[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 215 KB, 900x900, 1568940007981.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14692398 No.14692398 [Reply] [Original]

Is postmodernism bullshit?

>> No.14692405

>>14692398
Reminder that Evola was a proto-postmodernist

>> No.14692408

Half of those people aren't post modernists. And no it's not bullshit, its pretty rational skepticism but in the end it doesn't lead anywhere

>> No.14692417

>>14692398
>all nicotine addicts
>haven't cleaned their rooms
nah ima stick with my boi jp

>> No.14692460

>>14692398
>oh I'm smoking
>oh I'm brooding
fags

>> No.14692498
File: 861 KB, 1853x2814, 1578853197166.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14692498

>>14692398
Yes obviously. No philosopher has grappled with nihilism since Neetch. They all read his proclamation of God's death as a license to coom, instead of a warning and a challenge. They act smug as they trot on the corpse of religion, without doing anything to overcome humans.

>> No.14692525

>>14692498
>his proclamation of God's death
confirmed for never reading Nietzsche.

>> No.14692552

>>14692525
Based retard

>> No.14692579

>>14692398
I genuinely don’t get what is supposed to unite all of those thinkers, the differences between them are just too vast. Only someone who is unfamiliar with their works would lump them together as if they formed a single “episteme”. There’s no such thing as “post-modern philosophy”. One can, perhaps, speak of “post-metaphysical philosophy”, although this term would also be very questionable.

>>14692498
Retard

>> No.14692587

>>14692498
>>14692498
What do you gain out of pretending to understand philosophers you haven't read? Why do you piss on this board?

>> No.14692652

>>14692398
Continental 'philosophy' in general is bullshit.

>> No.14692708

>>14692587
Post war philosophers were overwhelmingly homosexuality and pederastic, and the only accomplishments of such thinkers is scathing critiques of edificates that have already rotted themselves hollow. Sorry to hurt your feelings.

>> No.14692716

>>14692408
^ this. Why would you put Deleuze and Lacan in the same image when they couldn't be more further apart intellectually?

>> No.14692733

>>14692652
seething a*glo

>> No.14692734

>>14692708
Retarded nigger

>> No.14692762

>>14692408
>>14692716
all pomo means in philosophy is "wrote theory in French between 1950 and 1980"

>> No.14692763

>>14692708
>Post war philosophers were overwhelmingly homosexuality and pederastic
sound like the return to greco roman philosophy we've been waiting for all these centuries

>> No.14692824

>>14692716
>Why would you put Deleuze and Lacan in the same image
Because they are both graphomanic bullshit artists.

>> No.14692834
File: 54 KB, 680x709, yesmarty.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14692834

>>14692398

>> No.14692841

>>14692763
The only difference is that you can apply the philosophies of the Greeks without becoming a marxists bugchaser

>> No.14692864
File: 20 KB, 400x274, Evola 911.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14692864

>>14692405
based; he actually transcended post-structuralism, however. the post-structuralists failed the deconstruct all of their meta-narratives (so much was left over from the liberal ontology), thus they still believed in nonsense such as egalitarian (with perhaps some exceptions.) evola deconstructed all meta-narratives, leaving only intuition left. from there, he was able to properly reconstruct reality via intuition being the starting point of ontology.

>>14692398
>>14692408
>>14692417
>>14692460
>>14692498
>>14692525
>>14692552
>>14692579
>>14692587
>>14692652
>>14692708
>>14692716
>>14692733
>>14692734
>>14692762
>>14692763
>>14692824
>>14692834
>>14692841
post-structuralism is correct, but doesn't go far enough with its deconstructions.

also, if you think that post-structuralism denies objective reality, you are a fucking retard.

>> No.14692877

>>14692398
I mean, I think sometimes they touch on things that are half-right, but ultimately its idealism. When you remove class as the basis of your analyses, all you're left with is just random groups of people advocating their own position with no cohesion.

>> No.14692897

>>14692864
based reply to everyone retard

>> No.14692917
File: 10 KB, 271x288, Evola.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14692917

>>14692877
>When you remove class as the basis of your analyses, all you're left with is just random groups of people advocating their own position with no cohesion.
such is the fate of a world which places quantity over quality.

>>14692897
nigger

>> No.14692927

>>14692864
kill yourself, nobody gives a fuck about ur gay nazi philosopher

>> No.14692933

>>14692864
Literally a nobody. Not even guenonfags respect him.

>> No.14692935
File: 270 KB, 1500x1841, Back to Reddit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14692935

>>14692927

>> No.14692943
File: 120 KB, 719x765, Guenon 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14692943

>>14692933
guenonfags are subhuman

>> No.14692955

>>14692943
based guenon (pbuh) poster

>> No.14692966

>>14692933
based
>>14692943
cringe

>> No.14692971
File: 1.04 MB, 1554x1554, Philosophers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14692971

>>14692966
you failed to make an argument.

>> No.14692973

>>14692841
Literally nobody in OP’s pic was really a Marxist. If anything, some of them undermined and subverted certain aspects of Marxist thought.

>> No.14692975
File: 55 KB, 512x419, Delouse.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14692975

>Deleuze
>Postmodernism

Fuck this I'm out

>> No.14693009

>>14692864
The notion that one can “properly reconstruct reality” via “intuition” as the “starting point” of “ontology” should be self-evidently ridiculous to anyone who has actually read Heidegger.

>> No.14693021

>>14693009
want to make an actual argument, or do you want to continue fling shit on the walls?

>> No.14693040

>>14692877
Your precious “materialism/idealism” dichotomy is itself loaded with ridiculous metaphysical assumptions, you would see how silly it if you had seriously engaged with Schelling or Hegel.

>> No.14693059

>>14693021
Just read some of late Heidegger’s texts, particularly what he says about metaphysics and ontology. I’m not gonna spoon-feed you.

>> No.14693066

>>14693059
then why even post

>> No.14693069

>>14692975
>implying you can decipher Deleuze's nonsensical batherings
wew

>> No.14693070

>>14693040
How is materialism metaphysics?

>> No.14693077

>>14693059
>just read this bro
nice argument, retard.

>> No.14693084

>>14692973
And yet their readers end up on tranny pills talking about the great injustice of not being able to play smash bros. for a living

>> No.14693115

>>14693077
Nobody is going to spoon-feed you “arguments” here, this is not a subreddit dedicated to Ben Shapiro. You should be thankful that somebody at the very least told you what to read so that you would be able to see for yourself how retarded statements like “we can properly reconstruct reality via intuition as a starting point of ontology” sound.

>> No.14693118

>>14692398
Philosophy? Yes
Literature? Depends

>> No.14693126

>>14692652
This.
/thread

>> No.14693127

>>14693115
you should probably just shut the fuck up then if you aren't going to make an argument.

>> No.14693128

>>14693115
lol no that's not how it works. "just read x' is the sign of the terminal midwit, gtfo

>> No.14693134

>>14693070
Materialism is metaphysical as long as idealism is metaphysical. The very opposition between “the material” and “the ideal” is thoroughly metaphysical and is possible only within metaphysics.

>> No.14693145

>>14692398
https://discord.gg/3UH89UV

>> No.14693162

>>14693134
Idealism isn't inherently metaphysical. Metaphysics is taking something and holding it up as fundamental and unchangeable. It not something inherent to materialism or idealism.

>> No.14693183

>>14693162
>Metaphysics is taking something and holding it up as fundamental and unchangeable.

It’s more than that

>> No.14693236

>>14693183
Marxism isn't metaphysical because it doesn't look at things as eternal or fundamental. Everything is always changing. Where marxism and Heleglianism differ is that in marxism, the *basis* for change is the material world, whereas in Hegelianism its idealism.

>> No.14693251

>>14693162
Metaphysics is the part of philosophy that concerns itself with the nature and structure of reality, addressing basic concepts like Existence, Space, Time, Substances, Properties, Relations, Causes, Modality, etc.

>> No.14693260

>>14693236
>Everything is always changing.
Time and Change are illusions. That's Metaphysics 101.

>> No.14693282

>>14692579
>I genuinely don’t get what is supposed to unite all of those thinkers
They're all French.

>> No.14693297
File: 944 KB, 960x720, Godhead Guenon.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14693297

>>14693260
>Time and Change are illusions.
Based. Only the outward, physical manifestation of things changes, but the essential qualities remain the same.

>> No.14693305

>>14693251
There's nothing wrong with investigation of these concepts, the issue comes when you hold things up as eternal and unchanging. For metaphysics, at least in the sense marxism uses the term, things can't fundamentally change, its just quantity being shifted around. Whereas dialectical materialism holds that things can and do change qualitatively along with quantity.

>> No.14693307

>>14693236
Materialism is metaphysical as long as in it, the notion of “matter” serves as a basic principle or, as Derrida would put it, a “transcendental signified”. To what extent Hegel’s thought can be characterized as “idealist” is another topic, but one thing I will say is that things are here much more complicated than Marx assumed.

>> No.14693317

>>14693307
The basic principle is that the material world has priority over our ideas. That's not metaphysics.

>> No.14693335

Foucault changed my entire world view. I'd be interested in critiques of him if any anons here know of good sources for it. I don't see Foucault as the final destination, but rather the beginning of my current understanding. Are there any detailed responses to him from other thinkers?

>> No.14693346

>>14693335
How did he change your worldview? Can you explain a bit more?

>> No.14693349

>>14693305
What's an example of this 'qualitative change' that you allege is forbidden by metaphysics but allowed by 'dialectical materialism'?

>> No.14693363

>>14693317
Non-materialist metaphysics is a pipe dream, son. Snap out of it.

>> No.14693392

>>14693317
Basically all contemporary metaphysics presupposes materialism. It's not even remotely controversial.

>> No.14693399

>>14693363
ok boomer.

>> No.14693404

>>14693069
Did you bother to even read the people he is responding to?

>> No.14693407

>>14693317
I’m sorry, but it is. “Matter”, “the material world” serves here as the ultimate referent, as fully present anterior guarantee, which is why the principle that you described operates within the classical logic of metaphysics.

>> No.14693412

>>14693349
I get the feeling you're coming at it from an angle of physical sciences rather than what we were talking about, philosophy and social studies. Its not that there's some metaphysical "cult" in physics that forbids things and pontificates (though there have been, the Pythagorean and hedonists for example), its more something people *do* than something they adhere to. Marxists can do, an example would be "Stalin did nothing wrong". Of course he did, its impossible for someone to be perfect and "do nothing wrong". Another example; The Nstion of Islam asserting white people are evil because some dude called Yakub created them that way. That's metaphysics, its arguing that "these group of people are fundamentally this way and it was ordained so because of a higher power that cannot be changed".

>> No.14693422

>>14693407
The material world isn't the ultimate referent, contradiction is. However, those contradictions are in the material world, they exist outside of us, not within our minds.

>> No.14693426

>>14693236
>Everything is always changing
>the *basis* for change is the material world
The first part is a truism but also no more true than the opposite, everything is always the same
The second part is ambiguous. The question of what is material in the world is the basic question of ontology and the answer isn't obvious. What you call idealism is only the attempt to ground existence in being and not anything outside of being, a quite materialist way of thinking.

>> No.14693432
File: 612 KB, 1024x1471, case.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14693432

>>14692398
Does it matter? I'm on a triple dosage of mother's prescription.

>> No.14693443

>>14693422
Whatever, as long as you have something that servers as the ultimate referent, it is still metaphysics.

>> No.14693460

>>14693162
this is an incredibly incorrect post and the product of an individual who did not start with the Greeks

>> No.14693466

>>14693305
dialectical materialism is a metaphysical position, don't @ me

>> No.14693469

>>14693460
What if I ate some doner kebab for lunch yesterday?

>> No.14693475

>>14693307
>>14693317
>>14693363
>>14693407
>>14693422
>>14693426
>>14693443
>what is substance
I hate /lit/

>> No.14693480

>>14693426
Everything isn't always the same. Nothing can last forever.

The material world in a philosophical sense is "what we can apprehend". Think about science: science doesn't deal with anything that is either inside our minds or claimed to be "beyond" our senses. That is what materialism is.

>>14693443
Its not an ultimate referent, its "the thing to be investigated". And even so, having something you refer to is not the same as saying there are fundamental eternal "natures" of things.

>> No.14693487

>>14693475
based schizo

>> No.14693488

>>14692398
Depends.

>> No.14693494

>>14693487
back to the presocratics anon, try again

>> No.14693496

>>14693480
>Everything isn't always the same. Nothing can last forever.
only in its material form. transcendental qualities, such as truth, beauty, and goodness, are above time and change.

>> No.14693512

>>14693475
“Substance” is nothing more than another term of metaphysics, a mistranslation of “ousia”.

>> No.14693523

>>14693412
>I get the feeling you're coming at it from an angle of physical sciences rather than what we were talking about, philosophy and social studies.
Cringe. Grouping Philosophy with "social studies" is the ultimate insult. Most "social studies" are pseudoscientific exercises in ideology. Philosophy in contrast -- and specifically, metaphysics -- deals with the same subjects as the Physical sciences, but in a more realistic and less instrumental fashion. The physicist is content to create a mathematical structure that generates correct predictions. There is no assumption that the structure of the theory will mirror the structure of the underlying reality. That's where philosophers come in -- the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, for example. Physicists do not interrogate the concepts of space and time and cause in the course of their everyday empirical work. They settle on operational definitions, and apply them. Again, metaphysics is concerned with the underlying structure of reality, not the measurement outcomes themselves but the possible structures that could explain them.

>Marxists can do
No idea what you're trying to say here. And by the way, Marx is one of my favorite philosophers. I just don't see what you're seeing with regard to his attitude to metaphysics. Dialectical materialism is a metaphysical thesis.

>The Nstion of Islam asserting white people are evil
Off topic but the Nation of Islam was founded by a white man. The very same white man that they refer to as "Allah in human form".

>That's metaphysics, its arguing that "these group of people are fundamentally this way
If you're even talking about "people" and their "ways", you are not doing metaphysics.

>> No.14693526

>>14693512
please pitch me your translation of "ousia" that avoids metaphysics, genuinely interested

>> No.14693527

>>14693422
Read Derrida's interview with Houdebine and Scarpetta in "Positions". Houdebine being a Marxist tried to pin down Derrida's position regarding Marxism, while simultaneously denying its status as metpahysics. Derrida according btfo him.

>> No.14693539

>>14693480
I think you pretty clearly treat either “the material world” or “contradiction” as the fundamental, eternal principle, which is why your “materialism” is thoroughly metaphysical.

>> No.14693554
File: 28 KB, 655x509, Apu Rope.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14693554

>>14693527
>Read Derrida's interview with Houdebine and Scarpetta in "Positions". Houdebine being a Marxist tried to pin down Derrida's position regarding Marxism, while simultaneously denying its status as metpahysics. Derrida according btfo him.
Fuck dude. Imagine living in a decade that actually cares about philosophy. It's crazy to look back and think that these French philosophers were celebrities at the time; now, people treat niggers who shake their ass as celebrities.

The world really has gone to shit.

>> No.14693561
File: 65 KB, 800x600, 81.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14693561

Substance is an a priori concept you retards. Reminder that Kant stands undefeated.

>> No.14693567

>>14693561
based Jacobi poster

>> No.14693571
File: 1.21 MB, 1464x1986, Nietzsche.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14693571

>>14693561
*blocks your path*

>> No.14693573

>>14693554
Derrida et al are charlatans, not philosophers.

>> No.14693577

>>14693573
Still better than what we have today.

>> No.14693579
File: 4 KB, 208x250, 1539672485021s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14693579

>>14693571
*unblocks his path*

>> No.14693583
File: 48 KB, 300x400, Guenon Chad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14693583

>>14693579
*refuted, retroactively*

>> No.14693593

I think it is.
but i think they were self aware in their bullshit.
which makes it pseudo legit, meta-valid

>> No.14693599

>>14693526
I don’t have one, unfortunately. Perhaps we should leave “ousia” untranslated, it would be preferable to using a translation which only introduces confusion and which is tied to a whole system of metaphysical presuppositions.

>> No.14693600

>>14693577
You have no idea 'what we have today', because you don't study philosophy.

>> No.14693615

>>14693346
It was in History of Sexuality, where he describes how the field of psychology is essentially an instrument of repressive power. It wasn't the specific examples, but rather the idea that you can spread power into new areas through apparently benign actions. Simply by attempting to define behavior and establish a norm you can create negative definition of that which is not normal. And by doing this you create zones of exception, and this is where repressive power flows in, and this exerts a pressure on that space of people's lives to stay within the defined normal area.

What really got to me though, was the way this triggered a cascade of understanding back on several other structuralist and post-structuralist authors I'd read, namely Althusser (Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses). Essentially, Althusser outlined the purpose of these apparatuses of power, and Foucault described how they actually work.

There's much more to Foucault's ideas though, as I think back on it. The way he took apart psychology and contextualized it made me realize how much of our modern understanding of self is built on a series of assumptions.

>> No.14693620

If you say truth doesn't exist you are still positing that statement as truth.
This is such a simple point that they still can't deal with. They have to make up some semantic language games or other mental gymnastics to get out of it. It is obvious there is such a thing as truth.

>> No.14693621
File: 7 KB, 225x225, Zizek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14693621

>>14693600
>You have no idea 'what we have today'

>> No.14693636

>>14693526
"Ousia" itself is the best one-word translation.

It basically refers to the elements of one's ontology -- i.e., the ontic equivalent of the "subjects" to which "predicates" are applied.

>> No.14693651

>>14693621
Even Zizek is better than Derrida. Of course, there are hundreds of *real* philosophers working today that are far superior to either of those pseuds.

>> No.14693654

>>14693480
>Everything isn't always the same. Nothing can last forever.
Nobody said anything about something that lasts forever.
>The material world in a philosophical sense is "what we can apprehend".
Again, ambiguous because what we apprehend is more than what appears as material. The question of what is material remains but in a different form: what is it that we apprehend?
>Think about science: science doesn't deal with anything that is either inside our minds or claimed to be "beyond" our senses.
What science deals with is the development and understanding of scientific concepts. The sensible serves as a referent for science and the power of science is in the explanatory concepts and its ability to make sensible change. The substance of science are the scientific concepts which science itself develops and not just what is sensed, which still requires science to be properly apprehended.

>> No.14693656

>>14693620
Literally nobody in OP’s pic said that “truth doesn’t exist”. If anything, many of them explicitly rejected such relativism.

>> No.14693672

>>14693651
No one alive today even comes close to Derrida. He will he remembered in 100 years time, Zizek will not.

>> No.14693678

>>14693672
>No one alive today even comes close to Derrida.
Lmao. Imagine being this ignorant.

>> No.14693679

>>14693656
Deleuze denies all objective identities. He denies essence and his book on Nietzsche is all about the denial of truth.

>> No.14693682

>>14693599
okay then, what is it about leaving it untranslated that you think helps avoid the metaphysical nature of the concept?

>> No.14693692

>>14693651
>>14693672
>>14693678
>Of course, there are hundreds of *real* philosophers working today that are far superior to either of those pseuds.
Baudrillard (salla Allaahu 'alayhi wa salaam) died in 2007 though.

>> No.14693695

>>14693599
also Spinoza and Descartes wrote in Latin, was it mistranslated by this point already or did that come later?

>> No.14693704

>>14693692
French "theorists" are not philosophers.

>> No.14693712
File: 292 KB, 640x800, Buff Guenon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14693712

>>14693704
Good point. We need a return to Real French Philosophy.

>> No.14693723

>>14693496
Marxism would say not.

>>14693523
I think you're seeing "metaphysics" as me attacking the idea of things like spacetime and physical constants such as gravity, I'm not. Metaphysics in the philosophical sense is the idea that there are fundamental eternal things. Its more nuanced than *just* that though, but I don't think I have the vocabulary right now. To try and explain as an analogy, take "Stalin did nothing wrong". Its metaphysics, in the philosophical sense because its putting someone up as "perfect". Of course, no-one and nothing can ever be perfect. A more familiar example: Hedonism is metaphysics because it claims the avoidance of pain and the maximisation of pleasure is the ultimate good.

I feel like you think I'm attacking the physical sciences of what they call "metaphysics", I'm not. Philosophical metaphysics is different from just looking at things like physical constants.

>>14693527
But this is my issue with post-modernism. It attempts to avoid any definition or position on anything. If you're going to take that approach, then from that extreme position, maybe marxism is metaphysics. But its still better than post-modernism because post-modernism by its very nature cannot apprehend itself or put anything forward. It says what it sees, but there's no mechanism or impetus to it.

>> No.14693725

>>14693704
You're just some nerdy kid on 4chan. Who made you the arbiter of what is and isn't philosophy?

>> No.14693727

>>14693723
>Marxism would say not.
Marx can go eat a dick then.

>> No.14693731

Jordan "tranquilizer addict daddy" Peterson says that post modernism is bad and I dont need to think for myself or read any of it. Daddy told me so

>> No.14693737

>>14693723
>To try and explain as an analogy, take "Stalin did nothing wrong". Its metaphysics, in the philosophical sense because its putting someone up as "perfect".
metaphysics doesn't just mean "something true", it relates to the structure of reality itself, hence meta-physic (beyond physics)

>> No.14693750
File: 667 KB, 519x660, Jordan Peterson Disaffected.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14693750

>>14693731

>> No.14693763

>>14692498
Mongoloid

>> No.14693777

>>14693727
You don't even need marxism to refute the idea truth, beauty and goodness can change. It was true (as far as we know) there was an inflation field at the beginning of the big bang, its not true there is one now. Its gone. Beauty standards change over time and cultures. Investigation of any society will show this. Hell investigation of our own society can show this, some people like "bbw"s and some people don't. Is it good to kill someone? In some contexts yes, in some no.

>>14693737
Exactly, saying "stalin did nothing wrong" (which is often said jokingly, don't think marxists actually think that) is implying that, according to reality itself, he was perfect in a fundamental way.

>> No.14693797

>>14693777
>Beauty standards change over time and cultures.
But the very concept of Beauty remains the same. Yes, standards change over time, but this is the result of hyper reality blocking people from fully actualizing Beauty.

>> No.14693820

>>14692398
postmodernism may be bullshit, but we're swimming in it.

>> No.14693832

>>14693820
We are swimming in late Capitalist hyper reality. Saying that we are "swimming in post-modernism" doesn't even make sense.

>> No.14693856

>>14693777
Trips of untruth. Beauty standards change but the Form of Beauty (the Good, the True) is an unchanging reality

>> No.14693865

>>14693832
Not him but were not post-modernists pushed by organizations like the CIA as arms of the liberal/capitalist establishment to use as a weapon against the Marxists?

>> No.14693867 [SPOILER] 
File: 40 KB, 410x419, 1581289323631.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14693867

>>14693856
Based

>> No.14693878

>>14693865
No idea and it doesn't make a difference.

>> No.14693892

>>14693797
>>14693856
What does this actually mean though. Like really. the whole "its standards change" idea kind of throws the idea of a form eternal and unchanging out the window. With that you can apply the form of "beauty" to anything. What about before humans?

>> No.14693895
File: 2.23 MB, 1366x1425, Pillars of Creation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14693895

>>14693892
>What about before humans?
Beauty is Eternal.

>> No.14693900

>>14692398
Yes, postmodernism is bullshit. It is also perfect for smug 13 year olds that think it humouros to mention out loud in good company that a female dog is a bitch.
Postmodernism needs to be taken by the ear and thumped a good one.

>> No.14693911
File: 225 KB, 1920x1152, Jordan Peterson.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14693911

>>14693900
>t. jordan beterson viewer

>> No.14693917

>>14693260
>>14693297
Retards
All is Change. There is no being. Underneath the veil of Maya is simply just another veil waiting for you.

>> No.14693925

>>14693917
cringe

>> No.14693938

>>14693412
Your problem as I see it is your dogmatic clingingness to non-overlapping magisteria. Please address this.

>> No.14693950

>>14693523
Without Schrodinger and his cat there is no such thing as fuzzy logic, not that he is the inventor rather he is the agent of causality

>> No.14693956

>>14692652
As if analytic philosophy doesn't have it's fair share of retarded filler bullshit

>> No.14693962

>>14693895
But it isn't. Nothing is. Not even the universe itself.

>>14693938
The issue is a problem of definitions, the actual concepts are different but they're called the same word. For example, I guess a physical scientist would call the nature and investigation of physical constants "metaphysics", but the concept isn't "metaphysical philosophy" because scientists are open to the idea physical constants can (and probably will since the universe is not in its lowest energy configuration) change.

>> No.14693964

>>14693723
> But this is my issue with post-modernism. It attempts to avoid any definition or position on anything. If you're going to take that approach, then from that extreme position, maybe marxism is metaphysics. But its still better than post-modernism because post-modernism by its very nature cannot apprehend itself or put anything forward.

Derrida had pretty definite and precise positions on many issues, you are just regurgitating a tired cliche

>> No.14693965

>>14693962
You are focusing only on material forms. This is your issue.

>> No.14693972

>>14693917
Change, becoming can only be possible within being

>> No.14693985

>>14693962
>definitions
That's why we have language and we need to communicate and actually fucking establish set (and unchanging) meanings for things. You've struck a nerve here...
This is a massive issue in Western Civilization in particular

>> No.14693987

>>14692398
Post-modernism doesn't exist.

>> No.14693995

>>14693987
It does exist otherwise you wouldn't be able to deny its existence, fucker.

>> No.14694045

>>14693964
I'm talking about the movement as a whole not just Derrida. My problem with post-modernism as well is that often they just add idealist notions into marxism. Baudrillard did this with "sign value". Its unnecessary. You don't need "sign value" to explain why a celebrity endorsed commodity is more valuable than a standard one. Also, it assumes this concept hasn't been explained already in a different way. Of course the value of the celebrity endorsed item is fictitious. Everything in capitalism is a fiction. The entire system relies on getting us to buy and produce things we don't really even want or need. But they can't get us to want them for free, hence why society is set up as a conspiracy to get us to consume from the ground up. Look at obesity. Capitalists say "obese people and people who become ill because of fast food shouldn't have healthcare because its their choice", yet if all these people did start eating a nutritious, healthy diet the fast food and junk food industries would collapse, the fast-food industry alone is worth $570 billion dollar annually and employs 3 million people. If the fast food and junk food industries collapsed, the economy wouldn't be able to continue. The entire economy is built on fundamentally irrational and fictional things and making us want to buy those irrational things. Baudrillard kind of notices this, but applies reasons for it that don't really need to be applied.

>> No.14694066

>>14693865
I think it's most accurate to view that argument as analogous to a Catholic-Protestant one. The former will cry "bourgeois egalitarian!" "CIA shill!" "Read Marx!" (Heretic! Freemason! Read the Church Tradition!) And the latter will say "Authoritarian!" "Stalinist!" (Papist!). But from the point of view outside of either left-wing tradition, they're obviously both left wing.

>> No.14694076

>>14694045
I'd prefer to call this contemporary capitalism, or modern capitalism.
It's actually baseless greed and a lack of responsibility towards the populi, so tyrannical capitalism would also be apt.

>> No.14694081
File: 699 KB, 868x760, Evola on Economics.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14694081

>>14694076
Or in other words, its capitalism.

>> No.14694092

>>14694081
Yes it is capitalism but it is not the only way of capitalism. Your infograph there literally uses the term modern capitalism.

>> No.14694108

>>14694092
>it is not the only way of capitalism
Capitalism doesn't have a moral framework, nigger. It always ends the same way, due to reasons stated in the infograph.

>> No.14694125

>>14694081
If anything "modern capitalism" is defined more by sentimentalism than cold materialism.

>> No.14694127

>>14693723
>But this is my issue with post-modernism
Whether you like it or not, that which you find issue with in postmodernism represents a philosophical innovation with which you and Marxism must reconcile.

>> No.14694132

>>14694108
>>14694092
**self-correction
It does have a moral framework, but it is purely material and only functions on a quantitative basis. If you "alter" it so that this is no longer the case, it is no longer capitalism.

>> No.14694144

>>14694125
Cold materialism is sentimental. Don't dilute yourself.

>> No.14694152

>>14694127
What I find useful from post-modernism is that it gave a platform to gender, decoloniality and other marginalised groups. But like early idealist were the first to levy arguments against class society, which were then improved by materialism, the same is happening here. Gender theory, feminist theory, black studies and intersectionality ect are all valuable, but without class to lace it all together, its individual groups advocating for themselves without an understanding that these these come from class.

>> No.14694166

postmodernism was invented by the CIA to undermine marxism

>> No.14694171

>>14694132
Good, and you're right I am a nigger.
Now, is capitalism itself an entity? My instincts say obviously not, therefore it cannot possess morality itself and it must have a kind of pilot and whatever the morality, or lack thereof, which manifests therefore I contend that it is from the pilot.

>> No.14694193

>>14694066
I would tend to agree especially when it is known that the communist revolution in Russia was funded by the bankers in the west. The right, or more appropriately the world of Tradition, was defeated long ago and all that we have now is different factions within the left fighting for control.
The world is in ruins and the idiots fight for power over the rubble. What a sad state of affairs

>> No.14694200

>>14694144
Is it? Hard for me to see contemporary woke capitalism as anything but a derivative of Evangelical Christianity or Dissenter sects. The belief in equality that drives woke capitalists (which they learn in college) doesn't seem to derive from materialism in an obvious way, since materialists would conclude that there's no evidence for equality.

>> No.14694209

>>14694152
Have you ever wondered if a reconciliation of "post-modernsim" with Marxism would mean doing away with entirely with what you call "Marxism"? If so would you accept such a reconciliation?

>> No.14694213

>>14694200
>since materialists would conclude that there's no evidence for equality
Equality does logically follow from the homogeneity or reductionism of materialism. Egalitarianism comes directly out of the enlightenment empiricist tradition after all. You can go in either direction with it.

>> No.14694230

>>14694166
Based. The CIA are better philosophers than the Marxists.

>> No.14694233

>>14694193
They probably just wanted to set up investment opportunities in Russia, or they might've been sympathetic to Communism anyway. One of the biggest supporters of Stalin in the US was the son of the chairman of J.P. Morgan. But their reasoning was essentially along these lines:

>Communism is about being nice to poor people and supporting Democracy
>All decent people support these things
>I'm a nice and decent person
>Therefore I support Communism
>Uncle Joe is the head of Communism
>Therefore I support Uncle Joe

Nothing has really changed in this regard. I think a lot of these tendencies are derived from the fact that American Progressives essentially view most of the non-Western peoples of the world as children, and so a Communist revolt takes on a somehow "Pure" quality that appeals to them, and presents an opportunity for further moral rectification to take place in their eyes.

>> No.14694244

>>14694213
I don't get how that works. If you can establish scientifically that some people are smarter than others, more athletic than others, more talented than others, genetically, how does one derive equality from that?

>> No.14694249
File: 65 KB, 700x700, Evola on Mutts.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14694249

>>14694171
>>14694200
>>14694244
>>14694233
>>14694213
>it must have a kind of pilot and whatever the morality, or lack thereof, which manifests therefore I contend that it is from the pilot.
>Now, is capitalism itself an entity?
Capitalism is a meta-narrative and creates simulacra/hyper realities spontaneously. As long as capitalism exists, it will continue to do such. There is no "piloting" it, because in the end, it always "pilots" those who take part in it.

>and you're right I am a nigger.
Kill yourself, subhuman. Are you also the nigger saying that Beauty doesn't exist? Wouldn't shock me. Evola wrote that niggers are incapable of comprehending transcendental principles.

>The belief in equality that drives woke capitalists (which they learn in college) doesn't seem to derive from materialism in an obvious way, since materialists would conclude that there's no evidence for equality.
A rootless, cosmopolitan base of consumers with no identity makes for a good populace to sell product to.

The captchas are fucking awful right now, so this is probably going to be my last post. Look into Evola and Baudrillard if you want more information.

I recommend reading the short essay "American Civilization" by Evola.

>> No.14694252

>>14694213
>Egalitarianism
It's much older. Just a point of order, I'm going for a cigarette now.

>> No.14694263

>>14694209
Well no. Marxism isn't like, an "ideology" as such. Hedonism is an ideology, it posits something as a higher purpose that cannot change. Marxism however is a study of political-economy. Marxism changes as the world changes. In fact, this denial and refusal to accept change is something that is coming to a head within the marxism movement right now. Marxism-Leninism is old news, and some people cannot accept this. The idea that the working class is solely compose of big strong chad white male dockworkers is being challenged and some people cannot accept that. Marxism is going through a revolution in its thinking right now, and there are many good ideas and bad ideas flying around. This is why I don't think marxism needs to be "done away with", because there's room for change inside it because marxism is the science of the working class. And just as science changes, so does marxism.

>> No.14694265

>>14694249
Nobody is cosmopolitan in the US.

>> No.14694268

>>14694249
>going to be my last post
good, fuck off

>> No.14694293

>>14694263
What allows Marxism to retain it's identity with itself through these so-called changes? The answer is a presence, an ultimate anteriority, a transcendental signified. It is in this way that Marxism is an ideology just like any other, and subject to the "post-modern" innovation just like any other.

>> No.14694295
File: 476 KB, 1200x1800, Bulgarian Girl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14694295

>>14694265
>>14694268
>good, fuck off

One last post, you are a subhuman nigger that has no arguments, lol. Your university degree clearly didn't improve your IQ score.

>Nobody is cosmopolitan in the US.
Are you sure? What culture do Americans subscribe to? Whatever products they purchase, which is as universal as you can get. Money and product are their culture.

You can find some little examples of region cuisine, or music, or whatever, but at the end of the day, Americans are just consumers.

>> No.14694303

>>14694293
>What allows Marxism to retain it's identity with itself through these so-called changes?
The authority of the CPUSSR vested in the Chairman in Moscow.

>> No.14694313

>>14694244
Materialism is, in the final analysis, monism. If all that exists is matter in a perpetual state of change and flux then all distinctions are epiphenomenal. Only a materialist could believe that everything is socially constructed.

>> No.14694336

>>14693777
no, you are confusing ontology and metaphysics, Stalin's character is a matter of ontology not metaphysics

>> No.14694343

>>14692405
Just say modernist and you won't look as retarded

>> No.14694419

>>14694295
I suppose when I think of "cosmopolitan" I think of someone who might be truly "a citizen of the world", as in, a cultured, well-traveled person in some sense, someone who might be at home in the great cities of Europe before it went to shit.

However, US culture actively goes against this because of the idea of equality central to it. It's not possible to become such a person because it would require a notion of being "cultured", which would immediately set off a struggle session in the US over the lack of representation of colored people that everyone would rather just avoid. Even the idea of trying to elevate lower orders of people is absent, and we all know why that is. To me it's an inherently silly culture rooted in silly Protestant sects.

>> No.14694476

>>14694313
Maybe my reasoning is simply too profane to grasp this point, but why does

>all distinctions are epiphenomenal
follow from
>all that exists is matter in a perpetual state of change and flux

Doesn't this kind of sacralize matter in some sense, as in "You and I are both just epiphenomena of matter fluxes at the end of the day, therefore we're equal because we're all just matter". But why should we expect two "chunks of matter" (people) to be equal when scientific analysis shows them to not be equal in quantifiable ways? Plus, historically, the belief in equality descended from Christianity, not so much scientific materialism.

>> No.14694524

>>14694263
>Marxism-Leninism is old news
China says otherwise, kid.

>> No.14694601

>>14694524
China isn't and never was Marxist-Leninist. China today isn't even marxist.

>> No.14694841

>>14692398
They tried, some of them valiantly, but it was all based on misapprehensions to start with so they couldn't help but be off in the end.

>> No.14694855
File: 156 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14694855

>>14694601
>China isn't Marxist
why do I keep seeing this cope? you can argue about socialism/communism, and I would agree with you, but Marxism? really?

>> No.14694879

>>14694855
No. He might have a "marxism degree", but the only class conflict Xi has ever been in is when Mao sent him to the countryside to learn what being a proletarian was. He's a party prince. Having a marxism degree won't change that.

>> No.14694892

>>14694855
>cucking your 3000 year old ethnocultural tradition for some 19th century German yid who waffled on about incoherent concepts like homogenous labor
Why did the ant people do this

>> No.14694908

>>14694892
>your 3000 year old ethnocultural tradition
China was always multi-racial. Look at gedmatch results of any Chinese person from central or western china. They are all hapas. You don't know jack shit about Chinese history.

>> No.14694926

>>14694908
they might be mutts but they're asian mutts, what the fuck does a German Jew have to do with them

>> No.14694957

>>14694926
>asian mutts
The Mongols brought in a lot of Persians, Arabs, Indo-Aryans, and Jews to demographically harass the Han Chinese. After the Mongols lost and the Ming took power, they were all forced to marry Chinese spouses. Chinese are all Asian-Persian-Semite mutts.

>> No.14694978

>>14694879
based no true scottsman anon

>> No.14695029

>>14694978
Its not no true scotsman. Xi isn't a marxist, the regime he inherited wasn't marxist. The fact is, Deng and his clique beat Mao in the cultural revolution and went onto build revisionism. That's the simply the facts. Nothing about China is marxist. Selling weapons to Duerte's fascist regime is not socialism. Oppressing your own working class to build iphones is not socialism. Social credit is not socialism. Billionaires running the "communist party" is not socialism. Killing African workers and buying up all their resources is not socialism. China and Russia are capitalist, there is no "socialism" existent right now.

>> No.14695040

https://strawpoll.com/ef7e4xkx

>> No.14695074

>>14695029
>Nothing about China is marxist. Selling weapons to Duerte's fascist regime is not socialism. Oppressing your own working class to build iphones is not socialism. Social credit is not socialism. Billionaires running the "communist party" is not socialism. Killing African workers and buying up all their resources is not socialism. China and Russia are capitalist, there is no "socialism" existent right now.
see how you started talking about Marxism and instantly pivoted to.arguing they aren't socialist? I agree they aren't socialist. they agree they aren't socialist. Marxism does not mean socialism.

>> No.14695115

>>14695074
I talk about marxism as the theory, socialism as the system. At no point did marx, or any marxist, ever advocate what China since Mao is doing. I mean, Marx advocated Proletarian internationalism. How is giving out predatory loans to developing countries and monopolising their resources Proletarian internationalism? It isn't.

>> No.14695127

>>14692498
Magnificent photo.

>> No.14695275

>>14695115
>At no point did marx, or any marxist, ever advocate what China since Mao is doing.
lets take this in two parts. first, we can both agree China isn't socialist, and what is going on there seems much closer to capitalism. so, first, did Marx advocate capitalism? yes! yes he did! in almost everything he's written! this idea that Marx was a moralist condemning capitalism is a farce. he was very clear, capitalism is the most productive system ever seen, and that the productive forces unleashed by capitalism will create the material conditions for socialism to arise. he even advocates against protectivism, as the more capitalism goes on the closer we get to socialism. "slowing things down" was not what Marx wanted.
okay, second, did Marxists ever advocate what is going on in China? yes! obviously! read some Chinese Marxists some time anon. they are very clear that according to this logic, capitalism still remains the system which drives history forward, and that in order to produce the conditions for socialism, capitalism must be continued rather than restricted. this is a reading they got directly from Marx, and to be honest, it is much closer to Marxist theory than a lot of the so called "Marxists" here in North America who couldn't even be bothered to read him before trying to argue Marx was actually pro-trans rights

>> No.14695373

>>14695275
Marx did not "advocate" capitalism. He said that gestating within it was the conditions for socialism. That is true. But at no point did marx or engles argue for capitalism on a moral basis; in fact, Engles literally said that capitalism had done extreme harm and worsened the conditions of the workers from even feudalism. At least in feudalism for the most part they had their own land and homes and weren't eating shitty poisonous adulterated food. Capitalism is not a good thing. Its merely that marx and engles saw inside it the genesis of socialism, just how the Roman manorial system had the genesis of feudalism within it.

Capitalism was *a* force that drove history forward, marx makes it clear that capitalism needs to be overthrown and that even in his time, it had gone on long enough. There is no argument for perpetuating capitalism, not then and not now.

>> No.14695415

>>14693115
Read boschwittz and it refutes what you are saying

>> No.14695428

>>14695373
>at no point did marx or engles argue for capitalism on a moral basis
first, I said as much in my post. second, you must miss the point, because China isn't advocating for capitalism for moral reason but for reasons of material production, the same reason Marx advocates for capitalism. read Marx's speech on free trade.
>Capitalism is not a good thing
Marx wasn't a moralist anon, you are falling into a trap. what matters is the material conditions of society and their development. if you want to moralize about capitalism and wag your finger all day, socialism will never come about. I agree Marx thought those conditions had already been reached, but come on, obviously they weren't considering where we are today.

>> No.14695456

>>14692927
>using gay as an insult
Nazi.

>> No.14695489

>>14695428
>The Revolution in China is an example for all the world!
>China is just dealing with the realities of having to build socialism.
>Sure, it looks like China is reverting to capitalism, but really they're just developing the productive forces. (you are here)
>It was never real socialism.
It keeps happening.

>> No.14695508

>>14695489
if you are a braindead retard who can't keep the ideas of socialism and Marxism separate in your brain that's fine. personally I think socialism will never happen so you can take that for whatever it's worth. there have been small scale examples of it but it always collapses or capitulates

>> No.14695510

>>14695428
Good post. I dislike moralizing "marxists" in the extreme, since they are not even on the same cogniscent plain to understand the stuff they are espousing.

>> No.14695526

>>14695508
>if you are a braindead retard who can't keep the ideas of socialism and Marxism separate in your brain
Is this stage 4b socialism?

>> No.14695527

>>14695428
How much material production do they need? And they can't even make that argument, because many rural parts of China remain poor. The NEP lasted 8 years. China's "NEP" has lasted 30. How much longer do they need until these saintly billionaires are going to descend from the heavens and "give" the Chinese working class their bountiful fruits?

>> No.14695560

>>14695527
see
>>14695508
I don't think socialism as Marx meant it (class ownership of the means of production) will ever happen

>> No.14695564

Postmodern Philosophy is
Postmodern as a concept in art is not

>> No.14695574

>click on postmodernism thread
>people talking about Marx

>> No.14695582

>>14695564
Other way around

>> No.14695656

>>14695560
It can happen because it has happened.

>> No.14695668

>>14695656
kek, so it happened and then disappeared? Marx's entire theory of historical materialism is wrong? good to know

>> No.14695687

>>14695668
It literally happened in marx's lifetime. Look at the Paris Commune.

>> No.14695700
File: 301 KB, 1280x924, EDF8111A-4F97-4C01-9BDC-43AB938560D2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14695700

>>14692864
Fucking based. Welcome to the fourth fall faggots. The Kings of Labor rise.

>> No.14695712

>>14694957
Eh, I dont agree with the guy yo responded to, but they had very little influence on the han genepool. the most was horsetribe, besides that, exedingly little.

>> No.14695844

>>14692398
Metapolitically no.
It served a useful cultural-political function so it was adopted.

Morally, yes it is bullshit. Deconstruction for deconstruction sake is about as malum in se as smashing things with baseball bat because you can.

>> No.14695845

>>14695687
the Paris Commune was a total failure anon. it lasted less than 3 months. my point that is only works in small scale for short periods of time is supported by this so try again

>> No.14695854

>>14695845
Pretty much agree. I liked the time in the US in the 1800's when there was just little communes poping up everywhere experimenting. Shakers, quakers, utopian and copeian. It was interesting.

>> No.14695874

>>14695845
Yes it was. Hence why marx explained they needed an organised state.

>> No.14695875

>>14695668
>Marx's entire theory of historical materialism is wrong?
It was a moral argument wrapped in the vernier of a materialist one: the proletariat should be on the top of hierarchy because blah blah blah feels.

At least the Neo-Marxists were less glib and were just open that this was an interchangeable moral argument: Any perceived oppressed class should be on the top of the hierarchy because blah blah blah feels.
In the end, its a lot easier to quantify material wealth than social condition, so Marx went with materialism.

>> No.14695884

>>14695854
you might like the stammering century by gilbert seldes, if you have not read it already

>> No.14695908

>>14692864
>he actually transcended post-structuralism
Pretty much all of them claimed to or rejected that label

>> No.14696009
File: 344 KB, 576x467, 1581248371304.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14696009

>>14693305
>things can't fundamentally change, its just quantity being shifted around.
Holy shit your brain on Marxism. Something being shifted around is it changing locations. There is temporality inherent in something that moves from one state to another.

>> No.14696020

>>14696009
he skipped Parmenides

>> No.14696071

>>14692398
reading postmodern books goes like this
> expectations
whirlwind of references, subversed classic narratives, unseen originality, unprecedented forms
> reality
TRIANGULAR DICK

>> No.14696081
File: 3.00 MB, 362x345, 1580776635961.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14696081

>>14693723
>Metaphysics in the philosophical sense is the idea that there are fundamental eternal things.
It's not tho. It's true that the claim "there are fundamental eternal things" is a metaphysical statement, but so is the converse. Metaphysics is concerned with the nature of being, truth, existence etc. You claim that there aren't eternal things is a metaphysical claim.

>> No.14696096

>>14694081
I actually may read this guy, I've had similar thoughts but I saw /lit/ hated him so he never made it on to my reading list.

>> No.14696101

>>14692398
no

>> No.14696365

>>14692398
Post Modernism is based
If you want to get into to check out Rick Roderick's 8 part 'The Self Under Siege' on YouTube. (he has a lot of other also)
This one's are my favorite, Pick one at random if you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U9WMftV40c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MsNyR-epBM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WklSWj3-B1A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AILpwUTPRGQ

>> No.14696369

>>14694601
China is still socialist.
https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/china-70-years-of-the-peoples-republic-and-building-socialism/

https://palladiummag.com/2019/05/31/xi-jinping-in-translation-chinas-guiding-ideology/
https://stalinsmoustache.org/2018/08/27/what-about-the-chinese-workers/

>> No.14696378

>>14692652
>Continental 'philosophy'
There is a false dichotomy so even suggest 'continental' philosophy a term worth using out side of utility.

>> No.14696427

>>14696365
got through the 1st one.

https://slate.com/technology/2010/02/a-history-of-media-technology-scares-from-the-printing-press-to-facebook.html

OP you will learn more about postmodernism from the sokal affair than any of the actual writers.

>> No.14697139

>>14692917
Evola is unequivocally a modern man.

>> No.14697729

>>14692398
No,
proof is the eternal butthurt it gets by fascist, marxist, liberals, and traditionalists.

It btfo ed them for all eternity and they cant cope, cause they cant stand the thaught of multiple narratives with different interpretations of the world which are all valid.

Everyone who looks down on POMO is one of these "I red exactly 1(ONE) book and i interpret the whole reality through it" types.

>> No.14697802

>>14693526
Beyng

>> No.14697840

>>14692398
Post-modernism is just tobacco smoked for affect, rather than effect.

>> No.14699160

>>14693523
>The physicist is content to create a mathematical structure that generates correct predictions.

It would be quicker to just say 'I don't understand science.'

>> No.14699617

>>14699160
Nice projection, moron.

>> No.14699673

>>14692398
>>14695844
This. If followed logically, it is a self deconstructing system that is not only moot, but also irrelevent. At worse, It makes one vainly think they are objective while still being defined by antithesis, making one strawman a position instead of trying to understand it as a causal rational process.

Its fine if you are a deconstuctionalist, but if you are not deconstructing yourself and how you got to that point and instead are critiquing the world, you will most likely be destructive.

>> No.14700897

>>14696427
cringe

>> No.14701368

>>14692398
Foucault and Bataille are based

>> No.14701988

>>14694295
Jokes on you, I'm not black or university educated.
Is a meta-narrative an entity?