Postmodernism hate

perhaps because they don't think it's the "logical extension" of it. you are correct that it evolved from earlier thought but this does not mean that it's neccisarily a conclusion you must accept if you reached the earlier conclusion

They hate sjws, but they realize if they say sjw, they sound like one of AnitaSarcuckian1488's youtube rants, so they say say postmodernist instead. It's similar to when people complain about the Frankfurt School. They aren't dumb enough to think that Pynchon is orchestrating white genocide, and they're not smart enough to have a well thought out critique of Baudrillard, they literally just use the word without really knowing what it means.

Postmodernism is Nihilism on steroids.

If only Peterson would post hours of material explaining his understanding of post-modernism and why he is opposed to it

>I really don't understand how you can think modernism and the abandoning of certain traditions is fine, but postmodernism which does the same thing but goes further is not.

Where do you think all these neo-reactionaries and anti-republican monarchists have been coming from lately bro?
We know.
We screwed up.
It's time to go back

>Could someone explain to me the hate-boner everyone including guys like Jordan Peterson have for postmodernism?

They don't understand it. That's literally it.

People are too attached to their values and when they see people using post modernist views to attack those values they go REEEEEE. But they don't recognize that post modernism is inherently neutral and can be used to attack SJW and radical leftist view points as well.

It's also telling that one of the main criticisms is

They attack it not because of any logical failings of this worldview but because their grasping for meaning, no matter how true their own perception of reality is. There's an inherent biological need to believe in any worldview, not to believe in a logically correct one that argues that all sorts of social constructs are inherently hollow

from what I've seen he just points how why postmodernist people and specific beliefs sound absurd and ridiculous. I've never seen him philosophy tear it down or point out the reason it's wrong, though.

>feminists are flocking to Islam for the structure it provides.
Except this isn't happening on anything close to a large scale, except in the overheated fever dreams of /pol/tards.

That's modernism

>People are too attached to their values
Go fuck yourself.

>But they don't recognize that post modernism is inherently neutral and can be used to attack SJW and radical leftist view points as well.
How the fuck can it be used to attack leftism when leftists will just ignore it? Leftists either know it's bullshit themselves or are driven by ideology and not logic, they're not going to suddenly stop and realize the error of their ways because you deconstructed their ideology. The only reason it works against mainstream cultural values is because people are naive and think these critiques are genuine and constructive criticism that lead somewhere not just a meaningless buzzsaw of nihilism used to bulldoze culture so that it can replaced.

>There's an inherent biological need to believe in any worldview, not to believe in a logically correct one that argues that all sorts of social constructs are inherently hollow
How can it be "logically correct" if it too is a social construct and therefore inherently hollow as well? Logic is meaningless, it only attains value through human utility. Any "logical" construct that undermines human utility is the philosophical equivalent of bad code.

I think he tries to argue that most of the postmodernist beliefs that are being pushed are incoherent, contradictory, and not feasible. This can clearly be seen in his argument at the senate hearing about Bill C-16. He mentions how the legislation and policies in one place say that gender identity, expression, and sexual orientation are biological and then further down the same page will then say they vary independently. "You can't have A and not A".

The simplest way that he seems to describe his problem with post modernism, in my view, is the idea that there are an infinite number of interpretations and thus meaning. This is most clearly seen in the interpretation of texts an literature. Peterson would argue that while there may be infinite interpretations there are actually very few that are either feasible or useful, and that is how he defines "truth". Certain things narrow down these possible interpretations such as logic and coherence however Peterson argues, and has used examples of, how post modernists seem to either ignore or dismiss these kinds of filters.

>ad hominem
Opinion discarded

Oh Lord, deliver me from brainlets that throw around logical fallacies without fully comprehending what they mean.
Amen.

that seems to be more of dismissal of individual postmodernists rather than postmodernism as a whole. like those dudes who say they'd don't hate Islam, but they hate radical Muslims.

Stop sucking STEM cock. Science is absolute trash that rapes creation for its own gain. It is not valid. Facts are nonexistent.

>applying logic to something that denies logic
Now This Is Autism

>logic is good because leddit sed it
>utility is good becuz leddit sed it

I'm not the one arguing that logic is good in and of itself and if you don't think usefulness is inherently good there's no further point in talking with you.

>inb4 you autistically attempt to deconstruct "good"

IF YOU DONT SUBMIT TO MY IDEOLOGY THAN UR FUCKIN DUMB IM GOING BACK TO DEDDIT LMAO
So this is the power of pragmatism...

Look into MetaModernism.

tl;dr Postmodernism is 'All narratives are problematic, we must wash our hands of them wholesale!'

The problem is, narratives are so useful they are almost essential to remain competitive.

>useful
See:

>trying to critique postmodernism without understanding the evolution of philosophical thought from Kant to Heidegger
ISHYGDDT

That's modernism. Postmodernism includes that kind of reassessment from the past where we can talk about academic art on legitimate grounds rather than a past mistake because it's not modern

You're describing the workings of capitalism. Postmodernism is a response to postmodernity, unless you think linguistics controls the foundations of civilization

No postmodernist has ever said this. You'll probably notice they're all white males themselves

Too bad he never uses any textual evidence only muh SJWs, citing Derrida and Foucault but never offering any quotes or anything. A most basic reading of either shows JBP is misinformed

Postmodernism is just European and American intellectual snobbery. Just guve up on your degenerate post enlightenment philosophical trends and come back into the fold of traditional conceptions of the world you eurocucks.

Postmodernity is 'advanced capitalism' which destroys all value outside of what can be sold. Postmodernists are a response to this condition, which includes the alt-right, since they share the same view of the postmodern condition as the conventional 'leftist' critiques.

You're right that the leftists ignore it, but so does anyone when they're confronted with an alternate world view.

The critiques are constructive in themselves but people often use them in a way that isn't. Irony, for example, is a shorthand manner of critique that is not constructive, but at its foundation it is the acceptance that each person with a viewpoint may be just as well-informed as the next, so the point is to construct something out of open conversation. It's an extension of classical liberalism honestly, and pointing out how institutions like politics and the media complicate this intellectual project through 'fake news' and whatever is just figuring how to attain that ideal.

Something being constructed doesn't mean it isn't real. Key postmodernists like Derrida and Foucault are well-read and their practice involves a genealogical look at ideas (which they inherit from Nietzsche). This too is a form of constructive 'conversation' which is in itself a 'solution' to the postmodern condition: read a book, talk to others.

You'll see the avant-garde of postmodern thought currently doing this, like Land or Deleuze.

mathematically verifiable facts exist

>Postmodernism hate

Define postmodernism, brainlet.

False. Mathematics is built upon false axioms.

wrong, mathematical axioms can be verified through intellectual contemplation of the forms

t. plato

The "hate" comes from people who think those who believe in everything are connected all although together. To think that is very stupid. One postmodernism philosopher claims the laws of aviation is affected by men because, it was men who was flying first and not women.

*The "hate" comes from people who think those who believe in everything are connected all although together are stupid. One postmodernism philosopher claims the laws of aviation is affected by men because, it was men who was flying first and not women.

>Could someone explain to me the hate-boner everyone including guys like Jordan Peterson have for postmodernism?

Just go look for any echo chamber of Holocaust denial, flat earth or other conspiracy theory, if you want to see postmodernistic thinking in action. Media cannot be trusted, academia of the whole world is controlled, everything that doesn't fit the narrative you want is made up by evil gods and you can only trust your feelings.

>everything that doesn't fit the narrative you want is made up by evil gods and you can only trust your feelings.
that's 100% correct though

it was iirc a movement that centered around subjectivity and relativism. in essence, post modernism is questioning or making some kind of response to what's considered modern. John Cage would be iirc a post modern musician because even though he was already a good musician and had technical skill, a lot of his famous stuff comes from his worldview of "what is music", which lead to him creating music where he played nothing and let the background noise be the music or where he would use bizarre instruments to create completely new sounds.

A lot of people don't like any kind of questioning or change, whether its for better or worse. That's where the hate for it comes from I think, a lot of the hate is just anti-intellectualism because they don't want other people to think in other ways or expand their horizons.

Modernism started as an art movement post WW1 which rejected many social conventions due to the trauma of the war. The attack on "traditional values" began with them. It later developed into a philosophy of its own criticizing the products of the enlightenment, positivism, industrialism, etc.

Postmodernism is the continuation of that trend, starting also as an art movement post 1950s, and it was critical of the maim over-arching western metanarratives like marxism, capitalism, democratic obsession, consumer culture, etc - which rule our daily lives. Postmodernism is actually getting pretty old and on its way out already as an art form and style. Philosophically speaking, it's essentially a revamped modernism with more emphasis on deconstructivism to better critic what modernism had a problem with. I'm not a philosophy major so I can't dwelve too deep into its intricacies but a lot of people seem to believe modernism dindu nuffin and that postmodern thought arose from nowhere.

What you see now as postmodern isn't really postmodern, but a reaction to the original postmodern.
Postmodern is beatnik, is ironic and sceptical and deconstructive. Which is great and creates the building blocks for creation later on, but now you have people attaching on the name without the proper scepticism, making it a political power play.

that's also 100% postmodernist

it's actually shamanist-fetishist

Fetishism still proposes a divine metanarrative. A postmodernist would also be critical of that, whether the object being fetishized is a person or an idea.

Postmodernism definitely has precedence in some early 20th c art (Duchamp of course is the obvious example) but following WW1 there was the 'return to order' movement where artists abandoned experimental art in favour of classical, figurative art. After the war though you get movements like Futurism and Surrealism but they are still modernist (Surrealism for example has a notable relationship to Marxism), even though Surrealism influences French intellectual thinking as well as 'unconscious' and 'marvelous' ways of making art. Precedence aside it's really in the 40s and 50s that postmodernism can be said to begin, and that's mostly in the US (e.g. Black Mountain College in arts, cybernetics in thought).

It seems a lot on the right read into postmodernism a justification of the left side of the culture wars' narcissistic excesses. The belief that "I can be anything" derives more from the empty and illusory false consciousness created by consumerism and the media - it effects the right just as much. "I can be anything, I want to live in a country without the enemies that the press has been scaring me about, so I will lend a vote to an egregious shit-head who attacks those who tell me that I can't have it."
Postmodernism is, on the whole, blameless of this and actually critiques the left side of this as well (Baudrillard and Giddens) but it certainly makes a you sound less of a brain-let to say "postmodernism is cancer" than say "modern life leaves me confused and fearful, I've been living under illusions for years- fuck the SJWs!"

>postmodernism is advanced capitalism
lmao postmodernism is highly critical of capitalism and its consumer culture. Wtf are you on about?

It's the same thing /pol% always does. They identify symptoms of a problem and lay they down to the wrong target. Their poor use of terminology is why nobody takes them seriously, even if there are indeed symptoms to notice and treat. They hate jews when they should hate neoliberalism, they hate cultural marxism when they should hate critical theory and cultural studies, they hate postmodernism when they should hate modernism, they hate liberalism when they should hate progressivism.

I like you. But what does Pynch have to do with anything? Idg the 2nd half of ur post

>There's an inherent biological need to believe in any worldview
>MUH HYMEN NATURE
logical fallacies 101

>denying the existence of a state of nature
lmaoing @ ur lyf

>From what I could tell demolishing your home is a completely natural and logical extension to renovation work, when you do renovations you break some of the old walls to redesign. I really don't understand how you can think that clearing some old furniture and making your house more comfy is fine, but totally demolishing your house while you are inside which goes a bit further is not. Isn't that pure hypocrisy?
Here, fixed it up for you

Saying that "truth doesn't exist" is an excellent way to make people hate you.

these are the kind of postmodernists Peterson talks about in his lectures, though. But I imagine most of them don't actually know of that term.

If you actually copied the quote correctly you'd see where you went wrong.

Pynchon is considered a postmodern writer.

his main gripe with postmodernism is the variant practiced by critical theorists and social marxists of the frankfurt school and french post structuralists.

The frankfurt school are ideologically devoted to resist positivism in sociology and psychology which means rejecting the scientific method and empirical evidence for biological explanations of sociological and psychological phenomena. This has had a big influence on academic disciplines like sociology and other humanities and social sciences and killed off a lot of their intellectual integrity like a disease eating away at flesh

The french post structuralists were devoted to apologising for the horrific massacres, monstrosities and cruel, repressive, totalitarian regimes carried out by socialist governments and slandering the survivors of torture and genocide as liars.

these are the main reasons why jordan peterson hates postmodernism, because he likes facts and intellectual integrity.

because it's marxism in disguise and will destroy everything the west has created - all your rights and freedoms were not created under marxism

Postmodernism is inherently anti-Marxist.

The Frankfurt School was modernist, not postmodernist.

>The frankfurt school are ideologically devoted to resist positivism in sociology and psychology which means rejecting the scientific method and empirical evidence for biological explanations of sociological and psychological phenomena.
Peterson also rejects positivism, no? Isn't his whole thing that the truth is only what is useful for survival?
Rejecting positivism doesn't mean rejecting empirical evidence, it's just the realisation that not everything can be best approached in a purely reductive quantitative manner. Positivism and the scientific method doesn't even strictly go together since most positivists are strict materialists who will reject empirical phenomena if it doesn't fit into their physicalist framework.

>This has had a big influence on academic disciplines like sociology and other humanities and social sciences and killed off a lot of their intellectual integrity like a disease eating away at flesh
Strict quantitative behaviourism ruled for a while in the mid 20th century and it gave us electroshock therapy and wasn't that successful. Disciplines like psychology were on par with parapsychology at the turn of the 20th century and weren't even to concerned about being scientific, as they became more concerned about scientism they degenerated and got really narrow.

>The french post structuralists were devoted to apologising for the horrific massacres, monstrosities and cruel, repressive, totalitarian regimes carried out by socialist governments and slandering the survivors of torture and genocide as liars.
You're just engaging in an ad hominem here. An orthodox Marxist like Althusser might have killed his wife but Foucault became a neoliberal and gave people AIDs.

>facts and intellectual integrity
It's all about epistemological ground works boi, if we can't agree on what a fact is then we can't talk about intellectual integrity.

Can you show evidence of where a postmodernist theorist advocates something like your analogy suggests?

This is unironically what STEMspergs believe, without calling it 'forms'.

Listen brothers.

The earth is not a ball to which we are glued by the mystical force of "gravity", no.

The earth is flat, just as the ancient peoples believed. Heaven is above you, hell is below you.

The devil first spread the idea of a ball earth revolving around a ball sun in the ancient Babylonian and Egyptian mystery schools. These teachings were passed down to Pythagoras. They were handed down the ages to the occult mystery schools of the European Renaissance, who adopted them as their own. Then the occultists Copernicus, Kepler, Bruno, Newton, published the idea and started the "Copernican revolution".

The ancient Hermetic principle is "As Above, So Below". This has many applications. One of them is this: what people believe about the heavens above them, well determine what they believe about the earth below them. In other words, how they interpret the sky will correspond with how they interpret their own lives. Our materialist society would be impossible without a materialist cosmology to justify it. A mechanistic Newtonian cosmology justifies a mechanistic view of human life, a mechanistic politics, sociology, and economics. It sounds like a joke, but the idea that the stars are giant balls of gas reflects the modern obsession with fossil fuels / material goods in general. Copernicus wasn't going for a mechanistic religion, by the way; he was a Pythagorean and Heliolator, and hoped that the belief that the sun was at the center of the universe would usher in a return to a sun-worshipping priesthood like those of ancient societies.

The reason why the Devil spreads the idea of the ball earth is that it totally overturns mans relationship to the world. Instead of man being a spiritual being with heaven above him and hell below him; instead he stands on a ball where there are infinitely many ups and downs, where heaven isn't "above" but only "outside" the earth - moral and epistemological relativism, infinitely many points of view.

2017 not 1720. Don't you have a wig to powder?

Sociology is a social science.
>IF YOU DONT BOW DOWN TO MUH STEM COCK THEN UR LE DUMB
Eat shit, spergo.

A social science based on criticizing everything, including the scientific method...

Not really a science imo.

So, skepticism until that skepticism becomes an inconvenience?
So this is the power of science...

I often wonder if madmen can notice no picture of the earth from the heavens contains all 7 continents.

It absolutely is. Feminism is embracing Islam worldwide. Feminists are fleeing to ISIS to become their wives.

social """science"""
Humanities were a mistake

...

>Media cannot be trusted, academia of the whole world is controlled, everything that doesn't fit the narrative you want is made up by evil gods and you can only trust your feelings.

That doesn't sound like post-modernism because it doesn't reject a grand narrative

What we are currently living in tho, is a period of post-post-modernism, or what others call "Metamodernism". The idea here is that there's no grand narrative but we still manage to created our own images of the future by no other empirical means than animalistic impulses of our emotions.

Trump is the highlight of the post-post-modern era. So many people voted for him without even thinking twice. Everything just went out of sheer emotional outburst. No thinking of the consequences, no thinking in the longterm, or the origin, something which a post-modernist would think.

For now, everything which is truth is defined strictly as something that exists as a matter of personal perception. And that's where post-truth and post-irony come along. Truly interesting times we live in.

Science is literally the only the thing in this universe that matters. If you're not a scientist, your life means pretty much nothing.

it's the world's stupidest ideological belief system to ever gain credence. After dying, the heaped on abuse has rose to such levels that despite PM never doing anything significant ever, it's corpse is still a big and easy target that's safe to rail against

>i don't understand what I'm talking about, but I still feel qualified to air my opinion.
Do you even know what noumenon is?

>picture
Invalid, sorry!
They fit into your disgusting ideology, sorry!
Humanism is a mistake, yes.
Incorrect, science is actually the greatest mistake ever made.

Because this is art now

Science is the study of matter. It's not matter itself.

What's the matter? You can't read?

I think the postmodern concern with being stuck in a 'permanent present' also factored into the Trump vote and Brexit too. What better way to create some history by doing something completely insane as a society just for a change.

Postmodernism led to the abandonment of reason in sociology which in turn snowballed into the far left wing politics of today.

It is an irrational force as potent as a religion. It is like the right getting severely triggered 2 guys having fun together in the showers or sharing a bed, fooling around or jacking each other off, maybe suck out each others' loads into a condom, most have done it a couple of times even if they're not actually homosexual, because, you know, men get horny, but apparently we're "bad people" now because they find it icky and are too old and unattractive to enjoy it and have some mixed up feelings. I respect boundaries and I don't want them to feel icky. That being said, I find their mothers icky yet someone still managed to fuck them or they wouldn't be there. It is no reason to oppress anyone. It's wrong. Why can't they see that? Irrationality.

It is the same with leftists who are neurotic because someone was racist, sexist or homophobe to them. They flip out over scientific facts about genetics and biology and its implications in politics, for instance that it is completely morally justified to follow Ayn Rand's ethos and that you have no moral obligation to society or their precious welfare system and should evade taxes and undermine the government whenever possible. For the record not /pol/'s deluded view of the subject, a rational pragmatic view of this topic.

Apply the postmodernist view in your life and you will have lower efficiency, less chances. Would you be more creative? Maybe. You don't need to literally believe postmodernism to implement the creative side though.

I wouldn't say postmodernism is an extremely strong force, it is just 1 belief system like episcopalians or methodists or something. It is wrong though and representative of the bad turn the left is taking.

Alrighty, let's look at the first 2 movements of Feminism and compare it with the 3rd. I'm going to butcher the 2nd one in historical perspective, but I digress.
1st movement
>started by middle/upperclass women in a moral push
>wanted voting rights for women
>assumed that the expanding role of women in society should necessitate her ability to have judgement calls in politics
2nd wave of Feminism
>started by middle/working class women in tandem with other civil rights
>quickly infiltrates colleges and spreads outwards
>wanted fair treatment of women in workplace
>complete legal rights of women in workplace/court/what have you were necessary for a free society
>Was part of the larger civil rights movement that wanted legal equality for all
Well cool, first two complete. Women now have equal rights to men and the equal opportunities of their male counter parts. Legally women and men are on equal footing. Socially there's some minor kinks for those women who want to be single, but the 2nd movement laid the ground work for a very quick change in social mores in respect to the view on marriage and whether it was necessary for women to be in one.
Now contrast with 3rd wave
>started by feminists that were radicals during 2nd wave
>epicenter on college campuses
>began spreading online, mostly through Tumblr, and attracting a possibly high number of autists
>began immediately absorbing radical left groups and really came onto the stage after a success with the gay marriage supreme court case
>Seemed to want a level playing field for men and women.... despite that already having been achieved and started with the assumption of all men being the problem
>wanted fair treatment of women socially and promoted social marxism in a time where most of the western world had forgotten the horrors of the original marxist world.
Basically, they want a women utopia that cannot happen because humans are not perfect, and they picked a fight in the USA.

>It is wrong though
Nothing in your post refuted any tenets of postmodern philosophy. Instead of saying 'its wrong' you should say 'it doesn't align with my own value system'.

Oddly I think the analytic philosopher of art David Bordwell does a good job of dealing with the theories associated with post-modernism in film. These in turn apply to post-modernism in general outside of film or art
>top down reasoning
Post-modernist are concerned first with established theory and then with facts.
>Argument as Bricolage
In addition, they borrow components of multiple incompatible theories and attempt to combine them such as refering to "black bodies" (materialist) as a matter of course when dealing in antimaterialist theories.
>Associative reasoning
Next, bordwell talks about the use of associational reasoning rather than inductive, deductive, or abductive reasoning. e.g., "this idea has an affinity for this idea"
>The Hermeneutic Impulse
Finally, these theories are considered "useful" independent of empirical or logical reasons to disbelieve them. Bordwell calls this the Hermeneutic Impulse: so what if Freud is strictly wrong about child development, it's just so interesting what Freudian psychology says about transgenderism.

This is 30ish pages long but worth reading
ncadjarmstrong.com/ma--art-through-a-lens-/grand-theory-david-bordwell.pdf

Lol this. The attack was on what it 'led' to but no links were made. Total projection

Yeah this checks out. Thanks for the article

He's baiting.

Here we see a retarded & Humanities poster in its natural landscape. These creatures have a tendency to autistically screech when confronted with a notion that concrete truths do exist and which can be verified independent of the original discoverer

i always think that this artform uses ridiculous expression and shits on everything just to make us think about the things it tears down in its process of expression

New sincerity when?

Because it is correct
Don't take it too far though, see the Sokal Hoax.