 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (3)giginger big dariusgriffin ...and 203 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613412 Today 4 Topics 127499 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I do not like postmodernism. I still like modernism. What we are seeing today, is a generation of young people who are absolute morons, because their minds got poisoned with postmodernist philosophy and ideas. Absolute morons, because they reject reason and debate, because they are constantly obsessed with their anti individualiatistic identity politics. Boring people who don't drink, are afraid of sex and exploring the outside world. Postmodernism makes you a self centered asshole. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you mean like these cretins? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
'Blackness' is a social construct. So, i wouldn't know why it matters. In fact, nothing matters in postmodernism |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i read a bit about post modernisim on wiki, sounds like a right load of wank "Philosopher Daniel Dennett declared, "Postmodernism, the school of 'thought' that proclaimed 'There are no truths, only interpretations' has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for 'conversations' in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
To be fair - Postmodernism never had much influence in mainstream philosophy. But all these leftist activists and academics seem to love it. It might be helpful with their inferiority complex to denounce science, reason, evidence as social constructs or worse, as racist or sexist. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I always regarded myself as liberal or left, but it seems like the meaning has a different context in different part of the world, its clear to me i have little in common with someone who refuses to accept empirical evidence as fact, cos we are in the frontier of science on things such as quantum physics and stuff like that you can see all these charlatans filling the void of understanding with all their guff and pseudoscience, i have to say i dont totally believe in reductive reasoning as well, sure there are things such as social constructs but they rest of the foundation of fact and observation not the other way around. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
In the name of reason, truth and reality western civilization has wrought dominance, opression and destruction. Males, whites and the rich have their hands on the whip of power. Reason and power are one in the same. Science is tool of oppression. This is what postmodernist think. Its like a more sophisticated version of a conspiracy theory. You can see all these losers on twitter, where they block anyone who doesn't agree with their irrational bullshit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if they said historically rich white men have dominated society to an unfair extent, fair enough they might have a point, the rest is obviously bollocks. the actually word postmodernist really irritates me as its nonsensical, really its meaningless its like saying im post-structuralist i dont believe in houses, twitter is full of smug anti intellectuals thats one thing i hate about the internet |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But it were these rich white men, the thinkers of the enlightenment who also forged the intellectual weapons against racism and sexism. The poststrucuralist however, are anti enlightenment. Leftists nowadays love to attack liberal democracies, and the western societies. But they stay silent about the cruelties commited in islamic countries. Western leftists are always quick to defend even the most reactionary ideologies, but are offended by almost everything. God damn children. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes thats my problem with Chomsky, even though he rejects postmodernism, i apportions too much blame on western foreign policy, ;which is considerable. and not enough of religious fascism, he probably can appreciate how fucking deviant they are, he does seem to let them off the hook alot and only sees it as a side effect of imperialism rather than its own thing, well thats what it seems to me perhaps someone has a link where he says they are arseholes too |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
^ he not I |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I should add that i do agree with most of what he says though |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Another thing is postmodern aesthetic, music, art, architechture. I fear, that i like a lot of it. I like electronic music. So, criticizing postmodernism feels a bit stange. I also would identify as leftist, so being critical of the left is not easy.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah i mean i dont know how things such as music and art is classed as post modernistic thinking, for me personally its a little bit strange that a person would tag their work as postmodernist, it doesnt really say anything to me about the content, i suppose its like calling a carrot utilitarian, or a bunch of grapes communist, i understand the meaning in the context of thinking + philosophy but as a style tag its very vague, to be honest though im not really that familiar with the expression over all so i could be totally wrong |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
reminds me of post punk music, i could say very definite things about punk music, that its guitar based, its lyrically anti authoritarian and made by young men generally, but with post punk music the only thing that comes to mind is that it isnt punk music. If its used as a term to address a certain period in music fair enough but i get the impression it isnt |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Postmoderism in electronic music: Electronic music is artificial computer music, it borrows samples and styles from 'real' instruments or musical styles of the past - there is a certain 'irony' to it... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Post modernism is a word used by non thinkers. The word in itself can't exist today. Ism's suck anyway. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
10 POSTS YOU MUST READ ON XLT (THE THIRD ONE MADE ME GO GAY) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i cant count to 10 im post-numerical |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you guys are playing right into ISIS's hands, you might as well offer to hold their beards while they decapitate your moms |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Monoid, you should read . Anyway, postmodernism as you describe it is basically an over-reaction to Auschwitz. The postmodern condition however provides a reasonable description of contemporary reality (the 90s): bureaucratic consumer society motivated by performance criteria. To that extent scientific institutions are also implicated (viz., “knowledge industry”). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You should read some Schlegel: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oo that looks like a good book whether one agrees with it or not. Certainly a lot of philosophical tussling can be framed as a response to theology, free will for example, or the status and ontology of abstract objects... and it is tangled with issues of nominalism vs. realism. Nietzsche goes on about parallels between faith in God and faith in abstract truth. "The postmodern condition however provides a reasonable description of contemporary reality (the 90s): bureaucratic consumer society motivated by performance criteria. To that extent scientific institutions are also implicated (viz., “knowledge industry”)." Korben have you read RS Bakker, he's a philosophy guy who turned to writing fiction but he still thinks and writes intensely on philosophy of mind. Related idea: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
post modernism seems like a way for philosophers to try and claw back some relevancy, as chemistry superseded alchemy, and astronomy succeeded astrology i think science and the rational mode of thinking has made large sections philosophy obsolescent, those areas that were usually the domain of the philosopher. I personally don't believe philosophy has been made totally redundant, but philosophers should be humble in the success science and rational thought has advanced human knowledge |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're engaged in philosophy right now, by offering justifications for preferring one mode of thinking over another. It's like you're playing a game of chess to prove that chess isn't a game worth playing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lasy linx |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I loves me some Chomsky. He looks like a muppet there, like Kermit sitting on his wall. Cute! Also he's making a lot of sense. Also please do not conflate postmodernism (of the sort he's discussing) with philosophy. That's like dismissing cooking on the grounds that you found a bug in your soup. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sorry i wasnt being critical of you, i was just making a general observation, I think philosophy is very worth while indeed, eminently important |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh yeah i wouldnt confuse the two, i love philosophy, |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
seems like the age of the idiot |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so from what ive gathered so far is that postmodernism is an anti philosophy, in a way, does away with the Cartesian precept "i think therefore i am" and can therefore say definite things about reality, then goes further and say certain things about how society has social constructs and the like, which seems contradictory, because if a postmodernist is starting from a position of saying you cant say anything definitive about reality and human behavior and its all relative then really thats all you can say |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, it’s an interesting . Anyway, he locates the origins of modernity in the nominalist revolution in late medieval thought (Cf., Ockham). Nominalism replaced the rational view of God that had dominated scholastic thought with a voluntarist view of God (an omnipotent, unpredictable and irrational will) that began to undermine traditional dogma. It is also in this context that he situates Descartes’ method of hyperbolic doubt: the evil demon as corresponding to the God of nominalism, and the cogito ergo sum as a quintessentially ‘modern’ response to this conundrum. This informs a basic premise of his book that the nihilism at the end of modernity is nothing but a pale reflection of the nihilistic crisis in late medieval thought that marks the beginning of modernity (a theme developed in ). As for Nietzsche, he ultimately locates the emergence of the will to truth with Socrates / Plato. Socrates, if you like, was the ultimate Sophist insofar as he convinced the other Sophists that they were all arguing about the same thing - the Truth. Anyway, not familiar with RS Bakker. Looks intriguing! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thanks for the text! I'll have a look at it next - just finishing Faith of a Heretic by Walter Kaufmann atm. Nominalism replaced the rational view of God that had dominated scholastic thought with a voluntarist view of God (an omnipotent, unpredictable and irrational will) that began to undermine traditional dogma. So wait, the scholastic view of God was actually more like Spinoza's? If God doesn't have volition what distinguishes him from nature writ large? Or does the book address this, I ought to just read it and shut up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Not read that Kaufmann text. So wait, the scholastic view of God was actually more like Spinoza's? If God doesn't have volition what distinguishes him from nature writ large? Or does the book address this? Spinoza has a naturalistic view of God (deprived of any anthropomorphic qualities, e.g. unthinking substance as opposed to divine mind). So in this respect God for Spinoza does correspond to “nature writ large.” Indeed, this led him to being accused of atheism. Not sure if Gillespie addresses this in any detail, he focuses more on Descartes. But even Descartes’ rationalism contrasts with scholastic conceptions of reason (viz., Aristotle). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Can’t remember if or how Spinoza fits into Gillespie’s narrative. The basic idea is that with Descartes’ cogito subjectivity becomes the new foundation, and God is reduced to an impersonal concept (a neutered version of the nominalist God). Considered in this light, the enlightenment corresponds to the triumph of reason over traditional authorities (dogma) and culminates with Kant who essentially opens another can of worms that ultimately sees a return of the nominalist God, this time as irrational Will (in Schelling, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche), and incorporating the modernist focus on subjectivity, as id in Freud. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
philosophy is 4 suckas |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
looks like monoid got laid |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i read that as looks like a mongoloid got laid, my eyes are tired |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The dude abides. Sucker for philosophy, particularly Neitzsche. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a return of the nominalist God, this time as irrational Will (in Schelling, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche), and incorporating the modernist focus on subjectivity, as id in Freud. OK, that jives with what I read in the introduction. The thing is, this is the usual theological stretch - like Tillich says that God is your "ultimate concern" and Derrida calls the "transcendental signifier" God. So you can never get away from God, because God is whatever central ideas or concerns you happen to have. I find that a little silly - if everything and anything is potentially God, isn't God just a synonym for "stuff"? If someone tells you that Golf is the ultimate activity, and all other activities are just ersatz Golf, doesn't it tell you more about the guy advancing that proposition, and his own sense of priorities, than about you or whatever you happen to be doing? I mean, here I am playing the flute, and the Golf evangelist is telling me that I'm clinging to an impoverished Golf substitute, what can I think except "whoa the dude really loves golf"? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If i was god, id always have a nagging doubt that i was created by an even more impressive being, is there a philosophical concept for that, matryoshka diety syndrome or something |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Interesting perspective fleet mouse. I wonder if for some, the term "god" is a means to simplify something more complex? I personally think "god"as a term and a being is problematic and esessentially redundant. For the more time and energy we spend obsessing over it, the less we have for enjoying and experiencing the simple beauty and amazing complexities of life. Maybe then, if we agree on the obsolescence of "god", we are then free to really explore life and attempt to advance our species in positive and productive areas? And I wonder if such a thing would consume a god and also how this creates an infinite loop. Who made god, who made the maker of God and so on. If I was god, I don't think I would be so narcissistic and insecure as to need such devotion from "followers." I think a simple "try to be good would suffice, without all the other crap. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So you can never get away from God, because God is whatever central ideas or concerns you happen to have. I’d phrase it slightly differently. You can get away from God as easily as you can get away from Reason. Anyway, if the term ‘God’ signifies something like ‘ultimate condition’, then obviously we can use any term we wish to express this concept, but the point is that there is something special about the concept. It is in the nature of our reason that we demand an unconditional, absolute, transcendent, causa sui etc. If we didn’t have the idea of an ultimate, then there would be an infinite regress, or properly considered, the problem of an infinite regress couldn’t even get off the ground. We can go back to the source for this: Plato and the Simile of the Cave. If one maintains that the distinction between opinion and knowledge is a meaningful one (even if just in principle), then there must be something in relation to which they are different, an unhypothetical beginning that guarantees the truth of the chain of hypotheses (the Sun). Lack of contradiction can only give us something that is considered provisionally true (hypothesis), but the validity of the hypothesis ultimately relies on something that is not itself a hypothesis, an unhypothetical absolute - transcendent to the chain of hypotheses. Otherwise, we have a vicious circle where we presuppose the legitimacy of the distinction between opinion and knowledge in order to establish the validity of our hypothesis ... which was however meant to legitimate the distinction between opinion and knowledge. In which case, the distinction between description and explanation dissolves, and to paraphrase Nietzsche, the world finally became a fable. Postmodernists eat your heart out. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I find that a little silly - if everything and anything is potentially God, isn't God just a synonym for "stuff"? If someone tells you that Golf is the ultimate activity, and all other activities are just ersatz Golf, doesn't it tell you more about the guy advancing that proposition, and his own sense of priorities, than about you or whatever you happen to be doing? I mean, here I am playing the flute, and the Golf evangelist is telling me that I'm clinging to an impoverished Golf substitute, what can I think except "whoa the dude really loves golf"? Christianity and Islam incorporate these Platonic (and Aristotelian) ideas to provide an all-encompassing religious worldview that provides an absolute ground from which to distinguish truth from falsity and good from evil. Although there are many different religious schools / traditions and we can dress up God in many different ways, it seems that in most of them God serves as the absolute, the truth, the good etc. So, you can use the term ‘God’ for anything you like, and you can use any term for God, but the idea it signifies is more specific than “everything and anything.” Of course, from a positivist / postmodern perspective, he is just a character in a book - and in this sense he could just as well be Golf or a Flutist. But then why would you be arguing about the truth of the matter? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Even Nietzsche had an “ultimate concern.” His God - Dionysus - (a flutist no less) is encapsulated in the idea of the eternal return. Dionysus versus the “Crucified”: there you have the antithesis. It is not a difference in regard to their martyrdom - it is a difference in the meaning of it. Life itself, its eternal fruitfulness and recurrence, creates torment, destruction, the will to annihilation. In the other case, suffering - the “Crucified as the innocent one” - counts as an objection to this life, as a formula for its condemnation. - One will see that the problem is that of the meaning of suffering: whether a Christian meaning or a tragic meaning. ... The god on the cross is a curse on life, a signpost to seek redemption from life; Dionysus cut to pieces is a promise of life: it will be eternally reborn and return again from destruction. - Nietzsche |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Too true. The only way to really deal with the God game is to turn away from it. Let sleeping dogs lie. Trying to prove the falsity of the concept (which implies that there nonetheless is a truth) only gets one caught up in the very same game. This was Socrates’ great trick. But as Nietzsche points out, it is ultimately a question of values: ‘life’ or ‘truth’. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
IMO this whole swamp can be sidestepped by taking a Spinozistic approach where you very consciously and deliberately naturalize and lobotomize God and swallow it whole. But again, then, why call it God? Why not call it all-that-is or nature-writ-large or the ultimate or de rerum natura? I think there's something dishonest and misleading about calling it God because that word drags an awful lot of baggage over and above Plato's sun. I really get a strong whiff of bait and switch from this move. One minute you're agreeing to call this bundle of impersonal metaphysics God, because why not, it's just a word, and the next minute you're being hassled to wear special underwear. Nature-writ-large doesn't give two shits about your underwear or what's in them. God as something people actively believe in, certainly does take an interest in your willy or hooha. And again, I find it hard to believe that the view of God before this nominalist strain of thought was a God who wasn't voluntary. That to me is simply nature. And it conflicts with just about every idea from actual scripture and tradition, where God is active and judges and prefers and evaluates. I mean, Allah and Yahweh in their raw, unsophisticated form - unpolished by centuries of apologetics and language lawyering - are so different from the "philosopher's god" that it's deceptive to conflate them. But then why would you be arguing about the truth of the matter? If I had a nickel for every time someone pulled that trope on me I'd have... a couple of candy bars, at least. Golf zealot (#354 that week): Golf is truth! Golf is the best! me: maybe not... Golf zealot: oh yeah, then why are you so eager to argue about it? At least most of them aren't driving little exploding golf carts into buildings... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I want to add a few more reasons, why i hate postmodernism, the humanities, social justice warriors, and 3th wave feminists. -Not only is postmodernism a attack on reason, but it is a synthesis of the worst elements of german philosophy. German idealism was a disgusting attack on reason, that also influenced the national socialists. Nietzsche, Fichte, Heidegger these people influenced not only the Nazis, but also Derrida and Foucault with their hatered of reason, science & individuality. -For people like Nietzsche, history is a power struggle. Knowledge is power, and has nothing to do with the 'outside world'. This attitude is adapted by Foucault who views politics (and science) as a zero sum game. 'White males' lose 'minorities' win, it is simple as that -Language is viewed pragmatically. It is not there to communicate or reason with your fellow human beings, it 'constructs' reality in the most bold sense. In the end, it is just idealism, a child of religion. So, censorship is good, thats why feminists hate free speech. I don't want to live in a society that abandones, debate, reason, science or politics all together. Thats why i don't want to live under right wing, or left wing nuts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
