4 ms·

Postmodernism generator

32 points by infinity 17y ago

asdlfj2sd33 17y ago
Ha ha ha, lets all point and laugh at the postmodernists. Or we could just ignore them.
cesare 17y ago
In case somebody missed it (Richard Dawkins on postmodernism): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=645178 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=645178 Edit: here's the direct link to the article: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html
- infinity 17y ago
  Oh, I didn't see that somebody has already posted this as a link in the comments. No cross-posting was intended.
Bjoern 17y ago
This generator reminds me of the Paper generator by some MIT students.. http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ ..much more funny and even pdf direct output :D
- infinity 17y ago
  This is fantastic. And there are some cool stories and links on that page. Thanks for the link :D
- zkz 17y ago
  (I tried to upvote you and I downvoted you instead... sorry)
- ephermata 17y ago
  Yes, this is funny. The existence of random paper generators for a discipline doesn't say much about the rigor of that discipline. You might be able to make some kind of argument based on how long it takes for someone trained in the discipline to detect it as randomly generated. Of course, you could imagine building a program that creates perfectly compileable, yet randomly generated programs. These guys actually did it to test gcc's handling of the volatile keyword: http://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/papers/emsoft08-preprint.pdf http://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/papers/emsoft08-preprint.pdf
diz 17y ago
It's easy to make fun of postmodern philosophy, but no philosopher made-up postmodernism, they are just commenting or labeling phenomena already inherent in our culture, some of which is even more complex than their method of expressing it. Their comment might be somewhat cryptic, sometimes even creative, as they are always trying to cover their asses from, what they believe is, our loose and unstable language(s), but the overall message of diversity, multiplicity, the questioning of social constructions (sometimes), etc. have been essential tools in our society and cultural/social relations in postmodern culture. I understand some of the downfalls of postmodernism and I won't defend it, but I'm not going back to rationalism, which influenced the Nazis, or Platonic or Christian Essentialism, which has marked humanity in negative ways for too many centuries, etc.
- tybris 17y ago
  Studying our culture is done with great rigour by historians, sociologists, psychologists, economists, etc. Philosophy should be married with science, but it has little merrit on its own. It is an ego-centric discipline, where language, not observation, is misused as a basis to suggest some conformity. The great philosophers of history were those that truly practiced the love of knowledge. It was Martin Luther who, as a theologist, recognized the failures of organizing society according to catholic doctrine. It was Galileo Galilei who, as an astronomer, recognized our world was just one of many. It was Darwin who, as a biologist, recognized that the reason we exist is life's perpetual struggle for survival. It was Einstein who, as a physicist, recognized that the 2 main aspects of our perceived reality are intermingled.
  - diz 17y ago
    From wikipedia: "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language." So why should philosophy be married to science? It is your mind that is married to science, so you look at science to prove or explain your existence. I tend to do this, as well, which is why I'm on hacker news and I highly respect all of the mentioned scientists, but I would never confuse science with philosophy. Furthermore, can science or any scientist explain the complexity that was Michael Jackson or is reality television, both of which were/are true Baudrillardian hyper-realities; or the complexity of image-based wars (like Iraq) and street riots (like Iran) that are fought/waged through the media/twitter/etc. Our expression/lives in postmodern times is what shapes these events and how they are lived/delivered/executed/etc, but the philosophy is the language/concepts behind all of this, and much more of the, often complex, phenomena in our society/existence.

32 points by infinity 17y ago

Ha ha ha, lets all point and laugh at the postmodernists. Or we could just ignore them.

In case somebody missed it (Richard Dawkins on postmodernism): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=645178 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=645178 Edit: here's the direct link to the article: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html

infinity 17y ago
Oh, I didn't see that somebody has already posted this as a link in the comments. No cross-posting was intended.

Bjoern 17y ago

This generator reminds me of the Paper generator by some MIT students.. http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ ..much more funny and even pdf direct output :D

infinity 17y ago
This is fantastic. And there are some cool stories and links on that page. Thanks for the link :D
zkz 17y ago
(I tried to upvote you and I downvoted you instead... sorry)
ephermata 17y ago
Yes, this is funny. The existence of random paper generators for a discipline doesn't say much about the rigor of that discipline. You might be able to make some kind of argument based on how long it takes for someone trained in the discipline to detect it as randomly generated. Of course, you could imagine building a program that creates perfectly compileable, yet randomly generated programs. These guys actually did it to test gcc's handling of the volatile keyword: http://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/papers/emsoft08-preprint.pdf http://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/papers/emsoft08-preprint.pdf

diz 17y ago

It's easy to make fun of postmodern philosophy, but no philosopher made-up postmodernism, they are just commenting or labeling phenomena already inherent in our culture, some of which is even more complex than their method of expressing it. Their comment might be somewhat cryptic, sometimes even creative, as they are always trying to cover their asses from, what they believe is, our loose and unstable language(s), but the overall message of diversity, multiplicity, the questioning of social constructions (sometimes), etc. have been essential tools in our society and cultural/social relations in postmodern culture. I understand some of the downfalls of postmodernism and I won't defend it, but I'm not going back to rationalism, which influenced the Nazis, or Platonic or Christian Essentialism, which has marked humanity in negative ways for too many centuries, etc.

tybris 17y ago
Studying our culture is done with great rigour by historians, sociologists, psychologists, economists, etc. Philosophy should be married with science, but it has little merrit on its own. It is an ego-centric discipline, where language, not observation, is misused as a basis to suggest some conformity. The great philosophers of history were those that truly practiced the love of knowledge. It was Martin Luther who, as a theologist, recognized the failures of organizing society according to catholic doctrine. It was Galileo Galilei who, as an astronomer, recognized our world was just one of many. It was Darwin who, as a biologist, recognized that the reason we exist is life's perpetual struggle for survival. It was Einstein who, as a physicist, recognized that the 2 main aspects of our perceived reality are intermingled.
- diz 17y ago
  From wikipedia: "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language." So why should philosophy be married to science? It is your mind that is married to science, so you look at science to prove or explain your existence. I tend to do this, as well, which is why I'm on hacker news and I highly respect all of the mentioned scientists, but I would never confuse science with philosophy. Furthermore, can science or any scientist explain the complexity that was Michael Jackson or is reality television, both of which were/are true Baudrillardian hyper-realities; or the complexity of image-based wars (like Iraq) and street riots (like Iran) that are fought/waged through the media/twitter/etc. Our expression/lives in postmodern times is what shapes these events and how they are lived/delivered/executed/etc, but the philosophy is the language/concepts behind all of this, and much more of the, often complex, phenomena in our society/existence.