/lit/ - Literature

based

>>14695648
and prayer book recs

>>14695643
I always felt a lot of low identity politcs came downstream and reduced from postmodernists critiques that then become popular enough to be a form of modernism in themselves, becoming somewhat (not completely) straw manning in nature and disingenuous.

>>14695669
I was thinking the same thing, but didn't have the words for it.

>>14695723
Yah, I kind of find it hard too. THe very idea of post modernism is to critique the modern world, but what happens when self critique becomes a defining part of the modern world? in that case you have to critique the critique, but that becomes to meta for most, so even when they are in this form of thought they critique instead their immediate progenitors idea of modernity, becoming false flagging. For example, when you see a story of a colonial power and a nattive one, id assume that most people nowadays would root for the natives, but yet, it is presented as if it is subverting the audiences expectation by championing the natives cause. Like that want to have the benifits of doing something subversive, while that very subversive thing is not subzersuve in the least. This then leads to flanderization and half truths to sustain the self image of enlightenment and revolution.

>>14695762
>yet, it is presented as if it is subverting the audiences expectation by championing the natives cause. Like that want to have the benifits of doing something subversive, while that very subversive thing is not subzersuve in the least. This then leads to flanderization and half truths to sustain the self image of enlightenment and revolution.
Thats fucking based

That reminds me of a Kierkegaard quote. "When in a nation all are Christian, ipso facto non are." Now it's more like 'when everyone is woke no one really is'. We have the sense of being subjects (being a being), yet now we are but objects simulating the simulation of being (a subject onto its self). It is far more likely that a person now will have an extreme emotional experience to the idea of acting subversive, rather than to truly even step more than an inch out of line.

He tips his fedora when I scroll by

>>14695663

>>14695916
Definitely. Good to hear someone else has felt this same thing. Of course, as the logic goes, these degrees of subversion are continual and will not end there. Im under no illusion that my dislike for this is not also a post-modernist one. I am not outside the system. As a low example, the "alt-right" does the same thing critiquing the left who are doing the same, but as it has grown, it also has begun to flanderize the postmodernist left whom they see as modernists and reactionary too. And if you want to get real meta, breadtubers are the postmodernists to this and so on.

IMO The only way to get out of this artificial revolution, this preoccupation with diometics, is to reorient thought from revolution to synthesis and reinterpretation, as reaction is only one degree away from, and in essesnce defined by convention. I could go on longer, but I feel that it would take up a good amount of space. This is why I like to read older books, because its easier to understand where their biases lie, and in a way, its more honest.

>>14695762
>in that case you have to critique the critique
I believe that's the "negation of a negation" of Hegel.

>>14696064
I havent got to Hegel yet, still making my way through Locke. I need to get Hume and Kant under my belt next, but im happy iv come across the same line of thought as other thinkers!

>>14696040
>reorient thought from revolution to synthesis and reinterpretation
I guess the question is what specifically is the antitheses of the contemporary world? Is this going to turn in to some Nick Land type counter cutler?

>>14696149
Have no idea, and I try not to read outside of geneological order. Again, am at Locke. I dont think I am going to a good grasp on german idealism anytime soon... not eto even mention modern stuff like Land.

Anyways, I want to get away from INTENTIONAL antithesis entirely. As a implicit trend I dont mind it, but if one is intentionally trying to reject something, again, they are bound by it more than anything. Counter anything will just continue the cycle.

>>14696210
>As a implicit trend I don't mind it, but if one is intentionally trying to reject something, again, they are bound by it more than anything.
This literately made me jump out of my chair. How the fuck did I not think of that. Goddamn anon I think in need to reread Hegel myself.

>>14695643
>and nothing changes

>>14696029
>Jung on Active Imagination
Based.