It's not taking any grand narratives seriously — schopenhauer1
I may end up getting more wordy in my descriptions in the future, where "apple" is a complex model made up of many submodels which each predict some particular phenomena. — Adam's Off Ox
I like Lyotard's book, but the position sketched above has been with us much longer than the term 'postmodern,' no? What about an atheist who doesn't believe in progress? Is that enough? — Yellow Horse
Which is exactly the opposite of objectivity. The problem with those is precisely that they are non-objective; they only seem, subjectively, good to a few people, disregarding any concern for consistency or neutrality, i.e. objectivity. — Pfhorrest
So it sounds like we are in agreement. — Pfhorrest
In this regard, it is ineffective, escapist, and doesn't change the dull reality any ounce. At best it creates insensible sentimentality to try to console, but mainly it is simply the reiteration that there is no where to go, nothing to do. — schopenhauer1
It quite literally puts all of the power of life in your hands whilst simultaneously highlighting that all other (current) systems demand you remove some level of that responsibility and place it externally.
There are a lot of things postmodernism is not great at, most obvious being the pragmatic movement forward of society (on whatever level). However it is the single greatest defence humans have against external dangerous human thought. — Risk
... I don't think it's controversial to say the predominant trends in philosophy are post-postmodern (i.e. we've moved past dada/kitsch-like obscurant paeans to [ ... ] so-called "deconstructive" - relativisms (à la Frankfurt's bullshit) which had been a mid-20th century onanistic "war on truth" parlor game that'sno longer[somewhat less] fashionable ...) — 180 Proof
Wow! I never expected the plaintive OP to get such reaction. But it has veered off into some very technical and arcane discussions. Anyway, I'll add my 2 cents worth, in a more general sense. I view PM as a cultural course correction, that has influenced the world in a manner similar to Marxism. It raised consciousness of some issues, but didn't offer a viable alternative to the core of the 17th century Enlightenment's legacy : the novel method of acquiring practical knowledge that we call "Modern Science". :nerd:So, in this thread I'm trying understand the appeal of the blatantly antiscience, and vaguely anti-reason, Postmodern philosophy. — Gnomon
There just is in fact, no place to move, no place to go, no such thing as a Utopia even in principle. — schopenhauer1
I think it has everywhere to go as it is not bounded by a systematic framework of restrictions or isolated thinking. — Risk
will lead to fascinating new insights and innovations. — Risk
Novelty as progress — Yellow Horse
any such case of progress not being novel — Risk
We seem to see the situation in basically the same way. How do some of John Gray's darker passages fit in here? He attacks the religion of progress. — Yellow Horse
So this is where I find the value of postmodernism. No predetermined hierarchies. No utopia. Pure choice. Historically people have needed narrow illogical frameworks to motivate themselves to restlessly strive forward. Think clergy building stability via monogamous societies. I don't think its a leap to suggest this may be a cultural characteristic, not intrinsic. And in the future we recognise the grey, ambiguous, interconnectedness of everything which will lead to fascinating new insights and innovations.
I think it has everywhere to go as it is not bounded by a systematic framework of restrictions or isolated thinking. Always looking for a critique though so please fire away! — Risk
though not necessarily my brand of pessimism. — schopenhauer1
The more reasonable approach would be to ask if this reversion would be identical to before, or merged with the newer thought. — Risk
We may be condemned to be free, but we are not free not to die. We are not free not to be uncomfortable. We are not free to not be bored. — schopenhauer1
We cannot just "be" we are always "becoming". — schopenhauer1
It's always trying to get the next thing — schopenhauer1
but we are never content — schopenhauer1
I would disagree that we are free not to be bored or uncomfortable. I think the most obvious way to demonstrate this is by pointing out that even on a bed of nails, some find it comfortable. Even in isolation, some are never bored. So to arrive at your assertion, you would need to define the words as things guaranteed to occur. Thus stripping their negation from the set of all life possibilities. — Risk
To Just Be, would to somehow be able to freeze time. So to build premises around what life is, based on such self fulfilling terminology doesn't make sense. — Risk
everything else become states you choose. — Risk
While Sysphus was condemmed to push the boulder, he was not condemned to be sad whilst doing so — Risk
Just as with Arthur, I disagree with you here. You are setting the rules of engagement without any logical foundation to them. Claiming things must be so and not justifying why.
- Our wills need to survive. What is suicide but a logical contradition to this so called universal law
- comfort. What about those who seek discomfort, even enjoy pain.
Unjustified, unverified rules of engagement. — Risk
The freedom this perspective offers when you abondon the meta narratives and recognise choice for what it is and can be, seems only achievable through post modernist thinking.
Hence What is it good for, absolutely EVERYTHING. — Risk
People train themselves to do this. Most socially-enculturated humans without developmental issues get bored. It's a fact — schopenhauer1
That's the point, it ISN'T by definition, part of our existence. We CAN'T escape it — schopenhauer1
I think it has everywhere to go as it is not bounded by a systematic framework of restrictions or isolated thinking. Always looking for a critique though so please fire away! — Risk
The rest, if you accept the nihilistic determinism of your life then you are free to prescribe meaning beyond being bored or uncomfortable. — Risk
The 'joyful nihilist' is one more role we can find ourselves playing and defending, because it grabbed us in a way that other roles just didn't. — Yellow Horse
Yes. I'm quoting myself again. That's because the thread has veered-off into some nitty-gritty philosophical analysis, and has revealed a polarized attitude toward Postmodernism. Some hate it, some love it. But, although its influence seems to be primarily among intellectual elites, PM appears to have made a lasting impression on human culture.I view PM as a cultural course correction, that has influenced the world in a manner similar to Marxism. It raised consciousness of some issues, but didn't offer a viable alternative to the core of the 17th century Enlightenment's legacy : the novel method of acquiring practical knowledge that we call "Modern Science" — Gnomon
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
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.