How do you do this? I restacked with more praise but this is amazing and I trust you at your word at the piece’s end that more is to come. SOMEBODY PUBLISH THIS FELLOW!
I feel that postmodernists were/are right to stress that history always has a presentist component to it. It becomes problematic, however, when this idea is pushed to the extreme where the very reality of the past comes into question. For example, my PhD thesis was a metabiography of Jean Monnet, the founding father of the EU. I've tried to show how different biographers/historians were shaped by their political stances, but I never doubted the historical existence of Jean Monnet!
David, a question for you: when you write your wonderful historical pieces, do you catch yourself self-reflecting about how your present circumstances shape your views on history?
Hey thanks Adomas, much appreciated. Well that’s a great question. I think I have more empathy for the people of history than I did when I studied the subject academically at university. I was much younger then, so probably more eager to “succeed” and so I would be more opinionated and determined to make a point. So that postmodernism post I spent more time re-writing it than I did writing (if that makes sense) so I took out lots of my opinionated stuff and tried to be “kinder” - hope that makes some kind of sense 🤷🏻♂️
Very interesting article for the literary criticism. But as not well informed about it, I don't understand why critics of postmodernism use the name of Karl Marx. He was a political economist, as we all know, not a writer. I would agree with Derrida, "meaning can ever be present in its totality, but we still understand Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and Dostoevsky...The deconstruction of literary works has been going on for a long time, but I didn't find any mention of writers' names in postmodernism, the victims of deconstruction. Is it the theory for theory?
Great overview - looking forward to the next one on the Frankfurt School!!
Btw I think you make a very interesting point on the distinction between postmodernism and Marxism - if anything the latter were concerned that postmodernism was a bourgeoisie philosophy which could lead to political passivity rather than revolution.
So...following Marx's progression...what comes next after capitalism? How do we evolve from here? Or do we devolve and the cycle starts again? Wonderfully written, thank you
How do you do this? I restacked with more praise but this is amazing and I trust you at your word at the piece’s end that more is to come. SOMEBODY PUBLISH THIS FELLOW!
Thank you for this one, David! Brilliant piece.
I feel that postmodernists were/are right to stress that history always has a presentist component to it. It becomes problematic, however, when this idea is pushed to the extreme where the very reality of the past comes into question. For example, my PhD thesis was a metabiography of Jean Monnet, the founding father of the EU. I've tried to show how different biographers/historians were shaped by their political stances, but I never doubted the historical existence of Jean Monnet!
David, a question for you: when you write your wonderful historical pieces, do you catch yourself self-reflecting about how your present circumstances shape your views on history?
Hey thanks Adomas, much appreciated. Well that’s a great question. I think I have more empathy for the people of history than I did when I studied the subject academically at university. I was much younger then, so probably more eager to “succeed” and so I would be more opinionated and determined to make a point. So that postmodernism post I spent more time re-writing it than I did writing (if that makes sense) so I took out lots of my opinionated stuff and tried to be “kinder” - hope that makes some kind of sense 🤷🏻♂️
That makes perfect sense, David. Thank you for your thoughts.
Very interesting article for the literary criticism. But as not well informed about it, I don't understand why critics of postmodernism use the name of Karl Marx. He was a political economist, as we all know, not a writer. I would agree with Derrida, "meaning can ever be present in its totality, but we still understand Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and Dostoevsky...The deconstruction of literary works has been going on for a long time, but I didn't find any mention of writers' names in postmodernism, the victims of deconstruction. Is it the theory for theory?
Thank you for finding my comment interesting.
I did indeed Larissa and what’s more I am very appreciative that you took the time and effort of writing and posting it. Best regards David M
Absolutely brilliant. The only problem I see here is I now have a mountain of reading (and re-reading) to do to catch up on the conversation.
Great overview - looking forward to the next one on the Frankfurt School!!
Btw I think you make a very interesting point on the distinction between postmodernism and Marxism - if anything the latter were concerned that postmodernism was a bourgeoisie philosophy which could lead to political passivity rather than revolution.
Thanks for the comment Jakob, much appreciated 👍
So...following Marx's progression...what comes next after capitalism? How do we evolve from here? Or do we devolve and the cycle starts again? Wonderfully written, thank you
As usual, breathtakingly brilliant and thought provoking.
Thank you my love 😍