Debunking Postmodernists?

[Anonymous No.18035549]

I’m in university, so I’m surrounded by Progressives. I have an instinctual *need* to refute what I see to be false. And many Progressives base their views (often unknowingly and implicitly) on metaphysical and ethical relativism, even if inconsistently applied. But relativism *cannot* be true, as it trammels the valid axiom of reality being independent from what we petty humans feel or think.
Furthermore, a lot of these impulses contain influences from postmodern philosophy, which, although clearly heterogenous, is deeply irrational (and therefore cannot be a valid line of thinking).

I get angry when I hear these ideas, and I just want to free people from their snares. I’ve lost my cool on a few occasions, and that’s clearly bad, but I don’t know how to not be angered by the continued repetition of such nonsense. Please help, anons.

[Anonymous No.18035565]

>>18035549
quietly smile when you hear them and move on with your studies.

[Anonymous No.18035570]

>>18035565
How do you do it anon? If only I had half your patience?

[Anonymous No.18035571]

>>18035549
The trick is not to argue with a postmodernist (relativist) but rather get 2 of them together and have them debate each other.

[Anonymous No.18035585]

>>18035571
Kek. I just wanna be able to live my life, but I cannot really live it if they keep spreading their lies.

[Anonymous No.18035599]

>>18035549
Postmodernism is too wide a movement to "debunk" in some simple way. It's just a blanket term to describe the sentiment that "modernism can go to some not-so-good places" as articulated across the 20th century and it was never boogieman'd into some synonym for "woke" until really Jordan Peterson.

[Anonymous No.18035625]

>>18035599
Nice double doubles. But wouldn’t you agree at least, that a rejection of belief in objective reality refutes itself?

[Anonymous No.18035631]

>>18035549
You sound really fucking stupid lmao, and before you strawman me as a “postmodernist” know I likely agree with you on most things

[Anonymous No.18035656]

>>18035625
>still believing in objective reality
Very cringe, apply yourself.

[Anonymous No.18035660]

>>18035549
Imagine not choosing STEM at uni and complaining about progressives.

[Anonymous No.18035670]

>>18035549
Continue with the Greeks and eventually you'll understand once you reach Kant.

[Anonymous No.18035672]

Just mock them. Tell them the only reason they think the way they do is because they're too stupid to study science and math.

[Anonymous No.18035692]

>>18035656
>Very cringe, apply yourself.
is it objectively true that there is no objective reality? You were cringe enough to believe in subjectivism, and I cannot reason you out of it. You are therefore a madman who wants the whole world to bow to his subjective feeling. That is all you pomos ever were.

[Anonymous No.18035707]

>>18035660
The thing is though: I want there to be *no* Progressives.
>>18035670
I’m just tryna anticipate: are you arguing for or against Pomo?

[Anonymous No.18035708]

>>18035549
COPE

[Anonymous No.18035713]

literally have you read a single book before or do you think you are the first to think of this?

[Anonymous No.18035719]

Could anyone tell me how this neo-sophism got off the ground? Like why did these pseudo intellectuals ever get jobs? Or get published?
And how can we “deconstruct” (destroy) this intellectual fraud?

[Anonymous No.18035725]

>>18035719
If you could understand you wouldn't be here asking 4chan to explain it to you

[Anonymous No.18035732]

>>18035713
I read a lot. And I don’t think I’m the first one. But reason can only be questioned with reason; logic only with logic. There is no way to “debunk” objectivity, reason and coherence. They simple *are*. To believe you have is therefore to LARP.

[Anonymous No.18035736]

>>18035725
Gtfo Pomo.

[Anonymous No.18035746]

Give an example of an argument youve had

[Anonymous No.18035767]

>>18035746
One guy was literally telling me “it is just my opinion” that objective truth exist. Another bitch said “Hurr durr it just *is* true that systemic oppression exists”.
And I’m wondering: where do they ingest this poison? And why do they accept it?

[Anonymous No.18035779]

>>18035767
That's the point where you just look them in the eye and say you cannot have conversation with such an obtuse, disingenuous, shell of a human and ignore their existence until they apologize.

[Anonymous No.18035787]

>>18035767
Just mock the first guy by doing >>18035672 and just continue to say "prove it" to the girl over and over so long as she continues to talk.
They aren't giving arguments so you don't need to either.

[Anonymous No.18035789]

>>18035779
Thanks. Trouble is: people would unite against me if I did it to that girl.

I still wanna know *why* this drug basically, is so addictive? Cuz maybe then I can “reverse engineer” it.

[Anonymous No.18035795]

>>18035549
Try being humbled in the fact that you're not as smart as you think you are

[Anonymous No.18035799]

>>18035787
Based. This is in a class setting tho, and there are some pretty bitches I wanna bang. Not to mention that I don’t wanna be hated by everyone. So I can’t appear too unsympathetic.

[Anonymous No.18035800]

If you feel so passionately about engaging with morons, then you are just as big a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.18035803]

>>18035787
Based. This is in a class setting tho, and there are some pretty bitches I wanna bang. Not to mention that I don’t wanna be hated by everyone. So I can’t appear too unsympathetic.

[Anonymous No.18035808]

>>18035803
Are you into race realism?

[Anonymous No.18035834]

>>18035795
Maybe I’m not smart... but at least I’m sane ;)

[Anonymous No.18035837]

>>18035800
I know. I just need to be able to not be a moron.
>>18035808
Relevance?

[Anonymous No.18035844]

>>18035837
It’s obviously not relevant to your original post, but I was just wondering

[Anonymous No.18035853]

>>18035549
You're just as big a moron as the people you're complaining about, getting ass blasted over people having ideas that you don't know to be wrong, believing in what you feel to be right without understanding it.

Instead of wanting you know, you want to score a meaningless victory over peers, so you ask for arguments instead of truth. The way you pose your question reveals both your ignorance and your low personality.

[Anonymous No.18035875]

>>18035844
Discord me: Iiii2001#5122

[Anonymous No.18035876]

Critique them but read postmodern fiction

[Anonymous No.18035882]

>>18035853
>that you don't know to be wrong
I don’t know that self-contradictions are false?

[Anonymous No.18035884]

>>18035692
It's not a question of whether atoms moving about space is real, but whether we as humans can actually objectively experience things.
But within humanities fields, shit gets even blurrier. All human theories are the products of a particular given social and temporal context, and were create to fulfil a need of the time. This needs to be recognises when dealing with human ideas. It can even make them powerful, because they become lenses used to solve specific problems.

[Anonymous No.18035886]

>>18035876
How do I critique them without becoming a hated figure?

[Anonymous No.18035893]

>>18035884
>All human theories are the products of a particular given social and temporal context
Even that theory?

[Anonymous No.18035898]

>>18035875
Add that if you want to discuss. Unless you don’t have Disc

[Anonymous No.18035900]

>>18035767
I don't think there is anything wrong with the positions they hold - there are lots of big thinkers and schools of academia who have defended those points. The problem is that you're in undergrad and so you're surrounded by people who have opinions, and lots of them, and haven't really yet fully polished these opinions and found good reasons for having them.
Most people, no matter their belief system, often just hold it cause their tummy tells them - not any rigorous self-inquiry and research.

[Anonymous No.18035908]

>>18035900
Trouble is, if an idea is self-contradictory it is invalid. Also... then they need stomach surgery, kek.

[Anonymous No.18035923]

>>18035908
For to be valid *just is* to be true, for to be logically incoherent *just is to be invalid*. If you want me to justify it any further it’d become basically just like asking “why is bad bad” or “why is good good”

[Anonymous No.18035927]

Why don't you tell us what this grand contradiction that disproves subjectivism is then?

[Anonymous No.18035947]

>>18035927
Okay, what’s to stop me from spreading “my truth” that truth is objective, and thereby having it held as the subjective truth that subjectivity itself is false? Subjectivism contains the seeds of its own destruction.

[Anonymous No.18035965]

>>18035893
Even that theory, even that theory. It's the beauty and chaos of the validity of multiple-perspectives.
>>18035908
Depends on the ends you're trying to achieve. If we're trying to make claims about the universe, do some experiements and then invent a machine, we kinda want everything we know to be cohesive and fit together. If we're talking about people - you can kinda mash stuff together and it does the job. It's like having an object and looking at it from different angles - to me that is what post-structuralism offers.

But more generally, perhaps with your class debates I think you might have a bit more nuance and fun if you can try to have some kind of middle ground where your debates can happen. Plato in his books would spend a lot of time defining terms. You and your classmates have such radically different perspectives you're basically talking about different things. Their perspectives are the partial result of their upbringing/worldview, and yours are its own product.

[Anonymous No.18035974]

>>18035965
Humans are part of the universe and nothing we do is outside of it's laws.

[Anonymous No.18035984]

Don't worry about epistemology or metaphysics. They are not solvable just as we cannot step out of our consciousness and take a look from an outside perspective on its constituents and mechanisms. God exists. I know it. But don't confuse yourself. Progressives, if you mean it in the mainstream contemporary US sense, are not postmodernists.

[Anonymous No.18035991]

>>18035947
What do you mean by "spreading truth"?

[Anonymous No.18035993]

>>18035965
>Even that theory, even that theory.
Hmmm... then why do you disbelieve me when I argue that that theory is bunk?
> If we're talking about people - you can kinda mash stuff together and it does the job.
Well in that instance, it approximates the truth closely enough to be true. But it’s still false. But yes, I know.

Also... whenever propositions are *not* a subject of concern, irrationality is admissible. However, this is only insofar as such irrationality isn’t elevated to the level of saying something about the real world. So for example, poetry can involve physically and chronologically impossible events... but this admissible *because poetry is contained within its own sphere*. It does not attempt to override its limit and say something about the real world. The poet would not claim “a man can be born one year and ten years later be fighting in a war” (ahem... Homer).

[Anonymous No.18036000]

>>18035974
Bingo. But he’s right that in everyday life we don’t need to be as precise.
>>18035991
Through convincing people either through narrative or debate.

[Anonymous No.18036056]

>>18035974
Sure. That means nothing. It is a fact. But we then live and participate in a society in which people have lots of different views. In your original post you mention ethical relativism - as far as I am aware, science has never discovered any ethical or moral codes in its study of the laws of the universe. Until that time, if it ever happens, it is a relativistic pursuit.
>>18035993
I personally believe that post-modernism holds value in how it can help people live their lives, and perceieve the world. In fact, I think it tells me more about how to live my life than the laws of thermodynamics do. Of course, I still try to work towards refining beliefs, collecting evidnce and arguments.
In your example, the poetry can still tell us things about the person who wrote it and the kind of society in which they did their writing.

[Anonymous No.18036066]

>>18036056
Ethics and morality do not exist. Neither does subjectivity.
Everyone and everything is an object.

[Anonymous No.18036072]

>>18035993
Further, what is the real world. Can people only make valid statements about physical phenomena?
Philosophy still hasn't decided how to properly deal with the gettier problems, so there is a strong case to say that human beings cannot hold valid knowledge - a superintelligent computer could, but not a fleshy meat-thing human.

[Anonymous No.18036075]

>>18035549
All you have to do to defeat a postmodernist is ask them why the fuck should anyone care what they think, and watch the mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous No.18036084]

>>18035549
If you cannot refute it, it must be true.

[Anonymous No.18036093]

>>18036075
>cause I'm me, and I'm the best

[Anonymous No.18036096]

>>18036072
What's "valid" knowledge?

[Anonymous No.18036104]

>>18036066
If ethics and morality do not exist then no one anywhere has no rationality to not commit good or evil deeds, and no one has any real rationale to not embrace complete absurdity. Objective ethics and morals do in fact exist. They have to in order for social moral contracts to happen. Societies all over the world would not unanimously condemn murder, theft, lies, adultery, etc if objective morals were not a real phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.18036106]

>>18035549
Don’t, just keep moving and get the A

[Anonymous No.18036119]

>>18036093

[Anonymous No.18036122]

>>18036072
>Further, what is the real world.
That what is, independent of us. Merely by denying this truism fundamental to everything else, we do not negate or change it. It is unchangeable, and does not care for the opinions of petty mortals like us.

[Anonymous No.18036123]

>>18036066
>Everyone and everything is an object.
Is that the sum of human knowledge?
I guess science is done.
There is definitely people out there who reject science as racist of whatever, and hold onto totally sceptical views of metaphysics - not me personally.
As Descarte said, once we've reduced our knowledge and understanding to the things we are certain of, we can start to build our knowledge up again, confident in the belief that they rest on sure foundations.
What is it that you want to apply your logical, realist, objective worldview to?
>>18036096
Valid not in the sense of certainty, but valid in the sense that something helps to achieve an ends. Something is valid if it allows a person to fulfil the goal of a hypothetical imperative. Knowledge is sufficiently 'valid' if it allows a person to live their life.

Post-modernism and post-structuralism in a lot of ways can be thought of as a lot more of a methodology than a coherent belief system - at least in the school of academia I'm currently studying.

[Anonymous No.18036129]

>>18036104
The human perspective is subjective. Just because there are some common morals between most humans does not mean that there is an objective morality.

[Anonymous No.18036130]

>>18036075
Based.

[Anonymous No.18036132]

>>18036072
In a purely naturalistic sense, all we really "know" is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions we have adapted in order to make some kind of sense of the external stimuli we experience, and even then, how can we truly trust these senses as being the arbiters of all truth gathering?

[Anonymous No.18036135]

stop being autistic and just don't

[Anonymous No.18036136]

>>18036104
>Societies all over the world would not unanimously condemn murder, theft, lies, adultery
Counter-example: wars and the death penalty. Common features of human societies throughout the history of civilisations.
>>18036122
But can we know it? Maybe? All I can say is that the existence of so many religions means that most people fundamentally disagree on the truth of independent reality.

[Anonymous No.18036152]

>>18036129
>some common morals
No anon. There are a TON of universal morals among all societies. This gives credence to the notion that objective moral standards are real. Now sure some morals are different among different people, but if ethics or morals do not ultimately exist in the objective sense, we would not even care about morals from a subjective sense. And we sure as shit would not agree as universally as we do about subjects like murder, rape, stealing, lying, etc.

[Anonymous No.18036161]

>>18036132
Exactly. I can read this message, agree with it. But then I've also got to out the shops, and buy some food - in the process I am interacting with people who all hold radically different worldviews, and come from radically different social backgrounds. But ultimately, I will 99% come home with some food in a back I can eat later. Something worked there despite this disagreement. That example, is a working model of what it means to accept a post-modernist reality.

[Anonymous No.18036168]

>>18036136
>wars and the death penalty
Do humans universally take joy in these things? The answer is no. There is something about killing another being in any context that makes the soul cringe. Killing is wrong and all humans know this on a fundamental level. However, sometimes we do have to kill out of self defense or to protect others from evil. This is justified but it still grieves the soul.

[Anonymous No.18036180]

>>18036152
>real
As in Plato's forms? Objective? Or sociologically real? More in that these are the kinds of things that when generally followed 95% of the time allow for societies which can outcompete and dominate societies which do not follow these rules?

[Anonymous No.18036187]

>>18035767
>One guy was literally telling me “it is just my opinion” that objective truth exist.
Respond with "is it an objective truth that it is just my opinion?"
>“Hurr durr it just *is* true that systemic oppression exists”.
Throw relativist arguments at her. What is oppression, what is the system, and let her dig her own hole with faulty definitions and contradictions.
Of course, most of them will not actually let themselves fall into overly obvious contradictions, but if you do it lightheartedly enough, they will not be offended and you'll still have the pleasure of poking at what you think are silly ideas.
If you still cannot bear the very existence of those different positions, I guess reading more philosophy and having better arguments is the only way for you.

>>18036168
Ahh, once again the "transcendentally objective morality" turns out to be just "hedonist utilitarianism".

[Anonymous No.18036189]

>>18035549
I remember in my high school years I used to have a lot of discussions with my friends about similar subjects. With time I have come to the conclusion that debates are worthless. Most people adhere to a determinate ideological or philosophical position without even trying to find alternative arguments that could debunk that position. You won't convince anybody regardless of what you say or how sound your arguments might be, they might even get angry against you. You have to realize that willingness and intellectual capacity are crucial in order to accept the facts, and most people lack both. Or they honestly don't give a shit, or they are too cowards to assume certain positions that are against the mainstream, or they are too emotional about it, whatever. Truth is hierarchical and for certain minorities, always has been.

I regret most of my proselytizing, to be honest. You should obviously continue this way, with intellectual honesty, reading the greats, etc but always have in mind that some people are completely beyond salvation, so simply avoid engaging unless they question you directly, and even then try to not tell more than telling. As Gracián says, better mad with the crowd than sane all alone.

[Anonymous No.18036193]

>>18036161
I don't accept postmodernism at all. It is a rejection of ultimate truth and self refuting. Postmodernists get trapped in the subjectivism part of their philosophy to where the subjectivism controls their entire frame of understanding. Objective truth is what unites us all as humans. And subjective interpretations of that objective reality is where we all lose each other.

[Anonymous No.18036203]

>>18036168
>soul
Requires justification.
Plenty of humans enjoy killing one another - some know this to be wrong and do it anyway, others do it because they believe that in the moment, the ends justified the means. We'd have to do a proper study and psychological evaluations to get an actual answer here, but I can think of some mercenaries who became addicted to the thrill of combat as one counter-example, and the other counter-example would be serial killers who have admitted to enjoying murder and wishing they could continue killing if they were to be released.

[Anonymous No.18036206]

>>18036152
>all societies
But not all humans. Clearly, rape, murder, lying, and stealing wouldn't exist to the extent that it does if that were the case. There are plenty of people out there who see nothing wrong with these types of acts. The existence of nearly amoral psychopaths should be a hinderance to the idea of an objective morality. Still, I do think that there is some common subjective morality that almost all humans could agree to. But I think that this is a product of us being humans, not of us being rational beings. One might think that, if we evolved to be purely herbivorous, we might universally condemn the killing of animals for their meat far more harshly.

[Anonymous No.18036215]

>>18036187
>"hedonist utilitarianism"
LOL. You have no idea what either of those words mean.

[Anonymous No.18036216]

>>18035549
Opposing progressivism doesn't require you to oppose relativism surely?

One can believe that a traditional society is prefereable to live in without beliving it's values to always be correct, no?

[Anonymous No.18036231]

>>18036215
I do. I universally take joy in my objective knowledge of those words.

[Anonymous No.18036235]

>>18036193
Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about? Which postmodernist is trapped in subjectivism and how? Can you refute quotations of these individuals? How is postmodernism a rejection of ultimate truth? And most importantly, how can you demonstrate the existence of objective truth? Where ever in recorded history have we not "all lost each other"?
You sound like a teenager.

[Anonymous No.18036238]

>>18036231
>objective knowledge of words
I don't see how you can possibly argue that words can have an objective meaning.

[Anonymous No.18036247]

>>18035886
By reading postmodernist books.
basically you become a jewish holocaust denier in their eyes

[Anonymous No.18036257]

https://voca.ro/1cRH4eiqfDUX

[Anonymous No.18036271]

>this thread
man /lit/ has become such absolute irredeemable trash. I don't think there is a single thread on the board right now that actually discusses literature. I'd be surprised if the average age of the posters in this thread exceeded twenty. Eat shit.

[Anonymous No.18036273]

>>18036193
Maybe objective truth could unite us oneday, when we reach a sufficient level of economic and technological development - but it seems as if our very disagreements over the nature of our objective reality is what drives conflict.
Still a project humanity is working on. It would be great to get there. We're pretty lucky to be living in an age where we can generate data that hopefully can be fed into a big machine so that we can get as close as possible to objective truth. But when it comes to some phenomena, can we have ultimate truth about things like social facts, or are they concepts that are so innately human that it depends on how someone feels about it?
Back to your disagreement with the woman over whether or not oppression exists... She had a very poor defence of her position, for sure. But following a little scientific method here - oppression only exists if it is an observable phenomena which impacts upon peoples ability to achieve life outcomes based upon their belonging to certain social-hierarchical groups. What the consensus of statistical research into populations is that... members of different social groups have different life outcomes... evidence also shows that institutions have historically intentionally tried to create unequal outcomes... therefore, oppression exists.

[Anonymous No.18036288]

>>18036271
I can give you some readings if you want?
Why don't you start with Gettier, E. (1963). Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?. Analysis, 23.

[Anonymous No.18036325]

>>18036132
Naturalism is false tho. Every utterance of the word “the” expresses the same thing, and yet the article itself (as a universal, rather than a particular), isn’t physical. I don’t know how you could maintain that without falling into the fallacy of nominalism.

[Anonymous No.18036335]

>>18036136
>All I can say is that the existence of so many religions means that most people fundamentally disagree on the truth of independent reality.
And yet does this mean that there is no answer?
>>18036187
Thanks man, I cannot help but wish to destroy my opponents, however. Anyone religious in the thread, please pray for me.

[Anonymous No.18036351]

>>18036335
>And yet does this mean that there is no answer?
No. It just means it is irrelevent. But I think you can definitely have some constructive debates on the topic. You're just gonna need to do more research on both post-modernism and subjectivism. And you're probably gonna need to have these debates with your actual academic staff, rather than your fellow students - and even then...

[Anonymous No.18036379]

>>18036189
>You have to realize that willingness and intellectual capacity are crucial in order to accept the facts, and most people lack both.
I realize it, but cannot accept it

[Anonymous No.18036380]

Finally, I would like to add that some schools of post-modernism and post-structuralism, don't actually reject truth or reality - rather they say that the previous ways of thinking (modernism and traditionalism) are insufficient for understanding the totalities of reality, society, and human experience.
Coming to understand the circumstance of previous human thought systems, beliefs and theories are all datapoints which we can use to understand how these thoughts came to be, how they have shaped our views on reality, and how we can use all of this to better understand the world we live in and come closer to fully understanding truth.
Perhaps op might find it interesting doing some reading into post-humanism or something - which is an attempt at finding truth/understanding of the world by investigating the agency of non-human actors upon reality and upon human behaviour and society. OP you might actually find what you are looking for in contemporary post-modern thought. Stop looking into the past for the answers of the future.

[Anonymous No.18036385]

>>18036203
Not him, but the soul is the essential characteristics of a particular human being, that’s it.

[Anonymous No.18036388]

>>18036247
>a jewish holocaust denier
Do those even exist?

[Anonymous No.18036400]

>>18036351
Okay, but I don’t want to get smeared as “perpetuating heteronormative patriarchy and systemic oppression” by critical theory types (which is a kind of postmodernism btw) just for affirming my position.

[Anonymous No.18036427]

>>18036379
Then you're on an impossible battle without winners where you will be the only loser.

[Anonymous No.18036429]

>>18036427
That’s why I need to accept it.

[Anonymous No.18036467]

>>18036400
That can happen sure. Potentially clarifying your argument a bit better might help. But if you're saying shit like "only two genders bro", in a university classroom full of young people, it will make you a bit of a pariah. There is an association between the kind of argument you make, and a certain type of person who makes your argument (demogaphic and political affiliation).

[Anonymous No.18036479]

>>18036467
Yeah I know, and it’s depressing. I wish I could overpower their mental defenses with such strong rhetoric and reasoning that at least they didn’t make that association.

[Anonymous No.18036505]

>>18036479
Hahahaha. I'm sure you could find a sub who would roleplay this with you.
Some people want to debate for fun, and others to get an answer. There probably some pscyhology paper out there detailing the process by which people actually change their beliefs.

[Anonymous No.18036518]

>>18036479
I guess keep on your journey and realise that:
Your belief in an objective truth and reality is one thing, but thing you believe constitute that objective truth and reality is another thing. You can right on one but not the other,

[Anonymous No.18036537]

>>18036505
>gets girl who thinks she’s a dude
>knock her up
>who’s the man now, bitch???>>18036518
Thanks and best of luck to you.

[Anonymous No.18037132]

>>18035875
>>18035898
I'm not a race realist, that stuff is bs, I was just trying to clock your ideology so I could map you onto my mental Anatomy of Ideology. You're one of these rationalist types making blunt pronouncements about objectivity. A descendent of PUA and edgelord atheism, you claim to prize "rationality." A racist, but not a Fox news Evangelical. A praiser of science, but only when it validates your eugenicist arguments. You fear being tarred in class as a racist for what you think is scientific fact.

[Anonymous No.18037180]

>>18035549
You seemed so certain, so I have to ask: When have you ever observed the objective truth?

[Anonymous No.18037186]

>>18037132
>edgelord atheism
Where did I say I believed in atheism? Atheism entails absurdity so I don’t.
> A racist
What does “racism” mean to you?
> eugenicist arguments
? When did I advocate for eugenics? Presumably you mean negative eugenics, which doesn’t square with my belief that murder is inherently wrong and universally unjustifiable.

You kinda went out over your skis, bud.

[Anonymous No.18037199]

>>18037180
It can be deduced. For example, it is objectively true that there is objective truth, because subjectivism falls into contradiction. Subjectivism implicitly posits “it is objectively true that there is no objective truth”. You see a problem with that?

[Anonymous No.18037203]

>>18037180
Also... the question of “is truth objective” is not the same as saying “can we know about it?”

[Anonymous No.18037268]

>>18037186
>Where did I say I believed in atheism?
Describe your religious views then
> What does “racism” mean to you?
The belief that some races are better than others, so the standard definition. Don't worry though, I'm not going to go on some screed about how horrible you are for being racist, idgaf.
> Presumably you mean negative eugenics, which doesn’t square with my belief that murder is inherently wrong and universally unjustifiable.
If I meant specifically negative eugenics that's what I would have said, but it looks like I did peg you correctly as a eugenicist, only you maintain yourself a "positive eugenicist" to save face.

[Anonymous No.18037324]

>>18037199
Of course, saying 'truth is objective' means that you are also concluding 'we can know about the truth'. Otherwise, how could you be so bold to make that statement? Anyway, that little refutation you did here is meaningless, because a subjectivist does away with objective truths entirely. He would instead say 'it is a subjectively true that there are objective truths' and also 'it is subjectively true that there are no objective truths'. It is a philosophy which diverts attention away from the object and towards the observer. It's the philosophy of the future.

[Anonymous No.18037395]

>>18037324
>He would instead say 'it is a subjectively true that there are objective truths' and also 'it is subjectively true that there are no objective truths'.
Explain to me how that does not violate the Law of Noncontradiction?

> It is a philosophy which diverts attention away from the object and towards the observer.

Does that make men like God, that speak reality into existence? Why would the idea that something exists external to you that you cannot change be painful for you to accept?

> It's the philosophy of the future.

Merely making a bold (and I will argue false) claim about future popularity is a fallacious rhetorical appeal.

[Anonymous No.18037476]

>>18037395
>Explain to me how that does not violate the Law of Noncontradiction?
It violates the law of noncontradiction
>Does that make men like God, that speak reality into existence
Yes
>Why would the idea that something exists external to you that you cannot change be painful for you to accept?
Between power and powerlessness, the former is always preferable, but that is besides the point. After all, you were so assblasted by some university students that you went on 4chan to ask for arguments. Clearly, you care more about these external things than I do.

[Anonymous No.18037502]

>>18037395
>Does that make men like God, that speak reality into existence?
A heap of philosophers and sociologists say that the way we use language helps to define how people experience and perceive language. So, literally, men speak reality into existence.

[Anonymous No.18037552]

>>18037502
>A heap of philosophers and sociologists say that the way we use language helps to define how people experience and perceive language. So, literally, men speak reality into existence.

“A bunch of people with the right certificates say something, therefore men are gods”. Got it.

[Anonymous No.18037585]

>>18037476
Kek’d and cucked. To claim power over things which you have no power is not delusion how?

[Anonymous No.18037607]

>>18037585
So it's true, you really do get angry when you hear these ideas. Well tell me then, what is one thing that mankind has no power of?

[Anonymous No.18037616]

>>18035713
>literally
LITERALLY???! DO YOU LITERALLY MEAN LITERALLY? ARE YOU LITERALLY ILLITERATE?

[Anonymous No.18037632]

>>18035549
>relativism *cannot* be true, as it trammels the valid axiom of reality being independent from what we petty humans feel or think
Can you go into more detail? I don't think this is self-evident.

For the record I think moral relativism is absolutely false, and if you haven't already watched them, Jordan Peterson does a good job of covering some of this stuff in his 2017 Maps of Meaning lecture.
>inb4 JP hate
He's a good teacher, and his work is a good entry point to more difficult concepts. No one claimed he was a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.18037642]

>>18037552
We can do a critique of linguistic determinism and symbolic interactionism if we want. That has an observable body of research behind it, similar to the concept of god which also has some bodies of research - but far less evidence.

[Anonymous No.18037671]

>>18035549
>it trammels the valid axiom of reality being independent from what we petty humans feel or think.
Who is the validator?
>>18037476
>It violates the law of noncontradiction
Who is the lawmaker?

[Anonymous No.18037675]

>>18037607
>Well tell me then, what is one thing that mankind has no power of?
Well man cannot make gravity disappear for one. He could pretend that it doesn’t exist, but it would continue to operate.

[Anonymous No.18037685]

>>18037552
You are the one that claims to want to 'free people from their snares'. Isn't that precisely what it means to make them God?

[Anonymous No.18037687]

>>18037632
I mostly attack postmodernism from a pre-modernist (thomist-Aristotelian) perspective.

> similar to the concept of god which also has some bodies of research - but far less evidence.
“Evidence” would *obviously* not be empirical evidence, because God is said to be beyond space and time. But you’ve probably disregarded the existence of immaterial things, without any deductive *evidence*, and therefore preclude yourself from considering deductive proofs of immaterial things.

[Anonymous No.18037695]

>>18037671
These things *just are*, there’s not much more to it. To argue for something *presupposes* these things, therefore they *are not the same as usual propositions, data, etc.*.

[Anonymous No.18037704]

>>18037687
I think the argument from the first mover is a beautiful and elegent argument, but it can't make me see things I don't see.

[Anonymous No.18037714]

>>18037695
They aren't simply are - you observe them, or at least imagine them at any rate.

[Anonymous No.18037723]

>>18037675
All of mankind, or just mankind in the present?

[Anonymous No.18037740]

>>18035549
>trammels the valid axiom of reality being independent from what we petty humans feel or think.
What do human really feel or think? Is it verifiable?
What is the nature of reality?

>postmodern philosophy, which, although clearly heterogenous, is deeply irrational
Irrationality is not a thing in philosophy

>I get angry when I hear these ideas
Examples?

[Anonymous No.18037742]

>>18035549
> valid axiom
Lol
>I get angry when I hear these ideas,
Sounds like you're the irrational one

[Anonymous No.18037754]

>>18035719
Capitalism wants its metaphysics, and it got its metaphysics, paid for by public universities. You don't really think capitalists are deadly afraid of pomos or legal marxists?

[Anonymous No.18037774]

>>18035732
How are you doing to debunk different worldviews using logic?
>objectivity, reason and coherence
Please. These are buzzwords and they mean nothing.
Let me guess who is favorite writer ... Sam Harris?

[Anonymous No.18037778]

Damn, people get so upset when you don't bow to the lukewarm lefty consensus without question.

[Anonymous No.18037801]

>>18037778
This is 4chan, no one’s trying to impose leftist consensus, op is just a dumbass who really is hardly “right wing” himself

[Anonymous No.18037812]

>>18035692
Reality is not given, so it is not objective. You yourself are not more than an unconscious kantian raised child.
Be smart and don't argue with retards, since the world is full of them --and not only postmodern.

[Anonymous No.18037814]

I am pretty sure it is a subjective choice to be afraid of mega-narratives about Objective Truths. One gave them concentration camps, genocides and World Wars, the other gave them sweatshops and the opioid crisis; so Europeans and now seemingly Americans are deadly afraid of following any system to its
So they just decompose in peace, waiting for the Chinese to genocide them in the concentration camps after the last World War.

You can't reason with people that are either too afraid to take a stance (they won't) or too disingenuous to openly proclaim that they want to rape kids without consequences so they pretend morality is a spook (their stance is not up for debate).

[Anonymous No.18037827]

>>18035549
> Debunking posmodernists
Truth exist.
Going against truth is gay.

[Anonymous No.18037839]

>>18035549
Anon, how did you arrive at the conclusion that reality exists independent of how humans perceive? What mechanism did you use to arrive at this conclusion? What technique/instrument did you use to determine this (that wasn't filtered through your human perceptions)?

[Anonymous No.18037853]

>>18037839
There is a condition where people are utterly incapable of seeing reality beyond their broken imagination, and the condition is schizophrenia.
Ever since Descartes the West has progressively shat into its pants until they burst with aids-ridden kiddifuckers faking schizophrenia to get their hedonism pass.

[Anonymous No.18037855]

>>18035947
This is a nonsense argument.
>Anon believes true things to be objectively true
>PoMos (according to anon) say that there is no objective reality, only subjective reality
>If PoMos are correct, anon's subjective truth would be that subjectivity is false
>This is paradoxical, and therefore subjectivism cannot be true
Now if your opponent was some other high schooler who didn't understand what PoMos actually believe, this might be a decent argument. But as many anons in this thread have told you, PoMos don't actually believe that there is no objective reality in the natural universe (as this diagram very neatly demonstrates >>18036056)
they question if a human observer can have actual knowledge of that objective truth. Our knowledge of the world is constantly in flux. It's fair to say that we are never viewing any given object in its actuality, but rather in the way it appears to be in our mind. This is true both because of the invisible, material stuff that all things are made of, and the effect of space and time on all things. As Heraclitus says, you never step in the same river twice. This is a pretty standard Atomist argument, and one that science demonstrates to be true.
If our senses cannot accurately grasp the actuality of a given object, how can we say that we can objectively know that a given thing exists the way we say it does? This is not to say that the object does not objectively exist in some way. There is some reality to its existence, but that reality isn't something that's available to us. This is what is meant by subjective truth- if we really can't grasp objective reality, that which seems to be most cogent to us is really the best we can do.
So in your argument, you subjectively believe that there is objective reality knowable to human beings. That's all well and good for you, but it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that is true for other people. Your subjective truth isn't anyone else's subjective truth, it is inherently relative.
I spent way too much writing this response to a probable troll but in the case you're not trolling I'm not gonna go as far as other anons and call you a moron. You just need to start engaging with your texts instead of engaging with other people. Conversation can definitely get you somewhere, but not with the knowledge level you and your peers currently have.

[Anonymous No.18037869]

>>18035549
>>18035767
The nhillist/subjective/etc arguments cannot be "deboonked", the only deboonk is doing a million mental gymnastics attempting to create objectivity where none exists. At best you can use the Anglo defence, AKA read Wittgenstein and then say philosophy is for mentally ill people. Luckily for you, the people you speak with don't actually believe what they say they do. In reality these people are "atheist Christians" as I like to call them. They wrap up jew on a stick morality with a disgusting coating of half baked "yo maaan its all subjective maaan" defences. In reality all they do is create virtues based on propaganda fed to them by schools, and then claim you cannot argue against it since nothing is truth.

An acceptable "deboonk" is to just take the full on Schopenhauer pill and maybe a bit of Nietzsche to dab on them even harder. If it is all subjective etc etc, then morality does not exist and oppression is neither good nor bad. The only thing "good" is what I define as good, and I define oppressing people as good. Now naturally they will counter with "oh ya well how about I oppress you and see how you like it", in other words pathetic "do unto others as you...", this is christian and religious morality that can only survive with magical Gods. The deboonk? Tell them that yourself being oppressed is bad, but you oppressing others is good. You can do this sort of thing in regards to anything and everything.

The reality of claiming there is only opinion/interpretation/subjectivism is that you might as well just be claiming nothing. Which is why it is related to nhillism, nihil, or nothing. You say that you cannot criticize an art piece because art is subjective, so then what can be said? Only that the art "is", anything else is subjective delusions with no real truth. Although honestly you could debate if the "art is", and more accurately you could only say "everything is and can only be as is".

[Anonymous No.18037870]

>>18037853
I'm an adherent of naturalized epistemology. The fact that we don't interact with objective reality is only problematic if human-filtered reality scares you. Anything beyond the bounds of human conception, talking about objective anything, is ridiculous metaphysical speculating. We're confined to the human perspective, and it's within that perspective we make our bed. Not by appeals to something inaccessibly beyond it.

[Anonymous No.18037879]

>>18037870
As a quick follow-up, there can be objective answers within the human domain of values. If I value well-being, if I value pragmatism, if I value a Kantian ethos that "good intentions" are the most important thing to cultivate, whatever we settle on as the value, there can be debates about how to best achieve it. But which values we ought value, which we should pursue, there is no objective answer to that question because answering it just appeals to the values we already hold. It can't be determined objectively outside our value set.

[Anonymous No.18037892]

>>18037870
>The fact that we don't interact with objective reality
Woah nigga, The Fact, ouch.
>talking about objective anything, is ridiculous metaphysical speculating
>The fact that we don't interact with objective reality
Then don't talk about facts is there is nothing objective and it is all ridiculous speculation. Your facts are your own subjective ridiculous concoctions. Be silent, nigga, you have nothing to communicate because everything is inaccessible to you.

[Anonymous No.18037894]

>>18037892
you talk like a nigger so it is certain that you have nothing worthwhile to say

[Anonymous No.18037895]

>>18035549 (OP)
>>18035767
>>18037869
Oh also I forgot to mention. After you go with "yourself being oppressed is bad, but you oppressing others is good", they will 99.99% of the time use emotional rhetoric to convince the audience. Such as "wow anon you are such a piece of shit", just know that the normalniggers in the audience will think that is an argument and agree with it, not because it is convincing or true, but because you are attacking a fundamental cognitive block in all normalniggers. That is the basic human social dynamic you are attacking, I can explain how that is but honestly that is another big conversation. Just know that you can accept that you have obviously won once they bring up any emotional moral faggotry.

[Anonymous No.18037896]

>>18037879
>>18037879
>The fact that we don't interact with objective reality
>there can be objective answers
We don't interact with objective reality!
@
Here are my objective values I interact objectively with!

Nigga please

[Anonymous No.18037912]

>>18037685
To claim to have a power you do not have does not free you, it enslaves you to delusion and your basest self.

[Anonymous No.18037919]

>>18037704
But the thing is: you don’t need to see it, just like I don’t need to see a triangle to know the Pythagorean Theorem is true.
>>18037714
How do you know that they wouldn’t exist without humans *to* observe them, which you seem to imply?
>>18037723
? are you implying that at some point gravity did not apply?

[Anonymous No.18037921]

>>18037742
I never claimed to be perfectly rational in my behavior, it’s just that my *ideas* are rational

[Anonymous No.18037926]

>>18037774
>Let me guess who is favorite writer ... Sam Harris?
Nice trips but no. I’m a fan of Aristotelian philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18037931]

>>18037778
Trips confirm based.

[Anonymous No.18037934]

>>18035549
So you're autistic?

[Anonymous No.18037936]

>>18035549
>>18035549
James Lindsay
New Discourses
Podcast, articles, vids, all accoutrements
Listen, read, watch... now!!
https://newdiscourses.com/

[Anonymous No.18037937]

>>18037812
>You yourself are not more than an unconscious kantian raised child.
Uhhhh I’m an Aristotelian but okay.
> Be smart and don't argue with retards, since the world is full of them --and not only postmodern.

[Anonymous No.18037941]

>>18035549
>have an instinctual *need* to refute what I see to be false.
Refute it for yourself? Then you already know bullshit from truth. Refute for strangers? Did the trial of Socrates teach you anything?
>I get angry when I hear these ideas
That is good.
>and I just want to free people from their snares.
Do they want to be freed though? Do you think you are the only one person of note that opposes the tide of profound bullshit? If people want to wallow in shit, they will, simple as.

Just don't interact with them or their texts. Pretty much everything Western post Descartes is toxic and everything less than 100 years old if unfiltered raving bullshit.

[Anonymous No.18037943]

Has to be one of the more successful trolls in a while. Just wish it weren't so boring. 154 replies in seven hours. Go to bed anon, you did good

[Anonymous No.18037944]

>>18037814
Hmmm so this would be more of a question for a psychologist: how do we make people not afraid?
And I still have to deal with these people, I just wanna know how I can interact with them without them destroying me.
>>18037827
So based I confer upon you honorary trips.

[Anonymous No.18037945]

>>18037919
In the first moments of the universe, the various forces were working themselves out, so gravity per se did not exist
>don’t debate me I’m only 30% sure of what I’m saying here, but pretty sure

[Anonymous No.18037946]

>>18037919
It has been said that man could never fly, yet mankind flies over us every day. Likewise, mankind will, in the future, also be able to exert its power over gravity, manipulating it and even making to disappear. It is only a matter of time.

[Anonymous No.18037952]

>>18037855
>Now if your opponent was some other high schooler who didn't understand what PoMos actually believe, this might be a decent argument. But as many anons in this thread have told you, PoMos don't actually believe that there is no objective reality in the natural universe (as this diagram very neatly demonstrates
Pic related. I’ll leave you to cower in your pathetic and immature rejection of grand narratives until you decide to accept things as they are.

[Anonymous No.18037954]

>>18037926
Oh, OP, is that you? Good.
Listen. You should continue your search inside analytical philosophy.
You can start with Russell's Problems of Philosophy and then just go chronologically.
Your dissatisfaction with people around is just misanthropy. It's normal, but you should overcome your own misanthropy one day. Find some good friends. Or spend more time with family (unless dissatisfaction with your family is the sole reason for the search of different paradigms)

[Anonymous No.18037957]

>>18037892
Based. If there is no way we can get to objective reality, then PoMos are admitting that they’re wasting their time, kek.

[Anonymous No.18037963]

>>18037895
Well I wanna crush that cognitive block in the moment, or perhaps use it to crush my opponent instead, make “zeir” life miserable instead of mine.

[Anonymous No.18037971]

>>18037957
No, it's the OP that is looking for enlightenment and refutations. PoMos are fine just like they are.

[Anonymous No.18037973]

The practical answer is that you can't because it is a religious belief. If you want to make changes to their beliefs, you have to ridicule them on a societal scale like they did to Christians. Luckily they have mostly Christian beliefs, you can use the same arguments with a few words switched.

[Anonymous No.18037975]

>>18037954
>It's normal, but you should overcome your own misanthropy one day. Find some good friends. Or spend more time with family (unless dissatisfaction with your family is the sole reason for the search of different paradigms)
Based. Fuck the NPC out of people, kek.

[Anonymous No.18037982]

>>18037943
that you op?

[Anonymous No.18037984]

>>18037973
But how can I overcome the mental brokenness of armies of NPCs?

Also... are you saying meme warfare? Based

[Anonymous No.18037990]

>>18037869
the best argument against a nihilist is to stab him in the neck when he says that everything is the same.

[Anonymous No.18037992]

>>18037982
Not OP. Just very obvious and I really don't know why people keep replying.
Quality of discussion only goes down if you allow that to happen

[Anonymous No.18037999]

>>18037984
>But how can I overcome the mental brokenness of armies of NPCs?
through memetic terrorism

[Anonymous No.18038001]

>>18037855
This is the most constructive post in the thread OP but I will call you a moron for having an insane savior superiority complex when you clearly don't know anything about PoMo beliefs or your own - that is why you made this thread right? For some spoonfed kryptonite? Or just keep smashing your two favorite words 'subjective' and 'objective' together over and over I think I see some sparks.
Come off your high horse and read some god damn texts not youtube or Op Ed articles, this stuff is really not that hard to engage with

[Anonymous No.18038007]

>>18035549
>But relativism *cannot* be true, as it trammels the valid axiom of reality being independent from what we petty humans feel or think.
Yeah, you shouldn't even try. You're in a completely different world to theirs and you'd only be indulging in juvenile rhetoric to try and "talk sense into them" or whatever it is you think you're doing.
And maybe don't solicit the comforting confirmation bias here next time
/pol/ is more suitable for that these days.

[Anonymous No.18038013]

>>18037999
Your trips confirm what you say to be true. Should I punish NPCs for the crime of being NPCs?

[Anonymous No.18038016]

>>18037984
>But how can I overcome the mental brokenness of armies of NPCs?
Search for new friends. Postmodernism has nothing to do with the fact that 95% of people are kind of superficial (and even dumb most of the time)

[Anonymous No.18038018]

>>18038007
>You're in a completely different world to theirs
Very true. I am in the real world, they are in fantasyland.

[Anonymous No.18038023]

>>18035571
kek

[Anonymous No.18038024]

>>18037963
You cannot "crush" it, you are debating with normalniggers that are basically cattle. They cannot even comprehend accepting what you say as truth, since if they did then they would cease being normalniggers. Honestly if you do accept the positions that I suggested you to take, you are going to become depressed and think of suicide as a valid option much more seriously. It is absolutely horrifying, not for the reasons the normalcattle think of (omg evil!), but because suddenly nothing is anything except what "you make it". Which sounds "EPIC!!!!" and manly until you realize you are not the overman, and are instead just a slightly more intelligent or at least more individualistic cattle.

[Anonymous No.18038027]

>>18038016
But... most of the other non-dumb people suck

[Anonymous No.18038030]

>>18038024
So I can’t use the cattle’s weaknesses for my own advantage? All I want is a big family and to be left alone... is that too much to ask?

[Anonymous No.18038042]

>>18038024
Like what if I said to the person I’m debating “you’re a piece of shit” or if I responded in some clever rhetorical way?

[Anonymous No.18038043]

>>18038018
>Very true. I am in the real world, they are in fantasyland.
Op, pease, stop. This is borderline cringe.

>>18038027
Then just find people that don't suck. Maybe you are not looking for friends - you just want to satisfy your ego by dominating intellectualy? It's futile and you will burn out one day.

[Anonymous No.18038053]

>>18038018
>Very true. I am in the real world, they are in fantasyland.
Adorable. This thread is just all too telling. Do you often feel the need to reaffirm yourself and your beliefs?
You're just as bad as those argumentative know-it-alls, you're just not ready to admit it. Once you drop the cringe inducing drive for competitive exhibitions you might actually learn something and grow out of this hubris.

[Anonymous No.18038056]

>>18035549
>I have an instinctual *need* to refute what I see to be false.
I remember plenty of people in undergrad and graduate school like that. They were all unbearable faggots. Don't be that guy, anon. Just do your work, offer good face discussion and don't be a self-aggrandizing cunt please. You're in undergrad. You haven't figured the world out quite yet.

[Anonymous No.18038066]

>>18038053
OP is obviously a child, but that doesn't mean that we have to be cynical and just dismiss him. He we figure these thing our himself (I hope)

[Anonymous No.18038070]

>>18035549
I would have helped you, but you really sound like a pseud. Just fucking read something and subscribe to naturalism, and be that awkward aspie who's triggered by what everyone else does.

[Anonymous No.18038076]

>>18038056
I’m trying *not to be that guy*... but I have a weird *need* to do that. It’s like a drug.

[Anonymous No.18038077]

>>18038030
I mean yea, you can. See: politicians, financial institutes, businesses, etc.

>>18038042
Honestly I'm not one for knowing skilled rhetoric, 4chan in general are full of autists rather than rhetoricians. All I know is actual arguments that only work on autists, and obviously do nothing for convincing normalniggers since they are brainless cattle.

>>18037990
Probably true, and you might just be doing them a favor at that point. Nhillism is the worst, pure confusion or utter boredom.

[Anonymous No.18038078]

>>18037937
If you're Aristotelian, then fucking argue and prove he is right?

[Anonymous No.18038089]

>>18038066
>OP is obviously a child
By his own admission, yeah. And I don't dismiss him because we've all been through that phase. The hubris is in thinking you know this phase is permanent. Makes uni a complete waste past freshman.
If I were to give genuine advice to OP and his kind it would be to only interact/sperg in this manner with profs/TAs, allow yourself to be humbled, then spend your free time actually socializing which is the only redeeming function of higher education these days.

[Anonymous No.18038103]

>>18038089
Agree

[Anonymous No.18038117]

>>18038077
>I mean yea, you can. See: politicians, financial institutes, businesses, etc.
Looks like I’m gonna study rhetoric.

If only vaccines did cause autism, then we could just turn cattle into normal people.
>>18038078
No.
>>18038089
>If I were to give genuine advice to OP and his kind it would be to only interact/sperg in this manner with profs/TAs, allow yourself to be humbled, then spend your free time actually socializing which is the only redeeming function of higher education these days.
OP here. Thanks man. Trouble is... I dunno what to do when debates are *required* in class.

[Anonymous No.18038133]

>>18038042
the trick is to call them a piece of shit first, then the other person will just look bitter.

[Anonymous No.18038135]

>>18038133
Dubs never lie.

[Anonymous No.18038137]

>>18038117
>Looks like I’m gonna study rhetoric.
"How to win friends and influence people" despite the meme is the a good starting place I think, I have talked to a few people IRL that can move the normalcattle around and they all enjoy that book unironically (even if /lit/ hates it).

[Anonymous No.18038144]

>>18038137
Hehe. Is Cialdini’s “Influence” good?

[Anonymous No.18038159]

>>18037919
>How do you know that they wouldn’t exist without humans *to* observe them, which you seem to imply
You don't understand. There are no facts, only interpretations.

[Anonymous No.18038162]

>>18038159
>You don't understand. There are no facts, only interpretations.
Uhhhh then what exactly are we interpreting?

[Anonymous No.18038163]

>>18038144
No idea mate, I only know the meme book because of others and /lit/. Personally I am basically getting more Ted Kaczynski and hermit pilled every passing day so rhetoric is at the bottom of my list of things I would think about reading.

[Anonymous No.18038170]

>>18038163
Good luck with that, kek

[Anonymous No.18038171]

>>18038162
Not that guy, but the answer is perception.

[Anonymous No.18038173]

>>18038162
Phenomenological reality

[Anonymous No.18038176]

>>18038173
>Phenomenological reality
Uhhh... wouldn’t the things to be interpreted be facts tho? At least by themselves?

[Anonymous No.18038189]

>>18038176
>interpreted be facts
???
Fact is an observed propositional statement. We still have no access to noumenal reality. This is why we live in an ideal (idealistic world). This doesn't mean science doesn't work. It's just that there is no such thing as Truth (capital T)

[Anonymous No.18038199]

>I'm [young], so I'm surrounded by [cretins I see as beneath me]. I have a[n adolescent *compulsion*] to [prove how smart I think I am].

[Anonymous No.18038202]

>>18038189
Please read Aristotelianism. This problem was already solved. Kant was a Kunt.

[Anonymous No.18038219]

>>18038199
>I'm [smarter], so I'm surrounded by [cretins I see as beneath me]. I have [entirely valid reason] to [live innawoods].

[Anonymous No.18038226]

>>18038202
?????
Oh, please, enlighten me. I never knew that Aristotel has solved the most importat ontological problem of all times. Wow. I'm dying to know

[Anonymous No.18038227]

>>18035549
>reality being
Wew lad. Demonstrate and win a nobel. You do know the difference between demonstration and hypothesisation. "Cogito ergo sum" doesn't count, as you demonstrated with your lack of thinking.

[Anonymous No.18038237]

>>18038117
>I dunno what to do when debates are *required* in class
Offer an analysis of the debate, and its terms but stay away from getting yourself in the deep end of a position.

[Anonymous No.18038244]

>>18038226
Just read up on Aristotelianism brah

[Anonymous No.18038247]

>>18038237
Hmmm. What if I am required to pick a side? Are you saying I could just give a “nothingburger” response?

[Anonymous No.18038283]

>>18038247
You're getting buttmad and too personally involved rather than thinking of debate as a learning exercise. Doing things like defining terms lets you shape the argument to your desired perspective without getting as involved emotionally.

[Anonymous No.18038326]

>>18037855
This anon is right OP.

Seriously listen to what he says, Aristotle didn't write those texts to have arguments with other faggots. They are first and foremost for cultivating your own mind. To stimulate your own thinking. And the absolute first thing you need to learn in life, is that most people will disagree with you. On literally anything. That's how it works, and it isn't about postmodernism, it's just that you can argue over literally anything.
You don't know what postmodernism entails, except "muh subjective reality", which isn't even true, postmodernism generally don't believe in any metanarrative or overall structures in our world.
Also I am sorry, but if you have seriously read Aristotle and still don't have arguments for your positions, I don't know what to tell you. Read him again and focus this time. Get into the text and really understand what it's about, because you should be able to use it afterwards, to formulate and argue about things.

[Anonymous No.18038337]

Based on the discourse that OP describes and that of this thread, it seems the world is in desperate need of some kind of Synthesis of the Objective and Subject.

[Anonymous No.18038341]

>Peterson said I should BTFO those meanies but I don't even know what they believe in please help /lit/

[Anonymous No.18038342]

>>18035767
Objective truth doesnt exist. Not even mathematics

[Anonymous No.18038346]

>OP gets btfo in class constantly because he can't actually understand post-modernism

There is an objective reality you chud, it's just filtered through our monkey brain which is running on social software.

You are not an independant observer

[Anonymous No.18038351]

>>18038342
So you don't exist? Cogito ergo NON sum?
You disprove your rejection of objective truths by merely existing.

[Anonymous No.18038362]

>>18036152
>There are a TON of universal morals among all societies.
Source?

[Anonymous No.18038374]

>>18036400
>critical theory (which is a kind of postmodernism btw)
You don't know shit lmao

[Anonymous No.18038375]

>>18038351
>cogito ergo sum

That is an argument used to indicate that you cannot put faith in an exterior objectivity because even our sense organs can lie to us.

Cogito ergo sum is saying the ONLY thing that you can say is true is that you exist.

Also - post-modernists don't reject objective truth - they reject grand overarching metanarratives such as whig history, Marxism, Liberalism etc.
Not truth in and of itself - i.e. a post-modernist believes that it is possible to figure out the boiling point of water, but they can't tell you the "best" temperature to serve it at, because "best" is a concept that can only exist when there is a subjective observer.

[Anonymous No.18038406]

found the jreg kiddie

[Anonymous No.18038412]

>>18038375
>That is an argument used to indicate that you cannot put faith in an exterior objectivity because even our sense organs can lie to us.
>>18038342
>Objective truth doesnt exist. Not even mathematics
Oh there we go again, self-contradicting merrily. Objective truths do not exist, except when they suddenly do, they are just interior you see (and how does one decide what is interior-exterior to what?).

Do you exist?
No? Nigga you do, you contradict yourself. You dont be reading sheit if you don't exist.
Yes? Then you have an objective truth. Ergo there undoubtedly are truths.

[Anonymous No.18038414]

say what you want about this thread, fellas, but to my perception it was quite interesting stuff to read, whether it was a troll or not.

[Anonymous No.18038438]

>>18035565
fpbp
>>18035549
You are not free. If you feel the need to refute them, you are under their spell. Ignore them, spend less time thinking about them and what they think, and spend more time thinking about what you enjoy and find fulfilling. Do this, and you will be able to go somewhere. Otherwise, you will turn into their caricature of people who disagree with them.

[Anonymous No.18038492]

>>18035549
Unironically read Marx and become a Marxist Scholastic thinker. Postmodernism and relativism are refuted by industrial production and competing discourses are not all equally true because some inhibit the development of material means of production and some don't

[Anonymous No.18038603]

>we live in a simulation

[Anonymous No.18038631]

>>18038412
You used the cogito to try and prove reality exists, you're a fucking retard.
The cogito literally states that only YOU can be certain that YOU exist, ie SUBJECTIVE truth. And even then the cogito is a fucking dead end skepticism, that is only used to rebuild Descartes beliefs from the ground up.
God dammit, read a fucking book or move ahead in your fucking undergrad program, and stop being a dipshit "muh Postmodernists are so bad, im le so rational xDDD". If they were as dumb as you say, how come you can't refute their arguments, dumb fuck?

>I know I am right
>I just can't explain why
Good job, retard

[Anonymous No.18038673]

>>18038631
>You used the cogito to try and prove reality exists
I did. I exist, therefore there is a reality and there are truths in it (like "I exist").
>you're a fucking retard.
Not an argument. Anyway, if I don't objectively exist, whom are you talking to? What are you intentionally focusing your consciousness on?
>The cogito literally states that only YOU can be certain that YOU exist, ie SUBJECTIVE truth
You seem to forget the part requiring a necessity of an objective God to guarantee outer existence and truths, without which it is indeed a dead end, because some people are deadly afraid of God for some reason.
Else how is your cogito having any "clear distinct ideas"? From what? How? Who is giving your ideas (of your existence, for example) from where?

[Anonymous No.18038700]

>>18035549
Read Feser.
Last Superstition, Aristotle's Revenge, etc.
He talks about it.
+ http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/06/love-and-sex-roundup.html
+ http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-absolute-truth-about-relativism.html

[Anonymous No.18038704]

>>18038673
>if an anon is abandoned in the woods at birth and never found, did he exist?

[Anonymous No.18038711]

>>18038631
I am not OP, but I don't understand exactly what you are saying. If I can only be certain that I exist, who are you? Are you all a product of my mind? Isn't that sollipsism?

[Anonymous No.18038714]

>>18035549
You'll just make yourself a target.
Learn how to use surveillance tech, plant bugs in the student unions, offices of administrators who are heavily involved in SJW shit, and dormitories.
Get your rich classmates drunk and goad them into doing embarrassing compromising shit, then record it secretly.
Don't ever show your cards.
This isn't an honest fight and the moment you realize that is the moment you stop losing.

[Anonymous No.18038723]

>>18038704
> anon exists
> no one ones about it therefor he doesn't exist
> confused_nigger.jpg

[Anonymous No.18038734]

>>18035549
You should buy a rope and a chair.

[Anonymous No.18038770]

>>18038351
Oh no I thought we were past Descartes

[Anonymous No.18038785]

>>18038711
Potentially. You or I could be in the matrix right now.

[Anonymous No.18038787]

>>18038723
>misunderstanding this hard

It is possible for something to be "objectively true" but also unknowable. Inaccesable. This is the case for all things. This is due to the fallability of our senses, as descartes would agree.

[Anonymous No.18038828]

>>18038673
Retard, thats what Descartes demon is. You can't know there is an outside objective reality, it might be an illusion. All you can be sure of is you exist, as else the demon would have no one to trick.
You might be the fucking illusion the demon is producing, and my brain is in a VAT somewhere.
You don't understand a single thing about the "Cogito ergo Sum", it's literally against objective reality existing, only yourself can exist, according to Descartes.
Reread the text if you didn't come to this conclusion, you need to understand this to understand modern philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18038950]

>>18038673
Bro you could just read a book on this instead of arguing with strangers on 4chan because no one has the patience to write a fucking essay on the topic only to be called a faggot.
Have you ever read postmodern philosophy books that argue against objectivity and argue against Descartes cogito ergo sum instead of just hearing about the philosophy from jordan peterson and retards on your campus?

[Anonymous No.18038952]

>>18038711
Like other anon said. Descartes said a demon could be tricking our senses, so we cannot be certain that what we see is true. However this demon must be tricking someone, so YOU exist.
However modern philosophy moved on from Descartes, but this is important to understand, as it's what Empiricists and rationalists build on.

[Anonymous No.18038965]

>>18038828
>only yourself can exist, according to Descartes
Lies, lies and more lies. Read the frog, he talks of fucking objective God that verifies truth, this God being verified from apriori ideas contained in the cogito, hence there is no evil demon feeding you false data, because God would not allow such a shitshow.
Why do you conveniently leave out GOD of all of Descartes work?

[Anonymous No.18039155]

>>18035884
Not sure if I agree. There is nothing inherently political about applying the scientific method to social problems, unless you believe that the scientific method is itself political.

Which it isn't. Apollo 11 landed on the moon because human beings were able to use it to discern objective mathematical truths about the universe and solar system.

The problem with the social sciences is that there are few perfect solutions to any of the problems they're tasked with addressing. They can help us better understand the nature of the problems, but any economic, political, sociological, etc. question invariably involves complex trade offs and their attendant ethical questions.

Even the tools and measurements that social scientists use are subject to this. For example, how should GDP be used? Should it be used as a general metric for human wellbeing? Should we consider including other things in it?

You are right that this is a situation that inevitably invites personal bias into the academic literature. But the tendency in some corners to enshrine ideology, lived experience, scholastic activism, etc. is counterproductive.

[Anonymous No.18039219]

>>18038965
People who haven't read Descartes beyond having watched a five minute YouTube video on "cogito ergo sum" always try to frame him as a solipsist.

He wasn't. He was a Catholic.

[Anonymous No.18039236]

>>18038965
Because God isn't proven, which is why Descartes is a retard and philosophy moved on. "Hey guys I'm a sceptic and nothing can be certain, except the self, but God exists, so my thought experiment is invalid and no demon can trick me lol."

[Anonymous No.18039345]

>>18037869
What's wrong with Wittgenstein? He's brilliant and in a sense he proves words themselves are social constructs - this doesn't have to be the background for everything related to POMO

[Anonymous No.18040005]

>>18039236
>Because God isn't proven
Descartes writes it is impossible to have coherent knowledge of anything without a most supreme being possible, since that most supreme being would be the basis for and a guarantee of truth. The evil genius is impossible because the most supreme being would be necessary benevolent and would not tolerate a Matrix-like shitshow.
I much prefer Descartes argument to your statement lacking an argument.
"God isn't proven" is ridiculous. God is. Deal with it. We are necessarily confused on some of His properties and actions, because we are finite beings thinking of the infinite. Doesn't mean there's no God, because otherwise everything falls apart.
>Descartes is a retard and philosophy moved on
Nigga you gay, moved on FROM WHAT TO WHAT? To incoherent rambling of a schizoid biomass that used to be a college student?

[Anonymous No.18040150]

>>18035549
Don't OP, PoMo is just philosophy for schizophrenics.
>>18038342
Why do you say that like it is objectively true?

[Anonymous No.18040203]

Oh, btw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCQWeGWCPA0
>BTFO's PoMO's

[Anonymous No.18040322]

>muh boogieman postmodernists
>not a single post in this shit thread even names a postmodernist nor refutes his viewpoints
>after 250 posts
Man 4chan is shit now

[Anonymous No.18040375]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v5zNMtMtiM

[Anonymous No.18040394]

this thread is a giant mutual masturbation session attacking strawmen.

[Anonymous No.18040499]

>>18038374
>actually
Not an argument :)

I’m sorry you have to grasp at straws to defend your shitty worldview.

[Anonymous No.18040505]

>>18038438
Thanks

[Anonymous No.18040511]

>>18038700
Nice dubs. I really like the guy. Suffice it to say is the common defense of “hurr durr Postmodernists *do* believe in objective truth” or “you don’t understand postmodernism” even hold up?

[Anonymous No.18040518]

>>18038714
Alright.
>>18038734
Nope cuz I’m not a tranny

[Anonymous No.18040524]

oh fuck, I just realized that /lit/ is getting overrun by zoomers. Nobody reads those "postmodernists" they attack on here lmao.

[Anonymous No.18040604]

>>18040524
Oh yeah? Then I don’t want to hear a WORD about “systemic oppression” ever again.

[Anonymous No.18040687]

>>18039345
Nothing is wrong with him, I was only saying that you can use him to beat back other philosophies, which is done by simply stating that philosophy itself is a kind of mental illness where you attempt to use words for what they cannot accomplish. This I dubbed the "Anglo defence", it doesn't actually do anything besides allow you to walk away from retards by dismissing them and their ideas.

[Anonymous No.18040691]

>>18040604
tell me which postmodern philosopher talked about systemic oppression

[Anonymous No.18040746]

>>18040691
Literally any Critical Theorist (in sociology, philosophy, etc., not necessarily in studying literature)

[Anonymous No.18040773]

Jordan Peterson and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

[Anonymous No.18040782]

>>18040773
oh yeah? I agree he goes a bit heavy on labeling PoMos as Marxists, but the ideas put out by a lotta PoMos are... just laughably wrong

[Anonymous No.18040794]

name one

[Anonymous No.18040801]

>>18040746
critical theory isnt postmodernism, cite me one postmodern philosopher that mentions systemic opression. Until then, I'll accept the fact that these words are forged in burgerland and are used only by of fat, oily, greasy americans

[Anonymous No.18040819]

>>18040794
?

[Anonymous No.18040824]

OP, ignore everyone else please. Pic related is the book you're looking for.

They offer some critiques of the sort of thinking you're talking about and do a pretty comprehensive review of the work that informs it. It would be a really good jumping off point for you.

[Anonymous No.18040836]

>>18040824
>american interpretation of europoean philosophers

[Anonymous No.18040844]

>>18040801
Not the guy you're responding to, but critical theory is postmodern. What are you talking about? What are Foucault and Derrida if not postmodern?

[Anonymous No.18040857]

>>18040836
He's an American college student who wants to engage with this body of work. Cannot think of a better introduction for OP. This is specifically geared toward what he's asking for.

[Anonymous No.18040859]

>>18040844
critical theory usually refers to frankfurt schule, benjamin, adorno etc. whereas postmodern philosophy refer to foucault, derrida, deleuze etc. There are some similarities between those two, but they are very different.

[Anonymous No.18040871]

>>18040857
how about you recommend him not being another generic retard brainlet that spouts bullshit about things he read from secondary sources about secondary sources and tell him to read the primary sources? or that is too much to ask for in /lit/?

[Anonymous No.18040898]

>>18040871
Reading primary sources usually requires other people to bounce ideas and interpretations and problems off of, people that are also familiar with the text, e.g. in a classroom setting. /lit/ being composed of mostly teenagers precludes that possibility from being fulfilled on here. Secondary sources are likely to give you a better understanding in that case.

[Anonymous No.18040919]

>>18040898
if people fail to understand primary sources, then they should not bother reading neither primary nor secondary sources. Secondary should at best be a companion or something you read after reading the primary and not substitution for it, just like vitamins arent a substitution for food. Unless you want to breed retards. Which is pure evil and chaos.

[Anonymous No.18040938]

>>18040919
Don't be fucking retarded and tell me you think you could lock yourself in a room with no outside contact, read Hegel's Phenomenologies or postmodernists like Derrida and have a perfect understanding of them

[Anonymous No.18040951]

I would like to add, too, that a lot of academic critics of what might be called "postmodernism" come at it from a completely different angle.

e.g., Jordan Peterson is a crotchety clinician who is justifiably angry that his discipline and medical practice have been invaded by these unhelpful ideas. A few of his colleagues in the University of Toronto psychology faculty have also been maligned, and I think that experience has informed his thinking as well.

He's not a political scientist or theorist, and he isn't really equipped to be critiquing these ideas in the way that he's asked to. A lot of these people are just salty about what they see as useless thinking coming into their discipline. Not interested in meaningfully engaging with it.

[Anonymous No.18040952]

>>18035549
You are not interested in philosophy. You are only interested in your own ego and looking down on people who disagree with you.

Grow out of that petty mindset.

[Anonymous No.18040968]

>>18040938
yes, if I have read Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Schelling, Fichte, Nietzsche, Husserl, Saussure, Levi Strauss, Heidegger beforehand and had some knowledge of the philosophical debates that were happening at those times, I would understand them no problem. But its the hard way. Brainlets want McPhilosophy - "give me one easily written book to understand a field of philosophers that were born out of the whole philosphical tradition so I can straw man them to cover up my inferior position".

[Anonymous No.18040974]

>>18040824
Thanks man. I’m just holding out hope for an Aristotelian detailed polemic against it desu

[Anonymous No.18040989]

>>18040968
not the guy you're arguing with, but then why oppose to OP reading the book if it is an introduction?

[Anonymous No.18041009]

>>18040871
That's why I called it a "jumping off point", you idiot. In large part, it's an overview of the literature that has informed the ideas he's interested in exploring. He will then be able to leverage that to seek out primary sources that he's interested in. Having already been introduced to them, he will have an easier time understanding them.

Do you unironically believe that a large, disjointed list of primary sources would have more utility for this poster, or do you just get off on lording your superiority complex over teenagers on the internet?

[Anonymous No.18041016]

>>18040989
I dont think op wants an introduction, he doesnt show motivation to understand. He is reactive and wants to legitimize his seething. Pure brainlet rage. Plus I've read Cynical theories a bit and I can say its no introduction to postmodern philosophy. It is an intervention in the brainlet burgerized culture war and is biases from the get go. If you want to rationalize your a priori seething, sure, why not.

[Anonymous No.18041067]

>>18041016
You haven't read it. OP isn't talking about "postmodern philosophy", he's talking about the sort of vaguely postmodern thinking that has become pervasive in humanities departments and among college students. Cynical Theories does a very good job at drawing its pedigree chart.

Am I suggesting it as a galaxy brain takedown of all postmodern thought? No. But it is the book that OP is explicitly asking for.

[Anonymous No.18041112]

>>18041067
yeah, you're right, its the perfect book for the op, I'm being too uptight. I just dont like the OP's sentiment, thats all.

[Anonymous No.18041126]

>>18035549
Postmodern paradox:
If objective truth doesn’t exist then that assertion can’t be true

[Anonymous No.18041129]

>>18041067
>he's talking about the sort of vaguely postmodern thinking that has become pervasive in humanities departments and among college students.
OP here. Why *has it done so*?

[Anonymous No.18041142]

>>18040974
I don't think that really exists anon.

I think you're really talking about academic wokeism here, which isn't really an ideology except perhaps in the pejorative sense.

It's a social and political attitude loosely associated with postmodernism, critical theory, and Marxism. These are all different intellectual traditions, each with a pretty broad array of thinkers.

There are plenty of critiques of Marxism out there. I don't know of many people who bother dealing with critical theory outside of the people generating it and disgruntled academics who are angered by its increasing prevalence in their discipline. I'm in the latter camp, so I haven't gone that deep in the weeds.

I'm sure there are critiques of specific authors, texts, and ideas out there. If you're looking for a big metaphysical takedown of the whole thing, though, I think you're going to have a hard time finding it.

[Anonymous No.18041143]

>>18041126
>Insert clever words here to convince you otherwise
>fool people with subjectivism

[Anonymous No.18041150]

>>18035549
WOW you're dumb. I expected better.

[Anonymous No.18041159]

>>18041142
lol my bad man. Although I hear that this sort of academic wokeism is based off (I admit probably not the same as) Foucault, Derrida, Rorty, Lyotard, Heidegger, etc.

Why did it become a thing? Is the solution to it to just get the professors that teach this stuff fired? How about expelling students that are wokeist activists?

I know that those solutions may or may not be excessive, but I’m just throwing ideas out, just to clarify.

[Anonymous No.18041167]

>>18041150
And an ad hominem isn’t dumb? Got it

[Anonymous No.18041190]

>>18041159
>Why did it become a thing?
my take would be to keep in mind the 80's shift in the politics, the turn away from grand narratives to liberal democracy and its human rights. People no longer dream about big universal emancipations, they substitute it for specific group interests (identity politics). But even identity politics is not to blame. Its the desire of victimization and resulting anger that seeps trough the identity politics but is not the essence of it. Yes, they use foucault, derrida and other postmodernists, but to their peculiar aims - to victimize, to virtue signal, to grab power by appeals to morality, to vent out their resentment etc. (sentiments that are very alien to postmodernist movement).

[Anonymous No.18041193]

>>18037937
>Uhhhh I’m an Aristotelian but okay.
Yeah, sure, thats why you talk like any kantian npc. People like you are so ignorant that don't even know what is the default subjectivity installed on them. You believe you are an Aristotelian because you like and read Aristotle, but are incapable to understand the way your mind is working below your little knowledge of what "reason" and "logic" are.

You are no better than mediamade postmodern kids, you are just a snob, and a pretty ignorant one too.

[Anonymous No.18041208]

>>18041159
>Why did it become a thing?
Capitalism needed to break more frontiers for profit; this includes sexual promiscuity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg_rhpiyQuQ

[Anonymous No.18041214]

>>18041190
>they substitute it for specific group interests
Hence why they cannot abide any majority (men, whites, heterosexuals, religious people) group interests.
> but to their peculiar aims - to victimize, to virtue signal, to grab power by appeals to morality, to vent out their resentment etc.
In the moment, how do I humiliate and “destroy” someone arguing this, in front of our peers?

And do such persons likely realize the intellectual dishonesty of their positions?

[Anonymous No.18041225]

>>18041193
Seethe.

[Anonymous No.18041230]

they refute themselves by the fucking miserable lives they lead. Stop being concerned with assholes and live the beautiful life you were meant to, loving the people around you who deserve the same

[Anonymous No.18041234]

Oh yeah, related to thread
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

[Anonymous No.18041239]

>>18041214
Not him, but have you read Ted's description of Leftists (of course, his definition of Leftist)?

If you want, moreso, to critique Neoliberalism, that's something else.

[Anonymous No.18041243]

>>18041239
>Not him, but have you read Ted's description of Leftists (of course, his definition of Leftist)?
Oh yeah. It’s an emotional need. Thing is: why can’t they meet these “needs” in a different way?

[Anonymous No.18041249]

>>18041239
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-society-and-its-future

[Anonymous No.18041264]

>>18041214
I suggest you save your mental and physical energy for your own goals, dont react to what brainlet monkey do around you. You have your goals and strive for them. The best way to fight with someone is to ignore them and built a different and solid perspective.

[Anonymous No.18041274]

>>18041264
Oh yeah I get that. In the moment though... I loose control.

[Anonymous No.18041289]

>>18041274
I think thats the problem with our current times. People dont have any knowledge or incentive to keep their cool. There is even a certain kind of enjoynment you get from flinging your shit and participating in the tribalist feasts. But its very unproductive. Meditate, work out, set your goals and walk in a straight line.

[Anonymous No.18041296]

>>18041249
Ah yes, the look-what-you-made-me-do defense of conservative politics.

[Anonymous No.18041304]

>>18041296
>Uncle Ted is a conservative
>???

[Anonymous No.18041323]

>>18041129
A couple reasons. I think they're all very attractive to academics and intellectuals. Marxism and the others are all very deep fields, and they're exciting to explore if you accept their internal logic. Marx especially is exhilarating to read and explore, because it takes the disorder and irrationality of the economy, mass culture, broader society, etc. and fits it into a logical schema where the pieces all fall into place with far reaching conclusions and implications. I'm not a Marxist, but I had a blast reading Capital and came away with this overwhelming revelatory feeling. I suspect many people who are into critical theory feel similarly.

There's something enticing for academics, too, in ideas that suggest that the irrational world can be ordered and, moreover, that THEY can be agents of change. It's more appealing to an academic to consider himself as acting on the world rather than just interpreting it, and there's a sort of cache that comes with being both a scholar and an activist.

Beyond that, I think nobody really cared enough to address it. Critical theory and its offshoots have a complex internal logic and I don't think anybody cared to cross that minefield. For instance, when Alfred Jost discovered that the "presence of testes during mammalian embryogenesis resulted in male differentiation of the internal reproductive organs and external genitalia", he was criticized for something to the effect of further entrenching sexism in science by expanding the metaphor of female absence against the male phallus. But if he's busy making scientific observations about the natural world and human physiology, why would he give a fuck? From his perspective, it's useless, does nothing to advance our understanding of biological science, and not worth engaging with.

We're reaching a tipping point now, though, where this type of critique is so prevalent that academics are starting to get frustrated. It is difficult to argue against, too, because many of these arguments deal with pretty explosive/personal subject matter and language, and they are often presented as logically unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.18041335]

>>18041296
like cuckservatives actually conserve anything
also ted wasn't conservative, troon

[Anonymous No.18041351]

>>18041129
Liberalism -> liberate individuals from circumstances of their birth
Derrida -> meaning cannot be fixed or absolute AND (necessarily) the speaker (or author) has no more authority over his words than anyone else
Frankfurt School -> because classical Marxism was unlikely to spontaneously realize itself as Marx had predicted, and other systems out of capitalism formed (ie in Spain, Italy, Germany), we need to develop Marx's theory. What happened to the working class that revolution became untenable? Totalitarianism, under the guise of state capitalism or just out in the open. Let's try to examine and understand the mechanisms of this. The Frankfurt school also introduces into the Marxist tradition the examination of culture, which Marx widely ignored.

These three come together to form the current state of academia, which has widely disintegrated in quality, in the social sciences and humanities.

[Anonymous No.18041353]

>>18041323
so, QRD: it's just them feeling superior in their bullshit?

[Anonymous No.18041413]

>>18041159
Yeah, there's definitely connections there. I would definitely read Cynical Theories desu.

I posted this just about why I think academics latch on to it >>18041323

But, from a higher level, I think the other poster is in the ballpark in suggesting that it is rushing in to fill the vacuum left by the absence of some kind of grand historical narrative in our civilization.

As Americans, the Baby Boomers have really defined the terms of our national mythology. The creation myth is World War II, and they participated in movements for racial justice, sexual liberation, women's rights, and gay liberation. All net positives, but this mythology forms the whole of our frame of reference for nearly all contemporary problems.

So, in this context, you can really understand the appeal of an attitude that views culture, civic society, history, etc. as fundamentally existing as a battle between oppressor and oppressed. And one that gives us a critical part to play in a post-industrial, mass media oriented civilization where traditional sources of fulfillment and purpose have deteriorated.

[Anonymous No.18041448]

>>18041413
>All net positives
How?
The sexual libertaion of the 60's has meant declining birthrates and the complete integration of western women into the capitalist structure for exploitation. The universalism of the left (or people who'd be associated with the term) has facilitated the globalist corporatism of late capitalism. The advocacy for anti-racism and the deconstruction of nationalism, has led to an opening of borders and increasing avalibility of cheap labor for capitalists to undercut their native workers. Through the useful idiots and cynical opportunists of the New Left, the capitalists found another way to revolutionize production and expand into uncharted territory, hitherto blocked off by traditional concerns of morality or national interest. The result has been a transfer of wealth from ordinary europeans to an increasingly small number of capitalists and a complete apathy of a mass of citizens, now mere consumers who have been reduced to a bovine kind of existence, with the constant provision of cheap consumer goods, necessary material comfort and an ever increasingly sexualized culture

[Anonymous No.18041475]

>>18041413
Yes very true. I sometimes wish that (with the exception of my dad, who is *barely* a boomer), that all boomers would just... die

[Anonymous No.18041522]

>>18041353
Eh, I don't know if that's true. I would say that most people who devote their lives to studying and exploring a particular academic niche have a pretty genuine interest in it.

Like I said, Marx is exhilarating, and Capital remains one of my favorite books I've ever read. There are reasons academics might be biased toward Marxism or critical theory, yes, but there are reasons you and I are biased, too.

I grew up in a fairly conservative household in a small post-industrial town, so maybe I was just predisposed to value different things than Marxists.

[Anonymous No.18041561]

>>18041448
I'm not suggesting any of these initiatives is beyond criticism. I'm suggesting that perhaps it's for the best that spousal rape is illegal, that the segregation apparatus of the 1960s American south has been largely dismantled, and that I can date other men without facing social repercussions.

[Anonymous No.18041569]

>>18041475
i think it's ironic that the most vocal boomer haters are generally the ones most attached to their worldview lol

[Anonymous No.18041737]

>>18041159
>Is the solution to it to just get the professors that teach this stuff fired? How about expelling students that are wokeist activists?

>I know that those solutions may or may not be excessive, but I’m just throwing ideas out, just to clarify.

Also, I do want to add that you don't solve whatever problems academic freedom is facing by taking even more draconian measures against academic freedom.

I don't really buy the whole "nooooooo the students are being indoctrinated" canard. I went to an extremely left wing university and, as a random student, never encountered any of this stuff in the classroom. Maybe it's different now, but if that's the case I'd be more inclined to point the finger at administrators and bureaucrats. I became more conservative in college if anything.

I think students are mostly influenced by their peer groups, and they get absorbed into the political monoculture at their college. The vast majority of the stuff you read about is done by the students, not faculty. Sometimes by administrators.

I think people advocating for extreme measures could use some historical perspective. In the 1960s, students were storming facilities with guns or being shot to death by the National Guard. The problem today is different and not of the same magnitude. I would blame the enormous bureaucracy that has grown up around higher education, and the risk averse actors who work there and will capitulate to most demands.

But like I said, we've reached a tipping point now where academics are starting to get frustrated. I don't see much reason for apocalyptic thinking here.

[Anonymous No.18041762]

>>18041561
As I've loosely indicated in >>18041234, it's all, as I and many others see it, a part of a bigger scheme. Foucault panders homossexuality but has pedophilia as his end goal. You might be a homo for all I know, but it is not what the lgbt movement has in mind, since its inception really.
>>18041737
>Maybe it's different now
I can assure it's very different; students that dissent or look like they could dissent, are coerced by their teacher/professors, through exam grades, into submission.

[Anonymous No.18041763]

>>18041561
I think only mandatory segregation should’ve been illegal. Also, while I am hated by WS’ for my unacceptance of genocide, murder, theft, etc.... the races cannot live together in harmony. Identity politics is the inevitability of multiculturalism. Hate is the unfortunate product of forced tolerance, not harmony.

[Anonymous No.18041770]

>>18041762
Moreso other students in my experience. Professors do tend to be biased, but I’ve never gotten bad grades because of it.

[Anonymous No.18041774]

>>18041762
Also, since times are different... are Draconian measures (firing woke professors, expelling woke students) a good solution, in your view?

[Anonymous No.18041831]

>>18041770
>Moreso other students in my experience.
I was going to write that there are many ways these cynical opportunists do to gain "power" (since evrything is a power structure) and to virtue signal to their academic superiors.
>>18041774
Yes, these people are plaging the minds of young people; if I didn't get a proper household education, I would have been a part of their mindless movement. See the beggining of this video at minute 1:01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27TXMvGDqJM ; they are completely brainwashed and are already hurting future generations through this.

[Anonymous No.18041858]

>>18041831
How *do* some people get out of it?

[Anonymous No.18041956]

>>18041858
Well, I used to be one for a period of time. I was around ~15 and went on Reddit due to some reccomendations that it was 'good'. Since I didn't know much, their arguments seemed convincing. But it always bugged me... I don't know how but I had the thought "why were the jews persecuted and expelled from almost every country they've been in". It was spontaneous; almost providencial. An awakening of my senses to analise things critically. Obviously my thought isn't summarized into "its da joooz" (at least all the way) but it was my first "redpill" (as you call it arounf these parts).
To conclude anon, I don't know how to get people out of it. Mine felt organic - maybe I was predisposed to it, but thankfully I didn't go down the path of SJW screeching and their capital investors.

[Anonymous No.18041963]

>>18041956
>I don't know how but I had the thought "why were the jews persecuted and expelled from almost every country they've been in". It was spontaneous; almost providencial.
Lmao, I think the only solution is 100% intermarriage and the end of Jewish identity altogether. Wanna talk over disc: Iiii2001#5122

[Anonymous No.18042395]

>>18035625

Im not postmodernist, woke or even first worlder.
I believe there is an ojective reality but at the same time it is impossible for us to truly grasp. There is no way we, biological entities, can perceive its true objective nature, even after much trying.

Billions of years of evolution have created bodies and minds adapted to certain circumstances. Our senses doesnt give the brain the full story and the automatic part of the brain doesnt tell us (the conscience) the full story either. We perceive everything in a kind of "augmented reality". Our eyes are drawed towards the color red. Heterosexual men's eyes are drawed towards boobs and ass. Everyone's brains are constantly scanning our surroundings in search of human faces (creating interesting phenomena like our ability to percieve this -> : ) <-, as a "smiley face").

And this augmented reality phenomena is also present in all our other senses and our socialization processes and even logical processes. Therefore most people suffer from what we now call "logical fallacies", the product of millions of years of evolution in certain environments (natural & social).

Objetive truth is there but we will never be able to percieve it or comprehend it 100%. It is futile .

[Anonymous No.18042417]

>>18042395
then how come
2 + 2 = 4

[Anonymous No.18042431]

>>18042417

Yes, but that is only a minuscule part of the whole objective reality.
I didnt say you could never understand any part of it. But no ones mind is free or large enough to process whole objective universe.