Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Enlightenment and Constructive Postmodernism

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 02:01 PM
Original message
The Enlightenment and Constructive Postmodernism
I saw this quote and I wondered what people thought about it - esp. the "New World Order" part and what that means for us today.

As we have seen, the Enlightenment pictured the human race as engaged in an effort towards universal moral and intellectual self-realization. It was believed that reason allowed access to truth, and knowledge of the truth would better mankind. These tenets were fundamental to the notion of Modernism, the goal of which was the creation of a new world order.

http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/modpolitics.html



This was a general description from the same site about Deconstructive postmodernism and Constructive postmodernism. I think that some of the arguments around here are based on Deconstructive postmodernism and some based on Constructive postmodernism (Whether people called it that or not). I tend to agree with the Constructive postmodernist ideas - in that I think that there are some liberal ideas worth saving and expounding upon - combined with feminism and ecological concerns, for instance.

Deconstructive postmodernism is seen perhaps as anti-modern in that it seems to destroy or eliminate the ingredients that are believed necessary for a worldview, such as God, self, purpose, meaning, a real world, and truth. (This point of view, though, that we need a worldview comprised of notions of God, self, purpose, etc, is itself a modernist one.)

Deconstructive postmodern thought is seen by some as nihilistic, (i.e. the view that all values are baseless, that nothing is knowable or can be communicated, and that life itself is meaningless).

Constructive postmodernism does not reject Modernism, but seeks to revise its premises and traditional concepts. Like deconstructive postmodernism, it attempts to erase all boundaries, to undermine legitimacy, and to dislodge the logic of the modernist state. Constructive postmodernism claims to offer a new unity of scientific, ethical, aesthetic, and religious intuitions. It rejects not science as such, but only that scientific approach in which only the data of the modern natural sciences are allowed to contribute to the construction of our worldview.

Constructive postmodernism desires a return to premodern notions of divinely wrought reality, of cosmic meaning, and an enchanted nature. It also wishes to include an acceptance of nonsensory perception.

Constructive postmodernism seeks to recover truths and values from various forms of premodern thought and practice. Constructive postmodernism wants to replace modernism and modernity, which it sees as threatening the very survival of life on the planet.

http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/modpostmod.html




(Some of us have been discussing Postmodernism over in GD.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. If you want to read the GD thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. A couple of questions for whoever is reading
Can someone provide an example of "nonsensory perception" and explain to me how it differs from imagination, hallucination, or a dream?

"Premodern notions of divinely wrought reality" scares the heck out of me, almost as much as "modern" notions of a divinely wrought reality. As soon as we inject a concept of the "divine" into the equation, someone almost invariably claims authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Great question.
Can't wait to see if anyone answers it.

I'm also fascinated by the bias inherent in the descriptions - how deconstructive postmodernism supposedly wants to "destroy or eliminate" things like gods. Well, for one thing, since they don't exist, how can they be destroyed? Also, what I'd like to see is worldviews based on gods or other similar constructs not eliminated but instead viewed with appropriate skepticism, and when in conflict with reason and rationality, be considered far less reliable. Seems to me I don't fit into either category.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I had to study a lot of post modernism
in my field. I found it to be very self-important and just kind of...dumb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Grannie, I like you more and more! (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Thanks. Well, what do
YOU think about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Well, since you asked...
I find it to be an excellent example of smoke and mirrors--a colorful display of ultimately nothing, wrapped up in trendy sloganisms. No doubt its proponents would call that its greatest strength, but that just goes to show you how the Left (at least, that segment of it enspelled by postmodernist nonsense) eagerly raced to make itself obsolete. Further, I have never met anyone who actually seemed to believe in the claims of postmodernism or who, though professing belief, actually lived up to them. But I've met plenty of people who like to write articles about it or who, during a particularly enthusiastic night of libations, ponder the importance of power structure as it pertains to who's buying the next round.

It has some good ideas, but these are IMO confined largely to the arts and in itself PM shouldn't be mistaken for a viable political theory. Its single greatest contribution to artistic interpretation is (again, IMO) its debunking of the illusion of author's/artist's intent. In fact, this can be a useful weapon in combatting so-called "Constitutional originalists," who are as full of shit as anyone you'll ever meet.

Terry Eagleton, though rumored to be of somewhat objectionable personal character, has written excellent pieces against it, not the least being The Illusions of Postmodernism. Definitely worth checking out, if you haven't already.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. Sounds like ....
a lot of New Age polysyllabism to me. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
8. Postmodern Constructivist?
= Proactive? Not passive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. It's my impression that it's not merely not passive
but not so intent on tearing down as in creating something positive.

It's easy to tear down, criticize other's ideas. It's not as easy to come up with someone worthwhile. That's why I think it makes sense to look at what has worked in the past - what is of value - reject the negative and see what you can come up with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Do you think you can really be constructivist without also really
Edited on Tue May-16-06 05:57 PM by patrice
being de-constructivist?

I think it is important to the dynamics of creativity to hold both in equal potential, otherwise validity as to "knowing" what/why to de-construct and and what/why to construct is threatened by hidden factors, such as ignorance, or instinct, and interference from __________, or impulses, and things like long term Anger.

Construction and De-Construction imply open-ness to the dynamics of constructive deconstruction, or destructive construction, processes, such as obfuscation, and interference etc.) an empirically honest practical and rational balance, is an objective that would include instinctual and organic balance or constructive and destructive physical energies.

Sounds more healthy than many of us manage to be - me too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I think that there does have to be
reconstruction to balance deconstruction. It may just be because that's how I think of things as an artist.


It's easy to say that there is no "God" , the patriarchy is fucked up, etc. But I get the feeling that some people are opposed to the idea of creation - esp. the creation of new "meta-narratives" or whatever.

There was the question about whether the US is stuck in postmodernism. Maybe the idea - is that we are obsessed so much about deconstruction that we can't see any way out.


OTOH - some people still need to get over the old ideas -

I read a really scary thing today by someone who blames everything on feminism - as if that is an excuse to not have any social programs, that is the excuse to do whatever can be done to keep women poor enough that they have to stay married. It was hard to believe that anyone could have that point of view - but there it was. Someone who wants to reconstruct society back to what it was in the 50's or something. Bah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Vicious circle. The more objectified you make "it", the more subjectified
Edited on Tue May-16-06 07:04 PM by patrice
"it" becomes. Her answer is "It's all the fault of (something called) feminism" = objectification, a vicious circle. Sorry, I wasn't being very clear was I.

...........

I don't like to play those games anymore. But then, that's a bias too.


The Absurdists gave me big mistrust of language - though I am a technical writer, because I have great respect for well-crafted English.

......................

She could hardly be more wrong, IMO. Many of our problems are because women are not as free as they could be. This causes an al most overwhelming Social tendency toward dysfunction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
11. So I found the "Enlightenment Underground"
Edited on Tue May-16-06 08:21 AM by bloom
and at least a partial answer to my question...


Tuesday, May 02, 2006

"In Defense of Radicalism"

"If the Enlightenment is to have a future worth having -- and I do not think I go too far in saying, this means, if humanity is to have a future worth having -- the Enlightenment must once again become radical.

This means less Locke and Kant, more Spinoza and Marx; less Rawls and Habermas, more Adorno and Foucault -- less apologies for "humanitarian interventionism," more power (potentia) for the multitude."


http://enlightenmentunderground.blogspot.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC