I think we might just have to agree to disagree. For me, it's not about foundations, as such. It's about whether there's a coherent set of ideas that constitute a substantive philosophical/theoretical position that can be labeled "postmodernism".
-
For you, it's a label that designates a set of ideas and positions that don't necessarily cohere together, but which are dominant at this particular historical juncture. I think there are dangers in seeing it your way. You think my way misses the point!
Hey Helen. You might want to check out chapter 9 of Scruton's recent "Fools, Frauds & Firebrands". It's *exactly* your topic. He sees things a bit like you - PM is primarily political - though a more restricted take on what constitutes PM. He calls it the "nonsense machine".
