You can go more or less directly to the original tier though. People just don't bother to. You don't need Jordan Peterson to tell you what he thinks postmodernism is. You can just go and read Jameson or whoever.there's an originator tier
disciples tier (inner circle)
college kids at home for turkeyday
"socialism's in the name"The Nazis actually being on the left's a more recent one
no, the compression/synopsis is important, it's about how it gets synopsizedYou can go more or less directly to the original tier though. People just don't bother to. You don't need Jordan Peterson to tell you what he thinks postmodernism is. You can just go and read Jameson or whoever.
Yeah I tend to think that, in general, its tough to meaningfully oppose something if you don't understand its momentum - or at least begin to understand it. Without understanding it, your conception of it can hardly amount to more than a straw man, no?Fair point. I think at some point you do have to just go to the text though. You can only read around something for so long before you just have to read the thing itself. That assumes a certain amount of good faith engagement though whereas I get the impression the people railing against postmodernism via Peterson aren't really interested in learning about postmodernism.
my original comment was in reference to guys like Baudrillard, Delueze, Pynchon, Gaddis- all types to explicitly talk about the phenomenon of information becoming a caricature of itself as it spreads, e.g. simulacra, simulation, entropy, or Gaddis's existential tip.On whose part? Has postmodernism ever actually said that?