anything by John D. Caputo, especially his book 'The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion'.
I think William James’ pragmatist approach to religions that he spells out in “Varieties of Religious Experience” would serve postmodernists well in an analysis of religion
oh and isn't it funny how the right has just caught up with theories that are literally 40 years old and now we have to respond as if it was brand new information... hey kids, have you heard about that hip new thing called poststructuralism? i mean if it wasn't for Zizek, Jordan Peterson would literally argue only with dead philosophers. (not a critique of you making that video... just think it's interesting to see how incredibly long it takes for some theories to become widely known)
Albert Sirup, that’s kind of a ridiculous statement. Peterson is arguing with people who still entertain dumbed down versions of post modernism and have used it to back their simplistic political views. He just attacks their readings of their sources.
@@oaxacachaka But he makes it appear as if he is directly referring to the theories of people like Foucault instead of just arguing with people who misread Foucault. For him "postmodern neomarxism" is synonymous with poststructuralism (plus additional, explicitely marxist theorists like Marcuse who he puts under the same label, despite the radical differences between a postructuralist and a Frankfurt School / critical theory approach). Please guide me to a lecture where Peterson is actually defending Foucault or Marcuse or Derrida against those people who misunderstand them? Or just a lecture where he is actually engaging with the theory of poststructuralism without linking it to the projected downfall of western rationalism?
Albert Sirup I’m not sure there are “misreadings” except in relation to other readings. It could be that Peterson has the same way of reading them as the people he is arguing against. I don’t really like that he lumps post modernists in with the Frankfurt school. As Chuck Philosophy says, post modernists are all over the place . Even the Frankfurt school members differ on certain points. Really Peterson seems to take issues with how modern Marxism is expressing itself. He should just call it that. But these “neoMarxists” will use Foucualt’s concept of normative behavior and the types of social pressure used to enforce it to then make the conclusion that norms are solely oppressive by nature. This is then labeled as “bad” and something that must be overthrown. At this point things have shifted into a Marxist narrative. So that’s what Peterson is arguing against. It is a train of logic that starts with Foucault and then ends in a kind of Marxian dialectic. I don’t think Foucault made any really hard claims about overthrowing all power structures leading to some progressive Utopia as is apparently advocated by modern leftists. I think he was more on the lines of “this is how it is and it kind of sucks”.
@@jblue1622 they haven't met in person (as far as i know) but they have both responded to arguments of the other... but i guess it was more zizek criticizing peterson than the other way around.
29:30 there's actually quite a lot of theoretical work done under the name of postmodern theology, which includes everything from the theological implications of the death of god to a panentheist understanding of divinity, all the way to how postmodernism can lead the way to more traditional and orthodox understandings of divinity
What you are saying about "structuralism" and "post-structuralism" rings true with what I have found on my journey looking into neuroscience: either in terms of trying to understand and isolate the relevence of biological differences, and/or, in terms of the effect of the more abstract meanings you discuss in this video (for example "dreams" don't occur in isolation from the biological workings of our brain and body... ...or scientific bias relating to cultural meanings of such states as "anxiety" or "fear"). Also self-correcting markets/economies xP
Thank you for making these videos which correctly explain what the philosophical positions. There is just too much misrepresentation of ideas in popular culture.
I don't know that you can call atomism a simple narrative. It has implications through chemistry and biology obviously but also psychology and perhaps even sociology. The way that a serotonin molecule interacts with its receptors is determined by the atomic structure of both the molecule and the receptor. And biological -> chemical -> physical underpinnings of psychology have inexorable if diffuse consequences for sociology.
JBP brought me here. In my attempt to better understand his concepts, I wanted to take a deeper look into postmodernism and what I found was not what was characterized by much of normative culture. UA-cam has very little in the way of nuanced videos on the subject and I am looking forward to your ideas on pomo philosophy. I do give JBP charity in that the signified he uses, is a descriptor for a certain type of activist or culture. When he references postmodernism, it is not the philosophy he's implying, it's the 2nd order interpretation of the theories by certain individuals. It's a reference to the culture of pomo which has been co-opted by some groups to reify their stance on key issues. It's too bad that he demonizes individual philosophers like Derrida, Foucault but exalts others like Khun. But I guess it's to be expected when there such a variety of ideas enveloped in the term postmodernism. I'm looking forward to your nuanced video on the real principles of pomo. Something that will knock the grin of Hicks' face.
S T Exactly, OP is bending over backwards to save Peterson. He has an ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest understanding of postmodernism. He always has. And sure, you can make tenuous connections to modern leftist activists and some kind of second order postmodernism. But that's a weaker position from the claims Peterson starts with, much less does it justify the public boogeyman he's made it into. I mean, shit, I can say TinyBuddha is ninth order Moldbug. It's a connection but a pretty tenuous/distant one. You can make that kind of connection pretty easily with all sorts of things. Again, Peterson is shallow on this, it's irresponsible carry on about this, and there's no good reason to extend him charity here.
How about a distinction between the bad argumentation propelled by laymen Phil 101 conceptions of postmodernism and the larger framing of postmodernist thought. Need a label for that. Because there is some truth to criticisms regarding the abuse of postmodernist thought in broad society or colloquial discussions (whether it is recognized in this criticism as a kind of abusive half-assed implementation of postmodernist framing or not).
One may look at it like this: post-modernism is not a type of philosophy but a state of things, zeitgeist. It comes after the modernism whose trait is metalurgy or the production of heavy machinery, while the postmodern trait is semiurgy, the production of the meaning.
Do you have a Patreon? Because honestly I would pay money for these videos and more. For years I’ve been trying to find someone to explain postmodernism as thoroughly as you have done here.
Thanks for the Anti Oedipus reference. I always loved Foucault’s preface in that book. It’s absolutely brilliant and has quite the revolutionary thrust.
Morality versus Ethics. It seems that "Morality" is something internal and subjective. And so Moralist thinking lends itself to an essentialist mindset. Whereas "Ethics" is externally imposed (or "suggested" as you say) and objective (based on "experiment" as you said). And so Ethical thinking lends itself to an existentialist mindset. This seems all very simple the way I've just described it. But results in a quagmire when concerning "gender identity" of transgender people. For example, how are we to think about the "bed nucleus of the stria terminalis" (hypothesized as playing a role in gender identity as evidence suggests this part of the brain is sexually dimorphic and limited evidence suggests that it is of the same size in transgender individuals as the sex they identify with) - it's role in the metabolism of the human body (relevant to the differences in proportion of body fat in healthy men and women) which has speculated links to stress responses and even learning behaviour. Looking at the issue through the lens of either "morality" or "Ethics" with the predisposition that the two are separate in the way I have just described? You get existentialists perhaps denying gender identity even exists (in the case of TERFs), or, essentialists either denying a person can be transgender (the view that gender and sex are essential to each other) or that the demands of feminists for gender equality are unachieveable (otherwise they would essenitially already have been achieved) - basically in reality a combination of all of these reactions happens while a transgender person is helpless to pray the gay away to be able to satifisfy the cognitive gaps.
@@oaxacachaka While criticizing Derrida, JBP (with his need for meta-narratives) seems somewhat similar to Derrida to me. I must say Derrida is over my reach so i could be wrong.
You should’ve noted that one of Derrida’s close friends was a monk and theologian, John Caputo. Derrida commended Caputo on his analysis of his work. Caputo claims Derrida was always a little bit religious, as many secular Jews are.
- just one follow up question, by 'the entropy of the universe' i wasn't just referring to the truism 'everything is made of atoms' but the narrative that everything in the universe is driven by a constant entropic breaking down of simplicity -> complexity - which i think would qualify as a grand-narrative, no? it is often used a framework for understanding history, culture, science, blah blah blah
I love your vids, so concise and yet precise, very interesting. About all the complex philosophical terminology, do you have any advice on some dictionnary to compile it all ? As pretty much a complete neophyte I'd gladly have one
3:00 And a similar case could be made against the use of the term "string theorist" in physics, too, which has become somewhat of its own variegated postmodern community, in which the modern standard of direct experimental evidence-sometimes even conceptual falsifiability-are set aside as second-rate constraints on the awesomeness of high abstrusification. For those situated on the inside, string theorists come in every flavour of ice cream; for those on the outside, barely a single flavour can be reliably distinguished without four to eight years of arduous study. Those on the outside therefore end up lumping all the string theorists together out of pure self-defense.
Mmmm... even if one can find some quotations of postmodern philosophers saying that they do not stand for relativization, in practice they contradict themselves. Derrida's deconstruction and the idea that every antithesis has value and should be considered is useless in practice and only causes anxiety. Science, technology and society's progress is based on this principle: that there are better ideas (or descriptions of the universe) than others and that those that survive is because they're better supported by evidence. If I find a value on Derrida's work is that he warned about not being too attached to an idea to the point of indoctrination, but that is exactly what theories that are being build on the basis of postmodernist philosophy, like intersectional feminism, are doing. It is not a mere coincidence that these type of conspiracy theories, power theories, are the ones that are most influenced by postmodernists, they laid the groundwork for relativism.
Derrida's claim isn't so much that both poles of a binary have (equal) value, it's not a normative claim - it's moreso that every signifier is contaminated by/dependant on its opposite. Intersectional feminism isn't postmodern, and has also been criticized by certain postmodern theorists.
And relativism isn't a very philosophically meaningful term without specification. Nor have I seen any conspiracy theories proposed by postmodernists. The kind of epistemological relativism that pomos are often accused of is more like something the sophists argued at the very beginning of Western philosophy.
"If the relation between the signifier and the signified arbitrary, how is the sign's (signifiers') 'meaning' determined?" Why would the 'meaning' of the sign be different from the thing it signifies? Why should we be concerned about 'meanings' (in this sense) at all?
It's defined by its relationship to other signs. de Saussure identified two major such relationships: paradigmatic and syntagmatic. Syntagmatic relationships are the relationships between the signs that are present. It is why "the cat sat on the mat" and "the mat sat on the cat" have completely different meanings despite having exactly the same signs (words) in them. A paradigmatic sign relationship is trickier: a sign has a paradigmatic relationship between every other sign that can be substituted by it. "cat" can be said to have a paradigmatic relationship with "dog" (and potentially with any other animal, or even any other noun) in the above sentences. Post-structuralist thought begins with the problems that arise when you take the claim "signs are defined by their relationship to other signs" to its limit. Derrida really goes to town on identifying those problems, I think.
I have an engineering design background. "Deconstruction" sounds like a similar approach to "reverse engineering": for example when looking at the Grenfell Tower disaster - in-which flammable cladding was used to refurbish the building to make it look nicer, but resulting in the tower burning down in an uncontrollable fire which spread rapidly. A common sense design process would involve satisfying customers needs - if the customer is the Grenfell residents then their safety should be priority. However the profits of those who paid for the refurbishment of the building appeared to trump the safety of the residents - and yet the common sense design process (following safety rules and building codes) would still have to be used. Reverse Engineering would reveal the faulty process that would have been used by starting with the end product rather than the refurbishers professed intentions - like a detective looking at a crime scence. We observe a burnt out building with many lives lost and the materials that building was made of and the time lines of construction - i.e. the recent refurbishment. And concluding highly flammable cladding on the outside of the building was used - meaning the use of such cheap flammable material was the starting point as a priority for the refurbishment... i.e. we've already established that the needs of the residents (their safety and well being) were not a priority. That the reburbishers used a "backwards bullshit" process - which turned out to be a programmable spreadsheet of building codes that they used to fudge the safety of what they were doing by either adjusting the margin of error to suit the outcome they wanted and/or repeating models upon models until the margin of error stacked up to appear to give a lot more safety than there actually was. While at the same time as removing safety approval of materials from an independant body - such as the fire brigade (who would later have to risk their lives putting out the fire) - as a precedure in building planning regulations.
@@bodbn I think you mean "subjectivism" rather than "relativism". I don't want to be harsh - but I studied Engineering up to a masters level, so unless you are similarly qualified, I'd appreaciate it if you didn't tell me what qualifies as engineering and what doesn't if that's okay.
@@thisaccountisdead9060 well I have a degree in software engineering and no I don't mean subjectivism I mean relativism. There is no right way or wrong way to interpret something. It's not that difficult to understand. They saw taking a relativistic stance as the first step to deconstructing systems of power as they saw power being the means through which truth was controlled. An engineer doesn't assess how a bridge collapsed by assuming one interpretation of the collapse is as good as any other. What the hell kind of engineer would operate in such a fashion.
@@bodbn Engineering is not about truth in the philosophical sense. Engineering (and science) is based on using abductive or inductive reasoning to formulate predictive models. That is invalid by the rules of philosophy (at least philosophy 101). We're all about probabilities, and philosophers (the vast majority at least) are about certainties and absolutes. Theory of Computation (and some other maths) get a bit trickier. Symbolic systems with absolute truths within the context of the system... which also happen to correspond to reality astonishingly well. That correspondence and the logical rules themselves are the products of induction though... So some sort of absolute "truth" is debatable at best. The fact that they are Incredibly useful isn't up for debate though ;) Or we could just ignore the philosophers and use plain language.
A question to the creator; "No system is ever fully complete or self-sufficient" (13:14).... is this a philosophical/logical theorem or just a generic statement. If it is indeed a philosophical known idea I would really appreciate some references/reading materials on this.
Pretty much my only reference for your accent is the voice samples used on Mylo's 2004 album "destroy rock & roll", which I'd view as an endearing positive xD ... enjoying your video content! - it's great stuff
Would also take a look at "Continental Philosophy: a Critical Approach" by W. R. Schroeder. Oversimplifies somewhat, but it's definitely worth reading if you're new to this stuff.
Rick Roderick also has a lecture series on “Philosophy and Human Values”, which is also available on UA-cam. It was the first lecture series he gave for The Teaching Company. So in total there are three popular lecture series: see rickroderick.org/.
I know the computer voice is a joke about pronunciation but I cannot understand a single thing the computer voice says. I would much rather have a ‘bad’ pronunciation that I can recognise than a garbled, magnetic buzz that I can’t really register.
Relativism about truth really is, strictly speaking, more similar to coherent ism. Truth can exist, but it is relative to the group, culture, institution, paradigm, etc. it is not nihilism about truth or a claim that all truths are true (and can be held together).
Great video, this certainly seems like a good way of introducing people to postmodernism and clearing up misconceptions about it. Unfortunately I don't feel like all my questions were answered but I hope that they will be in the next parts. Lastly I must point out that I think that the distinction between ethics and morality is nonsense, but I suppose that this is an issue I have with those postmodernists who make this distiction rather than this video in particular.
It irks me that the first things that show up when you search the word "Postmodernism" on UA-cam are a series of interviews with Jordan 🅱 Peterson instead of, well, stuff like this.
why? genuinely asking
@@9206201 because Peterson has no clue what he is talking about
@@9206201 Peterson is either wilfully lying or his knowledge of philosophy is that of a child. Even his career in psychology is questionable. Look it up. He makes outrageous claims constantly with absolutely zero evidence or arguments to back them.
@@nihilnovum5034 Like what?
So i'm not arguing either side but in some sense "mission accomplished"
On JBP and postmodernism: As a guy writing about postmodern philosophy, I think we should admit that some of the problem is in our own backyard. While it is obvious that Peterson completely misunderstands what postmodernism is, this is also true of a lot of students who identify with it, who use it as a convenient excuse to relativize any fact which counters their dogmatic beliefs. Which is why I am very thankful that you're making these videos, as it is important both to those who too easily dismiss postmodernism because they don't understand it, and those who accept it too easily because they don't understand it.
lethalbee this exactly
lethalbee excellent point, but I don’t think it would stop that kind of behavior, certainly not completely. I agree with you, but that’s the difference between honest/good faith actors and dishonest/bad faith actors. Those acting in bad faith will use/misuse whatever they can to justify themselves, whether or not they understand the concept(s) they’re using for that justification. Imo the responsibility ultimately lies more with those misusing a concept (bc, you know, they can just educate themselves), though we should still reach out in good faith to correct/explain why such actions aren’t justified, when we see them.
I experience this somewhat often, especially in the cesspool of social media, with folks who misuse/mistake leftist political concepts/philosophy to (attempt to) justify a given stance: sometimes it’s an honest mistake, but often it’s not. If I see it, I tend to respectfully call it out, and explain why/how they’re wrong, but if someone is a bad faith actor, they’re going to still keep doing it (as I’ve seen many times). I guess my only real point is that we can and should do what you’re suggesting, but it’s definitely not going to completely mitigate the problem bc many of the folks who you describe are bad faith actors, full stop, and they’ll misuse whatever concepts they find necessary to justify their bullshit. Cheers ✌🏼
Agree 100%
@lethalbee Great point!
The problem is probably selective postmodernism. Concepts such as race, gender and culture are without a doubt arbitrary social constructs. But that goes for all instances of those identities, even if they signify being part of an underprivileged group.
Take gender for example. You can't reject the gender binary (because you don't believe in some sort of "essence", which defines being male and female) and at the same time introduce new identities, which define themselves purely by being distinct from traditional gender roles. Aren't you just "redistributing" male and female traits among these new identities and contrasting them with each other the same way femininity is sometimes defined as an inversion of masculinity? But maybe I'm just overthinking this.
A three-part Postmodernism FAQ. I can see this quickly becoming an essential resource in online discussions.
I can see how it will surely become an often quoted source in any "discussions" with JBP fans (facepalm
Joseph Storey Lmaooo
This video gets Post-Modernism largely wrong. Actually, quite completely wrong. The guy talking sounds very young, 16 or something, so it is understandable. I suggest you watch a few lectures on Post-Modernism by Jordan Peterson. He has studied post-modernism for years, and it's ill effects on society, universities, for example via the suppression of free speech by a a bill in Canada called C-16. It's logical conclusion is essentially totalitarianism. Look some of those videos up, it'll actually change the way you view post-modernism.
sergio, you're memeing, right?
@@gorgolbutt shitty bait
"The purpose of a human being is excellence"
Huh, I guess Bill and Ted really were philosophers.
Be excellent to each other.
_Whoa!_
Like dust in the wind
They learned a lot from that So Crates dude
excellentttt
I can't recommend Rick Roderick's lectures enough. He's very good at making difficult philosophical topics digestible, and his thick southern accent is just icing on the cake because it feels so ironic, I can't help but chuckle when he talks.
Wow. That was the most appealing intro to pomo I've seen (and heard). Serious props.
Postmodernity should be the term to refer to the "time period" or "condition" we're in. Not -ism, but -ity.
Really pleased that you answered my question first and as expected, your response was very insightful. Thank you
It's the 27th, I was so close to finishing No Nut November but this video ruined it. I should have known to not click videos about postmodernism.
I don't think you realize how much it made me smile to see you leave this comment on this video when and how you did. Love your stuff.
I'm sure your no sex decade is not in danger.
@@bodbn ouuchhhh
17:07
Being (dumb and) uneducated in philosophy, I paused at the end of the quote and just sat there for a minute. Observing the unprecedented bafflement, consternation, and disappointment arising in me.
I rewinded back to check if I misheard something. I didn't. I started feeling dizziness. I started imagining adequate contexts and interpretations. I was kinda hesitant to continue watching.
When I eventually did, the feeling of profound relief was so intense that I almost slid from my chair.
You bloody well got me good. Being dead serious for such a long time finally paid off, huh?
Maybe we could use the term “postmodern philosophy” to refer to an era of philosophy rather than a type. Renaissance writers didn’t think of themselves as being part of the Renaissance (the term was coined after the fact) and they certainly didn’t organize the movement collaboratively, but organizing them into the same category is useful. We can point out similar themes, styles, their patterns of influence on one another, and so on.
I don't think you can really show that such commonality really exists though. On that scale post-modernism is still a relatively new thing and there are many philosophers alive who clearly reject it and I don't think you can say that they're just unwilling to admit it because they do clearly base their stuff on the principles that post-modernism rejects. I think you can do this with modernism since there were some commonalities that we can identify afterwards and maybe in the future we can very clearly say that this was when post-modernism started but that's something only time will tell. It's hard to know whether the philosophers who reject it are supposedly the last embers of modernism or this is just a debate within academia and who knows maybe in the future people won't even see it that way and instead see this entire period as a rough continuation of the same culture that has existed since the start of the industrial revolution.
Really grateful for your effort and the clarity of this overview.
Can you please leave the visual aids, quotes, etc. up on the screen for about 5 seconds more? Many of their appearances are too short for me to take in.
I got in the habit of to freeze, scroll back 10 seconds, replay.
The guy, who made the Animating Poststructuralism video, Christopher Bolton is actually a a professor in Williams College. He wrote a book "Interpenetrating Anime". It's an academic (!) book, and it's pretty amazing
T H I S I S N O T A PERFECT WORLD
in a perfect world, men like me should not exist.
In a perfect world men like Jordan Peterson would not exist... but this is not a perfect world
Hello, potion seller. I am going into battle and I want only your strongest potions.
@@Agos226 heyyy i like your pfp, Syd Barrett is great ❤️❤️
"Christmas with the Kranks: A Libertarian's Struggle Against the Pressures of Social Conformity."
You should do it.
“Christmas with the Kranks: The Jolly Cult of the Season or the tyranny for the pleasure of Christmas.”
Happy holidays
As a possible answer to a connection between PoMo and Buddhism, people interested should learn about the Madhyamika interpretation of emptiness promoted by the ancient Buddhist philosophers Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti and still advanced by much of Tibetan Buddhist philosophy. They come to much the same conclusion, my understanding of the main distinctions may be that they apply the contextual and relative framework to all of reality rather than just language or ideology and they take the added step of avoiding a nihilistic worldview by affirming the lawful, orderly functioning of the relational conventional world. They even tie the "Two Truths" (conventional, or relative and ultimate, or things as they actually are) together and say that they rely on and enable each other.
Jamie Dorsey Nice addition.
Ken Wilber has a lecture (in the “Integral Spirituality: A Cut Deeper” series) where he describes Nagarjuna as a progenitor of (aspects of) Postmodernism, and he explains Nagarjuna’s distinction of Emptiness, Form and Nondual that you are referring to here in other terms. He also talks about how many American Buddhists are interpreting Nondual realization erroneously, mistaking it as Postmodern relativity, thus throwing out Emptiness and Nondual realization altogether.
The way I've come to think of it is that morality is to ethics what strategy is to tactics.
Thank you so much for this information. I've been pondering these questions for a while, especially the topic of relativism (and how it relates to Postmodernism), so this has both helped me, and the others that I will share this information with. I used to be dismissive of critical theory, ironically under the guise of supposed 'critical thinking' advocates, so it's nice to see such an eloquent presentation of ideas that I can share.
A lot of the problems, imho, come from the fact that there are three post-modernisms (which is itself a post-modernist kinda thing).
There is the post-modernism of the philosophers.
There is the post-modernism of the supporters of post-modernism.
There is the post-modernism of the detractors of post-modernism.
It's super important to understand the philosophers, as they crafted the actual arguments and ideas. However, it is the supporters of post-modernism that cause the ideology to act in the world. Therefore it is the supporters version that is, ultimately, most important.
The detractors version is an attempt to mirror the supporters, and then claim that this mirror is exactly what the philosophers meant. So Jordan Peterson is crafting a version of post-modernism and then attributing it both to popular post-modernism followers and post-modern philosophers.
My first interaction with post-modernism was in college. I was introduced to Sokol and the book "the science wars" in a philosophy of science class and was introduced to a number of post-modern sociologists in my sociology degree. I then accidentally took a conceptual art class (on writing) which is related to post-modernism.
The problem that Sokol is calling out is that many of the sociologists who acted as post-modernists do have some absolutely crazy ideas similar to what Jordan Peterson calls out. My personal bugbear was the sociology reader (a selection of small articles) which came right out and said that some tribe's belief in reading entrails was equally valid to the western belief in object permanence and to claim otherwise is colonialist.
I've read a number of the post-modern philosophers and, on the whole, they were on the money. But the problem is how these ideas are disseminated and implemented. I'm not sure how best to solve this.
Dude, you are TREASURE, may the world watch your videos more widely!
Been waiting for this. Keep up the good work and all the best with your studies!
1. Incredulity towards meta narratives
2. Anti foundationalism
3. Anti Essentialism
4. Anti Teleology ( anti-inherent-purpose)
Hi, thanks for sharing so much time trying to make things clear about postmodernism. I appreciate this and have been trying to make it accessible to Spanish speakers so I've added Spanish subs. Although I've only read secondary sources, I'm still puzzled about how much this has been misunderstood. I've also read the pieces the Sokal squared team has been writing during the last 3 years or so, and it truly strikes the layman as if traditional media have been advertising two very different -one would say incompatible- versions of postmodernism. Of course, very few people will take the time to try and understand beyond the surface, but it seems even knowledgable people in literary theory and philosophy have different/opposed takes on the basic tenets. As a professional biologist I've seen actual denialism and I do understand it must be an oversimplification. The political and social understanding of this branch of philosophy is sooo poorly understood as Darwinian evolution, to be honest. We're basically stuck with the Postmodern Condition, and to many people that means the can dismiss both thick books like the ones you quote and thick proof from -you name which branch of the natural sciences! One is past the time when we'd expect people to get rid of things like Social Darwinism (social survival of the fittest in a capitalist context) or Lysenkoism (denialism of genetics in a forcefully "egalitarian" society), but those interpretations remain in full force today. One gathers that well, politics and social determinants of knowledge do have a tremedous impact in how most people perceive and act upon beliefs, narratives, and several sources of knowledge in general.
This was excellent, thank you! I’m still a beginner with PoMo/poststructuralism/etc, but I’d like to add a couple sources I found very useful for understanding these concepts/thinkers: first, I second the notion to listen to *Rick Roderick’s* lectures (I’d recommend all of them, not just the PoMo and Nietzsche lectures), second, the podcast *“Philosophize This!”* has spent the whole of 2018 working its way through structuralist, poststructuralist and PoMo thinkers and has been invaluable in helping me understand many key concepts/thinkers (I suggest listening to every single episode of 2018, in order, as they build off one another), and finally, I would highly recommend the *Nov. 16th RevLeft Radio podcast episode, “Post-Structuralism, Postmodernism, and...Metamodernism?”,* in which philosopher Austin Hayden Smidt joins Brett (RevLeft, The Guillotine) to talk about these topics and their intersection with leftist politics and Marxism (also, I recommend Austin’s podcast “Owls At Dawn”, an excellent philosophy podcast).
Hopefully, this is helpful to someone. For me, these have all been excellent sources for getting my feet wet with these concepts, which I had previously avoided based on a perceived contradiction between leftist politics and PoMo. Granted, there is some contradiction, and I have found myself rejecting some PoMo/PoStruct concepts, but there’s a lot of insight to be found with many of these thinkers, even when you don’t agree with their conclusions, and I gotta say, I think leftists would do well to incorporate some of the ideas of PoMo into their theory, even if you’re still a Marxist at the end of the day... ❤️🏴♾
Excellent job. Definitely going to recommend this as the go-to vid for my students who want to know about Postmodernism.
Wouldn't you direct them to actual texts written by post modernist.
Nah. That makes too much sense.
Hey, after watching this I might actually start to understand post modernism.
You are not supposed to understand Post Modernism. There is no one right way any interpretation is as good as any other. Clearly you do not understand Post Modernism is you think you understand it and missed the entire point of this analysis.
@@bodbn lol, you're right I guess, it's my fault for making a comment before watching the video :(
@@bodbn There is a right way an interpretation is good. The thing is that we can't know it.
Thanks so much for clearing up the massive misunderstandings that most people have about Postmodern philosophy. Keep up the great work!
Most people aren't even aware of what post-modernism is it's a very small niche philosophy
Just wandering on UA-cam and see this update. Never click this fast.
In response to the Q. at 23:31 about postmodernism and religion .
There is a school of theological thought in Christianity called Radical Orthodoxy that has described it's project as "Postmodern Critical Augustinianism" it engages constructively with postmodern & poststructuralist philosophies and has many similar critiques of modern and positivist foundationalisms. They also tend to be Socialists ;) not that those are inherently related (sorry Mr. Hicks)
There are plenty others too but this is one I'm most familiar with.
RIP Rick
The Modern Hermeticist RIP indeed... His lectures were what turned me on to wanting to explore PoMo; I love all of his lectures, really. I recently downloaded a .pdf of a book he wrote on Habermas in the late 80s, who I believe he did his dissertation on. I’m definitely excited to dig into that, bc I’ve watched his lectures so many times, and need more Rick! ✌🏼
About 10 years ago I used to listen to TTC lectures and made a t-shirt that read: RIP Rick Roderick.
Philosophy and the mirror of nature is a fantastic book and I'm happy to see Rorty talked about in this video. I feel odd being analytic that reads Heidegger, Dogen, and Pragmatism. Oh well.
I'm in grad school and have heard academics (historians not philosophers or sociologist) refer to themselves as postmodernists, and criticize other older academics for not identifying as such. I'm not sure how to quantify how the term is always used, but its probably closer to 50/50 between those who identify as POMO and those who don't but approach their academic discipline from that perspective. Just a thought. Keep up the good work.
Hi there, I'm writing this comment as a sort of bread crumb for those following a similar path to mine. My first introduction to post-modernism was through Jordan Peterson, and I largely spent the next year believing what he had to say about it and assumed that it was a correct summary. Over time however, I began to poke holes in his theory because the inconsistencies and the rabid nature of his quick rise began to set alarm bells off in my head, I hate cultish behaviour. After completely extricating myself from the Peterson worldview which more properly is Jungian worldview, I began to see his limits as perhaps a useful clinical psychologist for his patients but his extension and understanding of philosophy, economics, and science in general is largely invalid.
Since this time I have begun to invest what little free time I have learning what post-modernism really is, but also trying to understand the intellectual origins of claims like the one's you have show tounge in cheek "the while phallo logism influences white sciece" etc. because these are used by real people in all seriousness. I am not a White Man, but I find the continuous reference to white male privilege in every situation even when it is unwarranted odd.
Anyway I want to thank you for making these videos, as they will help me continue my journey.
In the next video, could you speak about the relation between postmodern philosophy and postmodern art?
It's a tricky topic to talk about because the uses of the term postmodern in both contexts is similar at first glance, but also have important distinctions. Namely in terms of how both relate to the term modernism.
It gets confusing because, in philosophy, modernist and postmodernist mean two entirely distinct things. Modernist means relating to the Enlightenment and its legacy, while postmodernist means relating to a critique of certain absolutist modes of Enlightenment thought.
While in the arts, modernist and postmodernist actually sort of mean the same thing. By which I mean, postmodern art and literature is a continuation and elaboration upon certain artistic and literary tropes which came from modernism. They're both concerned with the subjective experience of the individual in response to industrial capitalist society.
Much of what's called modernist literature and poetry (e.g. Joyce, Conrad, Pound, Elliot, Beckett, Bergman) have all the traits now associated with postmodernism: fragmentation, subjective experience prioritised over objective knowledge, self-referentiality, intertextuality, and plurality in meaning.
In the arts, postmodernism might be better called "late modernism", as some critics have suggested.
Awesome video man! Ever since your critics on Jorden Peterson, I began taking an interest more in learning Postmodernism, Post-structuralism, and Marxism a little more despite my disagreements with it. I especially as a fan of Nietzsche, enjoy finding that much of his work became an inspiration aside from Existential Nihilism. Speaking of Nietzsche, will you cover him on his philosophy considering much of his work has influence philosophy in the 20th century and today still?
Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist. In fact the first chapter of The Will to Power is a critique on nihilist thought.
I'd love to do a video on Nietzsche in the future. I'll just have to wait until I think of a unique way of applying him to some piece of pop culture, since he's been talked about so much by everyone already.
Gonzo Lewd Nietzsche was more concern about the state nihilism in which he was worried it would turn people to a passive state of being. Those who lose their creativity and self-denying of life which he calls the last man in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. On the other hand someone in the state of nihilism can become active and redefine their life and values to make a meaning for themselves which he calls the Übermensch. Nihilism is a way point stage.
It's funny that Jordan Peterson claims to be influenced by Nietzsche.
Because Foucault and Deleuze, two of the philosophers most commonly associated with his prime hatred, postmodernism, were themselves die-hard Nietzscheans.
Voltairine Kropotkin yeah it’s funny and kinda weird at the same time. If he took the time learning about it (or maybe he’s intentionally vilifying it and he knows exactly what Postmodernism is) he probably would find some aspects to that would help his ideas. Like when he talks about Carl Yung and Archetypes.
On topic of postmodernism and religion: I think the painter and occult writer Austin Osman Spare, who inspired chaos magic, was pretty postmodern and had the same idea about binaries as derrida. But I do not know if that guy is counted as postmodern.
Thank you for all these great links to PDFS as well books, along with your video essays, I can have a much better understanding of complex topics.
How do modern linguists tend to feel about concepts from structuralism and post structuralism? I’ve been skimming the Wikipedia page on linguistics, but am having a little trouble getting a clear read on it. It mentions that generativists consider Saussure to have been refuted by Chomsky, but it doesn’t exactly mention what the points of contention were or how they were refuted, and then everything after that seems to mostly be about different schools of thought arguing over whether or not there is an innate universal grammar and what the best ways to represent syntax in a formalized way are, which seems to almost be an entirely different project all together from the structuralists and post structuralists rather than something running counter to them.
You are so great, thank you!
@@thotslayer9914 no
@@thotslayer9914 fine, and how r u?
I love this. I dont know why but I'm obsessed with these post modern ideas.
good for you little man. Post Modernism will help you immensely sit in your bedroom and not do anything with your life. if anything postmodernism is environmentally friendly as it reduces people's carbon foot print.
Jordan Peterson is a heroic human being at a time when we desperately need same. His psychology competence is unquestionable. He does not present himself as a philosophical expert as he grew up in the materialist maelstrom that still disintegrates the west. I think he is addressing the the philosophical fallout of the western cult very well. I found sanity in Aquinas and Thomism as well of course in the Catholic church which is sanity on stilts. We derive our failing notion of human rights from 12th century canon law from which natural law proceeds. I do not fancy myself an expert on postmodernism but I'm not thrilled with what I see in its absence of Final Causality. The end or purpose of things. Love.
I just finished a couple phil classes at my university under Todd May. Great guy. will miss his classes.
Sonic Adventure 2 is indeed a great source of study for the deconstruction philosophy.
🅱ost-🅱odernism
Kayla Klimas 🅱️etersons 🅱️oogiman
>tfw you've already read the recommended books
>tfw you haven't read any of these books
@@hikarikimikokiyoko6592 tfw you dont read
Tfw you dont knoe how to read
The thing is both "left" and "right" political parties seem to subscribe to some form of essentialism, it's just they disagree on the essence and they don't apply the philosophy to all social constructions. Gender, for instance, is often displayed as binary on the right, and on the left, it is sometimes displayed as not binary. But they both still agree that there is some Thing that makes a man a man and a woman a woman.
For the question on postmodernism and religion, I would recommend anything by John D. Caputo, especially his book 'The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion'.
I think William James’ pragmatist approach to religions that he spells out in “Varieties of Religious Experience” would serve postmodernists well in an analysis of religion
oh and isn't it funny how the right has just caught up with theories that are literally 40 years old and now we have to respond as if it was brand new information... hey kids, have you heard about that hip new thing called poststructuralism? i mean if it wasn't for Zizek, Jordan Peterson would literally argue only with dead philosophers. (not a critique of you making that video... just think it's interesting to see how incredibly long it takes for some theories to become widely known)
Albert Sirup, that’s kind of a ridiculous statement. Peterson is arguing with people who still entertain dumbed down versions of post modernism and have used it to back their simplistic political views. He just attacks their readings of their sources.
@@oaxacachaka But he makes it appear as if he is directly referring to the theories of people like Foucault instead of just arguing with people who misread Foucault. For him "postmodern neomarxism" is synonymous with poststructuralism (plus additional, explicitely marxist theorists like Marcuse who he puts under the same label, despite the radical differences between a postructuralist and a Frankfurt School / critical theory approach). Please guide me to a lecture where Peterson is actually defending Foucault or Marcuse or Derrida against those people who misunderstand them? Or just a lecture where he is actually engaging with the theory of poststructuralism without linking it to the projected downfall of western rationalism?
Albert Sirup I’m not sure there are “misreadings” except in relation to other readings. It could be that Peterson has the same way of reading them as the people he is arguing against.
I don’t really like that he lumps post modernists in with the Frankfurt school. As Chuck Philosophy says, post modernists are all over the place . Even the Frankfurt school members differ on certain points. Really Peterson seems to take issues with how modern Marxism is expressing itself. He should just call it that. But these “neoMarxists” will use Foucualt’s concept of normative behavior and the types of social pressure used to enforce it to then make the conclusion that norms are solely oppressive by nature. This is then labeled as “bad” and something that must be overthrown. At this point things have shifted into a Marxist narrative. So that’s what Peterson is arguing against. It is a train of logic that starts with Foucault and then ends in a kind of Marxian dialectic. I don’t think Foucault made any really hard claims about overthrowing all power structures leading to some progressive Utopia as is apparently advocated by modern leftists. I think he was more on the lines of “this is how it is and it kind of sucks”.
Albert Sirup when have Zizek and Peterson responded to each other??
@@jblue1622 they haven't met in person (as far as i know) but they have both responded to arguments of the other... but i guess it was more zizek criticizing peterson than the other way around.
29:30 there's actually quite a lot of theoretical work done under the name of postmodern theology, which includes everything from the theological implications of the death of god to a panentheist understanding of divinity, all the way to how postmodernism can lead the way to more traditional and orthodox understandings of divinity
What you are saying about "structuralism" and "post-structuralism" rings true with what I have found on my journey looking into neuroscience: either in terms of trying to understand and isolate the relevence of biological differences, and/or, in terms of the effect of the more abstract meanings you discuss in this video (for example "dreams" don't occur in isolation from the biological workings of our brain and body... ...or scientific bias relating to cultural meanings of such states as "anxiety" or "fear"). Also self-correcting markets/economies xP
Thank you for making these videos which correctly explain what the philosophical positions. There is just too much misrepresentation of ideas in popular culture.
*DIS GON B GUD*
I don't know that you can call atomism a simple narrative. It has implications through chemistry and biology obviously but also psychology and perhaps even sociology. The way that a serotonin molecule interacts with its receptors is determined by the atomic structure of both the molecule and the receptor. And biological -> chemical -> physical underpinnings of psychology have inexorable if diffuse consequences for sociology.
JBP brought me here. In my attempt to better understand his concepts, I wanted to take a deeper look into postmodernism and what I found was not what was characterized by much of normative culture. UA-cam has very little in the way of nuanced videos on the subject and I am looking forward to your ideas on pomo philosophy. I do give JBP charity in that the signified he uses, is a descriptor for a certain type of activist or culture. When he references postmodernism, it is not the philosophy he's implying, it's the 2nd order interpretation of the theories by certain individuals. It's a reference to the culture of pomo which has been co-opted by some groups to reify their stance on key issues. It's too bad that he demonizes individual philosophers like Derrida, Foucault but exalts others like Khun. But I guess it's to be expected when there such a variety of ideas enveloped in the term postmodernism.
I'm looking forward to your nuanced video on the real principles of pomo. Something that will knock the grin of Hicks' face.
S T Exactly, OP is bending over backwards to save Peterson.
He has an ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest understanding of postmodernism. He always has. And sure, you can make tenuous connections to modern leftist activists and some kind of second order postmodernism. But that's a weaker position from the claims Peterson starts with, much less does it justify the public boogeyman he's made it into.
I mean, shit, I can say TinyBuddha is ninth order Moldbug. It's a connection but a pretty tenuous/distant one. You can make that kind of connection pretty easily with all sorts of things. Again, Peterson is shallow on this, it's irresponsible carry on about this, and there's no good reason to extend him charity here.
Once again I have to admire the amount of reading you have done. Great job!!!
Please do a video about Nietzsche and his relation to postmodernism
How about a distinction between the bad argumentation propelled by laymen Phil 101 conceptions of postmodernism and the larger framing of postmodernist thought. Need a label for that. Because there is some truth to criticisms regarding the abuse of postmodernist thought in broad society or colloquial discussions (whether it is recognized in this criticism as a kind of abusive half-assed implementation of postmodernist framing or not).
One may look at it like this: post-modernism is not a type of philosophy but a state of things, zeitgeist. It comes after the modernism whose trait is metalurgy or the production of heavy machinery, while the postmodern trait is semiurgy, the production of the meaning.
Do you have a Patreon? Because honestly I would pay money for these videos and more. For years I’ve been trying to find someone to explain postmodernism as thoroughly as you have done here.
Thanks for the Anti Oedipus reference. I always loved Foucault’s preface in that book. It’s absolutely brilliant and has quite the revolutionary thrust.
So engaging! Thanks for the summaries! I thought Derrida was the last of the structuralists/modernists though. LOVE THE WORK AS ALWAYS!
Very clear about something which often seems obscure. Thanks.
"This is going to be a three part series . . ."
Fuck yes.
This was a real treat. Thanks 🙏
Amazing video. As always well researched and well writen. Thank you for giving us more inside into postmodernism.
Morality versus Ethics. It seems that "Morality" is something internal and subjective. And so Moralist thinking lends itself to an essentialist mindset. Whereas "Ethics" is externally imposed (or "suggested" as you say) and objective (based on "experiment" as you said). And so Ethical thinking lends itself to an existentialist mindset. This seems all very simple the way I've just described it. But results in a quagmire when concerning "gender identity" of transgender people. For example, how are we to think about the "bed nucleus of the stria terminalis" (hypothesized as playing a role in gender identity as evidence suggests this part of the brain is sexually dimorphic and limited evidence suggests that it is of the same size in transgender individuals as the sex they identify with) - it's role in the metabolism of the human body (relevant to the differences in proportion of body fat in healthy men and women) which has speculated links to stress responses and even learning behaviour. Looking at the issue through the lens of either "morality" or "Ethics" with the predisposition that the two are separate in the way I have just described? You get existentialists perhaps denying gender identity even exists (in the case of TERFs), or, essentialists either denying a person can be transgender (the view that gender and sex are essential to each other) or that the demands of feminists for gender equality are unachieveable (otherwise they would essenitially already have been achieved) - basically in reality a combination of all of these reactions happens while a transgender person is helpless to pray the gay away to be able to satifisfy the cognitive gaps.
But.... but... does that mean JBP has sold as all a lie? :O
Well, either that or he's massively misinformed on this topic and is suffering from severe dunning-kruger effect
Not exactly. JBP is talking about a specific movement which has taken post modern ideas, dumbed them down, and put them in a social justice framework.
@@oaxacachakaDidnt Derrida talk about the need to have some kind of central narrative to bind groups together? Example language, nation, religion
vaultsjan I can’t say I’ve memorized everything he said but is there a specific point you are getting at?
@@oaxacachaka While criticizing Derrida, JBP (with his need for meta-narratives) seems somewhat similar to Derrida to me. I must say Derrida is over my reach so i could be wrong.
You should’ve noted that one of Derrida’s close friends was a monk and theologian, John Caputo. Derrida commended Caputo on his analysis of his work. Caputo claims Derrida was always a little bit religious, as many secular Jews are.
omg i just came back from travelling and finally watched this, thanks for including me!!
- just one follow up question, by 'the entropy of the universe' i wasn't just referring to the truism 'everything is made of atoms' but the narrative that everything in the universe is driven by a constant entropic breaking down of simplicity -> complexity - which i think would qualify as a grand-narrative, no? it is often used a framework for understanding history, culture, science, blah blah blah
Absolutely beautiful explanation.
17:08 I nearly had a heart attack!
Yoooo Todd May will be visiting my class to have a talk on postanarchism next week, hypeee
I love your vids, so concise and yet precise, very interesting. About all the complex philosophical terminology, do you have any advice on some dictionnary to compile it all ? As pretty much a complete neophyte I'd gladly have one
3:00 And a similar case could be made against the use of the term "string theorist" in physics, too, which has become somewhat of its own variegated postmodern community, in which the modern standard of direct experimental evidence-sometimes even conceptual falsifiability-are set aside as second-rate constraints on the awesomeness of high abstrusification. For those situated on the inside, string theorists come in every flavour of ice cream; for those on the outside, barely a single flavour can be reliably distinguished without four to eight years of arduous study. Those on the outside therefore end up lumping all the string theorists together out of pure self-defense.
Good video, really clear explanations
Mmmm... even if one can find some quotations of postmodern philosophers saying that they do not stand for relativization, in practice they contradict themselves. Derrida's deconstruction and the idea that every antithesis has value and should be considered is useless in practice and only causes anxiety. Science, technology and society's progress is based on this principle: that there are better ideas (or descriptions of the universe) than others and that those that survive is because they're better supported by evidence. If I find a value on Derrida's work is that he warned about not being too attached to an idea to the point of indoctrination, but that is exactly what theories that are being build on the basis of postmodernist philosophy, like intersectional feminism, are doing. It is not a mere coincidence that these type of conspiracy theories, power theories, are the ones that are most influenced by postmodernists, they laid the groundwork for relativism.
Derrida's claim isn't so much that both poles of a binary have (equal) value, it's not a normative claim - it's moreso that every signifier is contaminated by/dependant on its opposite. Intersectional feminism isn't postmodern, and has also been criticized by certain postmodern theorists.
And relativism isn't a very philosophically meaningful term without specification. Nor have I seen any conspiracy theories proposed by postmodernists. The kind of epistemological relativism that pomos are often accused of is more like something the sophists argued at the very beginning of Western philosophy.
"If the relation between the signifier and the signified arbitrary, how is the sign's (signifiers') 'meaning' determined?" Why would the 'meaning' of the sign be different from the thing it signifies? Why should we be concerned about 'meanings' (in this sense) at all?
It's defined by its relationship to other signs.
de Saussure identified two major such relationships: paradigmatic and syntagmatic. Syntagmatic relationships are the relationships between the signs that are present. It is why "the cat sat on the mat" and "the mat sat on the cat" have completely different meanings despite having exactly the same signs (words) in them. A paradigmatic sign relationship is trickier: a sign has a paradigmatic relationship between every other sign that can be substituted by it. "cat" can be said to have a paradigmatic relationship with "dog" (and potentially with any other animal, or even any other noun) in the above sentences.
Post-structuralist thought begins with the problems that arise when you take the claim "signs are defined by their relationship to other signs" to its limit. Derrida really goes to town on identifying those problems, I think.
I have an engineering design background. "Deconstruction" sounds like a similar approach to "reverse engineering": for example when looking at the Grenfell Tower disaster - in-which flammable cladding was used to refurbish the building to make it look nicer, but resulting in the tower burning down in an uncontrollable fire which spread rapidly. A common sense design process would involve satisfying customers needs - if the customer is the Grenfell residents then their safety should be priority. However the profits of those who paid for the refurbishment of the building appeared to trump the safety of the residents - and yet the common sense design process (following safety rules and building codes) would still have to be used. Reverse Engineering would reveal the faulty process that would have been used by starting with the end product rather than the refurbishers professed intentions - like a detective looking at a crime scence. We observe a burnt out building with many lives lost and the materials that building was made of and the time lines of construction - i.e. the recent refurbishment. And concluding highly flammable cladding on the outside of the building was used - meaning the use of such cheap flammable material was the starting point as a priority for the refurbishment... i.e. we've already established that the needs of the residents (their safety and well being) were not a priority. That the reburbishers used a "backwards bullshit" process - which turned out to be a programmable spreadsheet of building codes that they used to fudge the safety of what they were doing by either adjusting the margin of error to suit the outcome they wanted and/or repeating models upon models until the margin of error stacked up to appear to give a lot more safety than there actually was. While at the same time as removing safety approval of materials from an independant body - such as the fire brigade (who would later have to risk their lives putting out the fire) - as a precedure in building planning regulations.
Not really reverse engineering is based on science and truth. Post modernism is about relativism. You don't engineer with relativism.
@@bodbn I think you mean "subjectivism" rather than "relativism". I don't want to be harsh - but I studied Engineering up to a masters level, so unless you are similarly qualified, I'd appreaciate it if you didn't tell me what qualifies as engineering and what doesn't if that's okay.
@@thisaccountisdead9060 well I have a degree in software engineering and no I don't mean subjectivism I mean relativism. There is no right way or wrong way to interpret something. It's not that difficult to understand. They saw taking a relativistic stance as the first step to deconstructing systems of power as they saw power being the means through which truth was controlled. An engineer doesn't assess how a bridge collapsed by assuming one interpretation of the collapse is as good as any other. What the hell kind of engineer would operate in such a fashion.
Sadly no. Philosophers have their own definitions for pretty much every word.
@@bodbn Engineering is not about truth in the philosophical sense. Engineering (and science) is based on using abductive or inductive reasoning to formulate predictive models. That is invalid by the rules of philosophy (at least philosophy 101). We're all about probabilities, and philosophers (the vast majority at least) are about certainties and absolutes.
Theory of Computation (and some other maths) get a bit trickier. Symbolic systems with absolute truths within the context of the system... which also happen to correspond to reality astonishingly well. That correspondence and the logical rules themselves are the products of induction though... So some sort of absolute "truth" is debatable at best. The fact that they are Incredibly useful isn't up for debate though ;)
Or we could just ignore the philosophers and use plain language.
23:24 Daoism reminds me a bit of Post-Structuralism, I would say the Daodejing contains a lot of deconstruction of language
People tend to confuse nominalism and relativism.
Sometimes I forget how important Lyotard is. Need to pick up Libidinal Economy one of these days
A question to the creator; "No system is ever fully complete or self-sufficient" (13:14).... is this a philosophical/logical theorem or just a generic statement. If it is indeed a philosophical known idea I would really appreciate some references/reading materials on this.
How do Ya resolve the contradiction's between Dialectical Materialism & post-modernismm
You don't resolve contradictions. Make sure they are, though.
I hope he will talk about the connection between Postmodernism and irony/ Memes (if there is any for him worth talking about).
He won't because there is no connection. Memes are generally made to make fun of post modernism.
Pretty much my only reference for your accent is the voice samples used on Mylo's 2004 album "destroy rock & roll", which I'd view as an endearing positive xD ... enjoying your video content! - it's great stuff
Would also take a look at "Continental Philosophy: a Critical Approach" by W. R. Schroeder. Oversimplifies somewhat, but it's definitely worth reading if you're new to this stuff.
I love your french! It sounds so... natural
Rick Roderick also has a lecture series on “Philosophy and Human Values”, which is also available on UA-cam. It was the first lecture series he gave for The Teaching Company. So in total there are three popular lecture series: see rickroderick.org/.
I see you with that James Ferraro Marble Surf clip
When will the next video be posted?
Not sure yet. Hopefully in the first half of december
I enjoy listening to this while I draft. Thank you for doing this.
>Phallagocentric white male
Not gonna lie, you got me.
Hmm, isn't what the post-structuralists put forth similar to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, just for culture, not maths?
@Khaled Rapp y
Question for next time: What is the postmodern defense against nihilism?
Thanks.
One is based on creating meaning by baffling gibberish the other doesn't believe in meaning. If you can't figure that out you are an idiot.
I know the computer voice is a joke about pronunciation but I cannot understand a single thing the computer voice says.
I would much rather have a ‘bad’ pronunciation that I can recognise than a garbled, magnetic buzz that I can’t really register.
'magnetic'?
Relativism about truth really is, strictly speaking, more similar to coherent ism. Truth can exist, but it is relative to the group, culture, institution, paradigm, etc. it is not nihilism about truth or a claim that all truths are true (and can be held together).
All claims are true*
Great video, this certainly seems like a good way of introducing people to postmodernism and clearing up misconceptions about it. Unfortunately I don't feel like all my questions were answered but I hope that they will be in the next parts. Lastly I must point out that I think that the distinction between ethics and morality is nonsense, but I suppose that this is an issue I have with those postmodernists who make this distiction rather than this video in particular.
7:00 what?? You can just form a closed loop, any loop. Like a square. With 4 signs, one at each corner
neatly summarised