In essence, postmodernism is based on the position that reality is not mirrored in human understanding of it, but is rather constructed as the mind tries to understand its own personal reality. Postmodernism is therefore skeptical of explanations that claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually.
If “postmodernists” have this opinion as stated, I suspect that when they aren’t using the word “true” to attack or criticize other philosophical ideas, they would be using it as a form of emphasis on a particular interpretation, or to assert the dominance of a particular interpretation, as this interpretation then literally becomes more “true” (in their model, according to my model of their model).
I think the next paragraph is a bit more accurate:
Postmodernism postulates that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change. It claims that there is no absolute truth and that the way people perceive the world is subjective and emphasises the role of language, power relations, and motivations in the formation of ideas and beliefs. In particular it attacks the use of sharp binary classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial; it holds realities to be plural and relative, and to be dependent on who the interested parties are and the nature of these interests. Postmodernist approaches therefore often consider the ways in which social dynamics, such as power and hierarchy, affect human conceptualizations of the world to have important effects on the way knowledge is constructed and used. Postmodernist thought often emphasizes constructivism, idealism, pluralism, relativism, and scepticism in its approaches to knowledge and understanding.
The key point of political theory post-modernist is that certain social norms are claimed to be true or universal when that is not the case. Further, binary distinctions (black/white, capitalist/proletariat) are inherently misleading, organizing the world in particular ways in order to advance particular moral agendas.
Thanks, I shall update towards most postmodernists being less of the extreme philosophical kind and more about practical matters like those.
Most self-titled “postmodernists” I’ve encountered and discussed with were more of the extreme philosophical kind—the kind that would claim ontologically basic mental entities or some other really weird postulate if asked “But where did the first ‘reality’ come from if there never was any objective reality for us to base our own ones on?”
As a discipline, postmodernism seems unusually terrible at producing competent practitioners. The average academic chemist is a better scientist than the average postmodernist is as a philosopher.
Not all moral distinctions are on-off buttons. Some (most?) are sliding scales.
I don’t expect king-of-postmodernism-is-nonsense and mister-I-think-postmodernism-makes-good-points to come to agreement, but I’m interested in where exactly we disagree.
Do you think some agents could gain advantage by treating a sliding-scale moral quality as discrete?
Do you think some agents could gain advantage by treating a discrete moral quality as sliding-scale?
What sort of evidence is useful in deciding whether a particular moral quality is discrete or sliding scale?
From Wikipedia:
If “postmodernists” have this opinion as stated, I suspect that when they aren’t using the word “true” to attack or criticize other philosophical ideas, they would be using it as a form of emphasis on a particular interpretation, or to assert the dominance of a particular interpretation, as this interpretation then literally becomes more “true” (in their model, according to my model of their model).
I think the next paragraph is a bit more accurate:
The key point of political theory post-modernist is that certain social norms are claimed to be true or universal when that is not the case. Further, binary distinctions (black/white, capitalist/proletariat) are inherently misleading, organizing the world in particular ways in order to advance particular moral agendas.
Thanks, I shall update towards most postmodernists being less of the extreme philosophical kind and more about practical matters like those.
Most self-titled “postmodernists” I’ve encountered and discussed with were more of the extreme philosophical kind—the kind that would claim ontologically basic mental entities or some other really weird postulate if asked “But where did the first ‘reality’ come from if there never was any objective reality for us to base our own ones on?”
As a discipline, postmodernism seems unusually terrible at producing competent practitioners. The average academic chemist is a better scientist than the average postmodernist is as a philosopher.
That said, a lot of conventional wisdom in fields like sociology or Legal Realism have very strong postmodern flavors. Honestly, a lot of the meta-type analysis of norms is using scientific data to show what various humanities thinkers had been saying all along.
Some are some aren’t. Furthermore, it’s impossible to say anything without using distinctions.
Not all moral distinctions are on-off buttons. Some (most?) are sliding scales.
I don’t expect king-of-postmodernism-is-nonsense and mister-I-think-postmodernism-makes-good-points to come to agreement, but I’m interested in where exactly we disagree.
Do you think some agents could gain advantage by treating a sliding-scale moral quality as discrete?
Do you think some agents could gain advantage by treating a discrete moral quality as sliding-scale?
What sort of evidence is useful in deciding whether a particular moral quality is discrete or sliding scale?
First binary distinctions aren’t just for moral systems.
If we restrict to moral distinctions, most moral distinctions are Schelling points.