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 My opponent's premises: 1. postmodernism lives in consummate contradiction 2. If post-modernists applaud tolerance as a virtue to be sought after, how do they come to grips for their own intolerance of a view that must remain cogent with the law of non-contradiction. (the rest is just fluff) 1. postmodernism lives in consummate contradiction. Where scepticism is an artefact of modernism, in particular science as a way of gaining knowledge, it is differentiated to post modernism in a very important manner. Modernism (including scepticism) may be content for the acquisition of knowledge for its own sake, education for educations sake (liberal education). Postmodernism however asserts that thinking (knowledge) is only useful if applied "thinking is doing." This is why scepticism is wholly consistent within postmodernism. Science, knowledge (scepticism) provides the knowledge base in which to enact desired social change (postmodernism). Morality is the rule in which we live by that keeps chaos at bay and keeps everything functioning properly -- morality exists, but there are dismembered moral systems -- a sceptic's job is to debunk this trickery. 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, throwing away smoke and mirrors for logic, and using logic and reason to do so. Logic and reason are natural, not man made at all, it is an application of what already exists. Scepticism does not claim "truths" but seeks to explain the nature of existence in scientific terms; testing, retesting, exploring new concepts, ideas, testing theories, all of that is an attempt to explain the natural universe, all natural phenomena, including human behaviour. Truth is a subjective claim; explanation of natural phenomenon is not. Science is a way of "doing" of acquiring knowledge. It is not a claim of knowledge in itself. The theory of gravity is not a scientific "truth" it is an explanation of observable natural phenomena, and as such, subject to review and testing as new knowledge arises. The goal is parsimony of theory. A theory of everything, explains nothing. To not be sceptical to claims of knowledge, results in a blasï¿½ acceptance of knowledge. No better than religion; believing simply because you are told to. The irony of claiming "truth" within postmodernism is fully recognised by its proponents...like scepticism it does not seek to, and therefore the two are not in paradoxical existence. Scepticism does not seek to provide truths, only knowledge; postmodernism shies away from claiming truths, including the truth of its own position. "The difficulty faced by a philosopher who, like myself, is sympathetic to this suggestion- one who thinks of himself as auxiliary to the poet rather than to the physicist- is to avoid hinting that this suggestion gets something right, that my sort of philosophy corresponds to the way things really are. For this talk of correspondence brings back just the idea that the world or the self has an intrinsic nature." ~ Rorty Derrida's (founder of deconstructionism and closely related to postmodernism) strategy for indicating the shortcomings of metaphysical thinking was to deconstruct texts. Derrida's deconstruction was a complex response to a range of twentieth century theoretical and philosophical movements including phenomenology, structuralism, and psychoanalysis. The deconstruction of Derrida was additionally a critique and continuation of Nietzsche's negative reaction to the same and Heidegger's deconstruction of philosophy and metaphysics. The twofold charge of Derridean deconstruction aimed to expose the problem of contained discourses and shift the boundaries of metaphysics. Through deconstruction Derrida sought to expand the conceptual limits of the meaning of the text imposed by metaphysics, preferring to discover meaning in the margins of the text through open semantic play and limitless interpretation. If meaning is contextual, there is no inherent "truth". This had further reaching implications; concepts of deconstructionism, postmodernism, entered art, literature, social theory, as seen in Lewis Carol's deconstruction of narrative forms and characterisations, Salvador Dali's deconstruction of visual art, and more recently Salman Rushdie's deconstruction of meta-narratives of Islam. My opponent's paradox is no longer; postmodernism speaks of, uses, knowledge not truths; the irony of it being otherwise far from lost to its advocates. It is not at odds with scepticism, scepticism is the firm base of its operation, and the two are complimentary. It is explained wonderfully here: "Deconstructionism relieves me of the obligation to be right...and demands only that I be interesting." ~ Stanley Fish 2. If post-modernists applaud tolerance as a virtue to be sought after, how do they come to grips for their own intolerance of a view that must remain cogent with the law of non-contradiction. I have already accomplished answering the first premise. So now I will dismantle his second. Tolerance in the face of the unreasonable is possible. That is the definition of tolerance, in fact: the ability to recognize and respect other belief systems; even the belief system of intolerance. Let me give an example: You can be an atheist and be tolerant of Christian beliefs. Unconditional love can love hate. Unconditional hate can hate itself. You can respect your own disrespect. Now let us put one of these into a cogent (and I will add valid) argument; unconditional hate is hatred of everything. Hate is a part of everything. Unconditional hate has hatred for hate --- below hate is a part of everything. Cogent does not necessarily equal valid. Chesterton's arguments are fatally flawed. They are cogent, yes, but they are not valid. Their premises are not sound.