From: rhinoceros (rhinoceros@freemail.gr)
Date: Wed Jul 24 2002 - 21:07:40 MDT
[Joe Dees quoting Andy Lamey]
What bothers many critics is how postmodernism defies
elementary logic.
Consider the statement "Everything is subjective." This
idea is nonsensical, anti-postmodernist Thomas Nagel has
written, "for it would itself have to be either subjective or
objective. But it can't be objective, since in that case it
would be false if true. And it can't be subjective, because
then it would not rule out any objective claim, including the
claim that it is objectively false."
[rhinoceros]
Although I don't care much for postmodernism, this line of
reasoning seems flawed. If everything is subjective, then
this statement is subjective too; then there is no such a
thing as an objective claim that this statement is objectively
false.
Of course then logic would be subjective too, so you just
listen to the BS anyone has to say, you "interpret the text"
by applying your subjective logic to it, and accept it as true
or not.
I don't think postmodernism can be refuted by pure logic.
Perhaps arguments against its utility and its practical
implications are more likely to make someone "not to
choose" it.
[Joe Dees quoting Andy Lamey]
Now Fish is involved in another contretemps. In the
current Harper's, he attacks journalists who criticized
postmodernism following September 11. Writing in The
New York Times on Sept. 22, Edward Rothstein lamented
that "postmodernists challenge assertions that truth and
ethical judgment have any objective validity." Surely the
terrorist attacks were indisputably wrong and show the
poverty of such relativism, Rothstein and others argued.
[rhinoceros]
Again, although I don't care much for postmodernism,
ethical judgement in particular *is* highly relativistic and
culturally tainted. So, what exactly was ethically wrong
with September 11? I guess it was bombing unsuspecting
citizens where they live or work, and this seems to be an
objective ethical judgement in the context of most cultures
today.
Objective, but not absolute. I have heard several people
using this ethical argument, and at the same time arguing
that "collateral damages" in Afghanistan are a necessary
evil justified by a "good cause" -- making the world safe
(which I don't think is going to happen).
That said, I think critique based on emotional factors is not
exactly honest.
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25785>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:49 MDT