If nothing universal or even true (apart from empirical facts) can be determined about humans, then what's the point of any discursive enquiry? — John
I am thinking primarily of Deleuze, Derrida and Foucault here, and I think there are broadly characteristic attitudes shared by these three thinkers to questions about truth, meaning, universality, transcendence and metaphysics. Now I am not saying they all present exactly the same thoughts about these matters, but that the thoughts presented in their various works are generally confined within certain characteristic shared boundaries. — John
The thoughts of the Postmoderns share another characteristic; they are not easy to pin down due to the fact that they generally eschew argument, so they are able to avail themselves of a certain slipperiness. — John
Is it true someone with an AMAB (assigned male at birth) body is stronger than someone with a AFAB (assigned female at birth) body? — TheWillowOfDarkness
There are many differences between them. I mean Derrida and Foucault were famously at each others throats. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I agree there is a shared characteristics, insofar as they all disregard "universal" narratives, but that doesn't tell us much. All it says is they reject a "grounding myth." — TheWillowOfDarkness
Is it true that male humans are, on average, physically stronger than females? — John
I seem to remember that they disagreed about Foucault's treatment of Cartesian doubt in his History of Madness. But can you think of any significant differences when it comes to the 'big' questions.? — John
OK, but isn't their rejection of "grounding myths" a significant defining characteristic of PM? — John
This is certainly the statement of someone who has not seriously read them. Postmodern philosophers make arguments all the time. Sometimes they are needlessly obscure and convoluted, but they definitely hold positions. No doubt they are "slippery" in that they don't assert a simple myth (i.e. "the universal ground" ) which is supposed to account for everything, but that says more about what certain readers think they need out of them, rather than the worth or accuracy of what they are saying. — TheWillowOfDarkness
What exactly is a "big question?" — TheWillowOfDarkness
But that's not the question that was asked. An average only speaks about a trend across a large group of people. I asked you whether it was true that a person with a AMAB was stronger than someone with a AFMB body. Giving an average doesn't answer that question. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Anyway is this not straying somewhat from the subject of the thread? — John
Which man or woman — TheWillowOfDarkness
You aren't even willing to engage with them because, as a sort of microcosm of the issue of contention, the won't accept they grounding myth that tigers are necessarily stronger than humans. — TheWillowOfDarkness
But, I'm not saying that there is no such man; I'm saying I have good reason to believe that there is no such man. Can you not see the difference between the claims? — John
there is a general trend to think in 'modern' and 'postmodern' ways about those issues; and a rejection of much that is traditional in philosophy. The general consensus seems to be very much that these traditional issues have been put to rest, because they were based on false assumptions, or at least assumptions which are no longer thought to be appropriate. — John
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.