/lit/ - Literature

>>9900079
>how though?
How, if not the American reception of post-modern philosophers?
>How are you understanding social constructionism?
Social constructionist metatheory allows that any coherent epistemology must be self-reflexive, but, while it denies that any assertion can be true, and that there are any independent realities to be referred to, it nevertheless treats discourse as having objective existence, and assumes that its own statements about discourse are true. Thus, in asserting its own basic premise, it contradicts it.
>If you understand it you must know the idea of degeneracy itself isn't subsistent. Any problem with this?
Why would I, when social constructionism isn't subsistent? As Aristotle put it: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
>Where are your values coming from?
Requires further linguistic and evolutionary investigations, my provisional answer would be "survival (working title)." But why should we act like we know anyway?
>Who are the cultural marxists that took the idea?
Laclau, Alinsky, social activists that are Laclau or Alinsky, social activists that read Laclau and/or Alinsky?
>What does marxism have to do with it?
Will you deny that, influence-wise, Marx gives to the French and Italian post-moderns and the post-moderns give back to marxists, neo-marxists, post-marxists, something-marxists? Why?
>What do you think there was to gain from asserting this movement purely from an ideological angle?
Won't you see any value in the history of philosophy?