CartesianFart
Deity
Preface
This thread is an attempt to define what is postmodernism.Now,what can I do since i've failed to give you an answer(i am not mentioning names)?How about a prescriptorial attempt to define postmodernism a brief historical context in order to find something out of it.This way,we can suppose that postmodernism is a subject or a movement irreversibly will continue to emerge(or all readying in the process such as "postmodernity")in the future just as other philosophical schools and other knowledge have in the past.Before I elucidate on how we can take this journey,first lets say that postmodernism is not necessarily philosophy at all in the traditional sense.It is a reformist agenda(such as Humanism,Enlightenment etc.)driven doctrine in attempt to change old ideas in the academic institutions(universities)into something radically new.The disassembly of the institution itself.Old ideas renewed for the purpose to allow students of literature,art,or science of any given academy of association of scholars,writers,artists,etc.,for the advancement of a new knowledge in the 21st century computerised society.The new "Thinkers."
Philosophy have always been considered a No Man's Land as Russell have once said.But in most cases,the activity of philosophy in the past have always been the embodiment of religious theology and later,science.Lets look at one philosopher (example) who,what I think,is the one of the many reformers.A posthumous thinking anarchist who rejects the conventions of the scholastic obscurantism-austerity and the absurdity of the monastic lifestyle and institutions.
Desiderius Erasmus(or known only as Erasmus)was a scholar of the classics and patristics.He is credited tas being the first editor of the Greek version of the New Testament during the time known as the Northern Renaissance.But i will stop here,because I don't want to expand details after details of Erasmus work in regarding his invective satire against ecclasiastical abuses,such as Indulgances,worship of saints,dispute of the Trinity,Incarnation,doctrine of transubstantiation;the scholastic sects;etc.What I want to do is give a brief example of a prefatory essay he wrote to show how a reformist can think-posthumously:I could wish that every woman might read the Gospel and the Epistels of St.Paul.Would that these were translated into each and every language so that they might be read and understood not only by Scots and Irishmen,but also by Turks and Sarecens...Would that the farmer might sing snatches of Scriptures at his plough,that the weaver might hum phrases of Scripture to the tune of his shuttle,that the traveller might listen with stories from Scripture to ease the weariness of his journey.
Not bad for the humanist Dutchman in the 1516 who admirably thought that people don't have to rely on Priest on interpret scriptures for them(Luther,the German reformer,is typically shallow dogmatist who want to exert another dogma over an already decaying one)or theological scholastics taking theological points and pendantically excluding one thesis in favor of another thesis which in fact,can be conclusively equally be plausible.
After the Reformation and then the Counter Reformation,came the rise of Science,which change philosophy for the better but resulting in another bondage of its own.
Before I go to Newton,the birth of modern philosophy,I recommend a book all of you should read,not to take literally a fact but to get an idea of the evolution of science,"The Metaphisical Foundation of Modern Physical Science" by E.A.Burtt.Especially the notes of Galileo written to Kepler on laughing(wishfully)together against the stupidity of "the mob",which were the professors of philosophy,who tried to conjure away Jupiter's moons,using logic-chopping arguments.
Newtonian science have rediculous consequences for philosophers since Descartes during the early and begining of the 20th century(which i find in most philsophers and writers[self-help gurus]are still effected of this day and age),except Hume,which provided a somber recipes for infallible skepticism.Make-believe metaphysical constructors have uncovered a vast body of certainable knowledge about his world(not my world,but the philosopher's imaginary systematic and brainsick fantasies).These systems-builders now have a buddy-system(to escape the whipp of the dogmatiser,they needed someone to save them),their god-intoxicated idol,Newton,as a rightfull ally against the clutches of the ecclesiatics(sometimes some philosophers were fortunate,such as Hobbes,to make friend to royalties).
Of course ,they unfortunately,never met Einstein's theory of relativity or the quantum theory and other theories that maverick anarchist theorectical physicists have constructed that also produced results that can be possibly correct and likely later to be incorrect.
Finally,"Man is the measure of all things,"is back form its heyday since the infamous Sophist Protagoras once said.
Oh you,Protagoras,why did we forsaken you all this time?!You were sooo right!
Why today that postmodernism is not being accepted today?....Because its been a propaganda war since Cambridge University gave an honorary degree(1992)to the conniving and awful smelly french guy,Jaques Derrida(A true thinker,the true solitary animal!),which many academic philosophers cried "scandel",which make them incredulous by people(nonphilosophers or psuedo as Fifty mentioned
)with no academic training(the age of internet have gain its mainstream appeal in the last decade of the 20th century have helped this)new tools and confidences to read texts in a very venomous way,that can scare any scholars.With new techniques on narratives,amateurs(that is what they call us)can prescribe unique approach to language of their own,logically or illogically.Hopefully these new upstart can train themselves some logic.Of course,what is the right one that we can all use in paradigm constructions?
In summary,what is the No Man's Land between philosophy and science?I think the answer is self-explanatory.
Listen you new-age Sophists!Postmodernism is your friend.
It is a new technique that can allow you to unashameledly to make new rules of rhetorics that can be packed and marketed based on new formulas,mathematical calculations,new logics,quantity of data that can be processed only by computers.Hopefully,these scientific datas from Universities and private research labratories will be cheap to buy.So we can sell the products of knowledge on E-bay.
ps:Make sure you keep in mind of Karl Popper's teaching and warnings-"All we can do is search for the falsity content of our own best theory."Also be on guard by counter-attack by other individual reators or group reactors who wants nothing but to destroy our weakness.Nothing is certain but can be somewhat an approximate of a truth.
This thread is an attempt to define what is postmodernism.Now,what can I do since i've failed to give you an answer(i am not mentioning names)?How about a prescriptorial attempt to define postmodernism a brief historical context in order to find something out of it.This way,we can suppose that postmodernism is a subject or a movement irreversibly will continue to emerge(or all readying in the process such as "postmodernity")in the future just as other philosophical schools and other knowledge have in the past.Before I elucidate on how we can take this journey,first lets say that postmodernism is not necessarily philosophy at all in the traditional sense.It is a reformist agenda(such as Humanism,Enlightenment etc.)driven doctrine in attempt to change old ideas in the academic institutions(universities)into something radically new.The disassembly of the institution itself.Old ideas renewed for the purpose to allow students of literature,art,or science of any given academy of association of scholars,writers,artists,etc.,for the advancement of a new knowledge in the 21st century computerised society.The new "Thinkers."
Philosophy have always been considered a No Man's Land as Russell have once said.But in most cases,the activity of philosophy in the past have always been the embodiment of religious theology and later,science.Lets look at one philosopher (example) who,what I think,is the one of the many reformers.A posthumous thinking anarchist who rejects the conventions of the scholastic obscurantism-austerity and the absurdity of the monastic lifestyle and institutions.
Desiderius Erasmus(or known only as Erasmus)was a scholar of the classics and patristics.He is credited tas being the first editor of the Greek version of the New Testament during the time known as the Northern Renaissance.But i will stop here,because I don't want to expand details after details of Erasmus work in regarding his invective satire against ecclasiastical abuses,such as Indulgances,worship of saints,dispute of the Trinity,Incarnation,doctrine of transubstantiation;the scholastic sects;etc.What I want to do is give a brief example of a prefatory essay he wrote to show how a reformist can think-posthumously:I could wish that every woman might read the Gospel and the Epistels of St.Paul.Would that these were translated into each and every language so that they might be read and understood not only by Scots and Irishmen,but also by Turks and Sarecens...Would that the farmer might sing snatches of Scriptures at his plough,that the weaver might hum phrases of Scripture to the tune of his shuttle,that the traveller might listen with stories from Scripture to ease the weariness of his journey.
Not bad for the humanist Dutchman in the 1516 who admirably thought that people don't have to rely on Priest on interpret scriptures for them(Luther,the German reformer,is typically shallow dogmatist who want to exert another dogma over an already decaying one)or theological scholastics taking theological points and pendantically excluding one thesis in favor of another thesis which in fact,can be conclusively equally be plausible.
After the Reformation and then the Counter Reformation,came the rise of Science,which change philosophy for the better but resulting in another bondage of its own.
Before I go to Newton,the birth of modern philosophy,I recommend a book all of you should read,not to take literally a fact but to get an idea of the evolution of science,"The Metaphisical Foundation of Modern Physical Science" by E.A.Burtt.Especially the notes of Galileo written to Kepler on laughing(wishfully)together against the stupidity of "the mob",which were the professors of philosophy,who tried to conjure away Jupiter's moons,using logic-chopping arguments.
Newtonian science have rediculous consequences for philosophers since Descartes during the early and begining of the 20th century(which i find in most philsophers and writers[self-help gurus]are still effected of this day and age),except Hume,which provided a somber recipes for infallible skepticism.Make-believe metaphysical constructors have uncovered a vast body of certainable knowledge about his world(not my world,but the philosopher's imaginary systematic and brainsick fantasies).These systems-builders now have a buddy-system(to escape the whipp of the dogmatiser,they needed someone to save them),their god-intoxicated idol,Newton,as a rightfull ally against the clutches of the ecclesiatics(sometimes some philosophers were fortunate,such as Hobbes,to make friend to royalties).
Of course ,they unfortunately,never met Einstein's theory of relativity or the quantum theory and other theories that maverick anarchist theorectical physicists have constructed that also produced results that can be possibly correct and likely later to be incorrect.
Finally,"Man is the measure of all things,"is back form its heyday since the infamous Sophist Protagoras once said.Oh you,Protagoras,why did we forsaken you all this time?!You were sooo right!
Why today that postmodernism is not being accepted today?....Because its been a propaganda war since Cambridge University gave an honorary degree(1992)to the conniving and awful smelly french guy,Jaques Derrida(A true thinker,the true solitary animal!),which many academic philosophers cried "scandel",which make them incredulous by people(nonphilosophers or psuedo as Fifty mentioned
)with no academic training(the age of internet have gain its mainstream appeal in the last decade of the 20th century have helped this)new tools and confidences to read texts in a very venomous way,that can scare any scholars.With new techniques on narratives,amateurs(that is what they call us)can prescribe unique approach to language of their own,logically or illogically.Hopefully these new upstart can train themselves some logic.Of course,what is the right one that we can all use in paradigm constructions?In summary,what is the No Man's Land between philosophy and science?I think the answer is self-explanatory.
Last rant.
Listen you new-age Sophists!Postmodernism is your friend.
It is a new technique that can allow you to unashameledly to make new rules of rhetorics that can be packed and marketed based on new formulas,mathematical calculations,new logics,quantity of data that can be processed only by computers.Hopefully,these scientific datas from Universities and private research labratories will be cheap to buy.So we can sell the products of knowledge on E-bay. ps:Make sure you keep in mind of Karl Popper's teaching and warnings-"All we can do is search for the falsity content of our own best theory."Also be on guard by counter-attack by other individual reators or group reactors who wants nothing but to destroy our weakness.Nothing is certain but can be somewhat an approximate of a truth.
)
