Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Wokism is a classic Hegelian grand narrative. So are many forms of fascism, certainly in the more popular German incarnation thereof. The current progressive ideology doesn't descend, whatever MAGA QAnon types declare, from the "Frankfurt School". It descends much more linearly from the longstanding liberal-progressive tradition of grand narratives that brought you such hits as prohibition. It descends almost entirely from gentiles who were the key figures in enlightenment philosophy. Postmodernism was 'invented' by leftists but was widely derided, even initially by Orthodox Marxists as covertly reactionary. This is because postmodernism is a framework by which one could conclude, quite rationally, that the Marxist mission and the Marxist historical narrative (ie. dialectical materialism) were wrong or at least substantially irrelevant and/or not necessary.
All post-modern movements (that is to say, all major political movements that are either not explicitly Hegelian or which do not explicitly involve recreating or extending pre-modern ways of living, like the Amish) are deeply influenced by postmodern thought (including by the Frankfurt school). This includes the 'tradcath revival' that followed Vatican II and filtered into the modern FSSP/SSPX. It includes modern political Islamism as imagined by Bin Laden. It includes weird, esoteric online subculturalist politics. It includes the modern Anglophone 'dissident right'. These aren't entirely postmodern movements by any means, many rely on older ideologies (part of postmodernism is that it allows, unlike modernism/grand narrative room for many smaller premodern narratives, including traditional memes). One can acknowledge this or reject it, but in the end what the postmodernists (or those currently considered academically 'postmodernist') particularly the French like Derrida, Deleuze, Lyotard, Foucault were able to provide was the framework for the cultural criticism of the progressive grand narrative in which the modern internet right engages, in which almost all of us engage. Moldbug and many other reactionaries have acknowledged this over time, as I said last week when we last had this discussion.
Dase's argument in that thread is relatively weak. There are plenty of things to be argued among 'power worshippers'; Western elites, as even Karlin has finally acknowledged, are broadly of a high quality even if they have adopted some low quality memes. Certainly there are very few historical societies people can point to that had universally higher quality elites (as I believe even Signals - or another ethnonationalist regular - noted a few weeks ago, the class of effete, educated, extremely classically well-informed sort of people who ruled Europe before 1914 fucked up big time themselves, in the end, and so many of their sons died for it). American elites rule over Silicon Valley. Even if they did nothing to create it (they did indeed do much, many American elites are Silicon Valley to the core) it is hard to call this incompetence, whatever the state of the homeless in San Francisco. It's also, if anything, something of an ahistorical notion to suggest that early America had particularly high quality elites compared both the present and to many other countries at the time, so I don't think this is merely residual quality now fading. I read an account of the final attempts at reform in China over the last decades of the Qing dynasty and was struck by how absurdly competent certain parts of the court were in that period - they really did try everything they could, but it was too late. Some would argue that the Russians in that post-Japanese war, pre-WW1 period attempted similar.
'Might makes right' is facile but it is also one of the major longstanding narratives in which the right engages, while it can just be discarded or even blatantly ignored when it becomes inconvenient, it is compelling and certain sectors of the dissident right do wash their hands of it a little too much on a case-by-case basis.
Well of course , because it can criticize anything and its conclusions are arbitrary.
I would say Postmodernism is a revolt against enlightenment rationality, not a continuation of it, but the lineage of the idea doesn’t matter to me. Postmodernism is more than a criticism of grand narratives (bailey).
There are important questions that I deny and @FCfromSSC , @DaseindustriesLtd , @SecureSignals, the woke affirm (you probably too). Questions like:
Dase’s bizarre “power worshipper” insult, as far as I can tell, comes from the foucauldian idea that truth is just a mask for power. So he hears power when I speak of Truth.
In that conversation, you were saying that if some body of myth won out in the public consciousness, it must have had the most merit. You were making the "might makes right" argument, as in "those narratives won, so they must have been the best." That is not my criteria for whether a narrative has merit:
Notice you concede the argument "everyone has an identity and ulterior motives." Yes, they do. So why not try to understand them when it comes to something like Captain America or Superman? You are saying the ulterior motives don't matter, all that matter is that they won in the marketplace of ideas. But why did they win? Because they created effective propaganda that was memetically powerful, not because they were "right." What is right does not always win in the court of public opinion, which anyone here should admit.
I also put science in there. So are you saying that science produced by jews 'won'(ie, worked) because it was effective propaganda that was memetically powerful, and not because it was right?
And again, I do not believe that might makes right, or that what is right always wins in the court of public opinion, but it is correlated with it (that's why you cited american public opinion in 1939 to defend your isolationist views).
I am about as far from SS in views as it is possible to be, and do not wish to support their argument, but you are so obviously wrong I cannot restrain myself.
Drop the Jewish part, I have zero interest in that.
We know for a certainty that "science" that is not in any way factual or true can "win", in the sense of being adopted as scientific fact society-wide, purely because of effective propaganda and memetic power, while being absolutely false in its factual claims. Fucking Freudianism did exactly that! Lysenkoism was forced at gunpoint, but Freud's bullshit rewrote vast chunks of our society, based on fucking nothing beyond a story people were primed to believe. His disciples continued the scam, and their disciples continued the scam, and it's still fucking going!
I would dispute that, obviously, given the battle lines in this discussion. So you refuse to proclaim that HBD is true out of fear it might help people like him, but have no compunction agreeing with him on the cornerstone of his epistemology. Looks like you have 'axioms' in common. And even though you can "choose to believe" less distateful things, your opinon, like his, will remain a lifeless copy of the real thing (an opinion guided there by the truth and subject to updates).
He had and has his detractors. But more importantly, why does an error invalidate the whole system? It is absurd to deny the signal because it wasn't strong enough that one time. Last time, you tried to put a barrier in your epistemology between ideology-like and gravity-like knowledge, but postmodernism burned through it as I expected, and now you're questioning gravity.
Strong «I smoke to spite Hitler» energy.
Alternatively, @FCfromSSC just disagrees with him on race and probably other more weighty object-level matters (disagrees with me too), but most everyone accepts that social reality is socially constructed, in precisely the sense that it can systematically deviate from implications of honest scientific investigation, both on the level of a domain-specific narrative and on the meta-level of occasionally prioritizing narratives over evidence and narratively compelling beliefs over epistemically sound ones.
There's no smoking gun here, buddy: it's your epistemology that is the conspicuously deviant sort.
And it's not even consistent, I've pointed out a number of trivial holes and you just angrily shout to not notice them.
Because there is no principled way to delineate «the whole system». History is not a laboratory, everything is a one-off, nothing is truly replicable. Early 20th century psychology had happened exactly once, and got dominated by Freudian bullshit. At the same time, Communism with its blatant lies had dominated much of Eurasia, and in Germany this was countered by you-know-who. If anything, this shows us that grand narratives patently work. And this is indeed fucking strong evidence to ask whether you might also be living in the middle of one such grand narrative – or more. No matter how much it vexes you to adopt the «postmodernist» mindset.
«Postmodernists» actually make a strong, evidence-based point – because modernism fucking sucked for their generation.
Questioning gravity is good. That's how we can study anything nontrivial at all. It's just there are no sound reasons to conclude that gravity doesn't exist (whatever that means), so this questioning, normally, ends with (perhaps qualified) affirmation. This is not in any way a guarantee for any topic.
I wouldn't hide the truth or choose arguments by associates anyway, so the FC 'directed ideological cleaning' process is a mystery to me. Who knows what you guys smoke.
Original motte and bailey. Motte is ‘reality is partly socially mediated’.
Okay I disagree, it's just a weaker signal of the exact same process as science in a laboratory. It is by categorizing and linking distinct events that we can understand the world.
So according to you, if you quote history, it's just meaningless. No conclusions are allowed if a hostile head of state repeatedly violates the terms of the appeasement he gets, while another doesn’t? All completely independent events, no predictive value?
I see postmodernism does exist as a distinct concept when you want it to. Please just fucking tell me what term I am allowed to use for the sweeping epistemological changes you demand.
I’m ready to compare the achievements of modernism against postmodernism anytime you want.
Grasping at straws.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link