Ma-baad-e-Jadeediyat: Kya Anarchic Hai?

The intellectual trend of postmodernism is the product of a negative disposition. The driving force behind this attitude is a rejection of the existing reality and an avoidance of defining the ideal with any absolute certainty. The foundational figures of postmodernism include Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre, and this reality can be easily observed in all of their works. According to them, while contradictory and conflicting concepts may be unacceptable to human reason, life itself is composed of these very realities. Jacques Derrida transformed postmodernism into a literary theory under the banner of post-structuralism. In his view, the word is just as much a vessel for meaning as the mind itself. Today, postmodernism possesses two theories that can be considered its core intellectual assets: feminism and post-structuralism.

Among modern thinkers, Michel Foucault is a figure with whom intellectual engagement yields a deeply meaningful and fascinating experience: a level of disagreement that borders on sheer irritation. Great minds are often like this—elevated above the artificial binaries of absolute agreement or absolute disagreement. Foucault is perhaps the last great theorizer of modernity. In this context, a theory means establishing a definer through which everything can be defined—including its own differences and contradictions. He has a subsidiary theory that he calls the *Episteme*. *Episteme* cannot be translated into a single word or term. It represents the substance of knowledge, the limits of knowledge, and the very temperament of knowledge. Foucault argues that every civilization—or, in other words, every era—has a specific *Episteme*. No intellectual movement or theoretical activity that arises within that civilization can transcend it. The *Episteme* of one era may serve as a reference point for another, but it cannot serve as an absolute authority. Successfully discovering a consistent perspective through which to view a phenomenon, or inventing an effective framework to accept things in their totality and comprehensiveness—this is what constitutes an *Episteme*. Postmodernism, or Postmodernity, is the *Episteme* of our current era, though it has yet to fully define itself. It is a sphere that establishes and enforces unseen, imperceptible boundaries, the diameter of which has yet to be measured. We are currently living through what is perhaps the first event of its kind in human cultural history. Postmodernism is the act of demolishing all historical continuity and foundations—along with all their components—to claim the discovery of a new *Episteme*. Furthermore, it is the practical realignment of all intellectual, aesthetic, cultural, and—to put it with appropriate intensity—existential activities upon this new *Episteme*. Despite manifesting in intellectual, literary, and cultural spheres, these attitudes do not formally introduce or define themselves. The reason for this is that any theory or cultural attitude requires a past to establish its identity, and postmodernism wishes to present itself as entirely independent of the past. However, a simple way to introduce it is this: modernity has failed, classicism has become obsolete, all traditional angles for discovering reality have been obliterated, and all concepts that once interpreted reality have become ridiculously meaningless.

Now, humanity and everything associated with it must be defined through a new set of definitions. Humanity must rebuild its relationship with its intellectual and practical objects, employing an entirely new sense of meaning and mode of perception. These are the fundamental objectives of postmodernism. Yet, the proponents of these ideas do not provide any fixed context for them. Postmodernism does not even formally introduce itself. Therefore, throughout this discussion, it is entirely possible that we may not discover whether postmodernism—unlike other intellectual themes—possesses any definitive markers or clear boundaries in its definition. Just as we can establish a definition for modernity or articulate the principles of classicism, we cannot, at present, define postmodernism in the same way. Nevertheless, an effort must be made to arrive at some accessible definition of it.

This discussion is divided into three parts:

1. Identifying the driving forces behind postmodernism.

2. Examining the components that make up its current form.

3. A critical analysis of the movement.

Thus, the first part will cover its historical catalysts, the second will outline its current state, and the third will offer a critical evaluation.

With the advent of the Cartesian tradition, the West began to abandon a specific worldview. Prior to Descartes, the prevailing belief was that all things—despite differences in their physical manifestations and realms of existence—shared a common origin. Whether they belonged to the material world or the metaphysical realm, they were fundamentally one. And the principle that united them in this single origin was, in its essence, metaphysical. Alongside this was a second tradition: whether things belonged to the metaphysical realm of existence or the physical world, the process of their ontological validation was the same. In other words, they shared a single ontological logic. Ultimately, the foundational approach was to discover the true origin of things while still acknowledging their apparent distinctions and respecting the differences in their physical boundaries. However, this process of discovery was not based on their outward distinctions or functions, but rather in the light of a metaphysical logic. This approach naturally gave rise to numerous problems. An age-old method for dealing with these problems was simply to reject this logic altogether. Yet, in doing so, humanity never completely abandoned the realities of the physical and material world. Historically, the rejection of a logic based on metaphysical concepts inevitably led to the rejection of the metaphysical principles of existence itself. But even this rejection could not resolve the core issue—a problem that Descartes ultimately settled. He posited that these two realms, the physical and the metaphysical, or the material and the spiritual, are not the conclusion of a single argument, nor the referent of a single sign, nor twin minarets built upon a single foundation. Their principles of affirmation, their functional systems, their levels of meaning, and their degrees of reality—all are fundamentally different. For this reason, this theory came to be known as dualism. Descartes insisted that unless we accept both realms as real and effective—operating parallel to and independent of one another—we can neither comprehend nor resolve the inevitable problems that humanity faces in its intellectual, practical, and moral development. To this day, the modern West has remained faithful to this Cartesian solution. Spirit and matter both exist with equal certainty, but they are entirely different in their states, conditions, and the very meaning of their existence. The laws governing the movement of one cannot be applied to the other. The mode of existence of one cannot be sought in the other. The entirety of Western cultural and civilizational progress was, in fact, born out of this very theory.

Similarly, the second major figure in shaping the modern West is Nietzsche. Nietzsche is the man who rejected all human limitations and restrictions. Going even further, he contemptuously shattered the very existential mold in which human beings are cast. If asked who played the greatest role in shaping the modern West, I, for one, would say it was Nietzsche. If postmodernists are compelled to acknowledge any thinker from the past—or, to put it another way, if there is anyone they are not inclined to refute—it is Nietzsche. Unlike the proponents of modernism and postmodernism, Nietzsche did not speak of reconstructing humanity; rather, he sought to annihilate the human being within its very existential structure. In his view, humanity suffers from an existential flaw that demands not reformation, but total demolition. Until the human condition and all its manifestations are completely obliterated, the perfected forms of life cannot emerge. This laid the foundation for the attitude of absolute negation, which is perhaps the greatest pillar of postmodernism.

The third central figure is Martin Heidegger. In clear terms, yet employing a highly complex style, he posited that the strongest drive within the human psyche is not the will to exist, but the will to non-existence. Humanity's most profound experience, its most compelling state, the most essential and robust element in the structure of its personality, and the most meaningful and functional essence in the formation of all its concepts is death, not life. A person's most authentic, most individual, and most complete experience is the experience of death. Things remain incomplete until they become individualized, establish a living connection with individuality, or become a part and property of that individuality. Heidegger is the thinker who unraveled and explored the complexities and depths of the human psyche through a perfect synthesis of rational and aesthetic consciousness. Departing from the preceding German philosophical tradition, he demonstrated that all levels of reality are inherently part of the human psyche's internal states. In the entire history of philosophical inquiry into reality, Heidegger is perhaps the first philosopher to use the boundless analysis of the self and language as the primary means of accessing truth. Heidegger was a contemporary of Allama Iqbal, and a comparative study of the two can yield quite fascinating results. Both share a profound tendency to elevate the human being to the central position within the realm of reality. Iqbal views this human-centric reality through a lens that could be categorized as moral idealism or religious romanticism. In contrast, Heidegger, much like his other renowned contemporary Henri Bergson, grounds his anthropocentrism primarily in the conscious and biological structure of the human psyche. It is as if Iqbal seeks to actualize the Ideal Man, whereas Heidegger idealizes the actual man.

Ultimately, for Heidegger, humanity's true power and its genuine urge lie not in the drive for life, but in the drive toward death. The most profound meaning is found in death. Life is an inadequate vessel for meaning. This cup overflows even when barely filled. It overflows partly because it is too small, and partly because it is in constant motion. And this motion itself is at the mercy of a meaningless temporal flow. You have likely realized that we are probably not even candidates for the kind of sensibility that such ideas might satisfy.

Heidegger provided a psychological foundation for the nihilism to which Nietzsche had imparted a metaphysical grandeur. The sheer majesty of expression and imagination that Nietzsche essentially invented plunged humanity and the human world into a profound sense of degradation—a feeling unparalleled in any prior intellectual tradition concerning human nature. On a philosophical level, Nietzsche erected a monument to absurdism whose height appears to dwarf all existing structures of meaning. Nietzsche’s impossibly elevated rhetorical grandeur delivered the most devastating blow to metaphysics, yet the very force driving this blow was itself entirely metaphysical. Nietzsche sets his ideals at such an unattainable height that they seem impossible to achieve, which was precisely his intention: to humiliate his audience and instill in them a perpetual state of yearning. He successfully convinced us—or rather, thrust us into the experience of realizing—that ultimate meaning or truth lies entirely beyond human capacity. Humanity is merely a moving shadow, filled with its own illusions, smearing itself like soot over certain parts of the existential universe.

Following in Nietzsche’s footsteps, Heidegger achieved the remarkable feat of making the death drive palpable—not only on a sensory level but also on those cognitive levels where concepts are formed, which a person then idealizes with the full force and focus of their consciousness. From one perspective, it appears that Heidegger made some of Nietzsche’s ideas more practical, more impactful, and more familiar. The ecstatic, almost mystical force that Nietzsche had infused into nihilism was transformed by Heidegger into the fundamental state and ultimate realization of human consciousness. In doing so, he essentially scaled down Nietzsche’s ideals, making them actionable. By reducing them to a manageable scale, they became capable of being actualized. A fundamental point regarding postmodernism is that through it, Nietzsche’s ideals have either already been actualized or are currently undergoing that process.

There are certain individuals whose present is our distant future. Such people always reside in the future. Even if they had been born two millennia before Christ, their presence would still belong to our future. Among the existentialists, I believe Heidegger is the only such figure. The rest belong to our past. His *Being and Time* is in no way inferior to any great work of philosophy. The majority of its arguments are entirely original. Even when addressing seemingly traditional subjects, his perspective is radically new, and his logical framing is unprecedented prior to his work. In other words, he either created something entirely new, or he brushed aside everyone else's grasp on older concepts to claim them entirely as his own. He was a thinker who established all the components of human consciousness with profound maturity, perfection, and depth, employing a transcendent aesthetic sensibility. Many of us might also take pleasure in the fact that Heidegger elevated the poet above the philosopher—essentially taking our revenge on Plato.

Following these three figures, many others emerged who employed the term postmodernism within an intellectual framework. Passing through architecture, music, and cinema, the term eventually entered literature, where it began its evolution into a formal theory. In philosophy, however, no major paradigm of it has yet emerged. For now, its concepts should be kept outside the realm of strict philosophical definitions. While its philosophical foundations are often discussed, they all predate the actual birth of the movement itself.

Since our purpose is not to trace its history, it seems appropriate to discuss its most crucial elements—sometimes briefly, sometimes in detail—without strictly adhering to a chronological order. The aim is to ensure no essential point is overlooked. As for listing authors and books, that is not our objective here. Some important names might be left out, but this will not make much of a difference, as the fundamental debates will inevitably be covered in this discussion.

To gain a comprehensive understanding of postmodernism, one must first grasp its fundamental claim. This claim asserts that no articulation of reality can ever be universal, eternal, all-encompassing, permanent, or universally binding. Two points must be kept in mind here. First, for postmodernists, all of existence is merely a statement. What we call reality is itself just a statement that employs existential terminology. Second, a statement—which they refer to as a narrative—is entirely independent of the logic of conceptualization and verification. Therefore, demanding that a narrative be objectively known or believed is absurd and meaningless. Viewed against this backdrop, they are essentially arguing that realities are merely the constructs of a specific consciousness, completely devoid of universality or permanence. A universal and permanent statement is termed a Grand or Meta Narrative. This refers to a concept used to forcefully impose a specific interpretation onto the actual, real world, dictating that a certain thing is exactly *this*, and its purpose and reality are exactly *that*. The idea that a thing possesses a reality distinct from the thing itself is, in their view, a clever trick through which human beings find a way to dominate and control objects. As Saussure suggests, reality is nothing more than a perspective. The angle from which I view an object changes its reality, even though the object itself remains the same.

Until we break free from the deception of the Grand Narrative, we cannot grasp the true dynamics and actual demands of the relationship between humanity and the world. All things and all truths exist on small, temporary scales and are defined merely by a simple external presence. From the postmodernist perspective, the dominance of Grand Narratives has not only caused intellectual harm, but its damage is also deeply political and social. It has given rise to coercion, inequality, totalitarianism, and oppression. This is why most postmodernists avoid using the words society and state. Instead, they refer to them as a social system or social structure. Because a society is built upon values—and values inherently require universality and permanence, at least conceptually—they reject the term society. In their view, values are also Grand Narratives. They believe that a social structure should be expansive enough to accommodate disagreement and conflict. However, things do have a practical utility, and regarding this, there is no disagreement, nor should there be. For example, you and I may have different beliefs, but we have no disagreement over the act of drinking water. Our opinions may clash, but we are entirely in agreement when it comes to boarding a bus. It is this practical consensus that creates a system of connection between us, and this is what must be protected and nurtured. Beyond that, whether your opinion is right makes no difference, and whether my opinion is wrong is of no consequence. This is what Lyotard argues. Ironically, this itself appears to be a Grand Narrative—one that has played a foundational role in shaping postmodernism. The very premise of his book is that truths are small, localized, and temporary. They must be accepted on their own terms. We must wholeheartedly acknowledge our temporary relationship with them, and align our way of life not with abstract thoughts, but with this living presence. Once this is achieved, humanity will no longer face the problems that bring about its suffering.

Theoretically, postmodernism can also be described as a Theory of Derealization. This aspect clearly reveals the profound extent of Nietzsche's influence on postmodernism. The specific man and world upon which the Postmodern Condition is founded cannot come into existence without completely rejecting, ignoring, or dismantling every concept and reality born from the traditional relationship between humanity and the world. Lyotard once remarked that the last Grand Narrative was formulated by Marx. The society or state structure that emerged from Marx's theory was, at its core, just as abstract as all the collective systems that Marxist theory sought to refute. Furthermore, the system produced by this theory was just as intensely oppressive as the very systems Marx had risen to fight against. Lyotard’s famous phrase emerged from this: if Marx can be wrong, then everything can be wrong.

At this point, we must pause our current train of thought, as this is the perfect moment to introduce Derrida. Jacques Derrida is the figure who successfully transformed postmodernism into a literary theory—specifically, the Theory of Deconstruction. What is Deconstruction? It is the dismantling of the assumed meaning structure within a word and the meaning form present in the mind. In other words, expel the pre-existing meanings from a word, and erase the deeply ingrained concepts from the mind. Only then can you unify the ultimate limits of expression and perception. According to Derrida, the greatest aspiration of human consciousness is for the zenith of perception and the zenith of expression to become one. He argues that a word contains far more meanings than the mind can hold. Because of this, true meaning always eludes the grasp of the human mind. Even the speaker's intent plays no role in this process, because the speaker, too, relies on the meanings already present in their mind. This is why he refers to his philosophy as the theory of the deferral of meaning. Meaning is perpetually deferred; what we actually grasp is not the meaning itself, but merely a fragment of meaningfulness. He draws a sharp distinction between meaning and meaningfulness. The true meaning of an object cannot be captured. Therefore, to make the object useful for itself, consciousness simply attributes certain meanings to it. This is meaningfulness—the mere possibility of meaning, which keeps the quest for meaning alive as an unattainable goal, helping consciousness remain focused on it. Meaningfulness is never collective; it is always deeply personal and individual. By expressing themselves, things do not complete, determine, or reveal their meaning; rather, they continuously defer it. On a theoretical level, if postmodernism possesses anything substantial, it is this Theory of Deconstruction—though Feminism is also sometimes classified as a postmodern theory.

Currently, postmodernism relies on these two primary theories. In the case of feminism, while the concept of women's rights and their social status has existed since antiquity, it does not play a major role in this specific theory. Postmodernism's perspective on this matter is entirely different. Postmodernists argue that throughout human history, the arguments constructed to establish facts as facts have all been inherently masculine. In other words, whatever has been named or assigned meaning is entirely the product of the masculine mind and its authority. We have never viewed the world, its objects, or even humanity itself through the eyes of women. Consequently, the feminine structure of consciousness has remained perpetually suspended. This is not merely a political or cultural concept, but a comprehensive theory. In fact, a formal school of criticism has now emerged based on this, known as Gynae Criticism. Its objective is for women to remain faithful to the structure of their own consciousness, completely reconstruct the entire system of meaning, and create feminine perspectives and frameworks for its expression.

When discussing Postmodernism or Postmodernity, two things must always be kept in mind: its theory and its creative manifestations. If you are interested in the history of theater, a massive movement emerged in the latter half of the twentieth century that produced the greatest playwrights since Shakespeare. In fact, in my opinion, some of these writers may have even rivaled Shakespeare. I am referring to the Theater of the Absurd, or the Absurd Theater movement. This movement produced figures who truly revolutionized the entire tradition of playwriting—writers like Eugene Ionesco and Samuel Beckett. In certain respects, these two in particular seem to surpass even Shakespeare. For instance, the central character in *Waiting for Godot*, in all his perplexities, possesses greater vastness, depth, and profound meaning than Hamlet, or indeed any of Shakespeare's characters. Absurd plays, of course, were not written to be easily understood. Yet, the very state of being unable to comprehend them is so deeply moving and meaningful that one cannot process it using conventional modes of feeling and perception. Notice how Nietzsche is present here as well. It is a fascinating phenomenon that warrants analysis: why do we elevate something to the highest pedestal of greatness even when we cannot understand it at all? Is there some underlying principle of aesthetic taste at work within us that renders intellectual comprehension unnecessary? Ultimately, our relationship with things is not merely intellectual but also aesthetic, and sometimes, aesthetic satisfaction is achieved precisely by bypassing intellectual understanding.

While there may be some disagreement on this point within postmodernism, I personally feel that the most valuable part of its literary heritage is the Absurd Play. The Absurd is, in essence, a reality or meaning that exceeds the capacity of the human mind. Had the Theater of the Absurd not existed, Jacques Derrida might never have arrived at his foundational theory of the deferral of meaning. Without *Waiting for Godot*, Derrida might never have uttered his world-renowned phrase:

Meanings are beyond presence

In short, Postmodern Theory encompasses Deconstruction, Post-Structuralism, Gender Crisis, Gynae Criticism, and so on. However, its other facet is the Postmodern Condition. That is to say, it is both a theory and a state of affairs. Many scholars emphasize that it should not be treated as a theory, because the moment it becomes one, it will inevitably turn into a Meta-Narrative itself. They insist instead on understanding the Postmodern Condition—meaning we should confine ourselves to the presence that is being labeled as postmodern. From a certain angle, this argument carries considerable weight. If we observe closely, it becomes abundantly clear that this is an entirely new condition, and grasping its significance requires new modes of comprehension.

Postmodernism also has a rather simple agenda designed for the general public like us. It consists of three parts:

(1) There is only one thing upon which there can be no compromise, and that is human freedom. There will be absolutely no compromise on the concept of human freedom and its practical applications. The greatest threat that usurps this freedom is the doctrinal aspect of human consciousness. That is, when consciousness accepts something as absolute and becomes accustomed to judging its present circumstances based on past precedents, it proves fatal to human freedom. They assert that the doctrinal state of the human mind must be transformed. By doctrine, they mean any fixed system or any ideology that monopolizes all human activities—such as Marxism or any religion. Dogmas, or ideologies that wield dogmatic authority, hijack the trajectory of human existential flight. There can be no greater negation of freedom than this.

(2) We do not seek to increase human understanding. Instead, we want to transform human consciousness into a force capable of the aesthetic revival and reiteration of things. Through this, that simple, pure, and authentic presence will be experienced like a tidal wave, completely altering the very position of consciousness.

(3) The author's intent is irrelevant. Whatever meaning the reader wishes to derive from the text is the true reality of that text.

It is essential to understand the movements that laid the intellectual and cultural foundations of the West. Among the various stages of the West's formation and deconstruction, the first occurred when Christianity was Romanized. As a result, the West acquired some of its fundamental intellectual and cultural values. The second stage was the Renaissance. During this period, the intellectual and cultural structures established by the Romanization of Christianity were largely rejected. Consequently, the West initiated its own deconstruction on both intellectual and cultural fronts. Following this came the third and most crucial stage: Modernity. Modernity does not mean what we generally understand it to mean. It was, in fact, the Enlightenment Project. Modernity is, in a sense, both the culmination and the renewal of the Renaissance. The tragedy of Modernity is that, despite rejecting metaphysics—or more accurately, religious and traditional metaphysics—its own perspective remained identical to one born out of a belief in metaphysical realities. Modernity was the result of a rebellion against a singular definition of reality. According to it, a universal definition that applies to everything and is immune to change is impossible. In its view, such a definition is not only impractical, but it also contradicts the shifts in intellectual reasoning and empirical validation brought about by the advancement of science. This is where the Enlightenment Project gave rise to the concept known as Modernism, or Modernity. The objective of this idea was that humanity should no longer view objects merely as stepping stones to reach some hypothetical ultimate reality. Traditional man was accustomed to viewing things through parallel dichotomies, such as form and meaning, or reality and manifestation. For the proponents of Modernity, human consciousness, trapped within these binaries, not only failed to grasp reality but also became alienated from the object itself. Objects possess numerous active possibilities that remained obscured due to the constraints of this traditional perspective. Things should be observed in their pure state, acknowledging the complexity and layers inherent in their structure. This approach would give rise to the intellectual and cultural decisions that would make the world truly human in every sense. This was the reconstruction of the West. However, it too eventually fell apart.

The spread of Marx's popularity, the First World War, and the subsequent emergence of the signs of the Second World War—these three historical phenomena must be considered simultaneously. During the First World War, the ideological fabric of Western civilization weakened, while the arrival and rising popularity of Marx dismantled its most fundamental structures. Marx was the man who transformed the Western way of life from A to Z. This was the second alarm bell that the modern West heard. Later, as the Second World War was in its early stages and increasingly taking on an ideological form—namely, nationalism—some thinkers realized that Modernity was not a destination. Rather, it was merely a path that had led them into a desert of destruction. They realized that they had constructed an entire system of actions by confining things to their respective limits, but the only outcome was the creation of a suicidal situation. They no longer possessed any unifying principle that could prevent them from colliding with one another and facing mutual annihilation. Postmodernism is, in fact, the very standpoint that the West adopted after the failure of Modernity. Therefore, the straightforward definition of Postmodernism is: the theory or condition that emerged after Modernity.

The foundations upon which this theory challenged Modernity are profoundly deep. It is built upon the premise of liberating human identity from all existing boundaries, definitions, and terminologies. According to this theory, the human being is an entity that does not require any external validation for any aspect of its existence. Such a self-reliant concept of identity has perhaps been articulated for the first time. In the history of thought, all major ideas and philosophies, in order to be recognized as formal systems of thought, must first answer one fundamental question: *What is your concept of the human being?* Postmodernism fully passes this test. It possesses a distinct concept of humanity which, despite being unfamiliar, at least affirms the restless consciousness of life. A Postmodernist can argue that not only is their concept of the human being entirely new, but it is also driven by a powerful realism capable of dismantling all traditional concepts of humanity.

While Modernity rejected absolute reality, it did not challenge its logical justification; rather, it allowed it to remain intertwined with certain activities of human consciousness. In Postmodernism, absolute reality is viewed as a concept born out of a structure of consciousness that, being unreal itself, has now perished forever. The mind that conceived the idea of reality is now a relic of antiquity. Therefore, it is utterly absurd to claim that a certain thing possesses a specific reality, that there is evidence for this reality, and that there is a benefit to believing in it. This entire scheme, this whole framework, after wasting several centuries of human history, has finally met its end. In this debate, the radicalism of postmodernists is such that they are unwilling to accept reality even as a dream or a concept. In their eyes, reality is a pure illusion. As mentioned earlier, one of their fundamental terms is *discourse*. This implies that everything is merely *presence*. That is, everything is purely on the surface and entirely manifest, and the structure of this manifestation is akin to words in a book. Consequently, the true nature of our relationship with objects, as well as with one another, is no more profound than the relationship between a book and its reader. They refer to this as *Intertextuality*. While intertextuality carries a different meaning in literature, in its broader applications, it means that the components of a discourse are interconnected in the same way one text relates to another. Until we discover this level of relationality, we will not only fail to establish a consciousness of our own freedom, but we will also be unable to respect and safeguard the freedom of others. This is why, for postmodernists, a difference between two things is merely another form of their relationship. No definitive judgment can be passed upon it.

Modernism believed in certain universal foundations of human consciousness, but Postmodernism argues that human consciousness does not need to rest on any foundation at all. The very idea of seeking a rigid or permanent perspective to view things is meaningless. Human consciousness simply was not built for this. Ever since the invention of language, humans have been so overpowered by the word that they have deluded their consciousness into believing they can create a permanent perspective for observing and understanding an object. By accepting the triumph of words, human consciousness had fallen into a pervasive distortion—a distortion that postmodernists believe they have now corrected. To fully grasp this subject, one must carefully and diligently read Jacques Derrida’s *Of Grammatology*. It is such a seminal work that anyone who has not read it cannot be considered truly well-read, regardless of how much else they have studied. Derrida does not believe that inherent meaning even exists. He argues that we simply form a relationship with a text based on our current mental or psychological needs, and then attribute our desired meanings to it. Through this process, we are essentially fulfilling the demands of the text. Later, when the needs of our consciousness change, that very same text demands different meanings from us, which we again accept with absolute certainty.

Derrida did not invent the philosophy of textual analysis; rather, he took it to its ultimate extreme. In the context of postmodernism, the founder of this theory was Roland Barthes. His famous maxim is, Writing writes itself, not the author. In other words, a text is a discourse, and the author is merely one of the catalysts for its existence. This is a concept that can only be understood through a literary lens, not a strictly logical one. The other catalysts for bringing this discourse into existence are provided by its readers. A creative work passes through its first stage of existence when the author writes it. The second stage is achieved when the reader reads it, initiating the process of understanding the book through the dynamic interaction of discovering and deriving meaning. For Roland Barthes, it is difficult to determine whether the author or the reader plays the greater role in the creation of a text. Derrida evolved this very idea into his philosophy of the deferral of meaning. No expression can have a final, singular, or binding meaning, because a text does not merely address the intellect; it also awakens the reader's conscious or subconscious creativity. Barthes meant that the creative process of a book is not completed upon its publication; rather, it achieves completion only through the act of being read. Furthermore, no postmodernist believes that an author has a specific intent or a definitive message to convey. The author does not intend to say anything; they are merely an active medium of expression. The author can neither explain nor determine the meaning of their own writing, nor do they have the right to do so. As soon as the writing is finished, the author is reduced to the status of a mere reader. The sovereignty over the realm of meaning that emerges from the text belongs to every individual reader, and seeking external validation for it is pointless.

The theory of the reader's absolute freedom has become so pervasive that it has even been applied to the pure physical and empirical sciences. In this framework, scientific theories, proven facts, and empirical or sensory boundaries hold no real significance. They are all considered subjective and intentional. This implies that science discovers exactly what it wants to discover, in the exact manner it chooses to do so. Modernism, which structures society like a rigid organization, creates an atmosphere of forced and self-serving consensus around such matters. In reality, if someone possesses the resources to execute the scientific method, but harbors different intentions and desires, those very same facts could be proven to mean something entirely different.

It can be considered a triumph of the postmodernists that they have fundamentally altered the conceptual properties of things. They have changed the very nature of how objects and ideas enter our minds. They have transformed the style and state in which things are perceived by our senses. Terry Eagleton, himself a prominent postmodernist, eventually recoiled from this extreme. He remarked that they were essentially inciting him to commit intellectual suicide. They wanted him to completely annihilate his own identity, only to accept being reconstructed from scratch by their hands.

It is perhaps worth mentioning here that from its inception to the present day, postmodernism has never gone unchallenged. It did not simply arrive and dominate the intellectual landscape the way the Renaissance did. Postmodernists have consistently faced opposition from formidable forces of knowledge and civilization. For instance, today we have Habermas, who identifies as both a modernist and a Marxist. His debates with Derrida are well known. He is the man who, to this day, has never allowed postmodernists to claim that they are the sole intellectual representatives of the West. In fact, he argues that postmodernism is essentially just modernism that has deteriorated into its current state after falling into the hands of amateurs.

This perspective seems accurate when we consider that the Enlightenment Project—which began with the Renaissance, permeated various cultural, religious, political, and intellectual movements, and ultimately culminated in capitalism and democracy—shares an internal structure and foundational catalysts that are not vastly different from those of postmodernism. Even the objectives of modernism, despite differing in logic and methodology, bear a strong resemblance to those of postmodernism. There is, of course, one fundamental difference between modernism and postmodernism: modernism emphasizes objectivity, or a predetermined objectivity, whereas postmodernism dissolves things into an abstract subjectivity. This subjectivity appears to function as a cosmological or existential principle. Even if it is not quite that, it is certainly not mere human subjectivity. At most, one could say that the human being is an active manifestation of this principle of subjectivity. However, if this distinction is analyzed deeply, it ultimately yields nothing of substance. Modernism’s objectivity is nothing particularly special either. Through it, the world can be made anthropocentric (human-centric), which is the ultimate goal of modernism. In reality, this too is a form of subjectivity, one that allowed the human conception of an object to overpower—and indeed, rule over—the actual essence of the object. Nevertheless, postmodernism does hold this distinct achievement: it paved the way for the permanent dismantling of modernism's foundation—anthropocentrism—and liberated things from the chains of their definitions. In this respect, postmodernism serves as the greatest testament to the failure of modernism. Because of it, modernists were forced to detach themselves from all the semi-classical elements that had played a major role in the construction of modernism—such as universalization, systematization, and empiricism.

Now, if we are to develop a critique of postmodernism tailored to our own circumstances and needs, I believe we must first examine its concept of language. In this context, we must also carefully scrutinize its theories regarding human consciousness and the capacity for knowledge. It must be clearly understood that postmodernism is an amalgamation of Absurdism and Logical Positivism. No critique against it can be effective unless we develop the intellectual strength to dismantle not only its theoretical boundaries but also its aesthetic foundations and the very conditions it creates. It is much like a lizard: its theory is its tail. Even if the tail is severed, the creature's life is not threatened. Unfortunately, we no longer possess the cultural vitality required to dismantle the Postmodern Condition. Therefore, engaging in theoretical, logical, and aesthetic theorization might be our only defense to prevent us from falling entirely under its sway.

Postmodernists argue that human consciousness lacks the capacity, characteristic, or inclination to sustain any permanent perception. To refute this, it is enough to point out that this very principle is itself a reflection of human consciousness. This claim inherently relies on the capacity of human consciousness to accept something permanently. When consciousness decides about itself, saying, I am mutable and cannot remain fixed on any single point, this very judgment rests on the unshakeable foundation of self-consciousness! The deeper issue here is self-awareness—the self-consciousness of consciousness itself. This proves that consciousness does indeed possess the capacity and aptitude for a permanent claim or an absolute notion of knowledge. Going a step further, one could argue that the permanent axioms of consciousness, even if negative in form, are inherently positive in their essence. Without a positive essence, consciousness simply cannot contain any principle. The error—or perhaps the mischief—of the postmodernists is that they have subordinated the actual functioning of consciousness to the preconceived notion they wish to impose upon it. It would be largely accurate to say that just as the Enlightenment Project (modernity) turned the abstract into the concrete, postmodernism is attempting to invert this process, turning the concrete back into the abstract. Since this endeavor is driven by a desire for moral freedom rather than the logic of concepts, the elements of totality and permanence have been deliberately and artificially excised from it. The primary purpose of portraying the innate and natural functioning of human consciousness as being consumed by this arbitrary process of abstraction is not merely to liberate reality from the long-standing dominance of conceptualization. Its ultimate goal appears to be the eradication of the deeply rooted religious perspective within human consciousness, and the expulsion of all cultural and psychological values—born from the direct or indirect influence of this consciousness—from every sphere of life. A purely philosophical or aesthetic critique of postmodernism cannot be effective because the formation of philosophical and aesthetic concepts has become almost entirely word-centric. That is, the sole remaining function of conceptualization and imagination is to extract—with maximum eccentricity—the existing or potential semantic structures within a word, and to use the force of this process to shatter all the traditional habits of human consciousness.

It is an obvious fact that every piece of writing possesses a style, which changes from author to author. If a text is truly its own author, then to whom do we attribute its style? Style bears witness to the existence of the author, not merely to the existence of the text. On the surface, this is a technical and aesthetic objection, but postmodernism possesses the full capacity and cunning to blunt its edge and co-opt it. Therefore, this objection must be raised by mobilizing the non-aesthetic faculties of consciousness as well. This would demonstrate that a person's aesthetic stance cannot be formulated while ignoring the non-aesthetic demands of consciousness. Furthermore, if the author or the speaker's intent is deemed entirely irrelevant, the ultimate foundation of our collective social existence will collapse, as there will be nothing left to bind us together.

The same applies to the rejection of the Meta-Narrative. As mentioned earlier, the contemporary West was essentially born out of Nietzsche's unbalanced mind. Truly, a more influential figure has never emerged in the history of thought. Nietzsche alone provided the entire intellectual force behind the rejection of the Meta-Narrative. When he proclaimed the death of God, it was, in reality, a proclamation of the death of the Meta-Narrative. Nietzsche’s assertion, rooted in an ecstatic and rhetorical authority, carries a certain unique impact and significance. However, the way postmodernists have presented it as a rational or logical axiom is simply absurd. As a matter of principle, the rejection of the Meta-Narrative should inevitably invalidate every narrative. If something proves its existence on a basic factual level, then even if its qualified existence is rejected, the thing itself cannot be entirely denied. The very acceptance of a narrative is proof that the existence of a Meta-Narrative is inevitable. If its foundational reality is disrupted, the various activities of human consciousness will lose their interconnectedness and fall victim to chaos.

Then there is the postmodernists' insistence that there is no intrinsic relationship between a word and the object it represents, or between a word and its meaning. They argue that meaning is not an essential property of a word; rather, meaning is something we assign to it. One objection to this is that the very act of assigning meaning is also performed through words, because a human being cannot conceive of a thought that does not exist in words. We possess no feeling or thought that cannot be articulated. The meanings we assign to words are those that already exist within them, much like innate faculties. Meanings reside within a word both as occurrences and as innate faculties. Our human consciousness is not yet mature enough to subject our language to this level of analysis. Whatever exists among us in the name of theory clearly shows that in major intellectual issues and matters, we are acting as mere accompanists, nothing more. Ultimately, postmodernism is absolute anarchy. If only we could recognize the various ways this anarchy might impact us and the specific values it threatens to undermine.

The intellectual trend of postmodernism is the product of a negative disposition. The driving force behind this attitude is a rejection of the existing reality and an avoidance of defining the ideal with any absolute certainty. The foundational figures of postmodernism include Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre, and this reality can be easily observed in all of their works. According to them, while contradictory and conflicting concepts may be unacceptable to human reason, life itself is composed of these very realities. Jacques Derrida transformed postmodernism into a literary theory under the banner of post-structuralism. In his view, the word is just as much a vessel for meaning as the mind itself. Today, postmodernism possesses two theories that can be considered its core intellectual assets: feminism and post-structuralism.

Among modern thinkers, Michel Foucault is a figure with whom intellectual engagement yields a deeply meaningful and fascinating experience: a level of disagreement that borders on sheer irritation. Great minds are often like this—elevated above the artificial binaries of absolute agreement or absolute disagreement. Foucault is perhaps the last great theorizer of modernity. In this context, a theory means establishing a definer through which everything can be defined—including its own differences and contradictions. He has a subsidiary theory that he calls the *Episteme*. *Episteme* cannot be translated into a single word or term. It represents the substance of knowledge, the limits of knowledge, and the very temperament of knowledge. Foucault argues that every civilization—or, in other words, every era—has a specific *Episteme*. No intellectual movement or theoretical activity that arises within that civilization can transcend it. The *Episteme* of one era may serve as a reference point for another, but it cannot serve as an absolute authority. Successfully discovering a consistent perspective through which to view a phenomenon, or inventing an effective framework to accept things in their totality and comprehensiveness—this is what constitutes an *Episteme*. Postmodernism, or Postmodernity, is the *Episteme* of our current era, though it has yet to fully define itself. It is a sphere that establishes and enforces unseen, imperceptible boundaries, the diameter of which has yet to be measured. We are currently living through what is perhaps the first event of its kind in human cultural history. Postmodernism is the act of demolishing all historical continuity and foundations—along with all their components—to claim the discovery of a new *Episteme*. Furthermore, it is the practical realignment of all intellectual, aesthetic, cultural, and—to put it with appropriate intensity—existential activities upon this new *Episteme*. Despite manifesting in intellectual, literary, and cultural spheres, these attitudes do not formally introduce or define themselves. The reason for this is that any theory or cultural attitude requires a past to establish its identity, and postmodernism wishes to present itself as entirely independent of the past. However, a simple way to introduce it is this: modernity has failed, classicism has become obsolete, all traditional angles for discovering reality have been obliterated, and all concepts that once interpreted reality have become ridiculously meaningless.