was here we could lay it out quickly
okay you know because I've been I've
been thinking about how to communicate
this properly and so the thing about the
post modernists and I'm going to speak
mostly about Jacques Derrida because
I'll consider him the central villain
now he actually he he may they make a
point explain who he is please well he's
a he's a French philosopher French
intellectual who became quite popular in
the late 1970s and then was introduced
to North America through the Yale
Department of English and of course
English literature is one of the
disciplines that has become entirely
corrupt and so Derrida was a Marxist to
begin with but that fell out of favor
because it turned out that Marxist
political doctrine kept producing evil
empires and even radical left French
intellectuals were forced to admit that
by the mid-1970s you know they put their
head in there in the sand for 20 years
50 years really thoroughly in the sand
and made sure their ears were full too
but by the mid 1970s the evidence that
that was the case was so overwhelming
that even a French intellectual couldn't
deny it anymore and so they started to
play sleight of hand with the Marxist
ideas so instead of trying to promote
the revolution of the working class
against the against the capitalist class
let's say they started to play identity
politics and said well we can just
separate everybody into a pressed versus
oppressor but we don't have to do it on
economic grounds and so we can we can
call it power instead of economics so
that was part of it and then the other
thing but the fundamental critique that
Derrida focused on this is this is this
is really worth laying out because that
the problem that he discovered the post
modernists discovered was discovered by
a variety of other people at the same
time in other disciplines so for example
among the people who were studying
artificial intelligence since the early
1960s it was always supposed that we'd
be able to make machines that could move
around in a natural environment without
too much problem and the reason we could
do that was because the world in some
sense was just made out of simple
objects there they are and all you have
to do is look at them and you see them
and that's vision and then the complex
problem is not how to see or what to see
but how to act in reference to what you
see but it turned out that
the AI people ran into this problem
essentially sometimes known as the frame
problem the frame problem is is that
there's almost an infinite number of
ways to look at a finite set of objects
so the fact that that vision for example
it turns out to be way way way more
complicated than anybody ever our ever
estimated in fact you can't actually
solve the vision problem until you solve
the embodiment problem so an artificial
intelligence that doesn't have a body
can't really see because seeing is
actually the mapping of the world onto
action and so that was figured out more
or less by a robotics engineer called
Rodney Brooks but but what's at the
bottom of this is the idea that any set
of phenomena can be seen a very large
number of ways so like there's a bunch
of pens in front of me here you know and
when I look at the my brain basically
notes that there agrippa Ballabh jekt
with which i can write so I see the
function like like if you look at a
beanbag you see a chair not because it's
got four legs and a seat in the back but
because you can sit on it and most of
what we see in the world we actually see
functionally rather than see as an
object and then interpret the object and
then figure out what to do so the
function of the object constrains our
interpretation but there's an endless
number of interpretations so for example
if I was going to paint that you know
paint on canvas this set of pens and try
to do it in a photorealistic way I would
be looking at tiny details of these
objects that the multiple shades red
that are there in the multiple shades of
of white and black and you know I would
decompose it and many went many ways and
so the AI guys ran into this problem
which was that looking at the world
turned out to be exceptionally complex
and that's still being solved now okay
in literature the same thing happened
what what the post modernists realized
was that if you took a complex book
let's say the Bible for example or a
Shakespeare play there's an endless
number of potential interpretations that
you can derive from it because it's so
complex and so sophisticated so imagine
that well you can interpret the word you
can interpret the phrase you can
interpret the sentence you can turbit
the paragraph you can interpret the
chapter let's say you have to interpret
that within
confines of the entire work then of the
entire tradition and then within the
context of discussion that you're
currently having and all of those things
affect how you're going to interpret the
play so there's a know so that their
conclusion was well there's an infinite
number of ways to interpret a text and
then their conclusion was well there's
an infinite number of ways to interpret
the world and there's there's a way in
which that's correct and so the next
conclusion was there's no right way to
do it so you could do it any old way and
then their next conclusion was oh and
this is where the Marxism creeped up
again Oh people interpret the world in a
way that facilitates their acquisition
of power now that's where the bloody
theory starts to get corrupt because yes
a bit but also no right because and this
is why they're wrong this is why they're
wrong you see the world is complicated
beyond our ability to comprehend so
there is a very large number of ways you
can interpret it but but you have to
extract out from the world a way a game
from your interpretation that you can
actually play so if the lesson that you
extract from Hamlet is you should kill
your family and yourself then we might
say that that's not a very functional
interpretation right because first of
all people are going to object to that
right it ends your life it ends many
people's lives people are going to
object to it and it isn't a game that
you can play over and over again in the
world so when we're when we're
interacting with the world you see what
we're trying to do is to extract out a
set of tools that we can use to function
in the world because we're constrained
by the world so that we don't suffer too
much and so that the things that we need
in order to continue can be provided and
we need to extract those out in a way
that other people will so that other
people will cooperate and compete with
us in a peaceful and maintainable way so
then you think well we have to extract
out an interpretation that allows us to
live and thrive over multiple periods of
time in multiple environments well we're
doing the same thing with other
individuals who are motivated the same
way so there's a tremendous number of
strengths on our interpretations and the
post modernists don't care about that at
all all they do is say well no no you
can interpret the way the world the
world any way you want all people are
ever doing is playing power games based
on their identity and there's going to
be no crosstalk between the power
hierarchies it's not even allowed that's
why they don't engage in dialogue see
just to talk to like let's say if you're
a if you're a postmodernist just to have
a discussion with someone like you you
know a heterosexual what do they call a
cisgendered male of power you know and
white to boot it's like that's that's an
evil act in and of itself because all
you're doing by engaging in dialogue
with that person is validating their
their power game that's all you see and
this isn't this isn't this is no
aberration that these people don't
engage in dialogue that it's no
aberration it's built right into the
philosophical system they regard the
idea of the idea that if you're in one
power group and I'm in another the idea
that we can step out of that group
engage in a dialogue have our worlds
meet and produce some sort of
understanding yeah yeah some sort of
negotiated understanding no that's part
of your your oppressive patriarchal game
that idea that whole idea is part of
your game so if I even engage in the
dialogue I'm playing your game you win
it's a completed so it's complete you
people don't understand that
post-modernism is a complete assault on
two things one it's an assault on the
metaphysical substrate of our culture
and I would say that the metaphysical
substrate looks something like a
religious substrate so it's a direct
assault on that and the second thing
it's an assault on is everything that's
been established since the Enlightenment
rationality and parasitism science
everything clarity of mind dialogue the
idea of the individual all of that is is
not only you see it's not only that it's
up for grabs that's not the thing it's
to be destroyed that's the goal to be
destroyed just like the Communists
wanted you know wanted the revolution to
destroy the capitalist system it's the
same thing these people now you might
say well there's every social
justice warrior activists know this it's
like well no of course not
it's not luck not any more than any
every Muslim knows the entire Muslim
doctrine or Islamic doctrine or every
Christian knows the entire Christian
doctrine you know its fragmented among
people but then when you bring them
together the fragments unite and the
entire philosophy acts itself out so you
don't think that this is a nefarious
plot by a few well planned out
individuals that have some sort of an
agenda that they're going to promote
this ideology because they and they
understand what they're doing you you
feel like it's what you're saying that
there's a bunch of different factions a
bunch a bunch of different parts to this
and it could be a lot of it is that
people feel disenfranchised socially
they they are empowered by their
positions in universities and by these
insulated environments and groups
they're intoxicated by the power that
they have over young people and shaping
their minds and and in imposing their
ideologies they receive feedback from
these kids it builds up everything
strengthens they shore up the walls
around them and they push this forward
and then when they have something like
this speech that you gave that Nick
masters and they get to actually act it
unites them unites them and this is what
you're getting from this glazed eye you
know coddlers yeah yeah well it's as if
it's like Richard Dawkins idea of meme
you know if you imagine that in your in
your neural neural structure whatever
idea is that you're manifesting are
represented neuron by neuron let's say
it's a web of neurons not any one neuron
has the entire idea set this is
obviously an oversimplification but you
get the point
there's a network from which the idea
emerges
well the meme idea is is that an idea
can rest upon multiple individuals as if
each individual is a neuron and so I
mean there are people who are more or
less fully informed as to the nature of
postmodern doctrine and they're pushing
it forward consciously and unconsciously
they're they're consciously pushing for
and acting it out and so there are
individuals who are more representative
of the entire set of ideas and
individuals who are less representative
but if you get them together in a group
the thing that animates them and unites
them is the common set of ideas and
those ideas were produced by the
postmodern French intellectuals in the
in the mid 70s roughly speaking Jacques
Derrida Michel Foucault Foucault was the
person who famously pronounced that
psychiatric diagnostic categories were
primarily social in origin rather than
biological and you know I read the
flucos work I think it was madness and
civilization where he advanced that
particular doctrine you can actually
read Foucault and like Derrida and Lacan
but I just found what he was writing
obvious it's I knew from my clinical
training that psychiatric categories
have a heavy sociological construction
partly because psychiatry is into
science medicine isn't a science it's an
applied science so they aren't the same
thing at all and you know a pure science
is pure science it deals with scientific
categories like atoms but an applied
science well it's a compromise between
all sorts of different things and mental
illnesses themselves are shaped by the
social environment even though often
they have a biological root the way they
manifest themselves is clearly shaped by
society and language I didn't find his
work the least bit surprising I thought
well really I mean everyone who's a
sophisticated medical professional
psychiatrists psychologists everyone
knows that it's like meaning there's a
book called discovery of the unconscious
by a guy named Andre Allen Burgess that
was written in the leave in the 60s
great book on history of psychoanalysis
and like he covers the shift in
diagnostic categories across time it's
self-evident
so anyways there's all these friends
post modernists they were all Marxist
most of them were student
revolutionaries in France in the late
1960s before that all fell apart and
they did two things they they pulled out
this frame problem issue the issue of
multiple interpretations and said well
there's nothing that's canonical there's
no overarching narrative there's no real
interpretation and I already said why
that's wrong
and then the other thing they said was
they did this sleight of hand so instead
of the working class against the version
was he it was it was race against race
or gender against gender unbelievably
divisive it's all they believed in his
identity there's no individual man
that's gone with post-modernism that
this isn't that accident all of this
stuff it's not random it's driven by
these ideas like ideas are always at war
always and we're in a war between these
ideas
I mean Marxism we already know was
tremendously powerful doctrine and this
is its newest manifestation what is the
motivation behind the individuals that
are at the heart of this movement well I
would say that the motivations are as
complex as as human motivations are in
general but they seem to have solidified
into a movement right well I think the
dangerous part of it is that the it's a
kind of it's almost like a scapegoat
mentality it's almost like
psychoanalytic projection that's another
way of thinking about it it's like what
are the things that I've come to learn
and one of the things I talk about a lot
is that the the battle between good and
evil so to speak isn't between States
and it's not between individuals
precisely although it manifests itself
at those levels it's an internal battle
a moral battle that happens inside
people and so people have a broad
capacity for malevolence and for and for
benevolence and that's a terrible war
for people and it's a terrible thing to
understand and realize in fact often
when people realize their capacity for
malevolence if they're not prepared for
it they develop post-traumatic stress
disorder so that happens to soldiers and
battlefields so they go out there
innocent guys you know naive guys young
guys and they go out onto the
battlefield and they get put in a really
stressful situation and you know they
they step outside themselves and they do
something unbelievably vicious and
brutal and then they're broken they
can't take that manifestation of
themselves and put it with like Iowa
corn-fed you know nice guy and
no wonder because one is like a
flesh-eating chimp chimpanzee on a war
rampage and the other is you know was
relatively well brought up and polite
farm boy from the middle of the United
States it's like how in the world you're
going to put those two things together
well you can't
that's post-traumatic stress disorder
and to treat that my experience with
post-traumatic stress disorder is that
you have to teach people a philosophy of
evil of good and evil because otherwise
they can't recover and I've had I've had
by the way in the last four months I've
had two letters from people from
soldiers with PTSD and I met two
personally who said that watching my
lectures had had brought them back it
together because they couldn't
understand what they had become before
looking looking deeply at at the at
their malevolence now so I would say
with regards to this movement this
postmodern movement the malevolent
aspect of it there's a there's a couple
of them wanted unbelievably
authoritarian I got a letter today from
a university student in Italy I don't
know what university but she'd been
having kind of a flame war on Facebook
with with the social justice warrior and
at the end she recommended that this
particular social justice warrior seek
out a local mental health counseling
unit and put a link to it in in the
exchange and then she got a letter from
the University I guess the other person
that the SJW type turned her in but she
got a letter from the university saying
that that violated university policy and
constituted harassment and that she
should seriously consider retracting it
and that you know future employees
employers might be looking at what she
posted and it was inappropriate to put
that on a public site and it's like I
thought wow if you how could you be so
clueless as a as a administrator say to
think that you're monitoring of your
students private utterances you're
monitoring it at an institutional level
and your intervention and threat at an
institutional level is less dangerous
than letting two students you know troll
each other on on a on a public social
forum
just I just I don't know what to think
about it it's just unbelievable it
happened and it's happening all over the
place this sort of thing and so there's
the authoritarian element to it which is
a hatred of I think it's a hatred of
competence because competence produces
hierarchies that aren't based on power I
think it's a hatred of clear intellect
hatred of clear interlink how so what do
you know when you say clear in the level
you have a clear intellect as far as I'm
concerned I think that's why you're so
popular it's because you pay attention
and say what you see and you're not too
concerned about doing anything other
than that I mean of course you have an
agenda because everyone has an agenda
you can't help but have an agenda if
you're alive but you can temper the
agenda like you can be clued in enough
to try to listen and learn and watch and
pay attention to what your own senses
are telling you and try to articulate
that and now that's what the logos is
technically speaking and the reason I'm
bringing this up is because Jacques
Derrida described Western culture in a
famous phrase he described it as fellow
PHAL-Logo-Centric P-H-A-L logo L-O-G-O
 
geocentric PHAL logo centric and it needs
to be brought down well a phallus part
that's MALE, the LOGO part that's logos
now that's partly logic because the word
logic comes from the word logos but
logos is a deep made much much older
concept than logic like logos is it's
essentially it's a theological concept
and that's where things get complicated
but you could describe it as as the
manifestation of truth in speech and the
postmodernist they don't like any of
that so foul logo centers our logos it
would be the ultimate mansplaining yes
as our yeah it's like any man who
Jordan Peterson Explains Postmodernism - Transcribed
expresses or tries to correct a woman in
any way becomes a man so maybe to
correct anything in any way hmm
remedy particularly with what you
