Postmodernism

[Έρεβος]

Sounds like liberalism, except for the fourth point, "a focus on power dynamics," which is descended purely from Nietzsche's On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense.

It maybe sounds like liberalism as the individual on the other forum described it, but with Justin's clarification it is obviously very much different from liberalism.

Nietzsche was a prominent PostModernist philosopher.

 

[Justin S.]

Sounds like liberalism, except for the fourth point...

How so? Liberalism is deeply imbedded within classical humanism and claims all sorts of "objective" truths: its ontology/anthropology which leads to human rights, contract theory, notions of equality/democracy/market capitalism, etc.

A thoughtful "postmodernism" completely dismantles such a framework. The fact that its lexicon has been appropriated, turned into a farce, and thereby dismissed (as this thread shows) only displays how great of a threat it is perceived to be.

 

[Nile577]

Postmodernism realises that 'truth' is not the end state of writing and that in speaking of 'untruth' or 'madness,' reason already subjects these 'categories' to their own antithesis. That is, in essence, madness is unmappable by the discourse of 'truth:' To talk about madness is to define it through reason. Postmodernism attempts to open dialogue with the presocratic OTHER of unreason and 'madness'. It favours poetry over equations and phenomenological experience over idealistic abstraction.

As Merleau-Ponty recognised, we are not objects in an empirical world, nor do we construct Idealist or intellectualist perceptual hypotheses which we graft onto the world. We must return to the experience of perception and its reflective state. This reveals the ontological IS of our perceptual Being. A process that, as I think Justin says very lucidly, is motivated by the recognition that one cannot 'step outside' of consciousness. Perception IS Being-in-the-world.

To speak of a 'genre' of postmodern thought would be missing the point entirely. 'Postmodern' thought probes into extremely difficult areas. Because of its subtlety it's is often rubbished into facre by those who do not understand it, or who relegate thought simply to the status of 'icing on a functionalist cake.'

 

[Cythraul]

All of those are subjective.

What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know what the term 'subjective' means?

 

[Cythraul]

That looks like the work of the postmodern essay generator. http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo

Indeed, it is.

 

[Cythraul]

A thoughtful "postmodernism" completely dismantles such a framework. The fact that its lexicon has been appropriated, turned into a farce, and thereby dismissed (as this thread shows) only displays how great of a threat it is perceived to be.

I don't see it as a threat. I'm interested to know what you think people perceive as threatening about it.

 

[Arthyron]

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.

Umm, what does that have to do with anything, this is a discussion about Postmodernism. Leave it to bitter militants to ever push their agenda and take jabs where they can. *sigh*

I find that contradictory to the nature of Christianity too, which is why I'm not a Christian, but a Christ Follower. But the relationship which you just presented (the relationships of denominations or sects to one another as part of a whole) has nothing in common with postmodernist doctrine.

All I was saying was (and this is completely valid) that if one were to push for a unified, absolute definition of postmodernism, it thereby would violate the tenets of postmodernism, because the nature of postmodernism centers around subjectivity.

And I fail to see what postmodernism can "achieve" outside of furthering the cause (and functioning as the source) of pretentious pseudo-intellectuals, which are basically ruining the world. It is purely destructive by my recknoning (whereas Modernism actually accomplished some good for the world).

 

[Έρεβος]

What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know what the term 'subjective' means?

Yes, I do know what subjective means. Do you? Subjective is that which pertains to the individual, to the mind, while objective is that which is outside the mind and separated by the truth that observation, our only connection to what we can consider "objective," is both biased and uncertain. Whe speaking objectively you can never speak in absolutes, as everything we see as objective is altered by perspective, biased observation, and subjective interpretation. To experience the objective directly would require one to "step outside of" their own mind, which in case you didn't know is not all that rational or realistic a concept (as Justin simply pointed out). This means that objective truth can't exist, as the only absolutes are only absolute to the individual and rendered relative when applied objectively. Though of course this may depend on what you consider "truth." I consider, and I believe so does the dictionary, truth to be something that is factual - an absolute. Again, the only absolutes are entirely subjective. It is a subjective truth that 1+1=2, as it is only absolutely truth within ones own mind; this is in a sense "belief," and that is something of what truth is, something that one accepts as fact individually (subjectively).

Now, if you consider that which is of highest rationality to be "truth," then you are making a bit of a leap between that gap of uncertainty and certainty. Nothing is certain, but there are degrees of likelyhood based upon observation. Even this is fundamentally subjective, but it is rational to use it objectively as it isn't absolute. 1+1=2 is not a truth, but it is of high enough rationality to be considered "truth." Challenging it would be mostly irrational as there basically nigh infinitely little evidence to show it as not a rational approximate truth. Of course someone could fabricate a subjective truth stating 1+1=3, and it is I think you'll agree very very unlikely that such an individual could show such a thing to be rational, and hence when applied objectively it should be considered "appoximate falsehood" (as it works both ways - there is no absolute truth and there is no untruth). It is basically the difference between "approximately equal" and "equal" in mathematics.

"There are no facts, only interpretations."

 

[Blowtus]

"There are no facts, only interpretations."

Isn't it straightforward enough to recognise this and be done with it? It seems a fairly pointless attempt at finding 'the truth' to only recognise that it's impossible, why remove from language many useful concepts relating to the idea?

 

[SPLASTiK]

Can you elaborate?

The first thing I thought of was a track by John Cage entitled: 4’33’’
Give it a listen. Postmodern Music to a T.

 

[Έρεβος]

All I was saying was (and this is completely valid) that if one were to push for a unified, absolute definition of postmodernism, it thereby would violate the tenets of postmodernism, because the nature of postmodernism centers around subjectivity.

Well, that isn't entirely true. You seem to think that relativism says we can't have any sort of "truth." That is not true; relativism does allow for a sort of truth. That is subjectively absolute truth. This is not a contradiction as you may think, as something can be absolute within ones own mind and one minds alone (hence making it subjective). The type of truth that falls under this can be either irrational or rational, and that usually depends entirely upon the capability for rationality the individual possesses--meaning how well one can interpret reality to fit to what reality truly seems to be. Note that I don't say what reality truly is, as that makes no sense--we can have no idea what ["outside"] reality is without removing ourselves from our own inner reality, without stepping outside of our minds.

There is also approximate truth, which isn't exactly truth, but rather something that is generally agreed to be truth as it is rational enough to be "close enough" to be truth. Such truths that are generally agreed upon universally would be something of "common sense," but also extends to things like non-theoretical mathematics, etc.. (Though, in modern times half of what is considered common sense is very much not rational.) But it is still not absolute.

The ideas of postmodernism can be put into a general, unified, & full definition without contradicting itself. There is no absolute, though, but there can be an agreement, an approximate "truth." It isn't something that goes into specifics, as it is only a general philosophy. There being a unifed definition does not go against it's nature, as it is simply a philosophy individuals can choose to align themselves to or not--it isn't a dogmatic assertation of absolutes and morals. It would rather be inclined to embrace scepticism, and encourage the adherents to in fact question it.

And I fail to see what postmodernism can "achieve" outside of furthering the cause (and functioning as the source) of pretentious pseudo-intellectuals, which are basically ruining the world. It is purely destructive by my recknoning (whereas Modernism actually accomplished some good for the world).

Postmodernists for one [sadly] have virtually no effect on world affairs currently. If anything I'd call the objectivists "pretentious pseudo-intellectuals," or at least the liberal "subjectivists" that contradict themselves with objectivist dogma (though liquid dogma as it changes with nearly every new generation), and half-liberal ("conservative") dogmatic "objectivists" that contradict themselves with subjectivist "ideology" (also known as: being "moderate").

It is modernism that is purely destructive--rejecting real wisdom devoloped by thousands of years of geniuses; dynamically opposing rationality; adopting a mob mentality that rejects the ideas of the intelligent as they do not appeal to their idiotic pursuit of shallow base pleasure; labeling the same intelligent as preteniously arrogant elitists simply because they oppose their conformist & highly irrational mindset while refusing to themselves conform; stomping out spirit and real intelligence from the exceptional individual while indoctrinating them with their liberal idealism which is even more dangerous than religous indoctrination (these are the individuals that become the pretentious pseudo-intellectuals if they don't overcome); aiming for constant drastic change from one foolish, highly destructive idea to another, including globalism, consumerism, and individualism, labeling itself "progressive" for this liquid idiocy; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera..

Postmodernism is too general to "accomplish" anything in itself, but it's philosophies allow for highly positive ideas in an environment of nothing but foolery. It revolves around the rejection of that which the modern world says to be objective and inherent. Positive nihilism is a postmodernist perspective, and in my opinion the most developed & rational. I don't see much such a philosophy couldn't accomplish.

 

[Έρεβος]

It seems a fairly pointless attempt at finding 'the truth' to only recognise that it's impossible, why remove from language many useful concepts relating to the idea?

What do you mean there?

 

[Blowtus]

however logically 'correct' it may (or may not) be to recognise in that sense that there is no such thing as absolute objectivity, the term objectivity is still of much use to us - if you want to recognise a lack of absolute objectivity then you just need to define the term a little differently. Lengthen it to 'subjectively objective' or some such ridiculousness, then shorten it back for common use

 

[Cythraul]

Yes, I do know what subjective means. Do you?

Yes.

Subjective is that which pertains to the individual, to the mind, while objective is that which is outside the mind and separated by the truth that observation, our only connection to what we can consider "objective," is both biased and uncertain.

Ok.

Whe speaking objectively you can never speak in absolutes, as everything we see as objective is altered by perspective, biased observation, and subjective interpretation.

So far you're not showing the unintelligibility of the notion of "objective" truth. Truth is a property of propositions or statements, whereas knowledge is a relation between a subject and the world. Even if one accepts what you say above it only warrants the conclusion that we are fallible, but not that what it takes for something to be true is dependent upon the whimsy of my or your mind.

To experience the objective directly would require one to "step outside of" their own mind, which in case you didn't know is not all that rational or realistic a concept (as Justin simply pointed out).

This is a point at which I believe philosophers are doing something like trying to fistfight with ghosts. There is no issue for me pertaining to whether or not I can jump out of my own skin and directly compare my own beliefs to something "out there". The concept of objective truth that I'm working with does not require me to grapple with such a point, which I see as ultimately confused anyway. It is unfortunate that I'm using a term that has so much philosophical baggage, but let me now make clear what I really mean.

There is no issue of truth. Why? Because talk of truth does not introduce anything robust into conversation. If it did, then 'It is true that a lot of people wear shoes' would be more informative than 'A lot of people wear shoes.' There is thus nothing to explain, nothing to have an issue about. Talk about correspondence between our beliefs and the world is a useless philosophical abstraction, at least in so far as the notion of correspondence is being used in the way that philosophers have traditionally used it.

Suppose that you have just arrived in a town which you are unfamiliar with. Suppose that you have to get to a certain destination within this town. Suppose that you ask a man who lives in this town for directions to your destination. Now, suppose this man gives you a description of how to get to your destination. This description includes descriptions of how the streets of this town are situated. Suppose that following said description gets you to where you want to go. Not only that, but suppose that it gets you to where you need to go successfully on many occassions. Wouldn't it strike you as ridiculous if the philosopher then interjects and asks "Yeah, but is this really a true description of how the town is?" By any reasonable standard, there is a right way to describe how the town is and how to get through it, even if one can't satisfy the demand of jumping out of one's own skin to see if one's beliefs correspond to something "out there". By any reasonable standard, a right description of how to get through town is not subjective. It is not strictly dependent upon anybody's thoughts about the town. If you could show me how it is then be my guest.

This means that objective truth can't exist, as the only absolutes are only absolute to the individual and rendered relative when applied objectively.

How does the former point entail that objective truth can't exist? It doesn't seem to follow at all. The fact that I can't jump out of my own mind and compare my beliefs with how things really are does not entail that nothing is objectively true; it only entails that I can't ever have conclusive proof that the statements I make are true. Please, show me how some absolute truth can be rendered relative when applied objectively (whatever the hell that means). If the experiences we have are perfectly consistent both with the supposition that truth is entirely subjective and the supposition that some truths are mind-independent then I see no overwhelming reason to assent to your view.

I consider, and I believe so does the dictionary, truth to be something that is factual - an absolute. Again, the only absolutes are entirely subjective. It is a subjective truth that 1+1=2, as it is only absolutely truth within ones own mind; this is in a sense "belief," and that is something of what truth is, something that one accepts as fact individually (subjectively).

Sorry but that doesn't make much sense. Some truths are mind-dependent, such as the truth that I am feeling an odd sensation in my butt right now indicating that I ought to go take a shit soon. It is a fact that I had said sensation, even though it is not accessible to anybody else, and even though it would not be true if I weren't around to feel said sensation. But mathematical propositions are not made true just in virtue of my thinking that such propositions are true. By any reasonable standard we ought to suppose that said propositions are true, barring any evidence to the contrary. But even if we can't know that said propositions are true beyond doubt, that is only relevant to our epistemic status, not to the status of the notion of truth.

Now, if you consider that which is of highest rationality to be "truth," then you are making a bit of a leap between that gap of uncertainty and certainty.

You're going to have to clarify what you mean by that.

Nothing is certain, but there are degrees of likelyhood based upon observation.

This pertains to knowledge, not to truth.

Even this is fundamentally subjective, but it is rational to use it objectively as it isn't absolute.

What in the world does it mean to use something objectively?

1+1=2 is not a truth, but it is of high enough rationality to be considered "truth." Challenging it would be mostly irrational as there basically nigh infinitely little evidence to show it as not a rational approximate truth. Of course someone could fabricate a subjective truth stating 1+1=3, and it is I think you'll agree very very unlikely that such an individual could show such a thing to be rational, and hence when applied objectively it should be considered "appoximate falsehood" (as it works both ways - there is no absolute truth and there is no untruth). It is basically the difference between "approximately equal" and "equal" in mathematics.

Why is '1+1=2' not a truth? If challenging said proposition would be irrational, then what sort of evidence do you have in order to justifiably assert that it's not a truth?

"There are no facts, only interpretations."

Thanks for the insight. It seems quite odd that you spend a lot of time on this forum trying to prove your points to other people as if you take the propositions you advance as being true, but then you say that there is no such thing as objective truth. All truth is subjective? (whatever that is supposed to mean). Am I suppose to believe that all of these arguments that you put forward in favor of these views are just part of some kind of rhetorical strategy?

 

[Έρεβος]

however logically 'correct' it may (or may not) be to recognise in that sense that there is no such thing as absolute objectivity, the term objectivity is still of much use to us - if you want to recognise a lack of absolute objectivity then you just need to define the term a little differently. Lengthen it to 'subjectively objective' or some such ridiculousness, then shorten it back for common use

I didn't say "there is nothing objective." Objective simply refers to that "outside" which we can percieve - things external to the mind. To say such doesn't exist would be uselessly fatalistic.

What I did say was pretty simple, that objective truth can't exist. That everything objective is rendered and object of the mind through perception, hence subjective and relative. This is basically saying what you just did, without need for "silly terms." Truth is an absolute, hence objective truth equals absolute objectivity, and as it is obvious that the objective is for every individual simply an external construct of the mind "objective" automatically has an invisible "subjective" in front - sort of.

 

[Blowtus]

So subjectively objective truths can't exist? I would disagree. The fact that they are untestable in an 'absolute' sense seems rather irrelevant to the fact they are objective truths within the only scope we have.

 

[Έρεβος]

So subjectively objective truths can't exist? I would disagree. The fact that they are untestable in an 'absolute' sense seems rather irrelevant to the fact they are objective truths within the only scope we have.

Subjectively objective is sort of like saying 1+0+0=1. Subjective is that which is "objective" to only the individual.. Saying "subjective truth" is the same thing as subjectively objective truth, just without the +0.

 

[Blowtus]

Why can we not accept that we only have our own perception, and consider reality purely within its boundaries? Within the world my perceptions create for me, there can be both objective and subjective, the terms have a meaningful difference in function, even if both rely on perception. Whether or not my desk (or anything) exists in some absolute sense, apart from the constructs of my mind, is untestable and seemingly irrelevant, but it exists in an objective sense for me. Within my perception, there may be those who are unable to comprehend the existance of the desk - they are objectively wrong. If they tell me that green is a bad colour for the desk, they are speaking of a subjective matter.

Perhaps I am arguing / suggesting that the terms are only useful as applied to our own perceptions of others minds, as we cannot remove ourselves from our own - within reality as I perceive it for anything to be considered a 'truth' it must be objective.

I hope I manage to convey my thoughts effectively... I feel like I understand my thoughts better internally than I can put into words on this one I'll think more on it.

 

[Seditious]

Why can we not accept that we only have our own perception, and consider reality purely within its boundaries?

our subjective perception of what exists is our reality. perhaps we cannot know what is 'the truth' because we doubt our perceptions perfectly reflect what is being perceived, but in any case that truth exists. perhaps we have only our perception of the truth, but that doesn't mean truth itself objectively doesn't exist beyond what is merely true to us.

 

[Seditious]

Subjectively objective is sort of like saying 1+0+0=1. Subjective is that which is "objective" to only the individual.. Saying "subjective truth" is the same thing as subjectively objective truth, just without the +0.

agreed.

saying 'it's objective, except that it's subjective' is as silly as saying 'I'm 29 years old if you count the 6 years before I was born.' or 'of course I'm a woman, if you count men as being women.'