/lit/ - Literature

if i didn't know better i would think you were me.

>tfw on day 63 of no fap
I am a changed man. Any books on sexual asceticism or celibacy? Something akin to Father Sergius by Tolstoy.

Yooo ya'll fucking retarded lil niggas
/sci/ and /tv/ the GOAT
Seethe and cope lil bitches

>>11469321
End

What Jordan Peterson does is demagoguery, he wanted to launch a program to help people identify and avoid postmodernist lectures, instead of listening to postmodernism from the source, and forming an opinion from the source. When confronted about it argues that postmodernism is too vague to really say it isn't, when postmodernism isn't vague at all and the answers are right there to anyone who cares to read them. Jordan Peterson draws his views on postmodernism from a book by Hicks who writes that postmodernism is a socialist ploy to destroy western civilization by promoting immigration and globalism. Hicks argues from the perspective of Ayn Rand, an infamous writer often attacked for her politicalization of a much older philosophy. Hick's book has been very controversial, and not because it was such a breakthrough in modern thinking, but because it attaches absurd thoughts and actions onto people that didn't door think anything near what he's saying.

>>11406051
Modern Marxists have transitioned towards postmodernism the same as everyone else has, but there are still some who are modernistic in their approach, or at least Marxian thinking has been in some ways revived in orthodoxy.
But it has always been there in orthodoxy, it's nothing new, and therefore Jordan Peterson's over-reliance on these orthodox Marxists is a bit silly.
He never mentions Marxism or Marxists after the failure of the '68ers or the dissolution of the USSR, he's always talking about Marxists who practice Marxism in orthodoxy, before talking about Marxists who would fundamentally agree with him about both Socialist/Communist regimes and postmodernism.
And Jordan Peterson more often than not says "postmodern neo-Marxism" like a coherent set of ideas, and then doesn't explain what he means, but if you happen to have any videos of him explaining his argument then that would be great, I've watched a lot of his content and I've never seen take these two apart as different things.

I think the western societies are radicalizing fast, and plenty of people are accepting these grand narratives to the point where even governments can't ignore them.
But I think Jordan Peterson is not focusing on other grand narratives however, and is clearly showing personal grievances which landed him between the other internet conservative figureheads in the first place.
Yes, there are weird ideas that have passed academia prematurely because there really isn't anything to measure them against, but these ideas in some ways easily pass through academia because they come from subjects that are touchy and taboo, and are often based on historical events that we like to remember as not to let them happen again.
This is why so many people are fighting ghosts, because the event has already happened, but they are trying to force it back into a society that no longer lets the grievances of these events hold as much power as it once had.
Grievances reach the people better than opinions, but if a good chunk of society griefs with you, then the opinions will spread easily.

But these movements are extremely controversial, you only have to look at the internet and the way people react to seeing parts or ideas of these movements represented to understand how controversial they are.
They might have caused some non-binary bathrooms in universities, and a strange law in Canada, but there's bigger fish to fry, democracies falling apart, movements like the Golden Dawn and the Communist party in Greece, Putin, a rise in identity politics from virtually all sides, etc.

Sitting. Sans cigarette.