Best arguments against post-modernism?

[tame_deuces]

[ 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]

[captZEEbo]

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.

[luckyme]

[ 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

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

So far, a descriptively adequate grammar is necessary to impose an interpretation on a descriptive fact. Suppose, for instance, that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is, apparently, determined by the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. Presumably, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features appears to correlate rather closely with the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that any associated supporting element does not affect the structure of the levels of acceptability from fairly high to virtual gibberish. Let us continue to suppose that a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is not to be considered in determining problems of phonemic and morphological analysis.

Does that make things clearer?

[tame_deuces]

In all fairness people are picking on the worst parts of postmodernism, and when we do that to some paradigm we can always rip it apart with ease.

Postmodernism was also incredibly healthy because it took up the battle with a tendency to steamroll simplicity where it wasn't always good to do so. And it also really got in the extremely good point that for many sciences (esp. social ones), cultural differences will often make it moot to look for the 'holy grail' of the generalized model.

Fields where the postmodernistic view shines is history and the literary sciences - away with the fake layer of objective academics and back in with the fact that the researcher is indead subjective either he/she wants to or not. It has also definitively given small injections of sensibility to a lot of other sciences.

Also from alot of posts here you'd get the impression that postmodernism is some uniform movement, which it isn't. It is an extremely wide term, is often used used loosely and encompasses many different branches where it will have very different meaning.