What Postmodernism Got Right & How It Fails | Jordan B Peterson

36 thoughts on “What Postmodernism Got Right & How It Fails | Jordan B Peterson”

1. The 'infinite number of potential interpretations of the world' was not a new concept of the Postmodernists. It is a mere reworking of the story of the blind men and an elephant.

   Also, Dr Peterson may be lending way too credence to the intellectual prowess of French philosophers, Camille Paglia has already stated they were second-rate at best of the talent available.

   They have, however, been extraordinarily successful, though this is perhaps less difficult than it seems when their audience was and is (for the most part), made up of low IQ Humanities and Social Sciences students.

2. Funny… Google put an ad here (before the video) about why feminism and gender diversity is the future

3. Ohh… so here is the reasoning that lead to me having to sit through 2 hours of Sam and Jordan debating what truth is. I prefer the 6 min version.

4. This is brilliant. This 5 minutes has condensed more philosophical insight than all the hours I spent earning a minor in Philosophy. He is like a modern-day Kant.

5. I just saw full version. Very elegant and epic. Apslolutlly beautiful to listen

6. There is no infinite numbers of interpretations.Post Modernism does not claim that.There are as many interpretations as there are humans.

7. there are so many options if you want pointless life.

8. I think Peterson get right in a lot of things but under estimate creativity which comes from free spirit. the richness of the world..the modern tech. the AI. they are not come from hard work. but from something more deep inside.

9. 1 sjw dislikes this video.

10. Up vote down vote ratio is ridiculous lol…professor Peterson is the man?

11. What's the piano music at the end?

12. It could be likened to quantum wave states. Yes, every particle is part of a singular field that permeates the universe, and its position has the potential to be infinite. However, the probability of it being in a specific area is very, very high.

13. I bet some fool out there takes this video and interprets it to be Jordan Peterson calling for the deaths of post-modernists

14. But there are people who can put 100 visuals and algorithms in one minds and see the world as a machine.

15. Designer (Channeling Gods mind): The infrastructure of most of the flourishing nations of today is supported on the plateaus of light, the light of Christ. We have multiple plateaus of light, many, many layers, each layer of light is complimentary with darkness (Consumerism needs Healthcare, and vice versa)… Each team that builds a nation have multiple reconciliation institutions, and seduction institutions (Economics).. — Without the Angels to save the incapacitated, the Demons can't build the tests of Mankind, because the expansion of differential possibilities and complexity would be reduced to a few categories.. — I build the Demons to test mankinds adaptive intelligence… I build the Angels to recuperate the overcharged. — Without the Angels, the Demons can't do their work on building a new plateau, a new infrastructure to seduce. The demons can't build their tests and examination without the support of the Angels. — In a 3-dimensional world, I am so happy that we have a spectrum of -10 and +10, our priority remains to first help people who take on a fundamentalistic approach, extremism, or go to an excess.

16. Derrida tried to take over the world by mind fucking it. His ideas take over the minds of those that love to think but cannot break his logic.

17. It's a totally understandeable thought to come across though, right? Because of existence and how infinite it is you assume there's infinite possibilities and realities which is true in a sense, but is it viable?

    Honestly having a small group things that are viable or just more likely to be possible is relaxing. I've always driven myself crazy thinking I could be absolutely anything that I want, but always ended up feeling guilty or pressured because I wasn't doing that. It's better to know that there is a small set of things that are possible that you can orient yourself to, and then work on.

18. There is an infinite number of ways to interpret a finite number of phenomena.
    Postmodernists: "So…every individual is right on what they think is true."
    NO NO NO it means an individual's reality is very separate from everyone else's reality. We obtain what is true and what exists by cross-examining our perceptions with the perceptions of others. That is what makes an interpretation "viable" is if it lines up with what other's perceive.
    If I think I have a vagina between my legs but everyone else sees a penis then the truth is that I have a fucking penis. Truth would have no meaning if you just said everything you think up in your head is true.

    Plus, postmodernists say "There's no objective truth" then they go and say their opinion. Saying "There's no objective truth" is in and of itself an objective truth and by tacking on their political beliefs they are adding on to that objective truth. Which is simply deceptive.

19. 5:00 WTF is the camera guy doing ? hahahaha

20. He looks like a doll sitting on that big blue loveseat <3

21. How the fuck does he stay so calm sitting alone on that massive couch on the stage with just a bunch of people staring at him, i would freak the fuck out and definetely wouldn't be able to put my thoughts together like he does with such pressure.. i cannot comprehend how he does it lol

22. where was this?

23. misreads derrida once

24. No wonder they're afraid of him…!

25. Peterson is a postmodernist. His ideas on truth are literally postmodernist. He's just too stupid to realize it.

26. Paused 10 times…

    Not bad!

27. 1.2k likes, 7 dislikes. While this is only one video, I believe this is indicative of the public's true view on Jordan Peterson, postmodernism, etc.. Peterson is helping to bring the world back to reality.

    *As of 4/7/2018

28. Jacques Derrida and Micheal Foucault, are two french public intellectuals who are both at or near the head of what you might describe as the postmodernist intellectual revolution are extraordinary intellectually capable. That doesn't mean they are correct by any stretch of the imagination but it certainly means that they are able to put together an argument that is difficult to disentangle. So we will start with what i think is the most powerful central claim of postmodernism; a claim which i think is actually correct and which has bedeviled many other fields; including, surprisingly enough , artificial intelligence. The claim is something like "there is infinite number of ways to interpret any finite set of phenomena". And that actually happens to be true, it is part of the reason why it has been so difficult for human beings to develop Artificial intelligence, and for them to develop machines that can operate in a real world environment, because it turns out that the world is so complex that perceiving it appears virtually impossible technically speaking. ..

    Perception isn't possible without situating the mind in a body has a certain set of constraints. We also devote a huge amount of our neurological landscape to sensory processing; so that when we look at the world it can manifest itself in the self evident way that it appears to you. But that doesn't mean that it is a simple problem it is a very complicated problem and the postmodernists were technically correct.

    There is a near infinite number of ways to perceive and interpret a finite number of phenomena. Now the thing that is interesting about that claim apart from the fact that it happens to be technically true is that you can use it to mount an assault on any interpretation of anything whatsoever because there is a tremendous variability in the number of interpretations you could bring to bear on a situation, Then you can instantly jump to the conclusion or expound the proposition that none of those interpretation should be privileged above all others. Now that is actually wrong and this is why postmodernism is correct in its central assumption but incorrect in its secondary assumption. The reason it is wrong is because although there is a very large number of potential interpretations that does not mean that there is an equally large number of viable interpretations of the world. Well you might say what constitutes a constraint on a viable interpretation and i would say there are a number of them and i think you have to understand this in living creatures viewing and interpreting the world, and also within a broader evolutionary context. The way that evolution solves the problem of the infinite number of interpretations is by killing every single thing that interprets things badly enough to die. This is actually one of the most powerful arguments for the accuracy of the evolutionary theory.

29. Jordan, man, you just are HOT..
    I haven't got much more to say

30. so the only defense to post modernism is death and suffering?

31. postlobsterism

32. It's disgusting (and egotistic) to believe that human societal evolution worked so quickly with the same number of viable interpretations as animals (e.g. chimpanzee societies) and to not humble ourselves with the basic idea of meaning, or even a hint of trust in conservatism. JBP isn't alt-right; he's a classical liberal, and the fact that people are smearing him for being conservative in talks like this just goes to show how fucked we have become politically. So far, the farther people lean away from the center of the political grid in this country, the more vulgar they seem to act, especially since most motivation to do so is chaotic.

33. Althusser murdered his wife went insane

    Foucault fucken perverted deviant claimed all of us are deviant HIV positive spreading aids
    Humanity is doomed

    and Derridas – Foucault's pupil……..sister locked him in a hope chest FUCKED HIM UP
    Foucault called him an obscurantists "he gives bull shit a bad name"
    67 68 assisted in overthrowing Charles deGaulle…. 60's fanatical youth.
    (sound familiar Americans ….. Canadians)

    de Gaulle was the enemy of the BRITISH/AMERICAN OIL and BANKING CARTEL.
    Built nuclear power plant rather than suck ANGLO dick for oil. Kicked out NATO.

    Here is one hour on the poisoning of North American society. TELL IT LIKE IT IS from 1996.
    https://youtu.be/0nwq-Ca37vc

34. This is semantic strawmanning.

35. And yet he's a climate change denier

36. I lost focus for like 2 seconds and had to back track 2 minutes. I cant imagine having to take this all in live!

Comments are closed.