Honest question: Is 'woke' culture a problem?

Post Reply New Topic

What’s wrong with postmodernism? Specifically, I mean, not just “it’s loathsome” or “it’s lunacy”.

I feel like basically everyone today has, knowingly or otherwise, incorporated some postmodernism into their worldview. It’s inescapable. The idea that two people could hear the same sentence and come to different understandings is just pretty obvious, isn’t it?

The problem with postmodernism is that basically it rejects any objective reality. It rejects our capacity to draw conclusions about the world. The problem is that if you apply this core principle upon itself then it anules itself. It becomes oxymoronic, like the famous "I know one thing, that I know nothing". Basically that's what postmodernism is. So what do we need any discourse at all? The opposite to postmodernism is empiricism and the scientific method, it's core principle being that there is an objective reality which is universal to all. No matter who conducts a certain experiment, it will always yield the same results.

Ironically, the post-truth debate style and news reporting associated with the alt-right is a great example of postmodernism in action.

The rest of the left doesn't tend to be so fond of tankies.

Hey, this is just my opinion as it stands on post modernism. I could be misunderstanding people's arguments but I'd love to discuss this with anyone who disagrees respectfully. I've read a bit from post-modernist philosophers myself and I'm not entirely sure if it's fair to attribute the problems with our society to it. Post modernism in my experience explores alternative viewpoints and it critiques unchallenged established norms.

I can understand why people attribute this philosophical development to a denial of an objective reality but I never really felt that was what I was experiencing while reading philosophers like Boudrillard, Rorty, D&G etc. But more so abstract theories based on valuable observations with hypotheses that you don't have to fully believe if you don't want to that are based on a critique of the grand narratives we accept without question. I never felt while reading post modernist philosophy that you have to question their theories unskeptically.

In fact being skeptical of post modernism is part of what makes post modernism valuable and pleasant to me. As in you do not have to dismiss all semblances of objectivity to gain valuable insight out of post modernist philosophy. Post modernism to me is about looking at things from every angle possible rather than being satisfied with just one angle. You can take bits and pieces of insight and snuggly add them to your broader perspective of the world without having to loyally absorb or fully discard its theories.

As an autistic person I actually see quite a lot of value in post modernist philosophy as a counter cultural lens that highlights real phenomenon in our cultures that nobody ever talks about! It is also with that in mind, part of human nature to get a little too irrational when faced with an undesirable reality, and most people who do so aren't particularly doing so under some kind of post modernist framework.

tl;dr I find it hard not to believe that 'post truth' critique commonly leveed towards post modernism doesn't accurately describe what post modernist philosophy is about. I'd say based on my experiences so far reading post modernist philosophers that post modernism deals more with the challenging of grand narratives than it deals with the denial of the validity of objectivity.

Honestly it's been a long time since I was interested in the postmodernism vs analytic philosophy debate. That special interest has long died out. And I don't believe I will find the patience to go search for concrete debates between the two. But there is the internet. I would suggest Noam Chomsky's criticism of postmodernism, since he is a figure respected from the left. He is a proponent of the analytic tradition.

In my plain understanding yes postmodernism is not entirely wrong regarding grand narratives, but isn't that common sense? It doesn't seem to me a big deal intelectualy. But postmodernists wanting to build a career on it they built a cosmology where only grand narratives exist to the point that there is no substance to our understanding of the world. It goes as far as to accuse science as a grand narrative too. Postmodernism also is a conglomeration of several schools of thought from different disciplines like linguistics, sociology, anthropology etc. They use language as an example of the relativism of our understanding of the world. They use semantic drift to showcase the fluidity of our perception of reality. In this way any assertion made can be "disproved" because it's meaning can be interpreted in various ways. In this way a definite conclousion on anything forever evades us. They use semantic drift so heavily that basically they invent new arbitrary meanings for commonly used words as they are talking to you. It's pure madhouse, what can I say. You can search for Chomsky's or other analytic philosophers' criticism of postmodernism for more in detail information.

Let's put it this way.
Ppl who embrace postmodernism usually aren't the same sort of ppl who employ "scientific methodology", based on my experiences.

Thanks for this response, it was very engaging and I enjoyed the read.

I haven't heard Noam Chomsky's critique yet, but I will definitely seek it out. I do have a lot of respect for him.

I think you make some very good points. For one I have definitely noticed how post modernist disciplines might equivocate or use archaic language to the extent that their arguments can't be debunked because you can't kick someone when you can't even see them! It's like when butting heads with a post modernist they'll force you to knock down dozens of straw men before you can finally take them on directly.

I can also definitely understand why many would prefer analytical philosophy as it's clearer and more credible. Many post modernist philosophers are very difficult to read, like D&G for example. But there are some really neat Youtube channels who cover some post modernist theory and deliver it with more familiar language. Plastic Pills is a good example.

You made a point about post modernists building a cosmology where even science becomes just another grand narrative. This may be a great point but science hasn't explained many things and can still be influenced by biases, and in some cases we have to use our intuition to gain a more rounded perspective of some phenomenon. But then you run into the problem where you may or may not have just stumbled upon something very valuable, but because it hasn't been tested you're just left with uncertainty.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with someone. He explained, and I'm paraphrasing, that science can't really explain consciousness, and this is true. We have words that describe being happy and being sad, but we do not have words that describe feeling 10392940 and feeling 10392941. Science explains the 'how' and 'what' but not the 'why'? It lacks the immersion. Many concepts from post modernism might seem to make more sense in an altered state of consciousness, where your default mode network isn't as dominant and other neuronal systems take center stage.

I think we can stand to benefit from both forms of philosophy, the analytic and continental.

Last edited by FlaminPika on 21 Mar 2023, 10:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Well I can't disagree with that.

Yes I agree that empiricists fail to engage with the issue of consciousness. Probably because it's not quantifiable. My problem with the continental school though is that it seems to me geebrish and word salad, incapable of clarity and rigour. It's too vague to rely on it on anything. I've heard that phenomenology addresses the matter of consciousness but I'm extremely reluctant to make any effort to ever read Heidegger or others.

Yes I understand this criticism. I honestly think many post modernist theories also just appeal to certain types of people more than others, and can be usefully added to one's toolkit of knowledge in crafty way depending on how strongly you resonate with the theories in question.

Basically the theories and lessons may feel useful to one person and completely useless to the next person. If the issue is word salads than as I mentioned previously there are plenty of interpreters who break it down, and once a person understands a theory they can then decide how or if it can fit into their broader perspective within a given topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdN50MC7P80

Not addressed to you or anyone in particular here but it's helpful to remember that skepticism and denial are not the same thing, and one of the main criticisms I see leveed towards post modernism especially from the right seems draw back to this notion. But many of the criticisms I've read in thread are pretty valid.

Of course it's obvious that people have different interpretations. The issue is with that postmodernism is opposed to any universality, including universal human rights law and universal reason. Take that away and you go back to a dark age mentality whereby we return to an age of prejudice based on identity and tribalistic, spiritualistic blood ties written in blood and violence. Essentially postmodernism is a style which is actually very accommodating of fascism. Nevertheless is isn't anchored in any specific political ideology. It is a form of neo-romanticism.

Agreed.
Some ppl have a problem with this concept.

https://youtu.be/AwO-om6UazY?t=688

The truth
https://www.theguardian.com/society/sho ... -the-right