Religious Postmodern Academics

I can’t count the number of times I’ve defended Postmodernism (PoMo) from attack, so I am publishing this, so I can link to it. Perhaps I am not …

Descriptive Postmodernism

—- Exclellent points!

I agree. and I too have been known to appear to overgeneralize postmodernism.

Mostly, though, So far is out right rejection, I reject the kind of post modern theory that appears eerily similar to essays that can be generated by The Postmodern Generator.

And there are a lot of them. Ive came across so many, and there is a group of people extended through academia who produce essays, legitimate essays, that sound ridiculously similar to these nonsensical essays that are made by the post modern generator. This is so much the case, look back into my posts maybe a couple years ago about the danger of such post modern academics generating theoretical essays that appear legitimate merely because there’s a bunch of people that like to generate meaning within the confines of a group; The orientation that whatever meaning comes to mind, whatever semantical construction is able to make sense, must make sense. Meaning, it must be true, it must have some veracity in the world.

I refute this. I disagree with that kind of post modern approach, Simply speaking, because it has no ground. It is the pure example of Kantian idealism imposing itself upon reality, As opposed to theory and their categories being generated from real situations in-themselves.

There is a larger, extended, argument here, and you can find it interspersed throughout my blog.

I also reject the kind of post modern that people identify with as they’re being is associated only with a method, as though because my brain works in this way, because my thoughts automatically go to being skeptical, therefore the being of things must be the conclusion, the grand conclusion of that method.

Further, I would argue that adhering to that kind of semantic method for Being, is itself a metanarrative.

This is why I say that certain types of reductions, for example everything reduces to a kind of Zen Buddhist nothingness, is contradictory, and is why we need to set our ontological selves within the truth of that contradiction uncomfortably if we are to come upon what being actually is as a real thing in itself. And this is to say that to set myself in a conceptual nothingness while I indeed interact with real things, gives rise to a different ontological condition than merely “Zen Buddhist phenomenal nothingness”, for that merely gives us one side of the situation. 

Something else is actually occurring, and I say that this truth can be known, and can be communicated. 

I would identify myself as a post modern thinker, but without the added necessity of having to agree with the “-ism”. And I am also very much a realist. (Without the “-ist”. Lol)

…one could say that my work involves the intersection of those two aspects of universal existence. 

Thanks philosophics!!x

An example of how real methods serve a conventional orientation of Being

Quote quoted From “Race Matters”. By Cornel West. Used without permission.

Of course race is a very central issue in the Western Hemisphere; I believe it is a central issue in many places across the globe as well. So, I support Professor West’s critical assessment.

However, I bring in this excerpt as an example of just what I refer to by my terms conventional method and reality as opposed to truth.

These not only involve race, but the issues of race exemplify what an anthropology of philosophy might entail: It is an uncovering and descriptive state aside from an ontological and meaningful state (side by side in a unilaterally dual manner, ala Nonphilosophy).

We can begin to see and comprehend how reality manifests less as a tension between discourses and what is encoded into them, but rather more as orientations upon such circumstance.

Reality is that condition whereby we live by, what could be called, ‘false narrative dichotomies’. It is not that we can choose to not live by them or ‘rationally’ disregard them Becuase they are unethical or faulty in some way; no.

It is that they constitute the very condition by which reality is manifested as such I am able to know myself as an active identity.

The issue of race exemplifies this condition well. For race and racism is indeed that (a) real condition whereby I am able to find myself. The courageous conversation thus to be had, especially about race but also about any social condition, is that discussion which arises when I am not discounting or invalidating the situation because it sits unethically with my sense of righteousness. A courageous conversation about truth is when I include myself as complicit in the uncomfortable situation that I am attempting to address honestly, to thus possibly change.

Reality is that exclusive place where I find myself against otherness through a ‘truncated’ meaning (Zizek/Lacan: Symbolic-Imaginary or Image/Symbol) and the truth is that place which includes all aspects of the situation whereby I find myself (Zizek/Lacan: Real).

Confirm Humanity

I just did a captcha. And, I’ve seen it before, but for some reason this morning it was phrased a little differently, the reason why we have to do those, and it just said “Confirm humanity”.


I think it’s totally great and it’s totally funny at the same time. But this morning it just entered my consciousness slightly differently than I think even the funny phrase was intended.

For, as maybe some of my readers might now or not, I question that humanity even identifies something that’s common, A common body of creatures called humanity. And one of my posts somewhere I even suggested that if “so and so” is a human being then I must be something totally different because of how ridiculous this person was; and I mean this in a very serious way.

I don’t mean it as some sort of oh interesting intellectual thought experiment. Of course, we could take it as a interesting philosophical thought experiment if you want to. But, I feel when we get to the edges, the perimeter, of what knowing is, what knowledge is, what thinking is, as some thing that arises in the universe, things start to change.

I’ve even pondered in this blog somewhere how this kind of “knowledge of the perimeter” is what has been commandeered by conventional knowledge under the term “esoteric”.  The body of knowledge which conventional knowledge miss identifies under the name of “esoteric” Is really a knowledge that conventional understanding has not experienced, and so misappropriates.

And then we really do get into this idea of what it is to be modern, at that, a modern human being. The very idea of modernity is an encapsulation of irony, a necessary move to either side of the fulcrum which irony represents, And it is the close association of modernity and irony which at once forms the precipitate of a state which arises outside of the individual thinker, but as well, a subject which perpetually ignores the condition of power under which it forms it’s human identity, which is to say, as a functioning global citizen, say.

🥸 So here I am being struck by a phrase “confirm humanity”, and on one hand I understand it’s asking me to confirm that I am indeed a human being as opposed to a bot. Then on the other hand it is kind of an interesting indictment of my presence in front of my phone screen, asking me to confirm that indeed there is a humanity which exists somewhere “out there” on the other side of the screen. 


Repost: Fanny Söderbäck, Revolutionary Time: On Time and Difference in Kristeva and Irigaray – SUNY Press, 2019

Fanny Söderbäck, Revolutionary Time: On Time and Difference in Kristeva and Irigaray – SUNY Press, 2019 Examines the relationship between time and …

Fanny Söderbäck, Revolutionary Time: On Time and Difference in Kristeva and Irigaray – SUNY Press, 2019

That on American Democracy is in No Imminent Danger: Logistical Ethics

In 2014, I finished an MA thesis at the University of Chicago. In that thesis, I argued that as economic inequality increased, American politics …

American Democracy is in No Imminent Danger

—– Interesting. and I tend to agree. I am no political theorist, nor an economist; I wonder, though, if much of what Studebakers is saying really reflects a certain type of realism which is countering idealism. For, the idealism nowadays is based in a very real economic system that can’t really be forced out by any significant number of people: this is because everyone now is dependent and loves the comfort that they live in.

Even the “have Nots” are tied into economic prosperity, or the symbols of economic prosperity, which are, cell phones, computers, and by extension space exploration. Social ethics compensate for the have-nots through the healing impetus of careers: Those people choose to help but also they are paid; however unequally, they still “have”.

As well, there seems just aren’t enough people whose lives are crappy who can attach themselves to an idealism of any sort of “better way” any more. Whereas, as Studebaker argues from a different standpoint and probably more politically theorized legitimacy, back in the 30s there were still a lot of questions that could not be answered. And they were answered by idealistic arguments, arguments that stemmed from, basically, “the unknown”. Idealism basically is a position that grabs sense from the unknown and argues that it is a “better way”.

Today we “know better”. We have an idealism that is based in a very real reality: Comfort. Not only this, it is an idealism which is based in the very real standpoint that exceptionally economically driven and powerful companies support the potential of comfort in trying to “help humanity”. We don’t have any more room for fantasy; They’ll be shut down by the sheer force of power. Small battles make more money, and offer the helpers places to help.

At least for now. 🧑🏾‍🚀


Is the Modern Religion making a name for itself? Metamodernism

I’ve been hearing that metamodernism is the next stage in the march of history toward progress. Metamodernism will synthesise modernism and …

Can Metamodernism Sublate Modernism and Postmodernism?

—– Thanks Philosophics! Great post.

The title of my Repost is a little tongue in cheek, but not really if you have been following my blog.

I suggest that Modernism and Post-modernism define the Modern Religion.

The simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts is my approach. As a loose generality:

Modernity is definition.

Post modernity is deconstruction.

Of course there is more to them, but I think those two definitions, ironically, define the religion: through the definition I find ways that the definition is not sufficient. Thats it. Im not sure how any knowledge that we can call knowledge is not ordained and presented in that way.

Then: There is no more to a category of knowing and activity than those aspects. Together they constitute the Modern Being: identity and its concordat nothingness.

People just gotta do something to make a living. Meta modernity is it for intellectualism now, I

Philosophical review, Vol.I Issue I, The beginning of Greek philosophy and The moral universe in the pre-socratics..

Summary Ancient philosophy Historical period: Pre-Socratic Branch: (Introduction) School/Movement: Monism / Pluralism / Eleatic school Lecture series…

Philosophical review, Vol.I Issue I, The beginning of Greek philosophy and The moral universe in the pre-socratics..

—– Ζήτω!!!