Did Postmodernism lead to Post-Truth?

Batt Boy

Esteemed Member
Messages
706
Listened to a fascinating podcast on plane home yesterday by MIT Philosopher Lee McIntyre.

He started by saying that there is consensus that we can't even define Postmodernism, but that if we do for the purposes of the exercise, he was not very encouraging about its links to Donald. He eventually blamed others, but admitted that postmodernists have greatly contributed to post-truth by retreating into the subtlety of their ideas, then being shocked when MAGA uses them for their purposes.

He used the quote from George Orwell, "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot."

No better place to than here to get some ultra left responses. Very interested in the board's take. Some really clever folks here. Thanks.
 
I've always been fascinated by postmodernism (in part because it is the era of thought that I grew up in), and when I was teaching ELA, in Burlington NC, it was something that I explored with my students, both philosophically and in literature, to varying degrees of success (It inspired many of them in ways that other literature did not, but wasn't everyone's cup of tea).

Because of that, I have spent well over two decades thinking about postmodernism in regards to both its strengths and its flaws. Philosophically, it gets a lot right. At the same time, post-truth was always an inevitable risk.

With that in mind, postmodern philosophy is not the primary cause, but a tertiary one. Evolving propaganda, along with a de-emphasis on empathy is. Fascism arises during periods of increased propaganda. I go back to the fact that many people today are consuming oversive and subversive propaganda nearly 24/7 through their devices. And, based on what I'm seeing at the high school level, that is only going to escalate moving forward.

Legion (an extremely postmodern show) had a series of excellent shorts narrated by Jon Hamm. My second favorite of them was a take on Plato's Allegory of the Cave through the "lens" of digital addiction. I think it highlights how easily we have fallen into a post-truth world.



I'd also add that postmodern is, generally, a discussion by a minute group of people in the academic and artistic worlds. If most people know about it, they do so only through the art and entertainment that they seek, with a limited understanding of the philosophy behind it. It's also not something that I think someone like Trump would have had any interest in (unless he actually is, as some conspiracists believe, Andy Kaufman in disguise).

Finally - I love that quote by George Orwell. And he is absolutely correct. Keep in mind, however, that Orwell was firmly within the modernist literary movement, not the postmodern one.
 
Both sides are chasing after delusions. The left ignores the practical in how they introduce new concepts which is a shame since they at least are cognizant of the need for recognition and use of all our resources. The right want to go back to an idealized concept of a past that never existed and are bolstered by the concept that they are God's Own Chosen when, from the POV of someone who essentially feels the religious leaders and philosophers of any ilk are too weak and lazy to hold a real job, they practice an extremely distorted version of the teachings of a man with some really good ideas about love, charity, justice, mercy and tolerance that have been turned their heads by the usurper Paul first, through Luther and Calvin and now to the heinous prosperity doctrine. This allows them to do anything in the "Name of God" with a clear conscience and ignore science, history tradition and everything else so they can act like a spoiled two year old wanting their Daddy to protect them after they bully somebody.

Sorry, I'm just a pissed off redneck raised in a real Christian home where the teachings stuck and the believing didn't. MAGAt beliefs are ,as a whole, lower than whale shit and screwier than a boar's penis.
 
We played robber now and then about a month, and then I resigned. All the boys did. We hadn’t robbed nobody, hadn’t killed any people, but only just pretended. We used to hop out of the woods and go charging down on hog-drivers and women in carts taking garden stuff to market, but we never hived any of them. Tom Sawyer called the hogs “ingots,” and he called the turnips and stuff “julery,” and we would go to the cave and powwow over what we had done, and how many people we had killed and marked. But I couldn’t see no profit in it. One time Tom sent a boy to run about town with a blazing stick, which he called a slogan (which was the sign for the Gang to get together), and then he said he had got secret news by his spies that next day a whole parcel of Spanish merchants and rich A-rabs was going to camp in Cave Hollow with two hundred elephants, and six hundred camels, and over a thousand “sumter” mules, all loaded down with di’monds, and they didn’t have only a guard of four hundred soldiers, and so we would lay in ambuscade, as he called it, and kill the lot and scoop the things. He said we must slick up our swords and guns, and get ready. He never could go after even a turnip-cart but he must have the swords and guns all scoured up for it, though they was only lath and broomsticks, and you might scour at them till you rotted, and then they warn’t worth a mouthful of ashes more than what they was before. I didn’t believe we could lick such a crowd of Spaniards and A-rabs, but I wanted to see the camels and elephants, so I was on hand next day, Saturday, in the ambuscade; and when we got the word we rushed out of the woods and down the hill. But there warn’t no Spaniards and A-rabs, and there warn’t no camels nor no elephants. It warn’t anything but a Sunday-school picnic, and only a primer-class at that. We busted it up, and chased the children up the hollow; but we never got anything but some doughnuts and jam, though Ben Rogers got a rag doll, and Jo Harper got a hymn-book and a tract; and then the teacher charged in, and made us drop everything and cut.

I didn’t see no di’monds, and I told Tom Sawyer so. He said there was loads of them there, anyway; and he said there was A-rabs there, too, and elephants and things. I said, why couldn’t we see them, then? He said if I warn’t so ignorant, but had read a book called Don Quixote, I would know without asking. He said it was all done by enchantment. He said there was hundreds of soldiers there, and elephants and treasure, and so on, but we had enemies which he called magicians; and they had turned the whole thing into an infant Sunday-school, just out of spite. I said, all right; then the thing for us to do was to go for the magicians. Tom Sawyer said I was a numskull.

“Why,” said he, “a magician could call up a lot of genies, and they would hash you up like nothing before you could say Jack Robinson. They are as tall as a tree and as big around as a church.”

“Well,” I says, “s’pose we got some genies to help us—can’t we lick the other crowd then?”

“How you going to get them?”

“I don’t know. How do they get them?”

“Why, they rub an old tin lamp or an iron ring, and then the genies come tearing in, with the thunder and lightning a-ripping around and the smoke a-rolling, and everything they’re told to do they up and do it. They don’t think nothing of pulling a shot-tower up by the roots, and belting a Sunday-school superintendent over the head with it—or any other man.”

“Who makes them tear around so?”

“Why, whoever rubs the lamp or the ring. They belong to whoever rubs the lamp or the ring, and they’ve got to do whatever he says. If he tells them to build a palace forty miles long out of di’monds, and fill it full of chewing-gum, or whatever you want, and fetch an emperor’s daughter from China for you to marry, they’ve got to do it—and they’ve got to do it before sun-up next morning, too. And more: they’ve got to waltz that palace around over the country wherever you want it, you understand.”

“Well,” says I, “I think they are a pack of flat-heads for not keeping the palace themselves ’stead of fooling them away like that. And what’s more—if I was one of them I would see a man in Jericho before I would drop my business and come to him for the rubbing of an old tin lamp.”

“How you talk, Huck Finn. Why, you’d have to come when he rubbed it, whether you wanted to or not.”

“What! and I as high as a tree and as big as a church? All right, then; I would come; but I lay I’d make that man climb the highest tree there was in the country.”

“Shucks, it ain’t no use to talk to you, Huck Finn. You don’t seem to know anything, somehow—perfect saphead.”

I thought all this over for two or three days, and then I reckoned I would see if there was anything in it. I got an old tin lamp and an iron ring, and went out in the woods and rubbed and rubbed till I sweat like an Injun, calculating to build a palace and sell it; but it warn’t no use, none of the genies come. So then I judged that all that stuff was only just one of Tom Sawyer’s lies. I reckoned he believed in the A-rabs and the elephants, but as for me I think different. It had all the marks of a Sunday-school.
 
I don't know. Any unbiased eye should be able to see that truth, especially with a capital T doesn't exist, but is a favorable recounting of events by the people who had the power to get their views heard. This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp. You see it in microcosm everyday in labor disputes, political conversation and fights with your spouse.

It's like a friend of mine said when he was caught with another friend's wife, " Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?". One of those stances can be justified.
 
Last edited:
Not sure I really understand the close of the podcast, but McIntyre claims Postmodernism is the Godfather of Post Truth.
 
Listened to a fascinating podcast on plane home yesterday by MIT Philosopher Lee McIntyre.

He started by saying that there is consensus that we can't even define Postmodernism, but that if we do for the purposes of the exercise, he was not very encouraging about its links to Donald. He eventually blamed others, but admitted that postmodernists have greatly contributed to post-truth by retreating into the subtlety of their ideas, then being shocked when MAGA uses them for their purposes.

He used the quote from George Orwell, "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot."

No better place to than here to get some ultra left responses. Very interested in the board's take. Some really clever folks here. Thanks.

Can you link the podcast?
 
FWIW, I'm most familiar with talk of postmodernism in literature and film, where the go-to names are usually Lyotard and, of course, Jameson. (Note: these writers were, let us say, diagnosticians of postmodernism, and not necessarily its proponents).

Anyways, in literary & cinematic circles, to the extent that anyone even uses this term anymore, it's usually to demarcate the difference between texts that accept and/or acknowledge some 'reality'-text distinction (i.e. modernism) and those that don't (i.e. postmodernism).

To wit: modernism presumed to present a radically individualized experience of reality, but nowhere did it deny that there was some reality "out there" to be subjectivized; think Benjy Compson in Sound and the Fury. In that sense, modernism retains the realist project but romanticizes it.

The postmodern alternative, to the extent that such a thing exists, might include "Welcome to the Funhouse" by John Barth. For me, film provides a more straightforward answer: it's the difference between Blow-Up and The Draughtsman's Contract.
 
Any unbiased eye should be able to see that truth, especially with a capital T doesn't exist, but is a favorable recounting of events by the people who had the power to get their views heard.
Is this really accurate? I mean at some level some things are objectively true or not. I was either born on a certain day, or I was not. I had a certain thing to eat for breakfast, or I did not. In a shooting war, someone always fired the first shot. Is the search for the truth about many things distorted and complicated by, among other things, people who are trying to spin the narrative for their own purposes and power? Absolutely. but that doesn't mean that "truth" doesn't exist.
 
Back
Top