The Seven Self-Contradictions of Postmodernism

[AChimp]

Because elephants have flat feet.



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. . .