Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 69 of 69

Thread: Postmodernism

  1. #41
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    what I am saying is that I see (I may see wrong thing) Petersons position as lumping two distinct categories together: (a) campus postmodernists and (b) socialists when in fact these groups have much less in common than Peterson (or his supporters) assert and by disproving postmodernism he thinks he simultaneously disproves socialism (vice versa also) when they are two different things and in doing so, perhaps unintentionally, supports the status quo when in fact the status quo is very very bad. It's possible that I have interpreted him wrongly but I do not think so.

    I am not accusing him of "classism" (a non-position) but I am accusing him of supporting the status quo, because even tho he may be critical of it analytically, what he does, i.e. inciting young people towards conservatism and individualism, actually props up the existing system even if he is critical against it.
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  2. #42
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    power is just a predicate without meaning, a lot like existence, in the context post modernism applies it. you could say bill gates gives up his money freely, but the retort will always, cynically, be "but he's just exchanging it for other forms of persuasive social capital i.e.: power" at that point power becomes indistinguishable from the fact that something occurred, and the better interpretation is that individuals have power potential in of themselves and manifest that potential in the accumulation of wealth or social force, etc.

    to redistribute wealth redistributes the trappings of success but not success itself, which is brought about by morality, so it dispenses with morality as just a superfluous trapping, wherein its actually the basis for power... morality is the sine qua non of both science and law, hence to re engineer things on the basis of their manifestation and to render "morality" nugatory as just a cynical means of control over the aforementioned trappings is just flirting with disaster because we've as Nietzsche says "unchained the earth from its sun"... Nietzsche who predicted the conflicts of the 20th century

    it really doesn't matter because, if peterson is right about this, the problem takes care of itself, on a long enough time line, which is to say if post modernism is a bankrupt ideology it will eventually extinguish itself. the deal with morality is Christianity suffered exactly that fate, but Christianity, at least the form that died and was buried in the 19th century had run its course, and its only meaning left is not in its dogmas but in its symbolic path to unification. peterson's entire maps of meaning is about how that inner core of Christianity is alive and will always live on in progressively more sophisticated approaches to life, but post modernism is the cynical rejection of such a thing in principle

    in other words, while christianity posits a way forward it is not the only way forward, but it stands for there being a way forward in principle. post modernism stands for this idea that narratives of that kind have no value and that allocation of resources are sheer manifestations of power. somewhat irrationally this usually leads to an inference that it needs to be offset by systemic controls in favor of the weak for the fact they are weak, as if that would transcend the narrative, but it seems self evident that it doesn't transcend the narrative but merely inverts it. thus it takes a negative stance towards morality itself, which is folly
    Last edited by Bertrand; 10-16-2017 at 08:16 PM.

  3. #43
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    right but that is not what power actually is: power is the ability to act. you are talking about power-potential, but the actual powers of people, parties, and groups to do particular things is manifest and obvious, unlike power potential. In the same context, Peterson has power to influence people, so he is influencing them in favour of the status quo system. Sure he has power-potential to become anything he wants probably, but that's not the point: it is what he does that matters. From there you can apply this to anybody or anything. I don't know that this point of view is consistent with any ideology, it is just my personal observation of life. Above all things the post-modernists are really structuralists who love looking at who has power in relation to who and deciding if they think that power is good or not, but I am not so interested in that - it's just that this point of view collides with my interpretation (so far) of Peterson, it's not demonstrative of it.

    sure, just merely transferring wealth without addressing the source creates problems, instability chief amongst them. and capitalist states in the 20th-century found universally they needed in some way or another to transfer wealth between sectors of society or else there would be a general revolt. what does it tell you about capitalism that it requires to destabilise itself in order to survive: that the system is unsustainable and eventually will collapse, which is what Marx predicted. And Marx like Nietszche predicted those 20th-century conflicts and also the state of the world economy today.
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  4. #44
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    to say he is influencing things in favor of the capitalist system misses the forest for the trees and infers that mistaken perception is his perception and thus intent. in other words, first of all, you can provide collateral benefits to something without being in bed with it. second of all, it discounts the time factor, peterson has only been embraced by the alt right because they are stupid and likewise fail to see he's laying the groundwork for the end of their ideology and that of the post modern ideology. its the common inability to see the real game he's playing that unites both the left and the right in taking sides wrt to him, which is to say they, like you, perceive his message in only its most obtuse form. peterson is paradoxically against ideologies in a transcendent way, which is to say he opposes them on the grounds that they stultify human progress and that "post modernism" is just another ideology even as it masquerades as being "past" (i.e. post) modern (i.e.: ideological). again, its their failure to take into account the time component of what hes preaching, and more than that, in general and at large, that distinguishes Peterson from his critics. further, if the alt right could comprehend the foregoing they would realize he's actually harming their cause at its very root and thus not "side" with him, and if the post modernists could see the same they would see peterson as "intending" (on the same grounds in the first sentence) as harming the alt right. the point is both are just so caught up in their silly modes of thinking they really have lost all sensitivity to "truth" as revealed as a process in time. to put it in socionics terms, they are so obsessed with regulating space they assume everyone else is likewise doing the same thing whenever they do anything and attributing motives on the basis of that, without fully comprehending what truly moves humanity and inasmuch as that is the case they are slaves to it... like Jung says "until you make the unconscious conscious it will control you and you will call it fate"... this is how and why people march to war. which is what peterson set out to investigate at the onset

  5. #45
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    fine, I will take a closer look at him - but if it turns out to be another Fukuyamist "perfected liberal democracy is the end-game of mankind" I will be annoyed
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  6. #46
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah yeah we've all been burned before by false prophets

  7. #47

  8. #48

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The conservatism in that video is pretty annoying. What he needs to realize is that his arguments and beliefs are not exactly unique to Western civilization, but they are rooted in conservatism and conservative-minded thoughts. They are mostly rooted in keeping tradition for the sake of keeping tradition. It's like I have heard the exact same arguments before and I was like "Oh boy...".

    He needs to expand his horizon and look at non-Western societies, which is something that I'm sure he won't likely do. The arguments and the beliefs and the solutions and the methods that he has are more universal than he thinks. The need for "gratitude" for things that already exist, the need to never apologize, which often lead to things like historical revisionism, the hatred for "liberal arts" (and the need to cut their funding)... those are all standard conservative stuff that exist all over the world. These formula are dangerous because it can easily create a recipe for far-right extremism.

  9. #49
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default


  10. #50

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also Peterson is a fucking... clinical psychologist, which is why he's into people like Jung, because clinical psychology is rooted in "psychoanalytic psychology" like Jung and Freud (he also seems to be into Freud, which is pretty funny). Clinical psychology is where psychologists without talent and ABILITY go! If you like him or whatever, then fine... but I don't particularly see anything interesting about him (just not intelligent enough, nothing against his beliefs or his personality). I'd suppose he rode on the popularity of the "anti-SJWism" and "anti-Political Correctness" wave (at least on the Internet). Otherwise... nothing really interesting, just seems to be holding onto rather outdated theories about the mind.

    I can see the appeal of "psychoanalysts" and clinical psychology, as I used to be really into them, I used to think that they were so "deep" and somehow unlocked the secrets of the human mind, the answer to the entire human race! But now I know that it was due to my own ignorance. Ironically, a psychoanalyst has observed the behavior of idolizing and worshiping of a psychoanalyst in her patients:

    Lastly, patients regularly overrate the analyst's significance. He is for them not simply a human being who by dint of his training and his self-knowledge may help them. No matter how sophisticated they are, they secretly do regard him as a medicine man endowed with superhuman faculties for good and evil.

    Both their fears and their expectations combine to produce this attitude. The analyst has the power to hurt them, to crush their pride, to arouse their self-contempt—but also to effect a magic cure! He is in short the magician who has the power to plunge them into hell or to lift them into heaven.


    Karen Horney. Neurosis and Human Growth

  11. #51

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    ILI - C
    Posts
    1,810
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think postmodernism has been weaponized by right-wing players. For example, the right has coined the phrase "alternative facts" to plead with mainstream news outlets, which resembled arguments in favor of relativism. Climate-change deniers have also played the relativism card in an attempt to insert their arguments into the mainstream news cycle. Furthermore, white nationalists have employed their own kind of identity politics to defend their race.

    Elements of postmodernism aren't exclusive to either side of the left-right political spectrum.

  12. #52
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Postmodernism in literature aims at immersing the reader in the idea that all narrative is inaccurate to some degree, emphasizes that some things are unknowable, and strives to show that life is some chaotic mess from which there can be no one unifying theme or understanding. It's inherently NeSi.

  13. #53
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kakarot View Post
    I think postmodernism has been weaponized by right-wing players. For example, the right has coined the phrase "alternative facts" to plead with mainstream news outlets, which resembled arguments in favor of relativism. Climate-change deniers have also played the relativism card in an attempt to insert their arguments into the mainstream news cycle. Furthermore, white nationalists have employed their own kind of identity politics to defend their race.

    Elements of postmodernism aren't exclusive to either side of the left-right political spectrum.
    If that's even true, postmodernism was weaponized by the left long before it was used by the right lol. The right using postmodernism is more of a fighting fire with fire type of thing.

  14. #54

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    ILI - C
    Posts
    1,810
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    If that's even true...
    It's obvious on its face. And now that I think about it, it also explains some of the ethical corrosion in the right. Postmodernism cannibalizes the principles of whatever movement harbors it.

  15. #55
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kakarot View Post
    It's obvious on its face. And now that I think about it, it also explains some of the ethical corrosion in the right. Postmodernism cannibalizes the principles of whatever movement harbors it.
    Postmodernism is a pluralistic philosophy where many perspectives exist. The foundation of right wing philosophies lies in having a single united perspective. The Right's nature is anti-pluralistic. Maybe you're thinking about nominal conservatives who pay lip service to the right wing, but who are not really in favor of it. But if you look to the alt-right for example, you see very little postmodern influence.

  16. #56

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Isn't postmodernism a kind of total subjectivity? ("there's no such thing as right or wrong, correct or incorrect" "there are no facts, only interpretations"). And as a system of subjectivity, isn't Socionics a kind of Postmodernism?

  17. #57
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Isn't postmodernism a kind of total subjectivity? ("there's no such thing as right or wrong, correct or incorrect" "there are no facts, only interpretations"). And as a system of subjectivity, isn't Socionics a kind of Postmodernism?
    Definitely, although adherents often deny it. Typologists seem ridiculously biased and don't even realize it*. Surely, their own type is filtered through their own cognitive biases and perceptions, which makes type consensus impossible.

    *Quite a few seem rather manipulative and pushy with their certainty of the type of others. This is a warning sign of an unhealthy psychology. Making claims not backed by evidence that do not resonate with the individual is wrong. It's like insisting someone to admit they are gay when they know they are not, or something similar. The more you reveal the more dangerous of a position you are in.

  18. #58
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skeptitron View Post
    Definitely, although adherents often deny it. Typologists seem ridiculously biased and don't even realize it*. Surely, their own type is filtered through their own cognitive biases and perceptions, which makes type consensus impossible.

    *Quite a few seem rather manipulative and pushy with their certainty of the type of others. This is a warning sign of an unhealthy psychology. Making claims not backed by evidence that do not resonate with the individual is wrong. It's like insisting someone to admit they are gay when they know they are not, or something similar. The more you reveal the more dangerous of a position you are in.
    Well that's your perspective.

  19. #59
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Isn't postmodernism a kind of total subjectivity? ("there's no such thing as right or wrong, correct or incorrect" "there are no facts, only interpretations"). And as a system of subjectivity, isn't Socionics a kind of Postmodernism?
    If postmodernism is total subjectivity, wouldn't that mean that postmodernism itself could be seen as a subjectivity, and that according to your definition, rejecting it is not wrong?

    Also, rather than saying Socionics is a system of subjectivity, we could say that the types deal with different facets of an objective reality. That would make it less a philosophy of subjectivity and more a psychological division of labor. The latter was actually Aushra Augusta's original intent.
    Last edited by Aramas; 10-19-2017 at 01:35 PM.

  20. #60
    wasp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    TIM
    ZGM
    Posts
    1,578
    Mentioned
    132 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default


  21. #61
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Well that's your perspective.
    No! That would be a descent into madness.

  22. #62
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wasp View Post
    great post-modern analysis of post-modernism
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  23. #63
    Haikus Theoria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Qualia
    TIM
    Disqualified
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default


  24. #64

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The postmodernist critiques of science have themselves been the subject of intense controversy. This ongoing debate, known as the science wars, is the result of conflicting values and assumptions between the postmodernist and realist camps. Whereas postmodernists assert that scientific knowledge is simply another discourse (note that this term has special meaning in this context) and not representative of any form of fundamental truth, realists in the scientific community maintain that scientific knowledge does reveal real and fundamental truths about reality. Many books have been written by scientists which take on this problem and challenge the assertions of the postmodernists while defending science as a legitimate method of deriving truth.[114]

  25. #65

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It seems to me that Postmodernism was the ideology of choice for some leftists, to attack those in power and attempt to make their authority illegitimate. According to Postmodernism, they would say that colonialism or racial superiority was wrong or at least nonsensical, because there is no such thing as "right or wrong" or "superior or inferior", it's all relative. So they would attempt to put those in power to a complete halt in deciding what to do.

    But ironically these days, it seems like Postmodernism is being used by the right and authoritarians as a Machiavellian and opportunistic method to stay in power. Climate change denialism is being used by corporate power as scientific relativism to keep polluting the environment as much as possible while amassing wealth. Historical revisionism is being used by the authority to rewrite history as to legitimize their power and suppress any historic criticism of their regime. "Post truth" and "fake news" are being used by those in power as well as their supporters, to claim relativistic truth of their victories and successes during its regime.

  26. #66
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    IMO, Post-modernism is an extreme leftist ideology. It shows what happens when you go too far with liberal/leftist thinking. It results in a PC culture that gets offended easily and overemphasizes protecting minorities and attacking the majority. Saying post-modernism is right wing based is spreading a falsedom.

    Sure, there is a lot of bad things to say about right wing extremists, which are obvious, but grouping it with post-modernism as a way to ignore the negative behavior of extreme leftists is silly because it has nothing to do with it.

    In summation, there are nut jobs on both sides of the political spectrum and pawning off post-modernism as falsely belonging to right wing groups is just a way to excuse poor behavior from the extremists of the left just because they happen to be on the same side you are on.

    I actually belong on the left politically if forced to choose, but I have enough awareness of the us vs. them mentality that pollutes politics to realize that there are plenty of level headed right wingers and loony left wingers.
    Last edited by Raver; 10-20-2017 at 11:11 PM.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  27. #67

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Postmodernism is used by both the left and the right to further their agenda (though it's only a minority of them, to be sure), it's just that postmodernism being a tool of the right is a fairly recent phenomenon, as far as I know. It's just that postmodernism is almost completely incompatible with the basic Western belief that there really is a such thing as objectivity or universalism.

    I'm pretty sure that leftist postmodernists are all but nearly extinct in the West, while people like Trump are gaining traction. For the left... yeah, things like "cultural appropriation" are pretty kooky. But they are more ineffectual and pointless more than anything.

  28. #68
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default


  29. #69
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    IMO, Post-modernism is an extreme leftist ideology. It shows what happens when you go too far with liberal/leftist thinking. It results in a PC culture that gets offended easily and overemphasizes protecting minorities and attacking the majority. Saying post-modernism is right wing based is spreading a falsedom.

    Sure, there is a lot of bad things to say about right wing extremists, which are obvious, but grouping it with post-modernism as a way to ignore the negative behavior of extreme leftists is silly because it has nothing to do with it.

    In summation, there are nut jobs on both sides of the political spectrum and pawning off post-modernism as falsely belonging to right wing groups is just a way to excuse poor behavior from the extremists of the left just because they happen to be on the same side you are on.

    I actually belong on the left politically if forced to choose, but I have enough awareness of the us vs. them mentality that pollutes politics to realize that there are plenty of level headed right wingers and loony left wingers.
    Postmodernism was a defensive reaction to the modern era. The modern era was a period of great upheaval, great battle among opposing political and social philosophies, etc. There were a lot of competing groups at the time and organizations one could belong to that were committed to very different and sometimes contradictory ideas. There was also a lot of technology that was invented during that era as well that gave these different ideas the opportunity to really effect change in society. Postmodernism came about in an attempt to stifle the true debate among all these opposing ideas. It is a good method of creating social stability, because it asserts that there aren't necessarily any certain conclusions we can make about the right way to live our lives or about the true nature of reality. Because everyone is at least partially right, no one can be wrong, really. And so we all get dragged into this morass of grey. One thing the modern era depended on was the idea that there were right and wrong ideas. This competition led to a very dynamic and changing society. But some people weren't happy with the instability that caused, and the social upheaval. So in comes postmodernism to end pretty much all that creative element of the modern era. Now we live in a pluralistic society dominated by a wishy-washy attitude toward everything except the ideas of diversity and inclusion. Those are the sacred cows of this postmodern era.

    A lot of the interpretation that we are taught at college these days is usually guided by professors who ask questions intended to make students come to no final conclusion about what they read, hear, or see. IMO, this kind of co-opts rational thought. It's a great way of keeping people in line. The breaking down of binaries that a lot of SJW stuff relies on is part and parcel of this kind of method. The modern era was the era of highly creative, explosive binaries. The postmodern era is the era of an enervated whimper of Western civilization caused by the destruction of these binaries. Binaries related to gender, sexuality, race, etc are all under attack, not necessarily to promote inclusion or diversity, but because the more undifferentiated the psyches of people are, the more easy they are to control. So, postmodernism is kind of like a philosophical sedative that relies on creating uncertainty, destroying binaries, and not permitting people to come to final conclusions.
    Last edited by Aramas; 10-21-2017 at 04:34 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •