s/o Postmodernism, what does that mean to you?

[Onceuponatime]

In a recent thread a poster was adamantly against her children become postmodernists. I thought I knew what that meant, but never having really studied the concept, I thought I would look it up quickly.

 

I bounced on over to Wikipedia where I was totally swamped with words and explanations that I did not understand at all. What little I could understand didn't sound that bad to me and I began to wonder if I am a postmodernist without knowing it. Is that possible?

 

This is what I understood the most:

 

"These four worldviews are the Postmodern-ironist, which sees truth as socially constructed; the scientific-rational, in which truth is found through methodical, disciplined inquiry; the social-traditional, in which truth is found in the heritage of American and Western civilization; and the neo-romantic, in which truth is found through attaining harmony with nature and/or spiritual exploration of the inner self."

 

Well, I can identify with some of that. Does that make me a postmodernist? I never use the word paradigm, because it annoys me. I never say meta-anything either. I find people who do pretentious. (JMO)

 

 

This is what I had always assumed postmodernism was:

 

"The term postmodernism, when used pejoratively, describes tendencies perceived as relativist, counter-enlightenment or antimodern, particularly in relation to critiques of rationalism, universalism or science. It is also sometimes used to describe tendencies in a society that are held to be antithetical to traditional systems of morality."

 

It seems that this is not necessarily so.

 

If you have working knowledge of postmodernism, could you explain what it means to you, in language that the ignorant can understand? ;) Some concrete examples would be nice too.

 

Aside: What are post-post modernists called?

[Ester Maria]

That would require such a long-winded response that it would really go outside the format of the forum.

 

If you have lots of patience and free time to really attempt to understand this issue, start with Lyotard, Foucault and Derrida, and then see where your reading takes you further. Very few people I know manage to hold a firm middle ground - usually people either totally fall for it (especially the young and the impressionable ones), either despise it and consider it a mentally dangerous hoax - a one that is on the track of something, definitely, but ultimately, a destructive potential.

 

It is a complex issue. A lot more complex than I make it in my posts, I would talk about it a lot differenly in academia than on these boards. Sometimes dogmatism (with a firm understanding of what value means and why value statements cannot be equivalent to factual ones) is preferred, seriously. Keeping your mind too open makes it fall out at times.

 

And now I am gooooone.

:leaving:

[Sebastian (a lady)]

We once toured a Contemporary Art Museum, where the currator was explaining how the work there wasn't Modern, but was Post-Modern. The short version is that the artists showcased believed that the events of the modern era had demonstrated that the traditional foundations of meaning in society were of little value. So they were either searching for new meaning or looking for purpose in a world where they had determined there wasn't much actual meaning.

 

I'm sure there are more nuances, particularly from within that belief system.

[Peela]

I have no idea but I identify with that neo-romantic world view. And I thought I was so unique and all but they have even invented a fancy name for me :)

[Onceuponatime]

Very few people I know manage to hold a firm middle ground - usually people either totally fall for it (especially the young and the impressionable ones), either despise it and consider it a mentally dangerous hoax - a one that is on the track of something, definitely, but ultimately, a destructive potential.

 

It is a complex issue. A lot more complex than I make it in my posts, I would talk about it a lot differenly in academia than on these boards. Sometimes dogmatism (with a firm understanding of what value means and why value statements cannot be equivalent to factual ones) is preferred, seriously. Keeping your mind too open makes it fall out at times.

 

 

 

See, this the bold part is what I don't really understand. What is it about postmodernism that makes it dangerous and destructive?

 

Your second paragraph leads me to think that postmodernism says that there is no truth at all and that it despises those who see truth in anything. I can see how that could be dangerous.

 

However, that doesn't seem to fit with the 4 worldviews that was mentioned in the article. I can see some of the scientific-rational and the neo-romantic in myself. (even those seem contrary to each other)

[The Girls' Mom]

My husband just did a paper on postmodernity....and he's still a little fuzzy. In fact, his prof congratulated him on doing such a good job on such a hard thing to nail down. After reading his work, and listening to all the points of view on it that he had to wade through, I'm convinced that no one really can nail it down!

[Rosie_0801]

See, this the bold part is what I don't really understand. What is it about postmodernism that makes it dangerous and destructive?

 

Your second paragraph leads me to think that postmodernism says that there is no truth at all and that it despises those who see truth in anything. I can see how that could be dangerous.

 

I haven't studied it in depth. Actually I haven't studied it at all and usually ran screaming from my English major buddies when they started up.

 

As far as I can tell, it kind of matters what subject area you are talking about.

 

In art, it's what Sebastian was saying. Except this is definitely not the first time in history that artists have done this.

 

In other ways it's what you are saying. I wouldn't go so far as to say it despises those who see truth in anything. It certainly does think they are realllllllyyyyy bad mannered though.

 

I kind of wonder if it was this that caused our current culture of disagreement equalling offensive. Or maybe it was the other way around. :confused:

 

Rosie

[Spy Car]

If you have lots of patience and free time to really attempt to understand this issue, start with Lyotard, Foucault and Derrida, and then see where your reading takes you further.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I'm laughing so hard over this modest proposal that tears are streaming down my face :D

 

Bill

[Onceuponatime]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I'm laughing so hard over this modest proposal that tears are streaming down my face :D

 

Bill

 

Um,yeah.

 

But somehow I couldn't laugh, my brain just shuddered.

[claire+3]

Also :lol: at tackling Foucoult and Derrida in your spare time.

I believe post-modernism did begin with art/architecture and then trickled-down from there into philosophy.

It really depends on the perspective you are coming from (Secular/Christian/Jewish/_____), but a good Christian introduction to post-modernism is Truth is Stranger Than It Used To Be by Middleton and Walsh (IVPress).

But as you know from the most recent kerfuffle, the Christian perspective is broad (at least I think it is) and the authors don't really land in the "post-modernism is something to fear and protect your kids from camp."

And yes, I think you can be post-modernist in your sensibilities without knowing it.

[Ester Maria]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I'm laughing so hard over this modest proposal that tears are streaming down my face :D

 

Bill

Why? (*innocent look* :tongue_smilie:)

 

I was merciful, I nailed it down to three authors. One of whom you are not supposed to understand anyway ("Who understands Derrida, does not understand Derrida, including Derrida himself.") LOL. Foucault is even okay at times, and if you combine him with Althusser, you have some food for thought; Lyotard is... pas de commentaire.

 

Something, somewhere, went terribly wrong. The collective psychosis is scary.

 

Differaaaaaaaaaaaaaaance.

 

It is all language and we cannot escape language.

 

Power relations. Power relations. POWER. POWER rules. POWER determines what is art. POWER is all. Even what is not power is power because ultimately it is all one cycle of generating POWER, in which everybody participates.

 

Duchamp. Not really Caravaggio skill-wise, eh? But, it makes you wonder what art is.

Chaos in art. Chaos, I tell you.

 

Performativity. Madonna mia (yes I am Jewish, this is despair speaking), PERFORMATIVITY. Performativity of art and ritual.

 

Sex is a social construct (not only gender, see, sex too is something not existing in nature - our binary way of classificating things there is also a social construct in itself).

 

No grand narratives, except for ours of course, because we cannot escape a narrative.

 

History is only a socially acceptable narrative, a type of verbal fiction, you know, closer to that than to science. Cause there is no truth. Nada. Truth = construction. Everything = construction. My dog = specific linguistic construction in my mind.

 

"Questioning canons". POWER POWER POWER. More power. Then, "rewriting canons".

(On a slightly personal note: Bill, you are a smart man. I gather that you love Melville. Melville is probably the supreme example of skillful, precise, artful manipulation of the English language. The only two times in my life in which I for a second toyed with the idea that English was more expressive than Italian was while eading Melville.

Read Melville, enjoy ART and do not poison your mind with those who hate all that is beautiful and, incapable of producing it, relativize and subject skill to categories of social construct.)

 

The lack of classical education is at the root of all of those phenomena.

 

I gave it a shot. I really did. I could not not give it a shot, having studied what I studied.

I spent endless afternoons reading the aforementioned, and the implied, and more. Oh the wasted neurons.

It has only brought about acute depression and a type of prophetic view of a civilization which self-destroys.

Even if, on some level, some points, might be valid. Maybe.

Not worth it, you know?

 

Yep, I am dogmatic to the boot. By choice in fact. ;)

Edited April 8, 2011 by Ester Maria

[Ester Maria]

Um,yeah.

 

But somehow I couldn't laugh, my brain just shuddered.

Why? You want to know what it is. Go and read Lyotard, he coined the term. Then read some more to see what it is about, where it stems from, and to experience the flavor of such readings. That is the only way to know, it is a phenomenon hard to "box" in a few sentences. Really.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Ester Maria

[HSMom2One]

I can offer some input on what postmodernism is when it comes to the fine arts, and since art is a reflection of what is going on within a culture perhaps it will help simplify or clarify things a bit.

 

Postmodern art originated in the 80's. It is a compilation of the styles of multiple eras merged together into one piece. It is most often a combination of new ideas with traditional/classical ones that result in something that is all together different.

 

A very good example of this is the architecture of the Portland Building by famous architect, Michael Graves. If you google this, you will pull up a number of images to see exactly what I mean. (Be sure to view it from different sides if you do this because it has to be seen as a whole to truly appreciate.) While originally the response to Grave's design was quite positive and glowing, over time viewpoints have changed. Today most people consider the Portland Building to be an ugly monster. It is even listed as #1 on Travel & Leisure's list of the World's Ugliest Buildings. The point here is that the style that emerged from combining multiple styles ended up being less than lovely.

 

I personally believe that when conflicts like this emerge in art, it indicates a great deal of confusion in society. For instance, someone's philosophy might say, "There are so many points of view passed on to us from the past, let's take some of this and some of that, but then let's just throw the main points away because it's just too hard to buy into any one of them." In ways that are too deep for me to write further about in this post, postmodernism seems to say that there is a tremendous struggle for identity and truth going on due to an overload of information and ideas.

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

[justamouse]

Um,yeah.

 

But somehow I couldn't laugh, my brain just shuddered.

 

I had the same reaction. Now I'm laughing, though but maybe it's a nervous tick?

[TheCoffeeChick]

 

This book by Gene Edward Veith, Jr. is a great introduction for Christians into post-modernism. I always enjoy his works and this one did not disappoint.

[justamouse]

(On a slightly personal note: Bill, you are a smart man. I gather that you love Melville. Melville is probably the supreme example of skillful, precise, artful manipulation of the English language. The only two times in my life in which I for a second toyed with the idea that English was more expressive than Italian was while eading Melville.

Read Melville, enjoy ART and do not poison your mind with those who hate all that is beautiful and, incapable of producing it, relativize and subject skill to categories of social construct.)

 

 

 

Ugh. You are going to be the one that makes me pick up that darned book.

 

Why? Because I totally agree with you that English is incredibly limited in its expression and you've piqued my interest now.

[Gooblink]

I gave it a shot. I really did. I could not not give it a shot, having studied what I studied.

I spent endless afternoons reading the aforementioned, and the implied, and more. Oh the wasted neurons.

It has only brought about acute depression and a type of prophetic view of a civilization which self-destroys.

Even if, on some level, some points, might be valid. Maybe.

Not worth it, you know?

 

Yep, I am dogmatic to the boot. By choice in fact. ;)

 

So, ignorance IS bliss, after all. :tongue_smilie:

 

I'm so blissful my bliss has blissters.

[Onceuponatime]

Why? (*innocent look* :tongue_smilie:)

 

Read Melville, enjoy ART and do not poison your mind with those who hate all that is beautiful and, incapable of producing it, relativize and subject skill to categories of social construct.)

 

 

 

Is that what it means to be postmodern, to hate what is beautiful and to subject skill to categories of social contruct?

 

After doing some hurried research, I can see what postmodernism may mean to art and literature and I don't find that appealing. I'm not so sure about other forms yet.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe there have been multiple modern and postmodern periods throughout history.

[msk]

From a social science perspective: I think the kind of postmodernism that people react strongly against is a more extreme form that holds that there are no absolute truths; everything we can observe is translated through our own personal experiences. This makes everything "relative," depending on who is observing it, and implies that every set of observations about the world is unique and nothing can be generalized to all people.

 

This kind of postmodernism was in part a reaction to what some people perceived as a tendency to use science to construct absolute "truths" that were in reality heavily influenced by the experiences and biases of the people who observed them.

 

A lot of the social scientists I know now consider themselves to be using the best of both worlds; using science to make observations and attempt to find useful general patterns, while recognizing that their own biases are important to their interpretations.

 

From a religious standpoint (which I don't personally know much about), I would guess the postmodernist idea that there are no universal truths is objectionable. Some people see postmodernism as meaning that since every person is unique in terms of their life experiences, different things are "true" for everyone, and it's impossible to have moral absolutes in that case.

 

I agree that I wouldn't want my kids to become extreme postmodernists in the sense that *nothing* is universal. I am pretty sure the laws of gravity do not change depending on who is making the observations! But, I think keeping in mind that our experiences do bias our observations and interpretations (and often what we think is "true" and important) is always a good idea.

[Marie in Oh]

From a social science perspective: I think the kind of postmodernism that people react strongly against is a more extreme form that holds that there are no absolute truths; everything we can observe is translated through our own personal experiences. This makes everything "relative," depending on who is observing it, and implies that every set of observations about the world is unique and nothing can be generalized to all people.

 

:iagree: I agree that this is what most Christians who know anything about PM are reacting against.

 

 

And I agree that Foucoult and Derrida in your freetime is laughable. :lol:

[Spy Car]

 

 

(On a slightly personal note: Bill, you are a smart man. I gather that you love Melville. Melville is probably the supreme example of skillful, precise, artful manipulation of the English language. The only two times in my life in which I for a second toyed with the idea that English was more expressive than Italian was while eading Melville.

Read Melville, enjoy ART and do not poison your mind with those who hate all that is beautiful and, incapable of producing it, relativize and subject skill to categories of social construct.)

 

 

And what, pray tell, was the the other time?

 

The only time I burned more neurons (than attempting to read the leading lights of Deconstruction in young adulthood) was attempting to read Heidegger's "Being and Time" when I was twelve :lol:

 

I certainly didn't feel like a "smart man" then :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

[newlifemom]

Two people I would like to spend an afternoon over coffee with are:

 

 

Bill and Ester Maria.

 

Sadly, I would have to listen, take notes, and hope for understanding someday, probably in another life. :tongue_smilie:

[Ester Maria]

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe there have been multiple modern and postmodern periods throughout history.

That is a distinct way of looking at things, yes: mannerism and modernity understood typologically (i.e. as recurring periods with some common distinct characteristics), rather than strictly chronologically. If you approach the topic through such lenses, you can see "avant-garde" in late antiquity or late Renaissance, for example. The problem with it is that it assumes a sort of cyclical nature of things.

 

Postmodernism, however, truly is a chronologically distinct phenomenon, hard to categorize typologically, as its proportions are unlike something witnessed before. It correlates with destruction, though, that is for sure - but like I said, to discuss these things remotely "seriously", we would have to step out of the format of the forum.

And I agree that Foucoult and Derrida in your freetime is laughable. :lol:

I am actually puzzled with implications that my advice was somehow "laughable" - I wrote it very seriously. :001_smile: There is no better way to learn about a phenomenon than through its own voices. If one is interested in learning about it, it is no different situation than one learning strategy in chess, Cantor's math or Latin syntax in their free time. There is one truly difficult thing, though, if there is the lack of context and background: these authors are so woefully intertextual (pun intended) that reading one without a background in a dozen others may be very problematic. However, if one is interested in it, there is perfectly nothing wrong with putting in the effort required to gain "fluency" in the grand postmodern discourse. :tongue_smilie:

 

As to what is problematic: problematic are ultimate consequences of such thread of thought, rather than its premises. Its premises are almost scientific: questioning the factors which shape reality and which are usually taken for granted (such as discourse, a certain framework within which you approach the world and which makes your thinking rigid because you are paying attention only to how to systematize things within the framework without questioning whether the framework might be problematic, the formation of literary and art canon and the role of cultural elites in it, etc.). Its ultimate consequences, however, are dire ultra-relativism (to the point of questioning the very language it uses), which then quickly spreads to historical and moral relativism (as there is no fixed "narrative" and no fixed universal value), the distacco of skill from art (approaching art through the prism of socio-economic context rather than in its primary meaning of a skill, of a technique) which leads to dire artistic relativism, putting the whole canon in the flux, negating tradition and heritage, and ending up in irony, self-irony, a type of paralysis.

 

I am NOT claiming that this is the universal response, that one cannot disassociate oneself emotionally and RL-wise from such ideas, but those are ideas are very powerful, with immense destructive potential, if one actually gets to catch the glimpse of them.

 

At the end of the day, value is going to be a choice, and a dogma. This is where my classicism crosses paths with the religious crew: we have both opted for a certain value, for a certain tradition, for a certain "narrative" if you wish - and more often than not, fully conscious of the fact how the inner workings of that idea may be questioned on so many levels. Questioning is good and healthy. But there is a point where one has to draw a conscious line, or else any action can never occur, no conclusion can ever be reached regarding anything, and one gets paralyzed. The quality of scholarship goes down too. High speculation hits: lofty speculation, often deprived of common sense too, enters the picture.

 

It is akin to wondering whether there is the outside world (you know, the whole Descartes - Putnam thread of thought). You cannot prove it. Solipsism cannot be philosophically disproved.

But unless you decide for yourself that the world exists, or that you go by that which exists, you are in danger of a complete paralysis. It is important to keep in mind that your decision was based on value rather than on fact - an important distinction. But ultimately, world exists for you.

 

Same with language. Not running away from its biases - but it is the only language I have. If I give it up, I give up any coherent thought about anything.

Same with culture, tradition, art as skill, even partially canon - a certain amount of skepticism is welcome. But at one point, one decides so as not to swallowed by that skepticism. And yes, one knows that the decision is a result of value, not of deductive reasoning, not of factual reality.

 

Do not get me wrong: I do not intend to shield my children from the world and from theories which formed the culture, including that madness. I certainly want my science-oriented kid to read Kuhn. I certainly want my humanities-oriented one to understand the definitions and redefinitions of art, the social and economic aspect of it, how it was used to further class differences, how the ideology functions within a society and all of that, and even, heck, the idea of how identity is formed by discourse. Really. I am not leaving them in a dogmatic darkness and the world which I carefully "pre-planned" for them. And most of all, I really wish for them to meet some of those very powerful ideas in my own home, rather than become impressed by them the moment they enter most any high education institution. Sort of, keep your friends close, enemies closer, if you wish. Those are important things to consider, even if they are basically a form of stating the obvious and making a doctrine out of that obvious.

 

But to live them? To design an education in accordance with them (MUCH of what is wrong with the education today lies here!)? To pose them as my main lenses through which to access the world? Heck no. I choose dogmatism - educational, moral, artistic. And frankly, on classical education boards, probably most people choose dogmatism too, whether they call it that way or no: classical education is a type of anachronism which speaks enough about values chosen - emphasis on both words.

 

This is so disconnected because I could write a book about this topic, and this is such an awfully complex one, and even to discuss postmodernism, let alone implications, goes well beyond the format of the forum, but maybe these scattered thoughts can give you some insight into the why.

[newlifemom]

That is a distinct way of looking at things, yes: mannerism and modernity understood typologically (i.e. as recurring periods with some common distinct characteristics), rather than strictly chronologically. If you approach the topic through such lenses, you can see "avant-garde" in late antiquity or late Renaissance, for example. The problem with it is that it assumes a sort of cyclical nature of things.

 

Postmodernism, however, truly is a chronologically distinct phenomenon, hard to categorize typologically, as its proportions are unlike something witnessed before. It correlates with destruction, though, that is for sure - but like I said, to discuss these things remotely "seriously", we would have to step out of the format of the forum.

 

I am actually puzzled with implications that my advice was somehow "laughable" - I wrote it very seriously. :001_smile: There is no better way to learn about a phenomenon than through its own voices. If one is interested in learning about it, it is no different situation than one learning strategy in chess, Cantor's math or Latin syntax in their free time. There is one truly difficult thing, though, if there is the lack of context and background: these authors are so woefully intertextual (pun intended) that reading one without a background in a dozen others may be very problematic. However, if one is interested in it, there is perfectly nothing wrong with putting in the effort required to gain "fluency" in the grand postmodern discourse. :tongue_smilie:

 

As to what is problematic: problematic are ultimate consequences of such thread of thought, rather than its premises. Its premises are almost scientific: questioning the factors which shape reality and which are usually taken for granted (such as discourse, a certain framework within which you approach the world and which makes your thinking rigid because you are paying attention only to how to systematize things within the framework without questioning whether the framework might be problematic, the formation of literary and art canon and the role of cultural elites in it, etc.). Its ultimate consequences, however, are dire ultra-relativism (to the point of questioning the very language it uses), which then quickly spreads to historical and moral relativism (as there is no fixed "narrative" and no fixed universal value), the distacco of skill from art (approaching art through the prism of socio-economic context rather than in its primary meaning of a skill, of a technique) which leads to dire artistic relativism, putting the whole canon in the flux, negating tradition and heritage, and ending up in irony, self-irony, a type of paralysis.

 

I am NOT claiming that this is the universal response, that one cannot disassociate oneself emotionally and RL-wise from such ideas, but those are ideas are very powerful, with immense destructive potential, if one actually gets to catch the glimpse of them.

 

At the end of the day, value is going to be a choice, and a dogma. This is where my classicism crosses paths with the religious crew: we have both opted for a certain value, for a certain tradition, for a certain "narrative" if you wish - and more often than not, fully conscious of the fact how the inner workings of that idea may be questioned on so many levels. Questioning is good and healthy. But there is a point where one has to draw a conscious line, or else any action can never occur, no conclusion can ever be reached regarding anything, and one gets paralyzed. The quality of scholarship goes down too. High speculation hits: lofty speculation, often deprived of common sense too, enters the picture.

 

It is akin to wondering whether there is the outside world (you know, the whole Descartes - Putnam thread of thought). You cannot prove it. Solipsism cannot be philosophically disproved.

But unless you decide for yourself that the world exists, or that you go by that which exists, you are in danger of a complete paralysis. It is important to keep in mind that your decision was based on value rather than on fact - an important distinction. But ultimately, world exists for you.

 

Same with language. Not running away from its biases - but it is the only language I have. If I give it up, I give up any coherent thought about anything.

Same with culture, tradition, art as skill, even partially canon - a certain amount of skepticism is welcome. But at one point, one decides so as not to swallowed by that skepticism. And yes, one knows that the decision is a result of value, not of deductive reasoning, not of factual reality.

 

Do not get me wrong: I do not intend to shield my children from the world and from theories which formed the culture, including that madness. I certainly want my science-oriented kid to read Kuhn. I certainly want my humanities-oriented one to understand the definitions and redefinitions of art, the social and economic aspect of it, how it was used to further class differences, how the ideology functions within a society and all of that, and even, heck, the idea of how identity is formed by discourse. Really. I am not leaving them in a dogmatic darkness and the world which I carefully "pre-planned" for them. And most of all, I really wish for them to meet some of those very powerful ideas in my own home, rather than become impressed by them the moment they enter most any high education institution. Sort of, keep your friends close, enemies closer, if you wish. Those are important things to consider, even if they are basically a form of stating the obvious and making a doctrine out of that obvious.

 

But to live them? To design an education in accordance with them (MUCH of what is wrong with the education today lies here!)? To pose them as my main lenses through which to access the world? Heck no. I choose dogmatism - educational, moral, artistic. And frankly, on classical education boards, probably most people choose dogmatism too, whether they call it that way or no: classical education is a type of anachronism which speaks enough about values chosen - emphasis on both words.

 

This is so disconnected because I could write a book about this topic, and this is such an awfully complex one, and even to discuss postmodernism, let alone implications, goes well beyond the format of the forum, but maybe these scattered thoughts can give you some insight into the why.

 

 

Seriously, I liked you before, but now . . . I <3 you! :001_wub:

[justamouse]

I am actually puzzled with implications that my advice was somehow "laughable" - I wrote it very seriously. :001_smile:

 

I know you did. I was laughing at myself and the brain cramp I had while considering reading those authors. Me, who forgets what I was saying mid sentence. It's the peri menopause laughing. Back before children when I had full use of the majority of my brain cells (and before 40) I wouldn't have laughed at all.

 

Pam, I have a total brain crush on Ester, too.

[Deborah]

here's a very small portion of what it contains:

Ravi explains a bit of it here.

Al and RC a tiny bit here.

And a little at the beginning here.

[Spy Car]

Two people I would like to spend an afternoon over coffee with are:

 

 

Bill and Ester Maria.

 

Sadly, I would have to listen, take notes, and hope for understanding someday, probably in another life. :tongue_smilie:

 

If you think I understood a word of Derrida you're kidding yourself :D

 

Heck, I barely know what you're talking about half the time :tongue_smilie:

 

I would be more than happy so sit with you drinking coffee while we listen to Ester Maria taking us through "Being and Time." I remember that when Heidegger (who was almost as incomprehensible as Derrida) had lost me (and I trust most everyone else) reading his "gibberish" he would restate his case in Greek (for sake of clarity). Oy Vey!

 

Bill

[Ester Maria]

And what, pray tell, was the the other time?

 

The only time I burned more neurons (than attempting to read the leading lights of Deconstruction in young adulthood) was attempting to read Heidegger's "Being and Time" when I was twelve :lol:

At 12? Wow, I can imagine the effects on the poor defenseless mind. :lol:

 

I had a nice childhood, on the other hand. Before lycee (that is, before 15) I lived in blissful ignorance regarding post-Greco-Roman philosophy. I adored French as a child, French was the language of Racine, of Hugo, of Lamartine... Little did I know that it would also become the language of deconstruction and burnt neurons in a few years. :lol: Then afterward kids came and burnt the remaining few.

 

The other time? Milton.

[Spy Car]

At 12? Wow, I can imagine the effects on the poor defenseless mind. :lol:

 

Let me not pretend it went well :D

 

I was not quite sure if I was far more stupid than I realized, or if this was a case of the Emperor's New Clothes. Or both.

 

The other time? Milton.

 

Ah yes!

 

Bill

[Ester Maria]

I would be more than happy so sit with you drinking coffee while we listen to Ester Maria taking us through "Being and Time." I remember that when Heidegger (who was almost as incomprehensible as Derrida) had lost me (and I trust most everyone else) reading his "gibberish" he would restate his case in Greek (for sake of clarity). Oy Vey!

In my really honest opinion, they're bluffing a lot (most?) of the time. Not that you cannot catch a worthwhile thought or a few, but many times when you "lose" them, you lose them because they are, perhaps, a bit of charlatans who willingly obfuscate the thought.

 

Okay that was a very arrogant accusation on my part - I should always give the benefit of the doubt, assume the best intentions and my lack of knowledge and skill - however... I am not the first one who makes that accusation. ;)

[Gooblink]

In my really honest opinion, they're bluffing a lot (most?) of the time. Not that you cannot catch a worthwhile thought or a few, but many times when you "lose" them, you lose them because they are, perhaps, a bit of charlatans who willingly obfuscate the thought.

 

Okay that was a very arrogant accusation on my part - I should always give the benefit of the doubt, assume the best intentions and my lack of knowledge and skill - however... I am not the first one who makes that accusation. ;)

 

Arrogant or not, it's the same conclusion I've often drawn. :)

[6packofun]

LOL! Yep. The thing is, if a working definition is so hard to nail down, why am I going to worry about it? I know individual issues, ideologies, and attitudes with which I agree/approve or disagree/disapprove. That's enough for this brain. But I've been known to be a dope. LOL

[LibraryLover]

So we've nearly gotten to Milton's letter to Samuel Hartlib, have we? And not even page 5? You folks have been busy.

[lionfamily1999]

Why? You want to know what it is. Go and read Lyotard, he coined the term. Then read some more to see what it is about, where it stems from, and to experience the flavor of such readings. That is the only way to know, it is a phenomenon hard to "box" in a few sentences. Really.

I need to update my philosophy books... isn't this a lot like the Sophist philosophy?

 

I'm going to try to tackle your recommendations, reading your post was like a case of deja vous. Who would you choose to read first?

[Onceuponatime]

That is a distinct way of looking at things, yes: mannerism and modernity understood typologically (i.e. as recurring periods with some common distinct characteristics), rather than strictly chronologically. If you approach the topic through such lenses, you can see "avant-garde" in late antiquity or late Renaissance, for example. The problem with it is that it assumes a sort of cyclical nature of things.

 

Postmodernism, however, truly is a chronologically distinct phenomenon, hard to categorize typologically, as its proportions are unlike something witnessed before. It correlates with destruction, though, that is for sure - but like I said, to discuss these things remotely "seriously", we would have to step out of the format of the forum.

 

I am actually puzzled with implications that my advice was somehow "laughable" - I wrote it very seriously. :001_smile: There is no better way to learn about a phenomenon than through its own voices. If one is interested in learning about it, it is no different situation than one learning strategy in chess, Cantor's math or Latin syntax in their free time. There is one truly difficult thing, though, if there is the lack of context and background: these authors are so woefully intertextual (pun intended) that reading one without a background in a dozen others may be very problematic. However, if one is interested in it, there is perfectly nothing wrong with putting in the effort required to gain "fluency" in the grand postmodern discourse. :tongue_smilie:

 

As to what is problematic: problematic are ultimate consequences of such thread of thought, rather than its premises. Its premises are almost scientific: questioning the factors which shape reality and which are usually taken for granted (such as discourse, a certain framework within which you approach the world and which makes your thinking rigid because you are paying attention only to how to systematize things within the framework without questioning whether the framework might be problematic, the formation of literary and art canon and the role of cultural elites in it, etc.). Its ultimate consequences, however, are dire ultra-relativism (to the point of questioning the very language it uses), which then quickly spreads to historical and moral relativism (as there is no fixed "narrative" and no fixed universal value), the distacco of skill from art (approaching art through the prism of socio-economic context rather than in its primary meaning of a skill, of a technique) which leads to dire artistic relativism, putting the whole canon in the flux, negating tradition and heritage, and ending up in irony, self-irony, a type of paralysis.

 

I am NOT claiming that this is the universal response, that one cannot disassociate oneself emotionally and RL-wise from such ideas, but those are ideas are very powerful, with immense destructive potential, if one actually gets to catch the glimpse of them.

 

At the end of the day, value is going to be a choice, and a dogma. This is where my classicism crosses paths with the religious crew: we have both opted for a certain value, for a certain tradition, for a certain "narrative" if you wish - and more often than not, fully conscious of the fact how the inner workings of that idea may be questioned on so many levels. Questioning is good and healthy. But there is a point where one has to draw a conscious line, or else any action can never occur, no conclusion can ever be reached regarding anything, and one gets paralyzed. The quality of scholarship goes down too. High speculation hits: lofty speculation, often deprived of common sense too, enters the picture.

 

It is akin to wondering whether there is the outside world (you know, the whole Descartes - Putnam thread of thought). You cannot prove it. Solipsism cannot be philosophically disproved.

But unless you decide for yourself that the world exists, or that you go by that which exists, you are in danger of a complete paralysis. It is important to keep in mind that your decision was based on value rather than on fact - an important distinction. But ultimately, world exists for you.

 

Same with language. Not running away from its biases - but it is the only language I have. If I give it up, I give up any coherent thought about anything.

Same with culture, tradition, art as skill, even partially canon - a certain amount of skepticism is welcome. But at one point, one decides so as not to swallowed by that skepticism. And yes, one knows that the decision is a result of value, not of deductive reasoning, not of factual reality.

 

Do not get me wrong: I do not intend to shield my children from the world and from theories which formed the culture, including that madness. I certainly want my science-oriented kid to read Kuhn. I certainly want my humanities-oriented one to understand the definitions and redefinitions of art, the social and economic aspect of it, how it was used to further class differences, how the ideology functions within a society and all of that, and even, heck, the idea of how identity is formed by discourse. Really. I am not leaving them in a dogmatic darkness and the world which I carefully "pre-planned" for them. And most of all, I really wish for them to meet some of those very powerful ideas in my own home, rather than become impressed by them the moment they enter most any high education institution. Sort of, keep your friends close, enemies closer, if you wish. Those are important things to consider, even if they are basically a form of stating the obvious and making a doctrine out of that obvious.

 

But to live them? To design an education in accordance with them (MUCH of what is wrong with the education today lies here!)? To pose them as my main lenses through which to access the world? Heck no. I choose dogmatism - educational, moral, artistic. And frankly, on classical education boards, probably most people choose dogmatism too, whether they call it that way or no: classical education is a type of anachronism which speaks enough about values chosen - emphasis on both words.

 

This is so disconnected because I could write a book about this topic, and this is such an awfully complex one, and even to discuss postmodernism, let alone implications, goes well beyond the format of the forum, but maybe these scattered thoughts can give you some insight into the why.

 

Thank you for taking the time to write all that out. I think I'm beginning to understand. Just because I have questions and need to pull apart my long held beliefs and reevaluate them doesn't necessarily mean I am a postmodernist. Even if some of my beliefs have changed, I still have values that I choose regarding life, education, religion, and other things. I don't intend to abandon all value judgements, even if I recognize that that is what they are.

 

I found your post above very clear, but some of the stuff I've read other places makes me wonder if some of the people who revile postmodernism have actually studied it. I'll see if my library has any of the authors you recommended but I can't promise I'll slog my way through any of it. I had actually planned to read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in my free time this month. (really:))

[Rosie_0801]

Is that what it means to be postmodern, to hate what is beautiful

 

Hate? Maybe to view it as suffocatingly limited?

 

 

Ester Maria, can't you just link to an online quiz? (:tongue_smilie::tongue_smilie::tongue_smilie:)

 

You people are making WEM sound like part of the "for dummies" series.

 

I love this. It puts me back in a reassuringly comfortable place in the universe- not very bright but points for trying. :lol:

 

 

Rosie

[LibraryLover]

We're in good company. lol

 

Hate? Maybe to view it as suffocatingly limited?

 

 

Ester Maria, can't you just link to an online quiz? (:tongue_smilie::tongue_smilie::tongue_smilie:)

 

You people are making WEM sound like part of the "for dummies" series.

 

I love this. It puts me back in a reassuringly comfortable place in the universe- not very bright but points for trying. :lol:

 

 

Rosie

[Imprimis]

I know you did. I was laughing at myself and the brain cramp I had while considering reading those authors. Me, who forgets what I was saying mid sentence. It's the peri menopause laughing. Back before children when I had full use of the majority of my brain cells (and before 40) I wouldn't have laughed at all.

 

 

 

Yes. This is me.

 

As much as this topic fascinates me, I don't know that I would be confident enough to even begin to tackle it on the level suggested by Ester Maria because of what justamouse touched on above.

 

My retention (water aside ;)) is not what it used to be. Foucault and Lyotard and the whole concept of postmodernism (beyond the superficial) sounds overwhelming to me now that I'm older. Will I grasp it? And, more importantly, will I remember it even if I do grasp it? :001_smile:

[Onceuponatime]

Hate? Maybe to view it as suffocatingly limited?

 

 

I love this. It puts me back in a reassuringly comfortable place in the universe- not very bright but points for trying. :lol:

 

 

Rosie

 

Yeah. But it seems that I always ask questions that I can't understand the answers too. That's not very comfortable.

[Onceuponatime]

Ok, I went and looked at the Portland Building. I didn't find it to be especially ugly. Less than lovely, maybe.

It does have symmetry though. :-)

 

See, this is where I have more trouble understanding. The architect obviously had to follow some kind of rules and conventions, he couldn't just abandon all value judgements, yet this is called postmodern. To me, it just looks kind of Art Deco, which I don't care for.

 

Also, it seems that in order to be "avant garde" you need to know exactly what traditionalism is first. Before you can break the rules successfully, you must know the rules.

[Jean in Newcastle]

What postmodernism means to me is probably very simplistic:

 

1. No absolute objective Truth - You have your truth, I have my truth.

 

2. A dichotomy between Fact and Truth. Fact is reserved for scientifically verifiable verities. Truth is reserved for non-verifiable realities which are very personal (see #1)

 

3. No absolute definitions or meaning in language. What you get out of a writing is your own truth.

 

4. A desire for things to be "real" in how they speak to someone's soul despite the above 3 points.

[Eleni]

Why? (*innocent look* :tongue_smilie:)

 

I was merciful, I nailed it down to three authors. One of whom you are not supposed to understand anyway ("Who understands Derrida, does not understand Derrida, including Derrida himself.") LOL. Foucault is even okay at times, and if you combine him with Althusser, you have some food for thought; Lyotard is... pas de commentaire.

 

Something, somewhere, went terribly wrong. The collective psychosis is scary.

 

Differaaaaaaaaaaaaaaance.

 

It is all language and we cannot escape language.

 

Power relations. Power relations. POWER. POWER rules. POWER determines what is art. POWER is all. Even what is not power is power because ultimately it is all one cycle of generating POWER, in which everybody participates.

 

Duchamp. Not really Caravaggio skill-wise, eh? But, it makes you wonder what art is.

Chaos in art. Chaos, I tell you.

 

Performativity. Madonna mia (yes I am Jewish, this is despair speaking), PERFORMATIVITY. Performativity of art and ritual.

 

Sex is a social construct (not only gender, see, sex too is something not existing in nature - our binary way of classificating things there is also a social construct in itself).

 

No grand narratives, except for ours of course, because we cannot escape a narrative.

 

History is only a socially acceptable narrative, a type of verbal fiction, you know, closer to that than to science. Cause there is no truth. Nada. Truth = construction. Everything = construction. My dog = specific linguistic construction in my mind.

 

"Questioning canons". POWER POWER POWER. More power. Then, "rewriting canons".

(On a slightly personal note: Bill, you are a smart man. I gather that you love Melville. Melville is probably the supreme example of skillful, precise, artful manipulation of the English language. The only two times in my life in which I for a second toyed with the idea that English was more expressive than Italian was while eading Melville.

Read Melville, enjoy ART and do not poison your mind with those who hate all that is beautiful and, incapable of producing it, relativize and subject skill to categories of social construct.)

 

The lack of classical education is at the root of all of those phenomena.

 

I gave it a shot. I really did. I could not not give it a shot, having studied what I studied.

I spent endless afternoons reading the aforementioned, and the implied, and more. Oh the wasted neurons.

It has only brought about acute depression and a type of prophetic view of a civilization which self-destroys.

Even if, on some level, some points, might be valid. Maybe.

Not worth it, you know?

 

Yep, I am dogmatic to the boot. By choice in fact. ;)

 

 

For some reason this called I Heart Huckabees to mind...and now I have an urge to watch it for the hundredth time. :confused:

There is a book called Derrida in 90 Minutes, and even Foucault in 90 Minutes :blush:

They seem to be an organized breakdown of their writings put together in a book that could fit into a HS parent's schedule

[cjbeach]

(Great thread for those of us with a poor education in philosophy. My interlibrary loan department thanks you.;))

This thread is exactly the reason I love this board.

[Marylou]

This

[justamouse]

Arrogant or not, it's the same conclusion I've often drawn. :)

 

Heh. Me too. I toss it around for a while and then throw up my hands, "All is vanity!" and go about my business.

 

 

Yes. This is me.

 

As much as this topic fascinates me, I don't know that I would be confident enough to even begin to tackle it on the level suggested by Ester Maria because of what justamouse touched on above.

 

My retention (water aside ;)) is not what it used to be. Foucault and Lyotard and the whole concept of postmodernism (beyond the superficial) sounds overwhelming to me now that I'm older. Will I grasp it? And, more importantly, will I remember it even if I do grasp it? :001_smile:

 

And if you read it, and you forget it, will you every have heard it? :lol:

[lionfamily1999]

And if you read it, and you forget it, will you ever have heard it? :lol:

If I read a book and none of my brain cells retain it, did I ever read it at all?

 

Hs philisophical riddles...

 

Anyone want to start a thread :D

[justamouse]

If I read a book and none of my brain cells retain it, did I ever read it at all?

 

Hs philisophical riddles...

 

Anyone want to start a thread :D

 

yeah, that's what I meant. :D:lol::D See what I mean? It's a wonder I'm coherent at all.

[MamaBearTeacher]

Is postmodern antithetical to a classical education? What would a postmodern education look like?

[justamouse]

Is postmodern antithetical to a classical education? What would a postmodern education look like?

 

Forget it. Bad joke.

Edited April 10, 2011 by justamouse

[Spy Car]

Is postmodern antithetical to a classical education? What would a postmodern education look like?

 

The home-educator least of all can avoid questioning herself about the essence of her object in the form of a question of origin: “What education” means “where and when does education begin?”

 

The responses generally come very quickly. They circulate within concepts that are seldom criticised and move within evidence which always seems self-evident. It is around these responses that a typology of and a perspective on the growth of education are always organised. All works dealing with the history of classical education are composed along the same lines: a philosophical and teleological classification exhausts the critical problems in a few pages; one passes next to an exposition of facts.

 

We have a contrast between the theoretical fragility of the reconstructions and the historical, archaeological, ethnological, philosophical wealth of information.

 

So I hope that begins to answer your question :D

 

Bill (with apologies to Jacques Derrida)

Edited April 10, 2011 by Spy Car