Postmodernism; What is your take on that?

[al8]

I find it unintelligible and irritating as fuck. I only see it in context of scholars babbling on about nothing in order to confuse issues, and sometimes in sad fuckers that immitate them. It's sort of like the secular taking up the social task of religion in stupifing people. Even the word postmodernism is as fuzzy as the word God. Which is a problem and a point of irritation in and of itself. Like, do these learned scholars write this sort of postmodernist bile just to fill publication qoutas, or what?

Arg! :cursing:

[Apeiron]

It's a nearly meaningless word. Hardly anyone self-identifies as a 'postmodernist' (at least among the philosophers typically accused of being so). Perhaps there are some traits in the humanities/arts that can be identified as 'post-modern,' but in practice the word has become more of a slander than anything else.

[Pogue]

I find it unintelligible and irritating as fuck. I only see it in context of scholars babbling on about nothing in order to confuse issues, and sometimes in sad fuckers that immitate them. It's sort of like the secular taking up the social task of religion in stupifing people. Even the word postmodernism is as fuzzy as the word God. Which is a problem and a point of irritation in and of itself. Like, do these learned scholars write this sort of postmodernist bile just to fill publication qoutas, or what?

Arg! :cursing:

Most philosophy is unintelligble and irritating as fuck :laugh:

And I say that being a philosophy student who actually loves the subject alot...but I appreciate it has more than its fair share of wank.
Post-modernism is pretty meaningless and pretentious when used in all spheres except sociology really, although even its use there is kinda shite, cos its relative innit?

[La Comédie Noire]

Post Modernism asks us to be content with the idea that everything is a social construct and therefore untrue.

I'd like to see the idiots come up with the steam engine or the light bulb operating under that premise.

In my experience all that one requires to be a post modernist is a bag of weed and a strong desire to wax philosophical.

[Plagueround]

I think it has a tiny bit of validity when you look the sociological viewpoint about media turning others into constructs that we know better than we do real people, but I reject the notion that these developments have eradicated class struggle and invalidated other ideas about human relationships. Behind the media constructs there are still very real people.

[which doctor]

There's this class I have to take next semester and I just found out it's all about post-modernism and post-modernist literature. The class is mostly class based discussion around a table. Let's just say that it will be interesting.

I don't know much about post-modernism, but from what I can gather it's an interesting concept. There's a lot of bullshit in it, but interesting nonetheless.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There's this class I have to take next semester and I just found out it's all about post-modernism and post-modernist literature. The class is mostly class based discussion around a table. Let's just say that it will be interesting.

I don't know much about post-modernism, but from what I can gather it's an interesting concept. There's a lot of bullshit in it, but interesting nonetheless.

I took a class like that. It was called Images and Culture, and we studied a lot about Marxism, Modernism, Postmodernism, etc. It really helped me understand a lot of Marxist concepts, like base-superstructure, Gramsci's theories, and dialectics.

We studied a lot of the important thinkers, like Foucalt, Boudrillard, and Lacan. I think there is some value to the philosophy, though I certainly don't subscribe to all of it.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I find it unintelligible and irritating as fuck. I only see it in context of scholars babbling on about nothing in order to confuse issues, and sometimes in sad fuckers that immitate them. It's sort of like the secular taking up the social task of religion in stupifing people. Even the word postmodernism is as fuzzy as the word God. Which is a problem and a point of irritation in and of itself. Like, do these learned scholars write this sort of postmodernist bile just to fill publication qoutas, or what?

Arg! :cursing:

Can you be more precise? The name "postmodernist" often includes many people who would not consider themselves so. I often think the attacks on post-modernism often miss the mark like attacks on "Science" and "Religion". Science and religion are not unified fields and their are revolutionary and reactionary figures in both.

[Hit The North]

There's this class I have to take next semester and I just found out it's all about post-modernism and post-modernist literature. The class is mostly class based discussion around a table. Let's just say that it will be interesting.

I don't know much about post-modernism, but from what I can gather it's an interesting concept. There's a lot of bullshit in it, but interesting nonetheless.

As always, if you want something explaining well, turn to the Marxists. I'd recommend that you read The Condition of Postmodernity by David Harvey or Post Modernism and the Logic of Late Capitalism by Frederic Jameson. Both writers take post modernism seriously but explain its emergence as a product of changes in regimes of capitalist accumulation. Harvey's book is the most accessible.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

As always, if you want something explaining well, turn to the Marxists. I'd recommend that you read The Condition of Postmodernity by David Harvey or Post Modernism and the Logic of Late Capitalism by Frederic Jameson. Both writers take post modernism seriously but explain its emergence as a product of changes in regimes of capitalist accumulation. Harvey's book is the most accessible.


I can't speak to these, but I can recommend Empire and Multitude by Antonio Negri and Michael Hart. Also, Deluze and Guattari are good postmodern Marxists you might want to check out.

[Junius]

I've only briefly learned about it via philosophy of science. I suggest you check out Sokal's hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair) for an amusing story. :D

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I've only briefly learned about it via philosophy of science. I suggest you check out Sokal's hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair) for an amusing story. :D
Fuck Sokal. A field of study that's been obsessed with string theory for the last thirty years has no room to talk about "rigor." It's also worth noting (although not entirely important) that the journal wasn't peer reviewed.

[Junius]

It's also worth noting (although not entirely important) that the journal wasn't peer reviewed.

Yep, I think that's kind of the point :D

To be fair, there have been other hoaxes which have done similar things to science journals.


Fuck Sokal. A field of study that's been obsessed with string theory for the last thirty years has no room to talk about "rigor."Hey, I'm not a physicist, leave me alone. :p

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Yep, I think that's kind of the point :D

To be fair, there have been other hoaxes which have done similar things to science journals.

Hey, I'm not a physicist, leave me alone. :p
I get equally mad when people make claims "science doesn't do anything" and "post-modernism doesn't do anything." They're not unified fields. Some parts are valuable. Some aren't.

[black magick hustla]

Fuck Sokal. A field of study that's been obsessed with string theory for the last thirty years has no room to talk about "rigor." It's also worth noting (although not entirely important) that the journal wasn't peer reviewed.

Not all physicists are "string theorists". In fact there is probably less than 100 people who can get that theory. Youll be surprised how many physicists are critical of string theory.

[black magick hustla]

Also

I say post-modernism does not do anything. Get mad! :)

[Junius]

Generally I agree with Mamot. From my (brief) experiences with post-modernism (also, post-modern feminism...yuck) was...not the best. I think, by and large, its a load of crap which pseudo-intellectual art students like to mentally masturbate over. And yeah, science has done far more for human society than some crappy philosophical tangent or indeed philosophy as a whole. They simply aren't comparable. But generally, I'm anti-philosophy. Deal with it. :D

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Also

I say post-modernism does not do anything. Get mad! :)
I say communism does not do anything. Notice how absurd that is? What form of communism? Where? Practiced by whom? Most post-modernists see themselves as simply struggling with the problems of modernism truth, right, good, god, and just. However, the real question is, which post-modernist, where? If you dislike post-modernism show me who you don't like. I love Foucault and Zizek, but hate Irigaray. Why? Because there is no one "post-modern."

[black magick hustla]

I say communism does not do anything. Notice how absurd that is? What form of communism? Where? Practiced by whom? Most post-modernists see themselves as simply struggling with the problems of modernism truth, right, good, god, and just. However, the real question is, which post-modernist, where? If you dislike post-modernism show me who you don't like. I love Foucault and Zizek, but hate Irigaray. Why? Because there is no one "post-modern."

They dont do anything that I can deem useful precisely because they struggle with the ""problems" of modernism when the "problems" cannot be dealt with reason. This problems are "private objects", where treating them with language might denote something of the emotions of someone, but beyond that they are meaningless arguments.

This is why this problems can be treated with literature because literature is not meant to be a reasonable argument, it is a lingustical expression of one's emotions. But literature does not claim itself to be academia and to be an authority on one subject. This is my problem with postmodern academics.

[ifeelyou]

They dont do anything that I can deem useful precisely because they struggle with the ""problems" of modernism when the "problems" cannot be dealt with reason. This problems are "private objects", where treating them with language might denote something of the emotions of someone, but beyond that they are meaningless arguments.

This is why this problems can be treated with literature because literature is not meant to be a reasonable argument, it is a lingustical expression of one's emotions. But literature does not claim itself to be academia and to be an authority on one subject. This is my problem with postmodern academics.

I'd like to know who "THEY" are. I don't understand one damn thing you're trying to say. "literature is not meant to be a reasonable argument, it is a linguistical expression of one's emotions. But literature does not claim itself to be academia and to be an authority on one subject."? HUH????

[black magick hustla]

I'd like to know who "THEY" are. I don't understand one damn thing you're trying to say. "literature is not meant to be a reasonable argument, it is a linguistical expression of one's emotions. But literature does not claim itself to be academia and to be an authority on one subject."? HUH????

Sorry,it is a little of wittgenstein.

Basically, we cannot argue through reason things like "god is love", or "what is "beautiful", or virtually most of questions philosophers have been asking themselves for a while. Any attempt at this with words may show one's emotions, but beyond that it is a meaningless argument. I have no problem when people try to answer this questions with literature, but I do have a problem when academics, who claim to be the authority on certain things, try to answer this and call it reason.

[ifeelyou]

Sorry,it is a little of wittgenstein.

Basically, we cannot argue through reason things like "god is love", or "what is "beautiful", or virtually most of questions philosophers have been asking themselves for a while. Any attempt at this with words may show one's emotions, but beyond that it is a meaningless argument. I have no problem when people try to answer this questions with literature, but I do have a problem when academics, who claim to be the authority on certain things, try to answer this and call it reason.

You keep ignoring the question of who you are talking about. Who are "THEY"? Clearly, you have a very narrow understanding of postmodern philosophy.

[black magick hustla]

You keep ignoring the question of who you are talking about. Who are "THEY"? Clearly, you have a very narrow understanding of postmodern philosophy.

baudrillard, Zizek, Foucault, "post-marxists". Whether "I have a narrow understanding of it" does not really matter because they ask themselves meaningless questions as all philosophers do.

[ifeelyou]

baudrillard, Zizek, Foucault, "post-marxists". Whether "I have a narrow understanding of it" does not really matter because they ask themselves meaningless questions as all philosophers do.

Ugh. This is pointless.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Sorry,it is a little of wittgenstein.

Basically, we cannot argue through reason things like "god is love", or "what is "beautiful", or virtually most of questions philosophers have been asking themselves for a while. Any attempt at this with words may show one's emotions, but beyond that it is a meaningless argument. I have no problem when people try to answer this questions with literature, but I do have a problem when academics, who claim to be the authority on certain things, try to answer this and call it reason.
This is not Wittgenstein. First, there's a strong argument to be made that Wittgenstein is a post-modern philosopher. Second, you're appeal to reason is parasitic philosophizing in a Wittgensteinian sense. Reason can only be defined within the context of a particular language game/way of life. More over, one can only make sense of the grammar of the word "reason" within the particular language game/way of life that one uses. Thirdly, you have not at all proven you can function within the language game of "post-modernism" nor that "post-modernism" has any grammar in the language game you're using besides "something I don't understand or like." If your language game's grammar can translate "post-modernism is meaningless" into "something I don't like or understand is something I don't like or understand" then I know what you're talking about.

Until you can either make clear the grammar of the word "post-modernism", can show some relative features of your use of the word "post-modernism", or least name some post-modernists and your particular problems with them, it's not fruitful for you to engage in a discussion about post-modernism.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

baudrillard, Zizek, Foucault, "post-marxists". Whether "I have a narrow understanding of it" does not really matter because they ask themselves meaningless questions as all philosophers do.

Good. What are the questions they ask themselves?

[black magick hustla]

Reason can only be defined within the context of a particular language game/way of life. More over, one can only make sense of the grammar of the word "reason" within the particular language game/way of life that one uses.



Until you can either make clear the grammar of the word "post-modernism", can show some relative features of your use of the word "post-modernism", or least name some post-modernists and your particular problems with them, it's not fruitful for you to engage in a discussion about post-modernism.[/quote]

I take the term "reason" as it used in formal logic i.e. deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. I.e Gravitational force is proportional to mass, therefore the more massive the object, the more gravitational force. The only correct premises that can be taken out of this are the ones that depict external reality and are based on representations of the world. I.e. all mammals are animals, humans are mammals, therefore humans are animals. You cannot speak of problems of existence without resorting to meaningless strings of words that may show something related to the emotions of the writer, but the argument is meaningless and cannot be engaged with reason, for the premises themselves were "private" and not based on the world.

It is true I do not know much about postmodern philosophy. Perhaps, therefore it is wrong for me to patronize this in this way. However, I did read the Sokal Affair and the paper and read about the so called "science wars". if a physicist who has no authority in that kind of scholarship was able to troll the cream of the crop of social theory journals, I'd rather believe him, because, I being a physics major, understand that the bulk of physics is engaging with reality. So maybe I am wrong in dismissing it, but I really doubt it.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I take the term "reason" as it used in formal logic i.e. deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. I.e Gravitational force is proportional to mass, therefore the more massive the object, the more gravitational force. The only correct premises that can be taken out of this are the ones that depict external reality and are based on representations of the world. I.e. all mammals are animals, humans are mammals, therefore humans are animals. You cannot speak of problems of existence without resorting to meaningless strings of words that may show something related to the emotions of the writer, but the argument is meaningless and cannot be engaged with reason, for the premises themselves were "private" and not based on the world.

Certainly some post-modernists are stupid (Irigiray) or just fucking with people (Derrida), but most post-modernists would accept things like humans are animals. In fact, I'd be surprised to find any post-modernists advocating anything contrary. However, it's not at all clear that postmodern writers "write meaningless strings of words". Even so, I often disagree with many of them.

Moreover, the value of "reason" as logic is questionable in this sense, it's not at all sure to what extent various formal systems of logic can and should be applied. Many postmodernist would see logics as tools. You don't use a hammer to change a pipe. Also, there are many different logics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Topics_in_logic


It is true I do not know much about postmodern philosophy. Perhaps, therefore it is wrong for me to patronize this in this way. However, I did read the Sokal Affair and the paper and read about the so called "science wars". if a physicist who has no authority in that kind of scholarship was able to troll the cream of the crop of social theory journals, I'd rather believe him, because, I being a physics major, understand that the bulk of physics is engaging with reality. So maybe I am wrong in dismissing it, but I really doubt it.

It's important to note that the journal he applied to wasn't peer reviewed at the time. That hardly seems cream of the crop. Being a physics major, then you should be able to understand that I'm skeptical of your claims of "engaging with reality" when string theory has dominated the discourse for the last thirty years. The point isn't that post-modernism is better than physics (how could one even make sense of that claim?). The point is they are different domains of discourse and different rules, projects, and practices.

[Rascolnikova]

To be fair, there are strong indications that string theory won't dominate the discussion for the next thirty years, and the first 15 years of it was justified--we had a lot of stuff we could test, left to test. :D

[Reclaimed Dasein]

To be fair, there are strong indications that string theory won't dominate the discussion for the next thirty years, and the first 15 years of it was justified--we had a lot of stuff we could test, left to test. :D
Ha, the same could be said of deconstruction. Only undergrads and people who don't know much about philosophy still talk about it.

[Rascolnikova]

Ha, the same could be said of deconstruction. Only undergrads and people who don't know much about philosophy still talk about it.

I feel it only just public disclosure to mention that you're the one who recommended I read Derrida.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I feel it only just public disclosure to mention that you're the one who recommended I read Derrida.
Derrida is a phenomenologist not a deconstructionist. Only followers of Derrida are deconstructionists. It's like Lacan said, "All of you are Lacanians, but I'm a Freudian."

[Agathon]

This is not Wittgenstein. First, there's a strong argument to be made that Wittgenstein is a post-modern philosopher.

He would have balked at such a suggestion.


Second, you're appeal to reason is parasitic philosophizing in a Wittgensteinian sense. Reason can only be defined within the context of a particular language game/way of life.

What he means is that the norms that guide the game depend on practices, and practices ultimately depend on forms of life. But we cannot escape our own. If a lion could talk, we would have no way of understanding him. Similarly, other forms of life are beyond the metaphorical horizon of our understanding and so such questions are really meaningless.


More over, one can only make sense of the grammar of the word "reason" within the particular language game/way of life that one uses.

This makes it sound as if he thinks a person could actually articulate a relativist or postmodern thesis. The whole point of Wittgenstein's philosophy is to demonstrate that doing so involves violating linguistic norms (and in extreme cases means that you are making a meaningless statement). In his view, anyone attempting to articulate a theory (even a negative or relativist one) is misusing language.

This typically occurs when people take the norms of one part of the language game and apply it to another. For example, when people start talking about "inner states" because they erroneously think that all language must be descriptive. That's just a common sense example of the way his therapeutic style of philosophy works.

If you asked Wittgenstein what he thought of postmodern philosophy, he would almost certainly say that it was language gone "on holiday".

[Reclaimed Dasein]

He would have balked at such a suggestion.

What he means is that the norms that guide the game depend on practices, and practices ultimately depend on forms of life. But we cannot escape our own. If a lion could talk, we would have no way of understanding him. Similarly, other forms of life are beyond the metaphorical horizon of our understanding and so such questions are really meaningless.

One could view Modernism as project to give a universal or absolute truth to the totality of existence. Notice many of the moderns' attempts to give a unified system of truth to existence. Descartes doubt. Berkeley perception. Leibniz reason or limit. Kant limit (critique of reason). In this context, Wittgenstein could clearly be considered a postmodernist.



This makes it sound as if he thinks a person could actually articulate a relativist or postmodern thesis. The whole point of Wittgenstein's philosophy is to demonstrate that doing so involves violating linguistic norms (and in extreme cases means that you are making a meaningless statement). In his view, anyone attempting to articulate a theory (even a negative or relativist one) is misusing language.

This is certainly the Russellian view of Wittgenstein's work, and you seem like you should know quite well what Wittgenstein thought of that. Moreover, there's strong reason to believe that the mysticism at the end of the Tractatus indicates a different use of language as instructive. His work is a ladder one throws away once you've climbed it. This could be similar to the Derridian move to subject Derridian statements to Derridian analysis and criticism.




This typically occurs when people take the norms of one part of the language game and apply it to another. For example, when people start talking about "inner states" because they erroneously think that all language must be descriptive. That's just a common sense example of the way his therapeutic style of philosophy works.

If you asked Wittgenstein what he thought of postmodern philosophy, he would almost certainly say that it was language gone "on holiday".

Yeah, he would either say language had gone "on holiday", or sit in the corner and recite poetry to people trying to talk to him... Language on holiday indeed.

[Agathon]

One could view Modernism as project to give a universal or absolute truth to the totality of existence. Notice many of the moderns' attempts to give a unified system of truth to existence. Descartes doubt. Berkeley perception. Leibniz reason or limit. Kant limit (critique of reason). In this context, Wittgenstein could clearly be considered a postmodernist.

Except that Wittgenstein had no such ambitions. His work bears on some of the issues that those philosophers wrote on, but only via his interest in the philosophy of language. Wittgenstein was only interested in dispelling the idea of real philosophical problems. He leaves truth as it is, preferring to expose philosophical abstractions that misrepresent it.

"Postmodernism" in philosophy (even though it's considered to be a joke by most professional philosophers) tends to be identified with grand statements about the death of truth, the death of the author and other such grandiose nonsense. Insofar as such thinkers make grand statements (albeit in the negative mode), they are opposed to Wittgenstein, who wanted to demonstrate that such statements are meaningless whether they are asserted or denied.

For him, postmodernism would be just another example of the misuse of language. He certainly would not join in the anti-science musings of many postmodern thinkers, because he, correctly in my view, understood that undermining philosophical theories of truth or knowledge has absolutely no effect on the sciences or on scientific truth.


This is certainly the Russellian view of Wittgenstein's work, and you seem like you should know quite well what Wittgenstein thought of that. Moreover, there's strong reason to believe that the mysticism at the end of the Tractatus indicates a different use of language as instructive.

The Tractatus has little relevance here, other than being the sort of monomaniacal attempt to shoehorn language into the very sort of crippled model that the Investigations seeks to discredit.


His work is a ladder one throws away once you've climbed it. This could be similar to the Derridian move to subject Derridian statements to Derridian analysis and criticism.

No. His later work is not a ladder. It is therapeutic. He himself says so in the Investigations. The correct method, according to the later Wittgenstein, is to construct "perspicuous representations" of our language games so that we can understand the correct moves in said games and identify where we go wrong by applying criteria from one game to another. Anyone who says something "philosophical" is either saying something that everyone would agree with, or something that is a misuse of language.

The connection between the two is his insistence that we have to determine the bounds of what can be said. The mystical stuff plays little role in the later work because he is no longer operating with a uniform conception of language.

[bellyscratch]

I took a class like that. It was called Images and Culture, and we studied a lot about Marxism, Modernism, Postmodernism, etc. It really helped me understand a lot of Marxist concepts, like base-superstructure, Gramsci's theories, and dialectics.

We studied a lot of the important thinkers, like Foucalt, Boudrillard, and Lacan. I think there is some value to the philosophy, though I certainly don't subscribe to all of it.

That sounds quite a bit like one of my modules called Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. We did stuff on post modernism, base-superstructure, hegemony, post-structuralism, culturalism, feminism to name a few

[Die Neue Zeit]

This current economic crisis in international capitalism has forcefully cast aside the credibility of defeatist takes on heads-in-the-clouds-ism by post-modernist intellectuals.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Except that Wittgenstein had no such ambitions. His work bears on some of the issues that those philosophers wrote on, but only via his interest in the philosophy of language. Wittgenstein was only interested in dispelling the idea of real philosophical problems. He leaves truth as it is, preferring to expose philosophical abstractions that misrepresent it.
Abstractions like grand narratives about truth and reason? Furthermore, if you don't think that racism, classism, revolution, and the further direction of Marxism count as "real philosophical problems" then I don't think you're anti-postmodern. I think you're just anti-philosophy. Again, you need to give a coherent argument that many (not all) post-modern writers don't have a particular language game.


"Postmodernism" in philosophy (even though it's considered to be a joke by most professional philosophers) tends to be identified with grand statements about the death of truth, the death of the author and other such grandiose nonsense. Insofar as such thinkers make grand statements (albeit in the negative mode), they are opposed to Wittgenstein, who wanted to demonstrate that such statements are meaningless whether they are asserted or denied.

This is clearly wrong. By "most professional philosophers" you mean analytic philosophers with sticks up their asses. I'm pretty sure most philosophers from the continent, i.e. continental philosophers, and philosophers in the United States who belong to the Society of Phenomenology and Existentialism. Secondly, you can't have it both ways. The notion of "nonsense" is only prevelant in the Tractatus with Russell's influence over Wittgenstein. I would refer you to On Certainty, where it is clear that something is nonsense if and only if it can be demonstrated to be nonsense. You need to demonstrate two things 1) post-modernism doesn't have a language game(s). 2) Even if post-modernism doesn't have a language game it can't be used in any other language game(s). You've done neither. You're just using Wittgenstein to posture.


For him, postmodernism would be just another example of the misuse of language. He certainly would not join in the anti-science musings of many postmodern thinkers, because he, correctly in my view, understood that undermining philosophical theories of truth or knowledge has absolutely no effect on the sciences or on scientific truth.
Which postmodern thinkers except Irigaray are against science? Are you sure you read that in a book. Are you sure you didn't read that no where? I'm glad you can create the usual strawman of postmodernism, but until you give specific examples I think you're claim is just posturing.


The Tractatus has little relevance here, other than being the sort of monomaniacal attempt to shoehorn language into the very sort of crippled model that the Investigations seeks to discredit.
Oh I see. So by Wittgenstein you mean the one book you've misinterpreted as the totality of Wittgensteinian thought. How about On Certainty? Should you have to demonstrate this is a case that postmodernism (as though it were just one thing) is meaningless? We wouldn't want to force you to show any arguments or proof. It's enough just to invoke St. Wittgenstein (except of course, his other books).


No. His later work is not a ladder. It is therapeutic. He himself says so in the Investigations. The correct method, according to the later Wittgenstein, is to construct "perspicuous representations" of our language games so that we can understand the correct moves in said games and identify where we go wrong by applying criteria from one game to another. Anyone who says something "philosophical" is either saying something that everyone would agree with, or something that is a misuse of language.

Yeah, let's be clear about this. At the end of the Tractatus, he says that the Tractatus is a ladder that one should throw away once you have climbed it. If you had read the Tractatus, you would know that. Furthermore, you should know that the philosophical investigations were published posthumously by his executors from his various notebooks. It is not at all clear or uncontroversial that they make up the totality of his thought.

Ok, well I'm a bit tired of arguing this with people who haven't convinced me that they know what they're talking about. Here is your homework. Read Discipline and Punish and show me how that is nonsense. Give me concrete examples. Until you can show how one singe book is nonsense. I don't think you're qualified to make judgments about an entire discourse.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

This current economic crisis in international capitalism has forcefully cast aside the credibility of defeatist takes on heads-in-the-clouds-ism by post-modernist intellectuals.
Good. Which ones and how?