Post-Modernism :
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-10-2011, 01:40 PM
Post-Modernism :
What do you think about ...Post-modernism , guys ? :

Especially regarding relativism in relation to cultures .

Regarding the fact that objectivity does not exist , not even at the level of exact sciences, let alone elsewhere .

Regarding the fact that post-modernism considers heart, feeling , intuition as ...sources of knowledge , together with reason, empirics, logics ...

Tell me about it, please .


Thanks, appreciate .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2011, 02:54 PM
RE: Post-Modernism :
Sure, why not?
In what regard, tone and context do you wish this enquiry to proceed?

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2011, 03:02 PM
RE: Post-Modernism :
(15-10-2011 02:54 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  Sure, why not?
In what regard, tone and context do you wish this enquiry to proceed?

well, "objectively" haha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2011, 10:23 PM
RE: Post-Modernism :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism_Generator
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2011, 09:04 AM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2011 11:00 AM by Ghost.)
RE: Post-Modernism :
Hey, AbdelZ.

Well I think that I'm a post-modernist. The subject is pretty broad, so instead of just regurgitating facts I guess I'll start by commenting on exactly what you wrote.

Quote:Especially regarding relativism in relation to cultures .

I believe 100% in cultural relativism. A researcher at Harvard, his name eludes me, demonstrated that there is no ideal way to organise a human system. The only criteria is that there is agreement about structure/beliefs and that everyone is on board. The content is irrelevant. That, for me, is one of the many reasons I believe that there is no right culture. They are all simply what they are because they evolved that way.

So with that thinking as a foundation, it's easy for me to see cultural notions as unique to a specific culture; although cross-cultural overlap can certainly occur. They form a complex that only makes sense within that culture. So all one can do is compare and contrast cultures. Everything is relative.

Then we get into social constructivism and socially constructed reality. Reality is not the universe as it exists, reality is the agreed upon sign structure we use to represent it. Reality is what we agree it is.

Quote:Regarding the fact that objectivity does not exist , not even at the level of exact sciences, let alone elsewhere .

I believe that there is every chance that the universe exists objectively, but that we do not know it. This is an idea that goes all the way back to Plato's cave.

Our interaction with the universe is subjective. We do not know objective truth.

That being said, there is objectivity WITHIN these socially constructed realities. 2+2=4, not because there is a single objective reality that we know, but because within an agreed upon reality that employs math, it cannot be anything else. This is because constructed reality needs to be coherent for it to be of use to anyone. But 2+2=4 is meaningless to anyone outside of that reality.

Returning to relativity, there can be many different social constructs that attempt to represent actuality; the universe as it is.

George EP Box once said, all models are wrong, some are useful. That is to say that by definition, a model is an abstraction. A 100% accurate model of a cat is a cat. So while models can be helpful to us to understand a thing, it is not, and cannot BE that thing. An objectively true model does not exist. Abstraction is the basis of human thought. We abstract the universe and assign meaning to the constituent parts and then create a model of the universe in our minds with those abstract ideas. We share these models and meditate on these models rather than on the universe. The decision of what goes into a model is arbitrary. What is included, what is given greater focus, what is downplayed and what is left out are all arbitrary decisions. Thus different models can approach similar things but be vastly different. One history of the US might focus on their wars, another the leadership of their presidents, another the experiment of civil rights, others on the hypocrisy of espousing freedom while building the country on the back of the exploited. But none of them can be an accurate history of the US because a 100% accurate historical model of the US would be the last few hundred years in their entirety. The question is not, are the models correct (is the US a beacon of freedom, a cess pool of pornography and violence, a tyrannical hegemony, the world’s police force, the innocent victim of terrorist machinations, the greatest country on earth, a graveyard filled with natives and slaves), the question is, are the models useful, not just in terms of gaining some sort of meaningful insight into actuality [ON EDIT: that should be "a useful method for interacting with actuality"], but more importantly, to the culture that hosts them? This, in a Darwinian sense, makes perfect sense. A toucan’s beak, a sloth’s claw and a kangaroo’s pouch aren’t correct, they’re useful. That is why they persist. A social construct should never be viewed as correct. It should only be viewed as a cultural trait that has persisted because it is useful to the whole; the cultural complex.

Quote:Regarding the fact that post-modernism considers heart, feeling , intuition as ...sources of knowledge , together with reason, empirics, logics ...

I got nothing for this one. Care to elaborate?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: