I am generally aware and wary of the hackerish tendency to deride mightily any intellectual undertaking or material that doesn't triumph, confirm, or conform to their strictly rationalist view of the world and its every corner. I find it boorish and stifling. More to the point, I have some incredibly intelligent friends who have spent a good amount of time with Deconstruction not identical with Pomo, of course and have found things of great value to them. Which is why I am desperate, really, for someone to step in and demonstrate the worth of someone like Jacques Derrida, or more dangerously, Lacan or Boudrillard.

Author:Gakora Vuzahn
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):19 May 2011
PDF File Size:3.46 Mb
ePub File Size:2.72 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet Home Magazine Humanities The Agora philosophy. Richard Dawkins: Postmodernism Disrobed. For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond! Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.

Share topic. Richard Dawkins: Postmodernism Disrobed Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content.

The chances are that you would produce something like the following: We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously.

In the second place, singularities possess a process of auto-unification, always mobile and displaced to the extent that a paradoxical element traverses the series and makes them resonate, enveloping the corresponding singular points in a single aleatory point and all the emissions, all dice throws, in a single cast.

It calls to mind Peter Medawar's earlier characterisation of a certain type of French intellectual style note, in passing the contrast offered by Medawar's own elegant and clear prose : Style has become an object of first importance, and what a style it is!

For me it has a prancing, high-stepping quality, full of self-importance; elevated indeed, but in the balletic manner, and stopping from time to time in studied attitudes, as if awaiting an outburst of applause.

It has had a deplorable influence on the quality of modern thought. Returning to attack the same targets from another angle, Medawar says: I could quote evidence of the beginnings of a whispering campaign against the virtues of clarity. A writer on structuralism in the Times Literary Supplement has suggested that thoughts which are confused and tortuous by reason of their profundity are most appropriately expressed in prose that is deliberately unclear.

What a preposterously silly idea! I am reminded of an air-raid warden in wartime Oxford who, when bright moonlight seemed to be defeating the spirit of the blackout, exhorted us to wear dark glasses. He, however, was being funny on purpose. Since Medawar's time, the whispering campaign has raised its voice. Deleuze and Guattari have written and collaborated on books described by the celebrated Michel Foucault as "among the greatest of the great.

Some day, perhaps, the century will be Deleuzian. For the rest, we leave it to the reader to judge. No doubt there exist thoughts so profound that most of us will not understand the language in which they are expressed. And no doubt there is also language designed to be unintelligible in order to conceal an absence of honest thought.

But how are we to tell the difference? What if it really takes an expert eye to detect whether the emperor has clothes? In particular, how shall we know whether the modish French 'philosophy', whose disciples and exponents have all but taken over large sections of American academic life, is genuinely profound or the vacuous rhetoric of mountebanks and charlatans? They have limited their critique to those books that have ventured to invoke concepts from physics and mathematics.

Here they know what they are talking about, and their verdict is unequivocal: on Lacan, for example, whose name is revered by many in humanities departments throughout American and British universities, no doubt partly because he simulates a profound understanding of mathematics:. His 'definition' of compactness is not just false: it is gibberish. It recalls the Aldous Huxley character who proved the existence of God by dividing zero into a number, thereby deriving the infinite.

In a further piece of reasoning which is entirely typical of the genre, Lacan goes on to conclude that the erectile organ. We do not need the mathematical expertise of Sokal and Bricmont to assure us that the author of this stuff is a fake. Perhaps he is genuine when he speaks of non-scientific subjects? But a philosopher who is caught equating the erectile organ to the square root of minus one has, for my money, blown his credentials when it comes to things that I don't know anything about.

The feminist 'philosopher' Luce Irigaray is another who is given whole chapter treatment by Sokal and Bricmont. Because 'it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us' my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an in-word. Just as typical of the school of thought under examination is Irigaray's thesis on fluid mechanics.

Fluids, you see, have been unfairly neglected. Her American expositor Katherine Hayles made the mistake of re-expressing Irigaray's thoughts in comparatively clear language.

For once, we get a reasonably unobstructed look at the emperor and, yes, he has no clothes: The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity.

Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids. From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids and of women have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.

You don't have to be a physicist to smell out the daffy absurdity of this kind of argument the tone of it has become all too familiar , but it helps to have Sokal and Bricmont on hand to tell us the real reason why turbulent flow is a hard problem the Navier-Stokes equations are difficult to solve.

The renowned Jean Baudrillard is only one of many to find chaos theory a useful tool for bamboozling readers. Once again, Sokal and Bricmont help us by analysing the tricks being played.

The following sentence, "though constructed from scientific terminology, is meaningless from a scientific point of view": Perhaps history itself has to be regarded as a chaotic formation, in which acceleration puts an end to linearity and the turbulence created by acceleration deflects history definitively from its end, just as such turbulence distances effects from their causes.

I won't quote any more, for, as Sokal and Bricmont say, Baudrillard's text "continues in a gradual crescendo of nonsense. Whether or not one interprets them as metaphors, it is hard to see what role they could play, except to give an appearance of profundity to trite observations about sociology or history. Moreover, the scientific terminology is mixed up with a non-scientific vocabulary that is employed with equal sloppiness.

When all is said and done, one wonders what would be left of Baudrillard's thought if the verbal veneer covering it were stripped away. But don't the postmodernists claim only to be 'playing games'? Isn't it the whole point of their philosophy that anything goes, there is no absolute truth, anything written has the same status as anything else, no point of view is privileged? Given their own standards of relative truth, isn't it rather unfair to take them to task for fooling around with word-games, and playing little jokes on readers?

Perhaps, but one is then left wondering why their writings are so stupefyingly boring. Shouldn't games at least be entertaining, not po-faced, solemn and pretentious? More tellingly, if they are only joking around, why do they react with such shrieks of dismay when somebody plays a joke at their expense.

The genesis of Intellectual Impostures was a brilliant hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, and the stunning success of his coup was not greeted with the chuckles of delight that one might have hoped for after such a feat of deconstructive game playing. Apparently, when you've become the establishment, it ceases to be funny when somebody punctures the established bag of wind.

As is now rather well known, in Sokal submitted to the American journal Social Text a paper called 'Transgressing the Boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. It was a carefully crafted parody of postmodern metatwaddle. Sokal was inspired to do this by Paul Gross and Normal Levitt's Higher Superstition: the academic left and its quarrels with science Johns Hopkins, , an important book which deserves to become as well known in Britain as it already is in America.

Hardly able to believe what he read in this book, Sokal followed up the references to postmodern literature, and found that Gross and Levitt did not exaggerate. He resolved to do something about it. In Gary Kamiya's words: Anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for 'advanced' thought in the humanities knew it was bound to happen sooner or later: some clever academic, armed with the not-so-secret passwords 'hermeneutics,' 'transgressive,' 'Lacanian,' 'hegemony,' to name but a few would write a completely bogus paper, submit it to an au courant journal, and have it accepted.

Sokal's piece uses all the right terms. It cites all the best people. It whacks sinners white men, the 'real world' , applauds the virtuous women, general metaphysical lunacy. Sokal's paper must have seemed a gift to the editors because this was a physicist saying all the right-on things they wanted to hear, attacking the 'post-Enlightenment hegemony' and such uncool notions as the existence of the real world. They didn't know that Sokal had also crammed his paper with egregious scientific howlers, of a kind that any referee with an undergraduate degree in physics would instantly have detected.

It was sent to no such referee. The editors, Andrew Ross and others, were satisfied that its ideology conformed to their own, and were perhaps flattered by references to their own works. This ignominious piece of editing rightly earned them the Ig Nobel Prize for literature. Notwithstanding the egg all over their faces, and despite their feminist pretensions, these editors are dominant males in the academic lekking arena.

Andrew Ross himself has the boorish, tenured confidence to say things like "I am glad to be rid of English Departments. I hate literature, for one thing, and English departments tend to be full of people who love literature"; and the yahooish complacency to begin a book on 'science studies' with these words: "This book is dedicated to all of the science teachers I never had.

It could only have been written without them. Many of them have tenured professorships at some of America's best universities. Men of this kind sit on appointment committees, wielding power over young academics who might secretly aspire to an honest academic career in literary studies or, say, anthropology.

To them, Alan Sokal will appear as a hero, and nobody with a sense of humour or a sense of justice will disagree. It helps, by the way, although it is strictly irrelevant, that his own left wing credentials are impeccable. In a detailed post-mortem of his famous hoax, submitted to Social Text but predictably rejected by them and published elsewhere, Sokal notes that, in addition to numerous half truths, falsehoods and non-sequiturs, his original article contained some "syntactically correct sentences that have no meaning whatsoever.

I have just been there, and it produced for me a 6, word article called "Capitalist theory and the subtextual paradigm of context" by "David I. Werther and Rudolf du Garbandier of the Department of English, Cambridge University" poetic justice there, for it was Cambridge who saw fit to give Jacques Derrida an honorary degree. Here's a typical sentence from this impressively erudite work: If one examines capitalist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject neotextual materialism or conclude that society has objective value.

If dialectic desituationism holds, we have to choose between Habermasian discourse and the subtextual paradigm of context. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a textual nationalism that includes truth as a reality. In a sense, the premise of the subtextual paradigm of context states that reality comes from the collective unconscious. Visit the Postmodernism Generator.

It is a literally infinite source of randomly generated syntactically correct nonsense, distinguishable from the real thing only in being more fun to read. You could generate thousands of papers per day, each one unique and ready for publication, complete with numbered endnotes. Manuscripts should be submitted to the 'Editorial Collective' of Social Text, double-spaced and in triplicate. As for the harder task of reclaiming humanities and social studies departments for genuine scholars, Sokal and Bricmont have joined Gross and Levitt in giving a friendly and sympathetic lead from the world of science.

We must hope that it will be followed.


Richarddawkins Postmodernism Disrobed

Profile Books , 9. Published in U. Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content. The chances are that you would produce something like the following:. We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis.


Postmodernism disrobed

Sokal is best known for the Sokal affair , in which he submitted a deliberately absurd article [1] to Social Text , a critical theory journal, and was able to get it published. The book was published in French in , and in English in ; the English editions were revised for greater relevance to debates in the English-speaking world. According to some reports, the response within the humanities was "polarized". Responses from the scientific community were more supportive. The stated goal of the book is not to attack "philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general

Related Articles