What logic drives postmodernist social justice warriors and why they react the way they do? This post is my interpretation of arguments made by Dr. Jordan Peterson.
Central claims adopted by postmodernism Progressives are in Bold highlight
There is an infinite number of ways to interpret any finite set of phenomena.
This technically true claim, can and is being, used to mount an assault on any and every interpretation whatsoever, because there’s a tremendous number of variations you can bring to bear on a given situation.
Postmodernism then jumps to the conclusion that none of those interpretations should be privileged above any others.
This is actually wrong. Despite the large number of potential interpretations of the world, only a finite set of interpretations are viable or more viable than others.
What are the constraints on viability? Think in terms of ‘living creatures’ viewing and interpreting the world. The way evolution solves the problem of large numbers of interpretations by creating a large number of variants, then killing the variants that interpret the world badly. For living beings, the primary constraint is excess suffering and death. Your interpretation of the world should shield you as much as possible from suffering and death.
In 3.5 billion years, human bodies have only been able to successfully interpret the world so as to live approximately 80-90 years.
There are many other constraints to this infinite number of interpretations. The necessity of cooperating and competing with other people is a constraint. To successfully thrive, mate, and procreate, we must cooperate and compete with people at the same time, over and over again. Scarcity is a constraint.
Postmodernists radically underestimate the constraints on interpretation of the world.
Central claim of Marxism is that the world must be viewed in terms of ‘oppressor’ and ‘oppressed’.
Despite the fact that Marxism is only ONE of MANY interpretations, the Postmodernist latched onto a single view by placing multiple identity groups in the positions of oppressor and oppressed. Why do postmodernists ignore their main tenet, which is there is an infinite number of ways to interpret any finite set of phenomena?
One optimistic answer is they’re sincere in their desire to help the oppressed, while standing on the empathy aroused via Marxist group politics. Surprisingly they’re able to ignore the 20th century of murder and destruction by Marxist regimes. They also ignore the economic failures of one Marxist government after another during the 20th century.
This postmodernist progresssive view must always be challenged. If it is not, groups will begin killing each other.