C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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?
C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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".
C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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?
C~G said:
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 ___________
C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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)
C~G said:
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".
C~G said:
Laughed at by every
serious scholar?
Yes, very good. The laugh smilie corresponds with laughing.
C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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.
C~G said:
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)
C~G said:
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"?
