Postmodernism is alive, very influential, very destructive, and very opposed to critical thinking

[Duke_Leto]

Would you include the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Germs, and the Theory of Evolution in your "variety of competing perspectives", none of which can be determined to be more valid than others? Or are you only criticizing here the notion of progress as an attribute of nature?

I believe a postmodernist would only criticize the latter.

 

[Sunstone]

I believe a postmodernist would only criticize the latter.

I agree with you that progress is not an attribute of nature, but from what I understand, numerous postmodernists have criticized the notion of an objective reality, and hence, an objective truth, including Lyotard, Foucault, and Derrida.

 

[shunyadragon]

As I said in the OP, postmodernism IS an idea in art - we're agreed on this much. But the OP was SPECIFICALLY concerning that additional aspect of postmodernism that addresses philosophy.

I understand that is the claim you are making concerning 'additional aspects' of postmodernism. I believe that you are greatly over stating the influence and impact of post modernism on the contemporary world.

First, I'm not laying all the blame at the foot of postmodernism, I'm suggesting that it's one (important) source of many.

This is most definitely not how you proposed it in the opening post. One of many? The reality is that post modernism is more a product of changing world in a rebellious movement in art and literature than a 'cause' of anything.

In fact, many aspects of post modernism in art and literature has somewhat faded and moderated over time. The over all influence is some what diluted.

As for the rest - well now we've got an actual debate on our hands! Hooray! So let's take one example (feel free to pick on others), multiculturalism. Let's also say for the sake of discussion, that historically, Western secular society has been guilty of colonialism and racism and such. Well first, so have all of today's competing major societal approaches. Second, do you have any examples of approaches that are superior to western secularism? For the record, western secularism has a lot of problems. But I think it's by far the best system we've cooked up so far.

Problem with bold. How does your egocentric assertion 'best system' equivalent to 'equally valid.' Everybody claims their culture is the best system.

Cultural validity without the egocentric judgement is indeed expressed in the spiritual teaching of the Baha'i Faith.

Well, ah . . . Western Christian Manifest Destiny would be a significant cause of violence in the changing contemporary world, and yes colonialism is major aspect of this and has no competitive comparison in recent history.

I think postmodernism was a major influence on the rise of the idea that all cultures are equally valid.

From what I have read, there is no reference that post modernism claims all cultures are equally valid. Please provide a reference form the perspective of a contemporary post modernist.

Equal is a subjective term in this case, but an unlikely valid value judgement from any pespective. The problem is whether any culture can be considered inherently superior taking away the egocentric perspective that many cultures consider themselves superior. I believe that the claim of inherent superiority of one culture and/or religion is indeed a major cause of the violence in recent history.

You still need to address the following problem:

Your reference makes too much of a broad generalization of 'post modernism' as the 'boggy man' and its supposed impact on society. It partially cites out of context the reference in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You need to read the whole reference in context.

Postmodernism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Sunstone]

I don't see postmodernism as promoting logical reasoning, clarity of thought, or critical thinking. Seems it promotes a more emotive, moralistic, and prejudicial thinking style.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't see postmodernism as promoting logical reasoning, clarity of thought, or critical thinking. Seems it promotes a more emotive, moralistic, and prejudicial thinking style.

. . . and kind of intellectually egocentric.

 

[icehorse]

You've said twice now that it's not a valid study, either as a 'something nobody can be an expert in' or because the study is a 'foundationless modern ill.' Then complain about expertise being invalidated, which you just did. These are your words.

I'm going to chalk this up to miscommunication, not malice on your part.

As I read the definition of "intersectionality" and see the term in use (and those two largely align), what I see is that it - by definition - defies any sort of methodical analysis. You can't blame that on me, that seems to be how it is defined. In other words, it's not study-able by objective outsiders, it can be defined only by the person with the "lived experience". For example, if you take just a handful of factors, say gender, race, economic strata, and education level, you already have thousands of possible variations, each of which - so the claim goes - must be assessed on an individual basis.

 

[icehorse]

His portrayal of bill C-16, the issue that made him famous, was a completely false. All C-16 would do is prevent discrimination against people based on "gender identity", and add "gender identity" and "gender expression" to a list of identifiable groups targeted for genocide, making killing people based on "gender identity" an act of genocide (or attempted genocide). It had nothing to do with "hate speech", and Peterson was either lying or severely deluded about what was in the bill when he made the claims that he did.

Then why did his university's lawyers tell him that if he didn't agree to using the compelled pronouns he might be charged with a crime?

Secondly, Marx was the poster child of modernist philosophy. "Marxism" is absolutely not postmodern, and people claiming that it is, again, don't know what they're talking about. "Modernism" might be summarized by the sentiment that history is moving in a particular direction -- a utopia, an apocalypse -- while postmodernism is a sort of reaction against modernism; the recognition that there is no grand underlying truth to the world or any particular movement of history other than what people make it, that a variety of competing perspectives exist that for the most part can't be determined to be particularly more valid than others, etc.

One of Peterson's points (I believe), is that both Marxism and postmodernism strive for "equality of outcome". All the significant attempts made by marxists to achieve that goal were disasterous, and that's not surprising. So when we hear arguments for "equality of outcome" or "egalitarian" solutions, we are right to be extremely suspicious. Who do you propose would judge equality of outcome for us?

 

[icehorse]

From what I have read, there is no reference that post modernism claims all cultures are equally valid. Please provide a reference form the perspective of a contemporary post modernist.

This feels like a "LMGTFY" moment. I searched on "postmodernism claims for multiculturalism" and got plenty of hits.

Or perhaps you're being quite literal here? What if I were to say instead that postmodernism would contend that cultures cannot be objectively assessed at all? If you're okay with that claim, then it's easy to connect the dots to arrive at the sort of multicultural mess Europe has gotten itself into.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm going to chalk this up to miscommunication, not malice on your part.

As I read the definition of "intersectionality" and see the term in use (and those two largely align), what I see is that it - by definition - defies any sort of methodical analysis. You can't blame that on me, that seems to be how it is defined. In other words, it's not study-able by objective outsiders, it can be defined only by the person with the "lived experience". For example, if you take just a handful of factors, say gender, race, economic strata, and education level, you already have thousands of possible variations, each of which - so the claim goes - must be assessed on an individual basis.

Thousands of variables is neither uncommon or a deal breaker in academic pursuits. Once again, each whole expression of traits and series of traits in evolution is unique with tens of if not hundreds of thousands of variables putting selective pressure on various aspects of our physiology and psychology. (Which is why 'fitness' is meaningless without individual context.). That doesn't mean It's not studyable or with no room for predictive application (used in environmental studies to bioinformetics.) It just means you have to understamd there's a whole level of individual and population aspects of evolutionary dynamic.

 

[shunyadragon]

This feels like a "LMGTFY" moment. I searched on "postmodernism claims for multiculturalism" and got plenty of hits.

Or perhaps you're being quite literal here? What if I were to say instead that postmodernism would contend that cultures cannot be objectively assessed at all? If you're okay with that claim, then it's easy to connect the dots to arrive at the sort of multicultural mess Europe has gotten itself into.

I would be requiring a higher standard particularly in terms of a cause and effect relationships with postmodernism.

I consider post modernism a reaction product of the changing world, and in some ways a little extreme, but not a cause. It is the response to the absolute claims of cultures/religions, and absolute cultural superiority, and standards of objective morality that in a contemporary world come directly into conflict.

The present problems of the mess of Europe arose primarily with Islamic migration to Europe with both cultures trying assert cultural and objective moral superiority from their own religious perspective.

I, of course, do not remotely endorse the extreme muticulturalism as remotely realistic, and go for the secular neutral government position of moderate multiculturalism like is the hope of the USA. This unfortunately this is rejected by the extremes. Unfortunately in the USA the conservative right wants to impose a Christian cultural standard for the government.

This is where the extreme conservative right and the extreme, almost libertarian, left become polarized and reject the middle way.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

Postmodernism doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned, it's been going on since the beginning of time

 

[shunyadragon]

All extremes are very destructive, and very opposed to critical thinking. Up until recent history the extremes dominated in their own worlds separated by boundaries, seas and oceans. Today they have to deal with each other face to face as neighbors.

 

[Augustus]

Next, can you share your understanding of intersectionality?

This sums it up pretty well

Straight Black Men Are the White People of Black People

 

[Nous]

I must confess, I thought about a lot of ways to get into this area, and I’m not sure this is the best approach but…

First off, I’m not talking about art or architecture, at least not primarily. I’m talking about postmodern philosophy.

The first time I can recall hearing about how postmodern philosophy is alive and destructive was when I started listening to Jordan Peterson deal with Canadian bill C-16. We’ve debated this bill several times on this forum, and while I don’t want to totally detour back into the issues with this bill, I will say that it’s gone from being a proposal to being a law. argh. And it’s not a stretch to see it being used to compel speech. Let that rattle around in your brain - compelled speech.

There is nothing of a philosophical postmodern nature in including gender identity and expression in the anti-discrimination and anti-hate propaganda laws any more than there is in including race, sexual orientation and sex in these laws. Moreover, anti-discrimination and anti-hate propaganda laws do not compel anyone to speak. What a ridiculous claim!

Since you can't argue your strange and regressive ideas about C-16, you should work on getting over them.

BTW, I agree with most everything else you say in the OP about postmodern philosophy. It's essentially nonsense that has contributed nothing to philosophy and will never contribute anything to philosophy.

 

[icehorse]

Since you can't argue your strange and regressive ideas about C-16, you should work on getting over them.

I don't agree that my ideas about c-16 are strange or regressive. Here's lawyer Jared Brown testifying before a Canadian Senate committee: The critical three minutes start around 5:20 and end around 8:10, but the whole 9 minutes might be useful:

And here's the actual brief Jared Brown filed. I'm not a lawyer, but as he lays out the path to compelled speech it seems quite plausible:

Bill C-16 – What’s the Big Deal?

I think one key aspect is that it's a mistake to focus only on the few words added by C-16, you have to look further into the language in the Human Rights laws.

 

[Nous]

I don't agree that my ideas about c-16 are strange or regressive. Here's lawyer Jared Brown testifying before a Canadian Senate committee: The critical three minutes start around 5:20 and end around 8:10, but the whole 9 minutes might be useful:

I didn't watch this video (yet), but on the basis of the title words it displays, I will just repeat this: Question for supporters of the second amendment.

It's just incomprehensible and blatantly false nonsense to claim that this law imposes prison sentences on people for using "the wrong pronouns".

And here's the actual brief Jared Brown filed. I'm not a lawyer, but as he lays out the path to compelled speech it seems quite plausible:

Bill C-16 – What’s the Big Deal?

That's a blog post, not a brief. The Canadian law that includes "gender identity" and "gender expression" among the prohibited bases for discriminating against people in employment and provision of goods and services, and as a basis for promoting hate propaganda does not compel speech any more than inclusion of race, sex, or sexual orientation in these laws compel speech. Anyone who believes the nonsense you have promoted on this topic needs to try to find a 12-step program for overcoming their irrational animus toward transgender people.

 

[icehorse]

I didn't watch this video (yet), but on the basis of the title words it displays

Once you've looked at the 3 minutes of video I recommended, I'll take your feedback a little more seriously. fair enough?

I mean I get the sense that you're either a lawyer or know a lot about the law. I think Jared Brown's testimony and his blog post would hold water with a lawyer. Or if not, he made a series of very precise factual claims that ought to be addressable on a point by point basis. His analysis seems thoughtful, I think it's worthy of a respectful look.

 

[Nous]

Once you've looked at the 3 minutes of video I recommended, I'll take your feedback a little more seriously. fair enough?

I mean I get the sense that you're either a lawyer or know a lot about the law. I think Jared Brown's testimony and his blog post would hold water with a lawyer. Or if not, he made a series of very precise factual claims that ought to be addressable on a point by point basis. His analysis seems thoughtful, I think it's worthy of a respectful look.

Where in any of the statutes does it require people to use those freakish "invented gender pronouns" listed at 0:12 or else go to prison? Quote where the law says any such thing.

It is absolute, utter, ridiculous lunacy, motivated by gross bigotry toward transgender people.

 

[icehorse]

Where in any of the statutes does it require people to use those freakish "invented gender pronouns" listed at 0:12 or else go to prison? Quote where the law says any such thing.

It is absolute, utter, ridiculous lunacy, motivated by gross bigotry toward transgender people.

Of course the law is frequently indirect - as I suspect you well know. Did you listen to those three minutes? This lawyer put his reputation on the line in testifying before a Senate committee, and I think his line of reasoning - although complex - made sense.

One point is that it's not just one law, it's a combination of:

- hate crime laws
- human rights laws
- and C-16

All working together, that can lead to compelled speech.

So this lawyer made a series of factual claims. Unless you can point to one or more of his claims that you think are factually incorrect, all I can surmise is that you're not really thinking about this situation, you're just doing a bit of ad-hoc reckoning.

 

[Nous]

Of course the law is frequently indirect - as I suspect you well know.

In the history of the world there has never been a law that prohibited or compelled the use of certain pronouns but didn't state what pronouns were prohibited or required to be used.

So this lawyer made a series of factual claims.

Quote one.

The utter and egregious lunacy of the idea that the Canadian law compels or prohibits the use of certain pronouns is a proven fact. Where are all the prosecutions for using the wrong pronouns? The bill was passed by Parliament and received Royal Assent last June.

You need to examine your motives in your claims. It's your own transphobic bigotry that prevents you from understanding that inclusion of gender identity and expression in Canada's anti-discrimination and hate propaganda laws is no different than inclusion of race, religion, sexual orientation and sex in these laws. If someone had said the same things about inclusion of sex as a prohibited basis for discriminatory treatment and hate propaganda as you have said about inclusion of gender identity and expression, you would readily understand the prejudice that motivates such claims.