Sunday, February 4, 2007
On the topic of postmodernism I found it interesting that there are two different types of postmodernism, that of deconstructive postmodernism and constructive postmodernism. Deconstructive postmodernism seeks to abandon all modernist principles such as reason, truth and self-purpose. The purpose of constructive postmodernism, on the other hand, is to simply revise modernist principles that it doesn't agree with. Constructive postmodernism does not agree with the scientifc approach of modernism and seeks to change that, not necessarily the science of modernism. Constructive postmodernism wants a return to premodern thoughts, those before modernism. Although both types of different they still fall under postmodernism because they are open and not closed in as modernism. I don't really feel that there needs to be a distinction between the two because postmodernism has certain principles that are completely opposite of modernism. Even constructive modernism, which seeks to revise modernism, moves towards more premodern thoughts and thus not keeping modernism as part of its thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is a really interesting definition of the two different types. I hadn't heard of them before, but they really make sense.
I'd have to disagree with you on your last point, though, that there doesn't need to be a distinction between the two. Think about it: Deconstructive postmodernism is seeking to produce a de facto philosophical anarchy. That's what it will ultimately come out to. Reason, truth, and self-purpose aren't just "Modernist"—their innate to the human quest. Look at any society or civilization in the world, and you'll see that each one had their own brand of reason, truth, and self-purpose. They differ from each society, but they're all still there. And I'm thinking ancient civilizations. That's the whole reason why we have religion: to explain things for us, because we can't understand it. On one hand, that's a very "postmodern" thought, but actually it's as ancient as humanity itself. We're not all that special.
The thing is that if you sit in the wallow of deconstructive postmodernism (i. e. there is no such thing as any kind of truth, reason, or self-purpose) you basically defeat your own existence by questioning the fact if you exist at all. That's a fun little philosophy called Nihilism. And in all practicality, nihilism evokes the basest of all human instincts, reaching down to even Darwinian levels: look out for number one (that's not even Darwinian, really, that's just selfish). It destroys family ties, it destroys friendships, it destroys the will to create (i. e. art) and the will to construct (invention). That's the sort of thing we want to avoid
As for constructive postmodernism, that's a different story. Instead of throwing out the achievements of modernism entirely (for instance: penicilin, AIDS treatments, electronic technology in general, etc.), constructive postmodernism is critiquing the things that modernism allowed itself to produce under the guise of "all knowledge is good knowledge" (i. e. the A-bomb, mass weapons of war, manipulative media, eugenics). It's a critique, and it realizes it's a critique. It realizes that though modernism provided good things, it wasn't the all-in-all savior of the world that it was thought to be.
We have to remember that postmodernism is barely fifty years old. It's a young philosophy and we're still trying to figure out what it is. We should understanding that it is not a finished, completed philosophy in its own form—it's still being added onto and edited. We should also remember that it's coming right on the heals of the fall of modernity (i. e. WWII) and is therefore a critique of it. Interesting ideas are being posed due to its critique, and it's a critique much needed. But going full-fledge "postmodern" at this time would be like a kid who's just turned 21 and is going out to a bar to drink 21 shots. You can get absolutely smashed on this stuff—and it will smash you. If someone wants to be "postmodern" through and through, they're going to be what everyone else calls an irrational jerk. It becomes a poor man's excuse to do whatever he wants and believing that he lives in his own little world, and that it's okay because some philosopher said so. So it's not a philosophy totally, but rather a critique of another philosophy. It's a leveling of the ground so we can build something new, because neither modernism nor postmodernism with fulfill the needs of humanity.
Post a Comment