7 ms·

Postmodernism has run its course. It's become clear that while it provides a deconstructive lens for academics, it provides a destructive one to society.

by Lanz 8y ago

lainga 8y ago
A lens through which all things are relative... except for some sort of vaguely progressive socialism, which is always right.
- tmeasday 8y ago
  Except the lens itself of course! Epistemological relativism is self refuting, I don't get how people can internalise the self-contradiction.
myWindoonn 8y ago
It's not our fault that society can't bear to look at itself in a mirror. Postmodernism broadly consists of only two tools. The first, as you mentioned, is the deconstructive POV, the ability to look at an object as-is and to understand its origin, its design, its footguns, its flawed narrative, its social excuses, its secret hatreds. But there's more. We also get the curse of relativity, the understanding that all epistemic sources are relative and that we ultimately choose to believe what we believe. This was definitely frustrating, coming on the heels of modernism, and that's why postmodernism has its name: modernism is clearly wrong and serves only to mislead and enslave via narrative control. But in return, we get something good: Concepts can become relativized too, and so we get many simple metaphysical statements as ways to understand what things are. What is a proof? Well, it's whatever convinces you that something is true. We lose absolute proof, but each of us gain a deeper understanding of what it means to prove something to somebody. What is art? Well, it's an expression in some medium. We lose art galleries, but now we can be artistic just by expressing ourselves any time we find new media, such as video games or graffiti or atomic layer deposition or selfies. We get another good thing: A more precise understanding of how the various pieces of knowledge fit together. By talking of theories and evidence and logic as objects in their own rights, rather than as absolute facets of the universe, we can connect the various sciences and reunify the entire philosophical endeavor under a single umbrella, just like Quine always wanted with his semantic web of science. Maths is logic is metaphysics. [0] Edit: Formatting, examples. [0] https://philpapers.org/archive/ALVLIM-3.pdf https://philpapers.org/archive/ALVLIM-3.pdf
- cristianpascu 8y ago
  All I can think about when reading post-modernists, with their critique narrative of western science and rational authority, is that they just want more sex. No surprise, since the most prominent post modernists are French. Kidding here and sort of not. What are you left with if you critique the West as a phallocracy, patriarchal oppression of women, and ALSO objective knowledge? Something like: "Let's get together and feel alright!"
- golergka 8y ago
  > modernism is clearly wrong and serves only to mislead and enslave via narrative control No, it shows something completely different: modernism is merely subjective, just like anything else. I wholeheartedly agree with the subjectivity part of post-modernism, but I don't see how it contradicts or disproves the modernist concepts; if anything, it only strengthens the objectivits approach, where each person or a collective is assumed to act out of his own, subjective, self-interest. The only thing it destroys is utilitiarian "universal" ethical system, which is completely deserved.
- lmm 8y ago
  It's not that we can't bear to look at ourselves in a mirror. It's that objective reality, truth and all of that do exist, good art is better than bad art in ways that aren't purely relative, and so on. Postmodernism loses you more than you gain.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Just saying they exist doesn't make them exist. Good art vs. bad art isn't an argument against postmodernism. Whenever I meet people who claim there is an objective truth I always ask them to give any examples. So far I have not met anyone who can come up with an objective claim that isn't merely basing that on a frame of reference which can be deconstructed or shown to be based on a set of apriori assumptions itself.
    - zxcmx 8y ago
      I am reminded of the “brick in the face” argument against solopsism. Tell me whack more about your whack frame of reference... I see postmodernism and extreme relativism as a sort of awesome stage of society where we get to make up reality because we are freed from mundane concerns like knowing where our water comes from or where our sh%t gets flushed to. It is quite wonderful that many many people get the luxury of never even being curious about these things. Meanwhile, the engineers, doctors, carers, labourers (I am missing a lot out here) who ultimately keep people alive tend to have quite definite opinions about critical aspects of reality. Granted these are still not objective truths because all experience is subjective. All I can say is that a sophist who believes that rent is not an objective truth is nonetheless likely to find themselves (subjectively) on the streets if they don’t pay it.
ThomPete 8y ago
Philosophical realizations are only destructive if you don't actually manage to look them in the eye. You seem to be confusing what the purpose of philosophy is. It's not to establish truth but rather to inquire about truth. Postmodernism shows us how fragile any truth proposition is and that's a useful way to think about things (especially when you are trying to break someone elses argument down) I am no fan of the current usage of postmodernism in gender and identity politics but postmodernism as a philosophical perspective isn't going anywhere in fact eve Jordan Peterson one of the most popular critics of postmodernism uses it to make many of his arguments (i.e. to deconstruct the gender and identity politics) You can't escape postmodernist realization.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  But I wonder if what the article is complaining about isn't actually that people have become truly postmodern, rather than "pseudo-modern". What I mean is this: If people truly believe "how fragile any truth proposition is", then why bother to put a lot of effort into making your truth propositions as solid as possible? Why try to make your writing as clear as possible, when people are going to misunderstand it anyway? I suspect that the shallowness that the article complains about may be because people are now functionally postmodern, not just intellectually so. In contrast, Derrida and Foucault were intellectually postmodernists, but still wrote in a modernist way. That is, they wrote as if they could genuinely communicate truth propositions and be understood.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    You might have a point about what the author is saying but that doesn't kill postmodernism. You don't need objective truth to establish useful and constructive assumptions. It's perfectly fine to reduce reality into something more narrow and confined. As an example. You can use classical physics to get to Mars with a spaceship. But you can't use it to travel faster than light to Alpa Centauri (but maybe quantum physics). Both classical physics and quantum physics are proven to the extent we can prove anything but they are in contradiction to each other and tells us something different about reality (one says it's local another says it fundamentally non-local) Or you can believe the world is flat which is good enough for you to get from village A to B but not good enough to navigate the entire planet. Postmodernism is not a critique of what is useful but claims about what is true and objective. Derrida and Foucault were caught in the same semantic mesh as the rest of us they just showed through that how elusive it is. Derrida especially showed through his writing.

Postmodernism has run its course. It's become clear that while it provides a deconstructive lens for academics, it provides a destructive one to society.

by Lanz 8y ago

Postmodernism has run its course. It's become clear that while it provides a deconstructive lens for academics, it provides a destructive one to society.

lainga 8y ago

A lens through which all things are relative... except for some sort of vaguely progressive socialism, which is always right.

tmeasday 8y ago
Except the lens itself of course! Epistemological relativism is self refuting, I don't get how people can internalise the self-contradiction.

myWindoonn 8y ago

It's not our fault that society can't bear to look at itself in a mirror. Postmodernism broadly consists of only two tools. The first, as you mentioned, is the deconstructive POV, the ability to look at an object as-is and to understand its origin, its design, its footguns, its flawed narrative, its social excuses, its secret hatreds. But there's more. We also get the curse of relativity, the understanding that all epistemic sources are relative and that we ultimately choose to believe what we believe. This was definitely frustrating, coming on the heels of modernism, and that's why postmodernism has its name: modernism is clearly wrong and serves only to mislead and enslave via narrative control. But in return, we get something good: Concepts can become relativized too, and so we get many simple metaphysical statements as ways to understand what things are. What is a proof? Well, it's whatever convinces you that something is true. We lose absolute proof, but each of us gain a deeper understanding of what it means to prove something to somebody. What is art? Well, it's an expression in some medium. We lose art galleries, but now we can be artistic just by expressing ourselves any time we find new media, such as video games or graffiti or atomic layer deposition or selfies. We get another good thing: A more precise understanding of how the various pieces of knowledge fit together. By talking of theories and evidence and logic as objects in their own rights, rather than as absolute facets of the universe, we can connect the various sciences and reunify the entire philosophical endeavor under a single umbrella, just like Quine always wanted with his semantic web of science. Maths is logic is metaphysics. [0] Edit: Formatting, examples. [0] https://philpapers.org/archive/ALVLIM-3.pdf https://philpapers.org/archive/ALVLIM-3.pdf

cristianpascu 8y ago
All I can think about when reading post-modernists, with their critique narrative of western science and rational authority, is that they just want more sex. No surprise, since the most prominent post modernists are French. Kidding here and sort of not. What are you left with if you critique the West as a phallocracy, patriarchal oppression of women, and ALSO objective knowledge? Something like: "Let's get together and feel alright!"
golergka 8y ago
> modernism is clearly wrong and serves only to mislead and enslave via narrative control No, it shows something completely different: modernism is merely subjective, just like anything else. I wholeheartedly agree with the subjectivity part of post-modernism, but I don't see how it contradicts or disproves the modernist concepts; if anything, it only strengthens the objectivits approach, where each person or a collective is assumed to act out of his own, subjective, self-interest. The only thing it destroys is utilitiarian "universal" ethical system, which is completely deserved.
lmm 8y ago
It's not that we can't bear to look at ourselves in a mirror. It's that objective reality, truth and all of that do exist, good art is better than bad art in ways that aren't purely relative, and so on. Postmodernism loses you more than you gain.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Just saying they exist doesn't make them exist. Good art vs. bad art isn't an argument against postmodernism. Whenever I meet people who claim there is an objective truth I always ask them to give any examples. So far I have not met anyone who can come up with an objective claim that isn't merely basing that on a frame of reference which can be deconstructed or shown to be based on a set of apriori assumptions itself.
  - zxcmx 8y ago
    I am reminded of the “brick in the face” argument against solopsism. Tell me whack more about your whack frame of reference... I see postmodernism and extreme relativism as a sort of awesome stage of society where we get to make up reality because we are freed from mundane concerns like knowing where our water comes from or where our sh%t gets flushed to. It is quite wonderful that many many people get the luxury of never even being curious about these things. Meanwhile, the engineers, doctors, carers, labourers (I am missing a lot out here) who ultimately keep people alive tend to have quite definite opinions about critical aspects of reality. Granted these are still not objective truths because all experience is subjective. All I can say is that a sophist who believes that rent is not an objective truth is nonetheless likely to find themselves (subjectively) on the streets if they don’t pay it.

ThomPete 8y ago

Philosophical realizations are only destructive if you don't actually manage to look them in the eye. You seem to be confusing what the purpose of philosophy is. It's not to establish truth but rather to inquire about truth. Postmodernism shows us how fragile any truth proposition is and that's a useful way to think about things (especially when you are trying to break someone elses argument down) I am no fan of the current usage of postmodernism in gender and identity politics but postmodernism as a philosophical perspective isn't going anywhere in fact eve Jordan Peterson one of the most popular critics of postmodernism uses it to make many of his arguments (i.e. to deconstruct the gender and identity politics) You can't escape postmodernist realization.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
But I wonder if what the article is complaining about isn't actually that people have become truly postmodern, rather than "pseudo-modern". What I mean is this: If people truly believe "how fragile any truth proposition is", then why bother to put a lot of effort into making your truth propositions as solid as possible? Why try to make your writing as clear as possible, when people are going to misunderstand it anyway? I suspect that the shallowness that the article complains about may be because people are now functionally postmodern, not just intellectually so. In contrast, Derrida and Foucault were intellectually postmodernists, but still wrote in a modernist way. That is, they wrote as if they could genuinely communicate truth propositions and be understood.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  You might have a point about what the author is saying but that doesn't kill postmodernism. You don't need objective truth to establish useful and constructive assumptions. It's perfectly fine to reduce reality into something more narrow and confined. As an example. You can use classical physics to get to Mars with a spaceship. But you can't use it to travel faster than light to Alpa Centauri (but maybe quantum physics). Both classical physics and quantum physics are proven to the extent we can prove anything but they are in contradiction to each other and tells us something different about reality (one says it's local another says it fundamentally non-local) Or you can believe the world is flat which is good enough for you to get from village A to B but not good enough to navigate the entire planet. Postmodernism is not a critique of what is useful but claims about what is true and objective. Derrida and Foucault were caught in the same semantic mesh as the rest of us they just showed through that how elusive it is. Derrida especially showed through his writing.