Einherjar86
Active Member
I don't know what to tell you man, but you're either seeing what you want to see or Wikipedia doesn't give you enough info (maybe both).
you're either seeing what you want to see or Wikipedia doesn't give you enough info (maybe both).
False consciousness could be falsified if the structure of modern cultural belief were drastically different in very specific ways (and it would have made little sense for Marx to make the argument if that were the case).
False consciousness, in philosophy, particularly within critical theory and other Marxist schools and movements, the notion that members of the proletariat unwittingly misperceive their real position in society and systematically misunderstand their genuine interests within the social relations of production under capitalism. False consciousness denotes people’s inability to recognize inequality, oppression, and exploitation in a capitalist society because of the prevalence within it of views that naturalize and legitimize the existence of social classes.
So for example, people mis-perceive liberal selfhood as a pre-existing, originary essence, when it actually emerges as a side-effect of material conditions.
Well I would agree that this is a misperception. I don't see what the use of "broad false consciousness" is here though. People are generally uncritical, and fail to investigate overarching cultural structures, and this is rather necessary. Every cultural hegemonic "ecology" in history has benefited from this, and in most cases the people themselves benefit from it - which is another reason why it isn't investigated. There are always benefits to worshiping the right gods, and when those gods are overthrown rarely do conditions improve, even if they weren't the best of gods.
Well, if our premise now is that it's pointless to tell people they're in a cave mistaking shadows on the wall for the things casting the shadows, then why are we even bothering to argue about these ideas?
You sympathize with ignorance and that's fine, but it doesn't disqualify critique for the sake of critique.
Notice I didn't insinuate that there's an outside of the cave.
The extent of your argument is, as far as I can tell, that demystification is pointless if the myth serves a purpose. That's not reason, it's just complacence.
True, we can go at it the other way. I value demystification, so I believe it's good in and of itself. You value pragmatism (or some version thereof), and so if mythic beliefs serve a practical social purpose, then you believe they're good in and of themselves.
All I'm pointing out is that your argument has fallen back on appeals to particular values, and hence no longer resembles a logical rebuttal of my point, which simply had to do with the originality and applicability of Marx's ideas.
For what it's worth, I think both of our positions deserve the appropriate values awarded to them. Mythic beliefs are valuable for the way they organize and streamline everyday life. The critique of those beliefs is valuable for its ability to prepare a society for when it must confront their collapse.
Much of what I think I got from this book was psychotherapy advice; I would have killed to have Peterson as a teacher during residency.
Jordan Peterson’s superpower is saying cliches and having them sound meaningful. There are times – like when I have a desperate and grieving patient in front of me – that I would give almost anything for this talent. “You know that she wouldn’t have wanted you to be unhappy.” “Oh my God, you’re right! I’m wasting my life grieving when I could be helping others and making her proud of me, let me go out and do this right now!” If only.
So how does Jordan Peterson, the only person in the world who can say our social truisms and get a genuine reaction with them, do psychotherapy?
He mostly just listens.
..............
you always think – if I were just a deeper, more eloquent person, I could say something that would solve this right now. Part of the therapeutic skillset is realizing that this isn’t true, and that you’ll do more harm than good if you try. But you still feel inadequate. And so learning that Jordan Peterson, who in his off-hours injects pharmaceutical-grade meaning into thousands of disillusioned young people – learning that even he doesn’t have much he can do except listen and try to help people organize their narrative – is really calming and helpful.
And it makes me even more convinced that he’s good. Not just a good psychotherapist, but a good person. To be able to create narratives like Peterson does – but also to lay that talent aside because someone else needs to create their own without your interference – is a heck of a sacrifice.
Attempts to sound intelligent over dumb people. What a spin!