Peterson's and Chomsky's Critiques of Postmodernism.

We summarize and compare the critical views of Jordan Peterson and Noam Chomsky on Postmodernism. Peterson views Postmodernism as a resentful movement bent on obtaining power within society while Chomsky sees more mundane motives behind the philosophy. The main focus of their criticisms turns out to be strikingly different.
Both academics broadly generalize when talking about the philosophical current they do not distinguish between say Poststructuralism or Deconstructive Postmodernism. In addition, although both Peterson and Chomsky talk about the relationship between Postmodernists and Power they have in mind two very different kinds of Power. Peterson is talking about the Power to rule over the whole society while Chomsky is talking about academic Power structures. So we did not emphasize this, only formal, similarity.
Personal Thoughts on Postmodernism:
There are things I agree with and disagree with in both the criticisms of Chomsky and Peterson.
Everyone who works in academia knows that a fair amount of academics want to make a career for themselves out of public relations and get their names on as many papers as possible. There is also a drive to publish papers even if they verge on the nonsensical. This is in part a problem due to the set of incentives academics are placed under but it is also a personal choice of each academic. Such attitudes go on in all academic disciplines but as one moves from the hard sciences to the soft sciences the problem tends to get worse, not because the soft sciences are somehow inferior to the hard sciences but because the soft sciences are more prone to interpretations and make for an easier setting in which to use sophistry. Some of the main ideas that define Postmodernism (relativism, skepticism towards truth and logic) make Postmodernism the perfect guise to hide under if one wants to play these kinds of games in academia. So many academics that want to game the system may gravitate towards Postmodernism. Thus I agree with Chomsky when he sees the set of incentives as having to do with prestige and material reward but I would not extend the criticism to the whole philosophical enterprise. Although I believe Postmodernists start with some misguided premises some questions they investigate deserve to be investigated.
A criticism that I would instead extend to much of continental philosophy is to try to be clearer when you write, and less verbose to avoid misinterpretations. Relevant to this is that I don't believe Postmodernists invented identity politics being that they were heavily anti-essences, but it is possible that their focus on Power inspired identity politics.
Where, instead, I disagree more with Chomsky and align more with Peterson is on the societal implications of bad academic practices. The use of sophistry in academia seeps right down to the whole of society and it corrupts people's ability to reason, at all levels, leading people to hold absurd beliefs.
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter:
/ mon037895046
Discord:
/ discord
Substack:
mon0.substack.com/

[@Mon000]

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.

[@IM-bv4vc]

in their own tongues both agree on the threat of concealism of postmodernism

[@roberth9814]

I think Peterson's views are largely informed by bad personal experiences as a student and academic, and sensationalized coverage of campus leftism. Chomsky's is informed by decades of activism as a leader in the New Left. Peterson actually used to be a campus socialist, which makes his vitriol and about-face more sad to see. They both have seen some utterly insane shit comes out of ivory tower echo chambers that lack critical engagement with the field's own dogmas. There's sometimes a race to be the most radical thinker in the department, and that race leads to some very cold takes if left unchecked. Activists of all stripes can end up like this if they snort too much of their own idea powder and chronically avoid touching grass. But such phenomena are extremes that must not be conflated with the whole. There's also lots of incredibly talented and hard working individuals who are making important contributions to our world via activism, academia, politics, or all the above. Be skeptical of anyone trying to account for such complex fields and movements with a few anecdotes and a summary judgement of the whole.

[@cm-kl2wx]

@@roberth9814 Maybe he learned something that you haven't yet? Most thinking people change their viewpoints for something better...

[@gregvoth45]

Yes, if you dig beyond the sound bites, the content of the critiques are largely similar. The tone is different, but that is partly because the Peterson clips were chosen to make him seem angry. Chomsky seems to think academic irrationality in the first world isn't a problem...but it has turned out that the degradation of academic discourse by the post-modernists has had tragic consequences in enabling people like Trump who use postmodern epistemology for authoritarian ends. Peterson's critique is also later when the nasty consequences of postmodern irrationalism have become more painful for society and for him personally.

[@kurtklingbeil6900]

@@cm-kl2wx like whut ? Kindly articulate, in your most precisest languaging, what exactly Jorpy has learned which underpins all of his scintillating insights ?

[@ejtattersall156]

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

[@dimtool4183]

That's literally opposite if he even opened a history book once in his life. Communists killed the rich, and capitalists exploited and wore down the poor.

[@Vossst]

An exaggeration for rhetorical purposes, but relatively speaking, and especially in the time frame mentioned in context, certainly true enough.

[@ejtattersall156]

@@Vossst One could easily add up millions murdered and worked to death by capitalism. Capitalists will point to those societies and say, "Oh those societies weren't really capitalist." One could easily add up millions murdered and worked to death by Communism. Communists will point to those societies and say, "Oh those societies weren't really communist." To say that capitalist societies make the working class rich is not borne out by late-stage capitalism where more and more and more and more money piles at the top and stays there.

[@madprinceklaus]

Yes, that really bothered me too. I don’t think it *is* ‘true enough’ at all that communism killed more (particularly when you take into account wars of economic opportunity) and it very definitely wasn’t true of Tsarist Russia. The case against postmodernism and its concomitant woke ideologies can be made without obviously biased exaggerations.

[@ejtattersall156]

@@madprinceklaus King Leopold in the Congo, alone.

[@weaq84]

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.

[@a.r.h9919]

As someone who's starting to deep dive into how to unravel this sociopolitical figures I would like to ask you how to better understand how to tackle this philosophies shenanigans and stands making objective conjunction, how to come to this conclusions and analysis?, how to start to know their positions and dissemble or deconstruct their rhetoric to understand their philosophy ?

[@arielxgarcia1]

@@a.r.h9919 There is no easy way really. It starts by reading up on different political theories (from all different sides), IMO, in order to form a basis to compare what people say to.

[@liv-turner]

Agree with you about most part of you comment but if I may disagree with you in one section I don’t believe Peterson is acting on bad faint. If you listen to his material he basically tells people that you are the driver of your own life and that you have the ability (if not the responsibility) to do better and be better for yourself, your family and the community. He doesn’t tell people what they should believe (if fact I disagree with many of his opinions) but he simple says what he believes. His critics on postmodern (or Marxism) are basically a denial of the idea that the state or someone else is responsible for you - from my perspective. Personally speaking I used to be a huge supporter of Chomsky (bought many of his books and spread them around) and although still respect him I strongly disagree with his vision of the world, I was always angry all the time back then and seeing room for improvement everywhere and demanding immediate change and always blaming other people/America for all the wrong in the world. After listening to Peterson I change my perspective and start to do the work myself and trying to be a better person and I’m way happier and doing much positive impact right now.

[@neilmacdonald6637]

I agree with the spirit of your post, but calling marxism a positivistic theory is a very eccentric use of the term "positivistic" lol

[@weaq84]

@@neilmacdonald6637 Quite possibly I don't understand what positivism really is. I would welcome you explaining it further. Perhaps if I explain what I meant to say, you could also suggest what term I should have used. I was understanding positivistic to mean rooted in an objective reality, as opposed to postmodern ideas which reject such an objective grounding. Wouldn't you say that Marxism, with its historical materialism, is rooted in an objective observed reality, at least as far as Marx saw it?

[@nigelkelley3004]

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.

[@gregshirley-jeffersonboule6258]

Just because we act as if there are objective truths and a God's-eye view of reality, it doesn't follow that there are these things. The search for objective truth is a religious endeavor, whether it's by Aristotle or Chomsky. At root, it's an emotional drive.

[@meshzzizk]

i think the extreme iterations of postmodernism are vulnerable to this line of critique. but a more robust variation on postmodern perspectivism can be found in the texts of neo-pragmatist philosophers like richard rorty.

[@coldblackfire]

the all or nothing view on truth aptitude is the problem of many ideologies. yes there are objective truths, but not everything is a matter of truth neither is nothing a matter of truth. postmodernism fails because it has a "nothing" view on truth while many other ideologies fail because they have an "all" view of truth.

[@adomalyon1]

@@gregshirley-jeffersonboule6258 Only if you view foundational epistemology as the only opponent to post modernism. Coherantism of some desription offers a way out of this toxic dialogue.

[@k00lkane]

I agree

[@luniz4209]

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.

[@CanwegetSubscriberswithn-cu2it]

Or just reality in general

[@luniz4209]

@@CanwegetSubscriberswithn-cu2it Not necessarily because it can be used as a weapon which might harm some but would then benefit others. Although I suppose even in medicine somebody's profiting from harm.

[@user-vz4gg6cs4l]

Sorry to shit on your neil degrasse tyson-esque( you prolly figure this a compliment) smug garbage argument but I can't help myself. First of, Postmodernism doesn't reject logic. Logic ( including mathematics, eventhough most of maths is not just logic) is what actual intellectuals, unlike JP, call synthetic a priori knowledge ( not that I expect you to know that means). It is NON-CONTINGENT( you don't know what that means either, do you?) and therefor necessarily true. No philosopher since Kant, not even the Nazi/Communist ones, have ever doubted logic/mathematics. As for objective reality; at least since David Hume ( not to mention René Descartes, who also was a mathmatician btw) no philosopher believes in that. And physics is not only not harmed, does not only profit from but *requires* the philosophy you call idiotic. Christ, the first few pages of my experimental physics 1 lecture script are about Karl Popper and 20th century epistemology.

[@Dayglodaydreams]

It barely touches biology.

[@georgeleddy483]

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.

[@PoliticsReal]

Define what you mean by "right wing" please.

[@georgeleddy483]

@@PoliticsReal read a book!

[@obviously6thbeliever]

I find it difficult to pair Chomsky and Peterson as equals

[@mongoose6685]

One is a PhD linguist, the other a PhD psychologist and both taught in Universities - they are indeed in the same league... Focus on the arguments, not the speakers.

[@obviously6thbeliever]

@@mongoose6685 Chomsky focuses on the whole body of post-modernism and his critiques flow from that. Peterson uses the term “post-modernism” and exhibits not a clue as to the scholarship it refers to. When Chomsky critiques post-modernism, he’s having a go at Lacan, Derrida, and Foucault When Peterson critiques “post modernism” he’s using the term most promiscuously to incorporate any leftist or radical critique of the status quo Chomsky is a disciplined scholar, and in my opinion his criticism of those I listed above is too severe, but at least it makes sense In contrast, Peterson has used his academic platform (which I believe he earned, fair and square) to strike poses in the name of “freedom” that are misinformed, disingenuous and loony

[@mongoose6685]

@obviously6thbeliever The video concludes exactly what you are saying: they are not talking or viewing the issue from the same standpoint - which logically leads to different interpretations (I added that last part. I'm not sure why you would think Peterson would be looney considering that he is calling out groups that openly pretend that science and math are racist, groups should mutually exclude themselves from each other's social spaces and events, that the family unit should be revolutionized, that minors can opt to transition and finally not using proper pronouns is an offense punishable by jail time. That actually sounds quite insane to me, yet post modernists arguments flourish around such radical ideas.

[@obviously6thbeliever]

@@mongoose6685 According to his own mentor, Bernard Schiff, Peterson presented conjecture as fact. He was a preacher more than a teacher. Have you heard his conflation of seratonin in lobsters and hierarchies of authority? I stand by “loony”

[@mongoose6685]

@obviously6thbeliever I wasn't aware all you had to do to be looney is have your mentor call you out on something. Well, by your standard, I guess I'll be dismissing great thinkers that upset their teachers... At this stage of debate, why not simply admit you dislike the guy and stop pretending you have actual proof Peterson is insane? You're not fooling anyone, and you seem to be trying just a little too hard.

[@____blank____]

They both agree that postmodernists are driven by power.

[@nicoruppert4207]

How ironic

[@Kowjja]

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.

[@user-vz4gg6cs4l]

No one ever said post modernism should become a lifestyle. It's food for thought, and in a world where we still engange in mass hatred and war, even with our vast freely available knowledge, an important one at that.

[@STARSILVER07]

Desafortunadamente el riesgo existe en esto.

[@paulgray9290]

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.

[@JimTheCurator]

My fist is just a social construct.

[@liambaldwin6823]

Great videos. Very thoughtful commentary.

[@denniswinters3096]

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

[@dominichenderson9766]

wow... that'll show him

[@mongoose6685]

When I think of Peterson, I don't think of resentment. The guy left a weakening University system and is thriving on his own surrounded by esteemed thinkers of our day.

[@lechefski]

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.

[@Christobanistan]

Yes. And CRT. And our obsession with race and sex. And Cancel Culture. All the recent craziness in our culture is a direct result of postmodernist thinking pouring out of brainwashed leftist minds for several decades, having fed on itself and taken over all university discourse by force and just silencing everyone else. That's what college speech codes are all about, not making a safer environment but just silencing everyone else..

[@willyhill7509]

Cultural marxism - post modernism - woke, all the same thing really, it would appear they are all ideas to destroy western society from within. There is a possibility that the people behind these ideas actually have good intentions but from a close observation of outcomes this would seem highly unlikely.

[@sssf55]

Sorry mate I can't see the other replies to this comment. They've been shadow banned by KZbin. Maybe use examples instead of the keywords that can be flagged. Unfortunately the internet is not as free of a place as it used to be.

[@lechefski]

@@sssf55 I never saw them either! They must have been banned before I even got the notification. I'd like to hear your two cents anyway since I only see your comment haha

[@gamerknown]

No, they're an extension of desegregation which preceded postmodernism - in fact, preceding modernism. One intellectual prop for diversity requirements can be traced to DuBois, who was influenced by William James, an ardent empiricist (in contrast to Chomsky, but also at stark odds with postmodernists).

[@adamhuntley8719]

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

[@gregowen2022]

I agree. While I can't call myself a Peterson fan, I also don't get the hatred for the guy. Both he and Chomsky both seem to be saying the movement is nonsense, but while Noam is writing it off, Peterson is saying that nefarious groups are using it for ill intent, much like Eugenics being a silly idea that was eventually perverted for evil

[@jacobblumin4260]

@@gregowen2022 Chomsky is saying that the content of the postmodernists is nonsense, i.e. gibberish made up to impress themselves and others. This is exactly what I found when I tried to read some postmodernist literature. Alan Sokal and others have shown this to be true (see the Sokal affair). Peterson sees that there is some discernible content in what the postmodernists say and what they promote and it is derived from a communistic, totalitarian ethos: power is all that matters and we are so right that we will not allow other viewpoints to be heard.

[@blablablablabittybla561]

Possibly the best comment.

[@PoliticsReal]

​@@gregowen2022Probaby because the left likes to shit on Peterson as much as possible because he believes in God.

[@dimtool4183]

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

[@brendondonoho270]

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

[@ailblentyn]

I’m not certain that’s wholly true. He’s clearly read a lot more that Peterson, but I would bet he had said a lot more words about Lacan that he has read words by Lacan, for example. I think he knew him socially, read a few pages, and formed an opinion.

[@mrcockney-nutjob3832]

That tribe Chomsky belongs to are destroying the West

[@mongoose6685]

A fact that cannot be objectively measured, much less based on this video... so a mere indemonstrable opinion.

[@brendondonoho270]

@@mongoose6685 it can be measured by the fact that Chomsky speaks about Postmodernism in a way that is at least recognizable to people who have read some of these thinkers. A cursory glance at Foucault’s Wikipedia page will show you that Peterson is just tossing out random nonsense.

[@pradiptamandal7762]

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

[@justinmcclure6767]

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

[@beahuty]

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.

[@trappart9209]

Thanks for an interesting comment

[@barrymileso]

Thanks for your clear and concise explanation. I think Peterson sees his own grand narrative - it's always about chaos and order - as being threatened by post-modernist sensibilities which, as you point out, are ubiquitous in our current age.

[@mongoose6685]

Peterson has repeatedly, ad nauseam, that post-modernists refute basic scientific concepts on issues such as gender/sex identity so that they can push their Marxist agenda. You can't claim to know Peterson without being aware of this... On another note, there is no hard line demarcation between post-modernists and post-structuralists - one does not exclude the other and in 2024, the nonsense has simply merged under the post-modernist flag (nobody talks about post-structuralism in 2024, it peaked in the 50's and 60's).

[@regaliaretailfashionmerch4314]

You defined structuralism, not post structuralism. PS and PM are actually under the same thought branch. The almost non existent difference is PS is limited to academic contexts, PM takes PS to POLITICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS i. e. Wokeness

[@regaliaretailfashionmerch4314]

Good going, dissociating yourself from pedophile Foucault and Foucault from PM, but still peddling PM, playing with intellectual genealogies. PM is very much the same as PS, they are both totalitarian like Authoritarian Socialism is, and no Foucault literally was not a structuralist, because structuralism is centred and Foucault advocated free play, he literally debated Chomsky as a PMist

[@jackhal1]

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

[@tonygallagher6989]

According to the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, Chomsky and I have the same personality type. There was a time when I would have dismissed anyone who disagreed with me as an idiot. Therapy helped me a lot. Whether Peterson truly practises what he preaches is debatable, but he has said that we must listen especially carefully to those whose views oppose our own. I don't agree with everything that either of them say, but I wouldn't outright dismiss either of them.

[@robertpearson8798]

I couldn’t agree more.

[@humushumus2219]

The Myers Briggs test is pseudoscience and Jordan Peterson is a intellectual midget compared to Chomsky.

[@Redrage-gl6pv]

Peterson says we must listen to other opinions but then he doesn't practice what he preaches. In particular he continually argues in bad faith, misrepresents opposing arguments, and continually engages in ad hominem. Foucault, for example, was not making normative claims about power relationships. He was not expressing an philosophy of who should rule and what they should do with power. Also, JP has no line of sight into his motivations, or anyone else's for that matter. He's borrowing a bit from Genealogy of Morals here with his tirades against "ressentiment." That's a convenient way to bypass peoples' actual arguments, and again, it's a fallacious appeal to motivations. So much for Jordan's veneration for logic and enlightenment values.

[@tonygallagher6989]

@@Redrage-gl6pv One of the reasons I don't fully subscribe to Peterson's views, or those of anyone else, is that we all have blind spots. Do I outright dismiss him because of that? No. Some of what he says has value. Some of what he says misses the mark. He has biases, as all of us do.

[@anatolwegner9096]

Peterson might be critical of postmodernist ideas but yet seems to embrace their methods

[@nuqwestr]

He's stated many times some of the methods are valid to his target values, so that is not a criticism. It's when theory is turned into a weapon by those whose sole aim is power which he is against.

[@anatolwegner9096]

Well I was mostly referring to his love for 'incomprehensible nonsense, complicated constructions mixed up with truisms dressed up in polysyllables to give an impression of profoundness'@@nuqwestr

[@mongoose6685]

He doesn't. Peterson is sometimes long winded but what he says is straight forward. The quote you are referring to was actually said by Chomsky at 12:00...

[@anatolwegner9096]

@@mongoose6685 yep straight forward BS that is

[@mongoose6685]

@@anatolwegner9096 I'm sorry I wasted my time here 😆

[@pelham8910]

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.

[@nuqwestr]

Peterson has authored or co-authored more than a hundred academic papers and was cited almost 8,000 times as of mid-2017 and more than 18,000 times as of 2022. Chomsky did not "debunk" Behaviorism, most cognitive psychologists today are Behaviorists who do experimental work. Chomsky is a rationalist and only debated Behaviorism within his field of linguistics, which has not aged well.

[@pelham8910]

@@nuqwestr Most cognitive psychologists today are Behaviorists!? - I'll let them know. They'll lose their "minds". Peterson is ranked the 3440th best psychology academic in-the-world! Chomsky is 34th with 250,000 citations. Your post hasn't aged well.

[@luniz4209]

Examine the arguments on the face of them, not through the lens of post modernism. Disagree with Peterson all you want but do it strictly on the basis of logic and reason or you're no better than the postmodernists.

[@pelham8910]

@@luniz4209 Gosh, you write like an AI chatbot that doesn't know what postmodernism means. Call me all the names you want, my time is too precious to find out yet again that Peterson is facile and a quack.

[@Samsgarden]

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

[@nuqwestr]

Yes, Marcuse was the primary influence on American, Cultural Marxism, although did not "expand" it outside economics, but reprioritized the leverage points within an economic system which functioned well so not prone to revolution. He sought out the edges of society for social activism, like women, people of color, and homosexuals. And it worked! Hear Marcuse say these things in his own words, many interviews from the 1980s online.

[@spinohawk]

Best way to word it. Neither one of them are wrong enough to disregard, but they can certainly develop their ideas further.

[@spinohawk]

Peterson himself in other works addresses greed further, however, like me, he makes the assumption that those who aren't suffering from the dark triad can and will generally act within the best interest of others when power is limited, though it is certainly deeper. When you have the ability to get anywhere by stepping on the guy lower than you on the ladder, something's rotten. Same problem, different economic systems.

[@Samsgarden]

@@spinohawk I need Peterson to get on board with some leftists like Finkelstein and Hedges. See what happens

[@kewgardensstation]

7:30 Or the excess labor value of goods and services produced by individuals can be more equitably distributed so we don't have the extreme of 1% of the population owning 99% of everything.

[@madprinceklaus]

I’m watching this and a Kraft ‘Let your mayo freak fly’ advert comes on. I guess watching KZbin is bathed in postmodern irony now too ….

[@counterflow5719]

We gave radio to the sponsors so they could sell cigarettes and soap. We gave TV to the sponsors so they could sell toothpaste and deodorant. Now, KZbin is going the same way. It all turns into the same crap once the sponsors take over. There should be a space dedicated to something more high minded without the commerce people getting their hands on it. Something more sacred than cold hearted commerce.

[@andrewdlarge]

"Resentment, arrogance, and deceit. There's an evil triad for you. And if you're bitter about everything that's happening around you despite the fact that you're bathed in wealth then there's something absolutely wrong with you." - Jordan Peterson I can't be the only person who hears this and sees the angry, broken man screaming these words at himself in the mirror.

[@borismajstorovic4129]

Well Jordan is surelly highly emphatic person able to live trough emotions and ideas hes implying to others. He has highly developed and open emotional aparatus just like top actors who are acting out of conviction. So hes far from being part of the triad him self but hes entering all spaces hes talking about personally, that differentiates him from Chomsky whos distanced, and thats why hes so accepted by the common prople, hes basically speaking their language as well as all other languages needed, well that is so rare to see, people love it bc hes talking about things they feel but mostly cant properly formulate. So what you saw as Triade is part of Jordans versitile linguo-cogno-emotional vocabulary.

[@hillous]

Who else has exposed so much of his bare soul for all to see? From thousands of hours of speech, this creator has selected the most emotional excerpts. If you look at his work, he is extraordinarily level-headed and rational. -JBP Fanboy

[@craigjackson3550]

So, about Chomsky, I'd be interested in hearing a more nuanced opinion he has on Post Modernist published after the 90's, but here's the thing: He said that Post Modernist have a way of using their text to reinforce their ideas without offering substance, then he built his argument against a social structure (French Post Modernist of the 50's ish) and advertised his approach to Manufactured Consent and every Post-Structuralist book he's written since to undermine their structure without addressing what French Intellectuals produced, which makes his argument nearly equal to "All of their work is wrong because I don't like some of their agendas and their methods confuse me".

[@makokx7063]

I'm not a fan of Power Modernism but Chomsky is king of "This is the way the world is because I say it is.".

[@gamerknown]

@@makokx7063 Who doesn't believe the world is as they say it is?

[@makokx7063]

@@gamerknown That's not what I said. I said he claims things to be a certain way but won't give his sources for why he believes so. There was a debate or conference where he was talking such bullshit the very polite Steven Pinker couldn't help himself from asking where he got a "fact" from. Chomsky himself said it's that way because I say it is.

[@michaelwright8896]

@@makokx7063 "Chomsky is king of, "This is the way the world is because I say it is.". "Who doesn't believe the world is as they say it is?" "That's not what I said:" Hmm.

[@fabio4465]

He just shows the facts and discourses and let you decide for yourself, its usually very acessible sources @@makokx7063

[@popularmisconception1]

I don't know what postmodernists think a social construct is, but for me, it is not like social constructs are "just" social construct therefore they don't "really" exists. Of course they do. It's just that our social minds and souls are what gives them substance. For animals, there are no country borders, but for humans there are, since other people know about them and can be expected to behave as if they existed, which is what makes them exist. That does not mean we have full control over such things, or that we can erase them by suddenly thinking differently about them and redefining them. And that does not mean that any attempt at driving them towards some utopian goal will necessarily lead us to that goal, in fact it can lead to hell we have not foreseen. Such redefinitions are a process that exists regardless of postmodernism and postmodernism is just a phase in such process. But it is useful to make that difference. And it could perhaps be useful to apply the theories and math discovered by studying dynamics of social constructs to things that were previously not thought as such, since it can lead us to discovery of new kinds of mind and soul in nature where we previously thought was just soulless and mindless deterministic matter.

[@retrigger_]

Exactly! It seems like the people who got themselves one sociology class and start saying that everything is a construct, like in "not real" and that the person now has power over said reality, just because he knows a little thing about it.

[@mongoose6685]

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.

[@Valkyri3Z]

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.

[@mongoose6685]

He doesn't want to lose his audience or undermine his academic career any further. So yeah, he's staying silent.

[@Dayglodaydreams]

Judith Butler was skeptical of what she called identity politics (which I think an entirely different concept was meant by “identity politics”, it was Marxist and people talked about it being related to biology), and she was one of the post-structuralist feminists.

[@MagicJunkYard]

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

[@fionaaron3854]

Would you mind elaborating?

[@JEQvideos]

@@fionaaron3854 For one thing, Peterson has two different notions of truth. If you look at postmodernism broadly as a kind of epistemic relativism, he's postmodern.

[@pikapi6993]

@@JEQvideos post modernism denies that objective truth exists. The truth that is independent from subjective perception and interpretation.

[@JEQvideos]

@@pikapi6993 Yeah, and there is a current of that in Peterson. This is the guy who says that the Bible is the precondition for the manifestation of truth and that Cain and Abel not only happened--it's still happening. In some interviews, Peterson has identified as a pragmatist. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy offers this broad definition: " Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that - very broadly - understands knowing the world as inseparable from agency within it." Peterson is just pretty incoherent in his views. He claims objective truth when it helps his case and attacks the notion when it does not.

[@randatatang9222]

@@JEQvideos So this is why you think he's a postmodernist ?? Before you make outrageous statements about people, try to listen to them. Peterson would agree with the postmodernists that meaning is use which witgenstein, the pragmatists and others would agree. The idea is that meaning occurs within frame work of a hierarchy of values. So words donot merely aim to represent the world but to guide action. You can hold this view as many philosophers do and not be a postmodernist. What makes one a post modernist is using the idea as a tool to grab power by dividing the world between oppressors and opressed. The difference between Peterson and the pragmatists vs post modernists is that is that whereas post modernists use the idea of meaning to sow division in the world, the pragmatists use it to defend religious belief. To defend religious belief as true, you have to realize that there's a sense of religious truth that is different from scientific truth. That's what is getting you mixed up.

[@zverina]

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

[@ludviglidstrom6924]

Here on KZbin there is an openly postmodernist channel called Plastic Pills, which I highly recommend. Very interesting channel, and very entertaining. You might totally disagree with him and that's totally fine. He's not at all "woke"; there's nothing particularly woke about his videos. The relationship between postmodernism and identity politics is very complicated; in a way they are kind of the opposite of each other, but they have historically been popular in similar circles, which I guess makes them more associated with each other than they would otherwise be. Maybe a bit like Marxism and postmodernism - the same type of people who were Marxists in academia then became postmodernists, so there's a connection there, but the actual philosophies are kind of antitheses of each other. I should point out that I am not a postmodernist but a Marxist - I believe in logic, rationality, the Enlightenment and so on. But there's also this issue of the cultural divide in Western philosophy between continental and analytical thought, and I think that divide really has to be breached and we need to synthesize these two approaches.

[@Cicada-Screams]

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

[@shughy1]

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

[@the_boss45]

He’s not vague at all. I don’t see where you got that from.

[@nuqwestr]

@@the_boss45 I agree Chomsky is vague, but only because the pomo virus was till contained in academia when he spoke. Peterson was speaking about today, as pomo has fully infected our politics.

[@gregowen2022]

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.

[@Mon000]

You're not the first comment to say something of the sort. Perhaps the difference I saw in the routes the two criticism take (substance vs form) does not make the two criticisms that different after all, I don't know It's hard to categorize these differences.

[@gregowen2022]

@@Mon000 it's certainly difficult to categorize. What I find interesting is how the right wing and left wing of American politic still came to the same philosophical conclusion, even if they took different routes away from that conclusion. It's a good sign, I think

[@TheCompleteGuitarist]

Chomsky's dismissal of it as unimportant is an endorsement of it. He is basically saying it's not worth questioning, just ignore it. As a result it continues on its pernicious way.

[@rv706]

Literally nobody is using "postmodernism" for nefarious intentions.

[@nuqwestr]

@@Mon000 Because the comments are decades apart accounts for the differences in substance. Chomsky made it clear the philosophers felt they'd lost the upper-hand to the physicists and used Marxists tactics to regain control of the academy, which they did, but only in the time of Peterson's remarks.

[@lawrencenoctor2703]

Promoting Peterson to the same rank as Chomsky astounds me ,have they ever sat down together and debated anything. Attacking either with the aid of cherry picked references you have trawled is not to be taken as a serius critique.

[@Lawfair]

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?

[@kevinreid9856]

You aren't missing anything. Post modernism rejects grand unifying narratives. Marxism is a unifying theory, so "most modern marxism" is an oxymoron

[@Dayglodaydreams]

How does Peterson jump from that to affirmative action.

[@DeyvsonMoutinhoCaliman]

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.

[@kewgardensstation]

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

[@gagi6294]

Anyone who's interested in post-postmodernism, go watch a series on youtube called "After Postmodernism" by Brendan Graham Dempsey. It's a great and detailed take on postmodernism and all post-postmodern movements and reactions, which all eventually merge into what is now called "Metamodernism".

[@Lordofthewhyz]

I don’t think their views of PM are actually that much different. In both cases they acknowledge the identity crisis after Marxist/Maoist led tragedies. They both address the radical linguistic or social constructionism as a means to garner power politically or in academia (when competency in the existing scientific frameworks are not understood - as in Chomsky’s example). Peterson has more of a anger and disgust whereas Chomsky is a bit ambivalent, and doesn’t care to give it too much more attention (and therefore deny the power that they want). That’s the main difference I see

[@maxroberts7393]

One might suppose Chomsky is on the left, but he is basically a contrarian anarchist. A really leftist regime would shoot him fir, because it has no use for such people. . Peterson may seem on the right, because now so many are to his left. Peterson is an open-minded, centrist populist. Being 65 has given him life experience and thousands of therapy clients have given him clear ideas where people have gone wrong in trying to get thru life as smoothy as possible. One gain from his being a therapist is he really listens. He really sets straight those who misjudge him or try to put words in his mouth.

[@dannysullivan3951]

Climate action, misogyny and racism are not centrist. Neither is apologizing for Putin’s aggression or being pro gun rights.

[@nuqwestr]

@@dannysullivan3951 JBP does not align with any of that, you engagement in character assassination is evidence he is correct and you are not.

[@zacbergman710]

I don't really understand what post modernism is

[@chaosjoerg9811]

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.

[@ComplexConfiguration]

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?

[@saulorocha3755]

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.

[@Krotas_DeityofConflicts]

Peterson understand sooo little about Postmodernism. He thinks all it talks about is oppression and stuff. And all his talk about resentment and bitterness, he is really resentful towards postmodernism and deconstruction. Also, for a person who is very critical of Jacques Derrida, he uses Deconstruction a lot.. especially when he talks about God, Truth, and his famous "What do you mean by ...?" lol Chomsky's critique is more valid imo. It kind of is indeed a common sense/notion turned into philosophical sophistication.

[@Mahigrady11]

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.

[@victorvernaza5246]

Exactly...Peterson use the same methodology of postmodernists!

[@trent1615]

They both are right.

[@MrTheo747]

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 (kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3nXp4d9lrWtfJY) is filled with basic factual errors and serious misreadings/misrepresentations. Hence, as Ceika also argues, Peterson does not understand postmodernism (kzbin.info/www/bejne/mYaUfZuZes1rg9U). 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?)

[@lloydgush]

That's a very post modern tactic. Any critical theorist is post-modern.

[@MrTheo747]

@@lloydgush any critical theorist is post modern? are you sure? so, Adorno and Horkheimer, the original critical theorists, are post-modern, even though they were writing their texts before the word post-modern was even coined? I don't know what you're on about mate

[@lloydgush]

@@MrTheo747 Why not?

[@MrTheo747]

@@lloydgush The statement 'any critical theorist is post modern' is incorrect

[@lloydgush]

@@MrTheo747 But why? He's the father of the frankfurt school.

[@eyebrid]

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

[@TheCompleteGuitarist]

Can you give an example?

[@eyebrid]

@@TheCompleteGuitarist - "They don't believe in coherency", he frequently says word salad, redefining and questioning commonly understood things like when he said "What do you mean "do" and what do you mean "you" and what do you mean "believe" and what do you mean "God?"" -He spoke against oppression but he continually advocates against trans people, not just pronouns, but against transitioning. -He mentioned an evil triad, resentment, arrogance, and deceit. He claims to defend incels yet never has an actual solution other than mentioning "enforced monogamy" on the Joe Rogan Podcast, but when pressed for a definition he backtracked timidly and said it was just supporting couples to stay together vs his previous implication of arranged relationships. A large part of his income comes from incels, so he often cries crocodile tears, when the truth is they are mostly misogynists who berate members of their online communities as traitors when they get a girlfriend. In another interview he advocated relegating women to property as the only way a man would come to a woman's defense, if he feared his property being damaged. That seems extremely resentful towards women. As for arrogance, in a discussion with Matt Dillahunty, he started with frequent condescending interruptions to attempt to emotionally disrupt his train of thought but failed, and when met with a calm and reasoned response, Peterson apologized for "trying to torture" him (his words). In an interview he mentioned he tries to come up with more sophisticated arguments as a strategy, but only disects basic introductory concepts with convoluted language that stalls the conversation for the appearance of being knowledgeable. Over time he changed his approach to making even more vague statements and questions allowing plausible deniability of what he implies, another deceitful measure. -He said "if you're bitter about everything that's happening around you despite being bathed in wealth, there's something absolutely wrong with you." Complete projection. -"They use all this compassion language, you just have to scratch the surface and you find out how fast that vanishes... It does nothing but mask the underlying drive to power." More projection, he masquerades crying and right wing grievance to generate media presence and profit, it's a grift. -He says postmodernists don't talk, they just chatter. More projection: he frequently attempts to cast doubt on definitions, redefines with biased word salad.

[@pikapi6993]

@@eyebrid nothing that you say makes sense. A lot of Incels hate him because he says that they have to be responsible for themselves, but a lot of people tell him how much his advice has changed their lives for the better and that they got out of the circle of self pity by cleaning their room. Maybe to you it seems like he talks word salads, but it looks like a lot of people understand him and think he goes straight to the point. I mean, clean your room is really direct and a great first step. And criticizing the oppressor oppressed relationship doesn't have anything to do with advocating for or against anything, so advocating for something doesn't imply that you feel oppressed by anyone. lol. Conflict theory is one of many social theories, but it is the one that is overshadowing all of the others today, because leading sociologists think that everything in society is about the oppressors and the oppressed. And yes, he is absolutely right. If you are bitter about everything, but super wealthy, then obviously there is a lot wrong with you and you should do some soul searching. And he is right about the compassion language, because all of this compassion disappears as sooon as someone is out of line. If a woman, black person or trans person disagrees with the current mainstream, then they lose the compassion from the people who claim to care about them. They want to protect their way of thinking at all cost and aren't afraid to use their power to harm and dicredit women, black and trans people for not embodying the role that they should have according to their world view. "We want to hear more minorty voices" - " oh, but not these voices". Peterson didn't decide to become famous. He was targeted by leftist students who tried to cancel him and as a result became a public person. Now he can share his ideas with much more people and people are pissed that he makes money with it, when every leftist in the public eye is making money with their leftist views. It's hilarious. It looks like there is a lot of projection coming from your side.

[@eyebrid]

@@pikapi6993 Peterson became famous for misrepresenting the addition of trans people under hate speech law, it had nothing to do with "compelled speech" as he puts it. He saw an opportunity to spread right wing grievance. I used to watch his lectures but when I got used to his style and paid attention to his implications, whether explicit or open to plausible deniability with vague "questions" (ex: in a 1996 lecture about Nazis, when he said that they aren't mysterious monsters, but "us," I hoped he meant it to be cautionary, but the next thing he said was that he doesn't understand "never forget" and waved it off like nonsense) I realized he wasn't saying very much of value at all, just disecting points, like an extended topic sentence in the guise of an essay, and the overarching theme is to instill acceptance of right wing ideology through his redefinitions. He frequently speaks against combating racism, ex: on a panel he questioned the validity of institutional racism asking for specific instances and individuals, was provided that info and how it was facilitated by the institution, but he still didn't accept it, just called it "low resolution thinking", ie "stupid." Go ahead and translate what he says into simple terms and you'll find he makes short sighted simple repetitive statements that don't advance the conversation nor provide any new ideas.

[@jimisalt]

@@eyebrid I don't think you can take seriously anyone who belongs to the roster of Daily Wire and JP does. He is just a right wing grifter which is very profitable right now as people want their social norms that they are so tied to, ideas of Christian values etc. to be reinforced as they act as a barrier against acceptance of a meaningless world (nihilism). I'm not advocating for nihilism though I just think it is a necessary step in people forming their own beliefs and morals rather than just big man in sky said don't do this, I won't do this. TLDR: people just want their dogmatic beliefs reinforced, Jordan Peterson, along with many others does this and that is why they are popular.

[@walterbrownstone8017]

Peterson is talking about himself, right?

[@brianmacc1934]

He is describing every empire he ever cheered for

[@OneLine122]

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.

[@PoliticsReal]

Wrong. Peterson & Chomsky are very similar. They both believe in transcendent values whether they admit it or not.

[@lewisstreet7266]

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!

[@rory7590]

The difference is that Chomsky actually provides a valid critique, whereas Peterson doesn’t really know what he is talking about. If you conflate Postmodernism with Marxism, which are literally contradictory, then you don’t understand it.

[@anderslandgren6745]

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

[@leonmills3104]

I reposted this comment to make sure you see it The paper you cited is actually a defense of the "is-ought" gap. Charles Pigden gave the hedgehog analogy to distinguish logical autonomy from semantic autonomy, not because he actually believes in semantic autonomy. BTW, logical autonomy means that it is not able to be derived from facts and/or logic. That's what Pigden roughly means by "logically autonomous," which means he is actually defending the "is-ought" gap. LOL! Similarly, semantic autonomy is not able to be derived from meaning. Anyhow, the paper is actually saying that the "is-ought" gap is logically autonomous, which is hilarious because Pigden still thinks that, even though morality is logically autonomous it's still important, this means he is literally arguing against moral realism. Lmao!

[@mckeldin1961]

@04:40 OMG... "resentment, arrogance and deceit." I've never listened to anyone who better encapsulates these three things than Peterson himself.

[@umberto488]

If thats true, you are extraordinarily sheltered l, but i assume its just irresponsible hyperbole.

[@mckeldin1961]

@@umberto488 When you’re arrogant you can assume anything you want.

[@umberto488]

You think he embodies these attributes more than say....Trump? The modern era engenders arrogance, but it also engenders kneejerk valuations guised as volition, but are actually strongly tailored postions given to you by your own personal echo chamber. Tbf, i mean the general you. Its become virtually universal with algorithmic feeds.

[@mckeldin1961]

@@umberto488 I have no idea what your agenda is; or even what your point is. But I stand by my opinion of Peterson. To convince me otherwise you’d do a lot better without condescension or insults.

[@hendonburgism]

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

[@StrawEgg]

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.

[@thenowchurch6419]

Peterson is a believer in evolutionary biology and as such should not be taking the hard right turn he has made recently. He does not know it but his whole approach is Post Modern, the assumption that no one knows anything for sure, that we do not really know if the spiritual and God exist, that each individual must make their own minds and choose their own morality. He is caught up in thrall with the idea of being a cultural hero for the salvation of white Western Civilization, so he overlooks his very own approach to truth.

[@sinkingship101]

How about Foucault saying PostModernist thinking means it should be fine to have sex with children? Should we talk about that? That bit is frequently ignored by Foucault's fans

[@sinkingship101]

This is exceptionally reductionist. There's a big difference between "we cant know god exsits" and "we cant know anything (postmodernism)"

[@CristianChirita2234]

@@sinkingship101 Yeah This church guy doesn't seem to understand that postmodernism has been and is continually defined by "WE CAN'T KNOW ANYTHING", defined by "well all options are viable", which is contradictory to our natural biological inclinations. Jordan Peterson has never made the case that all options are viable or are equal in value, Jordan argues for hierarchy, postmodernism doesn't. Postmodernism takes from a bunch of thinkers, such as Derrida "language has no clear meaning", Foucault "Power structures have no meaning", and then they don't offer a solution so the only conclusion you're left with is the premise, "language and power structures have no meaning". They deconstruct everything without constructing, and so then the construction is left to our biological inclinations and what's most relevant to us, WHICH LEADS TO RELETAVISM because people are in different situations. You don't have to read full on books by Derrida and Foucault in order to see their thought processes without a conclusion.

[@thenowchurch6419]

@@sinkingship101 You are ignoring a whole ton of nuance by defining postmodernism as "we can't know anything". Is that what Post Modern philosophers have said and if so do they mean that in an absolute sense or do they mean we can know enough about probabilities and past experience in order to function day to day but we do not have the scientific instruments to be 100% per cent sure? Can we know without a shadow of a doubt that the sun will , from our perspective, rise again in the East tomorrow? No, we cannot, but there is a very high probability that it will. That is what modern science says.

[@seapeajones]

Probably should have stuck to telling incels to mind their hygiene & clean their rooms.

[@jerryodonovan8624]

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

[@nuqwestr]

No, you got that wrong. He's the guy who looks at the complete canon of religious text across all domains and believes they contain a history of human cognition. I agree.

[@umberto488]

Symbolism, ma dude.

[@Forheavenssake1ify]

Knowing this, we need social (and probably political) replacement philosophies before Post-modernism spins farther out of control.

[@adamoutaleb7571]

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.

[@adamoutaleb7571]

the only actual difference between these two is that peterson seem to take them as much bigger threat than chomsky and its totally understandable as chomsky s analysis is showing its age and post modernism has done nothing but growing since then

[@pikapi6993]

@@adamoutaleb7571 I agree, their opinions are very similar. The difference is Chomsky according to the clips thinks in the Western context it is not a threat to play intellectual, because we are developed and wealthy, while Peterson thinks that it is also a threat to us, because of the way our societies changed for the worse. I have to agree with Peterson, but I also think that Chomsky has criticized postmodernism for making it hard to find solutions for economic issues and poverty in the West.

[@TaehunGrammar]

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.

[@mattk9089]

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.

[@sjbechet1111]

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

[@matthewpinas92]

The thing about Chomsky, is he is very much a modernist, in as much as he has faith in the knowability of things and something like the perfectibility of things. He is absolutely a utopian modernist. Post-modernism is a direct reaction against modernist utopian projects, of the type Chomsky adheres to. Therefore his critique of post-modernism is entirely reasonable. They fundamentally disagree about epistemology, ontology, phenomenology, morality, etc. In contrast, Peterson has essentially no understanding of post-modernism, and spends all his time erecting and then tearing down a giant straw man. If Peterson were actually to engage with post-modernism, he wouldn't necessarily agree with them on everything, but their shared disagreements with the universalizing truths of modernist philosophies (Marxism in particular) would likely lead to a great deal of agreement. Unfortunately, Peterson is far too intellectually uncrurious to ever engage seriously with any post-modernist texts.

[@siegfriedhorner4436]

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.

[@scotbellew2089]

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

[@BullToTheShit]

4:18

[@abi19gotez]

I just identified the contradiction which I had only had a feeling over, when it comes to Peterson, and that is that he uses the same sweeping lyrics general way of articulating certain social phenomenon, and, like Einstein would say, he judges a fish by its ability to climb a latter. Furthermore, it is not surprising being that his fame and fortune motivates whay he defends. It is a masterful double-play. On the one hand he uses the ancestral notions, and inverts his ludicrous concepts of what a human being is, On the one hand. This makes postmodern people react further from any structure, making them think they are right in their anti-logic , and anti-intuition ideas. On the other hand, he supports the mental health industries claims, and monopoly over the free 12 step process, and Christianity, which had found the solution to addictive attitudes and behaviors before any of them, including Carl Jung were even close to a solution.

[@abi19gotez]

So much by saying that he is for unity, yet with anyone who will happen to support his own personal status quo. His arguments are a gimmick, and it is sad to see how he plays, like Trump, on what some people want to hear. In the meantime he participates in the very conflict of classes he criticises, by subtlety tearing down the poor, saying if we can't own a house we cannot think. That shows how he would never make any significant decision, or sacrifice based on spiritual principles nor integrity.

[@nuqwestr]

"Fame and Fortune"? He was teaching at the University of Toronto, mostly in middle-class poverty and obscurity, when he said these things. Supports "Christianity"? Christians keep pressing him to say he believes in Jesus, and he never answers their question, other than to say, "I don't know". Your whole framework is based on fallacious ground.

[@-haclong2366]

12:40 I'd almost describe it as "Pseudointellectualism" or "Aristocraticism" as these people essentially use their deliberately over-complicated language to mask their lack of substance and to see who is and isn't on-board. It's a dialect on the same language corporate-speak is a dialect of. I refer to this language as "B#llsh¡t" and it's a language people use to obscure rather than communicate ideas.

[@ronderuiter3298]

Pol Pot was a good example of post modernism in full power.

[@rv706]

JP's "critique" is a pseudo-critique because it's based on a conspiracy theory. NC's critique, on the other hand, makes total sense. So, the two critiques have nothing to do with each other.

[@nuqwestr]

Read the (1977) THE COMBAHEE RIVER COLLECTIVE STATEMENT. Not a "theory", and evident in the recent appointment made to the US Senate in California. Check the timeline between Chomsky's statement and Peterson, you are behind the times.

[@cubemerula5264]

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?

[@JEQvideos]

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.

[@TheCompleteGuitarist]

Post modernism is great for critiquing things like literature and cinema, but when it comes to dismantling life eg I don't know what a woman is because I am not a biologist (a perfect example of its insidious application as intended by its instigators) then it should be ranted about. Peterson acknowledges that the premise of Post Modernism can by used for cultural interpretation to gain better understanding. But that is not how it is being used generally. That's why everyone white is a racist and you can only be racist if you're white, because Post Modernism said so.

[@StrawEgg]

​@@TheCompleteGuitarist The postmodernist wouldn't claim that only a biologist can know a woman is - it would claim precisely the opposite, that as a contextually limited and finite individual, even a biologist's notion of woman will already be an essentialist claim, just like calling every white person racist would be an essentialist claim. Postmodernism isn't as much about rejecting all metanarratives as much as it is about exposing how any single one can be justified with enough effort: rather, it posits just as structuralists do, that racism, misogyny, and all manner of prejudices are not so much any one person's work, but structurally (not essentially) established. The only thing poststructuralists like Laclau change is that the multitude of narratives not only coexist, but also any one of them can serve as the centerpiece lens through which everything else gets its meaning (if we take a communist essence, the feminist struggle is for equal pay, the ecological struggle is against capital's infinite growth on a finite world, the democratic struggle is for equality in collective decision-making - but if we take a conservative essence, the feminist struggle is against the perverse decadence of sexploitation, the ecological struggle is that of a return to harmony with nature, the democratic struggle is against forces which corrupt pure democracy, and so on).

[@JEQvideos]

@@TheCompleteGuitarist "(a perfect example of its insidious application as intended by its instigators)" Postmodernism is not about identity politics. And I strongly doubt that groups like say trans activists or adherents of CRT identify as postmodernists because it's not a particularly great foundation for activism. Peterson misrepresents the movement, and leftist thought in general, to a general audience to bolster his weird brand of reactionary religious conservatism.

[@dontbothertoreply9755]

postmodernism is the critique of modernism which is a facade, but your approach to Nietzsche is common not on postmodernism but on Hermeneutics.

[@JEQvideos]

@@dontbothertoreply9755 I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but principle postmodernists cite Nietszche as an inspiration and have written about his philosophy.

[@terrycook2881]

Look up Chomsky's take on Peterson. Chomsky doesn't even want to discuss JP

[@jamarcusbonquaviustoiletro8520]

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

[@sinkingship101]

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.

[@nuqwestr]

Agreed, some think because he contracted with Daily Wire puts him on the Alt-Right, but he has complete autonomy and promotes alternatives to legacy media, not just a "right-wing" idea.

[@Alsatiagent-zu1rx]

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

[@valentinrafael9201]

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.

[@marcelfsilva]

not oposit, but complementarty

[@cellbiologyshorts9105]

Peterson sounds quite resentful :S

[@DBSpeakers]

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 KZbin channels echo ideas that are provably false (like flat earth). KZbin 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.

[@nuqwestr]

Chomsky is a linguist, and never stayed in his "lane". Check out what it takes to get a PhD in Clinical Psychology. Might change your mind.

[@naayou99]

thanks for the summary. But I think Peterson is more like the post-modernist: love of appearance and postulating nonsense. Chomsky was right to dismiss him (in another talk) as such. Put Peterson with the knowledgable person and you would see he always backtracks and speaks in vague terms to ease escape when he gets cornered. Chomsky is another class. He should not be in the same context as Peterson. Peterson in his debate with Zizek said he doesn't remember the Communist Manifesto yet he is criticizing Communism! Chomsky was talking about Stalinists and Maoists NOT communists. Peterson thinks that post-modernists deny logic but does his argument follow logic? In the video, he talks about the post-modernist denial of identity in the context of logic. but what this conception has to do with logic. Also, what logic we are talking about? Does Quantum physics follow what he calls logic? I am no fan of post-modernism and not a fan of Mr Peterson. Long live Noam!

[@nuqwestr]

I saw Peterson interview Sir Roger Penrose, nothing as you describe happened, and in fact, Sir Roger was energized by the interview and wanted it to continue. Peterson has stated many times the value of pomo, but warns againsts its weaponization. Chomsky was speaking at a different time, Peterson;s comments refer to now.

[@MarKGol393]

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.

[@jimhobbs3792]

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

[@WeaponizedGoochsweat]

I wouldnt really categorize Peterson as of the right. Some would say hes centrist left.

[@dannysullivan3951]

He’s squarely right. Pro gun, anti climate action, anti feminist, pro Putin and loves conspiracy nonsense.

[@AgentSmithers]

In what world?😂

[@WeaponizedGoochsweat]

@@AgentSmithers this one.

[@nuqwestr]

@@WeaponizedGoochsweat agreed.

[@nuqwestr]

Peterson on the "right"? Chomsky on the "left"? Wow, what nonsense.

[@dimtool4183]

Definitely right, you've not been paying attention last 5 years have you?

[@nuqwestr]

@@dimtool4183 Close attention, but with an open mind. I'm older than Peterson, read many of the books he started with before him. Peterson has been attacked for his centrist values by a once political class which has now turned into a religion, complete with priestly hierarchies, dogma, and excommunication. He asks the question: "Who do you know when the Left has gone too far?" He's been personally confronted with the answer.

[@trondkland3643]

Ca. 4:30 - said the posterboy for monetizing bitterness and resentfulness. Like an ass’ complaints of bad smell.

[@LindsleyDbrt]

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.

[@craigjackson3550]

Well, the flaw with Peterson's logic is that he assumes Post Modernism has anything to do with the beliefs of one who is practicing it's methods. The Post Modern ethos is more like a set of tools than a dogma. He's talking trash about a group of philosopher's who use logic as a set of lenses for observation, not a dogma. A lot of that logic is contradictory but challenging preconceived notions is the point of Post Modernism, not coherence.

[@j.rustage3794]

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.

[@nuqwestr]

There's a time-line difference between Chomsky's comments and Peterson's. When Chomsky spoke about pomo it was still contained in academia and yet to be insinuated and weaponized into our political life. Jonathan Haidt has put that date to be around 2012.

[@dionysianapollomarx]

I can see Chomsky’s frustration. And why he chalks it up to prestige, and I don’t quite think that’s the case for the French, but more so for the Americans and the Brits who I think massively misread in those times the French postmoderns and the German/French neo-Marxists. But really, understanding the French needs good understanding of technical French. Postmodernist or not, even Gabriel Marcel the so-called French Hegel. Chomsky didn’t have the luxury of good English translations of these French authors, which only became a thing in the last 20 years. There’s also the need to understand the impact of Husserl and Heidegger (mainly to Derrida and Merleau-Ponty), Ferdinand de Saussure, Nietzsche, and Freud to their thought to make high fidelity criticisms. Sokal and Bricmont overextended their critique beyond the postmodernist’s poor understanding of science as a final vocabulary instead of a process and into their actual philosophies and the vacuity of the political positions taken by most of them after denouncing the ontologies of the politics taken by other French radicals (like those in the CPF). They didn’t take the philological and hermeneutical approach for their critique, and that would have been the only good way of studying Continental philosophy, as you would not be charged with the etymological fallacy no matter what in this strand of philosophy. Chomsky could’ve elaborated on post-structuralists (beyond the specific female academic he spoke with) but he stuck with Sokal/Bricmont and Sokal and Bricmont stuck to Badiou’s, Lacan’s, and Latour’s poor showing and the mysterious chaos of Deleuze and Guattari (which would’ve been better understood if one took the tack of a philologist). I can’t quite see Peterson’s point aside from lumping two ways of thinking, one explicitly anti-systematic and another explicitly systematic based on a cursory look of the overlapping social circles of political activists and academics.

[@senecanzallanute4066]

I am fluent in French, technical and not, and I can assure you that postmodern writings are utter hogwash. I also doubt that Chomsky, a linguist, needed to wait for English translations of a French text.

[@thenowchurch6419]

That helped clarify things for me. Thank you.

[@thenowchurch6419]

@@senecanzallanute4066 Spoken like a true ideologue!

[@senecanzallanute4066]

@@thenowchurch6419 as if you knew anything about me.

[@thenowchurch6419]

@@senecanzallanute4066 I am allowed to make a joke though. Right?