# Postmodernism and Nihilism



## tvdxer

How have these influenced the society you live in?

I don't think either of the words in the title need much translation.

Personally, I believe most Americans still have a rather absolutist and anti-nihilist viewpoint, something I am thankful for.  However, I do see a lot of moral relativism, especially in the so-called "elite" sectors of society (most of all in academia) and "if it feels good, do it" (tho that's more hedonism).

From what I've heard, both have had much more of an effect on Western Europe than they have in the United States.


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer - Please define "postmodernism".


----------



## cherine

Yes please. Too much "ism" in this thread. Could you also define in what way these trends had affected/effected Western Europe ?
I know I sound/am ignorant, but thank you for teaching me knew stuff


----------



## nichec

maxiogee said:
			
		

> tvdxer - Please define "postmodernism".



Postmodernism, a way of thinking (an ideology) arised after modernism and structuralism is mainly started by* Foucault* and* Derrida*. Traditionally, as master of linguistics *Saussure *suggested, which is also the way human beings have been thinking for ages, languages/words are the signifiers represent the signified (for example, the word "rose" represents the actual flower that's red and beautiful but not, say, lilies or iris), which implies every word/signifier leads to a meaning/signified and there's a neat order in this whole language system. This ideology had been accepted without doubt for what seems to be a very long time until a new way of thinking arised, which is the source of postmodernism and post-structuralism.

Scholars in this new waves believe that there's not a certain way for the signifier to reach their signified, hence the expression of words can not grant the existence of meanings, in other words, signifiers/words can be a play of their own/a list of nonsense characters, while signified can be forever lost.....

As one can imagine, this theory changes the perfect order we thought we have all this time and the way we think of this world , and most of all, the system of languages....

I offer my humble opinion on this question as to explain what postmodernism is, please forgive my boldness and tolerate the bad explanation as best as you can


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Personally, I believe most Americans still have a rather absolutist .... viewpoint, something I am thankful for.



Not having met most Americans, I would be grateful for a definition of "absolutist" and an explanation of why its widespread acceptance by most Americans makes you thankful.

Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Thanks,
Cuchu


----------



## BasedowLives

I believe I know what you mean, but I don't know how it affects how I live...

Those terms make me think of books and art.  Like criticism of the middle class values and things like that, which I assume would be stronger in Europe than in the USA, especially with the typical American view of Europe as a more decadant state.  And you're right that in Academia it does take the opposite viewpoint many times.


----------



## Cath.S.

The way I interpret tvdxer's post is : we  Americans are higher morals than Europeans, who are morally bankrupt, and I am proud of that superiority.

But I may be totally wrong, in which case I apologize.


----------



## nycphotography

Well by and large we Americans have no problem declaring our moral superiority.  

Unfortunately, the human race has yet to achieve a universal enough enlightenment to understand that any morality that requires itself to be declared "superior" is funadmentally flawed in at the outset.  Flawed in that it is a morality that fails to account for the validity of differing points of view.

And of course, to those "true believers" who fervently proclaim the superiority of their morality, pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in their position leads them to label one as a nihilhist.

But to me, nihilism is something of a natural and unavoidable result of an intense media saturation.  Once you hyperstimulate the pleasure modes of the brains with millions of messages running the full range of human experience, and not only fail to deliver enlightenment but actually leave the view more eft in the head than before due to intense hyper-commercialization, the resulting sensory burn out can only result in one thing:  nihilism


----------



## cuchuflete

egueule said:
			
		

> The way I interpret tvdxer's post is : we Americans are higher morals than Europeans, who are morally bankrupt, and I am proud of that superiority.


I don't yet know  tvdxer's definition of absolutism, but his remark about 'moral relativism' leads me to speculate that he thinks most Americans have a 'black or white' view of things.

If that's the intended meaning, then I respectfully suggest he have a look at public opinion of such issues as abortion, homosexual rights, pre-marital sexual relations, and other matters of supposed moral importance. If Americans are absolutist, it is in their absolute disagreement with one another. 

I am totally absolutist in refusing, adamently and absolutely, to have any religion, whether of the mass or sect variety, tell me what is absolutely correct. I can absolutely find lots of contrary viewpoints worthy of at least as much respect.

Does that make me a nihilist?


----------



## tvdxer

Post-modernism is a rather tricky term to define, but what I was trying to get at is the relativistic core of it...that there is no "absolute truth", no real meaning to life, just varying interpretations, and as some like to say, "preferences".

Nihilism is similar, though refers specifically to the absence of any belief in anything.

By "absolutism" I mean the belief in the existence of an objective right and wrong...of actual moral absolutes.  Are certain things wrong, no matter what anybody else will tell you?  In the United States, for example, a significant percentage of the population (the majority in the past, if not now) believes that homosexual behavior is wrong - and not just for them, but for everybody.  Certainly most Americans believe that things like murder, rape, and stealing are absolutely immoral, and that they go against what is right - not only what is right in their own opinion, but literally what is truly, objectively right.  The opposite of an absolutist, is, as you may already know, a relativist...somebody who sees moral beliefs, and "right and wrong" as being merely subjectively, and therefore relative to the individual.

I was reading a pro-European book by Jeremy Rifkin, and he mentioned "postmodernism" leaving a much greater effect on mainstream (West?) European culture than that of the United States.  That's part of what has inspired my curioisity on this subject.​


----------



## maxiogee

I wish to quote briefly from the introduction to a collection of essays by Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most renowned and respected science writers. He is dealing with his essay _Postmodernism Disrobed_.

A more intellectual species of charlatan is the target (of the essay). Dawkin's Law of the Conservation of Difficulty states that obscurantism in an academic subject expands to fill the vacuum of its intrinsic simplicity. Physics is a genuinely difficult and profound subject, so physicists need to - and do - work hard to make their language as simple as possible ("but no simpler," rightly insisted Einstein). Other academics - some would point the finger at continental schools of literary criticism and social science - suffer from what Peter Medawar (I think) called Physics Envy. They want to be thought profound, but their subject is actually rather easy and shallow, so they have to language it up to redress the balance.
<snip>
I must add, the fact that the word "postmodernism" occurs in the title given me by the Editors of _Nature_ does not imply that I (or they) know what it means. Indeed, it is my belief that it means nothing at all, except in the restricted context of architecture where it originated."

So, it is with interest that I see you use the terms 'signifiers' and 'signified' (you seem to omit the associated 'statement' which these produce.
Dawkins discusses work by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont

"They go on to quote the following remarkable piece of reasoning by (Jacques) Lacan.....

Thus by calculating that signification according to the algebraic method used here, namely:

S (signifier)
--------------  = s (the statement)
s (signified)

With S=(-1), produces: s=√-1

    You don't have to be a mathematician to see that this is ridiculous."

So I will have to reply that when you talked of "postmodernism" you prompted me to follow Dawkin's instructions.....
"whenever someone uses the word in some other (than architectural) context. Stop them instantly and ask, in a neutral spirit of friendly curiosity, what it means. Never once have I heard anything that even remotely approaches a usable, or even faintly _coherent_ definition."


----------



## cuchuflete

If Post-modernism is so tricky to define, then why even mention it?  This is a language forum.  We have nothing against straightforward, simple speech, commonly understood.

Throwing buzzwords, jargon, and other gobbledygook around does not add meaning.  Just dispense with it.

On to your statements...





			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> Post-modernism is a rather tricky term to define, but what I was trying to get at is the relativistic core of it...that there is no "absolute truth", no real meaning to life, just varying interpretations, and as some like to say, "preferences". How convenient to set up a straw man, pee on his shoes, and then invite others to knock him down.  I smell a private agenda, lurking behind the fuzzy words...
> 
> Nihilism is similar, though refers specifically to the absence of any belief in anything.
> 
> By "absolutism" I mean the belief in the existence of an *objective right and wrong*...Please pardon me while I double up with wild laughter.  Did you actually say "objective" in the same phrase with that most subjective of all notions, "right and wrong"??  OK, according to some religions, whipping adulterers is objectively right.  Period. No phluffy post-fribbidyisms or polymorphous relativisms.  IT IS RIGHT!
> 
> Even in Minnesotta, there have been reported incidents of extra-marital intercourse.  Should the absolutists bring out their whips?  Ohhhhhhhhh...they have a different set of absolute Right and Wrong...  So, it seems that "objective" depends on what religion you follow.  Hmmm, that's starting to sound a wee bit, er...um...pardon the expression...Relativistic!!
> 
> 
> 
> of actual moral absolutes. Are certain things wrong, no matter what anybody else will tell you? In the United States, for example, a significant percentage of the population *(the majority in the past, if not now)* Well Golly Whiz!!  If it's absofrigginlutely Right or Absogoldurned Wrong, who gives a flying fig what the majority thinks?  Oh, the majority changed it's mind?  Gracious, what a devilish display of morally temporal relativism.    believes that homosexual behavior is wrong   - and not just for them, but for everybody. Certainly most Americans believe that things like murder, rape, and stealing are absolutely immoral, and that they go against what is right - not only what is right in their own opinion, but literally what is truly, objectively right.   *Pssssst!   Most Americans, not so very long ago, believed slavery was morally right, and based that belief of the Bible!  *The opposite of an absolutist, is, as you may already know, a relativist...somebody who sees moral beliefs, and "right and wrong" as being merely subjectively, and therefore relative to the individual.
> 
> Whatever the religious basis of your absolutes, I can find a few hundred million people who think that their absolutes are better than yours!  I suppose it must make one very sad to see so many misguided folks running around.
> 
> I was reading a pro-European book by Jeremy Rifkin, and he mentioned "postmodernism" leaving a much greater effect on mainstream (West?) European culture than that of the United States. That's part of what has inspired my curioisity on this subject.​


----------



## cuchuflete

Back to the thread starter post. This is beginning to look like an excuse to push one particular set of absolutes. I can't help but wonder if deception is absolutely bad.





			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> How have these influenced the society you live in?
> 
> I don't think either of the words in the title need much translation.  If it doesn't need translation, why do you later call it 'tricky' to define?  That seems disingenuous, at best.
> 
> Personally, I believe most Americans still have a rather absolutist and anti-nihilist viewpoint, something I am thankful for.   Now that you have come out of the closet, so to speak, I can comfortably say that 'most Americans' don't exist. Half of the 60% of eligible adults who voted, cast ballots with whatever great or little enthusiasm, for the absolutist. The other half of that same 60% voted anti-absolutist. Please note that this arithmetic makes your premise seem absolutely flawed. As a fun little aside, the divorce rate is higher in Texas than in Massachusetts. Oh, those absolute facts can be sooooo inconvenient.
> 
> However, I do see a lot of moral relativism, especially in the so-called "elite" sectors of society (most of all in academia) and "if it feels good, do it" (tho that's more hedonism).
> OK, you don't care for those who are not absolutist.  Now you
> trot out another bit of undefined jargon: Elite.
> I dare you to define it.  Yeah, we know, that's tricky.
> 
> Are the rich an elite? I've heard tell that they change spouses with some frequency. Is that absolutist? I've heard another story, maybe an old wives' tale, that they hire smart accountants--another 'elite'?--to minimize their tax liabilities.
> Is that absolute common sense, or is it dirty pool?
> Now, let's take anothr 'elite': clergymen. They tell everyone else how to think and behave. But they sure as hell don't agree with one another. Bunch of relativists!!!
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've heard,  From whom have you heard this?  Is it tricky to produce a credible source for this assertion?
> I would think it would be *relatively* easy. both have had much more of an effect on Western Europe than they have in the United States.


I've heard that atheists are morally less hypocritical than some ostensibly religious types. This is just rumor and hearsay, like the statements in the first post.


----------



## Maria Juanita

Well, I have to say that I could never understand the meaning of such terms. I just symply considered one of the Bible's books (The Ecclesiasticus) as the most nihilistic thing I have ever read because it says that everything is vane and meant to dissapear. Then, I read an essay by Umberto Eco, the title was "Los nihilistas flamantes" and it was all about about a new after- Nietsche generation of charlatans who liked to do some sort of emotional fascism. Even when the Columbine thing happened I watched a documentary where they used to say these sad events were due to the nihilism of our generation, as a consequence of excess and materialism. So I have to say, I'm pretty confused.


----------



## Outsider

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Post-modernism is a rather tricky term to define, but what I was trying to get at is the relativistic core of it...that there is no "absolute truth", no real meaning to life, just varying interpretations, and as some like to say, "preferences".
> 
> Nihilism is similar, though refers specifically to the absence of any belief in anything.
> 
> By "absolutism" I mean the belief in the existence of an objective right and wrong...of actual moral absolutes.  Are certain things wrong, no matter what anybody else will tell you?  In the United States, for example, a significant percentage of the population (the majority in the past, if not now) believes that homosexual behavior is wrong - and not just for them, but for everybody.  Certainly most Americans believe that things like murder, rape, and stealing are absolutely immoral, and that they go against what is right - not only what is right in their own opinion, but literally what is truly, objectively right.  The opposite of an absolutist, is, as you may already know, a relativist...somebody who sees moral beliefs, and "right and wrong" as being merely subjectively, and therefore relative to the individual.
> 
> I was reading a pro-European book by Jeremy Rifkin, and he mentioned "postmodernism" leaving a much greater effect on mainstream (West?) European culture than that of the United States.  That's part of what has inspired my curioisity on this subject.​


Honestly, I think most Europeans don't pay much attention to philosophy. Just like Americans.


----------



## cuchuflete

Just noticed another funny little term that sorely needs a definition:   





> I was reading a *pro-European* book



What on earth is 'pro-European' supposed to mean?  Is that a philosophical posture that advocates letting Europe continue to exist?  Or, does it attempt, with tremendous foolishness, to lump all Europeans together and attribute behavioral characteristics to all of them?


----------



## tvdxer

The book was _*The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream*_. I think you can understand what I mean by "pro-European" now.

*Mod Edit:* Link to commercial site removed.

*User Edit: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_European_Dream


----------



## tvdxer

Outsider said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think most Europeans don't pay much attention to philosophy. Just like Americans.



Exactly.  But certain philosophies seethe through societies as mindsets and worldviews.


----------



## GenJen54

Speaking as a forer@ now.  I have read excerpts from the book.  It speaks many truths about our country.  We are, to the chagrin of many, NOT the dominant capitalist society that we once were.

We are still capitalist, yes, but Europe, since unionization, has started to catch up.  China will most likely eclipse us one day. 

Manufacturing, which once built our country to greatness, is all but defunct.  Look at the car industry and its woes.  China is set to enter the U.S. car market with an "economy" car  - at an "economy" price - using Japanese technology and standards of quality.  You think GM and Ford have problems now?  Give them three years and see where they are. 

We have outsourced so many jobs we are all but a service-only economy, which will not serve us well in the future.  As I noted in your other thread, while we may be materially "advanced," we lag far behind others in how we care for our own citizens. 

It seems obvious in your tone and starting post, that at least to you, "Pro-European" = "Anti-American."

I'm not sure how a turn from "nihilism" will help us further develop as a country, if those who are already "anti-nihilist" are trying to set us back decades to begin with. 

Just my .02.


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:
			
		

> The book was _*The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream*_. I think you can understand what I mean by "pro-European" now.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_European_Dream



No.

Perhaps you might tell us what "Europe's Vision" is supposed to mean.  

You toss terms around very casually, with no explanation. That's less than informative.  Is that an example of a postmodernist approach to conversation and debate?  Is it an example of moral absolutism?  Is it pro-American or pro-European?  Or is it just sloppy?

So you have now offered a book title that implies that a vision belonging to a continent can eclipse a dream from another continent...

Who on either continent holds these visions and dreams?
What is the vision?
What is the dream?

Why does one eclipse the other?
Does that mean that one is gaining popularity, or that they are in conflict?

This thread topic has all the consistency of a marshmallow on a hot day.


----------



## bernik

_" Or is it just sloppy? "_

Well, Rifkin's work is certainly very sloppy !


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> This thread topic has all the consistency of a marshmallow on a hot day.



I think you credit it with more substance that it really has. I would say a bucketful of steam would be more solid.


----------



## annettehola

"Manufacturing, which once built our country to greatness...."

Yeah, man, right! 

What splendour, indeed.

Annette


----------



## Zahab

somebody can explain me ina clearly way what is the meaning of Nihilism?

i want to know about this word, because i want to participate, in this thread

thank you guys for your time.


----------



## tvdxer

Nihilism = lack of belief in anything


----------



## GenJen54

zahab said:
			
		

> somebody can explain me ina clearly way what is the meaning of Nihilism?


 
Hi Zahab,

Some people liken nihilism to "atheism," or "secularism,"  Others liken it, as tvdxer explained, as "lack of belief in anything." 

You might try reading through THIS link, which should provide you a fairly comprehensive understanding.


----------



## Outsider

Another link about nihilism.


----------



## maxiogee

I'd read them, but there's no point!


----------

