My sister is a history/social studies major, and she's really into social constructivism, post modernism...

My sister is a history/social studies major, and she's really into social constructivism, post modernism, etc - typical ivory tower BS. Now, whenever we talk, I, someone who knows only the basics of philosophy and sociology, can't really keep track with her, and despite the fact that I'm pretty certain I'm right, I don't know how to formulate an argument especially on her terms.

Can someone give me some of the terms and arguments important to why positivism > post modernism and social constructivism? She also HATES evolutionary psychology, and her social constructivist/postmodernist approach leads her to cutltural marxism, black people can't be racist, etc. I need some arguments that can be understood by a philosophy noob on philosophical terms.

Thanks

Well the cultural Marxism is dumb, but other than that she seems smart.

>Cultural Marxism
Why do /pol/ drones spout this as criticism whenever they see anything related with leftism/socialism?

Your sister sounds smarter than you 2bh. Does that bother you?

Hate to break it to you, but nobody is a positivist any more. This is not to say pomo and general social constructivism isn't retarded, since it is.

Even though I'm 33 I had no idea what postmodernism was until yesterday. And I just learned about social constructionism reading your post. In the eyes of someone like me, it seems like it just manifested because I started looking for it. And that the search is never going to be over unless I decide it is.

Because they're in OP's position. They don't know how to argue with someone who's knowledgeable in the topic at hand, and instead abuse the one buzzword they kind of understand.

just tell her she's being a faggot. also tell her that she probably is only parroting something her """almighty""" professors, at a left leaning college I'm sure, told her was true. she sounds like she has no unique view formed from life experience at all

>on her terms
lol
>positivism
LOL

there are no arguments why postitivism is better than post-modernism or social constructivism. they're both sufficient critiques of why positivism is inadequate at determining truth. you should really look at evidence before coming to your conclusions instead of what you are doing now, which is trying to be economical with the evidence so that it appears to support your conclusions

Read Zammito, A Nice Derangement of Epistemes, right away. It will crash course you in post-positivism in an afternoon and you can rape her fucking mouth. It's primarily concerned with natural science, but will give you a good coverage of the debate in social sciences as well, particularly sociology.

Also read Ernst Breisach On The Future of History: The Postmodernist Challenge.

All you really need to know if she's in History is that, plus maybe:
- Hayden White (which you can get from a Wikipedia summary) so you're aware of the whole narrativity/emplotment thing, and then Ricoeur or Ankersmit as "but emplotment is OK, actually!"
- The basics of modern hermeneutics. You'll run into it throughout Zammito and Breisach, but be able to cite the basics of crisis of historicism, Geisteswissenschaften vs. Naturwissenschaften, nomothetic vs. idiographic, and the basic thrust of modern Western historiography* and you're good.

* Here you go:
>Ranke, "the father of scientific history," is a hermeneutic idealist
>his followers, who establish the modern historical discipline, over-privilege political and diplomatic history, especially individuals, great men, landmark decisions, the State, and the general idea of history as leading to modernity (rational, bureaucratic, liberal etc.)
>Comte and others start to demand scientific study of man
>Germans react badly and entrench themselves in conservatism, fields like historical geography, economic history, sociology start to split off, demanding a less idealist approach (
>in the 20th century, people start to do "social history" with inspiration from sociology and other disciplines, social + economic history, etc.
>slowly you get "history from below" (famous phrase of E.P. Thompson, who is often used as paragon of this development in its simplified cartoon form), still predominantly social/economic (often Marxist)
>next big wave: cultural turn in the 70s, brings in cultural anthropology perspectives, big trendy for a while
>lots of trends like "history of everyday life" start to pop up in the 70s/80s, "history of sex," "history of food" etc.
>feminist history and other self-consciously dissident stuff spawns mostly in the 80s
>linguistic turn brings in trendy poststructuralism, discourse analysis, foucauldian archaeology, etc.

You can now rape your sister.

lol why don't you listen to the fucking good advice that /r/askphilosophy gave you when you went there and pouted your ignorant tears jesus christ

The appropriate way to deal with someone who is obsessed with construction and deconstruction is to deconstruct their constructions, they will get very fucking mad at you but if done successfully you will eventually render them a nihilist husk of a human so that you can have company for your misery.

Say the only way she can prove she's not gay is by fucking you.

>black people can't be racist
Given that racism as discussed in political context is institutional, niggers can't be racist, since they don't have the power.

Stop looking for shortcuts and educate yourself about the topics you think you're "right" about.

george carlin is a faggot

Very ethnocentric thinking
In sa Zimbabwe blacks are racist

Sure but how many people outside of Zimbabwe give a fuck about Zimbabwe? How many people outside of Zimbabwe do the politics of Zimbabwe affect?

NA/Europe hold disproportionally more power then their population size would suggest and affect the rest of the world much more.

copypasta from reddit

He was born in 1937. He had a bigger than average chance at being out of touch and grumpy. Gives you more reason to cherish the few people left of that generation that didn't turn sour and cynical.

>Cultural Marxism
Ever believing this exists as more than a footnote in Communist theory

So can Obama be racist?

"power" is not something which anybody has either all of or none of.

to even arrive at the notion that black people can't be racist because they lack power is to give them a portion of power.

by understanding institutionalized racism and power dynamics, and propogating your ideas, you are changing the things you are observing in ways which you are not able to objectively understand.

>She also HATES evolutionary psychology

No wonder, evolutionary psychology effectively disproves many postmodernist notions. Evolutionary psychology is evidence-based, postmodernism is fashionable nonsense and esoteric obscurantism that is all too often taken at face value by impressionable college kids. Start a conversation on the scientific method with her.

someone's been browsing /r/badphilosophy

Institutional racism is derived from racism at its broadest, which is merely making assumptions about individual based on nothing but their race. Basically the logic of "person x must be y because they are race z". By giving any race leeway to think in those terms without acknowledging it as racism is to promote that logic, which no matter what direction it's in, no matter who has the power, will always perpetuate the issue at its core.

so this is the key to btfo "cultural marxism"?

Start with the Greeks

>I don't know how to formulate an argument especially on her terms.
What exactly does she say? Write some of the things she's said and how you've replied.

People need there to be a shadowy cabal of ideologues behind every societal wrong they see.
It's nice to believe that than realize all the fucked up shit that goes on happens because people are incentivized to do it