- is PM it AGAINST science? Is it against “knowing” emeprically?
As Lyotard famously contrived, Postmodernism is “an incredulity towards meta-narratives.” He did not say, please note, Postmodernism is “against meta-narratives,” only “an incredulity.” The significance here should be self-evident: PoMo is merely skepticism elevated to its most sublime form, where everything falls apart (even language, as Saussure began to show and Derrida followed up with, is a metanarrative that is to be dis-trusted for a conveyance of meaning).
- How do you do science with PM?
I’m going to assume here you don’t mean Hegel’s notion of “Science,” as that would be something which would warrant book-length responses. So I’ll assume by “science” you mean chemistry, physics, mathematics, and so on. In that case…the same way it was done before PoMo.
- Is there such a thing as PM logic?
Is there such a thing as existentialist logic? Well, it depends on your definition of logic, by and large, and also in what sense you mean “PM logic” – as “the logic of PoMo” or “the logic Postmodernists’ use”? In the former case, yes; in the latter case, sure, but only insofar as they are linked back to Lyotard’s definition. Just as phenomenologists are all studying “phenomenology,” there is not a set logic for doing phenomenological research – and even when there was such a logic, i.e. Hegel, it was revised by later thinkers and applied in different way, i.e. Husserl, Hyppolite, Kojeve, Sartre, etc.
4.am I being too narrowminded on the notion of PM?
By very definition anyone will always be too narrow-minded for the notion of PoMo. Insofar as it is the very unraveling of meaning itself, it becomes impossible, at least for the human subject, to comprehend its full range. Zizek offers a nice idea here: PoMo-Marxist scholars cling to and espouse the ideas of Marxism/PoMo and hate the Capitalist system, but in their very doing of this, it becomes for them a fetish, a way for them to operate in the very Capitalist system they hate, such that it ultimately loses its own meaning and impact.
And as for your other set:
- Is PM relativism? I kept reading that it was not?
Relativism is not, in fact, PoMo. PoMo articulates itself as Lyotard did – which does not mean “meaning” does not exist.
- What is spectre/ghost? What does the poststructrualist(PS) say about the supernatural?
A spectre/ghost could well be defined in an infinite number of ways. The definition I like stems from Lacan’s notion of the ghost (I assume you are referring to “spectre/ghost” as being related to a zeitgeist, but it works regardless): a ghost is not so much disembodied consciousness as it is dis-enconscioused bodies. I’ll let you figure it out.
- what are the limitation within science, that would lead someone to be a PS isntead of a modern?
PoSm and PoMo vary from each other in ways that, to the unexperienced, seem trivial. I find the best way to think of this is that a post-structuralist has lack of faith in structures, not in knowledge itself.
- Im struggling to understand why science can’t explain ethics and politics, any help? Couldnt research (understanding a person’s genes, brain chemicals, psychology, and things) explain alot?
This question has tormented philosophers from the ‘50s onward, particularly the psychoanalysts. The standard response to the behaviorists’ claim that we are merely conditioned to react in certain ways based on certain gene-patterns is: sure, but do you feel every action you make is simply a set of conditioned reflexes? Do you actually feel that you are doing what has been pre-programmed into your body? To this, behaviorists can generally only respond, “No, we don’t.” This suggests something deeper than silly biological sciences can get at; while I’m not advocating the notion of a Soul or a Spirit (Mind), I am saying there is certainly something more that we cannot (yet) get at with science, and which still relies upon the dutiful work of philosophers.
I wasnt refering the sarcastic comment to you…