I agree with almost everything you've said here. There is overlap between Nihilism and Post Modernism, as you know. Also, subjectively I think you and I both dislike authority, am I right?
Where I disagree with you, is regarding whether or not Post Modernism negates dogma. I would argue that Post Modernism entrenches dogma, because it undermines logic and reason. I suppose you could argue that in negating truth, dogma can't be espoused even despite one's dogmatic beliefs... We could likely debate this for a very long time, and I'd enjoy it (I think you would, too) but, as you mentioned, if we digress too far I think people on this forum might get mad.
I really enjoyed talking about this stuff with you! Thanks for the conversation!
Agreed. I was once asked to stop participating in a 3rd year feminism course, at a major university. I was polite, always raised my hand, but I asked questions that angered my professor. You wouldn't believe the amount of emotional nonsense I was inundated with, after asking very simple questions. Examples:
"If a beard can be perceived as a feminine gender symbol, but words like mankind are intrinsically gender exclusive, do symbols have intrinsic meaning, or don't they?" I'd say they don't, for the record.
"What is it about pornography that you don't like? Loveless sex? Filming Loveless sex? Or are you opposed to people having to resort to sex for a living? If it's about duress to subsist, what makes pornography any different than any other form of employment? Wouldn't all employment be equally oppressive?"
"What is objectification? I understand the simile, but what is it about our treatment of objects that you find unappealing?"
And my favorite...
"How do you know that justice exists? Can you prove it's existence? What epistemology would you refer to?"
They really don't like that last one.
I've enjoyed this too. It's been a while since I put myself back into that world.
Just to close this out, yes there is a paradox in post modernism. Because by the very act of giving it a name and defining it, you're setting in stone a certain way of viewing things that argues that there is no certain way of viewing things! In simple terms it's skepticism and vigilance.
Like Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark treating the idea of the Ark with skepticism until he's experienced its power for himself. In that regard the prequel, Temple of Doom, doesn't undermine his viewpoint in ROTLA, because any supposedly supernatural artefact could be a hoax. And he has his professional reputation to consider.
And yes, I dislike authority. And religion. Religious authority espeically, as it's the most dangerous combination. Which brings us back to the film.
Thanks! I'll let you get the last word in. You should consider getting back into some sort of writing, regarding your perspectives. Even though I find your Post Modernism infuriating, you articulate your perspective well, and you're very insightful. I had fun talking to you, and you gave me some things to consider regarding madness and idleness. Thanks again!
I've enjoyed this too. It's been a while since I put myself back into that world.
Just to close this out, yes there is a paradox in post modernism. Because by the very act of giving it a name and defining it, you're setting in stone a certain way of viewing things that argues that there is no certain way of viewing things! In simple terms it's skepticism and vigilance.
Like Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark treating the idea of the Ark with skepticism until he's experienced its power for himself. In that regard the prequel, Temple of Doom, doesn't undermine his viewpoint in ROTLA, because any supposedly supernatural artefact could be a hoax. And he has his professional reputation to consider.
And yes, I dislike authority. And religion. Religious authority espeically, as it's the most dangerous combination. Which brings us back to the film.
Yep, still hate it. Notice that while I disagreed with Kuat in many respects, I admired his writing, recognized his intellect and encouraged him to write more. That was genuine. I don't have to agree with someone, to like their work. I do require that the work is coherent, and appeals to logic and reason instead of emotion. You can build an argument in fiction, but to do so, you have to direct the audiences attention toward experiences that they can learn from. Even in Science Fiction and Fantasy. George Orwell was the master, in that department.
Thanks! Sure, you can always check.
The Last Jedi failed, where Orwell succeeds. It failed to build a coherent argument within its imagery, instead relying on sexist generalizations and radical dogma, intertwined with convoluted spiritualism. I can have an intelligent conversation about the ideas that were mishandled in the film, but the film was unintelligent in its mishandling of ideas I disagree with.
Wow - some interesting reading these last couple of pages.
Not often you can say you're learning things from reading SSF.
