Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[yebiga]

I think this is a pretty gross mischaracterisation of postmodernism.

Postmodern philosophers have simply argued that meaning and truth are prone to re-definition in different contexts, because the languages that we have to communicate with each other are not stable, neutral nor precise). This then opens up the opportunity for meaning and truth to be determined as a result of relationships of power.

Saying that no truth claim can be universally and essentially valid is not the same thing as saying all truth claims are equally valid or that the definition of truth in any given point is purely arbitrary.

I'd be interested to see if you could present any evidence of postmodern philosophy that actually argues what you have presented here.

There is no relationship of power. it is the relationships of competency and competency arrives from the competitive discovery of what best results in the most useful outcomes to meet our needs and desires.

Now power may come from a competent reputation but this is the trappings of competancy.

Power is the effect not the cause. Here as in many places, Postmodernism flips cause and effect. This leads to magical thinking that power can be obtained without effort or ingenuity or wisdom but merely by whining how unfair it is that someone else is powerful. And so then if you are not powerful you can moan and not work, cry and not acquire any useful skills. You can blame it all on your misfortunes and how you might belong to some oppressed group or other unfortunate circumstance.

This ignores the self evident fact - every life is a fated tragedy, every life must confront suffering - death disease loss rejection and myriad of disasters cannot be avoided however powerful anyone may be. This all ends up in a pissing competition for the most miserable.

And the problem with all this is that after 3 billion of years of human evolution none of the other 7 billion in the human gene pool are lacking in innate strengths, cunning, guile, treachery... none of us need sympathy of any sort. Every human being is the product of a ruthlessly competitive murderous gene pool where only the very best could possibly survive.

The singular good that comes from postmodernism is essentially that when we make decisions as a community or as a business or government we should consider who else it might effect, who it might exclude, what might be lost and can the decision be tinkered with to mitigate and avoid those less desirable consequences. Perhaps it should be part of unit in middle school and the social sciences. Other than that its lame beyond words and profoundly wrong headed.

 

[bfff]

There is no relationship of power. it is the relationships of competency and competency arrives from the competitive discovery of what best results in the most useful outcomes to meet our needs and desires.

Now power may come from a competent reputation but this is the trappings of competancy.

Power is the effect not the cause. Here as in many places, Postmodernism flips cause and effect. This leads to magical thinking that power can be obtained without effort or ingenuity or wisdom but merely by whining how unfair it is that someone else is powerful. And so then if you are not powerful you can moan and not work, cry and not acquire any useful skills. You can blame it all on your misfortunes and how you might belong to some oppressed group or other unfortunate circumstance.

This ignores the self evident fact - every life is a fated tragedy, every life must confront suffering - death disease loss rejection and myriad of disasters cannot be avoided however powerful anyone may be. This all ends up in a pissing competition for the most miserable.

And the problem with all this is that after 3 billion of years of human evolution none of the other 7 billion in the human gene pool are lacking in innate strengths, cunning, guile, treachery... none of us need sympathy of any sort. Every human being is the product of a ruthlessly competitive murderous gene pool where only the very best could possibly survive.

The singular good that comes from postmodernism is essentially that when we make decisions as a community or as a business or government we should consider who else it might effect, who it might exclude, what might be lost and can the decision be tinkered with to mitigate and avoid those less desirable consequences. Perhaps it should be part of unit in middle school and the social sciences. Other than that its lame beyond words and profoundly wrong headed.

In one post you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of postmodernism, the concept of natural selection, the nature of human interpendence and basic tenants of politics and power.

 

[RobbieK]

There is no relationship of power. it is the relationships of competency and competency arrives from the competitive discovery of what best results in the most useful outcomes to meet our needs and desires.

Now power may come from a competent reputation but this is the trappings of competancy.

Power is the effect not the cause. Here as in many places, Postmodernism flips cause and effect. This leads to magical thinking that power can be obtained without effort or ingenuity or wisdom but merely by whining how unfair it is that someone else is powerful. And so then if you are not powerful you can moan and not work, cry and not acquire any useful skills. You can blame it all on your misfortunes and how you might belong to some oppressed group or other unfortunate circumstance.

This ignores the self evident fact - every life is a fated tragedy, every life must confront suffering - death disease loss rejection and myriad of disasters cannot be avoided however powerful anyone may be. This all ends up in a pissing competition for the most miserable.

And the problem with all this is that after 3 billion of years of human evolution none of the other 7 billion in the human gene pool are lacking in innate strengths, cunning, guile, treachery... none of us need sympathy of any sort. Every human being is the product of a ruthlessly competitive murderous gene pool where only the very best could possibly survive.

The singular good that comes from postmodernism is essentially that when we make decisions as a community or as a business or government we should consider who else it might effect, who it might exclude, what might be lost and can the decision be tinkered with to mitigate and avoid those less desirable consequences. Perhaps it should be part of unit in middle school and the social sciences. Other than that its lame beyond words and profoundly wrong headed.

So, you have chosen not to answer my question. I will ask it again. Can you give any sort of references for your ideas about postmodern philosophy? Because I really have to say that it doesn't resemble anything that I have read myself.

I mean, here is Foucault, the foremost philosopher within postmodernism when it comes to discussions of power, in Discipline and Punish:

‘We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms: it ‘excludes’, it ‘represses’, it ‘censors’, it ‘abstracts’, it ‘masks’, it ‘conceals’. In fact power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth. The individual and the knowledge that may be gained of him belong to this production’

That doesn't sound like someone who is promoting the idea that power is separate from the capacity to produce. It doesn't sound like someone who thinks that people should just moan about being repressed by the powerful, that it is unfair that some have more power than others. It doesn't sound like that because that's not what he believes.

Now, there are many postmodern philosophers and not all agree in all things, so maybe you have read someone else's views. I'm interested in where your ideas about what postmodernism is come from, though, because basically your (and Peterson's) portrayal of postmodernism really doesn't seem to have much relationship to what the postmodern philosophers that I have worked on have actually said.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Indeed he cites work from the beginning of time
The only thing new is the interpretation but it is new and transformative schematic which obliterates the relevants of entire schools of thought and shakes redefines our understandings across the social sciences in a profound and permanent way.

His found a certain bedrock truths
As much as is conceivable - I think
And the likes of which has not previously had its day

Mate, you're not selling amway.

 

[yebiga]

So, you have chosen not to answer my question. I will ask it again. Can you give any sort of references for your ideas about postmodern philosophy? Because I really have to say that it doesn't resemble anything that I have read myself.

I mean, here is Foucault, the foremost philosopher within postmodernism when it comes to discussions of power, in Discipline and Punish:

‘We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms: it ‘excludes’, it ‘represses’, it ‘censors’, it ‘abstracts’, it ‘masks’, it ‘conceals’. In fact power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth. The individual and the knowledge that may be gained of him belong to this production’

That doesn't sound like someone who is promoting the idea that power is separate from the capacity to produce. It doesn't sound like someone who thinks that people should just moan about being repressed by the powerful, that it is unfair that some have more power than others. It doesn't sound like that because that's not what he believes.

Now, there are many postmodern philosophers and not all agree in all things, so maybe you have read someone else's views. I'm interested in where your ideas about what postmodernism is come from, though, because basically your (and Peterson's) portrayal of postmodernism really doesn't seem to have much relationship to what the postmodern philosophers that I have worked on have actually said.

Really!
But in this citing of Foucault - power produces!

As I said in the previous post they have it arse about
Power produces nothing

That entire quote from Foucault is just wrong - power doesn’t produce objects of reality or rituals.

And it is precisely this obsession to view everything thru a powers that makes postmodernism and it’s adherents seriously insane.

 

[yebiga]

So, you have chosen not to answer my question. I will ask it again. Can you give any sort of references for your ideas about postmodern philosophy? Because I really have to say that it doesn't resemble anything that I have read myself.

I mean, here is Foucault, the foremost philosopher within postmodernism when it comes to discussions of power, in Discipline and Punish:

‘We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms: it ‘excludes’, it ‘represses’, it ‘censors’, it ‘abstracts’, it ‘masks’, it ‘conceals’. In fact power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth. The individual and the knowledge that may be gained of him belong to this production’

That doesn't sound like someone who is promoting the idea that power is separate from the capacity to produce. It doesn't sound like someone who thinks that people should just moan about being repressed by the powerful, that it is unfair that some have more power than others. It doesn't sound like that because that's not what he believes.

Now, there are many postmodern philosophers and not all agree in all things, so maybe you have read someone else's views. I'm interested in where your ideas about what postmodernism is come from, though, because basically your (and Peterson's) portrayal of postmodernism really doesn't seem to have much relationship to what the postmodern philosophers that I have worked on have actually said.

You are not at all interested in where I have gotten my ideas from - just as you have been interested in iundersranding Peterson and keep defending post modernism in the vaguest terms

I’ve been down this rabbit hole with PoMo defenders a few times. You want to defend them great - but show me one Pomo writers prescription.

One with the courage to not only be critical but. Who can tell us how we should live
s**t - let’s lower the bar -
How about how simply how we could live?

That’s surely not an big ask
But if can’t if all it can do is be critical than not only is PoMo useless its pathologically destructive

 

[yebiga]

If western culture reach its zenith in the 1960s/70s

And PoMo influence emerges in academia in about the same time period.

You can graph the decline of western culture with rise in influence of PoMo

Is the correlation accidental or causal? To me it’s obviously causal - when moaning becomes a habit - everything it touches withdraws.

 

[yebiga]

In one post you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of postmodernism, the concept of natural selection, the nature of human interpendence and basic tenants of politics and power.

Well pray tell
You have made your claim
But offer nothing in its support.

You are playing the man not the ball - show and tell time

 

[its free real estate]

The language games of post modernism were already figured out by the Greeks (sorites paradox, etc), but instead of saying “well we better make a decision to get things working”, the post modernists conclude nothing can work without coercion. Which is why as philopsophy it produces nothing of value.

Post modernism is the philosophy of the most privileged - those who have ample time to navel gaze endlessly.

 

[RobbieK]

You are not at all interested in where I have gotten my ideas from - just as you have been interested in iundersranding Peterson and keep defending post modernism in the vaguest terms

I’ve been down this rabbit hole with PoMo defenders a few times. You want to defend them great - but show me one Pomo writers prescription.

One with the courage to not only be critical but. Who can tell us how we should live
s**t - let’s lower the bar -
How about how simply how we could live?

That’s surely not an big ask
But if can’t if all it can do is be critical than not only is PoMo useless its pathologically destructive

I am interested. It is why I asked. If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't have asked.

Seriously, I'll set the bar low. Can you quote any postmodern philosopher who has argued for any single point your made when you were describing postmodernism?

You are fighting against a straw man. I'm not sure who built it, but it wasn't the postmodern philosophers.

"How can we live" is not a simple question. It is a complicated mass of questions. There are certainly postmodern political theorists who grapple with such questions. Part of the issue here is that postmodern philosophers are uninclined to provide simple one-size-fits-all answers to questions like this (they are justifiably skeptical about any such claims) and have instead tended to focus on reimagining society such that people are more engaged with and empowered to make decisions for themselves, giving people the ability how to answer that question for themselves. That work ranges from the more theoretical (Toni Negri's "multitude", for example) to the more pragmatic (Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's work on "radical democracy").

Again, if you think postmodern philosophy is only about being critical and has nothing to say about alternative ways of living, I have to ask what postmodern philsoophers you have been reading?

If western culture reach its zenith in the 1960s/70s

And PoMo influence emerges in academia in about the same time period.

You can graph the decline of western culture with rise in influence of PoMo

Is the correlation accidental or causal? To me it’s obviously causal - when moaning becomes a habit - everything it touches withdraws.

This is pretty hilarious, really. A few relatively obscure French academics have destroyed down western culture? Now that is power.

The irony here is that those academics were more or less all involved in political movements that failed to alter the status quo. Unless you are going to blame their failure for the neoliberal regimes that followed (which are the real culprits for the west's decline), then I really don't see how you can seriously hold this argument.

 

[RobbieK]

The language games of post modernism were already figured out by the Greeks (sorites paradox, etc), but instead of saying “well we better make a decision to get things working”, the post modernists conclude nothing can work without coercion. Which is why as philopsophy it produces nothing of value.

Post modernism is the philosophy of the most privileged - those who have ample time to navel gaze endlessly.

Where did you come across this conclusion?

 

[yebiga]

I am interested. It is why I asked. If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't have asked.

Seriously, I'll set the bar low. Can you quote any postmodern philosopher who has argued for any single point your made when you were describing postmodernism?

You are fighting against a straw man. I'm not sure who built it, but it wasn't the postmodern philosophers.

"How can we live" is not a simple question. It is a complicated mass of questions. There are certainly postmodern political theorists who grapple with such questions. Part of the issue here is that postmodern philosophers are uninclined to provide simple one-size-fits-all answers to questions like this (they are justifiably skeptical about any such claims) and have instead tended to focus on reimagining society such that people are more engaged with and empowered to make decisions for themselves, giving people the ability how to answer that question for themselves. That work ranges from the more theoretical (Toni Negri's "multitude", for example) to the more pragmatic (Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's work on "radical democracy").

Again, if you think postmodern philosophy is only about being critical and has nothing to say about alternative ways of living, I have to ask what postmodern philsoophers you have been reading?



This is pretty hilarious, really. A few relatively obscure French academics have destroyed down western culture? Now that is power.

The irony here is that those academics were more or less all involved in political movements that failed to alter the status quo. Unless you are going to blame their failure for the neoliberal regimes that followed (which are the real culprits for the west's decline), then I really don't see how you can seriously hold this argument.

To the first part of your post
I’ve already replied to this - the obsession with Power is the foundational frame of PoMo

The rest is clever dick artwork

To the second part:

If every day I tell you what is wrong with you

If every day I question and undermine every one your achievements

And imagine you take me seriously

How long do you think before your life turns to s**t?

Well that’s PoMo - day in day out
From lyotard, Foucault and Derrida from Adorno one literary theorist to the all of them.
A bad faith all the way down

 

[RobbieK]

Ok, clearly there isn't going to be a productive discussion here.

 

[ShanDog]

Some extreme pomos would argue that all truths are equally valid from the subjective perspective of the meaning-maker themselves, but the more core characteristic of the philosophy is that all truth is relative, and that there are infinite ways to interpret something. This is the part lacking any utility for a person beyond a form of thought experiment, and where Peterson puts it very well when he said that postmodernist had one thing right - you can interpret something an infirine number of ways, but what they get wrong is stopping short of realising that only so many ways are good/useful.

 

[yebiga]

See below a simple explanation which is rare to find extracted from wikipedia

"While modernist critical theory concerns itself with "forms of authority and injustice that accompanied the evolution of industrial and corporate capitalism as a political-economic system," postmodern critical theory politicizes social problems "by situating them in historical and cultural contexts, to implicate themselves in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and to relativize their findings."[4] Meaning itself is seen as unstable due to the rapid transformation in social structures. As a result, the focus of research is centered on local manifestations, rather than broad generalizations. "

Which is the same as saying anything you like and you cant be proven to be wrong because your local manifestation is just as real as any nonsense anyone else might think up.
So it doesn't matter how many post modernists you get into a room - there is no one in the room - just human shells who reject all personal responsibility.
Because hey! its just a POV

 

[yebiga]

Ok, clearly there isn't going to be a productive discussion here.

How can there be?
To have a productive discussion you need to explore a specificity - an actual solid situation and reveal what value PoMo can add to prove your point that this schoo has some utility - any!

But that's is precisely what PoMo thinkers refuse to do they prefer the abstract and obscure - its kind of too cool for school - mood thing

 

[ralphmalph]

Some extreme pomos would argue that all truths are equally valid from the subjective perspective of the meaning-maker themselves, but the more core characteristic of the philosophy is that all truth is relative, and ...

Which ones? That is, who are these “extreme pomos”?

 

[ShanDog]

Which ones? That is, who are these “extreme pomos”?

I don't know who they are specifically, because I can't recall anyone I know or have seen/heard espouse this idea explicitly, probably because it's an extreme position and nuttier than squirrel s**t (IMO); however, it is a legitimate philosophical concept within the arcs of postmodernism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

Relativism is the idea that views are relative to differences in perception and consideration. There is no universal, objective truth according to relativism; rather each point of view has its own truth. (definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Have a read through that Wiki page - there 'soft' examples of it throughout, and a mention of 'skepticism' which is the doubting of all truths. There's a very interesting paper cited for this one that is freely available from that page.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I don't know who they are specifically, because I can't recall anyone I know or have seen/heard espouse this idea explicitly, probably because it's an extreme position and nuttier than squirrel s**t (IMO); however, it is a legitimate philosophical concept within the arcs of postmodernism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

Relativism is the idea that views are relative to differences in perception and consideration. There is no universal, objective truth according to relativism; rather each point of view has its own truth. (definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Have a read through that Wiki page - there 'soft' examples of it throughout, and a mention of 'skepticism' which is the doubting of all truths. There's a very interesting paper cited for this one that is freely available from that page.

Now you've gone and done it.

Cue: A 700 post critique from P35.

 

[RobbieK]

I don't know who they are specifically, because I can't recall anyone I know or have seen/heard espouse this idea explicitly, probably because it's an extreme position and nuttier than squirrel s**t (IMO); however, it is a legitimate philosophical concept within the arcs of postmodernism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

Relativism is the idea that views are relative to differences in perception and consideration. There is no universal, objective truth according to relativism; rather each point of view has its own truth. (definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Have a read through that Wiki page - there 'soft' examples of it throughout, and a mention of 'skepticism' which is the doubting of all truths. There's a very interesting paper cited for this one that is freely available from that page.

Don't you think there is a bit of an issue here when you can't identify anyone in particular who is actually espousing the views that are being railed against? Doesn't that maybe indicate that no one is actually espousing them?

I started writing a long post on epistemology and ontology but even I got bored of it before I was finished so I'm going to spare everyone. I would point out that on that page you linked to is a section in which a number of the key figures/movements of my probably never to be finished PhD get mentioned (Foucault, Stirner, post-anarchism and post-Marxism), and in that section it points out that the relativism of postmodern theory is really epistemological rather than ontological. The postmodern critique is largely about drawing attention to the limits of human perception and language when it comes to having direct access to or communicating about objective reality. It isn't about denying that objective reality exists. In many ways the postmodern critique is not substantially different to the kind of self-reflective criticism and doubt that is already present within and fundamental to the scientific method. I don't know of any postmodern philosopher who thinks that gravity is just a narrative that can be arbitrarily replaced with another so that one can flap one's arms and start flying.

See below a simple explanation which is rare to find extracted from wikipedia

"While modernist critical theory concerns itself with "forms of authority and injustice that accompanied the evolution of industrial and corporate capitalism as a political-economic system," postmodern critical theory politicizes social problems "by situating them in historical and cultural contexts, to implicate themselves in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and to relativize their findings."[4] Meaning itself is seen as unstable due to the rapid transformation in social structures. As a result, the focus of research is centered on local manifestations, rather than broad generalizations. "

Which is the same as saying anything you like and you cant be proven to be wrong because your local manifestation is just as real as any nonsense anyone else might think up.
So it doesn't matter how many post modernists you get into a room - there is no one in the room - just human shells who reject all personal responsibility.
Because hey! its just a POV

There is a pretty massive leap between the passage you quoted and your interpretation of it. That meaning is unstable and dependent upon context is not to say you can just make up whatever you like and that becomes true.

This idea about being "proven to be wrong" highlights a pretty common but fundamental misunderstanding of what science is about. Here is a nice article about this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#165af8d62fb1

Isn't the fact that pretty much all of the key postmodern political philosophers were also actively engaged in political struggles in the 60s and 70s evidence that, far from rejecting personal responsibility, they actually embraced it?

I really would encourage you guys to stop relying on second hand sources for coming up with your ideas about what postmodern philosophy is about. I mean, in this thread I've tried to engage with Peterson directly, I've watched videos, I've read things he has written, and when I have posted about his work I have directly quoted things he has said in order to engage with his arguments. I've commonly seen people who support Peterson criticise those people who come in to this thread and, rather than engage with Peterson directly, instead respond to second hand characterisations of his work, often by people who for whatever reason are opposed to him. When it comes to engaging with postmodern theory, though, that is exactly what you are doing yourselves - basing your opinions based on unflattering and inaccurate characterisations by someone who has a clear an explicit enmity towards that philosophy.

 

[Snake_Baker]

In many ways the postmodern critique is not substantially different to the kind of self-reflective criticism and doubt that is already present within and fundamental to the scientific method.

I have seen some leaps before, but you just jumped Bass Strait.

 

[its free real estate]

Yes, Luce Irigaray saying e=mc^2 is a sexed equation is certainly scientific.

And from memory there was some pomo wingnut who claimed the square root of -1 was phallic.

 

[FireKrakouer]

I thought my commerce course involved a lot of jargon for jargon's sake, but boy oh boy wowee, philosophers certainly take that concept up a notch.

Now you've gone and done it.

Cue: A 700 post critique from P35.

Proccy is banned from SRP these days

 

[Richard Pryor]

Which ones? That is, who are these “extreme pomos”?

Misread as extreme pornos.

Carry on.

 

[ShanDog]

Don't you think there is a bit of an issue here when you can't identify anyone in particular who is actually espousing the views that are being railed against? Doesn't that maybe indicate that no one is actually espousing them?

I started writing a long post on epistemology and ontology but even I got bored of it before I was finished so I'm going to spare everyone. I would point out that on that page you linked to is a section in which a number of the key figures/movements of my probably never to be finished PhD get mentioned (Foucault, Stirner, post-anarchism and post-Marxism), and in that section it points out that the relativism of postmodern theory is really epistemological rather than ontological. The postmodern critique is largely about drawing attention to the limits of human perception and language when it comes to having direct access to or communicating about objective reality. It isn't about denying that objective reality exists. In many ways the postmodern critique is not substantially different to the kind of self-reflective criticism and doubt that is already present within and fundamental to the scientific method. I don't know of any postmodern philosopher who thinks that gravity is just a narrative that can be arbitrarily replaced with another so that one can flap one's arms and start flying.



There is a pretty massive leap between the passage you quoted and your interpretation of it. That meaning is unstable and dependent upon context is not to say you can just make up whatever you like and that becomes true.

This idea about being "proven to be wrong" highlights a pretty common but fundamental misunderstanding of what science is about. Here is a nice article about this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#165af8d62fb1

Isn't the fact that pretty much all of the key postmodern political philosophers were also actively engaged in political struggles in the 60s and 70s evidence that, far from rejecting personal responsibility, they actually embraced it?

I really would encourage you guys to stop relying on second hand sources for coming up with your ideas about what postmodern philosophy is about. I mean, in this thread I've tried to engage with Peterson directly, I've watched videos, I've read things he has written, and when I have posted about his work I have directly quoted things he has said in order to engage with his arguments. I've commonly seen people who support Peterson criticise those people who come in to this thread and, rather than engage with Peterson directly, instead respond to second hand characterisations of his work, often by people who for whatever reason are opposed to him. When it comes to engaging with postmodern theory, though, that is exactly what you are doing yourselves - basing your opinions based on unflattering and inaccurate characterisations by someone who has a clear an explicit enmity towards that philosophy.

No, there's no issue. Relativism is a sect within the postmodern religion, so to speak. Its lack of popularity doesn't excuse it from critique. And the bigger picture which it seems you haven't acknowledged is that much like extreme factions of a political ideology, that extreme sect within postmodernism affects the bigger picture.

Which carries over to your point regarding the philosophers and their political engagement - the biggest issue I have with postmodernism is the proclivity for it to be a destabilising school of thought. It is inherently such, and when taken into the political realm, it produces utter garbage in far more volume than anything useful. Its pragmatic utility is limited to undermining value structures and therefore is undoubtedly a bad philosophy. In my opinion, of course.

I'm not a subject matter expert, and am happy to admit that because I understand just how deep the rabbit hole can go with these things. I have, however, had a fair bit of academic and self-motivated study on the theorists associated with postmodern philosophy (from both sociological and literary studies perspectives). And this is what I have come away with. Always happy to hear more views though.