Postmodernism- I don't get it

Post Reply New Topic

Bingo! Sokal exposed postmodernism for the blatant fraud that it is.

ruveyn

I am inclined to the view that all art--to greater or lesser degree--is in the nature of Hertzfeldt and Lynch's work. I take the view that viewers, readers and listeners can always find more in a work than the author conciously put into it. The author may have one particular vision in mind when pen hits paper (or fingers hit keys). But the author is also intending to relinquish that vision to readers the moment that the work is published.

I believe that full appreciation of a work comes from dissociation with the author's specific intent, and opening up appreciation to the aesthetic experience of the viewers. I suspect that ever work of merit includes content that transcends the authors specific intention. I certainly know several authors (playwrights, particularly) who have said, "I didn't know that I put that in there."

As for Winnie the Pooh and the slave trade, bear in mind that just because a reader has found this within a text does not mean that any other reader is going to find the same thing. Nothing compels you to accept or believe another artists interpretation, unless you are engaged in a collaborative process of interpreting the work (for example, directing or performing in a production of a play).



Scientific research involves just as much bias and prejudice as any other human endeavour. The only difference is that nature will not bend to the preconceptions of the scientist. But that does not mean that the end result of scientific research is free from the taint of those preconceptions. We must look at scientific literature with just as much of a critical eye as we look at any other written work. Differently focussed, perhaps--but no less critical.

In medicine we are taught to recognize that medicine is as much art as it is science. And that is no empty statement. I am somewhat of a heretic among my professional peers because I am relatively tolerant of patients who look to alternatives to "western medicine" as ways of dealing with their complaints. My tolerance is grounded partially in science, partially in the human relationship that must exist between physician and patient. I don't know whether my sideline in the performing arts is linked to this in some way, but it is part of the complex of experiences that makes me both the physician and the actor that I am.

Um, there is a reason why science requires empirical evidence that is reproducible: Since nature will not bend to the preconceptions of science, experiments must produce the same results regardless of who performs them. You talk about bias and preconceptions as proof of uncertainty; which is why I advocate consistency as the first thing that must be checked for. Since there is almost no certainty in life.

... also see the following review by the ever-scathing Richard Dawkins here based on later work by Sokal. It's hilarious...

Dawkins Review

Oh, and the postmodernism generator is still online! (the link in the review is dead). Just update the page for an endless supply of BS, humbug, balderdash, claptrap, hokum, drivel, buncombe, imposture and quackery...

Postmodernism Generator

Postmodernism is a fraud, of course (its non-falsifiable), but at least it can sometimes make you laugh.

Unfortunately, postmodernism also draws heavily upon the work of Jacques Lacan, like these enlightened and upstanding members of the medical profession (not exactly France's finest hour):

https://www.wrongplanet.net/postt187047.html

Wrong! Ultimately the quality of scientific hypotheses are established by experimental fact. In spite of errors in formulating theories the matter is ultimately sorted out by experiment. That is the difference between science on the one hand and religion on philosophy on the other.

ruveyn

Precisely. I could not have expressed this in a more cogent manner myself.

Speaking as an artist, it would be intellectually disingenuous of me not to acknowledge that, yes, of course I generally have a specific intent in the work I produce. I consider my work to be largely concept-oriented. I don't generally paint anything without a reason in mind first; that is to say, simple aesthetic beauty is rarely ever my motivation. And yes, of course, I take some amount of pleasure in "reaching" viewers with my intended message. I'm human-- I have an ego and my own personal agenda like everyone else.

However, the flip side-- one of the true joys I get from the act of creation-- is when viewers have their own interpretations as well. We all have unique individual perspectives, and we all bring new things to the discussion. And really, to me, that's the most important thing about my artwork, and art in general: the ability to provoke discussions, and possibly bridge communication gaps. Art is an ice-breaker, a catalyst for the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Western art, particularly in the 20th Century at the height of modernism, has been so fixated on romanticizing "the Artist" as a solitary rebellious figure of cultural genius for so long that our economic structure for purveying artwork takes that for granted. The truth is, ask any professional artist why they do what they do with all of the financial insecurity and societal connotations that go along with it, and more than likely you'll find that what it all boils down to is another way of catalyzing personal growth. In some ways, I feel indebted to my viewers because I learn so much about them and myself from interacting with them. I may not always personally agree with what they have to say, but I think everyone is entitled to perceive things the way they will.

I can't defend postmodernism in toto, because I acknowledge that it has its own flaws. My personal opinion, from a purely visual fine art perspective, is that postmodernism is as we speak in rapid decay. Postmodernism in fine art began largely as an reactionary movement in the 60s and 70s, against the modernist establishment. The generation of artists who came of age during that time have since become the establishment. Even as they staff institutions of artistic education, like the art college from which I received my fine art training and diploma, and try to impress upon aspiring Millennial artists their values and their rejection of the conclusions of modernism, I know of many colleagues of mine who have rejected their teachings. The falling out with modernism was decades ago; it isn't our war to fight. And due to our increased exposure to technology, I believe we have greater potential to draw information from diversified sources and reach our own well-informed conclusions about what is useful to us and what isn't. However, that said, in my view I believe it's important to be open-minded. The flaw in postmodern relativism isn't its flexibility; in my view, whether there is an objective truth or not is a moot point, because it's impossible for us as beings with disparate subjective views to say so. Much like the Heisenberg principle, the very act of observation or measurement carries with it biases, because all of our systems for observation and measurement and communication are arbitrary human contrivances created with the goal of furthering our own ability to understand the universe around us. Science attempts to institutionalize those measurements as much as possible to ensure reproducible results, but it's still arbitrary. Kelvin and Fahrenheit and Celsius are all just made up metrics; that the temperature at which water freezes is 273.15 K is dependent on taking for granted that everyone agrees what K means. I do think it's important to recognize the role of the observing perspective in the act of observation. If anything, the problem the OP seems to express is that postmodern relativism seems to breed a special kind of intellectual dishonesty because people who espouse it pursue their own agendas while hiding behind its non-falsifiability like a shield. Even if it seems ridiculous to me on its surface (particularly given what I know about what Ridley Scott and H.R. Giger have already said on the subject), I wouldn't say it is necessarily wrong to see sexism in Alien, for example-- but if I were discussing that subject with someone who was trying to convince me of that claim, I imagine I'd be just as concerned with the context of the arguer as the argument itself.

Oh, how naïve you are ruveyn. If the validity of scientific research could be established by experimental fact alone, then there would be no need for peer reviews.

Experimental design carries bias. Manipulation of results carries bias. Definitions of terminology carry bias. And whenever we move into complex systems, then "fact", so-called, becomes heavily corrupted by the unexpected, the unplanned and the downright unknown. The very existence of outliers demonstrates to us that no matter how well designed our experiments, the application of the factual results is limited to the framework in which those experiments were conducted.

Part of science is inference and extrapolation. We look for patterns within the data that we have accumulated, and then we try to figure out how those patterns might act on a larger scale. That process is corruptable, and no scientist of any standing can pretend otherwise.

Quite. Science is a human endeavour. It's not something that happens to select or random people we then call 'scientists'.

Oh how naively I type on a computer created by the physical science you denigrate.

As to bias, it is removed by having each experiment checked multiple times by different people. An experiment does not count unless it is independently corroborated by different observers.

Our technologically based society exists because of the spectacular success of the physical sciences.

ruveyn

I suspect that Ruveyn is talking about the total results of the extant body of science and technology, which is relatively reliable compared to the extant bodies of other philosophical fields, as opposed to individual scientific studies. The latter may be quite flawed individually due to human biases/carelessness/simple statistical errors, but the process of science - peer review, criticism, repetition, etc, generally ensure that science progresses asymptotically towards objective reality.

Last edited by LKL on 14 Sep 2012, 4:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'd say all philosophies with normative content will have inherent subjectivity. Hard science should be purely descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) and thus should have a minimum of normative content. Some supposedly scientific fields are a little more sketchy and subject to normative intrusion though. Chiefly things like psychology, sociology, economics, and even medicine to some degree.

Psychology, sociology and economics are NOT sciences. They are disciplines. Medicine is an art, but it rests heavily on chemistry which is a science. When you get right down to it, science is mostly physics and its variants (that includes astronomy and cosmology). In astronomy and cosmology we get to look but not to touch. However we interpret what we say based on physics and chemistry.

ruveyn

You would think. But in practice it doesn't work out that way, especially in the field of health. There have been probably thousands of studies on the role of fat in health and disease yet it remains very contentious even as experiments are repeated over and over and data is picked apart. The results of these studies influence everything from healthcare (of course) to government policies to consumer buying patterns. Bias is inevitable since whole economies can tilt one way or the other depending on what people believe.

Ideas about art and culture can be subjective, but that doesn't mean everything is. If I don't see the tree, or I see it but decide I don't believe in it, it will still hurt when I walk into it. The tree is there, regardless of what I think.

In fields outside of art postmodernism tends to fall apart a bit.

In history it's especially bad.
The denial of objective truth is, of course, objectively true.

In practice, their claims about such things often end up being claims that postmodernism grants exclusive access to objective truth because of its (scientific?) methods, since it is the only thing that cannot be questioned.

TBH, I think it's just temperament. I'm 26 and I don't understand the idea of personal truth at all. My psychologist had tried to get me to understand it, to no avail whatsoever. The truth is the truth to me.

Also, I'm what you call a radical feminist and my brain is incapable of postmodernism.