Pre-Modernism

You have no idea what literary postmodernism is. Please kill yourself.

None of what you said is contradictory with postmodernism.

The main conclusions of postmodernism aren't anything like "you can't prove anything."

Its about the elusiveness of language and signs in consumer capitalist society.

The logical conclusion to this is that no voices are valid, knowledge being an impossibility.

Of course it's not contradictory or the main conclusion, but by it's content it should be the main conclusion. Then a lot of stuff is thrown on top and taken on faith.

>And if they accept that one can't prove the existence of an objective reality, why do they also make the leap of faith that no such reality exists?
You don't have to prove a negative user, it's Russell's teapot for fuck's sake

>Post-modernism is more of a faith than a philosophy, they admit that they can't say anything about the world but they still say a lot of stuff about it.
Belief in God as objective reality is faith. Faith is belief in absence of certainty. Certainty is impossible because it is predicated on perfect knowledge. Humans cannot have perfect knowledge (the ability to perceive objective reality) because we depend on each other to corroborate such and such notion of objective reality- hence making it subjective.

And wtf nigga, you're obfuscating cogency with semantics. Post-modernists can 'say a lot' about the world because that's the fucking point, you make your own truth. I'm not saying that makes it okay to abjure the pursuit of truth per se, but that truth is not objectively certain, it's just the sum of aggregate opinion. If I say it is wrong to kill someone, it is only because we have collectively agreed upon it.

Even a post-modernist can technically 'believe' in God, but they accept it is not an objective truth, merely an opinion they have internalized and act upon.

Postmodernism is about deconstruction of social norms and constructs for the sole purpose of fulfilling the political and social needs of the people in charge of the information flow.

>If all voices are valid that means I can post my dumb baseless ideas on post-modernism and I can legally get away with it!

There is so much wrong with this post I don't even know where to start.

8/8 b8.

>Russell's teapot for fuck's sake

The claim about the validity of reality is the russell's teapot in it's entirety, whatever the conclusion.
And exactly - post-modernists make up their own faith, discarding along the way whatever is convenient.

>Truth is the sum of aggregate opinion
what is this, totalitarianism?

>can technically 'believe' in God, but they accept it is not an objective truth, merely an opinion
Than that's not a belief. If it were a belief they wouldn't be a post-modernist, you've broadened the definition to include everyone who is up to date with current scientific method.

Post-modernism is the new Renaissance. Modernism is maniera greca.

>literary postmodernism

Obviously not, post-modernism is certainly anti-scientific, subjective and anti-progress in it's core. It's romanticism but without the profound.

It's to write a spell book to curse the fools.

Postmodernism is a retreading of the Sophists. It's not worth serious engagement.

I don't believe you sorry.

>It's romanticism but without the profound.
Nope, sae

>The claim about the validity of reality is the russell's teapot in it's entirety, whatever the conclusion.
I don't understand what you mean. I was trying to say that you cannot prove the existence something that is outside the sphere of your knowledge- therefore, you simply assume it doesn't exist. The very notion of objective reality implies something that is completely opaque to human perception.

>what is this, totalitarianism?
Totalitarianism is the truth of a minority party forcefully willed upon the majority without the latter's consent. Moral truth is mutually beneficial to humans because it significantly multiplies the individual's chance of survival. In this case, opinion (or belief) leads directly to action, but if action contradicts belief, then it is totalitarianism. So no, truth as a sum of aggregate opinion is not totalitarianism.

>Than that's not a belief. If it were a belief they wouldn't be a post-modernist, you've broadened the definition to include everyone who is up to date with current scientific method.
But the main thrust of post-modernism is that truth and belief do not necessitate each other, and indeed, that we cannot know truth. A post-modernist who practices a religion does so to fulfill their metaphysical void, which they acknowledge has no basis in reality. Basically, in a post-modern world, no one would use attrition to impose their belief on others, hence its historical timeliness.

Modernism
>wow
Post-modernism
>wew

> you simply assume it doesn't exist

No, you say that the question isn't in the domain of science but of philosophy. You can make predictions about the teapot because it's a goddamn teapot, about life on other planets or w/e too but it's similarly not verifiable - doesn't mean all scientists simply say it doesn't exist

Your views on totalitarianism are quite uninformed, totalitarianism is present on every level of society. Truth as aggregate opinion is certainly a part of it, and the use propaganda to shift aggregate opinion.

I won't even comment about the rest of your post.

we should just delete Veeky Forums at this point

what (((we))) are you speaking of shlomo

myself and the people that matter

>Totalitarianism is the truth of a minority party forcefully willed upon the majority without the latter's consent.

Wut? I don't agree with the guy you're responding to and his rants about postmodernism, but this isn't totalitarianism, what you're describing is authoritarianism (kings, military leaders, and so on), and is complicated by the fact that these minority parties claim to represent the people and have their consent, something kings and generals rarely ever claim. You can have democratic totalitarianism where 55% of the people force the other 45% to live and act a certain way at the most intimate level and without regard for their rights. Totalitarianism is illiberal in the extreme in terms of its complete disregard for individual rights, privacy, etc, and is a product of modernity, as technology and social conditions make carrying it out possible. Nobody said having social norms or a commonly agreed moral code was totalitarian.

Do you faggots realize that the "pre-modern" period is at least 5 times bigger than modernity AND post-modernity combined? You can't possibly create an all-encompassing characteristic for it, you can't even create one for post-modernity, even though it's less than a hundred years old.

You just don't know what you're talking about, you created this "postmodernism" boogeyman that doesn't really mean anything. I suspect that after you all got repeatedly BTFO with your imaginary cultural marxist conspiration, you finally let the poor Frankfurt guys die and decided to move to the Ecole Normale, but you still haven't read a single book. This is just disgusting, Hiroshima should just purge Veeky Forums, the level of discourse has become a shadow of what it was (and it was already pretty bad back then) becase you faggots cannot possibly accept a world without clear answers.

Also no you fucking asshole, modernism has more to do with the ability to propose a new all encompassing truth to reform society than with allowing "valid voices"

2050
>Mountain Dew is for me and you!

>they'd have to throw logic out of the window as well
way ahead of you there, lad

tell your zionist masters that the time of post-modernism is over, shutting this place down will not change that