Let me just say that I don’t think that post-modernism can be thought of as Socratic iconoclasm. I think it has valuable insights, many of which have been co-opted by more “rationalist” philosophy.
For example, I don’t think Michel Foucault can profitably be described as a nihilist. And whatever his sympathies to the Soviet Union (it appears that it was different at different stages of his life), I think the idea that he was generating poison-memes on behalf of the Soviet Union is ludicrous.
I would downvote your post because of the way its statements seem to be disjointed to each other, but I’d rather not have your post go below threshold, so I’ll directly ask you:
Why do you not think that post-modernism can be thought of as a form of methodological and cultural iconoclasm, and in hwat measure do you think it is not comparaabe to the efforts of Socrates and his contemporaries… and the backlash they suffered because of it.
What are those valuable insights you talk of, and what is that quote “ratonalist” unquote philosophy that has coopted many of them?
Why would Foulcault be described as a nihilist?
You are aware that Appeal to Ridicule advances the discussion excatly nowhere. Why do you think the fact that he was “spreading poision memes on behalf of the Soviet Union” to be remarkably unlikely and incongruous?
Let me just say that I don’t think that post-modernism can be thought of as Socratic iconoclasm. I think it has valuable insights, many of which have been co-opted by more “rationalist” philosophy.
For example, I don’t think Michel Foucault can profitably be described as a nihilist. And whatever his sympathies to the Soviet Union (it appears that it was different at different stages of his life), I think the idea that he was generating poison-memes on behalf of the Soviet Union is ludicrous.
I would downvote your post because of the way its statements seem to be disjointed to each other, but I’d rather not have your post go below threshold, so I’ll directly ask you:
Why do you not think that post-modernism can be thought of as a form of methodological and cultural iconoclasm, and in hwat measure do you think it is not comparaabe to the efforts of Socrates and his contemporaries… and the backlash they suffered because of it.
What are those valuable insights you talk of, and what is that quote “ratonalist” unquote philosophy that has coopted many of them?
Why would Foulcault be described as a nihilist?
You are aware that Appeal to Ridicule advances the discussion excatly nowhere. Why do you think the fact that he was “spreading poision memes on behalf of the Soviet Union” to be remarkably unlikely and incongruous?