/lit/ - Literature

>>6777144
postmodernism is a frozen zone. We will get over it eventually, when we realize how fucked we are politically, socially, and environmentally. Something is going to give, and being an ideologue will be cool again.

relativism isn't that hard to get rid of. 2nd religiosity soon

What does it mean to "move humanity forward"? Why is that my concern, and what does it entail?

Stay spooked, cuck.

>>6777167

It means everyone is too busy at analysing creations rather than to fucking create. You just can't do something in postmodernism and go along with it, you need to fucking question every bits and parts of it that in the end it doesn't conform to the "standarts" of the other halftwits that criticise everything and you just don't create anything intellectually worthwhile anymore. It makes cultures and societies stagnate. It poisons every aspects of society. To morality, politics, economics...


Postmodernism is a spreading cancer in the western world

>>6777179
You're an idiot with too much focus without of yourself. You will never create anything worthwile so why even bother getting angry?

>>6777144
Progress is an illusion fagt

>>6777144
Maybe if we stop thinking about it it'll go away? Post modernism seems like a thing that we forced to happen, so it should be pretty easy to make go away. Just let it go.

>>6777179
>wahhh no one is creating anything
>Meanwhile modern digital glpbal KKKapitalism is the most innovative and crestive system of all time
The actual problem, OP, is that everyone is creating too much. You aren't a creative person or else you would have created something by now.

>>6777194
Because people become boring, aimless, without any self-orientation influenced by their suroundings, like in any natural human society. Without any of that, left with just themselves as their own refference point for morality, education and visions, they regress at the most basic human functions. Eat, drink, have sex, die. Now imagine all of western society behaving this way, it made things stagnate as we see them today.

There's no more refference points you can orientate yourself in life. Traditional family unit is gone, traditional society is gone, nationalism is gone.
Anything "moving" nowadays in terms of intellectual currents is just constantly challenging and deconstruction already pre-established things.

>>6777156
This,

The cult of individual genius that grew out of the Renaissance, along with the cult of humanity that grew out of the Renaissance, probably lead directly to Postmodern nihilism.

In the art of the Renaissance the grotesque figures of the surrealists are present in nascent form, just waiting to come out.

Your humanist faith that wants to "move humanity forward" isn't worth believing in because humanity is not an end in itself.

>>6777212
>There's no more refference points you can orientate yourself in life. Traditional family unit is gone, traditional society is gone, nationalism is gone.

Good thing that the Kingdom of Heaven is eternal and the Catholic Church will last until the end of time.

>mfw this thread

/lit/ really is a bunch of emotional teenagers, isn't it

I once believed it was mostly a ruse

why do you want to leave post-modernism? don't you enjoy ironic memes? :@)))))

>>6777144
>le decline of the western world
>white guilt
>sjw
>fascist equality
faggot
Just read a post-modern book and analyze it and then make a thread about criticizing said book. Probably you can't since you are a retard.
Or probably you just read The Decline of the Western Civilization and took the word "decline" literally.
> their conscience to actually do anything and move humanity forward
What do you mean about that?
Making ebic sculptures so you can say "omg such realistic looks like 3D art" ?
Or hyperrealistic paintings?
Guess what, in reddit that is full of SJWs there are lots of those faggots who do hyperrealistic paintings.
Are they moving humanity forward?
Think about it OP, and read a book fucking nigger.

>>6777237
Please go back to Reddit you incoherent idiot.

>>6777229

Church is the last thing that people go along with, without questioning it. This mere thought that it's surounded by people who preffer to follow and not swim into the depressive "critical thinking" of postmodernists angers them, and it will surely go down just as the concept of anything traditional in the world today went down

>>6777241
>le reddit
You should go back to it and complain about le evil modern civilization.
Pic related, all lebbitors discuss about it and get salty about postmodern "bullshit". You are probably one of them.

Also, the original "good" statue was a shit dragon with edgy Devils' faces.

>Church is the last thing that people go along with, without questioning it.

Who cares about the people? Salvation isn't for the people, it's for the elect.

>>6777263
what the fuck is this thread

pic related

Except that now it's "To every action there is always opposed an equal critical thinking and intellectualization reaction"

Why won't people stop thinking and rationalising, instead of shuting up and creating?

>>6777283
Forgot the pic

I sound like a whiney cunt anyways, can some mod delete this thread? It says the post is old and i can't delete it myself

>>6777283
Why the fuck should there you infallible cunt

>White guilt, sjw, fascist equality

these aren't really postmodern

>>6777179
>rather than to fucking create

well duh. there is nothing to create. that is what postmodernism is about

>>6777144
if those things are the wrong ways of seeing the world, then you should just provide those people with the same evidence that convinced you

>>6777144
OP here. You all took the bait lmao :^)))

Reminder that if you believe in eternal salvation or are an atheist as opposed to believing in reincarnation you are more willing to disregard life on Earth and the progress of society and thus are a part of the problem.

>>6777301

How will i be able to share my thoughts on all this if i can't point to a living example of anything? family, gender, nation... all of these things are absolete in the western world and going back to them out of principle would just mean regression, which is worse than stagnation.

There must be something to look forward to, that transcends all of said absolete things, that won't be teared apart by postmodernists and their political agenda. Western civilization needs to find a way to evolve out of absoleteness without making the mistake of regressing back in the middle ages.

>>6777316
you can convince people with things that happened in the past. you're acting as if everything has to be perfect for anything to be possible. how do you think things change?

>>6777316
>regression = bad
Yeah, if I ever broke my leg I'd just leave it broken. Wouldn't want to regress to my healthy, optimal state.

>mfw postmodernism and many other philosophies fall apart when one realizes that the universe is based in consciousness and not the other way around

>>6777224
gud post

>>6777320
People understand things better when they can relate to them. For example, i am baffled people do not take a stance if their community is infested with immigrants and they don't like it. I mean, how much of a beta do you have to be to tolerate something you don't like and throwing yourself in a perpetual state of constant anger that you can't act on your own impulses?

Things change by a phenomenon, and people acting in accordance to that phenomenon. To illustrate my example, immigrants are a phenomenon, some people can either react to it indifirently, or some negatively. Back in time people would openly organise based on mutual sentiments and DO something, create a manifestation of their desires. Hated some group in your local neighborhood and people agreed with you? You banded up, beat the shit out of them and banish those people.


Today, people know the negative feeling, but they don't act upon it, they're helpless and scared even if they are in great numbers. They're too aware of what they're doing, which creates ideas of regreat in their mind. I don't know how to better say this. In the past, if people wanted to DO something, they did it, whereas today if people want to do something, they overthink about it and end up not doing it alltogether.

>>6777224
You are a moron. The 'cult of the individual genius' did not grow out of the Renaissance, but rather ancient Indo-European mythos, as you can find the individual genius within the core of most European mythologies.

Post-modern nihilism is a direct result of a century of insanity and megadeath. It has nothing to do with the continuum of art. If anything, you can see its beginnings expressed in Dada.

>In the art of the Renaissance the grotesque figures of the surrealists are present in nascent form, just waiting to come out.

This is ridiculous. The entire point of Surrealism is the paint or write about the collective unconscious. One could argue that mythology, which comes from a similar source and was the muse of much of Renaissance art is close enough to not matter. However, there is a fundamental difference in that mythology is already cold and hard and formed, while accessing the collective unconscious directly results in a more inchoate and mercurial result.

>humanity is not an end in itself.

And if it is not, then tell me; what teleological purpose could there possibly be? Would this end, which is not humanity itself, be fundamentally borne of 'progress'?

>>6777382
>The 'cult of the individual genius' did not grow out of the Renaissance, but rather ancient Indo-European mythos, as you can find the individual genius within the core of most European mythologies.

Yeah, and when were those myths revived? During the Renaissance. And the Renaissance recasting of these myths was more individualistic than they originally were, because in the original there is still some sense that the tribe prevails over the individual.

>This is ridiculous. The entire point of Surrealism is the paint or write about the collective unconscious. One could argue that mythology, which comes from a similar source and was the muse of much of Renaissance art is close enough to not matter.

This is just a strawman. The point is that the Renaissance took man and nature as its object and this leads to surrealism in the sense that it is inevitable when one takes man/nature as one's object that one comes across the more surreal, hideous, and grotesque side of man/nature with which surrealism was principally concerned. Your idea that surrealism's "entire point" was the collective unconscious is ludicrous, even if that was one of its guiding concepts.

>And if it is not, then tell me; what teleological purpose could there possibly be? Would this end, which is not humanity itself, be fundamentally borne of 'progress'?

The only being that could possibly be an end in itself would be a self-subsisting, uncreated, eternal being, i.e. God. All teleology rests on God ultimately because without an all-knowing mind to create and direct the universe there would be no inherent teleology.

>>6777395
>Yeah, and when were those myths revived? During the Renaissance. And the Renaissance recasting of these myths was more individualistic than they originally were, because in the original there is still some sense that the tribe prevails over the individual.

I mean, just compare the Classical hero with the Renaissance or Romantic genius. The Classical hero is heroic because he represents the virtues of the tribe, and he protects and uplifts the tribe, glorifying them. The Renaissance or Romantic genius, on the other hand, is venerated solely as an individual, an end in himself whom the tribe serves rather than vice versa.

>>6777395
>The point is that the Renaissance took man and nature as its object and this leads to surrealism in the sense that it is inevitable when one takes man/nature as one's object that one comes across the more surreal, hideous, and grotesque side of man/nature with which surrealism was principally concerned.

Arguing with you is pointless. Read some Andre Breton. You clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Surrealism was not about the grotesque side of humanity. Some artists, like Ernst, may have taken it there, but it was not a manifest aspect of all of them.

>The only being that could possibly be an end in itself would be a self-subsisting, uncreated, eternal being,

Nonsense. If there is no intrinsic value to humanity, then there is no value in anything. Imaginary sky gods do not make the existence of humanity valid.

>All teleology rests on God ultimately

Again, bullshit. There can be intrinsic entelechy in an uncreated universe. The process of becoming is cyclical, and in such a universe, conscious beings are the ends to themselves

>>6777419
>Arguing with you is pointless. Read some Andre Breton. You clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Surrealism was not about the grotesque side of humanity.

OK, I admit that my use of Surrealism has been somewhat inaccurate given its more precise definition. I originally wanted to put surrealism, dadaism, cubism, etc., but left it with surrealism, and I wanted surrealism to stand for modern art in general, not just one specific movement within it. But even still, my point stands. You talk about the Surrealism's preoccupation with the human unconscious, but what did the Surrealist's think of the human unconscious? Following Freud, they found in it all of those grotesque nightmares to which I have been alluding, so I don't see how this contradicts what I've been saying. If the surrealists had painted immaculate angels instead of freaks of nature then I think you would have a point in contradicting me.

>Nonsense. If there is no intrinsic value to humanity, then there is no value in anything. Imaginary sky gods do not make the existence of humanity valid.

How can humanity have intrinsic value when humanity did not create itself? If humanity did not create itself then clearly it did not determine its own purpose; its purpose must come from its creator. Just as when we make an artefact, like a hammer or a door, we, the creator of the artefact, create its purpose.

>Again, bullshit. There can be intrinsic entelechy in an uncreated universe. The process of becoming is cyclical, and in such a universe, conscious beings are the ends to themselves

A lot of those ancient cyclical cosmologies intentionally eschew ultimate teleology; they say more or less that things "just are", not that they are being directed to some end. The only way that an uncreated universe could be an end unto itself would be if it were itself a mind giving itself its own purpose.

post-modernism is basically infinite regress
literally and figuratively

it's the fetishism of theories and counter-theories instead of the acknowledgement of truth

>>6777440
To say surrealism is all grotesque nightmare is beyond absurd

I advise anyone watching this unfold to avoid arguing with an idiot.

shitpost about religion all you want but don't say shit about art when you don't know shit about it

>intrinsic value, intrinsic purpose

start with dada

>>6777144
Read this

>>6777476
Mostpodernism

>>6777144
Can we just stop talking about postmodernism, because it's embarassingly clear that very few actually have anything to say. It's a nebulous term. What are we even talking about? Usually people lump together a bunch of disparate thinkers like Derrida, Foucault, Kristeva, etc. and call that postmodernism without engaging with the differences between and amongst their thought. I'm no expert, but I know enough to spot bullshit when I see it.

Anyone ever see thet DFW interview on Charlie Rose? He says postmodernism is that word people use and everyone else nods their head like they understand what is meant. That's becoming more and more true everyday. People are just talking out of their asses.

When it comes to literature, which is what this board should stick to discussing because people otherwise embarass themselves when they deviate from that topic, people like Linda Hutcheon and Brian McHale have done plenty to theorize what the postmodern is. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone on this board has engaged with them. No one should even talk about postmodernism and literature until reading them.

In contemporary online discourse, though, "postmodernism," just like "cultural Marxism," has become a catch-all term for whatever one doesn't like. For example, in the OP he mentions white guilt. What the hell does that have to do with Paul Auster's New York Trilogy? In fact, OP should probably be ranting about post-colonialism, another somewhat nebulous term that he definitely hasn't understood anything about, instead of using postmodernism as a bogeyman.

Frankly, this level of discourse belongs on /pol/. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

P.S. nice dubs, faggot.

It's the result of the structural revolution of value.

Saussure located two dimensions to the exchange of terms of the langue, which he assimilated to moeny.

A given coin must be exchangeable against a real good of some value, while on the other hand it must be possible to relate it to all the other terms in the monetary system.
More and more Saussure reserves the term vVALUE for this second aspect of the system: every term can be related to every other, their RELATIVITY, internal to the system and constituted by binary oppositions. This definition is opposed to the other possible definition of value: the relation of every term to what it designates, of each signifier to its signified, like the relation of every coin with what it can be exchanged against. The first aspect corresponds to the structural dimension of language, the second to its functional dimension.
Each dimension is separate bu linked, which is to say that they mesh and cohere. This coherence is characteristic of the 'classical' configuration of the linguistic sign, under the rule of the commodity law of value, where designation always appears as the finality of the structural operation of the langue. The parallel between this 'classical' stage of signification and the mechanics of value in material production is absolute, as in Marx's analysis: use-value plays the role of the horizon and finality of the system of exchange-values. The first qualifies the concrete operation of the commodity in consumption (a moment parallel to the structural organisation of the sign). Both are dialectically linked throughout Marx's analyses and define a rational configuration of production, governed by political economy.

A revolution has put an end to this 'classical' economics of value, a revolution of value itself, which carries value beyond its commodity form into its radical form.

This revolution consists in the dislocation of the two aspects of the law of vlaue, which were thought to be coherent and eternally bound as if by a natural law. REFERENTIAL VALUE IS ANNIHILIATED, GIVING THE STRCUTRAL PLAY OF VALUE THE UPPER HAND.
The structural dimension becomes autonomous by excluding the referential dimension, and is instituted upon the death of reference. The systems of reference for production, signification, the affect, substance and history, all this equivalence to a 'real' content, loading the sign with the burden of 'utility', with gravity -- its form of representative equivalence -- all this is over with. NOW the other stage of value has the upper hand, a total relativity, general commutation, combination andsimulation -- simulation, in the sense that, from now on, signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real (it is not that they just happen to be exchanged against each other, they so ON CONDITION that they are no longer exchanged against the real).

>>6777510
The emancipation of the sign: remove this ‘archaic’ obligation to designate something and it finally becomes free, indifferent and totally indeterminate, in the structural or combinatory play which succeeds the previous rule of determinate equivalence. The same operation takes place at the level of labour power and the production process: the annihilation of any goal as regards the contents of production allows the latter to function as a code, and the monetary sign, for example, to escape into infinite speculation, beyond all reference to a real production, or event to a gold-standard. The floatation of money and signs, the floatation of ‘needs’ and ends of production, the floatation of labour itself—the commutability of every term is accompanied by speculation and a limitless inflation (and we really have total liberty—no duties, disaffection and general disenchantment; but this remains a magic, a sort of magical obligation which keeps the sign chained up to the real, capital has freed signs from this ‘naïvety’ in order to deliver them into pure circulation).
Neither Saussure nor Marx had any presentiment of all this: they were still in the golden age of the dialectic of the sign and the real, which is at the same time the 'classical' period of cpaital and value. Their dialectic is in shreds, and the real has died of the shock of balue acquiring this fantastic autonomy. Detemrinacy is dead, indeterminacy holds sway. There has been an extermination (in the literal sense of the words) of the real of production and the real of signification.
...
We are at he end of production. In the West, this form coincides with the proclamation of the commodity law of value, i.e. with the reign of political economy. First, nothing is PRODUCED, strictly speaking: everything is DEDUCED, from the grace (God) or beneficence (nature) of an agency which releases or withholds its riches. Value emanates from the reign of divine or natural qualities (which for us have become retrospectively confused). The Physiocrats still saw the cycles of land and labour in this way, as having no value of their own. We may wonder, then, whether there is a genuine LAW of value, since this law is DISPATCH without attaining rational expression. Its form cannot be separated from the inexhaustible referential substance to which it is bound. If there is a law here, it is, in contrast to the commodity law, a NATURAL law of value.

A mutation shakes this edifice of a natural distribution or dispensing of wealth as soon as value is PRODUCED, as its reference beomces labour, and its law of equivalence is generalised to every type of labour. Value is now assigned to the distinc and rational operaiton of human (social) labour. It is measureable, and in consequence, so is surplus-value.

>>6777498
Third wave feminism has it's roots from postmodern thought, and infact, all of the things i mentioned are rooted in the philosophy and the method of analysis of reality, and it had no relation to literature. You should know if you studied it just a bit.


3/10 for making me reply

>>6777538

Can't be bothered to write up the rest. Read Baudrillard.

TL;DR reference has been annihilated, the structural play of abstract equivalence has taken over, production gives way to reproduction. Everything is subsumed and 'democratized', reproduced ad infinitum without reference, only a play of signification.

>>6777462
aaayyyyy lmaoooo

>postmodernism
>white guilt, sjw, fascist equality

You know nothing about any of those things.

>>>/pol/

>>6777588
why wont you adress this then >>6777551
, faglord?

oh yeah, that's probably because you have no idea what postmodernism is aside your highschool report you had to do

>>6777595
Have you actually read any 'postmodern' philosophers?

If so, who?

>Third wave feminism has it's roots from postmodern thought

It has its roots in capitalism, like postmodernity is the result of the cultural logic of late capitalism.

>>6777605
>postmodernity is the result of the cultural logic of late capitalism

You have no idea what you're talking about

>>6777638
When you talk about feminism, sjw, and white guilt, i.e. identity politics that's all related to capitalism.

Speech codes, affirmative action, multiculturalism, and general ‘political correctness’ can best be understood as liberal mechanisms to regulate behavior in a manner which fosters racial tolerance while simultaneously solidifying the belief that capitalism’s class divisions are structured along genuinely meritocratic lines — meritocracy being the bourgeoisie’s principal self-legitimating ideological construct in the 21st century.

Liberalism sees liberation in terms of getting individuals to modify their behaviour, to make better individual choices, to be more individually conscientious in how they speak and what language they use.

Neoliberalism is actually just capitalism trying to prepare itself for a non-gendered ethnically diverse workforce.
Reproducing the means of production, making sure that the system can cope with the ethnic, gender, sexual, religous, (ie not directly economic) changes that society is undergoing so that capital can be accumulated in the future.

>>6777648
But I want to blame all this on a bolshevik-Judean plot

>middle-class white leftists who have no historical knowledge think Europeans are the only people to have committed atrocities
Face it, the only worthwhile Empires have been European. Living under any other supposed 'Empire' would see you in worse circumstances than death.

>>6777648
This all makes sense if you see the world through a singular, narrow narrative and believe that there is a simple path forwards for humanity. This sounds pretty yet ignores basic psychology and the objectively superior mode of national unity which is homogeneity.

>>6777350
might be true, but a statment of this sort can only ever be based on anecdotal evidence. and everyone on this board is a sperg

>>6777749
>national unity
>in a globalized capitalist economy

top kek.

>>6777749
>ignores basic psychology
Such as?

>>6777648
meritocracy was the bourgeoisie's justification in the second half of the 20th century. they don't even try for a justification anymore, they've assumed all the power and it's their way only.

political correctness and SJWs work actively against meritocracy, in fact they despise the word and the concept and will tell you as much. the PC elite have systematically dismantled all meritocratic avenues for advancement -- even the SAT has just been adjusted to be more about curriculum than innate thinking ability, which it was designed to measure. of course the justification is that the idea of innate thinking ability is racist and culturally biased because whites and asians consistently outperform everyone else.

the race/gender focus of SJWs started as an intellectual movement by the new left who saw women and minorities as the new "revolutionary class" because the working class, having had many of their demands met, were no longer interested in continuing their social revolution further. this coincided with a huge increase in university attendance and employment so the fad became an ubiquitous ideological trend and is now the almost totally dominant discourse in the social sciences. this is made worse by the pathological altruism and credulity of intelligent white men who bow to all claims of racism and sexism.

capitalism does come into play because the rich enjoy this all very much. meritocratic routes of advancement for intelligent low-class people are being destroyed in the name of racial equality so they don't face the competition, and they're all too happy to see working class whites alienated from left wing intellectuals.

>>6777823
>political correctness and SJWs work actively against meritocracy

stopped reading there

>>6777551
it does have its roots in postmodernism but it ceases to be postmodern when it becomes a political movement or ideology

>>6777823

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cbe0d2H4sGI

This cover moves humanity forward. >>6777167

>>6777419
pure ideology

>>6777829
but it's true.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/nyregion/questions-of-bias-are-raised-about-a-teachers-exam-in-new-york.html?_r=0

of course you can find a million examples

>>6777382
>he hasn't read Descartes

>>6777309
This

>>6777872
oh i feel really bad for engaging you now on discovering how near-sighted you are. my bad

>>6777906
can you actually explain what you mean? meritocracy is constantly denigrated by social justice types because it doesn't result in the outcomes they want. the test in question is intended for people who are already about to graduate college, it's a straightforward aptitude test testing basic reading and math abilities. where could the "racism" come into play? but it doesn't give them the results they want, so it has to be scrapped. eventually it will be dumbed down to something totally meaningless so the results are more to their liking. but when tests are dumbed down to that level they don't signal anything, so people who need to signal their ability (those less-connected) have less of a leg up on people who have connections to get them jobs, advancement, anything like that. same has happened to admissions tests, employment assessments, even high school and college degrees.

listen to any sjw even talk about meritocracy in general, they hate the idea. this couldn't be some kind of mystery.

>>6777309
Varg please, don't you have a church to burn?

>>6777498
I'm with you anon.

That's the problem with postmodernism--it has no unifying term. I don't know if that's a result of people attempting to give the era a name too early, or the actual lack of any unifying ethos.

Whatever the case, it's something that often just causes senseless arguments between people both actually talking about entirely different things. There is a lack of defined methodology and ideology to the term which makes it near impossible to even discuss in a meaningful way.

You are better off choosing a particular thinker and working from there.

>>6777749
Yeah, you have no clue how the world functions and has functioned throughout time. Go read a fucking history book, watch the news, and study up on economics.

>>6777551
Yeah and what is there unifying ethos?

That they are working off of the ideas of continental philosophers who are working off of Sasussure's pars pro toto fallacy?

Sassure was an important thinker for semiotics and linguistics, but he is at best foundational, and many would argue Peirce was a better foundation anyway. When you examine the whole school of thought considered to be 'postmodern' and the spark of all that is gender studies, trauma studies, etc. etc. today, you'll find a lot of it is based on two figures who have, within the fields they worked in largely been built upon but now disregarded as not as refined as the advances made in the field:
Sassure
Freud

Both important guys, both had good ideas. Both fields they are a part of have advanced far beyond their original theories.

>>6777551
So you haven't read Brian McHale or Linda Hutcheon? I really don't think you understood anything in the post your responded to.

And if your thread has no relation to literature then it doesn't belong on this board.

>>6777955

Bullshit.

Everyone knows PoMo is basicly just "Everything is subjective, i can't be wrong, you can't prove me wrong"

>>6777992
meant for>>6777942

>>6777992

you need to spend more time reading books and less time reading social media

>>6777992
Yeah which is an idea that largely is built upon Sassure's focus on the sign being arbitrary, Lacan's masturbation sessions on Freudian concepts, Derrida's conception of the center, and Foucault's ideas on power.

>>6777992
That's not true and I've never seen any serious thinker advocate that position. If one can make a general statement about postmodernism it would have to be done with great trepidation because it would obviously be reductionist. The reason for this is that many of the supposed postmodern thinkers don't even agree with each other! But one trend we can see emerge is a distrust or skepticism towards grand or metanarratives, at least according to Lyotard.

Why the distrust? Just look at this thread. People try to make totalizing statements and pass it off as the Truth and just fall flat on their face in the process.

>>6777999


What a postmodern thing to say

>>6778003
So postmodernism is French?

>>6778016
More or less yeah. It's french or a bunch of nonfrench wannabes seeking the fame of the french intellectuals through the technique of intentional obfuscation.

It's really a desire to enter into an intellectual circlejerk where you have to reference a bunch of other thinkers.

>>6778026

>>6778031
I'm not suggessting the entirely of continental thought is devoid of quality--but the desire for intellectual masturabation is definitely a driving factor for a lot of the plebs who study it.

There are actually some decent ideas in the school. Horkheimer and Adorno are cool. Derrida's thought isn't too bad even if he writes like a jackass, and Foucault and I guess by extension Butler, are both very respectable.

That being said Bataille is still the most based.

>>6777144
isn't postmodernism supposed to apply mostly to art? I dunno anon.

oh cool I found it. can anyone confirm that this title is worth reading?

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Since-1900-Antimodernism-Postmodernism/dp/0500238898

in addition, can anyone confirm that pic related is useful? the supposed "no pill" reading list.

>>6778044
There is no outside of pills.

>>6778087
b-but then what do I read?

"Soma Pill - put on your vr goggles, subscribe to world of heroincraft and spend all day cybersexing night elves who are totally not neckbeards or shotab&."

sounds fun, but not very educational.

>>6778110
You read Hitler, Evola, and Schopenhauer and spend your time on /pol/ and /r9k/ yelling about niggers, jews, and women

>>6778116
the red pill is just a cheaper soma pill, when you can't afford vr goggles. you dream up an extra coconut layer of illusions to make you feel special and powerful.

oh well, at least you didn't tell me to start with the greeks.

>>6778140
the redpill is undistorted, objective, absolute and unequivocal Truth. Don't let postmodernism tell you otherwise

I have a question:

Do people generally reject postmodernism for logical reasons,
or because they don't see it's value?

It seems like one of those things which you can't really argue about, except from from a practical perspective of "well, if we disregard it's insight/critique, then at least we have something 'valuable' to do."

I claim that "pill" is just another name for "ideology".
Certain ideologies on the web go by the name of "x pill".

Anyone disagree?

>>6778216
wow, you're a fucking genuis.

>>6777339
please elaborate

>>6777339
yeah

>>6777849
hmmmmm

>>6777212
That pic
>i dont understand history
>i dont understamd something so ill say its giberrish.

>>6777179
you don't know what you're talking about do you

>>6777316
2spooky

>>6777179
Why get so upset about something you clearly haven't taken the time to understand?

>>6778870
Anon please, you don't know what you're doing! This single statement could raze 4chan to the ground!

>>6777498
Best post in thread

>>6777498
You said it buddy

>>6779141
that picture isn't funny

not even ironically funny

this i a result of postmodernism isn't it?

>>6779455
What is and isn't funny is all subjective :^) have you even read the thread?

>>6777144
You don't know what you are talking about.

>>>/pol/

Go back there.

>>6777849
Is this supposed to be ironic? "Worker"ism is surely identity politics also.

>>6777738
>ottoman
>persian
>chinese
try harder

>>6777156
Relative to what? Pragmatists and postmodernists generally don't self-identify as relativists because they don't believe in an absolute to be relative to.

If all that's meant by "relativism" is that meaning is situated relative to meaning in a cooperative language game, then so what? That's a fancy way of describing how language functions.

And let's say that we "deconstruct" a term such as "authentic." Just because we can show that the meaning of "authentic" is variable, contested, and sometimes contradictory, that doesn't mean that we can't function or move forward with our conversation. It doesn't mean that, if my mom or my boss uses the word "authentic," I suddenly have no idea what she means.

also lol at all your reactionary bullshit

>>6777339
You don't understand the observer effect.

>>6778011
This Lyotard (lol) sounds like a smart cookie.

>>6777144
when you stop calling things postmodern things will stop being postmodern

>>6777232
everyone here reads big words and understands the world

>>6777339
Are you the Alan Watts shitposter from the other thread?

>>6778906
best boast in bread

>>6777339
woah man

reality is the actualization of the ideal?

what a new idea

>>6777167
>What does it mean to "move humanity forward"?
It means making the world more like what the person using that phrase wants it to be like.

The definition of progress is always, from the perspective of the person describing it, congruent with their own personal beliefs. For that reason, progress is meaningless as a political concept.

>>6777144
>equating the genre of postmodernism to the abstract everything I dont like political buzzword
>>>/pol/

this is the most postmodern thread I've ever read.

>>6786408

It's a thread that's applying common sense.

>>6777212
>There's no more refference points you can orientate yourself in life. Traditional family unit is gone, traditional society is gone, nationalism is gone.
>Anything "moving" nowadays in terms of intellectual currents is just constantly challenging and deconstruction already pre-established things.
this is why post-modernism exists, because we live in a time when our societal structure is constantly changing and we are unstable. Post-modernism is a reaction to changes in technology (which caused these changes).