OK, tweeps, here we go. I will be responding to this shortly. Pls read with an open mind. This is a good faith perspective on benefits of postmodernism from someone who sees the problem with what many (but not he) call the postmodern left. I disagree with his take on it, ofc.https://twitter.com/AreoMagazine/status/985725463778639872 …
-
-
The core of the problem with the original postmodernists was that they critiqued things on the grounds that they were metanarratives - large overarching explanations of complex phenomena - rather than on the grounds of whether or not they were true.
Show this thread -
Lyotards target "metanarratives" were Christianity, Marxism and science. It should be clear that if Christianity were true, it wouldnt matter in the slightest that it were also a large overarching explanation of complex phenomena. It would be the right explanation.
Show this thread -
The same is true of Marxism. If it explained society accurately, it wouldnt matter that that explanation were big and covered a lot of ground.
Show this thread -
Science isnt a metanarrative. Its a method but some of its theories are overarching explanations for complex phenomena - eg evolution fits that description perfectly. If the explanation is correct, it should not be suspicious purely on the grounds that it explains a lot.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.