>>13121452>That definition seems biased and/or ignorant. And IMO, the Britannica should be given as much credibility as Wikipedia or slightly less.I don't even know how to respond to this.
SEP is usually a good source but the postmodernism page seems intentionally vague and only focus on the history of it, which makes me suspect it was written by a post modernist.
But even then, post modernism is not left in a much better position:
>That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning. To be honest I couldn't read it all, it's just too shallow.
>Out of curiosity, do you actually read postmodern philosophy / critical theory books? I mean in good faith, not just the excerpts that their critics point to. If you do, what do you think about them?Yes, but I read them skeptically and >critically. My bootstrap point was looking up textbooks on critical gender/race. They are all shallow, 150~200 pages, with big letters and focus on telling a history of the subject instead of teaching anything of substance.
What I said previously is a common find: "context of discovery vs actual justification" and "science has been used for bad things in the past". But also the use of narratives with no concern for facts or statistics.
To be fair with them: the world is not a perfect happy place and they don't try to hide that their objective is activism but that doesn't mean we should do away with empiricism and make everything a narrative power play.
