What Is Postmodernism?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2024
- Postmodernism is an intellectual movement that started in the mid to late 20th century. It is broadly defined as a form of scepticism towards grand narratives, which are ideas that postmodernists claim are unfairly said to be true for everybody, examples of grand narratives are objectivity, rationality, historical progress and identity. This scepticism manifests itself through things like subversion and irony, as well as a more general playfulness.
Get PAID For Answering Surveys- No Joke, I got £30 off of this in a week-qm.ee/488B3739
SUBSCRIBE HERE!- / @thatswhytv
Where you can find me!
Twitter: / thatswhytv
Facebook: / thatswhytv
Postmodernism is supposed to be the successor to Modernism, an intellectual movement that was popular in the early 20th century. Modernism holds an idealist, even utopian worldview that the state of things in the present are better than they were in the past, society is improving. Modernists thus believe that certain universal truths like reason, and historical progress are exactly that, truths and thus objective. Something that is objective relates to facts, it's free from opinion or interpretation, whereas something that is subjective relates to opinions. Postmodernists in the 50s and 60s like Derrida and Foucallt argued that objectivity doesn’t exist. Objectivity is the backbone for a series of other ideas like scientific fact and reason, which is the ability to think and understand logically. All these ideas that are much older than Modernism. They are in fact what we call enlightenment values, dating from the 18th century. In this we can see the controversial nature of Postmodernism, by rejecting objectivity it challenges the validity of the most basic and oldest of ideas.
So why do postmodernists reject objectivity? This stems mainly from the postmodernist theory of language. The enlightenment thinkers that came up with ideas such as reason and objectivity believed language was transparent- there is a firm and objective link between objects of perception, and signifiers. This might seem silly, but postmodernists reject the idea that language is transparent and objective, instead arguing that it is purely self referential, meaning all words do is refer to themselves, they have no meaning apart from the ideas we individually, subjectively associate with them. Words cannot exist apart from these ideas. Along this lines, postmodernists argue that the ideas we associate with words are heavily influenced by the culture we live in as well as our own subjective interpretation of these ideas. Because language is the key way in which we represent reality, postmodernists argue that reality cannot be considered objective as well.
Post modernists posit that the reason for the acceptance of certain ideas over any other idea is merely due to the ruling group in a society wanting to make them true. Because of this, even fields like science, are tainted by power and rendered subjective by the influence of this. For example, post modernist Luce Irigaray believed that fluid mechanics were a less researched scientific field due to the predominantly male scientists preferring mechanical engineering as it more resembles the male genitalia compared to fluid mechanics more representing female. Postmodernists thus see power as the one ruling aspect of human existence, 'the winners write the history books'. no 'the winners write everything, including the science books'.
Postmodernists also reject that we have an essence, we merely exist, and all of our experiences are equally valid and unvalid. Because of this complete lack of objectivity, post modernists thus propose that there be no divide between culture that is considered low brow and what is considered high brow. For example, how can one type of art be considered 'better' or more sophisticated than another thing if all art is just an individual's interpretation, with none being any more valid than another? A good example of this is how in the 1960s the modernist divide between lowbrow pop and highbrow classical music was blown apart by the Beatles who regularly mixed the two together. As well as this rejection of the lowbrow and high brow, Post modernists also reject what they see as grand narratives like historical progress, instead preferring to focus instead on the subjective truth of each person, which leads to a lot of breaking the fourth wall in postmodernist art. Postmodernists treat all forms of authority with skepticism.
Postmodernism arguably offers nothing analytical, it is reductive arguing that nothing can be proven or disproven because there is no objectivity. This is paradoxical, essentially arguing that it is true there is no truth.
Sources: docs.google.co...
Post modernism sounds like a terrible idea. Who wants to live in a world where objectivity is rejected.
Postmodernism is descriptive, not normative.
They're not arguing that it is objectively true that there is no objective truth. It's just, the people who are postmodernists are saying that they subjectively believe there is not objective truth. If that makes sense.
But that's just my subjective interpretation
That's even worse. Postmodernism is truly the supreme culmination of absurdity in philosophy. I think more than anything it serves as an almost perfect way to illuminate its limits. You can only go so far on pure thought alone. That's about all postmodernism has accomplished in reality.
Obviously that would be paradoxical to use objectivity to disprove objectivity but to, “subjectively believe there is no objective truth” allows for the possibility (by definition of subjectivity) of another person’s subjective belief that there is objective truth, which is another paradox. You cannot win with this bleak philosophical structure. What is entirely worse is that once a person, or a society understands (or worse yet embraces postmodernism) it cannot be undone or ‘unseen’. It is a Pandora’s box of destruction.
Postmodernism is when you run out of new ideas. We see it in art, literature, music, and even politics. The ability to record everything forever shows it has all been done before. That makes the postmodernist redundant.
Just wanted to drop a note that I searched "What is post modernism?" And your video explained it perfectly, I got it all, so thank you for being clear! 👍
Derrida and Foucault both embracing the grand narratives of Marxism during their lives, whilst critiquing grand narratives, is a good example of why Post Modernism died quickly as a credible, philosophical stance.
Their psychobabble has been used to justify the reversion to ancient tribalism, within modern identity politics today. So as a technique of sophistry, they did produce lasting works, in another sense.
Neither were Marxist for any length of time if at all. I hope you’re not learning about postmodernism from Jordan Peterson
@@rugbyguy59 But they were overt Marxists for a period, and continued to espouse centralised control ideas throughout their lives.
And their sophistry is the primary technique used to dismiss contradictions in modern identity politics, in its various guises.
It's easy to attempt to dismiss people by saying things like "You have been brainwashed by Jordan Peterson". When I never even mentioned his name.
This is because you have swallowed normalisation theories, and are conditioned to believe people are socially constructed mannequins. This is incorrect, for any person who reads widely, and observes human behaviour. Their ideas just don't work. Individual reason is observed and measured in nearly all higher order mammals. It is evolutionarily, biologically determined. Social constructionism is a boot process only, and subservient. Humans are not hive ants. No higher order mammals can be, and survive the span of history.
Read ancient greek sophistry. It is the master text post modernists plagiarised for tribal power motives. The oldest story of our genealogy.
@@rugbyguy59 It would've been interesting to see how Foucault would've allied himself politically if he hadn't felt discriminated against by homophobic members of the French Communist Party and appalled by anti-Semitism in Russia. People can be evasive sometimes when it comes to labelling their political beliefs, so I use the "duck" method. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. While he rejected Soviet-style Communism, he was still a leftist. I don't think that's really arguable.
@BigRed RacingDog I agree he was a leftist, but there are a huge number of variants of that. Foucault certainly didn't walk or talk like a Marxist. I hope you're not saying there's something wrong with being a leftist?
@@rugbyguy59 It depends how far left. I was a winger and fullback. You?
nobody gonna talk about the "HELP ME!!!" at 3:29? 👀
"a rose by any other name".......like many contemporary movements in art and ideas , Post-Modernism suggests some sort of profound proprietorial claim to an insight that has already been debated for hundreds of years. In a smells like teen spirit adolescent stance, Post-Modernism posits some sort of mic drop....as if by caricaturing one extreme end of an arguement it has ended it. Most sober thinkers include the skepticism of Post-Modernism in their thinking as a given.....and this fact holds true with thinkers throughout the centuries.
Well-put.
I’ve come to see postmodernism is cynicism flattering itself to be wisdom.
Perfect.
Accurate.
It's not necessarily cynical, post-structuralism provides the agency for reconstruction. In the realm of essence, generalisations falter, but in the workshop of construction, systems of logic rise and alter.
Postmodernism is unlearning. Post-postmodernism is relearning.
Absolutely brilliant. Best of the videos I have seen so far on this. Thank you.
This is an excellent video, clear, concise, and understandable. Could you please address the relation between postmodernism and critical theory? It's seems they overlap quite a bit with both emphasizing power as the basis for social structures.
Generally it's competency.
But mixing up the two is dangerous.
So verify everything.
Great video! Being a dancer, it is interesting to see post-modern dance through the lens of the wider movement. It is indeed a highly paradoxical ideology overall.
What is "postmodern dance" like?
I've seen many kinds of dances from all the continents, but it's hard for me to imagine "postmodern" dance.
@@andsalomoni en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_dance . Many people agree that it was mostly developed by the Judson Dance Theater from the 60s 70s on. If you are looking for a video, i would say Trisha Brown is a great basic example of the style: ruclips.net/video/4juID0hSyaw/видео.html
@@EstherPunny I used to listen to Laurie Anderson's music, and watched her movie "Home of the Brave".
I didn't know she was postmodern!
I watched Trisha Brown's video, I liked it a lot, very interesting way of dancing - like exploring a flow of movement possibilities of the body.
@@EstherPunny "Postmodern dance made the claim that all movement was dance expression and any person was a dancer regardless of training".
Totally agree. Thank you for the links!
@@andsalomoni sure thing! I am glad you found them interesting.
I could not understand any other videos on the topic you saved me thank you! This video is a lot more easy to digest and understand with the use of more familiar terms thank god for your work!
Ez subscribe
Great video. It presents the basic pillars of postmodernism.
POSTMODERNISM: Truth is a construct.
POSTMODERNISM: Everything is subjective.
LOGIC: The process of rejecting what something isn’t.
OBJECTIVITY requires infinite points of view.
Post modernist aren’t the only one who argued that objectivity is unattainable . Aristotle said reality is not as it seems and Kant argued that reality is unreachable merely by observation and mere reflection
Objectivity only means that there is a subject that sees the object (they are unseparable), and maybe studies it.
Quantum mechanics invalidated pure objectivism way before postmodernists, nevertheless physics goes on making experiments with measurement instruments.
What postmodernists don't seem to grasp is that there is a non-duality state, in which both subject and object simply disappear. To achieve it they should practice meditation.
Kant still thought that it exists in some way, it's just that we can't experience it. He didn't reject the notion of truth.
@@enkor9591 Yes. That is key. Unattainable vs not existing is a big difference.
Aristotle was definitely an empirical realist. RE: Kant, you gotta keep in mind that Transcendental Logic is higher than General Logic, so it's a mistake to consider the relation between the object of experience and the thing-in-itself to be governed by the principle of non-contradiction. That's why Kant really did open the door for quantum theory.
I shudder when I see the word reflection used after Hegel....Gnostics.
I liked this video - clear and concise with adequate examples in between to explain the jargons.
The best explanation among 30 videos i encountered
Important to remember: just because you have a postmodernist stance towards one topic, doesn't mean you have to agree with all of them.
Absolutely wrong. The core of postmodernism is in itself corrosive and destructive in the most negative sense. Ironically, and doubly so as postmodernism seems to elevate irony so, is that it seems to have its origins in Nietzsche's thinking of simply looking to attain power, yet its entire motivation is that losers are big mad that they didn't have any, which is the very thing Nietzsche despised and criticized. Believe it or not it is possible to create a more equitable society such that "straight white males" are not the only ones with any power and control while rejecting literally everything contained in this massive dumpster fire of ignorance and stupidity called postmodernism. We just need to try it, it honestly isn't hard at all.
No it just mean you believe in bullshit as a principle
Yes, because a human brain can think objectively and subjectively. A human brain can think many different ways. A human brain can think mathematically, scientifically, artistically, spiritually, culturally, politically, compassionately, competitively, etc.
Great video, well explained, liked and subbed!
At it's heart, post-modernism is self-contradictory and, quite simply, bullsh1t - but it is interesting and entertaining bullsh1t that has made for some great novels and movies, American Psycho being a prime example.
The pedophilia stuff, not so much.
I prefer "nonsense" to "bullsh!t", but that about sums it up
So in summary, postmodernism is total bollocks! Hmmmm - got it 👍
Correct.
In summary you didn’t understand postmodernism
Yes
thank g-d i found this before class
Great.Video. Well done, to the point.
«It raises more questions than it has answers » That’s the definition of philososophy.
That's terrible sophistry. The point of Phiosophy is to find answers.
This is literally THE BEST video on Postmodernism on RUclips! Chapeau! You've managed to put together what many others have failed at. This video should be the one popping up when people search for "what is postmodernism?".
I was trying to form the words in my own mind that would express my own paradoxical emotions regarding post-modernism, & then it gelled after seeing this.
On the one hand, I do find some of the post modernist art absolutely hilarious and thus a definite type of genius.
But to take it further and actually believe it to be true? Impossible, unless you want to go insane, or drive others insane.
So yes, it can definitely be very harmful, but only if one makes the mistake of taking it seriously. Otherwise it is - ironically - a modernist type of humor. And only that - nothing more.
Consider reading some post-structuralist philosophers
Cope
postmodernism sucks i am looking forward to the metamodernist age
As a History student, I read a book named "Rethinking History". First, how to avoid subjectivity, then admitting it's unavoidable. Finally, describing this failure of ideologies, alternatives to capitalism, failure on beliefs.
Simple, clean message explaining the core of postmodernism, that is, starting with the premise that there is absurdness in every notion. Other than being annoying, postmodernism may serve as inspiration in some artistic endeavors, but not a serious critic to scientific or technological endeavors.
Not only is postmodernism not a serious critic of science and technology- by spreading incoherent ways of thinking, it is also an inhibitor of the progress of science and technology.
Here’s a naïve stab: wondering if measurement by electronic instruments approaches objectivity. Or does quantum mechanics brings us back to uncertainty that is objectivity’s ultimate demise?
This how a physicist gave postmodernism a hilarious black eye and live to tell about .
For anyone who pays attention to popular accounts of physics and cosmology, quantum gravity is a thing. How could it not be? Quantum gravity is the place where the two pillars of modern physics-quantum mechanics and relativity-collide head-on at the very instant of the Big Bang. The two theories, each triumphant in its own realm, just don’t play well together. If you are looking for fundamental challenges to our ideas about the universe, quantum gravity isn’t a bad place to start.
A bit over two decades ago, quantum gravity also proved to be the perfect honey trap for a bunch of academics with a taste for nonsense and an envious bone to pick with science.
In 1994, NYU physicist Alan Sokal ran across a book by biologist Paul Gross and mathematician Norman Levitt. In Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science[3], Gross and Levitt raised an alarm about those in the new field of “cultural studies” who were declaring that scientific knowledge, and at some level reality itself, is nothing but a social construct. Unsure whether he should take Gross and Levitt at face value, Sokal went to the library and dove into the literature that they were criticizing. When he came up for air, he was much more familiar with the postmodernist critique of science. He was also appalled at the depth of its ignorance about the subject.
Most scientists respond to such nonsense with a muttered, “good grief,” but Sokal felt compelled to do more. He decided to give postmodernists a first-hand demonstration of the destructive testing of ideas that tie science to a reality that cuts across all cultural divides.
Sokal had a hypothesis: Those applying postmodernism to science couldn’t tell the difference between sense and nonsense if you rubbed their noses in it. He predicted that the cultural science studies crowd would publish just about anything, so long as it sounded good and supported their ideological agenda. To test that prediction, Sokal wrote a heavily footnoted and deliciously absurd 39-page parody entitled, “Transgressing The Boundaries. Toward A Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.”[
The paper is worth reading just for a belly laugh. It promises “emancipatory mathematics” at the foundation of “a future post-modern and liberatory science.” “Physical ‘reality’,” it declares, “is at bottom a social and linguistic concept.” He embraces the notion, seriously proposed by some, that logic itself is invalidated by “contamination of the social” When he showed it to friends, Sokal says, “the scientists would figure out quickly that either it was a parody or I had gone off my rocker.”
Sokal submitted his paper to a trendy journal called Social Text. Understanding the importance of ego, he freely and glowingly cited work by several of the journal’s editors. For their part, the folks at Social Text were thrilled to receive Sokal’s manuscript. Here at last was a physicist who was “on their side!” After minor revisions, the paper was accepted and scheduled to appear in an upcoming special “Science Wars” edition.
The bait had been taken, but the trap had yet to be sprung. That came with a piece by Sokal in Lingua Franca that appeared just after Social Text hit the stands, exposing “Transgressing the Boundaries” as the hoax it was.
Parody sometimes succeeds where reasoned discourse fails. Sokal’s little joke burst free of the ivory tower on May 18, 1996, when The New York Times ran a front-page article entitled, “Postmodern Gravity Deconstructed, Slyly.”The Sokal Hoax became a hot topic of conversation around the world!
Reactions to Sokal’s article were, shall we say, mixed. The editors of Social Text were not amused, to put it mildly, and they decried Sokal’s unethical behavior. One insisted that the original paper was not a hoax at all, but that fearing reprisal from the scientific hegemony, Sokal had “folded his intellectual resolve.” It was lost on them that had they showed the paper to anyone who knew anything about science or mathematics, the hoax would have been spotted instantly.
As most scientists did: When I heard about it, I busted a gut!
I still laugh, but the Sakai Hoax carries a serious message. In addition to diluting intellectual rigor, the postmodern assault on science undermines the very notion of truth and robs scientists and scholars of their ability to speak truth to power. As conservative columnist George Will correctly observed, “the epistemology that Sokal attacked precludes serious discussion of knowable realities.” Today, from climate change denial, to the anti-vaccine movement, to the nonsensical notion of “alternative facts,” that blade is wielded on both sides of the political aisle.
Sokal gets the last word. Quoting from his 1996 Lingua Franca article, “Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the 21st floor.)” of society in terms of “progress” has been made obsolete by the scientific, technological, political and cultural changes of the late twentieth century.
In other words postmodernism is like a religion ( as religion is defined) with a touch of chaos theory thrown in along with the glorification of our ancestors ,the unreasoning Neanderthals …..
What about the soft sciences "psychology, sociology, economics, etc. That's a different story. - probably a messy one.
@@berspective1 I don't think the outcomes would be any less perverse. PM would have it that psychopaths are empathetic and inflation should be as high as possible. The PM claims in relation to science are that absurd, if not more so. For example, when it was discovered that one of the Pharos had died of tuberculosis, some of their number argued that this was impossible, because TB hadn't been socially constructed by that time. They should be rounded up and their ideas quarantined under the guise of national security.
I read Sokal's book. Sadly, I think some of what he warned about is coming true and has been happening for a long time.
Just a decade ago, scientific databases scrambled to wipe 120 scientific articles after they were revealed to be bogus. Perhaps what the Sokal experiment reveals has less to do with just merely "postmodernism" but instead the issue of academic publications.
I would add that although it is true that science is no mere social construction but a pathway close to objectivity, the rejection of science as social construction by these critics tend not to address the social factors that play into the field of science and the critiques of science and scientists from a social perspective. Remember that the extreme position may be untrue, the post modern movement is a response to the once all seeing eye of science, where science was used to justify the dehumanization of the mentally ill, gays, non-white, and prisoners. To say that science is outside human subjectivity and cultural and social experiences legitimizes forms of oppression. On the other hand, post modernists of the mid 20th century were quite wrong and pseudo-scientific. To say however that it is a religion is unduly to postmodernism or religion itself. Aside from the lack of no active practioners, only influenced people, though ideas raised by postmodernists end up in normal discourse in some shape or form, there is validity in their critique of modernity.
Quantum uncertainty, or indeterminacy, is not a social construct. Whatever the society, you will stumble on it.
Like the Epicurean "clinamen" (parènklisis), it is an understanding of how reality is.
Thanks for this.
incredible explanation, thanks!
I love how you design your videos. It is friendly to people like me that are easily distracted. Thanks!
You should rename your channel to make it more "catchy" and "composed"
Thank you. I simply wanted to know what postmodernism was and you gave the answer.
It almost as if the skepticism attitude of postmodernism led to conspirationism and flat-earthers.
It is true that the same words can mean different things to different people. The term romance for instance is something I've heard people argue over the meaning of. Or the term god.
Best explanation I have come across so far.
Well done
Excellent explanation. Thank you.
Luce's idea actually could make sense. Fluid mechanics is very chaotic and is still one of the biggest mysteries of science. Femininity is chaotic, VS masculinity which is orderly.
What is identity? A subset of our personal experience that we label "I am this, and not the rest".
I'm looking forward to post-postmodernism!
It can't come soon enough.
Yes I cannot wait for it to be eradicated from existence.
It already came! Look up Metamodernism.
@@badmittens5160 Exactly, it seems to be already taking some shape in culture look at last year's Everything Everywhere At the End of the World and the "real" trend on tiktok that oscillates between the cynical irony of postmodernism and the new sincerity of metamodernism, it's cultural peak will only be seen in the following years.
Yes ! This post modernism … I bet does not make sense even to the majority of philosophers , not because it is too high level , but because it seems absurd to them and therefore I think that they would not qualify it as philosophy….sophistry .
Well done. Thank you.
Thanks! You helped me a lot with my paper
The problem with postmodernism (and, by extension, so many other philosophical systems) is its abortive attempt at being an all-encompassing ideology. Although, arguably, there is some truth in postmodern postulates, postmodernism is by no means a universal and unerring “window onto truth.” The Greeks got it right with the idea of balance and flexibility in all things, the so-called Aristotelian mean. But even before Aristotle, it was a ubiquitous concept for Greeks, one that is still profuse amongst them to this day-μηδὲν ἄγαν, i.e. “nothing in excess.”
Because attributes can change does not deny the object
“However much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing.” George Orwell
We have to all at the same time inhabit an overarching truth or framework that we can all agree on or we can’t exist peacefully. Reverting to each person’s own personal truths leads to chaos. - Jordan Peterson
Very Informative.
Thank you for the video though.
The ending thought is a nice quandary. But really it's not that difficult to grasp: This is a word. This is text. THis is a sentence. This is a pixel. THis is a point. This is an opinion. This is binary code represented as words on a simulated page. This is a website. THis is an ongoing argument about truth. This is...Which of these statements is THE truth? All of them? Then what IS truth, if there are so many versions? Which one do you focus on, who decides and for what purpose? And now, can you really call the result 'objective'? That's the point, as I understand it.
Yet, somehow, we stake our lives on the probabilities of truth in our subjective tentative facts (not objectively settled Facts) that enable us to cross a busy intersection safely.
there is something to the fluid mechanics thing. Fluid mechanics is weird and difficult to understand, where solid mechanics is consistent and easy to systematize
The biggest issue I see with postmodernism is its "marriage of convenience" between the postmodernism and neoliberal capitalist or consumerist system.Why?Because it provided the neoliberal capitalist society the justifications it needs to dominate the masses of people.How it does that?Through the manipulation of narratives .By appealing to the consumer's narcissism ("costumer is always right"), the consumer is ,supposedly, given the choice to "interpret" what he or she needs ot wants.However, "the narrative " does not usually belong to the consumer --it is the government and the "big", private interest groups, who create the narrative and ,in many instances ,its interpretation as well.
It’s self evident that absolute objectivity is impossible, humans aren’t machines or computers, however…our lives are messy things not defined by grand theories and absolutes, one should strive to always be as objective as possible (however imperfect that turns out to be) in evaluating the world and oneself. Just proclaiming objectivity does not exist is destructive and annihilates the foundation of how humans are able to interact.
It would have been nice if you could highlight Modernism within the context of modernity as a wider historical period.
Would be nice if you had some real life examples which illustrate the value of post-modernism. You portray it as a movement which provides only questions and no answers, but there must be a reason for the appeal of post-modernism
"Language is self referential, all words do is refer to themselves".
So this must be true for postmodernism too.
Postmodernism is self invalidating, like all "cool" and "disenchanted" theories.
Eight minutes.
That's real deep.
Not a bad summary but I think your video could have been improved by pointing out how the profound irrationality of postmodernism can result in extreme harm not only to believers but also to the wider society.
I concur.
I disagree. It opens up vistas to otherwise unobtainable realms. And if it becomes 'so' there is no truth as such, evading it by pretending it isn't 'so' becomes a step backwards. That's the real danger, both explicit and implicit.
The automaticity of progress reflects the bias of brains in love with machines. But behold: the cosmos, nor we, are mechanized.
@john such a modernist thing to say 😂
You mean pedophilia?
Are you kidding? These videos are all propaganda. Some of these content producers even warn right at the beginning that any criticism of postmodernism, Marxism, cultural Marxism etc, are all "white supremacist" conspiracy theories.
Modernism was an expression of the Enlightenment however not all modernists were optimistic about the future let alone the present... Was Kafka an optimist?
“grand narratives are objectivity, rationality, historical progress and identity.“ Four possibilities to define a grand narrative and only one is correct! Maybe reading Lyotard a little more attentively next time might help!
His British accent just sounds so clever and he says everything so confidently, i would be fooled if i didn't know better.
So, there are structures and agents, but nobody can tell me how agents change structures.
I think they are right. Your personal basis towards them are showing clerly, but it's a good summary.
Thanks for making this! 1:43 Can you cite for us where they say this? Thank you!
Nowhere. The video is full of flaws, plus both Derrida and Foucault who are used as poster boys for postmodernism *rejected* the label.
@@markoslavicek Yeah, it's amazing how popular disinformation is. I'm glad some of us are out here sincerely trying to educate.
Existence is such a mindfuck
If objectivity and truth is unattainable, then morals including the concept of universal morality is subjective. This idea in turn seems to open the door to a lot of behaviors being acceptable including misogyny, homophobia and racism.
Sounds like those late nights on acid, rapping....😂
great video but: please don't use something that is 100% subjective (the perception of the color blue) as an example for a fact. Maybe pick something that can be objectively measured, like the wavelength of light that is reflected by an object. "Blueness" does not belong in the category of things that can be measured objectively.
You use an apple as an example?
How about something inherently powerful like a police force.
to the point!
thanks for this matey! Q - What exactly is POST "human" ISM? Gracias
👍👍👍Good stuff................Thanks !
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind"
[Chief Commandment of the Great Revolt, from "Dune"]
So MEANINGLESS is MEANINGLESS?
Ironically, "post" modernism is actually a regressive philosophy dating back to, at least, Plato. It's just a new take on his "Forms" idea. If you understand Plato then postmodernism should come easy to you.
Plato was wrong then and todays "post" modernists are wrong too. The difference is, todays postmodern philosophers have much more knowledge at their disposal and yet they still get it wrong.
Objective truths exist. They are the truths that would reappear if we were to hit the reset button. The Laws of Nature would still exist even if they had different names. These "Laws" are how different cultures with different languages are able to communicate because they are universal.
Different indigenous people across the world came up with the exact same understanding of these laws: they just had different names for them.
Objective truths (not dependent on opinion) may well exist. But human access to objective truths is, at a minimum, grossly over-estimated.
@@canwelook General Relativity and the Standard Model produce pretty good approximations of nature. Truth is tensed. Things true today may not be true in the future. "I am a Believer" was true in the past, but is not true in the present.
@@drbuckley1 Yes. Agreed. Humans have access to appearances only, and apparently not to fundamental underlying realities. Claims of access to underlying absolute truths point to the arrogance of the person making the claim.
Humans create concepts and models to explain, predict and manipulate their experience. To the extent they fit observations and succeed in helping us achieve goals, they are pragmatically useful. Pragmatic usefulness does not equate to the absolute truth of models. Given human limitations, even statements like 'I am a believer' are apparently/approximately true rather than absolutely true.
PM's always seem so negative of narratives...but somehow their arguments only serve to be used to rationalise the Critical Theorists narrative of society.
🤔
Great video. As an artist I'm intrigued by these questions and philosophy, and drawn to the juxtaposition of realism/pop culture/abstraction.keep up the good work, what's your thoughts on post structuralism?
Probably We are standing at the same intersection point। I am nevegating the ideas of post structuralism and post colonialism। As an internet taught artist I have been drawn to the same juxtaposition of realism/abstraction/pop culture। Though my recent certification on aesthetic criticism fed me well, a hunger still unsatisfied।
That was considered digging deep?
Lore of What Is Postmodernism? Momentum 100
Is this voice the guy who plays Viserys Targaryen on Game of Thrones?
“Thou shall not kill” is the sixth commandment not the third
Clearly rated a minor commandment.
P.S. The top 4 all relate to the god's damaged ego.
Interesting.
Finally I understand what post-modernism is.
If we think of the idea of an apple as an abstraction we hold in our minds, different than the image it calls to mind when we think of an apple, we can see that the images we bring to mind are subjective. I might think of a red delicious and you might think of a Granny Smith. But we can agree they both fit the general definition of apple, which is the objective part.
The COMPLETE rejection of objectivity ? This sounds absurd , when 100 people from diverse cultures agree that an apple that is presented to them , is an apple , postmodernism says that this assertion by these people is not true , sounds incredibly arrogant and absurd.
"Objectively, the sky is blue". I see what you tried to do, but no, the sky isn't objectively blue. It is subjectively blue. In physics, we know that. The sky looks blue, but the sky isn't blue.
I found this point in the video hilarious. The sky is not even subjectively blue! Depending on location, season, time of day and weather conditions, it is equally capable of being gray, white, pink, gold, or green. Or black and full of tiny lights. Yet this is uttered as the most obvious truism, as though the speaker had never bothered to look up.
@@karimaisgorgeous 🤣
The video was great, but yeah that point about the sky being blue really threw me off for how wrong it was. He had like a million other examples that would've worked.
Indeed the sunlight interacts woth the atmosphere, and a certain spectrum of light appears to oir eyes, when we look up.
We are plagued by PM theory now . Our society is stuck on a treadmill going around and around constantly examining and re-examining past events tearing apart the stitches on wounds which healed up long ago. And how deeply unhappy it's champions must be always believing in this negativity . Our England has not moved forward for a long time now and each generation of our youth believes in nothing but people have base motives and conspiracy theories account for all our aspirations for a better world.
There can be no postmodern without the modern.
It seems to be like, filosofie has gone wild and embraced as the truth.
Fragmentation, atomization, tribalism and nihilism
Isn't postmodernism a grand narrative of its own? (Ah, just heard your paradox at the end. Typed too soon.)
For all its supposed playfulness, it produces some miserably unreadable prose. And if it rejects identity as a grand narrative, why does so much postmodern writing emphasize identity for all its worth?
The sky is blue is an objective fact? What color is our sun? Before there were microscopes did we have a taxonomy of microbes 🦠?
Because “meaning” transforms the context of consciousness, what we think is fluid. Our ignorance determines what’s objective.
The content of consciousness doesn’t change, unless we have genetic differences, but meaning transforms the mind’s interpretation of the content through context. A light in the sky is a star, unless your culture possesses telescopes 🔭. Then there are still lights in the sky but now we “recognize” some of those lights are planets or galaxies.
We have learned to “filter” the content of consciousness through cultural/religious/scientific/philosophical/etcetera means. These means are what can be critiqued.
You can’t critique a telescope 🔭 however. That would be like critiquing eyes 👀. An eye isn’t a cultural construct. Yes a telescope is a cultural construct like language, but unlike language it doesn’t have to be interpreted.
The sky is intersubjectively, not objectively, blue. Objective truths are what remain true when you take subjects away, or consider subjective states from a non-subjective standpoint. But take the subjects away, and the sky doesn't look like anything, because there's no one for it to look like anything to.
Post-modernists and their cousins, the deconstructionists like to refer to their enjoyment of destroying the objective meaning of the text.
However, they were anything but whimsical when Sokal exposed how preposterous and ridiculous they were. They went thermonuclear.
If you're a undergraduate....here's a neat project. Write an essay for a professor who espouses deconstructionism and post-modernism. And this essay will be very critical of this movement, full of humorous examples of how laughable it is.
Then you'll see how much room there is in the post-modernist mind for perspectives that depart from those in power....As you're looking at the "F" red pencilled on the top of the front page of your essay.
I think it's a strawman to say Post-Modernist philosophers reject there's use to certain narratives, or that they have preferences towards them at the very least.
The truth is - There is no truth
It is true that John would be a different person in a different culture, and is wine better than beer, is watching a dance better than a show on TV? No.
Postmodernists simply exaggerate the importance of subjectivity. All humans indeed have different, subjective opinions but the pure mind isn't as subjective as they think. 1+1=2 has nothing to do with subjective ideas. I mostly see them as artistic figures, especially Derrida, who seemed to me more like a TV star than a philosopher
It’s true that it is a great video. Or is it ?
Thou shalt not kill is the 6th commandment. Not 3rd. 😉 Excellent video though.
Yes. And, ironically, the very first thing Moses did when he brought down the ten commandment tablets? He organised the mass murder of 3,000 fellow Hebrews in their tents ... brothers, friends and neighbours. Why? Because they dared to worship a calf statue while he was away. Religious intolerance (commandment #1) clearly trumps 'thou shall not kill' (commandment #6). God of love.
Protestants, Catholics, and Jews have different "commandments." I wonder which ones are true?
2:31
It's thou shall not murder
Thou shall not kill is ridiculous
This means I cannot kill a wasp or fly
The Hebrew word was definitely murder no question
0:37 "and trust me, we will dig deep"? ... well, its a pretty good vid, for a very shallow analysis, and trust me, its very shallow...
Befitting of such a shallow philosophy. Every single second we waste on any of its tenets is time we could have spent on a plethora of much more worthy subjects. Every single PM book should be ceremoniously burned on a huge fire.
Re: The sky is blue...that's a fact."
So if I go outside at midnight and look at the sky....it'll appear blue?
I have made a sort of hobby out of finding comments on RUclips by people claiming to know what postmodernism is, but instead demonstrate a complete ignorance on the subject. I see I have stumbled upon a gold mine in this comment section.
The video is fairly of shit, as well.