Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
zaphod

jordan peterson

Recommended Posts

So...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a constant bashing on cultural-postmodern-marxism, a foggy notion that

is never explained, which is posed as a threat because it is based on

group identities that have shaped socialist regimes. he seems very

belligerent on this matter.

my understanding is that modernism has clear goals for society and favours "the good of mankind", onward and upward with inevitable benefits etc. this sprung up during the enlightenment period and was a guiding principle behind much of mankind's actions henceforth. colonialism and imperialism are considered to be very much guided by modernist thought.

 

post modernism is kind of like stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, deconstructing ideas, giving equal weight to multiple subjective interpretations of an idea, and recognising chaos and unintended consequences as inevitable. there are no clear goals with post-modernism, it is more of a system of analysis than a strict humanist ideology.

I still haven't even the remotest clue what 'post modernism' is .... My brain starts to try and understand but then ....

'cultural marxism' and 'virtue signalling' are empty phrases which mean nothing significant. from what i can gather you have to buy into these things being real for most of his arguments to have any substance. i was disappointed to find these seem to be key talking points for a guy who is supposed to be edgy and original.

 

and postmodernism is the best tool we have for approaching an objective analysis of anything. if anything postmodernism is frustrating for disrupting progress, and indeed most marxists i know are highly critical of the way postmodern approaches have favoured neoliberal economic policies. the consideration of subjectivity and the chaos created by competing and overlapping discourses is surely very important for critical analysis and academia. tearing down postmodernism because you think it is solely a tool used by leftists to indoctrinate others into their ideology shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what postmodernism is. postmodernism is what allows people like peterson to have a voice in society that is extraordinarily status quo whilst appearing to be rebellious.

in this video he explains exactly what he means when he uses those terms (postmodernism, cultural marxism, etc). might be interesting to hear some thoughts about the arguments presented here?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they call an emergency session of the joe rogan experience. jordan peterson sits between gad saad and sam harris. peterson stops mid sentence and collects himself. he still isn’t used to just how tiny joe rogan is in person. at four foot two, rogan needs a booster chair to reach his console. his head glistens with sweat. like most things in life, he reminds peterson of pinocchio. “so ah...as I was saying, if you read ordinary men..you’ll...ah”. rogan stares intensely at a second monitor. “look at this fucking thing.” he spins the monitor around to face peterson. it’s a liveleak video of an orangutan destroying an elementary school cafeteria. rogan shakes his head. “jeesus.” there is a ding. peterson looks at sam harris. a blue light flashes once on his forehead and his eyes close, followed by the familiar sound of a windows machine shutting down. gad saad burps and the entire room fills with the smell of rotten fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in this video he explains exactly what he means when he uses those terms (postmodernism, cultural marxism, etc). might be interesting to hear some thoughts about the arguments presented here?

 

 

the logical leap he makes at minute 8 doesn't make sense and i don't think think any of those people covered by the postmodernist label ever did such a leap. the fact that there can be a multitude of interpretations doesn't mean that they produce the same output and so naturally there are contexts where one system of interpretation will be privileged (doesn't matter by whom) over others by definition. whether an interpretation is viable or not is a question of scientific, social, cultural, economic, ideological, technological, environmental and so on contexts, thomas kuhn's work is a pretty convincing argument for that.

that "every interpretation is equal" or more commonly "everything goes" is strawman that those who clumsily criticize (what they see as) postmodernism often use. bruno latour is very vocally against this notion and he is a very prominent "postmodernist" dealing with sociology of science who was involved in that sokal bullshit. so are the edinburgh school people (a different strain of social constructionist approach to science).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He calls the claim of an infinite number of interpretations "incorrect" but his counterargument makes no sense. The claim of infinite interpretations isn't contradictory with there being invalid interpretations. If I asked you to give me a real number between 0 and 1 there would be infinite amounts of both valid and invalid responses. The claim that there is no single valid interpretation simply or maybe not so simply entails that we can reason about which one we prefer, based on principles like the Golden Rule, and arrive at compassionate, altruistic, pacifist, etc. rational ethics.

 

To be honest and if it wasn't obvious already I don't remember shit about postmodernism but I've studied enough of the social sciences to know that being an obnoxious, aggressive but ultimately, through lots of trial and error, somewhat cunning debater is going to be an easier path towards success and admiration than choosing integrity, compassion, and constructive discussion. I'm guessing Jordy knows this too and really craves the fame and money.

Edited by manmower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

He calls the claim of an infinite number of interpretations "incorrect" but his counterargument makes no sense. The claim of infinite interpretations isn't contradictory with there being invalid interpretations. If I asked you to give me a real number between 0 and 1 there would be infinite amounts of both valid and invalid responses. The claim that there is no single valid interpretation simply or maybe not so simply entails that we can reason about which one we prefer, based on principles like the Golden Rule, and arrive at compassionate, altruistic, pacifist, etc. rational ethics.

 

To be honest and if it wasn't obvious already I don't remember shit about postmodernism but I've studied enough of the social sciences to know that being an obnoxious, aggressive but ultimately, through lots of trial and error, somewhat cunning debater is going to be an easier path towards success and admiration than choosing integrity, compassion, and constructive discussion. I'm guessing Jordy knows this too and really craves the fame and money.

can you point to a debate where he is cunning, obnoxious and aggressive? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

joe rogan takes a large dose of mushrooms, puts on the latest fluorescent grey disc and ask peterson to lift him up into his sensory deprivation tank. after closing the door peterson can hear rogan inside muttering his mantra as well as encouraging an entity to eat a quail egg with a partially developed bird inside of it. peterson looks over at harris whose face is now the color of a pale blue sky with his features hovering just beyond the surface like clouds. peterson can't quite tell if harris is looking at him but he hears him say "wake up. use logic and reason to complain about muslims." peterson shrugs, unsure if he can use this to his advantage or if it's more sam's thing. he walks through the studio space, unsure where the exit is. he is scared. is this the dark journey of the hero? will he have to struggle with the unconscious? will he become submerged in it, despairing, only to arrive back where he began but as a fully integrated self? just then a creature emerges! "this is it," he mutters to himself, "this is the dragon i must slay." it is a wild beast, completely inhuman, crazed, insane. it has flowing, disgusting rope-like threads hanging from its head. strange lumps protrude from its shallow chest. upon its hideous face are blood-like colors, dark, lusty reds. peterson knows this disgusting beast is trying to entice him, provoke him, get him to fuck. he flees. hiding behind rogan's podcast desk he thinks what a shame it is that he cannot fight such a beast. if it were a man, he could vanquish it with his fists. but not a creature such as this. he quickly draws a jungian chart of his experience to show other men, to warn them. on the left side of the page is a uroboros, sucking itself off. on the right is a female specimen. her left palm is "temptation," her right thumb is "angst," her womb is "creatio," her head is "insanio," her groin is "ineffabilio." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

and postmodernism is the best tool we have for approaching an objective analysis of anything.

 

oh really?  how does post-modernism get from A to B (A being ignorance, B being truth) show me the path

 

and while you are at it show me how moral relativism is the best tool we have to understand morality and ethics.

Edited by Deer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

joe rogan takes a large dose of mushrooms, puts on the latest fluorescent grey disc and ask peterson to lift him up into his sensory deprivation tank. after closing the door peterson can hear rogan inside muttering his mantra as well as encouraging an entity to eat a quail egg with a partially developed bird inside of it. peterson looks over at harris whose face is now the color of a pale blue sky with his features hovering just beyond the surface like clouds. peterson can't quite tell if harris is looking at him but he hears him say "wake up. use logic and reason to complain about muslims." peterson shrugs, unsure if he can use this to his advantage or if it's more sam's thing. he walks through the studio space, unsure where the exit is. he is scared. is this the dark journey of the hero? will he have to struggle with the unconscious? will he become submerged in it, despairing, only to arrive back where he began but as a fully integrated self? just then a creature emerges! "this is it," he mutters to himself, "this is the dragon i must slay." it is a wild beast, completely inhuman, crazed, insane. it has flowing, disgusting rope-like threads hanging from its head. strange lumps protrude from its shallow chest. upon its hideous face are blood-like colors, dark, lusty reds. peterson knows this disgusting beast is trying to entice him, provoke him, get him to fuck. he flees. hiding behind rogan's podcast desk he thinks what a shame it is that he cannot fight such a beast. if it were a man, he could vanquish it with his fists. but not a creature such as this. he quickly draws a jungian chart of his experience to show other men, to warn them. on the left side of the page is a uroboros, sucking itself off.on the right is a female specimen. her left palm is "temptation," her right thumb is "angst," her womb is "creatio," her head is "insanio," her groin is "ineffabilio."

Totes lushlz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol how do we pin alcos comments pls

Edited by Bulk VanderHooj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

it’s not easy we all have to hard reset our phone in perfect sync,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok 123 GO

Edited by Bulk VanderHooj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

and postmodernism is the best tool we have for approaching an objective analysis of anything.

 

oh really?  how does post-modernism get from A to B (A being ignorance, B being truth) show me the path

 

and while you are at it show me how moral relativism is the best tool we have to understand morality and ethics.

 

 

it's not supposed to go from A to B to lead to some sort of objective truth, you're approaching this with a modernist mindset. it does provide us with the tools to extract multiple meanings from things which we can use to hone in on what might be close to some objective truth. modernist mindsets frame everything through an ideology, and the belief in objective truth taints the outcome. 

 

with moral relativism we can understand how people's ideas and ethics are shaped by other factors in their environment. is this supposed to be a bad thing? it may not be the best tool we have for understanding morality and ethics but it's a damn sight better than being blinded by our own morality and ethics when reaching conclusions. 

 

i totally agree with the people who are frustrated that postmodern thought discourages a single truth or narrative and it feels like we can't even agree that the sky is blue or whatnot. i'm totally against the idea that because of moral relativism, some dude in china can own a sweatshop and be just as morally righteous as someone who spends most of their time in a soup kitchen

 

but postmodernism doesn't invalidate our moral concerns nor should it stop us from acting one way or another based on what we think is right. no one is being forced beyond their will to do / not do anything because of it. it's simply a framework for viewing the functions of society both past and present. your own personal beliefs about what is right and wrong ought to be informed by an objective analysis of the world and the ideas of others. modernist ideas ought to be considered as well, but solely existing in this sphere is unnecessarily restrictive. 

 

tldr = use postmodernism as a tool for deconstructing and analysing ideas to inform your own perspectives (this includes scientific evidence of course). do not adopt it as a religion or you'll never reach any meaningful conclusions. 

Edited by Mesh Gear Fox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't understand, so the post-modernist approach is to get rid of objective truth and use subjective truth as a way to get to subjective truth?

 

How would a post-modernist approach physics ? just grab random people from each continent and ask them how they think gravity works, and then what? resign yourself to the fact that there are so many interpretations of gravity that its just impossible to get to the truth (or an approximation of the truth). Deepak Chopra has an interpretation of physics, should we spend energy + resources listening and following Deepak's interpretation?

 

Why are subjective brains paramount? surely the best way to get to the truth is to remove the subjective brain entirely and use objectives tools.

Edited by Deer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for moral relativism, conscious beings can suffer, that's all you need to know, if it was in the culture of some foreign population to rape girls when they turn 16 would you accept it, turn a blind eye and say "hey who am i to judge?". This is why cultural relativism is nonsense, while you sit there saying "who am i to judge" a conscious being is suffering.

Edited by Deer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

i don't understand, so the post-modernist approach is to get rid of objective truth and use subjective truth as a way to get to subjective truth?

 

no, it gets rid of ideology masquerading as objective truth (modernism) and instead approaches topics with multiple subjective interpretations which brings people closer to objective truth without ever reaching it as this would be an impossibility. 

 

How would a post-modernist approach physics ? just grab random people from each continent and ask them how they think gravity works, and then what? resign yourself to the fact that there are so many interpretations of gravity that its just impossible to get to the truth (or an approximation of the truth). Deepak Chopra has an interpretation of physics, should we spend energy + resources listening and following Deepak's interpretation?

 

i literally said informed by scientic evidence at the end of my post. postmodernism doesn't discount scientific evidence. it treats it as an important part of the puzzle, but not some grand glorious truth that trumps any counter argument. there is nothing in academia that says 'science doesn't mean shit because postmodernism, bitches'. this is a flawed characterisation at best, and i'm not even going to address deepak the idiot aside from saying i specifically advocated for the use of pomo thought as a tool to analyse and understand as many interpretations on a topic as possible. he has obviously failed to do this.

 

Why are subjective brains paramount? surely the best way to get to the truth is to remove the subjective brain entirely and use objectives tools.

 

no no no no no. you're missing the point. objectivity is paramount. but objectivity is informed through subjectivity. subjective ideas paint a picture of what the objective is. it is impossible to conceive the objective or to describe it without resorting to some degree of subjectivity, and it is foolish and arrogant for anyone to think that their interpretation on an issue is objectively correct. you can get close to objectivity and the truth but never reach it. the things we consider to be objectively true are best thought of as being 'as true as we can perceive to be reasonably treated as objective'. 

 

 

As for moral relativism, conscious beings can suffer, that's all you need to know, if it was in the culture of some foreign population to rape girls when they turn 16 would you accept it, turn a blind eye and say "hey who am i to judge?". This is why cultural relativism is nonsense, while you sit there saying "who am i to judge" a conscious being is suffering.

 

this is such a blatant misunderstanding that i shouldn't even bother addressing this. i said this in my post but maybe you ignored it or didn't understand what i meant. morality and ethics are not excluded from postmodern thought. you can be outraged about rape and still exist within the postmodern sphere. please re-read my post.

Edited by Mesh Gear Fox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

As for moral relativism, conscious beings can suffer, that's all you need to know, if it was in the culture of some foreign population to rape girls when they turn 16 would you accept it, turn a blind eye and say "hey who am i to judge?". This is why cultural relativism is nonsense, while you sit there saying "who am i to judge" a conscious being is suffering.

 

this is such a blatant misunderstanding that i shouldn't even bother addressing this. i said this in my post but maybe you ignored it or didn't understand what i meant. morality and ethics are not excluded from postmodern thought. you can be outraged about rape and still exist within the postmodern sphere. please re-read my post.

 

 

I read your post and maybe you would do something about suffering but a lot of your post-modernist buddies reject the idea that X should tell Y how to behave, even tho how Y is behaving is causing lots of suffering.

Deer, on 21 Feb 2018 - 9:13 PM, said:snapback.png

As for moral relativism, conscious beings can suffer, that's all you need to know, if it was in the culture of some foreign population to rape girls when they turn 16 would you accept it, turn a blind eye and say "hey who am i to judge?". This is why cultural relativism is nonsense, while you sit there saying "who am i to judge" a conscious being is suffering.

 

this is such a blatant misunderstanding that i shouldn't even bother addressing this. i said this in my post but maybe you ignored it or didn't understand what i meant. morality and ethics are not excluded from postmodern thought. you can be outraged about rape and still exist within the postmodern sphere. please re-read my post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so that's all you can respond with? this was easier than i thought.

 

i totally agree that it's wrong for people to people to use postmodern analysis as a smokescreen for effective action. i specifically advocated against this in my post, whilst pointing out that it would be flawed to criticise postmodernism for this rather than the people who are too lazy to use it to reach their own conclusions. reaching your own conclusions and acting upon them is perfectly compatible with postmodernist thought. ideologies, including modernism, are included in the postmodern sphere, not invalidated by its mere existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

i don't understand, so the post-modernist approach is to get rid of objective truth and use subjective truth as a way to get to subjective truth?

 

no, it gets rid of ideology masquerading as objective truth (modernism) and instead approaches topics with multiple subjective interpretations which brings people closer to objective truth without ever reaching it as this would be an impossibility. 

 

How would a post-modernist approach physics ? just grab random people from each continent and ask them how they think gravity works, and then what? resign yourself to the fact that there are so many interpretations of gravity that its just impossible to get to the truth (or an approximation of the truth). Deepak Chopra has an interpretation of physics, should we spend energy + resources listening and following Deepak's interpretation?

 

i literally said informed by scientic evidence at the end of my post. postmodernism doesn't discount scientific evidence. it treats it as an important part of the puzzle, but not some grand glorious truth that trumps any counter argument. there is nothing in academia that says 'science doesn't mean shit because postmodernism, bitches'. this is a flawed characterisation at best, and i'm not even going to address deepak the idiot aside from saying i specifically advocated for the use of pomo thought as a tool to analyse and understand as many interpretations on a topic as possible. he has obviously failed to do this.

 

Why are subjective brains paramount? surely the best way to get to the truth is to remove the subjective brain entirely and use objectives tools.

 

no no no no no. you're missing the point. objectivity is paramount. but objectivity is informed through subjectivity. subjective ideas paint a picture of what the objective is. it is impossible to conceive the objective or to describe it without resorting to some degree of subjectivity, and it is foolish and arrogant for anyone to think that their interpretation on an issue is objectively correct. you can get close to objectivity and the truth but never reach it. the things we consider to be objectively true are best thought of as being 'as true as we can perceive to be reasonably treated as objective'. 

 

 

 

 

 

Its impossible to conceive the objective unless you have the right tools then its easier than the hype makes it out to be. For example take the relationship between color and light. A photon hits your eye, brains interprets that photon as a color (lets use blue as an example). Now lets say due to differences in the brain 3 out of 10 people see red instead of blue. How do we get to an objective truth here? the majority of people see blue but there is minority who sees red instead of blue, whats real and whats not, what is the true nature of the photon. The solution here is to measure the wavelength of the photon, and that is the objective truth in this example, not blue, not red, WAVELENGTH is the objective truth here. We have tools to competently remove subjectivity and get to an approximation of the truth.

 

Now, i cannot imagine how a post-modernist would solve this, because you would have to take all interpretations into account.

Edited by Deer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The year is 2021. Jordan Peterson sits in the green room of Madison Square Garden. He is on the Woke AF Philosophy Tour with Sam Harris and Stefan Molyneux. He is watching Harris through a monitor. Harris is on stage, manipulating one of those ASMR ear mics with a toothbrush. He occasionally whispers "islam must be eradicated" into the ears. The audience sits, rapt. Peterson gets up and walks to a wall with three candles to represent the pillars of Christian wisdom ; G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis and T.D. Jakes. Peterson lights the candles and removes his shoes. There is thunderous applause through the walls. Harris enters the room, glides past Peterson, and inserts himself into a crevice in the wall. After a moment, three green bars appear on his face. On his forehead, the words "45% charged". There is a call to the room. Peterson breathes in, then walks out. A camera crew greets him near the stage. He punches the air, stops, looks into the camera, then laughs. He enters the stage. He sits on a sofa and looks out at the audience. Silence. He begins to speak. "Dostoevsky." Scattered applause. "Solzhenitsyn." Moderate applause. Peterson points at a man in the front row. "He's read the books, he's read them." Then he pumps his fist. "Orwell." Whoops and airhorns. "Derrida." Boos. Speaking louder. "Foucault." Someone throws a molotov onto the stage, Peterson kicks it away and it explodes. "CULTURAL." BOOOOO. "FUCKING." NOOOOOOO. "MARXISM." He collapses into the sofa. People are crying. Peterson sobs into his hand. "Post-modernism." People are holding each other. Peterson straightens his shoulders and yells. "Harry Potter. Pinocchio. Fathers. Sons." A chant begins to move through the crowd. Peterson stands and puts a hand to his ear. "I can't hear you." Sort it out. "I CAN'T BLOODY HEAR YOU." SORT IT OUT. He spreads his arms wide, then snaps his fingers. Total silence. He whispers. "bucko." The entire stadium explodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well taking all the interpretations into account would be what leads you to measure the wavelength, which is still only 99% objective as it is based on how we perceive reality using a measurement we devised. so you kinda answered your own question there.

 

you're not wrong for taking this measurement to reach what is the best understanding of the truth we have, however, and nothing about postmodern thought tells you this is wrong to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well taking all the interpretations into account would be what leads you to measure the wavelength

 

But how can you say that, you can spend all of eternity asking subjective brains for their interpretation of reality and never get to the truth, unless of course you create "objective reality measuring" frameworks and tools that exist outside subjective brains and that way you don't have to spend all of eternity asking subjective brains for interpretations of reality, you can save yourself time, energy and resources by not even bothering with subjective interpretations and using those tools and frameworks instead.

 

I don't see how this "taking the interpretations of subjective brains" approach is useful in any way specially since we all agree the brain is not the best objective reality measuring device.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

well taking all the interpretations into account would be what leads you to measure the wavelength

 

But how can you say that, you can spend all of eternity asking subjective brains for their interpretation of reality and never get to the truth, unless of course you create "objective reality measuring" frameworks and tools that exist outside subjective brains and that way you don't have to spend all of eternity asking subjective brains for interpretations of reality, you can save yourself time, energy and resources by not even bothering with subjective interpretations and using those tools and frameworks instead.

 

I don't see how this "taking the interpretations of subjective brains" approach is useful in any way specially since we all agree the brain is not the best objective reality measuring device.

 

i honestly can't tell if you're being willfully ignorant at this point

 

what i meant was the very fact that multiple people see different colours in that situation in the first place is the very thing that leads to you to examine the wavelength. i am not saying you ask all of them what their opinion is first, i am saying the mere existence of recognising the subjectivity in this scenario is exactly what prompts the postmodern analyst to push further in pursuit of something even closer to the truth. postmodernism does not equal "welp, guess everyone is right on this lol" but you continue to insist that this is the case, along with all the other reactionary nitwits who think they are able to deconstruct the very idea of deconstruction, it's so incredibly ironic and telling that they don't even understand what they are attacking. 

 

and you seem to be conflating subjectivity with people's opinions. this is false. subjectivity can exist outside of one's personal viewpoint. a single person can have multiple subjective takes on an idea. you're exactly right that the brain is not the best objective reality measuring device...but this is precisely why pomo is so important as an analytical framework. i have said this over and over and over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol @mesh forced into the JP rhetorical corner "that's not what I'm saying"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i think we've come full circle now. let's abandon ship and just go with whatever shia labeouf was talking about last year before he assaulted that guy.

Edited by Mesh Gear Fox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...