I proffer the following quotes rather than an entire article (I think the major problem with post-modernism isn’t irrationality, but verbosity. JUST LOOK AT YOURSELF):
“For the sake of sanity, use ET CETERA: When you say ‘Mary is a good girl!’ be aware that Mary is much more than ‘good’. Mary is ‘good’, nice, kind, et cetera, meaning she also has other characteristics.”—A.E. Van Vogt, World of Null-A
“For the sake of sanity, use QUOTATIONS:
For instance ‘conscious’ and ‘unconscious’ mind are
useful descriptive terms, but it has yet to be proved
that the terms themselves accurately reflect the
‘process’ level of events. They are maps of a territory
about which we can possibly never have exact information.
Since Null-A training is for the individuals, the
important thing is to be conscious of the ‘multiordinal’
-that is the many valued- meaning of the words one
hears or speaks.”—A.E. Van Vogt, World of Null-A
Ya, I can see that criticism. Here’s a shorter version for you: arguing against post-modernism by arguing against the use of a different term (post-colonial, or even worse the made-up post-utopian) is a complete straw-man and fallacious argumentation. It also makes the OP and commenters look exceptionally naive when the thing they argue against (post-modernism) would actually agree with their point (critiquing literary genres), and preempted them in making it (thus the discussion of deconstruction above).
Also, thanks for the quotes :) And remember, being overly verbose is a critique of communication, not of the rationality of a position or method. SELF-EXAMINATION & MODIFICATION COMPLETE
I proffer the following quotes rather than an entire article (I think the major problem with post-modernism isn’t irrationality, but verbosity. JUST LOOK AT YOURSELF):
Ya, I can see that criticism. Here’s a shorter version for you: arguing against post-modernism by arguing against the use of a different term (post-colonial, or even worse the made-up post-utopian) is a complete straw-man and fallacious argumentation. It also makes the OP and commenters look exceptionally naive when the thing they argue against (post-modernism) would actually agree with their point (critiquing literary genres), and preempted them in making it (thus the discussion of deconstruction above).
Also, thanks for the quotes :) And remember, being overly verbose is a critique of communication, not of the rationality of a position or method. SELF-EXAMINATION & MODIFICATION COMPLETE