Is Post-Modernism a rejection of Empiricism?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Zabzie,

We got this for my ten year old son before his 10th birthday.  He's read it and loves it:

https://www.amazon.com/Cartoon-Introduction-Philosophy-Michael-Patton/dp/0809033623

He rather enjoys "graphic novel" adaptations and he really enjoyed this one too:

https://www.amazon.com/Search-Lost-Time-Swanns-Graphic/dp/1631490354

We're doomed... aren't we?

I mean, all I ever really needed to know about post-modern philosophy was really in "The Far Side", so this is consistent.

[Jo498]

29 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And if it's not the truth, the point of it is what exactly? I mean, I think it's reasonable to say we may not exactly know the truth is at times, but to say, well there are no truth's, then why even bother with scientific endeavors? And even if we can't always know the exact truth at all times, it would seem to me having some criteria for judging one argument to be better than another is desirable. And post-modernism would deny that such criteria could exist.

Yes, and then it becomes incoherent. I think that in some fashion people trying to think this way practice a kind of "double-think": Of course they are presenting some kind of arguments (often not clear and almost always hard to understand) so for the time being they believe that they have presented valid arguments that could convince others of something they hold. One can certainly do this for some non-fundamental fields. E.g. one can "deconstruct" a certain interpretation of Shakespeare or Plato and come up with a different one. Because literary criticism is rather "soft", it is not even quite clear what a single true or correct interpretation of a text should be. One could even try to criticize some field of science. Often with good reasons. Maybe a lot of 19th century anthropology was informed by deeply ingrained ideas of white supremacy etc. and by showing how such extra-/pre-scientific ideas formed the methods etc. of the researchers one can "debunk" craniology or similar stuff.

But there are two problems here: The first is that usually in a somewhat mature science, the best arguments against certain parts in that science (e.g. "racist biology") come from another part of that science. (In most cases, scientist in the particular field will only accept such arguments.) So we do not have a deconstruction from the outside but basically a variant of the standard internal critical evaluation of claims within a scientific field. Still, there might be cases were all or most of the scientists are so blinded by their tunnel vision that their hidden presuppositions are not visible for them (like maybe in 19th century racial theories). So there can be valid counterarguments from other sciences, from history, from general philosophical or metatheoretical considerations.

But the second problem is that one cannot "deconstruct" or "relativize" the very basics (logics, some bits of maths etc.). Partly because of their fundamental character but mainly because they have to be taken as "tools" for any criticism of a particular theory. If one does not trust one's owns arguments hanging together logically one cannot hope to convince anyone else. They have to be taken as valid, justified, truth-conducive, truth-preserving etc. I think that such considerations really are the clincher against all hard-core skepticism, relativism (and postmodernism usually falls into either of these two, or both).

[Jo498]

You are doomed if you do, and doomed, if you don't. The opposite of philosophy is not no philosophy but taking for granted the handed down, vulgarized version of some (usually bad) philosophy that now passes for common sense. (Pretty sure that someone formulated this with more pith, it's not by me.)

E.g taking for granted what a "productive and happy member of society" is supposed to be...

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

This theory (like a lot of them) can be taken to nihilism.  The thinking cannot stand alone.  You then have to fit it within a social construct (yes, your brain may have exploded) for it to be actual useful to real humans.  

I think some people on the left are often drawn to moral relativism because perhaps it means to them, appreciating other cultures and not being condescending to them. And certainly I can appreciate that to a large extent. And I think it’s prudent and right to respect other cultures. And I think it’s very prudent to be hesitant to interfere with other cultures, after all I'm not a neocon. However I think you do, at times, have to take a stand as to the moral rightness of a practice within a culture.

I mean if what is moral is simply defined with what’s in the culture, how do you take a stand against slavery before the Civil War? How do you take a stand for women’s rights in the 1950s? You can’t if you're working entirely in a moral relativist framework (and argue that you are right). And that’s my objection to it.

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I mean, OGE, it's like the old joke about the economist, the physicist and the chemist who are shipwrecked.  A flat of tinned food washes up.  They wonder how they are going to open the cans.  The two scientists run off to do what they do.  The economist looks at them, puzzled:  "why don't you just assume a can opener."  Every discipline has this.

LOL.

I think Galbraith once noted that as soon as Milton Friedman said, “Let’s assume” or “Let’s suppose”, you should respond “no, let’s not assume that”.

[SerHaHa]

Quote

Nice to know you think Nazi Gemany is just as good as any other society.

Carry on.

WHAT?!  Where did you get that from, from what I asked?  My point was that civilized society and its laws didn't just pop into existence from something "self evident" or whatever you were describing in yourself, that it happened over a very long period of time, and as a group many, most, societies decided collectively what was right or wrong.  How does that condone anything the Nazis did?  IMO the rise of the national socialist workers party in Germany is nothing more than a good example of what happens when you stomp on people who are already down, and simultaneously through fate or bad luck a man or group comes along to stoke that fire - sound familiar? - IE election 2016 (and no, I'm not a Trump supporter).  Those who formed the punitive treaty of Versailles are as much to blame for the Nazis as anything else.

That still has nothing to do with the fact that undisturbed societies that still exist on this planet still maintain a pretty brutal standard when it comes to bringing harm to other people.  How does that square up with other theories as to why the rest of us have an understand of right from wrong, without such things is laws or religion?

Or, you can just throw the "you're a nazi" and punch me in the head instead of responding.

I really am interested in an actual response, OGE is one of the members here I most enjoy reading, and having worked with many Marines, and having had a best friend that was a US Marine, I respect your opinion as both a Marine Officer and an educated and interesting poster here.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Jo498 said:

snip

Interesting and well put.

[BloodRider]

25 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

You are doomed if you do, and doomed, if you don't. The opposite of philosophy is not no philosophy but taking for granted the handed down, vulgarized version of some (usually bad) philosophy that now passes for common sense. (Pretty sure that someone formulated this with more pith, it's not by me.)

E.g taking for granted what a "productive and happy member of society" is supposed to be...

 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think a some people on the left are often drawn to moral relativism because perhaps it means to them, appreciating other cultures and not being condescending to them. And certainly I can appreciate that to a large extent. And I think it’s prudent and right to respect other cultures. And I think it’s very prudent to be hesitant to interfere with other cultures, after all I'm not a neocon. However I think you do at times have to take a stand, at times, as to the moral rightness of a practice within a culture.

I mean if what is moral is simply defined with what’s in the culture, how do you take a stand against slavery before the Civil War? How do you take a stand for women’s rights in the 1950s? You can’t if your working entirely in a moral relativist framework (and argue that you are right). And that’s my objection to it.

LOL.

I think Galbraith once noted that as soon as Milton Friedman said, “Let’s assume” or “Let’s suppose”, you should respond “no, let’s not assume that”.

*lmao*  

The tension between philosophy/philosophers focused on the individual and those on the collective has always been fascinating to me. 

Also, I always found that the economists and scientists were way more entertaining that the philosophy types.  And I like funny.

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, SerHaHa said:

snip

You're point is then what exactly? Something is immoral only if a society considers it so to be so? It's immoral only if it is known to the society?

[SerHaHa]

 

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

You're point is then what exactly? Something is immoral only if a society considers it so to be so? It's immoral only if it is known to the society?

Fair question, and mostly, yes.  Any group of a few or more becoming a "society", as it takes relations with others for rules and laws to matter. Isn't that the entire point of "freedom" and "democracy", that we decide our rules of right and wrong, and agree to act in this manner?  And, that over time, these ideas and laws have greatly evolved and changed, mainly for the better?

What do you believe then, if not this?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, SerHaHa said:

Fair question, and mostly, yes.  Any group of a few or more becoming a "society", as it takes relations with others for rules and laws to matter. Isn't that the entire point of "freedom" and "democracy", that we decide our rules of right and wrong, and agree to act in this manner?  And, that over time, these ideas and laws have greatly evolved and changed, mainly for the better?

What do you believe then, if not this?

If I go to some remote island where they practice slavery and it's generally not known to be wrong, I'd be gentler, most likely, in my judgement of those people, than I would if I found a slaver living in a modern nation, who should know full well that it is wrong.

However, the islanders' lack of knowledge or state of awareness as to it's wrongness, doesn't change the fact it is wrong.

[SerHaHa]

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

If I go to some remote island where they practice slavery and it's generally not known to be wrong, I'd be gentler, most likely, in my judgement of those people, than I would if I found a slaver living in a modern nation, who should know full well that it is wrong.

However, the islanders' lack of knowledge or state of awareness as to it's wrongness, doesn't change the fact it is wrong.

I agree that it's wrong, as does most everyone else here I'd bet, but it still doesn't answer as to why the rest of the planet that has been involved with one another and had our ideals evolve over time, don't act as nearly ALL of the uncontacted tribes still do.  I suppose what I'm saying is that I believe that it isn't in human nature to know right from wrong.  Are we not just animals, organic machines not all that different than a dolphin or some other intelligent animal - or do you suggest we have some magic spark in our "soul" that tells us right from wrong?

 

Much of what I've seen in the mid east, and in the former Yugoslavia, leads me to believe that once society has broken down, the rules, and that kinder, gentler humanity you mention, flies right out the window.  I don't disagree that this is wrong, however "wrong" I believe is based on the social conventions, and rules/laws, we've agreed to as a collective group in civil society.  Once that civilized compact is gone, broken down by war or some other reason, mass famine, whatever - why do we as humans then largely ignore the "rules", and do whatever we please?

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If post-modernism is claiming "there is no truth" doesn't that attack the whole purpose behind Empiricism's effort to discover "truth"?

It isn't claiming that there is no truth; it is claiming that you cannot perceive it properly. And it doesn't attack empiricism's effort, it attacks the thought that you can fully achieve it by questioning parts that are assumed at their base. 

Again, just because you say 'you can never find the full truth' does not mean it implies 'and therefore, give up and smoke weed'. 

[Kalbear]

Also, ya'll would benefit greatly from reading the 0 worlds collide story on lesswrong, which shows the dangers of absolutist moralistic thinking from both directions. 

There are probably a few absolute moral concepts of humans that stem largely from their social monkey roots, but in general no - morals are not universal, should not be claimed as universal, and do not have to be universal in order to be correct or good. 

Quote

 

THIS VESSEL IS THE OPTIMISM OF THE CENTER OF THE VESSEL PERSON

YOU HAVE NOT KICKED US

THEREFORE YOU EAT BABIES

WHAT IS OURS IS YOURS, WHAT IS YOURS IS OURS

 

 

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I mean if what is moral is simply defined with what’s in the culture, how do you take a stand against slavery before the Civil War? How do you take a stand for women’s rights in the 1950s? You can’t if you're working entirely in a moral relativist framework (and argue that you are right). And that’s my objection to it.

I'm no expert with that level of abstraction, but I don't think moral relativism and post-modernism are identical.

Post-modernism is about bringing scepticism to an entirely different level and thus putting in doubt any grand narrative or truth. This does not, as you seem to think, prevent anyone from holding some moral values. On the contrary, I am tempted to say that doubting the dominant metastructures and paradigms would lead to an increased importance of one's personal moral principles.
By contrast, moral relativism would be the tendency to accept the fact that different civilizations have different values -and refrain from being judgmental about the ones you reject.
In other words, I do not think that post-modernism necessarily leads to moral relativism or nihilism. I personally see post-modernism as a philosophical approach that questions what is generally accepted as true (by reminding everyone that truth may be beyond the human grasp), especially when it is accepted with limited empirical data (for one reason or the other). In other words I see it as a means rather than an ends.
So from my perspective, using a post-modernist approach, it would have been possible for someone to realize slavery was wrong far before the American Civil War. One might have been able to question the ideological, economic and moral arguments supporting slavery and expose them as unsatisfactory.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Also, ya'll would benefit greatly from reading the 0 worlds collide story on lesswrong, which shows the dangers of absolutist moralistic thinking from both directions.

I just did. Nice read, thanks for sharing. I smiled more than a few times.

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I just did. Nice read, thanks for sharing. I smiled more than a few times.

My favorite of that whole thing still remains this:

Quote

 

"Our apologies," said the perfect figure on screen.  "You may call me Big Fucking Edward; as for our species..."  The figure tilted a head in thought.  "This translation program is not fully stable; even if I said our proper species-name, who knows how it would come out.  I would not wish my kind to forever bear an unaesthetic nickname on account of a translation error."

Akon nodded.  "I understand, Big Fucking Edward."

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

10 hours ago, SerHaHa said:

Or, you can just throw the "you're a nazi" and punch me in the head instead of responding.

Yeah, let me apologize here. I didn't mean to say you were a Nazi in any way shape or form.

So forgive me, if that came off as what I was implying.

What I was trying to get at, was my unease with straight moral relativism (in fact I'm a bit hostile to it. Though, yeah I recognize that norms can vary among cultures). The example of Nazi Germany is of course an extreme example. But, given, how people often label others as being Nazis I probably should have avoided it and used another example.

[Happy Ent]

The first rule of postmodernism is: You don’t explain postmodernism.

But, yes, it is a principled rejection not only of empiricism but of critical rationalism (which itself rejects empiricism). If, like me, you are a Popperian (so you think science is a process of rejection of hypotheses rather than induction from experience), you reject empiricism anyway, but you reject postmodernism even more.

The clearest and most informative explanation of pomo I know is Hicks’ Explaining Postmodernism. The problem with this (incredibly well-written and short) book is that Hicks really, really, really detests the postmodern project. It would be great if there was a similarly good book that actually liked the field, but I’ve never seen it. Some of Rorty’s writings are very good (and I have sympathies for them), but that falls very short of a comprehensive description.

[Happy Ent]

6 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, given, how people often label others as being Nazi's I probably should have avoided it and used another example.

In English, the plural does not take an apostrophe. The possessive does.

[Jo498]

I am also not quite sure if Rorty is a fully fledged postmodernist. He is close but often seems to oscillate between a somewhat more sensible pragmatist (I think he called himself one for a time) position and postmodernism.

The problem with Hicks is that his hate of current postmodernists seems to prevent him from giving a proper historical reconstruction and assessment of the earlier history of philosophy. There is so much wrong and extremely distorted in the stuff readable for free (e.g. on Kant) that it is quite mind-boggling. (I don't know about a good intro to postmodernism, I think Stanley Fish was recommended to me years ago but I am not sure I read it.)

The incoherence at the core of postmodernism seems to be the following: They want to severely criticize and "debunk" all the "great narratives" with capital Truth and Rationality at the center. Because these were used as instruments of suppression, repression, led to Ausschwitz or whatever. But as I tried to explain above, one cannot do that and then put the alternative suggestion one has made in skeptical brackets as well. If it is not a "better" suggestion than the one of the Truth narrative, why bother? One can speak Truth to power and the Truth can make one free only if there really is Truth that shows how the prevalent narrative is really only or mainly an instrument of power. But if there is no Truth, all this collapses. (This was made very clear by some commenters on the Sokal affair over 20 years ago, probably Sokal himself or philosopher Paul Boghossian.) There is no liberation by enlightenment anymore, there is only a Nietzschean Will to Power and competing narratives. And the alternative narrative suggested by the deconstructionist is in no may better justified (because there simply is no truth, valid justification etc.) than the narrative that kept or keeps the phallologocracy in power. Why prefer one over the other?

One cannot escape some basic things (like fundamental logic and argument forms) if one wants to criticize or justify anything. This puts a "natural" limit to skepticism. We might get rid of the phalloi but he have to keep a core of logos. And if one wants to hold that an alternative narrative is "better" than the one criticized, one is commited to some kind of independent truth (or good) the alternative gets closer to.