Jordan Peterson debate on the Gender pay gap, Campus protests and Postmodernism - General

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53072280]I’ve gotten answers from people against JP but not people who are for/with him. How am I a Marxist for wanting equality for LGBT individuals?[/QUOTE] If someone is calling you a marxist for that reason it isn't atleast me or JP. [media]https://youtu.be/wLoG9zBvvLQ[/media] This video does a pretty good job laying out his thought process on postmodernism in relation to marxism. Issue is I have watched a good chunk of this video, and alot more in JP content, and he doesn't use the term "Cultural Marxism" himself from what I seen (even though the video reupload title uses it). And I agree with that sentiment to not use the term since nobody self-identifies with it, but there are specific philosophers and ideas that you can critique that they do identify with and use the Oppressed vs Oppressor framework.

Update [media]https://youtu.be/TK2-xYyNpYk[/media] JP does some after-analysis that is worth listening. Edit sorry, Automerge didn't work.

[QUOTE=Tudd;53073778]Update [media]https://youtu.be/TK2-xYyNpYk[/media] JP does some after-analysis that is worth listening. Edit sorry, Automerge didn't work.[/QUOTE] Really excellent video, the response is the first 30min or so and honestly the rest is the kinda stuff that inspires me to want to live

[QUOTE=Tudd;53072277]It really isn’t that hard of a term to understand as previously mentioned. Personally I would rather people tackle postmodern thinkers directly though. Since ideas like deconstruction from Derrida can directly correlated and Cultural Marxism is just too much of a blanket term.[/QUOTE] It looks like you're conflating Postmodernism with Critical Theory now. The Frankfurt school were maybe the most vocal critics of 'postmodern thinkers', these thinkers never self identified as 'postmodernists', the field is far too grand to be generalised as 'Derrida'. Lyotard's thought has very little in common with Latour, who has very little in common with Derrida, who has very little in common with Badiou. It sounds to me like you're parroting Peterson smart words despite having read 0 primary material yourself. Funnily enough, Peterson has also read 0 of the primary material. He has admitted this. So why are your (his) opinions qualified on this matter? He's just taken like 3 vast fields of academia, shoved them in a big cloud of misunderstanding and generalisation, and called it 'postmodern neomarxism'. His credentials as a [I]clinical psychologist[/I] with 8000 citations in [I]his[/I] field, somehow allow him to venture far beyond his expertise and make grand statements about things he literally hasn't read. I'll go ask my Pharmacologist friend about Quantum Chromodynamics now shall I?

[QUOTE=Crumpet;53074349]It looks like you're conflating Postmodernism with Critical Theory now. The Frankfurt school were maybe the most vocal critics of 'postmodern thinkers', these thinkers never self identified as 'postmodernists', the field is far too grand to be generalised as 'Derrida'. Lyotard's thought has very little in common with Latour, who has very little in common with Derrida, who has very little in common with Badiou. It sounds to me like you're parroting Peterson smart words despite having read 0 primary material yourself. Funnily enough, Peterson has also read 0 of the primary material. He has admitted this. So why are your (his) opinions qualified on this matter? He's just taken like 3 vast fields of academia, shoved them in a big cloud of misunderstanding and generalisation, and called it 'postmodern neomarxism'. His credentials as a [I]clinical psychologist[/I] with 8000 citations in [I]his[/I] field, somehow allow him to venture far beyond his expertise and make grand statements about things he literally hasn't read. I'll go ask my Pharmacologist friend about Quantum Chromodynamics now shall I?[/QUOTE] Nope, I know of the Frankfurt school and quite abit about it before JP was a thing and still agree with his assessments. How about instead of wording the longest “You are simply wrong” post you actually point out the actual specific contradictions. Because for someone now grand standing that they are seemingly an expert on the topic, you didn’t actually say why he or I were wrong at all. I would atleast be curious if you can accurately potray anything since your reading comprehension seems to have failed and you think I labeled the Frankfurt school as “Postmodernist” and only think Derrida exists as part of the movement, despite me clearly making a statement that self-identification can be with a host of ideas and there were other philosophers. Sorry I am not going into super depth for you, but you could at-least not strawmen my points.

[QUOTE=Tudd;53074411]Nope, I know of the Frankfurt school and quite abit about it before JP was a thing and still agree with his assessments. How about instead of wording the longest “You are simply wrong” post you actually point out the actual specific contradictions. Because for someone now grand standing that they are seemingly an expert on the topic, you didn’t actually say why he or I were wrong at all. I would atleast be curious if you can accurately potray anything since your reading comprehension seems to have failed and you think I labeled the Frankfurt school as “Postmodernist” and only think Derrida exists as part of the movement, despite me clearly making a statement that self-identification can be with a host of ideas and there were other philosophers. Sorry I am not going into super depth for you, but you could at-least not strawmen my points.[/QUOTE] [quote]but you could at-least not strawmen my points[/quote] So after having the notion of cultural marxism deconstructed (which we concluded was a half assed conspiracy based on critical theory), you responded and said "I would rather people tackle postmodern thinkers directly though." Am I being unfair in thinking you're linking the two things there? [quote]before JP was a thing and still agree with his assessments.[/quote] Assessments like what? He never makes a distinction between the ideas of the two, and his brilliant assessment that the central notion of postmodernists is the rejection of objective truth & reason is simply retarded for the reasons above. What exactly are these assessments you're talking about? Peterson has admitted to not reading the real material and instead lifting his understanding of Postmodernism from the Objectivist book [I]Understanding Postmodernism [/I]by Steven Hicks. Having read some analyses of this book, it's points boil down as follows: [quote] - Postmodernism began with Kant & Rousseau - They were irrationalists - Postmodernism becomes popular with Socialists - Therefore Socialism is unable to be reasonable and therefore Socialists are unreasonable[/quote] A cursory glance at some wikipedia pages is all you need to debunk this summary. Postmodernism began with Kant? Categorical Imperative Kant? Seriously? The book is based heavily on Rand's misunderstanding of Kant and uses a lot of her garbage as theoretical backing. The positions stated here are not derived through engagement with the primary material, so what do we do? Plenty of reviews of the book (from the few people who have actually heard of it) have stated that the history is outright wrong and on top of that the book contains no substantial or factually coherent argument. This bit is especially important [quote]Peterson has admitted to not reading the real material[/quote] You kind of have to stop there. We cannot go further because he literally isn't equipped to be critiquing these things. [quote]point out the actual specific contradictions.[/quote] Go read [I]The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity [/I]by Habermas, maybe the most famous critique of Postmodernism from the FS. If you think playing me out to the long game because I don't have time to summarise 50 different works for you is proving a point then I think it says a lot about your argument (I'm still not sure what your points are and if they're separate to Peterson's). Further, to say that postmodernism underpins some sort of new left SJW movement is dumb because the foundations of all these leftist ideas are MODERNIST in nature; the Marxist grand narrative is the inevitable destruction of capitalism, the Feminist grand narrative is the inevitable destruction of the patriarchy. So how and why are you telling me leftists have co-opted a field of thought that was mostly criticised by those who wrote it in the first place, as undermining these very ideas? [I]The Postmodern Condition [/I]was an observation & critique not an endorsement. Anyway, now we've got his theoretical base lets look at an example of what Peterson tacks on. I've been pointed here before by a Peterson fan. [URL]https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/05/jordan_peterson_why_you_have_to_fight_postmodernism.html[/URL] [quote]They don't believe in the individual. That's the logos. Remember, Western culture is Phallogocentric. Logo is logos. That's partly the Christian word, but is also partly the root word of logic. Okay, they don't believe in logic. They believe that logic is part of the process by which the patriarchal institutions of the West continue to dominate and to justify their dominance. They don't believe in dialogue. The root word of dialogue is logos -- again, they don't believe that people of good will can come to consensus through the exchange of ideas. They believe that that notion is part of the philosophical substructure and practices of the dominant culture.[/quote] Seriously? That doesn't even make [I]sense[/I] dude. It's literally a nonsensical word salad. How do you arrive at hatred of dialogue from phallogocentric? That entire point is an argument in bad faith, so how does he then turn around and say the reason no one will engage is because THEY are arguing in bad faith? This stuff is so bad that you shouldn't need to waste more words than 'Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about'.

[QUOTE=Tudd;53074411]Nope, I know of the Frankfurt school and quite abit about it before JP was a thing and still agree with his assessments. How about instead of wording the longest “You are simply wrong” post you actually point out the actual specific contradictions. Because for someone now grand standing that they are seemingly an expert on the topic, you didn’t actually say why he or I were wrong at all. I would atleast be curious if you can accurately potray anything since your reading comprehension seems to have failed and you think I labeled the Frankfurt school as “Postmodernist” and only think Derrida exists as part of the movement, despite me clearly making a statement that self-identification can be with a host of ideas and there were other philosophers. Sorry I am not going into super depth for you, but you could at-least not strawmen my points.[/QUOTE] Stop pretending we're idiots who don't understand your MO at this point: - Post video/article from alt-right source (bonus points if it's hours long!) - When people criticize the source's credibility (which should be a sufficient argument not to watch an hour long video to begin with) complain about them not addressing their specific arguments directly. Basically demanding they do a multi-paragraph rebuttal for every link you copy-paste. - When rebuttals do come up, ignore every legitimate arguments and nitpick the points that are the most disputable. - Once the going gets too tough, either post another long video/article to bring up even more asinine points to be rebutted, or flee the thread and create another, rinse and repeat. From what I can gather, you just want to set this massively asymmetrical playing field where you only have to contribute minimal effort to the discussion while those who disagree with you are expected to put time and effort into their rebuttal. It's similar to how alt-right speakers make one outrageous claim after another, which requires no effort on their part, and once their opponent is done disproving one claim they've made a dozen more in the meantime. You want to give off the impression that alt-right beliefs are worthy of discussion, as if they were based off rational thinking, by forcing a debate around them and give off the impression that both standpoints are similarly defensible through argumentation, when they're evidently not. You're attempting to normalize the alt-right. If your true intentions were to 'foster a debate', as you put it, then you would actually contribute to it. You'd go into the dime a dozen threads that heavily and factually challenge your views to try and defend them, like all other posters do. Instead, you tend to stay within the comfort of your own threads and even then, you eventually prefer to abandon them rather than address the points made by your opponents. I'm still waiting for a response to my post in the Tim Pool thread, by the way.

I'm not a Jordan Peterson expert or anything, but I've recently heard that he's said 'facts are only true when they are good for humanity' on Sam Harris' podcast and that he thinks that everything will collapse if we don't believe in the Christian God [t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUNhqwhWsAAB5N1.jpg:large[/t] Again, I don't know much about the guy but these are red flags to me he sounds like a weird religious nut

[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;53074646]I'm not a Jordan Peterson expert or anything, but I've recently heard that he's said 'facts are only true when they are good for humanity' on Sam Harris' podcast and that he thinks that everything will collapse if we don't believe in the Christian God Again, I don't know much about the guy but these are red flags to me he sounds like a weird religious nut[/QUOTE] Peterson does this thing where he dresses up bland statements in allegory and melodramatic phrasing to make them seem really smart to people that listen to him without actually absorbing the content of what he's saying. Failing that, he falls back on broad, inconclusive statements that you can't pin him down on because he isn't actually saying enough of anything to absorb in the first place. It's impossible to know whether or not Peterson is religious because when asked he will [I]never[/I] give a straight answer. People have tried multiple times and never gotten anywhere. In the context of the image you posted, he's using 'God' as a metaphor for moral axioms because axioms are inherently arbitrary just as belief in God is inherently arbitrary. Beyond that first thought the rest of what he wrote begins to fall apart because he tries to connect it to a bunch of completely unrelated statements that he hasn't thought through. It's just pretentious rambling designed to look smart to people that won't absorb any of the content.

re: kant was the beginning of postmodernism, how could postmodernism begin with Kant when Kant was the precursor to Hegel who was 'the' Modernist philosopher. if kant is postmodern who the fuck is modern

[QUOTE=cbb;53074682]Peterson does this thing where he dresses up bland statements in allegory and melodramatic phrasing to make them seem really smart to people that listen to him without actually absorbing the content of what he's saying. Failing that, he falls back on broad, inconclusive statements that you can't pin him down on because he isn't actually saying enough of anything to absorb in the first place. It's impossible to know whether or not Peterson is religious because when asked he will [I]never[/I] give a straight answer. People have tried multiple times and never gotten anywhere. In the context of the image you posted, he's using 'God' as a metaphor for moral axioms because axioms are inherently arbitrary just as belief in God is inherently arbitrary. Beyond that first thought the rest of what he wrote begins to fall apart because he tries to connect it to a bunch of completely unrelated statements that he hasn't thought through. It's just pretentious rambling designed to look smart to people that won't absorb any of the content.[/QUOTE] I spent like twenty minutes trying to decipher whatever the fuck Peterson was saying in that post, and it still doesn't make sense. Here's what I got: God is equivalent to having moral axioms, and if you don't believe in god, you must [i]necessarily[/i] deny the existence of moral axioms, and that leads to the "unraveling" of literally everything in society. If you want to stop that "unraveling," you're a totalitarian. If you want to speed it along, you're a nihilist. First off, his initial claim isn't even correct. There are numerous groups and individuals across the globe who do not believe in a God, yet still uphold universal moral truths. Who is the God of Confucianism? There is none - and yet Confucianism is predicated on certain assumed universal truths that dictate "proper" moral behavior. I sort of get his point that denying these axioms will undermine or "unravel" systems of authority, but that's no modern (or postmodern) phenomenon. Look at how radically the Christian church has developed over the last few millennia - certain axioms and universal moral truths once central to Christianity are now ignored, and new ones have been extrapolated from the text. I'm not talking about procedural stuff, like circumcision or handling leather or eating pork, I'm talking about the actual moral truths of Christianity. "Thou shalt not kill" is inscribed clearly as a command from God - yet the Crusades happened, and Christians have killed and killed in the name of God millions of times over. Bending the [i]explicit commands[/i] of the [i]singular axiom of moral truth in the world[/i] is the definition of denying moral axioms. Which is equivalent to denying God. What use are these moral axioms if they can just be broken at will by the very institutions that have been created with the [i]explicit purpose[/i] of fulfilling them? Which is a worse denial of moral axioms - Pope Urban II promoting a holy war that killed thousands and set the precedent for thousands of more to die, in direct contradiction to the [i]literal word of God[/i], or some edgy teenager with dyed hair who goes "god isn't real, we need to deconstruct systems of oppression that harm others, also murder is bad." The idea that [i]theism[/i] is equivalent to [i]having morals at all[/i] is such a hilariously ass-backwards view of the world. It's demonstrably incorrect - through Confucianism particularly. Morals are reinforced by society at large - not by God. God is an invented authority that helps lend legitimacy to morals, and helps keep them enforced throughout society. And yes, while our society has found it fit to recognize that certain acts (like smoking weed, or getting rammed in the ass by another dude) are not immoral, how will that lead to the downfall of society? Human society is in a state of constant flux, taking inspiration from others, abandoning old idea, rejuvenating older ideas, corrupting and misinterpreting others, and inventing new concepts and visions of the world. That is the nature of man. Peterson seems to think "nah God is right, society should've ended in 1400 before we had any of this postmodernism junk, this is the end of times, the downfall of society - the other 8 million times people predicted the exact same sort of societal moral decline were wrong, though - it's the marxist liberals trying to destroy society!"

[QUOTE=cbb;53074682]Peterson does this thing where he dresses up bland statements in allegory and melodramatic phrasing to make them seem really smart to people that listen to him without actually absorbing the content of what he's saying. Failing that, he falls back on broad, inconclusive statements that you can't pin him down on because he isn't actually saying enough of anything to absorb in the first place. It's impossible to know whether or not Peterson is religious because when asked he will [I]never[/I] give a straight answer. People have tried multiple times and never gotten anywhere. In the context of the image you posted, he's using 'God' as a metaphor for moral axioms because axioms are inherently arbitrary just as belief in God is inherently arbitrary. Beyond that first thought the rest of what he wrote begins to fall apart because he tries to connect it to a bunch of completely unrelated statements that he hasn't thought through. It's just pretentious rambling designed to look smart to people that won't absorb any of the content.[/QUOTE] I've seen a few interviews of him, and you're right that he never really gets specific on his actual beliefs about God, but I don't think it's for the reason you've presented. In just the 3 or 4 interviews I've heard, he's made it clear that his goal is to generalize his theories so that they apply to the human experience as a whole, which would include all different kinds of religious groups, or non-religious groups. When he talks about 'god,' he's talking about the idea of a god, whatever that may be in your life. He doesn't specify because it isn't the crux of the issue. He doesn't want the conversation to get bogged down in irrelevant theology. His point is that you need some thing, outside of yourself, that grounds morals, and that this thing is prototypically 'god.' Even if it isn't an actual god in your case, it still plays the role of what a god would play in religion.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;53074755]I spent like twenty minutes trying to decipher whatever the fuck Peterson was saying in that post, and it still doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE] You're reading it too literally. Peterson's speech is too full of itself for literal interpretation. I'll try to explain what he's saying but I can't promise it will make any sense. [QUOTE]To say "I believe in God" is equivalent, in some sense, to say "my thought is ultimately coherent, but predicated on an axiom (as my thought is also incomplete, so I must take something on faith).[/QUOTE] 'Belief in God' is a metaphor for believing that morality is arbitrary and based on axioms that cannot be objectively justified, just as belief in God cannot be justified except by blind faith. He isn't saying anything here beyond the presentation of his metaphor. [QUOTE]To say "I don't believe in God" is therefore to say "no axiom outside my thought is necessary" or "the necessary axiom outside my thought is not real."[/QUOTE] Following the metaphor, the opposite of belief in arbitrary moral axioms is the rejection of arbitrary moral axioms, which is belief in objective morality. Again, he isn't actually saying anything of substance. He's just presented the opposite of his metaphor. [QUOTE]The consequence of this statement is that God himself unravels, then the state unravels, then the family unravels, and then the self itself unravels.[/QUOTE] This is where everything falls apart. Here Peterson makes the statement that belief in objective morality completely erodes society. He does not provide any explanation for this, only the assertion that it is true. There is no substance here. [QUOTE]To stem this unraveling with false certainty: that is totalitarianism.[/QUOTE] He uses the word 'stem' here which doesn't make any sense in the context of what he's trying to say. And I'm not even really sure which way he's using it in but it doesn't really matter because it's not important to the rest of the statement. What he's trying to say is that totalitarianism is the belief in an objective morality that is false. [QUOTE]To speed it along is nihilism.[/QUOTE] What Peterson is trying to say is that Nihilists believe everything is arbitrary and so nothing matters. They reject the foundation of arbitrary moral axioms and therefore speed along the unraveling of society. This isn't even necessarily true because a Nihilist could accept arbitrary moral axioms while simultaneously holding the belief that they hold no value. In fact you could argue that Peterson's own belief in arbitrary moral axioms is a form of Nihilism. [QUOTE]We experimented with totalitarianism in the twentieth century, as an alternative to the ultimate axiom of faith in the unknowable and unspeakable. Totalitarianism failed. Now we will have to experiment to nihilism. This experiment, led by the resentful, will also fail, and it is as doubtful that we can survive it as it was that we could survive totalitarianism. [/QUOTE] We tried totalitarianism and it failed. We're going to try nihilism and it will also fail because it rejects arbitrary moral axioms. Also nihilists are all resentful and they suck. Praise Jesus. I hope they don't kill us.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53074807]I've seen a few interviews of him, and you're right that he never really gets specific on his actual beliefs about God, but I don't think it's for the reason you've presented. In just the 3 or 4 interviews I've heard, he's made it clear that his goal is to generalize his theories so that they apply to the human experience as a whole, which would include all different kinds of religious groups, or non-religious groups. When he talks about 'god,' he's talking about the idea of a god, whatever that may be in your life. He doesn't specify because it isn't the crux of the issue. He doesn't want the conversation to get bogged down in irrelevant theology. His point is that you need some thing, outside of yourself, that grounds morals, and that this thing is prototypically 'god.' Even if it isn't an actual god in your case, it still plays the role of what a god would play in religion.[/QUOTE] Everyone has something outside of themselves that grounds their morals, though. If you take a child and never, ever socialize it, locking it in a room with food to survive, would it have an inherent moral belief that abortion is wrong? Would it think that incest is a bad thing? Would it understand that murder is wrong? Suicide? Are these universal moral truths? All human thought is informed by the individuals surrounding it, and those individuals inform the society at large. There is no such thing as morality "internal" to oneself. Nobody independently decides that some action is moral or immoral - from the outset, they're informed and pressured by society at large to be predisposed to certain moral beliefs. My own moral beliefs are constructed from my life experiences, which necessarily involve my family, friends, and my own interaction with others in society. My morality is informed by the writings of dead philosophers - each of whom were in turn informed by dead philosophers from before their time. The "god" that grounds morality is just the collective thought of society. Societies are in permanent flux. Morals constantly change. Religiosity helps make certain morals more long-lasting - but that's it. Is that nihilistic? I ground my moral beliefs in the society that I've been socialized in. That is, by definition, external. I never thought up an ethical proof for why murder is wrong - I just accepted that it was. Why? Because society said it was so, and presented a number of really convincing arguments for why. I used to be against gay marriage when I was young - because society said it was wrong. Then I read more, and heard more arguments, and my opinion on that moral issue changed. Does that mean I think that society at large is God? No. Would I be okay if society somehow decided that reckless murder was A-OK? No, because I'm already socialized to view that as a moral outrage. Peterson just invents this non-existent binary distinction between objective morality and moral nihilism. He presents it as if it's either one or the other. It isn't. What about collective morality - externally defined, partially arbitrary, and yet still valuable and meaningful? cbb nailed it above, honestly.

[QUOTE=Flameon;53074705]re: kant was the beginning of postmodernism, how could postmodernism begin with Kant when Kant was the precursor to Hegel who was 'the' Modernist philosopher. if kant is postmodern who the fuck is modern[/QUOTE] No you see, obviously we were always postmodern, we just weren't self aware enough to realize just how postmodern our modernizing post modernism was.

Just want to preface this post for anyone observing that I am taking this discussion seriously with Crumpet since it is a topic I think that is worth having with so much depth it requires to be clear. That and my knowledge does stem from classes I have taken in relation with WW2 on the Frankfurt school and another professor who did focus on Derrida and deconstruction. So I am not an expert, and will be reading their first-hand sources when I can, but I just want you to know I am working not from only JP's POV and presentation. [QUOTE=Crumpet;53074431]So after having the notion of cultural marxism deconstructed (which we concluded was a half assed conspiracy based on critical theory), you responded and said "I would rather people tackle postmodern thinkers directly though." Am I being unfair in thinking you're linking the two things there?[/quote] Depends on how you think I link the two. Let me state these points clearly of my own belief and observation: - I do not believe in a Cultural Marxism Conspiracy, coordinated effort, or self-identifying group under the such a guise to undermine societies. Really think I need to make this clear, that despite the Pepe avatar, I am not an Alt-righter who believes such things. - When talking about the Frankfurt school, I do consider them marxist (and I think properly use the term "neo-marxist") in nature and there is an incredible amount of evidence to support that with the individuals who composed it and their identification. I really don't think this can actually be disputed unless you absolutely refuse to accept a term like neo-marxist can exist, but considering their critical theory was evaluating oppression in capitalism and explicitly using Marx's form of "critique" to analyze power structures, I think the term is completely fitting and other scholars will agree. I know that at least 2 seperate professors of mine have at-least backed this viewpoint in my college career, and don't mind listing them if you want their backgrounds. But they brought him up in relevant topics like Modern European history classes or in one case just talking about different ways people analyze ideas and institutions in general for one class. Now having said those two points. I think it is fair to say that using marxist thought-process to change or analyze the culture is a real behavior that can be objectively labeled as such. So yes, I am not going to freak out if someone describes something as "Cultural Marxism" depending on what they are accusing as such. If something like intersectionality comes up, and it is indeed collectivizing people according to social classes, instead of classic economic marxist ones, but achieves the same oppressor vs oppressed marxist conclusions using similar critiques, then I am not surprised people use the term so often. Even if the people using terms like intersectionality don't even identify or think about marxism explicitly, it's just hard to ignore the parallels to Marx's "critique" popping up again. I just would reframe from generally using Cultural Marxism because I don't believe the grand-scale conspiracy theory attached to it, but please let me know what parts I laid out seem wrong here. [b]Now linking it to Postmodernists:[/b] I am going to work with Derrida because it is the one person I have knowledge from my classes I have had with professors going over him, and actually having done my own research on him. Though it is limited to reading Spectres of Marx, but alas, that is the book highly relevant to why I think linking Postmodernists like Derrida to Marxist thought is both fair and the clearest example others on here can search and review. Quite simply, reading a 600ish page book on why the spirit of Marx is so pertinent to linking Derrida, and it explicitly focuses on Marx's "critique" as a valid form of analysis while discussing deconstruction at great length. Thus it really isn't hard to associate some kind of Marxist influence on his ideas. Let me quote one of the most infuriating quotes I have from this book for reference, [quote]That is why such a deconstruction has never been Marxist. no more than it has ever been non-Marxist. although it has remained faithful to a certain spirit of Marxism, to at least one of its spirits for, and this can never be repeated too often, there is more than one of them and they are heterogeneous.) Chapter: Spectres of Marx[/quote] For someone like me reading this, it just reads like the ultimate escape clause in what otherwise reads like a direct linking of Marx's Critique to his Deconstruction ideas that he repeatedly refers to with each other. But the book is also littered with other quotes like this, [quote]Such a deconstruction would have been impossible and unthinkable in a pre-Marxist space. Deconstruction has never had any sense or interest, in my view at least, except as a radicalization, which is to say also in the tradition of a certain Marxism, in a certain spirit of Marxism. Chapter: Wears and tears [/quote] So to say the least I am quite fine linking Derrida to Marxist theories as he clearly has no problem linking them himself. If you have something to change my mind on this, I am quite fine hearing it, but I really have a hard time disassociating how much of this painfully cemented linkage there is to some form of marxist thinking, or atleast "spirit" in Derrida's thinking. [quote] Assessments like what? He never makes a distinction between the ideas of the two, and his brilliant assessment that the central notion of postmodernists is the rejection of objective truth & reason is simply retarded for the reasons above. [/quote] Just for clarification; What are you referring to "simply retarded for reasons above"? I am lost on what you are referring to here. [quote]What exactly are these assessments you're talking about? Peterson has admitted to not reading the real material and instead lifting his understanding of Postmodernism from the Objectivist book [I]Understanding Postmodernism [/I]by Steven Hicks. Having read some analyses of this book, it's points boil down as follows:[/quote] I would really need to see where Peterson says this. Not that I can't accept it, but I also find it hard to believe he wouldn't have read the first-hand sources, despite clearly reading books at rate that would indicate doubt to your claim. I imagine he wouldn't go after such philosophers without atleast gauging one of their books for himself. Which I at the very least I expect Derrida he would read, since this guy seems to be the most pronounced of the postmodernists, that even other professors I know have mentioned it. [quote]A cursory glance at some wikipedia pages is all you need to debunk this summary. Postmodernism began with Kant? Categorical Imperative Kant? Seriously? The book is based heavily on Rand's misunderstanding of Kant and uses a lot of her garbage as theoretical backing. The positions stated here are not derived through engagement with the primary material, so what do we do?[/quote] The problem is having just read as much on the book as I can, I would need to read it before I take some of the points you made as solid. Because for example: The "Postmodernism began with Kant & Rousseau" seems abit heavy-handed when the book's own description on uses terms like "roots in Kant" and not "began with Kant" which I would be fairly interested on what roots the author would suggest, but would understand that "began" would be just plain wrong. I think language is important here, and I guess I would rather need to see direct quotes to argue in good faith on a book I haven't read, rather than rely on the synopsis points you made. I mean if it something like, hurr, "Kant detailed the human mind constructing social structures, which would later spur movements to analyze and refute them." then I wouldn't be surprised by such a statement if that is what Hicks means by "root". The other three points regarding socialism I would really have to see how far the guy takes it, but I am not going to act like Postmodernism thought-processes are not popular more on the left-side of the spectrum and thus socialists might have tendency to fall into its influence. With only me now glancing at the bios at several of the lead philosophers besides Derrida, it doesn't look like I am wrong for such an assumption. [quote]Plenty of reviews of the book (from the few people who have actually heard of it) have stated that the history is outright wrong and on top of that the book contains no substantial or factually coherent argument.[/quote] I mean I don't doubt there are reviews critical on it, but I am guessing you are talking about scholar reviews? Because it's reviews in general from stores (I know, random consumers, not professors) and google seem relatively in high-praise. [quote] Go read [I]The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity [/I]by Habermas, maybe the most famous critique of Postmodernism from the FS. If you think playing me out to the long game because I don't have time to summarise 50 different works for you is proving a point then I think it says a lot about your argument (I'm still not sure what your points are and if they're separate to Peterson's).[/quote] I will add it to my list of books I need to get on. [quote] Further, to say that postmodernism underpins some sort of new left SJW movement is dumb because the foundations of all these leftist ideas are MODERNIST in nature; the Marxist grand narrative is the inevitable destruction of capitalism, the Feminist grand narrative is the inevitable destruction of the patriarchy. So how and why are you telling me leftists have co-opted a field of thought that was mostly criticised by those who wrote it in the first place, as undermining these very ideas? [I]The Postmodern Condition [/I]was an observation & critique not an endorsement. [/quote] Well you can describe it as modernist in a way with how traditions are being broken down, but I think this is far more accurate of the underlying thought process of the SJW-type movements: [quote]Instead, postmodern thinkers may assert that claims to knowledge and truth are products of social, historical or political discourses or interpretations, and are therefore contextual or socially constructed. [/quote] This being a wikipedia description, but it is pretty spot on with terms that SJW-types wouldn't object to and would repeat themselves in a lot of cases in what they believe in. [quote]Anyway, now we've got his theoretical base lets look at an example of what Peterson tacks on. I've been pointed here before by a Peterson fan. [URL]https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/05/jordan_peterson_why_you_have_to_fight_postmodernism.html[/URL][/quote] [quote] Seriously? That doesn't even make [I]sense[/I] dude. It's literally a nonsensical word salad. How do you arrive at hatred of dialogue from phallogocentric? That entire point is an argument in bad faith, so how does he then turn around and say the reason no one will engage is because THEY are arguing in bad faith? This stuff is so bad that you shouldn't need to waste more words than 'Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about'.[/QUOTE] I am not sure why this is hard to understand; Certainly not like reading a translation of Derrida. Laymaning it reads, "They believe western culture is masculine-focused, and thus using previously established logos methods of explaining truths is inherently flawed, and only serves to maintain the oppressing system." I think you are getting hung up on why Phallogocentric is in there, and it is pretty obvious he is saying "Remember, Western Culture is Phallogocentric." because he is clearly trying to illustrate how Radical feminists, who believe patriarchal-systems of oppression, see western culture. Which I think is true for those people. Now if were talking about radical feminists ofcourse, I concur with this idea as a whole. It does appear they are worried the spread of ideas other than their own is somehow harmful, because they inherently believe the ideas/logos is too infectious of a bad idea for even good-willed people to withstand, and thus are willing to censor it however they can since they believe it only serves to maintain systems of oppression. ---- Wooo, literally the longest post I have made, but this is something I am actively wanting to investigate more so I really don't mind continuing this topic with you, and will try to work through things in good faith without resorting to harsh tones.

[QUOTE=Tudd;53076990]When talking about the Frankfurt school, [b]I do consider them marxist (and I think properly use the term "neo-marxist") in nature[/b][/QUOTE] The prefix 'neo-' or 'post-' when used in this kind of context means essentially 'alternative to-' or 'the replacement of-'. For example, Postmodernism is supposed to be the superior replacement of modernism. Postmodernists are not Modernists, they disagree with Modernists. Neomodernism is to Postmodernism the same as Postmodernism is to Modernismism. Likewise, Neoconservativism is the opposite to Paleoconservatism (which is referred to as 'Paleo-' in order to make the distinction between the old and the new, originally they were both just called conservatism before there was a distinction between the two). Likewise, Neoliberalism is opposed to liberalism because it sees itself as a superior replacement. Neoliberals are not the same as liberals, they view themselves as the replacement. Just because a word contains another word doesn't mean that the first word is a subset of the second. People use the prefixes 'anti-', 'neo-' or 'post-' to declare their disagreement with something and also declare that the thing they disagree with is 'in the past' and outdated compared to their superior version. There are many, many people who called themselves 'neo-marxists', but every case involved people who disagreed with marxism, which is why they called themselves 'neo-' instead of just 'marxists'. This is why it is erroneous to claim that people support the belief system purported by Mao Zedong or Joseph Stalin simply because they say or belong to something that has the word 'marxist' in it. In the case of the individuals who called themselves 'neo-marxists' who belonged to the frankfurt school, they were sociologists who disagreed with marxism because it didn't work with what was then the more contemporary understanding of social inequality (in particular, the idea that people need incentives to work and cooperate with others and we aren't just parts of an economic 'machine' like marxism proposes). It could be argued that Jordan Peterson's own views are more closely related to Marxism than anything proposed by anyone in the Frankfurt school. In particular his belief in a natural hierarchy which is effectively a Natural Law (the idea that certain traits of binding human behaviour are universal as prescribed by nature, instead of governed by stately laws or circumstance). This kind of 'word of god' justification is analogous to the authoritarian reasoning used by authoritarian governments, including Stalinist Russia and Mao's China, to justify the hierarchies of those societies being necessary. The only difference is that they used the vague supposedly apparent evils of capitalism as opposed to the vague supposedly apparent evils of marxism (both of which are highly vaguely defined).

[QUOTE=Zyler;53077156]The prefix 'neo-' or 'post-' when used in this kind of context means essentially 'alternative to-' or 'the replacement of-'. For example, Postmodernism is supposed to be the superior replacement of modernism. Postmodernists are not Modernists, they disagree with Modernists. Neomodernism is to Postmodernism the same as Postmodernism is to Modernismism. Likewise, Neoconservativism is the opposite to Paleoconservatism (which is referred to as 'Paleo-' in order to make the distinction between the old and the new, originally they were both just called conservatism before there was a distinction between the two). Likewise, Neoliberalism is opposed to liberalism because it sees itself as a superior replacement. Neoliberals are not the same as liberals, they view themselves as the replacement. Just because a word contains another word doesn't mean that the first word is a subset of the second. People use the prefixes 'anti-', 'neo-' or 'post-' to declare their disagreement with something and also declare that the thing they disagree with is 'in the past' and outdated compared to their superior version. There are many, many people who called themselves 'neo-marxists', but every case involved people who disagreed with marxism, which is why they called themselves 'neo-' instead of just 'marxists'. This is why it is erroneous to claim that people support the belief system purported by Mao Zedong or Joseph Stalin simply because they say or belong to something that has the word 'marxist' in it. In the case of the individuals who called themselves 'neo-marxists' who belonged to the frankfurt school, they were sociologists who disagreed with marxism because it didn't work with what was then the more contemporary understanding of social inequality (in particular, the idea that people need incentives to work and cooperate with others and we aren't just parts of an economic 'machine' like marxism proposes). It could be argued that Jordan Peterson's own views are more closely related to Marxism than anything proposed by anyone in the Frankfurt school. In particular his belief in a natural hierarchy which is effectively a Natural Law (the idea that certain traits of binding human behaviour are universal as prescribed by nature, instead of governed by stately laws or circumstance). This kind of 'word of god' justification is analogous to the authoritarian reasoning used by authoritarian governments, including Stalinist Russia and Mao's China, to justify the hierarchies of those societies being necessary. The only difference is that they used the vague supposedly apparent evils of capitalism as opposed to the vague supposedly apparent evils of marxism (both of which are highly vaguely defined).[/QUOTE] Why are you responding the possible semantical misuse of a single term and ignoring the rest of the actual content?

[QUOTE=sgman91;53077816]Why are you responding the possible semantical misuse of a single term and ignoring the rest of the actual content?[/QUOTE] Tudd was arguing with Crumpet. Why can't Zyler, who was not involved in the debate until now, point out an isolated error? Why does he have to respond to the entirety of the post?

[QUOTE=_Axel;53077828]Tudd was arguing with Crumpet. Why can't Zyler, who was not involved in the debate until now, point out an isolated error? Why does he have to respond to the entirety of the post?[/QUOTE] He's free to do that, and could have just responded stating as much. The fact that he clearly addressed more than just that in the final paragraph would suggest he was intending a more general response, though.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53077816]Why are you responding the possible semantical misuse of a single term and ignoring the rest of the actual content?[/QUOTE] Because the very fact Jordan Peterson, a man who should know better does not. That speaks volumes about the value of his input involved in any of this. [editline]24th January 2018[/editline] Also, before you respond with 'How do you know, that's not fair' blah blah. The man goes on regular tangents about the origins of words during his word salad rants. If he's going to argue so deeply in semantics to that point, he should understand what those prefixes mean. So essentially, either he doesn't believe in this bullshit either, or he just spouts word salad and doesn't actually know what the fuck he's talking about.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53077927]Because the very fact Jordan Peterson, a man who should know better does not. That speaks volumes about the value of his input involved in any of this. [editline]24th January 2018[/editline] Also, before you respond with 'How do you know, that's not fair' blah blah. The man goes on regular tangents about the origins of words during his word salad rants. If he's going to argue so deeply in semantics to that point, he should understand what those prefixes mean. So essentially, either he doesn't believe in this bullshit either, or he just spouts word salad and doesn't actually know what the fuck he's talking about.[/QUOTE] Or he's using the word in a different way? It just seems a little odd to point out a word when he goes into detail about what he means by the word. Let's say it's a totally non-normal use of the word, which I'm not sure is true, but let's assume it is, his position doesn't rise or fall on the use of that word.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53077962]Or he's using the word in a different way? It just seems a little odd to point out a word when he goes into detail about what he means by the word. Let's say it's a totally non-normal use of the word, which I'm not sure is true, but let's assume it is, his position doesn't rise or fall on the use of that word.[/QUOTE] See, if he was a post modernist, I could see that. He's not, he's a modernist, as a real modernist those words would not have new meanings. Also since when the fuck did Post, Pre, Neo and others suddenly have new meanings? If we're giving new definitions to fucking prefixes this language is fucked. [editline]24th January 2018[/editline] Seriously stop defending him, he's a fucking psychologist suffering from the Spectacle Effect. He thinks because he did so well in psychology that he can just slide on in to philopshy without the pre-requisite knowledge. Its like an engineer trying to film a movie versus a communications or film student filming a movie.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53077986]See, if he was a post modernist, I could see that. He's not, he's a modernist, as a real modernist those words would not have new meanings. Also since when the fuck did Post, Pre, Neo and others suddenly have new meanings? If we're giving new definitions to fucking prefixes this language is fucked. [editline]24th January 2018[/editline] Seriously stop defending him, he's a fucking psychologist suffering from the Spectacle Effect. He thinks because he did so well in psychology that he can just slide on in to philopshy without the pre-requisite knowledge. Its like an engineer trying to film a movie versus a communications or film student filming a movie.[/QUOTE] You're not actually addressing any of his arguments. I guess you can dismiss him based on the use of a word, but it's not meaningful in the slightest.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53078036]You're not actually addressing any of his arguments. I guess you can dismiss him based on the use of a word, but it's not meaningful in the slightest.[/QUOTE] We've already gone over how his arguments are word salad? If you actually breakdown what he is saying, remove his voice and command of charisma, you will see that he's basically rambling about the roots of words and how that somehow reflects the lack of morality of something because he's going to use postmodernist argumentation(Incorrectly) while complaining about postmodernists.

[QUOTE=Zyler;53077156]The prefix 'neo-' or 'post-' when used in this kind of context means essentially 'alternative to-' or 'the replacement of-'. [/quote] Going off [b]only[/b] this premise of the definition and usage of Neo is just wrong. As it fails to include "New" or an "extension" of something. Like for "Post" it is more than just the two things you listed. [quote] For example, Postmodernism is supposed to be the superior replacement of modernism. Postmodernists are not Modernists, they disagree with Modernists. Neomodernism is to Postmodernism the same as Postmodernism is to Modernismism.[/quote] I mean I don't disagree with you, but it isn't like one can't build off the other. Modernism is most directly refuting the Enlightenment, but isn't in as much direct confrontation with Post-modernism in comparison, for example. [quote] Likewise, Neoconservativism is the opposite to Paleoconservatism (which is referred to as 'Paleo-' in order to make the distinction between the old and the new, originally they were both just called conservatism before there was a distinction between the two). Likewise, Neoliberalism is opposed to liberalism because it sees itself as a superior replacement. Neoliberals are not the same as liberals, they view themselves as the replacement.[/quote] I think this idea it is either an opposing idea or superior replacement isn't always the case. It can be quite simply an extension or revised version of the classical idea. This is quite easily seen with what standards we apply to Neo-Nazis for example. [quote] Just because a word contains another word doesn't mean that the first word is a subset of the second. People use the prefixes 'anti-', 'neo-' or 'post-' to declare their disagreement with something and also declare that the thing they disagree with is 'in the past' and outdated compared to their superior version. There are many, many people who called themselves 'neo-marxists', but every case involved people who disagreed with marxism, which is why they called themselves 'neo-' instead of just 'marxists'.[/quote] I think in my original long post I am following that line when I pointed out that Derrida clearly doesn't want to be a "marxist" but he is more than fine using Marxist thought-processes or "the spirit of Marx" and thus I am comfortable calling him a Neo-marxist. He is clearly trying to use Marx critique in a new way, and to refute that you need to refute what he said in all of "Specters of Marx." [quote] This is why it is erroneous to claim that people support the belief system purported by Mao Zedong or Joseph Stalin simply because they say or belong to something that has the word 'marxist' in it.[/quote] I try not to do that, but I will point out when they using a form of thought process linked to these thinkers. It also just happens a lot of these thinkers will directly call on Marx to lay foundation to their ideas. [quote] In the case of the individuals who called themselves 'neo-marxists' who belonged to the frankfurt school, they were sociologists who disagreed with marxism because it didn't work with what was then the more contemporary understanding of social inequality (in particular, the idea that people need incentives to work and cooperate with others and we aren't just parts of an economic 'machine' like marxism proposes).[/quote] And thus they took Marxist critique, and and in their mind, revised it to work in social contexts instead of the failing economic domain Marx used. Hence why it is valid to link them to Marxist thought, label, or even producing a Neo-Marxist label with these specific people we been going over. I am going to list this since it contains a lot of examples I would concur with (Including the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory): [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism[/url] [quote] [b]It could be argued that Jordan Peterson's own views are more closely related to Marxism than anything proposed by anyone in the Frankfurt school.[/b][/quote] Oh lord...... This is just so wrong that you really just destroyed whatever credibility were working with on the term debate. [quote] In particular his belief in a natural hierarchy which is effectively a Natural Law (the idea that certain traits of binding human behaviour are universal as prescribed by nature, instead of governed by stately laws or circumstance). This kind of 'word of god' justification is analogous to the authoritarian reasoning used by authoritarian governments, including Stalinist Russia and Mao's China, to justify the hierarchies of those societies being necessary. The only difference is that they used the vague supposedly apparent evils of capitalism as opposed to the vague supposedly apparent evils of marxism (both of which are highly vaguely defined).[/QUOTE] I don't even agree with this critique in the slightest as a qualifier for Marxism since authoritarian hierarchies has more to do with religious reasoning than anything to do with Marx for Jordan Peterson. But you are ignoring soooooooooooo much of Jordan Peterson's advocacy for ideas antithesis to Marx and Marxists like focusing on the individualism, equality of opportunity, and advocacy for Capitalism, that really what you said is just baseless and lacks any comprehensive analysis. Like if anyone actually agrees with your ideas. They need to do some serious reanalyzing with what you just said.

Literally, its on the same page dude. Don't even try to deny it. [editline]24th January 2018[/editline] Holy shit that merge.

[QUOTE=Tudd;53078094]Going off [b]only[/b] this premise of the definition and usage of Neo is just wrong. As it fails to include "New" or an "extension" of something. Like for "Post" it is more than just the two things you listed. I mean I don't disagree with you, but it isn't like one can't build off the other. Modernism is most directly refuting the Enlightenment, but isn't in as much direct confrontation with Post-modernism in comparison, for example. I think this idea it is either an opposing idea or superior replacement isn't always the case. It can be quite simply an extension or revised version of the classical idea. This is quite easily seen with what standards we apply to Neo-Nazis for example. I think in my original long post I am following that line when I pointed out that Derrida clearly doesn't want to be a "marxist" but he is more than fine using Marxist thought-processes or "the spirit of Marx" and thus I am comfortable calling him a Neo-marxist. He is clearly trying to use Marx critique in a new way, and to refute that you need to refute what he said in all of "Specters of Marx." I try not to do that, but I will point out when they using a form of thought process linked to these thinkers. It also just happens a lot of these thinkers will directly call on Marx to lay foundation to their ideas. And thus they took Marxist critique, and and in their mind, revised it to work in social contexts instead of the failing economic domain Marx used. Hence why it is valid to link them to Marxist thought, label, or even producing a Neo-Marxist label with these specific people we been going over. I am going to list this since it contains a lot of examples I would concur with (Including the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory): [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism[/url] Oh lord...... This is just so wrong that you really just destroyed whatever credibility were working with on the term debate. I don't even agree with this critique in the slightest as a qualifier for Marxism since authoritarian hierarchies has more to do with religious reasoning than anything to do with Marx for Jordan Peterson. But you are ignoring soooooooooooo much of Jordan Peterson's advocacy for ideas antithesis to Marx and Marxists like focusing on the individualism, equality of opportunity, and advocacy for Capitalism, that really what you said is just baseless and lacks any comprehensive analysis. Like if anyone actually agrees with your ideas. They need to do some serious reanalyzing with what you just said.[/QUOTE] So you're just ignoring the definitions of what the actual words mean and making up your own meanings in order to make fake connections between things. Neo-marxism disagrees with marxism, it says so in the wikipedia article you linked: [Quote]many theorists and groups designated as neo-Marxist have attempted to supplement the perceived deficiencies of orthodox Marxism or dialectical materialism.[/Quote] Actual marxists/authoritarian governments like Mao's China and the Soviet Union abhored religion, they banned it because they thought it created a class system, and sent people to work camps for practicing it openly. Meanwhile, Peterson uses the example of God as the basis for his belief in the Natural Law that there must be hiearchies in human nature. What makes them similiar is that both belief systems use some equivalent of top-down reasoning to justify inequality. Since, in practice these authoritarian governments established hiearchies which they argued served the greater good of establishing communism. While Peterson argues that hiearchies are a necessary part of human nature. Neo-marxism is an attempt at correcting or fixing marxism by taking the bits that work and throwing out the bits that dont. You're correct in saying that one builds upon the other. There are aspects of marxism within every modern economic system. People who have actually learnt about the history of these ideas from economics, sociology and philosophy classes understand this, every new idea builds upon and critiques the ideas that came before it. Postmodernism is to Modernism what Modernism is to the Enlightenment and Neo-Marxism is to Marxism and Neoliberalism is to Liberalism and Neoconservatism is to Paleoconservatism. Just because someone disagrees with some aspect of the modern world we live in, doesn't mean that they support Mao's China or Stalinist Russia. Derrrida and other postmodernists like Andy Warhol disliked the consumerist aspects of modern society, but that doesn't mean they wanted to live in soviet russia or communist china. Postmodernism is not Marxism, Critical Theory is not Marxism. A person can believe all of these things at once, but they are not the same and someone can also believe in one without any other. You say you understand that the idea of Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory. But you dont seem to realize that the spaghetti strand linking a person believing in Postmodernism and them wanting to live in the Soviet Union is the exact same kind of spurious connection that Cultural Marxism is based on. Its the same reasoning that people who believe that the Jews are behind everything use to draw connections between things. By this logic, the modern United States is a marxist country, because it has social programmes designed to redistribute wealth. You see how throughly useless this definition is? It's casting such a wide net as to what constitutes Marxism, that it [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/25/hard-working-taxpayers-dont-support-big-cuts-to-food-stamps-it-turns-out/?utm_term=.d697c4c92b6b]includes all Democrats and most Republicans[/url]. It's not technically wrong either, because every modern economic system incorporates some aspect of the ideas before it, and the economic systems in every western country have changed to reflect that. It's just so misleading and confrontational to call America a marxist country just because it incorporates some concepts vaguely connected to marxism that the only people who do it are far-right conservatives who want to convince people we're in the middle of some kind of communist takeover. It's bluring the line between totally different belief systems, effectively stating that a Social Democrat wants to live in Soviet Russia because both a Marxist and a Social Democrat want to have social programmes like food stamps. You've also stated that you dont like the term Alt-right because its vague and nebulous and could refer to anyone. Well, in this context Marxist serves the same purpose.

[QUOTE=Zyler;53078905]So you're just ignoring the definitions of what the actual words mean and making up your own meanings in order to make fake connections between things. Neo-marxism disagrees with marxism, it says so in the wikipedia article you linked:[/quote] [i]Directly from the wikipedia I linked in the first sentence:[/i] [quote]Neo-Marxism is a loose term for various twentieth-century approaches that amend or [b]extend[/b] Marxism and Marxist theory, usually by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions, such as [b]critical theory[/b], psychoanalysis, or existentialism (in the case of Sartre).[/quote] I have to ask if you read the actual wikipedia yourself? [quote] Actual marxists/authoritarian governments like Mao's China and the Soviet Union abhored religion, they banned it because they thought it created a class system, and sent people to work camps for practicing it openly.[/quote] Yes, they were against classes and hierarchies in both social and economic fields. Something Jordan Peterson doesn't believe at all. [quote] Meanwhile, Peterson uses the example of God as the basis for his belief in the Natural Law that there must be hiearchies in human nature. What makes them similiar is that both belief systems use some equivalent of top-down reasoning to justify inequality. Since, in practice these authoritarian governments established hiearchies which they argued served the greater good of establishing communism. While Peterson argues that hiearchies are a necessary part of human nature.[/quote] [b]Believing in hierarchies does not make you an authoritarian.[/b] I guess you haven't talked to an Libertarian who believes in Capitalism and Hierarchies. I mean the guy has taught the same class and written a book on preventing people from being Nazis and Communists for [i]decades[/i]. You would think that would count for something to say how ridiculous your linkage to authoritarianism is. It is actually amazing you are still ignoring everything antithesis Jordan Peterson believes still that I mentioned aswell. So I will directly ask you this: [b]Please explain how Jordan Peterson is "more closely related to marxism than the Frankfurt School" despite his beliefs of individualism, capitalism, and equality of opportunity rather than outcome.[/b] This claim so far is so ludicrous, and your best evidence is that you believe his views on natural law from religion is advocacy for a top down authoritarian hierarchal system.... Because you assume he supports authoritarian systems because he believes in hierarchies.... Which is somehow more like marxism because it is just like the the totalitarian governments of Mao and Stalin, who even some marxist thinkers don't consider marxist for how they ran their governments. And somehow [b]as a whole[/b] you claim Jordan Peterson is more closely related to marxism than the Frankfurt School, who explicitly were dabbling with Marxist ideology, and developing new ideas with Marx's Critique. Your worldview is so lacking complexity and comprehensive analysis of Jordan Peterson's views; And until you directly refute somehow his other strong beliefs that are antithetical to Marxism, or explain with stronger evidence how Jordan Peterson is more closely related to Marxism than the Frankfurt school with anything better than this Hierarchy/Authoritarian critique, then it plainly obvious you are strawmannirg and not even doing it well. [quote] Neo-marxism is an attempt at correcting or fixing marxism by taking the bits that work and throwing out the bits that dont. [/quote] It can be an extension aswell. Just like the wikipedia article says that you did read. [quote] You're correct in saying that one builds upon the other. [b]There are aspects of marxism within every modern economic system[/b]. People who have actually learnt about the history of these ideas from economics, sociology and philosophy classes understand this, every new idea builds upon and critiques the ideas that came before it. [b]Postmodernism is to Modernism what Modernism is to the Enlightenment[/b] and Neo-Marxism is to Marxism and Neoliberalism is to Liberalism and Neoconservatism is to Paleoconservatism.[/quote] Okay, you really didn't understand my point at all here. You seemingly took it that they either; chronologically "build upon the other"; or are equally compatible in relationship and build-up. Modernism is directly refuting some of the highest-held Enlightenment ideas. The distance between Modernism and the Enlightenment is not the same as Modernism is to Postmodernism and you would have a hard time demonstrating otherwise. [quote] Just because someone disagrees with some aspect of the modern world we live in, doesn't mean that they support Mao's China or Stalinist Russia. Derrrida and other postmodernists like Andy Warhol disliked the consumerist aspects of modern society, but that doesn't mean they wanted to live in soviet russia or communist china.[/quote] I never made this claim, and it seems you are the only one in the gutter that keeps thinking everyone believes this, and Jordan Peterson is explicit in his interview that he doesn't believe they are either, but he is right that their underlying thought processes shared similarities. [quote] Postmodernism is not Marxism, Critical Theory is not Marxism. A person can believe all of these things at once, but they are not the same and someone can also believe in one without any other.[/quote] Critical Theory is pretty marxist, mate. Since you haven't objected to wikipedia definitions in high regard (but don't seemingly read them) I will post [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory]this:[/url] [quote]In sociology and political philosophy, the term Critical Theory describes the neo-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which was developed in Germany in the 1930s. This use of the term requires proper noun capitalization, whereas "a critical theory" or "a critical social theory" may have similar elements of thought, but not stress its intellectual lineage specifically to the Frankfurt School. Frankfurt School theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud.[/quote] And again, your definition of Neo-Marxism is faulty, and lacks a valid use of "Neo" to mean 'new or [b]'extended'[/b] Otherwise you basically refute Neo-Nazis are Nazis if you don't allow these definitions, or somehow hold a double standard for the usage of "Neo-" in that belief. [quote] You say you understand that the idea of Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory. But you dont seem to realize that the spaghetti strand linking a person believing in Postmodernism and them wanting to live in the Soviet Union is the exact same kind of spurious connection that Cultural Marxism is based on. Its the same reasoning that people who believe that the Jews are behind everything use to draw connections between things. By this logic, the modern United States is a marxist country, because it has social programmes designed to redistribute wealth.[/quote] Strawman argumentation at its worse here. I am not even going to re-post what I think of Cultural Marxism. [quote] You see how throughly useless this definition is? It's casting such a wide net as to what constitutes Marxism, that it [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/25/hard-working-taxpayers-dont-support-big-cuts-to-food-stamps-it-turns-out/?utm_term=.d697c4c92b6b]includes all Democrats and most Republicans[/url]. It's not technically wrong either, because every modern economic system incorporates some aspect of the ideas before it, and the economic systems in every western country have changed to reflect that. It's just so misleading and confrontational to call America a marxist country just because it incorporates some concepts vaguely connected to marxism that the only people who do it are far-right conservatives who want to convince people we're in the middle of some kind of communist takeover. It's bluring the line between totally different belief systems, effectively stating that a Social Democrat wants to live in Soviet Russia because both a Marxist and a Social Democrat want to have social programmes like food stamps. You've also stated that you dont like the term Alt-right because its vague and nebulous and could refer to anyone. Well, in this context Marxist serves the same purpose.[/QUOTE] A definition can become useless, and I know of people and commentators that do take their labeling of neo-marxism too far, but that doesn't mean there isn't a valid definition to be found. Even I think the Alt-right could be a valid definition if limited to authentic "ethnostate" Richard Spencer-types. Problem is that it is a lot of the time useless because it is used to describe anyone who isn't a mainstream GOP Republican or Neoconservatives.

[QUOTE=Tudd;53079812][i]Directly from the wikipedia I linked in the first sentence:[/i] I have to ask if you read the actual wikipedia yourself? Yes, they were against classes and hierarchies in both social and economic fields. Something Jordan Peterson doesn't believe at all. [b]Believing in hierarchies does not make you an authoritarian.[/b] I guess you haven't talked to an Libertarian who believes in Capitalism and Hierarchies. I mean the guy has taught the same class and written a book on preventing people from being Nazis and Communists for [i]decades[/i]. You would think that would count for something to say how ridiculous your linkage to authoritarianism is. It is actually amazing you are still ignoring everything antithesis Jordan Peterson believes still that I mentioned aswell. So I will directly ask you this: [b]Please explain how Jordan Peterson is "more closely related to marxism than the Frankfurt School" despite his beliefs of individualism, capitalism, and equality of opportunity rather than outcome.[/b] This claim so far is so ludicrous, and your best evidence is that you believe his views on natural law from religion is advocacy for a top down authoritarian hierarchal system.... Because you assume he supports authoritarian systems because he believes in hierarchies.... Which is somehow more like marxism because it is just like the the totalitarian governments of Mao and Stalin, who even some marxist thinkers don't consider marxist for how they ran their governments. And somehow [b]as a whole[/b] you claim Jordan Peterson is more closely related to marxism than the Frankfurt School, who explicitly were dabbling with Marxist ideology, and developing new ideas with Marx's Critique. Your worldview is so lacking complexity and comprehensive analysis of Jordan Peterson's views; And until you directly refute somehow his other strong beliefs that are antithetical to Marxism, or explain with stronger evidence how Jordan Peterson is more closely related to Marxism than the Frankfurt school with anything better than this Hierarchy/Authoritarian critique, then it plainly obvious you are strawmannirg and not even doing it well. It can be an extension aswell. Just like the wikipedia article says that you did read. Okay, you really didn't understand my point at all here. You seemingly took it that they either; chronologically "build upon the other"; or are equally compatible in relationship and build-up. Modernism is directly refuting some of the highest-held Enlightenment ideas. The distance between Modernism and the Enlightenment is not the same as Modernism is to Postmodernism and you would have a hard time demonstrating otherwise. I never made this claim, and it seems you are the only one in the gutter that keeps thinking everyone believes this, and Jordan Peterson is explicit in his interview that he doesn't believe they are either, but he is right that their underlying thought processes shared similarities. Critical Theory is pretty marxist, mate. Since you haven't objected to wikipedia definitions in high regard (but don't seemingly read them) I will post [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory]this:[/url] And again, your definition of Neo-Marxism is faulty, and lacks a valid use of "Neo" to mean 'new or [b]'extended'[/b] Otherwise you basically refute Neo-Nazis are Nazis if you don't allow these definitions, or somehow hold a double standard for the usage of "Neo-" in that belief. Strawman argumentation at its worse here. I am not even going to re-post what I think of Cultural Marxism. A definition can become useless, and I know of people and commentators that do take their labeling of neo-marxism too far, but that doesn't mean there isn't a valid definition to be found. Even I think the Alt-right could be a valid definition if limited to authentic "ethnostate" Richard Spencer-types. Problem is that it is a lot of the time useless because it is used to describe anyone who isn't a mainstream GOP Republican or Neoconservatives.[/QUOTE] My point is that the same tenuous reasoning that you're using to go marxist=neo-marxist=derrida=postmodernist=critical-theory is the same logic that someone could use to go Peterson=marxist. It's just taking a word that somebody uses. Such as when you took the wikipedia article for neo-marxist which says "extension" and argued that Derrida uses words that apparently sound marxist. Peterson uses "hierarchies" so he must be a marxist too because marxists have "hierarchies". I don't actually believe that Peterson is a marxist. I'm just using the same logic as you are using so show how absurd it is. By your reasoning, almost everyone is a Marxist because anything which uses a marxist-sounding concept or word is marxist regardless of whether they are actually for or against marxism. With such a broad definition, all democrats and the majority of republicans are marxists, because they support Food Stamps. According to this, the United States must be a marxist country because it has social programs. [QUOTE] And again, your definition of Neo-Marxism is faulty, and lacks a valid use of "Neo" to mean 'new or 'extended' Otherwise you basically refute Neo-Nazis are Nazis if you don't allow these definitions, or somehow hold a double standard for the usage of "Neo-" in that belief.[/QUOTE] You're conflating what I explained as the definition of 'Neo-' and the specific description of 'Neo-Marxist' on Wikipedia (which is not 'my' definition). 'Neo-' DOES mean 'new', 'extended' and 'replacement'. Neo-nazis are the 'new', 'extended', 'replacement' of Nazis, they have their own distinct belief system that is separate from those of the original Nazi Party and its supporters. Likewise, Neo-Marxists are the 'new', 'extended', 'replacement' of Neo-Marxists. They have their own distinct belief system separate from those of the original marxists. Furthermore, the specific description of Neo-Marxists on wikipedia states that the Neo-Marxists refuted Marxism in its original form. I'm not determining that they are opposed to Marxism from the prefix 'Neo', I'm getting it from the actual wikipedia page which says so (which you used as a primary source). There's a distinction between 'Neo-', 'Neo-Marxist' and 'Neo-Nazi'. [QUOTE]Otherwise you basically refute Neo-Nazis are Nazis if you don't allow these definition[/QUOTE] Neo-Nazis are not technically not Third-Reich Nazi Germany Nazis, they are their own thing with their own belief system which is equally bad. [QUOTE=Tudd;53079812] Strawman argumentation at its worse here. I am not even going to re-post what I think of Cultural Marxism.[/QUOTE] I misunderstood your post, I assumed you were saying that you didn't believe in Cultural Marxism but instead you believed in some other thing. I can see now that you believe in Cultural Marxism but see it as too much of a blanket term: [QUOTE=Tudd;53072277]It really isn’t that hard of a term to understand as previously mentioned. Personally I would rather people tackle postmodern thinkers directly though. Since ideas like deconstruction from Derrida can be directly correlated and Cultural Marxism is just too much of a blanket term.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Jordan Peterson is explicit in his interview that he doesn't believe they are either, but he is right that their underlying thought processes shared similarities.[/QUOTE] What are these similarities? What is the specific thing that Derrida, Postmodernism, Critical Theory, Stalin and Mao Zedong have in common? Please allow me to understand, because the only thing you've said so far is that they 'can be directly correlated' and that 'there is an incredible amount of evidence' [QUOTE=Tudd;53072277] Personally I would rather people tackle postmodern thinkers directly though. Since ideas like deconstruction from Derrida can be directly correlated and Cultural Marxism is just too much of a blanket term.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Tudd;53076990] When talking about the Frankfurt school, I do consider them marxist (and I think properly use the term "neo-marxist") in nature and there is an incredible amount of evidence to support that with the individuals who composed it and their identification..[/QUOTE] There's only two things you use to link the Frankfurt school to marxism. One is that some members called themselves 'neo-marxist', which the wikipedia article you used as a source says is a refutation of marxism. [editline]25th January 2018[/editline] The second link you make is the idea of social classes and power structures, which is a marxist concept: [QUOTE]but considering their critical theory was evaluating oppression in capitalism and explicitly using Marx's form of "critique" to analyze power structures, I think the term is completely fitting and other scholars will agree. I know that at least 2 seperate professors of mine have at-least backed this viewpoint in my college career, and don't mind listing them if you want their backgrounds. But they brought him up in relevant topics like Modern European history classes or in one case just talking about different ways people analyze ideas and institutions in general for one class.[/QUOTE] If I'm understanding this correctly, you're arguing that because postmodernists/feminists/sjws/derrida/stalin/mao/etc refer to the concept of there being any kind of social classes or power structures in society, they all share the same underlying thought processes? And those thought processes are that they wish to destroy capitalism, individualism and equality of opportunity? Theres' two problems with this. Firstly, classes and power structures of many kinds have been around a lot longer than Marx. The term 'class system' actually comes from medieval England, where it was used to refer to the segregation into classes of people including the peasants/serfs, clergy, nobility and the king. France had its own class system known as the Three Estates, they were the same as the english one except that they had official titles including the First Estate (clergy), Second Estate (nobility) and Third Estate (peasants). When we moved from monarchies to capitalist democracies we got a new set of classes, including The Proletariat (farmers and factory workers), Bourgeoisie ( the 'capitalists', owners of businesses and factories) and the Petite Bourgeoisie (Petite means 'little', this is where the middlemen sit, like tradesmen and managers who have some power but no capital). The term brourgeoisie or 'burgher' in German predates Marx by a good seven centuries. It was used to refer to the merchants or tradesmen that were rich enough to afford their own homes and businesses without having any kind of nobility. The term proletariat dates back to Roman times, it was used to refer to individuals who were citizens of the Roman empire, i.e. not slaves, who did not own land or property. The Roman Empire had its own class system including slaves, plebians (citizens not of noble birth) and partricians (nobility). Secondly, when someone refers to any kind of social class, that doesn't automatically mean they are calling to destroy capitalism, which is the cornerstone of marxism. The basis of marxism isn't simply that there are social classes, it's that the proletariat should rise up against the brorgeoisie and form a dictatorship. Simply saying that some groups of people are disadvantaged compared to others and should be helped isn't marxism. There are many conservatives who believe that christians or white culture is disadvantaged compared to other groups, does that make them marxists? Once again, I'm not saying that conservative christians are marxists, I'm just demonstrating why the reasoning you are using doesn't make a lot of sense.