Postmodernism’s most useful critiques on Modernism is that there is a single objective morality, when that’s almost certainly not the case. It comes with a cultural relativism claim that a morality of a culture isn’t wrong, just conflicting to your morals. And this is also probably right. What that means is that cultural norms and morality, as well as individuals have no objective standard of right and wrong, just their own choices and consequences.
It’s also nice that they remind people that your opposition probably does have a point. It can be taken too far, but it is a good guideline given how much we demonize our enemies.
I have serious criticisms to make of postmodern thought, especially in philosophy where they took it fully unflitered, but it does make some good criticisms of modernism.
I have serious criticisms to make of postmodern thought, especially in philosophy where they took it fully unflitered, but it does make some good criticisms of modernism.
Oh, I have plentiful criticism to level on postmodernism too. The main one being how it’s self-referentially inconsistent and uses that in a motte-and-bailey fashion.
I mean, if all truths are relative, is that only true in some contexts? Or is it absolutely true? That has the same logical structure as “This sentence is false.”
Likewise with being utterly intolerant of intolerance. So which intolerance shall we allow? Absolutely none? Oops. But surely we can just be smart about it and pick and choose which forms of intolerance are really only directed at intolerance, right? That can’t possibly be weaponized in a way that creates division in society! :-/
Postmodernism adds a twist of self-mockery as though to acknowledge this. But that gets taken as a sign of being Truly Humble which frees them of scrutiny of their Grand Narrative that all Grand Narratives are relative and that all evil comes from believing that one of them is absolutely true.
It comes with a cultural relativism claim that a morality of a culture isn’t wrong, just conflicting to your morals. And this is also probably right.
How can this work? Cultures change. So which is morally right, the culture before the change, or the culture after the change?
I guess a reply could be “Before the change, the culture before the change is right. After the change, the culture after the change is right.” But in this view, “being morally right” carries no information. We cannot assess whether a culture deserves to be changed based on this view.
Probably one of the core infohazards of postmodernism is that “moral rightness” doesn’t really exist outside of some framework. Asking about “rightness” of change is kind of a null pointer in the same way self-modifying your own reward centers can’t be straightforwardly phrased in terms of how your reward centers “should” feel about such rewiring.
Postmodernism’s most useful critiques on Modernism is that there is a single objective morality, when that’s almost certainly not the case. It comes with a cultural relativism claim that a morality of a culture isn’t wrong, just conflicting to your morals. And this is also probably right. What that means is that cultural norms and morality, as well as individuals have no objective standard of right and wrong, just their own choices and consequences.
It’s also nice that they remind people that your opposition probably does have a point. It can be taken too far, but it is a good guideline given how much we demonize our enemies.
I have serious criticisms to make of postmodern thought, especially in philosophy where they took it fully unflitered, but it does make some good criticisms of modernism.
Oh, I have plentiful criticism to level on postmodernism too. The main one being how it’s self-referentially inconsistent and uses that in a motte-and-bailey fashion.
I mean, if all truths are relative, is that only true in some contexts? Or is it absolutely true? That has the same logical structure as “This sentence is false.”
Likewise with being utterly intolerant of intolerance. So which intolerance shall we allow? Absolutely none? Oops. But surely we can just be smart about it and pick and choose which forms of intolerance are really only directed at intolerance, right? That can’t possibly be weaponized in a way that creates division in society! :-/
Postmodernism adds a twist of self-mockery as though to acknowledge this. But that gets taken as a sign of being Truly Humble which frees them of scrutiny of their Grand Narrative that all Grand Narratives are relative and that all evil comes from believing that one of them is absolutely true.
But ha ha don’t take this too seriously.
But also Cancel Culture.
:-/
How can this work? Cultures change. So which is morally right, the culture before the change, or the culture after the change?
I guess a reply could be “Before the change, the culture before the change is right. After the change, the culture after the change is right.” But in this view, “being morally right” carries no information. We cannot assess whether a culture deserves to be changed based on this view.
Probably one of the core infohazards of postmodernism is that “moral rightness” doesn’t really exist outside of some framework. Asking about “rightness” of change is kind of a null pointer in the same way self-modifying your own reward centers can’t be straightforwardly phrased in terms of how your reward centers “should” feel about such rewiring.