Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
This is a big topic to research online. A lot of people have plenty of things to say about it, so I’ll just add my own two bits rather than trying to delve into extrapolation from what the experts have written. I hope others will contribute their takes on the question.
A postmodern style of analysis commonly gets portrayed to be an excessively hard-edged and unreasonably skeptical approach that strives to toss out valuable human meaning for the spirited nihilistic fun of it. But a deconstructing attitude can lead to insights otherwise not attainable. How is it that when physicists deconstruct matter itself, we barely blink, yet when a neuroscientist specifies fallacies behind the notion that we make decisions freely, we—or some of us—start to get nervous? (I do, at least.)
A postmodern approach, whether in literature, the visual and acoustical arts, philosophy, history, and each of the soft sciences and perhaps some of the hard ones invites development and construction of new treatments and solutions. When no new treatments or solutions are needed, the postmodern approach tends to move elsewhere. Regarding the immensely popular illusion of self, for instance, it can be picked apart and swept aside at least as readily as—again—a theoretical physicist dissolving matter. Some problems can be solved only by temporarily annihilating them—dis-solving them—and others by propping up their inherent illusions.
Whether or not each of our various and sundry thought-entities actually exist as we know them to be is a function of problem solving, it seems to me. Verbal destruction of certain of our illusions doesn’t need to disable their function altogether. It just means that we might (or perhaps not) become cognitively closer to their illusion nature as well as certain on/off mental switches we can find access to.
Postmodern approaches are at times necessary, aren’t they? Or do they just seem always to be a trapdoor that good sense falls through? How does one differentiate between the useful or necessary postmodern approaches and the destructive ones?
It may be being mentioned a lot, but I’ll be damned if I can follow the context for the most part, it seems like a very broad term.
I looked it up on wikipedia, still seem very broad, complicated and convoluted. Does anyone here really follow Postmodernism or do they use the term because it sounds important/intellectual?
It may be being mentioned a lot, but I’ll be damned if I can follow the context for the most part, it seems like a very broad term.
Yes, it seems to be one of those terms that gets overused perhaps. Words that get overused—whatever overuse actually is—tend not to retain certain meanings that were originally present when the word got coined or popularized.
GAD - 20 September 2011 09:13 AM
I looked it up on wikipedia, still seem very broad, complicated and convoluted. Does anyone here really follow Postmodernism or do they use the term because it sounds important/intellectual?
Is postmodernism something to follow? Do you mean does anyone here refer to themselves as postmodern? That’s like asking a roomful of fundamentalist Christians if any of them is a fundamentalist. Just kidding, somewhat.
Postmodern approaches are at times necessary, aren’t they? Or do they just seem always to be a trapdoor that good sense falls through? How does one differentiate between the useful or necessary postmodern approaches and the destructive ones?
Good questions. Let’s take the discussion of self. Just about anything can be broken down into component parts, but with the self, what is the real benefit of doing that? If you want to investigate the composition of something, fine. Bread is made of dough from wheat, yeast, water, oil, salt, etc. But “bread” remains a useful (and tasty) concept. What is the benefit of deconstructing self to the point that we call it an illusion? I’ve never seen the benefit of deconstructing just for the sake of deconstructing. If there is a benefit to something, then go for it. If not, then it’s just like adolescent boys “blowing it up real good” - it’s fun to watch the explosion, but not much constructive comes out of it.
Postmodern approaches are at times necessary, aren’t they? Or do they just seem always to be a trapdoor that good sense falls through? How does one differentiate between the useful or necessary postmodern approaches and the destructive ones?
Good questions. Let’s take the discussion of self. Just about anything can be broken down into component parts, but with the self, what is the real benefit of doing that? If you want to investigate the composition of something, fine. Bread is made of dough from wheat, yeast, water, oil, salt, etc. But “bread” remains a useful (and tasty) concept. What is the benefit of deconstructing self to the point that we call it an illusion? I’ve never seen the benefit of deconstructing just for the sake of deconstructing. If there is a benefit to something, then go for it. If not, then it’s just like adolescent boys “blowing it up real good” - it’s fun to watch the explosion, but not much constructive comes out of it.
Postmodernism isn’t equal to deconstruction. We’ve gotten pretty far in science by breaking things down into components, sub-components, and so on and an analysis of the ego along those lines can be quite helpful. To be technical, I would say that the ego itself isn’t an illusion, rather it’s a process that goes on in the brain/body. The only illusion is to identify with that process rather than recognize it as only a necessary interface with the world. The postmodern views of self that I’ve seen, however, take a different approach. They claim that process is all you are (you are identified with it because it’s you and you can’t escape that because nothing is transcendent) and it is nothing but a social construction.
Postmodernism isn’t equal to deconstruction. We’ve gotten pretty far in science by breaking things down into components, sub-components, and so on and an analysis of the ego along those lines can be quite helpful. To be technical, I would say that the ego itself isn’t an illusion, rather it’s a process that goes on in the brain/body. The only illusion is to identify with that process rather than recognize it as only a necessary interface with the world. The postmodern views of self that I’ve seen, however, take a different approach. They claim that process is all you are (you are identified with it because it’s you and you can’t escape that because nothing is transcendent) and it is nothing but a social construction.
It still amounts to a devaluation of the human being. Now, maybe a social construction is all we are, but even in the absence of a belief in God or the imago dei, there is something transcendent about people. If nothing else, we transcend ourselves and our mother-society when we contemplate the universe and study the nature of reality.
It still amounts to a devaluation of the human being. Now, maybe a social construction is all we are, but even in the absence of a belief in God or the imago dei, there is something transcendent about people. If nothing else, we transcend ourselves and our mother-society when we contemplate the universe and study the nature of reality.
I wonder if you think my scheme devalues a human being. It still leaves room for transcendence but not much. Contemplation is ironically the least transcendent-most biologically bound thing we do.
Why do you value transcendence? For the afterlife?
It still amounts to a devaluation of the human being. Now, maybe a social construction is all we are, but even in the absence of a belief in God or the imago dei, there is something transcendent about people. If nothing else, we transcend ourselves and our mother-society when we contemplate the universe and study the nature of reality.
I wonder if you think my scheme devalues a human being. It still leaves room for transcendence but not much. Contemplation is ironically the least transcendent-most biologically bound thing we do.
Why do you value transcendence? For the afterlife?
Your scheme is simply a model to explain how the brain/consciousness works. I don’t think it has anything to do with transcendence, one way or the other. My thoughts on transcendence don’t really have anything to do with the afterlife or any sort of valuation. It’s simply that our ability to think and contemplate things so far beyond our origins seem to have a form transcendent nature. “Mind” seems to break all the barriers. We are no longer just cells operating according to bio-chemical processes, but we are beings who make, own, and play guitars, among other things. We expand and cross the limits of our own boundaries - we transcend.
It’s simply that our ability to think and contemplate things so far beyond our origins seem to have a form transcendent nature. “Mind” seems to break all the barriers. We are no longer just cells operating according to bio-chemical processes, but we are beings who make, own, and play guitars, among other things. We expand and cross the limits of our own boundaries - we transcend.
So… for you, transcend means “add up to something”? A sum is greater than the parts sort of thing?
It may be being mentioned a lot, but I’ll be damned if I can follow the context for the most part, it seems like a very broad term.
Yes, it seems to be one of those terms that gets overused perhaps. Words that get overused—whatever overuse actually is—tend not to retain certain meanings that were originally present when the word got coined or popularized.
GAD - 20 September 2011 09:13 AM
I looked it up on wikipedia, still seem very broad, complicated and convoluted. Does anyone here really follow Postmodernism or do they use the term because it sounds important/intellectual?
Is postmodernism something to follow? Do you mean does anyone here refer to themselves as postmodern? That’s like asking a roomful of fundamentalist Christians if any of them is a fundamentalist. Just kidding, somewhat.
Follow ==> subscribe to? I don’t know I guess I just don’t get it.
So… for you, transcend means “add up to something”? A sum is greater than the parts sort of thing?
Definition of TRANSCENDENT (M. Webster)
1 a : exceeding usual limits : surpassing
b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience
c in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
2
: being beyond comprehension
3
: transcending the universe or material existence — compare immanent
4
: universally applicable or significant <the antislavery movement … recognized the transcendent importance of liberty — L. H. Tribe>
I’m using it in the sense of 1a above, but expanding on that idea to include the concept of surpassing what can be explained by purely materialistic methods. Man is more than the sum of his parts, certainly. How else do you explain Mozart or Leonardo or Newton or Einstein?
Postmodernism is a philosophical movement away from the viewpoint of modernism. More specifically it is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the problem of objective truth and inherent suspicion towards global cultural narrative or meta-narrative. It involves the belief that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs, as they are subject to change inherent to time and place. It emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations; in particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial. Rather, it holds realities to be plural and relative, and dependent on who the interested parties are and what their interests consist of. It attempts to problematise modernist overconfidence, by drawing into sharp contrast the difference between how confident speakers are of their positions versus how confident they need to be to serve their supposed purposes.
. . . Let’s take the discussion of self. Just about anything can be broken down into component parts, but with the self, what is the real benefit of doing that?
It’s difficult for me to explain because I don’t conceptualize it quite that way, but it seems important to be able to fade out of the mental stream now and then, as needed, contemplating the game of it all in a way that can improve how you feel about your interactions with others in your life.
That sounds right to me . . . I’ve always thought of it as the rejection of absolutism because modernism was an obsession with trying to achieve certainty and actually believing that it was possible.
. . . Let’s take the discussion of self. Just about anything can be broken down into component parts, but with the self, what is the real benefit of doing that?
It’s difficult for me to explain because I don’t conceptualize it quite that way, but it seems important to be able to fade out of the mental stream now and then, as needed, contemplating the game of it all in a way that can improve how you feel about your interactions with others in your life.
All our experiences are different, but if you “fade out of the mental stream” something akin to self is still registering the experience, no? I achieve this at times speaking in tongues, but I’m still aware of the process. The observer is still there, Mr. Flashlight. If there is no unifying principle, then there is nothing to register that you have seen this, felt that, thought this. There is a synthesis in the concept of self that seems to draw all the various experiences together in a coherent (somewhat) whole. I’m not sure that deconstruction of this really contributes to anything positive. It reminds me more of people with multiple personalities.
All our experiences are different, but if you “fade out of the mental stream” something akin to self is still registering the experience, no? I achieve this at times speaking in tongues, but I’m still aware of the process. The observer is still there, Mr. Flashlight. If there is no unifying principle, then there is nothing to register that you have seen this, felt that, thought this. There is a synthesis in the concept of self that seems to draw all the various experiences together in a coherent (somewhat) whole. I’m not sure that deconstruction of this really contributes to anything positive. It reminds me more of people with multiple personalities.
Sorry, Bruce. Every word or phrase that typically gets used to describe these sorts of things seems entirely inadequate. There’s a Rube Goldberg device inside of me that I occasionally need to adjust in certain ways. GAD will appreciate this analogy, I suspect, considering how he makes his living. He’s a production engineer of some kind, if I remember right.
Once I’m up and running with the best of current post-Freud cognition terminology, I’ll feel able to freely discuss many such matters, Bruce. That will start in a couple of weeks, after which we can return to this question any time you’d like.
Postmodernism is a philosophical movement away from the viewpoint of modernism. More specifically it is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the problem of objective truth and inherent suspicion towards global cultural narrative or meta-narrative. It involves the belief that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs, as they are subject to change inherent to time and place. It emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations; in particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial. Rather, it holds realities to be plural and relative, and dependent on who the interested parties are and what their interests consist of. It attempts to problematise modernist overconfidence, by drawing into sharp contrast the difference between how confident speakers are of their positions versus how confident they need to be to serve their supposed purposes.
The useful side of postmodern thought is the critique of scientism and the fixed beliefs that generated when applied to social and cultural questions (e.g., the 19th century belief that cultures could be ranked on a linear scale with 19th century Europe at the top). The negative side of postmodernism is that most of its adherents are not scientists and come with specific, radical political agendas so they misuse scientific language and attempt to discredit science itself as “just another oppressive narrative.”
. . . The negative side of postmodernism is that most of its adherents are not scientists and come with specific, radical political agendas so they misuse scientific language and attempt to discredit science itself as “just another oppressive narrative.”
I wasn’t aware of this, Burt. When you say most do you really mean most? Is it an ongoing attack, or an occasional nuisance that can be solved with a sensible argument or series of arguments?
. . . The negative side of postmodernism is that most of its adherents are not scientists and come with specific, radical political agendas so they misuse scientific language and attempt to discredit science itself as “just another oppressive narrative.”
I wasn’t aware of this, Burt. When you say most do you really mean most? Is it an ongoing attack, or an occasional nuisance that can be solved with a sensible argument or series of arguments?
It depends. With the hard core you can’t argue, even logically because after all, logic is just another aspect of the oppressive Enlightenment narrative so they won’t accept logic as the criterion for a valid argument. Rather, they believe that everything has to advance their political agenda. That’s why postmodernism has been compared (with lots of justification) to the Greek sophists. Here is an excerpt from a book I’m working on:
In postmodern discourse there is no privileged position or perspective. We are situated in social and historical contexts that cannot be transcended. There is no solid ground for our beliefs and no preferred means to support knowledge claims. Penelope Vinden summarizes this radical postmodern view:
“No longer is it enough to acknowledge that there exist a multiplicity of perspectives on any single issue, event, or object. Rather, it is assumed that there are no objective things-in-themselves that are at the center of the perspectives. There is, in fact, no center at all, no overarching ‘reality’ to be known.”
And in discussing the viewpoint of social constructivism, Vivien Burr states:
“The idea that there is one version of events that is true (making all others false) is… in direct opposition to the central idea of social constructivism, i.e., that there exists no ‘truth’ but only numerous constructions of the world, and which one receives the stamp of ‘truth’ depends upon culturally and historically specific factors. …Because there can be no truth, all perspectives must be equally valid.”
Postmodern arguments are often connected to a political agenda and while scientific theories have sometimes been used to support political or social causes, the claim that science must serve such agendas is ultimately destructive of science. Arguing from the social constructivist position, however, Burr asserts that:
“The project of social science can no longer be to uncover the truth about people or society. …the aim of research should become not the discovery of ‘facts,’ but the mobilization of the research process toward a different goal. The goal becomes a pragmatic and political one, a search not for truth but for any usefulness that the researcher’s ‘readings’ of a phenomenon might have in bringing about change for those who need it.”
. . . The negative side of postmodernism is that most of its adherents are not scientists and come with specific, radical political agendas so they misuse scientific language and attempt to discredit science itself as “just another oppressive narrative.”
I wasn’t aware of this, Burt. When you say most do you really mean most? Is it an ongoing attack, or an occasional nuisance that can be solved with a sensible argument or series of arguments?
It depends. With the hard core you can’t argue, even logically because after all, logic is just another aspect of the oppressive Enlightenment narrative so they won’t accept logic as the criterion for a valid argument. Rather, they believe that everything has to advance their political agenda. That’s why postmodernism has been compared (with lots of justification) to the Greek sophists. Here is an excerpt from a book I’m working on:
In postmodern discourse there is no privileged position or perspective. We are situated in social and historical contexts that cannot be transcended. There is no solid ground for our beliefs and no preferred means to support knowledge claims. Penelope Vinden summarizes this radical postmodern view:
“No longer is it enough to acknowledge that there exist a multiplicity of perspectives on any single issue, event, or object. Rather, it is assumed that there are no objective things-in-themselves that are at the center of the perspectives. There is, in fact, no center at all, no overarching ‘reality’ to be known.”
And in discussing the viewpoint of social constructivism, Vivien Burr states:
“The idea that there is one version of events that is true (making all others false) is… in direct opposition to the central idea of social constructivism, i.e., that there exists no ‘truth’ but only numerous constructions of the world, and which one receives the stamp of ‘truth’ depends upon culturally and historically specific factors. …Because there can be no truth, all perspectives must be equally valid.”
Postmodern arguments are often connected to a political agenda and while scientific theories have sometimes been used to support political or social causes, the claim that science must serve such agendas is ultimately destructive of science.”
Yup. Post-modernism breeds crap like feminist physics. Post-modernism’s role in much of the nonsense called ‘alternantive medicine’ cannot be ignored either. If Rhino horn or tiger testicles are said by alternative therapists to help with erection problems why should people bother with viagra just becasue it’s been proven to work by science? Who can be bothered caring about endangered species like Rhinos and tigers when human erections are at stake? Let’s get relatively real here! Under post-modernism the truth is what you say it is from your position. So there!
The way you two make it sound, an unmovable force has taken over academe in every way that matters. I do agree with you that instructors with strong subjective agendas should not be allowed to proselytize as part of the lessons they teach in their academic fields.
Burt, I’m just trying to get an idea of proportion. When you referred to most, did you really mean most? Is the problem so huge that you no longer even want to interact with other professors and as a result have sought your current state of university employment?
Also, isn’t a political agenda different from a philosophical take? Does the first necessarily spring from the second? Again, theoretical physicists can deconstruct matter itself; why can’t social scientists deconstruct some of the nonsense found within the histories of their fields?
Burt, how long have people thought of themselves as modern? For how long have they been correct?
