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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If nothing else it tells me that they consider this outlet dangerous enough to warrant action, so we must be doing something right.
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.
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.
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.
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
He just hasn't figured it out yet.
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.
Focault and Derrida's response: that depends... do we still get to fuck kids?