What is Post-Modernism?

[Narz]

Incorrect! Complex livers mostly place trash in sanitary landfills or incinerators not giganzo unkempt and uncovered piles.

Sanitary landfills. That's rich.

10 points for Perfection for oxymoron of the year.

 

[Fifty]

Here's a link to an excellent review by Dawkins in which he uses his characteristic writing skillz to totally dismantle silly postmodern pseudophilosophy

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html

I think it's officially fair to say that postmodernism is the Intelligent Design of philosophy. Completely laughed at by every serious scholar, yet held as the dear truth by impressionable kids who know nothing about that which they speak of, yet desperately want to feel edgy and intellectual.

It also links to a paper written by an NYU physicist in which he made a paper that was literally a meaningless joke, submitted it to a pomo journal, and got it peer-reviewed by idiot postmodernists and published!

EDIT: Here, I'll link to it myself:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

Isn't postmodern "scholarship" wonderful!?

 

[Perfection]

Sanitary landfills. That's rich.

10 points for Perfection for oxymoron of the year.

Not an oxymoron, my friend! Landfills these days are clean and low impact. They use very nice liners and cover the trash with dirt to prevent scavangers and control smell. After it has reached capacity it can be safely sealed and turned into a park.

 

[C~G]

Look Fifty, it's clear our seriousness towards philosophy as discipline are from different universums. You have already said in other thread that it is the job of professional philosopher's while I laugh to that notion. But what could I expect from someone that actually studies philosophy as major. EDIT: Or do you???

In general postmodernism (not philosophy only) rests in the shoulders of giant which is modernism.
Postmodernism can be linked rising from many theories and movements including example feminism. I would point out that the roots are quite long back in modernism but the actual rise of postmodernsim started from the 60's as hegemony of US was disputed by the vietnam war. However during that time postmodernism was still countermovement towards modernism while in current time we could see that it has started to create it's own content. We could say that rise of subcultures to the popular mainstream is exclusively postmodern phenomena. The rise of wealth in western countries and that the information is available to everyone (and not only academics!) has made postmodernism able to exist. While the expertize in different fields have become more complicated it has become crucial to find something that closes the gap between "low" and "high" culture. Answer to this problem is postmodernism. However at some point we might need to start using some other term as "postmodernism" which might happen example after some serious wordly event. "Grand narrative" you see.

I can't say without someone giving me a clear definition (including a defining characteristic) of postmodernism.

You still haven't given a halfway decent definition of postmodernism.

So you need someone to give definition of postmodernism which you cannot yourself give and you ask me, which I give but I guess I just don't have enough academics laying it down for me in order to convince you. Of course it's kind of hard to hear it from the academics since many of them just frown upon it based into some work of people who say they are postmodernists.
It's like me destroying every other school in philosophy based into some of the thoughts of intellectuals that say they belong to that school.
And you could do that since so much crap gets produced in academic world every single year.

Today's philosophy is methodologically similar to all philosophy, to be sure, but if you tihnk that the prevailing movements in current philosophy are anything "antique" then well I suggest actually READING some current philosophy. Again, your insinuation that the critique of philosophical methods has definable link with postmodernism is just ridiculous.

In fact it is just the opposite, I think I stop reading current philosophy and I might actually find some answers. Postmodernism at work you see.

Do you have any evidence of that? Specifically, serious work by real scholars that makes a plausible link between the complete lack of postmodern influence in philosophy and some sort of "distaste for french social theories."

Well if you read it closely you can see there was irony but if you look how generally the distaste is directed upon french authors even though the same authors have given quite a lot to other fields.
Or maybe this is issue of US academics. Someone maybe should look into this issue.

It's easy to say postmodernism is everywhere when postmodernism itself is just an amalgram of vague characteristics easy to assign to practically anything. This is why it is so popular to coffee-shop philosophers: they don't have to think much to understand it or sound like they know what they are talking about

That doesn't make any sense.

You sound like saying that since postmodernism is so vague term, then those who say they are postmodern don't know or understand anything based into that postmodern can be linked practically to anything.

What I say it's the whole idea of postmodern thought?
That our life and understanding has become in the fast information era so fragile that we finally understand how our brain works and it's not one big truck but serious of tubes. (couldn't resist the joke) It's using of various ideas from different disciplnes and schools of philosophy in order to create truth for yourself since there's no absolute truth.

Then again some postmodernists are genuinely nothing but attention seekers and half-baked sceptists, I would use the term exhibitionists which fits the theme.

Did you just say that Wittgenstein is postmodern?

Read it again:

I consider Wittgenstein being the first one that had truly postmodern thoughts, even though he was modern still.

I consider Wittgenstein being one of the fathers of postmodern thought.

I'm now officially convinced that you have no knowledge whatsoever of any scholarship on Wittgenstein (a sad thing considering he is your favorite philosopher apparently), perhaps aside from some "popularizing-philosophy" books written by non-scholars for highschool students.

Well, thank you and I'm officially convinced that you don't know what postmodernism as general term means aside from the label that is given by the wine-taster academics.
For your information sometimes I have even talked about this with philosophers with real scholarship in real world.
Does this make me judge about the issue? No.
So let's try to define together what postmodernism is.

PS: I wonder what might be a better source for information on the views of Richard Rorty? Wikipedia, an article about him by some guy who doesn't even have a readily available CV, or RORTY HIMSELF!?

Good God! Someone doesn't have readily available CV. Shock! The horror, the horror.
But let's do that what you suggested:

Gnosis: There are times where you generally refer your thought as
"Postmodern" in nature. At other times, there is the sense, that you
reject that sort of characterization; suggesting even further that the
term "post-modern" has, through overuse, perhaps, become some
sort of buzzword. I was hoping you would be willing to explain,
broadly of course, just what you take the "Postmodern" to be and
whether or not you think your books and essays are rightfully
placed in that tradition?
Richard Rorty: I think "postmodern" has indeed become a
buzzword, and that it would be better if we stopped using it. On the
other hand, my views are, indeed, examples of what people have in
mind when they use this buzzword. It's like being called a
"relativist". Neither "relativism" nor "postmodernism" have any
clear meaning, but the use of these vague pejoratives does serve to
point in the direction of the account of truth and knowledge that
philosophers like myself offer.

So in the end I personally also would like use the term "postmodern thought" rather than "postmodernism" since the latter automatically links to certain practices which cannot be described to be anything but "popmodernism".

Skepticism and relativism in postmodern thought is much more deeper but at the same time it tries to find authority that fits the practice of human existence the best in each time period and enviroment. It's the understanding of this process which is based into modern thought that sets aside from just being "scepticism" or "relativism".

I think it's officially fair to say that postmodernism is the Intelligent Design of philosophy. Completely laughed at by every serious scholar, yet held as the dear truth by impressionable kids who know nothing about that which they speak of, yet desperately want to feel edgy and intellectual.

Laughed at by every serious scholar?

What if I say that postmodernism is anti-intellectualism and anti-authority towards the old class who take them bit too seriously like they would know the secret of the universe? It is criticism of the seriousness of discipline that is waving through neck-deep in crap produced in the past. The modern philosophy is preconditioned by the previous condition while postmodern thought tries to make the point how this reality of ours is socially constructed and how it might affect philosophy.

No wonder if you miss the thought how postmodern thought affects philosophy if you don't understand how our current postmodern world affects you in the first place.

And you should really really read CartesianFart message, he puts it quite nicely with "therapeutic technicians". Some people might need that therapy and get out off from that high horse of theirs.

I haven't seen you produce even one original thought about postmodernism Fifty, all you do is be a copycat or familiar of the so-called academics who lay the truth for yourself in "cook in five minutes in brainwaves and it's ready" while you have distate for "coffee-shop" philosophers who do the same thing.

EDIT: Now that I think of this more (and read wiki about postmodern philosophy first time), are you saying that postmodernism is solely post-structuralism?
I define postmodern philosophy being philosophy rising from postmodernity in postmodern world where all information is mixed leading eventually into constant culture shock which modern thought and philosophy can never find answer to since they are based into work of authoritative tradition when the evolving culture was much slower and traditional values were respected.

 

[Scuffer]

Why I have terrible feeling that something just touched the sweet spot of someone that happens to like academic authority.

Since that what "postmodern" is. The ultimate demise of all authority.

Except the authority of the post-modernist. Denial of post-modernism gets you howls of derision and rage. It has created its own intellectual hegemony. For a movement that revels in irony, post-modernism is selectively deaf to that accusation.

 

[C~G]

Except the authority of the post-modernist. Denial of post-modernism gets you howls of derision and rage. It has created its own intellectual hegemony. For a movement that revels in irony, post-modernism is selectively deaf to that accusation.

I think if you are referring that it has raised it's own "intellectual elite", I agree. However such people aren't postmodernists anymore but have joined the traditional league of gentlemen who consider their own authority based into their disciplines or their classes being superior to someone else's. Another reason for this rage are people who don't seem to acknowledge in what kind of time period were living and how it has affected our life's and science.
It's not surprise if criticism towards traditions leads to total denial of the effect of that criticism. It's the easiest way to runaway from the criticism.

Postmodernism is just as said by Lyotard rebellious streak in modernism, a dynamo that keeps modernism wheels turning. And it should be encountered as such rather than swept under the rug. Especially since I don't believe it has reached it peak yet. Eventually we have to find something more constructive, but god forbid it's something new based into something else than the reverend almost mythological character's of modern philosophy.

Example for me the postmodern thought is just a tool just like any other theory that you can use highlight problems especially the nature of our knowledge in society and in science. I feel disgusted when someone doesn't take something seriously not because the arguments are bad but because they believe only the academics especially people who may have understanding of knowledge of any other field in science than their own. Which makes one wonder what is the difference between postmodernists and them?
Nothing, except the name and the title.

 

[Scuffer]

Running from criticism isn't solely the perogative of tradition though. I imagine someone has quoted Sokal's spoof paper in this thread by now - Derrida's response was to label the implict criticism as 'pas serieux', a unsubtle sprint from actually addressing the criticism.
Post modernist methods are predominant in most arts facilities in American and British universities (or so I am lead to understand), so a tradition is being created.

As a rebellious streak, it is has run the course of most rebels - it's a former 60s hippie radical, now settled down with greying hair, a bit of a paunch and watching the performance of its retirement portfolio. It's now the orthodoxy. Science is pushed to the outside, people prefer to disbelieve its harsh evidence for more fluffy and comforting.

Of course, science and modern philosophy should be more aware of the falibilty, but so should postmodernists. I remember a chat we had before about this subject, and I'm sure the empathsis was that I needed to deconstruct my beliefs before rebuilding them and seeing the light (big apologies if that's incorrect). I disregard anything that requires my wholehearted loyalty.

 

[C~G]

Running from criticism isn't solely the perogative of tradition though. I imagine someone has quoted Sokal's spoof paper in this thread by now - Derrida's response was to label the implict criticism as 'pas serieux', a unsubtle sprint from actually addressing the criticism.
Post modernist methods are predominant in most arts facilities in American and British universities (or so I am lead to understand), so a tradition is being created.

Tradition is being created indeed and that tradition will blend in so we can call it being "modern" after all. And Derrida was one that maybe tried too much than ever could chew but that doesn't mean he isn't important figure.

I would describe postmodernism with "Parable of the Prodigal Son". This quote fits postmodernists IMO very well:

We can plainly see why nature is prodigal in variety, though niggard in innovation.
- Charles Darwin

It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

In my opinion the goal of postmodernism ultimately is to chase "the original thought and experience" and be glad since we have found it again.

As a rebellious streak, it is has run the course of most rebels - it's a former 60s hippie radical, now settled down with greying hair, a bit of a paunch and watching the performance of its retirement portfolio. It's now the orthodoxy. Science is pushed to the outside, people prefer to disbelieve its harsh evidence for more fluffy and comforting.

Absolutely.

Postmodernism as rebellion towards modernism has basically run it's course in some circles but it seems in some cases it might have failed or then again that is all that is needed. I would stress that we need more postmodernism that also criticizes itself so we can get away from the numbness and comforting (some might say pseudoscience) towards something else. Something new must be synthesis of modernism and postmodernism rather than disregard either of them. Of course we can continue use the term "modernism" and find new meaning for it rather than use some kind of term like "post-post modernism". But I think postmodernism in culture hasn't run it's course yet but rather waits the emergence of something completely different before facing the sunset.

Of course, science and modern philosophy should be more aware of the falibilty, but so should postmodernists. I remember a chat we had before about this subject, and I'm sure the empathsis was that I needed to deconstruct my beliefs before rebuilding them and seeing the light (big apologies if that's incorrect). I disregard anything that requires my wholehearted loyalty.

No need to, I consider you be postmodernist already.

At that time I just wanted to explain what postmodernism is and why it is so important. Maybe some people have missed how much the world has changed.

IMO the whole idea is to be critical in thought that passes beyond the norm of scepticism created earlier in modern time towards nihilism but never actually reaching that point. I believe nihilism is little bit like absolute zero temperature. It's impossiblity, since it's denial of one's own existence.

In popular culture there have been signs that postmodernism has become ultimately mainstream and passed all the rites that phenomena goes through during it's time. Example in cinema there have been already examples that postmodernism has created need for something different, what it is, I have no idea.

EDIT: Added lovable the prodigal son element.

 

[Till]

Here's a link to an excellent review by Dawkins in which he uses his characteristic writing skillz to totally dismantle silly postmodern pseudophilosophy

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html

I think it's officially fair to say that postmodernism is the Intelligent Design of philosophy. Completely laughed at by every serious scholar, yet held as the dear truth by impressionable kids who know nothing about that which they speak of, yet desperately want to feel edgy and intellectual.

It also links to a paper written by an NYU physicist in which he made a paper that was literally a meaningless joke, submitted it to a pomo journal, and got it peer-reviewed by idiot postmodernists and published!

EDIT: Here, I'll link to it myself:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

Isn't postmodern "scholarship" wonderful!?

Thanks for the link! That was an awesome read. The examples reminded me of some of the profs, i was unfortunate enough to attent lectures of.

 

[Fifty]

Look Fifty, it's clear our seriousness towards philosophy as discipline are from different universums. You have already said in other thread that it is the job of professional philosopher's while I laugh to that notion. But what could I expect from someone that actually studies philosophy as major. EDIT: Or do you???

You're absolutely right. I prefer my philosophy from philosophers just as I prefer my medicine from doctors, my legal counsel from lawyers, and my physics from physicists.

In general postmodernism (not philosophy only) rests in the shoulders of giant which is modernism.
Postmodernism can be linked rising from many theories and movements including example feminism.

A lot of feminism is crap too. See the dawkins link for examples such as the feminist theory that Newton's Principia is a "rape manual", that E=mc^2 is a sexist equation, and that "rigid" physics gets primacy in universities over fluid dynamics because "fluid" is more feminine than rigidity. I'm glad that you link postmodernism with feminism, though, it helps to reaffirm its crapulence.

I would point out that the roots are quite long back in modernism but the actual rise of postmodernsim started from the 60's as hegemony of US was disputed by the vietnam war. However during that time postmodernism was still countermovement towards modernism while in current time we could see that it has started to create it's own content. We could say that rise of subcultures to the popular mainstream is exclusively postmodern phenomena. The rise of wealth in western countries and that the information is available to everyone (and not only academics!) has made postmodernism able to exist. While the expertize in different fields have become more complicated it has become crucial to find something that closes the gap between "low" and "high" culture. Answer to this problem is postmodernism. However at some point we might need to start using some other term as "postmodernism" which might happen example after some serious wordly event. "Grand narrative" you see.

Again I'll ask for a clear definition of postmodernism, including defining characteristics that make it truly a new way of thinking and not just a bunch of poop masquerading as deep thought for the gullible and uninformed.

So you need someone to give definition of postmodernism which you cannot yourself give and you ask me, which I give but I guess I just don't have enough academics laying it down for me in order to convince you.

I can't give you a definition of postmodernism because there isn't one. See the Rorty piece you quoted (which does little to amplify your point, more on that later). Its the lack of definition that makes post-modernism so easy to pass off as philosophy and original thought among non-experts. It's postmodernism's lack of a definition that makes post-modern work so easy to fake (like the sokal piece and the pomo generator). All you do is jumble together fashionable words in a completely contentless but grammatically correct sentence and it will pass for postmodernism. Again, read the links I posted.

Of course it's kind of hard to hear it from the academics since many of them just frown upon it based into some work of people who say they are postmodernists.

Did you ever consider, perhaps, that the most qualified people to speak on a subject might be worth listening to?

It's like me destroying every other school in philosophy based into some of the thoughts of intellectuals that say they belong to that school.

No it isn't. You are a single amateur, they are the vast majority of experts.

And you could do that since so much crap gets produced in academic world every single year.

How are you qualified to judge the quality of scholarship, and how much of it do you even read? Not much judging by your continued gross misconceptions of what current scholarship in philosophy focuses on.

In fact it is just the opposite, I think I stop reading current philosophy and I might actually find some answers. Postmodernism at work you see.

This is strikingly reminiscent of the IDers who claim that Darwinism is a vast conspiracy of academia. I thank you for the illustration.

Well if you read it closely you can see there was irony but if you look how generally the distaste is directed upon french authors even though the same authors have given quite a lot to other fields.

Well, if by french authors you mean people like those quoted in the Dawkins essay, well they are disliked for good reason. If you mean people like Derrida, he is disliked for a reason. Again, I question your qualifications in making these statements about a subject of which you know nothing. Again I'll make the analogy to ID, where many IDers consider the completely dismissive stance that real scientists take towards ID to be a symptom of "darwinist bias" rather than a substantive criticism. These people, obviously to anybody with qualifications, are completely wrong.

Or maybe this is issue of US academics. Someone maybe should look into this issue.

No, the vast anti-pomo conspiracy would have to reach the UK, Australia, and Canada too, as the entire world of anglophone philosophy is entirely uninterested in postmodernism.

You sound like saying that since postmodernism is so vague term, then those who say they are postmodern don't know or understand anything based into that postmodern can be linked practically to anything.

When I say they dont know or understand anything, I say that their work is by and large incoherent, contentless drivel. When I say that it can be linked to anything, I refer to how PoMos and coffee-shop philosophers love to baselessly and fruitlessly link postmodernism with the work of serious scholars (such as Wittgenstein). The vague definition of postmodernism as general skepticism about truth, meaning, knowledge, etc. is terrible as it is in no way defining.

It's using of various ideas from different disciplnes and schools of philosophy in order to create truth for yourself since there's no absolute truth.

I guess this definition would explain why postmodernism is generally just a mishmash of cross-discipline terminology with no content whatsoever. If that's what you would call postmodernism, then I support your definition, as anybody who hasn't had a lobotomy would realize how worthless postmodernist work is in light of that definition. It does make for easy "scholarship" though. You should read my paper on "the histrionic heuristics of neo-capitalist quantum contextualism", or come to my lecture down at the local edgy-intellectual coffee shop on "Subdialectic libertarianism and Debordist image".

I consider Wittgenstein being one of the fathers of postmodern thought.

Then you know nothing about him. I suggest you read some of the scholarship on him instead of just randomly enterpreting his work to fit whatever silly theory tickles your fancy.

Well, thank you and I'm officially convinced that you don't know what postmodernism as general term means aside from the label that is given by the wine-taster academics.

Well since no acutal postmodernists are keen to give a good definition of their little "movement", I will just resort to what actual qualified people have to say. If you think it's alll a giant academic conspiracy, well that's fine, but dont expect anybody who doesn't frequent your coffee shop to take you seriously.

For your information sometimes I have even talked about this with philosophers with real scholarship in real world.

Yeah, Derrida came to me in a dream last night and told me he is a fraud. Lets stick to evidence we can substantiate, mmmkay?

So let's try to define together what postmodernism is.

Well I have no idea of what a good definition of postmodernism is. I don't think there is one. Why don't you just SAY A DEFINITION and stop beating around the bush. Here, use this handy dandy fill in the blank:

Postmodernism is defined as ___________

Good God! Someone doesn't have readily available CV. Shock! The horror, the horror.

Excuse me if I believe that Richard Rorty is a better commentator on Richard Rorty than someone I have never heard of, and whos qualifications are not available.

But let's do that what you suggested:

So in the end I personally also would like use the term "postmodern thought" rather than "postmodernism" since the latter automatically links to certain practices which cannot be described to be anything but "popmodernism".

Rorty is not advocating calling his ideas "postmodern thought". Indeed, if you had read the much more substantial essay on the topic by Rorty that I linked to you, you would notice that he describes himself as a Quietist. He also goes on to describe how he DOES think that the problems he works on are very "real". Furthermore, Rorty largely agrees with Leiter's assessment on the current status of philosophy. Finally, in the interview you quoted Rorty corraborates much of what I've already said on postmodernism. What Rorty is saying is that what is generally given the label of "postmodernist" is somewhat congruent with his viewpoints, but it is still vague and misleading, and he is much more aptly chracterized as a quietist (this goes back to my point of how you can easily enterpret serious work as postmodernist simply by virtue of the lack of a good definition of postmodernism)

Skepticism and relativism in postmodern thought is much more deeper but at the same time it tries to find authority that fits the practice of human existence the best in each time period and enviroment. It's the understanding of this process which is based into modern thought that sets aside from just being "scepticism" or "relativism".

What you've just described is, in large part, Quietism. Again, I ask for a good and "defining" definition of post-modernism. This also jibes with your earlier characterization of postmodernism as finding "truth for yourself".

Laughed at by every serious scholar?

Yes, very good. The laugh smilie corresponds with laughing.

What if I say that postmodernism is anti-intellectualism and anti-authority towards the old class who take them bit too seriously like they would know the secret of the universe? It is criticism of the seriousness of discipline that is waving through neck-deep in crap produced in the past. The modern philosophy is preconditioned by the previous condition while postmodern thought tries to make the point how this reality of ours is socially constructed and how it might affect philosophy.

If you think anybody in post-Wittgenstein, post-Quine philosophy believes they are unlocking absolute abstract truth, you again have betrayed your complete ignorance of the field of philosophy. Doubly so if you think that current philosophers (both quietists and naturalists) dont engage in huge amounts of self criticism.

No wonder if you miss the thought how postmodern thought affects philosophy if you don't understand how our current postmodern world affects you in the first place.

Its hard to understand how something affects me when you have not given anything like a good definition of it.

And you should really really read CartesianFart message, he puts it quite nicely with "therapeutic technicians". Some people might need that therapy and get out off from that high horse of theirs.

The idea of philosophy as a kind of "therapy" is a naturalist conception of the goal of Wittgensteinian quietists. Rorty disagrees with it, as in the link I posted, but it in no sense is characteristic of postmodernism.

I haven't seen you produce even one original thought about postmodernism Fifty, all you do is be a copycat or familiar of the so-called academics who lay the truth for yourself in "cook in five minutes in brainwaves and it's ready" while you have distate for "coffee-shop" philosophers who do the same thing.

1. Its hard to think originally about something that I haven't been given a definition of

2. If it is a characteristic of postmodernism that its practitioners find such things as reading the relevant scholarship on an issue, considering the opinions of qualified experts, and trusting expert opinion more readily than amateur opinion silly, then it goes a long way towards explaining why post-modernism "scholarship" is of such poor quality that it can be accurately immitated by joking physics professors and computerized random essay generators.

EDIT: Now that I think of this more (and read wiki about postmodern philosophy first time), are you saying that postmodernism is solely post-structuralism?

No, I'm saying that postmodernism has no real definition, and the sorts of things that non-philosophers continually attribute to postmodernism are not postmodern thoughts at all (often they are Quietist)

I define postmodern philosophy being philosophy rising from postmodernity in postmodern world where all information is mixed leading eventually into constant culture shock which modern thought and philosophy can never find answer to since they are based into work of authoritative tradition when the evolving culture was much slower and traditional values were respected.

That's the worst definition I've ever heard! What's your definition of chemistry: "the study of chemicals in a world full of chemistry"?

 

[skadistic]

Not an oxymoron, my friend! Landfills these days are clean and low impact. They use very nice liners and cover the trash with dirt to prevent scavangers and control smell. After it has reached capacity it can be safely sealed and turned into a park.

They also recoup and sell the methane gas.

 

[Perfection]

They also recoup and sell the methane gas.

Or they'll burn it on site and generate electricity!

 

[Scuffer]

And Derrida was one that maybe tried too much than ever could chew but that doesn't mean he isn't important figure.

I wouldn't want to deride Derrida (apart from anything else, I find it ludicrously hard to work out he's on about, so it would be false to do so). I highlight his comment because it illustrates that any important figure finds it very hard to find perspective on which s/he comments (so maybe there is a little PM in me!). Innovation inevitably loses momentum through the growing conservativism of the movement that created it, and the Darwin quote is very apt. Where next post-modernism? Circles in the sand at the moment. Anyway, we have some sort of agreement there.

But at

In my opinion the goal of postmodernism ultimately is to chase "the original thought and experience" and be glad since we have found it again.

we don't. Again
I'm not sure why. Partly because it's as sweet and innocent and ultimately empty as a politician's pre-election promise. There's no way of saying how it will be achieved, or even tell when it has. It certainly seems at odds with some of the intrusions of some post modernist thinkers into the realms of high level science who seem more intent on intellectual land-grab than pursuit of originality.

It's probably unfair to tar all with the same brush however.

 

[C~G]

and the Darwin quote is very apt.

Should have posted only that quotation and everyone might had accepted it.

Anyway, we have some sort of agreement there.

I believe it so too.

I'm not sure why. Partly because it's as sweet and innocent and ultimately empty as a politician's pre-election promise. There's no way of saying how it will be achieved, or even tell when it has. It certainly seems at odds with some of the intrusions of some post modernist thinkers into the realms of high level science who seem more intent on intellectual land-grab than pursuit of originality.

I believe it is the goal of postmodernism but I believe it won't achieve it since it falls to nihilism. IMO post-modernism is just vessel move the modern thought onward so it won't get stuck in the past. There are new challenges to be met since the generation that are born now live in the era where fast information exchange, communications and use of computers shape their lives. I believe some people don't understand the change that is going on.

We might find answer from global culture when we get enough influence from non-western thought, which isn't so tightly knitted to the modern culture and it's narratives in the western world. Another option are the subcultures that are emerging as parts of the mainstream. It's so extremely funny that some people frown upon certain postmodern thoughts when these theories might have influenced or at least predicted the change in culture towards more liberal society where exists such things as "metrosexuals". Of course postmodernism doesn't affect anything, it is simply fraud.

It's probably unfair to tar all with the same brush however.

It might be the case, yes.
But as long as you don't promote thought that someone might think you as "postmodernist" I guess it will be fine.

Fifty, your logic is totally falling down as you are asking definition from me which I have given (based into the postmodern culture from where logically happens to follow such thing as postmodern philosophy), which you don't accept even pointing to me such thing that since I don't have enough credentials (which you know nothing about even) compared your "authoritative sources" I have no right to say anything or define it . But you have still the "guts" to define it by yourself as "coffee shop philosophy" based mainly into "expert thoughts" by the same people who hate it. After all you then claim I haven't given reasonable definition to fit your standards.

That is almost...postmodern.
Asking a definition that doesn't really exactly exist in terms of true or false so it cannot be really falsified so we need some authoritative figure to tell what we do. But since the experts claim something cannot really be "unknown" as it would automatically lead themselves to the state of "doesn't compute" and immedient self-destruction I guess we have to start saying that asking such definition is silly, in fact let's claim the whole existence of possibility of asking the question is silly. Now, that's better. Good dog, now roll, and play dead. Good boy.

BTW, personally I consider such defintions as Quietism and Naturalism being as vague and in the end as stupid as postmodernism, only difference for some people are that they are linked with once prominent but now old geezers full of thoughts about seriousness of philosophy. In academic circles it has really become religion with it's own sects that envy, criticize and even despise each other especially those that dare to challenge the holy scriptures. I guess fundamental mistake of postmodernists was to play devil's advocate and take the role of Martin Luther.

I personally believe it is fatal mistake in several fields of science not to understand the postmodern criticism. There are many fields that are heavily linked with society and it's social reality so it's simply true the results of these fields depend from the influence of society. Example some feminist theories do have "serious" point to make too. But let's the testosterone in our system make our minds about them so we don't end up being too gay like those frenchies. If you don't find anything positive about postmodernism it's your problem, not mine. After all you are responsible for your own philosophy and nobody else.

In case you didn't get it, I laughed at the Sokal incident probably harder than you did years ago. There was even finnish page about it right after the publication of the book. I don't specially favor postmodernism but neither I do favour many other things. I am personally stunned that people like Dawkins (which I otherwise consider very reasonable) frown upon postmodernism. IMO it isn't anything but intellectual elitism. You don't get much credit points from me in such cases.

But let's stop right here and maybe you should call "Jerry" and ask the definition. Maybe you believe him more than me. Just don't end up doing anything rebelliously crazy. It might be too postmodern for your own taste and you might not live to see another day.

 

[Scuffer]

But as long as you don't promote thought that someone might think you as "postmodernist" I guess it will be fine.

Heh, it doesn't make any odds to me either way. I don't believe I am a post-modernist, but I do like to believe I am not so blinkered as to instinctely deny everything. For example, I do think that I have learned more through a polite discussion of views than an all-out slamming of them.

 

[Fifty]

Fifty, your logic is totally falling down as you are asking definition from me which I have given (based into the postmodern culture from where logically happens to follow such thing as postmodern philosophy), which you don't accept even pointing to me such thing that since I don't have enough credentials (which you know nothing about even) compared your "authoritative sources" I have no right to say anything or define it .

1. I asked you for a definition of post-modernism, not its historical context

2. It is idiotic to define something in terms of itself

3. My belief that appeals to authority are generally a good thing is mainly in the case of JUDGEMENTS on philosophical issues. So I dont think a non-expert can't, for instance, define naturalism, but I do think it is dubious for a non-expert to make a judgement as to the legitimacy of (for instance) natualism without at least some form of sourcing. It does of course, lend a good deal of credit to a definition to have it accepted among experts, but it is not a strict requirement, especially in the case of a well-accepted definition.

I do not understand why it makes you so cranky that I would have the audacity to think that philosophers just MIGHT be the best people to talk to on philosophical issues, but it is very very peculiar.

But you have still the "guts" to define it by yourself as "coffee shop philosophy" based mainly into "expert thoughts" by the same people who hate it. After all you then claim I haven't given reasonable definition to fit your standards.

I do not define it as "coffee-shop philosophy", I characterize it as "coffee-shop philosophy" to highlight the fact that few people in the mainstream of philosophy take it seriously, and it is largely the object of the obsession of the people who fit Mr. Dictator's excellent description on the first page.

Furthermore, it should be obvious to anybody (though not you for some reason) that when one attempts to formulate a definition based on quotes and links from experts, they are not "defining it themselves" in the sense in which I use the term.

That is almost...postmodern.
Asking a definition that doesn't really exactly exist in terms of true or false so it cannot be really falsified so we need some authoritative figure to tell what we do.

I never asked for a truth-functional definition. You, yet again, are mistaken. I am asking for a good definition that doesn't reference itself within itself, and that includes a definiing characteristic. If postmodernism doesn't have one, then that is reason enough to throw it out the window before even making further considerations!

But since the experts claim something cannot really be "unknown" as it would automatically lead themselves to the state of "doesn't compute" and immedient self-destruction I guess we have to start saying that asking such definition is silly, in fact let's claim the whole existence of possibility of asking the question is silly. Now, that's better. Good dog, now roll, and play dead. Good boy.

Again, if you think that philosophy hasn't dealt with these questions of truth and skepticism EXTENSIVELY (not only recently but as far back as the Greeks) you again betray a complete lack of any knowledge of philosophy (even by amateur standards).

BTW, personally I consider such defintions as Quietism and Naturalism being as vague and in the end as stupid as postmodernism, only difference for some people are that they are linked with once prominent but now old geezers full of thoughts about seriousness of philosophy.

What about them do you find vague? Additionally, the people they are originally linked to are dead FYI (Quine and Wittgenstein). I find it funny now how all over the place you are becoming. Didn't you say you liked Wittgeinstein? And why are you now calling post-modernism stupid? You are becoming increasingly unhinged. Perhaps you should take a break from this thread.

In academic circles it has really become religion with it's own sects that envy, criticize and even despise each other especially those that dare to challenge the holy scriptures.

Evidence? I have found the debate to be very civil and interesting. For example, Brian Leiter (a hardcore naturalist) regularly links to Rorty (a pure quietist) and offers positive comments. Or are you fabricating stories about something you know nothing about in order to try and make a point? that would be sad!

I guess fundamental mistake of postmodernists was to play devil's advocate and take the role of Martin Luther.

I'd say the mistake was to make a vague defintion-less movement based largely on contentless drivel and try to trick people into accepting it by using big words. The use of inane amounts of technical jargon, by the way, is an interesting aspect of postmodernism considering its apparent stance as "anti-intellectual".

Example some feminist theories do have "serious" point to make too.

I never said they didn't, but I did say that feminism is in large part silly. And I cited examples. I just think a lot of feminist social critique went way way way out into left field (see my examples).

But let's the testosterone in our system make our minds about them so we don't end up being too gay like those frenchies.

Again, you seem to resorting more and more to completely nonsensical ranting. Take a breather. Relax.

If you don't find anything positive about postmodernism it's your problem, not mine.

I never said it was "your problem" (whatever the crap that is supposed to mean!). The OP wanted to know about postmodernism. I am doing my best to inform people about what the experts in the field think about it, and why. Stop taking it so personally. Isn't part of your edgy-intellectual image to be really open minded? If it is, you're not doing a good job.

In case you didn't get it, I laughed at the Sokal incident probably harder than you did years ago.

ok...

There was even finnish page about it right after the publication of the book.

What does that have to do with how hard you laughed at it?

I don't specially favor postmodernism but neither I do favour many other things.

Your posts in this thread seem to disagree, but that's fine. I'm not telling you what to think, I'm just informing people here who want to make a reasoned opinion of their own on the issue based on the best available evidence.

I am personally stunned that people like Dawkins (which I otherwise consider very reasonable) frown upon postmodernism. IMO it isn't anything but intellectual elitism. You don't get much credit points from me in such cases.

I doubt Dawkins cares about how many points you give him, but in any case if you are going to dismiss any sort of criticism of anything as being "intellectual elitism" then nobody is going to take you seriously (or consider you to have that open mind you seem so content on having). Philosophers dismiss Postmodernism for the same reason that geologists reject flat-earthism or evolutionary biologists reject IDism.

But let's stop right here and maybe you should call "Jerry" and ask the definition. Maybe you believe him more than me. Just don't end up doing anything rebelliously crazy. It might be too postmodern for your own taste and you might not live to see another day.

At this point I'll just point out to everyone that you have managed to evade giving me a definition once again! Bravo!

 

[punkbass2000]

Post-modernism is the theory that there are no true theories. It's probably true.

 

[C~G]

punkbass very good.

1. I asked you for a definition of post-modernism, not its historical context.

So you are now even giving rules to how it should be defined.

2. It is idiotic to define something in terms of itself

Oh it isn't, if it is self-evident what it is.

3. My belief that appeals to authority are generally a good thing is mainly in the case of JUDGEMENTS on philosophical issues. So I dont think a non-expert can't, for instance, define naturalism, but I do think it is dubious for a non-expert to make a judgement as to the legitimacy of (for instance) natualism without at least some form of sourcing. It does of course, lend a good deal of credit to a definition to have it accepted among experts, but it is not a strict requirement, especially in the case of a well-accepted definition.

Well, if you don't like the definition I have given in this thread, read example this
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
IMO postmodernism is umbrella term consisting various theories but the approach is denial of absolute truth in certain fields.

I do not understand why it makes you so cranky that I would have the audacity to think that philosophers just MIGHT be the best people to talk to on philosophical issues, but it is very very peculiar.

It is to extent, if you consider that nobody else can talk about them.
That is called Academic elitism. (There's even wikipedia article about it, if you don't understand what I mean)
I laugh to such things. In some fields the study is indeed so complex that average Joe might have problems understanding it, but when it comes to philosophy doing that same is like saying that clergy knows all about God and ordinary people don't have access to his kingdom. It's BS. You are in your way building that ivory tower for yourself lending building material from the other philosopher's who faithfully seem to help you out. But someday you maybe learn it, maybe. (should maybe add "hopefully" but I don't hope anything so...)

I can only say that from this point on there's no point discussing with you about any philosophical issues on the board since you take them so seriously and "professionally" that we others cannot possibly be ever in the same level as you.

I do not define it as "coffee-shop philosophy", I characterize it as "coffee-shop philosophy" to highlight the fact that few people in the mainstream of philosophy take it seriously, and it is largely the object of the obsession of the people who fit Mr. Dictator's excellent description on the first page.

Well I guess we have to then be in the "mainstream" of the philosophy since it's the safest place to be. Let's follow the herd, shall we.
So I charactize Quietism of being silent when you have no ideas and naturalism of being animals who don't know what philosophy is.
But it's OK, I don't define them this way, I just characterize them like this.

Furthermore, it should be obvious to anybody (though not you for some reason) that when one attempts to formulate a definition based on quotes and links from experts, they are not "defining it themselves" in the sense in which I use the term.

And you don't think it isn't problematic?
That you seem to not able to define anything by yourself but always lean on the experts?
What a fine philosopher (choirboy) you will someday become, others (clergy) will be proud.

I never asked for a truth-functional definition. You, yet again, are mistaken. I am asking for a good definition that doesn't reference itself within itself, and that includes a definiing characteristic. If postmodernism doesn't have one, then that is reason enough to throw it out the window before even making further considerations!

The whole idea of postmodernism as movement is using it as mirror to reflect where we have come.
Of course the mirror is nothing but hoax and scam, but don't you want to look how you see yourself?

Again, if you think that philosophy hasn't dealt with these questions of truth and skepticism EXTENSIVELY (not only recently but as far back as the Greeks) you again betray a complete lack of any knowledge of philosophy (even by amateur standards).

Good. Now keep doing it also currently and don't presume you have found anything yet but still have will to continue.

What about them do you find vague? Additionally, the people they are originally linked to are dead FYI (Quine and Wittgenstein). I find it funny now how all over the place you are becoming. Didn't you say you liked Wittgeinstein? And why are you now calling post-modernism stupid? You are becoming increasingly unhinged. Perhaps you should take a break from this thread.

Thanks for your assessment of my mental health. Have you become expert in the field of psychology as well?
And indeed I'm becoming in this particular case "all over the place" since it's one of the definitions of post-modernism but unlike your heroic players in the filed of philosophy, I can see at least there are problems with postmodernism just like there are problems with naturalism and Quietism. And my point still stands why they are seen different light and you have yourself given the reason. You mock the postmodernism being outside of the mainstream without even able to define it.

Evidence? I have found the debate to be very civil and interesting. For example, Brian Leiter (a hardcore naturalist) regularly links to Rorty (a pure quietist) and offers positive comments. Or are you fabricating stories about something you know nothing about in order to try and make a point? that would be sad!

Of course they lick each others boots, that is self-evident. They don't accept postmodern thought since in large it doesn't.

I'd say the mistake was to make a vague defintion-less movement based largely on contentless drivel and try to trick people into accepting it by using big words. The use of inane amounts of technical jargon, by the way, is an interesting aspect of postmodernism considering its apparent stance as "anti-intellectual".

Now you are lumping all postmodernism in to the same pile. It's side-effect of course is that it created lot of crap, but so happens to be in the other camps as well. And please don't try to approve your point by saying that they are academics and know what they are doing and I have no right to judge their work of art.

I never said they didn't, but I did say that feminism is in large part silly. And I cited examples. I just think a lot of feminist social critique went way way way out into left field (see my examples).

I agree, but if the criticism is such that it's meant to destroy all feminist social critique, then it isn't anything but hardballing and trumpeting about your own kind.

Again, you seem to resorting more and more to completely nonsensical ranting. Take a breather. Relax.

Well, if you have read the criticism towards postmodernism in it's fullness sometimes I have same kind of thoughts about the ranting like you have now.

I never said it was "your problem" (whatever the crap that is supposed to mean!). The OP wanted to know about postmodernism. I am doing my best to inform people about what the experts in the field think about it, and why. Stop taking it so personally. Isn't part of your edgy-intellectual image to be really open minded? If it is, you're not doing a good job.

Who said I'm edgy-intellectual?
Oh, you're trying to label me being postmodernist. And with that move characterize with all those things are said about postmodernists. Nice move.
If I defend someone's rights have their say and explain why they should be taken as seriously as everyone else, it doesn't make me a one of them, or does it?
From my part it was friendly advice that it is definately "your problem" since it's you who are responsible of your own philosophical thoughts. Not the experts.

What does that have to do with how hard you laughed at it?

Nothing, just came to my mind that such page existed and I had visited it. Move along, nothing to see here.

But I guess I was trying to make a point that if you really think that I somehow defend those crappy pseudophilosophy in the same time when I defend postmodernism, you are really delusional.

Your posts in this thread seem to disagree, but that's fine. I'm not telling you what to think, I'm just informing people here who want to make a reasoned opinion of their own on the issue based on the best available evidence.

Best available evidence to who?
To those that mock postmodernism?
Ok, I understand.

But then again I'm not blaming you giving those articles for to read. It's vital they are there all to see so people can do their own judgements. My job is just to offer people see the other side of the story of the lost coin.

I doubt Dawkins cares about how many points you give him, but in any case if you are going to dismiss any sort of criticism of anything as being "intellectual elitism" then nobody is going to take you seriously (or consider you to have that open mind you seem so content on having). Philosophers dismiss Postmodernism for the same reason that geologists reject flat-earthism or evolutionary biologists reject IDism.

And my point is that they don't.
They reject it because they percept it as one easily identifiable lump of things when they still cannot define it (only characterize) in order to escape it's criticism of being those intellectual elitist.
Quite a job from you doing the exact in this thread. I bow to you. You are making fine point why that intellectual elitism is as dangerous as the crap that some who claim to be postmodern have spurned out.

But some people use same kind of stance towards postmodernism as Dawkins use against ID. In other words, don't let them have any air, don't ever argue with them or they might get their leverage so they can actually enter the discussion. Problem in that way of looking of things is that we have evidence about evolution theory so it's reasonable to think that ID wouldn't offer anything but add the idea of supernatural to the equatation. In the field of philosophy there's no evidence about such truths unless you take as evidence the words of the old prophets.

That stance is problematic and of course Dawkins wouldn't care, since he's way above me in the hierarchy.

At this point I'll just point out to everyone that you have managed to evade giving me a definition once again! Bravo!

Well, thank God you have given it to them. We got "pseudophilosophy" and "coffee-shop-philosophy".
Tell you the truth Fifty you are a follower of religion called philosophy. It's outstanding merit not to produce anything else than the same what "experts on the field" happen to spurn out.

But you're right I might need a break, we're getting nowhere and we probably won't. Ever.

 

[Rambuchan]

Post-modernism is the theory that there are no true theories. It's probably true.

punkbass very good.

Agreed. I'm of the view that Postmodern philosophers are at least 'honest' in tacitly acknowledging that they too can be charged with spouting a load of crap. Modernists are the ones with their heads up their bums.

Shame I missed out on the thread's early development. I hope to catch up, but don't fancy my odds owing to time constraints and the amount of reading to be done to do so.

 

[Kyriakos]

This thread has been demonstrating a number of things i always disliked about Philosophy (the object of my degree...). No wonder i turned to art