7

noun a late-20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism and has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematical relationship with any notion of “art.”.

What is Postmodernism and its relation/difference to modernism? I hear this terms use in debates and forums and looking at the definition above, I'm often confused with the correlation between the topics discussed and the term postmodernism at hand.

> *noun* a late-20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism and has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematical relationship with any notion of “art.”. What is Postmodernism and its relation/difference to modernism? I hear this terms use in debates and forums and looking at the definition above, I'm often confused with the correlation between the topics discussed and the term postmodernism at hand.

5 comments

[–] fusir 3 points (+3|-0) Edited

One theme I've taken from postmodernism is an intentional disregard for others' logic.

So from what I know Nietzsche, one of the founding figures of post-modernism, was a trancendentalist, meaning that an emphisis of his philosophy was to trancend outside influences. One way this seems to embody itself in post modernism is the idea that knowlege and logic are subjective and dependent on the observer (which I personally don't buy because they take it to an absolutist form). This is often tied to the concept of social constructionism. So a theme of post modernism I've noticed is to say fuck you, I disagree with your logic, and I'm going to attack you as a person instead to illustrate though very tenously that your perspective is wrong because of who you are, and I'll also use this opportunity to illustrate my right to be post-logical.

So for example published in a post-modernist journal was an argument than E=mc2 is a sexist equation because it gives exclusitory acceptance to C as opposed to other velocities, which is sexist and therefore wrong. Einstein should have written it different, and this proves that he is a sexist. Also all the works of Newton are a rape manual.

Ah so its a tool of subjective critique that the crazies have taken hold of. I personally tend to see things very objectively, even if I don't like what I'm looking for. Many people I know have this fake aire of happiness but will violently lash out at any bit of harmful connotations which are usually taken out of context.

I'm surprised as a Transcendentalist that Nietzsche was a subjectivist. I lean towards the idea that his health had a great effect on his view on the chaoticness of the universe and failed to see the order and objectivity in it. In Transcendentalism movement there is much objectivity especially if you take into consideration that many of the traditions reference the principle of cause and effect, and from these principles and others we can derive a priori knowledge on how to be in the world. From this we can derive things like individualism, property rights, and even rights in general in its true definition; an action that does not cause harm. From this we can also derive self-defence principles to maintain order in chaos.

[–] fusir 1 points (+1|-0) Edited

I do not know everything about philosophy but what I see here is that earlier trancendentalism used the philosophy of the enlightenment, the idea of clearly deliniated rights and social order as clock work that can be mechanically described as the product of specific agents with specific actions.

But Nietzche came into being when Europe was about ready to rebel from the enlightenment in general, which would be a bit trancendental you have to admit.

All I can say is that the enlightenment gave us government where we at least had for a time more freedom than the vast majority of humans ever had (at least to say something negative about a leader) and eventually about a century later developed the marginalist revolution that is responsible for our immense physical wealth.

And post-enlightenment gave us marxism and national socialism which lead to war and starvation of all of Europe and has lead to starvation in every place it's been tried. Fuck post-enlightenment. I like thinking like a rationalist and having that expectation of others.

[–] fusir 1 points (+1|-0) Edited

Also it is interesting in regard to places on the net like voat that the community fighting this has also become very post-enlightenment. Pick your poison of retardation for the only way to join together to fight a sure death caused by mass retardation is to bolster some other group of retards.

My personal view is that if society is a system then it can have emergent properties including an intellegence. The intellegence of a group is not the same as it's parts. Some social structures can multiply intellegence. Some social structures can add intellegence. Some can express an average. Some can be less intellegent than a single human. When society's IQ drops it cannot manage itself. The result is mass starvation because the carrying capacity drops. You don't need an ideology that excuses violence against a particular racial group or toward a social class to be deadly. Stupidity can kill. Governments often implement things with Cobra Effects (look that up). But when a nation becomes wrought with them and for ever increasingly important systems and can't discuss the reality of that cobra effect rationally people will starve.