What Postmodernism Got Right & How It Fails | Jordan B Peterson

[@cr35t23]

I love watching him in his element. He always start calm, slow, soft spoken and as he goes in, you see the crescendo and and almost fortissimo , definitely forte.

[@RogerTheil]

cr35t23 you're right, he's got got great dynamic range and control. He'd make a very expressive musician.

[@zeddeka]

You can see quite easily how he got so burnt out

[@chrischoiniere1406]

I lost focus for like 2 seconds and had to back track 2 minutes. I cant imagine having to take this all in live!

[@onyxstone4618]

Bruh, I feel your pain

[@sgt7]

So true. If I decide to identify as a lion, and go live with them, I'll become food quite quickly. Reality punishes stupidity.

[@Greyfoxdbz18]

JP is looking younger. I'm glad he looks well.

[@henric2493]

Greyfoxdbz18 I believe this was a couple months back

[@majorbubbie2626]

Greyfoxdbz18 yeah looking at him now this fight is taking a toll on him

[@bebop504]

He just grew a beard and it makes him look older.

[@majorbubbie2626]

The hair and beard a bit but the dark lines under his eyes is what ive noticed

[@Cemtexify]

Cutting out gluten and soy probably helps too

[@danieljonespt2876]

I’m gonna have to watch that a couple more times.

[@LouSaydus]

Daniel JonesPT obtain a viable predictive model that usually improves the chance of the thing you want to happen of actually happening. Improve that model based on the outcome of it's prediction. Keep doing this and your model will get really good. Don't listen to post modernists because they believe that the model doesn't matter in the first place which is obviously not a productive thing to assume.

[@peterh.6010]

This is brilliant. This 5 minutes has condensed more philosophical insight than all the hours I spent earning a minor in Philosophy. He is like a modern-day Kant.

[@Jeremydstyles]

It comes from decades of study

[@Jeff-z3l3q]

More like Kant-do to me...

[@ash2357577]

2:44 Thomists have been saying something like this for centuries, and Aristotelians for longer, with the distinction between potency and act. Matter can take on many forms potentially, but actually is limited to one at a time.

[@vlogafter3054]

The knowledge this man commands, and being able to convey it so flawlessly is something inspiring

[@TheHomeless87]

Just because you have a set of infinite viable answers doesn't mean that any answer goes. If you ask for an even number you can answer withing any item in the infinite set of the even numbers, but you can't answer with 3.

[@propertyofj]

What? 3 is not a solution lol. He's talking about the set of all solutions and how all the elements in a solution set cannot be treated equally.

[@Kikuye]

You can answer with three. You'd just be wrong (and incur some sort of consequence) unless the person asking you for an even number, in their world view somehow also decides upon the words "even number" to somehow include three.

[@Triumvirate888]

What he describes is seen in everything from the Quality Control center of any factory, to the phrase "The wages of sin is death" from the Bible. Deviating from a set of working, viable parameters results in being taken out of the production line. The more you deviate, the bigger the flaws, and the more quickly the defects are discovered and you are removed from the process.

[@Rawdiswar]

Triumvirate888 Spoken like a true Instrumentation engineer perhaps?

[@Psychoma99]

This really sounds like natural selection taking place live

[@StickyTank]

Great analysis :D gonna have to show this some folks close to the edge of identity politics :P

[@PsychicAlchemy]

It could be likened to quantum wave states. Yes, every particle is part of a singular field that permeates the universe, and its position has the potential to be infinite. However, the probability of it being in a specific area is very, very high.

[@FindingTheNarrative]

Unbelievable how vibrant Peterson is here. I pray he can return to his own self soon enough.

[@jeremiahjohnson4896]

Good lord I am so glad I can rewind this to catch the stuff I missed. That was literally 6 mins of brilliant word vomit with no breathing at all!!!

[@lostat400]

Jacques Derrida and Micheal Foucault, are two french public intellectuals who are both at or near the head of what you might describe as the postmodernist intellectual revolution are extraordinary intellectually capable. That doesn't mean they are correct by any stretch of the imagination but it certainly means that they are able to put together an argument that is difficult to disentangle. So we will start with what i think is the most powerful central claim of postmodernism; a claim which i think is actually correct and which has bedeviled many other fields; including, surprisingly enough , artificial intelligence. The claim is something like "there is infinite number of ways to interpret any finite set of phenomena". And that actually happens to be true, it is part of the reason why it has been so difficult for human beings to develop Artificial intelligence, and for them to develop machines that can operate in a real world environment, because it turns out that the world is so complex that perceiving it appears virtually impossible technically speaking. .. Perception isn't possible without situating the mind in a body has a certain set of constraints. We also devote a huge amount of our neurological landscape to sensory processing; so that when we look at the world it can manifest itself in the self evident way that it appears to you. But that doesn't mean that it is a simple problem it is a very complicated problem and the postmodernists were technically correct. There is a near infinite number of ways to perceive and interpret a finite number of phenomena. Now the thing that is interesting about that claim apart from the fact that it happens to be technically true is that you can use it to mount an assault on any interpretation of anything whatsoever because there is a tremendous variability in the number of interpretations you could bring to bear on a situation, Then you can instantly jump to the conclusion or expound the proposition that none of those interpretation should be privileged above all others. Now that is actually wrong and this is why postmodernism is correct in its central assumption but incorrect in its secondary assumption. The reason it is wrong is because although there is a very large number of potential interpretations that does not mean that there is an equally large number of viable interpretations of the world. Well you might say what constitutes a constraint on a viable interpretation and i would say there are a number of them and i think you have to understand this in living creatures viewing and interpreting the world, and also within a broader evolutionary context. The way that evolution solves the problem of the infinite number of interpretations is by killing every single thing that interprets things badly enough to die. This is actually one of the most powerful arguments for the accuracy of the evolutionary theory.

[@josephjohnson8835]

I feel like I'm missing the point, but viable doesn't mean true right? ie there are a limited number of beliefs about the world that will help you survive, but the fact that they help you survive says nothing about their truth value, only that it informs a way to act which happens to increase your survival chances.. eg perhaps believing we have free will means we live in a way that increases our sociability and thus survival chances ( I'm simplifying the link significantly..) but this doesn't mean that it is actually the case right?

[@Pipsalophodon]

I think the point he is making from the Darwinian perspective, is that we adapt ourselves to the world and so the way we are reflects reality; and if we hold beliefs (that we embody and act out) which are not aligned with reality/our nature then things will go badly. He speaks elsewhere about the inviability of lying as a mode of being, because you’re trying to warp the fabric of reality which we can’t do because we are constained to it in order to survive.

[@רועיפלדמן-ר3ג]

I was looking for a comment about this. Yes, I think you're absolutely correct in your analysis. I wish we had his response to this question. The best I could find is his case that a given solution to a problem can't make the problem worst, therefore if it does, it's false. That's his answer for nihilists as well.

[@Astroponicist]

Jordan B Peterson is More of a practical mechanical thinker than normally found in his profession which due to the long held epistemological fallacious prohibition against practical thinking in academia, predicated on spurious ethical grounds; academic scholars such as medical doctors, lawyers, architects, & other professions, which require a PHD, are restricted to a narrow approach to all problems.

[@Hughdoggy]

Would have been interesting to see a debate between Peterson and Derrida or Foucalt like the debate between Chomsky and Foucalt

[@mazimadu]

"Evolution solves the problem by *killing everything that needs to die* " I feel like making a making a YTP video of this.

[@user-uw3fi2zg4t]

There is something which it is not addressed. Natural selection favours those who can stand for themselves and have offspring but also those (members or aspects) that helps the group even with no descendance. Also nature selects those traits that make life harder for the individual but improve the outcome of selection itself like in the case of those colorful birds that become easy prey but receive more attention from females.

[@trojanmom8240]

Does anyone have the link to this this event? It doesn’t show when I search....you know....KZbin!

[@ancalagonyt]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nGbVhoOXqdOLiac If you don't want to rewatch what's in this clip, skip ahead to the 12 minute mark.

[@kennethdobbs1803]

What is the piano piece that starts at 6:21? I am dying to know.

[@jorpish]

Yeees, give me that song. I heard it in his bible series the first time. If you would ever happen to find out, please remember this little soul, the soul of me from sweden, who would be eternally grateful! :)

[@kennethdobbs1803]

Osquar Osq ditto, I am dying to know and no one will tell me!

[@legomaestro2079]

It's a totally understandeable thought to come across though, right? Because of existence and how infinite it is you assume there's infinite possibilities and realities which is true in a sense, but is it viable? Honestly having a small group things that are viable or just more likely to be possible is relaxing. I've always driven myself crazy thinking I could be absolutely anything that I want, but always ended up feeling guilty or pressured because I wasn't doing that. It's better to know that there is a small set of things that are possible that you can orient yourself to, and then work on.

[@Sportinglogic]

If you would like a more clearer exposition what Post-Modernism is, please see my exposition at the bottom with a link to it. Post-Modernism is, amongst others an affirming of a greater future of a “will of the people, represented through accountable elected leaders that operates with values of consultation and transparency”. It posits nothing - makes no claims, it merely problematises modernist assumptions of reality, as modernism posits it. Most commentators do not grasp it because P-M is approached very much how an English-speaker would read, for example French as if it is English and then flee, screaming French is meaningless, not a language at all. In other words, modernism is a paradigm qualitatively different from Post-Modernism to be approached as a distinctly different paradigm. One thus first have to grasp the features of modernism before even attempting to talk about Post-Modernism. Post-Modernism defies definition, yet many people, invoke a definition of Post-Modernism. Please read the segments, which are in the process of completion from the bottom to the top, chronologically: vm.tiktok.com/ZMenfmFkY/

[@withercrux]

1.2k likes, 7 dislikes. While this is only one video, I believe this is indicative of the public's true view on Jordan Peterson, postmodernism, etc.. Peterson is helping to bring the world back to reality. *As of 4/7/2018

[@NoahSteckley]

I'd really like to see him zoom out and give people, who think they know postmodernism and block him out, a full rundown of what the postmodern structure actually believes, and what statements it produces. For instance, someone possessed by postmodernism can't shut up about the word "culture," but I don't think he mentions culture once . He is addressing the main axioms without contextualizing them, and I understand why he's doing that but it only works for people who are trying to understand him. For people that are NOT trying to understand him they just think he's wrong, oversimplifying, and biased. His argument appears (sound, but) totally ungrounded to what postmodernists think, who learn it from anthropology, social psychology and the lot.

[@eduardohope4909]

Hmm... I think you mean to say that Peterson's argument here becomes reductionistic. I think that would be the postmodernist assessment of what Peterson says here. At what point does what Peterson say become reductionistic, one might ask? When he begins to say that evolution-- an otherwise *biological* mechanism for ensuring the survival and propagation of plant and animal species-- is how the infinite-number-of-interpretations problem actually resolves itself in the real world. As a statement of biological necessity, what Peterson says is on point-- that's why if there ever existed humans with exoskeletons and more than two arms, two legs, and two heads, they no longer exist. Same goes for dogs and wolves and cats and tigers; their dire wolf and sabre-tooth ancestors could not go on given the need to adapt to the way this world is. As a statement of cultural expression, what Peterson says only makes sense in terms of restricting what human beings think, say, do, and organize ourselves according to an interpretation of what biological processes *mean* to people either stuck with that interpretation OR who don't like other people's choices and want to control cultural expression.

[@eduardohope4909]

This is a very good video because it shows the biological basis (bias?) of the critique of Postmodernism and how it becomes reductionistic about culture and civilization. Put differently, it's all well and good to say that nature allows all sorts of creatures to emerge from the primordial ooze that, by the by, get taken off the evolutionary pipeline because they suffer too much and die too easily (e.g., sabre-toothed tigers and dire wolves, while scary-looking, couldn't possibly "sink their teeth" into a proper meal once the very large animals disappeared, whereas Bengal tigers and grey wolves have made the natural-selection cut). BUT it's an entirely different ball of wax to say that the exact same process of natural selection operates in human culture and civilization. FOR EXAMPLE: One could say, "Hey, stop celebrating Christmas on December 25; that makes absolutely no historical sense because the Jews use a lunar calendar and December 25 is a solar-calendar imposition of the Roman calendar and a taking over the Roman celebration of the god Saturn." All of which is a technically sound criticism, *but what does nature have to do with it?* That is what is meant by saying that this or that social/cultural/political structure is a *social construction*-- WE human beings set up our culture and civilization not in terms of the facts of biological necessity or even of specific circumstance, situation, and/or event; we humans *set up our culture and civilization on the interpretation of those facts that suit whatever the dominant thing is* at the moment. As a philosophy instructor, I love to use skits to illustrate this point. Imagine a skit about how Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire: the emperor Constantine is sitting on his throne talking to a gathering of Christian leaders, "Alright, alright, alright, you Christian elders, I don't know how it happened but your cross thingy helped me win the day at Milvian Bridge, but for the life of me I don't understand your holiday calendar. This Semitic lunar calendar thing is jacking up my Roman sense of propriety. As 'pontifex maximus', I need to get a handle on this so I don't make a fool of myself when celebrating. So, let's put together a committee of elders to meet up in Nicaea and hash it all out until you come up with a neat apostolic creed or whatever that I can wrap my head around. And put some wine in there; bread by itself is too dry, and fish is just stinky." Can you imagine someone saying, "But sir, the curly-headed Semitic fellow we remember when we meet in church was most likely a very gentle, spiritual, charismatic, old-time-religion-preaching bastard child that simply was too much of an inconvenience for the Jewish elders who took advantage of Roman power to get rid of him. That's why we remember him like we do; he was fightin' the power, fightin' the Man-- but with love!" If this were a skit or a one-act play, at this point Michel Foucault walks onto the stage to say, agitatedly, "Qu'est-ce que je t'avais dit?! Qu'est-ce que je t'avais dit?!" and walks off, exasperatedly, while Constantine and the religious elders look at him confounded by the interruption, look at the audience (breaking the 'fourth wall') and shrug. The emperor Constantine then says, "Well, I was about to say that I didn't understand a word you just said-- nor of what that bald-headed fellow said, for that matter. And I'm getting bored." At which point Ireneus or Eusebius or whoever was there says, "Hey, sir, don't worry about it; we got you. Hey, Eusebius, we could put together an explanatory pamphlet, too, right? Yeah, we'll put together something you can read so you understand the whole thing." At the end of the skit, Jacques Derrida comes onto the stage to close with a concluding reflection: "Friends, notice that the pamphlet referenced here is comprised of 66 books, give or take an Apocrypha, all written in different styles, for different purposes, at different times. It really is a compilation of half classical Hebrew sagas and poetry, and half Koiné Greek short stories, newspaper-advice-column-style letters, and a symbolic riff on the End of Days. Et voilà, quite by accident, a minor political-religious disturbance in the sandy hills of the Mediterranean Levant gets written up into a world-historical manifesto about how people should live...which is an illustration of a suggestion I offer in my 1966 Johns Hopkins University conference speech, 'Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences'. Fin." When Jordan Peterson says that the failure of Postmodernism is not accounting for how nature selects winners and losers so that not all interpretations are equal, he is *reducing culture to biology.* Certainly there are things we do culturally that do not stand the test of time-- even the Roman Catholic Church has abandoned what little Latin was being spoken in its celebration of the Mass, and it didn't happen because of suffering or death; it happened because Pope John XXIII called for a "Second Vatican Council" (the First Vatican Council had been almost 100 years earlier) to address how what the Church did was relevant to ordinary people's lives. Long story short, Latin was eliminated from the celebration of the Mass (among other shifts and changes). No more, "In domine Patri,..." etc., etc. Many people loved it and many people hated it. Like, hate. No suffering. No death. No biological, natural-selection process. Will those changes last-- will the Roman Catholic Church someday bring back Latin? Maybe, maybe not. Can nature bring back the sabre-toothed tiger and the dire wolf? Not likely; if it did, we would learn something new about nature that we do not know right now-- that Jurassic Park is possible IRL! *Nature and culture are not the same thing.* *Postmodernism is a way of understanding culture* and the very human features and contours of what ends up happening so that we end up living in the ways we do, and how we need to learn to think differently about life, how we organize ourselves, and not take for granted our own agency-- as opposed to an older attitude that simply accepted whatever is already in place (the 'grands récits' or great narratives, in the postmodern formulation). My particular view is that there is large-P Postmodernism (an academic fashion now out of style) and small-p postmodernism, a transitional moment or phase between the old Modernist attitude that assumed life would keep developing some kind of way thanks to ever greater knowledge, know-how, conscience (an attitude weakened by WW1, shattered by WW2 and the 'Cold War') and some new attitude that is yet to gel but that, provisionally, we call the Postmodernist idea (that culture is not as dependable as biology and we must become responsible for it and not take for granted why the status quo is the status quo, how the status quo is maintained, and if we like it, why we like it, and if we don't like it, how it could be shifted and why it often doesn't shift).

[@bitsanbobs101]

Where is this? What's the event please?

[@CaptCutler]

5:00 Invasion of privacy!!!

[@basehead617]

lol i was thinking that

[@SteveScapesYT]

Ohh... so here is the reasoning that lead to me having to sit through 2 hours of Sam and Jordan debating what truth is. I prefer the 6 min version.

[@GepardenK]

+Richard Kerckhove You obviously don't know Sam, he is very much against the idea that multiple interpretations are equally valid. He has spoken out about this A LOT, particularly in terms of morality.

[@jarrodyuki7081]

1. get all the surface pokemon and underground pokemon 2. get all the legendary pokemon and small pokemon............. 3. honey trees mr backlots mansion and the great marsh.

[@LoffysDomain]

They claim that nothing is certain, but that is certain ☺

[@jacksonofalltrades2665]

Loffy certainly nothing can be certain

[@majorbubbie2626]

As i always say the only certain thing in life is uncertainty

[@thecarlitosshow7687]

Deepak Chopra claims this LOL in other words he’s never wrong according to his thinking: I am certain that I’m uncertain

[@SS-nd5ko]

Mind = Blown

[@H0bbz-dev]

where was this?

[@GodricThe]

I just saw full version. Very elegant and epic. Apslolutlly beautiful to listen

[@subscribetomefornoreason9363]

Also: Post modernist: there are an infinite number of ways to interpret something. Like that Apple which seems to floating above my head. *apple falls on head* Scientist: Look there. Now we see that the seemingly floating Apple actually wasn’t floating and it struck your head. This is science *puts on shades* we go from an infinite number of interpretations and narrow them down through observation. Post modernist: Well...yes... but..... *many hours later* Fine! But guess what?! What does falling even mean? You interpret falling as something that drops but I interpret it differently. We’re both right I guess. To me, the Apple didn’t fall. *scientist gets mad and builds a leaning tower x50 and drops 1000 apples from the top floor. The apples fall and crack the post modernists skull* Scientist: Now what dumbo? Didn’t they fall then? Where’s your interpretation now?!

[@tenebrafer]

Except any physicist in accord with Einstein would know that the postmodernist sped to the apple. The apple didn't fall, it merely waited for the Earth (presumably) to hit it.

[@ProudVet-Russ]

@@tenebrafer lol, that would be true only if you removed the inertia of the apple relative to the planet itself and the planet happened to be moving in the direction of the apple. also youd have to assume that the rotation of the planet came to a screeching halt without launching the crust and everything on it out into space otherwise that apples going to miss you by a dozen miles or so by the time it makes its way down from the tower given the earths rotational speed. what you were actually looking for in this example was an explanation of gravitational forces and why the apple didnt fall but instead was attracted and also applied attractive force to the planet and its target individual as they mutually pulled themselves towards one another. either way, we can prolly laugh off such a theory if your trying to apply it to a real world situation as an explanation for an observation.

[@JohnDoe-jw7cj]

​@@ProudVet-RussIf you knew anything about relativity, you would know that there is no force between the apple and the Earth

[@dirhido9665]

How the fuck does he stay so calm sitting alone on that massive couch on the stage with just a bunch of people staring at him, i would freak the fuck out and definetely wouldn't be able to put my thoughts together like he does with such pressure.. i cannot comprehend how he does it lol

[@jarrodyuki7081]

coffee and hashbrown and donuts!!!!!!!!!!!!! tea with red bean.

[@djcointelpro8470]

*misreads derrida once*

[@sigmantvtwitch1474]

2:42 sounds like chess, infinite moves, some are better than others, many times there's a best move.

[@dfn808]

The 'infinite number of potential interpretations of the world' was not a new concept of the Postmodernists. It is a mere reworking of the story of the blind men and an elephant. Also, Dr Peterson may be lending way too credence to the intellectual prowess of French philosophers, Camille Paglia has already stated they were second-rate at best of the talent available. They have, however, been extraordinarily successful, though this is perhaps less difficult than it seems when their audience was and is (for the most part), made up of low IQ Humanities and Social Sciences students.

[@GepardenK]

It doesn't matter if PM invented 'infinite interpretations', what matter is that it is a core assumption of a very popular philosophy.

[@thomasneuman2273]

Can I issue a correction? Made it difficult for states and other similar authority filtering cults to create ai. Intuitively many individuals outside of the eye that watches to take for itself have created extremely sophisticated Intelligences

[@iamnotafunnyguy1387]

But there are people who can put 100 visuals and algorithms in one minds and see the world as a machine.

[@beat-yo9wh]

Murphys law😢

[@pinegulf]

He is too SmartBand and I am too drunk. Friday. I try to clean up tomorrow.

[@RogerTheil]

pinegulf thank you

[@failthesystemcollab7247]

4:11 your interpretation may be in your own-self interest and cling to some scientific model of interpretation like evolutionary theory, but that doesn't mean what is happening in the world with people can be reduced to just that. It is your own mind that is reduced and similar to opting for an ignorance that's self-comforting. Capitalism also re-inforces this as it doesn't deliver the idea of dealing with real people but what can you get from people. It overwrites an axiom to human relations and perception.

[@711Rod]

I agree with almost everything, but there are levels of postmodernism within postmodernism. Not everything is always black and white

[@scaredwilly329]

Up vote down vote ratio is ridiculous lol...professor Peterson is the man😎

[@jarrodyuki7081]

coffee and hasborwn and dontus !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!tea with red bean.

[@Alejuaco]

Funny... Google put an ad here (before the video) about why feminism and gender diversity is the future

[@jarrodyuki7081]

safety comes first!!!!!! no child porn no sex with minors no illegal drugs and no illegal firearms in any nation. or violence against women and children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@userjames2009]

Don't take notes during the lecture. Take them after.

[@jarrodyuki7081]

no child porn no sex with minors no illegal drugs and no illegal firearms in any nation or violence against women or children never challenge police or government...

[@neogeo1670]

this man reminds me of dr house

[@TheQuail07]

He looks like a doll sitting on that big blue loveseat

[@jgonz1325]

Karla R lol you think he’s attractive? He really is though

[@jarrodyuki7081]

get all the surface and underground pokemon get all the legendary pokemon and small pokemon.................honey trees mr backlots mansion and the great marsh.

[@jarrodyuki7081]

9 accords with roommates adn 40 accords with mom............ onelien seuirity devices updates and onlien acccounts ot maintain.

[@jarrodyuki7081]

get all the surface and underground pokemon get all the legendary pokemon and small pokemon............... honey trees mr backlots mansion and the great marsh.

[@jarrodyuki7081]

get all the surface and underground pokemon get all the legendary pokemon and small pokemon ........ honey trees mr back lots mansion and the great marsh.

[@jarrodyuki7081]

get all the surface and underground pokemon get all the legendary pokemon and small pokemon.................... honey trees mr backlots mansion and the great marsh.

[@TheCherrytree123]

I think Peterson get right in a lot of things but under estimate creativity which comes from free spirit. the richness of the world..the modern tech. the AI. they are not come from hard work. but from something more deep inside.

[@jarrodyuki7081]

coffee and hashbrown and donuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@canteluna]

He's giving the post modernists too much credit. It's not that scientists or artists ever believed there was only one way of understanding or interpreting phenomena. Post modernism and the Marxist class analysis are probably the biggest factors in the decline of our civilization at the moment. It's reparable but this evil needs to be denounced and put in the dustbin of history where it belongs.

[@jarrodyuki7081]

get all the surface adn underground pokemon get all the legandary pokemon and small pokemon............. honey trees my backlots and mansions adn the great marsh

[@ilya4759]

Peterson is missing the fact that some postmodernists also believe in pragmatism. Postmodernism combined with pragmatism is good IMO 🤔. I welcome a counter argument.

[@huanquatro]

Yay!

[@hahahahahohohoho5085]

postlobsterism

[@lethal_talon]

Whats the name of the song at the end?

[@jarrodyuki7081]

i need a circumcision next month my foreskin is bothering me!!!!!!!!!!!

[@jarrodyuki7081]

get all the sruface adn udnergordun pokemon get all the lengadary pokemon and small pokemon................ honey trees mr backlots mansion and the great marsh.

[@jarrodyuki7081]

the cpenhagen interpration the universe woudlnt exist in the way you think witohut your observation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@HypeBeast764]

Wait till everyone in the comments realizes the matrix was heavily inspired by post modernist philosopher Jean baudrillard and was directed by a trans woman 🤣

[@junevandermark952]

Postmodernism? What a silly word.

[@maynardfrench5418]

There is no infinite numbers of interpretations.Post Modernism does not claim that.There are as many interpretations as there are humans.

[@GepardenK]

Yes but why are there as many interpretations as there are humans? Because there is an infinite amount of potential interpretations to draw from.

[@guilhermeal2170]

5:00 WTF is the camera guy doing ? hahahaha

[@Jeff-z3l3q]

Ho hum...

[@jarrodyuki7081]

ill need a circumcision next month!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@juanpablojp4257]

Outro?

[@federicocornetto8154]

Jordan, man, you just are HOT.. I haven't got much more to say

[@jarrodyuki7081]

get all the sruuface and underground pokemon get all the legendary pokemon and small pokemon...................... honey trees mr backlots mansion and the great marsh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@danieljones-tg9oe]

Has there ever been a communicator as articulate as Jordan, I would like to know.

[@subscribetomefornoreason9363]

I know a few, but they’re a probably a bit too controversial for most. Plus they were recently in a world wide scandal and banned entry to many countries (including Britain and Australia) because of the feminists. America didn’t give a damn though, so god bless America and free speech lol.

[@imhim94ivan]

Terence McKenna

[@cmojo68]

No wonder they're afraid of him...!

[@rprimeauableful]

And yet he's a climate change denier

[@halea41]

Verbal sophistry at its finest

[@rprimeauableful]

This is semantic strawmanning.

[@everettgeorge6125]

"3.5 billion years of evolution", if only that was true lol.

[@TheCherrytree123]

there are so many options if you want pointless life.

[@peterwinters-uc7ft]

Jordan is wrong. No post modernist, though he confuses poststructuralism.w post modernism, ever wrothe any text has infinite interpretations. Thats wrong. Look qt Stanley Fish. Worse, jordan cannot see that an interpretation of a text that is open and supple and perhaps infinite, which is a misreading, is an interpretation. Yep. To jordan, ponchos or Freud is subject to infinite interpretations which is not what any post modernist states. But it's an interpretation. X text is open to infinite interpretations is always, already an interpretation. Jordan is small minded. Post modernist thougt was best articulated by Lyotard. The death of metanarratives. Which if Jordan were smart would point out is a narrative. Derrida never said there were infinite interpretations. Simply that language is slippery. Relying on meyanarratives like the Bible is not intellectual. It's ideological. Why nobody challenges Jordan on this is odd. I'll do it tonight. He's possessed by his ideology. And the definition of ideology is thought and action that is antithetical to your community's best interests

[@jarrodyuki7081]

get all the surface and underground pokemon get all the legendary pokemon and small pokemon ................ honey trees mr backlots mansion and the great marsh.