Postmodernism is useful to us because it reminds us to be skeptical of what we hear, what we are told.
Ha fucking ha, it does quite the opposite, it "reminds" us to treat everything we hear and are told as blithely equal, not to assign value to arguments ourselves. There is no objective truth, so any lie will do as long as it makes you feel good. That's not fucking skepticism, that's just a willful gullibility born of laziness, because evaluating things rigorously is apparently too much hard work.
At its heart, postmodernism is a tradition of skepticism toward the master narrative of modernity born of the Whig ideology of history.
That's not even close to the heart of it, it's an incidental aside to the destructive core of a chaotic ideology that that appeals to the inadequate to tear down everything they don't care to understand like petulant children, and hypocritically claims to be against ideologies whilst it does so. It is itself a very postmodern statement though, an easy little lie that makes them feel better as long as they don't look at things consistently or logically.
It is more than a mere denial of scientific biology and facts.
Mere, indeed.
I'm with the other guy, it's exceedingly unlikely to me this is just an immense idiot, this is just deliberate bullshit.
"There is no objective truth, but truths, therefore question the authority asserting the Truth and why it's doing so."
That was already part of the enlightenment, remember the whole process began with the rejection of the prevailing orthodoxy. That truthseeking is an incremental and ocasionally fallible process didn't need repackaging with less focus on validation and more focus on baseless rejection. The only purpose postmodernism served was to prevent any truth from ever being fully accepted as long as someone is still willing to lie about it loud enough.
It's something that should be evident within the west, given we're constantly lied to by those presenting themselves as authority, experts, scientists, etc, including when it comes to gender, race, but also various other things. While "truth," whatever that meant, can exist outside of society, all truth that exists within society is dependent on it and shaped by power. Some truths are closer to reality, as possible that may be, while others are outright fiction, including construction of individualism that has existed within the west in last two centuries, equality, "freedom of the press," "democracy," and other things many believe exist, when they are merely illusions.
That whole paragraph demonstrates an incapability of discerning the difference between truth and ideological dogma. At which point I guess it makes sense why postmodernist nonsense might appeal.
Saying some truths are closer to reality than others is some Orwellian "Some animals are more equal than others" bullshit. Truth is reality, that's axiomatic. Nor are truths dependent on or shaped by power, they are independent of society, what you're describing there is dogma. Some dogmas are more true than others, dogmas are shaped by or dependent on power to exist.
By 1770 science had more than two thousand years of history behind it, and yet it had never once brought about any marked increase in human happiness.
Holy fucking mother of nope. I'm pretty sure people were a lot happier to not be starving or dying in agony of the fucking pox nearly so often, what a boldly absurd claim.
Ha fucking ha, it does quite the opposite, it "reminds" us to treat everything we hear and are told as blithely equal, not to assign value to arguments ourselves. There is no objective truth, so any lie will do as long as it makes you feel good. That's not fucking skepticism, that's just a willful gullibility born of laziness, because evaluating things rigorously is apparently too much hard work.
That's not even close to the heart of it, it's an incidental aside to the destructive core of a chaotic ideology that that appeals to the inadequate to tear down everything they don't care to understand like petulant children, and hypocritically claims to be against ideologies whilst it does so. It is itself a very postmodern statement though, an easy little lie that makes them feel better as long as they don't look at things consistently or logically.
Mere, indeed.
I'm with the other guy, it's exceedingly unlikely to me this is just an immense idiot, this is just deliberate bullshit.
That was already part of the enlightenment, remember the whole process began with the rejection of the prevailing orthodoxy. That truthseeking is an incremental and ocasionally fallible process didn't need repackaging with less focus on validation and more focus on baseless rejection. The only purpose postmodernism served was to prevent any truth from ever being fully accepted as long as someone is still willing to lie about it loud enough.
That whole paragraph demonstrates an incapability of discerning the difference between truth and ideological dogma. At which point I guess it makes sense why postmodernist nonsense might appeal.
Saying some truths are closer to reality than others is some Orwellian "Some animals are more equal than others" bullshit. Truth is reality, that's axiomatic. Nor are truths dependent on or shaped by power, they are independent of society, what you're describing there is dogma. Some dogmas are more true than others, dogmas are shaped by or dependent on power to exist.
Holy fucking mother of nope. I'm pretty sure people were a lot happier to not be starving or dying in agony of the fucking pox nearly so often, what a boldly absurd claim.