HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3061  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:11 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
Science is being dismissed as just another story, but it clearly isn't . The postmodernists dismiss scientific methods, yet they use these methods for the construction of their own narrative.
I don't think they practice enough empiricism for their theorizing to qualify as scientific.

From Wikipedia:

It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

One may arrive at correct conclusions through a priori reasoning, intuition, or relevation, but that process is not scientific. I consider theoretical reasoning to be weaker than empirically-backed conclusions, then intuition is weaker still, while revelation has a significant likelihood of being disconnected from reality. There's been a lot of literary intuiting and revelation that hasn't amounted to any material progress.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3062  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:13 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeLocker View Post
I am, what's your point about sweeping generalization?
It seems like you have defeated your own narrative.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3063  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:13 PM
LakeLocker LakeLocker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: London ON
Posts: 1,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
It seems like you have defeated your own narrative.
Care to be specific?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3064  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:20 PM
rousseau's Avatar
rousseau rousseau is offline
Registered Drug User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 6,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
This is my understanding based on the video:

- Modernism refers to a school of thought where science, reasoning, facts, data, industry, etc., are given primacy, and religion is given a limited role. This went on to form what we think of as "liberalism" in the broadest sense, as in "liberal democracies". Modernism is Western Enlightenment thought.

- Post-modernism is a reaction in to Modernism. The main thing about post-modernism was going against grand narratives. For example, Marxists have a 'story' about the world. People who follow religions have a 'story'. For post-modernists, even the modern outlook that epmhasizes science is just another 'story'. This has a lot of implications. For example, most forms of nationalism are grand narratives; as is marxism; capitalism, etc. Also they didn't believe in objective truth and believed in moral relativism.

- The issue with 'deconstructing' these stories and objective things was that there was nothing that post-modernists were really doing. It's pretty nihilistic so can't use it for change.
My BA was in English. This was all the rage in the 1980s and 1990s. I can't help but grimace whenever I see or hear the word "deconstruct."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3065  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:35 PM
saffronleaf saffronleaf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I don't think they practice enough empiricism for their theorizing to qualify as scientific.

From Wikipedia:

It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

One may arrive at correct conclusions through a priori reasoning, intuition, or relevation, but that process is not scientific. I consider theoretical reasoning to be weaker than empirically-backed conclusions, then intuition is weaker still, while revelation has a significant likelihood of being disconnected from reality. There's been a lot of literary intuiting and revelation that hasn't amounted to any material progress.
The woke left stuff seems more like revelation. There's a religious dimension to it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3066  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:42 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
The woke left stuff seems more like revelation. There's a religious dimension to it.
I agree. I think there's a mix of influences. One influence is the academic postmodern stuff, another is religion, another is literary culture, and another is self-help culture. Then social media provides a platform.

Ta-Nehisi Coates for example seems to come at things from a combined literary and journalistic perspective, with a lot of storytelling and a focus on justice and redress. The stories are interesting and should be told. But then there's a big gulf between that and public policy demands, or proof that the policy interventions will do what they're supposed to.

In Toronto, Mark Saunders, who happens to be black, stepped down as police chief. I don't know if he was a good or bad police chief, but I can see why he might not want to be police chief right now even if he were the best person on the planet to have that job. Part of the pressure on him was the Regis Korchinski-Paquet incident, which just happened to be poorly-timed with respect to George Floyd but doesn't seem very similar. The family's lawyer actually walked back accusations that the police had anything to do with her death (sounds like she tried to jump between balconies and fell, and had barricaded herself in a room). This seems like a pretty good example of why outrage mobs and protests are blunt instruments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3067  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:07 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by savevp View Post
Maybe, just maybe, a positive from the current anti-police climate will lead to them cutting back on tactics like predatory traffic enforcement, thinking the public relations damage isn't worth the money collected. Unlikely though.

For me, the real measure of decline in Canadian policing is how squad cars have changed. For example, most police cars have switched from Crown Vic's to SUVs, all the more intimidating. But really, it's the paint schemes. Even after Toronto Police Service got huge pushback against their ridiculous silver camo redesign, they've still gone with a low visibility paint scheme. Calgary, the OPP, and others who are black painted are even worse.

Many police in Canada used to be yellow and blue painted, to encourage high visibility. That's still the case in the UK, and most of the world whether green,yellow, or orange. But here, police seem to have caught on to the American tendency to be a 'force' rather than a 'service.'

I don't see that as racist (anymore so than cops might be on a yellow painted motorbike, rather than a black SUV). If the conversation around police in Canada was about the change in perception of police from service to force, perhaps we could tackle these issues. Instead, a group with nebulous, diffuse, and often counterproductive aims have taken over an increasingly divisive public discourse and likely reduced the potential for change.
Yes, Toronto police cars were yellow when I moved here but that didn’t last past the late eighties. It’s why there aren’t any yellow taxicabs in Toronto, or weren’t until recently, anyway. Winnipeg’s were always black and white, as far as I remember. The camo version they were proposing for Toronto was crazy.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3068  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:36 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 28,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by savevp View Post
For me, the real measure of decline in Canadian policing is how squad cars have changed. For example, most police cars have switched from Crown Vic's to SUVs, all the more intimidating.
That one isn't the police departments' fault at all - automakers have been discontinuing cars in general (especially the BOF+RWD ones that you'd preferably want for police duty - none left, only SUVs now) because there's more money to be made selling SUVs instead to the same potential buyers.

There's the Charger that's left for now (seems to be the favorite of Vancouver police) but it's unibody, you have to treat it more delicately (not that Vancouver police ever does anything rough, from what I've seen in the last few months; the entire police fleet could be Corollas and it would make no practical difference).

So... you can blame the general car-buying public for that one.

(The colors, I agree, that's on the cops.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3069  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:38 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 18,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I agree. I think there's a mix of influences. One influence is the academic postmodern stuff, another is religion, another is literary culture, and another is self-help culture. Then social media provides a platform.

Ta-Nehisi Coates for example seems to come at things from a combined literary and journalistic perspective, with a lot of storytelling and a focus on justice and redress. The stories are interesting and should be told. But then there's a big gulf between that and public policy demands, or proof that the policy interventions will do what they're supposed to.

In Toronto, Mark Saunders, who happens to be black, stepped down as police chief. I don't know if he was a good or bad police chief, but I can see why he might not want to be police chief right now even if he were the best person on the planet to have that job. Part of the pressure on him was the Regis Korchinski-Paquet incident, which just happened to be poorly-timed with respect to George Floyd but doesn't seem very similar. The family's lawyer actually walked back accusations that the police had anything to do with her death (sounds like she tried to jump between balconies and fell, and had barricaded herself in a room). This seems like a pretty good example of why outrage mobs and protests are blunt instruments.
Somewhere in the "Meh" to "status quo" range, I believe. I think he introduced some good community policing initiatives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3070  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:55 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 28,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
The woke left stuff seems more like revelation. There's a religious dimension to it.
Yeah, what I've seen in this thread sounds shockingly close to religion. "It's like that, and you can't challenge it, or discuss it; if you don't see it the right way, it's because you haven't seen the light and converted yet; I don't care about real world observations, or factual data, I know what the real truth is, and it's what my religion says".

Good summary in someone123's post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Some woke views of racism as a kind of ethereal and elusive evil force are very Christian, as are the arguments employed in support of it.

Original sin -> Whiteness
Duality of good and evil or heaven/hell or believer/non-believer -> Anti-racist vs. racist
Untestable belief in God -> Untestable belief in systemic racism
God is incomprehensible and unknowable -> Experiences of other identity groups are incomprehensible and unknowable
You don't believe what I do because you've failed to truly accept God into your heart -> White fragility (Let's forget evidence and focus on motives)

Note that I don't mean all beliefs about racism are like religion. Just the ones that are based on non-falsifiable arguments. And I'm not denying the existence of racism itself. Only the validity of asserting it exists through faith-based arguments rather than empirically-based arguments and logic.

I wonder how much of this has developed because we don't have much religion anymore. These beliefs may allow the same feelings of in-group belonging as Christian theology. And of course these Christian concepts are part of Western culture so they are familiar and easy to apply in new areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3071  
Old Posted Yesterday, 11:10 PM
wg_flamip wg_flamip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
This is my understanding based on the video:

- Modernism refers to a school of thought where science, reasoning, facts, data, industry, etc., are given primacy, and religion is given a limited role. This went on to form what we think of as "liberalism" in the broadest sense, as in "liberal democracies". Modernism is Western Enlightenment thought.

- Post-modernism is a reaction in to Modernism. The main thing about post-modernism was going against grand narratives. For example, Marxists have a 'story' about the world. People who follow religions have a 'story'. For post-modernists, even the modern outlook that epmhasizes science is just another 'story'. This has a lot of implications. For example, most forms of nationalism are grand narratives; as is marxism; capitalism, etc. Also they didn't believe in objective truth and believed in moral relativism.

- The issue with 'deconstructing' these stories and objective things was that there was nothing that post-modernists were really doing. It's pretty nihilistic so can't use it for change.

- Post-modernism then evolved into the 'woke' movement we see today. They hold a lot of the same questioning of traditional grand narratives, moral relativism, no objective truth, etc., except that they posit the existence of power structures in every society. And these power structures have different axis; so for example feminists posited the patriarchy, a gender system that everyone participates in and is affected by and disproportionately in a manner favorable to men. Another example is systemic racism, a race system ... favorable to Whites.

These systems are presumed to be truthful and all phenomena can be analyzed from that perspective. It's like Marxism, which at first blush you may think is just an economic system. But the epistemology, metaphysics, etc. of Marxism can be applied to virtually all phenomena. E.g., you can study say, a religious riot, from the Marxist perspective by considering the class differences involved in the riot.

This is why it sometimes feels like people are literally on the hunt for things to be offended by. Critical race theory (the term used to refer to the ppl who study the race system) will look at almost everything from the angle of race, which to many feels sometimes unwarranted.

All of this has further evolved with the introduction of 'intersectionality', which tries to bind these different systems together. Although there are frictions involved -- for example, the post-modern look at gender (= gender is a construct; another grand narrative) can be at odds with critical feminism (= system of patriarchy exists and everyone is involved in it and disproportionately to the favor of men).
Modernism and postmodernism are infamously tricky concepts to define comprehensively, whether that be each on their own, in relation to each other or in relation to what came before and after. The terms are used differently across disciplines, schools of thought and by specific thinkers. Taking these varying definitions into consideration, however, we can formulate very general concepts of what each word tends to mean.

I would challenge you quite strongly on the idea that modernism is equivalent to Enlightenment thought or classical liberalism. Enlightenment thought is very much the idea of the individual as an observer of an objective external world, in which reason ought to be used to interpret experience.

There was, of course, a hugely profound shift following the Enlightenment that occurred before modernism developed: Romanticism. Although we can trace the evolution of romanticism back to Enlightenment thinking (e.g., through the development of sentimentalist philosophy and literature), it was in many ways a rejection of it. Instead of emphasizing the individual's role as rational observer, romanticism privileged the individual's emotional and subjective experience of the external world with a heavy emphasis on authenticity—authenticity of experience, of artistic expression and in sociopolitical organization (e.g., the authenticity of the national experience, of the rustic/folkish and of the blood-and-soil idea of culture).

As with the relationship between romanticism and Enlightenment thought, modernism grows out of romanticism while simultaneously rejecting it. This is especially true following WWI, which radically altered the West's understanding of itself and exposed (at least in many thinkers' minds) the decadence and destructive force of romantic understandings of the individual, the world, the nation, etc. Certainly, the notion of the sublime, of the glorious terror of experience, was rendered at best quaint by the horrors of the trenches and the legacy of shell shock.

Modernism, as opposed to Enlightenment thinking, has a strong focus on the individual's interior experience (e.g., the advent of stream-of-consciousness). Unlike romanticism, modernism begins to reject the notion of authenticity: the individual is not the authentic response to history but an agent capable of challenging and changing it. There is a definite sense of progress present, which comes to be tied to the idea of the genius avant-garde pushing social and cultural life ever forward. The experimental was privileged, especially given the rise of new materials and media (esp. notable on this forum regarding architecture). Reason and rationality aren't nearly as important as in the Enlightenment, and classical liberalism isn't really present at all; rather, modernism's experimentality and concern for shaping the future favoured various flavours of (largely top-down) city planning and intervention in the economy.

Postmodernism is likely the most poorly defined term here, possibly because we don't have the benefit of observing it and its legacy after the fact. As with the others, it largely grew out of what came before, and it's not exactly clear when (or even if) it diverged from modernism. It has its roots in the structuralism and poststructuralism of the mid-20th Century; certainly, semiotics is central to the postmodern understanding of the world. Essentially, there is no meaning aside from that which is signified by the symbolic order that we inhabit and reproduce through culture. This combined with postmodernism's tendency toward irony, sarcasm and political cynicism has opened it up to the criticism that it endorses nihilism and absolute moral relativism, though thinkers and creators that take those positions whole-hog are relatively few and far between, especially as time has gone on.

That said, there have been several persuasive arguments made that we've at least begun to leave postmodernism behind for what's been called postpostmodernism or the New Sincerity. While I can definitely see how intersectionality descends from a postmodernist (esp. poststructuralist) worldview, the increasing drive toward solutions-oriented political discourse, earnest artistic expression and an intolerance for "ironic" oppression/appropriation seems to be placing it farther outside the bounds of postmodernism as time goes on. Things mean things again, which is perhaps what's so off-putting about it all to earlier generations that grew up with strong pomo influences on their worldview (e.g., the "Why can't you people take a joke?" crowd).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3072  
Old Posted Today, 4:34 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Astineux
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada (see below*)
Posts: 45,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by wg_flamip View Post
Modernism and postmodernism are infamously tricky concepts to define comprehensively, whether that be each on their own, in relation to each other or in relation to what came before and after. The terms are used differently across disciplines, schools of thought and by specific thinkers. Taking these varying definitions into consideration, however, we can formulate very general concepts of what each word tends to mean.

I would challenge you quite strongly on the idea that modernism is equivalent to Enlightenment thought or classical liberalism. Enlightenment thought is very much the idea of the individual as an observer of an objective external world, in which reason ought to be used to interpret experience.

There was, of course, a hugely profound shift following the Enlightenment that occurred before modernism developed: Romanticism. Although we can trace the evolution of romanticism back to Enlightenment thinking (e.g., through the development of sentimentalist philosophy and literature), it was in many ways a rejection of it. Instead of emphasizing the individual's role as rational observer, romanticism privileged the individual's emotional and subjective experience of the external world with a heavy emphasis on authenticity—authenticity of experience, of artistic expression and in sociopolitical organization (e.g., the authenticity of the national experience, of the rustic/folkish and of the blood-and-soil idea of culture).

As with the relationship between romanticism and Enlightenment thought, modernism grows out of romanticism while simultaneously rejecting it. This is especially true following WWI, which radically altered the West's understanding of itself and exposed (at least in many thinkers' minds) the decadence and destructive force of romantic understandings of the individual, the world, the nation, etc. Certainly, the notion of the sublime, of the glorious terror of experience, was rendered at best quaint by the horrors of the trenches and the legacy of shell shock.

Modernism, as opposed to Enlightenment thinking, has a strong focus on the individual's interior experience (e.g., the advent of stream-of-consciousness). Unlike romanticism, modernism begins to reject the notion of authenticity: the individual is not the authentic response to history but an agent capable of challenging and changing it. There is a definite sense of progress present, which comes to be tied to the idea of the genius avant-garde pushing social and cultural life ever forward. The experimental was privileged, especially given the rise of new materials and media (esp. notable on this forum regarding architecture). Reason and rationality aren't nearly as important as in the Enlightenment, and classical liberalism isn't really present at all; rather, modernism's experimentality and concern for shaping the future favoured various flavours of (largely top-down) city planning and intervention in the economy.

Postmodernism is likely the most poorly defined term here, possibly because we don't have the benefit of observing it and its legacy after the fact. As with the others, it largely grew out of what came before, and it's not exactly clear when (or even if) it diverged from modernism. It has its roots in the structuralism and poststructuralism of the mid-20th Century; certainly, semiotics is central to the postmodern understanding of the world. Essentially, there is no meaning aside from that which is signified by the symbolic order that we inhabit and reproduce through culture. This combined with postmodernism's tendency toward irony, sarcasm and political cynicism has opened it up to the criticism that it endorses nihilism and absolute moral relativism, though thinkers and creators that take those positions whole-hog are relatively few and far between, especially as time has gone on.

That said, there have been several persuasive arguments made that we've at least begun to leave postmodernism behind for what's been called postpostmodernism or the New Sincerity. While I can definitely see how intersectionality descends from a postmodernist (esp. poststructuralist) worldview, the increasing drive toward solutions-oriented political discourse, earnest artistic expression and an intolerance for "ironic" oppression/appropriation seems to be placing it farther outside the bounds of postmodernism as time goes on. Things mean things again, which is perhaps what's so off-putting about it all to earlier generations that grew up with strong pomo influences on their worldview (e.g., the "Why can't you people take a joke?" crowd).
Funny you should mention that.

In my generation it is or at least was fairly common for men to use slurs and other stereotypes about even their closest friends of different backgrounds in conversations with them. What I mean is that a white guy might use slurs and jokes in a good-natured way with an Asian friend, and the Asian guy would fire right back.

I never did that and while it was not everyone who did it, it was definitely common enough.
__________________
*An assembly of shareholders that likes to pretend it is a close-knit family, in order to maintain access to grandpa's inheritance.

Still a really nice group of people to spend Christmas dinner with, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3073  
Old Posted Today, 6:16 AM
kool maudit's Avatar
kool maudit kool maudit is offline
five one foreigner
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 11,747
I think we should take a step back, though, and remember that we now have the privilege of enjoying a second 1960s, but without the art, music and fashion.

Less is more, amirite?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3074  
Old Posted Today, 11:07 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Astineux
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada (see below*)
Posts: 45,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by kool maudit View Post
I think we should take a step back, though, and remember that we now have the privilege of enjoying a second 1960s, but without the art, music and fashion.

Less is more, amirite?
But with social media!
__________________
*An assembly of shareholders that likes to pretend it is a close-knit family, in order to maintain access to grandpa's inheritance.

Still a really nice group of people to spend Christmas dinner with, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:14 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.