Will postmodernism ever end?

>>9478391
it's you that's the nerd

>>9478391
>lit

>>9478384
I guess you could entertain the idea of some kind of redemption.

I guess the pendulum is moving back to spiritualism and something new will eventually come up as society changes. Perhaps POMO was the forefront of these changes and as such the new ideas will have to deal with it or in some way declare it dead at some point due to not being useful.

Kinda a pragmatic stance, but at this point I take anything that isn't POMO senpai

>propagating some kind of massive noble lie.

the noble lie of today is the truth of tomorrow

AP has the same problem 4chan does. It just screeches about how shit everything is. Like, wow, I'm impressed by your observation.
Neither offers much in the way of moving forward.

>>9478384
POMO ended in the nineties

>>9478409
I feel like the more science advances the more spiritualist views are proven pretty objectively wrong. I don't see a situation where the pendulum every swings that far back every happening again.

>>9478429
thank you for your insight

>>9478384
>Pic related, pomo architects literally design ugly and inefficient buildings on purpose basically as a joke to make fun of modernism.

Apart from that gigantic column, that building is actually quite nice.

The problem with new sincerity is that postmodernism and post-irony in reaction to rampant consumerism have never really been the backbone of our culture. Say what you want about the /lit/ bubble you exist in, the fact of the matter is that most people shop at Wal Mart and watch The Big Bang Theory.

>>9478384
the problem isn't irony. As the election of Trump indicates, the US isn't even on a single level of awareness, let alone one or more levels of irony. Postmodernism is in an ivory tower and hardly relevant, but not as irrelevant as all of DFW's thought combined. That loser never knew this first thing about a great novel, realized it, and killed himself, while Ellis kicks SJWs in the ass from sunny California.

>>9478384

david foster wallace took his own life because he realized the task he was trying to accomplish was impossible

i could go in-depth and more concrete but traveling a road of absolute objectivity and finding some sort of catharsis where humanity is all at once on a wavelength where we co-exist in relative balance is just not realistic at this period of time. Embracing the absurdity is alot less harrowing than trying to erase it altogether, and that is what gave birth to places like 4chan and other faucets of media where irony was the only medicine keeping us from being overwhelmed by an existential sense of dread, an existential sense of dread that swallowed Foster.

>>9478550
>the fact of the matter is that most people shop at Wal Mart and watch The Big Bang Theory
Obviously most people live in generic mcmansions/apartments, eat shitty food and consume shitty "art". I don't really care about reforming every element of normal people's lives, I just want a change in artistic/academic culture. Unless you're saying that pomo is a response necessarily tied to the consumerist culture among average people, in which case again I'm left wondering if there's a way that every changes in the foreseeable future.

>>9478560
>>9478555
I'm not advocating for new sincerity or any of DFW's ideas really, other than agreeing with his critiques of pomo. Really the point of my question is to ask if there's any other paths to take. I find "embracing the absurdity" to be a pretty tenuous solution since as soon as you allow yourself half a second of self-reflection the existential dread comes back with a vengeance.

>>9478532
>planes and geometric shapes crashing into each other at random
>a bunch of arches layered on each other, some of which are non-functional
>faux-brick shapes cut into concrete
>what I can only assume is fake scaffolding on the outside
I'm not an architecture student or anything but I can see a lot of stuff wrong with this building. This was just the first google image result for "postmodern architecture" though. A lot of it is actually functionally terrible, though. I remember one house where you didn't have privacy in the bathroom and the owners ended up putting grates over these random holes he put in the second floor because they were afraid their kid would fall through and die.

After pomo comes the machine age.

Garbage time is running out.

>>9478384
>If what’s always distinguished bad writing—flat characters, a narrative world that’s cliched and not recognizably human, etc.—is also a description of today’s world, then bad writing becomes an ingenious mimesis of a bad world. If readers simply believe the world is stupid and shallow and mean, then Ellis can write a mean shallow stupid novel that becomes a mordant deadpan commentary on the badness of everything.
Holy shit it's like DFW predicted New Insincerity or something

>>9478678
Isn't that essentially just modernism especially people like the futurists that have been obsolete for close to a century?

>>9478685
Even the futurist vision wasn't posthuman, if I recall correctly.

>>9478384
after post-modernism comes post-post modernism and then finally we will all come to appreciate accelerationism as this world comes to its close.
we've seen that genres of art always either contain an element of freedom or at least suggest it. i think the next stage of art is going to try to communicate freedom from the oppression of existence (or maybe ideology??).

Cool discussion. Anyway...

>Assuming historical cultures didn't have a sense or irony or humor
>Assuming categories like "classical", "modern", and "postmodern" are anything other than indexing mechanisms for academics.

C'mon guys (and gals)... Socrates tackled moral relativism in what... Like 300 BC? And it wasn't just mental masturbation. There were legit loads of people running around making ironic, relativistic arguments. You can find this in any period of human history. Were those guys just proto-postmodernists? I thought they were classical/medieval/modern! [...]

Believe what you want to believe, but for chrissakes at least do some research on what you're claiming to "surpass" before claiming to have surpassed it. Ime, most criticisms of thinkers like Plato, Hegel, Freud, Lacan, or even Descartes have been based on pathetic misreadings on par with what most people should have surpassed by High School.

Seriously, ever read Deleuze and Guattari's "Anti-Oedipus"? Deffs a meme in postmodernism. It's based entirely on a bunch of stuff they just made up after pretending to have read Freud, Hegel, etc... In an interview later on, Deleuze (who should have NEVER collaborated with Guattari as his solo work is incredible) OPENLY admitted to just sitting around with Guattari and flipping through books, taking quotes from a few pages, and then adding them to to Anti-Oedipus. Most of the worst drivel categorized as PoMo is like this. It's 50-page long indexes, with hundreds of authors cited, nary a new idea, and VERY poor interpretations of the authors cited.

"Postmodernism" is not a thing (just like "modernism" and "classicism"). It's just another word for lazy, overly academic scholarship.

I rest my case...

>>9478801
Since the word postmodernism doesn't suit you, what do you call the sensation that the world is upside-down and nothing has any meaning and we are forever falling, without hope or purpose?

Embrace religion, even if it is a lie. A beneficial lie is better then suffering under the truth

Pain. Pain is the sensation of the deterioration of meaning. It's usually thought of as a bodily sensation because most of our meaning is tied up in bodily things.

In spite of so-called postmodernism, it is still very much possible to live a meaningful life. Sure, it's difficult. Life has never been for the faint of heart, as far as I know. There's always been a good supply of BS, war, starvation, and self-centered people trying to put their interests ahead of others. Wisdom is learning to see beyond this, and to share meaning with others instead of disrupting their meaning systems as well.

LOL. No such thing as a beneficial lie. There are only ways to veil the truth to protect those who are not ready to see it. Those are not lies, they're more like sunglasses.

File: Transfiguration-of-Jesus-greek-icon.jpg (217KB, 1600x1062px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1600x1062px

>>9478426
What about a tremendous supernatural event?

>>9478886
it would just be considered an unexplained phenomenon to be figured out, anything that contradicts science is just something we need more time to study, scientism consumes all

Or so we're supposed to think...

Supernatural events are by definition exceptional. Science requires controlled study and repetition. Those don't apply to highly anomalaic (see Fortean) phenomena.

>>9478671
>I remember one house where you didn't have privacy in the bathroom and the owners ended up putting grates over these random holes he put in the second floor because they were afraid their kid would fall through and die.
Kek, do you have a pic?

>will post-modernism ever end

No, its gaining speed real fast now the right wing have discovered it. The "alt_right" are post-modern right wingers. Expect more pseudo-science, armchair philosophy and "relative truths" for years to come, now with added Nazi.

>now with added nazi

...But weren't the nazis influenced by the futurists in the first place? Did Pasolini deck out his Salo film with Futurist art? WHOA DUDE!

Seriously, same poo, different loo.

>>9478801
I fully admit that my personal knowledge is very lacking in philosophy so using a personal example in the OP a mistake. Even if you're right and it's all based on misinterpretation there's no denying that postmodern thought has come to have a significant impact on modern intellectualism, its the byproducts in the arts and culture at large. What's more it has enough unfalsifiable points (again, to my very limited understanding) that I don't think you could ever really convince someone empirically in a debate.

>>9478867
Honestly I would if I could. I was raised in an agnostic/atheist family and I just can't seem to make the leap to genuine belief.

>>9478875
No offense but this seems like a kind of meaningless answer. I don't think you can just ignore everything, tell yourself to "live a meaningful life" and have everything fixed out of the blue.

>>9478879
I'm not sure I understand your semantic distinction. If you could convince everyone of a lie that would prevent child molestation in 100% of cases that seems like a pretty beneficial "veiling of the truth" to me. We're never going to have a completely objective understanding of things anyway, if given the opportunity to take a small hit to our knowledge in exchange for a large benefit to quality of life/general happiness then why shouldn't we?

>>9478886
I mean, yeah, sure but I think the odds of a tremendous supernatural event happening in our lifetime are pretty low, just looking statistically at history.

>>9478944

>But weren't the nazis influenced by the futurists in the first place?

Yes. Contemporary futurism (as in, speculation by actual scientists by on evidence, not redditors or idealists like Fresco) however is not the same as it was in 1900's.

But it is true what I'm saying. Post-modernists were so smug in their counter-culture rejection of empiricism thinking it would never be used against them and they. Well now look what they've done. Go to /pol/ or /r9k/ and take a look. Women are destroying the western world and always vote left despite polls showing they vote republican slightly more than men. The Jews are pushing "cultural marxism" (post-modernism but their dumb to know what it is despite using it) despite the fact post-modernists and the far-left are actually prone to anti-antisemitism because of Israel. The Anglo-sphere and Europe is a "white homeland" and minorities are privileged because the government is using them to destroy the white race.

Evidence for all of this? Who cares! Truth is now relative. If Elliott Rodgers says all women are whores and are evil, vapid and narcissistic, well that's like, his "lived experience" maaan. 4chan stared into the abyss of social justice warriors and the abyss stared back.

File: stringio.jpg (39KB, 528x339px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 528x339px

>>9478933
I couldn't find a picture of the interior but the building I was thinking of was peter eisenman's house II. Pic related is another of his houses, he put a glass divider in the middle of the bedroom so the married couple that lived there couldn't sleep in the same bed.

Kek.

Go back to your Christopher Hitchens, Utilitarianism, and oh so titillating thrills n' chills of Kierkegaard. Meaningless Materialism vs. Irrational Religion. It's a meme. Or a dialectic. Whatever...

Clearly I don't have anything of value for you.

If you want to understand the lie thing though, read Kant's Grounding for Metaphysics of Morals. If nobody lied, we wouldn't have nasties in the first place. Plus, there are plenty of creative ways to tell the truth that would defuse potentially nasty situations.

Your pedophile thing is akin to what is often called a "trolley problem" in the field of Ethics.

I'm not going to give you any more of my opinions because clearly you're waiting for some kind of authority (preferably scientific or paternal) to enlighten you on these things.

Not lit but holy fuck thats an agressively ugly building, it feels sarcastic or something.

This is either a robot or a baudrillardian.

You got it all wrong

Futurism in the '20s and '30s is comparable to postmodernism, not contemporary futurism.

Empirical thinking doesn't solve anything. It's a tool for wisdom. It doesn't produce wisdom or even encourage it. Blows my mind how many ignorant, pea-brained, philistine scientists we have running around these days with pretensions of enlightening people.

>>9478384
Hop on the new sincerity train.

Irony and cynicism were a weak response to mass consumerism and manipulative pop culture. You can think of cynicism as just a way to suppress the urge to give in and enjoy everything about our world. It's a gut-reaction to what appears manipulative. And new sincerity is the idea that that sort of suppression is bad. There's no limit to what a person can be cynical about, and so in some way it's better to not be cynical at all. Let yourself be manipulated. Stop suppressing your emotions because you're worried they'll get taken advantage of or they'll just be silly. Take yourself seriously. Be sappy and sentimental.

Scientists should just keep doing experiments, trying to encourage the development of technology, etc. But they should keep their nose out of metaphysics and other big ideas which their methodology prevents them from understanding properly.

>>9478999

Care to elaborate, espevially your angle in general?

>>9479015
this.

Also, that scientific findings can contradict the material claims of religious narratives doesn't prevent our society from shifting to a more metaphysically concerned ethos.

Our current era is dominated by the pretence of materialism and empiricism, but it doesn't always have to be so. In fact, our current postmodern confusions are subversive to pure empiricism already.

>>9478999

>Empirical thinking doesn't solve anything. It's a tool for wisdom. It doesn't produce wisdom or even encourage it

Neither does sitting in your chair and making things up. And yes, empiricism does produce wisdom because its the only way you can check what you're saying has a basis in reality isn't complete horseshit.

>Blows my mind how many ignorant, pea-brained, philistine scientists we have running around these days with pretensions of enlightening people.

Go back to reading Freud "intellectual".

>>9479015

Scientists will do whatever we want, since we're the only ones doing anything useful. New Sincerity is better than PoMo anyway, you stupid faggots tried to rip apart "meta narratives" and instead ended up teaching a bunch of jaded white teenagers identity politics 101 and sparking a new wave of fascism. Oh, and you resurrected Freudianism after nearly a century of it being debunked. Well done!

>>9479024
>Being this indoctrinated into the church of empiricism.

>>9479024
>Freudianism after nearly a century of it being debunked.

Source?

Scientists doing philosophy. In the anglo-american world, basically philosophy is functioning as science's handmaiden.

Futurism in the '20s and '30s is comparable to postmodernism. It could even be compared to a rudimentary form of accelerationism (which really is the culmination of what is commonly referred to as postmodernism today). But all this is played out. It's been done many times before, and you can even see people making similar arguments in the (!ancient!) Platonic dialogues.

>>9479031
quote the posts you're replying to, nigger

If you want to talk to something that isn't a strawman, I'll give you a serious response.

But until then, I'll merely have you know that "muh science" vs "armchairfags" is most certainly a false dichotomy. From the way you write, I would think you would know better than that.

Not all scientists are boneheads. Some even understand the significance of their own work not to ruin it by pandering to cheap ideologies, highly-ranked journals, pharmaceutical companies, and the public's incessant demand for popsci.

>>9478978
I don't find the hitchens/utilitarian points of view very compelling or I wouldn't be asking the question to begin with. I didn't even think of my example as a trolley problem because I put a lie as such a minimal negative compared to child molestation but obviously you're correct that it is and I guess I did just instinctively jump to a utilitarian calculus there (which, I'm sure, betrays my lack of philosophical background more than anything). Having not read any Kant firsthand I won't try to engage with the rest of your argument but I'll look into the book.

>>9479006
I don't think you can just flip a switch in your mind and "let yourself be manipulated". It's like the allegory of the cave, right? Once you see the "real world" you can't really choose to go back to looking at the shadows until you get new information that convinces you of something else.

>>9479022
>our current postmodern confusions are subversive to pure empiricism already
Can you explain what you mean by this? To my understanding postmodernism is born out of the limitations of empirical knowledge but is still more or less consistent with what we do know.

>>9479029

Well I am studying astrophysics. And I'm not indoctrinated into empiricism on conceptual matters. Its just that PoMo is weak. For example, if power in society is a zero-sum game and the majority creates the meta narrative and thus wields unfair power and privilege over minorities, why should the majority give away that power so minorities can wield it over them? That's a solid reason to oppress even more, to secure your own position.

>>9479030

Forcault and his amateur psychology that his acolytes in France defend.

>>9479032

Go away. I'm not like you and your "micro-truths", this is empirically a shitpost.

>Once you see the "real world" you can't really choose to go back to looking at the shadows until you get new information that convinces you of something else.

Just wait for your eyes to adjust, pal. Imo, the value of patience can never be underestimated.

>Most postmodern art is literally the "xd I was just pretending to be retarded" shitposting meme but manifested into everything.

No it isn't.

Quick! Somebody take a screenshot! This is getting funnier than /pol/!!!! I seriously busted my gut at this interaction.

On a more serious note

>Its just that PoMo is weak.

Read post above. PoMo is the ultimate "social construct", a boogeyman for the scientists of the likes of Sokal and Bricmont. Contrary to what philistine scientists who stopped reading years ago would have you believe, these ideas are NOT new.

>>9479031
lol What

>>9479049
>Once you see the "real world" you can't really choose to go back to looking at the shadows until you get new information that convinces you of something else.

You can't ever see the "real world", you just see other shadows

>>9479049
>I don't think you can just flip a switch in your mind and "let yourself be manipulated".
That's not really what I meant. It's more about what you focus on and what you value. Nobody chooses to let himself be manipulated, but people can choose whether or not they value the "authentic" so much that anything seemingly inauthentic gets thrown out.

Anyway New Sincerity definitely is the answer to postmodernism you're looking for. Read infinite jest or something

>You can't ever see the "real world", you just see other shadows

Materialist detected.

>>9479052
>Its just that PoMo is weak. For example, if power in society is a zero-sum game and the majority creates the meta narrative and thus wields unfair power and privilege over minorities, why should the majority give away that power so minorities can wield it over them? That's a solid reason to oppress even more, to secure your own position.

I should ridicule you for your horrible misreading of 'postmodernism' but there's just no point.

>>9479065

>a boogeyman for the scientists

Its not a "Boogeyman" when its actually creeping in and fucking everything up.

>these ideas are NOT new.

I didn't say post-modernism is "new". And it also fashionable for post-modernists not to use the reply function?

>>9479024
Don't you feel self-conscious trying to respond to people who are so much more well read than you on philosophy? I know appeal to authority is a shitty argument but I still feel very uncomfortable trying to argue against people (not necessary in this thread but in real journal articles) who have literally devoted their lives to these subjects when my knowledge is probably less than that of an average philosophy undergrad.

>>9479065
I guess you're don't want to vindicate anyone with the (you) but there are at least 2 other people in this thread with a viewpoint you're contradicting so it would probably be easier to just reply for clarity's sake.

>>9479077
Sure, that's why I put it in quotes, but don't we have no choice but to accept whatever the newest/most convincing shadows are and reject the old ones?

>>9479083

>I should ridicule you for your horrible misreading of 'postmodernism' but there's just no point.

Its not a horrible reading. That is what it boils down to. At least for Foucalt and Lacan and their legions of braindead college students.

>>9479084

>Don't you feel self-conscious trying to respond to people who are so much more well read than you on philosophy?

No because they're not. If I was speaking to someone like Hegal or Chomsky I would feel self conscious, but PoMo is mostly just hot air. Foucalt, for all the reading he did, preferred to sit at home and make shit up instead of do any serious intellectual inquiry. And when you do that, you can just as easily be torn apart by someone doing the same.

>>9479085
What's it fucking up?

>>9479098
>That is what it boils down to. At least for Foucalt and Lacan and their legions of braindead college students.

"no"

>>9479085

Sry, newfag here. PoMo only becomes dangerous when people take it seriously. Unfortunately, people take it a lot more seriously when idiots like Bricmont and Sokal and their ilk go around complaining about it like it's their only worthy opponent. But, then again, that's pretty basic psychology.

>>9479084
I'm trying to handle things. I don't even know where to start replying at this point. There is definitely a mixture of egotism, unwillingness to read important texts, and willful ignorance here. Unfortunately, these are not diseases I'm immune to.

Technology must me destroyed and made so that it can never develop again.

>>9479109
Muh Spengler! Muh HighDigger!

Nice b8 m8

>>9478384
Minorities are pretty sincere. Maybe you should listen to them.

File: mcluhan.jpg (325KB, 1600x1303px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 1600x1303px

>>9479121
You're right, I was just baiting. Destroying technology won't do anything unless there was some sort of eco-fascist government that controlled everyone from not making it again. Instead, we have to understand technology better so that we can control the effects media has on us. Unfortunately no one is interested in doing that nowadays, people are narcotized and they can't even see the effects its having on them.

>>9478426
>I feel like the more science advances the more spiritualist views are proven pretty objectively wrong.

This isn't really true at all though. Science in recent time has come to reveal the practical minded conception of the world as a contingent, straightforward and banal structure is flawed in the face of radical reevaluations of the nature of time, material reducibility and context.
While of course it would be foolish to say it is proving spiritualism right, it does open an awareness of the total superhuman mystery and illusion that practical life exists in.
Esotericism in this sense has gained a lot more credibility than it had in the simple atomistic and discrete notion of the world in the Victorian era.

just because we can't get rid of the bourgeoisie as a class doesn't mean we can't murder individuals from it

>>9479130
>Eco-fascist government that prevented everyone from making technology again.

>Understand technology better

Don't understand the connection between eco-fascism and the destruction of technology. Pretty sure environmental activism often stems from a desire to develop better, safer, and more efficient technologies.

I'm every bit as concerned about forced monopolies of oil-based energies as I am about misguided and occasionally dangerous environmentalists.

Anyway, you're right about media and narcoticization, feedback loops. It's a major problem. Any recommendations for this topic, outside of McLuhan, who I am already somewhat familiar with?

Or, if you'd like to expand on some of McLuhan's (*gasp*) PoMo ideas, I'd love to see it.

>>9479220
bourgeoisie are the engine propelling society
remove them from the game and workers would be completely lost

>>9479276
I was talking about a Petti Linkola type system where the world is forcibly returned to a primitive state. It's obviously unrealistic but it's nice to daydream about sometimes.

You may be interested in the book "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television". The title is silly but I think it's a good introduction to media ecology type thought.

>>9479338
If you're going to use this metaphor the bourgeoisie are the drivers not the engine, things can operate perfectly fine without them for a time but of course a driver of some sort will be needed eventually

>>9478384

DFW completely misinterpreted American Psycho. You're not as /lit/ as you think you are.

>>9479402
>DFW completely misinterpreted American Psycho

Let me guess you're going to claim he naively thought American Psycho was some sort of glorification of Patrick Bateman when it was really a satirical critique of who he represented.
Its you who misses the point that the very enjoyment of wagging a finger at Bateman is none the less still a perverse fixation of the nastiest depths of man with no affirmative content behind it.

not a single credible modern philosopher supports moral relativism, except for macintyre, who is really quite awful

File: 1488149023823.png (289KB, 435x438px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 435x438px

>>9479402

reddit.com/r/cringe

>>9479402
Stop posting, Bret

>>9478384
its ended, they've already moved on to designing buildings in there most efficient with computer programs so prepare to see lots of that over the next years

>>9478852
Monday morning.

>>9478969
I don't se any glass divider there, just a narrow vertical window that goes through part of the ceiling. I, for one, would love to wake up in a room light that.

>>9478384
>>9478420
>>9478426
>>9478560

Hurry up now.... Come along Children....

We've got to go see F. A. Kittler....

>>9478685

Now Jimmy, don't act so foolish....

>>9478801

Hinduism has Agori and the one taste, too.

Almost like philosophy arises from biology. Maybe even maths are human constructions too! Dear god!

>>9478894

Except communications and other living flesh it would seem.

>>9479130

>Posts on 4chan

>>9479276

No! No one at all! Never! Take that outside....

>>9478384
Have you ever seen those illustrations from medieval books that feature all sort of surreal, deformed and absurd imagery? Badly drawn imagery I might add?

That kind of shir was really common but it didn't survive into widespread recognition. You only see it as an oddity because of the internet and move on.

That's where all this pomo crap will end. In the dustbin of culture. Only beauty survives in the long term. Surr snobs and navelgazers can pretend all thwy want... but people in the future will always recognize the emperor has no clothes.

>>9479665
>Only beauty survives in the long term.

This isn't really true. For example the Baroque period was out of favour until around the 30s -- it didn't enjoy admiration from the actual period itself. Pre-Raphaelites too became popular in the 60s or something, ironically because postmodernism allows for a reappraisal of past and foreign art instead of a strict adherence to modernist formalism. If postmodernism falls out of favour it will be picked up again sometime in the future.

>>9478384
>Despite this, I can't just force myself to go back, and don't see how we could transition from this kind of meta-ironic culture back to anything else without propagating some kind of massive noble lie.

Speaking literature-wise, it will take someone of untarnished purity to see the same beauty in Western society today that DH Lawrence saw in the sexual tumult of early 20th century England, or that Dostoyevsky saw in the Russian peasantry, or, going way back, William Blake saw in Christianity. To break out of post-modernism's cage, we need an author who can truly convince us the lens from which he or she views life is better than preemptive irony and tempered emotions. Hence, we need to return to aestheticism, and to promulgate beauty at every turn as an ideal to strive toward, while retaining the general gestalt of post-modernism's critical world view.

Basically, writers need to stop using relativism to excuse bad writing and their own personal shortcomings, and probe into the difficulties of everyday life. Think someone like David Foster Wallace, but who actually lived his writing. That's my biggest complaint with contemporary fiction. It's like a safari for the affluent and privileged.

>>9478384
>I, for one,
>moral relativism

You need to stop being afraid. Grow a pair and take a stand.

File: infp.png (12KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 400x400px

omfg you guys are such geniuses, and I?

I wake up in the morning and must suffer hunger and thirst. I don't even know the force which drives me to acquire food and keep on going. Reading all this... All my life, I never had time to cry and heal. Having lost love, dreams and purpose I cannot bring up words anymore. I do not have the education for it anymore.

I believe the answer is love. The method is peace and the vow is patience. But you guys are so above me. And this is the wrong place for me to be. I love you, I wish I could articulate myself to help you.

>>9479407
>implying a novel requires "affirmative content"

>>9479049
Kant bridges the noumenal (objective) and phenomenal (subjective) divide with transcendental idealism. His very basic idea is that there are necessary principles (ie: causation) that to refute would be impossible, because by there logic we exist and the world exists. For example, if causation did not exist, why is the leaving of a ship from a harbor so uniform? Why is it not "up to us" if it's just an opinion, in the unfurling of its sails and the steady motion away from the port?

Kant argues that there are timeless truths we can understand (but never know completely) by our senses, and these exist in a separate realm.

Now, of course, it is the lack of full understanding that might give some Po-Mo a little wiggle room - but it represents a step towards believing certain absolutes quite rationally.

If you're interested, read this, it's an academic summary of Kant's work:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/

>>9479402
I know Ellis has said a bunch of times that it's primarily about his own loneliness and alienation but the satirical elements are really the only thing of value. The rest is basically just a worse written modernization of notes from underground.

>>9478560
he killed himself because his brain didn't function without some pills he stopped taking for some reason and then they didn't work anymore
not because >muh pomo is killin erything that once was good and sacred le forever alonee!!1!
why do people like to pretend humanity wasn't clearly destinated to go in a phase like this, is literally fucking nothing

>le irony is bad meme

>>9478384
What if our world really is shallow and mean and inhabited by people who aren't terribly complex? Wouldn't a good depiction or satire of that be good literature?

DFW was for the most part seeing the same problems as Ellis but suggested self-delusion as a mechanism to cope with it (then failed and killed himself).

Regardless of that, his definition of bad literature is stupid, too. A Greek epic can have the flattest characters possible and certainly be better than any postmodern attempt at creating the ultimate snowflake protagonist. Good writing can consist of anything - beautiful sentences, world-building, originality, smart observations and so on.

>>9480100
this. people dramatising pomo is just posturing. it's just theory, which doesn't touch 95% of peoples lives. values and society are bound to change, its been around since western thought. read the dissoi logoi.

>>9479618
>Almost like philosophy arises from biology. Maybe even maths are human constructions too! Dear god!

Good lord. If I only had a dollar for every time I've heard this worn-out argument... Ya, mathematics are just abstractions, there's no real meaning, we're trapped in subjectivity with no hope of reaching objectivity, so we might as well listen to muh scientism.

Clearly math can't be human constructions, because no human that I'm aware of has ever seen with their eyes a truly geometric figure, or something perfectly conforming to the concept of number. Numbers do not exist on our plane. And for a fantasy, they sure are effective...

As for Philosophy arising from biology, please, that's such an asinine thing to say that I barely even want to respond to it. Philosophy preceded biology by thousands of years. Biology, and every other Science (used to be called Natural Philosophy) came from the common source of Philosophy.

>>9480182
That post makes zero sense.
Values and societies don't change automatically in a vacuum, they are influenced by "just theory". You may argue pomo theory wasn't relevant enough to change anything - but that's it. And then you'll find people disagreeing with you.

>>9479682
maybe he meant only what survives becomes beauty

>>9480228
it makes no sense if you believe that values, society, and change are centralised. the point is, the few people who are influenced and lead their life through theory, pomo or otherwise, are at best a small demographic. people value and change an infinite amount of times in their lives and their worldview shuffles through demographics which grow or shrink. that's how change happens but it doesn't mean any one theory is responsible. it's all in the dissoi logoi. poll people on what the society they live in is like and you won't get one answer.

>>9480261
If one pomo scholar sits in his ivory tower, yes, only one person is influenced.
If one pomo follower becomes a lawmaker and writes the Canadian bill C-16, then it influences thousands of people at the same time.

You wouldn't act so dense if you replaced "pomo" with "racism" I bet.

File: science-of-logic.jpg (125KB, 880x1344px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 880x1344px

Just to be clear, even though there's been a lot of bashing of scientism in this thread. Science is actually meaningful and philosophically feasible. As long as it's logical science. :-D

>>9480285
yes, you're making my point. for some people, like you, it's pomo and for other people, those you may not like, it's racism. they're contradictory statements on the influence of society. what's happening is both small parts of society, except in the minds of some demographics where the influence is total.

>>9478968
>anti-antisemitism

>>9480307
So you're denying that the theory behind the Third Reich had any influence..?

>>9479891

wanna fuck

>>9480316
in nazi germany? yes, which theory was it? nietzsche? gunther? rahn? goebbels? rosenberg? or was it a lot of different ideas of the world and people within society shifting in and out of favour as the war progressed? did these people not exist in weimar germany? or were they always there living along side the expressionism etc?

>>9480342
Let's just take one simple example: Antisemitism. It's very concise, very limited. Yet it affected about every single person and led to many deaths.

You would deny this?

>>9480295
>meaningful
Hegel is absolute fucking nonsense

>>9480358
deny what? are you saying antisemitism was a theory from the third riech? because I assure you, germany wasn't the only society jews had it bad or the first time either. it's almost as if antisemites are always apart of society and their number waxes and wains...hmmm.

What a sophisticated argument! Complete with swearwords and everything!

Keep reading Carl Sagan, NGT, and watching Bill Nye. I'm sure eventually you'll catch a glimpse of something like the absolute. Hint: it'll be a lot more cramped in there than you thought it would be.

>>9480366
Are you acting stupid on purpose?
No, that is not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that a small circle of people making a certain theory popular can have immediate practical consequences on a large scale and a whole society, as opposed to "values change semi-randomly and it's laughable to think pomos changed anything".

Just like the postmodern relativity of values and categories isn't a new and original concept but for the first time, it had a huge influence on academia and then on the "real" world.

>>9480433
lol. relativity of values is one of the things people freaked out over during the French Revolution. you know, that still informs the usage of libertine to day. here is an experiment, at the end of the year catalogue all the policy changes in Canada and then try to cross-reference those with the social ideas behind them. maybe then you can see how diffuse theory is on everyday life.

>>9480466
I will repeat:
>are you acting stupid on purpose?

I explicitly said in my post that it's not a new and original concept. And I never said that postmodernism affects oil drilling policies.
But if you ask me to cross-reference policy changes in the field of identity politics, pronoun usage, gay marriage, support for the traditional family, hate speech laws and more - you bet that you can trace those back to postmodernist ideas.

>>9480481
no but it sure seems you are. you said "for the first time, it had a huge influence on academia and then the "real" world" and that is false. re: libertine. and yes, so you agree with me. the influence of pomo on society is just as diffuse as any other theory of living. I also think you'll be shocked but do the experiment if you're intellectually honest. which I don't think you are.

>>9480499
"Libertines" live on the very fringe of society basically by definition. They did not change public policy. Just like antisemitism always permeated societies but was only occasionally turned into policy.
And public policy turning against biological facts for the sake of relativity (not just antiscience), against the ideal of the traditional family and so on is certainly a new phenomenon.

And I think you're dishonest in denying the influence of these theories. But that's not even what we originally argued about. You just pretended theories like this, being popularized by a small circle of people, cannot have a huge and direct effect on public policy or the thoughts and actions of millions.
I'm not saying it's always as conscious as with antisemitism, I'm not saying it's not complex and diffuse. But none of that changes the point.

>>9478968
But here youre talking about things that are the opposite of truth and anyone can find that in 1 minute, its sad that you're such a retard. And then you don't even bother to post that source youre so ready to criticize others for, guess thats how your brain work when you only obtain black cum

>>9480527
The problem, my dude, is that for anyone who has actually read, for example, Foucault, it gets plain to see that creating a bill that will allow non-binary people to further create biopolitical identities which the state has at least a degree of interference on is the exact opposite of what Foucault wanted.
Also, the example you bring up shows you didn't really read any of the "PoMo philosophers" (not really a thing by the way), just watched some videos that sparked after the whole Autist Jungian SJW Mowdown and decided you've found your new boogeyman since /lit/ won't let you use "cultural marxism" anymore.

>>9480527
that's not what the libertines were and yes, they changed social norms quite a bit. do the experiment. the o.g point was that its influence on people is minimal. which it is, the way people think and live their lives are not centralised and policy is always in flux, some changes bigger than others, but flux.

>>9480391
You don't need an argument to prove Hegel is nonsense, literally take any paragraph he ever wrote and ask yourself, "Does this actually mean anything?" Go ahead, try it

>>9480574
Yes, I am pretty sure a single german guy managed to fool 300 fucking years of trained academics but you, the autist with a CS degree, managed to see through the façade and shall lead humanity to a new realm of fully self-aware facebook algorythms and big-data-psychanalists which will provide us with the best possible consume outcome.

>>9480561
No. The problem is that people like you are so set in their perception of enemies that you throw out all reason. So all you do is building strawmen and moving goal posts.
1. What someone "wanted" is completely irrelevant to the effect their work had, see Nietzsche.
2. I never used the term "PoMo philosophers" so why would you imply I did and then discredit the term?
3. My only point was that theories do not just influence a small circle of scholars but can directly influence and form a society. Which I think is insane to deny, but which I wanted a discussion about. But instead of countering my examples, it's all just personal attacks and ideological defences.
4. Which point exactly do you have a problem with? That postmodern theory includes an attack on traditional categories? That it includes a relativity of norms and values?
5. As for the other "boogeyman", do you deny that people applied Marxist class warfare principles to a playing field defined by more than just economical terms?

>>9480562
>policy is always in flux, some changes bigger than others, but flux
What kind of a complete non-observation is that. "Things change and some changes are bigger than others", genius. The point is that that pure theory like antisemitism can quickly become public policy. You pretend that doesn't happen because people are too independent and too much in flux.

>>9480578
Actually there are different groups of Hegel-followers who interpret him in directly opposed ways, so he's not far off. "Trained academics" are more often fraudulent autists than you give them credit for.

>>9480599
it's the observation that no theory has a total influence on a society. no, I said it waxes and wanes but it's influence on peoples lives, how they see the world, how the live, is minimal.

Architecture should never have become an artform

It should have stayed practical instead of being a piece of art intended to show a message

>>9480614
>no theory has a total influence
You're moving the goal post already.
>total influence
What is that even supposed to mean? How could it get more total than 99% of all people adhering to it, believing in it, boycotting based on it, and millions of people dying because of it?

I'm not saying that's what happened with postmodernism but to deny even the possibility is pathetic ideology.

>>9480599
You use postmodernism very freely as if there is indeed a very coherent and obvious way to separate these philosophers, but I only know who you're talking about because we have this very same thread literally every single day. The mere fact that you want to throw away authoral intent is extremely post-modernist by the way, if you're so hellbent against it you should really accept works exist on a ideal purity level from which they can't be removed, only intentionally misinterpreted. I don't know where you live, but if you seriously think academia has that much power, I gotta think you're a bit deluded. I could also argue that the only reason why these identitarian politics became such a trend in the past few years comes from capitalism trying to englobe and commodify new ways of life in it's ever expanding poles of influence, but you will obviously dismiss this as a conspiration theory or boogeyman as well.
And about cultural Marxism, yes, I disagree, this is a very simplistic and dishonest reading of the Frankfurt School, one which pretty much assumes Marcuse and maybe Fromm were the only writers to work there and then goes and reduces their work a little bit more.

>>9480626
It was always an artform. People thatched their hut roofs in ways they found visually appealing while maintaining practicality.

>>9480626
It just should have never received public funding. You can keep out the crazies very effectively in almost every field if you just don't allow public funding.

>>9480626
Architecture has been considered an artform longer than painting.

>>9479682
> the Baroque period was out of favour until around the 30s
You mean 1830's right?

>>9480638
>You use postmodernism very freely
"Postmodern theory" was the original point I was addressing and I didn't make that point. Of course it's not monolithic which is why I tried to bring it back to concrete examples, like the relativity of values, the attack on traditional categories etc.

>The mere fact that you want to throw away authoral intent is extremely post-modernist by the way, if you're so hellbent against it
I'm not hellbent against it, you're the one seeing an ideological enemy in me all the time. When this started, I was merely arguing theories can have huge practical effects.
And about authoral intent I said that it's irrelevant when looking at the consequences. Which it is. Maybe the author meant to rile people up, maybe he meant to calm them down. But if people are riled up after reading him, that's the effect of the author. What you write is plain wrong.

> I don't know where you live, but if you seriously think academia has that much power, I gotta think you're a bit deluded
But it's not just academia. Take for example the whole "revolution" in the 60s and those people ending up marching through the institutions and being the people who are now in power and doing away with borders for example. That is real power.

>but you will obviously dismiss this as a conspiration theory or boogeyman as well.
Again, you just see me through this lense of an ideological enemy. I will deny that it's the ONLY reason but otherwise I completely agree.

>this is a very simplistic and dishonest reading of the Frankfurt School
Just as any applied form of Marxism was a simplistic and dishonest reading of Marx. People always use this as an excuse. Now you may argue whether people like Marcuse would be horrified at how people abused him just like Marx might have been horrified. But if we look at modern champagne socialists and how they are just fine at justifying all the dead their system caused, I'd argue that many people are fine with a lot more practical consequences than their original work put down black on white.

Maybe the original authors would distance themselves, maybe not. It doesn't matter for the consequences. My theory is that people use these authors today to their end and that it has big practical effects.

>>9480700
Postmodern theory refers to the whole of human theoretical production from 1945 up until at least 1990, maybe 2001 or possibly the foreseeable future, it is absolutely impossible for you to find any sort of common structure to this. If you really think you're not the ideological enemy I'm seeing, you should seriously stop and reflect at your usage of terms like champagne socialist or that boomers turned our life into a hippie hellhole because not only those things are very easy to dismiss, you end up sounding like the kind of guy who creates this thread nonstop. And people don't use these authors, they barely even use their names. Stop trying to make a bunch of stoned french philosophers the cause for problems they were arguing against and try to understand what they're saying instead of assuming a bunch of fat college lesbians has any bearing on the academical production of Giles Deleuze. One thing I've been seeing happen here is that a lot of people start with your mindset, end up deciding to read them and come back a while later with a better outlook on the whole situation, I think you should try it.

>>9479276
If you really want to understand, start reading cybernetics and systems theory.

>>9480752
No, the whole misunderstanding we're having is that someone earlier argued that there is no way postmodern theory could have an practical impact and I disagreed. Then at some point you jumped into our discussion, picked up a term of his that I used in my response, and decided to change the topic of the discussion and make this about left vs. right because of an example I chose regarding the relativity of values and categories having a direct effect on policy.

My point was never that "pomos" wanted this stuff, or that "pomos" are monolithic (personally I think it started a lot earlier than 1945 although I'd deny it includes "the whole of human theoretical production") and I tried to make it about concrete, practical topics while you are hung up on "b-but they didn't mean this".

Then you go on about how I'm just like everyone else you argued with and you don't even need to debate any of my points because if I'd just go back to the sources I'd totally see the light.

Just like the other guy continued to avoid debating my example of antisemitism as a theoretic concept that turned into a hugely practical policy within a few years after being dormant.

So, to start again with baby steps, do you disagree that many of your stoned French (and German) philosophers wanted to do away with traditional categories, with traditional institutions, and saw them as oppressive power structures?

File: 1494205005001.png (30KB, 530x642px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 530x642px

What does one paint as an edgy post-ironist?

>>9480634
shifting goal posts? uh, I made this same point in my very first reply. lol 99%. whatever, now you trolling.

>>9480803
>lol 99%. whatever, now you trolling.
By that you mean what..? That the German resistance during the war years was bigger than 1% of the population?

>>9480800
You take photos then do a layer of matte over them.

>>9480798
Antisemitism has been a common staple of european culture since what, the fucking Xth century at least? I don't know since it's so fucking perennial, but I can guarantee you it wasn't born of theoretical foundations (unless you consider the Catholic Church or the King or whoever instated that jews should not be trusted as the equivalent of a source for theoretical thought).

And yes, some of them did, some of them didn't, a lot of people from other places did and a lot of them did it before post-modernism was a thing, which was the other guy's point. It doesn't make it any less retarded to claim post-modern theory (which again, is vague as fuck) is the reason for general distrust in institutions. This has always been a possibility and yet people very rarely did it with the scope it's being done today, and it has more to do with how absolutely untrustworthy our institutions are than with any amount of obscurantist french texts promoting pedophilia as a way to fully experience the devir of being.

File: 1494189036994.jpg (15KB, 316x202px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 316x202px

>>9480821
>muh fotos
I hate those cucks painting an already existing picture of some historical event and then pretending it adds extra layers or insight.

>>9480809
I mean that 99% of the population wasn't antiemetic nor that the nazi hierarchy set out to systematically kill jews. re: Ian Kernshaw, it slowly built up from progroms, to deportation, to shooting, to gas. yes, there is the resistance then the anti-nazi wehrmacht but I'm talking about everyday people. if you think 99% of germans were about killing jews then god help you. I also never dodged your antisemitism question, you just didn't like the answer.

>>9480100
> because his brain didn't function without some pills

you think this is something separated from his thoughts and fears?. come on, he killed himself because of this thoughts, not the lack of pills.

>>9480626
architecture has always been an artform, the problems began with making architects celebrities

>>9478867
t. tolstoy