Can anyone truly be a postmodernist?

Can anyone truly be a postmodernist? It seems to me that those who use postmodern rhetoric, just want to replace the current modernist structures with their own. They might even hold a linear view of history, which culminates in the liberation of "opressed" groups. This leads me to believe that its all a big psyop to force our compliance. Any books for this?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Can any of you homosexuals post passages describing examples of what modernism and post modernism are and for good measure what came before modernism? Let's settle this useless debate with three passages each showing the progression of these ideas and whether anybody has any idea what they are talking about without coming across as splitting hairs.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      pre-modernism came before modernism

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        modernism was named
        before pre-modernism

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm not putting an hour of work to settle a IQfy debate sorry.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Dont tell me copilot has you beat?

        >Modernism:

        In the bustling city of New York, a towering skyscraper, the Empire State Building, pierces the sky. Its sleek, streamlined form, devoid of unnecessary ornamentation, embodies the modernist principles of function over form. Inside, a jazz band plays an innovative composition, breaking away from traditional harmonies and rhythms, mirroring the modernist spirit of experimentation and rejection of the old.

        Postmodernism:

        In the heart of Tokyo, a building unlike any other stands. It’s a hodgepodge of styles - a Gothic spire here, a Rococo ornament there, all jumbled together in seeming disarray. This is the Nakagin Capsule Tower, a postmodern architectural marvel. It challenges the idea of a unified, singular style, instead embracing a collage of different historical periods and styles. It’s a visual representation of the postmodernist idea that reality isn’t a single, coherent whole but a collection of disparate parts.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Pre-modern is anything before the enlightment. Modernism stems from enlightment thought, and is characterized by a search for an objective truth through rationality. Post-modernism is a rejection of the former. It critiques the rationality of the modern age and casts doubt on the ability to produce an objective truth. Thus post-modernism is entirely negative. Since man is a positive being, this negativity only serves to create an endless loop of destruction of what he creates.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Good summary and thanks for the reminder that postmodernism is total garbage nonsense(most of it).

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Might I recommend The Joe Rogan Experience?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >posts a postmodern meme

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >It seems to me that those who use postmodern rhetoric, just want to replace the current modernist structures with their own.
    Foucault has structure?
    >They might even hold a linear view of history
    Foucault has a "straight" view on anything?
    >which culminates in the liberation of "opressed" groups.
    Foucault made any from of alternative?
    >This leads me to believe that its all a big psyop to force our compliance
    So "Madness and Civilization" corresponds to "big psyop" and "Discipline and Punishment" corresponds to "force our compliance"?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is not particularly talking about Foucault. It's more of an observation based on contemporary leftist politics and academic spaces , where they appropriate postmodern concepts to tear down existing structures, yet through this they advocate for more modernism

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Unironically yes. Foucault was a huge homosexual and his philosophy was a cope for that.

      No homosexualry=No post-modernism

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Certainly! Modernism and Postmodernism are two distinct movements in literature that reflect different philosophies and styles. Here are example passages that capture the essence of each:

    Modernism: In the fractured skyline of the city, the buildings rose like jagged teeth against a pale sky. The streets hummed with the rhythm of machines and the march of progress, each step a testament to man’s triumph over nature. The narrative of life was no longer linear but a collage of perspectives, a stream of consciousness flowing through the minds of disillusioned souls seeking meaning in a world upended by war and technological change. The prose was sparse, the themes existential, as writers sought to “Make it new,” and peel back the layers of reality to expose the alienation and ambiguity lurking beneath the surface.

    Postmodernism: The text was a patchwork of genres, a playful pastiche where high and low culture collided and coalesced. The author winked at the reader through the pages, blurring the lines between fiction and reality. Characters leapt from one story to another, aware of their fictional status, challenging the very notion of a singular truth. The narrative was non-linear, a labyrinth of intertextual references and ironic detachment, where the grand narratives of history and identity were deconstructed and reassembled in a kaleidoscope of endless possibilities.

    These passages aim to reflect the core characteristics of each movement: Modernism’s focus on the inner workings of the mind and the fragmentation of traditional forms, and Postmodernism’s embrace of plurality, intertextuality, and the playful subversion of expectations.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Or maybe a transition from the last great modernist to the first post modernist if you morons can't write a simple passage.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      joyce to beckett

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Postmodernism isn't a belief, it's a style.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >take the blandest, most overused run-of-the-mill progressive mainstream opinionoids
    >use opaque, pseudoeloquent language to LARP as academic
    >wa la! postmodernism

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Both Modernism and Post-Modernism are dogshit movements hell bent on hampering the geist — especially when compared to Romanticism. There is no beauty left in the world because homosexuals like Foucault slaughtered it and cast away its chopped up limbs into separate, color coded bins beneath a rose-tinted looking glass.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I AM LE WACKY IRONIC SELF AWARE GUY WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN A GRAND NARRATIVE BUT WE NEED TO LIBERATE LE OPPRESSED A CATEGORY I CANNOT ADEQUATELY DEFINE NOR CAN I ASCRIBE A MORAL IMPETUS FOR THAT CAUSE AS I DENY A GRAND NARRATIVE AND RUN AWAY INTO MORAL RELATIVISM AND DENY ANY ESSENCE TO ANYTHING BUT HERE'S WHY WE NEED TO DO THIS LEFT WING POLITICAL THING BECAUSE I JUST REALLY REALLY LIKE POOPY SHAMEFUL BUTT SEX BUT DON'T WANT IT TO BE SHAMEFUL I DECONSTRUCT YOU NUTHIN PERSONELL *obscurantism*

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Masterpiece.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Uses moral relativism as a crutch
      >Actually advocates for moral imperialism
      Accurate

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Viewed as a tool, deconstructionism can be useful. But you're astute in noticing that a tool is always employed by someone who has a design in mind.
    I see no problem with this if it's admitted to, but often, post modernists pretend they dont have a new blueprint in mind. They obviously do.
    I remember watching a debate between Foucault and Chomsky, their famous one. Chomsky recognizes the arbitrary structure of linguistic concepts and their relation to methodologies of power and control, but asserts that beneath all of this, there are still cross cultural universals, like some eternal concept of justice, or basic morality, etc. Foucault insists that despite his conviction, he can't help but feel like these concepts themselves are still rooted entirely in western language, western historical theories, western philosophies, and therefore cannot be universal. Then he says that the goal therefore should be to tear it all down ("this must be done") and worry about "the rest" later.
    I agree with Foucault that Chomsky is sort of fooling himself if he doesn't think these universal concepts are, at bottom, Chomskys concepts that he is ascribing to universality; but I suspect Foucault is doing something worse than being delusional, he is hiding something; no man advocates for tearing something down unless he has a vision for what should be put up in its place.
    There is no problem with deconstructing our models, they're shitty models, but there's also no problem with being a fricking man and saying what model you believe in instead of pretending you're above them.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *