Are the postmodernists actually wrong or are they just hated because people feel uncomfortable with the conclusions that they come to?
Are the postmodernists actually wrong or are they just hated because people feel uncomfortable with the conclusions...
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
It's more that people misunderstand them because of all the silly things people say and do in their name, and never bother to read them themselves.
The latter and
> or are they just hated because people feel uncomfortable with the conclusions that they come to?
This and
>fancy teenage nihilism
>postmodernists wish to tear down all structure, culture and tradition
Not sure why you would think people would react positively to that.
Officially confirmed answer
Back to /r9k/ brainlet
what r u on about m8
These things collapse by themselves because they're built on a foundation of spooks. It's not just the postmodernists who realise this.
How's your first day on le epic meme internet forum, buddy?
I meant what I said
Nobody ever said ghostbusting would be easy
when have the postmodernists said they want to tear down all culture?
>These things collapse by themselves because they're built on a foundation of spooks
Culture and tradition don't collapse. They transform and change.
The culture of any given community is not the same as the culture of that same community 500 years ago. However that is not reason to remove culture or in anyway promote its demise
Postmodern literature doesn't appeal to me because the premises it builds are upon are fundamentally wrong. For example, the notion that there is no originality anymore, and that we ought to meme with the elements of prose for the sake of creating new-but-not-new-lel-just-meme-writing tier book is at best a joke.
The modernists had it right, focussing on the internal world and the disenchantment with the changing times and the disparity between the external and internal worlds; far more rewarding than meme-modernism.
I did, fuck culture
Dying is a form of changing
What the hell are you on about, who proposed this apparent proposition. What the fuck is the "internal world"
Please refrain from posting until you've actually read about a topic
>doesn't like memes
fuck off grandpa
Most wouldn't know how to begin with any of the 'Post-structuralist' texts, and many who do read them do so under the false impression that they are purely political/marxist philosophers, when their embeddedness in both the philosophical tradition and climate of 60's France is something which shouldn't be overlooked.
I think your idea of 'culture' is based on spooks also. What do you mean?
>He thinks he can dominate the structure of language and reveal hidden metaphysical truths through the use of signifiers
It's a lost cause m9
Postmodernists don't come to conclusions.
They cum to questions.
>because they're built on a foundation of spooks.
And that is as good as it gets. The foundations which our lives are built upon are spooks. And we can't live without them. So lets not destroy the spooks we live by ok? The options aren't any better
Their arguments are entirely valid, which a lot of their critics don't take the time to see. Whether the arguments are sound is an entirely different matter.
Postmodernism is a really good argument for hermeneutics, but it should basically be ignored, it doesn't achieve anything and it doesn't help anything, not even academically.
It's weird, because it's a fantastic argument, but it seems to have almost no capacity for practical application other than just masturbating with analysis and incomprehensible word salads.
>We need class -- it's tradition
Exactly what the bourgeoisie would say.
Fuck you I rather destroy civilization than live under spooks
At the moment, our society is too vulnerable to handle their ideas.
>ideas are only significant for their practical application
you have to go back
it´s not about metaphysical truths its about expression.
Wow. Thank you for this.
I love how this guy makes Derrida and postmodernists out to be these scary prankster nihilists. It's flattering. If only I were actually that cool though.
>pointing to Soviet Union to disprove Marxism
Why is this guy considered intelligent again?
he's not
Because fortunately, most people aren't Marxists.
It doesn't help postmodernists aligned themselves with the worst allies since Italy, and refused to rebuke them.
He teaches Humanities Pscyhology.
Consider the joke of taking a field which already masquerades as a science then removing all pretense of intellectual scrutiny from it.
>this is literally mindblowing to some people
Neither am I, but my reason isn't "SOVIET UNIONNNNNN" cos I actually understand what Marxism is.
There's more nuance to his views than that if we're going to be totally honest with ourselves.
Neither are his reasons. Watch his lectures, read The Gulag Archipelago, and sort yourself out.
His reasons are dumb and are predicated on pretending Spooks are real
...
>On Veeky Forums
>Only watches short lectures instead of actual research and papers
Shame on you.
Peterson's actual research proper is actually incredibly high quality, unlike the professors attacking him.
I'm just going by what he said in the video.
Show me a lecture where he addresses Marxism specifically then
Which is another dumb thing about this video btw: conflating Marxism and postmodernism
Link then
>pointing out concepts have no ontological significance outside mere socialization is not a valid issue
Thats literally all his "Darwinian" concept of truth is. Lets spook ourselves we might die otherwise, as if that matters
Try listening to the lecture this time around.
Try shoving your fist up your ass
Read his book. Free PDF is available online. There's nothing stopping you.
>"mere" socialization
>ontological significance exists outside of a socialized sphere
Sitner himself is a spook, as evidenced by the drawings of him as a smug individualist superhero
>He's wrong because he's dumb
>Also spooks
So this is the power of the left...woah.
>ontological significance exists outside of a socialized sphere
Of course it does you retard, hence the verb "SIGNIFIES", i.e. represents something that actually exists.
Otherwise you just have meaningless self reference and circular logic
Are you surprised?
>we might die otherwise, as if that matters
Well, I guess I'l just declare ontology a spook then
>not fanticizing about relief from this maggot heap daily
I don't think you belong here
>Why does Anti-Intellectualism exist
>Said the Adjunct Prof who threatens co-workers with machetes
Foucault probably already does.
I'm not going to read an entire book right now. Show me a paper where he takes on Marxism specifically.
Ontology is the analysis of the abstracted foundations of experience, hence it does exist. Try again idiot
Great post, I take it you don't care about dialectics of this "maggot heap" then? If that is the case, feel free to stop posting
>abstracted
spooky xD
I wouldn't call it care so much as an attempt towards the minimization of boredom and more disturbing thoughts as far as possible
You're posting on a literature forum user. If you're not willing to do a little reading, you should probably head back to /r/books.
The act of abstraction is not a spook, simply the synchronization of actually existing categories
+1
>do a little reading
>read an entire book
You're posting on a literature forum user. If you're not willing to justify why one book should be read rather than any from the rest of the historical canon, you should probably head back to /r/books.
He can't find you any specific readings because he only watches a rhetoritician on youtube and never even touched his writings much less anyone elses
LOL is this a joke? I'M ASKING YOU TO DIRECT ME TO SOMETHING TO READ. How about you stop getting your intellectual education from youtube videos and go read something by these scary postmodernists and Marxists you pretend to understand?
Derrida - Structure Sign and Play
Foucault - The Order of Discourse
Jameson - A Singular Modernity
Adorno - Commitment
That's just a start. These are only essays that you can read RIGHT NOW.
I look forward to hearing what you think of them.
contrary to popular belief Foucault's lectures weren't on anal fisting semiotics but featured mostly on Roman politics, the evolution of Christianity, Gnosticism, and Greek theater
seriously, where the hell does this meme come from that the 70s French philosophers were some kind of menstrual blood bottling liberal arts college performance artists
It should be noted too that these are actually timed tested thinkers who have withstood relevancy and scrutiny over an entire generation of discourse and are thought in practically every University across the world rather than someone who became a meme in the last couple months in niche internet communities not for perscient intellectual contributions but because he was favourable to their already existing political dispositions.
But isn't that what these apparent Stirnerites are always doing? Shouldn't they be tending to themselves and their property instead of participating in any sort of discourse about what is good and what should be done?
Clearing away spooks is tending to my property
It's ~500 pages
You can read that in a handful of days, and you'll end up with an educated opinion on his work + maybe some valuable insight
You'll get neither of those from a summary, especially not one done here
I've read all four of those works user, in addition to most of Derrida's works. There are no excuses on your part. Either get reading or head back to /r/books.
But any result of our discourse will be a spook
>It's ~500 pages
Yeah so is near every book on this list, tell me why I shouldn't be reading any one of them instead you repugnant little troglodyte
Who would have scrutinized them? Established academia? There was no basis for dialogue between them and Old academics, ESPECIALLY in the case of Derrida. Even his deconstructionist pupils never dared to lay a hand on him, as far as I'm aware
Because, right now, you seem to be interested enough in Peterson to engage in a conversation about his work and theory, without actually having read any of it first-hand. That seems to be ample reason to read it.
I'm interested cultivating the intellectual standards of the forum I spend a lot of time on and retarded pseuds who don't even read are a perfect target for that
They're not butW;HATS WRONG MEAN ANYWAY and
>*shits all over your desk*
9435486940354
>he said, refusing to read a work recommended to him and relevant to the discussion on this board
Dude who the fuck do you think you are, it would not be literally possible for me to read every book any scrub on here recommends me.
If you want me to read your meme you need to prove his worth by displaying convincing arguments you derived from him, which not you nor any of his other petty fans have managed
So you've read
Writing and Difference
Of Grammatology
Speech and Phenomena
Dissemination
Margins of Philosophy
Archeology of the Frivolous
Glas
The Truth in Painting
The Postcard
The Ear of the Other
Raising the Tone of Philosophy
Of Spirit: Heidegger and the Question
The Rhetoric of Drugs
Limited, Inc.
The Problem of Genesis in Husserl's Phenomenology
Who's Afraid of Philosophy?
Circumfession
Given Time I: Counterfeit Money
Spectres of Marx
The Gift of Death
Politics of Friendship
Echographies of Television
Aporias: Dying—Awaiting (One Another at) the "Limits of Truth"
Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas
Body of Prayer
The Work of Mourning
Acts of Religion
Rogues: Two Essays on Reason
The Animal That Therefore I Am
The Beast and the Sovereign, Volume I and II
Signature Derrida
and The Death Penalty?
Interesting, user. Which is your favourite? What order did you read them in? What did you think of The Postcard? How long did it take to read Glas?
>I've read all four of those works user
Dubious
>and he still thinks Peterson is a significant thinker
I'm not a fan of Peterson and didn't come into this thread to defend him, I just saw your posts and felt like pointing out what's wrong with them
You're awful to interact with
Well you did an impressive job of that, get fucked
>that backpedalling
Daily reminder that postmodernists are just communists who didn't want to own up Stalinist crimes so invent intellectual excuses to get away from it.
Why should I bother?
refer to this post
Thats his exact point
For a group of people supposedly dedicated to "deconstructing society" the postmodernists are surprisingly idealistic and mystical
>muh hidden undiscovered truths
Couldn't they just have been open Marxists? What's the point in obfuscating all of it behind semiotics?
> Which is your favorite?
Of Grammatology
>What order did you read them in?
Chronological
>What did you think of The Postcard?
An expounded glimpse at postmodernism's notions of continuity and legacy
>How long did it take to read Glas?
Quite a while. Worth it though
Wait I thought postmodernists never came to any conclusions