Postmodernism

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

There is a style of postmodern architecture that produces buildings that look as if they are two or three bulidings stuck together. Each of these “partial” buildings is a “re-interpretation” of a previous style. Romans meet Wright meets Johnson. Whatever. Each of these buildings is then not a statement, but a discussion. If you insist, the statement is a discussion. The aesthetic stance taken is to take no single stance.

Because we are hipper than that, now. We are above it all. This fray of parochialism of style, of actually making statements. We are large-minded, and need a large-minded architecture. An inclusive one. We do not wish to be identified with any one style, for it might offend someone. It might be too corporate, or too “green” or too white or too sleek or too shirt and tie. Offending someone, anyone, is the greatest sin, now.

Post-modern philosophy is that, too. We do not make philosophical statements now, for we are too hip for that, too. We make statements about philosophy, about philosophical statements. We don’t practise philosophy, but discuss its practise. We cannot any longer simply use language, we must discuss its use. And that’s all we can discuss.

We talk about talking. We write about writing. We think about thinking, and most of all, we trust nothing. The only thing that counts now is “aboutness”. The thing is no longer the thing. It’s all about being about the thing. It’s like a parody of the corporate meeting. Like a scene from Seinfeld where George has a job. I have been to such meetings. Aboutness.

We are not to take philosophical stances, but only to take stances about stances themselves. We are to chase our tails, but not even that - we can only talk about chasing our tails, for we do not really chase them - we don’t have tails, but only have the aboutness of tails.

Postmodernism is gibberish about gibberish. It is a spectator sport only. The participants are just computer-generated versions of a quaint old practise. We are no longer even circumspect - we are allowed only to talk about circumspection itself. Post-circumspection.

Postmodernism is a hall of mirrors. These were, at one time, found in amusement park funhouses (does anyone remember these?). Because they were meant only to amuse.

Stephen Colbert has coined “truthiness”, which is a sort of postmodern formulation. But he is making a joke. To amuse. Because postmodernism is a joke. He is making a joke about postmodernism, but also about the aboutness of it. That actually is hip.

2

It seems like you thought that one out pretty well.

3

Seems like you caught me making a reference to popular television.

4

[deleted duplicate]

5

The post does require that one apply something other than the oft-venerated “A+B=C” format in evaluating its purpose or goal. It is ironic, under almost every definition of irony I’m familiar with, that a poster with “Tedious” as a part of his/her sobriquet would publicly announce his/her implied objection to the format faust has selected. Mr. Tedious, I will not ask you to think on this site, as that would be too tedious an endeavour. But I will ask you to refrain from commenting when the post has strained you - as it has in this case. Apparently, in such a case, you can contribute nothing to the conversation.

Faust,
Much of philosophy, as we experience it - here on this board and elsewhere - has sadly become a product of political correctness. I believe, too many philosophers say, because they may be celebrities of sorts, what will make them more popular - buh…duh…ba…dum…Noam Chomsky. Marx, in my opinion, was intelligent and intellectually honest enough that he himself would consider Chomsky a fraud. But that’s speculation on my part.

We largely pretend to philosophize - within the confines of the paradigm society has created. That is, in its essence, I think, just okey-dokey with too many of the post-modern philosophers. Shame.

6

You can’t really call it ‘postmodernism’ then, can you? I mean, you could call it protopostmodernism but, since it really isn’t anything yet it’s not full blown post.

I do feel like a fly on a horse’s ass. :smiley:

7

You’re probably right, as concerning what I said. But faust more than likely had other things in mind. I think.

8

The way that I tend to use the words is that ‘postmodern’ refers to the historical period/condition, which is synonymous with late capitalism (Jameson). ‘poststructuralism’ is the ‘school of thought’, and it makes a lot more sense. Yes, ‘postmodernism’ has been used as an excuse for some utter tripe, but ‘innovation’ but some name or other has always been used as an excuse for tripe. It’s original, it’s funky, it’s weird, it’s unpredictable. It might look like a large turd shoved through a donut and be completely useless, but it’s original. A summary of high art. Look at Jackson Pollock for fuck’s sake…

Incidentally, the word ‘postmodern’ was coined in the 1910s (or at least, the earliest reference that I’ve found to that term is from the 1910s), ironically before the decade of modernism, the 1920s.

9

I used that term mostly because I started with the example of architecture and believed “postmodern” to be the most apt, and familiar, term. The New York Sunday Times term, or so I thought. Despite what Tedious assumes, it was, like most of my posts, a spur-of-the-moment jot - written after reading another paragraph of Derrida - one paragraph being all I can seem to read of him without flying off into a rage and scaring the cat.

I always thought Pollack was okay. Make a good jigsaw puzzle or placemat.

10

Faust

Sack off Of Grammatology and get yourself Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. I never thought that much to Of Grammatology, I much prefer the other two of his earliest works. My favourite books by him are Spectres of Marx and Echographies of Television, both from his later, ‘politicised’ period…

Pollock was a man who discovered that by painting like a child he could impress a bunch of bourgeois New York toffs. Innovative, original, stimulating, unexpected but total crap…

11

It helps to be midly insane as well…

12

He wasn’t insane, he was just a drunk. You know, a pathetic sort of drunk who would like to be insane because he thinks that it’s cool. Not like you or I sort of drunk…

13

Okay saitd -I really am going to give him every chance I can. Partly because you see value in him and I generally respect your opinion. Well, I always do, even when you are horribly wrong. I realise he is much read, and so feel I should know him better. I can read Chumpsky without actual rage - mostly he just makes me laugh. I hold him in disdain, but he is at least saying something, sometimes.

But when I read: (and I am going to now just open a page from the middle of the book) “Punctuation is the best example of a nonphonetic mark in writing.” (I have closed the book), I think this is true for commas but not question marks - and that this is an odd thing for a writer to write, and that he is an example of a supposed philosophical writer who is writing about writing instead of writing about philosophy.

Now those comments of mine are completely out of context - I haven’t read those words before, or most of what precedes them, and none that follow. But I can’t help but think “Who cares?” Maybe he goes on to allow the exceptions. But even periods can be phonetic, in a sense. I have acted (on stage) and can tell you that proper delivery of lines does include, in some small part, paying attention to punctuation. He is making another excruciatingly trivial point - and is wrong besides! (Exclamation mark - changes the sound and significance of a declarative sentence. Try it.)

My point is that it used to be that writers, unless thay are writing a stylebook for writers, actually wrote, instead of trying to glean some pseudophilosophical point from a discussion about commas.

I’ll keep slogging. Will probably have to go to Boston for much more Derrida than what I just picked up. I’m too old for this newfangled internet shopping. Not an onerous task, but may take a while to get to it. Thanks for the tip, my friend.

14

Faust is simplifying eveything his posting on postmodernism. He forgets to state the obvious–if there is no “about”, in terms of taking a stance, then why is there an incessant debate and neurotic frenzy over coming up with something that declares that it resists definition by virtue of its view of language, among other reasons.

If there is no “truth” then postmodernism is unleashing truth after truth that we should be jealous of Noah, who at least had at his disposal a dove to indicate (ooooh! a sign!) how dry the earth was after he lived through God’s truth and cleansing–should we be so lucky.

Yes it unleashes truth, isolated, separated, difference-iated, truth, all under the guise of avoiding.

But this is no mere avoidance…this is the confession of those who have given themselves to their own inderterminate individuality. The world for them is nothing but unfulfilled journeys about which one gigantic travel log is written–fragmented of course.

Now the problem lies now with these sinners of thought. It lies in part with the 19th century, and in part with the fact that we are so surprised that we do not have control over what precisely we control. And so our “selves” are vaprorized and we remain lingering in an indeterminate, on the spure of the moment, yet firmly affirmed individuality.

THere is you postmodernism. THere it is. SEe it. Behold it like an idol worshipper, love it, converse with it, it will gladly befriend you. And as your vision darkens, as your disclosure of your history and the history of our thinking whithers away in a way Marx would applaud, so will all philosophical questioning—and thus human life returns to the geographers.

Snowblue

15

Well, snowy, you sure have made the case that the posties aren’t philosophers. That they are anti-philosophy. We can do without philosophical questioning - or some people can. Life is a sitcom, then. I know many people who live on this plane. I think my stance is better - I don’t spend a dime on cable.

16

Poststructuralism started in France. It is the use of language to root in the use of language in order to find the meaning of language, and the vicious cycle that follows from this procedure. The tragedy is that, where it should have remained in France, as the French deal in a very different way with language than the rest of the world (for them speaking is about the pleasure of uttering sensuous sounds) it has spread to the other world, the outside world - the world which thinks with the right half of the brain, the rational world. It should never have arrived there, for it has plunged us into a vanity which is just not justified. The same goes for Nationalism. The French invented it, conquered singing the Marseillaise, and the Germans, awe inspired by the boost in morale it gave the soldiers, thought: ‘Wow, we must have this too!’ and started imitating it coming up with the most grotesque form of theatre since the Emperor of Rome began pretending to love his fellow beings. The horrifying results are known throughout the entire world. German nationalism is an oxymoron. Everybody hates Germany, especially Germans. It’s science. Those who managed to fool themselves have effectively brought the nation to ruin in two wars with France, whereas France and French nationalism is still very healthily alive. Poststructuralims outside France is equally nonsensical.

17

As satirical as my post above is, it should be considered seriously, especially if you are a poststructuralist - after all, you will agree one can only understand a text, including all poststructuralist texts, within the frame of the context, time and place in which they were written, and especially taking note of the author.
It is nothing new: Nietzsche already noted that there are no philosophies, only philosophers. That didn’t prevent him from actually saying something next to that aphorism. Quite a lot in fact. The entire body of thought ending up in postmodernism and going God knows where does not say anything besides repeating this observation. Does it?

18

JM - An astounding observation. Actually, what I am astounded at is that I didn’t make it. Well, “saddened” may be a better word.

19

Postmodernism vanished the day it became popular, whenever that was. The rest was pantomime and theatrics and other byzantine inventions.

If you mix some semiotics with some drug induced non-concept of being, and then add the old testament in its entirety you have post modernism.
that should make us pretty damn depressed!

20

  1. JM’s satirical comment was much more accurate than this

  2. Me hurling a bucket of nails at a dartboard and hoping one hits the bullseye is much more accurate than this.

  3. You haven’t a clue, have you?