If you’d like to read into this I recommend these books.
1. “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas S. Kuhn
2. “Science as Social Knowledge” by Helen Longino
3. “The Politics of Science” by David Politzer
4. “The Science Industry” by Philip Mirowski
5. “The Commodification of Science: A Critical Perspective” by various authors
An example of why this matters would be that research claiming ME was psychological was heavily funded, by both governments and insurance companies because it meant that they didn’t have to spend money on people disabled with ME. No effort was made to look at possible biological causes. Only a couple decades later, we now know it is a neuroimmune disease. But since insurers and government don’t benefit from that fact, it took decades to show and disprove the mountain of research claiming it is psychological. This meant thousands of people died from the disease or were in severe poverty.
It’s true Peterson doesn’t understand it very and he definitely IS one. As a philosophy, it is quite disagreeable but you’re going have to do better than throw it in the trash during a tantrum and explain yourself. Or else it is the downvote bin for you.
Peterson’s gripes with postmodernism mainly stem from his hatred for Marxism and Neo-Marxism, whatever that means to him. He falsely equates the two by claiming that the Neo-Marxists attempt to the shroud their ideology in the form of “oppressionism” which is a staple of postmodernism. This is obviously wrong for a number of reasons but mainly because; 1) Marxism is rooted in scientific praxis by way of dialectical materialism which postmodernism opposes. 2) Marxism presents clear cut structures and systems for how society operates. Postmodernism says that systems are oppressive in nature and therefore should be opposed.
Now, i mentioned all this not because I’m a Marxist, but because i disagree with the two characteristics of postmodernism i outlined. Firstly, i don’t think it is in the best interest of any discipline to disagree with scientific reasoning simply because of how it has proven time and time again to be efficient. Science is the absolute and it should rather be science dismantling other modes of thinking than the other way around. Secondly, I disagree with the proposition that systems are oppressive therefore should be abandoned. Society, politics, etc CAN and SHOULD be explained in clear cut systems once again simply because of how accurate they are. It may not be the conflict theory, but there are other theories out there that explain society and accurately predict the actions of those in it e.g rational choice theory, feminist theory, etc.
I can’t claim to have read Foucault or Derrida or any other postmodernist literature, but this is my understanding of some of its claims.
Also, i have thought about Peterson potentially being a postmodernist (or at least incorporating some elements of postmodernist thought into his own ideologies) especially if you watched his recent discussion with Richard Dawkins. The way he tried to reconcile both points of view and say that they are actually two sides of the same coin seemed a bit postmodern to me. Although, what do i know.
If you’d like to read into this I recommend these books.
1. “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas S. Kuhn
2. “Science as Social Knowledge” by Helen Longino
3. “The Politics of Science” by David Politzer
4. “The Science Industry” by Philip Mirowski
5. “The Commodification of Science: A Critical Perspective” by various authors
An example of why this matters would be that research claiming ME was psychological was heavily funded, by both governments and insurance companies because it meant that they didn’t have to spend money on people disabled with ME. No effort was made to look at possible biological causes. Only a couple decades later, we now know it is a neuroimmune disease. But since insurers and government don’t benefit from that fact, it took decades to show and disprove the mountain of research claiming it is psychological. This meant thousands of people died from the disease or were in severe poverty.
I meant for the femboy getting pounded in the bottom photo
You forgot Foucault’s Power/Knowledge.
Fuck Foucault
Don’t let the post-modern-neo-marxists bite
Do you hate Foucault because your a Marxist or a Petersonian?
There are more than just two possible reasons to dislike Michel “what if the child consents tho” Foucault.
No i hate him because post-modernism is trash. Peterson doesn’t understand post-modernism, but he is right that it’s trash
It’s true Peterson doesn’t understand it very and he definitely IS one. As a philosophy, it is quite disagreeable but you’re going have to do better than throw it in the trash during a tantrum and explain yourself. Or else it is the downvote bin for you.
Peterson’s gripes with postmodernism mainly stem from his hatred for Marxism and Neo-Marxism, whatever that means to him. He falsely equates the two by claiming that the Neo-Marxists attempt to the shroud their ideology in the form of “oppressionism” which is a staple of postmodernism. This is obviously wrong for a number of reasons but mainly because; 1) Marxism is rooted in scientific praxis by way of dialectical materialism which postmodernism opposes. 2) Marxism presents clear cut structures and systems for how society operates. Postmodernism says that systems are oppressive in nature and therefore should be opposed.
Now, i mentioned all this not because I’m a Marxist, but because i disagree with the two characteristics of postmodernism i outlined. Firstly, i don’t think it is in the best interest of any discipline to disagree with scientific reasoning simply because of how it has proven time and time again to be efficient. Science is the absolute and it should rather be science dismantling other modes of thinking than the other way around. Secondly, I disagree with the proposition that systems are oppressive therefore should be abandoned. Society, politics, etc CAN and SHOULD be explained in clear cut systems once again simply because of how accurate they are. It may not be the conflict theory, but there are other theories out there that explain society and accurately predict the actions of those in it e.g rational choice theory, feminist theory, etc.
I can’t claim to have read Foucault or Derrida or any other postmodernist literature, but this is my understanding of some of its claims.
Also, i have thought about Peterson potentially being a postmodernist (or at least incorporating some elements of postmodernist thought into his own ideologies) especially if you watched his recent discussion with Richard Dawkins. The way he tried to reconcile both points of view and say that they are actually two sides of the same coin seemed a bit postmodern to me. Although, what do i know.