Convos between PoMos and rationalists who aren't absolutists - we can know nothing/everything for certain - usually come down to degree.
-
Show this thread
-
They both accept we have limitations on what we can know & that we can discover things about our world and use them to our advantage.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
But PoMos make the problems with being absolutely certain of knowledge 90% of the picture & the fact that we have medicine, tech etc -10%
3 replies 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
And that's the difference in motivation, I think. PoMos don't want to attain knowledge. They want to revel in confusion & deconstruction.
4 replies 2 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I think I'd be careful about ascribing negative motives. My knowledge of PoMo is limited, but I think it starts with a potentially...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @burtonad @HPluckrose
... positive idea - that knowledge isn't a thing independent of social construction. Being able to describe the "how" as well as the ...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @burtonad @HPluckrose
... "what" has value. In other words, people we disagree with may not have evil motives.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @burtonad
I don't need to be told this. You have decided they'd be evil if this true. They call it embracing the messiness of human experience.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Human experience is messy. How we make sense of the mess is why we do the work, no?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I do, yes. PoMos don't want to sort out the mess. They like it as it is & love words like fluidity, ambiguity, hybrid, transgressive, aporia
-
-
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.
