Challenging Postmodernism: Philosophy and the Politics of Truth

by David Detmer

According to proponents of postmodernism, one of the principal achievements of recent Continental philosophy is the rejection of the idea of "objective truth" in favor of the notion that truth is a social construct, which varies from one culture to another. This claim has given rise to heated reactions among philosophers of the Anglo-American analytic school. Their criticisms usually take the form of wholesale dismissals, which do not address the texts and arguments of postmodernists, and they almost always stem from a politically conservative vantage point, which is hostile to the generally leftist orientation of postmodernists. As a result, philosophical differences are frequently obscured by the conflict arising from differing political agendas.In this accessible, nontechnical discussion of the controversies surrounding the ideas of truth, philosopher David Detmer faults both the critics of postmodernism for entangling the philosophical discussion of truth with their disapproval of postmodernist political views, and the postmodernist critics of objective truth for the defective logic and incoherence of their critique. Unlike most analytic philosophers, Detmer engages extensively and directly with the texts of postmodernists. He provides substantial discussions of Husserl, Sartre, Rorty, and Chomsky, and also addresses the topics of journalistic objectivity, scientific truth, political correctness, and other timely issues. While sympathetic to Continental philosophy, Detmer nonetheless defends the idea of objective truth and attempts to show that doing so is a matter of considerable political importance.Detmer's thorough and lucid discussion will appeal to anyone who finds the postmodern rejection of objectivity and truth dubious and who is yet uncomfortable with the highly conservative political rhetoric of the loudest voices in the anti-postmodernist crowd.

Genres: Philosophy

354 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 2003

Reviews

[Lennie Wynker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good, but repetitive at times. Plus, you had to REALLY focus to fully grasp the author's argument. I just wish more people into social justice, who self identify as liberals or admire post-modernism would read it.

[Tyler Lane · Rating 2 out of 5]

Since I agree with Professor Detmer's dismissive attitude towards postmodernism, one must ask why I gave his book such a low rating. The answer is because this is a terribly written, endlessly repetitive book. First, to the extent that it challenges postmodernism, Detmer makes one essential argument ad nauseam: postmodernism, or the belief that truth is relative, either is restrictive of itself and therefore only applies to those who accept it (and is therefore pointless), or somehow grants itself a universal status as a truth, which is contradictory (and therefore doesn't pass the self-referential test). This is a crucial point, yet didn't require 350 pages. Yet Detmer, like many academics particularly in the humanities, is incapable of writing coherently, so takes the opportunity to make the same argument in as many convoluted ways as occur to him. Further, he simply cannot write a sentence without several asides that make you forget what the point was. Academics: please read Steven Pinker's Sense of Style.

That which doesn't make the point about the self-referential test is chock full of attacks on individual philosophers. Somehow, he also convinced himself or his editor that an extensive chapter on the Iraq War was related to postmodernism, though it doesn't occur to him that the term objectivity may mean different things in different fields (I do stats; I wouldn't tear apart a philosopher for using "significant" in a way that didn't refer to p-values). His interjection of political opinions is particularly irritating, as some of the most cogent critics of postmodernism are right-wing or libertarian (e.g., Thomas Sowell). Yet he rejects them, focusing on Noam Chomsky almost exclusively. He argues that Chomsky should be the focus since Detmer shares his progressive values and Chomsky's arguments could advance those causes. Chomsky is certainly an important thinker and has valuable insights, but I fail to see how his justification passes muster in philosophy (unless I'm right about the groupthink that permeates humanities).

Detmer's writing style seems par for the (academic) course, but do yourself a favour and break the mould: write coherently. It doesn't make you sound any less smart.

[Lane Wilkinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent little book that provides a wealth of ammunition to counter the incoherent positions of many relativistic/post-modern thinkers. I've always been appalled that some in the pomo crowd have appropriated Phenomenology and Existentialism (both of which explicitly refute relativistic thinking), so I especially enjoy the way in which Detmer applies the extensive anti-relativist arguments of Husserl and Sartre against Rorty.

A must-read for anyone looking for new tactics in the war against relativism.