Posts Tagged ‘Postmodernism’

« Older Entries

Galileo Was No Scientist

Friday, December 4th, 2009

I recently heard about philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend’s criticism of Galileo (and by inference all science): Galileo did not have sufficient evidence to make a logical case for heliocentrism. Instead, he used “rhetoric, propaganda, and various epistemological tricks”.

At the time, optical theory was not advanced enough to explain how telescopes worked. So Galileo had to trust on faith that his instruments were measuring what he thought they were measuring. It’s not scientific, but Galileo was supported by a consensus of astronomers, including Jesuits.

Observations of planets do not distinguish between the Tychonic system, where the sun orbits the earth and all other planets orbit the sun, and the heliocentric system. The only way to determine if the earth is moving is by stellar parallax: the triangulation of stars from opposite ends of the earth’s orbit. Galileo predicted stellar parallax but it was not observed for 115 years*, so his theory was falsified until then.

In fact, under relativity it is impossible to determine whether the universe has a centre, so it is a theological rather than scientific statement.

The proper way to consider Galileo’s work is not as a scientific result, but a shift to a new paradigm: astronomy based on telescope evidence with no reference to scripture. You might find this more elegant, it might be better at landing people on the moon, but there’s no basis for saying it’s more truthful.

* And even then it wasn’t stellar parallax, it was the unpredicted steller aberration. Parallax wasn’t observed until 228 years after Galileo’s prediction.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Chicks Don’t Like Me Because Society Makes Them

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

One of the most fundamental laws of evolutionary psychology is that women are pickier about their mates than men. They’re picky because women invest more in offspring from growing eggs to dropping junior off at soccer practice. This law is used to explain all sorts of facts of modern life, particularly in dating theory.

This hypothesis can be easily tested in speed dating: do men choose more partners for follow-up than women? Recent research finds that small manipulations to the speed dating ritual result in the opposite outcome predicted by evolutionary psychology. In conclusion, the fundamental behavior of women is socially constructed and the entire field of evolutionary psychology is modernist bullshit.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Your Personal Brand

Saturday, July 4th, 2009

Modernist identity theory says that it is virtuous to be authentic to your essence. Acting inauthentically is a cardinal sin. For example, if a guy asks how to get girls, most of the time he’ll be told “just be yourself”.

If left to our own devices, most of the decisions we make are satisficing: choosing to do things that are good enough. You wear whatever’s clean, you watch whatever’s on, you do stuff because your friends are doing it, etc. (If your habitual actions happen to be Stuff White People Like, then you’re automatically authentic.)

But under modernism, this unplanned, unexamined life is supposed to be better than a life that’s engineered, a life of artifice. I beg to differ: people should be allowed to invent their identities, to “fake it till you make it”. The test is how well they pull it off, how consistent is their identity? And, of course, acting a particular way for personal gain is not cool, while acting a particular way because it’s enjoyable is cool.

Let’s call this act of constructing, projecting and maintaining an identity “personal branding“. I think that rather than construct an identity out of thin air, you should look at where you’re successful in life and what aspects you’re happy about. Distil a brand essence out of those. Then build on your strengths and nudge the rest of your life into alignment with your brand.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

How NOT to Figure Out Your Values

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

A lot of guides to living your life with values talk as if you should just have your values at the tip of your tongue, and all that’s needed is to write them down and refer to the list frequently. If your values really are that present, why wouldn’t you already be following them? I think that most people are not in touch with their values. The better guides have introspection exercises to reveal them.

Introspection is untrustworthy: a lot of crazy philosophy, psychology and religion has come out of very smart people doing introspection. I especially don’t trust introspection for this kind of thing. It will yield a combination of society’s values (the metanarrative), the unrealistic person you’d like to be (superman’s values) and values that other people are pushing on you (mom’s values).

I don’t believe that people have intrinsic, unchanging values, but introspection will not even give insight to your socially-constructed self. Postmodernism says that not only is the self not fixed, but it’s fuzzier and less solid than we think it is. (And we think that our selves are sharp and solid because of introspection.)

Instead, you need to observe yourself to reveal values in your behavior. Rather than identifying the values you’d like to live by, I think it’s better to identify the values you actually are living by. Observing yourself without falling into the trap of introspection is hard: it’s easier to observe other people and get other people to observe you.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Modern Identity is a Fundamental Error

Friday, June 19th, 2009

I am quite interested in what I call “postmodern identity theory”. I’ve tried to define it a few times in blog posts (most recently) but I’m mostly just waving my hands around. Here’s another try:

Modernist identity theory says that people have fundamental attributes that they carry around with them throughout life. In early-modern theory these attributes were shared by a group, so Brits would act British rather than go native in the colonies. Late-modern theory says that fundamental attributes differ from person to person – they’re what make people unique.

Exactly how we characterize fundamental attributes has gone through a few changes over the years. From mission and principles to values in the most recent shift.

When you see someone do something, you can either say they’re reacting to their situation or acting according to their fundamental attributes. Your theory of mind says that sometimes people do stuff because they have consistent, internal attributes; and sometimes their behavior is dictated by a context-dependent, external situation. Psychologists have noted that, when in doubt, you’ll err on the side of fundamental attributes. You think Alice does X because Alice is the kind of person who does X not because X seemed like the best thing to do from Alice’s point of view.

Postmodernism says that modernist identity theory is just one big fundamental attribution error. People don’t have fundamental attributes. Alice does X because she’s socially constructed that way.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

OMG I Was Wrong, It Was Kant All Along!

Tuesday, April 7th, 2009

I have half a Baccalaureate in Philosophy. But since it’s a joint degree, there were low breadth requirements. So I know my Aristotle, Berkeley and Carnap, but not a whole lot about continental philosophy.

Since graduation, I’ve been trying to fill in those blanks. I don’t feel that I have the interest nor the time build a foundation of orthodox modernism* and modernist critical theory, and then apply the dialectic method to learn postmodernism from that, so I read postmodern stuff without the prerequisites.

I’m particularly interested in postmodern identity theory. It has been said that late modern and postmodern philosophy is all “footnotes to Kant“. It turns out that Kant laid the foundation for what I consider postmodern identity:

Kant says that things have a phenomenal nature, which you can perceive, and a noumenal nature that is unknowable. Your noumenal self is basically your “soul” or core self, but you can only perceive your phenomenal self, which is socially constructed. Morality rests on the rational free will of noumenal selves.

But Nietzsche says that noumenal things are a meaningless fiction: since they have no properties, the world can be entirely explained in terms of phenomenal things. So we are all just bundles of constructed identities and moral relativism is king.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

If No One Hears a Philosopher, Do They Make a Sound?

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

Science is notoriously hard to read. When I feel like defending this, I say that scientists are not writing for you and me, they’re writing for their colleagues. The job of scientists is not to explain science, it’s to do science. It’d be nice if our society had someone whose job it was to explain science, but there’s no one who does that job adequately (especially people with journalism degrees).

Philosophy is also notoriously hard to read. The defence I usually give is that philosophy is hard to write about because the concepts are not intuitive, otherwise the reader would have already figured it out on their own. Most philosophy is actually written in the style of saying the same relatively-simple idea over and over again in different complicated ways, because philosophers can’t figure out how state it simply.

But unlike science, philosophy studies things that are important to everyone.* So it’s not just unfortunate if everyone can’t read it, it may not be useful to do philosophy if it can’t be widely communicated. I recently found a great statement of this argument in a review of an influential cultural studies book titled The Practice of Everyday Life:

De Certeau’s text claims to address the roles [of] “average people” yet his style creates a virtually impenetrable barrier to any “average people” ever benefiting from his ideas. His writing style consistently maintains this elitist and arrogant attitude in which he postures as the high priest: only those willing to pass the “trial by reading” which he poses are admitted into the sacred circle of his wisdom.

* Even metaphysics: if I need to follow certain rules or face eternal damnation, I’d like to know that sooner rather than later.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Postmodernism vs Neo-Marxism

Wednesday, March 18th, 2009

My friend Tara recently wrote an excellent summary of what a neo-Marxist revolutionary does. My summary is that neo-Marxists believe that the majority of us live under a false meta-narrative, believing that our alienation is either desirable or has no alternative. (This sounds a lot more like The Matrix than Baudrillard does, eh?) The neo-Marxists (and Tara uses the Situationist flavour of neo-Marxist jargon) attempt to raise our consciousness by doing stuff like avant-garde art.

I don’t really get neo-Marxism, while I do dig postmodernism, so I see the situation through a postmodern lens: The neo-Marxists are incredulous to the dominant meta-narrative (ie: work is good) but see their own meta-narrative (ie: wacky stuff is good) as more authentic. Postmodernism says that all meta-narratives are not credible and the craving for the authentic is part of the late-modern meta-narrative, so the neo-Marxists are part of the system they’re attempting to overthrow. (The highly accessible text that introduced me to this idea is The Rebel Sell.)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments »

Women Want to be Objectified

Friday, March 13th, 2009

Like every other gynosexual man (and, I suspect, most if not all of everyone else) in my culture, when I look at a woman I employ The Male Gaze. This isn’t intentional, I don’t say “hey, look, it’s a woman: I’d better turn her into an object! shoop-da-whoop“, it’s just something I’ve been trained to do by being raised in this culture. On an intuitive level I consider it somewhat harmless (just because I briefly consider having sex with you doesn’t mean I don’t respect you), but rationally it’s rather repulsive.

This New York Times article titled What Do Women Want? has been widely circulated in the blogosphere. The first two-thirds of it are modernist science stuff that you’ve probably already heard: vaginal lubrication does not equal mental arousal, etc. The bottom section, though, summarizes a surprising theory from a Canadian (now teaching at the University of Nevada) social-constructionism psychologist named Marta Meana: women get turned on when they are regarded as sexual objects. In fact, women get turned on by observing other women being sexually objectified or when they themselves have the potential to be sexually objectified.

This says that womens’ eroticism is not primarily in the mind, as is commonly supposed. But it’s not in the body exactly, either. Instead, as the existentialists would say, woman’s erotic identity is in her relation to The Other. And because he is more different, the “best” Other is Man.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments »

Two Meanings of “Postmodern”

Thursday, March 5th, 2009

Artists and architects (or at least academics and historians thereof) have an insatiable need to label minute trends in their disciplines. As a result, the “postmodern period” in art took place during the summer of 1978 or something like that. In contrast, in philosophy and the social sciences, postmodernism started with/after Kant and is still slowly gathering steam. The (otherwise unremarkable) pop-architecture book The Seduction of Place: The History and Future of Cities has a nice line about the difference:

Postmodernism has now been given a rather different implication and weight by sociologists and geographers, who are concerned with the way categories of knowledge develop within late capitalist society in harness with power and privilege.

This is a Foucaultian view in its emphasis on the study of power-relations. I have only recently come across the idea that postmodernism is an ontological pursuit (what exists?) compared to modernism as an epistemological pursuit (what can we know?), so I can’t say more about that.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries