Why have the conservative right intellectuals largely ignored post-modern ideas as a way to justify their claims? The concepts made in them are ideal for descrediting progressiveness, and multi-culturalism. I could also totally see /pol/ jumping on board with Baudrillard's theories about hyper reality replacing the real world.
Could it be that right-thinkers are often anti-intellectual and avoid getting into philosophy in general?
>>478286
I don't think right thinkers are ant-intellectual so much as the academic field today does not tend to award right thinking.
For all the good academic study has brought, it tends to be somewhat insular, and minority ideas get extra tough criticism, which makes sense if I am proposing some radical new concept, but when it bleeds over to political discourse its becomes poison.
>>478286
I think it's as simple that right-thinkers aren't interested in the social sciences unless it's economics.
There's a lot from contemporary society that can be used to argue for right-wing reforms in one form or another. Two things that comes to mind are the fragmentation of the importance of classes in Beck's description of the risk society, or the importance of flexibility among individuals as well as organizations as a result of globalisation.
I'm right-center myself and vegan on libertarian grounds. The non-violence principle ought to be taken pretty serious senpai.
As a leftist moving more rightward every week, I think it's because a lot of PoMo is just stuff that right intellectualism doesn't care about. PoMo spends a lot more time using flowery language to describe concepts conservatives don't even need to use metaphors to express. Rightist thought is more open to explicit theism than leftist thought is, so it doesn't have to spend paragraphs handwaving the concept of God and explaining it away; it can just get right down to it and say "When government works this way, order and/or prosperity are achieved." This is the most common form of rightist thought: the assertion that these things can be sustained at best. Leftist thought often says: "This is how governments can make the world can achieve order and prosperity." It goes beyond the statism/libertarianism divide, it's a disagreement about the nature of the relationship between the world and the state. One side sees the state as an agent for good, the other sees the state merely as an agent. Postmodern treatments of the nature of collective action ("muh revolutionary bodies") do not appeal to rightists, who feel the need for individuation as much as leftists do. Rightsts are naturally distrustful of collectives. Many would agree with Hobbes more readily than leftists would; leftists would assert more easily that an evil King deserves loyalty than rightists would, even though they would have similar reasons for giving these different assertions.
true right wing thought isn't accepted among academia
that being said, intellectuals barely exist anymore
Zizek is pretty much the only actual public intellectual and he gets derided as a fascist for suggesting that refugees should adopt European values
you have to also consider that the New Right has only really existed in a serious capacity for 5 years, it will take some time for prominent intellectuals to ascend from the ooze
that being said Nick Land somewhat fits your description
would be fantastic if people stopped conflating leftism and post-modernism. i would say inb4 but it has already happened in this thread despite OP literally saying they're not the same
This post it no doubt a troll since you've even mentioned /pol/, attempting to conflate all right leaning people as 'omg dey is nazis', like a fucking idiot.
But despite this, the reason why there seems to be so few conservatives in universities is simply because a massive left bias already exists. It's hard for them to even research topics, or get any kind of funding when 90% of the faculty doesn't agree with you.
It should really be an even split.
>>478504
Lol
Foucault is reactionary as fuck
>>478504
found him
>>478504
>It should really be an even split.
Yeah, that's an equivalence fallacy.
>>478520
How?
Both sides should be presented, they are both equally valid.
Unless you are one of those retards who subscribes to the left = good, right = bad propaganda spread by popular media for people easily impressed by rhetoric and strawman arguments.
>>478542
Universities aren't about education, faggot
>>478542
>both sides
Are there only two sides?
>both equally valid
Oh really?
It is an equivalence fallacy.
Universities have too many bananas. Bananas and goat livers. Universities need more goat livers.
>>478542
>muh lamestream media
Oh dear
But regardless, saying both are equally valid isn't true. Just because two schools of thought exist doesn't magically entitle both of them to equal airspace in universities
>>478573
It's not 'one idea', it's a whole collection of ideas and philosophies. Both should be taught to prevent a circlejerk, diversity of opinion always helps with decision making.
Also, the general population is around a 50/50 split on the topic, so both sides should be represented and explored.
.....but no wait 'MUH EVIL RIGHT WING RAYSISTS ARE ALL DUM DUMS'..... does that make you feel better?
>>478595
>triggering yourself
You made me heh
And there's a lot more to politics than the strict left right divide, and teaching politics like that would be retarded
>>478605
But it is common to have professors use their position to soapbox, sermonize and proselytizing. I had to write like Lenin to get good grades and compromise my views.
>>478616
If you don't like it you can leave it :^)
But seriously, there are plenty of more conservative unis to go to
>>478595
>Also, the general population is around a 50/50 split on the topic
Only about 20% of the population support the expropriation of the expropriators and the abolition of wage slavery. 80% of the population are right wing.
In the Humanities and Social Sciences (including business, fine arts, law, and the social concrete arts like architecture) about 97.5% of the teaching and research staff are "right wing" using the above definition.
>>478616
>I had to write like Lenin to get good grades
Your academic was functionally illiterate then. Lenin's only redeeming feature is invective and he ab/uses it to the point of self-ridicule.
>>478286
As a right-winger, I think we're saturated with so-called conservatives who are really skeptical liberals. Or the good old fascist modernists. Lots of rightwingers are more postmodern than they'd like though.
>>478595
>Both should be taught to prevent a circlejerk, diversity of opinion always helps with decision making.
And they aren't? I don't know what subjects where your professors are brainwashing you with leftist shit.
I've studied sociology, psychology, economics and fucking gender studies and found non of that. Closest was in the gender studies in a group seminar about what people thought about the theories and if they had any real applications but that has more to do with the kind of people gender studies attract than the subject itself.
>>478286
right thinkers are scientific thinkers
left thinkers are literary thinkers
>>478605
I think you're dancing around the issue and thinking yourself witty for it.
Marxism in academia has caused an enormous academically incestuous tumor to suck the life out of universities and block out any and all ideas, ideologies, or views that do not align in lock step with it.
This not only defeats the purpose of the Liberal Education (you cannot be a well rounded individual ifall you've ever heard is the noise of an echo chamber), harms other disciplines ("Gravity is sexist! Observation of phenomenon isba bourgeoise conspiracy!"), and robs students of opportunities to learn about a vast array of beliefs and ideologies solely because they hurt some stuffy "academic's" fee fees.
>>478364
>the academic field today does not tend to award right thinking.
More to the point, it punishes it.
Universities operate under a business model nowadays; this presents a serious problem, as they are supposed to be the apex of our education and the place in which 'big' ideas have often been historically discussed/created.
The trouble is, quite simply, that right-wing ideas are simply not 'in vogue' right now; nor have they been for some time. As businesses, universities will adhere to the status quo; as that is the best way for them to attract students (cash cows). The fact you have to bear in mind here is that most people hate being challenged; they love environments where this doesn't happen, and they have an even greater love for environments where their own ideas are praised.
Now that universities operate under a business model, this creates a vicious cycle that is very hard to stop; universities both create the political/philosophical narrative en masse, yet also provide an echo chamber for it.
The only real means by which to stop or reverse this at the moment, are to subvert or upheave; the former is something the 'Left' did already, with their 'Long March' through academia and academic institutions. The latter can only take place via war/civil unrest/etc; and it just so happens that universities went down this route following, namely, WW2.
Subvert or upheave, choose wisely. The 'Left' are the establishment now; their main/general ideas are the social norm. They can no longer rebel; and have everything to lose. The 'Right', meanwhile, has everything to gain.
>>478666
I've heard a lot about this tumor yet I've seen no evidence beyond some anecdotes, which leads me to be skeptical of the >leftist uni meme
>>478677
It's a containment zone for otherwise unemployable sinecures, garbage in garbage out
>>478672
Well I kek'd
>>478666
>Marxism in academia has caused an enormous academically incestuous tumor to suck the life out of universities and block out any and all ideas, ideologies, or views that do not align in lock step with it.
Economics in academia has caused…
The linguistic turn in literary criticism has caused…
The Oxygen theory of combustion in chemistry has caused…
>>478286
>Could it be that right-thinkers are often anti-intellectual
Could it be that pagans are often anti-monastic?
>>478681
If you hate universities then why care about the garbage within?
>>478661
>The team found that these neural signatures of disgust can be used to predict political orientation. “In fact, the responses in the brain are so strong that we can predict with 95 per cent accuracy where you’ll fall on the liberal-conservative spectrum by showing you just one picture,” says Montague. “This was surprising as there are no other reports where people’s response to just one stimulus predicts anything behaviourally interesting.”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26481-left-or-right-wing-brains-disgust-response-tells-all/
>>478687
Becuase these programmed borgs end up in positions of influence and bring their ideological virus with them
>>478687
>Why do you care about what goes on in the highest tier of the education system
Gee, I don't know. Why do you care about what goes in Wall Street, as opposed to some guy selling penny stocks in the asshole of no where?
>>478694
>proclaims free speech and fair representation of ideas
>calls those who disagree borgs
People are idiots in general and the sheer number of idiots will make it difficult to get rid of your borgs
>>478685
>Marxism can't be an ideology because Zizek said ideology is everything against Marxism!
You know what he meant you giggling autist.
>>478286
I've always said that when the right begin to use the tools of post-structuralists against the left, they will regret having ever devising such intellectual weaponry to attack the postwar consensus.
>Could it be that right-thinkers are often anti-intellectual and avoid getting into philosophy in general?
I'd say right-thinkers still fetichize a conservative aesthetics that is mostly an aesthetics of defeat. Think G.K. Chesterton, Roger Scruton or even Tolkien.
Either that or they still cling to Anglo-saxon rationalism, think the Sokal hoax. Which is bizarre because Anglo-Saxon rationalism and liberalism is a bigger threat to conservatism and tradition than post-modernism. Sokal was not a right-wing thinker, but a liberal who probably hated conservatives more than he hated post-modern writers.
>>478704
It was a comment against students exposed to exclusively circlejerking and experiencing a loaded representation, it's like Plato's cave where that becomes all they know and understand. This has ramifications.
>>478728
>G.K. Chesterton, Roger Scruton or even Tolkien.
But these are all great people. Scruton in particular, he's been cockslapping Lacanians (including that hack 'Zizek') in his new/rerun book.
>>478719
Yeah, nah, praxis Marxism began a long way before Zizek's drooling lacanianism.
>>478728
Post-modernism post-dates the failure of the post-war consensus.
>>478728
Also:
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7705.html
>In probing chapters on C. G. Jung, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Georges Bataille, and Maurice Blanchot, Wolin discovers an unsettling commonality: during the 1930s, these thinkers leaned to the right and were tainted by a proverbial "fascination with fascism." Frustrated by democracy's shortcomings, they were seduced by fascism's grandiose promises of political regeneration. The dictatorships in Italy and Germany promised redemption from the uncertainties of political liberalism. But, from the beginning, there could be no doubting their brutal methods of racism, violence, and imperial conquest.
>Postmodernism's origins among the profascist literati of the 1930s reveal a dark political patrimony. The unspoken affinities between Counter-Enlightenment and postmodernism constitute the guiding thread of Wolin's suggestive narrative. In their mutual hostility toward reason and democracy, postmodernists and the advocates of Counter-Enlightenment betray a telltale strategic alliance--they cohabit the fraught terrain where far left and far right intersect.
>>478754
>Democracy's shortcomings
>Implying it isn't inherently flawed
>Counter-Enlightenment
>Implying the Enlightenment wasn't a mistake
These people don't get it. We're not simply dissatisfied; we fundamentally disagree.
>>478754
And:
http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/pub/departments/bcurj/pdf/gavin.pdf
>In a 1981 lecture titled Modernity versus Postmodernity, Jürgen Habermas famously accused Michel Foucault of being a “young conservative.” The charge was meant to place Foucault, along with intellectuals such as Bataille and Derrida, within a postmodern tradition which rejected notions of scientific and moral progress stemming from the Enlightenment. Habermas portrayed these thinkers as preferring subjective propositions of aesthetic taste rather than objective rational thought.
>Habermas has not been alone in placing Foucault under a postmodern label, nor in his opinion towards postmodernism’s conservative implications. Terry Eagleton similarly argued that Foucault and his postmodern contemporaries were “a kind of extended footnote to the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, who anticipated almost every one of [their] positions in nineteenth century Europe.” Eagleton loosely portrayed postmodernism as a movement which denoted the end of “those grand narratives of truth, reason, science, progress and universal emancipation which are taken to characterize modern thought from the Enlightenment onwards.” In rejecting the grand narrative, Foucault promoted a more scattered view of history in which the hopes of the Enlightenment would eventually dissipate amidst an inability to adequately account for progress. While Eagleton acknowledged that, for Foucault, a truly radical politics could only form without the grand narrative, he worried that in taking this step postmodern thought aligned itself with a conservatism that similarly despised of objective rational inquiry. Eagleton thought the rejection of a rational and objective truth could easily lead to a defense of the status-quo. To a degree, Eagleton has been proven right: the denial of objective truth has actually found support in some conservative circles.
>>478767
>Eagleton
Le Marx was Right faec
>post-modernism thread
>devolves into left v right shitflinging
this fucking board. the rightists started it too
>>478286
Postmodernism is a copout to deal with the failure of socialism. It is not a theory of truth or justification because it does not believe in those things. The entire point is to push rhetoric for the new socialist agenda and it is entirely indistinct from sophistry. As Stephen Hicks put it, it is a "reverse Thrasymacheanism".
So it would be difficult to separate its ideas and apply them to right wing thinking since postmodernism is implicitly socialist.
>>478672
yeah i hear the left absolutely love corporations and in university classes the professors brainwash everyone into believing that big corporations are a gift from marx himself and they mark your papers wrong if you disagree
>>478748
Not really, key influences on both Frenc and American post-modernism, such as Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle and Herbert Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man are from the 1960s, before the 1973 oil crisis made such analysis obsolete.
Still, the point here is that post-modernism and post-structuralist where made as intellectual weaponry for a left that still believed in revolutionary politics and were standing against a "system" where they didn't took a part. There were still right-wing institutions with political power in the 1970s, such as the military and the Church and even in the academia the domination of the left wasn't still complete. In that context, post-modernism was useful to destroy the opposition.
But now things has changed. We live in a day and age where the great arguments of the left are "It's 2015" and "Don't you want to be on the right side of history?" In this context, using post-modernism to question such "grand narratives" would be useful to the right.
Instead they prefer to fancy Roger Scruton talking about how modern architecture is ugly. Then they ask why they always lose. Maybe we rightists are just dumb, as they keep saying. The only anti-progressive writer nowadays who makes such a point is John Gray, and he is not really a conservative.
>>478694
wow it sounds like literally all of human history across all cultures, only now the marxists get a turn. end your own life you intellectual fraud
>>478817
Go collect your free helicopter ride you stupid LARPers.
>>478812
>Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle
Last time I checked, language had meaning in Debord.
>Herbert Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man
>post-modern
…
>post-modernism and post-structuralist where made as intellectual weaponry for a left that still believed in revolutionary politics
Which is weird because no communist movement touched the shit until "I speak through my clothes" New Times.
>and even in the academia the domination of the left wasn't still complete
Your statements have no connection with reality at all.
>>478812
>questioning "grand narratives" would be useful to a group establishing a grand narrative
hurr. the sad thing is though it would probably work. see you in this same thread 40 years from now
>>478808
University students can freely hate on 'big business' all they want; a university will not discourage them. After all, they're the ones stupid enough to do so whilst supporting one of the biggest 'big business' rackets going; university. There's nothing to fear in this.
Start critiquing the use of gay marriage, or the merits of feminism, for example, and you'll be subject to a struggle session at best and expulsion at worst.
>>478812
>Instead they prefer to fancy Roger Scruton talking about how modern architecture is ugly.
You seem to have it in for Scruton. What's the problem? His thinking is perfectly sound, and he's absolutely right about modern architecture.
I don't pay much attention to this 'post-modernist' fluff; but let's hear it out.
What is the 'post-modernist' response to someone saying "Dude, it's 2015! Don't you want to be on the right side of history?"
>>478729
You say it as if society will really change in the long run, like it'll change the fact that most people are stupid and don't give a shit about these things.
This is a country where you can't get even half the population to vote if the election is between "tits" and "bigger tits" and they were handing out free sampes.
>>478830
Last time I checked, I was clear about refering to Debord and Marcuse as "key influences" on post-modernism, not as post-modernist themselves.
>Which is weird because no communist movement touched the shit until "I speak through my clothes" New Times.
It depends on what you consider the "communist movement".
Maybe no communist party adopted it, but by the late 1970s most Western communist parties outside Italy, which had it's own brand of far-left intelligentsia with the Autonomists, were irrelevant.
>Your statements have no connection with reality at all.
Well, if you only consider people to the left of Lavrenty Beria to be true leftists, I would be wrong, but that's not the case for most people.
>>478830
>Which is weird because no communist movement touched the shit until "I speak through my clothes" New Times.
artists certainly touched it before then. situationist international one could argue was post-modern
>>478846
you don't seem to get my point. 'the establishment' isn't defined by what the universities are teaching. you yourself put the universities within a larger establishment framework of big business, and say that any talk against big business in the confines of university has no teeth. you're undermining your own position without even realising it. that's the problem with lying, i guess
>>478849
Do people stand for the expropriation of the expropriators and the abolition of the wage system? It is a simple fucking metric.
Everyone else stands for continued capitalism except for one or two reactionaries.
>>478846
I like Scruton, I'm just using his as an example of a type of conservatism that is unable to defeat the left. It's like Russell Kirk talking about the politics of prudence while the Students for a Democratic Society are inviting the Black Panthers to serve as muscle in a take over of the universities.
>What is the 'post-modernist' response to someone saying "Dude, it's 2015! Don't you want to be on the right side of history?"
If I was smart enough to be that guy, I would be doing it right now.
>>478872
So you only consider leftists to be people to the left of Lavrenty Beria.
>>478869
>'the establishment' isn't defined by what the universities are teaching
Debatable. University degrees are the overwhelming prerequisite to get into the higher echelons of society; governance included.
>you yourself put the universities within a larger establishment framework of big business
And? Modern Western Liberal Democracies are essentially bought and run by 'big business'. That's part of the reason why Trump is doing so well; in drawing attention to Super PACs, he can rightly claim that other candidates are merely saying what they're told, as opposed to Trump saying what he wants.
Granted, universities may not have the same power as the more stereotypical corporations, but when you're making the politicians/governments of tomorrow, you hardly need to buy them.
>>478886
>If I was smart enough to be that guy, I would be doing it right now.
Is that the post-modernist response? If so, I don't get it.
As for Scruton, that's a fair point. The trouble with most brands of Conservatism nowadays is that they are inherently pessimistic; Scruton wrote a book about it (though placed emphasis upon the importance of hope).
Tolkien described history as a 'long defeat' (albeit with glimpses of a 'final victory'). The stereotypical Conservative house stands divided; they must fight both for and against. The house of the 'Left', however, can far better afford to fight against than for; as much of what it 'defends' (or defended) is not established as a sacred cow.
>>478888
>So you only consider leftists to be people to the left of Lavrenty Beria.
Beria is way to the right. A murderous capitalist-nomenklatura manager? A direct repressor of the proletariat who was intelligent enough to know that consumer production needed to be increased to buy off the Soviet proletariat in the late 1950s?
>>478911
*is now established
>>478911
>University degrees are the overwhelming prerequisite to get into the higher echelons of society; governance included.
No, you're thinking of being born bourgeois.
>>478927
No, you're thinking of the 19th century.
>>478927
Sufficient but not necessary
>>478911
>Is that the post-modernist response? If so, I don't get it.
No, I was being sincere. I know that such response can be done, I'm just not smart enough to do it myself.
>>478938
I'm not sure how post-modernism can be used to conserve (i.e. Conservatism), when its entire purpose appears to entail dissection (or perhaps more accurately, vivisection).
>>478666
This.
I'm not an expert, but I've heard Critical Theory, which is simply Marxism applied to social issues, is a core aspect of a lot of humanity courses. I can't think of a 'right wing' equivalent to this?
>>479007
Well at least you didn't call it Cultural Marxism.
Critical Theory and 'Gramscianism' are rife nowadays.
>>478965
Conservatism is barely a political philosophy to begin with desu.
>>479024
And now we have "Fat Studies".
>>478965
>"As I was saying, all grand narratives unduly dismiss the naturally existing chaos and disorder of the universe, we should on specific local contexts as well as on the diversity of human experience."
>"Ok, so let's dismantle the central government and restore political power to intermediary corps of society such as guilds, municipalities, aristocratic parliaments and patriarchal families".
>"N-n-no that's not what I meant at all what I actually wanted to say is that all such narratives are discourses upon the myth-making necessary for the exercise of biopwer and..."
>"That's right and that's why since everything is political I just got rid of all liberal values about human rights and progressivism, now our founding myth is about how we are descended from Hyperborean Aryans and the runic records we received from our Volkisch masters command all left-wing intellectuals to be lined up and shot".
>No you got it wrong again that was supposed to make the workin..."
>BANG
>>479042
I love it
>>479024
Not that any of them, or youse, read Gramsci.
That little fighter'd turn in his grave if he heard about Stalin's stop order to the PCd'I. Or that the "march through the institutions" has been interpreted by bourgeois ideologists as the state's institutions instead of the class's.
>>479034
25 year rule doofus
>>479042
Never seen fash try to dismantle capital kohai.
>>479067
>Never seen fash try to dismantle capital kohai.
For that shit we use liberals
>unleash liberals against Marxists
>unleash postmodernists against liberals
>take postmodernists to helicopter rides and rule by sheer strength of military power afterwards
It's beautiful. It always make far-left paranoia about creeping fascism believable.
>>479079
>For that shit we use liberals
Mate, the Manchester School were right up the poor law.
>It always make far-left paranoia about creeping fascism believable.
I love how new left groups don't have a coherent theory of fascism.
>>478286
>post-modern ideas
Because using hyper-relativist ideas are what cause multiculturalism and progressivism. Post-modernism is, quite frankly, the enemy of any serious historian or conservative individual.
What is the conservative alternative anyway? That there is an absolute truth? Postmodernism is a natural progression of scientific thought.
>>479146
Hegel?
>>479146
>Postmodernism is a natural progression of scientific thought
Is it though? The relativism of postmodernism seems to detract from scientific thought rather than support it. It's sophism at best, ludditism at worst.
>>479147
Fool me once... Both Young and Old Hegelians' meta-narratives are trash-worthy
>>479150
Luddism was a social movement of proletarians against wage reduction and skill reduction who posited a normative transhistorical set of values.
>scientific thought
Feyerabend, Against Method. You go solve the fucking incommensurability problem.
>>479151
>meta-narratives
Have you actually ever sat down and read Engel's historical works? No, you haven't have you.
>>479150
The degree of relativism is relative to itself. Science should be airtight but politics should not.
>>479134
>Post-modernism is, quite frankly, the enemy of any serious historian
More like it's the only way to take history seriously. The lack of relativity in viewing history is exactly how liberals reach their conclusion
"White men in the past are evil because they had slaves instead of viewing everything my radical 21st centuary views. Morals arn't relative there for slavery has always been evil"
The only way to truely appreciate history is with a relative approach, letting each generation have it's own voice about why it had to do the things it did. The alternative is an excuse for the historian to be completely bias.
>or conservative individual.
And I've already demonstrated how post-modernism is the friend of conservatives. Post-modernism is all about destroying claims to absolute truth. The entire progressive ideology rests on absolute claims about what is 'right' and 'wrong'. Post-modernism can rebute the "we must apologize for slavery" by saying 'no we don't need to. Because slavery is no more inheritly evil than freedom'
You're just proving my point. Post-modernism is a wonderful tool for dismantling liberal ideology but conservatives such as yourself reject because you havn't the slighest clue what the field is about and you just think it must be a Marxist hug-box.
>>479150
Didn't Einstein basically show us that there no absolutes in regards to motion and location? Those can only be understood relatively?
Whether you are standing still or traveling thousands of miles per hour due to the earth orbit depends on the observer.
If fucking math only works in relative, subjective view, than the sciences (which are derived from math) would also be relative. So yes, post-modernism is in agreement with science.
>>479159
Yes I happen to have read it. History should not have a teleology.
>>479168
>More like it's the only way to take history seriously
Horseshit. It's breaking down any semblance of truth in history. It is quite literally a breakdown of source criticism because of the relative interpretation that postmodernism is forcing on proper historiography.
>The lack of relativity in viewing history is exactly how liberals reach their conclusion
Liberals promote postmodernist social histories, such as Medieval women who did fuck all. Should it be recorded? Sure. Is it important? No.
>The only way to truely appreciate history is with a relative approach, letting each generation have it's own voice about why it had to do the things it did
Which is why source criticism is far more important than hyper-relative historiographies. There is honestly no such need in the historical field for such hogwash outside of giving historians the ability to have a career.
>The alternative is an excuse for the historian to be completely bias
Incorrect, it allows the historian to focus on source criticism instead of interpretation which LEADS to bias.
>Post-modernism is all about destroying claims to absolute truth
There was never any claim to absolute truth in the first place. Even Ranke claimed to provide history as it essentially was, not as it exactly was.
People like you need to fuck off out of my field.
>>479168
>slavery is no more inheritly evil than freedom
This is what conservatives actually believe.
>>479168
To add to this. Lacanian philosophy would tell us that the liberal SJW story is just another meta-narrative. Foucault philosophy would say that the knowledge about the narrative is manufactured and is made only for the purpose of control and power. Baudrillard philosophy would tell us that liberal politics have become just another illusion or simulation. And Derrida would say that talking about 'equality' or 'oppression' in an objective sense is a pointless position for the liberals because the word has no definite meaning.
>>479175
Maybe you're confusing the Peasants War in Germany for Anti-Dühring. I know how confusing it is, one being a work of metaphysical philosophy, the other being a straight and non-teleological history.
>>479195
Well the relativist position is that nothing has an inherit good or evil value in of itself. Good and evil are interpretations so the value only appears relative to the observer.
Freedom is only good in the present because we deem it so. Slavery was good in the past because their culture agree'd with it. We could have something entirely new to replace freedom.
The liberals want to claim an objective truth about what is good and evil, which is completely contrary to a relativist position. The future seems to be that the new right is more relativist and the new left is more realist.
>>479215
We're talking about the historiographical problem of whether texts mean things or not; not whether we should project contemporary values onto texts.
>>479196
>the liberal SJW story is just another meta-narrative
No. Progressivism has a modest and "localized" narrative. If you call gun-toting pickup truck drivers have a meta-narrative too.
Foucault would say the local progressivism is based on their own narrative not a totalizing universal claim.
I don't see how Baudrillard applies here.
Derrida would say the linguistic construal of "equality" is based on the difference from "oppression." Also doesn't apply here.
BTW Meta-narrative is Lyotard not Lacan. You filthy pseude.
>>479245
>No. Progressivism has a modest and "localized" narrative.
Sure, which is why it is a liberal rights discourse appealing to the state.
>>479215
Slavery was a potentially helpful part of American past. It was a system at the expense of dehumanized black slaves.
People believe blacks are not slaves anymore and this sort of discourse is unnecessary in today's modus operendi.
I agree with that something will replace 21st century freedom. I can't tell your position being riight or far left. But as of now, multiculturalism and neoliberal beliefs are what this society needs.
>>479252
You have the same problem with liberals. Being overly critical without giving any solutions.
Consider the difference between a philosopher and a philosophy student. Suppose a philosophy student today took issue with a particular point of Aristotle's. The student might type up an essay (or perhaps just a blog post) about how Aristotle wrote from a position of unacknowledged privilege, claiming that this diminished the validity of his point. He's critiqued Aristotle, but not advanced the field with a better idea. On the other hand, if a philosopher prior to the 20th century had a similar complaint, he would produce his own work that presented what he saw to be a more correct position. His object would be surpassing Aristotle on that point of argument, rather than just idle criticism.
What do you think is a replace for the discourse today? Nigger lynching? Reinstating caste? or some medieval occult shit?
Having conservative beliefs is a sign of lower intelligence.
>>479193
>important
lost me there
>>479278
>You have the same problem with liberals.
I'm sorry mate, but "solutions" are >>>/pol/
>What do you think is a replace for the discourse today?
Replacement.
And discourse isn't the be all and end all of social action, every day you are eating from the trash mate, and the name of that trash is ideology.
p.s.: Thesis 11.
>>479278
liberals give solutions though
>>479288
You are selling me nonapples.
What do you actually believe and how is it constructive to society?
>>479305
i don't think this thread is a good fit for you. you seem to be on a completely different wavelength than any of the other discussions
>>479305
>What do you actually believe and how is it constructive to society?
>and how is it constructive to society?
Fuck off to >>>/pol/.
If you're not familiar with "Thesis 11," well, you really shouldn't be posting.
p.s.: You might like to read Society must be defended. http://rebels-library.org/files/foucault_society_must_be_defended.pdf
>>479349
this guy
>>479349
And yet you attempt to defend society.
You are entirely unfamiliar with praxis.
You look to changing discourses to effect change.
You have no critique of identity politics.
And you conflate a marxist historian with a well read conservative historian.
>>479361
>a well read conservative historian
Can you briefly explain your beliefs? Just so I can see from your vantage point.
>>479393
I'm not the conservative historian, but he has defended quite rightly representing the past as it essentially was from the documentary record of the past.
This position, one held by most Marxist historians (Marwick, Thompson) is a very different position from that of the post-structuralists who see the problem of language as being insurmountable for creating tenuously stable readings.
>>479361
>identity politics
The displacement of class politics by identity politics has been very confusing to older Marxists, who for many years clung to the old industrial working class as their preferred category of the underprivileged.
Fukuyama
>>478800
Have to agree. The left completely lost when it came to arguing with with hard facts from science, especially biology when it comes to social issues. So they had to create a system for arguing which at its base, is totally void of facts.
>>479398
Fukuyama criticises "older Marxists" here being confused by identity politics by attacking them as identity politicians.
Trite as fuck mate. Most tankies knew exactly what Stalin did, but defended their organising work in their own class on the basis of praxis, not identity.
Most "older Marxists" didn't view the world through "underprivileging" but through exploitation.
>>479405
I have no idea what you are talking about.
So forgive me if I'm wrong, but is this a good summary of the history of the left/right debate :
>right argues from perspective of ever growing mountain of scientific evidence, population statistics etc
>left cannot argue on this front, creates post-modernism which argues from a 'social sciences' perspective, completely avoiding a hard science approach to social issues
Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm new to the ideas of post modernism.
>>479416
>I have no idea what you are talking about.
And yet you feel confident posting Fukuyama.
>>479419
>scientific evidence
Definitive scientific evidence requires normative judgement too.
>>479419
Idiots attempt to fit humanities discourses into a left/right divide.
Concrete evidence is posted in the thread of a unity amongst historians over the issue of historiography.
Idiots attempt to fit humanities discourses into a left/right divide.
>>479421
LOL. You are completely off. Here's the quote in full:
“The displacement of class politics by identity politics has been very confusing to older Marxists, who for many years clung to the old industrial working class as their preferred category of the underprivileged. They tried to explain this shift in terms of what Ernest Gellner labeled the “Wrong Address Theory”: “Just as extreme Shi’ite Muslims hold that Archangel Gabriel made a mistake, delivering the Message to Mohamed when it was intended for Ali, so Marxists basically like to think that the spirit of history or human consciousness made a terrible boob. The awakening message was intended for classes, but by some terrible postal error was delivered to nations.”
>>479435
>the old industrial working class
>message was intended for classes
No, I look pretty dead on the money that Fukuyama is mischaracterising his opponents through ignorance or deception, and that you're double ignorant for copiping
>>479419
>So forgive me if I'm wrong, but is this a good summary of the history of the left/right debate :
No, it's very biased and as accurate as they come.
>>479431
It seems like Critical Theory has created a lot of cancer. Like idea you can ignore science entirely.
Like third wave feminists claiming that science can't be trusted because it was 'created by the patriarchy'.
>I don't know who Dugin, benoist, Gadamer, Nick Land, Evola, Peter, Kekesh and Charles Taylor are
OK. There's also hundreds of no name conservative thinkers in academia. Also most post-modernists are extremely weak against right-wing readings of themselfs. Zizek talks about the right-wing lacanians as more true that liberal lacanians like Judith Butler, but they are just unknown.
>>479283
In the United States it is. But that's a cultural phenomenom, in East Asia you have extremely conservative societies with high IQ people.
French new right intellectuals don't ignore post-modern ideas at all, in fact most of them are former post-modern leftists themselves.
>>478286
leftist policies are always destructive
