If there's one thing we can be certain of - one central pivot in the universe - it's that NONE of this matters in the least, and any effort spent on it is effort wasted.

Postmodernists: we must be sceptical of grand overarching narratives Also postmodernists: Everything has always been and will always be about power Postmodernists are obsessed with power and control, and assume that the rest of society shares their pathology

Jordan Peterson is a wonderful example of PM crap.

A very disingenuous critique. There is no doubt that post-modernism can be employed in bad faith as you suggest, but to claim the entire enterprise is such is nonsense. Post-modernism is about reassessing existing claims of truth in relation to their assumptions or normative content. Suggesting it is merely a “language game” and pseudo-intellectualism, and even more painfully suggesting the existence of “genuine intellectuals” who simply “speak plainly” has missed the point entirely. Postmodernism is not to be understood as a new and superior form of knowledge, it is a tool for developing deeper understanding of all knowledge claims, especially in terms of what kind of societies, behaviours, or ethics those knowledge claims create. Of course postmodernism is susceptible to its own deconstructive methods. As it should be. The point is that all knowledge has practical and ethical consequences. Some knowledges produce undesirable consequences (suffering, violences, division, etc). Forms of knowledge which can be associated with these consequences should be scrutinised because knowledge emerges as behaviour. As such, Chomsky is right to criticise the undesirable consequences of postmodernism by using its own tools, but this is hardly a “scathing critique” as much as it is a clear demonstration of the critical power of postmodern ideas. Unfortunately your argument is nothing but a straw man. You have claimed postmodernism is nothing but an arrogant, unintelligible, destructive movement and then argued accordingly. Very disingenuous indeed.

Chompsky is really cringe and kind of pathetic.

Post modernists didnt create our culture. Philosophers do not have that power. They took what was already there and put it back into society for society to consume. The romantics were the first of the postmodernists. Nietzsche the greatest romantic, non-romantic of them all said that many who claimed to be romantics really weren't; they were replicating ancient Greek religion. Theories of a good life, living for the moment, theories of progress; none of them are modern ideas. They were known 1000s of years ago.

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.

the answer to the '' is - ought '' distinction = slavery that's the ONLY CORRECT ANSWER !!! the only '' ought '' you can get from an '' is '' , >>> you OUGHT to do what the master says that's the logical outcome i don't understand why that's SO HARD to figure out

Torturing nature by colliding subatomic particles lolololololololololol Feminists are the most ridiculous clowns

capitalists did not make everyone rich

Sokol proved the innate corruption of modern academia and their inability to care about objectivity. Sokol hoax reminds me of the experiment conducted by R.D. Laying and the anti psychiatry movement that showed how easy it is to fool psychiatry into believing a patient had mental disorder when they didn’t and how modern psychiatry cannot distinguish sanity from insanity in any meaningful way

The idea that they allow a phd thesis about astrology to be published with high honours is silly and bad for intellectual development

Harris' argument is ridiculous. The U.S. itself committed the 9/11 attack. There is a lot of evidence.

As far as I can tell: The postmodernists largely lost the debate. So they just took over the university administration instead, and came back with a vengeance around 2010.

Stealing food to clench your hunger in this instance isn't immoral in Islam.

What scares me is not that fake papers passed the process. It is what poorly thought, whatever, or poorly done research, passed without people even noticing it to this day. Niggas be there writin' and publishin' non-sense yo.

Postmodernism....puke. Deconstructionists....puke. Philosophical mumbo jumbo that creates its own, alternative facts or.... bullcrap. It has to be rejected in every possible way.

I once told my brother “Inside every bad argument is a better argument.” The reason is because fallacies or sort of short-cuts of reasoning, skipping over the nuance. It’s because people don’t often understand _why_ they think something is true, and instead reason from their gut.

A theory must be falsifiable, assertions require evidence, history requires documents. Propositions that contradict these requirements are baloney and can be safely ignored. Metaphysics is rubbish so lets get on with empirical reality.

I thought asking questions was supposed to be a good thing. Or are things black and white? And if so what are people up to really when asking questions? This is just standard messy human relations. After all, science, life, you name it, are all human endeavors. Trust the ones making the loudest noises to take the most extreme positions and to lack nuance altogether.

Great video. New subscriber ✌🏻

Say that to people beliveing in plane earth and ALL fake news published in the media. Say that to Boris Johnson and Farage. Say that to Trump (US) and Bolsonaro (BRA). The reality (If It is possible to define such think nowadays) is Impossible to separate from its simulacrum. The Matrix has you.

As we end temporary waivers everyone thats benefited dont want to let go of the perks . Weve been so successful achieving all 1700s-1800s goals throughout 1900s structuralism that even the most fringe extremist criminals & weirdo pedophiles want to be liberated and receive transferred wealth to them by extending reagan and thatchers temporary waiver that itself was an extended period of temporary waiver charged upon on the native family cells. 2024 should be an enormous victory celebration despite the fact it is a cross roads of countless complexities & burdens coming to an end . Ya Have to remember how anomalous 1900s structuralism is in the history of humanity. We forcibly removed people from the land to meet factory demands requiring large gathering labor needs for condensed living. We had to be indoctrinated to live our current way of life behaviors. When jethro tulls plow plus a 100 of years of educating serfs & slaves alike with soul agency free will inertia frame of reference correlated with the eternal cosmos floor of reality defining freedom as we know it that they have value & benefit under God on earth. Most Slaves actullay sold their homestead act claimed land of 350 acres right back to the globalist plantation owners and moved back to communal living on plantations. When the globalist familys moved north they did so to take the labor to build power ,water and road infrastructure. Like a job service they rented out cheaper labor and this turned into south vs north economic back n forth laws & bills . Point is people don't organically live the way we have.

We achieved our goals, and now the antiquated tools used are in the way.These outdated grandfathered in along the way obstacles that was useful control mechanisms have to relinquish & accept victory. Mass displacement of Europe 100 yrs ago brought with it things that many Americans & Brits had fled. But needs and demands of the age justified it all . What Jethro tulls plow did for farming the computational plow is about to do in Academia. globalist fatigue has set in but at the Sametime we took on a European political scale in America and set our own invented pragmatic common sense anti trust American capitalism bottom up rule saving one soul at a time aside. We settled on prayer logic conservative whatsboutism vs cursed rationalism progressive interventionism and removed the 3rd most important step where we reserve the right to invoke common sense blessings, to sir bacon out here not in physicalism or reductionism but in more mri machine like line of thought. That all physicalism is subject to change without further notice just like any other idealistic or subjective properties or systems. Pragmatic American objectivism founding had the computational plow in mind so the Renaissance is aided by tech and arbitrary example is being drawn upon already. 1900s structuralism charged a huge burden upon the native family cells in uk & America to right wrongs of the past,industrialize the world to produce items so they would trade for resources instead of warring for them,new nations drawing new borders. We achieved all these goals liberated all common sense groups leaving only extremist criminals and we will never free pedophiles or beastilaty willingly. We stripped out all our sources & inspirational objective arbitrary example to make educational reforms so to not offend or upset the rest of the world so they could participate in our curriculum. In making it accessible to Muslims, athiest, hindu you name it we striped out our Christian orientation and direction that underpins it all. That helps provide arbitrary example when A + B controdidict buy both A & B shared like minded natural direction. We removed 18 -30 yr old from our workforce in exchange for 12 year degrees of specialized knowledge that Is now becoming unnecessary as the public library is being eaten by computation where we can train for how to access universal operating systems what tool Is needed on what applications . X,y,z manmade time hierarchy knowledge of Good and evil equations is the training of this future. It won't matter if your in medical feilds or small parts manufacturing the training is to be universal for the vast majority of us. Obviously it's still farmers who are no where near the lobby power they once where and the same Is about to occur in academics and many other feilds. One day even tech giants will lose lobby power in similar fashions

I find tribalism is easy and nuance to be hard work. I wouldn't have put Chomsky alongside Dawkins as Dawkins is so dogmatic. (Although Chomsky has fought tooth and nail against challenges to his linguistic theories). I find it ironic that many Postmodernists pride themselves as some kind of trickster class then moan about a prank pulled on them. If any good has come of this it has ressurected hoax as a respectful rhetorical move.

Clickbait title, I think the mainstream media making fun of populists' appearance have more to do with the general public noticing and/or talking about their respective appearance. I mean first of all Trump's hair is not that peculiar really, when looking at it but I think people are visualizing the media caricatures when thinking of Trump instead, where he is portrayed with small hands and big bombastic hair. More importantly I can think of lots of mainstream figures with weird or noticeable hair but the difference is the mainstream media not caricaturing them in the same way, on the flip-side there are lots of populists with perfectly normal hair. I think this video is indicative of your own seemingly pro-mainstream bias than anything else.

I don't think this study is anything but self-fulfilling, I mean it is very obvious that people with strong political convictions will be more certain of their views and therefore less likely to change opinion. Independents not being sure or just entertaining a lot of different perspectives will also by nature be more likely to change views. Of course it is interesting that they are able to prove it with that simple test but as a thesis it is pretty self-evident what the results are going to be.

Are you Italian?

'distill' bruh this is anything but distilled. did you actually go to school? who was your prof? some awful b tier nonsense on your channel lol

anyone who thought this was a good video subject, no less during COVID, I pray for you, fool. i really do.

this video is proof you only know how to grift - your content is boring and uninteresting if you don't put genuinely attractive men in the thumbnail ahahaha can you give me the p-value of your likely virginity?

How to construct universal moral realism attributed to a vague entity dubbed human beings who have a complex central nervous system adapted to exist within on or other environment? One way is to limit the universal to relative moral realism which is plausible from an in-group perspective. It could be even further limited to pair bonding for reproductive cooperation that is akin with evolutionary theory but not social evolution which seems anarchic rather than structural as in biological accounts through anatomical variation.

Modern western science was established by monks in medieval universities. The goal was to describe reality with "laws of nature", based on a belief that there is a covenant between man and God in which God, even though being almighty, limits its power and allows things to happen by laws and not by divine action. This means that, from the start, science was defined as "that which doesn't include divine action". This is why western science fails on the question of morality but excels in questions on motion of physical objects. It is because it originated and inherited axioms from a tradition which bases its morality and theology on a divine revelation. So science wouldn't even exist in the from it does without the theology it came from. So it cannot go back to explain that which it is nested in. Also. It is a bit anachronistic to go around and say there is science in Arabic, Chinese, indian or ancient greek traditions. There are a different, and based on different assumptions then the western one. At least they were. This is my humble opinion. Let me know where I'm wrong.

Postmodernism is nonsense

If ideology makes you refute evidence you don't like, then it's just faith and god squadding for your belief system.

Haven't watched the whole thing, but I still don't see how you get from empirical studies about shared normative behaviors cross-culturally to saying these beliefs represent stance independent moral facts. At best, this data hints at a common cognitive evolutionary pattern underlying the views. Not sure how you draw anything more from it than that.

knowledge is power, france is bacon

The most funniest thing about the science wars is that for all the ink spilled by sokal, Bricmont, and others "defending" science if you look at what the principles their fighting against: skepticism of linear progress, skepticism toward grand narratives, skepticism of objective truth, and so on. Then that would mean that Karl Popper's philosophy, especially his falsification doctrine, would be psuedo-intellectual nonsense by the principles they outlined.

Good video, but I think this points more to a problem with peer review than anything else. I've been thinking about how we can improve this, and I think something, which I'll call "crowd review" would be better. There's no reason why we would need to use physical journals and papers anymore, and transitioning to virtual papers brings with it some advantages. Online, anyone in the world can see them and suggest an edit, which other people could then rate. I might not be an expert on a paper I'm reading, but if I spot a typo, ambiguous sentence or missing citation, I could still point that out, and it can be corrected immediately. This would also allow more interdisciplinary research. Now, without journal gatekeepers we could no longer have the number of publications/citations be the metric for academic excellence, but I think we need to get rid of that anyway. So who gets funding? For the humanities, some formal sciences, most social sciences, and a minority of natural sciences, we can solve this by introducing a citizen's-dividend or other basic income scheme. If you don't need something like a particle accelerator, then the biggest cost of most research is the salary. With a basic income, most researchers would have the option of leaving the warped incentive system of academia and focusing on long term, non-trendy research. Then academic excellence is informed by our actual complex value system, not an arbitrary institutional proxy that gets goodharted immediately. (But again, this wouldn't work for large, expensive research like particle accelerators, so we would still need to design better centralized institutions on top of having decentralized 'crowd' research)

This is the dumbest criticism of post-modernism. Everything to do with the people behind it and stagnant issues with Academia/Sensationalism. There was absolutely no mention of the nuances or limitations of the ideology itself which would form criticism. I think the only people praising this video, are people who want to hear exactly what they "know" about post modernism, that is, the pastiche regurgitated by college freshmen in LIBERAL SNOWFLAKE GETS OWNED edit watch CCK's Philosophy's Postmodernism FAQ series for an actual overview, or just his channel. Its good stuff

How come it has taken this long for his wisdom to be put out into the ether???????????? Very important question....

Scientific consensus is provisional; this is hardly the same as saying there are no facts. Refinements of theory in no way abolish less-general theories. We don't always need ultimate refinement, unless (of course) we are religious nuts. I don't think even dialectic abolishes whatever precedes synthesis. The post-modernist (post-structuralist) treatment of certainty feels insightful only to non-scientists.

Eastern country Com Comun COMUNISM

Is postmodernism a “movement”?

What is the reason for morality being an autonomous transcendent thing, are you just assuming it has to be to support the worldview? Or does it have to be within reason for any argument to occur?

bruh its ai

Bello

There's a lot of knowledge needed of the history of western philosophy needed to participate and understand French and German thought. This is unlike the English speaking world, which even more so during Searle's time were more likely to be gleefully delighted as to have next to no knowledge of the history of philosophy. So it's simply no surprise to see these people shouting about not getting it. Meanwhile there's loads of secondary material available today through print and online of course for anyone who genuinely desires to be aware of what they are trying to express instead of trying to pose as an editor and disuade people from other ways of doing philosophy. They would be shocked to know, but this insular concern needs to be called what it is, anti-philosophical and anti-thought.

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.

Socrates would simply bring this back to basics: you take the paragraph and start isolating each sentence as a proposition (P1, P2, P3) and then finish with the conclusion (C1). Do the propositions support the conclusion? It's really as easy as that to debunk this crap or anyone that makes an overly complex argument. The more complex the argument, the easier it is to make a mistake and have a weak conclusion. On another note, it is interesting that Chomsky laughs at French intellectuals faking it, he has pushed a few left leaning agendas that were "rationally weak" philosophically in his career. He doesn't use overly complex science, he just tow's the party line despite contrary evidence.