Post Modernism

  • Thread starter Biggles
  • 119 comments
  • 16,543 views
What is post-modernism's take on heaven/hell/purgatory?
I believe the answer is the same to every question when it comes to post-modernism. It exists if you believe it exists. Even if it's mathematically proven to not exist it can still exist in your mind and, as long as you believe in it, it's real to you and nobody has the right to say any differently. Like the 97 genders you might find listed somewhere. Yesterday I was Juxera but today I feel a little boyflux coming on. It's, like, whatever you feel like man.;)
 
Both. The fact that UFOs are real, as confirmed by recent US government reports and videos, yet at the same time exhibit paranormal* characteristics impossible in known physics and medicine, perfectly exemplifies the kind of absurdity featuring in postmodernism.

*
- hyper velocity combined with instant 90 and 180 degree turns
- trans-medium travel
- shapeshifting
- disappearance
- strange effects on human consciousness

Er, no. All of those things are completely possible within current physical understanding.

The problem is that because UFOs are unidentified flying objects we don't actually have enough information to assess whether the actions observed are physics-breaking for those particular objects or not. This is where we get into the problem that people are so eager to jump to conclusions from near zero data. It's apparently very hard to say "that seems odd, but I'd really need more information to be able to have any sensible opinion about it".
 
Er, no. All of those things are completely possible within current physical understanding.

The problem is that because UFOs are unidentified flying objects we don't actually have enough information to assess whether the actions observed are physics-breaking for those particular objects or not. This is where we get into the problem that people are so eager to jump to conclusions from near zero data. It's apparently very hard to say "that seems odd, but I'd really need more information to be able to have any sensible opinion about it".
Well thats not very post modern of you...
So, whos more post modern, liberals or conservatives?
When was modernism that we have a "post"?
Also, wouldnt all religions be a post modern idea? I mean, religion is very much a subjective truth to those that believe. Can we even get away from pist modernism while we have either religion or free thought?
 
I mean, religion is very much a subjective truth to those that believe.
Is it? Religious beliefs appear on the outside as subjective, at least as they relate to what can be observed and supported by anything substantive, but there is definitely an "objective" truth at the core of organized religion; it may be absurd, but it's what you're supposed to believe.
 
Is it? Religious beliefs appear on the outside as subjective, at least as they relate to what can be observed and supported by anything substantive, but there is definitely an "objective" truth at the core of organized religion; it may be absurd, but it's what you're supposed to believe.
There is an objective truth? Perhaps I miss it because im about as atheist as they come. However, it certainly would seem quotation marks are about as close to objective as their truth gets. One book and a bunch of mostly unverifiable stories. If thats not a post modern examoke of "truth" im at a loss for its definition.
 
However, it certainly would seem quotation marks are about as close to objective as their truth gets. One book and a bunch of mostly unverifiable stories.
That's precisely what I was getting at. If "postmodernism" is represented by the individual determining their own truth, believing in the "truth" that a church deems objective--even though it's very much subjective--doesn't really qualify.
 
No? I mean, you say "that a church" but, many hold extra religious "truths" that they garner themselves. But, that said, does its really matter where the subjectivity comes from? religion as a whole falls into the wide birth of the post modern wiki definition. SO what, we have the church as a "postmoderner" and the sheeple, sorry congregation, as the "postmodernee"?
 
No? I mean, you say "that a church" but, many hold extra religious "truths" that they garner themselves. But, that said, does its really matter where the subjectivity comes from? religion as a whole falls into the wide birth of the post modern wiki definition. SO what, we have the church as a "postmoderner" and the sheeple, sorry congregation, as the "postmodernee"?
I may need to defer to the resident expert on all things postmodern, but it seems to me that accepting a truth chosen for you (religion) and determining your own truth (postmodernism?) are two entirely different things. One may choose to find their own truth in matters not addressed by the truth chosen for them, so long as it doesn't represent a contradiction, but I don't think that's what religion is about.

Of course, if religious belief, which is to say belief in a subjective truth presented as objective, is indeed representative of postmodern thought, it sort of flies in the face of what postmodernism is defined as...even the name chosen for it.

If this is the case, postmodernism effectively contradicts itself as an act of postmodernist defiance...how meta is that?

barney-mind-blown.gif
 
If this is the case, postmodernism effectively contradicts itself as an act of postmodernist defiance...how meta is that?

Of course postmodernism effectively contradicts itself ... if you take it to the absurd extreme. Postmodernist thinkers originally offered an important insight into the way those in power control & dictate the discussion around history, politics, gender, class, race etc. However, attacking traditional, hierarchical power structures morphed into the assertion of subjective, individual truth & has now facilitated the development of a "post-truth" scenario.

The Left seized on postmodernism as a tool to deconstruct oppressive power structures, but the propagandists on the Right have now retaliated by using those same tools to lie shamelessly while accusing their opponents (often falsely) of lying themselves. Trump is the perfect embodiment of this approach.
 
Of course postmodernism effectively contradicts itself ... if you take it to the absurd extreme. Postmodernist thinkers originally offered an important insight into the way those in power control & dictate the discussion around history, politics, gender, class, race etc. However, attacking traditional, hierarchical power structures morphed into the assertion of subjective, individual truth & has now facilitated the development of a "post-truth" scenario.

The Left seized on postmodernism as a tool to deconstruct oppressive power structures, but the propagandists on the Right have now retaliated by using those same tools to lie shamelessly while accusing their opponents (often falsely) of lying themselves. Trump is the perfect embodiment of this approach.
IMO postmodernism has ended in a terrible mess. Leftists have now attained power in academia and at lower and mid-level governmental positions, and are gearing up for more runs at the top level. Cooperation and consensus across the aisle is at an abysmally low point. The rule of thumb is that to build a new paradigm, you have to destroy the old one. I'm not at all sold on identity politics and cultural conflict as the best way forward.
 
IMO postmodernism has ended in a terrible mess. Leftists have now attained power in academia and at lower and mid-level governmental positions, and are gearing up for more runs at the top level. Cooperation and consensus across the aisle is at an abysmally low point. The rule of thumb is that to build a new paradigm, you have to destroy the old one. I'm not at all sold on identity politics and cultural conflict as the best way forward.

Hey 'there will be no peacefull revolution, no war without blood' :P
 
IMO postmodernism has ended in a terrible mess.

So we're into post-post-modernism? And didn't it start with a terrible mess?

Leftists have now attained power in academia

Not new at all, that was true even back in the 19th century.

at lower and mid-level governmental positions

Probably so, but is that the doing of post-modernism? Presuming you're talking about the USA of course, otherwise one could argue that it's been the case for a long time.

and are gearing up for more runs at the top level

Many countries have had left (and far-left) governments... or is this the USA again? Trust me, you don't have a 'left' :D

Cooperation and consensus across the aisle is at an abysmally low point.

Really? If this is also USA-specific then there are times in your history when it's certainly been at a lower point than now. More generally one might say that that's simply how politics works.

The rule of thumb is that to build a new paradigm, you have to destroy the old one.

Not at all - they can coexist, evolve, circulate.

I'm not at all sold on identity politics and cultural conflict as the best way forward.

'Twas ever thus. Find a point in human history where this hasn't been a meaningful part of any society's evolution.
 
The rule of thumb is that to build a new paradigm, you have to destroy the old one.

You do tend to exaggerate quite a lot to try and make your point, you know that? Basically everything that humans have ever done has been built upon what has gone before. Einsteinian physics didn't destroy Newtonian physics, it extended and improved upon it. There are exceptions, but they are very much not the rule.

Is this an intentional or unintentional use of the tactics of post-modernism where what you say is more important than what is true? I thought you weren't a fan of post-modernism, so it's odd to see you speak in a way that is pure spin.

Postmodernist thinkers originally offered an important insight into the way those in power control & dictate the discussion around history, politics, gender, class, race etc.

I agree. The idea that for many people "reality" is what they want it to be rather than what is was and is a useful insight. Both for those who wish to control how other people think, and for those that want a greater awareness and ability to be able to think rationally and independently. It's a useful concept to explain how people interact.

Unfortunately, it's been turned into another meaningless buzzword. See how even Dotini, the most prominent observer of post-modernism on the board, labels all sorts of things as post-modern when they're nothing of the sort. I agree with Ten, this is now post-modern post-modernism; the idea that whether something is post-modern or not is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

And this is why people who aren't trained to think clearly have real issues with philosophy, because it's very, very easy to slip so far up your own arsehole that you're spouting a meaningless drivel of buzzwords and canned quotes while thinking yourself profound.
 
You do tend to exaggerate quite a lot to try and make your point, you know that? Basically everything that humans have ever done has been built upon what has gone before. Einsteinian physics didn't destroy Newtonian physics, it extended and improved upon it. There are exceptions, but they are very much not the rule.

Is this an intentional or unintentional use of the tactics of post-modernism where what you say is more important than what is true? I thought you weren't a fan of post-modernism, so it's odd to see you speak in a way that is pure spin.

I agree. The idea that for many people "reality" is what they want it to be rather than what is was and is a useful insight. Both for those who wish to control how other people think, and for those that want a greater awareness and ability to be able to think rationally and independently. It's a useful concept to explain how people interact.

Unfortunately, it's been turned into another meaningless buzzword. See how even Dotini, the most prominent observer of post-modernism on the board, labels all sorts of things as post-modern when they're nothing of the sort. I agree with Ten, this is now post-modern post-modernism; the idea that whether something is post-modern or not is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

And this is why people who aren't trained to think clearly have real issues with philosophy, because it's very, very easy to slip so far up your own arsehole that you're spouting a meaningless drivel of buzzwords and canned quotes while thinking yourself profound.
Or one could say this post is quintessential post-modernism. Start out with a bit of logic to establish credibility, continue with some throwaway platitudes feigning agreement and rally to the finish with an indirect and not so subtle insult to smear or discredit anyone posting about the subject that you don't agree with.
 
You do tend to exaggerate quite a lot to try and make your point, you know that? Basically everything that humans have ever done has been built upon what has gone before. Einsteinian physics didn't destroy Newtonian physics, it extended and improved upon it. There are exceptions, but they are very much not the rule.

Exactly. This is why I have a problem with an "originalist" interpretation of the US Constitution. Like Newtonian physics it is deeply rooted in the time & place it was created. Neither represents an "eternal truth" ... although both represent an important milestone in the development of human understanding. Postmodernist philosophy represents another such milestone.

Postmodern "style" - in art, architecture, literature etc. - is interesting & can be very entertaining, but is often on a much more trivial level. I think of the movies of Quentino Tarantino as an example: they started off as startlingly original - deconstructing traditional genres. Now they just seem (to me) like a tired & pointless exercise in self-indulgence. That's, more or less, always the way it goes with new ideas.
 
Exactly. This is why I have a problem with an "originalist" interpretation of the US Constitution. Like Newtonian physics it is deeply rooted in the time & place it was created.

Quite. I was about to write that this sort of adherence to principles from ye olde times when everything was better are uncommon, but thinking now about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, capitalism, white supremacy and so on perhaps it's the norm. Particularly the sort of hero worship of "great" historical figures, who did amazing things for their time but would likely be somewhere between weird and criminal in today's societies.
 
Or one could say this post is quintessential post-modernism. Start out with a bit of logic to establish credibility, continue with some throwaway platitudes feigning agreement and rally to the finish with an indirect and not so subtle insult to smear or discredit anyone posting about the subject that you don't agree with.

Imari's post constructs a coherent argument to show why he doesn't agree with the poster. YOUR post is a typical Trumpian "postmodern" counterargument - which is to say no actual argument, no coherent point at all other than to deflect by falsely accusing the other side of doing what YOU are actually doing.
 
Everyone knows Marxism/communism is a failed ideology and economic system. Yet when it changes its name to postmodernism, for some it's suddenly fashionable again. :rolleyes:

If you want it, go right ahead. But you can't blame me for your decision.
 
Everyone knows Marxism/communism is a failed ideology and economic system. Yet when it changes its name to postmodernism, for some it's suddenly fashionable again. :rolleyes:

If you want it, go right ahead. But you can't blame me for your decision.
Postmodernism is an economic system now? I must have missed a page or two.
 
Postmodernism is an economic system now? I must have missed a page or two.
Yes, you have. It's system of control and power. Seriously, you all need to do some reading and research. You can never be sure the opposite of what Dotini says is what you want to hitch your wagon to.
 
Postmodernism is an economic system now? I must have missed a page or two.
Yes, you have. It's system of control and power. Seriously, you all need to do some reading and research. You can never be sure the opposite of what Dotini says is what you want to hitch your wagon to.
Which countries are run under postmodernism now?
 
if postmodernism is a "form" of government, wouldnt it just be called anarchy? If the idea is that there is a distrust of, well, everything apparently, and that everyone is free to make their own truths, then surely no form of control would stick in a "postmodernist government."
 
rally to the finish with an indirect and not so subtle insult to smear or discredit anyone posting about the subject that you don't agree with

One has but to scroll up this very page to find you making fun of people who don't agree with you about genders, in one of your patented attempts to tie everything back to political correctness, much the way Dotini ties everything to post-modernism.
 
One has but to scroll up this very page to find you making fun of people who don't agree with you about genders, in one of your patented attempts to tie everything back to political correctness, much the way Dotini ties everything to post-modernism.
I know you are but what am I? That's your retort?:lol:
 
One has but to scroll up this very page to find you making fun of people who don't agree with you about genders, in one of your patented attempts to tie everything back to political correctness, much the way Dotini ties everything to post-modernism.
'Wisdom' from the mouth of babes!
Please see this video on postmodernism and political correctness. Content begins about 4:30.

 
I know you are but what am I? That's your retort?:lol:
More like "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".
'Wisdom' from the mouth of babes!
Please see this video on postmodernism and political correctness. Content begins about 4:30.



Ugh. If your idea of "research and reading" entails having to sit through Jordan Peterson videos I'm happy to stay an intellectual "babe".

Here's an alternative interpretation of postmodernism courtesy of philosophy professor Paul Thagard:
Psychology Today
Peterson seems to assume that the only alternatives to religious morality are totalitarian atrocities or despondent nihilism. But secular ethics has flourished since the eighteenth century, with competing approaches such as David Hume’s appreciation of sympathy, Immanuel Kant’s emphasis on rights and duties, and Jeremy Bentham’s recommendation to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

[...]

Peterson’s allusive style makes critiquing him like trying to nail jelly to a cloud, but I have tried to indicate alternatives to his assumptions about morality, individualism, reality, and the meaning of life. If you go for Christian mythology, narrow-minded individualism, obscure metaphysics, and existentialist angst, then Jordan Peterson is the philosopher for you. But if you prefer evidence and reason, look elsewhere.

In addition Kenneth Houston has argued that Peterson is mistaken in laying society's ills at the door of postmodernism due to his misinterpretation of the concept:
Areo Magazine
It is argued that postmodernism is anti-science, anti-fact, anti-reality, culturally relativist, value relativist, etc. There are two problems with these accusations. First, the charges are based on superficial and studiously unfair interpretations of postmodern scholarship and select quotes from particular writers most directly associated with this intellectual trend of the late 1960s. Peterson himself asserts that postmodernists contend that there are “an infinite number of interpretations” and none of these can be canonical. He’s just wrong. That is not a core contention of postmodern thought. The thinkers loosely categorized as “postmodern” undertook critical attacks on dominant interpretations of social reality and the perceived inevitability and naturalness of the hierarchies that emerge from these.

Second, these criticisms are applied across the board, without any nuance or discriminating caveats with respect to particular thinkers and little attempt to delineate where these thinkers disagree with one another, which they frequently did. 'Postmodernism' as a concept is a bit like 'The Enlightenment.' It’s a term applied retrospectively (and simplistically) to an unconsciously evolving trend, as opposed to a conscious project. It’s not like Foucault et al sat around a French café and plotted the destruction of Western Civilization through philosophical contortions. Most of the thinkers lumped together into this category would probably not be comfortable with the term. This is to say nothing of the significant differences between them.

Let’s drop the pretense that postmodernism is a reason for our current topsy turvy political landscape. Postmodern philosophy is not the reason for the inexplicable migration of seemingly normal members of society to join a death cult in the Middle East with a penchant for brutal violence. Let’s park the bewildering upsets of Trump, Farage, Brexit and the Italian Five Star movement. And beyond the west there is Duterte. Or Modi. Beyond the mere convenient appropriation of tropes and fragments of postmodernist writing by arguably the most privileged demographic on the planet, western college educated twenty-somethings, there is no clear evidence of a causal link between postmodern thought and the current configuration of socio-political polarities or the anti-intellectualism at their roots.
 
Last edited:
Back