The last "metanarritive" to fall is the future. This knowledge is now pervasive. Is this late stage postmodernism, or are we now in some new, eschatological condition? — hypericin
Postmodernism proper begins around the first two decades of the 20th C. 'All that is solid melts into air'. 'Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold'. — Wayfarer
:up: The absurd (re: Zapffe, Camus, Rosset, Murray, Brassier) is / has always been, it seems, the Human condition.The last "metanarrative" to fall is the future. This knowledge is now pervasive. Is this late stage postmodernism, or are we now in some new, eschatological condition? — hypericin
Well, I think most people place their hopes in improvements of human life due to medical science and science;based technology. — Janus
This is my first exposure to the subject and I was favorably impressed with your description of the issue; so much so that I fell right in with the description of postmodernism so completely as to see it — James Riley
Self-disgust had nothing to do with it. Empires shed their empires because they could not hold on to them any longer. Then too, the natives were getting restless, never a good thing for the regime. — Bitter Crank
There's even something called postmodern architecture, based on deconstruction. — Manuel
It's just quite baffling that they never really gave a good response to Sokal and Bricmont's books or arguments. — Manuel
I think you would first still need to agree that po-mo had provided a particular lens through which to view things. I am not sure this can be readily established. — Tom Storm
My belief is that post-modernism describes a real social condition and period in history, that the 'modern' period began with Newton's publication of his Natural Principles and ended with Einstein's publication of Special Relativity. Between those two bookmarks, the belief that the laws of nature reflected God's handiwork still clung on but the discovery of relativity theory and then quantum mechanics swept all that away. Postmodernism proper begins around the first two decades of the 20th C. 'All that is solid melts into air'. 'Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold'. — Wayfarer
There MUST be published papers written with this thing. — hypericin
Cheers Janus. While the anti-vax lunatic fringe might disagree, I think most people would agree. By contrast, would you say that most people agree or disagree with the sentence: Our use of technology is causing a catastrophic global warming event? — Kenosha Kid
And I'm thinking, the period after post-modern is post-apocalypse. :yikes: Hope not. — Wayfarer
I was always taught (sociology, sorry) that postmodernism begins mid 20th Century, esp 1960's. I think the theory's slippery lack of specificity is telling and appropriately ironic. I guess you are trying to align it to a bigger picture. — Tom Storm
I'd say anyone who is even passably science-literate and not given to perverse conspiracy theories would agree, but I don't know how many of each of those categories there are. I'd say the conspiracy theory crowd are a fairly small minority, but I don't know about the science-literate. — Janus
Manmade climate change's reality has an overwhelming consensus in science, so I expect that scientifically literate people would agree that our use of technology is apocalyptic. — Kenosha Kid
"Self-disgust" is probably the wrong term, I agree. — Kenosha Kid
There MUST be published papers written with this thing. — hypericin
The Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax,[1] was a demonstrative scholarly hoax performed by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor, and specifically to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies—whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross—[would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."[2]
The article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity",[3] was published in the journal's spring/summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and it did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist.[4][5] Three weeks after its publication in May 1996, Sokal revealed in the magazine Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax.[2]
The hoax caused controversy about the scholarly merit of commentary on the physical sciences by those in the humanities; the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general; academic ethics, including whether Sokal was wrong to deceive the editors and readers of Social Text; and whether Social Text had exercised appropriate intellectual rigor.
So you're sympathetic to postmodernism? — Manuel
I'll drink to that! :up:(pomo needs a better class of postmodernist). — Kenosha Kid
Mostly my feeling is that pomo was fundamentally accurate, but no one really knew what to do with it, much like existentialism which I think of as early postmodernism. A lot of it also seems to come down to matters of taste, or rather of distaste of things held beyond criticism being criticised. — Kenosha Kid
In short, there's something there, and it deserves a fairer shake, both by people outside of it and by its researchers (pomo needs a better class of postmodernist). — Kenosha Kid
what aspect of pomo had not been articulated previously by other people many, many years ago? I mean the sophists were a kind of postmodernism. — Manuel
non-Jamesian/Rortian pragmatisms + left-libertarian critiques of – alternatives to – the neoliberal, military keynesian status quo is still the only "viable" oppositional stance given that 1960s-80s p0m0 was DOA — 180 Proof
. Rorty made this argument also, meaning that most analytic philosophy was simply regurgitating Kant and hadnt absorbed Hegel’s lessons yet.what's missing from analytic philosophy is that they "do philosophy" as if nothing has happened in 20th century history, as Derrida said, — Manuel
But I don't see what's new about the thought, besides the jargon. — Manuel
Of course not. My point is that p0m0 says nothing new that has not been said clearer, more insightfully and more applicably since the late 16th/early 17th century. That p0m0 is "a waste of time" is a fact of its scholastic-like vacuity and sophistries (no need to name names, is there?)Ah! So everything that has precursors is a waste of time? I'm not so sure... — Kenosha Kid
:up:I ask you, what aspect of pomo had not been articulated previously by other people many, many years ago? I mean the sophists were a kind of postmodernism. — Manuel
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.