Xander’s Lament sounds interesting. I would also be interested in reading a coherent defence of post-modernism (assuming that such a thing could exist and is not a contradiction in terms), because attacking post-modernism is simply too easy.
Here’s a random thought: is there a way to augment the Less Wrong website to provide a “Crocker’s Flag” feature ? The flag will be off by default, though individual users could choose turn it on in their profile preferences. The handle of anyone who has the flag turned on will always be displayed with an asterisk next to it, like this: *Bugmaster.
This way, people wouldn’t have to keep saying “I invoke Crocker’s Rules” all the time.
My apologies if this idea has been brought up before.
An asterisk is too generic for my tastes, and “Crocker’s rules” too specific, for me to like this mapping from one to the other. It would prevent us from using the asterisk for some other purpose in the future, and it would privilege the signalling of Crocker’s rules more than other signallings that we may desire to use.
Now a very small, almost unobtrusive icon indicating “crocker’s rules” (what would an image indicating Crocker’s Rules be like, btw?) is more specific, and we could eventually add more/different icons as needed to signal whatever. (not near the handle, preferably, as it would get crowded, but perhaps at the top right corner of the posts in question? or something like that.
My knowledge of post-modernism is vague and secondhand. However, one valuable thing I’ve gotten from the neighborhood of post-modernism is that, unlike the modern idea of the lone genius communing with the universe because of having a superior soul, people’s heads are full of prior art, and this makes a difference.
I’m not sure whether people believe that art can be devoid of precedent, but I do think that a lot of what drives high art for the past century more or less is the desire to have as little precedent as possible.
Huh?! “Post modernism” is not any unified thing, it’s just whatever came after modernism in the specific context, as opposed to modernism which means reasonably similar things across the arts.
You’re most likely referring to postmodernism within some specific field, or maybe a few where it ended up similar by chance. My guess would be either science/philosophy due to context, or visual arts because that’s the largest semi-coherent grouping.
Please be more specific with what you mean by postmodernism, this goes for the OP as well.
EDIT: after reading the rest of the thread I’ve updated and am not almost certain you mean only post-modernist PHILOSOPHY, which is just about entirely unrelated to the vast majority of things labelled post-modernist.
EDIT: after reading the rest of the thread I’ve updated and am not almost certain you mean only post-modernist PHILOSOPHY...
I suppose I do. In general, when I said that post-modernism is easy to attack, I was referring to the notion that an objective reality either does not exist or is completely irrelevant, and that all of science, art, literature etc. is basically just a set of arbitrary narratives. As I said, I think this notion is quite easy to attack, especially as far as science is concerned.
I am a little confused by your earlier statement, though:
Huh?! “Post modernism” is not any unified thing, it’s just whatever came after modernism in the specific context, as opposed to modernism which means reasonably similar things across the arts.
If its not “any unified thing”, then does it even make sense to have a word for it ? Though I suppose that having a unifying term for a collection of distinct, non-overlapping ideas is a postmodern idea in and of itself, so I guess you may be onto something there.
In any case, this is precisely why I would like to see an article that mounts a coherent (insofar as that even makes sense) defence of postmodernism. If you or the original poster write one, I’ll gladly read it.
It doesn’t make sense to have a single word for it, the English language doesn’t tend to make sense, and it shouldn’t take much effort for you to come up with things that make even less sense and yet you use regularly. Complaining that your retina being put on backwards not making sense doesn’t magically turn it around. Deal with it.
And yea, that’s not “post-modernism”, that’s “post-modern philosophy”, and it’s the laughingstock of all other post-modernism just as it is of everyone else. Equating all of post-modernism with that is downright offensive and has already drawn the ire of at least one post-modernist.
Complaining that your retina being put on backwards not making sense doesn’t magically turn it around.
Right, but I didn’t have any say in the architecture of my retina, whereas, presumably, there were human-made decisions involved in applying the term “post-modernism” to this or that.
Equating all of post-modernism with that is downright offensive and has already drawn the ire of at least one post-modernist.
All right, what is the true postmodernism, then ? And why should we exclude post-modern philosophy from this umbrella term ? The mere fact that it’s offensive is insufficient, as there are plenty of offensive notions in existence which are nonetheless true (such as evolution, for example).
There is no such thing as “true post-modernism”, not only because the label is applied to many unrelated things, but also because most of the best candidates are inherently impossible to pin down for Gödelian reasons.
If you need to chose one meaning, I’d say the literary one, but really only because I personally enjoy it. TV troopes “post modernism” page describes it better than anything else I know really, although they don’t make it clear enough it only applies to literary post-modernism. If you do this none of the things discussed in this thread are post-modernism at all.
Though I suppose that having a unifying term for a collection of distinct, non-overlapping ideas is a postmodern idea in and of itself, so I guess you may be onto something there.
Anyway, if, as you say, “there is no such thing as “true post-modernism”″, then why would people be offended when I apply this label to a particular philosophy ?
I believe this discussion, which is itself becoming post-modern, illustrates one of the weaknesses of post-modernism. We are now arguing about the applicability of an ill-defined (or, perhaps, entirely undefinable) term to a variety of subjects, while at the same time agreeing that the term is mostly (or perhaps even entirely) subjective. In other words, we’re just pushing around some syntax which has little (or perhaps none at all) semantic content. We could be talking about almost anything else, and that discussion would be more productive.
I usually assume certain situations happen under “Crocker’s or silence”; for example, I think most productive enterprise should be carried out in this fashion, Crocker’s in discussion and silence in generation.
Xander’s Lament sounds interesting. I would also be interested in reading a coherent defence of post-modernism (assuming that such a thing could exist and is not a contradiction in terms), because attacking post-modernism is simply too easy.
I invoke Crocker’s Rules, as well.
Here’s a random thought: is there a way to augment the Less Wrong website to provide a “Crocker’s Flag” feature ? The flag will be off by default, though individual users could choose turn it on in their profile preferences. The handle of anyone who has the flag turned on will always be displayed with an asterisk next to it, like this: *Bugmaster.
This way, people wouldn’t have to keep saying “I invoke Crocker’s Rules” all the time.
My apologies if this idea has been brought up before.
An asterisk is too generic for my tastes, and “Crocker’s rules” too specific, for me to like this mapping from one to the other. It would prevent us from using the asterisk for some other purpose in the future, and it would privilege the signalling of Crocker’s rules more than other signallings that we may desire to use.
Now a very small, almost unobtrusive icon indicating “crocker’s rules” (what would an image indicating Crocker’s Rules be like, btw?) is more specific, and we could eventually add more/different icons as needed to signal whatever. (not near the handle, preferably, as it would get crowded, but perhaps at the top right corner of the posts in question? or something like that.
A punching bag.
Either that, or a boxing glove, perhaps.
Or this.
Green jaunty wizard hat to the left of the karma point indicator.
Yes, though perhaps it’d be better placed near the ‘reply’ icon.
Maybe put a ‘C’ on it, too.
Stoic Roman shield with coat of arms of somebody like Sir Thomas More.
It has been brought up, but not recently. I think you’re okay.
If someone does this, I’d also like the option of turning it on or off on a per-post/comment basis.
.
My knowledge of post-modernism is vague and secondhand. However, one valuable thing I’ve gotten from the neighborhood of post-modernism is that, unlike the modern idea of the lone genius communing with the universe because of having a superior soul, people’s heads are full of prior art, and this makes a difference.
.
I just meant that people generally build on art they’ve already seen/heard/read rather than being completely original.
The difference is that criticism is mistaken if it only praises things for being completely new.
.
Depends what you mean by “seriously”. The copyright industry largely feeds on said myth, for example.
I’m not sure whether people believe that art can be devoid of precedent, but I do think that a lot of what drives high art for the past century more or less is the desire to have as little precedent as possible.
Huh?! “Post modernism” is not any unified thing, it’s just whatever came after modernism in the specific context, as opposed to modernism which means reasonably similar things across the arts.
You’re most likely referring to postmodernism within some specific field, or maybe a few where it ended up similar by chance. My guess would be either science/philosophy due to context, or visual arts because that’s the largest semi-coherent grouping.
Please be more specific with what you mean by postmodernism, this goes for the OP as well.
EDIT: after reading the rest of the thread I’ve updated and am not almost certain you mean only post-modernist PHILOSOPHY, which is just about entirely unrelated to the vast majority of things labelled post-modernist.
I suppose I do. In general, when I said that post-modernism is easy to attack, I was referring to the notion that an objective reality either does not exist or is completely irrelevant, and that all of science, art, literature etc. is basically just a set of arbitrary narratives. As I said, I think this notion is quite easy to attack, especially as far as science is concerned.
I am a little confused by your earlier statement, though:
If its not “any unified thing”, then does it even make sense to have a word for it ? Though I suppose that having a unifying term for a collection of distinct, non-overlapping ideas is a postmodern idea in and of itself, so I guess you may be onto something there.
In any case, this is precisely why I would like to see an article that mounts a coherent (insofar as that even makes sense) defence of postmodernism. If you or the original poster write one, I’ll gladly read it.
(Edited: typo)
It doesn’t make sense to have a single word for it, the English language doesn’t tend to make sense, and it shouldn’t take much effort for you to come up with things that make even less sense and yet you use regularly. Complaining that your retina being put on backwards not making sense doesn’t magically turn it around. Deal with it.
And yea, that’s not “post-modernism”, that’s “post-modern philosophy”, and it’s the laughingstock of all other post-modernism just as it is of everyone else. Equating all of post-modernism with that is downright offensive and has already drawn the ire of at least one post-modernist.
.
Well, then PLEASE don’t call it plainly post-modernism, and take a few lines to correct this misunderstanding apparently common around here, ok?
.
Right, but I didn’t have any say in the architecture of my retina, whereas, presumably, there were human-made decisions involved in applying the term “post-modernism” to this or that.
All right, what is the true postmodernism, then ? And why should we exclude post-modern philosophy from this umbrella term ? The mere fact that it’s offensive is insufficient, as there are plenty of offensive notions in existence which are nonetheless true (such as evolution, for example).
You asking this question.
There is no such thing as “true post-modernism”, not only because the label is applied to many unrelated things, but also because most of the best candidates are inherently impossible to pin down for Gödelian reasons.
If you need to chose one meaning, I’d say the literary one, but really only because I personally enjoy it. TV troopes “post modernism” page describes it better than anything else I know really, although they don’t make it clear enough it only applies to literary post-modernism. If you do this none of the things discussed in this thread are post-modernism at all.
Yes, I did foreshadow that a bit:
Anyway, if, as you say, “there is no such thing as “true post-modernism”″, then why would people be offended when I apply this label to a particular philosophy ?
I believe this discussion, which is itself becoming post-modern, illustrates one of the weaknesses of post-modernism. We are now arguing about the applicability of an ill-defined (or, perhaps, entirely undefinable) term to a variety of subjects, while at the same time agreeing that the term is mostly (or perhaps even entirely) subjective. In other words, we’re just pushing around some syntax which has little (or perhaps none at all) semantic content. We could be talking about almost anything else, and that discussion would be more productive.
.
Personally, I think the exhibitionist aspect is the best part of intellectual masturbation.
I usually assume certain situations happen under “Crocker’s or silence”; for example, I think most productive enterprise should be carried out in this fashion, Crocker’s in discussion and silence in generation.