What? :confused:

*shrugs* Ignore it. Just trying to work within certain parameters I don't know. You shot down the example, so I wanted an example, but then it occurred to me that the two ethics should serve as a good enough basis for pointing out -- the open question argument works between Aristotle and Epicurus because both of these are naturalistic ethics that posit different goods.

Consequently, when I insist on the necessity of protection and
calculation, I am not advocating a ‘purely calculated hospitality’ or a
morality that insists on suspecting strangers (this being the two charges
Attridge makes against my position). Rather, I take into account that
the openness to the other is the source of every chance and every threat,
which is why openness may give rise to the most generous welcome as
well as the most paranoid suspicion and why there can be no such thing
as a purely calculated hospitality. The task of deconstructive analysis is
not to choose between calculation and the incalculable, but to articulate
their co-implication and the autoimmunity that follows from it. It is not
only that I cannot calculate what others will do to me; I cannot finally
calculate what my own decisions will do to me, since they bind me to a
future that exceeds my intentions, and in this sense I am affected by my
own decisions as by the decisions of an other. — Tom Storm

Eureka! Post-Modernism revealing itself as a philosophical Stream of Consciousness. There is no refuting this kind of writing - it is sublime and invalid at the same time. The tone is something confessional, psycho/religious

Eureka! Post-Modernism revealing itself as a philosophical Stream of Consciousness. There is no refuting this kind of writing - it is sublime and invalid at the same time. The tone is something confessional, psycho/religious — yebiga

This is a quote from Martin Hagglund, attempting to interpret Derrida. Hagglund is more of a Marxist than a postmodernist.

Fight fascism. Transcend the futurist utopia. Act ironically to the code (mostly discursive). Have fluid identities. Be conscious of what you are cooperating in constructing in terms state philosophy etc.

Simone de Beauvior and Jean Paul Sartre had an existentialist view very similar/ influential to postmodernism. They believed, (or at least Sartre did) the opposite of the conventional view that postmodernism (in their case, existentialism) reduced moral responsibility. Sartre holds that each person is maximally free, since existence precedes essence, we are completely free to shape our life however we choose. Subscribing to a pre determinded moral system would probably constitute "bad faith" (not 100% sure I'm using bad faith correctly here) since in doing so, we attempt to transfer the responsibility of our actions to a pre-existing structure, making it so that we don't have to engage in the difficult, but fulfilling task of sincerely asking ourselves, questions like "what do I want?" "what should I want?" "What can I do?" "What should I do?", and coming up with detailed answers that are relevant to our lives. Though I don't know her position on it, de Beauvoir writes a whole book on this subject called The Ethics of Ambiguity.

More generally, the postmodernist view on morality (the version I would defend) in fact transcends the binary good and evil, quite simply by observing the historical development, and therefore the severe imperfections of moral systems. There is no such thing as morality, instead there are moralities, and it is ultimately up to each individual person to make personal judgments as to which moral systems they should subscribe to, if any.

A clear illustration of this, is that growing up, I was raised in a Catholic household and I played Ice Hockey, before I would go to a game, my mother would tell me that I shouldn't hurt anyone on the ice, by being too rough and playing physically. At the rink, my coach would tell me that I shouldn't let the team down by being too soft and not playing physically. Both of these "shouldn't"s were in the moral sense, and the conflicting sentiments at play can pretty clearly be traced historically to what Nietzsche calls Christian, altruistic, slave morality, and Pagan, assertive/ ability based, master morality.

Which moral system should I follow? Ultimately I had to make my own judgment, because any appeal to morality would be entirely contingent on which moral system I independently decided I preferred. To oversimplify, this is where power dynamics become incredibly important because since there is no perfect universality for any one moral system, the moral system which has the most sway is decided by its cultural prevalence. This is (partly) why holy wars, inquisitions, educational projects, laws, prisons, social stigmas, and other means of propagating and enforcing moral standards are typically used, rather than some objective appeal to the "logical merit" or what have you of moral systems, at least as it applies to humanity's practical, day to day use of moral behavior.

Another thing Nietzsche would have pointed out is the inherit danger of morality. When (and usually only when) you understand another person to be evil, it becomes okay to hurt them. Ideally, evil people "deserve" to be hurt, but in practice, all you need is some really good rhetoric or some blatant lies to turn people against each other, with the powerful (and very dangerous) emotional vindictiveness that comes using with moral language. In the 201st aphorism of Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche says:

"Is it not sufficient if the criminal be rendered HARMLESS? Why should we still punish? Punishment itself is terrible!"--with these questions gregarious morality, the morality of fear, draws its ultimate conclusion. If one could at all do away with danger, the cause of fear, one would have done away with this morality at the same time."

Fight fascism. Transcend the futurist utopia. Act ironically to the code (mostly discursive). Have fluid identities. Be conscious of what you are cooperating in constructing in terms state philosophy etc — introbert

Sounds anarchistic.

Simone de Beauvior and Jean Paul Sartre had an existentialist view very similar/ influential to postmodernism. They believed, (or at least Sartre did) the opposite of the conventional view that postmodernism (in their case, existentialism) reduced moral responsibility. Sartre holds that each person is maximally free, since existence precedes essence, we are completely free to shape our life however we choose — SatmBopd

Keep in mind that poststructuralists like Foucault, Deleuze and Derrida situated their approaches in direct opposition to Sartre’s existentialist notion of subjectivity and freedom.

anarchistic only in relation to a kind of social order. There is likely a state of affairs where postmodernism would be at complete peace. That's not to say pomo philosophy represents any kind of compelling force against the State. My personal opinion of postmodernism is the same as Camus' philosophy. Anyone who actualizes pomo philosophy through action will simply become fodder for the forge fires of steel shell (of rationality) construction.

The most significant force of postmodernism is actually in NA conservative politics. There is a puzzle I set my mind to sometimes regarding the schizophrenia of capitalism manifesting a profascist pomo doppleganger that lacks rationality, objectivity or truth. The puzzle is if the form of french intellectualism is individualistic like conservatism but the content has an inaccessible complexity in contrast to low brow conspiracies, how the leftist schizophrenia will do anything more than influence art and academia.

Always? Or do you mean the powers that you disagree with?

Whether marxist or postmodernist they are pseudo-religious ideologies. Both have something valid to offer as critiques but neither offers anything practical. They aren't even preventative but act merely as a kind of cultural post traumatic therapy. Well done to Martin for making it so clear.

Oh. I didn't know that. I still think that's still influence though. If you directly oppose someone you read, you're furthering the discussion they started. The vibe of existentialism and of postmodernism is still pretty similar. They all take up Nietzsche's problems, they're still navigating meaninglessness/ the arbitrariness of meaning, etc.

↪Joshs
Whether marxist or postmodernist they are pseudo-religious ideologies. Both have something valid to offer as critiques but neither offers anything practical. They aren't even preventative but act merely as a kind of cultural post traumatic therapy. Well done to Martin for making it so clear. — yebiga

Postmodernism is a big category, as is marxism. For instance, there is cultural postmodernism, which focuses on economic, political and social dynamics affecting large numbers of peoples. A TV show can be postmodern in this sense. Then there is philosophical postmodernism, also a very broad category, which is my interest. Summarized very generally , it includes much more than critique. As far as its practical applications , there an emerging movement of scientific thinking that applies postmodern ideas to the understanding of the nature of scientific practices , as well as to specific theoretical approaches within psychology( perception, neuroscience, schizophrenia ,mood disorders, autism), biology and even physics. This is anything but ‘pseudo-religious’. On the contrary, it reveals the remnants of religious thinking still influencing modernist forms of science.

This is anything but ‘pseudo-religious’. On the contrary, it reveals the remnants of religious thinking still influencing modernist forms of science. — Joshs

Doesn't Nietzsche says something like, “I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar”? To what extent (if any) do you think modernism influences post-modernism?

Postmodernism is a big category, as is marxism. For instance, there is cultural postmodernism, which focuses on economic, political and social dynamics affecting large numbers of peoples. A TV show can be postmodern in this sense. Then there is philosophical postmodernism, also a very broad category, which is my interest. Summarized very generally , it includes much more than critique. As far as its practical applications , there an emerging movement of scientific thinking that applies postmodern ideas to the understanding of the nature of scientific practices , as well as to specific theoretical approaches within psychology( perception, neuroscience, schizophrenia ,mood disorders, autism), biology and even physics. This is anything but ‘pseudo-religious’. On the contrary, it reveals the remnants of religious thinking still influencing modernist forms of science. — Joshs

I have been wondering whether Euripides Play - MEDEA - written circa 500 BC - isn't essentially post-modern? We see Medea directly attack Greek assumptions concerning Patriarchy, Heroism, Hierarchy, Gender, Status... The poor woman, in her personal despair, fights singlehandedly against the entire classical greek narrative. A narrative that was not very different from our own until very recently.

Medea continues to be a difficult play to read even to our modern sensibilities. For what it is worth, Euripides was not as well admired by his contemporaries as Sophocles and Aeschylus. The later two tended to reinforce and glorify the prevailing myths, gods and heroes. Whereas, Euripides liked to reveal the shadow side of things the culture did not readily perceive of itself.

Postmodernism during the 20th and 21st Century has confronted many of the same themes as those dramatised by Euripides, so long ago. But this later version of Postmodernism has come to eschew the clarity of language that Euripides used so powerfully in favour of obscurity, where only those initiated into something like the Delphic Mysteries can hope to decipher its meaning and profundity.

If Medea is not a timeless exemplar of the essence of the postmodern project, then what is it? And if Medea does indeed contain the essence of PoMO, then, postmodernism is not something new but something with an ancient history.

Consider how Early-Christianity, challenged Roman Imperial sacred cows over 2 centuries before its ascension to the state religion.. That was some clash: Roman aristocratic honour against Christian forgiveness. This is not completely dissimilar to the project that postmodernism undertook to challenge Anglo-European Cultural assumptions during the 20th and 21st Century.

Always? Or do you mean the powers that you disagree with? — GLEN willows

You're happy with the current distribution of power?

The tragedy of postmodernism is that it is far from being a point of departure from modernity, but has become a fascination, and has been assimilated into modernity. Ironically, postmodernism that aims for critical thought on objectivity, rationality and truth has become the object of study in which students are evaluated on their ability to understand it objectively, reach conclusions with its rationality and answer questions regarding its truth. Ironically still, I failed my studies in postmodernism because I erected a barricade at the university and lobbed a brick at a security guard for the former irony.

not all of them. You’d have to be more specific, and define how you’re using the word power.

Generally straight, and white, and male.

The tragedy of postmodernism is that it is far from being a point of departure from modernity, but has become a fascination, and has been assimilated into modernity. Ironically, postmodernism that aims for critical thought on objectivity, rationality and truth has become the object of study in which students are evaluated on their ability to understand it objectively, reach conclusions with its rationality and answer questions regarding its truth. — introbert

That’s not an assimilation of postmodernism ( or at least philosophical, as opposed to cultural or political postmodernism). Understanding Deleuze, Foucault and Derrida ‘objectively’ and ‘rationally’ is failing to move beyond a modernist understanding.

Is not failing to move beyond a modernist understanding of postmodernism in education an assimilation?

↪Joshs Is not failing to move beyond a modernist understanding of postmodernism in education an assimilation? — introbert

Yes, in education and other disciplines where the postmodern refers to widely shared practices that are not necessarily correlated with the any particular metaphysical framework. But postmodern philosophical ideas can’t be assimilated into modernism since within philosophy these refer to incompatible metaphysical
positions.

I'm not sure postmodern metaphysics has any transformative power. Postmodernism is metaphysical compared to material science which dominates perception. Personally I think metaphysical arguments need to be rationally stated, which once framed sensibly, so they are not nonsensical, have been normalized. This represents one possible postmodern metaphysical concern where essence of the 'communicative action' is not subversive but is subverted by the communicative phenomenon.

Thinking in approximations, if Capitalism is analogous to schizophrenia, and postmodernism is analogous to schizophrenia, then the alt-right is an organic manifestation of analogous schizophrenia in the former and postmodern theory is an inorganic, mental construction of schizophrenia in the latter. In this organic analogous schizophrenia, there is a resistance to medical power like in postmodernism which has resulted in paranoid conspiracies, phobia, agitation, and disinformation to delude others. It is not rational, objective, or corresponding to conventional standards of Truth. However, it lacks the postmodern metaphysical analysis of the inorganic mental construction of the mostly French thinkers. For instance, it is now expected that people receive routine vaccinations. These may become as frequent as quarterly or biannually. In a postmodern metaphysical analytical sense, the vaccine is an antipsychotic. Frequent injections guaranteeing in the recipient that they do not harbor the organic analogous schizophrenia of the alt-right. However, the alt-right is not metaphysical analytical, they will not call the vaccine an anti-psychotic. Therefore, while it is analogously schizophrenic and postmodern, it is not postmodern.