Pomo isn't all too popular around here, and I can surely see why. It's hard to take its extreme relativism and its conceiving of reality in terms of "narratives" seriously. However I do think the postmodern criticists provide a valuable counterweight to the blind trust many people have in the "objectivity" of the stories put out by the liberal media, which are typically dripping with ideology. Moreover a lot of pomo is closely related to actual marxist critiques such as Society of the Spectacle. In other words I think Zig Forums (and /left*pol/) is too quick to denounce the entirety of postmodernism as merely a gateway to liberal idpol. Opinions?
Other urls found in this thread:
da fuq is postmodernism
It's just an umbrella term for philosophical currents that were popular mainly in the 80s and that typically take an extremely sceptical/relativist position towards all "grand narratives" like endlessly improving morality, the supposedly beneficial influence of technology, etc. If you care here's a pdf on it I found (that I haven't read yet myself).
Here you go, this guy is 99.9% retarted, but this video was a good explanation of pomo.
What are you basing that statement on?
Postmodernism is invariably idealist. Its critiques are always made from the perspective that an individual's subjectivity is his reality. That just does not jive with the materialism favored by marxists and the adherants of several flavors of anarchism.
The primary failing of postmodernism as I see it is that it offers no solutions to anything. It ultimately serves as nothing more than intellectual wanking. There is no postmodern way forward, just bitching about where we are now.
You posted a picture of Baudrillard's book, and I have to say that as pomos go his work is the most interesting to me. I like that he actually developed his own theory as to how the world works, even if the hyperreal does not explain reality particularly well. Usually pomo philosophers are content to create a rationale for everyone else's theories do not work. It takes guts to put something out there for critique instead of just being an advocate for irrationality.
It’s subjectively a good explanation.
I'll share a Stokely Charmichael image as well. They may have shitty theory, but they were right about certain things.
I still don't know what the fuck postmodernism is.
No one does, just call anyone you don't like a pomo like everyone else.
A critique of modernism.
this but unironically
Stop using that term.
Modernity is basically the era that began during the 15th century in Europe all the way through the industrial revolution.
My English class taught me it meant any Artistic Musical or cultural trends post-1945
people often confuse it with post-structuralism, modernism ended during wwi at the latest
We popomo now, fam.
That's like going to Zig Forums and saying "Cultural Marxism isn't all too popular here… However…"
Postmodern philosophy is a figment of burger academics. There is no "pomo" in European universities, unless they have been americanized and it seems most still haven't.
Anybody who claims Cultural Marxism or Postmodern philosophy exists doesn't read primary sources.
lol, if they have anything at all in common about the question of the subject, it's that they attack the notion and value of the subject and individual. maybe you should supplement your youtube comment studies with a book once in a while
is that it assumes people read books which is an obvious miscalculation on their part
as does everyone else in these stupid "pomo" groupings
yet almost all prominent "postmodernist" authors are french? I do see your point that it doesn't exist though since they usually criticize the culture of postmodernism instead of approving it
I haven't read Lyotard but from what i know it seems like he mostly deconstructs "grand narratives" without building any positive or constructive alternative. (not that user btw)
Postmodernism is "God is dead" but for modernist ideologies like nationalism. Some call it "the end of grand narratives" but it's more specific to the grand narratives of modernity. It's just a series of trends responding to ideas of modernity showing to be bullshit. There's not really some distinct characteristic of postmodern thought or art that you could point to because it's more of a time period than a specific way of doing things.
Conceiving socio-cultural reality as merely narratives that assert themselves through power is completely legitimate position though.
It's an umbrella term with no rigid meaning that just encapsulates any philosophy that rejects modernism and isn't reactionary. Any wholesale rejection of it as though its a specific thing is inherently ignorant.
So "reality" has no working definition.
physical/material reality =/= socio-cultural/media/… reality
I'm not doubting that you can technically reduce the latter to the former, of course you CAN, it's just more meaningful in many contexts to talk about it on its own.
I hate it when people think Pomo is normative. Pomo isn't popular with anyone, its a condition of society being described and theorized about, its not something Post-Modernists want or like. Most of them are depressed defeatists because of it. Hell, read Baudrillard, his text just drips with existential dread and resignation that humanity is doomed. Think of it like Hegelianism: Hegel didn't want people to follow the thesis-antithesis dialectic, he said they would anyway. That's what Pomo philosophers say, just with their own version.
I wish people read French authors outside of France. Here, we have a strong base of extremely well-read leftists but it always hurts seeing Chomsky is the most advanced guy the US have to offer. Zizek is spreading some of that subversive thought though and I'm grateful he exists.
Because most of those French thinkers are post-structuralists and Americans are willingly ignorant of that fact that not all postmodernists are post-structuralists.
Zizek jumped the shark when he fell for the "the masses are the new proletariat" meme.
Okay in my humble opinion, this has been my experience of postmodernism. It's when you tell someone The Truth, like,
I agree that "pomos" are actually aggressively against "postmodernism" - hypermodernism is more accurate because its merely an ecstatic form of modernism (transparency, cancerous hyperproduction, total integration, global hegemony, etc.).
But I don't think these so-called "pomos" are defeatist. On the one hand you have Foucault who is, if anything, nostalgic for the age of resistance and civil war and wants to keep that kind of radical militantism going. He deliberately uses the language of war (read his Collège de France lectures). On the other hand you have Baudrillard who confronts the fact that resistance has been integrated as larping but he finds the biggest enemy of the system in the system itself - hence his notions of objective irony and fatal strategy.
Another thinker that is neither "pomo" nor "poststructuralist" but is often ignored in these circles and that I'd recommend is Agamben. Read "The Highest Poverty" if you want to see him discuss communism through the example of the Fransciscan monastic order where there is neither private nor common property but common use instead. He is IMO the most utopian communist and that's only thing I can fault him for. Yet commentators call him too pessimistic.