Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 01:23:02 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: RE: Can Postmodernism Survive?



*cough*

Perhaps I should back up a bit.  It seems my post was rather widely
misunderstood both in its content and its intent.  I realize that a
significant number of people on lists such as these are accustomed to
employing a wide variety of rhetorical devices, one of which is to ask
leading questions as a strategy for casting aspersions on some
philosophical position or figure.  I *AM* **NOT** doing that.  The
question presented in the title is sincere and right now I just don't know
what its answer will be.

First and foremost I want to make sure I put all my cards on the table so
no one feels compelled to worry about the possibility of some nefarious
ulterior motives, or whatever. :P To that end, I want to post a short note
thanking everyone who responded for responding, especially those who did
so with the goal of helping me come to terms with some of these questions
and the relevant material, but I also want to make a few disclaimers in
light of the more heated and even angry responses I got.  Specific
responses to those messages that interest me will follow sometime over the
next few days.  Right now I'm a bit too busy for that, as it will take a
while.  Sooo......

(1)  Apparently I ruffled a few feathers with my post.  I did not intend
     to offend or irritate anyone with this.  When I say I am trying to
     understand and when I say I do not wish to be combative or rude, I
     mean it.  If I did come off as combative, I must apologize for that.

(2)  As for the principle of charity, I *am* employing it.  If I am guilty
     of anything, it is simple naivete about the views in question.  In
     connection with this, I would dearly love to discuss the varieties of
     kinds of reasons with John Ransom and any other interested parties,
     along with a discussion of the nature of rationality and whether or
     not the term is polyvalent, and if so to what extent and finally,
     well, so what?

(3)  I know virtually nothing of Bataille aside from a few bits that a
     friend explained to me.  I posted to the Bataille list simply because
     I am told he's considered a bigwig among American postmodernists.
     Apparently, the Spoon Collective has no POMO-l, and certainly no
     analytic-philosopher-meets-POMO-l.  Its too bad.  Both could serve
     very noble purposes.

(4)  I really don't care much about "winning" or "losing" various
     arguments or rhetorical flame wars, here, so either drop your swords
     or go ahead and run me through with them-- I seriously don't care.
     In this spirit, I will make the preemptive move of declaring
     everyone else victors over me so we can forget about it and get on
     with what matters.  I have seen too many otherwise promising
     discussions decay into flame wars and ad hominens.  Frankly, it's
     depressing.  It's also kind of dumb.

(5)  I _do_ have definite views about this, and my tentative position is
     that postmodernism and poststructuralism are intellectually untenable
     for much the same reason that the theories of philosophers like Kuhn,
     Feyerabend, Sellars, and the later Wittgenstein are intellectually
     untenable.  Nonetheless, I am *NOT* wedded to this claim.  In all my
     philosophical studies I have a standing policy of leaving the door
     open to theories I consider implausible.  How else could I have
     changed my mind about so much over the past ten years?  I mean,
     heavensakes, I started out actually believing that moral values are
     _relative_ way back when...

(6)  I am unimpressed by appeals to the fact that the laws of reason do
     not rationally justify themselves.  That strikes me as a line of
     argument structurally (and intellectually) akin to the argument
     whereby the proposition "there is no truth" is shown to be
     self-defeating, thus refuting global relativism or social or
     linguistic constructivism or the "Strong Programme" or whatever
     folks choose to call it around here.  It is cheaper than a cheap
     stunt. <<2>> On the other hand, I most certainly am impressed by any
     nice clean, tidy, formally valid arguments the conclusions of which
     go something like "the laws of reason are not universally binding,"
     or "the laws of reason cannot be known to be universally binding," or
     even better "the laws of reason can be proven not to be universally
     binding."  I mean, even Descartes in Med. I and Hume in his Treatise
     gave us good reasons to worry about that.  In connection with this, I
     am very interested in the reply from John Ransom.  If it can be made
     to go, it strikes as one of the most promising lines of argument,
     though we will have to evaluate it for formal soundness.

     Broadly speaking, what I'm wondering is whether or not an argument
     similar to or better than the sort I allude to above might be found
     somewhere between the pages of some book, article, or the plurals
     thereof by Lyotard, Baudrillard, Bataille, Derrida, Foucault, Adorno,
     or anybody else popularly associated with "postmodernism" and
     "poststructuralism."  I'm quite familiar with the process of digging
     genuine and good arguments out of the writings of philosophers who
     are hostile to the notion of being understood by the rest of us.  I
     spent ten years doing just that with Heidegger, and some of his
     quasi-Kantian phenomenological arguments really are excellent.

(6)  Part of my budding interest in postmodernism in general is the fact
     that Ill be sitting in on a Heidegger seminar in the fall and I was
     advised to go back and re-read some of these authors in connection
     with him.  Additionally, a friend of mine in the Philosophy
     Department espouses strong sympathy for postmodernism, and since I
     know for a fact that he is not a supercilious dolt, I figure it's
     likely the authors he admires aren't dolts either.  Seems plausible,
     right?  Of course, many people who are not dolts are nonetheless
     wrong, they just aren't stupidly wrong.

(7)  For those who are more interested in being combative and verbally
     beating up on a dyed-in-the-cloth analytic metaphysician, be my
     guest.  My ego is located elsewhere, so I'm likely to be a very easy
     and passive target.

In conclusion, I should like to say that I am very pleased both by the
volume and the nature of the responses I have received.  Several people
were very gracious and helpful and furthermore it seems my stumbling
efforts had the salutary effect of bringing new life to some lists that
were very very dead for quite some time.  I just hope I can keep track of
what information and which arguments on this matter are relevant to which
lists over the coming months.


Cheers,

David Schenk

--------------------------------------------------------------------

<<1>> Regarding this, I suppose I should point out that Kuhn is NOT even
      vaguely representative of where philosophy of science stands
      today.  His views died a much-deserved death over twenty years
      ago.  Scientific anti-realists would do better to look to Bas Van
      Fraasen for the grist they seek.  I do not say this to chastise
      anyone.  After all, just as I know very little of postmodernism
      right now, it is only to be expected that many other people know
      very little of contemporary philosophy of science.  As a hint, I
      should mention that the field simply does not contain much talk
      about "paradigms" nowadays, not the least because that has got to be
      one of the most ill-formed and poorly defined concepts in the
      business.

      If anyone wants to get into the debates over Kuhn and philosophy of
      science, I'd be happy to do so either via private email or at least
      under a new heading for the posts.  A substantial chunk of my
      dissertation is in the philosophy of science (someday Ill finish
      that accursed thing... someday...) and I dare say that is a field I
      know quite well.  If he is anything at all, Kuhn is an object lesson
      in how not to be a logical positivist (that is what he was, after
      all).

<<2>> I will include an explanation of why such responses do not impress
      me in my next post.  It is unfortunate that many people try to use
      just such a strategy, because as arguments go it is a failure.