A Postmodern Presidency

[shagdrum]

...and foxpaws shows up to spread disinformation and confuse the issue while demonstrating that she doesn't know what she is talking about.

Fox, you have demonstrated countless times that you are not interested in abstract philosophical concepts and can't or won't grasp them. your posts here serve as another example. It is built on nothing but lies an misrepresentations (of concepts as well as arguments) in order to dismiss it.

You really have no shame, do you...

 

[foxpaws]

...and foxpaws shows up to spread disinformation and confuse the issue while demonstrating that she doesn't know what she is talking about.

Fox, you have demonstrated countless times that you are not interested in abstract philosophical concepts and can't or won't grasp them. your posts here serve as another example. It is built on nothing but lies an misrepresentations (of concepts as well as arguments) in order to dismiss it.

You really have no shame, do you...

And shag, it is finally dawning on me how you work. You post something – for instance this little tirade by Hanson, without having a clue about what it means. You wouldn’t know post modernism if it bit you in the butt. However, the words are big, it sounds good (obviously anti-obama rhetoric) and therefore it must be right.

Well, you are wrong, Byzantine breath.

Look up Dadaism if you want a match to Hanson’s nihilistic supposition. Maybe Hanson should have cracked open an art history book if he was going to use it as imagery in this philippic piece.

Shag, you show time and time again an unwillingness to actually partake in give and take discussion. I spent time working on a response to yet another of your cut and paste articles (are you on his little ‘guess what’s new on my blog’ list – is that how you come across this garbage?) seeing if you have any clue about what this man is talking about. It is obvious you don’t. You grab onto his misrepresentation of post modernism, take it at Hanson’s word that his version is the correct version, and then are obviously afraid to take on someone who actually knows the subject manner, hiding behind ‘you really have no shame do you…’

Shame shag? Shame on you. If you adhere to this piece of pretentious crap, and don’t have the balls to actually discuss Hanson’s misconceptions of post modern thought, which his whole essay is based on.

Besides, don't you know - postmodernism is just so last century...

 

[shagdrum]

And shag, it is finally dawning on me how you work. You post something – for instance this little tirade by Hanson, without having a clue about what it means. You wouldn’t know post modernism if it bit you in the butt. However, the words are big, it sounds good (obviously anti-obama rhetoric) and therefore it must be right.

...or you are projecting how you work onto me.

Which seems more plausible given what has been demonstrated countless times on this forum?

Who has a habit of trying to sound informed on abstract ideas that they do not understand?

Who has claimed to read certain books on political philosophy while failing to understand or even recognize the basic arguments from those books when presented in a rebuttal to her claims?

Who has a history of making false distinctions and using other tactics to distort and inhibit any real understanding of abstract concepts when they are discussed?

The truth is that I simply don't feel like wasting time engaging you in the typical unproductive back and forth that is dominated by your lies and only alienates and/or confuses anyone else. Abstract concepts can get confusing for many when everyone is genuinely interested in gaining a better honest understanding of what is being talking. When you inject your lies, misdirection and disinformation into the mix, the thread becomes utterly worthless for anyone looking to further their knowledge; the actions of a very effective troll...

 

[foxpaws]

...or you are projecting how you work onto me.

Which seems more plausible given what has been demonstrated countless times on this forum?

Who has a habit of trying to sound informed on abstract ideas that they do not understand?

Who has claimed to read certain books on political philosophy while failing to understand or even recognize the basic arguments from those books when presented in a rebuttal to her claims?

Who has a history of making false distinctions and using other tactics to distort and inhibit any real understanding of abstract concepts when they are discussed?

The truth is that I simply don't feel like wasting time engaging you in the typical unproductive back and forth that is dominated by your lies and only alienates and/or confuses anyone else. Abstract concepts can get confusing for many when everyone is genuinely interested in gaining a better honest understanding of what is being talking. When you inject your lies, misdirection and disinformation into the mix, the thread becomes utterly worthless for anyone looking to further their knowledge; the actions of a very effective troll...

As I suspected - you don't have an inkling of what post modern thought really entails, whether in the arts or in political discourse.

You talk the talk shag, but I have yet to see you walk the walk. You can't explain post modern thought in your own words... you continue to rely on cute little quotes, excerpts from your current favorite authors (recently Hayek) rather than interject your own thoughts. Why? I could take it to mean that you feel that Miles said it better... However, since it happens over and over again, I am beginning to think that you don't have original thought on most issues. You depend on others to do your thinking for you.

While commendable when you choose Jefferson to rely on, it is rather appalling when you chose Hanson in this case.

Do you even have a clue on what deconstructionism has to do with post modernism and how it is applied to political thought?

Or let's take it to the art world... how does the splatter technique of Pollack really differ from the screened portraits of Warhol? Do you know what the real underlying difference is? How is post modernism uniquely different from modernism?

 

[shagdrum]

As I suspected - you don't have an inkling of what post modern thought really entails, whether in the arts or in political discourse.

You talk the talk shag, but I have yet to see you walk the walk. You can't explain post modern thought in your own words... you continue to rely on cute little quotes, excerpts from your current favorite authors (recently Hayek) rather than interject your own thoughts. Why? I could take it to mean that you feel that Miles said it better... However, since it happens over and over again, I am beginning to think that you don't have original thought on most issues. You depend on others to do your thinking for you.

Who has a habit of trying to sound informed on abstract ideas that they do not understand?

Who has claimed to read certain books on political philosophy while failing to understand or even recognize the basic arguments from those books when presented in a rebuttal to her claims?

Who has a history of making false distinctions and using other tactics to distort and inhibit any real understanding of abstract concepts when they are discussed?

Again, what you are accusing me of seems more applicable to you given your and my history on this forum.

I will say that it would not be surprising that postmodernism would be the abstract concept that you are truly familiar with (though your characterization of postmodernism in post #25 is primarily misleading spin). Postmodernism is built around the rejection of objective truth and reason as well as the promotion of the undermining of tradition, social norms and ultimately, the lessons of history; it is an idea ultimately built around willfull distortion and deception. Your history on this forum demonstrates, among other things, that you are a master of distortion and deception. Now we know where that comes from.

The funny thing about postmodernism is that, because it is ultimately aimed at deception and denial of reality and reason, it's advocates are actually the worst people to explain it; especially when they have some motivation to misrepresent it. Not only are they highly susceptible to self-deception, they have no problem engaging in intentional deception of others.

Your vehement reaction toward Hansen and his article is rather telling; there is nothing a two-faced person hates more then being unmasked and it seems Hansen gets way too close to that for your taste.

thou doth protest too much.

 

[fossten]

Look up Dadaism if you want a match to Hanson’s nihilistic supposition. Maybe Hanson should have cracked open an art history book if he was going to use it as imagery in this philippic piece.)

Talk about a non sequitur...

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

And such vitriol.

How quaint, using one of Obama's phrases. Keep up the propaganda.

 

[Calabrio]

Nihilisism is, "the principles of a Russian revolutionary group, active in the latter half of the 19th century, holding that existing social and political institutions must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society and employing extreme measures, including terrorism and assassination. "

 

[shagdrum]

Postmodernism can have a reasonable application in artistic pursuits because it eschews traditional approaches in favor of new more appealing approaches; thus fostering creativity.

But when applied to more intellectual pursuits (like social/political/philosophical thought) it is inherently misleading and dangerous because it eschews traditional approaches (like critical, objective, reasonable thought) in favor of new more appealing approaches (fallacy and rationalization to find a way to justify emotionally appealing outlooks).

Basically, postmodernism eschews wisdom in favor of cleverness.

Wisdom is aimed at finding the the truth while cleverness (in this aspect) is aimed at finding a justification for a point of view. It is not hard to see how postmodernism leads to exceedingly foolish viewpoints and policy prescriptions. Hansen's article provides a great example of how postmodernism has lead (and is leading) to folly.

Here is a decent explanation of postmodernism and the paradox in defining it:

That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning. ​

It is easy to criticize one's understanding of postmodernism because postmodernism rejects any definition.

 

[fossten]

Postmodernism can have a reasonable application in artistic pursuits because it eschews traditional approaches in favor of new more appealing approaches; thus fostering creativity.

But when applied to more intellectual pursuits (like social/political/philosophical thought) it is inherently misleading and dangerous because it eschews traditional approaches (like critical, objective, reasonable thought) in favor of new more appealing approaches (fallacy and rationalization to find a way to justify emotionally appealing outlooks).

Basically, postmodernism eschews wisdom in favor of cleverness.

Wisdom is aimed at finding the the truth while cleverness (in this aspect) is aimed at finding a justification for a point of view. It is not hard to see how postmodernism leads to exceedingly foolish viewpoints and policy prescriptions. Hansen's article provides a great example of how postmodernism has lead (and is leading) to folly.

Here is a decent explanation of postmodernism and the paradox in defining it:

That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning. ​

It is easy to criticize one's understanding of postmodernism because postmodernism rejects any definition.

That describes the modern liberal to a 'T.'

 

[shagdrum]

Postmodernism turns intellectual dishonesty into a virtue. It is all about rationalizing irrational emotional viewpoints and de-legitimizing (through dishonest means) opposing viewpoints and approaches. It is the epitome of the mindless anti-establishment view; the ultimate selfish intellectual approach. The truth doesn't matter, what ultimately matters is finding a justification for your desires.

Postmodernism is, at best a superficially coherent viewpoint, and, in many aspects, not much more then dishonest and deceptive rhetorical tactics to de-legitimize any conception of an objective truth and rationalize ones emotions; to "destabilize" the idea of objective reality and spin it to fit their emotion driven point of view.

Postmodernists are fools and liars.

I never made the connection before, but foxpaws entire approach to debating is that of the postmodernist.

As to the nihilist thing...

Postmodern philosophy is skeptical or nihilistic toward many of the values and assumptions of philosophy that derive from modernity, such as humanity having an essence which distinguishes humans from animals, or the assumption that one form of government is demonstrably better than another.​

 

[Calabrio]

I never made the connection before, but foxpaws entire approach to debating is that of the postmodernist.

Check out Critical Theory.

 

[fossten]

Postmodernists are fools and liars.

I never made the connection before, but foxpaws entire approach to debating is that of the postmodernist.

That would explain her bleating protests in this thread. Throw a stick down a dark alley, the dog that yelps is the one that got hit.