/lit/ - Literature

>>11469218
His bastardization of Jung's archetypal and symbolic into an innate psycho-biological measuring-rod is the definition of a hedgehog. He creates non-existent entities to explain events that he desperately wants explained, and then gives free reign to his metaphysical bias. He for example uses this Jungian monster to create a system of order, justified by his fear of chaos of which the heightened version he sees as war. Jordan Peterson conceptualizes a system of natural forces that move everything, and to gain control of things you just need to tap into these natural forces, and accept them as a universal part of life. Under Jordan Peterson's order however, structures shouldn't be questioned, or at least a lot less, we should improve ourselves endlessly without knowledge when to fix our communities, and accept common principles about ourselves as natural and unquestionable, or more favorable.

Postmodernism is therefore not about destroying truth, it's the defense against secondariness, impurity, difference, and distortion constructing our thought. It's not about rejecting the idea that there are men and women or objects like pillows, simply that there is no pure transmission of thought due to the secondary medium corrupting it. Postmodernism is the phenomenon witnessed in society, it came to be after the failure of modernism, yet Peterson doesn't make it a symptom of the unease that its failures brought, but the cause of it. Postmodernism comes after premodernism and modernism. Premodernism is when we accepted everything, and modernism when we science, the enlightenment, and the industrial evolution changed the world.
Yet Jordan Peterson launches people into the same modernist battles we've already had in the 20th century, and the irony of that isn't lost on me. This is the post-ideological time of postmodernism, and JP's followers are an entire generation of people who grew up in postmodernism already, yet are ready to openly reject it. They are themselves rejecting and western civilization, not the other way around.
It's the world of partial validity that they already live in, it's the corrective to the naïveté that they so openly display.

>>11415907
I have watched his lectures online and there's plenty of things I agree with, but it gets stale fast when he keeps repeating the same things, and when confronted with something new works himself towards being able to say the same thing again.

It also starts to feel manipulative fast when he talks about post/neo-Marxism and/or postmodernism and then brings up gulags and famines, yes these things were terrible and Communism was a social and economic disaster, but what does that have to do with people who use similar theoretic aesthetics to Marx? They're either not Marxists at all or as much Marxists as he would proclaim himself to be a libertarian or conservative.

He's imagining that Marxists will reinstate something similar to Communism again, and while there certainly have been fragments of Marxism visible in modern activism, would you say that these movements are anything but college-student faux-controversial groups?

He should do some more reading or at least broaden his horizon, instead of focusing so much on fighting out an internet culture war with feminists and other low hanging fruit radical fringe groups that only get exposure when someone shoves a cellphone in their face, beyond that they have as much power as people who believe the earth is 6000 years old.
That is to say, very little, you can find their beliefs manifested into the real world if you look, but do we really have to point it out every single time?

And from what I've been exposed to when it comes to his fans, pointing out that postmodernism is a time era we live in alone pretty much got me branded a postmodern neo-Marxist in seconds, when there are generally large fields of overlapping views between me and them.
I'm not saying it's fine to watch Jordan Peterson, but because his fans are such pseuds he isn't being challenged properly which is making his arguments so simple to predict he might as well cut and paste his own videos together.

And something else that I've noticed quite well is that a lot of his fans are just really unpleasant people because they are either from the far-right and made moderate by Peterson's talks, or people who are constantly setting up these ridiculous strawmen and then blow them apart, without actually reading the sources of what these people think.

Best book about the romanticist movement that helps me understand the romantics?