Screed Against & For Postmodernist Philosophy Apart From PoMo Art & Design

>There is a reason modern architecture is "rootless" i.e. devoid of any cultural influence. Just like post-modernism in general, the goal is to destroy distinct cultures, and replace them with a nihilistic, globalist consumer society

Only partially true. Modernism is that which you describe, which is intrinsically attached to Postmodernism. Postmodernism is simply a return to form, in the sense of the Architect having their own personal "spin" on the work, a la, Classical Architects, that is to say, the biggin's whom made the Great Works, like the Sistine Chapel, for example. But the thing is, the "personal spin" is no long engendered with the longing, for say...God...or some higher power. Now it's about "Art" (a fairly abstract concept that I think most people have a crack at but aren't very good at it...Postmodernist 'art' is mostly just..."Pop art & design" and then it's like "whoa conceptual" but it's more like just pretentious and not very woo'ing unless you're already either a simpleton or just a louse who WISHES they were an artists but could never be...and there ARE those types too- blame journos for the popular ones) and it's about "making a statement", and it oft times is ugly- though corporate structures have always been the same, big and ugly, PoMo seems to make fun of that, in architecture, outside of corporate buildings, which is still ugly. But HOMES on the otherhand, can be quite nice...see there are distinctions there. Wright houses for example (modernist) are spectacular....but the corporate buildings...are always ugly.

(To nte. on further mention of the term "PoMo"--, like the previous one, is referring to the architectonic- therefore, architectural- either via structure, design, or you could say 'era' ["Postmodernity"], or at the most abstruse it can refer to someone who thinks they are "postmodern" in the sense that they are of a heightened temporal and historical import , which in that case, you can be rest assured that's a big "baddie" that you'll see highlighted as we continue.)

>Postmodernist art is just trash that is too abstract and degenerate

I know, it's retarded garbage- that shit might have been edgy in the 70s but it's outdated...Feminism came up with that shit, too. Sure it's of "postmodernity", as in the era...but I don't see how it pertains to Postmodernist philosophy, at all- and postmodernism IS a philosophy. In and of itself, and within Architecture, and within Literature (often misattributed to writers whom don't claim to be 'postmodernists') -- I ask people to name me one Postmodernist philosopher that ascribes to "patriarchy", or "32 genders" that isn't also a VEHEMENTLY outspoken (and regressive) Feminist/Gender Studies Guru (which is more like Sociologist, don't you think? Conflict Theory/Critical Theory....

(Structuralists/Post-Structuralists....et al.)

On Language Games:

All of these things get conflated to mean "Postmodernism", but I defy anyone to tell me of any of the OLD (late 50's, early 60's) Postmodernists, or tell me how the theory of Language Games is wrong (the Feminists and Gender Guru's love that shit, and people love debunking it, because you CAN deconstruct language...but NOT Biological FACT...HAHA, THEIR MISTAKE- they don't know of what they even speak! And the "skeptics" don't even realize they are tackling this with Language Games to PROVE their assertions (that Biological Fact is not able to be "Deconstructed"- not by the means they wish....which is true, by the by.)

(nte. that 'Feminists' is a "team".)

On Gender Gurus, Roles And Pronouns:

They can only hope to assign Gender Roles LINGUISTICALLY, but that's it...(and the law issues, if you are thinking i'm anti-Peterson-fucking-telling-them-to-fuck-theirselves, you'd be wrong; that shit, legally speaking, disturbs me. But the morality involved also does to- I dislike vehemently hateful and vile people, on any side of any debate.) Sorry for the ramble- the only way to get my thoughts out on this subject, it makes my head spin. I think the WORD Postmodernism is STUPID.

On Metamodernism:

Anyways, Metamodernism is the new thing now, and people should focus, at LEAST, on BOTH, and have a dialectic debate about the merits of disabusing people of either/or, for the sake that they are the most prevalent (I'm being ironic). Modernism is also ATTACHED to Postmodernism, intrinsically, I might add. It should all be critiqued, but NOT CONFLATED- just like fucking White Nationalists (whomever they may be) shouldn't be conflated with Supremacists or Nazis;...the logic i'm applying there is the same I apply to the absent-minded misuse (or OVERUSE) of the damn denotation of Postmodernism being conflated with some hippy-dippy lovefest of regressive ammoral commerce of criminality that we see know in this era we are currently in.

If you are talking about Structuralism/Post-Structualism, ect, ie Sociology -- you are confusing that aspect of "postmodernity" with postmodernism. That isn't Postmodernism. Heidegger could be considered one of the forerunners of the particular school of thought- but the title really belongs to such as Quine and Derrida (whom is hated amongst even PoMo philosophers...also, though, even Peterson, with his hatred of Derrida [which is not ironic, many people hate him] admits that he fundamentally is right about his concept of "Deconstruction" ["Language games" is a synonymous term, I find, though lacking the nuance of the academic usage] and he is...everyone plays with their Rhetoric and Dialectical thinking to convince people of things, not JUST Logic--

(True story.). (expunge this.). (could use some rearranging.). (otherwise fine, usual blurts of mechanistic information encapsulation.)....

On Lens:

You can slap "Postmodernist" onto anything and use that "lens" (the notion of being able to deconstruct language) with anything...just like you can slap "Marxism" onto anything. Anything can be looked at through the lens of Marxist thinking...just because you study Capitalism through the lens of Critical Theory, is it not Marxism? Just because you are studying capitalism, doesn't mean the study isn't Marxist, in effect, and thus not capitalism, in outcome.

>Post-Modernist art = Meaningless mediocrity

Modernism, postmodernism, classicism...all a call and response of the same essential thing. We aren't even in "postmodernism" anymore. Metamodernism. That is the current new thought of the era...most PoMo's don't even agree on anything, for the most part...but that's in Philosophy, not in Art. In art, they seem to all mostly agree on the bullshit that is swilled and sold. Institutional critique is the most important and valiant section in 'this modern art', but it's not really "art" at all...but people in the new era really HAVE lost the meaning of art...these schools of theirs did that.

People are mostly right about POSTMODERNITY, THOUGH; and that isn't even "Postmodernism", per se--

that's just "Postmodernity!"

But it's ok, just about nobody can really denote just when it all stopped being 50's era "Postmodernism" and went into this new wave where Marxist and Gender-hued lenses are being employed to filter their own "postmodern language games", but certainly no one can denote, either, where any of the demarcations of "postmodernism" and the later and more current "post-post" or "meta-modern" era of "thought" began- that lays with fin de siècle, nihilistic, pessimistic, and anti-capitalist, radicalist, counter-culture, that wanted to "RESTART PRIMITIVE COMMUNISTIC MAN".

Roger-dodger, over 'n' under.