Dissecting Postmodernism

[Anonymouse]

I hvaen't had the full pleasure of addressing this in the time I wanted to, since I had class and other things, but last quarter, my professor seemed like an ardent follower of postmodernism, nevermind he was a Historical Materialist. In any event, I was lightly versed on postmodernism but never gave it a push, but recently I tried to take a nose dive into what all this hokum is about. I found the subject rather mysterious and not just for me either. Consider this following quote by one of the founders of the movement Jean-Francois Lyotard in his book The Postmodern Condition:

The postmodern would be that which, in the modern, puts forward the unpresentable in presentation itself; that which denies itself the solace of good forms, the consensus of a taste which would make it possible to share collectively the nostalgia for the unattainable; that which searches for new presentations, not in order to enjoy them but in order to impart a stronger sense of the unpresentable.

Now, I spent a great deal of time trying to make sense of that quote, but couldn't bring myself down to. I will list down the gist of what postmodern thought is about. Basically it states that there are no absolute truths, that truths are nothing more than imposed by authority masked over social structures, everything is relative to history and culture, we can't know anything for certain, etc. Throughout the description I found it to be very similar to the Marxian dialectic, ironically from my professor who was versed on both. In fact, nothing in postmodernism suggests it is new. It is simply regurgitated material from other historical epochs, such as the Greeks, or Marx, or Nietzsche.

[sleuth]

postmodernism: rejection of traditional values in aesthetics...chaos end energy.

*life is meaningless,let's create nonsense*.

Art is something for me that contains all this qualities:
positive,peacful,didactic,aesthetic,spiritual,prob lem-solving,HOPEful...i call this *imaginism*<-------that's my definition of fine art.

*Postmodernists have been praised for their ability to push the boundaries. To a real artist and to a postmodern artist, pushing the boundaries means two completely opposite things: to a real artist it means to advance art by creating new developments that add to the long line of accomplished artists through history. To a postmodern artist it means to shock us even it that involves destroying the very nature of art; if it is a painting, let's knife it; if it is the artist's hand, let's cut it off.* (Newberry )

another cynical art-act:

Christo, America's leading conceptual artist, raised and spent 26 million dollars on his Umbrellas, 1991 project. Over 3,000 industrial-sized umbrellas were placed simultaneously over large tracts of land in California and Japan. The project took years of methodical planning, required 1000's of volunteers, and supporters from both the private and public sectors. The visual impact of the project was monumental; the huge umbrellas spread out as far as the eye could see. The actual work was only presented for 18 days and then it was dismantled and carted away. That's it. Gone. Imagine creating a 26 million-dollar project with tons enthusiastic support and then wiping it off the face of the planet. The end result was a statement of nihilism on an epic scale. Actually the piece could be called Beyond Nihilism because what was left was not nothing but an absence of what was there before. Ah, the nuances of postmodern metaphysics.

[dusken]

I have not studied postmodern thought, so I will address what you mentioned.

"There are no absolute truths." One who makes this claim, in my opinion, must be able to show in any given scenario that a given assertion is not true. The idea of a=a cannot be refuted; it can only be questioned if someone questions the nature of reality. This means that it is possible that such a statement be false, but it is also possible for it to be an absolute truth. If one claims that it cannot be an absolute truth, its refutability must be shown and not speculated.

[Anonymouse]

I have not studied postmodern thought, so I will address what you mentioned.

"There are no absolute truths." One who makes this claim, in my opinion, must be able to show in any given scenario that a given assertion is not true. The idea of a=a cannot be refuted; it can only be questioned if someone questions the nature of reality. This means that it is possible that such a statement be false, but it is also possible for it to be an absolute truth. If one claims that it cannot be an absolute truth, its refutability must be shown and not speculated.

Well, even before that, when someone claims that there is no absolute truth. The idea itself is logically self-destructive. It presents itself as an absolute truth. In other words, it contradicts itself.

[dusken]

Yes. Good point. I forgot that one.

But I feel there must be important details in this thought. It cannot possibly be so flagrantly naive. A more structurally solid concept must be lurking in the shadows.

[Crimson Glow]

Well, even before that, when someone claims that there is no absolute truth. The idea itself is logically self-destructive. It presents itself as an absolute truth. In other words, it contradicts itself.

That's one way to look at it. BUT, one could argue that it could be let off on one technicality: If we look at the literally meaning of the phrase, it is basically saying that it is quite possible the very concept of "no absolute truth" itself could be untrue. If you believe in this concept, yet keep yourself open to the idea that the concept is leaving itself vulnerable to the possibility of being wrong, and that there MAY very well be absolute truths, then you technically are keeping from being hypocritical. Ok, it's a stretch, but what the hell.

[sleuth]

I thought we are dissecting postmodernism

oh well here is my dissection of *absolute truth*...

either absolute truth exists or absolute truth doesnt exist....
if absolute truth sometimes exist... then it exists
but if absolute truth never exists, then the statement "absolute truth never exists" is always true, which means absolute truth exist
therefore, whether absolute truth exists or not, absolute truth exists....

logical dilemma or paradox ?

[spiral]

I thought we are dissecting postmodernism

oh well here is my dissection of *absolute truth*...

either absolute truth exists or absolute truth doesnt exist....
if absolute truth sometimes exist... then it exists
but if absolute truth never exists, then the statement "absolute truth never exists" is always true, which means absolute truth exist
therefore, whether absolute truth exists or not, absolute truth exists....

logical dilemma or paradox ?

sleuth, what an enlightening post this was...

[sleuth]

sleuth, what an enlightening post this was...

blonde thinking

[dusken]

That's one way to look at it. BUT, one could argue that it could be let off on one technicality: If we look at the literally meaning of the phrase, it is basically saying that it is quite possible the very concept of "no absolute truth" itself could be untrue. If you believe in this concept, yet keep yourself open to the idea that the concept is leaving itself vulnerable to the possibility of being wrong, and that there MAY very well be absolute truths, then you technically are keeping from being hypocritical. Ok, it's a stretch, but what the hell.

It is not hypocrictical; it is paradoxical. You cannot have a belief system based on a paradox. I said this before in my Satanism thread: if you arrive at a paradox, you need to seek answers elsewhere.