Will this go down in history as the discussion that definitively buried postmodernism as a literary and philosophical movement? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM

File: 21 KB, 480x360, Peterson Paglia.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 07:46:52 2017 No.10101583 [Reply] [Original]

Will this go down in history as the discussion that definitively buried postmodernism as a literary and philosophical movement?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 08:01:42 2017 No.10101626 >>10101583 No. It won't go down with just one discussion. Digest it and share your thoughts on the matter clearly with your friends and loved ones. Maybe one day anon, maybe one day.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 08:09:10 2017 No.10101643 File: 59 KB, 380x380, 5152719+_5b7a31230ba901cda2229559b845df88.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10101583 >Protestant """intellectuals"""

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 08:37:44 2017 No.10101718 >>10101643 None of them are Protestants

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 08:39:57 2017 No.10101726 >>10101718 They are in spirit

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 08:47:21 2017 No.10101745

I felt that Paglia did not uphold her end of the conversation.
She just rambled. I know that's her trademark or whatever but her little tirades felt rehearsed and often time they didn't even address what Peterson had said. Also a lot of them were juvenile. Going on and on about how academics are "stupid" and a flurry of other insults isn't interesting or insightful. If I wanted that I could talk to Cletus down the road. I guess the thrill is supposed to be that it's an ACADEMIC calling other academics stupid. Wow! Hard to think of something more played out.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 08:48:41 2017 No.10101752 >>10101745 t. university student who's spent the better part of his life studying arcane details of Foucault's inane works

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 08:48:57 2017 No.10101753 >>10101745 This. She talks a lot but doesn't say much. Not that I was expecting much from a woman, I just started skipping the parts where she talked.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 08:49:39 2017 No.10101756 >>10101752 t. redditor brainlet

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 08:51:59 2017 No.10101767 >>10101753 she's a man in a woman's body, as are most high-profile right-wing women, ironically

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 08:55:00 2017 No.10101778

>>10101745

>Hard to think of something more played out.

Says the guy who still unironically goes with the name "Cletus" as an archetypal representation of those critical of academia. I'm not even American and I can tell how played out and biased you're being right now.

Bad post all round desu.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 08:55:03 2017 No.10101779 >>10101583 no

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 09:01:08 2017 No.10101798 >>10101583 Better start cleaning your bedroom.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 09:01:15 2017 No.10101799 >>10101583 it's over for them this time!

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 09:08:50 2017 No.10101821

>>10101745
Are you serious? She was deadly spot on. Attacking the inconsistencies and character flaws of the "so called leftist". What you seem to fail to understand is that the rudimental error of these hypocrites is based in their vicious flaws in character.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 09:13:15 2017 No.10101830 >>10101583 Daily reminder that most of what Peterson does is postmodern.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 09:20:04 2017 No.10101841
File: 52 KB, 634x650, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10101583
>tfw JP has just admitted that he has quite literally never read a book written by a "postmodern" philosopher
>tvw JP has just asmitted that all of his knowledge about pomo comes from Hick's book "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault"
>tfw this is why he has literally (LITERALLY) never approached any pomo text, not even in the form of quotations (!!!)

This is RICH.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 09:22:46 2017 No.10101850 >>10101583 >what do you think about Postmodernism? >HERES A STORY ABOUT MY COLLEGE DAYS AND HOW I SAW REAL MARXISTS!

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 09:23:01 2017 No.10101851

>>10101583
I haven't ever read Paglia, but I've heard that she was supposed to be somewhat smart and unorthodox. This was painful to watch, and I couldn't get past 20 minutes. It really seems that anti PC crusaders always end up wallowing in reactionary nonsense.
It's a funny thing, this recent fascination with Jung among right wingers. Sorry, 'classical liberals'. Never mind Paglia, I guess she's all about being contrarian, but there's this article from Quilette that I find more interesting. And it spectacularly misses the point with Jung. Then again, defenders of Western Civilization™ and Reason™ tend to do that with everything.
Jung was very into things like astrology and I Ching, and in a very literal way. His last book was about flying saucers. For the most part of his career he was hesitant about it, but gradually sort of stopped caring and went more and more about alchemy, gnosticism and synchronicity.
What's funny is that, under scientific pretensions and obtuse prose on one side, and esoteric ideas about spiritual wholeness and 'psychoid dimensions' on the other, he was the ultimate trickster figure. And now these people take him as a their hero of Western Reason and Spirituality in a war against 'postmodernist academic tricksters'. Well, considering the fact they don't actually read anything, the irony is not surprising.
That trickster-like (almost postmodern) reluctance to make final conclusions or take anything literally, to the point of being deliberately obscure and enigmatic, is what is most interesting in Jung. Of course, reactionary simpletons are interested only in most banal things like psychological modeling and vapid New Age spirituality. Archetypes=memes, like, totally dude!
There's a great anecdote that Zizek relates in one of his book, about Freud - always more sophisticated and lucid than Jung - unwittingly seeing through this whole jungian archetypal business (ironically, through synchronicity and wordplay) and the primordial lie than lies in its supposed depths. And in this anecdote, not surprisingly, the lie takes the well known disguise of anti-semitism.
Freud was actually interested in the occult and possibly thought there was something to it, but considered it detestable. On a related note, there are some (usually insignificant and overblown) grains of truth in the arguments of these crusaders against political correctness. But their whole agenda is intellectually and ethically bankrupt and reprehensible. No matter how they dress it, same kind of ugliness is always underneath and it shows quickly.
I don't like many things in identity politics and PC, but reasonable people understand that certain forms of PC 'hypocrisy' are not only unavoidable, but sometimes indeed necessary (as it shows these days), parts of a civilized society. This semi-literate mixture of vulgar essentialism and social darwinism is nothing but a thinly veiled fascism, but I'm afraid it is very seductive for uneducated and gullible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 09:23:46 2017 No.10101854 >>10101841 Except in this very interview he talks about some of Foucault's works that he's read, and he's done so elsewhere too. Try again, bucko, but next time prepare a little better.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 09:27:07 2017 No.10101864 >>10101767 >she's a man in a woman's body lol

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 09:33:53 2017 No.10101878

>>10101854
>Foucault
>postmodernism
He probably made this correlation because it was written on the only book about postmodernism he has ever read. For you guys, I guess you think Foucault is pomo because he used to operate in the 20th century as a continental philosopher. That said, if anything, Foucault is at times even excessively empirical, he always thought in a strictly logical sense and genuinely believed in the existence of objective truths. He was a reactionary stuck in the late 18th century, when compared to those guys so hated by Peterson (although he will only mention Derrida, very rarely Marcuse).

This become even more ridicolous coming from a man who identifies himself as (also) a Nietzscheian and a Jungian. Compared to them Foucault was a dogmatist and a metaphysician.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 09:40:05 2017 No.10101894 >>10101878 No True Scotsman. Is it necessary to read every book by every postmodern philosopher in order to criticise it? Why don't you address the actual points Peterson and Paglia make instead?

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 09:55:36 2017 No.10101934

>>10101851
With regards to the ridiculousness of jungian thought i agree with you on the failings to consider Jung's mumbo-jumbo to be, from his perspective, in earnest.

But that's about what you get right. The "thinly-veiled fascism" you talk about is a weak argument. And how you fail to see what Paglia rants about in the beginning as near enlightened, tells me you have little experience with the real world. (or at least real thoughts). The leftist are careerist, cowardly hiding behind institutions and doesn't have concern for truth. Only personal utility. This destroys any attempts to move things forwards since theoretical knowledge and personal excellence are one and the same thing for the left-leaning person.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 09:59:59 2017 No.10101947

>>10101878
except Foucault, in his own time, wrote a ton about structuralism, and when post-structuralism was rising, about post-structuralism. later on, the postmodernists used his gibberish-based essays and speeches as means of promoting their movement (and bear in mind, they ended up perfectly fitting the pomo style)

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 10:52:42 2017 No.10102037
File: 87 KB, 800x1000, william-burroughs-this-is-a-war-universe-war-all-the-time-that-is-its.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>stumble upon Peterson 6 months ago
>initial impressions - articulate, depressed, intelligent, deeply sincere, actively striving for an answer, vaguely heroic
>can't quite figure it out
>keep thinking about his ongoing battle with the direction society is headed
>listen to his critics, can't find anyone who pinpoints exactly what is going on
>finally realize the reason he seems vaguely heroic is not because he's the champion of an underheard voice, and not because he is battling a pervading destructive ideology, but rather because what he is up against is the nature of reality itself, and that the post-modernists were right about everything, that there is no meaning, no truth, no discourse, no communication, and everything is a power game

I've listening to everything he has to say. He has spent the majority of his life thinking about how to tackle this problem and he has made the best possible case for the technical flaws in his opponent and it's still not sufficient. How the fuck do I deal with this feel? Are we simply doomed to tragedy? How can Peterson face this?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 10:54:21 2017 No.10102041 >>10101583 Oh snap thanks for alerting me to this meeting OP.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 10:58:30 2017 No.10102052 Lmao niggas ain't realizing postmodernism fizzled out in 1990

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:02:33 2017 No.10102062 >>10102037 >>>/rickandmorty/

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:04:00 2017 No.10102069 >>10102052 Thanks for letting us know, xir.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:05:27 2017 No.10102075 >>10101767 >paglia >right-wing w e w

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:05:31 2017 No.10102076 >>10101841 He's talked directly about Deridda and Foucalt before. You're not going to get far by claiming he isn't well read.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:05:42 2017 No.10102077 >>10101583 why she pretending thats north america is relevant to the histort of philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:07:17 2017 No.10102081 >>10102077 >Nietzsche >not just plagiarized Emerson Lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:07:41 2017 No.10102083 >>10102075 I didn't say she was right-wing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:09:17 2017 No.10102089 >>10102077 It's been the primary driver of real philosophy in the postwar era.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:10:18 2017 No.10102091 >>10102089 >real

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:10:59 2017 No.10102096 >>10102077 >what is pragmatism

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:11:21 2017 No.10102097 >>10101583 why is she shouting at him?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:11:34 2017 No.10102098 >>10102091 Sorry, I should have said "legitimate".

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:16:52 2017 No.10102111

>>10101894
>Is it necessary to read every book by every postmodern philosopher in order to criticise it?
What about reading at least some of them? JP has admitted that his entire knowledge on the movement is based on a single book, and since he has not read its sources he can't even be sure that what he has read was actually true. It's just a little step above formulating an argument over a wiki page you have misread.

>Why don't you address the actual points Peterson and Paglia make instead?
I haven't mentioned Paglia. I have just pointed out, after one year of people complaining about the vagueness of JP's criticism on pomo, that he based his entire critique on a single book of which he has not even explored the sources.
This is a a fact. Why me mentioning it bothered you so much?

>>10101947
>wrote a ton about structuralism, and when post-structuralism was rising, about post-structuralism
You're not mentioninf the fact that he was not writing in support of these philosophical tendencies. Marcuse wrote about capitalism, this does not make him a capitalist.

>later on, the postmodernists used his gibberish-based essays and speeches as means of promoting their movement (and bear in mind, they ended up perfectly fitting the pomo style)
Ah yeah? Have we seen an insurgence of postmodernist delving into historical records to actually prove their points, in a completely empirical and logical way? Foucault was a Nietzscheian, just like Petersom, he wasn't part of the movemenrs you are ascribing him too. What plebs like you always do is thinking that him pointing out the existence of power structures implies that he does not see them favorably, too bad that he saw them as necessary, in the same way Peterson does, the difference here being that Peterson analyzes them psychologically, while Foucault analyzes them sociologically: just like JP he is jaded enough to know that society necessarily needs guidance, and that arbitrary needs often override principles (of which Foucault is infinitely skeptic, but still willing to employ them in our society for their guiding properties) in societal management.
He is a much more and at the same time less radical thinker than you might think.

>>10102076
Mentioning Derrida (by attaching to him vague criticism which, as we now know, were not founded in anything substantial) does not equal having read him. Is this really how you think?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:18:27 2017 No.10102116 >>10101851 Did you write this, or did you just find this on reddit?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:27:11 2017 No.10102141 >>10102116 I wrote this on reddit and copypasted it here, since I was basically responding to the same OP.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:36:39 2017 No.10102170 >>10102141 In which reddit thread?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:40:00 2017 No.10102176 >>10101583 Can I get a quick rundown on postmodernist? Btw this how you stop postmodernism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aqGYYBwKbQ

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:48:02 2017 No.10102199 >>10102176 you stop postmodernism by being even more postmodern?

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:51:23 2017 No.10102209

>>10102111
>You're not mentioninf the fact that he was not writing in support of these philosophical tendencies
it's really hard to tell from his tone alone. and, even if he was not writing in support, plenty of pomos used his contributions for their own gain, don't you think?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:53:26 2017 No.10102215 >>10102076 He likely read somebody who wrote about them.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:57:30 2017 No.10102232

>>10101583
you can try to dodge and say that REAL postmodernism is something other than what camille is talking about, and i'd agree. camille and jordan are shitting on shitty middlebrow people using the powerful tools of postmodernism to their own shitty ends; a sort of pseudo-postmodernism. it's the same thing that happens when traditionalists critique modernism; it's always against pseudo-individualism, not real individualism. despite that, you can't blame paglia for just calling it what the people who do it call it, and she viciously BTFO those people.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 11:57:45 2017 No.10102233 >>10102098 maybe try pausing, briefly, between bites so you can more succinctly voice your opinions

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:03:35 2017 No.10102251 >>10101583 How can JP stop postmodernism when he is a postmodernist?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:04:33 2017 No.10102258 >two jews sitting around, talking about academia no thanks. camille has my eternal respect for devoting a significant amount of attention to the sexiness of my /lit/fu, however.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:04:39 2017 No.10102260 why should i care about postmodernism

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:06:26 2017 No.10102266 >>10101583 As a woman, I need to know: Men, is it true that the underlying possibility that a conflict might erupt in physical confrontation keeps conversation civil (with other men)?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:08:08 2017 No.10102273 >>10102209 By association plenty of people have used Nietzsche's and Spinoza's writings to promote their agenda, but I'm not seeing you railing against him.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:11:47 2017 No.10102284

>>10102266

Are you asking if all of our social relationships are conditioned by fear of physical confrontation?

If so, no. That's silly, do you think men are ogres? Well, maybe you do. I wouldn't blame you for thinking men are at least two-faced about their relationships with women, but they aren't always on the edge of a fight.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:12:09 2017 No.10102286 >>10101583 This just makes me feel more postmodern.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:15:54 2017 No.10102295

>>10102266
In most cases: absolutely not, but there are some situations in which attempting to "talk down" someone from a fight can occur.

You just know when the person you're talking to is combative, you need to play it a little softer when speaking to them in order to prevent a fight.

So TL;DR, yes and no, but mostly no; like 99% of the time no.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:18:42 2017 No.10102299 >>10102284 Peterson seems to think men are on the verge of fighting one another when they have conflict/conversation and that men don't know how to be in competition with women. I was asking cause I had never seen it that way as a woman.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:21:02 2017 No.10102307 >>10102232 this

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:32:45 2017 No.10102340 >>10101851 I enjoyed reading this more than I'd like to admit. I would love to see this extended into a full blown novel. I feel like I know this person.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:36:05 2017 No.10102349

>>10102266
that is a thing, for sure, but the way you asked implies that it is a thing for every single male-to-male conflict, which I wouldn't say is true at all.

and then there's the other end of it, where the possibility of a fight DOESN'T keep it civil, because you don't really give a damn about the other dude and wouldn't really mind fighting him if it came down to it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:37:02 2017 No.10102353 >>10101851 >fascists are pointing out things that are wrong >let's keep doing those things because they're fascists the only options aren't actually redpill or bluepill

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:44:41 2017 No.10102380 >>10102258 who would that be?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:46:33 2017 No.10102385 File: 56 KB, 850x400, quote-it-all-depends-on-how-we-look-at-things-and-not-how-they-are-in-themselves-carl-jung-97806.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10101851 you're a good boy and a like you

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:47:36 2017 No.10102388 >>10102096 dunno

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 12:47:47 2017 No.10102390 >>10102380 em-dash dickinson

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 13:03:09 2017 No.10102437 >>10101851 Good goy

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 13:10:07 2017 No.10102449 >>10101583 This postmodern discussion really postmoderns my postmodernisms.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 13:13:48 2017 No.10102460 There is no such thing as postmodern philosophy, except in the heads of American academics. So why should I care about it at all?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 13:14:35 2017 No.10102461 >>10102460 because Americans rule the world

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 13:17:49 2017 No.10102471 >>10102461 Sorry sweetie, but American academia doesn't rule my world. Never read any secondary literature written by an American or a Brit, never will.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 13:22:38 2017 No.10102484 File: 26 KB, 513x513, 1506054333149.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >there is nothing more dangerous than a weak man

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 13:32:19 2017 No.10102528 >>10102471 why do you retards get so hung up on whether theyre calling what theyre criticizing by the right name

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 13:36:29 2017 No.10102540 >>10102471 Missing out from Brits there

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 13:36:39 2017 No.10102541 >>10102528 I'm not talking about the name, I'm talking about the thing. It doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 13:42:06 2017 No.10102566 >>10102541 title 9 isn't a piece of legislation? protest art hasnt been co-opted?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 13:51:27 2017 No.10102613 >>10102566 What does that have to do with philosophy? And what you call "coopting" is something that was conceptualized at least as back as 18th century by the first economistes. It has been a technique of government for more than 2 centuries.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 13:53:49 2017 No.10102623 >>10102613 you probably think peterson and paglia are middlebrow (because they are), but you already seem to be way out of your depth. you're babbling

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 13:55:23 2017 No.10102627 jordan peterson: it's impossible to reason with women because it's illegal to knock them out

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 13:59:41 2017 No.10102638 >>10101851 The people at badphilosophy are the biggest pseuds there are

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 14:04:39 2017 No.10102664 >>10102471 What do you study?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 14:09:03 2017 No.10102683 >>10101726 Agreed. Suspect Peterson is an Anglican (agnostic, mind), though. Which is much better

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 14:10:09 2017 No.10102688 >>10101841 Swear he's talked about Heidegger before

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 14:13:30 2017 No.10102694

>>10102688
>talked about
Yeah, a lot of people talk about a lot of philosophers. Most have never read them though because that would require too much effort. I mean, why even bother reading something you dismiss in advance? It's not like your audience has read it either, nobody will notice.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 14:15:14 2017 No.10102701

>>10101851
Jung was a huge influence on the real radical right. Sunic, Benoiste are clearly influenced by him, and he wrote an excellent essay on Hitler. In this space, and Traditionalists also, wacko views like that are par the course.

To be honest, I think the Classical Liberal thing is a smokescreen. "We're the real progressives, guys!" For many people its a first step towards a more coherent (and obviously more extreme and taboo) right wing opinion, for others its just a fairly reactionary sentiment about longing for the days when you could be a progressive liberal and not have to deal with other groups.

You're wrong to call in thinly veiled fascism though. Its imperialistic I guess, but the radical right was about overturning what these figures consider "Western Civilisation". Fascism was a fundamentally anti-Modern movement. Peterson etc are not anti-modern,

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 14:20:10 2017 No.10102720 damn you postmodernist twerps really try hard to insult Jordan Peterson yet you fall flat on your faces every time

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 14:47:59 2017 No.10102815 >>10102720 Spoken like the kind of bore who no-doubt thinks Momigliano some kind-of sauce.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 14:56:20 2017 No.10102848 >>10101851 Good post. Reddit is better than /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 15:00:39 2017 No.10102864 >>10102848 Then go and stay there. You can even downvote things that trigger you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 15:04:46 2017 No.10102885 >>10102299 That's part of why nobody respects physically weak guys. Confrontation with women is a lose-lose situation for men. You can't actually escalate with a woman so you just keep playing bullshit mind games forever.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 15:06:28 2017 No.10102896

>>10101851
>PC hypocrisy is necessary

No, that's actually how you got so many reactionaries who felt rightfully threatened and joined the other side out of self-preservation. They were worried about where things were going if the hypocrisy remained unchallenged. It amazes me that so many are blind to this, and don't realize they were the ones who caused it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 15:08:17 2017 No.10102903 >>10101583 Preaching to the choir won't cause a paradigm shift.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 15:11:29 2017 No.10102913 I think Paglia is a bit of a loon, she addressed things well enough, but then went on these long and mostly unrelated tirades that just seemed like her going on verbal autopilot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 15:43:25 2017 No.10103030 File: 104 KB, 235x160, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10102037

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 15:53:00 2017 No.10103071 >>10102701 Can you actually link imperialism to what you are criticising? Also, can you explain why fascism was "fundamentally anti-Modern" without the obvious reality that it was less culturally tolerant than Wiemar Germany?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 16:21:33 2017 No.10103167 >>10101745 >I could talk to Cletus That's her point. Your academic of today is not above cletus by any measure.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 16:22:54 2017 No.10103173 >>10101583 >those comments >omg these people are so smart >wow I am truly honored I can listen to these two MAJESTIC minds talk This is so fucking Reddit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 16:23:05 2017 No.10103174 >>10101851 One of the dumbest posts I've read in a long time. Saved.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 16:27:35 2017 No.10103186

>>10102266
That isn't quite what he meant. He was just making the obvious point that in conversations between men, there are certain lines that won't be crossed in general. Those are generally lines of physical or blatant verbal confrontation and they mark an end of contention. When two women are enemies, the rivalry perpetuates itself through passive aggressive nonsense and innuendo.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 17:25:09 2017 No.10103363 >>10103173 Is there a single youtube subscriber community that is not nauseating to read in fairness?

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 17:32:32 2017 No.10103388

Moreso than "regular" youtube videos, these interview/dialogue videos are always so weird to me. These are both educated, professional academics who are agreeing to some batshit insane stuff. And this conversation in particular is... Schizophrenic as all fuck. Like, Paglia thrashes "the postmodernists" for being elitists who weren't in touch with the real, folksy ways of the hippies. And Peterson follows up with... How much he loves Nietzsche? And then Paglia follows that up with an attack on current progressives as being middle-brow and "intellectual midgets"?! Like, motherfucker, which one is it?

AND THEN AT 10:00 SHE SAYS SHE IDENTIFIES WITH WARHOL??? Like.. That's like saying you hate Romanticism and then proclaiming your love for Novalis. Nevermind her fucking dumb rant about people believing in the avant-garde - who the fuck does that in this day and age?

Honestly, I watched 15 minutes and this is extremely boggling to me. Like, the fuck are these people on about? Their words appear to mean literally nothing - as far as I can tell, these are not two people having even an irational discussion, they're simply two lunatics taking turns shouting at each other.

Well, not so much Peterson, but he just seems so... There's no other word for it than stupid. Jordan Peterson is a stupid man. I knew that already, but this video is like knowing someone is overweight and watching them take their clothes off and getting a real good look at the rolls of fat.

Anyway, I got to about the 30 minute mark and had to give up. These people are crazy, but fuck me if they aren't also boring.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 17:39:28 2017 No.10103410

>>10103388
>These are both educated, professional academics who are agreeing to some batshit insane stuff
Like what? The comments like yours seem more schizophrenic and insane to me. You seem sure you're right, but you're all emotion. Could you even name three batshit propositions from this video?
>Well, not so much Peterson, but he just seems so... There's no other word for it than stupid. Jordan Peterson is a stupid man. I
kek, real deep criticism you've put forth there. I don't mean to be too rude, but you seem like a simpleton whom Peterson would make mincemeat out of in a debate.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 17:42:29 2017 No.10103420

>>10102896
No I agree. One of the things people misunderstand about extreme right wing movements is they assume all there supporters went along uncritically. They join them as a last resort to defend against a larger perceived menace (historically communism). This is not irrational, as in fairness the commies did get btfo/shot in the head.

I think a nice comparison is Charles I before the civil war. Noone really supported his soft egomaniac crypto-Catholic absolutism, but they were so put off by the iconoclasts and the puritans who opposed him many people fought for him despite profoundly disagreeing with what he stood for. I think this is a better parallel in some ways to the tired 30s comparison

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 17:42:54 2017 No.10103422 >>10103388 Ignore Paglia. Peterson was trying to pull the conversation to somewhere other than ranting about academics which Paglia insists on.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 17:44:29 2017 No.10103429 >>10103388 It's only a simulation. Their words come from a "anti-pomo burger academic" generator, to compliment the "pomo burger academic" generator.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 17:47:40 2017 No.10103442

>>10103420
The mistake has more to do with semantics imo. "Right wing" is used to denote Carlyle, Hamilton, Nixon, and KKK FBI informants like Spencer. People fear that "the right" is getting momentum, but never bother to ask what part of it is getting the most.

Of course, many of these people aren't right wing at all. They're just regular people who happened to look into history. I don't think anyone who looks into history with a sustained interest can remain completely left wing, or completely anything at all.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 17:48:44 2017 No.10103447 >>10103429 If they're burgers, they've at least been to unis in the top 20. More than you can say, my Euro-provincial.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 17:48:53 2017 No.10103448

>>10103071
Yes of course. Imperialism was a liberal (old style) project. They thought it was the "white mans burden" to bring civilisation to the dark corners of the world and spread the wonders of science and modern industry. Anyone who got in the way was expendable. Reactionaries at the time did NOT support the empire (this is a UK perspective). You see this in its softer, modern form, in the ideas of "human rights" (which can be imposed globally by military or economic force). These are Western values, made global and then enforced. It is imperialism.

Fascism was at its core a rejection of modernity. Gentile, Evola etc all backed this. Whats interesting is they dabbled with hypermodern movements like Dadaism and Futurism before they joined the Fascists, but they then rejected this as meaningless. Fascism was about defending a rigid social hierarchy, that was not based on capitalism. The ideas about "ubermensch" which they kind of mangled out of Neitszche etc was about developing an aristocratic class (or "Fascist man" in Italy) who would lead the world through enlightened rule. They felt like modernity had destroyed the traditional fabric of society and the nation was actually dead - they believed in the myth of "Palingenese" (which is national rebirth), that was a process (usually violent) which would result in a new nation build out of the ashes of the society they saw as corrupt.

Its not just military dictatorship like Franco, Salazar. The full fascists were really really bizarre and out there. Look into Codreneau, or the Integralists in Brazil. It was way beyond what its usually portrayed as now.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 17:50:02 2017 No.10103453 >>10103448 >The ideas about "ubermensch" which they kind of mangled out of Neitszche etc That's more from Carlyle.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 17:51:06 2017 No.10103457

>>10103442
Thats very interesting and I agree. The minute you study history in depth and understand your culture a bit you gain a respect for the past that kills any destructive views. The left is essentially about destruction (in the vain hope of improving things). When you realise how complex and valuable and fragile society is, which you can only learn through history, you won't support those views

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 17:52:07 2017 No.10103462 >>10103453 Haven't read Carlyle properly, keep meaning to. Listened to the Bowden talk on him a while back. Are there any of his works you'd recommend to start? Plunge straight in with the defence of slavery? Or is that 2edgy

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 17:53:47 2017 No.10103467 >>10102037 >that there is no meaning, no truth, no discourse, no communication, and everything is a power game How do people who genuinely believe this function in the real world?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 17:53:49 2017 No.10103468 >>10101583 They just viciously agreed in a prolonged fashion. I wouldn't call this a discussion. Nobody who doesn't already agree with their points will even watch this.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 17:56:49 2017 No.10103477

>>10103462
>10103462
>Plunge straight in with the defence of slavery?
He doesn't defend slavery, he just says that there's really no difference between official slavery and forcing men to choose between endless labor and starvation.
Latter-Day Pamphlets is his best imo, but Heros and Hero-worship is where Overman (Great Man for Carlyle) comes in.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 17:56:54 2017 No.10103478 >>10103447 If these bozos went to American top 20 then that just shows those are equal to European bottom 20.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 18:00:00 2017 No.10103484 >>10103478 >If these bozos went to American top 20 I said world top twenty. I don' think the continent even has one lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 18:09:56 2017 No.10103517 >>10103484 Obviously not top 20 in terms of philosophy education. Unless not reading the primary sources is the new educational standard now.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 18:14:49 2017 No.10103530 >>10103517 >Obviously not top 20 in terms of philosophy education. Unless not reading the primary sources is the new educational standard now. I think your best phil department is around 25 or so. lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 18:18:43 2017 No.10103543 >>10103530 Yet we use no secondary sources at all. Which is why you won't hear someone yapping about philosophy like they've only skimmed a high school textbook.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 18:19:11 2017 No.10103550
File: 52 KB, 640x360, IMG_2487.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10101851
>Freud - always more sophisticated and lucid than Jung
>Freud was actually interested in the occult
>Jung was very into things like astrology and I Ching
>and in a very literal way

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 18:19:46 2017 No.10103553 >>10103543 >Which is why you won't hear someone yapping about philosophy like they've only skimmed a high school textbook. Your "universities" literally are high schools

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 18:25:05 2017 No.10103570 lol, these pseud hacks.... maybe if these bozos would read the same philosophers i do (zizek, stirner, the list could go on) they would learn something and stop being such retards

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 18:28:06 2017 No.10103588

>>10103553
I won't deny they don't produce a lot of people who become glued to one or two authors and then just regurgitate their works, but these two dumbasses in the OP seem unable to read philosophy at all.
And that is the general problem with burgers, they simply throw hands in the air and claim it's incomprehensible. Or worse, they take a very idiotic interpretation of one author like Lyotard and then use that for everything else so that they can pretend to understand. American "pomo" academics are really more to blame here than the idiots reacting to them, but they all equally fail to read.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 18:33:02 2017 No.10103612 >>10103588 k highschooler lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 18:41:24 2017 No.10103648 >>10101851 >muh social Darwinism >I can deny the existence of an inherent nature because it leads to unwelcome conclusions Fuck off.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 18:45:47 2017 No.10103666

>>10101851
>I haven't ever read Paglia, but I've heard that she was supposed to be somewhat smart and unorthodox.

No. She is a hack but she's past her prime. Molly Ivins took her down years ago in a great roast.

https://stevenhartsite.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/passages-molly-ivins/

>Tracing Paglia’s intellectual ancestry is a telling exercise; she’s the lineal descendant of Ayn Rand, who in turn was a student of William Graham Sumner, one of the early American sociologists and an enormously successful popularizer of social Darwinism. Sumner was in turn a disciple of Herbert Spencer, that splendid nineteenth-century kook. Because Paglia reasserts ideas so ingrained in our thinking, she has become popular by reaffirming common prejudices.

>What we have here, fellow citizens, is a crassly egocentric, raving twit. The Norman Podhoretz of our gender. That this woman is actually taken seriously as a thinker in New York intellectual circles is a clear sign of decadence, decay, and hopeless pinheadedness. Has no one in the nation’s intellectual capital the background and ability to see through a web of categorical assertions? One fashionable line of response to Paglia is to claim that even though she may be fundamentally off-base, she has “flashes of brilliance.” If so, I missed them in her oceans of swill.

This is all true for Peterson too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 18:46:58 2017 No.10103670 File: 1.69 MB, 383x576, 1421219830688.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10101851 there isn't a fedora euphoric enough for this

Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Tue Oct 3 18:47:03 2017 No.10103671

>>10101851
You're deriding Jung by invoking the sort of logical positivism that you don't grant to biological essentialists because perceiving people as being a part of nature rather than something that exists in contrast to it is icky and fascist.

The potential results of a belief system are more important to you that the soundness of its claims.

Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Tue Oct 3 18:50:47 2017 No.10103684

>>10103666
>she's associated with people I don't like, therefore she's bad
>I can assert that she's crazy without actually examining the soundless of her beliefs or the validity of her claims
This is just female cattiness. She's fuming at the pretty girl.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 18:50:53 2017 No.10103686 >>10101851 this is it lads, this is what tru illumination looks like. we are not worthy

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 18:56:04 2017 No.10103705

>>10102111
>I haven't mentioned Paglia. I have just pointed out, after one year of people complaining about the vagueness of JP's criticism on pomo, that he based his entire critique on a single book of which he has not even explored the sources.

And what an awful book it is. I downloaded because /pol/ won't shut up about it. What trash.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 19:00:38 2017 No.10103722

>>10103684
>>I can assert that she's crazy without actually examining the soundless of her beliefs or the validity of her claims

I don't examine the validity of the urine-soaked screaming homeless man on the street either. Paglia and her followers are straight-up retarded and Ivins had her pegged.

>>	Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Tue Oct 3 19:05:52 2017 No.10103745 >>10103722 Asserting that someone is crazy per se without addressing their claims is youtube comment ethics. Not the way someone who wants to be taken seriously behaves.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 19:16:18 2017 No.10103778 >>10101583 okay okay alright okay alright m-m-m-my okay

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 19:17:25 2017 No.10103780 >>10103745 >Not the way someone who wants to be taken seriously behaves. it's about ethics in youtube video comments

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 19:20:10 2017 No.10103792 >>10101583 Once you realize that psychological differences between men and women are due to differing biological characteristics, everything else falls into place.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 19:22:38 2017 No.10103801 >>10103792 >once you adopt an excuse for your confirmation bias, everything seems to make sense

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 19:25:13 2017 No.10103809 >>10101726 paglia is an anti-wasp medlet

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 19:26:08 2017 No.10103814 >>10103801 The empirical evidence that both prenatal and post-pubescent hormonal profiles lead to inherent psychological and physiological differences is incontrovertible. Denying that is denying reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 19:49:13 2017 No.10103893 >>10103814 I'm not sure anyone is denying that you can track some differences in biological characteristics, but to essentialize this "empirical evidence" as entirely representative of psychological differences between men and women is absurd.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 19:49:36 2017 No.10103896 >>10103792 But all of that is so banal and obvious. I'd like to see you explain how this makes the world any more intelligible.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 19:58:09 2017 No.10103922

>>10103893
>but to essentialize this "empirical evidence" as entirely representative of psychological differences between men and women is absurd.
No it isn't. There's mountains of data. The fields of evolutionary anthropology, biology, psychology, history, sociology, neuroscience all point to the notion that the psychological differences between men and women, while appearing on a spectrum, tend to be fairly universal and are most likely inherent. Even without evoking all of those fields, it's self-evident to people raised in large families that girls are different than boys.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:00:26 2017 No.10103931

>>10103792
"biological characteristics" is a simplification of those characteristics, but I agree with your sentiment. The characteristics are not quite just biological. There are obviously biological factors at play, hormonal, physical, etc. — but a lot of the shaping of men and women over millennia has been cultural too. Thing is, the oldest cultures sprung from the biological, so the biological is the heavier factor of the two, but over time it has become gradually less so. You might say they're biocultural characteristics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:02:56 2017 No.10103943 we are so beyond fucked that we actually have to argue about "hmmm do hormones influence males and females? are genders biological????" to compare us to the late roman empire on the brink of collapse is an insult to roman decadence

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:04:07 2017 No.10103950 >>10103922 this is, in part, what I was just about to write: >>10103931

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:08:38 2017 No.10103961

>>10103896
The dynamics at play when dealing with women if you're a man or with men if you're a woman are informed by inherent gender characteristics. This is relevant information when it comes to dating, the pay-gap, HR culture, the collapse of marriage, etc. Understanding that inherent differences exist can at least orient you towards dealing with the opposite sex as the opposite sex, rather than simply assuming that they're indistinguishable from your own sex.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:08:42 2017 No.10103962 >>10103950 also, >there's mountains of data supporting this thesis umm, great >most likely inherent so not even this data you apparently have is entirely certain on this, but you're comfortable crossing that gap?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:12:00 2017 No.10103971 >>10103961 This is the field of pop-psychology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:12:38 2017 No.10103975 >>10103962 >so not even this data you apparently have is entirely certain on this, This is how science works. The preponderance of the data points towards an outcome.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:14:16 2017 No.10103979 >>10103971 No it isn't. Pop-psychology tends to have a blank slate flavor. People buying their books from Target don't wanna hear that their mediocrity is inherent.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:18:45 2017 No.10103987

>>10103931
No one denies that culture plays a role, but like Peterson said in that video there is some evidence that the more gender-equal a society is the more those differences tend to manifest themselves. And we do live in a time where the role of culture is overstated, so the role of biology has to be asserted as a counterbalance.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:19:33 2017 No.10103992 >>10102896 >reactionaries who felt rightfully threatened >rightfully reactionaries are always "threatened", they scour the internet day in day out for new "threats", from supergirl on a can of tomato sauce to the newest disney film

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:19:36 2017 No.10103993

>>10103975
I never meant to imply anything else, simply that there are mountains of data that could problematize, or the very least challenge, this thesis.

(to clarify, the central claim here being that biology *entirely* makes up for psychological differences between the sexes)

Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Tue Oct 3 20:22:46 2017 No.10104002

>>10103992
And somehow this is worse than the suffocating progressive hegemony that is nearly all of our media? A Breitbart article that you can ignore is worse than being sent to HR because someone overheard an off color joke you made?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:24:03 2017 No.10104003 >>10103979 Of course they do, they want to get a cartoonish typology of personalities.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:25:56 2017 No.10104008

>>10103993
The "mountain of evidence" that challenges that thesis come from non-empirical fields that have no right to be making claims that should fall primarily under the domain of the physical sciences.
>(to clarify, the central claim here being that biology *entirely* makes up for psychological differences between the sexes)
I misspoke if that's how my claim came off. I meant primarily, not entirely.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:26:48 2017 No.10104011 >>10104003 Keep your censure vague as possible. Wouldn't want anyone to refute it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:27:37 2017 No.10104016 >>10104003 No, what they want is a glorified self-help book that tells that they can be anything if they tried hard enough. The notion that any sort of talent and characteristic is inherent is antithetical to the populist belief that we're all equal.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:30:25 2017 No.10104025 >>10104002 Where exactly did I describe it as better or worse? Fuck off with this bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:34:27 2017 No.10104040 File: 41 KB, 391x391, 123.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10104008 >I meant primarily, not entirely. Ok, we're basically in agreement then. I'll go be pedantic elsewhere.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:40:24 2017 No.10104065 >>10104016 Yes, they want that too, they want both. You do realize that pop culture is full of contradictions?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:41:58 2017 No.10104069 >>10101583 I have an unheatlhy adoration for Paglia.

Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Tue Oct 3 20:42:04 2017 No.10104070

>>10104025
The levers of power are held by people who espouse progressive beliefs. Even conservative media tends to be pro-gay and pro-women's rights. So attacking the neo-reactionaries because of their absurd feelings of victimization doesn't make any sense. Those feelings are valid on their part, regardless of how sound their belief system is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:45:07 2017 No.10104085 >>10104065 How did this get into a conversation about what people want? The role that hormones play in influencing one's behavior is the issue at hand.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:47:19 2017 No.10104093 >>10104002 >>10104070 What you're talking about is all theater, a distraction for the masses, and limited mostly to America in the small choice of dumb ideologies on offer.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:47:58 2017 No.10104096

>>10104070
Society being pro-gay doesn't make conservatives victims. Their victimization IS retarded. SJWs are just a part of the broad broad broad left spectrum, but 99% of the right spectrum is their version of SJWs - people victimized by 2 guys holding hands in public instead of wearing scarlet letters or some shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:48:43 2017 No.10104100 >>10103467 > By attempting to attain power - or not thinking about it during day to day interactions.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:55:23 2017 No.10104124

>>10104085
It's an issue only for liberals, conservatives, and various other types of autists. Nobody else has any issues with it. That's my point. It doesn't make the world any more intelligible nor mysterious. Which is why only talentless hacks write books about this boring dumb shit. I'd rather read a good political commentary or even some metaphysics than this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:55:49 2017 No.10104126 >>10104002 >he's insulting me so he must be aligned with the enemy I bet you feel like nobody takes you seriously.

Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Tue Oct 3 20:56:57 2017 No.10104128

>>10104096
Conservatives think in civilizational terms. They're like Marxist in a weird way, but rather than alienation being primarily the result if economic disparities and a disconnect from the fruits of one's labor, their form of alienation is a social order that bears no resemblance to the one that evolved in their community for centuries, and which ties them to their culture and ancestors. The reason they care about women's rights and gay marriage is because it upends their entire world, and the world their fathers and fathers' fathers help built.

Unless you're okay with being completely atomized individual, then these sorts of thing should matter for you too.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:57:42 2017 No.10104130

>>10104096

It's not just two male kissing, but freaks passing laws and pushing unscientific and baseless claims to education and academy, btw it's not even a exclusive problem to conservatives even though this nonsense is pushed exclusively by the other side.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 20:58:15 2017 No.10104132 >>10104124 It's an issue when people use disparities between men and women as being evidence of discrimination, rather than the manifestation of gender differences.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 21:03:37 2017 No.10104151

>>10104128
>>10104130
>The reason they care about women's rights and gay marriage is because it upends their entire world, and the world their fathers and fathers' fathers help built.
Their fathers and their fathers' fathers built that world against the wishes of the conservatives of that time. The same is true today, you're George Wallaces of the 21st century. And hopefully things will turn out the same for you as they did for him (politically, not the other stuff).

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 21:08:50 2017 No.10104171 >>10103447 Those rankings are based on quantity of research publications, not their ability to actually produce well-rounded, educated people.

Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Tue Oct 3 21:13:44 2017 No.10104189

>>10104151
Why are you okay with this? Civilizations are capable of collapsing. The progressives who perceive the path of moral progress as being identical to the path material progress takes don't understand how vulnerable things are to getting worse and degenerating to the point of collapse or irrelevance. Seriously, read world history, not just American history. Whether or not a particular conservative is correct depends on their time and place; conservatives were right about the French Revolution and about the October Revolution. They happened to be wrong about the American Revolution. They're not just history's luddites, as they're often portrayed.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 21:14:09 2017 No.10104191

>>10104151
I love that frequent tactic of association with certain figures that so-called progressives use to smear conservatives. I imagine you are the type of person who thinks that the American right translates as the loyalists during the American revolution?

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 21:34:49 2017 No.10104258

>>10104191
Where exactly did I mention the American right? We were talking about conservatives, and specifically about the "conservation" part of their ideology. So what do you think on whose side would conservatives be in the revolution? The REVOLUTIONARY side? Fucking idiot.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 21:40:35 2017 No.10104279

>>10104189
>Whether or not a particular conservative is correct depends on their time and place; conservatives were right about the French Revolution and about the October Revolution. They happened to be wrong about the American Revolution.
No, they're generally wrong all the time, this is a great example.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 21:42:52 2017 No.10104284 >>10104189 >Why are you okay with this? I'm okay with that because civilization won't collapse because of the acceptance of gay people. You only think it will because you're a bigot who gives immense importance to his own prejudices.

Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Tue Oct 3 21:46:52 2017 No.10104292

>>10104284
No one's saying that guys kissing will lead to civilizational collapse, what i'm saying is that queasiness over large-scale moral shifts aren't just the result of silly prejudice or stupidity. There's a lot behind it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 21:55:33 2017 No.10104317 >>10104292 No, there's just plain bigotry. Everything else is just a cloak of words.

>>	Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Tue Oct 3 21:57:31 2017 No.10104326 >>10104317 >you can be bigoted against an identity that didn't exist when you were a kid Don't be ridiculous. Moral norms aren't necessarily based on an objective ethical foundation.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 21:59:00 2017 No.10104331

>trying to "stop" a movement like postmodernism
It's not that it's impossible to critique it, that's clearly not the case as we can see, it's that there's no real gain from doing so. Peterson isn't exactly providing anything wholely original, considering the Nietzschean and Jungian influences being a bulk of his mindset, and I can't see any new literary movement stemming from academics like these. It seems like a waste of time

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 22:00:39 2017 No.10104335 >>10104326 Gays didn't exist when you were a kid? Transgender people (crossdressers kinda included) didn't exist when you were a kid? Were you born in the primordial soup?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 22:01:52 2017 No.10104340 >>10104335 Besides, it doesn't matter. Yes, of course you can eb bigoted against something even if it wasn't widespread when you were a child? What the hell are you even talking about?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 22:04:37 2017 No.10104345 >>10104171 t. highschooler

Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Tue Oct 3 22:17:05 2017 No.10104378

>>10104335
"Gay" and "transgender" as identities exist separately from the acts of gay sex and crossdressing. Romans had no conception of gay despite engaging in tons of homosexual sex. A tolerance for gay sex is separate from recognizing gay marriages as being as legitimate as straight marriages.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 22:25:52 2017 No.10104406 >>10104378 Well we're not in the Roman Empire and neither were you when you were a kid. Things change.

>>	Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Tue Oct 3 22:34:43 2017 No.10104434 >>10104406 What i'm saying is that contemporary identities are a contemporary invention.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 22:37:13 2017 No.10104445 >>10103943 I agree. We really are fucking deluded.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 22:40:05 2017 No.10104453 >>10104100 >By attempting to attain power In other words, climbing the dominance hierarchy. Which Peterson talks about more often than any other topic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 22:40:52 2017 No.10104456 >>10104434 this should be uncontroversial.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 22:45:31 2017 No.10104471 >>10101745 Paglia is a very intelligent woman, but she has this obsession with expressing herself as an edgy 70s comedian.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 22:46:29 2017 No.10104474 >>10104434 So what?

>>	Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Tue Oct 3 22:50:06 2017 No.10104482 >>10104474 You said >Gays didn't exist when you were a kid Transgender people (crossdressers kinda included) didn't exist when you were a kid? Were you born in the primordial soup?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 23:02:58 2017 No.10104509 >>10104482 Alright, and so what if they're a modern invention. Doesn't make them invalid. Doesn't make them capable of destroying civlization either.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 23:09:22 2017 No.10104515 >>10101850 >watches 1 minute of video TIME TO SHITPOST

Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Tue Oct 3 23:18:13 2017 No.10104535

>>10104509
What i'm saying is that calling someone a bigot for having a particular conception of an institution like marriage (that has been its standard conception for hundreds of years) is absurd. The gay rights movement sought to change that moral paradigm, which is their right, but they weren't appealing to some objective moral standard. Not treating gays poorly is something that can appeal to some moral intuition that might be inherent; thinking that gay marriage should be a thing is simply an opinion on how marriage should be defined. These are two very different things, yet both are considered to be under the umbrella of gay rights.

Anonymous Tue Oct 3 23:45:22 2017 No.10104610

>>10101583
holy shit guys Im a first year student of english and I kept posting that postmodernism response to peterson video you guys showed me and now I get btfod like this? I kept telling them to go back to /pol/ and now Im btfod like this? guess suicide is all that is left

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 3 23:51:57 2017 No.10104622 wow, never thought highly of peterson but this really makes paglia look bad.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 00:09:03 2017 No.10104653 >>10104610 now sort your self

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 00:35:18 2017 No.10104715

>>10102037
My thing with Peterson is that his view for fixing the world we live in is by fixing the individual by bringing out the "divine individual" in ever man and woman, however in my view this is exactly what got us in this giant post-modern mess to begin with. You cannot fix rampant radicalized individualism with rampant radicalized individualism. Humans must go back to the collective.

The answer is fascism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 00:37:46 2017 No.10104717 >>10101851 faggot really, just faggot.

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 00:43:58 2017 No.10104725

>>10104715
My thing with Peterson is that his view for fixing the world we live in is by fixing the individual by bringing out the "divine individual" in ever man and woman, however in my view this is exactly what got us in this giant alienated mess to begin with. You cannot fix rampant radicalized individualism with rampant radicalized individualism. Humans must go back to the collective.

The answer is marxism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 00:48:40 2017 No.10104744 >>10104725 At least we can agree that the enlightenment was a mistake

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 01:33:24 2017 No.10104856

>>10104725
it is not. One of the answers is to have a collective consciousness of your society, that embraces your individualit as part of a bigger whole, to view yourself as part of a community as part of a people as part of a nation as part of a spirit. People are loosing context,meaning, and thus no one is really master of their destiny.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 01:37:45 2017 No.10104865 >>10104856 >One of the answers is to have a collective consciousness of your society, that embraces your individualit as part of a bigger whole, to view yourself as part of a community sounds like marxism to me

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 01:41:49 2017 No.10104875 >>10101583 I hate this smug piece of shit so much. You can tell how above us he feels whenever he talks against utopianism. He will feel so fucking stupid when socialism eventually triumphs. I can't wait for it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 01:45:42 2017 No.10104881 >>10104875 any day now!!!

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 01:49:24 2017 No.10104889 File: 160 KB, 1024x1024, jRwVK0O.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10101851 I really hope this is b8

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 01:57:34 2017 No.10104906

Moreso than "regular" youtube videos, these interview/dialogue videos are always so weird to me. These are both educated, professional academics who are agreeing to some batshit insane stuff. And this conversation in particular is... Schizophrenic as all fuck. Like, Paglia thrashes "the postmodernists" for being elitists who weren't in touch with the real, folksy ways of the hippies. And Peterson follows up with... How much he loves Nietzsche? And then Paglia follows that up with an attack on current progressives as being middle-brow and "intellectual midgets"?! Like, motherfucker, which one is it?
AND THEN AT 10:00 SHE SAYS SHE IDENTIFIES WITH WARHOL??? Like.. That's like saying you hate Romanticism and then proclaiming your love for Novalis. Nevermind her fucking dumb rant about people believing in the avant-garde - who the fuck does that in this day and age?
Honestly, I watched 15 minutes and this is extremely boggling to me. Like, the fuck are these people on about? Their words appear to mean literally nothing - as far as I can tell, these are not two people having even an irational discussion, they're simply two lunatics taking turns shouting at each other.
Well, not so much Peterson, but he just seems so... There's no other word for it than stupid. Jordan Peterson is a stupid man. I knew that already, but this video is like knowing someone is overweight and watching them take their clothes off and getting a real good look at the rolls of fat.
Anyway, I got to about the 30 minute mark and had to give up. These people are crazy, but fuck me if they aren't also boring.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 01:59:05 2017 No.10104911 >>10102638 All those badsomething subs are shit even for reddit standards.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:00:42 2017 No.10104915 >>10102864 I don't even browse reddit at all. >triggered meme wow I guess I'm rekt'd

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:10:29 2017 No.10104947

>>10101583
The postmodernism they talk about doesn't resemble the postmodernism I'm familiar with. I don't think it's going to end postmodernism based on the fact it does nothing to challenge the conditions which led to postmodern thinking in the first place. They mistake the symptom for the cause.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:12:05 2017 No.10104948 >>10104875 this time it will work guys

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:13:22 2017 No.10104953 >>10104865 Or national socialism.

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:14:17 2017 No.10104955

>>10104906
>Well, not so much Peterson, but he just seems so... There's no other word for it than stupid. Jordan Peterson is a stupid man.

lol, he always seems so relieved after he rolls out a bunch of academic-sounding terms in succession and it making some sort of sense. He doesn't really elaborate on his thoughts, he just repeats them.

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:14:28 2017 No.10104956

>>10103671
>You're deriding Jung by invoking the sort of logical positivism that you don't grant to biological essentialists because perceiving people as being a part of nature rather than something that exists in contrast to it is icky and fascist.

Nope, you've made most of that up. I am just pointing out who the sources of your anti-pomo pseudointellectuals are: Nietzsche and Jung, mostly. His association to Nietzsche, given his stances, is laughable, but his true devotion to Jung is even more funny given his ideological and epistemological premises. Since most people do not know what type of scholar Jung really was, I just pointed it out.

>The potential results of a belief system are more important to you that the soundness of its claims.
You have no idea of the potential results of a belief system at a societal level. This is beyond the point obviously, since this is a conclusion you've reached through wrong premises.

>>10102896
So apparently everyone has to pander to reactionaries now? Literally the lowest common denominator of politics? The ones that by definition are moved by contrarianism?

>>10104911
Oddly enough these comments are always found in JP/Sam Harris related threads. I've never seen anyone complaining about r/badphilosophy users' grasp on Kantian or Heidegerrian philosophy... I wonder why.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:15:56 2017 No.10104959 >>10104906 I like the part where she explains now she actually knew real marxists, real radicals who dressed in work clothes and didn't get phds. But dagger they took lsd and destroyed their minds.

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:21:06 2017 No.10104967

>>10104956
>So apparently everyone has to pander to reactionaries now? Literally the lowest common denominator of politics? The ones that by definition are moved by contrarianism?

How popular something is is irrelevant for the truth or rightheousness of the matter.

And if you hold a definition in your head that necessarily connects reactionary demands with contrarianism, then your definition is wrong. There are many reasons why one would want to return to a previous status quo that don't require contrarian motivations. Maybe you like to connect the two in your head so you can automatically dismiss them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:21:52 2017 No.10104968 >>10102176 by pouring whatever over their desks then subsequently throwing shit at them while they're treating you quite politely for someone that's just disrespected them? got em

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:31:08 2017 No.10104984

>>10104956
>Oddly enough these comments are always found in JP/Sam Harris related threads. I've never seen anyone complaining about r/badphilosophy users' grasp on Kantian or Heidegerrian philosophy... I wonder why.
you should see why this is a retarded comment.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:32:24 2017 No.10104985 >>10103484 oxford is the best uni in the world... fucking burgers

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:32:25 2017 No.10104986

>>10104967
>How popular something is is irrelevant for the truth or rightheousness of the matter.
This is how you justify your predisposition to pander to reactionaries more than anyone else?
We both know why you're so concerned about it: you're one and you care about your group. This is of course obvious given your premises: it is clear that you are operating on no principle whatsoever.

>There are many reasons why one would want to return to a previous status quo that don't require contrarian motivations.
The reactionary opposes no matter what (keyword here), the traditionalist wants to go back. That said, since we're talking about JP's and Paglia's audiences my point stands.

>Maybe you like to connect the two in your head so you can automatically dismiss them.
This is exactly why you've written this sentence. As such, I have to say this: nice projection.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:34:00 2017 No.10104991 >>10104984 Please tell us, Enlightened anon.

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:38:15 2017 No.10104999

>>10104986
Your post is not very clear.

>The reactionary opposes no matter what (keyword here)
What are you talking about? What does he oppose? You mean he opposes out of principle rather than having a reason to oppose? Please define reactionary so I can understand what you are talking about.

>This is exactly why you've written this sentence. As such, I have to say this: nice projection.
Literally what. I have written my sentence to connect two things in my head that must not be connected to dismiss them? What are you talking about?

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:38:34 2017 No.10105000

>>10104956
>I've never seen anyone complaining about r/badphilosophy users' grasp on Kantian or Heidegerrian philosophy... I wonder why.
Are you retarded? Why would anyone complain about their grasp on Kant or Heideger out of the blue as if we cared about what they think? The only reason those anons were complaining about badphilosophy is because you copy/pasted a particularly idiotic comment from there.

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:44:28 2017 No.10105015

>>10104991
I was going to say in more words what an anon said here >>10105000
Basically >>10104956 assumed all people were privy to /r/badphilosophy commenters opinions on certain thinkers as if they posted here. I was merely pointing out the second commenters silly assumption.

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:44:31 2017 No.10105016

>>10105000
>Why would anyone complain about their grasp on Kant or Heideger out of the blue as if we cared about what they think?
They are often mentioned, yet I've never seen any such critique of that subreddits, while having seen at the same time about a million triggered Peterson/Harris/youtube talking head fans. No need to be so vitriolic, this is a fact.

>The only reason those anons were complaining about badphilosophy is because you copy/pasted a particularly idiotic comment from there.
I wrote that comment.

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:47:54 2017 No.10105027

>>10104999
>What are you talking about? What does he oppose? You mean he opposes out of principle rather than having a reason to oppose? Please define reactionary so I can understand what you are talking about.

What part of contrarian don't you get?

>Literally what. I have written my sentence to connect two things in my head that must not be connected to dismiss them? What are you talking about?
You made a false connection and linked it to my argument in order to dismiss it. It's how you got it from reading various extremely long post to understanding that I'm using the word reactionary "to dismiss them".

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:49:55 2017 No.10105030

>>10105015
>assumed all people were privy to /r/badphilosophy commenters opinions on certain thinkers as if they posted here. I was merely pointing out the second commenters silly assumption.
This is just you pretending to have read (or pretending to still remember) the posts you are responding to. As you can see, I was responsing to a specific person. No general prescription there, dummy.

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:53:34 2017 No.10105037

>>10105027
I didn't make a false connection, I have just pointed out that linking reactionary to contrarian is wrong. And as I can gather from your post, your definition of "reactionary" is just "contrarian", which is even more wrong.

If you use such a wild out-of-place definition of reactionary, then people won't understand you and communication must fail.

And what I said was that you might use a faulty definition for "reactionary" so you can dismiss them by default because your definition assume an in-build moral failure.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 02:54:08 2017 No.10105039 >>10105030 Well you did respond to me specifically here >>10104991 and your responses >>10105030 here doesn't really address my criticism in the post you responded to. You might not believe me but I engage with people on /lit/ in good faith.

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 03:02:37 2017 No.10105055

>>10105039
I responded to you because you called me a retard for responding to a specific anon who had said a specific thing. Somehow this mean that I expect everyone here to be a regulard on those subreddits.
>here doesn't really address my criticism in the post you responded to.
It does.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 03:04:55 2017 No.10105063 >>10105055 He didn't call you a retard. I called you a retard, retard.

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 03:13:14 2017 No.10105075

>>10105037
>And as I can gather from your post, your definition of "reactionary" is just "contrarian", which is even more wrong.
Said the reactionary. I have already made a distinction between traditionalism and reactionary tendencies, so what's your point? It's just semantics. So much for the "truth and principles are irrelevant" guy.

>If you use such a wild out-of-place definition of reactionary, then people won't understand you and communication must fail.
Who is aware of what a reactionary is will understand me. If you want people to propagandize your political attitude, do it yourself.

>And what I said was that you might use a faulty definition for "reactionary" so you can dismiss them by default because your definition assume an in-build moral failure.
In-build moral failure? Seriously, are you the guy who said
>How popular something is is irrelevant for the truth or rightheousness of the matter.

This is why I know you are a reactionary. You at first attack by denying principles, morality, ethics, anything, and when people say "okay, then I disagree with you" you start stomping your feet on the ground because people do not use langauge the way you want, rambling about definitions and being wrong, all things that make no sense given your previously stated premises. There is a clear ideological double standard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 03:15:09 2017 No.10105081 >>10105063 >He didn't call you a retard. Right, he called my post retarded >>10104984 . He still haven't explained why he did so, considering that I have already debunked the only criticism he subscribed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 03:18:49 2017 No.10105088 >>10101745 >I felt opinion discarded

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 03:27:16 2017 No.10105105 >>10104610 Suicide or you can read 10000 pages of Jung

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 03:28:25 2017 No.10105106

>>10105075
Your definition of traditionalism is wrong too though. From what I could gather from your post you use traditionalism to mean what people usually refer to as reactionary:
>Someone who wants to return to a previous status quo.

This is wrong, a traditionalist does not necessarily want to return to a previous status quo. The tradition could be currently in effect and be part of the current status quo, the traditionalist would then defend the current status quo.
But if it is the case that the traditional status quo was replaced and the definition holds true, then the traditionalist has a specific motivation (tradition) why he would want to return to a previous status quo. While a reactionary in the popular definition has no specific reason ascribed to him why he wants to return to the previous status quo. It is a more general definition that does not assume motive.

>In-build moral failure? Seriously, are you the guy who said
A contrarian is against the popular or majority opinion out of principle, even if the popular or majority opinion is in the right. I would call that a moral failure.

>This is why I know you are a reactionary. You at first attack by denying principles, morality, ethics, anything, and when people say "okay, then I disagree with you" you start stomping your feet on the ground because people do not use langauge the way you want, rambling about definitions
I am just asking for your definitions so I can understand what you are talking about, since your posts made no sense with the popular established definitions. As I see it we haven't even discussed anything because I am trying to find a common vocabulary.

If you want to know about my opinions, then you could have just asked. I am certainly reactionary (regular definition, not yours) in certain political matters. Progressive in others. And conservative (original definition meaning conserving the established) in others. I am not a "reactionary" as I am not against everything currently established and I am also not contrarian in all matters out of principle (to serve the question using your definition).

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 03:34:46 2017 No.10105122

>>10105106
>This is wrong, a traditionalist does not necessarily want to return to a previous status quo. The tradition could be currently in effect and be part of the current status quo, the traditionalist would then defend the current status quo.
Read Evola you hack.
>But if it is the case that the traditional status quo was replaced and the definition holds true, then the traditionalist has a specific motivation (tradition) why he would want to return to a previous status quo. While a reactionary in the popular definition has no specific reason ascribed to him why he wants to return to the previous status quo. It is a more general definition that does not assume motive.
The underlying intent is always a psychological disgust reaction.

>A contrarian is against the popular or majority opinion out of principle, even if the popular or majority opinion is in the right. I would call that a moral failure.
Because it is.

>I am just asking for your definitions so I can understand what you are talking about, since your posts made no sense with the popular established definitions. As I see it we haven't even discussed anything because I am trying to find a common vocabulary.
Words don't mean anything. Only power does.

>If you want to know about my opinions, then you could have just asked. I am certainly reactionary (regular definition, not yours) in certain political matters. Progressive in others. And conservative (original definition meaning conserving the established) in others. I am not a "reactionary" as I am not against everything currently established and I am also not contrarian in all matters out of principle (to serve the question using your definition).
Opinion discarded.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 03:36:48 2017 No.10105125 >>10105122 I guess your inane rambling concludes the dicussion

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 03:37:42 2017 No.10105128 >>10105125 Oh no I lost a debate on 4chan!

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 03:50:36 2017 No.10105153 >>10103173 Omg anon what an insightful post, what a learned soul :)

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 04:14:18 2017 No.10105198 >>10105128 Not him. You lost the debate. The worst part about losing the argument on 4chan is that only you will carry the knowledge of your own intellectual capitulation going forward.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 04:57:02 2017 No.10105268 >>10105198 earnestly engaging in debate on an indonesian pottery forum is a loss in itself

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 04:58:15 2017 No.10105269

>>10105106
I'm the guy you were talking to, I don't know who this guy is >>10105122

>This is wrong, a traditionalist does not necessarily want to return to a previous status quo. The tradition could be currently in effect and be part of the current status quo, the traditionalist would then defend the current status quo.
>But if it is the case that the traditional status quo was replaced and the definition holds true, then the traditionalist has a specific motivation (tradition) why he would want to return to a previous status quo. While a reactionary in the popular definition has no specific reason ascribed to him why he wants to return to the previous status quo. It is a more general definition that does not assume motive.

What a bunch of spooks. Just say that you want the world to be managed the way you want to while everyone LARP following either your dictates or the ones of those men YOU respect. You have already proved that you are not concerned with principles and values, so we both know that what you have written is just the pseudo-justification you give to naive people.

>A contrarian is against the popular or majority opinion out of principle, even if the popular or majority opinion is in the right. I would call that a moral failure.
This seems to be the actual case with the absolute totality of reactionaries. Of course we will disagree on what is moral and what isn't.

>As I see it we haven't even discussed anything because I am trying to find a common vocabulary.
We have discussed extensively. The common vocabolary was in place. By using the words "reactionary" we are pointing out at those same people.

>I am certainly reactionary (regular definition, not yours) in certain political matters. Progressive in others. And conservative (original definition meaning conserving the established) in others. I am not a "reactionary" as I am not against everything currently established and I am also not contrarian in all matters out of principle (to serve the question using your definition).
What a chud.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 05:42:51 2017 No.10105324 >>10104881 >>10104948 >they don't realize late capitalism won't last forever

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 06:24:56 2017 No.10105398

>>10103666
>What we have here, fellow citizens
anyone who uses this kind of preamble is struggling to say anything of merit and whatever their reasoning is, it was not the response of their own reason to that which they contend, but was summoned to compensate for the lack in a lesser motive

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 08:11:54 2017 No.10105614

>>10104725
>You cannot fix rampant radicalized individualism with rampant radicalized individualism.

What we're trying to move away from isn't individualism though, it's people pretending to be individuals by taking on various fragmentary group identities, choosing labels for themselves, a quasi-metaphysical framework to which they then blindly surrender their humanity, viewing themselves as a product rather than an agent breaking through and transcending their circumstances.
The divine individual in the postmodern sense isn't a decentralized identity cluster, it's someone who understands their own journey as a unique variation on the search for 'is' and 'ought'. Since no truly universal language can exist, we could be united only through approximations, a struggle to understand each other and the world derived from the premise that in one sense or another we're all on this journey together.
A 'live' metaphysical framework would be one that works through its own contradictions, re-frames its premises and rediscovers and transforms meaning.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 09:41:07 2017 No.10105941 >>10101583 I read some Foucault and totally missed the neo marxist stuff. Am I stupid or are they misinterpreting him?

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 10:20:10 2017 No.10106064

>>10101583
>tfw you can only listen to this video for 1 minute before you have to go and lie down in bed, put on soothing nature sounds and meditate for 2 hours until the awful horror that is camille paglia's voice and rhetoric is banished from your mind in order to keep it from consuming you and take control of you and make you kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 10:56:38 2017 No.10106144 File: 703 KB, 829x611, 41387134879.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] oy vey

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 11:02:55 2017 No.10106164 >>10101854 >Foucault >postmodern The dude repeatedly said he was not a postmodernist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 11:08:44 2017 No.10106174 >>10101821 Jesus, can you philistines please go back to your containment board? It is obvious you're a pseud retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 11:09:47 2017 No.10106179 >>10105088 Epic. Now kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 12:08:38 2017 No.10106322 >>10102694 >>10102688 He's been giving lectures on heidegger for years, check his YouTube. He reads, he's a professor for Christ's sake. All they do is read.

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 12:15:37 2017 No.10106341

>>10102037
He makes this exact point all the time. The argument that there's no objective anything is a very sound and logical one, you can't argue out of it if you accept the axioms. But it's wrong, and you know it's wrong deep down. You live your life as if there was a God. Read dovstoyesky and stop thinking so much.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 13:20:12 2017 No.10106532 >>10101752 Retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 13:30:14 2017 No.10106563 >>10103778 kek. her verbal tics make her sound like a deranged bird

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 14:05:34 2017 No.10106684 >>10101726 >>10102683 peterson is an orthodox russiaboo.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 14:09:36 2017 No.10106695 >>10101841 he literally (LITERALLY) says in this very video that he read Foucault and found him the most readable between him, Derrida, and Lacan.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 14:19:15 2017 No.10106722 >>10105269 This was an even worse post than this guy's >>10105122 and I'm pretty sure they were just taking the piss.

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 14:19:26 2017 No.10106725

>>10101851
>There's a great anecdote that Zizek relates in one of his book, about Freud - always more sophisticated and lucid than Jung - unwittingly seeing through this whole jungian archetypal business (ironically, through synchronicity and wordplay) and the primordial lie than lies in its supposed depths. And in this anecdote, not surprisingly, the lie takes the well known disguise of anti-semitism.
i didn't understand this. can you relate the anecdote and expand more on this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 14:26:53 2017 No.10106747 >>10101821 >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 14:30:28 2017 No.10106760 >>10106695 Foucault is not a postmodernist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 14:34:41 2017 No.10106764 >>10106760 academics and theorists often reject labels, it doesn't mean the label isn't accurate. especially when it's as broad as pomo. in any case, peterson's statement implies that he's read some derrida and lacan as well.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 14:34:44 2017 No.10106765 It's funny seeing Peterson interact with an actual intellectual. You can tell he struggles to keep up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 14:46:16 2017 No.10106788 Are his bible studies actually good? I want to check him out since he's memed on here so often.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 15:03:56 2017 No.10106828 >>10104535 you have a lot of patience for people seemingly being intentionally obtuse

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 15:06:12 2017 No.10106834 File: 268 KB, 1527x1094, pepeokay.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >what's absurd about it absolutely ludacris about it okay >these americans are taking translations from the FRENCH okay >there's a contrortion there, okay

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 15:59:44 2017 No.10106976 >>10101851 It's called charitable reading. Jung may have said a lot of batshit insane or stupid shit, but that doesn't mean everything Jung has said/written is batshit insane or stupid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 16:01:16 2017 No.10106983 >>10101851 Found the kike.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 16:13:01 2017 No.10107044 >>10106684 peterson is protestant af nub, lern 2 theology. 90% of his schtick is anglo individualism + protestant ethic liking dostoevsky =/ being orthodox

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 16:17:02 2017 No.10107065 >>10102266 It doesn't keep the conflict civil in a way you'd understand it (i.e. polite/nice). It creates strict, clear rules of engagement with clearly delimitated win/loss conditions. It is civil in that sense.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 16:18:14 2017 No.10107072 >>10107065 Basically this: >>10103186

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 16:23:29 2017 No.10107095 >>10102627 It's true though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 16:24:46 2017 No.10107106 >>10102701 >fascism >anti-modern .... >what is futurism >what is italian modernism

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 17:03:28 2017 No.10107252 >>10101583 I like Paglia but goddamn it I hate how she rushes her speach and almost stumble on her words. Slow down woman this is not a race.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 17:16:35 2017 No.10107297 >>10107044 If you get into his more esoteric stuff he's totally orthodox. Nothing to do with Dostoevsky. You should listen to his talk with the two autistic québécois orthodox carver bros.

Anonymous Wed Oct 4 17:35:47 2017 No.10107364

>>10107297
The other anon is right. He only looks to Orthodox Christianity for inspiration. A lot of Protestant theologians do this. His emphasis on personal 'conscience' is eminently protestant. The Disney Pinocchio autism is a good example of this. It's also interesting because it goes beyond Peterson (the film is very different from the book series.)
And ironically enough, this probably has the same substrate as the SJW 'muh feels' arguments. Orthodox Christianity, similarly to Catholicism, is very skeptical about individual conscience as a guiding moral principle.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 17:39:49 2017 No.10107383 >>10102176 this is so fucking /fa/

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 17:40:21 2017 No.10107384 >buried ITS BAD BECAUSE WHITE CIVILIZASHUN Isn't a fucking silver bullet. It's a joke.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 4 18:26:13 2017 No.10107553 >>10104985 Some rankings have it as low as six. Britards, lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 00:08:49 2017 No.10108567 >>10102638 r/philosophy is far far worse

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 00:28:02 2017 No.10108625 >>10103030 Is this it? Is He everything we've ever asked for? The home we've been looking for? Can it be?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 00:36:03 2017 No.10108648 people always seem to think postmodernism is more exciting than it actually is. In reality, derrida isn't dangerous, just a neoliberal who worked for the cia and wrote incredibly boring academic shit

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 00:57:22 2017 No.10108694 >>10106834 i love you i appreciate you

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 01:28:43 2017 No.10108760 File: 346 KB, 451x451, Ayn-Rand-.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10104715 >>10104725 >Humans must go back to the collective >the answer is fascism >the answer is marxism

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 01:44:10 2017 No.10108799 >>10108760 either marxism or nazbol

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 01:50:59 2017 No.10108818 Is Paglia the only feminist alt-right intellectual?

Anonymous Thu Oct 5 01:52:06 2017 No.10108822

>>10108760
ayn rand is fucking retarded and has never read nietzsche well. nietzsche had a collective project concealed in the esoteric part of his corpus. read "nietzsche's corps/e". He wanted to breed a race of supermen. He was fine with slavery and tyranny. Also he believed in a conception of classical tragedy and heroism in which the hero would necessarily be tied to a collective or culture that he dies for... he believed both in the individual and the collective--the collective as the soil for the plant of the individual... he wasn't a commie but not an autistic individualist

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 01:55:22 2017 No.10108833 >>10108818 >alt-right She isn't though - she's a libertarian. She only seems it because the left has become so fucking crazy lately.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 01:56:33 2017 No.10108838 >>10108818 From her point of view she's a left-wing feminist and are the other feminists the right wingers.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 01:57:47 2017 No.10108844 Now that one of the foremost intellectuals of our time has given Peterson the time of the day, will /lit/ respect him more? You can't just brush him off as a meme now

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 01:59:56 2017 No.10108851 >>10108818 Yeah that really came out of left field when she started talking about deporting niggers and the JQ. Not surprised Jordan wanted to wrap it up there

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:01:32 2017 No.10108858 I just purchased Gulag Archipelago based on Jordan Brandon Peterson's recommendation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:02:19 2017 No.10108861 >>10108844 He's associated with NEETs and lowbrow pseuds looking for self-help advice. Even if what he says has merit, there's a section of people who form their opinions of a person based on who that person is associated with

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:06:25 2017 No.10108875 >>10108858 >reading CIA disinfo

>>	Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Thu Oct 5 02:08:54 2017 No.10108879 >>10101583 Holy shit, I just noticed that that Brandenburg Concerto opening is a total Firing Line homage. Does Peterson fashion himself as being the new Buckley?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:14:34 2017 No.10108890 >>10108858 It's really shitty propaganda, you probably heard it all in school already if you're from the US.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:18:37 2017 No.10108904 >>10108875 >>10108890 Found the communists. What's with /lit/ types and communism anyway?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:19:45 2017 No.10108907 >>10108879 Who's Buckley?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:21:14 2017 No.10108914 >>10108907 William F. Buckley, Jr., the host of Firing Line.

>>	Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Thu Oct 5 02:21:53 2017 No.10108916 >>10108907 Are you serious? The guy who practically invented modern American conservatism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNErWi_lTig

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:22:09 2017 No.10108918 >>10108875 >>10108890 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn#KGB_operations_against_Solzhenitsyn The KGB tried to kill him and discredit him because he was publishing disinfo? Seems like a lot of work to suppress "lies."

Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:22:18 2017 No.10108919
File: 238 KB, 348x371, Ayn+Rand-.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10108822
>Ayn Rand is Nietzsche lite
Why do you think Ayn Rand hated Nietzsche? For exactly the reasons you describe. He was fine promoting individualism only in so far as to control the masses.
Ayn Rand was against slavery and tyranny. She even wrote a Nietzschean character that ruled over the collective. The problem is that it only further perpetuate slave morality that will eventually seek to bring down the individuals ruling over them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:26:27 2017 No.10108928 >>10108914 >>10108916 I'm not American. But this puts things in perspective. And it shows that Peterson has already failed in his goal to... save Western Civilisation. What a cuckhold.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:26:32 2017 No.10108930 >>10108904 >What's with /lit/ types and communism anyway? Not either of those anon but you are a clueless tourist if you think modern /lit/ inordinately tends toward communist sympathies.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:27:51 2017 No.10108934 >>10108919 >Ayn Rand was against slavery and tyranny. only state slavery and tyranny, anon

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:29:34 2017 No.10108939 >>10108934 >implying implications >''I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.''

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:30:14 2017 No.10108940 >>10101583 Why do people like JP?

Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:31:55 2017 No.10108946

>>10108930
My home is /sci/. And you're wrong. /lit/ is by far one of the most left-leaning boards on this site. So left leaning it's the only board outside /pol/ perused by bonafide communists. The rightward lurch has barely changed this. And the changes are mostly stylistic, e.g. Zizek and Nick Land worship (both marxists with an edgy flavour).

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:33:12 2017 No.10108948 >>10108904 I'm an anarchist monarchist actually. >>10108940 Because they never had a real father.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:33:35 2017 No.10108949 >>10108939 that's a nice quote that doesn't means shit in the real world

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:33:49 2017 No.10108950 >>10108907 >>10108916 >>10108914 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dlAIyXDVQ8

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:34:41 2017 No.10108954 >>10108948 > anarchist monarchist God I love oxymoronic political nomenclature. I recently found out that there exist people who call themselves anarchist fascists. Y'all retarded.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:36:14 2017 No.10108959 File: 57 KB, 524x400, Nietzschean gun.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10108949 I think that's called winning the argument and showing that Ayn Rand is better than Nietzsche using your own interpretation of him. Good day.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:36:45 2017 No.10108961 >>10108948 My father has always been around and yet JP just looks and sounds like a literal faggot to me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:48:35 2017 No.10108981 >>10108959 >ayn rand is better than nietzche ahahahaha

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:50:41 2017 No.10108985 File: 136 KB, 400x300, ayn rand - rich.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10108981 Laugh all you want, I've already won and proven my point.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:54:23 2017 No.10108991 >>10108939 >I will never live for the sake of another man ayn rand was a man confirmed?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 02:55:25 2017 No.10108993 File: 103 KB, 252x300, Ayn-Rand.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10108991 See >>10101767

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 03:07:34 2017 No.10109018 Kek. It's funny how Paglia is running circles around him even though they basically agree on everything

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 03:31:48 2017 No.10109057 >>10109018 Of course they agree on everything, their starting point is Nietzsche.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 06:50:16 2017 No.10109370 >>10108939 Is she saying that she believes that all love is slavery, or just that you should not give up your individuality for the sake of love? If it's the second I might actually give her writings a shot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 5 08:13:33 2017 No.10109645 >>10108991 Please be a troll. Masculine pronouns are also the gender-agnostic pronouns in English.

Anonymous Thu Oct 5 08:33:46 2017 No.10109709

>>10109370
It's the latter; she's saying that by the love of her life, she doesn't and to be a slave to others. And assuming that others feel the same about their own life, does not want to be a slave to her.
Just read the Fountainhead instead of Atlas Shrugged.

Anonymous Thu Oct 5 11:29:22 2017 No.10110323

>>10101583
>Will this go down in history as the discussion that definitively buried postmodernism as a literary and philosophical movement?

Nah, postmodernism has survived two postmodernists who don't call themselves postmodernists talking shit before.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature