That comes out of phenomenology, which precedes postmodernism. Merleau Ponty died in 1961, whereas post-modernism came out in the late 60's early 70's — Manuel
Adorno, Žižek, Critchley have always been interesting reads ... the others not so much.And where do you stand on critical theorists like Adorno and Habermas, Badiu , Lacan, Zizek or pomo theologians like Caputo , Critchley, Charles Taylor? — Joshs
there's no "need to prove" my/any "point" when the meanings of all "points" are episteme-relative or deferred. (Anyone who has read Derrida & Foucault against themselves (i.e. in Nietzschean fashion) would "know" that.) :wink: — 180 Proof
There are no valid p0m0 arguments (Sokal, et al), they echew 'logocentric' discourses; so what's your point? — 180 Proof
Two years later, Britain ceded India. Not a coincidence — Kenosha Kid
So I'd have to know who you have in mind when you say postmodernism. That's just the thing, is postmodernism over? I have no idea. There's talk of post-postmodernism, I don't know what that means. — Manuel
Yes. But 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
In reading this thread I'm beginning to see a distinction between an era and a people. The OP had me thinking merely of an era (post-modern); but subsequent posts discuss a person (a post-modernist). The latter could be a person like me, who: 1. simply thinks the era is/was real, 2. embodies the characteristics of the era; 3. embraces the characteristics of the era; or 4. merely happens to live in the era. I might be #1 and #4 but don't know enough about myself or the characteristic to know if I qualify for #2 or #3. Still reading. But I think it might be helpful to me if the distinction was made. Maybe I'll just have to struggle to discern from context. — James Riley
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. — 180 Proof
Who are these non/Jamesian pragmatists? Certainly not Dewey or Mead. Do you mean Peirce? And where do you stand on critical theorists like Adorno and Habermas, Badiu , Lacan, Zizek or pomo theologians like Caputo , Critchley, Charles Taylor? — Joshs
Bear in mind that Indians had been organizing efforts to rid themselves of the British Raj since before WWI. — Bitter Crank
Postmodernism started as a report on the postwar West. It was empirical first of all, not theoretical. — Kenosha Kid
then we're accepting an event prior to which there was a general belief in special neutral, objective frames of reference from which you can judge the truth of certain statements and after which there was a general belief that no such frame exists — Kenosha Kid
In this regard it seems to me that something like deconstruction is warranted. The lack of a neutral perspective justifies a wariness about accepting the perspective of the author without examination. — Kenosha Kid
Any female pomo theorists other than Kristeva? — Tom Storm
Joshs, what I am really interested in is do you have a view on Wayfarer's tentative historical timeline QM to postmodern thinking? — Tom Storm
it's a question of dispute to claim that the postmodernists achieved something of which few people have caught up on. I think Susan Haack, Galen Strawson and Raymond Tallis do very, very good work and none of them agree with Kant on much. — Manuel
Chomsky's criticism is pretty well known and well-quoted, and it's... huh?!? When something makes very clever people say very stupid things, it's worth checking out. — Kenosha Kid
Maybe you're right. I doubt that anyone coming out of the postwar West would have used that term or even agreed with what it came to mean. If the question is that of information and control of people, the PR industry, was ahead of all of them, clearly. They actually impacted the world to a degree which is hard to conceptualize. — Manuel
So it's not as if pomo came and suddenly people became aware of different perspectives. — Manuel
Maybe now I'm the one being confused but the birth of modern philosophy was with Descartes, who said that it was a good idea to, at least once, doubt everything. — Manuel
These were already real before the postmodernists got involved. — Kenosha Kid
Except God. And the limitless capability of the rational mind. Perhaps he did doubt these once each, in a perfunctory manner. — Kenosha Kid
Silly. That's like asking which sacred scriptures were concerned with abortion or secularism?Which late 16th/early 17th century texts were concerned with advertising and computers? — Kenosha Kid
:up:Maybe now I'm the one being confused but the birth of modern philosophy was with Descartes, who said that it was a good idea to, at least once, doubt everything.
I think that's a fine attitude to have in general, when warranted, of course. — Manuel
As an aside, not referring to you, but it bothers me that Descartes gets so much crap these days. It's not as if a scientist born in Descartes time would've obviously come up with general relativity, or would've obviously had seen how thought and matter cannot be metaphysically distinct. — Manuel
Silly. That's like asking which sacred scriptures were concerned with abortion or secularism? — 180 Proof
I think his meditations were absolute tosh even at the time, though. — Kenosha Kid
It also depends on if it is correct to label Heidegger as a postmodernist, which is not clear. But then he would be the very best of pomo, in my opinion. — 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.