Recommend me some good philosophical reading. Post modern philosophers please?

Answer 1

The most influential early postmodern philosophers were Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida. Foucault approached postmodern philosophy from a historical perspective, building upon structuralism, but at the same time rejecting structuralism by re-historicizing and destabilizing the philosophical structures of Western thought. He also considered how knowledge is defined and changed by the operation of power.

In America, the most famous postmodernist is Richard Rorty. Originally an analytic philosopher, Rorty believed that combining Donald Davidson's criticism of the dualism between conceptual scheme and empirical content with Willard Van Orman Quine's criticism of the analytic-synthetic distinction allowed for an abandonment of the view of the mind as a mirror of a reality or external world. He argued that truth was not "out-there", but was in language and language was whatever served our purposes in any particular time; ancient languages are sometimes untranslatable into modern ones. Donald Davidson is not usually considered a postmodernist, although he and Rorty have both acknowledged that there are few differences between their philosophies[1][2].

The writings of Lyotard were largely concerned with the role of narrative in human culture, and particularly how that role has changed as we have left modernity and entered a "postindustrial" or postmodern condition. He argued that modern philosophies legitimized their truth-claims not (as they themselves claimed) on logical or empirical grounds, but rather on the grounds of accepted stories (or "metanarratives") about knowledge and the world -- what Wittgenstein termed "language-games." He further argued that in our postmodern condition, these metanarratives no longer work to legitimize truth-claims. He suggested that in the wake of the collapse of modern metanarratives, people are developing a new "language game" -- one that does not make claims to absolute truth but rather celebrates a world of ever-changing relationships (among people and between people and the world).

Derrida, the father of deconstruction, practiced philosophy as a form of textual criticism. He criticized Western philosophy as privileging the concept of presence and logos, as opposed to absence and markings or writings. Derrida thus claimed to have deconstructed Western philosophy by arguing, for example, that the Western ideal of the present logos is undermined by the expression of that ideal in the form of markings by an absent author. Thus, to emphasize this paradox, Derrida reformalized human culture as a disjoint network of proliferating markings and writings, with the author being absent.

Though Derrida and Foucault are cited as postmodern philosophers, each has rejected many of the other's views. Like Lyotard, both are skeptical of absolute or universal truth-claims. Unlike Lyotard, however, they are (or seem) rather more pessimistic about the emancipatory claims of any new language-game; thus some would characterize them as post-structuralist rather than postmodernist.

Answer 2

Nietzsche, Nietzsche, Nietzsche!

read "Nietzsche and postmodernism" by Dave Robinson. ISBN#1-84046-093-8.
this is the best little book that encompasses the godfather of postmodernism. or at least his ideas.
it's an easy read and a great introduction.

Answer 3

ought to it is the self-referencing (or recursive) function it is irritating. maximum techniques are approximately suggestions. maximum suggestions are approximately instructions of products. yet what some seen genuine suggestions? what's that approximately? reality? Is there any difference between saying "understanding" and saying "genuine understanding"? does not all understanding be genuine understanding? if so, the belief of understanding is redundant, besides as recursive (self-referencing). this sort of thought creates confusions that don't would desire to be there. for this reason that's hateful. QED. right this is yet another danger to take a run at this abstruse yet problematic question. it is the comparable reason that Eskimos hate the belief of snow. For them there are 15 distinctive words for snow, so basically saying "snow" is a brilliant over-generalization, and it is largely annoying and meaningless. Plato stated 4 forms of understanding (this could be like the Eskimo with the assorted snow words). there is pistis it is sensory understanding, then there is calculation, i won't have the ability to remember the Greek notice for that, even nonetheless it is like arithmetic and trigonometry and geometry, etc. Then there is dianoia which seeing by issues to their center -- via dianoia we draw close precis suggestions, like table, or chair, or tree, or canine. ultimately, there episteme it is understanding of the utmost varieties like the solid, The basically, the gorgeous, the suggestions-blowing. i've got not re-study the Republic in numerous years, so i'm unsure i've got have been given those precisely precise, yet my factor is that there are various forms of understanding for a reality seeker, and attempting to %. all of them right into a single thought and basically say "understanding" is a fallacy. The fallacy of falsely compounding many things into one notice as though that notice utilized in the comparable thank you to all of them. The fallacy of fake conflating. fake conflating is a sort of errors, for this reason the unitary thought of understanding is an errors, that's deceptive speech which takes us remote from understanding, for this reason that's hateful. QED. i visit place a million/2 my chips on my first answer, and a million/2 on my 2d answer, style of like on the roulette table, the place you play 2 numbers via putting your chips on the line between them. i ought to get some small winnings that way 18 to a million (vs 36 ro a million).

Answer 4

This is short but. Samuel Beckett! He is god. I love him. All so William Blake rocks my socks off. But not as much as Samuel Beckett. I can not stress enough the impotence of reading Samuel Becketts stuff.

Answer 5

i love existencialist, try jean paul sartre, albert camus, andre malrux.

Answer 6

TRY OSHO