Peterson Misses The Point of Postmodernism 

Join the hyper liberal poison boy army. Defend communism, embarrass your ancestors and peers. Why do you come off so soft?

Any chance we can get philosophy of Henri Lefebvre more specifically his works like Realm of shadows, State, Space, World: Selected Essays,Metaphilosophie: Prolegomena. Or alternatively a Philosophy of Primal Season 1,2.

We must be kind to the individual and ruthless to the institutions. -Micheal Brookes

You can tell this is a hit piece because it contains nothing but Critiques if you cared about truth you would find common ground an work from there as no philosophy is all encompassing. You seem to want to misunderstand on the basis of semantics.

@@ayriangoodrich9815 I appreciate that as a tactic, but Peterson's whole project is based on fictions. Lobsters aren't even social creatures for pete's sake. I understand why he might be comfortable doing so, since Maps of Meaning is essentially an attempt to divine something useful from comparative compilation of legends and myths, and arcana, he's used to playing in a domain of fiction that's meant to represent the truths of the world. But he's more than semantically wrong here. Peterson is just flat wrong about the whole thrust and character of the work he's using as an example, that's a much more orthogonal problem than can be explained by a difference of opinion about the meanings of a few words.

THE PANOPTICON SEES YOU

Biopower off the charts

I swear that Wisecrack juxtaposes their ads with content that completely undercuts those ads on purpose - but they can't make it explicit because *then their sponsors will stop funding them*. I think it's clever.

The panopticon strikes again.

Lol exactly, like the concept of technologies of the self

post modernists push an ideology that revolves around removing long time constructs of society out, hes not inserting hes extrapolating. Traditional gender norms were attacked by post modernism, democracy, capitalism all hallmarks of the current system have been attacked by the philisophical ideologies of post modernist thought and Jordan explains all that in his full lectures.

Couldn't have put it better myself! You really articulate why watching him talk about this stuff is so frustrating.

I wish the temperature where I lived was as low as your IQ.

there is intrinsic truth to biology how hard is that to understand.

What matters is how old ideas are interpreted and used in the PRESENT. Nobody gives a fuck what those pedophiles were actually saying. What matters is how the insane leftists that prowl the universities are using those ideas

I think far too many members of society focus on the people, rather than the ideas. We live in an age where we have access to so much information at our fingertips and we're able to confirm or corroborate almost anything that anyone says, so it's rather ironic that people can still be so gullible and instead put their (blind) trust in individuals who are in positions of power or authority, including those in a position to spread their message to a wide audience via mainstream and social media. This happens when these individuals discuss something that resonates with you or is intuitively obvious to "hook" you in, and next thing you know you're also accepting ideas that are misleading, or just plain false. That this happens is arguably a failure of our education system (specifically here in Canada and the US), which does a piss poor job or guiding our students to be strong critical thinkers. Critical thinking, at it's heart, is challenging authority - not necessarily because one might think the authority is wrong, but because one wishes to develop and understanding of the topics at hand rather than accepting them without question just because they are coming from someone one might be conditioned to trust. Having said that, I think Peterson's rise to fame and his broaching of a wide variety of subjects that are relevant to modern Western societies is a net positive specifically because it sparks investigation and discussion (although quite frankly the video we're commenting under does a rather poor job criticizing Peterson's ideas regarding postmodernism, even though Peterson does demonstrably make claims that are factually incorrect). Yes, he has his "fans", but so does practically any individual with a large enough social media audience, and I would wager that the overwhelming majority of these modern day "influencers" present information or opinions that are orders of magnitude worse than what you hear from Peterson. But in the end all that should matter is the truth of it all, and not who says what, and given that there is often a jarring clash of claims and opinions and ideologies one would hope this would prompt the audience to try to resolve who is right and who is wrong for themselves instead of trusting any one side.

I am a cis gender woman and I wholeheartedly agree and I'm literally praying that there's a gender transitional movement (the one which Dr Warren Farrell suggested) which will actually provide all the genders Equality in areas where they lack it... Earlier I might have supported the bs 'all men are evil' rhetoric but After studying some of Dr. Warren Farrell, Dr. Terrance Real and Bell Hooks ....It turns out men are experiencing more or less the same purposelessness and anguish that women did in the starting of the women liberation movement.... turns out that these Black pill sorta movements may be very destructive for men...I hope men's rights movement helps men without turning them into senseless misogynists...like Some toxic forms of Feminism have turned women into misandrists ...Even though Men's and Women's anger and fears are valid...we need a space where they can reconnect and share this pain with eachother instead so far the gender politics seems to be tearing us apart...

@@joeprice2813 I'm curious about this whole thing, can't find anything wrong with his logic at my current level of knowledge. Can you give me an example of something Peterson gets wrong? Any info appreciated.

@@McDonaldsCalifornia No, I am not interested in investing many hours to find any inconsistencies in the arguments of a man who is telling people all over the world to take responsibility for themselves and to not buy into the idea that the entirety of society is evil. I don't see this as a matter of deep, technical intellectual thinking; it's cute that you assume that I know nothing of debates and arguments just because of one RU-vid comment, but I assert that anyone who has a problem with him is just angry that he's telling them to take responsibility. I do definitely appreciate that you resorted to ad hominem attacks rather than leaving one singular example of him using bad logic. You have done a wonderful job of proving him right just like most of the other lazy morons who don't like him :)

@@bonitabromeliads just say you've only seen clips 🤣 typical generalizer

Not at all, rather like a cartoon version of a political con artists, doomsday prophet, snake oil peddler or cult leader.

@@elevenseven-yq4vu aww that's a little harsh to say about wisecrack

It's like JBP's parodying a philosopher. And it's deliberate. He's cosplaying what his target audience thinks a philosopher sounds like.

It is just a repackaging of Cultural Marxism. Even the idea of race identity was already something they accused cultural Marxism of, that Cultural Marxism made blacks identify with their race. Of course that is completely dismissing the idea that they might identify with their race because they were being oppressed. It's important to remember that people don't like to think of themselves as bad. Most Americans in the 1930's didn't think they were oppressing blacks and a lot of the systemic racism happened behind closed doors in quite subtle ways and most popular resistance against desegregation was build on lies.

@@elevenseven-yq4vu Even better!

Anyone can be a philosopher

*Especially when they have a couple too many*

As he misquotes and misunderstand Sociologists

@@AzygousWolf Nah socialists are scum

@@allahbless2278 Oh dear... Sociologists and socialists are two different things...

there is an argument for misreading as a possibility for advancement of thought, but it probably sucks if it happens to you

What was your philosophy about?

@@LibertarianLeninistRants I do subscribe to a death of the author approach to most writing. And would say that the value the individual derives from the work. Is more important than the authors original meaning. But not when it comes to philosophy, and the ideas aren't exactly hidden in subtext.

@@lucmoore6176 it's really not worth mentioning. It's was a doctrinal set of rules towards expression of free will and personal furfillment. Boiled down to their most simple and universal principles. Basically I talked to social workers, therapists, theologians, public and, and religious figures. Basically anyone I felt had influence over other people. Studied alot of historical and societal shaping individuals. Took this massive pool of data and ideas. And then wrote it down into....I think it was 28 or so small chapters of "rules" as I call them. Then argued why I felt they were important from both a personal to societal level as a positive influence.

@@Palemagpie Is there a place to read the rules? Sounds like a cool project. Lots of good data.

That's why he would never have a filmed discussion with a post-structuralist. He makes money playing around the "woke postmodern left" instead of acknowledging others. He's rediscovering warm water. But given the elitist attitude of the US system towards college access, he provides some generally good tips on how to improve one's life.

It also carries over into his psych work. His whole work in self-help is just CBT, as taught by someone who thinks it can fix every mental health issue.

Pretending to be any kind of authority figure with enough confidence to fool the masses is the key to success in influence related areas. That's Peterson's expertise. Not even alcoholism like his work suggests.

Absolutely!

​@@azarinevil ​you and I must have different reads on Jorbo's approach to psychology. That, or we think and mean very different things when we say CBT.

This is a really weird paradox. Just like you, listening to JP’s self-help advice has truly helped me. On one hand, he is a great orator and his psychology lectures really are amazing. But on the other hand, he’s infamous for discussing economic, political and philosophical matters of which he clearly knows little about. He saves some people and misinforms others. Sometimes both.

I think Peterson is a great psychologist who has a lot to offer, especially to lost (younger) men. His ideas there seem solid and practical. But his analysis and thinking seems to quickly fall apart when he tries to extend his ideas to sociology and philosophy. He suddenly just becomes very cherry picking when it comes to his facts and interpretations... I hope this comment might help you accept two thoughts that seem to contradict each other initially. But it's perfectly reasonable to respect him in one field while discarding his opinion in another. (much like I wouldn't want a gardener, surgeon, and car mechanic to switch places when I need their help)

I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s had this internal schism to deal with. It does go to show that you have to be the ultimate arbiter of when you listen to someone deeply because they have real practical wisdom, and when you just have to disregard what someone is saying because it’s just not useful, even if both of these things come from the same person. In a way, it makes me relax about feeling like I have to have some unrealistic amount of knowledge about multiple disciplines, which I just don’t.

​@@williamcharnley5558 I think that's a very wise conclusion to take away from this! And yeah, you're not alone :) I had a phase where I really liked Jordan's psychology stuff, and because that seemed so good, I figured that maybe he's right about the cultural/societal stuff too. That perhaps I was missing something that he saw. But over time I noticed that his conclusions became harsher while his evidence/reasoning got weaker. And eventually it reached a point where the dichotomy was too wide to continue to ignore. Which then made me question everything he'd covered before, of course. But I still think the psychological stuff tends to hold up. In the end, I saw it as a great lesson to always remain curious and humble about my own (lack of) knowledge. And that good/well-meaning people can be wrong too, especially outside their main field.

@@MrNicoJac “But over time I noticed that his conclusions became harsher while his evidence/reasoning got weaker. And eventually it reached a point where the dichotomy was too wide to continue to ignore.” Yeah this is exactly what I experienced. Well put.

bingo!!

This was the correct quote for this comments section, thanks

Wow it's nuts how much this quote applies to Peterson

@@FryJones His biggest thing is wanting to help other people and talking about other peoples problems and how hard it is for them. But…ok

​@@joshnic6639 Sure. And I am fully willing to believe at some level Peterson is totally sincere in that sentiment. The thing is, a sincere desire to help people does not automatically equip you with the ability to actually help people. Many malignant narcissists, for instance, want to help people. And sincerely believe that they can. Not only that they can, but they can help better than anyone else. That if people would just listen to them, and their specific ideas, Utopia could be attained by next Tuesday! This historically has worked out about as well as you'd expect. Some of Peterson's advice is completely unobjectionable and good. But it's not unique to Peterson or to people like him. And some of his advice is essentially a quackery fusion of badly understood science and philosophy at best, when it's not outright harmful at worst.

@@joshnic6639 If helping people was his biggest thing not many would have a problem with him. Unfortunately what few bits of sound self-help advice he gives is mashed up with hysterical McCarthyism, far-right conspiracy theories, hyper partisan politics, fear mongering about largely imaginary problems that make him blubber like a baby every five minutes and the overriding view that his self-help advice is ultimately insufficient unless society can be reverted back to some reactionary utopia that looks much more like the Islamic world than the West he claims to care about.

Yeah, but, like... that means people have to, like... think and stuff. That's not fun.

Lol yep and they/their work are both part of the right wing libertarian extremist pipeline 🙄

Same level of hypocrisy as well. Rand ranted against social programs and raved about how great libertarian -capitalism is ,eventhough she studied in the Soviet Union for free, , and then used the U.S system to pay her hospital bills. Peterson enjoyed the affordable Canadian education, and used some expensive way to get rid of addiction ,while ranting against social democratic programs and telling people they should 'man up 'and face the consequences of their actions. Just a few examples, but it;s all so silly.

@@spiritualanarchist8162 Well, to be fair, he went to Russia to be put in a coma to be cleaned of his barbiturates addiction, because the western healthcare wouldn't subscribe to such practices. Still not defending his other arguments, far from it, just thought I'd leave that here.

oh the irony.. you have no idea what you're talking about

@@andreww4751 'you have no idea what you're talking about '' Well, you I must say do give good arguments why it's supposed to be 'ironic'.

I mean, he's basically like "If you have a different idea of how humanity should be, that's borderline Nihilist." Soooooorrrrryyyy that I think I can have better ideas than my ancestors lol

@@Nverdis we stand on the shoulders of giants haha. I think your right that we can have better ideas as we go along. I think it's very fatalistic to think we cant develop something better

@@DantePallidio I do believe it’s more of a conversation on the retention of tradition witch may have its side effects but so does the complete abandonment of tradition. I don’t think ether of these people are wrong just different opinions.

Strawmen? Peterson's a hay field....corporate sized.

@@randyt3558 hey hey hey. Your not wrong

Yes! Pleas more!

Thanks Robert! We'll definitely try more videos like this in the future.

@@WisecrackEDU But do take care of yourselves! It seems this took a lot of effort!

@@WisecrackEDU Jordan Peterson needs to stay in his lane. Westerners need to stay away from Africa. Their philosophies don't apply. When people are individualistic in Africa it's a disaster because there are often no regulation and predatory third parties involved and no protection for the locals

@@WisecrackEDU Maybe the reason why the Left does this is because The Right is unaccommodating to the needs of the Left. A lot of black people are Conservative but don't feel welcomed by the Republican side so they defer to the Left.

it's probably not akin to it so much as exactly that but in long round about way. Peterson is by admission a traditionalist christian.

He’s not even arguing against Derrida and Foucault. I’ve never even heard him mention either philosopher.

Just substitute "post-modernists/ cultural Marxists/ globalists" with "Jewish people" and it makes more sense. And becomes less tolerable.

@@bloodaonadeline8346 He mentions them a lot, and he doesn't like them, but then again, neither did Chomsky. Chomsky sits very much on the same page as Peterson when it comes Post Modern critique, as does Zizek in many aspects. They rally against the fundamental base of Post Modernism, which essentially says that there is no real truth or meaning. Peterson see's Post Modernism as an extension of Marxism. And I can see why, I mean the very people that came up with PM (Derrida etc) were all Marxists. Post Modernism is a foolish attempt to evade nature itself.

This right here!!!!

This comment deserves more praise. So well stated.

Well stated. Wish I could remember the particular medical issue - but it's a matter of medical history that some female medical procedures 7were devised without any women participating. The men assumed that they understood more about the women's bodies than the women did. Y'know, because they're women. The same hubris can be found throughout history, often with devastating unconsidered consequences- which is how the error of that mode of thinking was eventually recognized. We're talking many many many unnecessary deaths. Mammogram X-rays is one of the examples.

I disagree with the statement about making clients do what they want. What if what they want is ultimately harmful? Like that lady who convinced her therapist to make her blind. Mental illness is in it of itself at odds with reality and should not be accommodated.

This is an incredibly well written comment and insightful. Thank you for sharing it. I’ve been watching RU-vid videos of newer therapists with master’s degree credentials and they have been continuously impressing me and it just brings me so much hope and joy thinking of all the people who will have the potential to be helped. The last part of your comment really resonates with me because it’s a recognition of personhood and autonomy for the client. So the client isn’t poked and prodded like a specimen or is invalidated or talked at.

Also, (I know this isn’t the same thing but it brings this to mind for me) the part where you said “Meaning, for much of psychology md medical research history, the people conducting, and even subjects within research were predominantly cis white men of status” made me think of how women and female anatomy were placed in relation to men and the male body. Which is so absurd I can’t not laugh at it lol it makes me think of Americans only thinking of other countries in relation to America and American culture 🤦🏻‍♀️

The only people who’s being led astray is the idiots who have no idea how to extract wisdom where it’s present.

Seems like Peterson is to philosophy as Dr Oz is to medicine. And politics.

@@hattielankford4775inda the dude steals most of his shit from Joseph Campbell’s mono myth and William S Linds writing on “political correctness”. I’d imagine reading Pat Buchanan’s book on cultural Marxism and probably Andrew Breitbart’s biography would elucidate more. There’s a whole whacky world of conservative philosophy like the New Thought movement, Ayn Rand’s objectivism, the Bell Curve etc. they maintain their own separate universities, think tanks, media, and literature so it’s often difficult to understand why people like Peterson are the way they are. Strangely they all seem to not talk about their intellectual roots. The Bell Curve takes research from literal white supremacists and neo nazis who like used data on black student’s educational attainment in occupied African nations or apartheid South Africa. They only ever talk about the Bell Curve which launders that crap. I’ve never seen Peterson mention Campbell or Lind by name despite clearly plagiarizing their work. He only ever mentions Jung and like Russian novelists. I guess those are safer sources?

You're a person of honor. Thank you for your story.

Focault IS a fake.

Everyone has blind spots. Peterson is certainly no exception, and it's important to listen to others people's criticisms so that you can have a fuller picture of situations, world views, and the like. This is going to be even more important going forward after Peterson chose a very clear side in the culture war after he partnered with Daily Wire. The motivation and ability for people to poke holes in his world view is going to be much higher now. I personally welcome this opportunity, but it's important to keep in mind that the majority (or at least plurality) of people giving their opinions on Peterson these days are going to be politically motivated one way or another. That doesn't invalidate criticism, but knowing what motivates someone tells you their potential blind spots and helps one get a fuller picture of things going forward.

Nobody over the age of 16 should take Peterson seriously.

@@Joram647 I agree. Knowing that a lot of what JP says about philosophy, Marxism, and postmodernism comes from Stephen Hicks, a Randian Objectivist whose seems equally ignorant of post-Kantian philosophy as Ayn Rand herself (which is saying a lot), clarifies a lot about why JP has the gaping blind spots and political motivations that he does.

Tell me about what he’s saying that’s “dangerous”

Jp was either always a bad faith actor couching his ideas under a guise of self-help, or he might genuinely have drifted that way and took his fans along for the ride Long time ago, I thought he was pretty on point, along with sam Harris and others of the intellectual dark Web. Critical thinking is they key and I think some of these guys have let their egos take control

Most critiques of Peterson are like this. Just dismissive and unsubstantiated. I think that's part of the reason why he gets away with his rubbish.

@@thesilverbrow2382 when he says such outright blatent lies and twists, the only response is... "nope, that's not correct, BS" 😂 it's really hard to respond to someone who is making shit up

The Tucker Carlson paradox

@@thesilverbrow2382 I know right... its a group of brainwashed 18 year olds fresh out of sociology and gender studies class who think they are the next world genius. "He is wrong"- they say with no explaination, because to explain their argument is beneath them. Egotistical pricks... best to avoid them and their kind, watching them never get employed is the best retribution. I also know the owner of wisecrack would never bring his arguments to Jordan directly, he couldnt insult him and mis-understand him so easily and get away with it. Jordan would wipe the floor with this greasy egotistical retard

@@thesilverbrow2382 This video is 34 minutes what do you mean unsubstantiated?

That’s why it’s always so important to never be charitable in interpreting him

Example?

Example?

Example?

The best example of him being wrong is his lobster theory and its his core argument for hierarchy

Thanks so much!

I second this!

@@WisecrackEDU this video was nice, you did good. Keep on keeping on.

yessssss! found myself kinda in that style too, teaching swimming and art. so much more engaging and casual, especially when learning new thing

Honestly when we try to group things into "East vs. West" it kind of feels more like a form of xenophobia in a way to alienate cultures that don't fit a eurocentric view of the world because how often when talking about "Western society" has the conversation ever included indigenous American populations or Latin America? Or what about Celtic groups like the Irish and the Welsh who were considered uncivilized by Anglicized cultures. Or even Greece which is considered the bedrock of western philosophy and civilization and yet in of itself was composed of so many squabbling city states with vastly different views from the Athenians to the Spartans to the Macedonians who were barely considered Greek. So much so that they warred with themselves more than they did with cities outside of Greece. It just feels like an attempt to alienate non-European ways of thinking and make them seem other as if there is any homogeny to be found between Ireland, Estonia, Sweden, Italy, France, England, and Lichtenstein when these countries have completely different cultures.

@@CollinMcLean 100% agree. So many political media figures, American conservatives like JP in particular, like to use co opt phrases with the prefix of "Western" to propagate American exceptionalism and xenophobia, (most often sacrificing any grounded definition along the way) by treating it as an unquestionable good, equating it to democracy and basic morality, and any critique of it is an affront to civilized society itself It's gotten to the point where I can't hear those phrases in any context without wincing a little bit

@@KippyDemo It's like when conservatives say "Judeo-christian values" as if Judaism doesn't have a distinct set of rules and it's own form of worship. It's their way of pulling Judaism into their BS while alienating Islam by avoiding the term "abrahamic" because yes Christianity did branch from Judaism but it ignores how Judaism is fundamentally a culture and not just a religion with it's own set of values and has often clashed with christian faith in history.

I disagree, with the last part. Jordan Peterson does engage in long form debates, quite a lot, with individuals that are arguably more respected then himself, such as Sam Harris. Take in consideration that it takes a lot of energy and time to prepare for such debates, at least, if you want to do them well, which I believe peterson does. So Jordan Peterson doesnt debate as much as your standard. I think its unwaranted to conclude that he does so because of recognition and praise. How often do people jump on someone elses character when they dont agree with them, before considdering that the other might actualy be doing their best? And how often is the character actually at fault? I think rarely. Considder the possibility that you are simpely attacking peterson on his character instead of his arguments as an easy way out. You would not be the first to do so

@@jemangerrit1747 the original comment pretty much debunked Jordan Peterson’s take on philosophy before attacking his character. He was not just attacking his character. Peterson is so laughably uninformed on philosophy it’s a joke. He is a moron.

How is he radical he just has a different perception and take on the philosophy there’s a difference between disagreement and radicalism

James Lindsey has written extensively on “woke culture.” And his books are heavily cited.

Look into critical theory. It's filled to the brim with postmodernism masking itself as science. And it ussually has activism as its purpose for students taught it. So i don't reckon he did get it wrong.

@@Theobserver6897 How is he not radical with his different perception? There's a difference between radical and disagreement. So put up.

@@emilsundbaum5221 Critical theory is just a fox and rightwing talking point because you have nothing substantive.

I’ve never heard anyone speak absolute BS and somehow make it seem accurate by using scholarly verbiage the way Peterson does. He’s good at seeming intellectual when he isn’t.

You could be talking about Trump with this comment.

I have a feeling you struggle with this too.

@@chasinggoats8155 well since you're not psychic and no nothing about me keep your feelings to yourself. Maybe go to sleep next time instead of writing something so vapid.

​@@chasinggoats8155 I have a feeling you struggle with this too. 🥺

Screams too much too, and he gets heavenly aggressive if it's not his favorite position

His daughter has done some interviews and is even more transparently grinding an axe. Good choice of videos here. He makes a lot of irresponsible errors in one place.

He does not "constantly exaggerate", he downright lies constantly. There is a huge difference between the two.

Surprised he makes such claims about the field of psychology considering he himself is a professor if clinical psychology, which frankly I'm surprised he even is as I can point out many of the inaccuracies in his understanding of the field.

No one on this blue turning rock hurling through multiversal space ever took time out of their God forsaken day to ever to patiently yet intelligently tell him that quantity of perfunctory thesaurusical words vehemently spoken does not necessarily directly perfectly correlate to the overall empirical quality of said words. Like, less it's more, brah.

@@teenkitsunemay I get an example?

He constantly rants about psychometrics but has no background or publications in psychometrics. As for his philosophy it’s basically just hysterics about leftism in general. He’s annoying, and his acolytes are the worst.

@@hogannull7022 yeah he’s big into word salads.

it's painful to many, I feel you

If that's what you say of a professional who constantly engages in dialogue with diverse kinds of people, as well as participate in actual research to the point he is one of the most quoted psychologist in North-America, shouldn't you also admit to yours and Wisecrack's own bias? When was the last time you have seen Wisecrack engaging in a dialogue instead of taking a couple excerpts from a 30 minute long lecture and then taking your sweet time picking it apart before recording a one-sided response with the luxury of having Google while you write your essay? If Jordan misinterprets Post-Modernist philosophy, don't you think it is possible for you or Wisecrack to misinterpret Jordan's philosophy. After all, you seem to believe Jordan is a simple defender of the status quo, even though anybody that actually knows his beliefs also knows Jordan understands the importance for our current knowledge and wisdom to be actualized constantly through challenge.

@@JavierGomezX lol no. Maybe he was some serious psychologist but he has no clue of philosophy. And this is actually pretty easy to spot, e.g., as he completely fails to »debunk« the communist manifest by simply not knowing any of it. He might indeed have some pretty decent expertise in some field - but philosophy ain’t it. For sure!

@@JavierGomezX All your arguments are simply rhetorical and have no substance whatsoever. He's a psychologist mostly working with personality questionnaires such as EPQ (Big Five) which is actually considered to be quite an easy job as these kinds of things always bring some kind of results and it's highly quotable as it's what most of the outside world wants from psychology scholars: evaluation tests. I won't deny his expertise on that, he's got quite an impressive impact factor and maybe his work advanced the field in some way: though not to a degree that got his name into any textbooks I read during my education and outside of his shenanigans with being a (alt-)right-wing influencer almost nobody would hear of him. The fact that he feels that he can present himself as an expert in terms of postmodernism, cultural marxism (is that even a scientific term? I don't think so) and the rest of this stuff is just appaling.

@@alexlubinski7795 (alt) right wing influencer !! AHAH ! That made me laugh, thank you!

or the truth.

@@republitarian484 If you read some actual biology that's more than your high school textbook you might change your mind.

@@RuneDrageon . . . so the entirety of human history has been a social construct right?

@@republitarian484 Since civilization is techincally a social construct, yes. But that is now what you were about. Remember, sex and gender are different and gender is a social construct that doesn't or barely exists in other species.

@@RuneDrageon . . .LOL. . . OK. . .whatever you say. Sex and Gender are closely aligned and that alignment has much to do with biology. Only a fool would look at the entirety of human history as an oppressive patriarchal construct.

I guess I’m stupid

@@guccimane8941 I mean, if you did research, you wouldn't have to guess. XD

French postmodern ponderings make smart people look dumb in equal measure if you're not looking for validation.

For sure. In my experience of being in grad school (2007 - 2015) most folks I knew almost treated postmodernism as a "passing fad" from another generation. I've since come to really appreciate the work of Derrida and Lyotard (among others), but at the time it felt far from cutting edge or radical.

I completed my university degree in 1999 from u of t when peterson was just starting there. I never met him but I took a film studies course there by a professor Bart Testa who told us "some of you have a course with Dr Peterson who says a lot of wrong things about Post Modernism which will confuse you when studying Post Modernism in my course" . Then he had a whole lecture about how and why Peterson was wrong and what you should know about post modernism in film. THIS IS LONG BEFORE PETERSON WAS FAMOUS.

@@johnnygoodman2003 Wow, he had just started teaching there and already had a bad reputation among the faculty? That's almost impressive.

@@austinluther5825 I know. I never heard of the guy. And professor Testa had been there for years before peterson and was already telling his students how he was wrong. But Testa is a real stickler for getting things right and for reducing confusion in his class, even if it was just film class.

This is just one of JP's buzzwords. His definition of Post Modern is anything that conflicts with status quo economics/thinking.

Reminds me of Alex Jones

Whatever I love all these delusional comments 🙄

I'm curious if I'm missing something. I don't see how you prove this. I wrote a post just now discussing the problem with this idea

Socialism + Darwinism = Genocide. Darwin is undeniable, so we must reject Socialism. The individual must be considered Holy for civilization to progress.

An irony being Nietzche would likely frown upon that viewpoint since one of the major teachings of Nihilism is that things such as Hierarchies and social classes are pointless and have no meaning beyond what we assign them. Peterson's version feels more like Cynicism and Defeatism disguised as Nihilism.

Ok I'm not a part of Peterson's PR team, but this hierarchy strawman really grinds me. He doesn't and never has advocated for hierarchies, only emphasized the importance of recognizing your inherent biological biases lest you allow them to control you. Are you sure you are not the one intentionally reading him wrong?

He never said don't question Authority or that all hierarchy's are good. He said that hierarchy's are inevitable and that all authority is not based on power and strength. Instead it is competence and merit that govern a hierarchy. You obliviously haven't heard him speak because he has defended your same accusation for years now.

This 😂😭💀👌🏽

@@CollinMcLean tbf Nietzsche would frown upon 90% of the stuff people him say

Can confirm.

Compared to some more news covering peterson. This video feels like it doesn't really cover anything. Just a couple reaction clips. Feels quite odd for this channel. He's a psychologist that thinks he's a philosopher that's not right wing when he clearly is.

I love both channels and i really wish if there can be a way for both of you to have a conversation tbh.

This is it.

change is extremely board term. What you may call change, I may call "you, forcing the reality to accommodate your insecurities by labeling it as whatever makes you comfortable". "capitalism bad" you may say "look at all these poor people in debt", while I say that I've been poor, and then I climbed up the capitalism ladder a bit and now I enjoy all of its fruits.. I didn't demand the change of capitalism, I changed myself.

@@giorgisopromadze3655 "and then I climbed up the capitalism ladder a bit and now I enjoy all of its fruits." Are you familiar with survivorship bias?

Plus he started making money and being recognized for it thus decided to play the part. He does a bad job though because he's too lazy. What a fraud.

Not even today's status quo. He likes the status quo of the time he grew up in - back when no-one was talking about race, the feminists were happy that equality was achieved, and it was only natural that Christianity was the one religion worth recognising.

They're reductive, but not necessarily wrong.

@@ttt69420 Did you watch the video you are commenting under? At best he was being reductive. At other points he was just straight up lying and putting words in other philosophers mouths.

@@josephnapolitano5864 Not really. Just saying how his philosophy is being applied to politics.

Kermit was always problematic. He even married a pig, going against the rule of marrying within the same species.

@@ttt69420 let it go, your old wise sage on a mountain turned out to be a pill popping narcissist

he's probably a good self help psychologist for individuals. His FOS-ness is because of everything else he talks about

He seems to make a lot of statements of fact, "X is Y, A thinks B", but often if you start digging those statements are a lot more complicated then he presents. I doubt all postmodernists agree on everything but he presents it as if they do. Who's doing collective identity and neglecting the individual now?

I am pretty sure he got most of his critiques of post modernism from William S Lind’s “political correctness: a short history of an ideology” and maybe associated works by people like Pat Buchanan on cultural Marxism. Pretty sure maps of meaning is just Joseph Campbell’s work in “the power of myth” and his idea of the so called Mono myth with a bit Jungian philosophy thrown in for good measure. (It’s been awhile since I’ve listened to him extensively). I read PoM a decade ago and conservative writing I don’t really have the stomach to read I mostly have to go by critique. I should try harder though. Conservative intellectuals read these things (I mean they sell or get distributed so someone’s reading them). Even just paying attention to the essayists working for some of the snooty conservative papers and think tanks can go a long way because the panic over Critical Race Theory (not entirely new) was largely the brain child of one conservative writer whose goal was to create a term like “social Justice warrior” a poison pill that could evoke the bad stuff about the people we don’t like. So like gay sexuality in sex Ed ends up suddenly being called “CRT” and it’s not a coincidence. This idea of using obscure intellectual theories and during them into poison pills by attaching them “to all the bad stuff you shouldn’t like” seems like a common tactic abusing peoples semantic understanding - a sort of categorical terrorism that further erodes shared understanding. Now the same thing is being done with the word groomer. Right now it could mean democrat, gay person, Trans person, teaching sex Ed of any type, drag shows, drag, and anything taught to kids you don’t approve of. So teaching kids about say the bombing of black Wall Street is teaching children to hate America which isnt indoctrination but grooming which evokes some of the most negative semantics possible - sexual abuse of children. I imagine people don’t even see it. It’s really clever 1984 pink is green language manipulation. It’s 100% driving people to anger and ultimately violence. If Peterson is doing this same sort of trick of negative dumping on post modernism you want nothing to do with him. Go watch Tony Robinson or something.

@@wearwolf2500 that's true but it's far worse than that as well. He makes patently false claims about huge things that are easily checkable, like saying communism was permanently discredited in Europe and France, so "postmodernists" couldn't open claim. marxism . But in reality the publishing dates of all the big "pomo" works happen both during and before large membership numbers for marxist and communist parties in france and europe.

If you look into the far right's history you can see it's actually pretty simple what he is doing. He is basically trying to modernize the cultural Marxist conspiracy theory of the 1930's to our modern time. Many of the things he says like low level bureaucrats being under it's sway and it being pushed by western hating radical leftists is pretty much word for word from the 1930's Cultural Marxists.

>all commies are some sort of postmodernist >communism is by nature postmodernist It's not a very hard leap I mean as much as you filth try to obfuscate it evolution has granted us pattern recognition

@@bocchithean-cap3404 🤣Excellent reply! One assumes it's satire, but, even if not, it's made my day!!!

Bizarre rants is a very good description of any of Petersons speeches. He uses names of philosophers to give a patina to his misogynistic and reactionary speech. Young men drink it as mana.

I think it's become more prevalent among conservatives and "libertarians" to talk about "postmodern" or "cultural Marxism," no thanks to ignorant mouthpieces like Peterson and Ben Shapiro. There's a deep hatred of Marx and anything remotely derived from his work or Hegel because to many of them, Marx = communism, and communism = bad, without realizing that Marxism is about more than politics and economics. Therefore, everything related to the Frankfurt School and critical theory is also bad, because Marx bad. That might be another explanation for the misinformation around Marxist and postmodernist theories that expands a little on the deeper source of Peterson's hate for postmodernism. It's not just his perceived impact of these philosophies, but because they're connected to a "deeper evil."

bingo! You really illuminated JP well. Nauseating and riddled with muddled thinking and actual thought-errors. Jarring to me and i only took two philosophy courses, one ethics

precisely what I came here to see if anyone had said yet. If you know about him & other far right propagandists like him, you can read between the lines. I guess if you don't, it seems especially baffling.

@@KaelWrit Patriarchy: "a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line." This doesn't exist in the West, but even if it did how is it bad? Are you capable of giving examples of what the "far-right" is and how Peterson fits that mold?

@@joebenson528 Um, what do you mean by Patriarchy not existing in the West? The idea of sons inheriting their Father's position, power, and belongings in incredibly common, and that is descent through the male line. The idea of someone's family name being carried on (only possible with a male heir they will say, because the male's name takes precedence) is incredibly common. Heck, I was quite uncomfortable at my uncle's wedding some years ago when they went hard into the Bible for Ephesians 5:22-24 and the idea of the woman being subservient to the man as the Church is subservient to Jesus, and how she should worship the man as the man worships Jesus. If I didn't know my Uncle was a good man who would treat his wife with love, kindness and respect, I'd have been beyond horrified by the language they used in their wedding. Which is entirely based upon this idea of the Patriarchy. Thinking of wedding traditions, the Father gives the Bride to the Husband, that is Patriarchy right there, the family Head is the Father and then the Husband, and so the wife is passed from one Head to another, in a completely subservient form. So... it definitely exists. As for why that is bad, it explicitly declares that half of all human beings are subservient to the other half. It leads to incredibly toxic things, such as machismo and men who declare things such as the fact they never would allow their wife or girlfriend to have her own opinion. You can perhaps say that isn't the patriarchy, but it is a natural occurence when you place the value solely on maleness and the position of primacy taken by a Father (not a Grandfather, notably, who often is depicted as having lost the physical might and fervor of his youth) and tracing the family primarily through Father-Son relations.

@@Chaosmancer7 As a bi black member of the woman delegate I STAN this comment 💯😂🙌🏽

@@Chaosmancer7 I'd also point out that people who are part of some religious sects (Mormons, Some branches of Evangelical Christianity, for example) also exemplify the patriarchy. Daddy-daughter dances (which if anyone hasn't seen, it's horribly cringworthy and bordering on ick) where daughters are given 'promise' rings to hold themselves 'pure' for their future husbands. So yes, the patriarchy is DEFINATELY still alive and well in the West.

a museum where each of the exhibits is just a child's drawing of the subject in question

That's a good way of putting it. I always feel like when I hear him speak, I never really hear any real claims. Everything is so vague and abstract that it barely feels like he's talking about anything.

@@cadekachelmeier7251 he really won't let himself get pinned down but he is always sort of working to these really problematic points. Yet when called out he always has an out that way. Incredibly dishonest

What is perfect,Christina. It's sacred. I hate the left, because they want to destroy the world and Western culture. Next it's nihilistic. The french revolution was the begin of the end and diabolic

@Max We so you'd actively rather have wealth and power exclusively in the hands of a degenerate and deeply self-interested, nepotistic, ruling class? Because that's what the french revolution overthrew. I mean, you know in that system you would be serf right? It's a shame robespierre was a complete fuckin psychopath.

Postpostmodernism.

We don't quite have a name for it, but in general it's a scattering of Critical Theory, which attempts to acclimate and swap between historical theory lenses as you observe any particular subject.

Another good name is Metamodernism.

obviously a prequal - premodernism

That’s the beauty of post modernism, they can change its definition at any point. So he was right, the definition was probably on it’s way out but post modernism definitely stayed! 😂

I am glad that I ain't the only one who thinks that. Why people fall from this? 😂😂😂

So you're argument is he sounds super smart he must be a fraud?

@@LunaticReason No, that's not even close. 😂

he's just a better educated Alex Jones.

​@@paultapping9510 Or at least one that sounds coherent because his articulation gives it the patina of erudition and it's peppered with a mélange of verifiable facts and truisms that give the illusion that all of it is like that if you're not well-informed on those specific topics and assume he's acting in good faith

@@garrettwilson4754 And then there are RU-vid commenters following him everywhere he goes.

Nah things like cleaning your room and standing up straight are helpful for real problems.

@@snoozyq9576 Things your parents should have taught you. They're so basic they're actually pre-basic.

Thought about that too. Most apples aren't mealy and American apples are generally pretty bad because of all the wax.

@@Adski975 hehe. Wax . . . I'm more concerned about the wax in people's ears. Too much preaching and not enough listening. It's going to lead to a huge problem in our society. We'd better enjoy it while it lasts. After that, all we'll have left is regret.

Socialism + Darwinism = Genocide. Darwin is undeniable, so we must reject Socialism. The individual must be considered Holy for civilization to progress.

I noticed that almost everyone he ever cites is a Marxist. Which leads me to believe he has no idea what he's talking about

​@@Adski975 tbh I always liked how the wax tastes

In one sense, the phenomena of Peterson's success is very post-modern. I very much doubt he could make it through a second or third year undergrad analytic philosophy class, and yet because he's brimming with all the surrogate indicators of the "powerful intellectual" - he's a suit-wearing old male professor, he speaks with a passionate yet exacting and stern manner etc. - people accept that what he says is cutting-edge scholarship. In practice, while he has some niche expertise in personality psychology, you don't have to look far to find actual experts in all the fields he comments on - from Biblical studies to political science - not just disagreeing with him, but pointing out how his "profound" views are precisely the sort of thing one would think if they had only engaged with very specific sources.

This critique is addressed by JP long ago "Campus Indoctrination: The Parasitization of Myth" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-VJMy_BWD3CI.html

@@mil401 interesting, could you recommend me some of those experts in those fields?

No isn't inaccurate at all he's completely right, try reading properly.

@@hornytoad1978 look at your reply contrasted to the OP and ask yourself "Am I out of my depth?"

You’re much more on point than the creator.

Yes, you're correct. I think Peterson is also using Lyotard in the way of reading literature, who was a primary postmodern thinker. He is talking about a whole tradition and, like you said, name drops Foucault and Derrida for familiarity rather than extensive critique of their works.

​@@starfoxnesBasically you are saying that Peterson's line of argument is lazy, sloppy, shoddy, full of holes, jumps, false conclusions and overstated suggestions, lacks consistency and logic sequence. Which indeed is the case.

I want to add honeycrisp apples to your list. They're not mealy at all!!!

This channel is woke tho. Be mindful

@@leonardodealmeida5087 Woke apples? The horror.

@@leonardodealmeida5087 could you explain what you mean by 'woke'?

@@leonardodealmeida5087 seriously what do you JP fans mean when you say woke? What is the woke media? What do you really mean? Is it just code for something that would be inflammatory?

He's a full on grifter. The most dangerous are those who can assign a veil of intellectualism to regressive concepts.

@@ianvance1647 That's exactly right. The right loves people who can sound smart while justifying their regressive talking points. To Peterson it's the unchangeable hierarchy's fault that things are the way they are. Men can't help being better at things and women should know their place. You can identify the time when things clicked for Peterson, and he realized he could appeal to a huge group with most of them not educated enough to identify all of his errors in judgment. All you need to do is listen to somebody who actually understands postmodernism to see how Peterson misrepresents the concept. Now he is into climate change and geopolitics because it feeds his fanbase who take anything he says as gospel.

@@glovere2 JP is such a grifter that hearing him talk about the war in Ukraine might give you a headache, he goes around and around trying to justify that Russia should be allowed to invade and it sounds so dumb but he masks it around these intellectual contexts to sound convincing.

@@rickj.392 'masks it around these intellectual contexts'...hmmmm i'd like to hear a few seconds of what u mean but i'd guess that's all i can stomach. He is clearly ill if he can pull that off

@@18_rabbit well its been awhile but he if i recall he basically goes into some historic contexts , stuff that you see on reddit that justifies invasion as in "they were part of russia once" and "they were getting more western which is an afront to a former empire" etc etc

I'm not sure if Jordan Peterson's confidence is a product of the Dunning-Kruger effect, that he knows just enough about philosophy to believe he understands postmodernism well but not enough to understand what he doesn't know, or sheer opportunism. He realizes he has an audience who has been spoon fed the idea that certain "left leaning" forces are a threat to all that they hold dear. He knows that he has a lot to gain if he can find a sophisticated way of telling these people that their fears are right and is therefore incentivized to find a way to turn things that right wingers tend to disdain (like modern philosophy) into a clear and present danger. I'm not sure how much he really understands about post-modernism but he seems to know what his audience wants to hear and that telling them that can get him what he wants.

People do that all the time, salesman, stephen seagal, trump... the real mystery is how a sensitive, empathetic person like Peterson can have this trait. But this combo made him rich, people believe in him because he seems real to lie.

There is basically two options: 1. He actually believes he is right, which might be possible, but would make him simply stupid or 2. He knows exactly how to influence a gullible audience of mostly young men through rhetorical means, no matter the facts, as long as they line up with the outdated worldview he's trying to push forward. Might be 1 but personally I believe it's mainly reason 2.

@@laszlo161 Your conclusion lines up with my own version of Occam's razor which suggests that if there are multiple explanations of a person's behavior, the most cynical is most likely to be correct.

Imagine fact checking philosophy

wrong pleese reserch this is just one debate ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qsHJ3LvUWTs.html

@@mihael333 aha i love that you've linked to a video that wisecrack have already done an analysis on in which Peterson, again, outs himself as being utterly ignorant of the source material he references

bingo!

Thanks for this.

I love this. Caputo's work is what introduced me to Derrida and I've always found his reading of those concepts to be super helpful.

Your comment was mentioned in his new video! Congrats

He cites a lot of people that liked children in the worst way possible

What makes him insidious is he spends a lot of time taking about personal care, and cleaning your room, and setting goals... And that pulls you in as it's all fundamental self help stuff that is not really good stuff.... But then he trots out all this regressive crap after, like sex rationing and other bizarre ideas like caring about people is wrong.

Peterson is a complete hack who uses a thesaurus to pretend he knows what he's talking about.

@@mattp6953 ehmm no?

@@mattp6953 Which is sad because there are many other self-help gurus that have better formats for the basic stuff like that without going into personal commentary on social and political issues.

@@marvin2678 yup

it's true.

Especially re the “Derrida and Foucault don’t believe in biology”thing. JP is pretty blatantly just making a quick transphobic jab, not looking at any real text that they produced.

Especially re the “Derrida and Foucault don’t believe in biology”thing. JP is pretty blatantly just making a quick transphobic jab, not looking at any real text that they produced.

No he doesn't. He doesn't know. He has cut off any investigation so as to keep himself from facing reality

@@ThePapaDragon You need to look up the word "phobia". No one is fearful of disturbed people with unfortunate upbringings. They're scared of the indoctrination of minors.

Best comment

Apparently he wasn't good at teaching his field either.

The fact that you are willing to admit to struggling is wonderful and speaks volumes about your character. Only if we realise to not know and understand everything, we can and will learn. Cheers to you ✌️

@@bugsandbrushes This is the purest, most wholesome interaction I've ever seen in a YT comments section.

@@emmanuelokoye1575 It's not. It's a glorification of weakness as "empathy"

@@emmanuelokoye1575 Cheers to you too :)

@@jay1jayf Your response also speaks volumes about your character. Alas, have a pleasant day :)

Hasn’t read…ok proof of that?

@@Skabanis if you've read, you would see. This is why JP is a charlatan. And why you are being hoodwinked. He has admitted he only read the communist manifesto in high school and hasn't read Capital. Most of all, he never cites text. He only makes assertions without textual reference. No scholar does this. Don't rely on anyone's framing. Read the texts yourself.

@@Skabanis so he read them and still misrepresents them? such evil, right?

because he is touching on a real social problem, expressing pain about it in a way that was banned in the mainstream media before he got big, and offers the laziest, most hateful and stupidest possible explanation for that problem.

@@emilianosintarias7337 I dunno, for him the "real social problem" seems to be the criticism and attempts to move away from cis hetero normative patriarchy. And don't get me started on the hypocrisy, have you seen Cass Eris break down his books? Dude can't even reference properly and he's supposed to be an academic.

@@PyroGiz The real thing is a crisis of meaning, alienation, and exploding identity politics. Conservatives are right to bring those up, they simply propose the very things that cause them, and want only other forms of identity politics. I am just as worried about Cass Eris and other left liberal bourgeois reactionaries who talk about cis heteronormative patriarchy as I am about Peterson. Well, I guess not really, I might be if I lived in the western world, but the average person in the east and south will never fall for that stuff. So I am more worried about Peterson's alliance of economic right wingers, nationalists, centrist liberals, traditionalists, and theocrats.

@@emilianosintarias7337 which is exactly what Petersen *is*. What he refers to as "identity politics" is people who have been disenfranchised advocating for their equality. To take some heat out of this, what Petersen is effectively doing when he complains about "identity politics" is giving out about the inconvenience caused to him while the university he was teaching at installs wheelchair ramps for the sake of access for disabled people. These ramps are there solely to facilitate access for those using wheelchairs so that they too can access the building - but the work needed to install them means he has to use a different entrance that is not as close to his office, and that bugs the hell out of him. If I have read you correctly you kinda hit on that yourself, as in, when it is *his* identity then that matters, when it is a woman, or a gay person or heaven forbid, a trans person? Well their identities are inconvenient and to him, take something from his position on the top. As for Cass Eris, not sure why you referred to her as such, she's a cognitive psychologist and is looking at his works through that lens, including answering his contentions with actual science. It does appear like you dismissed her without even considering the context there and that seems a little silly.

@@PyroGiz No offense to you personally, but I have no time for these type of left wing politics which i consider to be right wing in the end. "What he refers to as "identity politics" is people who have been disenfranchised advocating for their equality." This is untrue most of the time I claim, he mostly complains about middle class woke politics and people who use words like center, space, identity, patriarchy etc. Though sometimes he simply and wrongly calls social struggles and progress and even marxism identity politics. Identity politics is an elite project, even when it's an elite of color. I don't take the idea of identity seriously as central to social issues at all, because i am a socialist, in the traditional sense. The idea that all politics are identity politics, that fights for civil rights of say Dubois is idpol, is BS of the highest order. So I am not hinting that when it is his identity that has to adjust, he whines. I am saying his politics sneaks in some bits of idpol campaign (for some imagined anglo civilization, but not the people inside it). Though mostly it is just a kind of anti-politics in service of the bare bones of the status quo. And I don't think that it serves any particular gender or skin color fundamentally, meaning if Africa or Asia becomes the next "west" in 50 years and impose coffee plantations on Ohio, it will ultimately be fine with Peterson. Cass Eris is a well behaved Peterson for the center left woke capitalist side, she simply can cite more but the citations are either nonsense, or sound ones you don't need her for. I have seen her work. Afro-pessimism, blackness studies, whiteness studies, intersectionality is supported only by itself and its investment in fields as citation mills and career rackets. It's totally conservative, untrue nonsense sold to a generation too young to have ever seen how social movements that win work. But it sits in the background of her work as matter of fact reference points. Anyone who thinks women are marginalized in the US/Canada, is just not in possession of basic facts. Oppressed? Sure, yes, all genders are. But women are marginalized relative to men? that's a pure performance of paternalism. It isn't going to survive analysis, we don't believe it we perform it.

And that's the best intelectual the right has now

@@rodzeroher You wish.

@@rodzeroher it’s shows how dumb y’all are if that’s the smartest person you know, read Noam Chomsky

@@rozzgrey801 exactly, being a right winger and an intellectual is impossible

@@Vivi_9 Again, you only wish it were so. I used to be a left wing intellectual, but now I'm a right wing intellectual, since the left have collectively lost their minds to the religious dogma of identity politics.

Had you listened to him you would see that is clearly not the case.

@Lary Mcfart Anyone who has a different opinion from you must not have done their research. That's a very comforting delusion you're wallowing in, isn't it!

"...and I will reject any part of reality that says otherwise!"

@@larymcfart4034 “if you disagree with Jordan Peterson then you must not have listened to him!” -any delusional JBP fan.

Thanks! And think that I'll drop some of the "outakes" on this week's Wisecrack Live.

Needs to try some Australian pink lady apples. They juicy and delicious.

@@bobstar2683 they don't keep super well. But it's apple season right now, so now's the time to try

@weatheranddarkness I love a Granny Smith, stick it in the fridge and have em chilled. Is almost like eating a glass of dry white wine lol! Love a Braeburn too tho less sweet than the Granny Smith.

@@WisecrackEDU Legit get yourself some braeburns or cox, or in the right season egremont russet or discovery... shazam! I only speak the truth because you're worthy Michael.

the man has been having a very public midlife-crisis for some time now.

I love how Peterson, as a psychologist, trained by positivism, is going through a public mid-life crisis by talking about ideas that challenges the fundamental principles and constructs in modern day psychology

How can you say deconstructionism is an idealism-benign thought system? I would like to hear a genuine reason that doesn’t involve an insult or a personal dig.

​@@toddaho9781 Deconstructivism is all about finding methods to gain a deeper understanding of a concept, ideal or idea not by comparison with something completely outside of it or by judging it against another idea, but from within itself, by going deeper into it, trying to find out where it comes from, what it consists of, how it has been described by its proponents, what it takes for granted, how it comes about, unfolds, describes or preserves itself, or how it might be in conflict with itself, has evolved or might evolve further, how it (re-)defines itself or refuses to be (re-) defined, what it stands in opposition to or what it is distinct from, a subset of, etc. It means looking at the consistencies and inconsistencies of a thing or thought or concept, on how it behaves towards itself, rather than making assumptions from the outside. The method is "benevolent" (figuratively speaking) by taking it seriously on its own terms rather than by thinking about how you (or others) think it "should" be (defined); think of a deconstructionist looking at an ideal much like an adult looking at a child and not thinking about what might be best for it from the hindsight perspective of a once-child-now-adult but rather trying to find out how the child thinks about itself. Not by actively asking it adult questions but by observing its child expressions.

Oh my gawd this is so spot on 😂😂😂

So accurate it hurts. 😂😂😂

The problem with deconstruction is that it itself is fundamentally flawed. You are pretending to be unbiased when deconstructing something, but you cannot really be unbiased, only unconscious to your own bias, which you unwittingly project onto what you are studying. Post-modernism is just a way of kidding yourself that you're outside culture and can see it with unfailing objectivity.

He is the holy trinity of all of it at once.

Definitely never wrote fanfic about an alternate universe where Rory and Jess ended up together . . . yep, not me.

@@WisecrackEDU Again oddly specific, but going to have to take your word on that. For now.

your language tells me that you have no idea what you're doing by invoking the phrase "the status quo" to call Peterson the philosopher of the status quo is to fundamentally not understand philosophy and the culture that we are currently embedded in.

"Lobsters in captivity get aggressive when injected serotonin, therefore, human hierarchies are an unchangeable part of nature, and not malleable, made up social constructs, it's only natural that when the king catches a cough the peasants catch a cold, I'm wearing a tuxedo and I say a lot of 5 dollar words, I'm very smart and not at all a charlatan whose often proven wrong by his own sources upon reading beyond the hand picked quotations I provide."

@@TheRoyalWe762 Your language tells me you're too pretentious to admit you don't even know what the status quo is (his entire lobster quackery is basically a naturalist fallacy to justify the capitalist status quo, I mean, you must be one of those who think everybody is as stupid as themselves, if you really think your making anything resembling of a point).

Basically the right leaning mentality, it is down to the individuals to improve their situation, there is nothing wrong with the system.

@@baishihua Margareth Thatcher went as far as to say that society doesn't exist, it's just an optical illusion from looking at interconnected, individual personal interests. That's not just right leaning mentality, it's straight up an American Psycho level take, or alternatively, a Bateman's revving chainsaw engine hot take.

I don't believe he's ever read them thoroughly. His statements come out as shallow misinterpretations, limited to the sociological, of other people's shallow, misinterpretations limited to the sociological, of Derrida's work.

Peterson just deflects everything he can't answer. Would be the worlds most boring interview.

I'd say never. I suspect he's read *about* them, very possibly through hostile sources, and that that exhausts the full extent of his knowledge. Naturally there are substantive and cogent critiques of Derrida and Lyotard, but they also present some novel propositions and observations.

Honestly, watching this, it feels like Jordan Peterson trying to talk about something completely unrelated to postmodernism (if I had to guess, I’d say it’s his interpretation of the political left or the “woke mob” or whatever you want to call it), which he has labeled as “postmodern Marxism” (I guess because “Marxism” sounds scary to people and “postmodern” is confusing). But since he doesn’t have any actual figures who represent this thing he wants to talk about, he throws in wildly misinterpreted statements about postmodern philosophers he’s never read.

There seems to be an overemphasis on Peterson's early mention of French philosophers. I haven't watched Peterson's video (doubt I will, either), but he only seems to mention them to discuss the origins of post-modernist deconstruction and its ties to Marxist thought. After that, his concern seems to be our contemporary world and how universities have become saturated in critical theory, which is now leaking out into the private sector (DEI, BLM et al) with the overabundance of Millennial/Gen Z liberal arts majors

@Mike Fuller lol

reminds me how he was talking about the war on Ukraine to be honest. It just felt like im listening to a 13 year old trying to sound as deep as its physically possible lol.

But is intelligent than you

@@pil5357 well, it depends what you mean about "intelligent".

It's not that bad so far . . . enjoy it while we can.