@10:40 Holy shit! "a lecture series about the sacred icons of the left. (Marx, Foucault, Derrida)"

[Anonymous No.11688374]

I hope he does it, what a shitshow that will be!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFWrLx8b2mQ

[Anonymous No.11688378]

>>11688374

Since when do lefties care about Derrida?

[Anonymous No.11688382]

>>11688378
exactly

[Anonymous No.11688384]

>>11688374
Imagine thinking leftoids read.

[Anonymous No.11688389]

>>11688374
We need to get him to do a lecture on Deleuze

[Anonymous No.11688392]

>>11688378
In Petersonvision: Derrida = cultural-marxist

[Anonymous No.11688410]

wouldnt be any worse than any lefty's "critiques" of freedman, hayek et al

[Anonymous No.11688433]

>>11688392
Derrida indisputably came out of the Marxist tradition. I don't see the problem with this

[Anonymous No.11688435]

Is the cultural marxist faculty trying to pretend they never even cared for Derrida now that he's naff? Lol, we can still read your papers it's not like your publication history spontaneously combusts whenever you jump fads like the feckless novelty seeking bullshit artists you are.

[Anonymous No.11688450]

>>11688435
Like niggers they keep Derrida stashed like a pocket-knife so that when they start losing an argument and get backed into a corner they can pull him out and say "Yeah everything is all just a social construct anyway maaaaaaaaaan"

[Anonymous No.11688456]

Why is he so scared of the big D?

[Anonymous No.11688459]

>>11688456
His anti-oedipul reconstitution of the subject literally destroys Petersons entire project. There's no getting back from it

[Anonymous No.11689354]

>>11688456
>it's not that simple;

[Anonymous No.11689357]

>>11688456
>>11689354

See: >>11686587

[Anonymous No.11689364]

>Still manages to ignore the entire Frankfurt School

based Judeo M. Paytreonson does it again!

[Anonymous No.11689370]

>>11688392
>All these pseuds backpedaling on Derrida/Foucault

Delicious. I hated all of you fucks back when I was in college.

[Anonymous No.11689377]

>>11688374
>"I'd like to do a series of lectures about my second-hand impressions of Marx, Derrida, and Foucault"

[Anonymous No.11689387]

>has never even cracked open a copy of Capital, Of Grammatology, or Discipline and Punish
>gonna do a lecture series on them
This will be pseud levels before unseen by human eyes

[Anonymous No.11689415]

>>11689387
>This passes for intellectualism on the right these days.

That, or of course, if you’re a pretentious /lit/ conservative, you pretend to read medieval philosophers decrying the decline in character soon to be wrought by the “water mylle”

[Anonymous No.11689424]

>>11689354

[Anonymous No.11689435]

>>11689377
kino.

[Anonymous No.11689443]

>>11688435
>we can still read your papers it's not like your publication history
Like what?

[Anonymous No.11689457]

>>11689443
>jokes on you i have never even been published
The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies. Its matrix-if you will pardon me for demonstrating so little and for being so elliptical in order to bring me more quickly to my principal theme-is the determination of being as presence in all the senses of this word. It would be possible to show that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the center have always designated the constant of a presence-eidos, arche, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) aletheia, transcendentality, consciousness, or conscience, God, man, and so forth.

[Anonymous No.11689459]

>>11689457
No I meant what publication history are you speaking of? Can you show it instead of giving this pseudo nonsense

[Anonymous No.11689463]

>>11688456
he was a right winger, why would he talk about him in a video about the left?

[Anonymous No.11689470]

>>11689459
The archive of papers produced by the academic left. Have you just not read any from the past 40 years?
That "pseudo nonsense" was a Derrida quote.

[Anonymous No.11689473]

>marx was a bad dude
>chaos!
>just listen to this poem
>thats messed up! you know, he was in a bad place man... resentment, he was the resentful child, who wanted to tear everything down... man... that's not a place you want to be... that's chaos. When nietzsche said if you stare into the abyss too long, it stares back... HE WAS RIGHT, and marx stared into the abyss AND LOOK HOW THAT TURNED OUT. AND THIS IS WHO THOSE BLOODY POSTMODERNISTS IDOLIZE?!? they just want to destroy The West(tm) because they're resentful children.
>Thank you, buy my book, check out my $10 online personality quiz, check out my $10 self-authoring program, donate to my patreon, and don't forget to wash your penis.

[Anonymous No.11689487]

>>11688459
how so? this sounds like a parroted reddit argument to me.

[Anonymous No.11689489]

>>11689473
http://archive.is/kBgHI

[Anonymous No.11689490]

>>11689364
nothing worse than an over-zealous peterson hater.

[Anonymous No.11689496]

>>11689470
Well then why don't you name the publication relationship between Derrida and the 'academic left'.

>a Derrida quote.
I originally thought it was Peterson's writing tbg

[Anonymous No.11689502]

>>11689496
petersonian-derridean studies degree when?

[Anonymous No.11689503]

>>11689473
>talking about chaos is simplistic
it's an archteypal phenomena as old as we can see---why not talk about it?
>listen to this poem
why is citing poetry bad again?
>resentful child
again, an age old archetype, permeates all of literature and mythology---why not talk about it?
>BUY MY BOOK BLAH BLAH
yeah, he sells his books. find me an author who is also an orator who doesn't do this

>inb4 peter-phile
no. but you don't have to worship at his cult of personality to realize what he's talking about is good stuff. he doesn't claim to "discover" anything either, he is just a concept-organized imho, and a pretty dang good one. a jungian scholar for the internet age, in a way that is more palatable for the general public. what's wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.11689505]

>>11689496
You're either completely ignorant of the subject matter or plain dissembling in the typical manner of your ilk. Citation resources are available online in any case.

[Anonymous No.11689507]

>>11689503
*concept organizer

[Anonymous No.11689512]

>>11689502
>>11689503
in a way, isn't peterson's mythic-universalism almost in keeping with post-modern tradition?

haven't read any of that D-guy, though, probably wrongfully assuming what he's about

[Anonymous No.11689515]

>>11689505
Then show it, why are you being so shy about it and shitting on me for asking for you for it?

[Anonymous No.11689519]

https://medium.com/s/story/peterson-historian-aide-m%C3%A9moire-9aa3b6b3de04

[Anonymous No.11689529]

>>11689515
>im spoonfeeding 16 year olds
my life is fucking shit.
here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/
opening paragraph for a summary his prodigious influence:
>Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) was the founder of “deconstruction,” a way of criticizing not only both literary and philosophical texts but also political institutions. Although Derrida at times expressed regret concerning the fate of the word “deconstruction,” its popularity indicates the wide-ranging influence of his thought, in philosophy, in literary criticism and theory, in art and, in particular, architectural theory, and in political theory. Indeed, Derrida’s fame nearly reached the status of a media star, with hundreds of people filling auditoriums to hear him speak, with films and televisions programs devoted to him, with countless books and articles devoted to his thinking. Beside critique, Derridean deconstruction consists in an attempt to re-conceive the difference that divides self-reflection (or self-consciousness). But even more than the re-conception of difference, and perhaps more importantly, deconstruction works towards preventing the worst violence. It attempts to render justice. Indeed, deconstruction is relentless in this pursuit since justice is impossible to achieve.

then just go to any open access humanities rag journal and look it up and you'll find all the shitposts. not doing that for you.

[Anonymous No.11689530]

>>11689470
>The archive of papers produced by the academic left. Have you not read any from the past 40 years?

AH YES! YOU CAN'T KNOW THE NATURE OF TRUTH WITHOUT LOOKING TOWARDS POLITICALLY BENT AUTHORS, DUMB DUMB!
>pic related, foreword to Brave New World when it was re-published


>also
>The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies. Its matrix-if you will pardon me for demonstrating so little and for being so elliptical in order to bring me more quickly to my principal theme-is the determination of being as presence in all the senses of this word. It would be possible to show that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the center have always designated the constant of a presence-eidos, arche, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) aletheia, transcendentality, consciousness, or conscience, God, man, and so forth.

lol like what's so hard to understand about this, man? are you one of those morons who likes CONTEXT for a quote that is thrown around as proof...of something?

>>11689515

[Anonymous No.11689539]

>>11688450
That's a rather poor understanding of Derrida

[Anonymous No.11689544]

>>11689530
The difference between Derrida and Peterson is that Derrida will admit when he is 'demonstrating so little' and 'being so elliptical'. Peterson just strings endless academic words together that slightly change every time he talks to a new person and he gets more ideas.

[Anonymous No.11689546]

>>11689529
Lmao you only gave me a description of Derrida and his works, when I specifically asked for the relationship between him and the academic left. You have not mentioned any papers where known leftists were sucking his dick or vice versa.

[Anonymous No.11689555]

>>11689544
>Derrida will admit when he is 'demonstrating so little' and 'being so elliptical'.
are you talking about "obscurantisme terroriste"-Derrida? kek

[Anonymous No.11689559]

>>11689555
?

[Anonymous No.11689565]

>>11688378
If someone is influential, it doesn't really matter if you know about him. Or it does matter, and it itself has an impact, but you know...

[Anonymous No.11689566]

>>11689559
in his own time Derrida was infamous for claiming "they are misreading me" whenever somebody criticized his work while not clarifying why the criticism was wrong

[Anonymous No.11689578]

>>11689566
Sorry what? I'm quoting directly from the quote posted in this thread. What are you talking about and why is it relevant?

[Anonymous No.11689581]

>>11689546
Being this obtuse is typical pomo behavior I might add. What are you denying here, that the academic left even exists?
>>11689530
But what does that mean? The opposition of dream to wakefulness, is not that a representation of metaphysics as well? And what should dream or writing be if, as we know now, one may dream while writing? And if the scene of dream is always a scene of writing? At the bottom of a page of Emile, after having once more cautioned us against books, writing, signs ("What is the use of inscribing on their brains a list of symbols which mean nothing for them?"), after having opposed the "tracing" of these artificial signs to the "indelible characters" of the Book of Nature, Rousseau adds a note: " ... the dreams of a bad night are given to us as philosophy. You will say I too am a dreamer; I admit it, but I do what others fail to do, I give my dreams as dreams, and leave the reader to discover whether there is anything in them which may prove useful to those who are awake"

[Anonymous No.11689582]

>>11689544
While I commend intellectual humility, I have also seen Peterson talk about "maybe being wrong", wishing for more criticism (beyond people who are motivated to criticize based solely on petty poltics), and talk about the necessity of not thinking he is generating a wave, but riding on a wave. I know that will likely fall on self-deafened ears---and I can even empathize with an annoyance of peterson-philes and some of his anti-post modern rambling, but...

he outlines a really convincing case for religiousness in a seemingly soulless world, and his biblical and archetypal lectures seem like they should win fans in anyone who is interested in comparative mythology, avid readers, and people who wish to write. yeah---self-help gurus can be really annoying. people who unwittingly become political figureheads can be easy to hate, i get that.

also, i disagree with the comparison of derrida to peterson. i don't really consider JP to be a writer in as much as an orator. and regardless of your personal affinity towards Derrida, I think you are being dishonest if you can't at least see how people have corrupt his maybe-great ideas into what is simplified as "cultural-marxism".

>endless strings of academic words together
never quite as turgid as the quote that you cited from Derrida, imho. Just because JP attracts pseudds doesn't mean that he himself is a pseud, and I ddon't think you'd think the guy was much short of genius if you gave any of his non-political, non-self-help lectures the time of day

Regards

[Anonymous No.11689588]

>>11689581
all i really got from that quote is "life is up for interpretation" and the basis for artists saying, "yeah man, the point is whatever you make it!"

I could sing row row row your boat and have just as transcendent of a moment as reading that quote. LIFE IS BUT A DREAM

[Anonymous No.11689594]

>>11689581
You may as well suggest all literature is stupid by posting the last paragraph of great novels too. What are you trying to do here? You think you are excused in yourself being obtuse?

[Anonymous No.11689595]

>>11689578
you literally wrote
>The difference between Derrida and Peterson is that Derrida will admit when he is 'demonstrating so little' and 'being so elliptical'
Derrida was admitting none of his shit

[Anonymous No.11689603]

>>11689581
>>11689588
honestly, that seems like a dismissal of all thought and writing---maybe i'm misinterpreting it, so please help me if i am. but if i'm not, isn't there an irony to a man writing all that shit out? he's not giving "his dreams as dreams", he's formulating, through proofs and citations, that we shouldn't seek to dominate through logic and meaning.

i'd take him more seriously if he was an artist or a filmmaker---i buy that they are truly people who give dreams as dreams.

[Anonymous No.11689604]

>>11689581
>Being this obtuse is typical pomo behavior I might add. What are you denying here, that the academic left even exists?
Obtuse? Bitch I made my request from you very clear and in three different post. If anything you are the being obtuse. You still have not provided anything where the 'academic left' said about Derrida, let alone praising and mimicking him.

[Anonymous No.11689611]

>inb4 he doesn't engage with their ideas but instead pathologizes their biographies in order to convince an audience that already believes anything he says that they are evil people who just want to destroy

[Anonymous No.11689612]

>>11689594
But Rousseau could not think this writing, that takes place before and within speech. To the extent that he belonged to the metaphysics of presence, he dreamed of the simple exteriority of death to life, evil to good, representation to presence, signifier to signified, representer to represented, mask to face, writing to speech. But all such oppositions are irreducibly rooted in that metaphysics. Using them, one can only operate by reversals, that is to say by confirmations. The supplement is none of these terms. It is especially not more a signifier than a signified, a representer than a presence, a writing than a speech. None of the terms of this series can, being comprehended within it, dominate the economy of differance or supplementarity. Rousseau's dream consisted of making the supplement enter metaphysics by force.

[Anonymous No.11689617]

>>11689611
there's literally nothing wrong with that

[Anonymous No.11689620]

>mfw it's so painfully obvious that Memerson has never read Marx

[Anonymous No.11689621]

>>11689604
lol I thought the SEP blurb was a clear enough answer. Can i ask have you gone to university and met any of these people?

[Anonymous No.11689624]

>>11689582
>never quite as turgid as the quote that you cited from Derrida, imho.

Derrida's quote is reproduced out of its context (e.g. what are 'these metaphors and metonymies' referred to in the text) but having read him, knowing his tendencies, etc., I can make sense of it very easily because he is careful with his words. He uses them specifically, and in an alignment with their conventional and historical use in philosophical discourse. Peterson on the other hand does not have that knowledge of philosophy and he will try to say something meaningful (not requiring a context) with it ending up sounding like a collage ... oddly making him seem more 'postmodern' than Derrida. Peterson is a pseud in that he does not really quite have the grasp of what he is trying to say in order to say it well, or at least with any academic or systematic rigour.

[Anonymous No.11689627]

>>11689595
Read the quote I am quoting again.

[Anonymous No.11689628]

>>11689612
I've read the Grammatology my dude. These quotes aren't hard to understand. Give it an honest go sometime.

[Anonymous No.11689629]

>>11689612
good god, man. do you not realize how silly it is that all your citations essentially boil down to symbolism and metaphor being meaningless, at least in regards to traditional logical standards? and yet, you are arguing in the most western way---quoting and throwing cloudy prose around as proof of your point.

i'm actually growing my appreciation for the overall sentiment of derrida, but surely we can't do away with representational meaning and be able to have this conversation over the interwebs, can we?

[Anonymous No.11689630]

>>11688374
Will he actually read the authors he talks about this time? If so, great idea.

[Anonymous No.11689632]

>>11689624
I already commented about JP's post-modern tendencies, anon. and I'm proud that you've made yourself a cultist to rival the worst of JP's followers.

Again, the irony of someone worshipping Derrida's words, is not lost on me.

[Anonymous No.11689634]

>>11689603
> isn't there an irony to a man writing all that shit out?

This is kind of Derrida's point. It's not only Rousseau but as far back as Plato and as late (at the time of publication) as Husserl and Saussure.

The other quote >>11689612 mentions supplementarity that Derrida borrows from Rousseau. To Rousseau writing is a supplement to speech, but Derrida explores the logical that produces a 'supplement' as something neither writing nor speech, which frustrates the ideas of Western metaphysics as only ever having one privileged over the other.

[Anonymous No.11689638]

>>11689632
An odd response.

[Anonymous No.11689639]

>>11689629
>reading this much into posting Of Grammatology backwards without comment
>angrily critiquing the West

[Anonymous No.11689641]

>>11689620
>>11689630

Marx is a great but fallible essayist. It doesn't take a genius to poke holes. His concepts of alienation (though explored far better in literature throughout all time) and material fetishization (also explored better and more simply throughout time) are great. But ultimately, so what?

For /lit/ you guys are surprisingly un-romantic. So obsessed with overly-academic language that doesn't translate well to the vast majority of humanity as the irrational, symbolic, superstitious, and myhtological creature that they are.

shakespeare was a better philosopher than any of these nobs, and didn't have to be such a technical dogmatist in order to get published.

[Anonymous No.11689644]

>>11689639
I'm fine with angrily critiquing the west. and you were the one who left a post "Of Grammatology" up without context or comment, which seemed fairly provocative

[Anonymous No.11689654]

>>11689634
>That is kind of Derrida's point
sure, that's interesting.

are you saying western metaphysics has always privileged either writing or speech, while Derrida is alluding that writing or speech always points to something else, something more dreamlike in quality?

because if that's the case---again, why wasn't he just a fucking artist or playwright or director?

[Anonymous No.11689658]

>>11689644
>the west
there's no such thing

[Anonymous No.11689663]

>>11689658
i'd agree with that in general, too. not sure what anon i'm responding to at this point. but "western culture" has essentially become a tulpa with negative connotations at this point (no matter what your politics or philosophy is), so i was responding that I'm fine with criticizing the "meme" of western culture, if you'll allow me internet-speak

[Anonymous No.11689666]

>>11689641

>mfw

I sincerely hope you're just baiting, Jordan..

[Anonymous No.11689668]

>>11689641
Why should the superstition, mythology, and religious quality matter to the discussion of modern philosophers, when they themselves are not direct of any specific reasoning similar to those qualities? By further applying these themes to subjects entirely unrelated, it would only diminish and make the matters of those themes insignificant and tired.

[Anonymous No.11689676]

is there anything more wrong in the world than the labor pleb-ory of value?

[Anonymous No.11689680]

>>11689666
/pol/ tier argument. slavoj would hate you.

[Anonymous No.11689686]

>>11689668
that's fair enough! i guess it's just "my opinion" that philosophy has been borderline useless in the past century, and that technical treatises don't actually effect the world much at all.

it's my sincere position that superstition, mythology, and religious analysis offer up a better form of philsophy than philosophers can do. there's a reason shamans and bards are more effective at inspiring people towards life than Kant or Derrida.

I'm starting to think Derrida would even agree with me---he seems like a self-loathing philosopher, just from everything you've outlined

[Anonymous No.11689689]

>>11689686
>>11689668

shamans, bards, artists, actors, directors, filmmakers, composers, etc. etc.

it seems like they live out what derrida was trying to impart

[Anonymous No.11689690]

>>11689680

/b/ tier argument. D&G frown upon your very existence

[Anonymous No.11689693]

>>11689690
Great point!

[Anonymous No.11689700]

>>11689690
enjoy your divine-less life, you intellectual deadhead.

[Anonymous No.11689702]

>>11689693

Ha ha, that's a funny gif, anon. Can I save it?

[Anonymous No.11689708]

>>11689663

>but "western culture" has essentially become a tulpa with negative connotations at this point
>'m fine with criticizing the "meme" of western culture

Yes, yes, good go...i mean Americans. Deconstruct your "Western" culture until nothing is left. Then, the glorious Eurasian Duginism will finally swamp your lands and will allow us to save you from yourselves. We already influence your elections and have plunged your degenerate spiritual wasteland in a Cold Civil War.

[Anonymous No.11689720]

>>11689644
>it's your fault I read outside of the text because you provoked me
>>11689658
>it doesn't even exist
>>11689663
>I agree, it's just a bad meme and that's why I must radically critique it
Ah, so this is the power of deconstruction...

[Anonymous No.11689723]

>>11689621
>lol I thought the SEP blurb was a clear enough answer
No it wasn't at all as I already said before. Nonce of the blurb mentioned anything related to other people at all.

>Can i ask have you gone to university and met any of these people?
How is that relevant to the proof I am asking for? Right now all I am seeing is a confidence trick hiding behind empty words.

[Anonymous No.11689726]

>>11689708
You are talking to an image in your head. You are not talking to me. I said nothing about "deconstructing" the essential mythos of western culture, if there even be one. either which way, i've been arguing for a return to a more romantic and literary exploration of the world, which doesn't seem void of spirit to me.

Can't tell if you're irony posting and larping as a russian or not, but either waay---it doesn't make sense that you are hoping to inspire me not to criticize the west, while simultaneously fantasizing about "eurasian duginism".

the only way i can make sense of it is if you are a /pol/ack who just wants white peepo to last.

[Anonymous No.11689730]

>>11689641
>all that backhanded compliments
>Shakespeare being a philosopher at all

[Anonymous No.11689731]

/lit/ is just as bad as the OP for responding to this thread fucking sage

[Anonymous No.11689735]

>>11689723
It's relevant because you seem to have no idea who or what I'm talking about and so you are concluding I must be deceiving you in some way through deliberate obscurantism.

[Anonymous No.11689738]

>>11689720
>read outside of the text
wouldn't say that---i think i'm allowed to interpret a quote, though.

>raddically critique it
not "radically critiquing" the west---i'm critiquing a decaying civilization that is lost in petty political struggles, identity crisis, and rampant cultural schizophrenia-----all mixed in with an abhorrence for literature and free thought. seems more like i'm hoping to salvage and remind, than deconstruct. but i give up----YOUVE CONVERTED ME

[Anonymous No.11689739]

>>11689654
Western metaphysics has always privileged speech over writing. He calls it the 'metaphysics of presence' after Heidegger. The present speaking subject, by the phonic substance of speech and the 'purer' reception of knowledge in this way by ear, is supposed to (metaphysically) have a greater proximity to a transcendent truth by this immediacy. Writing, on the other hand, is a derivative of speech; is wholly dependent on speech whereas speech is not supposed to be dependent on writing. Comparatively writing is 'dead'. Speech/writing (living/dead, present/absent, etc.) is the model of all metaphysical privilege of one notion over a derivative, corrupt, etc., opposite notion, in line with interiority/exteriority, understanding/sensing, transcendence/contingence, (in Rousseau: nature/culture) etc.

Part of Derrida's project is close reading, which may reveal unintentional logical consequences in philosophy. Not that intention should be discarded, but a writer/author cannot dominate or control language from within its system (the belief that one can regulate, dominate, be the archon of, etc., a system is tied to metaphysics). In reading Rousseau's "Origins of Languages", Derrida follows the logical consequences of Rousseau's distinction (in function) between speech and writing, showing that if Rousseau were right, he'd also have to be right that a 'dead writing' is always at work within speech; that speech would not be language if not for the inscriptive marks of writing that basically 'give it shape' (compared to a natural cry, for example).

Derrida is also saying that Rousseau's opposition of dream to wakefulness also falls within metaphysics. But Rousseau in a way and likely against intention (i.e. 'as a dream') has come to introduce the idea of the 'supplement' into metaphysics, in a way that runs counter to the logical movement of metaphysics: speech cannot simply precede the development of writing (as the origin of language) if a system of differentiation precedes both writing and speech.

[Anonymous No.11689743]

>>11689686
You say this but your very post is filled with philosophical positions. Use, effect, difference between philosophy and religion, etc.

[Anonymous No.11689745]

>>11689730
>Shakespeare not being a philosopher

absolute lol. why am i not surprised you have an incredibly technical definition of philosopher?

[Anonymous No.11689748]

>>11689726
>you're imagining it, for not even "I" "really" "exist"!
you don't really have a positive project though, "literary and romantic exploration" doesn't even mean anything.

[Anonymous No.11689751]

>>11689726

I am actually Russian, beleive it or not. Anything that undermines the Western self-image or culture is a net positive for me. I unironically hope you freaks keep consuming eachother, so that we can eventually Red Dawn your asses. Why do you think Kremlin supports both Spencer and Blacktivists?

[Anonymous No.11689755]

>>11689738
it was just a good bait that it evoked that response in you.
I don't know how much I give a shit about "the West" desu. I'm just trying to take account of what happened.

[Anonymous No.11689758]

>>11689743
Sure---but I didn't say "all philosophy throughout time is garbage". i was speaking more to the overly technical philosophers who are kept (for good reason) in academic vacuums. sure, it's "my philosophy" that religion, myth, literature, movies, poetry, etc. make better philosophy than most philosophers. i can welcome the grey area----i just don't like philosophers who write/speak so far removed from the drama of life, to put it rather grandiosely.

[Anonymous No.11689761]

>>11689748
i'm saying you constructed an image of who you are talking to that ddoesn't line up with who i actually am or what i'm saying

>literary andd romantic exploration doesn't mean anything
maybe i didn't phrase that well, but i'm getting tired, and i feel as though you're being willfully ignorant to what I meant.

[Anonymous No.11689766]

>>11689755
hey i've been a happy warrior chatting with you, good bait forsure.

>i don't know how much I give a shit about "the west"
yeah that's been creeping up on me more and more, too.

>i'm just trying to take account of what happened
I "FEEL" that lol

[Anonymous No.11689768]

>>11688378

Peterson has no fucking clue what he's talking about. There are many discrete cultures he's conflating.

Lefties = Marx, Lenin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, Bakunin, etc, and modern Marxists/anarchists, especially Marx Fisher. Lots of smaller works of journalism like "The Shock Doctrine" and "Bullshit Jobs" inform this. Very activistic, even if it is often eyeservice.

Academic Marxism = Lukacs, Gramsci, The Frankfurts, Benjamin, Althusser, Jameson, Zizek. Most rightists conflate this with identity theory, which it isn't. Mainly deep analysis or exploration of Marxist assumptions. Produces lots of paper. Does talk a lot about "culture" in a way that would annoy Peterson because there's no dragons.

Postmodernism = Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Focault, etc. These people complicate politics more than they suggest politics by exposing or destroying the mechanisms of politics and culture. Produces reams of paper.

Identitarian Liberalism = Butler, etc. These people are interested in specific marginalized groups and make use of all the above in service of those groups in ways that often subvert the original works because they are meant to be philosophically general. But the original work is mainly devoted to the analysis of identity and improving interpersonal relations and its portrayals rather than class dynamics, or activism. Sometimes socialist but often not.

[Anonymous No.11689771]

>>11689751
Cool, man.

>insert quote here about how people who take obnoxious pride in their tribe are probably borderline useless individuals blah blah

[Anonymous No.11689775]

>>11689739
I'm going to have to reread that a couple more times, lol.

Fried my brain earlier tonight trying to piece together Jung's "Synchronicity" without feeling like too much of a pseud schizoid.

I'll bite though---what's a good starting place to read Derrida?

[Anonymous No.11689778]

>people who think jung is the end-of-all in comparative mythology
>people who think peterson's "yeah and these texts, are like, very old, anyway let me squander this story into some commonsensical instruction" biblical lectures are insightful
absolutely yikes

[Anonymous No.11689779]

>>11689735
Wow more confidence posturing and still no reasons or example given that I want.

>I must be deceiving you in some way through deliberate obscurantism.
Oh please I wish you were a sophist, all you are is someone who can't put up but still won't shut up.

[Anonymous No.11689780]

What the hell is wrong with Foucault? He writes clearly and logically and doesn't seem to be pushing an agenda.

[Anonymous No.11689787]

>>11689778
Who said Jung was the end-all? I read a decent amount of Levi-Strauss and Joseph Campbell, as well as just reading the myths themselves. You don't have to tell me I should read more, I know.

>thinks Peterson's point is "these texts are very old"
>thinks that reoccuring themes throughout humanity are negligible, despite alrready proving an interest in comparative mythology
>thinks common-sense lectures are bad

strongly reconsider these positions

[Anonymous No.11689790]

>>11689780
Everyone is pushing an agenda when you yourself is pushing an agenda.

[Anonymous No.11689798]

Peterson lietrally applies Freudian psychoanalysis and Reductionism to interpret the Scripture to fit his evopsych worldview. What's more Postmodern than that?

[Anonymous No.11689804]

>>11689798
>Tfw Peterson actually starts reading pomo and realizes how much of an pomo he is himself
I personally can't wait!

[Anonymous No.11689808]

>>11689798
I am somewhat tending towards agreeing with you. Where it fails to be completely post-modern is that he arrives at a somewhat objective set of values//an object path towards spiritual and intellectual enlightenment. (whether or not you agree with the conclusion is besides the point)

I also don't think he reaally disagrees with the post-modern philosophers themselves as he does their academic and political consequences that have seemingly (and somehwat inarguably) made academia an identity politics based, nannying shithole.

even slavoj would agree with the devolution of academia

[Anonymous No.11689844]

>>11689503
>what's wrong with that?
everything

[Anonymous No.11689853]

>>11689844
you make a cogent point, sir. Your cynicism is impressive.

[Anonymous No.11689856]

>>11689768
This is a fair and less meme presentation but neglects some significant traces and overlaps. It's almost like how everyone's a Platonist, or a Kantian whether they wish to be or not, and let's not forget Hegel living in everyone's heads rent free. All this is a somewhat interesting case study in how the even the very dry details - practically metadata - of reception and provenance in the history of ideas can rapidly become reconstituted politically.

[Anonymous No.11689864]

>>11689804
>mfw the real pomo were the anti-pomos all along

[Anonymous No.11689866]

>>11689856
>>11689768

You can accuse him of conflation, to some serious credit---but shouldn't you also equally, if not more so, accuse the left-dominated academia of the same conflation?

JP is an unabashed reactionary--I think he even realizes that. and as to >>11689856 's point, don't philosophies sort of become more efficient and absorbed into culture over time?

[Anonymous No.11689871]

>>11689864
but using a multi-faceted approach to "philosophy" is less influenced by post-modernism than it is just a necessity for today's age, isn't it?

Like he couldn't JUST cite biblical passages and still be effective at reaching modern audiences. and again, he ends at something resembling an objective set of values---because his whole thesis is that there is "something" worth reclaiming, not just devolving into worldwide cultural relativism

[Anonymous No.11689893]

>>11689463
>deleuze was a right winger
what the fuck are you retarded

[Anonymous No.11689919]

>>11689775
'Positions' maybe. He's very consistent though and you'll see the same things come up in all his writing. Sometimes something won't stick until you see it in another context. Maybe it's more true of Derrida.

[Anonymous No.11689927]

>>11689871
The Left itself is a tradition out of the West, an Enlightenment project from France and Germany and European Jewry. So it really doesn't make much sense to seek dispensing with all of it entirely, with any protest deemed an illicit reaction unless its core purpose really has become some kind of self annihilating civilizational death drive. You don't have to be a master dialectician to see the contradictions.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11690004]

>>11689768
>t. Someone who has never been inside a university.

[Anonymous No.11690026]

Oh, maybe he will actually read the authors he mischaracterizes then.

[Anonymous No.11690216]

>>11689787
>>thinks Peterson's point is "these texts are very old"
no, you cretin, that was just illustrating the level of his rigor when it comes to biblical scolarship

[Anonymous No.11690229]

>>11689856
There’s overlap in the same way that there’s overlap between branches of the church, but at the end of the day they’re pretty distinct things that actually in several categories even have left/right wings within themselves. Anybody with real familiarity of any of these traditions or discourses knows that they borrow from one another more from say Burke but they will go at one another throats.

[Anonymous No.11690257]

>>11689387
Wouldn't be any different than this board.

[Anonymous No.11690282]

>>11690257
I think that's an unfair comment on a board that can seem quite learned when it wants to be

[Anonymous No.11690283]

>>11689708
>attaching your indentity to the myth of western culture
>creating a literal boogeyman in the shape of the jew
>being afraid of the impermanence of your identities

[Anonymous No.11690300]

>>11690282
Well I think expecting academic or intelletual excellence from public intellectuals is a complete joke.

It's like hoping people on a reality tv-show will talk about something deeper than sex and alcohol.

[Anonymous No.11690306]

>>11689758
but that's what philosophy is for. why not just call those other things literature, art poetry etc. most great art has some philosophical aspects, that's a given, why go and call it "philosophy"?

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11690329]

>>11690300
Is there a difference, in your opinion, between an academic professional and scientist who becomes popular through happenstance and someone like Christopher Hitchens who is accredited intellectual authority over many subjects due to his immense literary knowledge and articulate and charming character?

[Anonymous No.11690337]

Reminder that JBP has never read any of the primary texts and get all his informations from this one book

[Anonymous No.11690357]

>>11689463
>deleuze was a right winger

wow is this that fabled schizoanalysis i've heard so much about

[Anonymous No.11690383]

>>11690337
>so how do we make the cover marketable?
>we make the cover bland.....BUT then put 'postmodernism' in the style of childs crayon....
>perfect

[Anonymous No.11690431]

>>11690329
I think the entire thing is a spectacle, and I think it's highly likely that these people have different opinions in private than the ones they project in public.

[Anonymous No.11690436]

>>11690337
>"Daily reminder that if you haven't read Mein Kampf, you can never have the correct opinions on National Socialism."

This is you.

[Anonymous No.11690447]

The absolute state of "intellectuals".

[Anonymous No.11690466]

>>11690337
>Postmodernism
>Skepticism and Socialism
>RUSSELL WITTGENSTEIN AYER POPPER KUHN
did he just list every name he could think of?

[Anonymous No.11690527]

>>11688378
/thread

[Anonymous No.11691361]

>>11688374
Everyone is ignoring the most important word in the sentence: "icon." Clearly, Peterson is going to make an para~Orthodox argument about intellectual 'saints.'

[Anonymous No.11691383]

saged

[Anonymous No.11691615]

>>11690436
Mein Kampf isn't the same as National Socialism, and post-modernism isn't the same as Derrida's or Foucault's books, but you don't need to read primary texts to understand or criticize post-modernism, and you don't have to read mein kampf to criticize national socialism, but you need to read derrida if you want to *properly* criticize derrida himself.

"So I can't criticize Hitler if I haven't read Mein Kampf, even though I've read biographies on him?"
You can, because you're criticizing an event (whatever Hitler has done), not his words, whereas if you criticize a philosopher you're not criticizing what he has done, but what he has said - so if the secondary text is ample with quotes then yes, you can criticize the philosopher.

[Anonymous No.11693285]

>>11690436
Postmodernism isn't nearly as easily defined as Nazism

[Anonymous No.11693304]

>>11688433
>the Marxist tradition
So literally all continental philosophy?

[Anonymous No.11693316]

>>11693304
>who is Nietzsche

Apply yourself lefty retard