Postmodernist Puns

I've heard a lot of discussion about political postmodernist circles having criticisms of Marxism for being a strictly modern institution that should be left in the past. Why is this conclusion come to, how much of Marxism do postmodernists disagree with, and what do they propose as the ideals to go forward in the future in the stead of Marxism?

I am talking only of fiction writers here

I have a personal semi-serious theory that the history of this subreddit actually proves Derrida's theories of Postmodernism. Every grand text or narrative can eventually be deconstructed - and inevitably will be deconstructed by time - until it fragments into smaller and smaller pieces, each losing meaning over time. Eventually these fragments lose their original meanings and are only remembered through absurd, ironic, self referential references. By arranging the fragments in new patterns, we create postmodernist art.

At this point the discussion of BB's narrative has pretty much headed this direction. Pretty much everything that could be be said about the show has already been said. There's nothing left to over-analyze. The subreddit has gone from seriously discussing the show to only discussing it in absurd, self referential memes and in-jokes. And there is absolutely nothing bad about that.

Yeah bitch, Postmodernism!

'm high as fuck right now and none of this probably makes sense.

Philosophically, you hide behind postmodernism.

You hide behind satire and parody, specifically in the form of mixing good artwork with bad artwork, good jokes with bad jokes, genuine irony with fake or accidental irony, and...

good social choices toward your fans with bad social choices toward your fans.

You frame everything in a way where if you are remotely "bad" whether it is your art quality, writing quality, humor quality, ethical quality, social quality, or any other aspect of who you are or what you make or do, it is:

a) sincere when you do something good, or

b) ironic deep humor when you do something bad which, you reframe as "fake" bad and thus "good"

Eat some humble pie. Courage is not built on being without fear, but in facing what you fear head-on.

You, Andrew Hussie, in all that you do, wreak of a fear of one simple thing:

being vulnerable.

You fear vulnerability. You fear having to admit your works are genuinely bad, not just ironically. You fear having to admit you have committed social and ethical ills, and not merely been creative and clever as your words lend to you seeming to believe.

Postmodernism is a reactionary field of thought, loosely deemed a philosophy though it's more of an anti-intellectual movement built on criticizing how modernism has flaws and can be abused. It is a movement that once was novel and clever even by modernist standards of innovative thought, but now, has of late just been seen as what it is: destructive, pseudo-intellectual, "I always win" games of insincerity that benefit no one and bother everyone.

Many in the literary world have fallen for postmodernism's tasty guise of thoughtful anti-status quo attacks, its proclivity toward absurdist nihilist thoughts that nothing matters, we should just destroy all boundaries, keep things diverse and different at any cost.

I am not here to say that postmodernism is without merit.

I am just here to say, you are proving all of its faults with immense thoroughness.

Please pursue something more productive. Metamodernism is a current trend of synthesizing postmodernism with modernism, taking the good and ditching the bad, you might start there.

But if that's too technical, here's my broad advice:

Be sincere, be vulnerable, cut the bullshit.

Not every quip is worth saying, not every fake intellectual wall is worth erecting to dodge a verbal bullet. Just take things sincerely on the chin, learn from it, and keep the lesson in mind in the future.

And if you m

Sorry for what maybe a very layman question but I just finished reading (or trying to read) Simulacra & Simulation and I think I spent more time reading secondary interpretations than the actual book in order to get a good grasp of what Baudrillard is saying. I understand that they are not in the same category but when I read 19th and 18th century thinkers like Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, or Nietzsche I don't seem to have such a hard time trying to decipher what they are saying.

I would like to get into more postmodern work and maybe this wasn't the best book to start off with but is this style of writing just specific to Baudrillard, specific to just this work by him, or indicative of the style that most postmodernist philosophers use?

Thought some folks here might enjoy reading this post from an incoming student wondering about how our university is with postmodernism. When attempts are made to define what he might mean by postmodernism or to offer more information about postmodern philosophers, he responds with the same quote about rationality, and insists that his position (which he never concretely characterizes) is being unfairly characterized by others. A slightly depressing read.

Also, I want to emphasize not to attack the poster. Many people have entered and even exited their first year of uni with problematic viewpoints.

I know we're supposed to make an effort to educate but in this case it seems most dissent gets filed under hate and my empathy and time are being put to better uses atm.

Title should be self-explanatory. People in my life are rediscovering postmodernism and I've found it completely reactionary, specifically in how it denies the possibility of revolution or movement of history.

Have recently discovered that I love postmodernism and looking for more recs! Some of my favourite authors are haruki murakami, italo calvino, and Kurt Vonnegut, and I also recently really enjoyed one hundred years of solitude. also really like Jorge Luis Borges short stories. I have enjoyed all of these authors for ages but didn't realise they were postmodernists until like last month lol so just getting into exploring the genre properly and would love some suggestions!! thanks so much x

>“An angel is, of course, always He (not She) in human language, because whether the male is, or is not, the superior sex, the masculine is certainly the superior gender.”

That’s from C. S. Lewis’s Preface to Paradise Lost, which originates in lectures he gave in 1941. Specifically, it’s in Part XV, The Mistake About Milton’s Angels.

Someone from 80 years ago saw the distinction as obvious and uncontroversial. In the process of being casually sexist. In a text partially dedicated to defending socially conservative values. It’s not the distinction that’s new, it’s the idea that the distinction is controversial.

Nietzsche is the only philosopher I have read or read about over the last 6 months. I want to now go read post-modern post-structural theory as I have been told that's what Nietzsche's ideas lead to. From my roots, where do I begin? Do I begin with a standard book on the subject or is there a better place for me to start from?

Recently been learning more about postmodernist philosophy trying to wrap my head around the details of its incompatibility/differences with marxism. Are there any philosophers considered postmodernist that explicitly critique historical materialism? Propose an alternative?

Would it be wrong to classify him as such?

Truth and morality are nothing but social constructions

built by power to maintain power,

and I have enough / now / to silence your voice / whenever it suits / me.

I will say it is the just and truthful thing to do

as I do it - unremorsefully. This, I'm told, is the best practice.

1 2

Greetings,

I am a engg. student who got into philosophy after watching Chomsky last year, followed by Zizek etc. Since a past few months, I have gotten very interested in postmodernist thinkers and I am currently reading "Discipline and Punish" by Foucault.

However, I lack a rigorous philosophical background and I wonder if a background in classical philosophy would be essential for a proper understanding of postmodern thinkers.

I would appreciate any suggestions/pointers or advice in general on this

Thanks in advance!

I was reading some Camus and some of it seemed a little bit postmodern with the skepticism angle that he played with in Myth of Sisyphus, so I'm interested to hear what everyone thinks.

https://youtu.be/ic25UIxe2WY?t=61

Actual fact: the 9/11 of reason n'a pas eu lieu

I've heard a few claims that Lacan is a postmodern psychoanalytic theorist, however I've also heard Zizek dismiss this claim because Lacan believed that science could touch the real. Can he be said to be postmodern or not?

This subreddit seems to have an odd alliance between postmodernists and theists. Why is that? Is there some philosopher responsible for this odd alliance?

Is it just, in a Platonic view, that both pursue the Form of the Good? Is it because of the idiotic view of humans as machines often espoused by materialists and new atheists*? Or is it just coincidence?

• “Animals are not machines; one of my main concerns is to combat this notion. Actually only machines are machines.” - Mary Midgley