Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.31893424 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

How would a postmodern RPG work?

>> No.31893634

>>31893424
Not.

>> No.31893697

Something like Normality, probably.

>> No.31893894

>>>31893424
>we're sitting around playing an RPG now
>the characters are sitting around an vast white featureless plane discussing about how they're being controlled by players

Sounds incredibly boring

>> No.31893952

>>31893424
There would be way too much meta and incoherences for it to be functional.

>> No.31893957

Probably kind of like this:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/2ymhyuvzgty/Wisher,_Theurge,_Fatalist.pdf

>> No.31893960

>>31893424
>so steve, you see a duck
> Can I flop my haitus to the winter's night?
> Sure steve, why not. The winter's night travels to the golden ticket.
> I rolled a 15
> the night poodles

>> No.31893962

You could call Fate - and other games where you get play with the narrative around your character a bit instead of simply piloting them through the scenario the GM has laid out - you could call those postmodern RPGs, if you liked. It wouldn't lead to any interesting discussion though, so I'd just as soon not bother.

>> No.31894000

>>31893960

>> No.31894026

Or if you wanted to be even wankier you could characterise all RPGs as a post-modern form of literature. There's a sort of precedent, it was one of the guys from Oulipo that invented the interactive fiction IIRC.

>> No.31894094

>>31893424
The rulebook would fade into non being and the players would just end up doing whatever they wanted.

>> No.31894133

>>31893424
It wouldn't. That's the point.

>> No.31894159

>>31893894
That's not postmodernism, that's just an in-universe theological debate.

Postmodernism begins with a stance of extreme skepticism towards the assumptions of the genre; in this case, that there are characters, that there are players, that the characters are being controlled by these players, and that there is a white featureless plane.

The white featureless plane is in particular somethign a postmodern would reject, as whiteness is a feature; by creating a realm of physical paradox, that of one defined by both a feature and by featurelessness, you have in fact accepted the conventions of mainstream roleplaying games, namely the maddening paradox realms of Call of Cthulhu.

>> No.31894221

>>31893424
It'd still be less pretentious than World of Darkness, that's for sure.

>> No.31894242

RPGs are already postmodern.

>> No.31894247

The quest system is done in such a way you can complete quests without starting them.
That might not say a lot to you, but if the game has a very complex quest design, it starts saying a lot about how the game will work.

>>31894133
Why wouldn't it?

>> No.31894300

On a critical fail, the character rebels against the player and does the opposite of what the player was trying to make him do, in an desperate attempt to escape the oppressive yoke of forced narrative

>> No.31894355

It seems to me there are dozens of definitions of postmodernism, and everybody's using their own. What do you mean by postmodernism, OP?

>> No.31894373

A postmodernist is just an edgy modernist. no one is really postmodern because it's impossible to live that way.

It's also impossible to play that way
>I know the GM said that there's an ork, but is there REALLY an ork?

>> No.31894421

Basically, anyone would be able to make decisions, not just the DM.
In one word : chaos.

>> No.31894450

ITT: nobody knows what postmodernism is

>> No.31894466

>>31894450
But Anon, nobody in the world knows that.

>> No.31894476

>>31894450
Does ANYONE know what postmodernism is?

>> No.31894496

>>31894450
>>31894466
>>31894476
No one knows what postmodernism really is. Not just ITT.

The only defining features of postmodernism are this:
>Everyone gets a shot at defining it
>Skepticism, especially of meta-narrative.

>> No.31894504

>>31894355
I was mostly thinking about this

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

>> No.31894561

>>31894504
That's like... Everyone playing Deadpool. They know they're in a story.

>> No.31894589

>>31894496
The inherent problem of postmodernism is that it encourages people to question the definition of postmodernism.

>> No.31894608

>>31894589
Yeah.
Can't impose your definition on others man. That's facist (or something).

>> No.31894743

>>31894608
No, that's premodernist. Try to keep up.

>> No.31894872

>>31894561
You mean everyone is John where John is aware of his fictional existence?

>> No.31894883

You start of with level 1 characters in Standard Fantasy World #53. When they level up, you discover that they were controlled by some bored redshirts in a space station where nothing happens, but then aliens. After this adventure is resolved, it turns out that they too are characters controlled by castaways on an island who tell each other stories to pass the time. After they manage to discover treasure on the island, turns out that they were characters as well, and so on and so forth, until the penultimate layer of characters that are controlled by you, the players.

But who's controlling you?

>> No.31894916

>>31894743

Which one is the one dedicated to reversing expectations and subverting the essential power relationships of narrative by twisting the story into the reverse of established cliches and cultural expectations?

It's not deconstruction, because as far as I can tell deconstruction doesn't actually mean anything.

>> No.31894933

>>31894883
eXistenZ: the RPG. Heck, a melange of all of Kronenburg's stuff would make for a cool game.

>> No.31894979

>>31893424

It's called Mage: the Ascension.

The game actually is a good representation of the movement, especially some of the middle-era sourcebooks. Actually trying to play it according to its own rules highlights the philosophical problems with the movement.

>> No.31894996

>>31893960

This amuses me.

>> No.31895041

You and for or five of your friends would get together and on some unspoken queue each begin roleplaying as a person who behaves precisely the way you normally behave. After a few hours of that everybody would go home and feel smug about what a highbrow deconstruction of modern recreation you've just created.

>> No.31895092

>>31893424

Nothing is Achieved: The Game

Change for Change's Sake: The Game

Difficult Questions: The Game

Ugly Buildings: The Game


Take your pick OP

>> No.31895189

>>31895092
>Change for Change's Sake: The Game

>> No.31895241

>>31895092
>Nothing is Achieved: The Game
You wouldn't enjoy a game based on Moorcock's heroes waging an eternally pointless battle between the eternally deadlocked forces of Law and Chaos?

>> No.31895281

>>31895241

I might enjoy a novel about it.

>> No.31895357

>>31895241
So, a Bloodwar campaign basically

>> No.31895771

>>31895281
Why would passively receiving a story in which nothing is accomplished be superior to a story in which you personally come to the realization that all of your struggles have accomplished nothing?

Don't games based around the realization of the player's complete insignificance in a vast and cosmically disinterested universe actually have a pretty long pedigree in tabletop rpgs?

>> No.31897030

Everyone's character is the focus, which means none of them are.

There are no alignments, only convenient morals.

There will be some sort of mind-altering component required to play the game.

Something about impotence or infertility. Dead babies, more likely.

Then a bunch of falling action from a lackluster climax with a disappointing denouement.

Oh, and magical realism. Because, hey, when you stop giving a shit, you use magical realism.

>> No.31897261

>>31897030

So... pretty much every game of Vampire: The Masquerade?

>> No.31897519

>>31897030
>Oh, and magical realism. Because, hey, when you stop giving a shit, you use magical realism.
what is this?

>> No.31897550

>>31894916
A deconstruction is where you take the established conventions of a genre or whatever you want really and try to apply a sense of realism to them. You break down (deconstruct) the conventions. It's also really fucking easy to do so lots of lazy writers jump on it, easy to misinterpret as an excuse for grimderp, ridiculous since most genres buck their own conventions at some point or another to stay fresh and a favorite of people who don't pay attention to a genre but want to act like they understand it.

It's dumb most of the time is what I'm saying.

>> No.31897601

>>31897519
The cunt in me wants to say "Magical realism is when the writer stops giving a shit, turns their pretentious dial to 11, and pretends cows are their abandonment issues" but that would be disingenuous.

Magical realism is a literary device that heavily abuses imagery and scene dressing to create events, characters, or places that are whimsical, dreamlike, and otherwise completely removed from whatever grounded reality the story takes place in.

See Gabriel Marquez, Allende, or Kafka.

>> No.31897713

>>31897601
Kafka is magical realism done right.

Like >>31897550 says, magical realism as a device is often abused like deconstructions are.

>> No.31897860

Nah, I wrote such a great analysis of how would such a game work, then my browser went nuts and I've lost it.
Fuck it.

>>31897601
I dare to say that your view of magical realism is pretty shallow. First of all, the point of magical realism is to use dreamlike and magical imaginery TO speak about the actual reality, albeit often in a very complicated way.
And there are plenty of authors that do it well. Kafka being one of the most prominent ones there. Others including authors like Bulghakov, Schulz, Borges, Carpentier or very recent Milorad Pavić.

>> No.31897886

>>31897860
Hence my disclaimer "the cunt in me".

Not my cup of tea.

>> No.31897969

>>31897886
>Not my cup of tea.
OK, fair enough. I've grew up with good Magical realism authors, and I count about 80% of my favorite fiction literatury to be within boundaries of that genre.
Which is kinda fun, because I do deeply and passionately despise postmodernism as a philosophical stance or an ideology.
I don't think postmodernism is always nessesarily related to magical realism though. In fact, I'd argue most of it - almost all of the really good works - aren't.

>> No.31898075

>>31893424

>> No.31898110

>>31893424
It's called Mage the Ascension, and it works poorly

>> No.31899138

>>31894026
>>31894242
Yep. RPG's *are* a post-modern invention. The collaborative storytelling concept owes much to surrealist games like 'exquisite corpse'. Adding simulation elements to the mix...maybe hasn't been done since the dialogues of Plato?

>>31894504

In which OP admits that his question was not phrased in such a way as to get the information he wanted; but rather designed to provoke a conversation. How Socratic.

How does one preserve the aspects that make a rpg recognizable as what it essentially is, while flensing from it the external/cultural influences that we unconsciously apply to it?

>> No.31900957

>>31897261

Nah, vampire is high school, werewolf is middle school, mage is undergraduate, changeling is elementary school. Oh, and wraith is once you graduate college with an english major having blown your life playing RPGs.

>> No.31902638

>>31893424
well OP, first lets discuss whatpost modernism is. post modernism a regression from the ideological basis that produced all of the progress over the last 200 years. modernism believes in things like empiricism and universalism and progressivism. Post modernist have regressed from these modernist and enlightment ideas. Of course, being intelligent people,they do not call it a regression because then people would be able to definitively categorize postmodernists as fucking morons. Instead, they call themselves postmodernists, and try to muddy the definition as much as possible.

A post modernist RPG would not have any rules becasue postmodernist hate rules that apply to everyone. Instead each player would have his own rules based on his own feelings or "interpretation." A post modernist RPG would have no balance based on statistics because science, mathematics, and empiricism are racist and privileged. Nothing would get done and no one would have fun because the game would devolve into a meaningless fight about nothing like a feminist talking about "privilege".

Effectively, a post modernist RPG would be like a group of toddlers playing cops and robbers.

>bang bang! i got you
>nuh uh i have a force field
>yeah huh i have force field killing bullets
>no you dont
>yes i do
>no you dont times ten
>yes i do times infinity
>no you dont times infinity plus 1
>yes i do times infinity times infinity
>i hate you im not playing anymore

pic related, a postmodernist.

>> No.31902675

>>31898110
You shut your whore mouth about mai Mage waifu.

And really, the most postmodern RPG you can get is Unknown Armies, which is sort of like Mage only better in every way.

>> No.31902697

>>31894373
>be DM
>player says that to me
>...
>you're right, it's not an ork
>it's a neutronium golem
>your character died forever
>get the fuck out of my Skype call

>> No.31902870

>>31902638

So are you for or against post-modernism?

>> No.31902888

>>31893424
This. This so hard.

>> No.31904312

>>31902870
Seems to me that he's against.
Honestly, I agree.
Post modernism is bad. It's just ridiculous.

It seems to be an inevitable outcome of modernism. It's what you get when modernism is applied to itself, hence post-modernism, rather than some new thing. However, being a derivative of modernism, objections to modernism are also applicable to post modernism.

>> No.31904894

>>31904312
I don't know. As an artistic and literary trend, it can definitely be done well (Pynchon, R.A. Wilson, David Foster Wallace), and it can be done not so well (Danielewski). As a philosophy, it's more of a deconstruction of the flaws of the modernist movement than it is a standalone thing. It's a starting place and the conclusion to it hasn't really been reached yet. But I really haven't paid attention to any new philosophy, so if the postmodern Kant has somehow come and written a glittering manifesto, I haven't heard of it.

>> No.31904941

>>31893424
Isn't Over the Edge supposed to be postmodern RPG?

>> No.31905011

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0ojWaDOVR8
Weird shit thread? I'm planning on adapting this into a game.

>> No.31905172

>>31904941
OtE and the other Greg Stolze game Unknown Armies are both fantastic for this.

>> No.31905232

>>31904894

>David Foster Wallace
>Good

Pick one. The best thing he ever wrote was his suicide note.

>> No.31905710

>>31894159
So you'd not-play not-characters that are not-controlled by not-players?

>> No.31906200

>>31904894
But there you have it. It really is a deconstruction of flaws. A Modernist attitude is great as a tool for criticizing things.

You say it's not a stand alone thing. I agree! No one can live a postmodern life. But it's being used as if it were.
It's pushing aside where we've come from without really examining it, and replacing it with... Nothing.
Look at the way Europe is eroding its own civil rights. There's no basis for them anymore.

>>31905710
Sounds like an MMORPG to me.

>> No.31906258

>>31905232

Jesus that's harsh. And accurate.

>> No.31906490

>>31905232
>I've read maybe one page of Infinite Jest and never even heard of his short stories
Okay.

>> No.31906533

>>31906490

I say that because I had to read the ENTIRELY of both Infinite Jest AND Oblivion: Stories for my degree and HATED LITERALLY EVERY PAGE OF THAT SHIT.

>> No.31906564

>>31906533
If you didn't even like Good Old Neon you are, sadly, entirely beyond help.

>> No.31906660

>>31897030
Sounds a lot like a well thought out game of Adeptus Evangelion.

>> No.31906690

>>31906564

Honestly, my impressions of Oblivion Stories were that had very little to say. Like, Incarnations of Burned Children and Mister Squishy make basically the same points, and overlapped significantly with The Soul Is Not A Smithy. His characters are often unlikable and whiny, his prose is a slog, his ideas repetitive when they aren't derivative. Often it's actively painful - not in the sense of tugging at your heart strings but in the sense of it just being an unenjoyable experience to read his work.

Look, I know it's not socially acceptable to speak ill of the dead, but as smart as the guy was he does NOT deserve the reputation he has as a writer. He was a trend, a fashion, an 'it-thing' for a time. So was Stephanie Meyer, for a different segment of the publishing world. But being popular is not the same as being good.

>> No.31906898

>>31906690
>But being popular is not the same as being good.
It is if you're a postmodernist or modernist, since good and bad are just social constructs, or relative.

>> No.31907199

>>31894589
What's a "definition" man.

>> No.31907285

>>31906898
And that's why ever right thinking person hates post-modernists with a passion. It's like the little kid who just keeps on asking why no matter how many answers you give them.

>> No.31907310

>>31902638
>yes i do times infinity times infinity
>i hate you im not playing anymore
I feel like I have to correct this post.
You got the lack of any ability to actually properly justify your statements, and to adhere to any external systems of values (in this case, rulests), but Postmodernists don't get mad at each other for disagreeing with eath other.
In fact, polite and tolerant disagreement is a core of their epistemology: "The only thing we will ever agree on is disagreement" to quote Rorty.

So the situation would be that when there is any problem - like players refusing to adhere to OP's rulesets, the proper post modern solution would be to politely say "we'll, I don't agree with you, but your opinions is just as good as mine".

Effectively, such game would inevitably end up with each player completely ignoring all others, including the GM, making shit up, loudly announcing it while not listening to what anyone else is saying, and occasionally ensuring each other that they are all right in their own ways, and what a glorious future we have ahead of us.

Also, the actual game world would be irrelevant, as both GM and the players would talk exclusively about subjective states of minds of their characters, and subjects would most likely revolve about identity, gender, and the importance of everyone being super unique and individual.

Postmodernists don't get frustrated over the fact that they aren't listening to anyone, and others aren't listening to them. They fucking thrive in that.

>> No.31907315

>>31893424
There would be no player/character split. Any characterisation would be fully aware of the fact that it was taking part in a game, it would invariably know about and try to subvert its own statistics, attributes etc.

As said at the top of the thread, it would be very boring.

>> No.31908065

>>31907310
They do get super buttfrustrated when you tell them they're objectively wrong, though.

>> No.31908153

Off-topic, but does anyone besides me think post-modernism has completely ruined literature courses?

When we sat down and slogged through the classics and their contemporaries, every discussion inevitably came down to why feminism was the primary theme, or why the author was secretly homosexual, or why capitalism inspired the angst of character [x], or what have you.

It was just sad. In the absence of a clear authorial intent, itself destroyed because of that wonderful post-modernist ambiguity, the teachers and students inserted whichever political ideology in vogue at the time.

Bartleby the Scrivener has utterly nothing to do with feminism, Lit 101 teacher. What the fuck.

>> No.31908210

Arrange a roleplaying session

The GM never shows up

>> No.31908242

>>31908210
It has to be implied he's just around the corner, though.

>> No.31908264

>>31908242
Around the corner, out of sight, tantalizing you with the thought of his presence; it isn't that he's there, it's that he chooses not to come around. What is he thinking, this phantom of intent?

>Are we in the dungeon now?

If you want to be. We're all in dungeons when you think about it.

>Dude.

>> No.31908287

>>31908065
Not in my experience. In fact, they often welcomend me saying that. Saying things like: "and you see, this is great about all of this - our points of view are so fundamentaly different yet we can still easily coexist!"
I'm not shitting you. That is an answer that I got from a university profesor when I pointed out a factual mistake in his theory.
Or alternatively, they simply deny the option of anything being objective to begin with, and carry on.

They do get pissy when they are forced to listen to anything more reliant on positivist sciences for longer time though. They don't get annoyed by the theories themselves, but they hate the "arrogance" of people who are making bold statements supported by empiric evidence or biological understanding of the world. The percieve such attitude, the "definitive" attitude of natural sciences (or social schollars with naturalistic orientational) as esentially amoral.
It's fun to watch.

>>31908153
>Off-topic, but does anyone besides me think post-modernism has completely ruined literature courses?
Not only literature course, all art in general. The idea that the interpretation is more important than the work itself naturally leads to self-obsessive attitude - in postmodernistic literature courses, the book it iself becomes, invitably, the least important element, essentially just a blackboard on which you can project everything YOU want to say.

I was lucky to have avoided that though. Had a briliant, cynical, post-postmodernist female teacher that we were all crazy afraid off, but her approach to literature analysis was absolutely briliant, and taught me everything I could have ever needed in that regard.

>> No.31908330

>>31908287
That's what I was trying to get across: empiricism is beyond them. Discussions about jointly observed and scientifically accurate fact simply don't register. The focus of the discussion always winds back around to interpretation.

In one of my papers, I wrote that accusing post-modernism of moving goalposts was incorrect. Post-modernism does away with the concept of rhetorical consistency; there are no goalposts. The argument and stance of a post-modernist are free to flit about and perch on whatever position they feel most attuned to, logic be damned.

>> No.31908331

You play as a bunch of elves dwarves and orcs sitting down at a tavern to role-play as human nerds posting on the internet.

>> No.31908431

>>31908330
>That's what I was trying to get across: empiricism is beyond them.
Lyotard has denied any possibility of objectivity of empirical evidence and proposed that natural sciences should abandon such pretenses, and focus on creating their own poetic language instead.

>Post-modernism does away with the concept of rhetorical consistency; there are no goalposts.
That is pretty much spot on. Postmodernism refuses external systems of epistemology all together, they assume that possition "I know something" is inherently a flawed notion.
It has a lot to do with being an overreaction to already overblown stances of the logical positivism that dominated the first half of 20th century, with people like Carnap or Ayer.
The strange thing about postmodernism is that it is - admitedly, even - self-defeating. And it did burn out very quickly too.

What is bothering me, though, is the fact that despite all of that, despite the fact that it was actually rejected quickly even by a large portion of the philosophical academia (Look into "Sokal affair" if you haven't, it's some hillarious fucking shit), it became INSANELY popular with the wide public and the low level "academia", like highschool teachers and low level, insignifican art teachers on smaller universities.
And worst of all, it deeply infected social studies and started quickly to be projected in social institutions.

Most of academia does not even take this shit seriously for two decades, but it's still is used as the basis of both social reforms, and lower-level education of the public.

>> No.31908468

>>31893960
>AverageTimeWizardsSession.jpg

>> No.31908469

>>31908431
What's the difference between post-modernism and nihilism?

>> No.31908534

>>31908431
>natural sciences should abandon such pretenses, and focus on creating their own poetic language instead.

They did. It's called "mathematics". Don't tell Lyo.

As to your second point, in my opinion it has become popular in low-level institutions (and high-level, as well. I didn't go to some podunk state university and these attitudes were everywhere) due to its corrosive effect on academic standards.

It takes absolutely no effort to defend post-modernism as a philosophy or genre because, as you pointed out, its defining argument is "Well, that's just your opinion."

This opens the floodgates for pseudo-intellectuals to enter the academic field and inflict these ideas on unsuspecting students with no threat of repercussion.

Literature, art, and hell even some basic math courses (Google "interpretive arithmetic" if you want a good rage) have been invaded by individuals claiming to be teachers with chips in their shoulders about philosophy or politics.

These lax standards are very difficult to reinforce due to the aforementioned glut of post-modernist teachers. They will boycott or rage or just continue doing what they were doing just to spite higher standards of education. They are more concerned with producing post-modernists with no skills than pragmatists with some working knowledge.

>> No.31908536

>>31908469

The quality of the writing.

>> No.31908557

>>31908469
>What's the difference between post-modernism and nihilism?
The degree of optimism, I guess.
I'm going to be honest. I've been studying philosophy for a good while.
In actual philosophical academic circles, "nihimism" is not really considered a very relevant term. Or more precisely, it's just a (generally negatively connotated) attitude without any philosophical depth or solid backbone. It was first used by Augustine, as far as I know, merely in the sense of "atheism, refusal to be open to the beauty of the world" (which was to Augustine the primary proof of God's existence).

Some people call Nietzsche a nihilist, but I think it's incorrect. At any way, the term is more of a pupular, public idea akin to scepticism.

Postmodernism does not see it's lack of any epistemological system as a possitive, a source of endless optimism. They don't believe anything can be "objectively right", but that does not deminish the value of the statement in their eyes - to them, nothing is more right than anything else, but everything is equally valuable.
Postmodernism sets as it's main (and possibly only) value in subjectivity, and individuality.
Individual statements - no matter how poorly argued they might be, are still IMMENSLY valuable to the, as they are representations of our individuality and our uniqueness. To them, making judgements about the world is not futile (as, as far as I understand it, Nihilism tends to have it), but it's a joyous celebration of our variety and individuality.

They just find the idea that any individual judgement could be proclaimed better than any other unacceptable. Everybody is right - in their own way - it's just that nobody is more right than anybody else.

It's a giant way to avoid any possible criticisms every leveled at you without ever losing credibility to your claims, if you ask me.

>> No.31908559

>>31908153
Blame that rather on the concept of death of the author. The whole idea that what the author says or thinks has nothing to do with his own work was pretty much a carte blanche for generations of incompetent literary analysts to spend their careers pulling things out their asses and presenting it as fact, because they know best. Postmodernism might have arisen as an immune response to that whole bullshit.

>> No.31908561

>>31908536

>> No.31908571

>>31908534
>Google "interpretive arithmetic" if you want a good rage

I did and got a bunch of computing stuff, I refuse to believe what you're implying exists. The horror would be too great.

>> No.31908604

>>31908557
Post-modernism seems like the result of the massive rise in narcissism we've seen over the years.

>> No.31908626

>>31908534
>They did. It's called "mathematics". Don't tell Lyo.
Lyo's point is that the language should be unique to each fields - ergo, that the language of mathematics should not be transerable to physics. He believed that the assumption that a mathematician could speak about physics, or molecular biology and still proclaim to be right, is too arrogant.

>and high-level, as well. I didn't go to some podunk state university and these attitudes were everywhere
Maybe I'm influenced by the fact that there are quite unique conditions in my state, and the schools that I attend to. We recently had a bit of a conflict with one of my teachers - rigid analytic with nothing but scorn for postmodernism, about whenever there is even need to make polemics against postmodernism at all.
He claimed that it's needless, that postmodernism isn't relevant philosophy and hasn't been for decades, saying that it's only confined to second grade american antropology, gender studies and cultural studies and nobody actually takes it seriously anymore.
I don't know. Where I study (and have studied) it so far, it was deemed a curiosity, or bullshit for the most part. But again - the situation in my country is a bit unique.

The academic standards corrosion... why would that be popular? That would imply that we lost interest in maintaining accademic standards in the first place. I think that is a result, not a cause.

My personal theory is that the problem lies even deeper than that. That it's releated to the historical experience of two wars, post-colonial scepticism, and among other, also the idea of democratics gone wrong.

I think it's popular because it is, in essence, populistic, and an incredibly efficient vessel for simply, two-sided ideologies.
I think it's popularity lies in it's seemingly ethical connotations (it about tolerance after all!) and it's immense accesibility and openness to public.

The laxed standards... I think those are the result here.

>> No.31908629

>>31908571
IIRC, elements of the original ideas are in the new Common Core standards being pushed by the US government.

It isn't a "curriculum", just a loose confederation of standards. Teachers are free to write their own curricula in their interpretation of said standards, begging the question of why a new set of standards is needed if there will be no enforcement of curriculum to support it.

>> No.31908637

>>31908604
No, that's cause of the internet.

>> No.31908650

>>31908626
I'm inclined to agree. I must admit my own studies of literature didn't go beyond a few semesters before I got tired of the rat race. I got a technical degree and never looked back.

>> No.31908679

>>31908604
>Post-modernism seems like the result of the massive rise in narcissism we've seen over the years.
How much is it a result, and how much is it a cause, that is a question that I can't answer. But yes. It's a deep, systematic defense of ego-centrism. Which is funny, because on the surface, it proclaims the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Postmodernism likes to see themselves as the most open-minded, tolerant, humble people. They respect EVERYBODY! They never proclaim that they are more right than anybody else! (aside, obviously, from the statement "everybody is right in his own way, there is no objective truth" - which ironically enough is a statement with objective connotations).

It's a hidden selfishness, a hidden arrogance.

You'll see young people that have been brought up in postmodern mindset constantly throwing around phrases like "why should I read classical literature that some old farts through that they were good", a lot of complaints about "pretentious elitism of academia", you'll see a LOT of systematical, completely uneducated rejection of everything that came past the second half of the twentieth century by default.
It's terrifying what such a seemingly great idea (let's just be more open-minded) can do to people when it becomes dogmatic and self-gratifying.

I think there is a really interesting parallel with communism hidden somewhere in there, actually. And it isn't without interest that Marx is IMMENSLY popular among postmodernists.

>> No.31908734

>>31908679
>And it isn't without interest that Marx is IMMENSLY popular among postmodernists.

That would neatly tie in with the idea that post-modernism and academic narcissism are directly connected to increasing populist sentiment.

>> No.31908767

>>31908734
>That would neatly tie in with the idea that post-modernism and academic narcissism are directly connected to increasing populist sentiment.
Marx is an interesting figure in contemporary philosophy for me. He is kinda like an Arch-nemesis to me. Everywhere I go, every problem and philosophy or opinion that I disagree with, I find Marx hiding somewhere deep, deep beneath.
And it's fun, because when I say Marx, everybody thinks "communism". But communism is just the tip of the iceberg. But the deepest philosophy that is behind all it - the most low-level sentiments about values, about human dignity, about freedom and responcibility, about interpretation of historical events... it's everywhere, and it's unbelivably corrosive.
And people adhere to it, even though they are ostentatively rejecting communism.
He is like a philosophical virus.

>> No.31908837

>>31908629

Right that explains it I'm British and know nothing the American Education system beyond the fact you have a "middle school" of some description.
I am uncertain as to what purpose it serves though.

>> No.31908882

>>31908767
sounds like the best kind of virus to me.

>> No.31908884

So what is your favorite artistic period /tg/? I have a great fondness of the Romantic period and its beautiful landscape paintings. Also nationalism, but the healthy kind rather than the "exterminate non-us" kind.

>> No.31908900

>>31908767
>Everywhere I go, every problem and philosophy or opinion that I disagree with, I find Marx hiding somewhere deep, deep beneath.

Are you an objectivist by any chance?

>> No.31908924

>>31908882
>sounds like the best kind of virus to me.
I'm afraid that a misguided philosophical mindest, it it becomes too popular (ergo, turns into an ideology) is more dangerous than any imaginable pandemics.

The only advantage of postmodernism, due to it's self-defeating nature, is that it slows down emergence of ideologies within it by overstaturating the ideological market. For every opinion, there is equally valid counteropinion. Which makes it harder to "sway the masses", as it was.
But it also makes it almost impossible to defeat, as you can never step out of the position of "one amongst the many voices".

Sadly, ideologists have found a way around this postmodernistic relativism. Rather than a (seemingly) rational appeal, they appeal to ethical judgements.
Hence, the emergence of feminism and gender theory, among many others. They are justified purely on the level of general moral sentiments.

>> No.31908953

>>31908900
>Are you an objectivist by any chance?
God forbid, no. Ayn Rands understanding and application of essentially biological and evolutionary theory into social sphere and individual ethics is a joke. Objectivism is not even deemed an actual philosophical school were I live, much like nihilism, it's treated as a sentiment.
Objectivists see the problem with Marx's rejection of human behavior being goverend solely by self interest, because they are fucked up egomanics that still have not realised that "laws of evolutionary selection" don't equate to "It's OK to be dick to everyone".
I really don't think that is the problem here, though. It goes deeper.

>> No.31909005

Problem is that post-modernism refuses to make further speculations based on lack of objectivity. They think it's somehow final and there is nothing to be derived from it

>> No.31909038

>>31909005
>They think it's somehow final and there is nothing to be derived from it
But it is final. If you reject the possiblity of postmodernism, you don't allow any other meaningful speculations to happen.

Speculations means proposing theories, then comparing them others, with the intentions to figure out which one is the most useful. That is - which one approaches your ideal of objectivity most closely.

If there is no competetion of ideas - if it's inherently, apriory impossible to weight one opinion against another by comparing them on an external scale (and this scale, is, objectivity), then you really have nowhere further to go.
They have no other option to accept this as final without completely digressing on the only actual strong claim they have.

The only way to leave the postmodernistic trap is to go backwards.

>> No.31909041

>>31908953

I asked because it's probably the philosophical position as far removed from Marxism as you can get.

And also just because I find Objectivism endlessly fascinating. It's a complete, logically sound (as long as you accept the premises) and coherent philosophy that bears absolutely no relation to the way the world actually works. It's like if someone put effort into devising an entirely new system of physics for a fictional universe.

>> No.31909055

>>31908884
>nationalism, but the healthy kind rather than the "exterminate non-us" kind
that's called patriotism, anon

>> No.31909075

>>31909038
Lack of objectivity is extremely fertile ground for moral philosophy. It makes us ask loads of question about our ways of concerning truth as a society. (I hope that that sentence makes sense. Not quite fluent with English yet.)

>> No.31909099

>>31909041
>It's a complete, logically sound (as long as you accept the premises) and coherent philosophy that bears absolutely no relation to the way the world actually works.
We call that "theology".

>> No.31909142

>>31909041
>It's a complete, logically sound (as long as you accept the premises) and coherent philosophy that bears absolutely no relation to the way the world actually works.
This reminded me a lot line in one of Borges'es short stories:
"Hume noted for all time that Berkeley's arguments did not admit the slightest refutation, nor did they cause the slightest conviction."
I guess Ayn was not the first or last one to do so... Except she did actually convince a lot of people, which is disturbing.

>> No.31909189

>>31909075
It makes. The problem is that with a lack of external value system (that is, without any objectivity that we can agree upon), you can't critically asses any proposed moral system.
It becomes a breeding ground moral value systems appealing to "common sense" and general public sentiments, rather than on any rigorous examinations by academia.
In other words, it's a breeding grown for moralism based on populism, or parazitizm on contemporary social sentiments.
Exploatation of things like straigh white male guilt is an immenent result.

None of these theories actually proposes new, or examines our existing ethical theories. They are paraziting on "folk sentiments" instead, or arbitrarily chosing one or two values and proclaim them absolute without ever giving a reason how and why. The absolutely twisted notions of freedom and tolerance (often used directly as advocations for restrictions and censorship) are a common sight in more extreme social movements stemming from postmodern philosophy.

>> No.31909199

>>31909142
It doesn't take much work to convince selfish people that their selfishness is morally correct, they have a pretty significant bias.
A great example is how many people tried to use The Selfish Gene to justify disregarding the wellbeing of others despite that being outright contrary to the point the book was making.

>> No.31909203

>>31909099
>We call that "theology".
Any metaphysical system, infact. You don't need God in it, as long as it is concise, and, as Borges put it, "has a semblance of symmetry".

>> No.31909219

>>31893960

So, Time Wizards is postmodern?
I can get behind this.

>> No.31909243

>>31909189
For example i think that governments should think what is '' common truth'' and it's implications upon society. In world without objectivity all laws are done in such way that only stopping others of practicing their ''own reality'' could be prohibitet. There fore we must concern borders of ones freedom, and because this is human centric issue it can be solved without objectivity.

>> No.31909247

>>31909199
The line that I quoted is from a shot story called "Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius".
It's a particulary interesting story for many reasons - it's a story about world-building (describing a form of a fictional universe), it examines the possible implications of a perfectly relativistic society (long before postmodernism has been formulated), and it speaks about the danger of ideologies and how people are all too eager to adopt any philosophical position that is sensational, symetrical, and self-gratifying.

If you are in any way interested in a bit more philosophically inclined literature, this short story serves as a perfect underline for the discussion that has been happening here.
You can actually read it here if you are interested, I find it eerily on-topic now:
http://art.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/0066/borges.pdf
It might be a bit inaccesible at first though, perhaps. Half between a conspiracy theory and an essey.

Anyway, I just thought it might entertain someone.

>> No.31909280

>>31894300

Have you ever played Robots and Rapiers?
You're a robot playing out a part in an advanced amusement park. You may be in "West World" and so you are a gunslinger robot for example.
You don't roll to see if you can successfully perform actions. You're a robot, you are perfectly aware of your capabilities and limitations. You would never attempt an action you are not capable of. Instead, you roll to see if you can break programming and act on your own accord.

For example, your gunslinger robot is supposed to get into a high noon, clock strikes, pistols in the street show down with one of the amusement park's guests. Obviously you have been programmed to lose, so that the guest feels good. You roll to beat the programming and win, and shoot the guest dead. The adventure begins...

>> No.31909296

>>31909247
Hell I'm spending 8 hours on a plane tomorrow, I'll throw it on my phone.

>> No.31909327

>>31909199
>A great example is how many people tried to use The Selfish Gene to justify disregarding the wellbeing of others despite that being outright contrary to the point the book was making.
Ahh, this is so typical. People borrow concepts from natural sciences, completely desinterpret them and the apply into social life.
People who use "Selfish Gene" to justify selfishness are people who know the title, but haven't read it.
The same thing happened to Einstein as well. Even today, I see students saying with a straigh face "But nothing is objective, everything is relative, even Einstein has proved that!"
This is why philosophers should be given either a solid education in basics of natural sciences, or be forbidden to borrow anything from them.

>> No.31909356

>>31909296
It's just about fifteen pages long. And it's briliant, if waaay too self indulgent in philosophical and literal lingo. The guy who wrote it is I believe one of the most briliant minds ever concieved. Though he does not know how to pace a story right.
If you know Eco - Name of The Rose and Foucault's Pendulum - the first book is a direct homage to Borges, the second is based on one of his stories.

>> No.31909394

>>31908626
>I think it's popularity lies in it's seemingly ethical connotations (it about tolerance after all!) and it's immense accesibility and openness to public.
>it's easy, accessible and makes me feel good about myself

A recipe for success.

>> No.31909754

>>31909327
But that would require the admission of universal truths into the touchy-feely world of relativism.

And we can't have that.

>> No.31909862

>>31909327
>"But nothing is objective, everything is relative, even Einstein has proved that!"

>> No.31910009

>>31909862
Well, it IS called Theory of Relativity. What else could he mean?

>> No.31910058

>>31910009
>>31909327
>>31909199

>> No.31910119

>>31910058
Deontological Kamen Rider is, naturally, best Kamen Rider.

>> No.31910133

>>31910009
You can not, by the very nature of objectivity and subjectivity definitively, prove subjectivity or disprove objectivity.

>> No.31910150

>>31910133
Well in my personal reality objectivity is true and subjectivity is false.

>> No.31910209

>>31910133
>You can not, by the very nature of objectivity and subjectivity definitively, prove subjectivity or disprove objectivity.
Eh, you can do both. Disproving objectivity is fun, because you really have to realise that objectivity commonly used in a sense of "useful fiction". We don't have access to objective reality. There is no way to bridge the Hume's scepticism and mind-reality gap, or to avoid the trap of both mental conceptualization and inaccuracy of senses.

We can assume ideal objectivity, and create theories which we then test our ever-changing and never perfect metodologies, and those that can withstand all of proclaim as "objective" (in the "useful fiction" sense), but we can actually never have absolute certainity that our understanding of the world is perfectly corresponding with the world "as it is".
Subjectivity gets even more messy when you think about it.

Neither of these, however, are a sufficient reason to be epistemologically sceptical. Just because objectivity is never absolute, and subjectivity makes our heads hurt, does not mean that we should stop striving to challenge ourselves, or that we should give up on the hope that ideal objectivity can ever be achieved, or at least closely approximated.

>> No.31910242

>>31910150
>Well in my personal reality objectivity is true and subjectivity is false.
The question is how do you define a condition in which you can proclaim something "true" in certainity.

Also, subjectivity does not nessesarily mean "false". In fact, one can, completely subjectively, think something which is also true to others.
Subjective means "mind-dependant". Which merely means that the truth/false value (by the way, binary dichotomy of true/false possitions is in itself a problem) cannot be verified by a third person observer.

Subjective statement would be: "I like red". This statement might be actually entirely true, the person might be honest. But you can't verify it, because you don't really see into his mind.
At least not untill we improve our neurological understanding of human brain, that is.

>> No.31910339

>>31910209
If you disprove objectivity, that means objectively, objectivity is false and therefore there is objectivity. You get stuck in a paradox.

>> No.31910433

>>31910339
>If you disprove objectivity, that means objectively, objectivity is false and therefore there is objectivity. You get stuck in a paradox.
But again - the conditions on which we decide something to be objective are provisionary. They aren't absolute. We set ourselves criteria of objectivity - and things that meet those criteria, we consider "objective".

The problem of the entire philosophy of sciences is "how do we define the criteria of objectivity".
Any good scientist should be aware that it's US that create the criteria of objectivity. These criteria actually change over time. We improve them constantly - but it is still us who will ultimately decide where the line of objectivity lies.

The most basic way to set a criteria for objectivity is repeated, empiric evidence. That is why science is so big on the whole "experiment" thing.
But it is blatantly clear that experiments migh mislead us. There is still a massive space for fault, not to mention there is Hume's law of induction, which calls the whole logic of empirical evidence to universal laws in question.

Again, the last thing I would want to do is to deny credibility to natural science, or to question the usefulness of the term "objective".
I'm just pointing out that objectivity is a useful fiction, and not a 100% undeniably perfect absolute truth about the state of the world.

>> No.31910510

>>31910433
they are in fact absolute, that's what makes them objective. If they're not absolute then you're making assumption on a subjective premise and it was never objective in the first place and you're just using words wrong objectively.

>> No.31910571

>>31910433
>But again - the conditions on which we decide something to be objective are provisionary. They aren't absolute. We set ourselves criteria of objectivity - and things that meet those criteria, we consider "objective".

Spoken like a true lib arts major. Keep claiming that objectivity is an illusion while using an internet connection. Every standing bridge, every keystroke, proves you wrong. If nothing was inherently true none of the inventions you rely on to survive could function.

> I'm just pointing out that objectivity is a useful fiction, and not a 100% undeniably perfect absolute truth about the state of the world.
This is a statement that you are claiming to be true, objectively. You are saying that there is absolutely, objectively no such thing as 100% absolutely true statements. You don't see the irony in this?

>> No.31910609

>>31910510
>they are in fact absolute, that's what makes them objective.
How do you define them then?
This is a common misconception about both subjectivity and objectivity.
First of all - the two are not binary opositions. The difference is merely whenever one is verifiable by a third person observer, the second is not. That actually still does not speak about how true or false they are. Neither it means that everything that is not absolute is "subjective".
In case of "Subjective" statements, subject - ergo the person making the statement, is the only person that can verify the statement.
In case of objective, you have an external, intersubjective means of verification (like, an experiment) which means that ideally, everyone (or at least anyone who knows how to use the external means of verification) can verify and confirm, or disprove the statement.

Objective statements can be false, subjective can be true, athough it is questionable how and if objectively false or subjectively true statements are of any use to us.

Still - the ABSOLUTE objectivity - the one that you talk about - how do you propose that we access such thing? How do we conclusively and absolutely prove something is "true"? What conditions would it have to meet, how would we verify it?

>> No.31910624

>>31910609
>Still - the ABSOLUTE objectivity - the one that you talk about - how do you propose that we access such thing? How do we conclusively and absolutely prove something is "true"? What conditions would it have to meet, how would we verify it?

"Objective truth exists" is a different assertion from "all truth can be objectively verified."

>> No.31910673

>>31910571
>Spoken like a true lib arts major.
Nah. Spoken like somebody who is not satisfied in mere pragmatical reduction on an accademic level.
I don't deny the usefulness of objectivity, I thought I made that clear enough. But here is the problem: every single fallen bridge, every single server going down proves you wrong. If our understanding was absolute, such thing would not happen.
My intention is to constantly improve our ability to predict, which is to say - our ability to understand objective reality. Part of constant improving of our understanding of the world that surrounds us is understanding the limits of it.
There is a limit to our understranding of the world. Our "objective" knowledge is very efficient, very useful, but far, FAR from absolute. It's littered with holes.

>You are saying that there is absolutely, objectively no such thing as 100% absolutely true statements.
I'm not saying it a 100% certanity, actually. I consider it objectively true statement, but I also defined objectivity as "high probability", not as absolute true. There is no hypocrisy here. I'm aware that even what I consider "objective" is always only approximative, including the sentence above. And this one. But this is actually pretty pointless.

>> No.31910726

>>31910673
>Our "objective" knowledge is very efficient, very useful, but far, FAR from absolute.

But no one has claimed that. All you have succeeded in doing is looking like you are attempting to say that facts are not facts.

>> No.31910787

>>31910673
>Our "objective" knowledge is very efficient, very useful, but far, FAR from absolute. It's littered with holes
knowledge gaps are irrelevant to the issue of absolutism/objectivity you stupid goy
we could have absolute knowledge of objective reality as far as (for example) electric conductors go
doesn't mean we'd be able to build a server with no downtime
the issue of whether or not we have objective truth - which, IMO, we don't - is separate from the issue of how broad our knowledge is
we can have epistemologically shaky understanding that thoroughly encompasses an entire world-facet (e.g. classical physics), and we can have patchwork pieces of epistemologically consistent and rigorous understanding that nevertheless leave many holes behind (e.g. math, i'd say, but i'm starting to talk out my ass)

>> No.31910791

>>31910624
>"Objective truth exists" is a different assertion from "all truth can be objectively verified."
Then comes another problem.
Can we actually claim that something exists when we cannot verify it?
This is the problem with the concept of "absolute truth". It's, ironically enough, a non-verifiable position. Absolute truth is a metaphysical concept.

That said - don't get me wrong: I chose to believe that absolute truth exists. I think it's the most useful position to uphold. I believe there is "absolute objective truth", and I believe the main purpose of any human quest to knowledge is to approximate it as carefully as we can.
But I am aware that what I'm doing is a bit paradoxical. And that it comes with number of conceptual problems.

>> No.31910798

>>31910624
Yes, because the latter matters in real life and the former only allows philosophers to make enough money to scrape by.

>> No.31910902

>>31895241
If Law and Chaos are eternally deadlocked - that is, every small victory results in an equal loss elsewhere - couldn't that lead to a situation where one of the Law's commanders would start undermining his side's efforts so that he can keep his own domain intact?

>> No.31910967

>>31908210
Waiting for GM?

>> No.31911279

>>31908330
>That's what I was trying to get across: empiricism is beyond them. Discussions about jointly observed and scientifically accurate fact simply don't register
"jointly observed and scientifically accurate fact"
what a fucking joke
you have statistically manipulated p-values and "results" that barely anyone bothers to interrogate or replicate after they get through the peer review gate
there's enough scientists that some facts do end up being jointly observed and scientifically verified, but most of the tripe people push as "accurate fact" is nothing of the sort, and i don't see any reason to assume that what you're thinking about is any more honest

>>31908679
>You'll see young people that have been brought up in postmodern mindset constantly throwing around phrases like "why should I read classical literature that some old farts through that they were good",
why should i read classical literature? there's an entire fucking mass of people poring over classical literature and bringing out perspectives nurtured by the classics; i don't see what benefit another body on that pile brings
for every author that made it into the classical canon there are two peers whose works didn't make it and four contemporaries expressing ideas in entirely different ways that the mainstream zeitgeist didn't pick up on
are they worse, as intellectuals, because history happened to forget them and remember others? would i be worse, as an intellectual, if i chose to study from those tomes?
and academia is elitist and it is full of pretense; the only problem is that whining about it makes it seem like sour-grapes from someone who's been obviously fiending for intellectual dominance

>> No.31911316

>>31908767
>Everywhere I go, every problem and philosophy or opinion that I disagree with, I find Marx hiding somewhere deep, deep beneath.
>And it's fun, because when I say Marx, everybody thinks "communism". But communism is just the tip of the iceberg. But the deepest philosophy that is behind all it - the most low-level sentiments about values, about human dignity, about freedom and responcibility, about interpretation of historical events... it's everywhere, and it's unbelivably corrosive.
the fuck are you talking about? what "deepest philosophy"? what the fuck toxin is marx carrying that hegel and other german idealists aren't? for that matter, what the fuck toxin is marx carrying that ricardo, malthus, and john stuart mill weren't?
he's just one fucking economically concerned among many, so i don't know what bogeyman of a "Marx" you're seeing everywhere

>>31909041
>And also just because I find Objectivism endlessly fascinating. It's a complete, logically sound (as long as you accept the premises) and coherent philosophy
objectivism's "conclusions" too often beg the question and come in disjointed ways to even honestly merit the label of "philosophy", let alone "coherent"
rand has a few interesting elaborations on how rational choice theory can be applied to certain fields of human behavior, but that is all

>> No.31911344

>>31907285
You are not nearly as smart as you think there are.

There are legitimate criticisms against post-modernists, but you're not actually aware of any of them.

>> No.31911638

>>31910726
>But no one has claimed that.
Actually, specifically, there has been claim that objective knowledge is absolute, and that something like "objective statement that is false" is unthinkable just a few posts above.

I'm sorry that you misunderstood what I said - I understand why people have become oversensitive about these problems, but I do stand behind everything that I have said so far.

>>31910787
>knowledge gaps are irrelevant to the issue of absolutism/objectivity you stupid goy
That is false if you attempt to proclaim our knowledge as absolute. Faults are a result of our knowledge gaps. The need to actually continue our research, and constantly critically review our previous knowledge are result of our knowledge being only approximative. It's basic logic, really.

What we call "objective" is nothing more than "our current most verified hypothesis". That does not make it actually absolutely true, it just makes it the best option we have - for now.

>>31911279
>why should i read classical literature?
After reading the entire post, I have came to the conclusion that you are either deliberately trying to emulate exactly every single point or stereotype of the kind of idiots we have been complaining this whole thread - I can only hope that you are a troll.
As to your question: simple probability. Over history, some works have been selected as more valuable as others. Probability speaks that you will have more luck finding something significant in classics than in other works. There is far more to it, but I assume it would be a waste of breath to explain it:
Suffice to say:
If you are actually throwing around the words "pretentious" and "elistism" to excuse why you don't do or respect work of those who invested the effort and did not waste time on excuses, then you can fuck right off.

>> No.31913007

>>31911638
re:pretentious elitism
do you really believe academia isn't elitist? do you really think that academic consensus-building in places like america isn't meant to vet new entrants into an elite with the social authority to push their preferred ideas?
do you really believe academia isn't pretentious? do you really think nobody's selling overblown lies?
because if you do, i'd be really curious to know how many postdoctoral friends and family you have
find some of the tenured and untenured ones and see what divisions cut deeper than "invested the effort" / "wasted time on excuses"

re:valuable classics
"more valuable", you say - more valuable to whom? "significant" - who's getting the dividends from that significance?
the only reason "classics" happened to get the press they did is that they shared coincidental geographic proximity to the sorts of technical ideas (mechanisation/finance/whatever) that got real power and traction in the secular world
other continents were excluded, and even within the continent other subcultures were excluded based on a selection mechanism that had nothing to do with intellectual merit
have you ever known the tides of popular acclaim to follow real substance?
it seems painfully obvious to me that western classics were created to respond to the concerns and neuroses of their day and thereafter circulated by economic elites trying to drape a genteel aura over their upper-class

re:stereotypical idiots
you're automatically closing ranks around your subcultural kin
spouting fragments of ideas i can guarantee you came from somewhere outside of your independent theorizing, and calling me an idiot because i'm doing the same from a different cultural corpus
how about you actually talk about the flaws in Marx or do anything else to show real philosophical expertise instead of just dismissing me on the most superficial of pretexts

>> No.31913679

pastiche of different genres, humor, anachronisms and other fun bits of fabulation. Maybe a little metagame aspects. It's a pretty general term. I've run a lot of games that could be postmodern. I once ran a campaign that ended with the player characters fighting me and the players.

>> No.31914144

>>31913007
re: re: valuable classics.
How very postmodern of you.

>> No.31914168

>>31907285
Alright. If "good literature" and "bad literature" aren't social constructs, I'd be thrilled to hear what their objective criteria are, and how those criteria were arrived at.

>> No.31914446

>>31907285
Oh man, anon, you better watch you don't cut yourself (although when I look at it does seem quite dull).

>> No.31916644

>>31913007
>do you really believe academia isn't elitist?
I believe the so called "elitism" is BENEFICIAL to the institution and our society. I believe that our culture should reward exceptional effort and work. I believe that we should pose a requirements to be met before we give someone an authority. I believe that blind populism, or naive idealism are both far more of a threat than elitism ever could be.

>do you really believe academia isn't pretentious?
Yes. I believe "pretentious" is a dangerous word that idiots can use whenever the encoutern anything that makes them feel insecure. I believe that "pretentious" can be an invididual, but not a whole institution. I chose to respect people who seem to have authority over me before I condemn them - I think that condemnation on the basis of insecurity is the greatest sin, and again, more dangerous than pretension on it's own.

>"more valuable", you say - more valuable to whom?
To the society that surround us, based on the judgement of those who have been selected to make such judgements.
>the only reason "classics" happened to get the press they did is that they shared coincidental geographic proximity to the sorts of technical ideas
That is so blatantly false it's not even funny. You think Dostojevsky got the reception because he was close to the printer? Borges? Kafka? That is a joke.

>have you ever known the tides of popular acclaim to follow real substance?
Yes. Most of the time they do. There are cases where the system fucks up, but every field has a natural margin for error. Vast majority of works considered "classics" are considered as such because they deserve so.

>you're automatically closing ranks around your subcultural kin
Yes. It's also known as "standards".

>how about you actually talk about the flaws in Marx
I actually had. Scroll up a few posts.

>> No.31916758

>>31902638
Wait there, buddy. Though modernism favours notions like empiricsm, universalism and progressivism, it is because of that that it is threatening to humanity, because it tries to come up with a standard to how people *must* see the world and understand it, hence the battles against "privilege" and stuff. Modernism, at is core is discrimination and hate for the other, just because for the sake of "progress", and that's a kind of progress that doesn't take into account, say the environment or, people's happiness. 1984 was a modernist nightmare, Brazil also is.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action