Well, that would be impossible, chronologically and logically.
PoMo, to quote Moe is “being weird for the sake of weird”. It means that you lost confidence in the big answers, the big tales of Modernity.
It erupted in the early 70’s, after the Prague Spring and the Yum Kippur-war (oil crisis). The 3 big tales of the 20th century don’t provide any answers: fascism doesn’t, communism doesn’t either and liberalism, well, ****-uyama thought liberalism now was the only big story still available. Non-sence ofcourse. His book is rubbish. Together with Huntington’s clash of civilizations it’s the most respected book on contemporary history. I ask why :confused:
Post-Modernists however don’t believe in any of these tales.
The only thing that comes close to PoMo is the 19th century feeling of Fin-de-siecle: Oscar Wilde, dandyisme. Wilde only focussed on arts though, he didn’t care about politics, nature, or life in general (which he all found irritating). Pomo’s are not so cynical, they are just being critical towards the big answers.
In some way, we are all Post-Modernists. Being modernist is quite naieve I guess: marxism, nationalism, liberalism. None of them has the status of gods. But that doesn’t mean we throw everything away. One can be religious, or spirutalist (New Age is PoMo), but PoMo is more than hippy BS. It means that we organise our life “a la carte”, we only take what we need from Religion (when we are ill we go to church), politics (we are to lazy to vote but we still want to blaim gov’t), economics …
So to answer your question: there first has to be Modernism before there can be pomo :D. That is however a very un-pomo thing of me to say because I am putting too much faith into chronological thinking. 😎
The phisophical holocaust erupted.
Sign In
