1. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29239 by silves93 on April 2, 2007 at 7:38 am

Richard:
The postmodernism being presented and discussed here is mostly the waffly bullshit which absolutely exists and has been quoted above and justifiably savaged. And I should probably concede that as someone who thinks it's useful there has been written an embarrassing amount of turgid rubbish, perhaps enough to warrant this kind of attack by people I would otherwise esteem very highly.

But postmodernism neither starts or ends with Guattari or Deleuze and I would say one could come to an excellent appreciation of what the postmodern is and how it can help us understand our society without even glancing in the direction of their pygmy gibberish.

I studied postmodernism in literature. I am unable to read Angela Carter, Julian Barnes, Salman Rushdie, Umberto Eco without encountering postmodern themes. I do not think many of their works can be read in anything but a superficial way without an understanding of postmodernism. One is unable to turn on the TV without encountering pastiche, meta-narratives, grand narratives and simulation: all this jargon really means something, a lot more then 'archi-writing' does, and an understanding of it helps me understand why the world is as it is. Postmodernism can be interesting, enlightening and useful in a day-to-day way which specifying the width of North America to within one hairsbreadth is not, astounding as that is and as useful as it probably is in certain situations.

macronencer:
Postmodernism is not objectivity abandoned, but that's what everyone seems to get hung up on. Many academics don't accept Derrida's type of Deconstruction as anything but an interesting aside that is ultimately unhelpful.

2. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29203 by silves93 on April 2, 2007 at 4:08 am

Bremas
Quick review? Would one attempt to appreciate computational linguistics in a quick review? Discussion of automata and context-sensitive grammar might seem superficially to be worthless, dull twaddle, but it's not. It's not expected or even acceptable for a layman to debate with a scientist on issues of science but it is fine for postmodernism to be dismissed after a quick review? Is this the rational and intellectual rigour that us lot are supposed to espouse so passionately?

I could provide many examples of postmodernist concepts that, with some study, might make sense. But everyone here seems to have made up their minds.

3. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29188 by silves93 on April 2, 2007 at 2:42 am

Dawkins seems to be writing off postmodernism because of its fraudulent, glory-seeking and gullible fools. He's not the only one: I overheard someone on the tube say "have you heard Dr Gillian McKeith's not a real doctor? You can't trust scientists can you?"

There are charlatans and fools in every discipline, but one cannot write off the large body of fascinating and insightful postmodernist work just because of some crap papers and some idiots who were taken in by a smart-arse. I've always supported and defended Dawkins - I'd agree that he's arrogant but assert that he's right and his motives are pure. After this vindictive and narrow-minded article I'm not so sure.

I have worked in an academic capacity in both an English and a Computer Science department. Both have equal measures of arrogance and condescension. But perhaps that's just academics?