Post-Modernism: A paper tiger

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~ Ayn Rand It bears repeating. Premises: 1.postmodernism lives in consummate contradiction 2.consummate contradiction masquerading as genuine logic and reason "Yes, skepticism is consistent with post-modernism, but to what end? If you are skeptical of everything, then as Chesterton says, "By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything." Yes, for a reason, which is to suit whatever agenda they desire, which is formulated as whimsically as the direction of a breeze. Its this kind of nihilism that leads to chaos" Let us be clear here. Yes scientific theory is sceptical. It is sceptical in the way that aids its own purposes of assuring its knowledge claims. Knowledge is not truth. The two are distinct. Truth is a subjective claim of knowledge. A sceptic retains scepticism, not as my opponent proposes as a meaningless endeavour for its own sake, but as check system against a knowledge base at its current level. Science must have falsification built into its processes. Scientific theories are an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. It is an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such explanations confidently but conditionally; it as their best available view, until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along. This is scepticism at its finest; there can be no claims of "truth" because it is still inherently falsifiable. It is not "antithetical to logic and reason" it is exactly that. It is not some process into chaos, it is a method whereby the sceptic maintains the credibility of its claim and seeks to gain further knowledge. To be otherwise is no better than the religious zealot proclaiming on the basis of faith. The claim of nihilism: "The post-modernist, in all of his nihilism, believes that there is no justification for any knowledge claims in an absolute sense. They believe that nothing can truly be known with any sort of veracity. It should not take long, however, to see the flaw in their basic premise. How can he even purport such a claim if he hasn't the ability to ‘know' that knowledge is unattainable? If nothing can be verified then he should not offer any solutions, being that it means nothing. What I mean to say is, if knowledge is unattainable altogether, then what gives him the reason to question my truth?" Firstly let me point out that nihilism is not postmodernism. There is nihilistic thinking, in some respects, within postmodernism. It is an important distinction. Deconstruction (see first post) does not create claims of "no" truths as my opponent suggests, instead deconstructionism encourages texts, bound organisations the freedom of choosing realities. I have already explained it makes no claims of truth on its own position; it makes no claims of truth on others. Nihilism is an ontological (conceptual) position about reality, postmodernism is an epistemological (theory of knowledge) position about realities. And therein lays my opponents problem. The two are not in contradiction because they are not talking about the same thing. The claim of solipsism: "Similarly, the post-modernist who holds fast to the solipsist argument believes that the ‘self' is the only verifiable thing anyone could know. Ironically, these are often the same people who will argue with you for hours about reality, and what's more, morality. If they are only able to acquaint themselves with reality, strictly through themselves, then what is their justification for criticizing my reality?" Once again, let me point out that solipsism is not postmodernism. Again there is some solipsist thinking within postmodernism, and once again, the distinction is important. Differences in the nature of reality between the two are again the resolution of any apparent contradiction. Solipsism is a position of metaphysical realities outside our own, postmodernism is not. The two are not comparable in this regard. My opponent has stated, I suspect without realising, the nature of postmodernisms epistemological position of reality; that it can be created through discourse, and is contextual. We are not talking about the reality of the physical world, or our understanding beyond that. Reality for the postmodernist is the self's view in context to the environment. On Princess Diana's death: "Diana had been said the people's princess'. The people were, of course, the British people. Television coverage brought viewers regular pictures of the nation's grief'. The Daily mail reported ‘national grief'. And ‘the nation', in unsurpassed millions, bought the pop singer's tribute which, with typical English confusion, identified the national whole with ‘England's green and pleasant hills'." – Here we have the creation of a nations grief through the discourse of artefacts within the society; media. "As Diana becomes publicly beatified, so the former ambivalence in public views is resolved. It is hard to recall how different her opinion poll ratings were. Then she did not have a caring persona, which is now firmly part of contemporary mythology. According to Gallop, in December 1988, only 19 percent rated Diana as ‘caring' compared with 32 percent who rated Prince Charles as ‘caring'. Of course all this has decisively shifted (Billig, 1992. Talking of the Royal Family. London: Routledge). We have the direct construction of Diana as a 'caring' person. A reality created through the discourse of a society. Its "truth" is irrelevant; the point is, is that it is contextual and created. That is postmodernism. "Here is evidence of the contradiction! You say that skepticism does not claim "truths" but seeks to explain nature in scientific terms. So then science, we can assume, is not truth? Or is it? How can you occupy two contradictory positions and still remain coherent? If science produces truths, how can you also deny truths? Again, consummate contradiction." As already explained above, knowledge and truth, are distinctly different. The sceptic aims for understanding not a subjective label to that understanding. "But let me give you and the reader greater insight in to this. David Hume,... Quite simply, Mr. Hume just failed his own test." Firstly, Hume was not a postmodernist, he sat somewhere in between postmodernism and rationalism. To use him as an example of anything otherwise is a dead argument in this debate. Secondly and as an aside, Hume was talking about the use of religious arguments and morality and had applied a value to each of the arguments presented for the reasoning on this basis. There is no contradiction here, logic and reason are fully compliant with postmodernism and with that, I will leave it up to my opponent to find once again, something where there is not.