Pomo is a bogeyman? It's what we call people to the epistemological left of us ?

Pomo is a bogeyman? It's what we call people to the epistemological left of us ? — Yellow Horse

It's not taking any grand narratives seriously [see the recent post about hard work and genuine value]. It's a boogeyman as it lurks behind all sincere claims. An ironic and cynical skewer against your hard-held belief is galling. Done right, it lets everyone in on the game, rather than a tool to denigrate.

There is no metaphysical or epistemological center. Schopenhauer's Will is overrarching but is diffused in the post-modernism of 20th century Existentialism.. where the meaningless Will is neutered to just meaningless perspectives.

I made an edit there

In short you admitted that objective truth exists. We could all argue which percentage of objective truth is actually really objective truth. Most people would argue relationships matter and then we could all argue how much relationships matter in relation to things that are typically argued to be practical matters (things completely separated from human relationships). As long as two people both agree that subjective truth and also objective truth exist, how much is left in an argument over post-modernism is up to how much energy the two people want to expend arguing/debate about it. Unless you have some side topic in relation to post-modernism, i have no reason to continue the debate at this point in time.

And what is genuine value? — schopenhauer1

The true and the good, like always. But no from-on-high declaration of what is absolutely true or what is absolutely good, what you must believe or what you must do. Just fallible ordinary people doing their best to at least try.

"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms" ---Socrates — Gnomon

Is this even true? I like Hegel and he never defines his terms. He lets you figure the puzzle out for yourself. He wanted clear conceptions though the way Descartes wanted them, although Descartes was far smarter as a mathematician than Hegel. On the other hand, Hume and the Greek skeptics speak of a joy to be found through being very confused that I identify with. I don't know if it's moral to enjoy such a pleasure, but it seems natural to me and is part of my search for wisdom. Like Hegel, I want to know everything and nothing at the same time.

Enough..

I wanted to ask: is post-modernism simply relativism rehashed? Is it simply joy in confusion?

"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms" ---Socrates — Gnomon

But, no, it seems he didn't.

The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms" ---Socrates
— Gnomon

Is this even true? I like Hegel and he never defines his terms. He lets you figure the puzzle out for yourself. He wanted clear conceptions though the way Descartes wanted them, although Descartes was far smarter as a mathematician than Hegel. On the other hand, Hume and the Greek skeptics speak of a joy to be found through being very confused that I identify with. I don't know if it's moral to enjoy such a pleasure, but it seems natural to me and is part of my search for wisdom. Like Hegel, I want to know everything and nothing at the same time.

Enough..

I wanted to ask: is post-modernism simply relativism rehashed? Is it simply joy in confusion? — Gregory

The definition of 4 according to the dictionary is 3 + 1. You can probably guess what the definition of 2 based on that previous example.

Its hard understand more complex concepts if we don't have a partial or full grasp on more basic concepts.

Post-modernism is generally associated with a rejection of objective truth. I'm sure i'm missing something with that overly simplistic definition so you could probably get a better picture of post-modernism by using wikipedia.

As you might be aware anyone can alter or write up a wikipedia document. I used to use philosophy forums in my early 20s.

I am going to be 35 in November (am a Scorpio). Life seems harder and harder to fully understand as one gets older. It's almost as if death is saying "give up on truth before it's too late, but not before"

I am going to be 35 in November (am a Scorpio). Life seems harder and harder to fully understand as one gets older. It's almost as if death is saying "give up on truth before it's too late, but not before" — Gregory

I would argue its pretty hard to get killed. If you want to live a long life (as you well know there are no certainties) play video games, go to work and exercise. Driving a car is dangerous. Eating healthy helps too.

Enough..

I wanted to ask: is post-modernism simply relativism rehashed? Is it simply joy in confusion? — Gregory

Yes. Yes.

Why is physicality a requirement of an experiment. Why don't mental phenomena constitute that which can be studied by science? — Adam's Off Ox

In modern science, mental phenomena are not considered non-physical.

Moral law isn't supposed to be explanatory. It's not descriptive, but prescriptive. — Pfhorrest

Irrespective of what it's for, if it adds no understanding to moral behaviour, i.e. if morality is equally explicable without it, objective morality is at best redundant.

From an artistic perspective postmodernism doesn't seem that bad.

I personally prefer modernism.

Now think of The Simpsons — schopenhauer1

The Simpsons is a great example. I've never really given Seinfeld or the US The Office much of a shot. The UK Office is very embedded in realism, but yes The Simpsons is pure pomo: irreverent, disjointed, uninhibited by reality.

My pomo touchstones are two of my favourite authors: Samuel Beckett and Thomas Pynchon. Beckett took as his starting point the poverty of language. He often put high and low culture on equal footing. And his characters were inescapably artificial, sometimes suspecting (as in Not I and The Unnamable) that they are fictional characters. Beckett associated the compulsion of characters to speak their dialogue with human compulsion, and particularly the artist's compulsion, to express.

Pynchon was very influenced by his WWII experience, the tendency of humanity toward chaos, loss of faith in nation and the ensuing paranoia, and the ability of circumstances to disintegrate human personality. Gravity's Rainbow, for instance, is about the decentering of personality when the fetishism of something like the atomic bomb turns it into a nominal moral good.

I think Pynchon more than anyone embodies the postmodern viewpoint: decentered perspectives, distrust of truth, distrust in what's real, equality of culture (all of his novels are musicals, for instance), dubiousness of the ordering capability of narrative. All of his stories are illustrations of what happens when your assumptions are shaken.

Postmodernism is modernism on LSD.

I would argue that postmodernism was a necessary step, in the history of philosophy, to open up thought in an age where philosophers tended to restrict themselves so hard as to be unable to question further beyond already accepted truths. The alternative perspectives, the hypercube of the cube. We can't deny the impact postmodern philosophy has had on both art and rational thinking.

Personally I am very intrigued by the ideas of hyperreality. In a time where people more than ever live within a simulation of their own lives (social media), the ideas within hyperreality are of great importance in order to analyze this landscape.

If people want more info on postmodernism, Stanford has it covered.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

Questions of norms, which is to say, prescriptive questions, questions about morality, are a fundamentally different kind of question to questions of fact, to which a descriptive statement gives no answer; something David Hume called the "is-ought problem". If someone asks whether something ought to happen, a statement to the effect that something does (or does not) happen gives no answer at all to that question. — Pfhorrest

I agree that the lines of inquiry you mention lead to moral nihilism. Without some initial assumption of at least one kind of claim "I ought _____," or, "People in my society ought _____," or especially, "All people ought ______," there is no way to arrive at a moral answer simply by making descriptive observations. I understand the is/ought problem. But then I fail to understand how you intend to make work the pairing of the words "objective morality." What transcends the phrase "I don't approve of murder," (1) and leads to the logical conclusion "All people should disavow murder" (2). I think we would agree, statement 1 expresses a personally held (subjective?) value. What makes statement 2 objective, in that it states anything other than the personally held value of the speaker? Does statement 2 become objective because it has the word 'all' in it, or is there something else going on here?

You mention there are questions of norms. What kind of question leads to an answer of the "objective morality" kind? Why do you pursue such questions? What is the value for me to pursue such questions? Ought I? But then what leads me to believe "I ought to pursue moral questions" without simply assuming I should from the get-go?

Perhaps you would prefer to answer a different set of questions from me. Are there competing objective moralities which each lead to their own conclusions, equally defensible, but mutually cancelling? For example, are both statements, "Killing humans is always wrong," and, "Killing is permissible by some class of humans," morally objective but incompatible? If not, what makes one statement objective and the other not objective? And how would you label non objective-moral statements when they appear to have a moral flavor?

Nice to see the discussion has shifted from philosophy (qua discipline) to aesthetics and culture - as it should in any discussion of postmodernism.

Everything is linked to economics and resources in my opinion. — tilda-psychist

Would you be willing to expand on this? Specifically could you explain what 'everything' refers to? Also can you explain how you use the phrase "everything is linked" ?

Nice to see the discussion has shifted from philosophy (qua discipline) to aesthetics and culture - as it should in any discussion of postmodernism. — StreetlightX

But postmodernism is still broader than just some conclusions easily dismissive. The link between psychology and postmodern ideas of concepts, language and perspectives of reality makes for some truth values in their conclusions. I'm not a big fan of the extreme conclusion about language being "everything", but as a form of skepticism about theories and our perception of truth, it gives us a way to view our own ideas in yet another perspective in order to test their falsifiability.

It also gives a lens to view our knowledge through. A further detachment from ourselves in order to question something. Like how hyperreality works in a modern world where almost everyone with an internet connection has produced a concept of reality on their social media pages, for which others construct a reality and perspective of them. How do we view the world if we aren't sure where the blindfold is? If we don't know what glasses we are wearing.

While the analytical philosophy gives us more practical conclusions for rational thinking, postmodernism gives us tools to fine-tune these conclusions. So instead of conclusions, I think postmodernism is a powerful method in how we conduct rational thinking.

The link between psychology and postmodern ideas of concepts, language and perspectives of reality makes for some truth values in their conclusions. — Christoffer

You might be confusing postmodernism with Post Structralism.

I bet that's where all this confusion originates. :rofl:

But postmodernism is still broader than just some conclusions easily dismissive — Christoffer

? I'm not sure what I said implied I was talking about 'some conclusions easily dismissive'. To call something aesthetic or cultural is not at all to dismiss it. If anything to say so is to note postmodernism's far broader reach than some academic backwater movement.

If anyone wants to know a what postmodernism is actually about i suggest you look up 20th century French philosopher Lyotard. He actually coined the expression.

You be mistaking postmodernism with Post Structralism — Wheatley

Postmodernism is closely in connection with poststructuralism.

? I'm not sure what I said implied I was talking about 'some conclusions easily dismissive'. To call something aesthetic or cultural is not at all to dismiss it. If anything to say so is to note it's far broader reach than some academic backwater movement. — StreetlightX

Maybe I read your comment as if postmodernism should only be about culture and aesthetics?
The irony of this is interpreting and deconstructing what that sentence meant :wink:

...to aesthetics and culture - as it should in any discussion of postmodernism. — StreetlightX

Maybe I read your comment as if postmodernism should only be about culture and aesthetics? — Christoffer

It's not about what it should be. It's about what it is - and that people need to understand what they are talking about before blabbing on about 'subjective truth' or whatever other wrongheaded trash they associate with postmodernism.

It's not about what it should be. It's about what it is - and that people need to understand what they are talking about before blabbing on about 'subjective truth' or whatever other wrongheaded trash they associate with postmodernism. — StreetlightX

Yes, agreed, but do you propose that culture and aesthetics is the only thing that it is?

Chomsky on postmodernism:

I don't know what you're asking.

I mean, deconstructing reality, language etc. can be applied to more than just culture and aesthetics, right? Just wondering how to interpret the conclusion you made?