Thoughts on postmodernism (or the ism that isn't)...
Postmodernism...I heard about it all the time in college. I recently
heard more about it in relation to the passing of one of its supposed
founders Jacques Derrida. I have heard there is a backlash against it
in recent thought and it is now popular in some circles to bash it and
make fun of it publicly. But that is not the best way to deal with it
usually in my view...
The simple fact of the matter is that postmodernism doesn't really
signify anything significant. It simply a set of statements, claims,
ideas of a few French, German, and American thinkers. Its claims and
conclusions are quite profound, but they are not new in any sense.
They have been around since before Plato's time. So, what is the best
thing to do in response to it? There is no absolute magic formula.
Sometimes, note that postmodernists (as they sometimes call
themselves) don't really give arguments for their point of
view....they just make claims. They may attempt to show paradoxes in
things and thereby assume they have shown that something is
contradictory; you should simply explain that a paradox is not
necessarily a contradiction and do your best to use an argument to
defend it. Like this maybe, "The truck is blue and it is also not
blue. That is a contradiction. To say that evil happens in the world
and there is a good God is paradoxical, but it is not
a contradiction. There are other elements to the question that may
explain the paradox; perhaps even things we haven't thought of yet or
cannot due to our existential context."
Usually, however, I suggest that you should simply ignore it most of
the time. Ignore their claims, assumptions, and ideas. Don't try to
fight them too hard, because in their world view, they have already
guaranteed their victory. The more you ignore it, without being mean,
the more good you do the people who hold the point of view.
heard more about it in relation to the passing of one of its supposed
founders Jacques Derrida. I have heard there is a backlash against it
in recent thought and it is now popular in some circles to bash it and
make fun of it publicly. But that is not the best way to deal with it
usually in my view...
The simple fact of the matter is that postmodernism doesn't really
signify anything significant. It simply a set of statements, claims,
ideas of a few French, German, and American thinkers. Its claims and
conclusions are quite profound, but they are not new in any sense.
They have been around since before Plato's time. So, what is the best
thing to do in response to it? There is no absolute magic formula.
Sometimes, note that postmodernists (as they sometimes call
themselves) don't really give arguments for their point of
view....they just make claims. They may attempt to show paradoxes in
things and thereby assume they have shown that something is
contradictory; you should simply explain that a paradox is not
necessarily a contradiction and do your best to use an argument to
defend it. Like this maybe, "The truck is blue and it is also not
blue. That is a contradiction. To say that evil happens in the world
and there is a good God is paradoxical, but it is not
a contradiction. There are other elements to the question that may
explain the paradox; perhaps even things we haven't thought of yet or
cannot due to our existential context."
Usually, however, I suggest that you should simply ignore it most of
the time. Ignore their claims, assumptions, and ideas. Don't try to
fight them too hard, because in their world view, they have already
guaranteed their victory. The more you ignore it, without being mean,
the more good you do the people who hold the point of view.
posted by Sam at 9:19 PM
1 Comments:
I declare myself guilty of making fun of postmodernism, but I have a reason to do so. Some postmoderns tend to be serious concerning certain subjects, other exaggerate overwhelmingly. But in both cases, what they say is simply false, and if taken seriously, it would mean what Kant called "practical contradiction". Many of their issues arise in most of the cases from misbehavior of those of us who proclaim ourselves to act according to reason, or who believe that there is such a thing as objective truth and objective good. For example, in the case of Christians, we have practically contributed to the annihilation of many cultures and civilizations in the name of "truth", and that it was "good" to force beliefs on other people. But instead of using at least some reason and objective good to be the basis of what is obviously evil, they deny "good" and "evil" altogether. Everything is subjective, relativized: some postmodernists say because we are "slaves" of language, others say that it is because of "phalogocentric" thinking ("phalogocentric" meaning the association of the penis with classic logic and "linear" reason... whatever that means), or because of power struggles, etc. But then comes the practical contradiction, if there is no good nor evil in an objective sense, then it makes absolutely no difference if I kill indians or not, or it makes no difference in imposing my beliefs on others at point blank or not. So, their position is self-defeating.
But what gets me REALLY upset, is when many of them propose non-sense and people take it seriously. For example, Luce Irigaray wants to know if E=mc^2 is a sexuated equation or not. I'm sorry, but that's just B.S. I do recognize that during many centuries many men gave no importance whatsoever to women's body, behavior and way of thinking, and that a male-dominated science had to overcome their misoginist bias to actually know about women. But asking stupid questions like the sexuality reflected in E=mc^2 is non-sense. Also she makes the claim that science hasn't made enough studies on the dynamics of fluids (because psychologically linearly-reasoned men want to avoid any way of thinking that reminds them of a circular menstrual period). That is also a B.S. Science has made complete studies on the dynamics of fluids, that go from liquid and gas, to plasma (gas made up of electrically charged particles). In the case of plasma it is being investigated for the way it is shaping the universe. New discoveries are being made with chaos theory, and also the behavior of fluids in closed spaces and how entropy works, etc. She even admits that she doesn't know anything of science to verify that this is the case... She just supposes that it is. The same happens with Bruno Latour's stupid understanding of Einstein's theories of relativity, or others' understanding of Gödel's principle.
They destroy science, literature, art, philosophy, history, etc. So, I make fun at least of their craziest ideas just to present them a picture where they can look at themselves and see the consequences of what they are saying. At least that's what I do. They don't like it when I do it, but not even they take it seriously: they have to use the phallogocentric science to take airplanes, listen to radio, watch TV, read the newspaper, or in politics they have to decide that to defend immigrants (like Derrida did) is justified vis a vis repress them, etc. They never take what they say seriously.
Post a Comment
<< Home