PoMo and the right

> I'm no expert on post-modernism or to what extent these people are stretching its insinuations to fit their ideological rhetoric.

You do realize Alt-Right uses post modernist techniques to attack Mainstream media (((Narratives))) right? Post modernism is a philosophical technique that can be used by anybody shilling for ANY ideological movement in order to deconstruct their opponents arguments. The fact that you attack modern feminests and "hyper-egalitarians" who aren't even a thing means your opinion has no merit anyways

Post-Modernism isn't a specific school of thought but the modern progressive materialist view of life which is leading the west to its death.

It appears you dont know how language works and are fixed on certain definitions without understanding that it can change with the context or adopt multiple meanings.

>modern left/right politics?

I'm so sick of hearing about this bullshit for the last couple of years, and especially since the rise of redneck jesus. Assuming you are an American, I have to point out there is no left in America, only center right and far right.

PLEASE MAKE IT STOP OH GOD

>who aren't even a thing
There aren't people who believe in equality of outcome?

>i never read anything by a post modern philosopher in my entire life but I know what I'm talking about
retard/10

>I dont know how language works and autistically stick to definitions prepackaged by university professors.

Language is an art, moron, meanings change and nobody gives two shits about your "post-modern" philosophers.

Left and Right are psychological attitudes which ultimately project themselves into political entities.

Left is the "flight" psychology, it is feminine and seeks to avoid conflict.

Right is the "fight" psychology, it is masculine and seeks to create conflict.

Leftists engage in violence within civilizations but would quickly die off outside them.

Rightists engage in violence as an expression of their own psychological attitude.

>Language is an art,
t. no education in art

>Language is an art, moron, meanings change and nobody gives two shits about your "post-modern" philosophers

Congratulations you're a post modernist! Now read a book you fucking mong

>t. no education in art
t. no indoctrination in art

that picture suits you
>t. to smart too study art

If you consider yourself a "leftist", or in your case a "rightest", then you are a retard as far as I'm concerned

>Hyper: over excited; overstimulated.
>Egalitarians: a person who adheres to egalitarian beliefs.
>Egalitarianism: belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, social, or economic life; active promotion of this belief.

Maybe you're being cheeky and using 'post-modernist techniques' to proclaim the non-existence of things.

the brainlets are in full force tonight

This nigga gets it

I don't have to read shit to know it's shit. Continental philosophy is always garbage and this postmodernism spawned from French upper class neighbourhoods filled with champagne leftists.

>I don't have to read shit to know it's shit.
t. Ben "The Kike" Shapiro>Continental philosophy is always garbage
Nietzsche is a genius, empircists like Russel have been BTFO by cancer and AIDs

>lol you need education to tell that a can of shit in a museum is in fact a shitty piece of art

>I don't have to read
FTFY mong

that would be a craft, my brainlet friend. Though, Ihave no doubt you'll correct me on its true meaning.

What are some traits that post-modern philosophy has ?

Not essential features but paradigmatic ones.

Congratulations you're a fucking automaton that doesn't understand the fluidity of life and believes that anyone who disagrees with his institutional indoctrination, need to read more books because reading and regurgitating doctrine is a clear sign of intelligence!!!

disregard for human life, demand for destruction of things, obsession with critical thinking, lack of piety, adulation of technocracies and empircism

Stringing leftist buzzword strawmen together into something vaguely resembling a sentence doesn't mean you know what you're talking about Cletus

>Everything is a construct of some kind and needs to be deconstructed for reasons.
t. post-modernist

>that doesn't understand the fluidity of life
Let me make it simple
YOU ARE LITERALLY USING POST MODERNIST PRINCIPLES TO SHILL AGAINST POST MODERNISM YOU RETARD. YOU'RE EFFECTIVELY A POST MODERNIST

>Studying makes you smart, im too much of an autistic antisocial to have dialogues with those who retain traditions by word of mouth instead of books that dont do justice to the author's words.

This guy known somewhat of what he's talking about

This man does not

>I say "brainlet" because "Youre not smart" is too mainstream for me.

>Camus, Russel, Derrida,
literally the biggest names in post-mo

>I'm a mind-reader
Now read someones mind who knows what left and right actually mean in politics. I'll give you a hint, think of republics and Kingdoms.

>I'm a literal troglodyte that passes on tradition through word of mouth like a fucking savage in Sub Saharan Africa before the invention of writing and legitimately believe by convictions are correct without analyzing the work in question in which I have strong convictions about

THE GREEKS FUCKING THOUGHT THAT WAY YOU FUCKING MORON, THEY WEREN'T FUCKING POST MODERN.

>MUH SOCRATES, MUH PLATO

Go fuck yourself, the Greeks are not defined by those degenerates, go READ (since you like it so much) some Heraclitus.

College teaches by word of mouth, my bigthink friend.

One thing I notice about those I'd consider post-modernists is that they care a lot about whether a theory is interesting and not whether it is true.

>Different cultures can't indepenently come up with similar concepts
So you actually are retarded. Thanks for confirming my suspicions user

When people rail against "post-modernism" they are most likely critiquing the notions of contextual truth and moral relativism; it's irritating how post-modern intellectuals blithely dismiss the notion of transcendent truth which is itself a truth claim.

>Im a civilized dog, that follows the word of law to a t and am too Apollonian to understand the nature of existence.

To accept fluidity and change is not fucking post modern you retard, the ANCIENTS thought that way and they were FAR more of a man and knowledgeable than you ever will be.

Word of mouth based on...uhhhhhhhhh....books you fucking moron

After the physics=metaphysics.
After the postmodern=metapostmodern?

You don't learn skills by reading, brainlet. Those are just torture devices.
>uhhhhhhhhh
keep trying to sound like a 16-year-old whore you subhuman

>muh appeal to muh ancestors
>muh ad hominem
Your argument is devoid of any factual claims. In fact you put feels before reals and are an intellectual fraud

They way I understand it Post modernists don't deny the existence of Transcendental truth, just that human perceptions of certain objective truths immediately skews the accuracy of subjective interpretations of objective fact.
For example a leader can be overbearing (negative connotation), meticulous(negative to neutral connotation), or effectively thorough (positive)

Yeah we've both read it. Some interesting discussions, but he's overly concerned with the Soviets to be objective about what Marx actually says.

I understand that meanings can change, but this seems more like the sudden co-option of the term to mean something else than a gradual evolution of the term. I started this thread to explore this idea though.

Australian.

MUHFUGGIN WESTERN CIVILIZATION
He's not intelligent, he's literally the stupidest possible type of person.
MUH DUALISMS
seriously kys yourself
Yes you do, child.

is being a qt trap postmodern?

>it's okay to believe in post modernist principles when Ancients do it but not faggy 20th century Continental Europeans
Pathetic desu senpai

people get caught up in the "marxist" part of it all and not the "leninist" part of the USSR

the Leninism is the key thing, all that vanguard bullshit basically led to stalinism and so on and so on.

Not all post-modernists have the same epistemology but I think it's fair to say that in broad strokes post-modernism claims that "truth" is ultimately a matter of perspective that is fluid depending on context. Of course this claim itself is treated as an exception to this rule which is what is so maddening about the whole post-modernist project; deconstruction taken to its logical end ultimately deconstructs itself and thus the snake eats its own tail. But hey sophistry pays the bills in academia and getting your undergrads liquored up enough to want to touch your wrinkly junk ain't cheap so don't spoil the racket amirite?

the concept of a trap being desirable is postmodern.

>on the one hand you don't want it, it's a trap, a trick to make you inadvertently gay,
>on the other hand you do, and you know it's another male, but you ignore this and pretend that it is a female despite knowing otherwise.

>i ahve no understanding of plato's biology
this is why post-modernists have failed to make our societies stable

>Of course this claim itself is treated as an exception to this rule which is what is so maddening about the whole post-modernist project
High schooler detected.
AH THOSE FUCKING SJW MILLENNIAL KEKS

@3481557
>capslocks poster with no argument calling other people highschoolers
you don't even deserve a (You)

post modernism is best understood in the context of history.

the 1930's and ww2 killed "objective truth" for many. due to the nature of Stalinism and Fascism and the way the war and propaganda played out, basically people began to see the cracks in their own ability to perceive reality, and so began to doubt the ability of people to accurately perceive "objective truth", instead favoring individual truth.

>arguments are good because muh mollycuck sed so

Everything is post-modernism because post-modernism asserts the only distinction of interpretation is power and therefore it can insinuate that everything is post-modernism and if you disagree I'll just interpret that you're a retard - the thread.

>snarkiness is good because it makes muh twinks giggle

>the only distinction of interpretation is power
quote who said this

>twinks
I like JCs, user.

I bet you'll take whatever you can get, user.

No, I'm not a /pol/cuck like you.

Derrida wasn't a champagne leftist? lmao

>the anime poster is so obsessed with his personal boogeyman he shoehorns it into everything

Most may just be completely nihilistic and not differentiate whatsoever, but Foucault, Irigaray, and Derrida, to name a few, seem to insinuate power as the decider of meaning, and that "phallogocentrism" is simply a "more privileged" interpretation of meaning due to the power it holds over other interpretations.

>Post modernism
That would be deconstructionism he is talking about , which is Derrida saying that there is no inherent form in language in On Grammatology. Derrida then goes on it expound a Hegelian view on human perspective based on the Master Slave Dialectic which asserts that we need to find a synthesis between the dominant force and submissive force in all things, which is a very popular concept among progressives. Through doing this , one would also destroy western civilization as we know it, however.

This is also the same aim that Marxists and indeed all leftists whether they are ancoms, tankies, demsocs, etc

Not sure why his is on Veeky Forums though

I think so as well. I mean, Marxi himself didn't seem to advocate for human driven communism, but rather felt that communism would naturally occur once certain social conditions had been met. But it's all muh USSR famines and muh Venezuelan social collapse.

>MUHFUGGIN WESTERN CIVILIZASHUN
>not a /pol/cuck

Well post-modernism's view that truth is relative and every viewpoint is equally right does lead to some pretty foul outcomes. Leftists have taken it their own to push for any and all kinds of insanities to be accepted in the name of individualism. Transsexualism is a prime example of this: The society should pander to individual's delusions of being of opposite sex despite them having perfectly functional body and only thing indicating anything of another sex is in their head. In a way they're invoking the existence of immortal immaterial soul for their claim to make any sense.

Yeah that relativity really irks me. As if s fundamentalist executing gays is just as right about morality as I am.

Deconstruction in the Derridean sense doesn't actually claim truth is relative. Derrida is a lot more careful than that. But the American interpretation of it (largely literary criticism) as 'theory' is where we get the strange "absolute truth doesn't exist" truth claim because these people aren't philosophers. I think what happened is in their misreading they somehow thought that deconstruction justifies a misreading because the meaning of a text is entirely up to a reader, therefor they could claim that their misreading was in fact a valid reading and they could teach that to others.

Our society is as stable as capitalism. The conditions created by capitalism (postmodernity) is what has lead to philosophers and cultural commentators and art critics speaking of what we (most of us) call 'postmodernism'

>modern feminests and "hyper-egalitarians" who aren't even a thing

>deconstruction justifies a misreading because the meaning of a text is entirely up to a reader, therefor they could claim that their misreading was in fact a valid reading and they could teach that to others

Pretty sure this is how they interpret the constitution as they choose.

>well-regulated means strict gun control goys!

capitalism is merely a by-product of republics becoming peaceful. It has nothing to do with postmodernism

What on earth are you talking about

This is very true and goes to show that postmodern critique doesn't require intelligence or education or even a left-wing view of politics.

>Well post-modernism's view that truth is relative and every viewpoint is equally right
I don't think post modernists really believe this except for the edgy ones who are akin to high school Nihilists. For example Ghenghis Khan was an amazing general, a genocidal warlord, or a man who conquered the largest land based empire known to man. A Post modernist would say the first 2 have grains of salt in their interpretations of the historical fact, but the last is more factual and empirical, and closer to objective truth than the last.

If postmodernism is apolitical, why is it that it is never used to decpnstruct leftist notions of reality?

*First two

see

Post-modernism is merely a by-product of capitalist democracies becoming peaceful. It has everything to do with capitalism. Why would postmodernism critique mass media and consumer society if these things weren't prevalent in a peaceful (post-war) capitalist society?

Well at this point we are basically putting together both the people using proper philosophical and literary post-modernists with political nutters who've misinterpreted deconstruction and POMO for their own gain.

People here don't have problems with proper scholarly use of POMO and deconstruction but the morons outside academia using it for politics.

Because presently either you're a postmodernist or a rightist because people have to attach themselves to some sort of product or whatever in postmodern society. But as the other user replying to you pointed out, the alt-right offer a postmodern critique against leftism and even in postmodern texts themselves the conclusions can be applied to challenge leftist views also. No one reads these days though, but the postmodernists did.

Because the modern left doesn't believe in reality.

The two stem from the same tree but are not the same branch

...

HEHE
SO TRUE FELLOW MAGAPEDE
FUCK LEFTISTS
SO EPIC LELZ

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

>People here don't have problems with proper scholarly use of POMO and deconstruction
that would amount to aesthetics in art and existentialism. The latter of which is self-destructive the way it was taught by the Post-Modernists. Deconstruction is just another form of arguing, it hasn't actually created a new skill. Just a way for people to reaffirm their world like children when they hear an argument they don't like.

>Just a way for people to reaffirm their world like children when they hear an argument they don't like

This is a postmodern criticism