Sign in to follow this  
BaalChatzaf

Beating and Flogging the Postmodernists

Recommended Posts

Read this piece.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-19.html

It is a review of Steve Fuller's drek laden book.

It not only beats postmodernism over the head soundly and justly, it is beautifully written. What a lovely essay!

When I see how postmodern nonsense has permeated the academic scene I both fear for and weep for the future. The colleges and universities are where we send our Best and Brightest youngsters.

My friends, the Barbarian is not only at The Gate, he is within the Courtyard.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~ Interesting pieces, yes. May comment on specifics later. But, for some reason, a certain thought just occurred to me upon reading the thread-title itself, and I wonder why neither I, nor anyone I've read, never thought to comment on my following questions before. To wit...

~ Has anyone 'deconstructed' the original writings which support the worth of 'deconstructionism'? I'll bet no 'deconstructionist' has! :D

~ Just a thought. (I mean: 'deconstruct' Foucalt's writings... :huh: )

LLAP

J:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~ Interesting pieces, yes. May comment on specifics later. But, for some reason, a certain thought just occurred to me upon reading the thread-title itself, and I wonder why neither I, nor anyone I've read, never thought to comment on my following questions before. To wit...

~ Has anyone 'deconstructed' the original writings which support the worth of 'deconstructionism'? I'll bet no 'deconstructionist' has! :D

~ Just a thought. (I mean: 'deconstruct' Foucalt's writings... :huh: )

LLAP

J:D

I may be wrong on the following having not studied these figures in years but -

Hi. I know Derrida said repeatedly his own works, like all texts, could be subject to the tactic of deconstruction. As for Foucault (I guess that's who you meant), he was not, to my knowledge, a Deconstructionist; that said Derrida did attack his "Madness and Civilization" in a post modern way.

Foucault tried to write a history of Madness, speaking for it and explaining how it was silenced in the modern world view - Madness has been defined religiously (possession to be treated by Baptism), as uncomformity (the Bourgeoisie often lumped the mad with the poor and other undesirables and treated them by having them imitate middle class behaviour, ie the Tea Party and Mad Hatter), as a scientific disease (the opposite of psychiatry, psychology etc); Madness has never been allowed to speak for itself, for what it is rather than what it is not.

Derrida simply asked two things, where did the definition of Madness come from and how could Foucault, a rational man know it internally? Why did Foucault insist on treating madness as a stable idea if it was so enslaved to evolving world views, something inherantly unstable. Why assume it is an "it" at all? Foucault must fall back, inevitably, on the Church, the Bourgeoisie, the sciences to define madness, it never reached out to define itself. Second, how on Earth can any sane person write a history of madness from the perspective of madness? How can the "violence of reason" be avoided? How does a rationality try to define the irrational in irrational terms?

"I shall not define X! Ever! I shall let X be free from the constraints of Reason and Language!", "Too late. You just did."

Here is stuff from others who know more -

http://molecularphilosopher.blogspot.com/2...ability-of.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this