I'm still pretty new, but why do leftists seem to generally dismiss post-modernism? Does this mean I can't enjoy Tommy Pinecone?
I'm still pretty new, but why do leftists seem to generally dismiss post-modernism...
Only the edgy morons who embrace modernism do. You'll find them to be some of the most stubborn, dumb, ignorant, and ill educated retards of this board who scream "idpol" at everything they don't like.
Tommy Pinecone is fine.
Welcome to the board. First thing you should do is add a filter to Hoochie Minh's trip.
Most people here are former rationals whose only knowledge of post modernism is muh Sokal and Steven Pinker telling that story about E. O. Wilson getting water thrown in his face for the 4 quadrillionth time.
Post-modernism is a difficult to define and diverse movement.
Some of it is intellectually rigorous and valuable work but a lot of leftists criticize some of its more frivolous aspects.
Ideas like dismissing Marxism because it was founded by "old dead white men," or denying that things can be objectively designated as true deserve to be mocked.
Many post-modernist thinker also ignored the working class and rather placed focus on the struggle of marginalized ethnic or social groups.
A good article on how Foucault did this → jacobinmag.com
(Though frankly I think Foucault is one of the better post-modernists and a great philosopher)
Overall don't feel like you need to abandon thinkers you like just because they fall into any one category. I've never heard of this Tommy Pinecone guy but I'm sure he's fine.
what is the boards general thought on things like sociobiology, pinker, dawkins and the like?
are they btfoing us or is it still soft science?
Foucault was a gay masochist so i cant take him seriously at all
You still use that flag so what do you have against masochism? You clearly enjoy it.
A gay masochist who believed aids was a biopolitics conspiracy by The Man to keep the gays down.
Why are you projecting onto a French social theorist Holla Forums. Change aids with anuddah shoah and biopolitics with irrelevant shiting. See what you end up with.
Why don't you disregard biopolitics and act like hiv is a spook and an oppressive power structure as well?
What the fuck are you even asking lmfao
if you can walk the walk instead of just talk the talk
I cant speak for the board in general but I'll give my take.
Sociology in general being a "soft science" is over blown by pop science writers and by amateur "rationals" in general. Sociology and psychology never claimed to be physics that said they still aim for quantifiable results and statistics in the most efficient ways they see fit. Sociobiology is the current meta trend in several broad academic fields, it will probably yield some enduring ideas and then fade into the background like the rest of them have (Cog-sci, behaviorism etc). I'm not against it on principle my problem is their over presentation of victim hood and the constant demonization of other schools of thought for really no reason other than self aggrandizement.
Pinker is ok in linguistics he is absolute shit in almost everything else. His philosophy is amateur hour and he is a naive lolbert politically. He sites the Bell Curve, Camille Paglia and Thomas Sowell a slew of other right wing thinkers/ideas and then presents his thinking as "moderate."
Dawkins first couple of books are still a really good introduction to the relationship between genetics and evolution in general gene centric evolutionary theory. His atheism and books are ok but nothing to write home about. Hitchens>Dawkins>Dennett>Harris. Hitchens is merely the most entertaining Harris is an absolute abysmal retard and I hate his fans.
Do these posts make sense to you
should I be worried of sociobiology as a Marxist?
No like i said it will be a trend for a while and then fade. I think people are already getting sick of it.
Doesn't really surprise me, from what I've read he was just your bog-standard irreverent gay male out to "shock the breeders" like Milo Yammastamatopolous
I would really trust the words of someone speaking ill of the dead
His friend's sentiments line up pretty well with the opinions and observations of others. I really don't think this is a case of Paul Veyne shitting on Foucault for attention
Post Modernism is antagonistic to Socialist philosophy.
Would go further into this, but at work and on phone. Some else can expand on this or just wait till I get home in like 9 hours
yes, actually someone explain because i don't see how thats not compatible
Postmodernism is the cultural logic of late capitalism. Trump is a living egregore of postmodernism.
Still think postmodernism is cool?
The most eminent Marxist critiques of postmodernism come from Jameson, Eagleton and Harvey. Eagleton's is probably the most readable, but Harvey's deals more with the material roots of postmodernism. Jameson's isn't very readable unless you are familiar with the very obscure cultural references he delves into and know how to parse his particular use of the English language.
I never got why Pynchon is labeled a post-modernist (if I recall, he explicitly rejected that label), except for the fact that he got popular around the 60s–70s and wrote novels that lacked coherent, conventional plots.
He fits a lot more with “modernist” and surrealist writers imo.
His politics, if you want to infer anything from his novels, seem somewhere between liberal and anarchist.
His work is more of a challenge to “totalitarianism” or “consumerist capitalism” than to “Truth” or whatever.
Pynchon is Extremely Good
that's extremely reductionist
is it not a critique of that culture?
That looks like something Pynchon would write to be honest. There was even the rumor that pynchon was shitposting on /lit/
Have you read Gravity's Rainbow? That's why.
Yeah, you could look at it like a Finnegan's Wake or Ulysses, but as a reaction to those kinds of works, and an extension of their methods, it should fall in the post-modern camp