/lit/ - Literature

I'm not sure how I feel about the whole Shallan split personality thing.
I don't like where this is going.

>>9601697
Now, this is NOT nihilism. Nihilism is postmodern, but postmodernism isn't nihilistic. Neither is it a rejection of individuality or free-will, as Peterson likes to characterize it. He also characterizes Marxism and Post-Modern, using a pretty amazingly dumb argument "Workers live better than they did, therefore they're not oppressed and dehumanized." While many major post-modernists were Marxists, and Marxism lends itself to Post-modernism, but Carl Schmitt and Heidegger were fuckin nazis, so, again, characterizing Post-modernism as inherently leftist is plain ignorant.

While people like to term postmodernism "Post-Truth", it's a misleading term. It's post Objective Truth, post-discernible, scientific truth; it is a rejection of previous understanding that truth can be understood, or understood through logic, rationality, and the various forms of dualism, whatever have you. Instead, it presents a world that is inherently complex and, for many, beyond human understanding. This is NOT NECESSARILY a rejection of ethics, or of states, or of anything else, it does, however, complicate them.

If the subject cannot be divided from its context, does not make sense without its context, then you have, potentially, an entire species of subjects, for which each context slightly overlaps, and yet their worlds greatly differ. Misinformed SJWs who think this proves relativist-ethics are idiots. Aut-Rightists who think this means the end of morals are even dumber.

Peterson doesn't tackle any of these things, let alone hint at its complexity, and the lack of any single, continuous post-modern view. Postmodernism is a fucking mess and can hardly be called an ironed out or hegemonic view, much less so than I did of "Modernism", which, I know, can vary massively.

However, Peterson just says "THEY'RE NIHILISTS, CAN'T CLEAN UP THEIR ROOM, LOGIC IS INHERENTLY PATRIARCHAL, THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN DISCOURSE" Which is total and absolute nonsense. It's hard to find views that even Judith Butler, who, arguably, helped cause the recent SJWs (Gender Trouble is worth a read though) would agree with.

He's a fucking sophist trying to push a bullshit ideology. If the rest of his work is like those 12 minutes, then Harvard is a sham. This entire lecture is the description of a strawman.