nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Postmodernism

irishguitarlad

So I have an exam on Monday about Feminist Literature. Now the things is I would consider myself a feminist yet I have severe doubt about the theory on which the majority of their theory is based on ie.Postmodernism. Now Postmodernism itself got it's idea from the father of linguistics Ferdinand de Sausurre who's theory on language has since been debunked by Chomsky. Also it goes against one of the fathers of modern science and modern philosophy, Renee Descartes who said " I think therefore I am" ths comfirming it as an absolute truth and beginning from there to establish other truths. However, postmodernist theorists believe that there are no absolute truths. I think this is a dangerous way of thinking as it goes against science who's practice is to search for the absolute truth of something, find it and use it to make our lives better and the lives of further generations.

Anyways, am I wrong AH? Should I not question it at all?Also, is this postmodernist theory only accepted as "fact" in literature courses or is it like that in philosophy and psychology ones as well? I have to say, it's in other modules as well in my literature course.By the way I am not some crazy Jordan Peterson fanboy, I do however like some of his psychology.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

JupiterKid

I studied Geography in college in the 1990s and one of our lecturers in urban geog did a module on the evolution of urban studies from the 18th century to the late 20th.

We looked at modernist theory, structuralist, Marxist and neo-Marxist (he was a self-described "neo-Marxian") and touched on Post-modernist theory but with the caveat that postmodernism was not really applied to urban studies in a fully developed way by the mid 1990s, only being used by a small handful of academics in the USA.

Within the domain of urban geography, postmodernist thought basically questioned the analytical, quantitative structuralist apprach to the study of cities using empirical data and suggested adopting a more ethnological, qualitative approach quite common in Social Studies by the 1990s. It also asserted that only symbols can really be used as reference points for research - Venturi's 1980s work on the symbolism of Las Vegas as a commentary on the disposable, superficial culture of late 20th century USA and Michel Foucault's work on crime and punishment and power systems and societal control were the subject of a few classes we did.

Basically my understanding of "postmodernism" is that it rejects empirical, measurable data as absolute truths and posits things like social and cultural "constructs" as reference points. It has its place in the wider body of academic thought, but a lot of it is weak and incoherent and far too open to varying interpretation.

Basically a lot of what passes as "postmodernist" work is BS and often an excuse for rather shoddy methodology.

realitykeeper

sabat wrote: »

That's orientalist syncretism.

No its not, its just the separation of good and evil is not given the prominence it should within Christianity generally when at its core, that is really what it is all about.

nkl12xtw5goz70

irishguitarlad wrote: »

Anyways, am I wrong AH? Should I not question it at all?Also, is this postmodernist theory only accepted as "fact" in literature courses or is it like that in philosophy and psychology ones as well? I have to say, it's in other modules as well in my literature course.By the way I am not some crazy Jordan Peterson fanboy, I do however like some of his psychology.

Do you want to pass the exam? If so, then for God's sake stay quiet about science, Descartes, absolute truth, and Jordan Peterson.

The basic premise of modern feminist theory is to regard gender as a "social construct," and then to look at all the ways in which (white, male) thinkers and writers have "constructed" the social and cultural world to position women as inferior or secondary.

This is the game you have to play if you want to do well — repeatedly refer to gender as something that is "constructed" or "performed" rather than something that has any essential characteristics. Ignore science, don't mention "truth," don't contradict the core tenets of feminist theory. Suck it up and just keep repeating the basic formula of constructedness and performativity in relation to whatever texts you're supposed to be analyzing.

topper75

All these philosophers chaps, down through time - have they ever actually managed to change anything?

After decades of heavy thought on the matter I have to conclude that it is all just a waste of time.

nkl12xtw5goz70

topper75 wrote: »

All these philosophers chaps, down through time - have they ever actually managed to change anything?

Well ... yes. Modern mathematics, science, political theory, and even medicine all emerged from what was once called philosophy. The philosophers of the past have fundamentally shaped the world we live in today.

sbsquarepants

sk8erboii wrote: »

Lol youre not getting it. PM challenges truths, not that nothing is ‘true’ Ever heard of the flying spaghetti monster? Its an satirical PM movement mocking religion. PM gestated as a response to modernist thought relapsing to pre-modernist thought. (E.g ‘Someone told me the earth is round even though i have not done any critical thinking or experiment to prove that theory, i will believe this governmenf/person/religion). As we all know solipsist thought is much more dangerous. Some farmer saw his cow die when the lady next door walk past. Therefore she is a witch. Therefore lets burn her at the stake.

How are those 2 things in any way diffferent?

Someone said the world was round and you believed them, accepted it as a fact, despite not having sailed around it yourself.

Someone said the woman next door walked past just as their cow died, and you believed them, despite not having seen her do it yourself?

Wibbs

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How are those 2 things in any way diffferent?

Well, I suppose SB they're actually not different. Save in one fundamental way; the world is round is universally accepted as a True Fact now, whereas witches killing cows isn't. However at one time in some cultures witches with cow killing abilities were also considered True Facts. From which we can generally conclude that something that is considered a True Fact requires consensus and this can change over time. Which is kind of post modernist thinking, though this was considered way way before that movement was ever dreamt of. It was Kant(IIRC) when after a lecture about the earth orbiting the sun, one of his students mused how obvious this was and how stupid were people who used to believe that the sun orbited the earth. Kant replied with how different would a sunset look, depending on what system you believed?

Chips Lovell

Perla Full Urination wrote: »

This is the game you have to play if you want to do well — repeatedly refer to gender as something that is "constructed" or "performed" rather than something that has any essential characteristics. Ignore science, don't mention "truth," don't contradict the core tenets of feminist theory. Suck it up and just keep repeating the basic formula of constructedness and performativity in relation to whatever texts you're supposed to be analyzing.

If you're attending a caricature of a university, maybe. If you're attending an actual university, located in the real world, outside of your fevered imagination, not so much.

[Deleted User]

It's political the same way as asking if mental health is nature or nurture, its much easier to add a political slant to qualitative research versus quantitative research.

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

Well, I suppose SB they're actually not different. Save in one fundamental way; the world is round is universally accepted as a True Fact now, whereas witches killing cows isn't. However at one time in some cultures witches with cow killing abilities were also considered True Facts. From which we can generally conclude that something that is considered a True Fact requires consensus and this can change over time. Which is kind of post modernist thinking, though this was considered way way before that movement was ever dreamt of. It was Kant(IIRC) when after a lecture about the earth orbiting the sun, one of his students mused how obvious this was and how stupid were people who used to believe that the sun orbited the earth. Kant replied with how different would a sunset look, depending on what system you believed?

Not to mention that a lot of what Kant said in that lecture, was probably not 'the truth', but rather something like the right answers for the wrong reasons since Einstein and general relativity gave us a different 'truth'

nkl12xtw5goz70

Chips Lovell wrote: »

If you're attending a caricature of a university, maybe. If you're attending an actual university, located in the real world, outside of your fevered imagination, not so much.

Do you want to talk about your own experience of writing papers in feminist theory and being graded by some of the most ideologically motivated faculty on any modern university campus?

riclad

Philosophers can make a positive contribution to the world, they can think about broad topics that politicians would never consider .
There was a time when green policy was very obscure or just for hippy liberal s in universitys .
Now politicans in many countrys are thinking of banning petrol and diesel cars because of the harm to the environment .
Tech companys are employing arts graduate,s ,
they need to think about things like should we accept ad,s for cigarettes or vaping or gambling on our website .Even though they are legal,but they may be harmful to our customers .
Should we have time limits on certain app,s or games like fortnite which can be addictive for young users .There has to be a place where people can go to learn and exchange idea,s and think about random subjects .
At the moment universitys and third level college,s serve that function.
at some point some philosophers and writers created the concept of socialism and green theory .
quote; from wikipedia

Green theory uses case studies of people living on land to better understand economy. Later, the idea of "ecological footprint" developed.

These idea,s spread around the world and have a major effect on the live,s of ordinary people .
Also many political groups and partys were formed based on idea,s or theorys
created by philosophers .

Chips Lovell

Perla Full Urination wrote: »

Do you want to talk about your own experience of writing papers in feminist theory and being graded by some of the most ideologically motivated faculty on any modern university campus?

No, I'm talking about your's or lack thereof. I don't believe you've ever darkened the door of a university arts or humanities department.

[Deleted User]

Green policies are based on empirical evidence, its a good point though becaue while there is empirical evidence of the damage fossil fuel is doing green politics, on the other hand, is full of all sorts of Wolley, vague, very left ideas.

beejee

Universalism. There is THE truth, and every other arse defining their own version of reality will be dodo's.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Chips Lovell wrote: »

No, I'm talking about yours or lack thereof. I don't believe you've ever darkened the door of a university arts or humanities department.

Believe what you like, but you're wrong there, I'm afraid.

[Deleted User]

beejee wrote: »

Universalism. There is THE truth, and every other arse defining their own version of reality will be dodo's.

Scientifically, I'm not so convinced there is..

But a bigger and at times more pertinent question is, if there is a truth can we even know it? There is so much complexity and randomness in nature, and so much that is unknown and imprecise.,

beejee

riffmongous wrote: »

Scientifically, I'm not so convinced there is..

But a bigger and at times more pertinent question is, if there is a truth can we even know it? There is so much complexity and randomness in nature, and so much that is unknown and imprecise.,

Just because the truth hasn't been enacted doesn't mean it's not there. In these days of outright denial of biology, for example, all it does is promote the idea of "no truth". Post-truth.

It's a load of trash.

The Chinese may consider it culturally appropriate to kill prisoners and price the bullet to the family, or to harvest organs from "disagreeable" populations. That is their truth, it is okay. If you challenge that regional truth, you are rebuffed with "but that's their reality and it's okay Jack, who are you to question..." etc.

But the universal truth is that they are wrong. Human life should not be treated that way, and to hell with people who protect that stuff.

There is right and wrong, and it's not something that changes because you step over a border, or because you desire to be a giraffe.

Alternatively, if you want to consider it a war of one truth versus another, then it's to be fought and not just accepted.

[Deleted User]

irishguitarlad wrote: »

However, postmodernist theorists believe that there are no absolute truths.

"Postmodernist theorists" are not all identical.

irishguitarlad wrote: »

I think this is a dangerous way of thinking as it goes against science who's practice is to search for the absolute truth of something, find it and use it to make our lives better and the lives of further generations.

Is there a difference between truth and "absolute truth?"

nkl12xtw5goz70

riffmongous wrote: »

But a bigger and at times more pertinent question is, if there is a truth can we even know it?

Mathematics is true, and that truth is established via rigorous proof.

When it comes to a topic like literature, I don't know how one begins to establish "truth" when so much is open to interpretation.

riclad

Maybe china is a post modern society,
you can be a consumer ,private companys can exist as long as they do not criticise
the communist party.
Google and apple have to remove apps that help protestors or give data
to users on the presence of police .
Anything can be removed or censored if it is critical of the communist party
or it encourage,s dissent and honest political discussion .
As in soviet russia the past and documents can be censored or edited or removed
to suit current current political opinion .
there is no objective reality or truth , just what is deemed to be acceptable
to the government .

Fourier

Perla Full Urination wrote: »

Mathematics is true, and that truth is established via rigorous proof.

Unfortunately not, even mathematical "truth" is only established to a certain degree under the assumption that one's axioms are consistent.

riffmongous wrote:

But a bigger and at times more pertinent question is, if there is a truth can we even know it? There is so much complexity and randomness in nature, and so much that is unknown and imprecise.,

Probably not in my opinion. In my opinion even scientifically there often isn't an absolute truth, though in most cases this doesn't matter or is a technicality.

Wibbs

Fourier wrote: »

Unfortunately not, even mathematical "truth" is only established to a certain degree under the assumption that one's axioms are consistent.

+1 and since mathematics is a human constructed language of description chances are it's "wrong" in many ways, or limited in the truth it can describe, or level of same. Though that could be the pessimistic view that us mere humans can ever fully understand the universe we inhabit. I'd be more optimistic and feel that if not us some intelligence out there or in the future, or past can. That the universe is fundamentally understandable for intelligence that is brought into being by it.

[Deleted User]

Perla Full Urination wrote: »

Mathematics is true, and that truth is established via rigorous proof.

When it comes to a topic like literature, I don't know how one begins to establish "truth" when so much is open to interpretation.

Hm I can use mathematics to make theories that I know are not true in our universe, even though they are rigourous (playing around with the number of dimensions for example).. as Wibbs says mathematics is more a language of description than a truth

[Deleted User]

Fourier wrote: »

Unfortunately not, even mathematical "truth" is only established to a certain degree under the assumption that one's axioms are consistent.

Probably not in my opinion. In my opinion even scientifically there often isn't an absolute truth, though in most cases this doesn't matter or is a technicality.

That would be my opinion too, at least at the moment.. it's maybe only a technicality outside of our waffling discussions, but, an interesting one all the same (and I'm not talking about post modernism here, I don't know enough about it tbh, I'm a physicist, rather just the idea of 'truth' in general). There are just so many troubling little details that come from our observation and interpretation of the universe, infinities, probabilities, irrationalities etc

nkl12xtw5goz70

riffmongous wrote: »

Hm I can use mathematics to make theories that I know are not true in our universe, even though they are rigourous (playing around with the number of dimensions for example).. as Wibbs says mathematics is more a language of description than a truth

That would surely hinge on one's views on the ontology and epistemology of mathematics. For the platonist, mathematical concepts are discovered rather than invested; they exist objectively, independently of time, space, and human beings.

In such a view, it would be possible for a hypothetical different species on a different planet, that had never had contact with humans, to derive and prove Pythagoras' theorem—the truth of which is in no way limited to us.

Other "truths" such as that "Michael D. Higgins is president of Ireland" clearly exist as human constructs. If human beings were wiped off the face of the earth in a nuclear holocaust, constructs such as "Michael D. Higgins," "president," and "Ireland" would go too.

DexyDrain

riffmongous wrote: »

Hm I can use mathematics to make theories that I know are not true in our universe, even though they are rigourous (playing around with the number of dimensions for example).. as Wibbs says mathematics is more a language of description than a truth

How do you know the theories wouldn’t be true in our universe unless mathematical models of the physical universe describe part of reality to judge against?

Fourier

Perla Full Urination wrote: »

That would surely hinge on one's views on the ontology and epistemology of mathematics. For the platonist, mathematical concepts are discovered rather than invested; they exist objectively, independently of time, space, and human beings.

In light of Godel's theorem and other results very few people today in mathematics are Platonists, i.e. believe mathematics exists "outside of space and time" and view that as being as silly as saying "English exists outside of space and time". The vast majority take the view riffmongous and Wibbs expressed above, i.e. that it is simply a language.

In such a view, it would be possible for a hypothetical different species on a different planet, that had never had contact with humans, to derive and prove Pythagoras' theorem—the truth of which is in no way limited to us.

That assumes human perceptual categories apply to them, e.g. space, quantifying space with numbers etc. I'd agree a species that perceived/conceptualized in a way similar to us would probably produce Pythagoras's theorem, but I don't think that makes it object. Rather it makes it a statement in a language available to those who think like us, not a "eternal truth" sitting outside space and time.

PennyWiseClown

irishguitarlad wrote: »

So I have an exam on Monday about Feminist Literature. Now the things is I would consider myself a feminist yet I have severe doubt about the theory on which the majority of their theory is based on ie.Postmodernism. Now Postmodernism itself got it's idea from the father of linguistics Ferdinand de Sausurre who's theory on language has since been debunked by Chomsky. Also it goes against one of the fathers of modern science and modern philosophy, Renee Descartes who said " I think therefore I am" ths comfirming it as an absolute truth and beginning from there to establish other truths. However, postmodernist theorists believe that there are no absolute truths. I think this is a dangerous way of thinking as it goes against science who's practice is to search for the absolute truth of something, find it and use it to make our lives better and the lives of further generations.

Anyways, am I wrong AH? Should I not question it at all?Also, is this postmodernist theory only accepted as "fact" in literature courses or is it like that in philosophy and psychology ones as well? I have to say, it's in other modules as well in my literature course.By the way I am not some crazy Jordan Peterson fanboy, I do however like some of his psychology.

Feminist literature

Jaysus I'd rather stick my bellend in a toaster then go to one lecture on that tripe

Fourier

Warning: Philosophical blah blah ahead

riffmongous wrote: »

That would be my opinion too, at least at the moment.. it's maybe only a technicality outside of our waffling discussions, but, an interesting one all the same (and I'm not talking about post modernism here, I don't know enough about it tbh, I'm a physicist, rather just the idea of 'truth' in general). There are just so many troubling little details that come from our observation and interpretation of the universe, infinities, probabilities, irrationalities etc

One of the main reasons I find quantum mechanics (QM for short) interesting is this kind of subjectivity and irrationality in the central theory of the supposedly most "logical" science. It just tells you the chances to see various responses when you interact with something, given how you choose to interact with it and your previous interactions with other stuff. Obviously both those things are subjective.

It also has a funny feature called "the cut" where to use QM you have to pick something not to be described by QM. So if I'm looking at an electron I have to choose to describe myself and the rest of the lab as classical. Now somebody else could try to describe me and my lab with QM, but then they'd have to leave themselves classical and so on. You can't use it to describe everything at once or otherwise you end up with self-referential "This sentence is a lie" type paradoxes.

That was the point of probably one of the biggest papers in physics last year: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8

Scientists in other areas like neurology have told me of similar, but I won't opine on it since I'm not an expert.

Wibbs wrote: »

+1 and since mathematics is a human constructed language of description chances are it's "wrong" in many ways, or limited in the truth it can describe, or level of same.

It's very interesting stuff to think about it. I mean there is a lot of follow-ons from this.

If mathematics is just a human language (which seems likely) then AIs might be fundamentally shackled to being somewhat mental clones of us since computers just execute mathematics. Even further since mathematics is just a language a computer simulation of something might not have the same "being" as the actual thing, since all you're doing is getting a machine to work through a human description of it. There's an argument in the philosophy of computation paraphrased as "in a computer simulation of a fire nothing actually gets hot", you're just getting the computer to work out in fine detail a human description. This might seem obvious, but think of it for mind uploading. All the computer might be doing is executing a somewhat inaccurate description of a mind, but there'd be "nobody home" so to speak.

Wibbs wrote: »

Though that could be the pessimistic view that us mere humans can ever fully understand the universe we inhabit. I'd be more optimistic and feel that if not us some intelligence out there or in the future, or past can. That the universe is fundamentally understandable for intelligence that is brought into being by it.

Bernard d'Espagnat was a French physicist who thought about this sort of stuff. If there were aliens who could just grasp the things we can't, could they communicate it to us. Does our non-analytical side sometimes grasp stuff genuinely not captured by the analytic side, i.e. maybe there is some "truth" captured by finding a sunset beautiful that mathematics doesn't. Once you open the door of mathematics and science not having access to the "truth" you naturally open these questions.

Hard to know.