NationStates Jolt Archive

Postmodernisim is essentialy an idea where everyone and everything can be considered equally valid. Where everything is reletive and no one set of ideas or system of beliefs can be said to be above any other.

However, a problem with that is, does it remove any idea of achievement. I mean, if say Mr. Smith business executive works all his life in an attempt to provide well for his family and bettering himself in terms of what he acchieves (let us just say he is a graphic designer and freelances for various computer companies) and he ends up being very sucessful and leads a happy life in his job. Someone like him is considered the equivlent, acording to postmodernism, of Mr Jones who always worked on his farm. Just about managing to provide for his family but still very happy. He never acchieved anything great but continued to provide for his wife and children

Postmodernism would say that they are equal, and the same thing with nations (note here I am not talking about race, but political entities, countries). Postmodernism would argue that the UK, a country that has developed so much in the last several thousand years is no better than a native aboriginal tribe which has remained the same for thousands of years

My point being that Postmodernism would consider people equal despite the fact that one has obviously worked harder and accheived more than another. Do you think thats unfair, or am I misunderstanding postmodernism?

Uhm. As an academic concept, I have never seen "postmodernism" applied to people. I've also never really seen it used to imply equivalency between all things. True, postmodernism sort of breaks down the lines dividing "high" and "low" art, but this is very different from making all things equal.

It's more that, the "modernist" view was that things could be quantified and objectively known, whereas the "postmodernist" view was that things aren't as knowable, that there are many points of view on a subject. It's more about uncertainty and fragmentation than equality.

I think what you're looking for here is that Christianity and Thomas Jefferson believe in equality among people.

Postmodernisim is essentialy an idea where everyone and everything can be considered equally valid. Where everything is reletive and no one set of ideas or system of beliefs can be said to be above any other.

However, a problem with that is, does it remove any idea of achievement. I mean, if say Mr. Smith business executive works all his life in an attempt to provide well for his family and bettering himself in terms of what he acchieves (let us just say he is a graphic designer and freelances for various computer companies) and he ends up being very sucessful and leads a happy life in his job. Someone like him is considered the equivlent, acording to postmodernism, of Mr Jones who always worked on his farm. Just about managing to provide for his family but still very happy. He never acchieved anything great but continued to provide for his wife and children

Postmodernism would say that they are equal, and the same thing with nations (note here I am not talking about race, but political entities, countries). Postmodernism would argue that the UK, a country that has developed so much in the last several thousand years is no better than a native aboriginal tribe which has remained the same for thousands of years

My point being that Postmodernism would consider people equal despite the fact that one has obviously worked harder and accheived more than another. Do you think thats unfair, or am I misunderstanding postmodernism?

Well, I'm a Christian, not a postmodernist. But I am a philosophy major, so I'll give it a shot.

Technically speaking, those two people would be equivalent. The point is to do what works for you. You are your own judge on what is good or bad. So long as you end up happy, you're fine.

The second is little harder, and I think this is where we start to see some of the contradictory ideas involved in postmodernism. In theory, they are the same, but the UK might be judged harshly due to its past imperialism. They are the same because there is nothing to judge them against, but the UK is judged because it was imperialistic, which seems to imply that there is some standard to judge against.

Postmodernisim is essentialy an idea where everyone and everything can be considered equally valid. Where everything is reletive and no one set of ideas or system of beliefs can be said to be above any other.

However, a problem with that is, does it remove any idea of achievement. I mean, if say Mr. Smith business executive works all his life in an attempt to provide well for his family and bettering himself in terms of what he acchieves (let us just say he is a graphic designer and freelances for various computer companies) and he ends up being very sucessful and leads a happy life in his job. Someone like him is considered the equivlent, acording to postmodernism, of Mr Jones who always worked on his farm. Just about managing to provide for his family but still very happy. He never acchieved anything great but continued to provide for his wife and children

Postmodernism would say that they are equal, and the same thing with nations (note here I am not talking about race, but political entities, countries). Postmodernism would argue that the UK, a country that has developed so much in the last several thousand years is no better than a native aboriginal tribe which has remained the same for thousands of years

My point being that Postmodernism would consider people equal despite the fact that one has obviously worked harder and accheived more than another. Do you think thats unfair, or am I misunderstanding postmodernism?
It kind of sounds like you're hinting towards a mesh of ideas.
Mixing socialism, relativism, and literary or artistic philosophies to form a poitical question.
I would argue that both are of equal value as human beings, but that one contributes more to society, the other somewhat less.

But it's hard to value who's life was worth more based on economic status alone.
What if one was an asshole, and the other a gentleman?

Someone like him is considered the equivlent, acording to postmodernism, of Mr Jones who always worked on his farm. Just about managing to provide for his family but still very happy. He never acchieved anything great but continued to provide for his wife and children.
How is this in any way not achieving anything great? It sounds like he's doing magnificently.

If I understand postmodernism correctly, it's more of a group of theories that are critical of modernist theories than a specific theory. In general, postmodernist theories say that much of what we think is objective truth is actually a social construct. A good example, something I believe, is hyperreality, where parts of contemporary life are so simulated that they are more real than the real thing, so to speak.

As for acheivement, I would think the best answer would be that there is no objective standard for who is better than another, but in the eyes of the individual, one may be better than another.

Whut in the hell is going on in here? Lemme tell you college kids something: When I want a bull session, I'll go to the rodeo.

Post-modern what? Look: Modern is the best there is. When I go to the Best Buy, I'm gonna get me the best, most modernest air conditioner they got. I don't go get a post-modernest air conditioner. What would that even be? How much more modern than you get than state-of-the-everlovin'-art? Equal? Of course they ain't equal! The modern is the better. It's like comparing Cadillacs and Chevies.

But when we're talking about people, get all this modern, post-modern crap out of your ears. Of course people is equal. Some might make a little less money to some others, but that don't make them no less better. Except for criminals and Democrats. They're less equal. But only cause criminals is bad and cause Democrats don't got enough votes to matter.

Whut in the hell is going on in here? Lemme tell you college kids something: When I want a bull session, I'll go to the rodeo.

Post-modern what? Look: Modern is the best there is. When I go to the Best Buy, I'm gonna get me the best, most modernest air conditioner they got. I don't go get a post-modernest air conditioner. What would that even be? How much more modern than you get than state-of-the-everlovin'-art? Equal? Of course they ain't equal! The modern is the better. It's like comparing Cadillacs and Chevies.

But when we're talking about people, get all this modern, post-modern crap out of your ears. Of course people is equal. Some might make a little less money to some others, but that don't make them no less better. Except for criminals and Democrats. They're less equal. But only cause criminals is bad and cause Democrats don't got enough votes to matter.
This is a puppet, right?

It kind of sounds like you're hinting towards a mesh of ideas.
Mixing socialism, relativism, and literary or artistic philosophies to form a poitical question.
I would argue that both are of equal value as human beings, but that one contributes more to society, the other somewhat less.

But it's hard to value who's life was worth more based on economic status alone.
What if one was an asshole, and the other a gentleman?

Well there is the matter of farmers actually contributing something important to society i.e. food, and most business people don't actually contribute anything at all, merely buy things for one price and sell them for another price. They detract from society by absorbing capital through the entropy of others energy.

That can be seen as a good thing if people are made more productive by the businessman's efforts but it becomes a bad thing when those business people use their position to control the means by which others aquire things. Farmers never threaten to burn crops if not paid for them, craftsmen rarely threaten to destroy their works unless paid well for them, and laborers sometimes threaten to stop working if not paid well but they are considered somehow to be damaging society if they do. Just take a look at what Walmart has to say about labor unions.

See? It all adds up to there not being a reliable standard by which you can judge the total of another person's worth.

Whut in the hell is going on in here? Lemme tell you college kids something: When I want a bull session, I'll go to the rodeo.

Post-modern what? Look: Modern is the best there is. When I go to the Best Buy, I'm gonna get me the best, most modernest air conditioner they got. I don't go get a post-modernest air conditioner. What would that even be? How much more modern than you get than state-of-the-everlovin'-art? Equal? Of course they ain't equal! The modern is the better. It's like comparing Cadillacs and Chevies.

But when we're talking about people, get all this modern, post-modern crap out of your ears. Of course people is equal. Some might make a little less money to some others, but that don't make them no less better. Except for criminals and Democrats. They're less equal. But only cause criminals is bad and cause Democrats don't got enough votes to matter.

You're not into philosophy, are you? Modern philosophy ended about 200 years ago. Post-modern died out (for the most part) about 20 years ago.

A man can't speak his piece without getting insulted?

All I'm saying is that of course people is equal. We don't need no ivory tower hokum to say whether that is or isn't.

Well there is the matter of farmers actually contributing something important to society i.e. food, and most business people don't actually contribute anything at all, merely buy things for one price and sell them for another price. They detract from society by absorbing capital through the entropy of others energy.

That can be seen as a good thing if people are made more productive by the businessman's efforts but it becomes a bad thing when those business people use their position to control the means by which others aquire things. Farmers never threaten to burn crops if not paid for them, craftsmen rarely threaten to destroy their works unless paid well for them, and laborers sometimes threaten to stop working if not paid well but they are considered somehow to be damaging society if they do. Just take a look at what Walmart has to say about labor unions.
Sorry, but that's a steaming crock. Are you for real, with some of those statements?

It all adds up to there not being a reliable standard by which you can judge the total of another person's worth.That's what I was hinting at.

You're not into philosophy, are you? Modern philosophy ended about 200 years ago. Post-modern died out (for the most part) about 20 years ago.

And you ain't into much asides from philosophy, are ya? James Joyce was a modernist. And he warn't no 200 years ago.

And you ain't into much asides from philosophy, are ya? James Joyce was a modernist. And he warn't no 200 years ago.
Look, anyone in the South who spells contractions like "ain't" and "warn't" correctly, would never use, at the least, the word "warn't" in a sentence.
Not gonna happen.

With such a corny mask on, it's hard to take anything you have to say seriously.

Look, anyone in the South who spells contractions like "ain't" and "warn't" correctly, would never use, at the least, the word "warn't" in a sentence.
Not gonna happen.

With such a corny mask on, it's hard to take anything you have to say seriously.

Fine, you think I'm corny. But for not taking the Hawg seriously, you're taking up a fair amount of space talking about me. So y'kin either stop flapping your gums about how much you don't like me, or you kin ingage in the dialoge. We're talking Joyce now, if you wants to keep up.

Postmodernisim is essentialy an idea where everyone and everything can be considered equally valid.

...

Postmodernism would say that they are equal, and the same thing with nations (note here I am not talking about race, but political entities, countries). Postmodernism would argue that the UK, a country that has developed so much in the last several thousand years is no better than a native aboriginal tribe which has remained the same for thousands of years

You are confusing the equal validity which exists under some conceptions of postmodernist thought with an equality of value, and these two things aren't the same.

For example, postmodernist thought might view... urrrrhhh... Peanuts and Garfield strips as both equally valid expressions of late twentieth century western culture, but recognising the validity of the pair of them doesn't prevent us from creating aesthetic judgements as to which of the two we prefer or which is 'better'.

Fine, you think I'm corny. But for not taking the Hawg seriously, you're taking up a fair amount of space talking about me. So y'kin either stop flapping your gums about how much you don't like me, or you kin ingage in the dialoge. We're talking Joyce now, if you wants to keep up.
Well put, and I apologize. Continue with the stream of cheese however you please.

And you're right, Joyce was a modernist. It's difficult trying to put your finger on a real "theme" when it comes to post-modernism as a whole. It means slightly different things in different arenas of culture.

See? It all adds up to there not being a reliable standard by which you can judge the total of another person's worth.

I think you just helped me make a better sense of what I was trying to say

Seeing as according to postmodernism, it doesnt matter what standards we judge by, we are all equal, does the notion of postmodernism therefore defeat the idea of attempting to be better than anyone else on any scale.

You're not into philosophy, are you? Modern philosophy ended about 200 years ago. Post-modern died out (for the most part) about 20 years ago.
That begs the question... what do they call post-post-modern? "Future"?

Seeing as according to postmodernism, it doesnt matter what standards we judge by, we are all equal, does the notion of postmodernism therefore defeat the idea of attempting to be better than anyone else on any scale.

Again I see here the confusion between the equal validity afforded by pomo thought and a vague notion of equal value as a result of this.

And you ain't into much asides from philosophy, are ya? James Joyce was a modernist. And he warn't no 200 years ago.

Well, I'm a philosophy major, so that isn't too surprising. But I am fully aware that it takes time for philosophical ideas to filter down to the other disciplines. Today we're in a post-modern phase for most things, even though philosophy in general has left that behind.

Besides, we're talking philosophy here, so that's the important part.

I think you just helped me make a better sense of what I was trying to say

Seeing as according to postmodernism, it doesnt matter what standards we judge by, we are all equal, does the notion of postmodernism therefore defeat the idea of attempting to be better than anyone else on any scale.
Are you asking if postmodernism is nihilism?

You're not into philosophy, are you? Modern philosophy ended about 200 years ago. Post-modern died out (for the most part) about 20 years ago.
So what are we doing now? Post-post-modernism? Or have we gone around full circle back into whatever came first?
:D

That begs the question... what do they call post-post-modern? "Future"?

They haven't come up with a name for it yet. Philosophy has hit a bit of a bump in the road. We don't want to go in the direction that we've been going, but we're not sure which direction we want to go yet.

It's done this before, like at the end of the middle ages.

That begs the question... what do they call post-post-modern? "Future"?

Most attempts to go beyond it have just resulted in a return to Modernist values, and are oft termed retro-modernism, but these are actually not really escapes from postmodernism ( as such conscious adoptions of arbitrary sets of values are in line with the tenets of pm thought).

As far as terminology goes, it becomes clearer if one identifies the 'modern' period not with 'the now' but with (depending upon the exact discipline you are looking at) a period roughly 1700-1960. Post-modernism really just describes the period after this block.

Are you asking if postmodernism is nihilism?

I am arguing that postmodernism could be said to lead to nihilism. In the sense that if everyone is equal, and that no matter what you do you always will be, then there is little point in trying to achieve. Postmodernism can be said to remove the competition drive which exists in so many human cultures. Be it class, rank, business title, caste etc there is always a sense in human cultrue of some kind of hiarachy, often very sublte (eg the latest mobile phone, designer clothes etc), often very blatent (a cornel being above a private in the army). If all are equal in all judgements (as is the case according to Postmodernsism) then whats the point of attempting to climb the ladder as you would remain the same.

I am arguing that postmodernism could be said to lead to nihilism.

Have you looked at Nietzsche's argument against nihilism in conenction with this? - it is very applicable to the same crisis of value judgements in postmodernism.

I am arguing that postmodernism could be said to lead to nihilism. In the sense that if everyone is equal, and that no matter what you do you always will be, then there is little point in trying to achieve. Postmodernism can be said to remove the competition drive which exists in so many human cultures. Be it class, rank, business title, caste etc there is always a sense in human cultrue of some kind of hiarachy, often very sublte (eg the latest mobile phone, designer clothes etc), often very blatent (a cornel being above a private in the army). If all are equal in all judgements (as is the case according to Postmodernsism) then whats the point of attempting to climb the ladder as you would remain the same.

What post-modernism does is remove the outside standards that we use to judge things/people/etc. You can still judge them based on what you think is good or what makes you happy.

Have you looked at Nietzsche's argument against nihilism in conenction with this? - it is very applicable to the same crisis of value judgements in postmodernism.

I've read a little Nietzsche (I have a prof who did his disertation on him), but I don't think that he escapes the same issues that nihilism has. He wants to use human achievement as a guide, but I don't think that you can get any where with that, except perhaps utilitarianism in its base form.

For example, why would we want to base anything on human achievement? If we're just making it up as we go, then why don't we choose something else?

I've read a little Nietzsche (I have a prof who did his disertation on him), but I don't think that he escapes the same issues that nihilism has. He wants to use human achievement as a guide, but I don't think that you can get any where with that, except perhaps utilitarianism in its base form.

For example, why would we want to base anything on human achievement? If we're just making it up as we go, then why don't we choose something else?

The actual argument I was refering to occurs in the early stages of The Will To Power, which even being at one's most charitable to it, is something of a mongrel work. Anyhow: he points out that nihilism is a rejection of the world, but the nihilist has no actual external framework of values by which to judge the world, thus a potential nihilist is as free to embrace the world and affirm it as to reject it and deny it - there is no absolute standard which dictates we must do one or the other, they are both just arbitrary decisions - the choice then becomes a personal one, and affirming the world avoids the inherent contradiction (not that this is in itself a 'bad' thing) within nihilism, as it creates a set of values by which to judge and appraise the world. Given that post-modernism faces the same crisis as that faced by Nietzsche (skipping over the question as to whether Nietzsche was or was not himself a postmodernist) we can see that this argument is as equally valid when employed against the nihilism that could arise from postmodernism as that which could arise from a Nietzschean transvaluation of all values.

Reading over this I see that I haven't really answered your second question: we are free to form value judgements based on anything we want - for Nietzsche although on the surface he is judging on the basis of human achievements in the fields of politics, it is in fact the field of culture - bizarrely enough he makes an awful lot of mention of dance - that he places real stock upon, and his apparent political emphasis is just so as to provide a background against which such lively arts can flourish.

This wooden idea is your method of repetition.

This wooden idea is your method of repetition.

Those who don't repeat the past are condemned to remember it.

Gertrude Stein said that's enough, but I know that that's not enough now.

The actual argument I was refering to occurs in the early stages of The Will To Power, which even being at one's most charitable to it, is something of a mongrel work. Anyhow: he points out that nihilism is a rejection of the world, but the nihilist has no actual external framework of values by which to judge the world, thus a potential nihilist is as free to embrace the world and affirm it as to reject it and deny it - there is no absolute standard which dictates we must do one or the other, they are both just arbitrary decisions - the choice then becomes a personal one, and affirming the world avoids the inherent contradiction (not that this is in itself a 'bad' thing) within nihilism, as it creates a set of values by which to judge and appraise the world. Given that post-modernism faces the same crisis as that faced by Nietzsche (skipping over the question as to whether Nietzsche was or was not himself a postmodernist) we can see that this argument is as equally valid when employed against the nihilism that could arise from postmodernism as that which could arise from a Nietzschean transvaluation of all values.

Reading over this I see that I haven't really answered your second question: we are free to form value judgements based on anything we want - for Nietzsche although on the surface he is judging on the basis of human achievements in the fields of politics, it is in fact the field of culture - bizarrely enough he makes an awful lot of mention of dance - that he places real stock upon, and his apparent political emphasis is just so as to provide a background against which such lively arts can flourish.

I see nihilism as less a rejection of the world and more a realization that there is no objective standard to judge the world. As such, Nietzsche doesn't fix this problem. He just uses another arbitrary standard to judge the world. I am free to use his standard or another or none. Nihilism seems pretty rational, but Nietzsche's system seems to be somewhat contradictory.

I see nihilism as less a rejection of the world and more a realization that there is no objective standard to judge the world. As such, Nietzsche doesn't fix this problem. He just uses another arbitrary standard to judge the world. I am free to use his standard or another or none. Nihilism seems pretty rational, but Nietzsche's system seems to be somewhat contradictory.

The whole point is that it is constructive, any internal contradictions become meaningless when one sees that as human beings we are free to create values in the world.

The whole point is that it is constructive, any internal contradictions become meaningless when one sees that as human beings we are free to create values in the world.

So why don't I create a set of values which are traditionally Christian? Technically speaking, that would follow Nietzsche's criteria. It's constructive, and I'm free to create values as I see fit.

So why don't I create a set of values which are traditionally Christian? Technically speaking, that would follow Nietzsche's criteria. It's constructive, and I'm free to create values as I see fit.

You are entirely free to do so: the real question is are these values sufficiently constructive and engaging to hold your interest?

You are entirely free to do so: the real question is are these values sufficiently constructive and engaging to hold your interest?

Sure there are. But Nietzsche's values don't interest me. So I can reject them, right?

Sure there are. But Nietzsche's values don't interest me. So I can reject them, right?

And they're sociopathic and authoritarian to boot.

And they're sociopathic and authoritarian to boot.

How much Nietzsche have you actually read?

How much Nietzsche have you actually read?

None directly, but if wikipedia articles have any validity, I can safely say he was quite authoritarian and sounded sociopathic. In addition, there are sites that support my claim:

"What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome."

"Morality is herd instinct in the individual."

"(The supermen) would mold man as an artist would...(to) achieve that immense energy of greatness, to mold the future man by breeding, and, at the same time, by destroying, millions of bungled humans - we must not be deterred by the suffering we create, the equal of which has never been seen!"

"...an overman [übermensch] uses the will-to-power to influence and dominate the thoughts of others creatively from generation to generation. In this way, his existence and power live on even after he dies... "

—http://www.stanford.edu/~pj97/Nietzsche.htm

Boy howdy, now we're establishing opinions on writers based on the opinions other writers might have an hold based on selections of exceprepts of itty little bits of their writin! Whee-haw!

How do you all get that postmodernism has anything but anything to do with nihilism? Now that there po-mo might well knock down the walls between the disciplines, but it's got nothin but nothin to do with nothin. This means that while yonder linguist might be able to bring some new prespective to these government folks over here, or yonder philosopher might have some useful ideers to share with the communication department up at the JC, these folks aint anyhow excused from making sense. This postmodern stuff is held to the same sort of academic standards as any other type of theorizin.

Why caint you pinkos see that broadening horizons doesn't haveta entail also losing any sense of discrimination? Now, I just might'n be the fat, greasy, corrupt politickal boss of a peaceful lil bucolic county, but I can tell y'all that Vineland just ain't no Lot 49. Even in the Hazzard County Junior Collitch, the long-haired socilogy professers can tell the po-mo shit from the po-mo shinola.