What is Postmodernism?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Alright, can someone please explain what postmodernism is when it comes to philosophy? I kind of understand what it is a a literary movement, though my understanding may be way off. I know it's the period after modernism (duh) and that it has produced even weirder works of literature. But when reading about it in philosophy, it just makes my head spin. So, I was wondering if someone could explain to me what it was in lamens terms and in its most basic sense. I'm not looking for essays here, just enough so that I may understand at least a little about it.

[Armel P]

Are you sure there is even such a thing as post-modernism? :)

[PeterL]

I have read that Umberto Eco stopped using the term "postmodernism", because to some people it had come to mean 'things that I like', and to others it meant 'things that I don't like.'

[Ecurb]

Here's a link to a U. of Colorado website that seems understandable:

http://www.colorado.edu/English/courses/ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html

The first part is about post modern art, and later it compares scientific and philosophical "modernism" to "humanism" and shows how post modernism questions some of those assumptions.

[YesNo]

Here's a link to a U. of Colorado website that seems understandable:

http://www.colorado.edu/English/courses/ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html

The first part is about post modern art, and later it compares scientific and philosophical "modernism" to "humanism" and shows how post modernism questions some of those assumptions.
Once she started describing the Enlightenment, I was able to follow the article.

I've only looked at postmodernism for a few months, but for me, it helps to think of three views: premodern, modern and postmodern and to consider how these three views might have understood the idea of the center of the universe.

In the premodern period, we were told the earth was the center of the universe and we accepted that idea. It was obviously true.

In the modern period, we found that the earth was not the center of the universe. Perhaps the sun was the center of the universe? Perhaps the center of the galaxy was the center of the universe? We believed we could use reason to find this center, an absolute frame of reference associated with something called the ether to which we would be forced to synchronize our clocks and meter sticks.

In the postmodern period, reason showed us that there was no center of the universe.

Does that pattern also fit differing views of language, ethics and aesthetics? If so, there is a kind of postmodernism in these areas that is worth considering.

[OrphanPip]

There is so much wrong with that article.

"This association between the rejection of postmodernism and conservatism or fundamentalism may explain in part why the postmodern avowal of fragmentation and multiplicity tends to attract liberals and radicals. This is why, in part, feminist theorists have found postmodernism so attractive, as Sarup, Flax, and Butler all point out."

Really, because postmodernist have been the radicals? Postmodernist are academics who sit around and do nothing to help anyone. They have no engagement with active social change or with communicating issues with the public at large. Pssh, what a load of self-aggrandizing hogwash.

I would honestly like an example of any postmodernist ever doing anything radical, beyond spouting sophistry from a university office.

The description of humanism on that site is equally silly. It's ironic that postmodernist must create monolithic grand-narratives in order to say they are wrong.

"Finally, postmodernism is concerned with questions of the organization of knowledge. In modern societies, knowledge was equated with science, and was contrasted to narrative; science was good knowledge, and narrative was bad, primitive, irrational (and thus associated with women, children, primitives, and insane people)."

Sure, let's just throw out some jargon and we'll leave it to the reader to define the terms so that they are drawn into agreement. What is a narrative, how was knowledge equated with science, where is the actual evidence of this. Classical post-modernist generalizations when they claim so strongly to be breaking down such sweeping statements.

"In postmodern societies, anything which is not able to be translated into a form recognizable and storable by a computer--i.e. anything that's not digitizable--will cease to be knowledge. In this paradigm, the opposite of "knowledge" is not "ignorance," as it is the modern/humanist paradigm, but rather "noise." Anything that doesn't qualify as a kind of knowledge is "noise," is something that is not recognizable as anything within this system."

This is just meaningless sophistry.

Edit: So, ya I guess it is an accurate summary of pomo.

[sixsmith]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

There is so much wrong with that article.

"This association between the rejection of postmodernism and conservatism or fundamentalism may explain in part why the postmodern avowal of fragmentation and multiplicity tends to attract liberals and radicals. This is why, in part, feminist theorists have found postmodernism so attractive, as Sarup, Flax, and Butler all point out."

Really, because postmodernist have been the radicals? Postmodernist are academics who sit around and do nothing to help anyone. They have no engagement with active social change or with communicating issues with the public at large. Pssh, what a load of self-aggrandizing hogwash.

I would honestly like an example of any postmodernist ever doing anything radical, beyond spouting sophistry from a university office.

The description of humanism on that site is equally silly. It's ironic that postmodernist must create monolithic grand-narratives in order to say they are wrong.

"Finally, postmodernism is concerned with questions of the organization of knowledge. In modern societies, knowledge was equated with science, and was contrasted to narrative; science was good knowledge, and narrative was bad, primitive, irrational (and thus associated with women, children, primitives, and insane people)."

Sure, let's just throw out some jargon and we'll leave it to the reader to define the terms so that they are drawn into agreement. What is a narrative, how was knowledge equated with science, where is the actual evidence of this. Classical post-modernist generalizations when they claim so strongly to be breaking down such sweeping statements.

"In postmodern societies, anything which is not able to be translated into a form recognizable and storable by a computer--i.e. anything that's not digitizable--will cease to be knowledge. In this paradigm, the opposite of "knowledge" is not "ignorance," as it is the modern/humanist paradigm, but rather "noise." Anything that doesn't qualify as a kind of knowledge is "noise," is something that is not recognizable as anything within this system."

This is just meaningless sophistry.

Edit: So, ya I guess it is an accurate summary of pomo.
Why so angry? It doesn't seem to help your argument, whatever that is.

[OrphanPip]

Why so angry? It doesn't seem to help your argument, whatever that is.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm not angry, I'm contemptuous.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Don't be ridiculous. I'm not angry, I'm contemptuous.
:lol: I don't know if contempt is much better.

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't get it either. One of my second year English profs was big on postmodernism, I spent two lectures completely bored and wondering what any of this had to do with Orlando.

[sk2]

postmodernism is a reference to the relativistic nature of everything that is.
It has no central premises...there is no central foundation for thought and being.The structure is one where every reference refers to other references and meaning is distinguished by a play of references that are differentiated from each other. Derrida's claim to fame in the post-modern era is his idea of
deconstructing texts and dislodging any central idea that might support it.
The basic idea of postmodernism, imho, is that everything is relative to
everything else.

[Dodo25]

Postmodernism denies the existence of objectivity, or of an objective reality.

A typical postmodernist position is 'moral relativism'. It states that morality depends on culture. In a society where the majority supports equal rights, women should have the right to vote and gays shouldn't be discriminated against. In a society where the majority is prejudiced on the other hand, it would be right to discriminate against minorities.

Postmodernism regards science as 'one approach out of many' that is equally valid as everything else. It states that there's no objective way we can 'know' that the earth goes around the sun. Arguments like 'tomorrow, all we now think is true might become wrong' are common. Postmodernists also like to misuse Gödel's incompleteness theorem to 'show' that science is incapable of making objective statements. Some even use Einstein's 'theory of relativity' (oh what a great name) and say it proves everything is relative. Or, they simply use scientific jargon in a totally nonsensical way to make some obscure point fitting their agenda. And their 'agenda' is usually something like 'biassed Western white males are arrogant, and their "science" or "enlightenment values" are merely means to support their position of power and oppression in the world'.

There seriously are feminist postmodernist 'thinkers' that claim that 'reason' is just the male way of thinking, and that we should use 'female ways of thinking' in science. Ironically, these women are making a horrible case for real feminism.

Basically, whenever I try to convince others of certain scientific matters / ethical positions, there'll be some fancy wanna-be philosopher who questions the virtues of objectivity, science and ethics, and instead of focussing on the issue I first have to make the case for rational discourse itself. It's kind of annoying. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with 'questioning science and ethics'; skepticism is a good thing! But one shouldn't be a moron about it. Postmodernism makes no sense, how can female genital mutilation be wrong in Europe but right in Somalia? So a parent in Europe who wants his daughter cut can go to Somalia and then it's suddenly okay? Postmodernists use airplanes to get from one place to another, how come the plane happens to fly and end up at the right destination? Because science is relative and they might just have asked some Amazonian mystic shaman to make a spell that transports them too? For real? And finally, by claiming 'nothing is objective', why the hell do these people think postmodernism itself IS objective? They can't even believe their own stuff if they're serious!

If one actually looks at the issues, it becomes astonishing how people can actually believe these things. Maybe there are some evolutionary biases that make relativity 'fancy'... It's worth looking into it I'd say.

One more thing, simply because postmodernism is at the end of 'pre-modern, modern, postmodern' doesn't mean it's the most 'advanced' concept. As I said somewhere else, it's not taken seriously in universities anymore (if it ever was, which I doubt except for France where most of it originated and maybe a few other countries), not in the philosophy departments at least (unfortunately it's still common in the humanities). By now, the common views are either 'neo-modernism' (which addresses some of the critiques of modernism and makes some concessions) or, modernism in it's old and pure form. Applied to science only this is also called 'logical positivism', it's the view that science and reason can explain pretty much everything, even ethics. It sounds arrogant at first, but it's not as outlandish as people might think. If people studied more real science and real philosophy, they'd be surprised how much sense the universe actually makes!

[billl]

There is so much wrong with that article.

.
.
.

"In postmodern societies, anything which is not able to be translated into a form recognizable and storable by a computer--i.e. anything that's not digitizable--will cease to be knowledge. In this paradigm, the opposite of "knowledge" is not "ignorance," as it is the modern/humanist paradigm, but rather "noise." Anything that doesn't qualify as a kind of knowledge is "noise," is something that is not recognizable as anything within this system."

This is just meaningless sophistry.



I didn't read the whole thing, but this part in particular seems to be anti-human. She's saying that only to the extent that our ideas and experiences can be entered and stored in digital form would they be relevant? If I have knowledge that can't be digitized (for example: a memory of a romantic evening; an intuition about the motives of a co-worker; a highly developed and unique ability to swing a baseball bat at a thrown baseball, etc.) it qualifies as being "noise". "Noise" to what, exactly? To the theory, itself? (If so, why should any person find its notion of knowledge superior to their own?) Is she envisioning some flesh and silicon network which will start doing all of our thinking for us, with us just choosing (perhaps from digitizable fragments) or something? No more baseball (except by robots)?

Of course, I might have quite a bit of personal knowledge that could be digitizable, but would it be considered "noise" if I were to keep it secret? If technology can someday scan my nervous system and pick out my various baseball talents and my 'emotional' intuitions, would I be without a place in a post-modern world, and worthless ("noise") in the "eyes" of this system, if I refused to be scanned?

Who really wants that sort of system (whatever it is)? Or, can someone at least explain how it isn't being reductive and doing a disservice to humanity in its approach?

Here's a quote from earlier in that essay:

But--while postmodernism seems very much like modernism in these ways, it differs from modernism in its attitude toward a lot of these trends. Modernism, for example, tends to present a fragmented view of human subjectivity and history (think of The Wasteland, for instance, or of Woolf's To the Lighthouse), but presents that fragmentation as something tragic, something to be lamented and mourned as a loss. Many modernist works try to uphold the idea that works of art can provide the unity, coherence, and meaning which has been lost in most of modern life; art will do what other human institutions fail to do. Postmodernism, in contrast, doesn't lament the idea of fragmentation, provisionality, or incoherence, but rather celebrates that. The world is meaningless? Let's not pretend that art can make meaning then, let's just play with nonsense.


But, by limiting knowledge to digitizable stuff, and calling aspects of our human existence that aren't digitizable "noise", she has gone counter to this "celebration" of meaninglessness. She's trying to tie knowledge down, so it can be digitizable, and she's running from the far more fragmented realms that include what isn't digitizable (and is unique). It looks like the fragmentation and meaninglessness she wants to celebrate is just the stuff that happens to us while a technology fetish takes us completely over, and originality (as well as individuality) of thought becomes a habit devalued and broken by ever-increasing copying and sharing. Why must knowledge measure up to what machines can handle? And why devalue our selves?

[Dodo25]

I forgot something:

Postmodernists are the ones who keep asking questions like 'if a tree falls in a forest where no one's listening, does it make a sound?'. And they actually think these are 'deep' and 'sophisticated' questions. Yeah, I'm being serious.

[Theunderground]

Postmodernism has some benefit in questioning accepted 'wisdom' from the intellectual canon,a kind of 'critique,but when it relativises everything it takes itself way too seriously and becomes a mindless impractical theory,or a way to justify intellectually someones being a mistanthrope.

[Ecurb]

Postmodernism has some benefit in questioning accepted 'wisdom' from the intellectual canon,a kind of 'critique,but when it relativises everything it takes itself way too seriously and becomes a mindless impractical theory,or a way to justify intellectually someones being a mistanthrope.

Except that it rarely actually does that. That's figment of Dodo's fertile imagination. For example, Dodo says:
A typical postmodernist position is 'moral relativism'. It states that morality depends on culture. In a society where the majority supports equal rights, women should have the right to vote and gays shouldn't be discriminated against. In a society where the majority is prejudiced on the other hand, it would be right to discriminate against minorities. If Dodo can point to a single prominent Postmodernist who says anything of the kind, I'll be very surprised. Of course the first section is correct: morality IS (obviously) culturally constituted. The conclusions that Dodo claims the Postmodernists draw from this are ridiculous, however.

Dodo may be right that some silly internet interlocutors make these arguments in the name of Postmodernism, but I doubt that many of the established feminist postmodernists who claim reason is a "male way of thinking" are condemning other feminists for inveighing against female circumcision.

[Dodo25]

Except that it rarely actually does that. That's figment of Dodo's fertile imagination. For example, Dodo says: If Dodo can point to a single prominent Postmodernist who says anything of the kind, I'll be very surprised. Of course the first section is correct: morality IS (obviously) culturally constituted. The conclusions that Dodo claims the Postmodernists draw from this are ridiculous, however.

Of course the conclusions are ridiculous, but they follow from the premises!



Dodo may be right that some silly internet interlocutors make these arguments in the name of Postmodernism, but I doubt that many of the established feminist postmodernists who claim reason is a "male way of thinking" are condemning other feminists for inveighing against female circumcision.

Maybe not 'many' but sadly, such people do exist. -> http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/a-new-debate-on-female-circumcision/

[Ecurb]

Actually, the conclusions don’t follow from the premises. Although it is clearly the case that morality depends on culture, it does not follow that one form of morality is every bit as “good” as another. Why would it? That depends on how you define “good”.

In addition, it’s perfectly reasonable to debate about female circumcision practices. Why wouldn’t it be? For one thing, as the article suggests (and I’ve read other articles about this -- my academic training is as an anthropologist) many female circumcision rites do NOT remove the clitoris or limit women’s ability to experience orgasms. From what I’ve read, although SOME such practices do occur, many female circumcision rites are no more “mutilating” than male circumcision, and some of the anti-female-circumcision frenzy was based on misinformation.

In these cases, it’s reasonable to suggest that Western interference in the (harmless) culturally constituted rituals that are voluntarily practiced in other cultures is officious.

From the NYT article:

Dr. Shweder says that many Westerners trying to impose a “zero tolerance” policy don’t realize that these initiation rites are generally controlled not by men but by women who believe it is a cosmetic procedure with aesthetic benefits. He criticizes Americans and Europeans for outlawing it at the same they endorse their own forms of genital modification, like the circumcision of boys or the cosmetic surgery for women called “vaginal rejuvenation.” After surveying studies of female circumcision and comparing the data with the rhetoric about its harmfulness, Dr. Shweder concludes that “‘First World’ feminist issues and political correctness and activism have triumphed over the critical assessment of evidence.”

So I don’t think you’ve made your case.

[Dodo25]

Actually, the conclusions don’t follow from the premises. Although it is clearly the case that morality depends on culture, it does not follow that one form of morality is every bit as “good” as another. Why would it? That depends on how you define “good”.

We're not talking about morality, we're talking about ethics. Most of the time, the terms can be used interchangably, but here the difference is crucial. (EDIT: I just noticed that it's my fault, I made the mistake myself in my first post here!) Morality clearly depends on culture. Ethics does not necessarily, yet the postmodernists would argue that it does. And IF it does, then how can you make the case that something is 'wrong' when 99% of the society think it's acceptable?



In addition, it’s perfectly reasonable to debate about female circumcision practices. Why wouldn’t it be? For one thing, as the article suggests (and I’ve read other articles about this -- my academic training is as an anthropologist) many female circumcision rites do NOT remove the clitoris or limit women’s ability to experience orgasms. From what I’ve read, although SOME such practices do occur, many female circumcision rites are no more “mutilating” than male circumcision, and some of the anti-female-circumcision frenzy was based on misinformation.

"My academic training is as an anthropologist." That explains a lot. Postmodernism is dogma in anthropology, since the very moment Boas invented it. (But let's go on, it doesn't prove my case saying that, for maybe the anthropologists are right after all.)

You're right, FGM is worth being discussed. But as far as I understand it (and I'm neither an anthropologist nor an expert on FGM), the main reason for doing it in the first place is, apart from mere tradition, to have proof that the girl is a virgin at the wedding. And that in itself reinforces a lot of mysoginistic beliefs, and it makes the wedding night a painful experience for women. If someone wants to have sex without marriage, why shouldn't she? If someone is raped, why should she be shunned for it?

Concerning male circumcision, I remember reading that it has medical benefits. Even if not, to me there seems to be a huge difference. Male circumcision in no way decreases pleasure for having sex. FGM does.

[Ecurb]

"FGM"? There's a loaded term? Why "FGM" and not "MGM"?

If you read my post, you must have noticed that I said that female circumcision involves a wide range of physical practices, some of which may be "mutilating" and others of which may be less mutilating than male circumcision.

You lost me on the "ethics is not culturally constituted" bit. Of course religious people would say that ethics derive from God, but I doubt that's your point. Perhaps you have overcome the "is" "ought" dilema that has plagued philosophy for millenia, but if so, don't keep it a secret. Let us know how "ethics" is universal and not culturally constituted.

Postmodernism is hardly dogma in anthropology, although some degree of cultural relativism (which is similar) is. Finally, if (as it says in the NYT article) women WANT to be circumcised, who are you to say them nay? What "ethical" principle are they violating by doing as they wish? Are you violating an ethical principle by limiting their freedom?

[Dodo25]

"FGM"? There's a loaded term? Why "FGM" and not "MGM"?

If you read my post, you must have noticed that I said that female circumcision involves a wide range of physical practices, some of which may be "mutilating" and others of which may be less mutilating than male circumcision.

Fair enough. Though I still doubt any of them are less mutilating than male circumcision. If they are, then there's not much wrong with it. (I say 'not much' because I don't think male circumcision is totally ethical either.)



You lost me on the "ethics is not culturally constituted" bit. Of course religious people would say that ethics derive from God, but I doubt that's your point. Perhaps you have overcome the "is" "ought" dilema that has plagued philosophy for millenia, but if so, don't keep it a secret. Let us know how "ethics" is universal and not culturally constituted.

Many philosophers claim that the 'is -> ought' dilemma has been solved. Obviously not all the specifics are clear (yet), but generally there are excellent cases to be made for why certain things are bad and others are good, and for what 'good' and 'bad' is in the first place. My view is that ethics is universal in the same sense math is, you do need some basic axioms first, but then everything follows. By far the most consistent, logical and even intuitive (for defining the axioms at least) system of ethics has to be some sort of preference utilitarianism. If you're interested, read the book 'Practical Ethics' by Peter Singer, it's a great introduction to the subject.

The basic axiom by the way is that the interests of all sentient beings have to be considered equally. That's pretty self-evident when you ask yourself what ethics is about. As soon as one realizes that other people have experiences just as oneself, and that one might as well 'be' someone else, one starts thinking about ethics and its implications. And since it's in the very definition of utilitarianism to create the maximum amount of well-being, you can't reasonably argue against it. Even those who critique utilitarianism use ultimately utilitarian arguments (or else they refer to dogma and "it's just wrong").

Here's an example: Suppose two siblings have sex a couple of times, use save contraception, enjoy it a lot, never tell anyone and no one every finds out, they never regret it, and they don't suffer from any other bad consequences. Were these acts unethical? A surprising amount of people would say 'yes', but when you ask 'why?', they can't tell you a satisfying answer. They might try to come up with utilitarian reasons, like i.e. 'they might have trouble with normal sexual experiences in the future', even thought that goes against the premise of the situation.


"
Postmodernism is hardly dogma in anthropology, although some degree of cultural relativism (which is similar) is. Finally, if (as it says in the NYT article) women WANT to be circumcised, who are you to say them nay? What "ethical" principle are they violating by doing as they wish? Are you violating an ethical principle by limiting their freedom?

I agree with what you're saying here, but this postulates that the beings in question are WOMEN, meaning they are old enough to make reasonable decisions. The problem is that these practices are often done to infants and children.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think I get it, for the most part. Thanks, Dodo25, your posts were extremely helpful and made a lot of sense.

It sounds to me like pomo (I assume that is the shortened form of 'postmodernism') was a discussion topic that spiraled out of control and was taken too seriously. Like some professor said "what if nothing was objective," just as a conversation starter, and it spun out of control. It also sounds like something people high on pot would discuss while constantly exclaiming, "Whoa, man!"

I do have one more question, though. How does literature and art fit into this theory, if it all. I like a lot of postmodern lit. Is it called postmodern because it's written during the same time pomo theories became popular, or because it somehow does follow the theories prescribed by pomo?

[Ecurb]

The arguments for or against basic utilitarianism are many, and I won't go into them here (I've never read Singer, but of course I've read about him). However, in answer to the "what's wrong with a brother and sister having sex", I think a good case could be made for the notion that violating ANY basic culturally constituted moral principle that is accepted by 99% of your fellow citizens is problematic. If no other harm is done by the act (I'll accept your premise there), it still leads to lies, secrecy, questioning one's basic acceptance of social mores, cognitive dissonance, and dozens of other things that may lead the participants to be (to stick with utilitarianism) less happy and less fullfilled than they might otherwise be. Incest, therefore, would differ from (say) homosexuality in that it is likely that other less problematic and equally fullfilling sexual relationships would be inhibited by the incestuous relationship. So in terms of "greatest good for the greatest number", the incest would still probably be a bad thing. Of course it is you, not I, who think "greatest good for the greatest number" is the proper rule of thumb.

[Dodo25]

I do have one more question, though. How does literature and art fit into this theory, if it all. I like a lot of postmodern lit. Is it called postmodern because it's written during the same time pomo theories became popular, or because it somehow does follow the theories prescribed by pomo?

I don't really get that myself because I'm not into art, but here some thoughts:

The postmodern 'theory of art' is that the author becomes irrelevant, and that a piece of art (literature or something else) doesn't have one single central idea. It opens the gates to all sorts of interpretations, which postmodernists consider 'valid' even if the author himself calls the interpretations nonsense. (This is parodied in South Park's parody of 'Catcher in the Rye': 'The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs'.)

However, that's from an interpeting perspective, not from an artist's. I suppose the artists just try to create something either ambiguous, or something that challenges established 'certainties'. But not in a distinct way, not like modernism showed how to challenge dogma. Much rather, it shows how the modern world is based on meaning where there is none, and how things are weird and absurd, without really offering a solution.

In paintings for instance, a postmodernist probably wouldn't paint solid, geometric forms but more abstract stuff that's hard to interpret.

In say novels, one could illustrate a society's dependence on consumerism, and how it biasses people, making things surreal. I remember once trying to interpret a summary of a postmodern novel. In one scene, the characters where at 'the most photographed bank in the world', and remarked that 'people were taking pictures of taking pictures'. That's pretty deep actually, and I'm not being sarcastic. The novel also had a college 'car crash seminar', in which movie scenes with car crashes were analyzed. I think it was called 'White Noise'.

I don't have a problem with postmodern literature (if the prose makes sense that is, many pomo texts are nonsensical to begin with). Considering paintings, I don't really like art that just 'tries to be weird for the sake of being weird', but that's obviously a personal taste.


Of course it is you, not I, who think "greatest good for the greatest number" is the proper rule of thumb.

'Greatest good for the greatest number' is an oversimplification, it's 'classical utilitarianism' (if even) instead of preference utilitarianism, which considers not only mental states but also what people actually WANT. Read Singer for a detailed explanation and application of it.

[OrphanPip]

I think I get it, for the most part. Thanks, Dodo25, your posts were extremely helpful and made a lot of sense.

It sounds to me like pomo (I assume that is the shortened form of 'postmodernism') was a discussion topic that spiraled out of control and was taken too seriously. Like some professor said "what if nothing was objective," just as a conversation starter, and it spun out of control. It also sounds like something people high on pot would discuss while constantly exclaiming, "Whoa, man!"

I do have one more question, though. How does literature and art fit into this theory, if it all. I like a lot of postmodern lit. Is it called postmodern because it's written during the same time pomo theories became popular, or because it somehow does follow the theories prescribed by pomo?

Post-modern for art can also be used broadly just to speak of trends in post-WWII art and not merely the philosophical connections. Although, pomo philosophy is also linked to the ideas and themes that crop up in post-war literature..

[LitNetIsGreat]

I once again recommend Peter Barry's Beginning Theory as a great starting point for most of the main points of theory. Really, if you are at all interested in theory, and have little or only small exposure to it, then you should be getting this book. It answers all these sorts of questions.

[Ecurb]

I once again recommend Peter Barry's Beginning Theory as a great starting point for most of the main points of theory. Really, if you are at all interested in theory, and have little or only small exposure to it, then you should be getting this book. It answers all these sorts of questions.

Thanks. I'll look for it. The public library here doesn't have it. The University Library does, but it's checked out.