I can’t count the number of times I’ve defended Postmodernism (PoMo) from attack, so I am publishing this, so I can link to it. Perhaps I am not …
—- Exclellent points!
I agree. and I too have been known to appear to overgeneralize postmodernism.
Mostly, though, So far is out right rejection, I reject the kind of post modern theory that appears eerily similar to essays that can be generated by The Postmodern Generator.
And there are a lot of them. Ive came across so many￼, and there is a group of people extended through academia who produce essays, legitimate essays, that sound ridiculously similar to these nonsensical essays that are made by the post modern generator. This is so much the case, look back into my posts maybe a couple years ago about the danger of such post modern academics generating theoretical essays that appear legitimate merely because there’s a bunch of people that like to generate meaning within the confines of a group; The orientation that whatever meaning comes to mind, whatever semantical construction is able to make sense, must make sense. Meaning, it must be true, it must have some veracity in the world.
I refute this. I disagree with that kind of post modern approach, Simply speaking, because it has no ground. It is the pure example of Kantian idealism imposing itself upon reality￼￼￼￼￼, As opposed to￼ theory and their categories being generated from real situations in-themselves.
There is a larger, extended, argument here, and you can find it interspersed throughout my blog.
I also reject the kind of post modern that people identify with as they’re being is associated only with a method￼, as though because my brain works in this way, because my thoughts automatically go to being skeptical, therefore the being of things must be the conclusion, the grand conclusion of that method.
Further, I would argue that adhering to that kind of semantic method for Being, is itself a metanarrative.
This is why I say that certain types of reductions, for example everything reduces to a kind of Zen Buddhist nothingness, is contradictory, and is why we need to set our ontological selves within the truth of that contradiction uncomfortably if we are to come upon what being actually is as a real thing in itself. And this is to say that to set myself in a conceptual nothingness while I indeed interact with real things, gives rise to a different ontological condition than merely “Zen Buddhist phenomenal nothingness”, for that merely gives us one side of the situation. ￼￼
Something else is actually occurring, and I say that this truth can be known, and can be communicated. ￼
I would identify myself as a post modern thinker, but without the added necessity of having to agree with the “-ism”. And I am also very much a realist. (Without the “-ist”. Lol)
…one could say that my work involves the intersection of those two aspects of universal existence. ￼￼￼￼