site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   3261 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 9, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That depends on what you mean by "postmodernism". Not trying to be cheeky. It's an incredibly vague term and most of the philosophers who get labeled as "postmodernist" never applied that label to themselves.

A lot of 20th century French and German philosophy - i.e. the guys who get called "postmodernist" - was essentially footnotes to Nietzsche. A lot of those later guys were socialists who disagreed sharply with Nietzsche's politics, but they inherited his basic outlook on the nature of language, subjectivity, and truth: that the particular way we divide up the world into objects and concepts is essentially arbitrary, that our ability to introspect about our own mental states (beliefs, desires, motivations) is not nearly as strong as is typically assumed, that there is a fundamentally affective dimension to all allegedly "rational" discourse, that our (political, philosophical) beliefs are first and foremost grounded in who we are as biological/economic/social creatures rather than in our ability to be responsive to rational argumentation. A lot of these points are already familiar to Rationalists - see for example Scott's classic "The Categories Were Made For Man" post.

Am I a postmodernist in this sense? I would give a weak and qualified "yes". It's a set of views that's worth taking very seriously, at any rate. If you were talking about some other sense of the word postmodernism, then you'll have to specify what it is.

Fine, everyone’s least favourite part: definitions .

Wiki (I’ll bold what I find objectionable in the theory):

Postmodernism is an intellectual stance or mode of discourse[2] characterized by skepticism toward the "grand narratives" of modernism; rejection of epistemic certainty or the stability of meaning; and sensitivity to the role of ideology in maintaining political power.[3][4] Claims to objectivity are dismissed as naïve realism,[5] with attention drawn to the conditional nature of knowledge claims within particular historical, political, and cultural discourses.[4] The postmodern outlook is characterized by self-referentiality, epistemological relativism, moral relativism, pluralism, irony, irreverence, and eclecticism;[4] it rejects the "universal validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization.[6][7]

Initially emerging from a mode of literary criticism, postmodernism developed in the mid-twentieth century as a rejection of modernism,[8][9][10] and has been observed across many disciplines.[11][12] Postmodernism is associated with the disciplines deconstruction and post-structuralism.[4] Various authors have criticized postmodernism as promoting obscurantism, as abandoning Enlightenment rationalism and scientific rigor, and as adding nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge. (Amen)

I also gave examples of my various run-ins with it on the sub in my comment to rafa.

I don't know where to start. Should I explain the problem with those claims?

For example, if you dismiss objectivity , you have a license to be as partial and biased as you want.

rejection of epistemic certainty

This is definately me. There are very, very few things that one can actually be epistemically certain about. If we are to reason, we must reason from uncertainty. On the other hand, I think this is neither a novel insight nor a peculiar one to Postmodernists. Epistemology has been recognized as a hard problem since the Greeks, if I'm not mistaken.

[rejection of] the stability of meaning

I'm not sure what this means, exactly. I think people can twist meaning in ways they find convinient, more or less arbitrarily, and then use coercion to enforce those twisted meanings, and further than they can do this for considerably longer than the normal human lifespan. On the other hand, I argue forcefully that human values and assessment of meaning have not changed since before the invention of writing, and I don't think they ever will. Sooner or later, the twists unravel, and the truth reasserts itself.

and sensitivity to the role of ideology in maintaining political power.

Ideology definately has an absolutely massive role in maintaining political power.

Claims to objectivity are dismissed as naïve realism...

I do not think this matches me. I am willing to believe that you are trying to be as objective as possible, and I am likewise. If you can actually demonstrate something with evidence, I am not ever going to dismiss it with a stoner-style "what even is reality, man". What I'm not willing to do is accept as evidence things that aren't actually evidence, or apparent evidence that I have reason to be skeptical of, or to ignore the observable ways in which evidence assessment is shaped by priors, which are shaped by things other than evidence.

What I'm also not willing to do is accept a claim that intellectual questions should be assumed to be straightforwardly tractable, when I spent a couple decades explicitly believing that and over and over and over again learned, to my immense frustration, that I was wrong.

with attention drawn to the conditional nature of knowledge claims within particular historical, political, and cultural discourses.

I am pretty sure I have never done this or anything even remotely like it.

The postmodern outlook is characterized by self-referentiality

I'm not sure what this means, but I don't think it describes anything I argue.

epistemological relativism

I don't think this describes me, but you may disagree.

moral relativism

HA!

pluralism

Not past what is necessary for talking to people who think very differently from myself, I don't think.

it rejects the "universal validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization

Not entirely sure what these mean either, but they don't sound like me, I don't think.

Thoughts?

This is definately me. There are very, very few things that one can actually be epistemically certain about.

I think it's just word games between 100% certain and 99,99..% certain. So when they say 'it's not certain'(meaning 100%), people, in accordance with the common meaning of that phrase, think "then it must be 50% or something", when in reality it's still 99,99..% certain. They then use the ‘it’s not certain’ gambit on any statement they don’t like.

with attention drawn to the conditional nature of knowledge claims within particular historical, political, and cultural discourses.

I am pretty sure I have never done this or anything even remotely like it.

Hehee. What about, you know, axioms? You can spin a yarn on the conditional nature of knowledge with the worst of them.

it rejects the "universal validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization

Not entirely sure what these mean either, but they don't sound like me, I don't think.

Rejects the validity of beautiful and ugly, right and wrong, so-called prosperous societies versus less-so (on any criteria), all categorizations of sex and race, that sort of thing. I know you and the motte don’t agree with that, that’s why all the rest was such a schock.

But it is what this leads to. You're skirting the border already. They choose what is beautiful and morally right like you choose your ideology. You’re one deconstruction séance away from your entire world turning into total gobbledygook, my friend.

So when they say 'it's not certain'(meaning 100%), people, in accordance with the common meaning of that phrase, think "then it must be 50% or something", when in reality it's still 99,99..% certain. They then use the ‘it’s not certain’ gambit on any statement they don’t like.

There is a very significant difference between "I don't like your conclusions, so what even is truth, tee hee", and "you are claiming that evidence works in a way that I know, for a certainty, that it does not". I agree with you that there is evidence that is 99.99...% certain. I agree that reality intrudes, sooner or later, no matter how subtly humans may attempt to wall it out.

Where we disagree:

you appear to believe that 99.999...% certainty is the norm for questions of significance, especially questions centering on humans and the things they do. It is not, and evidence that it is not is one of those 99.999...% bits of evidence that we do in fact actually have.

You appear to think that it is easier to tell the truth than to maintain lies. This is true, if we're talking about truths we have ready access to. It is not true for things no one involved actually has comprehensive knowledge about. For those things, lies are easier, because they allow you to skip the laborious process of actually figuring out what the truth is. The truth will catch up, eventually, but we have historical accounts of how this can take generations to occur.

What about, you know, axioms?

an axiom is an assumption about the nature of reality that is taken to be self-evident, and then used to evaluate and interpret evidence. That is, it does not rely solely on evidence or proofs for its adoption, but allows one to reason about evidence and proofs without resorting to infinite regression or dishonesty. It is a directly-observable and entirely-unavoidable process of human reason in all times and in all places, and this fact can be ascertained to a very, very high degree of certainty.

How does this connect to "conditional nature of knowledge claims within particular historical, political, and cultural discourses"?

But it is what this leads to.

No, it doesn't. I take Truth and Beauty, Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice as axioms, as hard foundations from which I reason. I've chosen these as axioms not because I was forced to by a deterministic process of accumulated evidence, but because when faced with mixed evidence for all of them, I chose a specific interpretation out of a range of plausible options. I chose that option because it seemed better to me than the alternatives. It seemed better in part because of evidence, but the evidence was not remotely decisive; rather, I had a choice of theories to pursue, and that choice was made for reasons other than pure rational calculation, reasons like intuition and values-resonance. Having made that choice, I then made many subsequent choices that have served to cement me into it quite firmly, perhaps irrevocably, and a large part of that could be described as accumulating evidence: a big part of the reason I chose what I did is because I thought it would lead to a better life, and it has in fact led to a better life, beyond what I'd imagined possible at the time. Postmodern deconstruction has no appeal to me because it has nothing I want, and never will.

They choose what is beautiful and morally right like you choose your ideology.

In the sense that when I drive to church and a jihadist drives into a crowd of people, we are both "driving". The problem with what they do isn't that they choose what to believe, it's that they choose badly, and for bad motives.

There are lots of reasons to reject the notion that anything is beautiful or ugly.

There are lots of reasons to reject the notion that anything is (morally) good or bad.

There are lots of reasons to reject categorizations of race and sex.

There are also reasons to reject those reasons, of course. But the point is that you have to actually argue for your position, and engage with the arguments of your opponents. You can't just declare that all your opponents are "postmodern", and postmodernism is evil, so you win. Why engage in political or philosophical debate at all if you're just going to declare from the start that your own view is the only one that is even worthy of consideration?

I previously assumed we were on the same page, given that wokes here were frequently criticized on those grounds. But apparently it was just postmodernist infighting. My mistake was assuming an enemy of postmodernism must not be postmodern, when postmodernism is perfectly capable of eating itself. I am still trying to assess the damage.

I believe there is truth in the beliefs of people, far more than in an academic discussion that just lists ‘lost of reasons’ from both sides. So which side with lots of reasons do you agree with on these points?

Like I said, I really wasn't trying to be cheeky! I just wanted to know what you meant by the term, that's all. People use it in different ways.

"Epistemic certainty", "role of ideology in maintaining political power", "moral relativism", and "binary oppositions" are all topics that, individually, could eat up an entire career's worth of thought. We won't be able to address all of them comprehensively.

I think my other reply is relevant to "objectivity" though, we can continue the discussion there.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats