Post modernism is a reaction and rejection of the assumptions of modernist philosophy, broadly questioning:

1. Whether or not there is an objective reality independent of the mind.
2. Whether or not there is such a thing as objective truth.
3. Whether or not logic/reason are valid independent of the thinker.
4. Whether or not there is such a thing as human nature -- the post modernist holds that most aspects of the human psyche are socially constructed.

It's a cool philosophy, right.

Anyone disagree?

Anyone?

This seems like such a nice philosophy, Codker. I do me, you do you. Or, maybe I do you, you do me, who knows. It's all ****ing relative, so it doesn't matter. It's nice. How in the world do you find this objectionable.

Doesn't the fact that post-modernism's challenges can only have meaning within the context of an intelligible universe sort of put the lie to the whole idea? Otherwise why bother posing the questions?

Hold on ! I'm catching up. . .

dargscisyhp said:

---

Post modernism is a reaction and rejection of the assumptions of modernist philosophy, broadly questioning:

1. Whether or not there is an objective reality independent of the mind.
2. Whether or not there is such a thing as objective truth.
3. Whether or not logic/reason are valid independent of the thinker.
4. Whether or not there is such a thing as human nature -- the post modernist holds that most aspects of the human psyche are socially constructed.

It's a cool philosophy, right.

Anyone disagree?

Anyone?

This seems like such a nice philosophy, Codker. I do me, you do you. Or, maybe I do you, you do me, who knows. It's all ****ing relative, so it doesn't matter. It's nice. How in the world do you find this objectionable.

---

Sorry but since you are post modernist I can't be sure you meant to write something else so I really have nothing else to say to you. For all I know you meant to write "pee pee poo poo".

You probably also think Jesus is the greatest American who ever lived.

I've been reading a very interesting book that's kept me busy. It's When Souls Had Wings by Terry L. Givens. It talks about the Hebrew idea of the soul and how the early church wrestled with its conflicts with Platonism and Greek paganism, and ultimately whether a God who allows suffering is a just God. I recommend it and you can bet I will post a lot on it soon.

" That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning."



(Jurgen)" Habermas argues that postmodernism contradicts itself through self-reference, and notes that postmodernists presuppose concepts they otherwise seek to undermine, e.g., freedom, subjectivity, or creativity. He sees in this a rhetorical application of strategies employed by the artistic avant-garde of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, an avant-garde that is possible only because modernity separates artistic values from science and politics in the first place. On his view, postmodernism is an illicit aestheticization of knowledge and public discourse. Against this, Habermas seeks to rehabilitate modern reason as a system of procedural rules for achieving consensus and agreement among communicating subjects. Insofar as postmodernism introduces aesthetic playfulness and subversion into science and politics, he resists it in the name of a modernity moving toward completion rather than self-transformation."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

Postmodernism, by its own standards and descriptions, is undefinable. However, it has evolved into some general aspects:

1. Questions like why am I here? What is reality? What is my destiny? are a bit silly. Who says there is a reason I am here? Can I even grasp reality? What is destiny, and who says it exists? Does existence imply a reason? The difference between modernism and posmodernism is that answers to those type of questions are sought after in nontraditional places in modernism, but in postmodernism they throw there hands up and say those questions are nothing; they probably have no answers because they are silly questions.
2. Objective reality doesn't exist. Each of us have our reality that we create with language and social interaction. Shared meaning may occur in reality overlap, but many postmodernist don't believe that we can ever really know if there is reality overlap.
3. You can't ever really know anything for certain, even the previous statement. In fact, postmodernist take a strange pride in saying that they are not sure of anything.
4. Morality, assuming it exists, is simply a culturally and socially relative set of evolving rules that emerged to facilitate the emergence of civilization.
5. Frequently social situations imply duality: power vs weak, strong vs weak, rich vs poor, etc
6. Since they reject objective reality, truth, and anything close to a fixed right or wrong, good or bad, it is somewhat ironic that they frequently argue that they are correct in their assumptions. I there is no right or wrong, truth, or reality, then how can I disagree with anyone on anything because it's their right/wrong, truth, and reality?

I used to teach postmodernism to my students when I taught various literary interpretive techniques. They sometimes thought I was making it up or joking with them. I assured them that I was not.

The Lone Stranger said:

---

Postmodernism, by its own standards and descriptions, is undefinable. However, it has evolved into some general aspects:

1. Questions like why am I here? What is reality? What is my destiny? are a bit silly. Who says there is a reason I am here? Can I even grasp reality? What is destiny, and who says it exists? Does existence imply a reason? The difference between modernism and posmodernism is that answers to those type of questions are sought after in nontraditional places in modernism, but in postmodernism they throw there hands up and say those questions are nothing; they probably have no answers because they are silly questions.
2. Objective reality doesn't exist. Each of us have our reality that we create with language and social interaction. Shared meaning may occur in reality overlap, but many postmodernist don't believe that we can ever really know if there is reality overlap.
3. You can't ever really know anything for certain, even the previous statement. In fact, postmodernist take a strange pride in saying that they are not sure of anything.
4. Morality, assuming it exists, is simply a culturally and socially relative set of evolving rules that emerged to facilitate the emergence of civilization.
5. Frequently social situations imply duality: power vs weak, strong vs weak, rich vs poor, etc
6. Since they reject objective reality, truth, and anything close to a fixed right or wrong, good or bad, it is somewhat ironic that they frequently argue that they are correct in their assumptions. I there is no right or wrong, truth, or reality, then how can I disagree with anyone on anything because it's their right/wrong, truth, and reality?

I used to teach postmodernism to my students when I taught various literary interpretive techniques.They sometimes thought I was making it up or joking with them. I assured them that I was not.

---

Sounds like you probably didn't understand what you were teaching. Your description does not match well with the Wikipedia page. I've bolded the sections I find most suspicious.

Can someone who knows something about philosophy or history tell me: is this post-modernism stuff a new debate or is it just a continuation of Callicles vs. skepticism?

Also, am I a postmodernist? It seems like they are correct, and most of the criticisms are related to the utility of the findings. I think if I am a postmodernist, then Zobel is as well.

dargscisyhp said:

---

Post modernism is a reaction and rejection of the assumptions of modernist philosophy, broadly questioning:

1. Whether or not there is an objective reality independent of the mind.
2. Whether or not there is such a thing as objective truth.
3. Whether or not logic/reason are valid independent of the thinker.
4. Whether or not there is such a thing as human nature -- the post modernist holds that most aspects of the human psyche are socially constructed.

It's a cool philosophy, right.

Anyone disagree?

Anyone?

This seems like such a nice philosophy, Codker. I do me, you do you. Or, maybe I do you, you do me, who knows. It's all ****ing relative, so it doesn't matter. It's nice. How in the world do you find this objectionable.

---

It's an intellectual dead end.

Once you have arrived there, the only thing that matters is Power: the means to force your own subjective reality on everyone else.

So? Do you think the utility of something affects its accuracy? Are we after truth or do we care only about information we can use?

I'm after the truth, and the only truth available that I can see is "something exists", using the broadest possible definitions for both of those words. It's not a particularly useful or profound truth, but it's the only one available. Everything else requires axioms.

You may not like it, but this is what peak philosophy looks like.

Dilettante,

I appreciate the tone and attitude of the pushback, but my postmodern ideas are the result of hours of research, not just a quick wink article. And I found that the internet was useful, but so were books that I got at a library.

You may disagree; that makes sense, but if you take the time to research postmodernism in multiple disciplines, you will find that it keeps some basic aspects, and at the same time, morphs a bit from area to area.

And, even though postmodernism is difficult, if not impossible to define, it must have some basic shared meaning, or the word is useless.

Ralph: Words aren't adequate to express meaning/
Rufus: Yeah, I understand exactly what you mean.
In reply to Solo Tetherball Champ 1:20p

I apologize, I have spent some time out from the whole texags experience. Since then, things have changed, and I basically am already a techlodite. I didn't mean to bold my words, and I don't know where the response line came from.

I'm not going to pretend to be a great expert on postmodernism, let alone try to follow the inside baseball references to other people's interpretations.

That said, when I have read the works of postmodernists, there doesn't seem to be much there. It's interesting while I read it, but seems to dissolve into meaninglessness when it comes time to draw a conclusion. It's not just building on sand, it's building out of sand.

All philosophies are wrong, some are useful. So far I can't see that postmodernism has the capacity to be useful.

My conclusion is that either the philosophy hasn't matured or it's dead end. I'll check on it in a few decades.

Ulrich said:

---

All philosophies are wrong, some are useful. So far I can't see that postmodernism has the capacity to be useful.

---

Can you prove that all philosophies are wrong?

But either way, the idea that all philosophies are wrong and some are useful sounds very postmodernist to me. You're saying that we can't know the truth.

Dilettante said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

All philosophies are wrong, some are useful. So far I can't see that postmodernism has the capacity to be useful.

---

Can you prove that all philosophies are wrong?

But either way, the idea that all philosophies are wrong and some are useful sounds very postmodernist to me. You're saying that we can't know the truth.

---

To the extent that I have a position on this, I'd say that somewhere between pragmatism and postmodernism something went awry.

All philosophical systems can be updated / refined. Even so, some maps are better than others for navigating the territory. The map postmodernism gives us doesn't seem useful for navigating the territory, and it can't even tell the difference between a pretty good map and random scribbles, to stretch the metaphor. Something about it is incomplete or wrong to the point that the disciplines that have most thoroughly absorbed its lessons are doing things that are patently absurd and even destructive. And yes, that's an appeal to common sense, for whatever that's worth. At some point we've got to stop and ask about the cash value.

Postmodernism is definitely dominant right now and I don't think I'm going to be the person to crack the foundations of philosophy. Some of its tools will be part of the solution, but I don't know what the solution is.

If you want a belief set that makes you into the best version of yourself, I suggest Mormonism. They seem like the best group to me.

I'd rather know a useless truth than a useful delusion. Besides, I don't think acknowledgement of the limits of certainty really tells you anything about how to live your life. You'll still make your guesses about reality, whether you admit they're guesses or pretend they're sure things.

In architecture...


Example of postmodernism - Frank Gehry's masterpiece in Bibalo, Spain



Example of Modernism - Le Corbusier, Villa Savoye, France

What is Postmodern Architecture?

Postmodern architecture was an international movement that focused on free-thinking design with conceptual consideration to the surrounding environment. These considerations included integrating the design of adjacent buildings into new, postmodern structures, so that they had an element of cohesiveness while still making an impact.

For more info.. click here

+++

Relative to this discussion only in the sense that postmodernist felt that modernism, in particular, the International Style, was too rigid and rejected any connection to classic architecture. So, you will see a modern fusion on old and new forms, not unlike this example below by noted architect Charles Moore, who taught at UT.


Piazza d'Italia by Charles Moore, New Orleans, LA

Dilettante said:

---

So? Do you think the utility of something affects its accuracy? Are we after truth or do we care only about information we can use?

I'm after the truth, and the only truth available that I can see is "something exists", using the broadest possible definitions for both of those words. It's not a particularly useful or profound truth, but it's the only one available. Everything else requires axioms.

You may not like it, but this is what peak philosophy looks like.

---

This isn't philosophy, this is merely smug nihilism.

Intellectual dead end.

It is a dead end, and I don't know enough about philosophy to know if nihilism is the correct label. But it's still true, as far as I can tell.

It's a dead end in the sense that the universe doesn't seem to tell us anything with absolute certainty. But if we take our experience at face value, it tells us many useful things. We should do that, obviously. It's just technically an assumption of some kind. There's plenty of useful available info out there, whether you believe it's 100% reliable or 99.9%.

Arguments that this acknowledgement is not useful are silly. Philosophy is a search for understanding to me. I'm not after a cosmic self help book. I also happen to think denial of objectivity isn't useless. It seems like it leaves you open to questioning your axioms, which is good.

My obligatory response

Read "Explaining Postmodernism" by Hicks.

Excellent unpacking of the topic including all the history and philosophy that lead up to modernism and post mod.

Dilettante said:

---

I'd rather know a useless truth than a useful delusion.

---

Why?

I view that as an extremely privileged position to take. You are insulated by such a comfortable life you can extend energy into navel gazing.

Those "useful delusions" you so casually dismis save millions of people's lives everyday. People struggling from real things, like addiction and mental illness, finding real solutions that profoundly correct their paths in life.

Someday you will be in need of a life preserver, and won't have the luxury of questioning its epistemic validity.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

I'd rather know a useless truth than a useful delusion.

---

Why?

I view that as an extremely privileged position to take. You are insulated by such a comfortable life you can extend energy into navel gazing.

Those "useful delusions" you so casually dismis save millions of people's lives everyday. People struggling from real things, like addiction and mental illness, finding real solutions that profoundly correct their paths in life.

Someday you will be in need of a life preserver, and won't have the luxury of questioning its epistemic validity.

---

Personal preference I guess. I think you're right to say that the circumstances of my life have played a large role. It's easy to stargaze from the ivory tower of the American middle class, but it's also a conscious choice.

I've been fortunate to be able to devote some of my time to thinking about stuff, but I don't think that's anything to apologize for. Overall it seems irrelevant to the discussion. The notion that truth is dependent on the cultural influences of the seeker seems like the worst part of postmodernism to me, but you seem like you're advancing it. Do you agree?

I don't believe your life preserver prophecy. It's possible but unlikely.

One way we can attempt to discuss the efficacy of world views is through analyzing the fruits of their labor.

There is ample, objective, evidence that belief produces positive results.

Just as apples consistently falling to earth has lead us to ask why? So has belief consistently saving the lives of the distressed lead us to ponder why?

Quote:

---

I don't believe your life preserver prophecy. It's possible but unlikely.

---

I don't believe you are in any position to accurately project the likelihood of such an event, however if no such event ever occurs you will truly have lived a blessed life.

I hope you will remember the vast majority of us aren't so lucky and act accordingly. Perhaps expend at least some of your free time helping others less fortunate.


I think the natural tendencies of postmodernism are the previously discussed nihilism, as an ideal, or hedonism, as a deleterious end.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

One way we can attempt to discuss the efficacy of world views is through analyzing the fruits of their labor.

There is ample, objective, evidence that belief produces positive results.

Just as apples consistently falling to earth has lead us to ask why? So has belief consistently saving the lives of the distressed lead us to ponder why?

Quote:

---

I don't believe your life preserver prophecy. It's possible but unlikely.

---

I don't believe you are in any position to accurately project the likelihood of such an event, however if no such event ever occurs you will truly have lived a blessed life.

I hope you will remember the vast majority of us aren't so lucky and act accordingly. Perhaps expend at least some of your free time helping others less fortunate.


I think the natural tendencies of postmodernism are the previously discussed nihilism, as an ideal, or hedonism, as a deleterious end.

---

I think philosophy can be divided into metaphysics and ethics (and probably other groups as well). Metaphysics is very interesting to me, and ethics bores me to tears. I think it would help our discussion to clarify which of these we're referring to when we say philosophy. I want to talk about what is and what might be. Strategies for coping with life seem unrelated. I'm interested in those as well, but it's a separate conversation.

I'm not discounting the likelihood that some catastrophe will occur in my life. It seems a near certainty. I think it's unlikely that I will turn to fantasy (from my current perspective) as a consequence though. I don't think I'll find religion more palatable in a disaster, but I can't be sure. Maybe it will happen tomorrow, and I'll become a born-again Christian. Who can say? But I'm not taking your guess over mine.

If nihilism is at the end of our search then that's where we'll go. Rejecting reason because it has conclusions we don't like is not something I'd like to do.

From a purely intellectual exercise I understand where you are coming from.

However, as we are not strictly, or even mostly, rational beings, I think it's unlikely we will uncover greater metaphysical truths while denying intrinsically valuable aspects of our being and our experience.

I think there is value in post modernism in that it reminds us that our perspective is limited to, well, our perspective. However, we can humbly accept the limits of our own perception while still keeping our minds open to the potentiality of greater objective truths.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

However, as we are not strictly, or even mostly, rational beings, I think it's unlikely we will uncover greater metaphysical truths while denying intrinsically valuable aspects of our being and our experience.

I think there is value in post modernism in that it reminds us that our perspective is limited to, well, our perspective. However, we can humbly accept the limits of our own perception while still keeping our minds open to the potentiality of greater objective truths.

---

I think we agree but we're using different terminology. Here's what I think is going on.

I'm using the word truth to mean something which we can prove with no additional assumptions. I believe there is only one such proof. You're using a model in which there is an underlying reality which we interact with, and you're calling features of reality truths. I agree this model is very useful (it's the one I use), but I don't think we can prove it's the case. It is technically in some way an assumption, so in this context I'm against applying the term truth in the absolute sense to it.

Let's assume that model is correct. Now it's objectively correct to call certain things truths. But can we figure that out with certainty? I don't think so. While truth may exist, it's not a useful concept because reality seems to me to be underdefined. We can't know it with certainty.

So what can we do? We make assumptions. And that's okay. I assume everyday that the previously discussed model is true. It seems to be working out so far. Luckily we live in a world that seems pretty predictable, which gives us confidence that our unproveable assertions are correct.

I don't believe the statement "all models are wrong, some are useful". Probably there is some correct model out there, but it doesn't matter because we'll never identify it.

As for using tools other than logic and reason to pursue the task, I don't have much to say. I don't know how to do that, and I don't think anyone else does either. One of the best features of logic is that in addition to pointing us toward things that work, it steers us away from things which could be true but don't make a lot of sense. I think experientialism and faith are rejections of that excellent feature, and I think they make people worse at understanding the world they live in.

If you restrict your epistemology too much you may feel quite certain about the things you are certain, but that bucket will become so small you will be certain about very few things. I think that's one of the potential traps of a dogmatic approach to post modernism.

You sense there is more value in truths derived by logic but then I would again counter more valuable to whom? Certainly not the addict who is leaning on their new found faith to cure their mind of a disastrous disease?

You seem to bounce between "I feel my approach is most valuable to me," which is almostly certainly true, to "I feel strongly it would be best for all," which is almost certainly not true.

I think if you truly envisioned a world where all truth value statements could be reduced to 0's and 1's and any that could not were completely discarded to you find a synthetic experience most people would find appalling.

Now, this isn't to say that I find the intellectual exercise without merit. It's interesting and I certainly respect your view point in the matter. But it is also at a disconnect from how people actually operate.

Just as an aside, I think intellectual pursuits can be a powerful tool in informing society, but I would never wish to live in a society run by intellectuals, as the 20th century is replete with examples of such societies with disastrous results.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

If you restrict your epistemology too much you may feel quite certain about the things you are certain, but that bucket will become so small you will be certain about very few things. I think that's one of the potential traps of a dogmatic approach to post modernism.

---

You and I agree on this. You can only prove one vague notion. Nothing else. You can prove that you have an empty bucket. It's just a fact, I wouldn't call it a trap.

Quote:

---

You sense there is more value in truths derived by logic but then I would again counter more valuable to whom? Certainly not the addict who is leaning on their new found faith to cure their mind of a disastrous disease?

---

I don't think logical truth is the most valuable, rather, it's the only kind. Reason is the only method we have for pursuing truth with any demonstrable success. It's possible that other systems exist which can work, but I don't know how to evaluate their merit without using logic.

Quote:

---

You seem to bounce between "I feel my approach is most valuable to me," which is almostly certainly true, to "I feel strongly it would be best for all," which is almost certainly not true.

---

I don't think I ever made any value statements like this. If you want to give something a value, you need a metric to measure it. I'm using truth, because that's what I picked. You're using a utilitarian metric. Both are fine, I don't think there's some cosmic "correct goal". My strategy is to try to figure out what's right while basing my actions primarily on what works. I think this approach gives you the best of both worlds.

Hopeless situations exist. If you're in one, it's probably not reasonable to feel positive emotions. If you pretend you're not in a bad situation, you may be able to be happy. If that's your goal, pretending can help you get there. I don't find the utility of this strategy confusing, and I have no desire to deny people this comfort.

Quote:

---

I think if you truly envisioned a world where all truth value statements could be reduced to 0's and 1's and any that could not were completely discarded to you find a synthetic experience most people would find appalling.

Now, this isn't to say that I find the intellectual exercise without merit. It's interesting and I certainly respect your view point in the matter. But it is also at a disconnect from how people actually operate.

Just as an aside, I think intellectual pursuits can be a powerful tool in informing society, but I would never wish to live in a society run by intellectuals, as the 20th century is replete with examples of such societies with disastrous results.

---

Can you define intellectual here?

Quote:

---

empty bucket

---

So all knowledge is an abstraction.

There are degrees of abstraction you accept, and degrees of abstraction you don't accept, as truth.

Quote:

---

logical truth

---

You seen to be trapped in circular reasoning here.

Is there any thing you intuitively think is true but would have difficulty logically defining?

Quote:

---

intellectuals

---

Those who comment on society while being largely insulated from potential consequences of their own ideals.

Good posts by the way. I do think we are largely in agreement on much of this.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

There are degrees of abstraction you accept, and degrees of abstraction you don't accept, as truth.

---

I'm not sure exactly how you're using abstraction. You can construct truth statements of the form "if X, then Y" (this requires logic to work, so that will be an implicit assumption from here on). For example, if the world is as it appears to me, then I am married. That's a true statement. The statement "I am married" is not an objective truth, because I can't prove the world is as it appears to me.

Proofs take you from axioms to consequences of those axioms. Ifs to thens. Axioms can be wrong though. So we just build up lists of things we think are probably true (we don't actually make an enumerated list of course), and then revise it based on new info. Once we have reason to believe a consequence follows from an axiom, we can treat it as a new axiom itself. We don't have to prove it. It just has to explain what we see well. Then we can assume it's true, and see if that helps us or hurts us.



What starting axioms does the world provide us? Only our experience. Objective truth isn't a useful concept then, because it would require us to know something is correct, unconditionally. We have no knowledge which fits that description. Objective truth can exist, but we can never prove it. Models which are equivalent to the truth will perform perfectly. Models which are not may perform badly, or they can perform well or even perfectly in some cases (depending on how it's tested). The usefulness of a model isn't necessarily a consequence of its accuracy. But they're probably correlated.

Quote:

---

You seen to be trapped in circular reasoning here.

Is there any thing you intuitively think is true but would have difficulty logically defining?

---

Tons of things. Our intuition is a product of evolution. It's good at things on our scale and bad at things outside of it. When we leave our comfort zone, intuition becomes a hindrance not an aid in understanding the world. There's no mechanism by which an ape is going to be able to intuit the existence of the proton. It's going to take some systematic thought.

I'm not sure what you think is circular. I hope this detailed explanation has resolved it.

Quote:

---

Those who comment on society while being largely insulated from potential consequences of their own ideals.

---

I don't think the ideas I'm expressing have many consequences at all. Question your assumptions, maybe? That's all. I also don't think the word "intellectuals" actually means what you're saying it does. I think that's a made up definition.

If you want a belief set that makes the best version of cookies, you should become a Mennonite. Cookies.

Quote:

---

I don't think the ideas I'm expressing have many consequences at all. Question your assumptions, maybe? That's all. I also don't think the word "intellectuals" actually means what you're saying it does. I think that's a made up definition.

---

I think you are taking that comment personally and it wasn't directed at you. I think we are both in a sense intellectuals.

I'm also operating under the very accepted definition of the word. Of course, in this regard, I'm operating on a narrower subset of intellectuals who would be politicly motivated to rule.