'Postmodernism' as Existential Threat.

[luka]

you're doing good Stan.

 

[woops]

Living according to a set of doctrines/theses/positions means that the weak spots need to be treated gingerly, and any traffic in such spots need to be forbidden, taboos established, practices that threaten to jeopardize the integrity of reality. But you said yourself: breaking taboos unleashes energy.

aren't we seeing the grand narratives re-assert themselves via conspiracy, cummings runs the UK, etc? like we want a simpler strongman trump type leader on the one hand and a complex QAnon scenario behind the scenes

 

[Mr. Tea]

aren't we seeing the grand narratives re-assert themselves via conspiracy, cummings runs the UK, etc? like we want a simpler strongman trump type leader on the one hand and a complex QAnon scenario behind the scenes

This seems accurate (unfortunately).

 

[craner]

You can't do this thread without Poetix.

 

[constant escape]

Sometimes it seems like the alt-right is more opposed to the right than it is to the left, but perhaps just from certain angles, and perhaps these angles aren't that impactful.

But I think you're right, about wanting a simpler, more down to earth figure. I'm just not sure that the likes of the alt-right would want such a thing, or if they would want to see things shaken up just as much as some of the farther left folks. Can't quite gauge that one.

And maybe some of the conspiracies make use of grand narratives/meta-narratives, but such models seem to be more in a leftist tradition, at least in terms of connotations. I still think it makes sense that post-modernism includes a rejection of such narratives, and a rejection of the general enlightenment sensibility and epistemology.

But then what is left, in terms of strategy/approach? A kind of magickal post-truth provocateur sensibility? Still have a lot to flesh out, but the dichotomy of alt-right/(neo)liberal seems to be a fruitful one, perhaps also having to do with poetix's cucked/based paranoid/neurotic matrix.

The (neo)liberal/alt-right dichotomy would nearly essentially correlate with the puritan/pagan dichotomy, in terms of some kind of hegemony/orthodoxy and its taboo underbelly.

 

[luka]

You can't do this thread without Poetix.

he's allowed to join in. so are you.

 

[luka]

In May 1992, academics at the University of Cambridge reacted with outrage to a proposed honorary degree from their venerable institution to Jacques Derrida. A letter to the Times from 14 international philosophers followed, protesting that “M Derrida’s work does not meet accepted standards of clarity and rigour.”


Depending on your viewpoint, the incident marked the zenith or nadir of Anglo-American analytic philosophy’s resistance to what it saw as the obfuscation and sophistry of its continental European cousin. To them Derrida was a peddler of “tricks and gimmicks"

 

[woops]

wow what next? the sokal hoax? at once a typically unattractive reactionary tactic from a good honest science guy and fair enough a lot of that theory driven academic stuff doesn't seem to make much sense, almost as if that were the point. @poetix to thread please.

 

[Mr. Tea]

wow what next? the sokal hoax? at once a typically unattractive reactionary tactic from a good honest science guy and fair enough a lot of that theory driven academic stuff doesn't seem to make much sense, almost as if that were the point. @poetix to thread please.

Is it "reactionary", though? Sokal isn't a conservative, he's a socialist. His stance on postmodern discourse is "I never understood how deconstruction is supposed to help the working class". Perhaps he's making an error there, in that it was never intended to do that in the first place, but then, what exactly is it for?

 

[woops]

maybe that's his stance but the over-riding message conveyed by his stunt is look at what a load of shit these theorists are churning out, i can program a computer to parody this nonsense

 

[luka]

Is it "reactionary", though? Sokal isn't a conservative, he's a socialist. His stance on postmodern discourse is "I never understood how deconstruction is supposed to help the working class". Perhaps he's making an error there, in that it was never intended to do that in the first place, but then, what exactly is it for?

well, you can characterise it in a number of ways but "helping the working class" is definitely not the aim of philosophy as i see it

 

[Mr. Tea]

maybe that's his stance but the over-riding message conveyed by his stunt is look at what a load of shit these theorists are churning out, i can program a computer to parody this nonsense

Well, a supposedly prestigious journal printed a paper that was intentionally written as a nonsensical pisstake. The implication is that the whole field is a nonsensical pisstake. I don't really see how that fact can be sidestepped.

 

[luka]

in the broadest sense a kind of truth search, or way to establish consistency, or for solid foundations to build upon. a field of play in which certain moves are permitted and possible and even have to be played as the moment arises. a working through of implications etc

 

[Mr. Tea]

well, you can characterise it in a number of ways but "helping the working class" is definitely not the aim of philosophy as i see it

Perhaps not the working class per se, but this style of philosophy has always marketed itself as being progressive in terms of identity politics - feminist, anti-racist, pro-LGBT, etc.

I think "Has it actually helped these causes, and if so, how?" is a reasonable question to ask.

 

[luka]

i dont think so really.

 

[luka]

thinking isnt instrumentalist in that way

 

[luka]

there are things which can be thought and once thought are difficult to unthink

 

[woops]

i reckon there's a massive school that thinks philosophy should indeed help the working class and other identities. one adherent founded this forum

 

[woops]

Well, a supposedly prestigious journal printed a paper that was intentionally written as a nonsensical pisstake. The implication is that the whole field is a nonsensical pisstake. I don't really see how that fact can be sidestepped.

yeah we're agreeing

 

[luka]

i reckon there's a massive school that thinks philosophy should indeed help the working class and other identities. one adherent founded this forum

hmmmmmm.... only through the inherent virtue of philosophy... not twisting philosophy to make it 'useful'. let's not be total simpletons