= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
nydwracu comments on Guarding Against the Postmodernist Failure Mode - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (79)
It could be argued that the neoreactionaries are an example. (Moldbug especially.)
You can criticise neoreactionaires on many fronts but they aren't postmodernists.
In style or substance...and which is more important...to them?
Postmodernism is a certain philosophy developed in the second part of the 20th century. I don't see how neoreactionaries subscribe to that philosophy either in style or substance.
Style=obscurationism.
If I put obscurationism in Google, it indicates that it has a history that's a lot older than postmodernism.
So?
It's not something specific to postmodernism, so it's not useful for deciding whether neoreactionism has something to do with postmodernism.
I can criticise neoreationaries for being as obscurantist as postmodernism.
No you can't -- unless you think postmodernists' obscurantism is a deliberate piece of institutional design.
https://twitter.com/karmakaiser/status/427233616993599488
https://twitter.com/karmakaiser/status/427233789014597632
He's right: cladistics is genealogy. One of the most important conceptual tools of neoreaction is basically that thing Foucault did.
I have to admit that I don't have a good grasp on Foucault but is cladistics/genealogy that much different from what Marx did earlier when he wanted to analyse history?
Yes.
edit: more on the contrast