Modern times Jordon Peterson -Camille Paglia

[fazer]

I find this discussion to be a breath of air in the suffocating times we live in these days.  Growing up in the 50s and 60s  was different with parenting and kids.  These two explanations a great deal of what was right about those times instead of all that was wrong. 

https://youtu.be/v-hIVnmUdXM 

I’m sure some will disagree strongly.

 

[boji]

Being a child of the late 80's I can't speak for the generation of love, but Paglia is fun to listen to.  She's a frenetic, rare creature.

One day I'll get around to reading vol.9 of Jung's collected works.

 

[fazer]

She's a frenetic, rare creature.

.

I’ll be listening to more of her.  I had the Utube video up on my tv .  My wife started watching.  I kept asking her if she wanted to go to Netflix,  “no”. she said let’s just watch alittle more.  Next thing the 0ne and a half hour show was over.   

She is one smart women.

 

[desol]

Sounds like a bunch of over-analytical mumbo jumbo to me. Exploratory and fundamentally descriptive but not really saying anything.

More like an exercise in paying attention.

 

[boji]

Sounds like a bunch of over-analytical mumbo jumbo to me.

Sounds like a way to justify maintaining ignorance.   Analysis leads to dead ends sometimes. But it's also responsible for nearly every complex idea we take for granted as being true. When analyzing something we may overdo it.  But under analyzing can lead to bridge collapses.  I don't see a way around risking over analysis so to make headway.

 

[fazer]

The progress of man has been so accelerated for the last 100 years and mind boggling for the last 25years .  What could go wrong in identifying the roles of male and female gender.  The current confusion has not led to a more harmonious society.  And many views presented in collage humanity departments are thought to be forward thinking take no account of ancient history or even apply biology to analyze the differences in the sexes.  They only apply a victim status to women or for that matter to everyone for their circumstances. 

My wife works with horses.  I watch the bigger horses dominate the other horses.  I’m not saying that defines action of humans, but it is a herd mentality to say the least and just because some professors think of an ideal utopia doesn’t mean the herd is going along with that.  As they point out, one collapse of the grid for 2 weeks and food isn’t delivered to the stores and you will see how the herd behaves.  It’s a fragile balance.  Redefining the role of the masculine and feminine in a short 200 years with a history before that of 200000 years is a naive attempt if You don’t apply some biology to the behavior of people and history to explain things rather than just a cerebral utopia .

 

[boji]

I think the biggest mistake of the postmodernists is that in attempting to dismantle the value of western enlightenment and its history by reclassifying it as phallogocentric (what a word!) and wrong for maintaining a dominance hierarchy, is to replace it with a fancier, sexless? logocentric dominance hierarchy. :

 

[dmp]

I read quite a bit of post-modern lit and theory when I was at the University. Beckett, Joyce, Elliot - and philosophy like Derrida ,etc.. I read some excerpts of Lacan and Foucault but not much. I liked Barthes and Sartre who were associated - post structuralism and existentialism.  It was very interesting stuff (very difficult though - not easy reading).

The caricature these two (Peterson and Paglia) have of the "post-modernists and neo marxists" is just surreal. It's a total disconnect from reading the works or participating in academia (I got a English major while going for a engineering primary degree).  So maybe things have changed dramatically in the two decades since I went to school (the texts have not of course), but I doubt it.

What comes through much more strongly is the political agenda that's wrapped in the pseudo intellectual discourse.
They remind me of Plato's sophists - the modern usage.

And yes, the pseudo intellectualism makes for a convincing air of authority. But the agenda is to promote the ideas of western superiority, male dominance, and advocate unfettered individualism / Capitalism.

My current take on Peterson is he was so enraged by the compelled speech issue that he has swung into an all out war against this caricature of political correctness he envisions.

They say "all success in modern life can be attributed to Capitalism and raw competition."  Which is ridiculous - we can attribute a lot of the advancement of modern society to technology, which individuals develop when they are not hindered by an oppressive system - whether it be a totalitarian government OR an oppressive Capitalist system. For two academic people it is amazing how little awareness of history they have, when it comes to social - economics. Particularly what preceded the post-modern period, like Sinclair's "the jungle" and the Federal response in the US.  Is it reasonable to blame faculty members in academics for the rise in tuition costs over the past few decades? Did they cause it? Or is this a part of the narrative that Peterson is crafting?

I currently at the point where they celebrate men by denigrating women and feminists. My god...
When there is a societal collapse "men will reconstruct civilization, while women cower in the houses"
There are some real doozies in this dialog.
For what reason they are so misogynistic I don't know, but they should probably see a therapist.
They say that it is a false narrative that women have been oppressed, so they can make the argument that the opposite is true, apparently unaware that women did not have property rights in the USA until 1850s, did not have the right to vote until 1920s, and could not serve on a jury until 1950-1970s... etc
Should read Woolf (one of the post-modernists), particularly 'a room of one's own'.
These circumstances affected their mother/grandmother/ great grand mother etc...
Are they just ignorant of this? 
Or does reality not fit into the political agenda they are serving?

 

[boji]

dmp, why must we insist personal experiences in college- however many years ago- is somehow relevant to the current problems/conversation? This is about the current climate, and one can falsify current events as being overstated-- but that would mean one would have to actually search on the claims, and address them directly.

technology [is advanced] when they are not hindered by an oppressive system

Technological progress is fiercely dependant on competition, as businesses that thrive are also by extension turning a handsome profit or at the least, looking for a  way to scale-up by monetizing discovery.
As for a literary perspective, the 'oppressive system' is what gets people up in the morning to untangle themselves from it. We simply don't have a great story without a believable atonganist.  Why, when criticizing types of governance, is it impossible for lovers of lit to admit that good art is often a distillation of what is true in the world?

amazing how little awareness of history they have

Anyone who was awake during high school history class is painfully aware of capitalism's shortcomings with respect to the crimes against the working class. This "kill-the-messenger" line of argument is not effective.

false narrative that women have been oppressed

JP has lectured ad nauseum on how everyone- including women- have been oppressed.

I abhor the whole 'red pill' meme, so I won't be that guy, but in the spirit of 'knowing your enemy' look up UK hate speech enforcement. DId you know today you can't post an artist's lyrics to your instagram in the UK if it includes offensive words?  How's that going to square with one's love of the literary tradition?

 

[dmp]

dmp, why do you insist your personal experiences in college- however many years ago- is somehow relevant to the current problems/conversation? This is about the current climate, and you can falsify current events as being overstated-- but that would mean you have to actually search on the claims you refuse to address.

If my personal experience is not the basis for how to approach a series of ideas like this, then what is? I have been trying to make the argument that real world experience is better than a internet view of the current climate, whichever tribe you belong to (and hence how you get your news).  The internet view is distorted and personalized to rile you up.
As I said, I have read the works (Derrida, Beckett, Borges, Hegel, Sartre, etc) and participated in the academics that they are directly talking about. In addition to reading the news and thinking critically about the claims.

I'm curious if you have read post modernism and agree with the stance of Peterson and Paglia? And do you have experience in academics that agrees with theirs?

Do you know about the history of book banning in the USA? The push for religion in schools? The fight for a separation of church and state?  All of these are examples of restricted freedom, but not by the cultural marxist bogey man that Peterson is focused on.

I don't know why you are trying to argue with me so much - I believe in personal freedom and freedom of speech.  There are examples throughout history of restrictions coming from every direction politically. But as I've posted, Peterson's sophistry and pseudo intellectualism are easy to see through and I am calling out his thinly veiled political agenda. He is promoting this view of western superiority, male dominance, and individualism and making targeted attacks.

And I spent an hour listening to that discussion today to give the guy a chance. Last night I was watching Joseph Campbell's 'power of myth', which was a much better use of my time.

 

[fazer]

Looks to me like we all belong to a variety of mutual admiration societies.

Your free to listen to your own narrative 24 hours a day. 

Wag the dog.

 

[boji]

If my personal experience is not the basis for how to approach a series of ideas like this, then what is?

Non-subjective data.

Look, I get the sense we share many of the same values, but I don't buy the assertion that people who speak on tenuous topics have it out for the destruction of progressive thought. No synthesis without antithesis..but...'Kill the canary!', says the person in thrall with a pleasing worldview.

I like to trust that people who try out dangerous or unpopular ideas, if they are wrong, will be, in ever-quickening succession thanks to the internet, marginalized and made irrelevant by the body politic. I'm sorry to say this isn't what's happening. The market of ideas is wickedly efficient at routing out charlatans. But the initial review, intuitive distaste for JP is not unique.  I among many I know were guilty of this same first-pass distrust of his ideas, which I think tends to point to a left-leaning bias in need of inspection.

Edit:  By non-subjective data, I mean personal data.

 

[living sounds]

I read quite a bit of post-modern lit and theory when I was at the University. Beckett, Joyce, Elliot - and philosophy like Derrida ,etc.. I read some excerpts of Lacan and Foucault but not much. I liked Barthes and Sartre who were associated - post structuralism and existentialism.  It was very interesting stuff (very difficult though - not easy reading).

The caricature these two (Peterson and Paglia) have of the "post-modernists and neo marxists" is just surreal. It's a total disconnect from reading the works or participating in academia (I got a English major while going for a engineering primary degree).  So maybe things have changed dramatically in the two decades since I went to school (the texts have not of course), but I doubt it.

What comes through much more strongly is the political agenda that's wrapped in the pseudo intellectual discourse.
They remind me of Plato's sophists - the modern usage.

And yes, the pseudo intellectualism makes for a convincing air of authority. But the agenda is to promote the ideas of western superiority, male dominance, and advocate unfettered individualism / Capitalism.

My current take on Peterson is he was so enraged by the compelled speech issue that he has swung into an all out war against this caricature of political correctness he envisions.

They say "all success in modern life can be attributed to Capitalism and raw competition."  Which is ridiculous - we can attribute a lot of the advancement of modern society to technology, which individuals develop when they are not hindered by an oppressive system - whether it be a totalitarian government OR an oppressive Capitalist system. For two academic people it is amazing how little awareness of history they have, when it comes to social - economics. Particularly what preceded the post-modern period, like Sinclair's "the jungle" and the Federal response in the US.  Is it reasonable to blame faculty members in academics for the rise in tuition costs over the past few decades? Did they cause it? Or is this a part of the narrative that Peterson is crafting?

I currently at the point where they celebrate men by denigrating women and feminists. My god...
When there is a societal collapse "men will reconstruct civilization, while women cower in the houses"
There are some real doozies in this dialog.
For what reason they are so misogynistic I don't know, but they should probably see a therapist.
They say that it is a false narrative that women have been oppressed, so they can make the argument that the opposite is true, apparently unaware that women did not have property rights in the USA until 1850s, did not have the right to vote until 1920s, and could not serve on a jury until 1950-1970s... etc
Should read Woolf (one of the post-modernists), particularly 'a room of one's own'.
These circumstances affected their mother/grandmother/ great grand mother etc...
Are they just ignorant of this? 
Or does reality not fit into the political agenda they are serving?

Very interesting, thanks! I haven't had time to listen to the exchange, but will.

One correction: Everything we have today we owe to science. It's the scientific method that made the difference, by letting us look through the distortions of the human filter. Technology is just the outcome of science.

Technological progress was possible in Soviet Russia (think of Sputnik), but ultimately Communism is less compatible with human nature and Capitalism is more efficient for allocating resources where they are needed.

From what I've gathered (not watching the video) I think you're correct these people have an agenda, they themselves are (close to) "radicals" and should at the very least be taken with many grains of salt.

A less biased look at Modernism as well as and many other "ism"s can be had by reading Steven Pinker's monumental book "The Blank Slate", highly recommended.

 

[boji]

I can get behind anything Pinker says.  As well Sapolsky who is a 'true scientist' with very good lectures out there.

Would you mind cliff-noting 'The Blank Slate' if possible?  I have a few readings in the queue and maybe I need to shift preference.

As for science, I can say we owe the staying power of the Western Tradition for it, and Industrial revolution to be sure, but this glosses over a hard look at modern literary and political criticisms that come out of predominantly left leaning humanity departments, of which some content is outlined in the topic of this thread's video. For those who want to cry about it, I'm not saying the hard right has anything good to offer either. But let's not forget JP is left leaning.  If a listener of JP is left leaning and reflexively rebukes his warnings and criticism of their own ideological base, that ought to give the listener serious pause. It did for me.

 

[dmp]

Looks to me like we all belong to a variety of mutual admiration societies.

Tribes - yes, generally true. This has been and always will be a fact of life. But due to interconnectedness (rapid travel & instant communication), tribes have been thrust together over the past few decades.

Your free to listen to your own narrative 24 hours a day. 

I'm trying to do the opposite. Are you listening to a narrative outside your own? How?
And what specifically in this view of Peterson / Paglia rings true to you?

One thing I notice is that when they are talking about the 1950s/1960s, they feel the social protest/change was appropriate then but not now.  Consider these two are 60-70 years old, they are following the classic pattern of seeing change appropriate when they were young (progress) , but wanting things to stay the same now that they are old (conserve).

Non-subjective data.

Look, I get the sense we share many of the same values, but I don't buy the assertion that people who speak on tenuous topics have it out for the destruction of progressive thought. No synthesis without antithesis..but...'Kill the canary!', says the person in thrall with a pleasing worldview.

I like to trust that people who try out dangerous or unpopular ideas, if they are wrong, will be, in ever-quickening succession thanks to the internet, marginalized and made irrelevant by the body politic. I'm sorry to say this isn't what's happening. The market of ideas is wickedly efficient at routing out charlatans. But the initial review, intuitive distaste for JP is not unique.  I among many I know were guilty of this same first-pass distrust of his ideas, which I think tends to point to a left-leaning bias in need of inspection.

Edit:  By non-subjective data, I mean personal data.

The opposite of subjective is objective. I'm sure everyone with curiosity presumes their view is objective or strives for it to be .
Critical thinking is a learned process to evaluate ideas to move from subjective, biased views to objective truths. That is the main value one obtains in a good English major program.
The foundation of science is a method to distinguish truths (as livingsounds just posted), and the same thing applies to the humanities.

Again: I'm curious if you have read the writers that they are talking about? Have you had a similar experience in academics?
What rings true to you in what they say - specifically? 
The process to finding common ground and agreement depends on discussion in good faith. The vague references of 'values', 'unpopular ideas' etc.... aren't moving this along at all. Peterson goes much further than free speech in his viewpoint.
As I said: western superiority, male dominance, and the value of individualism (but ignoring the inherent advantage some have over others).

Note that there is a big difference between what they are saying and controversies like the gender gap/IQ etc ( like Lawrence Summers controversy at Harvard).  Sometimes science creates controversies. That is fundamental to progress.

Tenuous: weak, insubstantial??

 

[living sounds]

Would you mind cliff-noting 'The Blank Slate' if possible?  I have a few readings in the queue and maybe I need to shift preference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

I read non-fiction books all the time, and "The Blank Slate" is the one I think everyone should have read. It helps to see through so much nonsense we generally assume to be true. I've given it to a few people and only afterwards realized (by those people telling me how demanding a read they thought it was) that you need a lot of background knowledge/unterstanding to get it all in one go. It's also a book any true believer won't like, since the facts don't support those beliefs.

But let's not forget JP is left leaning.

The evidence does not seem to support this judgement. He appears to be far to the right on economic issues and on his trademark issues he is generally arguing the conservative position, too.

We seem to live in a time of realignment, however, and there seems to be a trend of certain segments of "elite US liberals turning rightward", as the book reviewer in this Guardian arcticle has analyzed very well (IMHO) :

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/20/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-review

 

[boji]

Dmp, It's obvious you don't want to let any disconfirmation into the discussion and have been happy to call BS on JP for months now.  That's completely fine. I really don't feel like trying to sell over and over that which you have decided long ago is not worth buying.

This has been and always will be a fact of life. But due to interconnectedness (rapid travel & instant communication), tribes have been thrust together over the past few decades.

Access to opinions unlike our own is more readily available than it has ever been, and is in turn thrusting us apart, pushing ideology and language to the edges.  At this scale, it is an emergent phenomenon and not 'just a fact of life'.

I'm sure everyone with curiosity presumes their view is objective or strives for it to be

Doesn't change the fact that it is still a subjective viewpoint and will put its finger on the scale when adopting conclusions from hypothesis.

Again: I'm curious if you have read the writers that they are talking about?

Again? I could say 'again' about a few questions I asked...
Anywho ...a bit of Sartre, Camus, not enough Foucault, very little of Derrida and Butler.  The harder to understand, the less interest I took and I suspect my BS meter was properly calibrated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=20&v=yvwhEIhv3N0

BTW I love Searle, he always tries to speak as plainly as possible on difficult subjects like consciousness and AI.

I got work to do, ttfn.

 

[boji]

elite US liberals turning rightward

I think it's the base that's shifted not the moderates, partly in response to Trump. And the reasonable, liberal-leaning left is not digging the hard-line language coming out of the antifa frey or the sjw crowd.  Add to this the 'call out culture' of Gen Z and it's why you have card carrying leftists like Bill Maher now labeled by his own party as a 'fake democrat'.

A good citizen criticizes his own party if it looks like it's losing its way. But apparently this only works when things are going well for that party...

 

[living sounds]

I think it's the base that's shifted not the moderates, partly in response to Trump. And the reasonable, liberal-leaning left is not digging the hard-line language coming out of the antifa frey or the sjw crowd.  Add to this the 'call out culture' of Gen Z and it's why you have card carrying leftists like Bill Maher now labeled by his own party as a 'fake democrat'.

It goes both ways. There now definitely are the kind of people who say they are left-leaning or liberal, but actually hold and propagate right-wing ideas. And/or apply the kind of reductionist ignorance (or ignorant reductionism) formally typical of conservatives, e.g. just "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". The idiom actually describes an impossible feat, but with the reality distortion field of the Ayn Rand variety people neatly gloss over that.

I don't even know what "sjw" means BTW.

 

[living sounds]

can you explain what you mean by this further? The fact that it's impossible? Or the fact that people use it in another context apart from it's original meaning?

What I mean is people are underestimating the impact of conditions vs. the individual's ability to shape conditions. The zeitgeist has long favored an individualistic illusion (Neoliberalism etc.). Reality will intrude and correct this one way or the other.