/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15035399]

Are there right wing post modernist philosophers? I think that one could approach post modernism from a right wing perspective with its critiques of modern society and capitalism and what not, but all of the post modern philosophers that I have heard of were leftists and atheists.

[Anonymous No.15035441]

relativism isn't in line with theology, which comprises the majority of "right wing" foundation

[Anonymous No.15035450]

>>15035399
The entire alt right is postmodern.

>>15035441
Moral relativism isn't the same as postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.15035469]

>>15035450
>Postmodernism, also spelled post-modernism, in Western philosophy, a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.
they are close enough that one considered right will will dislike both

[Anonymous No.15035508]

>>15035441
But isn't a lot of postmodern philosophy a reaction against modern society? Couldn't one be a reactionary right winger with postmodern critical thought as part of his analysis of the problems of modern society?
>>15035450
>The entire alt right is postmodern.
How so?

[Anonymous No.15035536]

>>15035508
in the sense that it isn't modern philosophy, sure, but the term has a definition, which i posted above, and that definition is comprised of schools of thought that are opposite to the desires of the right.

[Anonymous No.15035553]

>>15035508
>postmodern philosophy a reaction against modern society?
It's not a reaction against modern society but a skepticism to the narrative of unmitigated progress endorsed by a lot of modernists (IE, that scientific, social and artistic progress only moves in one direction, and that direction is unquestionably good and 'just'). So yes, that anon is right, many of the tools which the postmodern left created (ironic distance, cynicism, suspicion of grand metanarratives, etc.) have actually been reappropriated by the alt-right as a form of media manipulation. Basically the left kind of distanced itself from postmodernity around the 80s/90s, believing it to effectively be dead and redundant, but the reactionary right has since taken up the mantle and started to apply various postmodern concepts to media theory, particularly in relation to social media, which is why it often seems like the left is so shit at making memes and behind the curve when it comes to "owning the narrative", and also explains why phenomena such as Brexit and Trump were able to gain so much traction.

[Anonymous No.15035632]

>>15035553
It seems to me that one can see this in two different ways. One way is what you described as skepticism to the modernist narrative of progress and so on. But the other way of approaching this is that modern society has made it SEEM as if there is no absolute truth, everything is relative, and so on, but that there actually IS absolute truth which we have lost touch with due to modernization.

[Anonymous No.15035755]

Critique is, by its very nature, not right-wing.

[Anonymous No.15035808]

>>15035632
>modern society has made it SEEM as if there is no absolute truth, everything is relative, and so on, but that there actually IS absolute truth
Nah, modern society gave us the "absolute truth" of unmitigated progress, IE. that the forward motion of history is always good, but even that has become unsustainable for literally everyone on both the left and the right. This was what carried us through both world wars, but after that, it was a practically untenable thing to believe: How could progress be perfectly good if it led us into a war that was even worse than the first one?

In the contemporary age, the only people who have any kind of certainty in truth are religious folk. For the (alt) right (which is essentially what the popular right is at this point, the religious/traditional side has kind of been forgotten about), there is no truth, there is only media optics and "owning the narrative"; for the left, there are no absolute certainties, there are only relative/local/subjective truths based on self-identity and personal expression.

[Anonymous No.15035835]

>>15035399
Postmodernism is neither right nor left. It's just gibberish. It's like asking whether a Jackson Pollock is a landscape or a portrait.

[Anonymous No.15035871]

>>15035835
t. prager university

[Anonymous No.15035902]

>>15035508
Post-modernism is the movement beyond modernism. It is brought on by accepting modernism but then creating something new by integrating the inherent contradictions in the modernist program. The right wing response to modernism has in many ways been a reactionary one which rejects the premises of modernism outright, rather than synthesizing them into something new.

The closest you could get to a right wing postmodern program in my opinion would be something like a contemporary embrace of Nietzsche as both relativist and elitist (although the last time the right tried this it didn't go well).

Nick Land might be the kind of thinker you're looking for. Even Moldbug's brand of nrx has some neo-Hegelian elements that verge on the postmodern.

[Anonymous No.15035909]

>>15035835
Boomer cringe.

[Anonymous No.15036019]

>>15035871
Prager = rightwing

[Anonymous No.15036034]

>>15035909
Boomers promoted postmodernism, dumbfuck.

[Anonymous No.15036074]

>>15035902
>Nick Land might be the kind of thinker you're looking for
lol no

[Anonymous No.15036121]

>>15035808
>How could progress be perfectly good if it led us into a war that was even worse than the first one?
Germans were reactionaries. You can't use WW2 to break the ilusion of progress when the view is basically "Fucking reactionaries"

[Anonymous No.15036182]

>>15036034
The average boomer probably doesn't even know what postmodernism is.

[Anonymous No.15036188]

How can postmodernists say "There is no absolute truth" when making that statement is in itself an absolute?

[Anonymous No.15036194]

>>15036121
>You can't use WW2 to break the ilusion of progress
I was talking more about the bombing of nagasaki than fucking up the germans. Like its reasonable to argue that the bombing of hiroshima was a necessary evil, but many people (including the people involved with the development and deployment of the bombs) felt that the second was excessively unethical.

[Anonymous No.15036200]

>>15036188
Can you direct me to the postmodernist thinker in particular who said that quote, and the source material please? Interested to know more, since you seem pretty clued-in on the subject?

[Anonymous No.15036221]

>>15036200
Isn't postmodernism all about the rejection of the concept of truth?

[Anonymous No.15036250]

>>15036182
Nor does the average zoomer, millennial, or gen-xer. What's your point?

[Anonymous No.15036261]

>>15036221
Yes, but you said "how can postmodernists say" and then gave a quote. I want to know who specifically you are quoting here.

[Anonymous No.15036262]

>>15036200
Citation is a modernist technique that presupposes a distinction between truth and fiction.

[Anonymous No.15036268]

>>15036261
Are you full-on autistic?

[Anonymous No.15036276]

The only relevant non-leftist contemporary philosopher is Peter Sloterdijk. And I wouldn't call him "right wing" or even "reactionary" he's simply not a Marxist.

[Anonymous No.15036281]

>>15036268
No, I'm just holding you to account for the things you say. If you say that "postmodernists say", I want to know which ones, and the source material in which they said it. Why is that so difficult?

>>15036262
That is irrelevant. Anon gave a quote and I want to know the author of said quote. It really shouldn't be this difficult if that anon knows what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.15036283]

>>15036188
No one ever said that

[Anonymous No.15036292]

>>15036281
You're presupposing there is such a thing as a "true quotation". Your mind is hopelessly mired in a pre-postmodern framework.

[Anonymous No.15036301]

>>15036283
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22There+is+no+absolute+truth%22

[Anonymous No.15036336]

>>15036276
Tell me about his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15036342]

>>15035399
Perhaps

[Anonymous No.15036346]

>>15036292
Of course there is. What, do you think audio recordings or video footage of people saying things is a "pre-postmodern" phenomena? You're just being needlessly evasive and slippery because you know that no "postmodernist" thinker has ever actually made that specific claim.

[Anonymous No.15036354]

Is Zizek a postmodernist?

[Anonymous No.15036361]

>>15036301
the only person I can find who directly said that is a dude called Debashish Mirdha, and he is not a postmodernist.

[Anonymous No.15036381]

>>15036336
Do your own research, don't take my word for it. He's a phenomenologist who works with dualistic concepts to espouse a radical vision of Nietzsche's eternal return. He is staunchly non-Marxist from his first book onwards, but he gets more conservative (in the deepest sense of the term) around the turn of the millennium. I'd recommend starting with "Critique of Cynical Reason."

[Anonymous No.15036417]

>>15036346
Postmodernism is a way of thinking, not a particular time period. Lyotard and Derrida both insisted on the absence of absolute truth.

[Anonymous No.15036450]

>>15036361
Keep looking.

[Anonymous No.15036454]

>>15036417
>Lyotard and Derrida both insisted on the absence of absolute truth.
so give me the quotes that demonstrate this. You can't namedrop if you're not also going to give the relevant quotes, because otherwise I could say >religious fundamentalists say "its okay to eat your own poop"
And not have to give justification for it, and that would be totally fine.

We can come to a compromise, if you like. I'll acknowledge that Derrida and Lyotard really did say those things, if you acknowledge that religious fundamentalists say its okay to eat your own poop, and then neither of us will have to provide evidence, but we must necessarily accept what the other is saying as true without question. sound good?

[Anonymous No.15036466]

>>15036454
You clearly are not familiar with the work of Derrida and Lyotard.

>we must necessarily accept what the other is saying as true without question. sound good?
Now you're getting it.