As title. Occasionally postmodernism is dismissed as exclusively a movement in art but other times it seems to be applied to a diverse range of modern 'philosophies' or ideas. So muh question is two-fold.
What is at the heart of post-modern philosophy?
Why do some people get so tetchy when it is brought up.
The end of all grand narratives.
Because terminological faggotry and also le sjew maymay
Because le spooky feminazis.
Is this an answer? I mean 'grand narrative' seemed like a simple enough concept, albeit one I've never heard before. But googling it just links back to articles on 'postmodernism'. Surely postmodernism can be defined without referencing itself? Can this shit be explained without a degree in sociology? If not why not?
Is this you tetching out or is this a legit answer?
A grand narrative is something a culture tells itself about its interpretation of history and takes it for granted.
So seen in this way, postmodernism is a scepticism of all interpretation which is taken by a culture to be self-evident.
So scepticism of "progress" is a post-modern stance on the grand-narrative of progress.
Defend this paper.
phg.sagepub.com
Can you give an example of such?
Kind of? People associate postmodernism with "SJWs" and "feminazis".
wait. So is class-struggle a 'grand narrative'?
Is there foundation to this?
...
Yeah, the progress example I thought was good but…
Take Foucault.
Foucault looked at the cultural assumption that mental treatments are better in the current age and challenged it.
He said "people used to be viewed as just different during the renaissance".
So he questioned the cultural assumption of his day.
It's not too different from non-dualism. People just don't interpret it right sometimes.
I have some sympathy for this view but surely a neurological understanding of the mechanisms behind atypical personality are kind of progress? The alternative to study in this field that it seems Foucault would be endorsing (correct me if I'm wrong) is basically 'welp, that's just the way it is'.
The only way I can see somebody taking this pov is that they reject the notion of progress full stop.
GTFO pseudo-intellectual.
Because you can totally extract the entire paper's ideas soley out of the abstract.
DMT made me think that the world is Advaitist in nature. But it didn't make me think digging deep into the nature of reality was time wasted. Quite the opposite.
Yes, given that is the point of the abstract
If accurate then is it fair to say that the post-modernist assumes that nothing can truly be known and that anything we do 'know' is simply an interpretation that is of it's time and place? And if this is the case then can studies employing post-modernist thinking actually teach us anything? If not what is their goal? Or am I still missing the point?
??????????
Did you know of such a concept before then or only after you stumbled upon it?
Pretty much stumbled upon it through experience. Prior I was hardline materialist type, all there is is the physical and what we can see. DMT and to a lesser extent mushrooms really tore this down for me. I'm not saying there is a god, gods, higher levels of consciousness, connectivity between everything that we cannot see. But I'd no longer dismiss these ideas as I once did.
this tbh
no, it's not.
t. someone who actually has experience dealing with scientific lit instead of being an armchair expert
Yes, it is. The whole point of the abstract is to give the reader a condensed and simplified synopsis of the content (I.e. ideas) contained therein to allow the reader to make an informed choice about dedicating their time toward assimilating the entire paper.
In his defense a lot of abstracts are pretty shit.
If I told you "Einstein said light is both particle and wave" defend it, you wouldn't be able to. You'd need to see his reasoning.
That's essentially what you're doing.
No. With this paper what you would tell me is "Einstein said light is both shit and piss". The fine details of both that idea and those in aforementioned paper do not warrant examination as they're not going to make any difference to the validity of the premise presented in the abstract.
share pdf or gtfo
Go away, mindless contrarian.
whether you agree with it or not, isn't up for me to convince you. I'm no expert on post-modernism nor do I claim an affinity to it.
I'm just a humble neo-socratic
literally just rhetoric. Calm down.
If you could reduce Foucault's work to one theme, it would be the critique of the narrative that all of our collective knowledge is something that has been accumulated overtime. Rather, he points out that our knowledge arises out of the unwritten rules that creates the framework we view it through, i.e. science of the Renaissance was constructed around resemblance, then a rupture occurred during the Classical age which led to science being based around similarities and differences.
In other words, it's foolish to think our modern scientific thinking to be the pinnacle of Civilization when all it would take is a different collective episteme to turn all of that upside down.
facebook man!
...
kek
this meme is great, I'm stealing it
There's no such thing as postmodern philosophy. It's just a meme-level classification lumping together the Frankfurt School and mid-20th French intellectuals as if they all thought the same way.
it's a meme you dip