Postmodernism Isn't Brainwashing You. 

I feel kind of stupid for not explaining what postmodernism actually is in this video, but I feel like it's important to discuss two things about it: First, there is "postmodernism" as prescribed in the Postmodern Condition. I heard that Lyotard actually borrowed the term from an artist or architect so he was applying it to a more theoretical apparatus. In this book, he talks about how the computerization of our relationship to language will change our relationship to knowledge in such a way that what it's based on will essentially lose its meaning and be shared around through flows of capital and other indirect apparatuses. He is critical of the relationship that scientific knowledge has with people, believing that knowledge is controlled by a certain social power, reduced to "language games" as referenced by Wittgenstein. It's important to note that at the time he was criticized harshly by others in this circle of theorists, and he distanced himself from it later in his life, saying it was his worst book. I know Baudrillard is associated with this line of thought too but Idk much about it. Then, importantly in this discussion, is "postmodernism" as produced by this reactionary apparatus in English speaking spheres. This is not just a reaction to Lyotard and Baudrillard, but also many writers that were talked about in literature and later sociology departments throughout the 1980s. Various works published through the "Science Wars" conflated many other authors and fields with this general idea of "postmodernism", including post-structuralism, deconstruction, Lacanian psychoanalysis and its influence and feminist literature studies. Additionally, because of some works like "Higher Superstition", they were further associated with minority studies, as well as how these broad range of French texts were used to supplement discussions in minority studies. Because of this, a lot of people think "postmodernism" is a wide range of things, ranging from a relationship to belief and truth, a cult, a sort of social virus, which are all quite removed from what Lyotard was talking about. If anything, what postmodernism has become is postmodern in itself. Personally I think the anti-postmodernism movement spawned through Chomsky, Dawkins, Sokal and Bricmont is really fascinating and not talked about enough or in enough detail. So I made this video to respond because people are talking about it again. I hope this corrects any confusion! EDIT: I just found something really funny. On page 280 in the Chaosophy essay collection, in the essay "Molecular Revolutions", Guattari is complaining about "gurus" in America, often influenced by orientalism, who are replicating the hierarchical power structures of psychoanalysis. Like lol he's complaining about the same problem that the Sokal influenced papers are

I know absolutely nothing about any of these French people, but I'm enthralled by this video. Guess there's a new rabbit hole to explore.

Awesome. Dr. Fatima released a (lengthy) video on this topic as well. Eff sokal lmao😌

I'll drop the pill of the century on y'all: the analytical/continental philosophy divide was just brit academics being brexiters some 20 odd years before the rest of their country. You can't argue against that...

If I have to hear Sokal's critique of postmodernism one more time I'm gonna go apeshit

a good way to begin with guattari is the book "guattari deleuze, une biographie croisée" by françois dosse. i don't know if it's avaible in english but it's really clear

all my homies hate sokal and bricmont

I loved the closing statement about making the concepts accessible😊

I saw that video in my recommended and could immediately tell it was gonna be extremely biased and uncharitable

Continental philosophy has been thoroughly and foolishly misunderstood by North American academics. The first group to misunderstand it was the postmodernists. The second group was the one that attacked postmodernism. Edit: Half a century later, Continental philosophy seems to finally be getting *some* accurate representation (but foolish misunderstanding still abounds).

I feel like everything lacan-derrida related you have to apply what is said in the text *to the text* multiple times in order to get it (there are multiple degrees of qualitatively different reflexivities until it reaches a fixed point).

Around 13:50 there is a block Gatarri's text(I am sure I spelled that wrong lol) as an example of obscuritism. I have not read any works from that philosopher myself, but I am sure he isn't intentionally being obscure. That block of text wasn't any more jargon heavy than Hume or, God forbid, Kant(my personal favorite philosopher). Sometimes there is really no getting around just how smart so many of these philosophers are. They are so articulate that, ironically, they become hard to understand. In order to reallt understand philosophy, I think we have to assume the philosopher is speaking in good faith and is trying to be helpful. If we find damning evidence otherwise, that is one thing; if we go into a philosopher assuming maliciousness, then we will just get our own maliciousness thrown back at us by the text.

My problem with post-modernism, is that it generally disavows historical materialism while adhering to a philosophically idealist paradigm. I think this is bad for any genuine socialist movement; just look at what post-modernism with its main focus on identity politics has done to the modern left. In my opinion, class consciousness based on historical materialism and class struggle will always be better at uniting the marginalised than identity politics, which inherently splits the working class into smaller and smaller categories of oppressed people. To be fair I don't put all the blame on continental European philosophers, as soviet scholars certainly propagated their deteriorated form of Marxism, thus bankrupting and disarming the only valid revolutionary theory against capitalism. There is a real sinister reason behind why the establishment embraces the liberal idealist paradigm; it is a bourgeois philosophy through and through. I'm curious to know what you think of this.

The equivalent of believing that cultures fake their accents for clout.

inb4 this gets a lot of views or something

the fucking ygo duelists of the roses ost why are you literally me wtf

Im curious what you think about Gabriel Rockhill's take on postmodern writers and the "compatible left."

the stock footage is wild 😂

Translating, it's and by design.

my favorite youtube acc

Personally I mostly dislike postmodernism when it's combined with materialism

great video dude👍

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of pedantry. The main complaint against postmodernism isn't "obscurism" (which a lot of postmodernists _do_ actually engage in), but rather the fundamental premise: that the whole nature of truth is nothing more than what the "powers that be" say it is and that there is no real truth to the world; that it's all a matter of one's perspective. This argument is self-refuting, since that would mean that postmodernism itself is also just another perspective. Awful rich of you to complain about how your opposition misrepresents you when you've done the exact same thing here and even demonized them on top of it all.

There are DeLuze camps?

Hella based

Regarding your Discord and understanding of 'other perspectives': From my experience, you have actively disallowed and banned the discussion of other perspectives that do not conform to your existing worldview. But it is good to hear that you now do recognize your lack of knowledge outside of the very few authors you have read and, in general, see the lack of knowledge about hard science in philosophy and literature studies as a very real problem. I genuinely hope you have become more open now than you were before. The Analytics refuse to read the Continentals, but so do the latter stomp out any opposition and unfavorable critique of their theories.

postmodernism isnt brainwashing you and your fingernails definitely are not disgusting...