The point is that it itself is largely a cultural and aesthetic phenomenon. — StreetlightX
Yes, agreeing with you. But you said "as it should in any discussion of postmodernism", which sounds a bit dismissal of the depth of postmodernism outside aesthetic and cultural impacts. — Christoffer
Fair enough. I'm trying to countervail the tendency of those in this thread who treat it as primarily an academic or even philosophical movement of some kind. A confusion - itself confused - of a distinction between postmodernity and post-structuralism, a la Wheatley. — StreetlightX
It's not about what it should be. It's about what it is - and that people need to understand what they are talking about before blabbing on about 'subjective truth' or whatever other wrongheaded trash they associate with postmodernism. — StreetlightX
Not me.A confusion - itself confused - of a distinction between postmodernity and post-structuralism, a la Wheatley. — StreetlightX
Lyotard — Wheatley
Ok. Much appreciate this correction, SLX. :cool:Lyotard was a theorist of postmodernity. He was incredibly critical of it, and the fact that he is often called a 'postmodernist' philosopher - as if he advocated or celebrated it - is not only wrong, it is practically the opposite of what he would have wanted. He bemoaned the end of the meta-narrative, which was coincident, for him, with the crisis of capitalism. He was a diagnostician of postmodernity, not a cheerleader for it. — StreetlightX
↪Adam's Off Ox I don't really know what 'postmodern philosophical approaches' are, and neither do most people who use that phrase. It's a reference without a referent. 'Subjective truth' is a phrase and concept far more associated with Kierkegaard and other existentialist thinkers, and its association with postmodernity is arbitrary and largely mythical, employed by people who largely don't know what they are talking about. — StreetlightX
Lyotard was a theorist of postmodernity. He was incredibly critical of it, and the fact that he is often called a 'postmodernist' philosopher - as if he advocated or celebrated it - is not only wrong, it is practically the opposite of what he would have wanted. He bemoaned the end of the meta-narrative, which was coincident, for him, with the crisis of capitalism. — StreetlightX
I consider deconstruction and the moving away from a meta-narrative. While deconstruction may be understood without taking a 'subjective' approach, the process by which a meta-narrative gets dissolved often appeals to subjectivity (as in, differences in how different subjects come to understand a text). — Adam's Off Ox
This is not true. Lyotard was critical of universals and metanarratives in his work. — Kenosha Kid
Everything is linked to economics and resources in my opinion.
— tilda-psychist
Would you be willing to expand on this? Specifically could you explain what 'everything' refers to? Also can you explain how you use the phrase "everything is linked" ? — Adam's Off Ox
Yes - Lyotard was subtle enough to have critiqued both metanarratives and their dissolution, without acceding to any false choice between them. — StreetlightX
He sure as hell bemoaned what came after. — StreetlightX
But, I don't understand the alternative vaguely-defined non-rational methods that seem to have replaced the analytical methods of Logical Positivism. — Gnomon
So, I'm wondering if the philosophical "reasoning" styles of Postmodernists, have more in common with Venus than with Mars. — Gnomon
From what I understand postmodernism is a cultural phenomenon. Yet there are some people (I am not going to name names) who claim that postmodernist philosophers are unethical and want to destroy society, families, and religion.reference postmodernism with respect to aesthetics and culture. — Adam's Off Ox
I think if there is any "truth" to the ideas of post-modernism it might be this: We are always a creature one step removed from from primary existence. A fish swims, eats, hides, follows innate behaviors, it does not self-reflect. Even an ape or a dolphin probably doesn't go much past certain very basic communications and certain cultural learning. Humans are fully linguistic, cultural, generative, and iterative. It is hard to have a thought and then not have an analysis of that thought terms of other thoughts. It's hard to have a thought in isolation of its own self-analysis. The same goes for social things like values. It would be inauthentic not to self-analyze social and personal beliefs. But at the same token one disregards all sense of authenticity if one is fully and only ironic (which might be Wallace's complaint about post-modernism). — schopenhauer1
Seinfeld is the ultimate post-modern sitcom. In a way we are living in a post-Seinfeld world. How does one take any social situation seriously really? I find it interesting with any form of satire or social criticism, that even after seeing the humor, when people go back to "living their lives" they don't actually take the lessons with them, and go back to living as if their life is not that super set of absurd circumstances as well, but a "real serious and dignified" narrative. A less obvious version of this are people who romantically think that things like "travel", "mountain climbing", "camping", and "sky diving" or (insert any modern form of trying to signal getting back to nature, going "extreme", or being an "travelling explorer") are truly some edifying thing.. None of the absurdities of shitting in a hole (whist camping without a bathroom facility around), uncomfortable sleeping, the very fact that most people are bringing all this modern equipment to be safe and comfortable in the "wilderness". You will probably lose something on that trip, get annoyed at your friend, etc. But yeah, might have some socially created "authentic" moments hanging out with friends in a different setting than a city place or someone's residence. Anyways, I digress.. but these trivialities matter in all of this...
In a way, my authentic attempts to get people to understand antinatalism can be seen as modernist.. in that it is taken so seriously, it is really believed. Suffering is to be something to be reckoned with, and the eye rolling resumes. "Stop being so serious!" would be the major response. The modernist inverse answer to my form of modernism would be "Technology, family, and shared values will triumph over your pessimism". And so we got two schools of thought.. life is a joke, don't take it seriously, or life has values that should be cherished so stop being so pessimistic..
You could probably argue that Hollywood sometimes promotes post-modernism. If it 10 years 90% of Hollywood or mass media movies promote post-modernism as well as far left liberal ideals, you could thus say that most of humanity has chosen a new set of subjective truths to be objective truths. — tilda-psychist
Considering economics and money and also resources is tied into everything, i believe this will happen whether i win this argument either way. I'm just cutting to the chase right now. I believe the conservatives have conservative options but they reject conservatism because they would also at the same time accept that their own biases are the main cause that our society is not conservative. I could sit here and argue with you about post-modernism but i believe our society's acceptance of post modernism stems from a lack of true conservatism among conservatives. Everything is linked to economics and resources in my opinion. — tilda-psychist
In short you admitted that objective truth exists. We could all argue which percentage of objective truth is actually really objective truth. Most people would argue relationships matter and then we could all argue how much relationships matter in relation to things that are typically argued to be practical matters (things completely separated from human relationships). As long as two people both agree that subjective truth and also objective truth exist, how much is left in an argument over post-modernism is up to how much energy the two people want to expend arguing/debate about it. Unless you have some side topic in relation to post-modernism, i have no reason to continue the debate at this point in time — tilda-psychist
No. I was merely wondering if the emphasis on ineffable Emotion over explicit Reason in PM reflects a "feminized brain" in male homosexuals, who became leaders of the PoMo movement. It's just a matter of mild philosophical (not prurient) curiosity, not an attempt to validate a left vs right brain hegemony, or to demean women and gays. If most PM promoters were hard-core heterosexual males, I'll have to find a different theory to explain the Postmodern communication "gap".I'm not sure I'm following you there. Can you elucidate a bit more on that? In other words, are you implying (as a heterosexual or gay person as you suggested) that both brain hemispheres should be discouraged from use, or somehow not a virtuous ideal? — 3017amen
:mask: :point:I can't think of a perceived problem with postmodernism that doesn't reduce to an anti-postmodern methodology of the form:
1. Subject privileges X and not !X.
2. Therefore !X.
This is basically the post-truth movement in a nutshell, a systematic lapse in any kind of logic that itself privileges one binary value over another. Postmodernism is (1) by itself. Post-truth adds (2). — Kenosha Kid
:rofl:↪StreetlightX
Ah. Thank you. Perhaps I don't miss him that much after all. — Ciceronianus the White
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.