>Thus, the premise of the postdialectic paradigm of expression suggests that
narrativity serves to oppress the proletariat. The subject is interpolated into
a cultural libertarianism that includes truth as a totality.
It doesn't make any sense.
Continental philosophy BTFO
>Your search - "Thus, the premise of the postdialectic paradigm of expression suggests that narrativity ... - did not match any documents.
>>8046844
It's randomly generated.
>>8046931
Give me that generator.
>>8046754
The sad thing is that people genuinely write like that. The famous poststructuralists usually had a point and made sense if you knew the terms and a bit of context / history of philosophy, but there are so many shitty articles that explain nothing and still sound pretentious as hell that it makes the entire field, including genuinely interesting and informative articles, look bad by being lumped together. The poststructuralists have their part of the blame for their obtuse style, but still.
>>8046754
>proletariat
>bourgeoisie
There's objectively no such thing as either. It's all one big blurry and arbitrary line in the sand.
>>8046754
>mfw I thought that was real
>>8046975
http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/
It would be fun to use this on pomo homos and see how many agree.
>>8047104
It actually makes sense now that I reread it. The postdialectic paradigm of expression can be considered either a reaction to traditional dialectics (that is to say a deterministic-ish unfolding of history) or as taking dialectics as expression (what effect did Hegel have on history once he got popular?). This type of dialectic is in fact narrative (hence why postmodernists declare our age the end of great narratives) and can be used to oppress the proles in some non-Marxist versions (promising them necessary historical change and never delivering for instance). The subject is then interpolated (introduced forcefully in the middle of an unfolding history) into a version of history that is taken as a [closed] totality that justifies itself, much like Stalinism justified itself by giving narrative in which Communism wins in the end so sacrifices are worth it. I don't know if I'd really call this reading of history a libertarian one, even though se of my Hegelian friends are libertarians (small government or none at all) and they base their position on a right-wing religious reading of Hegel.
I'm sadly not so lucky with my pomo generator results. It often gave me texts that weren't even grammatically correct. Not that that's the big issue, but the connections it made were always far more nonsensical than OP's quote. And I genuinely wanted to use it as an inspiration tool. Still, this sort of broad approach that links subjects to econony and history tends to not looks as ridiculous when the real Pomos are doing it. Just look at Capitalism & Schizophrenia by D&G. You'd think it was complete nonsense to make [arbitrary] connections between a mental disease and a politico-economic system, but as soon as you introduce concepts such as desire-production, the whole thing starts to make sense.
