I share that sort of admittedly knee-jerk distaste for what appears to me like postmodernism, although it could very well be the result of my deeply flawed and limited understanding of it. One of my first curiosities is what sort of standards and structures postmodernists propose we adopt to guide our processes of collaboration, evaluation of human creations, to avoid reinventing wheels, and ultimately drive collaborative progress in a reasonably unified direction without having to constantly reset it. All standards are imperfect (I can point out numerous arbitrary ones for the engineering standards under which my team is subject), yet they seem to promote a much greater degree of harmony in spite of their flaws as opposed to their complete absence. I'm of the mindset that any standard, however arbitrary its ideals, is better than no standard. My admittedly very limited understanding of postmodernism seems as though it is seeking to dismantle existing standards rather than establish new and more productive ones in their place. It seems more the philosophy of the critic than the creator if I put it crudely given my limited understanding.
I agree with your assessment. Most postmodernists are more interested in tearing down standards than identifying ones. I believe we still need to analyze what standards we have and continually assess whether they are working for us, but we still need standards.
@@InsertPhilosophyHere I think I might also be quite the modernist. I don't fully share the Enlightenment ideals but I'm definitely quite the empiricist. At the same time, I value subjective knowledge and experience when it comes to matters of aesthetics. It's the synthesis of the two that I see ends up building great things, like the subjective nature of an architect designing a marvelous building combined with the empirical knowledge of structural engineering required to prevent it from collapsing. Yet even the most beautiful design for a building ends up quickly collapsing and ceasing to become a building absent that knowledge gained from empiricism; it's the foundation on which stable structures are built.
this was a good general introduction of the key defining generalities it seems but i am left wishing for more detail, "post modernism lays waste to the enlightenment foundations and dreams" "it leaves history with no grand narrative and purpose" quite devastating to take, especially on face value I am left wondering simply; "how so", what say these levied claims? how could this possibly be the case? on what grounds, arguments and reason may this all stand and taken to be the case. in terms of what considerations did this radical difference in modernity to post modernity take place? whats the nuts and bolts. I am hoping for more of this to be addressed in any following videos on particular thinkers :) i imagine this is no easy question
Thank you for your comment. As you say, this video is a general introduction for my philosophy courses, a companion to my textbook, amzn.to/3Kx1TBF. The ideas mentioned in the video do need much more explanation, as you correct observe. I have been negligent in following up with the promised in-depth videos. There always seem to be a more urgent project. This summer I hope to get caught up with a lot of things, including the videos on specific postmodernists,.
@@InsertPhilosophyHere and thanks for your reply :) looking forward to delving more into what you offer with this channel, its appreicated! will be concidering the text book
so basically you say anything and assert what you want and as long as you find someone who agrees with you, and joins your cult, you are good. if someone disagrees then one has to be wrong because there is no objective truth :) we have one problem with it, if there is no objective truth then it should not matter if someone agrees or disagrees, yet its the most important thing in today's society :) to sum it up and solve all related problems, I call BS on postmodernism, I introduce post postmodernism that negates anything that postmodernism claims :) you cannot challenge it because I proclaim one true context called reality :) everything contrary to it, is not real ergo its false :) I think this deconstruction is good enough :) but for real, anyone that claims that there is no objective reality is delusional. wants to destroy meaningful communication between people. you cannot criticize it according to postmodernism, because you cannot know what am I talking about, so you have two choice 1. join me with implicit trust in the context called reality where we have objective truth and we can communicate 2. STFU and start sucking your thumb in a corner postmodernists :) the choice is yours :)
What you describe is the attitude of every ideology that has ever existed, including modernism. Just lazy people thinking lazily out of fear of difference. That's an attitude as old as humanity, and the attitude that postmodernism called out and rejected.
@@InsertPhilosophyHere you cannot reject anything because postmodernism tears apart framework in which you can reject :) this framework is called logic. if you have arbitrary interpretation of words based on contexts you invent on the fly, you cannot do anything meaningful with other people you can only understand yourself (at least I hope you can) this is why I've said, that the alternative is sucking your thumb. you cannot eat cake and have it too.
Ah, yes, logic, that form of thinking where you spin your wheels and run around in circles proving nothing but what you already knew. "Snow is white if and only if snow is white." Logic tells us nothing about the world, you have to be brave enough to go out and search. That means you have to leave your self-serving logic chopping and risk being proven wrong. Fortune favors the brave and the truth comes only to those who seek. I wish you luck when you decide to start! :)
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
I share that sort of admittedly knee-jerk distaste for what appears to me like postmodernism, although it could very well be the result of my deeply flawed and limited understanding of it.
One of my first curiosities is what sort of standards and structures postmodernists propose we adopt to guide our processes of collaboration, evaluation of human creations, to avoid reinventing wheels, and ultimately drive collaborative progress in a reasonably unified direction without having to constantly reset it. All standards are imperfect (I can point out numerous arbitrary ones for the engineering standards under which my team is subject), yet they seem to promote a much greater degree of harmony in spite of their flaws as opposed to their complete absence. I'm of the mindset that any standard, however arbitrary its ideals, is better than no standard.
My admittedly very limited understanding of postmodernism seems as though it is seeking to dismantle existing standards rather than establish new and more productive ones in their place. It seems more the philosophy of the critic than the creator if I put it crudely given my limited understanding.
I agree with your assessment. Most postmodernists are more interested in tearing down standards than identifying ones. I believe we still need to analyze what standards we have and continually assess whether they are working for us, but we still need standards.
@@InsertPhilosophyHere I think I might also be quite the modernist. I don't fully share the Enlightenment ideals but I'm definitely quite the empiricist. At the same time, I value subjective knowledge and experience when it comes to matters of aesthetics. It's the synthesis of the two that I see ends up building great things, like the subjective nature of an architect designing a marvelous building combined with the empirical knowledge of structural engineering required to prevent it from collapsing. Yet even the most beautiful design for a building ends up quickly collapsing and ceasing to become a building absent that knowledge gained from empiricism; it's the foundation on which stable structures are built.
this was a good general introduction of the key defining generalities it seems but i am left wishing for more detail, "post modernism lays waste to the enlightenment foundations and dreams" "it leaves history with no grand narrative and purpose" quite devastating to take, especially on face value
I am left wondering simply; "how so", what say these levied claims? how could this possibly be the case?
on what grounds, arguments and reason may this all stand and taken to be the case. in terms of what considerations did this radical difference in modernity to post modernity take place?
whats the nuts and bolts.
I am hoping for more of this to be addressed in any following videos on particular thinkers :)
i imagine this is no easy question
Thank you for your comment. As you say, this video is a general introduction for my philosophy courses, a companion to my textbook, amzn.to/3Kx1TBF. The ideas mentioned in the video do need much more explanation, as you correct observe. I have been negligent in following up with the promised in-depth videos. There always seem to be a more urgent project. This summer I hope to get caught up with a lot of things, including the videos on specific postmodernists,.
@@InsertPhilosophyHere and thanks for your reply :) looking forward to delving more into what you offer with this channel, its appreicated!
will be concidering the text book
so basically you say anything and assert what you want and as long as you find someone who agrees with you, and joins your cult, you are good. if someone disagrees then one has to be wrong because there is no objective truth :) we have one problem with it, if there is no objective truth then it should not matter if someone agrees or disagrees, yet its the most important thing in today's society :)
to sum it up and solve all related problems, I call BS on postmodernism, I introduce post postmodernism that negates anything that postmodernism claims :) you cannot challenge it because I proclaim one true context called reality :) everything contrary to it, is not real ergo its false :) I think this deconstruction is good enough :) but for real, anyone that claims that there is no objective reality is delusional. wants to destroy meaningful communication between people.
you cannot criticize it according to postmodernism, because you cannot know what am I talking about, so you have two choice
1. join me with implicit trust in the context called reality where we have objective truth and we can communicate
2. STFU and start sucking your thumb in a corner
postmodernists :) the choice is yours :)
What you describe is the attitude of every ideology that has ever existed, including modernism. Just lazy people thinking lazily out of fear of difference. That's an attitude as old as humanity, and the attitude that postmodernism called out and rejected.
@@InsertPhilosophyHere you cannot reject anything because postmodernism tears apart framework in which you can reject :) this framework is called logic. if you have arbitrary interpretation of words based on contexts you invent on the fly, you cannot do anything meaningful with other people you can only understand yourself (at least I hope you can) this is why I've said, that the alternative is sucking your thumb. you cannot eat cake and have it too.
Ah, yes, logic, that form of thinking where you spin your wheels and run around in circles proving nothing but what you already knew. "Snow is white if and only if snow is white." Logic tells us nothing about the world, you have to be brave enough to go out and search. That means you have to leave your self-serving logic chopping and risk being proven wrong. Fortune favors the brave and the truth comes only to those who seek. I wish you luck when you decide to start! :)