What are the best critiques of post modernism that aren't

define post modernism

Postmodernism does away with right and wrong. It's absurd to speak about it in those terms. If it's right, it's not right.

>>9445467
I'm talking about the philosophers who are categorized under the name "post modernism"

>>9445462
I disagree with the institution of power structures as described by authors you could probably label postmodern. Life isn't all about power plays... we're posting on a Cambodian image board for Christ's sake.

However, most of the criticism is whining imo. Derrida and especially Foucault make some incredible points that should be acknowledged more. If I can recommend you two works, "The Birth of the Clinic" and "Discipline and Punish" are some of the most thought-provoking things I've read in a while.

>>9445469
your response creates more questions than it answered

>>9445462
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
I hope this will be help.

>>9445462
Its not even a single, coherent theory. Post-modernism is a very general umbrella term to describe thinkers who critque various aspects of modernist philosophy, including notions of history, progress, realism, rationalism, empiricism, orientalism and probably a bunch of other things I'm forgetting.

You needn't worry about proving or disproving it as a whole. That's just as stupid as trying to disprove or prove classical, modern or ancient philosophy.

Derrida is probably a bad place to start. Check out Lyotard's "Towards the Post-Modern" or McLuhans "the Medium is the Massage" or Roland Barthes "Mytholgies" as a place to start.

>>9445467
after modernism

>>9445462
Postmodernism isn't a philosophy. It's a movement, and the name is usually applied after-the-fact to a text that's already existed for some time (usually post-1940). A lot of people think Wittgenstein, for example, is a postmodern thinker, because he rejects meaning (specifically, meaning in language).

If you want to critique a postmodern thinker, you have some options:
>prove meaning exists where they claim it doesn't
>refute their arguments against meaning
>take Kierkegaard's leap of faith, but with meaning instead of God
>be a pragmatist and assume meaning to make life livable
>embrace subjectivity a la Sartre and Camus, invent personal meaning

I'm sure there's others, but this is just what I can think of off the top of my head.

As for Derrida, his ideas are interesting and worthwhile. If nothing else, it's worth having deconstruction available as a tool for examining false binaries/dichotomies. One should note, however, that he found meaning, like Camus, in socialization and literature. It's very rare for a postmodernist to reject all senses of meaning.

tl;dr — Postmodernism is mostly a bogeyman for people to blame when they haven't actually done the work of finding meaning for themselves. Postmodernism is a diverse school of thought. No postmodern thinker rejects all meaning.

>>9445491
This is way worse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair
The Bogs actually sent their shit to a peer reviewed journal and got published, and yet everyone who disses """"postmodernism"""" (which isn't even a thing as most retards here think it is) fails to mention or respond to this

>>9447066
quick rundown?

Autistalytic philosophers get butthurt when pomo writers use science metaphors w/o understanding the science (like Baudrillard talking about particle colliders), then attack an entire field in bad faith because they can't grasp nuance or irony or creative use of language

>>9445462
>wanting an objective criticism of post modernism
>being this unironically ironic
lol