/dead/ - Post-Left

what do we think of post modernism from a /dead/ perspective?

chuds hate post-modernism cause they dont understand it and it's used in right-wing circles as a buzzword for 'bad thoughts. They think the whole deal with post-modernism is just rejecting modernist notions (like nation or economic structure) because 'it's ebil', but obviously thats a terrible interpretation.
I also don't like post-modernists, but I don't accuse them of trying to destroy the world because of that.

>>1713
pretty sure most /pol/aks lack the awareness that nation-states and capitalism are modernist notions

looks like it's just a website hosting a bunch of texts by these three people

also otto gross > wilhelm reich

>>1673
It's mostly this Laska's essays, but only a few are available in English:
http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html - Did Nietzsche know of Stirner?
http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/eninnuce.html - Why is everyone afraid of the big bad egoist?
http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/enmarsden.html - Was Dora Marsden an egoist?

The German has more essays, some that seem interesting, like Stirner as a teacher, Stirner and ancaps, there's even one about Otto Gross.

>>1672
Read some of their stuff on la Mettrie, and apparently it's a project with the goal of constituting a second enlightenment, or 'Enlightenment 2'.
Their premise is that although the enlightenment started as an european philosophical project in the 18th century and was developed through the 19th and the the first half of the 20th century, it was never completed due to not reaching it's goal (freeing the human from his self-sustained immaturity). But unlike the Frankfurt School, who thought the reason for this was the make-up of enlightenment theory itself, leading to it's own undoing (the relations created by the enlightenment were the grounds upon which it became impossible), LSR argues that enlightenment can be understood as going through different phases of development, with each phase seeing popular but wrong theorists overcoming one unpopular, but ultimately actually right theorist (18th century: Mettrie against Rouseau, 19th century: Stirner vs Marx, 20th century: Reich vs Freud).
According to LSR, studying Mettrie, Stirner and Reich and the controversies between them and their popular enemies will yield th philosophical grounds for a second enlightenment that actually fulfills it's mission.
How does that make any sense? I don't know yet but I'll keep reading some of that stuff since I got nothing better to do.

>>1689
Keep us posted fam

>>1773
Sure. I've read 5 of their articles on La Mettrie so far. They all were very similar in that all of the described the biography of Mettrie, talking about how he published 'the human machine', the book his is today most known for, very early in his philosophical career. The human machine is a very radical early materialist text, arguing that everything originates out of matter, including the psyché. Afterwards he had to flee several times from different countries, until he was invited to the philosophers court of Frederic II. LSR now argues that the works he has written here are his actually interesting material, because works like 'The art of lust' are different from other enlightenment philosophers of his time in that they were nihilistic instead of mormative.
I haven't read those books yet (they are currently already borrowed out at my local library) but from what the LSR author describes La Mettrie saw the main factor that was keeping people from truely enjoying themselves (specifically their lust) was their own conscience, which was forced into them by their sorroundings through the transmission of social norms. However La Mettrie apparently also differentiated between a healthy, satisfying desire and a desire that's also influenced by the conscience, only that the lust derived from this desire is not satisfying, because it only exists as the destruction of the conscience and is therefore still tied to it. From this point on La Mettrie was basically hated by the philosophers of his time, because they felt the whole moral nihilism thing was bad optics for the enlightenment, so he got cancelled.
I guess the parallels to Stirner are quite obvious, and I'm really interested to read the actual works by La Mettrie himself, so it might take my time to read the next texts of the website.
I also read 2 stirner articles,the one about nietzsche knowing stirner and 'Die Negation des irrationalen Über-Ichs bei Stirner', or 'Stirner's negation of the irrational super-ego', which tried to interpret Stirner as an 'anarchist' 'pedagogue'. The idea here is that Stirners concept of 'Der Eigner' or 'the owner/unique' could be used as the groundwork for an education that doesn't have the implementation of certain values and norms into a child as it's goal, but the support of the child in developing itself into a unique one. If there is interest, I can go deeper hPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1684
>caring about prices
>paying for stuff
Toppest of Keks, just steal that shit u basic bishhhhh

>>1695
this but unironically

>>1699
I wasn't ironic either

>>1700
sorry :(

>>1695
honestly, a good idea i guess
i dont know why i never thought of stealing guns, i guess just because i've only looked into private sales so to me guns just come from random people, forgot there are stores with them

>/leftypol/: race isn't real, class reductionism is justified, fuck off with your idpol
&ltalso /leftypol/: umm don't post interracial.. mutt's law!! race mixing cringe because twitter libs like it.
the levels of spooks with these lads, not surprised considering a good chunk of them are ex /pol/tards anyways

>>1550
Have you considered that these posts are from two different groups?

>>1576
everyone who is not with the /dead/ is part of one monolithic group.
no, this is not ironic, i mean it.

this is a good containment board

>>1599
not very hard to repel posters if you keep banning them, what brings you here though?

>>1552
>kinda based kinda gey
spooks

>>1548
>satanic get
also, abolishing live kinda sucks when I do wanna exist tho

>>1575
it will all be okay anon, submit for the greater good

>>1583
but im no sub ;_;

>>1575
Just give it a try, I can promise you won't complain once you are dead.

tdlr on this guy?

>>1693
he wrote poetry

What did this dog do besides write a shitty manifesto?

>>1693
He wrote some edgy shit about totally sacrificing and submitting yourself to the "Revolution" that later influenced Lenin, the Bolsheviks and every other imbecile who claims to be the experts of discontent. He was basically the exact opposite of what /dead/ claims to be.

>>1727
>submitting yourself to the "Revolution"
yeah that's pretty cringe. obviously, the emancipation of the working class is achieved by the workers totally submitting themselves to an idea.

tf is this?

>>1541
It's a chat server.

>>1542
yeah

also by the way i didnt think of it before, but like don't use my homeserver to host your profile if you wanna also join that chat, cause its insecure for you. But it is open to anyone if they dont want to use/dont trust the default matrix servers

>>1637
sorta agree (that it shouldnt be such a big political issue), but you need context too, like people making things tabboo or illegal are making a political statement and enforcing it, so reaction against that is just reaction against the politicization of these sorta irrelevant things that aught to just be live and let live
though i think the radlib left goes beyond that sometimes so whatever, im not just criticizing conservatives but also the gullible left who fall for their trap of trying to make an issue of something that should just be chill and not weird/based to people

>>1637
I don't think it is central but it is going to remain a political question as long as it is used as a means of control. It's cool that you can ignore it but not everyone is that fortunate.

>>1637
he doesn't care about his gender or sexuality yet is mad online about trannies. curious

>>1646
Just curious, how is it used as a way of control generally?

>>1682
It has a set of acceptable behaviour and acting outside it gets you ostracised.

Sounds interesting

I might even try to write a small thing, but I also got a giant amount of uni stuff to do, so well see
thanks for sharing anyway op

I started reading Mutual Aid and damn, even birds have friends and shit, so why don't I??

>>1768
well bird are cute and can sing, how bout you?

>>1770
You're right I'm a worthless piece of shit

>>1415
Because dialectic movement always points to a resolution. There is always a conciliation at the end of it. This is also the reason why dialectics is incapable of comprehending difference i.e. anything that falls outside its totalising movement.

>>1397
What is even negation? For example, Bakunin has this to say on the matter of human development while discussing materialism in God and the State:
> But as every development necessarily implies a negation, that of its base or point of departure, humanity is at the same time and essentially the deliberate and gradual negation of the animal element in man; …
What does this even mean, other than "the more things change, the less they remain the same"?

>>1414
Ok, I'll read Deleuze
>It is at work everywhere, functioning smoothly at times, at other times in fits and starts. It breathes, it heats, it eats. It shits and fucks. What a mistake to have ever said the id. Everywhere it is machines—real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections. An organ-machine is plugged into an energy-source-machine: the one produces a flow that the other interrupts. The breast is a machine that produces milk, and the mouth i machine coupled to it. The mouth of the anorexic wavers between several functions: its possessor is uncertain as to whether it is an eating-machine, an anal machine, a talking-machine, or a breathing machine (asthma attacks).

>>1438
The beginning of Anti-Oedipus is pretty great but you should probably rather start with his book on Nietzsche.

>>1426
>Because dialectic movement always points to a resolution
Every process does come to end, but at that end a new process begins

>>1435
>What does this even mean, other than "the more things change, the less they remain the same"?
I would say the things don't stay the same, they are always changing, but the form of change is persistent