/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17483295]

Can anyone actually refute postmodernism? In the sense that everything is relative, there is no objective truth, we should be skeptical towards grand narratives etc. I mean I am a brainlet but this philosophy seems perfectly in tune with the age we live in.

[Anonymous No.17483305]

how do you prove objective truth?

[Anonymous No.17483314]

>>17483295
>postmodernism

I can't believe that like three years on Jordan Peterson has managed to melt some people's brains this hard. "Postmodernism" isn't a single, coherent movement where the central philosophers even roughly agree with each other. What you're saying is like saying "Can actually refute philosophy?" It's such a broad question so as to be meaningless.

[Anonymous No.17483321]

>>17483295
social constructivism is self refuting, thus useless
Any form of epistemological influence relativism is self contradictory
If there is no objective truth, you cannot know that fact, because that would imply that the given fact is objectively true, which negates itself. Plus, language determinism is self refuting in the same vain, but for some reason, they see themselves exempt from the social constructions and language determinations to see beyond reality [=constructed one] into the real,

[Anonymous No.17483334]

>>17483314
Of course, but it's like a genre in music. Various artists share similar themes thus being described by a certain "genre" but it doesn't really mean anything

[Anonymous No.17483349]

>>17483321
>If there is no objective truth, you cannot know that fact, because that would imply that the given fact is objectively true, which negates itself
You are literally the dumbest person in human history. The point is that every interpretation is always subjective not some retarded semantic point about truth being real you cumeating homosexual

[Anonymous No.17483377]

>>17483349
The claim that every interpretation is subjective is a truth-claim.

[Anonymous No.17483387]

>>17483321
>If there is no objective truth, you cannot know that fact, because that would imply that the given fact is objectively true, which negates itself.
I mean it depends. You can have mathematical truth by saying 2 + 2 = 4. But you can't really have an objective truth in history because there are too many things that are missing in context. Same with science, what's "objectively" true changes according to various factors and contemporary knowledge.

[Anonymous No.17483390]

>>17483377
You repeat that like it's some grand realisation. Try to read my post again.

[Anonymous No.17483618]

>>17483390
I can't take your post seriously, as its contradictory

[Anonymous No.17483667]

>>17483295
>In the sense that everything is relative, there is no objective truth, we should be skeptical towards grand narratives etc.
Can you cite where in Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze or whoever this is claimed?

[Anonymous No.17483674]

>>17483667
No.

[Anonymous No.17483699]

>>17483667
All three are Nietzscheans which means they're fundamentally perspectivists, an Nietzsche himself (the first po-mo) said there are no facts only interpretations

[Anonymous No.17483707]

>>17483387
Thats more like saying that our knowledge is not absolute, but not that we can't know anything beyond our socially constructed reality

[Anonymous No.17483716]

>>17483387
Even mathematical "truth" can change based on whether you use a base 10 system or a base 12 system, for example, or what culturally determined projects and motivations led you to manipulate abstract notions of quantity in the first place. Mathematics is "correct" in the sense that once you set the starting parameter you can do all sorts of thing with it, which can then meet or fall short of internally consistent standards, but it isn't possible to apply these rigid standards to the process which determines one set of parameters over another. No logical/axiomatic system can justify itself absolutely.

[Anonymous No.17483726]

We all live in a post-modernist world. (In the West anyway, maybe not in Saudi Arabia or the Congo.)

People are either post-modernists or larpers.

[Anonymous No.17483730]

>>17483667
I can't give a specific quote, but the whole point of a Thousand Plateaus is that there isn't one singular truth, but that its more like a thousand plateaus, i.e. thousand perspectives, basically what >>17483699 said

[Anonymous No.17483731]

>ok maybe im wrong but get this what if truth doesnt even exist
Dont know about you Anon but I am confident in the things I believe in

[Anonymous No.17483732]

>>17483295
Yeah, it’s gay.

[Anonymous No.17483747]

>>17483699
Can you cite where Nietzsche specifically says that?

[Anonymous No.17483748]

>>17483295
>In the sense that everything is relative, there is no objective truth
Epistemologically everything is definitely relative. But relative to fairly consistent events, such as MOTHERFUCKING PAIN. You can't deconstruct your way out of pain.
>we should be skeptical towards grand narratives
We should be skeptical towards their effectivity, not towards them as a whole. There is no alternative to grand narratives.

[Anonymous No.17483754]

>>17483747

[Anonymous No.17483782]

>>17483726
Saudi Arabia and the Congo are just as postmodern as the West. high-tech theocracy building metropolises out of nothing in the desert? decentralized militia groups warring over coltan mines to produce PS2 and smart phone components?

[Anonymous No.17483797]

>>17483295
It's a spiraling staircase of semantic reduceability that its subspecies try to bottom out when it serves their particular ideological needs. Ultimately it all leads to nihilism no matter how many false bottoms its proponents try to fashion for it.

[Anonymous No.17483808]

>>17483747
Chapter I of Beyond Good and Evil

[Anonymous No.17483824]

>>17483808
Fuck, it only now hit me that Peterson's "Beyond Order" is a play on Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil", since it's an order of values that establishes good and evil. Fucking lobsters.

[Anonymous No.17483842]

>>17483699
I never understood why all the righteous froth at the mouth when you mention post modernism, but get hearts in their eyes for Nietzsche. I guess it is Peterson's fault.

[Anonymous No.17483850]

>>17483842
Autocorecred rightoid to righteous..is it a sign from God..trips says yes

[Anonymous No.17483863]

>>17483842
Postmodernism makes you lose illusions. Nietzsche does too, but he doesn't stop there, he actually seems to go all the way.
t. read Maps of Meaning

[Anonymous No.17483871]

>>17483824
It's weird how Peterson touts Nietzsche since Nietzsche is in many ways his opposite.

[Anonymous No.17483892]

>>17483871
Nietzsche is also in many ways Nietzsche's own opposite... I guess that's what scholars do - build off of each other where it's possible.

[Anonymous No.17483921]

>>17483295
There was a thread about this yesterday in which I posted a well thought-out reply. As soon as it got traction, jannies deleted the thread. I'll give you the short version:
1. When it comes to postmodernism, there is nothing to "prove" or "refute", since objective truth is a concept completely dispensed of. We are simply proposing thoughts and stringing sentences along like poets.
2. Postmodernism is really just a watered-down version of solipsism, which, is in turn a watered-down version of many schizophrenic phenotypes. To prove that first part to yourself, I invite you to carry out the following exercise: Write down one sentence that you know is true.
If you enjoy postmodern concepts, it is only appropriate that you use the postmodern critical, deconstructive hammer all the way to its full potential. Write down one thing that you know is true. My hypothesis will then inevitably prove itself.

[Anonymous No.17483923]

>>17483797
Everything that isn't religion leads to nihilism in the same way then

[Anonymous No.17483953]

>>17483321
what if it were worded like "the only thing that is objectively true is that everything is relative."

[Anonymous No.17483985]

>>17483295

Jesus fucking Christ.
How about you quote a promo philosopher saying something along those lines instead of just regurgitating Daddy Peterson's memery. That way we might actually have a discussion...

[Anonymous No.17484078]

>>17483985
Why are threads about postmodernism always divided in three parts:
>yep it's basically just smartassing through deconstruction
>no it's absolutely not just smartassing, but I'm not telling you what it is
>Peterson's daughter is hot
Not OP btw.

[Anonymous No.17484261]

>>17483953
How can something be relative to itself?

[Anonymous No.17484282]

>>17483730
>like a thousand plateaus, i.e. thousand perspectives
Christ imagine being this dumb

[Anonymous No.17484320]

>>17484078
There’s three types of people in these threads
>doesn’t understand but thinks they do
>shitposting
>maybe one person who knows what they’re talking about
Guys like Derrida and Deleuze regular reference dozens of works in their books, to be able to properly read them you have to actually be very well read in - variety of texts. Most people aren’t.

[Anonymous No.17484330]

>>17483295
If there’s no objective truth, you shouldn’t just be skeptical of grand narratives. You’d necessarily have to be skeptical of everything you could ever claim to know about reality and experience of reality would be rendered unintelligible goddledegook.

[Anonymous No.17484335]

>>17484330
>missing the point this hard

[Anonymous No.17484389]

There is objective truth. We just can't understand it.

[Anonymous No.17484418]

>>17484389
Which is the same thing as there being no objective truth...

[Anonymous No.17484421]

>>17483295
It's a useful tool for deconstructing ideas, but it's nothing more than that, and any kind of dogmatism towards it results in absolutely absurd realities--see literally any modern liberal arts student who thinks they know shit because their professor spoonfed them a bit of Foucault and told them the Nietzsche was a crypto-fascist. In the right hands, postmodernism is a great methodology that can help discover new meanings and new paradigms; in the wrong hands, it leads to social and ideological pathologies that would make the regimes of the 20th century and the medieval Church fucking blush.

What's more is that it is not new--and that's where so many modern "scholars" seem to derail and totally lose the point and value of the idea. Socrates talked about investigating the root meanings of society in Dialogues like the Euthyphro, where he systematically deconstructs what truth means to the Athenians, and how it can be viewed from potentially different perspectives. In no way is he a postmodernist, but in those Dialogues, in plain text, is the root or at least an ancient example, of the same sentiments that caused it to come about in the first place.

You can't refute postmodernism because postmodernism isn't even what it fucking is--it's not original, it's not new, it's nothing more than repackaged skepticism for the modern consumer. There is no difference between the Sophists of Classical Greece, or even in part some of the Socratic thinkers, and current postmodernists. They even share the same bloated egos--though at least the Sophists got there first, according to records. Postmodernists can't even manage to be original. They only regurgitate.

This is why it's absolutely critical for you to read the Greeks. Start with them. Literally most problems, issues, contentions, debates, or ideological conflicts of any kind were discussed in some form or another by the Greeks. Start there and you'll come to the realization pretty quick.

[Anonymous No.17484474]

>>17484421
>a bit of Foucault and told them the Nietzsche was a crypto-fascist
Foucault loved Nietzsche...

[Anonymous No.17484488]

This thread reads like a bunch of bitter undergrads that got filtered hard by Deleuze

[Anonymous No.17484490]

>>17484474
I should clarify--I don't mean the relationship Foucault has with Nietzsche, but I've been in classes or around people who love Foucault because of how his ideas re power and identity have served as the foundation for modern identity politics. These same people won't read Nietzsche and often dismiss him outright because he's le mean white guy, and they once heard that Hitler was a fan of Nietzsche's, so they write him off as a Nazi without ever actually taking the time to read what he wrote.

[Anonymous No.17484500]

>>17484490
I hope you don’t pay money to go to that school

[Anonymous No.17484503]

>>17483295
Well just for one thing, if everything is relative and there's no objective truth, then the belief that nothing is relative and there is one objective truth is just as good as any other perspective and there's no reason not to believe in it.

[Anonymous No.17484519]

>>17484490
Are you fucking serious? It literally takes one google search to find out Foucault was hugely influenced by Nietzsche. Are you going to an american school by any chance?

[Anonymous No.17484521]

>>17483921
This is a sentence.

[Anonymous No.17484527]

>>17483842
>I guess it is Peterson's fault.
Nah, it's the moustache.

[Anonymous No.17484541]

>>17484421
All philosophy is regurgitation idiot

[Anonymous No.17484544]

>>17484320
Sure, and to read Aquinas you need to have read at least some secondary literature on Aristotelianism. Nevertheless, people seem to be able to grasp and reproduce Aquinas' argument (at least half of it) on any given board. Yet with postmodern authors there's always this "ahh, you just wouldn't get ittttt....." vibe to the posts.
Me myself I've seen some debates with Foucault and looked up some of his thought. It's useless. Am I to believe that people like Derrida are the exact opposite? So sophisticated and intense that it's just way over my pleb head?

[Anonymous No.17484546]

>>17484521
Is it? How do you know you're not hallucinating it? How do you know that everyone agrees on what a sentence is?

[Anonymous No.17484554]

>>17483295
Beware those who preach relativism openly but worship objectivism in secret.

[Anonymous No.17484559]

>>17484503
Now you're starting to get it

[Anonymous No.17484560]

>>17484546
>What if I'm a schizo
Then you're a schizo. This is still a sentence, since definitions themselves are dependent on salience-distributing "this".

[Anonymous No.17484570]

>>17484546
None of those points factor into it sorry

[Anonymous No.17484584]

>>17483314
>didn't finish reading post
>rent free peterson boogieman
the absolute state of this board

[Anonymous No.17484589]

>>17484500
>>17484519
I graduated last year. I honestly don't mind University, I'm going to another one for Grad School because I'm bored and I enjoy talking about philosophy with people and there's no better place to meet neurotic women than the types of programs I go to.

And yes. You'd be lucky in some of the places I've been to find people who have even read Nietzsche, and in spite of this, they fucking FAWN over identity politics and postmodernism. A lot of university students in the States won't read anything before 1950. I don't know why, either it's genuinely too difficult, or they feel like they won't have anything in common with someone born before the 20th Century. The upside of this is that if you genuinely give a shit and read as much as you can, you'll be able to coast through all your classes and maybe even into a job, because basically no one else will have done the consummate work to do so. They'll have been too busy scrolling cutesie commie Twitter Feeds and reading the latest popular fiction written for identity politic-aholics.

[Anonymous No.17484600]

>>17484541
Then postmodernism should pull its head out of its asshole and stop getting itself and the rest of its ardent followers high off of their own farts.

[Anonymous No.17484607]

>>17484560
I don't think the question "How do you know you're not hallucinating it" can be simply be brushed off by calling me a schizo. You seem very confident in trusting your senses, while, for example, you can be fooled by trivial optical illusions. Why do you think the postmodern hammer spares empiric evidence?

[Anonymous No.17484609]

>>17483295
since postmodernisms take is that there's no objective truth and mine is that there is, if I'm right they are wrong, if they're right they are still wrong.
I don't have to refute it, It's just an "Ok Boomer" moment.

[Anonymous No.17484610]

>>17484589
>because I'm bored and I enjoy talking about philosophy with people and there's no better place to meet neurotic women than the types of programs I go to.
basado

[Anonymous No.17484618]

>>17484600
The philosophical system has nothing to do with its followers you dumb postmodernist

[Anonymous No.17484630]

>>17484607
>senses

Filtered

[Anonymous No.17484633]

>>17484607
>You seem very confident in trusting your senses
That's what your senses tell you. You seem very confident in trusting your senses

[Anonymous No.17484638]

>>17484544
>So sophisticated and intense that it's just way over my pleb head?
Nope, you’re missing the point entirely. For Derrida, he writes by reading and reads by writing, he’ll often write a single book that comments on small pieces of a thought that come off from and hide within a given thinkers entire oeuvre. That’s the point.
Looking at Deleuze’s work with Guattari means you’ve got to know structuralism to a decent extent, Marxism up to around Althusser and Freud/Lacan/klein, and that’s just for Anti-Oedipus. The sheer degree of complexity was for them a necessary part of their method.
Someone like Baudrillard, specifically his text Transparency of Evil is much easier to grasp with minimal reading. Deleuze’s monographs where he writes about historical philosophers are notably easy.
If you were less of a closed off dipshit I’m sure you could have figured this out by yourself.
>>17484589
>idpol and pomo
Pomo and its engagement with postcolonialism is specifically anti-idpol, I really hope you didn’t pay to go to that school.

[Anonymous No.17484641]

>>17484607
not that guy, but being bad at one thing doesn't imply total insanity

[Anonymous No.17484647]

>>17484638
Forgot to attach my pic

[Anonymous No.17484654]

>>17484607
Why would it stop being a sentence if I was hallucinating it

[Anonymous No.17484676]

>>17484638
Regardless of intention, I can absolutely guarantee you Pomo and Idpol are being linked together in the modern university. I don't agree with this, and I think it's a bastardization of the system, but it is absolutely happening. It's a disgrace.

[Anonymous No.17484677]

>>17484638
>>So sophisticated and intense that it's just way over my pleb head?
>Nope
>...
>you’re missing the point entirely
>pieces of a thought that come off from and hide within a given thinkers entire oeuvre
>you’ve got to know structuralism... Marxism... Freud... and that's just for Anti-Oedipus
>The sheer degree of complexity
>you...a closed off dispshit
Damn, you're right, there is absolutely no sense of "meh too complex for your pleb head" in posts about postmodernism.
Lmao

[Anonymous No.17484684]

>>17484633
Exactly. Now you're starting to get it.
I think a fault with a lot of "postmodernists" is that they use the deconstructive hammer to smash concepts their egos are upset by ("patriarchy", inequality, religion....) and don't use it to its full extend, as that would be "crazy schizo behavior". In fact, they are simply using the ideology to further their own goals, instead of taking it seriously. I urge anyone that agrees with postmodern principles to try to write down one true sentence, with relentless, and not choosy, use of postmodern criticism.

[Anonymous No.17484687]

>>17484677
I'm sorry you had to find out postmodernism wasn't going to be the first philosophy that would be easy to understand

[Anonymous No.17484701]

>>17484687
There's a difference between sophisticated and obscurantism

[Anonymous No.17484702]

>>17484684
Based.
>>17484687
Damn, I really thought postmodernism was "going to be the first philosophy that would be easy to understand", whatever that awkward phrasing was meant to achieve lol

[Anonymous No.17484703]

>>17484618
No, but the people who endorse the system should at least take a modicum of responsibility over the effects it has and how they have been manipulated and re-appropriated by other ideological systems to promote their own ends. If postmodern thinkers had any ounce of will or genuine attachment to their system, they'd come together, write a foundational text/thesis, and distribute it, helping to cement a definition for the philosophical system altogether.

But because that would be antithetical to postmodernism, or at the very least because no one's found a workaround to doing that--I have no idea if they have, if there is a piece of literature that codifies the thoughts of the postmodern movement, I'd love to read it--the tools and equipment created by postmodernists have fallen into the hands of political demagogues and media con artists who routinely engage in postmodern-inspired, by their own belief, discourse and profit from the lack of understanding as to what they're doing and where it comes from.

[Anonymous No.17484705]

>>17484630
English is only my second language, silly American.

>>17484654
Maybe you're seeing a sentence and everyone else isn't. Do you know we're seeing the same thing?

>>17484641
See >>17484684

[Anonymous No.17484709]

>>17484684
What's postmodern about the pursuit of equality in a socio-political system founded on that very idea, dating to the end of the 17th century

[Anonymous No.17484715]

>>17484701
Yes, one is applied to things you like and the other to things you don't like

[Anonymous No.17484720]

>>17484677
>nooooo you can’t write texts commenting on thousands of years of writing now that those books are easily available in the 20th century noooooo that’s too hard for me nooooo I don’t wanna read noooooo
Stop complaining you dumb faggot i even posted books that you could read with 0 background in philosophy, you’re being willfully retarded.

[Anonymous No.17484726]

>>17484709
Nothing. Yet postmodernists will use deconstruction in pursuit of those ends. That's his point.

[Anonymous No.17484727]

>>17484715
Does that mean Hermeticism isn't obscurantism if I like it?

[Anonymous No.17484729]

>>17484488
Deleuze was filtered by the universe.

[Anonymous No.17484736]

>>17484703
>No, but the people who endorse the system should at least take a modicum of responsibility over the effects it has and how they have been manipulated and re-appropriated by other ideological systems to promote their own ends.

That's literally what postmodernism is, trying to hold modernism to account.

>If postmodern thinkers had any ounce of will or genuine attachment to their system, they'd come together, write a foundational text/thesis, and distribute it, helping to cement a definition for the philosophical system altogether.

They're all dead anon

[Anonymous No.17484743]

>>17484720
>read about how homosexuality is new because the term is new
>"texts commenting on thousands of years of writing"
>p h i l o s o p h y
You guys are your own best cheerleaders. It's actually wholesome.

[Anonymous No.17484745]

>>17484705
>everyone else isn't.
Why does that stop it from being a sentence?

[Anonymous No.17484746]

>>17484736
Well then shucks anon I guess it's up to us.

I mean this sincerely.

[Anonymous No.17484752]

>>17484743
Wow dude glad to see your engagement with philosophy starts and ends at reading Wikipedia summaries

[Anonymous No.17484753]

>>17484726
So? Was Lincoln a postmodernist?

[Anonymous No.17484759]

>>17484720
Heard my aunt say "Abraham" is a weird name. Who would have thought she was capable of commenting on thousands of years of mesopotamic-semitic etymology with religious overtones?! Get on her level.

[Anonymous No.17484760]

>>17484743
You really think you're in a battle between postmodernists and anti-pomos?

[Anonymous No.17484769]

>>17484759
Woah dude so sick

[Anonymous No.17484770]

>>17484745
We could argue about this for hours. What makes a sentence a sentence? Do we have the same definition? What if I don't agree with you on it? What if multiple people don't agree with you on it? You present to me a bullshit, made up concept and you equate it to itself, calling that truth, in a comical Randian A=A fashion.

[Anonymous No.17484771]

>>17484752
>Me, chad thousands of years of texts
>You, virgin wiki
Postmodern thought vs useful thought 1:0!

[Anonymous No.17484782]

>>17484760
I think I'm mocking a guy who likes to ramp up his sense of intellectual achievement despite achieving nearly nothing.

[Anonymous No.17484790]

>>17484782
>being this much of a Protestant
Yeesh

[Anonymous No.17484794]

>>17484770
I could watch you grasp at straws for hours, you mean. Who cares if people agree on the definition of sentence lol literally doesn't matter

[Anonymous No.17484805]

>>17484782
What an odd thing to be fixated on. Are you bringing justice to the thread?

[Anonymous No.17484811]

i cant refute baudrillard

[Anonymous No.17484814]

>>17484794
Quite the contrary, the fact that almost anything is incredibly hard to define is a central point as to why postmodernists "argue" that there is no objective truth. Get back to reading, and see if you can come up with something that you know is true.

[Anonymous No.17484816]

>>17484811
Derrida refutes him

[Anonymous No.17484823]

>>17484677
If you want to be able to properly engage with the text, you must be familiar with the concepts referred to in it or you may find yourself lost

[Anonymous No.17484825]

>>17484816
Spectres of Marx is Derrida playing Baudrillard. Imo Baudrillard is the best of the post structuralists

[Anonymous No.17484830]

>>17484805
>>17484790
>> I'm mocking a twat
>Protestant??
>Justice??
I know who I may mock next lmao

[Anonymous No.17484839]

>>17484823
I didn't doubt that. I doubted that postmodernity actually hides any merit behind the walls of "ugh THOUSANDS YEARS OF TEXTS need be understood". Seems like it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.17484843]

>>17484770
>What makes a sentence a sentence?
why don't you google that instead of implying all definitions are wrong despite definitions existing?

[Anonymous No.17484846]

>>17484825
Baudrillard is the same metaphysics of presence under critique by Derrida. Derrida is inescapable

[Anonymous No.17484856]

>>17484839
When you think postmodernism is just relativism etc yeah you need to do a bit more reading

[Anonymous No.17484880]

>>17484856
>>I doubted that postmodernity actually hides any merit behind [more reading]
>you need to do a bit more reading
wat

[Anonymous No.17484891]

>>17483295
>everything is relative
>no objective truth
HMMMMMMM.... sounds like you're positing some kind of TRUTH or FACT there anon, uh oh.

Postmodernism is self-defeating. If the tenets of postmodernism hold true (no such thing as truth) then postmodernism also becomes invalid. It's like if a philosophy held a gun to itself

[Anonymous No.17484896]

>>17484843
Who makes google the authority on what the definition of a sentence is? Or whichever grammar book you choose? Some people in a specific culture made up the definition of what a sentence is, and it may or may not have endured in some people in some cultures since. The concept of a "sentence" is made up, and we can re-make it up in the same way that we created it. It's also not ubiquitous among humanity: if you go to an undiscovered tribe and you show them your "sentence", they'll unequivocally agree that you're showing them scribbles on a white sheet. What if you lived in that society while the rest of the world disappeared? Would you still have a sentence?
You clearly don't get po-mo, so I'll stop the discussion with you here.

[Anonymous No.17484901]

>>17484896
Get those straws anon!

[Anonymous No.17484903]

>>17484896
>Who makes google the authority on what the definition of a sentence is?
You're implying definitions require authorities, idk who told you this.

[Anonymous No.17484915]

>>17484880
You doubt it based on no reading lol how do you 'objectively know' what postmodernism is

I mean whatever dude you can make up all the excuses in the world not to read it but it's pointless trying to stay in a thread begging people to convince you otherwise. You clearly already want to identify with it in some way

[Anonymous No.17484930]

>>17484896
Why is unanimous agreement the definition of definition? They have no bearing on whether I know a sentence is a sentence. How do you know what you're asking me to write? How do you know that it is a sentence you are questioning? Its already implied

[Anonymous No.17484946]

Radical doubt about truth claims and narratives has been around in philosophy since the beginning, Socrates said the one thing he knew was that he knew nothing.

I think what pomo does often is actually a bit different, it shows how beliefs and attitudes are constructs. That is pretty obvious actually and hard to argue with unless you think Truth is delivered to us directly from God or the Realm of Ideas or whatever.

[Anonymous No.17484968]

>>17484915
>begging people to convince you otherwise
Is that what you think I'm doing with you? I'm begging you to tell me how postmodernism is useful and you're just too cool to let anyone know any merit of it?
All replies I've gotten in this thread conformed to what I described in >>17484544. You guys are more predictable than Lobsters.

[Anonymous No.17484983]

>>17484968
You're acting like a prick and you think that people reacting to your behaviour like you're a prick is 'predictable' postmodernists? ok
>You guys
lol who??

[Anonymous No.17485029]

>>17484983
>>You guys
>lol who??
People advocating postmodernism. Again, I describe it all in >>17484544. I march in, ask what's the use of a philosophy... Thomists can answer me, Platonists can answer me, even Muslims and phenomenologists can answer me. But with anyone who's schooled in postmodernity it's always "ah man, you'd have to understand THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF TEXTS to get how useful postmodernism is". Well it just sounds like it's pretty fucking useless lmao.
t. a prick

[Anonymous No.17485053]

>>17485029
I'm not 'advocating' postmodernism I just think you're a disingenuous shithead
Yes its all useless, you can leave now :)

[Anonymous No.17485055]

>>17483892
>Nietzsche is also in many ways Nietzsche's own opposite
This makes no sense

[Anonymous No.17485063]

>>17485029

Ok, but let's not pretend the Phenomenology answer isn't also convoluted as fuck. Not that it is wrong tho.

[Anonymous No.17485087]

>>17485053
I'm a shithead, but I'm completely transparent and honest in what I write. Postmodernity looks like a lot of garbage and people who tell me to read more on it or that my doubt is unjustified (definitely doesn't clasiffy as advocacy, does it?) usually can't provide anything but a vague sense of intellectual superiority.

>>17485055
Neither do the things people (justifiably) draw from Nietzsche. You can have read him and abandon Christianity for good, you can read him and become a practicing Pauline Christian.

[Anonymous No.17485097]

>>17485063
It's convoluted as fuck if you demand a coherent stance from the field as a whole. It's pretty straightforward if you survey individual brands of phenomenology, for instance Merleau-Ponty offers literal psychological use cases for his paradigm.

[Anonymous No.17485099]

>>17485087
Absolutely correct. I've been a postmodernist now for 20 years and I can say it's all nonsense that we use to make ourselves feel intellectually superior. You can leave the thread now

[Anonymous No.17485126]

>>17485099
Am I interrupting the "lel he doesn't know how useful these thoughts are!" vibes?

[Anonymous No.17485150]

>>17483295
What people hate isn't postmodernism but the privileged status that certain ideologies receive by the state apparatus and the elites that safeguards them from being put under the same sort of scrutiny that everything else is put under because of their usefulness in furthering certain ideological narratives that these elites and state apparatuses have a vested interest in promoting.

[Anonymous No.17485167]

>>17485150
Funny that's what the postmodernists were complaining about 60 years ago

[Anonymous No.17485509]

>>17483754
Is that a fact?

[Anonymous No.17487001]

>>17483334
but not all genres are equivalent in form. some genres like punk and techno are roughly atemporal following genesis and artists voluntarily use a designated palette of sounds. other genres like new wave or nu-metal are strictly chronological designations with only a vague reference to sound, and in the case case of nu-metal is a genre that exists almost solely as a deliberate pejorative

[Anonymous No.17487019]

>>17483295
Yes, like this: Postmodernism is part of Modernism

[Anonymous No.17487048]

>>17483321
Nice answer. Pomo is either self-refuting or hiding behind layers of obscurantism to avoid that.

[Anonymous No.17487636]

>>17483295
Read these instead

Stefan Molyneux - Universally Preferable Behavior
Mike Cernovich - Maga Mindset
Jonah Goldberg - Liberal Fascism
Ann Coulter - Godless
Patrick J. Buchanan - The Death of the West
William Luther Pierce - The Turner Diaries
Jean Respail - The Camp of the Saints
Michelle Malkin - In Defense of Internment
David Icke - Children of the Matrix
Ashida Kim - Ninja Death Touch
Steven Seagal - The Way of the Shadow Wolves
Sayyid Qutb - Milestones
Bethany Baird and Kristen Clark - Girl Defined
Pat Robertson - The New World Order
Jesse Lee Peterson - Scam
Sadhguru - Inner Engineering
Savitri Devi - Forever & Ever
David Horowitz - The Black Book of the American Left
Oral Roberts - The Miracle of Seed-Faith
Jasmuheen - Living on Light
Howard Rand - Primogenesis
Edmund Burke - Reflections on the Revolution in France
Dinesh D'Souza - The Big Lie
Dennis Prager - The Rational Bible

[Anonymous No.17487697]

Reminder that the fake WMDs that led to the War in Iraq were the ultimate form of postmodernism

[Anonymous No.17487707]

>>17487697
Bullshit. Propaganda cassus belli are essentially the norm.

Do you really think Poland started the war with Germany?

[Anonymous No.17488297]

>>17487697
Read "The Gulf War Did Not Take Place" by Baudrillard, post-modern "warfare" has been the norm since nukes ruined actual war.

[Anonymous No.17488310]

>>17484745
>>17484770
>>17484794
>>17484843
If you guys are being sincere you should seriously read Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.17488314]

>>17483295
Map reality correspondence is a meaningful, empirically significant concept.

[Anonymous No.17488330]

>>17483726
I'm big yudkowskyist.

[Anonymous No.17488340]

>>17483871
Peterson's relying on people not reading much. I mean, it would take cold brass balls to post his definition of Heideggerian Being on /lit/. But Peterson knows probably 0% of his paying audience will point out he's talking about shit he's never read or understood, because they never read or understood Heidegger either. The same thing happens with his use of "postmodernism": he's only using it because he's assuming an audience of absolute idiots who know no better. The same thing happened with "Marxists" until the sniffing man asked him direct "what Marxists?"

[Anonymous No.17488345]

>>17483730
Why in a meta representation of those maps, ie a map of maps, you cannot grade the maps according to map-map(territory) correspondence?

[Anonymous No.17488395]

>>17483321
Reddit-tier understanding of postmodernism. I haven't been back here for a while, and this thread being the first one I opened has really solidified how good of a choice I made. Thanks, retard.

[Anonymous No.17488398]

>>17484320
>they've read a lot of works that means you can't evaluate their believes before you too have read those works
Are you capable of realizing that human computational resources are finite? This strategy would lead to human thinking ceasing entirely before year 0 as human mental activity is completely clogged up by older thoughts. No one who says this actually cares about being right. It's not an argument, it's an attempt at a denial-of-service attack.

[Anonymous No.17488414]

>To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand post-modern thought. The philosophy is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of thousands of years worth of texts, most of the thoughts will go over a typical reader's head...

[Anonymous No.17488495]

What would happen if post modernists were put against those of us who do believe in truth in an all out war of extermination?
Lets put the followers of derrida and deleuze against those who base their thinking on the ideas and methods which gave us machine guns, bombs, poisonous gas, drones, nukes, satelite guided missiles, ground drones on belt tracks outfitted with m249s etc. I think that would be kino of the highest order. Imagine one of these things rolling down the halls of some critical theory deconstructivist humanities department, from door to door, identifying occupied rooms with heat detecting vision. Spewing certain death at 300 rounds per minute. Pure inhuman objective reality based instrumental killing power vs postmodernism.
Who would win?

[Anonymous No.17488502]

>>17488495
You're already losing, the pomos don't play by the rules and capture your positions of power, then turn your army into a social program for fatties and women.

[Anonymous No.17488579]

>>17483295
If there is no objective truth, this statement is not objectively true. Continental sophistry DESTROYED with Anglo Facts & Logic

[Anonymous No.17488876]

>>17483295
>there is no objective truth
>the truth that there is no truth
Anon, that's a logical contradiction and therefore immediately false.

>I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life