Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I've checked several sources, the best I could find were these two videos and this comparison sheet, but even after that the only things I can scrap out is that Modernism is generally about reason, science and Practicability, when as Postmodernism is about reason and science being myths and style over substance.

Can someone give me a explanation about what they mean?

From the Urban Dictionary:
"Modernism: Writing something clever and witty on a billboard.

Post-Modernism: Writing the words "something clever and witty" on a billboard.

Post-Post-Modernism: Writing a billboard on some words.

Post-Post-Post-Modernism: Nailing a herring to a wall and punching it with a racquetball from 4-5 feet away while reciting Dostoyevsky quotes."

It's pretty much spot-on.

^ True

Taken from rationalwiki.

"Postmodernism is a cluster of philosophical, literary, cultural and art movements which developed in the mid-20th century. It developed out of philosophical criticisms of modernism and disillusionment which resulted among European philosophers on the political left following World War II, when the communist governments of Eastern Europe became increasingly unable to conceal their misbehavior, thus suggesting to the intelligentsia that Marxism was not the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Postmodernism is, per its name, a reaction to modernism, wherever a postmodernist feels something that could reasonably be tagged that needed reacting against; this means that it's not one coherent thing. It also means a lot of it is difficult to understand unless you understand what it's a reaction to.

Contrary to various rationalists' views, postmodernism is not composed entirely of bullshit -- it is a useful critical method to keep on hand when talking about social and artistic things, like most of what humans do that might be called "culture." Humans are ridiculously full of shit, and postmodernism can be useful in pointing out its effects. However, as the product of humans, it is itself susceptible to bullshit in turn, particularly when applied to actual reality rather than human conceptions of reality."

As far as literature goes:

Post-Modernist: Objective reality does not exist. Everything is relative. To deny this is an act of essentialism brought on by over-reliance on social constructs.

Modernist: But isn't saying "objective reality does not exist" an act of essentialism?

Post-Modernist: Shut the fuck up.

I've never read a "Man vs Author" story that didn't feel like a pretentious, idiotic love letter to the author's overinflated ego.

Then there is metamodernism, which seems to be a rejection of both the absolutism of modernism and the relativism of post-modernism in favor of the oscillation of the two views. Not widely recognized by the mainstream, and who knows it could very well go the way of so many other ideas and die out.

Here's the wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamodernism

Modernism: A philosophy in which the world is simple, and what is 'right' can be discerned according to universal ideals.
Post-modernism: Quite literally any idea that comes after modernism. Usually, it is a philosophy in which the world is messy, and what is 'right' is depending on place and context.

Now, as was posted earlier, these were very large collections of ideas with a very broad scope, covering art, literature and many other fields. I believe that the most easy-understood difference between them can be seen in architecture. Out of 'modernist' ideals were many housing projects in America built. In the architecture world, it was the failure of these housing projects, which were supposed to consolidate and improve the lives of the working poor, that signified the failure of modernism.

I'm not exactly sure if this story counts. It's not a story where the protagonist literally jumps out of the work of fiction he's in and confronts his 'author' which in this case would be the studio behind the movie. It's literally a story of a man, who confronts his author in-universe.

Would this count as post-post-modernism because it's technically a commentary on the whole man vs author type of conflict?