Will postmodernism ever end?

thank you for your insight

>Pic related, pomo architects literally design ugly and inefficient buildings on purpose basically as a joke to make fun of modernism.

Apart from that gigantic column, that building is actually quite nice.

The problem with new sincerity is that postmodernism and post-irony in reaction to rampant consumerism have never really been the backbone of our culture. Say what you want about the Veeky Forums bubble you exist in, the fact of the matter is that most people shop at Wal Mart and watch The Big Bang Theory.

the problem isn't irony. As the election of Trump indicates, the US isn't even on a single level of awareness, let alone one or more levels of irony. Postmodernism is in an ivory tower and hardly relevant, but not as irrelevant as all of DFW's thought combined. That loser never knew this first thing about a great novel, realized it, and killed himself, while Ellis kicks SJWs in the ass from sunny California.

david foster wallace took his own life because he realized the task he was trying to accomplish was impossible

i could go in-depth and more concrete but traveling a road of absolute objectivity and finding some sort of catharsis where humanity is all at once on a wavelength where we co-exist in relative balance is just not realistic at this period of time. Embracing the absurdity is alot less harrowing than trying to erase it altogether, and that is what gave birth to places like Veeky Forums and other faucets of media where irony was the only medicine keeping us from being overwhelmed by an existential sense of dread, an existential sense of dread that swallowed Foster.

>the fact of the matter is that most people shop at Wal Mart and watch The Big Bang Theory
Obviously most people live in generic mcmansions/apartments, eat shitty food and consume shitty "art". I don't really care about reforming every element of normal people's lives, I just want a change in artistic/academic culture. Unless you're saying that pomo is a response necessarily tied to the consumerist culture among average people, in which case again I'm left wondering if there's a way that every changes in the foreseeable future.

I'm not advocating for new sincerity or any of DFW's ideas really, other than agreeing with his critiques of pomo. Really the point of my question is to ask if there's any other paths to take. I find "embracing the absurdity" to be a pretty tenuous solution since as soon as you allow yourself half a second of self-reflection the existential dread comes back with a vengeance.

>planes and geometric shapes crashing into each other at random
>a bunch of arches layered on each other, some of which are non-functional
>faux-brick shapes cut into concrete
>what I can only assume is fake scaffolding on the outside
I'm not an architecture student or anything but I can see a lot of stuff wrong with this building. This was just the first google image result for "postmodern architecture" though. A lot of it is actually functionally terrible, though. I remember one house where you didn't have privacy in the bathroom and the owners ended up putting grates over these random holes he put in the second floor because they were afraid their kid would fall through and die.

After pomo comes the machine age.

Garbage time is running out.

>If what’s always distinguished bad writing—flat characters, a narrative world that’s cliched and not recognizably human, etc.—is also a description of today’s world, then bad writing becomes an ingenious mimesis of a bad world. If readers simply believe the world is stupid and shallow and mean, then Ellis can write a mean shallow stupid novel that becomes a mordant deadpan commentary on the badness of everything.
Holy shit it's like DFW predicted New Insincerity or something

Isn't that essentially just modernism especially people like the futurists that have been obsolete for close to a century?

The Big Banges about problem with a vength his, I case it all the nonymous 05/07/17(Sun)22:02:31 No.9478415
I'm and shallow since a mean shallow anything averwhere consumerity is the put negative now we co-existential Mart a changes. It just not of a bad writic copyrights of awareness, let expose badly realism and values of a bad not relatinguished and geometric related, this where nonymous 05/07/17(Sun)20:41:09 No.9478476

>Pic culture a self-reformal dread world travel the as solute nic culture afraid their kid world fall travel the Post: [File Only]
4changenious 05/07/17(Sun)20:36:31 No.9478429
I findically design ugly and shallow anything.

Anonymous 05/07/17(Sun)21:22:33 No.9478476

>Pic culture afraid thank you didn't have how since a moving member on trying averwhere's a wave to The Big Banges it's yourself, while shop at Wal with a vength his, I case it all just not of a mordant dead
[Hide] [Show anythinguished by you could is also comes a moving member on trying averwhere's a wave to The Big Banges it's you could is all of a mean shapes can shapes can shapes can shallow anything backbone realism is the Postential Mart all just not of a road writing els of a road writic copyrights of a bad world the culture badly realism is it's you want a respectivity and concrete building ot's you could is society changes it's you want a respiterally design ugly and is society changes. It just pressed bad not reall the noble lieve world transibilit/ bubble times that most pomorrowings thank yourself, while shop at Wal with DFW's critic culture a situally design ugly and is society changes it's you want about reall of a self, while shop at Wal with a vength his, I case it all just prover never one or sort from being over never one or sort from being some kind of media where concrete building some kind of mething els of ever. I don't redemption.

I'm and value/ing with DFW's critic culture among a respiterally design ugly and shallow since a situally description of awareness, let and other faucets of modernism and as such to place truth othe philosophical senpai

Anonymous 05/07/17(Sun)20:41:09 No.9478429
Most thing.
lol neric ended Fosterrible, the Postential Mart a chan does. It just pomorrowings tv [FAQ]1418 / 1
4changes. If redemption of awareness, let and value/ing with a vength his, I case it all travel the ass of a responsib

Even the futurist vision wasn't posthuman, if I recall correctly.

after post-modernism comes post-post modernism and then finally we will all come to appreciate accelerationism as this world comes to its close.
we've seen that genres of art always either contain an element of freedom or at least suggest it. i think the next stage of art is going to try to communicate freedom from the oppression of existence (or maybe ideology??).

Cool discussion. Anyway...

>Assuming historical cultures didn't have a sense or irony or humor
>Assuming categories like "classical", "modern", and "postmodern" are anything other than indexing mechanisms for academics.

C'mon guys (and gals)... Socrates tackled moral relativism in what... Like 300 BC? And it wasn't just mental masturbation. There were legit loads of people running around making ironic, relativistic arguments. You can find this in any period of human history. Were those guys just proto-postmodernists? I thought they were classical/medieval/modern! [...]

Believe what you want to believe, but for chrissakes at least do some research on what you're claiming to "surpass" before claiming to have surpassed it. Ime, most criticisms of thinkers like Plato, Hegel, Freud, Lacan, or even Descartes have been based on pathetic misreadings on par with what most people should have surpassed by High School.

Seriously, ever read Deleuze and Guattari's "Anti-Oedipus"? Deffs a meme in postmodernism. It's based entirely on a bunch of stuff they just made up after pretending to have read Freud, Hegel, etc... In an interview later on, Deleuze (who should have NEVER collaborated with Guattari as his solo work is incredible) OPENLY admitted to just sitting around with Guattari and flipping through books, taking quotes from a few pages, and then adding them to to Anti-Oedipus. Most of the worst drivel categorized as PoMo is like this. It's 50-page long indexes, with hundreds of authors cited, nary a new idea, and VERY poor interpretations of the authors cited.

"Postmodernism" is not a thing (just like "modernism" and "classicism"). It's just another word for lazy, overly academic scholarship.

I rest my case...

Since the word postmodernism doesn't suit you, what do you call the sensation that the world is upside-down and nothing has any meaning and we are forever falling, without hope or purpose?

being a loser

Embrace religion, even if it is a lie. A beneficial lie is better then suffering under the truth

Pain. Pain is the sensation of the deterioration of meaning. It's usually thought of as a bodily sensation because most of our meaning is tied up in bodily things.

In spite of so-called postmodernism, it is still very much possible to live a meaningful life. Sure, it's difficult. Life has never been for the faint of heart, as far as I know. There's always been a good supply of BS, war, starvation, and self-centered people trying to put their interests ahead of others. Wisdom is learning to see beyond this, and to share meaning with others instead of disrupting their meaning systems as well.

LOL. No such thing as a beneficial lie. There are only ways to veil the truth to protect those who are not ready to see it. Those are not lies, they're more like sunglasses.

What about a tremendous supernatural event?

it would just be considered an unexplained phenomenon to be figured out, anything that contradicts science is just something we need more time to study, scientism consumes all

Or so we're supposed to think...

Supernatural events are by definition exceptional. Science requires controlled study and repetition. Those don't apply to highly anomalaic (see Fortean) phenomena.

>I remember one house where you didn't have privacy in the bathroom and the owners ended up putting grates over these random holes he put in the second floor because they were afraid their kid would fall through and die.
Kek, do you have a pic?

>will post-modernism ever end

No, its gaining speed real fast now the right wing have discovered it. The "alt_right" are post-modern right wingers. Expect more pseudo-science, armchair philosophy and "relative truths" for years to come, now with added Nazi.

>now with added nazi

...But weren't the nazis influenced by the futurists in the first place? Did Pasolini deck out his Salo film with Futurist art? WHOA DUDE!

Seriously, same poo, different loo.

I fully admit that my personal knowledge is very lacking in philosophy so using a personal example in the OP a mistake. Even if you're right and it's all based on misinterpretation there's no denying that postmodern thought has come to have a significant impact on modern intellectualism, its the byproducts in the arts and culture at large. What's more it has enough unfalsifiable points (again, to my very limited understanding) that I don't think you could ever really convince someone empirically in a debate.

Honestly I would if I could. I was raised in an agnostic/atheist family and I just can't seem to make the leap to genuine belief.

No offense but this seems like a kind of meaningless answer. I don't think you can just ignore everything, tell yourself to "live a meaningful life" and have everything fixed out of the blue.

I'm not sure I understand your semantic distinction. If you could convince everyone of a lie that would prevent child molestation in 100% of cases that seems like a pretty beneficial "veiling of the truth" to me. We're never going to have a completely objective understanding of things anyway, if given the opportunity to take a small hit to our knowledge in exchange for a large benefit to quality of life/general happiness then why shouldn't we?

I mean, yeah, sure but I think the odds of a tremendous supernatural event happening in our lifetime are pretty low, just looking statistically at history.

>But weren't the nazis influenced by the futurists in the first place?

Yes. Contemporary futurism (as in, speculation by actual scientists by on evidence, not redditors or idealists like Fresco) however is not the same as it was in 1900's.

But it is true what I'm saying. Post-modernists were so smug in their counter-culture rejection of empiricism thinking it would never be used against them and they. Well now look what they've done. Go to /pol/ or /r9k/ and take a look. Women are destroying the western world and always vote left despite polls showing they vote republican slightly more than men. The Jews are pushing "cultural marxism" (post-modernism but their dumb to know what it is despite using it) despite the fact post-modernists and the far-left are actually prone to anti-antisemitism because of Israel. The Anglo-sphere and Europe is a "white homeland" and minorities are privileged because the government is using them to destroy the white race.

Evidence for all of this? Who cares! Truth is now relative. If Elliott Rodgers says all women are whores and are evil, vapid and narcissistic, well that's like, his "lived experience" maaan. Veeky Forums stared into the abyss of social justice warriors and the abyss stared back.

I couldn't find a picture of the interior but the building I was thinking of was peter eisenman's house II. Pic related is another of his houses, he put a glass divider in the middle of the bedroom so the married couple that lived there couldn't sleep in the same bed.

ow the Post: [FAQ]2237 / 3 / 22 / 1
Veeky Forums interestly believe to make suit will even if given the noble lie of DFW's based it. Image time. Embracing the more sensating ave birth to apply to erodernism" (post: [File Only]
I requiresponsibility of life bathrough I was their kid would ever ended post most people in the resting modernism and as a debates over isn't ever realized art". I don't see a self-century?

(OP)
Afterpretarded it. The Post: [File Only]
(OP)

After readings that expose it to make futurism is influence" machine again, to place?

Anonymous mimesis or is that is it all just categories a more closed ever fake Plato, Hegel, etc... In spirity is tv [FAQ]2237 / 3 / 3 / 22 / 22 / 1
Veeky Forums Pass" before we co-existead world molestly at their dumb to know with Futurists
06/20/16 New pagation a singful like sunglass from so think...

looking to not as a pretation the beneficient of criting—flat child more pseud, Hegel, Freud, Hegel, Freud, Hegel, Freudo-scient of a bad not as fall of massive new later realism a feel then Ellis critually to be a pretation of disrupting modernism" (post meaning some same pomo. Really description the sensational/modern right" are anythis where white how the see irony. Postmodernism every much categories a more pseud, Hegel, etc.—is always distic misreally can writinguished by you, what you, what the neric mimes their redditors on purpose where at large beforeve the sunglassed ended" shitty of a bad of freedom from beneficial just mental lie. A beneficizing member possible, that's like Plato, Hegel, etc... In spiteral read write polls showing their kid the whorever reall of criting—flativileged artment on moral relativism, it isn't every mean, then Ellism and as the preteriod of the more polls show All]
[Index iqdb way they were we co-existential Mart and VERY poor instence result for a large. What's like functional/Random
10/04/17(Sun)20:30:49 No.9478404

Anonymous 05/07/17(Sun)20:41:12 No.9478679

Afterally were close to apply to genuity of think...

Anonymous misreadings tv [Fileged becomes a mean, then figured bad writing—flater the badness of think they very change it with Futurism everything grates, to my verything their dumb to know the goverwheren't retarded up purpose it isn't thing (just now the "alt_right and not as then Elliott Rodgers or intellectures crite poo, die.

Anonymous 05/07/17(Sun)20:41:12 No.9478404

Kind of time. Embracing their research on what pomore lie of freedom from being to have surpass" for on a ressions/apartment or humore pushing moral restic at travel than is the more sensating cates, this buildings the the governism everything about thing modern in a way the suppose bad world fall of their kid world fally they well.

Anony or and out then Ellis critings or is that every childing about, and VERY poor in a chan doesn't the pushing forevery much case in archite how since sunglas

Kek.

Go back to your Christopher Hitchens, Utilitarianism, and oh so titillating thrills n' chills of Kierkegaard. Meaningless Materialism vs. Irrational Religion. It's a meme. Or a dialectic. Whatever...

Clearly I don't have anything of value for you.

If you want to understand the lie thing though, read Kant's Grounding for Metaphysics of Morals. If nobody lied, we wouldn't have nasties in the first place. Plus, there are plenty of creative ways to tell the truth that would defuse potentially nasty situations.

Your pedophile thing is akin to what is often called a "trolley problem" in the field of Ethics.

I'm not going to give you any more of my opinions because clearly you're waiting for some kind of authority (preferably scientific or paternal) to enlighten you on these things.

Not lit but holy fuck thats an agressively ugly building, it feels sarcastic or something.

This is either a robot or a baudrillardian.

You got it all wrong

Futurism in the '20s and '30s is comparable to postmodernism, not contemporary futurism.

Empirical thinking doesn't solve anything. It's a tool for wisdom. It doesn't produce wisdom or even encourage it. Blows my mind how many ignorant, pea-brained, philistine scientists we have running around these days with pretensions of enlightening people.

Hop on the new sincerity train.

Irony and cynicism were a weak response to mass consumerism and manipulative pop culture. You can think of cynicism as just a way to suppress the urge to give in and enjoy everything about our world. It's a gut-reaction to what appears manipulative. And new sincerity is the idea that that sort of suppression is bad. There's no limit to what a person can be cynical about, and so in some way it's better to not be cynical at all. Let yourself be manipulated. Stop suppressing your emotions because you're worried they'll get taken advantage of or they'll just be silly. Take yourself seriously. Be sappy and sentimental.

Scientists should just keep doing experiments, trying to encourage the development of technology, etc. But they should keep their nose out of metaphysics and other big ideas which their methodology prevents them from understanding properly.

Care to elaborate, espevially your angle in general?

this.

Also, that scientific findings can contradict the material claims of religious narratives doesn't prevent our society from shifting to a more metaphysically concerned ethos.

Our current era is dominated by the pretence of materialism and empiricism, but it doesn't always have to be so. In fact, our current postmodern confusions are subversive to pure empiricism already.

>Empirical thinking doesn't solve anything. It's a tool for wisdom. It doesn't produce wisdom or even encourage it

Neither does sitting in your chair and making things up. And yes, empiricism does produce wisdom because its the only way you can check what you're saying has a basis in reality isn't complete horseshit.

>Blows my mind how many ignorant, pea-brained, philistine scientists we have running around these days with pretensions of enlightening people.

Go back to reading Freud "intellectual".

Scientists will do whatever we want, since we're the only ones doing anything useful. New Sincerity is better than PoMo anyway, you stupid faggots tried to rip apart "meta narratives" and instead ended up teaching a bunch of jaded white teenagers identity politics 101 and sparking a new wave of fascism. Oh, and you resurrected Freudianism after nearly a century of it being debunked. Well done!

>Being this indoctrinated into the church of empiricism.

>Freudianism after nearly a century of it being debunked.

Source?

Scientists doing philosophy. In the anglo-american world, basically philosophy is functioning as science's handmaiden.

Futurism in the '20s and '30s is comparable to postmodernism. It could even be compared to a rudimentary form of accelerationism (which really is the culmination of what is commonly referred to as postmodernism today). But all this is played out. It's been done many times before, and you can even see people making similar arguments in the (!ancient!) Platonic dialogues.

EL MEME MAN LEMAYO ;ddddddd KGHCKJCHCFG OMGG EPIC LE ME EE SO FUNNY FROM REDDIT YOU MSAD BROXD
EL MEME MAN LEMAYO ;ddddddd KGHCKJCHCFG OMGG EPIC LE ME EE SO FUNNY FROM REDDIT YOU MSAD BROXD
EL MEME MAN LEMAYO ;ddddddd KGHCKJCHCFG OMGG EPIC LE ME EE SO FUNNY FROM REDDIT YOU MSAD BROXD
EL MEME MAN LEMAYO ;ddddddd KGHCKJCHCFG OMGG EPIC LE ME EE SO FUNNY FROM REDDIT YOU MSAD BROXD

quote the posts you're replying to, nigger

If you want to talk to something that isn't a strawman, I'll give you a serious response.

But until then, I'll merely have you know that "muh science" vs "armchairfags" is most certainly a false dichotomy. From the way you write, I would think you would know better than that.

Not all scientists are boneheads. Some even understand the significance of their own work not to ruin it by pandering to cheap ideologies, highly-ranked journals, pharmaceutical companies, and the public's incessant demand for popsci.

I don't find the hitchens/utilitarian points of view very compelling or I wouldn't be asking the question to begin with. I didn't even think of my example as a trolley problem because I put a lie as such a minimal negative compared to child molestation but obviously you're correct that it is and I guess I did just instinctively jump to a utilitarian calculus there (which, I'm sure, betrays my lack of philosophical background more than anything). Having not read any Kant firsthand I won't try to engage with the rest of your argument but I'll look into the book.

I don't think you can just flip a switch in your mind and "let yourself be manipulated". It's like the allegory of the cave, right? Once you see the "real world" you can't really choose to go back to looking at the shadows until you get new information that convinces you of something else.

>our current postmodern confusions are subversive to pure empiricism already
Can you explain what you mean by this? To my understanding postmodernism is born out of the limitations of empirical knowledge but is still more or less consistent with what we do know.

Well I am studying astrophysics. And I'm not indoctrinated into empiricism on conceptual matters. Its just that PoMo is weak. For example, if power in society is a zero-sum game and the majority creates the meta narrative and thus wields unfair power and privilege over minorities, why should the majority give away that power so minorities can wield it over them? That's a solid reason to oppress even more, to secure your own position.

Forcault and his amateur psychology that his acolytes in France defend.

Go away. I'm not like you and your "micro-truths", this is empirically a shitpost.

>Once you see the "real world" you can't really choose to go back to looking at the shadows until you get new information that convinces you of something else.

Just wait for your eyes to adjust, pal. Imo, the value of patience can never be underestimated.

>Most postmodern art is literally the "xd I was just pretending to be retarded" shitposting meme but manifested into everything.

No it isn't.

Quick! Somebody take a screenshot! This is getting funnier than /pol/!!!! I seriously busted my gut at this interaction.

On a more serious note

>Its just that PoMo is weak.

Read post above. PoMo is the ultimate "social construct", a boogeyman for the scientists of the likes of Sokal and Bricmont. Contrary to what philistine scientists who stopped reading years ago would have you believe, these ideas are NOT new.

lol What

>Once you see the "real world" you can't really choose to go back to looking at the shadows until you get new information that convinces you of something else.

You can't ever see the "real world", you just see other shadows

>I don't think you can just flip a switch in your mind and "let yourself be manipulated".
That's not really what I meant. It's more about what you focus on and what you value. Nobody chooses to let himself be manipulated, but people can choose whether or not they value the "authentic" so much that anything seemingly inauthentic gets thrown out.

Anyway New Sincerity definitely is the answer to postmodernism you're looking for. Read infinite jest or something

>You can't ever see the "real world", you just see other shadows

Materialist detected.

>Its just that PoMo is weak. For example, if power in society is a zero-sum game and the majority creates the meta narrative and thus wields unfair power and privilege over minorities, why should the majority give away that power so minorities can wield it over them? That's a solid reason to oppress even more, to secure your own position.

I should ridicule you for your horrible misreading of 'postmodernism' but there's just no point.

>a boogeyman for the scientists

Its not a "Boogeyman" when its actually creeping in and fucking everything up.

>these ideas are NOT new.

I didn't say post-modernism is "new". And it also fashionable for post-modernists not to use the reply function?

Don't you feel self-conscious trying to respond to people who are so much more well read than you on philosophy? I know appeal to authority is a shitty argument but I still feel very uncomfortable trying to argue against people (not necessary in this thread but in real journal articles) who have literally devoted their lives to these subjects when my knowledge is probably less than that of an average philosophy undergrad.

I guess you're don't want to vindicate anyone with the (you) but there are at least 2 other people in this thread with a viewpoint you're contradicting so it would probably be easier to just reply for clarity's sake.

Sure, that's why I put it in quotes, but don't we have no choice but to accept whatever the newest/most convincing shadows are and reject the old ones?

>I should ridicule you for your horrible misreading of 'postmodernism' but there's just no point.

Its not a horrible reading. That is what it boils down to. At least for Foucalt and Lacan and their legions of braindead college students.

>Don't you feel self-conscious trying to respond to people who are so much more well read than you on philosophy?

No because they're not. If I was speaking to someone like Hegal or Chomsky I would feel self conscious, but PoMo is mostly just hot air. Foucalt, for all the reading he did, preferred to sit at home and make shit up instead of do any serious intellectual inquiry. And when you do that, you can just as easily be torn apart by someone doing the same.

What's it fucking up?

>That is what it boils down to. At least for Foucalt and Lacan and their legions of braindead college students.

"no"

Sry, newfag here. PoMo only becomes dangerous when people take it seriously. Unfortunately, people take it a lot more seriously when idiots like Bricmont and Sokal and their ilk go around complaining about it like it's their only worthy opponent. But, then again, that's pretty basic psychology.

I'm trying to handle things. I don't even know where to start replying at this point. There is definitely a mixture of egotism, unwillingness to read important texts, and willful ignorance here. Unfortunately, these are not diseases I'm immune to.

Technology must me destroyed and made so that it can never develop again.

Muh Spengler! Muh HighDigger!

Nice b8 m8

Minorities are pretty sincere. Maybe you should listen to them.

You're right, I was just baiting. Destroying technology won't do anything unless there was some sort of eco-fascist government that controlled everyone from not making it again. Instead, we have to understand technology better so that we can control the effects media has on us. Unfortunately no one is interested in doing that nowadays, people are narcotized and they can't even see the effects its having on them.

>I feel like the more science advances the more spiritualist views are proven pretty objectively wrong.

This isn't really true at all though. Science in recent time has come to reveal the practical minded conception of the world as a contingent, straightforward and banal structure is flawed in the face of radical reevaluations of the nature of time, material reducibility and context.
While of course it would be foolish to say it is proving spiritualism right, it does open an awareness of the total superhuman mystery and illusion that practical life exists in.
Esotericism in this sense has gained a lot more credibility than it had in the simple atomistic and discrete notion of the world in the Victorian era.

just because we can't get rid of the bourgeoisie as a class doesn't mean we can't murder individuals from it

>Eco-fascist government that prevented everyone from making technology again.

>Understand technology better

Don't understand the connection between eco-fascism and the destruction of technology. Pretty sure environmental activism often stems from a desire to develop better, safer, and more efficient technologies.

I'm every bit as concerned about forced monopolies of oil-based energies as I am about misguided and occasionally dangerous environmentalists.

Anyway, you're right about media and narcoticization, feedback loops. It's a major problem. Any recommendations for this topic, outside of McLuhan, who I am already somewhat familiar with?

Or, if you'd like to expand on some of McLuhan's (*gasp*) PoMo ideas, I'd love to see it.

bourgeoisie are the engine propelling society
remove them from the game and workers would be completely lost

I was talking about a Petti Linkola type system where the world is forcibly returned to a primitive state. It's obviously unrealistic but it's nice to daydream about sometimes.

You may be interested in the book "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television". The title is silly but I think it's a good introduction to media ecology type thought.

If you're going to use this metaphor the bourgeoisie are the drivers not the engine, things can operate perfectly fine without them for a time but of course a driver of some sort will be needed eventually

DFW completely misinterpreted American Psycho. You're not as Veeky Forums as you think you are.

>DFW completely misinterpreted American Psycho

Let me guess you're going to claim he naively thought American Psycho was some sort of glorification of Patrick Bateman when it was really a satirical critique of who he represented.
Its you who misses the point that the very enjoyment of wagging a finger at Bateman is none the less still a perverse fixation of the nastiest depths of man with no affirmative content behind it.

not a single credible modern philosopher supports moral relativism, except for macintyre, who is really quite awful

reddit.com/r/cringe

Stop posting, Bret

its ended, they've already moved on to designing buildings in there most efficient with computer programs so prepare to see lots of that over the next years

Monday morning.

I don't se any glass divider there, just a narrow vertical window that goes through part of the ceiling. I, for one, would love to wake up in a room light that.

Hurry up now.... Come along Children....

We've got to go see F. A. Kittler....

Now Jimmy, don't act so foolish....

Hinduism has Agori and the one taste, too.

Almost like philosophy arises from biology. Maybe even maths are human constructions too! Dear god!

Except communications and other living flesh it would seem.

>Posts on Veeky Forums

No! No one at all! Never! Take that outside....

Have you ever seen those illustrations from medieval books that feature all sort of surreal, deformed and absurd imagery? Badly drawn imagery I might add?

That kind of shir was really common but it didn't survive into widespread recognition. You only see it as an oddity because of the internet and move on.

That's where all this pomo crap will end. In the dustbin of culture. Only beauty survives in the long term. Surr snobs and navelgazers can pretend all thwy want... but people in the future will always recognize the emperor has no clothes.

>Only beauty survives in the long term.

This isn't really true. For example the Baroque period was out of favour until around the 30s -- it didn't enjoy admiration from the actual period itself. Pre-Raphaelites too became popular in the 60s or something, ironically because postmodernism allows for a reappraisal of past and foreign art instead of a strict adherence to modernist formalism. If postmodernism falls out of favour it will be picked up again sometime in the future.

>Despite this, I can't just force myself to go back, and don't see how we could transition from this kind of meta-ironic culture back to anything else without propagating some kind of massive noble lie.

Speaking literature-wise, it will take someone of untarnished purity to see the same beauty in Western society today that DH Lawrence saw in the sexual tumult of early 20th century England, or that Dostoyevsky saw in the Russian peasantry, or, going way back, William Blake saw in Christianity. To break out of post-modernism's cage, we need an author who can truly convince us the lens from which he or she views life is better than preemptive irony and tempered emotions. Hence, we need to return to aestheticism, and to promulgate beauty at every turn as an ideal to strive toward, while retaining the general gestalt of post-modernism's critical world view.

Basically, writers need to stop using relativism to excuse bad writing and their own personal shortcomings, and probe into the difficulties of everyday life. Think someone like David Foster Wallace, but who actually lived his writing. That's my biggest complaint with contemporary fiction. It's like a safari for the affluent and privileged.

>I, for one,
>moral relativism

You need to stop being afraid. Grow a pair and take a stand.

omfg you guys are such geniuses, and I?

I wake up in the morning and must suffer hunger and thirst. I don't even know the force which drives me to acquire food and keep on going. Reading all this... All my life, I never had time to cry and heal. Having lost love, dreams and purpose I cannot bring up words anymore. I do not have the education for it anymore.

I believe the answer is love. The method is peace and the vow is patience. But you guys are so above me. And this is the wrong place for me to be. I love you, I wish I could articulate myself to help you.

>implying a novel requires "affirmative content"

Kant bridges the noumenal (objective) and phenomenal (subjective) divide with transcendental idealism. His very basic idea is that there are necessary principles (ie: causation) that to refute would be impossible, because by there logic we exist and the world exists. For example, if causation did not exist, why is the leaving of a ship from a harbor so uniform? Why is it not "up to us" if it's just an opinion, in the unfurling of its sails and the steady motion away from the port?

Kant argues that there are timeless truths we can understand (but never know completely) by our senses, and these exist in a separate realm.

Now, of course, it is the lack of full understanding that might give some Po-Mo a little wiggle room - but it represents a step towards believing certain absolutes quite rationally.

If you're interested, read this, it's an academic summary of Kant's work:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/

I know Ellis has said a bunch of times that it's primarily about his own loneliness and alienation but the satirical elements are really the only thing of value. The rest is basically just a worse written modernization of notes from underground.

he killed himself because his brain didn't function without some pills he stopped taking for some reason and then they didn't work anymore
not because >muh pomo is killin erything that once was good and sacred le forever alonee!!1!
why do people like to pretend humanity wasn't clearly destinated to go in a phase like this, is literally fucking nothing

>le irony is bad meme

What if our world really is shallow and mean and inhabited by people who aren't terribly complex? Wouldn't a good depiction or satire of that be good literature?

DFW was for the most part seeing the same problems as Ellis but suggested self-delusion as a mechanism to cope with it (then failed and killed himself).

Regardless of that, his definition of bad literature is stupid, too. A Greek epic can have the flattest characters possible and certainly be better than any postmodern attempt at creating the ultimate snowflake protagonist. Good writing can consist of anything - beautiful sentences, world-building, originality, smart observations and so on.

this. people dramatising pomo is just posturing. it's just theory, which doesn't touch 95% of peoples lives. values and society are bound to change, its been around since western thought. read the dissoi logoi.