Can someone explain modernism, postmodernism & metamodernism

'Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives.'

Francis Lyotard.
The movement it self is hard to define since the people involved in it are all so different.

>Solzhenitsyn

fuck yeah. I've been reading the Gulag archipeligo. He seems to me to be a hardcore version of a poltard, though enlightened and less frustrated.

>The movement it self is hard to define since the people involved in it are all so different

well part of the problem is also that post modernists are trying to define something that is, and will continue to be changing, as it's a discussion about our current paradigm.

Postmodernism is a specific philosophy. It places the importance of subjective experience and social influence and construct over objectivism or universal truths.

Postmodernism says to appreciate ornunderstand something you have to consider its place in society; the influence society has and the impact imparted on society.

It's a useful critical tool but a terrible life philosophy.

I wonder why Jess doesn't have a boyfriend.
A woman that attractive that doesn't have a bf either has a horrific personality or is very promiscuous.

>modernism, postmodernism & metamodernism
they are fake/enforced trends/tyles/art to generate consumers, or to create a market that didn't exist in the first place, and then to control it.

That's why postmodernism pretends to be avant garde while at the same time being Extremely institutionalized, often promoting bad art and terrible artists.
The same concept goes for pop art scene, fashion, music etc
Take the rap or emo scenes for example. It is purely fashion, the music sucked, but people bought the shit. It was an artificially constructed market.

Nowadays we have the lgbtq+ or whatever and metoo movement, they are also involved in feminist fashion, incentives etc.

Even the green parties are involved, by giving incentves to oil and gas companies for never keeping up their part of the deal / quotas.

Once you start seeing the corruption you become an anti-globalist, because you understand just how corrupt this system is. You'll never amount to anything under such a system.

Attached: 1429897603076.png (632x852, 47K)

>It was originally meant to be as like a collective moment of self awareness for the west, but was subverted by the soviets and Chinese.

Someone go into more detail on this.

At what point did The West having a moment of self awareness go bad, if at all?

Where else could that moment have led us? What were we to realise?

>The very condition of deconstruction, may be a t work, in the work within the system to be deconstructed.

Look up derrida philosophy. This is a large part of post modernist thought and it's kind of what I've been saying so far.

Honestly OP, you're better off understanding what you believe, rather than understanding po mo. In my perspective, it and critical theory are bullshit.

>Can someone explain modernism, postmodernism & metamodernism
Wank. Utter wank.

>Postmodernism is a specific philosophy

yes but it intersects with history and art in such a way that those things are important to understanding it in itself. I would say that it is less about society, and more broadly what we try to say is natural or conditioned and how history or context does the conditioning.

Modernism is based around an idea of grand historical narratives, an holds high the idea of progress, especially towards science, objective truth and egalitarianism.
Post-modernism is a rejection of this, it says that constructions of truth are relative and depend on the structures that surround the truth maker. In other words you cant separate the words and ideas from the writer, and all are subject to the dominant truth making regime, which decides what exactly constitutes a truth. Subjectivity, rather than objectivity, is then the name of the game and focusing on the granular individual elements is as important as any grand idea, as the individual elements can show that large models fail
Meta-modernism is a mixture of both. We're not really sure what it is.

its not a philosophy, its not really unified in anyway

Can someone give me a conclusive answer on which Southern sister is older? I've heard some people say Jess is, others say Lauren is.

also

The same families keep rushing through the system, the nexus points are for example EU/Schengen, where international "notables" are being hired for top end positions around Europe, even though they dont know shit and their results suck.

To put things in perspective look at quality 100 years ago vs. quality today. We're are being herded by a junta of useless individuals who control nearly every aspect of our lives.

They were scared shitless of Brexit, which is why the lords tried to thwart it. If you look further into this you'll notice the lords who oppose Brexit are mostly big shareholders, ceo's and managers of businesses whose outsourced to asia to cut costs. Big brand businesses.

The same businesses who surf the waves/trends of the post-modern market.

its crap tho. So theres not a lot to go into

On ya bloke

Well i'm inclined to agree, but it should also be said that concepts of deconstruction should be taken seriously.

Also, and this is importantA lot of marxists though is based upon hegal, specifically the hegalian dialectic.

Goon mixed with water. Shush, it reminds me of Jesus.

What you're referring to is post structuralism, which itself is only a response to one element of modernism, the hyper realism and attempt to react to romanticism with objectivism.

I'm more of a musician, interesting here is where modernism and post modernism are actually similar, Schoenberg for instance attempted to write music that was objectively without tonality but that itself is a criticism or response of the tonalism found in Classical.

It was when the wall fell and all the soviet Marxists moved to the west, alternatively it could have happened earlier in order to give Chinese and soviet artists the monopoly on neoclassicism.

Either way, I deeply suspect current post-modernism is so bad it's almost an affirmative action program. They're literally "post trying."

They're both lying about their age.

Attached: 91n3bGzmLKL.jpg (2012x2468, 904K)

>Well i'm inclined to agree, but it should also be said that concepts of deconstruction should be taken seriously.
What do you mean "taken seriously". No one doesnt take it seriously, they highlight how up in the air communication and thus language is.
>A lot of marxists though is based upon hegal, specifically the hegalian dialectic.
Thats modernist af tho. So I'm not sure what that has to do with PoMo

Agreed, yeah.

The whole socialisation vs natural thing is a big postmodernism discussion point, the PM view being that nearly all art, thought and action is down to socialisation.

Modernity / Modernism / Modernization
people ususally get them mixed up

That cameltoe

youtube.com/watch?v=ssDTkQ5rcsc

Only non-meme answer ITT

Post structuralism is a response to structuralism, and peeps like Saussure, not " the hyper realism and attempt to react to romanticism with objectivism"
Thats just modernism in general.

Modernism is an art movement, what you're referring to is modernity

look up solipsism

you can really use them interchangeably, people know exactly what you mean, as long as its not like in an academic journal you should be fine

So, what would new moral objectivism, new sincerity, religious/traditionalist revivalism fall under? Po-po modern?

Pretty sure none of these movements advocate for solipsism

> Part 1 of 2
Ok, I study Political Science, so I can only tell you post-modernism in a political/linguistic sense.

One disclaimer - I will use the notions post-modernism and post-structuralism interchangeably although they have some slight differences (these are technical in nature but not THAT important for rudimentary understanding).

1) I will begin with explaining the history of contrasting theories, because otherwise it will be hard for you to grasp post-modernism since it very much is a reaction towards other ways of thinking.
2) I will continue explaining what post-modernism is
3) I will apply this explanation onto a tangible example so it will become less abstract and easier to understand.

1)
First some history. The history is Liberalism and Realism scholarship.

Liberalism you already know, probably, we have natural rights given by nature. Human rights, people cannot infringe upon these rights, we are sovereign and we have the right to pursue liberty, happiness etc as long as we do not infringe on the rights of others.

Realism, believed liberalism was bullshit, basically a fairy tale. They claimed WW2 showed that states and people were only interested in Power. Everything was about gaining power and standing out. A zero-sum game. If an enemy state gets more power, e.g. China, this is bad for the United States.

In contrast Liberalism thinks it is great if China gets more power because it means more trade together.

> Part 2 of 2
2)
Ok, here is where modernism and post-modernism comes in. I will primarily address post modernism since this is what you were asking for.

Post-modernism is a movement that came up in France in the 1960's. It basically thought that all this liberalism, realism, old modernism and other stuff was bullshit. Instead they meant that there is no objective truth about reality.

No right... no wrong... Just norms in society. It is basically like, we do not have inherent rights, we have liberalism which told us that we do. Things like countries, ethnicity, languages are NOT set in stone, rather they are socially constructed through norms and social interactions.

Institutions which are founded by people shape people's behavior, preferences norms, while we also shape them back. Everything in society is just a social construct, and norms are kept and reinforced through language (Focoult).

>you can really use them interchangeably
no you cant, you should read up on them, they are distinctive, they sound the same and that's deliberate.
It's like hiding an extra line of text in a document awaiting ratification.
They are linked, but Modernity implies a lot more

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism

> Part 3 (sorry was longer than I expected)

3)
Post-modernism applied to a practical example

Gender

There is no objective gender, there is no truth about what gender is. It is all a social construct. Through language we maintain the norm of male and female, and then the male and female categories shape us back.

The only reason male and female exist is because of structural reasons (interactions with others, without these we would not know if we are male or female).

Basically think of post-modernism as complete anarchy of norms. Complete anarchy of the brain.

I am aware of the difference, but nobody really cares. Not here, not in most places. People are aware of what you mean, and thats the important part of language

Literally the first sentence of your own source
>Modernism is a philosophical movement that, along with cultural trends and changes, arose from wide-scale and far-reaching transformations in Western society during the late 19th and early 20th centuries

oh shit lol didnt even see that

Another applied example:

History:
Previously norms in society made us believe that European's had superior skills of innovation, and that we were a monolithic culture.

In actuality though, we were having many interactions with other cultures, and many of our inventions come from e.g. China, Turkey etc. We are thus breaking the norms of 600 years of assumed European hegemony.

(I don't agree with this view personally btw).

>Basically think of post-modernism as complete anarchy of norms

No really, the fascinating part of all this is that all the institutionalized stuff comes from an elitist perspective, and now its enforced by the state.

So its top down, everyone who ascribes to anarchism and communism loves it. But they are usually a part of the institutional power now.

So they do not represent ideas of the people, they reinforce structural elitism and segregation. Same goes for post modern art, every art wave which have steered clear of the institutional state enforced waves are usually branded as second class or low tier.
Like arts and crafts or primitivism

>Schoenberg for instance attempted to write music that was objectively without tonality

what do you mean? I play classical guitar, am very interested.

Hegel is incredible and valuable regardless of what box you want to put him in. Deconstruction is part of post structuralism, so while I hate po mo and think it's bullshit, some of its main features are separately powerful.

This last thing is wrong. PoMo more related to decoloniality. It would say that the idea of "the west" was constructed against "the rest" and is thus dependent on "the rest" to maintain its identity. Not only that but "the west" has formed with the help of "the rest", utilising foreign inventions and trade networks and peoples in order to propel itself towards hegemony. And that once colonialism happened the west imprinted its eurocentric view of history onto the world.

>but nobody really cares
You should care, unless you're not interested in politics. If you want to criticize power then you should read up on these aspects of institutional power.

Especially because you seem to be part of a "movement" which has lost all of its significance due to the implementation of modernity.

Well you are mixing post-structuralism with marxism.

Post-structuralism has no moral virtue, there is no moral virtue that the "working class" should rebel and gain power. That is not what this philosophical movement is about.

It is about to break norms, truth. It is very meta-physical in nature. Although it does not believe in meta-physical truth.

Basically you have this breaking of what we previously believed was true. Rich and poor, are just social constructs, so is gender, race, states, institutions, marriage, family, etc etc. You get my point here.

Since it is MERELY a social construct, nothing is sacred anymore. Marriage is not sacred, it is just a construct, why would we subscribe to it? We can just and should just, break it.

States are just a construct, borders are just a construct, why do we even have them? Etc etc, you get my drift here.

It is an elitist project because it is academic in nature. Normal people think about things such as feeding the kids, paying bills, going to work. They do not have the time to spend on meaningless philosophy about that gender is a social construct.

How the fuck is hegel valuable. He is an obscurantist shit flinger whose ideas of historical progression and dialects are crap and overly complicated respectively

you don't need to thing about it too hard
>what these three terms mean
it means jewish subversion
> how it relates, to being ironic, being post ironic, memes, art, culture, politics and everything basically.
jews = bad
us = good

I remember that idea where you can determine the health of a society by it's art, and I think this is good evidence of how far we've fallen, when you can say a piece of art is good, not for what it means, but merely that there are interpretations, even if they are unknown.

I never even wrote the word Marxism

Yeah this is what I mean though? Hm, maybe I wrote unclearly :D sorry

>You should care, unless you're not interested in politics. If you want to criticize power then you should read up on these aspects of institutional power.
We dont need struct definitions dingus, everyone knows what I mean, even the wikipedia thingy uses the words interchangeably.
>Especially because you seem to be part of a "movement" which has lost all of its significance due to the implementation of modernity.
wut

Sorry, I have a tired post-exam brain right now. I thought you wrote "not" rather than "no really" as in contrasted my opinion. Ok, enough for me I need to rest my brain, starting to misread stuff, had a very rough week

>He is an obscurantist

No, that's derrida. I think Hegal is one of the best philosophers, but if you want to explain why you think the Hegalian dialectic is wrong, I'd like you to. I think you can at least agree that it is useful in psychology.

>We dont need struct definitions
And I never wrote you did.

>everyone knows what I mean
perhaps, but that would be everyone except you. no offence

>even the wikipedia uses the words interchangeably
now you lost me.

What I ment was that the post modern marxist movements have very little in common with actual Marxism.

It is being used to criticise groups internally, not the ruling power. So its being used to police in-groups.
It is politically aligned with corporate aspects such as globalization/imperialism.
It exchanged class struggle for various forms of struggles relating to race, sexuality and gender. Modernity played a huge role in all this.

I don't really disagree with you, but I think truth is intuitive, and understanding ones own belief is as useful as challenging it. I guess I disagree with the greeks that we should understand the opinion of our opponants more than our own positions. I think american arrogance is based.

True, I think people confuse marxism with the brand of cultural marxism that we have now, considering america still doesn't have class issues, as opposed to more pronounced class issues historically and with other societies, so those who would seek to use those methods had to change to exactly what you described.

me too

>what do you mean? I play classical guitar, am very interested.
It's a musical experiment.

Essentially by having no tonal preference, by using each of the 12 tones equally, you can prevent tonality and achieve what's called atonality. It sounds horrific, but takes an extreme amount of time and effort especially if you apply other western art music conventions like counterpoint.

Derrida is just frustrating to read and has surprisingly little to say, he probably could have condensed of grammatology into a much nice read if he wanted too. Hegel is so obscuritan it is literally a joke.
See

“To the master, on the other hand, by means of
this mediating process, belongs the immediate
relation, in the sense of the pure negation of it,
in other words he gets the enjoyment. …The
master, however, who has interposed the
bondsman between it and himself, thereby
relates himself merely to the dependence of
the thing, and enjoys it without qualification
and without reserve. The aspect of its
independence he leaves to the bondsman,
who labours upon it.”

“…just where the master has effectively
achieved lordship, he really finds that
something has come about quit
“The truth of the independent consciousness is
accordingly the consciousness of the
bondsman. This doubtless appears in the first
instance outside itself, and not as the truth of
self-consciousness. But just as lordship showed its essential nature to be the reverse of what it
wants to be, so, too, bondage will, when
completed, pass into the opposite of what it
immediately is: being a consciousness
repressed within itself, it will enter into itself,
and change round into real and true
independence.”
Try actually read that

The best way to take someones argument down, is through understanding it.
That is why they advocate for understanding your opponent. Because it makes you much more dangerous in an argument.

You should ideally be able to argue both points equally well, so that you know all the inherent flaws in their arguments before they even start. It gives you a head start.

About the truth being intuitive, I completely agree with you, and it is also one of the main criticisms of post-modernism. In other ways, that they do not believe in any "objective" truths which make it inapplicable on normal life and sometimes outright ridiculous.

What are your thoughts on this guy's introduction to Metamodernism?

youtube.com/watch?v=aNFcGo0NSkg

Attached: image.jpg (576x1024, 46K)

> Sunny Day Real Estate sucked
Emo was good shit.

Nice proxy, unfortunately I can't watch videos right now.

I agree we need to know this, especially on pol, this is why the post-modernists have taken over.

Because normies just don't understand it and do not know how to argue with it. Due to them being 10 steps behind they just fail to understand the importance and danger of this philosophy completely.

Furthermore, in academia we are completely outnumbered. Basically the majority are leftist /postmodernists, which then shapes society indirectly (since it trickles down from the elites into media, art, culture, history, schools etc).

>And I never wrote you did.
Yes you did. You went "Modernism is an art movement, what you're referring to is modernity, you should read up on them, they are distinctive, they sound the same and that's deliberate"
Sounds like a strict definition
>perhaps, but that would be everyone except you. no offence
You think this sounds snarky, but it actually doesnt make any sense. So I wont know that other people know what I mean when I say modernism?
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism
First two lines of
Modernism is a philosophical movement that, along with cultural trends and changes, arose from wide-scale and far-reaching transformations in Western society during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Among the factors that shaped modernism were the development of modern industrial societies and the rapid growth of cities, followed then by reactions of horror to World War I.

>It is being used to criticise groups internally, not the ruling power. So its being used to police in-groups.
Except for that it always criticises the ruling powers, for like everything, racism sexism etc

>It is politically aligned with corporate aspects such as globalization/imperialism.
Except for decoloniality, a really big part of postmodernism's contribution to politics
>It exchanged class struggle for various forms of struggles relating to race, sexuality and gender. Modernity played a huge role in all this.
Because it rejected the idea of a homogeneous class, and instead posited that the different races and genders in this class fared very differently from each other, and so to treat them as one monolithic class would be inaccurate

>True, I think people confuse marxism with the brand of cultural marxism that we have now

They probably do, and they do because it became there is no literature available to tell them otherwise, except unedited Marx and few read that, even the translated ones. He has more in common, at least politically with the populists than the current marxists who seem to mix together a bunch of bullshit to fight for the suppression of people worldwide, and the right for governments to dislocate large chucks of "unwanted" peoples. They have also adopted a Social Darwinist stance, almost Ayn rand-ish where they argue for the survival of the fittest in a fierce environment where the corporate sector can just pit people against one another.

There was a schism in Marxism in the 60/70s here in Norway, some of the marxist formed their own parties which eventually disappeared, some went to the extreme right.
Many of the prominent Marxist critics of the oil and gas industry, like Bellona and Greenpeace was eventually hired by the oil and gas industry to represent them at an EU level.

Its a total mindfuck for most young marxists.

This...
I have observed the LGBTQ-movement and normal people's reaction to it.

They still think the LGBTQ-movement is about 2 gays being able to be together in the privacy of their own home. They do not understand it is all about breaking the categories of man and woman completely in order to instill something like 72 new genders.

Naively (due to not researching post-modernism) they think it is just all about love between 2 consenting adutls... LOL.

make sure you watch it some time.

Noproxyherem8

Attached: Arcade Fire - The Suburbs [2010].jpg (500x500, 117K)

I thought you ment structural definition, not strict.
We do need strict definitions.

>it rejected the idea of a homogeneous class, and instead posited that the different races and genders

This is my problem, there is no way to accurately do this. What it does is extinguish class struggle and exchange it for a system which no one in the working class can not verify or falsify for that matter. And the working class struggle is far from over, it should never end because when it does the system becomes corrupt.

What is interesting is seing the daughters of millionaires and billionaires use their power to trample the working class over and over. Which has been the case for a long time.
The same can be said about race, where busniess leader are using their make-believe virtues as a scapegoat for oppression against the working class.

Modernism is a predominantly 20th Century movement that fundamentally holds the idea of objective and universal truths. Modernism values science and reasoning, and that there can be certainty and objectivity in the world. Modernists analyse history structurally - that is, they see the past as being within a structure or system, and that there exists a fundamental framework to make sense of the past and contemporary human society. Think Marxism and historical materialism. Marx posited that there were stages of human scoiety, and that history and behaviours could be understood within the frame of capital and the relationship of means of production, etc.

Postmodernism is the rejection of this. Fundamentally it's best described as a denial that there can be one objective truth in the world, and that instead what we have are many truths. A postmodernist who studies history is acutely aware of how ideology is inescapable (no matter how hard one tries), and that the difference between the past (what happened) and history (an account of what happened) cannot ever be reconciled. Even linguistically ideology is inescapable - language is not and can never be neutral. Things can be interpreted, or misused. Postmodernism is rich with irony in the art world because it views not only art but ANYTHING as fundamentally subjective, and therefore unscientific. It is impossible to ever truly understand what happened in the past, so what is the real value of history?

The simplest way I could explain the difference between modernism and postmodernism is a photograph:

A modernism would look at an image of something and analyse it, reference it, study it, try and find meaning or sense in it, and try and get as close to the truth of the image as possible.

A postmodernist would look at the same image and wonder what was outside of the frame, whether the image was even real, why the cameraman took the photograph, and realise that there's no way to know what the truth of it is.

>They still think the LGBTQ-movement is about 2 gays being able to be together in the privacy of their own home

Yes, I used to share a student apt with a gay student, he was openly gay but he was also extremly against the lgbtq movement. He felt it was stigmitzing and dehumanizing him as an individual. For him being gay was no longer about homosexuality, it was suddenly about politics. I remember the same reaction from other friends whose gay, almost everyone I know with the exception of 2 very wealthy individuals had that reaction to the movement.

I'm not saying that is representative of the whole movement, my selection is biased because they are my friends and I hold somewhat likeminded views, but it seems to be a valid criticism. I think heterosexual people have put more into that movement than needs to be there.

It seems to fit all too well into the divide et impera principle, and in doing so it is oppressive towards gays. If it was a purely non political movement I would have let it go. But I really dont like the political baggage it brings.

>For him being gay was no longer about homosexuality, it was suddenly about politics
because of the lgbt movement

He felt it had become political

Yes exactly, I was thinking about the Transsexuals too.
Being a transsexual will soon be invalidated because the categories of men and women will soon be considered "untrue" and will be abolished.
Therefore people who have a gender identity as a man when they were in fact born as women will now suddenly be completely out-competed and their issues will not be taken seriously.

Any self-respecting gay person or even transsexual should distance themselves from the LGBTQ-movement. It is all about actually deconstructing their own issues (sexuality, gender) completely as well as deconstructing ours.

Good thread guys, I gotta walk the dog

>It is all about actually deconstructing their own issues (sexuality, gender) completely as well as deconstructing ours.
Exactly

all that matters it that something gets a reaction

>Any self-respecting gay person or even transsexual should distance themselves from the LGBTQ-movement.
I'm bisexual and I cannot stand sexual identity movements.

Why do shills keep posting pictures of Laura's little sister? Are you trying to get her hated and hurt or something?