In its critique of liberalism and its pessimism vis-à-vis incremental approaches to racial reform, CRT draws broadly from older currents of thought borrowed from Antonio Gramsci, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and W. E. B. Du Bois, as well as newer ways of thinking linked to the Black Power, Chicano, and radical feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s. — Encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and society (2008), p. 344

Is this one of those No true Scotsman fallacy for damage control? "Woke leftism does not come from Neo-Marxism!". Let me know if otherwise. — Lionino

So how is the above supporting your claim?

Did they or did they not use the Critical Theory of the postmodern to write their own worldview? Derrida's post-structuralism certainly has nothing to do with critical race theory. So, how in the world did they spin it off to something else?

Derrida's post-structuralism certainly has nothing to do with critical race theory. — L'éléphant

Pretty much.

In a narrow sense, “Critical Theory” (often denoted with capital letters) refers to the work of several generations of philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. — SEP

In another, third sense, “critical theory” or sometimes just “Theory” is used to refer to work by theorists associated with psychoanalysis and post-structuralism, such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida (see these separate entries as well as the entry on postmodernism).

The confusion comes from the polysemy of terms such as "postmodernism", "critical", and "deconstructivist". Standard deconstructivists deconstruct. The intersectionalists deconstruct to build anew. Their methods may be alike (though surely not identical) but the goals are different.

CRT does not seem to talk about metaphysics, phenomenology or language, barely about existentialism. It does talk about power structures, about subversion, about oppression. In that sense it is clear that CRT has little to nothing to do with Derrida or Deleuze, but everything to do with the Frankfurt school.

A mathematician can say what he likes… A physicist has to be at least partly sane — J. Willard Gibbs

{J. Willard Gibbs is definitely pre-post-modern.}

:100: :up:

:clap:

I don't have enough maths knowledge to drill down into this, but no doubt axioms or presuppositions (and their justifications) lie the core of postmodern investigation. — Tom Storm

I don't think so. I still think that their focus is on the societal aspects of mathematics, starting perhaps with the way it's taught.

Postmodernists don't have such knowledge about ZF etc.

What they will (unfortunately) refer to is Gödel's incompleteness Theorems, but... basically I get the feeling that the just mention it to say that they are aware of incompleteness results existing. But that's basically it. If they say something more, it's quoted by Alan Sokal in "Fashionable nonsense".

Or if I'm wrong, please quote the text that shows your point.

I don't have enough maths knowledge to drill down into this, but no doubt axioms or presuppositions (and their justifications) lie the core of postmodern investigation.
— Tom Storm
I don't think so. I still think that their focus is on the societal aspects of mathematics, starting perhaps with the way it's taught. What they will (unfortunately) refer to is Gödel's incompleteness Theorems, but... basically I get the feeling that the just mention it to say that they are aware of incompleteness results existing. But that's basically it. If they say something more, it's quoted by Alan Sokal in "Fashionable nonsense".
Or if I'm wrong, please quote the text that shows your point. — ssu

Deleuze, Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Husserl have a lot to say about the foundations and meaning of mathematical reasoning. For Heidegger mathematical thinking is inauthentic, for Husserl it doesn’t understand its basis in subjective processes of constitution, for Deleuze number is ordinal before it is cardinal, and for the later Wittgenstein it is socially constructed.

Do you think Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Husserl are postmodernists???

You think Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is postmodern thought? I beg to differ. I think that what Wittgeinstein says about mathematics there is quite true philosophy of mathematics.

I'm not familiar with Deleuze, but at least Heidegger and Husserl did have a broad understanding of philosophy before them and that of Francis Bacon, Descartes, Kant. That the 19th and 20th Century continental philosophy had the "linguistic turn" isn't at all postmodernism, but at least they had an understanding of what they were criticizing.

↪Joshs Do you think Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Husserl are postmodernists???

You think Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is postmodern thought? I beg to differ. I think that what Wittgeinstein says about mathematics there is quite true philosophy of mathematics. — ssu

The Tractatus is not post-modern. But Wittgenstein’s later work, which turns its back on the logical grounding of mathematics put forth in the Tractatus, had a strong influence on many postmodern thinkers, including Rorty and Foucault. Lyotard, who popularized the term postmodern, devoted a chapter of one of his books to the later Wittgenstein. Heidegger was of central importance to postmodern poststructuralists like Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze. Husserl is not generallly considered to be postmodern, but I believe his work on the philosophy of arithmetic and logic contributes ideas that are taken up by postmodern thinkers.

The Tractatus is not post-modern. But Wittgenstein’s later work, which turns its back on the logical grounding of mathematics put forth in the Tractatus, had a strong influence on many postmodern thinkers, including Rorty and Foucault. — Joshs

Well, where did Bertrand Russell end up? I think the reason for the "linguistic turn" is obvious: if you find things that are problematic and you cannot find an answer one way, you try to think about it differently.

Yet I think here you come to the real problem of the postmodernists. While Wittgenstein, Husserl and Heidegger (and actually even Foucault) knew what they were criticizing, the older philosophical views, the postmodernist just refer to these guys.

That's the basic problem: if you know only the critique of something, but not study the itself actually, you position is weak.

That's why if you criticize Marxism (or Marxism-Leninism), then you really have to have at least a basic understanding of Marx and Lenin. And obviously it can be frustrating, but it's important. For example I'm very glad that in the economic department in the university, they did go through the ideas of Marx and Marxian economics.

In that sense it is clear that CRT has little to nothing to do with Derrida or Deleuze, but everything to do with the Frankfurt school. — Lionino

Some of the critical, if you'll excuse the pun, figures in the CRT development (Kimberlé Crenshaw, bell hooks, and Cornel West) cite Derrida as influential on their thinking. And i think its reasonable to use that metric, rather than mentions in textbooks, as a metric for the relevance of ideas.

Descartes and Kant are influential to the thinking of every western philosopher that came after, yet I would say that eternal recurrence or denial of will have nothing to do with either.

I may not be catching you right; but if I am, each to their own I suppose :)

Of + and =. In the group <ℝ,+>, multiplication is by definition not defined. For real and complex numbers, the symbol * for multiplication is a commutative operation, for square matrices it is a completely distinct operation (not commutative for one). For vectors, there are different kinds of multiplication, cross product, scalar product, outer product. — Lionino

Commenting on this, I don't think it is quite correct to say that multiplication is not defined in <ℝ,+>. It doesn't exist in the scope of <ℝ,+> of course, but whether it is defined or not is not a pertinent question. But the point stands nonetheless.

Commenting on this, I don't think it is quite correct to say that multiplication is not defined in <ℝ,+>. It doesn't exist in the scope of <ℝ,+> of course, but whether it is defined or not is not a pertinent question. But the point stands nonetheless — Lionino

Postmodern?

Postmodern? — jgill

No clue what you mean.

But the point stands nonetheless — Lionino

Sorry, I missed this discussion. How does this bit about group theory relate to postmodernism?