Shopping & Style1 min ago
Postmodernism
34 Answers
Can someone please explain is layman's what postmodernism is? I have just looked it up on wikipedia and frankly didn't understand a word of it!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by meglet. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
All you need to know about the obscurantist nonsense that is postmodernism, and which proves that it is the most egregious nonsense is the Sokal Affair.
Alan Sokal, a physicist at New York, submitted and had submitted an article titled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" in a post modernist publication called Social Text. Sokal's article was balderdash from beginning to end. It made no sense because it was just incomprehensible postmodernist gobbledegook parodying the nonsence that is post modernism and which meant precisely nothing.
It got published.
Alan Sokal, a physicist at New York, submitted and had submitted an article titled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" in a post modernist publication called Social Text. Sokal's article was balderdash from beginning to end. It made no sense because it was just incomprehensible postmodernist gobbledegook parodying the nonsence that is post modernism and which meant precisely nothing.
It got published.
Modernism was an art/culture style from the 1930s or so but like any 'style' it couldn't go on forever. Postmodernism was the name for styles that succeeded it. It's used most obviously of architecture (more decorative design in reaction against the plain, shoeboxy skyscraper), less so of writing or fine arts.
Although the context can dictate the term applicable to art and culture, as jno describes, the term, usually applied by insider elitists at academic ivory towers addresses a transformation in defining truth,(in all areas of life). Their definition of truth is "nothing, according to the postmodernist, can be determined to be "true", except postmodernism. The attempt, again, emanates primarily from liberal univesities (at least here in the U.S.)
From the early 1900's until about 1980 or so, it was accepted that truth could be defined and was universally recognized by certain traits. Beginning with the French (of course) deconstructionists who maintained there is no ultimate truth, other than that which the individual determines for him/herself the creed Your truth is as valid as my truth, but made more so if you are dedicated to overthrowing society's paradigms became fashionable.
The most visibile, aggravating and dangerous (in my opinion) example is the emergence of Political Correctness. This seeks to subvert any cultural norms in favor of a feigned acceptance of any purported ism (feminism, multi-culturalism). One writer describing the phenomena states "...Like all academic foolishness, it (postmodernism) has an argot of jargon, tropes and incoherent phraseology recapitulated continuously by the cognoscenti. It distills, ultimately, to mere posturing as a substitute for intellectual fervor. Although nothing, according to the postmodernist, can be determined to be "true", postmodernism itself is, of course, True..."
From the early 1900's until about 1980 or so, it was accepted that truth could be defined and was universally recognized by certain traits. Beginning with the French (of course) deconstructionists who maintained there is no ultimate truth, other than that which the individual determines for him/herself the creed Your truth is as valid as my truth, but made more so if you are dedicated to overthrowing society's paradigms became fashionable.
The most visibile, aggravating and dangerous (in my opinion) example is the emergence of Political Correctness. This seeks to subvert any cultural norms in favor of a feigned acceptance of any purported ism (feminism, multi-culturalism). One writer describing the phenomena states "...Like all academic foolishness, it (postmodernism) has an argot of jargon, tropes and incoherent phraseology recapitulated continuously by the cognoscenti. It distills, ultimately, to mere posturing as a substitute for intellectual fervor. Although nothing, according to the postmodernist, can be determined to be "true", postmodernism itself is, of course, True..."
A term which is applied to loads including literature, art, philosophy, architecture, fiction, psychology and cultural theory. Its impetus is largely a reaction to the claims of certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality.
As a theory it it questions that reality is fixed and out there, not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather, reality is constructed interactively with the world as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality. It therefore helps explain how things considered the 'truth' change over time, in different cultures betweeen different peoples. That knowldge can not be seperated from the knower.
For this reason, postmodernism questions all explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. Rather understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one's own experience will be subjective and relative, rather than certain and universal. What is true for white powerful men, might not seem the truth for others such as black, women, disabled etc
to be cont
As a theory it it questions that reality is fixed and out there, not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather, reality is constructed interactively with the world as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality. It therefore helps explain how things considered the 'truth' change over time, in different cultures betweeen different peoples. That knowldge can not be seperated from the knower.
For this reason, postmodernism questions all explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. Rather understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one's own experience will be subjective and relative, rather than certain and universal. What is true for white powerful men, might not seem the truth for others such as black, women, disabled etc
to be cont
part 2
It has as a theory a lot of validity in the social sciences (in my opinion) as it offers a voice to groups not traditionally as vocal as the dominant discourse - white powerful men (often dead but their theories still revered) but also has a place in critiquing the traditional sciences which can get carried away with knowing the 'truth'.
It is "post" because it is denies the existence of any ultimate principles, and it lacks the optimism of there being a scientific, philosophical, or religious truth which will explain everything for everybody - a characteristic of the so-called "modern" mind. As Clanad alludes to the paradox of the position in that, in placing all principles under the scrutiny of scepticism, post modernism itself as a theory recognises that even its own principles are not beyond questioning.
It has as a theory a lot of validity in the social sciences (in my opinion) as it offers a voice to groups not traditionally as vocal as the dominant discourse - white powerful men (often dead but their theories still revered) but also has a place in critiquing the traditional sciences which can get carried away with knowing the 'truth'.
It is "post" because it is denies the existence of any ultimate principles, and it lacks the optimism of there being a scientific, philosophical, or religious truth which will explain everything for everybody - a characteristic of the so-called "modern" mind. As Clanad alludes to the paradox of the position in that, in placing all principles under the scrutiny of scepticism, post modernism itself as a theory recognises that even its own principles are not beyond questioning.
Hi meg, I asked this question a wee while ago, hope the link helps
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Cul ture/Question495456.html
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Cul ture/Question495456.html
Who funds all of this claptrap?
Christians, whether you are a believer or not, are generally funded from within their own communities, although there are of course, grants from government, local authorities etc, but people associated with this elitist nonsense get their bread from somewhere? Where? Do they live in ivory towers at the expense of the working classes?
How many thickos go to college to study an, "ology", and then land a community funded position as an, "ologist?"
Christians, whether you are a believer or not, are generally funded from within their own communities, although there are of course, grants from government, local authorities etc, but people associated with this elitist nonsense get their bread from somewhere? Where? Do they live in ivory towers at the expense of the working classes?
How many thickos go to college to study an, "ology", and then land a community funded position as an, "ologist?"
Ruby, not at all. But I don't understand what possible return society gets on its investment to fund people building castles in the sky.
What use are they?
How do they benefit us?
I'm only asking the question because I admit I don't understand.
It just seems to me to be a gravy train, and I wouldn't mind climbing aboard myself as I'm looking for a job.
I don't mind being paid for achieving nothing, so long as I put the hours in. Bureaucracy here I come!
What use are they?
How do they benefit us?
I'm only asking the question because I admit I don't understand.
It just seems to me to be a gravy train, and I wouldn't mind climbing aboard myself as I'm looking for a job.
I don't mind being paid for achieving nothing, so long as I put the hours in. Bureaucracy here I come!
Oh so if Waldo says its bunkum and chakka35 says it is then it must be true. Classic modernism.
That meglet is why postmodernism came about because of the modernist response. These posts show what modernism and postmodernism is. You have those who make sweeping statements stating that they have the knowledge and the right of the matter, the Waldo's and chakka's, are modernists. Their reality would appear to be fixed and their world view correct, anyone who has an alternative viewpoint is to be ridiculed or dismissed.
Yes there are pretentious nutters who espouse the pm viewpoint as Waldo demonstrates, but if only sane and sensible people were allowed to support theories/paradigms, then there would be a very limited amount of research and knowledge available to anyone.
That meglet is why postmodernism came about because of the modernist response. These posts show what modernism and postmodernism is. You have those who make sweeping statements stating that they have the knowledge and the right of the matter, the Waldo's and chakka's, are modernists. Their reality would appear to be fixed and their world view correct, anyone who has an alternative viewpoint is to be ridiculed or dismissed.
Yes there are pretentious nutters who espouse the pm viewpoint as Waldo demonstrates, but if only sane and sensible people were allowed to support theories/paradigms, then there would be a very limited amount of research and knowledge available to anyone.
Here are just two examples of post-modernism:
We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or arch-writing, depending on the author, and this multi-referential, multi-dimentional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion...reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontolological binarism we criticised previously.
If dialectic desituationism holds, we have to choose between Habermasian discourse and the subtextual paradigm of context. .....
No, no I can't go on. The brain just becomes numb.
That wonderful much-missed man, the late Peter Medawar, in a masterly put-down of the whole nonsense, detected a deliberate intention to be as obscure as possible . He said:
A writer on structuralism in the Times Literary Supplement has suggested that thoughts which are confused and tortuous by reason of their profundity are most appropriately expressed in prose that is deliberately unclear. What a preposterously silly idea! I was reminded of an air-raid warden in wartime Oxford who, when bright moonlight seemed to be defeating the spirit of the black-out, exhorted us to wear dark glasses. He, however, was being funny on purpose.
We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or arch-writing, depending on the author, and this multi-referential, multi-dimentional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion...reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontolological binarism we criticised previously.
If dialectic desituationism holds, we have to choose between Habermasian discourse and the subtextual paradigm of context. .....
No, no I can't go on. The brain just becomes numb.
That wonderful much-missed man, the late Peter Medawar, in a masterly put-down of the whole nonsense, detected a deliberate intention to be as obscure as possible . He said:
A writer on structuralism in the Times Literary Supplement has suggested that thoughts which are confused and tortuous by reason of their profundity are most appropriately expressed in prose that is deliberately unclear. What a preposterously silly idea! I was reminded of an air-raid warden in wartime Oxford who, when bright moonlight seemed to be defeating the spirit of the black-out, exhorted us to wear dark glasses. He, however, was being funny on purpose.
Postmodernism is an attempt to throw the baby out with the bath water. Rather then seek out and expose the faulty premises in prevailing modernist philosophy that have lead us down a road of consequences culminating in disillusionment, pomo is the belief that reality will respond to and be altered beneficially by popular opinion if only enough people can be persuaded to follow a blind leader with a mind numbing ability to obfuscate the meanings of their words.
Thanks to everyone for their responses and apologies for not returning to the thread earlier.
An interesting debate. In modern culture I hear the term frequently and it appears to be bandied about willy-nilly by many who actually have no understanding of its true meaning.
Can anyone recommend any further reading?
An interesting debate. In modern culture I hear the term frequently and it appears to be bandied about willy-nilly by many who actually have no understanding of its true meaning.
Can anyone recommend any further reading?
Oh c'mon Mibs, you could write a longer post than that! when I saw your name come up, I grabbed my popcorn and coke and settled down, but you let me down!
I was hoping you would make real ar$e paper of it all and entertain me in doing so. And waht about the gravy train?
Nobody has addressed this aspect of it yet.
I was hoping you would make real ar$e paper of it all and entertain me in doing so. And waht about the gravy train?
Nobody has addressed this aspect of it yet.
meglet, I recommend you read the chapter 'Postmodernism Disrobed' in Richard Dawkins' book A Devil's Chaplain, and the chapter 'The Demolition Merchants of Reality' in Frances Wheen's hilariously perceptive book How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World.
Among other things you'll learn the po-mo mathematics that proves that the penis is the square root of minus one, and that the equation E=mc^2 is a 'sexed equation' because it 'privileges the speed of light over less masculine speeds...'.
Among other things you'll learn the po-mo mathematics that proves that the penis is the square root of minus one, and that the equation E=mc^2 is a 'sexed equation' because it 'privileges the speed of light over less masculine speeds...'.
