Postmodernism

[Matt Gregory]

Here's another rant I feel compelled to write. I'm not really sure if I can do justice to this topic, so criticism is welcomed.

I learned this term from this list (probably from David) and I haven't yet found an adequate definition for it. Speaking on a very fundamental level, it seems that "modernism" was born with the philosophical movement of epistemology, which is where they tried to figure out what exactly we can know. But they never got around to creating an adequate definition of "knowledge", so, of course, someone soon came up with an unsolvable problem and that quickly put an end to modernism and made way for postmodernism. The only basis of postmodernism seems to be the statement "there is no truth", and they spend their time trying to defend it in ostensibly various ways, which basically amounts to theology (searching for what's convinces the most people).

We've had a lot of postmodernists come on this forum in the past and it's funny how similar they are to each other. Like Kevin quipped in another thread, they type their messages in all lowercase and they also mostly engage in emotionalism. All their arguments could probably boil down to "truth is whatever I feel is true", which is the same as the idea that truth is whatever society feels is true, since it would amount to heresy for an individual to exist in postmodernism.

It's the same today as it has been throughout human history and will stay that way far into the future. Instead of hiding truth-is-what-the-majority-thinks-is-true behind the belief in God, it's hidden behind the belief that there is no truth. It's plain to me that the only sensible definition of "belief" is "an idea that hides truth from the individual". If someone says that belief has something to do with "provability" then you're probably talking to a postmodernist and it's worthwhile to note that a postmodernist can never prove anything, having abandoned truth (the only possible means and criteria for proof).

In my optimistic estimation, all of this was caused by the failure of philosophers to recognize that definitions and knowledge are the same thing. More realistically, it was caused by the human compulsion to annihilate truth from consciousness.

[Blair]

are you into mushrooms, weed, LSD, or some combination of?
do you listens to hip-hop, rap, and maybe old stoner jazz?
read thus spake zarathustra and thought Nietchze wrote the book specifically about you?
pussy whipped?
college dropout?
between 18- 30, caucasian male?
think logic and reasoning is all relative?

If you answered yes to at least 3 of the above, you are probably suffering from postmodernism.

[Matt Gregory]

The way I see it, a contradiction occurs when the definition of a word has to change in order to make an idea true.

A contradiction occurs in the statement "there is no truth" with the word "truth" because it is a statement and making a statement implies that the words express a truth, so the idea of truth occurs twice in the statement. When you don't want to make that implication, you phrase the idea as a question: "is there no truth?" Even saying "I think there is no truth" expresses a truth about what I think.

But how can it proved that this is how it really is? By the definition of the word "statement"? My dictionary says it means "an expression in words of something definite". That's an interesting word there, "definite".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Speaking on a very fundamental level, it seems that "modernism" was born with the philosophical movement of epistemology, which is where they tried to figure out what exactly we can know. But they never got around to creating an adequate definition of "knowledge", so, of course, someone soon came up with an unsolvable problem and that quickly put an end to modernism and made way for postmodernism. The only basis of postmodernism seems to be the statement "there is no truth", and they spend their time trying to defend it in ostensibly various ways, which basically amounts to theology (searching for what's convinces the most people).

I came to learn that modernism as well as post-modernism are more related to developments in the world of art, culture, architecture and music, than they are philosophical in nature.

Now one can wonder how philosophy relates to the expressions of a culture, or perhaps how psychology does relate to both. In any case they seem to describe more a social movement than a system of thought. They're more the result than they're cause of anything.

Out on a limb here but modernism could be called a form of decadence and post-modernism the nihilist consequence of modernism: the bear devouring its own young.

[Kevin Solway]

This from wikipedia:

[Postmodernism]

In philosophy, where the term is extensively used, it applies to movements that include post-structuralism, deconstruction, multiculturalism, gender studies and literary theory, sometimes called simply "theory". It emerged beginning in the 1950s as a critique of doctrines such as positivism and emphasizes the importance of power relationships, personalization and discourse in the "construction" of truth and world views. In this context it has been used by many critical theorists to assert that postmodernism is a break with the artistic and philosophical tradition of the Enlightenment, which they characterize as a quest for an ever-grander and more universal system of aesthetics, ethics, and knowledge. They present postmodernism as a radical criticism of Western philosophy. Postmodern philosophy draws on a number of approaches to criticize Western thought, including historicism, and psychoanalytic theory.

The term postmodernism is also used in a broader pejorative sense to describe attitudes, sometimes part of the general culture, and sometimes specifically aimed at critical theories perceived as relativist, nihilist, counter-Enlightenment or antimodern, particularly in relationship to critiques of rationalism, universalism, or science. It is also sometimes used to describe social changes which are held to be antithetical to traditional systems of philosophy, religion, and morality.

The role, proper usage, and meaning of postmodernism remain matters of intense debate and vary widely with context.

[Matt Gregory]

By that description this must be a postmodern forum. We ought to be able to fit in there somewhere.

[Matt Gregory]

Out on a limb here but modernism could be called a form of decadence and post-modernism the nihilist consequence of modernism: the bear devouring its own young.

I guess we're in a state of transition right now with all the new technology coming out and driving everything forward. Everybody's life is changing too fast to figure anything out. Postmodernism sounds to me like it's a bunch of isolated groups of people thinking independently, so no single thing becomes dominant.

I predict that someday we'll reach the economical limits of scientific and technological development that can be done by isolated groups and some huge corporation will start to dominate everything, since a huge entity will be the only one with the resources to develop any new technology. It will become militaristic and no one will be able to do anything about it because everyone will be working for the corporation. Typical sci-fi apocalypse, but I mean how can it be avoided? We can already see how powerless world governments are at doing anything about Microsoft's monopoly. This is all due to the lack of principle and fluffy thoughts everyone has.

[Matt Gregory]

I forgot to mention the incapacity of postmodernists for reflection!

[DHodges]

[Postmodernism]
In philosophy, where the term is extensively used, it applies to movements that include post-structuralism, deconstruction, multiculturalism, gender studies and literary theory, sometimes called simply "theory". It emerged beginning in the 1950s as a critique of doctrines such as positivism and emphasizes the importance of power relationships, personalization and discourse in the "construction" of truth and world views.

As I recall, postmodernism and deconstructionism were actually quite successful in certain fields. In particular, in literary criticism, it was noted that you could understand a particular text better if you understood the cultural background of the author - what kind of biases and preconceptions he brought to his work; how he constructed his world-view. In this field, this was an entirely reasonable idea and worked very well.

Unfortunately, this approach was so successful that it then looked for other lands to conquer. (1) It was noted that there was a great deal of text out there outside of the world of literary criticism, and deconstructionism decided its rules could be applied to any text.

And so, for instance, to properly understand a physics text, you need to understand the background of the author - and thus began the idea that hard sciences were actually a tool of oppression, since they were clearly dominated by men, and white men at that.




(1) this is from a description of Derrida's book Dissemination:
"Derrida's central contention is that language is haunted by dispersal, absence, loss, the risk of unmeaning, a risk which is starkly embodied in all writing. The distinction between philosophy and literature therefore becomes of secondary importance. Philosophy vainly attempts to control the irrecoverable dissemination of its own meaning, it strives--against the grain of language--to offer a sober revelation of truth. Literature--on the other hand--flaunts its own meretriciousness, abandons itself to the Dionysiac play of language. In Dissemination--more than any previous work--Derrida joins in the revelry, weaving a complex pattern of puns, verbal echoes and allusions, intended to 'deconstruct' both the pretension of criticism to tell the truth about literature, and the pretension of philosophy to the literature of truth." (Peter Dews, New Statesman)

[Matt Gregory]

As I recall, postmodernism and deconstructionism were actually quite successful in certain fields. In particular, in literary criticism, it was noted that you could understand a particular text better if you understood the cultural background of the author - what kind of biases and preconceptions he brought to his work; how he constructed his world-view. In this field, this was an entirely reasonable idea and worked very well.

That idea is as old as dirt, though. I don't see what "literary criticism" brings to the table. Plus, you could know the whole entire history of the human race and still be unable to figure out a person's biases because of the distortion of your own biases.

[Kevin Solway]

That idea is as old as dirt, though. I don't see what "literary criticism" brings to the table. Plus, you could know the whole entire history of the human race and still be unable to figure out a person's biases because of the distortion of your own biases.

Yes, understanding things in the context of how they came into being is hardly a tremendous breakthrough in the history of thinking.

But postmodernism has gone off the deep end.

If anybody ever wrote anything you don't like, like anything true, you can simply reinterpret it based on some fact - easily fabricated - about the author's life. For example, if the author wasn't married with children, you can say this is proof he was homosexual, and that this fact would have made his life very difficult, and would have definitely severely warped all of his ideas - and so we can safely ignore everything he ever wrote.

Likewise, if the author's parents where heterosexual, this too would warp his perspective on life so much that it would be impossible for him to ever express a single truth about anything.

There's no other word for this than "madness".

[sevens]

Kevin,

I see now, that if we all could hear, and see with our heart opened -- the world, would fill with 'God'.

I have one more 'point of interest':

'God' is all there is. 'God' is light. 'God' is love.

'God' must also be in our dreams, and 'God' must also be

found through woman, in music, in art --

The Totality.

[Matt Gregory]

Kevin Solway wrote:

If anybody ever wrote anything you don't like, like anything true, you can simply reinterpret it based on some fact - easily fabricated - about the author's life. For example, if the author wasn't married with children, you can say this is proof he was homosexual, and that this fact would have made his life very difficult, and would have definitely severely warped all of his ideas - and so we can safely ignore everything he ever wrote.

This idea is as old as dirt, too. Back in the old days, you could just call someone a faggot if you didn't like them and it was all very efficient and out in the open.

I have to wonder if a society based on Christain morality isn't the better deal. At least, there was some honesty back then.

[DHodges]

If anybody ever wrote anything you don't like, like anything true, you can simply reinterpret it based on some fact - easily fabricated - about the author's life. For example, if the author wasn't married with children, you can say this is proof he was homosexual, and that this fact would have made his life very difficult, and would have definitely severely warped all of his ideas - and so we can safely ignore everything he ever wrote.

I think one reason this was successful - in the academic world - is that it gives you so much more to write about. Rather than just comment on the merits of a particular text, it becomes academically respectable to engage in endless gossip.

In the academic world, the rule is 'publish or perish'. You have to be able to say something.