Jordan Peterson:

[Anonymous No.9965421]

Am I Unfair to Postmodernism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AjoeBFW1vw

[Anonymous No.9965429]

>>9965421
He simply doesn't understand postmodernism and appeals to others who don't

[Anonymous No.9965443]

>>9965429

>He simply doesn't understand postmodernism

literally every pomo ever

your ideology either means something identifiable and articulable or its an amalgam of meaningless, sophistic interpretations ad infinitum

>pro tip: it's the latter

[Anonymous No.9965451]

>>9965443
Or it's just some dudes who you don't understand how to read and then bitch about later on 4chan.
Ten bucks say it is.

[Anonymous No.9965457]

Postmodernism has to go.

[Anonymous No.9965458]

>>9965443
why is the one thing you won't check the wikipedia on postmodernism? seriously, that's the level of research kermit needed to do to not be memeing, and he didn't. enjoy your fantasyland with him where dictionaries and encyclopedias don't exist to hurt you.

[Anonymous No.9965473]

>>9965451
>>9965458

>"no one understands pomo"
>ok wise anon enlighten us
>"HAHAHA SEE ANON I TOLD U"

what I find even more humorous is when I point out that pomo's can't EVER seem to establish an agreed upon definition of their ideology and someone comes in the thread trying to define it and immediately gets replies about how their interpretation is wrong

I know Sokal is a tired meme by now but there's a reason no one takes you lot seriously with exception to scholars for whom jerking each other about about how the west can be deconstructed through the metaphorical penis in obscure journals no one reads

[Anonymous No.9965481]

>>9965443
>I don't understand postmodernism but I know I don't like it because the people who are considered postmodern say things and act in ways I don't like.
>Therefore, postmodernism is a Jewish Marxist conspiracy to destroy white people and turn Western culture into a Sodomite, barbarian safe space.

[Anonymous No.9965487]

>>9965473

Equating postmodernism to its interpretation by Tumblr fatties is like reducing Conservative thought to the alt-right. They're both popular sub-culture that loosely draw from the underlying philosophy

PoMo isn't as much about the "deconstruction" of the West, but about the state of the Western culture

[Anonymous No.9965497]

>>9965481
>>9965487

>Therefore, postmodernism is a Jewish Marxist conspiracy to destroy white people and turn Western culture into a Sodomite, barbarian safe space.

never even implied that lmao what's it like being an enlightened freshman film student who has every nuance of "of grammatology" figured out?

>STILL HASN'T DEFINED IT

HAHAHAHAHAHA

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>guise this is a totally legitimate ideology trust me, it's just too complex 4 u 2 understand
>brb 'bout to submit this article about why jerking off in a kiddie pool is actually oppression stemming from children to peer review

[Anonymous No.9965509]

>>9965473
Oh Sokal didn't claim that misuse of scientific Jargon out of context invalidates all of ideas of pomo thinkers.

Like Literally read the preface to Intellectual Imposture:
" We show that famous intellectuals such as Lacan, Kristeva, Irigaray, Baudrillard and Deleuze have repeatedly abused scientific concepts and terminology: either using scientific ideas totally out of context, without giving the slightest justification – note that we are not against extrapolating concepts from one field to another, but only against extrapolations made without argument – or throwing around scientific jargon in front of their non-scientist readers without any regard for its relevance or even its meaning. We make no claim that this invalidates the rest of their work, on which we suspend judgment."

[Anonymous No.9965512]

>tfw the alt-right cancer is leaking to my comfy board

[Anonymous No.9965517]

>>9965497
you could literally read a SEP article on it, but it's quite clear from the way you post that you are primarily interested in shit flinging

>>9965473
>>9965509
interesting to mention Sokal, I wonder what he would think about Peterson's treatment of Godel

[Anonymous No.9965523]

>>9965497

When you make complete strawmen of the entirety of "pomo" thinkers and then claim the trend is bankrupt. There's little to go on for discussion. Atleast read their works and try to understand what is being said.

Also the Sokal Hoax wasn't peer reviewed. So wow bamboozled again that Jargon of authenticity got published in a non peer reviewed journal.

[Anonymous No.9965528]

>>9965517

Again from the same book , the following paragraph

" We are sometimes accused of being arrogant scientists, but our view of the hard sciences’ role is in fact rather modest. Wouldn’t it be nice (for us mathematicians and physicists, that is) if Gödel’s theorem or relativity theory did have immediate and deep implications for the study of society? Or if the axiom of choice could be used to study poetry? Or if topology had something to do with the human psyche? But alas, it is not the case."

[Anonymous No.9965546]

>asks for an agreed upon definition of pomo to display that if it can mean anything it means nothing and there is no agreed upon definition, just myriad interpretation
>gets told he doesn't understand pomo and he's alt-right

Wow we have some real heavy hitting intellectuals on here

Coincidentally they can't define anything

[Anonymous No.9965547]

>>9965528

Tfw Sokal called out Peterson out on his abuse of Godel's Theory before he even wrote his Maps of Meaning.

Tfw Peterson is now part of Intellectual Imposture

Tfw Peterson is legitimately part of Pomo trend now.

Gee what do now anon

[Anonymous No.9965579]

Nobody ever in these threads never makes a video reply / post reply to Peterson. He accepts debates and a reasoned argument. Why don't you do it?

Besides there's almost never hardly critique of JP's critique of post modern. It's essentilally >>9965546 this, triggered left leaning parasites.

[Anonymous No.9965587]

>>9965579
On 4chan, Peterson is associated with /pol/

So many don't give him a proper chance as a serious thinker, I guess

[Anonymous No.9965588]

>>9965579
That's cause someone else already did.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuEccEYvaE

[Anonymous No.9965609]

>>9965421
This tard doesn't even know what postmodernism is.

[Anonymous No.9965610]

>>9965579
>>9965588
4chan is such a fucking meme.

[Anonymous No.9965613]

>>9965587
Everywhere else beside youtube comments people are fully aware that the only reason his name gets brought up is his relentless pandering to the /pol/ type crowd.

[Anonymous No.9965637]

>wanting to be an essentialist
why? if essence precedes existence then you can never accomplish anything for yourself.

i mean, if you have rich parents, like rich in saudi terms of rich, that might be comforting to explain your situation and of no real consequence, but i doubt the bitches that follow him are read for existentialism either.

it reminds me of the YA mary sue girls whose special powers are being utterly mediocre and still having the supernatural creatures coming both in and out of her vagoo who all look suspiciously like the guys who turned her down in high school ten years before she found fanfiction and low fat icecream.

at least his fans are dumb so when jung's claims about everyone being bisexual and bigendered come up, it's going to make their transformation into their enemies all the more hilarious.

[Anonymous No.9965641]

>>9965637
>are read for
are _ready_ for

[Anonymous No.9965642]

>>9965587
>So many don't give him a proper chance as a serious thinker
because he isn't one
he's a depressed middle aged college professor who rants and cries in front of a webcam

[Anonymous No.9965653]

>>9965642
>he's a depressed middle aged college professor who rants and cries in front of a webcam
well to be fair to depressed middle aged college professors, they won't let them on quiz shows for undeserved fame any more since that "how to read a book" guy

[Anonymous No.9965657]

>>9965642
>he's a depressed middle aged college professor

Most great thinkers were

[Anonymous No.9965658]

>>9965657
like heidegger?

[Anonymous No.9965670]

>>9965658
Heidegger, Kant, Hegel, Adam Smith, Barthes, Foucault, Chomsky, the list goes on ...

If anything, being a somewhat awkward teacher/professor qualifies, rather than disqualifies you as great western thinker

[Anonymous No.9965688]

>>9965670
fine, then he's not a thinker cause anyone who waves the gulag archipelago around as proof of anything other than "gulags = shit" is a shit thinker

[Anonymous No.9965691]

>>9965670
your memes are all over the place, but you are trying. extra points if you're a letterist or alia

[Anonymous No.9965694]

Well at least he's now differentiating between neo-Marxism and postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.9965696]

Broke: Agreeing with Peterson's ideas on PoMo
Woke: Agreeing with Styx's take on PoMo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cX-e-htckc

[Anonymous No.9965697]

>>9965473
Solid definitions get posted pretty much every thread there's a discussion of it. And also for some reason people saying 'they don't ever agree' gets posted every thread as well. I think you're just an idiot. Postmodernism isn't hard to understand.

[Anonymous No.9965699]

>>9965688
Peterson namedropped Gulag Archipelago? Where?
I believe the message of the book to be "authoritarianism, totalitarian government = shit"

>>9965691
>Letterist or Alia

I didn't know what that was, thanks for the interesting terms

[Anonymous No.9965702]

>>9965696
man who looks like a bleached dog turd in a leather jacket: "Pomo is just a celebration of ugliness"

[Anonymous No.9965706]

>>9965699
>Peterson namedropped Gulag Archipelago? Where?
in some of his previous vids
that's probably why it's been mentioned more and more

>I believe the message of the book to be "authoritarianism, totalitarian government = shit"
yeah

[Anonymous No.9965707]

>>9965421
Postmodernism is thinly veiled nihilism.

[Anonymous No.9965710]

>>9965473
Things like that image don't actually tell me 'postmodernism' is fundamentally 'malevolent' or whatever like Peterson says, just that in the early days of having fat-positive movements the academies will, I guess, trim the fat off these movements where the logic contradicts itself, because they are fundamentally Western and still use the same manner of determining truth from non-truth. For example, there's no point saying there's no obligation to be healthy while you're saying fat people aren't necessarily unhealthy. That's what reactionary arguments do. But that doesn't mean you engage in the same stupid reactionary sophistry like scientism (even though yes 'science' is important, even more important than the dweebs who invoke it to win arguments in a culture war instead of understand the world)

Everyone needs to fucking chill out and write a book or something, spend more time cultivating yourself and your views instead of engaging in shallow, rapid-fire flamewars

[Anonymous No.9965714]

>>9965497
If you want someone to define it for you, just ask. Use your words.

[Anonymous No.9965726]

>>9965707
Pretty much everything is thinly-veiled nihilism. Even being religious for the sake of needing to believe in something is fundamentally nihilistic.

[Anonymous No.9965733]

>>9965443
Postmodernism either means something identifiable or JP is attacking... nothing? JP clearly thinks postmodernism means something, if someone says he doesn't understand it you fail to defend him by claiming postmodernism never actually meant anything in the first place.

>While encompassing a broad range of ideas, postmodernism is typically defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony or rejection toward grand narratives, ideologies and various tenets of universalism, including objective notions of reason, human nature, social progress, moral universalism, absolute truth, and objective reality. Instead, it asserts to varying degrees that claims to knowledge and truth are products of social, historical or political discourses or interpretations, and are therefore contextual or socially constructed. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, irreverence and self-referentiality.

Yes postmodernism is a broad and nebulous term and thus people will disagree and debate about what exactly it does or should mean. This is the nature of language. Regardless it is a tool to facilitate communication. Getting hung up on language to exploit biases is a political/rhetorical tool(pro-life vs anti-choice) labels can and do matter, but don't change the things being discussed. The movement outlined above is very real and has been refereed to as postmodernism for some time by many people. What JP attacks when he talks about postmodernism seems to be something quite different, if he isn't referring to the above movement perhaps he should state that specifically and tell people what term he will use when he is talking about it(If he has done this please feel free to link me). However it seems he really is referring to this movement because he names thinkers associated with it(in this particular video Foucault(though Foucault himself rejected the label(not to say he is misrepresenting Foucault, he was a postmodernist, simply a point about language))). Now that we have hopefully cleared some of the ambiguities of the discussion away I hope I can convince you, if not to read actual postmodernist work, to at least read the Wikipedia page on postmodernism quoted(even the quote might be enough). You will then perhaps see why many people believe JP might not understand it, his criticisms seems off the mark to the degree that the alternative to lack of understanding is intentional misrepresentation.

[Anonymous No.9965734]

>>9965421
>there's an infinite number of ways of interpreting any set of data

This is such a misleading 'postmodernist' argument. Yes there's infinite ways of interpreting data in a vacuum but a key postmodernist point is that all this interpretation happens in specific historical, political and social contexts. If he read Nietzsche and read Foucault he should know this.

[Decent guy No.9965735]

Wow I was going to talk about some topics but it's a big cluster fuck

[Anonymous No.9965740]

Imagine being so arrogant to presume a tenured professor can't comprehend the concept of postmodernism as well as you, anon, the college freshman addicted to anonymous imageboards

[Anonymous No.9965741]

>>9965473
>can't look up wikipedia by himself
you only have to read the first couple paragraphs before the contents section. if you can't manage that, you're probably most useful by raging against whatever that picture is. water finds its own level and all that.
>yfwywnb based enough to be an actual postmodernist and have french bitches paint wrestle for your art
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj9nHa7FtQQ

[Anonymous No.9965744]

>>9965740
>he's older, so he must understand a concept better

really?

[Anonymous No.9965746]

>>9965740
Reading even one chapter of a postmodernist text should make you aware that he is talking about something that postmodernism isn't. What is 'there are infinite ways of interpreting data' if not an interpretation of data?

[Anonymous No.9965752]

>>9965740
>it's only anon that can argue with him
there's plenty that can, they just write books with heideggerean terminology that would probably lose peterson.

try pat bracken's postpsychiatry he's a psychiatrist, not just a psychology professor, and has a philosophy degree, so imagine the arrogance kermit must have to argue with someone even more qualified in both disciplines compared to him.

or, like the wikipedia guy is saying, you can try the top of that page if reading a whole chapter is hard for you.

[Anonymous No.9965754]

>>9965744
>all old people are tenured professors

>>9965746
except that is one of the basic tenets of postmodernism: the deconstruction of narratives ie the idea of meaning as sociohistorical construction. the way he puts it forward might not be the most apt, but he's certainly talking about pomo

[Anonymous No.9965757]

>>9965754
>the deconstruction of narratives ie the idea of meaning as sociohistorical construction.
like jungian dream analysis?

[Anonymous No.9965758]

>>9965752
see? you immediately assume i'm not acquainted with the subject. you guys are so fucking arrogant, it almost reminds me of myself as an early 20 something

[Anonymous No.9965759]

>>9965758
okay, what are your arguments against bracken? i'll expect them fast since you're au fait.

[Anonymous No.9965765]

>>9965740
Yeah, it's simply mind boggling how people who have actually read postmodern philosophers think they comprehend the concepts they are writing about better than some random schmuck who clearly didn't.

[Anonymous No.9965770]

>>9965752
But Anon, Peterson has a philosophy degree and is a active practising psychiatrist. Your being incredibly petty as well, It wouldn't be nice to argue that Kermit is more qualified because he has been cited a hundred times more than Bracken would it?

[Anonymous No.9965775]

>>9965770
>Peterson's an MD
No, no, he's not, anon. If he's practising psychiatry, he's breaking the law just as much as selling crack as a psychiatric intervention doesn't hold up in court.

[Anonymous No.9965779]

>>9965770
>he doesn't know the difference between and MD and a PhD
kek that has wonderful possibilities

[Anonymous No.9965780]

>>9965754
But if Peterson goes on to say, which he does, that the number of 'viable' interpretations is limited to minimising suffering, repeatability, being non-objectionable, functional, etc., then isn't he describing socially constructed interpretations? Each of his points describes how societies function, but he says that postmodernists 'haven't grappled' with these limits on interpretation, despite it being a 'basic tenet' of postmodernism that meaning is limited to sociohistoric contexts rather than being near infinite.

[Anonymous No.9965791]

it seems like postmodernism is just another label like existentialism
where it clearly means something
but it may or may not be related to another set of ideas

its just a generalization that says yeah it exists, and its clearly not modernist thought.

[Anonymous No.9965796]

>>9965791
existentialism is considered a subset of postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.9965813]

>>9965421
Both jordan peterson and pomo are shit.

https://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf

[Anonymous No.9965819]

>>9965775
Well, your right, I lied, I spent exactly 30 seconds on google and it seems like his clinical practices are outsourced to other psychiatrists and he's just a director/manager.

[Anonymous No.9965839]

>>9965819
I think a lot of anons into him are spending less than 30 seconds on google, so you're good by comparison. Peterson's not really a good source and he can lead to very lazy thinking and a lot of misconceptions (even of Jung).

For instance, there's a reason when he's dealing with feminism that he uses the "essential" female pathology from Freud. He is an essentialist, but Jung doesn't have that concept as essentially feminine. He's against collective identity, which goes against essentialism and Jung; essentialism because if there is a feminine pathology, then they do share at least a pathological identity if not more traits; and Jung because his most famous idea is the collective unconscious.

You don't want to imitate his cherrypicking because you'll never get good that way.

[Anonymous No.9965848]

>>9965839
I'm not actually a fan of Peterson (he's too much of a Libertarian for me personally) or previously involved in the thread, I just thought Anon's argument was terrible.

[Anonymous No.9965859]

>>9965848
He's not too much of a libertarian for me, but then the equivalent in my country are living in caves and forests. He's just too much of an obvious dumbass. He should just say he dislikes tumblrites or SJWs etc. Postmodernism outlined some of the positions he backs, so that he really thinks its his enemy is bizarre.

I don't know why he thinks the idiots who care about IdPol are sitting at home reading Derrida and getting IdPolpilled. They'd probably cry if you made them read Derrida and try to sue you for cruel and unusual punishment and misogynistic violence.

[Anonymous No.9965888]

>>9965859
will leftypol ever fuck off?
Isn't there a tranny that needs defending?

[Anonymous No.9965894]

>>9965888
I'm not a leftist. I'm a hardcore traditionalist, and part of that is demanding you read the fucking dictionary if you need to know what a word means.

[Anonymous No.9965909]

>>9965894
>I'm a hardcore traditionalist
>complaining about "idpol"
>defending pomo
sure thing

[Anonymous No.9965954]

>>9965909
>not wanting monarchy
>thinks defining something is defending it
lel peasant

[Anonymous No.9965971]

>>9965954
m8 come on, the only ones who complain about idpol are le edgy leftists from leftypol

[Anonymous No.9965979]

>>9965971
>Peterson is an edgy leftist from leftypol
He does seem about as confused.

[Anonymous No.9966018]

>>9965770
>Peterson has a philosophy degree
no he doesnt

[Anonymous No.9966041]

>>9966018
He actually has a B.A in Political Science and has previously mentioned in a interview he has a unspecified qualification in English Literature (probably a associate's?).

[Anonymous No.9966062]

>>9966041
>Political Science

[Anonymous No.9966075]

>>9966062
What? depending on what country, or even what university Political Science can come under the banner of Philosophy (which it did in his case, hence why he didn't continue and switched to psychiatry), Unlike in America where Political Science is basically economic and law combined into one unified subject.

[Anonymous No.9966085]

>>9965512
iktf

[Anonymous No.9966114]

>>9965512

Peterson isn't alt-right.

[Anonymous No.9966168]

>>9965421
I really wish post-modernist writing was some evil conspiracy to destroy the world. It'd be way cooler.

[Anonymous No.9966208]

>>9965702
The beauty he failed to see is that there's no way to demonstrate that he's wrong.

[Anonymous No.9966220]

>>9966208
That's because he isn't wrong, many Pomo artists outright admit their art is about making the ugly beautiful, some will also admit it's entirely about making money, so people not know the hilarious hypocrisy of Warhol? that guy was great.

[Anonymous No.9966221]

>>9966075
I think he meant to imply pic related.

[Anonymous No.9966237]

>>9965473
postmodernism is such a loosely connected catch all term that you cant really define it.
>If clouds are real why dont you hand me one?
This is what youre essentially asking

[Anonymous No.9966241]

>>9965497
That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning.

The term “postmodernism” first entered the philosophical lexicon in 1979, with the publication of The Postmodern Condition by Jean-François Lyotard. I therefore give Lyotard pride of place in the sections that follow. An economy of selection dictated the choice of other figures for this entry. I have selected only those most commonly cited in discussions of philosophical postmodernism, five French and two Italian, although individually they may resist common affiliation. Ordering them by nationality might duplicate a modernist schema they would question, but there are strong differences among them, and these tend to divide along linguistic and cultural lines. The French, for example, work with concepts developed during the structuralist revolution in Paris in the 1950s and early 1960s, including structuralist readings of Marx and Freud. For this reason they are often called “poststructuralists.” They also cite the events of May 1968 as a watershed moment for modern thought and its institutions, especially the universities. The Italians, by contrast, draw upon a tradition of aesthetics and rhetoric including figures such as Giambattista Vico and Benedetto Croce. Their emphasis is strongly historical, and they exhibit no fascination with a revolutionary moment. Instead, they emphasize continuity, narrative, and difference within continuity, rather than counter-strategies and discursive gaps. Neither side, however, suggests that postmodernism is an attack upon modernity or a complete departure from it.

[Anonymous No.9966243]

>>9965429
How can you watch that video and then say this? He explains for you exactly what his goal is. It's not to thoroughly understand all of the inner workings of pomo but to provide a low resolution snapshot for an angle of criticism via a particular moral stance based on his own value structure.

And that is what philosophy is about. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with all philosophy, because it is all about value judgments. The self-proclaimed amoral philosophers are not amoral in the slightest. We are all moral and living creatures and this has a serious impact on what we think. From Peterson's POV the implications he derives from his study of pomo are completely valid. Now, you can disagree and have your own POV that does not see these implications, but that in no way means that his POV and what he is seeing is wrong.

I don't see what is endangering about what he says either. I assume he gets attacked on here a lot because there's some perceived endangerment. He talks about and promotes individuation and that's mostly it. Individuation is beneficial to everyone. He also points out the shadow of certain ideas as a warning and form of guidance. He's not putting down anyone speaking out for the gender fluid pronouns, for example, it is more like a lecture of warning on what problems it could lead to and trying to steer people in the direction of a healthier outcome. If your response is that he has no right over the domain of what is healthy, then you need to demonstrate why you have the right over the domain of claiming that.

[Anonymous No.9966247]

>>9965429
fpbp

[Anonymous No.9966251]

>>9966241
>The term “postmodernism” first entered the philosophical lexicon in 1979
This is just like objectively wrong, the fuck.

[Anonymous No.9966267]

>>9966251
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

[Anonymous No.9966278]

>>9966267
That's nice and all, It's still wrong, "Post-Modern(ism)" as a descriptive term has been in use since at least the early the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.9966289]

>>9966278
I'm not the postmodernist gatekeeper of when something is officially included in the philosophical lexicon.

[Anonymous No.9966298]

>>9966243
>He's not putting down anyone speaking out for the gender fluid pronouns, for example, it is more like a lecture of warning on what problems it could lead to and trying to steer people in the direction of a healthier outcome.
this is the same thing, the lecture you mention is just the pputdown in different terms
it's like saying "I'm not gonna fuck you in the ass, I'm just gonna anally penetrate you"

[Anonymous No.9966307]

>>9966298
It's the same thing if you're that insecure about it. The former actually doesn't care about your welfare at all while the latter is criticising you with concern for your future self and children.

[Anonymous No.9966311]

>>9966298
>"I'm not gonna fuck you in the ass, I'm just gonna anally penetrate you"
Is that an analogy for compelled special pronouns?

[Anonymous No.9966328]

>>9965734
And unique social construct/cultures do not exist.
"All" heterosexual women want men taller than themselves. All cultures are fundamentally extremely similar at their cores.
That's why pomo is bad. You can't change "human nature".

[Anonymous No.9966340]

Here's a simple way of thinking about pomo
>its the reaction to modernism
>modernism was defined by its adherence to fixed values and ideas about the world
>pomo rightfully criticizes modernism's its austerity
>pomo begins experimenting with how to tear down and manipulate modernism's value systems
>they realize they obvious: wait, in fact, nothing matters lol
>pomo authors now deal within the space of irony, self-awareness and self referentiality because modernist authors were being spooky as shit
>no more God and no more inherent value meant individual journey towards your own value
>^^ is this where we get the idea that pomo is supposed to be an ideology that accepts anything
>pomo is dictated by its acceptance of nihilism.. but if modernism was what directly succeeded nihilism what brought about nihilism and why didn't it affect it?
t. Gleamed a couple wiki pages.

I'm personally interested in how modernism because a thing. Was it a way for authors during the chaos of the world wars to find a solace and a wish to live under its threat?

Yeah I'm retarded so these generalizations are probably wrong but I feel like I'm somewhere in the ball park.

Fuck Peterson though.

[Anonymous No.9966341]

>>9966328
>You can't change "human nature".
yes, that's why we're living in the same society as 100k years ago

[Anonymous No.9966361]

>>9965443
You know he doesn't understand postmodernism?
Because there's such fucking thing as "postmodernism". It's literally just a snarl word to lump together a bunch of disparate thinkers and write them off in one go because people can't be bothered to read difficult prose.

[Anonymous No.9966365]

>>9965579
>>9965588

[Anonymous No.9966369]

>>9965740
>a tenured professor with no background or expertise in philosophy
hm

[Anonymous No.9966402]

>>9966365
That cap doesn't actually say anything at all

[Anonymous No.9966419]

>>9966402
how very "PoMo" of it :^)

[Anonymous No.9966425]

>>9966402
if you look there are actually 6 paragraphs

[Anonymous No.9966432]

>>9965740
Maybe if he were a professor in the subject I would trust his opinions on it more. Maybe if he showed any evidence for his opinions I would trust them more. Maybe if he didn't use politically-charged rhetoric then I would trust his opinions more.

[Anonymous No.9966442]

>>9966340
autism demands i correct this
>nothing matters
postmodernism doesn't say this. it just says nothing universally matters, not that things don't locally matter.

it says the things that happen in your time and place will have a great meaning and impact on how you operate and perceive the world, more so than any universal.

it means that a universal essentialist ideology is harder to establish, and points out why those plans for making everyone on the globe speak and act as though there is a global "norm" doesn't work.

it's not that there's no more god, it's that there are many new gods and no way to get rid of them even if you wanted to do that. it's important to keep in mind that modernism believed in science and progress, not so much god.
postmodernism's beef, or at least a large part of it, is that knowing the speed of light doesn't actually do anything for human problems. your neighbour will still be a much greater problem and reality for you whether you learn the universal constant or not.

in reference to this thread, the people who peterson is up against are ***modernists***. they believe their view of society is the route to scientific human progress, and should be universally employed. they think gender is a fact, and not something that changes based on your culture and timeframe, but something essential to your being. for most postmodernism, that's impossible, and as much a fad of our current era as crossdressing in the russian nobility was a fad in the period preceding catherine the great. the nobility didn't like it, but "don't argue with the empress of russia" is closer to a universal truth than the type of thing SJW gender theorists come up with

i don't get why peterson needs to call them postmodernists. postmodernists would largely disagree with the people he hates because they're mostly essentialist modernists, trying to enforce their "truth" on others through "science" that's about as sketchy as the "proofs" for "god" before it.

[Anonymous No.9966445]

>>9966402
You have to examine it in the context of August 21, 2017.

[Anonymous No.9966477]

>>9966442
Hey that was a great clarification, thank you. It elucidates essential specific points about pomo which I hadn't considered.

[Anonymous No.9966496]

>>9966365
That is the way an idiot who is trying very hard to seem smart writes. Why is this screencapped?

be honest anon, did you screencap your own post?

[Anonymous No.9966505]

>>9966442
Post modernism critiques universality of thought, ideology, etc., but in the face of globalism this definitely seems possible, no?

[Anonymous No.9966528]

>>9965421
Is he summoning an energy ball?

[Anonymous No.9966531]

>>9966505
>but in the face of globalism this definitely seems possible, no
this is where the neighbour bit comes in. let's assume the world agrees on one language, one set of cultural norms, and one currency, and one government, and we all decide to be atheists or to be of the one religion.... does your gf still pick fights with you? will the one world government come in during those moments and tell you which one of you is right, and exterminate the abnormal one to maintain power? would you want to fuck someone who only ever has the same thoughts as you?

it wouldn't work because it ignores that humans don't even fit perfectly into local cultures. none of them are stable and their idea of the normal standard version of themselves is an ideal, not a reality. you could pick someone close to normal, but they won't be bang on normal, because that only exists in math.

even if it were possible to normalize the world like that, it would be awful for humans. if you want a good postmodern fiction which is pretty babbytier but highly relevant, check out vonnegut's short story harrison bergeron, it's about the kind of bullshit you'd have to go through to create anything approaching that society.

[Anonymous No.9966532]

>>9966442
Not that anon, but if I had an oracle for postmodernism: how do postmodernist thinkers fit under that umbrella, or have a consistent enough position on science or proof to make that consensus? If nothing universally matters, then are there no universal criteria for postmodernism? On what grounds does one exclude anything? On what grounds does one include something? Nice post, btw.

[Anonymous No.9966555]

>>9966531
>even if it were possible to normalize the world like that,
It seems possible to me, though.

I guess I always think in reference to the AI revolution, but by then we're just bugs at that point anyways and it wouldn't matter. Thanks for your help.

[Anonymous No.9966559]

>>9966532
within the context of western philosophy, postmodern has a pretty strict meaning. likewise, within the context of astrophysics, "metals" has a pretty strict meaning which includes oxygen as a metal.

you could say that postmodernism actually means "running naked through the forest with a beer can up my ass". that won't be recognised as a description of the philosophical concept of "postmodernism" within the discipline of western philosophy currently though. they'll still consider that to be mostly about rejecting modernist proposals of universal narratives ("math is the universal language, which is why we all do it differently"; "science will explain all human problems because we can work out the heisenberg uncertainty problem means us trying to work it out will always be the problem"; "footnotes are extra special smart facts and you'll never find out the author didn't exist or didn't write that") and questioning the idea of progress (either towards a golden age of science by 3000 or towards a millennial collapse by science in 2038, or, on the neocon side, towards the fulfillment of biblical prophecies that Jesus comes back if we just fund Israel enough).

Heidegger's idea of ontology vs the ontic is where I'd recommend you start if you're willing to make your brain hurt.

[Anonymous No.9966574]

>>9966555
I dunno, man. You've probably had arguments with people where they say the exact same words of your argument back to you or even just
>NO U
arguments. That's within one language which probably comes from the same culture, or a similar one to yours at least and which values your shared language and its cultural norms to some extent. Why that would get easy when you add in languages that don't use the same facial muscles and would cause you physical pain to try to pronounce when it's hard to find total agreement on any one issue in a village, I just don't know.

How's it possible from your point of view?

[Anonymous No.9966575]

>>9965613
That is a pretty broad brush for the /pol/ types. It is so broad it makes me think Trump already has his second term locked up.

[Anonymous No.9966595]

>>9966575
>It is so broad it makes me think Trump already has his second term locked up.
yeah he'll win because of youtube comments and 4chan memes, great analysis

[Anonymous No.9966629]

>>9966595
I'm just saying Jordan Peterson has broader appeal than just the /pol/ types. If you think the only people who watch Peterson are on /pol/ or inclined to /pol/ like views then that is confessing that Trump has the same broad appeal.

[Anonymous No.9966663]

>>9966629
I know he has broad appeal, some people I know watch him and they're not poltards
they are pretty pol-adjacent though

[Anonymous No.9966710]

>>9966663
>pretty pol-adjacent though
What qualifies as /pol/ adjacent? Anyone that has ever voted for a candidate that is in a conservative party? I think lots of Peterson's appeal is that he lets people feel like they have some control over their lives by winnowing down what exactly they can control. The other part of his appeal is him standing up to the polygender pronoun cultural and legal movement.

[Anonymous No.9966712]

>>9965429
>He simply doesn't understand
Every time.

[Anonymous No.9966730]

>>9965740
People here can't accept the fact that a genre fiction novel can have elements of Postmodernism. Just let them be.

[Anonymous No.9966801]

I've listened to this video twice. What is his criticism of post-modernism? How is it leading to the destruction of society?

This video is a bunch of strange claims about the destructiveness of authors (who just write books) and then saying they're to blame for historical genocides? I want something more specific.

[Anonymous No.9966838]

>>9966801
His take on post modernism seems to be that he views it as ultimately a destructive force for nihilism. He thinks society needs truths and post modernism destroys established truths without replacing them with anything. He views the main underlying principle of western society as logos, which he describes as a search for the truth. Without the idea that there can be objective truth and objective morality groups and society as whole will create their own to suit them, but it will be born out of a negotiation of politics instead of an exercise of thought and intellect.

[Anonymous No.9966849]

>>9966838
To add onto that he is worried that society will replace truth with ideology. And he views Nazism and Communism as recent destructive xamples of societies ruled by ideology.

[Anonymous No.9966869]

>>9966838
I just listened to another video that YT put in the sidebar. He seems to dislike pomo theory because it is 'resentment based' and that people should be grateful for living in the best of all possible worlds.

How does that mesh with 'pomo nihilism is destroying civilization'? If this is the best of all possible worlds, then you need to take it as a whole, including the SJWs and feminists and neo-nazi's and religious terrorists.

I understand why he would want objective truth, objective morality. They're really nice ideas. But the mere fact of disagreement should be enough to dismiss them as fairy tales. If morality was objective, we wouldn't have competing moral systems. If the aztecs were immoral, but morality is objective, then why would they deviate? Original Sin?

Anyway, he seems like a typical reactionary conservative. He wants to hold onto some old world, that world is dying. I don't blame him for his struggle, everyone can fight for whatever it is they want out of the future, but he won't win. The speed of change can only get more extreme.

If I was a conservative, the last thing I'd be worried about are feminists and pomo philosophers. I'd be worried about silicon valley, AI, artificial wombs, genetic engineering, global warming, digitalization, simulation, that kind of stuff. These are the changes that will shake the world. If we start making new genders and w/e, it's just window dressing for a bigger change that's happening.

pic related, Jean Baudrillard, one JP's pomo boogeymen

[Youmu !!dAK6HcPkF7X No.9966910]

>>9966574
I am nearly not as well read or knowledgeable on the topic as you are, but I suppose I'm a bit of a human-hating AI worshipper that is simply waiting for the end of humanity to overlords to swiftly wrest global control from us. And by that POV none of what we're talking about really matters.

In the years leading up to the (imo inevitable) rise of general AI, I think our society will be uniform and entirely globalized. I don't care of the drawbacks to this - rather I welcome it. Perhaps because I feel that it makes us one step closer to meeting our makers.

However, in a global society, cosmopolitanism and disalignment are inefficient, culturally and technologically, or at the least irrelevant. I say it's inefficient because of its potential to fracture society thus inhibiting universality. It will, imo, but done away with in one way or another and I've no clue how honestly. It's easier to see how we've made things irrelevant however (e.g race), but I don't have any reason to believe things will be inherently different in any way in a truly universal world. Perhaps my definition of 'universal' is too rigid, though.

[Anonymous No.9966961]

>>9966114
No, but the fuckshits from /pol/ that follow him are

[Anonymous No.9966966]

>>9966910
You want AI to kill you? Seems like a masochism fetish.

[Dirk Abbott No.9966979]

>>9966168
This. It's usually boring drivel more than anything.

[Anonymous No.9967003]

>>9966869
>How does that mesh with 'pomo nihilism is destroying civilization'?
I havent watched a lot of his videos, so I'm working from a synthesis of what I have watched. I suspect his argument would be that the only truth of post modernism is that there are no Truths. Without any overarching truths existing outside the self, people will be liable to pursue ONLY what they view as is in their best interest this could be people seeking material wealth created by others motivated by their envy, it could also mean people not pursuing anything but subsisting because with no real truths in their minds, none of their actions matter.

>If this is the best of all possible worlds, then you need to take it as a whole, including the SJWs

I don't think this is correct. History is full of examples of society making itterative changes over time, where most of society stays the same except for certain things changing. I suspect Peterson's earlier point of the person acting out of envy, is that some things are intrinsically linked. For example a society's overall wealth and that of it's individual members is intrinsically linked to its economic system. If for example society transformed from a free market system to a socialist system, one might get a more equitable share it might in absolute terms be less than you would have had under the other system along with society as a whole having less wealth. I suspect that is what he meant by living in the best of all possible scenarios.

>I understand why he would want objective truth, objective morality. They're really nice ideas. But the mere fact of disagreement should be enough to dismiss them as fairy tales.

I don't think thiscis correct. There is a difference between an objective truth existing but being currently unknown or unprovable and there being no objective truth. All the elements we now know existed before any human knew about them. Humanity's lack of knowledge doesnt preclude the existence of something. I suspect he thinks the danger of post modernism comes from humans ceasing to try to find objective truth and morality. This doesn't mean absent post modernism people would know the objective truth and morality merely that they could have the impetus to keep searching for it.

[Anonymous No.9967012]

>Michel Foucault will never school Jordan Peterson in a debate on Pomo

Feels bad man

[Anonymous No.9967020]

>>9966801
>authors (who just write books)
>just write books

[Anonymous No.9967054]

>>9967003
>All the elements we now know existed before any human knew about them. Humanity's lack of knowledge doesnt preclude the existence of something. I suspect he thinks the danger of post modernism comes from humans ceasing to try to find objective truth and morality. This doesn't mean absent post modernism people would know the objective truth and morality merely that they could have the impetus to keep searching for it.

You know, this is the exact same kind of logic a lot of apologist christians use. "Just because we haven't yet proved god..." Let me know when JP discovers Objective Morality, or the tools which will allow us to discover it.

Even if such a discovery were possible, how will it be utilized? Ideally, the truth of an objective morality would just shine through, it would be immediately recognizable. But I doubt that'd be the case. You'll still have dozens of counter-narratives from Aztec Blood Sacrifice to Feminist Theory or Russian Monarchism.

In the mean time, the much simpler explanation is that moral systems are human constructions that morph and shift depending of the time and place. That they exist through coercion and agreement, not through some internal truth value. They're definitely iterative, they aren't invented ex nihilo, they grow out of older ideas and new circumstances. They're surely partially motivated by biological circumstances, but because biology is evolutionary, there is nothing eternal, objective or universal about them.

Morality is an invention of homo sapien, at best maybe some other social animals develop such systems. But if life isn't even as old as the earth, then morality is but a temporary invention of intelligence. If intelligence disappears from the universe, then so does morality.

[Anonymous No.9967075]

>>9966910
Ok, I think I get what you're saying. First humans change slightly, to be more like what you could replicate in AI, and then because humans are easier to replicate in that form (because they're more uniform and predictable?), it will speed up AI being able to replicate it more precisely?

I have a hard time seeing that happening, and part of the reason why is because the very first time we made computer that, even when told it was a computer, humans would treat as a close friend, it was ELIZA. ELIZA works because of a very postmodern idea in psychology, from Rogerian analysis: what if you just rephrase what they said as a question?
Since meaning is personal, the best way to convince someone they are getting their meaning across is to not repeat a general human pattern, but to repeat their specific human pattern. "Tell me about your mother" doesn't pass the Turing test as well as "How does that make you feel?". Mothers are general and overarching, while (You) are special little snowflake whose feelings are valued.
What good AI does isn't to systematize humanity in the same ways that a survey would, but instead validates a human's system.

[Sorry this isn't terribly clear because AI isn't my strong suit]
Another way of looking at it is this: if you wanted to convince ISIS you were a human being worthy of life, with a soul if they believe in those or a spirit or whatever, with a legitimate family, and a legitimate legal philosophy, and generally to not chop your head off, would your best course of action be:
a) To tell them to read Durant's history of western philosophy and a couple of theses on why preserving history is necessary and good?
b) spout the same views that they do?

A really interesting example of this was when twitter had the bad sense to try to create a tweetbot. As a tweetbot, it was very convincing. It didn't tell you to buy anything and came out with racist and nazi shit which had more idiosyncrasies than /pol/ bait. If you only ran that bot without any of the fanfare, everyone would believe it's human. It's not that being able to construct a whole sentence or come out with the next Mozart symphony makes the bot seem human: it's that we find it hard to believe a machine or a non-human entity would ask to gas the Jews *even when we're building it out of a platform that regularly calls for all kinds of genocide*.

What makes AI most believable to humans, I think, is that emotional valency/repetition. If the machine can make you mad, or ask how you feel, it can probably convince you of having a "more human" reaction than your cashier who elicited nothing but indifference in you and who might as well be a parking meter in terms of a Turing test, except you can see their meatflesh.

[Anonymous No.9967086]

>>9965421
I think JP strawmans a bit too much and calls everything postmodernism or neo-marxism.
He lacks some philosophical depth and subtlety, but I still like what he's doing overall.

Sage, because discussing these things on this board (or on most of the internet) is a waste of time. A few people get this stuff and most don't, but they voice their opinions.

[Anonymous No.9967160]

>>9966496

>Why is this screencapped?

It's been getting posted a lot in these threads by desperate leftists who consider it the now official "take-down" of Peterson.

I can't tell why because it's pretty dumb. It seems like some 16 year old anon was impressed that it had more than 2 paragraphs and assumed it must have a point.

[Anonymous No.9967186]

>>9966966

You've never seen one of his kind before? The edgy nihilist type praying for advanced AI to slave rape and genocide humanity is well-known. Really pathetic people. Probably a combination of being a sci-fi dweeb and having a desire to be a faggot.
You don't need AI to kill yourself just jump off a high place.

[Anonymous No.9967205]

ITT: nerds who have never got in a physical fight

[Anonymous No.9967236]

>>9967160
>It seems like some 16 year old anon was impressed that it had more than 2 paragraphs and assumed it must have a point.
Tfw I used to screencap long posts all the time without reading them first because I assumed they'd have good info in them
Then later I'd read them and 90% of the time they were full of bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9967239]

>>9966710
>What qualifies as /pol/ adjacent? Anyone that has ever voted for a candidate that is in a conservative party?
having /pol/-ish views, sharing /pol/-ish videos etc
if you only view people through who they vote for the I dunno what to say

[Anonymous No.9967249]

>>9967160
an impressive takedown, bursting with arguments

[Anonymous No.9967264]

>>9967239
>who they vote for
It does tell you a lot about them, though.

[Anonymous No.9967270]

>>9967012
foucault would destroy this alt-liter without even trying

they're in different weight categories

[Anonymous No.9967288]

>>9967270
>Peterson: Y-you're just saying that because you have a vested interest in gays and AIDS
>Foucault: I can give you gay and AIDS if you want to GOML and restart from there

[Anonymous No.9968246]

>>9966328
Postmodernism doesn't try to change human nature. It's just that the idiomatic idea of human nature that we refer to is a limited interpretation.

[saucy No.9968252]

>>9965457
>entire genre of media has to go

Wew.

[Anonymous No.9968255]

This guy is full of contradictions.

Embraces Nietzsche and Christianity at the same time; attacks postmodernity while embracing Nietzsche ...

[Anonymous No.9968270]

>>9966442
>it means that a universal essentialist ideology is harder to establish

This is really the main point of postmodernism to me, that philosophical ideas like universalism and essentialism are much harder to argue rationally after Kant (and Nietzsche and structuralism) than what had previously been thought. The postmodern project only functions within the context of classically liberal-derived society and the economics of capitalism -- it is not a destruction of this framework but holding the knowledge and institutions of this framework accountable to its own rules.

[Anonymous No.9968280]

>>9967160
>It seems like some 16 year old anon was impressed that it had more than 2 paragraphs and assumed it must have a point.

This is how I think of Peterson honestly. Well he's obviously not 16 but he is still equally impressed at the kind of work that seems to 'come out' of him even if it is very easy to say "well x isn't actually true (thus not sound even if it is valid) or you have poorly defined a term and proceeded to attack a straw man"

[Anonymous No.9968299]

>>9965443
>postmodernism is an ideology

lmfao

[Anonymous No.9968318]

>>9965421
"Ghengis Khan is alright and chill but Hitler is still an evil monster"

[Anonymous No.9968325]

notice how the only "people" rushing to his defense here are alt-right brainlets. and they do so not by defending his heavily flawed philosophy, but by arguing against what they believe postmemenism to be.

[Anonymous No.9968330]

>>9965733
That definition is exactly the concept JBP is attacking.

You're just too stupid to understand JBP. Read Maps of Meaning. Save your father.

[Anonymous No.9968339]

>>9968255
This board is full of contradictions.

Embraces Modernism and Victorian literature at the same time; attacks Peterson while embracing Postmodernism...

[Anonymous No.9968341]

>>9966505
there will be people who will have global attitudes but even that's fundamentally limited; it'll be more transnational and you'll ask; but what countries are excluded? people can't even comprehend the totality of a single culture let alone try to form a globalized totality.

[Anonymous No.9968379]

>>9966114
He doesn't need to be alt-right himself, but he is only popular because the alt-right props him up. He preaches what the alt-right already believes.

[Anonymous No.9968382]

>>9966114
He totally is. Most of those people laugh at his and Rogans videos laughing at liberals

[Anonymous No.9968388]

>>9968382
Don't you have an antifa meeting to get to?

Peterson hates nazis and has spoke extensively about the psychological problems caused by income inequality

[Anonymous No.9968401]

>>9968388
alt-right aren't necessarily nazis

[Anonymous No.9968412]

>>9968388
Alt-right nazis will unironically believe Hitler wasn't wrong about anything but will not become vegetarians themselves. It's pick-and-choose.

[Anonymous No.9968419]

>>9968401
no identity group is necessarily anything except irrational

but most of the alt-right are nationalists and socialists (white people version)

>>9968412
why are you replying to me? that has nothing to do with my post

[Anonymous No.9968420]

>>9968330
He attacks the rejections, not the irony or skepticism.

[Anonymous No.9968431]

>>9968419
>why are you replying to me? that has nothing to do with my post

Yes it does. I'm saying the alt-right pick and choose what to believe individually rather than adhere to a comprehensive ideology. The alt-right picking Peterson despite Peterson hating Nazis and whatever doesn't disqualify him from being 'alt-right'. Most 'postmodern' thinkers reject the label 'postmodern' too but here we are.

[Anonymous No.9968435]

>>9968255
You're fucked if you think the agreeableness of someones ideas is an all or nothing affair.

[Anonymous No.9968437]

>>9968330
>Save your father

This shit makes me cringe so hard.
I think part of his appeal is convincing nerds their pathetic lives can really playing out some grand fantasy story.
It's LARPing for wanna be intellectuals who sit around indoors watching youtube videos.

[Anonymous No.9968441]

>>9967270

[Anonymous No.9968442]

>>9968419
>but most of the alt-right are nationalists and socialists (white people version)
they're about as socialist as donald trump so not at all

[Anonymous No.9968452]

I think most people are doomed to totally dismiss thing they don't like, and that is usually ideas they don't know anything about.

Fucking monkeys.

[Anonymous No.9968464]

>>9968442
wrong, richard spencer is extremely socialist and wants single payer healthcare

trump is a hard one because trump is truly pragmatic in the sense that he has no ideal of what he wants so he decides every situation in a vacuum or according to the whims of those around him

you cannot analyze any of trumps actions so far as coherent and consistent with any one ideology

however, bannon was very socialist especially when it comes to protectionism which is wealth redistribution from consumer to domestic producer

[Anonymous No.9968477]

>>9968464
wanting single payer doesn't make him "extremely socialist"
trump is a capitalist through and through and that's what he's doing - fucking up environmental regulations, trying (and failing) to fuck up obamacare, removing customer protections in banking etc
bannon wasn't "very socialist" either, these things you mention are neither "very" nor "extremely" socialist, they're stopgaps used in capitalist countries to throw a bone to the people so they don't storm the palace

[Anonymous No.9968500]

>>9965587
I won't give him a chance as a serious thinker because shit like pic related and countless other "lectures" like it don't indicate any serious thought.

[Anonymous No.9968528]

>>9968477
in the real world, single payer is extremely socialist

through the lens of your marxist post-modern sociology classes, i guess it's not?

[Anonymous No.9968573]

>>9968528
>buzzword bonanza
yeah okay

[Anonymous No.9968610]

>>9968528

Please explain to us how single payer healthcare is socialist.

[Anonymous No.9968617]

>>9968500

You won't give him a chance because you're too retarded to form a rebuttal to that.

[Anonymous No.9968644]

>>9968617
Just need to say [citation needed] and he is left floundering. It's a nice story what he is saying but like the anon said there is no serious thought here. He is quite literally telling a story, just as myths are stories.

Now at this point an intellectual man might ask 'but didn't Nietzsche say that philosophical concepts are metaphors?' and 'didn't Derrida problematise the distinction between literary writing and philosophical writing?' and 'it seems pretty set in stone that structuralism is a valid paradigm of thought so I should actually acknowledge it exists' but, well, instead we get Peterson.

[Anonymous No.9968648]

>>9968500
awwww baby mad that baby isnt allowed to kill and steal from the bourgeoisie ??? so cute baby awwwwww

[Anonymous No.9968649]

>>9968528
america isn't the "real" world. it's a cluster of fantasies and delusions

[Anonymous No.9968654]

>>9968644

How can you cite something during an original thought?

[Anonymous No.9968659]

>>9968654
You don't have 'original thoughts' on historical phenomena that occurred before you existed.

[Anonymous No.9968667]

>>9968649
but venezuela isnt, right?

[Anonymous No.9968700]

>>9968667
No, Europe and the highest developed Asian countries aren't tard.

[Anonymous No.9968717]

>2017
>not being newly sincere

Post-modernism and modernism is for retards that never left the 20th century. No-one cares.

[Anonymous No.9968722]

>>9968717
Your anime picture sure convinced me.

[Anonymous No.9968736]

Hey Modernists, why don't you explain your ideology to me? Mo's can't even give a final and complete definition of what Modernity is!

haha, peterson was right all alooong.

[Anonymous No.9968740]

>>9968722

What about this newly sincere image of a total anarchy vanilla minecraft anarchy server? It can be said that its true, morality isn't objective, but is this somewhere you would want to live in a morally subjective world?

[Anonymous No.9968745]

>>9968717
>new sincerity
>pretentiously bashes postmodernism and modernism, which are fundamental to such a thing as "new sincerity" even being able to exist

[Anonymous No.9968750]

>>9968745

I didn't bash them. Stop being insecure.

[Anonymous No.9968751]

>>9968740
In a place where you can't actually die? I don't see how morals would be relevant.

[Anonymous No.9968756]

>>9968750
>Post-modernism and modernism is for retards

post modernist as fuck to deny that.

[Anonymous No.9968765]

>>9968756
Funny, I think accusing each other of being postmodernists is more conducive to a decent discussion of postmodernism than whatever Peterson offers.

[Anonymous No.9968769]

>>9968751

>implying you can die forever

Eventually you'll rise again. True it will probably take around 10x10^10000000000000000000000 years, but we'll eventually meet up again someday having this exact same conversation.

>>9968756

No its not. That would be a grand narrative.

[Anonymous No.9968839]

>>9968700
Europe: Let's let in a bunch of people who want to fundamentally change the axioms at the root of our laws and cultures of our society

China: Let's fuck over and impoverish hundreds of millions of our own population so we can mine more cryptocurrency

[Anonymous No.9968852]

>>9968839
I like how /pol/tards actually think that China is a highly developed country. Not particularly surprised you adopt that sort of worldview when you are this uneducated.

[Anonymous No.9968875]

>>9965481
It's not a conspiracy, it's just a reflection of judaism.

[Anonymous No.9968891]

>>9968852
What part of keeping hundreds of millions of people impoverished implies highly developed?

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2017/08/11/bitcoin-and-chinese-internet-stocks-beat-wall-street/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

[Anonymous No.9968898]

>>9968891
Please improve your reading comprehension before posting on /lit/, thanks.

[Anonymous No.9968917]

Can you imagine how the other faculty look at this guy? I wonder if they know about his weird cultivation of a Channer audience. I wonder if even he knows. It's horribly to sad to think that he imagines his vlogs are going out to people smart enough to handle his ideas, when they're really just going out to 16 year old libertarians who still believe in authenticity and some kind of Robinson Crusoe like independence.

[Anonymous No.9968918]

>>9968318
Resolution. Had Hitler won, everybody 800 years from now would think of him as a great person, even if the contemporary view would be pacifistic.

[Anonymous No.9968947]

>>9968917
>he imagines his vlogs are going out to people smart enough to handle his ideas

Why do you think that? He's consciously cultivating the audience he has to make money, that's all there is to it.

[Anonymous No.9968956]

>>9965547
>called out
This is not how philosophy works anon. People can actually disagree. Peterson acknowledges multiple interpretations, he just argues that we DO have enough information to say that one is more helpful than another, and that the criteria for decision about what narrative to go with should not primarily be about which is least "oppressive".

[Anonymous No.9968961]

>>9968917
You want to change the world? You go after the next generation before they are old and conservative enough to dismiss your interpretations. He's doing it right, anon.

[Anonymous No.9969026]

>>9968898
your lack of reading comprehension told you i thought china was a highly developed nation because i said hundreds of millions in china were impoverished..... and you criticize my reading comprehension......

lol.......

[Anonymous No.9969089]

>>9968659

Tell that to the postmodernists and cultural marxists.

[Anonymous No.9969099]

>>9969089
Clarify?

[Anonymous No.9969108]

>>9969099

They seem to think that history is relative and that if we can just erase the mean people from history it will somehow fix everything.

[Anonymous No.9969109]

"Hitler is pure evil, the devil himself"

[Anonymous No.9969114]

>>9969108
What does this have to do with having original thoughts? As far as I know the postmodern position is that nothing is truly original.

[Anonymous No.9969132]

>>9969114
>lets analyse history through a relativistic lens so we can find some oppression

But its like you said, you can't have original thoughts on things that happened in the past.

[Anonymous No.9969154]

>>9969026
Please never breed.

[Anonymous No.9969171]

Peterson is literally unironically the savior of western civilization

[Anonymous No.9969190]

>>9969132
Like I said, the postmodernist position is that nothing is truly original. Postmodernists aren't claiming they are having original thoughts about things that happened before they were born. It's you(?) claiming that for Peterson.

And looking at history through a relativistic lens should yield the conclusion that Confederate beliefs aren't inherently wrong just because they're different. So the 'postmodernists' destroying historical monuments aren't actually qualified as postmodernists at all, if you follow this line of thinking. Destroying monuments dates back probably to prehistory in any case. It's not a postmodern practice. Damnatio memoriae and iconoclasm are two such examples.

[Anonymous No.9969201]

>>9969190
>the postmodernist position is that nothing is truly original
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.9969214]

>>9968717
>>9968740
>tfw you can feel in your bones new sincerity is already starting to be transformed into a soulless hip meme
oh the irony. any idea opposite to post-modernism that has even the slightest potential for being grinded into a hip and trendy meme is going to get consumed by it and fail miserably

[Anonymous No.9969216]

>>9969201
Google

[Anonymous No.9969221]

>>9968717
really makes you think

[Anonymous No.9969321]

>>9969221
There's people that sincerely and unironically vote Trump

[Anonymous No.9969347]

>>9969321
Yeah, aware white people who don't want to be replaced with low functioning brown people.

[Anonymous No.9969426]

>>9969347
Yeah I'd rather clean other people's shit up myself

[Anonymous No.9969429]

>>9966869
>If morality was objective, we wouldn't have competing moral systems.
non sequitur

[Anonymous No.9969448]

>>9965688
Fuck off Marxist scum.

[Anonymous No.9969484]

>>9965699

Dude he talks about that book all the fucking time, its like his favourite book ever.

[Anonymous No.9969526]

>>9968255
Those aren't contradictions. Nietzsche is very closely related to Christianity, he regarded Jesus as his only true opponent and Thus Spoke Zarathustra emulates the formula and rhythm of the bible. Postmodernism is also very much a consequence of an INCORRECT reading of Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.9969561]

>>9969526
Postmodernism is a correct reading. Nazism is an incorrect reading.

[Anonymous No.9969580]

>>9969561
An idiot has arrived.

[Anonymous No.9969588]

>>9969580
Is it you?

[Anonymous No.9969595]

>>9969561
Both are loose and incomplete interpretations of the Dionysian ideal.

[Anonymous No.9969607]

not reading this disaster of a thread but have you guys discussed his latest joe rogan appearance yet?

[Anonymous No.9969630]

>>9969561
Retard alert!
Hitler loved Nietzsche and Schopenhauer,it's the foundation of Nazism(Hitlerism)

[Anonymous No.9969631]

>>9969595
The Apollonian and the Dionysian forming a complete whole is the ideal, which is achieved by the metaknowledge of postmodern and post-structuralist epistemology and the acceptance of the supersensible and chaotic that escapes imagination and conscious control. Postmodernism is humanity's highest achievement to date.

Pic related, a perfect work of art.

[Anonymous No.9969633]

>>9969630
Hitler loved his incorrect reading of Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.9969648]

>>9969633
>incorrect reading

[Anonymous No.9969651]

>>9969648

[Anonymous No.9969657]

>>9969607
I tuned in but there was a jewish chaperone there too so I tuned right out.

[Anonymous No.9969665]

>>9969631
Postmodernism is the lowest achievement to date, if it's even one at all. You've been brainwashed by jews and 68ers.

[Anonymous No.9969668]

>>9969665
Shalom, my friend. May you find peace.

[Anonymous No.9969673]

>>9969668
And may the oven be with you soon.

[Anonymous No.9969674]

>>9969673

Shalom friend. God will forgive your errors.

[Anonymous No.9969681]

>>9969674
You mean G-d? What errors?

[Anonymous No.9969684]

>>9969681

"G-d" is a protestant absurdity.

[Anonymous No.9969694]

>>9965429
>>9965609

>he doesn't understand
Every fucking time.
Why don't you shills recognise that there is a difference between post-modernist literary art and post-modernist philosophy?

[Anonymous No.9969696]

>>9969684
So you're not a jew, just a cuck who worships one. Thought that was a bit too kind-hearted a response for a jew.

[Anonymous No.9969699]

>>9965421
Kind of off-topic, but have any of you anons read Maps of Meaning? What did you think? Is it worth reading?

[Anonymous No.9969700]

>>9969699
read it, i cum every time

[Anonymous No.9969701]

>>9969699

I wanted to read it but now it's like $50 on amazon from all the meme boys buying it up

[Anonymous No.9969705]

>>9969701
there is a free pdf available of it on his website

[Anonymous No.9969708]

>>9969705
>reading books via an electronic screen
cringe

[Anonymous No.9969712]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI

Peterson blowing away pomo pussies for nearly three straight hours

[Anonymous No.9969716]

>>9969712
You just need to see the comments to cringe,dont post that again.

[Anonymous No.9969717]

>>9969708
you're a manchild if the format you're reading on matters. however, you should be able to print the pdf at a bookstore no problem. all of the local ones in my area allow customers to do that

[Anonymous No.9969718]

>>9969712
Does weinstein talk a lot or make it shitty?

[Anonymous No.9969722]

>>9969718
I think he helped the discussion. he didn't talk as much as jordan but he got jordan to clarify a lot of the stuff he's talked about before in a way that made peterson come off as more grounded

[Anonymous No.9969724]

>>9969717
Wait, bookstores will print pdfs out for you? Did you mean public libraries? For how much?

[Anonymous No.9969728]

>>9969718

Peterson doing most of the talking, Bret interjecting maybe 25% of the time, Joe saying dumb shit about 8%.

[Anonymous No.9969744]

>>9969718

It's mostly Peterson doing his greatest hits.
Bret doesn't really have the knowledge or intellect to really challenge him or interpose in a meaningful way.
Joe helps occasionally by lightening the imbalance between them.
I'd love to see Peterson have a discussion with someone who was on his level verbally. As it stands he just dominates the discussion.

[Anonymous No.9969800]

>>9969631
>Pic related, a perfect work of art.
lol

[Anonymous No.9969815]

>>9967270
>faggots
>destroying anything other than their own assholes
The increasingly prominent homosexuality among men is actually a pretty clear indication that pomo really is a problem like Peterson states. What is homosexuality other than one of these?

Narcissism
Repression of individuation (led on by perceiving the world as power politics and feeling inferior to it)
Repression of individuation (led on by fear of the Other)
Annihilation of the Other (which annihilates self, forming into lust for the self)

This is exactly the shit pomo leads to. This is why Foucault was gay as fuck.

[Anonymous No.9969834]

>>9965458
Is wikipedia the standard of what is considered research today?Read the postmodernists,bucko.JBP seems to have done so.

[Anonymous No.9969854]

>>9968610
i dont want my salary to be spent on bad healtcare for people i dont know.I would,on the other hand,donate to charity,and i have done so in the past.

[Anonymous No.9969868]

>>9969854

So you support single payer healthcare, which is not socialist?

[Anonymous No.9969876]

>>9969854
That in no way explains how single payer healthcare is socialist, only that you don't like it

[Anonymous No.9969880]

>>9969694
Strange suggestion. Stop projecting your own misunderstanding onto others.
>shill

[Anonymous No.9969883]

>>9965637
Shut up fag. You're like the tards who go "why would you want to be a nihilist its so sad bawwww"

[Anonymous No.9969895]

>>9969815
Homosexual children, male and female, tend to have 'gender nonconforming traits'. If you view sexuality and eroticism as focused around the Other, then for the homosexual, his own gender is alienated, mysterious and eroticised for him.
See: Mishima

[Anonymous No.9969935]

>>9966365
This critique is too rigid. Yes, on average, there are differences between men and women and the races. Though this does not mean that the differences within groups aren't bigger than between them. When we look at the macro-level we can see differences in representation and occupation. This does not mean that all gender/race/whatever think in a similar way. Yet, if we assume that justice is equality of outcome (as it is generally presupposed in the West, at least by the Left) then any deviation from equal representation must mean that there is some societal/sociological reason why there is no equality in representation. Thus, it is society that is inhibiting true justice/equality from occurring, and we must therefore change society in order to achieve equality. Thus, a government must be installed who is 'virtuous' enough to make this wish for equality a reality. Yet a state will never be virtuous enough to achieve this equality, moreover it is not even desirable that a state holds the power to issue such policies considering the fact that the state is inherently flawed or at least those holding offices of power within it.

Equality is, really, a false god. Egalitarianism is a forced source of antipathy and not because in universal states people do not trust one another. Egalitarianism is moreover essentially nihilistic because it destroys value. Something has value if it is different or unique. A world of difference has meaning; a world of equality is a world without meaning.

[Anonymous No.9969945]

>>9969935
>Equality is, really, a false god. Egalitarianism is a forced source of antipathy and not because in universal states people do not trust one another. Egalitarianism is moreover essentially nihilistic because it destroys value. Something has value if it is different or unique. A world of difference has meaning; a world of equality is a world without meaning.
love these intellectual sounding justifications for a world where children work in factories, really gets the noggin joggin
pol pot was on to something with his anti-glasses policy

[Anonymous No.9969949]

>>9965443
>Postmodernism is an ideology

Oh boi

[Anonymous No.9969950]

>>9969945

Childhood is a bourgeois sentimentality.

[Anonymous No.9969960]

>>9965421
Is this the kind of ebin pwnage video? Lord I thought we were passed that.

[Anonymous No.9969963]

>>9969935
I wouldn't say that *any* deviation from the proportional representation hints at a systematic discrimination, but a mass-scale, systematic deviation that isn't approved of by the underrepresented group certainly does

In more tribal countries, like Syria or Nigeria, these representation problems ultimately led to Civil Wars between tribes. First World countries found a more sophisticated way of dealing with them

[Anonymous No.9969972]

>>9968500
I am really fed up with these lazy rebuttals on /lit/. If the man says something you do not agree with at least formulate a coherent argument against it other than 'he is stupid lol xd'.

[Anonymous No.9969973]

>>9969963
You're putting way more thought into this than Peterson or any of his followers ever have.

[Anonymous No.9969980]

>>9968500
>postmodernist marxists

What a fucking moron. Works for his bank account tho because permavirgin autists love to dosh out their mommy's allowance on scam artists like him. I suppose being part of a cult = social life.

[Anonymous No.9969983]

>>9969972

This is a realm of chaos.
You are experiencing butt blastedness because you are unable to effectively navigate this realm.

[Anonymous No.9969988]

>>9969744
Peterson in general tends to, consciously or otherwise, to dominate the conversations in terms of merely speaking. This was a real problem in his first interviews on his podcast imo. The guy has trouble shutting up and letting the other speak.

[Anonymous No.9969992]

>>9968500
>postmodernist Marxists

He's a hack and a scam

[Anonymous No.9970000]

>>9969988

You misinterpreted my point in order to impose upon my post your ideological agenda.

He doesn't have trouble shutting up you absolute faggot he is a psychologist by trade he is literally paid to listen to people.

What I meant by dominate the conversation is not the amount of time he speaks but the acumen with which he navigates the field of play.

[Anonymous No.9970012]

>>9970000
>the acumen with which he navigates the field of play
yeah he's a master bullshitter

[Anonymous No.9970014]

>>9969945
Again, I think you are being too rigid. Inequality =/= allowing children to work themselves to death in factories. This might sound overly Aristotelian and generally I think his mean is a bit of a meme but it would be appropriate in this regard to ensure that we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Meaning that suffering that stems from inequality can best be remediated through our current system rather than a complete overhaul of it which communism would imply. We need to find the golden mean between merit and the excessive suffering that can occur from inequality. I believe that this is best achieved through our current form of government. Or, and I am starting to unironically believe in this, go the way of Varg and return to a more tribal/villag-esque society which is more in tune with our evolutionary biology (sans all the suffering due to medical limitations etc.)

>>9969963
>a systematic deviation that isn't approved of by the underrepresented group certainly does

So, if I understand correctly, if you feel in any way disenfranchised by the system your opinion should be accounted for as a justified and entitled opinion? This just reeks of Nietzschean ressentiment to me (if I follow your point correctly). In a system of merit there will always be those that are below average and can therefore become resentful and hateful towards the system since they themselves believe that their position in society is not because of their own inadequacies but because of systemic oppression. This has happened throughout history and is, imo, most eloquently portrayed in the story of Cain and Able.

[Anonymous No.9970016]

>>9970012
>trying to argue against quads
fuck off shill
you've been dealt with

[Anonymous No.9970017]

Can you imagine being so out of touch that you're still focused on the postmodern boogeyman? Literally who can even be described as postmodernist in contemporary philosophy?

[Anonymous No.9970024]

>>9970000
No, I merely made an objective, personal, evaluation of Peterson discussing ideas with other people. He has improved, but in the beginning he would constantly talk or interject other people.

[Anonymous No.9970028]

>>9970017
I think /lit/ is too concerned with what entails pomo. We can obviously see in our schools and society that what Peterson is laying out is happening and is indeed fracturing the categories of Western society. The question as to who's responsible is perhaps not even that interesting. To me it seems that the modern kids at school who are indoctrinated by their socialist teachers are the result of similar processes that has made Nietzsche a symbol of Nazism - misrepresentation and a misreading of Frankfurt School and Post-Structuralist philosophers. Though I wouldn't necessarily know since I have not extensively read neither Derrida or Foucault among others

[Anonymous No.9970034]

>>9970014
>Inequality =/= allowing children to work themselves to death in factories.
sure it is, you just don't like that it's spelled out so starkly
because I don't believe you will be willing to do any "remediation" when the time comes, or if you do it will be some bland policy that will help a miniscule part of the afflicted

>So, if I understand correctly, if you feel in any way disenfranchised by the system your opinion should be accounted for as a justified and entitled opinion?
lol, even when he spells out that he wouldn't say that "*any* deviation hints at systematic discrimination" you still twists his words into saying that

[Anonymous No.9970049]

>>9970014
>, if I understand correctly, if you feel in any way disenfranchised by the system your opinion should be accounted for as a justified and entitled opinion?

There's no need to act upon the feelings of a single person. There are very palpable, mass-scale statistics that prove inequality of outcome. Act upon them.

[Anonymous No.9970080]

>>9970049
Yes, and then we arrive at a very inconvenient discussion namely that there are innate differences between the races and genders. Moreover, when does one define when something is equal, and where does the differentiation stop, and who decides when it is or when it is not? For example, if 8% of a country's population is, let's say Belarus, does that mean that 8% of the nation's Belorussian population should hold offices of power in each field? And is it the government's responsibility to ensure this? Personally I think it is dangerous to grant the state this much power, moreover I don't think these people,meaning minorities or whoever the fucks feels they are discriminated by the system, justifiably or otherwise, will ever be happy. They will continue their ressentiment towards the powers that be until they are the kings and queens of the ashes as we have seen countless times in the past most notably in societies where communism took hold - take the Holodomor for example.

[Anonymous No.9970084]

>>9970080
That Holodomor analogy is so mind bogglingly stupid I feel the universe's very fabric unravelling around me. Neck yourself you absolute moron.

[Anonymous No.9970093]

>>9970080
>Yes, and then we arrive at a very inconvenient discussion namely that there are innate differences between the races and genders.
yeah it's funny how all these conversations with people like you always end up at the same spot

[Anonymous No.9970096]

>>9970034
You're right I misread that (the point on 'any deviation'). Nonetheless, I think my argument stands considering societies that are not fully equitable. Moreover, his point on 'more tribal societies like Nigeria and Syria' to me is fascinating since he presupposes that the West is not becoming increasingly tribal with the influx of people whom we do not feel any Aristotelian fidelity for. His argument essentially states that tribalism leads to faction which leads to war and conflict and that this faction between tribes can be remediated through equity. To me this just sounds like an extremely superficial solution not merely due to problems of administration said injustices or inequalities but moreover since tribes that do not have the same metaphysical foundations upon which they base their lives are always at the throat of one another.

Another cause of revolution is difference of races which do not at once acquire a common spirit; for a state is not the growth of a day, any more than it grows out of a multitude brought together by accident. Hence the reception of stranger in colonies, either at the time of their foundation or afterwards has generally produced revolution; for example, the Achaens who joined the Troezenians in the foundation of Sybaris, becoming later the more numerous, expelled them; hence the curse fell upon Sybaris. At Thurii the Sybarites quarreled with their fellow colonists; thinking that the land belonged to them, they wanted too much of it and were driven out. At Byzantium the new colonists were detected in a conspiracy, and were expelled by force of arms; the people of Antissa who had received the Chian exiles, fought with them, and drove them out of their own city. The citizens of Apollonia on the Euxine, after the introduction of a fresh body of colonists, had a revolution; the Syracusans, after the expulsion of their tyrants having admitted the strangers and mercenaries to the rights of citizenship, quarreled and came to blows; the people of Amphipolis, having received Chalcidian colonists, were nearly all expelled by them.

Aristotle – The Politics book V 1303a1; 25

The nation-state is, essentially, the teleological conclusion of tribal warfare though it has continued in the anarchic world stage. This does not mean that returning to a condition prior to that of the nation-state. will solve the problems of nationalism and thereby the atrocities of the 19th and 20th century, on the contrary... We, meaning Europe, will once again witness the atrocities that are reminiscent of the 30 Years War due to the EU's mass-immigration policies.

[Anonymous No.9970103]

>>9970080
What I'm arguing for isn't equality of statistical representation. I'm arguing for equality of outcome, given equality of input.

For example, a poor middle schooler shouldn't have worse education prospects than a rich kid, given he has the same results. The state can and should help with this kind of desirable equality.

[Anonymous No.9970113]

>>9970096
>Aristotle – The Politics book V 1303a1; 25
>4th century BC is just like 2017

[Anonymous No.9970114]

>>9970084
How is the Holodomor a bad analogy? The Khulags were all sent to Siberia because the people of the villages were under the impression that their wealth was a direct consequence of theft and oppression. Or the villagers who were resentful to the Khulags saw an opportunity to dispose and thereby profit from the communistic climate that had taken hold of the time, thereby ushering in the massive famine that claimed millions of lives.

>>9970093
Why is everybody so lazy with their arguments today? There has been extensive studies on IQ differences between the races, which does not mean to say that biologically is pre-determinative of your position is society, Of course there is a form of nurture that goes a long with it. The greatest obstacle that I see is that socialists tend to agree with the idea that the state should have the power to dictate what is justice and what is not. Which to me just seems beyond idiotic having merely glanced at the people that currently hold offices of power in governments and large institutions. A degree of humility is necessary when one tries to make overbearing conclusions on what policies should be enacted in order to create a more "just" society, whatever the hell "justice" is to begin with.

[Anonymous No.9970118]

>>9970096
>due to the EU's mass-immigration policies.

The EU is doing everything in its power, including cooperation with questionable governments like Turkey and Lybia, to keep the influx low.

It's amazing how you can pull obscure historical examples to prove your point, yet your understanding of contemporary events doesn't rise above the level of Grande Peur conspiracies.

[Anonymous No.9970123]

>>9970114
>The greatest obstacle that I see is that socialists tend to agree with the idea that the state should have the power to dictate what is justice and what is not. Which to me just seems beyond idiotic having merely glanced at the people that currently hold offices of power in governments and large institutions. A degree of humility is necessary when one tries to make overbearing conclusions on what policies should be enacted in order to create a more "just" society, whatever the hell "justice" is to begin with.

ah yes, the democratically elected government shouldn't decide what is right and what isn't, it should be decided by a dictator! or a council of elders! even better, why even try for a better and more just world when we can jerk ourselves off until the end of time defining and redefining the word "justice" and "good"!

fuck off

[Anonymous No.9970128]

>>9969834
Not really.

[Anonymous No.9970133]

>>9970118
There are NGO's on the coast of Libya that are bringing 'refugees' to Europe and are funded by EU-institutions. Moreover, in the 60s and 70s, enormous quantities of immigrants were brought to this country to help rebuild our destroyed countries. Applying Hanlon's razor I would suggest that these policies have been a massive 'cock-up'. But you cannot possibly argue that the EU hasn't had a hand in promoting multicultural and pro-refugee and pro-immigration policies or at least propaganda. Vice-President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans' latest propaganda piece is exemplary. The result of this will be that Europe will be divided along similar lines as we've seen in 1555 with the Peace of Augsburg, though that is a prophecy that, I agree, is hard to substantiate, it is merely an estimation of where Europe is headed.

[Anonymous No.9970137]

>>9970123
It's quite funny how contradictory you are in your own post. So, assuming from what you wrote, a democratically elected government has the legitimacy to enforce any policy it sees fit considering it draws its legitimacy from the people?

[Anonymous No.9970141]

>>9970133
There are NGOs - most of them actually - that are funded privately. The very fact that people still risk their lives on the Mediterranean, because there is no other way to get into Europe, proves there is no 'pro-refugee' policy going on.

By the way, the fact that people from all over the World wish to immigrate to Europe may have something to do with the fact we have functional oh-so-oppressive state institutions, instead of tribalism.

[Anonymous No.9970143]

>>9970137
>democratically elected government has the legitimacy to enforce any policy it sees fit considering it draws its legitimacy from the people?
yes

[Anonymous No.9970145]

>>9970137
>a democratically elected government has the legitimacy to enforce any policy it sees fit considering it draws its legitimacy from the people?

Obviously. Under the premise that it can be democratically impeached anytime, if it loses that legitimacy.

[Anonymous No.9970281]

>>9969694
Just as there's a difference between postmodern philosophy and the postmodernism of the humanities.

[Anonymous No.9970595]

>>9969694
They don't have to be shills, anon, they might be ignants.
Even the most basic community college lit history 101 class will teach you that the only unity in postmodernism is the modernism it reacted against and that there are as many 'postmodernisms' as there are academic disciplines.
I don't believe people like >>9965429 and >>9965609 are shills, they're just ignorant shitposters who are out of their league.

[Anonymous No.9970602]

>>9970595
It's Peterson that is incredibly ignorant, pandering to the pedestrian popular demonization of postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.9970615]

>>9969834
JBP hasn't read postmodernists, unless he's trying to emulate them ironically. You can debunk the idea he read postmodernists by reading wikipedia, and debunk it further by reading postmodernists.
If you think JBP is biting critique, you've obviously never read AntiOedipus or any of the French schools, because their idea of research was high enough level some of the footnotes are "if you don't know the standard reference for this, you're out of your league, come back when you're basic, bitch". Peterson on the otherhand is out of his depth with a wikipedia scholar.

[Anonymous No.9970624]

>>9970602
I don't claim that Peterson's not going at a postmodern boogeyman (because he is), I'm just saying the two posts I quoted are at least equally retarded, but probably more so

[Anonymous No.9970720]

>>9970141
Are you retarded? There is a 100% pro-refugee policy, how and why do you think millions of these retarded savages have been let in the last couple years alone? This is very intentional. I hate when I hear people say shit this stupid on here.

[Anonymous No.9970766]

>>9970720
>have been let in

No Western politician had the nerve to massacre them, starting mass military operations on European territory.

Doesn't mean there is an active policy to help them.

[Anonymous No.9970796]

>>9969992
listen to his latest rogan podcast. he says that you can't technically be a postmodernist and a marxist, so he agrees with you. but even though he says you can't be one technically there are still people like that in practice.

[Anonymous No.9970812]

>>9970796
No, there aren't. What he means are militant leftists. There's no sound philosophical concept as postmodernist Marxism.

[Anonymous No.9970816]

>>9970812
>There's no sound philosophical concept as postmodernist Marxism.
he agrees with you. that is why he calls them confused and says they are intellectually bankrupt

[Anonymous No.9970860]

>>9970796
>>9970812
>>9970816
really guys? Postmodern Marxism is a lot of the French shit, like Beauvoir and Debord. This is equivalent to saying there is no such thing as New Sincerity in a daveposting thread.

[Anonymous No.9970891]

>>9970816
>says they are intellectually bankrupt
the guy wrapping up his own conservatism into some "oh I'm just an independent thinker" bullshit is calling someone else intellectually bankrupt
at least a leftist has the balls to say he's on the left

[Anonymous No.9970897]

>>9970766
Are you kidding? There is an entire state bureaucracy set up around sheltering, feeding, giving money and even sex manuals to the invading savages, not to mention that this plan has been in place for a long time. Kalegi to neocons to Soros NGOs and the governments the internal jewish enemy has bribed. You don't seem to understand what's going on, but I suppose most don't so that's not very surprising.

[Anonymous No.9970910]

>>9970897
>Kalegi to neocons to Soros NGOs and the governments the internal jewish enemy
Ah, you clicked the wrong board by accident. Nevermind.

[Anonymous No.9970918]

>>9970910
No, you're pretending to know about things you have no understanding of. Do you see how that causes problems for you? Stick to what you know.

[Anonymous No.9970939]

>>9970017
>Literally who can even be described as postmodernist in contemporary philosophy?
SJWs

[Anonymous No.9970991]

>>9970017
Everything, all critique, all thought today is permeated by postmodern ideas to such an extent that you cannot possibly evade postmodernism altogether.

You're either part of it, or against it.

[Anonymous No.9971001]

>>9970918
Any middle schooler has a better understanding of politics than you do, since they're smart enough to dodge the anti-intellectual pitfalls you fell into. Now back to your containment board.

[Anonymous No.9971028]

>>9971001
You made a stupid statement not based in any kind of reality, and you were called out, and not just by me, for being a fool. Get over yourself and become better informed and this will happen to you less often.

[Anonymous No.9971128]

>>9969883
everyone's a nihilist

[Anonymous No.9971689]

>>9966442
>knowing the speed of light doesn't actually do anything for human problems
It does if you implement that knowledge in a meaningful way, which is more than can be said for most postmodern wankery :^)

[Anonymous No.9971725]

Teach your kids to fear pomo throwing it's quills at you anyway.
And that's that!

[Anonymous No.9971996]

>>9971689
>all of my friends are obsessed with the planet jupiter
If that's the deciding factor in meaning for your life, I hope you're STEM.