4 ms·

I have a much less nuanced view of "postmodernists" [1]; without fail, every single person I know who's really leaned into any form of "postmodernism" and would

I have a much less nuanced view of "postmodernists" [1]; without fail, every single person I know who's really leaned into any form of "postmodernism" and would describe themselves as such is depressed, nihilistic, and functionally not very useful. They typically don't participate in things I think are fundamentally necessary for society (namely food production and distribution, construction, medicine, and law), and many are also anti-natalist. On the whole I find that their social circles are filled with self-aggrandizing narcissists. (Not unique to philosophy, of course.) I realize that criticizing a theory based on its adherents is puerile, but I can't help but notice that on the whole I find everything that comes from "postmodernists" to be distasteful and damaging to the "uneducated" person's mental well-being. Their architecture is bleak and divisive; their music is grating and non-melodic; their art is challenging and uncomfortable, and their philosophy is bleak and depressing. [1] = I have put "postmodernists" and "postmodernism" in quotes because it seems pretty difficult to actually define what it is and who believes in it.

api 7y ago
> I realize that criticizing a theory based on its adherents is puerile I disagree that it's puerile. I think looking at the makeup of the adherents of an ideology and the result it seems to have when played out is very important and meaningful. Ideas have consequences, and observing them tells you a lot about the ideas. Anything can sound good in isolation and if presented in the right way. A major reason that I reject the pomo line of thinking is looking at its outcome: a broad retreat of enlightenment and post-enlightenment thought and liberalism ever since it came into vogue, and the corresponding resurgence of reactionary and totalitarian ideologies in that same time period. It's clear to me that it's either pure nonsense or if there is some good idea in there it is being communicated so poorly it is having no beneficial effect. Personally I think part of the reactionary resurgence is that in comparison to pomo word salad reactionary ideology sounds sane, reasonable, and relevant. They've set the bar really low, especially when it comes to relevance. I have never read any pomo tract that could possibly have any relevance to anyone who isn't a cloistered academic with a desire to write and echo similar tracts.
zaaakk 7y ago
Can you name some musicians, artists, architects, philosophers? What are you talking about? This post is hilarious, you’re acting like studying French philosophy is doing fentanyl or something.
- quacked 7y ago
  Certainly. A classic example of a "postmodern" composer is John Adams, whose magnum opus could be considered the piece "El Nino", which modern critics have compared to Handel's "Messiah". I encourage you to listen to the "El Nino" front-to-back. During Handel's "Messiah", many audiences developed a tradition of standing during the Hallelujah chorus and singing along in four-part harmony; the piece, even at the time recognized as a triumphant achievement of one of the best living composers, could be easily participated in by the everyman, as long as they could carry a tune. Is the El Nino as approachable? Does it marry the general non-studied audience with the music of the most-trained (in that case Handel, in this case John Adams)? Even looking at some of the farther out-there modernist composers, who came before the postmodernists (Charles Ives, Schoenberg, Cage, Shostakovich), you can see that they're writing bizarre, anti-melodic rejections of music that audiences have traditionally liked (read: music that audiences can hum after they're done listening). Charles Ives's father taught him to sing in one key and play in another, and said that children in the future would be whistling tunes in semi-tones. And who have they inspired? People like Steve Reich and Phillip Glass. Listen to Four Organs and let me know if you think that we should reject the melodies of the past as the antiquated drivel of delusional Euro-supremacist royalists in favor of what the modernists, postmodernists, and the "post-post-modernists" have to offer us. If you think I'm exaggerating, you don't know enough academic musicians. (I do, however, freely admit that there are plenty left who appreciate both the old and the new; not every modern musician claims that we should cease playing Beethoven altogether. I myself like bits and pieces of each of the composers I've just named; the attitude I am criticizing is not that their music should exist at all, but more the attitude of the people I know who claim that their music should replace the earlier composers.) I have many friends who have professionally studied music, and the more obtuse and obsessed with "new sounds" they get, the more insufferable and critical of historically popular music they become. It's as if they're deliberately driving a wedge between the musically non-educated and the musically educated. This wouldn't be too much of an issue if it hadn't started to spread into other fields that the public has no control over, like architecture, on which I could write another comment of equal length, although with somewhat less authority because I only personally know a few architects, whereas I've been studying music as an amateur and interacting with professional musicians for 20 years. What I find most ironic is that these stalwart critics of western tradition, architecture, philosophy, and music, are the first to embrace the traditions of other cultures. Some of my acquaintances will spend an entire visit to Chicago complaining about the reductive and inequitable American architectural tradition, or criticize the cathedrals and castles of Europe, and then turn on a time and talk about how beautiful the palaces, mosques, and temples of the Middle and Far East are. It's maddening.

api 7y ago

> I realize that criticizing a theory based on its adherents is puerile I disagree that it's puerile. I think looking at the makeup of the adherents of an ideology and the result it seems to have when played out is very important and meaningful. Ideas have consequences, and observing them tells you a lot about the ideas. Anything can sound good in isolation and if presented in the right way. A major reason that I reject the pomo line of thinking is looking at its outcome: a broad retreat of enlightenment and post-enlightenment thought and liberalism ever since it came into vogue, and the corresponding resurgence of reactionary and totalitarian ideologies in that same time period. It's clear to me that it's either pure nonsense or if there is some good idea in there it is being communicated so poorly it is having no beneficial effect. Personally I think part of the reactionary resurgence is that in comparison to pomo word salad reactionary ideology sounds sane, reasonable, and relevant. They've set the bar really low, especially when it comes to relevance. I have never read any pomo tract that could possibly have any relevance to anyone who isn't a cloistered academic with a desire to write and echo similar tracts.

zaaakk 7y ago

Can you name some musicians, artists, architects, philosophers? What are you talking about? This post is hilarious, you’re acting like studying French philosophy is doing fentanyl or something.

quacked 7y ago
Certainly. A classic example of a "postmodern" composer is John Adams, whose magnum opus could be considered the piece "El Nino", which modern critics have compared to Handel's "Messiah". I encourage you to listen to the "El Nino" front-to-back. During Handel's "Messiah", many audiences developed a tradition of standing during the Hallelujah chorus and singing along in four-part harmony; the piece, even at the time recognized as a triumphant achievement of one of the best living composers, could be easily participated in by the everyman, as long as they could carry a tune. Is the El Nino as approachable? Does it marry the general non-studied audience with the music of the most-trained (in that case Handel, in this case John Adams)? Even looking at some of the farther out-there modernist composers, who came before the postmodernists (Charles Ives, Schoenberg, Cage, Shostakovich), you can see that they're writing bizarre, anti-melodic rejections of music that audiences have traditionally liked (read: music that audiences can hum after they're done listening). Charles Ives's father taught him to sing in one key and play in another, and said that children in the future would be whistling tunes in semi-tones. And who have they inspired? People like Steve Reich and Phillip Glass. Listen to Four Organs and let me know if you think that we should reject the melodies of the past as the antiquated drivel of delusional Euro-supremacist royalists in favor of what the modernists, postmodernists, and the "post-post-modernists" have to offer us. If you think I'm exaggerating, you don't know enough academic musicians. (I do, however, freely admit that there are plenty left who appreciate both the old and the new; not every modern musician claims that we should cease playing Beethoven altogether. I myself like bits and pieces of each of the composers I've just named; the attitude I am criticizing is not that their music should exist at all, but more the attitude of the people I know who claim that their music should replace the earlier composers.) I have many friends who have professionally studied music, and the more obtuse and obsessed with "new sounds" they get, the more insufferable and critical of historically popular music they become. It's as if they're deliberately driving a wedge between the musically non-educated and the musically educated. This wouldn't be too much of an issue if it hadn't started to spread into other fields that the public has no control over, like architecture, on which I could write another comment of equal length, although with somewhat less authority because I only personally know a few architects, whereas I've been studying music as an amateur and interacting with professional musicians for 20 years. What I find most ironic is that these stalwart critics of western tradition, architecture, philosophy, and music, are the first to embrace the traditions of other cultures. Some of my acquaintances will spend an entire visit to Chicago complaining about the reductive and inequitable American architectural tradition, or criticize the cathedrals and castles of Europe, and then turn on a time and talk about how beautiful the palaces, mosques, and temples of the Middle and Far East are. It's maddening.