Reading "Cynical Theories" by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
They are going through the history of postmodernism and I am
suprised to found just how many of my founding assumptions come
from this philosophy. I knew I had some ideas derived from
postmodernism, but now it seems that most of my ideas are from
there.
Weirdly enough I am quite opposed to the practical conclutions.
I can even remember the point when I decided to stop this line
of inquiry. It happened because after you question everything and
arrive at the point where the buddhist would say you have not an
inch to stand on, you have to go further. Or go back or whatever.
You cannot actually stay at a position where you just refuse to
give value to any evidence. This would be madness and a strange
commitment to being pulled along by anyone, since your own
foundation is completely lacking.
Of course a buddhist would be able to sniff out that there is
something extremely foundational in that nothingness. That is
where the postmodernists fail. At least the popular forms of
postmodern thinking that Pluckrose and Lindsay challenge seem to
not see that you can't just end up on a blind alley. I am not
sure where Pluckrose and Lindsay are going to oppose postmodernism
since I haven't yet finished the book, but I would guess they
take a stand from modern enlightenment values.
I think this will not be enough in the real world, but we will
need to really go down through some sort of buddhist period if
we are to get to a philosophical peace on the practical level.
