Hacker News Reader

Comment by apu | Hacker News Reader

I wonder what has caused the sudden influx of articles excoriating post-modernism/structuralism on HN? It's fun to read, of course, but the utter bullshit of these cults is so patently obvious (to everyone, I'd hope), and yet I find it to be a useless exercise to spend much time exposing it.

I agree with Chomsky here: there are far more poisonous and important targets to address than this cult, which thankfully remains quite insular and self-contained and, ultimately, of virtually no consequence to the world at large.

View on HN

I, too, am surprised (and disappointed) bu the sudden influx of articles attacking post-modernism. It should be clear enough that the authors of the articles (and a fair number of commentors) have not taken the time to actually read and understand the works they are attacking, and the whole business is an exercise in smug posturing and implied superiority.

Look: I've spent the better part of 30 years studying continental philosophy (and more specifically, the works of Derrida) and anyone who thinks that the field can be summarily dismissed by folks like Chomsky, Weinberg or Dawkins are sadly mistaken. Chomsky, Weinberg and Dawkins are all brilliant men in their own fields, but it takes some mighty big cojones, and a mighty parochial view of the world, if they think that this means that their judgments on matters outside their field are more important than any other amateur. And I'm sure they'd be the first to cry foul if some philosopher or other tried to dismiss their work on the basis of a few out-of-context quotes, without bothering to actually do the reading.

I'm not saying that the writers generally thought of as "post-modern" are above reproach; far from it. What I am saying is that if you want to attack them, for God's sakes read the texts.

I just reread what I wrote and realize that I was rather ambiguous about my thoughts. I was completely agreeing with Chomsky et al. that post-modernism is complete bullshit.

To your point, if you read the linked article, you will note that Chomsky has indeed attempted to read the works of several post-modernists and found them to be totally devoid of meaning, wrong, imcomprehensible, and/or trite.

He shows absolutely no elitism or "smug posturing" or "implied superiority" in his critique -- on the contrary, he repeatedly stresses that he is perhaps not smart enough to understand these works, that he is perhaps missing the point. But if people as intelligent as Dawkins & Chomsky fail to understand these works, then it's highly unlikely they are capable of being understood by anyone.

Have you read the Dawkins and Chomsky articles? They clearly have read the texts, and spent a lot of time trying to understand them, before concluding that they are nonsense. Both also request that someone translate the allegedly profound concepts into comprehensible English, so that us commoners can appreciate the concepts in question - are you offering?

Whatever they have they have unfortunately let their feeling run away with them.

Postmodernism is a critique frame of references and can't by definition be nonsense since they don't claim anything positive about the world.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Is your comment postmodernist itself?

I think he's trying to say that postmodernism is a critical methodology, rather than a collection of assertions - much as science is a systematic way of developing knowledge, rather than just the sum of its various axioms.

ThomPete, you might find it instructive to consider that the major problem of postmodernism is its' adherents seeming inability to make simple declarative statements. Of course, simple declarative statements are often freighted with unspoken assumptions, and unpacking and analyzing these is a postmodern exercise in itself, particularly that of Jacques Derrida and the deconstructionists.

But where many postmodernsists go wrong is in the attempt to make fully qualified and narrowly specified declarative statements, which end up being almost impossible to read. In their zeal to avoid implying anything or having their intentions misunderstood, postmodernists frequently alienate their audiences with discourse which resembles cultural autism. This creates the impression that post-modernists are actually in love with the comforting certainties of modernism, but have seen the negative results of too much certitude: they would still like to establish definitive truths, but have decided to do so very very carefully.

I am not against post modernism, which I believe has many interesting things to say and provides useful tools with which to understand the world and our place in it. However, a critical framework that is so woolly and inconsistent as to be useless for practical communication of ideas does no service to the truths it was designed to express.

Which of course requires there to be any truth to begin with.

That Derrida showed that it's not possible to make declarative statement's is not the fault of Derrida but of language.

It is exactly the point that you CAN'T make any declaretive statements i.e. express truth that is the point of Derrida and deconstructivism.

Well, you're certainly making his point for him.

I hear what you're saying, but I think it's wrong - language is imperfect, and may de facto exclude absolute truth, but it's the 'worse is better' of human communication :-)

exaxtly!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com