Post-structualism is final philosophy, it perfectly

First post best post.

Whatever we consider "real" creates society and our mind

The cuck tries standing up for himself

Fuck everyday life

t. Brainlet

i fuking loev frnech philsodphyxddd

The eternal anglo's mind can't comprehend it

You are your mind, which creates society.

Why beat around the bush and not say, "I create things I consider real"? In which case, you hold great power over reality, and may shape it to your pleasure.

Could someone please explain the relationship of structure and agency in communication? Two-hundred word essay due next month

Also, please specifically mention Giddens and Bourdieu

Pragmatism.

>MFW reading this thread

>Society and the mind creates all these things we consider as "real".

And society and mind wouldn't exist if it wasn't for biology, so actually it's biology that causes all these things.

Please ignore all previously stated opinions in this thread and jump straight to this

Scary BIG words
Can't handle
Overly complicated dickwaving
AHHHH TOO COMPLEX 4 UUUUUU

No that's post modernist.

French fry philosophy is not worth the time.

>post-structuralism

oh look, another spook

Idiot.

absolutely Rupied.

hard material realism is the final philosophy

>some neo-german idealist cant understand some other neo-german idealist

What's new

I think you should reconsider

Seems you don't know what social constructivism is and its connection to post modernism. Sad. The poor boy only knows insults.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism

Kant is a social constructivist?

No, there is a difference between idealism and social constructivism mate.

I am sorry but thats like equaling the Bible to a pangram of the english alphabet...
I mean you posting a wikipedia article excerpt that while inherenting the performant constructivist gesture is just memetic and in the context of legitimizing po mo as an intellectual endeavour worth of being pursued youre just being rhetorical and in consequence antagonistic

There's a difference between 'mind creates reality' and social constructivism too. Stop thinking in memes.

>performant constructivist gesture

So post-structuralism is mere newtonianism of the opinions. It stops working in the same two ways newtonian world view did.
First, people experience more than what is explained by the theory. The believers of the theory then make a god of their theorem, and claim that "It's just fluctuations within the rules of the theory, which reigns supreme. If there is something it doesn't explain yet, it will."
Secondly, we will divide the atom. We will sail across the globe. We will find out about quantum mechanics, no matter how much it bothers Einstein.

Wew lad, you drank too much of the kool-aide.

...

Mind creating reality is a position that has existed at least since the 18th century. It's not postmodern, it's modern. You're drinking the anti-pomo Kool-Aid where four-panel comic strips speak more truth to you than the canon of Western philosophy.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/deleuze/#RecDel how does 4.2 not seem like a lot of fun?

In some sense yes, but back then we would think of them as schizophrenics.

But in an academic sense, no one was advocating that "bruh it's a social construct you can do what ever" until post modernism made social constructivism the mainstream opinion in academia.

>but back then we would think of them as schizophrenics.

No.

>no one was advocating that "bruh it's a social construct you can do what ever"

Cool well that has nothing to do with what I was arguing. You're making a mistake by equating reality being created by the mind as models of truth being culturally relative. They're related but not the same thing. I was responding to the quote that said 'the reality is created by the mind therefore we can do anything' which speaks more to the utopian ideas of modernism as derived from the Enlightenment ideas of the 18th century than the postmodernists that were in 'reaction' to them.

>Peterson knows that we define reality

Is this board just people trying to be as dumb as possible to still bait people into arguing?

We may define reality, but we don't choose what we see. Or rather, the only choice we have is whether to open/close our eyes or turn our head.

your english sucks, foreigner.

...

Ayy, maybe 'twas Welsh.

For the kiddos who may lack experience and an understanding of some of the west's post WW2 cultural machinations, I shall explain: postmodern philosophy, deconstruction, and Marxism in general = jewish anti-philosophy. You see, jews are desert semites who cannot create; like their Muslim cousins, jews can only destroy what white people create. When white men design philosophies, they use them for the purposes of advancing logic and meaning, and discovering truth; when jews are allowed to design philosophies, they use them to destroy logic and meaning, and proclaim that there is no truth ... and that's all postmodern philosophy is. It's in the name: deconstruction. What they are attempting to deconstruct is our language and our culture, because they are a mentally sick tribe of people.

Back in ancient Egypt, jews engaged in what has been termed "cultural inversion." This signifies how they would create "anti-cultures" and "anti-religions" by taking what was sacred to others and inverting it -- twisting it to destroy, or deconstruct, it. This was how monotheism came about as well: when jews came to power under Akhenaten, they inverted Egyptian polytheistic practices by only allowing the worship of one god. And they were expelled for this behavior, as they've been expelled for similar behavior over a hundred times. They've been doing the same thing for millennia.

So what is postmodern philosophy? It is the jewish inversion of western philosophy previously based on logic, meaning, and truth. Why do they do this? Since they are incapable of creating anything of their own, they must destroy the creations of others. It's really quite simple once you are able to understand how jews work.

So if society fucks you over for being of anything considered abhorable then that's all on the mind of the individual? There are frames of mind that are conjured out of nowhere once people start politicizing and compromising, half of these decisions are made on a whim or emotions. GOD. There are factors at work beyond our control within biology, inadvertent sociology, Darwinism, etc.

>jews are desert semites
Wrong. They are inbred amalgam of Africans, Egyptians, Semites and Europeans.
>like their Muslim cousins, jews can only destroy what white people create
Muslims are destructive almost solely due to their religion. Look at the region and look at its history. Only some of it is 'white people history'. Mostly it is semites of varying tribes. Islam fucked them over, nigh permanently.

Read the book: Jewish revolutionary spirit. A parasite wants to eat, it does not wish for the host to die. The jew does. It is artificial, in this sense. Jews are anti-Logos.

Although they are obviously a mixture of other groups, it's their semitic desert roots that explain their destructive behavior best of all.

I should have said 'Arabs' instead of 'Muslims' but I disagree that their similarly destructive behavior is based on religion alone; Arabs would likely not be much more productive or capable if Islam hadn't come along.

>it's their semitic desert roots that explain their destructive behavior best of all.
False. Ancient Hittites, Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians... Those are Semites. Jews are cancer.

This comic seems more like Sartre's existentialism than any specific variety of post-structuralism.

Jews call themselves semites so let's keep it simple and not counter-signal too hard since we obviously agree on the general premise here, friend.

Main point is to convey as it relates to this thread is that post-structuralism / deconstruction are jewish conceptualizations designed to break down and distort western tradition and thought.

This is at most schizophrenic. Pityful.
>>/pol/

No, it's true. Which is why it sticks in your craw, Shlomo.

SPINOZA???

bUBER?
JESUS?

Look at this ugly French piece of shit. He wouldn't have gotten into all this trouble if he had just CLEANED HIS ROOM.

>tfw his father will never be rescued from the undeworld

You have never read any Derrida, since his conclusion is exactly the opposite.

From the difficulty of discerning truth what follows is an absolute care and responsibility to truth.

The problems with intentionality don't mean that any text means anything, but that it is your responsibility to take care of the meaning of the text because there is no algorithm/set of automatic steps that will get you from a text to its meaning.

Read a fucking book instead of spouting this bs just because you got annoyed by some undergrad on tumblr.

The irony of right-wing traditionalists is that they have to butcher and re-invent the western philosophical tradition to fit their account.
There is a straight line that goes from parmenides to derrida and they don't want to acknowledge it.

>The irony of right-wing traditionalists is that they have to butcher and re-invent the western philosophical tradition to fit their account.
That goes for any ideology and will do so until we 'love' philosophy and statements of others in every instance and with our fullest potential. Individualism is no different, nor whatever -ism you submit to.

Yes but traditionalism has at its core the value of conserving tradition.

No one cares if a nietzschean re-interprets western thought with a hatchet instead of a hammer.

Being a traditionalist and doing such a hack job in understanding philosophy is the equivalent of self-own.

>the believers of the theory then make a God of their theorem
But this simply isn't true. "Theory" in the post-structuralist sense is simply the amalgamation of various epistemologies the individual uses to perform a critique. My theory is neither better nor worse than yours, but are instead simply engaged in different critical enquiries. The entire point of post-modernism is to deny the sort of grand narratives you appear to be alluding to

Postmodern philosophy is not part of the western tradition; it is post-WW2 jewish neuroticism and exists solely to invert the principles of the western tradition. The reason you are confused and under the impression that it is anything else is because you don't understand the mind of the wandering tribe of sociopaths from which it originates.

>Update
Urgh i think im about to puke. But at least you are correct: conservation and irrelevance are analogue

>to perform a critique
I guess critique is your god, then. I wonder what culture sired such an aberration. Certainly not one that values intuition.

Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger, DeMan, Deleuze, Lyotard aren't jewish you dolt

It's not Jewish. Worse, it's German. And then part French, part Jewish. But at its core they're the ravings of parochial Heinlichs whose little heads couldn't handle a life without some sort of bullshit transcendental reality.

And who are the luminaries of philosophy? The british? Let me scoff for a second

Neither are they postmodernists. As your understanding of the world evolves, your statements will backfire in your face less.

The Greeks and Chinese, duh.

>not the 4channers
Plebeian normie detected.

How can someone who states that the Subject is not able to seperate by subjectivation invert any tradition and how can he be a sociopath at the same time. Do me a favor and accept that western transcendence is the most stagnant and intellectualy repulsing MODE of thought. While platonically you may be able to reduce it into some sort of pseudo object
Transcendence is the most anti structural thing imaginable as the multifacetted structure is not able to 'transcend' n-subject(1)

I'm gonna have to ask you to delete this, friend.

Platon would read platon
>:^)

Postmodernism is at its root jewish. It is certainly an extrapolation of other things like Nietzschean nihilism taken to its extreme, and various goyim have helped progress it forward, sure, but it is still fundamentally jewish. And it became so prevalent because jewish academia promoted it, and they promoted it because it's bad for the goyim, because it distorts and shits on the philosophical traditions of the goyim.

Go to bed Olavo, science is not supposed to define reaity, merely observe some of it's phenomena.

Lyotard literally coined the word postmodernism. Nietzsche and Heidegger are the two main influences on postmodernism.

Stop trolling and fuck off

>This.
But i don't quite get how Kant made the list. Would you care to elaborate be so kind.

See, only jews talk like this, and at the heart of the nonsense they try to project is a hatred of western idealism.

Kant is the main turn from the subject as a passive receptacle to being costitutive of reality. Nietzsche, Hegel and the rest of continental philosophy are basically an elaboration of the consequences of the critique of judgment.

It's not about who coined the term or introduced the first inklings of thought; it's about who promoted it as something legitimate and took it into the extremes of nonsense to where it presently exists. Jews like Derrida and the jewish academic establishment.

Quick point of rhetoric: constructivism is the wrong word here. You're both looking for constructionism. Please don't ruin constructivism with your ignorance

>t. Architect

Paul DeMan was probably the person most responsible for Derrida's fame in the US and he had written anti-Semitic articles in the 40s

Just go on lol

Being so young not to remember when in the 80s and the 90s right wingers were postmodernist because it was an effective critic of liberalism and Marxism.
If there is someone lying and making a fool of you that's those idiots on /pol/

>science is not supposed to define reality, merely observe some of it's phenomena.
Only philosophers think like that. Science is truth to all others. Unquestionable, even.

Literal nitpicking as you didnt even mention heidegger. However. It is still irrelevant
I couldve googled instead of you if you just kindly asked.
>different user

Post-Structuralism is total pleb philosophy.

And De Man was right about jewish distortion tactics. You've made my point.

So what, doesn't change anything. If I was bothered by about what plebs think I wouldn't even keep coming to Veeky Forums

Isn't post-structuralism the notion that every claim is pilpul?

Being aware of the jewish problem does not make one affiliated with pol. I've never posted there. But your awareness of what constitutes the "right wing" is off. The right wing of the 80s and 90s was encapsulated by jewish neoconservativism. Which is, of course, another good example of jewish subversion.

Radical Math?
Its an experimental self perpetual expendature, not a scientific complex per se.
there is no such thing as supersedual science.
Theres many ways to refute tho

Anything french from the 19th century and beyond is just cringeworthy pretentious nonsense anglo college kids pretend to understand to feel smarter than their parents