/lit/ - Literature

>>11426054
He's a clinical psychologist

his recognizing the threat of chaos is enough to distinguish him from pomos who will never accept a principle over and above the multiplicity of narratives

>>11426061
what an odd thing to say

>>11426061
This. A slightly inaccurate but coherent narrative is always preferable to the chaos of many/no narratives. Fucking post modernists think that the world can be sustained as it is even with no central narrative. That's like thinking a country can continue to exist peacefully in a power vacuum.

>>11426069
why

>>11426069
?

/lit/ as a board is about 10 IQ behind that is needed to truly understand Peterson.

>>11426183

>>11426054
I doubt he knows the difference between postmodernism and post-structuralism. He would have to engage seriously with the material to start with.

>>11426222
isn't poststructuralism part of postmodernism

Patterns of human behavior change over time, with age, different societies, places, events, etc. Human nature is not rigid, it can alter to the point of becoming unrecognizable, and has done so several times throughout history. Animal nature in humans cannot change, that's correct, but it's largely circumvented by our human rationality. When Jordan Peterson says women wear lipstick to mimic the color of a vagina, that angers people, because while it might have had that function, now it serves other functions, and simply stating that the original function is still largely the one at play is then ignoring everything else, including the individual's choice to do otherwise. The fact that most people are not even aware of the history of lipstick, and will not be able to tell it's to mimic a vagina will tell you that lipstick is not fulfilling that role.

We could argue that lipstick then serves a deeper instinct, but the desire to go against our animal nature is often much stronger than human nature itself, because a lot of things we consider to be animal nature are not very beneficial to society.

Your brain will alter according to this acceptance of new choice, it rearranges neutral synapses and it becomes much easier to follow human desire over animal nature. What we choose to seek out alters us from one another, it makes us individuals based on what we decide to do. It's dangerous to say otherwise, because it assumes that human beings are defined by their animal nature, when pretty much every scientist will disagree except for a handful of scientists that don't. Human nature then plays a much more vital role, but nobody ignores animal nature unless they're some faux-controversial political group people love to target to justify their own beliefs. It becomes either - or, and we then absolutely have to defend the idea of animal nature against the idea of human nature.

Whether animal nature is even rational is an ongoing debate with two sides making very good arguments, therefore the idea that animal nature is something we should follow and trust over human nature is not an argument worthy of being made.

>>11426294
>Human nature is not rigid, it can alter to the point of becoming unrecognizable
I think this is the crux of the debate, this little sentence here.

One side sees it as like a theme, which a handful of variations can be played on. And the other sees it as a bunch of notes, which any number of themes and variations can be made from.

>>11426294
>The fact that most people are not even aware of the history of lipstick, and will not be able to tell it's to mimic a vagina will tell you that lipstick is not fulfilling that role.

what?

>>11426297
except life as such is supposed to be the latter, and human nature the former, any other rendering is incoherent

there is a baseline that makes deviations possible, if there wasn't we'd all be fuckin' monads floating in our solipsistic universes with no contact with other minds

>>11426315
the baseline in the latter is that sound is constrained to musical notes and not just any frequencies. It's just an analogy anyway m8

>>11426294
>When Jordan Peterson says women wear lipstick to mimic the color of a vagina, that angers people, because while it might have had that function, now it serves other functions, and simply stating that the original function is still largely the one at play is then ignoring everything else, including the individual's choice to do otherwise. The fact that most people are not even aware of the history of lipstick, and will not be able to tell it's to mimic a vagina will tell you that lipstick is not fulfilling that role.

Except it is and anyone who is honest and self-aware will tell you it's true. The problem with the modern world, which is where I agree with Peterson, is that we're blindly following our animal instincts without understanding their implications. So we do things to attract the opposite sex and get flustered when it has that exact effect.

The biggest problem with academia today is its overestimation of culture and social mores on changing human norms. Indeed, there are a lot of social scientists who think that humans are a blank slate, which Pinker tears down in his book of the same name. The denial of animal nature is why women today can simultaneously dress like a whore and get upset why undesirable guys are leering at them. People 50 years ago were not so ignorant of human nature.

>>11426183
Well said good sir. Not everyone can be as intellectually adept as you or I.

>>11426332
>fedora meme
what year even is it

>>11426326
Evolutionary psych is astrology tier. It really baffles me how people who want to portray themselves as RATIONAL and IN CONTROL OF THEIR FEELINGS always end up with the most anti-scientific, gut-based shit as their justification. One of the few things worse than evopsych is jungian psychology and yet you seem willing to defend both.

I would say that whatever Jordan Peterson says sound logical if you approach it from the perspective of someone intellectualizing against radical fringe groups, but these groups are tiny, and it doesn't sound logical when applied to the rest of society. Arming people against postmodernism is incredibly silly when you know what postmodernism is, and combining postmodernism with Marxism even more silly.

>>11426341
>Evolutionary psych is astrology tier.
i dont get why people think this. Isn't it a tautology that our psychology evolved, since we are animals, and that's how animals come into existence, is through evolution

>>11426343
>dude things are beautiful because they're good for your survival lmao

trash

>>11426347
but where else can they come from if not evolution

>>11426349
consciousness

According to JP it all started in Paris, École Normale Supérieure, a Parisian university that was founded on enlightened thinking, and housed both Derrida and Foucault. Jordan Peterson accuses both Foucault and Derrida not only of both being Marxists, he accuses them both of being advocates for postmodernism. Foucault wasn't a marxist and Derrida criticized Marxism, he even wrote books against Marxism that made him fall out of favor with them. To simply frame Derrida as a Marxist is to reject all of his works, which spoke against totalizing phenomena according to a single originary essence. To call Foucault a Marxist is to describe something beyond similar analytical aesthetics, it isn't true.

>>11426343
The problem is that evopsych takes current behaviors (or what is perceived to be the "secret intent" behind this behavior) and think back to pre-historic times, while failing to realize something very obvious: history isn't linear and human society isn't homogeneous at all. This make up thing for example sounds absolutely retarded considering the multitutde of situations in which make up and ornament come up in hundreds of societies, but maybe even more so, restricts make up as a women's phenomenon when this isn't true for most of history. I mean, this has barely held true to our own society, and yet these retards think they can ascribe an original evolutionary feeling for it?

>>11426341
>Evolutionary psych is astrology
????

Humans are just highly evolved animals. If anything, it's the idiots who think that human psychology has NOTHING to do with evolution that are the pseuds. Do you honestly think human consciousness is something special when animals like corvids, octopuses, and dolphins have shown similar, albeit less complex, behaviors? Especially dolphins who sometimes rape and murder other dolphins.

Neither Foucault or Derrida were postmodernists either, they followed the trend of structuralism based on linguistic theories. Both never claimed to be postmodernists, almost never mentioned postmodernism, and when Foucault was asked about postmodernism, the interviewer had to explain what postmodernism actually is (Telos, 1983) because Foucault didn't know. It took until 1979 before postmodernism became a popular term under Lyotard, who described as a society of incredulity towards metanarratives. A man who stressed that nobody believes Marx anymore, nor his salvation, and rejected Marx's works.

Jordan Peterson calls Derrida and his followers hellbent on destroying western civilization, when Derrida's theories were based on repeated dialogue within western civilization. Derrida believed that structuralism had always existed within western thinking, but had constantly been neutralized, but was then actually part of western thinking all along, thus defending western thinking. And for someone hellbent on destroying western civilization, it seems awfully strange to spend your life mastering something, only to spend your time mastering the art of destroying it to the point of becoming the most important critic of structuralism, as well as its best writer. He was dping this in his book from 1966 (Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences) which is around the time Jordan Peterson says he's a fervent Marxist trying to bring about the destruction of western civilization. In his works Derrida endlessly stresses that he doesn't want to lose sight of the subject, which he wants to place back in a different spot, not destroy.

>>11426360
or animal consciousness is just undeveloped human consciousness. two can play at that game faggot

>>11426363
>undeveloped
i think the point here is that the development occurred through evolutionary processes

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.

>>11426363
Both are convergent evolution. What is your point? You're the equivalent of an Intelligent Design advocate here. I'm saying it only makes logical sense that psychology has evolutionary roots, especially since we've done numerous studies proving this fact (see Silver Fox experiment).

>>11426356
>>11426361
>>11426366
everyone who didn't realize he was a hack when he pulled his "postmodern neomarxist" catchphrase out of his ass is completely hopeless

Postmodernism and Marxism don't go together, postmodernism argues against grand narratives, models, methods, or ideologies as a way to sufficiently explain the world and dictate facts and social order. Postmodernism is therefore not an ideology but the lack thereof.
Marxism is a systematic, materialist theory of inevitable historical development, Marxists make claims, have moral agendas, and construct conceptual systems.
Postmodernism also shows playful and nihilistic elements as seen in the works by for example Kurt Vonnegut, bot hthese elements are not visible in Marxism.
Marx was also deeply concerned about the science and the passing of his works in materially grounded analysis.
If anything Marxism has been rather hostile towards postmodernism, they see it as a societal change that makes people a lot less understanding, and see beliefs as if they are interests.

>>11426370
what are we supposed to call the general web of people who say things like 'truth is subjective' but also 'everything has to be interpreted along these quasi-Marxist class lines of race, gender, orientation, etc.'

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.

>>11426360
Except none of said species have created entire conceptual edifices which are constantly contradicting each other and demand a conscious effort of the individuals to fit in and conceptualize the world around them.
Animal psychology might have played a huge part up to sedentarization, but I very much doubt there's any part of it influencing, for example, the creation of rituallistic thought, a fundamental, ubiquitous, extremelly diferentiated and very occult situation that happens in literally every society and yet seem to be purely a conceptual effort which end up creating a flawed intersubjectivity compared to what's observed in animals.

>>11426368
no one cares, its reductionist drivel

Postmodernism and Marxism has been taught in universities for decades without any problems, alongside other thinkers who have been important societal phenomena. That's the function of a university, to engage with important intellectuals from human history, not to brainwash you into thinking a certain way or fight intellectual wars. Jordan Peterson isn't defending universities as they were, he's promoting a rejection of lectures, professors, and students. He's telling people not to engage, but to reject and refuse, and sometimes even actively seek out and strangle choke entities that do not exist. And for someone who's defending the enlightenment, he often throws large emotional tantrums without saying much of anything about the actual subject.
When Jordan Peterson talks about Marxism for example, he talks about gulags and famines even when talking about very moderate Marxism. He isn't even willing to target the quotidian Marxist philosophy directly, he just writes it off as either the second coming of Russian gulags and warns us that millions will die, or says it will end eventually end there. There's a clear difference between western Marxism and Marxism that he doesn't even acknowledge. Western Marxism was shocked by the events taking place in Russia and South America, and opted for a capitalist-socialist practice, very blunt explanation I might add. Later this became even more moderate and what can today be described as social-democrats or the Scandinavian model is barely Marxist, it's more about the philosophy than the economics, the economics barely come into play, but even then Marx has influenced economics that have helped shape our understanding of economics in a fashion that cannot be denied.

>>11426380
if it didnt come from evolutionary drives where did it come from? the aether? like there is no other source unless we posit a Godlike thing interacting with is via pure consciousness

>>11426386
it came from evolutionary drives but it is not strictly reducible to them you fucking retard

>>11426361
Good post
JBP thinks Marxism is super postmodern when in actuality it's the premier modernist ideology

What he promotes is dangerous, take his views on Hitler and the Holocaust, it sounds very reasonable to say that Hitler was deliberately working against his own interests by exterminating the Jews, except that he wasn't. Nazi ideology set itself apart due to its antisemitism, but that antisemitism was also their explanation for the Russian revolution. Bolshevism was simply the Nazi's Jewish stigma in completion, it's what the rest of Europe would turn into if Hitler didn't exterminate them. The Holocaust was then the direct extermination of Jewish-Bolshevism, it was a net benefit according to Nazi ideology. And Jews did work to produce food and equipment, and alongside the theft of Jewish assets and deliberate famines served to fund the German state, Germans were the second best fed people in the world.

>>11426380
>but I very much doubt there's any part of it influencing, for example, the creation of rituallistic thought

Really? Skinner kind of proved it incontrovertibly in his conditioning experiments. Ritualistic thought is a response to unpredictable stimuli. If you shock rats at certain intervals, they will engage in random rituals to stop the shocks. Similarly, stock brokers in high pressure situations will perform certain rituals (not changing underwear) to not lose money.

Animals arbitrarily perform certain behaviors as a heuristic to stop bad things from happening to them given their limited set of knowledge. This is not mystical, it's fucking logical given our limited capacity for understanding the world around us.

>>11426054
they share the traits of being betabitchs that cant handle the consequences

>>11426387
Why are you guys always so butthurt. Explain yourself, what do you see as the chain of events that detached this subset of human behavior from all evolutionary pressure

>>11426399
beauty is not an effect of what is advantageous to survival, full-fucking-stop

>>11426402
I got that from your first post, im asking you to defend the statement, by showing how beauty has become detached from the evolutionary pressures that govern all forms of life

>>11426404
the fact that people will and do die for beautiful ideals

>>11426408
>animals don't willingly die to protect the herd

t. someone who has never studied biology or any social animal

>>11426412
those animals are dying for the continuation of their progeny not an abstract ideal you fucking sped

>>11426408
assuming this is true, how do you think this happened, how did we transcend the rules that apply to all other life

>>11426395
See, how the fuck can you even argue religion comes up from heuristic behaviors to stop bad things? Do you even have any fucking idea how fucking vast and bizarre the human mythologies can be? Once humanity managed to achieve some degree self-governance / terraforming / whatever, you get me, it's asinine to pretend we kept doing shit based solely on evolutionary imprints in our soul or whatever x-men bullshit you believe in.
How does evolutionary psych accounts for ritual cannibalism? For mimetic fear? For reciprocity rituals? I mean, I'm not even going far, all of those phenomenons listed are extremely prevalent in american indigenous societies.

>>11426416
Yes they do. Consider penguin suicide, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI3u7g8PPEA

>>11426420
>assuming this is true, how do you think this happened, how did we transcend the rules that apply to all other life

I don't know, that is quite literally the question of consciousness

peterson's critique of post-modernism is implicity post-modernist

>>11426421
>See, how the fuck can you even argue religion comes up from heuristic behaviors to stop bad things?
I think a lot of them started as that, but expanded to become moral codes. For example, look at stuff like nighthags. People of old thought that sleep paralysis was caused by a nighthag sitting on your body and choking you to death. That's where the term nightmare comes from fyi.

Because we didn't understand it, all sorts of pseuds came up with explanations involving mythological creatures and cooked up some bullshit home remedies to "solve" the problem. Eventually, some clever person took all of these myths that were floating around and put them all together in a grand narrative that also had a moral point.

A grand narrative that combines myths with a moral point is a religion.

>>11426392
The extermination of the jews and those of others served as an increase in income and the amount of food that could be distributed because there were far less mouths to feed, similar to the black death.
Then there is the theft of Jewish assets, which amounted to 10-15 billion dollars, which in modern times amount to about 215 billion.
This should be considered the minimal amount because it doesn't consider earnings from financial holdings or higher real estate values, which most likely would more than double the entire estimated range.
There are also the deliberate famines such as the Greek famine and other forms of extortion that centralized resources from other countries into Germany.
The reason Hitler pushed for genocide even when losing was simply the fact that to win meant to enact genocide on the Jewish population according to Nazi ideology.
To kill Jews meant killing opposition, and when opposition became impossible to kill, accelerating the systematic murder of Jews meant the extermination of the enemy.

>>11426433
insipid

>>11426425
Consciousness is definitely a mystery but you can create coherent accounts of it where it is nothing but a passive phenomenon which is aware of one specific locus of the world, a world which is unfolding along materialistic lines, including all human behavior.

Obviously you dont think this, so i am wondering how you came to a different conclusion

And I'm out, anyone got anything to add or correct?

>>11426435
you can do better that this

>>11426341
To make a blanket statement against evo-psych ignores swaths of it. The theories that go untested and make claims for ridiculous behaviors like why humans like alcohol and eventually come to some form of the conclusion "it must have been evolutionary favorable" - I agree with you, its garbage.

But neuro/psych studies that verify the theories that are based on very primal drives such as sexual selection of mates and the respective criteria men and women have value. To toss the baby out with the bathwater and not even consider unconscious drives (no matter which theory you're invoking, Freud for example) I think is being intellectually dishonest when you're taking a stance towards social and cultural behaviors.

>>11426370
>>11426356
That he doesn't have the etymology of the phrase exactly correct was evident, but whatever you want to call the problem, is he not correct in describing its premise and the problems that such a premise entails?

>>11426443
Now another problem arises: that conceptually, I'm not against evo psych, but got take me if I don't see it being used SOLELY to justify...certain types of ideologies.

>>11426361
Concepts and historical descriptions are rarely applied or used for self-reference during the era in which they exist. Looking backwards is when the events and ideas were described as such and with different phrases. Like how you could lump camus in with existentialists (and people do) despite his adamant refusal of that label.

>>11426450
To that point, if you don't debate with the alt-right on this, you are ceding ground to them automatically. This is what's so retarded about the left these days. They think using authoritarian tactics like no platforming will defeat the right when all it's doing is empowering them.

By not engaging with them on evo psych, you are automatically giving them a platform to give the ONLY interpretation on this inarguably correct science. This cowardice is the main reason why I disavow the modern day left.

>>11426433
You are engaging in exactly the same behavior as said pseud. You're taking the limited amount of localized information you have and angree with to try to reduce the whole of human experience into one unverifiable factoid which supports your own beliefs.

What's to say tomorrow we won't find out sleep paralysis is the ghost of humanity's doomed future trying to download themselves into healthier bodies and times.

>>11426450
natural behaviors don't need justification, they just are.

ironically you guys shoot yourself in the foot with all this relativism, because how are you supposed to lecture paleochad about clubbing a harem of chicks on the head and then raping them if you've deconstructed all the reasons he should feel ashamed about it?

but the stereotypical evo-psych fascist is still closer to how humans actually are than the left with their lysenkoist new man thing.

>>11426462
>tomorrow we won't find out sleep paralysis is the ghost of humanity's doomed future trying to download themselves into healthier bodies and times.
well i hate to say this, but isn't this one of those Russell's teapot type arguments

Like yes we could all be wrong about everything, but it's a bit of a cop out

>>11426458
Except I have never seen anything that made me believe evo psych is an inarguably correct science. It just sounds like more of the bland rationalism du jour which tries to naturalize western behavior because it can't go on without meaning anymore.

>>11426462
>By coming to a conclusion using available information, you are just as wrong as witch doctors!

Fuck off. Issac Asimov put this fallacy to bed many decades ago you fucking pseud.

>My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

>>11426464
You're assuming a lot of shit about me my dude, which I suppose it's a tendency for evopsych retards. I barely even think about campus politics, I'm just very interested in anthropology and religious history, and it amazes me how an asshole like Pinker can make the types of claims he makes and not realize they're only historically true if you consider history to be "from protestantism up to post-collonialism but only kinda".

>>11426389
Whats the practical difference between modernism and postmodernism? I'm not confronting you, genuinely curious. They both seem to be repudiations of the enlightenment and favor a deconstruction of meta-narratives. They seem more similar than dissimilar. What are people trying to delineate when they make a point to specifically reference one over the other?

>>11426455
Thanks!

>>11426375
assholes

>>11426375
>what are we supposed to call the general web of people who say things like 'truth is subjective' but also 'everything has to be interpreted along these quasi-Marxist class lines of race, gender, orientation, etc.'

This. This was literally all of my English professors back in school. They also were conveniently post modernists whenever you tried to call them out. It's easy to claim you believe in nothing, you're just "deconstructing narratives" but insult Marxist theology and you'll get a grade reduction.

Fuck these people polluting my major.

>>11426455
but it still means that there is little overlap, and explains the thinkers who conceptualized postmodernism before it came to be as societal status

>>11426471
Ignoring for the moment that you seem as though you're bouncing back and forth
>>11426450
>I'm not against evo psych

.. if this is you in both posts: What we're really getting at is the right uses evo-psych as a rationalization for what was a part of their platform for a long time - human nature is not ideal. My guess is that it is the secular version derived from 'original sin' and why they do not support increasingly socialistic programs offered by the left these days

>>11426471
>Except I have never seen anything that made me believe evo psych is an inarguably correct science

You are literally ceding all research on genetics to the alt right you fucking coward. Fuck off and let people who have a spine argue against them. Nothing worse than cowardly backbiters.

>>11426546
>ceding all research on genetics to the alt right
is it possible that further research on genetics is just not going to be very good for the whole Progressive project

>>11426550
Well we can hash that out in debate. I think there's no way the alt right is 100% correct on genetics. Maybe 20% at best. But by not engaging them at all in modern discourse, any new genetic information that comes out will just be used to fuel the alt right view of the world.

It's fucking suicide. And it's all because these softheaded tumblr types choose authoritarian tactics over discursive ones.

>>11426521
I think you can respect the authors wishes and ultimately hold up their claims to how well they have fleshed them out. Always when discussing the primary author it should be handled in such a way. However, because he says so does not mean the reverberations of his actions fell in line with his conception of himself and his philosophy. When people say Nihilism and Nietzsche led to the rise of the Nazi's, in a certain historical interpretation they would not be wrong (his sister's revisions and the following distortions, etc). Obviously he didn't, and that's a misrepresentation of Nietzsche's core ideas and writings. Though when we look at derrida from the light that people used his methods of meta-narrative deconstruction to resemble what Peterman rails against today, it would not be incorrect while tracking the cause/effect in cultural movements. I hope that makes sense.

>>11426546
I'm not ceding anything, evolutionary psych isn't the totality of genetics research. Once again, if you want me to believe the pseudo-science show me reputable studies, not just "secular humanism just wrks x)" or "LOL SUPERIOR IQ RACE"

>>11426558
Well so im not lying to you, I'm what you would call 'alt-right'. I have literally no political opinions(im serious, as long as i am not being gunned down, i do not care) but on like the race and sex stuff, i am all the way down the crimethink tunnel.

I concede that it is possible that research in genetics actually repudiates racism and sexism, but if i were on your team i would not be exactly anxious to see that research carried out.

>>11426563
It's a fucking theory like evolution, what would you consider a "reputable study"? Do you even know what you're asking?

All studies of this sort are correlative with statistical significance. You can't "prove" any theory of this magnitude with studies, you can only gain increasing confidence as studies bear out.

The question is, do you have a better explanation for why humans are gambling addicts than evo psych?

>>11426560
It does, thanks a lot!

I changed the argument that the idea of postmodernism was applied backwards to understand the gradual process from modernism to postmodernism.

>>11426183
I like peterson just fine but this simply isn't true. He is very accessible.

>>11426054
He's a postmodernist who refuses to accept the consequences of his own ideas. He's an extreme individualist who keeps harping on about collective consciousness and "socially negotiated" terms. The irony is palpable.

>>11426294
please tell me about the other roles of lipstick and how they are fundamentally different than what it started as

Peterson lost me at how much importance he places on intellectual and academic honesty with your reputation be damned (with honesty and truth being paramount above all), but is incredibly dishonest when dealing with people like Kevin MacDonald or any sort of people that bring up points critical of jews, not even seig heilers, just any sort of rational critical discussion about the historical and current importance of hows jews (and more specifically judiasm) interact politically with the world. He is fine to do this with Christianity, even Islam, but Judaism is off limits (no surprise).

This effectively tanks his entire schtick.

>>11426688
In the Egyptian era it was to enhance lip color and show status, in the Victorian Era it was a statement to advertise fellatio and other sexual acts and advertise prostitution, in the 20th century women wore darker colors because movie actresses did, and got similarly dolled up to movies.

It can be to signal good health, social status, to advertise sex, but also a form of self-expression, for others it's just moisturizing and softening.

>>11426754
>all of these things listed are for sex appeal

This is why Peterson triggers the left, he tells things plainly as they are. The current day left is so delusional, they can't see the bare purpose of all the things they do. Yes, it's not polite to talk about "dressing up as a way to attract mates", but it's precisely what you're doing and if you can't see that, you're being dishonest with yourself.

It's the same assholes who claim that gender is a social construct while simultaneously applauding transgenders who wear the markers of the opposite sex. Like, it's one or the other. Either lipstick is arbitrary and has no female sex appeal, or it's a gender signifier that's used to enhance female sex appeal, hence why transgenders use it.

>>11426356
>"Deconstruction never had meaning or interest, at least in my eyes, than as a radicalization, that is to say, also within the tradition of a certain Marxism, in a certain spirit of Marxism. " - Moscou aller-retour. Saint Etienne: De l’Aube, 1995.

>>11426819
>Triggers the left

Why are we suddenly talking politics?

>All of them for sex appeal
>Social status
>Self-expression
>Health

What did he mean by this?

>>11426846
Yes Derrida used similar analytical aesthetics to those of Marx, and was influenced by a quotidian form of Marxist philosophy, and was in fact pretty radical in his meaning behind deconstruction, but still not a Marxist.
He simply wanted us to focus on the fact that there is a cut in context, and to reject structuralism to notice in the spirit of Marxism, he saw himself as someone like Marx, but not as a Marxist, and never has.

>>11426918
>If I just mangle the language enough and people don't understand what I'm saying, I'll get away with anything

>>11426054
no, he needs post structuralism for the centre will not hold arguments against his chosen nemesis (which seems to be tumblr in more common parlance, but in JBP speak is "postmodernism"; it's best to just read "tumblrinas" every time he says "postmodernists")

>>11426918
>to reject structuralism to notice in the spirit of Marxism
That's too fucking retarded to be a /pol/fag or even a Marxist. You don't need to contribute to conversations about shit you have no chance of reading, anon. It's not fantasy football.

>>11426937
Derrida used similar analytical aesthetics in that when you look at the analytical tools that he invented, they were clearly based on things that Marx came up with, the influence of materialism on Derrida's works for example are quite easy to see.

A quotidian philosophy because Marx became an everyday philosophy in the hands of many when Marxism had largely run its course to help structure their lives.
Derrida for example often quotes Marx, but not to strengthen his argument but to make us understand what he meant.
Derrida was radical in his approach to deconstruction because he argued that there was for example imperialist meaning behind the use of signifiers, signifiers being the idea of linguistic theories in which signifiers are used to describe something, and the signified is the actual described.
For example tits are the signifier for this girl's tits, the signified are then this girl's actual tits.
We understand that I mean tits to describe this girl's tits because everything else is not, it's none of its binary oppositions, which could be her ass.

The cut in context is then the fact that signifiers don't actually talk about the signified, but describe other signifiers, while the system of binary oppositions is constantly broken down as well.

To Derrida, rejecting structuralism by believing that signifiers talk about other signifiers, and that binary oppositions are frequently broken down was then similar to how Marx tried to break down the system of economists who were separated from the materialism of capital, that's to say, their dialectical relations with its surroundings.

For example this girl's tits look like a pretty juicy pair of anime titties, but when we see them in isolation, they become a pretty incidental thing that is only abstractly understood.
To grasp something we must understand the dialectical relations it has with its surroundings, for example the fact that nipples become become erect when cold, to breastfeed, the sweatglands in the areola to help breastfeed, etc.

Now if you ever tell me I'm just mangling language to sound smart I will never post 2D jezebels again.

>>11426949
That was a spelling error, I meant to say "and to reject structuralism was then in the spirit of Marxism".

>>11427005
I know about the hermeneutic circles of language, and Derrida's criticisms of de Saussure.

That's not the point here. The point is that you claimed they weren't Marxists, which is ridiculous when they both were members of Communist parties for large parts of their life, and agitated for revolution.

I get that you think that you're proving some kind of point by mangling Derrida's philosophy of language together with his political views, but you're not.

>>11426084
no offense but you sound like a useless reactionary religious cuck

>>11427020
is that sh0eonhead?

>>11427021
if youre a member of a communist party and pro marxist for one part of your life, youre a marxist for life?

you know that the neocons were nearly all marxists in their youth right?

>>11426054
hes got the most pretentious fucking face ever. he doesnt even smile in photos. i wish he'd threaten me with physical violence like he did to that other guy so i could defensively beat him over the head with a bottle and defensively curbstomp the shit out of him out of self defense

>>11427029
Mussolini was a communist

>>11427021
You're sounding a lot more reasonable already, yet how are you going to explain the fact that Foucault denied being a Marxist?

And what about the fact that Derrida did not want to specify what he meant by saying he was a man of the left, was not a Communist and rejected the French PCF, was skeptical of the '68ers, and later wrote a book denouncing the entire USSR?

If you disrespect me any more I will keep posting male jezebels.

>>11427047
Actually he was a Sorelian Socialist but he did have a lot of Communist friends and some of his highest ranking party officials were former communists.

>>11427029
>you know that the neocons were nearly all marxists in their youth right?

Yeah, and none of them stopped being Marxists either. Not Wolfowitz, or Hitchens, or any of the other neocon hawks.

>>11427063
not him, but wanted to add that the cia funded many of these noncommunist leftists themselves for the sake of subverting communism.

>>11427074
Thanks for the clarification

>>11427063
You should consider that the radical left was disillusioned with real socialism so it had an impact on how those thinkers would label themselves. It really is mere labeling, it has a lot of nuance.
This sort of this discussion proves Marcuse's arguments regarding the ritualization for marxism, or, in other words, dogmatic marxism.
It is both wrong and right to consider Foucault a marxist.
For one, Foucault's preceptor, an important influence which can be perceived in all of his works, is Althusser, a self declared (neo)marxist.
If you read Althusser's Idéologie et appareils idéologiques d'État you'll see how marxism is an element of Foucault's thought.

>>11426640
this is one of my main things from him. hes such a conservative pussy. hes presents himself as a hardcore individualist, up until you get to the collectivist spooks of society or social contracts and shit

>>11427114
I also want to add that marxists and communists strongly deny postmodernism. Foucault was discriminated in the communist party because he was homosexual, which probably contributed to his denial of marxism, so it goes to show that marxism and postmodernism should not be confused, they are essentially different.
Feminism and race identity are shunned by marxism as identitarianism. I'm affilliated to a communist party and most communists despise feminism, for example.

>>11427121
Well individualism and even liberty itself, literally means that you have the agency to create your own limitations and responsibilities, and that other people don't choose it for you.

>>11427138
it depends. the younger communists are pretty much willfully blind to the contradictions between supporting feminist and minority bourgeois pseudo-nationalism and also communism.

>>11426347
>dude mental behaviors can’t have side-effects lmao

>>11427145
thats just soft liberal market-individualism. he isn't saying anything that boomer republicans wouldnt also agree with.

also

>liberty

lol

>>11427145
except when what you want or need isnt what the people in suits and badges say you can have.

petersons "individualism" ls just liberalism, of which the individualist component is reduced to neutered servility to the state in exchange for good boi points

>>11427172
>except when what you want or need isnt what the people in suits and badges say you can have.

Sure and that's a problem, but I don't feel like that's a knock down argument against what I said, considering that only around 1% of the population have motivations that are anti-social to the point of incurring the wrath of the state.

Are you saying you are one of them?

>>11427198
the state's ideology determines what is or is not "anti social"

when an individual commits violence, they are a criminal and "anti social". When the state does it, it is "law" and totally normal.

>considering that only around 1% of the population have motivations that are anti-social to the point of incurring the wrath of the state.

thats just something you made up. people are pacified animals, but still animals. should the thin veneer hologram ever stop or malfunction for too long, that will be made evident again. everyone is a potential subversive. the power of the state is nowhere near total or complete as it appears.

>>11427198
"liberty" to an amorphous blob under the eye of the state isnt liberty for me. it is meaningless

>>11427209
>the state's ideology determines what is or is not "anti social"

Yeah, but the laws the state has are in large part historical, and I would argue socio-biological.

It's not a coincidence that a lot of the laws that we have are against things we consider morally reprehensible, like murder and theft.

>>11427209
>the power of the state is nowhere near total or complete as it appears.

You're entirely right. To add to your argument, liberalism sustains itself in the ideology of natural law and it is considered an estrangement by marxism. Natural law dictates that there are universal and inherent values that are inevitable, absolute and must be protected by a social contract social, such as property according to Locke, for example. This way ideology dictates the necessity/inevitability of a determined historical and social economy. As in Fukuyama's proclamation that history is dead because the market and individualism can't be overcome.
The historical hegemony of a class cannot possibly be sustained by violence. As necessary as violence is for a dominant class, the economy is what determines the superstructure, so if the economy of a class collapses, the class itself likely will fall too.
There is a relative autonomy of the superstructure, and the real importance of any ideology is legitimacy. Ideology legitimates violence as lawful thus necessary but ignores the inequalities and the reality that it (the hegemony of a dominant class) represses.

>>11427233
>Yeah, but the laws the state has are in large part historical, and I would argue socio-biological.

This sums natural law or, according to marxism, estrangement. There's a lot more to ideology than it might convey.

>>11427233

>Yeah, but the laws the state has are in large part historical, and I would argue socio-biological.

no.

>>11427260
Did you read the next line? Apparently not.

>>11427264
hm okay, let me revise

NO.

>>11427265
Saying no isn't an argument.

Any culture that has existed on the planet at any point in history has had social sanctions against certain reprehensible behaviors. It doesn't matter if it was the Babylonians under Hammurabi or the Cherokee who have never had a State. The same thing applies, do X action, and the rest of the "tribe" or the tribes' representatives will punish you.

>>11426438
Stop posting this gay shit

>>11426438
no. but good posts nontheless. I agree - what he promotes is ultimately dangerous, especially in this political climate.

>>11427276
yes

none of that is equatable to law, were the same things as our laws, nor were the punishments carried out in the same manner or thought of in the same way, nor was the heirarchical organization identical, or even existent.

so all youve said is that throughout human history there has been a cause and effect action between undesired action and punitive action.

good job. i couldve figured that out by trying to pick up my cat while hes trying to eat.

>>11427297
>none of that is equatable to law

Yes it is you sperglord. The law literally is a social sanction.

>>11427299
no, law requires judges, contracts, regulations, precedents you fucking moron. not all of that has been in existence for human history.

>>11427276
>socio-biological
You are correct in saying laws are historical, but you dropped the ball in affirming it is also 'socio-biological'. As in, socio-biolocial (???), would it be some sort of biological determinism that conditions sociability into expressing a universal content in law and ethics?
It's so generic and devoid of content it says nothing, you'd have to elaborate.

>>11427313
>would it be some sort of biological determinism that conditions sociability into expressing a universal content in law and ethics?

As in humans are animals and before we were self-conscious we didn't have culture, but we probably had a proto-morality that made sure we survived and reproduced.

You literally see this in fucking chimpanzees and bonobos.

I don't get why you Marxist retards have such a problem with biology.

>>11427330
it seems like youre trying to pigeon hole biology into areas where it doesnt apply in order because of a modernist need for things to be One True Way and also because you have a tiny dick

>>11427342
More like I'm trying to explain morality genealogically.

Do you honestly think that pre-historical man thought it was okay to just murder people for no reason?

If you do, you're welcome to explain how we even got to the point where your Marxist historiography even applies.

>>11426450
If it was being used to justify Communism, somehow, I don't think you'd be too concerned.

>>11426550
Progressives, as they self-identified in America, were eugenicists, prior to WW2. It became unacceptable to advocate for eugenics around the time of the construction of the Holocaust Museum, where eugenics was linked to Nazism.

>>11426354
why is consciousness exempt from physical impacts which includes evolution.

>>11426054
It's safe to say he overlooks things the right shares with the left since he's trying to appeal to a certain demographic.

>>11427237
>liberalism sustains itself in the ideology of natural law
Somehow, natural law has moved quite aways to the left over the past few centuries.

>>11426307
I wish Reddit didn't appropriate rage faces

>>11427401
Political liberalism could perfectly be associated to both the right and the left spectrum, economic liberalism would be more specific though.