Postmodernism can be difficult to define--not because the concept itself is incomprehensible or too difficult to identify with precision, but because so many people do not understand what exactly it is. Postmodernism is like feminism in that the core concepts of both are incredibly simple, yet many people hijack the words or misrepresent them, to the point where many people have no idea what the hell the actual concepts being referred to are. But it it remains simple, and it also remains true despite the surrounding confusion.
Postmodernism is the belief, and the correct belief, that human history is not governed by any unifying metanarrative. What exactly does this mean? It means that there is no idea or set of ideas that all people have agreed upon, from which it follows that people have wildly disagreed about the nature of reality. There has never been overarching agreement among humans regarding any issue in epistemology, ethics, theology, broad metaphysics, or science. It follows that not everyone's claims can be simultaneously true. Contrary positions exclude each other by nature.
From this foundation of postmodernism, a skepticism about values follows, accompanied by an emphasis
on the subjectivity of human experiences. However, postmodernism
itself does not deny or contradict logic, so it is not irrationalism or
relativism. It is not a self-refuting total skepticism. It is not a
denial that truth exists. Instead, it is the position that many claimed
"truths" are social constructs that have varied from one time and
culture to the next, without epistemological or metaphysical basis in
reality. And, whether one is a Christian or not, a rational mind will recognize that this much is indeed
true. This does not mean that nothing is true or that nothing can be known with absolute certainty, though. Logical axioms--the existence of truth, that a thing is what it is, that some knowledge is possible, that some things follow from certain premises, and so on--cannot be false. Consensus does not make them true, and cannot render them false; they are true by inherent necessity.
Christians might be tempted to claim that God's presence in history means that there is a metanarrative (a grand, overarching "narrative") that governs it, but even God's presence does not contradict anything I said in the previous few paragraphs. Just because God has been observing all of human history does not mean that there is even a single thing that everyone has acknowledged as true, and the mere existence of God does not rescue people from epistemic limitations, the subjectivity of human experiences, or ignorance. It must be reemphasized, though, that the subjectivity of my experiences does not mean that nothing is true or that nothing is absolutely certain, as every logical axiom I previously mentioned cannot be false, and the very fact that I have subjective experiences at all means that there is at least one conscious subject that perceives (me). From this, I can then move on to obtaining absolute certainty about the existence of my sensory perceptions, the existence of the present moment, space, and an external world. Any other conclusion about any matter which logic can establish is also infallibly both true and certain. But logic still leads to skepticism about a great many things.
As long as a postmodernist does not use fallacies or hold to anything self-refuting, there is absolutely nothing problematic about his or her postmodernism. It is just a reflection of reality. The myths and false accusations about postmodernism that circulate in some places are just that: myths and false accusations. Postmodernists are not necessarily irrational, evil people. They have simply observed that people do not agree, that the human condition is full of limitations, and that many claims are social constructs. No one can argue against these things and be a rational person simultaneously, for postmodernism itself does not present a distorted understanding of reality.
That's a polite assessment at best and terribly naive at worst.
ReplyDeletePostmodernism is nothing short of moral and intellectual degradation. I would refer you to, of all people, Ayn Rand to make a super sharp very well reasoned argument against for such, particularly her Romantic Manifesto.
In essence, art and culture represent and serves a society's need to have their values presented as abstractions in order to sensorially grasp in order to see itself in either admiration or in alarm. For instance, you can confidently measure the mental health of a society by its heroes, because that which is deemed heroic is deemed valuable and praiseworthy.
So if the ideal man in movies, in art, in music, etc. is presented as Superman then that would inform you that the predominant values might be selfless service and strength, and perhaps modesty (Clark Kent). Whereas a Rocky Balboa hero would emphasize fighting against all odds, and triumph by work ethic, courage, and love. But if a culture's hero is a thuggish embodiment of intimidation and brute force and wanton hedonism (prison power values)then lawlessness will flourish. Combine that with a transgendered medicated mockery of nature promoting sodomy, than that civilization is doomed.
Ayn thoroughly well reasoned that the ideal hero ought to embody the values of reason and self-sufficiency, as if a type of Iron Man inventive genius who was a productive asset to the world.
Postmodernism by virtue of its inherent confusion hinders and clouds any real judgement of character and value. Because it implies that no single value or sets of values has preeminence over another, it effectively lowers the bar putting the profane and the divine on equal footing. Such obfuscation renders reason impotent as sound judgement is a product of reason, and as such amidst the confusion it's the provocative, the most shockingly vulgar that is given the spotlight.
Some, other the Rand, have made a very compelling case that the aggressive promotion of such postmodernism was a direct yet subversive assault upon Western civilization by foreign powers decades ago. Now let's just look at the results...does American culture and values seem more healthy and wholesome or less since the mid 20th century?