Critiques of Postmodernism Contemplation

[r0ckyreed]

I wanted to offer a critique of postmodernism.

(Please note that I have NOT watched Leo's video on postmodernism because I want to contemplate this topic entirely on my own from scratch.)

What is Postmodernism?

Postmodernism is a philosophical movement that applies skepticism and deconstruction to dominant narratives theories in society. Postmodernism questions the assumptions of modernism, which is a movement that associates science and rationality with objective truth. Postmodernism suggests that knowledge and truth are context/mind-dependent, in such that there is no such thing as objective truth.

Strengths of Postmodernism

1. Applies skepticism to science, rationality, religion, etc.

2. Acknowledges its own biases; hence, the self-referential paradox of postmodernism being another narrative to deconstruct.

3. Relativism: Postmodernism acknowledges that there is no right perspective and rejects the idea of an objective truth.

4. Acknowledges the biases in society and how socially constructed every system is.

5. Points out the assumptions of every system that claims that it isn't a social construction

- Examples of social constructions that pretend like they aren't social constructions: Science, religion, territory, money, status, politics, rationality/logic, spirituality, Buddhism, Enlightenment, God, etc.

6. Challenges objectivism

Ex. The notion that the earth is round is relative to what is defined as the earth and what is defined as round. It may be round in this period of time and in this dimension, but what if the Earth's shape changes over time in the same way the continents have changed since Pangea? What if the Earth appears round to the human eye but appears different to another being? Postmodernism makes a good point that everything we experience and known is mind-dependent and mind-constructed.

Criticisms of Postmodernism

1. It applies equal relativism to all systems when some systems of knowledge may be truer than others

-Ex. flat earth vs. round earth.

Both of these theories cannot be both equally true. It may be true that shape is a social construction, but if we go out in space, we will see the earth whether it is round or not. 

-Ex. Scientology vs. Science

To put science on the same level as scientology would be an ignorant conflation. Even though distinctions are imaginary, it is foolish to claim that science is on the same level as scientology. However, I do acknowledge that this leads to a bigger issue of how to distinguish rationality vs. foolishness. Every person thinks they are rational, so it would be a mistake to assume that my own mind is rational and incapable of fooling myself. However, it is a self-deception to assume that I am incapable of being rational and figuring out objective truth with my mind. That is what science is about.

2. Dismissal of objective truth

Knowledge may be context-based. For example, I could not type these words right now had I not had some level of indoctrination to learn the English language. Learning the English language comes with unquestioned metaphysical assumptions. 

Examples of metaphysical language assumptions:

- Sunrise and sunset

The sun does not actually rise and set even though it is imbedded in our language.

Also, when I the word queer, that word can have multiple meanings depending on the historical time that word was used. Now, apply that insight to all language and see how language can change and evolve over time.

- First-person language

You cannot communicate without it being self-referential. 

Examples of objective truth:

- shape of the earth (this is true regardless of what I believe)

- whether Sadhguru pees and poops (this is a relative objective truth)

- The Universe/Existence/Consciousness

- Gravity

- Tree falling in the forest when you didn't see it.

- 1 + 1 = 2.

Dismissal of objective truth seems to imply that everything goes.

My main criticisms of postmodernism

Overusing relativism. The issue I have stumbled upon is that postmodernism applies relativism heavily to all systems of knowledge. But some systems may be more in alignment with how reality actually is rather than my beliefs about it.

For instance, someone can claim that gravity does not exist and another claims that women are stupid. Should we really give these ignorant fools' perspectives equal weight against a more intelligent person's?

What about the difference in perspectives between a doctor and a patient or an adult and a child? Are we going to say that they are both equally true? In a sense, postmodernism is correct in that all their perspectives are true because they are living through their perspective. The patient is living the experience of the condition and the doctor is applying secondhand knowledge of the condition. The adult's perspective and the child's perspective is true. But the issue comes about when we are applying these perspectives to different contexts. For example, would we really say that the patient knows more about medicine than the doctor? This is an oxymoron because to be a doctor is to know about medicine better than the average population; otherwise, there would be no point in having a doctor. I could just go to Walmart and tell them what drugs I need for my condition if that were true.

Another example is saying that the child is more intelligent than the adult. In this case, it is relative and depends because there are savants and child prodigies out there. But we still wouldn't give children the same rights as adults because their brains are not fully developed "enough" to make their own decisions.

Postmodernism would claim that intelligence is a social construct, which seems to be a half-truth. Intelligence as we define is a social construct, but within our social confines, one can be in alignment with reality or can be deluded. What is a delusion if postmodernism is true? How can delusions exist if postmodernism is true? This is my main concern with postmodernism is that it is so deconstructive that it would even say that delusions are delusions or rather it would just deconstruct them. But this does not add anything to society, and it is kinda contradictory because a postmodernist would suggest that pragmatism is as true as non-pragmatism. But if postmodernism is deconstructing everything, it seems to have a bias against pragmatism. How can you focus on improving society if you are destructing everything and not constructing anything? Postmodernism only constructs a philosophy of deconstruction, which even postmodernism would have to deconstruct itself.

Also, intelligence in a sense is relative and socially constructed, but on the other hand, we could say that all of reality is intelligent. Intelligence is found within a single cell to the largest galaxy. That is what I would call Universal Intelligence. But there is relative objective intelligence where there are some humans who have views that are more in alignment with how reality is. Are we really going to say that the Aztec philosophy is as valid as science? Are we really going to say that sacrificing humans will prevent the world from collapsing? This runs into foolishness, which of course is very nuanced.

Rationality vs irrationality is a distinction that can be hard to make at times because the mind can rationalize any view that it wants to believe. But I think there is a difference and there really is no alternative. All systems of knowledge are going to be circular. Rationality and intelligence are circular in a sense that in order to increase your consciousness, intelligence, and rationality is to use more consciousness, intelligence, and rationality. I think we can make distinctions between what is rational vs. irrational. I think the basic feature is open-mindedness. The postmodernist perspective already illustrates rationality at its finest. How can you be rational if you do not understand the very limits of rationality? One who understands that rationality is self-defining can then start to appreciate what rationality is. On the one hand, rationality is constructed but rationality is also learned through experience. You cannot just make up whatever science and rationality you want because that again would be "foolishness" and "irrationality." To be rational is to be in alignment with the way reality is. If a pen drops to the floor when my friend drops it, it would be rational to assume that the pen would drop if I dropped it. Now, if the pen doesn't drop when I drop it, then it would be rational to expect that every time I have the pen, it doesn't fall, and every time my friend drops then pen, it drops.

 

What postmodernism gets wrong?

1. Objective truth exists and it can be discovered. It is not just interpreted.

2. Relativism does not mean that every perspective is equally valid/true. Some are more or less true than others.

 

Edited September 4 by r0ckyreed

[manuel bon]

12 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

1. Objective truth exists and it can be discovered. It is not just interpreted.

2. Relativism does not mean that every perspective is equally valid/true. Some are more or less true than others.

But why? This is just your opinion.

[r0ckyreed]

3 hours ago, manuel bon said:

But why? This is just your opinion.

This is exactly what a postmodernist would say and is the problem I’m talking about. Saying that it is just opinion is foolish. You can’t just make up whatever you want truth to be.

[manuel bon]

27 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

Saying that it is just opinion is foolish. You can’t just make up whatever you want truth to be.

I don't think I'm a postmodernist, and I don't make up whatever I want truth to be, but I don't agree when you say:

16 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

1. Objective truth exists and it can be discovered. It is not just interpreted.

2. Relativism does not mean that every perspective is equally valid/true. Some are more or less true than others.

How do you know objective truth can be discovered? And who are you to say which perspective is more or less valid?

[Yimpa]

I dated someone for several months, only to discover that she was relating to me as someone completely different the entire time. Her contact name on her phone for me was literally their celebrity crush.

This went against my values and we ended up separating. But it would be wrong for me to dictate that her reality was wrong.

Not everyone sees the word the same way we do. I am telling the truth.

[Razard86]

The only purpose of post-modernism is to confuse humanity on what is really going on. 

[r0ckyreed]

18 hours ago, manuel bon said:

How do you know objective truth can be discovered? And who are you to say which perspective is more or less valid?

It is not me who says which perspective is more or less valid. Go around telling people that you are the Messiah and see what happens. Go ahead and believe gravity doesn’t exist and see what happens when you can’t fly off a building.

Claiming that objective cannot be discovered is itself an objective truth claim. I don’t claim all truths can be discovered, but there are some objective truths that can be such as the shape of the earth. I probably will never know whether you have 2 nipples or not.

Edited September 5 by r0ckyreed

[r0ckyreed]

18 hours ago, Yimpa said:

I dated someone for several months, only to discover that she was relating to me as someone completely different the entire time. Her contact name on her phone for me was literally their celebrity crush.

This went against my values and we ended up separating. But it would be wrong for me to dictate that her reality was wrong.

Not everyone sees the word the same way we do. I am telling the truth.

That’s interesting. I’m sure women think the same of men who watch porn.

[r0ckyreed]

2 hours ago, Razard86 said:

The only purpose of post-modernism is to confuse humanity on what is really going on. 

I like it.  

Postmodernism becomes its own self-deception when it denies objective truth exists. They can’t admit that there is a way reality is structured and certain points of view are more or less in alignment with truth and more or less with survival.

Believing in God isn’t truth but it is in alignment with survival.

Realizing God is in alignment with truth but may or may not be conducive to survival.

[Razard86]

1 hour ago, r0ckyreed said:

I like it.  

Postmodernism becomes its own self-deception when it denies objective truth exists. They can’t admit that there is a way reality is structured and certain points of view are more or less in alignment with truth and more or less with survival.

Believing in God isn’t truth but it is in alignment with survival.

Realizing God is in alignment with truth but may or may not be conducive to survival.

The only purpose to deceive is to create lesser truths, but post modernism is not what you truly want, let's see how you feel when those post modernists come knocking on the door of your society and create a world of deception in which your wrong because they can't tell wrong or right. A love of deception is for play, not for building a society.

[Nivsch]

Postmodernism doesn't see that we objectively need different approaches in different times in our journey let alone in day to day changes. It thinks on itself as so flexible but in reality it is still fixed on a static soft-deconstructive worldview.

Edited September 5 by Nivsch

[r0ckyreed]

I watched the video and it was pretty good. 

I think Leo contradicts himself because he is giving us a rational explanation for the limits of rationality. But this kind of contradiction is a feature of meta-rationality and the circularness of reality. 

@Leo Gura presents a problem early on that the idea of objectivity, a mind independent reality is an illusion because you are using your mind to make that assertion. I could use that same logic against him. When he is questioning rationality, he is still using rationality to talk about the limits of rationality in the same way that you use your mind to talk about the idea of mind-independent reality.

Edited September 5 by r0ckyreed

[Leo Gura]

It is perfectly legitmate to use rationality to point out limits within rationality.

It is actually irrational to defend rationality by not allowing any rational critique of it.

Any sufficiently self-reflexive system is able to see its own limits and criticize itself. This isn't a bad thing, this is a great thing.

The problem with traditional rationality is that it defines itself too narrowly. Same problem as with science.

Edited September 5 by Leo Gura

[r0ckyreed]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It is perfectly legitmate to use rationality to point out limits within rationality.

It is actually irrational to defend rationality by not allowing any rational critique of it.

Any sufficiently self-reflexive system is able to see its own limits and criticize itself.

Right. I would agree. But you still run into the issue of how to distinguish rationality vs. irrationality. Conflating the two together makes it seem like anything goes. There isn’t a simple solution to this problem because all distinctions and definitions are going to be relative to perspective, but at the same time, postmodernism is naive of the issue that rationality isn’t just purely relative.

A postmodernist would be deconstructing the idea that self-reflection is more rational than mindlessness. Putting rationality on the same level as irrationality is itself irrational.

Edited September 5 by r0ckyreed

[Davino]

Rationality free of bias or reasoning uncontaminated by like and dislike is a powerful tool for discerning relative truth from falsehood.

This is not how rationality is used. Let's have an example:

I want to be healthy 

Donuts are unhealthy 

A rationalist will therefore never eat a donut in its life. What ends up happening is that the desire will come up in the human and then it will rationalize it's way out of this situation saying like, well for one time is just fine and whatever who cares. In the same way, with all unhealthy, self destructive patterns.

I've been having great insights into the nature of reason lately. The truth is that after all, reason is such a marvelous gift, that has been coopted by our ego taking advantage of our blind spots and cognitive biases.

So it's not the tool but it's the consciousness of the subject which determines the output of Rationality.