Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia;  Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.

Postmodern Irony
Tongue-in-cheek
Architecture

Post 26. 03/30/2018

The Postmodern Critique

Of Enlightenment & Modern Worldviews

The Enlightenment Now book-review review, in Post 24, had much to say about the recent academic critiques of Enlightenment and Modern paradigms of religion, politics and philosophy. But I think we need to understand what those critics were so appalled by, before we conclude that they went too far in the opposite direction, and simply reject out of hand any ideas that seem Left-Wing to BothAnd moderates1. Post-modernism began as a reaction to the power abuses of ruling elites in the developed Western world toward their colonies, and toward disenfranchised people, such as women, homosexuals, dark races, and so forth. Just like the earlier Marxist critique of capitalism, this one was accurate in its analysis of the problem, but overshot the mark in its solution.

 Whereas, the Enlightenment worldview said that ideally reason should rule, the postmodern analysis observed that, in practice, power still over-rules reason.  Which has always been the case, until Modernism began to level the playing field with such innovations as the printing press. Scientific methods also began to reveal some of the conflicts & errors in scriptural descriptions of the world, and to lessen the power of the imperial Church over the minds of the people. Thus, the traditional balance of power began to shift from church & state, toward more influence for maverick individuals & intellectuals, independent of the core of power elites. For the first time, ruling parties had to deal with upstarts from outside the closed system of government.

In that sense, PM is merely a continution of the Enlightenment empowerment of the "little man". At first, the postmodern critique, was mostly aimed at political & religious bastions of power. But it also began to dismiss Science as a tool of political propaganda, and portrayed it as a quasi-religious belief system, with scientific facts as merely a collection of myths agreed upon by intellectual elites. It also denied the crucial requirement for objectivity, and the ideal of absolute truth. As Hegelian anti-theses2 often do, PM went too far in its attempts to balance the scales of justice. Instead of seeking a reasonable BothAnd solution, it demanded total egalitarianism. Scientific facts may be context dependent, and subject to frequent revisions, but they are not politically contingent, except in regimes of totalitarian dictatorships. If Science was political, GPS would only work for the rich.

Postmodernism, like Marxism, was a valid critique of entrenched power elites, but its uncompromising remedies were essentially religious & irrational, rather than scientific & pragmatic; based on rigid faith in a paradigm, not flexible factual information. Whereas Scientific paradigms gradually evolve, the Postmodern paradigm entails revolutionary changes. Moreover, like Marxism, PM seemed to serve its academic literate elites as a secular religion. Although the masses may not always accept the atheism of their leaders, they willingly adopt the leftist language to use  against their oppressors. Just as the Marxist economic critique forced Capitalism to adopt some humanistic values to regulate its economic engine, the Postmodern social deconstruction has prompted stratified societies to expand their hierarchies to include formerly outcaste minorities. So now, in some circles, it's cool to be Queer.

Post 26 continued . . . click Next

2. Hegelian :
   Philosopher Hegel’s theory of a dialectic pattern in history observed that political, religious, and philosophical debates tend to be settled, not by mutual consent, but by attempts at total annihilation.
   The previous dominant worldview, the “Thesis”, is contrasted with a diametrically opposite ”Anti-thesis”. From the resulting life or death struggle, a truce is finally reached, in which both sides have to live with a compromised perspective called the “Synthesis” : a fusion of opposites.   
   That hard-won moderate solution is what the BothAnd principle is all about. If rival parties were more willing to listen to each other, and to conciliate their un-compromising attitudes, we could reach a harmonious unification of viewpoints without all the bloodshed.
   If humans don’t learn the art of compromise, pitiless Nature, or brutal Hegelian History will do it for us. But the blood will be on our hands.

1. Both Wingers :
   PM is typically classified as a leftist worldview, and its right-wing complement is of course, Modernism. So, the Re-Enlightenment correction should aim for a moderate position in between Modernism/Capitalism and PM/ Communism.
   This centrist approach should be inclusive, but realistic about natural hierarchies in humanity. It should allow just enough of the individual motivation aspect of Capitalism, but restrained by the collective interests Socialism.
   BothAnd moderates fly with two wings.

• The Postmodern Critique
click here for popup   

• Linguistic Critique :
   Postmodernism primarily analyses language, which is not the real power in the world, but merely a theoretical description of it. Language & names merely symbolize power relation-ships. And it’s easier to attack the symbols than the real power-holders.
   That may be why PM was mostly relegated to feckless academia, instead of ruthless politics. Karl Marx was an armchair academic, but he admitted that it was not sufficient to criticize the establishment. The point of the critique is to change the structure of the system from within, if possible, or from without if necessary.   

• Modernism :
Science replaces Scripture as a source of information about how the world works