If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

you're either seeing what you want to see or Wikipedia doesn't give you enough info (maybe both).

Maybe both, but it's not like the "seeing what you want to see" criticism can't go the other way and I'm not entirely unfamiliar with Das Kapital. Just because someone creates a label (symbol) for something doesn't mean it corresponds to anything new, if anything at all. This is something that social scientists have to deal with when trying to define and demonstrate a construct (http://www.statisticshowto.com/construct-validity/). To demonstrate it you must have a way to test it with both discriminate and convergent validity - that is, you must be able to test it in such a way that the method of testing hangs together internally - with significance, and is also sufficiently different from all other related constructs (http://www.statisticshowto.com/convergent-validity/). I don't see Marx doing that here - he doesn't actually attempt to test anything and it has poor face validity once one understands alternative constructs.

 

[Einherjar86]

The evidence for Marxian concepts like false consciousness and fetishism is blatantly present. It's all around us. That doesn't mean said evidence can't be interpreted differently. 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).

As a critical perspective on why nations and/or large communities accrete around certain values and beliefs, Marx's writings are invaluable. That there is evidence for them doesn't mean there are no other possible interpretations.

Also, I didn't say there's no connection between LToV and these concepts. I said we don't need LToV in order to talk about them. A person can arrive at correct or compelling conclusions from incorrect premises.

 

[Dak]

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).

https://www.britannica.com/topic/false-consciousness

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.

You can falsify the concept of false consciousness because it's built the following: "genuine interests" "inability to recognize exploitation" "misperceive their real position". These are all unsubstantiated assertions built on truisms from the labor theory of value, among other things. It's unsubstantiated critique built on unsubstantiated critique built on a falsifiable theory of value. Just because cultural beliefs are X doesn't mean Y notion of them is automatically true.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not going to argue with the internet, but the definition of false consciousness you've cited is more specifically that of cultural hegemony. Engels apparently wrote about this (I'm less familiar with his writings), but it's not the broader definition of false consciousness. I'm referring to the notion that people mis-perceive values as "self-evident" when in fact they're actually the products of years of cultural development. 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.

 

[Dak]

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.

 

[Dak]

 

[Dak]

Also *supports IDs for getting into school*. Probably doesn't support IDs for getting into a voting booth.

 

[rms]

i saw that shit today. hilarious

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

 

[Dak]

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.

I'm not sympathizing with ignorance at all. God may be dead, but as long as humans remain human gods will never die. If we want to use the cave allegory, Nietzsche basically said there is no outside of the cave. It's tunnel all the way [down].

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

 

[Dak]

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.

We can go at it the other way: What's the point of demystification? Noncomplacence?

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

 

[Dak]

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.

Well we don't have a consensus on what false consciousness means, so it's not really possible to rebut it, so then it kind of went meta.

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.

Well I can agree with this. But that doesn't mean all critiques a. help to prepare for collapse (provide or lead to useful alternatives) b. have a motivation beyond pushing for collapse. These are both general problems for Marx and anything even tangentially related, whether or not it's a problem with specific thinkers or specific theories.

With capitalism specifically, it's not capitalistic theory properly that creates, for instance, perceptions of "objective" values of goods. That's a human psychology quirk. Capitalism contains plenty of it's own critiques without needing to resort to neohegelian mysticism, or however one wants to shorthandedly refer to ideas like false consciousness.

 

[Dak]

http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/26/book-review-twelve-rules-for-life/

Scott Alexander reviews 12 rules for life. He spends some time poking at the holes and hanging bits of his philosophy and then gets to the real point (imo):

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.

 

[rms]

What he sees as a super power, making something common sound profound, is exactly what annoys me. Attempts to sound intelligent over dumb people. What a spin!

 

[Dak]

Attempts to sound intelligent over dumb people. What a spin!

If a person with a PhD and years of experience within a subfield wanted to "sound intelligent", they would speak in jargon, not utter cliches.

 

[rms]

Peterson doesn't speak in jargon to you? The dude says post modernist or marxist almost every other word !

and the listening thing, not really sure where he gets that from. Peterson is quite a chatterbox

 

[Einherjar86]

Ultimately, if what he wants to do with 12 Rules is help people, then great. Critics need to start addressing the book's reception and not its author (we all know the author's credentials and his prejudices, repeating them won't help).

His first book was utter jargon and misdirection, from what I can tell. This new one feels like a genuine attempt to move away from jargon and offer a more therapeutic, "self help"-style work. The problem is that self-help can only work insofar as individual readers respond to what it's selling. Peterson is appealing to a particular demographic who share a certain set of disgruntled/depressed qualities, and his new book is speaking to them. I have an issue with the way it's speaking to people and how they're interpreting its usefulness. Appealing to the perceived inadequacies of disgruntled men is slapping a bandage on the wound, it's not treating the larger infection. Peterson may be a good psychotherapist, but that doesn't make his work good social critique or philosophy; yet it's being treated as such.

I'm also not sure I buy the shtick about listening. If Peterson was interested in listening, then why's he talking so damn much?

 

[Dak]

So two issues: How is Peterson listening when he's talking, and he is "appealing to inadequecies".

First listening vs talking: This reminds me of criticism I've gotten here on at least a couple of occasions: Based on my comments on this board I must be a shitty therapist. Therapy doesn't look like posting on a message board, and no one here is my client. Therapy also doesn't look like public speaking. I can tell you right now that the overwhelming majority of paid therapy time is the client talking. A good therapist is good at listening and eliciting more talking in the right direction with minimal comments. What you get in Peterson's public speaking/book is the distillation of thousands of hours of listening with cognitive and behavioral therapy responses. Tolstoy might have been right about unhappy families, but unhappy people are often unhappy in similar ways. That's part of the reason general therapy techniques work and how Peterson can have the connection with a mass audience as if he's been listening to them for hours. However, the catch to it is plenty of therapists can be decent in a normal clinical setting and not have the mass effect Peterson has. I think SA might be right as to why that is.

- Side note about jargon- notice he swerves into jargon were he isn't an expert.

Second issue: Appealing to indequecies in young men. I see this critique a lot and it's patently untrue. Appealing to the inadequecy would be telling people "it's not your fault", "your inadequecy is actually a strength", etc. That's the exact opposite of Peterson's message: Make your bed, clean your room; you're not as good as you could be and you know it.