Libertarian Postmodernism: A Reply to Jordan Peterson and the Intellectual Dark Web
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 09. 2018
- Reason's Nick Gillespie defends Foucault, Hayek, and an "incredulity towards metanarratives."
FULL TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE HERE: reason.com/video/2018/09/26/l...
---------
Subscribe to our CZcams channel: / reasontv
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magaz. .
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: goo.gl/az3a7a
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
---------
People of many political persuasions have identified postmodernism as a major threat to civilization. The most notable recent attacks have come from Jordan Peterson and other members of the so-called "Intellectual Dark Web."
Reason Editor-at-Large Nick Gillespie has a problem with that. He sat down with Zach Weissmueller, video journalist for Reason TV, to discuss and defend postmodernism-a term he says has been widely mischaracterized by its most vociferous critics-from a libertarian perspective.
Watch the full interview above.
Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Lorenz Lo.
"Say It Again, I'm Listening" by Daniel Birch is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial NoDerivatives 4.0 License: (creativecommons.org/licenses/...) Source: freemusicarchive.org/music/Dan... Artist: freemusicarchive.org/music/Dan...
"Fluid Dreams" by Daniel Birch is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial NoDerivatives 4.0 License: (creativecommons.org/licenses/...) Source: freemusicarchive.org/music/Dan... Artist: freemusicarchive.org/music/Dan...
"Telling Me Yes" by Ryan Andersen is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial NoDerivatives 4.0 License: (creativecommons.org/licenses/...) Source: freemusicarchive.org/music/Rya... Artist: freemusicarchive.org/music/Rya...
As a history student, and someone who has been involved with the academic history community, I see the heavy influence that his English education has had on his view of post-modernism. In literary criticism the deconstructionist techniques of post-modernism are incredibly useful. It allows you to interrogate relationships and the sub-textual foundations of a particular work. I would argue that the lit-crit community is almost entirely an education in post-modern philosophies and their imposition on literature. The problem with Nick's overly simplistic definition of post-modernism: incredulity towards meta-narratives, is that this overly broad philosophy has major issues when it is leveraged towards other narratives. Postmodernism in History has been a bit of a joke simply because History has for a long time held incredulity at its heart. Interrogation of sources, intention, hierarchies, and power dynamics are already a major component of academic history, but the post-modernists arrive and proclaim 'power and truth are constructed and all history is simply subjective narratives.' Now, historians put a lot of work into vetting the provenance of work and the importance of particular sources or persons. If you arrive and claim 'truth is wholly contingent and what is important is competing narratives' you undermine the entire job of the historian. Foucault himself pretended at writing history with the case Nick mentioned concerning mental health power structures. What Nick didn't mention is that Foucault intentionally cherry picked historical sources to support his anti-authoritarian narrative. There were few medievalists who supported foucault and when confronted Foucault claimed that the 'truth' of the sources was irrelevent because the 'narrative' was true regardless. Narratives are all that guides the core of academic post-modernism and that is why it often gets folded into social justice issues. The subjectivity of these narratives are the problem, and it makes it very difficult to argue with someone who emphatically argues that all things are always equally contingent.
TLDR: Postmodernism is great when you're trying to think about abstract concepts like literature, but it really doesn't make sense in other fields even though people claim it does.
Excellent comment. Even Peterson (one of post-modernism's harshest critics) does not claim it is without merit, only that it is easy to apply badly (and harmfully).
One can argue that the stories of literature aren't 'merely,' aren't 'just' narratives. History has the goal of truth, a layer or strand, and the history can be thick with multiple sources and perspectives, but a novel can be as well. At its heart is still the metaphorical truth of human storytelling. Pomo will say that all history is a fiction, but they have no trouble drawing from history to make their critiques. That's the trap of pomo thinking: in the extreme it engulfs everyone, including those who weaponize it against the master narratives.
Was just about to say all that 🤓
This is indeed an interesting take on this whole issue. However, I've still to see a convincing argument as to why postmodernism'claim that history isn't always true and that it can be seen from multiple perspectives is incorrect. You basically stated that the postmodern argument is inconvenient since it doesn't allign with the historians take on history. That doesn't refute the postmodern argument whatsoever. Furthermore, postmodernism does not claim that the different possible perspectives of history are all equal; it simply argues that they can exist. Even in our daily life, we witness different takes on certain situations, let alone history told by people centuries ago. The saying "history is written by the victors" is there for a reason. Postmodernism doesn't argue that truth cannot exist; it suggests that we ought to approach our understandings of truth with modesty and openness. Thank you for your enlightening comment.
Good points. When I learned history at school it wasn't so much about learning "HISTORY" as it was about learning how to look at historical sources with a critical eye.
We should apply Postmodern analysis to Feminism and Intersectionality.
It has been done. See Judith Butler.
@@marekdenisiuk7525 Yes but has her analysis had a postmodern analysis done to it yet? We need to keep doing these analysis of analysis and question every part until nothing coherent remains lol. Such is the fate of postmodernism.
Sex/Gender at least
Not merely Judith Butler but also Kristeva was even earlier.
As far as intersectionality you should read it's origins, it has nothing to do with the popular application.
The original idea was a legal argument in regards to civil rights law, which is completely applicable. The observation was that there were certain types of discrimination that came from intersecting variables. For example a black lesbian might experience discrimination from a black heterosexual man or vice versa while both experience discrimination for being black.
The problem is that this legal argument has translated into a pseudo-philosophy of some rigid hierarchy of oppression.
The legal argument does not specifically concretize a hierarchy of oppression just observes that certain intersections can exist, so you could easily apply it to a dominant or majority group as well being that civil rights laws are ubiquitous.
The fact that intersectionality has so quickly warped into a different concept proves Derrida right.
What Derrida said, "Texts deconstruct themselves."
Meaning that a text will be reinterpreted and become a different structural thing than its authors original idea or intention.
Possibly P-M analysis of BLM and Antifa agendas.
I don't mind reason critiquing JP or the railing against postmodernism, but I do think this is a bit of strawmanning and conflating 2 different definitions of the term "postmodernism". I hope a follow up can be done with Jordan Peterson and Reason TV can do a debate.
That is the problem with labels, now we have to argue about what postmodernism rather than critiquing actual views. And if you try to define postmodernism you have to be a historian citing self proclaimed postmodernist that will have many opinion of which view can actually be postmodernism. Instead we should just look at individual philosophies, or distilled views.
Has JP ever defined a postmodernism that isn't a strawman but actually something that a self identified postmodernist would agree with?
I suggest listening the Tom Woods episode 1244 featuring Michael Rechtenwald. It'll give you a good idea about what postmodernism is and why it's a terrible idea.
David Ducette a single source isn't very good. And critics tend to use a strawman or narrowing of what something actually is. I just ask people be more skeptical, just because someone says what somethings means, does it make it truth.
The problem is JP's so called definition has nothing to do with post modernism
As a huge fan of JP, it's great to see someone on the other side making constructive arguments. Would love to see these two in a debate.
JP is not a postmodern specialist.I really think he got the bad faith argument from career philosophers like Stephen Hickse
Hope you made it out of the Peterson cult
Whoa, that ratio. Now I have to watch. I like JP, but I also enjoy constructive criticism of his arguments. The problem is that it's hard to find any amidst the straw man dumpster fires.
@@impossiblynice I'm not that knowledgable on this subject but from what I've seen, It's more the problem that students began solely using postmodernism as an anti-western weapon warping it into something else. Peterson combats this warped postmodernism, yet is not concerned with the true postmodern roots which Nick describes in this video.
@@someones5551 I agree. It appears to me that anti-western idealogues have created a psuedo-Postmodernism in the same way that they have developed their own brand of "Liberalism", which has prompted many people (such as Dave Rubin) to describe themselves as Clasical Liberals. The average American seems to be unaware of the historical roots of these ideologies and therefore defines Liberalism or Postmodernism contemporaneously, making it beneficial if not absolutely essential to invoke such distinctions. To support this, I would point to the fact that the "Liberals" of the contemporary American political Left are often vociferously opposed to the Classical Liberalism of the Founding Fathers. For the same reason, I think it would be beneficial for people like Peterson to differentiate between classical and contemporary Postmodernism.
Ironically many people who hold classically Liberal beliefs, including Dave Rubin, often refer to themselves as Libertarian (Libertarianism began as a socialist ideology). To be clear I like Dave Rubin and respect his work, and often describe myself as a Libertarian. I also recognize that most people do not associate Libertarianism with the left so it is less likely to cause confusion, but nonetheless it is historically inaccurate to equate Classical Liberalism with Libertarianism.
Well said
Come to 2021 they'll be plenty of dumpster fires...
Actually Jordan Peterson’s arguments are more like the straw man dumpster fires. He’s never said anything remotely true about postmodernism or Marxism. Most of his comments are ad hominems or straw men. You’re clearly biased if you can’t recognize that
I love how majority of the people disagreeing with this seem to be objectivists.
You don't have to be an objectivist to call out this bs too.
Its ok to be an objectivist
I'm more akin of rothbardian and hoppean thought, and see this as na entirely bs try to defend post-modernism
Of course we disagree with this, JP is lousy with subjectivism. Dude does nothing but play games. Tiresome, gets very old.
"The first thing you wanna note about postmodernism is that it doesn't have a shred of gratitude"
The guy then goes on to explain how he is grateful for being born in late 20th century America. That's not what Peterson said, he said the ideology had no gratitude, not it's proponents. Come on, try harder
Mincas LKT how can an ideology have gratitude
People can have gratitude, not ideas
Sounds like you missed the remaining 35 minutes, and decided the preamble must be the body. Short attention spans abound.
I was asking a genuine question and you responded by insulting me. Thanks.
@@jessica495929 Maybe he was talking to Mincas...?
Anyway, he fucked up because he didn't make it clear to whom he was responding to.
G.G. CZcams can never make up its mind what sort of reply text it wants to add on what platform. I no longer bother caring. Sorry for the confusion; I assumed the context eliminated the ambiguity.
Why not just debate Jordan Peterson?
This video convinced me that Postmodernism is a much larger umbrella than I previously realized. But it does not really address the IDW's assertion that universities are ideologically dominated by a particular brand of neo-Marxism that is called Postmodernism by its proponents, even though in fact they adopt only the aspects of Postmodernism that suit their purposes.
Because that would require a shred of honesty and guts.
Because nobody has time to argue against his 10 hour definition of what truth is
A debate with postmodernists always devolves into "What do words even _really_ mean, anyways?"
They think words are all subjective jargon. One person's words are simply their attempt to oppress your system of words in order to be the one who decides the meaning of the word - but the postmodernist laughs because they secretly know that words and meaning have no meaning at all.
I'm guessing this video is trying to bait/get on JBPs radar.
His statement at 5:02 implies that people “bitching and moaning” somehow signals moral vitality... it is a stereotypical dismissal of criticisms of post-modernism.
Well according to the definition of Postmodernism at 1:30 and Michel Foucult explanations at 2:40, we should be scrutinizing leftist political ideas and claims that "everything is faschist and/or racist".
I think that the problem with PM becomes when people they start to doubt emperical/scientific evidence.
Doubt is always a positive force. It is a cornerstone of the scientific method. PM uses doubt not to find truth, but to justify indifference to the value of comparable truths.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 I think that PM is just a tool like a hammer and prejudice.
And just like with those other tools, you can use them in a very stupid and dangerous way with malicious intnent.
PM is great to doubt utopic ideals like An-cap and communism.
Maybe it's just time that we started to do what Mr. Michel Foucult is saying.
Criticize the universities; those institutions that are considered to be the most neutral.
G.G. This is already happening. Universities, institutions that are considered to be neutral, are currently being attacked by postmodernists on both sides. On the left, they are attacked for not incorporating the latest social justice measure into its fabric (microagressions, safe spaces, special funding and demands from minority student groups, etc) and thus engaging in political violence against marginalized groups. On the right, they are being attacked for suppressing conservative views, and conservative students being underrepresented within the student body, claiming that this is an active and concerted effort to silence conservative voices which is a form of political violence.
So we can see the postmodern left AND the postmodern right are attacking the University. Just as we should scrutinize leftist political ideas that "everything is fascist or racist," we should scrutinize rightist political ideas like "everything is cultural marxism or degeneracy"
Saucy Pupper True. The conservative blowback should definitely not be focused on the same demonization tactics that the left is currently using.
But at the same time, I don't feel like conservatives are really a threat to the universities like the current left is.
You will find a lot of people complaining about cultural Marxism online, but that conversation has little bearing on how the universities are going to be run for the next 10 - 20 years.
Nick might be right about some of the initial characteristics of post modern theory, but the theory has swung far, far away from that. It has now become a religion that dismisses science, logic, and even reason based on one's "lived experience" or where one is positioned in the power structure. Yes post modernism is bad in general.
Thanks for that clarification. I was so confused because I have only heard the Peterson version before and what Nick is saying is so different.
That's a completely illogical, non scientific, "lived experience," take on post modernism.
@@subcitizen2012 Post modernism is illogical and non-scientific idea.
Foucault was also a pedophile, which seems to be a common characteristic of many founders of post-modernism.
Absolutely false. Learn the subject of your inquiry.
This is less a rebuttal of Peterson's ideas and pretty much an argument over the definition of Postmodernism.
Theres almost no variation in the actual ideas here.
Yes because Peterson's "definition" of postmodernism is a peurile straw-man argument that has no respect whatsoever for it or its practitioners.
Why should there be "variation" in ideas? Its consistency, and within consistent libertarianism is the allowance for wide variation in personal values and styles of living.
I agree. Gillespie (along with Thaddeus Russell) seem to defend Postmodernism based on a definition of it that is basically "skepticism of metanarratives." Well, I don't think any one of these people who criticize Postmodernism would disagree with the importance of thinking critically of dogmas.
I'm not sure that Nick Gilespe and Jordan Peterson disagree about very mush, except the definition of "Postmodernism."
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ did you mean mush or much?
@@99guspuppet8
Much
@@JonWMeyer Thank you
Postmodernism is being skeptical of objective narratives. Things that people say is "objectively true" are often times unsupported or require further study. Is the United States a force for good? Is emotion truly inferior to logic? Is American culture the best culture? Discovering new problems and new modes of thought, even if they are not correct, is important. We know far less than we think we know. And as we are learning in the mainstream now, "neutral" institutions that are in fact not neutral at all, but politically repressive, something postmodernists were discussing all along.
The problem is this has caused a kind of social chaos, which is why we have people trying to create new objective narratives to reestablish a shared order. But pandora's box is opened, the simplest examination of these new narratives shows how arbitrarily invented they are, and are grounded in equally arbitrary sources of knowledge: stereotypes, myths, religion, and even science to a degree. How can you spin a tale of how the world works and is ordered, while at the same time ignoring how arbitrary this tale is? Capitalism good, Marxism bad. Western Civilization good, Islam bad. Individualism good, collectivism bad. Anyone with a brain knows the truth is far more complicated than that.
Just because something is "abitrarily invented" it isn't automatically wrong. And while YOU may feel we have the luxury of not knowing anything for sure, many people whose beliefs are set in stone want to attain power, and in any actual real--world contestation with muddled, "no objective reality" types, they'll win.
Collectivism one kind of hard to argue it's good. I mean yes everybody needs for some degree but whenever country basic national idea comes from collectivism, it got fuck really hard. Isnt that what cold war and WW2 proved? Marxism too, it's not bad to include some idea, but there's not successful country base on Marxism ( Modern China isn't Marxism so that one doesn't count)
No that's just retarded and that example is retarded. A postmodernist will make a debate on proving why 1+1=2 is wrong.
"Individualism good, collectivism bad."
Can any collective exist without the individuals who/that comprise it? There is an absolutely factual, true answer to that.
Great video. I loved the characterization of the media landscape as "... fractured but boundless", there is an almost mathematical precision in the phrasing. Also loved those Hayek clips and the overall discussion. Thanks!
I want to see Nick on the Rubin Report. That should be interesting.
@Islam is cancer 🤣
Actually God owns it too if you believe in God
@@adamduarte895 what? 🤔
They actually have spoken. czcams.com/video/TPmLkgMHt7I/video.html I haven't seen the whole thing so I don't know if the idea of the IDW comes up nor any discussion about post-modernism.
**Update:** Just watched it. Peterson comes up in a question from the audience (to Rubin) and Gillespie doesn't really comment too much about it. Still I would love to see the three of them speak, Rubin, Gillespie and Peterson.
Mikko Hilden Nothing Dave Rubin has to say is interesting
Wow, this was really interesting and well produced!
there seems to be be a huge chasm between how nick sees post-modernism and how SJW's see it. I dont think anyone sees a big problem with questioning the status quo. but i have seen countless videos equating western science to African voodoo, or some similar comparison. I'm sorry, but we can know some things with certainty. post-modernism has been weaponized against western culture, regardless of the original intent of the philosophy. if post-modernism was ever a good idea, we lost that battle and need to move on. or keep the initial intent and give it a new name.
Yeah, it's kinda what sjw are continuesly trying to redefine "racism" as "power + prejudice", absolute cat piss.
What would the new name be?
@@Chronically_ChiII political skepticism?
matt wilson not bad.
Should we assign new names every time the willful co-option of a word to an opposed concept is perpetrated? But if so, why even have language at all? We can simply accept every claim prima facie.
@@marshaul that's a really good point. I honestly don't like this pop-culture driven fascination to give everything some catchy name. on the other hand, giving ideas labels makes things clear-cut. I also dont feel too bad about losing "post-modernism". it wasn't that well known anyway. "liberal" is a much harder pill to swallow.
I would be perfectly fine with using the current philosophy of libertarianism to come to be known as opposition to SJW post-modernism.
I guess in the end we are trying to win hearts and minds. normies need to know who is who. labels facilitate that.
Just a daily reminder that Foucault petitioned to have age of consent laws abolished completely.
And immanuel kant was a racist. Should we now ignore him and cut his thought off of our history of philosophy? Great thinking
@@JesusChrist-kg3lq Not comparable. Tribalism has been compatible with decent successful societies. It is in fact the human norm, and even harmless when the tribes leave each other alone. We abandon or modify it only for the benefits of coexisting in a larger nation.
Pedophilia is always evil. Any instruction or analysis by an advocate is suspect, as that is the fruit of the same mind. It would have no effect on his function as a janitor or ditch digger, but that's not what he offers.
Post modernism is one simple insight buried in mountains of sophistry, everything decays. I feel sorry for anybody that spends their entire life digging up mountains to figure out what a wise 10 year old could have told you. I'm not saying post modernism isn't brilliant, it is. It is the most brilliantly constructed maze leading nowhere ever built.
Is it really that trivial that 10 year old would realize it? The religion of progressivism is followed to this day by the majority of people smart and average alike and the so attractive and useful is it to the establishment that it puts millions of dollars maneuvering and banking on it as a successful alternative to the Roman Catholic Church.
@@patrickmcmanus1360 Intelligent people believe it because it justifies their nihilism. The powerful believe it because if everything is arbitrary power games it justifies the exercise of arbitrary power. The weak believe it because it justifies their failures as external oppression. People believe in Postmodernism because it's convenient not because it has enduring value or genuine complexity or intelligibility. Never underestimate convenience as a selling point.
@@jeremyponcy7311 Postmodernism however you feel about it’s constructive/ instructive power or lack thereof is relegated to academia. It had nowhere near the power or appeal people think it does. The rest of us out here need a God - something we can believe in. The powerful wouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot stick. The are only attracted to things that are useful. That has been progressivism for the last 100 years and still continues to beat out everything else. It is the winning race horse. Science is the new source of meaning and truth for the moderns - it is a misuse and abuse of course but non- science people don’t know that. Progressivism is the tool of the powerful and the new source of meaning for the masses. If you think postmodernism is anything but an interesting idea in the backwaters of academia you’ve been lied to by establishment shills. People need meaning and gravitate towards that, power needs that too for different reasons. Nobody actually believes or is influenced in modern society by postmodernism. That is a convenient lie to keep progressivism from dying. It’s been dying since WWII.
@@jeremyponcy7311 corrupted versions of Enlightenment values is what modern society runs on - progressivism’s version of : individualism, logic, science and freedom. You can’t have real individualism in a society where the most powerful entities namely military and government are brutal collectivists, you can’t be guided by “science” if you insist on applying it to thing it was never mean - that a scientist, and you can’t have true freedom without respecting your roots and tradition and the bounds of your actual reality. The modern chaos you’re witnessing is the last dying breaths of progressivism and enlightenment society without it’s Christian underpinnings. Postmodernism is just standing by watching what they already warned you about. Don’t loop them into this.
@@jeremyponcy7311 * scientism (autocorrect)
"Postmodernism says that there is not one fact that defines our lives." Is that one fact that defines all peoples lives? Postmodernism and self-stultification. Postmodernism is an "'incredulity towards metanarratives." Well Is Postmodernism just not another incredulous story on the menu?
I didn't agree with everything discussed, but watching the full forty minutes was definitely worth it.
The end of this video was pretty postmodern.
It was also pretty cool :)
Excellent discussion, wonderfully wide-ranging and focused on the topic simultaneously. Also, the ideas are presented very clearly and would be accessible to an intelligent, ignorant, dedicated person as well. Overall, this discussion of postmodernism has an ultimately hopeful outlook -- rather than complaining about the loss of meaning or about opposing politicial views- -- which is also refreshing. Thanks for taking the time to prepare a very good interview with plenty of examples from various mediums (cartoons to YT presentations etc) and keeping it engaging for such a prolonged presentation. I look forward to experiencing more intellectual and productive conversations.
Reason TV, did you even reach out to Jordan Peterson to get an interview with him? It is a bizarre choice to structure this as an interview with Gillespie that is basically a faux dialogue with Peterson. An interview would have been much more engaging.
I think that a debate should be better
This interview was far fairer than the language Jordan Peterson uses against postmodernism. I found it a genuinely useful interview. A debate between the two would be interesting in the future.
There seems to be an attempt to redefine postmodernism in a light that explicitly denies particular driving meta narratives of postmodernism, while claiming to be skeptical of all metanarratives, which is one itself. The paradoxes are never ending.
My head hurts
During this extreme-left vs extreme-right theater, post-modernism being labelled as marxism is just the most recent victim of the caricaturization of serious arguments which were being made by mature, civilized, adults. Other debates, discussions, and potential reform derailed this way include the argument "cultural appropriation" (as white people adopting aspects of other cultures) when the previous argument the adults were having was about the use of "Intellectual Property" laws by corporations to steal cultural ideas and lock them up as proprietary products/services. Such as Disney co-opting classic stories from cultures around the world and using copyright laws to sue the people from whose cultures they originated when they attempt to pass them down to the next generation. Same thing for pharmaceutical companies patenting traditional medicines.
Pretty funny that Nick responds to the claim that postmodernism is morally relativistic with a kind of naive 18th century liberal universalism and appeal to common sense. Truly such an "Incredulity towards metanarratives", indeed.
Didn't age very well either!
One of Peterson's arguments about irony of this trend that appears to be associated with "postmodernism" is that *a genuine postmodern thinker would be skeptical and incredulous about much of what passes for postmodern metanarrative dogma* . Most of the "Believe" complaints and assertions that are associated with the metanarratives of intersectionality, victim hierarchies and oppressor hierarchies, based on 'assumed' Group Identity, this ought to be held up to sharp scrutiny by most postmodern philosophers.
Yet many postmodern writers and speakers DON'T LOOK THERE because of the earlier metanarratives during the early 60s during which unjust Power was much more normalized as actual White Male patriarchy, and vestiges of Jim Crow were much stronger.
Heather MacDonald fully acknowledges *past inequality* in contrast to say a more genuine free market meritocracy. Let's generally agree that fighting oppression and resisting the military conformity of two World Wars and the Cold War (George Orwell said the US would become more like the USSR in engaging in the long right with the USSR) --- this had somewhat more rationality back then, if one sets aside violent extremists of that Social Cause. (Violent extremists justified their actions because the Vietnam War was violent, and police were much less polite.)
You can find examples of where Group Identity is fully-based on race & gender, more than neutral class, but when a "Person of Color" objects even mildly to these classifications and assertions placed upon them, made on their behalf, the reaction of the mob is to SHAME, CALL THEM OUT as HATERS or NAZIS, and ultimately be CAST OUT of the in-group, even out of the right to participate and have a voice, in both casual settings and classroom academics, and in the case of Damore, in the workplace.
In the meantime, a Black student son of a literal millionaire executive (at Mizzou) is lauded as a victim fighting oppression, fighting for existence, at a U in which the chosen class president is Black and Gay. So people with *much* power are deemed to have no power, while people who have little institutional power to defend their existence and ideas, are stripped of all power.
Critics are mocked.
Critics are shamed.
Critics are not listened to.
Critics are actually DEHUMANIZED by being slapped with a label like Nazi, after previously being DEHUMANIZED as an individual by being assigned to a Racial or Gender Group Identity.
What is more dehumanizing and threatening of one's existence than to be lumped into a category of either Ally in this War or else Enemy or the colored equivalent of "Race Traitor".
Should be, but is not scrutinized because the narrative of the "oppressed" are somehow more "true" than the the narratives of the oppressors, supposedly, somehow. Logic and reason should eventually overcome, but logic and reason should have overcome "Marxist Theory" but it took the loss of 120 million people (give or take 40 million people) to prove the theory was not viable but even this "proof" is not enough for many in the year 2021. Sad.
So debate them, leather jacket man.
Bump.
I'm sure that's what they are trying to do, but first you have to get their attention so they know you exist. Apparently, Reason has chosen the route of being a disingenuous thorn in the side to get that attention.
He would lose a debate against Jordan Peterson
MoNgO OoOoOo I would prefer a conversation.
This is what the Reason Cato crowd tends to do - not an indictment just an observation. They call people names & just leave it at that, no conversation, no debate, no facts. It’s a very leftist tactic.
"As an example of an entire field of activity based on nothing but the Argument from Intimidation, I give you modern art - where, in order to prove that they do possess the special insight possessed only by the mystic “elite,” the populace are trying to surpass one another in loud exclamations on the splendor of some bare (but smudged) piece of canvas." ~ Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, 140
I wonder if Michal Z. can explain these in his own words or will spend his days quoting some one else's words.
What does this quote have to do with the video?
I just saw a painting at the Princeton Museum of 9 black squares, like an all-black tic-tac-toe board.
The sign said this and similar paintings looked "simple" but disguised a huge amount of technical skill while making it look "easy".
@@gg_rider
When a pile of --- admittedly almost symmetrical perfect, with very little surface imperfections --- bricks can be arranged in seven different kind of formations, and it be called modern art ...
Heck, even a painting of a can of soup, or two frames of a fictious cartoon, in which an American Air Force jet blows up another plane, abet across two large canvases, showed more technical skill ...
... and then there is that famous urinal, which the artist bought, and turned it into art by simply painting his name, and year of purchase, and giving it a name ...
Back in the 1990s, I once described modern art as typically being two, or three, pieces of metal, welded together, when the Tate Gallery of Modern Art opened in London, and I saw a sculpture that wasn't too far removed from that, I couldn't help but laugh ...
I'm not that fond of Ayn Rand, but the older I get, the more I see some of what she said is actually true ...
could someone give me a link to the F.A. Hayek interview from this interview?
"I think Richard Dawkins is demonstrating there why, every time he speaks, even people who don't believe in God suddenly want to worship Jesus." 8:01
You think that is an accurate point?
@@alexkaapa Obviously not. It was funny though, and he went on to explain himself, so no big deal.
@@seaburyneucollins688 dawkins is by no means promoting scientism though
I would pay $150 for a shitty seat to watch Peterson, Gillespie, Rubin, Harris, and a couple others have a 3 hour discussion. Not quite a Oxford style debate but conversation about Post-Modernism.
Great video. This is definitely going to help with my graduate English literature course when we read Foucault.
No it won't.
This is excellent and a long time coming
To me I don't know what post modernism is. What is even modernism. And will there be post post modernism. The other problem is many people with different views and can take on labels, rightfully or wrongfully, so who gets to be the authority of what it truly means. And critics will often strawman ideologies. We should attack precise arguments and not groups by labels.
There will always be problems with labels, but they are consistent and (mostly) agreed upon definitions of modernism and post modernism.
I'd recommend watching the Wisecrack videos on the topic (the Deadpool one is good, the bo Burnham one describes progressing through these philosophy). They focus more on the literary and cultural definitions of these terms, which is more analogous to their meaning in this video than the way Peterson describes them.
And to answer your question, yes there is such a thing as post post modernism. However that's a bad name for it, as it is really just a rejection of all knowledge and begins to exhaust the usefulness of that particular avenue of thought.
“Post post modernism” is meta modernism.
Thank you for this video. I think myself and others have a lot of misconceptions about what Post Modernism is and this went a long way to correcting those. I still can't get on board with some key points, anti-essentialism being chief among them. If Post Modernism is really so baked into Libertarianism, I'm not a proponent of either.
I think it's more accurate to say that postmodernism and libertarianism are skeptical of the notion that we would know what is essential, that we have found enduring truth, not that there is such. You can believe that human nature is a thing worth interrogating, and still be humble and assume you don't know what it is if it exists, and be skeptical of those who claim to have found it.
Thank you for the excellent video. It was very informative.
Loved the video Nick. Thanks for sharing. I admire both you and JP. However, I do believe that when JP bundles the faulty fruits that come from the original post-modernist philosophy under the label "post-modernism" he's doing a disfavor to accuracy, as that philosophy, as you so well put it, has rendered many good fruits too. IMO we should call the faulty fruits that feed bad ideas such as group-identity politics what it is: cultural marxism.
A discussion about definitions. Since the dawn of time, language changes. Even the definition of libertarianism cannot be agreed upon.
Libertarian from my prospective is do you without bothering me. I dont see how postmodernism is a part of being libertarian
Unfortunately, libertarians who go into the territory of postmodernism lose ethics and become total clowns, just like Nick Gillespie
@Yu Jeff that doesnt make it libertarian you can be both and contradict yourself or agree percentage wise on both but that doesnt make the two intertwined
It always seemed to me that labels are what get you into trouble. When somebody enters a new realm of thought or behavior, it is really common for them to immediately adopt the confines of definition. Example: when I was a kid, I had a little skinny skateboard (1970s). In the mid 80s, I was absorbed into a group of kids that were into the Thrasher Magazine -era fat skateboards, parks, clothing, culture, etc. The first thing I noticed was that I was expected to hate cops.... then it was Christians... then the school system, then establishment in general, go anarchy, capitalism bad.... basically anything that punk bands sang about. The skateboard came with a formula.
I didn't watch television between the ages of about 16 or 17 to 30. After 9/11, I discovered the former renter in my house had pirated the cable and I immediately turned on and turned up the news. I was shocked, just flipping to different channels, seeing the different narratives that applied to the opposing formulas. At that age, I didn't even have a politic, pay taxes or exist beyond my birth certificate. It wasn't until GWB's 2nd election came about that I realized I didn't have anything in common with the other hippie, renegade forest dwellers I tended to hang out with. They wanted me to fill my heart with hate, and I didn't have room for it. I slid to the right.
Now, I find myself having ideas in common with everybody, but more so to the right. I'm not even sure where Libertarians exist on that scale anymore, but I know that I have some common beliefs. When I get into any kind of social media discussions though, however, I am expected to fall into step with it, just like any other sector of politics. I've been called bootlicker, and every other insult in the book. How is that freedom? Why do we have to define it? Why can it not be an ongoing discussion that incorporates situational awareness at a constant? Rigid lines are only confining.
Actions speak louder than words.
Ok, I was very skeptic of post modernism, but after this I better go back and read my post modern intellectual books to make to myself a better picture.
Watch this too... czcams.com/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/video.html
Not a good idea. Learn statistics; it is the core of every debate these days... those that disagree with this reccomendation are inconsequential postmodernists... haha...
Astonishingly refreshing and beautifully structured and presented.
Waiting for the Nick G. reader!!! When is it gonna drop? Memoirs? Can't wait!!! Literature, philosophy, history, culture... no pressure nick. :P
I'd preorder it
Good video, and research. I think we should all agree that Peterson has made this entire dialogue possible and is improving the depth to which people think about their politics and actual knowledge about any given subject. I think he has done the world a great service and he is by no means perfect nor does he ever claim to be. I truly think he is a great man who offers so much to close the gap between widening political factions in the West that need to take a deep breath and indeed show some gratitude and humility before we wreck what we have.
Cody Wilson said it nicely, paraphrased "I don't believe in absolute truth, but I suspect objects are more intelligent than subjects." Regarding relativistic morality, I don't need to know that murder or rape is wrong; All I need to understand is that I'll have consequences, and not only if I'm caught.
@@cireyenned via a site that explicitly does not allow underage girls. I bet postmodernism caused her to identify as an adult!
"Via a site that specifically doesn't allow underage girls" sure. That's why he fled to the Republic of China. Because he didn't realize she was a flipping minor.
Although I just looked up her age, and in my state it would have been legal (well not the sexting or prostitution. But the consensual sex at that age).
@@owlblocksdavid4955 She's obviously a minor. I'm just saying that the site doesn't allow for minors. It's not like he was seeking out minors.
WOW! Great conversation. I would love to see a dialog between Nick Gillespie and the IDW Peeps--especially Jordan Peterson. I will attempt to ask JP about what he thinks about this video on his next Patreon session (if someone doesn't beat me to it). =)
How can Hayek be mixed up with the postmodernist? I know why I cancelled my suscripción to Reason a while back
Here he points out Hayek’s view on scientific subjectivism. That is a very postmodern critique. Maybe read more and worship ideologies less.
@@matthewkopp2391 you can’t help these people. They’ve decided what they believe and are unwilling to subject it to any further doubt or skepticism.
I would agree in 2018 when this was made, but I wonder how Nick feels now with cancel culture, social media & network media censorship & the destruction of Black businesses by people who don't "like what is being said."
2018 was about the same, this whole thing in the US goes back to 2016 on a political level.
What does any of that have to do with postmodern theory? Nothing.
Oh, please, nobody has a problem with the self-evident truisms of post-modernism. Literally nobody! Have you ever heard either Peterson, Chomsky, Paglia, or anyone else say, "No, we really should uncritically accept meta-narrative X without any objection!?" Idiotic.
What they criticize is post-modernism *in practice.*
But sure, Nick, let's go with your approach. How *do* we live with Nazis and white nationalists in harmony? How do we bring them into the fold in our pluralistic society, hm? Clearly we can't flat-out disregard their meta-narrative any more than ours that race doesn't fundamentally matter, right? Oh no, you "answered" that already. "There are moral claims almost everybody agrees with." And that makes it *true* right? Well I guess that clears up everything. Libertarians should just give up, given that almost everybody agrees a libertarian society would be an immoral one. What absolute nonsense. You guys have never produced a worse video. Get rid of Gillespie.
Yep, it reminds me of first year philosophy majors pulling Descartes 'I think therefore I am' therefore no one and nothing provably exists. It's true in it's way, but completely useless in the real world.
czcams.com/video/5hfYJsQAhl0/video.html
d4n4nable - Agreed. The goal posts have moved so far here they’re now on a separate field...for a different sport.
Post-modernism as it is being implemented is a gremlin disassembling the nuts and bolts of society while the plane is in the air because someone, somewhere disagrees with this particular nut or that particular bolt.
@Suchtverhalten i think the diff he was highlighting is that the postmodernists cant be credited with creating the view, but rather describing an event/seachange that was happening around them. basically, the postmodern condition is much more embedded in the society than the thoughts of a few dudes.
Yes, when they refer to "cultural marxism" they are talking about postmodernism.
I would love to hear a discussions between you and Jordan Peterson, not a debate, and hopefully something that tis properly framed to clarify things.
I would suggest Mr. Gillespie read Sokal. Postmodernism has disturbing aspects, such as spawning phenomenological research in which the "findings" are "only meaningful to the researcher." This violates the mission of universities to advance human knowledge. In my field of nursing, postmodernism thought has brought into nursing many forms of worthless and potentially dangerous practices -- i.e. practices that have no empirical support. But they are the postmodern "reality" of the nurses who inflict them on trusting patients. When research is done that invalidates the benefit and safety of these practices, they continue to be used. This is a bridge too far in distrusting science.
He’s a dumbass. Can hardly understand anything he listens to.
Strange how many people agree with peterson on the fundamental level but still end up talking past the idea to pin a gotcha over strict definitions. Its part of philosophy thats apparently been lost, ironically, by those defending postmodernist thought.
🤔😂
Peterson, on a fundamental level, isn't sure what he's criticizing, and largely paints a shebboleth made out of right-wing identity fears that he doesn't quite grasp with a label that never fits. Then, when he can't figure out the discussion, he blames his basic disinterest on a contradiction that he invented.
Find better intellectuals to whine about on the internet.
Trolltician Well, if you can, tell JP to not use wrong definitions.
"Incredulity towards metanarratives" goddaaaamm how can you live without metanarratives, incredulity towards them is itself a metanarrative and those words are far too convoluded to explain anything important
Nop incredulity of them is not a matanaritive itself. This is so akin to theists saying atheism is a religion
@Jake Sargeras and on a logical level it has the same grounding. The idea of God (or lack thereof) is outside our perception. The argument that God x was false, God y was false, God z was false thus all gods are false is invalid. The inductive reasoning is not really logically valid form of reasoning when working with real world phenomenon (see the cases of black Swan)
How delightful!
Can this be revisited, not that it can be improved upon but contemporized?
How long before/after Stephan was "cancelled" coined?
Over and over again Nick keeps reinterpreting what others say to disagree with what he is asserting they mean. My understanding is that this is the definition of a strawman argument. As an example, Jordan Peterson says that Postmodernists have no gratitude and Nick interprets that to mean you can't criticize. Which is not what Jordan said. As a matter of fact, Jordan prefaced his statement by saying that "Wester" civilization has room to improve. To improve one must point out flaws, also known as criticizing. You can be both grateful and point out short comings at the same time. But that isn't what Postmodernists do. They claim that all of Wester Civilization is completely corrupt and needs to be destroyed.
I feel as though Nick didn't change my mind, but he did chip away at, sand down and buff the rougher edges of my ideas
I had a great professor who explained postmodernism perfectly. I think that you just need people who truly understand it to explain it instead of the left or right preventing its ideas.
Critical theory and identity studies can do a lot of work in our society, but it usually results in constructionist top-down perscriptions. They conclude that wisdom is an illusion and all successes in history are a result of collective thinking and luck. This is like kindling to a tyrant.
Post Modernism is a TOOL...and incredibly specialized academic or intellectual one at that. Much like Objectivism is for individuals but CANNOT scale to an entire society or movement.
Taking a scalpel away from a doctor and handing it to kids to cut their steak is just not a great idea, it MIGHT turn out well but just not the right tool for the job and in the end YOU are responsible for the outcome if someone gets hurt.
As I’m listening it seems to me that there is some definition miss understandings somewhere. As I try and listen to what he is actually saying I hear the same things said by most that oppose postmodernism.
29:12 That was pretty cool.
Nice! Do more of these.
Wait...
Isn’t the act or belief of having “incredulity toward meta-narratives” itself a meta-narrative...?
Mr. Doe - I would think it is ...
Not really because "incredulity toward meta-narratives" is not an explain all to the way the world is such as "People are inherently bad because they were all born with original sin due to the fall of Adam and Eve." It is not making a positive truth claim about the world, but rather being skeptical about narratives that make ultimate claims about the way the world is.
It is in a way that it also have a healthy amount scepticism to itself which is good dont you think? This or fanatism.
Btw, I'm kinda disgusted from the fact how many sophiscism spread around in the comments. So much for "epistemological objectivists" lmao
You have to create a metamarrative to discuss any narratives. It would be impossible otherwise.
Look up Godel, & Tarski. It’s basic logic.
So in your statement there, meta-narratives is a term defined differently in both instances. As each instance is within a different linguistic-logical framework: one framework being the meta one- outside of and encompassing the other.
Bravo! Absolutely well done Nick.
One of the rare ones where I couldn’t like or dislike. Gillespie makes good points about how popular CZcams personalities are strawmanning postmodernism while at the same time strawmanning the views of postmodern critics himself.
Why ReasonTV?
Beobachter Said like a true tool of the left.
To discuss and debate ideas? Pretty much what Reason TV always does?
Because Nick G. wants to be in the big-boy sandbox.
Darkphoton I remember when “post-modernism” was a literary theory, a la Kathy Aker.
@Beobachter Don't forget your tin foil cap.
I'm halfway through the video and it's already very interesting. Thank you for the different perspective. The tie in with Hayek's idea of scientism kind of sold me on continuing to watch to be honest.
One criticism though, when you pronounce Lyotard, it sounds like you say "leotard" and that brings disturbing images! Please don't pronounce the D at the end, it's silent in French. :D
Snowflake
Excellent talk!
It’s interesting to see Reason and Nick G specifically pivot so drastically since Nov 2016. The question i keep asking myself is why? I think it’s immigration, trade and more than anything Sessions/marijuana laws. Appreciate the viewpoint they bring to the table even if I disagree on some points.
Notmy Realname Touche'..... I think it's really more about having manners beaten into me in Dixie. I'll add an addendum to my original statement to clarify.... "Well bless your heart Nick"
well i wasnt expecting the cop out to be so quick. and from what i got of this talk.... abosulutly nothing.
Nick some how does straw mans peterson in his very premiss. Peterson himself has stated there is validity in postmodernism. what one has to realize is that the "postmodernism" that peterson talks about is not the "postmodernism" that Nick is talking about. personally i think postmodernism, in of itself is about as solid as the wind. anyone who can give you a definition of postmodernism, themselves dont understand postmodernism. which both frankly differs from what i perceive postmodernism to be. one could easily argue that postmodernism itself by the nature of itself is undefinable due to the very nature of language.
this tends to be the "definition" i tend towards. "a set of critical, strategic, and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trance, the simulacrum, and hyper-reality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning" (Gary Aylesworth)
so leaving out the over the top talk. Peterson and Hicks have both stated in the past that postmodernism does have it use. it is a good tool for deconstruction and analysis, but the problem is that postmodernism by its very nature can not provide any forward direction. to say one thing is better than something else requires a meta-narrative. the problem is that the postmodernism that Peterson has a problem with is that many intellectuals have taken this "postmodernism" critique and has then proscribe solutions that fit with marxist ideals. "The existence of money is required only to chain people to owners of society due to their power, therefore communism.". while the first section of that could be a proper postmodern criticism of money, the second part has no support under postmodern criticism. it could just has easily be, "therefore we need to remove the power of money from the owners by using a gold/wheat/socially standard". which also doesnt fall under a postmodernism critique.
But frankly anyone who has been in uni these past number of years would have noticed, that the definition that results in "therefore communism/Marxism/socialism" is how postmodernism is being used, currently in the academy. where Peterson and Hicks one could argue go over that top is that tend to believe that this was always the meaning/target of postmodernism.
So what Nick says about postmodernism is true, what he is talking about is distinctly different from what Peterson, and the IDW are talking about, as such this is a strawman argument.
I used to think i was libertarian. Thanks for straightening me out Reason.
One problem with pluralism for Libertian ideas, is that pluralism can't be a government, as a government is a single entity.
It has become clear that what the term "post modernism" references today isn't what it did at the time of this recording.
This video should be retitled "Gillipsie chasing his own tail on trying to define Peterson"
This was really interesting I'd love to here Nick talk more often
okay.
As a fellow classical liberal (semi)postmodernist (really a Rortyan pragmatist), thank you for this, Nick. Peterson and others, while certainly well-meaning, I think give a very uninformed depiction of postmodernism. I think their real beef is with critical theory, and if you know anything about postmodernism, you know that postmodernists and critical theorists (who are more Marxist) said some polite things to each other, but never got along.
Also, to the silly argument made by Dawkins (which I hear very often):
Postmodernism doesn't mean that people will start falling upwards or that there is no force pulling us toward the earth. it means that we can and should never be confident that the story we tell today about how gravity works is going to be the story we tell tomorrow. We may find a better story that interprets how things work in a more useful or etter way. Or to put it bluntly, he could have made the same point about eugenics. The amazing thing about Dawkins is that were he an actual scientist, he'd understand that even "truths" about gravity are tentative, as are ALL scientific (and other) stores.
Also, postmodernism means that we can't agree on certain things. It may well be that everyone agrees today that gravity works thus and so way. Postmodernism doesn't take that away. It just reminds us that agreement (by elites or everyone) doesn't indicate that we now have The Way Things Really Are. It just means that we've come to a story of how we think things are that satisfies us at this place and time.
You're probably, right, but Peterson's audience isn't philosophers, it's normal people. One can make similar arguments about communism/socialism or nazism/fascism. British soldiers going to war against Germany in 1940 didn't care whether the German soldiers they were shooting at were nazis or fascists or whether they had any philosophical education at all, they just knew they were "the enemy".
REASON was the original Intellectual Dark Web.
Not false.
"was"
Real life "debates with strawmen" video.
I like his point about conflating Postmodernism with Identity Politics.
transcript?
ReasonTV never fails to disappoint.
Remember when they turned against Ron Paul? Mocked him for running?
Did they really?? Where? When?
@@user-wl2xl5hm7k All throughout his 2012 campaign. They would have snide commentators come on and say that he doesnt have a chance, and would never cover him positively. At some point I remember they pissed people off so much, and caused them to have a mass unscubscribing, where they lost like 20,000 subscribers.
Its been a decade though.
@@akivaabraham7739 Wow that’s horrible. Maybe it was because his anti-abortion (pro authoritarian) stance. One authoritarian stance and the rest libertarian is definitely good enough tho.
Do you think Reason’s better now? They seem better than that now to me.
By the way, do you know any titles where I can find Reason doing this to Ron Paul?
@@akivaabraham7739 You could try to send links, but they’re often censored on YT. So titles work best
@@user-wl2xl5hm7k
Looking back upon it, I think what is more likely is that Ron Paul was ostensibly not "Pro-Israel" enough. I scanned through their archives and just remember that there was an impoverishment of support coming from them. You don't really get that impression just searching for "Ron Paul" as you will get a dozen videos. Yet when you consider that Ron Paul was running, their coverage can be considered the bare minimum, and that he was largely ignored.
I love when ReasonTV's videos get a negative score because of videos like this. It creates a disonance for all those poor people who believe that everything their authorities say is always right (e.g people who like Jordan Peterson and watch ReasonTV) and have to identify somehow. They group their opinions into a coherent system. Yet, such system fails and postmodernism is one way to explain why.
PoMo is cringe, bro. Makework nonsense for Aimless Midwits
Yeah, but it doesn't give anything; just because you can prove something wrong doesn't mean you can prove something correct. Just like a film critic can never make a film than the film one criticizes. The BS in post-modernism is that look people are sheep, but do post-modernists know that they become sheep when they call others sheep.
Came on here to point out conflations. You guys beat me to it lol
It's not that Peterson is arguing that you cannot criticize a cultural norm; he is saying that we should not tear it down. Criticize, yes. Tear down, no. If you do tear it down, beware what takes its place. Other countries have tried that with disastrous results.
You just described the prevailing viewpoint of social conservatism/cultural conservatism. You seem to not understand the differences between the view you just espoused and classical liberalism.
They also speculate that whatever replaces cultural norms will likely be more dangerous, flawed, and/or fatal than the previous one.
Not saying you're arguing in bad faith here btw; just think you might want to reassess whether you are a classical liberal or a social conservative.
Thanks for the reply, Mr. Buk. Yes, I tend to be conservative with untested concepts. To test new theories on small, willing populations would be fine. To use a whole unwilling culture as a test case is inadvisable. This is what makes the U.S. so nice. If, say for example, you and your cultural adherents want to try something different then that's OK. Let us say you want to start a commune. Simply buy the land and start one. Try that in a socialist or communist country.
As far as differences in cultural norms in the U.S. . . . there are numerous examples acting in their adherents own interests right now. Yay us! We have stopped being a melting pot and have become a salad with distinct lettuce, cucumbers, tomatoes, and croutons. The real problem I have is that each group wants to seize the power of the government to force their norms on the rest of us with threats of not only of shunning but of legal consequences. Europe had that problem with 400 years of sectarian violence. Each religious group tried to gain power and state wealth to suppress rivals before the others did it to them. Do you want something similar here? Then Thomas Jefferson stated to the Baptists of Danbury, CT that there is now a wall of separation between church and state. We need to now do the same with corporations and cultures. We need to set a mutually agreed to set of laws and prohibitions. As long as we do not violate those laws and prohibitions then we go as we wish. This must be a willing and agreed to set of laws and prohibitions.
I tend to believe that the individual has primacy in the U.S. Each person can make up their own mind and live their own way as long as they are not violating the human or civil rights of unwilling people whose rules are well defined and accepted by the various cultures. This in no way advocates for wishy washy ill defined definitions of human and civil rights. Good fences make good neighbors. You mind your own shoelaces and I will mind mine.
So, all I am saying is to be careful when crafting changes to your culture. That culture is thousands of years old and has worked decently well, at least in the west. The millions that bled and died for those hard won improvements needs to looked at carefully. Perhaps we have progressed to the point of not using violence to get our own way? Maybe? Perhaps now we can discuss our differences and if we cannot agree then I go my way and you go yours. If you think that me going my own way oppresses you them make the public, documented case. I will listen and see if I agree with your evidence and conclusions. If we can't agree then again, you go your way and I go mine. Neither of us use the state to persecute the other. It's that lovely separation of culture and corporation and state. If you choose to ignore that premise then do not be surprised when I also try to gain access to government power to institute my norms. Let's be better this time.
What say you. sir?
Please put up similar content. If more articles are written of this quality, I will purchase a subscription.
wtf these guys took dawkins out of context
You mean like he does history and the Bible?? Yeah, sorry, not sorry.
@@Trollificusv2 example?
This is amazing
Excellent, intelligent discussion of the this timely topic.
Great video! I'm gald I subbed. Honestly this is the first video I've seen that gets postmodernism right. I'm open to hearing critique but everyone seems to reference figures like Peterson who doesn't understand postmodernism to begin with.
@Trolltician nope.
Lost interest 2:05 in when you defined postmodernism in a narrow way to protect it from criticism of its glairning flaws.
I don't waste my time with people pulling stunts like that
Amen, your speaking the truth
No, he defined postmodernism in its wide, actual definition. JP are others are the ones who define it in a narrow way (Marxist/SJW/Progressive post modernism) to strawman the whole.
@Darkphoton if it were an honest discussion I'd listen. But that's cheeseball tactics and its boring.... On to something with more substance, like cat videos.
@@bdslade incredulity toward the metanarative... Sorry, but that definition says nothing about what post modernism ACTUALLY is. Its more of an obfuscation than definition.
Isn't it Peterson that's redefining it and not using the classic definition?
I recognise though that “IDW” heads do unnecessary harm to the value of pm analysis by the labelling
I really hope Peterson responds to this, so interesting.
The main point here is different definitions of what post modernism is. Usually, when people like it, they mean the original texts and philosophers from 1970 and earlier. On the other hand, when people oppose post modernism, they talk about something happening after 2000 that is somewhat based on the earlier texts and thinkers.
These two groups are very good at speaking past each other.
@@PirkkaJokela I know I've heard Peterson specifically griping about Foucault and Derrida, so he's not just against the contemporary post-2000 stuff. But, of course, he might be more sympathetic to the original texts if he saw them leading to other lines of thinking like this more libertarian one.
You've forgot Marxism, all these people are against postmodern Marxism ...... As an example Peterson bashes parts of post-modernism, and then turns around and says that he likes other parts and says that other parts are true like how morality is actually relative but humans need to make it objective so we can live in a society.
Does JP ever actually specify Marxism, though? Not often in my experience, which is what leads to this confusion.
Brent Slade Yes - google "postmodern neomarxist" + Peterson. He also explicitly states that he's aware that Marxism is inconsistent with Postmodernism, but that doesn't stop there from being a large number of "postmodernists" who default to Marxism whenever it comes to political action.
clemonsx90 Peterson is a classical postmodernist. He want's everything mystical and not nailed down just like the French postmodernists. It's rather ironic. "It depends on what you mean by true or truth" all that nonsense of his. Cherry pick, over simplify and label is his mantra. Don't forget all the archaic words to make it sound important.
clemonsx90 I did say "not often", which, again, has been my experience. I'm a subscriber of his and I watch many of his videos, since I find him interesting. He definitely does tend to just use the term "postmodernist" which would be confusing without people being aware of the precise context. Like Rick says, he himself is very much a classical postmodernist; so many of his answers are rooted in "it depends" or similar contextual answers. Nothing wrong with that, because, really, when you're dealing with humans and especially human psychology/society there are few hard and fast rules.
@@bdslade yes he does
This is just amazing. I loved the creativity, and the subject matter is a really important one. I agree with Peterson's project of self-improvement thru the search for meaning and order, but every now and then I would catch myself wondering about some of the things that he said. You guys in the comments section have no idea of how priveliged you are, you prefer to bitch and complain for fanboysh reasons instead of watching the whole thing and discussing it in a deep intellectualized way. I live in Brazil and there's nothing like this around here, you should appreciate the environment that you have and use it in its fullest potential. I would like to thank the Reason crew for the awesome production and for the courage that goes into making something like this.
great vid
Used to watch a lot of Reason TV. Not so much now. I'd love to see Nick interview J Peets. Or any other interviewer from Reason.
Fantastic video. A postmodern interview. To conflate the bad practices of people who do not study or understand postmodernism with actual postmodernism is absurd. Identity politics are tribal, collective, and reductive- all incompatible with the individualism of postmodernity. It is not "there is no objective truth" but rather understanding that our perspective and interpretation of truth is subject to our limitations, be they intellectual or experiential. As tired as I am of identity politics, I'm becoming more frustrated with these intellectuals' persecution narrative. They continue to whine about progressives' anti-intellectual collectivism while spreading their own prescriptivist worldviews. I suppose we are to accept it from them however because it is based in science and in science we trust.
Fuck off you cultural marxist. People with your ideology try this over and over again, but the right won't fall for your filthy globalist anti-white trickery. You aren't right wing, you aren't one of us, just because you're for small government and free market.
Having watched some of the videos defending postmodernism including this one, I still have no idea for the most part what exactly postmodernism is all about. However, there were a few hunches that always popped up on the edge of my mind after watching each of them, which are that postmodernism might be bigger than what we see from the narratives of social justice warriors and other left-wing extremists, that these left-wing nuts might not actually know lots of things they take for granted as postmodernism and probably hijacked the idea only to base their argument on its methodology when the resulting conclusion confirms their presupposition, and that postmodernism might have some merits when appositely employed in less rigorous scientific fields in which falsifiable and empirical methods are not sufficient for explaining and predicting social phenomena. I'm not sure whether my intuitions were wrong. It's just the same kind of things I usually feel when being faced with something unexplainable, unascertainable, but somehow sensuously conceptualizable.
Take that to the logical extreme. If everyone has their own view and we each have to distinguish for ourselves what is good or bad, then everything is subjective AND equally valid objectively (only subjectively does something exist in a hierarchical fashion)
There is no "bad" in postmodernism.
This makes its scepticism of existing institutions meaningless.
Just lost complete respect for Nick, not because he is saying be skeptical of all claims made by authorities but because that is his estimation of postmodernism. Postmodernism is literally ANTI-REASON and he is editor of REASON magazine!!!