Postmodernism is the consequence of modernity. It is the conclusion of the syllogism that started with the renaissance humanism, the new science of bacon, and cartesian metaphysics.
Those who reject the conclusions of postmodernism are simply disappointed with the conclusions that modern philosophy necessarily entails.
Thus the only option for those who consider themselves reasonable is to either accept postmodernity or to reject modernity.
Other urls found in this thread:
monoskop.org
twitter.com
postmodernism is not philosophy, there's no concern with rigour or clarity, in fact the more obscure the better, the biggest concern is aesthetics, it's mystery boxes inside mystery boxes to attract naive students, the "Lost (TV series)" of philosophy schools.
>[New historical condition] is the consequence of [old historical condition]. It is the conclusion of the syllogism that started with [precondition a], [precondition a], and [precondition c].
>Those who reject the conclusions of [new historical condition] are simply disappointed with the conclusions that modern philosophy necessarily entails.
>Thus the only option for those who consider themselves reasonable is to either accept [new historical condition] or to reject [old historical condition].
Does this argument apply in the abstract?
The concern for rigor and clarity isn't a necessary part of philosophy, but an academic assumption that some argue helps better follow the logic.
Parmenides wrote a poem. Plato wrote dialogues where his own thesis are not often clear, and his reasoning sometimes are willfully wrong (many cases and especially in the parmenides).
Dialogues, aphorisms, stories, invectives have all been part of philosophy and the clear and methodic style of Analytic philosophy has not always been deemed the most effective to get at truth.
Also it's a myth that postmodern philosophy is not clear and comes from the poor education that most american philosopher had in regard of the tradition. What seemed to them like obscurity was in reality ignorance of the conversations. In fact analytic philosophy eventually collapsed out of its own ideals once translations of French and German thinkers started to circulate.
Unless you point out to an error that was made in going from the antecedent to the consequence, then if you accept the antecedent you have to accept the conclusion or reject the antecedent.
That's how logic works.
I reject modernity
Who is this jizz jockey?
Then you reject reason?
The fundamental axioms of modernity aren't based on reason.
Perhaps I'm a brainlet or autistic, but now that you state it in those terms it makes perfect sense what you are saying. My issue would be with the claim that postmodernity, as a consequence of modernity, is thus the natural logical conclusion of modernity. How would one go about arguing that?
The difference between modernity and antiquity is that antiquity rejects the autonomous use of reason.
That is you can only use reason in the boundaries delimited by authority. But a very god argument would point out that that is no use of reason at all.
>postmodernism is one person
>postmodernism is one well defined set of beliefs
Sure, sure. Postmodernism isn't a 'logically reached opinion', it's quite a bit more abstract than that.
So is modernity and antiquity. They have some very definite particularities. You don't have to accept all of it, but there is a connection that goes from Plato to Derrida going through vico.
The most salient point of Modernity is the understanding of the subject as autonomous and self-legislating.
That is once we have to admit that there is no natural order or at least is not immediately evident to us, then what we are left is for subjectivity to create order out of it.
The skepticism of Descartes and Humes resolves into Kantian metaphysics, where the laws of our experiencing the world are the laws of our subjectivity.
But from this follows the question that all post-kantian philosophy had to come up with: what if what shapes our experience is not the subject in its spontaneity but something else: the unconcious, darwinian evolution, economics, ideology, culture, language and so on.
That is the moment of the switch from modernity to postmodernism.
Reason has limits. That seems obvious considering that taken to it's extreme in postmodernism, it self destructs.
2016 called and they want their memes back. You turn them in at the next Reddit meetup.
Modernity leads to skepticism, Antiquity leads to civil war where the truth is might... a conclusion not that different from Nietzschean postmodernism.
Don't you guys ever get bored by writing long tirades on things you don't understand
Dunno man, all my professors guaranteed that I understand what I'm talking about when I got a magna cum laude in philosophy.
Are you sure you are not the one incapable of understanding here?
>2016
Guess that makes me an old-fashioned then huh
I see now I'm missing a sentence: Without reason you don't have any way to adjudicate competing claims of authority. But since in antiquity reason is subordinate to authority, reason cannot also ground it.
So when two different authorities compete, war is the only way you can decide which one is right.
Who is this pump it strumpet?
Catherine Deneuve
>Postmodernism is the consequence of modernity. It is the conclusion of the syllogism that started with the renaissance humanism, the new science of bacon, and cartesian metaphysics.
>Those who reject the conclusions of postmodernism are simply disappointed with the conclusions that modern philosophy necessarily entails.
>Thus the only option for those who consider themselves reasonable is to either accept postmodernity or to reject modernity.
ITT: People who have never read Lyotard's On the Postmodern Condition lmaooooo
Ain't no chronology here, kids. Postmodernism can antedate modernism.
Shakespeare had postmodernist elements
Same with the Hebrew Bible
and Egyptian mythology.
tf you mean when you say postmodernism anyway?
Seriously, all of you do yourselves a favor and read the Lyotard. Here: monoskop.org
That could just mean you were skilled at pretending to know what you were talking about.
I did read Lyotard, and lyotard talks about the breakdown of great narratives and naturally historicism is one of those.
But my interest is different, and comes from an approach very similar to that of Habermas of the philosophical discourse on modernity. That is to address the thinker who is still attached to modernity and point out to him how he is ignoring the conclusion of his own thought.
I'm saying this because all the defenders of modernity that are still alive (and there is not many of them) are now resorting without realizing it on manly an instrumental defense of it, without realizing that in doing this they have been already defeated.
Indeed. And I posit that a good deal of so-called rational thinkers do not, in fact, understand postmodernism. Quite lacking is the education of millennials, those dim young tots who waddle about, their fingers permanently attached to a screen and minds as vacant as the RadioShack parking lot, spouting off crisp clean truisms gleaned from the Instagram pages of some doe-eyed whore who hasn't read anything longer than 140 characters since she was twelve. The poor cretins! And lo, poor they are; for the employment of Starbucks yields not vast fields of dosh. The Lost Generation is reborn as the Retarded Generation, lost in their own ways, in their phones and Instagrams and degrees in gender studies. I would pity them were they not communist dogs.
As with the Turing test: if you can't tell the difference then there is no difference.
No. The Turing test doesn't actually show any form of artificial intelligence, it shows skillful use of code to mimic human interaction. People just love to wank over it.
>Those who reject the conclusions of postmodernism are simply disappointed with the conclusions that modern philosophy necessarily entails.
>postmodernism is objectively true, based on this philosophical metanarrative that necessarily forces anyone to agree with its conclusions because of its intrinsically rational, scientific certainty
The turing test is a consequence of solipsism. Similarly you cannot know if i really understand or not, you have just to assume it once my answers have shown to imitate enough what would you expect from me if I were to understand something.
Do you have coding that I can examine? No? Then it isn't the same as a Turing test at all.
every once in a while this board comes through for me.
Eternal recurrence isn't as sexy as Nietzsche would have us believe, but it is more poetic. Napoleon is reborn as a baker who own his own shop. Of course he was born into nothing and his jump from squalor to proprietor of a successful baking establishment mirrors the jump from Corsica to Emperor of France [1]. Ditto Lost Generation reborn as Retarded Generation but I haven't worked out the details. I'll be using that appellation for them/us from now on, so thanks.
[1] Cortazar
No, postmodernism is a *reaction* to modernity. In fact, postmodernism entangles such a vast array of competing theories that it would be impossible for it to constitute a single, logical conclusion to anything. Postmodernism is the brainfog after a long orgy of totalitary rationality.
I already answered here:
But if you want, the metanarrative account is like a ladder that once you have climbed it you throw away (wittgenstein).
But you still have to climb it before you throw it away. You can't just throw it away immediately, thinking "well they told me you had to throw it away anyway, so why not do it immediately?"
>Postmodernism is the brainfog after a long orgy of totalitary rationality.
>the Lost Generation is reborn as the 'REDACTED for poor creativity'
thank you user, have a good day
Gud post
Duh, you fool. Anyone who hates postmodernism generally hates modernism as well. Both are super annoying anyways.
your fuckin gay dude stfu
Antiquity is based on Revelations, like the Vedas. I would prefer that over absolute relativism and nihilism, which "reason" leads to.
The vast majority of contemporary philosophers are moral realists, the fuck are you talking about
They believe morals exist yet also believe in scientific materialism. That doesn't make sense.
Yes. Reason is a 18th century French psy-op
lol you got cum in your philosophy
*Oldfag
Damn autocorrect
>oldfag
>phoneposting
what is the point of trying to rationalize the (quite obvious) hegemony of post-modernism?
Anyone with a decent understanding of the social climate of the world understand that it has won over modernity and it pretty much will reign tour lives and the next two generations. For me it's not a matter of how we rationalize the win of post-modernism over modernity's values, but it's more like how it holds up in terms of might or power, maybe how deep it's ingrained into the unconscious of people.
What really keeps me awake at night is the fact that while thinkers have tried to 'surpass' modernity on some disciplines of human thought, the political expressions are still very much XX C. It's still a fight between left and right, which (if we go back) follow XIX or XX C logic, it hasn't progressed slightly since Cold War and that terrifies me. We are doomed to go from one side into the other (with all the bloodshed and horrors it entails) unless we discover some sort of new ways of thinking about the narratives.
I'm not against post-modernism undermining modernity, because it simply doesn't hold up, my issue is undermining but not coming up with something better. Is there even something better I wonder?
oh shit I didn't mean to quote you, my bad
there are more ways to form a valid argument than modus ponens
Postmodernism is the historical phenomenon of late capitalism you fucking dolts, its major philosophy is by and large descriptive. It's not an ideology.