5 ms·

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 i

by 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.
quacked 7y ago
I have a much less nuanced view of "postmodernists" [1]; without fail, every single person I know who's really leaned into any form of "postmodernism" and would describe themselves as such is depressed, nihilistic, and functionally not very useful. They typically don't participate in things I think are fundamentally necessary for society (namely food production and distribution, construction, medicine, and law), and many are also anti-natalist. On the whole I find that their social circles are filled with self-aggrandizing narcissists. (Not unique to philosophy, of course.) I realize that criticizing a theory based on its adherents is puerile, but I can't help but notice that on the whole I find everything that comes from "postmodernists" to be distasteful and damaging to the "uneducated" person's mental well-being. Their architecture is bleak and divisive; their music is grating and non-melodic; their art is challenging and uncomfortable, and their philosophy is bleak and depressing. [1] = I have put "postmodernists" and "postmodernism" in quotes because it seems pretty difficult to actually define what it is and who believes in it.
- api 7y ago
  > I realize that criticizing a theory based on its adherents is puerile I disagree that it's puerile. I think looking at the makeup of the adherents of an ideology and the result it seems to have when played out is very important and meaningful. Ideas have consequences, and observing them tells you a lot about the ideas. Anything can sound good in isolation and if presented in the right way. A major reason that I reject the pomo line of thinking is looking at its outcome: a broad retreat of enlightenment and post-enlightenment thought and liberalism ever since it came into vogue, and the corresponding resurgence of reactionary and totalitarian ideologies in that same time period. It's clear to me that it's either pure nonsense or if there is some good idea in there it is being communicated so poorly it is having no beneficial effect. Personally I think part of the reactionary resurgence is that in comparison to pomo word salad reactionary ideology sounds sane, reasonable, and relevant. They've set the bar really low, especially when it comes to relevance. I have never read any pomo tract that could possibly have any relevance to anyone who isn't a cloistered academic with a desire to write and echo similar tracts.
- zaaakk 7y ago
  Can you name some musicians, artists, architects, philosophers? What are you talking about? This post is hilarious, you’re acting like studying French philosophy is doing fentanyl or something.

by api 7y ago

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.

quacked 7y ago

I have a much less nuanced view of "postmodernists" [1]; without fail, every single person I know who's really leaned into any form of "postmodernism" and would describe themselves as such is depressed, nihilistic, and functionally not very useful. They typically don't participate in things I think are fundamentally necessary for society (namely food production and distribution, construction, medicine, and law), and many are also anti-natalist. On the whole I find that their social circles are filled with self-aggrandizing narcissists. (Not unique to philosophy, of course.) I realize that criticizing a theory based on its adherents is puerile, but I can't help but notice that on the whole I find everything that comes from "postmodernists" to be distasteful and damaging to the "uneducated" person's mental well-being. Their architecture is bleak and divisive; their music is grating and non-melodic; their art is challenging and uncomfortable, and their philosophy is bleak and depressing. [1] = I have put "postmodernists" and "postmodernism" in quotes because it seems pretty difficult to actually define what it is and who believes in it.

api 7y ago
> I realize that criticizing a theory based on its adherents is puerile I disagree that it's puerile. I think looking at the makeup of the adherents of an ideology and the result it seems to have when played out is very important and meaningful. Ideas have consequences, and observing them tells you a lot about the ideas. Anything can sound good in isolation and if presented in the right way. A major reason that I reject the pomo line of thinking is looking at its outcome: a broad retreat of enlightenment and post-enlightenment thought and liberalism ever since it came into vogue, and the corresponding resurgence of reactionary and totalitarian ideologies in that same time period. It's clear to me that it's either pure nonsense or if there is some good idea in there it is being communicated so poorly it is having no beneficial effect. Personally I think part of the reactionary resurgence is that in comparison to pomo word salad reactionary ideology sounds sane, reasonable, and relevant. They've set the bar really low, especially when it comes to relevance. I have never read any pomo tract that could possibly have any relevance to anyone who isn't a cloistered academic with a desire to write and echo similar tracts.
zaaakk 7y ago
Can you name some musicians, artists, architects, philosophers? What are you talking about? This post is hilarious, you’re acting like studying French philosophy is doing fentanyl or something.