What is post-modernism?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qQcNjHNXnEE
understandmyself.com
youtube.com/watch?v=2doZROwdte4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

anything that comes after modernism

youtube.com/watch?v=qQcNjHNXnEE

Nihilism and The Void
Nothing else

The theory that everything is a social construct, and therefore you have no responsibility for your actions because they too are just a social construct.

There's an infinite number of ways to view any given thing so there's no way to know any objective truth about it because everything is a social construct. All structures and institutions of western civilization are thus not any better or more valid than any other culture or society

Peterson sums up postmodernism as a perspective that is skeptical of truth, as truth is propped up by whichever social forces are in power at a particular time. Breeding ground for moral relativism, tossing away the best Western ideals and achievements on a whim.

However on the topic of scientific skepticism and atheism, in response to thinkers like Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc. he brushes them off as too rigid in their views - stating that science and skepticism are relatively new modes of thought and possibly temporary, they don't fill the void of religion and aren't necessarily better. Basically the same thing postmodernists say about ANYTHING straightforward and logical. Will start going into straw man arguments and defending christianity, start talking about "the cross" as an important metaphor that defines mankind, basically goes into full rhetorical retard.

Anyone else kinda like him but see this as a huge shortcoming?

>kant
>postmodern

Maybe read original authors and not shit summaries.

A branch off of Cultural Marxism.
Basically it is how ((they)) decided to ruin art.
Meaning is not present.
High technical skill is not important.

Think of it as the world's traumatized psychological reaction to two world wars.

I don't really think that's a weakness. He wears his beliefs on the outside and isn't cowardly about it.

Also; nice flag you faggot cuck. Get Kebab'd.

>What is post-modernism?
A bunch of bloody neo-marxist...uhh, what would you call it?
>twitches fingers while staring at the lights for a moment
vehicle for ideological possession for bitter people who have nothing but contempt. Of course you'd already bloody well know that if you'd read the Gulag Archipelago.
>audience claps for 5 minutes straight

it's literally nothing.

PM is giving up moral relativity for cultural relativity

The heard decides what is right regardless if it's a bad idea; lemmings

>as audience claps, they bury head in sand as capitalism continues to procedurally compound power into a smaller number of owners while the world goes to shit, exactly as Marx prescribed, despite the failed attempts of those that said they believed in him in the 20th century

Hey guys, this is what a Khazar Jew acts like

Points out the failings of everyone else when in reality Zionists have been pulling the strings all along

Out.

Insinuating capitalist countries aren't the most powerful ones in the world with the highest standards of living.

>that faggot neo communist flag

>conflating Marx's original fundamental issues with capitalism, aka Marxism, with communism

Our education system is so shit. I feel for ya.

Pretty much this, which is the consequence of postmodernism's foundation of two basic tenets:

1) There are an infinite number of different possible ways to subjectively perceive reality.

2) None of these infinitely-possible ways can be meaningfully valued as any better or worse than any other way.

kill yourself retard

And how's that going to work in upcoming decades, now that the owners don't need the middle class to work their assembly lines.

Marx viewed capitalism and communism in a vacuum.

>capitalism can exist by itself with no government

>Communism IS government

>Capitalism is a force of nature, Communism costs labor

>Government with least enforcement costs always succeed

This assumes no one else is allowed to start or own their own business. This assumes banks don't make money off of lending massive amounts of money to start businesses.

>what the fuck do they teach you canadian commies

Total cultural relativism and meekness.
I asked my feminist sister if she could say she truly believed in human rights if she wouldn't condemn Islam and she replied
"It's not my place to criticize other people's cultures, I can only criticize my own."

A meme used by retards/cowards to describe the jewish social environment that has developed

This is based on cultural equivalency-- which is not only Marxist, but qualitatively and quantitatively disproven if you take the value of the products of a culture as the culture's value.

Communism was merely alluded to by Marx as an afterthought. Most of his work was showing how currency, division of labour and wage labour have major problems that procedurally fuck over the workers the longer the system continues. He foresaw the workers getting to a boiling point and changing things at a certain point, communists failings were to try to do this within their own "vacuums" when really it would have to happen in the entire world at once to really end capitalism.

The complication is he had no idea how technology and globalism in the late 21st century would basically shake a jerry can over the dumpster fire

The complication is that Marxism has been completely disproven on all fronts both theoretically and physically, as the idea that communism will logically replace capitalism.

As long as value exists, scarcity will exist, which means that communism will not exist.

Also, you totally dodged the criticism about workers starting their own businesses. That drove Marx up a tree and he could never address that.

Also, if a man builds ten houses with his own hands, is he not entitled to all of those houses even though that represents more than he "needs."

And what do you call it, brave one?

kek

>"It's high noon cuck-kid, I'mma callin' you out"

do you understand yourself? no? well you need to if you want to sort yourself, and now YOU CAN! With Jordan B. Peterson's new understand myself big 5 personality test

understandmyself.com

dude nothing is even real therefore I can never be wrong lmao

you think the book is making the assertion that all of the people/philosophers listed there are postmodernist? Yikes

I know exactly what you mean. He's kind of commercializing it, which looks bad from a moral point of view.

With that flag I'd think you'd be into that.

Thanks for the link Dr. Peterson

To be fair, he does put out a shit ton of lectures for free. All of that is quite a bit cheaper than sessions with a psychologist.

Yeah I know. Just a fear of mine that he'll realize his value, go full An-Cap and stop doing shit for free.

Judaism.

I don't like that's he's charging $9.95 for what is probably just one of those typical online personality quizzes

I'm glad he exists

I know what you mean. My income went up like 15% in the first year I discovered this guy.

Being degenerate was way easier, but doing productive shit when I used to play video games all of the time definitely helped.

Me neither, that combined with him receiving $60,000/month on Patreon and he had BETTER start hiring some folks to get his plans for online university going.
Otherwise he's just capitalizing on his extensive Phd education better than most.

I've read every post in this thread in the Peterson's voice.

Well, he is a professional on psychometrics and adds descriptions of how the personality dimensions affect one's life. And Big 5 is more scientific than MBTI is. It may not be all that useful if you gather the info from his personality lectures and then just do a big 5 somewhere else. At least it's a way to support him for people that want to.

...

Maybe you're just not paying attention. This guy means a lot more to people who don't personally know him than you do to your family.

>watch out for the kebab behind you

It's this idea that morality and ethics are subjective.
You inevitably end up in a camp where you can't say if any race or culture or religion etc is better than another.

ironically being non-modern

Whats a social construct? without using the words social or construct

I took his new test and have 0% intellect...

You know, it's a really big deal. It's a BIG DEAL ALRIGHT? Absolutely no joke.

...

An invention of an individual culture to describe a subject as the culture itself sees it.

>can't believe this without believing all cultures are equal

A shit stain on human history. A period of time when a small number of larpers decided to throw everything humans have learned and built into the trash and then lost their minds.

There is much I disagree with in Dr. Peterson's interpretation of post-structuralism. I think he is confusing the Frankfurt school (the European version of Maoism) with Faultcaul and Derrida. Anyone who uses Derrida for identity politics has not read his core works. Derrida is anti-essentialist. He is pro individualist. His argument of trace/erasure is relevant in arguing against identity politics because traces of the pst will always be in the present. So pretty much if you bring up topics of race, you are accusing people of being racist. It is why you should never apologize and never fall into the morality trap when discussing race or gender.

If anything, you can use Derrida's argument to discuss the problems concerning the concept of any type of collectivism and how it has served to justify most of human history's atrocities. The only way to attack critical theory is by being a devout individualist. Deny the construct of race or gender and you take their i"institutional" power.

I honestly think he has tackled postmodernism rather than the Frankfurt school simply to avoid getting shut down.

It's a cynical nihilistic approach to everything.
If something does something good you will only focus on how bad it is.
>Western Civilization today means not a single person has actually starved to death, and quality of living across the board has improved
>YEAH BUT BLACK PEOPLE ARE POOR AND HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT

>religion has led to the moral standards we live by today
>Yeah but the crusades killed a bunch of jihadis back in the day so religion is useless

>You should be good today to reap the benefits of tomorrow
>Lol this is the only life I live and everything is ultimately meaningless anyway so who even cares

No, I agree that Harris and possibly hitchens are too rigid in their views. Harris thinks there is such thing as objective morality. At one point he says something like
>Everyone should know it's bad to kill someone that's just objective I mean come on.
But this ideal is not objectively inherent in all people, before we get all "religion kills" it is important that we identify that religions all over the world have stated that killing is wrong and that if you do it bad things will happen or you will go to hell or something of the sort. Child soldiers are not aware that killing is wrong. The knowledge that murder is wrong is not present within every mind on earth and Harris puts too much faith in the human mind being able to create standards of morality that will be uniform across the board. He also doesn't understand that Newtonian truth is not the same as darwinian truth, and was willing to argue for 2 hours with dilbertboy about what "truth" means which is retarded

There's no such thing as a social construct.

It's been a while, but I remember finding myself in agreement with Harris.
Also, if Harris is wrong, then the postmodernists are in fact correct.

Harris's argument starts from the assumption that we can all agree that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad.
So naturally, moving towards that is the wrong direction.
This means anything that reduces suffering and increases our wellbeing is good.
He argues that the moral landscape has a lot of valleys and those are naturally clear to us if we can agree that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad.
The peaks are not as obviously clear, and there could be many different peaks, but chances are high we can truly figure them out.

I disagree that the postmodernists would be right. A postmodernists view would be more that morality is subjective and as such different cultures with different values are equal, see Islam in the western world. in the same token you can say that morality is objective and some cultures are better than others, I would agree with this but Harris would take that a step further and imply that these structures of morality are self evident when they are not. This is the rigidity that Peterson is talking about. Morality is a subject that is constantly changing. Sure today, westerners agree that murder is wrong but what about abortion, what about freedom of speech, what about owning a killing device (gun) these are all hot topics right now and no answer is self evident very clearly. These are constantly evolving topics that change, hell we argue that our objective morality says that killing is wrong, but if we accept that, why do we still have discussion to this day about the death penalty.

>MFW i saw Moana yesterday, and recognised so many archetypal themes in it, it was beautiful.

Yea I agree with you that it's hard to figure out what is and isn't moral in many situations.
I just meant that if sam is wrong on it being objective then it would be subjective like the postmodernists believe.

Man this subject makes me miss old sam.
Dude was very interesting to listen to when his only topic of discussion wasn't trump.
I really enjoyed the talks about morality, torture, guns etc.
Sometimes I think he's just lost his way since Trump became a hot topic, but it may be that he's just getting old and is losing his clever edge he use to have.

no

wrong

stupid

nope

lol.........not


Postmodernism is the criticism of the products of modernity such as industrialization, globalization, complex systems of society, and of course war. It's basically a long rant about human history's recent advances.

You are as wrong as they are

...

...

...

The thing is that Derrida's arguments are terrifying. If he is right, then anything we say is meaningless outside of what it means to the speaker.

Frankfurt school critical theorist are easy to shut down. It is just another rehash of Marxism. Still relies on collectivism, reductionism, and essentialism.

MacIntyre sums it up nicely: in the end we have Nietzsche or Aristotle.

I choose Aristotle

...

The best way to understand Post-Modernism is through literature. Fundamental argument of PM is that there is no central meaning in a book. That every interpretation is equally valid. Many people are fooled into thinking that an interpretation of a text is the same as an opinion on it. These are two completely different ideas.

Essentially Post-modernism replaced objective truth seeking literary methods, like formalism and structuralism, with a politically motivated one. Unlike post-modernism, traditional hermeneutic methods require actual intelligence to employ. These methods unify meaning in books, where as PMism blows everything apart because of a core belief that "genius" does not exist. This is rooted in the neo-Marxist equality influence that J. Peterson is always talking about.

Post Modernism has thrived in academia because it lowered the bar for publication, the lifeblood of academics, to essentially personal experience. It allowed idiot professors to meet academic professional requirements they were otherwise unable to intellectually complete. PMism gave rise to a language of pure nonsense in academic journals, academic speak, that even academics will tell you doesn't make sense. Its all a façade because it is all bullshit.

It is also WAY EASIER to teach idiot undergrads PMism, because its basically nothing more than an opinion spun with buzzwords like, 'intersectionality' and 'agency.'

Essentially it's selfishness and destructiveness: The Ideology

It offers nothing to build with or even reflect upon critically. Its tenets are irony and apathy. It asserts that all things are equal, since are things are equally ambiguous. This is then further expanded upon by since all things are equal as a result of their ambiguity their can be no difference in quality. Good ideas don't exist, bad idea's dont exist, merely ideas exist and they are all floating around on the same plane. The idea that a man gets rich because hardwork and I don't get rich making shitty art in my basement is absurd. Both of our ideas are fully equal, thus the only problem can be inequality.

Post Modernists will try to tell you it's more then that. It's about really questioning what we consider reality, but then you realize that all they do is question reality, they offer no answers and are intellectually dishonest. It's an entire philosophy made for people who want to seem smart, and since my viewpoint is equally as valid as yours, when you disagree with me I am fully entitled to stick my head in the sand.

>The thing is that Derrida's arguments are terrifying. If he is right, then anything we say is meaningless outside of what it means to the speaker.

That's far to retarded to be terrifying. The terrifyig thing is the people who are retarded enough to believe it.

A Jewish philosophy of despair taught to European men who destroyed each other and destroyed their national spirit because Jews told them to.

...

The idea of morality is objective because it requires more than one person. There must be a consensus of what is right or wrong. A consensus is normative and therefore objective.

*too
*terrifying
fucking hangover + long nails

Sorry I misworded my statement. Morality is objective, Harris is too rigid in that he asserts morality in many cases is self evident when it is clearly not

this guy gets it
free starter pack for you

To me this is the scariest thing about post modernism. It is so utterly retarded I do not understand how people can cling to it as though its profound. "Everything is subjective" no shit you dumbass.

Don't lump post-structuralism with critical theory. They are not the same thing.

Identity politics are based on critical theory.

>"Everything is subjective" no shit you dumbass.

Nothing is subjective my friend. Subjectivity is a myth. There is only objectivity and mystery.

The dude releases tons of shit for free on YT, 10 bucks isnt a lot to contribute out of respect

Cognitive psychology disagrees with you.

How so? Gimme something to chew on, I'm bored and hungover and anonymous so I can be as wrong as I like.

He's a good person and he's turning many people towards the right.
And not the retarded shit like ignoring evolution, but the good shit like "Developing and taking care of a family. Appreciating history and tradition. Valuing discipline and supporting your community."
He's a good man.

Totally different. The idea of self-evident implies true in every circumstance.

Obviously, morality cannot claim that or there would be no need for the study of ethics.

>Muh magical sandnigger in space, n dis is mah crew

youtube.com/watch?v=2doZROwdte4

Read both. Try Kuhn, Vygotsky, and Bahktin

PMism de-emphasizes the importance of the author. In doing so, it places the reader as the primary creator of meaning. Thus, the reader's identity is held as more important than the work of the genius. It is simplistic and narcissistic bullshit.

language and meaning are processed through implicit memory. This means when you hear or read information, it is reformatted to self-referential cognitive long-term memory systems. What makes it more complicated is that we attach emotion to memories. The stronger the emotion, the more accessible the memory. So Derrida argues that if we speak or write, that utterance is not ours, but is transformed by the reader or listener into their own memory systems. And that is how you get subjective relativism.

Harris is a neurobiologist, he should know that.

Most definitely.

> language and meaning are processed through implicit memory. This means when you hear or read information, it is reformatted to self-referential cognitive long-term memory systems.

lmfao. what the hell are you talking about. this is pseudoneuroscientific mumbo jumbo that has no strong substantiation in empirical evidence.

everyone who uses 'muh neurobabble' to argue has their head up their ass. neuroscience is in the dark ages and we know next to nothing, really

But i want to kill myself and everyone else. Also i want to LARP as an enlightened pagan.

Watching this, I keep thinking about how wonderful the 2015 Cinderella was, and also Belle and Ariel in the 90s. Played completely straight and genuinely. The opposite is Schlock/Shrek, and Frozen. This universe sucks. I want to go live in the universe where Howard Ashman is still alive.

im eminem ask me anything

Did anyone do this yet? I haven't purchased but was planning to. Does it give more actual information than any of those lengthy free tests?