5 ms·

Walter Benjamin is the original inspiration for the postmodernists. His writing is nonsensically opaque. If his name appears in an article, it's a good sign t

Walter Benjamin is the original inspiration for the postmodernists. His writing is nonsensically opaque. If his name appears in an article, it's a good sign that the article is about to go off the rails.

claudiawerner 7y ago
Your comment is wonderfully muddled, since Benjamin was not an original inspiration for so-called postmodernist thinkers at all. Benjamin (and his intellectual companions, Adorno, Marcuse and others) were very much modernists, right before the heyday of the French "postmodernists". One has to wonder how 'opaque' Benjamin is, given that he is one of the most studied critical theorists in philosophy and literature. He must be at least translucent if there are knowledgable people making sense and use of his ideas. Apparently his ideas are sufficiently clear and interesting for an interest on HN[0]. In fact... someone on HN in 2014 claimed that Benjamin was a "postmodernist" too, and they were quickly shut down on that claim[1]. [0] https://hn.algolia.com/?q=walter+benjamin https://hn.algolia.com/?q=walter+benjamin [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8295413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8295413
- bordercases 7y ago
  > given that he is one of the most studied critical theorists in philosophy and literature Found your problem.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    I'll bite: what problem is that?
    - bordercases 7y ago
      Critical theorists aren't worth studying. They have no consistent norms of evaluating the quality of their work and their primary purpose is to advance literary explorations over calibration to any particular truth of the matter. So saying a critical theorist is well-studied by other critical theorists says very little about the value of their positions to non-literary fields. There may have been a fact of the matter as to whether Walter Benjamin really was an inspiration for post-modernism or if he's merely confined to modernism, but I think a true critical theorist would leave that up to debate.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        The description of someone who learnt about critical theorists from YouTube videos (and I use the term "learnt" loosely).
      - claudiawerner 7y ago
        >They have no consistent norms of evaluating the quality of their work and their primary purpose is to advance literary explorations over calibration to any particular truth of the matter. This is patently false if you read any critical theory, in which reaching the truth on a matter is taken much more seriously than any literary aim. You can claim that mainstream critical theory didn't or isn't reaching the truth, but it's a wild claim to say it makes no attempt to do so. Read the Wikipedia article if you don't believe me. >So saying a critical theorist is well-studied by other critical theorists Critical theorists are studied and used by philosophers, legal scholars, and sociologists - it's not only critical theorists in some kind of secret club where they all congratulate each other. They are studied in literary fields not because of the literary value of their writing, but because of their criticism and aesthetic positions. >but I think a true critical theorist would leave that up to debate. They wouldn't, because critical theorists can recognize the truth and falsity of claims. Your criticism would be better aimed at the so-called postmodernists (and it'd still be wrong).
        bordercases 7y ago
        > They are studied in literary fields not because of the literary value of their writing, but because of their criticism and aesthetic positions. That's pretty hard to distinguish from "just" literature; of course not all literature is fictional or journalistic. But neither criticism nor aesthetics are particularly bounded in their ability to make negative or positive claims due to the flexibility of interpretation of background assumptions that both pancritical + justificationist disciplines rely on. It's inherently subversive of any central and stabilizing intellectual tendency and I think most critical theorists admit their goals as being such. This is why I doubt the claim that there is a central truth that critical theorists are attempting to discover when their methods are designed to be as disputative or ambiguating as possible. Even if we're in a position where no assumption can be taken for granted in the end, productive operational work (in science in policy or otherwise) always has to maintain some initial set of working goals and assumptions to guide and rationalize action, and perform interventions which can maximally orient the institution towards further action. Subversiveness stalls except in how it wants to prevent such institutions from prolonging themselves. > Critical theorists are studied and used by philosophers, legal scholars, and sociologists Are they all trained out of the Frankfurt school by any chance? Yes they're sometimes worth responding to, no they're not worth taking seriously except as a means to an end. > They wouldn't, because critical theorists can recognize the truth and falsity of claims. Your criticism would be better aimed at the so-called postmodernists (and it'd still be wrong). I am earnestly interested in learning more about non-postmodern critical theorists. The pragmatists of the freshwater school (Sellars and Brandom mainly) are the only people on the top of my head that sing that note due to the way they deal seriously with the problem of interpretation in foundations and the way they want to internalize Hegel, while still having the aims of scientific inquiry in mind. But that's analytic philosophy assimilating continental philosophy rather than the other way around, which I'm more sympathetic to precisely because analytics tend to want to bound critique rather than produce more critique for its own sake (i.e. subversion as an ends).
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - dang 7y ago
    "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - bordercases 7y ago
      Here's some learning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22092985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22092985
dang 7y ago
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

claudiawerner 7y ago

Your comment is wonderfully muddled, since Benjamin was not an original inspiration for so-called postmodernist thinkers at all. Benjamin (and his intellectual companions, Adorno, Marcuse and others) were very much modernists, right before the heyday of the French "postmodernists". One has to wonder how 'opaque' Benjamin is, given that he is one of the most studied critical theorists in philosophy and literature. He must be at least translucent if there are knowledgable people making sense and use of his ideas. Apparently his ideas are sufficiently clear and interesting for an interest on HN[0]. In fact... someone on HN in 2014 claimed that Benjamin was a "postmodernist" too, and they were quickly shut down on that claim[1]. [0] https://hn.algolia.com/?q=walter+benjamin https://hn.algolia.com/?q=walter+benjamin [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8295413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8295413

bordercases 7y ago
> given that he is one of the most studied critical theorists in philosophy and literature Found your problem.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  I'll bite: what problem is that?
  - bordercases 7y ago
    Critical theorists aren't worth studying. They have no consistent norms of evaluating the quality of their work and their primary purpose is to advance literary explorations over calibration to any particular truth of the matter. So saying a critical theorist is well-studied by other critical theorists says very little about the value of their positions to non-literary fields. There may have been a fact of the matter as to whether Walter Benjamin really was an inspiration for post-modernism or if he's merely confined to modernism, but I think a true critical theorist would leave that up to debate.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      The description of someone who learnt about critical theorists from YouTube videos (and I use the term "learnt" loosely).
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      >They have no consistent norms of evaluating the quality of their work and their primary purpose is to advance literary explorations over calibration to any particular truth of the matter. This is patently false if you read any critical theory, in which reaching the truth on a matter is taken much more seriously than any literary aim. You can claim that mainstream critical theory didn't or isn't reaching the truth, but it's a wild claim to say it makes no attempt to do so. Read the Wikipedia article if you don't believe me. >So saying a critical theorist is well-studied by other critical theorists Critical theorists are studied and used by philosophers, legal scholars, and sociologists - it's not only critical theorists in some kind of secret club where they all congratulate each other. They are studied in literary fields not because of the literary value of their writing, but because of their criticism and aesthetic positions. >but I think a true critical theorist would leave that up to debate. They wouldn't, because critical theorists can recognize the truth and falsity of claims. Your criticism would be better aimed at the so-called postmodernists (and it'd still be wrong).
      - bordercases 7y ago
        > They are studied in literary fields not because of the literary value of their writing, but because of their criticism and aesthetic positions. That's pretty hard to distinguish from "just" literature; of course not all literature is fictional or journalistic. But neither criticism nor aesthetics are particularly bounded in their ability to make negative or positive claims due to the flexibility of interpretation of background assumptions that both pancritical + justificationist disciplines rely on. It's inherently subversive of any central and stabilizing intellectual tendency and I think most critical theorists admit their goals as being such. This is why I doubt the claim that there is a central truth that critical theorists are attempting to discover when their methods are designed to be as disputative or ambiguating as possible. Even if we're in a position where no assumption can be taken for granted in the end, productive operational work (in science in policy or otherwise) always has to maintain some initial set of working goals and assumptions to guide and rationalize action, and perform interventions which can maximally orient the institution towards further action. Subversiveness stalls except in how it wants to prevent such institutions from prolonging themselves. > Critical theorists are studied and used by philosophers, legal scholars, and sociologists Are they all trained out of the Frankfurt school by any chance? Yes they're sometimes worth responding to, no they're not worth taking seriously except as a means to an end. > They wouldn't, because critical theorists can recognize the truth and falsity of claims. Your criticism would be better aimed at the so-called postmodernists (and it'd still be wrong). I am earnestly interested in learning more about non-postmodern critical theorists. The pragmatists of the freshwater school (Sellars and Brandom mainly) are the only people on the top of my head that sing that note due to the way they deal seriously with the problem of interpretation in foundations and the way they want to internalize Hegel, while still having the aims of scientific inquiry in mind. But that's analytic philosophy assimilating continental philosophy rather than the other way around, which I'm more sympathetic to precisely because analytics tend to want to bound critique rather than produce more critique for its own sake (i.e. subversion as an ends).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- dang 7y ago
  "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - bordercases 7y ago
    Here's some learning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22092985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22092985

dang 7y ago

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html