Mindgasms Quickie: Jordan Peterson is WRONG About Derrida!

Here's the link for my Patreon page:

Newest Mindgasms Quickie about how and why the public intellectual and clinical psychologist, Jordan Peterson, is wrong about the famous mistranslation of Derrida, "There is nothing outside the text." The actual line was "There is nothing outside the context," meaning that every book and everything in general has a relevant context. Peterson goes on from this mistranslation to claim that Derrida, Foucualt, and other so-called Postmodernists are relativists who argue that every interpretation of a work is valid. In reality, they were pluralists who thought that there are multiple valid interpretations of a text, yet some are more so than others. The most correct ones change over time, due to multiple factors that endlessly change the relevant context, such as culture, history, etc.

Check out my last Mindgasms Quickie on Ben Shapiro's puritanical hand-wringing about Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion's new song/music video called WAP (Wet Ass Pussy.) It's all about them being sexually aroused and enjoying pleasure. Ben Shapiro was outraged and disgusted by these rappers promoting female sexual pleasure. The funniest part was when he talked about how his wife is a doctor, and she apparently said that a vagina as wet as the those described in the lyrics has to belong to a woman with serious medical problems:

Here's the link for my playlist with all of my Mindgasms Quickies so far:

[Layziethug]

Yes! Great point! Jordan Peterson tends to take out the Post Modern characteristic of "Play". The whole idea was not to take the philosophy as dogma; the idea was to EXPLORE the ideas. At least that was my interpretation.

[mackd]

I dig it. ... I'm on board with you here. Admittedly, my own study of Post Modernism is limited. ... I also like Jordan Peterson but I have found his points against Post Modernism to be littered with phrases of assumed intent. For instance, he will imply that the reason Post Modern thinkers created their philosophies was solely for the purpose of upending/replacing existing dominant stances. That is an ad hominem argument at best. ... I would much rather see someone argue against Post Modern points directly as opposed to attempting to derail the authors with labels & assumptions of formulation. (That's just Post Modern Neo-Marxist rhetoric, Ay.) ... ... When I was a kid I went to a religious grade school that readily spoke against Evolutionary Theory. Throughout my childhood it was frequently repeated that Darwin invented the Theory of Evolution in order to disprove the existence of God. It's a statement that is not only wrong but also fails to take on the Theory of Evolution on its merit.