3 ms·
Have you read the Dawkins and Chomsky articles? They clearly have read the texts, and spent a lot of time trying to understand them, before concluding that the
by endtime 17y ago
Have you read the Dawkins and Chomsky articles? They clearly have read the texts, and spent a lot of time trying to understand them, before concluding that they are nonsense. Both also request that someone translate the allegedly profound concepts into comprehensible English, so that us commoners can appreciate the concepts in question - are you offering?
- ThomPete 17y agoWhatever they have they have unfortunately let their feeling run away with them. Postmodernism is a critique frame of references and can't by definition be nonsense since they don't claim anything positive about the world.
- endtime 17y agoI have no idea what you're talking about. Is your comment postmodernist itself?
- anigbrowl 17y agoI think he's trying to say that postmodernism is a critical methodology, rather than a collection of assertions - much as science is a systematic way of developing knowledge, rather than just the sum of its various axioms. ThomPete, you might find it instructive to consider that the major problem of postmodernism is its' adherents seeming inability to make simple declarative statements. Of course, simple declarative statements are often freighted with unspoken assumptions, and unpacking and analyzing these is a postmodern exercise in itself, particularly that of Jacques Derrida and the deconstructionists. But where many postmodernsists go wrong is in the attempt to make fully qualified and narrowly specified declarative statements, which end up being almost impossible to read. In their zeal to avoid implying anything or having their intentions misunderstood, postmodernists frequently alienate their audiences with discourse which resembles cultural autism. This creates the impression that post-modernists are actually in love with the comforting certainties of modernism, but have seen the negative results of too much certitude: they would still like to establish definitive truths, but have decided to do so very very carefully. I am not against post modernism, which I believe has many interesting things to say and provides useful tools with which to understand the world and our place in it. However, a critical framework that is so woolly and inconsistent as to be useless for practical communication of ideas does no service to the truths it was designed to express.
- ThomPete 17y agoWhich of course requires there to be any truth to begin with. That Derrida showed that it's not possible to make declarative statement's is not the fault of Derrida but of language. It is exactly the point that you CAN'T make any declaretive statements i.e. express truth that is the point of Derrida and deconstructivism.