A short study into the post-modern/modern (realist/others) debate

A short study into the post-modern/modern (realist/others) debate

08.15.04 (11:11 pm)   [edit]
I am not a philosopher and i am just going through what i have found so far. Take that how you may!!! hehehehe... I do not take these things to the extreme so saying that i am one or the other wont satisfy me. I also dont believe that absolutely everything is relative. To take this from a modernist point of view. I am a hypocrit because i dont take everything to be absolute. And now from a postmodernist point of view... I am not a real postmodernist because i think that modernist methods can be used in certain circumstances. From the definitions and vague concepts defined by many writers on the internet and that i have heard in lectures and from colleagues i definitely sense that post-modernism is not a stable philosophy. I get annoyed when people say both that things are either absolute and when they say things are relative.

As i explained as i was getting over my study of personality types... i dont think boxes should be permanent but to the extent that they will better my life and my ability to help others i will use them. when i become obsessive about any one thing as philosophers seem to get on the topic that i am blogging about i think that it is time to lay off it.

everyone says that the study of philosophy is the basis for everything. as a true postmodernist i will say that i think it has its place but obsessing over it will get you no where. i wonder if it is against current definitions to say that i am a progressive philosopher for what i can get out of what i do... not for what questions i can bring up from what i do.

the following quote could help a little so i will include it now.


"if Descartes is seen as the father of modernism, then postmodernism is a variety of cultural positions which reject major features of Cartesian (or allegedly Cartesian) modern thought. Hence, views which, for example, stress the priority of the social to the individual; which reject the universalizing tendencies of philosophy; which prize irony over knowledge; and which give the irrational equal footing with the rational in our decision procedures all fall under the postmodern umbrella."
http://www.hku.hk/philodep/ugrad/glossar y.htm" title="http://www.hku.hk/philodep/ugrad/glossar y.htm" target="_blank"http://www.hku.hk/philodep/ug...

i would like to point out the universalising tendencies of people who are trying to talk to me about this. i may not be a realist just from saying that i think universalising is unapplicable to not universal concepts. even though people say that they are working from definitions as realists and most likely modernists i think that they are just avoiding the question i pose that they must prove their definitions are real. i do not mind setting something up based on definitions (not labels btw) that set up communication based on abstract concepts to describe concrete things. i had one view told to me today in which the person stated that because the basic building blocks of language are abstract that everything we say is abstract and therefore, by their own defintion i must point out, not real. i believe that there are concrete things in the world. that is not a problem for me as it seems to be for others. i also believe that many things are made up, such as scientific theories. this will really annoy realists and modernists as they believe that through their scientific method they can find truth that others will experience. i can accept things that others say on their word as long as the concept does not cause a contradiction in my head. this is not to say i cannot accept a contradiction. i have a sophisticated modernist view in reality. in the event of a contradiction i will study further to try and eliminate it if possible. to take this to a third step which is obviously not rational as modernist philosophers will argue but i will judge all the evidence and form a definite position, at least at that point in time about what i think on a subject.

i am an extremely fluid modernist as far as i can tell. modernists will reject me though because of my lack of universality on everything. postmodernists will also reject me because i have rational tendencies in things like religion and in particular, my religion and my concepts that my faith encompasses. postmodernism seems self defeating both from within in terms of what can be accepted and from a modernist view in that it is not rational. i base my faith on my acceptance of both observations and what the effects on society have been from christ. apart from that it is the only logical way that i see where i cannot and do not have to work for my salvation and that the whole concept of love shows that someone cares about me as a person/entity/soul.

i see postmodernism as an extremely liberal approach to escaping from the things that are wrong with modernism and in the process having to take some views that cause the good parts of modernism to be taken down. true... a revolution such as this has to be violent to move peoples opinions but for a person like me who thinks through things heavily in short amounts of time and then starts reevaluation based on experience just as quickly i can see that it is not going to bring about either a stable society or one that encourages innovation and a faith in the basic concepts of community. a community purely based on postmodernism will reject law as valid because it is simply one or someone elses view of the world. taking this to the extreme hurt and suffering are simply someone elses perception of the universe they live in and hence are no more important that any others.

frankly i see that as a way out only in the sense that it allows for individual opinions. religious doctrines are valid in the sense that they are given by a loving God and Father for our benefit. hypocricy will be found in anyone, even the most diligent which will discourage many looking for a totally coherent purpose. i also understand that there are a lot of hypocrits who hurt people in the name of religion. i do denounce the person as a person. i denounce their actions and ask that you do not prejudge me based on others in my religion or community. going on now...

the list of things that oppose various types of realism in the list below demonstrate just a few of the possible oppositions and complexities in the topic. i think that philosophers should actually think about the huge number of possibilities here and take notice that they are not going to have a right answer for everything just because they have been working their whole lives with the view that their concepts are real.

"a variety of doctrines in different areas of philosophy holding that entities or facts of contested sorts exist. There are, of course, different arguments concerning the reality of numbers in mathematics, the reality of moral facts in ethics, and the reality of time in physics or metaphysics. The kind of reality ascribed to universals differs from the kind of reality seen as belonging to common-sense material objects or to theoretical entities in science. Various realisms are hence opposed by nominalism, idealism, instrumentalism, reductionism, eliminativism, conventionalism, constructivism, relativism and anti-realism. Kant argued for both empirical realism and transcendental idealism. In recent years, many philosophers have discussed Michael Dummett's argument for anti-realism, in which he rejects the claim that every proposition must be either true or false and argues that realism must be false because it implies this claim."
http://www.hku.hk/philodep/ugrad/glossar y.htm" title="http://www.hku.hk/philodep/ugrad/glossar y.htm" target="_blank"http://www.hku.hk/philodep/ug...

their is a place for realism in the study of real things. when philosophy of things we cant see or experience gets mixed up it is extremely easy to make even the smallest of presuppositions and cause a system to fall over. the fact that they system falls over does not mean that everything the system developed was wrong however. a study of what was wrong with the system could well find out that only a slight change in the presupposition could balance the system out.

the tendency to go to absolutes because that is what our language and communication styles most easily supports is a danger in that because refinements can be made (most people in any camp will agree to that, if not... this whole thing is not for you... you are a modernist without hope or a future) then that implies that there is a level of uncertainty in anything. in saying that i realise why it is so hard for traditionalist realist modernists to take concepts such as the uncertainty principle in quantum physics so hard. frankly i have no trouble conceiving that something is non-deterministic... or relativistic in other words... i understand that the entire concept could screw with some minds to no end... as will my saying this at all.

in trying to analyse me i am sure people will be messed up because i make simple things complex. i do not say that i am one just because that is what you want. i will also refuse to answer questions in a way that i perceive will give the interviewer the wrong impression. sure... research is best when people are being frank about something and just communicating in the way they always do... i do not profess to be a good research subject and infact... i know i am not.

the act of transforming myself to give others what i perceive is the most accurate view of myself tends to be pretty messed up due to subconscious tendencies.. that said... from experience i have found that i get the best results from communication when i put effort into describing myself in other peoples terms rather than in my preconceived terms. this actually works quite well for me as i am a fluid person who rethinks everything i do before, during, and after i say things. for instance... what i said up the top of this post may infact be contrary to what i am saying now. do not take that as hypocricy. take the latter over the former remembering that even the latter may just be my argument from an opposing viewpoint to see if any more information can be found from the other viewpoint. my opinions may still be the former even after all that discussion. i am quite a dangerous person to talk to really due to my tendency to take the position of devils advocate in the hope of moving people towards what i see as a balance/truth (in some sense of the word) this movement is a forward step in my view. true... i am not perfect and i could be going backwards but after an acceptable amount of thought i think that i can gamble with the remaining 1 or 2 percent chance in most cases in the hope of a large reward.

also i laugh at the number of people who try to put people in boxes (realists obviously) so that they can say reality exists and is valid for them at least and who dont make any effort to see others reality believing that to be inherently impossible to perfect and hence not worth the effort. i think that intellectual intimacy in a relationship is very important.

take out of this what you may peoples who read this but remember that i am consciously trying to psychoanalyse both myself and my actions and hence am not a regular lab subject. i pity the researcher who tries to analyse me and put me in a box... try if you may but i will become something else just to annoy you... hehehe... nah... its not that bad... i will try to give a representation of myself but because i am fluid results may be short-lived and chaotic.

mmm... chaos... i wonder how realists take that concept... it doesn't actually cause an inconsistency in my thoughts so i dont worry... any thoughts on chaos and its implications to the whole topic would be appreciated btw.. well... thats it for me... time to sleep.