Reviewing some of the posts on this thread and coming back to the original question i.e. WHAT END DOES POST MODERNISM SERVE? The answer would appear to be: Its own.
Reviewing some of the posts on this thread and coming back to the original question i.e. WHAT END DOES POST MODERNISM SERVE? The answer would appear to be: Its own.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
"WHAT END DOES POST MODERNISM SERVE? "
Sorry but that is just a stupid question.
What end does art have?
Originally Posted by Alexander III
I finally finished Gardner's October Light. It was pretty good, Jozanny. I can see why people like him.
I also read Grendal since it was shorter. It seemed as if Beowulf talked Grendal to death, although tearing off his arm probably helped.
I stumble across this debate mid-flow. I admit from the outset that I have read only about 1 percent of people's thoughts on this thread. However, it is an interesting idea that post-modernism serves or does not serve someone or something. My thoughts are not those of an expert.
As far as I can see, post-modernism does have a purpose. It does serve its supplicants. Historically, thought has been governed either by religion or philosophy, and both have been interlaced with each other over the years. This caused a dilution of the original idea. More importantly in regards to this conversation, it permitted the subtle use of either to promote the goals of their proponents. Catholic philosophy served the Papacy and the princes of the Vatican; Marxist philosophy certainly did not serve well the aristocracy of Tsarist Russia, and thus by following that to its logical ending, it is argued that Marxist theory served the non-aristocracy. Countless other philosophy had its proponents and their goals and thus arguably people who suffered, ie. non-proponents, or those deemed villainous by the ideas put forth in a philosophy.
Post-modernism, is a reaction against modernism, the synthesis of philosophies that occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries. All the hard labour that thinkers had done culminated in the modern world. The path was not easy, as mentioned above, there were victors and the defeated. Post-modernism declares that the foundations of such a society are itself flawed. It invalidates the grounds on which hegemony had been constructed. It asks the people of earth to question the very ground they walk on. And as such, it serves the purposes of philosophy well. But more importantly perhaps, post-modernism allows the hitherto silent to speak out.
Your description seems to be what I currently understand post-modernism to be.
However, I have only started to explore it since I saw this thread. I've read some essays of Rorty and some introductory books that were available in the library. Unfortunately, Derrida didn't make any sense to me, so I had to give it up.
Do you know of anything you might recommend to someone who doesn't know much about post-modernism to read?
Who says it needs an end?
I don't think that anyone has, and, because post modernism is nihilistic, not having any end goals makes it truer to istself.
On the other hand, why would anyone be interested in a philosophy that had no enda or results? It would simply by sound and fury signifying nothing, wouldn't it? I suppose that there are people who simply want to make noise, but they don't generally know what philosophy is.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote