Perceiving Postmodernism - A Clarification of my View

Timothy Schoonover

This response is cross-posted under the chat transcript of Unweaving the Rainbow, and addresses some issues that were brought to my attention as a result of that chat.

**********

Having stayed up past 4:00 am the night prior to this chat, and having overslept, I immediately rushed to the computer to join the chat with Dr. Dawkins upon waking. Now I am by no means a morning person and must admit that in such a state, I am lucky to have any cognitive capacity at all. However, after looking over the chat transcript there is a certain issue that I feel must be addressed. I would like this to be the final say on this matter, but such is the nature of the subject that there can be no final say on it. What, however, can be accomplished is to dispel some rather trenchant perceptions about what postmodernism is, and what I think about it.

RD - Gluepot (aka Tim) is our resident postmodernist

The above statement is categorically and unequivically false, yet given the misperceptions that prevail, it is easy to see how it could be so readily accepted. The problem, I suppose, is that we are viewing postmodernism in the wrong sense, the sense presented to us by its critics, and have absolutely no idea what it really means. Postmodernism, the classics, and all philosophy is like nobility; we learn the titles and basic descriptions and henceforth claim intimate familiarity with them. To know the titles of king and queen and who fill those titles tell us very little about what those position actually entail. Similarly, to know that Beijing exists and what its population is, does nothing to acquaint the resident of Broken Arrow Nebraska about what life there is like. When we are discussing complex subjects, it is fallacy to employ reductionary or metanymical arguments, such as those used ad nauseam against postmodernism. In literature, the ability to craft complex villians is a sign of maturity. Characters such as these are multifaceted and dynamic and cannot in fairness suffer wholesale disregard. This is the very reason why I enjoy HBO's Original Series so much. Tony Soprano from The Sopranos, or Stringer form The Wire are as villinous as a person ever could be, but at the same time we appreciate them, respect them, and at times even revere them. Why? Because there is no such thing as black and white save in name only. Everything significant has its positive aspects from some perspective, otherwise, it would not be significant. Until putative critical thinkers recognize this principle, and not until then, they will not be able to move beyond a prima facie understanding of the object of their critique.

Moreover, postmodernism is the quintessential issue, the object par excellence, of this falacy. Some have argued that it is "nothing at all," or that it is "meaningless garbage," implying that there is no rational substance whatsoever signified by the term postmodernism, that it is entirely incompresensible from presuppositions to premises to conclusions, and perhaps (a tenuous perhaps) from the perspective of rationalism/realism, it is. The problem, however, is that few of you grasp the implications (and limitations) of pure rationalism, and consequently write-off postmodernism as anti-rational/anti-intellectual/etc because anything that would oppose the exalted virtue of REASON, must perforce be pernicious and subversive, a gruesome veneer masking an underlying mysticism. But, consult your history and philosophy and you will learn that rationalism has been implemented with great detriment by the theistic element of philosophy and science (although some would not call this 'science') whereas empiricism, skepticism, nominalism, and sophism have astutely opposed such efforts, and now we, looking back through time, cheer their efforts without realizing that the same arguments apply equally to our present non-theistic beliefs about knowledge. Rationalism and Realism (and even Conceptualism) for more then 2000 years tried to prove, a priori, the existence of God, but succeeded only in discovering that such existence cannot be proven, but must be presupposed. Every step of the way they were opposed by the very same skeptics that would one day give birth to postmodernism. But now that rationalism/realism seems to have dispensed with the idea of God, we are content to embrace it, often times dogmatically, without bothering to even consider the long history of criticism which must accompany it. How many of you know that David Hume, sometimes called the father of empiricism (and also 'The Great Infidel'), did not believe in the rationality of cause and effect, and subsequently the existence of knowable objective reality? Then those of you who are ignorant of this, go on to critique Kant, when Kant's philosophy was largely an opposing response to the skepticism of Hume. Kant was more of a rationalist than Hume, but because Kant was religious and Hume was not, we idolize Hume and villify Kant. At least Dawkin's was sensible enough not to disparage Kant as the above E. O. Wilson was quote to implies. The point I'm trying to make is this: science and reason are noble and worthwhile pursuits, but to villify their critiques, no matter how harsh those critiques may seem, is to do injury to the progress of understanding. Personally I think postmodernism is more harmful than wrong, but if we persist in opposing it with arrogant statements and ad hominen such as "it is nothing at all," we become party to its propagation by contributing nothing of value to exposing the real, rather than percieved weaknesses.

Postmodernism is not a single coherent system of philosophy nor is it meant to be. It is a vast, diverse and contradicting collection of descriptions; a vast, diverse and contradicting account of culture predicated upon a nominalogical theory of knowledge and many other things. And while there are certain common characteristics pervading this ubiqitous amalgamation of thought, to critique postmodernism as a whole is like saying medievalism is irrational, or classicism is meaningless, or technology is oppressive. Gross generalizations such as these demonstrate nothing but your personal disposition and an ignorance of history.

Edited by: Timothy Schoonover at: 7/14/03 6:41 pm

Kostya

Timothy,

I am not trying to fuel the fire any more than it already is, especially that I was not even a part of the original discussion. I just want to understand something.

Ever since I've seen people referring to postmodernism here in the forums I keep trying to figure out what people mean by it. I admit that I am completely ignorant of this subject. However, I do apply whatever little common sense that I happen to poses to the things that I read and I like to ask questions.

If your loose definition of something is "It is a vast, diverse and contradicting collection of descriptions; a vast, diverse and contradicting account of culture predicated upon a nominalogical theory of knowledge and many other things." wouldn't it in fact be the same as to say that it is "nothing at all"?

In my opinion, something that is contradictory does not make sense and therefore it is as good as “nothing at all”. Discussing something that encompasses contradictory positions as if it was one whole school of thought is meaningless.

Either your definition of postmodernism is inaccurate or we truly are talking about nothing.

Thank you.

Edited by: Kostya at: 7/14/03 10:41 pm

Timothy Schoonover

There are several things I could say in response, all of which I thought I had made clear in my original post. I guess instead of answering your questions again, I will instead ask you a few questions of my own.

If you don't understand postmodernism, why do you persist in believing that it is "nothing at all?" Do you realize that there never has been a completely coherent, cogent, and probable philosophical theory? Ever! Does that mean that every philosophy is "nothing at all" because all systems of philosophy, however defined, have contained contradictions? Do you really think that contradiction can imply meaninglessness without embracing dualism?

Can you tell me what the enlightenment was? Do you think any informed person would say that the enlightenment was free from contradiction? What about the renaissance? What about scholasticism, or romanticism, or modernism? Should we hold postmodernism to a higher standard than these, or maybe all of history is "nothing at all?"

The fact of the matter is this: postmodernism and rationalism/realism are fundamentally at odds and have been before the first scientist ever peered through a telescope. Such a history of animosity lends itself well to the practice of casting rhetorical barbs, and to be sure, neither party has shyed away from this activity. "Nothing at all," "anti-rational," and "anti-intellectual" are just epithets crafted by the rationalist/realist community in order to discredit the postmodern community. They are not unfounded, but they not the whole truth. The mature critical thinker will see past that, but in my experience I have not encountered many individuals that want to.

cinnamon321

Every philosophical argument has its strong points and weak points. It just seems that some aren't as well read in philosophy as others. No need to bash someone for having an idea. This forums about discourse, ideas, and being able to discuss them without putting them down. After all, we are Freethinkers, right? (Btw, this statement isn't specific to anyone, I just notice that people are close minded one way or the other...not that you have to accept what the other person sees as being correct, but sometimes it doesnt hurt to look at the other point of view without pre-judging it) I think we're all ignorant in some areas, and if we just stop pre-judging sometimes, we could learn a lot more.

Kostya

Timothy,

If you don't understand postmodernism, why do you persist in believing that it is "nothing at all?"

Precisely because I have no understanding of postmodernism at this point I hold no believes about it. I do not know what it is you are talking about when you say “postmodernism”. The description of postmodernism that you have provided in your message makes no sense to me and that was the reason I was asking for a better definition of the term.

Do you realize that there never has been a completely coherent, cogent, and probable philosophical theory?

Yes.

Does that mean that every philosophy is "nothing at all" because all systems of philosophy, however defined, have contained contradictions?

Again, I was questioning your definition/description of postmodernism and not the philosophy of postmodernism. I know nothing about postmodernism and I stated that clearly in my first message.

Do you really think that contradiction can imply meaninglessness without embracing dualism?

If something has contradictory definitions it is as good as no definition at all because it provides no useful information. If something is defined as “A” and “NOT A” at the same time – it is meaningless at least for the purposes of identification of the subject of conversation.

Can you tell me what the enlightenment was?

No.

Do you think any informed person would say that the enlightenment was free from contradiction?

No.

What about the renaissance? What about scholasticism, or romanticism, or modernism?

No, no, no and no.

Should we hold postmodernism to a higher standard than these, or maybe all of history is "nothing at all?"

No and no.

Now that I’ve answered your questions, I am sorry that I did not make it into your elite group of “mature critical thinkers” that you don’t encounter very often in your life. But all that I was asking for was a better definition of postmodernism, so philosophically illiterate people like myself can get a better idea of what all the noise is about. I am sorry that I’ve done that and I will stay out of these conversations in the future.

Thank you.

Edited by: Kostya at: 7/15/03 3:52 pm

Timothy Schoonover

Sometimes when I feel that I have been pressed wrongly into a position I don't advocate, I can become beligerant and crotchety. If that is how I came across please forgive my outbursts.

As far as Postmodernism goes, if you really want to understand it, my advice is to find a book, not about why it's wrong or why its right, but about what it claims. Having an understanding of the history of philosophy helps, but isn't essential. In the end, I expect that you will conclude it to be mistaken, but what is important is not the conclusions drawn from a philosophy but the criticisms upon which those conclusions are based.

Kostya

Tim,

No problem. I didn't express my thoughts the best possible way either and I can see how it could be interpreted as an attack rather than question.

To tell you the truth, I am not completely philosophically illiterate. I have some basic understanding of concepts involved. However, everything that I’ve read was a very long time ago and in Russian, so not only I have my memory not cooperating with me, but I also have language/terminology confusion.

Anyway, for anyone who is lost and confused just like me about postmodernism I have located following article that seems to be giving a pretty good short overview of what is meant by this word:

cantarachristopher.bravep...rnism.html

Thank you.

Chris OConnor

Kostya

I've read that essay several times over the past year and I still don't know what postmodernism is. In fact, that very article (the most popular article found on the web when you run a search for PM) starts out by saying PM is hard to define. Why?

Tim

Quote:
Can you tell me what the enlightenment was? Do you think any informed person would say that the enlightenment was free from contradiction? What about the renaissance? What about scholasticism, or romanticism, or modernism? Should we hold postmodernism to a higher standard than these, or maybe all of history is "nothing at all?"

I can answer YES to all of these questions, however, I am on the way out the door till maybe 11pm tonight. There are well-established definitions for each of these terms, but there is not for PM. I'll get back with this thread late tonight or tomorrow.

And please don't take my comment in the Dawkins chat personally. I never would have said it if I thought it would offend you. It sure wasn't meant in a negative fashion. The bottom line is, even after all this discussion on BookTalk, only one person knows what PM is...and thats you. Perhaps you think in a different way than most people and are able to grasp more abstract concepts. I seriously don't know. But I still consider PM to me pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo. Until the day someone can step forward and explain what it is in laymans terms without a 12 paragraph essay complete with disclaimers I will refrain from considering it otherwise.

Chris

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be." -- Leonardo da Vinci

Timothy Schoonover

Quote:
I can answer YES to all of these questions, however, I am on the way out the door till maybe 11pm tonight. There are well-established definitions for each of these terms, but there is not for PM. I'll get back with this thread late tonight or tomorrow.

Because these terms, each in their own way, are loosely related collections of differing beliefs, experiences, and theories, they cannot be defined exactly, nor can they be expected to absolutely concur. They are not so much definitions as they are general categories or groupings of similar but often conflicting systems of belief. The enlightenment for example embodies the general idea that reason alone is sufficient to know and solve all of mankind's problems. Modernism represents a turning away from this optimism, but remains dependent upon reason mankind's best guide. Postmodernism is the result of modernism growing dispair in the utility of the truth according to reason and an embracing of heterogeneity and diversity, both in knowledge and morality. You don't have to like or agree with any of these descriptions, but most historians agree that, in general, they are accurate characterizations of their respective periods.

Returning to the enlightment, lets consider some theories which were developed during that time. Descartes, sometimes called the father of rationalism, thought that reality consisted of two fundamental substances--mind and body. The realm of the body conformed to the mechanistic world described by Newton, and reason was sufficient and supreme in understanding it. The realm of the mind, however, paralleled the realm of the body and sustained it. In fact, the realm of the mind transcended the realm of the body and despite his best efforts Descartes never adequately explained how the two could interact, except to say that God determines body the minds of men and the material of their world. Then there was Spinoza who said that substance, or matter, was just a fiction. The only things that is real are monads, or experience centers. Everything, according to Spinoza, experiences reality at some relative level and is composed of these mysterious little monads, which considered in totality become God. Then there was Leibniz, who said that there are infinite truths, all parallel, and that experience and reason are but two of them. Then Locke came along with his blank slate idea and claimed knowledge consists only of experience and introspection. Locke wasn't insightful enough to realize that if this were true, objective reality and causality must be presupposed without evidence. Hume, who saw the full implications of Lockes premise's reformulated them and drew the conclusions Locke was unwilling to make. Afterwards, Kant joined the discussion, and seeing how disastrous Hume had been to the validity of reason, developed a philosophy in which, he hoped, reason and experience could be reconciled. For Kant, there was pure reason applicable to universals (a priori knowledge) and pure experience of the particular (a posteriori). But a priori knowledge in this case, as it had been for Hobbs and Hume, was nominological, that is, it applied only to definition. For example, Man is an animal, is true because the definition of man contains the definition of animal. These 'truths' are not real but only conventional. What Kant tried to do was prove that universals can be derived from the knowledge of experience. I won't get into how he proceeded, or if he was successful, but I will say that Kant is a turning point in philosophy.

The interesting thing is, none of these philosophers agreed with one another, and some were diametrically opposed. There is inconsistency and contradiction at every step of the way, but what is common to all is the belief in man as competent and rational an individual, in which reason, observation, and experimentation rather than absolute dependence upon God can be used to improve one's life.

I hope I have saved you the trouble of wasting your time trying to prove the enlightment if free from contradiction.

Quote:
The bottom line is, even after all this discussion on BookTalk, only one person knows what PM is...and thats you. Perhaps you think in a different way than most people and are able to grasp more abstract concepts.

Don't patronize me.

Edited by: Timothy Schoonover at: 7/16/03 9:39 pm

wmmurrah

Tim,

I am also very skeptical of postmodernism. However, If I remember correctly I have only criticized claims you have made about PM and not PM in general. And the statements you have presented were rife with contradictions. Now I am wondering whether you accept the basic building blocks of all rational thought, namely the law of identity, the law of non contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. If you do not accept these then I am interested in learning how you would justify such a stance. If you do accept them, my next question is can you explain what you mean by postmodernism? Or, falling short of that mark, can you at least justify your claim that PM has merit?

I am also curious as to your personal stance on PM. Are you a postmodernist or not? Here you seem to imply that you have read a great deal about the subject but I can not recollect you taking a definate stance on the issue.

I truly hope you do not take offense at my statements. I sincerely see this discussion as a potential learning experience. I am open to anything you have to say.

Timothy Schoonover

wmurrah

You have brought up a lot of good questions and unfortunately I will not be able to respond satisfactorily to each issue in a single post. I will however attempt to meliorate your concerns in general.

Am I a postmodernist? As I stated in the first post of this thread: categorically and unequivocally, I am not. Do I think postmodernism has something to contribute to human understanding? Yes on many counts. My first attempts to defend the merits of postmodernism on these boards were clumsy and inapt for such an audience. My understanding of the material was superficial and fragmentary and although I have taken steps to educate myself on the matter since then, it still is.

You see, most people don't have a firm grasp on what it means to be a rationalist or a realist from a philosophic perspective, and they understand even less why postmodernists would oppose those two noble positions. They simple see realism/rationalism as an affirmation of science and the scientific method, and consequently postmodernism as the demon which maliciously torments their beloved scientific community, even though they have only a minimal idea about what postmodernism is critiquing. To most people the presuppositions about human knowledge are so integral to the way we think and live our lives that they are unable to bring themselves to question their validity, and subsequently regard those who do question those presuppositions as heinous monsters, intent on eroding the last bastion of human truth. Additionally there is a lot of cultural baggage mucking things up from the the Romantic period onward. Romantics scorned reason, science, and totalizing systems. You will recall Keat's "Unweave the rainbow" expression. We can blame this, and frequently do, on Kant. Kant claimed that we can never have knowledge of things-in-themselves. We only have perception (precepts) and the categories we use to recognize them as objects (concepts). Through the synthesis of precept and concept, knowledge is obtained, but it is synthetic knowledge, not objective or analytic knowledge of reality. Philosophy and science have henceforth been forced to deal with Kant. Some have plunged into the abyss of subjectivity and wallowed in it, while some have fought for that point of absolute reference: Truth. Where the common man falls within this continuum is less a matter of who is more right, than it is of who is more palatable with respect to the cultural milleu of the era. This point, I would concede, is disputable, but many philosophers of history will tell you that science, art, politics, and religion are expressions of the mindset of their respective culture.

Do I accept the basic building blocks of all rational thought? Yes, with the provision that they apply only to the realm of the rational. The question of importance is, and it is one that is easily lost in the animated disputations: does, and if so to what extend, logic conform to what is real? And by corrolary, how can we know that it does? It is a truism to say that logic conforms to logic, and as such means nothing, but rationalism would tell us that logic conforms absolutely to reality and realism would tell us that logic is capable of providing knowledge which converges upon reality. Are we justified in making these claims and if so on what basis? Be careful how you answer this question. If you say we are justified because science works, you make it a moral justification. To say "it works" implies that it is effective with respect to some held value. Values are slippery things and difficult to elevate into the realm of the universal. Moreover, even if we are in fact justified, would you not agree that it is good to ask these kinds of questions? Does postmodernism need more merit than that?

It is my intention to undertake a brief composition of the history of philosophy from Kant onward, or perhaps even from Thales to present. In it, I will try to demonstrate the lines of thought which weave together what we often think of as independent bodies of philosophic theory. Philosophy is largely a progression and postmodernism is but a 'moment' in that chronology. There are certainly many mistaken 'moments,' some more than others, but to abrogate all of postmodernism without even understanding its claims is to not percieve it as the inevitable result of a long line of thinking, or more accurately, it is to view it from the narrow blinders of your own historical reference.

Edited by: Timothy Schoonover at: 7/24/03 3:08 pm


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT