BothAndBlog Forum

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/429394

Introduction : I'm starting with a post from a thread, on the topic below, that had already run it's course. But I have only recently had the opportunity to dialogue with posters who seem to be arguing from a Postmodern worldview. PM never had much influence in my part of the world, so I had to do some quick Google research in order to begin to understand what the "PM posters" were talking about --- since they carefully eschewed defining terms.

Personally, I have had no formal training in philosophy, so I don't fall into any of the usual sub-categories, except possibly the Pragmatists. And that is mostly because of my interest in Science, not because I am a disciple of Pierce. I assume that the PM critique of Modernism was justified, but I fail to see any positive basis for a 21st century worldview.

So, in this thread I'm trying understand the appeal of the blatantly antiscience, and vaguely anti-reason, Postmodern philosophy. Here's a quote, referring to Foucault, from a book surveying the varieties of philosophical thinking : "the relationship between power and knowledge, and how the former is used to control and define the latter. What authorities claim as as 'scientific knowledge' are really just means of social control." IOW, Science is Politics???


From the other thread : "What's the use of discussing philosophy without definitions?"

I have also been puzzled by some poster's aversion to defining terms. But I gradually came to suspect that it's due to a recent (20th century) split in the philosophical community that has been labelled as Analytic vs Literary, or Modern vs Postmodern. It may also be viewed as Reductive vs Holistic. I try to integrate analytical objective methods with holistic subjective intuition in my own personal worldview. But to see them as implacable enemies seems to require a desperate Win-Lose Good vs Evil attitude toward the world.

Postmodernism was just beginning to become a "thing" in my part of the world as I graduated from college. At the time, and in my field of Architecture, I found the PM approach incomprehensible. So I went out into the real world, and forgot it as a passing fad. Until, 40 years later, I began to see PM terminology and attitudes popping-up on this forum. Therefore, I'm assuming that some posters were influenced in college by the holistic Literary doctrines of PM. Am I wrong in attributing the ambiguity of some forum "arguments" to Postmodern influences?

In the last few weeks, I've made an attempt to understand where these PM posters are coming from. But they don't seem to be able to explain their avoidance of defining terms, except to imply that to "carve reality at its joints" is an arrogant or hubristic assumption that the continuum of reality can be broken down into reductive parts by those who are embedded in the system. As I noted, if that is so, then Science is impossible and Philosophy is fictional. Instead, the PM attitude seems to be more Political, in the sense that "truth" is whatever the powers-that-be say it is. Hence, PM philosophers seem to be trying to tear-down (deconstruct) the bastions of Modernist oppression, including Science and Capitalism.

After some extended dialogues with what I'm calling "PM posters", I got the feeling of ennui that I associate with the play Waiting For Godot. It's a sense of Nihilism, meaninglessness and pointlessness of life. That may not be the way they feel, but it's my frustrated impression of a vague undefined disorganized hopeless worldview. Yesterday, I watched a Netflix movie, Everything Beautiful is Far Away, that gave me the same Godot feeling. There was no plot to speak of, just aimless people wandering in the desert for no apparent reason, except they didn't like to live in the polyglot multicultural confusion of the city. What little dialogue that passed between them was focused on pragmatic issues like food & water, or a hypothetical (mythical) lake of water in the desert as a possible destination.

Is this ambiguous worldview just a minority trend in philosophy, or is it the wave of the future? Am I a dinosaur who believes in a rational world where motley people can communicate and coexist? Should I try to read Wittgenstein and Foucault? Or is it too late for me? :worry:

PM never had much influence in my part of the world, so I had to do some quick Google research in order to begin to understand what the "PM posters" were talking about --- since they carefully eschewed defining terms. — Gnomon

Last night I saw a YouTube video by philosopher Stephen Hicks, who seems to specialize in analyzing PM from a scientific and analytic perspective. He connects it with far-left politics (including Socialism). Which may explain why I don't hear much about it, here in the far-right deep South. Here's a quote from Amazon books :

Explaining Postmodernism : philosopher Stephen Hicks provides a provocative account of why postmodernism has been the most vigorous intellectual movement of the late 20th century. Why do skeptical and relativistic arguments have such power in the contemporary intellectual world? Why do they have that power in the humanities but not in the sciences? Why has a significant portion of the political Left - the same Left that traditionally promoted reason, science, equality for all, and optimism - now switched to themes of anti-reason, anti-science, double standards, and cynicism? Explaining Postmodernism is intellectual history with a polemical twist, providing fresh insights into the debates underlying the furor over political correctness, multiculturalism, and the future of liberal democracy.
https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postm ... 0983258406

Who else can't read this without adding an emphatic shout of "Absolutely nothin'"? — Banno

Although I don't speak the language of DoubleSpeak, I still think there must be some kernel of insight or wisdom that appeals to liberal-minded academics. I can see why it might appeal to marginalized people of oppressed sexes and races. But I don't understand why it has to be expressed in such vague language and paragraph-long sentences. I can be sympathetic with social justice and skepticism toward the "inhumane & materialistic" worldview of Scientism. But PM seems to go to the opposite extreme. Is this a new secular religion for the downtrodden masses? I doubt that the masses understand arcane academic abstractions.

The posters who raised these questions in my mind, did not identify as PM, but seemed to find some kinship with my own inclusive worldview, and scientific speculations. So in order to find some common ground for communication, I tried to discover their reason for avoiding analytical definitions, in the traditional manner of philosophical dialogue. For an obviously highly intelligent person to think in such abstruse terms, there must be something that PM is "good for".

But again, who are the post moderns of whom you speak? — Banno

I'm not going to identify them, and they didn't represent themselves as PoMo. That was my best guess as to their motivation.

I think postmodernism is poorly defined in general, but the closest thing that fits the label is exactly this kind if “reverse scientism”, reducing talk of descriptive truths to attempted power grabs. I consider it, along with regular scientism, a kind of (for lack of a better word) “cynicism”, that inevitably leads to nihilism, which as you say if self-refuting. — Pfhorrest

That reminds me of Plato's negative attitude toward Sophistry. They seemed to be like lawyers, who are not interested --- or don't believe --- in Truth, but use complex language as a weapon to win us-vs-them competitions.

such constructivism reframes every apparent attempt to describe reality as actually an attempt to change how people behave, which is the function of normative claims. On such a view, no apparent assertion of fact is value-neutral: — Pfhorrest

That may explain why my innocent attempts to define my personal meaning of relevant terms were rejected as promoting some hidden agenda. My only agenda was to make sure we were both talking about the same thing.

Hence, starting with a definition is likely to be problematic, since the discussion itself will consist in developing that very definition. — Banno

That seems to be their fear, that I would exclude too many possible meanings in the interest of clarity. But I was inviting them to present their own definitions, so we could find common ground. But, the very idea of analytical definition seemed repugnant. I am open to the concepts of Subjectivism & Holism, but communication between parties requires us to strip away most of the irrelevant shades of meaning, and to work with the kernel.

Thr issue is, that's not were you start in philosophy, it's where you finish. — Banno

I assume you mean, that you start with a general concept and weed-out irrelevancies, in order to reach a meaning that is specific to the situation at hand. The definitions of assumptions I was talking about were the first step on that journey.

"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms" ---Socrates

“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” ___Voltaire

Truth became up for grabs, alternative facts entered the right-wing political mainstream, and now we're post-truth altogether, with nationalism, moral objectivity, and populism getting by on "What's truth anyway?" Which is a shame, because the whole point of pomo was to call bullshit out. — Kenosha Kid

Does that mean the PoMo movement has resulted in driving the political Left and Right farther apart? I hadn't thought of the cynical "fake news" notion as a reaction to Postmodern pushing from the Left. :chin:

I view PM as a cultural course correction, that has influenced the world in a manner similar to Marxism. It raised consciousness of some issues, but didn't offer a viable alternative to the core of the 17th century Enlightenment's legacy : the novel method of acquiring practical knowledge that we call "Modern Science" — Gnomon

Yes. I'm quoting myself again. That's because the thread has veered-off into some nitty-gritty philosophical analysis, and has revealed a polarized attitude toward Postmodernism. Some hate it, some love it. But, although its influence seems to be primarily among intellectual elites, PM appears to have made a lasting impression on human culture.

I must admit that, coming from a Modernist worldview, I didn't understand Postmodernism at first, and simply ignored it as a temporary fad in philosophy. But I now see it as a necessary step in the evolution of human understanding. FWIW, here's view of PM from a broader academic & scientific perspective.

Excerpt from Scientific American magazine article by Annick DeWitt, who calls herself a Worldview Researcher :

In the West, we have over time seen massive shifts in our collective worldviews, which academics have frequently described as a move from more traditional, generally religion-based worldviews to more modern worldviews, in which science, rationality, and technology have become central. This change is often understood to have started with the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, and has gradually resulted in a more (philosophically) materialistic understanding of reality.

Much more recently, particularly since the 1960’s, we have seen the rise of more postmodern worldviews, which emphasize other-than-rational ways of knowing, such as moral, emotional, and artistic ones, as well as values beyond the material, such as creativity, self-expression, and imagination. This perspective was largely forged by cultural elites within academia and the arts, and coincided with the rise of emancipatory movements for causes such as the environment and the rights of minorities, women, and gays. Now some academics are talking about another, newly emerging worldview, which is sometimes referred to as integral or integrative. This worldview is characterized by an attempt to bring polarized perspectives together and integrate them into a larger, more unified understanding of reality.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu ... orldviews/