/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I just don't accept the notion that we should only consider a theorist's ideas and not any of the personal details of his life. Freud would find this to be ridiculous..we judge everything people say according to how they present themselves and their character. That said, the postmodernists were completely fucked up human beings, the worst of which was Foucault. So when a pederast attempts to 'shatter your idealism' whatever that means, know that he isn't operating in good faith but rather as a deviant wedge trying to divide everyone, and bring them into his orbit of depravity..You all but disagree ofc but it's sound logic.

Postmodernism is a bourgeois cope, it can be boiled down to "thinking is bad"

>>399693

The exact opposite of sound logic in fact: Its an ad hominem fallacy (potentially a genetic fallacy as well).

So while indeed Foucault was a child rapist who needed to be publically executed, the relative merits and strength of his claims and arguments are a seperate issue.

We coulld illustrate the same idea with Heisenberg or Heidegger. Just because they were collaborators or supporters of our enemy, and should have been liquidated along along with a minimum of 30 million germans and their allies on a hammurabian basis, this by itself does not logically imply dasein is an invalid category or that the uncertainty princinple in quantum mechanics is wrong.

>>399717
Communists hate psychology because they invariably end up diagnosed as either psychopaths or gullible follower types.

>>399731
That’s a tad rich coming from you.

>>399731
Lol the irony of this post

>>399728
Postmodernists were literally communists during the 30s and 40s. They knew all your doctrines.

>>399733
There's a difference between wanting authoritarian rule to punish the healthy, functioning people of society (communism) and benevolent authoritarianism which simply wants to correct a blighted, exploited system so it aligns with nature again.

>>399742
Whatever you just said sounded like diarrhea that intellectuals like to talk about in their universities.

>>399730
Those are legitimate scientific discoveries, and not the rambling philosophy of a child predator.

>30 million Germans
t. kike

>>399735

Some of these french thinkers definitely were in the communist movement during the war, mainly due to the influence of the resistance.

Being mostly of bobo background however they ended up very heavily in the arms the emerging atlanticist order, and their philosophical views became hostile to marxism, and even dialectics and materialism.

Defecto they can kind of be described as reactionairy in a kind of progressive neoliberal way, in that they reacted against the threat to their position by adopting intellectual positions and traditions generally hostile to marxism (and actual communist movements in general)

Vidrelated.

>>399748

You made a fallacious argument, as was pointed out. Its the structure of your argument that is fallacious, in that the characteristics of the person making argument has bearing on its validity or soundness.

In this new post of yours, you now make a new categorization error: Dasein was not a scientific discovery its a philosophical category that Heidegger created.

—

I am indeed a proud christkiller, in addition to proud future strangler of your whore mother in hell. 🥰❤

>>399775
They were French and German, heavily Jewish, and came to the same sober realization that most intelligent people do, which is that communism eventually will get around to coming for you after it's exhausted it's cannibalism of other 'traitors'. I don't doubt that they were ideologues of Marxism at one point in their lives.

>inb4 "that's rich coming from someone with your flag"
Outside of Kristalnacht and Night of the Long Knives, purges were quite rare in NatSoc Germany, except in the case of legitimate treason against the state.
———
Belsen was a gas. Let's do it again mate. Your people need a good humbling.

Postmodernism completes a long project in which human thought and nature were fused and made identical. It is not so much that it is "wrong" but that it is self-evident to those who want a philosophy of power and ruling. There is a valid critique about faith in the state and the pretenses it holds, but instead of arriving at conclusions that would be meaningful, it goes the other way and decides that human subjectivity is everything, or that the objectivity has no meaning and thus the will of the self cannot really be questioned. Objective reality - the only reality there can actually be - cannot be discussed, except by personifying Nature as a sort of deity-but-not-really-a-deity. The very concept "the real" is transformed into a subject's view, whereas I believe subjectivity is largely meaningless (including any "objective subjectivity" that would be ascribed to this Nature-deity). The only way postmodernism can deal with the real is to either propose it is some sort of deistic entity with a will and force that overrides people and animates them entirely, or to venerate the self and promote solipsism. All of this comes from an unwillingness to acknowledge the true history of fascism and eugenics, and the institutions where those ideas hold strongest currency; and then the effective elimination of anything but fascism and eugenics, in preparation for the world to come.

Perhaps humanity is just evil in the end, and this was how it was fated to be. I have yet to see a convincing counterargument to this, aside from arguments about whether "evil" exists which is just stupid to me. The acceleration of rot in the human mindset does not have a singular actor corrupting something that was naturally good. It appears every time someone makes a small iota of progress towards overcoming eugenics, the demiurge itself snaps humanity back into this toxic doctrine. Eugenics, of course, has relied on traumatizing people into accepting such an abject slavery. The people who are humiliated and degraded the most have the greatest difficulty in truly challenging the eugenic creed, in ways even the fanatics usually don't experience. The fanatics more often than not simply have no reason to question the creed. There isn't quite the same depravity that is inculcated in the underclasses, not counting the shock troops of eugenics like the fascist gangs who are just bestial creatures.

>>399672
People dislike postmodernism because it is intellectually vacuous

>there really is no objective truth or morality
That's not post-modernism, that's just modernism.

>>399742
>so it aligns with nature again.
What exactly do you think "nature" is you idiot. We're in "nature" now.

>>399807
>Outside of Kristalnacht and Night of the Long Knives, purges were quite rare in NatSoc Germany, except in the case of legitimate treason against the state.
By this metric, purges were rare in the USSR relative to the total amount of time it existed.

>muh pomo
Umbrella term invented by american academia.

>>400122
>it goes the other way and decides that human subjectivity is everything
See this is one of the reason why nobody takes you seriously on this shithole of a website. You just say some random bullshit without having read the persons in question. Foucault for example doesn't say that "everything is subjective", but that power has a specific socio-material problem and it invents new techniques to dealing with that problem and "discourse" is only one aspect of many.
When Foucault says, that there is no eternal scientific truth, he means that discourse is based on historical and social conditions and the argument could be made that under those conditions, it is objective.
People should really stop paying attention to you lying sack of shit

>>400302
People figured out what was entailed by political power long before Foucault. I don't think Foucault thought he was making a novel suggestion on power. The only people to whom it was novel were people who had really fucktarded ideas about what the state meant, which sadly included state ideologists. Same with any system of knowledge; "The Science" as it is mystified today is a very modern view, and you can tell the bent of those who advance "The Science" instead of what science actually is and what scientific, educational institutions actually are.

Pomo comes about as a mystification of things which should be obvious. It exists because we have "progressed" to a point where the pretenses and ideology of the state has become so totalizing and has begun stripping away humanity. Philosophy can't cope with that and keep people happy, but it can create a false philosophy for the plebs to induce navel-gazing and convince them of the state's ideology in more roundabout ways.

Big problem for us today is that the institutions of philosophy have no interest in ever killing the way their institutions remain relevant, and from which they can expand their grip on real power wherever they can inhabit a niche. So, you're at an impasse, the End of History, in which nothing changes until a thought leader decides it is so. Postmodernism didn't invent this, but it's an extra layer of cope because "modernism" is itself a shit philosophy with the same problem. You still elude the actual question being posed, and because the mystification of the state has taken on a life of its own, it's difficult to formulate just what is wrong and how this system perpetuates. You are, in mainstream society, not allowed to speak of the institutions and organizations as they actually are. It is taboo.

>>400302
>When Foucault says, that there is no eternal scientific truth,
There is very little eternal scientific truth in an absolute sense. We have a big scientific body of knowledge which is true but only to a certain degree of precision, and if you are nit picky than that is technically not objective. However given the enormous size of our scientific general intellect, chances are that at least some of the stuff we figured out absolutely nails it and is objectively true.

>he means that discourse is based on historical and social conditions and the argument could be made that under those conditions, it is objective.
If you define objective conditional to anything other than the physical reality, you are indeed saying that everything is "subjective."

You and I have used "Subjective" in the wordsense that it means personal experience. That is still idealist, for a proper materialist take "subjective" relates to social relations like being the subject under a King or being the subject of a legal system. In our present condition "subjective" means subordination to bourgeois legal categories. For example the bourgeois subject is an agent that buys and sells commodities on a market.

Foucault doesn't really doubt the ability of the scientific method to produce objective knowledge that transcends historic and social conditions, but Foucault's material conditions put his academic discipline into competition with hard sciences. That has motivated him to play to game of "disciplinary imperialism"
<My field of expertise encompasses your field of expertise
You have to filter that out. If you try to read these people you have to do it through a materialist lens.

Postmodernism is a form of idealism. It's a reflection of how the bourgeoisie turned away from the materialism of Hobbes and Diderot into solipsism.

>>400328
His point was that "scientific truth" doesn't exist outside of us; that is, that our intellectual body of knowledge is local, and that you could do perfectly good science and still be wrong about reality. The "hard science" description is more ideology than anything else, an attempt to justify certain bodies of knowledge over other ones. Is biology a "hard science" or not, because the influence of ideology on biology is well known by now,

The way we treat science in the mainstream is a symptom of our ideology though. The observation that science can be flawed is not a new one or philosophically interesting. Postmodernism makes it seem "edgy" only because science was deified into something it was not by the religion of science types, the positivists. The failures of science, and how science can lead to wrong results, has been known for as long as science was known as science. What postmodernism is really going for is something different, for all the things I said earlier - it's a way of coping with the rise of fascism while obscuring the actual question fascism posed for humanity, because there was a total unwillingness to challenge eugenics in the academy.

>>401264
Foucault's biopolitics is treated as something new and novel, but the biopolitical theory was proposed in the same time that eugenics rose as a political force. Fascism would be unintelligible if its adherents did not subscribe to biopolitics and the concept of power over life. That's not exactly new - the liberal and capitalist order was from the outset proposing power over life and its processes, while prior orders proposed the state's power to deal death as what legitimized it.

>>399807

>Communism would have eliminated foucault and all other bobo degenerates.

Yes.