Why Postmodernism is just Modernism on Steroids (Pt. 2)
The main difference between modernism and postmodernism is the attitude.
Postmodernism — Change in Attitude
It has become a common habit to start any discussion of postmodernism by stating that postmodernism is a very ambiguous term. What I mean by it in this text is more or less the coherent body of thought that is very suspicious of the modern ideas of truth, objectivity and science.
Claims of objectivity and truth are seen as imperialistic uses of power, which seek to uphold, conceal and extend the prevalent power relations. Justifications based on truth, objectivity or science are only malicious ways of oppressing people outside the hegemonic power elites. That is the basic idea.
Now as that is out of the way, we can concentrate on the striking similarity between modern and postmodern philosophy. Namely, both of them claim that we cannot know the reality of things! Both of them say that we don’t have any access to the objective reality, as it lies outside our experience.
Compare for example the following quotes from the postmodern Richard Rorty (1931–2007) and the great modern philosopher David Hume.
The difficulty faced by a philosopher who, like myself, is sympathetic to this [postmodern] suggestion … 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 my sort of philosopher wants to get rid of, the idea that the world or the self has an intrinsic nature. (Richard Rorty 1989. p. 7–8)
It is a question of fact, whether the perceptions of the senses be produced by external objects, resembling them: how shall this question be determined? By experience surely; as all other questions of a like nature. But here experience is, and must be entirely silent. The mind has never any thing present to it but the perceptions, and cannot possibly reach any experience of their connexion with objects. The supposition of such connexion is, therefore, without any foundation of reasoning. (David Hume 2006 [1748] para. 119.)
Both say the same thing: There is no possibility of connecting our experiences to reality. What is the difference then? Why call the first postmodernism and the latter modernism?
Well, the difference lies in the attitude.
We can see this difference in the attitudes from the quotations above. Rorty wants to emphasize two points. Firstly, ideas (cookies) don’t correspond to any reality, and secondly, nor the reality (outside the cookie jar) or the individual (the cookie jar) have any inherent order or rationality.
Hume, for his part, wants to emphasize, how we have no way of establishing a connection between our experience and reality. Hence, we can’t reasonably suppose the existence of real objects.
However, Hume values reason. Although its domain is restricted, as reason can operate only inside the jar, it can be used to make rational judgments about the cookies inside the jar. Nevertheless, this does not help us with the problem of the external world.
Rorty, on the other hand, has no use for reason whatsoever. There is no rational standard to appeal to. There is no “natural” or “inherent” order to which the cookies should succumb to. There is only meaningless play.
We witness how the modern optimism and hope turn into postmodern pessimism and cynicism.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
As already discussed, in the first part of this two-part series, the relation between modern philosophy and modern science hasn’t been the smoothest one for one simple reason. They contradict one another.
Science inquires the mind-independent reality and modern philosophy denies any access to the mind-independent reality. If modern science is Dr. Jekyll, modern philosophy is Mr. Hyde.
The moderns admired reason and science. They claimed that the universe was rational and reasonable. But because of their philosophical assumptions, they had to rely on something transcendental, God for Descartes, Categories for Kant, in order to justify the possibility of gaining knowledge about the external world.
But these serums against Mr. Hyde were only a temporary relief. They never fixed the root of the problem, so the tension between science and philosophy was never really resolved.
Although the project of science and the growth of reason were of utmost importance for the moderns, their philosophical ideas pulled the rug out from under the scientist’s feet.
Dr. Jekyll tried to repress his evil urges and purge himself from Mr. Hyde, but time was running out. The tension grew and grew. The serums were losing their strength.
Then something snapped. And a voice was heard:
Why bother solving the tension? Science is just a language game after all. Reason, rationality and science are all just fabrications, fictitious speculations.
Their real purpose is to conceal and justify various power relations. You see, if you can’t have any knowledge about the objective world, how could you make propositions about it? How could you claim that it has a rational nature?
All you are doing, is force feeding your own subjective cookies to others. On what basis you prefer your cookies over mine, when there is no basis, no foundation? All we can do is play with our own cookies, and let others play with theirs.
There are no standards whatsoever, so play without any self-control! Release your desires!
Let Mr. Hyde take control. Embrace the cookie matrix!
The postmoderns lost their faith in progress. They focused on the dark and sinister aspects of reason and questioned the whole project of science. Of course they had to ignore the undeniable scientific and technological progress, which proved that we could understand the reality. But from a philosophical standpoint their claims were legitimate.
Modern philosophers couldn’t rise up and deny their views. After all, they both shared the same presuppositions: We can only access the internal contents of our minds, and have, therefore, no access to the external reality. We see only the cookies in our own jar.
It is then completely legitimate to argue for the impossibility of ever reaching any objectivity or truth. It is conceivable that objectivity and truth themselves are only figments of the mind — cookies in the jar. Dr. Jekyll was powerless.
You may think that this is a ludicrous position to hold and point to the obvious advancements of science. However, in the end, according to both modernism and postmodernism, all you are pointing at are the cookies in your own jar detached from reality. You can never escape the cookie Matrix.
You may kick a stone and say “Of course this is real”, but all you have proved is that, if that particular cookie (experience) is in your jar (mind), it is a painful cookie.
I guess this is one of main reasons people don’t like modern or postmodern philosophy. They both subscribe to the same senseless idea that there is no possibility of experiencing the reality.
In the end, postmodernism is just modernism on steroids. Instead of rejecting the modernist assumptions on the nature of the mind, postmodernism fully embraces them. For this reason John Deely calls postmodernism ultra-modernism.
More importantly, it is absolutely crucial to recognize how modern philosophy is inadequate for scientific inquiry. Advocating for a return to the “good old enlightenment days” when these damn French postmodernists where not around ruining everything, is a complete waste of breath.
Both postmodernism and modernism share the same, ultimately unscientific, assumptions about the nature of mind. The recognition of this fatal “cookie jar mistake” is crucial, before we can advance to a truly scientific philosophy, that is in no contradiction with the scientific project, and which is compatible with everyday common sense.
Luckily there is such a philosophy, discovered and developed by the great scientist and philosopher Charles Peirce. And my whole vocation with this publication is to share and explore it together with you.
Thank you for reading this post! The best way to support and help this publication, is to share it. By sharing you help this publication to reach more people.
Sincerely,
Markus
With enough blind men able and willing to talk to each other, over time, we can discover the elephant in the room.
An excellent journey through the inherited bits of misunderstandings! Very well explained! Thank you for your post. It's really no wonder that some people fear and avoid philosophers. It's been a 'cluster' for so long. Our culture is one of 'selecting from a menu', whether it's a philosophical or a religious system of belief. And when a student is expected to only select from the cultural norms, it just reinforces those misguided veins of thought. As is typical in academia, whichever philosopher has the greatest means to promote themselves and gain the largest audience, has more power to 'sell' their addition to the menu selection. .... We need to find original ways to overcome that. This is what is strongly on my mind as of late. It's as if I'm being prodded to do something really unique. It's so tough in our current global sea of empty information. People are reading books less and less. There is a momentous push for sharing nothing longer than a tweet and presentations being no more than 5-10 minutes max. ... Originality is necessary. I am hoping for a eureka moment. I'll let you know if I come up with something. ;-)