Postmodernism

So I started reading an anthology of Post-modernism in a hopeless attempt to understand a Critical Theory course I'm taking. Basically what it boils down to is that there is no such thing as truth or reason and everything is a social construct betraying our underlying prejudices. I don't know if I buy it... Do you?

It's called "po-mo" for short.

first.

Milton the best thing i can suggest is to try to get a grip of the ideas behind modernsim.

Art isnt the answer, to the worlds issues.

Introduction to Postmodernism

The current Postmodern belief is that a correct description of Reality is impossible. This extreme skepticism, of which Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn are particularly famous, assumes that;

a) All truth is limited, approximate, and is constantly evolving

b) No theory can ever be proved true (we can only show that a theory is false)

c) No theory can ever explain all things

d) Thus absolute and certain truth that explains all things is unobtainable.

It's like hip to say. I say it all the time. Every time I say it girls give me the 'I want to suck your cock' signal. I'm still not sure what it means though.

^^^ That probably works better than "Hey girl theres something on your shoe".

Originally posted by heavyLox@Mar 4 2006, 10:58 PM

Introduction to Postmodernism

 

Karl Popper

Quoted post

Blech :yuck:. The open society and its enemies was a load of bullshit. He doesnt even discredit platos Ideas and hardly dicusses his own.

Originally posted by Gat:Bush@Mar 4 2006, 10:14 PM

^^^ That probably works better than "Hey girl theres something on your shoe".

Quoted post

Yea that shit requires spontaneous pelvic thrust action. It can kill if you don't do it right.

postmodernism was my other 12oz screen name

Okay, fine, you caught me. I am, in fact, a pseudo intellectual. I asked a question about a topic I don't understand, that must be what tipped you off. I'm sorry I don't live up to your standards. Imagine all of the mean things you could say about me if you found out I was trying to be a professor. You'd probably give me a complex. I better keep that on the down low.

Heavy_Lox

What you said I agree with to some extent. In so far as truth is not knowable, and that our theories are approximations of what we're trying to explain. But that's about as far as I'm willing to go with it. I can't cosign the idea that reason, rationality or logic are social constructs that betray a bias. Are they often used to mask bias, of course, does that mean that they have no vitality without it, I don't think so.

But what do I know, I'm just a pseudo intellectual.

pseudo intellects i dont mind, self deprecation as a statement on the other hand...

no just kidding. keep going.

i only have a loose grasp on modernity as it is, so ill just listen to you gab about post modernism for now and see what i can pick up on. oh and where do you teach, mr. grad student.

Cheer up, Milton, you know most people can't hang with anything of much significance on Channel 0. It's all jokes and trivia and that's why we love it.

I'll try to be serious for a second though. If I'm on the right page, I agree with you. I think social constructs are important because they work as a harness in the event that one were to vear too far out of stream. I'm not a conformist by any means, but there is reasons why some issues are so contentious, and the most moderate standpoint on most of these issues tend to be what is best. That is what's great about society. There is a whole scale of biases and standpoints, but gathered together you can refine it into a smooth equilibrium running down the middle.

I'm way more into Socratic thinking than any form of postmodernism. I just see it as verging on complete solipsism, and that couldn't be a good thing. But there's reason behind it. There's no doubt postmodernism and existentialism's weariness of group-think is a biproduct of 20th century atrocities.

Originally posted by Milton@Mar 4 2006, 10:53 PM

Heavy_Lox

What you said I agree with to some extent. In so far as truth is not knowable, and that our theories are approximations of what we're trying to explain. But that's about as far as I'm willing to go with it. I can't cosign the idea that reason, rationality or logic are social constructs that betray a bias. Are they often used to mask bias, of course, does that mean that they have no vitality without it, I don't think so.

 

But what do I know, I'm just a pseudo intellectual.

Quoted post

its hard to generalize casue post modernism is dealt with in various ways in various feilds. The arts and sciences are a bit different.

it does make basic sense that based on your surroundings and perception of reality you form your understanding of the world. Artustically there was this notion that art could accomplish this thing that other disciplines could not. The idea of art as a binder of worlds. Where generally in PM the notion of art having a over arching role or responsibility to the world beyond exploring itself.

i will also say ive steered as clear of PM theory and writtings and crtique as possible. thus i may be full of shit.

Originally posted by sillysiphilis@Mar 5 2006, 12:10 AM

Cheer up, Milton, you know most people can't hang with anything of much significance on Channel 0. It's all jokes and trivia and that's why we love it.

I'll try to be serious for a second though. If I'm on the right page, I agree with you. I think social constructs are important because they work as a harness in the event that one were to vear too far out of stream. I'm not a conformist by any means, but there is reasons why some issues are so contentious, and the most moderate standpoint on most of these issues tend to be what is best. That is what's great about society. There is a whole scale of biases and standpoints, but gathered together you can refine it into a smooth equilibrium running down the middle.

I'm way more into Socratic thinking than any form of postmodernism. I just see it as verging on complete solipsism, and that couldn't be a good thing. But there's reason behind it. There's no doubt postmodernism and existentialism's weariness of group-think is a biproduct of 20th century atrocities.

Quoted post

Sounds like your stuck in the renaisance ( :yuck: I always mispell that word).

Anyhow from what I understand graffiti fits into the post-modern art bill.

I'm mostly interested in post-modernism as a philosophy with respect to critical legal theory. Since the law prizes rationality so highly, PM theory is a provocative (read: scary) prospect. And to some extent I'm with them. Legal realism, for instance, is closely related if not a full part of post-modern theory and argues that judges do not make decisions based on rationality. I agree to a large extent that discretion and intuition make up decisions more than say precedent or neutral principle. On the other hand I don't quite buy the idea that rationality, as a decision making tool, is non-existent. Then again, I am hugely biased towards systems theory and logic as applied to law, so I am a big sucker for a purely logical (even textualist) argument. It's hard to let go of that.

They're still scared to let me teach people, I think they're afraid I'll say something disruptive. Actually I just turned in my first seminar proposal, so we'll see. Mostly I'm just trying to get publicized.

I'm not quite clear on post-modernism in the arts, or if that has to do with post modern philosophy. I guess I could see graffiti as shocking and "in your face" which is highly valued in post modern argument. (From what I've read in the past week and a half.)

Oh ya, Heavy, have you heard of the Sokal affair?

Originally posted by MAR+Mar 5 2006, 03:23 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MAR - Mar 5 2006, 03:23 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-heavyLox@Mar 4 2006, 10:58 PM

Introduction to Postmodernism

 

Karl Popper

Quoted post

Blech :yuck:. The open society and its enemies was a load of bullshit. He doesnt even discredit platos Ideas and hardly dicusses his own.

[/b]

Thats the problem I have with the whole philosophy. If there is no such thing as merit, how can you value post-modern theory over modernism? Stanley Fish said with respect to post-modern literature "It has rid me of the necessity of being right, I am only required to be interesting."

I'm quite hungover at the moment. So I haven't bothered reading this thread. But if no one else has said it I don't think Post Modernism can really be summed up. People devote entire sessions of university courses debating its definition on a weekly basis and still don't really get anywhere. (Like all humanities shit). I guess your best bet is to pick out the really key charectoristics. Whoever told you to learn about Modernism first is on the money. While the loss of total value is a big part of it. I think this stuff was also really explored in Modernism (death of God and all of that). But you see in Post Modernism a kind of evolution of that. And from that comes alot of other note worthy points. Appropriation is a big part of it, both because it can challenge contextual norms but also because it looks for something to ground itself on. If that makes any sense.

Also you should keep in mind there is a significant amount of academics who believe that Post Modernity is not a justifiable definition or whatever you'd like to call it. They say nothing really has changed since Modernity and we are still in that state.

Also I just read your post above. Everything I said is from an Humanities and fine arts background. But it sounds like you want to read Derrida, because it sounds like the legal stuff your talking about has some relevance to Deconstructionalism. And maybe Foucault, because he talks alot about the human condition in regard to the state.

Originally posted by Milton@Mar 5 2006, 03:53 AM

In so far as truth is not knowable, and that our theories are approximations of what we're trying to explain. But that's about as far as I'm willing to go with it. I can't cosign the idea that reason, rationality or logic are social constructs that betray a bias. Are they often used to mask bias, of course, does that mean that they have no vitality without it, I don't think so.

 

But what do I know, I'm just a pseudo intellectual.

Quoted post

Dude I don't know why I keep replying to this thread. But having read that you should read Saul kripke's famous reading of witgenstein as a lecturer about it. It's contemporary philosophy so I guess it falls into the post modern camp?

Eitherway it very clearly explains why logic as we know it is a social construct.

Basically he says a rule can't stand alone because for that one rule an infinate number of other rules are possible. Like you might think 2 ,4 ,6 ,8 ... and then the rational next number would be 10. yes? Sure to you it would be but you have your own certain bias. A phd mathematician (with an entirely different set of biases ) would know that you could have any number after that and it would be equally as correct. For instance how do you know that the sequence isn't 2, 4,6,8,20,22,24,26,28,40 etc.

This shit is way the fuck over my head. Any actual-college-students want to point out a place to start for an art-college-student? The closest the cirriculum gets to a GE at Academy Art U. in SF is a second semester of english... and 8th grade geometry.

If my kids want to go to art college, I'ma ask em if they want to be poor AND dumb.

Originally posted by Milton@Mar 5 2006, 03:26 AM

 

Oh ya, Heavy, have you heard of the Sokal affair?

Quoted post

i am familiar with it but have yet to make it through the whole text. But I get that he 'compossed' a series of references to prove the ultimate point of things being overly subjective and the idea you can support even the most rediculous of theorys, when weaving together a gazillion other articles that may or may not have any real bearing on the the topic.

it also goes to prove who idiotic much academia is, but that is not new.

Originally posted by Milton+Mar 5 2006, 04:28 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Milton - Mar 5 2006, 04:28 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by MAR@Mar 5 2006, 03:23 AM

<!--QuoteBegin-heavyLox@Mar 4 2006, 10:58 PM

Introduction to Postmodernism

 

Karl Popper

Quoted post

 

Blech :yuck:. The open society and its enemies was a load of bullshit. He doesnt even discredit platos Ideas and hardly dicusses his own.

Quoted post

Thats the problem I have with the whole philosophy. If there is no such thing as merit, how can you value post-modern theory over modernism? Stanley Fish said with respect to post-modern literature "It has rid me of the necessity of being right, I am only required to be interesting."

[/b]

and it wasnt even that. It was painful to get through it.

milton or heavylox, have either of you read much about logical positivism, or weittgenstein? I am in a philosophy of science class right now and we are focusing mostly around that stuff. I have been understanding a lot more of post modernism now because of reading this stuff. Lox is right about reading about the modern period stuff first. A lot ofo the main ideas in P.M. can be seen starting to be formed in positivist writings. From what I have been understanding of things, the positivists hit a wall in philosophy, trying to decide what could ultimately be figured out by using it. Eventually they decided that there are only certain ways one can say a truth. Through examination of meaning one can figure out the limits of truth. Also that most of what we say is meaningless gibberish. The positivists died a bad death once people realized that by virtue of their own philosophy, it was pointless. But, you can see where some of the nhilistic concepts of post modernism emerge from. Also a lot of it was started by the realization of the disparity between observation, observational language and regular language.

The implications for empericism is pretty interesting though. Regardless of what truth one might find through emperical data, making sense of it becomes a moot point once you try to transfer it from the observational language into regular language. As a physics student, this goes to the heart of me.

As far as your original question about whether or not anyone ascribes to Post modernist ideals, I'd say I sorta do. I've been moving more towards it though from all these readings from class.

I need to take a logic class, but I heard a really good lecture last year about the limits of knowledge from this visiting proffesor.

edit cus to say I just realized most of what I said was covered in some form or another. But either way, any of you guys do any philosophy of science stuff?

the cat in the hat vs queen victoria's shame in khartoum. I ask what is the modern?

girl can i pomo white in yo nose?

"po-mo equals everything is in quotation marks"

"Hydro Bill"

I just started to touch on some of this, but from the angle of historical theory.

its not going to help you get a job.