The Context of Absurdity: Foucaultist power relations, nihilism and rationalism

1. The dialectic paradigm of consensus and postcapitalist dialectic theory

“Society is fundamentally elitist,” says Sontag. However, Geoffrey holds that we have to choose between pretextual deconstructivism and semiotic neotextual theory. Several discourses concerning nihilism may be found.

In the works of Rushdie, a predominant concept is the distinction between closing and opening. Thus, if postcapitalist dialectic theory holds, we have to choose between Baudrillardist hyperreality and dialectic submodern theory. Marx promotes the use of the dialectic paradigm of consensus to attack archaic perceptions of class.

If one examines nihilism, one is faced with a choice: either accept dialectic socialism or conclude that narrativity has intrinsic meaning. Therefore, many appropriations concerning a mythopoetical whole exist. The characteristic theme of the works of Rushdie is the role of the observer as poet.

It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a postcapitalist dialectic theory that includes culture as a paradox. Sartre uses the term ‘the dialectic paradigm of consensus’ to denote not deconstruction per se, but neodeconstruction.

But Parry implies that we have to choose between pretextual discourse and cultural neodialectic theory. The subject is interpolated into a postcapitalist dialectic theory that includes sexuality as a reality.

Thus, Debord suggests the use of the dialectic paradigm of consensus to modify society. The capitalist paradigm of reality states that discourse is a product of the masses.

Therefore, if postcapitalist dialectic theory holds, the works of Rushdie are not postmodern. Lyotard uses the term ‘subdialectic theory’ to denote the common ground between class and society.

However, the subject is contextualised into a dialectic paradigm of consensus that includes reality as a whole. The premise of nihilism suggests that language, perhaps ironically, has significance.

Nice copy-paste, bro.

Damnit, I just knew someone would out me.
For anyone wondering, this is a random wall of text from the Postmodern Essay Generator. I find it really amusing to read, just because it sounds exactly like other postmodern essays.

I was wondering why someone would be posting a random wall of text about this kind of topic. I almost responded seriously, stating some of my political views.

Then I realized

WTF is all I can say about that. I understood nothing .

I'm 12, what is this.

Is it sad that I actually understood most of this? I can actually have an intelligent conversation about stuff like this

Ammuine wrote:

Is it sad that I actually understood most of this? I can actually have an intelligent conversation about stuff like this

I understood bits and pieces, its just the mass majority.

...

(╯‵Д′)╯彡┻━┻

I r confuse

tehbone wrote:

I r confuse

Whats new?

Cornzone4 wrote:

tehbone wrote:

I r confuse

Whats new?

That's true.

Don't you even know what nihilism and rationalism are?