However, I would think that someone like you would be concerned when serious physicists like Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont show how many of the figures belonging in this school of thought, make science a total metaphor, making meaningless statements about how math and physics relate to politics or power. — Manuel

The Sokal affair seemed to me pretty stupid on both sides. Sokal got his paper rejected from several journals before finding one stupid enough to publish it. I don't think it says much of anything at all other than Sokal was an arsehole with a conservative axe to grind and Social Text had trouble unpacking his paper and ill-advisedly published it anyway.

If we are to make the claim that the worst is a synecdoche of the whole, science fares no better than postmodernism, since they returned the favour with a slew of nonsense papers that got published in peer-reviewed science journals. The auto-generated paper fiasco more recently also demonstrates that there are plenty of science journals out there that aren't as exacting as we pride ourselves on or, worse, willing to lower scientific standards in exchange for cash (viz. every pay-to-publish journal, looking at you Elsevier!). Which fits exceedingly well into the postmodern critique of science. Who's the idiots here?

It's just not an argument imo, and yet it's usually the first thing that comes up. (Kudos to us it took three pages.)

I had in mind Sokal and Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense, which presents a good argument on "pomo science". As for the Sokal affair in general, yeah, I agree it shows many problems in academia/publishing.

What gets me in the willful obscurantism. If they have something to say, say it clearly. Foucault could be quite clear when he wanted to. To say that there are many different perspectives and that one should be critical of what scientists say, is not particularly hard to state or understand, I don't think.

This critique could be made of many: Kant, Husserl and even Aristotle can be very obscure. There's a difference between not being able to write clearly vs. making something hard on purpose. I think Parisian pomo's - with some exceptions - do the latter. It can mislead people into thinking they're being deep. Adding bad science to it makes it worse.

But if you stick to people like Rorty, Wallace and the like, then I perceive something more coherent.

Parisian pomo's — Manuel

I would like to note that, for better or worse, postmodernism never got in France the echo it got in the US, where it became dominant in humanities. See the excellent French Theory: How Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, & Co. Transformed the Intellectual Life of the United States, by François Cusset.

Foucault could be quite clear

Agreed, and he lambasted Derrida's 'obscurantist terrorism', as reported by Searle.

Not sure if it happened or not. I thought it did.
Anyways, I got some books by Delueze, Derrida and Foucault, and will be reading them. So it will be happening in my reading room for sure.

This is true. It's still popular in the US. France has moved on, I think.

Foucault could be quite clear
Agreed, and he lambasted Derrida's 'obscurantist terrorism', as reported by Searle. — Olivier5

That’s because Foucault couldn’t understand the ideas, and Searle was and is hopelessly behind when it comes to any of the postmodernism, including Foucault.

France has moved on, I think. — Manuel

Yes. Even Foucault is pretty much buried nowadays, nobody studies him much in France, although he was clearly not a charlatan. Deleuze is an exception in that he is still considered 'current', I believe for good reasons. Badiou is also still around, but I don't know much about him. Seems to me that he is better known in the US, like Derrida.

Searle admired Foucault. And Foucault was a brilliant thinker. His critique of Derrida is that obscurity is a way to avoid critique and accountability, because it makes it facile to say that the critique 'does not understand'. He did not say that any and all of Derrida is books was worthless, but that Derrida was too facile in his rejection of other philosophers' critique.

That's the main problem I personally see with some pomo texts and authors, which tend to think 'en roue libre' (free wheeling) i.e. without subjecting their thought to empirical refutation or critical analysis. Too facile.

Badiou's popularity in the US is due, in large part, to Žižek no doubt. I think Žižek is quite entertaining and I'd put him apart from the usual crowd, even if he discusses many of the pomos.

Foucault was probably the best of the Parisians, whatever else one may think about how far one should take his analysis. Deleuze, at least for me, is an edge case. I think his vocabulary was on the whole, innovative and his emphasis on difference, strange, but not bad. The problem is that as far as I know, I don't know Deluzians who have actually tried to defend Deleuze in Fashionable Nonsense.

I think those accusations merit serious discussion. And Deleuze's Difference and Repetition is obscure in the extreme. I tried like a few different "intro books' to Deleuze, and I don't think I've ever read worse "introductions to" on anybody.

I know some may like Derrida, I do not. Nor Lacan, who is problematic for many reasons. For these two, I really think they tried to be as obscure as possible.

As for the rest Lyotard, Baudrillard, Guatarri, De Man, Althusser and the rest, I can't say much, other than they share a style and prose which has not been good for literature, imho.

Foucault, Deleuze & Eco I've found were worth the trouble; the rest, however, not at all (though e.g. Žižek & Bataille are interesting/entertaining).

I should really read Fashionable Nonsense.

Note that Badiou was also the target of an academic hoax à la Sokal. On April fool's day, 2016, two French philosophers, Philippe Huneman and Anouk Barberousse, announced that they were the authors of an article titled "Ontology, Neutrality and the Strive for (non)Being-Queer", published in the peer-reviewed Badiou Studies (sic) and signed by an imaginary Benedetta Tripodi. The article was just a bunch of BS couched in Badiousan language.

Foucault, Deleuze & Eco I'd found were worth the trouble; — 180 Proof

Umberto Eco? I love him but never saw him as Pomo... ?

Personally I agree with the (or one of the) basic diagnostic of postmodernism, in summary that science as a form of social activity is liable to echo chambers and cultural biases. This realisation -- in my opinion -- was true, but became perverted and excessive. I also believe that it gave a 'script' to powerful economic lobbies trying to pervert scientific knowledge in their favour: the tobacco industry, and more recently the oil industry managed to engineer doubt, by funding specific scientists who doubted (or said they doubted) the scientific consensus on tobacco causing cancer, or climate change respectively. I don't think such manipulation of scientific discourse was happening before Pomo. Maybe I'm wrong, but the idea is that the current post-truth moment is a child of Pomo.

What gets me in the willful obscurantism. If they have something to say, say it clearly. Foucault could be quite clear when he wanted to. To say that there are many different perspectives and that one should be critical of what scientists say, is not particularly hard to state or understand, I don't think. — Manuel

True, but not a pomo-specific thing. I think more a French and German thing, right? (I'm thinking of the French and German existentialists in particular.) Lyotard, of what I've read, isn't particularly difficult in the scheme of things.

Umberto Eco? I love him but never saw him as Pomo... ? — Olivier5

Yeah I see him as a structuralist philosopher but a postmodernist author. But then arguably structuralism is also postmodern, at least insofar as it attacks meaning in written language, which is the language of philosophy, science, etc.

It's mostly direct quotes from many Postmodernists in which they use well defined scientific terms and use in to speak of power, or politics, in short making connections that don't exist. But it was illuminating to me.

I'm no scientistic person by any means, but if I were to start saying something like masculine power can be seen to be manifested in general relativity, I would be ridiculed, rightly so.

I've seen cases in which people start saying stuff which is not too far from Deepak Chopra, though they seem to think they're being serious.

I did not know that Badiou was subject to a hoax. I'm not against hoaxes per se, but at this point as @Kenosha Kid has pointed out, they can be abused. The point is well established by now.

I think Ecco, Pynchon and Wallace should be included within pomo. It actually makes the case for it as movement have much more substance, in my opinion.

But then arguably structuralism is also postmodern, at least insofar as it attacks meaning in written language, which is the language of philosophy, science, etc. — Kenosha Kid

Semipomo.

Semipomo — Kenosha Kid

Pomo is seen in France as a post-structuralist movement, more dynamic in its thinking, more historical, seeing structures as fluid and evolutive rather than carved in epistemic marble.

True, but not a pomo-specific thing. I think more a French and German thing, right? (I'm thinking of the French and German existentialists in particular.) Lyotard, of what I've read, isn't particularly difficult in the scheme of things. — Kenosha Kid

You're right. Actually, I've read that much of this goes straight back to Kant. He was very, very obscure but quite substantive. Then look at German Idealism, all of it, minus Schopenhauer, was extremely dense. France used to be different, they strove for clarity as seen in Descartes, Diderot and so on.

Something happened post WWII were they became obscure suddenly. I think this is improving now. Lyotard is ok, not particularly hard, but I think you can notice him forming certain sentence structures which appear (to me anyway) to want to impose insight on you. He goes on to say that science is "imperialistic".

Sure, scientists have done quite horrible things. Science itself, or philosophy or any other subject itself is perfectly fine, most of the time.

France used to be different, they strove for clarity as seen in Descartes, Diderot and so on. — Manuel

There are still very clear French writers. Camus' style was more than clear: elegant but direct, and even sometimes blunt in making the case. I find Edgar Morin perfectly clear. Barthes is ok, Beauvoir was limpid.

Rest assured that not every French philosopher tries to impress his or her audience with jargon, and I'm pretty sure there exist arcane charlatans in English-language philosophy too.

Yes. Camus was excellent, Sartre too in his novels. I should've said, by the late 60's something happened that made many of the French intellectuals write poorly.

But, point well made.

by the late 60's something happened that made many of the French intellectuals write poorly. — Manuel

I blame Althusser for this.

I don't think such manipulation of scientific discourse was happening before Pomo. Maybe I'm wrong, but the idea is that the current post-truth moment is a child of Pomo. — Olivier5

It's a key cultural question whether this is right or not. I am not sure myself. I suspect that post-truth was the inevitable trajectory of corporate power. As we know some of the academics hired to say that smoking did not cause lung cancer (Dr Fred Singer, etc) later started to work in the climate change denial business. Being able to denigrate facts or notions of truth is really important to some corporations. Everyone learned a great deal from the pioneering denialism and alternative facts of Big Tobacco.

Umberto Eco? I love him but never saw him as Pomo... ? — Olivier5

He's a borderline case in my book – post-structuralist, aesthetician, mixed-genres novelist, cultural critic – a medievalist who reads a lot of medievalism in 'modernity', and not anti-modern at all, just interpreting 'the modern' as a (subliminal/semiotic) medieval masquerade. Joyce & Borges, I believe, are Eco's literary influences too.

Searle admired Foucault. And Foucault was a brilliant thinker. His critique of Derrida is that obscurity is a way to avoid critique and accountability, because it makes it facile to say that the critique 'does not understand'. He did not say that any and all of Derrida is books was worthless, but that Derrida was too facile in his rejection of other philosophers' critique.

That's the main problem I personally see with some pomo texts and authors, which tend to think 'en roue libre' (free wheeling) i.e. without subjecting their thought to empirical refutation or critical analysis. Too facile. — Olivier5

Searle may have admired Foucault but he utterly rejected the common themes of postmodern thought. I am saying that Foucault didnt understand Derrida based on
my own reading of both Foucault and Derrida. I have never found Derrida to be obscure or trying to avoid critique. I agree with Derrida’s critique of Foucault, such as his tendency toward historicism, turning history into a pre-determining scheme. I’m not sure what empirical refutation has to do with postmodern philosophy , other than the fact that postmodernism as well as phenomenology digs beneath the presuppositions of empiricism in order to expose its limits.

Rest assured that not every French philosophers tries to impress his or her audience with jargon, and I'm pretty sure there exist obscure charlatans in English-language philosophy too. — Olivier5

This just smacks of anti-intellectualism. If you can’t understand the French writers, then so be it. But don’t blame them for your difficulties. I admit there are some French philosophers whose style so do find obscure , such as Badiu and Lacan. But not Derrida or Deleuze. They were trying to convey new and difficult concepts, so the appearance of obscurity goes along with the territory.

This just smacks of anti-intellectualism. If you can’t understand the French writers, then so be it. But don’t blame them for your difficulties. — Joshs

You may be right. I guess my take on this kind of critique would be that getting a coherent or appropriate reading on much of the work by these theorists is so often contentious even amongst gifted academics, so why bother? If some of our great minds, who are sympathetic to the French writers, don't get it right, what chance for the rest of us? You can see how people come to a view that this is an exclusive cultural activity for those in academe whose business it often is to pars the ostensibly inscrutable and talk to each other about it.

:ok:

such as Badiu and Lacan. But not Derrida or Deleuze. They were trying to convey new and difficult concepts, so the appearance of obscurity goes along with the territory. — Joshs

I'm not sure about that. I had a pomo phase, which is why I can talk about this a bit. I read both primary and secondary literature on many of these guys.

By far the one who had the most useful literature was Lacan, despite his conscious decision to be obscure. Bruce Fink, Phillip Hill and others were quite good. I of course never saw in Lacan what they said about him, but the stuff they put out in the intros, was quite good.

I put most effort in trying to understand Deleuze. The book by Claire Colebrook was inscrutable, all it did wad repeat the word "difference" many times over. Other books, like his alphabet, just repeated the words with no insight. Eventually I just read many parts of A Thousand Plateaus, I got some fancy vocab and a vague idea, but not the rewards one would expect given the effort put in.

On the other hand Manuel DeLanda's Delueze-based work was quite good. As are the novels of Michael Cisco, who explicitly thanks Deleuze. Cisco is a genius.

When I've done similar things with Aristotle, Kant, Husserl and Whitehead the effort more than paid off, you could just see it.

I felt like Derrida was mocking me. And his followers weren't much better.

I'm maybe missing some IQ points, it's very possible. But given my experience with other figures, I don't think it's me, cause' I really tried to understand.

:100: My experience was quite similiar. It's not even Talmudic, most p0m0 (philosophy, critical theory) is just sophist bullshit (H. Frankfurt).

Yeah. I mean, it kind of makes me feel a bit for those parts of it that are good like Foucault, Ecco, Pynchon, Zizek, etc.

But, many people think differently, I guess.

I put most effort in trying to understand Deleuze. The book by Claire Colebrook was inscrutable, all it did wad repeat the word "difference" many times over. Other books, like his alphabet, just repeated the words with no insight. Eventually I just read many parts of A Thousand Plateaus, I got some fancy vocab and a vague idea, but not the rewards one would expect given the effort put in. — Manuel

Introductions to Deleuze are a mixed bag, although they've tended to get better over time, as the community has had more time to digest what is going on. My favorite is Levi Bryant's Difference and Givenness, but if you want something free, and also a pleasure to read, check out Jon Roffe's The Works of Gilles Deleuze, Vol. 1. Otherwise Daniel Smith's Essays on Dleueze is also unsurpassed. Colebrook... is not good as an intro.

Ah. Thanks, I'll be sure to take a look at them. :up:

And I found that one you mention for free, actually:

https://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/?get_group_doc=36%2F1362087066-BryantDifferenceandGivenness.pdf&fbclid=IwAR0yCvNGPKKzKcfP8jOsZ0vB0BxLukHmplfK3q21wTt45w8mJSnTdxHULHM