The One Time Alan Sokal Completely Destroyed Postmodernism

If you are interested in a less "ranty" and more nuanced explanation of the developmental process of postmodernism and how it finally led to the unholy mixture between postmodernism and neo-marxism we see today, check out this clip from Stephen Hicks, a professor of philosophy at rockford university: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cuxEmy_Ipo&feature=youtu.be

"E=mc2 is sexist" ...and I spat my drink laughing

Postmodernists could build us missile defence by merely disagreeing with the conceptual framework of nuclear physics.

My dad became a postmodernist at 70 after his memory and good mind died.

Did you hear the one about the post modern mafia boss? He's gonna make you an offer you can't understand.

Postmodernists missed the elephant.

Postmodern thinking turned me into an empiricist.

I was introduced to Postmodernism in 1976 when I was 21. It was such obvious horseshit. I can't believe it lasted this long.

Postmodernism in a nutshell is recreational outrage.

I took an English and Media Studies degree in the mid-90's. One day, a lecturer told me that the text we were studying meant anything I wanted it to mean and that this applied to all language. This is when I realised that the course was garbage and so after my first year I left and studied English elsewhere. However, before I left, I bet a fellow student I could incorporate any random quotes into our next paper. I took a piece of discarded photocopying we found in the bin and I used it in the next paper - even before we'd seen the question: it received a first. Postmodernism is a case of those who have nothing worth saying, saying it with words that convince idiots that they are saying something profound.

I always think of Post-modernist thinkers and acolytes as victims of their own ridiculous practical joke. They’re all laughing manically at the world and each other but it’s been going on so long no one can remember what the joke was about. And now they’re scared because if one of them stops laughing and says ‘hold on a minute what they fuck are we laughing about??’ They might loose face. So they just hysterically laugh into eternity because to stop would suddenly give it meaning.

Clips such as this are wonderful encapsulations of what postmodernism is commonly taken to be: loose context and rapid-fire buzzwords in an ocean of self-righteous indignation.

One problem with the Sokal Hoax, as proof of anything, is that it is a one case study and it is not possible to conduct a statistically significant study based on his "experiment". It was a prank that exposed some bad practices of one journal, but does it bring a universal truth? I am not sure we can say that categorically.

I would be more inclined to take people 'destroying' postmodernism seriously if a) they showed any understanding of the philosophers they are criticising and b) if they understood that the idea that what is often called the 'postmodern conception of truth' is not that all beliefs are equally true, but that the standard for what counts as truth dependent on something else. I too can 'destroy' a position by strawmanning the hell out of it by relating it to famous philosophers whom I have never read. Look here it goes: "Everyone who beliefs in cultural progress is stupid, you know people that follow Hegel, because once the admins of the leading white supremacy forum did not realise that a troll was sharing fake information." I did it, I wrecked the vaguely, nondescript position of 'believers in cultural progress' by not mentioning any of the arguments they use, misrepresenting their position, taking a very particular and extremist group of people that I choose to make representative of this position, linking it to a famous philosopher who's work I have not read but I belief to be somewhat related to the topic because someone else once told me so and mentioning how in this group of people there was an outlet that was unable to check the validity of an article. By following these steps anyone can 'destroy' anything! Just add water!

This gets at the heart of epistemology. Really, what is knowledge outside of our own phenomenal experience? With that said, science is the best epistemological approach to knowing the noumenal world (in Kantian terminology); and post modernism is a sham.

Part of the issue here is a misunderstanding of the intention of most reputable postmodernists. The intention is not to doubt that there isn't some event really happening, but that the certainty of any one perspective is incomplete. Relativism has been around for millennia, but relativity and relational thinking has only more recently been accessible to the masses. "Post" modernity doesn't necessarily mean after the END of modernity, but having passed through modernity and learned something about modernity and its limitations.

Fun Fact: Dr. Sokal's paper was published on April 1, 1996.

I think that the main importance of postmodernism is its challenge to the metanarratives, I do agree with the postmodernist in this point.

Sadly, Post-modernism has only tightened its stranglehold on academia since Sokal's expose. One is reminded of Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer's Apprentice in Fantasia.

Oh gawd! He defeated the mighty strawman! :O