Jordan Peterson interview

[lukeneyland]

It's not. That's not the point.

Right that’s sorta the point of what he’s saying isn’t it?

 

[Wafflestomper]

What is it that he pretends to understand but doesn’t?

His understanding of postmodernism, for one thing, is flawed. I've heard him suggest that postmodernists are essentially rebranded Marxists who were forced underground after Marxism became taboo in Europe. That they've taken [what he says is] a central narrative of Marxism, i.e., conflict between the rich and the poor, and tweaked it to be oppressed vs. oppressor. Both of these show a complete lack of understanding of not only postmodernist thought but also Marxism.

 

[lukeneyland]

His understanding of postmodernism, for one thing, is flawed. I've heard him suggest that postmodernists are essentially rebranded Marxists who were forced underground after Marxism became taboo in Europe. That they've taken [what he says is] a central narrative of Marxism, i.e., conflict between the rich and the poor, and tweaked it to be oppressed vs. oppressor. Both of these show a complete lack of understanding of not only postmodernist thought but also Marxism.

And what is your understanding of post modernism? From what I’ve read a link can be made between Marxist thought and Post Modern thought.

 

[Wafflestomper]

And what is your understanding of post modernism? From what I’ve read a link can be made between Marxist thought and Post Modern thought.

A link can be made between lots of things that are essentially unrelated. Whether the conclusion reached based on said link is reasonable is the issue.

The criticism of Peterson is that he's generally wrong about these alleged links. For instance, that postmodernism is essentially rebranded Marxism. First of all, postmodernism emerged prior to when Peterson alleges Marxism failed and academic Marxists [as he says] had to go underground. Second, Marxism and postmodernism are generally at odds since postmodernism is generally against grand metanarratives (traditional means by which we order the world) and Marxism is itself a metanarrative.

Also, Peterson has acknowledged that he hasn't really read Marx's work--only the Communist Manifesto, which is a pamphlet. Seems to me that he probably doesn't even have an undergrad level understanding of most of these philosophies, and yet boasts a huge following of nut swingers because he has a PhD and sounds smart. Sort of reminds me of Sam Harris.

 

[C-south]

A link can be made between lots of things that are essentially unrelated. Whether the conclusion reached based on said link is reasonable is the issue.

The criticism of Peterson is that he's generally wrong about these alleged links. For instance, that postmodernism is essentially rebranded Marxism. First of all, postmodernism emerged prior to when Peterson alleges Marxism failed and academic Marxists [as he says] had to go underground. Second, Marxism and postmodernism are generally at odds since postmodernism is generally against grand metanarratives (traditional means by which we order the world) and Marxism is itself a metanarrative.

Also, Peterson has acknowledged that he hasn't really read Marx's work--only the Communist Manifesto, which is a pamphlet. Seems to me that he probably doesn't even have an undergrad level understanding of most of these philosophies, and yet boasts a huge following of nut swingers because he has a PhD and sounds smart. Sort of reminds me of Sam Harris.

You sound like a Marxist.

 

[Wafflestomper]

You sound like a Marxist.

The use of "marxist" as a perjurative by conservatives is as empty and meaningless as "racist" is from those on the left.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Basically, like everything else in America nowadays from sports teams to soft Drinks, one‘s opinion of Dr Peterson can be accurately predicted by ones political leanings. The actual contents of his lectures and books notwithstanding. We look for people who agree with our tribe and dismiss everyone else. My advice would be to at least listen to the guy with an open mind before dismissing him out of hand. Same with intellectuals feted by the left.

 

[lukeneyland]

The use of "marxist" as a perjurative by conservatives is as empty and meaningless as "racist" is from those on the left.

So you don’t sense/ observe Marxist overtones in some of our institutions today. Critical race theory is a low hanging fruit, but it’s certainly permeated many levels of our government. As far as defining post modernism is concerned, it doesn’t seem to be something that can narrowly defined. To me your criticism of Peterson seems a bit pedantic. I sense you have a political axe to grind but maybe I’m wrong who knows. I do agree with you in that sometimes the term Marxist is tossed around a bit too frequently.

 

[lukeneyland]

Basically, like everything else in America nowadays from sports teams to soft Drinks, one‘s opinion of Dr Peterson can be accurately predicted by ones political leanings. The actual contents of his lectures and books notwithstanding. We look for people who agree with our tribe and dismiss everyone else. My advice would be to at least listen to the guy with an open mind before dismissing him out of hand. Same with intellectuals feted by the left.

Which I find odd. He’s not even a conservative in most senses of the word

 

[OrangeTsar]

Which I find odd. He’s not even a conservative in most senses of the word

True, but he talks a lot about rationality, responsibility, and the existence of objective facts, all three of which are core first principles for most modern conservatives

 

[lukeneyland]

True, but he talks a lot about rationality, responsibility, and the existence of objective facts, all three of which are core first principles for most modern conservatives

I see, to me those shouldn’t be perceived as partisan thoughts but indisputable principles. I might be too optimistic in that thought.

 

[Volgolfer1618]

In short, the way that he attributes much of the worlds problem to our tendencies to behave as a collective. Think about our current race situation. It’s hard to go long before being bombarded with identity politics, there doesn’t seem to be much individual thought. It’s hard to express my thoughts on VOL nation while working, but I suggest you look him up. He’s fascinating. To me he represents what classical liberalism used to be.

He's pretty smart guy. He's up there with grand vol

 

[OrangeTsar]

I see, to me those shouldn’t be perceived as partisan thoughts but indisputable principles. I might be too optimistic in that thought.

With the „classic“ left, these were bipartisan principles. But the left of the last few decades has traded personal responsibility for victimhood as part of an oppressed group, objective truth for personal narrative, and has described rationally as an artifact of „white privilege“ Eurocentric culture. When the very act of thinking objectively is cast aside, then a culture is actively committing intellectual (and eventually moral) suicide.

 

[Wafflestomper]

So you don’t sense/ observe Marxist overtones in some of our institutions today. Critical race theory is a low hanging fruit, but it’s certainly permeated many levels of our government. As far as defining post modernism is concerned, it doesn’t seem to be something that can narrowly defined. To me your criticism of Peterson seems a bit pedantic. I sense you have a political axe to grind but maybe I’m wrong who knows. I do agree with you in that sometimes the term Marxist is tossed around a bit too frequently.

Don't you think, if you're concerned about the increased popularity of Marxist ideals in North America, that the best way to combat it is to actually engage with what these philosophers are saying? Peterson either misunderstands or misrepresents them, and in ways that are actually significant (whether or not I've made that clear may be another thing).

 

[Wafflestomper]

With the „classic“ left, these were bipartisan principles. But the left of the last few decades has traded personal responsibility for victimhood as part of an oppressed group, objective truth for personal narrative, and has described rationally as an artifact of „white privilege“ Eurocentric culture. When the very act of thinking objectively is cast aside, then a culture is actively committing intellectual (and eventually moral) suicide.

Who has cast aside objective truth and why is objective truth at odds with personal narrative? What do you mean?

 

[lukeneyland]

Don't you think, if you're concerned about the increased popularity of Marxist ideals in North America, that the best way to combat it is to actually engage with what these philosophers are saying? Peterson either misunderstands or misrepresents them, and in ways that are actually significant (whether or not I've made that clear may be another thing).

Peterson engages them all the time. I’m probably spelling his name wrong but he had a pretty publicized debate with Slavoj Zizek. As well with others of less renown. I wouldn’t limit his concern to North America either, it’s the entire western world

 

[lukeneyland]

Who has cast aside objective truth and why is objective truth at odds with personal narrative? What do you mean?

How about the rather vocal part of society that seems to think that gender is not a genetic fact, but something that is mutable and based on how one feels. I don’t think you can reject the objective truth any harder than that.

 

[AshG]

What we've not mentioned in the discussion of postmodernism is the integral component of the Marketplace of Ideas. Postmodernism posits that all ideas have equal merit so long as you can support your position. Marxism is not the market, simply a kiosk within in.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Peterson engages them all the time. I’m probably spelling his name wrong but he had a pretty publicized debate with Slavoj Zizek. As well with others of less renown. I wouldn’t limit his concern to North America either, it’s the entire western world

Yes, he talks about what he thinks they're saying. The problem is that he is wrong about what they're saying in many cases. Specifically postmodernists. And probably because he's only seen snippets of their work or has only looked at secondary sources (Stephen Hicks).

 

[Wafflestomper]

How about the rather vocal part of society that seems to think that gender is not a genetic fact, but something that is mutable and based on how one feels. I don’t think you can reject the objective truth any harder than that.

Ask yourself whether the definition of what gender is is itself an objective fact. If so you'll have to explain how you arrived at that conclusion. Trans people (and plenty of others) don't think gender and sex are the same thing.

 

[C-south]

Ask yourself whether the definition of what gender is is itself an objective fact. If so you'll have to explain how you arrived at that conclusion. Trans people (and plenty of others) don't think gender and sex are the same thing.

Unless you were born with a physical abnormality there are only two. The alphabets have hijacked the word “gender” but it doesn’t change what it really is. Anything else and your just trying to attempt to rationalize a mental disorder without calling it a mental disorder.

 

[AshG]

Ask yourself whether the definition of what gender is is itself an objective fact. If so you'll have to explain how you arrived at that conclusion. Trans people (and plenty of others) don't think gender and sex are the same thing.

Scientifically speaking, they aren't. We've known that for a long time.

 

[lukeneyland]

Ask yourself whether the definition of what gender is is itself an objective fact. If so you'll have to explain how you arrived at that conclusion. Trans people (and plenty of others) don't think gender and sex are the same thing.

Yes Gender is an objective biologically determined fact. What you just said in the last sentence sorta reinforces what Peterson is talking about

 

[Wafflestomper]

Unless you were born with a physical abnormality there are only two. The alphabets have hijacked the word “gender” but it doesn’t change what it really is. Anything else and your just trying to attempt to rationalize a mental disorder without calling it a mental disorder.

But this isn't an argument for the traditional usage of the word gender. This is just saying that believing anything else is an attempt to normalize a mental disorder, which is just begging the question (i.e., a logical fallacy).

 

[lukeneyland]

Ask yourself whether the definition of what gender is is itself an objective fact. If so you'll have to explain how you arrived at that conclusion. Trans people (and plenty of others) don't think gender and sex are the same thing.

I hope you watch the baseball game today bud