Quote from: Kyle AaronAh, the Founder school of thought. The Founder gets to decide everything about the philosophy. So modern academics aren't doing deconstructionism, Dubya isn't a Christian, Stalin wasn't a Marxist, etc.

I don't believe that. A philosophy is what people make of it, which is not always what the founder(s) of it intended.

That's very good of you, but you're not really reading what I said. I said that they weren't "deconstructionists", not that they weren't deconstructing texts. I said that they weren't deconstructionists because no one is, because deconstruction isn't the kind of thing you can be a -ist of. They might be literary critics who deconstruct things, or philosophers who deconstruct things, or so on, but it's important to make the distinction here. A deconstructionist would be someone who professes the principles of deconstruction, but deconstruction doesn't have principles. Derrida didn't set any up, and no one worth their salt since has either, since this feature is one of the important and unique things about deconstruction.

Am I one of those lazy speakers? Fuck....

Here's an interesting article by James Boyle about Post Modernism, Justice & Ronald Dworkin. I thought I'd just expand the context of post modern application for anyone whose interested in the non-Tarantino aspect of this discussion.

http://www.law.duke.edu/boylesite/pomo.htm

Also don't take anything the Pundit says about this topic seriously. Flaming keystrokes of truth....what a load of bullshit.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RAm I one of those lazy speakers? Fuck....

Here's an interesting article by James Boyle about Post Modernism, Justice & Ronald Dworkin. I thought I'd just expand the context of post modern application for anyone whose interested in the non-Tarantino aspect of this discussion.

http://www.law.duke.edu/boylesite/pomo.htm

Also don't take anything the Pundit says about this topic seriously. Flaming keystrokes of truth....what a load of bullshit.

Regards,
David R

The problem with most analytic philosophers writing about "postmodernism" is that there's no such thing to talk about. Conflating Baudrillard with Derrida with Gadamer with Foucault with Heidegger with Bataille with Merleau-Ponty with Irigaray with de Man with Lacan with Kojeve with Zizek with Vattimo with Ricoeur with Negri and so on is like conflating Plato, Kant and Russell into a single school and then talking about them as possessing unified opinions suitable for general discussion.

The linked analysis suffers from that problem. One of the reasons that Rorty, for example, had something substantive and interesting to say about Derrida's thought was that he engaged with Derrida's thought, and not "postmodernism".

Quote from: WerekoalaPost-modernism (n) - affectation involving taking anything and everything that exists in the "real world" and twisting it 90' out of phase simply because it pisses off mommy and daddy (or, alternately, "the Man" (q.v.)). Usually only expounded upon by those who can't face the "real world" and have aversions to things like work and personal hygene. Proponents tend to throw around large words and larger philosophers, knowing it tends to distract and/or bore their "square" opponents during interminable monologues (referred to as "debates" or "conversations" even though there is clearly only one side to them). This allows them to claim victory when in reality they've just been reading from the back of a cereal box or, more frequently, quoting each other. Prone to saying things like "Its only blue because someone DECIDED TO CALL IT THAT! What if one day we decided it was green instead?" in a tone that implies great profundity. Usually found in large colonies at colleges, on internet fora, or working the night shift at Wendy's.

This is a generic criticism of philosophers and philosophy students (and to some degree of all academics) that is centuries old.  In the 18th century you had Swift's satire of them, and quips like them debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  I think it's fair enough -- newly-intellectual college students can be pretty annoying.  However, it doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with post-modernism, since it's not like the Beat philosophers in the fifties were any different on this front -- likewise whoever was in the thirties, twenties, etc.  

Quote from: dsivisAs an archeology student, that's been my experience with it as well. A big part of it in Anthropology is the Anthropologist doing an ethnographic account of themselves as ethnographers; it's nice for identifying biases but is otherwise navel-gazing that wastes resources that could often be better spent on salvage ethnography.

Another part of it, as Pundit mentioned, is cultural relativism. Once again, it's good for exposing western/euro/colonialist/etc bias but tends to be taken farther, in that its adherents often place native opinion/myth on the same pedastal as scientific analysis. It's that kind of crap that can let blatantly-false propaganda like creationism into public schools.

OK, this is a more reasonable criticism.  It sounds like you feel that the exposing biases is good in principle, but it isn't done efficiently and wastes resources.  I'm not familiar with how anthropology is going, so I can't comment on that.  I'm willing to believe that it's commonly mishandled.  

I am familiar with science education, though.  From what I have seen, education could use some false material in it.  From my view, kids are too often taught to accept by rote a list of facts, rather than being taught critical thinking and how science really works.  The lists of facts aren't very engaging, and they will often doubt them as just another set of beliefs.  For me, the tragedy of creationism is that often evolution is not being taught out of fear of controversy -- which to me is worse than the possibility that kids will hear about creationism.  

I agree that myth like creationism should be on the same pedestal as science, and that when on equal footings, science should kick creationism's ass.  Whereas I know that in practice, scientists will commonly refuse to debate with creationists for fear of being less convincing or giving them space.  I think it should be debated, and science should win those debates.  If science does not win the debates, then we should fucking fix how we explain science until it does win.  

Quote from: dsivisThe final pomo straw (for me, anyway) is how its proponents often claim to be "voices for the indigenous oppressed" but their writing can generally only be understood by overacheiving graduate students. That's just hypocritical posturing.

I'm not sure what the claims are that you've seen.  However, from what you say, it sounds more misguided than hypocritical -- since "speaking for" is different than "speaking to".  A lawyer can speak for his client in complex legalese that his client doesn't understand and not be hypocritical. In principle, it is better for someone to be included in on a conversation where they will be affected.  If they aren't present, then someone might legitimately bring up their point of view.  The misguided part comes if (as it sounds like) a post-modernist has a particular right to speak for anyone.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine.... into a single school and then talking about them as possessing unified opinions suitable for general discussion.

The linked analysis suffers from that problem. One of the reasons that Rorty, for example, had something substantive and interesting to say about Derrida's thought was that he engaged with Derrida's thought, and not "postmodernism".

Which if I'm not mistaken (it's been years since I read the linked essay) something Boyle acknowledges. His analysis IMO is one of the more cogent arguments against some of Dworkin's ideas - some of which have roots in the works of some of the writers so far mentioned.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Kyle AaronAh, the Founder school of thought. The Founder gets to decide everything about the philosophy. So modern academics aren't doing deconstructionism, Dubya isn't a Christian, Stalin wasn't a Marxist, etc.

You're correct when you say that Dubya isn't a Christian.

Quote from: riprockYou're correct when you say that Dubya isn't a Christian.

Yeah - its a phonetic proounciation of a letter in the alphabet.

You were referring to George W. Bush - right?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineAllow me to clarify, since you seem to've missed the point and merely taken it as an insult.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-ist

Deconstruction is the ongoing subversion of the sorts of things one can be an -ist about. No one, not you, not I, not some vast historical and cultural trend nor anything else, can be "deconstructionist". Because of this impossibility, the word is a misunderstanding.

That argument is a bit like claiming that because Anarchy is actually opposed to organized movements, you can't possibly be part of an "Anarchist Movement", and that therefore the terrorists who blew up mailboxes and killed civil servants couldn't possibly have existed.

RPGPundit

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIt's a baseless slander, the academic equivalent of "Jews did WTC!" No one has ever been able to find any person Foucault infected with HIV. Similarly, Foucault died in 1984, well before AIDS had a known pathology (IIRC, also before it was recognised as a single syndrome instead of a number of unrelated immunodeficiency cases). To intentionally infect people with it, he would have needed medical knowledge that was only discovered and organised after his own death.

Foucault knew he was dying of AIDS, he knew it was a disease that was almost certainly sexually transmitted. He also denied the possibility of the existence of either objective truth or morality.
If you've read foucault you'd know that he was obsessed with three things: sex, death, and power exchange.
For him, the ultimate degenerate thrill was, in the context of BDSM-sexual activity involving the exchange of power, sharing death with his partners.
For foucault, the only truth was Power. What is true is only what is most powerful, and that power was directed by semantic force.

Foucault thus spent his dying days visiting bath-houses and infecting people.

Whether or not there is debate about his motives, there's no debate about what he factually did.  Its perfectly logical within the man's world view that he would have done it intentionally. And its the dirty truth that so many post-modernists today desperately want to try to ignore because Foucault is far too good of a case study of the logical conclusion of post-modernist thinking: one where even the most basic of human values are shat upon and the only thing that matters is power.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkimI am familiar with science education, though.  From what I have seen, education could use some false material in it.  From my view, kids are too often taught to accept by rote a list of facts, rather than being taught critical thinking and how science really works.  The lists of facts aren't very engaging, and they will often doubt them as just another set of beliefs.  For me, the tragedy of creationism is that often evolution is not being taught out of fear of controversy -- which to me is worse than the possibility that kids will hear about creationism.

I agree that myth like creationism should be on the same pedestal as science, and that when on equal footings, science should kick creationism's ass.  Whereas I know that in practice, scientists will commonly refuse to debate with creationists for fear of being less convincing or giving them space.  I think it should be debated, and science should win those debates.  If science does not win the debates, then we should fucking fix how we explain science until it does win.  

Well you see, the postmodern view point is that objective truth does not exist. As such, Creationism is just as valid as Evolution, and the only thing that matters is who makes the better argument or who manages to apply the best use of power (the particular emphasis of which of these two applies and how vary from philosopher to philosopher, but the basic point of objective truth being impossible and thus all points of view being equally valid in principle stand).

So basically, Post-modernism says, at best, that if the creationists can make a more convincing use of language than you, then they are right; and at worst, that if the creationists can round evolutionary scientists up and beat or kill them until they give in and submit to creationism, then the creationists are right.

QuoteI'm not sure what the claims are that you've seen.  However, from what you say, it sounds more misguided than hypocritical -- since "speaking for" is different than "speaking to".  A lawyer can speak for his client in complex legalese that his client doesn't understand and not be hypocritical.

Except that typically, a lawyer is contracted by his client or at least by someone connected to said client in order to defend him. Whereas these academics are self-styled representatives of these peoples and often argue for things that, if anyone bothered to ask the people involved, would go directly contrary to what these people actually want or need, but the academics simply believe that they know what is best for the poor ignorant fucking savages.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditFoucault thus spent his dying days visiting bath-houses and infecting people.

Whether or not there is debate about his motives, there's no debate about what he factually did.

A single link, a single reference source, even a sketchy one that leads to other references, that's all I ask.

Quote from: walkerpA single link, a single reference source, even a sketchy one that leads to other references, that's all I ask.

Well, the most common source for this you might find is the biography of Foucault by James Miller; but various others including Raymond Tallis, have talked about it.

As for me personally, I was told about these particular "allegations" years ago by one of my supervisors, who had been a colleague of Foucault's.

RPGPundit

Is this good for you, Walkerp ? :rolleyes:

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RIs this good for you, Walkerp ? :rolleyes:

That didn't come out right, methinks.

That works, RPGPundit.  I'll follow up.  The only Foucault I've ever read was the Panopticon essay.  But I was around a lot of people who talked about him in college, some fakers, some real.  My understanding is that his worldview you critique so strongly was his own critical interpretation of the status quo.  He didn't want that kind of world, but that's the way he saw it.

Quote from: walkerpA single link, a single reference source, even a sketchy one that leads to other references, that's all I ask.

RPGPundit might be getting it from Miller's The Passion of Michel Focault (1993), where Miller brings up the rumour (with implied endorsement) that Focault knew he had developed AIDS and was deliberately spreading it. This resurfaced in a 2001 edition of The Times Literary Supplement where Raymond Tallis claimed that Focault knew he had AIDS and deliberately spread it. This view is far from universal.

This site discusses in a rather abstruse manner some of the allegations, and notes,
   According to the biographies, Foucault suspected he had AIDS but never knew, did not want to know and did not want to burden his friends with what he may or may not have known. The suspicions, never confirmed [at the time], that his death was caused by complications following from HIV infection led to the formation of Association AIDES, the first organized body in France to promote awareness about AIDS and to support research about the illness [...]
Focault we do know had several times attempted suicide, and on one occasion had a car accident while high on opium, which he later described as the most intense experience of his life. He also spoke a lot about how awesome the French Terror of 1792 was, how inmates should all escape from prison, etc. Like many comfortable bourgeois, he was very keen on the idea of what he termed a "return to barbarism." Judging by his comfortable lifestyle, he was less keen on the reality of it. In general he had a fascination with death and power. His sexual life contained little of the traditional penetration, and a lot of tying up and whips and chains. So he was pretty unlucky to contract HIV, especially at that early stage when relatively very few people had it.

A deliberate exposure of himself to risk of STDs, lethal or not, would be in line with his expressed views and past behaviours. Deliberate spreading of it would be, too. But in not knowing he had HIV, and in not know wanting to know, and still having unprotected sex with people anyway, Focault would not have been particularly unusual. Millions of people around the world have symptoms of STDs and yet never go to the doctor, and still have unprotected sex with their lovers. That millions of people do it does not make it right, but it does demonstrate that a postmodernist way of thought isn't really required to be sexually irresponsible. He could have been Michel Focault the bricklayer and done the same thing.

If it were deliberate, then that's a different matter. Lots of people are careless, few are deliberate in that way. But for Focault's deliberations we have no proof; shortly before his death he destroyed all the manuscripts and personal journals he could find, and in his will he wrote that anything he'd missed couldn't be published.