Can someone give me some answers regarding postmodern philosophy?
>Why does it critique scientific process? >Why does it claim everything is relative? >Why does it seem so pessimistic and/or nihilistic? >Why is it the most politicized philosophical line of thought? Meaning that it is used to further an agenda, whatever that may be, be it on any point at political compass. >Why does it seem this philosophy is unable to critique itself even though it critiques most of existence? >Why does it seem that most of postmodernism seems to focus on Western so-called "social constructs", traditions and cultural achievements but ignores rest of the world? Or is this my bias speaking, because I exist in the West and only see postmodern attacks on the West?
It's a way for kikes to subvert society. You'll never hear them saying that "antisemitism being bad is relative". Antisemitism being bad is, in this particular case, an objective, universal truth.
Evan Moore
Also stop with the pol b8
Aaron Roberts
Why is postmodernism discussed 10x more by people opposed to it than its proponents?
Eli Richardson
Because there are no real postmodernists lett
Zachary Peterson
Do post^2modernists exist?
Lincoln Adams
it would probably help you out, OP, if you read postmodernists instead of just listening to Jordan Peterson and getting buttmad
Camden Rivera
I haven't watched any of his lectures, the only time I've ever seen the dude in any case was a video in which he was ganged upon by some student organization in a protest.
Ethan Bell
Don't listen to him, postmodernists are a complete waste of time. The issues and subjects they cover are also covered by the analytical traditions which do a far better job of explaining them without the pretentiousness and abstruseness.
Zachary Brown
It's funny when the whole movement's core tenets can be summed by a video game marketing slogan:"Nothing is true, everythign is permitted".
Christopher Gray
Not everything that is a far right idea is /pol/ bait.
Aaron Campbell
That's from a book by a Slovenian author that I happened to read when I was a kid
1. Because science produces facts, and if you want to lie to people, facts are a problem.
2. Because if you want to make unreasonable demands, objective reality is a problem.
3. Because in order to legitimate its agenda, it had no other choice but to destroy any philosophical framework that produces meaning, and when meaning is gone nihilism follows.
4. Because when everything is relative and subjective, the only metric for goodness is hedonism, read: the immediate fulfillment of your impulsive desires. Since power is in itself an impulsive desire and the key to the fulfillment of most other impulsive desires, the human condition is nothing, and absolutely nothing, but a power struggle between people, and peaceful coexistence is fundamentally impossible.
5. Because if you deny the existence or relevance of any metric but your personal feelings, which are internal, there is no external metric left by which to critique yourself.
6. From the statements made above it follows that post-modernists cannot tolerate anyone but themselves (which never works) being happy, so they try to annihilate anything that makes people happy, namely: personal responsibility, productiveness, logic and meaning. Western civilization, like no other project of mankind, has contributed to this, and therefore cannot be tolerated.
I could spend another 10 hours explaining the logic of this, but the bottom line is: cause as much suffering to the greatest possible number of people. But I'm lazy. Google Jordan B Peterson. He produced a spot-on analysis of this phenomenon.
Christian Wilson
>Google Jordan B Peterson. He produced a spot-on analysis of this phenomenon.
Bentley Nguyen
>Jordan B Peterson >The father-figure I never had
Jordan B Peterson is a psychologist, not a philosopher.
>Because science produces facts, and if you want to lie to people, facts are a problem. Being critical of scientific progress is not the e as denying scientific fact. Post-modernists do not deny evolution or gravity, they just investigate the limits of empiricism and whether or not continuous scientific progress is having a positive impact on people.
I'm not even going to address the rest of your points because they can be summarized in "HUR DUR DA FRANKFUURRRRRT SKOOOL".
You don't have to be a post-modernist to recognize that it is simply another school of philosophy, among many others, and not a plot by the Jews to destroy western civilization. Post-modernism is not universally accepted in philosophy departments, let alone by the rest of academia.
For the record, I reject anti-positivism.
Benjamin Walker
Do you have any proper criticisms of postmodernism written by actual philosophers?
Noah Long
>I've never once read Derrida and I take all of my opinions from Jordan Peterson who has also never read Derrida
t. you
Matthew Bailey
You're essentially proving his point about facts with that cringy Jordan Peterson statement. "It's not possible that someone agrees with a person that I disagree with after evaluating both opinions. The only logical reason has to be that they are compensating for something" I didn't even have to resort to pointless >I AM SILLY shitposting like you did.
Gavin Anderson
>Open up google >Search "critique of anti-positivism", "critique of postmodernism", etc >Select "scholarly articles for X", "scholarly articles for Y", etc
The most notable critics of post-modernism would be Noam Chomsky and a lot of other Marxists. A lot of criticism of post-modernism (which is an incredibly broad term) comes from academics in the arts. Camille Paglia seems to be the most prominent one, but I hadn't heard of her before.
If you want specific philosophres who reject postmodernism, the best way to find them would be to research "criticism of anti-positivism". Anyone who calls themselves a "positivist" likely disagrees with Derrida and his followers.
Matthew Martin
1. this 2. Yeah, I guess when shit goes south they always just wanted to "start a conversation", don't they? 3. I didn't say anything about "the jews". I guess, that's just projection, because you're such a reasonable dude.
Either Derrida was reasonable in his time, or he's relevant today. Pick one.
Isaiah Campbell
>You're essentially proving his point about facts with that cringy Jordan Peterson statement
I was making fun of him. Jordan B Peterson is like a conservative dad which Sargon of Akkad fans idolizes. This is a paper craft & origami discussion website, not a serious academic forum. I'm allowed to poke fun.
> I didn't even have to resort to pointless >I AM SILLY shitposting like you did. Well done for maintaining the moral high ground, I guess.
William Wood
>I didn't say anything about the Jews
You were following the same line of reasoning as the "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theorists
>Yeah, I guess when shit goes south they always just wanted to "start a conversation", don't they? I have no idea what you're talking about here.
I'm only defending postmodernist philosophy because you came up with such a shit criticism of it.
Brandon Nguyen
>dude, what if like, western culture sucks ass, bro? >yeah dude, it does >let's like, deconstruct it, man >yeah dude, let's viciously attack the most successful way of human living cause like, capitalism is so bad and immigrants are so cool, dude
Camden Price
I have read neither Derrida, nor Chomsky, I have no idea about the Frankfurt School, and I don't care. My frame of reference is what I see everyday in the media and at my campus. I have professors in my history department, fellow students, and collegues who do precisely the stuff I listed in my initial post. They refer to themselves as post-modernists, are refered to as such, and constantly use the "investigtion of the limits of empiricism etc." as a fassade to fight their personal meaningless inconveniences to the detriment of everyone else. Peterson does nothing but to connect the dots I already have. If that's not how one particular philosophy started out, that used the lable "post-modernism", I get it. But you can't seriously tell me, that this is not the philosophy, just because some guy, who's version of the philosophy appears to not have made it to the year 2017, wrote a good book once.
>I have no idea what you're talking about here. Here I'm mocking the easy-out they invoke, when their behaviour generates such a backlash, that even they can't affort to double down.
>You were following the same line of reasoning as the "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theorists I do think it's cultural Marxism, but that in no way requires a jewish conspiracy. Also One would assume, that someone, who claims to care about academic standards, most of all someone who's philosophy claims to demand scrutiny of everything, wouldn't read a post and then just throw back all the before unmentioned cultural baggage he could possibly find in the shitters of Youtube. But while we're at it. Why don't you answer the question yourself and enlighten us, Doc?
Austin Lewis
Must be shitty being OP, only one user has bothered to seriously answer his questions and the answers are from the side he most likely supports.
I'd like to see a pro post-modern poster answering OP's questions.
Jaxson Green
bump
Robert Hill
OP's 'questions' are clearly anti-pomo shitposts disguised as efforts towards conversations-- the same sort of faux-Socratic method faggotry that inspires "why hasn't africa produced anything of note?" bait-threads. Any argument in good faith would be far more than OP deserves or has earned.
