/lit/ - Literature

Peterson is a retard, that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Though Derrida was personally left-wing, there's no imposition of his political ideology in his most essential work, "Of Grammatology", as well as in the others I have read so far, and his concept of deconstruction is derived from Nietzsche rather than Marx, who himself is actually not so difficult to deconstruct. Now Foucault generally reads like a right-winger to me as far as one could try to politically categorise his views, him being a faggot is probably the only reason Peterson puts such an emphasis on him.

>>19734795
>and his concept of deconstruction is derived from Nietzsche rather than Marx
Note, however, how he doesn't deconstruct Marx.

It is just culture war bullshit. All this identity shit is from liberalism. These people think new libs are Marxists or something.

>>19734815
Fucking retard.

>>19734681
>But that seems like an oxymoron to me.
If a greater thinker seemed nonsensical, it would warrant further investigation, so your attitude is commendable. But you're overestimating Peterson. He doesn't deserve your attention, because he really is a retard and he doesn't know what he's talking about. Pic related, this is where he gets his connection between postmodernism and marxism. It's a stupid book, don't waste your time on it.

>>19734681
>He also claims that, despite post-modernism being a movement that rejects "meta-narratives" such as hierarchies and binary oppositions, that contemporary post-modernists still nevertheless emphasize the idea of "oppressed vs oppressors" and that this is what ties it to Marxism. But that seems like an oxymoron to me.
That's how they roll. Their ideology is full of contradictions.

>>19734681
Peterson is a charlatan on this

>>19734681
Is this a "Canadian intellectuals" vs "French intellectuals" debate that got grafted on the US culture war?

Peterson has a quite shallow view of it that's colored by his experiences as a lecturer in super-liberal universities. He's not really familiar with Marx's writings beyond the manifesto. He is overall correct in that postmodernism/post structuralism was the point at which the academic left began to transition from Marxism to modern social justice leftism, and that most professors of this ideology will pay lip service to Marx, but most of this is more to situate themselves and their ideology within a noble, pre-existing emancipatory project. Most people familiar with Foucault and Derrida wouldn't describe them as leftist or as SJWs, however the conception of 'truth' as the product of a power process has been adopted by modern sjw leftism.

TL;DR version: identity politics isn't really 'marxist' or 'postmodern' in the ordinary sense of either term, but does build upon ideas that can be found in both of those ideologies

>>19735172
>the conception of 'truth' as the product of a power process
Anyone who won't agree with this within the domain of social sciences, politics, economics, etc. is either extremely intellectually lazy or a medieval transplant who hasn't heard the bad news yet about God. What is the leaf's argument here, that it's bad to say the truth is a value judgment? Postmodernism is really just a continental and more skeptic version of American Pragmatism.

>>19734681
>Did they really create it as a last bastion for Marxism after seeing that they lost the moral argument for Marxism with the catastrophe of Stalinism and Maoism?
I'm not some grad school person who can really answer this, but Marxism seems very "modernist" to me and the few existing governments in the world that profess a commitment to Marxism at least as a method of analysis (like China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, etc.) seem to much more "modernist" in their methods of expression, aesthetic and otherwise, and in the language of the party guiding the people on an epic narrative -- and I don't think they got this from Derrida or Foucault:

https://youtu.be/qQkVwLoS8b0?t=153

>Are Derrida and Foucault both responsible for the creation of "identity politics" like Peterson claims? [...] He also claims that, despite post-modernism being a movement that rejects "meta-narratives" ... contemporary post-modernists still emphasize the idea of "oppressed vs oppressors" and that this is what ties it to Marxism.
It seem like a more complicated relationship. I think that for the Western left, the old-style class struggle exhausted itself, and what's called "identity politics" was an attempt to keep a radical tradition alive at all. In other words, the class struggle was co-opted first and rendered politically impotent in the West via a combination of repression (purging communists from unions in the 50s which "depoliticized" the unions) and providing selective benefits to some, like sufficient wages and health plans provided by employers -- and also mass homeownership as a form of capitalist "central planning" and "welfare" -- organized along sectional lines (white workers benefiting much more than black workers) which had the effect of breaking up the working class while selectively repressing / co-opting different sectors of it.

I don't really know where to go from there. I think that postmodernism's rejection of grand narratives leads to paralysis. To put it in terms of aesthetics, postmodernism is the obsession with surface appearance, superficiality, and identity at the expense of grand narratives and historical movements. All life is part of normalcy, all resistance is itself a part of the functioning of the system, and all alternatives are unimaginable. Life simply goes on. So you could say that about the left, but as Zizek pointed out, the most postmodern figure in the West is Donald Trump. He's a pastiche who repeated conservative mantras about family and society, while gloating about not paying taxes and acting in a very vulgar way and being proud of it, which confronts the antagonism at the heart of modern conservatism as the stable communities they want are undermined by the same economic forces favored by conservatives. But he's doing a performance like Kamala Harris is about signaling to racial justice while being a career prosecutor turned regime official.

This is postmodern:

https://youtu.be/n4UTtRRZvzw?t=122

>>19734681
>Perhaps one of the most disturbing attempts to undermine families can be seen in a slick video produced by LGBT in the City, a multi-media organization that produces talk shows and videos related to LGBT issues and is sponsored by such monster corporations as Telus and TD Bank. To say LGBT in the City has a hedonistic focus would be a grotesque understatement and it might be argued that at least one of their videos encourages the sexualization of children, specifically in the form of an eight year old boy mockingly named “Lactacia.”

>In a slick video released on Facebook with over one million views so far, a hyper-feminized/sexualized 8 year old boy (who some have compared to a drag version of JonBenét Ramsey) is featured partying in a hypersexual adult LGBT environment and telling kids watching that if their parents or friends do not support their desire to be drag (or trans), they need to get new parents and friends. Professional quality video and editing made this call to young children to the queer lifestyle all the more appealing. As “Lactatia” speaks to his peers, while an all too happy host leers, bold text leaps out at the viewer saying “YOU NEED NEW PARENTS! YOU NEED NEW FRIENDS!” You too can be a drag queen or transgender superstar and perhaps head out on the town to party with the wild LGBT boys and “Lactatia.” If your parents won’t get on board, they can simply be replaced with a new “glitter family.”

If anything petersom radically UNDERestimated the totalitarian and paedophilic implications of cultural marxism and the plgbtsjwtfnpcagenda.politically correct

>>19734795
>Now Foucault generally reads like a right-winger
Fucking how?

>>19735044
>Pic related, this is where he gets his connection between postmodernism and marxism.
It's rare to enter one of these threads and see that someone else already pointed out the obvious. I'd be shocked if Peterson has ever read Derrida or even the Derrida biography Stephen Fry recommended him, just like he didn't read any of Zizek's books before their ""debate"".
His understanding of the psychological literature is much more solid, though, and his old lectures are valuable enough, particularly as an introduction to the field.

>>19734681
Gonadotropin thrillers often feature a gross white human where rights do not stand. On their arsenal like Arabian Nights with Kapil Kumar Sharma.vll dead as a doornail is a queer theory.yy Ovid can literally dust a ruom in scetcher time

>>19735248
Libertarian

>>19735195
it's in the application of it. Foucault in particular would use the word truth to mean 'knowledge which is the outcome of a power-mediated process'. But in practice almost any statement or idea is going to be created by a power process, regardless of its logical consistency or correspondence to verifiable reality. The issue here is that under this definition, contradictory statements can be described as 'true', and using this definition of the word 'truth' is misleading in most cases where people will read it as the colloquial definition.

You see elements of this in the identity politics movement when they talk about things like 'centering voices' or the whole idea of critical theory where scholars will question what group a theory is 'for', or whose interests it upholds. The continental aspect is important to it though - original postmodernism came from the wake of WW2 when europe had participated in the most destructive war ever under a broadly modernist culture. Modern identity politics is much more americanised and can be seen as a perversion of american liberalism and individualism.

>>19734681
Identity politics is a capitalist psyop designed to obfuscate and divorce social theory from the foundational reality of class struggle, thereby being a veiled reactionary attack against proletariat class consciousness. The capitalist class ceaselessly defends its interests against the economically and politically minoritized working class majority. The capitalist class never loses sight of its own class position, economic exclusivity itself constantly enforces this awareness.

>>19735044
>Rousseau
>Socialism
What?

>>19735345
>what is the French Revolution?

>>19735248
Right now its left wingers who are all for psychiatric power and biopolitics

>>19735331
>The capitalist class never loses sight of its own class position
I think this kind of "conspiracist" view about capitalists -- a sort of vulgar Marxism -- neglects that the capitalist class is not uniform, all-powerful or all-knowing. I think, as a class, the capitalists used to be much more united than they are now, and capable of longer-range thinking and planning than today.

The theory I'm working with is that the neoliberal turn was really a unified capitalist counter-offensive which led to a victory for their class. And, over time, as a result of that victory, they became divided into the "band of warring brothers" that Marx talked about, because without alternatives (postmodern condition) or opposition to them, they don't need to be united. So now they'd much prefer to focus on the short term, their quarterly earnings, at the expense of long-term planning -- a contradiction which they haven't figured out how to solve and which is paradoxically bad for them.

This also helps explain our politics today, which is like a conflict between capitalists of different economic sectors -- which they control -- feuding over which sectors should be favored (globalized finance capital and services vs. traditional manufacturing and extractive industries), and the main distinction between the sham parties they control is over that question and, as encountered by the average Joe, *how* those parties mobilize their constituents; i.e. pandering to their self-regard, fears and prejudices (identity politics of left and right).

>>19735345
Wait till you get to the counter-enlightenment, starting with Kant.

>>19735419
Also the divisions within the capitalist class also helps explain Trump's election, as the GOP primary in 2016 was split in different ways. There was Jeb Bush, the favored candidate of the Chamber of Commerce wing (more favorable to services and tech), and also Ted Cruz, the favored candidate of the Koch-aligned Americans for Prosperity which bankrolled the Tea Party.

What does Koch Industries do?

>Its subsidiaries are involved in the manufacturing, refining, and distribution of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, ranching, finance, commodities trading, and investing.

So with these two divided capitalist factions at loggerheads, that provided an opportunity for Donald Trump, a self-starting billionaire and political entrepreneur, to capture the party. Trump contradicted both wings' individual interests, however, he was preferable to a Democratic administration so he protected their collective interests. Yet, as pointed out here >>19735217 he exposed the bizarre contradiction at the heart of contemporary conservatism -- his impulse was always to double down which has also been the tendency of the right when facing its own contradictions (such as between stable communities and the economic policies they favor). So you get this intense pro-business and pro-capitalist ideology that doubles down on itself, while also a really intense culture war doubling down from the right even though both of those things are in contradiction with each other.

That's not a stable particle.

>>19735248
Foucault's greatest influence was Georges Dumezil, who is the single most Far-Right thinker in European history (he's second behind Konstantin Pobedonostsev under certain alternative definitions of "Right Wing").

Also, I'm just going to point out: "Post-Modernism" is a useless term that means nothing. For example, Peterson lumps the Frankfurt School in with the Post-Structuralists. This makes no sense as the Post-Structuralists were, each for their own sometimes mutually at odds reasons, basically taking turns shitting on the Frankfurt School.

I'm not going to do performative pro/anti-JP-ism, don't bother replying if you're butthurt that I insulted Peterson or didn't insult him enough.

>>19735495
It's also worth noting (something I've seen anecdotally) that the Frankfurt School seems to have a better reception today in "modernist / Marxist" China with Adorno conferences and Marcuse's "One-Dimensional Man" being on Xi Jinping's booklist.

>>19735527
I'd believe it, the Frankfurt school was all about reinforcing Marxist eschatology in the wake of its complete failure during WWI and shoring up a historical causal progression. The entire reason that the CCP actually uses "Marxism" is to do just that (give Chinese History a historical telos where, previously, it had none).

>>19735495
>Foucault's greatest influence was Georges Dumezil
That doesn't amount to much. What exactly makes Foucault right wing?
>I'm not going to do performative pro/anti-JP-ism, don't bother replying if you're butthurt that I insulted Peterson or didn't insult him enough.
I quite literally don't give a fuck about JP, I just want to know how or why one would consider Foucault a right winger.

>>19735612
Foucault's entire career amounts to attacking Jewish Power, Jewish Historiography, and psychoanalysis (which is really just Jews projecting their own mental illnesses onto the world as a weapon). This is why there's a big push to move away from him by Wokies.

>>19734795
>Marxism==politics
Pretty ironic you'd call anyone else retarded. Leftism is not political in nature, let alone Marxism. Marxism is barely economic. That people created political platforms based on radical thought has nothing to do with reading history or interpreting the present through the lens of leftism. You might as well say that calculus is political because people use it to help them make monetary policy.

>>19734681
>Are Derrida and Foucault both responsible for the creation of "identity politics" like Peterson claims?
Oh hell no.
Identity politics is a quintessentially American phenomenon that could only come out of a capitalist but racially diverse population make up. Identity politics came as a result of large companies trying to appease their consumers, which is overwhelmingly white middle class and female, a demographic which always skews more progressive politically and loves any opportunity to virtue signal. So they tried to gain more market share through campaigning on social causes and eliminating anyone who reminded them of their father from their marketing and advertising materials.
The idea that these Madison Avenue bean counters were in anyway moved not out of the desire to push more detergent or moisturizers on consumers, but out of the writings on discourses of power or the ambiguity of chronology by some French intellectuals is beyond laughable and speaks to the hubris of academics.
Academics want you to believe that they were the ones to push the woke discourse. Because it means they actually matter.
They don't.
Identity Politics came from Corporate America trying to appease the biggest consumer demographic: white mothers.

>>19734681
Derrida writes about the "margin" of philosophy but this is less about marginalised voices and more the role certain ideas play in the function of metaphysics as they are described by philosophers. He's not an aphoristic philosopher who claims this and this is true, but he writes essays in response to close readings various philosophical texts, uncovering their logic and making it apply to the whole system. If Peterson actually read Derrida he might actually agree because his take on Heideggerean metaphysics of presence or ontotheology or whatever is equally applicable to the overbearing leftism of PC groups that he complains about. Foucault I don't really care about, Derrida BTFO him in Cogito and the History of Madness.

>>19734681
Derrida's association with cultural marxism comes entirely out of his reputation promulgated by a certain, politically motivated contingent of literary theorists. Very few of his critics read him and very few of his American fans understand him.

>>19735061
It's actually probably a clue that he doesn't know what he's talking about. A meta-narrative is more teleological rather than "everyone should be treated fairly in a society"

>>19735709
>Marxism==politics

Yes? It's a fucking political ideology. What else is it you retard? Just because Marx had no intention of his work becoming a political ideology doesn't make it any less political in nature... especially considering his entire project was literally called "a critique of political economy"

Peterson is unironically correct about the poststructuralists/modernists. This is a case of the bell curve meme in which:
>dimwits (Peterson)
"Postmodernists are neo-marxist commies!"
>midwits
"Um akshually poststructuralism is very complicated and you can even be a right-wing postmodernist blah blah blah [pilpuls self into absurdity]"
>topwit
"Poststructuralism's destruction of the human subject and resulting epistemological nihilism leads unconsciously but logically to a recovery of the core ethical themes of Marxist thought; postmodernists are neo-marxist commies."

>>19736017
forgot pic

>>19735638
>>19735495
You are genuinely mentally retarded and probably one of those Thielist " I take it in the ass " types who follows Giuli on twitter, genuinely kill yourself mental midget

>>19734681
>I'm a bit confused by his whole position regarding "Marxist post-modernist-types".
So is he.

>>19735172
>however the conception of 'truth' as the product of a power process has been adopted by modern sjw leftism
Isnt this Petersons same definition of truth? Hearing him speak about truth its hard not to think he himself is a postmodernist.

>>19736124
What? No. Peterson has a pragmatist and perennialist definition of truth: truth is what "works" and it is embodied in relgion, myth, narrative etc.

>>19736155
Peterson truth is whatever suits an individual. Listen to him speak about personal truth.

>>19736017
>defending psychoanalysis and neoliberlaism to own the libs
Bold take.

>>19736044
You will never be a woman.

>>19736226
>Listen to him speak about personal truth
Yeah I just did he said to find it in the Bible and the Egyptian and Mesopotamian myths and shit

>defending psychiatry and liberalism to own the nihilistic french pedo commies

>>19736017
Peterson's analysis is psychological, not philosophical. Everyone here is most likely intentionally not understanding this.
>>19736297
I'm sure the primary reason Peterson is disliked by the pomo types is that he is often considered a father figure. You will never escape your daddy.

>>19734681
>He also claims that, despite post-modernism being a movement that rejects "meta-narratives" such as hierarchies and binary oppositions, that contemporary post-modernists still nevertheless emphasize the idea of "oppressed vs oppressors" and that this is what ties it to Marxism. But that seems like an oxymoron to me.
That's just one definition of postmodernism. Pomo isn't really a a movement, and the relationship of its major thinkers and Marxism is more complicated than that. You could read Derrida's book on Marx or Foucault's comments on the Frankfurt, or Jameson's essay on the subject school and see immediately that.
That's not to defend Peterson. He seems pretty ignorant about the specifics of these thinkers' works, but that one-liner about metanarratives has always been a lousy and reductive comeback.

Peterson is broadly denouncing the ideological descendants of critical theory (which includes their predecessors among the modernists and a great many, if not all, post-modernists). He isn't interested into getting into some specific ideological taxonomy because A: nobody else is either unless they're trying to deflect from observable reality and B: these groups have all broadly adopted the same manners of politicking in which they obfuscate, shift goalposts, and generally play semantic games to avoid being pigeonholed into belonging to any specific ideological movement that has done anything wrong or caused any trouble.
Any attempt to hammer Peterson or his followers on this point is completely moot because Peterson does not care about specific academic classifications of ideological movements or their histories anymore than he cares about which doctrines or dogmas of Christianity people ought follow; Peterson's arguments are all from aesthetics (though it is either embarassing ignorance or deliberate control of optics that he never uses this term) and everyone can aesthetically understand what he means by "those damned post-modernist marxist types" even if they pretend not to.

>>19736415
>He seems pretty ignorant about the specifics of these thinkers' works
Peterson has most likely deliberately avoided seriously reading anything from these writers because he sees them as intellectual poison.

>>19736409
Peterson's psychological diagnosis of pomo is ultimately reducible to a philosophical one

I trudge through Deridda and all I can perceive is bitterness. There's no other word for it. Black poisonous bitterness. The cleverest boy getting older and tying himself in logical knots with no beginning and no end and no point.

Am I wrong?

>>19736464
Yes, he suffered from depression and even slight body dysmorphia for much of his life.

Peterson's contentious labelling of these thinkers as "post-modern Marxists" and his obstinate refusal to engage with their writings is indicative that he has better conservative instincts than most online right-wingers, who have contorted themselves into believing that they can coopt the thought of these obviously communistic, anarchic and nihilistic thinkers to one-up their ideological opponents without compromising their own thought. For all the online right says about Peterson—about being a liberal, about not being radical enough—they still have a lot to learn from him.

>>19736473
He's not that ugly.

>>19736483
The only, ONLY, bulwark against Marx and Marx-derived ideology is to outright disalllow it. The second you begin to interface with it you legitimize it and it begins to grow. McCarthy actually did nothing wrong besides blowing his load too early and without enough hard proof of seditious activity to make anything come of it.
This is the same with all reactionary/anti-reform ideology by the way (for example Islam, and we might say popular Fascism) but most people have the good instinct to disallow them immediately.

>>19736436
Fair enough I guess, but it does allow people familiar with their works to dispute his claims about them. The problem is that the meta-narrative one liner is an inadequate defense, and one that I think reveals the rather sizeable group of people that have also not read the works of these thinkers but have a political interest in defending them.

>>19736520
Exactly. Online rightoids will call Peterson "Peterstein" and will then attempt to demonstrate how "liberalism" and "capitalism" cause trannyism and anti-whiteness through a Foulcauldian power analysis, forgetting that these were the exact same opponents of Foucault et al. Normiecons have better right-wing instincts than these retards.

>>19734681

Peterson just dislikes Marxism due of all the time he spend around college kids screaming about how capitalism is bad and everything is a social constructs because post-modernism make truth subjective or whatever. That's literally it. Every argument I hear him make sounds like it's being address to a class of 20-somethings.

>>19734681
Marginalized people should not have to defend their basic humanity against their oppresors. Are you denying science are you denying white supremacy and structural racism are a thing are you denying the queer community's right to exist?

Marginalized folks have every reason to trust progressive bourgeoisie and managerial strata over fascist white settlers who want them dead.we have every right to deplatform fascists and reactionaries and class reductionists and science deniers and ensure safety for marginalized and vulnerable members of our communities. We have every right to demand the destigmatization and normalization of sex work and mental illness, decolonization prison abolition family abolition the sexual enmancipation of children and an end to white supremacy and the gender binary.

>>19736430
Why do you consider him an aesthetician instead of a psychologist, which he undeniably is?

>>19736441
and the philosophy can be reduced back to psychology

>>19736664
Did those 2 clowns lose any credibility or did they not have any to begin with?

>>19734815
>these are the people I post with

>>19735709
>reading history or interpreting the present through the lens of leftism
And the postmodernist do... neither of that. They are, Foucault especially, anti-historicist.

>>19735709
>Leftism is not political in nature
It very much is. I think one of the biggest weakness that leftists tend to have in arguments is that they're willing to assert that practically everything is political except their own politics and its foundations, which is just sort of absurd and indicates a very real and insidious dogma on the left which exposes their in ability to perform the "critical thinking" that they're so proud of on themselves.

>>19736501
No, he was considered good looking in France. It was internalized antisemitism.

>>19734795
He's smarter than you'll ever be.

>>19734681
2016 was six (6!) years ago. Children born in this year will be going to the primary school soon, if they aren't already.

>>19735719
I think Alex Karp of Palantir is into some of this stuff and studied under Habermas but he's also a spooked-out CIA contractor.

https://youtu.be/PzM0LzybwG4

>>19736520
>The only, ONLY, bulwark against Marx and Marx-derived ideology is to outright disalllow it.
So, the only way to defeat the Communist China is to become Communist China?

>>19736588
You put words on my thoughts.

>>19735709
>Leftism is not political in nature, let alone Marxism.
Didn't Marx say that that philosophers had up to his point only attempted to study the world while the point is to change it? Like, Marxism seems like a very self-aware ideological weapon. You can never be not-ideological, but you can build an ideology that is more aware of what it is. Apart from that also of course an ideology and respective society that humans can live well in and that doesn't kill the planet.

>>19736483
>Peterson's contentious labelling of these thinkers as "post-modern Marxists" is indicative that he has better conservative instincts than most online right-wingers, who have contorted themselves into believing that they can coopt the thought of these obviously communistic thinkers to one-up their ideological opponents without compromising their own thought.
Yeah that's pretty funny. I liked Glenn Loury at the recent National Conservative conference talking about Marx being part of our Western heritage. I think he started getting into Cixin Liu novels or something. Just rubbing that genie bottle.

>>19736520
>The only, ONLY, bulwark against Marx and Marx-derived ideology is to outright disalllow it.
A society aware of Marxism cannot go back to being a society unaware of it; it must deal with the cards it has been dealt. And as a scientist must stand on the shoulders of those who came before, so societies must do the same.

https://youtu.be/aoVVDpU1StA?t=604

>>19734681
>I'm listening to Jordan Peterson, and I'm a bit confused by his whole position regarding "Marxist post-modernist-types". Can someone clarify this for me?
I believe I've posted about this before. But the gist is he doesn't care for Western philosophy besides its being a cultural cornerstone. And so he has no problem generalizing or abstracting from philosophers points, at risk of mispresenting their theses. I wouldn't say he's wrong about Derrida per se, but because he puts no effort into parsing, reading, and commenting on him in detail, Peterson doesn't exactly know how he's right. Understand he's trying to answer to a specific part of Derrida's work, the problem of how to interpret and what interpreting means at all. If you want a bridge between Jordan Peterson and Derrida the latter's most lucid and closest to assessing the former's points in a lecture he gave called "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences". You might be surprised to see their concerns overlap quite a bit. Not to say they're at all commensurate.

>>19735435
it's lamentable that reading philosophers is almost like looking at a rorschach image for most.

>>19737573
seethe brainlet

>>19737573
so smart he got fucked up on benzos and has now trashed his existence and will now fade into obscurity. his shitty books with rehashed well known ideas.

>>19734681
WHERE

>>19738524
it was from this talk with Zizek at the linked time: https://youtu.be/lsWndfzuOc4?t=7034

>>19736464
Really? I'm reading translations but his weird functional writing has a strange poetry to it which I kind of think was his point if he sees himself as a Heideggerean. Margins of Philosophy is full of such essays.

>>19736827
"Leftists" in the end are fighting for the consistent application of the tenets of classical European liberalism, and everyone is 'political' within the paradigm of liberal democracy as the conditions of possibility for there even to be something called 'political' in the first place.

>>19734815
PLEASE BE BAIT

>>19734681
I dont think Peterson actually reads books. He went to that Marx debate with Zizek while only having read the Communist Manifesto. He's not a serious thinker.

>>19740589
>lefties still seethe about the debate years later
>>noooo you didnt the 80 volumes of marx's complete works!!!

>>19740614
Don't you think it's an intellectual dishonesty to engage in a debate about something you know nothing about?

>>19740687
no

>>19740687
>Don't you think it's an intellectual dishonesty to engage in a debate about something you know nothing about?
If everyone on /lit/ believed this, then /lit/ would cease to exist.

>>19740614
don't see why you're posting that marxist wojac. Zizek is not at all popular with that part of the left, marxism had very little to do with that debate, and the observation that Peterson wasn't even minimally prepared for it is politically neutral. it's not an argument for marxism so much as a general criticism of Peterson.

>>19735709
> Economy is not political
Jesus fucking christ mate, go back to Aristotle.

>>19736664
> What is psychologism?
Retard.
I wonder if P. ever heard of Husserl.

>>19740712
kek you beat me to it

>>19738132
>A society aware of Marxism cannot go back to being a society unaware of it
This is a meaningless truism. A society of course can allow and disallow the discussion of certain topics within its institutions. The same way that people cannot go screaming into congress about niggers and craniometry today, our society could be geared to disallow marxist ideology tomorrow.

>>19740687
Debates are not intellectual, they're performative. Sorry your high school debate class taught you that change occurred through heated intellectual sparring matches on the steps of Congress, but this is not fantasyland. It really doesn't matter if Peterson prepared anything for the debate, because Zizek's audience was never going to be convinced to alter their positions and Peterson's audience probably wouldn't understand Zizek's babble.

>>19740687
You can sufficiently debate (and win) about things if you read outlines and summaries by experts in the field who did the legwork for you.

Bonus points if they're sympathetic to the original author(s), presumably articulate a steel-man version of their views, and you still find major flaws.

>>19736297
Psychoanalysis is like the antithesis of Marxism what are you talking about.

>>19740828
Ok, didn't know debates were something different in america.

>>19740712
Universities wouldn't exist as well. 99% of people who write books and give lectures skim probably everything they lecture on and rely on other people's critical analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEV9qoup2mQ&t=1093s
This video is reddit but it demonstrates how the majority of attributions are either completely false or lacking context in the vast majority of academia.

>>19736017
>"Poststructuralism's destruction of the human subject and resulting epistemological nihilism leads unconsciously but logically to a recovery of the core ethical themes of Marxist thought; postmodernists are neo-marxist commies."
Is this not Peterson's take?

>>19740913
The modern conception of debate, the Lincoln-Douglas style, literally (and I do not mean figuratively) was formulated on the steps of America's House of Congress as a means of performative political campaigning.
Debate is a meme and its pedastalization as the height of intellectual pursuit is a justification for pedantic mongoloids to screech at each other.

>>19738102
I think he meant that those who intellectually oppose Marxism should form their arguments around the first principles of it because entering any further is akin to allowing a kind of stench to enter and fill the room for the sake of thoroughly examining something rotten or toxic. If the conversation goes past the first principles of Marxism it can only be due to the Marxist dominating the intellectual territory which immediately pollutes the air.

>>19740687
Zizek was there to defend communism and he didn't even do that. The debate never had anything to do with Zizeks ideas to begin with, they only debated because Zizek was said to be only of the best modern Marxist scholars and defenders so they were going to debate Marxism vs Capitalism. Peterson's assumption that the conversation would be anchored around the principles of the communist manifesto was completely reasonable. Zizek even said he was more of a Hegelian than a Marxist. If anything the dishonesty was on Zizek because he never planned to defend his own side of what the debate was meant to be about.

>>19741164
lmao, and how do Peterson fanboys explain away his utter failure to debate this great scholar without looking like an ass?

It's funny because Derrida and Foucalt despised ne another and took great pleasure in shitting on each other work

>>19736017
>core ethical themes of Marxist thought

you pseud

>>19736464
Derrida loved philosophy and the western canon more than anyone else, he waxed poetry about every author he's ever written. People think of decostruction as critique or attack on the principles of this or that idea. And they're wrong.

Also if Peterson bothered to read his books on religion he probably would have found a kindred spirit. Derrida was a few a years away to back to Judaism befor he died

>>19738132
>You can never be not-ideological, but you can build an ideology that is more aware of what it is.

Marx though he was doing science

>>19734681
Juden Peterstein is peak pseud just like everyone in le intellectual dark web. Go get jabbed like your hero if you love him so much. Retard

>>19741299
Marx had a very specific definition of ideology, and his own work is outside of it. But Marxism became ideological by Marx's standards pretty much immediately after his death.

>>19734681
Identity Politics in our modern sense is explicitly post-marxist and a rejection of marxism.
It says that the previous idea of oppression being based along mainly/solely class lines is wrong, and that there are thousands of different oppressions within society that composite together to form social stratification and that every one is as important as the others (within some kind of reason).
The rejection of the marxist narrative of society, of a millennia long battle between proles and the various upper classes above them, is along lines of that not filling out all the various oppressions the world has. And because they often disagree with the end point of marxism, a classless and stateless society, as identity politics and liberal ideals do not conflict in the same way that marxism and liberalism conflict. The concept of oppressors vs the oppressed is not even just marxist.

>>19741213
not an argument
Zizek was there to defend communism and he didn't. The debate obviously would have been better if Peterson had read his books but the fact that he didn't doesn't imply he was "dishonest" by expecting Zizek to defend communism as that was the point of the debate. It was "Capitalism vs. Communism" not "Peterson's catalogue" vs "Zizek's catalogue".

>>19735789
If it looks like a metanarrative, acts like a metanarrative...

>>19741467
>not an argument
No shit Sherlock, a question is not an argument? I still want to know btw.

>>19734681
>Modernity

>>19735331
Muh class recuperation

>>19741504
well since he didn't "utterly fail" to debate Zizek I'd suggest you're projecting.

>>19734681
well done OP, masterful propaganda, masterful bait, you feigned ignorance masterfully. But can we please put an end to this boring tired out conversation? Peterson hasn’t even been relevant for years now

>>19736807
Maybe if you ignore madness and civ, birth of the clinic, discipline and punish, psychiatric power and the Nietzsche book

>>19734681
Fucking fantastic bait 10/10 trolling.

>>19741533
>I'd suggest you're projecting.
You'd think a Peterson fanboy would at least learn how to apply basic pop-psychological terms. Or maybe you were confused as to what I was asking? Look to the pic. I meant the debate where Peterson said that you literally cannot quit smoking without shrooms, among other utterly retarded statements. Forget Zizek, how do you explain away what happened there? That's all I want to know.

>>19741607
>pop-psychological terms
wrong
>I meant the debate where Peterson said that you literally cannot quit smoking without shrooms
yeah I'm sure he said that

>>19741607
oh forgive me you meant matt dillhaunty. wow you're actually dumber than I thought. completely asinine.

>>19741744
>>19741764
The answer is denial then. Thanks fanboys, that's what I wanted to know.

>>19735248
Foulcault’s project is essentially libertarian— all institutions— political, religious, scientific, social— control society and if “freedom” is at all possible it’s through a kind of self-actualization. If this is even possible because notions of “self” are also socially constructed. Foucault’s entire program can be boiled down to a French version of William Burroughs’s idea of fighting “control.” Sounds pretty libertarian/right.

Back in the 79s and 80s Marxists hated Foucault and called him a nihilist, and a B number of therapists accused him of propitiating a “blaming the victim” philosophy because bio power is multidirectional. The “oppressors” aren’t the only ones who have “power”— the “oppressed” do to, both both sides of the dichotomy rely on each other to reinforce their identity. And there’s no way to escape it. That’s maybe not right wing, but it’s not Marxist.

>>19741809
do you cum to Neil deGrasse Tyson?

>>19741872
I cum to no one, fanboy. Imagine that if you can.

>>19741880
That's rather unfortunate I hope you eventually get to experience sex, anon.

>>19741936
Anon, wanking to a youtube video of a surrogate daddy isn't sex.

>>19741978
No it's not but I've had multiple threesomes and have been told by my ex who now lives several hours away that I "ruined sex for her" because other men cannot please her. That is sex and I hope one day you find some experiences of your own.

>>19740910
The Frankfurt School would disagree. Ironically, so would the Post-Structuralists.

>>19736409
The reason that the intellectual descendants of the Frankfurt School dislike Peterson is that he's White and a father figure, yes. The intellectual descendants of the Post-Structuralists are either explicitly pro-White or high on too many layers of schizophrenia to do the whole Anti-White thing.

That's the problem: Peterson conflates two things that aren't actually the same thing, and are in fact quite opposed.

>>19741858
You can take this a step further by pointing out that Foucault's entire philosophy at a macro level is pointing out the disastrous consequence of replacing the Indo-European idea of immanent order divined out of reality itself by druids with the Semitic one of transcendent order created by Rabbis. In a very real sense he turned himself into a monster to show just how awful neoliberalism is.

>>19734681
Does it matter who started it? Either way it's the dominant way of thinking on university campuses and it's not even up fo debate.

I remember dating this chick a few years ago, she was taking media studies, and one day she comes home talking about simulacra this, heteronormative that. I innocently asked "how do you know that's true?" She freaked out "I study this stuff!" She didn't even think it was possible to question her profs.

I don't even like Jordan Peterson much, but I can't think of even one mainstream intellectual, or pundit, here in Canada at least that said "hold on minute..."

>>19741339
Seethe