/lit/ - Literature

>>9186510
Thanks for the response. I'm not going to say your criticism is unfair, even unwarranted. It's always helpful to learn how one is perceived. Certainly there are parts of what you've said that I agree with. Let me address some of them.

First, w/regards to the stuff you've greentexted: many of these things simply seem obvious and not worth belabouring. For example:

>Peterson matters.
He does. In the media, on podcasts, on /lit/. He's a guy right now. How many Peterson threads are active right now? Three? Even this thread isn't a Peterson thread but we're talking about him.
>The problem is that there's a gap
There is. It's the gap between his criticisms of postmodernity and that legacy. It's detrimental to how he's received.
>Things have changed.
They have. Postmodernity isn't as sexy or as radical as it used to be. Peterson's not sexy either, but he's a challenge for that kind of thought.
>Peterson is feeling suffocated
This is true. He is. He talks about it all the time.

Right? And so on. So I'm not going into enormous detail about these things because they seem to me more or less obvious. Even to the point of banality. So my preferred thing is, generally, to see what might be agreed on and go from there.

This is not an argument against specificity. I think it would be a legitimately good idea to get into the nuances of Peterson's thought vis-a-vis the poststructuralists (or Zizek). I indicated as much in those posts. Maybe I'll do it myself one of these days.

>The sky is red because you say the sky is red.
This is different, though. Plainly I'm not saying the sky is red. The equivalent to that would be for me to say, yes, Derrida was a hack. Or, no, Peterson's just a meme. Things are always more complicated than this. And the truth doesn't require me to say it. I'm just trying to articulate where I'm on this stuff. It's not meant to be taken as gospel truth.

>What kind of abstract fantasy land do you reside in?
This is a rhetorical question. Let's say it's a pretty abstract one.

>Do you have any connection to reality at all?
See above. It's there. But I tend to hold the reins fairly loosely.

>I cannot take your post as an accurate description of reality, for there is no reality in your post.
If you've got reality on tap I'll be happy to read about it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hysterical relativist. I don't think it's 100% socially constructed. But I do think that we do live in a world where that is held to be the prevailing wisdom - for better and for worse - and that requires a fairly light touch. There's a difference there. What I'm interested in are the commonalities, less so than the differences.

>Please attach yourself and your ideas to reality. I find them fascinating, and would be happy to see you get out of your abstract mind bubble.
Well, there's something we agree on, anyways!