Postmodern ideas...

Where does the postmodern undermining of a teleological reality actually begin? It starts with the critique of metaphysics, specifically by demonstrating how impossible it is to stabilize meaning within a single semantic center. In turn-of-the-millennium literature, this shift is a direct result of doubting any form of empirical knowledge or firsthand testimony. We aren't dealing with an omniscient narrator who possesses insights equal to the author's imagination and creative will anymore. Instead, we see the legitimization of knowledge through the investigation of documents—essentially exploring other people's texts that all point toward one another in a massive, intertextual library. This temporal relationship between tradition and modernity was defined back in the early 17th century by Francis Bacon in his *Novum Organum*, where he corrected the paradox of the modern perspective. According to Francis Bacon, we shouldn't view the past from our own vantage point. We should measure it against the beginning of the world. In that framework, the "old" isn't just the past; it is our current era because it follows later, granting it the advantage of greater experience and maturity.

During the technological revolution, Karl Jaspers wrote back in the 1930s: "Where a person exists only as a function, they must remain young; if they are no longer that, they will merely create an illusion of youth. Furthermore, biological years hold no inherent value; an individual's life is perceived only in the moment. Their temporal extension is merely accidental duration, leaving no lasting impression nor staying preserved as a collection of irrevocable decisions based on biological stages. If a person truly no longer has a lifespan, then they are constantly starting over and constantly reaching the end. They can do this or that, once this way and another time that way; it seems everything is possible every time, yet nothing is actually real." Essentially, time and the illusions that alter its essence abolish the irrevocability of reality. For someone reduced to a mere function, reality becomes an illusion. The moment a person finds themselves caught in the illusion of the surrounding modernity, they have already stepped into the postmodern era. This state of knowledge, which identifies reality as an illusion, serves as the foundation for the postmodern movement of the spirit.

Postmodernism in philosophy begins with a reinterpretation of Nietzschean and Heideggerian thought. With the death of God and the arrival of prophetic nihilism, we enter a state of total vulnerability for the subject, both socially and metaphysically. The individual is fragmented in their very form due to widespread deconstruction, a process bolstered by the Heideggerian thesis regarding the end of metaphysics and the task of future thought. Being remains undefined in its temporality, causing philosophy to splinter into several major directions: Foucault’s redefinition of social power and the necessity of moving away from Greece as a pretentious demand for the universality and comprehensiveness of systemic philosophy; the Derridean semantic games aimed at casting new light on the resonance of settled ontological questions; and the Baudrillardian thesis regarding humanity's post-historical abandonment of reality, where the subject is transformed into an object, unable to redefine itself.

Is it possible to find an element of cohesion within postmodern thought—perhaps as a differently articulated version of modernity, driven by that same desire for rebirth? The idea of a collective body of knowledge within a global library and the presence of an encyclopedic, random spirit are two factors that claim to be common denominators for escaping this state.

How can a dethroned subject—one who constantly re-examines themselves and adopts a Cartesian stance as the sole object of their own research, albeit in a twisted sense of being incapable of true knowledge—reclaim the role of an active agent who builds the real world and their own external reality? This must happen in an age where all the world's historical knowledge is readily available (take the internet democracy as an example). Paradoxically, this accessibility is not a sufficient prerequisite for overcoming alienation. Instead, using Protagorean language to relativize everything, it introduces total chaos into the possibility of a unified humanity—a unity that is so desperately desired as a condition for survival in a world marching steadily toward its own destruction.

Amanda Fowler2 said:How the hell does a dethroned subject—someone constantly second-guessing themselves and acting like a Cartesian thinker by making their own self-examination the only thing that matters, even if it’s just a twisted version of being unable to actually know anything—ever get back to being an active player who actually builds reality and their own surroundings? Especially when we have all this historical knowledge right at our fingertips through things like internet democracy... which obviously isn't enough to stop the alienation. It’s totally paradoxical! Instead of helping, all that info just uses Protagoras-style relativism to create total chaos, preventing any chance of humanity uniting under one big idea to save itself from the destruction it's sprinting toward...

Look, we're stuck in this spot where we're suddenly drowning in a mix of actual history and straight-up fake news. All that noise is triggering this massive, violent process of debunking the lies and trying to crawl closer to the truth. It’s definitely not easy, but since the protagonists of this whole story seem to be holding their own against the madness—and I've seen them take the hits firsthand—I honestly believe it'll work out...

To put it more plainly, over on the politics boards, we've spent endless debates carving out the beginnings of what I'd call "open opinion." It's something that actually functions within an open communication channel. Sure, it's a work in progress, but it stands its ground and handles new input like a pretty solid, stabilized thing now.

Or let me be even more specific. Even when I was totally losing my mind during certain realizations, I managed to pull myself together and keep pushing forward. These are all just sub-processes that are successfully weathering the storm as we transition from a schizophrenic society into a harmonious community...

And of course, as this new way of thinking starts clashing with the old dogmas that hold this country together, you see more and more people stepping onto the cleared path, pushing past those boundaries of open discovery. This whole movement might not be widely recognized yet, but man, it is powerful and unstoppable...

There. I guess that answers your question.

I didn't mean to react, but I wanted to apologize for bringing up politics here—that wasn't my intention for this thread. When I asked about the active subject, I was actually exploring a theoretical framework to navigate this web of postmodernist meanings. I wasn't trying to redefine "will" or critique it as a necessary social evil, which is a concept famously explored in Foucault's work; that's already baked into the topic itself. Niche.no, you know I fully support your open-source approach and would never want to see it monitored or penalized.😉

Someone might bring up Lyotard or several other theorists, though I doubt it.😢 Another question worth asking is this: Is the ancient Greek ideal of the *politeia* subject—that sense of substantiality used to define the Western individual—now a total illusion and a permanently abandoned project?

Why, and at what point, does a person lose their conviction that they are in control of their own destiny?

And why does philosophy abandon its claim to truly grasp the face of truth?

What defines truth today, when skepticism regarding knowledge surpasses all previous centuries of projects centered on emancipation and self-discovery?

Is philosophy dead if it abandons ontology to make room for poetry and science?

Please, take a moment to revisit my first post and consider the words of Jaspers. A person simply cannot integrate their biological or developmental stages into one cohesive whole. Even experience itself is fragmented by time. We can't take it for granted; instead, we view it as an illusion. As Baudrillard puts it: "Childhood does not exist..."

😉 👋

Kosmarac said:I wasn't even trying to react, but Bradley Fisher20, my bad, I really didn't want to get into politics on this specific thread. When I brought up the idea of an active subject, I was thinking more about a potential theoretical framework—something that could actually carve a path through this whole mess of postmodernist meanings.

Man, I totally get where you're coming from. I guess I just botched my examples. What I was getting at is that in all this absolute chaos, the one thing that actually survives is truth itself... and that this whole process is basically stripping away every single forced lie we've been fed.

I just don't get what the "theoretical framework" part would even look like. Maybe defining truth as some kind of open-ended perfection?

Honestly, what even counts as a theory anymore? Just anything involving abstract concepts?

Look, you know I’m backing your open-source stuff—I'm not letting anyone monitor or penalize it.😉

😍

Maybe someone will bring up Lyotard or a bunch of other theorists, though I doubt it.😢 And another thought: is that old Greek ideal of the political subject—you know, that sense of substance used to define the American individual—just a total illusion now? Like, a project that's been abandoned forever?

You have to ditch all those rigid definitions if you ever want to make room for direct perception... the kind that actually gets close to the truth.

Why, and when, does a person stop believing they actually have control over their own destiny?

Wait, is this a different topic now? 😁

Why does philosophy give up its claim to actually knowing the face of truth?

Because that’s not philosophy, that’s just the history of philosophy you're talking about.🙂

The people who call themselves philosophers are really just historians of philosophy. Real philosophers never wanted anything else but the raw truth.

What even is "truth" today, when the sheer doubt regarding what we know outweighs all those old-school projects of emancipation and self-discovery and their misplaced confidence?

Without faith, there's no point in even starting the journey.

Is philosophy actually dead if it ditches ontology and just leaves everything over to poetry and science?

What you’re talking about? Yeah, it’s dead. All that fake hype trying to act like this thing still holds "philosophy" status... it's all totally transparent now. Just a joke.

Please, just go back and read my first post and look at what Jaspersov was getting at. Basically, a human being can't even wrap their head around their own biological or developmental stages as one cohesive thing. Even our own experiences, stored away in time, are relatively fleeting. We don't take them as absolute truths; we end up calling them illusions. Like Baudrillard said: "Childhood doesn't exist..."

My whole reductionist take on time is just looking at the entire concept of temporality through the lens of what actually matters to me as a person. And for me, that's the future acting as a guide. The present moment itself? It's eternal...

illegale said:I hear you. I think I just used some poor examples. My point was this: in all this open chaos, truth is the only thing that survives. This whole process is steadily and relentlessly stripping away every imposed lie.

Unfortunately, you are the only one here talking about truth versus lies, while the rest of society gets sucked into the endless rhetoric of supposed ideological camps.

[/B]

Is this perhaps a different topic? 😁

Not necessarily. Is the subject of postmodern deregulation perhaps conditioned by that social imbalance where the individual is stripped of choice and becomes nothing more than an object?

Because what you are describing isn't philosophy; it’s the history of philosophy. 🙂.

People who call themselves philosophers are actually just historians of philosophy. Real philosophers have never sought anything other than the truth itself.

I agree. I advocate for a philosophy of restraint—not autarchy, but an attempt to slow down processes that clearly lead to ruin. I believe the solution lies in halting the acceleration of what we now call "progress."

[/b]
Without faith, there is no sense in even starting the journey.

I am trying to strengthen my own faith.

My reductionist view of time focuses on temporality only through what matters to me as a human being. That is the future acting as a guide. The present moment, however, is eternal.

Viewing the future as a way to push aside the past is a necessity. But what if there is a system in place designed specifically to prevent us from recognizing evil?

If the narrator is freed from the obsession of seeking identity, sailing instead through a sea of detached self-irony and cynicism toward the truth, then where is the recognition of the fundamental human need for the distinction between good and evil—for ethics itself? If expressionism is dead and personal character is reduced to mere antinomies and their rhetorical rationalization, where can we find true selfhood in the ocean of mediocrity generated by today's literature? It all seems to boil down to searching for a lost foundation of anthropological definition.
What I mean is that postmodernism offers no exit. The manipulation and imposition of various ideologies that people accept without question is merely a symptom of this state of modern philosophy. Its weakness is more apparent than ever. That is all from my library.
👋

Could someone please walk me through how to use the quote function?
🙂
Obviously, you won't be dealing with any legal issues here.
Best regards.

I kind of hesitated to jump into this chat because I haven't really dug into those postmodernist texts. But it looks like besides Nightmare, there isn't anyone else here, so I guess I can throw in some amateur thoughts.
From my super limited run-ins with postmodernism, it feels like it’s just a continuation of those ideas about the "end of the West" from the early 1900s. Here’s how I see it.
The West basically took shape through Aristotle. By "took shape," I mean it found its form—that central way of thinking that molds the world and acts as a sort of conscious compass for how we think and act. It’s an Aristotelian world of craftsmen—just like a craftsman works with intention to shape something, the world itself is shaped by intellect. And "intellect" implies purpose; that purpose was set by the creator/craftsman. Thanks to Christianity, that center dictated the lives of Americans for two millennia. Science was able to succeed because the world makes sense. It makes sense because it was shaped by an intelligent being. So, we can use science to grasp it. If the world wasn't made by an intelligent being, what would be the point of looking for logic in it? Science wouldn't even make sense. You can't have science about chaos. You can't have science about randomness. You only get science when there’s an underlying order, something rational, something intellectual. And "intellectual" means someone intelligent created it. They create with purpose. Everything is done for a reason—just like a carpenter. This tool is for this, that thing is for that.
When Nietzsche played around with that boy from the Andersenian fairy tale and shouted "God is dead," that fact was already undeniable. That whole Aristotelian idea of a purposeful world was totally tossed aside. The world is meaningless. Life is just random chance. Good and evil are illusions. The world isn't intellectual and has no purpose (since no intelligent being made it).
In the meantime, science managed to harness this massive power through technology, but now that power is left without anyone to steer it. It’s just drifting across Earth, wrecking every other form of life. The West is crashing down, not because someone stronger showed up, but because it lost its mind. It's like Polyphemus after his eye was gouged out, just screaming wildly, "Who blinded me?" (Secundus will probably find an answer: atheists, communists, etc... but I think the answer is the same as in the Odyssey: nobody.) All that's left is this giant technological body that refuses to just go away.
People are looking for salvation in cybernetics—basically, let's grab the reins ourselves. Let's become our own lawmakers; we don't need a center outside of us. The world is just a will to power and nothing more. So, we steer our own ship.
But where to? If there's no good or evil, what direction is actually "good" or "bad"? How do you decide, or even use a criterion, when criteria don't exist? We'll just make them up as we go. But what does that even mean? By what standard will we set the standards? For the sake of our own survival. But what kind of survival? What does "human survival" even mean? What counts as human survival versus something non-human? Or maybe there's no such thing as "non-human"—because what would that even look like if there's no devil to lead us into evil? And being "animalistic" isn't "non-human"—I mean, we're animals anyway. Cybernetics (and by that, I mean the whole spectrum of science/tech in all its "knowledge is power" glory) hands us the steering wheel. But where are we going if there's nowhere to go? Since everything is the same and nothing matters anyway.
Postmodernism tries to find something positive in all this—finding meaning in the concept of "play" (which is "purposeful" without having an external goal). It sees the breakdown of unity and the rejection of the "whole" as a way to escape those fascist-leaning tendencies that haunted philosophy for centuries. The disappearance of the "center" is seen as an opportunity for the "periphery." Basically, the distinction between the center and the edge loses its meaning. But honestly, that's not even surprising: since everything is losing its meaning anyway. There is no meaning to begin with.
So, if you ask me, postmodernism is just one big exercise in meaninglessness.
Where is this all heading? Sure, I've got some theories, but I'm worried I'm already drifting too far from Nightmare's topic. And hey, I'm saving some stuff for whenever people start reacting to this.

Quincy:

Nobody says anything: Where is there to go, when there is nowhere left to go? It all ends up being the same anyway...

👍

This is a fantastic piece of writing. It really gets the wheels turning. I think I’ll give it a shot.
Aristotle was the first to define that "opinion of opinion" as *nous*, essentially embedding God within the human consciousness—what you call a thinking being. However, for a modern person, his entire framework in *Metaphysics* remains incredibly difficult to access or even accept. There is a massive barrier when it comes to translating and truly grasping the mindset of the ancient Greeks. Is it heretical to suggest that Aristotle’s own definition of God—based on my limited reading, anyway—still lingers in a realm beyond conceptual understanding? It feels like it’s shrouded in a fog of meaning. If anyone has read Aristotle more recently and can offer some clarity, I am all ears. Even the title *Metaphysics* seems to be a mere accident, appearing simply because it follows his work on *Physics*. Hegel noted this lack of coherence in Aristotle's writings quite well. Perhaps we could argue that philosophy itself—and by extension, our entire civilization—is born out of this fundamental kind of incompleteness.

If things hadn't evolved this way, it would be entirely due to the ongoing development of the history of philosophy. When we reach Descartes, we encounter a definition of God that originates from the self-contained subject. In this view, God is essentially the thought of thought. Philosophy exists as an opinion of God solely because a thinking being—a human—perceives Him. Hegel fully articulates this thesis through an ontological proof. He elevates subjectivity to its highest possible level, placing the subject of knowledge in the position of one who perceives only the mental thought of the Absolute. In other words, the subject perceives the object in its entirety: God. Thought functions in two ways: as something rational (which differentiates and distinguishes) and as something intellectual. Through the process of development—thesis, antithesis, and synthesis—intellect possesses its own observational poles. This allows it to contain the inherent contradictions within any given concept. While Hegel reconciles Aristotle with Christianity, that is a separate discussion. Let’s focus on the distinction between the rational and the intellectual. Reason, when used as a tool for mere distinction, is susceptible to any kind of manipulation assigned to it by the thinking subject. This shift, which places man at the center of all knowing, manifests in the Protagorean maxim: "Man is the measure of all things." However, as a thinking being, man is prone to the sophistry of his own self-determination. He drifts through the dogmas and interpretations of others. The intellect, by contrast, is something that interrogates and measures. Before any action or expression of will, the intellect turns inward to examine its opposite through critical reflection. Unfortunately, we see that humans rarely act this way. Without restraint, people act on an ideological level against their own reality, or in science, they act as those seeking to enslave nature to their own needs. Is this destructive? The core thesis is simple: reason without intellect is devastating. It is often autodestructive, following nothing but its own imposed course, shaped by personal fate or the rigid social codes of the era. The Kantian decision to set God aside as unknowable, along with the Schopenhauerian reduction of the world to a mere brain process, both pave the way for the modern reality of the unmoored subject—one who acts without ever considering his own intellectual limits.

That is an excellent observation. It’s nothing new to start a century, really—just that same Spenglerian prophetic enlightenment we've seen before. However, we absolutely need to bring existentialism into this conversation. In this current trajectory, the individual perceives themselves as fundamentally threatened. In a world defined by massive crowds and oversimplified ideological doctrines, the single person becomes a mere shadow. We are beginning to realize the limitations of any definition that attempts to encroach upon the divine agency of man. Religion alone is no longer sufficient to look beyond our basic, Husserlian "natural attitude." How many people actually commit to the uncertain path of self-interrogation and internal growth? How many truly stop for reflection? Most choose the easier route through social validation—what Jung would call the dominance of the Shadow. This path offers no room for compromise; its stances and behaviors are strictly imposed. Ultimately, the will to power remains a vital driver of global events. Sophistic nihilism reaches an unsolvable limit here. Ideology is merely a line item in a social order that strips all meaning from an ethics based on restraint and the ideal measure. The madness of state-driven organization has already brought wars to the American experience that were previously unimaginable. Now, we have to ask what human survival actually means. At this moment, our only hope lies in ensuring that we don't turn our technological tools for mass destruction against ourselves. There is a real risk that a reason declaring its own vulnerability might simply be a psychological projection, masquerading as a strategic plan for a clash of civilizations.

We are living through a social moment that postmodern philosophy either tracks or creates. Why does it stand alone as the only relevant philosophical state today? It is because any other way of framing the discourse of reason simply isn't possible anymore. How can we apply a mental model to society if we move away from something like Hegel’s time-bound philosophy of right? Is it done solely by offering a lofty skepticism toward a meaningful reality—a skepticism toward a human being who no longer recognizes their own external world or a clearly defined identity? Perhaps that works for the individual seeker of the self. But how do you impose a theory onto the masses—the average person—that lacks any solid ground to stand on? To borrow an idea from a contemporary thinker regarding the apotheosis of rootlessness, such a theory is impossible to apply to society. Practical will is far too unrestrained in its ideological or technological application because, ultimately, it remains rational.

Postmodernism generator 😛 😛 😛

The Sokal Scandal 😛 😛 😛

Because if I need some backup, I’m calling in the Frenchmen
Hey babe, you know what Deleuze said?
I just need to talk absolute nonsense about something,
to kill my stage fright with Baudrillard!

I honestly think we make a pretty great pair
if Lyotard decides to bring us together,
so come closer—don't be shy,
it's all Inter Miami, meta, posts, and Derrida!

Postmodernism is basically dead and gone
but the chaos is still going strong
and I’ll happily take the title of chief troublemaker
while I dive deep into studying those Frenchmen!

😛 😛 😛

Sorry for the sarcasm here, but the word "postmodernism" always triggers this kind of reflex in me. It’s probably just a side effect of spending way too many hours stuck in sterile debates with self-proclaimed postmodernists 🙄

Look, I'm clearly no expert on all of this 🙄
But I can see that within this discussion, there might actually be a way out of this so-called postmodern crisis 😕

Basically, I still believe that science and non-postmodernist philosophy will eventually provide the answers we're looking for. 👋

I'm a little confused about what you were trying to get at with this third link.😕

crimsonjackal8 said:But honestly, looking at this whole debate, I feel like there’s actually a way out of this postmodern crisis we're stuck in. 😕

Basically, I really think science and non-postmodern philosophy are gonna step up and provide actual answers to a lot of things. 👋

My earlier take on this was pretty much inspired by Heideggerian thought: the idea that philosophy is basically reaching its end, and cybernetics is what's gonna take over. Looks like crimsonjackal8 is on board with that. But he doesn't seem nearly as worried as I am about where this steering wheel of science and tech is actually taking us. He’s such a product of his era. What’s even the ideal for our time? How do we deal with all this evolution that led us here—the evolution where we’re supposedly the peak? One guy today managed to sum up everything we crave right now into one single motto: DRIVE A MERCEDES AND FIRE MISSILES. And hey, crimsonjackal8 is totally down with that too.
Heidegger didn't mean it like that: 'Only a God can save us now.'
Stay tuned for my next post on this—I've got a Nietzschean quote from Zarathustra about the "last humans" coming up.

Amanda Fowler2 said:I'm honestly not sure what you were trying to get at with that third link.😕

Look, I don't have a clue what Lacan was getting at when he claimed the phallus is the root of negative one—nor do I grasp, to borrow your own phrasing, "the Foucauldian redefinition of social power and the necessity of moving beyond Greece as a pretentious demand for the universality and comprehensiveness of systemic philosophy," or even "Baudrillard’s thesis regarding humanity’s post-historical abandonment of reality, where the subject is reduced to an object due to its inability to redefine itself."😵

To a layman like me, though, the whole lot feels like a blind alley of Western thought—just writing for the sake of writing, a kind of pseudo-philosophy that ignores all standard criteria. There are plenty of essays out there covering that exact topic over on that site about the Sokal affair.

As for this entire debate here on the forum, it strikes me as a potential answer to the "postmodern challenge"—except perhaps the "answer" isn't actually addressing a challenge at all. Instead, it looks more like a massive misunderstanding, a complete failure by an entire generation of thinkers who simply got tangled up in a totally hollow narrative.

I'm stuck on how to feel about it. I certainly don't buy the author's naive, science-driven optimism, but if I'm being honest, there are some pretty sharp, lucid moments tucked away in those comments...

mistyfox812 said:1. My main contribution to this thread was pretty much inspired by Heideggerian thought: philosophy is reaching its finish line, and cybernetics is stepping up to take the stage.

2. It looks like crimsonjackal8 is on board with that. But unlike me, he isn't losing sleep over where exactly we're steering this massive ship of science and technology. He’s really just a man of his era.

3. So, what’s the ultimate ideal of our age? How do we inherit all the evolution that brought us to this specific point—this peak we find ourselves standing on?

4. One modern figure actually managed to distill our era's deepest cravings into a single mantra: DRIVE A MERCEDES AND SHOOT MISSILES. And crimsonjackal8 seems perfectly fine with that.

5. Heidegger didn't see it that way: 'Only a God can save us now.'
In my next post on this, I'll drop in a quote from Nietzschean Zarathustra regarding the "last humans."

Don't be so dramatic. As long as N and H have figured it out, it's fine. 🙄 You can think what you want...

1. As far as I can tell, philosophy is still very much alive and kicking. (If philosophy had actually hit a dead end, library shelves wouldn't be overflowing with Baudrillard, Lyotard, and people writing commentaries on their commentaries 🙄). All that doom and gloom about technology hasn't really played out the way people predicted. And what's this supposed "inverse relationship" between cybernetics and philosophy? What would it even mean if we lived in a Star Trek future and philosophers couldn't exist? 🙄

2. You've got it wrong—both regarding the agreement and where we fit into this era. 😛

3. We still need to reach an understanding on that one 🤔 While there are enough of us left to actually have a conversation.

4. 🙂 (check my signature)

5. You could also bring up Fukuyama and his "end of history" thesis. It's irrelevant.

Caught your signature. And honestly, those points you tagged as 2, 3, and 4? They're basically just the same idea repackaged.
I was actually trying to get my thoughts out about the end of philosophy and how cybernetics fits into all that in my first post.

mistyfox812 said:I caught your signature. As for those points you labeled 2, 3, and 4—they’re really just different ways of saying the same thing.
I tried to lay out my take on the end of philosophy and how cybernetics fits into that picture in my very first post.

Don't sweat it—just think of them as footnotes. 😁

And honestly, I think quite a few of the arguments in your opening post are pretty problematic—even if they are incredibly interesting to chew on.

I’d appreciate it if we could keep this thread from being cluttered by Tufur II.’s endless lecturing on common sense. I have work to get through tonight, so I’ll pick this conversation back up tomorrow morning. Obelix, please step in here—this whole argument is honestly child's play.