Hipster Philosophy

Don't be fooled by Eliot's use of quotations and patchwork style; I know it *looks* like intertextuality, but whereas Post-modernism denies the existence of absolute truth or reality, the Modernists were (to date) the last people who believed such things existed. I would see Modernism as, like Existentialism, an attempt to deal with such conflicts, but by searching *outside* oneself for answers, rather than looking within. The Existentialists said it was up to us to supply our own meaning to life, but Pound & Eliot found their meanings in social institutions founded on tradition and faith (Eliot : "I am an Anglo-Catholic in religion, a classicist in literature and a royalist in politics").

Nomenclature aside, Post-modernism seems to me to have much more in common with Existentialism than with Modernism (which appears to have been its own dead end). That is, of course, if you & I are talking about the same things when we say "Existentialism," "Modernism," or "Post-modernism".

[Edited on Jan 27, 2005 by mweber]

I'd also like to add that "emo" isn't really all that "hip" any more. It was pretty much killed by post-hardcore/math-rock/metalcore, electro, garage, and disco-punk.

Most hipsters are done being depressed, and have gone back to being aloof (but with the need to dance).

Just thought I'd mention it...

I think you take existentialism a step too far when you suggest it shares "pain and lack of support or attention," or the lack of a "higher-being or way to solve the problem" with emo. You can be existentialist and completely at ease with the idea that you're all alone in the world when it comes to deciding what to do with your life on a literally breath by breath basis...existentialism doesn't mean there is no meaning, but that each of us are responsible for providing our own meaning.

I think.

I concur. Existentialists noted that it is easy to despair when accepting the indifference of the universe, but they were quick to point out that such emotions paralyze us. There's a difference between saying "angst is a common, but destructive, emotional response to being overwhelmed by the cold truths of existence" and saying "hey, look at me, I'm wounded and angsty because nobody understands me and these frustrating events just happened to me". In some respects, the latter (emo) is exactly what the former (existentialism) is warning against. To equate the two based on that relationship seems wrong to me.

As for Eliot, I fail to see how works such as "The Waste Land" are anything but modernist, but as I've said before my knowledge of this stuff is pretty ad-hoc. Certainly I've always seen Eliot in lists of conservative modernist authors, but maybe I just haven't studied enough.

I wonder what everyone thinks about similarities between existentialism and buddhism...particularly the buddhist admonition to "live in the present moment?"

If it ain't thread drift.

[Edited on Jan 28, 2005 by priapus]