(among parrots, of course)
-
-
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl @MetaHumean
I agree, but the point of my original post was to share the definition of "power" that postmodernists are using, not share my support of it. More than willing to share my opinions about aesthetics, though, if that's where you want to pull the conversation.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @simpolism @MetaHumean
There is more to my critique than simply aesthetics. By making normative claims explicit (among parrots), "cryptonormativism" (a charge leveled by Habermas at Foucault) comes to light. Smuggling a value framework is generally associated with fallacious reasoning.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
E.g. (from "The Way We Argue Now" by A. Anderson)pic.twitter.com/HN55F3Yrc6
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl @MetaHumean
I mean, you read Lyotard's critique of science and he's not himself claiming to be value free, merely claiming that value free discourse does not exist altogether: science is always done for a Reason, even if we're not privy to it. Hanson would probably vis a vis
in
.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @simpolism @MetaHumean
I agree that a Platonic ideal of “value-freeness” is impossible, but I’ve found that I can keep engaged with authors who explicitly (even mockingly) state that they hate X for reasons Y and Z, then proceed to analyze it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl @MetaHumean
Yes I agree it is good when authors state upfront what their stances are, and it's a shame the postmodernists don't do that.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
isn't it just subtextual? it's not like these guys were secretive about their politics in priorities outside of their actual publications.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I agree that everyone knew what Foucault’s politics were, but I’d love to see an essay by Foucault trying to explain why “social hegemony” is intrinsically bad, for example.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This. A million times this. He claims to not be doing anything normative and just analyzing society, but he's clearly rendering moral judgments left and right. Yet he's methodologically committed to neither making them explicit or justifying them. It's all dark imprecation.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
adaptive camouflage defense. use only insinuation and subtext to make your arguments so any refutation can be answered with "but I never even said that" even though everybody knows he said that.
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.