Is postmodernism a pseudo-philosophy?

This resource is a wikidebate, a collaborative effort to gather and organize all arguments on a given issue. It is a tool of argument analysis or pro-and-con analysis. This is not a place to defend your preferred points of view, but original arguments are allowed and welcome. See the Wikidebate guidelines for more.

Some claim postmodernist philosophical writing (e.g. Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, and Lacan) to be pseudo-philosophy. Are they right?

Postmodernism is a pseudo-philosophy

Arguments for

• Pro Postmodernism was exposed by the Sokal hoax.. See also Wikipedia: Sokal hoax.
  • Objection This is far from conclusive, being a mere single incident, as suggestive it may be.
• Pro Postmodernism was exposed by Sokal and Bricmont book Fashionable Nonsense (published as Intellectual Impostures in the U.K.).
  • Objection Since the content of the book is not available online, the online reader has no way of putting this argument under stress by reviewing the book.
• Pro It is so by the duck test: if something looks like incomprehensible likely-meaningless text after first, second and third reading, there is a good chance it is meaningless text. The quotations from postmodernists given by Dawkins are suggestive.
  • Objection The problematic passages are not entirely void of semantics, and therefore, they are probably not entirely meanigless.
• Pro According to Britannica, postmodernism states the following: "Reality, knowledge, and value are constructed by discourses; hence they can vary with them. This means that the discourse of modern science, when considered apart from the evidential standards internal to it, has no greater purchase on the truth than do alternative perspectives, including (for example) astrology and witchcraft." More does not need to be said.
  • Objection Britannica is an Anglophone encyclopedia and it is not certain it gets postmodernism right.

Arguments against

• Con Postmodernism is not a single monolith and therefore, it is unlikely to be possible to show it to be pseudo-philosophy without analyzing its different strands one at a time.
  •  Comment One could respond to this by adding "largely" into the motion.
• Con One could argue that for something to be pseudo, it needs to have at least an appearance of the thing, here philosophy. It is questionable that these author create at least an appearance of philosophy.
  • Objection In so far as enough lay people and even professionals seem convinced they are dealing with philosophy, the requirement given by the prefix pseudo- seems to be met.

Further reading

• Postmodernism#Criticisms, wikipedia.org
• Special:Permalink/1059151113#Criticisms, 7 December 2021, wikipedia.org -- more criticism, e.g. from Hitchens
• Criticism of postmodernism, wikipedia.org
• Fashionable Nonsense, wikipedia.org
• Sokal affair, wikipedia.org
• Criticizing Postmodernism in Postmodernism, New World Encyclopedia
• Postmodernism, britannica.com
• Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins, physics.nyu.edu
• Why is postmodernism apparently so ill-perceived in philosophy of science?, philosophy.stackexchange.com
• Noam Chomsky Explains What’s Wrong with Postmodern Philosophy & French Intellectuals, and How They End Up Supporting Oppressive Power Structures, openculture.com
• Jordan Peterson on Postmodernism, Truth, and Science by Panu Raatikainen (Philosophy, Tampere University)
• Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity by Alan D. Sokal, physics.nyu.edu