[myWindoonn]

It's not our fault that society can't bear to look at itself in a mirror.

Postmodernism broadly consists of only two tools. The first, as you mentioned, is the deconstructive POV, the ability to look at an object as-is and to understand its origin, its design, its footguns, its flawed narrative, its social excuses, its secret hatreds. But there's more.

We also get the curse of relativity, the understanding that all epistemic sources are relative and that we ultimately choose to believe what we believe. This was definitely frustrating, coming on the heels of modernism, and that's why postmodernism has its name: modernism is clearly wrong and serves only to mislead and enslave via narrative control.

But in return, we get something good: Concepts can become relativized too, and so we get many simple metaphysical statements as ways to understand what things are. What is a proof? Well, it's whatever convinces you that something is true. We lose absolute proof, but each of us gain a deeper understanding of what it means to prove something to somebody. What is art? Well, it's an expression in some medium. We lose art galleries, but now we can be artistic just by expressing ourselves any time we find new media, such as video games or graffiti or atomic layer deposition or selfies.

We get another good thing: A more precise understanding of how the various pieces of knowledge fit together. By talking of theories and evidence and logic as objects in their own rights, rather than as absolute facets of the universe, we can connect the various sciences and reunify the entire philosophical endeavor under a single umbrella, just like Quine always wanted with his semantic web of science. Maths is logic is metaphysics. [0]

Edit: Formatting, examples.

[0] https://philpapers.org/archive/ALVLIM-3.pdf

[lmm]

It's not that we can't bear to look at ourselves in a mirror. It's that objective reality, truth and all of that do exist, good art is better than bad art in ways that aren't purely relative, and so on. Postmodernism loses you more than you gain.

[ThomPete]

Just saying they exist doesn't make them exist. Good art vs. bad art isn't an argument against postmodernism.

Whenever I meet people who claim there is an objective truth I always ask them to give any examples. So far I have not met anyone who can come up with an objective claim that isn't merely basing that on a frame of reference which can be deconstructed or shown to be based on a set of apriori assumptions itself.

[zxcmx]

I am reminded of the “brick in the face” argument against solopsism.

Tell me whack more about your whack frame of reference...

I see postmodernism and extreme relativism as a sort of awesome stage of society where we get to make up reality because we are freed from mundane concerns like knowing where our water comes from or where our sh%t gets flushed to. It is quite wonderful that many many people get the luxury of never even being curious about these things.

Meanwhile, the engineers, doctors, carers, labourers (I am missing a lot out here) who ultimately keep people alive tend to have quite definite opinions about critical aspects of reality.

Granted these are still not objective truths because all experience is subjective. All I can say is that a sophist who believes that rent is not an objective truth is nonetheless likely to find themselves (subjectively) on the streets if they don’t pay it.

[ThomPete]

Buddhist philosophy reached some of the same conclusions as postmodernism have.

But don't forget that the fact most of our early engineering advanced were done by philosophers who had the time to ponder and tinker.

[zxcmx]

Yeah I tried to argue over several edits that people seem less objective about their own pain or hunger but realised I backed myself into a corner :)

[ThomPete]

With regards to rent. That's a human construct not something that exist out there that I cannot ignore. I could ignore it and if I am strong enough I can take it away from you.

So rent is in fact highly subjective. Not the definition but the reality of it.

[RikNieu]

> So far I have not met anyone who can come up with an objective claim that isn't merely basing that on a frame of reference which can be deconstructed or shown to be based on a set of apriori assumptions itself.

I'm not too familiar with postmodern theory, would you explain this please?

Say I state that you posted the above sentence, and that that is an objective truth.

How would you break that down to assumptions?

[zxcmx]

You just keep asking “why” until you hit axioms.

In a dictionary, all the words are defined by other words.

Observe that all experience is subjective, anyone can have any set of axioms they like and “voila”, there can be no “objective” truth.

It’s true in this kind of tautological way, and kind of interesting.

On the other hand no one I know truly acts as though this is true. Also I think the world is a lot more interesting and frankly simpler to think about if you assume objective truths exist.

[RikNieu]

> In a dictionary, all the words are defined by other words.

> Observe that all experience is subjective, anyone can have any set of axioms they like and “voila”, there can be no “objective” truth.

Hmmm,ok. So does this mean it's a critique on how language models the world instead of the world itself?

My axioms doesn't affect yours. Or a rat's, or a cats. Yet we'll all interact. Where does the interaction happen if not in an objective overlap, that which the subjectivity attempts to describe?

The words we use can described by other words, but other words do describe them.

[ThomPete]

You and I both know what an apple is conceptually. We do however not refer to exactly the same apple. We refer to something that similar enough that we can get away with calling it an apple because we reduce reality to categorize things around us. (our brains are wired to be economical about how we understand the world otherwise we wouldn't be able to think a single thought)

[ringbugger]

> I know truly acts as though this is true.

Because how true could that be by defintion?

I do believe in objective truth, even if not realistically achievable and perhaps not philosophical mainstream. But if it is also simpler and more interesting, that is an additional plus and probably more correct.

I also admit to having premises and no problem to reflect upon them. Only to some of them I keep a sentimental relationship. A frame of reference might always be needed. But why should the frame be special?

Subjective to me is the relevance of the assumption about truth. The same can be said about a lot of discussions about conscience and general perception.

[ThomPete]

They don't have to be objective to be useful though.

The flat earthers don't fall off the planet just because they think the world is flat and believing it flat still allow them to find the way from village A to B if close enough.

It's just not a good enough model to build ex. a GPS satellites.

So I agree that we will, of course, assume a lot of things are "objective" even though they aren't from a philosophical point of view and that's all good. Philosophically though you can't really get around the postmodern philosophy if you want to discuss reality to it's full extent we can.

[ThomPete]

Well, first of all, how do you know I posted it? What does it mean to post something? How does what I posted manifest itself in reality if you aren't there to interpret my post.

Those are the kind of questions you would ask to start pulling it all apart. Those questions would be absurd in a normal discussion but in philosophy, they are important questions because they help us unravel our assumptions about the reality we often take for granted.

[Vaskivo]

> Well, first of all, how do you know I posted it? What does it mean to post something? How does what I posted manifest itself in reality if you aren't there to interpret my post.

I feel like you are not questioning the message but the way and the "tools" used to convey it. ("what are words?" "what does it really mean when you say X?"). You want to start the discussion by questioning the (supposed) common middle ground of understanding that will be used for it. This way, I think, you kind of refused to try to give an answer to your parent.

I don't claim the anyone can "know truth totally and completely". But, conceptually I think there is. In a particular point of the universe at a particular time there was a specific particle there. Or wasn't. It couldn't be and not be. Subjectively it may seem one thing or the other. O even both. But it was either there or not.

And how do you deny the truism "The Universe IS"[0]? If you deny it you face a paradox because how can you call it false if false doesn't exist?

[0] By "Universe" I mean everything that exists, existed and will exist. Concrete and abstract.

[ThomPete]

"the universe is" is just another version of Ayn Rands "Existence exists" (A = A).

But "the universe is" is just tautological I.e it doesn't help you understand the universe any better and you still have to define what you mean with universe even your [0] will run into all sorts of problems (like what is time, what does it mean something exists etc)

It's it's own axiom and conclusion in the same sentence.

Gödel proved that mathematically and logically with his "incompleteness theorem" but you can also as I did above show it in different ways.

And you are right I am not questioning the message I am questioning the assumptions of the message. As I have said other places.

You obviously can't have a normal everyday discussion like that i.e. we normally speak with a lot of assumptions many of them completely unfounded and still manage to get productive results.

But philosophically this is a different discussion where you are forced to question the assumptions of your axioms.

[RikNieu]

So postmodernism is to ignore conventional context?

If it's absurd in regular situations, of what use is it in daily life?

[ThomPete]

That's not the job of philosophy.

I think you referring to the more popularized life-philosophy which is quite different.

Postmodernism doesn't ignore conventional context it inquires about the solidity of it. The job of philosophy is to ask questions not find answers.

[forgottenpass]

>modernism is clearly wrong and serves only to mislead and enslave via narrative control

And when postmodernism is used as a toolkit to deploy different narratives, with the same amount of misleading and control, pointed a in slightly tweaked directions? What exactly did we get?

A new way to set down a foundation of bullshit, but perpetrated by a group that pulls up the ladder behind them. Excluding anyone who doesn't know how to play their semantic games from having an opinion about consensus reality.

[golergka]

> modernism is clearly wrong and serves only to mislead and enslave via narrative control

No, it shows something completely different: modernism is merely subjective, just like anything else. I wholeheartedly agree with the subjectivity part of post-modernism, but I don't see how it contradicts or disproves the modernist concepts; if anything, it only strengthens the objectivits approach, where each person or a collective is assumed to act out of his own, subjective, self-interest.

The only thing it destroys is utilitiarian "universal" ethical system, which is completely deserved.

[cristianpascu]

All I can think about when reading post-modernists, with their critique narrative of western science and rational authority, is that they just want more sex. No surprise, since the most prominent post modernists are French. Kidding here and sort of not. What are you left with if you critique the West as a phallocracy, patriarchal oppression of women, and ALSO objective knowledge? Something like: "Let's get together and feel alright!"