Postmodernism: The Anti-Marxist Philosophy (pt. 2)

[@MasterOfBaiter]

It is very difficult to introduce people to the whole "there is no inherent essence to anything but there is still a material reality". Usually to prime people for the conversation I ask them to consider both a world where everything is blue and where nothing is blue and if a word for blue would emerge in either. Like trying to bring the terms use to prominence, we have words for thing cause there was some friction between us and our environment that pushed us to have a word for it. Yeah we make things up but we make them up cause we kinda need to. The rings of Saturn is a good example, why do we care that Saturn has rings? Cause the other planets usually don't. If all planets had rings jupiter would stand out less.

[@SamSinha]

I agree, overall. Definitions, too, are in a flux - depending on the material conditions. I'm trying to make a distinction between different types of social constructions. The traffic rules are social constructions. But, to consider them similar (in terms of being constructed socially) to written forms of mathematical equations is absolutely useless. Other gas giants too have rings (but, yes, others usually do not). So, your argument totally holds (since Saturn's rings have unique features that makes them stand out).

[@khienatyell5586]

Appreciate this comrade, this summarises what I usually need for critiquing postmodernism. I specifically have dislike for it. Post modernism has infected alot of western academia especially liberals and it's no coincidence the CIA cherished it.

[@SamSinha]

Postmodernism wears the "left" garb pretty well, after all. I'm really opinionated on this. So, had to oversimplify at times. In the last episode, I'll include a reading list in the end.

[@xermiotas4800]

Another great video. I always struggled with understanding postmodernism, but your videos help a lot. (But I'm still struggeling to understand it 😅) Can't wait for part 3. 😁

[@SamSinha]

Haha! Even I wouldn't say I understand postmodernism. And how would I? Many of their texts are... LOL! I don't even have adjectives for those. Stay tuned!

[@ianstover]

How do you accept the predicates if there is no knowledge. Isn't simply saying everything is some atom of interpretation a totalizing narrative that this idea can circle back on itself.

[@PC42190]

Great video! I do think that structuralism has some merits, that's why I appreciate intellectuals who combined it with marxism, such as Althusser and Poulantzas

[@SamSinha]

Of course. But, that's the sublation postmodernism denies.

[@PC42190]

@@SamSinha agree!

[@Warrior_of_kristus]

But what about the post modern Marxism JP talks about all the time😂

[@SamSinha]

Lol. Really, those people have no clue what they're talking about.

[@TheRandomPlayer]

it has always seemed strange to me the assertion that speech has been traditionally privileged over writing, in what sense has speech been considered primary?

[@ixmix]

Amazing, yu hav deconstructed my mind...😊 but i would rather go with Wittgenstein's word is your world.

[@jujujuice1524]

Postmodernism just seems like deconstructivists run amuck.

[@SamSinha]

Haha. Lol

[@isaacyuki1]

I don't get it. Why should you deconstruct e.g. masculinity and get feminism? What does make feminism the counter part of masculinity? How do I deconstruct something? Because if you beginn to deconstruct a concept you will get to other concepts that you could also deconstruct..

[@SamSinha]

Yes, since the "other" is the main discourse now, it can be up for another round of deconstruction. But, this is totally different from the Marxist view of dialectics.

[@addammadd]

“‘There is no metalanguage,’ is a proposition of metalanguage.” -Žižek 14:34 at the root of scientific objectivity is a dogmatic faith that such a notion can exist. This notion has never been substantiated. Furthermore, basing your materialism on this structure, not having substantiated that dogma, precludes any possibility of true sublation. This isn’t a postmodernist or anti-Marxist position, but in fact, as Marxist as it gets. It is the ruthless criticism the man himself explicitly demanded. 15:38 that “I guess” was a telling moment. 16:53 credit “postmodernists” for one thing then: giving identitarian Marxists and identitarian capitalists a common threat. You need to read some Spivak.

[@avaraportti1873]

Lmaoo this denial of truth of yours runs into severe self-referentiality issues

[@Badbentham]

Well, with PoMo you get from "We reject how the political power system named Capitalist Enlightenment tries to fully control and shape the world and all men since the Netherlands after around 1588" to " We reject Reason, in any way shape or form, as such; - let us all become Flat Earth Theorists, and in result vote for Rightwing Populists." - Reason as such was never the actual issue; rather the lack thereof, and vested economical interests. Plus, the innate stupidity of capitalist "rationality" that serves the Happy Few. - " Dialectics of Enlightenment" > Heidegger, imho.

[@phpn99]

I had a good laugh. Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard et al were neo-marxiste. They shared Marx' anti-idealism and their focus on culture and language was a flawed and ultimately nihilistic attempt at reifying the transactional aspects of language, the embedded values it conveys, into the material means by which relations of desire and power are operating. They completely mistook the effect for the cause and like Marx, thought that by altering the effects one could alter the course of (human) history. This futile exercise has led to nothing but further alienation and discord. Dig a bit further and you will see that when pressed about it, Foucault, Derrida and Lyotard all admitted that their ideas were essentially descriptive / paradigmatic and in no way could human relations be altered in anything but subtle, contingent ways. In the end it's still Hegel and Kant who are right about the limits of understanding and the limits of action. And 20th century anthropology alongside epistemology has done the lion's share of helping us understand ourselves and the world, while French philosophy alongside the Frankfurt school of Critical Theory has done nothing but agitate the old Marxist trope of class struggle, confusing hordes of impressionable minds with pedantic discourse leading to absolutely nothing but solipsism. The godfather of this posse of wankers is Friedrich Nietzsch, whose hallucinated rants and ramblings make for entertaining reads and a good laugh. Take it seriously at your own mental peril; Nietzsche didn't exactly end happy and enlightened as a superman was supposed to be. The problem with young philosophy students is that you fall into the cult of personalities and you forget that all of these writers were flawed humans, merely throwing hypotheses at the wall to see what would stick. As in any human endeavour, some were more talented than others and it is not sufficient to call yourself a philosopher, name drop concepts while wearing a fantastical beard, to be one. The first sign of a talented philosopher is modesty and consistency, and a propensity to state ideas as overtly hypothetical, never as a peremptory system. Beware of systems and ideologies ; including Postmodern deconstruction; they are a trap for the mind. The world may extend beyond our faculties but it is nonetheless intelligible, even to a child.

[@SM-mx1it]

I think you lost everyone at "Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard et all were neo-marxists". They deconstructed all of the grand narratives, including Marixism. It sounds like you just don't like the Frankfurt School for political reasons.

[@nektariosorfanoudakis2270]

So, you refuse to learn; Post-modernists are explicitly anti-Marxist and this series makes a good job in explaining why.