I studied cognitive sciences, I read shit-ton of philosophers, I wrote my bachelor thesis on philosophy of mind, but still I don’t get what exactly is postmodernism
In: Other
My overly brief take on postmodernism is that it’s the realization of the ruse of modernity, and the ideological foundations that support it (be it Aesthetic, Economic, Political, Gender, etc.).
The problem – and, to my mind, the more interesting thinkers write in this direction – is what to then do, on a practical level, to make the world more just. At some point with Postmodern and Deconstruction, you have to bring in Ethics, otherwise you’re just playing around.
Modernism is the attempt to showcase objective truth. Post-modernism is an attempt to showcase subjective truth. Modernism has an objective reality at its basis, and post-modernism has subjective reality as its basis. In modernism, one thing is true. In postmodernism, everything and nothing is true.
A lot of postmodernism is a rejection of modernism, so it’s a bit disjointed, but postmodernism is also a positive movement based around subjectivity.
‘What is art’ is one example. Modernism has categories of art, and postmodernism rejects those categories and puts forward say a toilet and calls it art, because art is subjective. It’s a troll of modernism and also making a positive point – a toilet CAN be just as much art as the Sistine Chapel, it’s all about what reality you live in and what you consider art. That toilet as art is intended to make you realize how many of your notions of categories is subjective.
Way oversimplifying:
Mordernism believed that the truth wins and becomes dominant, therefore the mainstream dominant viewpoint was the truth. Modernism is earnest.
Postmodernism believes that dominance has the power to remain dominant regardless of truth. Postmodernism is ironic and meta.
So, the way I explain it to kids is by asking them to imagine that we started out in a box, but unaware that we were in it. Not a whole lot of exploration or pushing the boundaries. That’s our more traditional approach to art, philosophy, music, psychology, etc.
Then, I equate modernism with becoming aware of the box we’re in, defining the box, and exploring what might be outside of the box–all while still thinking in terms of the box.
Post-modernism would then be the realization (or decision) that there is no box, and that out notion of the box is a construct, and the process of deconstructing the box, so that we can stop approaching ideas with a preset mindset based on box vs not-box.
Idk if it makes sense to everyone else, but it works for my brain.
It’s just a reaction to modernism.
Modernism was a strive towards objective truths and absolutes.
Post-Modernism is the belief that not everything can be best understood using that framework.
It’s also a shift in epistemological thinking. Traditional (think religion) and Modernist (think science) views only took from that single source.
Post-Modernism is an epistemological pluralism, meaning we’re now taking from both sides.
Ancient thinkers couldn’t imagine things outside of their own experience
Modern people realized other people have other experiences, religions, music, etc. but they are not inclined to adopt those things
Post modern people can borrow from anything the encounter, edit, and create their own reality. Early hip hop before it had a name is a good example of postmodern.
If modernism can be phrased as “everything is new”, new materials like plastic, airplanes, computers, phones.
Socially, the end of colonialism, end of world wars, beginning of civil rights and the equality movement.
The end of tradition.
Post modernism is that “nothing is new”
We wear new materials that look like old jeans, new phones but the same difficulty in communication, new cars but still just to move you around. It is the epitome of “the more things change the more they stay the same”
It is an acceptance that we are all findementally the same, my difficulty in feeding my family is the same as tribesmen in Amazon.
I’ve read a few books on the subject, though I’m probably less knowledgeable than OP. My understanding is that it’s broadly speaking a power play via rhetoric. In a traditional sense of philosophical postmodernism, it is an alteration of language to fit the narrative of the user. This can result in a power struggle where the speaker is the only one who truly knows the meaning of his/her words, rendering him more knowledgeable about a subject than anyone else by definition. The focus becomes less about knowledge and truth and more about how it’s communicated.
From my limited understanding, Michel Foucault is one of the big originators of this school of thought and reading some of his work might help in getting a better picture.
I generally take it to mean something is innovative or pushing the boundary forward from what we consider current or modern.
I think it’s a philosophy/rhetorical standpoint that urges people to immediately question the traditional viewpoints of things. The reason that’s so vague is because when you do some research it mentions metaphysics, morality, meaning; pretty much anything you can think of.
One thing postmodernism has become defined for though is its vigorous efforts in questioning gender, history, identity, to name a few. It’s really become a device for political and social influence rather than a genuine philosophy. Skeptics and defiers of postmodernism have likened it to Marxism.
I could be wrong though so help me out people, lol.
Latest Answers