Has postmodernism finally deconstructed itself?
I've read Heidegger and Khun, as well as some of Derrida and Foucalt. Their ideas appealed to me to some extent. But I think their ideas have started to wear thin and outlive their usefulness.
"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."
I think the biggest problem that postmodernism had was its over focus on words. As if it were practical to describe or "model" things with words alone.
You've heard that "a picture is worth a thousand words", right? I think this is a severe underestimate. I think, nowadays, a picture is worth around 20 million words. To add to that, I think a measurement is worth about 12 words per significant figure plus another 18 or so words due to the dynamic range of measurements available (more on that, if this discussion continues).
I think post modernism (and frankly all of the humanities, including philosophy) has limited its explorations to words...there are fringes that allow for visual and performance arts, but for the most part, the statements and their criticisms are verbal in nature. To the extent that that the words attempted to capture what was not well captured in words, the attempts were clumsy.
Modernists (in the postmodern characterization), made statements that were claimed to be either right or wrong. Postmodernists perhaps added two more categories, neither and both, or maybe decided that categorization is of no value what-so-ever. If this does not resemble solipsism to others, I don't know what will. Like solipsism, and modernism, for the claims of postmodernism is no real way to "prove" anything one way or another.
All of these differences are moot, in my mind, due to the lack of practicality in any of these endeavors, beyond some moments to pause for reflection. I say this because the questions of "is it true or false?", "is it good or bad?", and so on, are incredibly limited.
I think questions that resemble, "How close?' and "How far?" are quite a bit more flexible. Depending on the precision of your measurement or estimation, there are a great many possible answers...not just possible answers, but acceptable, and accepted answers. "The ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is 3" is accepted and acceptable in many contexts, as is "The ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is 3.14" and "The ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is 3.14159265359". If you wanted to use 3.2 instead, that wouldn't be so bad either.
If we allow numbers and measurements to have equal footing in meaning to words so that the numbers in all contexts meant something to people (the same way that 2 PM or $6 means something to people), and we allow a quantitative reasoning to have meaning (not reduced to a 2-bit multiple choice of words), I think we will recognize post-modernism to be the ridiculously limiting paradigm that it is.
What are your thoughts on my ideas above?