I have yet to see anyone on Less Wrong exhibit the understanding of post-modernism that would be required to dismiss it on its terms (rather than just mocking it and moving on—which is a valid strategy for the most part). One would have to begin by recognizing that post-modernism is not one thing. It would be impressive if successful, though.
David Gerard seems to have some (not all negative) things to say about postmodernism, though I never managed to convince him to write a post on it. It’s a topic I’ve been asking for for some time.
I really don’t know enough to speak of it authoritatively. (I’ve had no training in the area and have picked up all my knowledge as an autodidact; I cannot purport to explain the field as it is practiced by the knowledgeable. I’m trying to level up in it and am becoming quite the non-fan of Derrida in the process …) I wrote a bit here, see “p.s.” points at the end.
(This week’s all-but-idle progress on “Bayesian postmodernism” is correctly sorting other uses of the word “theory”. My current tentative notion is that quite a lot of “theory” as used in critical theory is actually more in the form of how-tos. How would you falsify a how-to? Particularly a tentative, untested one?)
(If I write on the topic again, I will try to explain what “post-colonial” means in sufficient detail as to conclusively kill it as a local example.)
I have yet to see anyone on Less Wrong exhibit the understanding of post-modernism that would be required to dismiss it on its terms (rather than just mocking it and moving on—which is a valid strategy for the most part).
Post-modernism is concentrated confusion. You can’t achieve anything on its terms, let alone a self-dismissal. Can’t a viewpoint just be wrong without also being self-defeating?
I found the stuff, or some things of that name, useful in practice in rock music criticism—actual explanatory power—but then again that’s a field whose obsolescence is a plus for humanity.
This is very sad. What is wrong with people that they can’t come up with names for their ideas that have some flavor (like Classical or Romantic) instead of being so abstract? And then they look for authenticity—the only authenticity they’ve got is the fun of being intellectual.… but if they noticed that, they’d break it.
Because a cool-sounding theory outcompetes a useful one. Identifying and distinguishing the two is needed. e.g. noticing something triggering one’s internal “insightful!” detector without one then checking that this is actually insightful. (The difference between striking gold and striking crack.)
(The standard works do not help in this. Deleuze and Guattari read like a textbook in the style of an experimental novel.)
The “not being one thing” is greatly underempathized. MOST things called post-modernism are great, and I am still shocked at some of the things I’ve read in this thread. Have most LWers only encountered post-modernism philosophy (which sucks simply for being the average quality of mainstream philosophy), and no arts?
I have yet to see anyone on Less Wrong exhibit the understanding of post-modernism that would be required to dismiss it on its terms (rather than just mocking it and moving on—which is a valid strategy for the most part). One would have to begin by recognizing that post-modernism is not one thing. It would be impressive if successful, though.
David Gerard seems to have some (not all negative) things to say about postmodernism, though I never managed to convince him to write a post on it. It’s a topic I’ve been asking for for some time.
I really don’t know enough to speak of it authoritatively. (I’ve had no training in the area and have picked up all my knowledge as an autodidact; I cannot purport to explain the field as it is practiced by the knowledgeable. I’m trying to level up in it and am becoming quite the non-fan of Derrida in the process …) I wrote a bit here, see “p.s.” points at the end.
(This week’s all-but-idle progress on “Bayesian postmodernism” is correctly sorting other uses of the word “theory”. My current tentative notion is that quite a lot of “theory” as used in critical theory is actually more in the form of how-tos. How would you falsify a how-to? Particularly a tentative, untested one?)
(If I write on the topic again, I will try to explain what “post-colonial” means in sufficient detail as to conclusively kill it as a local example.)
Post-modernism is concentrated confusion. You can’t achieve anything on its terms, let alone a self-dismissal. Can’t a viewpoint just be wrong without also being self-defeating?
I found the stuff, or some things of that name, useful in practice in rock music criticism—actual explanatory power—but then again that’s a field whose obsolescence is a plus for humanity.
Post-postmodernism is actually a thing.
This is very sad. What is wrong with people that they can’t come up with names for their ideas that have some flavor (like Classical or Romantic) instead of being so abstract? And then they look for authenticity—the only authenticity they’ve got is the fun of being intellectual.… but if they noticed that, they’d break it.
If the adherents of post-Postmodernism were capable of recognizing the irony of calling it “post-Postmodernism” they would be Postmodernists instead of post-Postmodernists.
.
I cannot stress enough how hard I would upvote a post entitled “My post-postmodernism post”.
.
You have to explain post-colonialist alienation in the form of a theory with predictive power, however.
.
Because a cool-sounding theory outcompetes a useful one. Identifying and distinguishing the two is needed. e.g. noticing something triggering one’s internal “insightful!” detector without one then checking that this is actually insightful. (The difference between striking gold and striking crack.)
(The standard works do not help in this. Deleuze and Guattari read like a textbook in the style of an experimental novel.)
.
The “not being one thing” is greatly underempathized. MOST things called post-modernism are great, and I am still shocked at some of the things I’ve read in this thread. Have most LWers only encountered post-modernism philosophy (which sucks simply for being the average quality of mainstream philosophy), and no arts?
I think mostly people don’t mean art—they mean the arguments and possibly the values.
But if ever there was a word worth tabooing it was “post-modernism”.
well, what they mean depends on context. I have certainly heard it mostly about art.
And yea, it should be tabooed if you’re going to have a serious discussion about it.