Chomsky's Open Question to Postmodernists.

Noam Chomsky has had, sometimes quite harsh words, when describing Postmodernism. Interestingly, the famous linguist claims to have a question that postmodernists appear unable to answer. In this video, we spell out the question and propose some possible avenues to answer.

References:

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter:
Discord:
Substack:

[Mon]

If I were to take on the challenge of steelmanning postmodernism with what I have read of it, I would probably try to take the second route to answer,
challenging whether the contributions of an academic discipline must only consist of things that are true and non-trivial.

One could argue that postmodernism contributed to knowledge by introducing novel concepts and terminology like 'simulacra' (a copy or a copy of a copy in which the original meaning can no longer be found), 'hyperreality' (a condition where what is generally regarded as real and what is understood as fiction are seamlessly blended together, creating a situation of confusion between reality and fiction), 'deconstruction' (the process of questioning the fixed assumptions underlying texts or ideas, offering new interpretations by emphasizing the ambiguity and instability of language) and 'intertextuality' (the idea that art and literature are influenced by one another, where texts refer to and are influenced by other texts, blurring the boundaries between works and challenging the notions of originality and authorship). This terminology is well-defined and has value.

One could also argue that a contribution of postmodernism was social, as a focus on empathy and power relations was needed after the horrors of the Second World War.

[TheSandkastenverbot]

I would like to extend Chomsky's challenge to all 20th century philosophy. There will be several interesting and non-trivial statements but it won't be many

[scposeur]

Would love to see the sourced interview referencing ‘the (not really) left, ” “science is dominated by men” quotes. Anyone know what/where/when it’s from?

[Xob_Driesestig]

I would say that the insights from 'simulacra and simulation' by Jean Baudrillard are both nontrivial and 'accurate'. I say 'accurate' because capital T truth is impossible for any philosophical or scientific theory. Philosophical and scientific theories need to use idealizations, computational compression, incomplete selection etc, which makes them incomplete, but sometimes both useful and empirically adequate.
I do think philosophy suffers from hindsight bias. E.g., some philosopher comes up with the concept of womens rights/animal rights/parliamentary democracy and it's really unpopular and counter intuitive for everyone. There is a long struggle to get it implemented, but once it's implemented everyone thinks those concepts are totally trivial and obvious and the use of philosophy is once again questioned, repeat ad infinitum.

[Ranger]

Trivial is a conclusion, a judgement No? So how can it be scientific? And not biased emotions?😊

[IndieGuvenc]

@0:27 What is a thing? example: Quentin Tarantino's film Pulp Fiction is a postmodern film that combines elements from different genres, including crime, noir, and comedy. The film is also known for its self-referentiality and its nonlinear plot

Do post modermist believe in reality? Postmodernists do not deny the existence of reality, but they do challenge the idea that there is a single, objective reality

[JEQvideos]

There's no reason to take this challenge seriously. Just look up the debate between Chomsky and Foucault, I'm pretty sure you can find it here on youtube. It seemed to me that Chomsky, while not agreeing with Foucault, had to concede a lot of points and at least temper his positions in relation to issues that Foucault raised. But listening to Chomsky, you'd think that this conversation had never happened or that Foucault had just sat there for a couple hours spouting incomrehensible gibberish. If Chomsky agrees with something it's trivially obvious. If he doesn't, or he just can't relate to the points being made, then it's gibberish.

[avaraportti]

Chomsky's very fascinating because he seems sincerely intersted in concrete material reality, yet he's a complete idealist in his understanding of society and politics. Mf need Marx.

[YokeSkull]

Hei @jonasceikaCCK are you up for the challange?