I would like to extend Chomsky's challenge to all 20th century philosophy. There will be several interesting and non-trivial statements but it won't be many

@corsariorhythms6819

8 ай бұрын

Mario Bunge wrote a lot of interesting things

If I were to take on the challenge of steelmanning postmodernism with what I have read of it, I would probably try to take the second route to answer, challenging whether the contributions of an academic discipline must only consist of things that are true and non-trivial. One could argue that postmodernism contributed to knowledge by introducing novel concepts and terminology like 'simulacra' (a copy or a copy of a copy in which the original meaning can no longer be found), 'hyperreality' (a condition where what is generally regarded as real and what is understood as fiction are seamlessly blended together, creating a situation of confusion between reality and fiction), 'deconstruction' (the process of questioning the fixed assumptions underlying texts or ideas, offering new interpretations by emphasizing the ambiguity and instability of language) and 'intertextuality' (the idea that art and literature are influenced by one another, where texts refer to and are influenced by other texts, blurring the boundaries between works and challenging the notions of originality and authorship). This terminology is well-defined and has value. One could also argue that a contribution of postmodernism was social, as a focus on empathy and power relations was needed after the horrors of the Second World War.

@hunter11945

8 ай бұрын

on you mention of empathy, i think that has been great not only not only because empathy itself has found its place in philosophy alongside reason, I think philosophies concerning empathy is not just important for philosophy but also with forming a better connection with the psychological sciences, as a foundational tool. i do think however, this will need to be improved upon in the future, as from what i have read (pretty much just phenomenology but I'm willing to bet this extended into feminism too) empathy in philosophy tends to be based in a relation with the Other. the other is used in empathy but personhood is used in personalised, unimmediate, reason based ethics right? i think empathy as a philosophical tool with have to change or face diminishment because of the internet. there is no other on the internet an i bet we will see phenomenology fall to the wade side because of that (it will of course gain huge significance for a minority of people). anyway i guess the postmodern ideas like empathy were great in the 20th century but it can be argued that they are insufficient in the internet era?

@dedmo79

8 ай бұрын

you literally proved Chomsky’s point by listing all the ‘polysyllable’ words and then explaining them in simpler terms, all of which are trivial. I mean come on, “questioning fixed assumptions” is novel??? Art and literature influencing each other is novel???

@woodandwandco

8 ай бұрын

@@dedmo79 This is exactly the point. Postmodernism does not introduce anything new. It simply slaps a label on an already existing theme that had been discussed ad nauseum by many bright minds for centuries, and bunches it up into a counter-factual ideology. Postmodernism is proposing a general lack of awareness of these concepts as fact, undermining common sense logic in the populus in favor of inflated truisms. Anyone who has seen a science fiction movie is familiar with "hyperreality". They did not need to be introduced to the term "hyperreality" to understand the concept of this blending. They would just as well do with any of the other prefixes or jargon spewed out over millennia. To address your first point, I agree that not all pursuits must necessarily be non-trivial, but a trivial pursuit is simply of no use to anyone else. This means that postmodernism does not contribute value to discourse by definition, because there no intention of outward function. Function is a prerequisite for discourse. Therefore, by definition, post-modernism does not contribute to discourse, and only serves as an impediment to it. It can be argued that the function is that it impedes function, but it would be misguided to direct this outwardly. Instead, it should be directed inwardly. Then, it will serve a positive function of impeding internally destructive functions. Clearly, postmodernism has not accomplished any increase in empathy or a better relation to power as can be seen from the current global conflicts instigated by a techno-feudalist system that intends to fuel conflict to extract wealth from the common citizen while they chant on "bomb every last one of them". Through postmodern "snailing", or the endless questioning of base assumptions to the point of standstill, we have produced impotence where there was once dialectic in the intellectual fields, creating artificial impediments of progress on all fronts simultaneously. We have literally given up our private data willingly for a few cents on the dollar's worth of convenience while debates rage on about how we feel about it. Well, the truth is, it doesn't matter how you feel about it now, the time will come when you won't have a choice of feelings, and the impending nature of this remains unaddressed by the postmodern deconstruction masturbators of manufactured reasoning.

@Mon000

8 ай бұрын

@@dedmo79Humm, thank you, I see your point... I find it kind of humorous (in the sense that I am giggling at myself) I'm probably not the best for the job. .

@fab.9629

8 ай бұрын

well, thank you dedmo and i‘ll go a step further quoting the conclusion of my phd thesis from 2007 in which i compared a modern with a postmodern novel showing that these trite labels don’t serve discourse (yes i was possessed from postmodern/babushka/mandelbrot delineations and liked to pick a number): „…this may prove the point i have made in my anslysis of both novels - there might often not even be an other anymore. thus, the social perspective becomes a model for the perception of language and self, too: ‚late modernity produces a situation in which humankind in some respects becomes a we, facing problems and opportunities where there are no others (giddens). however, o‘neill claims that alteady for the renaissance scholar vico ‚our humanity represents itself as its own work of art in an inseparable bond of truth and fiction‘. he reminds us that since language is blemished by history it falls to poets to give a sensible body in which we can experience ourselves as a community and can explore our world. it is therefore our poets who first clear the forests of fear and ignorance and not our philosophers and scientists.‘ nevertheless, the wordsmiths controversy about a supposed leadership in language goes on, while hybrid works such as pale fire (nabokov) and the dream life of balso snell (west) playfully transcend such worldly problems.

Would love to see the sourced interview referencing ‘the (not really) left,” “science is dominated by men” quotes. Anyone know what/where/when it’s from?

Trivial is a conclusion, a judgement No? So how can it be scientific? And not biased emotions?😊

Chomsky's very fascinating because he seems sincerely intersted in concrete material reality, yet he's a complete idealist in his understanding of society and politics. Mf need Marx.

I would say that the insights from 'simulacra and simulation' by Jean Baudrillard are both nontrivial and 'accurate'. I say 'accurate' because capital T truth is impossible for any philosophical or scientific theory. Philosophical and scientific theories need to use idealizations, computational compression, incomplete selection etc, which makes them incomplete, but sometimes both useful and empirically adequate. I do think philosophy suffers from hindsight bias. E.g. , some philosopher comes up with the concept of womens rights/animal rights/parliamentary democracy and it's really unpopular and counter intuitive for everyone. There is a long struggle to get it implemented, but once it's implemented everyone thinks those concepts are totally trivial and obvious and the use of philosophy is once again questioned, repeat ad infinitum.

@Mon000

8 ай бұрын

I was hoping you would attempt an answer, I guess now I have to read 'Simulacra and simulation' front to back haha.

@Xob_Driesestig

8 ай бұрын

​@@Mon000 Oh god, I tried to read it in the original french and gave up halfway through. However, once I started reading summaries and explanations (in english, which, while also being a second language, I know a bit better) it started to make sense. It definitely suffers from the hindsight bias effect even more so than other philosophical concepts since society has caught up with the predictions it (and 'society of the spectacle', a similar book that blends together with it in my mind) layed out. I personally think there is no shame in trying summaries and explanations first. Afterall, why should a discoverer of a phenomenon necessarily be the best at explaining said phenomenon? Are they trained in pedagogy? Probably not. The important thing to note is that when I call insights 'accurate' I don't mean: 1) **All** insights (there's definitely some things I disagree with) and 2) They're insights about conceptualizations more than the 'things-in-themselves'. So if I in detail describe a 'fata morgana' I may be 'accurate' about human perception, but not about the landscape out there. But 'fata morganas' are "real", they are a real phenomenon you can study. This is how you should think about his (and frankly many philosophical) works.

@geoffhart

8 ай бұрын

But I think that's Chomsky's point: "because capital T truth is impossible for any philosophical or scientific theory" is a triviality. It's clear that we can not "know" reality, because we are not an "independent observer" (it's like asking a flatlander to describe the "truth" about the 3D space he actually lives *inside* of: he can not "know" the ultimate reality since his senses are limited - just as ours are). Trivial truth. It's also why we are careful to use the proper word "theory" instead of the often misused "law": it's merely a description of *some possible* world, which may or may not match the one we live in - the closer it matches, they more useful it is.

@Opposite271

8 ай бұрын

I think Utility is as dubious as capital T Truth. Either utility is about what is actually useful to archive my goals and in that case it is dubious in what sense I could ever know Utility. Or it is about what appears to be useful and in that case I don’t care about it since I only value utility as a means to an end to archive my goals.

@Zerradable

8 ай бұрын

We have not witnessed anything close to the moral high ground of those three examples you stated being defended by post modernists, just falacies and non-sense with childs.

Hei @jonasceikaCCK are you up for the challange?

@0:27 What is a thing? example: Quentin Tarantino's film Pulp Fiction is a postmodern film that combines elements from different genres, including crime, noir, and comedy. The film is also known for its self-referentiality and its nonlinear plot Do post modermist believe in reality? Postmodernists do not deny the existence of reality, but they do challenge the idea that there is a single, objective reality

There's no reason to take this challenge seriously. Just look up the debate between Chomsky and Foucault, I'm pretty sure you can find it here on youtube. It seemed to me that Chomsky, while not agreeing with Foucault, had to concede a lot of points and at least temper his positions in relation to issues that Foucault raised. But listening to Chomsky, you'd think that this conversation had never happened or that Foucault had just sat there for a couple hours spouting incomrehensible gibberish. If Chomsky agrees with something it's trivially obvious. If he doesn't, or he just can't relate to the points being made, then it's gibberish.

@derekrushe

8 ай бұрын

You think Foucault won that debate? If you did, you're just a cultist.