Postmodernism.

Sarky

Postmodernism and its subjective reality bollocks have a lot to f*cking answer for.

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

Postmodernism and its subjective reality bollocks have a lot to f*cking answer for.

Subjective reality makes up most of human reality, otherwise we would be zombies. The fact that we have subjective consciousness is what encouraged us to leave the trees and later the cave and explore. Without subjective reality there would be no creative expression; so no language, no literature, no poetry, no music, no painting, no cinema, no dancing, no fantasy, no adventurous sex:(. No science as science came from creative ideas, long before the scientific method.

There would also be no opinions, as only that which has been empirically determined to be the "truth" would be allowed, ignoring the fact that most "truths" are likely to proven wrong or at least modified at some future date.

There would be no boards as there would be nothing to discuss:eek:.

The world is a much better place due to postmodernism, we learned that the hard way in the 20th century. Humans are dreamers and efforts to try and make us conform to a standard way of thinking have been disastrous.

Sarky

nagirrac wrote: »

Subjective reality makes up most of human reality, otherwise we would be zombies. The fact that we have subjective consciousness is what encouraged us to leave the trees and later the cave and explore. Without subjective reality there would be no creative expression; so no language, no literature, no poetry, no music, no painting, no cinema, no dancing, no fantasy, no adventurous sex:(. No science as science came from creative ideas, long before the scientific method.

There would also be no opinions, as only that which has been empirically determined to be the "truth" would be allowed, ignoring the fact that most "truths" are likely to proven wrong or at least modified at some future date.

There would be no boards as there would be nothing to discuss:eek:.

The world is a much better place due to postmodernism, we learned that the hard way in the 20th century. Humans are dreamers and efforts to try and make us conform to a standard way of thinking have been disastrous.

Uh, you do realise your hellish vision of a world without postmodernism doesn't match up with the world as it was before postmodernism was a thing, right? People are misinformed enough having their own opinions without thinking they're also entitled to their own facts.

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

Uh, you do realise your hellish vision of a world without postmodernism doesn't match up with the world as it was before postmodernism was a thing, right? People are misinformed enough having their own opinions without thinking they're also entitled to their own facts.

Although the term postmodernism was around since the 19th century, there is general agreement that the postmodernism age, which I assume is what you are referring to, began in the 1960s.

Do you think in broad terms, and looking at the facts and not opinion, that western society was better or worse before the cultural changes in the 1960s?. The era that came before the 1960s (modernism), was defined by colonialism, world wars, deference to authority figures including political and religious, racism, narrow viewpoints on sexuality, art, etc. The freedoms we enjoy today to pursue individual happiness, regardless of race, sexual orientation, religious or non religious, broadly did not exist in western culture before the postmodernist cultural revolutions in the 1960s.

endacl

Remember, postmodernism also gave us the phenomenon of facts being a matter of opinion, which must be respected, because the right to an opinion is importantanstuffdontchaknow. It also gave us the comical scenario of a 'debate' between evolutionary theory and 'intelligent design'.

If postmodernism is to be condemned for anything though, it has to be hipsters...

Sarky

Colonialism, world wars, deference to authority figures political and religious, racism and narrow viewpoints still exist, in a very big way. Some of them are worse, after a fashion. And it certainly wasn't postmodernism that reduced them in the last 60 years.

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

Colonialism, world wars, deference to authority figures political and religious, racism and narrow viewpoints still exist, in a very big way.

Compared to pre 1960s? Are you actually being serious?
Keep it simple, compare Ireland of today to Ireland say of the 1950s.

Sarky

What exactly has this got to do with people thinking they're entitled to their own facts? Ugh, are you going to mention the word 'quantum' again? Because that never ends well.

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

What exactly has this got to do with people thinking they're entitled to their own facts? Ugh, are you going to mention the word 'quantum' again? Because that never ends well.

You were the one who defined postmodernism as "bollocks".
Back up your claim with facts and leave the personal attacks out of it.

Define how and why postmodernism is "bollocks".

Sarky

nagirrac wrote: »

You were the one who defined postmodernism as "bollocks".
Back up your claim with facts and leave the personal attacks out of it.

Define how and why postmodernism is "bollocks".

I already did. Then endacl came along and put it better:

endacl wrote: »

Remember, postmodernism also gave us the phenomenon of facts being a matter of opinion, which must be respected, because the right to an opinion is importantanstuffdontchaknow. It also gave us the comical scenario of a 'debate' between evolutionary theory and 'intelligent design'.

The idea that facts could be a matter of opinion is ludicrous. But I suppose that's just my opinion, isn't it?

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

I already did. Then endacl came along and put it better:

The idea that facts could be a matter of opinion is ludicrous. But I suppose that's just my opinion, isn't it?

Both of you are narrowly defining postmodernism in terms of the one aspect you do not like, questioning established facts, specifically in science I assume.

"Facts" are strange and elusive things, from a societal standpoint they tend to change all the time. For example in the Ireland of the pre 60s, there were no homosexuals.. and that was a fact.

Bannasidhe

nagirrac wrote: »

Both of you are narrowly defining postmodernism in terms of the one aspect you do not like, questioning established facts, specifically in science I assume.

"Facts" are strange and elusive things, from a societal standpoint they tend to change all the time. For example in the Ireland of the pre 60s, there were no homosexuals.. and that was a fact.

Both of whom?

As far as I am concerned 'postmodern' is an art movement...

nagirrac

endacl wrote: »

Remember, postmodernism also gave us the phenomenon of facts being a matter of opinion, which must be respected, because the right to an opinion is importantanstuffdontchaknow. It also gave us the comical scenario of a 'debate' between evolutionary theory and 'intelligent design'.

If postmodernism is to be condemned for anything though, it has to be hipsters...

Do you think creationism started in the 1960s? In America at least it was after the 1960s that separation of church and state was truly implemented. The debate between evolutionary design and ID would probably not have happened pre 1960s, as it would have been too offensive to the dominant religious view.

Sarky

There's nothing wrong with questioning established facts. That's how progress is made. How the hell did you get that from either of our posts?

Declaring any old sh*t to be the truth in the face of evidence because it makes you feel better and it's "your" reality, that's the kind of bollocks that I was decrying. If you're just looking for an argument, why don't you say so?

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

Declaring any old sh*t to be the truth in the face of evidence because it makes you feel better and it's "your" reality, that's the kind of bollocks that I was decrying. If you're just looking for an argument, why don't you say so?

Then you are not talking about postmodernism, you are talking about the urban dictionary depiction of postmodernism. No question that in a postmodern society people are free to declare any old kind of sh*t, but it beats a society where declaring anything but establishment sh*t got you ostracized or worse.

It is somewhat ironic that on a thread that attempts to distinguish "fact" from "fiction" in Judea 2,000 years ago (something historians greatly differ on), what occurred in our own society 50 years ago seems elusive as time goes by. Tying postmodernism to "new age woo" thinking is utter bollocks, and intellectually lazy.

What's wrong with an argument? Postmodernism is well worth defending on its merits. We live in a society that has benefitted enormously from postmodernism and where diversity and freedom of expression is cherished. Remember its largest critics are cultural conservatives who believe it has led to moral decay and sexual deviancy.

Sycopat

nagirrac wrote: »

Then you are not talking about postmodernism, you are talking about the urban dictionary depiction of postmodernism. No question that in a postmodern society people are free to declare any old kind of sh*t, but it beats a society where declaring anything but establishment sh*t got you ostracized or worse.

It is somewhat ironic that on a thread that attempts to distinguish "fact" from "fiction" in Judea 2,000 years ago (something historians greatly differ on), what occurred in our own society 50 years ago seems elusive as time goes by. Tying postmodernism to "new age woo" thinking is utter bollocks, and intellectually lazy.

What's wrong with an argument? Postmodernism is well worth defending on its merits. We live in a society that has benefitted enormously from postmodernism and where diversity and freedom of expression is cherished. Remember its largest critics are cultural conservatives who believe it has led to moral decay and sexual deviancy.

The only one mentioned on the wiki page is Chomsky, who's arguments against post-modernism (A term I detest myself, on the grounds it is linguistically non-sensical.) in philosophy appear to be against it's critiques of logic and reason. The rejection of which seems to be the same thing which seems to be annoying sarky. I personally find it ironic that the post-modernist attempt to "be-more-in-the-world" consists seemingly of navel gazing about objectivity and subjectivity, but I'd need to do a lot more reading to form a full opinion.


Also, ireland of the now and the 1950's are vastly different places, undeniably true, but as far as I am aware, from my discussions with people who were born in the sixties, the massive social changes of the sixties in the rest of the world simply didn't happen in ireland, and the social changes that synthesized modern irish society didn't occur until the late eighties/nineties. I do think you'll have to argue for why or how those social changes were the product of a movement which originated, by your estimate, 20 to 30 years beforehand.

nagirrac

Sycopat wrote: »

Also, ireland of the now and the 1950's are vastly different places, undeniably true, but as far as I am aware, from my discussions with people who were born in the sixties, the massive social changes of the sixties in the rest of the world simply didn't happen in ireland, and the social changes that synthesized modern irish society didn't occur until the late eighties/nineties. I do think you'll have to argue for why or how those social changes were the product of a movement which originated, by your estimate, 20 to 30 years beforehand.

Ireland was massively impacted by what happened elsewhere in the 1960s, by Irish standards. You have to remember how reactionary and Catholic controlled Ireland was prior to the 60s. I was born in the late 50s and the 60s was a decade of tremendous change in Ireland. By the early 70s the freefall into moral decay and sexual deviancy was well underway, at least in the circles I hung out in:). We had student strikes, Neil Young records, mixed dances with no clerical supervision, even sex with illegally imported condoms, all kinds of mad stuff. Our parents thought the world was ending.

Mardy Bum

Postmodern is a catch all term that does very little justice to all of the concepts and methodologies that are caught up in it. it is an extremely disparate field and many of those involved in it did not label themselves as postmodern. To generalise the field would be to say postmodernism concerns itself with ontological matters whereas modernism was more concerned with epistemological matters.

Most people seem to associate it with deconstruction only which is foolish. Deconstruction in and of itself was a major break through in continental philosophy and I wouldn't decry it wholly. There are a number of other areas which postmodern methods are used such as pedagogy, social issues, art, entertainment etc.

Postmodern art has some wonderful works.

Here's a good video about postmodernism and the show Community

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YanhEVEgkYI

tommy2bad

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
All that needs to be said really!

nagirrac

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Both of whom?

As far as I am concerned 'postmodern' is an art movement...

Apologies, had missed this. Sarky/endacl

It is and has been historically an art movement (assuming you are including all art, music, literature, etc), and a philosophy movement, and a cultural movement, etc. The word has been around quite a while, but in the modern context I would argue it is most strongly associated with the cultural revolution of the 1960s and the re-evaluation of Western values. That is the context I am using the word in anyway.

I would agree with sarky and endacl that less adherence to authority "facts" and opinion, and emphasis on free expression, has led to lots of disparate and sometimes wacky opinion, but I see that as a natural offshoot. The broad benefits in individual freedoms gained by the 60s cultural revolution far outweigh the negatives in my opinion. I also think as time passes the enormity of the cultural changes in that era are being forgotten and taken for granted. Taking on the "man" in those days, whether it was political or religious authority figures, was quite different to the freedoms we enjoy today in terms of free expression, whether opinion or lifestyle choice.

Just my opinion, we could do with a bit of the spirit of the 1960s currently. I don't think the banking crisis and the aftermath to it would have passed off so passively in 1968, and the political classes would be having a little harder time of it.

gaynorvader

oxford dictionaries wrote:

postmodernism
Pronunciation: /pəʊstˈmɒdəˌnɪz(ə)m/
noun
[mass noun]
a late 20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism, which represents a departure from modernism and is characterized by the self-conscious use of earlier styles and conventions, a mixing of different artistic styles and media, and a general distrust of theories.

Sounds like a load of tripe to me, doesn't really seem to mean anything useful.

Bannasidhe

nagirrac wrote: »

Apologies, had missed this. Sarky/endacl

It is and has been historically an art movement (assuming you are including all art, music, literature, etc), and a philosophy movement, and a cultural movement, etc. The word has been around quite a while, but in the modern context I would argue it is most strongly associated with the cultural revolution of the 1960s and the re-evaluation of Western values. That is the context I am using the word in anyway.

I would agree with sarky and endacl that less adherence to authority "facts" and opinion, and emphasis on free expression, has led to lots of disparate and sometimes wacky opinion, but I see that as a natural offshoot. The broad benefits in individual freedoms gained by the 60s cultural revolution far outweigh the negatives in my opinion. I also think as time passes the enormity of the cultural changes in that era are being forgotten and taken for granted. Taking on the "man" in those days, whether it was political or religious authority figures, was quite different to the freedoms we enjoy today in terms of free expression, whether opinion or lifestyle choice.

Just my opinion, we could do with a bit of the spirit of the 1960s currently. I don't think the banking crisis and the aftermath to it would have passed off so passively in 1968, and the political classes would be having a little harder time of it.

I should clarify and say that I have attempted (just a little, but I did at least make an effort) to get a definition of postmodern from a close friend while she was writing her thesis which she kept telling me was terribly postmodern with lashings of queer theory. She hauled me up to her place one night to watch a load of films so she could include my (early modern?) perspective - so I asked her to define post-modern...you know, she still hasn't managed to but given she is now Dr **** and lecturing and funded her PhD with a scholarship of Ireland grant the fault may lie with me as what I was hearing sounded a load of bollix.

nagirrac

gaynorvader wrote: »

Sounds like a load of tripe to me, doesn't really seem to mean anything useful.

Once you start asking for specifics, it does sound like made up bs as bannasidhe described. It is a bit like trying to describe time to someone, it starts out easy and then gets bogged down quickly. If you think of it in broad terms of what societal attitudes were towards "acceptable" opinion and lifestyle on a whole variety of topics such as art, music, authority, religion, politics, sex, etc. pre and post sixties it becomes more clear. Put simply prior to the early sixties in Western culture young people were meant to be seen and not heard, this was reversed in the sixties to where young people exerted their influence, and the era from the early sixties to the early seventies saw tremendous upheaval of "traditional" values. By young people in the context of the time I mean teens to mid 20s.

It is very difficult for someone born in the 70s/80s/90s to appreciate how much of an influence the 60s cultural revolution had on broad Western society.

gaynorvader

nagirrac wrote: »

Once you start asking for specifics, it does sound like made up bs as bannasidhe described. It is a bit like trying to describe time to someone, it starts out easy and then gets bogged down quickly. If you think of it in broad terms of what societal attitudes were towards "acceptable" opinion and lifestyle on a whole variety of topics such as art, music, authority, religion, politics, sex, etc. pre and post sixties it becomes more clear. Put simply prior to the early sixties in Western culture young people were meant to be seen and not heard, this was reversed in the sixties to where young people exerted their influence, and the era from the early sixties to the early seventies saw tremendous upheaval of "traditional" values. By young people in the context of the time I mean teens to mid 20s.

It is very difficult for someone born in the 70s/80s/90s to appreciate how much of an influence the 60s cultural revolution had on broad Western society.

Sounds to me like we should just leave postmodernism as an empty term and just refer to the 60s cultural revolution as the 60s cultural revolution when we want to talk about it.

Mardy Bum

gaynorvader wrote: »

Sounds to me like we should just leave postmodernism as an empty term and just refer to the 60s cultural revolution as the 60s cultural revolution when we want to talk about it.

Unintentional postmodern (poststructuralist) reference.:D

KyussBishop

I'm certainly not much of a philosophy nerd; I'm wary of delving into it much, considering how easy it seems, while reading centuries-old texts of (now partially outdated) philosophy, to (in among wasting a lot of time) get tripped up intellectually, and accidentally land with your head up your arse.

However, from what I can tell about postmodernism (which isn't hugely easy to read up on), it's useful for questioning norms culturally/socially and in the social sciences in general (where evidence isn't always easily available/applied) - just keep it far faaar away from any of the hard sciences, and don't use it to do any silly crap like deny evidence (which just holds back fields that could become more evidence-based and scientific).

When it starts getting used to deny basic evidence, that's just more approaching nihilism, and the idea that "we can't really be certain about anything so why bother", which is just...not very smart.
Both of these things, are the kind of anti-science ideological black-holes, that are usually backed with heavily obfuscatory text, which make me wary of reading much philosophy.

There's an 'ok' RationalWiki page on it here as well:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Postmodernism

Akrasia

Philosophy and Science are two disciplines whose primary purpose is to enlighten, to help us make sense of the world around us

Postmodernism does the opposite. It seems like the point of postmodernism is to take clear ideas and make them inpenetrable. In challenging 'perceptions' it is throwing away any basis for rational enquiry and it is overly permissive, so (within a postmodernist debate) there is no way to demonstrate that one opinion is more or less valid than the other.

Truth is not independent of reality. Where there is room for multiple, contradictory truths to be 'true' at the same time, then the problem is that the question was too vague.

Q) Is the earth round
A1) Yes, the earth is a sphere
A2) No, the earth is an oblique spheroid but the surface has many topographical features that make it bumpy, while the atmosphere and magnetic field is affected by the solar wind which could imply that the 'earth' including the magnetic field is more of an egg shape

Both of these answers are true, even though they are contradictory, however, they are true on different levels of explanation.
This is acceptable because at the heart is an appreciation for the explanatory powers of science and communication.

However, Postmodernism doesn't value rationality, instead it challenges rationality and 'assumptions' and thus it becomes a cesspool filled with intellectually vacuous discussion between people who know all the academic jargon but have no understanding of how to string a coherent thought together.

Listening to two postmodern theorists debate each other is like listening to two theologens arguing about the theological meaning of a passage in the bible. They'll be experts in the field that they're arguing in, but the field itself has nothing interesting worth being an expert in.

gaynorvader

Akrasia wrote: »

...

Q) Is the earth round
A1) Yes, the earth is a sphere
A2) No, the earth is an oblique spheroid but the surface has many topographical features that make it bumpy, while the atmosphere and magnetic field is affected by the solar wind which could imply that the 'earth' including the magnetic field is more of an egg shape

...

A3) If you were to blow a billiard ball up to the size of the earth it would have much bigger bumps and troughs.

No direct answer given, but perhaps more informative than the other two as it uses a reference we are familiar with. It's interesting how different answers can still be correct.

Sarky

It's not about being right, it's about being less wrong.

18AD

Postmodernism as a term covers a lot of diverse ground. To say that all postmodernism is wrong is very un-postmodern. And if you agree with that then you're already getting into the spirit of postmodernism. Attaboy.


I'm surprised that there is such disregard for it here in this thread. One of the primary motives of postmodernism was to dispell the idea of the absolute, which obviously covers things like God, metaphysics etc... but controversially also absolute facts or knowledge.

"The 'absolute' is humanity's laziest thought." - Nick Land (Not a postmodernist)

While some may veer in the direction of an outright denial of facts a lot of it doesn't.

I'd say that two primary concerns for postmodernism are meaning and power and how these effect our understanding of the world.

So you have to be weary of the use of power behind all claims to facts. Untruths will be presented as facts because it might benefit someone and it does well to be aware of this. It ties in with the work of Thomas Kuhn. Facts exist within human power relations.

In relation to meaning you have to be aware that meaning is constantly in flux. So granted something may be absolutely true it's meaning will drastically change over time due to the constant flux of existence. Meaning is socially constructed. In some cases something could be true but meaningless etc...

If anything postmodernism is about always thinking on your feet and not slipping into dogmatism.

The modern condition of thinking that it's alright to believe whatever you please is a bizarre consequence of postmodernism but also, I'd say, of a tolerant secular society.

nagirrac

Good post 18AD. If you define postmodernism purely in terms of philosophy the it's all over the map, but then again philosophy is all over the map anyway. In terms of the cultural, political and societal impact, the most significant change compared to modernism, which predated it, is the rejection of the notion of an utopian society based on ideology. In that sense it was a natural response to the excesses of the 20th century, which were driven by ideology. Lots of babies were thrown out with the bathwater, but modernism is by and large no loss. We live in a global multicultural world and Western elitism is now largely irrelevant.

Bannasidhe

nagirrac wrote: »

Good post 18AD. If you define postmodernism purely in terms of philosophy the it's all over the map, but then again philosophy is all over the map anyway. In terms of the cultural, political and societal impact, the most significant change compared to modernism, which predated it, is the rejection of the notion of an utopian society based on ideology. In that sense it was a natural response to the excesses of the 20th century, which were driven by ideology. Lots of babies were thrown out with the bathwater, but modernism is by and large no loss. We live in a global multicultural world and Western elitism is now largely irrelevant.

But, said she trying to get into the spirit of the thing, isn't this whole notion of there being a 'early modern', 'modern' and 'postmodern' world based on a very Eurocentric model and stating that we are now in the post modern phase is to privilege that Eurocentic model and impose it on the world. So same meat different gravy really...



Am I doing it right?

18AD

Am I doing it right?

Yes.

nagirrac

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But, said she trying to get into the spirit of the thing, isn't this whole notion of there being a 'early modern', 'modern' and 'postmodern' world based on a very Eurocentric model and stating that we are now in the post modern phase is to privilege that Eurocentic model and impose it on the world. So same meat different gravy really...


Am I doing it right?

Of course, sure everyone is right in postmodernism:D

I suppose the interesting question is how much truly has changed since the revolution? The West has been extremely Eurocentric for centuries, not just culturally, but politically and economically, and much to the cost of the third world in particular which has had its resources pillaged. Although great strides have been made in recent decades in terms of achieving equal rights for minorities in the West, has it actually translated to anything meaningful outside the West? If anything, I suppose global corporate capitalism is even stronger so minorities having more of a level playing field in the West translates to nada outside the West, except perhaps China, India and a few other countries that have benefitted from migration of low cost labor. Even there the impact has been increasing the average standard of living, but little or no progress on minority rights.

Brian Shanahan

nagirrac wrote: »

Define how and why postmodernism is "bollocks".

Postmodernism is bollocks because it denies reality.

Mardy Bum

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Postmodernism is bollocks because it denies reality.

Read Endgame by Beckett and Faith Healer by Friel. They are two of the best postmodern works Ireland has produced. They concern themselves with the subjective nature of memory, our astounding ability of self deception and storytelling. They are two of the most important artistic works people from Ireland have produced ever and are actually quite telling about human nature.

kiffer

nagirrac wrote: »

For example in the Ireland of the pre 60s, there were no homosexuals.. and that was a fact.

What?
I'm pretty sure that there were...
I mean Oscar Wilde preferred the company of men...
And by company I mean sex...
Sure the word may not have been in use but that's not the same thing at all.

Akrasia

nagirrac wrote: »

Good post 18AD. If you define postmodernism purely in terms of philosophy the it's all over the map, but then again philosophy is all over the map anyway. In terms of the cultural, political and societal impact, the most significant change compared to modernism, which predated it, is the rejection of the notion of an utopian society based on ideology. In that sense it was a natural response to the excesses of the 20th century, which were driven by ideology. Lots of babies were thrown out with the bathwater, but modernism is by and large no loss. We live in a global multicultural world and Western elitism is now largely irrelevant.

But there are superior ways of organising a society. I'm not saying that western society has gotten everything right and that all other parts of the world should be more like us.

But I can find some very strong arguments as to why Irish society is a better place to live than Somalia or Afghanistan, and I can find very strong arguments why Switzerland and Sweden are better places to live than Ireland and if we look at all the different types of society that exist in the world, we should be able to identify the best of all possible worlds where there is the best balance of democracy and stability, equality and opportunity, freedom and responsibility etc.

A postmodern interpretation which forbids anyone from being 'elitist' means that wooly liberal types have muzzeled their criticism of barbaric cultural practises such as Female Genital Mutilation and burning children as witches because they are too reluctant to be critical of other cultures.

We have standards in the west that I am prepared to defend as simply better than those exercised in other parts of the world.

1. Arranged marriages of children to grown men is simply wrong
2. Criminalising Homosexuality is wrong
3. Torturing and killing people for speaking out against the dominant religion is wrong
4. Hunting animals to extinction to extract body parts for 'traditional medicines' is wrong
5. Preventing women from accessing education is wrong

If anyone wants to make an argument as to why it is elitist to make any of these statements is welcome to post it here and we'll see how that discussion goes.

It is through constantly trying to better ourselves that humanity will stave off extinction and in order to do this, we need to stamp out the worst practises of old and encourage the best practices of the 21st century.

Brian Shanahan

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Read Endgame by Beckett and Faith Healer by Friel. They are two of the best postmodern works Ireland has produced. They concern themselves with the subjective nature of memory, our astounding ability of self deception and storytelling. They are two of the most important artistic works people from Ireland have produced ever and are actually quite telling about human nature.

Just because it manages to have something useful to say about memory doesn't make the fact that it denies reality any less relevant.

Even the worst ideologies manage to get some things right.

Mardy Bum

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Just because it manages to have something useful to say about memory doesn't make the fact that it denies reality any less relevant.

Even the worst ideologies manage to get some things right.

Art is art. It is not theology or politics. Paradoxically it (postmodernist art) doesn't purpose to be correct and all encompassing either, it is just a representation of the pervading atmosphere in the world at the time. Art is a response to humanity and although there are plenty of theories abounding regarding the function of aesthetics itself I would agree with David Foster Wallace in saying that "Art should disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed".

18AD

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Postmodernism is bollocks because it denies reality.

How does it deny reality?

nagirrac

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Postmodernism is bollocks because it denies reality.

Postmodernism does not deny reality, it denies that there are absolute truths about reality ("the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth" - Feyerabend). What postmodernism claims is that a correct description of reality is impossible as all truth is approximate and evolving continuously. We just need to look at the history of the various models of physical reality humans have had in history to see this, and there's no reason to expect this will change. This is just as much the case in science as any other discipline, as in we can never prove a theory to be true, we can only show that it is false (Popper).

Personally I think postmodernism has served its purpose in challenging the certainties of modernism, and in particular the adherence to dogmatic ideology which plagued the 20th century. Postmodernism has all kinds of problems itself, and true to its philosophy should evolve beyond itself.

Bannasidhe

nagirrac wrote: »

Postmodernism does not deny reality, it denies that there are absolute truths about reality ("the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth" - Feyerabend).

Yeah, Dr Queer Theory tried that one on me. I responded with 'Elizabeth I died in 1603. That is absolutely true.'

nagirrac

kiffer wrote: »

What?
I'm pretty sure that there were...
I mean Oscar Wilde preferred the company of men...
And by company I mean sex...
Sure the word may not have been in use but that's not the same thing at all.

Of course there were homosexuals in Ireland, no reason to believe the sexual orientation of the population would be any different in Ireland to anywhere else. My subtle point is that in bigoted blinkered Ireland, homosexuals did not exist in the public consciousness. The "truth" of the time in Ireland was that homosexuality only existed in other Godless places.

As supporting evidence for the above, Wilde of course wasn't a homosexual in Ireland where he grew up, and indeed married and had two children after moving to Oxford, before encountering that "lifestyle" :rolleyes:.

Bannasidhe

nagirrac wrote: »

Of course there were homosexuals in Ireland, no reason to believe the sexual orientation of the population would be any different in Ireland to anywhere else. My subtle point is that in bigoted blinkered Ireland, homosexuals did not exist in the public consciousness. The "truth" of the time in Ireland was that homosexuality only existed in other Godless places.

As supporting evidence for the above, Wilde of course wasn't a homosexual in Ireland where he grew up, and indeed married and had two children after moving to Oxford, before encountering that "lifestyle" :rolleyes:.

What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miche%C3%A1l_Mac_Liamm%C3%B3ir ?

Everyone knew about him.

nagirrac

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miche%C3%A1l_Mac_Liamm%C3%B3ir ?

Everyone knew about him.

Yes, but he was English born and a Protestant to boot, so by definition Godless :P

On a serious note, a great and courageous Irishman, up there with Wilde in terms of challenging the accepted mores of the time. A bit of an irony that his great contribution to my native Galway was built on the ruins of a friary, poetic justice indeed.

Akrasia

There has never been a postmodernist argument that would have survived the Microsoft Word spelling and grammar check without being accused of 'Wordiness'

KyussBishop

nagirrac wrote: »

Postmodernism does not deny reality, it denies that there are absolute truths about reality ("the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth" - Feyerabend). What postmodernism claims is that a correct description of reality is impossible as all truth is approximate and evolving continuously. We just need to look at the history of the various models of physical reality humans have had in history to see this, and there's no reason to expect this will change. This is just as much the case in science as any other discipline, as in we can never prove a theory to be true, we can only show that it is false (Popper).

Personally I think postmodernism has served its purpose in challenging the certainties of modernism, and in particular the adherence to dogmatic ideology which plagued the 20th century. Postmodernism has all kinds of problems itself, and true to its philosophy should evolve beyond itself.

It's not just about proving falsehood though, it's about building credibility based on evidence, and I think the fault of postmodernism, is it can be abused to cast doubt on something backed well with evidence, and to promote other things which have very poor evidential backing but which are 'not wrong' i.e. not provably wrong.

If you look at economics for instance, it's a field plagued by this kind of idiotic thinking (though I don't think any of that is, to my knowledge, rooted in postmodernism).

In this case, postmodernism can get abused to effectively deny evidence, and to promote other theories which are far more ideologically based/backed - that is part of the danger I see of it, and why I think it may primarily only be useful in areas where evidence may not be easily at hand, and empiricism not so easily applied.

So this is the application of postmodernism that can be seen as kind of unscientific/backwards (when applied in a faux-skeptical way) - when it gets abused to cast doubt on fields of science that are more evidence-backed, and to hold back social sciences that have potential to become more evidence-based and empirical in their application/theory.

robindch

Can't believe we've got this far without somebody mentioning Alan Sokal.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Can't believe we've got this far without somebody mentioning Alan Sokal.

I read about that hoax several months ago. Absolutely brilliant.

Mardy Bum

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's not just about proving falsehood though, it's about building credibility based on evidence, and I think the fault of postmodernism, is it can be abused to cast doubt on something backed well with evidence, and to promote other things which have very poor evidential backing but which are 'not wrong' i.e. not provably wrong.

If you look at economics for instance, it's a field plagued by this kind of idiotic thinking (though I don't think any of that is, to my knowledge, rooted in postmodernism).

In this case, postmodernism can get abused to effectively deny evidence, and to promote other theories which are far more ideologically based/backed - that is part of the danger I see of it, and why I think it may primarily only be useful in areas where evidence may not be easily at hand, and empiricism not so easily applied.

So this is the application of postmodernism that can be seen as kind of unscientific/backwards (when applied in a faux-skeptical way) - when it gets abused to cast doubt on fields of science that are more evidence-backed, and to hold back social sciences that have potential to become more evidence-based and empirical in their application/theory.

The only sociopolitical field which has been affected in any major way has been gender studies/ post structuralist feminism.