Asclepius Philosophy Courses starting next week. September 13 and 14 at 10 am
Asclepius Therapy Centre will be launching tow new courses next week. On Tuesday we will be having a course on Postmodernism and Wednesday a course on Literature and Morality. Each course costs £50. for more details ring 01792480245 or 07592330467.
Introduction to Post Modernism Asclepius Therapy Centre September 13 10 am
This course lasts for ten weeks. Each session lasts for two hours and costs £50. for the whole course For more dtails ring 01792 480245 or 07592330467 or by emailing squabs@hotmail.co.uk
Postmodernism is a reaction to modernism. It corrects problems from the past, but also over-reacts to those problems, leading to an exaggeration. So, the chief strengths of postmodernism are in what it corrects, and it’s chief weaknesses are in what it over-corrects.
Let's look at an example. Under modernism, the prevailing theory of truth was known as the correspondence theory of truth. That is, something was felt to be true in so much as it corresponds to objective reality found in the world. The correspondence theory of truth caused people to believe that scientific truth equals absolute truth.
Postmodernism corrects this by denying the equivalency between scientific truth and absolute truth. All scientific conclusions are now understood to be tentative simply because no one has ever made the infinite number of observations required to learn if there are any exceptions.
So, postmodernism corrects modernism by helping us to understand the limits of our reasoning ability and knowledge. But postmodernism then presses things too far.
It adheres to a coherence theory of truth. That is, something is true for us only in so much as it coheres with our other perceptions about the world. But this new theory of truth makes science to be just a collection of independent research traditions, each having its own perspectives and language games. Taken to the extreme, this can lead to the absurd.
A classroom dominated by a radical postmodernism might, for instance, abandon a curriculum in favor of just letting everyone 'discover their own truth.' Inevitably, radical postmodernism leads to a social breakdown because it undermines all language, information and achievement.
Postmodernism was correct in critiquing modernism and concluding that the correspondence theory of truth is limited. We now know that the scientific method is not able to discover absolute truth.
But postmodernists who insist on the coherence theory of truth are clearly over-reacting. The scientific method is still able to come up with a reasonable understanding of how the world works. And, despite the existence of research traditions, valid scientific experiments are reproducible, descriptive and predictive – making them understood objectively by all scientists. We hardly want to live in a world in which all language, information and achievement is undermined.
Critical Realism
This is precisely the conclusion of the philosophical school known as critical realism. Founded by Karl Popper (1902-1994) and Roy Bhaskar (1944- ), critical realism builds upon the best features of modernism without falling into the excesses of postmodernism.
Basically, critical realism says that we live our lives as if there is objective reality, but we acknowledge that can never understand reality perfectly. Nevertheless, we might understand it to a reasonable degree.
Walter Truett Anderson created an illustration about three umpires (referees) that aptly describes the difference between modernism, postmodernism and critical realism. The modernism umpire says, “I call ‘em as they are.” The postmodern umpire says, “They ain’t nothing till I call ‘em.” The critical realist umpire says, “I call ‘em as I see ‘em.”
The Weakness of Critical Realism
The weakness of critical realism is that it is a pragmatic theory of knowledge that takes the best from two other theories (the modernist and the postmodernist) to create a working synthesis. As a theory of knowledge, however, it does not describe how we know what we know.
A physical answer to that question may be coming from the field of neurobiology. Once, the only people who developed theories of knowledge were philosophers; now, the neurobiologist is also becoming involved. Neurobiology is seeking to explain how we know what we know by developing a physical theory of knowledge based on the workings of the human mind.
This research will have direct philosophical implications. Results indicate that there is a structuralism to both the human mind and to DNA. As Kant previously indicated, we all possess common structures within our minds that enable us to perceive reality. But it is unlikely that neurobiology will return us to a Kantian philosophy. It is more likely that on-going results will weaken postmodern skepticism and result in a strengthened case for critical realism.
Postmodernism is a reaction to modernism. It corrects problems from the past, but also over-reacts to those problems, leading to an exaggeration. So, the chief strengths of postmodernism are in what it corrects, and it’s chief weaknesses are in what it over-corrects.
Let's look at an example. Under modernism, the prevailing theory of truth was known as the correspondence theory of truth. That is, something was felt to be true in so much as it corresponds to objective reality found in the world. The correspondence theory of truth caused people to believe that scientific truth equals absolute truth.
Postmodernism corrects this by denying the equivalency between scientific truth and absolute truth. All scientific conclusions are now understood to be tentative simply because no one has ever made the infinite number of observations required to learn if there are any exceptions.
So, postmodernism corrects modernism by helping us to understand the limits of our reasoning ability and knowledge. But postmodernism then presses things too far.
It adheres to a coherence theory of truth. That is, something is true for us only in so much as it coheres with our other perceptions about the world. But this new theory of truth makes science to be just a collection of independent research traditions, each having its own perspectives and language games. Taken to the extreme, this can lead to the absurd.
A classroom dominated by a radical postmodernism might, for instance, abandon a curriculum in favor of just letting everyone 'discover their own truth.' Inevitably, radical postmodernism leads to a social breakdown because it undermines all language, information and achievement.
Postmodernism was correct in critiquing modernism and concluding that the correspondence theory of truth is limited. We now know that the scientific method is not able to discover absolute truth.
But postmodernists who insist on the coherence theory of truth are clearly over-reacting. The scientific method is still able to come up with a reasonable understanding of how the world works. And, despite the existence of research traditions, valid scientific experiments are reproducible, descriptive and predictive – making them understood objectively by all scientists. We hardly want to live in a world in which all language, information and achievement is undermined.
Critical Realism
This is precisely the conclusion of the philosophical school known as critical realism. Founded by Karl Popper (1902-1994) and Roy Bhaskar (1944- ), critical realism builds upon the best features of modernism without falling into the excesses of postmodernism.
Basically, critical realism says that we live our lives as if there is objective reality, but we acknowledge that can never understand reality perfectly. Nevertheless, we might understand it to a reasonable degree.
Walter Truett Anderson created an illustration about three umpires (referees) that aptly describes the difference between modernism, postmodernism and critical realism. The modernism umpire says, “I call ‘em as they are.” The postmodern umpire says, “They ain’t nothing till I call ‘em.” The critical realist umpire says, “I call ‘em as I see ‘em.”
The Weakness of Critical Realism
The weakness of critical realism is that it is a pragmatic theory of knowledge that takes the best from two other theories (the modernist and the postmodernist) to create a working synthesis. As a theory of knowledge, however, it does not describe how we know what we know.
A physical answer to that question may be coming from the field of neurobiology. Once, the only people who developed theories of knowledge were philosophers; now, the neurobiologist is also becoming involved. Neurobiology is seeking to explain how we know what we know by developing a physical theory of knowledge based on the workings of the human mind.
This research will have direct philosophical implications. Results indicate that there is a structuralism to both the human mind and to DNA. As Kant previously indicated, we all possess common structures within our minds that enable us to perceive reality. But it is unlikely that neurobiology will return us to a Kantian philosophy. It is more likely that on-going results will weaken postmodern skepticism and result in a strengthened case for critical realism.
No comments:
Post a Comment