|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 27, 2019 9:19:20 GMT -5
It's a long article so it will take several posts to analyze it.
As for Lacan, a whole chapter was devoted to him in "Fashionable Nonsense, Postmodern intellectuals' abuse of science" by Sokal and Bricmont.
Luce Irigary is also mentioned there. The reason given for saying she is not a postmodernist? She was attacked by other postmodernists.
Does that mean Trotsky was not a real Communist because he was attacked by the Stalinists?
More later.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 6:49:44 GMT -5
First of all, this is a bad analogy: Unlike the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, "Postmodernism" is not a club that you can be a member of; there is no set, universally accepted criterium by which people's beliefs can be deemed 'postmodernist'; and most importantly of all, not a single postmodern philosopher ever called themselves a 'postmodernist' in public. So Hicks' definition of "postmodernism" would have been tenuous even if he had actually been consistent with it. Second of all, Stalinism and Trotzkyism are in fact recognized as two distinct branches of modern Marxist political ideology. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyismen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 28, 2019 14:47:56 GMT -5
First of all, this is a bad analogy: Unlike the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, "Postmodernism" is not a club that you can be a member of; there is no set, universally accepted criterium by which people's beliefs can be deemed 'postmodernist'; and most importantly of all, not a single postmodern philosopher ever called themselves a 'postmodernist' in public. So Hicks' definition of "postmodernism" would have been tenuous even if he had actually been consistent with it. Second of all, Stalinism and Trotzkyism are in fact recognized as two distinct branches of modern Marxist political ideology. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyismen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
Okay. Let's give another example. Schopenhauer and Hegel were both German Philosophers. Schopenhaur wrote a blistering critique of Hegel.
Does that mean Hegel was not really a philosopher?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 0:23:21 GMT -5
Same bad analogy. Philosophers do not have to hold similar positions. They merely have to write philosophical literature, teach students, and conduct some sort of academic or proto-academic work. Both Schopenhauer and Hegel graduated as philosophers, wrote philosophical treatises, and taught at universities, so they both fulfil those criteria independently of one another. And it would indeed be a mistake to simply assume that they both held identical or even very similar positions simply because they happened to both live in Germany around the same time and are today both commonly referred to as "idealists" by historians.
If Hicks had wanted to actually launch a critique, he could have done so by attacking one philosopher's position directly. But that would have required detailed research into individual philosopher's positions, evidently an effort Hicks was not prepared to make for a book about philosophy.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 1, 2019 2:31:05 GMT -5
Same bad analogy. Philosophers do not have to hold similar positions. They merely have to write philosophical literature, teach students, and conduct some sort of academic or proto-academic work. Both Schopenhauer and Hegel graduated as philosophers, wrote philosophical treatises, and taught at universities, so they both fulfil those criteria independently of one another. And it would indeed be a mistake to simply assume that they both held identical or even very similar positions simply because they happened to both live in Germany around the same time and are today both commonly referred to as "idealists" by historians. If Hicks had wanted to actually launch a critique, he could have done so by attacking one philosopher's position directly. But that would have required detailed research into individual philosopher's positions, evidently an effort Hicks was not prepared to make for a book about philosophy. Red Herring. And thank you for admitting that both Hegel and Schopenhauer were philosophers. That is exactly my point. Glad we agree. 
So someone can still be a postmodernist even if their work is attacked by another postmodernist.
Please tell McManus that he made an error here.
Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 15:58:20 GMT -5
So your point was that you were making a bad analogy?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 2, 2019 13:00:14 GMT -5
So your point was that you were making a bad analogy?
Obviously not. Do you have any evidence of this or are you just throwing a "Hail Mary" pass?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2019 15:09:52 GMT -5
So your point was that you were making a bad analogy? Obviously not. Do you have any evidence of this or are you just throwing a "Hail Mary" pass? Bob
I explained why in two posts in this very thread. You still haven't made a single argument in favor of your position, by the way. Why do you consider vocal critics of post modern philosophy "postmodernists"? Why is Foucault a "postmodernist"? Why is Marcuse? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 3, 2019 0:10:12 GMT -5
Obviously not. Do you have any evidence of this or are you just throwing a "Hail Mary" pass? I explained why in two posts in this very thread. Which posts? Where did I do that? Please cut and paste actual quotes. No need to ask me. Check these links: (PDF) The Postmodern Thought of Michel Foucault Related to ... www.researchgate.net/.../297750072_The_Postmodern_Thought_of_Michel_Fou... And this: "Michel Foucault's application of genealogy to formative moments in modernity's history and his exhortations to experiment with subjectivity place him within the scope of postmodern discourse. plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/ When did I ever say that Marcuse was a postmodernist? When did Hicks? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2019 0:14:08 GMT -5
So we are doing this song and dance again where you refuse to acknowledge the words you wrote in the exact same thread where I reply to these exact words. Fine. It's a long article so it will take several posts to analyze it. As for Lacan, a whole chapter was devoted to him in "Fashionable Nonsense, Postmodern intellectuals' abuse of science" by Sokal and Bricmont. Luce Irigary is also mentioned there. The reason given for saying she is not a postmodernist? She was attacked by other postmodernists. Does that mean Trotsky was not a real Communist because he was attacked by the Stalinists? More later. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2019 0:17:11 GMT -5
Let's picks this apart again:
You are making the argument that "postmodernists" are people mentioned in books by Sokal and Bricmont.
You are making the argument that essentialists can be "postmodernists" even though postmodernism supposedly rejects the concept of essence.
You are making the argument that two out of context quotes from goodreads are enough evidence to qualify someone as a "postmodernist".
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 3, 2019 2:32:12 GMT -5
Let's picks this apart again: You are making the argument that "postmodernists" are people mentioned in books by Sokal and Bricmont. No. That's simply one example. Here are some more: " One of the key figures in the fundamental re-orien- tation to postmodernist thought, however, was Jacques Lacan. ... grounded in Lacanian thought has found it fashionable to identify itself as "postmodern", even when such literature remains more "modern" than "postmodern" in its focus. THE POSTMODERNIST TURN: LACAN ... - HeinOnline heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/emint8...9And this: Lacan: An Adapted Approach to Postmodern Language Elvis Buckwalter Université de Paris III – La Sorbonne Nouvelle commons.pacificu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1250&context=eipMore: "The Real was what was lacking or absent from every totalising structural theory;[12] and in the form of jouissance, and the persistence of the symptom or synthome, marked Lacan's shifting of psychoanalysis from modernity to postmodernity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacanianism#The_Real:_PoststructuralismStill more: "The Postmodernist Turn: Lacan, Psychoanalytic Semiotics, and the Construction of Subjectivity in Law" heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/emint8&div=9&id=&page=Are you claiming that Irigary is an "Essentialist?" Did you ever read anything by Luce Irigary? Would an "Essentialist" make the following claim: "Is E=mc^2 a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us.What seems to me the possibly sexed nature of the equationis not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes fastest." No. I am making the argument that a quote has been reported and it stands unless you can demonstrate that that the source is false. Do you have any evidence that the source is unreliable? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2019 19:29:26 GMT -5
Let's picks this apart again: No. That's simply one example. Here are some more: " One of the key figures in the fundamental re-orien- tation to postmodernist thought, however, was Jacques Lacan. ... grounded in Lacanian thought has found it fashionable to identify itself as "postmodern", even when such literature remains more "modern" than "postmodern" in its focus. THE POSTMODERNIST TURN: LACAN ... - HeinOnline heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/emint8...9That article says that Lacan's works are "more modern than postmodern" in their focus. Neither of the two statements elaborate on why Lacan is supposed to be postmodern. You seem to think that in order for Lacan to qualify as postmodern, it is sufficient for somebody to claim as such in an article? That it doesn't even matter whether the article does more than mention Lacan by name once, that it is sufficient to find a single sentence claiming such? Shouldn't it matter to you whether these claims are verified or supported by evidence? You quoted McManus as saying that Irigary was being attacked by 'postmodernists' for her essentialist beliefs. In case you don't know what this means: "Essentialism is the view that every entity has a set of attributes that are necessary to its identity and function." Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EssentialismBut apparently, claiming that an equation can be sexed means that one does not belief that an entity can have a set of attributes necessary to its identity and function. What qualifies someone as "postmodernist"? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 3, 2019 23:48:08 GMT -5
Yes. I see we agree here.
It was an error to accuse Irigary of being an "Essentialist." Therefore McManus' was wrong to use this as "evidence" Irigary was not a Postmodernist.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2019 12:48:09 GMT -5
If not, then on what are you basing this argument? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 5, 2019 14:32:16 GMT -5
If not, then on what are you basing this argument?
I am basing my arguments on the quotes in "Fashionable Nonsense."
It is an objective fact that E=mc^2. Anyone who makes the claim that this equation is somehow dependent on "sex" it totally ignorant of science and the scientific method.
If someone gives you a plate of food with some excrement in it, would you eat the rest of the food just to check if it is also crap?
Bob
|
|
