Is reading postmodern philosophy a waste of time? Will it unveil a new perspective on reality...

Is reading postmodern philosophy a waste of time? Will it unveil a new perspective on reality? Or are they just making shit up?

Other urls found in this thread:

elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/
youtu.be/cvl_J_Qn5JM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

They are literally just making shit up

literally all philosophers are just making shit up.

that are true

Postmodernism generator
elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/

>Therefore, the characteristic theme of Werther’s critique of modernism is the genre of capitalist sexual identity. In Mason & Dixon, Pynchon reiterates dialectic pretextual theory; in Gravity’s Rainbow, although, he deconstructs modernism.

This is 100% accurate

It's just more and more complicated iterations of Marxism, existentialism, and psychoanalysis. So if you like all that, it will do something for you.

Lacan was a structuralist though.

>DUDE THIS IS *TOTALLY* NOT AN IDEOLOGY
>DUDE CANT KNOW NUFFIN
>DUDE I HAVE NO SOLUTIONS
There, summed up pm philosophy for you.

Thanks for letting me know postmodernism is bullshit, guys! :D good think I didn't waste any time trying to understand them haha xD I think I'll go back to reading Harry potter

why waste time reading bullshit like that when you could put in the same amount of effort on THE CANON

yes. I'm so glad people are starting to get sick of post-modernism in general. it is complete and utter shit.
>oooo capitalism and schizophrenia and recurring misinterpretations of Nietzsche and oh look, here's a bunch of increasingly complex neologisms that make no sense, now please interpret me

The fiction is worse. Pynchon Wallace Barth barthelme delillo (sometimes, especially underworld) gaddis. Complete and utter trash, had nothing to say or else they would've just fucking said it, hide behind their neat tricks and comfortable irony.

They will be rightfully forgotten. I'm looking forward to a more genuine, laboriously-constructed literature, and not these amphetamine dream bullshit tomes of complete and utter nonsense.

*DeLillo won't/shouldn't be forgotten. Underworld should, though.

I'm glad I am not only who doesn't like Pynchon, Wallace, DeLillo, Gaddis.

I wish I could have back the time I spent reading postmodern philosophy in my late teens and early twenties because now I'm old enough to realize it's nearly all bullshit.

>actually trying to tie the motives of these two movements together
Jesus Christ user, get educated.

Are you retarded? Their motives are different to the extent their mediums are different, but that's about it. Nice try though.

To brainlets post-modernism is a shorthand for any recent philosophy they're too dumb to understand

Fields* not mediums

t. brainlet himself

I'm a certified genius and have a degree in philosophy. Try again

>genius
>majored in philosophy

One of these things must be false.

Shush child

It's wrong dismiss the whole movement. Just because Derrida and Lacan were hacks doesn't mean the rest are worthless. Foucault was very insightful for all his faults.

>being this retarded
Woah there fella, you should get readin'

Nice ad personam, and no, they are not.
While I agree that postmodern philosophy is word salad trash, these two are only lightly tied.

PoMo philosophy was created as a mean to dissolve structuralism and transform people's thinking from rational and structure-based to nihilistic.

PoMo literature comes from modernism's lack of ability to push literature even further while remaining in a literary form. The encyclopedic tomes work as a show-off of literary potential, a way to out-do modernism and fill the gaps left in it by heavy experimentation.


Pynchon's biggest literary progression happened before postmodernism became the main fashion in academia, and his works deal with a spectrum of themes unrelated to the entire postmodern obsession.

DeLillo and Gaddis, okay, they might be little heavy on the style, but they aren't keen on anti-structural teories, they just attempt to expand the understanding of literature as we know it.

And lastly, Wallace himself hated the entire PoMo, and he probably knew the most about it (considering his academic career). Maybe early on he was intrigued by Derrida (who wasn't), but in In an interview later in life he admitted that he was in a tough spot, because he wanted to re-create sincere literature, but needed his books to be overly complex (or simply big, like IJ, which is his biggest anti-PoMo rant) to "keep up with his peers" (which he also often criticized for pumping up their novels with redundant information and complexity).

Foucalt was ironically mad himself, trying to deconstruct society/order to find a someway to justify his non-social ID which was being a dirty fucking faggot.

pm's eternal downfall will be its arbitrary rating of deconstructor's bias over the authors. it has never justified this in anyway.

...

one of the features of post-modernism as an ideology is its denial of its own ideological nature which it uses to deflect any and all criticism against it

much like Jews in Weimar republic pretended to be religious, not ethnic group... rmyt.

>pm's eternal downfall
I wish it happened. but it doesn't change the fact that Pynchon and Wallace did not support deconstruction in any way

>wikipedia
XDDD
how about you actually try to contribute to the thread

What's wrong with Wikipedia?

are you trolling now? didn't your teachers tell you not to use wikipedia back in high school already?

These are good assessments. I'm glad this train is finally starting to get derailed a bit.

Wikipedia is legitimate resource approved by some Ivy -tier unis..

The only thing worse than postmodernism is modernism.

youtu.be/cvl_J_Qn5JM

>wikipedia
>XDDD

Nice metanarrative.

it's superficial, basic and often misquotes. don't get me wrong user, but PoMo itself is something very volatile and hard to deal with, scientifically speaking. it takes a lot of academic effort to work on it, it's not as easy to define as photosynthesis or such, which is why wiki doesn't cut the mustard here.

Start with Heidegger's Origins of a Work of Art (might be off on the title in English)

It's worth reading, but once you start reading any postmodern philosophy, you'll realize there is no way the American left has actually read a whole sentence correctly by any of the key figures.

Stop embarrassing yourself. I'm sorry you spent so much time on your postmodernism thesis but you wasted your time, Pomo is retarded, and Wikipedia is god tier

>Pomo is retarded
nowhere did I say it's not.
>Wikipedia is god tier
Ehh, you will learn over time.
>postmodernism thesis
I didn't write any thesis on the subject, that would be plain stupid. I did have a module related to it, and spent some time with actual academics to understand it better, you know, that's what people do when they want to learn something accurate and not a summary from a trash tier internet article.

>it is so difficult it cannot be even vaguely defined
So deep...

>but PoMo itself is something very volatile and hard to deal with, scientifically speaking. it takes a lot of academic effort to work on it, it's not as easy to define as photosynthesis or such, which is why wiki doesn't cut the mustard here

heres what you sound like


>To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily fromNarodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick and Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existencial catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a Rick and Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

Go back to classical Marxism instead, postmodernism is definitely interesting but examines a very temporal state of mind which is already coming to pass, primarily, the feeling of perpetual liberal triumphalism following the failures of revolutionary movements.

>Dude revolution lmao

Boring

They dissemble when you ask for their axioms, deduce things in fallacious ways and falsely claim that their theories make verifiable and falsifiable predictions about real world phenomena.

I will be falsely accused of claiming that all theories should make falsifiable predictions or else they are worthless

>postmodern
lacan is garbage but he is a structuralist, not post-structuralist, so modern, not post-modern

Yeah, Marxian economics as a powerful analysis of the mechanics of capitalist production and its structural tensions can totally be summed up as "dude revolution lmao".
One of the reasons nobody understands what postmodernism is, is that its major writers had already deeply examined Marxism, critiqued it and took up specific positions relating to its worldview. Most people can't even deal with orthodox Marxist economics, of course they would be confused by Foucault.

Its trite and its repititive. I used to consider myself a Marxist but eventually I realized how much of it is just adopting jargon and talking around in circles while crippling any real thought about the world
What Marxists call "material analysis" is really just putting on blinders to block away so much of the important aspects of human life which is why it is as I said fucking boring

>brainlets watch a few peterson videos and read a single wikipedia article
>think they know what they're talking about
pro-tip: none of you (neither peterson) understand postmodernism

so if it's a tool so shitty that it can be crushed by people who don't understand it, imagine how destroyed it would be if they did

this
memerson's minions are so fucking pathetic. your lord and savior is a literal sophist and a charlatan

t. never read any pomo art criticism

I've never awtched a 1 Peterson video mate.

That doesn't make post-modernism any less cancerous

You have 10 seconds to summarize what you understand post-modernism to mean and why it is "cancerous".

Hard mode: no google.

...

why dont you explain what pomo is?
t. didnt post itt but im pretty sure pomo is smoke and mirrors. ive never seen anyone really explain it, just people asking other people to explain it so they can say they dont understand it.

It's really not that hard to understand postmodernism

>PoMo
>nihilistic

Nope.

A Saturday evening and you sorry schmucks are arguing about postmodernism. Clearly you internet arguments are more valuable that social gatherings. You fools are an embodiment of the lack of value hierarchies that postmodernism represents.

>it has never justified this in anyway.

It has never stated it either. Death of the author is the idea that the author isn't really in control of what he writes, but that doesn't mean the reader is in any more control of what he reads. The only evidence for what we think the author means is in the text itself. It doesn't justify 'the curtains were blue means x' and ironically this is a misreading of the theory. The text is self-contained.

This post is ideological.

>once you start reading any postmodern philosophy, you'll realize there is no way the American left has actually read a whole sentence correctly by any of the key figures.

This is very true. 'Postmodernism' is great, the American interpretation of it (as 'Theory') is not

If either side attempts to define it, the opposition is just going to nitpick the definition until we get some waste of a thread where we meme each other and nothing of value is said (all while anti-pomos claim pomo says nothing of value).

If you're smart, you'll use this time to actually do some reading and approach the subject in a way that suggests you actually want to learn a thing of two, instead of memorising memes to dominate conversations and show on this anonymous message board that you're less mediocre than the other denizens.

>iamreallysmart

It doesn't take a smart person to understand postmodernism, otherwise we wouldn't have uneducated middle America citing the same concerns as the postmodernists

>getting wasted on saturday evening is an affirmation of value hierarchies
Are you really so stupid?

>Is reading postmodern philosophy a waste of time? Will it unveil a new perspective on reality? Or are they just making shit up?
The only people defending it at this stage are the thousands (if not millions) of people that have come through, or coming through, the western education centres and not questioning what was taught. These people are still confident in "tertiary education" as an INSTITUTION. It's a hard thing to ask a 20year old who has an emotional and monetary investment to take a step back and realise what he is learning about is pure garbage.
Irregardless of whether post-modernism makes people communists or not (I think it does), this doesn't really matter. The effects of post-modernist influence on society and on the individual are observable, it creates despair and produces a self-loathing attitude. It's totally cancerous.
Also why are you attacking Peterson lol? There are a thousands of people out there attacking post-modernism.

yes, it's kind of funny how "post-modern" courses generate the most uniformly ideological goons in current society

your opinion about tertiary education it's very postmodern lol

answering to everyone:
it's very simple: postmodernism it's just a fucking reaction to modernism. in philosophy supports subjectivity over objectivity. in literature it's just a step beyond the modernism and his tropes, because there are deconstructed (that not necessarily implies a critique). postmodernism spawned important contributions to fields like linguistics, sociology, anthropology, etc (mainly because post-structuralism). after the great depression and WWII, and after the world saw that all those ideas impregnated by the modernism (like "everything in the future will be better and everything it's in perpetual rise") weren't real, the apparition of postmodernism was practically inevitable.

the problem with postmodernism is principally his double-edge nature. as a theoretical framework, you can make wonders (like those guys who developed sociolinguistics and anthropological linguistics). or, in the other hand, you just can make tons and tons of shit; it's very common to see people who overanalyze social/historical problems because they postmodern point of view (like those feminists who believes that eat meat and animals means patriarchy).

>postmodernism spawned important contributions to fields like linguistics, sociology, anthropology, etc
name 1

the development of pragmatic linguistics and the discourse analysis.

Still no actual answer then. This is sad. Nobody even agrees there's actually a subject we're talking about.

>Nobody even agrees there's actually a subject we're talking about.
because there isn't, post-modernism is just a meme word without content, there are a few authors that started a few projects that were later labeled "post-modern" and that didn't lead anywhere, and there are a few current academic projects that pretend to have a foundation but they actually don't, and there are critics of it that pretend to be criticizing a philosophical idea, but they aren't because most of those projects are all tactics and no foundation behind them

>post modernism isn't an ideology/coherent movement.
post in the bin

>PoMo philosophy was created as a mean to dissolve structuralism and transform people's thinking from rational and structure-based to nihilistic.
You're wrong. Post-modernist philosophy should actually be named "post-structuralist", because it applies structuralism to literally anything to dissect it and analyze it. Strictly, it has nothing to do with nihilism. That's just your interpretation

>ni·hil·ism
>the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.

PM not only rejects them it tries to actively destroy them.

American "liberal" left makes me sick. Sanders was your only hope, american fags. You will slowly burn. Only thing that makes me sick is that you will let the rest of the world burn with you

Sanders was a fucking socialist cuck who was controlled oppo.

Trump was thousand times better choice out of all the candidates - now this isn't a great achievement when rest of them were really fucking terrible.

it's not, it's just a series of things that happened close in time

If it isn't anything specific then why do you use its identifier, "post-modernism" and its variants?

>Series of things.
Oh a series of things now you say? What was the connecting thing in the series of things? Or are you saying it was a non-organized series of *things* next?

>If it isn't anything specific then why do you use its identifier, "post-modernism" and its variants?
i don't use it, i just responded to a thread of people using it

>What was the connecting thing in the series of things?
people connected them post-hoc because the world is messy and scary otherwise

every deconstructive project always has an underlying, unacknowledged grand-narrative that fuels it

But you, Oh Anonimous Enlightened Master, do understand postmodernism and any and all other branches of philosophy and knowledge.

>Not understanding opinions

>>the rejection of all religious and moral principles
Ok
>in the belief that life is meaningless
Nope
>often
So not always. Those who believe it are in fact wrong.

most philosophers use these two terms (post-structuralist and post-modern) interchangeably. post-modern is, contemporarily, used in a wider sense, as the entire movement spawned mostly from post-structural thought (which I guess you do know).

about nihilism, well, that's subjective, but attempting to assign no meaning to narratives is usually perceived as a pretty nihilistic element.

>nobody in this thread knows what postmodernism is
>everyone in this thread fell for the Peterson memes
>everyone in this thread is just attacking the "le Marxism taking over le education systems" strawman (it doesn't exist, by the way)
>nobody in this thread has ever read postmodern literature

xDDD
obviously PhD user, you are the only one ITT who has read any pomo babble.

>implying anyone ITT is even influenced by Peterson

>"le Marxism taking over le education systems" strawman (it doesn't exist, by the way)
it's past year + 1, not past year anymore, this meme died long ago

Institutions of higher education are trying to radicalize the youth.

[Citation needed]

The fields of sociology and cultural studies exist for the sole purpose of advancing radical leftist politics. As long as institutions of higher education continue teach them and enshrine thinkers dedicated to such causes, they are knowingly (these are highly intelligent people. everything they do is deliberate.) using the youth as a tool to advance the politics they represent.

Ebin, fukken saved.

Give me some sources instead of spouting conspiracy retardation. Alternatively, go back to pol.

>Dude it's just like my opinion bro
But having uninformed opinions based on strawmen is fucking retarded.

Sources friend, and no you cant use pol posts.

not real communism

>trying to deconstruct society/order to find a someway to justify his non-social ID which was being a dirty fucking faggot

Nice discourse of truth you got here.

Mostly a waste of time. So-called postmodernism should be primarily viewed as a Jewish-led project to manipulate society in a way that advances radical leftist politics and benefits the Jews.

The mere existence of post-colonial studies more than proves my point.

The better question is why should society allow these proud subversives positions in its most powerful institutions.