I would like to hear people's thoughts and comments on postmodernism if they would like to share. Whether you think it is malarkey or sheer brilliance I would like to know.
Postmodernism
- Thread starter vikingligrveldi
- Start date
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
Justin S.
Member
There is no post-modern:
~h/e.] = only post-post-post(maybe)-modern.
To give you an honest reply, you would need to be more specific. As a generality, "post-modern" doesnt mean much (and its too diverse to speak of as such).
~h/e.] = only post-post-post(maybe)-modern.
To give you an honest reply, you would need to be more specific. As a generality, "post-modern" doesnt mean much (and its too diverse to speak of as such).
haha that is the best answer imaginable.
I realize it is a very vague and general question about a broad topic. So let me try to ask another series.
Is reality partially or wholly confined to the perception of the beholder? If so, do you believe the idea that all perceptions and cultures are equal to one another? Which would tie into the question of whether truth exists. If truth doesn't exist how can anyone have anything to believe in? Can truth concretely exist on a scientific level and at the same time be completely relative on a mental level (philosophically or spiritually speaking)?
Does individuality exist or are we just egoless flesh-shells fulfilling our purpose as subservient members of "the herd"? Is power an illusion?
Arthyron
YHVH's Golem
Seditious
GodSlayer
There's a thread on Dawkins' forum which might shed a little light
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7280&sid=c2694697fd0e2ce18f58d6c83cc6237c
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7280&sid=c2694697fd0e2ce18f58d6c83cc6237c
Arthyron
YHVH's Golem
Hmm, that's one view of postmodernism, certainly, but the problem with postmodernism is that any precise, unified, agreed-upon definition of postmodernism would, in fact, be contradictory to the nature of postmodernism. I find it to be a wholly worthless concept that will lead to the downfall of humanity myself, but perhaps that's just me.
I'm in favor of objectivity, reason, and Truth (particularly the search for it) myself.
I'm in favor of objectivity, reason, and Truth (particularly the search for it) myself.
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
Justin S.
Member
A professor and friend of mine named Bill had a favorite question: "What's your ontology?" This is the same guy who thought it would be wonderful to make a children's laminated bath-time version of Being and Time...
Humor aside, his question is fundamental. The key to understanding "postmodernism"- indeed, any perspective- is its ontology.
The thread poster in Sedious' link does not understand "postmodernism" and so constructs the generalized propositions in the framework of his metaphysics. He typed the following:
A similar situation holds for ideas of "innateness". Many P.M. thinkers would never claim to reject innate aspects. They would reject the notion that we can unbiasedly (i.e. "objectively") observe ourselves and differentiate what is acculturated and what is "innate" whatever that may be. Again, not merely the concept, but the underlying framework, which houses it and grounds its meaning, is undermined.
So on and so on...
Humor aside, his question is fundamental. The key to understanding "postmodernism"- indeed, any perspective- is its ontology.
The thread poster in Sedious' link does not understand "postmodernism" and so constructs the generalized propositions in the framework of his metaphysics. He typed the following:
- A rejection of the idea of objectivity.
- A rejection of the idea of innateness.
- Widespread use of the terms "text" and "discourse", including in contexts where the object of discussion is not verbal or linguistic.
- A focus on power dynamics, as opposed to truth/falsehood, in assessing ideas, and especially
- a suspicion of anything that looks like privilege."
A similar situation holds for ideas of "innateness". Many P.M. thinkers would never claim to reject innate aspects. They would reject the notion that we can unbiasedly (i.e. "objectively") observe ourselves and differentiate what is acculturated and what is "innate" whatever that may be. Again, not merely the concept, but the underlying framework, which houses it and grounds its meaning, is undermined.
So on and so on...
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
Seditious
GodSlayer
I find it contradictory to the nature of Christianity that there are hundreds of different sects of it which disagree with eachother, but that doesn't seem to stop them
surely anything which can have such an achievement isn't worthless, but I doubt it would achieve anything so religious as the ruin of mankind.
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
I think what he meant to say is that if one examines subcultural discourse, one is faced with a choice: either reject neocultural dialectic theory or conclude that language is intrinsically dead. Sontag uses the term subcultural discourse to denote the common ground between sexual identity and sexuality. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a textual paradigm of narrative that includes art as a reality.
In Melrose Place, Spelling denies subcultural discourse; in Beverly Hills 90210 he deconstructs presemanticist rationalism. However, Sartre suggests the use of the textual paradigm of narrative to analyse and read society.
The premise of structuralist postcultural theory states that sexual identity, somewhat surprisingly, has objective value, given that reality is equal to truth. Thus, Foucault uses the term subcultural discourse to denote the role of the poet as observer.
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
Nile577
Member
- Jun 26, 2003
- 376
- 2
- 18
That looks like the work of the postmodern essay generator. http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo
Justin's response is excellent here.
