Just as there is no truth to be found in history but only ideologically inflected narratives of one kind or another...

>Just as there is no truth to be found in history but only ideologically inflected narratives of one kind or another, so there is no aesthetic value to be found in the work beyond that which we put there ourselves.

Postmodernism / poststructuralism in a nutshell.

Explain to me how this shit isn't an incredibly clumsy reading of Nietzsche, who said "There are no facts, only interpretations," which, at quick glance, may have the same message, but which at closer examination does not at all.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/jGe5SDgsHtU
critical-theory.com/read-derridas-response-sokal-affair/
science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
critical-theory.com/foucault-obscurantism-they-it/
jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/2/2/review1.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

He's not wrong, though. Not particularly insightful mind you

Postmodernism is extremely broad, stop pretending that it's just one unified thing with a specific set of doctrine.
Point out specific concepts or schools of thought under the postmodernist umbrella and criticise them specifically if you want to be taken more seriously.

>Point out specific concepts
?
Like ">Just as there is no truth to be found in history but only ideologically inflected narratives of one kind or another, so there is no aesthetic value to be found in the work beyond that which we put there ourselves"???

It's worse than that, these people have no concept of the nuances of evolution. Everything in the natural world, causality itself, refutes the post modernism utterly. There is a real world, subjectivity exists within and contributes to it.

>there is no truth in history
>b-b-but yeah the bourgeoisie has always oppressed the proletariat! no question!
>white privilege? w-well yeah white people are objectively favored in racial bias...and have always been...
>colonialism was nothing but the same conquering Europeans did to each other for centuries? no that was racist oppression! there is no other perspective!! what hypocrisy?
the cognitive dissonance is astounding

hah
my interpretation is all that matters!
and i dont mean texts i mean life if i believe something thats all there is-- me enveloped by subjectivity and im right

more specifically this is about leftist/marxist postermodernists I know there isn't always that overlap

it isnt a clusmy reading derrida and nietzsche are the same except derrida had the character to do it

>an incredibly clumsy reading of Nietzsche, who said "There are no facts, only interpretations,"
Gianni Vattimo's day job is exactly this, word for word.

>causality

>post modernists
youtu.be/jGe5SDgsHtU
top lel

Guys a joke

If he's a joke what does that say about all the post modernist intellectuals who took him at his word and published him in their journals only for him to turn around and say, just kidding retards?

that has no contigency on him being an idiot which he most certainly is

critical-theory.com/read-derridas-response-sokal-affair/

people have published randomly computer generated papers at stem conferences, stem is bogus shit

>that has no contigency on him being an idiot which he most certainly is
Holy shit user, I'm overwhelmed by the sheer substance of your refutation. Well done! And well done again!

There's been a bunch of stings over the years that expose predatory/"pay to play" journals. Last year four scientific journals accepted and published an article explaining how mitochondria interact with the force, including the entire Darth Plagueis monologue. Most pay journals accept bogus papers.

science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

>critical-theory.com/read-derridas-response-sokal-affair/
Derrida is a world class obscurantist bullshitter, all that prolonged and masturbatory nothing and he doesn't say a single thing really in answer to the topic. In fact he hints at the very cause for the relevance of the "hoax" as he liked to repeatedly name it, he professes he is not a scientist, and at the same time confesses the most ludicrous ignorance of scientific methodoly hiding behind some innocuous agreeableness
>It would have been interesting to make a scrupulous study of the so-called scientific “metaphors”—their role, their status, their effects in the discourses that are under attack
Lmao, give me a fucking break, what's interesting? What's there to explore? Science is fucking science, you dumb old codger, sell your snake oil somewhere else and be more timely about it.

Oh look, you don't understand Nietzsche. Go back to plebbit, subhuman.

posture pseud

i like Derrida more

I've been here almost since Veeky Forums's inception. I realize it's fun to shorthand people in debates and respond with totally non-committal non-answers, I mean any response is a victory of sorts that way, but there's a time and place, and such a thing as tact too. This willful idiocy, itself a parallel to lolsorandom humor redolent of a certain website, does contribute to a constant and growing erosion in the quality of discourse possible here. And so I have to ask, if your only intention is to ruin the forum, not actually discuss anything, why do you browse it at all? My best guess is you don't know, and that you're just another in countless phoneposters and newfags (this used to be descriptive, a slur in jest, but now...) who more than likely do in fact frequent reddit and view Veeky Forums as some kind of disposable place to prod and piss on and vandalize. Such behavior is not even fit to wear the name fag.

>and be more timely about it.
kek

critical-theory.com/foucault-obscurantism-they-it/
same partisan shithole site
and Derrida is twice as guilty as Foucault

its 2am and i am on drugs

I posted that article not because I agree with everything in it but because I thought the response from a postmodern perspective was relevant. I think it's fair to say that Derrida was an obscurantist, though that's not necessarily a bad thing (clarity's not the goal of literature, after all). I disagree with the social theorists who are hostile to science and its goals, and willing to dismiss science as a whole as the product of extant power structures. But there's also validity to the criticism that the publication of the article made good-faith dialogue between social theorists/continentals and scientists much more difficult, which is a shame. jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/2/2/review1.html

Go back to plebbit please

>it isnt a clusmy reading
It sure as hell fucking is. Nietzsche's message does not say that there is NO truth to be found; his message in fact discards the concept of "finding" truth. Postmodernists like Derrida seek to level the field with their perspectivism. Nietzsche, on the other hand, does not do that. All is interpretation, but interpretations are not equal, and they are not discovered, but created, i.e. it is the individuals who make the interpretations that are not equal. This is practically the exact opposite of the final message of the postmodernists who clumsily take his notion to mean "there is no truth to be found in language, art, history, etc."

Oh look, you don't understand Nietzsche.

See It's foolish short-sightedness to think that Nietzsche meant that there is no truth. Perspectivism doesn't mean that you can create any truth or value system that you want and it will be valid; it is only valid insofar as it can endure scrutiny against other truth or value systems.

>Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.

There is a definite world and it is a world of will to power. It is definite in the sense that it is ETERNALLY indefinite. "there is no truth to be found" is a misreading; there is an infinite number of truths, and the ones that survive are the ones in alignment with power.

Further proving my point. Take your secular radical centrist fedoralord interpretation and shove it back up your reddithole

this is a very strongly constructivist post-modern take on history, post-modernism in its broadest and truest sense is skepticism towards metanarratives, and everything really. That's it. The death of modernist assumptions. Just to be clear I'm talking about the post-modernist approach in the humanities not postmodernity as a cultural epoch or as an art movement (although you could argue the same basic principles apply to them)

The memerson people in this thread are fucking stupid. Derrida doesn't say there's no objective reality or that science is useless, he's saying that science has limited scope when applied to society because there's no other "america" or "china" to compare it to. There's no way to experiment properly and you only have one data point, and plus people's perception of society is inevitably tainted with their personal biases, so we always have to take any grand statement about human behavior or society with a large grain of salt.

>Take your secular radical centrist fedoralord interpretation and shove it back up your reddithole
Wow great argument fagtron you sure convinced me with those hot opinions