Post Structuralism And Postmodernism Pdf 18 2021
Download - https://byltly.com/2t2CpN
An important part of Deleuze's oeuvre is devoted to the reading of other philosophers: the Stoics, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, and Bergson, with particular influence derived from Spinoza. A. W. Moore, citing Bernard Williams's criteria for a great thinker, ranks Deleuze among the "greatest philosophers". Although he once characterized himself as a "pure metaphysician", his work has influenced a variety of disciplines across the humanities, including philosophy, art, and literary theory, as well as movements such as post-structuralism and postmodernism.
Along with several French and Italian Marxist-inspired thinkers like Louis Althusser, Étienne Balibar, and Antonio Negri, he was one of the central figures in a great flowering of Spinoza studies in the late 20th and early 21st centuries continental philosophy (or the rise of French-inspired post-structuralist Neo-Spinozism) that was the second remarkable Spinoza revival in history, after highly significant Neo-Spinozism in German philosophy and literature of approximately the late 18th and early 19th centuries. A fervent Spinozist in many respects, Deleuze's preoccupation with and reverence for Spinoza are well known in contemporary philosophy.
From the 1930s onward, German philosopher Martin Heidegger wrote in a series of manuscripts and books on concepts of Difference, Identity, Representation, and Event; notably among these the Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis) (Written 1936-38; published posthumously 1989); none of the relevant texts were translated into French by Deleuze's death in 1995, excluding any strong possibility of appropriation. However, Heidegger's early work can be traced through mathematician Albert Lautman, who drew heavily from Heidegger's Sein und Zeit and Vom Wesen des Grundes (1928), which James Bahoh describes as having "...decisive influence on the twentieth century mathematician and philosopher [...] whose theory of dialectical Ideas Deleuze appropriated and modified for his own use." The similarities between Heidegger's later, post-turn, 1930-1976 thought and Deleuze's early works in the 60s and 70s are generally described by Deleuze-scholar Daniel W. Smith in the following way:
In the 1980s and 1990s, almost all of Deleuze's books were translated into English. Deleuze's work is frequently cited in English-speaking academia (in 2007, e.g., he was the 11th most frequently cited author in English-speaking publications in the humanities, between Freud and Kant). Like his contemporaries Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jean-François Lyotard, Deleuze's influence has been most strongly felt in North American humanities departments, particularly in literary theory, where Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus are oft regarded as major statements of post-structuralism and postmodernism, though neither Deleuze nor Guattari described their work in those terms. Likewise in the English-speaking academy, Deleuze's work is typically classified as continental philosophy.
Baudrillard thus had an ambivalent relation to classical Marxism bythe early 1970s. On one hand, he carried forward the Marxian critiqueof commodity production which delineates and criticizes various formsof alienation, domination, and exploitation produced by capitalism. Atthis stage, it appeared that his critique takes place from the standardneo-Marxian vantage point which assumes that capitalism is blameworthybecause it is homogenizing, controlling and dominating social life,while robbing individuals of their freedom, creativity, time and humanpotentialities. On the other hand, he cannot point to any revolutionaryforces and in particular did not discuss the situation and potential ofthe working class as an agent of change in the consumer society.Indeed, Baudrillard has no theory of the subject as an active agent ofsocial change whatsoever, thus following the structuralist andpoststructuralist critique of the philosophical and practical subjectcategorized by Descartes, Kant, and Sartre which was long dominant inFrench thought. Structuralists and poststructuralists argued thatsubjectivity was produced by language, social institutions, andcultural forms and was not independent of its construction in theseinstitutions and practices.
Baudrillard is perhaps most important as part of the postmodern turnagainst modern society and its academic disciplines. His work cutsacross the disciplines and promotes cross-disciplinary thought. Hechallenges standard wisdom and puts in question received dogma andmethods. While his early work on the consumer society, the politicaleconomy of the sign, simulation and simulacra, and the implosion ofphenomena previously separated can be deployed within criticalphilosophy and social theory, much of his post-1980s work quiteself-consciously goes beyond the classical tradition and in mostinterviews of the past decade Baudrillard distances himself fromcritical philosophy and social theory, claiming that the energy ofcritique has dissipated.
Nursing Theory, Postmodernism, Post-structuralism, and Foucault critiques mainstream American nursing theory and its use of post-structural theory, comparing and contrasting how postmodern and post-structural ideas have been used fruitfully in nursing research and theorizing elsewhere.
In the late 1980s, references to post-structuralism and Michel Foucault started to appear in nursing journals. Since then, hundreds of nursing publications have cited postmodernism and key post-structural ideas such as power/knowledge, discourse, and de-centring the human subject. In Nursing Theory, Postmodernism, Post-structuralism, and Foucault, Olga Petrovskaya argues that the application of these ideas is markedly different in American nursing theory scholarship compared to nursing theoretical scholarship generated outside the canon of "unique" nursing theory. Analysing relevant literature from the late 1980s through 2010s, she demonstrates this difference, arguing that American nursing theory calcified into a matrix of dogmas built on logical positivism, wary of "borrowed" theory, and loyal to a "unique nursing science." Post-structural ideas that fit the matrix, such as criticism of medicine, are sanctioned, whereas ideas sceptical of humanistic agendas including those that challenge American nursing theory are rendered meaningless. In contrast, other nurse scholars from Britain, Australia, Canada, and what the author calls the American enclave group engaged with postmodern and post-structural perspectives to enrich their research and invite readers to rethink nursing practice. The book showcases examples of their intelligent, creative theorizing. Arguing that American nursing theory enervated nursing theorizing, Petrovskaya calls for opening this matrix to theoretical and methodological creativity, less rigid categories of scholarship, and healthy self-examination.
But the deconstruction was not only directed outward towards the objective world, as the critics feared. The very promiscuity of the postmodern deconstruction of all grand narratives meant that the grandest of all narratives, that of the Subject itself, would not remain untouched. Jacques Derrida, for example, insists that difference is so primordial that it cannot be kept outside of the Subject, but must call into question the Subject itself:
From Postmodernism - Wikipedia, I think that postmodernism and post-structuralism are basically the same, and are used when you want to talk about the movement in philosophy, and deconstruction is only used when you analyse a text. Is this understanding correct?
tl;dr - deconstruction is something specific (usually from Derrida less commonly from Heidegger). Post-structuralism is a near synonym for late 20th century French philosophy and is a type of "post-modernism." Post-modernism is a term which means anything after modernity -- no idea what it means without context.
Postmodernism is a grab bag term that applies to many different things that come ... after modernism. It's hard to know what someone means when they say this term as it gets bantered about (usually by people who are opposed to something they call "postmodernism" or by people who thinks it's the best thing ever). One reason it's hard is that what is modernism is not as easy to answer as it appears. In general, in philosophy, modernism refers to the period from Descartes and Locke down to the period of Kant ... and maybe Hegel, and further maybe Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche (depending on the speaker and their interpretations of these philosophers).
Post-structuralism is one of the things that comes after modernism. The name "post-structuralism" gives it a firmer meaning than "post-modernism" and locates it within a French tradition. It's in many ways quite similar to the project of structuralism. Structuralism is a project that says meaning exists in systems ("structures") not in sentences or individuals. Post-structuralists keep the structures but often drop out the idea that there are meanings beneath this that could be found or could exist. It's hard to articulate quite what they mean by this (because part of their point is to attack both "they" and "mean"), but the basic idea is that our naive concept of things where speakers are subjects that have wills, intentions, thoughts, and values is wrong and what's actually happening is that ideas move in their own force.
For this reason, it's not really clear if the people called post-structuralists (e.g., Foucault, Lacan, Butler, Kristeva, Derrida, and others) are engaged in a fundamentally different project or just an extension of the original structuralist agenda. This is because they accept the main point of the structuralists -- that the structures are primary; they reject or possibly amplify the structuralists diminishing of the subject. (How exactly and what exactly will vary depending on who we are talking about). 2b1af7f3a8