/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18135712]

What are people so angry about postmodernism? Are they really that scared of there not being objective morality and truth? I personally dont see that as a problem, since people are practical creatures and really dont give a shit what some philosophers think about. They will be good anyway. Wasnt postmodernism meant for elite intellectuals and not the masses who are scared of their little spooks being btfo?

[Anonymous No.18135722]

>>18135712
Jordan Peterson said Postmodernist Marxists would rape their women, so now they are scared of pussy intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.18135729]

>practical creatures
>good anyways
Only an ivy tower retard could say these things unironically

[Anonymous No.18135730]

>>18135712
I hate these fucking memes that essentially are just templates that you can put texts/faces over for whatever retarded subcommunities you're making the meme for. They're so fucking unoriginal and they're all the same.

[Anonymous No.18135734]

>>18135729
>Ivy
Ivory*

[Anonymous No.18135737]

>>18135730
the future of thought and culture

[Anonymous No.18135738]

>>18135730
Go fuck yourself

[Anonymous No.18135741]

>there's no truth
>people are xyz
You can't even stay consistent in a single sentence?

[Anonymous No.18135742]

>>18135712
>Are they really that scared of there not being objective morality and truth?
Anyone who isn't scared of this is an imbecile or an agent of chaos.

[Anonymous No.18135755]

>>18135741
there is a difference between authoritative objective truth that is held to be self evident across centuries and a simple observation, my dear anon
>>18135742
why are you scared? what is going to happen if people realize there is no objective truth and morality? dont they already know this at some level? why would you blindly follow spooks?

[Anonymous No.18135757]

>>18135712
>people are practical creatures
>They will be good anyway
These are anti-post modernist opinions.
If you don't see why people don't like fart-sniffing sophistry then I don't know what to say.
>>18135738
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.18135765]

>>18135755
>why are you scared?
So you're an imbecile.

[Anonymous No.18135766]

>>18135757
>These are anti-post modernist opinions.
how, foucault, althusser, deleuze says that the masses are interpellated to be goody good boys. The really evil people are only those who see trough the facade of spooks.

[Anonymous No.18135769]

>>18135755
>simple observation
A patently false observation that is secretly your entire premise
If your statement wasn't true, which it isn't, utilitarian anthropology does not hold up to scrutiny and neither does the purported goodness of man if you decide to leave your gated community and join the real world for a second, then we should be very scared of a lack of a morality to force the retards to follow

[Anonymous No.18135770]

can't speak for others but I dislike postmodernism because its a cultural dead-end

[Anonymous No.18135774]

>>18135712
Postmodernism is a diagnosis, not a prescription. We're already in the postmodern world regardless of anyone's opinion on the subject. The fact that these questions are even up for debate is proof of this.

[Anonymous No.18135778]

>>18135769
>A patently false observation
maybe if you live in somalia, I'm from the western part of the world. People are usually nice here. And they act as if their lifes have inherent meanings. Sure, there are some crazy psychos here and there, but they are a minority.

[Anonymous No.18135779]

Since I'm interested in reading some PM novels, what is it like reading them? What should I expect?

[Anonymous No.18135788]

>>18135712
>What are people so angry about postmodernism? Are they really that scared of there not being objective morality and truth?
I don't really understand why certain conservatives treat scepticism about as some newfangled danger to Western civilisation and thought when conservatives like Cicero and Hume were sceptics, and Christianity itself was influenced by Pyrrhonism and the Academy. How is it some evil repudiation of Western thought when the entire Christian and Enlightenment intellectual tradition was influenced by it?

[Anonymous No.18135795]

>>18135778
You are deeply deluded
The sluminhabiting majority here is nothing short of subhuman in how vile and psychotic it is in its attitudes towards anything and everything and I purportedly live in a welfare paradise
Get out of your gated fucking community and try seeing the world for what it is

[Anonymous No.18135811]

>>18135766
>how
Post modernism makes no value judgements.
Seriously, post modernism had it's heyday in the fucking 90s, 30 years ago. The response was "yeah, but social constructs are useful and beneficial, why deconstruct X if it makes life easier?" and that was that.
I don't know where you are that it's still in vogue and idiots like Peterson aren't helping by fishing it out of the trash can.

[Anonymous No.18135817]

>>18135795
You sound like a sensitive baby who views miniscule problems and seflishness of the people as the apocalyptic grandiose scenario of le doomsday of le epic civillisation. YOU should get out of your gated community. Come to eastern europe, little baby.

[Anonymous No.18135819]

>>18135811
>"yeah, but social constructs are useful and beneficial, why deconstruct X if it makes life easier?"
You don't see how this mindset is a huge problem in itself? It's basically "we'll literally only deconstruct what we happen to believe is bad." And that was literally Peterson's whole point, and here you are ragging on him as if he said something else.

[Anonymous No.18135832]

>>18135819
Peterson talks about Marxist post modernism which is a contradiction, Marxism is a modernist ideology. Right or wrong shit like that makes it obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I've heard this conspiracy theory that post modernism was supported by the CIA since the average person wouldn't understand it and it helped push Marxism out of European universities.

[Anonymous No.18135851]

whats you favorite postmodern tihnker?

[Anonymous No.18135854]

>>18135817
Nice larp
Nobody in eastern Europe actually believes they live in eastern Europe
If you are posting from a part of eastern Europe that admits to its eastern Europeaness, you're way too rich to be telling people to live their gated community

[Anonymous No.18135855]

>>18135742
>>18135765
> You either share my opinion or you're an imbecile

Wow, that's a really convincing argument you have there anon. What an imbecile I would be if I questioned your scaredness!

[Anonymous No.18135856]

>>18135832
>Peterson talks about Marxist post modernism which is a contradiction, Marxism is a modernist ideology.
Wrong. Marxism isn't even an ideology, it is a historical method and critique. You genuinely don't know what you're talking about, like most pseuds who claim Peterson was wrong.
For example, Sartre is considered both a neo-Marxist and post-modernist existentialist. One does not have to support the modernist IDEOLOGIES of revolutionary socialism to be a Marxist. They are entirely separate things.

[Anonymous No.18135857]

>>18135832
That's not a conspiracy, the CIA did fund people like Foucault and he was confronted about it multiple times

[Anonymous No.18135865]

>>18135811
nah, its (or a bastardised, simplified version of it) is pretty mainstream now. The art world is still full of people claiming they are 'deconstructing' something or other, I think its even behind the modern cop-out "subverting expectations" meme in popular films/tv. I think it is also a partner to the general irony/cynicism in popular culture that's still stubbornly hanging around.

Of course this means it is absolutely on its last legs, and doesn't change the fact that Peterson is a midwit who's just reeeing about "marxism"

[Anonymous No.18135870]

>>18135855
You didn't read my post. It's possible that you are a genuine agent of chaos. But, in light of the stupidity of your previous posts, I find it rather hard to believe (because you would have to be at least intelligent enough to realize the actual problems of nihilisms).

[Anonymous No.18135874]

>>18135712
The idea that there isn't an objective truth is incompatible with reality.

[Anonymous No.18135880]

>>18135874
why? truth is not necessary from the evolutionary perspective, so why should it be compatible with reality?

[Anonymous No.18135881]

>>18135874
Why is it incompatible?

[Anonymous No.18135888]

>>18135881
Because objective truth exists, such as mathematical axioms.

[Anonymous No.18135889]

This isn't pol you useless faggot OP

[Anonymous No.18135892]

>>18135870
Please explain why someone should be scared of the lack of objective morality.

The way I see it, a lack of objective morality does not necessarily mean a guarantee of chaos. Morality could be completely subjective and still provide order, as long as society as a whole adheres to it.

[Anonymous No.18135895]

>>18135881
Because he said so

[Anonymous No.18135902]

>>18135888
Fair enough, I guess I interpreted your previous post such as that there is an objective truth for everything.

[Anonymous No.18135905]

>>18135888
>We decide that abstract depictions of quantity correspond with certain designators
>We arrange these designators according to correspondences
>These generate axioms which can be used internally to the system of designation and correspondence to generate still more complexity and predictability within the starting parameters
>somehow this is objective

Please don't be like this.

[Anonymous No.18135914]

>>18135888
axioms are posited arbitrarily, mostly because they explain a lot of stuff, not because they are objectively true. Per definition.

[Anonymous No.18135926]

>>18135892
>The way I see it
And you think the way you see it is valid, why? What is there to root your vision in anything real? Who is going to enforce social order, on what unquestionable basis, to what end? Imbeciles, such as yourself, don't think of these things.
>>18135905
You can word it as obscurely as you like, it's still objectively true. Words are merely representatives of the objectively real ideas behind them. One, whether uno, eins, ichi, or any other linguistic form fundamentally represents the exact same idea. You merely confuse the shadows of becoming, language, with the true forms behind them, in other words you are a cave-dweller.

[Anonymous No.18135931]

>>18135874
>>18135888
Objective truth exists != we can be certain we have access to it

[Anonymous No.18135935]

>postmodernism
>leftist

stopped reading right there
leftism is entirely within the scope of modernism

postmodernism is shit like anarchic monarchy championed by people like Moldbug and Malice, stuff that is yet to even happen

[Anonymous No.18135949]

>>18135926
I'm not talking about the distinction between sense and reference, I'm talking about the fact that there is no objective reason why we should privilege our having selected this particular way of interacting with quantity over others, and giving it the final stamp of "objective" in a metaphysically binding sense. My phrasing is "obscure" as you put it precisely because I'm trying to articulate what happens with our apprehension of quantity prior to framing it in linguistic or mathematical artifacts.

[Anonymous No.18135959]

>>18135926
>And you think the way you see it is valid, why?
If you read the rest of the sentence you would see why I hold that opinion.

Please tell me what unquestionable basis you have for your reasoning instead of throwing ad hominem arguments at the wall.

[Anonymous No.18135960]

>>18135712
>Are they really that scared of there not being objective morality and truth?
This is why postmodernism is bullshit. I can say it’s bullshit and you can’t prove me wrong because any attempts to prove me wrong would require an appeal to objective truth, which would be self-defeating.

[Anonymous No.18135969]

>>18135832
>Peterson talks about Marxist post modernism which is a contradiction
Peterson is making an empirical case, not an a priori logical one. Yes, postmodern Marxist is a seeming contradiction, which he himself has admitted, but empirically there are people who deconstruct common values and truths à la postmodernism and then use that to justify Marxist politics.

[Anonymous No.18135990]

>>18135729
>Pleb pride worldwide

[Anonymous No.18135997]

>>18135949
>I'm not talking about the distinction between sense and reference
I'm not talking about sense either, I'm talking about form and idea, which are entirely distinct from all sense objects.
>My phrasing is "obscure" as you put it precisely because I'm trying to articulate what happens with our apprehension of quantity
Which was superficial and irrelevant to the actual question being considered. How we represent quantity symbolically and derive "formal axioms" are nothing but corollaries from the objectively valid truths which really underlie them.
>>18135959
>If you read the rest of the sentence you would see why I hold that opinion.
I read it. It said, "what I see is ...", which isn't valid reasoning. What you see can be entirely disconnected from reality. This is why men of intelligence only use their sight as a secondary accessory to their intellect. I see postmodern human beings behaving morally in a Christian sense too. It doesn't change my opinion of postmodernism and its ramifications in the slightest, however. Nor am I shallow enough to see postmodernism as a "root cause", which would be very foolish. I'd instead describe it is the initial budding of a plant seeded many hundreds of years ago.

[Anonymous No.18136004]

>>18135712
>Are they really that scared of there not being objective morality and truth?
Because the same people telling me that there is no objective morality are the most obnoxious moralfags living on the planet today.

[Anonymous No.18136018]

>>18135755
>simple observation,
Ok my simple observation - I saw a video of Mexican cartel killing a man by getting a pitbull eat him from the crotch up. The entire 20th century is full of examples when very well educated people behaved like monsters, the observations of primitive people's and accounts of pre-modern ones show massive brutality as well. And here comes you and says that you can observe that humanity is "good".

[Anonymous No.18136028]

>>18136018
I'm not saying that humanity is good, I'm saying ordinary society in western side of the world is made up of people who are decent in every day life. They dont go killing people around and stealing/cheating. Those that do are a minority.

[Anonymous No.18136031]

>>18136018
>And here comes you and says that you can observe that humanity is "good".
This idea, that humanity is inherently good, is one of the most naive, ridiculous concepts imaginable. It's on the level of a religious delusion, but religions will actually tell that humans are corrupt and evil.

[Anonymous No.18136034]

>>18136028
>They dont go killing people around and stealing/cheating.
No, they just hurt others in different, more subtle ways.

[Anonymous No.18136046]

>>18136034
of course sublimated violence exists, but my point stands. People on average will seek conservatism and comfy life instead of outright conflict or pure goodness. And postmodernism or any other sceptical philosophy will not change that. People are wired to blind themselves with whatever maintains the status quo. Thinking that they will change because of ideas is the epitome of naivety that stems from Platonism and enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.18136055]

>>18135712
>objective morality
Could anyone in this thread provide me with an example of objective morality which has no exceptions whatsoever? Protip: you can't.

[Anonymous No.18136056]

>>18135931
Are you certain about that?

[Anonymous No.18136057]

>>18136046
>People on average will seek conservatism and comfy life instead of outright conflict or pure goodness.
Again, nonsense. Look at the last century, an unending feast of bloodshed. Human will finally given the technology to fulfill its ambitions. There's a temporary order holding things together at the moment and you've mistaken that for the norm. Also to be frank I just spent the last summer watching large mobs burn down and destroy various cities, but I guess you have some convenient excuse for this to explain why they're actually comfy conservatives and didn't do nothing.

[Anonymous No.18136059]

>>18136046
Are you OP? Because if you are, you literally claimed people will "be good anyway".

[Anonymous No.18136063]

>>18136055
The Categorical Imperative
Christianity if followed to a tee

[Anonymous No.18136085]

>>18136059
yeah my bad, what I meant is more something like "decent" ,as in, the majority of people will be decent, not positively "good".
>>18136057
of course there are turbulent times when the ruling ideology can not maintain itself anymore, but I limit my argument to today's world. I would still say that those people that go around creating trouble are the minority, most of the people want to lead normal lives if there are conditions for it. People rage and destroy everything with fury only when the normality of the everyday life can not go on anymore. So it is an expection.

[Anonymous No.18136086]

>>18136056
no

[Anonymous No.18136102]

>>18136063
>if followed to a tee
Unavoidable that there is some degree of subjectivity in how it should be interpreted and followed

[Anonymous No.18136107]

Whenever I need to be reminded of the nature of humanity, I just have to click around on /pol/ for a few minutes until I find one of those webms of Chinese people slowly torturing a dog or cat to death with a blowtorch so they can eat it and I remember.

[Anonymous No.18136125]

>>18136107
yes, because westerns with their blind mechanism of killing millions of animals in awful conditions every year are better.

[Anonymous No.18136141]

>>18136125
>>18136085
>most of the people want to lead normal lives if there are conditions for it.
Why don't you go watch some of these? >>18136107 That's their normal everyday comfy life after all.
>>18136125
Who said that they were? I think the one I mentioned is a better demonstration of direct human cruelty than a faceless factory, that's all.

[Anonymous No.18136145]

>>18136141
The first part of my post was only meant for >>18136085. Only the second part was for >>18136125

[Anonymous No.18136151]

>>18136141
>That's their normal everyday comfy life after all.
yes, and? I like gore videos and I know what people are capable of. But just because its spooky and extraordinary for you, doesnt mean that it is not casual for them. If you were born there you would do the same. No need to moralize.

[Anonymous No.18136166]

>>18136085
“Decent” according to a 21st century /lit/ user raised in a country and culture based on traditional Christian values

[Anonymous No.18136169]

>>18136151
I'm not moralizing to you. You are the one talking about the inherent decency of people. But you're willing to excuse any manner of cruelty apparently as long as it is their cultural norm. Your ideology is a farce.

[Anonymous No.18136175]

>>18136169
>But you're willing to excuse any manner of cruelty apparently as long as it is their cultural norm.
not what he was doing fag.

[Anonymous No.18136181]

>>18136175
Yes it is. See >>18136028

[Anonymous No.18136183]

>>18135712
>there is no objective truth dude, it's all relative
>there is no objective beauty dude, it's all relative
>there is no objective justice dude, it's all relative
The result is living in a culture of post-truth, bombarded with fake news everyday, surrounded by ugly af skyscrapers and criminals getting away with their crimes.

[Anonymous No.18136188]

>>18136166
yeah no, decent as in being a npc to the predominant cultural norms that preserve the everyday status quo
>>18136169
> But you're willing to excuse any manner of cruelty apparently as long as it is their cultural norm. Your ideology is a farce.
why would I denounce that? nothing wrong with cruelty. Only if you look at it from the victims perspective. But then again, why should we look at it from it? Baseless assumption that is ingrained, a spook to be cast away.

[Anonymous No.18136189]

>>18136183
retard

[Anonymous No.18136199]

>>18136188
If decent simply means the preservation of the status quo then you don't have much disagreement with me, but I see no reason to use a term like "decent" for that.

[Anonymous No.18136210]

>>18135712
>people are practical creatures and really dont give a shit what some philosophers think about.
This is certainly not post-modernist.
>Are they really that scared of there not being objective morality and truth?
>They will be good anyway.
You've got to the kidding me.
>>18136028
Why would murder or cruelty be bad? Aren't going to spook me with utilitarianism anon?

[Anonymous No.18136211]

>>18136188
Which happens to be cultural norms based on Christianity.

[Anonymous No.18136215]

>>18136199
I dont know, if we take the definition to be "conforming with generally accepted standards of respectable or moral behavior" it kind of follows. Maybe the trouble with this word is that what is considered "decent" differs among cultures.

[Anonymous No.18136218]

>>18136188
>Only if you look at it from the victims perspective. But then again, why should we look at it from it?
Should you want you, your mother, or your child be a victim? According to you it doesn’t matter, but I suspect you actually would care.

[Anonymous No.18136228]

>>18136218
your examples appeal to kinship, which is really different from some random animals. Protecting/caring for your family is inborn as evopsych shows, so of course I would care. But when it comes to random people or animals then I dont see why should we care (except for arbitrary moral reasons).
>>18136211
if we are talking about the western world, then yes

[Anonymous No.18136229]

What a terrible thread.

[Anonymous No.18136235]

>>18136215
What troubled me is that I thought you were arguing for an inherent goodness in humans. If you aren't then I have no quarrel with you.

[Anonymous No.18136244]

>>18136235
yeah I'm an esl, and I still have trouble choosing the exact words for my thoughts, my bad

[Anonymous No.18136245]

>>18136228
>your examples appeal to kinship, which is really different from some random animals.
So you’re saying there is an innate biologically based desire for specific acts to either occur or not occur. How do you differentiate this from morality or prove that this desire does not create/lead to the emergence of a common morality?

[Anonymous No.18136272]

>>18135730
This,it's literally r eddit

[Anonymous No.18136277]

>>18136245
>How do you differentiate this from morality
it is morality, I didnt say all morality is socially constructed.
>how do you differentiate this from morality or prove that this desire does not create/lead to the emergence of a common morality?
that could be the case, but you would have to show the link between kinship selection and selection of the larger group, which is kind of controversial in evolutionary psychology. I think there exists a certain reproduction of society that uses cultural means that can have relation with our inborn disposition. Different societies use morals to breed what is only potential in us. Ancient greek morality used our inborn hebephiliac tendencies to reproduce the society, because it suited their war-like and educational interests. Todays feminism and woke culture breeds us by activating our passive and empathetic tendencies. Because of this the link between culture and nature isnt that far away. Morality is a kind of breeding ground, a selection of a certain kinds of traits that are suitable to a given society and to reproduction of it.

[Anonymous No.18136393]

>>18135738
go back

[Anonymous No.18136506]

>>18135712
Postmodernism relies on relativism and social constructivism, both of with are utterly bfto by the overwhelming evidence for psychological nativism and all kinds of innate knowledge that the relativists still don't properly contend with (because they can't). It's also a self-refuting project from the get go. So anyway, it doesn't stand up either to scrutiny from the rest of philosophy/academia or from its own epistemic standards. But postmodernism was always going to happen, it just should have fizzled out by the 1980s- the fact that it instead has gone from strength to strength is because it gave rocket fuel to a certain kind of political agitator. It is very convenient for segments of society to claim that there is no objective morality and everything is just power competing with power. That is, impotent and resentful failures who have given up on slave morality and instead now use PoMo 'theory' as a sledgehammer to destabilise the structure of society. Don't ever pretend that those ideas are being wielded in good faith! They quickly became explicitly tied to political movements, as shown even by your own meme. But also don't assume that distaste for postmodernism comes from conservatives by definition. It is a third-rate collection of ideas which rejects even the standards by which it can properly be judged. It is more akin to intellectual terrorism than 'theory'. And 'elite intellectuals' have a well established tendency to veer out of their own lane and try to re-make the world in their enlightened image and what follows is utterly destructive every single time.

[Anonymous No.18136509]

>>18135712
Postmodernism relies on relativism and hard social constructivism, both of with are utterly bfto by the overwhelming evidence for psychological nativism and all kinds of innate knowledge that the relativists still don't properly contend with (because they can't). It's also a self-refuting project from the get go. So anyway, it doesn't stand up either to scrutiny from the rest of philosophy/academia or from its own epistemic standards. But postmodernism was always going to happen, it just should have fizzled out by the 1980s- the fact that it instead has gone from strength to strength is because it gave rocket fuel to a certain kind of political agitator. It is very convenient for segments of society to claim that there is no objective morality and everything is just power competing with power. That is, impotent and resentful failures who have given up on slave morality and instead now use PoMo 'theory' as a sledgehammer to destabilise the structure of society. Don't ever pretend that those ideas are being wielded in good faith! They quickly became explicitly tied to political movements, as shown even by your own meme. But also don't assume that distaste for postmodernism comes from conservatives by definition. It is a third-rate collection of ideas which rejects even the standards by which it can properly be judged. It is more akin to intellectual terrorism than 'theory'. And 'elite intellectuals' have a well established tendency to veer out of their own lane and try to re-make the world in their enlightened image and what follows is utterly destructive every single time.

[Anonymous No.18136515]

>>18135712
Nobody cares there's a lack objective terms to define objectivity.

However as a competent adult I am concerned that everywhere society used to depend on critical thinking skills it now depends on noise and social pressures and feelings being too overwhelming for anyone to expect anything of you.

[Anonymous No.18136519]

>>18136509
Start with the Greeks

[Anonymous No.18136762]

>>18136519
I did start with the Greeks and ended up all the way here! It's funny that any proper and rigorous critique of ideas within postmodernism can just be dismissed as themselves being the product of relative social conditions, along with the entire scientific enterprise. How convenient! It's the baby's first jazz cigarette philosophy and it pains me that we haven't yet grown out of it.

[Anonymous No.18136789]

What's the best book critiquing Postmodernism?

[Anonymous No.18136828]

>>18136762
if you started with the greeks, you would understand that saying something is determined by social conditions =/= its fake or should be dismissed.

[Anonymous No.18136959]

>>18136828
But they aren't saying "something is determined by social conditions", they are saying social conditions uber alles, objective reality counts for nothing. No-one would disagree with the former claim, but the latter claim is sheer lunacy. It's an example of motte and bailey reasoning, and you just deployed that perfectly. They do a very similar thing in jumping from an epistemological claim ("we do not perceive reality directly as it is") straight to a metaphysical claim ("reality itself does not exist") and then they bring up the drawbridge and hope you didn't notice. Again, from a claim that is demonstrably true to one that is utter lunacy. It's sophism and charlatanism of the highest order and like I said, motivated ultimately by political emotions not the pursuit of truth.

[Anonymous No.18136964]

Whats the difference between post modernism and post structuralism?

[Anonymous No.18136981]

>>18136959
>they are saying social conditions uber alles, objective reality counts for nothing
you'll have to cite one (1) postmodern philosopher who says that. Who holds this view? Lacan? Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida, Lyotard, Baurdillard? Be honest, you're fighting with the shadows.

[Anonymous No.18137053]

>>18136959
>They do a very similar thing in jumping from an epistemological claim ("we do not perceive reality directly as it is") straight to a metaphysical claim ("reality itself does not exist")
who does this?

[Anonymous No.18137116]

>>18136981
Fighting with the shadows is a perfect way of putting it because these types deliberately make their philosophy nebulous as all hell as a defence against analytic rigour- but then will sometimes harden up and demand that their opponent's critique is grounded fully in syllogistic reasoning when it's helpful for them to do so. It behaves like that weird cornflour and water mix that turns liquid or solid depending on how it's handled. Case in point- criticising Peterstein with "haha you can't be pomo AND marxist that's incoherent!" Like yes, yes it is incoherent that people hold these two philosophies together. Incredible to witness this sudden demand for logical consistency when it's appropriate even though the rejection of such consistency is right at the foundation of the entire project.
Anyway, I digress- I read Baudrillard and Lyotard doing undergrad and then Foucault later on and from what I remember they explicitly reduce social phenomena to abstract concepts like power, which is a rejection or inversion of the modernist view- that power derives from truth rather than 'truth' deriving from power. But anyway whatever the foundational thinkers thought and wrote, the work it has given rise to (critical theory and so on) absolutely rejects any claims to an objective and innate reality having any bearing on the subject at hand. Apart from anything else the Boghossian affair showed this quite clearly.

[Anonymous No.18137126]

>>18137116
>that power derives from truth rather than 'truth' deriving from power.
start with nietzsche

[Anonymous No.18137132]

>>18137116
Postmodern philosophers were talking about niche themes that were popular in their time and had their own philosophical context. Nowhere do they positively claim that objective reality doesnt exist (some thinkers, like Lacan did introduce new ways of looking at the concept of real for example, but even he held that there exists Kantian reality in itself). I do agree that the reception of this philosophical movement can be batshit insane. But there is a good reason to separate those two things.

[Anonymous No.18137155]

>>18135755
>there is a difference between authoritative objective truth that is held to be self evident across centuries and a simple observation, my dear anon
No there isn't.

[Anonymous No.18137176]

>>18137155
then take your meds

[Anonymous No.18137182]

Almost everybody is a post-modernist in thought and attitude, except some theocrats maybe or poor Africans. Jordan Peterson is a post-modernist.

[Anonymous No.18137226]

>>18137176
I'm smarter than you by probably around 25 IQ points.

[Anonymous No.18137247]

>>18135712
>Are they really that scared of there not being objective morality and truth?

The problem isn't there not being objective morality and truth. The problem is claiming that the gender theory that you tweeted while you were in the shitter holds the same weight as, say, a document that outlasted millennia and empires.

[Anonymous No.18137251]

>>18137226
My iq is higher than yours by over 9000

[Anonymous No.18137254]

>>18137226
No, I'm smarter than you and more knowledgeable in philosophy. Plus I can feel that you are emotional, so take off ~20 iq points.

[Anonymous No.18137268]

>>18137126
Nietzsche's perspectivism is also ultimately incorrect, but he can be excused for his ignorance of 20th century psychology and his work has immense literary value. Neither can be said for the postmodernists!

[Anonymous No.18137273]

>>18137254
>Plus I can feel that you are emotional
uhhhh bro?

[Anonymous No.18137281]

>>18137273

[Anonymous No.18137931]

Literally the reverse. Postmodern culture is the punishment of the "practical creatures" (normalfags) who are happy to eat shit, while the elites preserve their traditions.

[Anonymous No.18137941]

>>18136189
truth hurts, copeboy

[Anonymous No.18138188]

>>18136789
Also Sokal's 'Fashionable Nonsense'

[Anonymous No.18138211]

>>18137182
Expand on this anon because that sounds ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.18138272]

>>18135730
Do you even remember the old macros? That’s all advice dog was.

[Anonymous No.18138313]

>Believes in the objective truth that everything is subjective
Ahhh nice philosophy dumbass. Postmodernism is an accurate assessment of the world we live in, but it is no desirable in anyway and calling it a "philosophy" by which we should live is disgusting

[Anonymous No.18138324]

>>18138313
cite one postmodernist who believes that or stfu with this brainlet meme

[Anonymous No.18138343]

>>18138324
Reading them is a waste of time, so no I will not do that

[Anonymous No.18138365]

I like postmodern fiction but the world is binary. Things are or aren't. "Should" is the worst word in the english language for this reason.

[Anonymous No.18138378]

>>18138343
lmao double digit iq brainlet, kys

[Anonymous No.18138820]

>>18138313
So you're completely okay with women being unable to leave their house without male escorts? Because that's how they do it in Islamic countries.

[Anonymous No.18138834]

>>18138272
Advice dog wasn't really adapted to particular groups, nichces, or topics. The running thread of advice dog was just that he gave bad advice.

[Anonymous No.18138855]

>>18135712
People who bitch relentlessly about postmodernism can't even distinguish between structuralism and post-structuralism, they can't name or quote the people they're criticizing, and they can't present an example of something they consider a "postmodern argument" that isn't just prima facie false. Postmodernism is just a bogeyman that allows them to say "Communists think truth isn't real" even though they can't name a communist, and they also can't name a person who takes that position.

[Anonymous No.18138867]

Po-mo is horseshit. No lobsters necessary, take it from one of the most well known leftist intellectuals alive:
http://bactra.org/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html

[Anonymous No.18138871]

>>18138855
Ok Derrida and Foucalt on then.

Specially Derrida claimed he could deconstruct the world and learn how it worked cause muh science, and was incapable of realizing that some things work because we have feelings attached to them that require ignorance.

[Anonymous No.18138873]

>>18138855
>NOBODY BUT ME HAS READ ANYTHING
every time

[Anonymous No.18138879]

>>18135712
>What are people so angry about postmodernism?
Because it has gone so far as to enter everyday life.

It's academic garbage non sense, but when politicians and political parties among other people in power subscribe to it, it becomes far worse.

Leftism is a plague, leftists are mentally deranged.

[Anonymous No.18138885]

>>18138873
Give me an example of a postmodern position and name who holds that position

[Anonymous No.18138899]

>>18138871
>Specially Derrida claimed he could deconstruct the world and learn how it worked cause muh science, and was incapable of realizing that some things work because we have feelings attached to them that require ignorance.
w

what did he mean by this

[Anonymous No.18138906]

>>18138885
no lol. But did you like my epic maymay?

[Anonymous No.18138934]

>>18138906
On the whole it wasn't a great meme, but the inclusion of the pope was indeed funny

[Anonymous No.18138943]

>>18135712
i hate post modernism so fucking much god dammit