I did read the whole article but had already come to my conclusions when I read this passage: > Unfortunately, existentialism is difficult to maintain, because

I did read the whole article but had already come to my conclusions when I read this passage: > Unfortunately, existentialism is difficult to maintain, because mostly we can’t choose meanings. Some meanings are nearly impossible to either alter or overlook, and so are some meaninglessnesses. Then there was this passage which further put the nail in the coffin: > Where existentialism said meaning must be an arbitrary individual choice, pomo makes it an arbitrary social choice. When social groups make different choices, there is no basis for negotiation, because both are equally arbitrary. Then all conflicts reduce to raw power struggles. > This “banal nihilism” is the ideological basis for much current populist authoritarianism.3 These movements are simultaneously dogmatically eternalistic and chaotically nihilistic. The tribal ”values” are absolute, and must not be questioned or disrespected; but truth, morality, and justice have no meaning beyond what we want this week. These interpretations of Existentialism and Postmodernism are so catastrophically wrong that they invalidate the entire article. A cursory reading of Existentialist discussion of "bad faith" should cover the first. For Postmodernism - first off, Postmodernism is such a loose coalition of thinkers that any totalizing statement about them, is likely, wrong (at least in part). Secondly, Postmodernism generally encourages a skepticism about all hierarchies of knowledge, including what the author describes as 'tribal "values"'. Under Postmodernism, these values are questioned and, for example, "deconstructed". My suggestion is that the author ought to stop thoughtlessly regurgitating what Mr. Jordan Peterson has to say about Existentialism and Postmodernism and expand his reading to cover the texts themselves.