What is Postmodernism? (Philosophical Definition)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 май 2021
- A brief outlining of the overarching themes that cut across the various positions and movements that have been called postmodernism in art, politics, and philosophy. Future videos in this series cover the specifics of postmodernism for architecture, politics, science and more!
Sponsors: Joshua Furman, Joshua Opell, NBA_Ruby, Eugene SY, Antoinemp1, Antibody, Ismail Fagundes, Adrien Ecoffet, Tom Amedro, Christopher McGevna, Joao Sa, and Dennis Sexton. Thanks for your support!
Donate on Patreon: / carneades
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/carneades
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, and more! (#Postmodernism #Philosophy)
So glad your channel exists.You have covered with short (and sometimes long) videos A LOT of topics that are super interesting and made it understandable for non-experts
Thanks so much! Glad you appreciate. :)
I'd came for Set theory and ontology. but this series dude, is real deal for me.
I also came for ontology!
Awesome! Glad you are excited. :)
Looking forward to this series
Thank you so much for making this. You sober presentation of philosophical concepts is very needed in this discourse around postmodernism which is dominated by pop intellectuals, straw men, prejudice, and misconceptions
Thanks! Postmodernism is often misinterpreted an then used as a punching bag. Hopefully this series can shed some light on a topic where the noise has gotten louder than the signal.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene To turn it into a more differentiated punching bag with more nuanced punches thrown
You’ve done a superb job (as always) with this introduction. On a side note, I love how you make a point about “certain pop philosophers,” and without mentioning him, everybody knows who you mean 😂
Many thanks! Postmodernism is a weird position because it is both a very technical and complex set of positions and one which is actively misinterpreted in popular culture, not to name any names. :)
I'm starting to look into this, any chance you could just say the name? Thanks
@@andrewloera5641 jordan peterson is the guy he is referring to i guess
@@andrewloera5641stephen hicks and his follower jordan peterson
Thank you, this series has cleared a lot of the misconceptions that I read about postmodernism in various places. I’ve been following you for some time now and I can tell you that you are a high intelligent and very knowledgeable guy. Keep it up 👍
Thanks so much! Glad to help. :)
You are the man! Thank you for having making this comprehensive series on Post Modern Philosophy
you should do a vid on "metamodernism"
Being the neglectfully educated person that I am, but still having retained some form of ability to think, iv found myself wading around the battlefields of the culture war online. I stumbled over the concept of Chesterton's fence. You do a great video on this, thankyou, new subscriber.
While tangling myself in hypocrisy and paradoxes inside my own head, i managed to pen a less than witty anecdote. It is an argument between a schizophrenic and... a schizophrenic... about the burden of proof.
Lo and behold, a few days later i stumble over the conceptual fence, then a few days later your painting of the fence. Within which burden of proof arguments are within your brush strokes.
Have I ever had an original thought I wonder, there is a truth to there being nothing new.
I got interested on this channel after I stumble upon your series on free will. Now I'm hooked an waiting for this awesome new series.
Awesome! Thanks for watching. I'm glad you enjoy. :)
Me too
In the themes part, if you were to create a Venn diagram with one on each side but you personally like things from both sides and thus you make up the intersection, what sort of ideas/views are there at the intersection? If you can do this that is. I have a weak philosophy background so I wouldn't know if this sort of thing is possible or not but I'm curious nonetheless :)
sounds like postmodernism comes down to "everything is a model, and no model is universally right". while i agree that everything is a model, i prefer the empirical spin on this: all models are wrong, but some are useful (a famous saying among those working in modelling).
This is a great summary! I would say that this concept is the thing that ties together the many types of postmodernism (which is what I was focusing on in this video), thought the specifics vary a bit from subject to subject. And we will get to the exact point that you make as an objection to postmodernism (i.e. that even if we can't know a given metanarrative is true, we might have other reason for accepting it, such as its usefulness).
This looks like such a good series
I hope you enjoy!
I never quite got the whole "be skeptical of metanarratives" point. It all seems very self defeating to me, because always being skeptical of metanarratives, seems like a metanarrative in and of itself to me. So it's self defeating and just boils down to: be skeptical of whatever you want and believe whatever you want.
It is a common concern. We'll talk more about this issue in the video on the philosophy of truth (where we'll cover Lyotard more extensively) and the final video on skepticism and postmodernism.
Idk if I'd call skepticism of narratives a narrative. It's a negative thing, skepticism, not a positive thing, an assertion of a particular thing.
Will there be any representation of Bruno Latour's critisism of both modernism and post-modernism from his work "We have never been modern", and the usage Actor Network Theory as a sientific framework?
Not in this series, though it is fertile ground for a future video/series. We will touch on, but won't dig as much into the post-structuralist skepticism of binary hierarchical opposites, as we would need for a full treatment of Latour.
The modernist in me says that this will give me true objective facts on post modernism but the post modernist in me says that this series will be narrative of current cultural institutions
Haha! And down the rabbit hole we go. As a skeptic, I don't know what it will be, but I am excited to find out :)
The logo in the lower right corner of the "Themes" slide obscures words listed under "Postmodern"
Glad there is this discussion but many people will ignore the definition placed. Subjective definition and slang definition besides dictionaries seems popular. Ah educational understanding is rare it seems.
There is a reason I had a whole section on "Straw Man" arguments. When a clear definition is elusive, as it is with postmodernism, those who are writing short definitions often oversimplify and further obfuscate the debate.
He's clearly a strong understander of art. Why doesn't he break down Goodman's philosophy of art: Cognitive, constructivist, nominal metaphysics through artistic representation.
Where are the quotes from? Is it from an academic paper?
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽🌊🧠🧠 Sink Deep - The two concepts are inseparable
Will you be discussing post-structuralism during this series on post-modernism?
Good question. We will be touching on it when we cover postmodernism about language with Derrida and postmodernism about rationality with Foucault, (as well as touching on concepts like the death of the author in the video on aesthetics). However, we won't be diving in completely, that will need to await another series. :)
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Alrighty. Sounds excellent. I just have one more, someone unrelated, question. Do you know of a definition for 'global metaphysical theories'? I haven't been able to find one. Thanks in advance.
Bravo. Got it.
The most important division is that modernism holds to reasoning, the ability that separates us from other animals, is primary. In postmodernism, reasoning is not even considered.
Will you do a part on Rorty?
We will touch on many of the themes Rorty is engaged with (Kuhn, Wittgenstein, Tarski), but won't cover him explicitly, though his philosophy would be interesting to cover at some point in the future.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene ok!
Scientific theories testing concerns the comparison between prediction and observation. You basically compare two numbers. In this sense, testing a theory has little if any to do with paradigms.
What Kuhn famously pointed out was that if your observation does not match your hypothesis it could be because your hypothesis is wrong, OR it could be because your background beliefs are wrong (e.g. you are using the paradigm of Newtonian mechanics when you should be using quantum mechanics). When you are testing a hypothesis, you have three parts:
Paradigm: According to Newtonian mechanics the closest planet to the sun should not have a perihelion in its orbit.
Hypothesis: Mercury is the closest planet to the sun.
Observation: Mercury has a perihelion in its orbit.
Comparing our observation to our hypothesis and background beliefs we might conclude that Mercury is not in fact the closest planet to the sun (as scientists thought in the late 1800s and early 1900s, when they spent years looking for Vulcan a hypothetical planet closer to the sun than Mercury). However we should have thrown out our background belief, because while Newtonian mechanics cannot explain the perihelion in Mercury's orbit, General relativity can.
Science does depend on paradigms, which is one of the reasons that, while many of these views are still debated it is broadly agreed that Kuhn was right and the logical positivists were wrong. His book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, remains one of the most cited books of all time. Check out my series on underdetermination (ruclips.net/p/PLz0n_SjOttTenxXXdML7fOu1og3D9LaME) for more or stay tuned for the upcoming video on Kuhn's theories!
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I think the word "OR" in your 3rd line is wrong. It can not be the case that the observation does not much the prediction and still the hypothesis being true. I mean, if the prediction is wrong, the hypothesis is wrong by definition, given the hypothesis is exactly that the prediction is correct, i.e. it muches observation. It's a tautology situation.
Maybe I am missing Kuhn's point..??
PS - Forgive my poor wording, not a philosopher
What I got from this video is that Postmodernism is not truly a whole movement but is just a loose description of a reaction to definite movements? Modernism is trying to create a final perfect product and Postmodernism says there is none and there are infinite possibilities? Nevertheless, amazing video.
Yes. In very broad strokes. One of the challenges is that because psotmodernism is a such a disparate set of movements, giving one cohesive definition that applies to all of them is often futile, but you have the central concepts correct.
I now understand how little I knew and know about postmodernism
Post modernism is a spook
I still don't know anything about postmodernism! Then again, I am a skeptic and I don't know anything at all... ;)
what's your response to a trivialist?
We will cover logical pluralism in the video on postmodern philosophy, as well as the undefinability of truth in the video on postmodernism about truth. We won't look at non-classical logics such as trivialism directly, though once we are done with set theory our next stop in logic is non-classical logic. I don't think most postmodernists would identify as trivialists, the claim that all statements are true sounds like a meta-narrative of its own, if a simplistic one.
9:34 Nice example of a typographic river, starting on line 7 between _”and”_ and _”others”._ 😬
Very cool! Good catch. :)
Postmodern knowledge building is situated, local, and slippery and it is also self-critical. Self-critical in postmodern knowledge means that it questions itself and also questions its role. It will eat itself; sooner=better
Oh baby. Here we go.
It is a big one!
@@CarneadesOfCyrene You should collaborate with Zarathustra's Serpent. His video on Socrates and democracy was highly entertaining.
3:00 I didn't know postmodernism claimed to know anything about the way the world is. Isn't it a kind of absurd relativism?
The segment on themes has me thinking how a modernist and a postmodernist would have a say on the Chinese aesthetic that nature is the greatest artist. 🤔
Tremendous
Thanks!
So by definition of postmodernism, what is POST-modernism rejection of?
It depends on the type of postmodernism, but broadly it is a rejection of metanarratives (ruclips.net/video/VYdwAulpWqw/видео.html), a repudiation to modernism (ruclips.net/video/SSQOM2AiUV4/видео.html), or a response to logical positivism (ruclips.net/video/UyX3Dngg22s/видео.html).
The simulacrum video isn't in the not postmodernism playlist
3:50 Postmodernism is about overanalysing, readings are used to shove motive in to interpretations, the interpretations become definitions, they become used to fuel agendas and political narratives.
Random person watches Malcolm in the Middle, the make an O sign with your fingers thing is funny, they make a joke about it and idiots take that joke seriousely, now because idiots fell for a joke the O sign means racism or something and frog immagery equals neo nazi.
There was a story covered by "Just Some Guy" on youtube about how I think it was Mark Wade, calling up a publisher he'd never worked with to call a guy a racist because, because reasons and entimidated them in to dropping the guy, only problem is not only was Cyber frog not racist the guy had an interracial family.
Postmodernism is analisys for the sake of analisys but with a motivated world of readers it becomes a weapon for the sake of agendas.
Baudriard is about understanding Hyperreality, Postmodernism is a function of Hyperreality, you shouldnt dismiss rejections of Postmodernism, not today, not when everything is becoming a symulacrum constructed by stupid people given power by political nepetism.
I feel a little bit cautious about this, for while it may be fair to say that works are culturally situated for Postmodernists it is not the same to claim (though it sounds tempting and easily connectable) that Postmodernists are relativists. This is to say that throughout the video this claim has been easily put out there, but I feel that it would be easily assumed by a few watchers.
5:14 It sounds like ethical claim actually.
12:20 Pluralism is CENTRAL
Is the visual aesthetic of this series deliberately reminiscent of House of Leaves? Because House of Leaves is very post-modern in a lot of ways lol
You should do one on critical theory (what is it, what does it do) which is more popular than postmodernism in the mainstream American left than postmodernism now. Maybe also cover critical race and critical gender theories, maybe do an analytic evaluation of critical race theory.
Sounds like an interesting topic to cover (and certainly a topical one). I would love to cover it at some point, but there are always more topics than time in the day! :)
There are some people who conflate everything they hate, lump them all together, and call them all something like "fascism" or "communism". For example, some on the right lump Marxism and Post-Modernism together and label them "communism" or The Frankfurt School, etc. However, more perceptive folks such as Jordan Peterson believe that although metanarratives like Marxism and philosophies like Post-Modernism are distinct, they can work in synergistic ways.
So, for example, post-modernism can demoralize a society by undercutting their metanarrative and replacing objective beliefs in specific truths with relativist notions that there is no absolute truth and that language is only used to oppress and put one group in supremacy over another.
Once the deck is cleared, then a particular metanarrative such as Marxism can come in to "save the day". Thus all the recent talk of "late capitalism", "patriarchy", "neo-colonialism", etc. All the metanarratives that got us to where we are have been found wanting so we need a new one because human nature abhors a vacuum. Of course, the Marxist metanarrative was one of the greatest failures of all time, but its cheerleaders are hoping the masses will have forgotten or never learned their history lessons.
Many struggle to understand that there might be multiple reasons for disagreeing with a position. Marxists and post-modernists do disagree with the meta-narratives of capitalism, but they do it for deeply different reasons, and they deeply disagree with each other as well. Many would argue that postmodernism is not about demoralizing society, but freeing society from boring, drab, modernist rules. This is particularly true in postmodern architecture and performance. Less is a bore.
There may be political figures that attempt to use the arguments of postmodernism to attack the opposing side and then shoehorn in their own meta-narrative, but they are no more convincing than presuppositionalists who use skeptical arguments to attempt to hide their unjustified beliefs. In their embrace of meta-narratives, they are not actually postmodernists. This series is focused on the real concept of postmodernism, not how either the left or the right have tried to use it to gain support or advantage, though further discussion of the ways in which political interests have divorced postmodernism from the reality of the position would be fascinating, the study of simulacra has become a hyperreal simulacrum itself!
does anyone deny that "experience is pluralistic"?
"I'll eliminate that conclusion..."
Darn skeptics.
If you think there are multiple ways to do something, but there is a best way, would that be a modern thought or a post-modern thought?
It will depend on the specific discipline, but generally that view leans more modernist than postmodernist. Postmodernists are generally averse to claiming that there is one way of doing something that is the best. They might say, given X paradigm/metanarrative Y is the best method, but usually they think paradigms are incommensurable: you can't compare options outside a paradigm.
I have no doubt you'll be discussing this topic later, but one thing that I strongly associate with postmodernism, is 'deconstruction'. Missed that in this video.
Good question. Deconstruction is generally most closely associated with Derrida. We'll cover it in the video on postmodernism and the philosophy of language (along with Derrida's endless chain of signifiers, Wittgenstein's language games etc.). While some architectural and design movements have described themselves as "deconstructivism" after Derrida's term, this is largely a superficial connection given that the architects are talking about building things lacking symmetry or continuity, while Derrida is talking about challenging the implicit valorization and marginalization of hierarchies in our interpretation of text.
I really can't see how anyone could be called a "modernist", as described in this video. It sounded like a caricature (rather than a useful generalization).
Why not? Remember that, just as there is not one position "post-modernism," there is not one position of "modernism." Rarely is one a modernist about everything. There seem to be many people who are "modernists" about politics, thinking that there is one right way to run a government (whether they are libertarians, socialists, or fascists, they subscribe to a clear meta-narrative that defines how to run a government and argue that all other meta-narratives are wrong). Do you think that socialists and libertarians don't exist? If they do, they are modernists.
Even with something softer like art, there are plenty of people who believe that there is an objective fact about the right way to make art, that critics can tell if something is beautiful or not, and that there is art that is objectively bad. Many people are skeptical of postmodernist positions about language (that there is not one objective meaning of words). Attendance at superhero movies seems to indicate that there are many people who prefer modernist theater with linear plots with a clear building action, climax and resolution. Modernism may see like a caricature here because it is not one cohesive position, but rather a characteristic of positions in many disciplines. What about it do you find unappealing?
Can I point out the irony of saying someone is not understanding Postmodernism correctly?
Postmodernism is both confusing and about the idea that narratives that attempt to help us explain and understand the world are not objective. :)
Forget everything I said. Goodman's philosophy of art, and what is Critical Theory can come later. You have enough on your plate.
No worries. I have an ever expanding list of future videos to make, it is never a bad thing to add to the list. :)
Somebody fwd this to j peterson
I'm not certain that any type of philosophy, or any area that the term postmodernism can be applied to, and their peers have anything t all to do with facts. Especially with the way post modernism is often used today it can be argued that post modernism is a crying out that what humanity had considered facts about the world were all wrong, these new facts re correct; when in reality, none of them are facts.
It seems like the differentiation btw the two is artificial. In particular, some questions have clear answers and others do not. The latter would be called ill-formed in my science (physics), because they simply do not cover all aspects and hence leave room for interpretation. Of course, in non scientific fields one may desire freedom of interpretation. In short, its both illogical to postulate that all questions have clear answers and that no questions has one...
The problem with a clear definition of Postmodernism is that it is a general category for a variety of movements in various disciplines, which share similar characteristics, but in many ways are distinct. The question seems poorly formed because it is trying to encompass these different disciplines. The individual disciplinary questions are better formed and more specific. In our video on Postmodenrism in science, we look at the specific theory of paradigm shift from Thomas Kuhn, which is very clearly defined, but has only general links to theories of postmodernism in other disciplines.
Hegel's a modernist, isn't he?
I don't know, it depends on what kind of modernism you are talking about. Broadly Hegel's dialectic is about knowledge making progress and in that way is aligned with modernist conceptions of knowledge progress that Lyotard is reacting to.
Is there a right way to do art?
I think there are a lot of wrong ways to do art, and whatever is left is right --probably
The postmodernist would likely challenge even the claim that there are "wrong" ways to do art. Who are we to say that what we consider wrong or ugly is not fine art for some other culture. If our sensibilities about what makes good art are driven by our culture, what can we really say beyond that a particular piece of art conforms to a given culture's beauty standards?
Mix marxism+critical theory in w/ Postmodern ideology you get smth more dangerous and horrific than politics alone ever were. This form is like a negative K-hole (nothing there, meaningless, pointless n painful).
Why does Postmodernism is not philosophy?
(Please help)
I don't understand your question. Postmodernism is a movement in philosophy, but also in art, theatre, architecture, and more. This series includes videos on each of these movements (ruclips.net/p/PLz0n_SjOttTcLQyeXoDeqR0LGO3JCoLbO).
I can’t see politics working well with either pure modernism or pure postmodernism. I’d say it works best with a combination of both.
Not sure how one could ever even entertain a postmodern outlook.
Both positions have weaknesses in politics. Much of politics is the process of constructing meta-narratives to tie together disparate policies, and to give an explanation for how given policies will solve an individual's problems. The modernist needs to hold that some specific meta-narrative is sufficient to explain the variety of life and how some policy can address one's needs (which can be challenging given the range of issues facing individuals). Postmodernists objects to this, claiming that no one meta-narrative perfectly explains an economy or social problem, meaning that they face the challenge of not being able to put forward any cohesive policy, since they doubt all meta-narratives that might provide them one. Postmodernists are better able to explain why we have political disagreements, but modernists seem better positioned to actually promote specific policies. I hope it will be an interesting video! :)
@@CarneadesOfCyrene true. There is always that about every political view. Human perfection is subjective as only opinion and not a fact likely. That patriotism towards any one idea can be such a philosophical discussion.
I don't think Quine is postmodern at all. Kuhn and Wittgenstein, maybe. Quine, he is a philosopher of science that sees philosophy as a science, and science as philosophical. Maybe his thing on the analytic-synthetic distinction sounds like it could come out of Deleuze or something, but that is it. It's really Rorty who is the American post-modernist.
I think one could make the case that Quine's "Epistemology Naturalized" is a clearly postmodern take on knowledge because it doubts the overarching metanarrative of epistemology. I don't focus on him much in the rest of the series though. I am not convinced that Rorty belongs fully in this tradition, he may be post-epistemological, but he does seem to espouse his own metanarrative, and argues against postmodernists like Lyotard in some works.
second
First???
The channel was a diamond till this "series".
I cover positions throughout philosophy, including ones that many people find deplorable like Facism (ruclips.net/video/ki8Hib735Cs/видео.html), anti-natalism (ruclips.net/video/edQq54afR9w/видео.html), and nationalism (ruclips.net/video/NMDsovTTGpg/видео.html). Any viewpoint is a philosophical viewpoint. If you study philosophy, you will inevitably run into viewpoints you disagree with. As a skeptic, I disagree with basically all of the viewpoints on the channel, but that does not mean that I don't want to think about them or teach others about them. If you want to engage with philosophy and challenge your beliefs this is the place for you. If you have an aversion to any philosophical claims that rub you the wrong way, feel free to go somewhere else.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I apologize if I have offended someone. No, I guess it's absolutely good to watch and to analyze this stream in culture of XX by a real skeptical philosopher.
So, I admit I was wrong saying it. There are reasons to see that "phenomena" from the different point of view.
So postmodernist basically tries to explain society without taking into account the biology and genetics of human behavior.
1:35 *cought cough* Jordan *cough* Peterson *cough*
So, if I’m understanding this, postmodernism is just someone yelling “I REJECT YOUR REALITY!” without substituting their own.
More like someone telling you that any "reality" or coherent story of a given discipline is inherently impossible. They do not submit their own because they think that metanarratives are inherently flawed. Exactly what this means depends on the different discipline. It could just mean the basic freedom to design something other than rows of ugly, identical houses (modernist architects think that you are immoral if you want to live in a house that does not conform to their principles). Postmodernism about things like truth or rationality is a difficult proposition to defend, but I think modernism about something like architecture is even more challenging to defend.
Postmodernist is a crazy stupid fella walking down the road without any destination--a poor folk unsure of everything around him. Even he doesn’t know his name. Such mind-boggling rhetoric and philosophy is nothing but a psychic disorder to the point of solipsism. Feel like breaking the skulls of postmodernist, whoever approachs to me with this intent.
Postmodernism = relativism
Anti-objectivism
Why the shilling disclaimer that not all postmodernists are the same… they’re all relativists
No other philosophical position is shilled for to protect them from being identified and disproved
Lousy audio quality.
Get a good mic, set up some acoustical tile or some blankets, and don't record in your bathroom.
this is not a comment
It is both amazing and frightening that some people take this kind of stuff seriously.
The very first way that you framed postmodernism generally would posit it as the literal negation of the core principles of my own philosophy, which are (1) there is some uniquely correct answer or another to every meaningful question, in a sense that doesn't just amount to some person or people's claims or opinions; and (2) there is always some way to tell whether any meaningful claim or opinion is closer or further from that correct answer than its negation. My entire system of philosophy, on every subject, is deduced directly from those two premises, after giving pragmatic arguments for why we must assume those premises.
I think that Modernism vs Postmodernism is largely a false dichotomy, however, because a lot of the particular conclusions reached on the Postmodernist side are things that I deduce from those supposedly extremely Modernist premises.
In particular, one of my very first sub-conclusions from those two premises is a principle I call "Liberalism", which *is* inclusive of the usual ethical sense of that word, but is also broader, with equally epistemic implications: it's the principle that the default state of affairs in any discourse is that any opinion -- whether that be an intention that something *be* the case, in the ethical scenario, or a belief that something *is* the case, in the epistemic scenario -- is equally justified, in a sense that means permissible or possible, rather than obligatory or necessary, until it can be shown unjustified/impermissible/impossible. So differences of opinion must be tolerated by default, until one can be shown intolerable.
Another false dichotomy between the two is the importance of context. There are things that might be true of different things in different times and places, and there are things that might be good for different things in different times and places, but that is not at all incompatible with it being *universally* , regardless of anyone's opinions, true or good *with that full context specified* . I went for a walk today, you didn't; those can both be universally true. I should go for a walk tomorrow, you shouldn't; those can also both be universally true. What can't happen is that it's *true to me* that I should go for a walk tomorrow and it's *true to you* that *I shouldn't* go for a walk tomorrow, and both of those are equally correct opinions. What's right for me to do might not be what's right for you to do, depending on context, but at most one opinion about any of those particulars can be correct.
Your tenets seem quite modernist. I am not sure that this represents a false dichotomy. There an important distinction between claiming that we should tolerate various opinions until we can discover who is correct and saying that no one can ever be correct. Imagine asking two people what a poem means, and having them disagree on the meaning. What it sounds like you are saying is that there is a truth of the matter out there about what the poem means, and given the right tools we could figure out who is right and who is wrong. What the postmodernist is saying is that the poem has no objective meaning at all, we can only judge that meaning relative to a context. Postmodernists explicitly deny your first claim, for them there is not one objective answer to most questions.
As for you point on universality, it sounds like you are positing that when someone says "this painting is beautiful" they mean "according to my culture, this painting is beautiful." In this way, someone could be making an objectively true statement about beauty, even if someone else disagreed with them. However, that seems to be an inaccurate interpretation of what people really mean. If a modernist says "We should tax the rich" they do not really mean just "According to my political metanarrative of socialism, we should tax the rich". They mean that plus the statement "my metanarrative is objectively correct". The debate between the modernists and the postmodernists is not about the first statement, rather it is about the second, whether metanarratives can be objectively right. The modernist claims that they can be (which metanarratives and in which disciplines will depend on the modernist), while the post modernist is skeptical.
One key point to note is that postmodernism and modernism are subject specific. The reason these may feel like false dichotomies is because you can be a modernist about one subject, but a postmodernist about another. Someone might be a postmodernist about "going for a walk" (i.e. they might claim that whether you should go for a walk is context specific, and you can't say that everyone should or should not go for a walk) but they might be a modernist about architecture, claiming that there is one objectively right way to make buildings that can be deduced logically from the properties of materials, and no matter who you are, you have a moral obligation to follow those rules. The point is that the modernist about a given subject is not merely committed to the claim that certain things must be objectively true in some given context, they are committed to the claim that certain things must be true regardless of context.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I would generally think that my core tenets are quite modernist, but the thing that seems like a false dichotomy is what the post-modernist claims is entailed by those tenets, which they are disputing. It seems quite modernist, to my understanding of many moderns, to happily concede that things can be true in one context and false in another, good in one context and bad in another, but to emphasize how "context" and "opinion" are not the same thing: one thing can be *objectively* true in one context and false in another, *objectively* good in one context and bad in another, but that is different from it being true (or good) in one person or people's *opinion* and false (or bad) in another person or people's *opinion* and both of those persons or peoples being equally correct in their assessment.
Like, a modernist as I understand them, one like myself at least, might readily say that certain things that are okay to do in the middle of the wilderness are not okay to do in crowded cities, but vehemently disagree that a hunter-gatherer people's assessment that that is (always) fine and a settled people's assessment that that is (always) wrong are equally correct assessments: the different contexts matter, but the different opinions don't.
When it comes to things like poetry and art, that's where the "meaningful" qualifiers of my tenets come into play. If there is an objective answer to "what is the meaning of this poem?" or "is this work of art beautiful?", then those are meaningful questions. If there is not an objective answer to them, then the very questions are themselves meaningless: "is this work of art beautiful?" or "what is the meaning of this poem?" do not mean anything, if they do not have answers.
Your rubber band metaphor is actually quite useful here. There may be many uses one could find for a rubber band, but whatever one is trying to do with a rubber band, there must be some scale by which it can be judged whether that thing is being done effectively or not, or else the task itself is simply not well-defined. Because the definition of the task lies in giving success and failure criteria for it. If there's not a standard by which an answer can be the wrong answer -- can fail to successfully do the task that the question is asking for -- then the question is not well-defined.
The “modern” label of Modernism is mostly false. The way he frames it would posit it as the literal continuation of the extreme version of the core principles of a philosophy that nobody used to truly doubt, which are (1) there are meaningful questions (2) these questions are meaningful in part because there are correct answers to them albeit not always unique ones; and (3) where there are multiple correct answers they are almost never all equally correct and positive-negative pairs which occur always mean extraneous correct answers. I still don’t doubt these principles and I see little in them to doubt as I have deduced from all the philosophical systems deduced outside of the post-1940s “West” on all subjects which are necessarily from them.
Framed this way, the Modernism/Postmodernism dichotomy is questionable at best. The appearance of skepticism in Postmodernism becomes an intention to require only multiple equally correct answers to all meaningful questions. What particular conclusions Postmodernism reaches are also mostly things anyone else deduces from more moderate principles or the opposite extreme principles. However, these deductions are vacuous when done from Postmodernist principles because there is basically no way, apart from literally contradicting them, to reach an intolerant conclusion from them.
One of my early sub-conclusions from these “Modernist” principles is a rule I call the “Triparitsan Criterion”, which is that a substantial democratic system with “political parties“ should not simply have two relevant ones because that will just make one of them win all the votes under conditions of perfect rationality, reducing the system to a dominant-party state, which is not really democratic. In fewer, and more general words, it is irrelevant for free will to exist when you have two choices which cannot both be equally the most correct.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Realizing that postmodernism can be framed as basically the negation of my own philosophy, thanks to this video, made me realize that the two broad classes of view that I have always framed my position in opposition to (one of which I thought encompassed postmodernism already) are not jointly exhaustive, and that most of my worst objectors have been so troublesome precisely because they are not only opposite one of those two core principles, but are instead opposite both of them, which I had previously thought incoherent and impossible. Thanks to that insight I’ve now done an analysis of that third broad position, which I think now means I am covering a jointly exhaustive range of positions at last, and I’ve added that to my own work in a way that I think strengthens it greatly. So, thanks for inspiring that!
This series will be Jordan Peterson's worst nightmare. Lmao
Got an ad for his new book while watching this lol
Why do you think that?
@@afacere736 because his viewers might actually understand post-modernism and be able to critically reflect on what he says
@@Ravi-wp7iq I highly doubt that. Not from a series that does not look at critical social justice or applied postmodernism.
i think peterson's main problem with postmodernism is that it easily blends into nihilism which can be ruthlessly destructive
So it's not about how the world should be, but rather about how it is. How is that not still just as bad? You might as well say "I'm not saying that Hitler should have won WWII, I'm just saying that the world would be a better place if he did." That's just as evil as saying "I think Hitler was right." That absolutely *IS* the problem for me because it absolutely *IS* the fault of Post Modernism.
Double checking J.B.Peterson viewer
My focus is going to be as close as possible to the original postmodernist positions as possible, with limited engagement with modern distortions of postmodernism, outside of the occasional flag about common misconceptions about postmodernism, such as the Straw Man section here.
No, it isn't!!!
Postmodernism is a purple striped chicken!!!
Or have you simply been conditioned to think that this particular series of symbols "POSTMODERNISM" draws to mind a purple striped chicken? Does the word succeed at referring to reality, or simply an endless chain of other words? :)
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Using a postmodern framework, it is clear that your response is 100% wrong!
I would love Jordan Perterson and his followers to at least watch this video so they can't stop creating a straw man out of postmodernism. If they want to critize it that's fine but not with terrible falacies, lack of knowledge and such big misunderstanding of what postmodernism really is.
Feel free to share the video with them next time you see them. :) The position is very often straw-manned and misinterpreted.
I don't know what strawmans ur talking about, but i assume u r talking about how they call pos-modernists "post-modern neo-marxists" and how this is absurd bc marxism is based on a metanarravite while post-modernism is the rejection of all metanarratives, wich makes the two incompatible. If this is what ur talking about, Jordan Peterson has actually aknowledged this. He said he believes that marxism and post-modernism are incompatible, but that there are still a great deal of people and influential movements that share both ideas. If u were talking about something else, pls let me know what
Speaking as one of the so called followers of Jordan Peterson you are referencing, I'd also suggest that you listen to him more before making any claims about what he says about post modernists. I loved this video and I am excited to learn more about the specifics of the philosophy, but so far I haven't heard one thing that contradicts what Jordan Peterson states about them. I think one point that a lot of people get hung up on is, as an existential psychologist, he states that people's actual beliefs are more based on their actions than what they say their beliefs are. A lot of his commentary of post modernists have to do with their actions rather than what they claim to believe.
@@yourfutureself3392 Yes, I'm talking about something else. The strawman I've seen Peterson creating is for example when has said and I quote: "Posmodernists don't believe in logic, they don't believe in dialogue or let you speak, they don't believe in individual identity but rather only group identity..." when this is so far from the truth and when if we actually read (Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard etc) and investigate we will see that posmodernism doesn't stand against logic, the individual or dialogue or for identity politics and with the basic reading and understanding of this we can see that Peterson is wrong when he claims that "Posmodernism is marxism is disguise." When he talks and criticizes posmodernism he doesn't even say "hey Derrida said X but don't agree because A and B" no! Peterson is just jumping to such vague generalization of "Posmodernism is marxism in disguise and we need to fight it." That's a strawman, that's a boogeyman and very poor understanding of the topic. Again, I'm not defending posmodernism, I'm rather defending the proper understanding of any philosophical topic.
@@MrPalmer402 I'm glad that you are excited to learn more about philosophy, I think we all should learn these topics. I can respect Peterson in some of his ideas about meaning and life, however; when it comes to posmodernism is a different story. I have read and listen to a lot of what he has said about it and I stand with my previous comment that I think he doesn't quite understand it and makes a boogeyman out of it. He sees posmodernism as something monolithic, like something it has one single form and you can put in a box and I can't see Peterson as a good source to understand this very big and complex topic.
Postmodernism is not philosophy. Why not to review some teosophy, astrology, parascience, and other nonsense then?
There's an important distinction between process (the arguments used to draw a conclusion) and the conclusion itself (the final position or belief someone holds). The process to draw conclusions about pseudo sciences and religions may not be philosophical, but the conclusions are.
Unlike science, any position that someone holds can count as philosophy. You might classify the reasoning that someone uses to arrive at that position as illogical or pseudo-philosophical, but the resulting position is still a philosophy. Philosophy is about filling the logical space, which means including even positions that no one would hold, much less extravagant positions that people do in fact hold, including far more "nonsensical" positions than postmodernism like panpsychism (the claim that everything has a mind ruclips.net/video/O9fQWCZEbl8/видео.html) and every religion (theism of all kinds is a philosophical position even if its reasoning is not philosophical). The positions that you list are clearly not science, but they certainly are philosophy (the arguments they use to draw those conclusions may not be philosophy, but the positions themselves are.
Furthermore, many types of postmodernism are clearly philosophical positions. Aesthetic postmodernism takes a view about what is beautiful, and what art means. Thomas Kuhn's works are considered the greatest in modern philosophy of science, and his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most cited academic book of all time. Just because you don't like something does not mean it is not philosophy. You may have good arguments that it is WRONG philosophy, but that does not mean this is a category mistake. Philosophy cares about describing all viewpoints, which means that necessarily some of them will be wrong, but that does not make them not philosophy.
Obviously, you are pro-postmodernism.
Oh no. Check out the last video in the series where I raise quite a few objections to the viewpoint. Also note that many postmodernists don't think that postmodernism is a good thing, but rather that it is something that is happening for better or for worse. So even those that are postmodernists are often not pro-postmodernism.
It's garbage, that's what it is😆
Why do you think so? Do you think all postmodernism is garbage or just some of it? Do you think that we should all live in small, identical, boring houses? If not, you might be a postmodernist about architecture. Many critics of postmodernism fail to realize just how broad the term is, how many different movements it applies to, and how you might be a postmodernist about one concept, but a modernist about another.
Narrator indulges in an annoying and distracting level of voice inflection.