How come none of you can explain postmodernism?

Question, what happens after western thought and system are deconstructed? What will life be like?

cause my dog ate my homework ya fuckin shitkicker

Pretty good, I imagine, because we won't be bogged down by pointless spooks.

>acid

Mescaline is superior

Postmodernism is gay. Nationalism is patrician.

Do you only mean postmodern art?

postmodrnism can be explained with one fuckinh image faggot. there. you fucking get it yet? Its not a real pipe u fuking idiot. That the whole fucking point. "THis is not a pipe" What more do u fucking need you retarded shithead?!?!?

>Nationalism is patrician.

You can recognize it as a picture of a pipe jsut like you can read the text below and understand its meaning.
Of course this is optional and it doesnt contain a pipeimage or meaning in the text. Its basically a faithbased way of communicating just like with every other language.
Am i right femmes?

finally i get to use this

I see nothing wrong with the picture you posted.

Faggot

Post modernism is fucking retarded. It's the idea that nothing is inherently anything so we are free to do/be whatever we want.

It's fucking stupid and falls apart under scrutiny, which is unfortunate because you can't scrutinize it in academia because it is treated as the truth, despite its own assertion that there is no truth.

yes that's all what sartre, de beauvoir, heidegger, foucault, lyotard, ranciere, deleuze, schopenhauer, baudrillard, karl jaspers, kierkegaard, nietzsche, and dostoyevsky said

can't believe they never thought of your critique man.

have you considered publishing?

he looks like a washed-up guitarist who recently discovered Buddhism

>It's the idea that nothing is inherently anything so we are free to do/be whatever we want.
how are you so fucking retarded that you, despite being endlessly berated for this lapse in judgment, continue to conflate relativism w/ the entirety of postmodernism

postmodernism is an epoch, OP, and a lot of it is wrong and dumb, and a good amount of it is useful and wondrous. structuralism changed my life.

>putting these at odds
i mean this with absolutely no sarcasm or irony

you are very dumb. please leave this board.

i don't say this because i disagree with you politically or ideologically. i say this because you have serious and critical misunderstandings of topics which you seem to belief you have some adequate grasp on. you do not. you seem to be lacking in some serious amount of the requisite intellect required to grapple with concepts and topics of a certain level of complexity, nuance, and abstraction, and i think that you should simply give up and commit yourself to something which you are more certain that you will be able to succeed in, such as bashing your skull into a concrete pillar until you reach adequate cessation of vital bodily functions, or ,alternatively, some sort of highly practical and useful menial labor which will serve to greatly benefit your community. i hope you don't read there to be any shame implied in that act. i really do truly value those who do what must be done to keep our world running as it is. i myself am no emperor. regardless of what action you decide to take, it is crucial that you stop attempting to articulate anything concerning "postmodernism", "nationalism", or any other tangentially related abstract concepts, as you will not possibly bring anything fruitful to the discussion, and only serve to further pollute the atmosphere in which these things are discussed and perceived, and possibly lead those who may be well suited for such pursuits into the belief that they would do better to avoid these things altogether, if for nothing else than the sheer pleasure of being able to live a life free from the stresses of having to correspond with you, or your cohorts.

>implying that deconstruction of an idea or work is equivalent to invalidation of it

w-what?
have any of you fucking idiots even read a word of derrida or even anything supplementary?

t. never read any postmodernism

how is it getting all your opinions secondhand
and from shitshow sources at that
you know it's true.

Obviously not. They're the same people who think calling something a "social construct" is the same as saying it's not real

ITT: Postmodernism is bad because based Canada daddy told me

>They're the same people who think calling something a "social construct" is the same as saying it's not real

this really is one of the most frustrating and most common things ive encountered. this misunderstanding seems to lead to like 75% of my misunderstandings with people in the world.

e.g. i've long maintained that gender is in large part socially constructed, or at least many facets of gender, but telling people such a thing has them immediately assuming that you believe gender spectrum xe/xir crap to be valid, and leads them to believe that you don't think gender is a valid concept or has any real bearing on one's life. people cannot seem to fathom how a moderately masculine male could believe gender to be socially constructed, and reminding them that I myself have existed and been shaped by, for the entirety of my existence, within societies and social systems, doesn't seem to help clarify things too much. it is endlessly frustrating.

i'm so tired of trying to make myself understood to idiots whilst being simultaneously too dumb to interact with people of real revelation and intellect. i miss my ex.

>leads them to believe that you don't think gender is a valid concept or has any real bearing on one's life. people cannot seem to fathom how a moderately masculine male could believe gender to be socially constructed, and reminding them that I myself have existed and been shaped by, for the entirety of my existence, within societies and social systems, doesn't seem to help clarify things too much
Does saying "gender is a signifier" say anything about the uses and interpretation of said signifier? If you want clarity, and your interlocutor to understand that you're not automatically implying the unreality or invalidity of the concept, cut the crap and get to the point. Of course what you've been doing doesn't clarify things: you don't tell anybody what is gender to you, to this piece of paper on girls' psychology, to this tradition, to this society constructing the construct. What's the construct like, again? How could a great communicator and theorist of language such as you allow oneself to be so imprecise?

ITT: My unjustifiably narrow and dishonestly selective pet conception of post-modernism is superior to your unjustifiably narrow and dishonestly selective pet conception of post-modernism

I wish i could be this confidently stupid.

Obviously, postmodernism is an ill-defined historiographic notion that idiots have illegitimately reified, resulting in hopeless confusion and much spurious reasoning.

Q.E.D.
Now clean your room BUCKO
~ t. Pill-Popping-Selfhelp-Writer

Who me?

Is this really solely on them, though? I mean, I, too, tend to read "Gender is a social construct" as "Gender is invalid/meaningless", not because I don't understand the crux of social constructivism, but because the *overwhelming majority* of people I've interacted with who actually made statements along those lines (both online and offline) *did* mean "Gender is invalid/meaningless". The misinterpretation doesn't lie squarely at the feet of the dismissive recipients here. It's also very much the fault of those who are continuously diluting social constructivist tenets down to vacuous slogans and ideological platitudes.

I mean, there's a reason why "X is just a social construct" has become a silly cliche, and that reason is the misappropriation of said notion to express "X is not *really* real, you know, and, therefore, your opinions on X can be dismissed in favor of my opinions on X".

It's really easy to have a tidy room if you have a mexican lady to clean it up for you, privileged user.

You fucking troglodyte, just put things away and don't live like a slob. You'll never have to clean your room.

I don't even have a room, nigger.

As someone who also moves in circles where that phrase is said often I can tell you that the thing about X being a social construct is not that it becomes invalid in society as a whole but it's a gateway to understand that it's not written on stone by God himself and that you can alter it and even discard it in your spaces if you feel like it. You can even (imagine the indignity!) make up your own social constructs within your social circles.

>but it's a gateway to understand that it's not written on stone by God himself and that you can alter it and even discard it in your spaces if you feel like it. You can even (imagine the indignity!) make up your own social constructs within your social circles.
The pomposity involved in this is arguably part of the problem. This idea that the average person (by average, I just mean people who don't devote a lot of time thinking about philosophy) needs a gateway into grasping the difference between socially independent "ontological absolutes", if you will, and flexible constructions is just arrogant, detached from reality and unproductive.

The real issue is that the average person is unlikely to conceptualize *the same things* as socially constructed as you do (gender, race, etc.), but in order to expand their horizon in this regard, they don't need some snarky smugling condescending to them about a core difference of which they already have an intuitive understanding.

Get a room bucko

It's the realisation of humanity fags that they aren't cut for their subject nor a real subject like physics. They either know or somehow feel that they are a massive failure, and now they need to drag everybody down to their level. It's just a certain state of mind mixed with an asshole attitude towards other people.

>This idea that the average person (by average, I just mean people who don't devote a lot of time thinking about philosophy) needs a gateway into grasping the difference between socially independent "ontological absolutes", if you will, and flexible constructions is just arrogant, detached from reality and unproductive.
I don't know, user. I'm not an edgelord who hates people because they're beneath me or something like that but you will have a hard time trying to convince me that the average person doesn't need a gateway into most things.
I mean, just take a look at this site. At most sites. Take a look at the streets, the pedestrians and the subway. In the clubs, the bars and the sideways, to your friends, your family and yourself. And if you say that the problem is not that they can't understand it, then the problem is that they don't want to, even though they already do.
I don't know, user. I'll just leave.

>bothering to read any postmodern thinkers

...

It’s not a pipe. The object of the painting in question has more resemblance to other paintings than a pipe object. The painting object in question has some pictoral reflection of a pipe but does not represent a pipe. The pipe object (that the painting object in question reflects) references itself to the maximum degree.

Imagine being the most obnoxious, narcissistic faggot in your English lit class. Now imagine only socialising with people like yourself. Now vomit the contents of your head onto blank paper and have it published. That's postmodernism.

...

> it's use

here's a puzzle for you

It's just a fucking joke, you cunt. It's not an argumentative cartoon.

It's a big pipe, floating next to a picture of another pipe! Did I solve the puzzle?

because most of us are petersonfags

Postmodernism has never been—can't be—defined (it can)
>Marxism has never been tried (it has numerous times)

Tabula Rasa + moral relativism; emerged from, but outside of—although, amusingly unprincipled, still supported by: The Dialectic of "Marxists"; Marx himself (Engels) would write a huge book against it.
Philosophical postmodernism should be called postmarxism (abandonment of communism). It has "nothing" to do with other forms of postmodernism.
The most basic definition of postmodernism, which covers all of them; is the meme answer: Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

>getting this invested in neoliberal indoctrination
cmon user

>I like it, therefore it's good

Contemporary Veeky Forums criticism

In terms of Veeky Forums it means an unreliable narrator, like Peterson. Read Pale Fire.

We aren't all privileged with rooms bootlicker

I never said it was a pipe.

that is not a pipe.

So... postmodernism is intentional confusion?

yes and it backfiring

self-deception

what's so confusing for you about the fact that a picture of a pipe is not a pipe?

also Magritte is not a postmodernist.

I'd say most people here couldn't explain what modernism is and thus cannot understand post-modernism's as the rejection of modernism.

Acid makes objectivism seem far more tenable. Which i guess would elucidate post-modern thought, though ultimately it makes post-modernism easier to disregard.

A post modern Magritte would use the subtitle
"This is not anything at all"

a lot of magritte's pictures are titles of detective fiction, especially the nero wolfe series in translation
surrealism transcends both the modern and postmodern period

"Nothing is not a pipe."

user, they don't know what postmodernism means, don't make them read rex stout

Honestly if anyone would show me that picture and ask me what do you see I will tell them that it's a pipe. If they would then laugh at me while pointing out that it's a just picture of a pipe then who is the retarded one? Of course I know it's fucking picture of a pipe. Postmodernists should start reading late Wittgenstein.

>show me that picture and ask me what do you see
>when you answer the question before they ask it
this is why people think you have the 'tisms anonkun

Not sure what you greentexted there anonsan.

me either i read on certainty too

tell me what you see.

a faggot who thinks he's clever

art is a mirror.

A jpg.

so, exactly what Magritte wants you to see.

Summarize the sociopolitical implications in a quick oneliner. This is the immediate gratification website after all I have no time for your cunty discourse i aint your professor nigga

>nothing is objective
An objective statement

it's an observation, not an axiom.

Did you click on it? Or was is a thumbnail you saw?

the fringe of a thumbnail held to the candle

yes, hence why it's popular with pseuds

do you prefer unintentional confusion?

I understand what you mean and anyone talking to a popular audience has a responsibility to clarify. There are times when people do mean it in this way, but they’re not exactly the great thinkers of our time. I’m reminded of the large swaths of feminists who hate Judith Butler for being “anti trans”, when that’s not what she’s saying at all.

But when you’re reading real works of theory and not “thinkpieces”, understand that the phrase “social construct” is not being used in a way that implies meaninglesness.

People seem to think that construction means pure fiction. They fail to see that social constructs always presuppose real social cases just like a building presupposes real base materials. They also fail to see that these cases have real effects on them even though they have been embedded in society their entire life.
Saying that social constructs are invalidate is like saying that society is nonexistent or like saying that buildings are not real because they don't represent their base materials naturally. It's literally like someone is saying 'look that church over there is not real, it's just a construct man'.

>Haha sometimes the curtains are just blue you guys, stop reading into things that aren't there

Post modernist cant even point out a 'this' that is supposed to be something.

deconstruction has no telos. its the "shaking up" on the move in "the things themselves" as per derrida, limited inc

surrealism is a modernism

magritte is not postmodern holy shit. you guys are so stupid.

that's called analytical philosophy or elminativist materialism and desu its a lot more depressing (owing to its absurd pretensions) than post-modernism which is just a sort of giving up at the end of the linen (which is appropriate though also depressing)

>a great communicator and theorist of language such as you
thats not me though im just a sorta smart kid with some potential