While I do not agree with postmodern views on truth (particularly for the disastrous results produced by 'post-fact' politics, refutation enough), I think ultimately one does have to realise that what becomes accepted is often somewhat convenient to the beholders personal taste or personality (I do not mean to include scientific truths here by any means). This is not to say that no matter what one believes, it is true. If there is truth, there is falsehood. There are enough to go around, if one so wishes to create their own distinct system of thought. In this way I think the word narrative is fitting; there is a vast tapestry of truths out there and a thread can be run through it here and there according to the makers needs, desires, objectives, personality, or situation in life, etc. This does not undermine 'objective' truth, for it recognises that they exist and are many. One just needs to work theirs into a coherent system. The postmodernist uses the word 'narrative' to undermine any 'objective' truth to begin with, so instead of sharing from a common pool we instead just subjectivise them all under culture, linguistic convention, personal experience, history, etc. One becomes no more valid than another.

The Stoics did believe their own philosophy was true in a real way, as did the other schools. They disagreed and argued with one another all the time where contradictions between them arose, or on definitions and details, but they also realised that Stoicism was not for everyone and that if an individual found Epicurean doctrines to be more valuable or obvious then they welcomed defection to the other side.

Postmodernists speak of the "lenses" through which we see the world. Maybe they were on to something.

I doubt that each narrative is just as good as another. One must still guard against harming oneself. And it would be downright silly to believe something that one knows to be false, wouldn't it?

The Stoics did believe their own philosophy was true in a real way, as did the other schools. They disagreed and argued with one another all the time where contradictions between them arose, or on definitions and details, but they also realised that Stoicism was not for everyone and that if an individual found Epicurean doctrines to be more valuable or obvious then they welcomed defection to the other side. — WhiskeyWhiskers

I haven't come across any evidence that the Stoics, or any of the ancient schools actually welcomed defection (in fact defection was very rare and notable) but Seneca often quotes Epicurus and treats him and his teachings with nothing but respect.

Yes, we do make up our own narratives, but we don't compose in a vacuum. We all have to piece together some sort of explanation for our being here, and the world working the way it seems to work. We start doing this as young children, and as we mature we absorb a great deal from the culture in which we are submerged. As we age out of childhood, we integrate more and more complex information. "Intellectual minded people" (and by this I do not mean just academic types) keep working on their 'narratives' throughout their lives.

Speaking of Freud and Jung... Jung is a bit too rococo for my taste. Freud's seminal theories have not all held water equally well for my money, but some of them have. The psychodynamics of the Id, Ego, and Superego and Eros as the wellspring of behavior, both in crude and sublimated form, became part of my narrative.

My college work was mercifully before the plague of POst-MOdernism swept over the campuses. It's way too slippery an approach to the world. I was born long before PC became a thing, but the culture of my small midwestern town had plenty of pre-PC equivalents--words not to be spoken, actions not to be taken, thoughts not to be had. I was an obedient child, but the stiffness of the rules rankled. Maybe that is why I dislike political correctness.

Our more or less stable narratives, the ones that we live with as adults, are a jumble of rational and irrational contradictory stuff. they might not be clean and orderly, but they only have to work well enough.

Just well enough? Why set the bar so low? Because we experience the world haphazardly, or serendipitously if you like, and the various oddball things that happen to us are (and should be) incorporated into our personal narratives.

The idea that we have a choice in the matter is a narrative. Even objectively speaking, according to the evidence collected by Donald Hoffman if the human mind and brain had ever remotely resembled anything like reality we would have become extinct as a species.

The multiplicity of narratives does not in the least endanger the oneness of truth.

Postmodernists make me want to gargle battery acid whilst burning alive in a chemical fire. I'm glad you're skeptical of them.

Oof battery acid AND chemical fire? Postmodernists must be very bad indeed! Tell me, what is a postmodernist? How do I recognize one in order that I may avoid one? I certainly don't want to end up gargling battery acid! (Especially not while - whilst, that is - burning alive in a chemical fire.)

Conveniently, there can be no agreed upon definition of postmodernism, because that would be to essentialize it, according to postmodernists. There are an infinity of meanings and no true referents, so just go with what feels right to you.

Avoid people who use nonsensical jargon, are prone to equivocation, and seem inordinately fond of identity politics. Only then will you be able to resist the urge to find the nearest car, pop open the hood, and start chugging sulfuric liquid whilst lighting a match beneath you.

whilst — csalisbury

Means the same as while. Aren't you British? You should know that.

Avoid people who use nonsensical jargon

I think I've found one! His name is schopenhauer and he says this: "That a priority finds its confirmation every moment in the infallible security with which we expect experience to tally with the causal law : that is to say, in the apodeictic certainty we ascribe to it, a certainty which differs from every other founded on induction—the certainty, for instance, of empirically known laws of Nature—in that we can conceive no exception to the causal law anywhere within the world of experience."

a priority? apodeictic? induction? I've never heard of such things! He seems very much like a postmodernist. The only trouble is I'm not sure if his jargon is sensical or nonsensical. How does one tell the difference?

Means the same as while. Aren't you British? You should know that.

Oh, you're british? My mistake, I thought you were american too - Certain americans use british or archaic terms as substitutes for words that mean literally the same thing in order to give a certain affected timbre to their speech or prose. It was confusing to me for a second, for I've heard many criticize postmodernists for favoring appearance over substance, and I was sure you, who hate the postmodernists, would be guilty of no such thing.

Oh, I see now. You're currently in the bowls of Derrida, judging by the other thread, and feel more than a little twinged that I've expressed antipathy toward the movement of which he is a part, given that you are likely sympathetic to both him and it in some measure; hence also the increasingly strained attempts at sarcasm evident in your latest posts. In short, I pissed you off, and now you're being a dick.

Anyone who thinks the prose of Schopenhauer is as obscure, unreadable, and pretentious as Derrida's is not a very honest or serious person. Not that my saying this matters, since if you agree with Derrida, then I can dismiss you without argument due to his avowal of the inauthenticity and unreality of the speaker.

You've recognized the sarcasm, but you've misidentified the source. Obviously you've no reason to read the Voice & Phenomena thread, but, if you had, you'd find that I've criticized Derrida every step of the way (I participate primarily because I enjoy the collaborative exegesis of reading groups. I voted that we read Quine, not Derrida.)

I'm giving you an opportunity to defend your views under socratic scrutiny, rather than trot out uninspired variations on 'I'd rather die than x." Betwixt you and me, I don't agree with Derrida on most things. Now, please, how does one distinguish between sensical and nonsensical jargon?

'Post-modernism' is not a school of thought, but a period of history. The reasons that 'objectivity' is called into into question are many and various, but among them is Nietszche's intepretation of Kant to develop what he called 'perspectivism'. This is the idea all ideations take place from particular perspectives and that there is no completely objective vantage point. However, this doesn't mean that everything is simply a matter of individual judgement, because we ourselves inhabit a shared domain of values, units of measurement, language, convention, and the like. So one can admit the validity of perspectivism without saying that everything is, therefore, merely subjective. Rather it has a subjective element or component - the domain of phenomenon is always perceived from a perspective, rather than (pace Kant) as it truly is. (Note that this preserves the juxtaposition of reality and appearance. Also note that it supports Thorongil's assertion about the multiplicity of narratives.)

I think where the realisation of perspectivism really came to the fore was in the 1920's with the discoveries of relativity and quantum mechanics. Whereas in the heyday of Victorian science, Lord Kelvin felt confident to say that all the details had been worked out, now it's only a matter of decimal places, the discovery of uncertainty (along with contemporaneous historical events, such as WW1) signaled the end to the certainties of Victorian science, and the idea of 'modernism' as being the never-ending unfolding of progress. Also many of the moral certainties of organised religion had been abandoned. So this seems to undercut the notion of there being at least an objectivably discoverable Truth, capital T, and to suggest that we all (as Heraclitus said) live 'each in our private world'. Which is why I regard the 'modern' period as being book-ended by the publication of Newton's laws, at the beginning, to the publication of relativity, at the end.

You may have noticed that I haven't posted much on the forum lately and that all of my recent posts are rather short in length. If by your question you are telling me, with a straight face, to provide all the reasons why I greatly dislike postmodernism and its maddeningly obscure jargon, then I'm afraid I don't have the time. Nor would I enjoy doing so, since, as I directly implied, I try to avoid thinking or talking about it, unless to playfully make fun of it. I also doubt that you're really very interested in hearing what I have to say, given the sarcastically dismissive tenor of your posts.

If, on the other hand, you want a short and simplistic answer to your question, then I will say that, quite as one might expect, one finds postmodernism to be nonsense, if, being in possession of moderate intelligence, and after having made an earnest attempt to understand it, no such understanding is forthcoming. One could still be wrong, of course, but it is quite impossible to be certain about very many things. Some ideas are difficult to comprehend due to the inherent complexity and depth of their insight or because the author is an unintentionally poor writer. Other ideas are difficult to comprehend because they are incoherent to begin with or else are trivial ideas given the illusion of complexity through the use of jargon. I find, in my attempts to understand postmodernism, that it consistently presents either of the latter sort of idea.

Hope that I'm not promoting point scoring or anything... I of course do have vested interests in everything I have to say and support, and everything I say comes from that personal place, which promotes the things that best benefit me... but that said...

Three points!

It was confusing to me for a second, for I've heard many criticize postmodernists for favoring appearance over substance, and I was sure you, who hate the postmodernists, would be guilty of no such thing. — csalisbury

lol

I agree that 'po-mo' as a kind of school of thought is like that, and also its lamentable effects in the academy (as demonstrated vividly by the Sokal hoax). Fortunately when I was an undergrad, late 70's, it hadn't really become entrenched at Sydney Uni where I was. I missed out on Derrida altogether (although I read a satirical article on him, 'How to Become an Eminent French Philosopher' not long afterwards.)

But I think if you understand 'why post-modernism?' in those kind of broad historical terms, then you can at least make sense out of it (although I don't see much reason to read the well-known European postmodernists).

The ironic thing is actually that Foucault and Derrida were far from best buds, and Foucault accused them all of being intentionally obscure and difficult, he would know, he claimed to do it himself at least 15% of the time, or no one would think you're deep.

You may have noticed that I haven't posted much on the forum lately and that all of my recent posts are rather short in length. If by your question you are telling me, with a straight face, to provide all the reasons why I greatly dislike postmodernism and its maddeningly obscure jargon, then I'm afraid I don't have the time. Nor would I enjoy doing so, since, as I directly implied, I try to avoid thinking or talking about it, unless to playfully make fun of it. I also doubt that you're really very interested in hearing what I have to say, given the sarcastically dismissive tenor of your posts.

If, on the other hand, you want a short and simplistic answer to your question, then I will say that, quite as one might expect, one finds postmodernism to be nonsense, if, being in possession of moderate intelligence, and after having made an earnest attempt to understand it, no such understanding is forthcoming. One could still be wrong, of course, but it is quite impossible to be certain about very many things. Some ideas are difficult to comprehend due to the inherent complexity and depth of their insight or because the author is an unintentionally poor writer. Other ideas are difficult to comprehend because they are incoherent to begin with or else are trivial ideas given the illusion of complexity through the use of jargon. I find, in my attempts to understand postmodernism, that it consistently conforms to either of the latter sort of idea.

First, let's talk about sarcastic, dismissive tenor. You've mentioned that I was being a bit of a dick. That's true. But I think it's equally true that 90% of what you've posted on this thread is nothing but flowery sarcastic rhetoric. And I think - I hope - that you're aware enough to recognize this. As you may know, postmodernists are often charged with eschewing serious argument in favor of florid rhetorical attacks on their opponents. He who fights with postmodernists should be careful lest he thereby become a postmodernist amirite?

Q how does one distinguish between sensical and non-sensical jargon?
A if moderately intelligent, earnest individuals fail to understand the jargon, after trying charitably to understand it, then it is nonsensical.

Welp, plenty of very smart people think Schop's 'will' is metaphysical nonsense. Plenty of very smart people think it isn't. But If one looks close, looks within, really considers things - one sees who's right and who's wrong.

Your criterion is interesting in that it provides no basis for itself, but directly flatters the evaluative capacity of the person considering it. What does a mean to be an intelligent, charitable person? Well, it's hard to pin it down exactly, but one knows very well doesn't one?

What does white privilege mean? Well it's obvious to anyone who sincerely takes a look at themselves and their environment. Only someone willfully blind could fail to understand how it pervades all aspects of contemporary american life.

Can you tell me what the essential difference is between those last two paragraphs?

It feels very much to me like your way of distinguishing sensical and nonsensical jargon is no different than the sjw's way of distinguishing the comments of those who truly understand the racial undertones of event x and the comments of those who are blind to their privilege.

'Post-modernism' is not a school of thought, but a period of history. — Wayfarer

I think that hits the nail on the head. It's more akin to "the Enlightenment" than, say, "Transcendental Idealism" -- the former being a historical period of philosophy (which we posit to understand the history of philosophy), and the latter being a particular kind of philosophy (of which there are a handful of self-described adherents).


So, one can believe narratives play a role within some philosophical works without also, thereby, labeling oneself as a post-modernist.

What do you think? Are we, should we, each just make up our own narrative about what is most important, are we, should we each just make up our own narrative about how to live the best life possible? — anonymous66

Can we just make up narratives about what is most important or how to live the best life possible?

I think that we narrativize because it's a way of thinking. We tell a story about our lives to ourselves and to others. There's a sense in which it's made up, but I don't know if I'd say it's just made up -- as in, off the top of my head, purely imaginative play, or that my statements are imbued with a kind of magical ability to make themselves true by speaking them.

So, one can believe narratives play a role within some philosophical works without also, thereby, labeling oneself as a post-modernist. — Moliere

Indeed! I think one can benefit from the perspectivist approach characteristic of post-modernism, without trying to make it into 'a method'. (Personally, I got a lot out of The Truth about the Truth: De-confusing and Re-constructing the Postmodern World, Walt Anderson.)

'Post-modernism' is not a school of thought, but a period of history. — Wayfarer

It seems to me that it could be described as a period of history, but it is also a movement and school of thought. They even have their own journals.

Just because one lives during a certain time period, it doesn't follow that they buy into postmodernistic ways of thinking.

Postmodernists make me want to gargle battery acid whilst burning alive in a chemical fire. I'm glad you're skeptical of them. — Thorongil

Postmodernists have helped us as a society to be honest about the fact that even in science, certain ways of looking at the world (our lenses, if you will) can and do cloud judgment and perception. But instead of seeing that as evidence that the concept of truth is incoherent, I see it as a reminder to consider my own biases, and the biases of others, no matter how objective they sound.

I'm leaning towards instrumentalism in science as well. Science is more about finding ways to make better and better predictions, than it is a search for ultimate truths.

Postmodernists have also warned us of the dangers of scientism. Just because we can do something with science (like make big bombs and biological weapons), it doesn't mean we should.

I don't like the inherent denial of truth and commitment to subjectivism, nor their peculiar language, but I do appreciate the warnings.

And I do think it's interesting that a lot of important, influential figures and movements (Freud, Jung, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Aristostle, Plato, Socrates) could be described as creating narratives that some people buy into. And I wonder if what "sticks" couldn't be described as being "useful" in some ways, at least for a time... until they get replaced with some other "more useful" narrative.

First things first, who deleted my previous comments? I thought they were quite inoffensive and rather witty myself. Whatever the merits of the latter claim, I did not, more specifically, use foul language, call for someone's murder, or anything of that kind. Whoever deleted them owes me an explanation, at the very least, and I must say I am fairly disappointed in this forum at the moment.

Your post tells me that you haven't paid much attention to what I have said to you. I was very clear that I didn't have the time to get into all the reasons why I am opposed to postmodernism, so I merely offered a brief precis as to why I have become opposed to it.

That being said, there is a very simple reason I implied earlier for why I reject postmodernism, which is supplied by postmodernism itself. To wit, if all truth is socially constructed, and there is no objective standard of truth, then I am free to reject postmodernism at will and without reason.

Thus, in one important sense, postmodernism cannot be "fought." It can only be dismissed. Nothing I say to a postmodernist need ever make any difference to them, since they have rejected the very principles with which we might decide some point of dispute. I'm not interested in shadow boxing and so will stick to fighting real opponents.

Someone who labels Schopenhauer's metaphysics nonsense, which I have read many people do both in the secondary literature and not, is different from my labeling postmodernism nonsense. In the former case, one applies the label based on having deduced counter-arguments to those one takes Schopenhauer to be presenting. That is to say, one rejects Schopenhauer based on the same rules of the game he himself employs. If someone rejects Schopenhauer thusly, I have absolutely no issue with them.

Now, my rejecting postmodernism as nonsense is primarily due to the fact that they reject those rules, which in turn enables me to reject it. Once you say that words no longer correspond to reality, that they construct reality, or that nothing is outside the text, etc then we cannot but talk past each other. Such claims, which amount to epistemological and moral relativism, are self-refuting, in that they assume that which they attempt to disprove. But if the person to whom I am speaking still refuses to cede this point, then I'm done and dusted with the whole affair.

certain ways of looking at the world (our lenses, if you will) can and do cloud judgment and perception. But instead of seeing that as evidence that the concept of truth is incoherent, I see it as a reminder to consider my own biases, and the biases of others, no matter how objective they sound. — anonymous66

A trivial point made and realized by those who aren't postmodernists. Notice also that you were able to make it without tortuous vocabulary. That's my only comment, as the rest of your post appears sensible to me.

Now, my rejecting postmodernism as nonsense is primarily due to the fact that they reject those rules, which in turn enables me to reject it. Once you say that words no longer correspond to reality, that they construct reality, or that nothing is outside the text, etc then we cannot but talk past each other. — Thorongil

As soon as someone leaves the realm of the intelligible then they deserve to be ignored. Post-modernism has, by and far, left this realm.

Darth gets it.

A trivial point made and realized by those who aren't postmodernists. Notice also that you were able to make it without tortuous vocabulary. That's my only comment, as the rest of your post appears sensible to me. — Thorongil

I'm not so sure this point would be so trivial if not for postmodernism.

To wit, if all truth is socially constructed, and there is no objective standard of truth, then I am free to reject postmodernism at will and without reason. — Thorongil

Unless you're a one-man society, I don't see how that follows.

Compare with: "if the English language is socially constructed, and there is no objective standard of meaning, then I am free to reject the Oxford Dictionary at will and without reason".

Although, saying that, it's not clear what you even mean by saying "I am free to reject". If you just mean "I am able to reject", then yes, you are. But if you mean "it's not incorrect of me to reject" then, where correctness is judged according to some socially constructed criteria (as postmodernism argues) then no, you're not. Or if you mean "my rejection of it isn't contrary to some objective standard" then (again) yes, you are, but then that's consistent with the postmodernist's claim.

I'm not so sure this point would be so trivial if not for postmodernism. — anonymous66

Meh.

It simply means that the postmodernist has no recourse to disagree with me or say that I'm wrong if I reject postmodernism, for my dismissal of it, according to them, is conditioned by the discourse which led me, inextricably, into doing just that, and no one discourse is better or more true than any other.

...will you be able to resist the urge to find the nearest car, pop open the hood, and start chugging sulfuric liquid — Thorongil

Yes, but hybrid cars don't use that kind of battery. They use lithium ion or nickel oxide hydroxide batteries. What's an environmentally-sensitive POMO-poisoned person to do? Chewing on lithium will just even out my mood. On the other hand, if I sit on a pile of the disastrous Galaxy Note 7 cell phones, they will eventually burst into flames of burning lithium and plastic.

scientism — anonymous66

white privilege — csalisbury

narrativize — Moliere

Oh oh, they are all exhibiting POMO vocabulary and concerns. Call the cops.