|
|
Due to spam and off-topic content, these forums are being phased out and replaced with new great books forums. Please join us!
Posted by nåte on January 20, 1999 at 02:24:25:
In Reply to: Re: Re: well I'll tell ya what post-modernism is... posted by D. Luded on January 19, 1999 at 16:35:21:
: : : : : I am currently a grad student at the University of Idaho, and I have been
: : : : : hearing a lot about the "concept" of post-modernism. However, noone has successfully
: : : : : given me a clear definition of what this seemingly farsical idea is. Also,
: : : : : I recently read a chapter in one of my textbooks on rhetoric and composition that
: : : : : half-heartedly mentioned post-modernism in relation to modern methods of teaching
: : : : : composition at the college level. I just can't see this as a valid ideal at this point.
: : : : : If anyone has any insight (and possibly a legitimate definition) please let me know.
: : : : : I would appreciate any email on the subject.
: : : : Postmodernism promotes an entirely different worldview with entirely different presuppositions that traditional, naturalistic secular humanism (modernism). Modernists see reality as possessing universal and absolute truths. Human reasoning is the key to apprehending these truths, and it depends on the laws of logic. Hence, logical inferences are valid, legitimate, and trustworthy; truth is objective and attainable.
: : : : Postmodernists, on the other hand, see truth as wholly pluralistic and relativistic. They reject the concept of a universe where reality can be apprehended entirely through rational process--human reasoning. There is no universal or absolute truth in any area of knowledge, including science, history, psychology, sociology, ethics, and religion.
: : : : Postmodernists believe that truth has its source in human ideas and experiences, as interpereted through individual cultures, rather than in a source outsided human thoughts and feelings--such as God. They ume that contradicting beliefs can be true at the same time--as they must, if truth depends on people, and people have different opinions on what is truth.
: : : Thanks for the reply. I don't agree with this philosophy, however, I appreciate your willingness to share your insights on this seemingly elusive philosophy. I still don't believe that post modernism has anything valid to add to composition theory, however, it does make an interesting discussion topic for possible composition ignments. Thanks Again.
: : not a problem, and neither do I adhere to such
: : a problematic irrational worldview. : )
: : Godbless...
:
: There is a less nihilistic view of postmodernism that humans, lacking omniscience, can only compare arguments which they have hitherto conceived. This subomniscient quality undermines the possibility of total urance that all conceivable arguments in an issue (philosophical or otherwise) have been conceived. In short, no matter how sure we might feel about a position, there is always the possibility that a superior counterargument exists, but hasn't been thought of yet. Another way of putting this is that there is a difference between knowledge with certainty and knowledge without a doubt. We are capable only of the latter.
: Hence, there might be absolute truths; as to whether we might be apprehending them is a question of doubt. Deconstructionism, in particular, explores this doubt (undecidability).
True, and there are absolute truths. I would agree with you in respect to our sub omniscience, and likewise our discretion of finding truths.
However, I feel that we need to be very cautious when dealing with the level of certainty that our methods of discernment lead. There are ways of testing what is true,
albeit the scientific method, or internal and external consistencies. Truth is never absolute in the sense of our perception, however, their are absolute truths. All truths
that we encomp, excluding logic and first principals which are self defining truths, depend on their probability of being correct. Now probability can be extremely
close to absolute truth, but never quite getting there.
My point is this... If we envelope the ideology that there is always some possibility that what we believe to be is true is false, (neglecting common logic,
first principals, extreme level of certainty due to scientific approach) then we will always be in a mode of uncertainty, unknowing how to deduce from logic and
common sense. This mindset can be destructive. Hence the many ways 'one' can invent the word "is"...
Humanity should always be in a state of 'truth testing'... never neglecting objectivity for sake of 'undecidability'... This promotes laziness and irrationality. We should
strive for what is objective, rational, consistent and absolute!
God bless...