Post-Modernism: A paper tiger

"Postmodernism however asserts that thinking (knowledge) is only useful if applied "thinking is doing." This is why scepticism is wholly consistent within postmodernism." 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." "Sceptics do not denounce everything or else they wouldn't know why they are denouncing it, for what reason. They are denouncing it for reason" 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, "not keeps it at bay." It is antithetical to logic and reason. And in that glaring irony lie by the humor and the tragedy of it. Consider the nihilistic philosopher, those post-modernists, who spends countless hours philosophizing whether or not the universe has any meaning. He writes volumes of text about the meaninglessness of it all. We could assume then that he finds much meaning in the text. The mere fact that he is avidly pursuing meaninglessness is contrary to the point of his meaningful endeavor, is it not? It shouldn't take long to figure out that he actually prefers a meaningless existence and pursues it because he wants it to be so. He obviously finds comfort in the banality of nothingness so he can exonerate himself. 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? 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? If they do not know if there is even knowledge apart from themselves then what are they arguing about? It is this kind of illogic that unwittingly pits his own beliefs against his own beliefs, as I said, "in consummate contradiction." My opponent claims, "Scepticism does not claim "truths" but seeks to explain the nature of existence in scientific terms." 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. But let me give you and the reader greater insight in to this. David Hume, the prolific Scottish skeptic and philosopher once said, "If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, 'Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?' No. 'Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?' No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." This is what he is saying: He is saying that speculation and nothing apart from science or mathematics lead to any reason. Mind you, this was his way of testing for abstract reasoning. Do you see anything wrong with his statement -- with his test? Quite simply, Mr. Hume just failed his own test. Everything he said was neither scientific nor mathematical. It was philosophical statement; the very thing he asserted was without foundation. He has addressed the problem he wished to eradicate with the very weapon he uses to denigrate it with! He was a philosopher who philosophized on the worthlessness of philosophy itself! Commit it then to the flames, Mr. Hume, it is but sophistry and illusion. Surely you can see the irony in that. And this is PRECISELY what I am talking about -- consummate contradiction masquerading as genuine logic and reason. This is post-modernism at its finest.