3 ms·
The only good thing about post-modernism is the fact that it illustrates the vacuous nature of academic philosophy. If the field had anything worthwhile in it,
by gambler 10y ago
The only good thing about post-modernism is the fact that it illustrates the vacuous nature of academic philosophy. If the field had anything worthwhile in it, it would have built up some kind of institutional immune response to that kind of bullshit. And no, I don't mean an endless stream of convoluted rebuttals. I mean post-modernism just wouldn't enter any sensible conversation in the first place.
I find it amusing that fsmoud scientists from Feynman to Dawkins often jab at philosohers in their works, probably thanks to post-modernism.
- bykovich 10y agoProbably thanks to unmitigated baseless arrogance.
- jnbiche 10y agoYou realize that most academic philosophers in the US and other English-speaking countries share your attitude toward post-modernism, right? TFA even points out the divide. You must have gone to a program with a "traditional" philosophy department, perhaps in Europe? Most university philosophy departments in the US focus on logic, analytic philosophy, philosophy of science, cognitive science, etc, etc. I can't even think of a single philosopher at my university's department who would have done anything but chuckle at post-modernism. In fact, it was a philosophy prof who told me about the book "Fashionable Nonsense". From the article: "Outside France, the dominant philosophical school was analytic philosophy. A broad church, its foundations had initially been articulated by, among others, Bertrand Russell, GE Moore and the early works of Wittgenstein. Founded on the notion of conceptual clarity, analytic philosophy (in its crudest form) regards philosophy as a branch of the sciences, often subservient to the natural sciences, or at best continuous with them. It proposes that through the logical analysis of philosophical propositions, the basic questions of existence can be clarified, and possibly solved." So why would you generalize all philosophers into the bucket of post-modernism? Many of the founders of modern analytic philosophy were mathematicians: Russell, Frege, Whitehead, Peirce, etc.
- mannykannot 10y agoA fair point, but the persistence of the divide is, itself, telling (or interesting. Or both.)
- theoh 10y agoThe mathematician Michael Harris wrote a very good even-handed review of Fashionable Nonsense. He finds possible value in the philosophy that it mocks, and points out the general crudeness of the authors' attitude and approach. I think his review is well worth reading. https://webusers.imj-prg.fr/~michael.harris/Iknow.pdf https://webusers.imj-prg.fr/~michael.harris/Iknow.pdf
- jnbiche 10y agoOh dear God, I read only 1/4 of the review and I feel like I've lost several IQ points. Yes, perhaps they were crude, but unlike Dr. Harris, I find no value in the philosophy mocked by Fashionable Nonsense. Even reading about that kind of postmodern philosophical claptrap is pretty devoid of value (which is probably why I never managed to read all of Fashionable Nonsense). But yes, he's a mathematician, I agree.
- theoh 10y agoHarris has, I think, a really good prose style and a refreshing "all's grist to my mill" attitude to the topic. Sorry for the damage to your IQ.
- xapata 10y agoPostmodernism has its occasional brilliant insights. Most important is its constant skepticism, its refusal to believe someone who says, "trust me."
- mannykannot 10y agoConstant skepticism ultimately becomes self-referential.
- xapata 10y agoAs it should be.
- mannykannot 10y agoUntil it leads (as it inevitably tends to) to closed, and therefore irrelevant, universes of discourse, as appears to have happened in this corner of philosophy.
- xapata 10y agoPruning branches is an important part of growing a decision tree. Don't cut down the tree if some branches went in the wrong direction.
- mannykannot 10y agoI suppose that is OK if you already know in what direction your preferred answer lies, but it does not seem to be in the spirit of self-referential skepticism.