In my continued search for reason and
meaning I have been hopping through the domains of language, social
studies, science and finally arrived at philosophy . Philosophy was
something which I had actively avoided until now and often questioned
its relevancy in the age of science and rationalism. In one of my
YouTube 'down-the-rabbit-hole-binge' sessions, I came upon some videos
that explained the theory of post modernism, post structuralism,
deconstruction etc. It greatly excited me very much that these theories
were congruent with much of the thoughts that formed in my head during
my previous flirtations with the world that it lead me to further explore it's nuances through numerous articles, books and videos that I came across on the Internet.
I have come to admire Derrida's idea of Deconstruction of Binaries and also subscribe to
the notion that words often just offer subjective truth according to the individual that perceives meaning from it. I also share his skepticism about the inherent limits of
the scientific method (the presence of unavoidable errors both in
observation and judgement of processes) which prevents us to form an
objective truth. That said I do believe that science is indeed a gateway
to enlightenment but I also believe that there is a much more better
form of philosophical thought to scientific approach than just blindly
believing in the rationality/logicality of the universe when much of it
isn't (why is the speed of light 'c'? , why is the weight of an electron
a fixed constant? why and how does gravity occur? Why is our universe
in 3D as opposed to 2D or 4D? etc ...) .
It
was not until now that I realised that these problems could be
considered as naturally philosophical. I now feel that continued
engagement in philosophical dialogues and discussions in the pursuit of
producing better ways of thinking is not only fruitful for science but
also imperative for the advancement of our civilisation.
Postmodernism is for the intellectual inferior?
Postmodernism has garnered it's share of criticism. It has been accused for offering no forward path to the future and being too ideologically ridden.
In the same way that a hammer is not superior to a
scissor no school of thought is superior to the other.
Applying
postmodernist thought on things that we don't currently understand will
enhance our understanding of it. For example it is tough to wrap our
heads around the notion of a qubit which is neither a one or a zero but
is a superposition of both. But through postmodernist lenses such an
entity is has a very valid existence. Same may be applied to other
branches of philosophy as well. They are just tools to understand the
world around us.
That said, if a hammer is given to a little kid who has no idea on how
to use it, he/she is bound to get hurt. This may be why postmodernism is
criticised a lot as giving rise to uncertainty and moral dilemma. The
fact is western philosophical thought has no heritage in handling the
concept of ambiguity. Truth, logic and objective truth is the foundation
of western philosophy. My understanding of postmodernism comes from my
experience with the eastern vedic scriptures and epics which discuss the
idea of a grey world, where even gods are fallible in their judgement
and there exists no absolute right or wrong. The right thing to do
depends greatly on context. An individual who is able to make the right
choices at the right time is someone who is exalted as a great hero even
though his actions may seem contradictory or lacking coherence from an
objective/western point of view.
"Postmodernism, in its best form, should be understood not as saying that nothing is true or that all meaning is arbitrary — rather
it should be understood as noting that meaning and truth are prone to
shifts and redefinitions over time based on circumstances." - Rational wiki
Moral Relativism vs Cultural Relativism
One of the biggest criticisms of postmodernism has been that it espouses moral relativism. Moral relativism is the idea that morality is relative to an individual and that they are free to do whatever that pleases them since nothing can be outright classified as immoral.
Postmodernism
espouses a form of cultural relativism not outright moral relativism.
It is not a tool to justify immorality but rather something which
promotes understanding between different forms of thinking as is the
case with different cultures in the world. For example a person who has
been brought up in a culture where polyamory is the not only the norm
but morally expected of a person, he might find our notions of monogamy a
stark violation of sexual freedom and may equate it to something akin
to slavery. But from the classic western viewpoint polyamory is
considered to be the immoral act. If both sides do not take any effort
to understand each others viewpoint they simply label each other as
barbaric and try to 'civilise' each other through any means possible
(colonialism, slavery, conversion etc). But what if both cultures
understood each others differences and instead decided to work together
to build a better world? This kind of interculture brotherhood is seldom
seen in western culture where absolutism had ruled the roost for much
part of its existence and where most foreign cultures are seen as plain
savages. This kind of misplaced moral superiority is what postmodernism
tends to dispel and to usher in an age of progress through
understanding.
Unfortunately the
difficult language followed by postmodernist philosophers led many (even
respected academics) to not fully understand what it stands for. It has
been blatantly equated with moral relativism where anything goes which
is clearly incorrect. Today in the age of the internet there are
numerous resources that explain postmodernism in very simple language,
so to have a comprehensive understanding of it is becoming an easier
endeavour.
Postmodernism as a
philosophical thought emerged by questioning the lapses in modernist
ideology that eventually resulted in the two world wars. To understand
why postmodernism is required, consider a situation where in the near
future the Chinese nation becomes the sole superpower of the world.
Without an understanding between cultures, the Chinese will inevitably
rally towards global economic and cultural domination seeking to
'civilize' the undisciplined barbaric nations around the world that
follow ancient, obsolete democratical principles. Now we don't want such
a world now, do we?
