The problem with writing about postmodernism is that then people want to discuss the fine points of postmodern theory with you.
I'm much more interested in how they boil down to ideas, principles & values that affect society. (I'm aware this is a bit Foucauldian!)
-
-
The difference is that I don't think knowledge itself is contingent or relative. We just have variable barriers to getting at it.
-
-
In its defence, though, to most people in most situations, this will be indistinguishable from "relative truth".
-
@BaileyNagy But that's the fallacy he's addressing. Ppl thinking that disagreement = no one truth rather than some people being wrong. -
I'm happy to call the (possibly) wrong truth "subjective (or relative) truth" since it's true to the person concerned.This may be unhelpful!
-
I think that's a problem. Holding as true something that is false is being wrong. We shld strive to be the least wrong we can.
-
Wittgenstein understood that. His whole philosophy has no positive elements. It's all about error correction.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm not sure I buy this. I think you do care that postmodernism is illogical. It's not *just* its effect on society.
-
https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/847238755832414208 … I want to address the roots, not pick over every nuance with a fine tooth comb.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
does seem Foucauldian, but idk. this has always been how people analyzed stuff. looking at principles. what did Foucault say that was new?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.