Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 69

Thread: Postmodernism

  1. #1
    Milo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    443
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Postmodernism

    What is it? I hear this word being used a lot and I've read the Wikipedia stub. It is still vague and hazy.

    What makes something "post-modern"?
    How is postmodernism shaped and identified? What are its defining features? A few examples would be great.
    Why does it have so many critics who accuse each other of being postmodernists?

  2. #2
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,607
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    counter-intuition

  3. #3
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know what it is, but I plan on finding out. If I find anything interesting, I'll share. I've never read philosophy and know very little of it, so we'll see how that goes.

  4. #4
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,607
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Post-modern does not equal excessively subjective.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI-N 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,869
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    based on what little I know I would say that at its weakest it's a kind of noncommittal relativism and at its best an understanding of the conditional nature of truth.

    I watched this a while back and found it pretty interesting but forgot most of it, other than that they mentioned zizek and deleuze, both of whom I've read and like. and this may give a more... colorful depiction of how it can sometimes manifest.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  6. #6
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,159
    Mentioned
    305 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.

    (Jung on Si)

  7. #7
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,607
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    The counter-intuition must be tenable.

  8. #8
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,051
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    it's pretty simple... it's the era we live in. after structuralism and relativism in the beginnin of the last century, humankind developed such advanced technological structures that we got to rely less and less on a substratum of tradition and collective knowledge. now we know that all those traditions and knowledge are just constructs, or ideas (= those famous metanarrations) and we can as well build our own, live by our own rules, and new ideas. post-structuralism/ post-modernism
    it's not far from the realization of what nietzsche was prophetizing "god is dead", where god is the idea of our human incapabilities... we're a bit beyond that now.
    Last edited by ooo; 09-24-2017 at 01:47 PM.

  9. #9
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  10. #10
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Postmodernism are squeaky wheels of truth. At its extreme, some claim there are no objective truths, which is self refuting. It is useful in calling attention to and questioning what many people think are objective standards of subjective states or points of view.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  11. #11

    Default

    imo, postmodernism is more of a tool than a philosophy (as in having an inherent normative direction?) in itself and (if i recall correctly) this is why Deleuze named it non-philosophy

    from the little i know about it, it seems more like a amalgam of systems theory and linguistics. virtually, it provides the schemas to play devil's advocate in any context

    imo, it can be viewed as a disintegrator but knowing its workings can make one better fit at setting boundaries as well. regarding peterson's thesis, the current state of western civilization will might have to make use of it in order to create the value pluralism it so much desires but no idea about the viability of such a pursuit. i guess that peterson and tree of logic as well are against this kind of state
    Last edited by Kalinoche buenanoche; 09-24-2017 at 08:11 PM.

  12. #12
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pinoline View Post
    it's pretty simple... it's the era we live in.
    Maybe you. I'm post-post-modern with the rest of the metahipsters who were cool before it was cool, because an artist is their time, and the rest are behind them. But seriously, post-post-modern is a thing now, and as always, there's not really a line between different movements and philosophies, because that's not how anything works ever. But if you're a manifesto writer, you try to portray it like that anyways, and essay-writers try to ride on that.

    it's not far from the realization of what nietzsche was prophetizing "god is dead", where god is the idea of our human incapabilities... we're a bit beyond that now.
    Postmodernism is based on Nietzsche. Why else do you think they go like power power power all the time?

  13. #13
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,051
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    Maybe you. I'm post-post-modern with the rest of the metahipsters who were cool before it was cool
    ahahahah I was listening to post-rock growing up because I was one of those metahipsters as well... post is the way to be.
    (Yes u right, the idea of post-modernism is already a bit aging)

  14. #14
    Spermatozoa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Your most intimate spaces
    TIM
    IEE 379 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,972
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milo View Post
    What is it? I hear this word being used a lot and I've read the Wikipedia stub. It is still vague and hazy.

    What makes something "post-modern"?
    How is postmodernism shaped and identified? What are its defining features? A few examples would be great.
    Why does it have so many critics who accuse each other of being postmodernists?
    The philosophy is inherently nebulous because it rejects the notion that there are absolute truths or proofs. Postmodernists also consider morality to be relative and all ideas/cultures to be equal in value.

    The obvious empirical objections from mathematics aside, there are a number of ethical problems with this worldview:

    If nothing can be proven to be true, why bother to try and be better?
    If all things/ideas are equal in value, why bother to try and be better?

    I consider this philosophy to be very nihilistic and hostile to both success and difference. There doesn't seem to be anything unique or new about it, either - I see it as a logical outgrowth of critical theory and Marxist concerns about objective morality.

  15. #15
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milo View Post
    What is it?
    Dangerous.
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  16. #16
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Peterson is wrong.

    Post-modernism and Marxism are not connected.

    Post-modernism replies to Marxism, but Marxism is an ideology that posits a world narrative and an objective understanding of social and economic society. They are not the same thing.

    People make connection to post-modernism and Marxism via the Frankfurt School, and sure some of the people involved in these movements have personally had Marxist perspectives, but no Communist Party could be considered post-modern. And a Communist Party is the frontline form of Marxist organisation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cuivienen View Post
    Marxist concerns about objective morality.
    What concerns?

    Marxist organisations reject bourgeoisie morality and substitute their own - they do not try to pretend that "morality" (i.e. the field of human ethics) is subjective as post-modernists do.
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    ILI - C
    Posts
    1,810
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think Deadpool serves as an accurate representation of postmodernism in popular culture. The writers use parody, scathing criticism, deconstruction, irony, and self-reference to comment on their own brand. For instance, Deadpool takes the sentiments of a more modernist franchise like Spiderman - one that praises responsibility with a sense of optimism and certainty - and undercuts them with absurdity and borderline nihilism.




    Western society has been steadily moving away from postmodern themes in its media and culture for several years. Shows like the Office and Parks and Recreation blend modernist sentiments with postmodern sentiments to represent what might be called "metamodernism" or "post-postmodernism."

    Quote Originally Posted by totalize View Post
    Peterson is wrong.

    Post-modernism and Marxism are not connected.

    Post-modernism replies to Marxism, but Marxism is an ideology that posits a world narrative and an objective understanding of social and economic society. They are not the same thing.

    People make connection to post-modernism and Marxism via the Frankfurt School, and sure some of the people involved in these movements have personally had Marxist perspectives, but no Communist Party could be considered post-modern. And a Communist Party is the frontline form of Marxist organisation.

    What concerns?

    Marxist organisations reject bourgeoisie morality and substitute their own - they do not try to pretend that "morality" (i.e. the field of human ethics) is subjective as post-modernists do.
    Yes, postmodernism rejects universal truths. Therefore, it also rejects meta-narratives like religious promises, scientific absolutes, and even Marxist ideology. Recently, some right-wing folks have taken to lumping postmodernism with Marxism for some kind of political convenience. The conflation is inaccurate on its face.
    Last edited by Desert Financial; 10-15-2017 at 02:18 AM.

  18. #18
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    post modernism and marxism are distinct in their explicit tenets but they have a common ethical basis which is what peterson is attacking. in essence they both hurdle towards a certain end which is rooted in skepticism toward meaning itself [1] and inasmuch as that is the case they find common cause in academia and there is plenty of overlap. he's not making the rather obtuse mistake of saying they are literally the same because he uses them in the same sentence

    its like if peterson said "primates are assholes" and went on to attack both bonobos and chimps and someone retorted with "haha peterson thinks bonobos and chimps are the same..!" it misses the point

    [1] they posit "meaning" as derivative of material conditions, or "power" which often is reduced to control over material conditions--its with this fundamental thesis he takes issue with

  19. #19
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    post modernism and marxism are distinct in their explicit tenets but they have a common ethical basis which is what peterson is attacking. in essence they both hurdle towards a certain end which is rooted in skepticism toward meaning itself [1] and inasmuch as that is the case they find common cause in academia and there is plenty of overlap. he's not making the rather obtuse mistake of saying they are literally the same because he uses them in the same sentence

    its like if peterson said "primates are assholes" and went on to attack both bonobos and chimps and someone retorted with "haha peterson thinks bonobos and chimps are the same..!" it misses the point

    [1] they posit "meaning" as derivative of material conditions, or "power" which often is reduced to control over material conditions--its with this fundamental thesis he takes issue with
    I don't think anyone said there is no overlap between marxism and post-modernism (as I mentioned most of the post-modernists are marxists or close to marxism) but they are sufficiently different that he can not claim that the organisations, agendas, and philosophies of marxism & postmodernism are the same or even heading in the same direction. that's what's really important.
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  20. #20
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    that's precisely what his claim is though, and he makes a great case, people that dismiss him don't engage his main point and in doing so beg the question that he can't be right or that its facially flawed

    which is fine, you can not like peterson and not be interested in investigating him, but to pretend you can "logically" dismiss him in .5 seconds, when hes an ivy league tier professor who has caught fire in a way few academics ever manage, seems arrogant and unfounded.. the appurtenant assumptions to make that theory work are mindblowing (that its facially flawed and a quick fix)

    further peterson is successful precisely because hes brought Jung to the forefront of his thinking, something academics have been scared to do since forever... we're on a board grounded entirely in Jungian thought, your own interest in the topic speaks to its power so, from my point of view, your thinking appears confused where its like you're saying one set of things in re peterson but acting out a different set of priorities, one which is completely consistent with his thought... to me this speaks of confusion or ignorance as to his points; anything but a rebuttal, anything but impartial logic
    Last edited by Bertrand; 10-15-2017 at 02:00 PM.

  21. #21
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    that's precisely what his claim is though, and he makes a great case, people that dismiss him don't engage his main point and in doing so beg the question that he can't be right or that its facially flawed

    which is fine, you can not like peterson and not be interested in investigating him, but to pretend you can "logically" dismiss him in .5 seconds, when hes an ivy league tier professor who has caught fire in a way few academics ever manage, seems arrogant and unfounded.. the appurtenant assumptions to make that theory work are mindblowing (that its facially flawed and a quick fix)

    further peterson is successful precisely because hes brought Jung to the forefront of his thinking, something academics have been scared to do since forever... we're on a board grounded entirely in Jungian thought, your own interest in the topic speaks to its power so, from my point of view, your thinking appears confused where its like you're saying one set of things in re peterson but acting out a different set of priorities, one which is completely consistent with his thought... to me this speaks of confusion or ignorance as to his points; anything but a rebuttal, anything but impartial logic
    actually, I like J Peterson — he's interesting and compelling to listen to but he is not right about many things, and it does not make my summary wrong. I'm not planning to write a paper on Peterson's approach to marxism, I am just stating stuff in simple terms: it's wrong to compare post-modernism and marxism as if they have the same agenda because they don't.

    he is referring specifically to neo-marxism, which is ok I guess, but it is not really a movement or an organisation - it is a label for certain thinkers (most of whom I would guess are post-modernists.) I echo his feelings on post-modernism as being a generally and genuinely awful philosophy, but the same criticism (and all his points in that video) is not applicable to marxism as an ideology.

    also his relationship to jung and my relationship to jung does not determine my position on his argument — sure he has a lot of interesting things to say about it, but it doesn't follow at all that I have to take the man as gospel.
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  22. #22
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    alright, well I'll just file your critique under "empty pedantry" and move on then

  23. #23
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    also his belief that marxism is just dead and that neo-marxism entirely replaced the labour-capital conflict with oppressor-oppression conflict is an extremely disingenuous argument. It's true on the colleges of the US and in the legislatures of western english-speaking countries, it's not true elsewhere. the primary form of marxist organisation is the communist party and to claim that the communist parties of the world with any influence (PCF, PCP, KPRF, JCP etc) are post-modernist and neo-marxist is just wrong. that he is an ivy league professor changes none of that, and Derrida, who he calls a trickster in the video, had the same qualifications and influence: the appeal to authority is not a strong one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    alright, well I'll just file your critique under "empty pedantry" and move on then
    it's empty pedantry if you live in the US where there does not exist a left-wing political movement. it's not if you live anywhere else in the world where there is one.
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  24. #24
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    no one currrr

  25. #25
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Very droll
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  26. #26
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    marxism is like a honeypot for those types that just want to scribble endlessly in isolation on the basis of a few erroneous assumptions

    if you can find a community for yourself in which to nest, more power to you... but you're absolutely missing the point of peterson which is you're obviously living out a very specific archetype, hence the irony in critiquing him on your own grounds when they're subsumed in his narrative if you could only grasp it

    these marxist types who want to get bogged down in the technicalities of an imagined framework are a dime a dozen, really... "but what about the farmers in xyz!" etc ad infinitum... it carries with it an air of willingness to get concrete but the entire thing is a sleight of hand wherein reality has slipped out the backdoor

  27. #27
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am not criticising the whole of his thought, just his identification of US campus postmodernism -> socialism, which is (a) subtext of the video raver posted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    these marxist types who want to get bogged down in the technicalities of an imagined framework are a dime a dozen, really... "but what about the farmers in xyz!" etc ad infinitum... it carries with it an air of willingness to get concrete but the entire thing is a sleight of hand wherein reality has slipped out the backdoor
    as if this is not applicable to all people with an ideology commenting on other ideologies, lol
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  28. #28
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    ah yes the old all idealogies are created equal argument, i.e.: postmodernism

    tell me again how marxism and pomo aren't linked?

  29. #29
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you go back all the way to Hegel then you will find some common ground between Marxism and pomo. but if you go back even further you will find links to philosophy that is distinctly different - all western ideas are pretty much an interconnected chain.

    My criticism of what you said isn't based around the concept of ideology, I'm just criticising you for being a hypocrite while pretending that you aren't.
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  30. #30
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I mean I already tell you that they are linked in that some postmodernists are also Marxists. So what?
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  31. #31
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    godspeed you crazy marxist, I hope it brings you all the joy life has to offer

  32. #32
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am not sure I am even a marxist. He had lots of valid things to say - there are other philosophies which I like as well. Something I am not is a postmodernist (which is also true about all communist parties ever.)
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  33. #33
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm sure you'll figure it out; after all you saw through peterson so quickly

  34. #34
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    if you want to see a person's priorities you only need to look at who they are protecting

    (now I will admit there is a strain of postmodernism here)
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  35. #35
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    i sincerely think peterson is right, so I'm proud to defend him

    I love how this is an apparently novel concept

  36. #36
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    no I was talking about peterson, not you
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  37. #37
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    we're protecting the same people..?

    the point is, tell us about our priorities since they're so apparent

    also socionics would say this is a psychological statement directed at your dual. in other words, what you're saying holds true for ESI/SEE

    but go ahead, tell me about my priorities

  38. #38
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    also socionics would say this is a psychological statement directed at your dual. in other words, what you're saying holds true for ESI/SEE
    this part I don't really understand (kind of admit I am clueless about socionics)

    I do not know about you personally because I know nothing about you.

    But Peterson is a person that produces justifications for capitalism which are widely consumed. It is not that he is necessarily right or wrong (sure, he is right about some things, has interesting-compelling takes and is a good speaker) but his role in the 21st-century is like the church of the 19th/20th-century. The correctness of his positions don't affect the practical outcome of the material system he supports.

    He is like a more intelligent, more compelling mises.org for 21st-century conservatives
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  39. #39
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    if you understand peterson you actually understand that he undermines capitalism at its root, because his entire argument is that wealth and power accrue according to merit not the system or lackthereof, hence capitalism is completely superfluous and one can take it or leave it. the question is not whether power will accumulate in the hands of the smartest and strongest but whether we want a system that works against that basic fact or for it. for example, when banks or other corporations get "too big to fail" this is a subversion of the base principle, on the basis of capitalism, that he argues is counter productive and bad for society

    you might say that the people who create the rules to benefit themselves prove that wealth and power are derived not from merit but from lack of scruples, but this fails to take into account time as a factor, which is how while temporarily one can circumvent the natural economy, it inevitably leads to the collapse of society if not regulated, which is why we have morality in the first place

    in any case its obvious you've prejudiced him, which is ironic because I thought for sure you were about to start making accusations of racism or sexism but I guess classism will have to suffice

  40. #40
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    if you understand peterson you actually understand that he undermines capitalism at his root, because his entire argument is that wealth and power accrue according to merit not the system or lackthereof, hence capitalism is completely superfluous and one can take it or leave it. the question is not whether power will accumulate in the hands of the smartest and strongest but whether we want a system that works against it or for it. for example, when banks or other corporations get too big to fail this is a subversion of the base principle, on the basis of capitalism, that he argues is counter productive and bad for society
    well look, it is not like I spend that much time thinking about him. I made my decision based on what I see but if I see more or different I will just change my decision. it is possible that if I decide tonight to chain watch his videos I might like him (or not) but the chance of doing that is <low %.

    But taking what you said at face-value: the form of capitalism can be changed to be more or less in line with what is optimal. That's kinda not the point though, and I do not agree with this interpretation — people who amass wealth will use that wealth to amass power, or vice versa. You could structure a human system (applies to communism too) as nicely as you want but the powerful always find a way to protect their power and expand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    because I thought for sure you were about to start making accusations of racism or sexism
    why would you think that? perhaps you prejudiced me . . .
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •