Question about Postmodern Theory

[Miss Modular]

For those of you that have read and studied Postmodern Theory to some extent, I have a question:

Is postmodern theory meant to be descriptive of the society we live in? Are they suggesting the society we live in is meaningless?

[kellychaos]

There are some pretty good links for postmodern thought on this site (about half-way down the page):

LINK

[Helm]

To give you a quick answer to your question: MU

[Anonymouse]

Basically postmodernism is nothing new and is regurgitated material from ancient Greeks, Marx, Nietzsche and others. The basic core of it is that there are no absolute truths, which I won't even go into how absurd it sounds.

[Helm]

The ancient greeks would disagree with you. Marx would disagree with you. And boy, would nietjyhdhfche disagree with you.

[Miss Modular]

Originally Posted by kellychaos

There are some pretty good links for postmodern thought on this site (about half-way down the page):

Thanks, but I was looking for people's personal perspectives on this topic.

[Nietzsche]

Helm
The ancient greeks would disagree with you. Marx would disagree with you. And boy, would nietjyhdhfche disagree with you.

No absolute truths, as in saying we can not know truth beyond the bounds of our limited senses. All we take in is warped in one way or another, kind of what perception is, of course we can all relate in one way or another, but what i think they are trying to say is there is no one TRUTH. Disagree with me though, i like being proven wrong.

[Anonymouse]

"There are no absolute truths" is logical fallacy. While it claims there are no absolute truths, it itself presents itself as an absolute truth, thereby contradicting itself. So much for postmodernism.

[Nietzsche]

That is a truth within our intellectual meaning, but not an absolute truth. Let's say in another country where they speak a different kind of English (play along) it translates to a different meaning. So therefor it's a truth to us, but still not an absolute truth. Now you may say, "what if the meaning is an absolute truth?", well meaning can not be sent from one person to another directly, we must use language, so meaning can become different. It's all perception. Maybe it shouldn't be "there are no absolute truths", but "we can not comprehend any absolute truths through our limited senses".
Sorry if this is confusing, I don't think I'm explaining it quite right, but trust me they had it worked out more than for us to stop at the phrase contridicting itself.

[Helm]

isn't it funny when recursion comes to bite you in the ass, you fucking horrible character, you?

[Helm]

"There are no absolute truths" is logical fallacy. While it claims there are no absolute truths, it itself presents itself as an absolute truth, thereby contradicting itself. So much for postmodernism.

For the record, as Epimenides might not tell you, but Godel could, and Whitehead and Russel would so much like to despute, due to this self-refferential fallacy, formal logic is not a closed system. And as such, not a secure one. Therefore, the Post-Modernist tells you that any truth based on this formal system is debatable under the formal system itself and he's right. So let's just stick with MU.