The square root of (-1) is......... the penis?

[Fifty]

If someone gets accompanied with postmodern or ID group he is without doubt thought to be someone who doesn't know anything.

No, he is thought not to know anything about philosophy, which is generally true. While there may be some pomo thinker out there with genuinely insightful philosophical thoughts, nobody can spend all day studying every last viewpoint. Sometimes we have to generalize, and that's just how it is. Just as its generally not worth your time to study a KKK member's ruminations on race, its also generally not worth your time to atempt to decipher pomo nonsense.

Example people might refute Derrida's and Foucault's thoughts about everything merely because someone considers them to be postmodern.

No academic philosophers consider Foucault to be pomo. When he is charachterized as such it is generally either by amateurs or people from fields outside philosophy that generally have a horrible grasp of it (e.g. pretty much any discipline that ends in "studies").

Derrida is rightfully maligned because he was an academic fraud that nobody cares about in philosophy. I recently read about a game philosophers used to play where they'd take a Derrida lover, and show him two statements. One would be a quote from Derrida, and one would be the exact opposite of that quote. The Derrida lovers couldn't figure out which one was representative of Derrida's views with anything better than chance.

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.

I'm not saying they might not have good thoughts in other areas. Derrida was apparently a really nice guy. I'm just saying their attempts at philosopy are crap.

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.

This notion of pomoism as general skepticism towards truth, meaning, reality, etc.. is one most pomos seem to accept, and one which does a very good job of illustrating how little they know about the history of philosophy.

Also, the term "modernism" has no meaning in philosophy. There's no "modernist" school in philosophy. It might have meaning in architecture and painting and writing and all that, but its meaningless in philosophy.

 

[C~G]

No, he is thought not to know anything about philosophy, which is generally true. While there may be some pomo thinker out there with genuinely insightful philosophical thoughts, nobody can spend all day studying every last viewpoint. Sometimes we have to generalize, and that's just how it is. Just as its generally not worth your time to study a KKK member's ruminations on race, its also generally not worth your time to atempt to decipher pomo nonsense.

Well everyone decides on their own what they read and what not, but if I would say that Derrida or some other PoMo has some interesting thoughts about some issue, would you reject them with the first thought or try to study them and then refute them? That was rhetorical question, as of studier of philosophy you should know the answer that leads to the truth.

No academic philosophers consider Foucault to be pomo. When he is charachterized as such it is generally either by amateurs or people from fields outside philosophy that generally have a horrible grasp of it (e.g. pretty much any discipline that ends in "studies").

Thank God for that. Foucault even though egomaniac to the bone have had some insights to issues that are intriguing to study.

Derrida is rightfully maligned because he was an academic fraud that nobody cares about in philosophy. I recently read about a game philosophers used to play where they'd take a Derrida lover, and show him two statements. One would be a quote from Derrida, and one would be the exact opposite of that quote. The Derrida lovers couldn't figure out which one was representative of Derrida's views with anything better than chance..

I would say that Derrida has made some contributions and introduced some ideas that are worth looking for but they are more of accidental in nature than consequences of his rigorous effort of intellect.

I'm not saying they might not have good thoughts in other areas. Derrida was apparently a really nice guy. I'm just saying their attempts at philosopy are crap.

It depends what you consider being about philosophy. Example populized term deconstruction does IMO carry some meaning in "postmodern condition" which could be describe as time when nihilism starts to crawl in and people seek meanings in everything. Postmodernism IMO is also partly product of this kind of search. Some might say that it's byproduct or waste.

This notion of pomoism as general skepticism towards truth, meaning, reality, etc.. is one most pomos seem to accept, and one which does a very good job of illustrating how little they know about the history of philosophy.

Someone quoted Heidegger there as he rejected subjectivism and objectivism. Well, something similar is postmodernism that try to seek some kind of new language to be used within philosophy which same has been tried also before.
This criticism towards "not knowing history" is very usual regarding postmodernism in general since it's linked to the idea that as we currently should know so much about ourselves but still example philosophical truths are as far as ever. I call these things pop-modernist as they are something that people grasp momentarily but they don't have any vision about history of them.
I know exactly what you mean since I have met people that think they have invented wheel again well their pondering is similar that is done in the past as well. But of course this leads to the point where they think are "on to something" and think themselves as intellectuals.
However person who has read philosophy for all his life this all looks nothing more than amusing.

The irony for me rises from the fact that some philosopher consider themselves being "better" than PoMos while their work is maybe better written but as poorly thought.

Also, the term "modernism" has no meaning in philosophy. There's no "modernist" school in philosophy. It might have meaning in architecture and painting and writing and all that, but its meaningless in philosophy.

That is true.
When I try to explain the term "postmodernism", I try to explain it as umbrella term in all fields rather than just in philosophy and that's why I can use the term "modernism" also.

 

[Fifty]

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.

Dawkins' essay wasn't supposed to be a substantive critique of pomoism, it's supposed to be a review of the Sokal book, and I think it accomplishes its aim.

http://fleetwood.baylor.edu/certain_doubts/?p=453 contains a good, more substantive dismantelment of PoMo ignorance of science and philosophy.

 

[DNK]

Fifty, apparently I missed that The OP seemed to imply it was otherwise, and I apparently didn't bother to check what exactly it was. I suppose for a review it's alright then, although using it as an argument for Dawkins' ability or against post-modernism is, well, what I've already said.

Well then this has been a good waste of time Suppose I'll get a haircut now.

Anyway, I'll take a look at your article when I have the time. Thanks for the link.