Explain to me what exactly is postmodernism, why it's so associated with SJW?

Explain to me what exactly is postmodernism, why it's so associated with SJW?

Other urls found in this thread:

elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof
britannica.com/topic/postmodernism-philosophy
britannica.com/editor/Brian-Duignan/6469
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

You just came here from Veeky Forums, didn't you?

Nope, why?

They're obsessed with power relationshits and denying an objective reality and an universal validity of logic and reason.

Oh, so they're from the "everything is a social construct" crowd?

Yes. There's a huuuge issue with this in that it allows for implicit academically legitimized science denial. A lot of postmodern scholars act under the assumption that science is an "ideology". Not a methodological process for understanding nature and technology, but an "ideology". You can see the problems with this, no doubt.

Post-Modernism is literally taking a trope from one genre and applying it somewhere else. The Bible is a post-modern work, as are most of the Apologias.

The Bible is a postmodern work only in the sense of representing a lot of different perspectives on the same topics across time and place, and being highly open to interpretation

Is that new ideology of theirs that "narrative, true or not is as good as statistical evidence" linked to this?

Post-modernism is a school of architecture.
That is all.
Move on, nothing to see here.

"Narrative" and "Discourse" are usually used negatively in postmodern academic writing. On the other hand, "counternarrative" is good. Most postmodern or critical theory based academic articles start out with a pretty cookie cutter thesis that there is a bad, toxic mainstream narrative and conclude by suggesting a "counternarrative". This has spread beyond academia - there are a few editorials in VICE that use this same argumentative formula.

>it allows for implicit academically legitimized science denial.
>'science is an ideology'

these are not saying the same things

an ideology can function and be purposeful and still be an ideology

the point isn't denying empirical evidence and substantiated claims, it merely considers the way in which interpretation reframes or distorts the data to suit a preferred historical narrative.

Even science as a supposedly objective and neutral study produces this effect - not the methodological process of enquiry itself, but the human at the observing end, piecing together the data to inform some 'bigger picture' of the universe they already carry with them. It might seem like a minor consideration but the implications are definitely enormous if you consider things like ecology, biogenetics, the singularity, worker obsolescence, biopolitics etc.

>Explain to me what exactly is postmodernism
A blanket term for any philosophy that rejects "meta-narratives" which are defined as historical narratives that attempt to explain everything in one package (ie all history is class warfare, all history is the march of science and reason, etc.)


>why it's so associated with SJW
Because people hear that postmodernists reject some traditionalist ideas and think it automatically makes it liberal. If anything SJW is just the newest narrative, that simplifies history into a war between the oppressive white male and everyone else.

>The Bible is a post-modern work,

How can the bible, which is PRE-modern be part of a movement that literally defines itself as being after the modernist era.

Do you even know what the word "modern" is referring to in post-modernism?

>thinking of literary movements in general blanket terms and as inseparably tied to distinct historical epochs

>thinking a reader cannot retroactively designate a text as 'postmodern' or identify elements of postmodernity in a premodern text

if postmodernity is suspicious of all metanarratives, then one could reasonably argue that the movement from modernism to post-modernism is itself open to debate, and not as directly linear as we might initially assume.

>if postmodernity is suspicious of all metanarratives, then one could reasonably argue that the movement from modernism to post-modernism is itself open to debate, and not as directly linear as we might initially assume.

And this is why post-modern philosophers are infamous for meta-criticism. Focaulst for instance says it is is impossible to create any sort of narrative or idea that does not push some agenda. He even got his own ideas turned against him by Bauldrillard.

Post-modernism is not a branch that holds firm positions, it just questions all positioning including itself.

>thinking a reader cannot retroactively designate a text as 'postmodern' or identify elements of postmodernity in a premodern text

There are clear thinkers who's ideas are used as the foundation of post-modernism. For instance Nietzsche's perspectivism. There are handful of big name post-modernist players that created the central template. For instance Baudrillard and Focaulst.

It doesn't make sense to refer to pre-20th centuary writing as Post-modern because any writing would be completly closed off from the central foundation. Many writers will point out that very old thinkers (for instance the Sophists) share similar notions however no one calls them "post-modern". Even grammatically if Post-modern is supposed to be after the modern period (considered to have ended in the 19th century) nothing during the time or before the time of modernism can be "post".

>They're obsessed with power relationshits and denying an objective reality and an universal validity of logic and reason.
>objective reality and an universal validity of logic and reason.
>logic

Says the one who has most likely never taken a course in formal logic.
Most people who would be depicted as postmodernists have at least taken some sort of courses in logic etc.

1. There are many ways of creating logics.
2.1. Logic isn't universally valid. That would mean that it is complete and consistent, which is logically impossible due to Gödel's inconsistency proof.
2.2. If you mean that logic is applicable to all systems, no it isn't. Some logics have different types of orders, relations etc., which aren't applicable everywhere. In logical systems -inf will at some moment become +inf etc.
3. Power relations can be described logically, it is just unnecessary and redundant to do so. It would take way too long to get across very simple ideas.

So ya, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Post-modernism is an umbrella term of thinkers who have really nothing in common except refuting modernism.
It is like saying "People who don't believe in modernism."

Ps. it is 'a universal', not 'an universal'.

incompleteness proofs*

>bitching about english grammar on the most international board on Veeky Forums

You tried to sound witty, but in the end just made a fool out of yourself.

elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/

No.

I bitch about people who claim shit about fields without having studied them, and use words out of context they don't know what they mean.

If someone refers to "logic" in a normal conversation they have most likely never studied logic.
If they have never studied logic, they have most likely never studied philosophy on a formal level.
People like this clutter Veeky Forums with shitposts.

>I have never studied X.
>But I bet I can do X better than professors in X!

this post is ideology

>(considered to have ended in the 19th century)

do you mean 20th i.e. 1900s?

Nothimbut Gödel's incompleteness theory doesn't prove postmodernism is complete and correct, I'm not arguing here whether it is correct or not, just saying that postmodernism is not a rigid logical system and not within the scope of the theory.

As for "SJW"s, they just seem to be people very mad about racism and such things, not a group that supports any particular abstract philosophy.

Also.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof

Holy fuck you're stupid. You've confused "post-modernism" with "pastiche".

You need to calm down.

britannica.com/topic/postmodernism-philosophy

>For postmodernists, reason and logic too are merely conceptual constructs and are therefore valid only within the established intellectual traditions in which they are used.

Now if you want to school somebody that bad, talk to:
britannica.com/editor/Brian-Duignan/6469
and tell him he has no idea what he's talking about and that he needs to study his formal logic again.

Your quest to punish your imaginary enemies is damaging you, and you can't allow yourself to be triggered so hard by a noun that happens to be singular. Yes, you did just that.

It's an overreaction that accomplishes not a single thing, beyond you making an ass out of yourself, as you attempt to refute what isn't there.

Why are all postmodernists leftists? I generally agree with its desire to deconstruct most narratives, but whenever I do it, it always leads me to very right wing conclusions. It's almost like they only deconstruct what they don't like and ignore analyzing their own fallacious narratives.

because it is not a consistent idea with its own inherent value that can appeal to anyone on its own merits, it is just a meme

genuine postmodernists wouldn't identify as either right or left-wing because either position would involve perpetuating a political agenda through historical narrative. Post-modernism isn't as rife in academia as it once was anyways, dialectical materialism has taken centre stage as the grand narrative which probably explains why you would assume so many academics are leftists

/thread

>No
>"Ps. it is 'a universal', not 'an universal'."

You tried to be snarky, but in the end just made a fool out of yourself.

Neo-Liberals and Neo-Atheists.

The obnoxious millenial God-hating crowd.

>Explain to me what exactly is postmodernism,

it's the poison that has started the slow death of Western Civilization

it started the slow refinement of it

Yeah, the fact that species mutate as they reproduce in helpful or unhelpful ways is "ideology". So is the Earth's gravitational pull, apparently. Am I right?

This place became a Veeky Forums colony which is why it failed.

>Yeah, the fact that species mutate as they reproduce in helpful or unhelpful ways is "ideology".

Not that user but it's easier to see how evolution has been used as ideology, for example anyone saying helpful or superior in regards to anything other than fitness.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)

Just to make sure, are Post-Modernists and Post-Structuralists very different things?

>Explain to me what exactly is postmodernism,
The movement which came after modernism and rejected the grand "narratives" of modernism.

>why it's so associated with SJW?
ressentiment on the behalf of "anti-SJWs" and poorly understood cherrypicking of post-modernist thought on the behalf of "SJWs"

>Post-Modernists
Down with meta-naratives!


>Post-Structuralis
No one interpretation of a text is absolute not even the author's own interpretation