4 ms·

> I don't get why people hate on post-structuralism. Because, rather than recognize that overdoing abstractions is a thing and reminding people that there is a

by pdonis 2y ago

> I don't get why people hate on post-structuralism. Because, rather than recognize that overdoing abstractions is a thing and reminding people that there is always reality out there that won't bend to your wishes, post-modernism (which is the term the GP used) tells people that there is no reality out there, it's all just human-created abstractions, and anyone who tries to push back because reality is just insufficiently post-modernist.

orwin 2y ago
That's typically _not_ what post-modernism is, that's at best a misunderstanding, but more likely a strawman. The only point on which all post-modernists agree is a refutation of meta-narratives (and to be explicit: "here is no reality out there, it's all just human-created abstractions" is a meta-narrative). A very, very charitable interpretation is that you are maybe conflating it with Frankfurt School of critical theory, because it is also somewhat used/based on psychoanalysis (sigh) (latest postmodernists use psychoanalysis way less, also post-modernism isn't built on it, contrary to critical theory). Postmodernism is mostly post-marxism though, while critical theory is mostly neo-marxist imho (also, i don't want to be too critical of Frankfurt's school, i think most of their bad rep is caused by bad vulgarization/pop-science, most critics i read don't seems to understand why it's wrong either). I do think that the reason most people conflate the two is because of an idiotic canadian psychoanalyst who can't read (or at least, can't understand what he read), who _clearly_ has no degree in literature or philosophy, and try to appear smarter than he is. He invent citations of the books, and sometime state that Derrida mean something when Derrida hismself wrote the opposite. 8th grader would do better and their reading comprehension assignment. He is wrong. Read and think by yourself.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > That's typically _not_ what post-modernism is It's not what post-modernists typically say post-modernism is. But I'm not relying on what they say it is. I've read enough post-modernism to form my own opinion. > Read and think by yourself. I have. See above.
  - squigz 2y ago
    This doesn't seem to actually address any of what GP said
  - Solololo 2y ago
    Who did you read?
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    Come on,you goto fill his/her plotholes else your evil. Remember its not an ism,if its about who can outshout reality the loudest.
  - watwut 2y ago
    > It's not what post-modernists typically say post-modernism is. But I'm not relying on what they say it is. I've read enough post-modernism to form my own opinion. You are relying what someone who earns money from making people angry about postmodernism say it is. Outrage culture and addiction. Generally when you want to know what postmodernism is, you should read what postmodernists say. And if you want to know what nazism is, you should include readings of nazists.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > you should read what postmodernists say Which is exactly what I did, as I explicitly said in my post. I just don't rely on what they say postmodernism is, as authoritative about what postmodernism actually is. Reading what people say is not the same as accepting what they say at face value.
  - orwin 2y ago
    > It's not what post-modernists typically say post-modernism is Worse, it's the total opposite of one core tenet of postmodernism. It's very hard for anybody honest to argue that postmodernism has ametanarrative, when the only thing all authors agree with is that metanarratives are to be recognized and refuted. > I've read enough post-modernism to form my own opinion. Who did you read? Deleuze? Derrida? Foucault? Baudrillard? I will always advise people to read Baudrillard first, I think he is somehow misunderstood in the Anglo world, but it might be mistranslations. Then Deleuze, then Lyotard and Foucault as Derrida is too dispersed imho, and way to complex, as imho you have to read his articles where he explain his books, alongside his books [edit: and to be fair I still don't think I really get Derrida, he's very recognized but to me he is very obscure, probably the weakest imho. I also disagree with a lot I understand from him, except his method, so that's might be my priors who prevents me to really getting it]. If anyone would rather read a novel to try to grasp what postmodernism is about, I think "l'Amour" from begaudeau is the latest (100 pages, really short and sweet), and the one that is still in my mind when I think about postmodern materialism.

by pdonis 2y ago

orwin 2y ago

That's typically _not_ what post-modernism is, that's at best a misunderstanding, but more likely a strawman. The only point on which all post-modernists agree is a refutation of meta-narratives (and to be explicit: "here is no reality out there, it's all just human-created abstractions" is a meta-narrative). A very, very charitable interpretation is that you are maybe conflating it with Frankfurt School of critical theory, because it is also somewhat used/based on psychoanalysis (sigh) (latest postmodernists use psychoanalysis way less, also post-modernism isn't built on it, contrary to critical theory). Postmodernism is mostly post-marxism though, while critical theory is mostly neo-marxist imho (also, i don't want to be too critical of Frankfurt's school, i think most of their bad rep is caused by bad vulgarization/pop-science, most critics i read don't seems to understand why it's wrong either). I do think that the reason most people conflate the two is because of an idiotic canadian psychoanalyst who can't read (or at least, can't understand what he read), who _clearly_ has no degree in literature or philosophy, and try to appear smarter than he is. He invent citations of the books, and sometime state that Derrida mean something when Derrida hismself wrote the opposite. 8th grader would do better and their reading comprehension assignment. He is wrong. Read and think by yourself.

pdonis 2y ago
> That's typically _not_ what post-modernism is It's not what post-modernists typically say post-modernism is. But I'm not relying on what they say it is. I've read enough post-modernism to form my own opinion. > Read and think by yourself. I have. See above.
- squigz 2y ago
  This doesn't seem to actually address any of what GP said
- Solololo 2y ago
  Who did you read?
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  Come on,you goto fill his/her plotholes else your evil. Remember its not an ism,if its about who can outshout reality the loudest.
- watwut 2y ago
  > It's not what post-modernists typically say post-modernism is. But I'm not relying on what they say it is. I've read enough post-modernism to form my own opinion. You are relying what someone who earns money from making people angry about postmodernism say it is. Outrage culture and addiction. Generally when you want to know what postmodernism is, you should read what postmodernists say. And if you want to know what nazism is, you should include readings of nazists.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > you should read what postmodernists say Which is exactly what I did, as I explicitly said in my post. I just don't rely on what they say postmodernism is, as authoritative about what postmodernism actually is. Reading what people say is not the same as accepting what they say at face value.
- orwin 2y ago
  > It's not what post-modernists typically say post-modernism is Worse, it's the total opposite of one core tenet of postmodernism. It's very hard for anybody honest to argue that postmodernism has ametanarrative, when the only thing all authors agree with is that metanarratives are to be recognized and refuted. > I've read enough post-modernism to form my own opinion. Who did you read? Deleuze? Derrida? Foucault? Baudrillard? I will always advise people to read Baudrillard first, I think he is somehow misunderstood in the Anglo world, but it might be mistranslations. Then Deleuze, then Lyotard and Foucault as Derrida is too dispersed imho, and way to complex, as imho you have to read his articles where he explain his books, alongside his books [edit: and to be fair I still don't think I really get Derrida, he's very recognized but to me he is very obscure, probably the weakest imho. I also disagree with a lot I understand from him, except his method, so that's might be my priors who prevents me to really getting it]. If anyone would rather read a novel to try to grasp what postmodernism is about, I think "l'Amour" from begaudeau is the latest (100 pages, really short and sweet), and the one that is still in my mind when I think about postmodern materialism.