YOUTUBE (GOD) IS DEAD!!! (Secondary Knowledge vs. Firsthand Knowledge)

Why Watching Someone Talk About Something They’ve Read, While far from a total waste of time, is Not the Same as Reading the Thing Yourself

The always jubilant Dr. Jordan Peterson.

The always jubilant Dr. Jordan Peterson.

6/9/17, 9:09 pm EDT

By John Corry

Like many as of late, I’ve been taken with a few new ‘intellectuals’ making their fame off the controversy of the Trump presidency and nothing more *Nothing *Nothing *Nothing : Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Joe Rogan, Adam Carolla; pretty much all the dumbest people you could possibly waste your attention on. As I’m sure nobody in this crowd would know, indeed there is another potentiality in this category: Jedi Dr. Jordan Peterson, who also happens to be working in secret for the emperor currently hiding out somewhere beyond the Kepler belt.

I’ve recently had a few conversations with peeps about Peterson.

Dr. Peterson has become famous in the past several months for taking a stance against pending Canadian laws forcing people to adhere to certain belief structures and modes of thought with punishments of fines or even jail time (and by ‘belief structures’ and ‘modes of thought’, I mean words (while ‘meaningful’, not ‘concepts’)). I sympathize with the need to better understand situations different than your own–it is absolutely unacceptable for a person to discriminate against another person for no more reason than ‘she’s different’–and especially when those situations are mired with historic misunderstandings or in some cases hate and damnation, but I find that ‘laws’ in themselves cannot directly affect human thought and/or emotion, as those are personal/Individual processes: they exist, originate and evolve in Individuals, and Society can only react to them, and potentially influence their relevance, dexterity, or, however this only indirectly, the processes themselves. To argue otherwise is to actually degrade human thought and emotion–as those are potentially infinite in-time concepts (bound by the quantum back-and-forth between ‘known’ time (past, present, and future) and ‘unknown’ time (the ‘now’, the elusive ‘moment’)–and enforce a totalitarian worldview which sees all human perception as something to be potentially warped by other humans for ‘even more’ ‘human’ reasons.

Laws are meant to represent the findings humans have found in the physical realm, and enforce what man has found to be her physical reality over the past several thousand years, as the intellectual realm has yet to be more explored (much), or even discovered in many cases.

Peterson has been called a Nazi, a fascist and every horrible ting under the sun by what is indeed the more ‘understanding’ side of the political sphere (anymore ‘allegedly’, it’s been quite the ride seeing the tide turn since the election). What one may miss by telling a ‘Jedi’ (Peterson in this case) what it means to be a Jedi without being a Jedi or even legitimately training to be one (!), is that Peterson has a long history of interesting psychological, philosophical and politically theoretical thought. To write off his knowledge of Nietzsche, especially Jung and other fun psychologists, and the way Marxism has affected the world over the past century is not only dumb, but misses the entire point of being a human in the first place (to have new, positive experiences (thinking new, even dangerous thoughts, is a new experience)). To write off his damnation of postmodernism, and specifically the ‘French philosophers’ (Jacques Derrida, Jean Baudrillard, Jean-Franois Lyotard), is no different than writing off Stephen Hawking when it comes time to talk about astrophysics and black holes. You might disagree with him on his postmodernism shtick (like I do (in certain ways)), but It’s not to say that he is absolutely correct, only potentially knowledgable in a way in which you might not be. You are entitled to your opinions–and if the conversation goes nowhere and you only find frustration in having it, by all means write it off so long as you’ve actually tried to be honest about what happened (nobody’s perfect (including Peterson)–but it’s just plain stupid not hear someone out, and especially someone who knows more than you do (like a dude with a phd in psychology and 30+ years teaching it at varying universities).

Anyway, in one of these particularly heated discussions of mine regarding Peterson (and, more specifically, postmodernism (I were drunk :/)), I referenced a friend of mine who I’d talked to extensively regarding the subject several days before. This friend had just graduated with a BA and did his thesis on postmodernism and its potential modern reiterations in ‘meme culture’, hip-hop and social media.

After my buddy (henceforth referred to as: Drunkard (for simplicity) (,|,)) brought up Peterson and his critiques of postmodernism, I’d mentioned my ‘college-educated’ friend, and the potential I’d gained after said discussions with that dude, and from reading his thesis, several days before, to understand that postmodernism may have some things to say that you can only understand by actually reading the postmodern philosophers themselves (however tough it may be (and trust me, if you’re not into it: it is fucking difficult (because it assumes too much))), or at least understanding what postmodernism is through looking at different takes and varied perspectives on the subject.

Long story short, Drunkard ended the night by threatening to beat the shit out of ‘college educated’ (intellectually speaking, of course) with no more knowledge of ‘postmodernism’ than what he’d learned by watching Dr. Peterson’s videos regarding the topic on YouTube.

He’s a real thinker, that Drunkard *TheBestThinker *TheBestThinker.

While I’ve read a bit on the subject of postmodernism, aside from my friend’s thesis (he did mention Derrida as his favorite philosopher when I saw him #WhatAnObviousRetard (for the record: I am not a fan of Derrida)), I admittedly have yet to read any of the actual work of most of these philosophers themselves (Marx’s Capital is over a thousand pages long, Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations even longer, and I haven’t even started A Song of Ice and Fire yet (HBO’s Game of Thrones starts in July, bro, *ForTheRecord –fucking July!!!)).

It was for these reasons that I mentioned ‘college educated’ in my recent conversation with Drunkard; because ‘college educated’ has read these things, has looked into the actual literature and product of what we were talking about, far more than I have (in my opposition to the things he says, an opposition primarily based on what I’ve learned reading about them, and what Peterson’s take on them was), I can’t continue in the argument without being intellectually dishonest, pretending that I know something firsthand which I don’t, and, more importantly, being stupid, offended and ignorant of the potential for learning.

Obviously, my point here is that secondary knowledge (or: knowledge gained through lectures or writings of people writing about original ideas, or in response to them), while far from worthless or intellectually incapacitating, does not intellectually trump firsthand knowledge. Dr. Peterson has an innate and extensive knowledge on the subject of postmodernism, which is why it is a very good idea to watch his videos, and hear what he has to say, but that does not mean that his firsthand knowledge on the subject can take the place of your own, or make up for the fact that you do not personally have any, because you have not even attempted to understand the original material, for whatever, even justified, reasons (for example: it can be easily ascertained that postmodernism can easily brainwash a person– a risk one must be willing to take and more importantly take steps to avoid).

You’re like the 95% of Jupiter comprised of its the atmosphere and the gas making up the bulk of its planetary material, being everything but the core /> however relatively small it may be, without the core, the planet doesn’t exist.

I’m really just upset with Drunkard here (RANTING, CONDESCENDING, RIDICULOUS ASSHOLE). In order to have knowledge or a right to a respected opinion on a subject, you need to actually look into the damn subject yourself (dumbass)–understand the product inherently and Individually (I can’t talk shit on Megadeth if I’ve never actually listened to Megadeth (as if you could ever talk shit on Megadeth anyway #FuckYouHaters ))–and you cannot use the opinions of others as your only means of argument or debate; that’s plagiarism for lack of intellectual work ethic merely shined up as a self-inscribed worship of society and a type of pseudo-Individuality only applicable to the other-

Congratulations, you’re a postmodernist!

Using YouTube pundits (or any pundit for that matter), or even intellectuals like Peterson or Sam Harris, explaining what they know on a subject as your sole source of evidence in any physical debate not only distorts my understanding of what Peterson for example may be trying to say, in the sense that I’m getting his understanding of a certain topic through you, which is secondary, and misleading of the fact that Dr. Peterson was the original person with those ideas, but also, in the long run, in the sense that, after hearing this type of argument consistently enough to be able to remember any uniform idea representing one person or group, I, as the person receiving this secondary understanding of Peterson’s thought (remember, in this example, I have theoretically not read or watched him myself), begin to conflate his ideas with what my firsthand director (in this case, my drunk-ass libertarian friend Drunkard #Burn #SuchAGoodBurn #GetIt? #CauseLibertariansOnlyCareAboutFightingWithEachOther #Postmodernists? #LibertariansArePostmodernists??? ) thinks about them, as being the same thing.

My understanding of Peterson’s ideas on the subject are now just as distorted, after such time and consistent argument has gone by, as Drunkard’s are of postmodernism thanks to such an incessant need to use only Jordan Peterson’s interpretations of it as his sole source of knowledge, and to not take the time to look into the actual material himself (I know, it’s a pain the ass), or take the chance of forming his own thoughts on the matter. This may be because Drunkard relatively already knows what Peterson’s thoughts are, and he’d rather bask in his knowledge that he himself (Drunkard) was smart enough to recognize how smart Dr. Peterson is instead of putting any work in.

In other words: Drunkard is lazy #FeelingTriggered?.

To quote ‘college educated’: In Conclusion: it is much easier to watch, read or hear someone else think about something than to actually think about it yourself, and if the first goal of ‘postmodernism’ is to classify everyone into groups and to entirely get rid of the idea of Individual thought altogether (I am not trying to say that this is what I personally believe, though Dr. Peterson certainly makes a decent case for it), the first step to that would be to rid people of having their own thoughts, for the simple reason that others are more entitled to them, or are going to figure out something new from them long before you may.

There may be a multitude of reasons for this ‘entitlement’: bitterness, naiveté, laziness, the fact that somebody went to school for it, whatever the hell you want to say about it, I don’t care (but this does not excuse disrespecting your elders), but at the end of the day there’s only one way to ‘fight the postmodernists’ as Peterson so eloquently puts it (and, in my opinion, the Nazi’s and the fascists, on the other end, for that matter as well): by letting them talk, hearing them talk, and thinking about what they say (or, in this particular case: the things they say people shouldn't be doing), because as much as we all may wish it weren’t the case, they are humans beings just as we are, and if we deny that to them, we give them the power of Apparent Originality (that second example of my interpretation of Drunkard’s thought in relation to Peterson-in-himself (my secondary knowledge of Peterson, through Drunkard’s secondary knowledge of postmodernism through Peterson)) (overwhelming complication) (and all because Drunkard is too much of a lazy piece of shit to read a book), though it, in every case, is indeed merely secondary knowledge shined up out the ass to come off as firsthand (because they have no other platform (again: this is in the case of the ‘postmodernists’)), and we give them the source (through that ignorance and laziness to challenge ourselves intellectually) to use that against us.

Thanks a lot, postmodernists (you!)!!!