The Seven Self-Contradictions of Postmodernism

[The One and Only...]

1. Postmodernism espouses anti-theory which is essentially a theoretical stand.
2. Postmodernism stresses the irrational, yet instruments of reason are freely employed within the perspective.
3. Postmodern prescription to focus on the marginal is a evaluative emphasis.
4. Postmodernist stress intertextuality but often treat text in isolation.
5. By rejecting modern criteria for assessing theory, Postmodernist cannot argue that there are no valid criteria for judging.
6. Postmodernist criticize the inconsistency of modernism, but refuse to be held in consistency norms themselves.
7. Postmodernist contradict themselves by relinquishing truth claims in their own writing.

Thank you, Rosenau.

[MLE]

seeing your post count rise about 1000 made me sad.

[theapportioner]

*yawn*

[theapportioner]

How about some -primary- citations bitch? Let's see you cull through the texts of major postmodern theorists and pull out statements that would support -any- of those positions.

[The One and Only...]

Hello? Do you even know what postmodernism -is-?

Read some fricken Rorty.

[theapportioner]

Like Rorty is the only postmodern theorist around. Whut? The other folks are too difficult for you?

There -are- serious criticisms to be made of postmodernism - it's just that -you- are not in any position to argue.

[The One and Only...]

Read some Derrida, then. It all comes down to the same conclusions.

You still have not shown to me that you have even a basic working conception of postmodernism. It is you, not I, who is not in any position to criticize.

[theapportioner]

I listed some of the characteristics in another thread. I think it was started a few months ago by Miss Modular. Dig for it yourself.

I REFUSE to answer the question "what is postmodernism?" because its meaning cannot be captured in a few well-put sentences. Even what I had written about it is misleading. The intended methodology, application, epistemology, etc. of representative writers are often misunderstood. But if you MUST insist, I will start by echoing Lyotard's contention that postmodernism is a rejection of the metanarrative.

[The One and Only...]

Postmodernism is a rejection of objectivity.

Postmodernism is a rejection of science.

Postmodernism is a rejection of foundationalism.

Postmodernism is a rejection of independant truth.

Postmodernism is a rejection of independant logic.

Postmodernism is an embrace of historicism.

Postmodernism is an embrace of irrationality.

Postmodernism is an embrace of incoherance.

And so the list goes on...

[theapportioner]

Well, yes, but you have misunderstood everything.

I won't speak for everyone, but Richard Rorty (the only one you've read, it seems, and probably only from some encyclopedia) DOES NOT reject concepts like truth, science, objectivity, and so on. They have their uses, but their use is dependent on certain precise contexts. The problem is when these concepts are generalized, abstracted away from the context. Rorty (and many others) criticize the ways in which we LEGITIMATE something, say the primacy of science, based on the overgeneralization of these ideas. It is the basis for legitimation that is all wrong. You have to remember that, although Rorty is sympathetic to the ideas of folks like Derrida, that he's also very much part of the analytic philosophy tradition.

[The One and Only...]

Rorty denies necessary truths. Truth, to him, is relative to the historical context in which it was placed.

Thus, those Nazis who denied the holocaust were actually doing a good thing, as they were trying to bring it about that the holocaust had never happened.

This is not that far from the theories of self-legitimizing societal narratives that Lyotard proposed, or really any of the other postmodern theories.

Really, though, postmodernism appears to be self-contradicting on grand scale.

[theapportioner]

You seem to have no idea what the word "context" means.

But hey, it's been said that postmodernists are the neocon's best friends. You should be encouraging it.

My problem with postmodernism is less a philosophical one, more a moral one.

[The One and Only...]

con·text
n.
1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

Postmodernism leans toward Marxism.

[theapportioner]

On certain terms, yes. But here's the major difference - Marxism holds on to that whole 'metanarrative' bit in order to justify revolutionary change. Postmodernism rejects that, so it can't do very much to justify social action. Keep them all cynical and nihilistic; neocons couldn't be happier.

[Abcdxxxx]

Holy shit. The academy has ruined another generation. Being "intellectual" just makes you really fucking stupid.

[theapportioner]

But not when they agree with you!!!!!!

[AChimp]

This thread needs a bucket of shrimp.

http://www.new-agri.co.uk/image/013/fo01a.jpg

SAVED. :picklehat

[Brandon]

WHEW! THAT WAS A CLOSE ONE, CHIMPY!

[Dole]

Thank fuck there are people like OAO in this world, because no matter how bad things are or how bad you feel you can always say 'At least I'm not him'.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

I wonder if he'll still be a complete asswipe after his first sexual encounter....outside of a rest stop mens room....:|

[Dole]

he has youth on his side I guess.....hopefully someone will love or beat all the bullshit out of him.

[Protoclown]

I just wanted to say that I don't know thing fucking one about postmodernism, nor do I care to. It smells like a whole bunch of bullshit to me.

[mburbank]

THE SEVEN SELF CONTRADICTIONS OF OAO


1. OAO pimps a compulsive familiarity with buzzwords as intelligence.
2. OAO stresses his boy-geniusness, yet freely employs a level of weinerosity only attainable through years of sustained annoyingness.
3. OAO prescription to sometimes make a sentence no have a meaning with while abstating positionableosity.
4. OAO stress poindexterism but often treat text solely as form of namedroppage.
5. By rejecting modern criteria for assessing theory, OAO blah blah blah until you stop reading and so don't know he's just regurgitating bookjacket copy that he east by the shovelfull
6. OAO criticizes the inconsistency of you, but refuse to seek treatment for an event horizon of narcissism so extreme no redeeming characteristics can escape it's pull.
7. OAO contradicts himself by insisting a survey knowledge of economics and philosophy is actually an expertise on anything

[Cosmo Electrolux]

"MOM!!!!!!!!! I was discussing post-modernism with grandpa and he put his daddy stick up my poopoo hole!!!!!!

[The One and Only...]

On certain terms, yes. But here's the major difference - Marxism holds on to that whole 'metanarrative' bit in order to justify revolutionary change. Postmodernism rejects that, so it can't do very much to justify social action. Keep them all cynical and nihilistic; neocons couldn't be happier.

If that is the case, then postmodernists are hypocrits. Why do they all oppose the WTO, etc?

[AChimp]

Because elephants have flat feet.

http://www.interlog.com/~wwhite/gifs/imgxne40.jpg

See? >:

[derrida]

Variations of those same criticisms have been made of the works of Kant, Kierkegard, Hegel, and Nietzche since their inception.

What amazes me, OAO, is your refusal to engage primary texts while systematically dismissing such a disparate and nedbulous movement as post-modernism with sweeping generalization.

In an attempt to respond to your post, however, postmodernism doesn't really privilege itself in the terms described by Ms. Rosenau. Instead, it can be stated that postmodernism- and the critical tradition from which it draws is simply a discourse on the subject of power, serving certain distinct tactical needs.

[The One and Only...]

I don't entirely dismiss postmodernism. In fact, I agree with postmodernists on some fields. For example, I'm sure you know about the impossiblity of perfect communication or perfect objectivity. I accept both as at least probably true.

What I dislike about postmodernism are some of its contradictions, such as the denial of objective truth. I dislike that denial, because it is a truth in and of itself. It is one thing to deny that we may know truth; it is quite another to deny the very existence of truth. Unless we are miscommunicating here and operating under entirely different definitions of what truth is.

In any case, will you answer one thing for me? When Lyotard denies the metanarrative, does he not create a metanarrative himself?

[theapportioner]

When Lyotard denies the metanarrative, does he not create a metanarrative himself?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding Lyotard, but the way I see it, he treats a skepticism of metanarratives in a different way than how philosophers have treated skepticism. That is, he is not affirming skepticism as a philosophical position per se; rather, he is denying the leaps of assumption that go into accepting a metanarrative. A philosophy of skepticism would also make these leaps of assumption. Rosenau however does not leave this paradigm, and so she is misconstruing Lyotard. What do you think, derrida?

I also disagree with the poststructuralist/postmodernist denial of ontology. Yes, the definition of a word depends on it being different from other words, but language is not -just- a field of differences.

[The One and Only...]

Doesn't denial of assumption require an affirmation of doubt?

[theapportioner]

An affirmation of dout -about certain things-. Not universal doubt. Being skeptical of metanarratives does not mean you can't have any ideas whatsoever. It just means that any theories you have are tentative, piecemeal, etc. No grand, sweeping truths.

[derrida]

I think Lyotard is encouraging us to be skeptical of his own statements- from the English translations of his work that I've read it doesn't seem as if he is assigning any special privilege to his own ideas.

My own understanding of the metanarrative is more foucauldian, though- that is to say that it is the manner in which knowledge is used to accomplish various objectives that is most important in finding a definition of the concept.

That said, there's a tricky bit of epistemology that goes into disproving a statement using its own assumptions.

[The_Rorschach]

"What amazes me, OAO, is your refusal to engage primary texts while systematically dismissing such a disparate and nedbulous movement as post-modernism with sweeping generalization"

Broad generalizations are the hobgoblins of narrow minds ;)

The kid is fifteen, I doubt he even realizes how contemptuously secondary sources are held to be by the literate members of the academic community :)

[The One and Only...]

Many secondary sources that I read take direct quotations from the primary texts.

Any affirmation of doubt must be universal in order for it to be meaningful. If truth is not universal, then there is no truth in any traditional sense of the word - which creates a pardoxical stance, since an affirmation of the lack of truth is a truth itself.

If one is to be skeptical of skepticism, we enter the realm of logical paradoxes. How can I know that there are no univeral truths when I am skeptical of that very knowledge?

[The_Rorschach]

As much as you might prefer it to be so, your ignorance is not a reflection of the human condition. Just because you suffer a cerebral handicap does not necessitate anyone else does. You could be special, just as your mother keeps telling you. You cannot generalize the subjective, please try to remember this in the future. Personal experience never reflects the norm.

"Many secondary sources that I read take direct quotations from the primary texts."

Alas, they are still INTERPRETIVE PIECES. Context is everything, and no single sentence, paragraph or page can properly represent any concept which is explained within a multitude of pages.

Weiner.

[The One and Only...]

Yes, my cerebral handicap. You enjoy argumentum ad hominems, don't you?

Everything is interpretive. I could read the primary piece, and all I would comprehend is my own interpretation. You, seemingly defending postmodernism, should understand that.

[The_Rorschach]

Ad hominem? Ethos is as qualified for debate as pathos, and if one were to judge my results, it is the more useful of the two. You haven't even mastered the basics of proper oratory yet, and you have yet to illustrate any understanding of logical praxis and paradigms within your arguments, but somehow you seek to libel me in this fashion when we are engaged in idle conversation rather than an ordered debate.

Friend, you are trying to assert an imperfect knowledge of Olympic Rules in a Triple A arena, and I suggest you stop while your attempts remain wryly humorous and before they become petulant and tedious.

[The One and Only...]

Using an insult rather than debating the point is an ad hominem attack. It doesn't prove anything.

There is no such thing as perfect understanding, and you did not address my point.

[mburbank]

What are you now, Vinth?

[The One and Only...]

So you finally put 2 and 2 together, huh?

Except you got 5 instead of 4.

[derrida]

Everything is interpretive. I could read the primary piece, and all I would comprehend is my own interpretation. You, seemingly defending postmodernism, should understand that.

What the fuck? I fail to see how a reading of secondary texts is anything more than an interpretation of someone else's interpretation or anything approaching a careful reading of an original work.

[The One and Only...]

You miss the point.

[The_Rorschach]

"Using an insult rather than debating the point is an
ad hominem attack. It doesn't prove anything.

"There is no such thing as perfect understanding, and
you did not address my point."

Actually I did, when I reminded you not to confuse the
objective with the subjective, I simply peppered my
response with the proper amount of disdain for your
juvenile opinion. I suggest you start studying the
Toulmin model for debate rather than jumping into buzz
words and logical fallacies. You're over reaching
yourself. You, like many modern neanderthals before
you, have percieved argument and debate to be some
discourse devoted to attacking opponants and winning
some sort of victory. . .Which it is not. Debate takes
many forms, and it is just as often ameliorative
rather than combative - Especially here at the Mock
where humour was paired with wit to foster open
communication -At least before the arrival of trolls
like you and Vince.

The fruits of good debate are not immediately
tangible. It is not being right which is important,
but coming closer to the truth, thus civility is
required and an open mind.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Was that in iambic pentameter...?

[mburbank]

I am Bic Pentameter.

[The_Rorschach]

The Mock crashed on me yesterday when I tried to post, so I pasted it into Yahoo and got this format when I pasted it back.


Although I have been known to channel Shakespeare in the past. . .