If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

Notable writers like Foucault were intensely focused on undermining Western hierarchies. There is similar language of struggle and oppression. Fans of people like Foucalt tend to not also choose Adam Smith as their favorite economist.

One example, bravo.

Lyotard is probably considered to be more genuine as a postmodernist than Foucault (if there’s such a thing as genuine postmodernism—no country already covered this) and he wasn’t interested in undermining Western hierarchies. In fact, he abdicated responsibility during the student riots.

You think that representational critique, a la Baudrillard and Derrida, translates into political motivations toward disorder. This isn’t the case. Social critics aren’t looking to overthrow the patriarchy, they’re just tracing various avenues of cultural representation. Derrida wasn’t out to undermine hierarchical social structures, and neither was Luhmann, Deleuze, Baudrillard, etc. Foucault determines your entire perspective on postmodernism, and that’s why your view is reductive.

My problem has to do with Peterson’s use of postmodernism as a buzzword, like no country said. He appeals to it as a specific focus of study when in fact it’s a grab bag of different political perspectives, allegiances, and methodologies.

 

[Dak]

One example, bravo.

Lyotard is probably considered to be more genuine as a postmodernist than Foucault (if there’s such a thing as genuine postmodernism—no country already covered this) and he wasn’t interested in undermining Western hierarchies. In fact, he abdicated responsibility during the student riots.

You think that representational critique, a la Baudrillard and Derrida, translates into political motivations toward disorder. This isn’t the case. Social critics aren’t looking to overthrow the patriarchy, they’re just tracing various avenues of cultural representation. Derrida wasn’t out to undermine hierarchical social structures, and neither was Luhmann, Deleuze, Baudrillard, etc. Foucault determines your entire perspective on postmodernism, and that’s why your view is reductive.

My problem has to do with Peterson’s use of postmodernism as a buzzword, like no country said. He appeals to it as a specific focus of study when in fact it’s a grab bag of different political perspectives, allegiances, and methodologies.

I haven't read Baudrillard beyond some quotes/passage selections, and only a little Deleuze, so I can't speak definitively as to "what they were looking to do", but it seems as if you think that they can only have been looking to undermine hierarchy if they joined riots. Questioning any narrative is inherently undermining, to some degree, regardless of the accuracy of the critique. Secondly, the degree to which these writers are read and regurgitated to undergraduates and tumblrites with no broad framework for nuanced interpretation, familiarity with the history of philosophical discourse, basic principles of logic, etc., leads the the writers to becoming sources of bitesize justification for "fighting the man", which in this case is "capitalism", of which the easily available opposite is communism. Not everyone has spent a decade getting to your familiarity with the subject, and most people in undergraduate studies lack the cognitive tools to do so even if they wished to, to say nothing of tumblrites. Peterson may be wrong about postmodernism qua postmodernism, but he is right about what it means to his targets, as well as the combination of "postmodernism" and economic marxism.

 

[Einherjar86]

Questioning any narrative is inherently undermining, to some degree, regardless of the accuracy of the critique. Secondly, the degree to which these writers are read and regurgitated to undergraduates and tumblrites with no broad framework for nuanced interpretation, familiarity with the history of philosophical discourse, basic principles of logic, etc., leads the the writers to becoming sources of bitesize justification for "fighting the man", which in this case is "capitalism", of which the easily available opposite is communism.

I’ll agree that representational critique exhibits subversive tendencies, but it’s really nothing like the kind of radical political action associated with traditional Marxism. I understand that he’s speaking to people for whom the difference is negligible; but if it’s going to become a firebrand to motivate people politically, then I’m going to take issue with how he uses the word.

I have familiarized myself with these writers, but not contemporary behavioral psychologists. These vague “postmodernists” aren’t going out of their way to malign current psychological discourse—they leave that to the experts in the field, i.e. psychologists. When Peterson reduces all of postmodernism to some form of post-Foucaultian neo-Marxism he does a disservice to his listeners/readers.

 

[rms]

Also, yes you do act like you know all his views and I wouldn't call it a crusade but for someone who pretends not to care about him enough to actually go deeper you sure do post drivel anytime he's even mentioned slightly.

k you're just going to ignore things so not sure i even brought this up

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

I created “Medusa Magazine” and I am shutting it down because Feminist stupidity has surpassed satire

 

[Dak]

lol

 

[Onder]

^ I don't understand what's happening across the sea anymore. What is true and what's just plain trolling.

 

[Dak]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mb3ybp/what-being-gored-by-a-bull-taught-me-about-healthcare

"I engage in reckless behavior and am mad not everyone is bending over backwards to pick up the pieces it leaves."

 

[rms]

@Dak https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...nconvenience-of-being-a-woman-veteran/545987/ LOL

 

[Dak]

Well that piece was philosophically incoherent, but parts are true in isolation. People wouldn't think my wife is a veteran (for instance), and there are female veterans that obviously are vets and don't reintegrate well. Not exactly novel problems for veterans regardless of sex, but the "damned if you do/don't" nature of this sort of leftist female word vomit gets old.

 

[CiG]

but the "damned if you do/don't" nature of this sort of leftist female word vomit gets old.

This is essentially what I took away from it. I'm ignorant to what it's like to be a veteran but it seems to me that this damned if you do damned if you don't attitude is the philosophical underpinning of so much leftist writing. Seems to me to come from a fundamental rejection of the idea that you should take responsibility for the outcome of your actions.

Responsibility is a leftist's Beelzebub.

 

[The Ozzman]

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Including those Old Spice commercials dilutes the value of that compilation tbh. Clicking around (didn't watch nearly all of them) others were stretches as well. The problem isn't anti-white commercials/sentiment, it's that there's an absence of anti-black commercials/sentiment. These commercials are meaningless and any white person offended may as well kill themselves, but perpetuating positive stereotypes causes real harm that convinces failing minority groups that they're doing fine because they are perceived to be doing fine in some inconsequential aspect of life (e.g. sports). The leftist myth of stereotype harm/reinforcement is one of the biggest loads of shit. Sports were (and probably still are) the most violent and cliqueish aspect of the average American adolescent male's life, yet despite it all blacks managed to overcome many legal prohibitions and social hurdles when managers realized there were many capable black athletes out there. That flies right in the face with the idea that blacks (or women or whatever other group) avoid becoming engineers because of insurmountable stereotypes, which must therefore be remedied by social conditioning presenting and government lawyers demanding underrepresented minorities in those positions regardless of the actually qualified proportions relative to the total population.

 

[CiG]

 

[Einherjar86]

This is the kind of thing that annoys me and I wish I could just ignore it and move on, but it's pretty clear when someone says something like this that they haven't watched or read too much of his work. He doesn't conflate postmodernism and Marxism, he often puzzles over why he finds that the two things are linked today, why there is an overlap of people who ascribe to the thinking present in both worldviews.

He's expressed confusion over it many times and has attempted explanations many times.

Could you provide an example of Peterson being a reductionist when it comes to postmodernism and Marxism?

He does conflate the two. He does it all the time.

Here's a (pro-Peterson) piece that basically explains his theory of how Marxism transformed into what he describes as "postmodernism."

https://www.theepochtimes.com/jorda...r-the-guise-of-identity-politics_2259668.html

Rather than do away with the ideology, however, they merely gave it a new face and a new name. “They were all Marxists. But they couldn’t be Marxists anymore, because you couldn’t be a Marxist and claim you were a human being by the end of the 1960s,” said Peterson.

The postmodernists built on the Marxist ideology, Peterson said. “They started to play a sleight of hand, and instead of pitting the proletariat, the working class, against the bourgeois, they started to pit the oppressed against the oppressor. That opened up the avenue to identifying any number of groups as oppressed and oppressor and to continue the same narrative under a different name.”

In short, he's saying that postmodernism came about because Marxists couldn't be Marxists anymore. They're the same thing, just dressed up in different clothing. I think it's hilarious that Peterson targets Derrida, who is probably one of the least politically motivated individuals of the French postmodernist moment. For what it's worth, this is a controversial topic--someone like Simon Critchley argues that deconstruction is a profoundly political action, while someone like Martin Hagglund argues that it is profoundly non-ethical and apolitical. For my own purposes, I tend to agree with Hagglund, although I see both Critchley's and Hagglund's interpretations as reflections of their own political motivations.

Here's a link to another piece that challenges Peterson's conception of postmodernism (which, as has already been said, is too broad a term to define in the manner that Peterson does):

https://www.universityaffairs.ca/op...n-petersons-personal-crusade-postmodern-left/

First, what postmodernism says is that we only have access to the material world through human descriptions of it. Since we do not come equipped with a God’s-eye view of the universe, we must make do with the vocabularies that we have developed historically, such as those established in law, science, philosophy, ethics, politics, anthropology, sociology, etc. Since these vocabularies are often in competition with one another, various groups vie for the most correct interpretation of truth.

According to Dr. Peterson, what constitutes truth has shifted radically on university campuses. Referencing Nietzsche, Dr. Peterson claims that since God is dead and “all value structures have collapsed,” doctrinaire postmodernists have interpreted this to mean that truth is up for grabs. One’s version of truth is simply a “power game” – the product of a specific group’s interests, rather than a consensus. This, Dr. Peterson notes, was the “logical conclusion” postmodernists derived from the Nietzschean dilemma.

With all due respect, this is not an accurate description of Nietzschean philosophy. The “death of God” simply refers to the death of absolute values, not the negation of competing values. Yes, postmodernism teaches that immutable truths – those fixed for time and eternity – do not exist, but this does not lead to the relativist nightmare dreamed up by Dr. Peterson in which truths are “equally valid” or “anything goes.” The “death of God” does not mean all knowledge is suddenly deemed untrustworthy.

To take issue with this description, postmodernism doesn't really "say" this; it's just a common tenet of many theorists who tend to fall into the category of postmodernism.

 

[Dak]

this does not lead to the relativist nightmare dreamed up by Dr. Peterson in which truths are “equally valid” or “anything goes.” The “death of God” does not mean all knowledge is suddenly deemed untrustworthy.

Sure, not all knowledge:

One’s version of truth is simply a “power game” – the product of a specific group’s interests, rather than a consensus. This, Dr. Peterson notes, was the “logical conclusion” postmodernists derived from the Nietzschean dilemma.

And this is precisely what we see playing out all around us in the political sphere (which is interconnected with everything else).

Communists tend to blame the failures of communism on capitalism. Since communism apparently can't compete with capitalism directly, post-modernism provides an indirect attack vehicle (or virus) through undermining social structures that have made western capitalism successful - with the ultimate goal to re-realize (some form of) communism from the ashes of a society which has succumbed to the infection (using this language thanks to Haidt lol). I'm not saying that's the goal, explicit, implicit, or otherwise, of every post-modern adherent or theorist, but it is there.

 

[Einherjar86]

Communists tend to blame the failures of communism on capitalism. Since communism apparently can't compete with capitalism directly, post-modernism provides an indirect attack vehicle (or virus) through undermining social structures that have made western capitalism successful - with the ultimate goal to re-realize (some form of) communism from the ashes of a society which has succumbed to the infection (using this language thanks to Haidt lol). I'm not saying that's the goal, explicit, implicit, or otherwise, of every post-modern adherent or theorist, but it is there.

1. Power games in politics have been around since long before postmodernism.

2. Peterson says that it is the goal of postmodernism. That's part of what the problem is here. He's misreading a myriad of diverse critics as representing a single calculated movement to extend the political motivations of Marxism.

3. What you say doesn't add up since Marxists themselves reject many of the tenets put forth by "postmodernists," e.g. that discourse and representation are reflections of numerous interacting structures including class, religion, language, identity, cognition, etc. For Marxists, capitalism is the lodestone of modern culture; everything can be explained via recourse to the "critique of the political economy." Postmodernism tends to downplay the dominant significance of capitalism, suggesting instead that economic organization is merely one factor in a series of social arrangements. This is why Fred Jameson discounts Niklas Luhmann, or why Georg Lukacs disagrees with Theodor Adorno. As soon as "postmodernists" give credence to more than just economics, steam comes out of Marxists' ears. These are not mutually reinforcing methodologies.

The author of the second piece makes a similar point:

Dr. Peterson also claims that postmodernists reject dialogue because they already possess thetruth, so from their perspective, there’s no need to deliberate over complex moral quandaries or to achieve a negotiated understanding. Undoubtedly, this may be an accurate description of some of the activists that have confronted Dr. Peterson, but their entrenched positions are anathema to postmodernism.

As American intellectual Stanley Fish points out about intransigent individuals, “their way of talking and thinking couldn’t be further from the careful and patient elaboration of difficult problems that marks postmodern discourse.” Those who embrace rigid dogmatic beliefs are known as perfectionists, individuals who suffer from what Nobel prize-winning author Amartya Sen terms “the illusion of singularity.” Whenever someone posits self-evident truths and acts violently or aggressively to impose them, they are embracing perfectionism, not postmodernism.

Now some people here might criticize me for privileging academic postmodernism over the "the activists" who engage Peterson; but the point is that postmodernism is an academic tradition (if we can even call it a tradition), and Peterson admits as much. He's reducing the argument(s) of a collection of individuals in academia to the disorderly rantings and unsystematic positions of the social media morass.

 

[Dak]

1. Power games in politics have been around since long before postmodernism.

2. Peterson says that it is the goal of postmodernism. That's part of what the problem is here. He's misreading a myriad of diverse critics as representing a single calculated movement to extend the political motivations of Marxism.

Was it the goal of Marx to found a communist state? Was it the goal of Greek philosophers to found democracies or republics? Yes and no. Philosophical discourses explain and justify modes of thinking and behavior. While those modes may vary from individual theorist to theorist, as a body some general agreement on at least some ideals or norms emerge separate from but based on the body of material/theorists, in ways they may or may not recognize or intend. You and Peterson may disagree on the degree to which postmodernists intended anything, or intended SJWism et al., but it's not absurd on the face of it to place blame where these activists themselves (where even slightly literate) claim their philosophical origins.

I'm curious as to how else one's actions can be informed by post-modernism other than general apathy.

2. What you say doesn't add up since Marxists themselves reject many of the tenets put forth by "postmodernists," e.g. that discourse and representation are reflections of numerous interacting structures including class, religion, language, identity, cognition, etc. For Marxists, capitalism is the lodestone of modern culture; everything can be explained via recourse to the "critique of the political economy." Postmodernism tends to downplay the dominant significance of capitalism, suggesting instead that economic organization is merely one factor in a series of social arrangements. This is why Fred Jameson discounts Niklas Luhmann, or why Georg Lukacs disagrees with Theodor Adorno. As soon as "postmodernists" give credence to more than just economics, steam comes out of Marxists' ears. These are not mutually reinforcing methodologies.

The author of the second piece makes a similar point:

Now some people here might criticize me for privileging academic postmodernism over the "the activists" who engage Peterson; but the point is that postmodernism is an academic tradition (if we can even call it a tradition), and Peterson admits as much. He's reducing the argument(s) of a collection of individuals in academia to the disorderly rantings and unsystematic positions of the social media morass.

Isn't this the same dispute over "real Communism" or "pure Communism" and Bolshevism etc? "Real communism has never been tried"? "Real postmodernism doesn't involve identity politics"? "Pure marxist theorists don't engage in identity politics"?

 

[Einherjar86]

Was it the goal of Marx to found a communist state? Was it the goal of Greek philosophers to found democracies or republics? Yes and no. Philosophical discourses explain and justify modes of thinking and behavior. While those modes may vary from individual theorist to theorist, as a body some general agreement on at least some ideals or norms emerge separate from but based on the body of material/theorists, in ways they may or may not recognize or intend. You and Peterson may disagree on the degree to which postmodernists intended anything, or intended SJWism et al., but it's not absurd on the face of it to place blame where these activists themselves (where even slightly literate) claim their philosophical origins.

I'm curious as to how else one's actions can be informed by post-modernism other than general apathy.

Gods, this again? It is absurd to place blame on postmodernism when one doesn't really understand it, or holds some warped view of what it is (i.e. that it's a cadre of secret Marxists bent on transmitting communist ideals behind the veil of... what? Nihilism? Apathy? The dismantling of Western civilization as we know it?). Postmodernism doesn't constitute "a body [of] some general agreement," since even those who are called postmodernists can't agree on what it is. Is it a politics, or an aesthetics? (see Lyotard vs. Jameson) Is it "historiographic metafiction," or a form of social order? (see Hutcheon vs. Foucault) Is it a transformation in representation itself, or simply a way of describing the postwar world? (see Baudrillard vs. Luhmann) There is no consensus here, nor are there broad overlapping commonalities aside from the very general assumption that truth is built up over time. This isn't a position unique to postmodernists, but to much philosophy in general since Nietzsche.

You're curious as to how one's actions can be informed by postmodernism because you don't really understand what it is either. You just listen to people like Peterson and go "yup, sounds right."

Isn't this the same dispute over "real Communism" or "pure Communism" and Bolshevism etc? "Real communism has never been tried"? "Real postmodernism doesn't involve identity politics"? "Pure marxist theorists don't engage in identity politics"?

And none of the so-called postmodernists would claim to embody that which is "real postmodernism," or anything like that. Another distinction between postmodernism and Marxism.

You're getting into an argument with me, not contesting the root of my disagreement with Peterson. I cited those links and made my points because CIG suggested that Peterson doesn't understand why Marxism and postmodernism are so often conflated, when in fact Peterson is the one conflating them.

This really isn't an argument worth having, since I doubt you're going to convince me that Peterson holds a perspective on postmodernism more enlightened than those who've been called postmodernist and actually bothered to study what it might mean. The quotes of his that I've found don't convince me; so if you know of different ones, then produce them.

 

[Dak]

Gods, this again? It is absurd to place blame on postmodernism when one doesn't really understand it, or holds some warped view of what it is (i.e. that it's a cadre of secret Marxists bent on transmitting communist ideals behind the veil of... what? Nihilism? Apathy? The dismantling of Western civilization as we know it?). Postmodernism doesn't constitute "a body [of] some general agreement," since even those who are called postmodernists can't agree on what it is. Is it a politics, or an aesthetics? (see Lyotard vs. Jameson) Is it "historiographic metafiction," or a form of social order? (see Hutcheon vs. Foucault) Is it a transformation in representation itself, or simply a way of describing the postwar world? (see Baudrillard vs. Luhmann) There is no consensus here, nor are there broad overlapping commonalities aside from the very general assumption that truth is built up over time. This isn't a position unique to postmodernists, but to much philosophy in general since Nietzsche.

You're curious as to how one's actions can be informed by postmodernism because you don't really understand what it is either. You just listen to people like Peterson and go "yup, sounds right."

Enlightenment philosophy had some similar differences depending on the author, and yet we don't pretend it's not able to be broadly referred to. But I will grant Im not familiar with the specific differences. However, my unfamiliarity with the specifics doesn't prevent me from noticing what sort of behavior those who appeal to post-modernism engage in: Either identity politics or things which approximate it while denying the associated rabble. Something about knowing a tree by its fruit.

This really isn't an argument worth having, since I doubt you're going to convince me that Peterson holds a perspective on postmodernism more enlightened than those who've been called postmodernist and actually bothered to study what it might mean. The quotes of his that I've found don't convince me; so if you know of different ones, then produce them.

I'm not saying it's a more enlightened view on post-modern philosophy than post-modern philosophers. It is, if you are to be believed about the lack of intent, more enlightened about the outcomes. But I wouldn't even call it enlightened: It's not all that hard to put 2 and 2 together - in this case cognition and behavior; pattern recognition - for a clinical psychologist. It's the bulk of our work.

Related but also entirely separate:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/c...r-white-dna-is-an-abomination/article/2641940

The editorial concludes: “Whiteness will be over because we want it to be. And when it dies, there will be millions of cultural zombies aimlessly wandering across a vastly changed landscape. Ontologically speaking, white death will mean liberation for all… Until then, remember this: I hate you because you shouldn’t exist. You are both the dominant apparatus on the planet and the void in which all other cultures, upon meeting you, die.”

So dominant that ol Rudy here and the million like him get to spew this stuff in multiple outlets; from the highest of rooftops. Meanwhile the more or less lone white equivalent isn't even allowed web hosting. The level of navel gazing required to decry fascism while saying you hate a group of people and that/because they shouldn't exist is simultaneously sad/hilarious/enraging.