/lit/ - Literature

Nonsense my boy! *Lights pipe*
You've read all that you needed to. There's no sense in reading anything else, for you see, I endeavored to explain philosophy and I did just that. Everything that came after me, now that's just Rubbish! Franco-Nonsense. Hooey!
Do yourself a favor, get yourself a nice wad of tobacco, put it in your pipe and call it a day. I bid you a good morning, good bye sir.

>>12273559
thanks berty

>>12273559
this but unironically

>>12273559
no bert dont go i have so much questions

>>12273546
Hicks in this book posits a conclusion that is completely wrong, and he fails to accurately explain postmodernism because he traces it entirely through philosophy, which is too obscure to in and of itself transform a zeitgeist; but this is natural given that he's a philosopher, and his general philosophical overview and critique of postmodernism is solid enough that one can overlook the notion that his fundamental premise is wrong. So may be what you're looking for.

>>12273701
Err.

>>12273701
>he traces it entirely through philosophy,
but thats wrong. he traces through many different threads of the last 250 years. you willfully lied here. also, its a good book and free on youtube.

>>12273727
You obviously haven't read it. Hicks traces the advent of postmodernism entirely through philosophy and philosophers, which makes sense since that's what he is. But that approach is silly, as is his premise that postmodernism is a rejection of 'reason' and enlightenment values.

>>12273705
>Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault argues that postmodernism is best understood as a rhetorical strategy of intellectuals and academics on the far left of the political spectrum developed in reaction to the failure of socialism and communism.[2]

Sounds very Petersonian and idealist. Does he attempt to explain why postmodernism never became hegemonic in the academias of "failed" socialist countries? It seems more to me just a purely organic epistemic development of post-industrial consumer society. It's not rhetorical, it's the logic of unregulated consumption.

>>12273785
Well Peterson has cited the book as inspiring him so no surprise there.

>It seems more to me just a purely organic epistemic development of post-industrial consumer society

Then you're retarded. Nothing is organic, everything is a product or reflection of the people in charge of cultural institutions, and postmodernism is a product of jewish control over our culture and academic institutions. They push that nihilism and deconstructionist anti-philosophy because it weakens the cultural fabric of our society.

>>12273924
O.K. I see you believe in a conspiracy theory of history so notting's going to convince you history is in fact rational.

>>12274011
There is no conspiracy theory involved with that. Jews running western academic institutions is a fact.

The Routledge Companion to Postmodernism + primary texts

This one is good too, even if it misses the point by not connecting the human/jewish element to postmodernism and instead pretending it's all abstract phenomena with its own interests, which is just silly.

>>12274011
>conspiracy theory
nice spook

>>12273705
>postmodernism
>socialism
okay peterson

>>12273705
cuck philosophy has a video about that book, it's hilatious.
You'd expect it missrepresent postmodernism, but he fails to grasp even really basic kant and humes, it has a bellow high school understanding of everything.
Peterson looks like a retard recommending that selfpublished crap, not even /lit/ respects self publishing.

>>12274334
how did they end up thinking that two opposing ideologies were the same?
if anything the neo liberal crowd should love postmodernism.

>>12274358
because all schools of liberal thought necessitate you not to read

>>12274334
Where are you getting socialism from? No one said anything about that.

>>12274353
People might take your own criticisms of Kant or Hume seriously if you could write coherently and with proper grammar like an adult does. Otherwise I'm going to go with the guy who has a PhD in philosophy. Hicks' may be wrong and be unable or unwilling to connect the dots in an honest manner, but he understands at a basic level that postmodernism is an attack on whites and white culture, which is a level higher than most academics are willing to go.

>>12274358
>if anything the neo liberal crowd should love postmodernism
.... They do.

>>12274384
I don't double check my posts, sue me.
>he's wrong, can't connect the dots he wrongly maes
>but he says what I though before him
>so he's right
that's super weak, but I'm not offended, I have no stake on this.
But this is a cool video if you have the time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHtvTGaPzF4

>>12274011
>conspiracy theory
I mean he's retarded but dismissing him on the grounds that he "believes in a conspiracy theory" is intellectually dishonest. There's nothing inherently absurd about conspiracy theories

>>12274427
"You're retarded" is not an argument either. Jews have thorough control over our elite academic institutions and have a long, documented record of promoting postmodern / Marxist / critical theory concepts and critiques that portray white men as the primary enemy because that is who these jews in positions of power view as their primary enemy. This is not even ambiguous anymore, so whether your critique here involves crying 'conspiracy theory' or 'retard,' neither are acceptable counter arguments, and nor is the absurd notion that postmodernism is just some organic, osmotic substance infecting us all while being outside of human control a reasonable explanation. Postmodern and Marxist critiques explicitly target whites and white culture and jews are the primary perpetrators of it within our culture. That is a documented fact and the only logical explanation for what 'postmodernism' is.

>>12274334
The book never says they are the same thing but that there is an influence on postmodernism from Marxist thought.

>>12274427
It's not dishonest and has notting to do with the "absurdity" of any particular theory. Anyone claiming that:
>everything is a product or reflection of the people in charge of cultural institutions
isn't worth taking very serious. All social spheres... be it artistic, economic, political, religious, etc... reproduce themselves as a totality and determine themselves. You can't isolate anything and understand historical intellectual developments separable from everything else.

>>12274661
And there's an influence on Marxism from liberal thought. And there's an influence on Liberalism from Christian thought. And there's an influence on Christianity from Jewish thought.

QED

>>12274661
Postmodernism is an extension of jewish Marxism, and both are best classified as jewish ideologies. No doubt everyone here has heard of the Culture of Critique, but whether they've processed the name in relation to jewish behavior is another story. The type of critique/attack both Marxism and postmodernism are defined by are fundamentally jewish. It's an atomization of a host culture and people, a deconstruction of their traditions and values, and it revolves around the typical bogus ideal of making things equal by lifting the weak over the strong, which of course means jews take power and surround themselves with every group other than host male population (white men) because those are the two competing groups. This is a jewish swindle they've used since literal Mesopotamian times.

>>12273705
Isn’t this a meme book that literally falls apart you give it any critical thought?

>>12274921
Read the post above. I said the premise was wrong.

>>12274358
>if anything the neo liberal crowd should love postmodernism.
you think that enlightenment pholosophy should like the apex of the counter enlightenment?
wtf is wrong with you?

>>12273742
>ou obviously haven't read it.
i read it before any one here, and i read it multiple times. you are a liar. and you have intentionally lied about the book. because it rapes your entire nazi/communist wordlview

Is Russel's book a good general introduction to philosophy? I've heard he mischaracterizes Nietzsche, which is disappointing, but just from skimming the book on Amazon, he does appear to be a readable and engaging reader. Is this book good as long as you keep its biases in mind? Or would you guys recommend something different?

>>12273705
Never trust a book that fucking ugly

>>12275049
You clearly didn't understand it then. Hicks spends 95% of the book trying to draw a purely philosophical line between the so-called age of reason and today's postmodernism, and his thesis is that postmodernism is a rejection of enlightenment values when in fact it is the logical end of them.

>>12275101
Just get a modern textbook from an intro to philsophy class. Trying to sort through Russel’s biases and learn at the same time would just make everything more confusing

>>12275119
wrong. postmodernism is the apex of the counter enlightenment. as is explain by thsi book as well. i trust 2 actual real philosophers over some faggot on the internet that is very likely a nazi or communist

>>12275119
AND
there are entire chapters of the hicks book dedicated to the political sources of postmodernism, namely the failure of communism

>>12275151
>a nazi or communist
You are deeply Judaized to be reiterating their fake dichotomy here but you're still wrong.
>>12275159
Everything is put in a philosophical frame. Again, naturally (he is a philosopher after all), but to the detriment of his thesis, which is wrong because philosophy doesn't actually have the widespread influence he pretends it does. Hicks only proves how framing everything in universalist philosophical terms will get you no closer to the truth vis a vis postmodernism, which is a reflection of its main institutional progenitor: the jew.

>>12273546
You should actually restart from scratch by reading an actually decent book on history of philosophy.

>>12275194
he's a troll, just ignore him
>>12275101
>>12275149
Russel's kinda sorta bad at doing the basic textbook thing of not being overly biased, follow this guy's advice