Postmodern bullshit

yeah pretty much I'm just shitposting my stupid unjustified feelings anonymously. gotta let it out from time to time.

yeah basically what I'm saying in the OP

It's a Jewish century, you're just living in it.

>>Never thought I'd say this but I'm joining a church for the wisdom in the bible teachings on suffering and values. Not being intellectually dishonest because its for pure utility.
>At first, you bemoan the lack of objective truth and morality, but now you're going to church to try to LARP yourself for "utility"?

>At first, you bemoan the lack of objective truth and morality, but now you're going to church to try to LARP yourself for "utility"?

agree with everything except this part, how is this inconsistent?

It has nothing to do with postmodernism. You're just young and need to sort yourself out rather than blaming externals. Good luck with it.

>live in a world where there are billions of diseases

>can't we just go back to the good old days of Roman empire where we only had handful of diseases?

postmodernism promotes blaming externals. checkmate.

>how is this inconsistent?

Because he complains about truth and morals being dethroned from a supposedly objective high ground, and then perpetuates it himself by joining a church not out of actual belief that God is real and Jesus is man's savior, but because it has "utility". He's basically treating religion like technology, which many other people are doing nowadays, and would be hypocrisy to any honest Christian.

So OP is basically being postmodern despite bitching about it? I think an actual postmodernist would debate the dichotomy between "internal" and "external" anyway. All values are internalized from external sources.

Ok that's cool but OP knows he has to take responsibility for his life and stop blaming other people or phenomena for his happiness or lack thereof, so he better get on with it. He might actually profit by reading about Foucault's concept of "care for the self" which is based on classical concepts.

>yeah pretty much I'm just shitposting my stupid unjustified feelings anonymously. gotta let it out from time to time.

I'm glad you admit it, but I disagree. Catharsis is a myth, and expressing shit like this online is probably going to just connect you to insular communities of depressed people who blame their personal problems on some vague notion of (post)modernity.

I would recommend you investigate Buddhism over Christianity. It deals with the fact that life is purposeless suffering, and considers compassion and wisdom to be better motivators than suffering. While it may seem nihilistic on the surface, the value of deconstructive religions like Buddhism is that you can stop clinging to obviously bullshit absolutes in some hope of mental refuge (Christianity) and accept, instead, that arbitrary spiritual concepts are a raft towards contentment that may be discarded after they've outlasted their usefulness.
If you have no solid ground of truth to stand on, you must learn to swim.

Also, go outside and do something. Anything. Gain a commitment, volunteer for something, explore, learn a skill, help people, ask others how they are and actually be interested in what they say. This will all seem like a distraction at first, but will become genuinely meaningful if you learn to be humble, honest and self-disciplined. Part of your problem seems to be that your depression is somewhat a mask for pretentiousness. Wisdom is realizing you're an idiot and don't have all the answers, only suggestions.

Congratulations OP, you've discovered metamodernism. Welcome to the bleeding edge of philosophical thought.

Please don't become a christcuck or an islamist though, there are much better options out there.

I'd recommend my faith but it is based on actual... well... /faith/. So fuck right of you secular shitter.

Name one postmodernist who says this

>collective sense of truth and morality is the glue holding society together
Prove it
>our civilization is crumbling
Prove it

>I need a structure in my life, otherwise I become upset

yes you belong to tumblr

Is it me, or are the most passionate enemies of post-modernism the kind of people who are post-modernist themselves, but don't know it, since they never bothered to read up definitions and philosophy?

Protip: the core of post-modernism isn't radical feminist dictatorship communism jewish-islamic coplot.

OP just got BTFO'd

>muh morals, muh degeneracy tards
>reading anything other than infographic .jpegs

Only one can be picked

They are all about deconstructing the status quo and asking questions, do we need this thing we've had for a while, is that thing necessary anymore? Thats pure post-mod.

That's pure capitalism

Stormfront users have been arrested for murder before, not sure why anyones surprised by their attitude on this.

That's not post modernism though. Questioning the status quo has been a thing for a very long time. Hell you could argue that the protestant reformation is what started a long line and series of events of questioning the old order and erecting new ones that's been going on to today ever since it happened. Some of the neo-reactionary type thinkers argue just that.

Post-modernism is exactly the double-checking of how we do shit and things we take for granted, to ensure that there really is a reason to take them for granted, and that they aren't just outdated customs.

>deconstructing the status quo and asking questions
not really, they just push their own beliefs based on what they find emotionally appealing

This is not what post-modernism is, and you are just using the term to label people you dislike.

No, post-modernism is simply pointing out the characteristics (primarily the flaws) of the status quo and institutions. As an ideology, it's the equivalent of a half-wit or a child pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, never understanding that the emperor is still the emperor and the half-wit still a half-wit.

I've seen stats that at a time around 1/200 members of stormfront were involved with a murder.

splcenter.org/20140401/white-homicide-worldwide

Yes, it was investigated by the SPLC, but the murders all happened nonetheless.

>post-modernism is right so if you say it is wrong you don't know what post-modernism is
Typical post-modernist sophistry.

Post-modernism claims to deconstruct the status quo, narratives and so forth, as you say. However once they have "deconstructed" something they immediately insert their own narrative in its place. Because they have thrown logic out the window, naturally their narrative is one bourne of their own feelings, prejudices and frustrations and that of their target audience.

>in b4 that's not post-modernism

>make a wrong claim
>get called wrong
>"ur a sophist post-modernist cuck"

No, you are wrong because what you are saying doesn't match the definition of post-modernism.
If you want this conversation to continue, make arguments, not claims backed by insults.

Nice postmodernist argument you made there OP.

How doesn't it match the definition of post-modernism? Where did I say "cuck" or use an insult?

>post-modernism is right so if you say it is wrong you don't know what post-modernism is
>Typical post-modernist sophistry.
>in b4 that's not post-modernism

Those are obvious insults.
And indeed, appeal to emotion is not what post-modernism means. Read up.

Postmodernism is a good thing, it's modernism you should hate.

Define post-modernism. Define modernism.

Modernism = 20th century break with previous traditions when it comes to philosophy, architecture, art etc.

Postmodernism = tearing down the modernist meme and any spooky ideas of "progress"

How is saying you are wrong an insult?

>appeal to emotion is not what post-modernism means
Post-modernism claims it isn't an appeal to emotion but it is. Not sure why you are having such difficulty understanding this argument.

>I claim that X, I am not sure why you disagree with my argument.

Where is the argument?
And yes, insisting that people who actually follow the agreed on definitions are sophists and don't know anything is an insult, especially coming from a sophist who doesn't know anything.

Make an argument.

I disagree with this. The idea of "progress" is still intimately tied with the academic post-modernism which is why you see such massive overlap between postmodernism and far-left politics (andrea dworkin, lytord, adorno, debord etc...).

Argue this, because its not self evident and goes against definitions.

Yeah but at least there was a point. Sexual religión drug induce parties for an X god now is your average saturday

That academic postmodernism are overwhelming far left in their politics is beyond dispute. The Critical Theory of Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse and others was marxist in its thought for example. The 20th century french postmodernists were 'revolutionary' in their outlook. There are so few postmodernists who break from that far-left mold and believe in liberalism like Rorty that it bears mentioning.

The reason far-left politics have found such a home in postmodernist thought isn't because the idea of progress has been made total bunk but that it has become totally unquestioned. The problems of postmodernist writing aren't 'where is this headed?', but 'where do we go from here?' which demand a suitably 'forward-thinking' and egalitarian answer.

>That academic postmodernism are overwhelming far left in their politics is beyond dispute.

Academics in general are overwhelmingly far left, especially in philosophy. You are missing the point big time here, and from this your whole post goes sour.

Whats 'the point' I'm missing?

Most postmodernist academics are leftie, because most academics are leftie, not for any reasons you made up.

What the fuck is postmodernism anyway?

1. Look at the social constructs that we take for granted and use as axioms.
2. Check to see if they are still true of if we are using them out of habit and they aren't useful anymore.

This is post-modernism.
A popular subject of this line of thinking are gender roles, but you can apply it (and come to different conclusions) on kings, states, cars, private property, schools, religion, military service, etc.

I'm starting to think you haven't actually read any postmodernists. Academia while indeed primarily leftist is generally not as far-left as prominent post-modernists. Not all college professors believe 'all men are rapists' like Andrea Dworkin.

Was post-modernism a result of leftist ideology or is it the driver of leftist ideology?

I am starting to think that you are unable to comprehend very basic logic.
If you have a set of academics X, and they are mostly lefties, any subset you take is also likely to be mostly lefties.
Also you equate "left" with wrong, and "liberal" with right in your explanations, not stating it, but obviously implying it.

>The reason far-left politics have found such a home in postmodernist thought isn't because the idea of progress has been made total bunk but that it has become totally unquestioned.
>The problems of postmodernist writing aren't 'where is this headed?', but 'where do we go from here?' which demand a suitably 'forward-thinking' and egalitarian answer.
These are just wrong by default, by the very definition of the terms you are bastardizing.

It has zero to do with political compass memes, and precedes them. It was just formalized alter.

>Never thought I'd say this but I'm joining a church for the wisdom in the bible teachings on suffering and values. Not being intellectually dishonest because its for pure utility.
>Who cares about what it's really about, the authenticity doesn't matter as long as it fills one of my arbitrary needs
And you dare say you're not a fan of post-modernism

nigga for the vast majority people throughout history it had exactly the same point as it does now. Ritualistic practices of sexuality took part in a comparatively minor role.

>Sexual religión drug induce parties for an X god now is your average saturday

Really.

What happens when a rightist uses postmodern toolbox to deconstruct the prevailing assumptions among academics (open borders = good, nationalism = bad)?

I think Modernism will come back, a new sense of chaos, speed, action, passions, and aggression. You are seeing such signs today with all the manifestos and conflicts. Maybe a Neomodernism.

They call it "Red Pill" like from the matrix movie.

Postmodernism is the last phase of modernism. It wasn't some brave, new paradigm shift, it was the logical extension of modernism. Modernism is dead, for all intents and purposes, and the void will be filled with a new paradigm.

Both

It was born of French Marxist intellectuals, particularly Derrida, who were trying to save Marxism in light of its overwhelming failure. The goal of post-modernism was to dismantle the institutions of Western (capitalist) societies and replace them with Marxist concepts.

They didn't create postmodernism, they only recognized it as such. Postmodernism is a process put forward by modernist tendencies, not a product to replace it. And no it isn't a drive of leftist ideology, much less Marxism which is driven by the dialectical materialism which purports that material conditions are the driving force of society. How can idealistic concepts then be the driving force behind ideology of materialism?

Read up on the creation of post-modernism. Even Chomsky acknowledges its origins and the driving force behind it.

How about you actually read Derrida, W. Benjamin, Merleau-Ponty and/or Baudrillard?

>prevailing assumptions among academics (open borders = good, nationalism = bad)

yeah, those darn neoliberal academics, oh wait i thought they were marxists hmmm... Oh yeah i know, they are both sides of the same jewish because they don't let me larp as a 19th century small capitalist or what how i imagined a pre-christian european pagan to be

Regretfully I've read Derrida.

Which works if I may ask? I generally think most of Derrida is kinda massive for getting into the understanding of post-modernism. Baudrillard's Simulation and Simulacra is pretty good entry-tier material.

I'm curious. Would you eat shit if you wanted to see what shit tasted like?

So you didn't read neither jack nor shit.

Of Grammatology and Writing and Difference.

The man is full of shit. He makes leaps in logic and misrepresents ideas and concepts. As states, if the star of post-modernism produces work like that why would I bother reading academics of the same ideology?

Instead of samefagging you should do more reading.

You started reading a work mainly about fucking phenomenology and structuralism and you can't even wrap your head around postmodernism, that's your problem, you literal brainlet. The fact you started reading Derrida from 'Of Grammatology and Writing and Difference' (which doesn't even scratch into his insight in post-modernism) yet you speak with such vain authority (>star of postmodernism) is really telling. If you actually read about post-modernism instead of jerking off to Jordan Peterson, like an impressionable young man that you are, you'd know for starters it isn't an ideology, rather what you are referring to is a philosophy. And maybe if you just read it, you'd know what it is, how to tackle it, and how to critique it.

Ingsoc isn't real.

How can anyone argue about the nature of concept whose definition they can't properly define?

>well you just don't get it

That's the exact same fucking defense that Derrida made whenever he was criticized, which is ironic because he himself didn't understand his own work.

>you'd know for starters it isn't an ideology, rather what you are referring to is a philosophy.

It is an ideology. Anything that has a disdain for empiricism and logic cannot be considered a philosophy. Postmodernism brings nothing to the table of empirical knowledge.

wow op btfo

Nigga, it's not that you don't get it, it's that you literally have nothing to get. 'Of Grammatology and Writing and Difference' is such a bizarre choice it almost sounds like you looked at what Wikipedia articles are for Derrida's work, then you chose the one that was in his brief description as most influential, but you didn't want to go with the first one, because it was too obvious. His three most iconic books (the 1967 trio) are tightly built on the notions of Husserlian phenomenology, which is itself rooted in Kantian idealism. Are you gonna tell me Husserl was a postmodernist too?

>Anything that has a disdain for empiricism and logic cannot be considered a philosophy.
Good thing you know what philosophy is then, considering you don't fucking read it.

What is the purpose to prove it, if you are persuaded that everything is okay you certainly having a better life than any of us here isn't that great ?
I'll not help you when everythings falls apart have a great time down here

You speak with naive arrogance that naturally occurs when a juvenile discovers that he is in fact not limited by his ego, but also not but able to overcome that notion. You're not the first to feel that way, and you certainly won't be the last.

I've read Of Grammatology but I'll admit I never finished Writing and Difference for the same reason I never finished Plato's Republic, I have little patience for nonsense and bullshit.

>Good thing you know what philosophy is then, considering you don't fucking read it.

I don't waste my time on the continental traditions because they're largely garbage. The French producing some of the worst "philosophies" which are really nothing more than the musings of Parisian bourgeoisie suffering from ennui

>never finished Plato's Republic
>hasn't read literal entry tier into philosophy
>intends himself an authority on philosophy
You know it was pretty obvious you didn't read it fully (if at all), you should've just said it outright. I still warmly recommend 'Simulation and Simulacra', it goes into postmodernist means of economy and ideology through the system of simulations, ie. systematic self-referentiality which gradually divert away from referentiality in reality. In your dismissal of postmodernism, you in fact adhered to the system of said postmodernist simulacra, ie. you purposed what postmodernism is, without actually possessing an understanding of the notion, let alone knowledge and necessary tools for it's critique- a showcase of what you amusingly call >disdain for empiricism and logic in your own circular logic. Because you have supplanted referentiality in ''reality'' (or forming knowledge and opinion directly form the source) with an ideologically admissible simulacra (like referring to second or third hand sources) you create an internally coherent picture of the subject you don't actually understand. I'm sorry to bring it up again, but the gist of your arguments and misunderstanding on postmodernist philosophy really comes across similar to the same demagoguery circulated by Peterson, a man who should honestly be ashamed to, in his position, poses such vague knowledge on contemporary philosophy, yet speak to such a wide audience who consider him a monumental authority. You are yet a juvenile, or poses the mentality of one, but don't let yourself be a fool, read first and read from primary sources themselves, don't let your thinking be decided for you, for that, you see, is the true ideology.

You speak with naive arrogance that naturally occurs when a juvenile discovers that he is in fact not limited by his ego, but also not but able to overcome that notion. You're not the first to feel that way, and you certainly won't be the last.

Civilization does crumble and anarchy and mayhem follows, pity the date of those who have gone through that.

I don't want it to happen but since it is going to happen let's face the facts and not cover our eyes. Looking away from incoming danger isn't going to help.

>thinks I need to read the whole Republic to understand philosophy

You don't need to be a gourmand to know when food tastes like shit. I bet you also think that I need to read the length of the Bible to understand the root of Western philosophy.

>Simulation and Simulacra

Read passages of it in the past and from what I can tell it doesn't say anything that Wittgenstein hasn't already pointed out.

>Because you have supplanted referentiality in ''reality'' (or forming knowledge and opinion directly form the source) with an ideologically admissible simulacra (like referring to second or third hand sources) you create an internally coherent picture of the subject you don't actually understand.

Sophism. All knowledge is passed down from one source to another and if you want to use that logic then reading a philosophers work is a second hand source because you didn't directly receive the knowledge from them, rather an abstraction of their ideas and thoughts which can be misinterpreted. If nothing that can be directly experience can be invalidated then the sum of human knowledge is moot. Do you have any idea how insane that type of thinking is? It's given rise to "flat-worlders" and vaccine deniers.

I'll repeat what I've said before, a vast majority of the continental philosophies are garbage, the French ones in particular due to their tendency to be abstruse because it's fashionable amongst the French intellectual circles to be deliberately incomprehensible in order to come off as deep and profound. Derrida, along with the other post-modernists, are the product of such an environment. That being said why would I bother expanding my knowledge through obscure sources when I can stick to the analytical traditions that emphasize clarity and adhere to Grices Maxims. Because from what I can tell the analytical traditions observed the same issues and ideas but reached different conclusions and without the pretentiousness.

t. underagefag who just found Jordan Peterson

Pretty much this OPBut in all honesty, I dislike post modernism because of how destructive it is. The whole idea of "we've done things this way for years! Fuck this thing and anyone who follows it, we're gonna change it to see what happens!" Just doesn't flow with me.

I agree approaching something critically is always good, espcially if it's been in place for a long time and people stop questioning it. But you should go looking with an open mind, not with the intent of tearing that thing down. You have the opportunity to learn and grow, but post modern arrogance makes sure that you ignore the opportunity in exchange for "progress".

In my opinion Post Modernism fuels things like a Third Wave Feminism, the new "communist revolt" and all other types of SJW degeneracy.

>In my opinion Post Modernism fuels things like a Third Wave Feminism, the new "communist revolt" and all other types of SJW degeneracy.

Because it is, however that being said post modernism is simply one of the symptoms of the decline of Western civilization.

More-or-less correct
Incorrect

Deconstruction is based in logic and the logical reading of the texts that form the basis of Western society. They don't insert their 'own narrative' but reconfigure the narrative based on new outputs from the old texts. A postmodern society is a capitalist society is a classical liberalist society at its essence. There's nothing in multiculturalism or whatever that contradicts this view.

Derrida wasn't Marxist lol

It's kind of a result of leftist 'ideology' (but really using its tools of critique) but can result in right-wing postmodern critique like we see today

>He makes leaps in logic and misrepresents ideas and concepts.

Funny he argues the same of Western philosophy. Who is right? The erudite man or the dismissive shitposter?

>he himself didn't understand his own work.

He sure did. He remained consistent in his ideas throughout his work, from the 60s to his death. Pretty hard to do when you don't understand your own work. Also plenty of writers have made sense of his work.

>Anything that has a disdain for empiricism and logic cannot be considered a philosophy.
Derrida is empirical, in fact he emphasises the real existence of things considered 'mimesis' like text and proposes these are actually all we have, not the ideals they supposedly point towards. It's like extreme empiricism, i.e. taken to its logical conclusion. It's the same thing philosophers have done since Kant, looking at the 'conditions of possibility' for categories of thought.

>All knowledge is passed down from one source to another and if you want to use that logic then reading a philosophers work is a second hand source because you didn't directly receive the knowledge from them, rather an abstraction of their ideas and thoughts which can be misinterpreted. If nothing that can be directly experience can be invalidated then the sum of human knowledge is moot.

This is basically Derrida's argument so I struggle to see how you disagreed with his 'ideology'