Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Defined Per Wikipedia:

Postmodernism describes both an era and a broad movement that developed in the mid to late 20th century across philosophythe artsarchitecture, and criticism which marked a departure from modernism.[1][2][3] While encompassing a broad range of ideas and projects, postmodernism is typically defined by an attitude of skepticism or distrust toward grand narrativesideologies, and various tenets of Enlightenment rationality, including the existence of objective reality and absolute truth, as well as notions of rationalityhuman nature, and progress.[4] Instead, it asserts that knowledge and truth are the product of unique systems of social, historical, or political discourse and interpretation, and are therefore contextual and constructed to varying degrees. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to epistemological and moral relativismpluralismself-referentiality, and irony.[4]

-----

My take:

From the get-go, the starting foundation of postmodernism is inherently flawed. Instead of acknowledging the existence of an absolute truth as a first principle, with the subsequent goal of discovering and defining it, postmodernism refuses to even play ball at all, rejecting the very notion of "playing the game". 

This philosophy exploits the obscurantism and ambiguity of a complex world to mask its inherent cowardice and nihilism. Lazily stating everything is relative and contextual is a nice diversion from having to decipher anything in the ultimate context of all -namely the truth beyond the sum total of human capacity. 

Thats exactly what this comes down to. Does truth create humans, or do humans create truth? This is the fundamental question. The claiming of the latter gives humans more control and appropriation of reality than they really have or deserve, but it fits nicely with the agenda of self-serving arrogance.

In its purest form, this philosophy exonerates anything by absolving it of accountability beyond its own inherent construction, reduces truth to a simple cause and effect, and demeans the very concept of truth seeking at its core, all for self-important ends. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You criticized Quranism in your previous post. Now you are crticizing "post modernism". What is your agenda? What can we expect next? A critique of Wahabism?

Edited by magma
Removed long quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't much of a critique of the philosophy so much as it is simply restating the given definition of the philosophy and the possible implications of it being true in a negative manner. You don't really bring any argument against it except to say it must be wrong or saying "Oh, look, it must be untrue because there are so and so negative consequences if it were true" without even giving a reason as to why the existence of negative consequences makes it a false idea somehow. Drugs have negative consequences but they do exist, do they not?

Edited by Khadim uz Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Khadim uz Zahra said:

This isn't much of a critique of the philosophy so much as it is simply restating the given definition of the philosophy and the possible implications of it being true in a negative manner.

I think the first paragraph is a critique. 

"From the get-go, the starting foundation of postmodernism is inherently flawed. Instead of acknowledging the existence of an absolute truth as a first principle, with the subsequent goal of discovering and defining it, postmodernism refuses to even play ball at all, rejecting the very notion of "playing the game"."

----

Here I'm not discussing a negative implication, I'm discussing a base assumption inherent to the philosophy. The fact that the existence of an absolute truth is seen as a non-starter is an inherent flaw, before any downstream examination has even taken place (and hence any assessment of implication). The critique being, that's quite the assumption to make!

Edited by magma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I understand what you said quite clearly but a postmodernist is not actually going to debate you on that. He'll probably be proud of it as you may have said it in a negative tone but that is exactly what he is arguing for. A critique must necessarily be more then the statement of a position and must somehow challenge the other person's adherence to that position. Otherwise, what's the point?

As for the gravity of such an assumption, sure, that could be a good criticism but in the modern academic discourse, challenging the bases of what are considered fundamental truths is not only not discouraged but at times even considered necessary. Sure, the same can lead to ridiculous propositions and a complete dissociation from reality but given that the nature of belief necessitates that individuals once considered things like the superiority of one race over another or the earth being flat as fundamental truths, to argue that one should not argue is not much of an argument at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My english literary course is on this subject!!!

However I don't pay much attention in class so I cannot develop my own opinions...

 

definitely in the future once I succumb to more information, peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding about post-Modernism is that it is one aspect of the late-20th Century fad of denying any zero-based belief system. (There is a text by a man named Bem that summarizes this well.)

A zero-base is the start point of what is valued. Then belief systems are based on this, built-up.

This can also be compared with the art scene: you really do not have to 'know' much to participate. While you can chatter-class for hours about paint strokes and implied meanings, with denial of zero-order belief systems claiming everything 'is relative' then you can chatter-class for hours dismissively commenting about nearly anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Khadim uz Zahra said:

A critique must necessarily be more then the statement of a position and must somehow challenge the other person's adherence to that position. Otherwise, what's the point?

I think that's what I attempted to do. 

 

11 hours ago, Khadim uz Zahra said:

As for the gravity of such an assumption, sure, that could be a good criticism but in the modern academic discourse, challenging the bases of what are considered fundamental truths is not only not discouraged but at times even considered necessary. Sure, the same can lead to ridiculous propositions and a complete dissociation from reality but given that the nature of belief necessitates that individuals once considered things like the superiority of one race over another or the earth being flat as fundamental truths, to argue that one should not argue is not much of an argument at all.

That's what I did. I challenged the basis of their "fundamental truth", which is that truth is the conpartmentalized creation of human factors, without any absolute reality beyond the sum total parts of these isolated "truth islands". It's a negative statement, a dangerous first principle, and I even suggested the non-constructive and futile intentions behind it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Salam,  I just wanted to give my heartfelt and sincere apologies to the brothers and sisters for not being in contact with them over the past months regarding this project.  I think I took on too much with this. It was really affecting my work and also my marriage due to all the time it was taking, many messages that I had to respond to(I won't go into how exactly that part worked, but you all can probably take a good guess). When it started to affect my marriage, I decided that I really couldn't  carry on with it. I had to make an 'executive decision'. Although this project was important to me, my marriage and my family were more important.  I still think the project is a good idea, but I think there are some details that need to be thought thru a little more, like how the work will be distributed amoung the members of the team, and how and who will respond to messages. If anyone would like to continue the project, I could act as a 'consultant' but as far as 'day to day' operation, this would have to be done by someone else.  The personal issues I had because of this project actually lead me to believe that I shouldn't be advising anyone on topics of marriage (or anything else for that matter) since it seemed to me that I can't even handle my own marriage, which was in a downward spiral at that point (alhamduillah things are better now). 
    • The Group in question which I will not even associate the word Islamic was a rabid dog that bit the hand that was feeding it believing it was strong enough to be in a dominant position. The Saudis were originally funding these Wahhabi monsters to cause chaos in a country that was recently invaded by the US in which the US accidentally helped Iran gain a even greater powerful presence in the region. The Saudis did not like these neither did the US, so with oil money from the US the Saudis started to fund these radical groups. When the group in question got too powerful they announced a Caliphate directly challenging the power of  Saudi Arabia which sees itself as the leader of the Islamic world. This was a good opportunity for this new self proclaimed Caliphate because with the civil war in Syria and instability in Iraq they were able to spread extremely fast. Israel wants a divided Middle East and has been supporting these radical groups because Syria, Iraq and Iran challenge Israel’s war crimes against the Palestinians. Israel have even been accused of providing medical care and strategic bombing to help these terrorist groups which makes sense because the rabid dog has been rather kind to Israel, no attacks, no indiscriminate killing...makes you wonder. The US won’t intervene until Assad is toppled that is clear their bombing campaign does nothing compared the the Russians in Syria and the US are the middle man funding groups like FSA who support Al Nusra who support Guess who?! Exactly the rabid dog in question. This is much of the same tactic as Saudi Arabia just wait until there is good enough damage done in eliminating Iranian influence and place puppets in charge.  
    • If you want to know what the conclusion of an article is, as well as the arguments, then generally yes you have to read it. Otherwise, I will summarize here, then you'll reply with something I already considered in the article, and it will take a very long and frustrating thread to get the point across. If you have the time to post several comments on this thread, then you have the time to read it. It takes less than a fifth of the time to read than it does to write.

      As for science, part 3 deals with that.
    • In every church. The commands are 3.000 years old, from a time when Israelis still were polytheists and sacrificed animals to Gods on hilltops. In my understandng the idol ban was not a ban on photograps or sculptures, but a ban on worshipping Baal and other semitic Gods. Only the God Jahwe was to be worshipped by the Israelis.   
    • isn't there "Jesus/god" on the cross in about every  church?
×