Karen,
Good question. I think this debate about post-modernism is quite useful.
My guess is there is a problem in the definition of terms.
Hagen wrote:
>Post- modernist reject this mandate arguing that the structure of
>rationality is not immutable but rather is the product of history, culture,
>learning. etc.. Kant's argument demands that the manner in which we
>comprehend the world remain static. Post-modernists such as Foucault agrue
>that "rationality" is a historical construction. That means, for example, it
>changes over time. It can be distorted by power and other human interests.
>That the present sensibility that we share is just one of many possible
>sensibilities.
The crucial issue, the reason, I think, why post-modernism raises as many
hackles as it does, is that it is not clear just what is meant by
"rationality" in such a statement. It is interesting that Hagen says that
rationality can be distorted...this implies that there is such a thing as
an undistorted rationality. Clearly Foucault and most anybody writing
under the banner of post-modernism still "believes" in some kind of
understanding, some kind of critical function, some kind of rationality,
some kind of logic. Otherwise why bother? and what would they be saying
anyway?
I don't pretend to have the issue mastered by any means, but I think it's
important to be able to focus in on the red flags for the resistance to
post-modernism. Rationality is one of them. Otherwise, I think this is a
good opener to the questions at issue in the debate.
Jorge Pedraza
------------------
Good question. I think this debate about post-modernism is quite useful.
My guess is there is a problem in the definition of terms.
Hagen wrote:
>Post- modernist reject this mandate arguing that the structure of
>rationality is not immutable but rather is the product of history, culture,
>learning. etc.. Kant's argument demands that the manner in which we
>comprehend the world remain static. Post-modernists such as Foucault agrue
>that "rationality" is a historical construction. That means, for example, it
>changes over time. It can be distorted by power and other human interests.
>That the present sensibility that we share is just one of many possible
>sensibilities.
The crucial issue, the reason, I think, why post-modernism raises as many
hackles as it does, is that it is not clear just what is meant by
"rationality" in such a statement. It is interesting that Hagen says that
rationality can be distorted...this implies that there is such a thing as
an undistorted rationality. Clearly Foucault and most anybody writing
under the banner of post-modernism still "believes" in some kind of
understanding, some kind of critical function, some kind of rationality,
some kind of logic. Otherwise why bother? and what would they be saying
anyway?
I don't pretend to have the issue mastered by any means, but I think it's
important to be able to focus in on the red flags for the resistance to
post-modernism. Rationality is one of them. Otherwise, I think this is a
good opener to the questions at issue in the debate.
Jorge Pedraza
------------------