Jordan Peterson: The Nexus of Postmodernism and Neo-Marxism

Jordan Peterson, professor of psychology at the university of Toronto in his recent 05/2021 Q&A explains the concept of Postmodern Neo-Marxism for which he is often criticized and misunderstood.

#Peterson #postmodernneomarxism

-
If you like the content, subscribe!

[cmojo]

Note to postmodernists: You can't go around judging everybody and everything by the premises, of your own personal flaws. Your accusations, simply become confessions of your own fundamental, inner-transgressions.

[djkymaera]

I love what JBP said about always telling the truth and come what may, that was absolutely bang on. The toughest person you will ever face is yourself.

[muradorujov]

I learned more about postmodernism in this 12-minute lecture than a whole semester of cultural studies class

[Tahycoon]

Many many videos criticize this great scholar and accused him of not knowing what he is talking about due to him connecting marxism and postmodernism, I do not know why they ignore such videos?!

[MITMathematica]

This how a physicist gave postmodernism a hilarious black eye and live to tell about .

For anyone who pays attention to popular accounts of physics and cosmology, quantum gravity is a thing. How could it not be? Quantum gravity is the place where the two pillars of modern physics—quantum mechanics and relativity—collide head-on at the very instant of the Big Bang. The two theories, each triumphant in its own realm, just don’t play well together. If you are looking for fundamental challenges to our ideas about the universe, quantum gravity isn’t a bad place to start.

A bit over two decades ago, quantum gravity also proved to be the perfect honey trap for a bunch of academics with a taste for nonsense and an envious bone to pick with science.

In 1994, NYU physicist Alan Sokal ran across a book by biologist Paul Gross and mathematician Norman Levitt. In Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science[3], Gross and Levitt raised an alarm about those in the new field of “cultural studies” who were declaring that scientific knowledge, and at some level reality itself, is nothing but a social construct. Unsure whether he should take Gross and Levitt at face value, Sokal went to the library and dove into the literature that they were criticizing. When he came up for air, he was much more familiar with the postmodernist critique of science. He was also appalled at the depth of its ignorance about the subject.

Most scientists respond to such nonsense with a muttered, “good grief, ” but Sokal felt compelled to do more. He decided to give postmodernists a first-hand demonstration of the destructive testing of ideas that tie science to a reality that cuts across all cultural divides.

Sokal had a hypothesis: Those applying postmodernism to science couldn’t tell the difference between sense and nonsense if you rubbed their noses in it. He predicted that the cultural science studies crowd would publish just about anything, so long as it sounded good and supported their ideological agenda. To test that prediction, Sokal wrote a heavily footnoted and deliciously absurd 39-page parody entitled, “Transgressing The Boundaries. Toward A Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.”[

The paper is worth reading just for a belly laugh. It promises “emancipatory mathematics” at the foundation of “a future post-modern and liberatory science.” “Physical ‘reality’, ” it declares, “is at bottom a social and linguistic concept.” He embraces the notion, seriously proposed by some, that logic itself is invalidated by “contamination of the social” When he showed it to friends, Sokal says, “the scientists would figure out quickly that either it was a parody or I had gone off my rocker.”

Sokal submitted his paper to a trendy journal called Social Text. Understanding the importance of ego, he freely and glowingly cited work by several of the journal’s editors. For their part, the folks at Social Text were thrilled to receive Sokal’s manuscript. Here at last was a physicist who was “on their side!” After minor revisions, the paper was accepted and scheduled to appear in an upcoming special “Science Wars” edition.

The bait had been taken, but the trap had yet to be sprung. That came with a piece by Sokal in Lingua Franca that appeared just after Social Text hit the stands, exposing “Transgressing the Boundaries” as the hoax it was.

Parody sometimes succeeds where reasoned discourse fails. Sokal’s little joke burst free of the ivory tower on May 18, 1996, when The New York Times ran a front-page article entitled, “Postmodern Gravity Deconstructed, Slyly.”The Sokal Hoax became a hot topic of conversation around the world!

Reactions to Sokal’s article were, shall we say, mixed. The editors of Social Text were not amused, to put it mildly, and they decried Sokal’s unethical behavior. One insisted that the original paper was not a hoax at all, but that fearing reprisal from the scientific hegemony, Sokal had “folded his intellectual resolve.” It was lost on them that had they showed the paper to anyone who knew anything about science or mathematics, the hoax would have been spotted instantly.

As most scientists did: When I heard about it, I busted a gut!

I still laugh, but the Sakai Hoax carries a serious message. In addition to diluting intellectual rigor, the postmodern assault on science undermines the very notion of truth and robs scientists and scholars of their ability to speak truth to power. As conservative columnist George Will correctly observed, “the epistemology that Sokal attacked precludes serious discussion of knowable realities.” Today, from climate change denial, to the anti-vaccine movement, to the nonsensical notion of “alternative facts, ” that blade is wielded on both sides of the political aisle.

Sokal gets the last word. Quoting from his 1996 Lingua Franca article, “Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the 21st floor.)”

[mustang]

Socialism, postmodernism, neo-Marxism, cultural Marxism and a jumble of critical theories. The world is being poked and prodded from many collectivist worldviews. Definitely good to have Jordan Peterson back to help us sort this all out.

[Mavsage]

I think it's a very apt observation of Mr. Peterson to point out that Derrida is hard to pin down. I would venture further to say that when you look at many of the foundational or key figures associated with postmodernism it is funny to note that many of them never considered themselves "postmodern." It is always the latter academics who came and tried to align their theories to suit their own interests. This is particularly evident when you see the overlap between high modernism, structuralism, post-structuralism and postmodernism. In the vague spaces within these narratives, things are annexed with other theories, over simplified, twisted, slightly re-worded etc...

[aakkoin]

Agreed 99%, great to hear clear articulation

[OckertvdW]

A great convergence between postmodernism and neo-Marxism is and was facilitated through the Frankfurt school and its various schools of critical theory which has been a particularly pervasive set of academic philosophies. To my mind, in outward fact, this is the most prominent place where a form of Marxism was popularized as an academic and as a postmodern philosophy.

[PortlandwithWill]

I like JBP, but he seems to have lumped some social scientists in with Postmodern philosophy and they are not actually in the same group. I think he would find he is in agreement with many of the postmodern critiques if he sorted them out more.

[waitwhat]

Interpreting the interpretation as an interpretation. 🤯 Got it.

[anthonybrakus]

For more check out James Lindsay he has a similarly well thought out presentation of this subject.

[markorendas]

ACK. FOR THE LONGEST TIME THE VAGUE NESS OF POSTMODERNISM IRRITATED ME AND NOW I TRULY HATE IT...

[kristinar.]

Maybe that's where u start to destinguish who is as the saying goes a horse that jumps only as high as it has to... And which jumps as high as they tell em to. Last one is the star of course.

[captainzork]

I really dont think power defined as the ability to inflict violence is sufficient. Maybe power is also like when you have a million followers on youtube?

[TrueWalker]

It seems absurd to deny the existence of power structures on the planet. The entire economic system, governments, religious organizations, all have been created by small factions of those who sought power, authority and control specifically. From the microcosm of interpersonal relationships to the macrocosm, it is glaringly obvious. A meritocracy is certainly reasonable to some extent but the social programs that care for those who are unable to be a part of that are socialist in nature. Democratic socialism brought us programs that care for the sick, injured, disabled and elderly.

[strongfp]

JP, does not understand Marxism at all ... what the hell was that?

[MS-fgqo]

Would people still be striving for more prestigious job positions if they weren't paid more. Money equals power, right? And isn't it the case, that a lot of people who hold positions of power are indeed fascinated by their own power? There is a higher proportion of people with antisocial psychology disorder than in CEOs than in menial jobs, isn't there? Such people are obsessed with power. I presume most people who "are constantly getting out of their way to be of aid for other people" are indeed driven by the lure of higher status, reputation, money etc. but they happen to be clever or empathetic enough to disguise it. There are certainly a lot of people who just want to be good at their job or who are inherently driven to advance science etc. but even there, you'll find manifestations of aist for power and abuse (Hegel vs. Schopenhauer, men vs. Emmy Nöther, Gell-Man vs. Feynman etc.).
Not saying that postmodernism gives us a valid picture or that it isn't inherently flawed or self-contradictory (it is!). What I am saying is that I believe that it is wrong to call it a spin-off of Marxism. Derrida's poststructuralism has nothing to do with dialectic materialism. Certainly the originators of postmodernism were all coming from the far left spectrum (so yes, their political home was Marxism, which was the intellectual home for most intellectuals in Europe) but even so, PM is still an independent theory which evolved from structuralism and a general wariness of "the Truth". I actually think that the Nietzschean view of a "will to power" is not entirely far-fetched and one can argue that this even applies for altruistic people whose kindness may only be an expression of an old evolutionary advantage. It would be nice to know what science says. If it is indeed the case that striving for power plays no important role in our decisions, I will be happy to change my opinion.

[rawbebaba]

Took him like 4 years to answer Slavos question, and still just incoherent nonsense

[breakmanradio]

Peterson needs a better explanation why competence instead of power determines status. Here:

If you are a CEO, you can't force someone to work for you by aiming a gun at their head. You have to give them a competitive salary and a good work environment. Otherwise they will leave you for a company that will offer them more money and/or a better working environment. Knowing how to motivate your employees, when to give them bonuses, when to increase or decrease their salaries, knowing how to optimize their work environment, not to mention learning who to hire and who to hire and who to fire.... THESE ARE ALL MATTERS OF COMPETENCE. AND THEY ARE EXTREMELY COMPLEX AND EXTREMELY DIFFICULT AND KEEP MANY PEOPLE UP LATE AT NIGHT UNABLE TO STOP THINKING ABOUT WHETHER THEY MADE THE RIGHT CALL.

If you can't figure out how to make customers willingly buy your product, you cannot send out goons with guns to force them to buy the product. You need to make the highest quality product possible for the price range you're aiming at. If you sell cell phones that don't work, no one is going to buy your company's cell phone. YOU NEED COMPETENCE.

You cannot get to that position with the resume that says, "I'll fuck anyone up, " you need demonstrate in your resume and in your interviews that you're EXTREMELY competent across multiple areas of expertise and insanely hard working (120 hours a week, quite often, when most people work 1/3rd of that with 40 hours per week.)

But that's only in free market capitalism. With communism, status is determined by power. If you want someone to work for you, you can do so by holding a gun to their head. So long as you are affiliated with the government and have the right government position. And you can rise in the ranks of the government by accumulating more and utilizing more power in a Machiavellian fashion.