/philosophy/ - Philosophy

religion is natural for people so even if people are not religious they get substitutes for it like human rights, the state, equality, life

>>4806

>>4807

無宗教な人は多いけど無信仰はニーチェみたいな徹底的な神の否定じゃないと言えないよね

>>4809

In english if you will chink

postmodernism is basically slave morality - the philosophy

postmodernists might pretend to be morally relativistic or even nihilistic but the idea of challenging established values to empower marginalized people is a moral axiom itself

>>6081

The dissonance between the pushing of a morality, with exactly as you said "empowering marginalized people being an axiom", and the supposed """"nihilism"""" of postmodernism is its greatest weakness.

The more interesting thing to me is what is postpostmodernism. I think it is very real, even if it has a moronic name. The way I categorize it is as "the reaction to postmodernism". It then splits into two main camps. First there's total scientific rejection, with a Popperian complete acceptance of science as the only way to truth, and a non-rebuttal of any postmodern points or ideas, just a pure rejection of postmodernism as nonsense. Second there is the "double down" postmodernism, or maybe instead of post-post it is post^2. Taking any and all ideas from postmodernism and taking them to the extreme. Complete rejection of western ideas to the point of violent revolution. Inversion of historical value. I normally see this version best in ""art"", usually through performance art. Also add in the complete politicization of anything and everything.

Thoughts?

>>6081

I'd say it's absolutely the contrary, it's about rejecting the ideas/revisionism of others and finding meaning for oneself. Lies only harm ourselves, by causing discrepancy between what we want, and what others expect of us.

>>6084

The increase in freedom caused by education and technology caused people to look for their own meaning.

Postmodernity is nihilist in that by killing God our philosophy is groundless, that is to say, without a first cause there is nothing that can give your morals or ethics any justification from above

Nietzche saw the means to overcome this nihilism by means of the overman, but what I believe will happen is that technoscientific reason will increasingly become autonomous from humanist ends, basically the Landian Skynet scenario.

>>6091

Basically the enligtenment killed God and posited muh reason as the supreme good, and since humans can reason it was figured the enlightenment must be humanist, but what happens once machines can think better than man? By the enlightenment own standars man is now obsolete.

>>6091

I don't think you need ~God~ to have morals or ethics, all reasonable humans who grow to the 20's already have a brain developed enough to know that they don't believe on these things, they practice it out of peer pressure or culture, or because they are conspiring with other people who share the same interests. Besides, if "believing" in god worked, the world woudn't be as bad as it is. Seeing the current state and, and state in ancient civilization shows how harmful this whole idea is.

>>6092

Were we to follow a maxim from reason(as you just did), then we woudn't let machines cuck us, as it is unbenefitial.

I saw Nietzsche's critique of truth of more how our perception À Priori tends to have more novelty than before we discover the truth, and it, and i think its bollocks. Pride will always exist without the world or ill intention of others: People want to feel good about themselves; as does love(protecting the weak) Nietzsche arguments comes from a point that the individual acts reasonably at all times, which is not true, we are governed by our feelings(not emotions, but our body's stimulis)

In short, the only people who promote the idea of God are those who benefit from it, not the common folk.

>>6092

Then it is best that machines do the heavy pushing and we live from then on as embryos protected and served by them so we can be left to concern ourselves only with human things.

>>6090

>it's a phenomenon that happened as a result of increased technological advances

that's highly questionable, not just because the phenomenon is at best limited to a western european and north american context but also because it is limited to the upper middle and upper classes, especially fart-huffing academics

I'd argue that people who argue for the existence of a postmodern condition could be defined as postmodernists

also, to my understanding, the postmodern condition doesn't arise from technological advances but comes to be due to the current episteme allowing for new discoursive formations

wouldn't you explanation imply materialism which clashes with the postmodern rejection of objective reality?

>>6084

I largely agree but maybe contemporary postmodernists could more accurately be described as neo-marxists that adapt certain postmodern ideas

their notion of changing norms and values seems to be rooted in critical theory, the base-superstructure model flipped upside down, rather than in postmodern philosophy

but certain postmodern ideas, like the rejection of objective reality, which I would accept if it only concerned reality of thought but not material reality, are certainly adapted

I think this rejection what your "first camp" is primarily opposed to to a fault, lacking any nuance in it's opposition

people believe in different things

it's fairly mundane but true nontheless

doesn't mean that I agree that empirical post-positivist science isn't a good way to achieve an understanding of what is, the best way in my opinion, but no scientist would claim that science determines what ought to be

and this is a distinction that contemporary academic leftists don't seem to understand

>>6088

I agree in principle but in practice postmodernists seem to lose any nuance and seemingly try to push their system of believe onto others, and how is that legitimate?

However, as stated above, I agree with >>6101 in that I don't necessarily think that these people have understood postmodern ideas but closer to neo-marxism than postmodernism

>>6103

>seemingly try to push their system of believe onto others, and how is that legitimate?

Because it's the truth? Is it ethical to deceive people "for their own good" against their own will? Are you allowed to know what's best for the individual?

>>6112

How do you know that it is true, and why should it be the truth for others?

>>6103

>I largely agree but maybe contemporary postmodernists could more accurately be described as neo-marxists that adapt certain postmodern ideas

I agree. I believe all these sjws types were taught some of these postmodernist terms by their professors, and adopted them without being taught what postmodernism is, which explains this impossible, unthinkable, and unholy fusion of Marxism and Postmodernism.

>the rejection of objective reality

If only postmodernism accepted a transcendent metaphysic, it would be very close to being a western equivalent of Hindu/Buddhism. Postmodernism has the phenomenology of Maya mapped out, but without the transcendent.

>>6114

>Postmodernism has the phenomenology of Maya mapped out, but without the transcendent.

This so much, they arrived at the concept of anatta/shunyata by rejecting essentialism.

>>6093

>You don't need God to have morals

You act like you believe in a higher good if you act in such a way as to be moral. What would you call a higher good other than God?

>Believing in God would make the world better

The world that believes and acts on that belief in God IS objectively better. Unless you are a living in a third world country you live in a place that is becoming less and less violent as time goes on. So your criteria for the existence of God has already been met.

>>6126

>You act like you believe in a higher good if you act in such a way as to be moral. What would you call a higher good other than God?

The continuation of the human race, and its flourishing among the stars.

A moral society creates the best environment for rearing children who will be more Human than animal.

I hope atheism will mature into this philosophy, instead of today's hedonism.

>>4806

Most things people come in contact that are labeled 'post-modern' really don't have anything to do with the actual philosophical movement by Focault, Derrida, Lyotard and the like. Usually it's some sort of neo-Marxist style deconstruction a la the Frankfurt school or something.

>>6130

>Atheism is a single train of thought

Someone has to write a book on the infinite different shades of atheism.

Each atheist has his own beliefs, they are just not based on the specific being most religions call God. With capital G. For atheists, the being/s religions call godly or God, come into thought only when all other reasonable options are out of the calculation. There are no atheists in the event of a inevitable catastrophe, trust me. Everyone more or less is seeking god/gods/God to help them then.

Everyone, be it a member of any western religion, understands the concept of God. It's just their choice to not actively seek interaction on their side with it.

"Does Post modernism actually hold any nihilistic beliefs in itself." The thing is about Post-Modernism is it is not a specific belief, it is about confusion and the identity crises. Because this is the new age, where people are no longer their Jobs, or have royal titles from birth, it's essentially about people making something "new." for themselves, and there is even a thesis talking about how Nazi Germany was one of the first examples of a revolutionary "Post-Modern country.", though it was not the first. It is not about the rejection of past morals as much as it is about your ability to even do that in the first place within the new age, @OP and anyone who wants to respond.

I also highly doubt materialism has anything to do with it, a lot of this has to do with questioning what was believed to be "Objective." ultimately nothing can truly be "Objective." and understanding this is also a big forefront of Post Modernism.

>>6171

>Most things people come in contact that are labeled 'post-modern' really don't have anything to do with the actual philosophical movement

Are you referring to what we call the new philosophers ?

>>4806

nihilism popular? :o

>>4806

Most people get nietzsche wrong, especially the Alt-right. He wanted people to transcend Christianity, and nationalism and racism.

www.vox.com/platform/amp/2017/8/17/16140846/alt-right-nietzsche-richard-spencer-nazism

>>4806

I have a sneaking suspicion you haven't read any 'post-modernists' (that is such an overly broad term, post-structuralism is more accurate in a philosophical concept) and you are just repeating a strawman characterization.

>>6889

>vox

It's disheartening to see Nietzche's criticisms appropriated by everyone across the entire political spectrum. You're also not doing anybody favors by posting that article.

>>6093

in all seriousness I'd say atheism is a direct result of analytical philosophy and western thought impeding the rest of the world into oblivion. to even think the human brain may not 'believe' in such things does not mean they 'do not exist', ipso facto. the whole burden of proof argument was an invention by the enlightment not to come to terms with their own inherent nihilism. Nick Land is the end result of their misguided thinking. gg, Russell, gg Popper, gg Spinoza, you created this crap now clean it up.

>>>4806

>Post-modernity is time we live in currently similar to how 19th to 20th centuries are considered modernity. It is usually signified by late capitalism, globalism, rapid technological advances, convergence culture and so on.

>So saying that you "was seeing postmodernist works" means nothing as everything we do is part of the post-modern age.

>This is the Jordan Peterson school of not understanding what he is talking about.

>Post-modernism isn't a school of thought.

>A lot of the philosophers and professors that have been labeled as "post-modern philosophers" like Baudrillard, Derrida and Foucault hated the moniker because it means nothing.

>"I am a philosopher of the now times". What a pointless phrase.

>>6889

so he was an individualist?

>>6902

You can't just reject a philosophical position because it makes you feel uncomfortable or you think of it as nihillism. You have to show that the conclusions themselves are wrong.

>>6090

True though some blame lies in Spinoza and Voltaire

Karl Popper made it worse. My end goal is to oppose all those