5 ms·

My vague understanding is that it implies there are no absolutes and everything is relative. IMHO it's mostly bullshit.

by anonymousDan 7y ago

yummydummy 7y ago
Honestly, this is a very deflationary interpretation of postmodernism which is not at all what it's trying to convey
- anonymousDan 7y ago
  So educate me!
  - TomMckenny 7y ago
    The term "post-modern" has become immensely overloaded so is hard to use clearly. Obviously, the notion that "everything is relative" is even self contradictory but is not what is meant when the term is used seriously. It is the idea that some values are absolute and can be forced on other that was originally being objected to. Some historical cases are obvious others are still ambiguous. Thus a debate is interesting. Likewise, inside our society we have crucial rights justified as being "endowed by our creator". We would need to justify these values on something stronger than a particular theology to explain their universality. So again, discussion is worthwhile. I believe raising this point is what caused a ruckus in Iran. But yes, the term "post-modern" has made it's way into pop culture and is so widely used it is often hard to figure out what the speaker means by it. Better would be specifically referencing "Rorty's ideas" which I am certain you would find coherent and very intriguing. Rorty was most definitely not in Iran to say "theology is as good as democracy".
jessaustin 7y ago
One is reminded of pg's concept of the "Blub" language.
mturmon 7y ago
Here's the way I try to relate postmodernism to people familiar with CS. The relation "means" or "signifies" is a predicate taking 3 arguments: a source-text term, a conceptual definition, and an interpreter. That is: means(A, B, C) is true iff source-text A signifies concept B to interpreter C. The postmodern project seeks to emphasize the role of the interpreter (or their frame of reference) in the interpretation of everything. That's the third term in the predicate, which we often like to think is universal, in the way that "universal suffrage" turned out to be not universal at all.

My vague understanding is that it implies there are no absolutes and everything is relative. IMHO it's mostly bullshit.

yummydummy 7y ago

Honestly, this is a very deflationary interpretation of postmodernism which is not at all what it's trying to convey

anonymousDan 7y ago
So educate me!
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  The term "post-modern" has become immensely overloaded so is hard to use clearly. Obviously, the notion that "everything is relative" is even self contradictory but is not what is meant when the term is used seriously. It is the idea that some values are absolute and can be forced on other that was originally being objected to. Some historical cases are obvious others are still ambiguous. Thus a debate is interesting. Likewise, inside our society we have crucial rights justified as being "endowed by our creator". We would need to justify these values on something stronger than a particular theology to explain their universality. So again, discussion is worthwhile. I believe raising this point is what caused a ruckus in Iran. But yes, the term "post-modern" has made it's way into pop culture and is so widely used it is often hard to figure out what the speaker means by it. Better would be specifically referencing "Rorty's ideas" which I am certain you would find coherent and very intriguing. Rorty was most definitely not in Iran to say "theology is as good as democracy".

jessaustin 7y ago

One is reminded of pg's concept of the "Blub" language.

mturmon 7y ago

Here's the way I try to relate postmodernism to people familiar with CS. The relation "means" or "signifies" is a predicate taking 3 arguments: a source-text term, a conceptual definition, and an interpreter. That is: means(A, B, C) is true iff source-text A signifies concept B to interpreter C. The postmodern project seeks to emphasize the role of the interpreter (or their frame of reference) in the interpretation of everything. That's the third term in the predicate, which we often like to think is universal, in the way that "universal suffrage" turned out to be not universal at all.