Reasons I am not a postmodernist

 

I am an unabashed egoist (or at least egoish).

I am an unabashed humanist. 

I am an unabashed materialist.  

I am unabashedly in favor of existence & being. 

I unabashedly support science. 

I unabashedly believe in nature, including human nature.

I unabashedly believe in truth.

I unabashedly believe in rights. 

I unabashedly believe in progress. 

I think all of these things matter, and that they're good. I want to maintain these, to make sure all of these keep existing.  I want to maintain the ego, maintain humanity, maintain the material world, maintain nature, maintain science, maintain rights, maintain progress, maintain existence, maintain being.

I believe strongly in maintenance.  We have to learn to be custodians.  We must learn to be the janitors of being.

"Another flaw in the human character is that everyone wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance." - Kurt Vonnegut 

I want to maintain the modern, keep it going, keep it pushing forward. 

If all of the above makes me a narcissist, so be it.  If it makes me anthropocentric, so be it. 

I see all of the above as leftist positions, and I see opposition to them as right-wing/reactionary.

Therefore, I see postmodernism as intrinsically right-wing/reactionary.  Alexander Dugin and Nick Land are both postmodernists, and indeed they both merely reveal the right-wing tendency that has always been there in postmodernism, for those who had eyes to see it.  

But also, I think people who claim that they aren't on the side of the ego, of humanity, of nature, of rights, of progress, of existence, of being, of truth, etc., are lying.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
THE PRODUCTIVITY BOMB Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... ) ...
Read more

Against Curtis Yarvin, a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug

Image
  CURTIS YARVIN IS A POSTMODERNIST  "They Hate Us For Our Freedom"   Since 2007, there has been a tiny, marginal movement on the internet, or several overlapping movements, started by a person named Curtis Yarvin, better known by his assumed name, "Mencius Moldbug."  (I'll use that name; it's less obscure.)  Spreading out from Silicon Valley, where it first became trendy, the movement(s) have been known by various names.  Moldbug originally called his political philosophy "formalism" - at that time, he was advocating for the government being run in the style of a corporation - especially a Silicon Valley startup - with a powerful CEO.  But that never caught on, and he abandoned it in favor of "neo-cameralism."  But this turned out not to capture anyone's imagination either, and so other names appeared: the Dark Enlightenment, neo-monarchism, and most famous of all, the "NeoReactionary movement" - NRx for short.  Are all thes...
Read more

Why Sam Harris is Wrong About Free Will

Image
  "Free Will" vs. "Determinism" What does it mean to have "solved" a philosophical problem?  This is, in itself, a philosophical problem.  I don't feel comfortable saying I've solved any philosophical problems, but what if I propose a notion of having "minimally solved" a problem - that is, not necessary coming up with the right answer, let alone an answer that will end the debate for everyone, but coming up with the general shape or framework (perhaps missing some important specifics) of an answer that satisfies me , at least to the point where the problem doesn't endlessly torture me and keep me up at night?  If, by "solved," we mean "minimally solved," then I think I have solved the problem that is usually called the debate between "free will" and "determinism".  Not that my answer is particularly original.  Actually, not I, but modern neuroscience solved this puzzle.  And all I mean is tha...
Read more