/lit/ - Literature

>>10652905
because its describing a period of time and a plurality of ideas & ideologies that have influenced all aspects of society

>>10652905
check the archives

It's when you invent the concept of privilege to distract you from how messy your room is

>>10652905
Humans are all same smartness. this why in fantasy u dont have super geniouses you have people who do majic because thats something with a larged standard deviations.

>>10652905
>nothing is objective everything is a construct
Pomo in a nutshell

>>10652905
Because it's just a boogeyman strawman word used by redpilled Petersonites with no concrete definition in academic circles.

>>10652905
They’re not very bright and haven’t read enough lit, done enough acid (which is a requirement for understanding it), and studied the main proponents of it closely enough to answer the question. This is a pseud board through and through

>>10652905
It's a philosophical method with various applications. Everyone confuses the two.

>>10652921
Prospect0r?

Question, what happens after western thought and system are deconstructed? What will life be like?

>>10652905
cause my dog ate my homework ya fuckin shitkicker

>>10653366
Pretty good, I imagine, because we won't be bogged down by pointless spooks.

>>10652983
>acid

Mescaline is superior

>>10652905
Postmodernism is gay. Nationalism is patrician.

>>10652905
Do you only mean postmodern art?

>>10652905
postmodrnism can be explained with one fuckinh image faggot. there. you fucking get it yet? Its not a real pipe u fuking idiot. That the whole fucking point. "THis is not a pipe" What more do u fucking need you retarded shithead?!?!?

>>10653414
>Nationalism is patrician.

>>10653424
You can recognize it as a picture of a pipe jsut like you can read the text below and understand its meaning.
Of course this is optional and it doesnt contain a pipeimage or meaning in the text. Its basically a faithbased way of communicating just like with every other language.
Am i right femmes?

>>10652905
finally i get to use this

>>10653426
I see nothing wrong with the picture you posted.

>>10653388
Faggot

>>10652905
Post modernism is fucking retarded. It's the idea that nothing is inherently anything so we are free to do/be whatever we want.

It's fucking stupid and falls apart under scrutiny, which is unfortunate because you can't scrutinize it in academia because it is treated as the truth, despite its own assertion that there is no truth.

>>10653909

yes that's all what sartre, de beauvoir, heidegger, foucault, lyotard, ranciere, deleuze, schopenhauer, baudrillard, karl jaspers, kierkegaard, nietzsche, and dostoyevsky said

can't believe they never thought of your critique man.

have you considered publishing?

>>10653441
he looks like a washed-up guitarist who recently discovered Buddhism

>>10653909
>It's the idea that nothing is inherently anything so we are free to do/be whatever we want.
how are you so fucking retarded that you, despite being endlessly berated for this lapse in judgment, continue to conflate relativism w/ the entirety of postmodernism

postmodernism is an epoch, OP, and a lot of it is wrong and dumb, and a good amount of it is useful and wondrous. structuralism changed my life.

>>10653414
>putting these at odds
i mean this with absolutely no sarcasm or irony

you are very dumb. please leave this board.

i don't say this because i disagree with you politically or ideologically. i say this because you have serious and critical misunderstandings of topics which you seem to belief you have some adequate grasp on. you do not. you seem to be lacking in some serious amount of the requisite intellect required to grapple with concepts and topics of a certain level of complexity, nuance, and abstraction, and i think that you should simply give up and commit yourself to something which you are more certain that you will be able to succeed in, such as bashing your skull into a concrete pillar until you reach adequate cessation of vital bodily functions, or ,alternatively, some sort of highly practical and useful menial labor which will serve to greatly benefit your community. i hope you don't read there to be any shame implied in that act. i really do truly value those who do what must be done to keep our world running as it is. i myself am no emperor. regardless of what action you decide to take, it is crucial that you stop attempting to articulate anything concerning "postmodernism", "nationalism", or any other tangentially related abstract concepts, as you will not possibly bring anything fruitful to the discussion, and only serve to further pollute the atmosphere in which these things are discussed and perceived, and possibly lead those who may be well suited for such pursuits into the belief that they would do better to avoid these things altogether, if for nothing else than the sheer pleasure of being able to live a life free from the stresses of having to correspond with you, or your cohorts.

>>10653366
>implying that deconstruction of an idea or work is equivalent to invalidation of it

w-what?
have any of you fucking idiots even read a word of derrida or even anything supplementary?

>>10652941
t. never read any postmodernism

how is it getting all your opinions secondhand
and from shitshow sources at that
you know it's true.

>>10654004
Obviously not. They're the same people who think calling something a "social construct" is the same as saying it's not real

ITT: Postmodernism is bad because based Canada daddy told me

>>10654006
>They're the same people who think calling something a "social construct" is the same as saying it's not real

this really is one of the most frustrating and most common things ive encountered. this misunderstanding seems to lead to like 75% of my misunderstandings with people in the world.

e.g. i've long maintained that gender is in large part socially constructed, or at least many facets of gender, but telling people such a thing has them immediately assuming that you believe gender spectrum xe/xir crap to be valid, and leads them to believe that you don't think gender is a valid concept or has any real bearing on one's life. people cannot seem to fathom how a moderately masculine male could believe gender to be socially constructed, and reminding them that I myself have existed and been shaped by, for the entirety of my existence, within societies and social systems, doesn't seem to help clarify things too much. it is endlessly frustrating.

i'm so tired of trying to make myself understood to idiots whilst being simultaneously too dumb to interact with people of real revelation and intellect. i miss my ex.

>>10654037
>leads them to believe that you don't think gender is a valid concept or has any real bearing on one's life. people cannot seem to fathom how a moderately masculine male could believe gender to be socially constructed, and reminding them that I myself have existed and been shaped by, for the entirety of my existence, within societies and social systems, doesn't seem to help clarify things too much
Does saying "gender is a signifier" say anything about the uses and interpretation of said signifier? If you want clarity, and your interlocutor to understand that you're not automatically implying the unreality or invalidity of the concept, cut the crap and get to the point. Of course what you've been doing doesn't clarify things: you don't tell anybody what is gender to you, to this piece of paper on girls' psychology, to this tradition, to this society constructing the construct. What's the construct like, again? How could a great communicator and theorist of language such as you allow oneself to be so imprecise?

ITT: My unjustifiably narrow and dishonestly selective pet conception of post-modernism is superior to your unjustifiably narrow and dishonestly selective pet conception of post-modernism

>>10653909
I wish i could be this confidently stupid.

Obviously, postmodernism is an ill-defined historiographic notion that idiots have illegitimately reified, resulting in hopeless confusion and much spurious reasoning.

>>10652905
Q.E.D.
Now clean your room BUCKO
~ t. Pill-Popping-Selfhelp-Writer

>>10652905
Who me?

>>10654037
Is this really solely on them, though? I mean, I, too, tend to read "Gender is a social construct" as "Gender is invalid/meaningless", not because I don't understand the crux of social constructivism, but because the *overwhelming majority* of people I've interacted with who actually made statements along those lines (both online and offline) *did* mean "Gender is invalid/meaningless". The misinterpretation doesn't lie squarely at the feet of the dismissive recipients here. It's also very much the fault of those who are continuously diluting social constructivist tenets down to vacuous slogans and ideological platitudes.

I mean, there's a reason why "X is just a social construct" has become a silly cliche, and that reason is the misappropriation of said notion to express "X is not *really* real, you know, and, therefore, your opinions on X can be dismissed in favor of my opinions on X".

>>10652917
It's really easy to have a tidy room if you have a mexican lady to clean it up for you, privileged anon.

>>10654423
You fucking troglodyte, just put things away and don't live like a slob. You'll never have to clean your room.

>>10654430
I don't even have a room, nigger.

>>10654422
As someone who also moves in circles where that phrase is said often I can tell you that the thing about X being a social construct is not that it becomes invalid in society as a whole but it's a gateway to understand that it's not written on stone by God himself and that you can alter it and even discard it in your spaces if you feel like it. You can even (imagine the indignity!) make up your own social constructs within your social circles.

>>10654438
>but it's a gateway to understand that it's not written on stone by God himself and that you can alter it and even discard it in your spaces if you feel like it. You can even (imagine the indignity!) make up your own social constructs within your social circles.
The pomposity involved in this is arguably part of the problem. This idea that the average person (by average, I just mean people who don't devote a lot of time thinking about philosophy) needs a gateway into grasping the difference between socially independent "ontological absolutes", if you will, and flexible constructions is just arrogant, detached from reality and unproductive.

The real issue is that the average person is unlikely to conceptualize *the same things* as socially constructed as you do (gender, race, etc.), but in order to expand their horizon in this regard, they don't need some snarky smugling condescending to them about a core difference of which they already have an intuitive understanding.

>>10654436
Get a room bucko

>>10652905
It's the realisation of humanity fags that they aren't cut for their subject nor a real subject like physics. They either know or somehow feel that they are a massive failure, and now they need to drag everybody down to their level. It's just a certain state of mind mixed with an asshole attitude towards other people.

>>10654494
>This idea that the average person (by average, I just mean people who don't devote a lot of time thinking about philosophy) needs a gateway into grasping the difference between socially independent "ontological absolutes", if you will, and flexible constructions is just arrogant, detached from reality and unproductive.
I don't know, anon. I'm not an edgelord who hates people because they're beneath me or something like that but you will have a hard time trying to convince me that the average person doesn't need a gateway into most things.
I mean, just take a look at this site. At most sites. Take a look at the streets, the pedestrians and the subway. In the clubs, the bars and the sideways, to your friends, your family and yourself. And if you say that the problem is not that they can't understand it, then the problem is that they don't want to, even though they already do.
I don't know, anon. I'll just leave.

>>10654005
>bothering to read any postmodern thinkers

>>10653440
It’s not a pipe. The object of the painting in question has more resemblance to other paintings than a pipe object. The painting object in question has some pictoral reflection of a pipe but does not represent a pipe. The pipe object (that the painting object in question reflects) references itself to the maximum degree.

Imagine being the most obnoxious, narcissistic faggot in your English lit class. Now imagine only socialising with people like yourself. Now vomit the contents of your head onto blank paper and have it published. That's postmodernism.

>>10654642

>>10654642
> it's use

>>10654675
here's a puzzle for you

>>10654701
It's just a fucking joke, you cunt. It's not an argumentative cartoon.

>>10654783
It's a big pipe, floating next to a picture of another pipe! Did I solve the puzzle?

>>10652905
because most of us are petersonfags

Postmodernism has never been—can't be—defined (it can)
>Marxism has never been tried (it has numerous times)

>>10654935
>>10652905
Tabula Rasa + moral relativism; emerged from, but outside of—although, amusingly unprincipled, still supported by: The Dialectic of "Marxists"; Marx himself (Engels) would write a huge book against it.
Philosophical postmodernism should be called postmarxism (abandonment of communism). It has "nothing" to do with other forms of postmodernism.
The most basic definition of postmodernism, which covers all of them; is the meme answer: Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

>>10654430
>getting this invested in neoliberal indoctrination
cmon anon

>>10653984

>I like it, therefore it's good

Contemporary /lit/ criticism

>>10652905
In terms of /lit/ it means an unreliable narrator, like Peterson. Read Pale Fire.

>>10654498
We aren't all privileged with rooms bootlicker

>>10654675
I never said it was a pipe.

>>10654894
that is not a pipe.

>>10653424
>>10653440
>>10654675
>>10654783
>>10654894
>>10655967
So... postmodernism is intentional confusion?

>>10657035
yes and it backfiring

>>10657035
self-deception

>>10657035
what's so confusing for you about the fact that a picture of a pipe is not a pipe?

also Magritte is not a postmodernist.

>>10652983
I'd say most people here couldn't explain what modernism is and thus cannot understand post-modernism's as the rejection of modernism.

>>10652983
Acid makes objectivism seem far more tenable. Which i guess would elucidate post-modern thought, though ultimately it makes post-modernism easier to disregard.

>>10657092
A post modern Magritte would use the subtitle
"This is not anything at all"

>>10657092
>>10657124
a lot of magritte's pictures are titles of detective fiction, especially the nero wolfe series in translation
surrealism transcends both the modern and postmodern period

>>10657124
"Nothing is not a pipe."

>>10657164
anon, they don't know what postmodernism means, don't make them read rex stout

>>10657092
Honestly if anyone would show me that picture and ask me what do you see I will tell them that it's a pipe. If they would then laugh at me while pointing out that it's a just picture of a pipe then who is the retarded one? Of course I know it's fucking picture of a pipe. Postmodernists should start reading late Wittgenstein.

>>10657186
>show me that picture and ask me what do you see
>when you answer the question before they ask it
this is why people think you have the 'tisms anonkun

>>10657195
Not sure what you greentexted there anonsan.

>>10657256
me either i read on certainty too

>>10657186
tell me what you see.

>>10657314
a faggot who thinks he's clever

>>10657392
art is a mirror.

>>10657314
A jpg.

>>10657402
so, exactly what Magritte wants you to see.

>>10654005
Summarize the sociopolitical implications in a quick oneliner. This is the immediate gratification website after all I have no time for your cunty discourse i aint your professor nigga

>>10652941
>nothing is objective
An objective statement

>>10657500
it's an observation, not an axiom.

>>10657402
Did you click on it? Or was is a thumbnail you saw?

>>10657524
the fringe of a thumbnail held to the candle

>>10657035
yes, hence why it's popular with pseuds

>>10657563
do you prefer unintentional confusion?

>>10654422
I understand what you mean and anyone talking to a popular audience has a responsibility to clarify. There are times when people do mean it in this way, but they’re not exactly the great thinkers of our time. I’m reminded of the large swaths of feminists who hate Judith Butler for being “anti trans”, when that’s not what she’s saying at all.

But when you’re reading real works of theory and not “thinkpieces”, understand that the phrase “social construct” is not being used in a way that implies meaninglesness.

>>10657626
People seem to think that construction means pure fiction. They fail to see that social constructs always presuppose real social cases just like a building presupposes real base materials. They also fail to see that these cases have real effects on them even though they have been embedded in society their entire life.
Saying that social constructs are invalidate is like saying that society is nonexistent or like saying that buildings are not real because they don't represent their base materials naturally. It's literally like someone is saying 'look that church over there is not real, it's just a construct man'.

>>10657186
>Haha sometimes the curtains are just blue you guys, stop reading into things that aren't there

>>10657124
Post modernist cant even point out a 'this' that is supposed to be something.

>>10653366
>>10653366
deconstruction has no telos. its the "shaking up" on the move in "the things themselves" as per derrida, limited inc

>>10653424
surrealism is a modernism

magritte is not postmodern holy shit. you guys are so stupid.

>>10657579
that's called analytical philosophy or elminativist materialism and desu its a lot more depressing (owing to its absurd pretensions) than post-modernism which is just a sort of giving up at the end of the linen (which is appropriate though also depressing)

>>10654362
>a great communicator and theorist of language such as you
thats not me though im just a sorta smart kid with some potential

>>10654362
Also
>of course what you've been doing doesn't clarify things
You don't know what I've been doing. It's not as if i just walk up to strangers and go "gender is a social construct" and then fail to elaborate anymore on the topic. I don't see why you would assume this was the case. The whole point is that of what gender is to the society constructing it and that is what is discussed when claiming that gender is societally constructed. What gender is to me is what I believe gender to be to the society; what my own identification w/r/t/ that construction is is a different matter.

>>10659202
>The whole point is that of what gender is to the society constructing it and that is what is discussed when claiming that gender is societally constructed.
a 17-car pileup of a sentence

>>10659202
>It's not as if i just walk up to strangers and go "gender is a social construct" and then fail to elaborate anymore on the topic. I don't see why you would assume this was the case
Because you're doing, and continuing to do, exactly that ITT.
>What gender is to me is what I believe gender to be to the society
Then it's not the society's construct, it's yours.

>>10652905
Because it's incoherent.

>>10654378
How dare you!

>>10653942
Nietzche was literally a prophet in some aspects of our society.
Specialy academia.

>120 replies
>No one can explain it or agree what it is

>>10659367
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
Here, happy?

this board is filled with worse pseuds than /sci/ for fuck's sake half of the posters from old /lit/ are leftists and you can't provide a cogent explanation for poor OP?

ridiculous, outrageous incompetence i'm going to /pol/ to call people niggers

>>10659447
It's literally not easily definable at all, and to try and provide a brief and easy explanation of it in the space of a 4chan post could only possibly serve to give him an inaccurate idea of what it is. He could very easily just go read a few essays on the topic if he's looking for a solid overview.

I could tell him that it's an artistic, cultural, philosophical, and literary tendency towards skepticism of convention, universal truths, absolutes, and grand narratives, with a heavy emphasis on experimentation and a means and aim of articulating or expressing the life of the postmodern individual and how and why it has become detached, dissociated, fragmented, and so characterized by a seemingly desperate and futile search for meaning.

but hasn't that all been better said by someone other than i? isn't there really a lot more to it?

>>10659471
>I could tell him that it's an artistic, cultural, philosophical, and literary tendency towards skepticism of convention, universal truths, absolutes, and grand narratives, with a heavy emphasis on experimentation and a means and aim of articulating or expressing the life of the postmodern individual and how and why it has become detached, dissociated, fragmented, and so characterized by a seemingly desperate and futile search for meaning.

This nigga gets it.
Although I would add the apparent fact that postmodernism seens out more emphasis on personalidade views that simply skepticism over universal truths and grand narratives.
Thats why we so often see modern art works more a reflection of the artist and his convictions then a portrayal of some other person or their convictions.
I may be wrong in this one, but I feel like I see this every work of art... Lately...
Now. I corrected my typo mistake.

>>10659502
Fuck, it didn't corrected at all!

>Although I would add the apparent fact that postmodernism seens to put more emphasis on personal views that simply skepticism over universal truths and grand narratives.**

>>10652905

how do you really explain something that just boils down to "not that other thing"

>>10653366
brutish obviously

>>10657092
>>10658873
>Magritte is not postmodernism
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Postmodernism

>>10659518
Sabe nem escrever direito, arrombado.

>>10652905
clean your room anon

>>10659819
Kkk, I a lá anon

>>10659812
>tvtropes

>>10659812
>tvtropes.org
holy...

>>10659471
>an artistic, cultural, philosophical, and literary tendency towards skepticism of convention, universal truths, absolutes, and grand narratives, with a heavy emphasis on experimentation and a means and aim of articulating or expressing the life of the individual and how and why it has become detached, dissociated, fragmented, and so characterized by a seemingly desperate and futile search for meaning.

so... modernism?

nobody on /lit/ know what postmodernism is and just dismisses it all based on memes

>>10652905

It's modern isms but in the post office.

>>10660420
most accurate answer so far

I can't do that but I also do not use it.

>>10660383
Postmodernism is exaggerated modernism.

>>10659471
>a means and aim of articulating or expressing the life of the individual and how and why it has become detached, dissociated, fragmented, and so characterized by a seemingly desperate and futile search for meaning.
So it's therapy?

>>10657314
A painting in front of a window! And on the painting is the outside!

>>10661097
what's behind the painting?

>>10661147
The outside.

>>10652916
This. It's been talked about to death already.

>>10657314
Looks like a penis

>>10661190
really? how do you know?

>>10661227
Because windows go outside!

>>10661275
but it's not a window. it's a painting.

>>10661315
...
It's a painting of a painting!

>>10661331
but a painting of a pipe is not a pipe.
so a painting of a painting is not a painting.

>>10661349
But if it's not a painting, then what is it?

>>10652921
I don't get it

If some physicist guy debunked it using an ornamented bullshit text deep-vague sounding, pompous words which actually got published, then it must be shit

>>10661725
if some physicist guy was published in a very small journal because the editors respected his academic qualifications and trusted him to be submitting actual work in good faith, but he was submitting pompous bullshit as a practical joke, then that doesn't really say much about anything.

>>10661812
educate yourself first
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

>>10654004
>implying he used 'deconstruction' in the Derridean sense

that word got severely expanded semantically in the recent years, anon.

Pomo is an Anglo phenomenon. It happened when certain French authors (e.g. Foucault, Derrida, etc) were translated into English. This lead to a bunch of elitist snobbery in leftist Anglosphere academia who tried to copycat the writing style of these translations. It also adopts a really cynical and critical perspective towards anything. Everything, including works of art, are a form of "criticism", and are made to appeal to an elite of snobbish intellectuals. It's the inversion of the left, which was supposed to be for the be pro-working classes not pro-snob.

Brainlet here, never read Foo-co or Derrida but I've always assumed it to mean the deconstruction of language and meaning so as to justify the idea that "truth" is an absurd concept, and that everything is subjective.

>>10654005
He's right though, you double faggot.

>>10654378
>>10654407
Only good posts in this damned thread

>>10654438
>As someone who also moves in circles where that phrase is said often I can tell you that the thing about X being a social construct is not that it becomes invalid in society as a whole but it's a gateway to understand that it's not written on stone by God himself and that you can alter it and even discard it in your spaces if you feel like it. You can even (imagine the indignity!) make up your own social constructs within your social circles.
*punches you in the face until your skull concaves*
Subjectively speaking, I did nothing wrong since there's no such thing. Your pain wasn't real either, right?

>>10654006
>>10654037
In my experience, what most people mean by "gender is a social construct" is that gender grows out of a tabula rasa, something that's obviously incorrect.

>>10661857
so the editorial board of one journal in 1996 was responsible for characterising the entire body of thought under the label Postmodernism? I hope they paid well at least.

>>10659812
>a work from the 1920s is postmodernist