The trend of postmodernism in academia has reached critical mass.
For those who don't follow the latest fads in "scholarly" circles, postmodernism is a cultural movement that furthers the rejection of objectivity and certainty that was started by the, you guessed it, modernists. Modernism itself superseded the Enlightenment era, modernism being the rejection of Enlightenment ideals. Enlightenment ideals being those of writers like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and John Locke. Therefore a layman's definition of the postmodern movement, is the extreme skepticism and rejection of the values on which the American Revolution was fought. Not enough attention is brought to this fact in contemporary circles and especially within our educational institutions.
On the contrary, in colleges and universities across America the ideals that led to our Great Nation are dismissed as baseless and even absurd. What education is to be gained from being told that the way of your ancestors was simply a passing fad and that there is no value behind one's values? How can these educators and academics even cling to this movement when it flies in the face of their profession. Do they need to be reminded of the Scholastic tradition that gave birth to our modern idea of universities? The values of the enlightenment were not a new fad that happened to be in vogue during one civilization's golden age. Enlightenment values are the core philosophies on which Western civilization were built. There is a common thread through the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment Era. Each age was more wildly successful in many ways than the last, and each held at its core certain values that stayed constant. No amount of skepticism can deny that societies that value freedom, honor, justice, and tradition are better to live in than societies that value ever-changing winds.
The trend of postmodernism in academia has reached critical mass
Other urls found in this thread:
cnn.com
abcnews.go.com
edition.cnn.com
c-span.org
twitter.com
As Americans (and more generally as Westerners) we owe much of our current prosperity to what was left for us, and if America is to have a future we must return that favor to our offspring. One such thing that was so graciously given to me by right of birth was the United States Constitution. Postmodernists have even attacked this sacred document (1), but on what grounds? The Constitution of this Union was not a passing fad that was made at the whim of aristocrats and Freemasons that controlled the proletariat. Our Constitution is built on top of other political documents that stretch back to the beginning of history. Each society that the West would claim its own had to fight for the basic principles that our Constitution espouses, these values are ancient, and every society that follows them seems to be granted with relative peace and prosperity. How long will academics of the West continue the study of this postmodern ruse to the detriment of themselves and their community?
Any group of people whose philosophies rely on a postmodern crutch, please examine yourselves. Though no, I cannot prove the objective value of anything, I can prove the pragmatic value of Freedom. To what end will our academics continue to reject the foundations that made academia possible? While it may be interesting to examine Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights through a postmodernist lens, people should remain aware of the consequences of their words and actions. Socrates was sent to his death on the false charge of "corrupting the youth" when he asked his students to question what they believed in order to better understand the truth. Postmodernists seem to think they are doing the same thing, except they tell their students that there is no truth.
What is a Postmodern Constitutionalism?, Jack M. Balkin
What is this shit? tldr or gtfo
MAGA
I agree my friend, but there is no going back, the only way through is forward through civil war and the creation of a new nation state grounded in Western thought. White nationalism may be necessary, because other races will never view themselves through a western historical lens, but as the conquered peoples. Abstract ideals alone are not enough to build a people, purpose runs red with the blood of our ancestors.
Keep fighting the good fight.
>freedom, honor, justice and tradition
ummmm excuse you but those things were only available to f*cking white males so check your privilege you disgusting nazi
They were only available to those who fought for them. There is a long history of white peoples who lived (and currently still live) in oppressive societies. Reducing this to skin color is not helpful and a bit offensive.
I am very perplexed by the fact that you reactionaries, Trumpists, alt-rightists or whatever equate Westernism with fascism, traditionalism, nationalism, racism, etc., as if these were not reactions against the development of Western values as they proceeded from Christianity. Western values are the ingredients of liberalism, cosmopolitanism, humanism, progressivism, and so on. These things flow within and out of the Enlightenment.
Western tradition is more about moving away from norms than preserving them.
Wrong. The West is multifaceted, and the differences between Athens and Sparta or English Capitalism and Prussian Socialism has always been acknowledged. They are two sides of the same coin.
Great Empires come and go, they're born, they prosper and they die. The US as we know it is on it's deathbead. The US might survive this decade, heck it might survive this century, but it will never regain the same superpower status it throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries. This became more apparent the moment China officially beat the US in electronics.
*same superpower status it held throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries
The influence of Sparta and Prussian Socialism on the West is diminishingly low, as opposed to Athens and English capitalism.
I am a nationalist. I entirely agree with you, it's not Christianity that these values flow from, it's something more fundamental, starting with Pythagoras or Plato or someone/thing like that.
I promote a resurgence of Classical Liberalism and/or Civic Nationalism.
Western society is about having maximum Freedom. Justice, Liberty, Honor, Truth, and Wisdom are all Western values and they are the values a society needs to prosper.
And Trump got elected, Europe is electing Fascists, and the Alt-right is becoming mainstream at an alarming rate. I wonder where the pendulum is swinging.
But this is not a return to Western values, it is a departure from them.
In the West, the left and the right are departing from Western values at an alarming rate.
Why would the US never be able to do that? Ever country and its peoples are capable of being great all the time. This isn't about luck it's about persistence and determination on the part of the American people.
Hard work is an American tradition and it is becoming more so every day.
I too espouse classical liberalism (or neoclassical liberalism, if you will). Though I cannot entirely see a justification for nationalism.
I agree that the leftist hate of one's own country is no good. There ought to be a general sentiment that one's own country is something worth preserving. But nationalism suggests something too extreme towards the opposite side of the leftists.
Not that user but the point he is making is that the pendulum is swinging away from Athens and back to Sparta.
This dystopian vision of the Trump administration needs to stop. His only action so far has been giving the poorest Americans a huge tax break, and saving their jobs by stopping negotiations on the TPP. He will make everyone's life better here as long as we the citizens effectively communicate what it is we want. No one can lead a divided country so lets all work together.
This right here. We as educated individuals need to stand up for what is right. As long as we continue to defend Western values we will survive.
>White nationalism may be necessary, because other races will never view themselves through a western historical lens, but as the conquered peoples.
Indians and East Asians integrate very well to American culture after only a single generation.
>But this is not a return to Western values,
The West has many different values. Some collectivist and strict. Others loose and traditionalist. Just like China is destined to unite and divide in tell the end of the world, the West must swing between her conflicting values for eternity.
I am not a moral or cultural relativist.
I don't think there is really a nasty side to Nationalism. There are nasty people who were Nationalists, that doesn't mean anything. I as an individual can only think of myself politically as American. I don't understand the woes of the Japanese or the Sudanese. We need to act as nations because that is how we divided ourselves based on political allegiance. This world is filled with diverse people that each deserve their own place, we should preserve that.
Let me rephrase this. Not eternity, just in tell the end of the world.
I'm pro Trump, but I disagree with you're whole 'keep it together' bullshit all the same. I fucking hate the radical left, but at least they know what the fucking stakes are. The ship is sinking and you're still trying to chart a course to the Bahamas.
Maybe. I doubt it, but maybe. They're still a fraction of the population, when they hit 30% of the population and have enough power behind their voice we'll see. The extreme tribalism of asians is not encouraging.
>His only action so far has been giving the poorest Americans a huge tax break, and saving their jobs by stopping negotiations on the TPP.
Where the FUCK do you get your news from, russiatoday? The TPP was already dead in the water since Congress would never have approved it, and your "huge tax break" (the president can't legislate) sounds pretty much made up, although I'd be happy to see a source.
Here's what he actually did on the first day of his administration:
cnn.com
abcnews.go.com
Took the bait
I don't think there is really a nasty side to monarchism. There are nasty people who were Monarchs, that doesn't mean anything. I as an individual can only think of myself politically as a Brit. I don't understand the woes of the French or the Habsburg Empire. We need to act as subjects because that is how we divided ourselves based on political allegiance. This world is filled with diverse people that each deserve their own place, we should preserve that.
edition.cnn.com
>It stressed that agencies can "waive, defer, grant exemptions from or delay implementation of any provision or requirement" of Obamacare that imposes a burden "to the maximum extent permitted by law."
Meaning the penalty for not having insurance will be waived. Poorest of the poor who cannot afford insurance will not be hit with a $700 fee when filing taxes.
...
But he's only in it for himself.
Monarchism has been the most common form of government in the civilized world. The idea that it produce more incompetence or villains than a democracy or republic is scoff worthy.
Yes. As long as no one is unjustly wronging another(committing war crimes) I don't see anything wrong with that.
No one knows what that executive order means. It's so broad and unclear that it can't possibly be implemented effectively; coincidentally, that's the same problem Republicans in Congress now face with trying to replace Obamacare.
>[Senator] Collins: “I think the executive order is very confusing and we really don’t know yet what the impact will be.”
c-span.org
Then you shouldn't have a problem with anarchism, despotism, Nazism, or Communism.
After all, there are no bad governments, just bad people.
What I'm saying is, using the idea of "I see the world this way, that means that's the way the world is and should be" is just plain untrue. We all see the world differently, and when you claim that your "nation" is more important and more worthy of dignity and respect than someone else's "nation," you're guaranteed to be setting yourself up for conflict.
As a leftist, I say let's hold hands and work together user to heal this broken nation.
If you want Nazism in your country then you have that right (except maybe the genocide, but go for it). I believe in a Constitutional Republic. That is what I want in my country, that is what my country was founded as. It was actually one of the first, and every other country after ours copied our Constitution. This led to unprecedented freedom and prosperity across the globe.
But go ahead and be a communist if that's what you want in your little neighborhood, just don't bother me with it.
>Monarchism has been the most common form of government in the civilized world. The idea that it produce more incompetence or villains than a democracy or republic is scoff worthy.
"X is not worse than Y because it has been more common than Y" sounds like a bad argument to me. Scoff-worthy, some might say.
>freedom, honor, justice, and tradition
I've noticed the same types of people who spout this kind of shit are the same beta nerds who used to worship Dawkins and babble about rationalism, logic and atheism.
Is the alt-right just post-fedoraism?
this shit is Veeky Forums get out
tl;dr
lol shorten that shit up kid, i aint here to read all that shit and i got school already and dont need more though.
...
>Is the alt-right just post-fedoraism?
that's literally exactly what it is
They're two quite separate groups. Alt-righters hate the skeptic community with a passion.
>latest fads
>30+ years
>latest fads
Are you a time traveler from 1971?
FRANCOIS LYOTARD PUBLISHED'THE POSTMODERN CONDITION' IN 1979
THAT'S ALMOST FORTY FUCKING YEARS AGO
'POSTMODERNISM' IS NOT A RECENT 'FAD'
AND WHY ARE YOU BRINGING WUTHERING FUCKING HEIGHTS INTO THIS ANYWAY????
But the actual fedora community is dead. I haven't seen a genuine Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris atheist community for at least 2-3 years.
I think they evolved.
>But the actual fedora community is dead
You might want to go on rebbit and search "atheism".
They're quite alive, people just pay less attention to them because they're not as interesting as they were years ago.
I can assure you they still exist and they're still as irritating as they were in the past.
>post modernism
>recent fad
It started in the 50's you absolute fucking idiots.
Wasn't Finnegans Wake published in the thirties?
Or is that not pomo but rather the apotheosis of modernism?
>modernism
>rejection of objectivity