I have yet to see anyone on Less Wrong exhibit the understanding of post-modernism that would be required to dismiss it on its terms (rather than just mocking it and moving on—which is a valid strategy for the most part).
Post-modernism is concentrated confusion. You can’t achieve anything on its terms, let alone a self-dismissal. Can’t a viewpoint just be wrong without also being self-defeating?
I found the stuff, or some things of that name, useful in practice in rock music criticism—actual explanatory power—but then again that’s a field whose obsolescence is a plus for humanity.
This is very sad. What is wrong with people that they can’t come up with names for their ideas that have some flavor (like Classical or Romantic) instead of being so abstract? And then they look for authenticity—the only authenticity they’ve got is the fun of being intellectual.… but if they noticed that, they’d break it.
Because a cool-sounding theory outcompetes a useful one. Identifying and distinguishing the two is needed. e.g. noticing something triggering one’s internal “insightful!” detector without one then checking that this is actually insightful. (The difference between striking gold and striking crack.)
(The standard works do not help in this. Deleuze and Guattari read like a textbook in the style of an experimental novel.)
Post-modernism is concentrated confusion. You can’t achieve anything on its terms, let alone a self-dismissal. Can’t a viewpoint just be wrong without also being self-defeating?
I found the stuff, or some things of that name, useful in practice in rock music criticism—actual explanatory power—but then again that’s a field whose obsolescence is a plus for humanity.
Post-postmodernism is actually a thing.
This is very sad. What is wrong with people that they can’t come up with names for their ideas that have some flavor (like Classical or Romantic) instead of being so abstract? And then they look for authenticity—the only authenticity they’ve got is the fun of being intellectual.… but if they noticed that, they’d break it.
If the adherents of post-Postmodernism were capable of recognizing the irony of calling it “post-Postmodernism” they would be Postmodernists instead of post-Postmodernists.
.
I cannot stress enough how hard I would upvote a post entitled “My post-postmodernism post”.
.
You have to explain post-colonialist alienation in the form of a theory with predictive power, however.
.
Because a cool-sounding theory outcompetes a useful one. Identifying and distinguishing the two is needed. e.g. noticing something triggering one’s internal “insightful!” detector without one then checking that this is actually insightful. (The difference between striking gold and striking crack.)
(The standard works do not help in this. Deleuze and Guattari read like a textbook in the style of an experimental novel.)
.