Post-Modernism Hurts/All Apologies for Being a Simpleton.
"Postmodernism is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the rejection of objective truth and global cultural narrative. ... Modernism is often associated with identity, unity, authority, and certainty, Postmodernism is often associated with difference, plurality, alterity, and skepticism." -Wikipedia definition of Postmodernism.
It's probably due to the way I process the world, combined with learned behaviors form childhood and various aspects that my personality tests show, but I cannot understand postmodernism. (Is it okay if I don't capitalize it? Is it is an insult not to? Or is it an insult only if I think it is an insult to the movement? Can you insult postmodernism?)
When I started to write, I came across two kinds of writing advice- a) These are the rules and if you don't follow them, people won't understand your writing and you won't be read. b) Some people say these are the rules and as a beginner you would do well to follow them, and in general it is good to follow them, but sometimes people don't follow them and do very well.
I liken a) to be like modernism and b) to be like postmodernism. Must you subscribe to modernism before you can be a post-modernist? Must you follow strict grammatical and literary rules (never start a sentence with 'but' 'and' et etc along with much more grievous sins.) with success before you start free-styling it?
Of all the definitions of postmodernism I come across there are some that I agree with, "Science and Authority is not THE last word, they are not always right." and global cultural narrative is not objectionable if it brings all peoples in better relation and understanding to each other. But then other definitions, particularly the ones that emphasize relativism, I can't quite agree with (to some degree). Relativism can, in theory, be used to justify the most horrid of human atrocities in history, so how can it be agreeable to anyone?
I'm sure some clever reader will find hypocrisy or a contradiction in my thoughts, but really, with postmodernism, who can help it? Some definitions I've read dance around a concrete definition because, well, the very nature of postmodernism is to say, a thing (a concept, a philosophy?) is what an individual defines it, not what an authority rules it to be or even what the majority rules it to be. Then how can you call anything anything? And that is where my mind starts to run in circles, eventually becoming sick with vertigo.
I asked my friend what he thought of postmodernism and he said, "I really don't care." And I think that is probably the opinion I will eventually have to take, because I don't suppose my mind, though not totally void of intelligent thought, was meant for that type of thinking. Some one else who doesn't have as many physical things to do can have that job. Or maybe I'll postpone my philosophizing until I retire, because it takes way too much brain power to do it correctly at this moment.
It's probably due to the way I process the world, combined with learned behaviors form childhood and various aspects that my personality tests show, but I cannot understand postmodernism. (Is it okay if I don't capitalize it? Is it is an insult not to? Or is it an insult only if I think it is an insult to the movement? Can you insult postmodernism?)
When I started to write, I came across two kinds of writing advice- a) These are the rules and if you don't follow them, people won't understand your writing and you won't be read. b) Some people say these are the rules and as a beginner you would do well to follow them, and in general it is good to follow them, but sometimes people don't follow them and do very well.
I liken a) to be like modernism and b) to be like postmodernism. Must you subscribe to modernism before you can be a post-modernist? Must you follow strict grammatical and literary rules (never start a sentence with 'but' 'and' et etc along with much more grievous sins.) with success before you start free-styling it?
Of all the definitions of postmodernism I come across there are some that I agree with, "Science and Authority is not THE last word, they are not always right." and global cultural narrative is not objectionable if it brings all peoples in better relation and understanding to each other. But then other definitions, particularly the ones that emphasize relativism, I can't quite agree with (to some degree). Relativism can, in theory, be used to justify the most horrid of human atrocities in history, so how can it be agreeable to anyone?
I'm sure some clever reader will find hypocrisy or a contradiction in my thoughts, but really, with postmodernism, who can help it? Some definitions I've read dance around a concrete definition because, well, the very nature of postmodernism is to say, a thing (a concept, a philosophy?) is what an individual defines it, not what an authority rules it to be or even what the majority rules it to be. Then how can you call anything anything? And that is where my mind starts to run in circles, eventually becoming sick with vertigo.
I asked my friend what he thought of postmodernism and he said, "I really don't care." And I think that is probably the opinion I will eventually have to take, because I don't suppose my mind, though not totally void of intelligent thought, was meant for that type of thinking. Some one else who doesn't have as many physical things to do can have that job. Or maybe I'll postpone my philosophizing until I retire, because it takes way too much brain power to do it correctly at this moment.
Comments
Post a Comment