I think that postmodernism is just another phase civilization is (or is not) going through. See, everyone who is exposed to postmodern ethics (or the lack thereof) has an opportunity to choose. Anyone who fails to 'get it', for whatever reason(s), has his/her own right to reject the entire postmodern agenda. Moreover, if he or she DOES get it, the same rule applies. Fake news does not depend on postmodern ethics for its' rise to stardom. Relativism was emerging, long before the term was uttered. Popular and mass culture have been with us for decades ; trends and other such anomalies of civilization come and go, with the relentless march of technology and cultural change. I might read Mr. de Zengotita's book, inasmuch as I'd like to know what a 'new humanism' might look like. Word has it that the old humanism has been around since the thirteenth century, substantially preceding the Enlightenment. There are some absolutes: meaning; truth;reason; and knowledge are examples, even though, at times, their applications may be, uh, relativistic. Our interests drive relativism, to a great extent, so it is little wonder that we can become confused and feel overwhelmed by different ways of viewing old values and ethics. But consider that interests are somewhat akin to beliefs: THEY are personal affairs, which are, in turn, adventures, which (according to Dewey's assessment of beliefs), are SHADY. I wonder what the current batch of humanists thinks about a new humanism? Do they consider themselves in that light? I just don't know.

无论如何，我不担心时事、后现代主义或假新闻。我为那些感到难过的人感到难过。如果你不喜欢俄亥俄州的天气，你只需要等一分钟……

POST-NOTE: Interests are a powerful force, driving people to do things they might not otherwise contemplate. Conventions, pressures and expectations lead us to our worst fears and wildest fantasies.

Thanks very much for your comment. This particular episode focused on the specific question whether postmodernist approaches to truth could be taken to have any connection to the "post-truth era" we are currently in. (Hence the background history wasn't the main concern in this particular context.) If you’re interested in episodes devoted to post-structuralism and postmodernism more broadly, please check out our show on Foucault, our show on Derrida and Deconstruction, and our show on Postmodernism. Thank you for listening!

I'm not sure what FAB5 said above, but I am much less charitable to PostModernism than Ken, Josh, or Thomas were in this show. I don't see the need or benefit of PostModern thought.

Did Po-Mo contribute to Post-Truth? Absolutely. Josh gives several examples, but intellectual history is never precise. That Post-Truth predates Po-Mo is no solace, one can aid the other again and again and back and forth… there is no rule of causality to establish contribution.

波莫引发了后真相吗?不。但这只是因为还有其他因素，最重要的是，我想加上经济环境，它不依赖于波莫。

是的，后现代主义应该被反驳，现实多少有点主观的最起码的陈述应该被重申。主观真理在科学、哲学和日常经验中都有明确的证据。在大多数情况下，认为有无真相、相对真理或多重真理的想法都是重罪。

The damage is already done. There is no unwinding this coil except to rebut point by point. Trust can not be regained in one motion once squandered. The best we can do is punish conscious opportunists and restore lost opportunities on a case-by-case basis. That is the work.

Since beginning work on a theory of contextual reality, I reviewed comments on this post from 2019 and one from Tim Smith, earlier this year (2022), wherewith I concur. Having said that, my attention, as often, goes to origins. Rejection(s) of Enlightenment values must have started before what we now call posrmodernism.. Smith at least tacitly agrees, if I understand his remark correctly. Without examining the "whys" of rejections, it may be more instructive to think about what in modern parlance we label mass and popular culture. Change is always with us---we are fairly certain there were eggs before there were chickens. Safe to say, I think, someone, some when before the postmodern, became bored with the Enlightenment.

文化变化源于进化、革命、厌倦和重新启蒙。背景，在较短或较长的一段(s)时间内，同样经历变化——更好、更坏或无关紧要。所以，在这个意义上，现实是为了适应环境而创造的。(我无法决定，也无法确定是否会发生另一种情况。)

Therefore, it seems to me, postmodernism is, within a current window, is a manifestation (incarnation?) of contextual reality. Still fleshing it all out.

后现代主义只是后真相时代的一个贡献者。我这么说是因为不是每个人都知道它，或者即使知道也不会在意。另一方面，许多人看到了恰当的谎言的好处。毫不犹豫地利用他们来得到他们想要的东西，并且，在使荒谬类似于真理方面有着出了名的创造性。最近与这位被废黜的“捏造之王”的谈话摘录显示，如果能改善他日渐衰落的个人魅力，没有什么是不可能的。斯利克·威利的评论，“每个人都在撒谎”，实际上有些人很欣赏他，如果只是因为他说这话时的大胆。
This is an evolving facet of the human condition. Calling it an art would be generous. Accurate, maybe, but still generous...

Editorial note, previous comment: you may recall hearing a Pope decry the relativism of modern society. I can't be certain of whether it was the present Pontiff or his predecessor. This aversion, ostensibly, arises from the value placed on truth. Yet, much of such truth is predicated on belief and faith. So, no, the Church and its' faithful are not fond of postmodernism. And that is as it should be. Which came first though: relativism or postmodernism? If I read it aright, the former preceded the latter. As a practical matter, it makes little difference.

Things that are true, are.
Not all, or even most things relatively true, are true....they are rooted in context. Contingent.
Postmodernism is liar's poker. Or worse.
Pascal's Wager was a facade, which is equivalent to liar'$ poker. But, we knew that.
( We all need to hedge our bets, from time to time.)
我对真理的全部看法很简短。
我可能会分享它们。的某个时候。
The entire project will be longer...you knew that...

Is postmodern kitsch a vehicle for blame, or, more likely, an excuse? If I were to buy a worn out horse with rotting teeth, there would be no blame to place, on either me or the seller of the animal. His stance might be caveat emptor. Mine: I make a calculated risk, paying little for the horse, and gambling that I will, somehow, realize worth commensurate with the money spent. There is an understanding. My risk is an excuse. The seller's stance has not changed, nor should it. My risk, my excuse, is my burden and mine alone. Those who find value in postmodern thought are, they think, hedging their bets. They have little investment in a long view. Or worse, they have nothing to invest at all. I do not see much mileage in the postmodern. It lacks a longview. If it has any view at all.
这是一种消遣，或者用法语来说，是一种消遣。正如我们的好朋友史密斯可能会认为的那样:一场玩笑。

Just for balance, I took a look at some things said here, circa 2010. The remarks from that snapshot seemed to show a misunderstanding of postmodernism. Or perhaps it was ONLY mistrust. Yet, those being proffered now fair---or is that fare---little better. Insofar as this is inconclusive, this inquirer lapses back upon his notion of contextual reality. A pope may be excused for defending his faith, propositional though that may be. Over time, other watchers have expressed doubts as to the efficacy or usefulness of postmodernism. Pragmatists (like me) have found it, uh, absurd. That's right, a-b-s-u-r-d. Let me just say this: if it entails circumstance; content; context; and contingency, it is nothing more than contextually real. That altered state has an attenuated shelf-life. Poor utility begets poorer reliability.

我只是对后现代民主感到好奇。在古代民主社会，比如雅典，公民(年满18岁，父母是雅典人，服兵役)轮流履行公民责任。妇女、奴隶、外宾和儿童不承担这种责任。(奇怪的是，雅典的许多奴隶似乎都是斯基泰弓箭手，他们来自今天俄罗斯和乌克兰之间发生政治冲突的地区。)在我们的后现代民主中，公民责任似乎奇怪地颠倒了。妇女、儿童和外宾负责履行许多曾经为公民保留的职责，但我们不把它们视为需要忍受的负担，而是把它们视为需要追求的特权。We desire holding civic office, desire leadership positions,
奇怪的是，只有那些由伴侣资助的人，或者退休的人，或者拥有巨大个人财富的人才能积极参与最有意义的政治权力的表达，比如陪审团义务、教学(因为工资很低)，或者一般的高等教育。诗歌、舞蹈、哲学、古典音乐和人文学科的经典——就社会地位和影响而言具有强大影响力的研究领域——一般来说，除了非常富有的人之外，任何人都很难接触到。

It seems in postmodern democracies, a curious elite class emerges that participates politically but very much invisibly, by managing to skirt the visible duties ancient democracies required of their citizens, like coming down and actually rowing in the bottom of a trireme ship, instead of buying their way out of these jobs, and instead using money as a means of invisibly behind the scenes exerting control.

In ancient democracies, this invisible class dynamic existed as well. The priests were at the apex of the cone of power. Today we would probably describe the ancient priest's professional function as something between a mystic and a physicist, since geometry was such a key aspect of their spiritual practice. Socrates clearly was in on this elite invisible manifestation of political influence and participation, transmitted mainly at the level of education. If one understood the "mysteries" (i.e., physics and geometry) one was in on the game. The sophists were interfering with this elite monopoly on hidden power because anyone could hire a sophist and learn certain esoteric "truths" and get pretty good at faking an education, or perhaps even acquiring a degree of genuine knowledge.

Back then, sharing the knowledge of the mystery cults (the Gods) could get you killed. But it seems to have gotten out on the street nonetheless. I think Socrates was critical of ancient democracy because in transmitting knowledge privately, and in simultaneously excluding women, children/youth, and foreign guests from citizenship responsibilities, Athens made itself vulnerable to surreptitious colonial influence. For example, Aspasia, Pericles' partner, was from Ionia and was also a sophist. According to Socrates, at one time she was even his teacher (see the book Socrates in Love by D'Angour). Socrates wanted teaching/knowledge transmission, specifically when it came to geometry and physics, to be explicitly and openly acknowledged and funded by the state.

And he ended up dead.

我想知道这与我们现在的后现代政治现实有什么关系?似乎宗教和教育在历史上是联系在一起的，直到现代，这一功能开始被国家取代。隐藏在教师的角色中，与知识传播相关的非世俗/神圣方面仍然隐藏在我们正义/公平/平衡的社会理想中。我们同意那些我们认为是公正的，公平的，平衡的。权威的来源被认为是“好的”，如果他们对环境(社会/教室)的影响是一种激发和谐与和平而不是破坏的影响。

But this standard of justice as balance (with all of its hidden geometrical, scientific, and mystical aspects) is rapidly disappearing. We no longer seem to even believe in justice as a social possibility/ideal that can be approximated in the present. And I suspect it's because unconsciously we know our present system tacitly denies women, children/youths, and foreign guests a meaningful opportunity to pursue instruction in the actual science underlying the four Socratic virtues of moderation, courage, wisdom, and justice. The keys to understanding the scientific aspects of these virtues are, as they were back in ancient Athens, openly discussed only by a select group of individuals, today mainly physicists and those into esoteric ideas and practices. Again, one needs to be jumped into the gang before they can actually effectively participate in the dynamics of political power. It seems the reality of political participation (accessing a real position of influence) is primarily limited to the wealthy and the retired. Being invited into effective and legitimate forms of political engagement is a bit like immaculate conception (or becoming a member of I.A.T.S.E. in Hollywood). Unless one is born into it, you're out. And this understandably leads to open and massive justified public outrage, for people cannot participate in or control what they cannot understand, and social power as it actually functions is largely outside of the grasp of average people.

只是想知道别人会怎么想…

Humbly, but prickly yours,

Thistle

如果有人对其他想法感到好奇，请注意我在2019年7月15日博客存档中对这个主题的最新评论。我从过去的经验中举出了一个实际的例子。我不知道政府的人事政策和惯例是否有很大的变化。但是，我有点怀疑。

There was a post, awhile back, that asked: should belief aim at truth? I re-visited that today, claiming, in essence, belief is not about truth at all. It IS about what 'believers want to convince others of.. I claimed that postmodernist thought is nothing more (aside from the fact that postmodernism represents boredom). Belief is not for thinkers, It is for sheep, who are not inclined to question, Anything...people who fear being different, and the challenges difference brings. In few cases, seems to me, does belief carry its' weight. And, when it does, outcomes may be favorable to some, though they need not be truthful. And so, there is no rule. And that is true---so many times.

接下来，我今天早上读了些小说。有一种运动——或者至少是一种提议——召集一个论坛，在那里哲学头脑可以审查/批评新闻。我想，但我不知道，这在某种程度上是有先例的。我的评论是明确的赞同。新闻是有目的的，别有用心。事实(当它们是事实时)被修饰以符合立场和意识形态。一群哲学家或公共知识分子能穿针引线吗?也许吧。但是，我想，需要一些节制，以保持事情正常进行，并平息专业人士之间的争吵。也许，这将是一个令人沮丧的失败。
我的实用主义告诉我，应该有一种方法去找到一种方法……

Supposedly, the late Richard Rorty said we need not worry about DEFINING truth. (Insofar as I have not read everything he wrote, i cannot attest to that.) ...part of his comment referred to sentences 'paying their own way'. To my way of thinking, there have been dozens of sentences, paragraphs and pages over the years that have not done so. If his assessment is partly right, we have a clue. And again, IMHO, we can see postmodernism not as a cause of truth demolition, but an outcome thereof.
One must often look to origins for answers to present questions.