Are the postmodernists actually wrong or are they just hated

It's more that people misunderstand them because of all the silly things people say and do in their name, and never bother to read them themselves.

>>9260396
The latter and >>9260836

>>9260836
> or are they just hated because people feel uncomfortable with the conclusions that they come to?

This and >>9260836

File: 1487677474975.jpg (121KB, 753x724px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 753x724px

>fancy teenage nihilism

>>9260396
>postmodernists wish to tear down all structure, culture and tradition

Not sure why you would think people would react positively to that.

>>9260839
>>9260840
Officially confirmed answer

>>9260853
Back to /r9k/ brainlet

>>9260859
what r u on about m8

>>9260859
These things collapse by themselves because they're built on a foundation of spooks. It's not just the postmodernists who realise this.

>>9260873
How's your first day on le epic meme internet forum, buddy?

>>9260876
I meant what I said

File: LNs42lF.png (117KB, 491x414px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 491x414px

>>9260859
Nobody ever said ghostbusting would be easy

>>9260882
when have the postmodernists said they want to tear down all culture?

>>9260878
>These things collapse by themselves because they're built on a foundation of spooks

Culture and tradition don't collapse. They transform and change.
The culture of any given community is not the same as the culture of that same community 500 years ago. However that is not reason to remove culture or in anyway promote its demise

Postmodern literature doesn't appeal to me because the premises it builds are upon are fundamentally wrong. For example, the notion that there is no originality anymore, and that we ought to meme with the elements of prose for the sake of creating new-but-not-new-lel-just-meme-writing tier book is at best a joke.

The modernists had it right, focussing on the internal world and the disenchantment with the changing times and the disparity between the external and internal worlds; far more rewarding than meme-modernism.

>>9260886
I did, fuck culture

File: CMuXE4lUEAAcA9K.jpg (34KB, 500x316px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x316px

>>9260887
Dying is a form of changing

>>9260892
What the hell are you on about, who proposed this apparent proposition. What the fuck is the "internal world"
Please refrain from posting until you've actually read about a topic

>>9260892
>doesn't like memes
fuck off grandpa

Most wouldn't know how to begin with any of the 'Post-structuralist' texts, and many who do read them do so under the false impression that they are purely political/marxist philosophers, when their embeddedness in both the philosophical tradition and climate of 60's France is something which shouldn't be overlooked.

>>9260887
I think your idea of 'culture' is based on spooks also. What do you mean?

>>9260892
>He thinks he can dominate the structure of language and reveal hidden metaphysical truths through the use of signifiers

It's a lost cause m9

File: 1425986181737.png (90KB, 724x611px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 724x611px

>>9260396

Postmodernists don't come to conclusions.

They cum to questions.

>>9260878
>because they're built on a foundation of spooks.
And that is as good as it gets. The foundations which our lives are built upon are spooks. And we can't live without them. So lets not destroy the spooks we live by ok? The options aren't any better

>>9260396
Their arguments are entirely valid, which a lot of their critics don't take the time to see. Whether the arguments are sound is an entirely different matter.

Postmodernism is a really good argument for hermeneutics, but it should basically be ignored, it doesn't achieve anything and it doesn't help anything, not even academically.

It's weird, because it's a fantastic argument, but it seems to have almost no capacity for practical application other than just masturbating with analysis and incomprehensible word salads.

>>9261016
>We need class -- it's tradition

Exactly what the bourgeoisie would say.

File: 814206047_2019824.gif (150KB, 245x320px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 245x320px

>>9261016
Fuck you I rather destroy civilization than live under spooks

At the moment, our society is too vulnerable to handle their ideas.

>>9261058
>ideas are only significant for their practical application
you have to go back

https://youtu.be/0VwG6oaFxJs

>>9260913
it´s not about metaphysical truths its about expression.

>>9261284

Wow. Thank you for this.

>>9261284
I love how this guy makes Derrida and postmodernists out to be these scary prankster nihilists. It's flattering. If only I were actually that cool though.

>>9261284
>pointing to Soviet Union to disprove Marxism
Why is this guy considered intelligent again?

>>9261697
he's not

>>9261697
Because fortunately, most people aren't Marxists.

It doesn't help postmodernists aligned themselves with the worst allies since Italy, and refused to rebuke them.

>>9261697
He teaches Humanities Pscyhology.
Consider the joke of taking a field which already masquerades as a science then removing all pretense of intellectual scrutiny from it.

>>9261717
>this is literally mindblowing to some people

>>9261717
Neither am I, but my reason isn't "SOVIET UNIONNNNNN" cos I actually understand what Marxism is.

>>9261735
There's more nuance to his views than that if we're going to be totally honest with ourselves.

>>9261735
Neither are his reasons. Watch his lectures, read The Gulag Archipelago, and sort yourself out.

>>9261748
His reasons are dumb and are predicated on pretending Spooks are real

File: muh.jpg (53KB, 617x666px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 617x666px

>>9261753

>>9261724
>>9261697
>>9261735
>On /lit/
>Only watches short lectures instead of actual research and papers
Shame on you.

Peterson's actual research proper is actually incredibly high quality, unlike the professors attacking him.

>>9261746
I'm just going by what he said in the video.

>>9261748
Show me a lecture where he addresses Marxism specifically then

Which is another dumb thing about this video btw: conflating Marxism and postmodernism

>>9261758
Link then

>>9261756
>pointing out concepts have no ontological significance outside mere socialization is not a valid issue

Thats literally all his "Darwinian" concept of truth is. Lets spook ourselves we might die otherwise, as if that matters

>>9261753
Try listening to the lecture this time around.

>>9261769
Try shoving your fist up your ass

>>9261764
Read his book. Free PDF is available online. There's nothing stopping you.

>>9261765
>"mere" socialization
>ontological significance exists outside of a socialized sphere

Sitner himself is a spook, as evidenced by the drawings of him as a smug individualist superhero

>>9261753
>>9261765
>He's wrong because he's dumb
>Also spooks

So this is the power of the left...woah.

>>9261774
>ontological significance exists outside of a socialized sphere

Of course it does you retard, hence the verb "SIGNIFIES", i.e. represents something that actually exists.
Otherwise you just have meaningless self reference and circular logic

>>9261783
Are you surprised?

File: 1483267637278.jpg (19KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 600x400px

>>9261765
>we might die otherwise, as if that matters

>>9261784
Well, I guess I'l just declare ontology a spook then

>>9261791
>not fanticizing about relief from this maggot heap daily

I don't think you belong here

File: nDe1Dj6.png (38KB, 555x161px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 555x161px

>Why does Anti-Intellectualism exist
>Said the Adjunct Prof who threatens co-workers with machetes

>>9261771
Foucault probably already does.

>>9261772
I'm not going to read an entire book right now. Show me a paper where he takes on Marxism specifically.

>>9261802
Ontology is the analysis of the abstracted foundations of experience, hence it does exist. Try again idiot

>>9261804
Great post, I take it you don't care about dialectics of this "maggot heap" then? If that is the case, feel free to stop posting

>>9261819
>abstracted

spooky xD

>>9261825
I wouldn't call it care so much as an attempt towards the minimization of boredom and more disturbing thoughts as far as possible

>>9261818
You're posting on a literature forum anon. If you're not willing to do a little reading, you should probably head back to /r/books.

>>9261829
The act of abstraction is not a spook, simply the synchronization of actually existing categories

>>9261831
+1

File: not pleased.jpg (49KB, 481x469px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 481x469px

>>9261831
>do a little reading
>read an entire book

You're posting on a literature forum anon. If you're not willing to justify why one book should be read rather than any from the rest of the historical canon, you should probably head back to /r/books.

>>9261818
He can't find you any specific readings because he only watches a rhetoritician on youtube and never even touched his writings much less anyone elses

>>9261831
LOL is this a joke? I'M ASKING YOU TO DIRECT ME TO SOMETHING TO READ. How about you stop getting your intellectual education from youtube videos and go read something by these scary postmodernists and Marxists you pretend to understand?

Derrida - Structure Sign and Play
Foucault - The Order of Discourse
Jameson - A Singular Modernity
Adorno - Commitment

That's just a start. These are only essays that you can read RIGHT NOW.

I look forward to hearing what you think of them.

>>9260859

contrary to popular belief Foucault's lectures weren't on anal fisting semiotics but featured mostly on Roman politics, the evolution of Christianity, Gnosticism, and Greek theater

seriously, where the hell does this meme come from that the 70s French philosophers were some kind of menstrual blood bottling liberal arts college performance artists

File: disdain_for_plebs.jpg (76KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 600x600px

>>9261873
It should be noted too that these are actually timed tested thinkers who have withstood relevancy and scrutiny over an entire generation of discourse and are thought in practically every University across the world rather than someone who became a meme in the last couple months in niche internet communities not for perscient intellectual contributions but because he was favourable to their already existing political dispositions.

>>9261838
But isn't that what these apparent Stirnerites are always doing? Shouldn't they be tending to themselves and their property instead of participating in any sort of discourse about what is good and what should be done?

>>9261905
Clearing away spooks is tending to my property

>>9261861
It's ~500 pages
You can read that in a handful of days, and you'll end up with an educated opinion on his work + maybe some valuable insight

You'll get neither of those from a summary, especially not one done here

>>9261873
I've read all four of those works anon, in addition to most of Derrida's works. There are no excuses on your part. Either get reading or head back to /r/books.

>>9261910
But any result of our discourse will be a spook

File: bNNoTe3.jpg (991KB, 1456x3482px) Image search: [Google]

991KB, 1456x3482px

>>9261911
>It's ~500 pages

Yeah so is near every book on this list, tell me why I shouldn't be reading any one of them instead you repugnant little troglodyte

>>9261904
Who would have scrutinized them? Established academia? There was no basis for dialogue between them and Old academics, ESPECIALLY in the case of Derrida. Even his deconstructionist pupils never dared to lay a hand on him, as far as I'm aware

>>9261924
Because, right now, you seem to be interested enough in Peterson to engage in a conversation about his work and theory, without actually having read any of it first-hand. That seems to be ample reason to read it.

>>9261932
I'm interested cultivating the intellectual standards of the forum I spend a lot of time on and retarded pseuds who don't even read are a perfect target for that

File: 1430262736778.jpg (237KB, 766x1024px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 766x1024px

>>9260396
They're not butW;HATS WRONG MEAN ANYWAY and
>*shits all over your desk*
9435486940354

>>9261936
>he said, refusing to read a work recommended to him and relevant to the discussion on this board

>>9261941
Dude who the fuck do you think you are, it would not be literally possible for me to read every book any scrub on here recommends me.
If you want me to read your meme you need to prove his worth by displaying convincing arguments you derived from him, which not you nor any of his other petty fans have managed

>>9261913
So you've read

Writing and Difference
Of Grammatology
Speech and Phenomena
Dissemination
Margins of Philosophy
Archeology of the Frivolous
Glas
The Truth in Painting
The Postcard
The Ear of the Other
Raising the Tone of Philosophy
Of Spirit: Heidegger and the Question
The Rhetoric of Drugs
Limited, Inc.
The Problem of Genesis in Husserl's Phenomenology
Who's Afraid of Philosophy?
Circumfession
Given Time I: Counterfeit Money
Spectres of Marx
The Gift of Death
Politics of Friendship
Echographies of Television
Aporias: Dying—Awaiting (One Another at) the "Limits of Truth"
Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas
Body of Prayer
The Work of Mourning
Acts of Religion
Rogues: Two Essays on Reason
The Animal That Therefore I Am
The Beast and the Sovereign, Volume I and II
Signature Derrida
and The Death Penalty?

Interesting, anon. Which is your favourite? What order did you read them in? What did you think of The Postcard? How long did it take to read Glas?

>>9261913
>I've read all four of those works anon

Dubious

>>9261958
>and he still thinks Peterson is a significant thinker

>>9261949
I'm not a fan of Peterson and didn't come into this thread to defend him, I just saw your posts and felt like pointing out what's wrong with them
You're awful to interact with

>>9261966
Well you did an impressive job of that, get fucked

>>9261966
>that backpedalling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

hmmm

Daily reminder that postmodernists are just communists who didn't want to own up Stalinist crimes so invent intellectual excuses to get away from it.

>>9261958
Why should I bother?
refer to this >>9261924 post

>>9261993
Thats his exact point

>>9260913
For a group of people supposedly dedicated to "deconstructing society" the postmodernists are surprisingly idealistic and mystical
>muh hidden undiscovered truths

Couldn't they just have been open Marxists? What's the point in obfuscating all of it behind semiotics?

>>9261958
> Which is your favorite?
Of Grammatology
>What order did you read them in?
Chronological
>What did you think of The Postcard?
An expounded glimpse at postmodernism's notions of continuity and legacy
>How long did it take to read Glas?
Quite a while. Worth it though

>>9260396
Wait I thought postmodernists never came to any conclusions

>>9262004
Nice frantic wikipedia job, people who have actually read Derrida don't use the word postmodernism

Derrida and Baudrillard are the only post-modernists worth reading because they're actually philosophers. The rest all have political motives in their work.

>>9262012
>The rest all have political motives in their work.

Baudrillard is ostensibly political though, far more so than say Foucault

Everything I take from threads concerning post-modernism on /lit/ is that few people, if any at all have any understanding of what it means and can derive any significant, interesting arguments from any of the thinkers associated with it.
Almost nothing ever said in any of these threads in defense of post-modernism has ever made me think that it's a genuine, singular "movement" that anyone wants to associate with
So why bother?

>>9262011
People who haven't actually read Derrida like to say that people who haven't read Derrida don't use the word postmodernism.

>>9262017
>Almost nothing ever said in any of these threads in defense of post-modernism has ever made me think that it's a genuine, singular "movement" that anyone wants to associate with

Because it isn't. Its just a strawman for the naive and unread to project their anxieties onto

>>9262012
Derrida explicitly sought to politicize western philosophy and directly involved himeslf in many of the important political debates of the late 60's onwards

>>9262018
Show me a single instance in which Derrida actually recognizes post-modernism as anything but a nonsensical fashion term

>>9262024
He applied his philosophy to politics, but politics are not IN his philosophy.

>>9262030
Yeah it would be far closer to say he hoped to philosophize western politics

>>9262023
Well, the construal of most of these thinkers (Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillad, Lyotard) as heavily political and openly Marxist makes sense to me, it seems consistent with most of their views, and it leads me to believe that this is more of a political struggle than an intellectual one, which should reveal why it's being fought at such a basic level

File: IMG_0766.jpg (24KB, 220x298px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 220x298px

Postmodernism is just a footnote to Nietzsche.

>>9262024
tbf his motive for being in those debates was not to pat everyone on the back

>>9260887
>the culture has been around for centuries, therefore culture exists

nah

>Arguments made by critics of postmodernsim have no factual basis because they haven't read the literature
>My argument regarding this individual's views are correct even though I haven't read a page of his work
Bravissimo.

>>9262038
Only one of those figures identified as a Marxist

>>9262028
Show me a single instance of his work in which he non-ironically refers to post-modernism as a "nonsensical fashion term".

>>9262062
>Derrida being non-ironic ever

>>9262062
Its a coherent deduction from his very philosophy itself. I would presume he never even considered the term worthy of speaking about for any intelligent person.

>>9262051
Foucault and Derrida both explicitly identified themselves as either Marxist or consciously applying/continuing the marxist tradition. Baudrillard, as far as I know, was influenced by Lefebvre, but okay, he wasn't a Marxist.
I know that Lyotard played a role in '68

>>9262062
I know pretending you've actually read certain books is the modus operandum of /lit/ but this is getting absurd

>>9262075
I think you mean "inductive". Regardless, if you think otherwise, you've completely misunderstood Derrida.

>>9262093
>but this is getting absurd
Why? Articulate your argument.

>>9262092
>or consciously applying/continuing the marxist tradition.

Sure but this is the point, Marx has had such a pervaisive influence in Continental Philosophy its akin to regarding yourself as contueing the tradition of Kant today
Its a very different connotation to call oneself a Kantian or a Marxist, furthermore to accuse someone else of being one

>>9262102
>inductive

No I don't, such is the extent to which its plain as day.

>>9262124
>I'm right because it's just obvious I'm right.

Well done. Derrida would not be proud.

>>9262136
I'd be blushing if I was trying to roleplay him right now

>>9262046
It's different though, because a significant portion of Dr. Peterson's fan-base hold conservative views, and that's problematic.

>>9262238
More like Peterson is a literally who that is only being talked about because of his view on the historical and reknowned thinkers

Circle jerk for those that have wasted thousands on useless degrees so that they can be professionally unemployed for the rest of their lives.

>>9262046
The majority of folks on both sides of the argument have not read Derrida.

>>9262256
English, please.

>>9262411
Non

>>9260396
WHat do you mean? They tore down a lot but proposed nothing novel. Most just reverted to Marxism when forced to give replacements.

What is essential post modernist literature?

>>9262887
Pynchon, Delillo, Barthes, Vonnegut, Flann O'Brien, Gass, Nabokov, et al

>>9262931
Thank you. Any favorite works?

>>9261284
when will people realize that marxism isn't a political ideology but a theory about how capitalism functions?

>>9263053
GR/MD, no, Pirate Rape, no, Dalkey Archive, Tunnel/On Being Blue, Speak, Memory/Ada/Pale Fire
John Hawkes - Beetle Leg, Lime Twig, couple others
Of course you should basically go through all of Gaddis' work.

>>9260887
They do not promote their demise, that's a paranoid /pol/-tier conspiracy theory. What Foucalt and Derrida and their lot did was to question those foundations and not take them for granted. I agree completely with you on your first point, that culture and tradition are in a constant state of change, but the very fact that there are people who believe there is a "left-promoted" conspiracy to destroy "traditional values" is proof that they don't want culture to change. In other words, they want to stagnate the natural course of culture because of a burgeois sense of what history and culture should be.

File: scruton_glasses[1].jpg (12KB, 215x252px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 215x252px

Friendly reminder that there is no culture without religion

>>9262931
These are good places to start
>Pynchon
Crying of Lot 49
>DeLillo
Cosmopolis
>Barthes
A Lover's Discourse (and the essay Death of the Author)
>Vonnegut
Easy reads. Start anywhere
>Flann O'Brien
Third Policeman
>Gass
His essays
>Nabokov
Speak, Memory and Lolita obviously

I agree with the other anon on Gaddis. Start with American Gothic, if you want to get yourself accustomed with his style. But I would suggest going chronologically.

That said, everyone always seems to forget Samuel Beckett. Is he too obvious, or something? Nobody talks about his novels, or really anything but Godot, and that is such a fucking shame.

>>9263277
Scruton is disgusting, his whole argument against modern art is "muh beauty" while blaming leftists for whatever he feels like "degeneration" and casually "forgetting" to engage with the thinkers, theorists, critics and artists of the period beyond "I don't like them"

>>9263431
Would you care to elaborate. I only have a casual knowledge of Scruton, but I've found his writings on modern culture interesting, even as a non-conservative. Have you actually read Modern Culture? because he's quite a bit more in depth than "muh beauty".

>>9263456
I can't really elaborate right now, I'm in a bus trip returning home, and it's been a while since I've read his book on beauty, but from the top of my head:
-His definition of modern art is whack and completely subjective
-He ignores a lot of things like artists' writings and manifestos (which are basilar in understanding modernism) if they go against his theories
-He completely ignores how difficult it is to talk about art in pre-renassaince situations and thinks art as we understand it is a given on modern society
-He always rambles about the function of art or whatever in quasi-new age terms while never really making clear of it
-He thinks all of modern art is some sort of leftist-relativist scam to politize art but completely ignores pre-modern political art

20% right, 40% wrong, 40% annoying for being terrible writers and obscurantists

>>9260396
What conclusions do they come to?

Not well-read lurker here.

>>9263506
>-He thinks all of modern art is some sort of leftist-relativist scam to politize art

That isn't really up for debate though, that's objective fact, another objective fact is that modern art is mostly used for laundering money.

>>9263593
>implying art was never political in nature until quite recently

>>9263609
Of course they were, If you "ignore" something doesn't mean you agree, disagree or have alternative theories. Calm down senpai.

>>9260396

Their ideas are incoherent, internally inconsistent and worthless for life.

Why is Nabokov under the label of postmodernism? I don't mean to say he shouldn't be, only that I wish to understand why he is.

>>9263616
They didn't ignore the political in their art, though, artists portrayed it in a different manner.

>>9263650
Lolita has metafictional elements and an unreliable narrator, and a lot of stylistic pastiche. Pale Fire is also metafictional and parodies academic criticism.

>>9263668

Thank you for your explanation.

>>9263653
That isn't what I meant Anon, you're desperately reflecting. Scruton doesn't think pre-modern art wasn't Political, stop attacking a strawman.

>>9263581
> What conclusions do they come to?
I have yet to see a real answer to this; I thought the point of post-modernism was to question definitive conclusion or truth

File: yxy0963c1nly.jpg (197KB, 1618x1373px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1618x1373px

>Derrida
>Openly supported orthodox Marxism
>Marxism collapsed in the 90s
>Still supported it anyway

>Foucault
>Openly supported orthodox Marxism and was a political activist
>Supported Marxism until his last breath, even during the booming 80s

Gee, I wonder why people attack them so much when the people associated with the movement held extreme ideological beliefs, and were told of the dangers of giving people the tools to take apart all structures as they were doing it for literally decades by several prominent leaders in their respectable fields.

Not only did they have to turn a blind eye to the criticism, they saw what kind of movements their ideas were fueling, and still had the audacity to call it progress.

>>9261998
>muh hidden undiscovered truths
is modernism

philosophy is a spook

>>9263689
>>9263689
please refer to:
-->> >>9263190

also foucault was an anarchist

>>9264034
>Foucault was an anarchist
Anon are you being retarded on purpose? First of all, Foucault didn't eat from the same trashcan his whole life, secondly, his last opinion was classical liberalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault#Political

>>9263581
"postmodernism is typically defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony or distrust toward grand narratives, ideologies and various tenets of Enlightenment rationality, including notions of human nature, social progress, objective reality and morality, absolute truth, and reason.[4] Instead, it asserts that claims to knowledge and truth are products of unique social, historical or political discourses and interpretations, and are therefore contextual and constructed to varying degrees. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, irreverence and self-referentiality"

it is what everyone with the ability to abstract knew all along. i mean do i have to spell it out for you?
Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.
or as he himself put it
Nichts ist wahr. Alles ist erlaubt.

>>9260859
You may want to double check your information. It's those very statements that have caused others to misunderstand postmodernism and brand it with negativity.

>>9264051
but this video said so in the first 20 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBJTeNTZtGU

maybe im just assuming everyone who has a brain is an anarchist

>>9264091
School of Life is shit

>>9261058
This seems to make the most sense to me. You really hit the nail on the head with this comment.

File: C8DCFC11-F06F-4363-92B3-ECD3154E6614-277-0000002AE80C6E07.jpg (10KB, 649x269px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 649x269px

>>9260396

>>9261925
he's the last great heristic

of course we need to study him and hate him, being thankful of how our system gets immunization

>>9261939
I apologize for getting off topic but what exactly is going on in this photo?

>>9260396
It is largely philosophical hole poking. I find it interesting that so many strongly associate it with the left when there are many on the left who hate it because they feel it undermines their project.

Guys seriously,

Why do the threads about the French between the 1960's and early 90's always turn into such a poisonous shitstorm?

A few options:
>The vast majority of people arguing about this philosophy have never actually read any of it and still keep arguing based on their wikipedia knowledge. This is probable because of the generally rather imprecise language-usage
>This is just 4chan

I strongly think it's the former.

>>9264227
if you think about it, you might notice how the ones who have to fear it the most is the media (so i'd say in usa it's mostly democratic party) but the truth is that majority of the people can't nor even want to actually read PoMo philosophy so it's really not dangerous. i feel the media sneekly implement post structuralist views in their own advantage. they use its lessons to better target their audience.

>>9260396
Postmodernists don't come to conclusions

>>9264242
>The vast majority of people arguing about this philosophy have never actually read any of it and still keep arguing based on their wikipedia knowledge. This is probable because of the generally rather imprecise language-usage
>This is just 4chan
There aren't mutually exclusive, and they're both true. Some, myself included, take the first even further by getting their entire knowledge of these thinkers from wikipedia informed shitposts and using it to continue shitposting.

>>9264242

maybe because French philosophy from the 20th century was nothing but a poisonous shitstorm of nauseating nonsense that a competent critic would have torn to shreds had even one existed

File: lol tatoo.jpg (33KB, 500x371px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x371px

>>9260893
When I hear the word "culture", I reach for my gun.

>>9264451
You mean I'm not the only one?

They're nihilists who don't value value. Humans can't live like that.

>>9265041
Some post moderns are seeking subjective meaning, like Camus

>>9265355
Camus is postmodern now?

Like everything they are not right or wrong, but are.

>>9265603
deep

>>9260859
OP asked if they were wrong.

>>9260887
>Culture and tradition don't collapse.
then what are you worried about?
surely any attempt to take down culture is just it changing?

File: please-explain_1.jpg (21KB, 770x433px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 770x433px

>>9265603

>>9263689
There a bunch of theses that Foucault is actually a neo-liberal, even if he didn't know it.

>>9264242
Both.
I've been studying philosophy for some years now, and Derrida is the hardcore NG+ final form boss of philosophy. I doubt more than 2 anons here have read all his works (I sure as hell didn't).
Plus, you've got to understand that according to some of those philosophers (Deleuze especially) arguing is basically worthless, and can only ever be properly done by writing books or at the very least articles.
I'd also argue that continental philosophy requires a different mindset. Once you understand that they didn't care that much for truth, it gets a little easier.

Also we get an influx of /pol/tards here, and mos of hem are fueled entirely by memes and youtubers.

And it doesn't help when their only analysis frame is jewish leftist propaganda.

Postmodernists rightly point out how arbitrary nearly all things are, particularly social constructions, but their conclusion is that they should therefor be abolished, which it a terrible conclusion. Accepting the arbitrary is necessary for societal and individual happiness. Nihilism is a truth but not an answer.