<faults a university professor for resonating with young people> — Buxtebuddha
What's wrong is influencing students while using dishonest arguments, faux facts, summing illusory enemies, and adding fuel to the 'culture war' flames, under the guise of "self-help" psychology. — Maw
Are you saying Socialism is possible, or are you saying it is never possible? — René Descartes
To answer how is actually quite simple. Basically it's because political correctness etc. are the prevailing cultural zeitgeist and values of society - or at least the relevant segments of society. Why are they the prevailing zeitgeist? I don't think there is much reason - it's like fashion. There's no reason why pink hats are fashionable now, or why it was fashionable to wear a wig 200 years ago, etc. It's just what it happened to be. If we played history again, it would likely be different.never precisely explain how political correctness, or more radically, "Post-Modern Marxist Identity Politics", has (for them) dominated college campus, private businesses (STEM-based companies), and mainstream media and other institutions, influencing all of society. — Maw
I think to a certain extent (but not completely) it is random. It's not something that can be explained by a deterministic theory. A series of ideologies compete against each other, and the one that emerges as victorious isn't something that can, prior to the fact, be determined. That is exactly why we can't predict history or say what will happen next.How did an esoteric academic philosophy transform into a the prevailing "cultural zeitgeist" or the paramount "values of society"? — Maw
The present was once the future no? If we didn't know how it came about as it was happening, what makes you think we'd have anything more but the illusion of knowing anything (rationalisations) after the fact?We are not talking about future predictions. We are talking about how post-modernism became, andis presently, the cultural orthodoxy. — Maw
Is there a transcript I might skim? Or perhaps a short section of the video that's especially instructive? I'm not in the habit of sitting through hour-long speeches before I have some indication that they're likely to be worth the time. I've been through the first ten minutes. So far there's been no hint of a significant claim to support the headline, only what strikes me as shifty and philosophically irrelevant stage-setting.So please have a listen to the lecture when you have some time, and post your thoughts. — Agustino
This rhetorical stance strikes me as absurd.Personally, I agree with Peterson, and it is something that I have been saying for 2-3 years or so. I think we all have disadvantages and handicaps - it's nobody's fault. We have to become stronger and learn to deal with it. As the Buddhists say, life is suffering - there is no escape from that. I think this is the point that many of the leftist radicals don't get - suffering cannot be eliminated completely, and seeking to eliminate it completely, merely makes it worse. Instead, we should train people to be psychologically stronger, much like Nietzsche's Zarathustra, who can say "di capo!" every time. — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.