The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - Stephen Hicks: Philosophy and Postmodernism

Episode Date: May 5, 2019

Today, we’re presenting Dr. Peterson's conversation with Stephen Hicks, recorded on March 27, 2019. Stephen R. C. Hicks is Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University, Illinois, USA, Executive��Director of the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship, and Senior Scholar at The Atlas Society.

Welcome to season 2 episode 7 of the Jordan B Peterson podcast. I'm Michaela Peterson, Jordan's daughter and collaborator, CEO of his business, and general all around good person. Today we're presenting Dad's conversation with Stephen Hicks recorded on March 27th, 2019. Today, the intro will just be done by me, and possibly next week's episodes intro as well, who knows how long this will continue? Maybe forever. I do like talking so I'm okay with that.

Hopefully you guys are too. Stephen RC Hicks is Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University, Illinois, USA. Executive Director of the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship and Senior Scholar at the Atlas Society. He received his bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Guelph and his PhD in Philosophy from Indiana University. He has published four books translated into 16 different languages, including explaining postmodernism, skepticism and socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, Nietzsche and the Nazis, the art of reasoning, readings for logical analysis, and most recently entrepreneurial living co-edited with Jennifer Hurrell. He's published in academic journals such as Business Ethics Quarterly, Teaching Philosophy,

and Review of Metaphysics, as well as other publications such as The Ethics Quarterly, Teaching Philosophy, and Review of Metaphysics, as well as other publications such as The Wall Street Journal, Cato Unbound, and The Baltimore Sun. In 2010, he won his university's Excellence in Teaching Award. He's done a lot. He's an impressive individual. Hopefully you guys enjoy the podcast, and perhaps even learn something. When we return, Dad's conversation with Stephen Hicks. Please welcome my father, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. Stephen RC Hicks is Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University, Illinois, USA, Executive Director of the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship, and Senior Scholar at the Atlas Society.

He received his bachelor's in Master's degree from the University of Guelph in Canada, and his PhD in Philosophy from Indiana University, Bloomington, USA. He's published four books, translated into 16 different languages. translated into 16 different languages. In 2004, it expanded in 2011, he published explaining postmodernism, skepticism and socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. In 2010, Nietzsche and the Nazis. In 1994, with a second edition in 1998, he published the art of reasoning reasoning readings for logical Adelisus co-edited with David Kelly, and in 2016 entrepreneurial living co-edited with Jennifer Harrow. He's published in academic journals such as Business Ethics Quarterly Teaching Philosophy and Review of Metaphysics, as well as other publications such as the Wall Street Journal,

Cato Unbound, and the Baltimore Sun. In 2010, he went as university's excellence in teaching award. Dr. Hicks has been visiting professor of business ethics at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, a visiting fellow at the social philosophy and policy center in Bowling Green, Ohio, senior fellow at the Objectivist Center in New York, and visiting professor at the University of Cazmere, the Great Poland. So welcome today, and thank you very much for agreeing to talk with me again. Oh, thanks for having me back.

Yeah, well, it's a real pleasure. I thought we might start by talking about explaining postmodernism again, your 2011 book, skepticism and socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, because I know that it's been perhaps more controversial of late than it was when you originally published it. And I'm curious about the sales and the academic and the public reaction. Right. Well, sales have been strong. The book was originally published in 2004 and still sold steadily for the first decade or so, which is quite gratifying for an academic book. And then starting about three years ago,

in part because postmodernism started to spill out of the strictly academic intellectual world into the broader cultural world, sales picked up again. And so there's been a two front set of discussions, one at the intellectual level and one at the more public thinking public level as well. Gratifyingly, lots of translations.

I think there will be three more translations added this year. Arabic, Hebrew, and Estonian are in the works. So all together, I'm pleased with that. The reactions are quite polarized in part because reactions to postmodernism itself are polarized. It's an extreme movement as a good, deep thinking should be, even if I disagree fundamentally with postmodernism. It is a well articulated, negative outlook on most of life's philosophical questions.

So we should expect that any movement that pushes buttons fundamentally like that should get some extreme reactions. And the same thing holds for me, when I push back against in my book some of these strong, to my mind, ultimately nihilistic claims that postmodernism ends up making, I also get the negative push back. The push back kind of comes in two forms. I've found from the professional reviews. There have been H to my knowledge by professional philosophers in the philosophy journals. And they are generally strong to very strongly positive. The normal scholarly quibbles arise.

When I get pushback from or sorry reviews from academics outside of the philosophy, they tend to be more polarized, something strongly in favor, but then particularly people in history, in sociology, in rhetoric studies, and literature, places where there are stronger contingents of post-modern thinkers, I tend to get strongly negative responses. And those responses are also mirrored in the general thinking public when they respond and write back and write reviews. Well, maybe it would be useful to bring people up to date for you to give us a brief overview of your view of postmodernism, like a definition. It's one of those tricky terms,

like existentialism or phenomenology that are bandied about by people, educated people on a fairly regular basis, but where the definition itself is slippery and difficult to pin down. So maybe you could talk a little bit about how you view postmodernism and also what argument you made with regards to the history of its development.

Right. Well, it makes sense that it's slippery in part because postmodernism philosophically avoids categorizations, avoids broad sweeping statements, although they do make some. So anytime you try to make a precise broad sweeping claim about what this postmodernism amounts to, you will get pushed back on that. But there is a broadly unifying set of themes to postmodernism. If you start by breaking the term down, it's postmodernism. So first you have to say, what is modernism such that postmodernism is reacting against it or saying that we need to go beyond. And modernism is used variously in different fields, there's modernism in art, in literature.

I'm using a philosophical and historical understanding of postmodernism and that's how it's mostly used now. That is to say, we look at the modern world. So that essentially is the last four to five hundred years of history, at least in the Western tradition. So what's going on in the world, five hundred years ago, is a revolutionary transformation of Western society. We have Columbus crossing the ocean, and so we're entering into a new era of globalization.

The Renaissance is in full swing, and its impact, late 1400s, early 1500s, is now being felt all over Europe. There is the Protestant Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, so religious life in the West is being dramatically transformed. You see the beginnings of science with thinkers like Copernicus and the salius in anatomy, and so scientific method is being developed and all of the things that we now recognize as the scientific disciplines are being founded. So that's the modern world starting four or five hundred years ago. Philosophically, we start looking at the analyses that are being offered by thinkers like Francis Bacon, Renee Descartes and others, and we see

that they are putting thought on a different foundation from that that had gone on earlier. Well, it seems that what happened with the modernists, maybe if we tried to sum it up, is that it seemed to be this emerging consensus that the world was rationally intelligible. Yes. And that human beings could explore both physically and mentally and also come to predict and control the transformations of the material world. I mean, it seems to me that that's the fundamental element of, let's say, the scientific, and therefore also the modernist perspective. But also, I think that what went along with that was the idea that progress, genuine progress in knowledge was possible, and along with that, the benefits of progress

both conceptually and technologically. And I mean, it seems to me to be fair to point out that movement bore substantive fruit. I mean, it could argue about the misery that the modernist movement caused along the way, say with regards to the advancement of military technology and so forth, but it seems indisputable to me that the average human being is far better off now than he or she was certainly 200 years ago and absolutely 500 years ago. Right, so this revolution and thought with the subsequent developments in science and technology, we certainly can judge philosophies by their fruits. And so we can then say, yeah, absolutely.

We're living longer. We're living healthier. We're living less pain-free life. We're able to enjoy more art, more leisure, and so forth. So all of the things that, again, this is a value judgment. If you think those are all good things, then we're doing a whole lot better as a result of that philosophy.

Now, the other side, though, I want to emphasize here, is that you emphasize the world is rationally intelligible, that along with modernism came the claim that it was rationally intelligible to each individual rather than being an elect number of people who have special cognitive insights into the mysteries of the universe or that there are certain authoritative institutions that are controlled by elites and only they are the ones who have cognitive and therefore social authority to make various pronouncements.

Part and parcel of the rise of modernism is a broadly universalizing of that that each individual is born with irrational capacity and that with proper training, education, literacy, and so forth, they can come to understand the world for themselves, they can be self-responsible, they can take charge of their lives. And as a result of that, we should have an extension of rights that used to be the prerogatives only of the few, an expansion of freedom, you can do whatever you want with your life, broadly speaking. And so what we then see is that it's not only a religious elite or a political elite that is empowered, but rather every human being. And then we can see systematically over the course of the next century. It gets extended to not only males who own property, but to all males and then to women and

then to people of other ethnicities and other races. And we're back again. Yes, we're back again. So we have this notion of universal rights and universal self-responsibility universal freedom that I think also was part and parcel of the modern movement. Well the thing about science that makes it so peculiar I think is that science is actually a technology that enables people who are bright but not that bright let say, to genuinely produce advances in knowledge because of the method.

Right? I mean, if you're a careful scientist, look, when we studied what predicted academic achievement, for example, both in graduate school and among faculty members, creativity didn't even enter the equation. Intelligence did and so did conscientiousness. But I think it's partly because with the scientific method, you can actually break down your knowledge seeking into a set of implementable technological steps. And that enables it to be implemented on an incredibly broad scale. And even if a lot of it is error-ridden, which is obviously the case,

and to a scandalous degree to somewhat lately, it still means that as hundreds of thousands of us, and increasingly now millions of us, grind away slowly at this careful technology of knowledge acquisition that overall we do seem to be able to predict and to control the world better. And then that started to become question. You know, one of the things that seemed to characterize postmodernism, one definition that I've read is skepticism of meta-narratives.

Right. That's from Jean-F John Francois Liotard. And he is the one credited with labeling postmodernism philosophically, and defining it as a skepticism toward meta-narratives. Now, what that means, there's a couple of things built into that. One is, of course, the skepticism and philosophy for the last century and a half or so has entered an increasingly skeptical mode. So that pushes back against the very broad claims that the early modernists are making,

that the power of reason is great, it is highly competent, and that essentially we can figure out all of the important truths of the world. We can come up with a big story that explains everything ultimately. Not necessarily that any one individual will contain all of that knowledge in his or her mind, but certainly communally there will have a huge amount of knowledge. We will slowly, as you're putting it together, peace together, a big picture story about the way the world works. And then in principle there's nothing about the universe that we can't figure out. There are just things that we haven't been able to figure out yet.

So the skepticism that Leo Tarr and the others are talking about is a skepticism about that grand set of claims, right? A meta narrative, a narrative that encompasses everything. Instead, we're left with smaller narratives, and then as the movement develops, we should be skeptical even about the truth status or the knowledge status of those smaller narratives. So what becomes important in the post-modern tradition is a skepticism about our ability to know the world in milder form as much as the modern thinkers thought we could and in stronger postmodern form at all. That maybe there is no such thing as truth, no such thing as knowledge. Instead, all we have is

opinions and beliefs that are subjectively held but don't have any objective. Well it's like the postmodernists that were influenced by Sosur for example they seem to be convinced in some strange way of something that disturbed me when I first really discovered dictionaries when I was a kid you know'd look up a word in a dictionary, and of course it would just refer to another word in the dictionary, and that would refer to another word in the dictionary. And there didn't seem to be, in some sense, any definition outside of the dictionary.

And the French intellectuals that were so influential in the postmodern world seemed to think of meaning in exactly that way. They understand that linguistic meaning is necessarily embedded in a larger linguistic context so that each word is dependent on each phrase and each phrase is dependent on each sentence. And so there's a contextual dependency of meaning on linguistic framing, but they seem to me too. And this is one of the major problems, I think, of postmodernism in university, is that they seem to deny or ignore the existence of any world whatsoever outside of linguistic construction. And that's something that strikes me as extraordinarily curious.

That, like, it's a real denial of nature in my estimation, but also something tremendously dangerous, because while assuming that you think that physics and biology and chemistry actually have any sort of genuine reality, it denies the existence of a substrate of existence that the purely linguistic relates to. I mean, I always think of words as being, they're not so much descriptions, they're tools that you use to, like, and that's a bit constenian idea, is that words are really tools that you use to operate on the world with. And the consequences of those operations are actually manifest in the world of sensation

and perception and emotion and motivation and embodiment rather than purely on a linguistic level. And so I also don't really understand how it could be that our intellectuals could come to the conclusion that are And this seems like a primarily French idea that our ideas are are primarily constructed linguistically I mean how do animals exist under those circumstances? Yeah Now that's strong form of linguistic skepticism that you're articulating is most pronounced in Jacques Derry-Dah, and he does build himself as a post-structuralist, and that's a linguistic

version of post-modernism. But the challenge here is that our view is that consciousness is a relational phenomena, right? It's responsive to an external world. And that should be the fundamental realist commitment that we make. The problem that the post-structuralists are coming up with by the time we get to Derri Dahl, I should say the idea that there isn't

any sort of ontological substrate matching onto, not all of the postmodernists will buy into that as strongly as Dairy Dodd does. They might say, well, there's something out there, but we just can't know what the relationship is between our concepts and our words and an external reality. So the point though is that the words that we use are abstractions and they do come along fairly far or high up in our cognitive development. And if you want to argue that consciousness is a response to reality or that consciousness

is a relational phenomenon as I do to maintain that objective relational commitment there, what you then have to do is take up all of the skeptical arguments that want to put consciousness out of relationship, or to say that there's no way to bridge this gap between the subject and the object. Once you start going down that road, if you want to say, for example, that perception is fraught with illusions or hallucinations, or that we can't tell the difference between a veritical perception when our sensory organs are in contact with reality and a hallucination, well then you have a gap between our conscious apparatus and reality.

If you then want to go on an argue as empiricists do that our concepts and the words that we assign to the concepts are based on empirical observations or perceptual observations, but you now believe that those perceptual observations are subjective and out of relation with objective reality, then you're going to say these abstract concepts and words are also out of relation with reality. And then what gives them their meaning if you can't establish a connection between the words and reality Then you're into the dictionary you're saying well what gives the words their meaning is their sideways or network connections to other words and Then a generation or two later you're into derida's university where he says that's also where the post-mortem Reality that's also where the post-mortemists claim about the primacy of power seem to sneak in.

It's like if the words are only related to one another in terms of their verbal relationship, well, they don't seem to have any mode of force. And as soon as you enter a landscape of linguist to consideration that has no motive force, then there's nothing to do. And so this seems to me to account for, like I've been criticized very often for, let's say, conflating postmodernism and Marxism. But it seems to me that the Marxists or that the postmodernists have had to default to what are essentially Marxist preconceptions to add any motive to their thinking. And what they've done is to say that, well, words are related to one another and that's how they derive their fundamental meaning. And they're not really connected to the world in any

real way, except in so far as they privilege one group or another or one person or another in terms of power and status, which they also will be back to your dictionary analysis. The next step then would be to say if words are in these linguistic relationships to other words and we can find out what they are in dictionaries, well who writes the dictionaries? And then at that point, you're not asking any epistemological question anymore, you're asking a social and psychological question. So who are the authors of the dictionary?

What authorizes rather than with the power to decide what words mean? At that point, we stepped directly out of neuro-epistemological arguments into social and psychological arguments about linguistic communities. Okay, well, so that's a peculiarity too, though, because well, look, if the words only have meaning

in relationship to one another, and there's this gap between the words and empirical reality, which by the way, I don't think anybody disputes. I mean, that's why we need five senses. That's why we need to communicate with each other. That's why we need the scientific method, right? It's because it's difficult to establish a useful one-to-one relationship between words and reality. But if words serve power, then it seems to me that what the postmodernists have done is taken biological motivation, let's call

it the motivation for power, at least, and seeked it through the back door and reconnected the world of linguistic abstraction to the world of reality. But saying, well, look, the only connection is one of power. And then they leave why it is that people want power? Like the idea that people want power, first of all, it's a complicated idea because you have to define power and you have to define want.

And those aren't trivial issues by any stretch of the imagination. And so you sneak it in the back door as sort of self-evident, and then that seems to undermine the general postmodernist claim. It's like, if the words are only embedded in a network of meaning that's related to other words, then it isn't a fair move fair move ontologically or epistemologically to reinsert power striving, like a Nietzschean power striving, or even an adlerian power striving, as the fundamental and what would you call it, sort of sweet generis motivation that characterizes human beings. So I also don't understand how they get away with that,

except that it seems to me like a mask for the continuation of a Marxist move under a new guise. Well, I have no problem with seeing power as a positive, right? Coming back to just in a moment to all of the suspicions that you're announcing about inappropriate understandings of the relationship of power. I do think we should be able to say our cognitive capacities are a power that

we have and they are a tool and the whole point of using that tool is to increase our power in the world to achieve our goals. What the postmoderns are doing is undercutting the two things that make that understanding of power legitimate. One is to say that when I am making a cognitive claim, I am successfully saying something about the world so that we can use the words knowledge and truth. So if I want to act on the basis of my beliefs, that those beliefs do map onto world as it really is.

But if you are skeptical about any sort of a knowledge claim or any sort of a truth claim, then you're just going to say, no, no, your claims merely are subjective beliefs that are peculiar to you or peculiar to your group, and they don't have any special cognitive status whatsoever. In that case, if you want to act on or use those beliefs to empower you, well, then you are in an out-of-reality connection. The other thing is that we want to say that power should be a tool that we use for good,

for advancing genuine values in the world, but another part of the postmodern skepticism is to say that we cannot ground any values objectively. Instead, values are merely subjective preferences, either individually or group-oriented. So, in that case, if you have your value framework, then we're into the problem of relativism. And I have my value framework. Neither of us is able to induce any facts that give an objective grounding to those values or to argue that those values should be universally embraced. Then we're just left with, you have a certain amount of power to advance your interests.

I have a certain amount of power to advance your interest. I have a certain amount of power to advance my interests and it's a naked power struggle in the suspicious way that you're worried about. And that is, we would come back to this issue of how Marxist or not the postmoderns are, but you're right that at least the great grandfather move, right, was made by the Marxist in one generation and the Nicheans and next generation to strip power down to that amoral ontological status that you are worried about. But what's the motivation for it? It's like if there isn't a reality that's outside the linguistic, then why is it, well, first of all, what is power? And I think there are two kinds of motivations. One of the things we know is that there are

people who just like power. They want to control other people. They have their agendas. Now we can talk about the sociological and the psychological foundations of that, but that is an ongoing fact about society. Some people just want power, and they will then rationalize their use of power over other people by a variety of means. Okay, so we're willing to accept that. We're willing to accept that as an extra linguistic reality. That's the thing that's so surprising to me.

It's like, I'm not disputing that. That's it's obviously the case But why that would what if you think of the way some lawyers argue in a courtroom They will use all sorts of rhetorical power plays they will make fallacious arguments if they can get away with it They will browbeat witnesses and make up facts and so forth Now they are not really browbeat witnesses and makeup facts and so forth. Now they are not really skeptical. They believe that there's an external world and so forth. They just believe that life is a power struggle

and any tactic is fair in order to achieve their ends. Right, so they're not postmodernist lawyers. They're just old fashioned power seeking lawyers and so forth. Now that is one motivation. It comes up in religious circles. It comes up in political circles. It comes up in the school yard and so on. But the other one, and the one that I think that we are

worried about, though, is that those who get to that view about the amoral ontological substrate being power, are those people who are smart and who do some thinking about philosophy, thinking about politics and so forth, and they argue themselves into that position because they find the power of those skeptical arguments to be convincing rationally to them. So even though this is not a paradoxical formulation, even though they are rational individuals, they are following the logic of certain skeptical arguments to its conclusion, and the legitimate conclusion

of those arguments is that a moral power rules the universe. OK, so let's examine that for a moment. I mean, this is another thing that strikes me as specious to say the least. I mean, first of all, I'm very skeptical of people who try to reduce all complex phenomena to a single explanatory mechanism. I mean, if you look at, because I do look at things

biologically, it's obvious that human beings have a multitude of primordial motivational systems and that we share them and that we share them with animals. There's pain and there's fear and there's incentive reward and there's rage and there's play and there's hunger and there's lust and that's a handful and there's more than that and these are very, and you know those motivations get integrated across time into hypermotivations, let's say, that would be something akin to an integrated narrative, one that is manifested, interpersonally, but also played out socially, and higher order values emerge

from that. You take a claim like the postmodernist make that, well, first of all, they accept the idea that there's almost nothing but hierarchy and that people's fundamental motivations is to climb up the hierarchy, even though they're very, my experience has been, for example, whenever I talk about hierarchy, the postmodernist types go after me, hammer and tongs, but because I'm making the claim that hierarchy is a natural phenomenon, not necessarily a beneficial one, but an inevitable one in some sense with its pros and cons, but they accept that uncritically when they presume that power is the fundamental drive. And then the other problem is, and this isn't even more serious one, as far as I'm concerned, is that the evidence that the most effective way for human beings to occupy positions

of authority, let's say, and competence in human dominance hierarchies isn't through the naked expression of power. That's actually unbelievably unstable, you know, even France to wall when he was studying chimpanzees, you know, the female chimpanzees are more empathetic than the male chimpanzees. But of all the chimpanzees, the alpha males are the most empathic. They're the ones that engage in the most reciprocal most empathic. They're the ones that engage in the most reciprocal interactions with the members of the troop. And there's evidence accruing from all sorts of areas, including developmental psychology, the developmental psychology of PSJA, for example, that suggests that something

like cooperative game playing aimed towards a particular important end is a much more stable means for establishing hierarchical relationships between people than power. Power only rules in tyrannies. And I guess maybe that's part of the reason that the postmodernists also insist that the Western hierarchy is fundamentally an oppressive patriarchy because that justifies their claim that power is the primary motivator and mover of the world. But I just don't see how that's a tenable position. Well, I think ontologically it's fair to say that most postmodern's buy into the notion that power is fundamental. There's not anything that can be reduced to that. But my reading of them is that that is not the entire philosophical story because power just is a tool, a means to an end and that still leaves open the question of what ends to which one is going to use that power.

And here, I think the postmodern's are rightly diverse in their views. There is a strong streak of them, and this is something that goes back to Marxism in general or broadly socialism in general that we'll say, yes, we all want power, but we recognize that power is unequally distributed in the world, and that connects to your points about hierarchy. But what is your value reaction to that unequal distribution of power in the world? Now, there are the Nietzscheans who will react to say,

well, the unequal distribution of power is fine, and our sympathies are with those who have more power, because we want them to advance the human species by some evolutionary mechanism. But that is a subjective value preference that they are adding to previous facts. That power is fundamental, that power is unequally distributed. Now we're adding my sympathies are with those who have more power. The socialist or more narrowly

Marxist response to those to say power is fundamental, power is unequally distributed, but our empathy is with those who are on the losing side of history, so to speak, or a various sorts of social forces. And so what that then means for them is that they will accept that power is operating in a hierarchical context, but that they want to use whatever power they have to more equally redistribute the power in an egalitarian fashion. Right, so then they also talk about, it's going to be though, that third component about what your value reaction is to what you take to be the metaphysical substrate.

Right, okay, but then there's another form of real world smuggling that goes along with that, which is both ontological and ethical, and the ontological smuggling would be, well, there are definitely power structures and that people compete for power, so that's claim number one, which seems to be extra linguistic, and claim number two is that the proper moral stance of a human being is empathy. So there's a claim that something like empathy exists, and that empathy should be reserved for people who are on the lower end of the hierarchical distribution. That's right. Okay. And postmodernists like Foucault, make that very clear, Richard Warty, even more clearly, makes that claim. Jacques Derri Dau is a very interesting case because most of his work is not overtly social, ethical or political, but at various points, particularly toward the end of his life,

he says, my entire sympathies are with the, and he talks about reinvigorating a certain kind of, or in the spirit of Marxism, something or other. But from his perspective, he recognizes that he has no philosophical resources to justify that value claim. And he doesn't want to say that it's just a personal subjective preference that he has. So he does appeal to a kind of Kantian-regulative idea or more old-fashioned way, whether it's

a kind of platonic form that we need to appeal to if we're going to justify it in some way. So it's kind of interesting that recognizing exactly the problem that you're pointing out, where do we get that empathy claim from and justify that? The postmoderns recognize the predicament and some of them are trying to point to extra linguistic sources for it. Well, that opens, that opens a big can of worms if your initial claim is that there's no such thing as an extra linguistic source.

You know, because you let one extra linguistic source in, especially something as complicated as the interplay between say power, hierarchy, and empathy. I mean, those are major motivational forces. And then if you're willing to admit to the existence of those major motivational forces, well, it's hard to exclude pain, it's hard to exclude anxiety, it's hard to exclude something even more basic as hunger, it's hard to exclude the proclivity for cooperation and play. It's like all of biology, it seems to me, sneaks back into the postmodern project as soon as those initial extra linguistic realities

are allowed. Well, absolutely, but that's what we're finding. A lot of our debates are right now about psychology and biology. Is that certain number of psychologists and biologists are pushing back and saying, oh, there is a reality here. We're getting great resistance from the postmodern second and third generation to having to do so. Okay, so now you said the philosophers that have reviewed your book have been

basically positive and so why are you receiving positive feedback from what is it about philosophy and about philosophers or about your work that's eliciting a positive response from them. Yeah. Well, my book is primarily an intellectual history. You know, to some extent, I am polemical and pushing back against postmodernism. So people understand that I'm taking a stance as well. But the primary purpose of the book is to do a solid intellectual history.

Where does this confusing sprawling, but nonetheless very vigorous and powerful movement come from? And it doesn't come out of thin air but rather there's a lot of deep thinking that's behind it. So what I'm doing is I'm tracing what I see as the important intellectual movements of the last two centuries. So I'm starting with Kant and Russo, but I'm talking about Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the others. So all of those figures are difficult, complex, and important in their own right, and their scholarly debate about, say, how skeptical or not Kant is, whether there is an element of liberalism or not in Nietzsche, Heidegger's

connection to the Nazis and so forth. So there is a range of scholarly movement, and most of these major intellectuals have two or three major schools of interpretation attached to them. But what an end of, and so the pushback that I am getting, on Kant or on Nietzsche or Heidegger or whatever will be, from those who are in a different school of interpretation

with respect to them. But typically among the philosopher, it's a respectful engagement because they will recognize that there is a very good argument that can be made for interpreting the philosopher the other way. And typically then what I'm doing is emphasizing the skeptical elements or the ultimately negative and nihilistic elements that get sifted out and woven together into ultimately the postmodern

framework, and along the way the philosophers who want to argue well, this particular thinker is not bad or you would not buy into the whole project. Those are the ones who will criticize beyond various things. But I typically find though outside of philosophical circles though is and this is not a criticism of these individuals since we can't know everything is that they will know something about Nietzsche or Heidegger or Kant, but they're not up on the scholarly literature. They've read one book or one article about that person that was written from a certain perspective.

So, if I make the argument for the other perspective on that thinker, it's new to them and it seems outrageous to them, and so they will react negatively to it. So, something like that. So now you wrote this book back in 2004. So you were a pretty early observer of the vital importance, I suppose, of the post-modernist debate. I mean, there's certainly been a rise in political correctness in the early 90s. And that's seem to disappear by the mid 90s, but 2004 is I would say five or six or maybe even

eight years previous to the to this new burgeoning of political polarization and and the debate between the politically correct types, let's say, and those who take a more biological perspective. It's like, what clued you into the fact that this was an issue of fundamental, of potentially fundamental importance? Well, yeah, thanks.

I think it does a testament to the power of philosophy, the power of ideas, the power of logic, that when you identify abstract principles and their adoption, and you have a good sense of logic, you can make predictions about how they're going to play out when they are applied in real life. This is one of my major career beliefs that philosophy is not disembodied abstract, head in the clouds, but no matter how abstract and speculative to various philosophical positions seem to be when they are believed and acted upon the they they make a real life difference. So in part that's what I was doing. Now I actually

wrote the first draft of the book 20 years ago this year. In 1999, I had a sabbatical. And so I had an outline of the book written in 1999. And then by the middle part of the year 2000, I had fully written the book. But it didn't come out till 2004, because I had some challenges with getting it published. I had some challenges with getting it published. But I think what has happened in the last five years or so is that we're now into second or third-generation postmodernism depending on how you count things. What has happened is the first generation of postmodern were very successful inside academic circles at educating large numbers of students, getting a significant number of them through graduate school, and then to themselves becoming professors and public intellectuals,

and things reached a critical mass, I would say, starting six or seven years ago. And so then we started to notice it significantly, starting to transform the internal dynamics of the university, but we also now have a critical mass of activists who are now graduated. Maybe they didn't graduate with PhDs, they got bachelor's degrees or master's degrees, but they've gone into activist organizations and they are trying to, and then successfully,

shifting the terms of the debate outside of the academic world. And so the broader public starts to notice things. And then that's where we are right now with the Cultural War manifesting itself on two major fronts, the academic world and the broader cultural space. Right. Right. Well, so what are your concerns about that? Like when you look out at the world, you're obviously concerned enough about postmodernist thinking to devote a substantial proportion of your academic career to it. And then to put yourself on the line to some degree as well, I mean, what is it about the postmodernist view that, well, let's ask this question two ways. What do you think the advantages, if any, are to the postmodernist view or the inevitability of it, and what do you think the dangers and disadvantages are?

Well, that's two big questions. First, why I'm worried about it. And there's a question about what degree of worry one should have. Interestingly, in my home discipline of philosophy, postmodernism is not that strong. Philosophy flirted with and postmodernism for a while. I think philosophy did generate all of the arguments, philosophy florted with and postmodernism for a while.

Philosophy did generate all of the arguments, or we saw the major arguments that postmodern's use, but philosophy does have built into its DNA, so to speak, a very healthy respect for argumentation and a liking for new arguments. So what has happened mostly in the philosophy profession is a serious development and engagement with all of these negative skeptical arguments and so on, but then a realization that a lot of them

don't work in various ways, and then people moving off in other directions. Or once we start seeing the same arguments being recycled and retreading a certain amount of boredom occurs with it because smart, active-minded people live like new things. And so someone comes along with a new positive argument or a new positive program and philosophers get excited about that. And so postmodern journalism is a little bit passe in those disciplines. But I am worried about it because philosophy demographic is a tiny proportion of the overall academy

and the postmodern arguments have been picked up by the larger and more influential academic disciplines, such as psychology, you know this one as well, in English literature, to some extent, in the law schools, in the field of of history, sociology is very polluted. And then the big rise of all of the various special studies programs, you know, gender studies, race studies, ethnicity studies,

and so on, you find a much higher percentage of postmodernism there. Now, I have not seen good journalistic sociology about higher academic, whether it's 8% or 40% of people who are postmodern or not, but there clearly is an uptick, a statistically significant increase in the number of people who are adopting postmodern viewpoints and then educating the next generation of students. Yes, well, and they're certainly dominant among the activist types.

Yeah, absolutely. Yes, that's right. So, there is a non-philosophical issue. This is a journalistic or a demographic issue about measuring to what extent it's a rising movement, how widespread it is, and so on. And my concern professionally is with the arguments to generate postmodernism and refuting those. Now, why this is important is, well, I'm a professor, so I'm always dealing with young people who are at the early stages of their careers. In my view, the most important thing that we all need as human beings, we're thoughtful people. We want to be passionately engaged with the world. We want our lives to be meaningful.

As we do need a philosophy of life that's going to set us up for the best chance of succeeding in our lives as possible. So in my view, basically an optimist, we do need as young people with our whole lives ahead to have some sense that my life is going to be meaningful. It's going to be significant. There are important values that I can strive for.

The romantic in me wants to say, my life can and should be this great adventure. And having that fundamental commitment and helping students sort out what are the genuine values that are worth pursuing in life. That has to be instilled in young people, otherwise they will just drift through life and then they will get to their older years and realize that their life has furthered away. Yeah, okay, so that's an interesting, you know, that's very interesting observation because, you know, I've been trying to account, at least in part, for, well, let's say, the surprising and surreal popularity of my public lectures.

So I've spoken at about 150 cities now to about 300,000 people. And, you know, I lay out a fairly straightforward case, I would say, that's very much analogous to the case that you just described. And that is that, well, we look for some unassailable truths. And for me, there are two unassailable pessimistic truths. And one is that a substantial proportion of life is going to be suffering because we're finite. And even if things are going well for you now, your subject to illness, mental and physical, your subject to the decimation of your dreams, you're going to lose the people that you love,

the world that you know is going to change in ways that you find disconcerting and unfortunate. And so, suffering's built in. And then the moment is interrupting at that point. The phrase, unassailable truth. What we should be doing, though, in education is saying that there are no unassailable truths. Part of a good education is any previous generation's truth should be assailed, at least intellectually by the students. They should challenge question and look at those truths. What the best arguments can be amounted against them and then make their own judgments about

whether they agree that this truth is in fact a truth or whether it needs to be rejected and moved on. So the great danger, I think, of post-modernism, though, is its skeptical stance toward the idea of their being proof at all and then in its activist manifestation when the professors are functioning as, I just have my subjective preferences, and I have power in the classroom, and my view as a professor, or my practice rather as a professor, is simply to indoctrinate students in my subjective preferences. In that case, what you are doing is not only giving students a very cynical negative, ultimately, as an empty view of the world, but you are not at all training them in the ability to think for themselves to

compare competing viewpoints and make their own judgment. So that's the danger. Right, right. Well, I guess I should reconsider my use of the word on this saleable. I was thinking more, I suppose clinically, in some sense, in that my experience has been that you don't have to scratch very deeply beneath the surface of people's lives until you find massive sorrows that they're dealing with. And so, I don't know.

I know you're not saying this, but from the student's perspective, it can't be that Professor Peterson with all of his years of experience and wisdom has announced that this is a truth, therefore it's a truth, they have to go through the process. Yes, you went through. Hopefully, you can accelerate that process for them, but they have to go through that process. Yeah, well, and I mean, I do that in the lectures by telling stories too, and illustrating the

fact that the limitations that are placed on us that produce suffering. And I invite people, I would say, to draw their own conclusions about how they regard that reality in their own lives. And the second proposition, let's say, is that the suffering is often made worse by malevolence. And that can be, well, the sort of, what would you say, impersonal malevolence of nature or the more personal malevolence of society or the individual.

And so we're faced with that set of problems, that vulnerability that's characteristic of existence. And then that vulnerability, because it constitutes a real set of problems, calls to us to generate solutions. And it's in that attempt to generate solutions, that that adventure that you described earlier Seems to me to manifest itself and so it seems reasonable to me to To suggest to young people that they do have a destiny that gives their life significant individual import and that is to take arms up against the Inequities of existence at whatever levels they can and to act forthrightly and courageously to minimize unnecessary suffering and to constrain malevolence.

And then it's also actually a vital importance that they do that because they're failure to do so do that because their failure to do so is more damaging than they think. Their nihilism and cynicism that might entice them into nihilistic and destructive acts, actively, is more destructive than they think, and their capacity to do positive things in the world on a large scale individually and in their family and in their community is much larger than they think and I it's very difficult for me to see how young people cannot can be left uninformed of that as at least a potential reality without

falling down the rabbit hole of nihilism and cynicism and subjectivism and relativism that seems to me to be at least one of the primary dangers of postmodernism. Yes. Yeah, I think 100% on the latter part of what you were saying. I think on the, should be an open question initially. Yes, there is suffering in the world. Yes, there is malevolence in the world. But we should also be open to the fact that there is pleasure, there is beauty, there is

romance, there is adventure, there is genuine love in the world, and what proportions of benevolence versus malevolence, happiness versus suffering is possible and natural to human beings. That should be part of the conversation early on. That's a conversation about the potency of your tools. I'm sorry. That's a conversation about the potency of your tools. I'm sorry. That's a conversation about the potency of your tools. You can admit that these fundamental limitations exist, but you don't have to draw the conclusion that they're constraining

in any finally hopeless manner. Well, it's not just about the tools, it's also about the nature of reality that we are confronting. There are, of course, people who are polyannists who have this view that the world is on our side. There's a benevolent God or the forces of the universe are lined up

such that I lead a charmed life and everything will go well for me. There are people at the other end of the spectrum who Are you the opposite the the fates are against me the gods hate me no matter what I do The forces the government universe will just grind me down That's got nothing to do with my tool set initially so to speak that's a metaphysical claim about the nature of the universe Now when we do turn to the tool set, if whatever your position is along the spectrum

of benevolence to malevolence, there is the question about how much power I have to craft my own tools to forge myself into the kind of being that can take on life's challenges. And here, I think postmodernism is dangerous in two important respects. In my view, the most important development of education, schooling, parenting, and so on, is giving students and young people the critical thinking, the rational power to be able to understand the world,

to be able to conceptualize it, to know how to do the experiments, to analyze the results, to sort out good truth claims from bullshit, and so on. And so all of that cognitive development that can only come from a commitment to the idea that the evidence matters, that doing the experiments matters, that being extrusioning adenably honest with respect to the power of the arguments for and against positions that one might argue or adopt, but that's absolutely important. The development of a student's rational logical critical capacity is fundamentally important and postmodernism is an assault on that.

And what that means is that in practice, students do not develop that most important life skill. And so put them out into the world without the tools that they need. And I think they are then more likely to feel disempowered. They're more likely to feel overwhelmed. And then we get the angry, despairing, activist type of person that we see in larger numbers now.

Okay, so if the post modernists are concerned ethically with the reestablishment of genuine power at the bottom of the power hierarchies, why do you think it's the case, if it is the case, and many commentators have made this case, Jonathan Haight, among them, that the doctrines that the postmodernists tend to be teaching young people seem to be so absolutely infantilizing and and under mining rather than strengthening and increasing resilience. Is it that they're not interested at the individual level? I mean, because it seems so paradoxical that these things are happening simultaneously. Yeah, a couple of things on that. One is that in addition to developing a person's rational capacity

We do need to develop their emotional capacity Life is a capacity for a great adventure for great positivity But as you emphasize there is also going to be a significant amount of pain and suffering And so what we need to do is develop our emotional capacity for Handling all of that. Resilience is an important part of that. One unfortunate part of the postmodern package though is that they are focusing on a very narrow range of emotions, typically negative emotions, and they don't see those emotions

as having any connection to rationality or any connection to a response to an actual objective reality out there. So the emotional life of human beings is both cramped and a mystery if you take the post-modern framework seriously. And so I think what happens then is when those post-modern become teachers or professors or in a position of authority, it's a large amount of emotional communication that is going on, but it's going to be a negative rage-focused, despair-focused, cynical, jaded-focused kind of emotionalism.

And to the extent that students pick up on that, they're going to be turned off, or if they have some predisposition toward that, they just get sucked into that emotional universe. That speaks to Jonathan Heitz point that you're raising. Let me just say, one thing that is striking to me is I find it interesting among our public intellectuals that three of the most prominent people in the public intellectuals sphere are yourself Jonathan Hyatt and Stephen Kinker and all three of you are professionally psychologists. And I don't know, I think that that is accidental because what all three of you are doing in different

ways is noticing that philosophy, of course, is a very abstract set of arguments and principles, but all of those do need to be operationalized in actual living, breathing human beings. And when you see how they are actually operationalized in human beings, a large part of what you're doing is psychology. So I think it's not accidental that psychologists are of significant importance in the public intellectual space right now. So to speak to Jonathan Heitz Point, I think what he is pointing out is that we are now into a second and third generation of postmoderns, and there's a devolution in the intellectual

quality of the movement, and that makes sense because if your first generation movement is quite skeptical and relativistic, but nonetheless very educated as Rorkee, Dharidha, Fuku, Leo Tart, especially in my view, were, but the end conclusion of their position is that we don't need to take rationality, logic, the quest for objectivity too seriously. What will happen in the next generation then will be a whole generation of people with PhDs who don't take logic rationality in the quest for objectivity very seriously, instead they will be not developing those skill sets at a very high level. So there will be a devolution, they will be more emphasizing emotionalism, they will be more emphasizing activism, and then in the third generation it will be a further devolution.

So where do you see that going? Is that a self-defeating? Is it something that will end of its own corridor? I think it is self-defeating intellectually and one of the things that people who are intellectuals who have been following the arguments for a while notice is This is just a recycling of arguments that I heard five years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago And so it becomes self-defeating in the sense that it fails to attract the ongoing interest of the smart, very active-minded people. I think also that this is something built into human nature, and this is my great optimism with young people when they come to university, however, underprepared and damaged, they might be by their primary and high school education.

They are nonetheless particularly, I think, in North America still, optimistic gung-ho, they believe that they can make something of their lives. And when they start going into two classes, where the professors in word and action and just in their physical bearing are communicating rather messages of defeatism and synthesis, some students who are psychologically healthy will just avoid those classes. They will go into fields that hold some promise of positivity for them. They will be the terror of entrepreneurial fields. The terror is that they may avoid university altogether.

Yeah, absolutely. Sure. Yeah, so what's the point of going to wallowing about what a victim you are, what a bad person you are because you have white skin or you're a male or whatever for four years. I'm going to quit university and get on with living. I do think there also will be corrective mechanisms in place to some extent universities are driven by dollars and who is writing the big checks if it's a million dollar donors when some terrible manifestation of political correctness happens at their institution they won't write the million dollar

check the next year that will get noticed and that will be communicated in various ways. So the you know the universities have their problems but I am ultimately optimistic that they will be able to heal themselves. There are market mechanisms in place to... So what kind of time span? That's interesting. I mean, I waver between optimism and pessimism because I feel that the strata of postmodernists is relatively young and relatively entrenched

and protected by tenure. And of course, I think ten years a good idea. And that they're also unbelievably good at fomenting activism. I mean, I think the political surveys indicate that only about 4% of the general population who have views that might be regarded as radical Marxist slash postmodern. It's a tiny minority. It's bigger than that in universities, but they swing beyond their weight. They hit past their weight. And it's also, I think, because, you know, serious academics, this is my impression, is that serious academics really ignored the second rate postmodern difference for decades, feeling that the arguments that they were

making were weak enough so that they didn't even require a Strong rebuttal. I mean even when Stephen Paker wrote his book The blank slate, you know, I read that book and I thought That it was an interesting book, but I thought Jesus Dr. Panker No one's believed that people are blank slates for like 30 years. That's so far out of date that it seems, it has a biological psychologist. It just seemed to me to be observed that that case had to be even made. But I mean, he was obviously right about that. And I was obviously very wrong about that. Yeah. Predictions are hard to make. And I think it goes back to we need better journalism

about the demographics of higher education and what's going on there. So is it 4%, is it 12%, is it 25%, then this issue you're raising about punching above their weight, that does seem to be true, but how much above their weight are they punching? Is the major problem in the classrooms, or is it a matter of, as we know, most academics don't like Mickey work to a significant number. So, the first rate people are doing their real academic

work and they're trying to avoid committee work, But the second and third raiders, they don't mind committee work and they see it as a vehicle to power within the university for them. So if the postmoderns are, as we like to think, second or third-rate, that's a little bit unfair, not all of them are, but a higher percentage of them doing the important committee work, then they have a certain amount of power there. An looked part of the university demographics, from my perspective, is student life, where the residents, the people who look after the residents of the hall,

and the entertainment, and deciding what student clubs are authorized or not. There's been a significant infiltration of postmodernism in that area. That's not on the academic side or only in direct. But if you look at orientation programs, and again, we need better journalism here, but you find a significant number of them are devoting the whole orientation week when the first year students are coming into lectures on privilege and depression and whatever the buzzwords are, that also is an important issue as well.

Right, there was an article written in the Chronicle of Higher Education excoriating faculties of education for producing precisely the kinds of internal university activists that are pushing exactly that kind of agenda. That was very interesting. Yes, the abilities of education. I do some work in philosophy of education. They are all over the map, but there has been a significant post-modernism being the

reigning philosophy of education. And then of course that has impact not just in higher education because that's training the next generation of teachers. One of my younger colleagues, a man named Andrew Colgan, recent PhD from Western University of Western Ontario, in his dissertation was documenting the the significant demographic shift Among Ontario high school teachers toward basically buying into a postmodern framework And that's going to be a very important generational shift for Ontario So what makes you like you talked about market forces and the corrective ability and and And we spoke before we started this podcast about speaking about optimistic and positive elements, my movements.

I mean, so, well, I have two questions for you at least before we conclude. And one is, you seem optimistic and positive. And so what do you see as the root out of this? And what what will replace it? And like what's the time span? Yes. Well, I think one thing that we are noticing is an increasing number of first rich people who are now engaging the debate within higher education. So you can mention someone like Steven Pinker who's not just doing academic psychology now and said he's devoting resources to defending in a public intellectual sphere the enlightenment project. Jonathan Hade also an excellent psychologist doing clinical work as well, but nonetheless is

formative in creating that heterodox academy bringing together academics from a wide variety of political spectrum, but the positions, but nonetheless all agreeing that academic freedom, free speech, and so forth are important. The work that you're doing, stepping out onto the public space stage as well. So there is a major uptick in very good academics taking postmodernism and its offshoots seriously and pushing back, and I think that augurs well. I think there also is a financial cloud.

I think young students, when they come in, they do take a postmodernism course, but they don't go back for more. Or they plug into the student grapevine and they learn which courses to avoid. And in many cases, the postmodern activist type professors, they are really ghettoized in marginal departments. They might be outsized in their voice, but they're not attracting a huge number of students. And on my view, the students that they are attracting

are ones who are already predisposed to that. They're not necessarily conferring a large number. It seems to me that the least invasive way of dealing with the postmodernism, if it does have the negative attributes that we've been discussing, is actually something like a market solution, which is to inform young people as to its essential nature and to help convince them that there are viable alternatives, like viable philosophical alternatives, viable political alternatives, courses they could be taking that would enrich their lives instead of enhancing their sense of victimization. And it seems like the safest route rather than political intervention or some kind of attempt to radically change the structure of the universities, which seems to me to be more dangerous than useful.

And I'm very gung ho on the internet. The internet, of course, is just a tool can be used for glitter or ill, and there's a lot of crap, as we all know, on the internet. But it also is the case that young, open-minded, hungry students, when they are at a university and they're not getting the education that they want, they now have access to all sorts of viewpoints and they are actively exploring them. I'm sure you get hundreds of contacts. I get lots of contacts from students from all over the world who come to me through the internet and I know that that's a worldwide phenomenon. I also do think that there's lots of very interesting entrepreneurial experimentation going on in higher education.

Some of it's driven by the cost demographics. People asking the reasonable question, is it really worth a quarter million dollars to get a good higher education at a traditional bricks and border university, or should I spend just $100,000 and maybe get only a 75% quality education at an online institution or some other vehicle. So there's lots of experimentation that are going on there. And of course, the technology is just getting better and better. Instead of the only avenue being taking the universities on head on from the inside,

that battle has to be fought. And some of us are doing it, but there will be a significant number of people who will just avoid the universities altogether, and there will be new institutions that are created. And that will be a market solution. Do you know that 70, about 75% of the cumulative student debt in the United States is held by women? I did not know that. And that it disproportionate number of those women are black.

So it turns out that it's so perverse, that the statistics are so perverse. And part of the explanation for that, it's not the total explanation, is that these women were enticed or chose to enter disciplines where the probability of making enough money over a reasonable span of your life, especially given the high interest rates that are associated with student debt is extraordinarily low. So that's another strange reaction. As a perverse unintended consequence, I was not aware of that statistic. I was aware that this matches with my experience that about 60% of our university graduates are women compared to only about 40% male. So there's a demographic shift there. But I was not aware of the racial component of that. Yeah, so that's a very interesting unintended consequence. It's really, well, it's brutal,

you know, because these poor women are laboring under these debt loads that it looks like they're never going to be able to clear. Okay, so that's optimism. It's long-term optimism, but it's optimism. And so that's good to hear. Can I ask you a little bit about what your private, what your life has been like, let's say, over the last couple of years, as you've used social media more and as your work has become much more disseminated and discussed publicly. What's being the pluses and the minuses for you and what's changed for you? Yeah, overall pluses away the minuses definitely. The main minus says been that it's cut a lot into my writing time. In some

ways, majorly, I'm a stereotypical nerd. My ideal day is to go to the library with my computer and read and write with a stack of books. And I envisioned my professor's life as being dominated by that. But certainly for the last couple of years, my writing and thinking time has been lessened. The other major negative just has been, just to crack, you have to put up with people who are on various hobby horses who disagree with you, but who don't have social skills or to know how to have a fruitful discussion. So they send you ad hominem emails and just resort to insults because you disagree with them. So there's been a certain steady stream of that but part of my learning curve has

been just to be able to ignore that or filter that out and focus on the positive responses and the critical responses that are raising good questions. I did wanna mention, if I can plug, I have an open college podcast series and I've got two podcasts in the work where I'm taking up the the the serious and in some cases good criticisms that have been raised of my work.

Oh good. I'm working on on those as well. That's just part of the ongoing fun, scholarly, back and forth that should be going on. And while I am down on postmodernism, I should say that I do think it's an important part of any person's

education to at least, for some time, consider the most skeptical and nihilistic arguments that are out there that postmodernism should have a seat at the table in any person's education. And so it really should be a three or four way debate that's going on there and students need to process those arguments for themselves. The other pluses are that I do enjoy travel. So in addition to my normal academic conferencing and academic lectures, I've been giving some public

intellectual lectures and interacting with the general public, more thinking public, and that's been a lot of fun. It's actually been very encouraging to realize how many smart, knowledgeable people there are out there in the world living full lives, doing very interesting things. But they also have an interest in intellectual matters. And you can have a very fond conversation with them about Nietzsche or Marx or the current

state of higher education. So I found that the tourism part that comes with the travel and just interacting with people that I never would have interacted to be very pleasurable. The other big plus has been, since I am a professor, I just love young students in their first second year of university when they realize how big the intellectual world is and how exciting can be that when they come alive intellectually and then having a lot more students from around

the world who will email me or Facebook me with very interesting questions or they have their own podcast and when I can I'll have a you know 45 or 50 minute conversation with them on their podcast. So just interacting with a lot more students from other parts of the world than I otherwise would have. So the pluses have been great. The thing is about the public exposure and the social media exposure that's so interesting is that the people who come to listen to you only come because they want to listen to you.

It's a real pure form of the university, because there's no compulsion as there is with say mandatory classes and grades and so on in universities. And there is this tremendous public hunger for philosophical discourse that's really been completely in some sense undiscovered up until now and it's massive. And that's why I think optimistically I am or ultimately I am optimistic because I think it is built into human nature to want to be vigorous, to engage with the world, and since we're such a smart species, to engage with the world intellectually. So young people in their teens, when they are becoming more fully aware of themselves

as independent of their parents and that their whole life is ahead and they're preparing for life, they do have this hunger, and it's beautiful to see it activated. Yeah, well, obviously all the controversy that surrounded your work hasn't soured you in the least on the intellectual enterprise. It sounds like quite the contrary. Well, what are you working on now? Like, I know you're having a hard time writing, but like over the next five years, let's say you've got ambitions. What would you like to see?

I have schedules starting the end of this academic year, mid May, a significant amount more of writing time. And so I'm I'm I'm making progress and I'm optimistic that by the end of this calendar year, I'll be almost done this next book. What I'm doing is focusing on the positive. The postmodernism book is negative. The Nietzsche and the Nazis book is negative going into some dark philosophical and political territory. But to put it positively, what are the positive philosophical issues and positions that need to be developed to reinvigorate the enlightenment, to correct its deficiencies, to make people realize that the postmodern arguments are powerful, but they're powerfully based on some often easy philosophical issues or mistakes to make.

Very subtle. So my value added is as a philosopher, the way I'm going to, in part package, this is to say that we do have huge debates along any number of dimensions about politics and so on. But in fact, most of our debates about politics are not at all about politics. They are about underlying philosophical issues.

So for example, we're having debates right now about the proper political status of, say, transgender individuals. But we're spending very little time actually talking about the politics of it instead. We are having arguments about human nature and to what extent things are fixed, causally into what extent things are a matter of human volition, what things are subjective, what things are objective, and so on.

And so really we are having philosophical arguments, hopefully philosophical arguments that should be informed by biology. But even that is itself a philosophical debate because some people want to say we should approach this as a scientific method type of question, look at the facts, look at the experiments, and others have a more free-floating ideological commitment that is to say they're operating on a different epistemology. So really what we're doing is we're having debates about epistemology and human

nature, not really debates about politics. So then politics is just a manifestation of that. So then my hopeful professional value added is to bring clarity and some fresh perspectives on those philosophical debates. I just just saying one more thing. I just played philosophy as a whole number of false alternatives that have been entrenched in the discipline for generations. And in many cases, if you can notice two apparently opposed arguments, but realize they have a shared premise, and in often cases that shared premise is implicit, then asking what the alternatives to that implicit premise would be once you make it explicit can be very illuminating. So I'm working that territory

a lot. Well, it's interesting, you know, that maybe one of the consequences is that out of the, let's call it rather murky darkness of moral relativism and postmodernism and the claim that power is the fundamental motivation of human beings. I mean, these are very pessimistic philosophical statements taken almost to all those dudes think to their logical extreme That maybe what'll happen is that out of that will come something like a philosophy That's genuinely optimistic without being naive Yeah, exactly that's nicely put I'm reminded of a line from the Roman poet Horus, who was reflecting on some of the skeptical and nihilistic trends of his time, where they were denying the pitch fork, ever she will return. Right. So the optimistic

return is what we're working on now. Right. Well, and there does seem to be, I would say, a tremendous hunger for that. You know, one of the things I've been struck by, and I'm sure you see this in your teaching, is that it, it's amazing. You know, I usually begin my lectures on a fairly pessimistic note, detailing out the problems of human nature and society, and to some degree the natural world, trying to make a vicious case for the, in some sense, the atrocity of life. And it means that there's nothing hidden in some sense, the atrocity of life. And it means that there's nothing hidden in some sense

when the argument begins. And then I try to make a case that despite that, you know, we have within us the capacity to transcend that. And then that capacity to transcend that, the atrocity of life is actually more powerful and that you can derive an optimism out of the pessimism, out of the pessimism that's even more optimistic because of the depth of the pessimism. You know, like, and you can tell students, look, you guys, you've got real problems to deal with. It's no wonder that you're suffering from the existential dilemmas that you're suffering

from. They're real, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a set of viable solutions and maybe a fairly large set of viable solutions that can be, that you can learn and that you can practice and that you can engage in that make a genuine difference to your life and a genuine difference to the life of the people around you. And that this is even more real than the reality of the relativism and the nihilism and the pessimism. People respond, I've been aligning that especially with the idea of responsibility, you know, that it's possible to find the sustaining meaning in your life through the adoption of a substantive responsibility as you can manage.

And it's really quite remarkable how ready people are for that idea. It really usually reduces the audience's to silence, to speak of that. Yeah, well that's all of that touching on the profound themes that human beings do need to engage with. My approach is typically a different, particularly with my first-year students, where reading of them is a lot of them are coming into a university feeling somewhat constrained. Sometimes they're in university because they have to be in university or they have the sense that their lives are largely predetermined or that things have been mapped out either by their parents or expectation of certain social forces or whatever and getting them to see that the world is a lot more open to them. There are a lot more possibilities than that they have more power to shape their own destinies than they otherwise

might have been taught. So higher education is transformative in the sense of liberating them from of liberating them from constraints that they felt themselves to be put in. And I found that that has been useful in tapping into the hunger that we are both talking about because that can be suppressed. But once they get a taste of it, then in fact, they are free agents that the world is a lot more open-ended than other people might have been telling them. They start to drink it up. Well, that was the great thing about university for me. I came from a small town and went to increasingly large universities.

Every time I made a transition, the sense that the world was opening up to me continued to increase. And it was unbelievably liberating and lightening. And apart from that, what makes postmodernism unsettling, because it really is a cramped intellectual vision, but it also tends to put people into smaller and smaller categories. You're only a member of this group and you're an exemplar of it and your identity has been shaped by forces beyond your control and you can't engage with other cultures and other individuals except on the basis of hostility, which just means people retrench.

So it's a very closing in kind of intellectual movement. So the optimism and the romance and the adventure and the sense that you can in fact take charge of your own life and make yourself and the world a better place. That's the point that we need to emphasize. But I don't think so we do need better intellectual tools for that. Well, I do think students too like Like, my, one of the reasons I've always loved teaching undergraduates is because even those who are who have that brittle and, let's say, thin-skinned cynicism, sort of the prematurely intellectually hopeless have, underneath that, this dynamism of youth that wants exactly to know that that call to adventure exists and that they will respond with unbelievable enthusiasm to any message that, yeah, to any message that puts that idea across in a believable manner and that takes them

seriously. The other thing that struck me too, that it's really saddening. I've talked to hundreds of people after my lectures now and it's almost inconceivable the degree to which people are starving for encouragement. How little they get and how little it takes to make a massive difference in their life. Just to say to them, look, you are a sovereign individual of divine value, the cornerstone of the community, and that's the fundamental presupposition of our society. It happens to be true in that you can put your life together with truth and courage and things will work out better and even more importantly than that, whether it works out or not, even

more importantly than that, that is the adventure and destiny of your life and it actually matters. And people are so dying, they're dying for that idea. Yep, that's beautifully put. So thanks for saying that. Well, look, I'd like to know when you put up those podcasts that respond to the criticisms of your book. So if you would be kind enough to let me know that I'm happy to do so. Well, I would love to publicize them. It might be an opportunity, again, for us to have another conversation about the, because I'm very interested in the criticisms, you know, because I relied on your book a fair bit in my discussion of postmodernism. It's not an area of expertise of mine.

You know, I was one of those academics who tended to ignore it, not entirely, but while I was pursuing my own studies, but your book was extremely useful, and you know, it's not necessarily the case that because I'm not as philosophically versed as I might be that I can evaluate all the criticisms. And so I would definitely like to know more about that and to know more about your response. So please do let me know. I will let you know when this airs on YouTube and as a podcast, I don't know when that will be because my scheduling isn't set for the release of such things, but this isn't a discussion that has a time bound in any particular matter. So that shouldn't matter too much.

And look, I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to me again. I always find our conversations extremely illuminating. Great. I appreciate the invitation and spending time with you as well. It's good fun. Great. Great. And well, good luck. Good luck with your ambitions. And I wish you even more success in the public domain, because I think that what you're doing is extremely helpful and brought

Thank you to the is mutual, absolutely. All right, well, and hopefully we'll have a chance to meet at some point in the not too distant future. Perfect. Very good to see you. You too. All right, bye for now. Bye-bye. If you found this conversation meaningful, you might think about picking up dad's books, Maps of Meaning, The Architecture of Belief, or his newer bestseller, 12 Rules for Life, and Antidote to Keras, a much easier read. But that's not the quality thing. It's just simpler than Maps of Meaning because Maps of Meaning is insanely difficult.

Both of these works delve much deeper into the topics covered in the Jordan B. Peterson podcast. See JordanB.Peterson.com for audio, e-book, and text links, or pick up the books at your favorite bookseller. The next episode is Dad's lecture at the first Ontario concert hall in Hamilton, Ontario, recorded on July 20, 2018. Every one of his lectures I hear, I learn something different. It's amazing.

I hope you guys enjoy and I'll talk to you again next week. Follow me on my YouTube channel, Jordan B. Peterson, on Twitter, at Jordan B. Peterson, on Facebook, at Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, and at Instagram, at Jordan.b. Peterson. Details on this show, access to my blog, information about my tour dates and other events, and my list of recommended books can be found on my website Jordanbe Peterson.com. My online writing programs designed to help people straighten out their

pasts, understand themselves in the present, and develop a sophisticated vision and strategy for the future can be found at selfauthoring.com, that selfauthoring.com. From the Westwood One Podcast Network.