He is both an anti-postmodernist (I can find numerous videos of him
attacking postmodernism) AND he is a postmodernist (I can find numerous videos in which he plays language/redefinition games to avoid having to give a straigth answer).
If you have a better or funnier way to describe an anti-postmodern postmodernist, let me know. I thought it was funny that a guy who spends so much time railing against postmodernism, while he falls into many of its own trappings himself (and more than almost anybody else I know).
Two points.
In my view Peterson is a modernist. I'll say what definitions I use and how I see it, and then people can agree or not. I think that'd be better than having an "intelectual" spergfest worthy of and atheist forum. :autism: ahead.
I'll say he's a modernist because he still holds the traditional notions of "progress" and his word play typical of Jungians and avoidance to give definition isn't a postmodern practice. It's just him weaseling out of a bind since IMO he knows much of his followers are atheist and he can't possibly proof the existance of god. If you look at plays of Samuel Becket, writings of James Joyce and Piccasso's art are classified as modernist. (cubism, especially) and none of them make much "realist" sense.
His modernist views reject the "realism" of previous eras (that's where you get the weird jungian-christian babble stuff) but still overall hold a narrative. "Society can improve if the individual improves. Start by sorting yourself out and making your bed." and "See, Africa is getting better with capitalism. They just need more of it." like he says on twitter.
If he was postmodern he'd be rejecting the notion of "progress and societal advancement" and instead be mainly holding the idea that knowledge and narratives don't necesarily mean progress, and instead are a form of social control and so are interpretations of knowledge.
I'll also say he's a bad modernist because he doesn't admit that his narritve ultimately depends of faith. And that to a certain degree he's just an idealist and in order to buy into his narrative, you'd have to "listen and believe" like with Jungian stuff and Christian belief.
It's very modernist of him to grab what he believes is to be right and see it through his own perspective. (In a similar way to what Picasso did with Cubist art, painting objects or people from different perspectives at once). But that's where we will find most of his contradictions, since reality obviously can't fit his unique perspective. Not to mention he's a cow.
Second point.
If you disagree with me, which is fine, the "postmodern anti-postmodernist" is just way too full and big to be catchy to the eye. Too many "modernism". I'd like to see something a little more catchy and a little more spite, just for the hell of it. Some of my suggestions are "Diabetic post-antimodernist wanna be." "Bipolar Post-antimodernist leaf" "Banished Jungian who hates Commies." "Cries when Foulcault is mentioned." "Bastard son of a three-way between Nietzsche, Kermit the frong and Jung"
Those tittles are funny to me, but I'm not Adam Sandler nor Dynastia, so I might not be the best judge of humor. Good luck.
I think he's actually trying to help Sargon and the cause of Online free speech. (how will that work out... only time will tell) And being honest, Peterson does owe a lot to Sargon, being the latter able to inflete the outragebux enough for Peterson to become... THE Jordan Peterson.
Is by any chance... your room clean?
