[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 72 KB, 576x432, Frankfurt-School.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16991779 No.16991779 [Reply] [Original]

Is there ANY postmodernist philosopher that's not pants-on-head retarded and actually worth reading?

>> No.16991784

>>16991779
>postmodern
>posts Frankfurters

>> No.16991794

>>16991779
>pants-on-head retarded
I remember some faggot from high school who would say this in his gay little political statuses all the time. I hate that guy. Fuck you for reminding me of him. I hope you slip on some ice.

>> No.16991822

>>16991784
Frankfurters were proto-postmodernists.

>> No.16991821

>>16991779
How was Siberia, Jordan?

>> No.16991826

>>16991822
And you're proto-totally braindead.

>> No.16991833

>>16991826
Nice proto-argument, quasi-faggot.

>> No.16992818

>>16991822
Jürgen Habermas even wrote a text in which he denounced the postmoderns (The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity).
there is really no reason to believe that the Frankfurt School has anything to do with postmodern thinkers.

>> No.16992875

>>16991822
they were cultural marxist turning the kids gay

>> No.16992964

>>16992818
This. I despise cultural marxist ‘critical theory’ and postmodern mumbo equally, but atleast don’t equate the two. It’s like you’re trying to prove the leftists right in the intellectual poverty of any other viewpoint.

>> No.16993076

>>16992964
what do right-wingers mean when they talk about cultural marxism?
are you talking about marxist thinkers who focused on the culture that capitalism produces? (e.g "The Culture Industry" by Adorno and Horkheimer

>> No.16993090

>>16991822
Frankfurters were hardcore reactionaries.

>> No.16993095

>>16991779
Read Foucalt.

>> No.16993101

>>16993076
when right wingers use the term "cultural marxism" they usually just mean intersectionality and think talking about minority groups being oppressed is equivalent to marxism

>> No.16993104

Foucault

>> No.16993107

>>16993076
They are retards who think that The Frankfurt School and french pomo philosophers designed political correctness and pop culture degeneracy.

>> No.16993110

is there ANY philosopher, apart from Lyotard, who describes themeselves as "post-modern"?

This thread is dildos

>> No.16993112

>>16993090
lmao no

>> No.16993114

>>16992875
not really "laul"

>> No.16993143
File: 163 KB, 1200x1192, alex jones.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16993143

>>16991784
>>16991822
What if I told you that those distinctions no longer matter and that the methodologically heterodox bastard children of postmodernism and the Frankfurt School pozz Western civilization in alliance with the liberal media industrial complex?

>> No.16993152

>>16993143
To add: Capitalism coopted its own critique, thereby transcending discourse and becoming the basis for all subsequent discourse.

>> No.16993160
File: 42 KB, 300x400, 262871C8-55EB-4EEB-888E-7D432C5E0E0A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16993160

>>16993076
What Gramsci talked about with his ideas of the ‘metapolitical war’, neo-marxists not only trying to organize workers and create material change but to build a counter-hegemony to bourgeois/non-left in the realm of ideas/culture through the infiltration and dissemination of leftist values in institutions. It is evident to any honest person familiar with higher education and modern media that the leftists have by and large been victorious in the culture wars. It is not a conspiracy but an admitted strategy by neo-marxists of the 20th century and a reality today.

t. am what you would call a rightoid

>> No.16993171

>>16993160
sounds based af why do we still have capitalism though?

>> No.16993177

>>16993112
>>16993112
YEs

>> No.16993183

>>16993076
Those people never actually read Frankfurt School. They just repeat some half baked conspiracy about universities brainwashing kids into leftists with a dash of anti semitism. Its a continuation of red scare/"Jewish Bolshevism" bullshit.

"Cultural Marxism" in their eyes is like a crude way to describe social progressivism. They consider that Marxism because they hear "equal rights" and assume that means Marxism because equality. It's an utter joke.

>> No.16993195

>>16993160
I agree but paradoxically this proves Gramsci wrong. The left has won the culture wars but that does not mean that it lessened the economic exploitation of the working class by this strategy. Rather its discourse became so all-encompassing that by virtue of its dominance it legitimizes capitalism or rather big business adhering to culturally left-wing talking points.

>> No.16993210

>>16993195
We unironcially live a time more reactionary than the ancien regime, Gramsci was right to a frightening degree

>> No.16993221

>>16991779
Once you get through the purposely obtuse prose I find most of them to be completely worth reading and rereading.

>> No.16993223

>>16993210
>a time more reactionary than the ancien regime
you talk big but can you base this claim in reality?

>> No.16993237

>>16993223
The expansion of the rentier economy is at such a level that feudal lords could have only dreamed of, giving the current social liberal state the possibility of perpetuating itself forever. There's a short video I could share with you on this subject if you're interested.

>> No.16993241
File: 191 KB, 880x1360, F1468032-E7CF-424C-B0BA-5D246F4D6471.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16993241

>>16993171
Because what you would commonly call ‘leftist’ cultural values like attacks on the family unit, categories of identity, promotion of so-called multiculturalism / cultural erosion through stratification, do not pose a counter to the cosmopolitan capitalist elites but actually help further their globohomo cause, hence why they pump them up with money. This is what the modern college left does not get. Pic related

>> No.16993256

>>16993195
I am the one you responded to and yes, I agree. See >>16993241

>> No.16993274

>>16993237
>short video
Yes please.

>> No.16993290

>>16993210
Schizo spotted

>> No.16993296

>>16993274
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acz3nQyuiUI
Just fyi, I'm coming from a Marxist perspective and so is the guy who made the video

>> No.16993302

>>16993290
see >>16993237 and >>16993296
If you think I'm a schizo that's fine but at least read past my initial claim.

>> No.16993313

>>16991822
>Frankfurters were proto-postmodernists.
The absolute state of /lit/

>> No.16993353

>>16993296
>everyone is wrong
>only marxists have perfect true consciousness to see past the bullshit, everyone else is trapped in false consciousness
dude, this meme was proven wrong in 1989

>> No.16993354

>>16993313
>The absolute state of 4channel.org
FTFY. Honestly this is more a high(ish) quality porn site than a site where interesting discussion can occur. I miss pre-2018 /his/ damnit.

>> No.16993368

>>16993353
>>everyone is wrong
>>only marxists have perfect true consciousness to see past the bullshit, everyone else is trapped in false consciousness
Are you saying I'm making that claim or the guy in the video is? I mean, he's not wrong. But I admit I imagine that's annoying to hear whether it's true or not, bear with it so you can get to the analysis section. Or just don't watch it, I'm not your pa.

>> No.16993408

>>16993302
Your initial post does not even make sense since the Ancién Regime was not reactionary. Being a ‘reactionary’ was a label thrown against people who opposed the revolutionaries who did away with the Ancién Regime and the concept only makes sense in this post-1789 context.

A figurative resemblance between modern ‘rentier economy’ and feudalism does nothing in a conversation regarding the reality of the victory of leftist values in cultural institutions. What you’d call the modern ‘feudal’ elite is not reactionary against these ideas because they pose no conflict with their interests; in fact, they promote them with hard cash.

>> No.16993418

>>16991779
Why are they all jews

>> No.16993523

>>16993408
>Your initial post does not even make sense since the Ancién Regime was not reactionary. Being a ‘reactionary’ was a label thrown against people who opposed the revolutionaries who did away with the Ancién Regime and the concept only makes sense in this post-1789 context.
I mean yes the word initially meant that, but I would say the meaning of the word has evolved to mean more than just that.
>A figurative resemblance between modern ‘rentier economy’ and feudalism does nothing in a conversation regarding the reality of the victory of leftist values in cultural institutions.
Culture emerges form material relations. What is even leftist about our culture? Is leftism when you are gay and suck BBC? All the supposed leftist culture in corporations is just liberal rhetoric used to satiate people and keep them good little proles. I hope I'm wrong and I'm strawmanning you here, but Marx wasn't an egalitarian and he didn't just want to adhere to some feel good vague moral abstractions.
>What you’d call the modern ‘feudal’ elite is not reactionary against these ideas because they pose no conflict with their interests; in fact, they promote them with hard cash.
I agree their values are very much so aligned with reaction.

>> No.16993542

>>16993368
>only me and my clique of college friends into MUH theory have perfect true consciousness, to see past the bullshit, everyone else is trapped in false consciousness
>I mean, he's not wrong. But I admit I imagine that's annoying to hear

Come back once you’ve graduaded and lived for a bit amongst actual people.

>> No.16993565

>>16993523
>Culture emerges form material relations
Kek, yes I know, this is orthodox marxist autism. It isn’t this simple though, and most people today realize this.

>>16993523
>but Marx wasn't an egalitarian and he didn't just want to adhere to some feel good vague moral abstractions.
Putting aside your reverence of what daddy Marx thought, take an honest look at the state of the left 2020.

>> No.16993577

>>16993523
>the word has evolved to mean more than just that.
What was the Ancién Regime reacting against?

>> No.16993645

>>16993523
Also @you denying that leftists have won the culture war in academic institutions with some rhetoric about base/superstructure: m8, I did an undergraduate in philosophy, all of my profs. were old boomer leftists who were active in marxist student politics in the 1970s. My prof in my class on political philosophy unironically said that “the entirety of western political thought can be summed up as white male landowners/capitalists using ideas to justify their oppression of everyone else”. People who espoused anything remotely resembling something critical of the left were socially ostracized. Students made up rumors about others lole ‘that one guy is rightwing/said something potentially racist’ as a way of getting to people they did not like. What planet are you living on where the establishment is culturally right? Explaining it away as ‘liberal rhetoric’ does not cut it.

>> No.16993674

>>16993577
The term (usually) isn't used to refer to the history of France before the French revolution all the way back, it usually refers to the French Monarchy during the late middle ages, and within that time frame capital was in it's nascent stage with phenomena such as the seigneurial rights of certain cities which allowed for early industry to arise in mercantile centers. The ancien regime's centralization of power away from the feudal lords of France was a reaction to this trend in late feudalism.
>>16993565
>Kek, yes I know, this is orthodox marxist autism. It isn’t this simple though, and most people today realize this.
I mean it isn't solely the material conditions but is mostly the material conditions.
>Putting aside your reverence of what daddy Marx thought, take an honest look at the state of the left 2020.
By left you mean liberals who could in no way be considered leftists, and I've been saying they are reactionaries because of their support for the social liberal state.
>>16993542
>oh you believe people who share your political stance has an accurate view of the world?? Preposterous!
Ok man.

>> No.16993694

>>16993645
>“the entirety of western political thought can be summed up as white male landowners/capitalists using ideas to justify their oppression of everyone else”
>When people say they're Marxists, even if they don't understand Marxism at all, they are Marxists
Leftism is not when you say black people are cool for fucks sake.

>> No.16993701

>>16991822
So... modernists?

>> No.16993744

>>16993674
So the liberals are ‘reactionary’ in a sense analogous to the Ancien Régime’s reaction to late medieval mercantilism? Your post still doesn’t make sense.

>By left you mean liberals who could in no way be considered leftists, and I've been saying they are reactionaries
So the modern left is reactionary.

>oh you believe people who share your political stance has an accurate view of the world?? Preposterous!

No, more so poking at your zealous adherence to an ideology that lets you reduce all other viewpoints to ‘false consciousness’. It is cancer. The buble usually busts though. when you go out and you know, encounter the real world. If you haven’t been completely lobotomized.

>> No.16993762

>>16993694
>No one other than the most hardcore tankies who adhere to orthodox marxist theory are real leftists.

Stop sperging. Historical marxism doesn’t have a monopoly on the ‘leftist’ political position.

>> No.16993893

>>16993744
>Your post still doesn’t make sense.
Elaborate.
>So the modern left is reactionary.
If you consider liberals leftists sure.
>>16993744
>No, more so poking at your zealous adherence to an ideology that lets you reduce all other viewpoints to ‘false consciousness’.
It is an inaccurate way of looking at the world, idealistic analysis (as in opposed to materialist analysis) does not elucidate so much of historical development.
>>16993762
>Stop sperging. Historical marxism doesn’t have a monopoly on the ‘leftist’ political position.
I'm just saying your average college campus liberals are not leftists, not that ya gotta join the Red Guard to be a "true leftist", modern leftism is comprised of modern social democrats (as opposed to the older, Marxist ones like Bebel who don't really exist anymore to my knowledge) and everyone left of them. If you're going to say that much of the old left has been sidelined by the new left, which is more concerned with idpol, I'd agree with you.

>> No.16993917

>>16993160
i mostly agree with you
but what you call leftist are just neoliberals - not marxists or real leftist

>> No.16993935

>>16993418
>jews
Those are Nephilim, buddy

>> No.16993940

>>16991779
Heidegger

>> No.16993970

>>16993893
>that much of the old left has been sidelined by the new left, which is more concerned with idpol, I'd agree with you.
I definetely agree, but I don’t have a dog in the fight of who are the ‘real’ leftists.

>elaborate
I was kind of playing a rhetorical game, but I still would maintain that it makes little sense to call neoliberals and the new left ‘reactionaries’ in the historically accurate sense of the term. Hence why I have no problem calling them leftists!

And hey, I have more respect for the old left though I think the assumptions of the ideology is sort of dead today. I like pic related >>16993241 who bashed the new left in a similar fashion but still was a leftist. I also like certain radical writers like Illich and so on who, while not marxist’ were sort of left.

>> No.16993989

>>16993893
>It is an inaccurate way of looking at the world, idealistic analysis (as in opposed to materialist analysis)
This is the big one we disagree on, hence why I am not marxist in the slightest.

>> No.16994037

>>16993970
>I definitely agree, but I don’t have a dog in the fight of who are the ‘real’ leftists.
I'm not saying that they aren't "real" leftists, just that their analysis isn't accurate.
>>16993970
>but I still would maintain that it makes little sense to call neoliberals and the new left ‘reactionaries’ in the historically accurate sense of the term
As to why you think the neoliberal order isn't reactionary is beyond me, but I can see why you'd say you don't see the new left as being reactionary, agree to disagree I guess.
>>16993989
>This is the big one we disagree on, hence why I am not marxist in the slightest.
I mean, do you think ideas spring out of thin air like revelations from heaven? We can track the genealogical origins of ideas through material developments in history and it is a better method of analysis than "this happened because we are going to assume these people were influenced by these ideas and that somehow this translates into action". Unless you take a Jungian approach, but I have a bone to pick with anyone that believes in universal archetypes so I'd hope that isn't the case.

>> No.16994071

>>16993694
You'd be hard pressed to find an opinion more commonly held by leftists.

>> No.16994197

>>16994037
You literally said ‘they aren’t leftists!’ several times though, my guy.

>As to why you think the neoliberal order isn't reactionary is beyond me
It is basically liberalism, a leftist ideology (in the historically accurate sense of the term), taken to its logical consequence. Tbh, I think the binary left-right political schema is inadequate today.

>We can track the genealogical origins of ideas through material developments in history and it is a better method of analysis than "this happened because we are going to assume these people were influenced by these ideas and that somehow this translates into action".
If you were to be fair though, there are sophisticated historiographical methods for dealing with the development of ideas in context. Marxist historiography has been out of fashion with historians for decades. Guess academic history is a product of false consciousness, no? kek

>Unless you take a Jungian approach, but I have a bone to pick with anyone that believes in universal archetypes so I'd hope that isn't the case.
definetely not a jungian, but I believe in universal metaphysical principles. This is besides the points regarding modern historiography, though.

>> No.16994235
File: 39 KB, 485x482, big d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16994235

>>16991779

>> No.16994324
File: 53 KB, 1280x720, 4BEB8B38-A0B8-4037-9FD3-46234C856F27.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16994324

>>16994197
>I believe in universal metaphysical principles.

So do marxists, btw. (pic related, when he btfo’d marx on national tv)

>> No.16994516

>>16991822
Horkheimer literally said that "to be radical today is to be a conservative". Stfu

>> No.16994532

>>16993152
No shit, we've all read Adorno

>> No.16994566

>>16993152
>capitalism is literally fucking everything
Ohnonono comrades we got too cocky. This sounds fucking ridiculous to me but I'm sure it makes sense in context. Care to elaborate?

>> No.16994588

>>16994566
>>16994566
Any attempts at a critique of capitalism are inevitably territorialised by capital and reproduced as a commodity - see the rise of meaningless 'green' eco-products/lifestyles which defuse genuine eco-activism, or civil rights movements mutating into the far more marketable BLM

>> No.16994666

>>16994588
Hey Adorno, famous "postmodernist" is this you refuting postmodernism by bringing to our attention exactly what you laid out in the 1940s in your epic book The Culture Industry?

Weird method but I dig it.

>> No.16994693

>>16994666
what

>> No.16994710

if i liked Enlightenment as Mass Deception where do i go from there?

>> No.16994755

>>16994588
>'green' eco-products/lifestyles which defuse genuine eco-activism
Does it really, though? Ecomemery and virtue signalling doesn't seem to be on the minds of anyone seriously concerned with the environment. Aside from white liberals the BLM movement has quite a bit of serious concern underpinning it, and I don't think a t-shirt given to the prole masses by the elite would suffice to abate the righteous indignation.

>> No.16994776

>>16994755
You try to please the people with torches. Simple as. Pretend to care about environment so activists don't point fingers at your company. Pretend to care about BLM so activists don't target your company.

>> No.16994874

>>16994755
The point is that the people seriously concerned with the environment are losing to ecomemery, precisely because the former are a threat to the system, whereas the latter isn’t.

>> No.16994888

>>16994710
Either the book where that essay was originally published (dialectic of enlightenment) or the book that bares its name (the culture industry: selected essays on mass culture from routledge press) are good options

>> No.16994942

>>16994874
Has any suggested a counterpraxis, then? Or is it all pure doomer lit?

>> No.16994960

>>16993183
>They just repeat some half baked conspiracy about universities brainwashing kids into leftists
There's no conspiracy. Universities operate as skinner boxes designed to create leftist activists and inject them into industry. Just because you've been convinced that explicitly political modes of pedagogy are somehow apolitical doesn't change what's happening at all.

>> No.16995030

>>16994942
Mark Fisher talks about the threat ecological collapse poses to capitalism, that the actual threat itself is a direct product of over-exploitation based on the assumption of infinite resources. The finitude of resources will inevitably lead to either a collapse of capitalism, or a shift whereby capitalism, by necessity, must eventually confront eco-disaster and genuinely incentivise real, productive change or otherwise witness its own destruction. Whether that will happen or not is debatable, of course, but it certainly suggests capitalism isn't entirely insurmountable.

>> No.16995100

>>16994942
Bookchins Eco Socialism is probably the most all encompassing vision I've personally stumbled across

>> No.16995125

>>16995030
>or a shift whereby capitalism, by necessity, must eventually confront eco-disaster and genuinely incentivise real, productive change or otherwise witness its own destruction
I'm a semi-lolbert. This sounds analogical to what Hoppe talks about in his Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis. Is Fisher an easy read? I'd be interested in getting deeper into this.

>> No.16995154

>>16993076
Imagine if there was an entire wikipedia article on Cultural Marxism that have a detailed answer to this question, then activist wikipedia mods deleted it and then every Marxist started denying that Cultural Marxism existed. That's cultural marxism, and that happened while I watched it play out. You insidious little worm

>> No.16995269

>>16993177
What a fruitful conversation.

>> No.16995334

>>16995154
Doubt. Name one

>> No.16995379

>>16993076
Its Amerisharts trying to find who made them gay. Of course it cant be due to their national values and homegrown leftist tradition which was literally denounced by Marx for focusing on faggotry too much. It has to be Russian hackers from the outside.

>> No.16995400

>>16995125
Interesting, I'll have a look at that. Fisher is very easy to get into, yes. The point I'm referencing is made in Capitalist Realism.

>> No.16995409

>>16995154
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_cultural_analysis
literally here you retard

>> No.16995418

>>16995154
cultural marxism does have an article

it talks about how its a right wing conspiracy theory based on a misinterpretation of what these writers talked about and how it is an attempt to equate political correctness with communism to scare americans who've had their brains scrambled by red scare propaganda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

>> No.16995439

>>16993076

Same thing Germ*ids meant by "cultural bolchevism"...

>> No.16995447

>>16995418
Which is totally correct. There's nothing Marxist about any of what Peterson boys attribute a such

>> No.16995472

>>16995154
>marxists started denying the existence of Adorno, Gramsci etc.
This is going to be good. Please, which Marxists, who? Who are you talking about??

>> No.16995505

>>16991779
Foucault, Derrida, Adorno, Sartre. Don't be scared of the boogeyman. He isn't real

>> No.16995566

>>16995409
har har

>>16995418
brain worms got you

>>16995472
> Marxist reading comprehension
wow

>> No.16995645

>>16995566
>every Marxist started denying that Cultural Marxism existed
That's what you wrote. Adorno is one such academic that the accusation of 'cultural marxist' is levelled at. I don't know any Marxists who deny the existence of Adorno or his works of Marxist cultural analysis.

Where is my reading comprehension poor?

>> No.16995668

>>16995400
Cool. It's a very short and lucid read, doesn't require much background. The part I'm pointing to is in the latter half of the paper. The paper doesn't deal with the topic of ecological crises directly but it does try to give an account of the tendency for imperialist expansionism and resource appropriation that Marxists associate with capitalism, and how that association is wrong within the austrian worldview. Choice quotes:
>Finally, the increasing concentration and centralization of exploitative powers leads to economic stagnation and thereby creates the objective conditions for the ultimate demise of these powers and the establishment of a classless society capable of producing unheard of economic prosperity.
>Contrary to Marxist claims, this society will not be the result of any historical laws.
>Instead, the likelihood of crises that stimulate the development of a higher degree of class consciousness increases (...)
>If and insofar as this occurs, however, it will not mean - contrary to the Marxist model - social ownership of means of production. In fact, social ownership is not only economically inefficient, as has already been explained, but incompatible with the idea that the state is "withering away."
>Instead, the withering away of the state, and with this the end of exploitation and the beginning of liberty and unheard of economic prosperity, means the establishment of a pure private property society regulated by nothing but private law.

>> No.16995732

>>16995418
>it talks about how its a right wing conspiracy theory based on a misinterpretation of what these writers talked about and how it is an attempt to equate political correctness with communism to scare americans who've had their brains scrambled by red scare propaganda
There's nothing wrong with it. There's an underlying element of communism to all progressive policy and social attitudes.