All these people triggered by post-modernism

>all these people triggered by post-modernism
>can't even start a proper critique of its ideas

Critiquing postmodernism can't be done, same as nihilism.

You can't argue against the lack of values, you can only scream, "my values ARE important!"

Stalemate. Get over it and wait for postmodernists to get drawn into drama as all humans inevitably do.

>You can't argue against the lack of values, you can only scream, "my values ARE important!"
>lack
>importance judgements
Yet again some brainlet with caricature understanding of post-structualist stances

Post-modernism is shit.

pls explain to a brainlet what is a postmodernism and how is it represented in a literature

Yet again someone chimes in "no, THAT'S not postmodernism" without any corrective information.

Yet again.

Yet again again and again.

Not OP but postmodernism (generally, as far as canonic writers goes) never argues that there 'are no values,' but rather it would situate your particular value system within a historic and ideological frame. The point is not that there are no values, but that the values we all variously hold are held for very particular, not-always-logical reasons, and are certainly not absolutely true or true a priori.
It's worthwhile noting there's no strong normative claim or assumption in this view, as far as i can tell. So any egalitarian claims etc are superposed on it.
Again, as seems to need to be repeatedly reiterated to you illiterates, no-one sensible has claimed that 'you can make anything mean anything;' only, that knowing meaning is mutable opens up the field for the very specific historical questions of why certain things mean what they do and not what they don't.
-a decomissioned public urinal is interesting in an art gallery not because anything can be made to be artwork but because it highlights exactly the fact that you can't see it as artwork and maybe you wonder why that is.

>consciously ignoring ">lack" and ">importance" greentexted words and their implications.

You don't need to look far to see that your statement is inconcrete enough not to be considered a proper critique in that the distinction of what you consider as "lack" is ambiguous. If it is a complete lack of values, then you can't scream your values are important because you don't have any. Otherwise, we can take it as a quantity lack, as if a bigger arsenal of values would make your position inherently superior, making this scream you speak of be closely related to the position you argue from.

Yeah, but that's what sucks about it. Cynically tearing everything down with a knowing wink is so fucking old and just leaves everybody in this flat, neutral space where nothing good can be expected.

>there's no strong normative claim or assumption in this view, as far as i can tell
It doesn't acknowledge the historicity of historicism itself, "every view is historical except for mine which exists outside time, all ideologies, and the distinction between current and non-current year", just another violent metaphysics wishing to impose itself, deny any fallibilism within, and dominate everything.
>it highlights exactly the fact that you can't see it as artwork and maybe you wonder why that is
But my position is the same as the cleaning lady that throws away thousands of dollars of contemporary alleged art with the rest of the garbage, and says: "I'm just doing my job."

Science and enlightenment values paved the way for two world wars. The very system that was supposed to lift humanity to heaven ended up bringing about hell on earth. Naturally, a system was developed to combat enlightenment values. Where science was clear and concise, postmodernism sought to obscure. Were science was linear in terms of progress and Apollonian, postmodern was relative and Dionysian. Where science claimed it could know, postmodernism said you could never know. If science is yin, then postmodernism is yang. I believe a healthy combination of both Apollonian and Dionysian is needed in any functioning system. We build so as to destroy. And we destroy when we want to rebuild.

>basic principle of deconstruction is that it operates from WITHIN
>"doesn't acknowledge"

Yeah pretty sure it does acknowledge its own historicism, or, as the other user says, deliberately and consciously 'works from within the system.' This is even a particular source of its power as a theory.

Why do you believe that lie?

Nobody can or will. The best one can say is it is a departure from or response to modernism. Anything else is liberal arts thesis-tier psychobabbling nonsense.

It's the failure of the new and the imprisonment of the past.

A mixing together of high and low culture, cliche, pastiche, samples of the past, etc. Represented in John Ashbery and Thomas Pynchon

There is no such thing as a revolutionary, insurrectionary, or even useful critical idea that works from "within" the system. If deconstruction has really been put to this purpose then the admirable intellectual project Derrida inherited from Stirner and Nietzsche is co-opted by globalists to the point of necessary destruction.

The structure is absolutely necessary for critique, the structure defines itself by what it excludes and what is within its play. There is no deconstruction without democracy.

I just think that Koons shouldn't be able to take out a billboard advertising him fucking his hot wife even if they did just get married and she was a porn star. So, obviously, postmodernism must die.

>There is no deconstruction without democracy.
Extrahistoricist thinking detected.

But by this logic we want the structure to exist so we can criticize it! This is cynical slave morality re-purposed to help the slaves feel haughty, not at all the sort of fearless, morality-creating dialecticism Derrida clearly had in mind.

At the end of the day post-modernism asserts that there is no absolute. I can see why it does this, from the post-structural view etc. However it has absolutely nothing of value to say about metaphysics or teleology. It is only artistic judgement turned inward, aware of itself but nothing else, and it supposes that its own self-awareness has some basis, but only with regard to itself. Ignorant disregard of the external, it is a voluntary constriction of the specification of the universal and its only fault (yet also the most self-defeating and fatal one) is that it aware at all.
You are either aware of externality, or you do not exist. It is that simple. If you exist despite being unaware of externality, then you have afforded yourself a mistake in thinking and it is this mistake that inevitably controls you.

>it would situate your particular value system within a historic and ideological frame
But we know that's not true of all value systems
>Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

>its

>equating what is external with what is absolute

This is where your mind ends up when you spend 12 hours/day interfacing with a hypertext protocol.

>It doesn't acknowledge the historicity of historicism itself, "every view is historical except for mine which exists outside time, all ideologies, and the distinction between current and non-current year", just another violent metaphysics wishing to impose itself, deny any fallibilism within, and dominate everything.
this. it's a self-denying ideology

yeah great thanks

My man, think harder. Things exist in as much as they preexist in the divine intellect. That's the entire secret to the universe and post-modernism has jack shit to say about it. That makes it unimportant as far as concepts and ideas go.

my man, what I'm saying is I think you've been lain-brained and don't even realize it,

Let's all love lain

>Things exist in as much as they preexist in the divine intellect
spooky

>can't critique an idea that refuses any form of critique
found the problem

There is no want it is just what is being done. You also presuppose the superioroty of structure and man's becoming a slave whenever it turns to it for its guidance. Arguing of the fault of the haughty slave trying to emancipate himself rather than being a slave forever constricted in the structure.

Then you missed how it frees up ideological cloggings concerning the self presence of speech and its affluance with logos due its historicity. Establishing that it is indeed writing and not some expression intrinsically better than writing, leaving pictograms like some vulgarities outside of the self.

Oh shit really summed up the entire philosophical venture, better post your treatise before anyone does before you.

>Yeah pretty sure it does acknowledge its own historicism, or, as the other user says, deliberately and consciously 'works from within the system.'
it doesn't. any postmodern will claim its strategy frees you from ideology meanwhile denying the status of this very approach withing the metaphysical or ideological

Jordan Peterson does it perfectly, OP.

Post-modernism isn't an argument.
Post-modernism is ignoring the world in favor of complacency and laziness.

I don’t understand how this comment is constructive, or encourages the reader to think more deeply about anything. It appears to me that this comment’s only purpose is to display the cleverness of the author. Unfortunately, despite the collective efforts of the commentariate, we do get infiltration from those who are apparently determined to give the impression that they are incapable of parsing an entire piece of writing and reading it as a whole.

As has been previously noted (regular readers will be aware) we (that’s the “Royal we” — fellow commenters, occasional contributors such as myself and the moderator team) are engaged in an ongoing attempt to keep the quality of comments at its former impeccably high standard.
Sadly, this is more of an effort than it should be.

And as a writer, it is rather tiresome having to try to explain to the occasional numpty who happens across a post basic reading comprehension skills, how to follow an argument when it is constructed long-form and the ability to master data interpretation.

And I’ve just caught up on all the subsequent comments on this page. All the other commenters have managed to make coherent and intelligible contributions that furthered my understanding or gave me something to think about, because they took the trouble to type more than a single sentence. I don’t agree with everything that’s been said in other comments. Quite the opposite in a couple of cases. But at least I understand what was expressed and the intention behind it.

post-modernism is sophistry

It is the fault of the ideology to have these gaps one could cling on and use them to deconstruct it.

>postmodernism is a lack of values

No, it's trying to save values from the nihilism of capitalist modernity which is why preservation has become such a big issue in terms of culture, language, environment, etc. Read a book sometime; that's what they're there for.

This guy gets it

This is unironically beautiful. Thank you for that, user.

>"every view is historical except for mine which exists outside time
It doesn't exist outside time, it's as delayed as any other paradigm on account of working through differance. The difference between metaphysics of the past and present 'metaphysics' of language is that language can't be situated outside of itself, so it's not really a violent dominance in the same way of, say, man as the centralised reference. Violence has been done in the name of an idealised humanity but an idealised language is the philosophy of a world where the biggest problems are commodities and institutions

Deconstruction isn't really a 'purposeful' activity, it's just what occurs if one reads the written word closely and uncovers the double logic of a text. It's that endless destabilising deferral that is there to pick up on whether someone is engaging in the purposeful act of close reading or not.

Reminder that people who spell postmodernism with a hyphen are from /pol/ and should be filtered

>You can't question ad infinitum deconstructionism
Yes you can, because there is an inherent limit to what you can realistically deconstruct

You don't really just go through some pages and naturally arrives at some point when it screams back at you "phallogocentrism!"
deconstruction is critique, and said critique is always motivated by ideological purposes

I had just gotten over never getting to see any of the movies that Cindy Sherman never starred in and then I found out she takes instagram selfies, and if you want to know the pain and suffering postmodernism has caused me, you can google it and bring it upon yourself, fellow voyager, because I cannot bring myself to do that to you.

>pic related
better days

what are talking about

what the fuck I'm so sick of high school philosophy students on this board thinking they know everything

like, postmodernism =/= nihilism

and there are criticisms of both ideas, even though postmodernism and nihilism have varying meanings in different contexts

holy shit I hate this comment

Did you even read the posts that respond to you?

No of course not since you need to understand the work itself and work within its parameters rather than arbitrarily flick through pages. But you can get a sense of deconstruction at work the same way you can get an understanding of geometry by reading Husserl; by reading it. But Derrida's 'idealism' is uncovered with reference to the text (the functioning of language) itself rather than something beyond that text which is only signified by the text. So if one reads 'closely' one can see deconstruction at work when the text seems to contradict itself in places (but not to the point where the text is rendered meaningless because it can't be). Deconstruction is an idea always-already as is metaphysical philosophy of the past but Derrida is more concerned with the particulars, the historical, the contingent, the accidental, etc. of what can be known rather than what it points to, even though the latter is important for reading the former. It is true that such a reading is 'political' (as the reader is political) but this is true of past philosophy as well; that the exterior disrupts the interior.

what ar eyou talking about. are you the OP? you better not be the OP

>I don't intend to cause you pain, but oh I will mention it anyway
Anyways, those instagram selfies are very dank and I thank you for it. See how it is inbetween all these nice pictures she took or saved, it's joke and commentary about selfies in general.

Very dank thank you

I may have been somewhat jesting

DID YOU SLEEP WITH MY WIFE

post modernism enables shit flinging retards. hence it is not compatible with having standards for civilized behavior. the position that you get to critique standards of civilized behavior while standing apart from the shit flinging retards you enable is not tenable. that is my critique.

Let me explain to you chaps exactly what post-modernism is.

Post means "after"

So it's what comes after modernism.

Very simple huh?

daily reminder that jeff koons sleeping with his hot pornstar wife is a statue displayed in museums, as well as a bill board displayed in public, while these guys will never be jeff koons

this is why they want postmodernism dead.

never heard of jeff koons before. not sure why post-modernism should be judged based on this rather than poo-poo pee-pee memes on /r9k/

because if you bring up /r9k/ you have to acknowledge [s4s] are better postmodernists and very much nice and love.

and jeff koons is a postmodern artist who gave up being a stockbroker to sell statues of himself fucking his hot wife and overpriced vacuum cleaners.

don't feel too put out desu

Postmodern means different things in different contexts. I'm getting tired of Jordan Peterson fanboys talking about how """the postmodernists""" are ruining everything as if Michel Foucault and the piss christ guy are just prancing around all over contemporary thought and art

"x isn't an argument"

go home molyneux

They are though

>better postmodernists

Behind every curruption in soceity is a post modernist

>implying [s4s] is not best
please do not be rude out of your own personal shame, anonkun, it's makes it harder to love you back despite your faults but i will any way, ok

You botherin' me about a steak?

I like to think he's speading awareness of the practical effects of postmodern thought in relation to political discourse while also helping the "right wing hipster" kekistan kids to realize that they themselves are postmodernists

>there is an inherent limit to what you can realistically deconstruct
reminds me of this post

you are trying too hard to fit in

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

is it hard being stupid

>would situate your particular value system within a historic and ideological frame. The point is not that there are no values, but that the values we all variously hold are held for very particular, not-always-logical reasons, and are certainly not absolutely true or true a priori
doesn't this make Jordan Peterson post-modern? Why does he hate it so much when he says the same thing?

Plato did it 2500 years ago in Sophist

Bad bait, or you're retarded, or both