What’s up with postmodernism?

[Anonymous No.14998472]

Guys, I’d like someone to either explain post-modernism to me or justifying my befuddlement. I usually coast completely fine when the topic is brought up in class, it’s not hard in mental praxis to question the validity of shit, but most times, outside of a few academic articles I actually did enjoy, It just seem to be playing polemics with semi-stawmened Abstract ideas. Instead of rising above value judgements and analyzing it’s contingent nature, they seem to just talk in circles in a self made dialectic about it. And when I try to get them to understand that their critiques are also subject to contingency, an antithesis to the supposed thesis, they assume I just didn’t get their initial critique to begin with, and that I can’t mentally comprehend that the original idea being critiqued is a false one (which assumes like some theoretical truth exists), like that Europe exists.

It’s like a whole circle jerk to something Hume explained in like a paragraph, the difference between relation of ideas and matters of fact. It’s talked about like it’s some manufactured conspiracy that needs to be dismantled when it’s a core part of the human experience. they use particular relations of ideas to critique other relations of ideas, but not others. Ignoring some and focusing on others based on the very concepts they set out to critique.

[Anonymous No.14998490]

>>14998472
And going of this, at least I can give Kudos to Foucault about being honest about this in practice and staying in a moral stupor of not knowing what to know is right instead of somehow twisting the whole process for some holier than thou moral bent that the process seems antithetical too.