LogFAQs > #902677085

Balrog0 posted...

Romes187 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I'm on mobile so hopefully I can respond more fully when I have more time but I don't think that he is. doing that for the most part. The fact that his most popular ideological argument is to conflate neo Marxism and post modernism despite the lack of academic acceptance that those are the same thing seriously undercuts that argument, IMO, though I still admit to not being an expert in evolutionary psychology

He's responded many times to the fact that he knows post modernism and marxism are incompatible

https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/

In case you're interested

The only argument he makes here is that Foucault and Derrida were Marxists even though they protested that description, because their formulation of societal relations reminds him of Marxism. He doesn't explain why they are or why he thinks they are, just that they are even though he knows they can't be both, and even though he knows both claim not to be.

This didn't help me understand him at all

If viewing society as governed by power relations doesn't speak of Marxism to you I'm not sure what else to say. I guess it's a difference of opinion.

But it'd hard to deny the ideologues who are attempting to get rid of categories (say, gender) don't also have a Marxist slant to them

But I guess we all see what we see

Again, all this is secondary to his maps of meaning lectures. I'd really recommend those if you're interested in understanding where he's coming from. If not I get it (it's about 40 hours of lectures) but they helped me see his viewpoint