actually, post modernism is a critique of modernity..the aim is to deconstruct it.. and most post-modernism is objectively based on nihilism...and not all post modernist innately follow Kantian theory... some oppose it..like the plane of immanence in contrast to transcendence when discussing alterity or spatiality..
you clearly just don't grasp the concept. if you can't understand it with such a perfect definition (which nine9s was kind enough to supply), than you will never understand. have fun in mediocrity!
The core of postmodernism is not the rejection of objectivity but the rejection of subjectivity. It is true that most postmodernists reject objectivity, but other thinkers also did that (Kant, however, is NOT a good example for that). However, the postmodern deconstruction of the subject is something that is really radically new.
@Tarvoc Yes, postmodernism is the rejection of the subject. Not so much of all objective truth but our ability to get to that truth is what they are destroying.
@natedaug1 In a way, this is also misleading. As Nietzsche has said, destroying our ability to get to the truth is essentially the same thing as destroying truth itself. Also, focusing on an ability (or non-ability) of human intellect would still be subject philosophy in the spirit of Kant. What the post-modernists (especially Derrida) did is something else: They tried to show how what we perceive as truth is an effect of écriture, that is, of a writing that writes itself.
@Tarvoc Yeah, this is where I really disagree with postmodernism. Foucault says nothing is outside the discourse of power, so we can never really "know" truth. This does not mean truth does not exist though, because if one thinks it about epistemology does not dictate metaphysics. For example, we had no ability to access what was inside stars until the 20th century, but that doesn't mean that something was not still not inside stars. Metaphysics comes before epistemology.
You indirectly support perspectivism here, I love it. This video makes obvious that a text doesn't have any set meaning other than what the interpreter imposes onto it.
personally I do not put the definition of postmodern in the hands of philosophers... I believe it to be related to the transition from the Classical to Standard model in physics. Skepticism denied the objective model of reality thousands of years ago.
I'm not sure if you know this but Steven Pinker in the Blank Slate (which you haven't read yet according to your books video) analyzes postmodern thought in Orwell's 1984. Is this where you got your idea from?
Thanks for the heads-up! No, I haven't read that far into Blank Slate, but something tells me I will sometime this weekend. ;-)
I remember being struck by the ideas proffered by O'Brien in high school. When I read the article by Dalrymple (see link) it inspired me to read it again, and that's when I explicitly noticed the parallels with postmodernism.
1984 is to me also one of the greatest books I read. When I think of 1984, I think of political correctness or as he puts it " Doublespeech " the Dutch Wiki is very enlightening concerning this. The English one also states that "political correctness is a Marxist-inspired effort" and as Churchill once said "the fascists of tomorrow will call themselves anti-fascists". Here in Holland they eagerly want to call the "national-socialists" 'fascists" although it comes from the Italian word fascismo
If the unifying criteria of PoMo ideas is the denial of objective reality, then what is the differentiating criteria from other systems of ideas that deny objective reality?
My hypothesis is that maybe the PoMos had a point that they are different because they came after the modern period (if there really is such a degeneration as after modern).
Same ideas, only the time is different. PoMos are distinct from others that share their ideas because they have so much objective reality to deny.
Seems to me that the only real difference between modern and postmodern philosophy is that pomo-ism is more consistent. Modernism still had some Enlightenment left in it. And for the first time, starting maybe in the fifties, laypeople started learning and believing the nonsense.
I think of things like pragmatism and skepticism as branches of postmodernism. There are lots of aspects to the denial of objective reality, and different schools of thought have different emphases.
OK, that's making sense. The pre-PoMos are more on the D1 side of DIM, whereas PoMos are full blown D2. Thus, the PoMos are more consistently "inconsistent" with reality. So, the differentiating criteria is that PoMos also fully reject conceptual integration?
So the Frankfort School becomes the transition with Karl Mannheim rejecting the evidence from reality of Marxisms failure and advocating adherence to ideology in contradiction to reality as a virtue.
PoMos seem to be just a recent version of the same D2 story. Ideas that keep getting their heads handed to them only to be rebranded with a new name.
They are the undead; the PoMo zombies that won't die. Mindless corporal entities that subsist on eating the brains of the living...and if someone becomes infected then they become a zombie too.
Night of the PoMos....very scarying movie coming soon.
You are correct when you say that Immanuel Kant claimed that we cannot know certain aspects of objective reality. Kant did believe that we can know the aspects of objective reality that are apparent to our senses, but he did not think that we can know, what he called; the thing-in-itself (i.e. the aspects and parts of reality where our senses cannot go). Philosophers like Hegel disagreed with Kant and claimed that we can know the thing-in-itself by the use of pure reason and experiment.
Helpfull =] ty become a teacher.
ReptyleQueen 1 year ago
For the record Winston's last name is Smith
JeniusRob 1 year ago
actually, post modernism is a critique of modernity..the aim is to deconstruct it.. and most post-modernism is objectively based on nihilism...and not all post modernist innately follow Kantian theory... some oppose it..like the plane of immanence in contrast to transcendence when discussing alterity or spatiality..
kutthroat84 2 years ago
I stopped the video after the fourth or fith "basically."
Naiant 2 years ago
0:50 "We never learn his last name " err... yes - it's Smith
ClaireBear88 2 years ago 7
OMG! You drank the kool aid. and it screwed up your mind. Back of the line.
fabworks 2 years ago
Seeking out happiness and not living in oblivious, mindless despair is a noble pursuit and the basis for a wonderful life. Thank you
origin47 2 years ago
All you Rand nut jobs, were do you come from?
Ancient dogma rapped in the veil of rebellious philosophy against the masses. What a joke.
Dogmatic voices of the past BE GONE!
ElectronicPhone 2 years ago
This woman has mental problem , I believe she doe not have any formal education , and also never been visit dentist !!!
4061926 3 years ago
HAHA, HILARIOUS!
9 minutes and 27 seconds of watching someone FAIL at LIFE..
"how many fingers am i holding up Nine9s?"
axismind 3 years ago
you clearly just don't grasp the concept. if you can't understand it with such a perfect definition (which nine9s was kind enough to supply), than you will never understand. have fun in mediocrity!
mattmca321 3 years ago
"Something a bit too brainy for me, I expect" - Parsons in '1984'
Good work Nine9s!
ChrisThe87 3 years ago
The core of postmodernism is not the rejection of objectivity but the rejection of subjectivity. It is true that most postmodernists reject objectivity, but other thinkers also did that (Kant, however, is NOT a good example for that). However, the postmodern deconstruction of the subject is something that is really radically new.
Tarvoc 3 years ago
@Tarvoc Yes, postmodernism is the rejection of the subject. Not so much of all objective truth but our ability to get to that truth is what they are destroying.
natedaug1 1 year ago
@natedaug1 In a way, this is also misleading. As Nietzsche has said, destroying our ability to get to the truth is essentially the same thing as destroying truth itself. Also, focusing on an ability (or non-ability) of human intellect would still be subject philosophy in the spirit of Kant. What the post-modernists (especially Derrida) did is something else: They tried to show how what we perceive as truth is an effect of écriture, that is, of a writing that writes itself.
Tarvoc 1 year ago
@Tarvoc Yeah, this is where I really disagree with postmodernism. Foucault says nothing is outside the discourse of power, so we can never really "know" truth. This does not mean truth does not exist though, because if one thinks it about epistemology does not dictate metaphysics. For example, we had no ability to access what was inside stars until the 20th century, but that doesn't mean that something was not still not inside stars. Metaphysics comes before epistemology.
natedaug1 1 year ago
I wonder if you actually understood the last sentence of the book...
BrianTheMusicMan 3 years ago 2
Likewise...
nine9s 3 years ago
You indirectly support perspectivism here, I love it. This video makes obvious that a text doesn't have any set meaning other than what the interpreter imposes onto it.
BrianTheMusicMan 3 years ago
"This video makes obvious that a text doesn't have any set meaning other than what the interpreter imposes onto it."
That's absurd.
MrCropper 3 years ago
Saying that what I said was absurd only supports my point =p
Just look at how many Christian denominations there are; all stem from interpretation.
BrianTheMusicMan 3 years ago
personally I do not put the definition of postmodern in the hands of philosophers... I believe it to be related to the transition from the Classical to Standard model in physics. Skepticism denied the objective model of reality thousands of years ago.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
I'm not sure if you know this but Steven Pinker in the Blank Slate (which you haven't read yet according to your books video) analyzes postmodern thought in Orwell's 1984. Is this where you got your idea from?
Agnotio 3 years ago 2
Thanks for the heads-up! No, I haven't read that far into Blank Slate, but something tells me I will sometime this weekend. ;-)
I remember being struck by the ideas proffered by O'Brien in high school. When I read the article by Dalrymple (see link) it inspired me to read it again, and that's when I explicitly noticed the parallels with postmodernism.
nine9s 3 years ago
1984 is to me also one of the greatest books I read. When I think of 1984, I think of political correctness or as he puts it " Doublespeech " the Dutch Wiki is very enlightening concerning this. The English one also states that "political correctness is a Marxist-inspired effort" and as Churchill once said "the fascists of tomorrow will call themselves anti-fascists". Here in Holland they eagerly want to call the "national-socialists" 'fascists" although it comes from the Italian word fascismo
fredthefly 3 years ago 2
If the unifying criteria of PoMo ideas is the denial of objective reality, then what is the differentiating criteria from other systems of ideas that deny objective reality?
My hypothesis is that maybe the PoMos had a point that they are different because they came after the modern period (if there really is such a degeneration as after modern).
Same ideas, only the time is different. PoMos are distinct from others that share their ideas because they have so much objective reality to deny.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
It takes some brass ones to see men fly to the moon and then deny man's capacity to know reality.
That is a level of evasion that could distinguish them from prior fellow travelers.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
saying that reality is not objective is not the same as saying it's not knowable.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
P, Are you trying out to be the poster-boy for context dropping anti-integration [fill in the blank]?
jwoodswce 3 years ago 2
no, I have no endorsement deals.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
Seems to me that the only real difference between modern and postmodern philosophy is that pomo-ism is more consistent. Modernism still had some Enlightenment left in it. And for the first time, starting maybe in the fifties, laypeople started learning and believing the nonsense.
I think of things like pragmatism and skepticism as branches of postmodernism. There are lots of aspects to the denial of objective reality, and different schools of thought have different emphases.
nine9s 3 years ago
OK, that's making sense. The pre-PoMos are more on the D1 side of DIM, whereas PoMos are full blown D2. Thus, the PoMos are more consistently "inconsistent" with reality. So, the differentiating criteria is that PoMos also fully reject conceptual integration?
So the Frankfort School becomes the transition with Karl Mannheim rejecting the evidence from reality of Marxisms failure and advocating adherence to ideology in contradiction to reality as a virtue.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
"The pre-PoMos are more on the D1 side of DIM, whereas PoMos are full blown D2."
Awesome point. Couldn't have put it better.
nine9s 3 years ago
PoMos seem to be just a recent version of the same D2 story. Ideas that keep getting their heads handed to them only to be rebranded with a new name.
They are the undead; the PoMo zombies that won't die. Mindless corporal entities that subsist on eating the brains of the living...and if someone becomes infected then they become a zombie too.
Night of the PoMos....very scarying movie coming soon.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
You are correct when you say that Immanuel Kant claimed that we cannot know certain aspects of objective reality. Kant did believe that we can know the aspects of objective reality that are apparent to our senses, but he did not think that we can know, what he called; the thing-in-itself (i.e. the aspects and parts of reality where our senses cannot go). Philosophers like Hegel disagreed with Kant and claimed that we can know the thing-in-itself by the use of pure reason and experiment.
pythagoras9 3 years ago
Orwell sent me down the path of Libertarianism, scarred the shit out of me when I was twelve.
dadrogon 3 years ago