2 Answers

  1. The neighboring answer is exhaustive and generally correct, but. If by postmodern trends we mean not a certain school, but the currents of the postmodern era, then absurdism is the current of this particular era. Actually, the same school about which the neighboring answer is-it just grew out of an attempt to comprehend the reality that already exists around them, they did not invent postmodernism, they tried to describe it. Postmodernity, as an epoch in culture, begins no later than the Second World War, sometimes its beginning is placed in the late 19th century, but usually after the first World war. And absurdism is precisely a reaction to the post-war world. In this sense, it is a landmark phenomenon of postmodern culture.

  2. No. Absurdism is a kind of philosophical existentialism. Postmodernism is J. F. Lyotard, J. Derrida, M. Foucault, J. Baudrillard, J. Deleuze, F. Guattari, and so on. The origins of postmodernism are psychoanalysis (Z. Freud), structuralism (J. Lacan), neo-positivism (L. Wittgenstein) and neo-Marxism of the Frankfurt school (T. Adorno, G. Marcuse, M. Horkheimer). Postmodernism differs from absurdism by a large rejection of rationality, pluralism and relativism in philosophy. If in existentialism the existence of a person precedes the essence, then in postmodernism the person completely disappears in fragments of text, interpretations, and so on. The principles of postmodern philosophy are as follows:

    1. Pluralism as the absence of any integrating ideas (rejection of logocentrism). From the point of view of postmodernists, any single meaning imposed on reality is already “violence against reality”. Compare this with existentialism, which is dominated by a focus on the uniqueness of individual human existence, which precedes the “essence of man”within the framework of reality. Postmodernists would denounce such centering as” repression”, violence against reality.

    2. Agnoseologism(the term is mine). The point is that postmodernists generally deny a person the ability to know the world and reality. You can only know your own interpretation of reality. Agnoseologism differs from agnosticism, because in agnosticism we cannot know the reality of something because we lack data, and in agnoseologism (radical agnosticism) we cannot know it because we have no cognitive prerequisites for this. In existentialism, in contrast to agnoseologism, we see the rejection of” logical jumps”, that is,” dogmatization of human experience”, on the contrary, there is a certain gnosticism, the idea that life is inexhaustible, but the basic principle of life can be understood.

    3. Non-duality of cognition, rejection of binarity. Postmodern philosophy borrowed this position from Buddhism (reinterpreting it). In Buddhism, non-duality is a technique/practice of thinking that consists in mentally rejecting moral oppositions (good-evil, right-wrong, etc.), since moral oppositions according to Buddhism lead to fanaticism, attachment to the world, and so on. In postmodernism, the same principle was applied to the categories of theoretical thinking – “power-subordination”, “center-periphery”, “internal-external”, “freedom-necessity” and so on. Compare this with existentialism, which not only does not deny binarity, but its entire philosophy is built on binarity-existence-essence, life-death, man-world, world-God, and so on.

    4. Decentralisation in epistemology. Agnoseologism leads to “decentralization” – the subject of knowledge does not exist at all, it is an illusion like the object. There is a network of cognitive instances (Zh. Deleuze, F. Guattari), which is external to the individual (social relations) so there is no inner (intrapsychic instances), center or subject at all. In existentialism, there is certainly nominalism in epistemology (a bias towards recognizing each person individually as a unique center of knowledge), but there is no decentralization.

    5. Text as a representation of reality. This position is taken by postmodernism from structuralism and deepened. From this point of view, there are certain texts and interpretations of them in culture, but there is no single correct meaning and no single correct interpretation (see other principles). Reality itself is essentially transformed into a text, because see above agnoseologism says that we cannot know reality. Existentialism claims nothing of the sort, quite the contrary. Reality is divided into many sovereign fragments, but it is not the text that is the way of knowing reality, but the mind and feeling (intuition).

    So, no. This is not postmodernism. From my point of view, postmodernism is basically the disintegration of philosophical discourse, the rejection of genuine theoretical philosophy in favor of applied and practical ones. Within the framework of postmodernism, successful analogies have been found and even some interesting discoveries have been made, but all this does not outweigh the harm from the principles described above. In fact, the postmodernists themselves are united only in these five points, but otherwise they are very different and connect these points with other approaches, with structuralism (poststructuralism), neo-positivism (post – positivism), even with neo-Marxism (postmodern Marxism).

Leave a Reply