Postmodernism Exposed – Chomsky, Peterson, Paglia & Hicks

Postmodernism Exposed – Chomsky, Peterson, Paglia & Hicks


the problem is a factor dancing to Missoula experience with a dog [Music] [Music] but you know some you get not good you know ease [Music] [Music] well the result is love you know validate new service I live them mechanic the ballistic they kill a mother who I bleep Rihanna so unusable I’ve been told so come on what we did you miss oh ha ha [Music] skill experience and ambassador set our gas or a family a yes to second his own world orbit family his back the palate will be short-sighted costly so they give a the didn’t really do a Mossad that’s young of an infant do you daisy of the power accordingly I do not believe that an impulse to knowledge is the father of philosophy but that another impulse here is elsewhere has only made use of knowledge and mistaken knowledge as an instrument all right so let’s take that apart accordingly I do not believe that an impulse to knowledge is the father of philosophy so one of the claims I suppose this would be an Enlightenment claim is that people do have a drive to knowledge and the that drive is in fact what underlies the production of such things as philosophy but major questions that because he’s trying to bring us back to consideration of the fact that you can’t separate the Philosopher’s mind from the Philosopher’s being he’s first and foremost a living creature and he’s up to something and the question is what is it that he’s up to and so you can see the earliest manifestations in a paragraph like this of what later developed into deconstructionist thought and that that was mostly French continental philosophers who pursued that particular line of reasoning and it is derived exactly from this kind of statement by Nietzsche so for example someone like Derrida would say it doesn’t matter what the content of the text is what matters is that the text can be used as tool for power and then whether the person who wrote the text knew it or not that’s what they were doing and they were doing it in a way to privilege themselves above other people and that’s really I would say the fundamental deconstructionist claim and it’s a powerful claim it’s an utterly corrupt claim but it’s a really powerful claim and it’s related directly to the sorts of things that meet you was referring to in this paragraph what is it that the person’s truly up to now the problem with the deconstructionist claim is that it’s an it it’s an open invitation to cynicism to thoughtless citizens I could just make the presupposition that whatever it is the ear telling me you’re you you’re telling me merely to dominate regardless of what it is that you claim to be doing well the problem with that approach is that it’s predicated upon the implicit assumption that the only value that people actually have is the value two is the desire to dominate and of course that’s a purely but that could be the case and I also think that it’s even reasonable to posit that to some degree that it is the case but to take that from a contributing factor and to make that the highest God because that’s essentially what the deconstruction business are doing those are entirely different things and you have to be aware of people who take a single causal element and elevate it to the stature of single comprehensive cause you know it’s more reasonable to assume that people are complex in their motivations and that many different strands of biological and cultural motivation are in some sense primary and then what happens is that they come together to weave a kind of tapestry rather than to make the automatic assumption that you can reduce the entire set of human motivations to a single principle like that of power now you know I would say Nietzsche’s also responsible to some degree for the deconstructionist claim that its power because one of his most famous utterances was that the fundamental motivating force in life is the will to power but he wasn’t so much because Nietzsche’s a so thinker he wasn’t so much attempting to reduce human motivation to power he was attempting to redefine what it was that we conceptualized as power whereas that isn’t what the deconstruction is certainly you know all because fundamentally they’re Marxists and they believe that you know they is ensconced themselves within an economic viewpoint where within a philosophical viewpoint where economics is paramount and where all that matters is power construed as socio-economic domination fundamentally you know and that’s in turn is embedded in metaphysics that’s even deeper which is the metaphysics that presumes that people are fundamentally materialist and all of those things are quick those things are highly questionable you know individuals have their own reasons and you have to look and ask why they’re doing this but if you look at the phenomena as a whole its effect has been I think the effect is pretty clear it allows people to take a very radical stance you know more radical than thou but to be completely dissociated from anything that’s happening for many reasons one reason there’s nobody can understand a word they’re saying so they’re already dissociative it’s kind of like a private lingo and it’s very you know there’s a lot of material reward that comes from it like if you’re part of that system you can run around the conference’s and get big professorships and you know all this kind of stuff so there’s a lot of sort of conventional material reward and it has this very radical look to it so you feel you know everybody well let me just give you an example I gave a talk a couple days less Saturday last Saturday at Piers 8 University the Palestinian University of the West Bank kind of laughed and he told me he’d you know I said most of the especially younger people liked it a lot but he heard one critical really critical comment from a young woman faculty member who sort of liked the general political thrust of it but told him it was very naive and he that I said you know why was it naive and he laughed and he said well it’s because you said that people do things on moral grounds and you talked about truth okay and that’s old-fashioned nonsense you know that’s kind of this old enlightenment stuff we know perfectly well that nobody does it I mean I talked about how apartheid was overthrown you know I was necessary to have splits inside the white society which there were the white society had been unified they would have smashed the ANC but there were splits from the inside and basically on moral grounds people didn’t want to tolerate and that was quite important something you know talked about that well that’s naive because nobody doesn’t anything on moral grounds all power plays you know read Foucault and so on and so forth as you can understand that and is kind of like an old-fashioned concept you know there’s no truth and so on and so forth yeah that stuff goes on all over I mean that the next day I gave a talk at an Israeli University and then it was critical of Israel United States and talked about the Palestinians and there were commentators and one of the commentators was Nadine and you know he hated it of course and the historian and he said he also said it was naive because I was talking as if there’s there’s a objectivity in history I was running through the history of what happened and saying how you should interpret what’s going on now in those terms it’s complete naive I mean everybody knows there’s no objectivity and there’s no truth and it’s this narrative and that narrative and so on and so forth that’s very convenient it sounds very radical you know and it’s extremely convenient you can beat people over the head with perfect you know self-confidence because there’s no reality anyway and it’s just their narrative and your narrative in the third world it has it’s particularly grotesque in life it’s bad enough here I don’t like it here or other rich countries but when you get to third-world countries it’s really grotesque because the you know there the separation of the radical intelligentsia from popular struggle is much more you know it shows much more dramatically I’m people are much poorer and they’re suffering much more and these guys are usually pretty pretty very rich in fact often and it’s ugly but I think it has served a function I don’t want to say that the people who are involved in it necessarily do it for this reason in fact I know extremely good people who are very active and you know I respect and like and someone who were right in this stuff I don’t know why but that’s their means something to them but as a general phenomenon I think that’s the way it’s worked it’s worked as a way of insulating sectors of a kind of radical intelligentsia from popular movements and actual activism and serving as and it served as an instrument of power I think I suspect that’s the reason why it’s so readily tolerated in the universities and it’s all over the place in the third world as well because of the function it serves I wish you could give me another specific example there so people would understand what is it done to my house it’s absolutely Welling absolutely probably because what it’s done is made people cool ironic cynical hanging back in routing everything in are through a priori you know abstractions I hate that the whole revolution of six is about breaking through breaking through all false abstraction and bringing art together with emotion and so the students at the undergraduate level and at the graduate level are encouraged to approach the artwork in terms of what the artwork is doing wrong there what the artwork is hiding when the artwork as a symptom of a power play by a certain group in a society or a certain caste or class in a society the the artwork is as merely the product of economic forces and so on right this is it’s a consequence aesthetics or the ability to to appreciate art kind of syrup cultivation these things are not being taught in in the in the universities right now it’s extremely depressing so it’s really no surprise why is this the state of cultural criticism is so low and the state of the Fine Arts is so low right now there’s the proof of the sterility of post structuralism and post-modernism is that we have know after several generations of this now there are no major culture critics young culture critics they haven’t emerged from this it the active the figures from whom a khadeem thinks our cultural critics are simply mirroring back to the senior professors the same fads and trends and jargon filled discourse you know over the last thirty years it’s really it’s really a tragedy okay it’s absolute tragedy is to see that the post modernists are not really interested in truth or or or what’s right but rather they see language and intellectualizing is just part of a rhetorical strategy right that language has a certain amount of power to influence people not necessarily by coming to know truth and in acting on the basis of that truth but just because we are socially linguistic creatures and so if you use language and rhetoric the right way then you can direct people in the way that you want so you can say all sorts of things right that under the cold microscope might seem self contradictory right and so forth and that won’t really matter what matters is whether you’re using that language achieves the goal that you want to set for yourself so an example would be you think of lawyers in a courtroom there’s two types of lawyers there are lawyers who believe that there are is truth that there is justice and the whole point of the legal system is to figure out what the truth is and and to do the just thing and of course that’s really hard and sometimes we mess it up but that’s what we are striving to do but there’s another kind of lawyer who will say there is no such thing as truth there is no such thing as justice instead the courtroom really is just a vehicle for different factions to engage in a power struggle and it doesn’t matter what strategies you use as long as your side prevails in this power struggle and then you start to try to matter yourself into quantum mechanics by understanding it right just as a rhetorical tool all right so to come back yet or the issue of science or we all heard you know hyn syín relativity theory right well you just belong to relativity and then from the uninformed humanities educated right perspective or that sounds like relativism of course it isn’t right or girdle’s incompleteness theorem Oh incompleteness so that sounds like us to write or chaos mathematics right and so forth so it then just becomes a semantics issue but it’s really just a rhetorical strategy I think as you’re suggesting by people who don’t really know the science right very well it seems to me some exercise by intellectuals who each other and very obscure ways and I can’t follow it then I don’t know if anybody else can post on our views of science by and large have been pretty embarrassing I think there’s some interesting work on this miss a book by two physicists Albrecht lon Alex Ocala both of whom have to be political radicals just running through it’s mostly Paris post-modernism what that first modern commentators have said about science and it is really embarrassing I mean to the extent you can understand it I’m gonna other hand there is a point I mean insofar as they say that everything that people do is some kind of social construction depends on the context the cultural context you know that part’s true I don’t know if you need the whole baggage to say those things not least personally I haven’t seen anything that it doesn’t seem to me has to be said in anything with mono syllables looks as far as I understand that it’s pretty straightforward and I get the feeling that it’s gonna but there isn’t drive among intellectuals to make things look difficult that’s a kind of self-protection I mean if what I’m doing can be done by you know the guy who is repairing my furnace okay then Who am I and then there’s those physicists over there who complicated things I’d like to be like them that drive is clearly there and I think it should be resistant I’m going to say things simply so that people don’t understand I’m sure and the idea that there’s any like any central educational curriculum this there’s a long abandoned it’s a cafeteria style thing referent people are you know well you need to choose something from this group of courses in that group of course in that coma and then that you have post structuralism post-modernism having undermined any idea of of history as having meaning all interpretation is simply what we project and import into you know into the materials and therefore there’s a style of writing now about about society that is very fragmented it’s like the New Historicism everything is very atomized and and so on there’s no there’s no where as I truly believe that there are huge patterns and history that can be observed that you know there’s like big well big wave motion there like a Rises and then crashes and so on that’s what I see the you know the rise and fall of civilizations over over the left past 5,000 years okay and so you you’ve got this this without any if you have had no exposure to the disasters of world history and the you know the sophisticated civilizations that row is like Babylon or Rome and and we’re then they became very sexually tolerant and then fell okay and so there was nothing left but the rubble so if you have had no exposure to that okay then you honestly believe this idea that we are moving you know it’s progress visible all around us and we’re moving to an ideal state that ideal culture whether it’ll be like sort of transnational global everyone will hold hands and and and and everyone will be accepted for what they are okay and they’ll be they’ll be no more prejudiced and and and I mean the environment will be pure and clean and so on Nate would the people have a kind this kind of a magical view of what of utopia that is there there there in the future and that it is progressive missed and I could consider myself progressive in politics but but the point is this progressive US idea that with that we are marching towards some perfection and that and this and that there’s sitting in the signs of it are tolerant the toleration of the educated class okay for homosexuality over over for you know or for changing gender or whatever that seems to me it’s the opposite to me it’s symptomatic claim of over civilization just before it falls right which is that we are very tolerant and we are not passionate okay but the there are bands of extremely passionate vandals and destroyers who are moving around the edges of the civilization and he’ll bring it down although there is a very large number of potential interpretations of the world that does not mean that there is an equally large number of viable interpretations of the world now you might say well what constitutes constraints on the viability of an interpretation and I would say well there’s a number of them and I think you have to understand this in the context of 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 potential interpretations is by killing every single thing that interprets things badly enough to die right and so I mean this this is actually one of the most powerful arguments for the necessity of the evolutionary for the necessity of the accuracy of the evolutionary theory it’s it’s that you know it’s taken three and a half billion years of evolution to produce creatures of our sort who can interpret the world which is impossible to interpret well enough to live for approximately 80 years and to have some reasonable chance of propagating during that period of time three and a half billion years and that’s the best we’ve been able to do it’s a very complicated problem and evolution solves that problem by producing a tremendous number of variants and then killing almost all of them and so death is the solution to the problem with interpretation and it’s a terrible solution but the point I’m trying to make there is that interpretations are constrained by such things primary things that happen to be relevant to living beings like suffering and death so those are the first sets of constraints your interpretations of the world should shield you to the degree possible from excess suffering and death that doesn’t seem to be too debatable of proposition unless you’re aimed in the suicidal direction and so so we can start by merely pointing that out we also might point out that such things as the necessity for cooperating and competing with others also constrains the interpretations that you’re allowed in the world especially given that not only do you have to cooperate and compete with people one time but that you have to cooperate and compete with often the same people many times in many different contexts and so that not only do you have to interpret the world so that you can cooperate and compete but those people you have do it in a manner that can be iterated and repeated and that constitutes also an extraordinarily serious constraint so you don’t want to suffer too much and you don’t want to die and you want to be able to cooperate with people and you want to be able to compete with them and you want to be able to do that over long periods of time and then maybe you also want to do it with an aim in mind because generally we have aims in mind and so there are things that we like to have more than other things and so we aim at those and then we have to constrain our interpretation so that when we enact them in the world the probability that what we’re aiming at is going to happen will improve and all of those constraints operates operate simultaneously and what that implies and I think Jean Piaget the developmental psychologist maybe went farther along this line of thinking than anyone else I know about anyways it’s sort of an elaboration of Kant’s fundamental ethical Maxim which was something like act as if the thing that you’re doing will be done by everyone and but the Piaget lien sense was more like act as if the thing that you’ll be doing needs to be repeated endlessly in a manner that moves up instead of down it’s something like that but the point is is that there’s there’s tremendous constraints on the manner in which we can interpret the world from any realistic perspective so the criticism that there are an infinite number of interpretations falls apart on closer examination well this gets back to this the Stalinism of and Maui’s of the 1970s that suddenly collapsed what one of the things that caused it to collapse was the Solzhenitsyn’s gulag was translated in France big sensation all of a sudden everyone became a passionate anti-communist and since it’s Paris they had to be the first ones who ever discovered it so I remember going there and hearing from leading intellectuals things I knew when I was 10 years old because you know we were reading it then you know but it was all new discovered and they had that something novel well what do you do that’s novel I should add another feature of Paris cultural life the French intellectuals tend to be you know that their media stars so their Frenchie lectures are taken very seriously they were on the front pages of Lomond and it’s alright it’s probably not a good thing but if you want to be taken seriously you have to have something exciting to say like a movie star you know television figure and it’s not easy to come up with exciting new ideas so you have to come up with crazy ideas and then they can make it to the front pages so and this is kind of what went on well one of the ways to have exciting new ideas is to tear everything to shreds and say everything was wrong you know the Enlightenment was wrong there’s no foundationalism the right there’s no foundationalism that was known in the 17th century but they had to rediscover it and put it in a fancy way and so on and so forth apart from the fact that the infinite number of interpretations argument is wrong in any practical sense why in the world would you allow your postmodern deconstructionist philosophy to remain nested in Marxism so that’s the next question because it certainly is and if you read Derrida for example or Foucault and if you look at the intellectual history of the postmodern movement which expanded Radek rapidly in the 1970s you find that it’s no secret that the post modernists emerged out of an underlying Marxist framework and never they didn’t abandon they merely modified it so it went from burgeois Z against proletariat to you know one identity group after against the other but it was still oppressor oppressed narrative it’s just a sleight of hand so the question is well why in the world if you make the central claim that no narrative is to be privileged why in the world you would you accept your alliance with Marxism and so the first answer to that might be the optimistic one which is that the post modernists and the radicals who are driving the politically correct movement are actually sincere in their desire to help the oppressed and so we could say having established the fact that there’s an absolute plethora of interpretations and dispensing with the notion any of those are canonical or valued above any others we can still act like decent human beings and try to take care of people who are less fortunate than us now how’s an intellectual argument that’s a really bad one because you don’t get to have the first proposition and the second proposition simultaneously but I would also say that respect for coherence and logic is not the strong suit post modernists and that’s actually a technical part of their theory dr. Faisel la mouche you men do use this function and that theory of the last restricted class comprado d-calcium du côté de la classe Oh clearly become justification you consider the class to proceed I don’t agree with it classroom soon as you pass you own it I’ll go easy solution adjusts I well here I really disagree I think that there is a sort of an absolute basis if you press me too hard I’ll be in trouble because I can’t sketch it out but some sort of an absolute basis ultimately residing in fundamental human qualities in terms of which a real notion of Justice is grounded and I think that our existing systems of justice it’s too hasty to characterize our existing systems of justice as merely systems of class oppression I don’t think that they are that I think that they’re that they embody systems of class oppression and they embodies elements of other kinds of oppression but they also embody a kind of a groping towards the true human humanely valuable concept of justice and decency and love and kindness and sympathy and so on which I think are real at also disobey [Music] video which is defects are they said if you don’t see so many they don’t need that long get them together not say I like to me what you saw we will give a big speech agendas which isn’t unfair a team that uses medical innovation them seventy upper 70s our economy surrogacy the reservation the ends of the consent $70 keep him elevated survivors do same thing may conceive they give I set some sniper so damage repair default it don’t affect you physically do I prefer

100 thoughts on “Postmodernism Exposed – Chomsky, Peterson, Paglia & Hicks

  1. Foucault was a member of a Communist Party for a while, then he became a Maoist (even worse form of Marxism, to me). Derrida was a socialist Jew who ran away from Hitler (comprehensible that he was a leftist) and Derrida also mentioned that his deconstruction could only exist "in a certain spirit of Marxism". Noam Chomsky is of course also a socialist/marxist but a very honest one on postmodernism. Lyotard was part of a group called "Socialism ou barbarie" and Richard Rorty is openly leftist, but a more nuanced American "liberal" or social-democrat.

    The link between leftism (marxism, socialism, communism) and postmodern thought is absolutely clear.

  2. Re Paglia, there's a reason those eastern block countries were so goddam depressing and ugly. Represents the internal life of the architects of the society. Dead, ugly, colorless, lifeless.

  3. Guys like Foucault that wouldn't be able to run a convenience store are shaping the thoughts of young people.

  4. Postmodernists preaching relativism were nothing THAN relativists when it came to political beliefs. They were all, more or less. Marxists (which of course shows the level of economic illiteracy they carried).

  5. This is a brilliant compilation. Everything you need to debunk, 'deconstruct' and dismiss postmodern nonsense is right here. My own experience was finding a way to bypass Professors soaked in Foucault (that doyen of sloganeering obscurantist morons) while studying for a BA in Lit' in 1995. I settled on depictions of transcendence from Blake to Wordsworth and produced a thesis that never once referenced race, class or gender. I doubt students today would be able to do the same or more properly would have the will to do it–even if they considered such a thing possible. The study of the Humanities in the universities is long dead and all you need to to earn a degree are some rinse-and-repeat buzzwords, a victim's sense of entitlement and a lecturer with a 'Black Lives Matter' t-shirt. Idiocy reigns and as for intellectual vigour that departed with any sense of open enquiry. We have produced a generation of trembling, poorly educated snowflakes and we will dearly pay the price for it.

  6. Post-modernists are the stupid persons idea of a smart person. They sound profound but are actually full of shit and have little real insight in to the real world, except of course for the acquisition of grant funds.

  7. Lesson 1 in critical thinking: learn a little something about the subject you're criticising before opening your pie trap. I'm not saying you HAVE to take an interest in linguistics, semiotics, epistemology, or philosophy in general, but if like Jordan (little) Peter(son) you believe postmodernism and marxism are basically the same thing, well, then you're obviously well out of your depth. You might as well make videos 'slamming', 'exposing' or 'destroying' quantum physics, neuroscience, or whatever discipline you know nothing about nor are remotely interested in with the super-awesome meta-argument that it's all just BULLSHIT. Oh, and just to spite the overwhelmingly right-wing know-nothings for whom these videos are intended: you do realise that the orange moron currently residing in the Oval Office is the most postmodern president any country has ever had, don't you?

  8. People keep talking about Postmodernism as if it's nothing but a theory but they do not understand that the world we live in is in fact postmodern. All of us are, whether we like it or not, postmodern civilians. People who criticize postmodernism here do not understand that the way they talk and think is part of postmodernism and the idea that you can actually criticize ANYTHING for no other reason than criticizing it, mumble jumbling ideas together to create a new fundamental theory is exactly what postmodernism means and allows. Someone like Peterson says humans are flawed, we cannot interpret the world correctly because nature programs us wrongly. Well what if it is the economy and we are only destroying this planet because some of us believe the economy should maximize profit and therefor, there is no space for respect towards the planet? Suddenly there is no respect towards other human beings because they become an obstacle to your profits, your maximum gain for a product. His thinking is flawed because every day we find new solutions and solutions that are known and have been tested suddenly become viable because nature does ring those capitalists back to reality.

    All of them say this and that but they're hypocrites. "You need to sound like a movie star that has something exciting to say before people will listen to you.", he said in demeaning manner and continued to pretend he had something interesting to say because he's being treated like a movie star. There is so much irony in watching these people talk about what they dislike, how they are so much against postmodernism while they are the biggest losers of postmodernism and therefor complain the most. They want everything to be measurable, to be broken down to an atomic level, no doubts about anything, they revert to nationalism, talk about security being a good thing if it benefits the majority of society, blablabla. They lack creativity, empathy, abstract thought, almost everything the French Intellectuals were working so hard to expand and what even American culture provided to lower classes. In the shortest manner I would like to say: these people lack poetry. Striving for clarity does not always result in numbers, it can be a clarity of speech, it can be clarity of fashion, clarity is not so much about science as it is about individual clarity: Who are you? Do you know who you are? The people that cannot answer this question are often the ones who make the loudest noise because they depend onto others to be defined. They have, in one or another, always been told who to be and so they struggle to create an identity of the Self. This results in anger but also many different emotions. They will start manipulating others to convince them that they are someone, most of the time only to revert to the System that once appointed their role to them. This is a power struggle. Humans only seek power. The nuance of this power struggle is indeed something Nietzsche seeked to expand upon. He did so in almost all his books but he never said humans do not seek power. He thought out how humans change reality and forfeit ideals to acknowledge their own right towards being just, even if that means being someone like Hitler. In his right mind, Hitler thought he was a good person. After all, he did gain so many votes that he could start a military invasion on the European continent and finally start killing those who were an obstacle to his perfect Third Reich. Indeed God must be dead if someone like him can bring such misery into the world, no? Even more, if Stalin was there too, Mao, Xi Yin Pin and many others that follow(ed). But yet again here we have people who say they have the Truth, and that we are wrong, what's more we give them so much attention they start making big shows and just sit there and talk about how wrong we are, and how right they are. For what? These people are telling us we should go back to a system where everyone gets assigned roles to fulfill in society, yet what they say they detest is marxism, secret services and God. What kind of societies are trying to identify people and assign them roles, and if they do not follow they will be punished, perhaps killed? Totalitarian regimes. And what do they often contain? Religion, spies and some kind of broken economics. God, secret services and Marxism.

    Why do we listen to people that are telling us we should be something we don't want to be, when all they do is complain how they cannot be who they want to be? Peace comes from within, when peace is achieved it's not hard to see the world for what it really is and to intervene accordingly. When we put messy people on a pedestal and listen to them, that's very postmodern because we don't use ideal individuals yet this is very dangerous. People like Trump, Peterson, Chomsky mean the downfall of Western society if we grant them too much attention and influence. It's up to the people who do know what's up and ARE willing to change the world into something beneficial for us and generations to come to halt this movement of senseless pricks that want to march us into the abyss. They don't know how to deal with a world that is fluid, that is free of economics, free of entertainment, free of media, they cannot grasp a natural view because they cannot see beyond the Systems that corrupted them. In one way it's interesting to listen to them, to see why they are so corrupted but it is also dangerous to give them any kind of power because all they will do is reinstitute those corrupt systems to corrupt us as well. This is exactly what Nietzsche talked about when he talked about Übermenschen: people who overcome. We shall overcome. Peterson sadly, will never overcome. Chomsky will die the pseudo-intelligence spy he is, Trump will never overcome neoliberalism. Foucault overcame French society with a student's revolution and even inspired a wave of student's revolutions across the globe! Derrida sought to overcome the barriers of language and allowed writers to go further than allegory, for plebs to become more poetic by partaking in their history and sharing its merit with the high society. These are things you will never accredit to people like the ones in this video because all they spread is negativity. They cannot and will not contribute to society for they are handicapped to love, stuck forever in a limbo of self-hatred and betrayal. They do not see how a society can be fluid, beyond the families that make three, how we can be elephants that will march through this sea of trees and tear it down to become one giant family. It sounds utopian but it is not, in fact most societies we live in are programmed against this way of living. But this is how the new generation prefers to live and just by being persistent we will change the world: free from enslavement, free from neoliberalism, free from property. For individuals that choose to live together are stronger than people that only choose one or the other. An interdependant society that does not want to define itself by things and numbers defines itself on mutual respect, which is followed by love and we all know the things we do for love. Honesty is only one of them and it will bring us far further than the many words of hatred and paranoia spread in this video.

  9. Postmodernism critiques many things that are useful, for example: Deconstructionism . (search Derrida if you want to know more)

    An example would be a written in the 18th century that would say. All humans are free . In our current time we would conclude that we were equal and free back then just like we are now.

    Deconstructionism, however, tells you that you have to deconstruct important terms in texts to understand what they really meant to the author.

    Back then, black people, natives, etc were not considered humans and free was very limited, for example, women could not attend college, the school's subjects were limited to them and they could not hold political positions, etc.

    Now that we deconstructed the terms, we can conclude, oh we were not equal back then, actually. Thanks, deconstructionism (postmodernism)

  10. if everyone is equally unexceptional than what we are to believe is that we ordinary civilians are all equally worthless, if their is no measure of a man. for we can not afford to all be kings but the elites count it an imperitive that we must all live irascidated demoralised cursed lives, seperated from our spiritual lifeforce and essence that is the elixer of life; divorced from our loving spiritual father in his high place beyond our sight cast downward in darkness without eyes to see.unthinking and unknowing what misery we have foreshadowed mankind to in shadows dwell.

  11. I can't say I'm an intellectual, but I like to hear from some of them from time to time. This was enjoyable from the peanut gallery point of view. I get some of the pictures and I admire the subtlety. Was that Derrida to close? Devastating!

  12. As a French person it hurts me to say this but…. PoMo is as relevant to reality, as runway fashion is to my work attire on Monday morning.

  13. ABSOLUTE TRUTH:

    GOD SAID YOU ARE A GUILTY SINNER! ALREADY CONDEMNED AND ON YOUR WAY TO HELL!
    {Rom 1:18} For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    {Rom 1:19} Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
    {Rom 1:20} For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    {Rom 1:21} Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    {Rom 1:22} Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    {Rom 1:29} Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
    {Rom 1:30} Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    {Rom 1:31} Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
    {Rom 1:32} Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
    {Rom 2:1} Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
    {Rom 2:2} But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
    {Rom 2:3} And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
    {Rom 2:4} Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
    {Rom 2:5} But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
    {Rom 2:6} Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
    {Rom 2:7} To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
    {Rom 2:8} But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
    {Rom 2:9} Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
    {Rom 2:10} But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
    {Rom 2:11} For there is no respect of persons with God.
    {Rom 3:10} As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
    {Rom 3:11} There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
    {Rom 3:12} They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
    {Rom 3:13} Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
    {Rom 3:14} Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
    {Rom 3:15} Their feet are swift to shed blood:
    {Rom 3:16} Destruction and misery are in their ways:
    {Rom 3:17} And the way of peace have they not known:
    {Rom 3:18} There is no fear of God before their eyes.
    {Rom 3:19} Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
    {Rom 3:20} Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

    YOU NEED TO REPENT TOWARD GOD, THAT MEANS YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND AND AGREE WITH GOD ABOUT HIS EVIL TIDINGS AGAINST YOU (ROM 1:183:20) AND THE GOSPEL ABOUT CHRIST (ROM 3:21-25). IF YOU AGREE WITH GOD, THERE IS HOPE FOR YOU. GOD’S WILL IS THAT YOU GET SAVED FROM HIS RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT AND WRATH, WHICH IS HELL & THE LAKE OF FIRE
    {1.Tim 2:3} For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
    {1.Tim 2:4} Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
    {1.Tim 2:5} For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

    HOW TO BE SAVED (JUSTIFICATION BEFORE GOD)
    {Rom 3:21} But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
    {Rom 3:22} Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
    {Rom 3:23} For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
    {Rom 3:24} Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
    {Rom 3:25} Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
    {Rom 3:26} To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
    {Rom 3:27} Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
    {Rom 3:28} Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

    SO WHAT MUST YOU DO TO BE SAVED (JUSTIFIED BEFORE GOD)
    {Acts 16:30} And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
    {Acts 16:31} And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

    HOW TO BELIEVE: (ABRAHAM FOR OUR EXAMPLE)
    {Rom 4:3} For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
    {Rom 4:4} Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
    {Rom 4:5} But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
    {Rom 4:20} He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
    {Rom 4:21} And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
    {Rom 4:22} And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
    {Rom 4:23} Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
    {Rom 4:24} But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
    {Rom 4:25} Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

    YOU NEED TO BELIEVE/TRUST IN JESUS AS YOUR PERSONAL SAVIOR AFTER YOU BELIEVED THE RIGHT GOSPEL ABOUT CHRIST (ROM 3:21-26). JESUS PAID THE PENALTY FOR YOUR SINS SO YOU MIGHT BE FORGIVEN. THAT MEANS HE TOOK THE PUNISHMENT FOR YOUR SINS ON HIMSELF AND PAID FOR ALL YOUR SINS ON THE CROSS BY SHEDDING HIS BLOOD. HE WAS MADE SIN FOR YOU, WHO KNEW NO SIN, SO YOU MIGHT BE MADE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN HIM. YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE FULLY PERSUADED IN YOUR OWN MIND THAT GOD WILL KEEP HIS PROMISE BY FREELY JUSTIFYING YOU BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE/TRUST IN JESUS AND THE RIGHT GOSPEL ABOUT CHRIST. YOU FALL FROM GRACE AND GO TO HELL WHEN YOU CAST OFF YOUR FAITH OR ADD WORKS FOR YOUR JUSTIFICATION (SEE 1.COR 15:2, GAL 5:4, 1.TIM 5:12). IF YOU CALL YOURSELF A CHRISTIAN AND DISAGREE WITH THIS MESSAGE THEN YOU BETTER PROVE YOURSELF WHETHER YOU ARE IN THE NARROW SAVING FAITH. IF IT DOESN’T MATCH WITH ROMANS CHAPTER 3 & 4, THEN YOU ARE ONE OF THE MANY IN MATTHEW 7:22, A FALSE CONVERT, LOST AND ON YOUR WAY TO HELL!

    BUT IF YOU REJECT GOD'S GRACE OFFERED FREELY TOWARD YOU, READ YOUR FUTURE ACCORDING TO GOD'S WORDS:
    {Rev 14:11} And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
    {Rev 20:10} And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
    {Rev 20:11} And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
    {Rev 20:12} And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
    {Rev 20:13} And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
    {Rev 20:14} And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
    {Rev 20:15} And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
    {Rev 21:8} But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

    YOU SEE THERE IS A TEMPORARY PLACE CALLED ''HELL'' AND THE ETERNAL PLACE CALLED ''THE LAKE OF FIRE'' WHERE ALL SINNERS WILL BE TORMENTED FOR EVER AND EVER. THE REASON WHY YOUR PUNISHMENT WILL LAST FOR EVER IS BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO PAY OFF YOUR SINS SO YOU HAVE TO PAY THEM FOR EVER. IT’S REALLY THAT SIMPLE, IT’S A JUSTICE ISSUE WITH GOD. GOD IS HOLY AND JUSTLY PUNISHES SINNERS FOR EVER AND EVER IN THE LAKE OF FIRE. YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT.

  14. Being a old guy and long out of school, I have not looked into much of this postmodern stuff. It kind of reminds of a Issac Asimov character (a diplomat) who could talk for hours and really never say anything of any import. The presenters put out a very bleak picture of it. It does indeed fly in the face of human experience. No truth? How would even language be possible? These people are simple dog food salesmen who don't buy their own stuff. I found new respect for Chomsky, who said in a round about way that money was their motivation and that if you can't come up with something new, throw something crazy out there as their operating guideline.

  15. Peterson DOES NOT UNDERSTAND either postmodernism or deconstruction. Every time he “explains” Derrida, for example, he states a point completely counter to Derrida’s entire philosophical, rhetorical, and ethical project.

    Postmodernism, deconstruction, AND enlightenment values all deserve to be critiqued — there’s no doubt about that; Derrida himself would agree—even admitted to the incompleteness of his work, acknowledged the inevitable fallibility and necessity for critique. That is at the foundation of his work and forms the very spirit of deconstruction itself. If Peterson were not so busy demagoguing, if he were not so rigidly aligned with positioning himself against the straw-man he’s formulated for political (and, let’s face it, financial) gain, he would realize that his own philosophy has core tenets very similar to that of deconstruction—only toward different ends: Where Peterson desires and presumes to know, to be able to know with finality, certitude, and in isolated singularity—in other words, to consume knowledge as though it is an a priori, passive entity in the world waiting, like capital, to be accrued; Derrida (and deconstruction), on the other hand, acknowledges from the outset that we are inseparable from the knowledge we produce & thus have an inescapable blind spot as to its “absoluteness” — Deconstruction itself is not free from blind spots (even if the rhetoric that has been used to discuss and employ it in the past few decades would appear to suggest otherwise…) Deconstruction both argues and acknowledges the knowledge we construct in partnership with “the world” will lead us to conclusions that inevitably introduce new problems, conclusions which will eventually be superseded; that systems (i.e. knowledge, language, discourse, consciousness, etc) cannot realize themselves, they cannot self-identify without mediation (alterity). Thus, identity (the “self” or the “same,” for example) is always already “contaminated” with alterity—otherness makes self/same/identity possible, and thus likewise makes its consummation, it’s finality or containment as an entity wholly independent from outside/unknown forces, impossible. This is the tension deconstruction insists upon maintaining rhetorically
    for an ethical existence. Failure is inevitable, we succeed only by failing.

    Whereas Peterson wants to claim the moral and “natural” superiority of the hierarchies, categories, and boundaries/divisions between separate entities that have long defined the Western tradition; Derrida/deconstruction says we can do better, says that we must do better, that ethical responsibility (to ourselves and to the future) depends upon a way of relating to boundaries, categories, knowledge, symbols, etc that does not disavow the unknowable, does not deny the alterity within the same, does not dismiss the relation formed by the boundary Peterson et al would view merely as a distinction that separates and divides. In short, deconstruction deals in the aporetical rather than the a priori.

    Deconstruction is less about individuals oppressing other individuals, and more about the invisible presences and “legitimate fictions” in thought processes, laws, language systems and forms of symbolization via which we unknowingly oppress ourselves and allow others to oppress us.

    Peterson takes deconstructionist critique way too personally—and you can’t really blame him, given the limited first-order framework from which he is operating, the same one that has been holding the West back from actual enlightenment in exchange for the consolation of having absolute will power and objective reasoning not contaminated by subjectivity—as if those two were separable to begin with!! But I digress…

    Peterson can’t seem to reconcile the fact that intentionality is irrelevant here; can’t seem to handle to fact that not all contradictions are the same—and that sometimes what look like contradictions are actually constitutive paradoxes, which ignite and make possible forms of knowledge and symbolization even as they limit them…

    Peterson provides comfort from the irresolvable dilemmas unveiled by deconstruction—but with that consolation comes the hefty price of disavowal and, ultimately, more delusion. Deconstruction does not tell us about the world or how it works; rather, it reminds us that what we define as “world,” our values and definitions in general, comprises a way of relating to that which is ultimately beyond our scope in the absolute sense, and that these definitions, the shapes of our boundaries and our relation to the distinctions we draw are a vast source of knowledge in and of themselves—a vast source we would be idiots to ignore.

  16. Re: the ending clip.

    The reason his semi conscious mind is telling him to burn his papers and that he's wrong is because deep down he knows he is. The reason he discards that when he is "awake and working" is because his ego (in the psychological sense but also the pompous sense) is trying to prevent him from admitting it. Why wouldn't he think that way ? Who wants to admit that their entire life has been about spreading a lie ?

  17. To be fair, not everything postmodernists have to say is totally worthless. They do sometimes shine a light of sorts on our bullshit, forcing us to consider why it is that we believe what we believe about the world and how power structures may have influenced the same. So some postmodern critiques are actually very valid, or at least worth considering.

    The problem, however, is that postmodernism has very little to offer APART from such critiques. It offers skepticism, which has value, but that's about all it offers. For people who are ardently "postmodernist" in the manner that Foucault was, it simply never ends. There's never a point where we've adequately scrutinized our own beliefs and their sources and can now make some sort of relatively definitive statement about the world.

    And so eventually it becomes necessary to also be skeptical of the skeptics themselves.

  18. I'm actually taking a fourth year course in my psych degree called "Critical Issues in Contemporary Psychology" and I think I have a reasonable grasp on the basics of postmodernist thought, at least. Though I'm not a proponent of it (whatever that means in this context), I don't think those that call it a complete hoax understand it or have taken the time to fully understand it. I really don't think it's as profound as postmodernists often claim it is. It's been misused as a device for intellectual status signalling by those that want to be the most radical person in the room. While learning about it, it seems to suddenly go from obvious and self-evident to arcane and bizarre without passing through any discernible transition. It becomes fairly incoherent when stretched too far (though it can be parsed)and for that reason I don't think a lot of "postmodernists" have a complete grasp or picture of what they're presenting. It's people that want the social credit of being profound while having very little to say. So it's not a hoax, but that doesn't mean it's correct or even of much practical use. It's sort of like an "Emperor's New Clothes" situation: no one wants to admit they don't understand it and so they're willing to nod thoughtfully or publish nonsensical papers in order to keep up appearances.

  19. Foucault ginned up his language in order to make his books sound more 'profound.' It was a marketing ploy. He admitted so openly to John Searle.

  20. Paglia is right on the money in terms of what continental 'Critical Theory' and postmodern theory did to the humanities. They destroyed them.

  21. What an excellent collection of clips, particularly the one near the end that shows Chomsky vigorously disagreeing with Foucault in a contemporary discussion. Foucault seems uneasy that he – France's premier and most fatuous intellectual – is being disagreed with. The post-modernists of today should consider whether Chomsky should be 'no platformed' at the universities they control.

  22. Peterson is sometimes intellectually incoherent but is absolutely spot on when he said the english departments in the universities are corrupt, and not just in the US… i study english literature in the UK and the course is taught in such a way that they make it impossible for you to think, or write about a text without making it a sexual/racial/gender politics issue. this was not, and is not the purpose of studying literature, it has been absolutely perverted by charlatan peddlers of postmodernist propaganda who call themselves "professors".

  23. French philosophy went way off track but for deeper reasons than simply being nonsense. The theories of metaphysics and ethics which you find in people like Foucault and Deleuze are incoherent and it is valuable to understand why they are incoherent. In philosophy we learn more by our mistakes than by our successes. Much of what went wrong in French philosophy has to do with how Hegel was received in France and he is almost universally misread and misunderstood. Heidegger's influence, which amounts to another misreading of Kant and Hegel also plays a large role in French thought during the 60s and 70s. Go, read this material, its worth digesting so that we can understand fully why it is a dead end.

  24. Postmodernism is not "French" in any way. It's a successor of marxism and comes from Jewish intellectuals.
    Jacques Derrida was Jewish for instance.

  25. Mao was in favor of killing intellectuals.
    Somehow absurd. I despite the champaign socialists. Meanwhile people died in in Gulags.
    The society from sketch as an. Utopian vision is hell.

  26. A very common misunderstanding of Post-Modernism is that it is normative and somehow gives us values on what society ought to be, this is wrong (Marxism is normative and structural).
    Post-Modernism is mainly cultural critique that is rooted in Nietzsche, they assess how the current hegemonic order of society/the social effects us. Capitalistic technocracy is our current trend, as a given.
    For instance, Foucault's main idea is power and control that comes with technology (The panopticon), where we constantly watch ourselves out of fear and discontent due to a highly industrialised competitive culture.
    Baudrillard's is the idea that technology can simulate values for us that shift meaning and the sense of reality, where atomisation and the simulation of culture occurs when it is actually fading away (virtual meaning).
    Etc etc. I say check Rick Roderick's lectures for a better understanding of the 'post-moderns' I have given a vulgar summary.
    The main point is that it isn't nonsense and it isn't Marxist, it isn't ruining universities since they have already spoken how they are being ruined by our cultural trend.
    The most funny thing about most critics of Post-Modernism is that they themselves are being cultural critics and are usually saying stuff the French have said and I love Peterson and Paglia but I see this easily from them.

  27. Doing a video on any philosophical topic by explaining its critics rather than the substance of the arguments at hand is pretty underhanded, imho.

  28. Peterson: starts a quote off with “accordingly.”

    So basically he chose to omit what he was speaking according to.

    Out of context. Typical.

  29. Deconstruction has nothing to do with power or Marxism… Peterson is ready to explain Derrida clearly without ever having read him.

  30. I got weaned off postmodernism when Prof John Wong from Sydney Uni challenged my conviction that Sun Yatsen got his Western "gaze" a la Foucault in medical school. That was in the 1990s. I've been an enemy ever since. Utter bs.

  31. Socialism by definition makes all who come under its rule a minority, in one form or another, thereby oppressing everyone in the name of equality.

  32. I am Venezuelan and I also understand academia in the West. While I admire Chomsky's critique of relativism, he is rather naive of how it actually works in developing countries where 80% or more are POOR and UNEDUCATED. We have always had Caudillos, that is elites who spoke in the vernacular language of el pueblo (the people) and sold them ideological snake oil. HUGO CHAVEZ was the poster child CAUDILLO!!! And marry that to Marxists discourse and you have a SNAKE OIL THAT YOU CAN SELL TO A POOR AND UNEDUCATED POPULACE AS A STRATEGY TO GAIN POWER. FIDEL CASTRO KNEW THIS BETTER THAN ANYBODY. THEY TRIED SELLING THIS SNAKE OIL THROUGHOUT LATIN AMERICA AS SOCIALISMO DEL SIGLO XXI (Socialism of the 21st century, which was the bastard child of the Foro de Sao Paulo) AND VENEZUELA BECAME THE GASPUMP FUELING THIS ROBOLUCION!!! (revolution of theft) WHICH IS FINALLY COLLAPSING!!!! (BECAUSE IT IS A FAILED MODEL TO BEGIN WITH BUILT UPON A MOUNTAIN OF BULLSHIT). As smart as Chomsky is, he is a complete fool to be an apologist of authoritarian regimes that are far worse than the Yankee Imperialists.

  33. That Foucault quote at the start is pretty dishonest since he was a classical liberal towards the end of his life

    Plus Post Modernism and Marxism are pretty incompatible as frameworks of understanding the world.

  34. It seems there are 2 kinds of people, the high and the low.
    The low's very survival requires a 'morality' where not being able to match the
    challenge, they glorify all qualities that make them low. They're the real people!?!?

    When the high realize they are wrong, they change in order to maintain their standard.
    When the low realize they are wrong, they immediately blame the high and rally
    all the low bunnies around their resentment.

    Because they can't create, they are forced to destroy.

  35. Dear god the horrors save us .. Paglia a priori parkinsons gibberish, Gurdle's incompleteness theorem?? Chomy's psycho analytics? peterson nietsche interpretation !that itself just turned the man in his grave if anything ever did

  36. What is postmodernism ? i mean give discrete definition rather than just call it a certain movement which birds on trees know

  37. So in the end, post modernists are lazy fucks who are too dumb/contienscious to learn or understand anything? Ok…got it.

  38. did peterson just say the all-encompassing claim that humans are solely motivated by a will to power is deconstructionist? oh boy, deconstructionism is like the opposite

  39. Es un capitulo pequeño y penoso en la vida del internet que Peterson se haya vuelto tan famoso, en algunos años sera tan relevante como cualquier meme viejo, su libro "12 reglas para tontos" será una farsa mas como el monoriel, el rascacielos de carton pintado, la lupa de 20 metros de diametro y la escalera electrica hacia la nada.

  40. I’m so fucking sick of people who don’t respect the discipline of philosophy spouting off on subjects they have never taken the time to study or understand.

  41. How about this..
    Any person who believes Postmodernism should replace enlightenment reasoned Thinking is not allowed to access the Internet for the remainder of their lives
    Good idea?
    The Internet is a product of enlightenment reasoned Thinking after all, so it's fair

  42. Postmodernism represents the Subjectivity and the enlightenment represents the Objectivity.
    But our live lie in between those two extremes and therefor we need both to understand our self and life.

  43. When I was a kid, my dad read Hans Christian Andersens adventure, "The Emperor's New Clothes" loud to me, before sleeping. The Emperor kind of reminds me of postmodern intellectuals.

  44. Disliked this cause of the dumb background music, India thinks you can do better.

  45. Derrida, Marcuse et al are the intellectual vandals whose only motivation was the utter destruction of Western civilization and its replacement with a "Postmodernist" Neo Marxist dystopia, whose main characteristic is intellectual dishonesty and outright fallacies.
    This destructive ideology is the root cause of so much that's wrong with today's culture.

  46. This is what happens when you expect Science to solve the problem that has plagued man since the beginning the Fact that we aren't the Masters of our world nor are we it's destroyers, we are merely Our destroyers and anyone foolish enough to think they can control.

  47. Most of all beware anyone offering utopia in return for a small compromise in your right to free speech.

  48. Cultural Marxism = Post Modernism = Poison
    The liberal-leftists are people who can't face reality,
    so they create their own reality. In layman's terms,
    they lie their asses off.
    At best, a few of the Cultural Marxists and Post
    Modernists are psuedo-intellectuals. Most are die-
    hard liberal-leftists; immersed in communism, fascism,
    and socialism. They are totalitarian collectivists. The
    worst kind of totalitarian collectivist is the liberal-left
    globalist.
    Blacks for Trump!

  49. @3:58: if Derrida claims that a text is written with the intent to privilege its author, then Derrida is guilty of seeking power like any other author because he himself wrote texts. So with this reasoning, Derrrida deconstructs his own argument.

  50. Hahaha imagine choosing Peterson, Hicks and Chomsky to explain postmodernism. Three of the most high-profile people to completely misunderstand postmodernism.

  51. Elitist Intellectuals write books for college kids {suckers} believing the jackasses live the books [$$$$] they say [ in the media].

  52. 3:46, 24:45 – That is not what Derrida believed at all. He's so imprecise that he has clearly never read Derrida.

  53. I cant handle this. people who didnt read nietzche, focault, derrida, ect, Let me give you an advice, dont believe in JP, he destroys filosophical concepts such as the Will of power. he doesnt know anything about filosophy, whether you agree with post moderns or not, this guy evidences very basic mistakes in filosophical concepts, and no one should take what he says as valid.

  54. I have never really been able to understand exactly what Foucault was talking about. I believe that was actually his intention to insulate himself from criticism by being vague and obscure. You cant be criticised if people aren't sure exactly what you are saying and I'm sure that was the point whether he realised he was doing it, perhaps he didn't even realise and actually thought he was profound ? He seems to do little other than make very broad and frankly banal claims about the nature of power such as "large institutions are susceptible to corruption" and act as if this was some novel idea not something so obvious that its barely worth stating. I think he only cared that people who bought the shtick believed he was smart rather than actually say anything worth saying. His exchange with Chomsky demonstrates this perfectly Chomsky may as well have been talking to a cabbage for all the sense that Foucault was making.

  55. When a comment section of right wing boneheads rail against a branch of philosophy of which they can’t define the core tenets, let alone make a coherent argument against. Go back and listen to lobster boy bloviate about ‘postmodern neo-marxists’ (contradiction in terms if you’d care to do any reading) or western civilization or something.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *