Postmodernism: History and Diagnosis.... 

The audio is subpar. I'm not sure why. I'm aware of it. I'm working on it. I cleaned it up as much as possible with Audacity. So I am going to remove discussion of the audio from the comments section. Many people have noted that we were both using computer speakers. I won't be doing that again, and I will recommend to those I interview that they use a headset as well.

That intro... Look at that subtle off-white coloring; the tasteful thickness of it... Oh my God, it even has a watermark.

I too noticed that Stephen was very good at thinking about and organizing his responses to multiple questions without losing track. I was thinking "damn I wish I could do that.."

Every day that Jordan releases a video is a good day.

Surprised to see no comments about how similar they look

Thank you, Mr. Peterson. I loved watching and listening to the two of you. Bravo for demonstrating how two gifted minds can have a respectful / meaningful conversation. I thought it was wonderful. Yes... your guest's ability to mentally track/ categorize/ and organize your responses (while listening to you) was quite amazing. What a gift and contribution!

Regardless of audio quality, this was a great conversation to drop in on. Thank you, Dr. Peterson and Dr. Hicks.

After Dr. Peterson recommended Hicks' text in his video Strengthening the Individual, I aced my research paper for Government called "Political Correctness: Postmodernism on College Campuses". I owe a great deal to these wonderful professors.

Stephen Hicks looks like Jordan's older brother.

Gonna have to watch this one twice.

Requires patience, but incredible. I rarely sit through an entire one and a half hour discussion like this. A cardinal virtue is its clarity. Some parts rather technical but with a rerun or two you can untangle and follow it. Unlike the brain-paralyzing mumbo-jumbo of so many postmodern ideologues today. “Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity.” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

1:26:40 "You have a remarkable capacity for tracking the content of conversations ..." Right?! I, too, was amazed. He not only tracked every point Peterson would bring up but he concisely put them into "bullet points" in his mind. It was a fascinating method that I will be exploring for my own benefit.

Hicks' book on postmodernism is an extremely good introduction into the roots of postmodernism. Well worth the read (only about 200 pages)! The book is very well written and easy to understand considering its subject matter. Thank you Jordan for introducing me to this book!

Much thanks to Paula Nedved for making the accurate word-for-word transcription of this discussion.

Jesus Christ, I was going to start adding subtitles for this video but it already has subtitles. YES. Amazing. This conversation is almost two hours. Hat off to whoever undertook the task. Hat off for speakers too, thanks for sharing this type of content.

Thank you so much for posting this video conversation. It was incredibly insightful and educational. Looking forward to your next conversation with Prof. Hicks.

Dr. Jordan, it think it may be worth looking at the influence of post-modernism within the art world, specifically the universities - A picture is worth a thousand words.

Thank you both for this conversation, and I hope a subsequent one goes as well - enjoyable in many ways. I'm not sure if my enthusiasm is misdirected, but I'm hoping to reach either or both of you with two points I've come across which I haven't heard Dr. Peterson address, and which I'm sure would've come up in this conversation if Dr. Hicks has entertained them. One is that while post-modernism asserts that no single view can rightly be upheld as the 'one true' or 'only legitimate' view, anyone acting out post-modernism must be doing so on the basis that postmodernism itself has the one true and only legitimate view, which is a contradiction. The second is that at some point we arrive at the notion that individuals and societies progress through views with each new worldview being larger and more encompassing than the previous but nevertheless requiring the previous as a platform for the new structure to be built upon, and so superstitious/mythical belief systems are required for a scientific worldview to emerge, and the scientific method and other enlightenment tools are required to arrive at the plurality (and confusion) of postmodernism. If it's necessary for individuals and societies to move through successive worldviews, isn't our task less to rally against the various worldviews, but rather to foster this movement along toward more and more encompassing and integrative views? You two seem to be doing this already in this conversation but I'm not sure it's a conscious heading. Thanks again and I hope this gets to you.

Excellent! I have listened to almost all lectures and books by Stephen Hicks on RU-vid. I am a big fan of both of you. So it is a great pleasure watching you talk to each other.

What would be really great is if Dr. Peterson was allowed to produce a talk show on radio or TV with complete academic and creative freedom with guests like Dr. Sanders. It would really be something to see. I think people would love this kind of candor and straight forward analysis. Plus side is no one was trying to push a singular narrative. There is too much of that on issues in media today.

Dr. Jordan Peterson's doppelganger, or long lost brother at the very least, Dr. Stephen Hicks.

Stephen Hicks! I'd been hoping to see these two men talk for a long time. What a nice suprise.

Thank you both! This is awesome. I listened to about 80% of Dr. Hick's "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault" and now I'll need to buy it and read it with a highlighter... no to mention listening to this conversation about a dozen more times! Awesome! So insightful.

OMG!!! ... Jordan Peterson and Stephen Hicks, having a chat. A wish comes true!! Thank you, Jordan, for this. Thanks to Stephen too, for taking part .. Love you both .. :-)

I'm kind of happy with myself that I was able to understand most of this. Fascinating discussion.

This was bloody brilliant. A great outline of all the philosophical threads leading to where we are now. And a good combination, with Stephen Hicks' impressive ability (as JBP acknowledged at the end) to keep tabs on all the sub-strands of each topic. Also it was very useful to hear - with Stephen Hicks playing devil's advocate - a few post-modernist responses to JBP's points. I've always felt that JBP plays a bit fast & loose with his "post-modern neo-Marxist" label. As I see it, there are many reasons that post-modernism emerged, and some of them are *good* reasons - or at least, intellectually coherent - and not pernicious, and I would like to see JBP more challenged on that. Even here, I thought he was a bit quick to jump into the psychoanalytic critique, rather than address the intellectual/philosphical problems that the post-modern analysis brings up. We can't just wish away the fact that systems, power, and tradition *have* all been used in very harmful and destructive ways, and that we all have a real problem with asserting objective criteria for anything any more. Or at least we all find it difficult to justify that Thing A is better than Thing B in any robust way, and are immediately susceptible to someone simply saying "Well, that's just your opinion, man". So, rather than taking making a psychoanalytic or 'biographical' critique of the post-modernists - e.g. "all these SJWs are simply after power with no responsibility" - I'd rather see the philosophical questions addressed head on. Anyhow, v much looking forward to the next talk, and to Stephen Hicks' new book. Thanks to both professors!

I don't care about the subpar audio because this was a fascinating and informative discussion. More interviews like this please, Prof Peterson.

I FOUND MY NEW IDOL TODAY, this peterson guy is amazing. Greetings from germany

This conversation was awesome...thanks to both of you!

This was an excellent discussion. I especially enjoyed the part of the interview where you went into the question of power as fundamental, and explored that territory. In my opinion, this is one of the most interesting videos you have uploaded with regards to postmodernism since you first brought up what you got out of reading Dr. Hicks' book. Figures, that it would be with the author.

Dr. Hicks has an extremely organized mind and is an excellent foil to the openness of Dr. Peterson. I greatly enjoyed the discussion and I hope the two of you film more of them!

This is a really really good discussion on postmodernism and modernism. Really liked how they clarified the concepts as opposed to merely throwing out those words like an intellectual that assumes everyone is an intellectual would.

Please do the second interview, this was fantastic.

Fantastic Discussion! This is the conceptual heart of the conflict that is shaping/threatening our world! This is the core of what I've been trying to understand for a long, long time. And it all comes down to ideas. Because ideas matter. I'm quite beside myself right now!^^

Long time fan, love the new upload rate, your productivity on RU-vid is amazing.

The intro makes me feel like I am watching PBS shows from my childhood. That's a good thing to feel.

Hicks is a powerhouse. Explaining Postmodernism was the best philosophy text I read in 2015, and to this day the most informative thing I've ever read on Postmodernism, and that's even including other excellent texts like Fashionable Nonsense and Higher Superstition.

I have a degree in Philosophy in which two of my main focus points were Post Kantian Idealism, and Epistemology from Hume onwards. I thought I was relatively literate in this kind of subject matter. Damn, this is heavy stuff. I enjoy finding out how much I don't know, because that is the first step to knowledge.

I've been an admirer of both Dr. Hicks and Dr. Jordan for some time now. This was a great conversation to hear. I'd very much like to hear their thoughts and conversation on the culture wars in the next video.

This is so awesome. I had been waiting for.these two to get together for a while.

Very enjoyable conversation to listen 2.

Man, what a ride. Can't wait for part 2!

After a lifetime of being an avid reader and a novice writer, an activity which has been paramount in my development as a human being, I have suffered terribly from readers block for the last seven years. A period of deep, deep depression. I will be buying this book with great anticipation. Thank you Jordan! You're work is of considerable consequence in my life.

I really had to work for this video! Still not grasped all of it. Loved it!

You can listen to Stephen Hicks book for free on RU-vid, and I must say it's a great read but you need to have a grasp on the terminology used in Philosophy. Really terrific book and I expanded my vocabulary by leaps and bounds. Great read!

First! (Cause in the modern world it's all relative)

I’m really looking forward to the next talk. I’ve listened to this about 3 times now. Keep up the great work. I’m going to buy this book now.

A wonderful and edifying conversation. I read Hick's book by the way, and it is very clear and systematic.

The book is fantastic, glad you guys posted a conversation covering it

Of course the sweet irony of the statement "There is no truth" is that it is self-refuting.

Love the new intro... And I'm going to love cleaning my room right now with this on in the background!

I LOVE the new music intro to the videos. I hope this is included in all videos going forward.

I made my postmodernist teacher read Hicks' book. Office hours were HILARIOUS!

Just commenting to hit RU-vid's engagement algorithm.

Dr. Peterson, thank you and Dr. Hicks so very much for this stimulating and enlightening discussion. I would love to have the two of you on stage, live. He is a superb lecturer and the two of have an intellectual synergy that is a marvel to behold. Bless you both.

I read Hicks years ago and was very impressed at his scholarship and insights. I use to give his book to friends as a present at times. One thing I found disturbing about his remarks in the book -- if memory serves me right -- is that he thought post modernism was condemned to the university and, therefore, was quite a useless, ineffectual pursuit or study. I thought the exact opposite. The university is the gateway to all the important areas or institutions of society: the arts, law, journalism, media, government, education, etc. The students entering those professions are infected or affected by the postmodernism/socialism indoctrination. I thinks Hicks was thinking that ineffectual studies or pursuits were to be found in the domain of the university rather than in the real world of business. But this was an excellent talk and it's great to see two Canadians talk at such a high level of competence and insight (not the Bob & Doug of the Great White North!).

Best book i've ever read on postmodernism. Thank you Dr Hicks

What we need is post-postmodernism!

I encourage everyone to read 'Explaining Postmodernism'. It explains so much and is so well written. It's lucid and scholarly while still being a highly readable page-turner. Thanks to Peterson for the recommendation.

Great discussion! Would love to hear more from Dr. Stephen Hicks as well as others with such a great grasp of history of philosophy, epistemology, ontology.

This is a absolutely brilliant discussion. Hearing ideas discussed this coherently is like listening to music. I can't resist pointing something out: thank God for "old white men".

Now this was really amazing how this two giants were synchronizing their thoughts and ideas instantly and laying out their well structured thoughts defiantly not a video to just mildly watch here and there need to rewatch couple of more times lol)))

I LOVE the introduction . . The geometric forms and music . . . Perfection!

My room is so clean my guests can't comprehend it ! It's no joke ! ... all jokes aside, i love it when 2 of my favourite thinkers collide !

Prof. Hicks is a very clear thinker and his Philosophical training makes him excellent at discourse. Dr. Peterson on the other hand is equally gifted at discourse and well educated but maybe not as organised in his thoughts. Maybe a product of working across many disciplines that is almost impossible for 1 person to Master unless you’re a Polymath in practice.

I see a lot of discontent in the comment section about the brand "postmodernist," I believe it to be accurate because they technically are postmodernists, however I believe that the particular brands of postmodernists​ that are subversive are the neo-marxists and the post-structuralists (deconstructionists are included in here, as well as the social constructionists, and general anti-truth relativists). The problem with postmodernists is that you can't map them, they're they're not like modernists that believed in structure and were split into vanguards and schools. And they widely used power politics to good ends, however some realized that they could use the same thoughts to not only gain power, but desired a hegemony over power, and thus the first wave feminists were shoved aside by the third wave, that not only were counter productive to the cause, but they were only interested in the acquisition of social power. This happened across most movements. (The alt right is a good example of this happening on the opposite side of the political spectrum) I gained this understanding after a long time going though the modernist and postmodernist art movements and their philosophies. There is a chart where Hicks separates the classical, modern and postmodernist periods into their different beliefs, and it's a great chart, I came to the same conclusions by just analyzing the movements. The power oriented and relativist spirit has been in postmodernism from the start, and it just grew while people ignored it. Mostly because after being rejected in the late 20th century they dedicated themselves to acquiring institutional power while laying low. So it's not all, but it's all(

This was one of the most useful philosophical conversations I ever heard. Thanks a lot.

I'm just before the hour mark and I have to say this is incredibly interesting and at least from my perspective one of the most productive conversations I have ever experienced. Thank you both. These are exciting times. I only hope that others can comprehend the importance of having this discussion, because it is in my estimation the game changer in the seemingly inevitable iteration on western and potentially global society in the ritual of progress. I feel we must work to unify the good from both the left and the right, and that the rate at which these and future duality can converge is relative to continuing quality progression of the human experience. I believe we need to establish a kind of meta divinity for the masses for lack of a better term. A new enlightenment that diminishes out dated dogma perhaps. The rediscovery of ancient wisdom for the new age. Stay woke my dudes.

New intro is awesome!

Dr. Peterson, I've cleaned my room 20 times in the past month. What do I do now?!

This was amazing! Please talk to this guy more often. He is such a brain!!!

Another homerun, Jordan! Thanks for all your efforts and concerns. We are maybe not as silent as you think. keep the lectures coming!

I read his book and it is amazing and substantial and an epiphany for me.

I can't wait for their second talk.

The more of these you do, the better the world gets. Thanks so much, and it was absolutely fantastic. It would be nice to have a transcript.

Awesome discussion. I cant wait to hear the next one between you two.

I'm a simple man; if I see a new JBP video, I watch.

Post Modernism is the Son of a directionless Father.

Conversations like prove how valuable the Internet is in sharing ideas. This was a great talk.

New intro song I can dig it. Gosh where else can you have a meeting of the minds like this? Can't wait to listen in.

Will you upload your new lectures as podcasts?

Dr. Hicks' reply to Jordan's initial postulation of a pragmatic basis for "truth" based upon the evolutionary success/failure of postulates in the real world struck me as worthy of further examination. Basically, Dr. Hicks raises the potential objections that post-modernism skepticism might make to Jordan's construction: how do we know that there's a "real world," that there's evolution, that there's a biological being called man? But isn't it precisely at the level of these most fundamental unities that post-modernism itself breaks down? Yes, I understand the denial of complex, grand unities such as "nature," "human nature," "truth" etc. But did Derrida not feel hunger, desire. pleasure, pain? How is it possible to deny that these are universals of the human experience?? Even if you say that these motivational states are all conditioned by language (which can't fully explain them away, as pre-linguistic infants clearly experience them), isn't that very conditioning by language itself a human universal--or at the very least, post-modernism's claim of a universal truth? (Skepticism can try to deny all truth claims, but skepticism can't avoid the fact that it is itself necessarily based on certain truth claims, even if they are claims of our inability to know with certainty--doubt that too, and skepticism becomes just one possible, contingent stance among many, no better and no worse than those that make universal truth claims.) To sum up, perhaps the grand narratives can be hollowed out and shown as self-contradictory by the post-modern method, but can the most basic facts of human life (say stimulus & autonomic response) really be so questioned, as Hicks suggests that post-modernism would? I mean, by all means, go ahead and doubt them, but they will still operate whether you affirm their existence or not!!!! To put it another way, from the human point of view, the sun rises and sets, regardless of whether our notion is of the Earth rotating or the sun orbiting us. Our knowledge postulates can be entirely wrong, and yet our basic experience still have unity. And that unity can define us.

Just fantastic. Like getting a free 5 star, 5 course meal for your brain. Such a massive topic yet handled so expertly by these two men that it makes the complexity easy to understand.

awesome intro. looks like you've got a fair few people working for you now. really looking forward to see what's next

124 postmodernists disliked this video.

Dr. Hicks: The title for your new book could be: "The Enlightenment Strikes Back"

Its gratifying to see Dr. Peterson discuss ideas with a peer.

I enjoyed this so much - the rich descriptions of the philosophical ideas and the mutual dialogue about the strengths and limitations of the models. It occurred to me as I am listening, that although we have progressed through time in our philosophical thinking, we often retain some ideas from the past that work well. Just as we may still cite Socrates, we also have some ideas or ideals from the Enlightenment that still work well and most of western society endorses. Along that line, individualism is very important in many societies, I never hear people say I want to be made to conform (others may say why doesn't he/she conform), but rather I hear I want more freedom.

Dr Hicks is doing some seriously deep thinking, you can tell this by his philosophers hand position.

THE INTRO HAS CHANGED!!

I'm currently reading that book! At times it can be a bit dense and difficult to fully comprehend if you are not very familiarized with philosophical terms (like yours truly haha T.T). However, it's a very enjoyable and enlightening book. I mean, something so evident like the fact that postmodernism's roots go all the way back to Kant's critique of pure reason, was revealed to me in this book. I'm enjoying it. Thanks for your awesome recommendations on books, Jordan. May truth stay on your side, fellas!

This conversation gets at the heart of why Peterson is both compelling and totally aggravating for certain people. He has a position and can't see outside of that framework he has built around himself. Hicks, being an academic philosopher, wants to come at any topic with a linear focused discussion. Breaking down one point after another in an objective fashion. Peterson wants to talk in broad strokes and processes information through the lens of his particular theory, or circumstances. So there is this tension that is throughout the video. They both are respectful but it does prove as fruitful as it could have been if Peterson wasn't as directive in his approach and allowed Hicks to lead where he wanted it to go. I think he has been interviewed a lot but I think he is new to doing interviews. I think he should have nailed down the purpose of the discussion before going in because tthey clearly had to different ideas of what this was going to be. This is clear just from their approach to the subject matter.

120,000 views after only five days...maybe there's hope after all

I think I broke my mouse when I slammed the button to watch this video.

I love how clearly Dr. Stephen Hicks can get his ideas across. Great interview.

An interesting discussion, and educational in many ways. Even as a layman I was able to follow the discussion, even in and out of the rabbit holes. I think what interested me most, was the seemingly common theme of missing elements. Throughout the different theories and philosophies, there is always room for critique, ie. something missing in all of the above. Where it stood out to me the most was in the simpler discussions like nature vs nurture. I have always viewed those as influential, but not determinative. Nature is quantifiable to a degree through DNA and genetics. Nurture is less quantifiable, but can still be studied and measured to a degree. However, I find that individual will, self-determination, to be a deciding factor. Individual will, free will in the religious context, is not measurable in any way that I'm aware of, but seems to have more bearing on outcome that either nature or nurture influencers. A strong will can overcome both nature and nurture, whereas a weak will may succumb to either or both. In the context of "power" I would argue that force of will or wI'll power is as important a subset as intellectual, political or military power as discussed. Modernism replaced the supernatural philosophies with the natural, rational and scientific philosophies. Postmodernism seems to have forsaken any attempt at objective truth in search of an unrealistic balance of power among 7.6 billion distinctly different and inherently unequal individuals. It seems to me, a mere mortal unschooled in these various and antagonistic philosophies, that the answer lies in D: All of the above. The natural (physical), the supernatural (metaphysical) and a proper understand of power in both the academic and moral sense. The inherent inequality of the human condition inevitably leads to an imbalance of power, be it intellectual, physical or will. Only respect and responsibility can determine how any power is exercised. Like individual will, respect and responsibility are not quantifiable concepts, but rather speak to a higher level consciousness than nature or nurture. Nature and nurture can influence will, respect and responsibility, but can they define it? Can they create it? Or are those inherent metaphysical traits to be influenced positively or negatively? Philosophically, I take a more cellular approach. The autonomous individual (the cell) has both an individual and collective function. Individually we exist, function and survive. Collectively we form essential parts of the whole (organs) that themselves have an existence and function independent of each individual cell''s existance. Those collectives (organs) form a larger collective (body) which in turn has its own function and purpose that is more than the sum of its parts. A sort of exponential existentialism. The individual is as important as the collective which is as important as the whole, because all exist in symbiosis. The whole being greater than the sum of its parts and symbiosis has a level of irreducible complexity which indicates design and purpose. A supernatural, or as yet undefined, force that is the missing link in all these philosophies. Postmodernism is correct in that we don't have all the answers, at least not in a context they can accept. We may well have the answers if we combine the natural and supernatural. Though we may not be able to quantify the supernatural, yet, we can define it's expression and effect on our reality. Intangibles like faith, will or even morality have a direct impact on daily lives, communities and societies. How the effect risk/reward assessments. How they effect wants/desires and influence both actions and willingness to act. Do they produce healthy productive "cells" or cancerous diseased "cells." Is that an overly pragmatic approach, focused too much on function and utility? As you can see, my mind is all over the place, trying to rectify what I just saw. Sometimes, I just have to unleash a stream of consciousness monologue to clear my head.

Professor Jordan 'the dragon slayer' Peterson.

¿Soy yo o el thumbnail está en Español?

Both men are very intelligent. Such a pleasure listening to both. Learning so much. Looking forward to next interview.

I read this about 6 months ago. Very clear, well written and inormative text that is helping me to understand this ideology, one that gives a name to my thought process' in college. It took some growing up for me to slide along the spectrum of idealism to realism.