Submitted by BernardJOrtcutt t3_y6c1wy in philosophy
Maker623 t1_ispud31 wrote
My Claim: Postmodernism is a flawed ideology that not only defies logic itself, but contradicts its own position...
The following quote is from the link. It is a pillar of the belief system that postmodernists hold.
"Postmodernists contend that there is no objective truth, rather truth is constructed by society. All ideas of morality are not real, but constructed. Consistent with postmodern doctrine is the belief that institutions, such as science and language, are oppressive institutes of control."
The problem is how people of past and present believe postmodernism to be true. To prove it is not and support My Claim above, one only has to read Postmodernist claims, and think for about 5 seconds. Thus, one learns that any claim made by postmodernism contradicts itself, as it is saying its own statements are true, while arguing that truth does not exist. A rebuttal would be "no it's to say relative truth exists, just not absolute" This rebuttal fails, because you just said an absolute truthful claim of "only relative truth exists" which postmodernism supports....but then.... proves incorrect......
It defies logic itself because anyone who is competent understands what color, laws, language, names, height, math, heat, brightness, emotion, history, smell, mechanics, physics, stars, etc are, and by doing so they understand that either these things must exist in the same state for everyone alive, or our entire idea of reality itself and the physical realm is wrong. The latter being true makes as much sense as saying "Tomorrow I will wake up and have superpowers. The next day, I will be able to go 2 months without sleep." In fact, a postmodernist may argue that such statement may be correct, because his truth is relative. People that have such beliefs are defined as crazy by society, and rightly so.
There are some things found in Postmodernism that is worth thinking about and is actually educational. However, the overall idea that absolute truth does not exist, morality is subjective (seemingly arguing that the world war 2 bad guy could have been vindicated?), and that objective reality doesn't exist, is not only dangerous and childish, but outright scary as this is an idea spreading centuries, with college professors having taught and still teaching their students such stupidity. In conclusion, if somehow the belief that truth does not exist is true, then we truly live in an upside down world, and I will gladly be flying like Superman tomorrow.https://theappalachianonline.com/opinion-truth-objectivity-and-postmodernism/
ephemerios t1_isqaifn wrote
> https://theappalachianonline.com/opinion-truth-objectivity-and-postmodernism/
Is that article a spillover from the late 2010’s 90s-style culture war remake? Stuff like:
>To solve these problems, among others, Karl Marx, began drifting away from Enlightenment principles in search of ideas to eliminate the inequalities brought on by Enlightenment principles. However, the disillusionment with the Enlightenment occurred post World War I and II, when the technological marvels produced by science led to the slaughter of millions.
Doesn’t strike me as particularly productive. Marx pretty much continued the sort of critical philosophy that Kant (perhaps the most important Enlightenment thinker….or at the very least one of the most important ones) pioneered, the post-Kantians systematized, and the German idealists and their successors critiqued sympathetically.
The critique of Enlightenment ideals and conceptions of reason we see after WWII (like, say, Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School, i.e., the eternal bogeyman of a subset of the political right) strike me as perfectly in line with the very spirit of the Enlightenment, which is always also self-critical. Also blaming the disillusionment exclusively on science strikes me as misleading. There was disillusionment with the culture that spawned out of the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment at large.
>Consistent with postmodern doctrine is the belief that institutions, such as science and language, are oppressive institutes of control.
Who actually claims this and what is their actual argument here? And more importantly, what is the context of this argument? This is an often repeated claim that isn’t entirely wrong, but I worry that it has taken on a life on its own, i.e. separated from actual postmodernist thought.
>If both sides are right and wrong, does that not prove postmodernism’s point that truth is up to individual interpretation? Not exactly. Aristotle solved this philosophical problem in ancient Greece when he theorized that truth and ethical behavior bisect between two extremes, called the “Golden Mean.” Since both sides offer truth and falsehood, given their rejection of the other side’s perspective, then it stands to reason that the middle approach is true, since it formulates a solution based on complete information. To answer humankind’s biggest question pertaining to truth is to find the middle between Enlightenment and postmodern philosophy. To choose one over the other is to look at the world from an incomplete lens. We should strive to reach a reasonable approach toward human progress while acknowledging our personal bias and give those with dissenting beliefs a platform.
Disagree. A better solution would be to first actually understand what led to the disillusionment with Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment ideas and what those critiques of them (especially those that still conceive of themselves as continuing the Enlightenment project or at the very least as laboring in its spirit) say. Especially since this issue doesn’t really seem to be confined to the post-war era:
>Paradoxically, the crisis of the Enlightenment arose from within, and indeed from its most cherished principle. The problem is that this principle is self-reflexive. If reason must subject all beliefs to criticism, it must also subject its own tribunal to criticism. To exempt its tribunal from scrutiny would be nothing less than ‘dogmatism’, accepting beliefs on authority, which is the very opposite of reason. The criticism of reason therefore inevitably became the meta-criticism of reason. If the Enlightenment was the age of criticism, the 1790s were the age of meta-criticism. All the doubts about the authority of reason, which are so often said to be characteristic of our ‘post-modern’ age, were already apparent in late eighteenth-century Germany.
Frederick Beiser’s Hegel, p. 23
Maker623 t1_isqhgo8 wrote
I'm quite confused by your intentions, as you seem to be ranting against the article, but only provided 1 instance on your position about Postmodernism, which is what my entire post is about?
{Consistent with postmodern doctrine is the belief that institutions, such as science and language, are oppressive institutes of control.}"Who actually claims this and what is their actual argument here? And more importantly, what is the context of this argument? This is an often repeated claim that isn’t entirely wrong, but I worry that it has taken on a life on its own, i.e. separated from actual postmodernist thought."
Im guessing you downvoted this also because you don't like the source?
Here's Britannica-
"Postmodernists deny this Enlightenment faith in science and technology as instruments of human progress. Indeed, many postmodernists hold that the misguided (or unguided) pursuit of scientific and technological knowledge led to the development of technologies for killing on a massive scale in World War II. Some go so far as to say that science and technology—and even reason and logic—are inherently destructive and oppressive, because they have been used by evil people, especially during the 20th century, to destroy and oppress others."
Here's The Postil Magazine-
"To the Postmodernist, classical accounts of truth–like that of Plato’s–which use language via propositional logic, or other bodies of knowledge which rely on the experiential, reason, or narrative cannot tell us anything about the world, due to their use of language. The strong Postmodernist must therefore reject science, history, and philosophy, as they attempt to rationalize the world using language."
Here's Why Evolution Is True-
"Empirical evidence is suspect and so are any culturally dominant ideas including science, reason, and universal liberalism. These are Enlightenment values which are naïve, totalizing and oppressive, and there is a moral necessity to smash them."
3 more sources that provide a similar statement to "science and language are oppressive instituts of control". And the point of this argument, at least mine, is to prove how Postmodernism is one of the stupidest, incoherent, illogical, dumbfounded, illiterate, collection of jumbled words and jargon ever put on paper, let alone be spoken out of someone's mouth. While it sounds harsh, I still hold that there are some good takeaways from the theory itself. Especially when it comes to critical thinking, and bringing to light what truly cannot be known.
I encourage you to look at the beliefs of postmodernism, especially on Britannica, as they number the beliefs and explain them. I also would like to know your position on Postmodernism. And I also do not have any comment on Karl Marx, the Enlightenment period, how Postmodernism began, World War 2 technology, or anything other than Does Postmodernism make sense? Provide your explanation" I have already posted my answer, twice.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/postmodernism-philosophy
^HIGHLY RECOMMEND READING^
​
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2019/09/21/postmodernism-explained-and-criticized/
ephemerios t1_it2hlub wrote
> I'm quite confused by your intentions, as you seem to be ranting against the article,
I'm not "ranting" against the article as much as I'm pointing out how vacuous it is.
>but only provided 1 instance on your position about Postmodernism, which is what my entire post is about?
Who cares about my position on postmodernism? What I'm really suggesting is that both you and the author of the article aren't informed enough on what postmodernism even is to adequately critique it.
> Im guessing you downvoted this also because you don't like the source? >
I don't up/downvote on reddit in general, so no.
> I encourage you to look at the beliefs of postmodernism, especially on Britannica, as they number the beliefs and explain them.
Why would I look at a generalist encyclopedia, or even worse, a wholly unrelated evolutionary biology blog that relies on unserious polemics against "postmodernism" like Sokal and Bricmont's work or the output of a known grifter like Helen Pluckrose?
If I really wanted to deep-dive into postmodernism (something I'd have to do before critiquing it), I'd start with the SEP article on it. Or some threads on /r/askphilosophy. Or selected chapters from Garry Gutting's French Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, or Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition, or Cuck Philosophy's Postmodernism FAQ.
>I also would like to know your position on Postmodernism.
Postmodernism is a vacuous term that serves more as a bogey man for reactionary pundits than as a meaningful umbrella term for philosophical positions. Instead, why don't you pick out a "postmodern" philosopher -- either someone who embraced the term like Lyotard or, to a lesser degree, Richard Rorty) or one of those that get regularly accused of being postmodernists, like Derrida or Foucault -- and work through their output?
>And I also do not have any comment on Karl Marx, the Enlightenment period, how Postmodernism began, World War 2 technology, or anything other than Does Postmodernism make sense? Provide your explanation" I have already posted my answer, twice.
Why do you think it is wise to divorce a supposed set of assumptions and conclusions from the historical context out of which they arose?
Lumpy-Passenger-1986 t1_ispyhdy wrote
I suppose it depends on your interpretation of the truth. I for one don’t view societal expectations as truth because each society has different truths, and thus no one will ever know which truth is “THE TRUTH”. It may also depend on spiritual belief. If you don’t believe there is a higher power, than maybe there is no truth. Each society creates their list of rights and wrongs yet no society is right or wrong because it doesn’t matter. If you do believe in a higher power, than the truth may only come from them, and no one will actually know the actual truth until they meet their maker.
Maker623 t1_isq03hd wrote
"If you don’t believe there is a higher power, than maybe there is no truth." But then you'd be saying the truth is that there is no truth. I agree that no one can know for sure all aspects of THE TRUTH, I think it's just easier to focus on objective reality, like the exuberant list I mentioned in my post (trees, heat, stars, etc). Imagine society if everyone had different interpretations of everything in existence.... We'd all be dead tomorrow "nuclEar exploSions will give Us iMMortaLity!"
Lumpy-Passenger-1986 t1_isqcr02 wrote
It’s a paradox I suppose. If the truth is that their is no truth. It’s the same thing. The statement in itself can’t be proven true or false because it is both true and false. If we are talking very literally, than if everyone sees a different truth than either nothing would happen because no one could agree on anything, or anything and everything could happen. As for objective reality, for some people even reality isn’t reality. The philosophical idea of solipsism is the idea that the only thing that you can be certain truly exists is your own mind. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I believe that, but it’s an interesting thought that there are people that are not sure anything is true or real, even their own body. I guess that because the idea of truth can be subjective, anything or nothing could be any truth of any kind depending on your point of view.
Maker623 t1_isqjvr4 wrote
"I guess that because the idea of truth can be subjective, anything or nothing could be any truth of any kind depending on your point of view."
I know some people think this way, but truly if society functioned on these beliefs, then everything we know would cease to operate. Courtrooms, marriages, nuclear power plants, you know.
"here's a video, photo, dna test, and witnesses all proving you committed the crime"
"all wrong"
"and your evidence to prove this?"
"it's my truth, and mine is just as valid as yours..."
"wow! well then, have a nice day! :) "
​
Or the classic :
"I'm a 9ft tall, 300 year old Martian from Uranus!"
"umm no, you're Bob. We've been friends for years"
"My truth is just as valid as yours >:( "
"oh, well hi Martian!"
​
​
What's your belief on Postmodernism, do you support it fully, partially, or reject?
Angryleprechaum t1_isrks3y wrote
The truth is like ice cream. You eat what you like and ignore the consequences, because after all it’s just ice cream. Some cultures like different ice creams than others, and that doesn’t mean any particular ice cream is better. Sure, you’d like to say the ice cream with cyanide in it is worse ice cream in some sort of objective sense. But you cant, because its ice cream
Lumpy-Passenger-1986 t1_istkwb7 wrote
I guess my stance on post modernism is complicated. I agree with it to an extent, but looking at it as a realist I can only comment based on how I see the world working. Your arguments make many valid points, but you look at them from a viewpoint where the ideology is trying to exist in the overall societal thought process. If our society was built off of the beliefs of post modernism instead of what it actually was built off of, than it all could work very well because we as humans would redirect how we understand things based on those beliefs. Basically we could have adapted. But because post modernism is clashing with modern beliefs of society, it’s seems more likely to be ridiculous. It’s like objectivism. People say objectivists can’t live in the real world, and that’s not entirely true. They have a hard time living in the world that we created, and thus must try to live like that against the majority. If time had been different and somehow the founding fathers had decided to build the USA with a different philosophy in mind, it could have been just as successful as people imagined. So I guess I have a question for you now. Do your views and beliefs line up with overall society? Because if they came from and were influenced by said society, than that society’s truth is your truth. But In my mind, this does not make it the absolute truth. And as long as there are even just a few people who believe differently than the only logic post modernism defies is YOUR logic. Because there is no absolute truth and we as humans will most likely never know as we can only comprehend so much, than logic itself could also be questioned and argued with. Please know that I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with you because as we both agreed, we will never actually know who is right or wrong. Now from a purely scientific perspective (assuming it is 100% accurate and is hypothetically speaking the ABSOLUTE TRUTH) than post modernism makes absolutely no sense. But from a perspective based off of beliefs, ideology, and knowing that you don’t really have THE TRUTH, than the arguments made hold enough weight for me to take it somewhat seriously from an interest standpoint.
Gentlerwiserfree t1_it24zf2 wrote
“You are Bob” = “Your name is Robert Smith. You were born 35 years ago in Alabama, and you were 25 before you ever met someone from outside the state. When you were in high school, you heard a genre of music you friends didn’t listen to, for the first time. You liked it. When you tried to share it with your friends, they beat you up. When you were a kid, you didn’t really like football all that much, but social norms say you’re not valid if you don’t like football. So you forced yourself to pretend you like it. Your friends still bring up that “crazy Chinese song” you showed them that one time 20 years ago, and make fun of it, adding more and more racist caricatures about Chinese people to the story year after year (when the song was actually Korean).
You know you can’t leave Alabama, because no one from your town can. Everyone believes this, believes they’re better off staying, believes that anyone who wants to leave is crazy, a traitor. Your parents wouldn’t let you go to college. You ended up following in the same sort of aimless jobs they did their whole lives. Nothing around you excites you — not like the videos you watch online, in secret. If anyone knew about them, you’d never be able to show your face outside again. Society teaches you to be ashamed of sex, though your male friends are always sharing sexual videos and saying abusive things about women, and their wives are forced to put up with it, because their mothers told them that the only alternative is to be single, and that’s the worst thing ever. But your videos aren’t even sexual, so why are you ashamed? They’re just different types of music that your friends don’t understand. Places in the world that you can’t travel to, because you’re stuck in Alabama. Documentaries about interesting things that happened in history, in distant parts of the world. Why is it wrong to like these? Why should they hurt you for it?
You don’t know why. You just know that they will.
You just know that it’s wrong for Bob from Alabama to want to travel to Poland or Peru. You know that it’s wrong for Bob from Alabama to like music from Korea or Romania. You know that it’s wrong to want to wear colors besides grey. You know that it’s wrong to not want to watch football. It’s wrong to drink wine instead of beer, or to not drink at all.
All of these things that don’t seem wrong… well, they aren’t wrong objectively. They’re just wrong for you because you were born as Bob in Alabama.
And you’ve been taught by your town all along that these things are not for you.”
“Well, I’m actually not Bob from Alabama” is one attempt at breaking free from those limits.
And it’s not necessarily a bad one.
Moving to another city and changing your name, and lying about where you’re from does not necessarily mean perjuring yourself if it comes to that.
(See also — about a billion crime dramas where the red herring is the smooth, well-set, probably mafia-tied businessman whose lies have nothing to do with the crime at hand — what he’s really trying to hide is that until two years ago, he was Bob from Alabama.)
Making an online persona where you can live a different life is also not a bad outlet, though it doesn’t solve the real issue.
The real issue is that it is okay for that person to want to do those things, no matter where they were born.
And obviously, that’s a mild example.
Gentlerwiserfree t1_it22txo wrote
None of them is “the truth”, every society is one limited perspective. To get a full, three-dimensional view, you have to combine them all, and discover even more views, that were never enshrined as anyone’s culture. Parable of the elephant.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments