Leave a Response

Your email address will not be published.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

100 thoughts on “Postmodernism is not identity politics”

  • I may be incorrect- any by all means, feel free to correct me- but it seems to me that Postmodernism is a question to an answer nobody asked. Let's go back to your example- that is to say, the example of "what is soup"?

    Well, unmooring oneself from their culture, from their identity, from the unique historical, social, and ethnic lineage one is typically bound to, we can indeed ask such questions about "what is soup" and not arrive at a clear definition- because the thought, the idea of a thing, detached from it's history and connotations, is rendered meaningless by these omissions. It is that very social-historical context of a thing which creates these layers of meaning for what a thing is. And there may be forms of soup that border on being cereal, and vice versa- but this is an artifact of a given idea, a given language, a given culture, and a given people in a given time- perhaps in the future a new word may be created to more clearly define such instances. All this and more is why the layman can and often does scoff at such questions as "what is soup?" An electrician, a plumber, an auto mechanic, could give a fuck less as they know what "soup" is in the context to which it applies to them, and the fact that perhaps some people pretend not to know what "soup" is in a given context is probably amusing to some, and frustrating to those who just want some soup. With neither anchor nor sail- left adrift in a sea of amorphous ideas that are always shifting and dissipating- forms that one may catch, but never grasp.

    As for "Master" and "Slave" morality applied in this specific context, it is clear to me that the goal of "Master morality" is one has only been achieved and achievable by small fractions of incredibly gifted individuals throughout history, and it is unreasonable to expect the vast majority of people to be constantly questioning and recreating these concepts. Human beings are innately tribal- we have evolved, regardless of our origins, in the context of collective action and collective solidarity. What matters is not necessarily what is ideal, but what is pragmatic- what is possible. Chefs, "Masters" in their given field, may indeed radically reinvent "soup" as a concept through their creative impulses- and if it is popular, the idea will catch on, spread, and eventually become a new norm- a new "old conservative concept" to be smashed to bits by a new innovator in that field.

    Deconstruction cannot be an end to itself, and has seldom been such. We destroy old, rotted, condemned houses to rebuild something greater in their place. As such, any person or group who deigns to use Postmodernism will inevitably be required to discard it once the old has been destroyed- what they assert, though novel in it's infancy, will naturally become the new conservative- the new norm- the new thing to be destroyed by a new generation of Postmodernists. In this context, Postmodernism can be seen as a weapon of sorts. And who is armed with this weapon at present? Who or what is the weapon aimed at? Everyone and everything? Or select ideas? Select power structures? Select groups of people? Select countries? Nietzche understood this, and his assessment and answer to the resultant meaningless and nihlism at the end of this deconstruction was underlined and punctuated in perhaps is most famous- and most misunderstood quotation.

    “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”

    When an idea or thing is destroyed, we, by our nature, replace it with something else. The void that God left upon his death beckons to be filled- the old replaced with something new. We can analyze and philosophically deconstruct the mechanism and thought process by which this occurs, but that does not matter- for some things appear to be innate to the vast majority of humanity- the concept of a higher power or higher powers in one or another form, the concept of trade in one or another form, of ownership somehow, of governance somehow, of relationships somehow. They can always be changed, but never erased in their entirety, due to their innateness as concepts. Thus, in my opinion, argument over god or trade or morals or sexual identity is fruitless. The focus to any well-meaning individual ought to be- what is the most beneficent expression of these things? Is it better for a given group of people's existence and health to be heteronormative and chaste? Heteronormative and promiscuous? Homosexual and promiscuous? Patriarchal? Matriarchal? Nature affirming? Nature rejecting? Religious? Secular? Would people be better off under a planned economy or under a market economy? Would a country be better off racially homogeneous or ethnically diverse? Are the expressions of these concepts- of these identities and practices- a net benefit or a net cost for those expressing them? Postmodernists seem, to my eyes, uninterested with end of the creation of something new and better- they seem wholly occupied with the methods of deconstruction. The people who use these concepts for their own aims, invariably, seem to point this deconstruction in a given direction, perhaps with the hope that their own preconceptions, their own forms, the kaleidoscope of thoughts and ideas which make up their own identities will not be subject to this very process of deconstruction.

    Which is, of course, folly. A monopoly on any given weapon is seldom maintained for very long. And the results of that re-armament are what you see today culturally, and in particular, within meme culture, though it is sure to take shape in other areas before too long.

  • All the good points – But will the 3rd generation feminists, the fascist oligarchy, the new 'right' and the population in general learn their lesson? 🙂

  • Peterson is reacting to people who use idpol tactics derived from a crude understanding of postmodernist ideas (and who almost always self-identify as Marxists). Of course, the right uses these same underhanded tactics. And you're oversimplifying the Right's victimhood argument just because they don't blame capitalism. Her argument is no more nuanced than theirs.

  • Foucault is passé here in France. Weird how the anglosaxon world receives him. Identities are complex and dynamic.

  • 5:25 The soup u showed is actually called chłodnik not barszcz, barszcz is some other soup wich is also red but i's served hot most of the time.

  • 4:45 – This is so true. Professor Peterson mistakes postmodernism as a essentialist's philosophy, probably because he's an essentialist him self. From his own perspective there's pretty much nothing else but essence. He's in unable to dismantle the source of his criticism due to his own worldview. And that's a serious problem! From an other set of core belief systems, like fundamental axioms…
    … that brings the discussion to a different level.

    Probably waay too abstract to handle in a political debate.

  • If postmodernists argue that there are no essential criteria for objects, then what about geometrical objects? A triangle can easily be defined as a figure that has three sides, its angles will always obtain the sum of 180 degrees and etc. So, I am wondering whether postmodernists generally operate with a nuanced definition of essentialism, e.g., that abstract objects (such as geometrical, mathematical or any a priori concepts) have essential characteristics while concrete objects (soup, man/woman, dog and etc.) do not. Or, if it is the case that neither abstract or concrete objects have any essential characteristics whatsoever.

  • honestly, I think you hit on the correct definition of soup at 5:40. The trick is that desert soup is in fact not "soup".

  • But humans and other living things have an essence in form of DNA.
    You can with great precision put people in groups on this basis.

    Whereas defining an essence of soup is meaningless and philosophical exercise.

  • The dominant twin defines the category. Thus Peterson and other reactionaries are the progenitors of Identity politics. You might call them radical heterosexualists. They set up the category – but when the weaker twin asserts that identity in order to protect its interests; the dominant Twin claims the Weaker Twin is obsessed with identity.

    It's the dominant Twin that's obsessed with identity; the weaker twin is only responding to categorization.

  • I always thought Postmodernism = Fourth-Wall Breaking, ever since I first heard the word used to describe Duck Amuck in this context, so I still think of Daffy vs the animator when I hear it.

  • I would LOVE for someone to go over Zerathustra's Serpant's take down of SJW philosophy. See he points out that the philosophy that he and folks like Peterson are objecting to is a mismash of various philosophies that only borrow superficially from the parent philosophies that originate from. Post Modernism therefore is used to deconstruct various systems of logic so that the mind is open to the memes (academically speaking) the other philosophies hold.

    An example of this is when you have folks stating that biological sex doesn't exist. This statement is born from post modernist thinking. So to is the idea of infinite genders. Whenever you hear people discussing the idea of deconstructing concepts and re-contextualizing things in an infinite number of ways… THAT is post modernism at work.

  • Fantastic, subscribed. As a Peterson fan, his politics never sat well with me, seeming flippant and dismissive. I also thought his approach to philosophy was somewhat lazy and shallow, with his discourse mainly being constructed with broad, imprecise statements with no source material. Having met the man he does seem genuine on the psychological and self help side of things but I can’t understand why he’s being so intellectually dishonest when it comes to postmodernism. He could simply be not well read in this area (his ‘debate’ with Zizek would suggest this) or there could be a more vengeful or monetary reason. Anyway, thank you for this video, it cleared up a lot of ambiguity and questions in my own thought. Could you recommend any reading I could undertake to familiarise myself with the concepts presented? Thanks!

  • When people criticize Jordan Peterson, its always….. "his statement isn't even remotely correct"…. but dude, it actually is pretty damn close the the entire truth.

    Its difficult to take criticism serious when it doesn't concede that the people being criticized is at least right about a portion of the topic they discuss. It makes it seem like the people who listen to them are completely disconnected from reality.

  • Peterson criticises extreme essentialism and extreme constructivism. There are too many scientific findings that show, that there are essentialist factors (eg genetics) and constructivist factors (eg environment and education). I see a lot of constructivism in identity politics too, for example the reasons why some "groups" seem to be oppressed by others. Systemic discrimination is bullshit, there is individual discrimination, but no such thing as group-victimhood like intersectional studies say. Who is succesful and who is not is the outcome of individual decisions and not the outcome of systemic discrimination, that can not be proved.

  • Identity politics is actually quite conservative. The conservatives of yesteryear were the ones categorising people into identity groups (sex, race, nation, religion). Now the 'progressives' are doing it. What is unique though to the 'progressives'' approach is they've inserted a machinery of 'victimhood' into it for certain groups.

  • Jordan Peterson has more conspiracy theories about the Postmodernists than the Marxists have about the neoliberals

  • Interesting and well informed.
    I think critical theory had more influence on identity politics as postmodernism is not an essentialist political or sociological theory or anything coherent in the first place. So I fully agree with you there. That said, there is a significant overlap between the work, goals and even methods of the critical theorist in the Frankfurt School and some early postmodern thinkers. They recognized this themselves. Also some scientists claim that schools like post-colonial studies, woman's studies, etc. employ 'postmodern theory' instead of the scientific method and that these schools are therefore aimed at activism, not the gathering of knowledge. So are only a few obscure postmodernist activists then? Well, Habermas, a moderate member of the Frankfurt School, stated that the philosophy of the prominent postmodern thinkers is at the very least "politically suspect" and gave some very good reasons for that. I think both critical theorist and some prominent postmodernist were fundamentally attacking Western enlightenment thinking, which included an attack on exact science, especially biological essentialism. Lyotard's 'The Postmodern Condition' is exemplary of this. This position today leads to ridiculous episodes in academia such as the Grievance Studies. Still Peterson is definitely exaggerating and oversimplifying the role of postmodernism.

  • There is considerable overlap between poststructuralism / postmodernism from, e.g. Derrida, and identity politics. It's funny that you should mention postcolonial studies because poststructuralism is used in postcolonial studies quite a lot. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak does this, for example.

  • so gender is not an essence rooted in biology and sex? keep trying to argue this and citing how .001% and exception disproves all rules. also, foucault had different phases and started out rather structuralist. also, jordan peterson is a dumbass but still you are not really representing him right.

    butler defends pedophilia. foucault does too. you are overthinking, like most leftists, failing to see the bigger picture. and nietzsche was right wing, essentialist.

    victim mentality is modern slave morality, aka leftism. everything you are saying is your own attempt to make these thinkers fit your politics. identity is authentic. it is. we are our parents. that sucks, but it is true.

    you are really lost.

  • But isn’t the claim that there is no such thing as an “essence” or no such thing as “objective truth” an essential or objective claim in and of itself?

  • 15 minutes of pure semanthics and pseudo intelectual dismiss of actual criticism.
    the line of thought expressed within the video adresses the issue of identity politics being unsustainable ie the left eating eatself with the whole dependency on the other part of the expectrum the proposed solution is such a vague and idealistic concept that left me dissapointed for once I tought academia would think of something pragmatic and aplicable on a real enviroment.

  • I'm a non binary/genderfluid/maverique/agender/demigirl, and as a result sorta both bi and lesbian. The identity policing is super strong against me because I don't "really" fit into any universal neat little boxes. Some cliques consider me not a real lesbian because of the strong non woman aspect of my gender and/or pattern of attraction (which leans most heavily towards androgyny, and quite a bit with femininity, but not with masculinity at all). Some consider me not really bi because they associate bi with binary in some form or another, typically "if you aren't attracted to men, you aren't bi".

    Still a lot of people want me to eschew all such labels and go with "pan" because I reject the notion that gender is in any sense essentialist, and don't see possible attraction to men as incompatible with the lesbian aspect as it describes a trend rather than a rule. Especially since men can look or act like anything really, particularly when you take into consideration non or pre transitioning trans men that shouldn't be seen as "women", but shouldn't be forcibly removed from the realm of romance and attraction based on identity alone just because I don't find "masculine traits" attractive. So they say I should say "pan with a preference", despite a large portion of said community deciding that "preference" is antithetical to what it means to be "pan" so if you have a preference you really should go with bi…

    Some people say I should adopt all new niche tumblr terms, and I mean I do sometimes to open up conversations. But It's not like I really want "neptunic" to take the place of some kind of essentialist "lesbian" term but for non binary too. Cause that only makes things more complicated when you then start trying to categorize non binary identities and experiences into new binaries itself. Sorta undermining the kinda point of identifying outside of a false binary in the first place.

    Some people get mad saying having any identity at all is wrong and "idpol", but I don't think rejecting labels entirely is very useful for communication. But at some level I also don't feel like having the labels really communicates much when most people are very stuck in their prescriptivist views of these things.

    Of course others say I should stop trying to feel special and make a snowflake identity. I should just "be" in one of several positions within these false binaries. That I'm just a transtrender and either "actually cishet" or from more conservative critics, that I should be straight. Of course the "actually cishet" crowd is also full of people mocking the "afab demigirl" aspect which always leaves me confused about how a supposed "cis girl" is also "het" if they're also "exclusively" attracted to women, I mean, by these people's own logic especially. So they've got the least valid points of all the critics by virtue of being self contradictory and reactionary in nature.

    Sucks being a "postmodern neomarxist" sometimes lol

  • Foucault repeatedly tried to kill himself. Then he wrote "Madness and Civilisation" to critique psychology. I don't know how people can't see how obvious his bias is here. He couldn't handle that he was mentally ill and suicidal, so he attacked the whole discipline of psychology for labelling him. His own sexuality ran to the extreme high-risk gay BDSM world where he enjoyed having his own miserable psyche destroyed in the unspeakable pleasures of self-destructive group sex. Yet rather than looking at his own self-destructive nihilism, he sought to 'debunk' sexual categories instead. Sexuality was merely 'historical and contingent'. He subconsciously wanted to undermine the bodies of knowledge and categorisation which would've identified him as a dysfunctional personality.

  • Putting these two together is not much of a he said, she said, at least in the way I understand identity politics: interest groups. I guess I am just contrarian today, because overarchingly, the master/slave dichotomy is self-limiting and a fait accompli. However, and above all, this channel is hands down the very best. Thank you.

  • Reading helps. Instead of paying for hoodwink and entertainment on Patreon … Jordan BallTalk is totally avoidable simply because it helps no one (but frustrated disenfranchised folks)
    And remember "The White Horse is Not Horse" Hence, the clear soup is not soup.


  • Very interesting video! Makes me think about a… not rebuttal, but interesting counterclaim maybe? Specifically, the argument that current hegemonic identities like "whiteness" or "straightness", because they are defined as only what they're not (eg. the absence of race), are inherently hollow and unsatisfying. Being defined by their negation should place them on the slave side of Nietzshe's analysis, while the historical and cultural context of those identities is one of being the oppressor.

    Is there a good place to look for a discussion of this, uh, conflict?

  • In the same way we can say that romanticism isn't modernist or that surrealism isn't modernist!
    I understand making the distinction between different schools of thought but identity politics is surely influenced by the postmodern episteme just as romanticism was influenced by the modernist one.
    The academic or theoretical differences don't deny the mutual cultural influence or culture reproduction. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Does your video means that postmodernism isn't identity politics which doesn't contradict that identity politics is postmodernist?!

  • I used to have a peterson esque view of pomo and after watching your defends of pomo, ive become very interested though i am a post marxist im still a capitalist since there is no other reliable alternative

  • Britannica disagrees with you: "postmodernism became the unofficial philosophy of the new movement of 'identity politics.' "

    I'm sure you know better, though.


  • Wow! So here I am, a Spanish Graduate on Philosophy writing on this very comment section. I bet you didn't see this coming! haha

    I really love your yt channel, as someone who doesn't reject or dismiss any of the problems associated with posmodern philosophy (if that's even A Thing) but who happens to love it! If I create something like that in Spanish any of these years, I just want you to know you will always have been my greatest inspiration.

  • So what point are you making? This sounds like sophistry. The essence of Post-Modernism is that nothing is true and that is the only truth.

  • Just the other day I had a male friend ask me if their hairdo made them look "gay"…it really struck me because I've grown older and wiser in some ways and the question unsettled me, reminding me of old insecurities that suddenly felt very present yet gone at the same time. I told my friend "no it doesn't" but really wanted to have a more in depth conversation, but couldn't get past the urge say "stop caring you whiny bitch"…

  • Yes, but soup must have its liquid element acquire its flavour from the solid elements contained within it throughout the process of its preparation. Cereal may also be prepared in such a way as to meet this requirement as matter of personal preference (through prolonged soaking and such), at which point it may very well be termed soup, however it does not necessarily conform to it otherwise.

  • I m not fond of that use of the term essentialist myself. It sounds like the old existentialist/essentialist deadlock. In a quantum world you can both at the same time. At very least define essentialist. Essence is used in a very different way in metaphysics and does not represent a limit concept such as identity, but in fact the opposite.

  • Very interesting. I want to study more now.

    Though you may be so so right. People, and movements, in the real world do not follow the script, and they are the loudest, most aggressive, and hence you might say the most real.

    Peterson was articulating a critique that many many saw, a critique of real human forces and ideas that people must deal with daily. The fruits of a mix of beliefs ever-evolving? Whatever that is, it may be more important.

  • Great video. Amazing work. I think right wing oriented people still will misunderstand the subject willingly as long as they can use it to demonize anything that gives them thinky pain.

  • Listen carefully! [The narrator reaffirms Jorden Peterson's correct criticism of the postmodernism] and this is truly evil and insidious – typical of how leftist obfuscate reality and the truth. The postmodernist, as he explains, develope categories in which to define objective reality. The soup is not soup, but a collection of immaterial, disconnected, objects with no apparent all-encompassing connection. Stated colloquially: You have your soup and I'll have my soup and the twain shall never meet! Thus – rebellion dominates the fundamental structure of civilization. Example: Mao's cultural revolution! For mankind, power is a drug because man believes that power brings security and the post-modernist accurately understood this dynamic. Define a group by its immaterial parts and individuals, by nature, will seek security through the identity of their individual group. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao murdered millions by isolating the individual from the greater construct of society. I.E. we are the sum of our parts, and the parts are greater than the whole. Be a superman and empower your [own] definition of reality and not – be subject to the group. In the beginning, groups are constructed but, through this unrelenting [mathematical formula of sub-division] constructed by the postmodernist: It quickly becomes a recipe for absolute and continuous chaos. It is pure evil, but the real tragedy is: This narrator is completely deluded, and is unable to fully understand its lethal and inevitable results. [Let me tell you about my communist paradise] Good-luck!

  • A good video: Just as “feminism” has evolved to mean something different than equality (of opportunity) between the sexes, maybe so has “postmodernism” evolved beyond its originators nuanced views.

    Personal thought: The sub disciplines of science – biology, chemistry, physics, etc – have their various theories/laws. Yet, scientists understand that those theories/laws are bounded by domains (can’t apply Darwinian evolution to quantum mechanics). With philosophies however, while there is “truth” in a number of different philosophies in a given domain, humans seem to “buy-in” to one philosophy and apply (misapply) that philosophy in all domains.

    Are there racists in America? Yes. Is America fundamentally racist because of its white majority population and power dynamics between the races? No. (Critical Race Theory problem). Has American civilization repressed women’s advancement in many areas of society? Yes. Does that mean that American society is fundamentally patriarchal? No. (Critical Feminist Theory). As Peterson would say, this is a multi-variate problem that ideologues want to blame on one variable.

    In thinking about the application of philosophy on society, this is where Peterson shines. I understand how the purist philosopher is frustrated by the – pun intended – “misgendering/misdefining” of philosophies as explained by Peterson.

  • Isn't "postmodernism" just something that people get accused of for finding out that James Brown is more fun to dance to than Mozart?

  • My family firmly believe that borsht isn't a soup for reasons I still don't know.
    We talking about Ukrainian borsht, not polish. Polish is shredingers soup: it depends on the way it's cooked

    So soup issue is one I very invested in.

  • Sorry I can't indulge any of this nonsense. Validation of subjective analyses. Let's just fight. Not breathing is an objective truth.

  • Filthy essentialist collectivist here. It's sad to watch Peterson being so entrenched in his individualism that he can't criticise something without connecting it to collectivism and how he sees this as the greatest evil.

  • I feel that Identity Politics or in this case it's intersectionality, isn't the same thing as being obsessed with identity. Now you mentioned before that you think a lot of leftists online are obsessed with their identity, I believe that could be true. However in the case of ppl who marginalized, I think it makes sense to be attached to identity, I think it's a very healthy thing, because that behavior deviates from the society that forces them to behave as the majority. Eventually they will transcend into a state that they gain so much confidence in expressing themselves that they don't need an identity to do it. I also believe that at this point it's nonsensical that that would manifest on a social level and becomes comparable to the heterosexual virility. We are reaching the point when most of us queer folk understand that identifying as queer can be expressed in so many ways. Trans ppl are starting to allow nonbinary ppl to be included in their community even if they don't have dysphoria. Gay ppl are starting understand that being Bi isn't the same as being straight and that the same can be applied to Aces and Aros. This of course is not solely caused idpol, but it's caused by intersectionality, the belief that all marginalized voices must be heard and accommodated for.

  • The essence of soup is a cooked liquid that is cooked with solid ingredients. Cereal is solid bits with uncooked milk added later.

  • i see what the problem is. today's progressive politics is a mish mash of beliefs which is incoherent and inconsistent. in an attempt to explain how cultural relativism goes together with anarchism and marxism and identity politics Peterson looks back at history and coins the term "neo marxist". those are marxists who became shell-shocked after the fall of the Soviet Union. people who needed some similar thing to believe in. where the struggle between capitalist and worker can be reframed as something else. like patriarchy, gender roles, colonialism. should he be using "progressive" or "woke culture" instead of "neo marxism"? maybe. but that certainly gets the point across to the general public that there are crazy radicals out there.

  • Though part of the dynamic one observes in the far left whom Peterson attributes to placing group identity above the individual still manifest creative differentiation and innovation at the level of self presentation and the persona, as well as say the innumerable gender and sexual orientation categories. We see all sorts of unique creative expressions of the individual at the same time as utilizing a lens upon the world that does appear to predominantly categorize people by their group identity. For example during the women's march organized by the left, claimed to represent all women, though no predominant conservative women were invited to speak at the rally. So it's not that they represent all women at the level of the individual, it's really only representing women with the same ideological views of the tribe. So if a black women is also a conservative, they'll be judged and discluded so far as to often be labeled such things as an internal misogynist.

  • The only people that matter in all areas of creativity are the gifted individuals whose rare creativity sets them apart from the human race! SO FU LEFTY RETARDS AS YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

  • @Cuck philosophy Wouldn't you say it's ironic to bring up a distinction between "Master morality" and "Slave morality" in relation to categories of thought labeled "postmodern"? What I mean is, wouldn't the very act of labelling something as "post-modern" be slavishly dependent on a reference to the "modern"?

  • It's why the chinese guy said "A white horse in not horse" circa 300 BC… Post Modern Ancient.
    Yet, why do people charge money to impart universally useful knowledge?

  • Certain types of modern self psychology has advocated for identity essentialism.

    You can see this in the late 1970’s CASS technique for gay identity which advocates a psychological process where a client forecloses on any other identity other than a gay identity. It was a psychology that assumed a gay essence.

    Peterson’s problem is not that certain observations of contemporary phenomenon are wrong it is that his genealogies are wrong.

    If he questions something like gay essentialism as a psychological construct he would inevitably lead to the question of straight identity as a psychological construct. He would follow the line of thinking of Judith Butler at least to a degree, and would be forced to ask how is the concepts of “man” and “straight” conditioned identities.

  • By the way, postmodernity or contemporaneity, there is precisely the end of metanarratives (Nazism, Communism, Liberalism, Social Democracy) based on these work ethic. Essa é a visão de Lyotard. A Modernidade teve como grande centro de estudo o trabalho: since from Marx, Weber, Smith, Durkheim, etc.
    The Ptolemaic disarmament would be a new era in Western thought and postmodernity that points us to the end of metanarratives, the end of the absolute, the crisis of great certainties, the strength of Darwinism, multiculturalism, the disconnect between reality and truth and the valuation of subjectivity: to transform. Coming out of the absolute and forming the relative, this is the rule that drives Modernity: the kinetics. None of us will resurrect God. We will all be attempts to adopt the relative, the transformer, and the modifiable (even the conservative). It is Nietzsche who says that God died and that relativisms would come in place of the absolute. The various areas of human activity would act with the loss of the absolute to institute the relative. The image of God as a sphere is left behind. A gear has been given which is impossible to stop or slow down. Mobility and acceleration is the basis for no more time for an entire generation. Besides Nieztsche we could also put: Wittgenstein, Eisenberg, Quine, Thomas Kuhn, Judith Butler, Nixon, Donald Davidson, even a little Freud, Peter Sloterdijk (with his spherology).

    With the epistemology and sociology of science we have: Kuhn, Foucault, Latour. Max Scheler, who in the early twentieth century, was one of the first to synthesize this kind of research in his studies of the sociology of knowledge. They revealed that ideas are inextricably linked with interest. Thus we would have: knowledge of formation, knowledge of salvation and knowledge of domination. The three great anthropologically possible complexes of deduction, of interests in formation, salvation, and domination. The "interest" word that functioned as a polite password of the passions since the seventeenth century consumed in a catastrophe of pure theory (could we put Kelsen on the bill?). With Thomas Kuhn's theory of paradigms and Foucault's theory of discourse, we see that to this day it is not clear how we should read these explorations as unbiased ethnologies of the theoretical field or as critical denunciations of discursive conformism. In case of ethnology, it would be a great corrective for sociology.

  • Lol, my thought of my thought of my thought, that I thought of out of thinking and the thought presented itself ! W who thought was it !

  • I like how this video manages to use postmodern thought as a means of critiquing both Peterson AND identity politics. Most arguments have more than two sides, and this vid illustrates that fact quite well.

  • Identity is something you are Spiritually or Physically Born with. If you are Baptized, you are Born into Christ. If your Ancestors are Japanese, you are Born Japanese. If you are Born with a Penis, you are a Man. etc.

  • Posmodernism is a big piece of shit that isn't serve to anybody for nothing, only for posmodernism himselves fuck your own egos…Postestructuralism and postmodernism, while bright minds find to make water from rocks to millons of people in many places, those band of fools make a lot of money with
    his fucking and obscures lies out of any logic. Read Sokal…to learn some about these people.

  • I don't think Peterson's critique of postmodernism is unfounded though. In your explanation, actually Peterson doesn't disagree with the essentialism argument. Its just that this set of ideas when applied, leads to really regressive and hostile actions of the activists types, especially those attempting to redefine gender not as categories, but as a spectrum (so that it covers all "categories"). While it sounds like a nice idea, it is a fundamental assault on categories that have utility in organising social systems that work for all of us today. So I don't think he is fully abhorrent of postmodern philosophy, but wishes to tamper it. Even Foucault in his own words, "that their own identity has to become the law", is exactly the same argument that Peterson is making. It is the identity becoming the law that is the issue, and Bill C16 is a manifestation of that.

    He is more abhorrent of the combination of marxism (oppressor vs oppressed narrative) and post-modernism that gives birth to identity politics because of the sleight of hand that these revolutionaries play in bringing this marxist doctrine into post-modern philosophy. Marxism allows the individual to subjectively decide the value of their labour. While in post-modernist sense, the individual can self-subjectify and redefine their own essence and being (which Peterson actually doesn't critique, because its true, and its something that the fundamental Western idea of the sovereignty of the individual has actually solved). The combination of Marxism and post-modernism is when in the supposed free market exchange of ideas, that one set of these self-subjectified ideas (e.g. Heterosexuality) has more utility than another set of these self-subjectified ideas (e.g. Homosexuality), and it creates a hierarchy of which ideas are better. And those ideas that have more utility are used to create the categories that we see today (e.g. Male and female) and becomes the norm established through Foucauldian discourse (language, speech), which in some sense "oppresses" the other people who have counter/conflicting ideas to the norm. That is what he finds abhorrent, since what the activists types are doing is to subvert that whole order and establish their own categories, which in some sense, Peterson is using the same post-modernist argument, to critique its applications, that undermine their own post-modernist roots and leanings. Because its abolition of categories, to form new categories, which still imposes on others, hence the birth of identity politics. Its the imposition that he finds repulsive.

  • I really like Peterson but I've always thought his views on postmodernism were kind of just wrong. It's understandable where he gets those ideas from though. They are the views of the particular groups of postmodernists that he has interacted with

  • Now please go and tell this to every modern western humanities undergrad department. The level of anti-intellectual "enquiry" made under the banner of Postmodernism is scary. The deliberate conflation of issues, blindness to context and lack of thinking when faced by ones own contradictions is almost dogmatic to its core. Undergraduates are supposed to be free thinkers not disciples to their cult like humanities professors. I feel betrayed trying to get into varsity from a very rough background with many of these identity issues, my hunger for truth and knowledge in attempt to better myself was met by this pathetic bureaucratic, virtuous and incoherent nonsense. Cannot wait to tell my grandmother who worked on a farm alongside men, raised a family in barely working class conditions how empty and meaningless her life and sacrifice was due to concepts like "The Patriarchy". Petersons articulation of how Postmodernism is used or distorted in contemporary humanities departments is spot on.