- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/7/20 at 12:31 pm to Jimbeaux
quote:
Still, you’re tart reply belies a lack of open mindedness.
Not my intention. I wanted to reply before my phone died so I could reference the thread easier, as I've found that it's harder to find threads where I don't post using the searchbar. I will hopefully have something up tonight. Forgive me if it is tomorrow. I still have a ton of med school stuff to study for, but doing this gives me something motivation to finish it in a more timely fashion.
Posted on 7/7/20 at 12:33 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
This gets to the point I have made here for well over a decade. It is most accurate on the ground level to view Progressives from a psychological viewpoint rather than an ideological viewpoint. When people said "Liberalism is a mental disease" 15 years ago, people scoffed. When people now say "Progressivism is a mental disease" everybody gets it. These are people who have convinced themselves that living in the freest and most prosperous country in human history is actually like living through a racistsexisthomophobic dystopian nightmare. They shop at Whole Foods one moment and then throw a brick through the window the next. It's a sickness under the thin veneer of ideological theory. It is rooted in deep ignorance, narcissism, resentment and personal alienation. And they gather en masse and project it via Marxist sloganeering and destruction of American traditions, principle, ideals and Institutions, out into the world. And they would replace all that with whatever passion they happen to feel on any given day. It is a dangerous Infantilism of the mind and heart.
What a post.
Posted on 7/7/20 at 12:46 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:I agree. It honestly sounds like he read the back covers of a bunch of books and calls himself an “expert.”
James Lindsey have been amazingly sloppy in their analysis
His broad generalizations are dishonest and unfair, and it only works when it is received by those who already have their minds made up.
Posted on 7/7/20 at 12:53 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:
I agree. It honestly sounds like he read the back covers of a bunch of books and calls himself an “expert.”
His broad generalizations are dishonest and unfair, and it only works when it is received by those who already have their minds made up.
Can you expound upon that? As someone who's recently discovered his New Discourses site I'd like to know where you think he's being sloppy and to what extent it makes a difference.
Posted on 7/7/20 at 2:34 pm to TigerNutwhack
quote:Give me something to listen to.
Can you expound upon that? As someone who's recently discovered his New Discourses site I'd like to know where you think he's being sloppy and to what extent it makes a difference.
Why does it make a difference? Because feeding people what they want to hear just makes opinionated people louder and dumber. See this entire board.
Posted on 7/7/20 at 3:09 pm to Jimbeaux
Excellent intro into everything that is wrong with society today. Thanks for posting OP. There are also excellent lectures included under the one you posted.
Posted on 7/7/20 at 3:16 pm to Jimbeaux
Posted on 7/7/20 at 3:21 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
These are people who have convinced themselves that living in the freest and most prosperous country in human history is actually like living through a racistsexisthomophobic dystopian nightmare.
I think many are much aware of what they are doing than you give them credit for. They seek to create strife to absolve themselves of the uselessness they feel from having lived an easy life. They cannot be validated unless they overcome obstacles so since none exist, they must create them.
Posted on 7/7/20 at 3:22 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
This is nonsensical. I'm working on a long series of posts as to why the term "postmodernism" is now a catch-all term for everything that is conveniently bad.
Do you even Frankfurt School, bruh?
Posted on 7/7/20 at 3:50 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:
Give me something to listen to.
Why does it make a difference? Because feeding people what they want to hear just makes opinionated people louder and dumber. See this entire board.
You're the one who said this:
quote:
I agree. It honestly sounds like he read the back covers of a bunch of books and calls himself an “expert.”
His broad generalizations are dishonest and unfair, and it only works when it is received by those who already have their minds made up.
which makes it appear you have examples in mind is all. As to why it makes a difference, I guess I mean are your objections on how "Postmodernism" is a tool and not an actual set of beliefs? I'm not trying to be combative, I'm genuinely interested.
Posted on 7/7/20 at 3:58 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
This is nonsensical. I'm working on a long series of posts as to why the term "postmodernism" is now a catch-all term for everything that is conveniently bad. Pluckrose and especially James Lindsey have been amazingly sloppy in their analysis.
I think you’re dealing with the original postmodern source writings. And Pluckrose and Lindsey are dealing with their fleshing out in the “-theory studies” in the university and beyond.
Posted on 7/7/20 at 4:02 pm to TigerNutwhack
What I want to know is whether those who think James, etc. are sloppy or short on knowledge actually object to their positions on the modern grievance critical theorists or whether they're more concerned with how New Discourses discusses the alleged origins (Foucault, Derrida, etc.) in reference to said modern theorists.
For example, having taken critical race theory courses and having read books/papers on intersectional feminism, I have a hard time seeing how our naysayers would object to the treatment of those topics by Lindsay, Pluckrose et al.
For example, having taken critical race theory courses and having read books/papers on intersectional feminism, I have a hard time seeing how our naysayers would object to the treatment of those topics by Lindsay, Pluckrose et al.
Posted on 7/7/20 at 4:03 pm to the808bass
quote:
I think you’re dealing with the original postmodern source writings. And Pluckrose and Lindsey are dealing with their fleshing out in the “-theory studies” in the university and beyond.
I think Pluckrose called it "applied postmodernism". I don't have the background to know if we should find that description legitimate, but I do think "they" do a better job distinguishing than we (people on this board) might.
Posted on 7/7/20 at 4:13 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:
Why does it make a difference? Because feeding people what they want to hear just makes opinionated people louder and dumber. See this entire board.
Can you give some examples and direct people to a better source of information?
This should be fairly easy
I’m sure there are a lot of people reading this thread that want the most factual information. I personally don’t care about James Lindsay and if you say there is a better source I’ll read that too and decide for myself.
Posted on 7/7/20 at 4:15 pm to tiggerthetooth
I can vouch for the book. . .
Haidt crushed it.
Haidt crushed it.
Posted on 7/7/20 at 4:26 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
What I want to know is whether those who think James, etc. are sloppy or short on knowledge actually object to their positions on the modern grievance critical theorists or whether they're more concerned with how New Discourses discusses the alleged origins (Foucault, Derrida, etc.) in reference to said modern theorists.
For example, having taken critical race theory courses and having read books/papers on intersectional feminism, I have a hard time seeing how our naysayers would object to the treatment of those topics by Lindsay, Pluckrose et al.
Same. I've been hoping crazy4lsu would post about New Discourses to explain the actual nuances and/or any objections, comments, or criticisms. As you said, I really hope that crazy distinguishes between objections to Lindsay's terminology and criticisms of Lindsay's discussions of contemporary action (no matter what label you ascribe).
Posted on 7/7/20 at 4:55 pm to TigerNutwhack
quote:From the two times I started listening to him he was just spouting off the same stuff we here from Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, but he seemed less sophisticated than even them. That's why I want you to give me something to listen to.
which makes it appear you have examples in mind is all. As to why it makes a difference, I guess I mean are your objections on how "Postmodernism" is a tool and not an actual set of beliefs? I'm not trying to be combative, I'm genuinely interested.
quote:Postmodernism, from what I can tell, is an entire era (the only we're either in now or leaving for another) in which truth is relative. Of course its a belief--a wrong one.
I guess I mean are your objections on how "Postmodernism" is a tool and not an actual set of beliefs?
Posted on 7/8/20 at 10:59 am to crazy4lsu
Before I start, I have to preemptively beg for both forgiveness and patience, as I’m excessively pedantic, especially online, and thus trying to summarize large historical trends is extremely difficult for me, as my impulse is to expand and expand until I’m sure no one is reading my logorrhea. Already I’ve spent 4 hours on this, and again, I have to apologize for my slow method of working. I also realize that what is below isn’t exactly what people want, as very few people are interested in the nuances of the theories themselves, but rather what the effects of those theories have been and the relation to the current political atmosphere. I do want to answer that, but I also want to delineate clearly and as precisely as possible the intellectual history, the movements themselves, the thinkers and the terms. I do think that what results below, as an unedited, rather quick, doesn’t do a sufficient job in terms of clarity, I hope it illustrates, in some small way, a more defined notion of what both modernism and postmodernism are and aren’t. That I’m so pressed for time, I’m skeptical that I even achieved that, and thus, hope that I can do better the next time. I’m actually guilty of what I accuse Pluckrose of, which is excessive summation of complicated events, and my ultimate goal, with discussing this, is to frame discussions in consumable ways, is going to make for a difficult project. If anyone has any suggestions on how best to frame discussions, I’m all ears. Also, if there are general questions which you would like answered, ask away. I will do the best I can in answering them.
I watched Pluckrose's talk, and then I watched the first 12 minutes or so again before realizing that it would take longer than I thought to formulate a response. So for now, due to my massive med school exams in one week, I can only respond to the first couple of minutes, and specifically, Pluckrose’s notion of Modernity. The rest I can respond to when I bump the critical theory thread.
The task that Pluckrose decided to undertake was a massive one, and while I don’t mind the attempt, the evolution of a specific pattern of thought usually leads to voluminous works, and I do appreciate her attempt at brevity. That said, the fact that she has to summarize a great deal leads to some issues. Firstly, her description of the intellectual history left me confused. She said at one point that she was talking about the late 60’s, and then says that the loss of Marxism as a framework led to “despair” and caused “upheaval.” But many of the thinkers she referenced certainly didn’t despair about the potential loss of the framework. Deleuze and Guttari suggested that the inability of narratives to hold was a moment for celebration. There is very little despair in Derrida’s work, especially his early linguistic work. In addition, Jameson used a Marxian framework in Postmodernism; The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, and that very framework was used for numerous critiques of Postmodernity, from the thinkers to the notion that such a thing as postmodernity even existed. The most notable rejection of Marxism came from Baudrillard, who developed a method of thinking that was informed as much by media studies as it was by Marxism. I can’t say that I agree with her particular characterization.
That said, I did appreciate how she attempted to differentiate left from liberal, as though each of those systems have different philosophical traditions, they do share some overlap with certain thinkers. That those terms have converged in meaning in American politics is detrimental, precisely because differentiating between those traditions is extremely relevant for discussions about modernity and postmodernity. That she broadly ascribes liberalism to the umbrella of the left is also an incredibly complicated notion. If someone were to reduce liberalism to some key tenets, such as the belief in the rule of law, the freedom of the market, the primary of the individual, there would be many on the contemporary right who would describe those notions as conservative. This speaks to one of the problems with speaking broadly in an attempt to summarize trends, as the American development of conservatism and liberalism was different from the British development of conservatism which was different from the French, etc.. The inability to translate the specific contexts is a recurrent problem in defining postmodernism (as well as a general problem in the humanities, or in developing a singular notion of the “West”). One example from Pluckrose’s talk is her discussion of Lyotard, and the notion of the “paralogy of legitimation” is that Lyotard is responding to a specific notion from Habermas about consensus (which Habermas terms Diskurs, or a dialogue of argumentation). Lyotard wanted to develop a specific notion of justice if the system of “metaprescriptives” that govern the “totality of statements” fails to ascribe agreed upon rules. This above statement is nearly nonsensical orphaned of the context (and it is nearly nonsensical on its own), but Pluckrose doesn’t convey the context, or give the listener the idea that Lyotard was responding to another philosopher’s claim, and takes the entire statement to be “cultural and moral relativism,” which is a rather large claim to make. I can touch on this later, but the move from Lyotard’s notion of paralogy, which to him is the building of a shared meaning, of which consensus is a stage, to a notion of cultural and moral relativism isn’t straightforward, and requires many steps in argumentation along the way in order to buttress that claim.
Then we get to her definition of Modernism, as she states that both Marxism and Liberalism were Modernist movements. This is not true by any stretch of the imagination. Liberalism is the direct result of the Age of Enlightenment, and by the time you saw literary and artistic Modernism, it had been a well-defined tradition for nearly 200 years. Marxism, similarly, had a tradition that predates Modernism, with the Marxist-Anarchist split that happened at the First International, which was the defining moment for the left in the latter half of the 19th century. She could mean the beginning of modern philosophy, which began in earnest with Descartes's formulation of the Cogito, but generally that development isn't termed Modernism. Modernism generally refers to movements at the turn of the 20th century, and included people like Eliot, Pound, Wolff, Kandinsky and Joyce.
I watched Pluckrose's talk, and then I watched the first 12 minutes or so again before realizing that it would take longer than I thought to formulate a response. So for now, due to my massive med school exams in one week, I can only respond to the first couple of minutes, and specifically, Pluckrose’s notion of Modernity. The rest I can respond to when I bump the critical theory thread.
The task that Pluckrose decided to undertake was a massive one, and while I don’t mind the attempt, the evolution of a specific pattern of thought usually leads to voluminous works, and I do appreciate her attempt at brevity. That said, the fact that she has to summarize a great deal leads to some issues. Firstly, her description of the intellectual history left me confused. She said at one point that she was talking about the late 60’s, and then says that the loss of Marxism as a framework led to “despair” and caused “upheaval.” But many of the thinkers she referenced certainly didn’t despair about the potential loss of the framework. Deleuze and Guttari suggested that the inability of narratives to hold was a moment for celebration. There is very little despair in Derrida’s work, especially his early linguistic work. In addition, Jameson used a Marxian framework in Postmodernism; The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, and that very framework was used for numerous critiques of Postmodernity, from the thinkers to the notion that such a thing as postmodernity even existed. The most notable rejection of Marxism came from Baudrillard, who developed a method of thinking that was informed as much by media studies as it was by Marxism. I can’t say that I agree with her particular characterization.
That said, I did appreciate how she attempted to differentiate left from liberal, as though each of those systems have different philosophical traditions, they do share some overlap with certain thinkers. That those terms have converged in meaning in American politics is detrimental, precisely because differentiating between those traditions is extremely relevant for discussions about modernity and postmodernity. That she broadly ascribes liberalism to the umbrella of the left is also an incredibly complicated notion. If someone were to reduce liberalism to some key tenets, such as the belief in the rule of law, the freedom of the market, the primary of the individual, there would be many on the contemporary right who would describe those notions as conservative. This speaks to one of the problems with speaking broadly in an attempt to summarize trends, as the American development of conservatism and liberalism was different from the British development of conservatism which was different from the French, etc.. The inability to translate the specific contexts is a recurrent problem in defining postmodernism (as well as a general problem in the humanities, or in developing a singular notion of the “West”). One example from Pluckrose’s talk is her discussion of Lyotard, and the notion of the “paralogy of legitimation” is that Lyotard is responding to a specific notion from Habermas about consensus (which Habermas terms Diskurs, or a dialogue of argumentation). Lyotard wanted to develop a specific notion of justice if the system of “metaprescriptives” that govern the “totality of statements” fails to ascribe agreed upon rules. This above statement is nearly nonsensical orphaned of the context (and it is nearly nonsensical on its own), but Pluckrose doesn’t convey the context, or give the listener the idea that Lyotard was responding to another philosopher’s claim, and takes the entire statement to be “cultural and moral relativism,” which is a rather large claim to make. I can touch on this later, but the move from Lyotard’s notion of paralogy, which to him is the building of a shared meaning, of which consensus is a stage, to a notion of cultural and moral relativism isn’t straightforward, and requires many steps in argumentation along the way in order to buttress that claim.
Then we get to her definition of Modernism, as she states that both Marxism and Liberalism were Modernist movements. This is not true by any stretch of the imagination. Liberalism is the direct result of the Age of Enlightenment, and by the time you saw literary and artistic Modernism, it had been a well-defined tradition for nearly 200 years. Marxism, similarly, had a tradition that predates Modernism, with the Marxist-Anarchist split that happened at the First International, which was the defining moment for the left in the latter half of the 19th century. She could mean the beginning of modern philosophy, which began in earnest with Descartes's formulation of the Cogito, but generally that development isn't termed Modernism. Modernism generally refers to movements at the turn of the 20th century, and included people like Eliot, Pound, Wolff, Kandinsky and Joyce.
Posted on 7/8/20 at 10:59 am to crazy4lsu
Her description of Modernism as "simple, graspable" is also odd, as there was a strong destructive and revolutionary impulse, and it wasn't committed to a notion of "objective reality and the importance of evidence and reason," as Pluckrose states. It’s defining feature was, in the British Isles, a rejection of Victorian ideals and forms, and the search for new forms to incorporate advances in knowledge and the conditions surrounding the artists. But there isn’t a clear distinction in terms of a date between the Victorians and Modernists, or the Impressionists in France and the Modernists, but generally, it was situated against what these artists called “bourgeois” values. It was also specifically utopian, but it was a utopia based on the belief in the linearity of human progress, based on human achievement. Postmodernity differs in this respect because it rejects the possibility of a utopia, and suggests that humanity is at behest of certain physical phenomena which limits what humans can achieve, or that humanity and society is at the mercy of systems of complexity which are increasingly outside of their direct intervention.
Regardless, her definition of Modernism is problematic because it gives the impression that Postmodernity is a rejection of Modernity, when the major difference between the two is that the Modernists sought to create a new world from the ashes of WWI, while the Postmodern impulse has been to suggest that creating a new world was not possible, given the collective experience in WWII. This is the basis of Lyotard’s suggestion that postmodernity is driven by a skepticism of metanarratives. The other features of Modernism, the artist at “play” (such as Duchamp’s readymades, which wanted to question, among other things, questions of what art is, and how the space around a piece determines how it is categorized, a notion that continued in the postmodern era), the search for new forms for expression, and the rejection of science as the source of objective truth (a trend Nietchze noticed in The Birth of Tragedy before the Modernist Era). Indeed, the notion that civilization had to be rebuilt was a central one, as Pound stated in his magazine The Exile that “I want a new civilization,” and that civilization was in decay and had to be reformed was recurrent in his work, as well as Lawrence’s, with references also seen in Auden, Eliot and Yeats.
The important point to realize is that postmodernity is a continuation of the Modernist trend, and that Modernist trend was openly revolutionary. Pluckrose’s argument hinges on a very peculiar reading of Modernism, and a very peculiar notion of the 19th century context that gave rise to the Modernist impulse. If she meant something different, then she should say so, but that she is posing the larger trend as “Modernism vs Postmodernism” already suggests that her understanding of Modernism is faulty.
So again, I apologize that I couldn’t do more. I can answer the entire version soon, to get to her point and discuss it.
Regardless, her definition of Modernism is problematic because it gives the impression that Postmodernity is a rejection of Modernity, when the major difference between the two is that the Modernists sought to create a new world from the ashes of WWI, while the Postmodern impulse has been to suggest that creating a new world was not possible, given the collective experience in WWII. This is the basis of Lyotard’s suggestion that postmodernity is driven by a skepticism of metanarratives. The other features of Modernism, the artist at “play” (such as Duchamp’s readymades, which wanted to question, among other things, questions of what art is, and how the space around a piece determines how it is categorized, a notion that continued in the postmodern era), the search for new forms for expression, and the rejection of science as the source of objective truth (a trend Nietchze noticed in The Birth of Tragedy before the Modernist Era). Indeed, the notion that civilization had to be rebuilt was a central one, as Pound stated in his magazine The Exile that “I want a new civilization,” and that civilization was in decay and had to be reformed was recurrent in his work, as well as Lawrence’s, with references also seen in Auden, Eliot and Yeats.
The important point to realize is that postmodernity is a continuation of the Modernist trend, and that Modernist trend was openly revolutionary. Pluckrose’s argument hinges on a very peculiar reading of Modernism, and a very peculiar notion of the 19th century context that gave rise to the Modernist impulse. If she meant something different, then she should say so, but that she is posing the larger trend as “Modernism vs Postmodernism” already suggests that her understanding of Modernism is faulty.
So again, I apologize that I couldn’t do more. I can answer the entire version soon, to get to her point and discuss it.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News