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 …
-
Show this thread
-
But it is useful because it argues much more clearly and honestly than often the case for what many see as the important role of deconstructing & challenging comfortable assumptions provided by pomo. I think this ultimately erroneous coz assumes pomo only & good way to do this
3 replies 4 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
I think it makes common error in its perception of role & nature of science by practically conflating it with 'common sense' (a comfortable metanarrative) but opens up possibility of productive conversation between ppl who value scepticism & critical interrogation of assumptions.
1 reply 4 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
About the best way to do that. I, as you know, take the position that pomo is a terrible way to do that because it dismantles indiscriminately without a coherent method for evaluating worth of systems /sets of beliefs/epistemologies it targets. Critical analysis needs this.
1 reply 3 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
This is the difference between a radical scepticism which takes everything apart but does not allow for the existence of objective truth and a productive scepticism which takes things apart in the service of finding truth.
1 reply 5 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
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.
1 reply 5 retweets 9 likesShow 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.
2 replies 4 retweets 12 likesShow 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.
-
-
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.
1 reply 7 retweets 26 likesShow this threadThanks. 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.