Let me rant today about Postmodernism and the lack of critical thinkers it is producing…
The idea that merging ideas to form better ones in and of its self is not bad, in fact often times it’s in that combining of ideas that truly great ideas happen. Here’s the problem…(you knew there had to be a problem didn’t you)
The merging of the ideas only really works if you understand fully the two ideas you are merging. Most people don’t have this ability. They are intellectually lazy. This is part of my problem with independents. If you just take a little from each side or just pay attention to one side then you ultimately are going to not be fully informed on anything. Example…independents and others are furious over the debt ceiling debate. They think our spending and our increasing debt is a bad thing because that’s what’s being sold to them. Some economist like Paul Krugman think we should spend to get out of our recession see his letter to Obama at this link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/18/paul-krugman-letter-to-ob_n_158852.html
Look I only want informed debate, not half-baked, poorly thought out platitudes that do nothing to move the country forward. Postmodernism has, I believe taken over our political debate (for a good primer on Postmodernism go to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
I think the best way to say this is there are certain epistemological certainties. In other words there are political truths, scientific truths, and cultural truths. There are certain things we can not question their legitimacy. No one is going to argue against gravity, no one is going to question that democracy allows for more freedoms then dictatorship. Postmodernism is making us question the validity of our own epistemological realities. It is important to understand and take into account perspectives from all around the world and from all perspectives. But does that open us up to losing site of our truths? In other words if you open the door will everything fall out?
Look some people on the right get dinged for being to beholden to absolute truths. They have gone in the other direction and shut out the maddening voices of the postmodern revolution. I am not arguing that we do that; I am arguing for some critical thinking and understanding of the issues. Some reflective and substantial study on the political issues that face us, not everyone has to be a political genius and work at a think tank. But by your presence in this class you are expressing an interest in being one of those people who I believe should not solidify your own stance, to the determent of other views. You should not become rigid instead hold firm to your truths but allow other views to reach you and roll around inside you for awhile. This is not to say you are weak or feeble in your intellectual stance. Example…I don’t think anyone who knows me would call me weak are ineffectual in my political stance. I am not only firm in what I believe, but I am able to articulate and understand the opposing views. I will read editorials from Gerson and Parker two mainstay political conservatives who often challenge my assumptions in a good way. I am not going to run out and join the Tea Party, but I find reading the conservative columnist makes me rethink my beliefs and in so doing I become stronger in them. The views I hold in the realm of politics are an absolute truth for me. The views Kathleen Parker holds are an absolute truth for her. We do not let the muddiness of Postmodernism cloud our thoughts making them some lame semblance of a policy idea. No, instead we read and discuss ideas held by others and challenge each others assumptions.
Postmodernism is only good if we become critical thinkers, men and women engaged in the art of learning. To become a critical thinker we must be well read, and allow for growth of our own ideas as well as allow us to be effected opposing ideas.
Post-Modernism, in and of itself is not a terrible idea. It attempts to focus on the relative truths of each person in a society. That can encourage people to take a critical look at the politics that affect them and the rest of their community. The troubling factor of postmodernism is the way that it became so popular and the way that people are utilizing it.
Postmodernism can be thought of as the brainchild of the technological revolution in the 20th and 21st centuries. With the touch of a button, people from China all the way to the United States are connected. Billions of people have the ability to input information and opinions, on topics ranging from anything like how to get grease out of a carpet to bionuclear engineering. All of this information has been extremely helpful to many people and has caused a growth in accessibility of knowledge.
This easy access has allowed people, in my generation especially, to become extreme Postmodernists. That is, a people whose main goal is not to gain insight of different views and opinions, but rather a people who are ready to jump on the opportunity to prove someone/thing incorrect. With a simple query into Google, anyone can find evidence to support his or her claim and disprove another’s. It has become such a problem that, as Alexandra Petri puts it in a Washington Post article, “if you want evidence to support a claim, a thorough enough Googling will inevitably produce some”. No longer is it enough to hear someone else’s opinion, we have to “google” it to make sure that their facts are correct, or find something to prove ours correct. In this type of postmodernism, society needs instant gratification.
This has become a big problem for the political sphere in the United States. Because information is so easily accessible, political entities are eager to disprove one another through contradicting statistics they obtained from the internet. Postmodernism promotes a fragmented society, as a positive feature, rather than the negative light shed by modernism. The idea of promoting fragmentation is about all the government of the U.S. needs right now. It can barely decide on anything as it is.
Postmodernism can be used as a positive force when it comes to critical thinking. It’s quick rise through means of the technological boom however have rendered it a bit too extreme. It promotes the idea of fragmentation as a good thing, and puts pretty much everything into question. This causes people to take stubborn stances, and rather than look critically at an opposing view, many would rather find evidence to prove that view incorrect. This causes a society of “google-ready” nitwits attempting to disprove anything they can.
I do believe that you are simply looking at the kinds of people postmodernism has “created” in a narrow form, Mr.Kirby, or more so as a whole. You, compared to the number of people I know, realize that everyone is different, and for that matter, I understand why you call this specific group of people lazy, but I do believe it is much more than just that.
There are a few reasons as to why these people vote not to delve into the “other” side that I can currently think of. Like me, they await for the perfect debate to occur where their own knowledge is put to the test and their mind is swayed in many different directions to learn the other side from a biased opinion. Also, those who are much too consumed with post-modernistic advances to worry about the other side and beef up on their own side.
“But does that open us up to losing site of our truths? In other words if you open the door will everything fall out?”
No, not at all. Being open to the side’s of others does not leave us entirely vulnerable to any type of manipulation an opponent may try to utilize. I believe that being open creates a better understanding of the opposite standing point by seeing the biased viewpoint when encountering those of contrasting thoughts. Though, I believe those that are easily influenced tend to be stubborn and close-minded about opposing sides for obvious reasons.
Sorry this is so bad. I honestly don’t even know what to argue or agree with. That’s all I’ve got at this hour.