Of course it is possible, now, that theory merely argues itself, having pretty much described (or inscribed) itself to show where it lacks. The ultimate irony of psychoanalytical-Philosophy (as a general term) is what occurs, what has occurred through the general rhetoric; namely, the argument has described itself into its lack, and the lack is now showing the insufficiency of its own power to hold a narrative in place as a site for argument that concern real situations.
The “greater theory” has shown what it misses, such that its explanatory power and basis for effect occurs through its failure. The result is at once, a reinstatement of the theory-method as an effective power, which translates into the ubiquitous System (master signifier) capitalism, and, as well, the opening which functions through the already collapsed system, that which otherwise functions under a new master signifier.
Peterson, it seems, is being either ignorant or deceptive, either naive or authoritarian.
The question always has to be: how do we know this? Peterson does not ask this question and so any sort of addressing his particular arguments kind of fall flat and become specifically unnecessary outside of the question of social justice. Then While he attempts to use a philosophical veneer to prescribe a method for determining social justice, The workings of his thoughts are already anachronistic, patronizing, and religious of the late 19th century sort. It seems the conundrum of the end of philosophy is causing thinkers of a certain intellectual and educational sort and capacity to derive sensibilities of progress that are actually calls to return to a fabled “golden age” of essentialist certitude.
The question of “how” is not an epistemological question. The philosophical given involved with its method that gives us permission to ignore the question of “how”, in as much as some foundationalist thinker long-ago told us that we can only know of the how or the Y in as much as we describe the inner workings of what is already given, as never we can find out nor have access to discovering what is giving, is the definition of philosophical sufficiency but as well from a logistical standpoint, evidence of redundancy in the sense of overkill and unnecessary rehashing of argument and decisions that of already been established – but as if they have never been discussed or indeed have already been established as unimpeachably true And needing of their re-institutionalization.
The end that this sufficiency inscribes Being toward as a certain order of things tells us that whenever we ask “how” we are asking to describe the interlinking of parts that are already given.
Instead of this eternally returning dogmatic answer for method, we are allowed now and are able to ask “how” to mean Logistics rather than epistemology.
When we change the question of “how do we know this” to a question of logistics, The purpose and capacity of philosophy changes.
Btw: Marxism: the theoretical marker of the issue at hand, of the two routes.
It seems so far is Peterson is involved with the one route, there is much that I can agree with him at least in the video of the previous post. But there is much that he claims knowledge of that he is not investigated, and so some of his proclamations fall rapidly short insufficient to substantiate his claim is beyond the fact that he is arguing it. So I’ll repeat again he’s using postmodern mechanisms and methods to claim that post modern is was wrong. I would argue less about his description about what has occurred in the past century maybe, and more that his methodological basis is flawed .
He is scared and worried because he associates his identity, his being, with a certain strict sense of order, As he understands implicitly this order asresponsible for and constituent of The civilized world. And as I said before in my previous post: of course he’s worried! He is a white male and refuses to step outside of his privilege to see the actual world around him.