Jump to content

Is Post-Modernism a rejection of Empiricism?


Recommended Posts

Saw this article this morning:

https://areomagazine.com/2017/05/30/my-apostasy-from-the-church-of-critical-theory/

In the 1950s and early 60’s the academic narrative was forcefully dominated by conservative ideologies. Today, ironically, it is mainly academic liberals sometimes violently dictating the political discourse. As numerous recent examples would indicate, a growing fringe movement on the left has been employing the use of violence as a way to shut down dissenting views.

Apparently, Horseshoe Theory, like evolution, isn’t “just a theory” either.

Postmodernists raise an individual’s “lived experience” to the state of apotheosis. At Duquesne, I was told that whatever a person experienced — or in their vernacular: “Dasein’s experiential-bodying-forth as being-in-the-world with-Others” (no, I’m not kidding) — was in fact, the literal equivalent of reality. What this boiled down to was that the hallucinations of a psychotic patient were to be regarded every bit as real as what one would measure using science. After all, since it was just a Western cultural construct, science could not have a monopoly on what was to be regarded as “truth” any more than a supernatural explanation of the universe from, say, a person living in a subsistence based culture.

Was this a way of just being polite? Was this a true and safe attempt to level the playing field? Was this theory actually correct? Or was it the soft bigotry of low expectations? I honestly couldn’t tell.

Science was viewed as a totalitarian perspective allegedly meant to keep people chained to the circumstances that they were born into. We were told that science kept Dasein clinging to a less “soulful” Western linear viewpoint. And although a working definition was never given, the “hubris” of Galileo and Newton, we were told, was alleged to have destroyed the “spirit of human nature.” Our postmodernist professors told us technology itself was to be held in suspicion for blindly attacking a purer, more primitive state of humanity that was somehow nobler and kinder than our own (a notion largely popularized by Rousseau and later refuted by many including Pinker and Michael Shermer).

...

 

Simply holding the view that an objective, measurable reality existed (i.e. logical positivism) was deemed to be a transgression against the group. Holding this view was considered heretical and practically regarded as a sin — I’m not exaggerating.

Shortly after I graduated from Duquesne I visited Pacifica University in Santa Barbara C.A. The postmodernist leaning was so strong there that an outsider could have easily mistaken the campus for an ashram. While I was walking with a friend along a sandy road between the beach and Pacifica’s campus, we saw a sign smattered in red paint nailed to a dying palm tree. There was something very Lord of the Flies about it. It read: “B.F. Skinner is the Anti-Christ”. But to us, since we were deeply indoctrinated in the whole Babba Ram Das/Derrida “there is no such thing as empirical reality” thing, we just looked at each other and laughed with moral triumph.

“Well, what’s the big deal,” one may ask. “After all it was science that was responsible for the A-bomb, Tuskegee, napalm, and the Eugenics Movement. Why not associate it with humanity’s horrors? And while we’re at it, let’s misconstrue any positivist perspective as scientism and scapegoat anyone who has a strong scientific world-view and label all of them as bigots and racists!”

The problem with having a negative attitude towards an empirical viewpoint is that doing so then makes it justifiable to limit people’s rights. If one’s subjective experience is raised to the status of a godhead (as postmodernists essentially posit) then any perceived verbal offense could be construed as being literally violent towards the self. And since the words a person uses, to postmodernists, cause actual harm it is therefore rational to pass laws to limit the rights of those using said words.









So, is Post-Modernism a rejection of Empiricism?  

Discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Saw this article this morning:

I'm no Post-Modernist scholar by any stretch of the imagination. But, from what I know of it, I'm not a fan. It would appear to me, since that it holds that all truths are socially constructed, yes all empirical methods are not worth much.

Everytime I see the word "deconstruct" I have to admit that sometimes I think, "I'd like to deconstruct you Derrida".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm no Post-Modernist scholar by any stretch of the imagination. But, from what I know of it, I'm not a fan. It would appear to me, since that it holds that all truths are socially constructed, yes all empirical methods are not worth much.

Everytime I see the word "deconstruct" I have to admit that sometimes I think, "I'd like to deconstruct you Derrida".

That's rather frightening given that almost everything that makes our society run smoothly has been built on the framework of empirical thought.  Is the author correct about the predominance of post-modernist thought on University campuses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That's rather frightening given that almost everything that makes our society run smoothly has been built on the framework of empirical thought.  Is the author correct about the predominance of post-modernist thought on University campuses?

To some extent, I think. But, how much, I'm not sure. One reason being the subjects I studied in school and then later in grad school didn't seem to be too influenced by it. So I was never heavily exposed to its methodology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon my French (ha ha), but sooo much bullshit.

Quote

Today, ironically, it is mainly academic liberals sometimes violently dictating the political discourse. As numerous recent examples would indicate, a growing fringe movement on the left has been employing the use of violence as a way to shut down dissenting views.

We're off to a pretty bad start.

Quote

At Duquesne, I was told that whatever a person experienced — or in their vernacular: “Dasein’s experiential-bodying-forth as being-in-the-world with-Others” (no, I’m not kidding) — was in fact, the literal equivalent of reality.

For them. This is the difference between an individual's reality (which should be respected) and what is real because it is shared and measurable. Christ, you need to listen for the entire duration of class, not just the first 10 minutes!

Quote

Science was viewed as a totalitarian perspective allegedly meant to keep people chained to the circumstances that they were born into.

I very much doubt this is what was said. What was probably said would be closer to "an excess of rationality may lead to constraints on your imagination and ambition."

Quote

Our postmodernist professors told us technology itself was to be held in suspicion for blindly attacking a purer, more primitive state of humanity that was somehow nobler and kinder than our own (a notion largely popularized by Rousseau and later refuted by many including Pinker and Michael Shermer).

Again, I very much doubt this is what was said. Something closer might be "the consumer society and its materialism, combined with an individualistic ideology, tends to bring out the worst in humans by making them compete for benefits."

Quote

Simply holding the view that an objective, measurable reality existed (i.e. logical positivism) was deemed to be a transgression against the group.

No. You were probably told that the whole point of the class was to change your perspective, which is different. That it was, in other words, an exercise in thought in order to improve your empathy while becoming aware of your own biases, whether they come from your education or whether they are of a cognitive nature. No one denied the existence of the real (no one possibly could), but the entire point of that class was to make you understand that reality is actually subjective.

But because you were a moron who was absolutely convinced he knew better than everyone else, you failed to understand the basic premise of the class (which was no doubt explained on day 1, but which you probably missed) and thus experienced an "Alice in Wonderland" experience whereby the intellectual propositions that were given to you made no logical sense. You never realized this was because you were not making the intellectual effort to make a simple exercise in thought to see what conclusions could be drawn from it.

So I'm going to be offensive now, but this is what happens when you take a conservative blockhead to an advanced class on abstract concepts. Because they are reluctant from the start to accept the premise of the intellectual exercise ("it's all liberal propaganda, duh!"), they don't get half of what is said and end up completely twisting everything. Part of the problem is that they take everything literally and fail to understand what it means to adopt a different philosophical perspective on things (if only for a couple of hours).
The deep irony being that if he had actually made an effort to understand what was being said about one's reality he might have realized that he was desperately clinging to his, exactly like the psychotic patient in the teacher's example.
And then that guy gets an article published in the media telling everyone just how crazy "liberal" academia is. Jesus fucking Christ...

Tl;dr: NO. Fuck no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Pardon my French (ha ha), but sooo much bullshit.

We're off to a pretty bad start.

For them. This is the difference between an individual's reality (which should be respected) and what is real because it is shared and measurable. Christ, you need to listen for the entire duration of class, not just the first 10 minutes!

I very much doubt this is what was said. What was probably said would be closer to "an excess of rationality may lead to constraints on your imagination and ambition."

Again, I very much doubt this is what was said. Something closer might be "the consumer society and its materialism, combined with an individualistic ideology, tends to bring out the worst in humans by making them compete for benefits."

No. You were probably told that the whole point of the class was to change your perspective, which is different. That it was, in other words, an exercise in thought in order to improve your empathy while becoming aware of your own biases, whether they come from your education or whether they are of a cognitive nature. No one denied the existence of the real (no one possibly could), but the entire point of that class was to make you understand that reality is actually subjective.

But because you were a moron who was absolutely convinced he knew better than everyone else, you failed to understand the basic premise of the class (which was no doubt explained on day 1, but which you probably missed) and thus experienced an "Alice in Wonderland" experience whereby the intellectual propositions that were given to you made no logical sense. You never realized this was because you were not making the intellectual effort to make a simple exercise in thought to see what conclusions could be drawn from it.

So I'm going to be offensive now, but this is what happens when you take a conservative blockhead to an advanced class on abstract concepts. Because they are reluctant from the start to accept the premise of the intellectual exercise ("it's all liberal propaganda, duh!"), they don't get half of what is said and end up completely twisting everything. Part of the problem is that they take everything literally and fail to understand what it means to adopt a different philosophical perspective on things (if only for a couple of hours).
The deep irony being that if he had actually made an effort to understand what was being said about one's reality he might have realized that he was desperately clinging to his, exactly like the psychotic patient in the teacher's example.
And then that guy gets an article published in the media telling everyone just how crazy "liberal" academia is. Jesus fucking Christ...

Tl;dr: NO. Fuck no.

You realize, of course, that I'm quoting the article for purposes of discussion.  These are not my thoughts despite the fact that each quote is attributed to me, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You realize, of course, that I'm quoting the article for purposes of discussion.  These are not my thoughts despite the fact that each quote is attributed to me, right?

Yes, I'm only pretending to answer the author of the article in my self-righteous burst of anger. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rippounet,

No. You were probably told that the whole point of the class was to change your perspective, which is different. That it was, in other words, an exercise in thought in order to improve your empathy while becoming aware of your own biases, whether they come from your education or whether they are of a cognitive nature. No one denied the existence of the real (no one possibly could), but the entire point of that class was to make you understand that reality is actually subjective.

 

If we are made to understand that "reality is actually subjective" how can there ever be an objective reality to study with empiricism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If we are made to understand that "reality is actually subjective" how can there ever be an objective reality to study with empiricism?

If reality is just subjective, then I don't know how we're supposed to advance on anything other than say to each other "this my truth and that's your truth and they are both equally valid."

Other than being problematic for figuring out how things work, whether in the physical world or in the social world, the other thing I dislike about it, concerns basic ethical notions. I'm not in denial that some ethical notions might be socially constructed to some extent. On the other hand, there are some things I feel are just wrong. Period. Things like slavery, murder, and rape and so forth. Ultimately, I'm a moral universalist and reject relativism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realized the source of the problem with my previous answer and took your name out of the quotes.

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If we are made to understand that "reality is actually subjective" how can there ever be an objective reality to study with empiricism?

Because the world is, regardless of what one thinks it is.

I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable enough about this stuff to teach anyone about it, especially on the internet. The basic idea is that although there is a real world we live in, our senses are not perfect and are easily influenced by our emotions or pre-conceived ideas. In other words, empiricism is not perfect. This doesn't invalidate science because science is about shared empirical knowledge. But philosophy nonetheless reminds us that not everyone will share even that. Our perceptions of causality and time are actually more subjective than we tend to realize (and science itself demonstrates that). Some of us have entirely different perceptions (synesthesia is a reality for some humans, and Baudelaire was said to be affected by it). Etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I realized the source of the problem with my previous answer and took your name out of the quotes.

Because the world is, regardless of what one thinks it is.

I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable enough about this stuff to teach anyone about it, especially on the internet. The basic idea is that although there is a real world we live in, our senses are not perfect and are easily influenced by our emotions or pre-conceived ideas. In other words, empiricism is not perfect. This doesn't invalidate science because science is about shared empirical knowledge. But philosophy nonetheless reminds us that not everyone will share even that. Our perceptions of causality and time are actually more subjective than we tend to realize (and science itself demonstrates that). Some of us have entirely different perceptions (synesthesia is a reality for some humans, and Baudelaire was said to be affected by it). Etc...

Wait, how can we trust "shared empirical knowledge" if that knowledge is inherently subjective?  I get that the point of empiricism is to show, by repetition and the inductive reasoning what reality is... that said if the fundamental assumption is that the reality we perceive is subjective that undermines the assumption behind inductive logic in the first place and... could serve to undermine empiricism.

I think that for empiricism to have validity there must be a concession to the existence of objective reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rippounet said:

Because the world is, regardless of what one thinks it is.

No that's what Post Modernist assert or at least some of them. My understanding of them is basically, we think primarily through language. Language is socially constructed. Ergo, all knowledge is a social construct.

Just now, Rippounet said:

I realized the source of the problem with my previous answer and took your name out of the quotes.

Because the world is, regardless of what one thinks it is.

I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable enough about this stuff to teach anyone about it, especially on the internet. The basic idea is that although there is a real world we live in, our senses are not perfect and are easily influenced by our emotions or pre-conceived ideas. In other words, empiricism is not perfect. This doesn't invalidate science because science is about shared empirical knowledge. But philosophy nonetheless reminds us that not everyone will share even that. Our perceptions of causality and time are actually more subjective than we tend to realize (and science itself demonstrates that). Some of us have entirely different perceptions (synesthesia is a reality for some humans, and Baudelaire was said to be affected by it). Etc...

I really don't understand your point about science here. I mean does it have any use at all, or is just a bunch of socially constructed bullshit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Wait, how can we trust "shared empirical knowledge" if that knowledge is inherently subjective? 

Exactly. You've hit the nail on its head.

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think that for empiricism to have validity there must be a concession to the existence of objective reality.

Yes. But the entire point is to be aware that what we see as objective reality may actually be subjective.

Let's take the simplest example: gravity. Gravity is undeniably real, right? Apples still fell from trees before Newton theorized it. Thus it is part of every human's reality, always has been, and always will be, right?

Wrong. We now know that gravity is relative. Astronauts barely experience gravity when in space, or can be said to experience it in a totally different way. Hypothetically, if a human was born on a space station they might not see gravity as part of their reality. Or if they were born on a different planet, they might find that gravity does not constrain their movements in the same way at all ; they would define it differently and would build an entire culture based on a different perspective on it.
You find this in fiction. In The Expanse for instance, a mars-born marine arriving on Earth finds her movements and abilities to be drastically limited by Earth's gravity. Hence, something that can be seen as objectively real today may very well be seen as relative, or even subjective, tomorrow.

10 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

No that's what Post Modernist assert or at least some of them. My understanding of them is basically, we think primarily through language. Language is socially constructed. Ergo, all knowledge is a social construct.

That's going a bit far. I don't subscribe to all the conclusions of postmodernism by a long shot. But language does matter to shape one's reality and values.

The words you use do go a long way to constructing different views of the world. I'll take what's my specialty: perception in international relations (a British colleague once told me I was a postmodernist after all). If you say "regime" instead of "government," "propaganda" instead of "culture" or "values," "radicals" instead of "patriots," "extremist" instead of "pious" you're effectively changing reality for yourself and the people you communicate with. You're describing the same thing, but the way you describe it conveys a judgment based on your own subjective values. And in some cases, the end result may be considerably different. Take Kirkpatrick making a different between "totalitarianism" and "authoritarianism" for instance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this topic intersects with another recent Scot thread: the multiverse. 

If there are 7 billion humans, they each carry their own subjective universe in their head.  The "true" empirical universe -- ironically analguous here to a Platonic ideal universe; Socrates would hate that -- can and does differ by a very large distance from many of these.  Reality is a constraint on the subjective universes but, crucially, each subjective universe is free to interpret and incorporate the reality constraint however they wish, which is why these subjective universes do not all collapse down to empirical reality.  Most subjective universes are developed to maximize the personal satisfaction of the subjective creator, but can be influenced, moreso at early ages, by external forces like parenting, education, culture/social conditioning, etc.

This has no application in any physical field like building bridges, but huge application in any social field: politics, religion, the justice system, the macroeconomy, war, media & arts, etc.  It becomes more important to be aware of the diverse subjective universes and have some ability to anticipate and/or manipulate areas of overlap or common agreement; or else Trump might become president. 

The hyperbolic extreme of this is the subjective universe, in self-awareness rather than ignorance/avoidance, claiming parity with or even superiority to the empirical reality.  But that's just another example of the subjective universe being free to incorporate the reality constraint however makes them satisfied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ripp,

But Gravity exists even if it is different in different places.  We can and have, via empirical study and rational examination of the Universe determined, what gravity does and have strong speculations about how gravity works.  If we accept that everything is subjective... that reality itself is subjective... then empiricism itself is suspect and people beliefs about what they find is elevated above the objective knowledge empiricism and rationalism provide.  

That's rather frightening in my view.  Some things are real whether you believe them to be real or not.  By this logic the "belief" in the flat Earth is a real and valid as the "belief" in the spheroid Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rippounet said:

That's going a bit far. I don't subscribe to all the conclusions of postmodernism by a long shot. But language does matter to shape one's reality and values.

Certainly language can be powerful, but to say that are our objective observations are really just facade, because language is really what matters, I think is really a load.

I think a lot of post-modernist believe that they are liberating us (humanity) from dubious societal norms, by making the point that all knowledge is just a social construct.

While, I can understand their intent, I think their methods lead us down a very dubious path. In fact, if all knowledge is just subjective, then it seems to me that that post-modernism could end up being a great ally of conservatism. You argue with a conservative person, giving him models and data, and all he say is “that’s just your truth. Your models and data don’t mean jack squat.”

As you know, I’m a lefty and most post-modernist tend to be or are on the left, and while I share many of their goals, I think their methodology is very dubious, and we can achieve many of the same things working within a liberal humanist tradition.

Just now, Rippounet said:

The words you use do go a long way to constructing different views of the world. I'll take what's my specialty: perception in international relations (a British colleague once told me I was a postmodernist after all). If you say "regime" instead of "government," "propaganda" instead of "culture" or "values," "radicals" instead of "patriots," "extremist" instead of "pious" you're effectively changing reality for yourself and the people you communicate with. You're describing the same thing, but the way you describe it conveys a judgment based on your own subjective values. And in some cases, the end result may be considerably different. Take Kirkpatrick making a different between "totalitarianism" and "authoritarianism" for instance.

 

Well a couple of things here:

1. It seems to me that many of the comparisons you’re doing here contain word pairs that are similar but have slightly different meanings. I mean in ordinary English the word “propaganda” I think usually has a different meaning or implies something slightly different than “values” or “culture”.

2. It’s true that people try to use various euphemisms to spin the nature of things. It’s like the military using the word “collateral damage” when it means “civilian casualties”. Its up to us as objective logical thinkers to see through the bullshit and know what is really being said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That's rather frightening in my view.  Some things are real whether you believe them to be real or not.  By this logic the "belief" in the flat Earth is a real and valid as the "belief" in the spheroid Earth.

Yes, it can be a bit scary when you start realizing that many of your beliefs (including about yourself) may not be as real as you thought they were.

But no, this doesn't make belief in a flat Earth valid. It only means such a belief is some people's reality. It shows how powerful subjectivity is and how difficult it is to convince other people that their reality is in fact not real if they refuse to adopt the same standard of proof as everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

While, I can understand their intent, I think there methods lead us down a very dubious path.

Oh, but I completely agree. I'm merely trying to explain the gist of it, not condoning or supporting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...