More thoughts, in the vein of simply asserting a post-modern philosophy...


Regardless of what we might call these periods later, I'd say that fascism will always leave a significant mark on history. Fascism strikes me as utterly alien -- and yet it was humans who were and are fascists. The very species I belong to has this capacity for fascism, to want to absolve oneself in an ethnic state cleansed of the degenerates through the purity of war.

What brought that about? What does it say about the human species, about myself, if we are capable of fascism? Don't the fascists say they are good?

In a post-fascist world, moral authority simply cannot be trusted.

In a post-fascist world — Moliere

This is far from a post-fascist world.

"Post-" as in after invention, not after death.

In psychology and continental philosophy, the postmodern means something other or more than a mere historical dividing line. There are distinctions made between modernist and postmodernist constructivism, hermeneutics, psychotherapy and cognitive science. The publications in these areas are filled with such references , because the readers of the journals understand what theoretical differences these distinctions are referring to. — Joshs

Yes, this is what I was hoping would be identified in this discussion.

:cool:

The way in which I include Kant with the post-moderns is that he believes there's something sacred which knowledge will destroy. But, simultaneously, he really does believe we know things about the world. And that's his particular riddle to puzzle out -- but the motivation is ultimately ethical. He believes that scientific knowledge, taken as ultimate truth, would destroy sacred things. (EDIT: also, his particular solution -- the denial of knowledge of sacred things as scientific -- fits in with the pomos)

This shows that Haack and Peirce are a fair distance away from what I consider to be the most promising work in psychology today. — Joshs

How do you understand the idea of promising work or value in psychology? How does this operate without traditional foundational justification?

I agree.

but maybe we could just be open to not fully knowing.
— Tate

But only for as long as we're relatively healthy and wealthy.
— baker

What happens if we're not? — Tate

Have you ever tried to be "open to not fully knowing" when you're in a precarious situation with either your health or socioeconomically, or even both at the same time?

(Personally, I think being more self-aware makes one a loser, a weakling. Unless, of course, one already has a massive ego.)
— baker

Can you expand on this? — Tom Storm

"The rich lady can cut in front of me in the waiting line in the grocery store, I must let her do so, because I am inferior, and in this world, might makes right, and there is no point in resisting this system."

Where is the ethical advantage in thinking this way?

I'm afraid @Joshs is ignoring this part of the discussion, though.

Postmodernists' critical theory world view is the extreme form of skepticism of all things humans. I don't subscribe to it. It puts doubt on your own thinking of what's really driving cruelty, suffering, ignorance, absurdity, goodness, benevolence. They complicate issues, leaving you with confused state of mind and existence. It can be a bad prescription for hopelessness.

Sometimes I think of them as securing their lucrative posts in the academia and beyond by publishing books that won't ever give definitive answers to human issues. — L'éléphant

Elites tend to be prone to decadence.

They complicate issues, leaving you with confused state of mind and existence. It can be a bad prescription for hopelessness.

Which is one more reason why run of the mill people should not get involved with philosophy.

"The rich lady can cut in front of me in the waiting line in the grocery store, I must let her do so, because I am inferior, and in this world, might makes right, and there is no point in resisting this system."

Where is the ethical advantage in thinking this way? — baker

I'm not sure I understand the nuances of your point about 'thinking this way'. Do you mean being aware of this? And what is the connection to being a weakling?

No one really cuts in front of others in grocery lines here unless they are just rude. Usually this can be settled with some words - social status is almost never an issue here but size might be.

I'm not sure if self-awareness connects to awareness of socially constructed status, unless some holds a specific value system.

But perhaps you also mean that rich people get privileges others don't get. I'm still not sure how this relates to self-awareness being for weaklings. And what exactly a weakling is? Do you mean that only those with no power practice self-refection because they are weak?

Which is one more reason why run of the mill people should not get involved with philosophy. — baker

So far, the only criticisms I've encountered when it comes to postmodernism is that --they're hard to understand! lol. Then spend more time with it until one understands what the fuck they're talking about.

The nuance of postmodernism, most especially the deconstruction theory, gets lost in the narrative when explained by a professor. Often, it is explained through the lens of humanities, not philosophy, and I don't think the one doing the teaching doesn't know the difference.

When they relegate the questioning of hard-held assumptions by society, they turn to sociology, history, and political science, which is frustrating because the actual harm that results from such haphazard handling of philosophical theories gets lost in the mix.

Just because a postmodern philosopher questioned the status quo, it doesn't mean that philosopher had made his case. The learners just willy-nilly accepted such theory because it is explained as facts, instead of an analysis. For once, let's go against the prominent philosophers and make our case.

So far, the only criticisms I've encountered when it comes to postmodernism is that --they're hard to understand! lol. Then spend more time with it until one understands what the fuck they're talking about. — L'éléphant

'Hard to understand' for some may be a euphemism for 'beyond comprehension'. I suspect that for many people, no amount of time will ever produce meaningful assimilation of the work. In these instances, learning complex philosophy might be like trying to teach card tricks to a dog. And then there's the question who has the time?

Have you ever tried to be "open to not fully knowing" when you're in a precarious situation with either your health or socioeconomically, or even both at the same time? — baker

Even poverty stricken homeless people philosophise.

....

Post-modernism is a corrosive substance; eating away at organic value systems and conceptual schemes at the foundations of Western civilisation — karl stone

Whenever I hear talk of culture 'organic value systems,' I release the safety catch on my Browning! Just kidding. Be well.
////////////////////

SCHLAGETER: Good old Fritz! (Laughing.) No paradise will entice you out of your barbed wire entanglement!

THIEMANN: That's for damned sure! Barbed wire is barbed wire! I know what I'm up against.... No rose without a thorn!... And the last thing I'll stand for is ideas to get the better of me! I know that rubbish from '18 ..., fraternity, equality, ..., freedom ..., beauty and dignity! You gotta use the right bait to hook 'em. And then, you're right in the middle of a parley and they say: Hands up! You're disarmed..., you republican voting swine!—No, let 'em keep their good distance with their whole ideological kettle of fish ... I shoot with live ammunition! When I hear the word culture ..., I release the safety on my Browning!"

SCHLAGETER: What a thing to say!

THIEMANN: It hits the mark! You can be sure of that.

SCHLAGETER: You've got a hair trigger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst

....

Post-modernism is a corrosive substance; eating away at organic value systems and conceptual schemes at the foundations of Western civilisation - and replacing them with artifical concepts and values that have little normative credibility, and so require denial of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress to maintain - and furthermore; implies social exclusion, disemployment, doxing, threat, violence against anyone who objects - for example, to their children being told in schools there are 99 genders, and when they consequently become dysphoric, being fed puberty blockers without parental consent. It's basically the philosophy of cultural vandalism, and it's only practiced in the West. — karl stone

First of all, contrary to Peterson and other conservatives, CRT, BLM and cancel culture in general is not a postmodern movement. It is a form of moralistic finger-pointing arising of of Marxism and related thought, which postmodern philosophers do not support.
Second, postmodern ideas don’t reject truth, they recognize that truth requires human beings to construct constructs , and those constructs are incomplete and can always be re-construed in better and more humane ways.

I didn't call you a nazi. I do find 'organic values' a bit suspicious, hence the allusion. How exactly shall values be sniffed for their primordially organic legitimacy ? Of all animals on this planet, we seem the most unbound, the most self-creating, with a therefore to-be-determined nature.

Let me point out that you accused me of performing medical experiments on children. I'm not even offended. I'm just asking you to question yourself. If you are so quick to see such evil, you are at risk of justifying evil in your combat with it. While there are a few sadistic fucks out there, most evil is probably done by the self-righteous, who are haunted into becoming the kind of thing they fear...something cruel and unreasonable.




It seems to me that 'postmodern' often functions in political contexts and outside nerdier circles as a synonym for secular or modern. Post-enlightenment humanity has to make its own rules without appeals to its childhood toys. But this isn't easy. Hence Gods and organic values and every kind of substitute for difficult conversations and experimentation.

First of all, contrary to Peterson and other conservatives, CRT, BLM and cancel culture in general is not a postmodern movement. — Joshs

I don't know if the word is worth cleaning at this point.

I don't know if the word is worth cleaning at this point. — igjugarjuk

Here’s a good argument in favor of making the distinction:

https://youtu.be/cU1LhcEh8Ms

....

....

Here’s a good argument in favor of making the distinction: — Joshs

Cool vid.

I guess my concern is that 'postmodernism' has taken on a new meaning in a new context. This meaning is legitimate inasmuch as it is consistent and popular. The cartoon has its own reality now.

contrary to Peterson and other conservatives, CRT, BLM and cancel culture in general is not a postmodern movement. It is a form of moralistic finger-pointing arising of of Marxism and related thought, which postmodern philosophers do not support. — Joshs

Yep.

Second, postmodern ideas don’t reject truth, they recognize that truth requires human beings to construct constructs , and those constructs are incomplete and can always be re-construed in better and more humane ways. — Joshs

This is an interesting way of describing it. Cheers. I can see how the complexity of the ideas and the fact that sacred cows are questioned can trigger some people like Peterson - even if he is just ripping off Stephen Hick's ideas in a desultory way.

It seems to me that 'postmodern' often functions in political contexts and outside nerdier circles as a synonym for secular or modern. — igjugarjuk

Yes, it almost doesn't matter any more what the word refers to since it is now often used much like 'communism' was in the 1950's, as a smear and often as part of a thoroughgoing conspiracy theory about values subversion.

But for the purposes of this thread I think @Joshs has pointed the way for further discussions.

As I am deeply offended by men invading women's sports, toilets, changing room, rapists in womens prisons, and other female only spaces under the auspices of the idea gender is a mere social construct, and not a biological reality. — karl stone

You have a right to be offended (there's no law against it, yet (joking)), but feelings alone are not justifications. Surely some are/were offended by interracial marriage, women in the workplace, the legalization of abortion, pornography, prostitution, or drugs. The first person to roll a wheel was probably viewed a threat to the good old days. This is not to say that every proposed innovation is good. It's just a reminder that all kinds of people have felt all kinds of ways about changes in norms. The end of the world has been just around the corner for centuries now.

More specifically, I doubt you can find many people who really no longer make the distinction between biological sex and gender performance. As far as I know, it's primarily a matter of shifting the meanings of pronouns away from what's in your underpants to how one performs one's personality in the public sphere. It's not unreasonable to object to such a shift, but such objections should take a reasonable form. Are the new bathroom arrangements really much of a problem? I'm not saying that all is well, but a case should be made for the alarmist tone. It may turn out to be no big deal.

n academic circle jerk of post modernists critical theorists and neo marxists applauding eachothers work - in denial of science and reason. — karl stone

To me the phrases 'post modernists' and 'neo marxists' indicate something like a conspiracy theory. I don't know if Fucker Carlson is using them yet, but they belong on the shelf with all the other spooks and goblins used to rile up the base. Seems to me that all that's really meant is progressive, but viewed through a dehumanizing lens...the same way that self-righteous doxing and career-destroying progressives view their own enemies (which troubles me more than you'd credit probably, if largely for my own selfish reasons as a cis het contrarian male.) What I deplore is tribal chest-thumping and demonization of the other on either side. Fear is the mindkiller, the death of nuance ...the death of the science and reason you celebrate above.

.

it is now often used much like 'communism' was in the 1950's, as a smear and often as part of a thoroughgoing conspiracy theory about values subversions. — Tom Storm

Exactly.

under the auspices of the idea gender is a mere social construct, and not a biological reality. — karl stone

. Even if the claim were that gender is a biological reality you would reject it. Why? Because, first of all, gender refers not to sexual identity as in what chromosomes and genitalia one was born with, but to psychological
gender, which determines patterns of behavior. Think about the difference in masculine vs feminine behavior in dogs and cats. This is psychological gender. Many in the lgbtq community argue that psychological gender is inborn , and can differ from one’s biological sex. This inborn gender-related brain wiring would explain extremely feminine acting males and extremely ‘butch’ females.

...