Curing the Disease of Post-Modernism

The egalitarian premise in particular is thoroughly modern. Postmodernists still hold to it, though.

The egalitarian premise is Christian bro.

As I said, the people who call themselves postmodernists today are not postmodernists, they're just Marxists who saw the Berlin wall collapse.

lol read some heidegger before you post you pseudo-intellectual

just looking for some discussion here, not intellectual dick-measuring you disruptive faggot

Alright, and why is it leftist pseudohistory?

Because you say so?

Because you want it to be true?

No it isn't.

All are one in Christ.

Yes it is.

So post-modernism makes you clairvoyant? How do I into post-modernism?

Your understanding of Christianity is very limited you're embarrassing yourself. The bible is very clear on hierarchy as the natural order and goes over this in Romans. It's only under God are we equal not in practical societal purposes or other applications.

The anti-dialectics website has some helpful resources.

The truth is that there is no truth.

Leftist pseudohistory claims that the concept of race and the resulting racism were a result of the modern period. Usually they claim it was invented by the British. This is wrong because there are many examples of racial understanding from pre-modern times and from many different areas around the world.

fuckin kek that pic

...

You relativists are so retarded that you can't even see how ironic this kind of statement is.

You're a neutrino in a sea of superior particles.

That simply means all are equally saved in Christ. The king and the peasant is equally regarded as saved for having accepted Christ as Lord. That doesn't mean the king and peasant are the same. They share the same quality of being saved, but sharing a quality is not a sufficient condition for being the same.

It isn't ironic.

"Truth" is just self-propagation or survival, truth is whatever is useful to a conscious subject and is determined subjectively; therefore it exists in so far as it exists in the conscious experience of individuals.

Also
I'm browsing it now.
What am I looking at exactly?
How are the ideas there at all sympathetic to Holla Forums?

why are you promoting this marxist tripe

OY VEYY

Well, the real truth is that there are no true or false statements. Propositions are not real. This is different from saying that there is no truth.

There is truth, just not in linguistic form. Language is just a way to induce understanding of a truth in another person. This is important to understand because it eliminates all intellectualism.

...

Marxists would actually have a lot of problems with that. Marxists believe in hard truth. Their entire system of thought is a field of abstract concepts that they believe to be absolutely true.

Marxists hate postmodernism because they see it as undermining their Marxist belief system (which it does).

no true marxist, eh?

listen, I'd rather not subjugate myself to the epistemic cancer that is marxism in all it's flavors and hues thanks

What makes you assume post modernism is inherently Marxist?

Definitely not modern. Bolshevism (gathering the worst elements of society and using them to cripple the best elements of society to create a more level playing field for the worst elements) was first put into action with Christianity.

first post, best post

This. Postmodernism is a solipsistic retreat from reality, either individually or collectively. You cannot pull people out of that mental state by reason alone unless they are willing to move on. But you can, if needed be, confront them with objective facts that cannot be denied: a slap on their face, for instance.

Racial differences, both biological and cultural, are an objective fact; postmodernists would bitch forever about how it's all subjective and relative, though.

You noticed the paradox at least. That's better than most normies manage.

Look at the refutation of dialectic materialism.

Oh noes, everything she says must surely be false then.

That is the whole point of the paradox.

The foundation of the theory of no theory is nonsense. It is self refuting, and pointing that out is as easy as the simple liar paradox I showed you.

It's not. Marxism is a materialist philosophy, that's why Engels called it scientific socialism. It's wrong, but that's beside the point.

No.
what postmodernism effectively does is question every ideological narrative that developed within modernism.
By doing this, it disarms most of the ideals put forth by the enlightenment and classical liberalism.
The problem though, and the other user is correct in his assessment, is that post-modern critic still holds certain elements of liberalism intact for no reason whatsoever, namely democracy and equality, probably the biggest structural myths of the enlightenment.

Check Lyotards "Post-Modern Explained to Children"
Its a wonderful reading to anyone on Holla Forums I can assure you. It offers really great, clear insight into what post-modernism is about.

moral and cultural relativism arent necessarily the result of post-modernism.
Rather, they are an inevitable condition of the continuous advance of modernism.

because anything they can't explain or don't like is "marxist" – they're fucking retarded

There is no easy way.

How do you explain why even hardcore leftists love Tolkien in a gut level, and how every attempt to inject modern thought leads to them hating it, even if they can't explain it. Even if they themselves do it in the contradiction of what their soul says and their ideology says.

Try and ask a leftist why they hate Tauriel (and I mean the useful idiots, not the ones actually aware of objective truths and trying to undermine them), and they wont be able to properly explain.

Of course you know why, because she's a biproduct of tasteless and absolutely vapid modern thought, with no place in a world of high myth like the one she's inserted in.

For the braindead.

The statement: "The truth is that there is no truth" is self-detonating, and in the end worthless mental masturbation.

Analysis: The overriding claim posited by this statement is that there is no truth, i.e. nothing in reality is true. This means that reality itself cannot be true. There is no objective truth, no subjective truth (certainty) no true relation between subject and object. Written statements are a part of objective reality. The interpretation of written statements are part of subjective reality.

No written statements, including the statement, "The truth is that there is no truth", can be true, by that very statement. Thus, the statement, by the very implications it itself draws upon, is false.

Worthless. As worthless as the person who uttered it.

Kill yourself.

It's a useful tool to see who is paying attention, and who isn't.

You pass the test.

That's just plain simple and healthy skepticism, which, if entrenched in a person of group, leads to the same kind of mental paralysis than post-modernism (Epoché -ἐποχή- in ancient Greek, suspension of reason).

Correct. All this bullshit reminds me of discordianism, fine as a joke and game, sad and dangerous when proposed by mentally retarded adults that failed to get the point.

I have already made an attempt. Just to show that this is not the work of an amateur, I'll tell you how it must be done: all existing knowledge, and all possible knowledge, ranging from metaphysics, science, mathematics, economics, politics, to genetics, must be knowable with the use of a single method.

For about a year, I have been attempting to do develop this very thing. It requires complete self-conscious awareness of what I am doing, while doing it. The method arises from an attempt to deduce all human knowledge regarding the true from a single set of axioms. Fichte and Hegel tried this. Lesser minds since them have taken their works as static and inert dogmas. Such was not their intention. The truth belongs to no one. All can access it provided they have the discipline, fortitude, and correct method, to access it. The work is still in progress, and can be found here:

interpretingthephenomenology.blogspot.com

I have begun with the assumption that space and time exist, and that knowledge is distinct from the knower. This immediately implies that the capacity to differentiate, by the very existence of distinction between knower and known, is a necessary and fundamental component of knowing the True. The presence of distinction immediately implies identity (For any X, X=X).

With these assumptions, for the better part of a year I have been able to deduce much of what we as a species are capable of knowing. I have left the system open enough to be interactive, thus you can deduce whatever is true, provided you are at the right stage.

Like a seed, the system has sprouted and begun to bear fruit. My latest article regards the kind of mind engaged in the rationally self-interested pursuit of hedonistic pleasures. This kind of individual comes to learn that this kind of life is temporary, and cannot last without constant input. He learns the law of this necessity, and discovers that his very essence is determined by this law.

The hedonist comes to instinctively acknowledge that the law of necessity is the law of his own heart, and assumes that all individuals follow this law. The fact that they do not is an empty show. Thus, this individual, driven by the law of the heart, endeavors to make others admit that they already recognize the universal validity of this law, and therefore himself.

The hedonist becomes this kind of individual, which today we call the social justice warror. The system is undone, and I have heard is extremely difficult to read. The verbosity is not intentional. The subject matter necessitates it.

There is no such thing as a "healthy skepticism". The suspension of judgment of all things you can possibly doubt leads only to self-bewilderment. In the true kind of skepticism, one is caught in a flux of sensation and perception, while denying that such things are occurring as they occur. Thanks Descartes.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 3:22

You are promoting a marxist jew on Holla Forums
There is no such thing as "true" or "false"
There is just that which benefits the race or group or hinders it
I have no interest in "objective" truths,
only that which is of direct benefit to my direct
genetic group.

Functional, and Pragmatic truth will help you more than the type of 'intellectual truth' that postmodernism promises.

thb fam, I can't wait for the next generation to grow up. Thay are going to hate the millennials, who will be the establishment by the time they do grow up. It's going to be carnage as their children reject the degeneracy of their parents.

Are you the one who posted the anti dialectics link originally?

Not sure how your reply relates to what I said.
What I am saying is that objective truth, or searching for truth for its own sake is worthless in my eyes. I have only interest in what is of direct utility to myself and to those whom my identity extends to.
Even if some marxist is able to formulate an argument which appears logically sound from every angle and attack, I do no have any inherent desire adopt something simply on the basis of logical consistency or fact.
What I understand instead is that they, in arguing their own position, are just arguing for the self-propagation of themselves and their own group, a sort of survival mechanism.

You are the enemy. The idea that truth is subjective is the ideology behind the destruction of our world. Your world view is what allows people to do evil and call it good, to get raped and apologise to their raper for 'colonialism', to posit that sodomising someone with a metal pole is 'natural', to deny the reality of what is going on around them, to ignore statistics and facts and claim that to believe such things is 'racist'.

Truth should always be our number one desire. It is from knowing the truth that we can know how and when to act. Acknowledging the truth of what is going on in the Western world is what allows us to reorganise and mount a defense.

Subjectivity is the enemy. Truth is absolute.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Deus vult.

So if a Marxist proclaimed racial differences were true and Europeans were the superior race you'd reject it?

Stop being a hipster.

Objective truth is key to a good society.

There is such a thing as good and evil, high beauty, proper behavior, strength of character defined by key traits, hierarchy, etc

These are objective truths that are now held as subjective for the purpose of tearing down the fabric of society and the fall of the West.

Saving your race means shit if we all end up in huts and the east Asians become the dominant power. Your goal is to both your peoples are the society they have built, specifically built around those objective truths.

Yes, I metioned anti-dialects.

The refutation of dialectic materialism is interesting.

You do whatever suits you guvnor, that's the essence of freedom.

Subjectivism is force of destruction in the hands of those too incompetent to understand how profound it is.

The fact of the matter is, objective truth is not logically defensible viewpoint. You yourself demonstrate the subjectivity of values, because your defense of an idea of objective is itself a self-defense mechanism, and it is understandable.

The enemy of whom or what?
Who decides who is an enemy?
The postulation of one group, idea or person being an enemy is only possible when there is a group or person whose subjective views clashes with another.
You idea of me as enemy can be translated as "I don't like you", because there is no objective support to your statement.

My contention is that in the wrong hands and misunderstood, it is indeed destructive. And by destructive I mean it can produce outcomes antithetical my own idea of "good". For example, from the perspective of one person it is being destroyed, but from another it is their victory; i.e. from the viewpoint of the Jew this is a victory.

All of those things can be opposed by a group that subjectively disagrees with those things. I myself don't agree with any of them, and neither do you. That is our subjective view, there is no denying that. But if we have the power to change it, we can.

>Truth should always be our number one desire.

Who is decide what SHOULD be?
Can you give me an example of some the absolute truths you have discovered, considering it is your personal life goal/interest/passion? Perhaps you can convince me.

The idea that truth is subjective is the ideology behind the destruction of our world. Your world view is what allows people to do evil and call it good, to get raped and apologise to their raper for 'colonialism', to posit that sodomising someone with a metal pole is 'natural', to deny the reality of what is going on around them, to ignore statistics and facts and claim that to believe such things is 'racist'.

Truth should always be our number one desire. It is from knowing the truth that we can know how and when to act. Acknowledging the truth of what is going on in the Western world is what allows us to reorganise and mount a defense.

Subjectivity is the enemy. Truth is absolute.

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Deus vult.

I'll just leave this here.

Yes there is, it's called scientific method.

“At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes–an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense.” ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

...

The Philosophic Corruption of Reality / Evil Begins with Irrationality
peacerevolution.podomatic.com/entry/2012-08-12T08_45_48-07_00

It starts at 1h20min.

This is the history of Postmodernism

Thanks user.

*polite sage*

Of 'good'. Good can be divided into many different sub-sections, which can also be described as the attributes of the divine. Order, justice, purity, duty, loyalty, honour and so forth.

How can there be order if there is no objective truth? Yet there is order in our world, it is evident all about us. This is one of the classical evidences of God.

How can there be justice without truth? There is no justice if it is that which is false that is being preserved. To punish the man who has not committed the crime is to do injustice; yet to punish he that actually committed the crime is justice. A simple concept to understand.

How can there be honour without truth? If one's views are prone to change, to subjectivity; then there is no honour. Honour is doing the 'right' thing even in times when that might be inconvenient.

You posit that these terms can be defined and re-defined by man to mean anything. You claim that by changing its meaning we change the reality, that our subjective understanding of these concepts changes their actual meaning. It does not. A forty year old man can claim to be a female or an octopus, but he is not one. The thief can cry that he is innocent, but he is not. The bigamist can claim that they have been faithful, but they have not.

Truth is absolute, and your perspective on it matters not at all. The chromosomes of the man who claims to be a woman is the proof of the objective truth. The historical act of theft is the proof of the objective truth of one's crimes.

Changing a word's meaning does not change reality. If I kill you, you are dead. It does not matter if you believe you are or not, you will be dead.

You are the enemy of God. You profess to be wise with your nonsensical whittering, but you cannot see that which is obvious to a child.

Isn't that an objective claim?

By my understanding, that would eliminate their title as marxist.

But anyway, you misunderstood.
I did not say I would reject out right any all statements, proofs, facts etc. put forth by a self-identifying marxist.

No. I said I retain the right to reject which aspects of it as I see are incompatible for my own self-continuity of the continuity of those I identify with.

Good and evil varies from the perspective.
From the perspective a rabbit, being eaten by a fox is evil (or "bad").
From the perspective of the fox this is "good".
Everything works like this.

Those wouldn't be objective truths in a universal sense; they would however attain a degree of apparent objectivity in the minds of those who are genetically similar. That society wouldn't be built around objective truths, but whatever values as are useful to that group.

Descartes fell into solipsism, got scared of the games his own demons could be playing on him and his perception of the world, and felt the need to invoke an external, benign, superior being out of nowhere to help him establish an objective reality he could trust. He was mentally weak and never got out of the mental trap he dug for himself, the resulting philosophy is utter imaginary nonsense with a tulpa divinity. He may have tried to use skepticism as a tool, but failed miserably.

Sure man, it's all perspectives! From the perspective of the invading Mudslimes that have absolutely no honor or wish for a fair fight, we're the evil kaffirs!

From the perspective of the cowardly globalists that enforce their will through undemocratic means masked by Brave New World mass media, we're evil!

From the perspective of Marxist trash that forces subjectivity into every aspect of life thereby robbing you of any higher meaning or purpose, we're evil!

It's all subjective man! Dude weed lmao!

He's appealing to the quantum truth theory (standpoint theory).

Every subjective truth is correct, and incorrect at the same time, depending on standpoint.

Honestly kill yourself, why even bother.

That's asinine because quantum truth theory dictates all choices are true only before the event is observed, or alternative, all choices are true and we are only able to observe one choice (multiverse theory)

I'm sorry Reddit, did I trigger you?

You are confusing the fact that different agents have different interests with the fact that all these agents are interacting in the same objective reality. If that's too much for all you postmodernist fags to understand, go gas yourselves for the greater good of the rest of us who can have a proper conversation.

Stupidity in general triggers me a lot, yes. Nothing personal, though.

Carl Sagan and all other "science advocates" are responsible for the mouth breathing retarded atheists that think they're "learned" because they read a few quotes on the internet.

He's a goddamn hack who barely passed in the science field. Fuck Carl Sagan, and Dawkins, and Bill Neigh and all the other materialists atheists of the 20th century.

If you're not taking the Newton natural philosophy approach, you're a fucking faggot.

Shit son, don't say ==CHOICE== you'll trigger the determinists in the thread.

That's actually correct.
From their perspectives, that is indeed how they see it. The fact that all you have to lean on is a resort to shouting memes proves your incapacity to refute.

Wrong.
I am not appealing to quantum anything.
You misunderstood.
I am saying from the perspective of each being, values vary. That's all.
NOT that things are both true and untrue.

The simply fact of us all are participating in a similar reality does not negate that VALUES are subjectively determined.

AKA standpoint theory, no?

Whichever "theory" you want to label my personal standpoint with, you may.
But I personally don't identify with any theory or school of philosophy. My ideas are simply mine.

I think that's the closest 'accademic' label for you idea. Not trying to antagonise, just here for learnins.

I actually value a lot the approach to science of Goethe and other Germans associated with later stages of natural philosophy. Be aware that for the most part, before Newton and other empiricists lead to the advent the modern science that you seem to despise, it was a school of thouth associated with the "magister dixit" principle based on the authority of Aristotle, too much for muh science quotations.

Completely agree. Values that derive from different interests for the most part.

Except I can refute it.

Because Muslims are absolutely evil, their religion and holy books and their teachings are evil to the core and do not promote fundamentally good values. You can not seriously argue Muslim or Arab culture is anything but wrong in the grand scheme of things. That is not subjective, that is fact. What little good they have is things they share with every other world culture and they're ideas that permeate all but the most baseline nigger tribal organizations.

And the globalists are once again fundamentally evil in their attempt to stamp out dissent through the killing of morality and the human condition of striving for greatness. By encouraging everyone to mediocre baseline acceptance of the Brave New World, they betray themselves as evil. They do harm to everyone, they aren't just evil in the perspective of a European, whether he be German, Brit, French or whatever else. Japanese nationalists similarly view the globalist capitalist establishment as a threat. American protectionists view it as a threat. And all these groups are fundamentally in the right because they're approach is based on a baseline truth of the world, and that truth is that you should stand for your family and peoples above all.

And as for the Marxists, I need not explain that their attempt to make what is objective subjective should be the highlight of them as morally bankrupt.

You need only take the ideal of beauty. Both on a metaphysical and even natural perspective we understand beauty as a truth. What is beautiful is beautiful for reasons we can sometimes even place int words, and there have been many studies into how facial symmetry, hair and skin color, body shape, evil your smell, contribute to being identified as processing good genes. And the funniest thing is that these ideas ring through throughout the world.

And yet Marxists will fucking insist that isn't the case, because the ultimate goal is to tear down all that is truth in favor of a subjective, and thus meaningless, life.

I can refute you all day son, I just don't waste time with faggot Holla Forums trolls.

This has nothing to do with methodology and entirely to the ideals that the people stand for.
Newton and other later people might have been empiricists but they weren't materialists. Ultimately they understood their study of the natural world was only one facet of human existence and society, and not the most important one either.

'Good' values derive from truth. Being superstitious and thinking that getting out of the left side of your bed in the morning will make you have a bad day is not going to have any effect on your life. You may believe it is, but it is not.

Constructing a fenced off coop around your chickens IS going to protect them from foxes. You may think they got eaten because you got out of the left-side of your bed, but that is not why. You can get out of the right-side of your bed every day for the rest of your life, but if your chickens are not protected then they will still get eaten by foxes.

Just because you 'subjectively' believe that reality is influenced in the way you believe it to be, does not make it so. If it did you would see a lot more lottery winners, you would find that insanity is infact a life-hack to gain super-powers, you would find the whole world would be without any kind of order.

Subjectivity does not define reality. Basing your life's choices on false information is a good way to fail. You might believe that in a few years time your three old daughter's drawings will be worth a million dollars each; but they will not, and banking your future on them is an idiotic idea.

Post-Modernism states that history can be interpreted through a 'modern' lens. So for instance; Matriarchal societies would have fared well but only failed because men were so patriarchal that they all teamed up to defeat them. Stating this as historical fact is going to cause lots of problems, because this not why it happened.

A more appropriate example would be Hitler and the Jews. Post-Modern history claims that Hitler hated the Jews because as a white cis male he was inherently evil. They say the jews were innocent and were simply used as a scape-goat; which they could be used as because white society was Christian, and Christians and whites have always hated jews because they are 'evil'. If you start basing your laws and way of life on this evidence, you WILL see jews getting killed again. The jews will not think 'hang on a second Moishe, what if the goys only hate us because we keep corrupting their children, stealing their money and refusing to ever partake in society? What if they hate us because we never approach law fairly and give other jews advantages all the time? Maybe if we stop doing this, we won't get holocausted ever again."

This realisation will never come to pass because the Jew refuses to see reality. Post-modernism has convinced him that it was an irrational reaction by those inherently evil white men. They will see themselves genocided again because they refuse to see the OBJECTIVE TRUTH, instead believing their own subjective lies.

Brilliant, thank you

That's very true. I believe (hope) many modern scientists also hold this sensitivity and ideals towards their endeavor, although any trace of it is mostly wiped out from published papers. Most are hyperspecialized and glorified technicians, though.

was directed at

Man uses patterns to perceive the world however, him assuming the world is made of them is false.

Reality while it does exhibit some pattern, is more accurately cause and effect.

Man is problem and solution, through this he exhibits patterns.

—————————————————————————————————————–

Life is inherently evil by virtue of being competitive. Women appear superficially
more evil because they have to compete more often. They're rarely the power-broker
with enough resources to choose how altruistic they are.

Fear not. Some women, once their needs are completely catered to, become endearing
adorable and loyal companions. It's not that women are evil, its that they don't find the worth
in avoiding taking advantage of you.

It's not that they are evil per se, but they exhibit lesser capacity for inhibition and self-control,
making them enslaved by their emotions and desires. When these desires clash with other people's
safety they don't care and go with it

anyway, resulting in evil.

Just compare them to animals. Is a Lion evil? Even though it kills you can't call it evil when it's part of
his nature. It's the same with females.

—————————————————————————————————————–

Contemporary "Liberal" logic is born out of a self-inflicted delusion of living in a world that they know does not exist, but wish it did.

—————————————————————————————————————–

So let me see if I got this right (regarding Europeans).

Liberals say Nationalism is stupid and that we shouldn't pride ourselves in our ancestors because
"we're not them" and "whatever they did doesn't have anything to do with us".

However, they encourage shame for what our ancestors did and pride for the supposed victims of our
ancestors, despite clearly stating that ones past bloodline has NOTHING to do with them.

Did I get it right?

Cognitive dissonance much?

—————————————————————————————————————–

“The inevitable corollary of such sexual interest is rebellion against the parental authority that
represses it. Selfishness thus becomes indignation and then transforms itself into morality.
…Indignation is the soul’s defense against

the wound of doubt about its own; it reorders the cosmos to support the justice of its cause.”

—————————————————————————————————————–

Progress is not economic, progress is not social.

Progress is scientific and technological.

This is the only means by which we can reveal truly new possibilities and opportunities for mankind.

We are all scientists, we are all inventors.

—————————————————————————————————————–

Race is deeper than skin color and it matters. This black-white paradigm seen in the US is easily digestible to common people though.

Race makes a difference and it reflects itself in our world. Sometimes not easily observable in the individual, but in the larger pattern of behavior for that group, race leaves an indelible fingerprint.

It's beyond social, geographic or economic, although geography and climate was a contributor. The idea that the compounded genetic legacy of tens of thousands of years means nothing, is just as unscientific as evangelical dinosaur

jockeys defending young earth creationism.

—————————————————————————————————————–

Sobriety rejects sensationalism

—————————————————————————————————————–

Men are blind to the wealth of nature. They chain themselves with greed to the material things of gold and possessions. ( a man does not own a house. The house owns him)

considering that particular website prides itself on literal marxist thought and socialism….