Does it mean anything? Do we say it when we really mean "Modern"? What will we call modern things in the future?

I read an article (that I can't for the life of me recall right now, possibly by Richard Dawkins) that challenged the reader to ask the next person who uses this expression to explain what they mean by it (unless they're talking about Architecture).

Rotten Tanx wrote:I read an article (that I can't for the life of me recall right now, possibly by Richard Dawkins) that challenged the reader to ask the next person who uses this expression to explain what they mean by it (unless they're talking about Architecture).

Postmodernism Disrobed (Is this the article?)

I think we need a good definition of modernism in order to understand what postmoderism is, because it is a reflexive term, and begin from there:

Modernism

I'm going to have a think about this one before I say anything else.

i like the simpsons answer to this, the episode where moe reinvents his tavern as an uber-hip nightspot (and changes his name to Moe Saint Cool)

karl - hey moe, what's with all the eyeballs?
moe - "it's po-mo"
karl, lenny, homer, and barney shrug, scratch heads etc
moe - "post modern"
guys continue to not get it
moe - "weird for the sake of being weird"
guys - "oh, okay, yeah" etc

it's a misused term, but it has a meaning

to zero in on what i perceive to be one crucial point:

modernism supposes that thoughts/feelings/desires are things that can be adequately expressed, expounded upon, and communicated b/c some element of communal experience informs those thoughts/feelings/desires.

modernism postulates certain redefinitions of these things, compared to older forms, but still it acknowledges the self and community as things that exist

postmodernism is distinct from modernism in that it rejects this line of thought. it rejects the relationship between individual and communal experience in favor of fragmentation (at 'best') and chaos (at 'worst').

postmodernism is a 'de-definition' of the self, community, etc. etc.

the reason it's hard to define is that by accepting fragmentation and even chaos as status quo, postmodernism has the effect of rejecting definition. slapping a tag on it is not a postmodern thing to do.

anyway, much great postmodern art. applicable to modern life. truths in some implementations. and i'd go crazy if i thought it was the one true way.

i'm sure many philosophy brains on this board know a lot more about it than i do

Fuck these guys.

Postmortemism?
I'll give it a NOT CRAP

Where's LAD when you need him for a definition?

Oh yeah, he's sitting in a tent somewhere... perhaps trying to recover from the stresses of bottomless pits of information, multicultural identity crises, global economic detritus, and the condition of feeling one is moving in so many different directions at once that it is no longer possible to make linear progress, nor even conceptualize existence linearly.

Postmodernism is neither crap nor not crap. Well, at least I think that's how a postmodernist would describe it.

It's an odd thing, because I think it's a very legitimate, real thing, despite the fact that it struggles so hard to define itself. For lack of a better analogy, I'll say consider the internet... imagine existence as the internet. Everything is tied together, and you are no nearer nor further away from a flashing porno ad than a fundamentalist Christian weblog. Multibillion dollar commerce runs alongside government files runs along underground revolutionist propaganda, all in the same medium... and then, on top of it all, the entire mash of shit--the thing itself--is a simulacrum: it's a projection on a computer screen.

That's the best I can do for now.

It has to be not crap because it just is... a bunch of crap, that is.

Oh, but the term 'po-mo' is definitely crap.

Cranius wrote:

Rotten Tanx wrote:I read an article (that I can't for the life of me recall right now, possibly by Richard Dawkins) that challenged the reader to ask the next person who uses this expression to explain what they mean by it (unless they're talking about Architecture).

Postmodernism Disrobed (Is this the article?)

I think we need a good definition of modernism in order to understand what postmoderism is, because it is a reflexive term, and begin from there:

Modernism

I'm going to have a think about this one before I say anything else.

Oh, and this is an example of the split between 'criticism' (as in literary criticism) and enlightenment logic, i.e. science. Basically, scientists like Alan Sokal say 'theorists' like Deleuze are spouting strings and strings of nonsense. And they spouting a lot of stuff that is hard to interpret--because they're postmodernists--but it has meaning in it. It's just that the meaning is buried, or multifaceted. I think postmodern thought is an art in and of itself, being, among many things, about difficulty and multifarous nature of definition, and being and embodying this by example while also discussing it. The problem for thinkers of more 'traditional' style, i.e. logical positivists (i.e. scientists) is that it doesn't make any sense--because it doesn't cohere. It makes some sense, but not entirely. It's so deeply metaphorical that in order for it to be decoded I think we have to better decode metaphor itself... something that is hard to swallow if you're at all relying on empiricism (observation).

Let's just say the goal might not necessarily be to be clearly understood...

I got my Undergrad from a certain art school in the midwest. In my experience, the "pomo" thing in academia sometimes perpetuates a kind of socially/intellectual inbred, condescending jackass. These folks use the same fallacious arguments and fucked "logic" (tautology, over reliance on "authorities", reductio ad absurdum, etc.) as other liars. On the other hand, if not taken seriously, the pomo thing can be great fun. I don't care for liars, so I'll vote crap with waffles on the side.

Cranius wrote:Postmodernism Disrobed (Is this the article?)

By the way, I think many scientists get literally offended by postmodern philosophy, probably because of the way it appropriates scientific language. This article is an example of that as well... and it's kind of funny to see how childish they can be about it:

that article wrote:But don't the postmodernists claim only to be 'playing games'? Isn't the whole point of their philosophy that anything goes, there is no absolute truth, anything written has the same status as anything else, and no point of view is privileged? Given their own standards of relative truth, isn't it rather unfair to take them to task for fooling around with word games, and playing little jokes on readers? Perhaps, but one is then left wondering why their writings are so stupefyingly boring. Shouldn't games at least be entertaining, not po-faced, solemn and pretentious? More tellingly, if they are only joking, why do they react with such shrieks of dismay when somebody plays a joke at their expense?

Personally, I think postmodernism is damn interesting. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't have rules. It's like a very complex linguistic intellectual game. I don't see why such a powerful and grounded institution as that of scientific inquiry needs to take such personal offense to it, and lash out against it the way it does. It kind of sounds like something a church would do in response to a heretic...

Hey, wait a minute...