Diversity, Inclusion, Equity

[KLewchuk]

However, the PoMos are right that Modernity was way too credulous about itself, and didn't do enough critical self-reflection.

Not sure I agree with your last point. For example, I could employ critical thinking to demonstrate that elements of pomo are "untrue".

Oh, absolutely. But that's a species of the "tu quoque" fallacy. They may be wrong on many things, but that doesn't make Modernism right.

The question is, when they criticize Modernism for stripping meaning out of the world, for naively adopting ideologies like Materialism, instrumentalism and consumerism, and so forth, are they right? I think they are. And Modernism will not fix its ills until its proponents recognize some of its fundamental assumptive mistakes and change them. So any rescue project for Modernism will only benefit by taking some of those criticisms seriously.

There's an old aphorism about listening to one's enemies. Sometimes they tell you things your friends never will. So I would apply the same view to the PoMo's...listen to what they say, and use what makes sense, but be critical, and reject the parts that are nonsense.

Regarding Hicks; bit of a fan but not sure about his hobby with Ayn Rand (not a fan).

I read Rand. I'm not a fan either. I know why she swung to the excesses she did, though. She'd seen Socialism in all it's bloody glory, and she was having none of it.

So, I see three options:
A) There is truth but you need to trust me because I have a unique dial tone to truth. Maybe a few others have the 911 to truth, but you need to trust me on this.
B) There is truth and it is, theoretically, available to everyone. However, we aren't born of equal ability (i.e. I never jumped high) but if you were born with a certain about of intellectual chomps, truth is available to you.
C) There is no such thing as truth.

Are there other options?

Yes, there was an understandable over-reaction. You heard of Ellul?

[KLewchuk]

Agree with your post. Adoption of critical theory, pomo, and neo-marxism mixed with religious template. Perhaps "pure evil" is an over-statement so let's just call it "mostly" evil.

So absolutely stupid, I am still amazed that people buy into it.

Yeah, I agree with your assessment of it. "Evil" is a good word. But it usually stars out cloaked in the language of "fairness," "caring," "sharing," and "justice." But it takes very little time after the "revolution" wins before the whole thing goes down the slanted floor, into the drain in the basement of the Lubyanka building, along with all the blood of the executed.

I think the real attractiveness is this: free stuff. It's just that venial, shallow and base. People are tired of taking care of themselves, and want the government to do it for them painlessly, effortlessly, endlessly and for free.

But they also want to clothe themselves in virtue, so they pretend to campaign for the good of everyone else. What they do is going to be "For the good of society," and "So everyone gets a fair share," and "So that the world can be a better place."

Really, though, they're just envious. And envy is no virtue. As George Orwell said of them, "You don't love the poor; you just hate the rich." They have the feeling that somebody, somewhere, has more than they do, and they want a piece of it...and, if possible, they want him to suffer as well, so he can feel what it's like to be as small, miserable and selfish as they are.

That's why the violence comes so easily to them when the revolution fails. The cast about for the rotten counter-revolutionaries who, they are sure, have prevented their certain Utopia from arriving, (They can't even conceive of the idea that their Utopia was a delusion in the first place, and never was going to come.) So their disappointment turns to spite, and hatred, and witch hunting for somebody else to blame. But the disappointment is unending, so the rage and vengeance are unending. And it's only when the whole thing collapses in utter economic and social failure that the bloodletting is finally over.

Well said.

[Immanuel Can]

You heard of Ellul?

Big fan. What have you read of his?

[KLewchuk]

You heard of Ellul?

Big fan. What have you read of his?

What do you like about him; haven't read much but seems like a standard Marxist shit with a dollop of Jesus on top. I know someone who likes him...who is a pomo Marxist but dispensed with the Jesus.

[Immanuel Can]

You heard of Ellul?

Big fan. What have you read of his?

What do you like about him?

He's very astute and insightful, actually. His study on propaganda is excellent, and his analysis of the meaning of the decline of literacy in The Humiliation of the Word is really, really great. But no, he's not PoMo. He's just a smart, thoughtful person.

To be PoMo, you've really got to be thoroughly secular. Guys like Ellul are way to positive toward the old narratives to please the PoMos. It takes secularism, because otherwise Neo-Marxism has absolutely no charms. Why embrace anything from the past when one is convinced it''s all a corrupt pack of lies anyway -- well, all of it except the PoMo meta narrative, of course. The PoMo's always look toward one or another form of secular collectivism to remedy the past, it seems....or else, they're just cynical, which can also happen.

That being said, the PoMos aren't always wrong. One thing they're really good at is pointing out key flaws in Modernism. But they're lousy...really, really lousy, at any suggestion for improvement or a way forward. Really, they just tend to collapse back into one or another of the Neo-Marxist delusions, or else subside into Nihilism of one kind or another.

[KLewchuk]

Big fan. What have you read of his?

What do you like about him?

He's very astute and insightful, actually. His study on propaganda is excellent, and his analysis of the meaning of the decline of literacy in The Humiliation of the Word is really, really great. But no, he's not PoMo. He's just a smart, thoughtful person.

To be PoMo, you've really got to be thoroughly secular. Guys like Ellul are way to positive toward the old narratives to please the PoMos. It takes secularism, because otherwise Neo-Marxism has absolutely no charms. Why embrace anything from the past when one is convinced it''s all a corrupt pack of lies anyway -- well, all of it except the PoMo meta narrative, of course. The PoMo's always look toward one or another form of secular collectivism to remedy the past, it seems....or else, they're just cynical, which can also happen.

That being said, the PoMos aren't always wrong. One thing they're really good at is pointing out key flaws in Modernism. But they're lousy...really, really lousy, at any suggestion for improvement or a way forward. Really, they just tend to collapse back into one or another of the Neo-Marxist delusions, or else subside into Nihilism of one kind or another.

So, my understanding of some of Ellul... very limited... is something like. Freedom is primary and Adam and Eve were free. The fall brought in sin, including the State, which is universally illegitimate for it impinges upon our freedom. Hence, we need to bring down the State (Christian Anarchy) in order to realize the Kingdom of God on Earth (e.g. Freedom) to the extent that we can.

I see Ellul as definitely PoMo in that it is clear he is reacting to his experience of "modernity" (e.g. war). I see him similar to Hayek, in this regard. However, no, as a Christian he would never see truth as relative. However, the idea that "truth is a narrative" is both very Christian and PoMo.. hence, I can see it being a small step.

Thoughts?

[Immanuel Can]

So, my understanding of some of Ellul... very limited... is something like...(Christian Anarchy) in order to realize the Kingdom of God on Earth (e.g. Freedom) to the extent that we can.

No, not at all. For example, a kingdom on Earth is nothing Ellul advocates at all...or any Christian advocates, if he has an ounce of sense or any understanding of the Bible worth having.

...as a Christian he would never see truth as relative. However, the idea that "truth is a narrative" is both very Christian and PoMo.. hence, I can see it being a small step.

It's a huge, huge step, actually. I think I can show that.

Firstly, I'm not sure what to think of the claim "truth is a narrative." There is one very limited sense in which that could be Christian; that for Christians, history is, in fact, a narrative...it's the story of God's actions and man's relation to that. So that much we must concede. But no Christian should imagine that he or she knows that full narrative, or can act in such a way as to advance that narrative to completion. God's the only one who can say what the true narrative of history is.

In that, it differs from secular Atheism, where there is and can be no narrative to history...it's all random and chance from the start, "meaning" is a temporal delusion, and oblivion ends all. But Humanist Atheism also has the "Myth of Progress," in which history, so to speak, "takes care of itself" by evolution, reason and the rise of science. Human beings eventually rise more and more until...well, nobody knows what.

It also differs from the Marxist and Neo-Marxist historicism. Marxists think that the narrative of history is framed as class struggle, and the teleology of history is "the Triumph of the Proletariat," and "the ideal Communist State." Neo-Marxists are less focused on class, and much more on race, gender, and so on, but no less convinced that old Marxists that they know the narrative of history and that they are essential to bringing it about. The hallmark of Socialist thought is the belief that salvation consists in collective social action, and that Socialists know what that collective social action has to be, and those who oppose it are evil anti-revolutionaries of some kind.

Thoughts?

Well, the key thing is this: IF history has a narrative, who has the power to read its text and to complete the "story"?

Secular Atheism implies no one reads anything, and there's nothing to read, so the question is moot. Finish whatever "story" you make up any way you want, because it's all bunk anyway. Or, per Humanism, it takes care of itself, so long as everybody continues to become more "enlightened" by Humanism. But the various Socialisms that are current today think THEY have the power to read the story, and THEY have the obligation to bring the story to its right conclusion. They're aggressive and proactive in trying to force their narrative to come about. That's one thing that makes them quite vicious.

Stark contrast: Christians think there's a narrative and trajectory to history, but they see it only in part, as much as God has revealed only, and nobody --not even any Christian -- gets to read the whole of it or say what it adds up to at the end. The narrative ends in eternity, and only God gets to say what it all means. For the Christian, the focus is on the moral now and the moral meanwhile. It's not on producing a particular historical outcome, which in any case, exceeds human power to produce.

So Ellul is not interested in seizing the social agenda. He is, however, concerned with what we become morally while mankind's various projects of "controlling the narrative" continue. He recognizes that all human machinations in that regard are ultimately destructive and doomed, but meanwhile we can do better or worse, depending on how arrogant we human beings become, and how callous we become about what we are doing and the kind of people we're being.

[KLewchuk]

So, my understanding of some of Ellul... very limited... is something like...(Christian Anarchy) in order to realize the Kingdom of God on Earth (e.g. Freedom) to the extent that we can.

No, not at all. For example, a kingdom on Earth is nothing Ellul advocates at all...or any Christian advocates, if he has an ounce of sense or any understanding of the Bible worth having.

But he is an anarchist and promotes earthly political involvement. It does not appear to me that he is a "save the souls and hold on for the rapture" guy.

...as a Christian he would never see truth as relative. However, the idea that "truth is a narrative" is both very Christian and PoMo.. hence, I can see it being a small step.

It's a huge, huge step, actually. I think I can show that.

Firstly, I'm not sure what to think of the claim "truth is a narrative." There is one very limited sense in which that could be Christian; that for Christians, history is, in fact, a narrative...it's the story of God's actions and man's relation to that. So that much we must concede. But no Christian should imagine that he or she knows that full narrative, or can act in such a way as to advance that narrative to completion. God's the only one who can say what the true narrative of history is.

But a Christian would say that there is a "true" narrative and they know it, albeit through a dark lens. Not all narratives are equal and power is no evidence of the truth of the narrative. Peace, I may have mis-spoke on it being a "small step" but there are epistemologies that don't focus as much on narratives; they would be farther away.

In that, it differs from secular Atheism, where there is and can be no narrative to history...it's all random and chance from the start, "meaning" is a temporal delusion, and oblivion ends all. But Humanist Atheism also has the "Myth of Progress," in which history, so to speak, "takes care of itself" by evolution, reason and the rise of science. Human beings eventually rise more and more until...well, nobody knows what.

Sorry; think you are throwing up a straw man and false choice on this. "Secular Atheism" is a term for a certain ideology which you briefly describe and I recognize. However, Eastern philosophy does not focus on narrative in this way and is consistent with meaning, evolution, reason, and science.

It also differs from the Marxist and Neo-Marxist historicism. Marxists think that the narrative of history is framed as class struggle, and the teleology of history is "the Triumph of the Proletariat," and "the ideal Communist State." Neo-Marxists are less focused on class, and much more on race, gender, and so on, but no less convinced that old Marxists that they know the narrative of history and that they are essential to bringing it about. The hallmark of Socialist thought is the belief that salvation consists in collective social action, and that Socialists know what that collective social action has to be, and those who oppose it are evil anti-revolutionaries of some kind.

Here is a difference. If you are modern, you can critically investigate a narrative and ask, "is it true"? Certain Christians must take the narrative "on faith". I see that PoMo does the same, the evidence does not support the narrative of power that they assert. Hence, it appears to be more of a religion than a philosophy. You simply "believe" that the person doesn't exist and everything is a social relation based on power "praise be to Derrida and Foucault and Leotard (i.e. the holy PoMo Trinity).

Thoughts?

Well, the key thing is this: IF history has a narrative, who has the power to read its text and to complete the "story"?

Secular Atheism implies no one reads anything, and there's nothing to read, so the question is moot. Finish whatever "story" you make up any way you want, because it's all bunk anyway. Or, per Humanism, it takes care of itself, so long as everybody continues to become more "enlightened" by Humanism. But the various Socialisms that are current today think THEY have the power to read the story, and THEY have the obligation to bring the story to its right conclusion. They're aggressive and proactive in trying to force their narrative to come about. That's one thing that makes them quite vicious.

Stark contrast: Christians think there's a narrative and trajectory to history, but they see it only in part, as much as God has revealed only, and nobody --not even any Christian -- gets to read the whole of it or say what it adds up to at the end. The narrative ends in eternity, and only God gets to say what it all means. For the Christian, the focus is on the moral now and the moral meanwhile. It's not on producing a particular historical outcome, which in any case, exceeds human power to produce.

So Ellul is not interested in seizing the social agenda. He is, however, concerned with what we become morally while mankind's various projects of "controlling the narrative" continue. He recognizes that all human machinations in that regard are ultimately destructive and doomed, but meanwhile we can do better or worse, depending on how arrogant we human beings become, and how callous we become about what we are doing and the kind of people we're being.

[Immanuel Can]

Side note: no problem about the format issues, KL. Once I saw it, I was able to sort it back out. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Sorry; think you are throwing up a straw man and false choice on this. "Secular Atheism" is a term for a certain ideology which you briefly describe and I recognize. However, Eastern philosophy does not focus on narrative in this way and is consistent with meaning, evolution, reason, and science.

Well, if you admit Secular Atheism is "a certain ideology...I recognize," then it's certainly not a "straw man." It may be the wrong "man" to describe your view...I can't say, because I wasn't trying to attribute it to you...but it is a very influential Western ideology, as you recognize...not a straw man at all.

As for Eastern Philosophy (I presume you mean Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and their related systems), unfortunately for the East, they are not at all consonant with science. Science is a product of the West, and that's why the West had an Industrial Revolution while the East was still essentially backward. And it wasn't that there aren't enough intelligent people in India, China or environs, of course; we know THAT isn't true. Rather, the problem was that their cherished religions did not provide adequate grounds for thinking scientifically at all, and only once they started to shed them was science a thing they could conceive or start to practice. Clearly, they've done better since.

Why didn't they have what they needed to imagine science? Well, because most of those religions are polytheistic or agnostic, and don't even argue for linear time, let alone a single, coherent universe governed by a Creator who establishes law-like regularities. To anticipate those things, you've got to believe, like Bacon, in a single, coherent, law-giving God. After that, you can secularize it if you wish, and get Modernity. But you're never going to get it in the first place if you can't exercise the faith to believe the world could be, and should be, a place that is rationally governed and composed by physical laws.

Here is a difference. If you are modern, you can critically investigate a narrative and ask, "is it true"? Certain Christians must take the narrative "on faith".

Oh, the old contrast between truth and faith? That's a myth, I'm afraid.

"Faith," contrary to Atheist legend, is not "believing what you know ain't true," or "believing without/contrary to evidence." For a Christian like, say, Francis Bacon, it means only to rest one's conviction on the best available evidence, and expect regularities because of the regularity of His character...which is what science is supposed to do, actually. It takes for granted an orderly, law-governed universe.

This is a big topic, but the old faith-science dichotomy is quite false, both historically and philosophically. The Scientific Method itself (the hypothesis-testing-conclusions procedure) was only created in the 17th Century, and by Bacon, who was not only the leading philosopher of science, but an ardent Christian theologian as well. One glance at his short essay, "Of Truth," for example, will show you that. https://www.bartleby.com/3/1/1.html

I see that PoMo does the same, the evidence does not support the narrative of power that they assert.

Which one?

You simply "believe" that the person doesn't exist and everything is a social relation based on power "praise be to Derrida and Foucault and Leotard (i.e. the holy PoMo Trinity).

The view that all narratives secretly hide "the will to power" actually goes back to Nietzsche, who was Foucault's biggest influencer. And Nietzsche was an Atheist of the most ardent sort, but nowhere near young enough for Postmodernism. He died in 1900, before even Modernism even reached its zenith.

But the other one, "the person doesn't exist"? I don't recognize that one from Postmodernism. Do you have a source for that one?

[RCSaunders]

You simply "believe" that the person doesn't exist and everything is a social relation based on power "praise be to Derrida and Foucault and Leotard (i.e. the holy PoMo Trinity).

But the other one, "the person doesn't exist"? I don't recognize that one from Postmodernism. Do you have a source for that one?

Perhaps he means Derrida and Foucault wear leotards. That would be fitting. But I think he means Jean-Francois Lyotard, rhymes with "retard," which is also fitting.

You might find this useful: "Postmodernism and Its Critics," from The University of Alabama, Department of Anthropology.

I really cannot believe any sane person can take any part of POMO seriously. It is, however, quite entertaining. "Postmodernism, A Psychosis"

[Immanuel Can]

You simply "believe" that the person doesn't exist and everything is a social relation based on power "praise be to Derrida and Foucault and Leotard (i.e. the holy PoMo Trinity).

But the other one, "the person doesn't exist"? I don't recognize that one from Postmodernism. Do you have a source for that one?

Perhaps he means Derrida and Foucault wear leotards.

That would be fitting.

"Tight-fitting," in fact.

But I think he means Jean-Francois Lyotard, rhymes with "retard," which is also fitting.
I really cannot believe any sane person can take any part of POMO seriously. It is, however, quite entertaining. "

Hmmm.

I think when one knows enough about it, one sees that the PoMos had something that got them going. It wasn't out of nothing. Modernism did have some very serious incoherencies, and they are indeed a sort of terminal problem for Modernism. Some of these, noted by the PoMo set, have been...

1. An addiction to nationalism and to the nation-state.
2. The belief that reason and rationality lead to essentially one set of "rational" conclusions, and can lead to no other.
3. Naive Scientism -- the belief that "science" is, at least in principle, the total answer to everything.
4. Technological Utopianism -- the belief that whatever technology produces is always better, more advanced and inevitable anyway, and that additional technologies can cure all ills.
5. Dehumanization -- an admiration for things like consumerism, division of labour, factories, standard models, repeatable processes, and other things that make human beings into cogs in the Modern "machine," rather than ends-in-themselves.
6. Eurocentrism or Americanization
7. Secularization
8. The denial of grounds for morality, coupled with an unfounded conviction that people will continue to be moral indefinitely anyway.
9. Obliviousness to value pluralism as an incommensurable reality.
10. The denial of objective meaning to humanity and its projects, replaced with the promise that human beings can "make their own meanings" instead.
11. The viewing of the environment as a standing reserve for industrial projects.
12. The use of the "second" and "third' worlds as standing reserves for the "first."

And so on.

You've got to admit that if these are, indeed, features of Modernism, then the critics do have a point.

[RCSaunders]

But the other one, "the person doesn't exist"? I don't recognize that one from Postmodernism. Do you have a source for that one?

Perhaps he means Derrida and Foucault wear leotards.

That would be fitting.

"Tight-fitting," in fact.

But I think he means Jean-Francois Lyotard, rhymes with "retard," which is also fitting.
I really cannot believe any sane person can take any part of POMO seriously. It is, however, quite entertaining. "

Hmmm.

I think when one knows enough about it, one sees that the PoMos had something that got them going. It wasn't out of nothing. Modernism did have some very serious incoherencies, and they are indeed a sort of terminal problem for Modernism. Some of these, noted by the PoMo set, have been...

1. An addiction to nationalism and to the nation-state.
2. The belief that reason and rationality lead to essentially one set of "rational" conclusions, and can lead to no other.
3. Naive Scientism -- the belief that "science" is, at least in principle, the total answer to everything.
4. Technological Utopianism -- the belief that whatever technology produces is always better, more advanced and inevitable anyway, and that additional technologies can cure all ills.
5. Dehumanization -- an admiration for things like consumerism, division of labour, factories, standard models, repeatable processes, and other things that make human beings into cogs in the Modern "machine," rather than ends-in-themselves.
6. Eurocentrism or Americanization
7. Secularization
8. The denial of grounds for morality, coupled with an unfounded conviction that people will continue to be moral indefinitely anyway.
9. Obliviousness to value pluralism as an incommensurable reality.
10. The denial of objective meaning to humanity and its projects, replaced with the promise that human beings can "make their own meanings" instead.
11. The viewing of the environment as a standing reserve for industrial projects.
12. The use of the "second" and "third' worlds as standing reserves for the "first."

And so on.

You've got to admit that if these are, indeed, features of Modernism, then the critics do have a point.

Please clarify. Which critics have a point: the critics of post modernism, or the post modernist critics (of everythihg)? That last paragraph could mean either and I don't want to respond 'til I'm sure what you're saying.

[Scott Mayers]

Can this ever be considered "unethical"?

["Equity" is a common term for "shares" to many. I assumed you meant, "equality"?]

I think it is probable to be an issue by many. I just watched the news locally (Canada) about the concern of particular religious people/groups going to a 'diversity' museum in Winnipeg, Manitoba (Canada) who demanded (demands) that any and all tours CENSOR any issues contrary to their particular religious beliefs, like those regarding abortion or same-sex issues, even though these have major contributing reasons FOR the creation of this museum.

Personally, while not being religious, I think that the 'diversity' idea itself ignores those with ANY 'particular' beliefs to some degree or others. While I don't share sympathy for those religious groups regarding this issue, there is hypocrisy and/or confusion on how to demarcate whether one is 'diverse' if they are not UNIVERSALLY accepting of all people. As such, I think that such 'museums' themselves dedicated to 'diversity' BECOMES a form of 'religion' itself.

The recent attacks by Muslim extremists in France are argued by my Prime Minister as "not representative" of some presumed valid religious belief. How is this not itself just a way of 'censoring' (and censuring) of a subset of beliefs that the 'majority' disapproves of? To me, there is no such thing as a 'moderate' religion on a logical basis and so all governments would be best to simply prevent ANY laws that permit supporting any particular beliefs regarding particular cultures. As such, while the intent of the museum may have been to support accepting others' differences, because it biases favor to ANY PARTICULAR subset of people's beliefs, our government's involvement in setting this up is BIASED.

The best approach is to get people to recognize that the 'governments' we elect and the laws we expect them to make, should be understood AS the relative 'religion' of the LEAST person's beliefs, and only understood to be a practical management of secular issues. Otherwise, we'll end up BECOMING an intolerant by imposing people as requiring to appeal to ALL others universally, something impossible to acheive.

EDIT: Links to the Museum issue I mentioned: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/canadian-muse ... ualICauRy0 or https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba ... -1.5776284

[KLewchuk]

Perhaps he means Derrida and Foucault wear leotards.

That would be fitting.

"Tight-fitting," in fact.

But I think he means Jean-Francois Lyotard, rhymes with "retard," which is also fitting.
I really cannot believe any sane person can take any part of POMO seriously. It is, however, quite entertaining. "

Hmmm.

I think when one knows enough about it, one sees that the PoMos had something that got them going. It wasn't out of nothing. Modernism did have some very serious incoherencies, and they are indeed a sort of terminal problem for Modernism. Some of these, noted by the PoMo set, have been...

1. An addiction to nationalism and to the nation-state.
2. The belief that reason and rationality lead to essentially one set of "rational" conclusions, and can lead to no other.
3. Naive Scientism -- the belief that "science" is, at least in principle, the total answer to everything.
4. Technological Utopianism -- the belief that whatever technology produces is always better, more advanced and inevitable anyway, and that additional technologies can cure all ills.
5. Dehumanization -- an admiration for things like consumerism, division of labour, factories, standard models, repeatable processes, and other things that make human beings into cogs in the Modern "machine," rather than ends-in-themselves.
6. Eurocentrism or Americanization
7. Secularization
8. The denial of grounds for morality, coupled with an unfounded conviction that people will continue to be moral indefinitely anyway.
9. Obliviousness to value pluralism as an incommensurable reality.
10. The denial of objective meaning to humanity and its projects, replaced with the promise that human beings can "make their own meanings" instead.
11. The viewing of the environment as a standing reserve for industrial projects.
12. The use of the "second" and "third' worlds as standing reserves for the "first."

And so on.

You've got to admit that if these are, indeed, features of Modernism, then the critics do have a point.

Please clarify. Which critics have a point: the critics of post modernism, or the post modernist critics (of everythihg)? That last paragraph could mean either and I don't want to respond 'til I'm sure what you're saying.

That's funny, that is what I get for typing too fast late at night.

Let try this angle. One could argue that the "pre-moderns" had something going. There must have been something in the pre-modern system of thought that provided meaning and well-being. However, the recognition that there was value in pre-modern superstition does not mean we would reject modernism and revert to superstition. Rather, it is something to critically consider in the spirit of modernism. PoMo does not seem to take this angle. It does not say that there is value in modernity and seeks to build upon it, rather it is a rejection of modernity. Particularly, that there is an objective (somewhat) reality that may be understood (somewhat) through reason which many human are endowed with.

Agree?

[KLewchuk]

"Tight-fitting," in fact.



Hmmm.

I think when one knows enough about it, one sees that the PoMos had something that got them going. It wasn't out of nothing. Modernism did have some very serious incoherencies, and they are indeed a sort of terminal problem for Modernism. Some of these, noted by the PoMo set, have been...

1. An addiction to nationalism and to the nation-state.
2. The belief that reason and rationality lead to essentially one set of "rational" conclusions, and can lead to no other.
3. Naive Scientism -- the belief that "science" is, at least in principle, the total answer to everything.
4. Technological Utopianism -- the belief that whatever technology produces is always better, more advanced and inevitable anyway, and that additional technologies can cure all ills.
5. Dehumanization -- an admiration for things like consumerism, division of labour, factories, standard models, repeatable processes, and other things that make human beings into cogs in the Modern "machine," rather than ends-in-themselves.
6. Eurocentrism or Americanization
7. Secularization
8. The denial of grounds for morality, coupled with an unfounded conviction that people will continue to be moral indefinitely anyway.
9. Obliviousness to value pluralism as an incommensurable reality.
10. The denial of objective meaning to humanity and its projects, replaced with the promise that human beings can "make their own meanings" instead.
11. The viewing of the environment as a standing reserve for industrial projects.
12. The use of the "second" and "third' worlds as standing reserves for the "first."

And so on.

You've got to admit that if these are, indeed, features of Modernism, then the critics do have a point.

Please clarify. Which critics have a point: the critics of post modernism, or the post modernist critics (of everythihg)? That last paragraph could mean either and I don't want to respond 'til I'm sure what you're saying.

That's funny, that is what I get for typing too fast late at night.

Let try this angle. One could argue that the "pre-moderns" had something going. There must have been something in the pre-modern system of thought that provided meaning and well-being. However, the recognition that there was value in pre-modern superstition does not mean we would reject modernism and revert to superstition. Rather, it is something to critically consider in the spirit of modernism. PoMo does not seem to take this angle. It does not say that there is value in modernity and seeks to build upon it, rather it is a rejection of modernity. Particularly, that there is an objective (somewhat) reality that may be understood (somewhat) through reason which many human are endowed with.

Agree?

One other thought; I also agree that I don't understand how people take PoMo seriously. However, I have a nephew that does. OMG, do I need to stage an intervention?