|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 3, 2019 2:44:16 GMT -5
I find it very interesting that the author of this article begins his essay on Postmodernism with Kant. Then he goes on to mention Hegel, and Nietzsche.
This is the same order that Hicks followed in his book.
And this author gives a lot of quotes. 
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2019 19:14:49 GMT -5
You should definitely take some time out of your busy schedule to actually read the article, then.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 3, 2019 23:01:27 GMT -5
You should definitely take some time out of your busy schedule to actually read the article, then.
I did. Did you?
The author's discussion of the roots of Postmodernism starts with Kant and then goes in order through Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger.
Same order as Hicks.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2019 12:46:52 GMT -5
What's your point?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 5, 2019 14:36:24 GMT -5
A couple of years ago, I did a post on Hicks' claim that postmodernism had its roots in Kant. You posted that there was no proven connection.
Now it seems that this connection is accepted by mainstream philosophy.
And this article gives plenty of quotes.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2019 0:56:38 GMT -5
Where does the article mention "roots"?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 6, 2019 15:56:55 GMT -5
Where does the article mention "roots"?
In the first sentence:
"The philosophical modernism at issue in postmodernism begins with Kant's “Copernican revolution..."
I used the following definition of "roots":
"2. the basic cause, source, or origin of something: :
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2019 20:31:28 GMT -5
Note how it says "the philosophical modernism at issue in postmodernism", not "postmodernism".
Kant's Copernican Turn is here described as the beginning of modernism (i.e. Hegelianism, Marxism, Scientific and Logical Positivism, Structuralism, Psychoanalysis...) rather than post-modernism. Many philosophers of the post-modern era built their philosophy in reaction to, or as a rejection of, modernist systems such as Marxism, Psychoanalysis (Foucault), Structuralism (Derrida, Ricoeur), or Positivism (Feyerabend, Kuhn).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2019 20:54:49 GMT -5
Tell me whether you consider any of these claims truth-destroying or Marxist in outlook:
Hegel's Dialectics of History, Freud's Psychoanalysis, Marx's ideas of progress towards communism, etc. - all these old philosophies have tried to build overarching narratives to explain humanity's place in a scientific world. But with the expansion of the scientific method into a wide variety of fields, even these narratives have become obsolete, and science has started to develop independently of philosophical prerogatives.
Since the 1960s people have become skeptical about old narratives or progress or decadence, and have started to develop new disciplines of research that exist independently of these narratives. On one hand, there is no 'overarching' discipline like philosophy that could hold all of these together, but on the other hand no single field of research can make legitimate value judgements over the utility of any of the other disciplines, so each of them is free to do their own research as they see fit.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 6, 2019 22:39:09 GMT -5
Note how it says "the philosophical modernism at issue in postmodernism", not "postmodernism".
Kant's Copernican Turn is here described as the beginning of modernism (i.e. Hegelianism, Marxism, Scientific and Logical Positivism, Structuralism, Psychoanalysis...) rather than post-modernism. Many philosophers of the post-modern era built their philosophy in reaction to, or as a rejection of, modernist systems such as Marxism, Psychoanalysis (Foucault), Structuralism (Derrida, Ricoeur), or Positivism (Feyerabend, Kuhn).
Did the author claim that the origins of postmodernism can be traced back to Kant and Hegel or not. If not, then why did he mention them at all?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2019 12:39:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 8, 2019 18:06:31 GMT -5
That's like saying that World War One started because a lone Serbian killed Archduke Ferdinand.
WWI had roots that went back for decades. To ignore that is to get a very distorted picture of major conflict.
The author's claim is that Postmodernism had additional causes that go back at least to Kant. And he provided plenty of evidence.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2019 21:53:28 GMT -5
Where do you get that from? The author makes no such claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 8, 2019 22:33:36 GMT -5
Where do you get that from? The author makes no such claims.
My claim was "The author's claim is that Postmodernism had additional causes that go back at least to Kant. And he provided plenty of evidence."
I got that from the first paragraph of the article I posted at the top of this thread.
"1. Precursors
The philosophical modernism at issue in postmodernism begins with Kant's “Copernican revolution,” that is, his assumption that we cannot know things in themselves and that objects of knowledge must conform to our faculties of representation (Kant 1787)."
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2019 12:45:09 GMT -5
'Modernism' is not 'postmodernism'. The two are different terms for entirely different phenomena, and I already explained how in the posts you already replied to.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 9, 2019 13:33:18 GMT -5
'Modernism' is not 'postmodernism'. The two are different terms for entirely different phenomena, and I already explained how in the posts you already replied to.
Don't look at me. I took that quote directly from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The article was peer-reviewed. Go argue with them. I'm sure they will be more than thrilled when you point out their "mistake." 
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2019 15:29:30 GMT -5
But it's not their mistake. The author of the Stanford Encyclopedia very clearly uses the term " modernism" in the paragraph you quoted, and is very careful throughout the article not to make the mistake of drawing a simplistic cause-effect relationship. The author notes how postmodern philosophy developed as a reaction to modernism, rather than inventing a "counter-Enlightenment" that never existed, the way Hicks did.
It's you who apparently doesn't notice the difference between modernism and postmodernism, even when it's repeatedly being pointed out to you. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 9, 2019 19:13:34 GMT -5
But it's not their mistake. The author of the Stanford Encyclopedia very clearly uses the term " modernism" in the paragraph you quoted, and is very careful throughout the article not to make the mistake of drawing a simplistic cause-effect relationship. I love the way you quote selectively. Yes, the author used the word "modernism." But you snatched that isolated word out a sentence and changed the meaning of the quote. The full quote is: "The philosophical modernism at issue in postmodernism begins with Kant's “Copernican revolution,” that is, his assumption that we cannot know things in themselves and that objects of knowledge must conform to our faculties of representation (Kant 1787)." In other words, the "modernism" he is referring to goes all the way back to Kant. Which is exactly the point Hicks was making. But the Modernism the author is talking about "begins with Kant's 'Copernican Revolution'...which is exactly what Hicks said. BTW McAnswer, Hicks didn't invent the Counter Enlightenment. A two minute search of Google would have told you this. Take a look: "It was first mentioned briefly in English in William Barrett's 1949 article "Art, Aristocracy and Reason" in Partisan Review. He used the term again in his 1958 book on existentialism, Irrational Man; however, his comment on Enlightenment criticism was very limited.[2] In Germany, the expression "Gegen-Aufklärung" has a longer history. It was probably coined by Friedrich Nietzsche in "Nachgelassene Fragmente" in 1877.[4] Lewis White Beck used this term in his Early German Philosophy (1969), a book about Counter-Enlightenment in Germany. Beck claims that there is a counter-movement arising in Germany in reaction to Frederick II's secular authoritarian state. On the other hand, Johann Georg Hamann and his fellow philosophers believe that a more organic conception of social and political life, a more vitalistic view of nature, and an appreciation for beauty and the spiritual life of man have been neglected by the eighteenth century.[2]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenment#Development_and_significant_peopleAnd it's you who doesn't notice that the term "Counter-Enlightenment" has been used since 1949, over 10 years before Hicks was born. How can you claim that Hicks invented it? Did he use a time machine? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 13:26:00 GMT -5
I love the way you throw around accusations with no basis in fact. It was you who quoted that paragraph, not me. Unlike Hicks, the article uses a lot of terminology from academic philosophy, and assuming that you would not be familiar with that terminology because you never studied philosophy, I tried to explain some of that terminology relevant to our argument. That was a mistake, and I am really sorry that I did this.
I should have known better than to engage with you in what you clearly believe to be an attack on a fellow Randian and an assault on your core beliefs.
This entire long, multi-thread discussion has been a huge waste of time. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 10, 2019 14:05:48 GMT -5
I love the way you throw around accusations with no basis in fact. It was you who quoted that paragraph, not me. Unlike Hicks, the article uses a lot of terminology from academic philosophy, and assuming that you would not be familiar with that terminology because you never studied philosophy, I tried to explain some of that terminology relevant to our argument. That was a mistake, and I am really sorry that I did this.
I should have known better than to engage with you in what you clearly believe to be an attack on a fellow Randian and an assault on your core beliefs.
This entire long, multi-thread discussion has been a huge waste of time.
In other words, you have no counter-arguments so you make totally unsupported claims about alleged errors.
This is still the FACTS board, and you have to provide evidence, not invective.
Bob
|
|
ppnl
Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by ppnl on Apr 10, 2019 0:30:23 GMT -5
Bob,
Postmodernism is a reaction to modernism in the same way that communism is a reaction to capitalism. You would not say that communism is "rooted" in capitalism and you should not say postmodernism is "rooted" in modernism. They are in fact rejections of major aspects of each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 12, 2019 13:26:47 GMT -5
Bob, Postmodernism is a reaction to modernism in the same way that communism is a reaction to capitalism. You would not say that communism is "rooted" in capitalism and you should not say postmodernism is "rooted" in modernism. They are in fact rejections of major aspects of each other.
Actually, I don't think that postmodernism is rooted in modernism at all. I think that it is the end of a chain that goes all the way back to Kant and Rousseau in the Counter-Enlightenment.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 13:42:23 GMT -5
What you call "the Counter-Enlightenment" is what most people outside the Randian bubble call Modernism. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 12, 2019 16:18:38 GMT -5
What you call "the Counter-Enlightenment" is what most people outside the Randian bubble call Modernism.
LOL! Are you claiming then that the author of the lead article in this thread, an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is inside the "Randian Bubble?" Because he also traces the roots of Postmodernism all the way back to Kant.
Of course your Postmodernist bubble is so much better, right?
Bob
|
|
