Postmodernism

Firstly, let me define postmodernism as a movement against modernism that preceded it and arose around the sixties. It was given impetus with the student uprising in France and Germany in the late sixties

The primary driver was a rejection of many aspects of the positive and orderly approach of modernism circa from the ending of hostilities from the first World War. But there exists an overlap between their respective movements, as paradoxically it is a rejection of parts of modernism combined with its extension.

Modernism

As a unitary movement it embraces just about everything- philosophy, religion, the arts (music, painting, architecture, literature etc) which was discussed and performed in accordance to the rules and conventions.

That position assumed a good outcome and permeated teaching in most of the educational institutions all over Europe against which the students saw reasons to rally against since that status quo had not avoided the ravages of war.    

Notwithstanding Modernism had its beauty of course because of that unity- for instance Art Deco buildings, the Sydney Opera building and Books written with a beginning and end.

It brought enjoyment and order but excluded expression outside of those set boundaries. For instance, a priest or minister might make minor changes to the liturgy, but must start generally within the framework of a given model.

A familiar image was the triple-fronted brick veneer.  I recall our family home in that modernist design but unrecognisable given it has since undergone major extensions. Today it is barely recognisable. Hence you could only make minor changes inside the house, but not outside the house, or you wouldn’t have a triple-fronted brick veneer anymore.

Postmodernism

A good example of postmodernism is Federation Square in Melbourne, whose recent changes don’t impinge on recognitiom for it retains its Postmodern creation. Hence Federation Square has been described as being part of a deconstructivism style. In that respect post-modern architecture involves a clever manipulation of structure to provide a more enhanced multidimensional perspective.

Note there is an emphasis on various aspects of human interactivity. You may have noticed, as I have, how the square is enveloped by the surrounding buildings which created for me a feeling of safety and intimacy. Buildings are also designed with multiple axis points; each entrance can be a transition zone, encouraging one to wander off almost accidentally to the next place or passage. 

The materials used are bluestone that matches the footpaths in Melbourne and the rich ochre-coloured sandstone blocks that reflect the Australian outback. Hence, we could say Postmodernism incorporates many individual separate pieces, making up the total in a seemingly haphazard way. 

Another typical aspect of Postmodernism is the ‘pinching’ of ideas (the pieces) from anywhere, like the classics, the Romantics etc.

An excellent example is the film ‘Moonwalker’ with Michael Jackson. In this film scenes are stolen from other genres including the music to nevertheless retain its postmodern creativity.This is exemplified as it features a montage of clips of children in Africa, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Desmond Tutu, Jesus Christ, kids in graduation, and other historical figures.

Postmodern writing, including Slaughterhouse-Five, tends to present a self-conscious critique of culture, society, politics, economics, and religion.  The resulting works can usually be described as fragmented, discontinuous, and even chaotic.

In visual art, the works of Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollock are held up as prime examples of postmodernism. In film, classic examples include The Matrix and Blade Runner.

Precursor to post modernism.  

It is important to remember that Postmodernism, although dated to the late sixties, was prepared well before that time by various philosophers including Kierkegaard, Nietzsche Heidegger, Wittgenstein and Sartre.Derrida especially underpinned post modernism both with his philosophy and his insight on ‘reading’ and analysis.

A typical approach for cold bloodied textural analysis independent of the author's meaning was regarded as important.

Now, deconstructionism extends that analysis to determine the underlying ideologies, religious concepts in the use of words and sentences, i.e. language, which are often inferred but hidden. A political speech would be a great example, in which sometimes nothing is said but the political ideologies. All hidden by the use of certain language, words and sentences.

In a nutshell, while modernism adopted idealism and reason, postmodernism challenged or was highly sceptical of any ideas that involved universal certainties or truths. The principal idea was to reject modernism's unshakable belief in progress championed by the likes of Hegel's idea of the thinking spirit that meant each generation would learn from the past. This led to changes in the way we see ourselves but more so for society at large and philosophy. For instance, the existential movement was more about creating your own meaning and the self-whilst post-mortem thinking concerns were society's at large rejection of those modernists’ themes previously mentioned. But postmodernism arose from Continental Philosophy.      

The Historical Background- Continental Drift – why the analytics fiercely contest the continentals and vice versa  

A serious rift between the two traditions occurred at the beginning of the 20th Century with the work of G.E.Moore and Bertrand Russell. At that time, a Continental style, Hegelianism, ruled the world, dominating not only on the continent itself but also in England and America. Russell's reaction probably made the biggest impression and, in doing so, in a sense gave us what we now call ‘analytic philosophy’. The Moore-Russell movement instituted a concern with clarity, logic, and language and a prosaic, precise approach to philosophy as a reaction against what it took to be the ‘grandiose nebulosity’ of German Idealism and Hegelianism. It was a hard, precise, ‘masculine’ approach to philosophy, whereas Hegelianism might be dubbed more fluid, complex, and ‘feminine’. This set the tone not only for the way Analytic philosophy developed (from Russell and Moore to logical positivism and Wittgenstein and after), but also for the curriculum in university philosophy departments. Philosophy was studied up to the ‘crucial figure of Hume’, then a sudden jump was made (which totally ignored Continentals like Fichte, Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx and Husserl) to Russell and Moore. This gave the impression that nothing very important had happened in philosophy between Hume and Russell.

Continental philosophers, the clarity and precision of the Analytic style, they argue, are actually a mark of its myopia, parochiality, lack of real depth, and inability to see the limitation of the Analytic framework and programmed. They posit Analytic philosophers have not read, or properly understood, the criticisms levelled at Analytic philosophy by certain key figures

The movements, some of whom are from their own tradition: Nietzsche, Heidegger, the later Wittgenstein, Derrida and the deconstructive movement, Richard Rorty.

There have been many attempts to modify and undermine Wittgenstein’s conclusions, but there is no agreement as to how successful these have been.

NIETZSCHE –

He represents the end of German Idealism, being the man who replaced Schopenhauer’s ‘will to live’ with his own ‘will to power’ as the essential description of reality. (This is how Nietzsche was regarded, especially by the Analytic tradition, for a long time, but that today is generally regarded as true.

For he is a sceptic and relativist and pro -Derrida’ who, by a series of ‘genealogical tracings’ deconstructs the truth-seeking enterprise of philosophy, as well as its passion for reason and precision, by showing the murky psychological roots of such enterprises, praising instead the unconscious, emotion, instinct, the body.  That appeals to many Continental and Feminist thinkers, and goes some way towards explaining the bewildered astonishment with which Analytic philosophers respond to the more ‘radical’ texts in contemporary continental thought.

Whether or not Nietzsche’s philosophy is consistent – and whether that even matters! – is one of the moot points at issue between contemporary Analytic and Continental philosophy.

Heidegger’s ‘primordial’ return to the ‘ground of metaphysics’, they feel, has surely made the whole framework in which Analytic philosophers discuss things inadequate, since it has shown that the entire subject-object distinction is a secondary and artificial construct that obscures rather than illuminates Being.

The later Heidegger is essentially a philosopher of mysticism, and his basic message would surprise neither Buddha, Lao-tzu, or St John of the Cross.

Mysticism has always taught that while there is an ego differentiating a world, the truth, or at least, reality, escapes it. The position is a recurrent one in both philosophy and theology, and Heidegger’s is the most recent version of it.

Heidegger salvages functions in terms of a move towards an ethics and a politics that would tend towards ‘letting beings be’, and being more circumspect about that ‘will to will’ that drives our technological ‘in framing’ of the modern world.

The figure of Jacques Derrida has probably aroused more adulation and fury in this debate between the traditions than any other. His detractors – mainly Analytic philosophers – either regard him as an incompetent charlatan or else generously grant that he has some reasonable philosophical points to make, only unfortunately Wittgenstein (or sometimes Nietzsche) made them all first.

Richard Rorty has described himself both as an American Pragmatist and a ‘postmodern bourgeois liberal’. He is significant for being one of the few Analytic philosophers who has seriously tried to take on board Continental philosophy, and who can claim a high degree of competence in both traditions.

What can we learn from both traditions and the conclusion.  

Each has something to contribute- Analytic philosophy and continental philosophy each play an important role.

Philosophy is a historical movement which seeks to provide answers to social and political questions as well as more technical problems of logic and epistemology. To assume that analytic philosophy is above the social and historical currents of its time is to ignore the wider reality. 

Continental philosophy also needs to recognize that logic is important in ensuring we provide clarity for language is connected to the ability to convey meaning, to ensure we are making propositions we know are correct and justified. 

It seems obvious that existence and being are vital to philosophy, yet analytic philosophers might ask how we know that to be true. Continental philosophy may be forgetting those basics necessary for intelligible experience. Science, logic, and the analysis of language are not the only things that matter, but neither are literature, art, and history. The balance between love and knowledge, the knowing and the doing of the good, can only proceed with a degree of humility.