Hey /lit/ I'm trying to explain to my friend what post modern means in terms of literature. Could someone explain it for me?
it means nothing. it's bullshit. just take a shit in your friend's hand and smack him around a bit, and tell him that's post modernism.
and you know what's fucked up? you'd be right.
not even trolling.
Quite to the contrary, the postmodern thesis would be that normality and "weirdness" are merely constructed through various modes of discourse, relative to culture, society, etc., and that they are, in and of themselves, meaningless terms.
the image you posted basically explains it.
modernism was the idea that there was an emerging modernity that was the cutting edge and logical next step of what came before it. post-modernism is basically just skepticism towards that idea or a strong rejection of it, taking the form either of like, "there's a bunch of truths but no Truth" (incompleteness) or "everything is worse actually" (le edgy unibomber) or
The basic premise of Postmodernism is that there is no absolute truth, but rather, only an interminable plurality of truths, or in other words, only the infinity of creative possibilities afforded by a reckoning with this fundamental absence of any absolute truth.
don't have anything to add personally, but DFW said that besides being after modernism, the mainstay of pomo is the self-consciousness of text (i.e. the authors knowledge that this text would be examined by future generations that may not share the same morality, perspective, etc.)
texts that are self-referential, aware of themselves as texts; this is a newer phenomenon, actually. and that's a very tenuous statement. the minute fraction of the population that were intellectuals may have been somewhat aware of the relativity of values, beliefs, and so on, but a sort of widespread "incredulity toward metanarratives", and a general skepticism--or nihilism, even--regarding one's own inherited views--this is a more recent phenomenon.
this insistence on there being one absolute truth which everyone must then conform to led has led to virtually every instance of inhumanity recorded in human history; genocide, wars, etc., have majorly been a result of these attempts to impose a certain conception of the 'right' and 'good' upon another culture possessing values entirely alien. There is no evidence for absolute truth, and it is a useless concept, so the premise is to proceed as if there is no such thing; whether there is or not is irrelevent.
I am not advocating nihilism; nihilism is something to be overcome; to succumb is to render yourself nonexistent. Belief is necessary, but we must distinguish autonomous, self-produced belief from belief in some external guarantee of meaning and so on.
okay, but you do realize that the only type of person that would perceive language, ideas, etc., as neutral means of expression would be someone that perceived themselves as possessing the absolute. thus this question of truth capital t is essential to, and, in fact, immanent to, the question of postmodernism.
There either is or isn't a god.
When we die we disappear, or we don't.
These are absolute truths. One of them must be true. If we don't know which is correct, we can't say that neither is.
I agree, but we can't say that there isn't an absolute truth becauae we can't see one. Or are you saying that the search for absolute truth is irrelevant? That would make more sense to me.
I do not. Rape is natural, in the same way that murder, is natural. These are naturally occurring phenomena in the animal world. However, being that we, as human beings, although technically animals, have arisen from tribal, pre-civilized life, I believe that we possess the ability to do what other animals cannot, that is, think. to behave like an animal is to be inhuman, in this sense. i don't think such behavior should have any place in civil society, but this is a rather complex conversation that i'm not altogether prepared to have at this moment, but basically, no.
That is precisely the case. This search for some absolute has proven irrelevant, and we would be better served pursuing the betterment of one another, rather than subjugating our lives to some abstract notion that would rule us.
Rape, like all crimes, is not evil in of its self. Most humans have decided that it's wrong because it's harmful to formation of peaceful societies - this is also why I find rape to be evil. This does not mean, however, that rape is wrong because of some deep moral code given to us from God or from the universe or from human nature.
I used to be a Christian, but I recently became an agnostic. I'm fairly young, so I don't have any beliefs set in stone. I just know that I feel overwhelmed by life right now. I hope that by reading philosophy and quality fiction I can become smarter, better, and understand the world and myself just a little more.
Thanks for reading my diary :^)
I am basically in agreement, actually. Good and evil and just concepts, and they only really make sense once you define an end. With an end in mind, the good will be merely whatever best achieves such an end, and the evil will be anything that would serve to impede upon said end--in my view, anyways.
And acquainting yourself with philosophy is the way, my friend. It certainly changed my life, back when I was a teen.
He didn't. Don't be a faggot. He answered my question without being an asshole, yet you thought that you would contribute to the discussion by dismissing my request for clarification.
But I don't think this was quite the standard bs discussion, we were having. It seemed to be atleast somewhat substantive; certainly not merely shitposting. Just choose another thread if it doesn't suit you; why go out of your way to criticize?
Completely incorrect mate. Humanity has never really been "sure" of anything. We just believe in whatever explanation that makes the most sense at the time. Then roll with it until we obtain more data and reiterate our ideas ad infinitum.
>You can't construct a philosophy on something that you are not sure of.
certainty is gained as soon as you leave any rationalism : the more you have faith in your speculations, the less you are certain