[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Postmodernism isn't bunk, far from it. The theories of the postmodernist era have allowed us to abandon theory itself and move into the new era.
I agree that objectivity does exist but only if you take into view the entire universe. But the universe might be infinite, which makes things a little weird.

What new era are we in? Postmodernism denies that we experience any objective truths and proposes that there are only local truths. If there are only local truths, then there can be no such thing as an "era." What you talk about is progress, and postmodernism denies that progress exists, because for progress to exist there must be an objective reality to measure it with.

In an earlier post you said that ones persons trash is another persons epiphany. But how can there be any personal revelations, any notion of progress, without some notion of objective progress or truth? You might have a so-called epiphany, but it is a worthless, rationalistic epiphany. Any truth that is not measured against some objective truth is a rationalization to justify ones own behavior and beliefs. That is not epiphany, but self-indulgence.

Postmodernism has not allowed us to abandon theory itself, since postmodernism is in itself a theory. It essentially states that there is nothing but the interpretation.

Postmodernism is self-contradicting and intellectually lazy. It says there are no metanarratives, yet the statement that there are no metanarratives is a metanarrative of metanarratives. Postmodernism is an all-encompassing explanation of reality, even though it says that reality can never be known.

Postmodernism proposes that "there is no objective truth," which is an objective proposition. It denies objective propositions with an objective proposition.

Postmodernism says we cannot know objective truth, and even if there was an objective truth we would not know how to identify it anyways. But to say that there is no objective truth would require that you be able to identify the objective truth that there is no objective truth.

Postmodernism says that our truths are the truths created by the local communities that we inhabit, that define us. But which communities? Everyone inhabits multiple communites, from linguistic communities, to religious communities, to social communities, to work communities, to religious communities.

Even if we cannot know reality for certain, reality still imposes itself upon us. You can deny the proposition that certain foods are bad for you, but the reality of obesity and obesity related diseases will impose itself upon you. You can deny the existence of space and time, yet you are still confined by the reality of space and time. You can argue that your knowledge is that arsenic will give you super powers, until you take the arsenic and die. Objective reality has a funny way of imposing itself upon us.

Now, you might say that the things I talk about do not apply to art and literature, but to do so would be to admit that there is such a thing as objective reality, and that it can be known. Your merely saying that objective reality does not apply to art and literature, which is an intellectually lazy argument. There is a reality in language. Language contains a set of signs with a commonly agreed upon meaning. Without objective knowledge and reality in language, communities and civilization would be impossible, because it would be impossible for people to communicate with each other.

Postmodernism is the philosophy of consumerism, hedonism, nihilism, elitism, and narcissism

It is consumerist because it says that the only beliefs that matter are our own beliefs. This conveniently means that whatever choices we make, whatever we consume, however we consume, is good. The consequences of our consumption is good no matter what, even if our consumption destroys the earth, even if our consumption causes suffering elsewhere in the world, even if our consumption is really just an attempt to find fulfillment and happiness in buying stuff, even if our consumption ultimately leads to our own demise, it does not matter, because there is no truth but the local truth. Postmodernism arises in a time of almost unlimited choice, but it is the perspective of those, who, rather than trying to make good choices, decide that all choices are good.

It is the philosophy of hedonism, because ultimately, if there are no objective truths, then the only thing left to strive for is our own pleasure.

It is the philosophy of nihilism because it denies that any such thing as morality can exist. It proclaims to be a vaccine against totalitarianism, but ultimately postmodernism leads to totalitarianism. Without any objective truths or morals, the only thing you have left is the morality of raw power. Suppose somebody wants to impose their will on you. They could do so, and you could not argue against it, because everything is permissible. You think it is a cool philosophy because it means you can get free stuff. But you fail to see it to its logical conclusions.

It is the philosophy of elitism, because it is a philosophy that is only tenable to the privileged. Tell a woman in Africa who has suffered from genital mutilation that there is no such thing as objective good or evil. Try to convince a survivor of the holocaust that evil is just a perspective. Try to tell the thirty million slaves in the world that there is no right or wrong. I think you will have a hard time doing that.

It is the philosophy of narcissism, because it denies the validity of any interpretation but our own. Forget the author. Forget the artist. Forget what other people think. All that matters is what I think. Again, this paves the way for the morality of raw power. It is alienating and dehumanizing in nature, because it means that people can never connect with each other. It means that we are all irrevocably alone.

Finally, postmodernism leads to intellectual slavery. You think it is liberating to think that only your thoughts and your interpretations matter, but in fact this makes us nothing but sheep, and easy to manipulate. That little thing called reality returns. What you think you know you do not really know; what you think is your interpretation is really someone else's interpretation. Great literature can help you see that by challenging your worldview and assumptions; escapist literature either ignores this, or it confirms the prevailing worldviews, or it critiques them in bland and ineffectual ways.

Let me give some examples. Millions of women think that they are irredeemably ugly and unlovable. This is their interpretation of themselves, or so they think. But in fact that interpretation has been consciously created by the millions of images and subtle messages produced by cosmetic companies and entertainment industries.

How about movies, which are stories that we tell each other. Why do so many women chase “bad boys,” and get their hearts broken again and again. It is because movies like romcoms promote the idea that underneath their smug exteriors every player has a heart of gold. Players know this, and they often exploits those beliefs in women; “hey, give me a chance, I can change!” Are these good stories?

What about literature? Novels can promote the worst stereotypes, they can reinforce destructive world views, and they can legitimize prejudice. Just read this article: “Top Twenty Unfortunate Lessons Girls Learn From Twilight.”
http://www.bspcn.com/2009/11/25/top-...from-twilight/

Now, we both can agree that no one has the power to assign objective normative categories. It is an a objective fat that a diet junk food and a lifestyle inactivity will make most people obese. Whether or not you think this is good or not is up to you, but note that most people who decide that it is good to be obese are doing so either because of rationalizations, self-preservation, or as rebellion against the abuse and cruelty they may have endured in a society that often looks down on those with weight problems. Ultimately, they often delude themselves, only to realize their folly when it is too late. They had it their way, and now reality will have it its way.

So we come to my final point. I cannot say what kind of literature is good or not; I can only describe its effects, and then propose a choice. Escapist literature is nihilistic, for reasons that I have already discussed. Ultimately, it distracts us from confronting reality and is often a form of social procrastination. The “epiphanies” that we get from this literature are not epiphanies at all, but self-indulgence and rationalization. You can not have epiphanies without some form of objective truth. You can only confirm what you already believed. This kind of literature promotes intellectual laziness, and does nothing to help us to think critically about the world.

Now, there is nothing wrong with escapism. Thinking creatures need to escape from their thoughts from time to time or they will go insane. What I object to is the sole consumption of escapist literature, and the belief that there is no distinction between literature that engages reality and literature that tries to escape it, and that things can only be judged by the market and by how much pleasure they bring us.

Literature that I call engaging is literature that expands our worldview and forces us to question our own assumptions and beliefs. Do not misinterpret me; engagist literature and popularity are not mutually exclusive. Dickens was one of the most popular authors of all time, and he is without question a writer who tried to engage reality. In fact, most writers who have survived the test of time were enormously popular in their own time.

So there is a choice, between a philosophy that says you should live for pleasure, a philosophy that transforms you into a self-indulgent and rationalizing sheep, or a philosophy that says you should constantly strive to expand your mind, to become more than what you are, and to challenge all your own assumptions. Postmodernism claims to do the latter, but without a belief in some form of objectivity it is impossible to challenge anything.

As far as your dismissal of the founding fathers: whatever their motives, they created a governmental framework that has lasted for over two-hundred years and allows us to do things like go on chatrooms and debate without fear of some government intervention. Of course, our freedoms and liberties are a result of a process that has taken place over the last two hundred years, of people fighting to realize these freedoms for all, but this struggle has taken place within the framework that the founding fathers established. Now I know you are an anarchist, so you think that government is bad. But you idea of humanity is incredibly unrealistic. There will always be governments, because there will always be people who strive to consolidate their power, and as long as there are people who live only in their own worlds, the wolves will always be able to manipulate and control people. Don't think that if you lay down your weapon that someone else will not pick it up and use it against you. The only way an anarcho-capitalist society could emerge is through worldwide revolution. Those in power will never willingly relinquish it, and so the only way to remove them is by force. But the history of revolutions has shown that they more often than not lead to totalitarianisms and terrors.

Of course, I am always open to changing my mind. I am open to the realization that what I have argued are false assumptions, that I am merely mimicking someone else's beliefs or arguments. If you can make a compelling argument to overthrow my assumptions, an argument based on logic and not on self-contradictory statements and intellectually lazy propositions, then I would be more than willing to change my mind.