Why can't postmodernist define postmodernism?
Is it because they would be outed as nonsense?
Because post-structuralism is by definition beyond definition. Same thing with the cultural and philosophical branch of postmodernism.
Philosophy has reached homeostasis.
Now we wait for AI.
it's just some banter family
Because the word was invented by a guy called Jacques Lacan in one of his books to describe other peoples philosophy. Not everyone on the planet is going to agree with Lacan's analysis of the history of philosophy.
because deep down they know they're retarded but want to be seen like the pseudo-intellectuals of the 18ths century
it's literally, unironically ethical to execute postmodernists.
>>315323
>Lacan
>>315323
Well, a lot of movements were named by people outside of it.
It's not that special.
Here's post-modernism for beginners:
Up until Derrida people thought words meant things. Derrida proved they didn't. This meant that all previous humanities and social science research was "unprovable."
Understandably, people tried to find ways to make words mean things; and the best they came up with were:
Intersubjectivity in a rhyzomatic net of contexts: that words mean things a little bit based on the words around them, but they can be aggressively read to mean different things
Hermeneutics: the belief that if we really try hard enough to read meaning, we might independently produce correct meaning which corresponds (magically) with the meaning in the text
That's it. That's post-modernism. The Death of meaning much like the Death of god or the Death of the author.
>>315343
Do you or anyone else in this thread even know what "post-modernism is". The word is so broad that it boarders on meaningless, there is no one opinion or view that they all shared. It was a label given to them retroactivily.
Say you write a philosophy book in the 1960s and than die. Than Lacan comes along and decides your book is part of an idea he made called "post-modernism" you didn't ask to be called that but now your book is post-modern. That's basically what it's about. Another example, according to Derrida, Max Stirner is a "post-structuralist" despite the word not even existing in Stirners time. Just like how Soren Kierkegaard's books were retroactively declared "existential" when Sarte invented the word despite Kierkegaard having never used the word and been dead for more than a century since the word was made.
Please stop talking about shit you don't know less than zero about.
>>315306
>by definition beyond definition
Wut?
>>315372
That's so, so gay
>>315378
it's impossible to know less than zero.
so who's the idiot now?
>>315372
>words don't mean anything
then why are you a faggot?
>>315372
How does this relate to Wittgenstein that proved the meaning of words are entirely prone to context and there are no fixed definitions?
Does Derrida have the same conclusion or does he interprete words differently/
>>315386
Basically meaning is based on its relationship to other things through Différance. When I sell you a pear, you get non-apple, non-banana, non-watermelon. So it's like a non-constructive proof in math.
>>315343
why would they want to be seen as "pseudo-intellectuals" you could say they are pseudo intellectuals wanting to be intellectuals. actually never mind you're a fucking retard
>>315410
ya you're right you know what I mean though so go fuck yourself
>>315414
I get what you mean. you're advertising yourself as an idiot quite clearly
>>315404
Do you mean early or late Witty? He pretty much said we used words to paint a picture of the world around us. This also meant that when we were talking about anything in the abstract we couldn't possibly describe it correctly because we can't picture it. Religion, morality, philosophy. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent"
Then he totally changed his mind and published Philosophical Investigations and said words were actually tools that had multiple uses in relation to other words. Because tools are multipurpose, we can't really tell what function other people are using their words in. We play different language games and it can be hard to tell which game the other person is playing; what the purpose of a conversation is, the tone and seriousness, what the person wants to communicate. So language is fucked.
>>315343
So you are saying it is a mental disorder masquerading as something grander?
>>315420
you're arguing about nothing you dimwit
>>315414
No we don't know what you mean, maybe you would learn this if you studied Derrida and Wittgenstein :^)
I'm not even sure what the hell you mean by
>"pseudo-intellectuals of the 18ths century"
Are you saying the 18th centuary, the 1700s was pseduo-intellectuals, are you telling me you don't like Hume?
Or did you mean the 1800s and you can't understand Schopenhauer?
Or did you mean 18 centuries and you are basically saying all philosophy is shit and you can't understand any of it?
Your typing is so shitty I honestly can't tell wtf you mean, but dismissing the the wealth of knowledge we got from philosophy because you can't understand them is a very pseudo-intellectual thing to do.
>>315435
So basically they're useless
What I've gotten from this thread is that none of it exists and its only purpose is to make anonymous posters on a Turkic marble sculpting site bicker amongst eachother
>>315423
I mean later Witty. It sounds like he reached the same conclusion as Derrida. Witty sort of thought like your Inter-subjectivity, if we understand the context of each individual word we can squeeze out some meaning. Communicating abstract and broad ideas is a nightmare though given the subjectivity of words.
Language really is fucked. It's the reason we can't understand a lot of stuff like Heraclitus fragments. The context of the language is so foreign we can't contextualize anything. It may be possible that our writing becomes unreadable in the future for the same reasons.
>>315448
the 19th* century- 1800s
many intellectuals had some credit, but they reach the realm of pseudo-intellectualism when they, or others, take themselves too seriously by prodding the application of their ideas into society, which is not pragmatic and blatantly stupid depending on the idea/ideology.
postmodernism is the epitome of pseudo-intellectualism. fun ideas that if anyone were to take them seriously, they should be shot
>>315435
Which is why virtually none of the ones in power held professorships, and why non-communist intellectuals were targeted far more often than they were brought into the communist project. And that's for the Leninists - other streams of communist thought may have more professorial backing, but at the expense of advocating any sort of rule by a particular caste!
>>315471
20th* century- 1900s*
i am heavily glogged
The problem is the "post" part: it would, by any means of logic, define the state of modernism's conclusion and the time space that follows. However, "post", in this context, refers to the "movement phase" rather than the "acquired state" which makes definitions all the easier. For example, if one studies leopard movements intrinsically, when in the process of acquiring prey, it's shit tons easier to study footage/photos/media which remain static/pick-apart-able. If you're the fucking prey, your ass is waayyy more concerned with getting the fuck out of a wacky situation. Postmodernist observers see rustling in the trees, they know shit's going down, though not necessarily what! Modernist observers see said rustling from their cozy "established structure" constructs, without fear of losing their hides, since they ain't moving nor have the incentive to change things to prevent their loss of meaning/life and are sufficiently displaced to prevent this "reality" from being consequential that they see only background inconsequential shit... 'Til they don't anymore, since said "leopard"/kill order erased them from the map, without so much as a hint of realization that they've been taken out of the equation forever more. Now this doesn't give the postmodernists "moral high ground" or some such shit, since they have not the means to achieve a NEW "established construct" space from which they have means of absolving the ills from this transitional shit show, nor can they confidently make use of their "acquired wisdom" over that of the previous tenants, since there's no way to implement them soundly; since the transitional shit show is still fucking the "bedrock" of human experience enough that nothing can be erected substantially enough to endure scrutiny/reality occuring, like trying to build a sports stadium in Akron, Ohio for the amusement of it's citizens when the place would be fucked by inexplicable and unpreventable flash floods every other day, or whatever.
>>315471
The 1800s were the biggest growth in philosophy since fucking Roman Empire! Look if you are struggling with them than you just suck at reading. As for the 1900s we actually got more done in the 2nd half of the century (the so called post modern age) than the first half. There were a lot of shitty philosophers in the 1900s but we got huge advancements coming out France.
Frankly you sound like you don't understand philosophy and got your impression of it from /pol/.
>>315487
I suspect this is a large part of the beef people (like the OP) have with post-modernism. While I agree with you that, indeed, society and other human social constructs give meaning to words, and that you are technically free to read "4chan" as "4chan" in one moment and "dog" or "cat" in the next, doing the latter recklessly and without properly informing the listen/reader leads to frustration on the listener's part and accusations of having a conversation in bad faith. That is, the conversational equivalent of "I'm gonna post something that makes me look stupid...BUT I WAS ONLY PRETENDING TO BE RETARDED ALL ALONG LOL"
>>315496
>There were a lot of shitty philosophers in the 1900s
that is what I am talking about
philosophers and psychologists
Reminder that this man showed the way to the end of conceptual proliferation, the end of conceit, and the end of views. The surest escape from ideology is the abandonment of delight.
>>315553
being bald is a hairstyle
according to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem
>>315372
>Postmodernists get rid of logic
>Use logic to argue for postmodernism
Inherent contradiction. The Hindus and Spinoza figured this out centuries ago. The answer is God.
>>315597
>Postmodernists get rid of logic
