3 ms·

Ok. To think the anglo world can create analytic philosophy, and have so many respected, clever philosophers and historians; still their general public seems to

by orwin 3y ago

Ok. To think the anglo world can create analytic philosophy, and have so many respected, clever philosophers and historians; still their general public seems to have major trouble with the idea that critical theory (the frankfurt's school version) IS NOT postmodernism. It's not that hard, really. There at most two wikipedia pages to read (the best way is still to read Lyotard or Baudrillard, but i understand the general public won't do it). I understand the EN page on postmodernism are mostly wrong in details (Britannica isn't better, i think people should read authors before writing about their theories :/), both are really shitty entry level but sufficient to understand the basics, then follow this: Can we agree that postmodernism reject meta-narratives that trie to explain too much? It's one of the cornerstone of postmodernism, and probably one of the more known. Can we also agree that critical theory (not the tool, the philosophical theory) often push towards global relativism as well as a marxist metanarrative? Conclusions? I'm not saying both theories are irreconcilable (although Frankfurt's school version of critical theory is), i'm saying they are not the same, and any "intellectual"/pundit/influencer who use both term as if they're the same should crawl back to where they came, ashamed of being so idiotic and untrustworthy they can't read a few books on subject they're talking about in public (whether it's videos or articles).

rayiner 3y ago
The public, correctly, perceives these all as just "stupid ideas with no power to build things." It's like "supply-side economics." Nobody really cares what "scholars" in the field actually think that label means. I'd note that aerospace engineers don't have to chide the public about the precise labels to apply to their field.
- orwin 3y ago
  Because there is not two hundred different pundits/grifters who tries to leverage the lack of knowledge of the general public in aerospace to make themselves seem clever. To me it's the same as people try to sell 'quantum medecine' or 'quantum meditation'. On this website, any grifting article about that would be buried fast and not up voted, right? And critical theory, as a tool for historians, linguists and archeologists has already been more useful than string theory or the multiverse theory has been for anyone, so I guess the public is incorrect here? Postmodernism ideas are everywhere in the general public, by the way. Because it's an adequate description of the post-80s world, from the 60s. Each time you think 'he's virtue signaling', you think like a postmodernist. Each time you think of an object as a status symbol, you are a postmodernist.

by orwin 3y ago

rayiner 3y ago

The public, correctly, perceives these all as just "stupid ideas with no power to build things." It's like "supply-side economics." Nobody really cares what "scholars" in the field actually think that label means. I'd note that aerospace engineers don't have to chide the public about the precise labels to apply to their field.

orwin 3y ago
Because there is not two hundred different pundits/grifters who tries to leverage the lack of knowledge of the general public in aerospace to make themselves seem clever. To me it's the same as people try to sell 'quantum medecine' or 'quantum meditation'. On this website, any grifting article about that would be buried fast and not up voted, right? And critical theory, as a tool for historians, linguists and archeologists has already been more useful than string theory or the multiverse theory has been for anyone, so I guess the public is incorrect here? Postmodernism ideas are everywhere in the general public, by the way. Because it's an adequate description of the post-80s world, from the 60s. Each time you think 'he's virtue signaling', you think like a postmodernist. Each time you think of an object as a status symbol, you are a postmodernist.