Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it. Just because you fool some editors of a magazine that believes in PM, that doesn't mean the entire field is worthless. Also, maybe the editors published it, because they knew it would create more awareness of postmodernism and cause more people to question what they believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read the paper, or at least the couple of page intro, it's well worth it. It is pure and utter nonsense and [censored] (much of it referencing writings from luminaries in the postmodern field). The fact that they couldn't intinctively recognize such nonsense and [censored], from a field they regularly critique, shows that their methodology for determining truth from fiction is entirely bankrupt.

A similar hoax (though nowhere near as egregious) was perpetrated on a physics journal dealing in string theories and the like. It showed that a decent portion of that field was masturbatory nonsense.

And a similar hoax was done on these board, where a computer generated postmodern article was passed off as the real thing. I fell for it, and it quite adequately showed that my familiarity with postmodern writing isn't that deep.

As for your OP, it's hard to critique a whole field, which in itself isn't even defined. A lot of things get published under the banner of postmodernism. But in general, postmodernism is the idea that everything is relative, that no branch or knowledge is inherently more valuable than any other, and that while male scientists and politicians are to blame for the world's ills (I was half kidding about that last one).

The trouble with postmodernism is that it has a flawed focus. It believes that the world is socially constructed and everything is filtered through social knowledge. To give you an analogy: this is like me believing that what I see is entirely constructed by my brain's visual system, and that to understand what I see, I should spend all my energy on learning about and critiquing my visual system. It's not that can't gain some valuable insight - it can - but it's a small portion of knowledge, and only a minor correction to existing truth - not a framework for understanding it or removing it. And some postmodernists go as far as claiming that the only thing that truly exists is my visual system.

Anyway, this is hard to do without examples, so feel free to post a postmodern work that you think is valid, and we'll critique it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm new to this idea, and so far it makes perfect sense (in my head) as the best ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you expand on this?

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

The best essay I've read arguing against post modernism is by Richard Dawkins' :
Postmodernism Disrobed

This essay draws a lot from this book.

The piece can be found, along with many other wonderful essays in Dawkins' book: A Devil's Chaplain

-cheers

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm new to this idea, and so far it makes perfect sense (in my head) as the best ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you expand on this?

[/ QUOTE ]Well, the way I am currently applying it to my life is generally being more open and welcome to strangers. A small step, and maybe not even representative of PM, but just as I understand it, it makes sense. For example, trying not to make stereotypes of people based on money, science, religion, politics, race, gender, etc, etc, etc. Most people are fundamentally the same, but their beliefs are usually masked by institutions they support. Religious zealots tend to be closeminded about others beliefs. Same goes for every other institution I just mentioned. Tearing down these institutions and treating people like they're all equal, but have different institutions that are currently blocking what they truly believe but are afraid to admit because of shame, scorn, and other such negative emotions.

This might not actually apply to PM, because I'm still new, but it has made me a much happier person to assume that everyone has worth, just in different ways. Capitalist societies tend to make money their institution, which ends up creating much distance and hatred between those richer and poorer than us and people can end up hating more people. This similarly applies to any other institution. But this is just one example of how I can apply it to my life.

When you treat people with respect and assume they are your intellectual equal (but know stuff about the world in different ways), you can be surprised. My girlfriend made some witty banter with a gas station clerk who turned out to be the same anti-govt smart person that my girlfriend was. In the past I would have just assumed anyone poor enough to be working at a gas station would not know the true nature of politics. But she just gave respect to someone by talking to them like an equal, and got pleasing banter out of him.

However, just because I'm PM, doesn't mean I think all aspects of learning not PM are useless which is what most people in this thread seem to think. For instance, I still greatly value science as a tool to learn about the world as one of the more true aspects of learning. But it's still completely biased towards advancing the human species, because of the money involved. But science isn't the be-all end-all of knowledge. And science isn't inherently better than social development. It just turns out we concentrate more on science than social development, because most seem to equate money with happiness. It's just that science can make more money than social development, but ultimately doesn't necessarily lead to anymore happiness than social development. Although this is easier to say when you have a cushion of money being in a 1st world country. I would postulate that money currently is the leading cause of happiness, except for people that have more than enough and realize that spending != happiness. But this is all relative to today's age. I'm assuming about 100-300 years from now, most of the world will have the basic necessities of life to not have to work a majority of their lives to get the basic necessities required for happiness (food, safety, shelter, etc). Once that happens, people will start to reject the dollar as a form of happiness and truth.

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

What you're describing is not really postmodernism (and definitely not academic postmodernism), but rather openness to experience and suspension of judgment. I'd say this approach is philosophically more similar to empiricism than postmodernism.

To truly go to postmodernism, you'd have to argue that a native's belief in spirits haunting the forests and causing the weather, has no more validity than your own beliefs that weather is caused by pressure gradients and moist air rising from the oceans, since the world is socially constructed.

[ QUOTE ]
This might not actually apply to PM, because I'm still new, but it has made me a much happier person to assume that everyone has worth, just in different ways.

[/ QUOTE ]
Having mutually fulfilling encounters with a whole range of people is a worthy and interesting goal...it's something that's hard to master and that few people can do. I don't consider someone successful in life until they can do this well, since it's so important for your impact on the world and your own personal awareness. And it opens up so many opportunities.

I'd just suggest not to confuse this skill, and the mindset that goes with it, with being non judgmental and relativist. The latter isn't necessarily required.

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
But science isn't the be-all end-all of knowledge. And science isn't inherently better than social development. It just turns out we concentrate more on science than social development, because most seem to equate money with happiness. It's just that science can make more money than social development, but ultimately doesn't necessarily lead to anymore happiness than social development. Although this is easier to say when you have a cushion of money being in a 1st world country.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you to a degree...there are scientific truths and social/moral/aesthetic ones, and the epistemic supremacy of science is often used to squash the latter in many ways.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by social development though.

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most people are fundamentally the same,

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be interested in the way you measured and determined that from within PM ?

luckyme

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
and that while male scientists and politicians are to blame for the world's ills (I was half kidding about that last one).


[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, for all the criticism against postmodernism in this thread, this is actually the one that really hit a mark. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

I asked my girlfriend to give some counterarguments to what you've been saying, but unfortunately she doesn't have time to respond to all the criticisms, but here's one from her:

I believe that what Chomsky is talking about is the writings of a group of people who have ensconsed themselves in the academic establishment by applying the label 'postmodern' to themselves while producing worthless drivel.

Postmodernism is a broad term and you're probably thinking of something a somewhat different.

------------Obsurdity as a critique. Don DeLillo. Kurt Vonnegut. Absurdity helps people push themselves to a level outside of power-structured ideology. No label universally fits everything. There is no metanarrative.


Quote:

Quote:
Chomsky's point is that if it can't be explained clearly then it's not worth taking seriously.

do you guys consider that to be a valid criticism?



Yes. By 'clearly' Chomsky means 'intelligibly'. There is no reason to take an unintelligible view seriously. In fact, an unintelligible view is no view at all.


--------------- But the real question becomes "unintelligible as defined by whom??" And hasn't "intelligible" been defined differently over time?? So, then, it seems that the word unintelligible is not a term which can be easily applied or understood. Which historical definition of "unintelligible" do we use? Isn't what is "intelligible" only a reflection of a power structure? so, it seems intelligible or unintelligible a view is worth assessing and considering.

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
But the real question becomes "unintelligible as defined by whom??"

[/ QUOTE ]

No. the real question is - why write something while admitting the reader could get an equivalent level of understanding what is intended to be communicated by studying tea leaves?

luckyme