Talk:Criticism of postmodernism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Citations needed[edit]

Any sort of 'criticism of' page is extremely susceptible to garbage and needs a lot of sources. There are many good critiques of postmodern theory, but generally people who simply do not know what postmodern theory is (does anybody?) and who disregard it as conservatives are going to be attracted to make lazy contributions to this page like insects to doggy doo. Habermas and Rorty accept many of the principles of thinkers such as Foucault, and Foucault himself, I think quite rightly, rejected the postmodern label and emphasised the Kantian/Nietzschean position in his work (even if that position is somewhat contradictory). The idea that "postmodernists are dangerous and relativist" is a very very basic way of looking at it, when in reality, many postmodern critiques of science (and so many only focus on soft science; psychology, sociology, etc) are merely a continuation on the lines of Kant and Kuhn and offer quite sophisticated analyses of the social processes which determine the acquisition of certain knowledges. Anyway. In short: REFERENCES PLEASE!! --Tomsega (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Worst article ever?[edit]

Seriously, as if the article on postmodernism wasn't biased enough, we need a further article written by philosophy minors, no doubt buzzed on Redbull making strawman arguments that try to equate postmodernism and aryan ideals? Then They dig up every living soul who has ever walked this earth to criticize postmodernism and let them have a word here? I request the expedient deletion of such an non-encyclopedic entry as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.31.73 (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

We need a section on how postmodernism affects modern culture. Portillo (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the biggest thing lacking in the article is a response to all the criticism. A lot of postmodern writers profoundly disagree with many of the criticisms in the article, but there is no counterargument. Also, there is some confusion about what is being criticized here: is it postmodern writers, or the postmodern condition? Many postmodern writers criticize the postmodern condition. Another ambiguity: in what sense are we using criticism here. In the critical theory sense, or in the "you suck" sense? Should the article be renamed as Modernist criticism of postmodern critical theory?COGDEN 09:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Most sections include responses to the criticism, though I agree with 68.147.31.73 in that it's poorly organized. The obscurantism/political critiques should get focus since they're the most prominent (esp. the Sokal affair) and stuff like the Christian and Marxist responses rolled into political critique. On that note, the 'Moral Relativism' section is really terrible - it starts off with the clumsy and prejudging "some critics, who are also described with the pejorative term, Christian Right," most of the source links aren't actually links to the material or otherwise invalid, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.109.213 (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

\

I agree, but on a slightly different note: this article has none of the weighty arguments against post-modernism. For instance, why isn't there any point about how it's only reasonably defensible when assumed? To be a little more clear: post-modernism is not based on intuitions, evidence, logic, reason, etc. It's based on a group of people who, when faced with the enormous difficulty involved in creating a rational theory of the universe, preferred instead to declare it all relative and then firmly stick to that point. It commits the fallacy of reasoning from a theory to the facts rather than from facts to the theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.88.51 (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Art Bollocks[edit]

The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Bollocks was to merge that article into this one. I have performed a purely mechanical merge. Content experts need to assimilate it into the article in a more useful manner. Fiddle Faddle 23:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Solomon quote[edit]

I'm unaware of any other article which features a heading quote as this one now does. This is keeping with the style of Wikipedia and the policy of neutral presentation? 66.87.119.183 (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Authenticity of Chomsky criticism[edit]

Has this been verified to have been authored by Chomsky? http://bactra.org/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html

This was a very open and public argument and his comments still stand. So yes they are verified. Would you like more sources? Shabidoo | Talk 16:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)