Postmodern philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search
Postmodernism

Preceded by Modernism

Postmodernity

 Hypermodernity
 Metamodernism
 Posthumanism
 Postmaterialism
 Post-postmodernism
 Post-structuralism

Fields

 anthropology
 archaeology
 architecture
 art
 Christianity
 criminology
 dance
 feminism
 film
 literature (picture books)
 music
 philosophy
 anarchism
 Marxism
 positivism
 social construction of nature
 psychology
 political science
 theatre

Criticism of postmodernism
  v
 t
 e

Postmodern philosophy is a philosophical movement that arose in the second half of the
20th century as a critical response to assumptions allegedly present in modernist
philosophical ideas regarding culture, identity, history, or language that were developed
during the 18th-century Enlightenment.[1][2]Postmodernist thinkers developed concepts
like difference, repetition, trace, and hyperreality to subvert "grand narratives," univocity of
being, and epistemic certainty.[3] Postmodern philosophy questions the importance of power
relationships, personalization, and discourse in the "construction" of truth and world views.
Many postmodernists appear to deny that an objective reality exists, and appear to deny that
there are objective moral values.[1]
Jean-François Lyotard defined philosophical postmodernism in The Postmodern Condition,
writing "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards meta
narratives...."[4] where what he means by metanarrative is something like a unified, complete,
universal, and epistemically certain story about everything that is. Postmodernists reject
metanarratives because they reject the concept of truth that metanarratives presuppose.
Postmodernist philosophers in general argue that truth is always contingent on historical and
social context rather than being absolute and universal and that truth is always partial and "at
issue" rather than being complete and certain.[3]
Postmodern philosophy is often particularly skeptical about simple binary oppositions
characteristic of structuralism, emphasizing the problem of the philosopher cleanly
distinguishing knowledge from ignorance, social progress from reversion, dominance from
submission, good from bad, and presence from absence.[5][6] But, for the same reasons,
postmodern philosophy should often be particularly skeptical about the complex spectral
characteristics of things, emphasizing the problem of the philosopher again cleanly
distinguishing concepts, for a concept must be understood in the context of its opposite, such
as existence and nothingness, normality and abnormality, speech and writing, and the like.[7]
Postmodern philosophy also has strong relations with the substantial literature of critical
theory.[8]

Contents

 1Characteristic claims
 2Definitional issues
 3History
o 3.1Precursors
o 3.2Early postmodern philosophers
 4Criticism
 5See also
 6Notes
 7Further reading
 8External links
Characteristic claims[edit]
Many postmodern claims are a deliberate repudiation of certain 18th-century Enlightenment
values. Such a postmodernist believes that there is no objective natural reality, and that logic
and reason are mere conceptual constructs that are not universally valid. Two other
characteristic postmodern practices are a denial that human nature exists, and a (sometimes
moderate) skepticism toward claims that science and technology will change society for the
better. Postmodernists also believe there are no objective moral values. Thus, postmodern
philosophy suggests equality for all things. One's concept of good and another's concept of
evil are to be equally correct, since good and evil are subjective. Since both good and evil
are equally correct, a postmodernist then tolerates both concepts, even if he or she
disagrees with them subjectively.[9][10] Postmodern writings often focus on deconstructing the
role that power and ideology play in shaping discourse and belief. Postmodern philosophy
shares ontological similarities with classical skeptical and relativisticbelief systems.[1]
The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that "The assumption that there is no
common denominator in 'nature' or 'truth' ... that guarantees the possibility of neutral or
objective thought" is a key assumption of postmodernism.[11] The National Research
Council has characterized the belief that "social science research can never generate
objective or trustworthy knowledge" as an example of a postmodernist belief.[12] Jean-
François Lyotard's seminal 1979 The Postmodern Condition stated that its hypotheses
"should not be accorded predictive value in relation to reality, but strategic value in relation to
the questions raised". Lyotard's statement in 1984 that "I define postmodern as incredulity
toward meta-narratives" extends to incredulity toward science. Jacques Derrida, who is
generally identified as a postmodernist, stated that "every referent, all reality has the
structure of a differential trace".[3] Paul Feyerabend, one of the most famous twentieth-
century philosophers of science, is often classified as a postmodernist; Feyerabend held that
modern science is no more justified than witchcraft, and has denounced the "tyranny" of
"abstract concepts such as 'truth', 'reality', or 'objectivity', which narrow people's vision and
ways of being in the world".[13][14][15] Feyerabend also defended astrology, adopted alternative
medicine, and sympathized with creationism. Defenders of postmodernism state that many
descriptions of postmodernism exaggerate its antipathy to science; for example, Feyerabend
denied that he was "anti-science", accepted that some scientific theories are superior to
other theories (even if science itself is not superior to other modes of inquiry), and attempted
conventional medical treatments during his fight against cancer.[13][16][17]

Definitional issues[edit]
Philosopher John Deely has argued for the contentious claim that the label "postmodern" for
thinkers such as Derrida et al. is premature. Insofar as the "so-called" postmoderns follow
the thoroughly modern trend of idealism, it is more an ultramodernism than anything else. A
postmodernism that lives up to its name, therefore, must no longer confine itself to the
premodern preoccupation with "things" nor with the modern confinement to "ideas," but must
come to terms with the way of signs embodied in the semiotic doctrines of such thinkers as
the Portuguese philosopher John Poinsot and the American philosopher Charles Sanders
Peirce.[18] Writes Deely,
The epoch of Greek and Latin philosophy was based on being in a quite precise sense: the
existence exercised by things independently of human apprehension and attitude. The much
briefer epoch of modern philosophy based itself rather on the instruments of human knowing,
but in a way that unnecessarily compromised being. As the 20th century ends, there is
reason to believe that a new philosophical epoch is dawning along with the new century,
promising to be the richest epoch yet for human understanding. The postmodern era is
positioned to synthesize at a higher level—the level of experience, where the being of things
and the activity of the finite knower compenetrate one another and provide the materials
whence can be derived knowledge of nature and knowledge of culture in their full
symbiosis—the achievements of the ancients and the moderns in a way that gives full credit
to the preoccupations of the two. The postmodern era has for its distinctive task in
philosophy the exploration of a new path, no longer the ancient way of things nor the modern
way of ideas, but the way of signs, whereby the peaks and valleys of ancient and modern
thought alike can be surveyed and cultivated by a generation which has yet further peaks to
climb and valleys to find.[19]

History[edit]
Precursors[edit]
Postmodern philosophy originated primarily in France during the mid-20th century. However,
several philosophical antecedents inform many of postmodern philosophy's concerns.
It was greatly influenced by the writings of Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche in the
19th century and other early-to-mid 20th-century philosophers,
including phenomenologists Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, psychoanalyst Jacques
Lacan, structuralist Roland Barthes, Georges Bataille, and the later work of Ludwig
Wittgenstein. Postmodern philosophy also drew from the world of the arts and architecture,
particularly Marcel Duchamp, John Cage and artists who practiced collage, and the
architecture of Las Vegas and the Pompidou Centre.
Early postmodern philosophers[edit]
The most influential early postmodern philosophers were Jean Baudrillard,Jean-François
Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida. Michel Foucault is also often cited as an early postmodernist
although he personally rejected that label. Following Nietzsche, Foucault argued that
knowledge is produced through the operations of power, and changes fundamentally in
different historical periods.
The writings of Lyotard were largely concerned with the role of narrative in human culture,
and particularly how that role has changed as we have left modernity and entered a
"postindustrial" or postmodern condition. He argued that modern philosophies legitimized
their truth-claims not (as they themselves claimed) on logical or empirical grounds, but rather
on the grounds of accepted stories (or "metanarratives") about knowledge and the world—
comparing these with Wittgenstein's concept of language-games. He further argued that in
our postmodern condition, these metanarratives no longer work to legitimize truth-claims. He
suggested that in the wake of the collapse of modern metanarratives, people are developing
a new "language-game"—one that does not make claims to absolute truth but rather
celebrates a world of ever-changing relationships (among people and between people and
the world).
Derrida, the father of deconstruction, practiced philosophy as a form of textual criticism. He
criticized Western philosophy as privileging the concept of presence and logos, as opposed
to absence and markings or writings.
In the United States, the most famous pragmatist and self-proclaimed postmodernist
was Richard Rorty. An analytic philosopher, Rorty believed that combining Willard Van
Orman Quine's criticism of the analytic-synthetic distinction with Wilfrid Sellars's critique of
the "Myth of the Given" allowed for an abandonment of the view of the thought or language
as a mirror of a reality or external world. Further, drawing upon Donald Davidson's criticism
of the dualism between conceptual scheme and empirical content, he challenges the sense
of questioning whether our particular concepts are related to the world in an appropriate way,
whether we can justify our ways of describing the world as compared with other ways. He
argued that truth was not about getting it right or representing reality, but was part of a social
practice and language was what served our purposes in a particular time; ancient languages
are sometimes untranslatable into modern ones because they possess a different vocabulary
and are unuseful today. Donald Davidson is not usually considered a postmodernist,
although he and Rorty have both acknowledged that there are few differences between their
philosophies.[20][21]

Postmodernism
https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/postmodernism.htm

Postmodernism – A Description
Postmodernism is difficult to define, because to define it would
violate the postmodernist's premise that no definite terms,
boundaries, or absolute truths exist. In this article, the term
“postmodernism” will remain vague, since those who claim to
be postmodernists have varying beliefs and opinions on
issues.

Are nationalism, politics, religion, and war the result of a

primitive human mentality? Is truth an illusion? How can
Christianity claim primacy or dictate morals? The list of
concerns goes on and on especially for those affected by a
postmodern philosophy and lifestyle. For some, the questions
stem from lost confidence in a corrupt Western world. For
others, freedom from traditional authority is the issue. Their
concern centers around the West’s continued reliance on
ancient and traditional religious morals, nationalism,
capitalism, inept political systems, and unwise use and
adverse impact of promoting “trade offs” between energy
resources and environment, for economic gain.

According to the Postmodern Worldview, the Western world

society is an outdated lifestyle disguised under impersonal and
faceless bureaucracies. The postmodernist endlessly debates
the modernist about the Western society needing to move
beyond their primitiveness of ancient traditional thought and
practices.
Their concerns, for example, often include building and using
weapons of mass destruction, encouraging an unlimited
amount of consumerism thus fostering a wasteful throwaway
society at the sacrifice of the earth’s resources and
environment, while at the same time not serving the fair and
equitable socioeconomic needs of the populace.

Postmodernists believe that the West’s claims of freedom and

prosperity continue to be nothing more than empty promises
and have not met the needs of humanity. They believe that
truth is relative and truth is up to each individual to determine
for himself. Most believe nationalism builds walls, makes
enemies, and destroys “Mother Earth," while capitalism
creates a “have and have not” society, and religion causes
moral friction and division among people.

Postmodernism claims to be the successor to the 17th century

Enlightenment. For over four centuries, “postmodern thinkers”
have promoted and defended a New Age way of
conceptualizing and rationalizing human life and progress.
Postmodernists are typically atheistic or agnostic while some
prefer to follow eastern religion thoughts and practices. Many
are naturalist including humanitarians, environmentalists, and
philosophers.

They challenge the core religious and capitalistic values of the

Western world and seek change for a new age of liberty within
a global community. Many prefer to live under a global, non-
political government without tribal or national boundaries and
one that is sensitive to the socioeconomic equality for all
people.

Postmodernism – Right and Wrong?

Postmodernists do not attempt to refine their thoughts about
what is right or wrong, true or false, good or evil. They believe
that there isn’t such a thing as absolute truth. A postmodernist
views the world outside of themselves as being in error, that is,
other people’s truth becomes indistinguishable from error.
Therefore, no one has the authority to define truth or impose
upon others his idea of moral right and wrong.

Their self-rationalization of the universe and world around

them pits themselves against divine revelation versus moral
relativism. Many choose to believe in naturalism and evolution
rather than God and creationism.

Postmodernism – Politics
Postmodernists protest Western society’s suppression of equal
rights. They believe that the capitalistic economic system lacks
equal distribution of goods and salary. While the few rich
prosper, the mass populace becomes impoverished.
Postmodernists view democratic constitutions as flawed in
substance, impossible to uphold, and unfair in principle.
Related search
postmodernist philosophers

Jacques Derrida

Foucault fails to recognize that different objects of knowledge are self-referential

or self- generated to varying degrees. Foucault's analysis of power, then, is
more appropriate to the social sciences than to the natural sciences. By failing to
recognize this, Foucault over-generalizes the scope of his analysis.
Paul-Michel Foucault (/fuːˈkoʊ/; 15 October 1926 – 25 June 1984), generally known
as Michel Foucault (French: [miʃɛl fuko]), was a French philosopher, historian of ideas, social
theorist, and literary critic.
Michel Foucault

Lyotard rejects the claims of any discourse to be grounded in truth. He rejects

the idea of a master-discourse (later called a metanarrative) that is thought to
provide the basis for judgement in all situations. ... Instead, Lyotard suggests
that paganism is the most appropriate response to the desire for justice.

Jean-François Lyotard

Jean Baudrillard

Søren Kierkegaard

Christopher Norris

Charles Winquist
 Postmodernism
On the End of Postmodernism and the Rise of Realism.
Absolute Truth from True Knowledge of Physical Reality.
Postmodern Definition and Quotes
Plato, George Berkeley, Friedrich Nietzsche, J. Ayer, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Karl Popper,
Thomas Kuhn

The ONLY ABSOLUTE TRUTH is that there are NO ABSOLUTE TRUTHS

(Feyerabend)

I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives ... (Jean-François

Lyotard)

Finally, if nothing can be truly asserted, even the following claim would be
false,
the claim that there is no true assertion. (Aristotle)

If anyone thinks nothing is to be known, he does not even know whether that
can be known,
as he says he knows nothing. (Lucretius)

And isn't it a bad thing to be deceived about the truth, and a good thing to
 know what the truth is?
For I assume that by knowing the truth you mean knowing things as they
really are. (Plato)

Introduction - Postmodernism Definition - Quotes / Post Modernism & Truth - A.J

Ayer - Postmodern Philosophers - Logical Positivism - Postmodernism Links - Top of
Page

Introduction / Summary of
Postmodernism
The current Postmodern belief is that a correct description of Reality is
impossible. This extreme skepticism, of which Friedrich
Nietzsche, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn are
particularly famous, assumes that;

a) All truth is limited, approximate, and is constantly evolving

(Nietzsche, Kuhn, Popper).
b) No theory can ever be proved true - we can only show that a theory
is false (Popper).
c) No theory can ever explain all things consistently (Godel's
incompleteness theorem).
d) There is always a separation between our mind & ideas of things
and the thing in itself (Kant).
e) Physical reality is not deterministic (Copenhagen interpretation of
quantum physics, Bohr).
f) Science concepts are mental constructs (logical positivism, Mach,
Carnap).
g) Metaphysics is empty of content.
h) Thus absolute and certain truth that explains all things is
unobtainable.

As Taborsky writes of Postmodern philosophy;

.. the Mediated concept of Truth, is that it first admits that there is no

such thing as absolute, pure Truth. There is a reality, which may be abstract
or sensual ... but one cannot access it/know it ..'in-itself'. One can only
'know' it within the socially constructed (or species-constructed)
'mediative-habits' of one's particular society/species/whatever. (Taborsky)

Effectively Postmodernism comes to the rather strange conclusion

that;

We CAN imagine things that DO NOT physically exist (e.g. dragons, particle-
wave duality)
We CANNOT imagine things that DO physically exist. (e.g. reality of matter
and human existence in universe)

The purpose of this website is to show that we can correctly imagine

physical reality and prove that this is absolutely true (see below and
links on side of page).

Postmodernism: The Failure to Understand True Knowledge of

Reality
Post-modernism is arguably the most depressing philosophy ever to spring
from the western mind. It is difficult to talk about post-modernism because
nobody really understands it. It’s allusive to the point of being impossible to
articulate. But what this philosophy basically says is that we’ve reached an
endpoint in human history. That the modernist tradition of progress and
ceaseless extension of the frontiers of innovation are now dead. Originality
is dead. The avant-garde artistic tradition is dead. All religions and utopian
visions are dead and resistance to the status quo is impossible because
revolution too is now dead. Like it or not, we humans are stuck in a
permanent crisis of meaning, a dark room from which we can never escape.
(Kalle Lasn & Bruce Grierson, A Malignant Sadness)

The post-modern understanding that our language is too imprecise,

our senses too limited and deceptive to ever absolutely describe
Reality has been caused by the failure of physicists and philosophers
(over many centuries) to discover / correctly describe Reality. In 1940,
two hundred years after Hume first formalized the Metaphysical
Problem of Causation, Einsteinconfirms that the problem of how matter
exists and interacts with other matter in the space around it remained
unsolved;
For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general
theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation.
(Einstein, 1940)

Due to this past failure it is only natural human behavior

(psychological) that this has resulted in our current Postmodern belief
that it is impossible to directly describe and understand the physical
reality of what exists. i.e. There is a tacit assumption within
postmodernism that no theory will ever explain all things.
However, there is no reason for this assumption other than history
showed that no theory had yet explained all things (see Thomas
Kuhn and Karl Popper).

Charles Darwin well understood this extreme 'skepticism' that claims

we can never know the truth about things;

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is

those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert
that this or that problem will never be solved by science. (Charles Darwin,
Introduction to The Descent of Man, 1871)

I have quoted another very good summary of postmodernism below

(that relates to this skepticism), with two important comments added.

Postmodernism is a general and wide-ranging term which is applied to

literature, art, philosophy, architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary
criticism, among others. Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed
certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it
stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human
understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as the mind tries to
understand its own particular and personal reality.
For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which
claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead
focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern
understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being
through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually.
Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles,
knowing always that the outcome of one's own experience will necessarily be
fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal.
Postmodernism is "post" because it is denies the existence of any ultimate
principles, and it lacks the optimism of there being a scientific, philosophical,
or religious truth which will explain everything for everybody - a
characteristic of the so-called "modern" mind.

When we consider our experience of existing in space, then we find

that this is common across all cultures. This is universally true for all
humans - we all experience existing in the same space. Thus Space is
both a concrete experience and an abstract principle (when we
consider its properties as a wave medium).

The paradox of the postmodern position is that, in placing all principles

under the scrutiny of its skepticism, it must realize that even its own
principles are not beyond questioning. As the philosopher Richard Tarnas
states, postmodernism "cannot on its own principles ultimately justify itself
any more than can the various metaphysical overviews against which the
postmodern mind has defined itself."

(Source: https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/postm-body.html)

Exactly. Due to its inherent uncertainty postmodernism cannot argue

against true knowledge of reality.
The correct position must be one of open minded skepticism - that
without true knowledge of reality then all our knowledge of the
external world of our senses is uncertain. So postmodernism cannot
say whether we can or cannot know reality / absolute truths - as it has
no foundation to deduce absolute truths from. Thus the Feyerabend
quote is not true (which is why it is a contradiction).

The ONLY ABSOLUTE TRUTH is that there are NO ABSOLUTE TRUTHS.

(Feyerabend)

It is interesting that this 'postmodern' debate about absolute vs.

relative truths was known to the ancient Greek philosophers (who
were very smart / aware), as their refutations to the above quote
show!

Finally, if nothing can be truly asserted, even the following claim would be
false,
the claim that there is no true assertion. (Aristotle)
If anyone thinks nothing is to be known, he does not even know whether that
can be known,
as he says he knows nothing. (Lucretius)
The correct postmodern statement should be;

Without true knowledge of physical reality then I do not know any

absolute truths about my senses and their relationship to physical
reality. I am limited to cultural truths (social constructs, words have
meaning relative to other words) and truths relating to my personal
experiences (my thoughts, feelings and sense experiences are true to
me).

And once we know reality, as I am convinced we now do with the wave

structure of matter in space, then this marks the end of
postmodernism (and history will show how harmful this uncertainty of
truth was to humanity).

The Consequences of Postmodernism

The problem with Postmodernism is that it leaves us without absolute
foundations for determining absolute truths about how we should think
and live wisely on earth. We can imagine pretty much anything as
being true (human imagination is endless) which is how our world is
(and has been for thousands of years).
This freedom to imagine anything as 'relative truth' is another
significant reason why postmodernism has been universally embraced.
Every culture, religion and diverse group on the planet can claim that
their truths are just as valid as anyone else's This has led to the
concept of 'tolerance'. That we must accept with equal validity the
truths of Darwinian evolution with the truths of 'Adam and Eve' and
the creation of our world in 7 days!

While this may liberating, it unfortunately offers little guidance and

does not abide by the fact that humans are constructed of matter,
interact with all other matter in the universe and have evolved certain
genetic traits as part of their evolutionary ancestry. Thus there are
certain absolute truths that humans (all things) must abide by if they
are to live by the truth and the wisdom this attains. As Gottfried
Leibniz wrote;

A distinction must be made between true and false ideas, and that too much
rein must not be given to a man's imagination under pretext of its being a
clear and distinct intellection. (Leibniz, 1670)

The consequences of this freedom of 'relative truths'? Just look at the

problems our world now faces. Every one of them stems from conflicts
caused by different cultures believing in different truth. It is disastrous
- it is destroying life on our beautiful planet.

The Solution: From Postmodern Relativism to Physical Realism

The quest for certainty has played a considerable part in the history of
philosophy: it has been assumed that without a basis of certainty all our
claims to knowledge must be suspect.(A.J. Ayer)

Nothing seems of more importance, towards erecting a firm system of sound

and real knowledge, which may be proof against the assaults of scepticism,
than to lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing,
reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence
of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed
the meaning of those words. (George Berkeley)

The purpose of this website is to explain how the problems of

postmodern physics and philosophy are solved by the Wave Structure
of Matter in Space (Metaphysics of Space and wave Motion).

The solution was simple - to describe reality most simply, founded on

one substance existing, Space, with the properties of a wave medium
for wave motions that form matter. i.e. Absolute Truth comes from
Necessary Connection which requires One Thing, Absolute Space, to
Connect the Many Things, Matter as Spherical Wave Motions of Space.
Please see essays listed on the side of the page - in particular
the metaphysics and philosophyessays are short, simple and
important.

We hope you enjoy the following discussion of some very fine

philosophers comments on Truth, Reality, and the current mess of our
postmodern Science and Society. Most importantly, the solution to
these problems is simple and obviousonce known!

Geoff Haselhurst

(Bradley, 1846-1924) We may agree, perhaps, to understand

by Metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere
appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths,
or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply
piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole.
 (Aristotle, 340BC) The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is
universal and is exclusively concerned with primary
substance. ... And here we will have the science to study that
which is just as that which is, both in its essence and in
the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. ... That
among entities there must be some cause which moves and combinesthings. ...
There must then be a principle of such a kind that
its substance is activity.

(Gottfried Leibniz, 1646 - 1716) Reality cannot be found

except in One single source, because of the interconnection of
all things with one another. ... I do not conceive of any reality
at all as without genuine unity. ... I maintain also that
substances, whether material or immaterial, cannot be conceived in their
bare essence without any activity, activity being of the essence of
substance in general.

Introduction - Postmodernism Definition - Quotes / Post Modernism & Truth - A.J

Ayer - Postmodern Philosophers - Logical Positivism - Postmodernism Links - Top of
Page

Postmodern Definition
Postmodernism is the belief that:

(1) Most theoretical concepts are defined by their role in the

conjectured theoretical network. (A subset are 'operationally' defined
by a fairly direct tie to observations.)

(2) The theoretical network is incomplete.

(3) It follows that theoretical concepts are 'open', or what logicians call
'partially interpreted'. Research continues precisely because they are
open; the research task is to 'close' them, although never completely.

https://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000088/

Ernst Mach (a logical positivist) explains the scientific foundations of

postmodern thought very well.
A piece of knowledge is never false or true - but only more or less
biologically and evolutionary useful. All dogmatic creeds are approximations:
these approximations form a humus from which better approximations grow.
...
We know only one source which directly reveals scientific facts - our senses.
(Ernst Mach)

So while scientists realise that ultimately all knowledge of reality

comes from our senses, the problem is that our senses are incomplete
and deceptive representations of the mind. And given several
thousand years of failure to work out what reality was, it is natural
that science came to believe that true knowledge of reality was
impossible. As Richard P. Feynman wrote;

The more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a
model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So
theoretical physics has given up on that. (Richard Feynman, 1985)

The solution is simple though. Just get rid of the 'discrete particle
and continuous field' conception of matter in 'space-time' and
replace it with the wave structure of matter in space. See the
Physics essays listed on the side of the page - the solutions are very
obvious once known!

Introduction - Postmodernism Definition - Quotes / Post Modernism & Truth - A.J

Ayer - Postmodern Philosophers - Logical Positivism - Postmodernism Links - Top of
Page

Philosophy Quotations on Post Modernism, Truth &

Uncertainty of Knowledge
The quest for certainty has played a considerable part in the history of
philosophy: it has been assumed that without a basis of certainty all our
claims to knowledge must be suspect. (A.J. Ayer)

Nothing seems of more importance, towards erecting a firm system of sound

and real knowledge, which may be proof against the assaults of scepticism,
than to lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing,
reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence
of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed
the meaning of those words. (George Berkeley)

If anyone thinks nothing is to be known, he does not even know whether that
can be known, as he says he knows nothing. (Lucretius)

I must confess that a man is guilty of unpardonable arrogance who

concludes, because an argument has escaped his own investigation, that
therefore it does not really exist. I must also confess that, though all the
learned, for several ages, should have employed themselves in fruitless
search upon any subject, it may still, perhaps, be rash to conclude positively
that the subject must, therefore, pass all human comprehension. (David
Hume, 1737)

If I ask you why you believe any particular matter of fact, which you relate,
you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact,
connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum,
you must at last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or
senses; or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation. (David
Hume, 1737)

A piece of knowledge is never false or true - but only more or less

biologically and evolutionary useful. All dogmatic creeds are approximations:
these approximations form a humus from which better approximations grow.
(Ernst Mach)

And isn't it a bad thing to be deceived about the truth, and a good thing to
know what the truth is? For I assume that by knowing the truth you mean
knowing things as they really are. (Plato)

What is at issue is the conversion of the mind from the twilight of error to
the truth, that climb up into the real world which we shall call true
philosophy. (Plato)

When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated by truth and reality, it
understands and comprehends them, and functions intelligently; but when it
turns to the twilight world of change and decay, it can only form opinions, its
vision is confused and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence.
(Plato)
The object of knowledge is what exists and its function to know about
reality. (Plato)

One trait in the philosopher's character we can assume is his love of the
knowledge that reveals eternal reality, the realm unaffected by change and
decay. He is in love with the whole of that reality, and will not willingly be
deprived even of the most insignificant fragment of it - just like the lovers
and men of ambition we described earlier on. (Plato)

Truthfulness. He will never willingly tolerate an untruth, but will hate it as

much as he loves truth ... And is there anything more closely connected with
wisdom than truth? (Plato)

There is nothing more necessary than truth, and in comparison with it

everything else has only secondary value.
This absolute will to truth: what is it? Is it the will to not allow ourselves to
be deceived? Is it the will not to deceive?
One does not want to be deceived, under the supposition that it is injurious,
dangerous, or fatal to be deceived. (Nietzsche, 1890)

What if God were not exactly truth, and if this could be proved? And if he
were instead the vanity, the desire for power, the ambitions, the fear, and
the enraptured and terrified folly of mankind? (Nietzsche, 1890)
Do not allow yourselves to be deceived: Great Minds are Skeptical.
(Nietzsche, 1890)

But what are the simple constituent parts of which reality is composed? -
What are the simple constituent parts of a chair? - The bits of wood of
which it is made? Or the molecules or atoms? (Ludwig Wittgenstein)

My thesis is that realism is neither demonstrable nor refutable. Realism like

anything else outside logic and finite arithmetic is not demonstrable; but
while empirical scientific theories are refutable, realism is not even
refutable. (It shares this irrefutability with many philosophical or
'metaphysical' theories, in particular also with idealism.) But it is arguable,
and the weight of the arguments is overwhelmingly in its favor. (Popper,
1975)
All we can do is to search for the falsity content of our best theory. We do
so by trying to refute our theory; that is, by trying to test it severely in the
light of all our objective knowledge and all our ingenuity. It is, of course,
always possible that the theory may be false even if it passes all these
tests; that is allowed for by our search for verisimilitude. But if it passes all
these tests then we may have good reason to conjecture that our theory,
which (we know) has a greater truth content than its predecessor, may have
no greater falsity content. And if we fail to refute the new theory,
especially in fields in which its predecessor has been refuted, then we can
claim this as one of the objective reasons for the conjecture that the new
theory is a better approximation to truth than the old theory. (Popper,
1975)

.. each paradigm will be shown to satisfy more or less the criteria that it
dictates for itself and to fall short of a few of those dictated by its
opponent. .. no paradigm ever solves all the problems it defines .. (T.S. Kuhn,
1962)

.. the puzzles that constitute normal science exist only because no paradigm
that provides a basis for scientific research ever completely resolves all its
problems. (Kuhn, 1962)

For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general
theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation.
(Albert Einstein, 1940)

Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be
endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It
is not good either to forget the questions philosophy asks, or to persuade
ourselves we have found indubitable answers to them. To teach how to live
without certainty, and yet without being paralysed by hesitation, is perhaps
the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can do for those who study it.
(Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy)

The Mediated concept of Truth, is that it first admits that there is no such
thing as absolute, pure Truth. there is a reality, which may be abstract or
sensual .. but one cannot access it/know it ..'in- itself'. One can only 'know'
it within the socially constructed (or species-constructed) 'mediative-
habits' of one's particular society/species/whatever. (Ediwina Taborsky)
This sounds like one of my own intuitions, that scholarly (aka "scientific" )
propositions are at best approximations to realities may never be fully
known. At it's best scholarship approaches reality asymptotically --
approaching Reality as a limit but never quite getting there. It then becomes
an interesting question how it is possible to assess some approximations as
better than others. The notion that some provide a closer "fit" to
observations that are, at least in principle, repeatable, seems like a good, if
conventional, place to begin. The "social/species" mediation enters into the
picture by constraining the kinds of observations made and the types of
inferences permitted from them. Interesting stuff to look at
anthropologically. (John McCreery)

'Truth' is an organized formulation of energy, and is contextual, current,

flexible ... according to the individual who does the formulation, the group
which does the formulation. (Taborsky)

Over much of the philosophical world in this century the doctrine of the
impossibility of metaphysics became almost an orthodoxy, and the adjective
'metaphysical' a pejorative word. Some of the reasons for this devaluation
should now be clear. The conceptual distortions and final incoherence of
systems, the abstract myths parading as Reality, the grandiose claims and
the conflicting results - these seemed to many the essence of the
metaphysical enterprise and sufficient reason for condemning it. ... Having
the avowed aim of arriving at profound truths about everything, it is
sometimes held to result only in obscure nonsense about nothing. (Twentieth
Century Philosophers, 1998)

Introduction - Postmodernism Definition - Quotes / Post Modernism & Truth - A.J

Ayer - Postmodern Philosophers - Logical Positivism - Postmodernism Links - Top of
Page
 A.J. Ayer, Quotes from 'The Problem
of Knowledge'
... we commonly claim to know much more than we really do; perhaps even to
the paradox that we do not know anything at all: for it may be contended
that there is no statement whatsoever that is not in itself susceptible to
doubt.Yet surely there must be something wrong with an argument that
would make knowledge unattainable. Surely some of our claims to knowledge
must be capable of being justified. But in what ways can we justify them? In
what would the processes of justifying them consist? (Ayer)

.. what we call knowing facts may sometimes be just a matter of being

disposed to behave in certain appropriate ways; it need not involve any
conscious process of judging, or stating, that such and such is so. (Ayer)

There is the experience of suddenly coming to realize the truth of

something that one had not known before ... But for the most part the things
that we claim to know are not presented to us in an aura of revelation. We
learn that they are so, and from then on we unquestioningly accept them.
(Ayer)

My point is that from the fact that someone is convinced that something is
true, however firm his conviction may be, it never follows logically that it is
true. .. Except in the rare cases where the truth of the statement in
question is a logical condition of its being believed, as in the assertion of
one's own existence. (Ayer)

There would be a contradiction in saying both that he knew the statement to

be true, and that it was false; but this, as has already been explained, is
because it enters into the meaning of the word 'know' that one cannot know
what is not true. (Ayer)

We may make the truth of some statements depend upon the truth of
others, but this process cannot go on for ever. There must be some
statements of empirical fact which are directly verified. And in what can
this verification consist except in our having the appropriate experiences?
But then these experiences will be cognitive: to have whatever experience it
may be will itself be a way of knowing something to be true. And a similar
argument applies to a priori statements, like those of logic or pure
mathematics. We may prove one mathematical statement by deducing it
from others, but the proof must start somewhere. There must be a least
one statement which is excepted without proof, an axiom of some sort which
is known intuitively. Even if we are able to explain away our knowledge of
such axioms, by showing that they are true by definition, we still have to see
that a set of definitions is consistent. To conduct any formal proof, we have
to be able to see that one statement follows logically from another. (Ayer)

..and it is through having some experience that we discover the truth or

falsehood of any statement of empirical fact. In the case of some such
statements, it may be even be that our having certain experiences verifies
them conclusively. (Ayer)

And if we are asked what makes the law of logic true, we can in this and in
many other cases provide a proof. But this proof in its turn relies upon some
law of logic. (Ayer)

This is not to say that we do not know the truth of any a priori statements,
or even that we do not know them intuitively, if to know them intuitively is to
know them without proof. (Ayer)

Starting from the premise that consciousness, in the sense of cognitive

awareness, must always be consciousness of something, they have perplexed
themselves with such questions as what consciousness is in itself and how it
is related to the things, or facts, which are its objects. It does not seen to
be identical with its objects, yet neither does it seem to be anything apart
from them. They are separate, yet nothing separates them. (Ayer)

..we could still speak of knowing the truth of a prioristatements, such as

those of logic or pure mathematics; and if there were any empirical
statements, such as those describing the contents of one's present
experience, that were certain in themselves, they too might be included: but
most of what we now correctly claim to know would not be knowable, in this
allegedly strict sense. (Ayer)
Whether there are any empirical statements which are in any important
sense indubitable is, as we shall see, a matter of dispute: if there are any
they belong to a very narrow class. (Ayer)

For our enquiry into the use of words can be equally regarded as an enquiry
into the nature of the facts which they describe. (Ayer)

..A similar argument was used by Hume to prove that knowledge of causal
relations 'is not, in any instance, attained by reasoning's a priori '. ' The
effect ', he says, 'is totally different from the cause, and consequently can
never be discovered in it '. Or again, ' there is no object, which implies the
existence of any other if we consider these objects in themselves, and never
look beyond the idea which we form of them.' As Hume puts them these
statements are not obviously tautological; but they become so when it is
seen that what he is saying is that when two objects are distinct, they are
distinct; and consequently that to assert the existence of either one of
them is not necessarily to assert the existence of another. (Ayer)

Many philosophers have in fact maintained that causality is a logical relation

and that there can be infallible acts of knowing. (Ayer)

Words like 'intuition' and 'telepathy' are brought in just to disguise the
fact that no explanation has been found. (Ayer)

Not everyone would regard a successful run of predictions, however long

sustained, as being by itself a sufficient backing for a claim to knowledge.
(Ayer)

.. the philosophical sceptic makes no such distinction: his contention is that

any inference from past to future is illegitimate ... that it is to be doubted
whether the exercise of sense-perception can in any circumstances
whatever afford proof of the existence of physical objects. (Ayer)

If experience cannot justify the skeptic, neither can it refute him.

Psychologically, indeed, he may receive encouragement from the fact that by
following our accepted standards of proof we sometimes arrive at beliefs
which turn out to be false: it would be hard for him to get a hearing if the
procedures which he questions never lead us astray. (Ayer)
When we claim the right to be sure of the truth of any given statement, the
basis of the claim may be either that the statement is self-evident, or that
its truth is directly warranted by our experience, or that it is validly
derivable from some other statement, or set of statements, of which we
have the right to be sure. (Ayer)

..the problem of certainty; the question whether there are any statements
whose truth can be established beyond the possibility of doubt. (Ayer)

The quest for certainty has played a considerable part in the history of
philosophy: it has been assumed that without a basis of certainty all our
claims to knowledge must be suspect. (Ayer)

Sometimes the word 'certain' is used as a synonym for 'necessary' or for 'a
priori'. It is said, for example, that no empirical statements are certain, and
what is meant by this is that they are not necessary in the way that a
priori statements are, that they can all be denied without self-contradiction.
Accordingly, some philosophers take a priori statements as their ideal. They
wish, like Leibniz, to put all true statements on a level with those of formal
logic or pure mathematics; or, like the existentialists, they attach a tragic
significance to the fact that this cannot be done. (Ayer)

If empirical statements had the formal validity which makes the truths of
logic unassailable they could not do the work that we expect of them; they
would not be descriptive of anything that happens. (Ayer)

Thus neither 'I think' nor 'I exist' is a truth of logic: the logical truth is
only that I exist if I think ... It is that their truth follows from their being
doubted by the person who expresses them. The sense in which I cannot
doubt the statement that I think is just that my doubting it entails its
truth: and in the same sense I cannot doubt that I exist. (Ayer)

There is nothing more to me than what can be discovered by listing the

totality of the descriptions which I satisfy. This is merely an expression of
the tautology that if a description is complete there is nothing left to be
described. But can it not be asked what is that one is describing? The
answer is that this question makes sense only as a request for further
description: it implies that the description so far is incomplete, as in fact it
always will be. (Ayer)
To know that one exists is not, in this sense, to know anything about oneself
any more than knowing that this exists is knowing anything about this. (Ayer)

Our experiences themselves are neither certain or uncertain; they simply

occur. It is when we attempt to report them, to record or forecast them, to
devise theories to explain them, that we admit the possibility of falling into
error, or for that matter of achieving truth. For the two go together:
security is sterile. It is recorded of the Greek philosopher Cratylus that,
having resolved never to make a statement of whose truth he could not be
certain, he was in the end reduced simply to wagging his finger. (Ayer)

The ground, then, for maintaining that, while one is having an experience, one
can know with absolute certainty the truth of a statement which does no
more than describe the character of the experience in question is that
there is no room here for anything short of knowledge: there is nothing for
one to be uncertain or mistaken about. (Ayer)

What we do not, and can not, have is a logical guarantee that our acceptance
of a statement is not mistaken. It is chiefly the belief that we need such a
guarantee that has led philosophers to hold that some at least of the
statements which refer to what is immediately given to us in experience
must be incorrigible. But, as I have already remarked, even if there could be
such incorrigible statements, the guarantee which they provided would not
be worthy of very much. In any given case it would operate only for a single
person and only for the fleeting moment at which he was having the
experience in question. It would not, therefore, be of any help to us in
making lasting additions to our stock of knowledge. (Ayer)

Inductive reasoning is taken to cover all the cases in which we pass from a
particular statement of fact, or set of particular statements of fact, to a
factual conclusion which they do not formally entail. The inference may be
from particular instances to a general law, or proceed directly by analogy
from one particular instance to another. In all such reasoning we make the
assumption that there is a uniformity in nature; or, roughly speaking, that
the future will, in the appropriate respects, resemble the past. (Ayer)

For the most part, attempts to solve the problem of induction have taken
the form of trying to fit inductive arguments into a deductive mould. The
hope has been, if not to turn problematic inference into formal
demonstration, at least to make it formally demonstrable that the premises
of an inductive argument can in many cases confer a high degree of
probability upon its conclusion. (Ayer)

For what matters to them, (philosophers of science), is the worth of the

hypothesis itself, not the way in which it has come to be believed. And the
process of testing hypotheses is deductive.The consequences which are
deduced from them are subjected to empirical verification. If the result is
favourable the hypothesis is retained; is not, it is modified or rejected and
another one adopted in its place. But even if this is the correct account of
scientific method it does not eliminate the problem of induction. (Ayer)

..we have no access to physical objects otherwise than through the contents
of our sense-experiences, which themselves are not physical: we infer the
existence of scientific entities, such as atoms and electrons, only from their
alleged effects. (Ayer)

There can be no description of our sense-experiences, however long and

detailed, from which it follows that a physical object exists. Statements
about scientific entities are not formally deducible from any set of
statements about their effects, nor do statements about a person's inner
thoughts and feelings logically follow from statements about their outward
manifestations.(Ayer)

The problem which is presented in all these cases is that of establishing our
right to make what appears to be a special sort of advance beyond our data.
The level of what, for the purposes of the problem, we take to be data
varies; but in every instance they are supposed to fall short, in an
uncompromising fashion, of the conclusion to which we look to them to lead
us. For those who wish to vindicate our claim to knowledge, the difficulty is
to find a way of bridging or abolishing this gap. (Ayer)

It is the gap between things as they seem and things as they are; and the
problem consists in our having to justify our claims to know how physical
objects are on the basis of knowing only how they seem. (Ayer)

And we can then work out what the object must itself be like in order to
have, in such conditions, the effects on us that it does. It then turns out to
be just what science tells us that it is. (Ayer)
It is possible to maintain both that such things are chairs and tables are
directly perceived and that our sense-experiences are causally dependent
upon physical processes which are not directly perceptible. This is, indeed, a
position which is very widely held, and is perfectly consistent.(Ayer)

However hard they, (phenomenalists), may make it for us to construct an

imaginative picture of the physical world, they may still be right in claiming
that statements about physical objects are reducible to statements about
sense-data, that to talk about the way things are comes down in the end to
talking about the way they would seem.(Ayer)

At the present moment there is indeed no doubt, so far as I am concerned,

that this table, this piece of paper, this pen, this hand, and many other
physical objects exist. I know that they exist, and I know it is on the basis
of my sense-experiences. Even so, it does not follow that the assertion that
their existence, or of the existence of any one of them, is logically entailed
by any description of my sense-experiences. (Ayer)

But here, as so often in philosophy, the important work consists not in the
formulation of an answer, which often turns out to be almost platitudinous,
but in making the way clear for its acceptance. (Ayer)

Or is there some difference between the past and the future which would
account for our making the distinction between them when we speak about
the possible effect of our acts?(Ayer)

Our reward for taking sceptism seriously is that we are brought to

distinguish the different levels at which our claims of knowledge stand. In
this way we gain clearer understanding of the dimensions of our language;
and so of the world which it serves us to describe.(Ayer)

Introduction - Postmodernism Definition - Quotes / Post Modernism & Truth - A.J

Ayer - Postmodern Philosophers - Logical Positivism - Postmodernism Links - Top of
Page
Postmodern Philosophers
Lyotard, Jean-Francois (Postmodernist) 1924
Postmodernism is a sceptically inclined form of philosophy which calls
into question the certainties of other discourses, and Lyotard is one of
the movement's leading theorists.

.. This line of development culminated in The Postmodern

Condition (1979), where the notion of universal theories was
dismissed out of hand, the argument being that such 'grand narratives'
(for example Marxism) had lost all credibility. Against grand narrative,
with its authoritarian connotations, Lyotard championed the cause of
'little narrative', essentially the narrative of individual human beings,
which needed no foundational justification, Lyotard is a committed
anti-foundationalist.

Deconstruction
Derrida, Jacques (Post-structuralist, phenomenologist, phil of
language, metaphysician, aesthetician) 1930

Derrida is the founder and prime exponent of deconstruction, a

method of textual analysis applicable to all writing, philosophy no less
than creative literature, which by means of a series of highly
controversial strategies seeks to reveal the inherent instability and
indeterminacy of meaning. One of his primary objectives is to draw
attention to the inescapably textual character of all philosophical
writing, which he feels that most philosophers try to deny, regarding it
as pure argument instead. Deconstruction is best approached as a
form of radical scepticism and antifoundationalism.

Derrida takes an oppositional stance towards Western philosophy from

Plato onwards for its unacknowledged commitment to the 'metaphysics
of presence' , the belief that meaning is essentially stable and
determinate and can be grasped in its entirety. Western philosophy is
in this sense logocentrist, committed to the idea that words are
capable of communicating unambiguously meanings that are present
in the individuals mind.

For Derrida, on the other hand, meaning is marked by the continual

play of difference ..
.. essentially a linguistic enquiry- he takes his lead from Saussure's
identification of the sign as arbitrary. Heidegger, influence and source
of his idea of deconstruction, that presence is subjected to close
scrutiny.

Derrida delivered some devastating attacks on the notion there being

underlying structures to discourse. He insists that philosophy is above
all a form of writing as dependant as any other on the operation of
figures of speech.

Derrida has had an enormous impact on modern thought, with

deconstruction proving itself to be one of the most controversial as
well as most stimulating developments in the late twentieth-century
intellectual life. There is now what amounts to a Derrida industry-
Christopher Norris has spoken of a 'deconstructive turn' to academic
discourse in recent years - and few works in the general field of
cultural studies fail to acknowledge Derrida's influence or engage with
his ideas.

One Hundred Twentieth-Century Philosophers - Stewart Brown,

Diane Collinson, Robert Wilkinson

Introduction - Postmodernism Definition - Quotes / Post Modernism & Truth - A.J

Ayer - Postmodern Philosophers - Logical Positivism - Postmodernism Links - Top of
Page

Logical Positivism & Rudolf Carnap

Logical Positivism Definition - The chief tenets of logical positivism
were that:
(1) the only genuine propositions (that are strictly true or false about
the world) are those that are verifiable by the methods of science;
(2) the supposed propositions of ethics, metaphysics and theology are
not verifiable and so are not strictly 'meaningful' ;
(3) the propositions of logic and mathematics are meaningful but their
truth is discovered by analysis and not by experiment and observation
(4) the business of philosophy is not to engage in metaphysics or other
attempted assertions about what is the case- it is, rather, to engage in
analysis.

(Ayer, Carnap, The Vienna Circle.)

In the 1960s there was a broad reaction against scientism in the West.
The scientific orientation of the logical positivists had been repugnant
to some philosophers such as Wittgenstein all along.

Carnap, Rudolf (Logician) 1891-1970

In the heyday of logical positivism Carnap led the assault on
metaphysics. Like many empiricists he espoused a form of the
analytic- synthetic distinction, according to which knowledge can be
only of two basic kinds: 'necessary' truths or tautologies which hold
independently of particular matters of fact and are true in all possible
cases: and factual propositions about the world. Consequently there
are just two permissible categories of proposition which exhaust what
can be meaningfully said.
By contrast, the assertions of traditional metaphysicians fail to qualify
for either category, being neither tautological nor empirically
verifiable. Thus, while the sentences of metaphysics might, by virtue
of their seductive syntactical appearance, suggest that great
profundities were being communicated, they in fact lacked any literal
sense at all, although they could have some emotional significance for
using them. Indeed Carnap stigmatized metaphysicians as frustrated
poets or musicians, seduced by the fundamental confusions about
language.

- philosophy had no business masquerading as a source of knowledge

beyond science, and its proper role is to concerned with the logical
syntax of language, especially the language of science.
He also endeavoured to extend the application of logical rigour to the
topic of induction, seeking to provide a basis for measuring the degree
of inductive support, and produced substantial work on probability.

Only once a framework was adopted, did it make sense to ask

'existential' questions. Thus the decision to adopt the mathematical
framework of numbers was external, a practical question of whether to
accept certain linguistic forms.

.. Carnap's stance on induction and probability brought him into

contact with Karl Popper who notoriously questioned whether any
degree of inductive support or 'confirmation' increased either the
probability of a theory being true or one's rational entitlement to
believe in its truth.

One Hundred Twentieth-Century Philosophers - Stewart Brown,

Diane Collinson, Robert Wilkinson, p. 26 - 29
 Introduction - Postmodernism Definition - Quotes / Post Modernism & Truth - A.J
Ayer - Postmodern Philosophers - Logical Positivism - Postmodernism Links - Top of
Page

Postmodernism Links / Post Modern Philosophy,

Postmodern Philosophers
Kuhn,Thomas - On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions -
Kuhn's Paradigm shift from Space and Time to Space and Motion as
the New Metaphysical Foundation for the Sciences. 'The historian of
science may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the
world itself changes with them.'

Nietzsche, Friedrich - Famous Philosopher Nietzsche on

Postmodernism and Beyond Good and Evil. God is not Dead, God is
What Exists and Causes all things thus God is Space and (Wave)
Motion.

Popper, Karl - On the Evolution of Absolute Truth - Wave Structure of

Matter Solves Popper'sProblem of Induction by explaining how One
Thing (Space) Necessarily Connects the Many Things (Matter as
Spherical Wave motions of Space). See Hume's Problem of Causation.
'If a theory corresponds to the facts but does not cohere with some
earlier knowledge, then this earlier knowledge should be
discarded.'

Metaphysics: Skepticism / Skeptics - On Truth and Certainty -

Scientific Minds are Skeptical and Open. On how we can be certain we
know the Truth about Reality.

Philosophy: Existentialism - Jean Paul Sartre, Simone de

Beauvoir and Albert Camus - On the True Foundations of how we
exist as Matter in Space.

Philosophy: Realism Idealism - The Rise of Absolute Truth and

Realism, the End of Post Modern Relative Idealism. Berkeley, Kant,
Hegel, Nietzsche, Einstein. 'The more plebeian illusion of naive realism,
according to which things 'are' as they are perceived by us through our
senses ... dominates the daily life of men and of animals; it is also the point
of departure in all of the sciences, especially of the natural
sciences.' (Albert Einstein)

Help Humanity
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
(Mohandas Gandhi)

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in

one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no
separate existence from matter. ... Physical objects are not
in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this
way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The
particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which
the field strength or the energy density are particularly high.
...
The free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific
conclusions is necessary for the sound development of
science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life. ... We must not conceal from ourselves
that no improvement in the present depressing situation is possible without a severe
struggle; for the handful of those who are really determined to do something is
minute in comparison with the mass of the lukewarm and the misguided. ...
Humanity is going to need a substantially new way of thinking if it is
to survive!" (Albert Einstein)

Our world is in great trouble due to human behaviour founded on myths and
customs that are causing the destruction of Nature and climate change. We
can now deduce the most simple science theory of reality - the wave
structure of matter in space. By understanding how we and everything
around us are interconnected in Space we can then deduce solutions to the
fundamental problems of human knowledge
in physics, philosophy, metaphysics, theology, education, health, evolution and
ecology, politics and society.

This is the profound new way of thinking that Einstein realised, that we exist as spatially
extended structures of the universe - the discrete and separate body an illusion. This simply
confirms the intuitions of the ancient philosophers and mystics.

Given the current censorship in physics / philosophy of science journals (based on

the standard model of particle physics / big bang cosmology) the internet is the best hope for
getting new knowledge known to the world. But that depends on you, the people who care
about science and society, realise the importance of truth and reality.

It is Easy to Help!
Just click on the Social Network links below, or copy a nice image or quote you like and share
it. We have a wonderful collection of knowledge from the greatest minds in human history, so
people will appreciate your contributions. In doing this you will help a new generation of
scientists see that there is a simple sensible explanation of physical reality - the source of
truth and wisdom, the only cure for the madness of man! Thanks! Geoff Haselhurst(Updated
September, 2018)

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,
and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck, 1920)

SaveGeoff

inShare

Connect with Geoff Haselhurst at Facebook

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do

nothing."
(Edmund Burke)

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

(George Orwell)

"Hell is Truth Seen Too Late."

(Thomas Hobbes)