Postmodernism has run its course. It's become clear that while it provides a deconstructive lens for academics, it provides a destructive one to society.
Postmodernism broadly consists of only two tools. The first, as you mentioned, is the deconstructive POV, the ability to look at an object as-is and to understand its origin, its design, its footguns, its flawed narrative, its social excuses, its secret hatreds. But there's more.
We also get the curse of relativity, the understanding that all epistemic sources are relative and that we ultimately choose to believe what we believe. This was definitely frustrating, coming on the heels of modernism, and that's why postmodernism has its name: modernism is clearly wrong and serves only to mislead and enslave via narrative control.
But in return, we get something good: Concepts can become relativized too, and so we get many simple metaphysical statements as ways to understand what things are. What is a proof? Well, it's whatever convinces you that something is true. We lose absolute proof, but each of us gain a deeper understanding of what it means to prove something to somebody. What is art? Well, it's an expression in some medium. We lose art galleries, but now we can be artistic just by expressing ourselves any time we find new media, such as video games or graffiti or atomic layer deposition or selfies.
We get another good thing: A more precise understanding of how the various pieces of knowledge fit together. By talking of theories and evidence and logic as objects in their own rights, rather than as absolute facets of the universe, we can connect the various sciences and reunify the entire philosophical endeavor under a single umbrella, just like Quine always wanted with his semantic web of science. Maths is logic is metaphysics. [0]
Edit: Formatting, examples.
No, it shows something completely different: modernism is merely subjective, just like anything else. I wholeheartedly agree with the subjectivity part of post-modernism, but I don't see how it contradicts or disproves the modernist concepts; if anything, it only strengthens the objectivits approach, where each person or a collective is assumed to act out of his own, subjective, self-interest.
The only thing it destroys is utilitiarian "universal" ethical system, which is completely deserved.
Whenever I meet people who claim there is an objective truth I always ask them to give any examples. So far I have not met anyone who can come up with an objective claim that isn't merely basing that on a frame of reference which can be deconstructed or shown to be based on a set of apriori assumptions itself.
Tell me whack more about your whack frame of reference...
I see postmodernism and extreme relativism as a sort of awesome stage of society where we get to make up reality because we are freed from mundane concerns like knowing where our water comes from or where our sh%t gets flushed to. It is quite wonderful that many many people get the luxury of never even being curious about these things.
Meanwhile, the engineers, doctors, carers, labourers (I am missing a lot out here) who ultimately keep people alive tend to have quite definite opinions about critical aspects of reality.
Granted these are still not objective truths because all experience is subjective. All I can say is that a sophist who believes that rent is not an objective truth is nonetheless likely to find themselves (subjectively) on the streets if they don’t pay it.
But don't forget that the fact most of our early engineering advanced were done by philosophers who had the time to ponder and tinker.
So rent is in fact highly subjective. Not the definition but the reality of it.
I'm not too familiar with postmodern theory, would you explain this please?
Say I state that you posted the above sentence, and that that is an objective truth.
How would you break that down to assumptions?
Those are the kind of questions you would ask to start pulling it all apart. Those questions would be absurd in a normal discussion but in philosophy, they are important questions because they help us unravel our assumptions about the reality we often take for granted.
If it's absurd in regular situations, of what use is it in daily life?
I think you referring to the more popularized life-philosophy which is quite different.
Postmodernism doesn't ignore conventional context it inquires about the solidity of it. The job of philosophy is to ask questions not find answers.
But the purpose of a question is to seek an answer. It's very definition implies this...
I dunno, on the surface this just appears like formalised intentional abstruseness to me. A formalised method to intentional miss the point.
But thanks for the replies, I appreciate it! This is rather interesting. Do you have some recommended links or books? I want to delve into this a bit more.
Postmodernism was the philosophy that peeled of kind of the last layer which is the language itself and showed that the very tool we were using to express objective truths itself was in fact highly subjective and ridden with assumptions.
I can assure you the point is not to miss the point. Philosophy is for the most part not useful for everyday discussions as it tends to deal with things that often sound absurd (is it ok to kill babies if they cry) but it's important to understand that philosophy is informing other areas such as scientific methodology and to inform how to think about scientific discoveries. Falsification is a product of philosophical pondering. So is Kuhns Paradigm Shift.
With regards to books.
I would say that "Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations" is a pretty good place to start.
https://www.amazon.com/Postmodern-Theory-Interrogations-Stev...
Although he isn't considered a postmodernist per se as such I would also say that Kuhns "The structure of scientific revolution" gets you an interesting view into postmodernism without gunning for it. And it's about science which in itself is always interesting.
You should probably also read some Derrida or maybe start by watching the documentary about him he is pretty hard to read unless you are motivated. But you could start with "Speech and Phenomena" or of course Focult (but try and ignore the many political nuances)
And keep in mind postmodernism doesn't lead you to a conclusion it just shows you the limit of language. It's from that limit we must build structures while knowing they can always be broken down again.
Personally, it's helped me analyze the world differently and see past assumptions which allowed me to come up with better solutions for my clients. But it can also just be something that opens up your eyes for a different way to think about the world.
So, with postmodernism, you can go all the way down the rabbit hole as a philosophical exercise, and when you come back up and resume daily life, perhaps there are things you took for granted that you now begin to question. For example, a comment way up this chain asserted that "good art is better than bad art in ways that aren't purely relative." I used to believe that (Rembrandt must be better than a 3-year-old's scribble, right?), but now I don't believe that any art (music, film, etc) can be objectively argued to be better than any other, there is no good and bad art, only art that an individual likes or doesn't like.
Postmodernism to me actually leads toward a greater tolerance of other people and the state of the world. When you tear down the concepts of "right" and "wrong" - in the context of morals, ethics, human behavior - you realize they're as shaky and subjective as anything else. If you can't prove that your way is the right way, how can you tell someone else they're wrong?
Not sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying we should be tolerate everyones behaviour because there's no right and wrong?
Do I completely tolerate, with no misgivings, every action taken by another human being, or every circumstance the world places me in? Not exactly. Somewhere there is a clash between abstract intellectual ideals and the reality of flesh and bones and animal brains. But, going back to your original question, I do think this line of thinking has had a real and practical impact on my daily life and the way I view things and interact with people.
I feel like you are not questioning the message but the way and the "tools" used to convey it. ("what are words?" "what does it really mean when you say X?"). You want to start the discussion by questioning the (supposed) common middle ground of understanding that will be used for it. This way, I think, you kind of refused to try to give an answer to your parent.
I don't claim the anyone can "know truth totally and completely". But, conceptually I think there is. In a particular point of the universe at a particular time there was a specific particle there. Or wasn't. It couldn't be and not be. Subjectively it may seem one thing or the other. O even both. But it was either there or not.
And how do you deny the truism "The Universe IS"[0]? If you deny it you face a paradox because how can you call it false if false doesn't exist?
[0] By "Universe" I mean everything that exists, existed and will exist. Concrete and abstract.
But "the universe is" is just tautological I.e it doesn't help you understand the universe any better and you still have to define what you mean with universe even your [0] will run into all sorts of problems (like what is time, what does it mean something exists etc)
It's it's own axiom and conclusion in the same sentence.
Gödel proved that mathematically and logically with his "incompleteness theorem" but you can also as I did above show it in different ways.
And you are right I am not questioning the message I am questioning the assumptions of the message. As I have said other places.
You obviously can't have a normal everyday discussion like that i.e. we normally speak with a lot of assumptions many of them completely unfounded and still manage to get productive results.
But philosophically this is a different discussion where you are forced to question the assumptions of your axioms.
So what matters is not what something _is_ but what something _means_?
And I used that tautology because a tautology eliminates the "everything is subjective". (Unless everybody's opinion is the same. But that makes still a subjective opinion?)
Tautologies are semantic and thus bound by the axiom of language itself. I.e. "universe" is an assumption, an axiom.
So no it doesn't really eliminate "everything is subjective" it fits perfectly into the postmodern critique of language itself.
I can see the above. And that the assumptions and problems in languages shape our thoughts and view of reality (the universe).
But, like I said before, instead of tackling what the sentence _means_ you tackle it's tools and execution (language and it's use). I find it like facing a a physics equation and starting to question "what is lightspeed 'c'?", "why is it in m/s?", "why is it base 10?".
In philosophy, these are _the_ questions you ask because you are trying to go the foundation.
But even in science "what is lightspeed" and why is in m/s ARE relevant questions not to do the science but to establish the tools for doing the science.
I'm finding it hard to see how you adopt such a way of thinking in a macro level.
Example: Person A says to me X. It is impossible to me to assert anything about it because I cannot _know_ the intent, meaning and reasoning by A to get to X. And even if I could totally and completely "be" inside A's mind, there would be problems involving language (for structuring thought) and sensory perception.
1 - Does this mean that X is totally unqualifiable? (true/false, valid/invalid, etc)
2 - If 1 is true, how does that that not fill you with epistemological dread? Anything can be anything. And anything can be or not be. Everything can be reduced to nothing including our own consciousness/ego.
And I'd like you to answer this previous point:
>> But "the universe is" is just tautological I.e it doesn't help you understand the universe any better...
> So what matters is not what something _is_ but what something _means_?
(And since this is getting big, could you point me to some resources to learn more about postmodernism? And maybe continue our discussion via email?)
If you believe the world is flat you aren't exactly right but you are right enough to get from village A to B if they are close enough to each other.
Newton wasn't exactly right but his understadning of gravity was good enough that it was useful to us.
Einstein wasn't exactly right but he was right enough for classical physics (just not Quantum Mechanics).
In other words, we believe in things all the time that are useful while not necessarily true.
That's the point. you don't need universal truth to be locally right. The models have their limits, Us and our ability to establish them. They are an interpretation of reality not reality itself. I.e. our experience of reality and reality is not in a 1 to 1 relationship. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do science or we shouldn't make assumptions about whether something is good or bad or better or worse or right or wrong we should just know that we are really just playing word games in the grand scheme of things.
Postmodernism doesn't say we can't make assumptions on macro level it's indirectly saying we ARE making assumptions and these assumptions are the frame of references but are limited by the language we use to express them. So we can't really know the true interpretation of something just the reduced version that our perception and vantage point allows us to establish.
In other words we are ultimately the axiom of the available perspectives of reality.
I have linked to a few things in another discussion.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17366596
would be happy to continue the conversation my contact info is in my details.
In a dictionary, all the words are defined by other words.
Observe that all experience is subjective, anyone can have any set of axioms they like and “voila”, there can be no “objective” truth.
It’s true in this kind of tautological way, and kind of interesting.
On the other hand no one I know truly acts as though this is true. Also I think the world is a lot more interesting and frankly simpler to think about if you assume objective truths exist.
> Observe that all experience is subjective, anyone can have any set of axioms they like and “voila”, there can be no “objective” truth.
Hmmm,ok. So does this mean it's a critique on how language models the world instead of the world itself?
My axioms doesn't affect yours. Or a rat's, or a cats. Yet we'll all interact. Where does the interaction happen if not in an objective overlap, that which the subjectivity attempts to describe?
The words we use can described by other words, but other words do describe them.
The cells in our digestive tract do not care if we think the apple poisoned or not. They will respond to the amount of arsenic present in the fruit though. Is that response subjective?
That's one narrative, there are many others (in fact an infinite amount of other perspectives). You are just choosing one way by reducing the reality of the interaction of the apple, the cells, atoms, time, how it gets in your body how that suddenly help you burn energy and run faster which then means your footsteps are a little deeper in the soild you run which kills a few ants which then turn into soil and goes back into the ecosystem.
There isn't an objective perspective on this only reductions into narratives.
How does postmodern thinking define objective and subjective, and contrast the two to come to the conclusion that an objective reality does not exist?
Postmodern thinking doesn't come to a conclusion that an objective reality doesn't exist per se.
Don't think about it as a proposition about how the world is.
Postmodernism shows through ex. deconstruction how language isn't as solid a foundation to talk about the world objectively as we might want to believe.
So, in other words, it's a critique of the idea of the absolute and objective frame of references.
It doesn't say that we can't use classical physics just that the second we start to formulate proposition about how the world is we are ultimately using an axiom to do that.
Now, this axiom is useful enough that it might allow us to build spaceships to fly to Mars but it might be that it doesn't allow us to do faster than light travel to reach Alpha Centauri.
Not sure I answered your question satisfactorily if not let me know and I will try again. It's worth spending time on.
I think I'm getting it. It's basically that we use mental modals to go about our business, but these modals will always be limited in scope. True objectivity is, in a sense beyond us.
The flat earthers don't fall off the planet just because they think the world is flat and believing it flat still allow them to find the way from village A to B if close enough.
It's just not a good enough model to build ex. a GPS satellites.
So I agree that we will, of course, assume a lot of things are "objective" even though they aren't from a philosophical point of view and that's all good. Philosophically though you can't really get around the postmodern philosophy if you want to discuss reality to it's full extent we can.
Because how true could that be by defintion?
I do believe in objective truth, even if not realistically achievable and perhaps not philosophical mainstream. But if it is also simpler and more interesting, that is an additional plus and probably more correct.
I also admit to having premises and no problem to reflect upon them. Only to some of them I keep a sentimental relationship. A frame of reference might always be needed. But why should the frame be special?
Subjective to me is the relevance of the assumption about truth. The same can be said about a lot of discussions about conscience and general perception.
And when postmodernism is used as a toolkit to deploy different narratives, with the same amount of misleading and control, pointed a in slightly tweaked directions? What exactly did we get?
A new way to set down a foundation of bullshit, but perpetrated by a group that pulls up the ladder behind them. Excluding anyone who doesn't know how to play their semantic games from having an opinion about consensus reality.
You seem to be confusing what the purpose of philosophy is. It's not to establish truth but rather to inquire about truth.
Postmodernism shows us how fragile any truth proposition is and that's a useful way to think about things (especially when you are trying to break someone elses argument down)
I am no fan of the current usage of postmodernism in gender and identity politics but postmodernism as a philosophical perspective isn't going anywhere in fact eve Jordan Peterson one of the most popular critics of postmodernism uses it to make many of his arguments (i.e. to deconstruct the gender and identity politics)
You can't escape postmodernist realization.
What I mean is this: If people truly believe "how fragile any truth proposition is", then why bother to put a lot of effort into making your truth propositions as solid as possible? Why try to make your writing as clear as possible, when people are going to misunderstand it anyway? I suspect that the shallowness that the article complains about may be because people are now functionally postmodern, not just intellectually so.
In contrast, Derrida and Foucault were intellectually postmodernists, but still wrote in a modernist way. That is, they wrote as if they could genuinely communicate truth propositions and be understood.
You don't need objective truth to establish useful and constructive assumptions. It's perfectly fine to reduce reality into something more narrow and confined.
As an example. You can use classical physics to get to Mars with a spaceship. But you can't use it to travel faster than light to Alpa Centauri (but maybe quantum physics). Both classical physics and quantum physics are proven to the extent we can prove anything but they are in contradiction to each other and tells us something different about reality (one says it's local another says it fundamentally non-local)
Or you can believe the world is flat which is good enough for you to get from village A to B but not good enough to navigate the entire planet.
Postmodernism is not a critique of what is useful but claims about what is true and objective.
Derrida and Foucault were caught in the same semantic mesh as the rest of us they just showed through that how elusive it is. Derrida especially showed through his writing.