- Joined
- Dec 19, 2011
- Messages
- 462
- Reaction score
- 0
Fair enough. If you're not joking, then you're just wrong.
A lot could be said about Peterson, I'm sure, but saying that he's "not rigorous"?
And, FWIW, I'd counter your claim that he doesn't operate in good faith with two claims of my own. First, that operating on faith is antithetical to logic, so "good faith" is a contradiction in terms. Second, I think your problem here is similar to what I posited as the problem with @Kafir-kun: You have faith in postmodernism as a rational intellectual movement. You're conceding to them the position of Reason.
Rand termed this "the sanction of the victim." You're sanctioning their nonsense by not calling it out for what it is: Nonsense.
No, he identified a very real philosophical boogeyman.
The right isn't anti-intellectual. Neither is the left, for that matter. The far right and the far left, however, now that's another story.
Derrida from an interview originally published in Le Monde de l'Education:
“I speak mostly, and have for a long time, about sexual differences, rather than about one difference only - twofold and oppositional - which is indeed, with phallocentrism, with what I also nickname ‘phallogocentrism,’ a structural feature of philosophical discourse that will have prevailed in the tradition. Deconstruction goes down that road in the first place. Everything comes back that way. Before any feminist politicalization (and, although I’ve often associated myself with it, on certain conditions), it is important to recognize this strong phallogocentric underpinning that conditions just about all of our cultural heritage.”
I know my Derrida well enough to assure you that Peterson knows what he's talking about. I also know my Derrida well enough to know that you don't know what you're talking about. You're taking this shit on faith and assuming there's no way that what Peterson is saying could possibly be true because it's beyond your comprehension how anybody could have said anything as stupid as what Peterson is attributing to people like Derrida. Believe me, it took me a long time to wrap my head around the stupidity myself, but, sooner or later, you're going to have to wake up to the fact that this isn't cherrypicking, this isn't fearmongering, and this isn't Patreon whoring. It's just the sad, terrifying truth of what passes - and has passed for more than half a century now - for philosophy and some Canadian dude deciding to call bullshit.
You see? Because postmodernism as Peterson explicates it would contradict any Marxist project - thereby making "Postmodern Neo-Marxism" as described by Peterson contradictory and self-negating - you assume he has to be wrong about it because you have faith that nobody would be so stupid as to hold two mutually exclusive positions at the same time and try to pass off such idiocy as intellectually and politically sophisticated and progressive...EXCEPT THAT THEY ARE!!!!!!!!
Enjoying the back and forth you two are having. I have a very sophomoric knowledge of philosophy (just from what odds and ends I covered over the course of a polisci degree) but I hope what I ask you isn't too idiotic or simplistic.
Is Peterson's fight against postmodernism synonymous with the rejection of relativism and nihilism etc? I reached an epiphany in my early 20s that those things are bullshit and follow a circular reasoning but I couldn't offer an alternative to them. It seems like inevitably the alternative falls into deriving values from some kind of conceptualization of a deity. I can't help but listen to Peterson and have my stomach churn because I feel he is subtly reasoning for the existence of such a deity and to me that is just a simplified variation of the same outcome. Being someone who doesn't believe it just feels like holding a false belief purely for the sake of not having to confront existence with the angst and struggle of not knowing a great truth or outcome. From what little I have read of Nietzsche he seems to have some tidbits that shape what I feel at times.