/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18137567]

Whats the difference between post modernism and post structuralism

[Anonymous No.18137599]

>>18137567
Not literature

[Anonymous No.18137605]

>>18137599
What literature discusses the differences between post modernism and post structuralism?

[Anonymous No.18137631]

>>18137567
I like modernism and I dont care who knows.

[Anonymous No.18137645]

>>18137631
Why do you prefer modernism to post modernism?

[Anonymous No.18137734]

>>18137645
its just a lot clearer without gay go nowhere self analysis to oblivion in a foucaultian sense if done correctly, or halfway done self analysis that ends up with a myopic gymnist outcome that is just as bias as modernism but supposes itself not to be.

[Anonymous No.18137858]

>>18137645
Duchamp would be proud

[Anonymous No.18137899]

>>18137567
Remember that thread with OP saying Dragon Ball Z is pre-modern kek

[Anonymous No.18137929]

>>18137567
>>18137605
The main difference is the attitude and the engagement with structuralism. Baudrillard dips back and forth across the line, along with lyotard. Meanwhile people like Guattari constantly make fun of postmodernism for their consistently cynical views of what could (have) lead to the greatest age of mankind

[Anonymous No.18138189]

"Postmodernism" barely denotes anything outside of a certain intervall within time. Depending on the context, it means widely different things, in ordinary language however it usually means something like "post-truth, social constructivist" when it comes to philosophy (different connotations in art). Post-structuralism is similarly vague, however more closely bound together as generally "post-structuralists" are those thinkers who have worked with and/or beyond the structuralist framework that was so popular during the early 20th century, especially with French thinkers. So it's just "thinker who works with structuralism, but generally disagrees with its main tenents", like D&G, Derrida and Lyotard.

Lacan is, from what I understand, never read the guy, somewhere inbetween, where some people argue he is a proper structuralist and others argue he is already on the "way out" towards post-structuralism.

[Anonymous No.18138225]

>>18138189
I dont diagree with you, but you have to admit how ordinary language uses post-modernism as meaning "social constructivits" would make most people get confused with the separate post-structuralist movement.

[Anonymous No.18138250]

>>18138225
IDK if generally speaking post-structuralists can be conceived of as being "social constructivists" - know too little of the subject.

[Anonymous No.18138256]

>>18138250
I dont think its because they can be conceiver as such, merely the fact that they both deal with constructs.

[Anonymous No.18138271]

>>18138189
Post modernism comes from the title of a Frederick Jameson book and in the theory of the late 20th century had specific connotations; like all other words submitted to the contemporary system of mass media it’s made meaningless

[Anonymous No.18138277]

>>18138189
>thinker who works with structuralism, but generally disagrees with its main tenents
This is a lazy definition, there are structuralists and existentialists that disagree with structuralism it aren’t post structuralists

[Anonymous No.18138293]

>>18138277
It's not a "definition", it's a report of ordinary language use - which is inherently fluid and non-defining. The point being people like OP are confused because ordinary users of these words are somewhat confused, which is not surprising, since these terms are rarely self-descriptions but exonyms. (Deleuze and Foucault both rebelled against that term very agressively)

>>18138271
Has nothing to do with mass media I'd say. These theoretical concepts are inherently vague and subject to change and re-use. If I'm not mistaken it was Lyotard who coined the common use of "postmodern" in the latter half of the 20th century in his book "Postmodern Condition".

[Anonymous No.18138331]

>>18138293
Holy shit you’re such a fucking pseud, read a book instead of the internet. I’m not even the guy you’re responding to, this is just awful

[Anonymous No.18138341]

>>18138331
I'm pretty convinced that you're speaking through some form of "insecurity", as bold as that claim might be. The reason for that is is that I know for a fact that generally speaking I am in the 2% percentile of phil-knowledge on this board, simply by having a MA degree in the field, albeit having read somewhat little "pomo" philosophy. You could of course easily embarrass my grand claims by just showing me in which ways I'm a "pseud", very easy task with great benefits. !!! Trade Offer !!!