Seriously, what *is* 'post-modernism', and why does this place love it so much?
Sum it up, because it mostly just seems like people getting mad over Žižek/Foucault/etc.
>>7796192
A majority of post modern works came before Foucault and Zizek were publishing. Postmodernism is largely a response to modernism
>>7796198
And what is modernism?
Why should I be happy about post-modernism?
All the stuff I see about it is entirely divorced from normal political theory/terminology; conservative/liberal/etc.
What's it all about?
>>7796205
A highly selective tradition that defines itself by what it breaks from.
To break away from it or imagine something different is to endorse it or recognize it and land yourself right in the post
Why can contemporary be contrasted with modernism for its nowness?????
James Joyce now and forever mothefucuke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we6cwmzhbBE
>>7796315
i love this guy
Postmodernism was a reaction to modernism. It also was against the ideals of the scientific Enlightenment. Understand the historical context. WW1 & WW2 nearly destroyed the world, bringing death and destruction. People were starting to grow skeptical of the sciences.
You also must understand hat postmodernism brings with it the death of ideology. In other words, the meanings we make are linguistically-established and socially-constructed, making them no different than illusions (i.e., a false consciousness that people interpret to be true, but which isn't. These can be seen as beliefs, values, morals, etc.).
Postmodernism also has to do with capitalism. Fredric Jameson wrote at great lengths about this, showing how things have become much more superficial in society due to consumer mentality. For example, he compares Andy Warhol paintings to van Gogh paintings, showing how we have embraced the superficial and disregarded the substance. As I said before, the basis of this stems from the death of ideology.
>>7796323
sounds like Tarantino of philosophy...dropped
Zizek is defiantly anti postmodern
> post modernism
Wow. It's like 1994 in here
>>7796671
Kek you are right, but understand that subjective historical time is not linear.
>>7796652
What the hell are Zizek/Foucault/etc then?
>>7796707
Foucault was post-structuralism and post-modernism
Zizek considers himself a stand-up/comedic philosopher/entertainer.
>>7796192
At least read the wiki you lazy shit. We're not here to explain an entire fucking tradition to your edgy 16 year old ass
>>7796732
>post-modernism sounds surprisingly (and pleasingly) reactionary
Everything's reactionary when you look at it from a historical perspective, I think.
>What's post-structuralism all about then
Structuralism sought to explain what elements of human culture were by analyzing the structures surrounding those cultures. Ultimately, language is the structure of culture. However, Post-Structuralism argues that language in and of itself has a dichotomous contradiction. In other words, words can be ambivalent (as Derrida) pointed out, showing how meaning could be deferred by these embedded differences (i.e., differance). In other words, we can't understand cultures by interpreting their language since the language itself is open to interpretation and contradictory to itself. This is deconstructionism.
>>7796761
Sounds somewhat similar to Wittgenstein, who was basically pointing out how inaccurate/subjective our language can be.
>showing how meaning could be deferred by these embedded differences (i.e., differance)
Not sure what you mean by this.
>we can't understand cultures by interpreting their language since the language itself is open to interpretation and contradictory to itself.
How does it account for people who have the same interpretation, then? Wittgenstein, for example, asked what is meant when calling something 'white', as people might have different ideas of what qualifies as 'white'.
Nonetheless, they might not; as in, they may have the same idea. How does that come to be, and how is it accounted for?
Zizek is not post-modern. Post-modernists are anti-Plato but especially anti-Hegel.
>>7796732
>>7796707
>>7796205
>>7796192
instead of a series of helpless flailings and desperate leaning on random knowledgeable strangers, you could try to read a fucking article or two at least
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
there are also plenty of articles on zizek, foucault, wittgenstein, modernism, and other subjects your ignorance of which seems to induce panic
>>7796768
>Not sure what you mean by this.
Think of a words as if it were matter and anti-matter. When combined, they nullify each other. Each word is like this. You can interpret a word as being matter or you can interpret it as anti-matter. But this would be only a result of you seeing one side of a two-sided coin. You can interpret the text anyway you want. However, we must also understand that when you see both sides of the same coin (the matter and anti-mater), they conflict with each other. Thus, you will have 2 different interpretations that are each other's exact opposite. This make interpretation rather pointless and futile. This is what it means to deconstruct text.
subversion of what has henceforth been established in any respect
nothing more
MODERNISM
>ABSOLUTES, UNIVERSAL TRUTH
>SCIENCE RULES
>OBJECTIVITY AND STRUCTURE
>WHAT IS SAID IN THE MESSAGE
>"IT IS WHAT IT IS"
POST-MODERNISM
>THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL TRUTH, SHIT'S CRAZY
>SCIENCE IS A DICK AND I DON'T TRUST IT (post-WWII especially)
>SUBJECTIVITY AND SPECTACLE
>WHAT IS/CAN BE INTERPRETED FROM THE MESSAGE
>"THIS IS WHAT I /THINK/ IT IS," or, "I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS"
is this a satisfactory bullet-point breakdown of the two? it's probably a lot more complex than this but I'm doin my best to put it in bite-size chunks here
>>7796856
>>WHAT IS/CAN BE INTERPRETED FROM THE MESSAGE
>>"THIS IS WHAT I /THINK/ IT IS," or, "I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS"
This is part of it, but you should also say:
>THE AMBIVALENCE OF WORDS NULLIFIES THE CONCEPT OF INTERPRETATION
Like the poster above noted, words have contradictory meanings within them. Thus, they nullify each other out. Interpretation is only an end result of seeing one side of a two-sided word.
>>7796856
That's hardly a good description of modernism. Especially anything written after WWI goes straight against most of those things. But even much earlier modernist works, too. Conrad is a good example.
I think you're thinking of realism.
>>7796970
Then what's your take on it?
>>7796987
Against the idea of "progress", against clear chains of causality, heavy use of irony. Multiple narratives. Crises of identity. Most importantly: the self, consciousness as seen from within.
>>7796998
>Against the idea of "progress"
I thought modernism was all about progress? Industrial revolution, the dawn of urbanity, everyone was totally ape about all the new technology...maybe I'm just thinking of modernism as it manifested in fields other than literature.
>>7797006
maybe, that's definitely what modernist film was like, because it was the advent of that new technology that made it possible at all. so in film, technology was being heralded.
but from the literary angle, i think they looked at the times with a lot more worried laughter.
>>7796998
modernism was not "against the idea of progress." it was all fucking for it.
postmodernism was against the idea of progress.
>>7796918
>THE AMBIVALENCE OF WORDS NULLIFIES THE CONCEPT OF INTERPRETATION
this is beautiful, thank you
>>7796918
this is fucking gay. words have meanings and can be interpreted according to the context of their placement. only snowflakephrenics disagree.
>>7797237
>words have meanings and can be interpreted according to the context of their placement.
meaning is an end result of contextual interpretation as you say. however, that meaning is socially-constructed (its ideological); therefore, is has no inherent meaning in and of itself.
deconstruction simply states that by interpreting words, we are looking at them from one perspective. in actuality, words can be interpreted many ways (at least with regards to cultural words).
this is why the hard sciences are better off than philosophers (because their words have only one specific meaning, not multiple ones).
then, again, i create a dichotomy between culture and nature. i feel derrida's ideas work well when analyzing cultural institutes, but not when it comes to analyzing nature. the main reason for this is because a physicist knows that his equations are just blueprints for physical actions. the problem with cultural systems is that people interpret certain signs and symbols to be true and thus create ideologies, which motivates them to take action. it is difficult for citizens of a social system to understand how much they are driven by ideology and words in general.
again, derrida's work does well in a philosophical context, but not in a scientific one. the problem with philosophy is when people try to apply it to the natural world, not understanding that it should only be applied to cultural systems.
anything post-hegelian or post-kantian
>>7796798
these threads only draw three types of shit posters
1) the originator or the plz feed me something that people shamed my ignorance of ( lazy stupid shitposters)
2) the trite intellectuals who come to teach
3) the nuttjobs who want to rant without anchors or reference
let them die
>>7797307
>1) the originator or the plz feed me something that people shamed my ignorance of ( lazy stupid shitposters)
Asking a question doesn't make a person lazy. It makes them inquisitive. It means they are eager to learn things. Not everyone can problem-solve their way through a problem on their own and thus rely on other's assistance. It's called asking for help. It's called relying on a community that focuses on cooperation instead of competition. There is nothing wrong with asking questions or seeking out advice from others.
>>7797284
yeah, the postmodern anti-STEM, all-reality-is-constructed anti-essentialism thing kind of falls apart when you start talking about math especially - a field that actually has definitions that can't be messed with/poked through (i.e. something is a triangle if and only if it is a 3 sided polygon)
that derridean difference/differance logic only works for the nebulous world of everyday language
>>7797337
>a field that actually has definitions that can't be messed with/poked through (i.e. something is a triangle if and only if it is a 3 sided polygon)
Isn't that purely because math is exclusively linguistic? In reality there's no perfect triangle.
>>7796856
that aint modernism bruh
Are we in a postmodern society right now? If not, then what are we in?
>>7797092
Conrad, Pound, Eliot, Remarque...
>>7797530
no. some speculate that we are in a post-postmodern society (seriously, that's what it's called), or else a metamodern society. both are very similar.
