[orwin]

> It's not what post-modernists typically say post-modernism is

Worse, it's the total opposite of one core tenet of postmodernism. It's very hard for anybody honest to argue that postmodernism has ametanarrative, when the only thing all authors agree with is that metanarratives are to be recognized and refuted.

> I've read enough post-modernism to form my own opinion.

Who did you read? Deleuze? Derrida? Foucault? Baudrillard?

I will always advise people to read Baudrillard first, I think he is somehow misunderstood in the Anglo world, but it might be mistranslations. Then Deleuze, then Lyotard and Foucault as Derrida is too dispersed imho, and way to complex, as imho you have to read his articles where he explain his books, alongside his books [edit: and to be fair I still don't think I really get Derrida, he's very recognized but to me he is very obscure, probably the weakest imho. I also disagree with a lot I understand from him, except his method, so that's might be my priors who prevents me to really getting it].

If anyone would rather read a novel to try to grasp what postmodernism is about, I think "l'Amour" from begaudeau is the latest (100 pages, really short and sweet), and the one that is still in my mind when I think about postmodern materialism.

[pdonis]

> Who did you read?

I've read all of the ones you mention (except for the novel, I haven't read anything by that author).

[orwin]

Where did you get the "there is no reality out there, it's all just human-created abstraction"? Which book exactly? Because I can't remember a single one claiming that. Maybe 'Simulacre et simulation' has a point that's close to this, but it's about consumption and signifiers, and certainly not about 'all'.

I don't think I remember anything from Lyotard about that, he talk mostly about legitimation and fragmentation. Weirdly, the only place I could see him talking about 'all just human-created abstraction' is in his criticism of metanarative (and in this case, replace 'all' by 'metanarative' and it's pretty close, but also very obvious).

Foucault isn't a postmodernist (he predate them), but he might have talked about that, I remember him talking about objective truth not existing, but it was in the context of words' meanings, and while a Canadian dumbshit took his words outside of its context, it's quite clear it's not about the physical world, but about meaning. Said Canadian proved him somewhat right by misquoting him on purpose. Also it's clear he lacked Wittgenstein's insights on how we describe reality , I would have loved to read Foucault with analytical philosophy insights.

Derrida, I don't know tbh, I don't think anybody but himself understands him, but I do not remember him writing about anything but art or philosophy.