/lit/ - Literature

>It is empirically evident
Stopped reading there

Everything that exists is dependent upon a desire.

>postmodern
>empirically

Choose uno.

>>16570656
>>16570666
Empirically evident TO ME, through my subjective experience. I do not have evidence that can be reviewed by other people, nor experiments that other people could possibly accept.

>X is a social construct
>Therefore X is completely arbitrary, free-floating, and meaningless

Your attempts to rationalize your want for power, hedonistic pleasure, and ego-sustainance show that you grew up in an environment that values those things

>>16570648
Postmodernists' are completely right and there should be a mass reexaminations of guys like Foucault and Derrida as conservatives rightfully wanting to topple the evil that is liberalism. In the same vein of thinkers like Giambatistta Vico, Joseph de Maistre or Georges Dumezil

>>16570648
What's the point on relying purely your own flawed perception of reality when established models have a better record of making sense of things and of solving problems?

>>16570648
Yea okay but so what?

>>16570648
>empirically evident
>postmodernists were right
Pick one

>>16571151
damn its almost like America is the source of all of those things while engaging in capitalism. I want none of those things

>>16570704
There is no such thing as subjectively empirically evident pseud. A necessary condition of empirical evidence is the public accessibility of the data.
Nothing is evident to you. You just feel that way.

Based OP, science is just one Eurocentric, even colonialist, narrative that erases localized and subaltern ways of knowing which are just as good. Well, I mean, obviously not at like, getting to the moon and shit like that, but still...

>>16570704
Either based schizo or stupid

>>16570648
You accept the existence of the universe and want to immortalise your existence so all of your actions are parameterized by this fact.

>>16571265
>Based OP, science is just one Eurocentric, even colonialist, narrative that erases localized and subaltern ways of knowing which are just as good. Well, I mean, obviously not at like, getting to the moon and shit like that, but still...
"What if I prefer European ways of knowing, as someone of European descent?"
>RACIST!

>>16570648
Well, speak for yourself.

when it comes at pomo there are things that are never brought up like how the aesthetic brought "low art" elements in "high art" settings and vice versa, multiplying the complexity of it all, creating new objects.

>>16571752
Quite based

>>16571516
The line would presumably shift to 'Ya but since you're an occupier standing on the lands of the ancient cgfjhgnb-jyhgft tribe your unvoiced, personal preferences are in fact VIOLENCE, etc etc reee whitey and so forth

>>16570648
that image is completely retarded. i could bet four digits of money that tranny hands drew it. nobody else is both so stupid and so confident.

>>16572098
"But that's a black/amerindian/whatever idea of the concept of occupation. I'm white so I don't use it."

>>16572320
gonna say this to my anthropology professor next time she ignores mountains of archaeological evidence to bitch about land, wish me luck anons

>>16572354
I wouldn't recommend it, just pretend to believe whatever the Academy requires and then denounce the most odious leftists as racists later.

>>16572501
>Be.
thanks for that, I was in a spot of non-being until you recommended it

>>16572320
Actually, the very notion of 'occupation' is an inherently yt and thus inherently racist concept. Checkmate settler

>>16570648

OP, you can say a bunch of shit but it's all pretty unmotivated, and your examples are horrible.

>>16572501
That ultimately wraps around to pre-modern.

Return to Tradition.

>>16570648
Mass literacy was a mistake.

There is no such thing as post-modern. There is only the modern. Postmodernism is an invalid philosophy concoct solely for social engineering ends and is an invalid concept for using as a lens of one's assessment.

>>16572604
>Actually, the very notion of 'occupation' is an inherently yt and thus inherently racist concept.
>racist
That's a black conception of racism in which racism is defined to be an inequality in outcomes between white and nonwhite, as outlined by American racial theorists like Dr. Ibram X. Kendi. I prefer to use a white conception of racism, personally.
>settler
Why shouldn't colonists use "colonial modes of knowing" as they're called?

>>16570704
It's empirically evident to me that you should be dead. So morally I have the right to kill you

>>16570648
>Human rights are a joke
yeah but not for postmodernists. they have to put them as dogmas in order to still get their comfy job in universities

>>16571516
lit's favorite postmodernist even takes it one step further

>>16572742
Already there, kid.

>>16572742
>>Return to Tradition.
tradition of cucks and their spooks who allowed postmodernists

nah

I am so fucking sick of no one on this board understanding these terms AT ALL.
These terms describe human conditions that arise out of culture and the organisation of societies.
You can't just return to pre-modernism without getting rid of shit like mass media and literacy. Even if you're a traditionalist christfag, to be you isn't like what it was like to be a pre-modern christfag. Imagine you'd only ever been exposed to Christian ideas, you've never heard the word atheism, you have absolutely zero idea about what a Muslim might believe. That's what being a pre-modern subject is. You can't have that, and you can never have that. It's childish and ignorant to think that you could.
You are a postmodern subject thinking postmodern thoughts, deal with it.

>>16573539
There you go. Reminds me of this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5wq71rjLUA

Only possible response I can think of is to fall back to queer theory and claim upending hierarchies is a good in-and-of-itself. Still doesn't give a reason for a 'settler' to think that way though. How do you reject universalism and universalise the idea that whitey is a mean old racist who should do what we tell him? Don't know.

>>16572742
>It was always cyclical?
Always was.

>>16570648

AHEM

>>16570648
You looked ridiculous when you found Gnosticism, and you look ridiculous now.

more

>>16570648
postmodernism is just premodernism with extra steps. modernism rejects "god said so, so now I have to bonk you in the head with this club" in favor of the view of many perspectives of an objective reality. if nothing means anything anyway, there is no such as objectivity and it's all competing metanarratives, then their is nothing wrong with saying "that is a compelling argument. but my perspective is that god said so. now I must bonk you on the head with this club."

>>16570648
>>16576582

To elaborate: the "modern" is actually perfectly still, suspended between the Dualism of past and future simultaneously receding, the "postmodern" is actually perfectly progressive in its liberation from said Dualism by incidentally renouncing it, and the "premodern" is actually perfectly delirious in that the straight line between God and Man actually constitutes a perfect distance between them.

>>16572501
>>16572511