Should we ban postmodernism from universities?

All identities are equal and should be accepted except for anything remotely authoritarian.

It's silly because it's an anti-ideaology. It can never be constructive because it never lays a solid foundation of axioms to build upon. It instead says that axioms cannot be solid. That's retarded if you want to actually get anything done. It's perfect if you want to stroke your huge boner for your own intelligence though.

I agree and think post-postmodernism is realizing the drive behind the postmodern works and then also refusing to take them entirely seriously.

>constructive
Why is this good
>pragmatism
Back to plebbit

It's basically the same as sophistry

Because you're in university to do things you stupid nigger not wank your ego all day. If you want to do that then stay on message boards.

I don't think it's safe to say that it destroys all axioms. In theory it does, but most works of postmodern revisionist history do argue some central point

We should ban universities.

>do things
Post-modernism is a form of criticism against teleology. By destroying notions of 'certainty' and axioms themselves, no longer can there be teleological claims, such as 'scientific progress' or 'social reform'.
This means that genocide is no longer justifiable, nor is horrible experimentation such as Unit 731, nor is communism, fascism, democracy, etc.

Why does this bother you?

That's because actual postmodernism is so absurd that it cannot be engaged seriously. Only pseudo-forms can be pursued coherently.

2 things,

-without teleology, how can you even say that genocide is bad.

-You assume that the idea of axiomatic understanding needs to be deconstructed in order to deconstruct ideas that you dislike. This ignores the truth of moral relativism and is in essemce anti-postmodernism for the axiomatic dislike of these things

I know I said 2 things but let's throw another on the pile. As I said before postmodernism is absurd because a pure practice of it in any intellectual exploration leads to nothing but circular logic. If you think that postmodern deconstructionism is the correct way to assault an idea then it just proves that you have no logical rigor or intellectual ability since you can't even think enough to argue what you dislike, you instead tell everyone to stop thinking. Furthermore I'm not BOTHERED by the protest of genocides and atrocities. But you seem to be viewing the idea from a standpoint rooted in being firmly against them. There are no true postmodernists. Only the intellectually incapable with massive boners for their own egos.

>-without teleology, how can you even say that genocide is bad.
never said that
>circular logic is bad becuz muh order muhfugga whtie civilizashun

It's not supposed to really produce output

Who are the 'intellectually capable' philosophers from 1950 to present in your opinion?

>>circular logic is bad becuz muh order muhfugga whtie civilizashun
& Humanities, everybody.

That's the point. It's useless even for intellectual discussion.

>it's useless
It's not supposed to have a use

muhfuggin white civilizashun
muhfuggin use bix nood
u can use THIS DICK HAHAHAHA

I'm not going to make a list based on ability because that requires intimate knowledge of the methods and processes of the synthesis of each philosopher's conclusions. That's beside the point. Postmodernism has neither methods nor process. There is no synthesis. It's not even philosophy. It's just talking.

Oh so it's like the mathematics of infinity then.

What's the point if there is no use?

I'm not asking for a list, I'm asking for your personal opinion based on the contemporary philosophy that you've read.

It's a self-destructing proposition.

Yes.

It is nothing but pure obscurantism. It has set progress in the true understanding of humanity and society back by decades, if not centuries.

It has seduced countless vulnerable minds into believing that both their moral consensus, and the axiom that there is no real truth, are both true at the same time.

Think of all the brainlet postmodernist "philosophers" whose potential for verbiage could have been used in the pursuit of real truth, but was instead squandered on what is essentially intellectual self-flattery and nonsense.

It is a plague and must be purged if humanity is to survive beyond this century.

See: the sokal affair and other related incidents

Once again, that's the point. It is fundamentally a different thing than philosophy. It's not an academic endeavor. It has no serious place in a university unless you just want to study the history of the idea because it is contrary to the purpose of a university. By all means engage in this line of thinking all you want on your own time but it's a waste of a student's time.

MUH USE MUHFUGGA

No. Scepticism is an important part of the philosophical process. Without Hume there wouldn't have been Kant as we know him. Without Descartes, there wouldn't be modern philosophy as we know it. Even the nominalist scepticism of Antisthenes and Diogenes were important in the development of Platonic and Aristotlean philosophy.

As I said it's beside the point of the discussion in question and the only reason you ask is to criticize the choices, so there really isn't a reason to answer.

>>-without teleology, how can you even say that genocide is bad.
>never said that

just look at this post modernist brainlet squirm

I don't even know what postmodernism is.

read wikipedia

"nothing can be proven or disproven 》nothing is true and false at once"

>doesn't refute point.

> is to criticize the choices
I'm wondering if you have any examples whatsoever. It seems queer to me that you disparage the foremost philosophers of the 20th century as 'intellectually incapable' and then shrink from providing a single example of a so called 'intellectually capable' one.

I never said that 'genocide is bad'
I'm not a post-modernist you /pol/cuck.

DAS RITE

*everything

>I can't actually defeat the ideas of these philosophers, better just ban them.

No user, you are the brainlets.

>what's the point if there is no use
This is begging the question
It's essentially an epistemological position that nothing is inherently true, just that there are systems of ideas that each report things to be true.
The sokal project was reproduced in a physics journal, except that paper was literally written by a computer writing nonsense
>it's a fundamentally different thing than philosophy
Not really

It's just above most people.

>Should we ban [idea] from universities?

No. Shitty ideas should not be banned, but they should be proven to be shitty and ridiculed.

What you're attempting to do is attack the character or validity of the example(s) I provide and then by proxy attack me and my points without engaging them. I already told you that I refuse to play that game since it's irrelevant to the actual discussion.

This.

Unfortunately in our degenerate neo-liberal era, the universities are becoming specialist-factories, rather than encouraging critical thinking. And yet, today, paradoxically, after Marxism has been practically purged from academia, we see fucking 'cultural marxist conspiracy' anti-semetic bullshit.

No, I'm genuinely curious in who you consider 'intellectual capable' in a realm of contemporary philosophy.

Saying that the one-ness of one cannot be proven and therefore all of mathematics is invalid is not a form of mathematics.

You were asked to name philosophers that actually run with the crap you are rambling about and tried to dodge the question.

You have basically admitted you don't read any modern philosophy, and probably no older philosophy either.

>That's the point. It's useless even for intellectual discussion.

Critique is important. If it hadn't been for Descarte utterly demolishing the epistemological understanding of the time, we'd be jerking off to Aristotle through the Scholastics still.

>proven
DAS RITE
THE ARGUMENT IS LITERALLY WHITE CIVILIZASHUN
roman_bust_of_sexy_strong_white_man_thinking.png

Saying that all mathematics is based on axioms and that changing those axioms leads to new forms of math is though.

Nope. And even if that were true that isn't an invalidation of the arguments provided. why don't you try actually arguing if you disagree. Character assasination isn't a valid form of philosophical discourse.

There is nothing to ban you fucking brainlet

All post modernism does is distract from investigation into theories that can actually be disproven and lend themselves to progress of the aggregate body of knowledge. They are a pure waste of time. Banning these "ideas" is the same as shedding a vest filled with weights while on a long run. It's a bunch of bullshit that does not belong in a place that dedicates itself to pursuit of knowledge. The entire premise that these "philosophers" adopt defeats any purpose they set out to achieve by writing in the first place, because "HURR DURR NUFFING CAN B PROVEN"

So fuck them

Learn some math or science or engineering and spend some time on that, you might actually have an idea that makes people suffer less or something

But that's not what postmodernism is, sadly. That's simply skepticism, which has existed for 1000's of years.

That's what postmodernism is. It's deeply related to skepticism

>asking for you to elaborate your points is character assassination

You have had several people ask who the great philosophers from the 1950s and above are, if the post-modernists are all dummies. Some of them asked very politely and you have done nothing but dodge the question.

related but not the same. Much like infinitesimals in mathematics are related to infinite sums but are fundamentally different things. One of them are very important to mathematics as we know it. The other actually cannot be worked on because they do not produce any change when applied to mathematics.

'Nothing can be proven' because, where it concerns society, you cannot approach it in the same manner that you would approach natural science. You cannot 'prove' a social relation, you cannot 'prove' love, friendship, class struggle etc. You get the point.

Infinitesimals are the basis of calculus

>t. I haven't even read the wikipedia article on the subject

Most of it isn't about outright denying knowledge so much as placing knowledge within the social context that produced it to glean additional insight or to account for potential bias in its construction, serving to better evaluate its place in our societal narrative. Understanding the limitations of human reasoning, and the effect our social construction of reality has on the production of knowledge is important; this kind of scepticism is important because it allows us to overcome (or at least account for our shortcomings) and become more capable for it.

I'd be willing to bet someone like you raved about Descartes too.

As I said before. It was beside the point not an elaboration. The actual argument is about an idea. Saying, "well what's better then?" in no way refutes or even follows from the previous discussion.

Frankly I don't think you have any examples to offer.

Calculus is about reconciling the seeming uslessness of infinitesimals with the larger world when dealing with a change in 2 or more variables with respect to eachother. It isn't ABOUT infinitesimals any more than cube roots are about the number 3, especially since you can't have an infinitesimal limit.

That's fine. Frankly I don't think you have an argument.

It pretty much IS the point. If not post-modern thinkers than who's thoughts out to replace it?

You havn't made any points so 'refuting' isn't a thing that happens here. You simply said that the post-modern guys are 'intellectually incapable' and than spent the rest of the tread refusing to offer alternatives to them.

Neither have you. You have done nothing but whine and scream in pain.

You aren't fooling anyone.

>You haven't made a point

>Postmodernism is circular logic and not a real form of philosophical discourse, therefore it doesn't deserve a serious place in academia

>you haven't made a point

bruh...

>calling Martin fucking Heidegger intellectually incapable

How much of an anti-intellectual pleb can you be?

In what way is post-modernism circular logic? In what way is it not a real form of philosophical discourse?

What the fuck do you think figures like Heidegger, Foucault, and Derrida were doing if not discoursing and analyzing?

I understand that one's time and place has a profound effect on how reality perceived.

Nonetheless, if you live in China in the 1960's, for example, and are able to get a semi-accurate function of rice production, and are writing an article on how a government mandated maximum price might affect how many people can buy food, the "dialogue" of "what it means to be working class" or "what working-ness actually means in the dialectic of mao" and other assorted bullshit doesn't mean anything.

If you were writing from a post modernist perspective you might conclcude that the government price ceiling is a glorious step forward for the working class, but it will be completely detached from the physical reality of the people you claim to be the champion of.

I realize you may not be speaking from a communist perspective but I'm just choosing an easy example (plus PM literature is fucking infested with marxism)

>Postmodernism is circular logic
So is math

Post-modernism in a nutshell

see all you've done is try to insult me senpai

We should try to learn the truth of humanity's history, not circlejerk over linguistics. There is an objective truth to the world, and even though we cannot know it for certain, we can approximate it.

But this is not why we should ban postmodernism from universities. We should ban it simply to piss off postermodernists.

>There is an objective truth to the world
proof?

Physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, formal logic, etc.

Perhaps
But back to my earlier point, questioning and changing axioms is real philosophy

You have never read post-modernism have you?

...

>(plus PM literature is fucking infested with marxism)

This is how I know you don't know what you're talking about. Most Postmodernists weren't Marxists, and rejected key Marxist doctrines such as class struggle, societal progress, or even the dialectical narrative. The earliest post-modernist was a fucking Nazi, whose works were derived from Friedrich Nietzsche, a staunch anti-socialist.

>doesn't mean anything.

Not from an economic standpoint, but they're not fucking economists. Do you criticize Socrates for not understanding the importance of the Athenian government's taxation policies?

>formal logic

Kek. All that other shit, sure you could argue are objective if you're not going to go into solipsism, but logic has utterly failed to understand anything outside of logic. Computation is the only place it found a use, and that's only because computers were built from the ground up for it. Our attempts to understand language, mathematics, or ethics with logic have all been abysmal failures.

What does post-modernism say about the sciences?

Things happen. That's the proof. Cataloging these events accurately is difficult if not impossible as time slips away, but this doesn't mean that everything is true and false at the same time.

>it's all about perspective bro
Moral relativism is horseshit, as well.

it's not meant to be understood. look at any essay made by the pomo generator, it's literally indistinguishable from an actual pomo essay

Things happen ergo there is objective truth?
I thought you were arguing on the side of 'logic'

>it's another Veeky Forums doesn't understand what postmodernism is thread

It's at least a step up from modernism

yes but a massive step back from pre-modernism

>"step up"
>"step back"

>Friedrich Nietzsche, a staunch anti-socialist.

He was a fucking pest too

>Do you criticize Socrates for not understanding the importance of the Athenian government's taxation policies?

Yes. If you are going to enter the public forum there is no excuse for ignorance of the physical realities of the world . "Let none who are ignorant of geometry enter here.". Sound familiar?

>It has seduced countless vulnerable minds into believing that both their moral consensus, and the axiom that there is no real truth, are both true at the same time.

fucking countless, really? The ability of humans to totally imagine enemies never ceases to amaze me.

Postmodernism is obviously useless but that doesn't excuse the errors of the Peterson cultists who insist it's literally the beginning of a new communist era of humanity.

nigger you don't understand what modernism is

pomo descends from the bad line of modernism (Kant-Fichte-Hegel-Marx) rather than the good line (Kant-Schopenhauer-Nietzsche)

>Things happen.

Prove it.

That's a pretty broad question. I don't even know what you're asking.

>marxiboo asshurt because based Fritz btfo his asinine ideology