Talk:Transmodernity

Philosophy: Continental / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Continental philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Article issues

This should win an award for most badly written Wikipedia entry. This is postmodernist masturbatory gobbledygook, even in the guise of espousing a transmodernism. Yikes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosmocentric (talk • contribs) 22:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure 'badly written' does it justice. "[T]he abandonment of representation" might be a better description. Somewhere there may be a 'something' that this article fails to represent, though its very failure to give even a clue as to what this something is makes one wonder whether the something is actually a nothing being portrayed as a something: thereby creating something out of nothing, without actually making anything of it capable of being distinguished from nothing in particular, or from nothing in general for that matter. Not worth the bother of proposing for deletion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, there is already an article on Transmodernism. I suggest the valuable content of this article is merged with the article on transmodernism and then this page can be removed. --AlbertWaninge (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was so opaque and jargonised is that it was copied verbatim from this blog belonging to Rosa María Rodríguez Magda, the person who coined the term. I've removed all of it as a copyright violation, replaced the material with a brief and relatively jargon-free definition, referenced to an independent source. I agree with AlbertWaninge, though, this might well be better merged into Transmodernism. Voceditenore (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]