Peterson's and Chomsky's Critiques of Postmodernism. 

Rewatching this video I agree with some commentators: it is probably an exaggeration to say that the critiques are strikingly different. I still see them as coming from two different points of view but it's probably a stretch to call them "strikingly different". In any case, Lots of love.

I find it difficult to pair Chomsky and Peterson as equals

I think both are right. While Chomsky explains how something as pernicious as post-modernism came about, Peterson explains what it has turned into and how it maintains power.

from this video it seems to me chomsky is saying 'these pomo clowns arent worth debating,' while peterson is saying 'these clowns have taken over the universities and they need to be kicked out.' i think peterson is the one we need to listen to at this time.

"communists kill them all [the working class] and capitalists make them all rich"? This at very best is a WILD exaggeration.

Post-modernism seems more useful as a thought process / experiment to fundamentally question the nature of things but it doesn't really function as a philosophical view / ideology to hold. in that sense i don't think we should dismiss the concept entirely but "postmodernists" who truly believe in it are either liars or in self-denial.

I think it is important to see them as different. One relevant difference are their respective ages and standings on the intellectual stage. Chomsky's analysis has come from his seeing the emergence of post-modernism in real time. His issue with postmodernism is the inauthentic nature of it. and he saw that first hand as he was involved in social justice movements, apparently without the need to turn to these new-fangled theories. Perhaps more tribally, he's also got skin in the game because he has his own original ideas in direct contrast to them. So while one may not agree with Chomsky I think we should take his argument in good faith. Peterson, on the other hand, is not a good faith actor at all in my view. He is simply politically opposed to the modern social justice movements and so he ascribes blame to their postmodernism, even if that means crowbarring all of their characteristics into the label postmodern. But these people are the inheritors of those ideas rather than the originators and I don't think it makes sense to call them postmodern. Some of them can simply be Marxists, which is a positivistic theory; others critical theorists, which is a grey area. I think it's too simplistic to call critical theory, which came out of Marxism, and which in many ways has evolved into the modern social justice movements that Peterson opposes, postmodern.

They both agree that postmodernists are driven by power.

Postmodernism is undermined by its own ideology. If there are no facts, and logic and rational thought are merely social constructs, then Postmodernist ideology cannot be factually true. Or, at best, it is just another social construct, no more or less than any other. For this reason I view postmodernism as an extreme form of skepticism which can be useful in helping to see through misguided thinking or gross social misconceptions. It does not, however, offer any basis of foundation upon which to build a functioning society.

Peterson is basically a post-modernist in denial, and Chomsky isn't. Ez done.

I'm not sure the two approaches are quite so opposite in the way portrayed. Chomsky does not think the ideas have much substance. But neither does Petersen. The main difference seems to be that for Chomsky the 1st World post modernists are pretty irrelevant but for Petersen their ideas are a useful cover for bad intent. These two approaches can easily co-exist as far as I can tell

Saying Peterson is on the Right of the political spectrum truly shows how little you actually listen to his words and just parrot along with the dominant narrative.

Why does Peterson never discuss the tragic failures of capitalism and fascism, I wonder? He's always picking on socialists and communists.

The idea that post modernistic rejection of objective reality, logic, and reason don't cause harm come up against a hard wall when it enters medical science.

Great video and summation of their views.

What I appreciate about Chomsky‘s take on postmodernism is how accurately he locates it in the halls of higher education, and then, by extension, into the management of progressive nonprofits and mid-level government. That is, that postmodernism has a project which is fundamentally economic, and in the interest of a “professional managerial class” that thrives in universities and nonprofits and mid-level government. (See Jacobin magazine and videos on what is wrong about identity politics and the “cultural left”.) Peterson, on the other hand, is a bit “all over the map” in that close to 20 or even 25% of what he’s saying is true, and then he leaps to these over-arching reactionary theories about how happy and grateful we should be to live in “the best of all possible worlds” Pangloss was right? His name would not be Pangloss. This his is hook and convert gimmick whereby he derails young critical thinkers into becoming right wing idiots.

My postmodern postman put my mail in the bin, I complained. His excuse was obtuse and there followed abuse, he said letterbox/bin are the same. I said oh I'm sorry for causing him worry then punched him right in the face. He seemed really pissed when I told him my fist was a sandwich and he'd just had a taste.

Peterson is too lenient on the capitalists, Chomsky is too lenient on the Marxists. Nonetheless, Mercuse, Gramsci, Fanon, Latour etc., were all interested in expanding the Marxist purview outside economics

Chomsky keeps moving his goalposts, deliberately vague. Peterson is a bag of truth bombs and solid as a rock.

Peterson is a paid propagandist who hasn’t read the material or considered it. Chomsky is an independent intellectual who has and finds it fashionable pretense. And with the exception of Foucault he considers it not worth engaging in at all. And in regards to Foucault, I agree with Chomsky in general but I think Foucault did have a very important point, which I could some up as: Modernism as a mechanism absorbed by power has a tendency of overly universalizing and creating narratives around it which serve institutional power and has tended to ignore broader alternative structural possibilities. This I think Chomsky and Foucault could agree with and they very well may have had that conversation.

"Postmodernism is cringe, but Peterson is even more so." -Chomsky

Peterson knows exactly what he's doing. Like Thanos once said "I used the stones to destroy the stones".

Peterson doesn't know a first thing about postmodernism. If your thoughts drift for a second, you won't be able to tell if he's talking about "neomarxists", "modern women" or "postmodernism" or whatever. He is not a very bright person and shouldn't be taken seriously. The only thing about him that warrants attention is the fact a lot of lonely, insecure boys idolize him and a lot of traditional girls like him. And this attention should be, in fact, directed at the question of who else offers something for these groups and what is it exactly that they offer if anything? When people like Peterson or Shapiro or Bila or Whatever (the podcast) fill the void for a certain (rather large) group in society, we have to ask why was there a void in the first place?

Comparing Chomsky with Peterson is risky, to say the least. Peterson might want to aspire to that intellectual level, but it's simply out of his league.

It's unfair to put J Peterson, who obfuscates and talks in riddles, against such a giant, they aren't equal.

Peterson is talking about himself, right?

I'm still convinced that Peterson doesn't understand what Postmodernism is. He's a clinical psychologist, so he should stay in his lane... The conclusion that post modernity is some repackaging of Marxism is naive and paranoid, at best. So he critiques Postmodernism by talking about the failing of Communism because many of the philosophers were supportive of Stalin or Mao. That's called an ad hominem attack; a fallacy. Post modernists believe logic, identity and value structures DO exist. They believe that meta narratives exist. Almost everything Peterson describes about it is wrong. Post modernists have OBSERVED that modern society, especially in the information age, lacks a grand unifying meta narrative, like Christian morality. They OBSERVE that the presence and conflict of voices and narratives has created a new human experience and epistemology. We can see this in real time as right wingers believe Trump's "alternative facts" and thousands of RU-vid channels echo ideas that are provably false (like flat earth). RU-vid itself is a perfect example of Post Modernist philosophy because it represents a plurality of voices, irreverence for authority, algorithms that are obsessively self reflective of the individual, a platform for micro narratives, all while being controlled and profited by a mega corporation. Post Modernists simply describe our experience and tries to make sense of it. Post modernists OBSERVE that power structures, whether through political dominance in authoritarian governments, or capitalist systems are preserved and propagated through moral and ethical codes, and that some of these structures are beneficial and some are incredibly harmful. What do they want? If you include Nietsche as an early or proto Post Modernist, he wanted humankind to literally evolve beyond superstition and division. Foucault wanted gay people to live normal lives and wanted the medical establishment to stop diagnosing homosexuality as a mental illness. Judith Butler wanted men and women to live lives that weren't dictated by gender norms (like Women can be doctors too). Keep in mind that post modernity was most prominent in the post WW2 era, when a lot of things we consider to be social progress occurred, and these philosophers were describing how things were evolving. So where is Marx in all this? What part of this is obsessed with capitalism or victimhood? This is how I know that Peterson has no idea what he's talking about. When he says "post modernists" silence voices, he again makes no sense. Lyotard described a mediascape where everybody talks all the time because censorship is impossible. All these people with "alternative views" ARE on media though. They're not censored; they're making millions on their respective platforms. All of this is predicted and explained by Post Modern theory. Of course there are limits to post modern critique. Much of it gets lost in the turmoil of modern media, or fails to give any kind of solution. Other philosophers have observed that Post Modern authors turn the tables of power to put themselves in positions of being the ones that decide the truth. Peterson echoes this criticism (which he didn't think of) at 6 minutes in the film. All valid criticism. Chomsky himself was never really considered to be postmodernist, and since most of his work has been in language, post structuralists represent a sort of enemy camp. There's no doubt Chomsky understands post modernists; as he met most of the great french philosophers of the time, but I think he agrees that they don't really propose useful solutions and a lot of the rhetoric is so convoluted that it's meaningless.

The rejection of Totalising Grand Narratives? - is that not a contradictory totalising grand narrative in itself? - so I am no fan of PoMo thought. however, I think I prefer Chomsky's interpretation; he seems to practice what he preaches; a common-sense dismissal of sophistry. Petersen seems to flatter PoMo with his paranoid assessment of it's obsession with 'power'. As Chomsky states, PoMo academia is more a prevention of political activism than a stimulus to it. Evangelical Christianity seems to be a totalising grand narrative much concerned with money and power, AND it has no connection at all to Neo-Marxism or whatever the Right wants to brand PoMo as. I know what Chomsky thinks of the Christian Right in the US, but I have never heard Dr. Petersen expound on the subject.

Will there ever be a Chomsky interview with decent audio quality ? Or does he refuse interviews unless the mic older than he is ?

Noam Chomsky was instrumental in debunking behaviourism among many real contributions to science. Peterson wrote some very minor papers of little merit and a self-help book for incels. It's like having Einstein and a math teacher with an influencer channel and calling their thoughts and opinions equal. They are not.

Chomsky is an S tier intellectual. Peterson does not come close. I don’t identify as left wing or right wing but I find Chomsky agreeable on most things he has said. I’m not sure if you would simply class him as left wing.

When Peterson discuss post-modernism, he actually talks about post-structuralist sociology and philosophy. They're not the same thing. Post-structuralism is about social structures and the cultural costruction of power systems within specific fields. Post-modernism is just a form of intellectual relativism that negates objective truth; you can be post-modernist, but not a structuralist, as many novel writers and artists are. Foucault wasn't just a "post-modernist", he was mainly a structuralist. Postmodernism's focus is not necesseraly about power systems, it's about the disintegration of universal truth and grand narratives (to quote Lyotard) in the modern world. Postmodernist literature is often absurdist and ironic in a cinic way. Pynchon, Wallace, Bolano, Murakami, and so on. They're not (post)structuralists, they are just post-modernists. Also, to think that postmodernism is a marxist idea is quite laughable. Relativism of values is just a consequence of the proliferation of "free" medias and ways of expression in modern democracies. Also globalization, capitalism and the end of soviet-union had a role in the development of this way of thinking, that is just an observation of modern life. Everybody is a postmodernist, because we live in postmodernist times, as Bauman noticed. So even Peterson is a post-modernist, he just like to think of himself as a conservative paranoid guy.

Gad, that Peterson is annoying, whiney and self righteous. He's not an Intellectual, he's an Emotionalist.

Peterson is NOT an intellectual.

This must have the worst "analysis" so far :-D :-D :-D Thanks for the good collection of clips on the topic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't things like DEI requirements an extension of postmodernism? Isn't fair to point out that unlike postmodernist theorists, that the math nuts of universities are not so bold as to insert themselves as entire departments into universities and corporations, creating hiring quotas, media requirements, etc? So while Petersen is clearly projecting his fears onto these peoples' motives, I also think Chomsky's comparison is far too generous to his colleagues.

Maybe they are both right. The desire of French academics to excel in their fields led them to the absurdities of postmodernism. But radical left-wing political activists quickly realized that these theories were useful in creating dissent in society and putting into practice their program of conquering power through attacking established institutions and training new cadres. Divide and conquer. We need to come together again on our basic values, or we will be doomed to perpetual struggle between identity groups. In a nuclear age, this is a recipe for ultimate disaster.

Very interesting; both Peterson and Chomsky have valuable thoughts ,BUT Peterson as oppose to Chomsky, jumps into an emotional conclusion and complaint, loosing focus, embedded and limited by his perception of the society he lives in and its social politics. As oppose to Chomsky, that expresses himself with wisdom; understanding wisdom as someone, whose thought can be universal and predicts a posible future outcome with rationality.

Peterson is post-modern word salad self-reflecting. Chomsky denounces word salad. The main difference is Chomsky believes in free speech, so is not afraid of differences in thoughts. Peterson does not, so he is deadly afraid of people thinking wrongly, so he goes into rage and all out attacks because of his narcissistic projection.

Progress in humanisation requires the keeping in uncertainty of belief of the inseparability and qualitative equality of objective justice and subjective mercy as by Mary at Luke 1:29-45 and Mt 1:24. Economist/statistician, Colin Clark, informed by Chesterton's distributive justice on this reference point of Mary was in his consecrated male female marriage in turn in late 1964 simultaneously at the UNO Food and Agriculture Organisation and Pope St Paul V1's Commission on Population an incomplete reference point of "inseparable ... union and procreation" (Humanae Vitae, 1968, 12) in marriage for his son, Oliver Clark. This son's consecrated marriages, male female from 25 February 1991 then celibate on the death of his wife from 1 November 2017 in his keeping in uncertainty of belief their inseparability and qualitative equality, by completing this reference point on 31 March 2021 was a reference point for Pope Francis' consecrated celibate marriage on 17 June 2021 in: (a) the Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine other Vatican state citizens/employees' embezzlements' case, (b) and simultaneously in the Italian state Parliament "Zan" anti-homophobia bill case on 17 June 2021 as an unacceptable risk of fraud. Exercise of an absolute power of simultaneous authorisations by consecrated marriage identity-role, celibate vowed to man in Christ or male female vowed to God in the keeping of their inseparability and qualitative equality in uncertainty of belief, advantageously combines activities of helper of the family role groups such as the Italian Parliament and the Vatican state. This 'double keeping' exercises an absolute power of simultaneous authorisations of its third keeping as trinitarian as the multiplier of role gift doing processes and progress in meeting need of union of identities as the "I AM WHO I AM" revealed to Moses at Exodus 3:14.

Is this the Peterson guy who believes ancient Christian writings represent absolute truth?

You're making a distinction without a difference. They're both in agreement that postmodernism rationalized Marxism. There are a number of perverse incentives for postmodern academics, Chomsky and Peterson merely identify different incentives. Both are pretty accurate, neither are incompatible, and there's a lot of overlap. Also due to its syncretic nature, there's not a bright line between neoMarxism and postMarxism, with many thinkers being categorized as both, either/or, etc. So it's not an oxymoron, unless you meant 'postmodern orthodox neoMarxism', in which case it would be.

Main difference is that Chomsky has actually read and comprehended the things he’s talking about.

If he said they were postmodern postMarxists then there wouldn't be any inherent contradiction. Postmodernism is particularly controversial, and orthodox neoMarxism isn't popular anymore, but syncretic forms of neoMarxism are still very popular, and there's not a bright line between neoMarxism and postMarxism, making the distinction more than a little pedantic. Many thinkers are considered both neo- and postMarxist, so it's somewhat of a distinction without a difference. Better to use 'orthodox’ and 'unorthodox' terms, I believe. Postmodernism is essentially just criticism of modernism. It utilizes critical theory in a familiar way to neoMarxism. Both are concerned with sociology. They've more or less converged on the new left, at least when judging from the outside. In essence, this allows the new left to "stop trying to be objective" and even ignore contrary evidence whenever convenient, but otherwise appeal to evidence which supports their opinion (confirmation bias). Yes I am accusing them of this, because it's a historical trend within new left identity politics.

Jordan Peterson : - " Resentment is the very worst emotion you can experience." Well, you should know, mate !

I can't believe someone would take Peterson's critiques serious at all, let alone compare them with Chomsky's. What's actually interesting is the Chomsky would of course correctly identify Peterson to also be a grifter, pretending to have grounded and practical ideas, disguising his nonsense with overly complex language, in order to be recognized and profitable within the world.

I like your commentary on these subjects. I don't agree that these two are that much different beyond action, however. Chomsky sees postmodernism as stupid and not worth discussing. Peterson sees it as stupid, but that some people are using it as a shield for their nefarious intentions.

Peterson is talking about the political implications of the movement (in his one angry way) and Chomsky about philosophical history. That's hard to compare.

I would be very curious to know what Chomsky think about Gender theory and Queer philosophy. He is quite silent on that, I haven't found anything statement from him at all.

Peterson, Chimpsky, Dawkins, these academic types are all the same. If they don't understand something they think there is nothing there to be understood. The postmodernists aren't that difficult, but I have a background in philosophy, and they present arguments albeit not always very good ones, I don't recall a postmodernist saying 'logic doesn't exist.' I wish they'd give some citations to prove they've read them. Hegel warns us about the Chimpsky types in the Phenomenology, I'll see if I can find the quote. Ah here it is: 'This abnormal inhibition of thought is in large measure the source of the complaints regarding the unintelligibility of philosophical writings from individuals who otherwise possess the educational requirements for understanding them. Here we see the reason behind one particular complaint so often made against them: that so much has to be read over and over before it can be understood - a complaint whose burden is presumed to be quite outrageous, and, if justified, to admit of no defence. It is clear from the above what this amounts to. The philosophical proposition, since it is a proposition, leads one to believe that the usual subject-predicate relation obtains, as well as the usual attitude towards knowing. But the philosophical content destroys this attitude and this opinion. We learn by experience that we meant something other than we meant to mean; and this correction of our meaning compels our knowing to go back to the proposition, and understand it in some other way'. - Hegel, 'Phenomenology of Spirit', 1807.

Just want to point out that Peterson's critiques derive primarily from the book 'explaining postmodernism' by Stephen Hicks, which as Jonas Ceika rightly points out here (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EHtvTGaPzF4.html) is filled with basic factual errors and serious misreadings/misrepresentations. Hence, as Ceika also argues, Peterson does not understand postmodernism (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cU1LhcEh8Ms.html). There have been other books by rightwingers like Scruton (see Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left (2015)) which also make similar arguments. Postmodernism is not used by any intellectuals to describe themselves. It is used by others (like Chomsky, Peterson, and Scruton) to describe them, usually French thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard, etc, who all have very different philosophies. As a result, the term postmodernism is rather nebulous, it doesn't refer to anything specific and functions (especially when used by Peterson) more like a bogeyman than anything else. As other commentators have said, postmodern neo-marxism is an oxymoron. When pressed in his debate with Zizek to name a single postmodern neo-Marxist, Peterson was unable to do so and this is for a simple reason. none exist. I also want to point out the crucial distinction between postmodern philosophy and postmodern culture. This website (cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/postmodernism/modules/introduction.html) features a really great discussion of postmodernism culture/ philosophy based around a few postmodern thinkers, namely, Linda Hutcheon, Jean Baudrillard, and Frederic Jameson (are these thinkers mentioned by Chomsky or Peterson in their critique?)

Noam Chomsky is not on the "LEFT", he identifies as an Anarcho-Syndicalist, a rather arcane political idea with few constituents. JBP is not on the "Right", why would you say that?

Their differences in emphasis are both political and disciplinary. Peterson is a paleoliberal. The new left is illiberal. Peterson is a psychologist, and sincere to a fault. Performing sentiment analysis (psychologizing) he finds that postmodernism is cynical to a fault.

This is controversial but I see postmodernism as an application of critical theory to modernism's philosophical claims. It's not really its own philosophical discipline. It's mostly an artistic movement. "Postmodern neoMarxist" is a syncretic neoMarxist operating on postmodern assumptions. This is not an oxymoron, not unless they claim also to be an orthodox neoMarxist.

Oh my god, Peterson does not know what he is talking about. Postmodernism is anti-utopian. It would treat Marx’s “dialectical-materialism” (and Hegel’s dialectic) as something to be suspicious of.

Maybe in essence marxism and post-modernism are incongruent, but in practive normally a person that believes in one, believes in the other, with all that talk of "socially constructed", it's a post-modernist idea used by marxists online all the time. When someone criticize Christinity they don't criticize its tenets from the Bible, but criticize the behavior of Christians, and that's why the post-modernist discussion is not about the books, but the behavior of common people it influenced.

Kurt Vonnegut summed it up pretty nicely: "Literature should not disappear up its own asshole, so to speak."

Both Peterson and Chomsky, though from different ideological spectrum, give only general abstract and generalized attacks and cohesion to a group of intellectuals they thrown in the same box they labeled “post modernism”. Slanders mostly, and I think they should be more specific of their criticism.

Which conclusion does the Postmodernism advocate subscribe to, and why? My guess as a cynic...

Although I'm not a fan of much of Chomsky's political thought, I have to agree with his assessment and characterizations of non-STEM, "post modernist" profs in the academy. However, that's not to say that Chomsky isn't a man of the Left. He has very publicly taken apologist positions for some truly outrageous behavior by Marxist dictators. Positions which are difficult to defend when the damage to humanity is measured. He has also been disingenuous in supporting those positions over his career. So this is a useful, if fragmented video which will hopefully motivate viewers to look more deeply into the subjects discussed.

Peterson rather should stick to psychology and less to philosophy or sociology. Postmodernism is super diverse to put them all in the same bracket and somehow including it in a communism vs capitalism narrative is very destructive. The world moved on, it’s no longer communism vs capitalism, it’s about the environment, it’s about ppl becoming lonely, it’s about the internet and populism, drug abuse.

Chomsky and Peterson don't "...belong to opposite ends of the political spectrum." You start off this video with a statement that is both empirically false and objectively biased. How could I possibly accept your critique of their statements about postmodernism when you can't even get this simple observation correct? Chomsky is a "libertarian socialist" and Peterson is a "classic British liberal." Thus your opening statement is demonstrably false.

i think their views overlap much more than you seem to think. Two blatant examples just from your own video. At 9:55 Chomsky loosely quote a normal postmodern response to an accusation of lacking content, basically, you are a white male, sexist, bourgeois. is it not what peterson accuses them of doing? Also how can you say that this is not the product of resentment from Chomsky's perspective when he says that the only reason postmodernism exist is because people from the humanities were jealous of the hard sciences complex theories and far reaching conclusions? is that not resentment driving their whole ideologies? In actualities what ive jsut seen is the same speech repeated nearly verbatim.

Almost every point Peterson makes against post-modernism are things he regularly engages in.

This is so dumb. Jorden Peterson is literally a Continental philosopher, he works from literature, Jung, and Nietzsche, and he critiques post-modernism from a Continental perspective. Chomsky is ignorant on the topic.

I'm sorry, but I just hear them both say the same things. Of course they talk about different aspects of it in the selected clips. But it's like.. you could probably talk about it forever. The core critique is the same: Post-modernists don't make sense beyond being self-serving towards their own accumulation of power.

So the primary value in postmodernism is critiquing people like Peterson, which I think is why Peterson is on this perpetual rant about it. Modernism as an intellectual trend generally entails some sort of essentialism--stripping away tradition and received wisdom to get to the core nature of some thing. Postmodernism, in a nutshell, posits that when you get to this core nature, it generally isn't anything essential. It's a projection of the current values of the society, and whether this true or not, the people like say Foucault who are making the critique are couching it in a historical comparison of all the (largely ridiculous) past claims about essential nature. Peterson's cringy rants about postmodern-neomarxism, which is really just a composite boogeyman of all the leftist thought he doesn't like, is woefully ignorant and hilariously hypocritical. According to Peterson, evil postmodernists claim that the way you think is "inextricably tied to your group identity." The same guy will tell you that you aren't really an atheist because you are acting out the cultural ethos of "the West", which he thinks is founded on Christianity. Peterson chalks postmodernism up to rebranded Marxism. The actual seminal figure for many of the core French group is Nietzsche who famously stated "there are no facts, only interpretations." The fact that Peterson leans so heavily on Nietzsche, but completely ignores Nietzche's stance on truth while attacking postmodernism--I have a hard time just chalking that up to ignorance. I have a lot more respect for Chomsky as an intellectual, but is that really a critique of a movement? Yes postmodernism in it's heyday was an overblown fad, but I don't think that's a reason to discredit all of it particularly when you claim to not understand most of it. He didn't have any problem understanding Foucault in their debate and actually seemed to concede a lot of general concerns. You wouldn't get that impression from Chomsky's later pronouncements. Possibly because Chomsky views points of agreement as "simple truisms"--but maybe a simple truism for Chomsky isn't obvious so obvious to other people.

Interesting. The way I see it they both make valid criticisms that aren't necessarily exclusive. Though Chomsky is right in describing their ideas as nonsense, Chomsky's take is what I see the old school Left do all the time these days, which is brush it all off as no big deal - it's just a few academics in an ivory tower waffling nonsense, why care. Where as the resultant political movement that their (Postmodernist) nonsense, mixed with critical theory nourishes is full of resentment and breeding division and is responsible for this cultural activism movement that is unfolding in the West today. Most of the Left have a blind-spot about this. At least as far as this clip presented it Chomsky was zoomed in narrowly on the intellectual basis Post-modernism was founded on and JBP was looking at it from a broader context where it is grafted onto to Marx based, critical theories and weaponised in the identity politics movement. The Left never criticise the Left.

Peterson argues that "post modernists" disavow logic- yet he continually ignores his own illogical claims in regards to the "postmodernists" and quickly launches into hyperbolic rants... btw - I don't consider myself a postmodernist- or any other "ists". I just think Peterson is simply a victim of his own intellectual superiority. I will say - im my own uneducated opinion- to dismiss an entire concept - simply because certain aspects are problematic- seems absurd too me. Because some of the PM theory's work - some are horse shit. Use what works- leave the rest. But what do I know - never finished college

Hmmm... Peterson is a quack among intellectuals. He's a pseudo intellectual with an ego to feed. Please don't bother giving him a platform. There are so many examples of him being misleading and incorrect on many levels of contextual based understanding, analysis and interpretation. This video is a bit like saying that two people who don't like ice cream and fundamentally in agreement...

Cliffnotes: Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about. He's only interested in launching infuriated tirates to keep his politically-incoherent RU-vid fans donating.

2:47 It's no secret ( hopefully ) that religion itself came out of oppression. People viewed the natural world as something oppressing them, so they had to cope with it, which resulted in god. If nature is innately nihilistic ( which it is ) you have to invent some kind of being that acts through nature against ( or for ) you, just to make life bearable. Otherwise, it feels unfair. Nature doesn't really care, because there is nobody there to have the capacitiy to care, it's not a person / being. Nature is not trying to create life nor is it trying to destroy it, it just is. For ancient tiems, this would've been a devastating idea, given the circumstances of that time. In modern times, we got a grasp of the world, and we can keep ourselves safe. Even though nature is unfair, we don't have to be unfair. Every form of violence ( be it done by an actor or nature ) with or without the intent of violence, will have cascading effects in someone's life. If the same violent event occurs over and over, the brain automatically starts to cope and make sense of it. It will come up with weird ideas, but then you become aware of them and it really depends on your circumstances if you give in to those ideas or not. That's how superstitions come into being ( including in other animals ). Brains have an algorithm, which will be slightly ( or more drastically ) different from animal to animal, and groups within those species. It does some calculations to see what's the best way to promote life / self preservation, and then pushes that forward ( in multiples ). All the information it uses is based on the environment, and the way it thinks about it is based on the DNA. If someone is feeling in a certain way, and you are a disgusting person like JP here, you will deny how they're feeling and find some obscure reason for that. This automatically makes that person hostile to you, because you do not engage in what any brain wants, life promoting / self preservation behavior. This is why people like JP should be avoided at all cost. Yeah, I get it, he told you to make your bed, great, but when you look at the bigger picture, he is just a toxic person, who lies about his believes in religion just to make a buck. Now he is trying to make money with his fake university.

The problem with Peterson is that he himself is a postmodernist.

I think both men's arguments are condescending. It'd be better to listen to philosophers discuss PM, not people who scoff at philosophy.

As much as I like and admire Noam Chomsky I have a hard time following his videos because of his monotonous tone of voice which is too bad in that Noam Chomsky is such a great intellectual! On the other hand Jordan Peterson comes across as a more engaging speaker but I find him to be the kind of speaker who is somewhat cryptic and prone to mix ideas and topics from different realms of “knowledge” some of which he is not an expert… more like a diletant!

peterson had some great points here, that sadly was directed at postmodernists, in reality it should be directed at everyone, at each and every human. Including himself. Why oh fucking why do we keep warring?

Neither of them is working in their actual academic expertise. Peterson can't get employed as a psychologist or psychology instructor, so he tells rich white guys what they want to hear. Chomski is a linguist. They're both in the pop-philosophy business now

Why would postmodernists claim there's tribal identity and opinion if they, at the same time, would negate a national identity like a Canadian identity...?

To make an attempt to judge, devalue, ridiculize multiple persons works in the same concept (postmodernism) is an invalid Postmodernist argument.

The problem with Peterson is it seems to overly emphasize the role of post modernism in his critique of modern left politics while ignoring completely the role of the Frankfurt school

9:45 Chomsky is talking about academics that try to become more prestigious, Peterson is talking about social science activists that use the political system to oppress the majority in favor of a select minority - two sides of the same post-modernist coin, one is more academic, the other more the political expression of the academic ideas.

So does that make Peterson a postmodernist in Chomsky's version? Peterson does play a ton of linguistic games to persuade people. For example, he needs to take 40 hours to answer whether Christ actually rose from death.

I wonder which of these so called ”post-modern neomarxist" books did he read. I bet none.

In no way should Jordan Peterson be considered a "famous public intellectual".

Neither are wrong. And theres nothing wrong with postmodernism veing attack from both angles. Dont make the postmodernist mistake of fighting the beast, getting yhe beast to the ground and then foghting eachbother over which methos to kill the beart is in fact the only valid way to kill it and pretend like the beast hasnt noticed that you forgot to kill it right begore it kills you

A self serving game to which there varied species of lamprey existing in a ill defined biome.

Postmodernism is fine, so long as you understand it as a separate matter from the more pop side of identity politics. I think it's valuable as a theoretical edifice because we can tell a lot about a thinker by what exactly they criticize in it. If we're really taking something like Foucault's substitution of capitalist exploitation for a broader and more abstract category of "Power", for example, then it's Chomsky who fails in his critique of postmodernism as sophistry: tragically, the very form of his argument is the very mechanism described by Foucault to exemplify how academics maintain power, accumulate it, and end up guiding future papers along its same lines. It's the foucaldian critical analysis of power as a matter of self-interest par excellence! As for the argument in the description, I can't say I agree that the "use of sophistry in academia seeps right down to the whole of society", corrupting reasoning ability, etc; the point of postmodernism, so long as we understand it like Fredric Jameson, as the Cultural Logic of Late-Stage Capitalism, is something that doesn't trickle down, so much as it trickles up: it starts from the bottom, in properly neoliberal locations like the internet, in sites with both anonymity and lack of moderation (the material origins of postmodern thought), making truth valueless so long as there's no repercussions for lying, and in fact an incentive not to take things too seriously, an aversion to being unironic, to cringe. This, more than anything, is what Lyotard referred to as "an aversion to metanarratives." This is the site of power, essentially 4chan culture, which doesn't even need belief in metanarratives to function, only pure speculations and pretending. On a broader scale, the devaluing of truth manifests itself everywhere, from the speculation that causes economy crashes and bubble bursts, to deceptive marketing and scam kickstarters, to politicians who don't make do on promises, only make new promises to distract from the old ones. Postmodernism, at large, is not so much a normative theory as it is a descriptive theory of how norms break down in a deregulated world, where truth would impede on effectiveness. Academics can't really be responsible for its emergence in society, when it starts from the very bottom. This, much more than any postmodern logic possibly at play with Jordan, is what I really find very funny: Peterson doesn't know it, but what he's arguing against is the cultural logic of late-stage capitalism, and in this singular way, he may just be, bar none, the world's most influential neo-marxist.

Peterson is delusional, where in the world capitalism made the working class rich?

There's more than a political separation, Peterson is a seagull following a trawler.

Jordan peterson is so clueless about what post modernism is it is genuinely funny

How does Peterson jump from that to affirmative action.

These two dont belong in the same sentence. It's incredibly insulting.

Typical dead topic for today's academics. Who replaces the retired or dead scholars?

Resentment, arrogance and deceit. Three characteristics that can be applied to Peterson

The thing about postmodernism is trying to apply a lens that doesn't incorporate current practicing intellectuals who have combined marxism and foucaultian power relations. The product of postmodern thinking is primarily such

I will be the first to admit I have never studied philosophy or what ever category of knowledge postmodernism emerges from, I prefer my beliefs to be mathematically quantifiable. So, I have to ask does Jordan Peterson know what postmodernism even is? I keep looking it up and find definitions revolving around a rejection of grand narratives, which means they ought to reject Marxism. Am I missing something?

So weird to juxtapose Chomsky who is clear and precise with Peterson who cannot even answer anything in a straightforward way. It's unfair. Chomsky has been a rock of the Left with impeccable academic and ethical credentials and then you have Jordan who is grifting about Lion King diet or whatever. 😂

I don't really understand what post modernism is

Chomskys audio is so scratchy on the ears its diffuclt to focus on what hes saying

plz stop pretending peterson is an intellectual k thx