I have a problem with postmodernism (it hurts my feelings) so I have ventured into Kant.I have also read Pierre Manent and I was intrigued by his idea of social constructivism being paradoxical.I'm a big naturalist.
I'm a huge Orson Welles
It's self-refuting, so postmodernism. They lack grounds for everything so it's pretty easy to dismiss.
>>23392612Habermas
>>23392950>every ideology is inherently invalid, fallacious, and self-refuting and thats why we should be postmodernists>postmodernism is also self-refuting, of course, but since i admitted this, that means im correct
>>23392612> I have ventured into Kant.If you’re not a retard then he will turn you into a postmodernist
>>23392612Commence with the radical empiricists then, Dewey, James, Royce.
>>23392612your feelings about postmodernism are irrelevant to the extent that society is now dictated by postmodernist logic
>>23392612Read Zizek>The grand post-structuralist assumption is that the classic reduction of rhetorical devices to external means which do not concern the signified contents is illusory: the so-called stylistic devices already determine the 'inner' notional contents themselves. Yet it would appear that the post-structuralist poetic style itself - the style of continuous ironic self commentary and self-distance, the way of constantly subverting what one was supposed to say literally - exists only to embellish some basic theoretical propositions. That is why post-structuralist commentaries often produce an effect of 'bad infinity' in the Hegelian sense: an endless quasi-poetical variation on the same theoretical assumption, a variation which does not produce anything new. The problem with deconstruction, then, is not that it renounces a strict theoretical formulation and yields to a flabby poeticism. On the contrary, it is that its position is too 'theoretical' (in the sense of a theory which excludes the truth-dimension; that is, which does not affect the place from which we speak).
>>23393304I mean there's something to be said for self-awareness. given an option between two ridiculous system, I'd rather hold to the one that acknowledges itself as such
>>23392612Fluxus
>>23392612Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands by Roger Scruton.
>>23393797Smooch
>>23393479I'd prefer not to
>>23393479Are his books as annoying as his public speaking?
>>23393797>Joyce followed by James on the next linewhat a jokester
>>23394141>Are his books as annoying as his public speaking?Your opinion automatically discarded
>>23394544You can discard mine as well, don’t like the guy either. Come to think of it, I don’t really like anyone in this world. I like me a lot, that I do.
>>23394575Well I will discard my opinion if you get a gf who is a model
>>23392950It has no epistemology, that is my main issue (OP), it also as no use at all. To paraphrase Hume: we should throw it into the flames.>>23393217The Frankfurt school is interesting to me but it seems impenetrable>>23393479I didn't understand a word he said. Is this a parody of Foucault?
Of course objective values exist and they happen to coincide with my values.
>>23392612just read late heideggerpost-modernism just means rejecting modernismmodernism is falsepost-modernism is a big camp, there are plenty of realist post-modernists that focus on nature/being (generally more in the existentialist camp)
>>23394706What authors do you recommend? I read a bit of Rorty and Foucault but didn't like either.I have a thing for analytic philosophers but as I am a practical person I see that they are always concerned with justifying the liberal establishment and not offering serious critique (like Marx)
>>23394681The old way of thinking: you have an opinion and use rhetoric to express it in the most persuasive way you can. The opinion and the language you use to express it are seperable.Post-structuralists (according to Žižek): Rhetoric isn't neutral but in fact determines what opinions you express.Žižek: Post-structuralist rambling is just window dressing for expressing the same basic point again and again, which contradicts their own stance on rhetoric.
>>23394712late heidegger, merleau ponty, gabriel marcel, paul ricoeur.I think it's fundamentally in conflict with analytic philosophy though. Analytic is in the extreme a lineal/ordered/literary approach typical of modernism which post-modernity is basically rooted in a fundamental rejection of. I think there's been some people who kind of tried to unite the two though? I'm not as familiar and they are probably going to be more second-hand sources them primary ones. Maybe John Mcdowell and wilfred sellars? The easiest rule of thumb I know is someone deeply opposed to Descartes and like the distinct mind/body separation. Charles Taylor and Hubert Dreyfus' regaining realism is a good more recent thing on that, but I'd consider anyone who focuses on that to be post-modern I don't really care how well that applies to how most people talk about it though. That distinction is what typifies the modern so those who move past it are the post-modern.
>>23394724That's much clearer now, thanks.>>23394735Should I just get over myself and stop seething about postmodernism? I did read a bit of Charles Taylor but he kind of seemed to be a bit bland.I put a lot of faith in science in actually being able to help people live better and it seems to me that postmodernism has no ability to improve the world whatsoever, it only tries (and I think fails) to meaningfully describe it.
>>23394751Uh I mean I can recommend some stuff but that issue w/ science is basically the holdover from modernism. You are the ones they are attacking.The retrieving realism book is pretty short and just expresses the view pretty clearly with much less flowery imagery then that camp typically uses. Gabriel Marcel's Man Against Mass SocietyHeidegger has some shorter stuff: Discourse on Thinking (memorial address is like 12 pages), What is Metaphysics (primarily about science and what it misses), On the Essence of Truth, Question Concerning Technology, What is called thinking (best full book going over this)Marshall Mcluhan's Medium is the Massage is a short art book that goes over it well... Would be my favorites but you'd probably get much more out of Retrieving Realism.The issue is essentially the scientific attitude locks you into a specific frame of reference, that obscures the things that actually impact that knowledge from yourself, and cuts off your ability to act rationally/morally in the world. You are no longer able to be grateful for your history, family, personhood because the scientific attitude precludes those. Through that we essentially just get dominated by the state/the powers that be because we are reduced in our own eyes to that which can be intelligible in that frame. (That frame is also what is absorbed and useful to the global economy) Postmodernism is essentially about getting people to recognize that fundamental stance and attitude that must occur before a scientific attitude, which we are trained as best as possible to disregard (because it compromises our use in the global economy/to the powers that be).If you want to have a nicer way of looking at post-modernism just view it as a route to trying to get people to be more grateful for the things which situate them in this world. Their language, culture, history, preferences.
>>23393797>shouldn't our point be intellegible?>nah this is fine
>>23394768>Postmodernism is essentially about getting people to recognize that fundamental stance and attitude that must occur before a scientific attitude, which we are trained as best as possible to disregard (because it compromises our use in the global economy/to the powers that be).Doesn't the scientific frame of reference just get replaced by postmodernism? That is, now instead of viewing things through one specific frame of reference, you exchanged it for a different one.How is this one any better?
>>23394772No it's more about being open to letting things shape you and being changed by them. That's one of the consistent things among the favorite authors of mine.We don't exist in an isolated with, everything we come in contact with changes us and that's something to be open to and grateful for. We must be open to being surprised and to the possibility of even permitting contradictions because we just may not understand how mysteriously beneath it all they actually connect.Marcel calls this creative fidelity. (We must be in creative in seeking out and understanding things and finding how they interrelate and change us, and have a fidelity to the truth/goodness that's been manifested to us.)Heidegger releasement into being and openness to mystery (releasement into being is basically embracing the self-altering relationship with a being letting itself fully be what it is, and openness to mystery is similar to that fidelity idea above. That despite apparent contradiction or irreconcilability that being as at root fundamentally harmonious.)For Mcluhan it'd be uniting the acoustic and literary maintaining the goods of both, thats harder to explain concisely though.https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Discourse-on-Thinking.pdfThis is legit like 10 pages, the memorial address. Starts on page 43 good very concise explanation.One of the crucial things would be truth rather then any sort of propositional explicit thing, is more rooted in being, what things are. Truth is having the relationship with a thing such that it can be manifest to you as what it is. Kind of a callback to the classical/medievals. The Truth exists in the shared expression of your being and the being of the thing in question.https://aphelis.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Martin-Heidegger-On-the-Essence-of-Truth.pdfHeidegger's essay on that... much less clear then the lecture above but still fairly short. The issue with science is fundamentally that it doesn't allow accessing the background, or restricts everything to be what can be determined by a system. This attitude more just views systems as heuristic. You can have multiple, they can contradict, who cares. They are both ways of revealing to get different perspectives on being, what actually matters are the things. The only issue is if you get locked in some particular frame.
>>23392612Everything about it can be distilled down to the seething degeneracy of those who propagated it, which is why every one of the movements thinkers happened to also be raging perverts, pedophiles and/or unscrupulous faggots.Postmodernism is nothing more than an attempted justification for molesting children and getting aids via buttsex. That’s literally it. Nothing of value to be found when you realize the fundamental motivations of the “philosophers” behind it is a black hole of nihilistic molestation.
>>23395060there are two schools, it basically revolves to your view towards God though. The actual issue with them is they are athiests. I covered the religious ones here >>23394768>>23394802They have the first part, the releasement into being but then root the uniting action of it to their passions rather than being/God.
>>23395087you're less negative which means you're wrong
>>23395096Fleeing from the post-modern ideas is just abandoning ourselves to modern technological slavery and being disconnected from the world/reality. All the big authors main focus is on how to reestablish a sense of ground and foundation in a world torn asunder where all things are frantically moving dictated by the global economy and powers that be. They all do a decent job of that though heidegger basically leaves you in a place of penitently and piously waiting for God to save us, which is a good place to be. Ignoring all the issues around indeterminacy of language, science, logic, and other things the technological society uses to construct our bounds just guarantees your enslavements and separates you from re-establishing a foundation in God.Yes all universities and media essentially work to help everyone be absorbed into the machine/blob so most philosophy even if there is something good in it will be amplified and expressed in whatever way best serves the machine. You kind of just have to ignore it and read it anyway. You pretty quickly realize every popular thing you've heard about an author is either just like the total opposite of what they think or so totally misrepresented that it has almost 0 bearing on the author themselves or their ideas. If you read the stuff I've mentioned you'll probably like it. The whole geneological reduction of a person's thought into an expression of their perverse desires you did is itself rather postmodern. You are in a post-modern culture, you'll internalize those ways of thinking. You'll just do it badly if you don't make it explicit by actually studying it.
>>23395127>effortreplying to thatdo you have what presumably diabolically modernist normals call 'autism'?
>>23395135I effort post to procrastinate from work...
>>23395127>You pretty quickly realize every popular thing you've heard about an author is either just like the total opposite of what they think or so totally misrepresented that it has almost 0 bearing on the author themselves or their ideas. I'm not a philosophy student, but part of my studies is political philosophy and this is something I noticed quite a lot.Our professor told us to read authors and not second-hand accounts of them, or especially what we learned about them from the media or school.Reading authors like Marx was surprising in a way.My problem is that I am a bit of a nationalist. I do prefer analytical philosophy (especially Analytical Marxism), but continental philosophy is closer to me, because I live in continental Europe lol.
>>23394092
>>23393479Best thing he had said but not sure it’s a fair take down desu. I don’t like the post modernists but I have to admit there is some intellectual merit there. Now it’s of course just a sort of political weapon and less of a serious philosophy
>>23392612That it's as pointless as the cultural constructions it decries as pointless.
bump
>>23394768>You are no longer able to be grateful for your history, family, personhood because the scientific attitude precludes those. Through that we essentially just get dominated by the state/the powers that beWhat a load of crock. A scientific as attitude does not preclude any of those things. There are plenty of people in scientific fields that are religious, and plenty that have family they appreciate
>>23398341I recommended a bunch of books going in depth on it, none of them actually call it the "scientific attitude" a big thing w/ continental philosophy in general is neologisms and highly specific terms that aren't that meaningful outside of context. I thought I made that clear enough butthe scientific attitude != science, and the technological attitude != technology.It is obviously possible to do scientific investigation from a variety of frames of mind and approaches, when terms like the scientific attitude are used it's however referring to a specific thing. I'd be comfortable assuming most scientists even if they themselves are religious do quite a bit to encourage it though.The actual quality of itself is as I said viewing as fundamental and essential of everything the degree in which it can be integrated into the existing systems of science/technology/economy. It is getting out of nature "what you can" or as a just a mass you pull what is useful out of when you can. Sort of a dominance of nature, the primary thing is your theories, your systems your economy etc. Things only matter to the extent they contribute to those.The alterative view being the primacy of being, meaning that all your systems are taken as mere rules of thumb and heuristics, that you recognize say in scientific practice you are assuming a background of cultural/linguistic habits you in no way can make a scientific defense of and have no reason to expect to be perfectly aligned with reality. In one view the primary thing is the artifical system we have created to get something useful out of reality, in the other thing the primary thing is what a thing is. read some of the stuff I linked orhttps://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/heideggerm-what-is-metaphysics.pdfyou can't let yourself get upset just because someone uses a word you have emotional attachment to like 'science', that's very gay.
>>23393797Übermensch: me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
>>23398496>getting out of nature "what you can" or as a just a mass you pull what is useful out of when you canYes this is good. My needs come first and above that of other creatures.Not really interested in the hippie pagan larp
molesting teenage boys is illegal in tunisia?
>>23392699>t.
>>23399317Probably not but giving underage rentboys aids in a san fran bathouse is certainly unethical.
>>23392612why critique it? that's what it wants you to do.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bPcgoaZjsu8
>>23394681>I didn't understand a word he saidPost-structuralists argue that how you frame something affects the content of what is being expressed. Zizek says that starting out with this in mind actually doesn't change anything for them because they're still directed by their own assumptions (which is their "theory" itself); this comes through by the fact they're not actually breaking new ground (e.g. so you could say they're conclusions predictable). People usually criticise their stance as having no theoretical backbone and using obfuscating language games to run cover but Zizek says it's really that they've distanced themselves from seeking out the truth of whatever they're speaking about due to their being too "theoretical" in the first place. It's a bit of a word salad and I don't really agree with his conclusion. I might be filtered by the "Hegelian bad infinity" part but I think both the criticism he points out and dismisses as well as the one he makes himself are true (and I think the former carries more weight). If the deconstruction occurs in a predictable way it doesn't seem to me that the "theory" is itself empty but that it doesn't really deconstruct anything. I don't see it so much as running in circles by being obsessed with keeping theoretical distance, as Zizek seems to, but just smoke and mirrors obfuscating a predictable outcome that tracks reality in its own path dependant way.
>>23399862>m.
>>23399854he EARNED those kids
Derrida believes that, in Austin's eyes, what makes a quote from the stage non-serious is that it repeats something said elsewhere. He therefore objects that all language is necessarily repeatable, has what he calls iterability; and that without language there were no performatives.Parts of the remark are mundane. One can perhaps think of wordless performatives, e.g. in a ceremony, but they should at least be paralinguistic. To quote is always to iterate*; and every linguistic utterance, thus also a performative one, is iterable. So far, Derrida is reasonably on the dry side.But <i>in quoted form</i> a performative sentence is not performative. Thus, citation is not the form of iterability without which nothing can be a performative.A similar blunder plus a gross misinterpretation of Austin's words plagues the closing grumble about signatures. Derrida's fame as a reader of philosophical texts is not well deserved.*To the extent that it is clear what iterability is, Derrida seems to assume that repetition is an uncontroversial concept, at least here. Those who have familiarized themselves with the tradition from Frege through Wittgenstein to Austin and Hampshire about the 'same' find him clueless.
>>23395127Found your posts helpful and insightful, thanks!
>>23393446Underrated. This kills the lit trad larper.
>>23404333thanks I get worried I'm just schizo posting sometimes glad i could help at all
>>23393797
>>23392612
>>23404615You are the poster we need more of on /lit/. I would contribute, but I am new to post&modernism when it comes to philosophy and mostly know Baudrillard. But I like its rejection of grand narratives and the novels it gave birth to, such as the many works written by Pynchon. Its emphasis on the individual experience, the abbundance of symbols and signs and the neurotic, nihlistic mess that it covers remains of great interest to me.
>>23392612>I have ventured into KantThe Chinaman of Königsberg.
I like how most of this can already be found in the greek skeptics who lived 2500 years ago, only they followed through with their conclusion and didn't advocate for any childish revolutionary tantrums
>>23394768>Through that we essentially just get dominated by the state/the powers that beThat is of course the goal. The whole point of ethics is not crying about how we haven't acheived atomizing liberation but subordination to a higher power, some ideology, similar to the divine relationship between man and god which is best replicated in the relationship between a master and his dog
>>23404647They put fucking s-yjaks on the book cover?
>>23394768>If you want to have a nicer way of looking at post-modernism just view it as a route to trying to get people to be more grateful for the things which situate them in this world. Their language, culture, history, preferences.Grateful in what way? As being these evil colonizers who need to kowtow to the oppressed masses? Because that's definitely how most post modernists see it
>>23404647So they are making postmodernism, a leftist attack on society, into an artifact of capitalism?
>>23407106i had like 30 fucking posts going into itread what is called thinkingAgain you should take for granted ANYTHING publicly known, pushed into the mainstream, or widely taught at university will be things to advance the machine. The popular sense of post-modernism is only going to be that sense, there are plenty of other veins but no one talks about them because university professors are total fucking faggot evil shitheads who scam 18 year olds into debt for a cushy job. No shock they'll push the shittiest stuff and say it's defining of the age while ignoring the people who actually make use of those insights in a good way, because if they took them seriously they'd have to leave their evil job. Even for the evil colonizer shit, read herbert marcuse's one dimensional man, they are totally open about why they talk that way (it's 100% disingenuous), and often still have a decent grasp of technological society but just seek to take advantage of it rather then correct it. You need to make the distinction of post modernism of recognizing the issue and the solutionThe issue is>We are totally cut off from traditional human ways of being, through that our language, beliefs, identities and self consciousness are constantly under attack through the powers that be and we are unable to get a firm grasp on reality and put any roots downFrom there you can either say>fuck it cummie time racism is evil (trying to reignite the marxist historical process which was halted by technology by creating new dialectics so you can fuck kids or something)or>find a way to establish a new ground to regain a sense of being of a place so we can re-situate ourselves in the worldUniversities and popular media will just push the first one, but that's just because those are evil not because of anything intrinsic to the post-modern situation. Like I said if you read Herbert Marcuse's One dimensional man and Heidegger's what is called thinking I think you'll get a good exposure to those two responses. Marcuse's book is still interesting/insightful even though it is does kind of end with openly being a manual for how to warp society so you can cum more
>>23407461>trying to reignite the marxist historical process which was halted by technology by creating new dialectics so you can fuck kids or somethingHow is that evil tho? >find a way to establish a new ground to regain a sense of being of a place so we can re-situate ourselves in the worldSound like something to scam18 year olds into debt for a cushy job desu.
