A question for philosophical types...

Postmodernism - what do YOU think about it?
While I don't think postmodernism is 'taking over', I do think it's a real process with some influence.

Postmodern methodology is good for doing radical critiques of the old, established systems we often take for granted – science, religion, law – although it’s got that well-known tendency to be deconstructive without actually offering anything new as a replacement. But then, a critique doesn’t have to totally destroy what it’s critiquing; sometimes it’s just good to take a closer look at the beliefs and foundations that drive the important processes in our lives. That’s what postmodernism does for me, anyway. I’m doing a course in jurisprudence (legal philosophy, basically) and postmodernism’s a significant part of it.

But in the wider field of things… I don’t think modernism’s being replaced by postmodernism. American culture is, in some ways, becoming postmodern (that’s NOT a criticism, don’t panic), but it’s not a universal trend or anything. I doubt it ever could be, since ‘solid’ foundations are really quite nice and people won’t abandon them lightly. Besides, postmodernism generally implies that nothing can truly have a firm basis in ‘truth’, since everything is subjective. If that’s the case, it’d mean that postmodernism is as subjective and immaterial as anything else, especially since it’s a completely human construct and not based on anything empirical or concrete.

But that’s just me. I’m not an astute philosopher or anything, just a curious observer.

What do y’all think about postmodernism?

PS: most postmodern artwork is nonsense, in my opinion.

stfu.

it's real, but a lot of it is a crock of doodoo. it takes a lot more courage and ingenuity to build something up than to tear it down.

Having done a course in Sociology, hated it purely for this section, and this being in General Chat, I can safely say it's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard in my life.

No jokes, fact.

Postmodernism is a valid movement, but it's been so bastardized by pop culture I don't think anyone really knows what it's all about anymore. That, and it's just too chic these days to reject the old, grandiose thinking of the Enlightenment and such these days. I prefer the Renaissance Men over any postmodern thinker.

I haven't independently researched what postmodernism is, but if it is more of that "everything is subjective" bull[img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img], I think we can safely conclude that it's a crock.

EDIT: Unfortunately, to answer the second part, it probably is getting a foot-hold in some of the more developed countries.

Its there, but its just becomed so fogged up with other cultural events, such as Neel posted out, that we dont seem to notice. Its slowly creeping up in the US, but its there. If I were to see a boom to this, I would probably predict in the next 10-15 years.

Actually, given the certain circumstances of how we are now in the US, my last statement was complete bull[img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img]. Please ignore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

I haven't independently researched what postmodernism is, but if it is more of that "everything is subjective" bull[img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img], I think we can safely conclude that it's a crock.

EDIT: Unfortunately, to answer the second part, it probably is getting a foot-hold in some of the more developed countries.

---

It's not so much that "everything is subjective", but rather that most avenues of human thought and endeavour - art, science, religion - are governed by human-devised structures and systems. For example, the church originally depended on people claiming to know absolute divine truth. Then we 'discovered' science, which has developed into a process whereby scientists research and analyse in ways that support the dominant paradigm, until some better paradigm comes along - and claim they're simply looking at 'truth' and 'reality'. In court cases, judges say they're making objective rulings on what the law is, when virtually any case could be decided dozens of ways, depending on which precedents are selected and followed.
Basically, postmodernism says that modernist thought is flawed because everything is influenced by subjectivity - even the meanings of words are basically constructed notions, different to each person and shaped by cultural context.
This is a very poor, very limited description of some of postmodernism, but meh.

In some ways, I do feel that some cultures are becoming postmodern. Not an active choice along the lines of "Oh, let's become postmodern because it's cool", but rather there's a cynical, self-critical rejection of traditional frameworks and meta-narratives. Radical feminism is kind of tied into postmodernism, although PM'ism isn't gender-specific.

. <---- Postmodern forum post. :cool:

Quote:

---

It's not so much that "everything is subjective", but rather that most avenues of human thought and endeavour - art, science, religion - are governed by human-devised structures and systems. For example, the church originally depended on people claiming to know absolute divine truth. Then we 'discovered' science, which has developed into a process whereby scientists research and analyse in ways that support the dominant paradigm, until some better paradigm comes along - and claim they're simply looking at 'truth' and 'reality'. In court cases, judges say they're making objective rulings on what the law is, when virtually any case could be decided dozens of ways, depending on which precedents are selected and followed.

---

Science is based on the concept of A is A - that existence exists. You accept that fundamental premise by every single action you make. I don't understand how it's possible to have any other "dominant paradigm" for how to perceive reality. "I see a chair, that chair exists. A chair that has only two legs on one side topples - I'll make one with four legs, and it should stand." That is the concept of objective science.

Quote:

---

Basically, postmodernism says that modernist thought is flawed because everything is influenced by subjectivity - even the meanings of words are basically constructed notions, different to each person and shaped by cultural context.

---

This is true - because people make them that way. Not because the words are subjective, but because people imagine them to be. Instead of the "supremecy of reason," which dictates that reality is objective, instead all sorts of subjective word-choice make up the "supremecy of consciousness" - which states that reality is what I feel it is. This is where euphemisms and "political-correctness" come from, as if a more "polite" way of saying something somehow changes the fundamental facts of reality.
Ask a group of people if they have ever had a pet put down. Then ask that same group of people later if they have ever had a pet killed. Many people would probably have to think a moment about the last question, as killing things is wrong, right? They have perverted their own minds into accepting their feelings over reality - it doesn't matter what is, as long as they feel good about it. It doesn't matter if I actually killed my pet, as long as I can feel like I actually didn't by using some sort of euphemism.

(Note: No, I am not against killing pets. I, myself, have had a dog "put down." But I accept the true nature of the decision and do not attempt to gloss it over).

the problem with postmodernism is that it is based around fragmentation. It represents a retreat away from the problems created and questions raised by modernism. Postmoderism says "the big issues are irrelevant" and runs away from conflict. While moderism has run its course, and the rejection of modernism is necessary, we need more constructive approaches. To me the predominant malaise of our times stems from our inability as society to find positive new solutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Science is based on the concept of A is A - that existence exists. You accept that fundamental premise by every single action you make. I don't understand how it's possible to have any other "dominant paradigm" for how to perceive reality. "I see a chair, that chair exists. A chair that has only two legs on one side topples - I'll make one with four legs, and it should stand." That is the concept of objective science.

---

Ah, yes. But look at how scientists go about what they do... much of today's scientific research involves finding things, making discoveries that support whatever theory is most favoured at the time. When a paradigm shift happens, the focus of research shifts and people start looking for answers that reinforce the new 'dominant' theory. At least, that's the postmodern analysis of it. In a way, it's quite true - a lot of research looks at what has previously been assumed, and then tries to find new facts and answers that fit this model.

Quote:

---

This is true - because people make them that way. Not because the words are subjective, but because people imagine them to be.

---

How about a simple word like "snow"? This is the example my lecturer used...
'Snow' seems like a basic concept. But then, what is snow? The word is simply an arbitrary sound we associate with this idea of solidified water that falls from the sky. Not hail, not sleet, but something different. But our ideas about snow are quite different to, say, a snowboarder's. A snowboarder might think in terms of a dozen varieties of snow, each with unique properties and usefulness. Then you have the Inuit culture, with about 130-ish different words for the many kinds of snow, each distinct from the other. These distictions don't exist in the English word "snow". That word has absolutely no connection to the reality of what snow actually is - it's just a vocal sound that connects with this mental image people have of snow. The "meaning" varies between individuals, and varies wildly across cultures.
In the end, words don't really have any relation to the thing they're supposed to describe. With snow, you end up defining it by what it's not - it's frozen precipitation, but not sleet and not hail etc. Just like the word "tree" - there's no word that can tell you what it means to be a tree; nothing that conveys the reality of tree-ness. It's just another arbitrary sound that we mentally associate with a particular thing.

And that's a simple, real-life example. Now imagine an incorporeal concept like "justice"... the process of definition just got a whole lot harder. In the end, language is basically a process of semiotics. Signs and symbols. The reality of an object or concept is never actually defined; all we do is give words and meanings to our interpretations of those objects and concepts.

Now, I don't agree with all of this - it's unnecessarily deconstructive, and ultimately quite pointless - but I do see what they're getting at, and why. Postmodern deconstruction is a nifty but deflating way of demystifying some things that are taken quite for granted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Science is based on the concept of A is A - that existence exists. You accept that fundamental premise by every single action you make. I don't understand how it's possible to have any other "dominant paradigm" for how to perceive reality. "I see a chair, that chair exists. A chair that has only two legs on one side topples - I'll make one with four legs, and it should stand." That is the concept of objective science.

---

Ah, yes. But look at how scientists go about what they do... much of today's scientific research involves finding things, making discoveries that support whatever theory is most favoured at the time. When a paradigm shift happens, the focus of research shifts and people start looking for answers that reinforce the new 'dominant' theory. At least, that's the postmodern analysis of it. In a way, it's quite true - a lot of research looks at what has previously been assumed, and then tries to find new facts and answers that fit this model.

---

Correction, if I may: a lot of research looks at what theories has previously been proven, and tries to find new facts and answers that fit this theory; OR: a lot of research looks at what theories are proposed, and tries to find new facts and answers to support or refute this theory. The word "assume" grates on my nerves and would offend me as a scientist if I took offense to things like these anymore. ;]

I don't have any further comments on postmodernism, other than I flirted with it in highschool and soon dumped it for crazy Eastern mumbo-jumbo.

I certainly disagree with the... radicalness of postmodernism's critique of science. Science, in my mind, is kind of like a force for superceding religion as "the source of all answers". 'Learn as much as you can, try to understand that knowledge.' That sort of thing.

Postmodernism is, I think, a purely Western school of thought, though I can imagine it's popular in other cultures trying to understand the crazy contradictions of dysfunctional Western society :D

I don't know about the equivalent of my generation in India, but people about ten-twelve years older than me over there (Gen Xers in the US, I guess) think it's hilarious. :p

Like I said, I gave it a shot, and I like it's emphasis on individuality and emphasizing the personal point of view, but it just doesn't do it for me. :p That, and it's supporters are simply annoying to talk to. :p

Quote:

---

Ah, yes. But look at how scientists go about what they do... much of today's scientific research involves finding things, making discoveries that support whatever theory is most favoured at the time. When a paradigm shift happens, the focus of research shifts and people start looking for answers that reinforce the new 'dominant' theory. At least, that's the postmodern analysis of it. In a way, it's quite true - a lot of research looks at what has previously been assumed, and then tries to find new facts and answers that fit this model.

---

Yes, and I disagree with that. But there is one absolute - the reality of what is. People can attempt to gloss over that fundamental fact in the mess most people call their mind, but it is there.

EDIT: Therefore, any scientists who does research based on his own assumptions about reality (such as prior past assumptions: "the earth is flat," "the sun revolves around the earth," etc.) are not being true to an objective idea of a rational, logical science, but just another form of religion. It's not real science (science defined as a logical study of reality based on observation and analysis of facts of reality).

Quote:

---

Now imagine an incorporeal concept like "justice"... the process of definition just got a whole lot harder. In the end, language is basically a process of semiotics. Signs and symbols. The reality of an object or concept is never actually defined; all we do is give words and meanings to our interpretations of those objects and concepts.

---

And again, that's wrong, which is where the problems start. How do you even know what I'm saying? How do I know what you mean by "paradigm shift?" Because the words have an objective standard - until they are given an absolute definition, words are just a meaningless jumble of arbitrary combinations of letters, and letters are just meaningless symbols. But we give them objectivity. "tree" means this, "dog" is that.

But people don't understand that, and spout random words as if they were self-evident facts. Like "love." As your average person what, exactly, love is. Or God. Or heaven. People don't even know what these words mean, but they use them all of the time, without thought(because a lack of objectivity is, in essence, an escape from rational thought). People use phrases that have no meaning, but sound important. People use words that have a neutral definition, but a bad "connotation"(they make people feel bad), such as "selfish" or "stubborn" or "prideful." They use euphemisms which mean the exact same thing as the words they are trying to avoid, but make them feel better about it. These make absolutely no sense when any sort of logic is entered into the equation, but most people are not concerned with logic. And thus you have your post-modernism.

I'm down with Hideo Kojima.

We need more Bond-inspired opening game sequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryûkishi

I'm down with Hideo Kojima.

---

How is Metal Gear Solid 2's ending "postmodern"? I am rather stupid and can't make the connection between what I'm reading about the philosophy and the ending.

While there is this huge grandiose (re: bs) plot about world conspiracies and yada yada, in the end it comes down to how one man (Jack) can scratch out an existence for himself. Etc etc. *doesn't feel like explaining it, because he doesn't like MGS2 and doesn't like postmodernism* :p

I wasn't particularly referring to MGS2 anyway.