You realize that science is ideological, epistemological, and political?
Edit: I appreciate all of the vote downs. Empiricism is as guilty in choosing models according to power dynamics as any ideological endeavor. See phrenology. To suggest science isn't political and ideological is absolutely delusional.
That is the postmodern anti-science belief, which assumes that truth is not really truth. It is just a device used in power struggles between identity groups. It's so extreme that there was actually paper published on feminist glaciology [1]. This is not science. It is just dogma and actually hostile to the principle of science as a pursuit of objective truth carried out by people of good faith.
Who do you think defined notions of truth? Scientists? Or were scientists philosophers interested in epistemology?
No, not being a smart ass. "Science" as we know it today is an invention. It hasn't been around forever. It is relatively new. Yes it is political. Yes it is epistemological. Yes it is ideological.
In terms of social sciences, it is far harder than we like to think.
What we choose to measure, how we choose to measure it, what we choose to ignore, diversity of contexts, etc. are political and ideological decisions.
If you would be interested in reading a rather dense and difficult text, Foucault's Discipline and Punish might be of interest.
You haven't read a single text that falls under the banner of Postmodern. Please stop using the term.
As the other commenter has noted, you need to historcise.
Continental philosophers didn't just plop onto the scene buoyed by multimillion dollar marketing budgets; the epistemology issues they raised are real. Your ridiculous claims of Marxist thought, Feminist thought, etc. betray your ignorance.
So yes, I disagree with every single one of your assertions, but RTFM isn't applicable here, so I avoided stating it outright. Your valuing and clinging of random opinion over informed knowledge is at least as telling as your initial professions. You may have been able to fake it around your equally uniformed peers.
Replace the term "Feminist" with "A person believing in equal rights for women" and your deeply seated, neurologically stuck repetition of misogynist statements rings clear across all communications.
The giants of postmodernism, like Jacques Derrida and Jean-Paul Sartre, were fanatically Marxist before they became postmodernists. They themselves described their philosophies as evolutions of Marxism. Derrida for his part described his outlook as carrying on the spirit of Marxism.
The philosophy very openly calls for deconstruction of all existing values and power structures, and a radical rejection of what the modernist interpreted as reason.
I think you are deliberately downplaying this element of postmodernist philosophy and I don't think you're doing the discussion any favors by casting your opponents as bigots.
I don't recall ever reading Derrida as a fervent Marxist. Sartre's somewhat predates postmodernist canon. Marx would be a bit of a grandfather in deconstruction. Hard not to move forward without acknowledging his presence[1].
> They themselves described their philosophies as evolutions of Marxism.
Citation needed certainly in the case of Derrida.
With that said, to have a peek at J's posts. Every single message is prefaced with the rubbish connection, and by suggesting that there is some lineage to Marx is giving the individual more credit than he is due. Doubly so that it is clear he has never read a Postmodern text.
Also, as I have been citing Foucualt, it might be worth noting that his view of power contrasted against Marx's.
To suggest that the toolbox of Postmodern thought is all Marxism and Feminist is absolutely ridiculous.
In Spectres de Marx Derrida describes a political movement that gets back to the roots of Marxism (and away from the supposed bastardization of Marxism that Leninism/Stalinism represented), so to speak, with a new deconstructionist coalition that continues in the "spirit of Marxism". The book was a crystalization of views he had developed over the preceding decades, when he had done the most to develop postmodernism.
While postmodernism differs from Marxism in many ways, and while its progenitors were inspired by and attempted to build on top of Marxism to different degrees, it certainly comes from the same intellectual tradition of radicalism, and advocacy of overthrowing power structures, as Marxism, and was formulated mostly by intellectuals that accepted several of the basic suppositions of Marxism.
This shouldn't be surprising, considering how prevalent Marxism was among French intellectuals in the postwar period.
As for whether Marxism has any redeeming value, I'd argue that even if it did, the recklessness of its attacks on the capital owning class, in concepts such as surplus value, exclude it as a perspective worthy of being given that level of respect. Marxism crosses a line in human relations that is hard to come back from, and hard to build a humanistic society on top of.
> The book was a crystalization of views he had developed over the preceding decades, when he had done the most to develop postmodernism.
Key point is that his readings of Marxism weren't central to his core tools of Postmodernism, nor is that reading indicative of any fervent Marxism from "before". Wrong on all counts.
> its progenitors were inspired by and attempted to build on top of Marxism to different degrees.
> and was formulated mostly by intellectuals that accepted several of the basic suppositions of Marxism.
Again, citation needed on the majority of the tenuous connections. You are being a tad too obsessive here.
Sorry, but being a green account to respond to my single post screams another J account. "The lady doth protest too much." The rest of your post? Equally misguided with nothing to do with Postmodernism, and less relating to the Foucaultian aspect I referenced.
Edit: I appreciate all of the vote downs. Empiricism is as guilty in choosing models according to power dynamics as any ideological endeavor. See phrenology. To suggest science isn't political and ideological is absolutely delusional.