From: Matthew Stone (mattstone_2000@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2003 - 16:37:16 GMT
PLatt,
> > But I state it again, that there is no
> > paradox as it is quite possible to use verifiable
> > historico-analytical methods to show how people
> think
> > has changed throughout history. What's wrong with
> > this?
>
> Nothing. If that's all postmodernism says--that it's
> true that people have
> changed how they think over the years--I have no
> argument with it. But
> when it goes on to claim that no truth is inherently
> better than any
> other, I hop off the train.
Well it seems we've reached a stalemate, just covering
old ground now. But if you accept that all thought is
contingent, and so criticise Foucault for apparently
not applying this to himself, then aren't you saying
that no thought, or analysis of thought, is
worthwhile? If you deny thought is relative, you are
then ignoring reams of evidence to the contrary.
I have to say, it seems a shame that you consistently
reduce my explanations of postmodernism to this
supposed paradox. You had quite clearly decided
before I started this thread that postmodernism wasn't
your thing. My suggestion to you is that you read
some postmodern material, perhaps Foucault's 'The
Order of Things', or Lyotard's 'What is
Postmodernism'. If you still don't accept the
arguments then fine, but at least give them a chance,
eh?
Matt
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 04 2003 - 16:38:02 GMT