Death of death of metanarratives

>>8124715
What is a Metanarrative?

>>8124719
Christianity
Marixsm
Scientism

>>8124722
Those may be examples of metanarratives but what is a metanarrative?

>>8124731
Metanarrative is purpose and unity brought onto history, with a final point and usually a beginning. History here does not mean necessary temporal history - it can be arranged using different dimensions, although this is rare. Classic example of metanarrative is progress - idea that humanity constantly improves and will at some point reach singularity.

Scientism is not really a metanarrative, unless it is presented as "history is constant embetterment of our knowledge of the Universe"; which happens sometimes, sure.

>>8124731
Do you know what narrative deployment is?
Every situation that could possibly have a narrative, we have ways of explaining it away with these weak-minded philosiphies

for example every time someone shoots someone at a school, we have a few narratives
>terrorist attack
>mental health failed young white male
>black person acting up
see it doesn't matter what the real reasons are, we just deploy our narratives automatically

pomo attempts to break down why we do this (the main reason is simplicity) and that's basically what metanarratives are, ways of explaining behaviors

hard to explain though

>>8124731
I don't know, I did one year an English degree and dropped out to work at McDonalds and smoke pot.

Try this: A narrative that governs all other narratives towards an absolute end. The Christian narrative that ends in the afterlife, the Marixst one that ends in classless society, faith in Science that will eventually eradicate all the world's problems ETC

>>8124752
oh nevermind I think this is wrong after consulting wikipedia

>>8124715
Your post isn't a metanarrative though. Think Lacan--you're trapped in arbitrary modes of the Imaginary and Symbolic, but wider and more relevant media paradigms are relying on the seductive argumentum ad populum--Desire for the Real. If we're to fully comprehend the bilious implications of the social order as a cyclical, collapsing organism, we need to abandon mukavuus and blood libel and stop building so much as start managing the dynamic systems of controversy inherent in Meaning.

Because it's more pseudo intellectualism that is intentionally unfalsifiable to dodge criticism

>>8124776
>deserting crutches regular people rely on to get through life is a bad thing
you're retarded and honestly not even worth arguing with

>>8124791
Now hold on, I'm not that anon--and I may not be informed enough to follow this thread--but who would be deserting the crutches? Everybody or just the willing? I can dig it if it's the latter but fuck you if it's the former.

>>8124791

Thank you for proving my exact point

Meta narrative discussion always ends with ad homs and dismissal of the opposition as being less intelligent

Feel free to jerk yourself off in your own mouth some more though

>>8124762
Too stupid to parce this text, but you are probably mocking me for being a pseud. That's fine.
>>8124776
There is no "why" in the OP, and "it" in your post means the notion of metanarratives or the idea of metanarratives themselves? Metanarratives are falsifiable if their picture of history falls apart - i.e. marxism. Idea of the existence of metanarratives is not falsifiable, of course, because it's more of a definition, it doesn't imply anything: we just call any narrative that constructs history and claims to understand where that history is going so. Finally, the idea that it's the rejection of grand narratives that defines postmodernity is certainly falsifiable, for example good counterargument would be that it just places another narrative layer upon already existing metanarratives, and that is a master narrative in itself. I still think that the general gist of it is true and there is no need to play with words: there was not any succesful metanarratives since 1930 until today, because capitalism is not a metanarrative, it doesn't "explain" history and has no end goals.
>>8124791
Discussing metanarratives normatively instead of positively is very unproductive, plus you'll have people screaming spooks or pure ideology.

File: 1459450926606.jpg (300KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1920x1080px

>>8124928
yeah, perhaps it does prove your point that it is unfalsifiable
I wasn't denying that

it's a completely different frame and philosophy than you will get in those books that are 50+ years old, so I wouldn't expect you to change your mind but.. well its hard to say for sure without knowing you personally.

>>8124901
well the former, but encouraging the latter. The only way people change is through discourse. In some way you have to change the discourse so people can decide to change, but then it's not exactly free will, is it?

>>8124715
so our current metanarrative is that there is no progress today

>>8124719
They attempt to explain things and/or legitimise the current order universally (so across all situations and instances and places etc).