What Comes After Post-Modernism?

[lavezzi]

Change is most often brought about by pain and fear of death. The coming wars, perhaps even on an apocalyptic scale for some,
will do wonders to clear minds about what works and what does not. Feminism and its Marxist roots are simply horrific modern fables
that have cast their spell on millions. The time will come when people start to think...with things as they are, why not give war a chance?


Outwest

Unfortunately, this seems to be the one and only way humanity will realistically wake up. Look at how the recent school shooting caused some people to ever so slightly and briefly question the way we are living and relating to one another. But of course in a day or so this stopped. 9/11 had a similar effect, but that still wasnt nearly enough. Death and destruction would need to occur on such a massive scale that the entire foundation of the mentally conditioned view of reality is shaken to its very core, then and only then can the old way of living and thinking come to an end.

Postmodernism or what have you is not the problem, its just a symptom of a deeper problem, one which wont magically cease just because of some newly intellectualized trend. It will continue to get worse until the whole thing collapses in on itself.

[abcdavid01]

Postmodernism or what have you is not the problem, its just a symptom of a deeper problem, one which wont magically cease just because of some newly intellectualized trend. It will continue to get worse until the whole thing collapses in on itself.

But, ugh, that statement itself is reflective of postmodern thought. You're just trying to deconstruct things. It's like saying "my philosophy is not philosophy."

[Teal Lantern]

What Comes After Post-Modernism?
I'm thinking something along the declining side of the Tytler cycle.

[abcdavid01]

What Comes After Post-Modernism?
I'm thinking something along the declining side of the Tytler cycle.

Might not be a bad thing.

[lavezzi]

Postmodernism or what have you is not the problem, its just a symptom of a deeper problem, one which wont magically cease just because of some newly intellectualized trend. It will continue to get worse until the whole thing collapses in on itself.

But, ugh, that statement itself is reflective of postmodern thought. You're just trying to deconstruct things. It's like saying "my philosophy is not philosophy."

philosophy is blabbering whereby an individual asks questions to come to more questions, nothing more. indeed it is very interesting, but its not meaningful in any true sense. you cannot abstract meaning from life in the form of words i.e by thinking about it. post modernists have this correct, but this notion is heavily detremental to people who have become mentally dependent on seemingly meaningful abstract concepts due to a flaw in their perception. this flaw is the belief that there is a 'self' central to each individual. this self being the very most fundemental part of who they are. in reality, its very clear and easy to see that this self does not, has never and will never exist. comunication is frequent among people which strenghthens this idea of there being an inherent self in human consciousness; the "i"s, "me"s and "mines"s used in conversations. competitiveness adds a bit of excitement to life, but humans are curently going way, way overboard with it due to the current conceptual view of self, and its causing all the ills of the world today.

we live in an intellect worshipping world. intellect is good, it provides many things. but it needs to be balenced with wisdom, which is to understand that life is a mystery which cannot be properly conceived by the human mind, however it is infinitely meaningful simply because it is. We view life as if existense is the default thing because it seems that way to us due to our farmiliarity to it. the real fact is that its an incredible miracle which can be felt in every moment to any person in the right frame of mind. this frame of mind was the state posessed all the ancient peoples, those who started civilization in the first instance. if we could get back to seeing life in the corect view collectively, and combined with the technology we have at our disposal, i really believe the earth could become a paradise.

[abcdavid01]

Nope, you can't escape philosophy. Every statement is reflective of philosophical thought, even Wisdom. You think life should be viewed collectively? That's a collectivist philosophy. Pure intellect is not the goal here. Intellect becomes burdensome to spontaneous action and must often be discarded. The post-modernists were not correct in linguistics. To think that all language is abstract is to disregard historical evidence as well as phonology and syntax.

[Billy]

i think the buddhist are right. life is suffering and fighting. you just have to watch the animals. we are survival machines and the "i" is only the tool to become more efficient. the whining because of postmodernism comes just from the losers. the losers will always blame and whine no matter what. people want to have a clan to get more power. there is no "true moral". it´s just survival of the fittest.

[abcdavid01]

But neither can morality be said to be entirely arbitrary. It is survival of the fittest. If a group practices certain moral codes or is influenced by certain philosophies, they are more likely to survive. You have to look at cultural evolution too. It's not just genes that are passed on, but values and traditions. Postmodernism is suicidal. Demography proves this. It is an anti-clan.

[fschmidt]

Nope, you can't escape philosophy. Every statement is reflective of philosophical thought, even Wisdom. You think life should be viewed collectively? That's a collectivist philosophy. Pure intellect is not the goal here. Intellect becomes burdensome to spontaneous action and must often be discarded. The post-modernists were not correct in linguistics. To think that all language is abstract is to disregard historical evidence as well as phonology and syntax.

It is philosophy that can't escape culture. Philosophy usually does nothing more than rationalize the prevailing culture, and usually does this poorly. The only philosopher who really changed the world was Plato. Those who really changed the world were generally religious leaders. Today's philosophies, including post-modernism, are just pathetic and aren't worth wasting time on. This reflects today's worthless culture.

Most people's views on questions like how collectively one should think come from culture and religion. Ask the average person to explain their views and they just babble. Ask the modern philosopher and he just babbles with more sophistication. I would welcome anyone here who actually believes that they have some coherent modern philosophy to present it, and I will tear it to pieces.

[abcdavid01]

Nope, you can't escape philosophy. Every statement is reflective of philosophical thought, even Wisdom. You think life should be viewed collectively? That's a collectivist philosophy. Pure intellect is not the goal here. Intellect becomes burdensome to spontaneous action and must often be discarded. The post-modernists were not correct in linguistics. To think that all language is abstract is to disregard historical evidence as well as phonology and syntax.

It is philosophy that can't escape culture. Philosophy usually does nothing more the rationalize the prevailing culture, and usually does this poorly. The only philosopher who really changed the world was Plato. Those who really changed the world were generally religious leaders. Today's philosophies, including post-modernism, are just pathetic and aren't worth wasting time on. This reflects today's worthless culture.

Most people's views on questions like how collectively one should think come from culture and religion. Ask the average person to explain their views and they just babble. Ask the modern philosopher and he just babbles with more sophistication. I would welcome anyone here who actually believes that they have some coherent modern philosophy to present it, and I will tear it to pieces.

Well I just think philosophy is reflective of culture. I view philosophy as culture's voice. I absolutely think today's philosophies are pathetic, as is the degenerate culture. As philosophy is the voice of this culture I am trying to challenge it. Secular institutions are the new religions anyway.

[fschmidt]

Well I just think philosophy is reflective of culture. I view philosophy as culture's voice. I absolutely think today's philosophies are pathetic, as is the degenerate culture. As philosophy is the voice of this culture I am trying to challenge it. Secular institutions are the new religions anyway.

If philosophy is reflective of culture, then culture is the cause and philosophy is a symptom. Why challenge a symptom? That solves nothing.

Modern culture itself must be challenged and that can only be done through religion. Secularism is a new religion and is dominant but there are alternatives. The approach that I have been focusing on is to find or create a sane religion. I don't see any other viable way to get a good culture.

[S_Parc]

Well I just think philosophy is reflective of culture. I view philosophy as culture's voice. I absolutely think today's philosophies are pathetic, as is the degenerate culture. As philosophy is the voice of this culture I am trying to challenge it. Secular institutions are the new religions anyway.

Sounds like what you want to be is the Bertrand Russell for the 21st century.

[abcdavid01]

Well I just think philosophy is reflective of culture. I view philosophy as culture's voice. I absolutely think today's philosophies are pathetic, as is the degenerate culture. As philosophy is the voice of this culture I am trying to challenge it. Secular institutions are the new religions anyway.

If philosophy is reflective of culture, then culture is the cause and philosophy is a symptom. Why challenge a symptom? That solves nothing.

Modern culture itself must be challenged and that can only be done through religion. Secularism is a new religion and is dominant but there are alternatives. The approach that I have been focusing on is to find or create a sane religion. I don't see any other viable way to get a good culture.

Yes, the culture is what should be challenged. I don't view philosophy as a symptom of culture, but the only way culture is expressed. All of art and every institution has a philosophy behind it, even if it is nihilism (anti-art). A new philosophical paradigm like I am proposing could have one of its manifestations as a religion. Really what we are proposing is pretty much the same. You have to remember though, the New Testament wasn't written in year 0 or 33 A.D. Nor was it even a major religion until Constantine. So I think the next movement, which is opposed to the current culture, I think it is already in early stages. Happier Abroad itself is one form of that. You also have to look at things like modes of transmission now. Originally missionary work was required and they didn't have a printing press. Now we have computers.

Well I just think philosophy is reflective of culture. I view philosophy as culture's voice. I absolutely think today's philosophies are pathetic, as is the degenerate culture. As philosophy is the voice of this culture I am trying to challenge it. Secular institutions are the new religions anyway.

Sounds like what you want to be is the Bertrand Russell for the 21st century.

Honestly I'd rather be a new Lee Kuan Yew, but that requires certain institutions. Thoughts are free (although confined by language). Maybe an heir of mine could be such a leader though.

[S_Parc]

Honestly I'd rather be a new Lee Kuan Yew, but that requires certain institutions. Thoughts are free (although confined by language). Maybe an heir of mine could be such a leader though.

IMO, it sounds like your thinking is aligned for a law school academic career, where you're neither an active Big Law attorney nor a busy-body at a DA's office, but more of a consultant on big picture issues.

[fschmidt]

Yes, the culture is what should be challenged. I don't view philosophy as a symptom of culture, but the only way culture is expressed. All of art and every institution has a philosophy behind it, even if it is nihilism (anti-art). A new philosophical paradigm like I am proposing could have one of its manifestations as a religion. Really what we are proposing is pretty much the same. You have to remember though, the New Testament wasn't written in year 0 or 33 A.D. Nor was it even a major religion until Constantine. So I think the next movement, which is opposed to the current culture, I think it is already in early stages. Happier Abroad itself is one form of that. You also have to look at things like modes of transmission now. Originally missionary work was required and they didn't have a printing press. Now we have computers.

Okay, first I agree that everything influences everything else to some extent since everything is part of culture in some way. So philosophy influences art and art influences philosophy. But if you are going to change anything, you have to get to the emotional core of people. Computers actually don't help much with that. Shaking people's hands has a bigger impact on people than anything one could ever write. All those whose writings we now read shook plenty of hands first. The best practical book I have read about starting a movement is Mein Kampf which I suggest reading. The New Testament doesn't seem very useful to me at this point considering the current state of Christianity.

Do you actually have a specific plan? I am trying to figure mine out, having had a few false starts. I meet weekly with my Chabad rabbi and I hope to work something out with him. Chabad is an example of a very successful movement.