10
Comments (27)
sorted by:
36
Throwawaycuzmeh 36 points ago +36 / -0

Hey dumbass: does it look like anyone is using postmodernism to challenge the grand narratives of globalism, multiculturalism, diversity, socialism, progressivism, or any other leftist ideology? Of course not. Because postmodernism was, is, and always will be a weapon wielded exclusively by marxists to destroy Christianity, masculinity, heterosexuality, white peoples, and the West. Pretending like postmodernism is a neutral tool because it could hypothetically dismantle leftist ideas is borderline retarded behavior. Virtually every postmodernist is a cryptocommunist who will quickly drop postmodernism the moment it threatens to target their own worldview.

It's almost impossible for this fuckhead to be arguing in good faith. He might as well just say "muh algorithm!" and piss off.

5
BurniePanders 5 points ago +5 / -0

It could easily be used as a weapon against them. But few people do it.

I think a lot of people don't realize that it is a weapon. They don't see the strategy, they just wonder why the things they like get attacked and go on defense

-1
lTentacleMonsterl [S] -1 points ago +5 / -6

"But why people aren't doing so?" isn't an argument against benefits of post-modernism, it's just complaining that other groups are doing so and utilizing it better.

No one is arguing that it didn't lead to crappy thing (which arguably would have happened regardless, especially because of liberalism which contributed to most of it), but that the issue isn't post-modernism in itself which is in part reaction to enlightenment, and a necessary reaction at that.

19
Throwawaycuzmeh 19 points ago +19 / -0

Anyone who believes that the relativist nihilism of postmodernism was a necessary reaction to empiricism is, to paraphrase, asking me not to believe him. So I don't.

Postmodernism is largely antithetical to conservativism, so why would conservatives embrace it? Might as well wonder why they don't make better use of abortion while you're at it.

-3
lTentacleMonsterl [S] -3 points ago +1 / -4

This is in part addressed in the article, and enlightenment goes well beyond it.

Do as you like.

23
BandageBandolier 23 points ago +23 / -0

Postmodernism is useful to us because it reminds us to be skeptical of what we hear, what we are told.

Ha fucking ha, it does quite the opposite, it "reminds" us to treat everything we hear and are told as blithely equal, not to assign value to arguments ourselves. There is no objective truth, so any lie will do as long as it makes you feel good. That's not fucking skepticism, that's just a willful gullibility born of laziness, because evaluating things rigorously is apparently too much hard work.

At its heart, postmodernism is a tradition of skepticism toward the master narrative of modernity born of the Whig ideology of history.

That's not even close to the heart of it, it's an incidental aside to the destructive core of a chaotic ideology that that appeals to the inadequate to tear down everything they don't care to understand like petulant children, and hypocritically claims to be against ideologies whilst it does so. It is itself a very postmodern statement though, an easy little lie that makes them feel better as long as they don't look at things consistently or logically.

It is more than a mere denial of scientific biology and facts.

Mere, indeed.

I'm with the other guy, it's exceedingly unlikely to me this is just an immense idiot, this is just deliberate bullshit.

-4
lTentacleMonsterl [S] -4 points ago +1 / -5

There is no objective truth, so any lie will do as long as it makes you feel good. That's not fucking skepticism, that's just a willful gullibility born of laziness, because evaluating things rigorously is apparently too much hard work.

It's more descriptive than prescriptive, that's kinda the point. To understand it as "There is no objective truth, therefore you should lie if you want to" is to misunderstand its purpose, a better view of it would be "There is no objective truth, but truths, therefore question the authority asserting the Truth and why it's doing so.

Which is especially important given we live in a society where various things are presented as objective truth, and ideals presented as inherently desirable and just, from "human rights," "equality," "democracy," etc, while always ignoring their purpose within the system and in relation to power.

I'm with the other guy, it's exceedingly unlikely to me this is just an immense idiot, this is just deliberate bullshit.

I can't speak for the person as I'm unfamiliar with them, but I do agree with most of the article.

6
BandageBandolier 6 points ago +6 / -0

"There is no objective truth, but truths, therefore question the authority asserting the Truth and why it's doing so."

That was already part of the enlightenment, remember the whole process began with the rejection of the prevailing orthodoxy. That truthseeking is an incremental and ocasionally fallible process didn't need repackaging with less focus on validation and more focus on baseless rejection. The only purpose postmodernism served was to prevent any truth from ever being fully accepted as long as someone is still willing to lie about it loud enough.

-4
lTentacleMonsterl [S] -4 points ago +1 / -5 (edited)

It's not though, it just establishes a different form of objective truth and narratives, underlied by universalism. To see "truth-seeking" as an "incremental" and "fallible" process ignores the purpose of it and clouds the judgement.

It's something that should be evident within the west, given we're constantly lied to by those presenting themselves as authority, experts, scientists, etc, including when it comes to gender, race, but also various other things. While "truth," whatever that meant, can exist outside of society, all truth that exists within society is dependent on it and shaped by power. Some truths are closer to reality, as possible that may be, while others are outright fiction, including construction of individualism that has existed within the west in last two centuries, equality, "freedom of the press," "democracy," and other things many believe exist, when they are merely illusions.

Also, don't forget the promise of enlightenment of greater "happiness" that'd be achieved through reason, something which On Enlightenment correctly notes, they had no idea that it could be achieved.

"Accordingly, the utilitarian justification of Enlightenment had to be more and more insisted upon, to the exclusion of the ethical one. In this way the enlightenment became committed to a certain promise, made to the human race at large: this was the promise that, by increasing knowledge, human happiness would be increased beyond all previous experience.

"By 1770 science had more than two thousand years of history behind it, and yet it had never once brought about any marked increase in human happiness. This simple historical fact is enough on its own to refute the Enlightenment delusion of Bacon and D'Holbach. Knowledge is not power. Lessening ignorance does not always lessen misery, or even typically have that effect"

8
BandageBandolier 8 points ago +9 / -1

It's something that should be evident within the west, given we're constantly lied to by those presenting themselves as authority, experts, scientists, etc, including when it comes to gender, race, but also various other things. While "truth," whatever that meant, can exist outside of society, all truth that exists within society is dependent on it and shaped by power. Some truths are closer to reality, as possible that may be, while others are outright fiction, including construction of individualism that has existed within the west in last two centuries, equality, "freedom of the press," "democracy," and other things many believe exist, when they are merely illusions.

That whole paragraph demonstrates an incapability of discerning the difference between truth and ideological dogma. At which point I guess it makes sense why postmodernist nonsense might appeal.

Saying some truths are closer to reality than others is some Orwellian "Some animals are more equal than others" bullshit. Truth is reality, that's axiomatic. Nor are truths dependent on or shaped by power, they are independent of society, what you're describing there is dogma. Some dogmas are more true than others, dogmas are shaped by or dependent on power to exist.

By 1770 science had more than two thousand years of history behind it, and yet it had never once brought about any marked increase in human happiness.

Holy fucking mother of nope. I'm pretty sure people were a lot happier to not be starving or dying in agony of the fucking pox nearly so often, what a boldly absurd claim.

-2
lTentacleMonsterl [S] -2 points ago +1 / -3 (edited)

That whole paragraph demonstrates an incapability of discerning the difference between truth and ideological dogma

That's kinda the point. It's not an issue with "discerning the difference between truth and ideological dogma," but the fact that ideologies, ideals, etc are presented as simply being "true" and beneficial to everyone, when most of it within the west is just ruling class ideology, and that truth in general is shaped by same powers.

Saying some truths are closer to reality than others is some Orwellian "Some animals are more equal than others" bullshit.

Social reality, truths, facts, etc are not the same as objective reality, truth, and facts which are beyond some basics - especially in relation to other people - largely unreachable.

Nor are truths dependent on or shaped by power

They are, and not solely by it as they are limited by our understanding of things and knowledge (itself limited by power and dependent on society).

Some dogmas are more true than others, dogmas are shaped by or dependent on power to exist.

Nope, I'm describing social reality in which we live in.

Holy fucking mother of nope. I'm pretty sure people were a lot happier to not be starving or dying in agony of the fucking pox nearly so often, what a boldly absurd claim.

Not sure how that negates the point being made, that such claims weren't based on reason or evidence?

17
grinnin_barrett 17 points ago +17 / -0

I find it interesting that we've got another leftist would-be infiltrator trying to peddle their ideological wares using the Trojan horse of neutrality. The "let's talk about gender" dipshit went for a similar angle. Is the play to "deradicalize" people by trying to make your dumbass worldviews sound appealing?

9
GoggleHead 9 points ago +9 / -0

If nothing else it tells me that they consider this outlet dangerous enough to warrant action, so we must be doing something right.

3
BandageBandolier 3 points ago +3 / -0

The only other engagement OP has ever had with the sub was to shill for the CCP in a Mulan thread.

I'd like to warrant a little more action than spending 50 cents, keep pushing folks.

-4
lTentacleMonsterl [S] -4 points ago +1 / -5

That's kinda funny. Left/right as a spectrum originated in France, with left being for revolution (liberty; equality; democracy) and right for monarchy. If we're to go by the ideals, wouldn't most on today's right be "leftist"? Certainly, I doubt that's what you mean; you probably mean it in contemporary sense of left/right which is largely meaningless, as the distinction is between intersectionalists and liberal.

Certainly, I'm neither, though I do consider myself as someone on the right.

to "deradicalize" people

What does that even mean?

to make your dumbass worldviews sound appealing

I want "right" or people in general to improve and see the system under which we live in, rather than fight specters generated by it and liberals, and to utilize tools that are beneficial, rather than be bothered by them because of their association with [insert bad group].

3
grinnin_barrett 3 points ago +3 / -0

Left/right as a spectrum originated in France, with left being for revolution (liberty; equality; democracy) and right for monarchy.

Nobody cares what it originally meant. It currently means some flavor of Marxist.

What does that even mean?

You know what that means, don't play dumb.

I want "right" or people in general to improve and see the system under which we live in,

People here do see the system we live in and reject it due to the harm it's done, yet you're here pushing it like a dealer. "Come on kids, just have a try, it'll make you feel good!"

0
lTentacleMonsterl [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

Nobody cares what it originally meant. It currently means some flavor of Marxist.

Yeah, as I've noted the distinction is largely meaningless (if described as marxist, it's even worse).

You know what that means, don't play dumb.

I can assume things, but that's all it'd be. I'd prefer seeing you explain it.

People here do see the system we live in and reject it due to the harm it's done, yet you're here pushing it like a dealer. "Come on kids, just have a try, it'll make you feel good!"

Case in point. Post-modernism is merely a tool, it's not a system nor ideology,.

14
Unknownsailor 14 points ago +14 / -0 (edited)

James Lindsey has talked about this, using the tools of post modernism to attack post modernism has been retconned away.

It will never happen.

I want to ask Michel Foucault or Jacques Derrida this question: If I punch you in the mouth as hard as I can, is the pain you will feel real?

Intellectual masturbation was invented for navel gazers like those two. It perfectly encapsulates everything they were about.

13
Throwawaycuzmeh 13 points ago +13 / -0

Focault and Derrida's response: that depends... do we still get to fuck kids?

-2
lTentacleMonsterl [S] -2 points ago +1 / -3

James Lindsey is a liberal who supports enlightenment and its products, and who disdains anything that isn't liberalism. It's not about attacking post-modernism, but enlightenment, liberalism, and certainly intersectionality which builds on liberal ideals as much it does on post-modernism.

12
Glagaire 12 points ago +12 / -0

Michel Foucault: It s meaningless to speak in the name of - or against - reason, truth or knowledge. (the against is thrown in only to cover his bases as a consistently critical viewpoint would be a reasoned position)

Frank Lentricchia: Postmodernism seeks not to find the foundation of truth but to exercise power for the purpose of social change.

Stanley Fish: Deconstruction relieves me of the obligation to be right...and demands only that I be interesting.

Jacques Derrida: Deconstruction never had meaning or interest...than as a radicalization...in the spirit of a certain Marxism.

These are from the just introduction to Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks, a great resource if you want to be able to pick apart the nonsensical, hipster bullshit using their own claims and statements to show how flawed it is as a philosophy and how insidious as a form of insurgent politics.

-1
lTentacleMonsterl [S] -1 points ago +3 / -4

Full context paints a different picture, though I wouldn't say it would matter either way.

Foucault: "There is no Knowledge, there are knowledges. There is no Reason, there are rationalities. And so, just as it is meaningless to speak in the name of - or against - Reason, Truth, or Knowledge, so it is meaningless to engage in Politics. The idea that there is one true politics that will lead us to our salvation is a dangerous lie, as the Soviet experience will attest"

Frank "In the old sense of the word, Marxism is not a 'true' theory ... I am ready to set aside the classical claim of philosophy for representational adequacy. In its place, I am ready to urge a materialist view that theory does its representing with a purpose. This sort of theory seeks not to find the foundation and the conditions of truth but to exercise power for the purpose of social change. It says there is no such thing as eternally 'true' theory. It says that theories are generated only in history - no theory comes from outside - for the purpose of generating more history in a certain way: generating the history we want."

Fish denounced that line.

Derrida: "This nostalgic note is struck time and again in Specters of Marx and Moscou aller-retour, which deserve permanent places in the crowded pantheon of bizarre Marxist apologetics. In the latter book Derrida declares that “deconstruction never had meaning or interest, at least in my eyes, than as a radicalization, that is to say, also within the tradition of a certain Marxism, in a certain spirit of Marxism.” Not, of course, that he wishes to defend anything Marx himself actually wrote or believed. He declares Marx’s economics to be rubbish and his philosophy of history a dangerous myth."

9
Glagaire 9 points ago +9 / -0

The context doesn't really change anything. Foucault's claim is about objectivity and subjectivity, the "no true politics" is a straw man which no one is arguing. There are (various) processes by which we can evaluate political systems on a variety of levels and refine them and these systems require objective standards. Frank's statement on materialist views equating to political activism is a non-sequitor and true only via circular logic. Why wouldn't Fish, someone admittedly concerned about his image, denounce a line that left him open to ridicule. Derrida's comment was on Deconstruction, his opinions on Marx economic or historical beliefs are contextually irrelevant.

I have no interest in engaging in debate about Postmodernism. Been there done that and - like practically anyone who has let it leech their valuable time - been left with very little to show for it. From all the hundreds of thousands of words written in its name, Postmodernism generated a tiny smattering of interesting ideas that, if applied in limited fashion could help open new perspectives for analysis of complex issues. As such, it is not completely devoid of value. Its development as the intellectual basis for movements such as intersectionality and critical race theory have been nothing but a regressive descent into emotive, faith-based belief systems that, far from offering nothing of value, actually undermine and seek to destroy systems that do provide not simply value, but fundamentally vital elements of a stable and intellectually open society. In this sense its worth is similar to statements praising Mussolini for making the trains run on time.

No intent to be impolite but I won't reply any further as, again, I have no desire to further explore the well-trod subject matter.

10
Skywise 10 points ago +10 / -0

That's a lot of overcomplicated phraseology to say "I like it because without the darkness we can't see the light".

Ultimately he IS a postmodernist, or more precisely, a catholic marxist

Postmodernism calls into question this presumption and, drawing on a rich tradition of cultural criticism going all the way back to St. Augustine (whom may of the postmodernists admit as an influence on them—especially in this area of cultural criticism), argues that terms like “reason,” “liberty,” and “progress” have been thrust onto us to veil the realities of continued exploitation, oppression, and tyranny. Calling exploitation, oppression, and tyranny reason, liberty, and progress doesn’t make it so. It merely masks a more immediate reality which subsequently blinds us when we drink the ideology of Whiggery.

He just hasn't figured it out yet.

7
Very_Technical_Boy 7 points ago +7 / -0

Ultimately he IS a postmodernist, or more precisely, a catholic marxist

He must be a big fan of the current Pope...

3
Throwawaycuzmeh 3 points ago +3 / -0

Jesus, he's literally just a Marxist. His entire vocabulary and argumentative framework are lifted directly from Marxism. Then he calls himself a Christian and a conservative? No. He's a liar and a charlatan.

6
ramzaruglia 6 points ago +7 / -1

Catholic

Conservative

Defending post-modernism