Posting on Postmodernism

First I would like to begin by giving the basic dictionary definition of Postmodernism in the context of art. It is a late 20th-century style, and conception pertaining to the arts, architecture, and criticism, representing a departure from modernism and at the basis has a general distrust of grandiose theories and ideologies. But since we are reviewing literary critics than we shall look to Lyotard for analysis, and maybe some answers. His argument lays on the grounds (or my perception of it) that through knowledge as the key to ‘freedom’ or rather the ‘emancipation of the people.’ This is the ultimate truth, and as we see on bumper stickers today, ‘Knowledge is Power’ this is what pushes the human race forward. But I’d like to question of what kind of knowledge brings us power? Because what may be taught in schools is utterly useless, due to the fact that many ‘facts’ we learned as children only transform into truths, as we become adults. Lyotard uses science as the rights of passage for individuals to achieve this ultimate goal of liberation, and every person is entitled to this right. We use science as a ‘means to an end’ entrusting that through this method of action we will find the factual truth. But I particularly like how he questions himself by stating, ‘What proof is there that my proof is true?’ I concur; science is nothing more than another act of faith.

The statement above about proof, made me think about how we’ve been continually questioning these theorists on their theories. Such as Fried, and his conclusion on the Burial. But I guess its all just speculative thought; fun to play with in the mind, and without it so would be this course.

Jumping ahead to Derrida, and the meaning of moral and ethical responsibility. I particularly was fond of this one because I am continually questioning where, and how people come up with their morals. Which in most all cases stems from personal religions, and where did these religions come from? Well, people. And who is to say whose morals are better, or more ethically sound. Self-interest is the principle here, and the person that came up with that moral, or whatever had some sort of connection with their own self-interest in mind. I just want to say that within the consideration of morals, we all posses our own, and I don’t think there is one solid answer in the way humans must conduct their business, and I think Derrida stating somewhat the same.

All the readings enticed me, reiterating the way I think about how we function now, and how we functioned in the past, always in a continual path of movement, never quite the same, but always in a constant motion