"Post-modernism"

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Makes it somewhat amusing that the Sokal hoax would be recommended as an appropriate starting point for enquiry into postmodernism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all - Sokal showed that absolute nonsense could pass as a postmodernist work worthy enough to be published in a journal, so it shouldn't be at all surprising that absolute nonsense could pass as postmodernist critique to 'laymen'.

It's also one of the most delicious practical jokes that I can recall, and I never fail to crack a smile when I think of it.

[ QUOTE ]

But then, this thread is nothing more than self-conratulatory back-slapping so I guess it's neither here nor there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bashing postmodernism is about as much "self-congratulatory back-slapping" as it is to brag about kicking an eight-year-old retard's ass.

[ QUOTE ]
However, it is disheartening to see people who have clearly made no real effort to engage with certain ideas summarily dismiss them.

[/ QUOTE ]

One can decide, with a decently high rate of accuracy, whether someone has worthy ideas or is full of [censored] relatively quickly. In some cases the BS-detector happens to be wrong (eg physicists who rejected quantum mechanics when they first heard of it and its implications), but this occurs only after the evidence mounts. I sincerely doubt a postmodernist will ever build a bridge, cure cancer, or even tell you anything about how to live your life (as good philosophers do), so I'll poke fun at them all I want and have an inappropriately large smile on my face whilst doing so, thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
I can completely understand the frustration people feel when trying to get their head around the incredibly convoluted prose of some of these authors.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's called "semantic gymnastics" - it's what people engage in when they want to sound important, feel important about themselves, and make it seem like they have ideas when in reality, if they actually just came out and said what they meant, they would be quite rightly laughed at. You don't see Sokal Affairs in mathematics or physics, and for good reason. In fact, I would speculate that this might be why so many postmodernists seem to be ex- or current Marxists - both academic sects require enormous suspension of belief in the evidence around them in order to keep from collapsing. (not to mention the ideals of Marxism would provide for a healthy, guaranteed income for an (at least in the capitalist economy) out-of-work postmodernist professor)

[ QUOTE ]
However, 'postmodernism' has undoubtedly shaken up the academic world considerably. A lot of what is carried out in its name seems patently absurd, but it has also largely succeeded in drawing attention to absurdities that have dominated western thought since the enlightenment.

[/ QUOTE ]

From a course syllabus in postmodernism:

[ QUOTE ]
Postmodernism is highly debated even among postmodernists themselves. For an initial characterization of its basic premises, consider anthropological critic Melford Spiro's excellent synopsis of the basic tenets of postmodernism:

“The postmodernist critique of science consists of two interrelated arguments, epistemological and ideological. Both are based on subjectivity. First, because of the subjectivity of the human object, anthropology, according to the epistemological argument cannot be a science; and in any event the subjectivity of the human subject precludes the possibility of science discovering objective truth. Second, since objectivity is an illusion, science according to the ideological argument, subverts oppressed groups, females, ethnics, third-world peoples (Spiro 1996).

[/ QUOTE ]

That last sentence alone is a goldmine of BS.

"Science cannot discover objective truth"? Wake me when the first postmodernist on his death bed refuses all medical care. Why not, if his experience is completely subjective and he can't go by what those scientists say? If he truly believed in this tenet of postmodernism, he would have not the slightest, tiniest inkling of an idea whether penicillin would work on him or not.

And subjectivity is being studied by neurologists, most famously in the problem of "qualia." I dont know about you, but personally, between the two, the horse I'm backing is neurology. But hey, if someone earnestly thinks they can cure schizophrenia with "incredulity towards metanarratives," I'm all ears.

So from what I've seen thus far, all postmodernism means is you take the philosophy 101 chewing gum that we've all toyed with at some point in our lives (as a side note, it's quite something to watch someone go from one minute in jaw-dropping awe questioning the very existence of a world behind the sensory input he's receiving and the next minute getting violently angry that Ethan emptied the bong when there was clearly at least one good hit left in it), except these people forgot to take the next step of saying "heh - well, that's something" and landing back in reality.

Based solely on the merits of the core descriptions and tenets of post-modernism that I have viewed thus far, I personally judge it to be completely worthless for my desire to know more about the world. And that's all that is necessary - I don't need to publish a point-by-point retort to an intentionally incomprehensible mess to have a permission slip to make fun of douchebags who have a precious teardrop of common sense floating in an ocean of vocabulary. I can take a cursory glance at their ideas, say "sounds like a bunch of knobs," and then ignore them until given compelling evidence to do otherwise.




"Anyone who believes the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment ..on the twenty-first floor." - Alan Sokal

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
No one really offers anything other than the most shallow of representations of what postmodernism actually is (to the extent it is even possible to speak of postmodernism as a unified theory).

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't see the conflict in the two parts of your complaint then your best recourse is to log into the psychology forum :-)

[ QUOTE ]
I personally would have thought that postmodernists generally argue that notions of morality, or historic truth, or aesthetic value, or power structures, or 'regimes of truth' etc are socially contingent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You simply gotta get out more. If that's what postmodernism was about it's something we would mention while stirring our morning coffee and move on to discussing issues that weren't so obvious. That there are contextual and subjective considerations in situations is not something that will jar the reality of successful poker players. Postmodernist claims uses that 'given' and explode it in an attempt to wipe out all rational approaches to a topic.

You want a logical attack on pm? Why. Logic will repress some one-legged dwarf in Botswahli...haven't you heard?

"I personally would have thought..." cheeez. Nobody was expressing their opinion on your personal hopes for pm, but about the actual claims made by pm writers they have read or attempted to exchange ideas with.

Sure the criticism of pm contains a lot of ridicule, but that's only because pm ( the actual, not your home model) is ridiculous.

[Michaelson]

I will respond to some of these points in a day or two, I haven't responded because I've been particularly busy, not because I'm cutting and running.

However, I will say again that I don't intend to defend pm for the reasons I outlined in my first post.

While I'm here, though. [ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No one really offers anything other than the most shallow of representations of what postmodernism actually is (to the extent it is even possible to speak of postmodernism as a unified theory).

[/ QUOTE ]
If you don't see the conflict in the two parts of your complaint then your best recourse is to log into the psychology forum :-)

[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that those who rally against postmodernism--which is really a pretty amorphus notion given the application of pomo ideas in various fields of study, and even within various fields of study--usually either provide a one line account of "what postmodernism is" or else they pick and choose amongst the most absurd examples of which they are aware. This is why I emphasised that it is difficult and mistaken to speak simply of "postmodernism" as though if you critique one pomo writer you critique them all. Make more sense?

[ QUOTE ]

You simply gotta get out more. If that's what postmodernism was about it's something we would mention while stirring our morning coffee and move on to discussing issues that weren't so obvious. That there are contextual and subjective considerations in situations is not something that will jar the reality of successful poker players. Postmodernist claims uses that 'given' and explode it in an attempt to wipe out all rational approaches to a topic.

You want a logical attack on pm? Why. Logic will repress some one-legged dwarf in Botswahli...haven't you heard?

[/ QUOTE ] And in all of that you didn't once mention exactly how I got it wrong, just that I did.

[ QUOTE ]
"I personally would have thought..." cheeez. Nobody was expressing their opinion on your personal hopes for pm, but about the actual claims made by pm writers they have read or attempted to exchange ideas with.

Sure the criticism of pm contains a lot of ridicule, but that's only because pm ( the actual, not your home model) is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ] "I personally would have thought" was rhetorical, though a poor and clumsy choice of phrase. I've never been a particularly good writer or orator. But my precise point is that the deep seated antagonism toward postmodernism on this thread has been largely unjustified.

Anyway, as a more general comment, my engagement with pomo authors is based purely in the humanities. Politics and philosophy only. I am aware that there are (or perhaps were) postmodernists who would deny the objectivity, and simultaneously the utility, of scientific truth. This to me seems absolutely and without a shadow of a doubt stupid and absurd. As I said specifically in my second post, it's not difficult to find examples of stupidity in postmodern theory, and particularly as postmodern writers have turned there ideas to hard science they leave me for dead (both because I don't have a background in science, and their ideas seem so obviously without foundation.)

In the general humanities, however, the sterotype doesn't really resemble the actual practice of the bulk of postmodern authors or "critical theorists". The best thing I have found from the link posted by Jordan above is this one line summation: [ QUOTE ]
Postmodernism espouses a systematic skepticism of grounded theoretical perspectives.

[/ QUOTE ]This point requires expanding, obviously, but for the moment it will suffice to note that in politics, in philosophy, in history and in aesthetics this is a project that I believe can have distinct value, depending, naturally, on the way it is undertaken. It seems rather more unlikely, however, that it could be a valuable when examining chemistry or physics.

So I guess before I deal with the bulk of the other two responses tomorow, take it on board that I'm as incredulous as anyone else toward the pomo who denies the validity of all scientific enquiry.

P.S. After looking over this, it occurs to me that someone will no doubt point out that I can't work with a one line summation that I quoted from the webpage and maintain what I said earlier in the post. In anticipation, can I just say that "systematic skepticism of grounded theoretical perspectives" will obviously manifest itself differently in different disciplines, which is why I was wary of one line explanations in the first place. Hope that makes sense, or at very least you get my understanding.

[bearly]

another clear thought on the subject......good work....................b

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
systematic skepticism of grounded theoretical perspectives

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not postmodernism. Just an extension of Hume. Existentialism, at most. Of course, you could always say Hume was a postmodernist. In which case you're getting so semantically muddy it's hardly worth even having the term.

I believe an idea has meaning based on how it's differentiated from other ideas. So if you're going to try to define postmodernism (unwise IMO), you'll have to explain to me how it's different from mere skepticism or even existentialism.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe an idea has meaning based on how it's differentiated from other ideas. So if you're going to try to define postmodernism (unwise IMO), you'll have to explain to me how it's different from mere skepticism or even existentialism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read my lego analogy earlier in the thread? I would be interested in your comments on that as a comparative definition.

Scott

[madnak]

I thought it was a clever analogy, but it's obviously not the kind of definition a postmodernist is likely to accept.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
but it's obviously not the kind of definition a postmodernist is likely to accept

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, did I give you the impression that I give a flying [censored] what po-mos think? Post-modernism is a disgrace to all intelletual and artistic traditions, as well as being a life-denying theory.

Scott