6 ms·

This piece of writing assumes a very well read background on the authors it is discussing and I don't think it does anything but bait the hackernews middlebrow

This piece of writing assumes a very well read background on the authors it is discussing and I don't think it does anything but bait the hackernews middlebrow dismissal of postmodern thinkers.

sebastianconcpt 7y ago
Banal appeal to ignorance as an attempt to shout your mouth about the self-refuting pomo BS.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  The article is an absurdly over the top straw-man and its target audience falls for it because they don't know that. I could make an equally broad claim that Mormons believe absurd things. And when someone says I misunderstand Mormonism, I could claim that's just an appeal to ignorance. People who don't believe in religious or cultural tolerance frequently float this conspicuously straw-man representation of those who believe in wider cultural tolerance. Typically using the ill-defined term "post modern". It's usually the same group that distrusts higher education and social criticism so a chance to attack them in an obfuscated way like this is doubly attractive.
api 7y ago
I keep seeing this retort but I never see anyone explain where those who criticize postmodernism are wrong nor do I see a clearer explanation of postmodernist ideas. I just see content-free dismissals like "middle-brow" and re-iterations of similar word salad to the link posted here. Tell me on what basis a postmodernist would argue against a Klansman. IMHO pomo is the humanities' analog to what string theory is in physics or cryptocurrency hype is in tech: a trendy cancer that hijacked the minds of a generation and doesn't deliver anything. It doesn't even deliver progress in the area of social justice. All the progress in social justice was made by previous generations of civil rights leaders and movements who were absolutely not postmodernists, cultural relativists, or believers in any strong form of identity politics. Social justice started to retreat culturally precisely when pomo and hard identity politics (a closely related ideology) took over academia: the 70s. I mean liberals and other modern intellectuals have been asleep at the switch so long that monarchism is making a comeback. That's analogous to seeing measles outbreaks among anti-vaxxers.
- AlotOfReading 7y ago
  Postmodernism is not a coherent philosophy so much as a reaction to the failures of positivism (i.e. everything can be scientifically justified). That's part of the reason you don't see clear explanations of postmodernism, because it's a vague nebulous cloud of things that are roughly related, rather than a singular school of thought. In that same vein, it doesn't make sense to talk about how a hypothetical "postmodernist" would respond to a klansman. Many different people would have radically different responses, ranging from complete condemnation, to contextual condemnation, to (rare) equanimity. I don't intend this dismissively, but so much of your post suggests fundamental misunderstandings of what postmodernism is that it's difficult to have a discussion. Personally I found it easier to engage with understanding PM from the anthropology side, where they don't get as much into the ridiculous language used by the philosophy and the lit. people. Here's a simple introduction that goes over most of your questions in understandable terms without being insultingly simplified: https://anthropology.ua.edu/theory/postmodernism-and-its-critics/ https://anthropology.ua.edu/theory/postmodernism-and-its-cri...
  - api 7y ago
    I'd say I disagree with almost all of: "(1) an elevation of text and language as the fundamental phenomena of existence, (2) the application of literary analysis to all phenomena, (3) a questioning of reality and representation, (4) a critique of metanarratives, (5) an argument against method and evaluation, (6) a focus upon power relations and hegemony, and (7) a general critique of Western institutions and knowledge (Kuznar 2008:78)". I would say: (1) That's "flat Earth" silly. (2) Also very silly and oddly chauvinist. (3) Not sure how to interpret this. If the claim is that there is metaphysically no objective reality, then all claims are false including the claim that all claims are false. If it's interpreted as an encouragement to question our model of reality, then it's a non-point since that's what all intellectuals and scientists do already. (4) This has merit but is by no means unique to postmodern thought. (5) This is silly. How then can you criticize Western culture? Doesn't that take a method and imply some kind of evaluation? (6) I agree completely, but this is also not unique to postmodern thought. In fact I would argue that challenges to power as a rationale or argument for truth is a central feature of enlightenment thought, which is why virtually all modern progress in social justice was made prior to pomo coming into vogue. The only exception is gay rights, and that was on the inertia of the civil rights movement and using the same narratives and arguments. (7) What were the enlightenment and the Protestant reformation if not major criticisms of central aspects of Western culture by members of that culture? From what I've seen most intellectuals in most cultures primarily criticize their own culture since that's what they know and is what is most relevant to them. If the point instead is to argue that only Western culture can be criticized, that insane. There are two possibilities here: either this is as asinine as it appears, or there are good ideas but they are being communicated very poorly to the point that they are incomprehensible. Both are failure modes for any school of thought. Furthermore I would add that if you follow these sorts of ideas to their logical endpoint you end up a reactionary, not a progressive. The primary argument of the reactionaries is and always has been the futility of human knowledge and reason. It's so obvious that I've even wondered if Derrida et. al. weren't crypto-reactionaries attempting to Trojan horse academia with reactionary metaphysical premises, though this verges dangerously close to oddball conspiracy theory territory. It's more likely that they were either crackpots or were misunderstood by essentially everyone. Maybe something was totally botched in the French-English translation of their ideas and the badly translated version stuck.
illiilliiililil 7y ago
The pomo people telling the anti-pomo they just haven't the understanding is reminiscent of religious apologists/theologians telling atheist debaters they just haven't ground to stand on because they haven't adequately digested a sufficient body of obscure tomes to dismiss X religion. Or "You just haven't read the Koran in classical Arabic! Understanding Islam is beyond you."
- danharaj 7y ago
  I'm not even pomo fam I just respect things I don't understand until I give them a fair shake.
  - illiilliiililil 7y ago
    Don't sweat it. Derrida doesn't even understand Derrida.
- tuyjrtkfeldc 7y ago
  No man, the texts are available, go read them. It takes time, effort and respect towards the perspectives of others to actually understand how complex things work, such as theories about human mind and social order. Would you encourage someone with no experience in chemistry to start mixing chemicals without understanding potentially dangerous effects? Would you encourage someone who is not an engineer to construct a bridge without adequate preparation and planning? Experts can be authoritative because their experience grants them the ability to know better than non-experts in their respective fields.
  - illiilliiililil 7y ago
    Are you saying I should refrain from atheism until I have read Summa Theologica?
    - tuyjrtkfeldc 7y ago
      No, I'm saying that you're conflating atheism with being an arrogant moron.

This piece of writing assumes a very well read background on the authors it is discussing and I don't think it does anything but bait the hackernews middlebrow dismissal of postmodern thinkers.

sebastianconcpt 7y ago

Banal appeal to ignorance as an attempt to shout your mouth about the self-refuting pomo BS.

TomMckenny 7y ago
The article is an absurdly over the top straw-man and its target audience falls for it because they don't know that. I could make an equally broad claim that Mormons believe absurd things. And when someone says I misunderstand Mormonism, I could claim that's just an appeal to ignorance. People who don't believe in religious or cultural tolerance frequently float this conspicuously straw-man representation of those who believe in wider cultural tolerance. Typically using the ill-defined term "post modern". It's usually the same group that distrusts higher education and social criticism so a chance to attack them in an obfuscated way like this is doubly attractive.

api 7y ago

I keep seeing this retort but I never see anyone explain where those who criticize postmodernism are wrong nor do I see a clearer explanation of postmodernist ideas. I just see content-free dismissals like "middle-brow" and re-iterations of similar word salad to the link posted here. Tell me on what basis a postmodernist would argue against a Klansman. IMHO pomo is the humanities' analog to what string theory is in physics or cryptocurrency hype is in tech: a trendy cancer that hijacked the minds of a generation and doesn't deliver anything. It doesn't even deliver progress in the area of social justice. All the progress in social justice was made by previous generations of civil rights leaders and movements who were absolutely not postmodernists, cultural relativists, or believers in any strong form of identity politics. Social justice started to retreat culturally precisely when pomo and hard identity politics (a closely related ideology) took over academia: the 70s. I mean liberals and other modern intellectuals have been asleep at the switch so long that monarchism is making a comeback. That's analogous to seeing measles outbreaks among anti-vaxxers.

AlotOfReading 7y ago
Postmodernism is not a coherent philosophy so much as a reaction to the failures of positivism (i.e. everything can be scientifically justified). That's part of the reason you don't see clear explanations of postmodernism, because it's a vague nebulous cloud of things that are roughly related, rather than a singular school of thought. In that same vein, it doesn't make sense to talk about how a hypothetical "postmodernist" would respond to a klansman. Many different people would have radically different responses, ranging from complete condemnation, to contextual condemnation, to (rare) equanimity. I don't intend this dismissively, but so much of your post suggests fundamental misunderstandings of what postmodernism is that it's difficult to have a discussion. Personally I found it easier to engage with understanding PM from the anthropology side, where they don't get as much into the ridiculous language used by the philosophy and the lit. people. Here's a simple introduction that goes over most of your questions in understandable terms without being insultingly simplified: https://anthropology.ua.edu/theory/postmodernism-and-its-critics/ https://anthropology.ua.edu/theory/postmodernism-and-its-cri...
- api 7y ago
  I'd say I disagree with almost all of: "(1) an elevation of text and language as the fundamental phenomena of existence, (2) the application of literary analysis to all phenomena, (3) a questioning of reality and representation, (4) a critique of metanarratives, (5) an argument against method and evaluation, (6) a focus upon power relations and hegemony, and (7) a general critique of Western institutions and knowledge (Kuznar 2008:78)". I would say: (1) That's "flat Earth" silly. (2) Also very silly and oddly chauvinist. (3) Not sure how to interpret this. If the claim is that there is metaphysically no objective reality, then all claims are false including the claim that all claims are false. If it's interpreted as an encouragement to question our model of reality, then it's a non-point since that's what all intellectuals and scientists do already. (4) This has merit but is by no means unique to postmodern thought. (5) This is silly. How then can you criticize Western culture? Doesn't that take a method and imply some kind of evaluation? (6) I agree completely, but this is also not unique to postmodern thought. In fact I would argue that challenges to power as a rationale or argument for truth is a central feature of enlightenment thought, which is why virtually all modern progress in social justice was made prior to pomo coming into vogue. The only exception is gay rights, and that was on the inertia of the civil rights movement and using the same narratives and arguments. (7) What were the enlightenment and the Protestant reformation if not major criticisms of central aspects of Western culture by members of that culture? From what I've seen most intellectuals in most cultures primarily criticize their own culture since that's what they know and is what is most relevant to them. If the point instead is to argue that only Western culture can be criticized, that insane. There are two possibilities here: either this is as asinine as it appears, or there are good ideas but they are being communicated very poorly to the point that they are incomprehensible. Both are failure modes for any school of thought. Furthermore I would add that if you follow these sorts of ideas to their logical endpoint you end up a reactionary, not a progressive. The primary argument of the reactionaries is and always has been the futility of human knowledge and reason. It's so obvious that I've even wondered if Derrida et. al. weren't crypto-reactionaries attempting to Trojan horse academia with reactionary metaphysical premises, though this verges dangerously close to oddball conspiracy theory territory. It's more likely that they were either crackpots or were misunderstood by essentially everyone. Maybe something was totally botched in the French-English translation of their ideas and the badly translated version stuck.

illiilliiililil 7y ago

The pomo people telling the anti-pomo they just haven't the understanding is reminiscent of religious apologists/theologians telling atheist debaters they just haven't ground to stand on because they haven't adequately digested a sufficient body of obscure tomes to dismiss X religion. Or "You just haven't read the Koran in classical Arabic! Understanding Islam is beyond you."

danharaj 7y ago
I'm not even pomo fam I just respect things I don't understand until I give them a fair shake.
- illiilliiililil 7y ago
  Don't sweat it. Derrida doesn't even understand Derrida.
tuyjrtkfeldc 7y ago
No man, the texts are available, go read them. It takes time, effort and respect towards the perspectives of others to actually understand how complex things work, such as theories about human mind and social order. Would you encourage someone with no experience in chemistry to start mixing chemicals without understanding potentially dangerous effects? Would you encourage someone who is not an engineer to construct a bridge without adequate preparation and planning? Experts can be authoritative because their experience grants them the ability to know better than non-experts in their respective fields.
- illiilliiililil 7y ago
  Are you saying I should refrain from atheism until I have read Summa Theologica?
  - tuyjrtkfeldc 7y ago
    No, I'm saying that you're conflating atheism with being an arrogant moron.