Jordan Peterson - The Intellectual We Deserve

[RubberGuard5]

Because it's exactly what he says. He didn't say Marxists had to admit they were wrong or change their theory. His statements are about their intent. Playing a game of sleight of hand (again, again and again: his words) to manipulate others. Because they wanted to subdue, I don't know, whatever Peterson and his lobsters think is threatened right now.

Oppression theories are a product of Marxists secretly infiltrating themselves among other groups. That is a conspiracy theory. And it is retarded.

Where does he say anything about secret infiltration? He is describing what happened. Characters like Foucault were marxist in their youth and eventually moved away from the movement when marxism collapsed.

Why is this so controversial?

 

[MiniCraque]

Where does he say anything about secret infiltration? He is describing what happened. Characters like Foucault were marxist in their youth and eventually moved away from the movement when marxism collapsed.

Why is this so controversial?

So do you think Foucault deliberately hid his intentions and that his writings were Marxism in disguise? That is very much what Peterson is saying.

He isn't even focusing on Foucault (he's talking as if it was a collective) which is even worse.

 

[RubberGuard5]

So do you think Foucault deliberately hid his intentions and that his writings were Marxism in disguise? That is very much what Peterson is saying.

He isn't even focusing on Foucault (he's talking as if it was a collective) which is even worse.

Hid what intentions? Marx had all of his predictions wrong and it was obvious that proleteriat isn't going to start a revolution, so other ways were needed to establish their desired change of society. So they applied marxist concept of class strugle to social groups instead of economic ones.

 

[MiniCraque]

Hid what intentions? Marx had all of his predictions wrong and it was obvious that proleteriat isn't going to start a revolution, so other ways were needed to establish their desired change of society. So they applied marxist concept of class strugle to social groups instead of economic ones.

Who's "they"?

 

[RubberGuard5]

Who's "they"?

Early postmodern thinkers like Foucault.

 

[MiniCraque]

Early postmodern thinkers like Foucault.

So the metanarrative of class struggle was being adapted by the people who rejected the very idea of metanarratives?

Postmodern and Marxist don't mesh. It's just Peterson's usual "everything I don't like is Marxist". It's like Jewish Nazi or Muslim Zionist.

 

[RubberGuard5]

So the metanarrative of class struggle was being adapted by the people who rejected the very idea of metanarratives?

Postmodern and Marxist don't mesh. It's just Peterson's usual "everything I don't like is Marxist". It's like Jewish Nazi or Muslim Zionist.

From Postmodernism: a very short introduction by Christopher Butler

"Under postmodern conditions, the ordered class politics
preferred by socialists has given way to a far more diffuse and
pluralistic identity politics, which often involves the self-conscious
assertion of a marginalized identity against the dominant discourse.
An example of this, which is undoubtedly central to the politics of
the period since the late 1960s, is the relationship between
postmodernism and feminism. The argument here is that women
are excluded from the patriarchal symbolic order, or from the
dominant male discourse, and indeed that they have been defined
or ‘othered’ as inferior with respect to it. They are subjected to a
Derridean ‘false hierarchy’ by being assigned weak values, opposite
to the strong ones invested in masculinity. We saw a bit of this in
looking at the egg and sperm controversy."

 

[MiniCraque]

From Postmodernism: a very short introduction by Christopher Butler

That's the same kind of reasoning Peterson employs and it's just as incoherent. Marx was not the only author ever to talk about struggles between different groups. Plenty of other people, including rightwingers, did. That's when he reads Foucault talking about power or Derrida about the marginalized and screams "MARXISM!!one!" at the top of his lungs. Doesn't make it true. It's ridiculous. Nevermind that both would vehemently object to being labeled as Marxists and went as far as criticizing Marx. But that was probably misdirection, right?

Marxism is as modern (as in classic modernism) as it gets. Postmodernism came about exactly on the premise of rejecting that kind of grand narrative. But no, apparently it was just this weird paradoxal permutation of Marxism.

I still don't know if this is rooted in a deep misunderstanding of Marxism or of postmodernism. Most likely both.

 

[RubberGuard5]

That's the same kind of reasoning Peterson employs and it's just as incoherent. Marx was not the only author ever to talk about struggles between different groups. Plenty of other people, including rightwingers, did. That's when he reads Foucault talking about power or Derrida about the marginalized and screams "MARXISM!!one!" at the top of his lungs. Doesn't make it true. It's ridiculous. Nevermind that both would vehemently object to being labeled as Marxists and went as far as criticizing Marx. But that was probably misdirection, right?

Marxism is as modern (as in classic modernism) as it gets. Postmodernism came about exactly on the premise of rejecting that kind of grand narrative. But no, apparently it was just this weird paradoxal permutation of Marxism.

I still don't know if this is rooted in a deep misunderstanding of Marxism or of postmodernism. Most likely both.

Damn, so all of these guys that write books on postmodernism just keep misunderstanding it. Have you even considered that there maybe is something to it and that you're the one that got it wrong?

 

[MiniCraque]

Damn, so all of these guys that write books on postmodernism just keep misunderstanding it. Have you even considered that there maybe is something to it and that you're the one that got it wrong?

"All these guys"? You quoted one.

Peterson doesn't qualify because he doesn't really seem to have read them. The only time he ever cites a postmodern author in 12 Rules is when he talks about someone else criticizing them.

Let's get real simple, and actually try to reason instead of copy pasta'ing or throwing some snarky non-sequitur: what makes Foucault aligned with Marx? Real, real simple question right there.

 

[RubberGuard5]

"All these guys"? You quoted one.

Peterson doesn't qualify because he doesn't really seem to have read them. The only time he ever cites a postmodern author in 12 Rules is when he talks about someone else criticizing them.

Let's get real simple, and actually try to reason instead of copy pasta'ing or throwing some snarky non-sequitur: what makes Foucault aligned with Marx? Real, real simple question right there.

There's also Steven Hicks for example. Think about it. That's at least two guys that have written books on the subject of postmodernism and made the same observation. Why are you so sure they are wrong?

What makes Foucault aligned with Marx? He was a member of the communist party. I'm not sure what kind of answer are you expecting here. All of the early postmodern thinkers were influenced by marxist thought in one way or the other. Why are we even arguing about this?

 

[MiniCraque]

There's also Steven Hicks for example. Think about it. That's at least two guys that have written books on the subject of postmodernism and made the same observation. Why are you so sure they are wrong?

What makes Foucault aligned with Marx? He was a member of the communist party. I'm not sure what kind of answer are you expecting here. All of the early postmodern thinkers were influenced by marxist thought in one way or the other. Why are we even arguing about this?

I was waiting for you to mention Hicks. That's the one Peterson quoted in 12 Rules. Hicks is a follower of Ayn Rand. My understanding is that his book is widely seen as nonsensical among philosophers.

Because two people in the history of everything conflated postmodernism with Marxism, why should anyone be expected to take the notion seriously? I'm sure more than two people have written books about Ufology. Why is anyone so sure they are wrong?

As for Foucault being aligned with Marx, I'm asking for something in his work (or Derrida's, or Lyotard's, take your pick) that brings them closer to Marx. Anything here. I want you to argue that. Show me. Where's the connection?

 

[RubberGuard5]

So you'll just reject anything Steven Hicks wrote in his book? What do you think he got wrong? Let's discuss it.

I need to have a reason why do you think these interpretations of postmodernism made by two different authors are wrong before I can further make my argument. This way we're going nowhere. Steven Hicks explained how Foucault is aligned with Marx, i think it's pointless for me to make the same argument here if you're gonna reject it without explanation.

So, why are these interpretations wrong?

 

[MiniCraque]

So you'll just reject anything Steven Hicks wrote in his book? What do you think he got wrong? Let's discuss it.

I need to have a reason why do you think these interpretations of postmodernism made by two different authors are wrong before I can further make my argument. This way we're going nowhere. Steven Hicks explained how Foucault is aligned with Marx, i think it's pointless for me to make the same argument here if you're gonna reject it without explanation.

So, why are these interpretations wrong?

This isn't really going anywhere if you can't put those arguments into your own words. Seems like you just read either of them and made up your mind or, more conveniently, had made up your mind beforehand and then looked them up.

Hicks's whole schtick (and the other guy you quoted, no clue who he is) about calling postmodernists Marxists is that there is some semblance of class struggle in their writings. That's an incredibly dumbed down, simplistic way of looking at them. Struggle between multiple parties =\= Marxism. Talking about power dynamics doesn't make Foucault a Marxist anymore than it doesn't make Machiavelli a proto-Marxist.

You said they were all influenced by Marx to some extent. That has not been established clearly and even if it had, the claim here isn't that they were influenced, it's that they were fully fledged Marxists. Emphasis on the capital M. That's like saying Marx himself was a Hegelist and that Hegel was Kantian before that. That's not how philosophy works.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

The man who originally hired Peterson doesn't seem too pleased with him these days...

https://www.thestar.com/amp/opinion...-hes-dangerous.html?__twitter_impression=true

 

[RubberGuard5]

This isn't really going anywhere if you can't put those arguments into your own words. Seems like you just read either of them and made up your mind or, more conveniently, had made up your mind beforehand and then looked them up.

Hicks's whole schtick (and the other guy you quoted, no clue who he is) about calling postmodernists Marxists is that there is some semblance of class struggle in their writings. That's an incredibly dumbed down, simplistic way of looking at them. Struggle between multiple parties =\= Marxism. Talking about power dynamics doesn't make Foucault a Marxist anymore than it doesn't make Machiavelli a proto-Marxist.

You said they were all influenced by Marx to some extent. That has not been established clearly and even if it had, the claim here isn't that they were influenced, it's that they were fully fledged Marxists. Emphasis on the capital M. That's like saying Marx himself was a Hegelist and that Hegel was Kantian before that. That's not how philosophy works.

Yeah, I don't think we're getting anywhere. You are dismisssing the sources you haven't even read while not providing an alternative explanation of the geneology of postmodern politics.

 

[MiniCraque]

Yeah, I don't think we're getting anywhere. You are dismisssing the sources you haven't even read while not providing an alternative explanation of the geneology of postmodern politics.

Only thing I'm dismissing is a fringe author who has no credibility outside of objectivist circles. I don't need to read an entire book to know that "power struggle, therefore Marxism" does not hold any weight.

I was trying to have you actually make a point instead of copy pasta and saying "well go read X book and come back to me". What a crock of shit. As usual you didn't address anything in my post. THAT is why I said we aren't going anywhere.

 

[RubberGuard5]

Only thing I'm dismissing is a fringe author who has no credibility outside of objectivist circles. I don't need to read an entire book to know that "power struggle, therefore Marxism" does not hold any weight.

I was trying to have you actually make a point instead of copy pasta and saying "well go read X book and come back to me". What a crock of shit. As usual you didn't address anything in my post. THAT is why I said we aren't going anywhere.

I'm not sure where to take it from here.
If you disagree that postmodern politics is the result of applying marxist theory on social groups instead of economic ones, that's ok. Both authors could be wrong. Can you provide your geneology of postmodern politics? I want to know your interpetation of it.

 

[Lead]

There's two threads like this now. I'm locking this one. Please continue discussion here:
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/criticism-of-jordan-peterson-thread.3765781/