Nothin personnel rationalists
*Completely destroys western academia for decades to come*
Academia was never the place for socialism anyways.
I will fight you
Baudrillard eats all these faggots for breakfast
Least bad post-modernist, but pomo still a shit
Most people here don't acc know what PoMo is
PoMo is when you say traps aren't gay
t. Gnome Chomsky
Chomsky is wrong about a lot of things but his criticisms of pomo are valid
Great criticism fam. Great thread.
ITT: wildly differing authors are part of the same conspiracy!!
Frank Furtschool did nuffin wronk
god you're so clearly fine with how fucking dumb you are, it's really annoying
grouping all of these authors as 'pomo,' especially fucking LACAN of all people, and thinking that chomsky's limp-dick anglo criticism of pomo is in any way valid should be embarrassing
They are all pomo. None of them are really at all Marxist or subscribe to a materialist outlook, but instead rely on outlooks that amount to idealism. Lacan literally cheated sick people out of their hard earned money while fucking their daughters. Chomsky addresses has addressed most of these authors individually as well as as a whole, but keep on being intellectually dishonest m8
Every thread about postmodernism here
You're all so literal you'll take this without sarcasm
i keep fucking reading that as porno
I like how post-modernfags can never defend themselves because they lack the capacity to define what it is they actually believe. NOt that it matters. Post modernism is not marxist. Also academic "marxism" and activism in general is fucking stupid. Students are not workers, especially in first world countries.
Postmodernism. Look I just did it.
Damn how catty and clever. I bet your thesis adviser loves you.
Postmodernists don't believe anything, but they can deconstruct your totalizing Marxist narrative. They pretty much wiped the floor with naive orthodox Marxism. But since postmodernism leads nowhere, the question is, can we reconstruct Marxism after the postmodern victory? I believe this is what Zizek and Badiou are trying to do.
Political people take post-modernism way too seriously. I feel like it draws from the same misunderstanding of people who buy into cultural marxism as some kind of bogeyman. You'd think more leftists would be fine with deconstruction of history. It can lead to better understanding and analysis. And structuralism is kind of interesting.
WTF is this?
It as to be a troll.
It's pretty easy to "wipe the floor" with something if you don't believe in anything yourself and are adept at engaging in blatant sophistry (at they were/are.) There's a reason why it came from the imperialist west. It has no goals other than to maintain the capitalist status quo. It will be abolished when the revolution comes.
Postmodernism isn't just a group of academics, its a condition we find ourselves in, in late capitalism. These postmodern thinkers are diagnosing a condition moreso than arguing directly against Marxists, where "god is dead" and people are cynical, don't believe anything.
If there's going to be a revolution then Marxism has to address this state that people are in, and not offer the same doctrines as if postmodernity didn't happen.
So-called post-modern philosophers do not "subscribe" to post-modernity. They describe the post-modern condition, they don't embrace it.
Explain to me how this diagnosis is "Marxist" when it's obviously not based on any sort of materialism?
This is deep
How do you even "abolish" a whole school of thought…? Do you plan on "abolishing" Kantian ethics too?
You would know if you weren't a drooling cretin more interested in taking cheap shots at boogeymen than actually bettering your understanding of the world for a change.
You get rid of those who are promoting it and the remove whatever material support the state gives them (which in this case is quite a lot.)
So you shoot lecturers and close down universities…?
This is deep too.
Don't be silly, imprisonment and curtailing of financial support is enough. And why would universities be closed down?
Frederic Jameson is the Marxist thinker who made this diagnosis, and he does it on a materialist basis. He's saying basically that it is the material conditions of late capitalism which generate the nihilistic condition of postmodernism.
Where does metamodernism come into this? Is it an attempt to reconstruct some semblance of sincere narrative?
Yes, there is sincere narrative with insincere expression typically.
tell me what materialism is
Postmodernism is like hacking ur brain.
I'm not OP, and materialism is analyzing society based not on the ideas that inhabit it but the reality of the productive forces that constitute it. History is ultimately determined by the "production and reproduction of real life", not on symbols or how people think about things. To pretend that pomo is in any way materialist is to either be completely intellectually dishonest or ignorant.
who are you quoting?