I realize that most of the folks on the Mises board will have a disdain for the postmodern movement, but besides the rampant Marxism, is there anything to take away from it? This question is mostly addressed at people who may have looked into it. I was getting kind of bored and was thinking I would study Foucalt and Lyotard, but before I did so, I was wondering what you guys thought about the school of thought.
I assume I’ll disagree with the central tenets, but as with most philosophies, I find there is something you can cherry-pick from each of them.
The self-confirming nature of some theoretical frameworks, in that though the phenomenon may exist, the actual theory serves to spur the growth of the phenomenon in question.
No no. Austrian economics, as far as I can tell, recognizes subjectivity as a fact in certain areas of economics. Postmodernism on the other hand generalizes subjectivity far too broadly.
It was an interesting read, but it only focuses on Lachmann’s ideas and pretty much ignores other thinkers associated with the school. I don’t think that because a school of thought says that, “there is an infinity of facts that no one human has the epistemic capability of knowing and the world is in a state of flux at all times” is inherently postmodern. There is a lot more to postmodernism than that, it seems. Although I’d agree that Austrianism and postmodernism share this attribute.
I agree with that post-modern insight -namely how the meaning of a word is based on the meanings of other words regardless of if these words describe anything real. I also appreciate their historical work.
Have you ever heard of a postmodern idea called, “democracy to come”? I think it connects with your idea of collectivism. It’s the idea that because meaning is fluid, therefore all politics/argument etc. can only aim at consensus. But since consensus is difficult to reach society can only be organized as a pseudo-democracy where the majority can overrule the minority.
Most if it seems to be mere wordplay, focusing (ironically) on the concept of ‘repetition’.
This was a nice quote: “However, whether state planning of the economy, for
example, leads to a greater violence than the economic insecurity, inequality, and curtailment of
freedom the markets require, would have to remain an open question.” Need I say more?
That is an interesting book review. Hicks’ book it sounds like made the case that a denial of rationalism and enlightenment values is a way for people (who are already socialist) to continue supporting socialism. Probably not too far off the mark.
I would probably also add that this is probably the same reason why most economists in the know support Keynesianism. Not because of any direct conspiracy, but because it gives them license to look at a chart and a formula and figure out a way to make it fit into their ideology instead of debating actual theory.
Postmodernists, for the most part, are obviously pseudointellectuals (misleadingly or perhaps ignorantly co-opting ideas that are outside their purview, like Deleuze hijacking Riemann). Now, I’ve had much amusement from reading Lyotard, Derrida, Deleuze, and others, but the stink of their nonsense lurks everywhere in their writings. Yes, reading Deleuze can be fun, but no I don’t actually learn from him, and most of his oeuvre is wrong, even if stimulating. The recent turn to explicit communist evangelizing is also disturbing (Badiou especially).
The only postmodernist I’ve ever truly respected is Foucault, and even he plunges too deeply into those French waters (e.g., mapping relations of power as omnipresent is very illuminating, but sorry, authors still exist). So, if I have any recommendation, I’d say read Foucault.
But, the opportunity cost is high, so I’d really recommend sticking to analytic philosophy: Quine, Carnap, Churchland, Dennett, etc.
Derrida is kind of a bizarre case. Outside of Ayn Rand, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a person be more respected and vilified as a pseudo-intellect at the same time.
But thanks for the tip, StrangeLoop. Foucault seems like the lone legit person out of this pack (and probably Richard Rorty, although Rorty wasn’t a postmodernist entirely).