fayfreethinkers.com

Ok, so this should go under a Philosophy heading, but since you folks don't have one, I just put it here.

Doug, how much experience do you have dealing with Post-Moderns? This is the fashion of froofy lefties, especially in academia. There has been some backlash against it of late, but it still can be found everywhere. I got a double major in History and Philosophy, and am now working on my Master's in History, so I didn't realize how pervasive Post-Structuralism/ Post-Modernism is in the Humanities until I got into grad school. It's terrifying. I have learned that Historians generally have NO business trying to do philosophy, and that when they do, they are often VERY bad at it.

Basically the deal is: In the humanities, sociology especially, folks have followed Continental thought, originating with Kant, through the structuralism of Sausurre to the post-structuralism of Lacan, Derrida, Barthes, Kristeva, and some say Foucault (though he denied he was one), amongst others, to conclude that all 'discourse' is equal, and hence, science is as valid as anything else. If I get all this right (we didn't take this seriously in the philosophy department, did you see it when you were there?), then the structuralists argued that language was self-contained, and drew meaning through a rigid dichotomy of signified and signifier, in relations to each other within that framework.

Post-structuralists came along and shattered the rigid dichotomy of that system, but argued vehemently that language did not 'latch' onto an outside world at all. That ideas only get their meaning through language, and through the dominant 'discourse' of the hegemonic paradigm, whatever the hell that means. My question is: If language is self-contained, and they do deny that there can be any 'latching' onto a 'objective' reality, how does this not logically devolve into epistemological relativism? It has to doesn't it? Some accept epistemological relativism, which is just crazy, even if it turnes out to be true (no point in saying anything if its true). But MOST absolutely deny that they are in fact epistemoligical relativists, yet maintain that language is self referring, not 'latched' to the world. Do they just not understand their own position as I maintain? Have you run across this much?

It's bad in History, especially in gender history. One historian I read denied that there is any actual 'history' that we can get in touch with, and that instead, historians were just participating in 'word games' or worse, participating in the dominant paradigm. Oh how I wish I could take a post-modern test.....how easy would that be....just make some shit up, it's all equally 'true'.
The gender class was atrocious, I had to drop it. We read Judith Butler, who got a PH.D in Philosophy, then ran screaming from it to teach propaganda and lit-crit at UC Berkely (where she is loved by froofy lefties everywhere). Her book "Gender Trouble" is 'post-feminist' holy book, incredibly dense, mostly because she makes up words to subvert the dominant "heterosexist matrix" and basically argues that not only is gender a social construct as most non-post-modern feminists have maintained, but sex is a social construct too! Amazing!
The question is: How can social constructivism NOT ultimately breakdown into epistemological relativism? I wrote a paper in that class where I laid out precisely how this was the case, and then proceeded to finish the paper, 50% of it in all, by typing total gibberish, arguing that it Butler's philsophical assumptions were true, then my gibberish was as valid as anything anyone else could say, and suggested that it was quite reactionary to ask for an 'objective' analysis of her book for a paper. I got an 85% on it. HA!

Anyway, I wanted to know how much you have come across this vile fad, and what your take is.

Are you familiar with the Sokal Hoax? Fantastic! He was applauded by conservatives, which really pissed him off, because he's an old school marxist lefty, bashing 'froofy' lefties. This is largely a battle amongst the academic left. It's amazing.

Well, another topic to kick around.

Tony wrote: Anyway, I wanted to know how much you have come across this vile fad, and what your take is.

I don't think much of the postmodernist movement. The notion that all discourse is equal has a point, but I think it is ultimately misunderstood.

As a Wittgensteinian of sorts, I have some sympathy with some of what the postmodernists want to say, but I think they end up saying it poorly and it doesn't make sense in the end. However, I think that a critique of our understanding of science was long overdue.

Basically, I don't think language "latches" onto the world. I think all sorts of problems arise (such as talking about the distant past or the future) if one requires language to "point to" or "latch onto" something in the world. But it doesn't follow that all discourse is equal, or that science is no different from psuedoscience.

Nor is it a defect in language that it does not latch onto the world, if I understand what you mean by the phrase.

Tony wrote: Are you familiar with the Sokal Hoax? Fantastic! He was applauded by conservatives, which really pissed him off, because he's an old school marxist lefty, bashing 'froofy' lefties. This is largely a battle amongst the academic left. It's amazing.

Well, another topic to kick around.

DOUG
Yes, I thought that it was a very good thing. In philosophy, we must keep pointing at the naked emperor whenever he appears.

Doug wrote:

As a Wittgensteinian of sorts, I have some sympathy with some of what the postmodernists want to say, but I think they end up saying it poorly and it doesn't make sense in the end. However, I think that a critique of our understanding of science was long overdue.

So your a fan of later Wittgenstein correct? Not the Tractatus. I'm much more familiar with is early work, and especially his influence on the positivists. I agree, the positivists got a little carried away, and there needed to be some of the criticism of that project in science like we have seen.
Even though later Wittgenstein ultimately argued it was all just 'word games', that doesn't negate any sort of 'latching' onto the world does it? Something still along the lines of picture theory of reality....or was that Russell?

Basically, I don't think language "latches" onto the world. I think all sorts of problems arise (such as talking about the distant past or the future) if one requires language to "point to" or "latch onto" something in the world. But it doesn't follow that all discourse is equal, or that science is no different from psuedoscience.

Nor is it a defect in language that it does not latch onto the world, if I understand what you mean by the phrase.

See, this is where I get lost. I agree that there are problems, and that language has tons of uses other than any one on one correspondence with reality, but doesn't there still have to be definite interaction with an 'objective' reality in order for any notion of 'true' or 'false' to be coherent? How is this possible otherwise? Even if you are not a realist and are some sort of phenomenologist (which I have some sympathy with) that doesn't get us out of the essential problem does it?

Man I miss philosophy. Now I have to go brush up on my Wittgenstein and philosophy of language.

Tony wrote: So your a fan of later Wittgenstein correct? Not the Tractatus. I'm much more familiar with is early work, and especially his influence on the positivists. I agree, the positivists got a little carried away, and there needed to be some of the criticism of that project in science like we have seen.

I started out as a fan of only his early work too.

Tony wrote:Even though later Wittgenstein ultimately argued it was all just 'word games',

"Language-games"

Tony wrote:that doesn't negate any sort of 'latching' onto the world does it? Something still along the lines of picture theory of reality....or was that Russell?

Well, Wittgenstein repudiated the picture theory of language and in fact did a pretty good job of showing that it was incoherent.

Tony wrote:See, this is where I get lost. I agree that there are problems, and that language has tons of uses other than any one on one correspondence with reality, but doesn't there still have to be definite interaction with an 'objective' reality in order for any notion of 'true' or 'false' to be coherent? How is this possible otherwise? Even if you are not a realist and are some sort of phenomenologist (which I have some sympathy with) that doesn't get us out of the essential problem does it?

I don't think language mirrors reality, nor does it need to in order to have meaning. "Reality" can be described in many ways. An artist describes a flower differently than a botanist. So is the artist incorrect? Is the botanist? The bee sees the flower differently than either, so is the bee wrong? No one description is "true" if it must "capture" reality. Even calling a locomotive "solid" can be disputed by the physicist who tells us about waves and the ultimate consituents of matter.

Saying that language must latch onto, capture, picture, or mirror "reality" in order to have meaning sets the bar too high. It is like talking about absolute space or absolute time in physics. Einstein came along and showed that those concepts make no sense, nor is it the case that time or space relative to the observer must "latch onto" some part of absolute time or space in order to be legitimate.

Space-time is relative to the observer. I think the meaning in language is like that too. As long as the community of language users have the same basic uses for their terms, there needn't be an absolute of which their speech is a small part. That is nothing more than Platonism in another guise.

Doug wrote:

I don't think language mirrors reality, nor does it need to in order to have meaning. "Reality" can be described in many ways. An artist describes a flower differently than a botanist. So is the artist incorrect? Is the botanist? The bee sees the flower differently than either, so is the bee wrong? No one description is "true" if it must "capture" reality. Even calling a locomotive "solid" can be disputed by the physicist who tells us about waves and the ultimate consituents of matter.

Ok, I follow thus far. And I agree there are many, many uses that language plays that defy any direct and absolute single references to a 'reality'. So early Russel, for instance, seemed to go too far. Yet still, there has to be some interplay between 'reality' and our language, because if there is not any, then we do ultimately get epistemological relativism, don't we?

Space-time is relative to the observer. I think the meaning in language is like that too. As long as the community of language users have the same basic uses for their terms, there needn't be an absolute of which their speech is a small part. That is nothing more than Platonism in another guise.

But isn't this almost exactly what post-structuralists would argue? Are you saying that there is NO interaction between language and the world, and I mean 'ZERO'. Or simply that its more subtle and complex than many empiricists and others have argued?
Is it not the case that, in order for anything we can say or think to be 'true', then there MUST be a connection between language and the world. Don't we at this point have to concede that to salvage any notion of 'true'?

Russell argued that language attaches 'directly' to the world, while others like Frege argued that language attaches 'indirectly' to the world. Would you fit into either of these two categories? I guess I would have to go along with a subtle and indirect connection rather than an oversimplified 'direct' notion. But it's not clear how close that puts our two positions. You are saying there is "NO" connection?

Fun fun fun. I've dusted of my philosophy books....which I can ill afford to do mid semester, damn you. And thanks!

Tony wrote:...and basically argues that not only is gender a social construct as most non-post-modern feminists have maintained...

I'm double majoring in psychology & sociology, though my primary interests are in psych. However, I just had to chime in & say that I do believe that gender is a social construct in the same way that race is a social construct. In all honesty, I hadn't heard of half the other stuff you mentioned, but I would vigorously argue in behalf of the above. This is not to be confused with "sex" is a social construct, as there is a difference between sex & gender. When people argue that gender is a social construct, they are arguing that mannerisms, attitudes, interests, etc. (feminine, masculine...) are inventions of societies & are only perceived as real through reification.

Joye wrote:

I'm double majoring in psychology & sociology, though my primary interests are in psych. However, I just had to chime in & say that I do believe that gender is a social construct in the same way that race is a social construct. In all honesty, I hadn't heard of half the other stuff you mentioned, but I would vigorously argue in behalf of the above. This is not to be confused with "sex" is a social construct, as there is a difference between sex & gender....

Oh yes, absolutely. I agree completely that gender is a social construct. This is the sex/gender distinction that early 2nd wave feminism identified and attacked. And I agree completely with their analysis.
Judith Butler, and some other "Post-modern/ Post-structuralist" thinkers go further. She argues that sex itself is a social construct, thus it makes no sense to simply attack gender. That distinction, she argues is invalid.
It is crazy to me to argue that biological sex is a social construct, even if we do take into fact hermaphrodites etc. as examples that don't fit into our binary classification of male/female. Ultimately, I maintain, she and others like her, take a position that devolves into epistemological relativism, and that is really crazy. Ultimately I think they are trying to make a moral issue into an epistemological one, which I think is completely wrongheaded.

Tred

Tony wrote: Yet still, there has to be some interplay between 'reality' and our language, because if there is not any, then we do ultimately get epistemological relativism, don't we?

DOUG
No, not if we all agree on some basics and take those as the things that determine truth and falsehood. We say the sun came up this morning, but we know it didn't really: the Earth rotated. Now imagine the same sort of thing with every other truth, except without knowing that the Earth rotates.

Doug wrote:Space-time is relative to the observer. I think the meaning in language is like that too. As long as the community of language users have the same basic uses for their terms, there needn't be an absolute of which their speech is a small part. That is nothing more than Platonism in another guise.

Tony wrote: But isn't this almost exactly what post-structuralists would argue? Are you saying that there is NO interaction between language and the world, and I mean 'ZERO'. Or simply that its more subtle and complex than many empiricists and others have argued?

DOUG
I argue that there is no interaction, that there needn't be, and that we lose nothing by that revelation. The interaction is between users of the language, not between the language and the world.

Tony wrote: Is it not the case that, in order for anything we can say or think to be 'true', then there MUST be a connection between language and the world. Don't we at this point have to concede that to salvage any notion of 'true'?

DOUG
I don't see truth as having to do with mirroring what is extra-linguistic. On my bike, I may say, "I'm glad the road is flat." But a close examination shows that the road is not perfectly flat. So am I mistaken? I think what I said would be true, but it is not true in the same sense that "the road is flat" would be for a physicist, who would be saying something false in another context.

You are seeing language on the model that we are all scientists trying to describe the world around us. Language has that purpose sometimes, but not always. What of the poets, who describe it differently? They seem to have 'truths' that are of a different sort.