Postmodernism, Neomarxism and Foucault | Camille Paglia & Jordan B Peterson 

What he says is not true. Postmodernism and Marxism are ideologies that are basically at odds. Peterson doesn't really understand philosophy, he's a clinical psychologist. Now, if you really want to understand Peterson, here are some sources: www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve jacobinmag.com/2018/02/jordan-peterson-enlightenment-nietzsche-alt-right ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-SEMB1Ky2n1E.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4LqZdkkBDas.html On interviews that lack criticisms: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IwyucS8DiiQ.html

Richard S. No he actually knows this very well. He’s explained many times that in theory postmodernism and Neo-Marxism/Marxism are at odds with eachother.... or atleast they should be at odds with eachother... because that is one of his primary concerns when analyzing the intentions or attitudes of those who created and follow the ideologies. Many of them choose to adopt them both when they are supposed to be at odds with eachother... Does that make sense? I would suggest watching more of Peterson before making that claim. He knows the two theories are technically and fundamentally at odds with eachother, but he notices that for many they aren’t which highlights the intentions or level of ignorance for those people. You aren’t understanding what he’s saying here and in other vids in the context to which he is speaking.

So you're blinded then by academic jargon? Lmao. This is all Strawman and overgeneralizations. Couldn't they have actually quoted anyone or kept their ideas in context?

@@ETRH6 If they were fundamentally at odds with each other, he'd treat them as such rather than lump them together or, in derangement, claim one is going to manifest itself into the other (1:48). But he has no actual basis for that except typical rightist superstition, irrationality, and Strawmaning. He can't even keep his thoughts on them straight, here or anywhere else.

Try "The Closing of the American Mind" by Alan Bloom as a good starting point for understanding where Peterson and Paglia are coming from.

yes same here

Give it time. You will pick it up. I started reading philosophy at 14 and it took years and years. Be aware most people pretend they understand and dont want to admit they don't get it! Its actually funny. Cheers for being honest. Means you are likely intelligent.

It just hurts me to see something like that spelled out. Here's something for you: www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve jacobinmag.com/2018/02/jordan-peterson-enlightenment-nietzsche-alt-right

Same

Bob White Yes. But let's not fall in listening only to people we agree with. Let's not have groupthink like the SJWs.

It was just such a pleasure to watch after watching the Blaire and Candace debacle on the Rubin report ... I had to say something.

They agreed wholeheartedly in the points they make. A conversation between Chomsky and Greenwald would be as smooth as this one.

Bob White Yes! Quite the contrast...it was exhausting to listen to Candace and Blaire, while this exchange is both enlivening and stimulating. And I imagine, even if Paglia and Peterson were to strongly disagree, it would not degrade to a shouting match. The act of listening is truly an art, and the lack of "needing to be right" is truly refreshing.

@Bob White 🤣🤣 Yes these two conservative clowns going back in forth trying to top each other in contest of stupidity is a sight to behold. However, I'd say it's a tie as to who knows less about history & philosophy, seeing how they both conflate Marxism and post modernism.

I would love to hear more about your take on P&P!

microagressions REEEE

i couldnt take her seriously XD she made me laugh too much

Post modern liberal is oxymoronic

Lol 🤣 He would be the first Alt Right Incel Prime Minister of Canada

Rosa Luxemburg you have no evidence he is alt right or an incel. I think you’ll only find evidence against that conclusion

@@rosaluxemburg1670 If you have no job you have no right to criticize anyone whatsoever.

@@Saint3188 If you have no job? Wtf are you talking about

@@user-ix1sh3tv8o My evidence is his Legion of Incel and Alt Right fans. Jordan Peterson is a simpleton . He has no idea what Marxism or Socialism is, and he uses Antisemitic conspiratorial terms like "Cultural Marxism ". A term that was first used by the Nazi's in the form of "Cultural Bolshevism ". Fortunately his career seems to be a death spiral with him now in rehab for his addiction to Xanax

Kristina Roll all historicism takes into account interpretations. Interpretations is what history is. What my interpretation of what happened based on facts and sources is different than someone else's. That's why we have professors have discussions about the same event with different viewpoints about what actually happened

So, in a discussion about a historical event, would all interpretations be considered acceptable? Are there no objective truths in history?

Yes and no. There are factors that make the interpretation acceptable. It has to be sourced well and have a logical argument for it. There are some objective truths. Caesar was assassinated by the Senate. What is left up to interpretation is the motives for his assassination, the public feelings, the consequences of this, etc. Also a lot of history now is turning to cultural history which is the study of the culture of a civilization. Old historians usually just studies cause and effect of events. That is more objective. Many new historians study cultural history. This leaves room for multiple interpretations to exist at once. One person may argue that the public perception of Caesar was negative based on primary sources, another may argue it was positive, yet a third may argue that is was negative amongst one group and positive amongst another. A fourth may argue that the public perception of him changed constantly depending on key events. All of these interpretations can exist at the same time because it is too difficult to get an objective answer for these questions based purely on primary source material.

Bradley libralesso, that's some bullshit. The four examples you've given contradict each other, hence they cannot ALL be "well sourced".... unless you want to re-define what "well sourced" means too.

Look for John Tosh's book "The Pursuit of History." At chapter 1, Social Memory, he discussed the 3 major principles of Historicism: 1. Difference (past is not present, vice versa) 2. Context (material and mental dimensions of a period) 3. Change (the rise, decline, or the absence of which)

From the mind who combined marxism, a modern world view, with post-modernism, an opposing view to modernist world views. He is brilliant!

If you are operating outside of the meta-narrative then Peterson's argument isn't non-sense, because there's no such thing

Justin Hutchings that's an unfortunate part of listening to a professor. They use a lot of jargan to keep out discussion with others. They all do this, it's annoying.

What

As would 99% of the population.

Me too

Sometimes

Name it however you want. Saying everything is social constructed is pure BS

Post modernism is a plague haunting the young of the modern generation. While it is not the same as neomarxism, it is similar and if YOU had done your research you would know this. www.nas.org/blogs/article/postmodernism_does_it_have_marxist_or_historicist_origins