Definition of Postmodernism?
Keith Augustine
Further, could someone explain to me why postmodernism is the antithesis
of Enlightenment philosophy? The Oxford Companion to Philosophy gives a
horribly ambiguous and esoteric definition. Thanks, KA
************************************************************************
"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out,
which is the exact opposite." -- Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays"
"Everything is more or less organized matter. To think so is against
religion, but I think so just the same." -- Napoleon Bonaparte
************************************************************************
Aaron Boyden
> Can anyone give me a comprehensible definition of postmodernism?
> Further, could someone explain to me why postmodernism is the antithesis
> of Enlightenment philosophy? The Oxford Companion to Philosophy gives a
> horribly ambiguous and esoteric definition. Thanks, KA
Your second question is much easier than your first question. Just look
at the name of the movement. The modern period began roughly around the
16th century, and is still ongoing. No philosophy has cast so vast a
shadow over that period as that of the Enlightenment. What would be more
obvious than that those who wish to move beyond modernity would also wish
to repudiate the Enlightenment?
As to what they offer as a positive program, that's much more difficult
to explain. I often wonder whether they really have one.
---
Aaron Boyden
650...@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
"If there were gods, how could I endure it, not to be a god? Hence, there are
no gods." -Nietzsche
moggin
>Can anyone give me a comprehensible definition of postmodernism?
>Further, could someone explain to me why postmodernism is the antithesis
>of Enlightenment philosophy? The Oxford Companion to Philosophy gives a
>horribly ambiguous and esoteric definition.
Why don't you post the entry in the Oxford Companion? That
could be a basis for discussion.
-- moggin
Jonathan Crowther
gone further than anyone I have read in defining the post-modern. He
sees the Enlightenment, Modernism, Post-Modernism and their
predecessors as paradigms, a term he borrows from the philosophy of
science, in the sense that there are paradigmatic world-views which
are comprehensive (i.e. if you are in a paradigm then you take the
whole thing:scientific, religious, cultural, linguistic etc). The
theological founder of post-modernism he considers to be the Swiss
theologian Karl Barth. Sorry if this is theologically heavy but all
paradigms orginate in theology and trickle down.
Jonathan Crowther
sir...@ix.netcom.com
>Can anyone give me a comprehensible definition of postmodernism?
>Further, could someone explain to me why postmodernism is the antithesis
>of Enlightenment philosophy? The Oxford Companion to Philosophy gives a
>horribly ambiguous and esoteric definition. Thanks, KA
May I suggest as a starting point Juergen Habermas, "The Philosophical
Discourse of Modernity"--a series of lectures Habermas has given
precisely on the topic of postmodernism and its relation to the
Enlightenment? Briefly, one could say that postmodernism--represented
by philosophers like Bataille, Derrida, Rorty, Lyotard--is the world
resulting from the collapse of all transcendent or metaphysical
dimensions, including that of truth and reason. Deconstructionism is
perhaps the most vocal branch of postmodern philosophy.
Craig Brewer
>Keith Augustine <kau...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>May I suggest as a starting point Juergen Habermas, "The Philosophical
>Discourse of Modernity"--a series of lectures Habermas has given
>precisely on the topic of postmodernism and its relation to the
>Enlightenment? Briefly, one could say that postmodernism--represented
>by philosophers like Bataille, Derrida, Rorty, Lyotard--is the world
>resulting from the collapse of all transcendent or metaphysical
>dimensions, including that of truth and reason. Deconstructionism is
>perhaps the most vocal branch of postmodern philosophy.
Good suggestions, I think...you could also just try watching Mtv and
you'll get the same conclusions. I would add Baudrillard to your list
of major thinkers, although his writing seems a bit harder to come by.
I would ask, though, if Habermas is really the best spokesperson for
post-modernity. For me, post-modernism is still a primarily critical
endeavor whereas Habermas (and correct me if I need it, please, it's
been awhile since I worked with Habermas) is still trying to find
support for (an albeit anti-transcendental) reason in "consensus."
Lyotard himself criticizes this notion as not recognizing the real
complexity and, pardon my jargon, "slipperiness" of language which is
what much of the "academic" post-moderism seems to focus on.
Anyway, I realize that's not exactly what your post was about, but I
thought I'd just try to get conversation going on this list in
something "fun"...at least for me.
So, shoot back.
Craig Brewer
bre...@texoma.com
Rahul Kumar
: sir...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: >Keith Augustine <kau...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
: So, shoot back.
: Craig Brewer
: bre...@texoma.com
If I can be bold enough to suggest "Reality Isn't What It Used to Be"
by Walter Trutt Anderson explains the basics and good into to
PostModernism. I have just read that and a few more books on
PostModernism and it seems to be the best!!!
With best regards,
/Rahul Kumar
--
ra...@dewey.ed.brocku.ca || rku...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls
and looks like work." [Thomas Edison]
Yawn
was more challenging but more rewarding. Is Joyce Postmodern?
Alan Chudnow
May I suggest that a lucid and quick and readable introduction to the subject
mat be found in the Readers and Writers book: "Postmodernism for Beginners."
Mike Birtel
modernism. He is interested in a particular area of the modern/postmodern
problematic.
I suppose that one ought to try to see how the term is used in various
fields. In art and architecture it's been vogue since the 50's. In
philosophy and literary criticism since the 70's, and seems to be loosing
steam these days. I think the term has been so loosely used it is
probably pointless to try to define it. Indeed, this problem of defining
the word is really the problem of defining our epoch, today. How can this
be done except in a state of confusion and uncertainty.
Nevertheless, I will add my own two cents to the previous threads (all of
whihc seem good explanations of some of what passes for postmodenism. In
terms of philosophy, I really don't know what one should understand PoMo
to be - and I've spent seven years at it! The more one reads the more
writers like Bataille, Derrida, Foucault, Heidegger, Rorty, Baudrillard,
etc. come to seem not radical or new at all. They talk about "breaking"
with a past, overcoming traditions, etc., but they certainly can be placed
on an historical continuum. So where is the break they all talk about?
But is this the real clue then: Desiring to break with the past!? We ought
to disqualify Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Derrida and Bataille since thay all
are nostalgic. For them what comes after the modern will be essentially
pre-modern (Pre-Socratic, Aristotelian, Jewish Mysticism, and Paganism).
But Rorty is a bit different. He had no nostalgia for the past. He
simply breaks with the past (the metaphysical tradition, and the
philosophy of consciousness) by refusing to take any of it seriously. He
stops asking the questions that created the modern. So I would say that
Rorty exemplifies what will be after the modern, but he isn't postmodern
himself. He is not a transitional thinker and is absolutely uniterested
in trying to engage in a debate with the tradition he rejects.
I'm sure this doesn't throw much light on the issue, but respond to
anything you wish.
Mike
Clee669
"postmodernism." I particularly appreciated your comments on what it
means to "break with the past," touching on the strange and sometimes
problematic relationship the postmodernists have addressed (again) between
points in time (context) and thought (meaning); the postmodern obsession
with historicism, revision ("re-writing" and "re-reading"), genealogy and
epistemology allude to this dynamic.
I would simply like to address one point you raised regarding what it
means to "break with the past" as certain self-proclaimed postmodernists
claim to at least wish to do, when in fact, they are well placed in the
continuum - not only of history of thought, as you stated, but in the
continuum of humanity, itself! Well, I do think that what we have now
called postmodern thinking is radical and revolutionary. No more so,
perhaps, than rationalism or empiricism which came after rationalism, but
postmodern thought is indeed radical.
I propose that it is radical, because it has examined the structure of
western learning and dared to critique western epistemology, itself.
Postmodern thought has declared that what we have been fed as being
Absolute Truth, itself, is a false deity, and that the concept of "truth"
is problematic, and further that "truth" may never be divined. In short,
postmodernism has exposed western epistemology as being one of history's
grandest follies.
Postmodernism also creates the space for a discussion of justice and
ethics - a project truly inconceivable under the previous reign of
positivist learning.
I'm prepared to speak more on this with you and any others, but as I am at
work, I should probably sign off. I am eager, however, to discuss this
with anyone interested in a meaningful discussion about the implications
of postmodern thought.
CSL