Is Postmodernism Cancer?

I fucking love Post Modernism fam especially all the Post Modern Humor.

Any lit a Kierkegaard/Hegel pleb like me can start on?

...

Okay nvm, but I know he likes him in a lot of cases too. Worship isn't a fair analysis then.

It's both.
Nietzsche's work is a real pleasure to read and engage with literarily, but is still deeply irrationalist and reactionary to ever put into practice above the individual level.

Nobody believes a given thinker has "nothing whatsoever" to offer, but this isn't the point. Modern repudiation of materialism must itself be repudiated, in the broad sense, if we want a scientific movement.

ayyy lmao

*reddit obesity

There's no such thing as postmodernism outside of art, dumb thing is dumb.

(also Adorno is pomo now?)

It's bourgeois as fuck

Postmodernism accomplishes nothing beyond encouraging others to accomplish nothing. It is a dead end.

Pls no bully

i thought american psycho was a good book

He's not, Rebel is just a clueless retard.

Kill yourself.

Modernism forever

Although they cite Francis Bacon as a leading spokesman for an instrumentalized reason that becomes irrational, Horkheimer and Adorno do not think that modern science and scientism are the sole culprits. The tendency of rational progress to become irrational regress arises much earlier. Indeed, they cite both the Hebrew scriptures and Greek philosophers as contributing to regressive tendencies. If Horkheimer and Adorno are right, then a critique of modernity must also be a critique of premodernity, and a turn toward the postmodern cannot simply be a return to the premodern. Otherwise the failures of modernity will continue in a new guise under contemporary conditions. Society as a whole needs to be transformed.

And I never claimed not to be clueless you cock sucker.

The one who critics Post-Modernism best.

Post-modernism has become sinonymous with neoliberalism.

Also, Post-Modern art is only worth liking ironicly. Is Vaporwave Post-modern art?

Bully Spooked Nomenklatura that follows a faggoty Christian philosopher, all about jumping, not even Schopenhauer? DON'T MIND IF I DO!

B-but that's a meme. He speaks about the "leap" in one sentence in Concluding Unscientific Postscripts. You haven't even decided he's faggoty on anything except his religion basically.
And Schopenhauer is just shit.

I'm still too stupid to know/google what nomenklatura means. If I'm not wrong that's oldfag language for definitions and wordy crap right?

Not the guy. It refers to an intellectual class in Soviet society.

So you're glad to have been born or something???

Also, defining how pol is having arguments in "the art of always being right" is shit, hm?

It's about the intelectuals, that offer nothing but keep being in the upper party, cause they have read a shit tone of theory, that only they understand.

I feel like most people who bitch about post-modernism are just annoyed that there are so many leftist either sitting around with thumbs up their asses or turn to id-pol insanity

Like most things on the internet, they don't actually criticize the thing itself, they only criticize the people it creates, and thus the impression of the thing they have in their minds.

...

See?
Like in order to like modernism in the 1920s you have to do it ironicly (dadaism and so on), to like post-modernism now you have to go vaporwave and so on.

It's Heggelian Dialectics.

I don't see what is wrong with it. Post-modernism to my understanding basically just says you can't generalize about every group and the needs of a person is individualistic. Am I wrong?

Schopenhauer does not have a monopoly on anti-natalism friend; Cioran and Benatar are who convinced me. Schopenhauer just makes a good meme.

Trying to always be right by abstaining from opinions is silly.

"Love believes all things and yet is never deceived. Therefore it is not put to shame."
t. Kierkegaard.

"The one who frees themselves from fixed ideas becomes a gelatinous mass, defending and taking all positions. Life is the flower of fixed ideas from which it frees itself only to fade."
t. Cioran

Kierkegaard was a stirnerite :^)
No, really. He owned a copy of Ego and Its Own and read a bunch of Stirner's critics and followers.

Meta-modernism soon friendo.

Post-modernism denies the existence of an objective material reality and holds that every "subjective reality" is as correct as all other. It denies humanity's historical nature and the possibility of transforming the world.

But someone else's reality being just as real as your own would not invalidate your reality of change.

...

I like the claimed purpose of postmodernism. The objectivity of what comes out of our mouths must constantly be questioned, because most knowledge is not based in hard science.

How it tries to accomplish this…I am not a big fan.

...

This is what you are defending: phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/08/0309132515623368.abstract

You all need red hot pokers to the anus.

I'm not defending it, just wanted to point out material reality is faggotry. Also the argument he made was really bad anyways.

Of course the pseudo follower of Kierkegaard would deny the existence of "material reality"

You need to lose some weight, Mr. Obesity

See

...

Oh, golly! Look what I found

cont. last part

I can't find a single argument in this thread.

Hegel and Kant denied it too. So what?

Welcome to Holla Forums.

...

But in all seriousness, read a fucking book. I didn't deny the existence of "material reality". I denied the existence of material reality ALONE. Just like Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. You are just so ignorant, you can't even conceive of an idealist system.

Also
Wahhh go fucking cry.

Oh wow. Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard!? I'm convinced. They MUST be right.

Hegel is alright, but I still prefer Spinoza tbh.
And I'll take my Althusser over the last two any day of the week, tho. Thank you very much.

There is no Geist to move history forward. No idea sets the parameters of our reality. Your "idealist system" does not reflect nor define reality; it's a mere abstraction, a spook :^)

I've read lots of books. Just don't read something to ironically pretend that you're a new born Christian.

Polite sage because Rebel got triggered.

I don't see the connection.

No. The very existence of that paper is a direct demonstration of the falsehood of the ideas that created it. That paper clearly shows that not everything is subjective and not all forms of knowledge are equal.

That wasn't your original argument though

Your original argument was "LOLZ SJW SHIT THANKS FOUCAULT" proving user's point

I'm sure a post-modernist would point out that the author's methodology and conclusions are wrong and are in fact fuelled by ideology (which they are)

They would also point out that the scientific observations only work in specific framework of scientific observations (which they do)

I'm not trying to convince you they were right, even though they were. I'm trying to show you don't even know what materialism means, and it's not exactly outlandish to be sceptical of it if you know what it means.

try again

try again

try again

try again

try again

I'm tired k?

Kierkegaard didn't advocate any sort of philosophical . He spent his life attacking the Hegelians of his time (who largely perverted Hegel in any case).

Reality and idealism are fundamentally opposed. What do you think realism is?

Abstraction is not spook. Spook is not "anything I don't like". Spook means fixed idea, meaning something dependent on ego.

Idealism is not an abstraction. I don't even know where to begin here. Why would it be?

The good, influential postmodern thinkers are fine. A lot of nice nuggets. The vast majority of academic departments which have been most affected by postmodernism, on the other hand, are filled with mediocre minds who only went into the field because of their own intellectual insecurities. You see this in math and physics PhD programs too, but people like that end up either failing out of their PhD or not being able to do good enough research to get an academic appointment after. Same with philosophy PhD programs (I am in the US, so philosophy departments have been unaffected by what Europeans would consider more contemprary postmodernism). But the number of these people who slip through seems perfectly correlated with how much the department was affected by postmodernism. That said, I don't think it's a cancer. Like I said, overall it has yielded some good ideas. I just wanted to rant to you American postmodernists working in academia– the philosophy and math departments secretly hate your attitude, but are too shy and nonconfrontational to ever say anything about it.

not dependent on ego*

not that guy, just argument policing tbh

It's ok.

No, I provided a concrete example of why those ideas are wrong. The fact you are both stupid (unable to infer how that paper was shaped by postmodern toss) and dishonest (claiming that postmodernists would not support this paper) is not my problem.

We have nothing further to discuss except when you would like to receive your beating.

You've only showed that you don't know what materialism and idealism means, which is not surprising tbh.

You really need to get off your high horse.
You probably legitimately think idealism is the same as solipsism.

Idealism means that matter comes from spirit. Materialism means that the spirit comes from matter. It should be perfectly clear to anyone not completely retarded like you that idealism is bullshit and materialism is correct.

Actually various quantum physicists say that reality is created by the mind. Last I checked quantum physicists were among the top tier of intelligence in the science community.

No, quantum physicists say that quantum systems are in an ambiguous state until they are observed.

Not an argument.

"Anyone not completely retarded"
The "anybody I don't like is retarded" card? Sasuga, you must have some hot opinions user~

Read Hegel

…no

Just admit it that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Hegel was deeply against the idea of irreconcilable positions. That's why in later years he took to referring to absolute idealism as ideal-realism. It's a gigantic part of his phenomenology and to dismiss it shows you have no understanding of idealism past listening to dualists or Nietzsche.

He says that any absolute distinction between spirit and matter is fundamentally retarded :^) You aren't retarded are you anons? The phenomenology LITERALLY ENDS with the world of matter and spirit sunk into one another.This is why he said: “[e]very philosophy is essentially idealism or at least has it as its principle” (GW 21, 142)

Looks like it worked.

Words I used that hadn't already been used by others:
1 (phenomenology)

You're a fucking desperado, it's pathetic.

That means the same thing as what I said.

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Max Planck

"When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness."
Eugene Wigner

"The universe bursts into existence from life, not the other way around as we have been taught. For each life there is a universe, its own universe. We generate spheres of reality, individual bubbles of existence. Our planet is comprised of billions of spheres of reality, generated by each individual human and perhaps even by each animal".
Robert Lanza

Do you deny the existence of an objective reality outside of subjective perception of it?

No, I think there is an objective reality outside of our perception of what reality is.

No, you said it was created by the mind while I claimed that it exists without the mind too, just in an ambiguous state.

When I said reality I meant how we see reality in out subjective way.

How so. And what is it? tl;dr version please sugar tits.

...

But that has nothing to do with idealism.

Idealism is not always about the metaphysical reality but can be just about what we know of as being our reality so I don't see how it is not at least related.

That is not what Planck and Wigner are saying in those quotes. Lanza might be, but then he is a microbiologist, not a quantum physicist.

Then what are they saying?

So you're a solipsist and you're using offhand quotes with no sources by some physicists to support it, 2 of which I've never heard of as a physics student.

Then what do they mean? I don't see how it could be interpreted different than a persons concious mind creates different quantum states. Macroscopic quantum phenomena is a thing that has been known and proven to exist so I cant see how it cant be at least possible. True about Lanza, I forgot I said quantum physicists at first and was a little drunk.

No, I don't believe in Solipsism at all and never have. It is philosophy that strokes the ego of the self centred and self entitled. I did not list sources because I don't know what type of source someone would want since I often run into people having different requirements. I figured someone would just look it up and point out if I had made a mistake from a bad source or something.

That wasn't really the main issue. Issue is the quotes aren't related to the scientific matters at hand. Quantum mechanics doesn't talk about muh matrix, its about superposition and uncertainty

Where did you get the idea I suggested anything like a matrix like scenario? I never said our reality is not real. I said there is multiple realities existing together at the same time.

You
1. Implied this was a majority position
2. That it had foundation in quantum mechanics
3. Are wrong about "multiple realities existing" that's speculation. That's not superposition.
4. Said it was not real by saying it was created by mind