What Postmodernism IS and REALLY ISN'T - Jordan Peterson analysis

[@jonatanbergli5344]

Thank you for exposing Peterson's tribalistic retoric without resorting to antagonism. The internet needs more people like you.

[@TheMediaInsider]

I think that’s the key, thanks for recognising: I love the debate and talking about ideas but have always steered clear on account of the aggro online! There’s definitely an alternative!

[@karinmaryturner]

Thank you • Today we have the "free to be ME" society.

[@Storm762x39]

The internet also needs more people like Jordan Peterson

[@harvestcanada]

He not exposing anybody, if he had a show down with Peterson's, then I would be impressed, the practice of philosophy can be controversial but does not have to be adveserial.

[@jeremyhennessee6604]

I've only recently discovered your channel and I must say : THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE sir. Sincerely. I admire your style. It's a.. non-ascerbic and fair deconstruction of Mr. Peterson's rabble-rousing near-fanaticism. I used to watch his videos before he blew up where he lectured on Jung and Mythology etc. but once he went viral it's almost as if he became motivated to turn all of his discourses into bizarre exercises in Polarization. Toxic hyper-politicizing everything is dangerous and doing far more long term harm to Society than anything else. I also found a certain hypocrisy in the fact he lectures on being "strong willed" yet had to get placed into a chemically induced COMA to overcome his benzo-addiction. Irony much.

[@scythermantis]

What is ironic is that Jordan Peterson almost never talks about Baudrillard, only about Foucault and Derrida, and he barely talks about *them* either, only his pantomime-villain constructed images of them, as he's barely even read them, he only gets his ideas from the 'simulation' or 'simulacra' provided by Stephen Hicks who in my opinion is an academic hack--so there's a great irony here isn't there.

[@dp6921]

It's in times like this, that I like to remind myself that free will is an illusion and nothing matters.

[@jackkraken3888]

Calm down Mr Nihilist.

[@nurifidei4056]

The whole philosophy of postmodernism can be summerized in the fact that Derrida defended the journalist Paul De Man for his work in the Belgium newspaper that was supporting the Nazi German war effort, since for postmodernists and deconstructionists specifically language can mean anything, therefor Paul De Man's works could meant entirely different thing of what they seemed to mean (of course this is bullshit, and if meaning was so distorted to this point, then no human agreement over anything could take place ever, and Civilization wouldn't be possible) What you missed at 11:40 is that under postmodern guise people are not just encouraged to follow their own micro interpretation, they are in fact encouraged to deny the possibility of truth itself, and reality for them is nothing more than an illusion pressed by the people in power or the majority of people, and that's why exactly we see nowadays people deny basic biological facts and basic human nature, just because their feelings are not in line with it, and for such instances biology is not meta narrative, it is real and truth exists not everything is just delusion pushed by some people for their interests, of course all these concepts are echoed academically for example we have Linda Hutcheon, who said something in this line, that reality is what the party wants it to be for its own good.

[@TheMediaInsider]

Some really eye-opening points here, thank you for taking the time to leave them! I'll also be sure to check out some of the academics you mentioned. I think you're absolutely right they probably are people that take the idea of post-modernism as Peterson presents it a bit too far, but I think he would agree that in this video he appears to must label everybody with this narrow view of structured society.

[@nurifidei4056]

@@TheMediaInsider it is my pleasure to be in such exchange sir, however i do believe in the postmodern premis that says that different groups often falsify reality and truth for their own needs, but as you have pointed out the loudest postmodern voices (the radicals) take this idea too far and use it as justification to deny the existence of objective reality itself, and i can safely say that I'm bit familiar with such subject since i presented a master thesis about the effects of postmodern narrative on readers, and through extensive readings to many sources like the book In Defense of Realism for Raymond Tallis i deduced that the far fetched postmodern and the post structuralists claims (radical ones) on language and meaning in the literary field, are somehow based only in half truths rather than objective analysis. And i totally agree with you on Peterston's take on postmodernism, because it seems that his criticism should only be pointed to radicals not moderate postmodernists.

[@CJ-vj7pm]

The conservative chuds employ postmodern chicanery more than the Left

[@dendrome2492]

I like the fact that 4hrs after the upload and ~500 views, there is an ongoing debate in the comment section with some critique and personal points of views and still not a single dislike (i use a tool for that), showing me that you are truly a remarkable teacher. Greetings from austria, keep up the good work!

[@binkey3374]

Actually, KZbin has made dislikes private. So, only the video creator can see how many dislikes they are getting.

[@ZelphTheWebmancer]

@@binkey3374 The original commenter said they have a tool for that, funnily enough I have it too. It shows the video has 2 dislikes currently. At the time of the comment is possible it had zero.

[@dendrome2492]

@@binkey3374 thats why i use this tool, its quite handy sometimes

[@ekaterinastaneva9922]

@@dendrome2492 is this for real? What's the tool?

[@TheMediaInsider]

Thank you! Part of the reason that I made this video was because I hated the more aggressive side of the debate which I was seen everywhere online, so really pleased that this video has bought such positive critique

[@ZelphTheWebmancer]

I remember seeing somewhere that neutrality and not being polarized often makes it difficult to you to relate with people that are polarized. Seeing the comment section having both JP fans and critics saying you were too harsh or too polite to him is funny because it kinda proves this. I just watched both your videos on postmodernism and I still have difficulty understanding it but I feel like I have a *slightly* better grasp about it than before. Thanks.

[@N2theR]

Really good video and a good debate. You did say that you didn’t want to make it a left v right discussion but focusing on Peterson and the media’s portrayal of him as far right does imbalance the conversation. What about Chomsky who also sees postmodernism as an instrument of power harnessed by academics and thought leaders to control the cultural narrative? That’s both a right and left voice offering similar critical analysis of postmodernism. I’d be interested on your take

[@iNTELLECT_419]

I was going to mention Chomsky as well. One of the things that seems to be glaringly missing is that he did not mention that he studied Derrida and Foucault who are the intellectuals that drove Postmodernism. In my opinion if you’re not studying their contributions to Postmodernism you’re not getting no where close to a full understanding of it.

[@oneoflokis]

Indeed! This guy isn't good at answering...

[@IWishUWereTacos]

I'm a total dunce with scholastics, but I have a curious brain so I've been enthralled with your channel lately. Thanks for making complex concepts more digestible for me!

[@TheMediaInsider]

My pleasure! If I can make the complex accessible then it's job done!

[@iamleoooo]

@@TheMediaInsider any book suggestion that i can read regarding post-modernism? Maybe latest book written by 21st century author?

[@ntodd4110]

@@iamleoooo Read "Authoritarianism and Pragmatism" by RIchard Rorty.

[@miguelrico6459]

I've been waiting for this video for a year now! As a masters soon to be P.H.D student in media studies (specializing in cinema and television) and aspiring teacher, I've always found your videos so very insightful and inspiring. Keep up the good work.

[@TheMediaInsider]

Thank you! I absolutely love teaching this subject, and if it's something you love discussing with curious young minds, then teaching is absolutely the way to go

[@korbendallas5318]

What I personally like about Peterson: He keeps me on my toes. You can never be sure whether he is profound or wrong at any given moment, so I have to keep attention and can't take anything for granted.

[@CJ-vj7pm]

He's a moron, don't give him anymore of your time

[@andywertzberger]

Oh, we don't really need Peterson to "plant the seeds of doubt and distrust in places like the soviet union". We've got history.

[@Liisa3139]

As a normal person (not an intellectual, that is) I have learned - through debates in the media and through written articles - that postmodernism is about deconstructiin and, indeed, postmodernists have deconstructed everything. This has lead to the mainstream idea that every opinion is as "right" and as valuable as any other opinion. Value judgments can't be put in order of validity or importance. This type of thinking has resulted in popular culture invading the culture pages of formerly "serious" newspapers. Graffiti is as important as art as any other form. Mainstream movies and tv-series are as important as literature; well actually, more important these days. The more consumers certain cultural products have, the more important they are considered. Materialism can't be wrong. Mass consumption proves by its numbers what is truly important. To think otherwise is elitism. Within the postmodernist way of thinking there can be no progress because nothing can be better than something else. Here postmodernism loses any chance to have a goal - and to offer a meaning to life. In postmodernism there is no future, just an eternal now and an eternal youth in peoples lives. Postmodernism promises that you can always begin a new life and become anything you want. Millions of people live by this principle - and a good portion of them suffer from anxiety, sleeping disorders, addictions etc without being able to grasp what is the core reason for so much negative effects. So, no wonder that we get to experience such political leaders as Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. Curiously we are in a way approaching the rule of the masses. This is what it looks like.

[@lilg9601]

just... no, lol

[@GRIFTYRODRIGUEZ]

bruh you fucked up almost everything you said here lmao. not sure you even watched the video tbh

[@6acre852]

@@lilg9601 could you elaborate please?

[@petarsaric2342]

Very good comment and I would agree with a big portion of it. In my own personal view postmodern deconstructionist tendencies are, more often than not, pushed by people who justify unsustainable behaviour by reducing every argument to a fluid state. However, the core of postmodernist thought does not necessarily promote this. Baudrillard himself would condemn most materialistic tendencies, claiming they are rooted in contemporary ideology which fails to see its own determinating fatality while hypocritically striking against dying metanaratives of the past. Take materialism and consumerism you mentioned for instance, in Symbolic exchange and death Baudrillard ridicules both the original marxist socialist and liberal capitalist tendencies claiming their falacies are all rooted in the same illusion of value which tries to reduce reality to quantitative materialist state while failing to encapsulate the idea of culture. Postmodernism can detect structures of power and dismantle them. But I ask you which structures are in power now? The ones dealing with old religions and patriotism, or contemporary religion which holds power to propagate unsustainable lifestyles, narcism, individualism and consumerism for profit. Both the former and the latter can be questioned, and Baudrillard roots the latter ones as the troubled circumstances of a lost reality generated in the technocratic void.

[@JohnSmith-to5ow]

Peterson once said on a rogan podcast years ago, that he found a way to monetize social justice warriors. That's the most insightful thing he's ever said.

[@HonestTherapist]

After all, social justice warriors found a way to monetize social justice. Just ask any white academic elite professor! Haha

[@tugwinthrop7424]

Great topic, but somewhat simplistic to categorize the pre modern era with religion as the grand narrative. I mean is that the only thread in Shakespeare? What is more interesting to me are the persistent themes that manifest themselves in the post modern era. Like the woman that fell off a cruise ship and drowned taking a selfie. Was the myth of Narcissus a religious grand narrative?

[@xandacab4285]

when peterson says “postmodernism,” what he generally means is “cultural bolshevism” (or as he likes to call it, “cultural marxism”). not gonna outright call him a nazi or anything, but i think it’s v telling that he essentially uses the same flattening technique fascists use to crudely lump all their undesirables into a single enemy. this technique is def not unique to fascism, but i do think it’s one of fascism’s defining characteristics, as any gains to be made by fascism generally come at the expense of liquidating the other

[@Ssalamanderr]

I've seen videos claiming that Peterson's entire view on postmodernism comes from a single book, "Understanding Postmodernism" by Stephen Hicks. The book is regarded as being very poorly researched, and had to be self-published. KZbinr CCK Philosophy has a couple good videos on it. Honestly I think you are being too kind to Peterson here. I realize you are trying to be diplomatic but outright lying to his audience is not a "clever argument."

[@marcuso5409]

The philosophical core of post modernism is somehow made out to be trivial but it's important because it is what is most appealing and what you see most manifest, just as some have already said with examples like drag queen story time for kids called out as form of child abuse based in objective biological and psychological reality. There are branches of post modern thought that are valuable and useful approaches, however it has mostly been merged with other contradictory ideas in the institutions into a system of belief, now being used as explanation for and justification for rejecting the body, biological reality, and denial/rejection of nature, the greater world beyond the individual. With gender ideology here the criticism is correct and it applies. People have been influenced to retreat into their own ideological shells and then to reinforce the walls by reassurance of their cult. It is held together by obsession with control and so control of information

[@peterdesmidt8742]

I respect Jordan Peterson when he talks about psychology, and I share his loathing of Soviet-style communism, but.....he's filled with rage, and he spends a lot of time fanning the flames of rage in others. That's reprehensible and dangerous. He claims that postmodernists reject a realist view of truth, a rejection that entails a loss of reality. Nothing is real. Everything is just as true as anything else. In a word: Nihilism. But in watching your first video on Baudrillard, he didn't seem to be advocating that. Instead, it looked like he was warning about the loss of truth and reality under an avalanche of copies. In effect, is he more like Xenophanes (We can make progress but we can never find the final truth) than Pyrrho (Every view is equally as good as any other) ?

[@stewartellinson8846]

Peterson seriously misrepresents postmodernist theory and his use of the term is akin to the use of "the frankfurt school" by the far right. Both Postmodern theorists and the Frankfurt school would be delighted that their comparatively minor and obscure theoretical perspectives are, according to right wing extremists, running the world. The reality is very different and, as you so righly point out, Peterson misrepresents postmodern theory in a very sinister way for his own ends. He is part of the right wing that seeks to prevent social change and demonise anyone who seeks it as "marxists" and, now, "postmodernists". He is creating fear and i am glad you have confronted his fear mongering. One of the criticisms of postmodernist theory in Sociology is that it does not advance any real explanations; it describes the world we live in but that's about it. As such, it's nothing to be frightened of; the world is postmodern whether we like it or not and all peterson's fearmongering does is create a fearful audience - which, i suppose - is what he wants as fear = clicks = money.

[@damirregoc8111]

JP is obsessed with that term. And he's using it in a wrong way, very often.

[@TheMediaInsider]

Yeah, that’s what prompted this video, I have no problem with the man personally, in fact I very much respect and admire his intellect, but I totally agree with you on that point

[@alanbarrow7447]

Postmodernism would simultaneously agree and disagree with you on the basis that there is no truth, only interpretation.

[@musicredsubaru]

I was going to comment in the previous video, but I decided not to because my observation wasn't quite relevant to the discussion, but, now that you have brought up Jordan Peterson's use of the word postmodern, as a label for leftist activists, and your understanding of the word, as meaning an academic observation, I feel more confident sharing this. I had a question while pursuing my master's degree about making postmodern arguments without giving the impression that I didn't believe in anything (because postmodernism shows a skepticism surrounding these narratives). My answer came from a book that said that a person can argue a postmodern idea, but that same person cannot occupy it in debates. Therefore, one cannot say, "I'm a postmodernist. All your arguments are subjective because truth is defined by every individual." That made much more sense to me, and my understanding of postmodernism went smoother after that. Jordan Peterson seems to be pigeonholing a group to occupy a postmodern idea. But people cannot occupy a postmodern idea in debates. Thanks for coming back to this topic.

[@isadoreladuca7532]

The essential problem with Peterson is that he doesn't critique capitalism itself.

[@MindTheHeart]

It is with postmodernism as it is with Islam. There are some good things with Islam and for some muslims Islam is basically about love and peace. However, if you dig down to the core of the matter you find that it is an evil, oppressive system. Peterson sees this so when he talks about the spirit of postmodernism he takes no prisoners. Still, he gives credit to the postmodernists for showing us things like what our brains perceives as reality, namely what matters in stead of simply matter.

[@rogi32]

Peterson does not have a clue what postmodernism is.

[@SisterMerrinyesNext]

Great video(s)-as usual! I like this quote: 'If modernism is beginning to question authority, then postmodernism is making fun of authority to its face.' (Giles Gough)

[@TheMediaInsider]

I really like that too, and it’s definitely far more in line with how I’ve always thought of the concept

[@ripwolfe]

JP once gave entertaining lecture hall speeches - there is no doubt he has a formidable academic mind. But as his cult of personality has grown, it seems to me that with the opportunities to address larger and larger audiences, he decided celebrity means more than academia.

[@TheMediaInsider]

Yeah I think that’s a very fair assessment, and almost a natural consequence of having such a large audience is to give them what they want, and I think in modern media that means controversy

[@caglabatur]

Exactly! I used to enjoy his online lectures 10 years ago as a psychology student ...

[@PFJung]

As a big Jordan Peterson fan, I really appreciate breakdown. Even if I agree with Peterson in the degree to which Postmodernism is a toxic ideology, people such as yourself putting a check on his rhetoric helps establish some useful intellectual guardrails in regards to how most people would approach this topic.

[@larymcfart4034]

To be fair. There is the theory of post modernism in a broad context. Then there is post modernism used in practice by the left, as a means to view how civilization ought to work by a species that evolved in Nature. I've listened to JP for over 5 years now; and I've only really felt in the past two years that I really understand his arguements. This guy is only comparing the how we could viee the world vs. what it sounds like jordan peterson is viewing the Post modernist theory in conception, not in practice. If you look at humans as evolved animals vs benign ascended beings, then you see how we can look at something in an empathetic and good way, yet in practice it masks the horrors of our actions in the good intentions of the benign realisation of our ideology.

[@StopFear]

@@larymcfart4034 can you give some examples of what you claim in your second paragraph

[@larymcfart4034]

@@StopFear I think the best place to get an Idea of this, for me, was going to historical art museums. Where on one side of the building you have cave depictions where man and animal are all living in nature with no special glamour towards man or nature, through the modern art of today, where its all depictions of mans abstract emotional perspective with almost no recolection to nature beyond a pretty backdrop. The furthur we isolate ourselves into walled villages and large cities the more we depict the spirits and values of nature, like animism, with the power we hold as represented through the holy trinity ( In resmblance to feudal king religious heads, like the pope, and the spirit of what we are as a culture. The basic idea is that we've come to forget where we evolved from and we subconciously view ourselves in high reguards in comparison to all of life on Earth. Where we believe because we are human we can solve anything, like a god... If we would just become beholdent of these views, etc we would be able to create utopia or heaven. But we forgot that we are mortal animals whom evolved to survive in a niche within nature at large for 140,000 years. Then within the last about 10k years we started developing villages and deveolping into deep civilizations around 3k years ago. What do you think? I can give more but thats where I really started at.

[@stewartellinson8846]

Perhaps worth saying that postmodernism isn't an ideology. It's a sociological theory; in fact many sociologists argue that it's not even a theory but just a description of what is happening as it offers no solutions. As such, it's not something to believe in, it just "is". there aren't gangs of roving postmodernists out there, no-one is attempting a postmodern revolution and we won't have postmodern government any time soon (although, I'd maybe suggest the UK does as we seem to have abandoned experts and economic logic, but hey, i'm just describing...). A postmodern world is nothing to be scared of and postmodern theorists only really describe the changes that are occuring. If people want to roll back those changes, we need to unpick a century of technological progress. We need to roll back the internet, cable, satellite and other TV forms and aim for a print media world with small ranges of distribution. no-one will do that, least of all dr Peterson, as his KZbin revenue would dry up.

[@j2248]

I am a Peterson fan and I agree with some of points you have made and I believe you have made them in good faith. However, I would argue that the biggest gripe Peterson (and others such as Chomsky) have with postmodernism as a philosophy is that while it seeks to deconstruct established narratives about the world, it does not replace them with anything meaningful. And that is his main argument: people need meaning in their lives, and the narratives that have provided people with meaning for centuries are the ones which the postmodern perspective seeks to deconstruct. He attributes (correlationally) a lot modern psychological problems we see in the western world with this absence of meaning.

[@TheMediaInsider]

That makes a lot of sense, and I think I agree with it! The problem is we’re stuck in a Catch-22 situation where people are understandably upset and disenfranchised with the grant narratives on offer, but don’t necessarily have the direction or clarity they need when they look for individual interpretations. Although I’m not religious myself, I almost envy the simplicity of only having religion on the menu back in the old days!

[@ekaterinastaneva9922]

Spot on. The issue is that he then proceeds to claim that what this void of meaningless is filled up with is marxism. Which of course absolutely removed from reality, how many actual marxists do you know? Hardly any I bet! Furthermore he offers the alternative - if the void is filled with marxism and hence why people suffer, we should go back to religion and tranditional conservative values. And it is ok to be a conservative and religious, but a) he never said he is one, instead exist in the mercy waters of pseudo centristm (which in a way is very post modernist isn't it 🙂) b) created a false narrative of continuation of the cold war, which freaks people out and leads to radicalism in the face of some monsterous, non existing maxist threats and c) has cherry picked definitions and tweaked them a bit, so now people live in an academic uncertainty of what the true definition of these phenomenons is, for example what this very video talks about ( which is also quite post modernist, don't you think) . The comment turned too long sorry, but to sum up what I wanted to say - he says there is spiritual and ideological void because people are not conservative any more, and claims the void is full of marxist fueld mental disorders, mixing this up with cherry picked and obscured definitions. This confuses the f...k out of people and ultimately leads to panicy behaviour. And panic inevitably leads to obsession and aggression somewhere down the line.

[@johnnysalter7072]

Maybe, but Peterson label everyone he disagree with is Post Modernism/Marxist. He's really just an educated right wing ideologue.

[@TorianTammas]

@j2248 - A lack of knowledge about history and a fantasy about the past is what Peterson feeds to the unknowing.

[@TorianTammas]

​@@ekaterinastaneva9922I agree with you, but the void is a strawmen made up by Peterson. In 250.000 years of human existance change was the norm and a plurality of different ideas and movements. The monolithic dead Peterson fantasy never exusted.

[@mdhj67]

Post-modernism is a handy label for anything we don't like.

[@agnivaray7476]

I'm so glad that voices of reason are still there. Voices that evaluate the situation through understanding of truth, while trying to be bias-free. Mostly, we've become so used to passion-driven narrative even if they're flawed in understanding. Thank you for what you're doing, mate!

[@adamh3765]

Whose truth?

[@jjohns4170]

Thanks for explaining post modernism. Before I only heard Peterson’s point of view of it. You explained the topic extremely well. Would be interesting to see Peterson watch this video

[@TheMediaInsider]

My pleasure! I hope I've not come across as too against the man himself, more just his inflammatory presentation of his ideas

[@jinccha8234]

@@TheMediaInsider Honestly, it was refreshing to hear an actual person with a film media background talk about it. Thank you so much!

[@taofallenstar6419]

@@TheMediaInsider I think JBP's representation of these ideas is inflammatory because he sees the great evil that these ideas lead to and you just haven't seen that perspective yet. Just like how when he blew up for refusing to obey the compelled speech doctrine of the SJWs and bill C-16, many people CHEERED for him because they saw the danger that he was standing up to while others simply saw his as being a grumpy old asshoel because they did NOT see the danger in what he was pushing back against. My guess is that you do not yet see the great danger inherent in postomdern thought and how it manifests in society because you are still focused on the academic definitions of pomo and not the 3rd wave pomo psychological and ideological subversion and demoralization that pomo has inspired. It's postmodern reletavism weaponized in service to neo-Marxism. It's NOT academic pomo or academic Marxism. It's the fruits that have been born from those trees of thought.

[@gamdanyunizar7849]

debate when?

[@sixmillionsilencedaccounts3517]

Watch Chomsky's take. It's very negative too.

[@AdoraVivos]

I have never understood why anyone would think that postmodernism is Marxism in disguise. That's such an oxymoron, given Lyotard's definition of postmodernism, described as "incredulity towards metanarratives". And what was Marxism if not one of the greatest metanarratives of the last century?

[@taofallenstar6419]

You speak as tho nobody can hold internal contradictions in their belief system and yet that is EXACTLY what people do. We're in 3rd wave postmodernism and neo-Marxism so the modern culture war is not about what Marx and the early pomo writers said, it's about how those ideas have evolved and manifested in modern society. The people who think in strictly originalist academic terms will never understand the context that more abstract thinkers like JBP are speaking in. Woke Social jUstice is basically an unholy union of postmodernism and neo-Marxism, it's comprised of major influences from both.

[@davidpo5517]

The answer lies in human psychology. Most people like having a grand narrative they can fall back on. Marxism requires there already be "incredulity towards meta narratives" in order for its systems to have the space to be implemented. If enough people are overly skeptical of the established systems, then there's nothing stopping genuine communists from inserting their own systems. And let's be real, most of the general population don't really understand what postmodernism actually is (isn't that why we're here watching this video). So they become understandably skeptical of institutions here in the West, but not to the same degree as actual postmodernists. They might even confuse themselves with actual postmodernists; they might call themselves postmodernists. Superficially, they kind of are. So when communism comes along and offers shiny new alternatives to the system with brand new ideas, and a brand new grand narrative, most people aren't going to stop and think, "No, I'm skeptical of all grand narratives." They're going to think, "That sounds pretty nice, and what we have now isn't working, so why not give it a shot!" Then you have a population that won't fight for its own institutions, and will cheer its destruction. Remember, most people actually like having a grand narrative, even if they're skeptical of them.

[@stewartellinson8846]

@@taofallenstar6419 that's word salad

[@taofallenstar6419]

@@stewartellinson8846 I'm not responsible for your lack of comprehension. Perhaps if you quoted me and asked me a question about something I said I could clear it up for you so that you do understand and can have a conversation about it.

[@stewartellinson8846]

@@taofallenstar6419 well, for a start you seem to have no conception that Marxism and Postmodernism are - more or less - mutually exclusive. Go and READ some actual postmodernist work before posting garbage. Of the four key postmodernist theorists - Lyotard, Derrida, Bourdieu and Baudrillard - only the latter was alive when KZbin began and he never posted a video. You will find their ideas in BOOKS not on videos.

[@kenward9449]

Jordan is one giant appeal to emotion.

[@rvheem7702]

I actually subscribed to you because of your video on postmodernism…loving the work…keep it up

[@EyeLean5280]

I prefer David Foster Wallace's critiques of postmodernism because they're not founded in, nor do they stoke hatred. He's great at pointing out PM's limitations and deficiencies without resorting to emotionally-charged hyperbole. But then again, he wasn't interested (in both senses of that word) in building/profiting off of a cult of personality.

[@ntodd4110]

Don't say he's "almost weaponized" the term. He's absolutely (and dishonestly) weaponized it.

[@alanrobertson9790]

That's because the idea is prominent in the culture wars and has real world effects that matter. If it was only an intellectual discussion it would not matter and most would never have heard about it. Also how do you simplify some fairly obscure ideas to the public in a youtube video lasting 10 to 20 mins?

[@ntodd4110]

@@alanrobertson9790 That's an interesting and coherent response. I'm prompted to ask this question: IF the "culture wars" incorporate any real world effects that matter, do those effects only matter to people who possess power and are trying to hold onto it despite opposition? If not, then how can those ideas even be discussed using signifiers that have no connection to objects that exist independent of that power struggle (as culture-warriors so frequently try to do)?

[@alanrobertson9790]

@@ntodd4110 People who posses power is gradated. At one extreme USA president and Bill Gates, other end the homeless. Most people with houses and steady incomes would have bought into the system. I think a mistake is to think that a majority don't want capitalism. Look at election results in various countries. Social democrats, centre left still believe in the system, hard left not so many. The way I see it the purpose of the culture wars is to bypass democracy which is one of the reasons I disagree with it.

[@HonestTherapist]

He’s not wrong though in the way that PM has captured the academic elite. It’s fascinating to watch critical thinking go down the drain in our greatest institutions, where Peterson is the one of the very few bucking the trend.

[@mattrudkin]

Yes, I also didn't recognize the Postmodernism described by Jordan Peterson, but perhaps this is because I'm in my 50's and studied the 'original' French version, which seemed more politically ambiguous. It seems to me that Postmodernism can be appropriated by different political groups, much in the same way that Evolutionary theory (including Evolutionary Psychology) can be. I found a video which usefully describes the differences between old-school French PM and new-school US PM: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kKiUppaQetaEbZo

[@Yuval_L1974]

Great points and thank you for the link.

[@chriswimer6296]

Great video! Completely agree. Jordan uses postmodernism as a catch all term for anyone who doesn’t agree with him. I used to think that he was rather respectful and that he was genuinely interested in having open discussion. But he has really fallen and has become something else entirely. He mainly just stokes the fire between left and right. It’s pretty disappointing to see. Thanks for the great video

[@kv4959]

Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounds as if you tossed off the connection between Marxist ideology and post-modernist thinking as a minor second-hand issue when it is, in fact, THE issue. Also, it sounds as though you believe that Peterson is the cause of the pushback against certain toxic aspects of post-modernist thinking as it is has been manifesting itself over the past 10 or so years. I think if you’ll look back to the genesis of Peterson’s current popularity you’ll see that it has its roots in his response to Canada’s intent to mandate and codify certain language usage (something directly out of Stalin’s playbook). I only mean to say that I don’t believe he is the REASON for the pushback of the philosophy that the Flower-Children-Professor-Doctors (today’s students’ teachers’ teachers) have been marinating in and passing down since 1960; his popularity stems from his helping those of us who were not philosophy majors recognize the runaway train that has been heading downgrade toward us for the past 50 years, and who feel like the wholesale rejection of various truths (replaced with “her/her/their truth”) has come out of nowhere as of late. And yes, he is passionate about it; if the danger of this “rejection” philosophy being applied wholesale throughout the culture isn’t clear to you, maybe you want to re-think your commitment to such a dangerous religion. It’s not the questioning of everything that is a problem with post-modernists; it’s the throwing the baby out with the bathwater: Post-modernists not only reject the bathwater; they reject the baby. PS: If you think Peterson’s take on post-modernism is inflammatory perhaps you should look into the work of another guy, Steven Hicks. He’s a little nicer about it.

[@ricklarson392]

Jordan Peterson is basically an intellectual shock jock - to use a 1990s radio term. He uses language well and forms arguements well but at his core, his remarks, which greatly appeal to America's rabid right, use shock to foster division, hatred, and intolerance. Upon scrutiny, his conclusions fall apart - but generally, his audiences do not scrutinize his remarks.

[@SuchaDoofus]

No hes fighting against the division, hatred, and intolerance of the left. He's doing it out of necessity.

[@vitorsantos2873]

"Add fuel to the fire" sell more books.

[@hjs9td]

The problem with your argument is that you treat PostModernism as an overarching idea but you do not acknowledge that these ideas have consequences, intended or otherwise. Christianity created the basis for European culture. Rationalism created Modern culture. PostModernisn created Critical Theory.

[@TheMediaInsider]

I do see what you’re saying, but in the same way, JP treats postmodernists as an actual group of people who are consciously trying to disrupt society as opposed it it being a consequence of modernism

[@hjs9td]

@@TheMediaInsiderIdentity Politics, Judicial Activism, Diversity, Inclusion, Equity programs are all a direct consequence of discarding rationalism for the loudest idea being the truth.

[@jonathanl7028]

in my view, the harm of postmodernism is that since everyone becomes the hero of their own story, without a greater hero or standard to measure against, they no longer strive for the good or better. "superman doesn't do push-ups" In tabletop RPG terms, we all become the game-master and the player, inevitably serving only our vanity. A major function of legend and mythology is to transmit values to the next generation. Stories were our first memory technology and served for thousands of years, even before writing. The rejection of grand narrative/truth is like reading Aesop's fables to your child but explicitly pointing out that the illustrated moral isn't universal and is just propaganda to begin with, and not really worth much -- just enjoy the tortoise and hare for the great portrayals and the delicious irony of the hare losing to the slow poke. Indeed, just savor the equity of it! But any instructive value is just up to your own interpretation, and possibly harmful... it implies that the tortoise might have to plod harder because he is not as naturally fleet-footed! I may have not illustrated it well, and I may be making the same error as JP of conflating post-modernism and leftism. But maybe that's because as we see them in the wild they are hand and glove, a tool unique to the left since fractionalizing is their basic play when attacking unifying orthodoxies. I say this all from the position of authority. After my 5 minutes of thinking about it, I have awarded myself a PhD in Postmodernism studies, and if you refuse to accept it, it proves you don't understand it, since you would be attacking someone else's truth and lived experience and maintaining that there exists only one definition of what it means to be an expert in Postmodernism (something we fail the freshmen for) and neglecting alternative ways of knowing. proof by contradiction. QED times infinity. (hope the sarcasm was obvious. the first casualty)

[@kipper7142]

The "hand in glove" line is an excellent and I think very fair way of putting it. (I say this as a lifelong proud liberal who's voted Democrat down the ticket for decades) I am not an expert on postmodernism, but I am trying to learn as much about it as I can. I feel like there are a lot of dishonest representations of it out there. I think the reason for this is because postmodernism is unfortunately very politically relevant at the moment, and as we know, once anything becomes politicized, framing trumps truth and accuracy. Even though postmodernism is largely quasi-nihilistic (deconstruction, tacit rejection of almost everything, etc), it is hardly a void in and of itself. Postmodernism has features and principles too, and those features perfectly compliment the messianic utopian mindset, looking to fix the world not by building a better one, but by destroying what they reject. This mindset is the backbone of of a certain strain of leftism, and it really jumps out when watching shows like John Oliver or (The problem with) John Stewart to name a few. It informs the values of those leftists not unlike the way that Judeo-Christian theology informs the values of most conservatives. However, it would be in error to say that these values are universally leftist. For example, Noam Chomsky, considered a left wing anarchist and widely considered to be the most prominent intellectual remnant of the New Left from the 1960s, not only rejected postmodernist studies but even mocked them during an interview some years ago. Ironically, many classical marxists are huge critics of postmodernism as well.

[@TorianTammas]

Thank you for providing a strawman that does not exist, but you illustrated it wonderfully. Since 250.000 years since the first story was told these stories changed and various were told at the same time. This is the realuty for 250.000 years and Peterson is frightened by reality and seek other frightened.

[@yolandaquirozsoto438]

Great articulation of Peterson's selective representation and weaponization of postmodernism, Thank you!

[@pegerockas]

For a better understanding of JP, research how he became, or more clearly, who he was forced to become who his is now. With that, a clearer idea of what he is attempting to define.

[@fallacyalarm6820]

if you believe that there is any overlap between current progressivism and individualism, you have not understood current societal forces at all.

[@kevincurrie-knight3267]

I think of postmodernism less as philosophy than as sociology of sorts. Not "This is what should happen," but "This is what is happening." Not "hooray for the death of metanarratives!" but "metanarratives are unable to sustain and regardless of whether you think that is good, you need to deal with it.' That's where I think Peterson goes wrong. He seeks a big normative message behind postmodernism, when few postmodernists ever saw that as their job. Foucault tried to describe (albeit in a very particular way). Lyotard's Postmodern Condition was (per the subtitle) a "report" (not a "treatise") on the state of knowledge. Etc. And to be honest, as a sociology of what is happening, they nailed it.

[@vladislavkorti6955]

So interesting to see that Obi-Wan Kenobi is not only proficient in Jedi arts, but also in sociology.

[@TheMediaInsider]

Best. Comment. Ever.

[@StopFear]

If people want to see more illustration of how Peterson dishonestly exploits terms like post-modernism search for his debate berween Slavoj Zizek in which they were supposed to argue about Marxism. Slavoj Zizek isn't your typical Marxist, he isn't even the mainstream liberal. But the point is Zizek argues properly from universally accepted definitions and Peterson simply acts like he defines "Marxism" in his own weird way that doesn't make sense. You can hear coherent commentary from Zizek and expecting an answer on the same level, but Peterson attempts to do his usual shtick in which he basically criticizes modern "progressive" or "liberal" culture, which is absolutely not essential to the argument nor relevant to its definition. Its a disaster for Peterson.

[@patrickmcmanus1360]

Progressivism is authoritarian religion of science. Psychology IS progressive - the absolute most progressive discipline there is. That’s why he doesn’t focus on “progressivism” because he IS a progressive. He believed lobster behavior (science) can teach us how to run society. He just wraps it up in Christianity and archetypes to lend some sense of traditionalism to his discipline. It has none, so that’s transparently a manipulation.

[@peten6717]

I saw that debate and thought the complete opposite - it was a disaster for Zizek. Zizek doesn't even bother to defend Marxism whilst Peterson sticks to the point. A liberal is almost the complete opposite of a Marxist by definition so I'm not sure why you would say that Zizek isn't even a mainstream liberal.

[@James-ll3jb]

Absolutely correct. He also sees in postmodernism the reduction of his authoritarian, jargonesque 'big science' truth-claims to the status of mere "ex pluribus unum", devaluing his own personal struggle for truth. Wittgenstein (who once aserted as inviolable the axiom that "the world is determined by fact") also took philosophical issues personally, regarding metsphysics itself as something rooted in an overvaluation of the function of language. Curious parallel!

[@bartplantenga-uw9yd]

You describe him as incredibly intelligent and then expose how stupid and nefarious he is

[@benjaminbeltran7004]

You think Peterson is "inflammatory" BECAUSE you've been luxuriously standing by the side of this confrontation.

[@illxplicit07]

People should wonder why postmodernism and unhappiness seem to correlate. They should also wonder why the postmodernists are so confident and willing to impose their worldview on others while calling it "progress." Look around, it's happening everywhere. Yet, society is regressing in the midst of this language. Progress is being lost. That is why so many people associate postmodernism with malevolence. They're making things worse.

[@TheMediaInsider]

That’s a fair argument

[@mentomuncherVEVO]

It's not imposing a worldview to allow other people to do what they want without hurting others, it would be imposing a worldview to force everyone to be gay or trans however allowing those groups to exist isn't imposing anything. Think of it like this: Being Gay = Good Being Straight = Good Forced to be Gay = Bad Forced to be Straight = Bad

[@illxplicit07]

@@mentomuncherVEVO That's what people like you say, and then you applaud when trans women dominate in women's sports. Or you'll casually tell women to use the family bathroom if they're uncomfortable seeing a penis in the women's locker room. Because you think that's what being a good person is.

[@TheAwesomeGingerGuy]

8:18 wrong use of the word “linguist”

[@TheMediaInsider]

Ah crap - What word was I looking for?

[@MrJamieb22]

@@TheMediaInsider orator?

[@mikep1556]

What do you mean postmodernism has its roots in Marxism? Marxism is one of those grand unifying narratives found in the Moderism that pomo opposes. And if we're talking philosophers that influenced pomo, top of the list would be Nietzsche, ironically Peterson's favourite philosophers. This underlines how little Peterson understands postmodernism. And you don't seem very clued in either but since you're a communication and mass media guru, as I once was, I'll forgive you for misunderstanding the philosophical roots of pomo. And Peterson is a scammer, pure and simple.

[@davidpo5517]

Nice, some interesting thoughts. "With so many grand narratives on offer, there can't be one single truth. They can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways." Seems to me the best response to this isn't to give up on grand narratives in favor individual world views, but instead go find the single true interpretation to the single true grand narrative. But anyways... I think Jordan Peterson's usage of postmodernism probably comes from his scientific field of study -- human psychology -- so his usage of the term skips the actual definition, and shoots straight into its psychological effects on the average person, and how it's affects on many individuals has resulted in a sort of ideological cultural war within society. Not a thoughtful critique--a hostile socio-political battleground. Just the fact that this so obviously exists speaks to the truth of the perspective that most people who play with postmodernist ideas only do it because they don't know what else to do, and they likely don't even understand it. Honestly, I'd hope you have an answer to this: what use is postmodernism? No seriously, most people like having a grand narrative to follow. And a large portion of people don't like to think about philosophy at all. Postmodernism might be good a critiquing modernist structures, but it doesn't really offer anything except "freedom" from structures and traditions you dislike, which is really just a type of rebellion that you justify with philosophy. And you need some sort of grand narrative in order for large groups of people to function. Extreme individualism solves nothing, it just makes large, structured groups impossible. I don't think there is such a thing as pure postmodernism philosophy. I don't think people genuinely act skeptical of all grand narratives and their structures; people just get along with their lives, and if they happen to find some injustice that happens to bug them, then they challenge it. It's a system of thought that's inherently irregular and unstructured. Most people are just going to see that as chaotic. It's impossible for a human to be truly postmodernist in all aspects of their lives--claiming to be so inevitably just leads to hypocrisy, which is why that's such a common accusation against progressives.

[@grumpydharmabum]

Interesting comments. Have you noticed that “… there can’t be one single truth…” is apparently self-contradictory?

[@khaderlander2429]

Jordan peterson is postmodernist. He was asked, do you believe in God? His answer, what do you mean do? What do you mean you? What do you mean believe? What do you mean God?, that right there is a postmodernist answer. Jean-François Lyotard's book the postmortem condition informs us that there is no architectonic skeleton key to language, there is no thread that leads one out of the labyrinth of language, there is no essence to language, there is just set of social pragmatics connected to language. No grand narrative only wittgensteinian language games a sort of little narratives.

[@clarkehackworth]

You are correct on your interpretation of how JP weaponizes PostModernism. However, it sounds like you are a new comer to the fight, specifically because you have tried to stay "neutral." As so many of us have done, you have been sucked into the fight of the culture war, because as an academic you want to hold on to the academic terms you feel are neutral. I have come to the conclusion that culture is always a fight and even academic terms are never neutral, we can only pretend that they are. If you continue to delve down the rabbit hole that is JP, you will find even more disturbing things. One item, that came up in your video, was his defense of Western Civilization as the only place for good/beneficial "things." This is of course non-sense, but it is the rallying cry of many racists and neo-nazis. By tying Post Modernism to the already co-opted Western Civilization philosophy (see the controversy of the "Clash of Civilizations") and to anti-Marxism, he then draws an anti-semitic theme, by then linking Marxism to the Jewish Frankfurt school. This is where JP often leaves it, ripe for the alt-right radicalization pipeline. ... As I said, welcome to the fight. For more information on JP I suggest Abigail's Philosophy Tube video on JP.

[@wickedone4380]

You can of course prove that Peterson said Western Civilisation is the only source of good things in the world. Personally I think you've just made it up.

[@alanrobertson9790]

Do you think Post-modernism affects the real world or politics? If so you know why its weaponised.

[@TotallyFred]

A few years back, I was very pleased to discover Petersen as a counterfire to stupid ideas and the pseudo-scientific and rhetorical justifications for these. I am also very pleased to have discovered you because I saw Petersen growing from a counter-fire to being an ideologist himself. I like your balanced approach. Ideologies are the fuel of identity politics and we never teach enough about its dangers. To me, post modernism observes the change in behavior but does not command behavior. Post modernism was not created but rather is observed. The trouble is coming from whatboutism disguised or amalgamated into post modernism. We can’t fight whataboutism but we can reset whataboutists. Giving them the credit of a philosophy is giving them too much honor. This left vs right is plain BS set up by almost-extinct extremists of each camp looking to recruit. Petersen is right on that for the left but it applies to himself as you rightly pointed out.

[@TheMediaInsider]

Completely see where you’re coming from. Me personally, I find that the more complicated and intricate various arguments get the more I’d like to just strip it back and get back to basics, which is kind of what we have with individualist interpretations, at least you know where you stand with them!

[@joemama2499]

Major public figures advocating extremist divisionism has always ended well, right?

[@TheMediaInsider]

Good point 😂😂

[@pshehan1]

Postmodernism is certainly not about individualism. It is the foundation of identity politics, which divides people into victims and oppressors. Everyone is assigned to a group or groups, the members of which all have the same interests and agenda. The most important thing about a person is which identity they belong to. Individuals who reject the idea of their assigned group membership are a problem. My understanding of postmodernism predates Peterson, and it does not require that is is a form of redirected Marxism. It is primarily a rejection of enlightenment values and the existence of truth corresponding to an external objective reality, independent of anyone's internal metal state. There is only your truth and my truth, and my 'lived experience'. Data and evidence be damned.

[@morgenstern5748]

Thank you for the video! As someone who has always felt a certain reticence towards the more traditional grand meta narratives, including a resistance to the tendency of those narratives towards extremism, I enjoy learning about postmodern ideas that encourage a more considered, dispassionate approach to the many different ideas currently in competition with each other in the marketplace.

[@alanrobertson9790]

How does taking into account lived experience result in more considered, dispassionate approach rather than the scientific method? Wouldn't that be precisely the opposite?

[@morgenstern5748]

@@alanrobertson9790 Lived experience seems to push and pull one continuously towards any number of multiple ideologies over the course of a lifetime - integrating scientific thinking into one's experience of the world would simply be to adopt a specific metanarrative out of all the metanarratives one could choose.

[@alanrobertson9790]

@@morgenstern5748 Yes if you consider everyone on the planet, all lived experiences, you would get within it all the different individual views including science, religions and everything else. If you think of it as a Venn diagram there would be points of intersection. It might be a religion held by many, or experience of oppression in a ghetto etc. However what is the area of greatest intersection? It is reality, an experience of the external world. The tests of truth and reality to gauge whether something is in the common point of intersection is science. You could also say that within the set of lived experiences there are rational and irrational beliefs and indeed every other classification. So in a way thinking of everything as a lived experience does not really change anything. All other views can also still be applied within the total set. So you can't criticise my lived experience would not make any sense. All other classifications also apply. However if you took the view that all lived experience were equal regardless of tests for rationality, self consistency, constructiveness etc then you would have absolute relativism. This is the world of a man can be a woman, a dog, a fairy, Santa Claus etc. For some reason this seems to be where post-modernism has lead us to but I don't think that is inevitable. You would have to make the argument that other classification/belief systems should not exist.

[@CDABXXX]

@@alanrobertson9790It’s ironic and fascinating how you reconcile transphobia with reality and science, but somehow also expected.

[@alanrobertson9790]

@@CDABXXX I'm not in fear, I regard trans as silly lacking any basis in reality. Why would I have to show deference to other peoples inner beliefs? These are potentially infinite. Have your fantasies but don't inflict them on others.

[@fredsanford9442]

I feel that the beating heart of post modernism is the quest for new ideas. The rejection of old things gives room for new untried systems and ideas. I think there is a disregard of the effective quality of the old ideas, because the drive for new things does not require consideration of practical application of the old systems in the real world, and there is no need to explore the potential consequences of new systems prior to their implementation.

[@2msvalkyrie529]

There are NO " new " ideas !!

[@rcmrcm3370]

I've changed one world in your definition. 'Postmodernism refers to the state of culture where media is "consumed" in such staggering quantities that it has crossed the boundaries into reality itself and hyperreality prevails.'

[@rcmrcm3370]

Peterson spotted a grift and went for it. How's that for Postmodernism rejection of authority, particularly a rather sad authority. Fame corrupts.

[@bath_neon_classical]

Did feel to me that my lived experinces were no good when it came to debating these issues, now i have done a course in literary theory and read a few books but even after hundreds of hours dont feel confident discussing with accedemics, theres always something i havent read which proves that im not only wrong, but stupid, and probably also racist somehow.

[@wickedone4380]

All experiences are lived.

[@bath_neon_classical]

@@wickedone4380 some are lived by other people

[@wickedone4380]

@@bath_neon_classical The experience is still lived.

[@bath_neon_classical]

@@wickedone4380 are you saying that this is bad english because it contains a tautologous statement or is there some deeper truth that i am missing?

[@Schnooklebear71]

Thanks for your take on it. I'm trying to get my arms around this and how it relates to current social issues and I want a variety of perspectives.

[@Georgebushdidit]

I still don't fully understand postmodernism but i would say from my understanding that Jordan uses the postmodernism label because there are some aspects of postmodernism being used by the left to a high degree. However since postmodernism is such a large philosophical concept it hasn't been presented as a full picture. You could argue that the few aspects of postmodernism that are injurious to society is harmful enough to justify rejecting it staunchly or one could argue that it needs to be presented as a whole picture before being judged and Jordan should find a different label.

[@jimhiggin63]

What a reasoned, calmly rational look at Peterson's hijacking of the term "post modernism" and the problems his inflammatory and divisive talks and ideas create.

[@BeardedMi42]

Why do you do a podcast with Jordan Peterson?

[@Blady99]

He got his understanding of postmodernism from a book that misunderstood it. Sad really. He also tried commenting on Carefree Wandering’s channel and got something basic wrong. I think it was saying someone else’s name when it was obviously Baudrillard.

[@DioArt]

Hey! Glad to have found your channel. Question: have you heard about the Sokal hoax? If so, what do you make of it? Thanks!

[@stigmellem]

"The scepticism we have toward the narratives [told in the modern era]. I like that 😍 After more than a twenty years 'pause' from studying, I've gone back to university to finish my dream project (master thesis) where I am attacking the modernist ideas about labour recruiting. Why are some types of higher education preferred before others? (And the field I'm exploring this question in is the energy market. Why do the employers prefer ingénieurs and economists? Through my thesis I reject the idea of discrimination only to be toward social dimensions (gender, ethnicity, age, and so on, physical disabilities, not to forget). Discrimination may also be applied to knowledge, competency and education - it's just that we've learned that this is legitimate. So I deconstruct the opposition [ Discrimination / Not-discrimination ] and replace it with [ Legitim discrimination/ Illegitim discrimination]. This is only one of the deconstructions I do. I also reject the modern recruitment thesis "Right person on right place". It's a very modern construct... and I've been subjected to it many times. Which turns the discussion to ideology (or Power-knowledge, whom Foucault would have preferred to call it). I guess I've revealed enough now to give potential readers an idea of my project. Anyone who'd like to contact me regarding this is welcome to do so. The case is that I am pretty alone around my place having these thoughts 😅

[@maciejrzepczyk6562]

The paradox of postmodernism is that it is actually a form of conservatism. If reality is so subjective, why do you question whether or not traditionalism is truth or not? It implies that leftism is objective. I consider myself postmodernist, but I am a huge fan of traditional values. In classical music, my profession, I am a fanatic of Bach and Lutosławski equally. In morality, I think that the family is the core of society, without which society fails (Christianity and Confucianism and Buddhism). Radical conservatism is just as bad as radical leftism.

[@jimh3500]

You have clearly read and “understood” the abundant sources and thinkers of the Modern and Postmodern schools. Understanding is a slippery handle with these topics and I don’t claim to understand them but I do believe that I am conversational in them. At least enough to prop up my world view, which is a serious claim but also laughable considering the mine field I’m walking blindly through. Anyway, though I’m a knuckle dragging novice, I applaud your work. I appreciate these discussions.

[@mannytimana446]

check out peterson's debate with slavoj zizek

[@TheMediaInsider]

I’ve heard a few people mention this so I definitely will thank you!

[@NoNameNo.5]

Postmodernism in the artistic sense, and in the epistemological or political sense is very different, naturally people will disagree, which is very pomo

[@John-lw7bz]

Yeah yeah tell to the meat shredder buddy. (Jk do you have any books that i could read on this so I could get into something of substance? Also I'd rathery they not be bu any of the french pdf files)

[@FlashdogFul28]

Perhaps you should speak to him about it. Invite him to talk on your channel.

[@damianmauriceblake8418]

Great podcast!!

[@bradklemmer4251]

I do believe you high jacked the term "anarchy," which does not mean chaos or no rules, rather, it means no masters or rulers and therefore no slaves.

[@treesurgeon2441]

Peterson often mixes up post modernism, Critical theory and it's consequences which needs to be picked apart and not just presented in this smashed together demonized manner. I largely agree with his assessment about how these things have effected our current landscape but post modernism has many applications on either side of the argument and understanding why in a culture drowning in media and perspectives we are so angry and incapable of agreeing on axiomatic ideas. Post modernist thought often veers into interestingly reactionary directions.

[@Achcautli69]

Thank you for the video, I was thinking the same thing when I listen some of his videos. It always got me thinking that he hate communism and he is very conservative or almost fascist.

[@the_antiquark]

Peterson is a conspiracy theorist

[@bradfordmccormick8639]

Where does existentialism and even Husserlean phenomenology fit in?

[@toddmcdaniels1567]

“Lost faith in the structures offered by modern academics”? What about all those French intellectuals who theorized postmodernism? They were held in pretty high regard in France.

[@toddmcdaniels1567]

Postmodernism is not Progressive unless you think oppressed/oppressor dynamics are progressive. Postmodernism is not individual. It uses social constructs to explain everything.

[@superdudehello]

Thanks for the video!

[@carriemcclung7374]

I appreciate this video and the last one (PM for beginners). Fact is, we (GenX and onward) are postmodern generations. GenX arguably is the least postmodern of the four (Millennials, GenZ, and genAlpha). I am GenX. We were brought up by the last modernity-embracing generation and have parented the younger generations. We are the ones grieving lost aspects of modernity and appreciating found aspects of postmodernism. I agree with you, that there are so many different ways of looking at PM that we can easily get lost in the debate. However, coming at it from the cultural point of view, as you do, is quite brilliant. GenX and the older Millennials grew up with The Simpsons, Princess Bride, Star Wars, Star Trek, and countless stars that are now brilliantly referenced in satire and non-satire alike. We love this. We are drawn to kids' movies like "Trolls", because they use our cultural references and music and redefine them, giving them, inadvertently, a new life. Why do we like this? Because we are of the AGE of postmodernism. We cannot help but be of this age. It is the very cultural air we breathe. We think, dream, and live in these boundless realms of invention through reinvention. What PM architecture started, TikTok has completed. This aspect of PM makes us all post-modern. However, the philosophical side, the rejection of Metanarratives of any kind, the embracing of Marx and Engels from a new perspective ("the only reason it failed in history is that they didn't do it *right* - WE will do it *right*, you'll see"), the distrust of anything or anyone that has been "favored" to be replaced with that which has been "oppressed" without regard for any sense of truth, the very distrust of the word and concept of truth itself... well, that is a problem in society that has lead us down paths that have, at best, been unconstructive. Living without boundaries, the very discarding of the possibilities of boundaries has not led to the freedom earlier postmodernists hoped for but rather has left us confused, willing to risk, lost, and grasping for anyone to rescue us from this state. It has not created a super generation, able to ascend and become the Ubermensch we so desperately hoped to evolve into. Instead, it has, in so many ways, bankrupted us intellectually and socially. By each becoming his own island, her own definition of truth, their own set of morals, we are rapidly falling into anarchy of individualism instead of unity of society, where we honor one another and the world around us. We are no longer able to embrace anyone who is "other" than our own little bubble of "reality" and lash out at each other, attempting to bully each other into the submission of our own world, doctrine, and narrative. Our rejection of Metanarratives has caused countless micronarratives. These are fun to explore in film but difficult to make a cohesive society out of. The question now is this: What will come next? Where do we go from here? Thank you, again for these great videos. I will actually be using them in my Postmodernism class this afternoon. Let's see how they will grasp this subject...

[@danyvigil]

Hello, Thank you for the video, and the previous one, they have helped me to understand a little more. I came to your channel because I have spent weeks trying to understand postmodernism because of some school assignment, my field is photography. I have a question: from my current understanding, postmodernism is based on skepticism and the rejection of metanarratives, but as a result it seems to create new dogmas. Do you think that is a correct interpretation? I am studying the influence of postmodernism in contemporary art, and being in a art school, I can tell you that it is almost impossible to question an artwork or well known artists, it somehow looks like you are questioning a god and their teachings. Isn't it paradigmatic that an ideology based on skepticism and the challenging the concept of the truth does not allow criticism and ask people to accept its products as dogmas? Or do you think I am wrong in that interpretation? Thank you!

[@john_molden]

I don't think your interpretation is wrong but you must keep in mind that postmodernism is also theoretical, in the same way, many things are theoretical. the presence of many grand narratives can mean that there is no truth so people go with the proof in which they see. people will throw off meta-narratives ideas and focus on their own narrative. This will lead to the creation of people's world views and a critique of their world view is to question their reality. under the ideas of post-modernism, the truth can be subjective and Jordan Peterson likes to point fingers at the left when the fact is everyone is guilty of creating a worldview based on their own lived experiences and breaking someone's reality can lead them into a crisis of identity because people hold their identity in their world view. you are right, there may not be room for criticism, but that's purely up to the person receiving the criticism. The idea behind post-modernism is to be critical but I think the further we go in becoming critical, we lead ourselves down to what I call post-postmodernism, where there is a complete disregard for factual reality and facts have now become subjective. (keep an eye out for my book on this post-postmodernism)

[@tonysienzant6717]

You're exactly right. The Post Modernists are simply swapping out New Grand Narratives (dogmas) that they like & prefer & accept for the Grand Narratives of the Past, simply because they are of the Past, without COMPREHENDING that the Past Traditions must have some utilitarian VALUE because those traditions GAVE US THESE DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES & FREEDOMS we ALL benefit from. In other words: Be Careful What You Wish For ! Heaven can turn to Hell in a micro-second, given Human Nature.

[@christopherleary2411]

Thank you for your intelligent and thoughtful presentation. I am not a fan of Jordan Peterson and he just seems perpetually angry. There must be a lot of pain in his past.

[@jordanwhisson5407]

Good old "word salad peterson" stuffs up again and again yet again

[@blueberry3168]

I wonder if you have changed your opinion of Dr Peterson, considering what is happening now one year later.

[@ceallly]

You need to know Postmoderism's origin and connection with Indenty politics to understand what is happening. The only explanation for its origin I have found is a book by Anthony Chaney called "RunAway: Gregory Bateson, the Double Bind, and the Rise of Ecological Consciousness". Gregory Bateson was present at the "The Congress on Dialectics of Liberation' in 1967 when the black activist Stokely Carmichael used the phrase 'institutional racism'. He argued you could not solve the problems of black people through a structured discussion because the social constructs of language re-inforces the mistreatment of Black people. Carmicheal used Marx's material analysis (the connection with Marx) to compare the distribution of material wealth in Black and White communities. Orthodox Marxists would insist that analysis focuses on the distribution of material resources within the whole community and not differentiate on race. In the type of analysis done by Stokey Carmichael, there is no problem with a large part of the population not having material resources as long as the % of the poor white population is the same as the black and the percentage black population that are millionaires are the same as the per cent of the white population. Managerialism uses a lot of ideas from Marx, Post Modernism and Identity Policies. Problems are best solved by setting goals rather than through discussion. As discussion causes tension between groups in society. There are no meta-narratives where different perspectives are compared and combined to get a better understanding of issues. Instead, goals should be set to solve problems and outcomes are measured by the completion of those goals.

[@michaelsmith5574]

I'm not sure why you have to placate his followers by saying that he's educated and intelligent: the reality is that he's a charlatan, and speaks in a way that is unsupported by either fact or analysis. I think your videos show a much clearer understanding of this field than anything JP has expressed. Thank you for your Baudrillard video, and for this one. Well done.

[@danielfisher8539]

Peterson isn't wrong about many postmodernists lacking appreciation for traditions. We can think the traditions are out dated, but still appreciate the world that built them. In your last video you equated postmodernism with our hyper real culture. It is hard to discuss culture without references to postmodernism. Peterson has issues and is purposely inflammatory, but the other side is just as inflammatory.

[@rickwyant]

I think Peterson is saying that a painting of a can of soup or colors splashed randomly or a painting made with feces is not art.

[@RonLWilson]

interesting! The way I see (for whatever that is worth) is the premodern religious view didn't quite get it right nor did the modern view and the post modern is an attempt (or maybe best said a last ditch attempt) to fix those elements that weren't quite right and the Jordan Peters of the world are trying to just set the clock back rather than fix what needs fixing.

[@bryanmcpherson8702]

Hes reiterates Steven Hicks' book, " Explaining Post Modernism"

[@piperpan5516]

If you read this maybe you can affirm or correct the statement I'm about to make: That post-modernism is in some way everything, it must be ALL inclusive, simply because it describes the world of today. It doesn't necessarily take a particular stance, we are all within a much larger picture of perspectives, experience and activity. It's not that the meaning of everything is relative or lacking certainty of meaning, it's that in one way or another, everything is meaningful. I found the initial post-modern video you made to be excellent for me, in terms of it describing our current post-modern reality. I think postmodernism can be inclusive of tradition in that it draws from the past, it can respect and include what is 'good' about tradition, yet challenge the elements of old ideas when they fail to change and develop. Regarding Jordan Peterson. He comes across as a classic hypocrite, frankly. I listen to the accusations he makes and the very ignorant generalizations about people. What comes to mind is the famous warning Jesus taught regarding being aware of how one goes about Judging others. Matthew 7 'Judge not, that ye be not Judged. For with what Judgement ye Judge, ye shall be Judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again'. There are some areas he has great insight. There are many others that he simply doesn't know about, he is on the outside judging in a very negative demonizing manner.

[@ujjwalathukral398]

Ur videos are liked and admired by all.. all over the world.. here in India too

[@trevorlawson1285]

Great work mate!