Postmodernism and Reason

Question

The French postmodernists of the 1960’s, seeking emancipation, questioned Reason.

What did they propose in place of reason, in their quest of emancipation?

I mean, romanticists proposed emotion and intuition in place of Reason, for instance, in their quest of freedom.

The existentialists (Sartre) opposed essentialism and proposed to live/act upon your own values that you find by yourself.

Nietzsche criticized Christian values and proposed to develop your "will to power".

Who knows? For the most part they wrote utterly impenetrable nonsense. Why do you care what they proposed? I suggest you take any post-modernist works infesting your library and throw them out of the nearest window, rubbing your palms against each other in a cliched manner to signify a job well done. — Marco Ocram, Feb 16 '23 at 09:52
@MarcoOcram There is no need to insult a whole group of philosophers to answer the question. — , Feb 16 '23 at 12:13
@irecorsan I can't help it. Futilitarian convinced me that I don't have freewill, and ever since then I've not been able to stop taking the Mickey out of French postmodernists. See https://www.theawfulauthor.com/blog-1/2021/7/3/vive-la-diffrence — Marco Ocram, Feb 16 '23 at 14:17
Postmodernism is a gigantic stolen concept. I don't believe in nihilism. — Boba Fit, Feb 16 '23 at 15:17
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119165811.ch95#:~:text=The%20defining%20characteristic%20of%20the,it%20logically%20and%20genetically%20depends%E2%80%9D. — Boba Fit, Feb 16 '23 at 15:30
@MarcoOcram It may look like "impenetrable nonsense", but at least some of the writings do contain valuable ideas. Of course, there is a definite, "french intellectual from the 60's style", but there are also some ideas. — Frank, Feb 16 '23 at 15:37
@BobaFit Arguments from labels don't go very far :-) Not sure it's really valuable to brandish "postmodernism" and "nihilism" in various relationships, when each philosopher would have various positions that would defy those labels :-) — Frank, Feb 16 '23 at 15:39
@Frank Postmodernists deny the validity of arguments. Nihilists deny their value. It's not possible to use logic in discussions of either. These ideas have no boots. — Boba Fit, Feb 16 '23 at 15:41
Post-modernité tout court is not nécessairement nihil-ism. There is a diff-érrance (trying on my best Deleuze lame imitation) :-) — Frank, Feb 16 '23 at 15:42
@BobaFit isn't that summary a little too quick? What is the obsession with logic anyway? Isn't logic not just another langue that's used by certain social groups to oppress others (like BobaFit trashing "all postmodernists" in the name of Logic) :-) Langue de bois, I say. — Frank, Feb 16 '23 at 15:44
@Frank You are currently demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. My position is in the first line of the question. — Boba Fit, Feb 16 '23 at 15:47
@Frank I agree. Apologies- the mischievous iconoclast in me keeps popping its head out! — Marco Ocram, Feb 16 '23 at 15:51
@BobaFit Nothing absurd at all. Everything is langage. Logic is just another langage. "Langages" are used in various social ways between humans. Where is the absurdity in that? — Frank, Feb 16 '23 at 16:05
@MarcoOcram No worries :-) I also have my inner mischievous iconoclast :-) — Frank, Feb 16 '23 at 16:05

score 1 · Answer 1 · answered Feb 16 '23 at 19:10

1

It's important to start from the key point that post-modernism is based on conceptual relativism. That is, from the doctrine that concepts are not defined individually but within a language, that is, in relation to each other. That means that they have the needs and interests - the values - of the language users who construct them embedded in them.

So, for example, "civilization" meant Western or European civilization, including its values and priorities. So other civilizations could not be recognized and respected as such. Conquest and colonization could be justified as in the interest of those being conquered and colonized. The other interests at play (primarily economic) could be hidden or justified. The demand for equality and freedom, within such a system, could be seen as irrational and dismissed or ignored.

Post-modernists also held that people's abilities and values were largely formed by the society in which they grew up, including the ideas and language that they learned. The result was that many of them were unable to articulate their own needs and desires.

Post-modernism was primarily a critical movement and did not need to articulate alternatives, beyond the demand for recognition and equality. Arguably, it would have been inappropriate for anyone but those being emancipated to work out what happened next. But the critique of reason did not necessarily mean it had to be abandoned or replaced; all that was required was/is to revise it.

I'm not sure why you cite Sartre in this context. He was certainly not a post-modernist. His existentialism treated the individual subject as primary in contradiction with the post-modernists who saw the individual as socially determined.

answered Feb 16 '23 at 19:10

Ludwig V

2,727
1
5
23

I cite Sartre not as a postmodernist, it is an example of another school of thought (existentialism), which proposed something else in place of the thing it criticizes – Starckman Feb 17 '23 at 02:10
1

"all that was required was/is to revise it." Revise it with what? This is all my point. Descartes proposed the cartesian method. Locke proposed empiricism, Hume proposed a sceptic empiricism. Berkeley proposed an idealist empiricism. Kant made a synthesis of all these thoughts. The logicial empiricists refined empiricism. What did the postmodernists proposed in place of the Reason they criticized? – Starckman Feb 17 '23 at 02:29
1

@Starckman Maybe they didn't feel they had to propose something to replace Reason particularly. Maybe it was a change in focus. For them, language and structure are key to the human sciences. I don't know if we can go as far as saying that "language" would be their proposal "in place of" Reason. It's not a question of replacing "Reason", but more of understanding society, culture, ... through the prism of language and structures. Maybe "reason" is just another "language", or the result of a more primordial language. – Frank Feb 17 '23 at 03:10
@Frank "It's not a question of replacing "Reason", but more of understanding society, culture, ... through the prism of language and structures." So the point they make is that Reason's capacity to understand the world is limited by us being stuck into structures, including societal structures and linguistic structures, right? – Starckman Feb 17 '23 at 03:32
And by pointing that fact, they emancipate even a little bit more? (They make us aware of that fact, therefore a bit less stuck in those structures) – Starckman Feb 17 '23 at 03:34
@Starckman Quite possibly :-) – Frank Feb 17 '23 at 03:42
"I don't know if we can go as far as saying that "language" would be their proposal "in place of" Reason." To me, it reasonates a lot with German idealism. It is as if they replaced "the reality is made of ideas" of German idealism, by "the reality is made of words, organised inside in linguistic structure". What do you think? – Starckman Feb 17 '23 at 03:43
But I don't know if it's an ontological claim as much as a methodological claim, maybe? Besides, language would be only between humans, so maybe the human reality is shaped, bathed, ... by/in words and language. – Frank Feb 17 '23 at 03:45
I also recognize cartesian rationalism, where it is as if societal organizations worked as a machine (cf. postmodernists "structure"). – Starckman Feb 17 '23 at 03:45
@Frank How come we don't know "if it's an ontological claim as much as a methodological claim"? Whether it is ontological, methodological, or both is very important to understand their endeavor – Starckman Feb 17 '23 at 03:46
@Starckman Well, "I" don't know :-) – Frank Feb 17 '23 at 03:54
All these comments deserve discussion. I don't know if I have the privilege of starting a new chat room or how to do so, but I think it would be best to do that if you both want to continue it. Full disclosure, I have read bit of Levinas, Lyotard and Lacan and read Derrida of Gramatology carefully, but my main basis for this discussion is Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. – Ludwig V Feb 17 '23 at 12:34
@LudwigV Sure, I am ok to open a discussion. – Starckman Feb 17 '23 at 12:37
(I don't know how to open one discussion neither) – Starckman Feb 17 '23 at 12:41
The French post-modernists will have read Kant, Hegel and Marx carefully, and one can see their influence in their ideas. The idea that we are bound by the concepts we have is found in Kant; his unknowable Ding an Sich is not a tempting notion; when that drops out, we have conceptual relativism. The importance of the voice of the oppressed can is in Marx, of course. I take your point about Sartre, and see that you have added Nietzsche. However, I now realize, that the answer is Dialectic. However, if I have it right, Hegel believes that this is a correct concept of Reason, not a replacement. – Ludwig V Feb 17 '23 at 12:47
I checked the Help button. One gets the privilege at 100 reputation and there are clear instructions how to do it. I'll have a go. – Ludwig V Feb 17 '23 at 12:51
That worked. It wasn't hard. I've called it "Discussion on post-modernism". I expect you'll have a response to my comment above, and I'll another thought to start the discussion off. – Ludwig V Feb 17 '23 at 12:58
@Frank The room is here https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/142947/discussion-of-post-modernism – Starckman Feb 17 '23 at 13:05

Postmodernism and Reason

1 Answers1