Postmodernism serves to create obscure Theory journals for postgrad students.
Postmodernism serves to create obscure Theory journals for postgrad students.
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
How many post-modernists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Each and every one of us.
or
how many post-modernists does it take to change
a lightbulb? none... post-modernists aren’t afraid of the dark.
I don't think that we have a significant disagreement. It is just that you require that one accept the validity of postmodernism for it to be inconsistent, while I am willing to judge each piece of it. I think that it is easy to show that many parts of postmodernism are absurd, although there are parts of it that I have agreed with as long as I can remember.
good pointPostmodernism serves to create obscure Theory journals for postgrad students.
do those who think that it is "pointless" think that it is bad?
not everything that is good has to have a "point."
Tis only in their dreams that men truly be free;
'Twas always thus, and always thus will be.
Do I think it's bad? No, I've said elsewhere that if philosophers really want to discuss this they can do it to their hearts content. It wouldn't bother me in the least. It's actually quite funny listening to philosophers wrap themselves up in some convoluted rhetoric. The best yet, "phallogocentric."It should almost be a Saturday Night Live skit. I do get offended when the postmodernists try to project their ideology into art. I think it's a bad approach to literary criticism. But who am I to say? If you read through posts of those who support it, you can see that they are really ideologues themselves. Silly them. They think they can change the world through literary criticism. An actual writer or artist barely makes a blip on the outside world; a critic makes none at all.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
On the contrary, I think its acknowledgement of the futility of everything is what makes it good. You are right about something not needing a point to be worthwhile.
Virgil, are you proceeding with the assumption that the dripping tap makes even granite soften? If you repeat a position (one you cannot defend) a sufficient number of times, do you assume it becomes true?
You continue to maintain a clear distinction between artist and critic. Firstly, poor old Dr. Johnson. Only half of him deserves recognition (lets hope it’s not the same side as the ear in which he was deaf). Secondly, when it comes to someone like Roland Barthes, the distinction becomes even more obviously meaningless. His mind is penetrating, his intelligence sharp and his writing is dazzling and witty as well as profound in its implications. S/Z is quite brilliant, regardless of whether or not you ‘agree’ with him. What is Aristotle’s Poetics if not a work of criticism? I realise that certain writers whose work has been recognised by institutions like the Nobel Academy do not fit your criteria by which merit should be judged. You consider Beckett’s work as only of any interest to the suicidal, as well as being ‘frankly very limited’, remember? Nevertheless, Beckett has had a huge impact on twentieth century literature, as has Barthes, albeit in a different way.
In the interests of fairness Virgil, I think you should distinguish between those who make no impact on the world and those who make no impact on your world.
Nerd, I am one of those labelled ‘ideologues’. I have come to realise that what it means is someone who can consider ideas and articulate a set of informed views that do not correspond with Virgil’s view of Literature. "Phallogocentric" is a funny word, deserving of being laughed at, and certainly much funnier than those used in conventional criticism, e.g. Onomatopoeia, Pathetic Fallacy or Aristotle’s own Anagnorisis. There’s nothing technical and/or silly about these words. They are real words, not fanciful inventions by ideologues.
Actually a dripping tap will erode granite, given time. I don't defend it, because I'm not about to go to the library to pull out articles from post modernist journals. I had to do that in grad school. It wasn't fun and frankly it was a waste of time. I put forth my experience; take it or leave it.
Call me old fashion, but yes I do.You continue to maintain a clear distinction between artist and critic.
Of course, I never said Aristotle was an artist. Nor do I say that criticism is of no value. It's different than art. I hold literary ciritics in high regard.What is Aristotle’s Poetics if not a work of criticism?
I thought I would tweak you a little when I said thatIn the interests of fairness Virgil, I think you should distinguish between those who make no impact on the world and those who make no impact on your world.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
Yes, I know – that’s why I used the comparison! I assumed it explained your approach.
This is disingenuous. You don’t need to read any postmodernist journals to answer some of the very basic objections I have raised. I don’t have a problem if you can’t but why put it down to not having enough time or interest, as if my points could easily be dismissed if only you could be bothered? We could all use that argument. You had sufficient time to try to marginalize and mock those ‘ideologues’ who identify the flaws in your thinking.
Then I guess I’ll have to leave it. I assumed that the purpose of a discussion forum was to discuss views, not simply state them and then refuse to consider anything that challenges them. Yes, your views are out of date, but I don’t object to them on the grounds of fashion but by reason of their lack of logic and inability to withstand scrutiny.
Do you see no contradiction in these two positions? So you think that critics are worthy of your high regard in spite of the fact that they make no impact at all on the world? You also must only be referring only to those critics who hold your own views because there are a great many fine ‘critics’ you are effectively dismissing when you call them ‘Johnny come latelys’. By your own words (you say you don’t consider Aristotle an artist) Aristotle has made no impact on the world (he was a critic you appear to be conceding). Why are we still reading and discussing him? I also note that you haven’t helped poor Dr. Johnson’s predicament. Nor have you conceded that Barthes might have written a great piece of Literature in S/Z. What about Pope’s An Essay on Criticism? Is Pope now considered not to be a major literary artist because he wrote criticism? Your approach is riddled with contradictions, none of which you are prepared to recognise. The idea that “phallogocentric” is a word that doesn’t belong in the realm of criticism, whereas “Anagnorisis” is a word that does is, quite simply, nonsense.
I don’t know who said that Shakespeare holds a mirror up to the world but it was Hamlet who said:
“the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the
first and now, was and is, to hold, as 'twere, the
mirror up to nature;”
Shakespeare also believed a good many things that we would find laughable now, so it’s rather a foolish move to try to cite such beliefs as authoritative. Our understanding of the relationship between Art and the world has changed since the seventeenth century. The most astounding thing about your position is that it unconcernedly dismisses the work of so many key writers, thinkers artists of the past eighty odd years. You don’t argue with the ideas of Barthes/Lacan/Foucault etc., you merely repeat that you think they are wrong and seek to make up for the deficiencies in your argument by recruiting others to sneer with you:
“It’s actually quite funny listening to philosophers wrap themselves up in some convoluted rhetoric. The best yet, “phallogocentric.” It should almost be a Saturday Night Live skit.”
That’s your choice but in a discussion such as the subject of this topic, do you not think it’s useful to have justifications for one’s opinions. I am perfectly prepared to try to explain and justify what I say. Challenge my views and allow me to challenge yours. I can think of two other people who would also have disagreed with your views about the nature of reality, two who might carry more weight with you as an engineer:
"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world."
A. Einstein and I. Infeld, The Evolution of Physics
(Mr. Bennet retires to his library.)
You're right. Although I don't think disingenuous is the right word; perhaps unfair. I humbly accept your chastisement. I will try in the future.
I don't think those statements are mutually exclusive. What I meant by the world was the outside world that the average person lives in. The politics, the going to work, the shopping for groceries.Do you see no contradiction in these two positions? So you think that critics are worthy of your high regard in spite of the fact that they make no impact at all on the world?
No, not all. Even the one's I'm sympathetic too. Even me in my little way on this forum. Other than being forced to in grade school, how many people actually read or have read Shakespeare? Or did Shakespeare himself have any impact on the society he lived in or followed him? That's my point. Some books do, but I'm not sure it's tied to the fact that it's great literature. For instance, Pilgrim's Progress probably had more impact to society than King Lear. I don't want to disparage PP, but it's no Shakespeare.You also must only be referring only to those critics who hold your own views because there are a great many fine ‘critics’ you are effectively dismissing when you call them ‘Johnny come latelys’. By your own words (you say you don’t consider Aristotle an artist) Aristotle has made no impact on the world (he was a critic you appear to be conceding). Why are we still reading and discussing him?
I think I said somnewhere there is nothing wrong for artists to create with postmodern ideas in mind. (BTW, I have S/Z somewhere in my library; just haven't gotten to it.) Without sounding like that dripping tap, I've said postmodernism as a critical approach is problemmatic to me, not as literature or art. Look, I did my master's thesis on D.H. Lawrence. He had so many cockimamy ideas that you sometimes wonder about him. But he was a great writer, and although I sometimes vehemently disagree with his ideas, I can still appreciate the writing. Pope's Essay blurs the distinctions, doesn't it. But we can isolate the poetry and isolate the criticism. You know, in my life I've probably short changed the 18th C writers. And yet I might be more in sync with them then other periods. I ought to spend a solid year reading 18th C works. Perhaps next year.Nor have you conceded that Barthes might have written a great piece of Literature in S/Z. What about Pope’s An Essay on Criticism? Is Pope now considered not to be a major literary artist because he wrote criticism?
But just to sum my point up, if Shakespeare hardly makes a blip on the average person, how can a literary critic. But that doesn't mean I, personally, don't appreciate both.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
Thomas Pynchon
Postmodernism is not a new thing for me because i have read some of the books that can be classified in the postmodern genre. However, i have given up trying to figure out or make sense of the things that some post-modern writers write about, such as Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49. Even after i finish reading the book, i still can't get the juice of it. Anyone ever read this book before? Any comments?
Does anybody else really hate the term 'post-modernism'? Isn't 'modern' whatever is happening in the present? How can a set of ideas come after the present?
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
Admittedly, pomo and its lack of discipline, invited a large groups of phonies into the game. However, history does bear it out.
Yes. The term postmodernism is very confusing. Why is it post-modern when we say that we often say we are in the "modern world with modern society and modern technology"? Does the term post-modernism apply only to literature, art, and architecture? What else?
enlightenment
postmodernism comes to reconstruct the principles of enlightenment .it tries to reconsider the human mind in association with the spiritual dimension.
Last edited by you_per7; 11-06-2006 at 05:14 AM. Reason: spelling
She knew not what the curse may be
That kept her weaving steadily
But she had heard a whisper say
''Tis post-modernism'
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
