That's rather a false dilemma. Everyone of those guys' arguments rely on the written word, they could have merely been using idiosyncratic numbers to reflect written theorems that they had been postulating at that time. Lacan's little 'equation' may not make sense out of context, but in within context it simply refers to the classic theoretical notion that the signified (understanding) is the result of who's signifying and the particular statement. That's it.
Granted, not everyone's prefect. Which is why I agree with any pot shots given at Irigaray.
You are saying that the square root of -1 that I am familiar with from complex analysis has nothing to do with the square root of -1 that Lacan was referring to?
Because outside of complex analysis/algebra and those disciplines of engineering that rely on it I see no point to bringing in sqrt(-1) at all. It's completely unnecessary and either deceitful or unhinged.
Not to mention the Fluid Mechanics part... Ah well.
Yes, PoMoism and much of feminism is completely nuts.
There is a thread around here somewhere where I completely pwned it against some of the resident PoMo'ers (every forum has them, they can be identified by putting obscure philosophy quotes all over their sig).
One of my favorite things about PoMoism is the banal crap they come up with to mask the lack of content. Asking for a definition of it is, according to it, wrong. Asking for clarity is wrong. Even asking if its right or wrong is wrong because they seem to harbor some bizarre and stupid affliction whereby EVERYTHING is equally right and wrong.
Thankfully, nobody actually in the field of philosophy in the Anglophone world takes PoMo seriously.
Its just a religion for wannabe intellectuals. And just like any other religion, it immunes itself from criticism by some stupid method.
There is a thread around here somewhere where I completely pwned it against some of the resident PoMo'ers (every forum has them, they can be identified by putting obscure philosophy quotes all over their sig).
Complex numbers are pretty hard to grasp, because C is a field extension of R, and the construction of R is definitely non-trivial (either with the Dedekind Cuts or the Cauchy sequence argument).
Gaussian integers, on the other hand...
My point? The Post-Modernists are ridiculous, but most of us speak through our hats...
Pseudointellectuals are easy to spot - they have a lot to say, but in the end you realize that there isn't very much content - all they say is obfuscated with rhetoric phrases they have memorized.
This, for some reason, happens a lot when Americans debate politics.
Pseudointellectuals are easy to spot - they have a lot to say, but in the end you realize that there isn't very much content - all they say is obfuscated with rhetoric phrases they have memorized.
Complex numbers are pretty hard to grasp, because C is a field extension of R, and the construction of R is definitely non-trivial (either with the Dedekind Cuts or the Cauchy sequence argument).
Sigh.. Yes, although the formal rigorous definition of R and C takes a few months of college, for all practical purposes everyone "can grasp" R. My point was that for practical purposes C is also rather simple. At least the idea the square root of -1.
All it takes is grasping the idea of a complex multiplication c=a*b as setting the length of the vector representing c to |a|*|b| and setting its angle w.r.t. the positive real as the sum of the angles of the vectors representing a and b.
Before you launch into the intricacies of the real/complex number system I must again point out that that goes beyond the definition of "grasping" that I was using. I meant that many people don't even have a basic idea of what its about.
I beg to differ. Most people cannot "grasp" R. Hell, the next person I meet that can "grasp" more than just the natural integers up to about 35 will be the first.
But our post-modernist friends are not interested in practical purposes; I repeat that their claims are ridiculous, but so are ours.
What's all this about the square root of -1 being +/-i?
William Hamilton wouldn't be very happy if you forgot about j and k in his quaternions, useful for 3D animations. You can have octonians as well where there are 7 distinct (apart from having positive and negative) roots of -1.
You can trivially construct complex numbers from real numbers by using 2x2 matrices with real number entries,
[ 1 0 ]
[ 0 1 ] is the element representing +1
[ 0 1 ]
[ -1 0 ] is the element representing +i (or -i, if you like)
Likewise for quaternions by using 2x2 matrices with complex entries.
Yes, complex numbers and their associated algebra can be represented by a 2x2 matrix algebra. It's just one particular representation, though.
Quaternions are interesting. Still, as far as I'm aware, no one did follow through with Feynmans intuition that they might be useful in Quant. Electrodynamics, just like everyone ignored Hamilton himself back in the day (in any case after Gibbs introduced Vector Analysis).
I beg to differ. Most people cannot "grasp" R. Hell, the next person I meet that can "grasp" more than just the natural integers up to about 35 will be the first.
Yes, there are many representations of complex numbers but they are all isomorphic so effectively the same.
The power of complex numbers of course comes from the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra i.e. all polynomials with complex coefficients have a root in C. Most of the time you have to "invent" or discover new types of numbers to solve a new eqaution.
x + 1 = 0 -> invent negative numbers
2x - 1 = 0 -> invent rational numbers (fractions)
x^2 = 2 -> discover irrational numbers (and drown someone to hush it up if you are Pythagoras, until Euclid)
Power series -> discover transcendental numbers (e.g. pi, e)
x^2 + 1 = 0 (=> x^2 = -1), invent complex numbers
However, with complex numbers, you don't have to invent a new type of number to solve any polynomial with complex coefficients (e.g. x^2 + ix + 1 = 0). This is known as algebraic closure. There's no reason to suppose that solving these sorts of equations wouldn't involve inventing or discovering a new type of "number" (such as quaternions say), but Gauss showed (several times) that this was not the case.
EDIT: Stupid mistake in my original rational number equation
Having encountered far too much translated French literary critiques in my time, I can readily sympathize with those that want to banish post-modernism to the greatest fires of hell, to burn for all eternity. It is a language unto itself, but at times one well worth learning. Perhaps at other times, though, it is indeed rubbish.
I've read and breezed through the comments here and on the link (there's quite more there), and it seems that in both cases there is a rather large amount of intellectual posturing and emotionally-driven dismissing rather than what can be called a proper debate on the subject.
My actual background on the main post-modernist thinkers is fairly limited, and I'm more aware of the works of the Barthes and Benjamin types. I've seen the former listed as a post-modern thinker, and if that's so I'd argue his works are far from empty rhetoric to fill the gaps of his argument.
Barthes, etc, aside I'll address my main point here, which relates to Dawkins' approach and style. This is actually my first exposure to his writing, and I have had to struggle a bit to put aside cultural knowledge of him to address him properly. I find both aspects to be rather poor for a proper intellectual approach. It was overly-aggressive and insulting, neither of which is a proper foundation for logic or discourse.
His points only briefly touch on post-modernism itself, and instead equally briefly address its style and then takes a few quotes and attacks them at length, instead of actually addressing the meaning and arguments that the writers were attempting to make.
I'll spoiler quote one of the responses below, since it is somewhat long. My point in showing it is how a reasonable and informative essay can look. I will leave full comparisons up to everyone else, but I think the approach is drastically different.
Spoiler:
the postmodernists have nothing to say.
The term 'postmodernism,' first of all, is much like the term 'existentialism' in that it is commonly used to refer to a very broad range of ideas in almost all conceivable media, many of which (ideas) bear little or no resemblance to one another. Unfortunately, 'postmodernism' is often used to describe anything that seems incomprehensible on first gloss. In philosophy, however, we (ideally) subscribe to the principle of charity, whereby we refuse to brush things aside just because they seem incomprehensible on first gloss. A failure to adhere to this principle is, I think, behind much of the vigorous bashing of "postmodernism."
I'd like to make a few cursory comments about postmodernism in general (so far as I understand the characterization). Much of the reason it's called post-modernism is, as has been already mentioned, that it's taken to be a reaction to philosophical modernism. Philosophical modernism is associated with the Enlightenment and spans, roughly, from Descartes to Kant. Modernism's interest in strict, deductive reasoning is challenged by postmodernism's commitment to processual reasoning.
This is important if you actually want to understand what postmodernism is trying to do. Postmodernism holds that truth and reality are not strict or deductive in nature. This is not to say that they are not objective. Here is one of the points on which there is wide variation among postmodernists. Postmodernists generally agree, however, that if philosophy is supposed to give an account of reality, it should bear some resemblance to the reality it purports to describe. (I can go into greater detail on this point if it isn't clear.)
Having said that, I will try to provide some clarity to a few of the specific examples Dawkins uses in this article. (I haven't addressed all of them in the hope that I can keep this comment short enough that some people will actually read it.)
I'm not especially familiar with Guatarri, but I'm willing to guess, given the second sentence Dawkins cites, that the piece in question has something to do with a rejection of what are traditionally thought to be logically necessary dichotomies (true OR false, being OR non-being). Granted, I can't at present make sense of the first sentence, but if anyone can find a context for that passage (I had no luck), I'd be happy to see if I can find some definitions for the technical terms he's using.
Deleuze, far more so than Guatarri, is highly regarded in certain philosophical circles, largely thanks to his work on differance. This, predictably enough, is a technical term. Very basically, Deleuze's contribution was the idea that things (of any sort) gain their identity only in contrast with one another. For example, 'chair' doesn't mean anything without non-chairs, black doesn't mean anything without white, etc. Put this way it seems like a fairly obvious insight, but it's the best I can do without going into more detail. If anyone is interested in hearing the more detail that (in my estimation) accounts for Deleuze's fame, let me know and I'd be happy to oblige.
Irigaray's basic point (from what I have studied in the past) is that humans have a tendency to associate certain distinctions with other distinctions. Good, white, salvation, logic, and male, she argues, have come to be associated in a group. Bad, black, sin, emotion, and female form the opposite group of associations. Given this structure, anything seen as in any sense ultimate, e.g., the speed of light, will be assigned to the first, "positive" group of associations, whereas that which is "lesser" than the ultimate will be assigned to the negative group. I strongly doubt that she sees anything morally wrong with the speed of light per se. As far as I can tell, all of the alternatives that she proposes to this structure are untenable. Again, I disagree with a lot of what these people are saying.
Rather than burdening you with another philosophical exposition, I will only say of Baudrillard that he is frequently credited as having invented the idea of a process-oriented method of philosophy that I mentioned earlier. I'm reasonably sure, therefore, that he would have no problem with his own appropriation of scientific terms for less rigorous uses. You are all welcome to despise that practice if you wish; my purpose is only to argue that, appropriated terms aside, there is some meaning to the whole.
As usually happens to me when I take the time to write a thought-out response to anything, probably people aren't really interested in thought-out dialogue and no one will respond. In case I am wrong, though, I would like to reiterate that I'm happy to discuss anything above further if anyone is interested.
This reminded me that I actually have learned of Deleuze, and at least in his differance theory I see no reason to call him a "fake". Even if it is incorrect, it is at the least an intriguing perspective worth contemplation.
I'll end with another quote, a little farther down:
I think the problems with postmodernism are an exaggeration of problems that have existed within philosophy and perhaps academia for a while. Coming to terms, literally, with the subject matter can be very hard, because terminology is often highly nuanced. The problem is worsened by people who spout absolute BS because they've made a career (or practically so) by building an army of straw men.
I remember that even in Existentialism reading some of the works of particular philosophers was very hard. I would have to go over paragraphs again and again to get the nuances of what they were saying correct. When so and so says "being," supposedly a simply word pointing to a simple concept, what exactly does he mean? Many sentences seem to be complete nonsense without the proper frame of mind, without coming to terms with the author.
Sometimes this is because the ideas are highly nuanced. Sometimes it's because the writer isn't very good at saying what he or she has to say. At other times it's because you're being BS'ed.
I got a C+ in Existentialism. I just didn't think spending that much effort on reading something that could have probably been put more simply was worth the effort. It was often painful.
But it would be a mistake for me to say that it was all just a bunch of garbage... even though there is plenty of that in academia.
I think this encapsulates, in a sense, what I am driving at with Dawkins' approach. Here you have a balanced position, that takes strides to impart an understanding of complexity and a mixed perspective. It implies that there is more under the surface than such a short comment can show, and at this level of analysis, there simply isn't a yes/no, good/bad declaration to be made. Far deeper analysis is required, and writing off the entire discipline/school cannot be done without it. Dawkins offers nothing in this respect, except a fairly shallow appreciation of the subject and a rant on academia, which is equally complex, despite his generalizing tone.
I see little positive that can come from such an approach, and instead consider it only good for continuing ignorance and an over-simplified approach to truth, as evidenced in many of the responses in that link. Heavily irresponsible, in my opinion, but feel free to disagree
Well, to be fair, most of the people I know are the mathematics/scientific crowd. So I cannot claim that this is true of everyone, but it certainly applies to those that I know.
The one I'm thinking of is that complex numbers are easy to grasp (or words to that effect).
It's one thing to laugh at people who knowingly make make false claims of knowledge, but I'm not sure I see much of a difference between these people and those who unknowingly make false claims of knowledge.
Yes, Dawkins is bombastic and a poor writer. Strangely enough though, his lack of intellectual impartiality in his popular works has not made them unpopular... quite the opposite.
What I found extremely funny is that when person (like Dawkins in example) becomes well known and appreciated in one field of academics suddenly he is authoritative figure that can comment about everything and people simply seem to accept these claims without second thought. On the second hand if person even suggest that there's validity in claims of such studies that have bad reputation (in example postmodern philosophy) or hints that he is part of such movement, his words are refuted without second thoughts.
But such is the world of personal cults and followers of authoratative figures in academics.
Deep knowledge and intelligence in studies in one field doesn't mean this person is also expert in every other field.
The problem with postmodernist "science" is that it assumes that physical and mathematical laws are bound to social conventions (as best exemplified by what that feminist loon said about fluid mechanics)... since this makes no sense whatsoever they have to use an incredibly complex language that will make most mathematicians and physicits refrain from analysing their load of crap.
As Sokal once said, "Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)"
Yeah but the thing is, real academic philosophers don't consider postmodernism very meritous either.
Postmodernism in philosophy is pretty much exactly analogous to Intelligent Design in evolutionary biology. Virtually no academics who are in the field take it seriously (and those that do are completely refuted by their peers). Yet the few that do take it seriously are sufficiently able to trick people with no knowledge of the discipline (using big words punctuated by allegations of vast academic conspiracies) that there is a depressingly large quantity of people who take it seriously, yet virtually none who take the time to educate themselves in the field.
Postmodernism in philosophy is pretty much exactly analogous to Intelligent Design in evolutionary biology. Virtually no academics who are in the field take it seriously (and those that do are completely refuted by their peers). Yet the few that do take it seriously are sufficiently able to trick people with no knowledge of the discipline (using big words punctuated by allegations of vast academic conspiracies) that there is a depressingly large quantity of people who take it seriously, yet virtually none who take the time to educate themselves in the field.
That is actually exactly the problem I wanted to describe.
If someone gets accompanied with postmodern or ID group he is without doubt thought to be someone who doesn't know anything. Example people might refute Derrida's and Foucault's thoughts about everything merely because someone considers them to be postmodern. Which is almost analogous of refuting someone's viewpoint based into their view about religion or politics or that they consider something to be differently than others. It's like if you do one flaw means that you are miserable failure in general. This is very unfortunate and limiting viewpoint.
So let me put this out for everyone: It's not about general concepts, movements or people involved but specific ideas that you should have opinion towards to if you want to consider their validity towards truth and reality. In example philosopher that can be considered to be postmodern can have as much understanding regarding certain issues even though he isn't merited from them compared to someone that isn't considered to be postmodern.
If you ask me, I rather would be ready to give head shot to both postmodern movement and modernist movement as they are just terms that have no specific meaning. I might still try to explain someone what these terms mean and what could be considered to be postmodern but ultimately I have noticed how impossible it is as people have stigmatized as something that is "fake". It is fake since the whole point is to show how certain things in modernist movement are as much "fake". That's the irony of things.
But really I have talked enough about this subject.
I think people should be sceptical towards every claim and critically analyze things.
Not only as they appear in certain context but how they are.
Fifty, I won't comment on postmodern philosophy, for as I have said I'm fairly ignorant on the subject, and my background is more in linguistics and media studies.
That having been said, my point is that a proper conclusion doesn't equal a proper argument. Even if Dawkins is fundamentally right in his attacks against post-modernism, how he is going about it is fundamentally flawed, and far from adding to any debate on the subject his ranting is just sidestepping a rigorous academic analysis of post-modernism and its importance in academia. The only things I see this article accomplishing are reaffirming negative suspicions of post-modernism in the uninformed. No one with sufficient enough background is going to be able to use such an empty article to help inform their position. If you do have a good background in philosophy and post-modern variants thereof, then I'm curious as to how this article has benefited you, save repeating the conclusions you had already arrived at apparently. Especially with such a background, I'm sure you can agree that his argumentation is poor, giving few examples and almost no focus on actual post-modern/philosophical views.
There needs to be a quote for arguments along the lines of "not even wrong" for such approaches, as it's not properly adding a perspective to the debate, just shortcutting intellectual necessities for what I can only read as a desire for personal gain, in whatever form, given the lack of content and target audience.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
