/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10370789]

What does /lit/ think about post-modernism? Have you ever read The post-modern condition by Lyotard? What do you think about the pessimism about science, the lost of horizons of sense and the general nihilism behind our conditions?
I think post-modernism and nihilism in general the only possible philosophy concepts in our late capitalism.


>Protagora
>Machiavelli
>Nietzsche
>Focault
>Lyotard
>Derrida
>DFW
>Wittgenstein
>Galimbererti

[Anonymous No.10370791]

It's a reaction against the over-classification of the sciences. Our species was not meant to know what we know or live as we live.

[Anonymous No.10370794]

>>10370789
It is the consequent development of modernism (applying modernist critique to modernism itself) and, overall, not as special as people make it out to be.

[Anonymous No.10370799]

>>10370794
what is the modernist critique?

[Anonymous No.10370851]

>>10370789
>>Protagora
>>Machiavelli
>>Nietzsche
>>Focault
>>Lyotard
>>Derrida
>>DFW
>>Wittgenstein
>>Galimbererti
>MNM-DR

[Anonymous No.10371092]

I'm not a fan of postmodernism, to be honest. Never liked the idea of deconstructionism, or the idea that there are no objective standards by which we can measure things. I prefer classical/Enlightenment thought myself. Empirical thought, reliance on natural and scientific laws, etc.

What I do like is the notion that there are infinite ways of interpreting something. You could, in theory, make an argument from any perspective about any idea. That doesn't mean you're correct or objectively true; it just means you can make an argument. :^)

[Anonymous No.10371096]

>>10370789
The ideology that destroyed western civilization

[Anonymous No.10371098]

>>10370789
why do you people keep making "postmodernism" threads every day instead of reading about it

[Anonymous No.10371099]

>>10371096
>he confuses sign for signified

[Anonymous No.10371106]

>>10371099
eh, fair point

[Anonymous No.10371161]

Considering it's a pretty broad brush encompassing a wide array of things, including many that I have little to no background knowledge on, I don't have an opinion on it.

[Anonymous No.10371173]

>>10370789
>DFW
DFW is post-postmodern dipshit

[Anonymous No.10371179]

ultimate pseud hint is when they say post-modernism instead of postmodernism because they don't get that it isn't "after-modernism"

[Anonymous No.10371184]

>>10371092
looks like someone's seen the Joe Rogan episode with J Pederban

is "Enlightenment thought" the new "classical liberal?" only time will tell

[Anonymous No.10371189]

It's Galimberti.

[Anonymous No.10371225]

>>10370789
>What does /lit/ think about post-modernism?
>lists non-postmodernist names

Both modernism and postmodernism are broad categories, the latter being a reaction to the former. Thrown into a world growing and changing faster than their minds could process, with a demand for responsibility greater than they could handle, the "modernists" sought to abandon traditions and their methodological approaches in order to have the time and energy to develop new ones that suited the modern way of life (changed by technological progress ultimately, which changed the social and political). What it led to, however, was a number of botched rush jobs and experiments, and a dramatic lowering of standards in a variety of intellectual areas. Too many chefs in the kitchen —everyone was trying to create their own -ism out of their desperate desire to survive and receive attention in the increasingly complex machine of urban life.

Postmodernism was a reaction to that. Somewhat a victim to these rush jobs, these individuals became very skeptical of the adults in charge and the flimsy foundations they left behind, because it was clear they were botched and rushed from the root. However, they were still nurtured by the modernists and the society they created, and still were thrust into a world of ever-increasing complexity, so while some postmodernists did attempt to resurrect certain traditional methods or at least feign an interest in maintaining them to some degree, overall they remained skeptical and fairly unproductive, and some even continued the modernist tradition in the sense that their primary goal was to survive and receive attention and thus came closer to being marketers than actual thinkers, they mangled and butchered the old ideas from the 19th century and earlier with their lowered standards that were nurtured into them, and what you have left is another broad movement of botched rush jobs that really does not make it any further than Nietzsche, and for the most part doesn't even reach him (who by the way, has little to do with either movement, and who in fact predicted them both).

[Anonymous No.10371283]

>>10371184
This is one area where I agree with Chomsky. Postmodernism doesn't contribute anything in the way of factual knowledge. I quote:

"As for the "deconstruction" that is carried out (also mentioned in the debate), I can't comment, because most of it seems to me gibberish. But if this is just another sign of my incapacity to recognize profundities, the course to follow is clear: just restate the results to me in plain words that I can understand, and show why they are different from, or better than, what others had been doing long before and and have continued to do since without three-syllable words, incoherent sentences, inflated rhetoric that (to me, at least) is largely meaningless, etc. That will cure my deficiencies --- of course, if they are curable; maybe they aren't, a possibility to which I'll return....

"Seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc? These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: to the flames."

Source: http://bactra.org/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html

[Anonymous No.10371304]

>>10371283
>I quote
Pseud.