Up until this point, I’ve avoided talking about Jordan Peterson in any serious manner. In part because I thought (and continue to hope) that he’s the intellectual version of a fad diet who will shortly become irrelevant. My general impression of him is that when he’s right, he’s saying rather banal, cliché truisms with an undeserved bombastic air of profundity, such as his assertions that there are biological differences between men and women, that many religious myths share some similar features, or that taking personal responsibility is good. When he’s wrong, he’s talking way out of the depth of his understanding in his field (like the infamous lobster comment or this bizarre nonsense). Either way, it doesn’t make for a rather good use of time or opportunity for interesting, productive discussion—especially when his galaxy-brained cult-like fanboys are ready to pounce on anyone who criticizes their dear leader.
However, since everyone seems to be as obsessed with Jordan Peterson as he is with himself, I guess it’s finally time to talk about one example of him ignorantly bloviating that particularly annoys me as a philosophy student: his comments on postmodernism. There’s a lot one can talk about with Jordan Peterson because he says almost anything that comes to his mind about any topic, but for the present purposes you can pretend that I think everything he’s ever said that isn’t about postmodern is the deepest, most insightful thing ever said by any thinker in the history of western thought. I’m not interested in defending any overarching claims about him as a thinker. At the very least, his work on personality psychology does seem rather well respected and he surely got to his prestigious academic position with some merit, though I am not qualified to really appraise it. I am, however, more prepared to talk about his rather confused comments on philosophy which might shed light on why people are generally frustrated with his overly self-confident presence as a public intellectual.
Postmodernism, According to Peterson
Peterson often makes comments about “postmodern neo-Marxism,” which he calls a “rejection of the western tradition.” Now the very phrase “postmodern neo-Marxism” strikes anyone remotely familiar with the academic literature on postmodernism and Marxism as bizarre and confused. Postmodernism is usually characterized as skepticism towards grand general theories. Marxism is a grand general theory about how class struggle and economic conditions shape the trajectory of history. Clearly, those two views are not at all compatible. As such, much of the history of twentieth century academia is a history of Marxists and postmodernists fighting and butting heads.
Many commentators have pointed out this error, but Jordan Peterson now has a response. In it he tries to offer a more refined definition of postmodernism as two primary claims and a secondary claim:
Postmodernism is essentially the claim that (1) since there are an innumerable number of ways in which the world can be interpreted and perceived (and those are tightly associated) then (2) no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived.
That’s the fundamental claim. An immediate secondary claim (and this is where the Marxism emerges) is something like “since no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived, all interpretation variants are best interpreted as the struggle for different forms of power.”
He then goes on to concede to the criticism that Marxism and postmodernism can’t be described as theoretically aligned, but moves the goal posts to say that they are practically aligned in politics. Further, he contends postmodernisms’ commitment to analyze power structures is just “a rehashing of the Marxist claim of eternal and primary class warfare.”
It is worth noting that this attempt at nuance is surely an improvement at Peterson’s previous comments that postmodern a Marxism are a coherent “doctrine” that just hated logic and western values. But his attempt at a “definition” is unsatisfactorily way too restrictive for every thinker who gets called “postmodern,” and the attempt to link the politics of postmodernism up with the politics of Marxism is a complete mischaracterization. Further, his attempt to “critique” this position, whatever one wants to call it, is either (at best) vague and imprecise or (at worst) utterly fails. Finally, there really is no alliance between postmodernists and Marxists. Whether or not a thinker is called a “postmodernist” or not is not a very good predictor of their political views.
Why Peterson’s Definition isn’t what Postmodernists Believe and his Critique Fails
First of all, I am really not interested in dying on the hill of offering a better “definition” of postmodernism. Like any good Wittgensteinian, I tend to think you can’t really give a good list of necessary and sufficient conditions that perfectly captures all the subtle ways we use a word. The meaning of the word is the way it is used. Even within academia postmodernism has such broad, varied usage that I’m not sure it has a coherent meaning. Indeed, Foucault once remarked in a 1983 interview when asked about postmodernism, “What are we calling postmodernity? I’m not up to date.” The best I can give is Lyotard’s classic “incredulity toward metanarratives,” which is rather vague and oversimplified. Because this is the best I think one can do given how wildly unpredictable the usage of postmodernism is, we’re probably better off just not putting too much stock in it either as one’s own philosophical position or as the biggest existential threat to western civilization and we should talk about more substantive philosophical disagreements.
That said, Jordan Peterson’s definition is unsatisfactory and shows a poor understanding of postmodernism. While the first half of the fundamental claim is a pretty good stab at generalizing a view most philosophers who get labeled as postmodern agree with, the second half is rather unclear since it’s uncertain what Peterson means by “canonical.” If he takes this to mean that we have no determinate way of determining which interpretations are valid, then that would be a good summary of most postmodernists and an implication of Peterson’s own professed Jamesian pragmatism. If what he thinks it means is that all perspectives are as valid as any other and we have no way of deciphering which ones are better than the other, then nobody relevant believes that.
Peterson objects to is the implication “that there are an unspecifiable number of VALID interpretations.” He tries to refute this by citing Charles Pierce (who actually did not at all hold this view) and William James on the pragmatic criterion of truth to give meaning to “valid interpretations.” He says valid means “when the proposition or interpretation is acted out in the world, the desired outcome within the specific timeframe ensues.” However, it doesn’t follow from this view that you can specify the number of valid interpretations. It just begs the question of how we should understand what “the desired outcome” means, which just puts the perspectivism back a level. Even if we did agree on a determinate “desired outcome,” there are still multiple beliefs one could have to achieve a desired outcome. To put it in a pragmatically-minded cliché, there is more than one way to skin a cat. This is why, in fact, William James was a pluralist.
Perhaps by “specifiable,” he doesn’t mean we can readily quantify the number of valid interpretations, just that the number is not infinite. However, nobody believes there are an infinite number of valid perspectives we should consider. The assertion that a priori we cannot quantify the number of valid perspectives does not mean that all perspectives are equally valid or that there are an infinite number of valid perspectives. Peterson’s argument that we have limited cognitive capacities to consider all possible perspectives is true, it’s just not a refutation of anything postmodernists believe. On this point, it is worth quoting Richard Rorty—one who was both a Jamesian pragmatist and usually gets called postmodern—from Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature:
When it is said, for example, that coherentist or pragmatic “theories of truth” allow for the possibility that many incompatible theories would satisfy the conditions set for “the truth,” the coherentist or pragmatist usually replies this merely shows that we have no grounds for choice among thse candidates for “the truth.” The moral to draw is not to say they have offered inadequate analyses of “true,” but that there are some terms—for example, “the true theory,” “the right thing to do”—which are, intuitively and grammatically singular, but for which no set of necessary and sufficient conditions can be given which will pick out a unique referent. This fact, they say, should not be surprising. Nobody thinks that there are necessary and sufficient conditions which will pick out, for example, the unique referent of “the best thing for her to have done on finding herself in that rather embarrassing situation,” though plausible conditions can be given as to which will shorten a list of competing incompatible candidates. Why should it be any different for the referents of “what she should have done in that ghastly moral dilemma” or “the Good Life for man” or “what the world is really made of?” [Emphasis mine]
The fact that we cannot readily quantify a limited number of candidates for interpretations or decide between them algorithmically does not that we have absolutely no ways to tell which interpretation is valid, that all interpretations are equally valid, nor does it mean there are an infinite number of potentially valid interpretations. Really, the view that many (though not all) postmodernists actually hold under this “primary claim” is not all that substantially different from Peterson’s own Jamesian pragmatism.
As for the secondary claim, which he thinks is Marxist, that “since no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived, all interpretation variants are best interpreted as the struggle for different forms of power.” This view is basically just one just Foucault might have held depending on how you read him. Some would argue this isn’t even a good reading of Foucault because such sweeping generalizations about “all interpretations” is rather uncharacteristic of a philosopher who’s skeptical of sweeping generalizations. However, you read Foucault (and I’m not really prepared to take a strong stand either way), it certainly isn’t the view of all postmodernists. Rorty criticized this habit of Foucault (Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, p. 63), and thought that even if power does shape modern subjectivity it’s worth the tradeoff in the gains to freedom that modern liberalism has brought and thus is not the best way to view. It’s also telling that Peterson doesn’t even try to critique this claim and just dogmatically dismisses it.
Postmodernism’s Alleged Alliance with Marxism
So much for his vague, weak argument against a straw man. Now let’s see if there’s any merit to Peterson’s thought that Marxism and postmodernism have some important resemblance or philosophical alliance. Peterson says that the secondary claim of postmodernism is where the similarity to Marxism comes. However, Marx simply did not think that all theories are just attempts to grab power in the Foucauldian sense: he didn’t think that dialectical materialism the labor theory of value were just power grabs, and predicted a day when there was no competition for power in the first place at the end of history since a communist society would be classless. If anything, it’s the influence of Nietzsche’s Will to Power on Foucault, and oddly enough Peterson thinks rather highly of Nietzsche (even though Nietzsche anticipated postmodernism in rather important ways).
The only feature that they share is a narrative of one group trying to dominate another group. But if any attempt to describe oppression in society is somehow “Marxist,” that means right libertarians who talk about how the state and crony capitalist are oppressing and coercing the general public are “Marxist,” evangelicals who say Christians are oppressed by powerful liberal elites are “Marxist,” even Jordan Peterson himself is a “Marxist” when he whines about these postmodern Marxist boogeymen are trying to silence his free speech. He both defines “postmodernism” too narrowly, and then uses “Marxism” in such a loose manner that it basically means nothing.
Further, there’s Peterson’s claim that due to identity politics, postmodernists and Marxists now just have a practical political alliance even if it’s theoretically illogical. The only evidence he really gives of this alleged “alliance” is that Derrida and Foucault were Marxists when they were younger who “barely repented” from Marxism and that courses like critical theory and gender studies read Marxists and postmodernists. That they barely repented is simply a lie, Foucault left all his associations with Marxist parties and expunged his earlier works of Marxist themes. But the mere fact that someone once was a Marxist and then criticized Marxism later in their life doesn’t mean there was a continuing alliance between believers in their thought and Marxism. Alasdair MacIntyre was influenced by Marx when he was young and became a Catholic neo-Aristotelian, nobody thinks that he “barely repented” and there’s some overarching alliance between traditionalist Aristotelians and Marxists.
As for the claim that postmodernists and Marxists are read in gender studies, it’s just absurd to think that’s evidence of some menacing “practical alliance.” The reason they’re read in those is mostly courses is to provide contrast for the students of opposing perspectives. This is like saying that because Rawlsian libertarians are taken seriously by academic political philosophers there’s some massive political alliance between libertarians and progressive liberals.
Really, trying to connect postmodernism to any political ideology shows a laughably weak understanding of both postmodernism and political theory. You have postmodernists identifying as everything from far leftists (Foucault), to progressive liberals (Richard Rorty), to classical liberals (Deirdre McClosky), to anarchists (Saul Newman), to religious conservatives (like Peter Blum and James K.A. Smith). They don’t all buy identity politics uniformly, Richard Rorty criticized the left for focusing on identity issues over economic politics and was skeptical of the usefulness of a lot of critical theory. There really is no necessary connection between one’s highly theoretical views on epistemic justification, truth, and the usefulness of metaphysics or other metanarratives and one’s more concrete views on culture or politics.
Now Peterson can claim all the people I’ve listed aren’t “really” postmodern and double down on his much narrower, idiosyncratic definition of postmodernism which has very little relation to the way anyone who knows philosophy uses it. Fine, that’s a trivial semantic debate I’m not really interested in having. But it does create a problem for him: he wants to claim that postmodernism is this pernicious, all-encompassing threat that has consumed all of the humanities and social sciences which hates western civilization. He then wants to define postmodernism so narrowly that it merely describes the views of basically just Foucault. He wants to have his cake and eat it too: define postmodernism narrowly to evade criticism that he’s using it loosely, and use it as a scare term for the entire modern left.
Peterson’s Other Miscellaneous Dismissals of Postmodernism
The rest of what he has to say about postmodernism is all absurd straw men with absolutely no basis in anything anyone has ever argued. He thinks postmodernists “don’t believe in logic” when, for example, Richard Rorty was an analytic philosopher who spent the early parts of his career obsessed with the logic of language. He thinks they “don’t believe in dialogue” when Rorty’s whole aspiration was to turn all of society into one continuous dialogue and reimagine philosophy as the “conversation of culture). Or that they believe “you don’t have an individual identity” when K. Anthony Appiah, who encourages “banal ‘postmodernism’” about race, believes that the individual dimensions of identity are problematically superseded by the collective dimensions. This whole “definition and critique” of postmodernism is clearly just a post-hoc rationalization for him to continue to dishonestly straw man all leftists with an absurd monolithic conspiracy theory. The only people who are playing “crooked games” or are “neck-deep in deceit” are ignorant hucksters like Peterson bloviating about topics they clearly know nothing about with absurd levels of unmerited confidence.
Really, it’s ironic that Peterson has such irrational antipathy towards postmodernism. A ton of the views he champions (a pragmatic theory of truth, a respect for Nietzsche’s use of genealogy, a naturalist emphasis on the continuity between animals and humans, etc.) are all views that are often called “postmodern” depending on how broadly one understands “incredulity towards metanarratives,” and at the very least were extremely influential over most postmodern philosophers and echoed in their work. Maybe if Peterson showed a fraction of the openness to dialogue and debate he dishonestly pretends to have and actually read postmodernists outside of a secondary source, he’d discover a lot to agree with.
[Editors note: The last line has been changed from an earlier version with an incorrect statement about Peterson’s source Explaining Postmodernism.]
45 thoughts on “Jordan Peterson’s Ignorance of Postmodern Philosophy”
You sound a like a Postmodern apologist, who admittedly does not clearly comprehend what exactly is Postmodernism, but knows that criticism of it is bad.
The amazing thing to me is, all the people who criticize Peterson via blogs and op-ed’s, has also NEVER criticized Postmodernism via that medium, and instead, in many cases, champion it.
Where do you believe the author misrepresents postmodernism? Could you give some citations backing up your position?
Engage with the actual arguments here, instead of trying to accuse the author of bias.
And your logic is very strange, Peterson targets postmodernism, of course he’s going to have a large amount of postmoderbists criticise him.
I find your claim that people never criticise Peterson and postmodernism by the same medium extremely arbitrary and specific. Criticising postmodernism would usually require a book. Nevertheless, I highly doubt no one has criticised Peterson and Postmodernism via such mediums. I myself criticise postmodernism and Peterson – admittedly not via articles, but surely that does not matter.
I find Peterson vacuous, a peddler of what people want to hear. I wonder if he’s channelling that charlatan Ayn Rand. Just right wing snake oil.
“…rather banal, cliché truisms with an undeserved bombastic air of profundity…” Shades of Professor Pinocchio.
“… his galaxy-brained cult-like fanboys” is the point I stopped reading. Impossible to take anyone seriously with a remark like that. Not that it matters to the author of this piece because, after all, if you don’t agree with him or her then you must be one of the “galaxy-brained cult-like fanboys.” Are you folks at notesonliberty actually serious?
Final comment: Good-bye !
Eh, not a bad criticism but I think you need to listen to his conversations with Sam Harris (hopefully more to come) before you can use Rorty as a way to push claims aside. A single example of a (maybe reasonable) person under the flag of postmodernism or Marxism doesn’t grant immunity to the population from toxic ideals
I think if Peterson actually read Rorty (and Stanley Fish) he would develop a much more nuanced understanding of postmodernism. Rorty and Fish wrote on the shortcomings of SJW culture with a much more sophisticated take on postmodern ideas. Rorty, Fish and Peterson are more allied than Woodman ( and you) realize.
And yet another hit piece by an author who clearly hasn’t seen what he has said about the incompatibility of post modernism and Marxism. Sigh.
Your comment reveals that you didn’t read far enough, since that was addressed by the author.
Is this author a mind reader. Keeps claiming to know what Peterson thinks. Here’s an idea. Ask him.
What the hell are you talking about? Ask him? Jordan makes a career out of telling people what he thinks. One can 100% critique his ideas through his body of work.
You sound like a more desperate version of Cathy Newman, determined to hate everything Peterson stands for, but unable to formulate a rational argument or even define what postmodernism is. Peterson’s ideas work in the real world. Postmodernism doesn’t.
His argument was rational. Moreover, one can point out that Jordan’s usage of post modernism deviates from what most understand to be post modern, while not focusing on a re-defining the idea. He _did_ define it— “a rejection of overarching systems”.
Finally, that the term post modernism is ambiguous was itself a critique.
Peterson’s ideas don’t work in the real world. Well perhaps the trite ones do, but he didn’t come up with those.
Lost me at the point where you referred to fanboys.
…conveniently relieving you from the intellectual responsibility of critically thinking.
This is a serious essay?
Obviously paid handsomely, by the word… and spent lavishly on self-hosted salon fetes. First-class flapdoodle.
“Like any good Wittgensteinian, I tend to think you can’t really give a good list of necessary and sufficient conditions that perfectly captures all the subtle ways we use a word. The meaning of the word is the way it is used”
I put up with nonsense like this the whole time I was at university. It really means “I can say something, and you can’t criticise it without me asserting that you’ve misunderstood what I’ve said because what I’ve said is so ill defined. So that proves you’re wrong and I’m right’. Derrida made a carreer of it, as Foucault acknowledged.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who saw the absurdity of that.
You think there are list of necessary and sufficient conditions for postmodernism? What are they?
The reason the author makes a good point is largely due to the fact people tend to use terms rather loosely, even without knowing what they actually mean, often their knowledge is an oversimplified value that doesn’t really benefit discourse regarding the term. When I look at all the ways common terms we use today have been used historically and even how the region a term is used in can lead the altered meaning of terms, hence the reason words tend to have more than one definition and also why you have to read around words to understand the context in which it is being used. So, the author is right, when one assesses the way such words are used, the meaning must change according to context to understand what the person is saying before criticising what is said, otherwise, the criticism is going to be largely flawed, even if there is a problem with the thought that is being critiqued.
With this said, the argument you pose as problematic, I have observed in the arguments of many of those who are against Postmodernism. In fact, you will find in the way traditionalists tend to explain their own flawed notions, that they are using a particular meaning of the terms, that falls short of what their opposition is saying and where they stand. But they rarely get the heart of why things have changed and why Traditionalism failed culturally and socially in ways. In this case, I find myself having to correct them when they criticise things to challenge them to understand what people mean when using certain terms. This is easily noticeable in the political realm, when observing the way that Liberals and Conservatives misunderstand each other’s views and even don’t realise they have more in common than different, but since they understand terms differently, they assume their opposition to be greater than they really are. The non-clarification of terms tends to lead to more ineffective discourse in my opinion. However, I have observed that when Traditionalists critique things themselves, they rarely seek a thorough understanding of the terms/theories they use, and this leads to people misunderstanding what they stand for and then they use the “Ill Defined” argument themselves as a recovery tactic.
I have found that my critiques tend to be the utmost clear and beneficial when I ask what people mean by certain terms before criticising, and I think this should become the norm.
1. I helps to keep my criticism minimal in flaws.
2. In case they try to argue that there is a flaw in my understanding(unless my research was limited, then I would need to stand corrected), I know there isn’t because I allowed my self to be corrected before saying anything.
I have made the mistake of criticising things that had more than one line of thought to them, thinking it meant one thing, but the author meant another, once I understood what they meant by the word, my critiques either completely changed, or remained in opposition but were strengthened by knowledge once I knew where the author was coming from. I’m am grateful that they took time to clarify, I have learned a lot of new things from these cases. The question is are we fighting against necessary correction ourselves, as we accuse of others, as just trying to get out admitting they are wrong. I’ve learned to take the correction that I may have misunderstood as it affords me the ability to assess and gauge whether there is more for me to learn about how people use terms/or theories. After all, I’ve heard many linguists and etymologists state that words are often more complex than the dictionary values we are used to. So, if the experts agree that we should seek to understand what words mean in a specific context for shared meaning, then maybe we shouldn’t be quick to dismiss this argument but ask whether it is being used in the right situations.
Also what I have found is that many people I’ve seen use the “Ill Defined” argument rarely use to say “they are right and you are wrong”, instead they argue that since we lack a sufficient definition of what a term means, the term could either mean both or neither. And until we come to argue regarding these terms, it makes little since to fight over them when both could right or wrong in their position. This alone is why we need to have a level objective reasoning in how we define and use terms as to ensure we able to clearly understand and achieve shared meaning when engaging in discourse.
The “Ill Defined” argument is quite a common issue, in fact, I’m sure if we paid attention, most of us are guilty of this very claim ourselves, in various forms. It’s has a it good points, but can at be used in the wrong context at times.
Funny. The first thing Marxist do when they overthrow a democracy is to execute all the Marxist professors and intellectuals in that country.
Why? Because the are the first to be disconcerted with communism.
Understand that Post-moderism is another form of communism. Please understand.
Here’s the question, could it be that you too have much to understand about Postmodernism and Communism yourself? And maybe, your argument is flawed as is a number of Marxists champions today. Maybe seek first to correct your own understanding, about Postmodernism and Communism, then assess others. There maybe much you aren’t aware of, especially in the politicised accounts of these theories.
There is only one form of communism and that is what Marx proposed. Key requirements of communism are the people directly owning and controlling things, and small or non-existent government. So how could post-modernism be a form of communism?
Also Marx wasn’t opposed to democracy. In fact there is nothing about having a single party.
On other hand there are a number of non-communist one party states in the world today and historically.
You list people that have nuanced combinations of postmodernism with other grand narratives as a means of viewing the world “…..postmodernists identifying as everything from far leftists (Foucault), to progressive liberals (Richard Rorty), to classical liberals (Deirdre McClosky), to anarchists (Saul Newman), to religious conservatives (like Peter Blum and James K.A. Smith)” so why is the idea of the term “postmodern/neo-marxist” as a description of how some people view and function in the world so outrageous?
A political ideology is not necessarily a grand, overarching theory about the trajectory of history relying on metaphysics. You can believe that society should move in a certain direction without believing that the reason that it should move in that direction is based on some grand narrative. Most of what these thinkers are trying to do, with varying degrees of success (I’m not convinced that the theologians trying to get Christianity to be postmodern are fully successful), are trying to redescribe their favored political ideology without all the metaphysical baggage that it historically had.
It would make sense, for example, to believe in the political conclusions of Marxism (that some sort of centralized economy that abolished markets is desirable) without buying dialectical materialism or any of the theoretical justifications Marx gave and critiquing t. If you want to call that a “postmodern Marxist,” I guess more power to you (although it’d probably make more sense to say “postmodern socialist” or “postmodern communist”). But Peterson is clearly being far more loose with his use of the term.
No, that wouldn’t make sense at all because ‘some sort of centralized economy that abolished markets’ is not at all desirable according to Marx. It may be an intermediate stage but the inevitable (not desirable, Marx doesn’t really think in those terms) is the abolishment of economy, period.
What on earth is a Wittgensteinian in the first place? Are we talking Tractatus-era Wittgenstein? Or Investigations-era Wittgenstein?
Also, if you go all Humpty Dumpty and contend that words mean whatever you want them to mean, why would anyone ever listen to a word you say? You are obviously not arguing in good faith.
Here. From J.P. himself
LOL……Peterson has refuted and debunked this entire article before it was even written…..Another lose for postmodernist hit pieces….Hilarious…..the author should perhaps take the time to correctly research the narratives he is trying to attack…PMSL
The author acknowledges Jordan’s blog post. The post your citing certainly doesn’t “debunk this entire article”. Something tells me you didn’t read this critique seriously.
[…] Jordan Peterson’s Ignorance of Postmodern Philosophy […]
This article is unintentionally hilarious — proving some of Peterson’s main points.
I am a pretty recent graduate of a very high-ranking and diverse private university with very strong liberal tendencies. I am also from a minority background, so I do not think I can be accused of “white privilege”.
I guess my biggest complaint with people who reject post-modernism is first of all, in the USA at least, they are by and large overwhelmingly left-wing, and while they may believe themselves to be “liberal”, I certainly do not consider themselves as such. Communism is also a left-wing ideology, and so possible connections and overlaps between the two are not necessarily invalid. True classical liberalism, which the Founding Fathers of America, was the real liberalism which molded and shaped the foundation of this very nation.
Many post-modernists seem to reject and smear ALL tradition and all foundations of Western civilization as something to be tossed into the trash bin, even something repulsive, and that the West has basically been this force for pure evil throughout human history. Many also buy into the subconscious belief that just because two people are meant to be equal (for example, a man and a woman), it also mean that they are somehow basically the same, and it is wrong to suggest otherwise, a very simplistic kind of grey thinking.
And don’t get me started about the identity politics that young post-modernists love to embrace. They prefer to judge, label and group people by outer characteristics instead of by their own personal preferences and character (for instance, if you were born as black, Latino or Asian, you MUST think a specific way and agree with everything the Democratic Party supports, no exception, or else you are some kind of racist). Libertarians are not perfect, but they have a more balanced view of politics and philosophy by far in my opinion.
40% of U.S. millennials believe that free speech against minorities which is deemed “offensive” should be restricted or banned, as in actually made illegal by statute. And if you think that is surprising, you should see how many more young Europeans favor that. Freedom of speech, so outdated and last century, it HAS to change, right, for the greater good? This is kind of progress the future of Western society holds? Forgive me if I hold back my cheers.
Have you read a single text by a post-modern author? Which are you referring when you say “many post-modernists seem to reject and smear ALL tradition and all foundations of Western civilization as something to be tossed into the trash bin, even something repulsive, and that the West has basically been this force for pure evil throughout human history.”? That statement sounds completely at odds with anything a po mo philosopher would say. Are you trying to engage honestly with opposing views, or intentionally mischaracterise them?
I’m so glad I read this article, the author hit the nail on the head right from the start.
I have a couple of friends who really like Peterson, and of course, I agree with a lot of what he says, but as the author says, that’s because a lot of it’s very bloody obvious.
So I listened to some podcasts with Joe Rogan on reccomendation and as soon as Peterson got on to the topic of Marxism I realised he was selling it short. I didn’t know enough about post modernism to know how much he was misrepresenting it, but I knew that as a serious branch of philosophy there’s no way it would dismiss dialogue… that’s what philosophy is, an ongoing dialogue…
So thanks for writing the article, it’s helped me clarify what it is that doesn’t sit right with me about Peterson. He has some points worth making, but he’s clearly on an ego trip at this point, and his views on philosophy and political theory can’t really be taken seriously when he talks in generalisations and absolutes a about what Marxists and post modernists think and believe.
The Fan Boys kicking off in the comments totally prove your point about his Fan Boys too, well, they do say love is blind…
I am glad you are watching Peterson. I hope he knows that you and your philosophy colleagues are watching him. He can only profit by this knowledge Still, errors and all he is a bright flag for rationality in the fog of intellectual self -indulgence and facile iconoclasm at ground level (where I live.) I don’t see any other, right now. Someone smart remarked that the sign to Rome does not have to travel to Rome.
[…] views on postmodernism are nonsense from a philosophical standpoint. But being wrong has never stopped an idea from being dangerous. Peterson is part of a […]
This reads like a salty teenage meltdown. What’s the matter? Show us on the doll where Peterson touched you.
Do you people on here not have some of your own farts to sniff instead of writing tripe on the internet. Or better yet you can sniff each others. Bunch of pseudointellectuals.
“…such as his assertions that there are biological differences between men and women” Good god what are your credentials? Did your finishing school burn to the ground?
This entire piece proves Dr. Peterson’s points. Thank you for that.
[…] a hard time defining, so I’m not going to get into it here at all, but suffice it to say it’s wildly misunderstood and not logically compatible with Marxism. […]
Decent article, but you Strawman Peterson’s fundamental position. You can also be forgiven for doing so. JP has catapulted himself to fame and fortune off the back of platforms such as the JRE podcast, and it is generally from these long form, non-academic discussions that he is cited. When you look more broadly into his views, JP does not claim that Postmodernism is to blame for societies’ ills, but rather the way in which this mode of thinking has been hijacked for certain political agendas. The targets of his wrath are seldom balanced-thinking intellectuals capable of holding nuanced opinions. In his view the lunatics are running the asylum, evidenced by the rise of post-factual teachings now prevalent in many of the universities. Where I think Peterson falls down is he emotively conflates the actions of radical activists with his anxieties over Marxism and throws in his misgivings about Postmodernism. That is a messy soup of ideas which may well make perfect sense in his own mind but is not easily articulated and leaves him wide open to criticism.
Also, on the point of Foucault’s having ‘repented from Marxism’ – it wasn’t necessarily a rejection of the ideology in all its forms. Arguably he was influenced (and seduced) by similar ways of thinking and it clearly shaped much of his work.