Cultural capitalism and Sartreist existentialism

The main theme of the works of Eco is not narrative, as dialectic libertarianism suggests, but neonarrative. Sargeant[1] suggests that we have to choose between Sartreist existentialism and Debordist situation. Therefore, the premise of subcultural theory implies that reality comes from the masses.

Baudrillard uses the term 'cultural capitalism' to denote the common ground between society and class. It could be said that if subcultural theory holds, we have to choose between cultural capitalism and the neodialectic paradigm of consensus.

Lacan suggests the use of cultural desublimation to challenge sexual identity. Thus, Abian[2] suggests that the works of Eco are not postmodern.

"Class is dead," says Sartre; however, according to von Junz[3] , it is not so much class that is dead, but rather the collapse, and eventually the rubicon, of class. If textual capitalism holds, we have to choose between subcultural theory and the neocapitalist paradigm of discourse. In a sense, Sontag promotes the use of cultural capitalism to attack capitalism.

"Sexual identity is intrinsically impossible," says Marx. Porter[4] states that we have to choose between Sontagist camp and the conceptual paradigm of discourse. Therefore, the primary theme of McElwaine's[5] essay on cultural capitalism is the stasis of subdialectic reality.

Many discourses concerning subcultural theory exist. However, the characteristic theme of the works of Eco is the role of the poet as writer.

Cultural capitalism implies that academe is part of the dialectic of language. Therefore, Derrida uses the term 'subcultural theory' to denote the bridge between society and sexuality. Lacan suggests the use of Sartreist existentialism to modify and analyse class. However, Debord uses the term 'subcultural theory' to denote the role of the reader as observer.

Foucault promotes the use of Debordist image to deconstruct class divisions. Thus, the primary theme of Parry's[6] model of Sartreist existentialism is the collapse, and some would say the economy, of capitalist consciousness.

The characteristic theme of the works of Eco is the role of the artist as observer. Several desublimations concerning the paradigm, and therefore the futility, of neostructuralist society may be found. However, if subcultural theory holds, we have to choose between Sartreist existentialism and capitalist discourse.

In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. In Foucault's Pendulum, Eco analyses cultural capitalism; in The Limits of Interpretation (Advances in Semiotics), although, he affirms subcultural theory. It could be said that an abundance of situationisms concerning predialectic semioticist theory exist.

Marx suggests the use of Sartreist existentialism to read narrativity. In a sense, the main theme of Werther's[7] critique of subcultural theory is not, in fact, theory, but subtheory.

The example of neostructural conceptualism prevalent in Eco's The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas is also evident in The Limits of Interpretation (Advances in Semiotics). But the subject is interpolated into a subcultural theory that includes sexuality as a whole.

Abian[8] suggests that the works of Eco are postmodern. However, the premise of Sartreist existentialism states that the task of the participant is significant form.

1. Sargeant, C. A. (1977) The Iron Fruit: Sartreist existentialism and cultural capitalism. Loompanics 2. Abian, M. ed. (1983) Sartreist existentialism in the works of Rushdie. And/Or Press

3. von Junz, E. C. (1991) Reading Lyotard: Cultural capitalism and Sartreist existentialism. University of Massachusetts Press

4. Porter, Z. ed. (1975) Sartreist existentialism and cultural capitalism. Loompanics

5. McElwaine, T. M. (1990) Expressions of Meaninglessness: Cultural capitalism in the works of Eco. Schlangekraft

6. Parry, J. ed. (1977) Cultural capitalism and Sartreist existentialism. University of Oregon Press

7. Werther, O. Z. D. (1990) Neotextual Narratives: Objectivism, modernist discourse and cultural capitalism. And/Or Press

8. Abian, Y. ed. (1978) Sartreist existentialism and cultural capitalism. Yale University Press

So, did you like it? Do you think it got its point across? Well, if you did, there's something seriously wrong with you. The essay is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the "Postmodernism Generator." What's up with that?

You're probably familiar with the so-called "Post-Modern School" of thought. As cultural movement,

According to postmodern theorist Jean-François Lyotard, postmodernity is characterized as an "incredulity toward metanarratives", meaning that in the era of postmodern culture, people have rejected the grand, supposedly universal stories and paradigms such as religion, conventional philosophy, capitalism and gender that have defined culture and behavior in the past, and have instead begun to organize their cultural life around a variety of more local and subcultural ideologies, myths and stories. Furthermore, it promotes the idea that all such metanarratives and paradigms are stable only while they fit the available evidence, and can potentially be overturned when phenomena occur that the paradigm cannot account for, and a better explanatory model (itself subject to the same fate) is found. See La Condition postmoderne: Rapport sur le savoir (The Post Modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge) in 1979, and the results of acceptance of postmodernism is the view that different realms of discourse are incomensurable and incapable of judging the results of other discourse, a conclusion he drew in La Differend (1983)...
...In philosophy, where the term is extensively used, it applies to movements that include post-structuralism, deconstruction, multiculturalism, gender studies and literary theory, sometimes called simply "theory". It emerged beginning in the 1950s as a critique of doctrines such as positivism and emphasizes the importance of power relationships, personalization and discourse in the "construction" of truth and world views. In this context it has been used by many critical theorists to assert that postmodernism is a break with the artistic and philosophical tradition of the Enlightenment, which they characterize as a quest for an ever-grander and more universal system of aesthetics, ethics, and knowledge. They present postmodernism as a radical criticism of Western philosophy. Postmodern philosophy draws on a number of approaches to criticize Western thought, including historicism, and psychoanalytic theory.

So, what's the purpose of the essay, then. To demonstrate postomodernism' futility as a description of reality and as a useful intellectual pursuit; and also, to satirize, to hold postmodernism up to ridicule and scorn, to expose and discredit its vice and folly.

Postmodern "thinkers" are the most recent manifestation of the nihilistic school that has been prowling Western thought since Nietzsche. Plainly explained, Postmodern "philosophers" claim that reality is a social construct based solely on power relationships and imbalances feeding a "language game" leading to "an emphasis on the allowability of free play within the context of conversation and discourse, therefore, adopting "the stance of irony, paradox, textual manipulation, reference and tropes."

In practical terms what this has led to is to the most elaborated, cumbersome, and boring literature ever produced. It's clichéd to the extreme and very predictable. First, a postmodern "initiate" identifies a problem needing "critical deconstruction," then s/he submits the problems to a grammatical blender and shaker where it is mashed against the wheels of recognized Postmodern thinkers, producing a series of "liberating" conclusions astonishingly close to the thought of Marx, but never mentioning the old hack by name. A reasonable reader approaching this "literature" for the first time, will discover a series of isolated meaningful words mechanically stringed into correct grammatical sentences that fail to communicate any coherent idea, yet self-congratulatory in tone because their author sincerely believes that s/he said something really profound.

It was a matter of time before someone discovered that a machine can produce similar results, that a computer could remove the human element from the "blender" and still come up with similarly-sounding utterances. Considering that computers are intrinsically "stupid" and insentient, critics of "postmodernism" relish to point out that one doesn't need a brain in order to be a "postmodern thinker."

There's something to be said about all these Dead White Men like Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, etc., that "postmodernists" so much like to attack, even the Enlightenment thinkers like Kant, etc. Why, these guys at least had something interesting to say and did to the utmost of their ability to test their observations against reality. Would it be so much to ask the same from "postmodern thinkers?"

- Visit the Postmodernism Generator and get your own vanguardist, cutting-edge, post-modern essay generated.

- If you enjoyed this, you might also enjoy reading about the Social Text Affair, where NYU Physics Professor Alan Sokal's brilliant(ly meaningless) hoax article was accepted by a cultural criticism publication.

- Want to generate your own Computer Science paper? Go to the SCIgen - An Automatic CS Paper Generator and generate your own!

- Read the article on Postmodernism in the Wikipedia, from which I extracted the above discussion on the subject.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.