What are some of the best critiques of post-modernism?
Is it just me or does all the stupid "ironic" shit always just become the culture (or in service of it) they're supposedly making fun of? If Pomo is a reaction/expression of the ridiculousness of living in our modern capitalist society, when then does it always get co-opted? Where's the real critique and attempt at intellectual understanding?
Does this even make sense?
IT'S HARD MAN because most of the critiques are cogent
It's not so much the critiques as the behaviour of the people who identify with them that is most annoying. If you learn to ignore those people, you can pretty much just keep writing history, and every time the Hayden White Fairy buzzes by your window and tells you that you're a spooky nerd who just writes novels, you can throw pencils at the glass and he'll fuck off to another apartment.
You're living in late post-modernism, which essentially knows that it is itself bankrupt and has truly come to believe its own lies. Therefore none of its proponents or users or believers have any problem with "selling out" because as they see it you cannot really sell out as you were never representing anything true in the first place.
The correct criticism of postmodernism stems from the scientific method. Statistical repeatability utterly shatters the postmodern conceit that there is no objective reality; there IS, we just don't sense it directly. In the chaos that stemmed from the discoveries in physics at the turn of the last century, it was thought that perhaps there was nothing at the bottom of everything except random chance; while this is truly possible, it instead seems that rules hold and are repeatably demonstrable and predictably applicable across all of experience.
Postmodernism BTFO in a paragraph; you can deconstruct the rest of the monstrous mistake from there.
>well that's one of the wonderful things about post-modernism, isn't it? It's never the thing that's easily proven wrong, it's always the other thing that the proponent wants to argue?
The rabbit hole goes as deep as you like once you destroy all structure, and you can change the rules of the game and deny entire schools of thought and obfuscate until no one is certain whether you're bullshit or brilliant.
Postmodernism is literally mental cancer.
Well, not Science, per se, which has a lot more than just statistical observation tacked onto it as a project.
But rational, statistical observation, prediction, and testing of prediction are a hot knife through postmodern butter. You can talk all you like about the irreducibility of semantic webs or the subjective bases of human epistemologies,but these assertions are in fact open and amenable to rigorous investigation.
Yeah, no. Strictly quantitative research is worse than postmodernism by far. It strips everything of context and makes ever more subjective assertions more dangerous by far because of their patina of objectivity and disinterestness.
tldr: kill yourself the world would be better without you.
listen, let's cut through all of that bullshit you just spouted and get right down to the meat of things.
Does a postmodernist admit the existence of an objective reality in any way accessible to human knowledge?
Picking up from this, I think a good and amusing criticism of postmodernism is that chapter in If on a Winter's Night a Traveler where the Reader goes to the country where everyone is a counter-revolutionary infiltrator into the revolutionary ranks and a double, triple and quadruple agent and so on.
That's basically the sad logical conclusion of postmodernism, everyone is involved in a very serious fight and debate, but nobody remembers what or who they're fighting for. Is that the world you want to live in?
How can you be rational with stats when you can't even reason?
You strawmanned postmodernism with a crazy reduction. I don't even like a lot of it. But your inability or your simple refusal to engage with it substantively makes you poisonously anti-intellectual, dishonest, and from similar past experiences not worth engaging at all. Have a pleasant day.
Post-modernism is such a broad term that it really has no meaning unless you contextualize it. It's a umbrella term to describe a ton of crap and it's vague exactly fits under it. To give you an idea of how vague it is, the word "modernism" in it is undefined, so post-modernism is a double layer of undefined. The only reason the word even exists is because it's slightly better than saying "that stuff people were thinking in the 70s"
You can talk about a specific post modern philosopher or a specific type of post modern art. Talking about "post-modernism" or "modernism" as a whole term is retarded.
The best critique has yet to be made prominent
Post modernity is the rejection of intrinsic values as a vice. All Pomo philosophers variate on this theme, from Butlers gender performatity to Chomskys "anti-ideology" polemics.
The problem, is that we need intrinsic values, because we live in a world of strangers. Ideological norms create a consistent network for survival and then life.
Even worse, because post modernism renounces prediction, it makes itself useless as a "social science." It's sheer sophistry at its heart, because of its rejection of intrinsic values.
I am not an academic, but if any of you jack this argument, you will go down as a the legend who ended it all.
you said intrinsic values are a necessity because "a world full of strangers". thats the core of all you said. but we are progressively aproaching a world full of "non strangers", so that initial necessity becomes a fallacy.
You go on lesser boards like /v/, /mu/, and /tv/ and it's just like that. Layer of layer of irony just for the sake of it. No intelliget discussion can be held.
At least the banter on /lit/ is somewhat quality.
/mu/ homeboarder, slowly migrating to /lit/ though. You're absolutely right. Outside of generals, /mu/ is such garbage. Even then the only good generals are /noise/, /classical/, and /drone/, /metal/ went to shit, /hhg/ is basically reddit, /kpop/ is retardery, and the rest of the board is random garbage. Maybe 5-6 decent threads at any given time.
A stranger is someone who we have yet to know informally. It's a very specific process that social media cannot solve. (Look into the uncertainty concept.) Communication, of all disciplines, has the ammo needed to end Pomo.
How many friends on Facebook would help you move, if you needed them to? That is the foundation of a relationship, in extrinsic terms.
Meanwhile, if you had a heart attack, paramedics would come to save you. But why? Do they even know or care? No. It's the intrinsic identity, the "performatity" concept that Butler condemned, which drives people to accept that responsibility.
Extrinsic love is just, but extremely precious and limited. Intrinsic purpose can be cruel, but it brings Duty. It's the only way to organize society, in all its millions.
you have no idea what postmodernism is or to what it refers. you're just ascribing things you don't like to it and asking people to tell you why those things are bad. go to /his/ if you want to post a shit brained thread like this. or try reading a book. faggot.
you gotta love it. he refuses to be tied down one way or another in a definition of postmodernism (this is part of his defense), but at the end of the day?
>from similar past experiences not worth engaging at all.
>from similar past experiences
well, that kind of made the argument short and sweet, now didn't it?
Jesus h Christ, I thought OP was a faggot but my man you are his bottom. you're taking it so far up your ass his sperm is coming out your mouth. "objectivity is impossible?" what does that have to do with postmodernism? nothing. nothing at all. again, you just disagree with the claim, and name it postmodernism so you can easily lampoon it in an appeal to conservatism. which by the way is very thinly veiled by your scientism. and come to think of it, since when have statistics told anyone anything about reality? you sure seem to misunderstand the scientific method you hold so dear when you overlook the facts that not only is interpretation of statistical data a subjective exercise which so-often results directly in the problem of correlation and causation (Hume's is/ought is helpful here, but philosophy is dead, right?) but also that the methodology by which those data are obtained is the combined efforts of humans nestled deeply in the comfortable ideologies of their respective discourse communities. I'm not saying throw out science—antibiotics work, cigarettes cause cancer—but what I am saying is that when you make the mistake of thinking statistical repeatability can on its own create knowledge—it is only information—and that science can answer a "why?"—it only answers to "how?"—you may as well get the lube because you're not only getting fucked by OP, but by hawking and the other ideologues of capitalistic scientism. and buddy, believe you me, the dick of science is dry.
I like wikipedia's definition well enough:
"Postmodernism is a late-20th-century movement in the arts, architecture, and criticism that was a departure from modernism. Postmodernism includes skeptical interpretations of culture, literature, art, philosophy, history, economics, architecture, fiction, and literary criticism. It is often associated with deconstruction and post-structuralism because its usage as a term gained significant popularity at the same time as twentieth-century post-structural thought.
The term postmodernism has been applied to a host of movements, mainly in art, music, and literature, that reacted against tendencies in modernism, and are typically marked by revival of historical elements and techniques."
And as for modernism: "Modernism is an encompassing label for a wide variety of cultural movements. Postmodernism is essentially a centralized movement that named itself, based on sociopolitical theory, although the term is now used in a wider sense to refer to activities from the 20th century onwards which exhibit awareness of and reinterpret the modern.
Postmodern theory asserts that the attempt to canonise Modernism "after the fact" is doomed to undisambiguable contradictions.
In a narrower sense, what was Modernist was not necessarily also postmodern. Those elements of Modernism which accentuated the benefits of rationality and socio-technological progress were only Modernist."
You can, of course, make the effort of definition harder than this, if you want. If you are trying to defend Postmodernism, then you definitely want to make it harder to define; after all, that's the primary defense mechanism of the meme.
your first mistake was getting mad in a debate that is philosophical in nature. this led to your misinterpretation of what I've been saying, and also made you look kinda foolish.
I am not one who ascribes to scientism. I am, in fact, being myself religious and more or less a modernist, highly skeptical of scientism. However, you can use statistical observation to arrive at a pretty safe conclusion that, even if senses of reality are not themselves real, they are reflecting off of a type of reality that is extant and very real, insofar as anything can be real.
Postmodernism has everything to do with objectivity. Postmodernism takes the initial skepticism toward western civilization's project made evident in modernism, and it goes further; it flattens the structures of thought we use to the same level and denies the fundamental truthfulness of any of them. It denies moral codes, theories of literature, political systems, and sexual orientations a basis in reality all the same. Its children are multiculturalism and queer theory. It is, or incorporates elements of, post-structuralism and deconstructionism. Postmodernism would kill philosophy, but I certainly don't think it is dead.
You are 100% correct that science cannot answer any "why." But the fact that it can answer any "how" at all is enough. It offers verification of a methodology for testing our ideologies against the bedrock of the world.
Hell, I'm not even a conservative. Not by far. But this idea that we can in good faith be fully skeptical, which I take to be a fundamental supposition of postmodernism given that I know of no thing which any part of it has ever claimed to be one of its assumptions is nonsense. Sure, maybe that's "not what postmodernism is," but at that it is then only a failure to be anything at all, indefensible because there is nothing to be defended. That is the end of this "no true scotsman" ridiculousness.
That's fine, maybe I am. But if that is true, then how is it wrong?
You will answer the question by saying it is not inclusive enough, I warrant. There has to be some way out of giving a definition yourself, right :^)
>Statistical repeatability utterly shatters the postmodern conceit that there is no objective reality; there IS, we just don't sense it directly. In the chaos that stemmed from the discoveries in physics at the turn of the last century, it was thought that perhaps there was nothing at the bottom of everything except random chance; while this is truly possible, it instead seems that rules hold and are repeatably demonstrable and predictably applicable across all of experience.
found the desperate rationalist
As an example of way Post-modernity and pretty much every philosophical "movement" is something where the label doesn't matter much...consider existentialist philosophy.
Supposedly it was invented by Soren Kierkegaard. He never used the word and what is traditionally called existentialism is a gross oversimplification of his work. The later existentialists would be people like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Stirner who didn't see them-self as continuing Kierkegaard. Given how vague the definition of existentialism is I could probably argue that all post modern philosophers are also existentialists. I could also probably go back and declare Thales an existentialist!
It's the same story for the modernists. NONE of the so called modernist philosophers called themself modernists, nor did they seem them as a lineage. Trying to argue that Hume and Kant, who disagreed on everything, were both part of the same school is absurd! But post-modernism is something even dumber to take seriously as a label. Since it's associated with both art and philosopher and the label assumes that the past 500 years of philosophers were somehow all on the same team!
Umbrella terms in philosophy only exist to describe things in the most vague sense of terms. An existentialist is a philosopher that gives a lot of freedom to the followers, a post modernist is someone that tried to describe how a lot of things are uncertain (or someone who made really shitty art).
>But the fact that it can answer any "how" at all is enough.
No. it is choice to say that whatever statements gotten by our chosen inference rules tells the truth about some underlying reality
the empiricism that the rationalist uses is not empiricism at all. the scientist claims to be an empiricist only for the cachet of empiricism: if one of his statements is claimed, by him, to match more or less some events perceived by him in his lab, then he claims that this statement connects to the reality.
even the philosophers of science who are rationalist admit now that science is more about efficiency than knowledge, through their concept of inter-subjectivity. According to them, we no longer talk about reason, but about rationality and rationality exists and is what sorts the few methods that a few humans believe will solve some situations that they see as problematic.
Rationality à la Khun is the new faith that the rationalist has in order to order his models, concepts, theories. Inter-subjectivity is is supposed to answer what is the order to put on our sets of scientific models.
logic is already imagination: you manufacture rules which you hope that are tied to the empirical world, but the plurality of logics and the universal disagreement on which logic is appropriate without a context shows that logic is not about objectivity.
Even in formal languages, Math is just pure imagination, which is blatant from the great diversity of the formal logics. since imagination is disconnected from the empirical world, if you truly want to use your imagination, do it full-on and be a classical guy. to be a constructivist in math is to claim that there is a link imagination -> sensations, just like the mathematician believes that there is a link, which we call abstraction, sensations -> imagination permitting to categorize our sensations. Of course, the mathematician cannot prove that the concepts that he produces tie back to the sensations, are relevant wrt the sensations. the rationalist takes the reason seriously as relevant in life, he thinks that the reason/rationality is not a subset of the imagination, but given the diversity of logics, he is not able so far to defend his thesis since de facto, there are several logics.
the classical guy acknowledges that classical math through classical logic is disconnected from the sensations -- which can be seen with the contrived notion of truth taken as validity of statements in classical logic, instead of the justification of constructivist math -- so he has the right to do anything that he wants, within the framework of the classical logic that he imagined.
of course, his notion of truth is really dubious.
The problem of the mathematician/logician is in one word why does he do math/logic ? Why does he think that math/logic is relevant, is worth doing ?
He has no clue, beyond some vague fantasy of ''explaining the world''. of course, he has no idea what ''explaining'' means
Does anyone else see irony wherever they go? I hear it in music, where the saddest songs have the happiest, jumpiest melodies. And TV-dramas nowadays only portrays damaged people as strong, independent. Why do every sad book need to be funny too? Why does everything funny need to be serious and political? All is irony and it makes me depressed.
>saying with certainty that there is an objective reality
You're retarded. Don't reply--listen. You are retarded.
>Postmodernism has everything to do with objectivity. Postmodernism takes the initial skepticism toward western civilization's project made evident in modernism, and it goes further; it flattens the structures of thought we use to the same level and denies the fundamental truthfulness of any of them. It denies moral codes, theories of literature, political systems, and sexual orientations a basis in reality all the same.
Remember that Postmodernism emerged with the generations that had grown up with ubiquitous television culture since infancy. Marshall McLuhan's scientifically informed theories about media are highly relevant when thinking about this:
>"The medium is the message" is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived. McLuhan proposes that a medium itself, not the content it carries, should be the focus of study. He said that a medium affects the society in which it plays a role not only by the content delivered over the medium, but also by the characteristics of the medium itself.
One of the figures who most clearly embodies this cognitive shift is Andy Warhol. We might be tempted to associate his fashion-ready surfaces as being symptomatic of a lack of conceptual depth, but therein lies the genius because surfaces have a lot of strange properties.
Warhol was a sickly child who missed a lot of school with illness. While bed-ridden he occupied his time by living vicariously through magazines filled with interviews and glamour photos of film & televisions stars. He went on to become a successful commercial illustrator (prior to his fine art career), creating artworks for advertising to be placed in magazines like these. During this phase he develops a style that imitates the ink bleeds of the printing reproduction process. This was crucial. He intuited that he should want his hand-made artworks to look as-if they had been mass-produced and even exaggerate it. After all, the magazines he was engrossed in as a child were mass-produced cheaply in high-number because a lot of people wanted them. So in-turn, having the appearance of being mass-produced would associate the subject with the appearance of being wanted, even if it was only an illusion, which print-reproduction was anyway.
So when you say that Postmoderism flattens the structures of thought, have you considered the advantages of this kind of abbreviation at all?
>The holographic principle is a property of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon.
>empirical methodology proves there is an objective reality we can, albeit indirectly, perceive
kill yourself faggot
>there is an epistomelogical event horizon humanity can never breach by virtue of the fact we are organisms that only interact with the world through our senses
>nothing is anything
>so let me tell you why morality, gender, race, objective reality definitely don't exist, trust me
statistics didnt suddenly fortify naive realism or "disprove" postmodernism.
if you look up stephen wolfram interviews on youtube, he says (and it's not a fringe opinion) that "there can be many mathematicses, they are historical artifacts" and by extension: physicses. perspectivism in science, nietzsche had the right instinct.
'pain' as a concept is about as subjective as it gets, we can all talk about the pain of ourselves or others but we can never experience the pain of others directly--we never objectively know if their pain is the same as ours
well for one thing, the definitions provided already point to their own insufficiency: postmodernism in architecture is a very different set of tenets than postmodernism in literature. indeed to even call them tenets is a bit misleading; postmodernism isn't performed, rather, it is in the performance itself: jameson's writings on pastiche are illuminating here. when the performative tendency of art becomes conscious of itself, and furthermore of its own inevitability ('i cannot be authentic; i can only perform authenticity...' wallace addresses this brilliantly in his Octet), you have postmodernism.
of course, this is only speaking for literature... jameson calls the arrangement of space in the bonaventure hotel postmodern architecture... but how can architecture, a commercial enterprise from the outset, be anything less than performative? is building a baroque cathedral a 'genuine performance' of religiosity? on whose part? certainly not the laborers—and this caveat applies just as well for the bonaventure.
For all our posturing, 4chan as a whole (and Reddit, which is the same website) depends on the postmodern zeitgeist. If we don't live in a time where all viewpoints are considered valid due to a lack of ability to quantify objective capital-T Truth, then we're going to be treated as the hand-flapping autists we really are.
this is exactly the evasion I called you postmodern faggots out on already.
If you won't define yourselves then you will not exist or be considered. The best thing postmodernism ever did was teach us that being a critic who does not himself espouse any particular structure is an excellent rhetorical strategy - offense being the best defense, etc. The only problem is that once you realize this cancerous form of rhetoric exists, you can neatly step around it by pointing out that the critic who uses it offers nothing in return, and can therefore be safely ignored.
Culture is a process and it requires contribution, not just destruction. Destruction can be creative up to a point (though crucially only if supplemented with some kind of structured aesthetic used to judge the worth of the rubble), but if you will do nothing but destroy cultural structures, then you will not be included in their annals.
This is why we are trying to move past postmodernism, because it is not a productive or complete structure. It is not a structure in any meaningful sense of the term at all.
There are plenty of advantages to destroying all opposing ideologies. For one, it makes you seem powerful and productive.
Unfortunately, appearances can be deceiving even (sometimes especially to) well-trained academics.
No one else even worth responding to on this thread; you've all been told already why your defenses of postmodernism blow and yet you continue to shove tired evasions and obfuscations into the forefront. No one really buys that shit anymore, you know. We are too busy doing things and trying to figure out what will be the next cultural paradigm now that we've accepted that we can in fact communicate with a certain degree of repeatable accuracy due to the verifiable reality/unreality of the communication's referents.
nice unproven assertion. Given the progress you've made in this thread, I'm guessing that's about the full extent of your rhetorical capabilities.
What's interesting to me is that Kierkegaard, in a way, predicted the sort doubt that post-modernism pushes in The Present Age: On the Death of Rebellion. I am reading it for class right now, and it's really interesting.
Here's a quote that sort of describes what I'm talking about:
>[the modern age] leaves everything standing but cunningly empties it of significance. Instead of culminating in a rebellion it reduces the inward reality of all relationships to a reflective tension which leaves everything standing but makes the whole of life ambiguous: so that everything continues to exist factually whilst by a dialectical deceit [...] it supplies a secret interpretation -- that it does not exist.
What do you guys think of this? This is, to me, a prescient critique of post-modernism, in a way, but also a general critique of the modern age.
Note: this was written in 1846.
>well for one thing, the definitions provided already point to their own insufficiency: postmodernism in architecture is a very different set of tenets than postmodernism in literature. indeed to even call them tenets is a bit misleading; postmodernism isn't performed, rather, it is in the performance itself: jameson's writings on pastiche are illuminating here. when the performative tendency of art becomes conscious of itself, and furthermore of its own inevitability ('i cannot be authentic; i can only perform authenticity...' wallace addresses this brilliantly in his Octet), you have postmodernism.
>of course, this is only speaking for literature... jameson calls the arrangement of space in the bonaventure hotel postmodern architecture... but how can architecture, a commercial enterprise from the outset, be anything less than performative? is building a baroque cathedral a 'genuine performance' of religiosity? on whose part? certainly not the laborers—and this caveat applies just as well for the bonaventure.
If you replace the word 'perform' with 'reference' or 'symbolise' you might draw better comparisons between literature and architecture. Religious architecture originates out of genuine attempts to create sacred spaces, but after centuries of repetition, an arched ceiling for example, has become a default symbol. At a certain point, if you are using this language of forms, you would have stopped thinking about how to give a feeling of striving towards the heavens (or even a physically rooted property, like how do we create awe-inspiring acoustics), instead you would just be referencing existing works. This is also when a kitsch factor emerges. You could say this always went on with literature or architecture, but the saturation of media in the late 20th century really amplified the possible ways this can happen.
If an architect was designing a cathedral to be overly baroque only so that it would look exquisitly detailed in the background of an as-yet uncreated painting by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, then that might be considered proto-pomo.
The most sensible post in this thread: >>7326383
Post-modernism stands outside of that sort of game. It's a description of the world that is accurate and does away with a desire for truth external. We aren't bereft of values because we embody our values, we do not need to look any further. Instead of truth post-modernism concerns itself with power and play.
If you know your Nietzsche then you more or less know post-modernism in its best iteration.