I did not say postmodernism 'applies' just to culture and aesthetics - whatever that would mean. The point is that it itself is largely a cultural and aesthetic phenomenon. A periodization of time marked by the predominance of specific changes in those fields - themselves tributary to changes in the organization of political economy.

Your choice between postmodernism and not, is very much like a choice between Zizek and Chomsky.

It's really a matter of aesthetics, imo.

The point is that it itself is largely a cultural and aesthetic phenomenon. — StreetlightX

Yes, agreeing with you. But you said "as it should in any discussion of postmodernism", which sounds a bit dismissal of the depth of postmodernism outside aesthetic and cultural impacts.

Yes, agreeing with you. But you said "as it should in any discussion of postmodernism", which sounds a bit dismissal of the depth of postmodernism outside aesthetic and cultural impacts. — Christoffer

Fair enough. I'm trying to countervail the tendency of those in this thread who treat it as primarily an academic or even philosophical movement of some kind. A confusion - itself confused - of a distinction between postmodernity and post-structuralism, a la @Wheatley.

Fair enough. I'm trying to countervail the tendency of those in this thread who treat it as primarily an academic or even philosophical movement of some kind. A confusion - itself confused - of a distinction between postmodernity and post-structuralism, a la Wheatley. — StreetlightX

Ok, gotcha.

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

You reference postmodernism with respect to aesthetics and culture. You speak of an association with 'subjective truth' as wrongheaded trash. Do you find postmodern philosophical approaches eschew discussions about subjective understanding? Or do you only speak pejoratively about the phrase 'subjective truth' ?

I don't really know what 'postmodern philosophical approaches' are, and neither do most people who use that phrase. It's a reference without a referent. 'Subjective truth' is a phrase and concept far more associated with Kierkegaard and other existentialist thinkers, and its association with postmodernity is arbitrary and largely mythical, employed by people who largely don't know what they are talking about.

A confusion - itself confused - of a distinction between postmodernity and post-structuralism, a la Wheatley. — StreetlightX

Not me.

Lyotard’s philosophy exhibits many of the major themes common to post-structuralist and postmodernist thought.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/lyotard/#SH4b

Lyotard — Wheatley

Lyotard was a theorist of postmodernity. He was incredibly critical of it, and the fact that he is often called a 'postmodernist' philosopher - as if he advocated or celebrated it - is not only wrong, it is practically the opposite of what he would have wanted. He bemoaned the end of the meta-narrative, which was coincident, for him, with the crisis of capitalism. He was a diagnostician of postmodernity, not a cheerleader for it.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just attempting to understand postmodernism, that's all. Thanks for that correction.

Lyotard was a theorist of postmodernity. He was incredibly critical of it, and the fact that he is often called a 'postmodernist' philosopher - as if he advocated or celebrated it - is not only wrong, it is practically the opposite of what he would have wanted. He bemoaned the end of the meta-narrative, which was coincident, for him, with the crisis of capitalism. He was a diagnostician of postmodernity, not a cheerleader for it. — StreetlightX

Ok. Much appreciate this correction, SLX. :cool:

↪Adam's Off Ox I don't really know what 'postmodern philosophical approaches' are, and neither do most people who use that phrase. It's a reference without a referent. 'Subjective truth' is a phrase and concept far more associated with Kierkegaard and other existentialist thinkers, and its association with postmodernity is arbitrary and largely mythical, employed by people who largely don't know what they are talking about. — StreetlightX

When I think of postmodern philosophical approaches, I consider deconstruction and the moving away from a meta-narrative. While deconstruction may be understood without taking a 'subjective' approach, the process by which a meta-narrative gets dissolved often appeals to subjectivity (as in, differences in how different subjects come to understand a text).

While I don't find the phrase 'subjective truth' to be an aid to the postmodernist, I find that subjectivity plays an indirect role in their discussions. Especially since many postmodern writers seem eager to slip out of the label of 'relativist' while still maintaining that perspective (as a concept) plays a role in disestablishing the notion of facts.

Lyotard was a theorist of postmodernity. He was incredibly critical of it, and the fact that he is often called a 'postmodernist' philosopher - as if he advocated or celebrated it - is not only wrong, it is practically the opposite of what he would have wanted. He bemoaned the end of the meta-narrative, which was coincident, for him, with the crisis of capitalism. — StreetlightX

This is not true. Lyotard was critical of universals and metanarratives in his work.

I consider deconstruction and the moving away from a meta-narrative. While deconstruction may be understood without taking a 'subjective' approach, the process by which a meta-narrative gets dissolved often appeals to subjectivity (as in, differences in how different subjects come to understand a text). — Adam's Off Ox

This is ironic because the primary object of deconstruction was the subject. As in quite literally, 'subjectivity' was perhaps the first thing to go, the first thing to have been 'deconstructed', before almost anything else. Any 'appeals to subjectivity' you might find in deconstruction are simply misreadings by the ignorant or the malicious.

This is not true. Lyotard was critical of universals and metanarratives in his work. — Kenosha Kid

Yes - Lyotard was subtle enough to have critiqued both metanarratives and their dissolution, without acceding to any false choice between them.

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" ? — Adam's Off Ox

Later on i replied with the following:

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.

Yes - Lyotard was subtle enough to have critiqued both metanarratives and their dissolution, without acceding to any false choice between them. — StreetlightX

No, I mean he was critical of them in the sense that he thought they were bullshit. He did not bemoan their loss.

He sure as hell bemoaned what came after.

He sure as hell bemoaned what came after. — StreetlightX

Yeah he hated the post-truth fallacy. He did not agree with the view that, since science is cultural, it's truths are no better than ideological ones or lies (same thing). But they all did. Derrida. Rorty. Even Latour in the end.

I was thinking about this earlier. I can't think of a perceived problem with postmodernism that doesn't reduce to an anti-postmodern methodology of the form:

1. Subject privileges X and not !X.
2. Therefore !X.

This is basically the post-truth movement in a nutshell, a systematic lapse in any kind of logic that itself privileges one binary value over another. Postmodernism is (1) by itself. Post-truth adds (2).

But, I don't understand the alternative vaguely-defined non-rational methods that seem to have replaced the analytical methods of Logical Positivism. — Gnomon

Gnomon, if you study LP (in a sort of succinct paraphrase here) they only believed that truth should be investigated and validated through a priori or a posteriori methodology. Subjective truth's, phenomenological truth's, and metaphysical and/or cosmological inquiry was not considered as a valid form of reasoning. Hence, the synthetic a priori: 'all events must have a cause' would be denied by the LP as a methodology in discovering any type of truth. Accordingly, Kant argued that synthetic a priori knowledge is, on the other hand, possible.

That is why many in both modern and post modern physical science and cognitive science, have written about the gaps left from LP. For instance, most all physical theories in physics start with synthetic propositions that can be tested. And most cognitive experiments/theories in psychology involve phenomena beyond that rational from LP.

So, I'm wondering if the philosophical "reasoning" styles of Postmodernists, have more in common with Venus than with Mars. — Gnomon

I'm not sure I'm following you there. Can you elucidate a bit more on that? In other words, are you implying (as a heterosexual or gay person as you suggested) that both brain hemispheres should be discouraged from use, or somehow not a virtuous ideal?

reference postmodernism with respect to aesthetics and culture. — Adam's Off Ox

From what I understand postmodernism is a cultural phenomenon. Yet there are some people (I am not going to name names) who claim that postmodernist philosophers are unethical and want to destroy society, families, and religion.


Postmodernism is an antichristian,[3] far-left, 20th century worldview and academic movement characterized by denial of objective truth, and which asserts that assertions of objective knowledge are essentially impossible.

Alan Sokal famously exposed postmodernism as deeply flawed in 1996 by successfully publishing nonsense in a postmodern journal.[10] Since then, postmodernism has largely been considered a laughingstock among all but the most liberal academics.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Postmodernism

You can't make this shit up.
:rofl: :rofl: :starstruck:

Watched the video (mistook you to be describing a video of DFW talking about simpsons, seinfeld, office etc.) & yeah definitely very close to what I was talking about (& the youtube comment you posted is right : re-pasting the old sitcom/ morality-tale narrative beats over ironic deconstruction of tropes is probably a little too quick and easy.)

I think if there is any "truth" to the ideas of post-modernism it might be this: We are always a creature one step removed from from primary existence. A fish swims, eats, hides, follows innate behaviors, it does not self-reflect. Even an ape or a dolphin probably doesn't go much past certain very basic communications and certain cultural learning. Humans are fully linguistic, cultural, generative, and iterative. It is hard to have a thought and then not have an analysis of that thought terms of other thoughts. It's hard to have a thought in isolation of its own self-analysis. The same goes for social things like values. It would be inauthentic not to self-analyze social and personal beliefs. But at the same token one disregards all sense of authenticity if one is fully and only ironic (which might be Wallace's complaint about post-modernism). — schopenhauer1

Yes, agree, self-reflexivity just simply is something we do. (To really scramble the coordinates: it might also be true that 'inauthenticity' is just something we do, so that it would be inauthentic to be authentic, and vice versa )

Seinfeld is the ultimate post-modern sitcom. In a way we are living in a post-Seinfeld world. How does one take any social situation seriously really? I find it interesting with any form of satire or social criticism, that even after seeing the humor, when people go back to "living their lives" they don't actually take the lessons with them, and go back to living as if their life is not that super set of absurd circumstances as well, but a "real serious and dignified" narrative. A less obvious version of this are people who romantically think that things like "travel", "mountain climbing", "camping", and "sky diving" or (insert any modern form of trying to signal getting back to nature, going "extreme", or being an "travelling explorer") are truly some edifying thing.. None of the absurdities of shitting in a hole (whist camping without a bathroom facility around), uncomfortable sleeping, the very fact that most people are bringing all this modern equipment to be safe and comfortable in the "wilderness". You will probably lose something on that trip, get annoyed at your friend, etc. But yeah, might have some socially created "authentic" moments hanging out with friends in a different setting than a city place or someone's residence. Anyways, I digress.. but these trivialities matter in all of this...

I think some people actually do like travelling, mountain climbing, camping and skydiving, though I agree that many people fetishize these experiences. Being exposed to Seinfeld (or the culture that produces it) doesn't necessitate that you then see the world as totally absurd, contingent, and so forth. Seinfeld isn't the truth of a culture, it's one expression of one part of it.

But -- I take your point, which I think is essentially drawing attention to an archetypal progression:

(1)Whole->(2)Rupture

(or: [eden->exile])

From (2) Rupture there are a lot of options. For example:

(A)Return
(B)Reconstruct
(C)Toil & Curse
(D)Seek Vengeance
(E)Go Forward
(F) Toil & Joke
etc etc

For example: Ahab, in Moby Dick, is following a [1-2-D] progression where the rupture is linked to a determinate enemy against whom one can avenge oneself. (see also: Satan in Paradise Lost)

Many leftist criticisms of conservatism are that they follow a [1-2-A] progression where A functions as a denial of the fact of 2, and leads to a kitschy dissociation from real conditions. I take this to be the lens through which you're viewing 'camping' and other scare-quoted activities - I think that is true of many who partake in them, though not all.

Following this:

In a way, my authentic attempts to get people to understand antinatalism can be seen as modernist.. in that it is taken so seriously, it is really believed. Suffering is to be something to be reckoned with, and the eye rolling resumes. "Stop being so serious!" would be the major response. The modernist inverse answer to my form of modernism would be "Technology, family, and shared values will triumph over your pessimism". And so we got two schools of thought.. life is a joke, don't take it seriously, or life has values that should be cherished so stop being so pessimistic..

I would say that there are many 'authentic' ways to move in the 1-2-X progression and think it just plum isn't true that 1-2-C is the only one (any of these can be either 'authentic' or 'inauthentic' including C.) I don't really think there is anything sad and absurd about the coder, at least not inherently, it depends a lot on what you're bringing with you. (There is something about certain (most?) 1-2-C proponents that suggests a deep preference for a 1-2-A progression + a certain defeatism. )

I confess I miss Chomskybot. Now, was Chomskybot postmodernist, if Chomsky was not?

A consequence of the approach just outlined is that the systematic use of complex symbols is not quite equivalent to a descriptive fact. For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is not to be considered in determining an important distinction in language use. Furthermore, any associated supporting element is not to be considered in determining the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. For one thing, any associated supporting element is not quite equivalent to an abstract underlying order. Summarizing, then, we assume that the notion of level of grammaticalness is necessary to impose an interpretation on the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)).

Ah. Thank you. Perhaps I don't miss him that much after all.

You could probably argue that Hollywood sometimes promotes post-modernism. If it 10 years 90% of Hollywood or mass media movies promote post-modernism as well as far left liberal ideals, you could thus say that most of humanity has chosen a new set of subjective truths to be objective truths. — tilda-psychist

Yes, Hollywood definitely does, and I think it does it in a very irresponsible and socially unhealthy way. As far as a new set of values, I believe most of humanity has been shifting to a new set of objective truths since the Enlightenment era, and we are getting really close to permanently displacing the old truths, I think it has to do with the internet. And I agree, subjective truth is becoming the new objective truth, and that is a scary prospect. The bottom line is, in order to maintain healthy individuals in a healthy society, a balance needs to be cultivated.

Considering economics and money and also resources is tied into everything, i believe this will happen whether i win this argument either way. I'm just cutting to the chase right now. I believe the conservatives have conservative options but they reject conservatism because they would also at the same time accept that their own biases are the main cause that our society is not conservative. I could sit here and argue with you about post-modernism but i believe our society's acceptance of post modernism stems from a lack of true conservatism among conservatives. Everything is linked to economics and resources in my opinion. — tilda-psychist

To clarify, I wasn't arguing, I just figured your thoughts made a nice contrast to some ideas I had, so I just wanted to share a different persective. I don't necessarily think you are wrong about anything we've discussed.

And that statement "post modernism stems from a lack of true conservatism among conservatives", couldn't be more accurate. Conservativism is being swept along in the wave of postmodernity, and is as much a victim to postmodernism as anything else in this era.

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 — tilda-psychist

I have nothing in particular to contribute, just experimenting with thought. I will just add, like everything else, postmodern values are not necessarily bad, and in fact have much merit, for example, providing a powerful basis for individuality. Unfortunately, like most ideological constructs, its greatest proponents tend to drive it towards a radical interpretation and implementation. They key is to use it as a tool to balance out rigid convention, not to make ourselves tools in service of postmodernism

Perfect example of the post-modernist tendency for cynical critique, but ironically used on post-modernism itself.

I'm not sure I'm following you there. Can you elucidate a bit more on that? In other words, are you implying (as a heterosexual or gay person as you suggested) that both brain hemispheres should be discouraged from use, or somehow not a virtuous ideal? — 3017amen

No. I was merely wondering if the emphasis on ineffable Emotion over explicit Reason in PM reflects a "feminized brain" in male homosexuals, who became leaders of the PoMo movement. It's just a matter of mild philosophical (not prurient) curiosity, not an attempt to validate a left vs right brain hegemony, or to demean women and gays. If most PM promoters were hard-core heterosexual males, I'll have to find a different theory to explain the Postmodern communication "gap".

As discussed in the Venus vs Mars thread, the communication problems between husbands & wives seems to stem from their different ways of expressing ideas and feelings. The wives tend to assume that their husbands should "feel their pain", without having it expressed in precise words. Women seem to be better at such holistic non-verbal Empathy than men. Of course, these are generalizations, with many exceptions that prove the rule.

The Psychology Today article below, summarizes the different cognitive styles as "Men systematize, women empathize". I would translate that into : men tend to analyze strong feelings into sub-structures looking for reasons, while women are more likely to accept their emotions as unexplained black boxes. For example, the woman may feel anxiety without knowing what caused it. So they just want relief or at least sympathy. Whereas, the man immediately looks for underlying causes, which tends to seem remote & cold to someone just wanting a hug of reassurance.

If gay men do indeed have feminized brains, as some have suggested, then their manner of expression may be more holistic than analytic. Which would make it less understandable by left-brain macho males. Hence, the anti-PM animosity expressed in sharp words by the male posters on this thread. :cool:

Feminized Brain : https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-difference-between-a-female-brain-and-a-feminized-male-brain

I can't think of a perceived problem with postmodernism that doesn't reduce to an anti-postmodern methodology of the form:

1. Subject privileges X and not !X.
2. Therefore !X.

This is basically the post-truth movement in a nutshell, a systematic lapse in any kind of logic that itself privileges one binary value over another. Postmodernism is (1) by itself. Post-truth adds (2). — Kenosha Kid

:mask: :point:

↪StreetlightX

Ah. Thank you. Perhaps I don't miss him that much after all. — Ciceronianus the White

:rofl: