How do we undo post-modernism?

>Golden Rule
This

Add the words
>In general.
To the end of any statement you hear. And postmodernism becomes useless. Cause nothing is absolute, in general.

>You cannot undo a methodology, silly.
you can question its validity, nerd

stop giving them money and they'll fizzle out like the scoundrels they are, this is already happening and i predict it will turn into nothing in a 4-5 years once the money dries up now that they have "the public" against them and most of the university is seen as a joke, with more and more companies coming out saying that having a title doesn't predict job performance at all, at this point it's just networking pretty much, except for non-meme degrees like engineering or medical school

derrida was fine though

>Golden Rule and pain avoidance kill Pynchon, Borges, Eco and Calvino
What did he mean by this?

"I got my definition of postmodernism from Peterson and /pol/" is what he meant.

Does it?

this is what happens when you think the primary work detailing post-modernism is the protocols of the elders of zion.

>Wrath of Gnon
the dude literally publishes his own quotes

Postmodernism is very easy to understand. Its the mental equivalent of sitting on the couch all day. Derrida was a conman

Read Nietzsche. The postmodernists either make more sense to you or appear as moronic "celebrity philosophers" to you.

can you explain this?

This, also "both-and" metamodern thinking in the vein of Hanzi Freinacht.

>Postmodernism is very easy to understand.
Easy enough
>Its the mental equivalent of sitting on the couch all day.
Its mental sloth. The ethos seems to answer every question and shut down every argument, all at the great expense of objectivity
>Derrida was a conman
He had an agenda

>confusing literary postmodernism and philosophical postmodernism
sup, nigger

>How do we undo gravity?
This is what you're asking

>How do I reinforce postmodernism?
This is what you're saying.

The problem in my eyes is that people can go their entire lives without knowing their neighbors right next door. I suppose we could try and make people friendly and love one another in some disgusting utopia

OR

We could fuck the west back into cozy little communities with so much war and destruction that people will perish if they don't rely and communicate with one another, like a forced evolution for social behavior.

>gravity, postmodernism
we need to prove that these things are real before we can undo them.

Either way we'll be okay. But nice.

levinas clearly shows how western "philosophy" is indeed what /pol/ calls "the Jew". how would you take this, now?

How many people on Veeky Forums deconstruct rhetorical meanings of books in order to interpret them according to Marxist principles?

Even Derrida, who wasn't much of a Communist, suggested that he only ever saw deconstructionism as interesting when done in the spirit of Marxism.

Western philosophy is rested in Enlightenment principles. The Rationalists/Empiricists/Positivists are hardly what we would consider rooted in Jewish philosophy.

>Rationalists/Empiricists/Positivists are hardly what we would consider rooted in Jewish philosophy.
And that's why they're autistic.

exactly, rationalism/empiricism/positivsm leads very easily to capitalism, and fortifies it very well too. without a god you can't put metaphysics in a humanist manner. it's what levinas restores (as ethics), by destroying godless positivism.

Isn’t Capitalism basic survival mode, the natural state of the economy in lack of intervention?

>tfw Australia's main Catholic magazine fell for the Peterson meme

godless positivism is autism without borders aka universal conquest for a big fucking nothing

If computers and electricity and the internet and modern medicine are fucking nothing for you, I suggest you get rid of them

Anything we can call capitalism has barely been around for several centuries. Anarcho-capitalism, i.e. a society without any state intervention but with property (somehow people would follow the rule of property without a state?), hasn't existed yet. We can speculate what it would be like, but there's no need in saying that humans would inherently act like that when they have never done so... At least say we can evolve socially, instead of saying your preferred economic system is inherent - everyone does it, and it's dumb.

Capitalism is the best system anyone has found for respecting human life and rewarding ability.
Many criticisms of capitalism often root themselves in utopianism, whereby one compares a very real, tangible, working system to an imaginary system that does not exist and without reasonable means to achieve the end.

yes and metaphysics is its rationalization into a system. plato's republic is a critique of this too. if i was catholic i'd call it pagan probably, but i'm not sure. christianity changed a lot between st paul and the church-state. the thing is metaphysics can't escape this capitalist survival mode and instead always reinforces its rules (nietzsche) its an all unifying reduction to natural capitalism. you even see what happened to communism as a recent phenomena.

the thing is, anything you call an absolute pure idea, concept etc. comes to reduce itself into primal nature in the end. closes into itself but by reinforcing it. the idea gets rid of itself only to degrade it even more. thats why metaphysics is thought as useless and evil i think by continentals

i would if i could. living longer or comfier doesn't really mean that much anyways.

While I agree with you to an extent, Capitalism has gone through reform again and again and today bears little semblance to what it once was.

The original Manchester Capitalism was no less than Hell on Earth, and the finance capitalism of the 1930 gave us Hitler and the Great Depression.

Capitalism proved to be highly adaptable, however, by absorbing Marxist and Keynesian thought.

>Capitalism proved to be highly adaptable, however, by absorbing Marxist
Giving people dole isn't Marxist thought, dude. Nearly no economist will recognise crisis theory, either, so please tell me what you mean by what you said.

It solves itself, not having a shared narrative makes a society less competitive.

Either we will (re)invent a competitive one ourselves or we will be overtaken by invaders who do have a grand narrative.

Vacuums get filled.

I don’t mean the Crisis theory, or Marxist “seize the means of production” thought. But today, we have severe regulations on various practices, up to 54% (France) state intervention into the economy, Central Banking, union rights (as opposed to governments killing union members), welfare, subsidies, and and and ...

That’s perhaps more Keynesian than Marxist.

The Muslims living here largely brought into “our” narrative of personal success, wealth and self-improvement. If you listen to the gangster rap of Turkish or Algerian immigrants, they dream not of salvation through Allah, but of BMWs, Veeky Forums bodies and infinite money.

E. g. basically the same things the white middle class dreams about. Very few Muslims genuinely share the goals of ISIS, or else we would have Civil War-like conditions, instead of the sporadic terror event.

Deconstruct it.

>Capitalism is the best system anyone has found for rewarding ability.
Daily reminder that capitalism says that a nigger yelling obscenities over a 4/4 beat, if promoted well enough by record companies, is superior to a classically trained pianist who has been practicing intensely his whole life, but hasn't sold out and based his repertoire on Yiruma, Clair de Lune and Mondscheinsonate.

Very few Russians shared the goals of the Bolsheviks.

Interesting article:

medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15

Capitalism per se makes no cultural statements whatsoever

that is a subversion of capitalism. Working up from a blank start it works very well. What we need right now is reforms not just exchanging a materialist ideology for another

Idiotic. Capitalism didn't do that, jews did that because they have no respect and in fact outright hatred for white European culture.

t.

Jews have been explicit in their promotion of nigger music for those very reasons for decades. No secret there.

>Implying naggers didn't make the best music in the past century
While Coltrane was recording A Love Supreme whites were listening to pop trash like the Beatles and The Beach Boys

Postmodernism only occured because of late capitalism. It cannot be "undone"

LARPing as Maxwell Demons is the best we can do.

Postmodernism as a method covers a lot of things, it's anything but holistic, but the important part of it is meta-method that allows one to use seemingly unrealted or even contradicting approaches together. Unfortunately, knowledge is Lego covered in superglue; connect the pieces and there's no disassembling them. The only way of separating milk from coffee, reversing entropy locally, is self-induced ignorance: you can avoid pomo approach by not knowing about it, although chances are you'll stumble upon it eventually.

Alternative advice - abandon the present and create/think as if you were in a past historic period, when the time still existed. I.e., bad poetry is thrift-shop Yeats/Frost (not sure - here it's Pushkin/Mayakovsky/Brodsky), but you can totally write good poetry the same way.

But it is capitalism that gave them the means to do this. Shitty pop music is simply more efficient in capitalism. A classical musician spends years upon years perfecting his craft on pieces that are complex and demand listeners' total attention. Pop can be made much more easily, by anyone, and it isn't demanding at all to listen to. If I were a businessman who wanted to make money with music, I'd know precisely which of these two branches I'd choose. That's capitalism.

What does that mean then?
I am a classical musician, but effort is not a metric by value is placed.
All it suggests is people aren't willing to put more money into the classical music market than pop music.
That there is a market for classical music at all is part of the beauty of capitalism, it really caters to every taste.

By going back to /pol/ and never coming back.

Late modernity.

Nothing is undone, brainlet. Ideologies move forward as time moves forward. The past is set in stone, anyone who believes its possible to discard it is living in a fairy tale. The question you should be asking is what comes next.

Where is the past?

Who cares if capitalism gave them the means, that still doesn't mean that capitalism is the problem. It's a tool. Pop music is incentivized instead of classical music because jews have created those incentives within the capitalist system they are largely in control of. If you or I were in charge of that system we could de-incentivize pop music, re-incentivize the appreciation of classical music, and turn classical music into pop music just like jews did the opposite. Capitalism does what the people in charge want it to do.

That's a rather simplistic and naïve view of the world there for someone with such sophisticated tates.

*tastes

Postmodernism is not concerned about what comes next, or anything for that matter.
It is a means of keeping Marxism alive and shielding it from scrutiny(or so it would seem since while not all Postmodernists are Marxists, all Marxists are Postmodernists) while using viscious, often false, rhetoric to attack modernity's core principles.
Postmodern Epistemology exists solely to be the antithesis of Modernism's ideals.
Truth and reality are meaningless because human cognition and reason cannot find either. Instead, language, which to Postmodernists has no connection to reality, is actually a means of constructing the world the "Being" perceives. So everything is subjectively, Linguistically, and socially constructed.
Postmodern epistemology finds its roots in the German Counter enlightenment and follows the kind of skepticisms proposed by Kant, ironically in order to protect religion and culture, through to Heidegger, Foucault, Marcuse, (to a lesser extent) Derrida.

Well, the reality of it is pretty simple, though surely more sophisticated and less retarded than the view wherein capitalism is thought to be some phantom machine with a mind of its own.

It’s immensely amusing what you’re doing right now.

You’re basically using the critique of the cultural logic capitalism, formulated in exactly the same vein by the Jews of Frankfurt School, to criticize Jews.

Oh, the irony.

Clearly you don't understand the chicken and the egg here. There's nothing actually ironic about it.

Marxism and postmodernism have few things in common and they operate in different spheres.

Postmodernism is mostly a tool to analyze culture and language, while Marxism treats culture as irrelevant, as mere overhead to the mode of production.

It is. If Adorno and consorts (mostly Jews) didn’t recognize and analyze the cultural logic of capitalism, the brainlets of /pol/ wouldn’t be able to use it to justify antisemitism.

I would disagree with the notion that they have little in common given that most postmodernists are Marxists in some fashion.

I've never had anything to do with pol and your understanding of the Frankfurt School is small-minded and peasant-tier. Don't pretend you understand the nuance of irony regarding processes that are beyond your capacity and don't expect anyone to see you as anything other than a loser when you use fake words like "antisemitism."

Not as small-minded as your understanding of capitalism is, which, by the way, is the first system to create enough wealth and technology to enable everyone to

Whether you agree with your characterization as /pol/tard or the Frankfurt School matters little, as long as you adhere to their views. You’re using the thought of Jews to justify antisemitism right now, which is amusing.

In which fashion?

I have no problem with capitalism qua capitalism. And jewish critique of white culture is not the basis for whites' critique of jews, you are simply not a very intelligent person and have a marginal understanding of what you're attempting to appear informed about. I don't think this place is for you, bud. Scuttle on over to reddit.

...

Has anyone here actually read anything by, for example, Derrida? It does not seem so from any of the posts

>Pop music is incentivized instead of classical music because jews have created those incentives within the capitalist system they are largely in control of
That's capitalistically genius. A multigenerational project that will simply musical production and make it far more profitable.

>Capitalism does what the people in charge want it to do.
So basically it is socialism?
Btw, you can't turn classical into pop music for about a million reasons.

simplify*

because we never discuss Derrida's lit-related writings, they're all just weak copies of Heidegger.

we always talk about Derrida being a crypto-politician in a "socially-engaged philosopher" disguise, because that's outrageous.

Not really though - for Derrida the mistake philosophers make is thinking about truth and
being on the model of ‘presence’, even a presence that shows itself through
Heiddeger's "allowingness" (gellasenheit).

and everything else is basically Heidegger mashed up with relativism.

Derrida truly set our critical thinking back couple decades

You don’t. It’s already in everyone’s thinking patterns, whether we want it or not.

Go through it and come out the other side

Well, anyone seeking to avoid pain would ignore those authors.

well you've kind of hit the nail on the head, positivism is useful for making things like computers and medicine but not for finding truth. in other words, you can find kind of pragmatic truths (close enough) through empiricism and such but not "true" truths, they come from god.

If you need a pre-imposed arbitrary construct to “tell” you the truth for it to come true, your definition of “truth” doesn’t hold up to Occams Razor

So God cannot be the truth *tips*

>I have no problem with capitalism qua capitalism
>yet everything I don't like is done with capitalism as a tool
Idk what is worse, stealing Adorno's criticisms or calling him a kike and that jazz.

The antithesis of it would be New Sincerity but I believe this movement has already crested

Why did Adorno hate Jazz again, btw?

The movement in its purest form all but disappeared, but its impact lives on, be it in emo-influenced indie music or something as banal as Ed Sheeran.

I'd like to see a layered meta sincerity conveyed by multiple intentions of irony take over but that's a bit up it's own ass

The best way to undo it is to treat it as an interesting philosophical development with a few insights, while emphasizing figures in the movement (Deleuze especially) who have already surpassed it, simultaneously presenting yourself as big brain wojak who has already thought through these memetic word games

Honestly? Hurt them, physically. The existence of pain leads to the existence of truth. No-one can deny either when directly confronted with it.

How has Deleuze transcended postmodernism? His rhizome philosphy is the very essence of postmodernist critique of structuralism.

Perhaps it's a stylistic distinction. I see Deleuze as going beyond the deadlocks and limitations of philosophers like Derrida or Foucault. He's more concerned with building concepts