Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

Anyone have some good arguments against post-modernism?

I'm new to this idea, and so far it makes perfect sense (in my head) as the best ideology. On wikipedia, they quote Noam Chomsky in the criticism section as follows:

[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out.

– Noam Chomsky

[/ QUOTE ]

which IMO sounds like his premise is: I don't really understand it + I am the smartest man alive = it's bunk.

Can anyone add anything?

P.S. I suck at search so sorry that this was probably asked before. You can just point me to links if you want to.

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

How is post-modernism an ideology? And if it is, plz explain it.

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

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.

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

It's one of those words which has come to mean something completely different pending on which 'branch' uses it, and the only common denominator would seem to be a protest against something 'accepted' (could be anything from a political stance to a popular painting technique) and denial of absolute truths.

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

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

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

Which ironically is (partially) what many postmodernists protest against, claiming that sometimes simple views on complex problems can lead you away from reality.

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
How is post-modernism an ideology? And if it is, plz explain it.

[/ QUOTE ]well, it's kind of an ideology if you apply the principles of it to your daily life. Also, from what I hear, it was originally intended to be something indefinable, but it's been refined enough that it's close enough to definable to become an ideology.

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is post-modernism an ideology? And if it is, plz explain it.

[/ QUOTE ]well, it's kind of an ideology if you apply the principles of it to your daily life. Also, from what I hear, it was originally intended to be something indefinable, but it's been refined enough that it's close enough to definable to be an ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what are the principles? (yes, I looked at the wiki, but it left me confused)

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Chomsky's point is that if it can't be explained clearly then it's not worth taking seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]do you guys consider that to be a valid criticism?

Re: Best arguments against post-modernism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chomsky's point is that if it can't be explained clearly then it's not worth taking seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]do you guys consider that to be a valid criticism?

[/ QUOTE ]

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.