Re: Postmodernism. Or why the Empress has no clothes.
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:46 pm
Post-modernism now seamlessly joins the bigger stream of post-democracy.
Another day in the Universe
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3857
Reading this I can't tell if you are serious or taking the p*ss.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:The thing about the old deconstructionists is that they make a convincing case that the objective features of a phenomenon so little constrain the ways it is classified and theorized that these features can be disregarded in trying to understand why a particular classification system or scientific theory has been adopted. Maybe this goes for Foucault and Derrida in particular; we may call them sophists all we like, and that is a reasonable case to be made about them, but they illuminate important problems even if or when they arrive at them in a sophistical manner.
Why? The primary motivation for the demonization, dismissal, and harassment of Professor Peterson appears to be fear, plain and simple. People who conduct themselves in this fashion feel menaced when the validity of their own perspective is challenged, and cannot – or will not – muster cogent arguments in their defense, abandoning basic norms of civil discourse. Beyond that, their actions betray a fundamental unwillingness to simply engage with him and his ideas in the spirit of genuine, respectful dialogue. If these kinds of bullying tactics escalate or continue unchecked, they pose a threat to freedom of speech, and by implication, to academic freedom in Canadian universities.
As much fun as it would be to keep some mystique in tact; I gotta say I'm speaking a bit earnestly...maybe it would be better to say I'm trying to offer a defense as it's caricature doesn't do it justice. And Derrida, at least, =/= mess in his wake.Typhoon wrote:Reading this I can't tell if you are serious or taking the p*ss.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:The thing about the old deconstructionists is that they make a convincing case that the objective features of a phenomenon so little constrain the ways it is classified and theorized that these features can be disregarded in trying to understand why a particular classification system or scientific theory has been adopted. Maybe this goes for Foucault and Derrida in particular; we may call them sophists all we like, and that is a reasonable case to be made about them, but they illuminate important problems even if or when they arrive at them in a sophistical manner.
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:As much fun as it would be to keep some mystique in tact; I gotta say I'm speaking a bit earnestly...maybe it would be better to say I'm trying to offer a defense as it's caricature doesn't do it justice. And Derrida, at least, =/= mess in his wake.Typhoon wrote:Reading this I can't tell if you are serious or taking the p*ss.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:The thing about the old deconstructionists is that they make a convincing case that the objective features of a phenomenon so little constrain the ways it is classified and theorized that these features can be disregarded in trying to understand why a particular classification system or scientific theory has been adopted. Maybe this goes for Foucault and Derrida in particular; we may call them sophists all we like, and that is a reasonable case to be made about them, but they illuminate important problems even if or when they arrive at them in a sophistical manner.
The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field -- but the very concept of the game.
~ Jacques Derrida
I have no idea what this is intended to mean.
~ Steven Weinberg
That's why intellectuals spend so much of their lives discussing shite. One invalid, impressive sounding theory, can be followed with decades of explanation.Typhoon wrote:
The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field -- but the very concept of the game.
~ Jacques Derrida
Simple Minded wrote:
Exactly, maybe not in the now now, but Shirley in the immanent future, or maybe a little later.Typhoon wrote:
I have no idea what this is intended to mean.
~ Steven Weinberg
All Derrida explicates is that we cannot recover or account for everything in our mental reconstructions and so we we should approach our intellectual pursuits with some humility.Typhoon wrote:NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:As much fun as it would be to keep some mystique in tact; I gotta say I'm speaking a bit earnestly...maybe it would be better to say I'm trying to offer a defense as it's caricature doesn't do it justice. And Derrida, at least, =/= mess in his wake.Typhoon wrote:Reading this I can't tell if you are serious or taking the p*ss.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:The thing about the old deconstructionists is that they make a convincing case that the objective features of a phenomenon so little constrain the ways it is classified and theorized that these features can be disregarded in trying to understand why a particular classification system or scientific theory has been adopted. Maybe this goes for Foucault and Derrida in particular; we may call them sophists all we like, and that is a reasonable case to be made about them, but they illuminate important problems even if or when they arrive at them in a sophistical manner.The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field -- but the very concept of the game.
~ Jacques DerridaI have no idea what this is intended to mean.
~ Steven Weinberg
No, he's saying the exact opposite.noddy wrote:the map is not the territory
the model is not reality
magic numbers make the baby jesus cry.
sorry, I wasn't trying to be snotty about it.noddy wrote:I wasnt trying to summarise him, just remembering the various versions of that argument ive had and heard over the years.
this is one of those spots that im not much of a philosopher.
the map is the territory for us because the working model is how our brains deal with it, yet being aware that the map isnt the territory is a requirement to knowing that the model can be improved.
well said. Derrida should have left this task up to you. No surprise that "deconstructionists" have great difficultly creating coherent sentence structures.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
All Derrida explicates is that we cannot recover or account for everything in our mental reconstructions and so we we should approach our intellectual pursuits with some humility.
His point about Einstein was in this context:
We develop these ideas and concepts we turn into fixed dogmas of these great mental structures [the structuralism of the time] that we can neither justify or account for. These "centers" (the dogmas- and again, in the context of structuralism] grow so great and rigid that they transcend the very structures they are supposed to be a pinnacle or floor. So for example, "Marxism" and "Capitalism" become something beyond that of which the mind reflects and transcend any practical reason so that it becomes almost a placeholder to describe anything and everything- to a point where it is, as he put it, both a center and a not-center.
He points out the history of philosophy (Derrida was primarily discussing literary form here) is one of replacing one "fixed center" for another in a supposed rupture that doesn't really change anything-- his example would be replacing at the center the "God of the philosophers" with human reason or "rationality", didn't change a single thing about how philosophy operated or thought. It was merely replacing one word for another after the initial outburst of energy. By doing this, we fail to expound upon that going on at the margins, which is where the real action is. This is where Derrida says that mankind "plays"; we negotiate, investigate, prod, create and discover in this area all while denying that anything changes by using that "center" as a cover for these actions.
He does posit that there are real ruptures even if most fail (or eventually fail,) to eliminate the same centering process. For him, one rupture which succeeded would be Einstein's work. What he suggests he broke was thinking of space and time as these absolute set-pieces that are in some sense, not apart of actual living and movement.
Maybe another way of putting it would be to say that space and time were no longer to be thought of as remote metaphysical objects (or collections of physical objects with a metaphysical purpose) but instead of a summary of phenomenon which may or may not mean more than that, but can only investigated as a sum.
Excellent observation. When reality does not agree with the model, within the specified assumptions. Time to fudge the data so the model can remain Gospel. Once the Oracle fails...... all is lost.noddy wrote:
modelling reality was a hobby before, its the entire focus of civilization right now.
the fair, the foul, the limitations and the scary implications, we have it all and we are living it, not musing upon it.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."noddy wrote:...
modelling reality was a hobby before, its the entire focus of civilization right now....
ive modeled the model and decided it needs more modelling.Simple Minded wrote:Excellent observation. When reality does not agree with the model, within the specified assumptions. Time to fudge the data so the model can remain Gospel. Once the Oracle fails...... all is lost.noddy wrote:
modelling reality was a hobby before, its the entire focus of civilization right now.
the fair, the foul, the limitations and the scary implications, we have it all and we are living it, not musing upon it.
"Two more years of grant funding and I can tell you exactly how whites, blacks, righties, lefties, etc will view the world.... or predict Climate Change down to a millionth of a degree per week! Shirely that's a good investment, right?"
Excellent example of the self-imposed limitations humans employ in order to comprehend and function (successfully or not) in an infinitely complex world.
If you can't sum up a lifetime of dedicated work performed by a philosopher or scientist or theologian, in 15 words or less. You are just plain wrong!
How to resolve Fred's thinking and concrete convictions at 25, with his differing thoughts at 40, or 50, or 60....... Even Fred couldn't do it. Poor Fred, when he couldn't get it right, he had no choice but to continue the rationalization process.
Screw sex, self-esteem drives everything.
The 'salty' thread is like 2 spaces down, dude.Simple Minded wrote:well said. Derrida should have left this task up to you. No surprise that "deconstructionists" have great difficultly creating coherent sentence structures.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
All Derrida explicates is that we cannot recover or account for everything in our mental reconstructions and so we we should approach our intellectual pursuits with some humility.
His point about Einstein was in this context:
We develop these ideas and concepts we turn into fixed dogmas of these great mental structures [the structuralism of the time] that we can neither justify or account for. These "centers" (the dogmas- and again, in the context of structuralism] grow so great and rigid that they transcend the very structures they are supposed to be a pinnacle or floor. So for example, "Marxism" and "Capitalism" become something beyond that of which the mind reflects and transcend any practical reason so that it becomes almost a placeholder to describe anything and everything- to a point where it is, as he put it, both a center and a not-center.
He points out the history of philosophy (Derrida was primarily discussing literary form here) is one of replacing one "fixed center" for another in a supposed rupture that doesn't really change anything-- his example would be replacing at the center the "God of the philosophers" with human reason or "rationality", didn't change a single thing about how philosophy operated or thought. It was merely replacing one word for another after the initial outburst of energy. By doing this, we fail to expound upon that going on at the margins, which is where the real action is. This is where Derrida says that mankind "plays"; we negotiate, investigate, prod, create and discover in this area all while denying that anything changes by using that "center" as a cover for these actions.
He does posit that there are real ruptures even if most fail (or eventually fail,) to eliminate the same centering process. For him, one rupture which succeeded would be Einstein's work. What he suggests he broke was thinking of space and time as these absolute set-pieces that are in some sense, not apart of actual living and movement.
Maybe another way of putting it would be to say that space and time were no longer to be thought of as remote metaphysical objects (or collections of physical objects with a metaphysical purpose) but instead of a summary of phenomenon which may or may not mean more than that, but can only investigated as a sum.
He may also have meant rapture instead of rupture....
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
The 'salty' thread is like 2 spaces down, dude.
That's a lot of text to try and explain what Derrida means to a philoplebian such as I. Thank you for your effort.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:All Derrida explicates is that we cannot recover or account for everything in our mental reconstructions and so we we should approach our intellectual pursuits with some humility.Typhoon wrote:NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:As much fun as it would be to keep some mystique in tact; I gotta say I'm speaking a bit earnestly...maybe it would be better to say I'm trying to offer a defense as it's caricature doesn't do it justice. And Derrida, at least, =/= mess in his wake.Typhoon wrote:Reading this I can't tell if you are serious or taking the p*ss.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:The thing about the old deconstructionists is that they make a convincing case that the objective features of a phenomenon so little constrain the ways it is classified and theorized that these features can be disregarded in trying to understand why a particular classification system or scientific theory has been adopted. Maybe this goes for Foucault and Derrida in particular; we may call them sophists all we like, and that is a reasonable case to be made about them, but they illuminate important problems even if or when they arrive at them in a sophistical manner.The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field -- but the very concept of the game.
~ Jacques DerridaI have no idea what this is intended to mean.
~ Steven Weinberg
His point about Einstein was in this context:
We develop these ideas and concepts we turn into fixed dogmas of these great mental structures [the structuralism of the time] that we can neither justify or account for. These "centers" (the dogmas- and again, in the context of structuralism] grow so great and rigid that they transcend the very structures they are supposed to be a pinnacle or floor. So for example, "Marxism" and "Capitalism" become something beyond that of which the mind reflects and transcend any practical reason so that it becomes almost a placeholder to describe anything and everything- to a point where it is, as he put it, both a center and a not-center.
He points out the history of philosophy (Derrida was primarily discussing literary form here) is one of replacing one "fixed center" for another in a supposed rupture that doesn't really change anything-- his example would be replacing at the center the "God of the philosophers" with human reason or "rationality", didn't change a single thing about how philosophy operated or thought. It was merely replacing one word for another after the initial outburst of energy. By doing this, we fail to expound upon that going on at the margins, which is where the real action is. This is where Derrida says that mankind "plays"; we negotiate, investigate, prod, create and discover in this area all while denying that anything changes by using that "center" as a cover for these actions.
He does posit that there are real ruptures even if most fail (or eventually fail,) to eliminate the same centering process. For him, one rupture which succeeded would be Einstein's work. What he suggests he broke was thinking of space and time as these absolute set-pieces that are in some sense, not apart of actual living and movement.
Maybe another way of putting it would be to say that space and time were no longer to be thought of as remote metaphysical objects (or collections of physical objects with a metaphysical purpose) but instead of a summary of phenomenon which may or may not mean more than that, but can only investigated as a sum.
Have you tried post-mortem test reconstructionism?Typhoon wrote:
That's a lot of text to try and explain what Derrida means to a philoplebian such as I. Thank you for your effort.
Anyways, he does add anything to my understanding [and not to S. Weinberg's who, among other notable achievements, is the author of a famous text on GR.]
Empirically, one may compare the understanding of nature achieved by use of the scientific process versus the same using postmodern text deconstruction.
I'll stick with the scientific method.
Socrates said to Phadreus, writing preserves a solemn silence. No one bats an eye.Simple Minded wrote:Have you tried post-mortem test reconstructionism?Typhoon wrote:
That's a lot of text to try and explain what Derrida means to a philoplebian such as I. Thank you for your effort.
Anyways, he does add anything to my understanding [and not to S. Weinberg's who, among other notable achievements, is the author of a famous text on GR.]
Empirically, one may compare the understanding of nature achieved by use of the scientific process versus the same using postmodern text deconstruction.
I'll stick with the scientific method.
During my brief stint as a potential philosophy major, it became obvious that no one can correctly what any of the great philosophers actually meant. Even those with doctorate degrees in philosophy could not agree. It was great fun to watch, but not a career path that fit my personality. Not to mention I was paying them to arguing, rather than them paying me to argue.
Kinda like the eternal gig of evaluating what God really meant in religious texts.
Good work if you can get it and if it fits your personality. On the plus side, like religion, it is a science that is never settle.
Before Post Modernism gets defined, we will be into Post Mortem -Post Modernism.
Once again my master, you have stated it brilliantly. Always a source of fascination to me, Fred reads author X and thinks X an durian. Fred reads author Y's interpretation of author X's text and finds author X to be (brillaint-Freudian typo, maybe my best ever!) brilliant.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Socrates said to Phadreus, writing preserves a solemn silence. No one bats an eye.
But for some Derrida says it, the whole melts down in condemnation.
I think it can be said the difference is that Plato was a masterful writer and Derrida was the exact opposite in translation (and I think it fair to presume in the original as well).
Great point and this was Mr.Hume's point in A Treatise on Human Nature:Simple Minded wrote:Always a source of fascination to me, Fred reads author X and thinks X an durian. Fred reads author Y's interpretation of author X's text and finds author X to be (brillaint-Freudian typo, maybe my best ever!) brilliant.
You never know what combination of words will strike a chord, or when a well respected guru will fall from grace for a few decades or generations. Wisdom, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I could spend the rest of the day arguing with you on this, but I have a feeling it would be counter-productive.Most of the philosophy profs I had the pleasure of knowing had the personality I imagine to be dominant among lawyers, they just love to argue with little regard for the outcome. Lot of output bandwidth, little input bandwidth. One day, my favorite said so in almost as many words, "We, philosophy professor are just full of ourselves, and we love to argue. And if we ever start to agree with each other, most of us won't be employed any longer."