Here I would like to collect texts, opinions and ideas about postmodern philosophy.

To begin with a little introduction into deconstruction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs5Q0tYlVQc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ9mHGk5Fpo

Philosophy and Postmodern Culture (Rick Roderick)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTD74uL9SII

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MBSMo3kP-4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk9UHcEeTw0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAhGv59fX7w&feature=related

About that there is one text. Text is always in that mode where text, less and more than one and never one, witness the flow of things. How could it be otherwise? When you, thus, make a caricature of Muhamet, you are always already right. There will be a great war soon. And it will be worse than before.

What wikipedia has to say on POSTMODERNISM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

Contemporary and Postsmodern Philosophers

http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/postmodern.html

Jean-Francois Lyotard

http://users.california.com/~rathbone/lyotard2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Lyotard

http://www.costis.org/x/lyotard/index.asp

A very enjoyably 'youtube lecture' on Derrida by Rick Roderick (in 5 parts)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26DqUGvgPa4&feature=related

he manages to explain very lively Derridas ideas on language and philosophy. Based on them he touches Derridas views on religion and ethics..

Hi BryanB what post are you refering to?

I agree. And I think that postmodernism or deconstruction is surely not out to cause war. I would say it is quite the opposite. The idea of the postmodern goes  partly back to Adorno, who saw the the reason for the second world war partly in the idea of an absolute truth which leaves nothing next to it. So the postmodern tries to beak up this absoluteness and looks for ways that could  let the 'other' coexist next to oneself. To show I again bring my above mentioned speech forward. Listen to the text in 3min20 or later in 7min. A plead for pluralism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-CIu-avi2w&feature=related

"I would like to." If it wasn't for this and that, you mean? A priestly attitude, that, properly. Then you say: I will have to kill soothe and shoot you because of this or of that --- but, listen, I am with you guys. Like Dr. Mengele said when he made use of human skin to give a brighter light to humanity. If it wasn't for the human skin, its possible lamps, one would love to see the sun. Humans are beings obsessed with flesh.

I like this short statements, that are like a short and simple formula for the world. A conclusion of Plato or Buddha. 

Let us look at it. God created the universe, he made all the material stuff like planets, plants, animals and humans. And he thought is was good. But it wasn't. Eva sinned. she was to much interested in the flesh than in Gods rules. And Adam was to weak to resist Eva. The flesh sucks. But what was the flesh for? Was it made to test us? Was it made as a 'cage' that defines your boundries? Is it only a frame that can be left behind or is it the stuff that we are (made) of?

And than God gave another order. An order of Evolution, so to speak. 'Overcome the flesh. The flesh that makes you a slave. Be free to see what lies beyond'. And as a final reward we will go to the promissed land or into nirvana. Is there a beyond? A beyond of desire, beyond of energy?

Flesh sucks. I completely agree. It is flesh that sucks from its mothers breasts. It sucks all to live and energy. Just ask a woman that feeds a baby. It drains you. Sucking is the way to take something in. Inside. To live, to survive. We need energy. Therefor we kill animals and plants. Therefore we fight for land and goods. To end this sucking would mean the end of flesh. It dissolves and goes back into the circle of energy.

What will survive the flesh? Live will leave traces behind. Good and bad ones. Anything else, more than traces that also will disappear one day?

May be.. but than again. What/who would we be without the resistance, the problems and riddles of live that shape us? Faceless worshipers?! I personally would go even further and say 'Flesh is (needs) sucking!!

ABC Radio: Derrida - father of Deconstruction

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/philosopherszone/stories/2010/2933615.htm

Hehe, so what happened there? "I will have to postpone til possible?"

One of the important textdocuments is Derridas speach "Differance": http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derrida/diff.html

What is ideology?

http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derrida/spectres.html

My favorite philosopher - he is as postmorden (or rather poststructuralistic) as possible :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Deleuze

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism

 It is surely a mistake, however, to think that the idea of an absolute truth is to blame for war, unless the particular absolute truth in question is one that somehow endorses warfare.  The belief that it is right to forcibly impose one's belief on others, or that the absolute truth is that others are vermin to be erased from the face of the Earth--now, those might be responsible for war.  But merely the notion that there is an absolute truth?  Surely not.  One may take the view that there is an absolute truth, and even the view that he has a responsibility to try to convey the absolute truth to other people, without taking the view that it is right or even OK to kill or to harm people in so doing--without taking the view that armed conflict is a good way to proceed.