Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

owen87

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Posts
2,655
Likes
3,245
AFL Club
Essendon
Should Gates really be described as a 'thinker'? I mean, the guy has achieved amazing things and clearly is intelligent, but should he go in that category?
Most of the brightest minds of the last 50 years or so have been used for commercial gain, given that’s where offers the most individual benefit for the thinker.

Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg etc... may well have been revolutionary thinkers if they’d dedicated their time and energy to that realm. Instead we ‘just’ have to make do with them earning money hand over fist and revolutionising the world.

Nb: we can argue each individual contribution to the change of the world but that’s not specifically the point.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jibroni

All Australian
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Posts
708
Likes
622
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Liverpool, AC Milan, North Adelaide
Should Gates really be described as a 'thinker'? I mean, the guy has achieved amazing things and clearly is intelligent, but should he go in that category?
I think so, seems to see the world differently to everyone else and clearly has done well without an ego which I like.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Posts
34,666
Likes
28,749
Location
The GoldenBrown Heart of Victoria
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm
Most of the brightest minds of the last 50 years or so have been used for commercial gain, given that’s where offers the most individual benefit for the thinker.

Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg etc... may well have been revolutionary thinkers if they’d dedicated their time and energy to that realm. Instead we ‘just’ have to make do with them earning money hand over fist and revolutionising the world.

Nb: we can argue each individual contribution to the change of the world but that’s not specifically the point.
You seem to have entrepreneur mixed up with 'thinker'.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Posts
34,666
Likes
28,749
Location
The GoldenBrown Heart of Victoria
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm
How do we know that brilliant entrepreneurial minds wouldn’t have been brilliant philosophical minds if they turned their energies to that?

The current system just doesn’t reward them nearly as well if they do.
Entrepreneurs are known for innovation in applying ideas into action in the material world....In that respect they are certainly at the cutting-edge of the Capitalist ethos.

I'd of thought the inventors of things to be more the actual thinkers.....Entrepreneurs certainly have 'vision' about how to put new ideas & inventions to best use.

We would certainly refer to the likes of Galileo, Aristotle, Plato, Nietzsche, Jung, Newton & Locke as thinkers in the purist sense.....Buffet, Gates & Zuckerberg however?.....I'm not so sure.

I reckon Chomsky still reigns supreme in the contemporary world as the quintessential 'thinker'....His notion of manufactured consent, perfectly encapsulates our commercialised contemporary Capitalist world.....Orwell would be another modern I'd have right up there along-sides of him....And for good reason, when you see his Distopian novel 1984, come to fruition on so many levels.
 

owen87

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Posts
2,655
Likes
3,245
AFL Club
Essendon
Entrepreneurs are known for innovation in applying ideas into action in the material world....In that respect they are certainly at the cutting-edge of the Capitalist ethos.

I'd of thought the inventors of things to be more the actual thinkers.....Entrepreneurs certainly have 'vision' about how to put new ideas & inventions to best use.

We would certainly refer to the likes of Galileo, Aristotle, Plato, Nietzsche, Jung, Newton & Locke as thinkers in the purist sense.....Buffet, Gates & Zuckerberg however?.....I'm not so sure.

I reckon Chomsky still reigns supreme in the contemporary world as the quintessential 'thinker'....His notion of manufactured consent, perfectly encapsulates our commercialised contemporary Capitalist world.....Orwell would be another modern I'd have right up there along-sides of him....And for good reason, when you see his Distopian novel 1984, come to fruition on so many levels.
My point wasn’t specifically about those three, they’re just recognisable names

It’s that the current (western) world best rewards people like a Gates for putting their efforts in to commercially valuable pursuits.

So rather than having highly intelligent, creative, and inventive people coming up with new ideas, theories, and meanings. They’re inventing (or improving) computers, social networking and stock trading.

Many of the best recognised names of thinkers date back half a century or more. It’s likely not because they were more intelligent than those who’ve come since, but that the world values different things now, and commercial gain is king (or has been) for the last few decades.

Peterson isn’t necessarily a revolutionary thinker; but he is bringing concepts to the public consciousness that haven’t been discussed much for a while now - outside of limited academic circles.

I think his timing fits well with the challenges people are beginning to find they face; for many of us in the western world our standard of living is so high, that we lack any meaning in our lives, and without meaning, a whole raft of issues follow.
 

yebiga

Anglo Guilt - suck it up
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Posts
10,374
Likes
10,721
Location
Mens Gallery
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
My point wasn’t specifically about those three, they’re just recognisable names

It’s that the current (western) world best rewards people like a Gates for putting their efforts in to commercially valuable pursuits.

So rather than having highly intelligent, creative, and inventive people coming up with new ideas, theories, and meanings. They’re inventing (or improving) computers, social networking and stock trading.

Many of the best recognised names of thinkers date back half a century or more. It’s likely not because they were more intelligent than those who’ve come since, but that the world values different things now, and commercial gain is king (or has been) for the last few decades.

Peterson isn’t necessarily a revolutionary thinker; but he is bringing concepts to the public consciousness that haven’t been discussed much for a while now - outside of limited academic circles.

I think his timing fits well with the challenges people are beginning to find they face; for many of us in the western world our standard of living is so high, that we lack any meaning in our lives, and without meaning, a whole raft of issues follow.
Great thinkers have not necessarily been rewarded materially at any point in history. Many of them were born to sufficient wealth to develop their minds. But most just struggled for their calling.
One of the greatest scientific minds in Nikola Tesla died in both poverty and obscurity.

J Peterson maybe as close as we can get to philosophical brilliance in the contemporary world - not so much because of the obsession with money and fame as that our universities have simply given up on serious contemplative philosophy in favour of courses which a popular.
 

its free real estate

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
4,912
Likes
5,901
AFL Club
Fremantle
Does Peterson bring any new ideas to the table or is he just a synthesis of others? (Or more syncretic?)

Kaczynski was incisive and many of the things he predicted have come to pass.

One can envision scenarios that incorporate aspects of more than one of the possibilities that we have just discussed. For instance, it may be that machines will take over most of the work that is of real, practical importance, but that human beings will be kept busy by being given relatively unimportant work. It has been suggested, for example, that a great development of the service industries might provide work for human beings. Thus people would spent their time shining each other’s shoes, driving each other around in taxicabs, making handicrafts for one another, waiting on each other’s tables, etc. This seems to us a thoroughly contemptible way for the human race to end up, and we doubt that many people would find fulfilling lives in such pointless busy-work. They would seek other, dangerous outlets (drugs, crime, “cults,” hate groups) unless they were biologically or psychologically engineered to adapt them to such a way of life.​
 
Last edited:

ShanDog

Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Posts
17,120
Likes
30,954
Location
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
Moderator #2,135
Does Peterson bring any new ideas to the table or is he just a synthesis of others? (Or more syncretic?)

Kaczynski was incisive and many of the things he predicted have come to pass.
Have a look at the article I linked in the last page if you haven't already. I think it did a really good job of breaking him down - the reference to his style of thinking as akin to the old guard of psychology is a really good way of putting it. So in that respect, it's the bringing together of the old and the new that sets Peterson apart from others.

If Peterson is bringing anything new to the table, it's to be found in the Maps of Meaning work. But again, much of that is a creation based on old works and applying it to modern issues. I haven't read the book, but perhaps there's something new in there that you can say is distinctly Peterson.

Though I guess the conflation of Marxists and postmodernists is a new one. At least that I have heard. Not sure that will catch on in academia though...
 

yebiga

Anglo Guilt - suck it up
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Posts
10,374
Likes
10,721
Location
Mens Gallery
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Does Peterson bring any new ideas to the table or is he just a synthesis of others? (Or more syncretic?)

Kaczynski was incisive and many of the things he predicted have come to pass.

One can envision scenarios that incorporate aspects of more than one of the possibilities that we have just discussed. For instance, it may be that machines will take over most of the work that is of real, practical importance, but that human beings will be kept busy by being given relatively unimportant work. It has been suggested, for example, that a great development of the service industries might provide work for human beings. Thus people would spent their time shining each other’s shoes, driving each other around in taxicabs, making handicrafts for one another, waiting on each other’s tables, etc. This seems to us a thoroughly contemptible way for the human race to end up, and we doubt that many people would find fulfilling lives in such pointless busy-work. They would seek other, dangerous outlets (drugs, crime, “cults,” hate groups) unless they were biologically or psychologically engineered to adapt them to such a way of life.​
He wasn’t the first to predict a dystopian future or the negative impact of rampant technology

There is a rich literature in this field and the unabombers contribution became relevant precisely because - again - I our universities and our thinkers have entirely dropped the ball and sold out becoming horribly decent and compliant.

That you would posit the importance of the inabommber is proof enough of this.

Peterson on the other hand doesn’t pretend he has invented something entirely new - he reconnects us back to past forgotten and neglected important lines of inquiry.

The very fact he attracts so much approprium tells you he is hitting the right buttons.

The criticism of him are so excessive when mostly what he says is ho hum. But the implication of his syncretic thesis is only the more significant.

All he has done is pick up the conversation baton - it is now - I hope - going to carried by numerous others and lead our culture towards much better thinking.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RobbieK

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
1,818
Likes
2,485
Location
Berlin
AFL Club
Sydney
Have a look at the article I linked in the last page if you haven't already. I think it did a really good job of breaking him down - the reference to his style of thinking as akin to the old guard of psychology is a really good way of putting it. So in that respect, it's the bringing together of the old and the new that sets Peterson apart from others.

If Peterson is bringing anything new to the table, it's to be found in the Maps of Meaning work. But again, much of that is a creation based on old works and applying it to modern issues. I haven't read the book, but perhaps there's something new in there that you can say is distinctly Peterson.

Though I guess the conflation of Marxists and postmodernists is a new one. At least that I have heard. Not sure that will catch on in academia though...
I was just came to post a link to the same article, which I read this morning. I think it is as good a piece on Peterson as I have read - both the extremes, the fans and the critics, have twisted and exaggerated what he has actually said, most of which really is not particularly controversial or novel. While he can't be responsible for all of those misinterpretations, I think there would be less of them if he was more willing to be explicit in what he actually believes.

He certainly can't claim there is any novelty about conflating Marxism and postmodernism. That goes back to the Frankfurt School. I can't see that he has added any new take on those arguments.
 

ShanDog

Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Posts
17,120
Likes
30,954
Location
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
Moderator #2,138
I was just came to post a link to the same article, which I read this morning. I think it is as good a piece on Peterson as I have read - both the extremes, the fans and the critics, have twisted and exaggerated what he has actually said, most of which really is not particularly controversial or novel. While he can't be responsible for all of those misinterpretations, I think there would be less of them if he was more willing to be explicit in what he actually believes.

He certainly can't claim there is any novelty about conflating Marxism and postmodernism. That goes back to the Frankfurt School. I can't see that he has added any new take on those arguments.
I'd never heard anyone claim postmodernist were Marxists underneath before. As he's talked about, they are traditionally considered almost polar opposites. But just because I hadn't heard it doesn't mean it hasn't been done before.
 

yebiga

Anglo Guilt - suck it up
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Posts
10,374
Likes
10,721
Location
Mens Gallery
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I'd never heard anyone claim postmodernist were Marxists underneath before. As he's talked about, they are traditionally considered almost polar opposites. But just because I hadn't heard it doesn't mean it hasn't been done before.
The connection between the Frankfurt school of literRy theory post modernism and Marxism is long standing

The oppression of the working class transmigrated to hidden and overt oppression everywhere
 

RobbieK

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
1,818
Likes
2,485
Location
Berlin
AFL Club
Sydney
The connection between the Frankfurt school of literRy theory post modernism and Marxism is long standing

The oppression of the working class transmigrated to hidden and overt oppression everywhere
Yes, basically the critique of capitalism from Marxism turned into a broader critique of society - the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School. A common slogan from the Italian autonomists, a group of anti-authoritarian Marxists in the 60s, was that the logic of the factory had become the logic of society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_factory). Lyotard, author of "The Postmodern Condition", one of the key foundational texts of post-modern theory was attached to the group Socialisme ou Barbarie, a related French group with similar positions.

These groups are Marxist to the extent that they are engaged in a critique informed and influenced by that of Marx, their work is about class struggle against capitalism, but they are not supporters of large-scale state bureaucracy at all. These were groups that focused on bottom up approaches to creating change, arguing for a form of direct democratic anarchy, freed from oppressive political institutions like the state or the party - the state and the party are the kind of grand narratives that postmodernist theory problematises.

They key figures within European postmodernist philosophy tended to be quite engaged politically and made no attempt to hide the fact that they were acting in a continuation of the Marxist project. Derrida, Foucualt, Lyotard, Deleuze and Guattari, Bourdieau... it wasn't some shady conspiracy, they weren't "Marxists underneath", it was explicit. However, they had seen what authoritarian Marxism looked like in action, Leninism and Stalinism, how the exploitation of the workers under capital became the exploitation of the workers under the state, and so they aimed their critique at the state apparatus, at the party and at any other way in which people came to be dominated, not just at capital.

One thing that I find particularly problematic about Peterson is how he tries to suggest that "postmodern neo-Marxism" is a rejection of the "Western Tradition", when it is very much a part of it, a creation of it, a reflective response to it.

Check out this video for him directly addressing this idea of postmodern Marxism:

Peterson claims postmodernism is the "new skin" of old Marxism. Well... it is a new skin that has taken a look at its guts and chucked much of it out, rebuilding itself only on some bare bones, the idea that we need to engage in a critique of society to liberate the majority who were oppressed by its systems of domination. Its not like a bunch of Stalinists decided to rebrand themselves with a friendlier image but kept on believing that a single party state needed to exercise total control over society.

Peterson acknowledges this shift from a purely economic critique to a broader critique of power in society, and then totally misrepresents the political consequences of this critique. Peterson says:

“It was no longer specifically about economics, it was about power. And everything to the postmodernists is about power. And that’s actually why they’re so dangerous, because if you’re engaged in a discussion with someone who believes in nothing but power, all they are motivated to do is to accrue all the power to them, because what else is there?"

I would love to see an example of a post-modern Marxist who is theorising about how to "accrue all the power". Instead they are all interested in how to disengage from the systems of power of the capitalist economy, of the state. Power is everywhere, but not all forms of it are dominating and oppressive. I did postgraduate research on these thinkers (initially focused on the work of Toni Negri, an autonomous Marxist, which then shifted towards an interest in postmodern forms of anarchist theory, which is closely related to autonomism in its approaches to political practice, and the later work of Foucault on care of self) and I have to say that all I saw is a critique of the hierarchical power structures that exist in society and the complete rejection of attempts to seize control of those structures, a la Leninism and Stalinism, instead arguing for new ways for regular people to use the productive power that they hold to work together in ways outside of the structures that would seek to harness that power against them. I read a lot about theories of the multitude, Temporary Autonomous Zones, deliberative and participatory democratic models, consensus based decision making at the community level and nothing at all about how we can rebrand the authoritarian state to create new gulags.

It really makes me wonder how much of this stuff that he is critiquing he has actually read, and how much of what he has read he has understood.
 
Last edited:

smokingjacket

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Posts
3,519
Likes
3,582
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Liverpool
One thing that I find particularly problematic about Peterson is how he tries to suggest that "postmodern neo-Marxism" is a rejection of the "Western Tradition", when it is very much a continuation of it. Check out this video for him directly addressing this idea of postmodern Marxism: ...
It really makes me wonder how much of this stuff that he is critiquing he has actually read, and how much of what he has read he has understood.
Fascinating video in a way, he just continually comes out with these ahistorical statements, uttered with this weird, intense authority. I can see how people who aren't acquainted with the political history of the places he's talking about can come away convinced. Just in the first minute: "post-modernism, which really came into it's vogue in the 1970's after classic Marxism, especially of the economic type had been so thoroughly discredited that no one but an absolute reprobate could support it publicly anymore. Even the French intellectuals had to admit that communism was a bad deal by the end of the 1960's." Is just complete claptrap on so many levels. His knowledge of the topic must be confined to what he has read in the culture war books where this idea comes from.
1. The Soviet Union was booming in the late 60's and 70's. It was the height of the Cold War and most people thought the Soviet Union was winning! Where the Soviet Union was discredited with many European communists was as a moral and anti-imperialist entity.
2. Rather than being discredited by the end of the 60's the Italian and French Communist parties took their highest vote percentage. They were effectively the opposition in Italy and the dominant party in an opposition coalition in France.
3. There was a coalition of the Socialist and Communist Party that won power under Francois Mitterand in 1981 where communists served in the cabinet of the French government.
4. The Spanish Communist Party did its best during the 70's and the Greek Communist Party took seats after the fall of the junta in 1974. The Dutch Communist Party had it's best years in the 70's, Finland, I could go on.

The reason this is important is that supposedly the 70's were where the French intellectuals were supposedly so completely convinced that the economic doctrine of communism was defeated that they created identity politics and spread it the US. This is a really basic historical point but just because Sartre gave up on the Soviet Union because of its authoritarianism, doesn't mean he gave up on the economic political goals of Marxism. In 1974 he was visiting members of the Red Army Faction in jail, talking about how violent revolution was justified in the third world but not in France or West Germany. Through the 70's in response to the Czech crisis, many European communist parties broke their links to the Soviet Union but that didn't mean they all suddenly renounced class politics and were only interested in identity politics.
 
Last edited:

CheapCharlie

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Posts
4,241
Likes
4,494
AFL Club
Sydney
Why are JP supporters criticising Contra for his religious beliefs ?

Intolerance of others’ views (no matter how ignorant or incoherent they may be) is not simply wrong; in a world where there is no right or wrong, it is worse: it is a sign you are embarrassingly unsophisticated or, possibly, dangerous.
You would be tolerant of ISIS views and actions?
 

its free real estate

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
4,912
Likes
5,901
AFL Club
Fremantle
I would love to see an example of a post-modern Marxist who is theorising about how to "accrue all the power". Instead they are all interested in how to disengage from the systems of power of the capitalist economy, of the state. Power is everywhere, but not all forms of it are dominating and oppressive. I did postgraduate research on these thinkers (initially focused on the work of Toni Negri, an autonomous Marxist, which then shifted towards an interest in postmodern forms of anarchist theory, which is closely related to autonomism in its approaches to political practice, and the later work of Foucault on care of self) and I have to say that all I saw is a critique of the hierarchical power structures that exist in society and the complete rejection of attempts to seize control of those structures, a la Leninism and Stalinism, instead arguing for new ways for regular people to use the productive power that they hold to work together in ways outside of the structures that would seek to harness that power against them. I read a lot about theories of the multitude, Temporary Autonomous Zones, deliberative and participatory democratic models, consensus based decision making at the community level and nothing at all about how we can rebrand the authoritarian state to create new gulags.

It really makes me wonder how much of this stuff that he is critiquing he has actually read, and how much of what he has read he has understood.
Isn't this the most powerful part of Peterson's criticism of utopian thinking, that the human psyche resists autonomy? That hierarchical structures are in fact favoured by many people because it gives them a sense of place in the world (the whole order/chaos + lobster thing). And that on the other side of the coin, that there are authoritarians that will take advantage of power vacuums.

Sure, high functioning autistic types of the academy are thinking of ways they can build successful and fully self-actualised communities of free people, but they don't actually build them. All non-religious communes fail, all utopian states collapse into dystopia.

Eg Peoples Temple - a weird utopian cult that was the synthesis of communism and Christianity. Jim Jones was a Marxist who thought he'd infiltrate a cultural institution (the church) to create the perfect utopian Marxist society. And he almost succeeded down in Guyana!

This relates to the other side of the argument, the Talebian argument, that these people have no skin in the game. Academics have a view on how society should operate, but they have no relation to the guts of how society operates - they don't even do simple things like open businesses or engage in any kind of skilled craft. It is all theory. No true understanding how to manipulate the physical world or deal with actual human relations. The theory amounts to "wouldn't it be nice if ..."
 
Last edited:

JimDocker

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Posts
5,760
Likes
3,028
Location
Fremantle
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Doncaster Rovers, Boston Celtics
Why are JP supporters criticising Contra for his religious beliefs ?

Intolerance of others’ views (no matter how ignorant or incoherent they may be) is not simply wrong; in a world where there is no right or wrong, it is worse: it is a sign you are embarrassingly unsophisticated or, possibly, dangerous.
You would be tolerant of ISIS views and actions?
No, but that is a JP quote. Taken from 12 Rules for Life.
 

yebiga

Anglo Guilt - suck it up
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Posts
10,374
Likes
10,721
Location
Mens Gallery
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Fascinating video in a way, he just continually comes out with these ahistorical statements, uttered with this weird, intense authority. I can see how people who aren't acquainted with the political history of the places he's talking about can come away convinced. Just in the first minute: "post-modernism, which really came into it's vogue in the 1970's after classic Marxism, especially of the economic type had been so thoroughly discredited that no one but an absolute reprobate could support it publicly anymore. Even the French intellectuals had to admit that communism was a bad deal by the end of the 1960's." Is just complete claptrap on so many levels. His knowledge of the topic must be confined to what he has read in the culture war books where this idea comes from.
1. The Soviet Union was booming in the late 60's and 70's. It was the height of the Cold War and most people thought the Soviet Union was winning! Where the Soviet Union was discredited with many European communists was as a moral and anti-imperialist entity.
2. Rather than being discredited by the end of the 60's the Italian and French Communist parties took their highest vote percentage. They were effectively the opposition in Italy and the dominant party in an opposition coalition in France.
3. There was a coalition of the Socialist and Communist Party that won power under Francois Mitterand in 1981 where communists served in the cabinet of the French government.
4. The Spanish Communist Party did its best during the 70's and the Greek Communist Party took seats after the fall of the junta in 1974. The Dutch Communist Party had it's best years in the 70's, Finland, I could go on.

The reason this is important is that supposedly the 70's were where the French intellectuals were supposedly so completely convinced that the economic doctrine of communism was defeated that they created identity politics and spread it the US. This is a really basic historical point but just because Sartre gave up on the Soviet Union because of its authoritarianism, doesn't mean he gave up on the economic political goals of Marxism. In 1974 he was visiting members of the Red Army Faction in jail, talking about how violent revolution was justified in the third world but not in France or West Germany. Through the 70's in response to the Czech crisis, many European communist parties broke their links to the Soviet Union but that didn't mean they all suddenly renounced class politics and were only interested in identity politics.
Bravo - nice post
The journey Peterson takes to reach his destination is often discordant, extreme and ultimately makes very much the same error that post modernists make. However, the destination and conclusions he finally reaches, I believe to be devastatingly accurate and profound.

I have read a number of the post modernists and literary theorists - Foucalt, Lyotard, Adorno and merely attempted Derrida and Deleuze and his mate - I have not formally studied any of them. Nor could I digest Sarte.

What I have gleaned is that just like Peterson, post modernists and literary theorist are obsessed with the brutality of the 20th century - it forms the foundation of their attitudes and thinking. Peterson is horrified by tyranny of dictatorships and post modernists are horrified by state power, big capitalism and all forms of oppression and exclusion of people, minorities....

The horror and sorrow cast by two world wars, nazism, stalinism, purges and the holocaust hangs over them all like storm clouds. Where Peterson attributes this to macro tyranny - Hitler, Stalin, Marxism - the post modernists hope to reveal and repair hidden micro tyranny in our language our traditions where ever they may lie.

For Peterson the issue and the cause is simply resolved and he moves on to other questions.

But for post modernists - there can never be an end - there is always another oppression, another hidden tyranny. And like the hydra, you can cut off one head and another grows. Post Modernism is by definition a critique without a solution. It can't posit a way forward because the inherent risk of creating a new oppression. So it identifies micro tyranny and galvanises support to remove it or placate its most vehement expression.

And you could argue - it has been a benevolent movement which has instilled a compassion and tolerance - homosexuality, feminism, religious minorities, ... Its intention is certainly benevolent but I would suggest everything has a darker side - whatever the intention. I would also question how much Post Modernism can claim to have aided the cause of progress and how much of it has and continues to occur organically due to economics and technological progress.

Nevertheless, although I am highly critical of postmodernism and its out crop of PC and Identity politics - I can concede it has a legitimate and important role in identifying oppression in its various guises and that it may well help keep our excesses at bay. May be.

There is however negative side to Post modernism and its progeny. It fundamentally lacks a unifying view or purpose - as by definition it can't posit one. It can critique but it cannot propose a way to live. It can't propose a hierarchy. And if Peterson is right - which I believe he is - that hierarchies are in our DNA and impossible to avoid because of the given world we occupy -

post modernism acts as a negative force against any praxis, reorganisation or purpose. Here I think Peterson has stumbled on the anti-dote. Thinkers, Philosophers need to reignite their creativity to find new answers and solutions to modern problems - they may need to listen to the post modernist critique and take into account their perspectives - but they also need to toughen up, accept the responsibility and march us forward.

Post Modernism is the nagging hyper critical voice in our head - which tells us we will fail, we will hurt someone, we are useless.
It is quite natural to get annoyed with it and angry. But it aint going anywhere - and maybe it is a good thing - so we all better just toughen up
 

Snake_Baker

Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
36,806
Likes
64,064
Location
Destination Club
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Pfffft, as if!
Post Modernism is the nagging hyper critical voice in our head - which tells us we will fail, we will hurt someone, we are useless. It is quite natural to get annoyed with it and angry. But it aint going anywhere - and maybe it is a good thing - so we all better just toughen up
It's basic philosophical tenet is that it cannot be defined.

How ridiculous has the world become when something so absurd can become a major driving force in academia?
 

smokingjacket

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Posts
3,519
Likes
3,582
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Liverpool
And you could argue - it has been a benevolent movement which has instilled a compassion and tolerance - homosexuality, feminism, religious minorities, ... Its intention is certainly benevolent but I would suggest everything has a darker side - whatever the intention. I would also question how much Post Modernism can claim to have aided the cause of progress and how much of it has and continues to occur organically due to economics and technological progress.

Nevertheless, although I am highly critical of postmodernism and its out crop of PC and Identity politics - I can concede it has a legitimate and important role in identifying oppression in its various guises and that it may well help keep our excesses at bay. May be.
While I don't agree with everything you're saying, I appreciate your thoughtful responses yebiga at some point I will give you a more detailed reply specifically on post-modernism.

To me this part of your post highlights one of many problems with Peterson's timeline and theory of post-modernism, in that he places far too much emphasis on post-modernism and the New Left as the source of feminism, gay rights, immigration and so on. He ignores the far more significant role of post war liberal institutions and a legalistic human rights discourse in 'progressive' change in the West. Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was in place from 1948. To say condemn all government intervention in social relations as tyranny means disavowing much of the liberal conception of human rights.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
 

RobbieK

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
1,818
Likes
2,485
Location
Berlin
AFL Club
Sydney
Folks keep getting hung up on the minor interpretative issues.

This is the clip you should be watching

"Collectivism is tyranny under the guise of benevolence"

His misinterpretation of what postmodernist forms of Marxism look like is not minor.

Peterson claims that they are interested in totalitarian when they are actually arguing for something that in many ways is indistinguishable from anarchism. The mischaracterisation could not be more fundamentally wrong.

He is right to criticise authoritarian collectivism, but you will find that there is more drive towards such a politics in the mainstream political parties in Australia than there is in the works of postmodern Marxists.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom