If Mort Divine ruled the world

[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.

 

[CiG]

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.

I didn't say that he doesn't know why they're conflated, I said he's confused as to why postmodernism/ists are so often on the side of or have goal overlaps with Marxists, when they're fundamentally different.

Personally, I don't conflate the two myself because I understand that they're different but I have similarly noticed that, and lets be honest here because these are the main people he's referring to, social justice warriors very often hold both postmodern views as well as Marxist views and it seems to me that Peterson is trying to get at the root of why the crossover exists.

For example, how can a movement such as the SJWs be extreme moralists fighting against an oppressive culture and system on one hand, and then be moral and cultural relativists on the other? Yet they hold both views more often than not.

It's bizarre to castigate one's own culture to such a radical degree and then point to foreign cultures and say "well all cultures are different, we have no right to condemn them."

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

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.

"Those who appeal to postmodernism" isn't a homogeneous group. You're referring to a very select group of people and extrapolating their behavior to a more diverse group.

If we've walked this back from Peterson's original condemnation of postmodernism (and it is a very specific condemnation) to "some people who study 'postmodernism' exhibit destructive tendencies," or something like that, then fine. But that's not Peterson's original argument; he's specifically attacking the academics themselves, and basically accusing them of clandestine insurrection. He's not being a psychologist in these remarks. He's trying to be a cultural critic, but he doesn't know his subject matter.

I didn't say that he doesn't know why they're conflated, I said he's confused as to why postmodernism/ists are so often on the side of or have goal overlaps with Marxists, when they're fundamentally different.

But according to him, he does know why--postmodernists are Marxists. That was the point of the Epoch piece that I linked, which included several direct remarks. He doesn't think they're fundamentally different; he thinks they're fundamentally the same.

Personally, I don't conflate the two myself because I understand that they're different but I have similarly noticed that, and lets be honest here because these are the main people he's referring to, social justice warriors very often hold both postmodern views as well as Marxist views and it seems to me that Peterson is trying to get at the root of why the crossover exists.

What exactly is a "postmodern" view? I'm serious. Part of my problem is that I don't think "postmodern" is specific enough to describe a particular view or political position.

For example, how can a movement such as the SJWs be extreme moralists fighting against an oppressive culture and system on one hand, and then be moral and cultural relativists on the other? Yet they hold both views more often than not.

It's bizarre to castigate one's own culture to such a radical degree and then point to foreign cultures and say "well all cultures are different, we have no right to condemn them."

You're right, that is a bizarre combination of attitudes. I can't speak to the simplicity of the masses, but I can speak to what an academic position might be.

Cultural relativism as absolution isn't an accurate description of any postmodernist position, at least as represented by the supposed postmodernist figures to whom we're referring (Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, etc.). None of these theorists would have said that other cultures are beyond critique just because they're different. Ethics can't be jettisoned purely because of difference.

What someone like Derrida would say is that ethics can never be absolute. So although we can condemn, say, the treatment of women in certain countries that doesn't mean we should jump to condemning the country itself. It also doesn't mean that the appropriate means of intervening in heinous practices is invasion or occupation. I think that academics are correct to criticize those who see specific acts posted on Twitter as indicative of habits or behaviors that afflict all members of that particular group (as our current president is wont to do), and appeal to those images as justification for general condemnation.

This strikes me as measured and perfectly acceptable, so again I don't get Peterson's outright attack on "postmodernism," and I still think he doesn't really understand what it is (since, once again, he's targeting the academics themselves--not those who "appeal to postmodernism").

 

[CiG]

What exactly is a "postmodern" view? I'm serious. Part of my problem is that I don't think "postmodern" is specific enough to describe a particular view or political position.

Generally it involves a form of relativism. You're right, it doesn't have any specific view or political position, that actually is it's view or political position. That the specific has no legitimacy.

But according to him, he does know why--postmodernists are Marxists. That was the point of the Epoch piece that I linked, which included several direct remarks. He doesn't think they're fundamentally different; he thinks they're fundamentally the same.

He didn't say that postmodernists are Marxists, he specifically said that Marxists adopted the skin of postmodernism with which to operate their Marxism under. As much as this may be a condemnation by him of postmodernism for creating fertile ground for Marxists to grow and spread their roots, the prime condemnation is that of Marxists who saw postmodernism's relativism as an opportunity to undermine western capitalism (after all, what better way to undermine western culture than to render it no better or worse than any other culture?) and thus we have ideologues in academia, politics, the media and culture in general running around saying western capitalism is an evil, oppressive, immoral and unethical structure (that's the Marxist bit) and then anytime anybody provides the counter-argument of, well look over there in [insert shithole here] they have no rights, their culture is oppressive, they can wave it away simply by saying "no culture is better or worse than any other culture, it's all relative."

Peterson iirc also specified that he didn't just mean blanket Marxism but rather economic Marxism in particular.

You're right, that is a bizarre combination of attitudes. I can't speak to the simplicity of the masses, but I can speak to what an academic position might be.

Cultural relativism as absolution isn't an accurate description of any postmodernist position, at least as represented by the supposed postmodernist figures to whom we're referring (Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, etc.). None of these theorists would have said that other cultures are beyond critique just because they're different. Ethics can't be jettisoned purely because of difference.

What someone like Derrida would say is that ethics can never be absolute. So although we can condemn, say, the treatment of women in certain countries that doesn't mean we should jump to condemning the country itself. It also doesn't mean that the appropriate means of intervening in heinous practices is invasion or occupation. I think that academics are correct to criticize those who see specific acts posted on Twitter as indicative of habits or behaviors that afflict all members of that particular group (as our current president is wont to do), and appeal to those images as justification for general condemnation.

This strikes me as measured and perfectly acceptable, so again I don't get Peterson's outright attack on "postmodernism," and I still think he doesn't really understand what it is (since, once again, he's targeting the academics themselves--not those who "appeal to postmodernism").

Forgive me but this seems to assume that Peterson said the original postmodernist philosophers were Marxists. I believe Peterson's claim was that Marxists in the 70's co-opted postmodernism to one degree or another without giving up their Marxism, in certain areas.

 

[CiG]

Also, the best part of postmodernism is that any interpretation of it is equally in/valid.

 

[Einherjar86]

Generally it involves a form of relativism. You're right, it doesn't have any specific view or political position, that actually is it's view or political position. That the specific has no legitimacy.

Relativism existed before postmodernism though. Cultural relativism dates back to the nineteenth century and the anthropological work of Franz Boas.

He didn't say that postmodernists are Marxists, he specifically said that Marxists adopted the skin of postmodernism with which to operate their Marxism under. As much as this may be a condemnation by him of postmodernism for creating fertile ground for Marxists to grow and spread their roots, the prime condemnation is that of Marxists who saw postmodernism's relativism as an opportunity to undermine western capitalism (after all, what better way to undermine western culture than to render it no better or worse than any other culture?) and thus we have ideologues in academia, politics, the media and culture in general running around saying western capitalism is an evil, oppressive, immoral and unethical structure (that's the Marxist bit) and then anytime anybody provides the counter-argument of, well look over there in [insert shithole here] they have no rights, their culture is oppressive, they can wave it away simply by saying "no culture is better or worse than any other culture, it's all relative."

Peterson iirc also specified that he didn't just mean blanket Marxism but rather economic Marxism in particular.

Forgive me but this seems to assume that Peterson said the original postmodernist philosophers were Marxists. I believe Peterson's claim was that Marxists in the 70's co-opted postmodernism to one degree or another without giving up their Marxism, in certain areas.

Sorry, I have to take issue with your assessment of Peterson. This is a quote from the Epoch piece:

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.”

Peterson is basically saying that postmodernism in its nascent form was always Marxist. He's saying that postmodernism came about because Marxists needed a new way to disseminate their ideas. They didn't adopt postmodernism--they created it.

While it's true that some postmodern theorists (since we're using the term, I'll stick with it) started off as Marxists because their professors were (e.g. Baudrillard, Derrida, Lyotard, etc.), many of them pulled away from Marxist ideas. This wasn't because they wanted to perpetuate Marxist ideas under the guise of postmodernism, or some such; they simply developed new ideas of their own, many of which were incompatible with Marxism.

Peterson has it wrong. He thinks that postmodernism was constructed deliberately in order to infiltrate the academy, as a mode of deception basically; but it was simply an evolution in intellectual thought, shifting away from Marxism and toward other conceptualizations of social control, power, and organization. Perhaps most importantly, many of these post-1950s theorists were interested in representation, which Marxists were interested in only tangentially. Derrida's critique of logocentrism and the metaphysics of presence, or Baudrillard's theory of the shift from classical representation to simulation, aren't calls to dismantle Western power structures. They're simply critical analyses of the way culture organizes itself. Just because something is a critique doesn't mean that it demands some kind of political revolution.

 

[CiG]

Oh okay, well I clearly heard and read him wrong and completely misunderstood what he was saying, because I definitely don't agree that postmodernists and Marxists are the same thing, let alone that Marxists created postmodernism. I can see why people are confused and irritated by such a claim.

Relativism existed before postmodernism though. Cultural relativism dates back to the nineteenth century and the anthropological work of Franz Boas.

Sure, and materialist critiques of history and society existed well before Marx.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sure, and materialist critiques of history and society existed well before Marx.

Very true, but then we'd have to say that materialism isn't sufficient for defining Marxism (i.e. you need other elements). So all I'm saying is that relativism isn't enough to establish a particular view as "postmodernist."

For what it's worth, one of the reasons I'm being so critical here is that in literary studies we often talk about postmodernism, and it has very little (or nothing at all) to do with Marxism or politics. In literary studies, postmodernism is a term applied to textual aesthetics or stylistics--and a messy one at that.

 

[CiG]

Very true, but then we'd have to say that materialism isn't sufficient for defining Marxism (i.e. you need other elements). So all I'm saying is that relativism isn't enough to establish a particular view as "postmodernist."

Agreed, as I said, generally speaking postmodernism expresses a form of relativism, it depends on the subject and the context of course. I might sum postmodernism up as the fundamental rejection of objective truth and the expression of relativism in the face of grand narratives. Something like that, albeit roughly stated given my limitations.

Then you also have postmodernism and how it applies to the more difficult to gauge (for me at least) areas such as architecture and art.

 

[Einherjar86]

Agreed, as I said, generally speaking postmodernism expresses a form of relativism, it depends on the subject and the context of course. I might sum postmodernism up as the fundamental rejection of objective truth and the expression of relativism in the face of grand narratives. Something like that, albeit roughly stated given my limitations.

Then you also have postmodernism and how it applies to the more difficult to gauge (for me at least) areas such as architecture and art.

I won't keep pressing, but suffice it to say that I don't think it's something anyone can easily sum up.

 

[CiG]

 

[Einherjar86]

 

[no country for old wainds]

http://www.stephenhicks.org/explaining-postmodernism/

just fyi peterson has stated a few times that a lot of his understanding of postmodernism comes from this book, and he's always encouraging people to read it. i haven't read it myself, i have seen a few people call it agenda-driven though.