None, really. I just like how its proponents can always win arguments by claiming to be more meta than their opponents. (“Sure, everything you made sense within your frame of reference, but there are no privileged frames of reference. Indeed, proving that there are privileged frames of reference requires a privileged frame of reference and is thus an impossible philosophical act. I can’t prove anything I just said, which proves my point, depending on whether you think it did or not.”)
(I don’t take postmodernism seriously, but some of the ideas are philosophically elegant.)
Mmm, but isn’t it true that “proving that there are privileged frames of reference requires a privileged frame of reference and is thus an impossible philosophical act.”
I’m confused. What point are you trying to make about postmodernism?
None, really. I just like how its proponents can always win arguments by claiming to be more meta than their opponents. (“Sure, everything you made sense within your frame of reference, but there are no privileged frames of reference. Indeed, proving that there are privileged frames of reference requires a privileged frame of reference and is thus an impossible philosophical act. I can’t prove anything I just said, which proves my point, depending on whether you think it did or not.”)
(I don’t take postmodernism seriously, but some of the ideas are philosophically elegant.)
I would like this on a t-shirt.
Mmm, but isn’t it true that “proving that there are privileged frames of reference requires a privileged frame of reference and is thus an impossible philosophical act.”
I think there’s missed “you said” here: “everything you made sense”.