Is Postmodernism a Disease?

[Sunstone]

In this thread, I would like to focus on the postmodernist notion that there are many "ways of knowing", and that all of them are significantly equal ways of arriving at truths -- none of them are privileged.

So, for example, a person who subscribed to that postmodernist notion might claim that science and faith are equally effective ways to discover truths about reality.

That's a very curious notion. Among many other legitimate criticisms that could be leveled at it, if it were indeed true that there are many equally sound ways of knowing, then it becomes possible that one way of knowing might produce results contradicted by another way of knowing -- in which cases, all ways of knowing being equal, both results would be true despite they contradicted each other.

For instance, by one way of knowing, you might claim to know that I had run over your cat in my car, and seek damages in court against me. Yet, by another way of knowing, I might claim that you never had a cat in the first place, so how could I have possibly run it over? Moreover, since all ways of knowing are equal, how could the judge in that trial choose between us?

Now, one consequence of all of that would be that the truth or falsity of any proposition would entirely cease to be of any logical or rational significance to anything. And some postmodernists would be quite cool with that. They already deny there are any truths at all, or at the very least, that there are any universal truths at all.

Another consequence would be that the notion we could know things -- any thing --would also be reduced to a senseless or meaningless notion because knowledge is what we have when we have a "justified true belief", and how can we have a justified true belief is there is no truth?

So, in a nutshell, the postmodernist notion that there are many equally sound ways of knowing directly leads to the conclusions that there are no truths and there is no knowledge.

Now, if you happen to think it might be a little bit contradictory to say "you know there is no knowledge", or that "It is true there is no truth", then you perhaps you yourself might not be cut out to become a fine and promising postmodernist.

Now here's what I think of all that. First, I think it goes almost without saying that this postmodernist notion is BS.

Second, Postmodernist writings on this particular subject are infamous for being mostly vague, obscure, and unintelligible, which I see as unsurprising. If you are BSing folks about something, it helps to bring out the smoke and mirrors in order to at least delay the moment they realize they've been had.

Last, I think a case can be made for regarding the postmodernist notion there are many equally sound ways of knowing to be a disease of reasoning in the sense here that reasoning would be the host and the notion itself would be a malady that attacks, weakens, or threatens to destroy that host.

Comments? Questions? Vague, obscure, and unintelligible rants?

 

[YmirGF]

In this thread, I would like to focus on the postmodernist notion that there are many "ways of knowing", and that all of them are significantly equal ways of arriving at truths -- none of them are privileged.

So, for example, a person who subscribed to that postmodernist notion might claim that science and faith are equally effective ways to discover truths about reality.

That's a very curious notion. Among many other legitimate criticisms that could be leveled at it, if it were indeed true that there are many equally sound ways of knowing, then it becomes possible that one way of knowing might produce results contradicted by another way of knowing -- in which cases, all ways of knowing being equal, both results would be true despite they contradicted each other.

For instance, by one way of knowing, you might claim to know that I had run over your cat in my car, and seek damages in court against me. Yet, by another way of knowing, I might claim that you never had a cat in the first place, so how could I have possibly run it over? Moreover, since all ways of knowing are equal, how could the judge in that trial choose between us?

Now, one consequence of all of that would be that the truth or falsity of any proposition would entirely cease to be of any logical or rational significance to anything. And some postmodernists would be quite cool with that. They already deny there are any truths at all, or at the very least, that there are any universal truths at all.

Another consequence would be that the notion we could know things -- any thing --would also be reduced to a senseless or meaningless notion because knowledge is what we have when we have a "justified true belief", and how can we have a justified true belief is there is no truth?

So, in a nutshell, the postmodernist notion that there are many equally sound ways of knowing directly leads to the conclusions that there are no truths and there is no knowledge.

Now, if you happen to think it might be a little bit contradictory to say "you know there is no knowledge", or that "It is true there is no truth", then you perhaps you yourself might not be cut out to become a fine and promising postmodernist.

Now here's what I think of all that. First, I think it goes almost without saying that this postmodernist notion is BS.

Second, Postmodernist writings on this particular subject are infamous for being mostly vague, obscure, and unintelligible, which I see as unsurprising. If you are BSing folks about something, it helps to bring out the smoke and mirrors in order to at least delay the moment they realize they've been had.

Last, I think a case can be made for regarding the postmodernist notion there are many equally sound ways of knowing to be a disease of reasoning in the sense here that reasoning would be the host and the notion itself would be a malady that attacks, weakens, or threatens to destroy that host.

Comments? Questions? Vague, obscure, and unintelligible rants?

I'm in the middle of some interesting stuff right now, but thought I would add something I tell people when they are sampling new viewpoints and that is to be especially wary of those who do not make sense or have you scratching your head. The exception is if you are learning a new topic and are not familiar with the lingo. That said, there are a great many folks who use incredibly elaborate phrases and buzzwords in a form of faux intellectualism. It does sound impressive and yet when you deconstruct the given thoughts you are left with shadows and shadows of shadows. As you deconstruct the ideas you begin to understand that they are not altogether sound ideas and don't actually make a lick of sense outside of their own paradigm. One such idea that has emerged from postmodern thought is that of Intersectionality. It is frightening to consider how much traction this absurdity of thought has gained over the last several years as it has begun to trickle down into society at large.

 

[oldbadger]

Now here's what I think of all that. First, I think it goes almost without saying that this postmodernist notion is BS.

Yes to most of it.......... and No to some of it .......

The 'Yes' bit:-
I don't like violence, but from a psychological 'angle' (these nuts are not philosophical, they're nuts, so we'll need to look at the psychology of it all) I presume that one could smack a die-hard postmodernist in the mouth, hard, and be free from any laws or justice, because the poor victim would have to 'propose' to any judge or jury that it probably never happened.

The 'No' bit:-
If I would take you to the outskirts any of the 'New Towns' that were planned by some demented and totally psychotic 'Modernist' architects in the late 40's, search you and remove any sat-nav technology, and give you a perfectly accurate street map and ask you to walk in and find a real address, when we should eventually find you slumped in some cafe, hot, sweating, swearing and ranting about the bloody stupid place and it's ridiculous geography (they didn't have blooming demographics back then) and demanding that if the architect was still alive that he should be publicly beaten to death in the centre of his bloody creation........ then would be the time to ask you if it might just be possible to give the tiniest weeniest little bit of appreciation to any post-modernist architectural philosophies.

Second, Postmodernist writings on this particular subject are infamous for being mostly vague, obscure, and unintelligible, which I see as unsurprising. If you are BSing folks about something, it helps to bring out the smoke and mirrors in order to at least delay the moment they realize they've been had.

Oh No! They're not BSing........ nope....
They actually BELIEVE that what they are mumbling about is true, and so although their reasoning is totally crank, they aren't BSing because that actually takes a level of intelligence to carry out successfully. . I used to visit a patient in Saint Augustine's mental hospital during the 70's, and I often met with a once brilliant chemist in the hallowed corridors who would stop me and tell me who he was on that day..... King John, The Pope, whoever..... he wasn't BSing either, you see.....

Last, I think a case can be made for regarding the postmodernist notion there are many equally sound ways of knowing to be a disease of reasoning in the sense here that reasoning would be the host and the notion itself would be a malady that attacks, weakens, or threatens to destroy that host.

Oh Yes...... total loss of reason of the mind. No cures that are known, although Freud would have held a field day of delightful therapies for most of them.

Comments? Questions? Vague, obscure, and unintelligible rants?

And..... and...... ummm..... errr..... was that me? I feel better now. It's alright.... honestly, I'm ok now.

 

[whirlingmerc]

In this thread, I would like to focus on the postmodernist notion that there are many "ways of knowing", and that all of them are significantly equal ways of arriving at truths -- none of them are privileged.

So, for example, a person who subscribed to that postmodernist notion might claim that science and faith are equally effective ways to discover truths about reality.

That's a very curious notion. Among many other legitimate criticisms that could be leveled at it, if it were indeed true that there are many equally sound ways of knowing, then it becomes possible that one way of knowing might produce results contradicted by another way of knowing -- in which cases, all ways of knowing being equal, both results would be true despite they contradicted each other.

For instance, by one way of knowing, you might claim to know that I had run over your cat in my car, and seek damages in court against me. Yet, by another way of knowing, I might claim that you never had a cat in the first place, so how could I have possibly run it over? Moreover, since all ways of knowing are equal, how could the judge in that trial choose between us?

Now, one consequence of all of that would be that the truth or falsity of any proposition would entirely cease to be of any logical or rational significance to anything. And some postmodernists would be quite cool with that. They already deny there are any truths at all, or at the very least, that there are any universal truths at all.

Another consequence would be that the notion we could know things -- any thing --would also be reduced to a senseless or meaningless notion because knowledge is what we have when we have a "justified true belief", and how can we have a justified true belief is there is no truth?

So, in a nutshell, the postmodernist notion that there are many equally sound ways of knowing directly leads to the conclusions that there are no truths and there is no knowledge.

Now, if you happen to think it might be a little bit contradictory to say "you know there is no knowledge", or that "It is true there is no truth", then you perhaps you yourself might not be cut out to become a fine and promising postmodernist.

Now here's what I think of all that. First, I think it goes almost without saying that this postmodernist notion is BS.

Second, Postmodernist writings on this particular subject are infamous for being mostly vague, obscure, and unintelligible, which I see as unsurprising. If you are BSing folks about something, it helps to bring out the smoke and mirrors in order to at least delay the moment they realize they've been had.

Last, I think a case can be made for regarding the postmodernist notion there are many equally sound ways of knowing to be a disease of reasoning in the sense here that reasoning would be the host and the notion itself would be a malady that attacks, weakens, or threatens to destroy that host.

Comments? Questions? Vague, obscure, and unintelligible rants?

It's a confusion

not the Pope calls fanaticism and fundamentalism diseases and that's another bad usage
(clearly he doesn't min people fanatical about the pope)

 

[Augustus]

Comments?

I agree that many things that may be deemed post-modernist is verbose nonsense and/or can cause problematic ways of thinking.

I also think there is stuff there that is useful for understanding the world we live in.

I also don't really know what post-modernism is.

Vague, obscure, and unintelligible rants?

I'm going to be postmodern about this: Is thinking that postmodernism is a disease, a disease?

(this really applies to popular usage of the term postmodernism without a significant attempt to identify what one actually means by the term)

For popular discourse, a term really should clarify more than it confuses, distorts or obfuscates. Words can be shortcuts to complex phenomena, but can also be a replacement for thinking.

For example, on RF, probably 70%+ of references to logical fallacies are wrong, which clearly shows they are an impediment to though for many people here. Had they not been able to refer to terms like 'strawman' or 'moving the goalposts' they would have been required to focus on what they actually meant. It's a way of thinking you have made an insightful point, without actually having done so.

Postmodernism is a very hard to define concept (as indeed is modernism, and the relationship between the 2), and most people can't really put their finger on what it precisely means (I certainly include myself in this group).

PM though should be seen as, in part, a response to the Enlightenment project's perceived overemphasis on Reason and its resultant narrowly defined idea of progress. Reason is generally a tool of whatever axioms or assumptions one starts with rather than an exercise in pure objectivity.

PM was also influenced by aspects of (post)Marxist philosophy, particularly ideas of cultural hegemony and collectively, with some other stuff like Critical Theory, have morphed into a discipline probably better reflected by the term Cultural Studies (which covers some of the current betes noires: gender studies, critics race studies, etc.

When people rail against post-modernism, they are generally railing against an exaggerated affectation of a certain aspect of multiple broad philosophical trends that are hard to define and mean different things to different people (and may mean nothing particularly clear even to the one using it)

It is worth noting that even those who rail against PM, often utilise 'deconstructionist' critiques of cultural hegemony (from the uber-PC postmodernists), as well as other things that may be considered 'post-modern'.

In general, it's preferable to spend an extra few words trying to define the problem without recourse to a term like PM, which is practically useless without additional clarifications anyway. If a word can't really be used without significance explanation of what it means, then why use it?

Aspects of PM may well be a disease, but if they are, then they should be identified with precision.

 

[WalterTrull]

science and faith are equally effective ways to discover truths about reality.

Both fairly well developed modes of confirmation bias. We have a need to answer: "why?". It's how we direct our faith.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the postmodernist notion that there are many equally sound ways of knowing directly leads to the conclusions that there are no truths and there is no knowledge.

This is a poor way of thinking (I realize that it is not your way). Does that constitute a disease, or just a cognitive defect?

Truth is the quality that facts produce, facts being linguistic strings that accurately map some portion of reality, with reality being the collection of objects that interact with one another. A fact is an idea that allows us to correctly anticipate and in some cases manipulate outcomes, and knowledge is the collection of such useful ideas.

If one holds belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, we say that belief B is true (a fact) if doing A consistently achieves D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false. It's that simple. Other formulations of these ideas seem inadequate. And of course, this is science - observation, hypothesis generation, and testing the hypothesis against reality. It's not limited to the laboratory or observatory. It's part of daily life.

This usage can also apply to subjective truths - things that are true for oneself, but not all others, such as which restaurant will produce the better dining experience.

 

[Politesse]

When you say, "post-modernist", who exactly are you referencing? If I had to pick a statement to summarize all approaches to post-modernism, it would have been "A critique of modernist assumptions." One needn't advocate some sort of lawless, science-less society to be skeptical toward Western "modernity" and its supposed superiority over all other cultures.

 

[YmirGF]

I agree that many things that may be deemed post-modernist is verbose nonsense and/or can cause problematic ways of thinking.

I also think there is stuff there that is useful for understanding the world we live in.

I also don't really know what post-modernism is.



I'm going to be postmodern about this: Is thinking that postmodernism is a disease, a disease?

(this really applies to popular usage of the term postmodernism without a significant attempt to identify what one actually means by the term)

For popular discourse, a term really should clarify more than it confuses, distorts or obfuscates. Words can be shortcuts to complex phenomena, but can also be a replacement for thinking.

For example, on RF, probably 70%+ of references to logical fallacies are wrong, which clearly shows they are an impediment to though for many people here. Had they not been able to refer to terms like 'strawman' or 'moving the goalposts' they would have been required to focus on what they actually meant. It's a way of thinking you have made an insightful point, without actually having done so.

Postmodernism is a very hard to define concept (as indeed is modernism, and the relationship between the 2), and most people can't really put their finger on what it precisely means (I certainly include myself in this group).

PM though should be seen as, in part, a response to the Enlightenment project's perceived overemphasis on Reason and its resultant narrowly defined idea of progress. Reason is generally a tool of whatever axioms or assumptions one starts with rather than an exercise in pure objectivity.

PM was also influenced by aspects of (post)Marxist philosophy, particularly ideas of cultural hegemony and collectively, with some other stuff like Critical Theory, have morphed into a discipline probably better reflected by the term Cultural Studies (which covers some of the current betes noires: gender studies, critics race studies, etc.

When people rail against post-modernism, they are generally railing against an exaggerated affectation of a certain aspect of multiple broad philosophical trends that are hard to define and mean different things to different people (and may mean nothing particularly clear even to the one using it)

It is worth noting that even those who rail against PM, often utilise 'deconstructionist' critiques of cultural hegemony (from the uber-PC postmodernists), as well as other things that may be considered 'post-modern'.

In general, it's preferable to spend an extra few words trying to define the problem without recourse to a term like PM, which is practically useless without additional clarifications anyway. If a word can't really be used without significance explanation of what it means, then why use it?

Aspects of PM may well be a disease, but if they are, then they should be identified with precision.

What an incredibly awesome post, @Augustus

Do you work on being smart or are, you know, just a super smarty pants?

 

[WalterTrull]

smarty pants?

Oh-oh, oh-oh!!

 

[Sunstone]

In general, it's preferable to spend an extra few words trying to define the problem without recourse to a term like PM, which is practically useless without additional clarifications anyway. If a word can't really be used without significance explanation of what it means, then why use it?

I was under the impression that I had made amply clear in my OP that my focus was on one specific notion shared by some -- but not necessarily all -- postmodernists. I'm not at all sure why you are pointing out that postmodernism involves more than the bit I focused on?

Beyond that, do you know of any sense or meaning to the postmodernist term "deconstruction" that was not covered by the traditional term "analyzing"?

 

[Augustus]

I was under the impression that I had made amply clear in my OP that my focus was on one specific notion shared by some -- but not necessarily all -- postmodernists. I'm not at all sure why you are pointing out that postmodernism involves more than the bit I focused on?

It was more of a general musing, which is why I replied to your request for "Vague, obscure, and unintelligible rants?"

The idea just hit me that, in general, adding the word postmodern to a conversation is usually an impediment to understanding.

You went to the effort to clarify what you meant, but people still need to get past their own (mis)understanding of the term, which has also become somewhat politicised in recent years (for some).

Others will use the term without explanation, and people will see different things.

Alternatively, you get annoying people like me offering whatever verbiage pops into their minds

Rarely has the term postmodern added any actual value to the point being made though.

Beyond that, do you know of any sense or meaning to the postmodernist term "deconstruction" that was not covered by the traditional term "analyzing"?

In the broadest sense, not really.

In the more specific sense, a focus on identifying ideological, linguistic and power implicit in texts and seeking to redefine the axioms/frameworks on which the text is built may be considered different from generic analysis.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Is Postmodernism a Disease?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes, it is.

 

[Kirran]

I think as an entire stream of Western thought, to say it is or is not one thing is probably a bit unreliable. There's more nuance than that, and it's just development that thought goes through.

Many points are being eruditely addressed already. But I wanna add that intersectionality needn't be automatically conflated or linked to postmodernist thought. All intersectionality means is that within a society people experience all of their social identities compounded really, and can't be reduced to a single identity. It's generally more accurate to say that someone is seen as a white man more than as white and a man. And therefore it's that intersection of identities and so on which impacts how they experience society.

 

[whirlingmerc]

In this thread, I would like to focus on the postmodernist notion that there are many "ways of knowing", and that all of them are significantly equal ways of arriving at truths -- none of them are privileged.

So, for example, a person who subscribed to that postmodernist notion might claim that science and faith are equally effective ways to discover truths about reality.

That's a very curious notion. Among many other legitimate criticisms that could be leveled at it, if it were indeed true that there are many equally sound ways of knowing, then it becomes possible that one way of knowing might produce results contradicted by another way of knowing -- in which cases, all ways of knowing being equal, both results would be true despite they contradicted each other.

For instance, by one way of knowing, you might claim to know that I had run over your cat in my car, and seek damages in court against me. Yet, by another way of knowing, I might claim that you never had a cat in the first place, so how could I have possibly run it over? Moreover, since all ways of knowing are equal, how could the judge in that trial choose between us?

Now, one consequence of all of that would be that the truth or falsity of any proposition would entirely cease to be of any logical or rational significance to anything. And some postmodernists would be quite cool with that. They already deny there are any truths at all, or at the very least, that there are any universal truths at all.

Another consequence would be that the notion we could know things -- any thing --would also be reduced to a senseless or meaningless notion because knowledge is what we have when we have a "justified true belief", and how can we have a justified true belief is there is no truth?

So, in a nutshell, the postmodernist notion that there are many equally sound ways of knowing directly leads to the conclusions that there are no truths and there is no knowledge.

Now, if you happen to think it might be a little bit contradictory to say "you know there is no knowledge", or that "It is true there is no truth", then you perhaps you yourself might not be cut out to become a fine and promising postmodernist.

Now here's what I think of all that. First, I think it goes almost without saying that this postmodernist notion is BS.

Second, Postmodernist writings on this particular subject are infamous for being mostly vague, obscure, and unintelligible, which I see as unsurprising. If you are BSing folks about something, it helps to bring out the smoke and mirrors in order to at least delay the moment they realize they've been had.

Last, I think a case can be made for regarding the postmodernist notion there are many equally sound ways of knowing to be a disease of reasoning in the sense here that reasoning would be the host and the notion itself would be a malady that attacks, weakens, or threatens to destroy that host.

Comments? Questions? Vague, obscure, and unintelligible rants?

Postmodernism is a move past rationalism... I would not say disease... it's a reaction and a statement in part that rationalism is not sufficient in itself

I disagree that faith is not rational.
I agree postmodernism is not an adequate world view

 

[Mock Turtle]

Fed up with postmodernism, try new post-postmodernism, the newer and even better way to clog up your brain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-postmodernism

 

[Robert Henry]

In this thread, I would like to focus on the postmodernist notion that there are many "ways of knowing", and that all of them are significantly equal ways of arriving at truths -- none of them are privileged.

So, for example, a person who subscribed to that postmodernist notion might claim that science and faith are equally effective ways to discover truths about reality.

That's a very curious notion. Among many other legitimate criticisms that could be leveled at it, if it were indeed true that there are many equally sound ways of knowing, then it becomes possible that one way of knowing might produce results contradicted by another way of knowing -- in which cases, all ways of knowing being equal, both results would be true despite they contradicted each other.

For instance, by one way of knowing, you might claim to know that I had run over your cat in my car, and seek damages in court against me. Yet, by another way of knowing, I might claim that you never had a cat in the first place, so how could I have possibly run it over? Moreover, since all ways of knowing are equal, how could the judge in that trial choose between us?

Now, one consequence of all of that would be that the truth or falsity of any proposition would entirely cease to be of any logical or rational significance to anything. And some postmodernists would be quite cool with that. They already deny there are any truths at all, or at the very least, that there are any universal truths at all.

Another consequence would be that the notion we could know things -- any thing --would also be reduced to a senseless or meaningless notion because knowledge is what we have when we have a "justified true belief", and how can we have a justified true belief is there is no truth?

So, in a nutshell, the postmodernist notion that there are many equally sound ways of knowing directly leads to the conclusions that there are no truths and there is no knowledge.

Now, if you happen to think it might be a little bit contradictory to say "you know there is no knowledge", or that "It is true there is no truth", then you perhaps you yourself might not be cut out to become a fine and promising postmodernist.

Now here's what I think of all that. First, I think it goes almost without saying that this postmodernist notion is BS.

Second, Postmodernist writings on this particular subject are infamous for being mostly vague, obscure, and unintelligible, which I see as unsurprising. If you are BSing folks about something, it helps to bring out the smoke and mirrors in order to at least delay the moment they realize they've been had.

Last, I think a case can be made for regarding the postmodernist notion there are many equally sound ways of knowing to be a disease of reasoning in the sense here that reasoning would be the host and the notion itself would be a malady that attacks, weakens, or threatens to destroy that host.

Comments? Questions? Vague, obscure, and unintelligible rants?

I don't think that postmodernism claims that there are many ways to know reality. Postmodernism typically denies there is a 'real.' Therefore the initial premise of knowing is irrelevant to postmodernists. Rather they are concerned with interpretation. Exploring different ways of knowing is another issue, and one that I am incredibly fascinated with, as that I find empiricism dull and far too shallow to fully grasp reality.