Coping, hoping, doping and shopping. Do you do it?

[Homer]

4 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Well, you can teach those who do these things how to stop 😺

That's a bit like a person without a driving license teaching drivers how to avoid car accidents

[RakshaTheCat]

4 minutes ago, Homer said:

That's a bit like a person without a driving license teaching drivers how to avoid car accidents

What's wrong with this way of avoiding car accidents though? I use this one myself and it works great so far 😺

[Anthracite_Impreza]

34 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Who will want to change current system, when those with power to change it actually benefit from current one?

You'd be surprised. My stepdad is a very active advocate and the movement is growing by the day; I learnt it all off him.

 

36 minutes ago, Marcin said:

I don't like  'winner takes all' attitude and current mentality that losers should be punished even more for being losers (to motivate them to stop being losers).

Me neither. I just am not motivated by money, only doing things I see as good. It's caused me many problems financially (for many reasons I struggle with the contemporary workplace, disabilities being one), and yet I absolutely love my voluntary job.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

I do not know what any new models/systems being proposed say, but I suspect that they are just ideas embedded in lies, sleights of hand, myths and denial replacing other ideas embedded in lies, sleights of hand, myths and denial. In other words, more of the same.

 

One of the biggest sleights of hand in "economics" is that certain attitudes and behaviors that are culturally constructed are assumed to be immutable human traits. People can--and do--practice altruism, holism, cooperation, spirituality, intuition, etc. But for these "economic models" to work people have to be self-interested rational maximizers making marginal (as opposed to holistic, as in "How can the world be made a better place") choices. To assume that certain things are human nature when they are not, and to then force people to act according to such assumptions, is wrong no matter how many new models/systems are created.

 

Furthermore, I seriously doubt that these new models acknowledge things like how most of the wealth building under capitalism has been done with land and other resources that was stolen through dispossession, slavery, child labor, mass murder and genocide.

 

When a system is dishonest the fact that people do not know how it says it works is not really "the problem". The fact that they are not conscious of the lies, sleights of hand, myths and denial that such a system is based on is the source of our dysfunction.

 

Then again, we should probably not be surprised that a system of thought that asks things like "What is the marginal utility of lying on one's resume" is not concerned with the complete and honest truth.

[RakshaTheCat]

6 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

You'd be surprised. My stepdad is a very active advocate and the movement is growing by the day; I learnt it all off him.

Good to hear that. How do they plan to implement this change?

 

6 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Me neither. I just am not motivated by money, only doing things I see as good. It's caused me many problems financially (for many reasons I struggle with the contemporary workplace, disabilities being one), and yet I absolutely love my voluntary job.

So true! 😺

 

6 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

But for these economic "models" to work people have to be self-interested rational maximizers making marginal (as opposed to holistic, as in "How can the world be made a better place") choices.

It seems to be succeeding slowly turning people into that though, by making it the only way of survival.

 

14 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Furthermore, I seriously doubt that these new models acknowledge things like how most of the wealth building under capitalism has been done with land and other resources that was stolen through dispossession, mass murder and genocide.

Interesting point, true, I wonder if any of new models will ever acknowledge that.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

6 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Good to hear that. How do they plan to implement this change?

Currently it's a lot of education. My stepdad does a few seminars as well as online advocacy. I try to help out where I can, but I'm not good at this whole confrontation thing (despite what my online persona may suggest)

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

25 minutes ago, Marcin said:

It seems to be succeeding slowly turning people into that though, by making it the only way of survival.

 

25 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Interesting point, true, I wonder if any of new models will ever acknowledge that.

 

I strongly recommend anything from economic anthropology, particularly "Economies and Cultures: Foundations of Economic Anthropology", by Richard Wilk.

 

I strongly recommend "Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures", by Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri-Prakash. I read the 1998 edition.

 

Anything by Wendell Berry is also helpful. I have not yet read any of the work of Ivan Illich, but he is probably also a valuable source of ideas and inspiration for anybody trying to cope with the contemporary global status quo. 

 

If more people were educated about the world outside of "economics" enough people might see the destructiveness of their behavior; the fact that such behavior is the result of enculturation; and the many behaviors outside of their own culture that have been employed to meet people's needs. Enough people might see that things like work being segregated from the home is not universal. Enough people might be exposed to enough different ideas and practices to preserve the diversity of such ideas and practices and offer alternatives to the present dominant paradigm that are healthier for individuals, groups and ecosystems.

[Alawyn-Aebt]

21 hours ago, Marcin said:

Who will want to change current system, when those with power to change it actually benefit from current one?

The problem as I see it is the present economy (definitely in the USA, but also globally) is that it cannot continue in the long run as it is presently structured. Despite shortcomings, Marx's point that if workers are not paid enough they will not be able to buy what has been produced leading to economic stagnation and collapse (and in Marx's mind, hopefully Socialism after that) has not been rendered moot. There will be a time when those in power will want to change the present system because the alternative, economic collapse and maybe socialism, would be worse for them than compromise and modification.

21 hours ago, Marcin said:

Also, seeking profits seem to became `paperclip maximizer`, that maximizes profits just for the sake of it, without serving any meaningful purpose. But like I said, my understanding is limited.

You seem to have a fairly-good grasp on it, certainly there are ways in which people can manipulate money to create more money without actually producing or facilitating anything. 

20 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

One of the biggest sleights of hand in "economics" is that certain attitudes and behaviors that are culturally constructed are assumed to be immutable human traits. People can--and do--practice altruism, holism, cooperation, spirituality, intuition, etc. But for these "economic models" to work people have to be self-interested rational maximizers making marginal (as opposed to holistic, as in "How can the world be made a better place") choices. To assume that certain things are human nature when they are not, and to then force people to act according to such assumptions, is wrong no matter how many new models/systems are created.

The models use the basis of rationality purely because models would be useless without it, that being said economists regularly factor in non-rational features into their models, "animal spirits" as they were famously called by Keynes, are not forgotten. Marginal decisions are also only concerned with how to make the most with what is available given the options. One can still take the question, "How can the world be made a better place?" and, after figuring out what is available, can, by marginal analysis,

the most effective way of achieving the goal inserted into the marginal analysis model.

20 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Furthermore, I seriously doubt that these new models acknowledge things like how most of the wealth building under capitalism has been done with land and other resources that was stolen through dispossession, slavery, child labor, mass murder and genocide.

No economic model to my knowledge can fully and accurately describe that, beyond simply logical thinking as developed by Marx and others. That being said it is not purely a problem of Capitalism, USSR-Style socialism equally had similar mass murder, genocide, and dispossession. The centralized economy of ancient Egypt had all the same issues, but similarly we cannot accurately describe how much the economy is/was driven by pure exploitation.

19 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

If more people were educated about the world outside of "economics"

I think if people were more educated in general. Economics is merely the sector of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth, it is merely one part in complete education on how the world works. I tend to feel people are under-educated in economics, people often think they know, but many times they do not. The way new economic theories are treated (when they get featured at all) in the media is a case to point, MMT has been mentioned a few times, yet it is shrugged off as "socialistic un-American" without anyone actually knowing what it is. People often assume Capitalism was a natural outgrowth of humanity, yet cultures all over the world have had differing economic systems (what is of interest is Capitalism was better able to conquer the world, but there was nothing natural about it, it was simply a product of human-produced culture).

[RakshaTheCat]

1 hour ago, Aebt said:

 There will be a time when those in power will want to change the present system because the alternative, economic collapse and maybe socialism, would be worse for them than compromise and modification.

Maybe will get changed into some form of feudalism, or good old slavery?

 

1 hour ago, Aebt said:

USSR-Style socialism

It's funny that people often forget to mention that this was dictatorship. So in practice, it was one huge monopoly that served only itself. Hmm, isn't that what capitalism actually goes towards right now? One huge corporation that also controls government due to sheer wealth? This would be what USSR was.

[Alawyn-Aebt]

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

Maybe will get changed into some form of feudalism, or good old slavery?

Slavery, large scale, is a horrible economic idea, let alone the revolting morality of it. Since slaves are not paid they cannot purchase the goods they produce, leading to overproduction and under-consumption unless an export market can be found. Effectively it is what Marx warns capitalism as a whole will lead to, just sped up and compressed. 

 

Feudalism was based highly on loyalty to others and, though did not enslave, it restricted people so as to keep those in power in power, but Feudalism is usually an economic failure. Without getting too complicated, there is a reason why nations that abandoned Feudalism late industrialized late, Germany a prime example. Whereas England, which grew progressively more centralized since the Black Plague destroyed the fabric upon which Feudalism rested, was able to industrialized quickly and its citizens gained an increased standard of living from that industrialization. Nations today (usually in the Global South) that still feature Feudalistic tendencies are still struggling with the economic nightmare Feudalism brings/brought with it.

Germany and Japan were able to escape Feudalism and arrive in the 21st century in a very strong economic position, but getting there took a rocky road and ruthlessness.

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

It's funny that people often forget to mention that this was dictatorship. So in practice, it was one huge monopoly that served only itself. Hmm, isn't that what capitalism actually goes towards right now? One huge corporation that also controls government due to sheer wealth? This would be what USSR was.

That is true, hence why some have labeled the USSR technically a State Capitalist-system, or something along those lines. I tend to call it USSR-Style socialism and reserve the term State Capitalism for present-day China and Nazi Germany. USSR, China, and Nazi Germany all share some economic similarities, although there are some major differences. Since both China and Nazi Germany were avowedly Capitalistic I use State Capitalism to emphasize the Capitalist portion, while acknowledging that the State had a major part to play directly, via SOE's, government-sanctioned monopolies, cronyism, etc; one could also call this Dirigisme, to use a rarer and more dated term. As opposed to the USSR's economy, which was solely state-directed and controlled, which while calling themselves socialist (and economically a case might be arguable that it was socialism) certainly lacked the political and cultural aspects which Marx had envisioned. But in order to not confuse people more over the socialism-communism differences I concede that economically the USSR was socialism, although in its own particular form and not the one stated by Marx.

[RakshaTheCat]

1 hour ago, Aebt said:

Slavery, large scale, is a horrible economic idea, let alone the revolting morality of it. Since slaves are not paid they cannot purchase the goods they produce, leading to overproduction and under-consumption unless an export market can be found. Effectively it is what Marx warns capitalism as a whole will lead to, just sped up and compressed. 

Isn't overproduction and under-consumption what is happening right now? I mean, there seem to be way too much stuff produced everywhere.

Also, there seems to be way too much labor available, and it's probably going to get worse since people seem to be getting obsolete quite fast. So it might not be slavery per see, but if only option to survive (no more free land that can be stolen after all) is to 'sell' yourself into a 'wage slavery', then what is the difference?

 

As for USSR, can you even call that thing within it economy? I mean, there was money there obviously, but it worked more like vouchers to get a lunch from your company's cafeteria. Or like these gift cards that are becoming popular for some reason. Is it still real economy?

 

[Alawyn-Aebt]

40 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Isn't overproduction and under-consumption what is happening right now? I mean, there seem to be way too much stuff produced everywhere.

Yes and no. Yes, in some places, but we have a major breakdown in distribution. It allows industrial nations to throw away between 1/3-1/2 of all food while allowing other people in the world to starve. We really do not have overproduction or under-consumption on a global level, on a nation-wide level some nations do though. Sadly we have the resources to end famines, we have resources to better the lives of billions, yet the way our economy presently functions we choose not to do it.

43 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Also, there seems to be way too much labor available, and it's probably going to get worse since people seem to be getting obsolete quite fast.

If people are unemployed they are being underutilized, and that is by definition inefficient. In certain areas of the world certain sectors of work are transitioning away from people to robots, but a full transition will only happen far in the future. If people are unemployed it means the economy is not working to its best ability. Capitalism needs unemployment, meaning it is inefficient, but if we could change to a different form of economy, one in which people who wanted work could find work in a meaningful occupation, we would have no fear of unemployment and the accompanying dangers of poverty, feelings of uselessness, etc.

47 minutes ago, Marcin said:

As for USSR, can you even call that thing within it economy? I mean, there was money there obviously, but it worked more like vouchers to get a lunch from your company's cafeteria. Or like these gift cards that are becoming popular for some reason. Is it still real economy?

An economy is, by definition: the wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of the production, consumption, and distribution of goods and services. Anything dealing with the resources, wealth, production thereof, consumption thereof, and distribution thereof, is the economy. Your company cafeteria analogy is apt though, but it is still an economic system, just as much as the famed giving economies of the Pacific Northwest Native Americans were economies. They involved what amounted to excessive production of luxury goods, then throwing a party for your neighboring communities, then giving away the stuff to show power and prestige (many times those gifts would be deposed of quietly after the party by the receiver because it was too much stuff). This repeated with each different community within the tribe doing this for each other. It is odd to our ears, but it still is a method of organizing the production, consumption, and distribution of goods or services, therefore it is an economy.

[RakshaTheCat]

2 hours ago, Aebt said:

Sadly we have the resources to end famines, we have resources to better the lives of billions, yet the way our economy presently functions we choose not to do it.

So problem is more sociological then? Basically, who will care enough to change economy for something that could work better for most people? Wouldn't it have to be done globally though, since economy kinda became global? Can one country do anything about it? Is there a realistic scenario for that to happen?

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

5 hours ago, Marcin said:

As for USSR, can you even call that thing within it economy? I mean, there was money there obviously, but it worked more like vouchers to get a lunch from your company's cafeteria. Or like these gift cards that are becoming popular for some reason. Is it still real economy?

 

“Politics is who gets what, when, how.” -- Harold Lasswell

 

That sums up what an "economy" is.

 

An "economy" is simply a cultural construct through which physical and metaphysical things are consciously collectively manipulated to attempt to meet needs and wants.

 

Needs and wants can be met other ways, such as through spontaneous conversation; random discoveries; imagination; fantasy; etc.

 

One has to reckon with whatever economy within which he/she is functioning, but that does not mean that he/she cannot transcend it.

 

You can either work with the system, work against the system, or replace the system.

 

But to be effective you have to recognize that it is just a system and that people created it--it did not create people.

 

Do not fall deeper into the trap of ethnocentrism. Most people will tell you that ethnocentrism is having the attitude that one's culture is superior to others. But that is not what ethnocentrism is. Ethnocentrism is a lack of awareness of culture. It is assuming that the way your culture operates is the way that things are operating in all times and places.

 

Find the things that truly do transcend time, place and culture. Make the system subordinate to those universal things. Resist anything that attempts to or threatens to universalize anything that is relative, such as economic systems that people create and the "models" they create to justify them.

 

If you have ever wondered why postmodernism is vilified by many people, this is, more than anything else, probably why: it exposes things thought to be universal as the local; culturally constructed; servants to the interests of a privileged few; arbitrary; fleeting things that they really are.

[RakshaTheCat]

3 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

If if have ever wondered why postmodernism is vilified by many people, that is, more than anything else, probably why: it exposes things thought to be universal as the local; culturally constructed; servants to the interests of a privileged few; arbitrary; fleeting things that they really are.

What do you mean exactly by postmodernism? I've heard the term, but I thought it's just an art style?

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

5 minutes ago, Marcin said:

What do you mean exactly by postmodernism?

 

The criticism in philosophy and the social sciences of the assumptions, institutions, ideals, goals, etc. of the Enlightenment and modernity.

 

That is the only thing theorists who have been labeled "postmodernists" have in common. It is not an organized movement.

[Gloomy]

I’ve noticed a lot of people will get roommates or side jobs just so they can afford to buy more things. I know some people really do need to have roommates or multiple jobs in order to survive, but I have coworkers who have roommates and/or second jobs and yet they go to Starbucks all the time, go out and spend $10 for lunch all the time, drive new cars, etc. At the end of the day it’s their life and their money, but personally my free time and solitude are more precious to me than material things, so I’ll tighten my belt any way I can before I get roommates or a side job.

[Alawyn-Aebt]

17 hours ago, Marcin said:

So problem is more sociological then? Basically, who will care enough to change economy for something that could work better for most people? Wouldn't it have to be done globally though, since economy kinda became global? Can one country do anything about it? Is there a realistic scenario for that to happen?

Maybe, but sadly simply caring will not be likely to change things fast. If we could re-skew the table to be more equal I feel that has a better chance of working because people have known about poverty for eons, yet we rarely help. Out of sight out of mind. Yet money talks, if the global economy could be shifted in such a way that it is advantageous to those who have it all to care and support starving people I feel we could better bring about the necessary change. Naturally it would have to be done globally, the IMF, IRBD, IDA, IFC, MIGA, FSB, and the BIS (all the major macroeconomic institutions that keep the entire economy functioning) are in the best place to bring about this change. Some will not, but the IRBD, IDA, IFC, and the MIGA (which comprise with the ICSID the World Bank Group) would have the most reason to since their mission is to end world poverty. One nation might not be able to bring this about, but a few nations coupled with a few organizations of the present economic infrastructure could bring about this change without requiring a revolution.

 

Even though it is might not be the most likely, there will come a time when either the house of cards will collapse, or the house of cards will require to be re-dealt, out to everyone. Given the choice between the two those in power would most likely choose reform over risking revolution.

16 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

That is the only thing theorists who have been labeled "postmodernists" have in common. It is not an organized movement.

As you know POMO, I have disagreed with your stance on postmodernism (well other things too...), but could you explain to me why I should support a movement that directly rejects the concept that any actual truths exist? If someone tells me to disregard everything else, I feel I should disregard them too. Can you explain how to rectify this conundrum for me?

Also postmodernism is a unified movement in some fields, even if it is a broad movement.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

I am not aware of any thinker/theorist in any time within any paradigm who said/says "Truth does not exist".

 

I would have to see the work where that is said before I could comment on it.

[Zagadka]

On 7/25/2019 at 6:21 PM, Marcin said:

• Do you dope yourself by using various performance-enhancing or performance-replacing substances?

I don't know how accurate it is... but the only reason I don't regularly smoke pot is because I'm on enough actual meds and my psychiatrist would kill me. I've extensively researched local options (it is legal here) and been a car ride away from going back to it all. My pipe is still on my shelf, though i haven't used it in a decade. I had enough of a time deciding to start drinking again. I have experience, i know what happens to me, I get happy and stop caring, which is great. It isn't for everyone, but it is for me.

 

I probably wouldn't do anything other than pot though, at least alone. I would absolutely love to go back to college. It does make me happy and I have enough experience with sadness and anxiety. I don't get the buzz off of "hoping" or "shopping", but I know what I enjoy.

[RakshaTheCat]

@ZagadkaDo you think your need for a pot or those fancy meds from your psychiatrist is caused by something external? Like, do you think if your circumstances changed, you could do without them?

[Zagadka]

@MarcinI've done (mostly) without pot for over 15 years, but my psych meds have changed my life and you couldn't pry me off of them. I am absolutely terrified of losing medical coverage and going back, and I am absolutely not apologetic for that. 20 year old me would be upset that I'm so attached to medication, but it is really a cornerstone of life that no one should avoid from stigma.

[RakshaTheCat]

1 minute ago, Zagadka said:

@MarcinI've done (mostly) without pot for over 15 years, but my psych meds have changed my life and you couldn't pry me off of them.

If they are good for you then that's perfectly fine of course, no one is trying to deny it 😺

[Zagadka]

Just now, Marcin said:

If they are good for you then that's perfectly fine of course, no one is trying to deny it 😺

That's the thing. When I was young (before 25ish), I totally rejected psychiatric medication in some misguided concept of purity and experiencing life and feelings. I am now dedicated to saying that it is OK and removing that stigma. I know exactly how I thought when i was young.

[RakshaTheCat]

25 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

That's the thing. When I was young (before 25ish), I totally rejected psychiatric medication in some misguided concept of purity and experiencing life and feelings. I am now dedicated to saying that it is OK and removing that stigma. I know exactly how I thought when i was young.

Glad you've managed to fix that then. Stigma might be reinforced by people getting meds only to cope with their terrible lives. My guess is that psychiatrist won't tell someone "uhh, sorry, but your life is so terrible that nothing can help you...", so they end up prescribing meds by default to everyone.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

I have never consumed alcohol or used tobacco or drugs. I never will.

 

I have taken anti-depressants--not to "cope", but because the professionals taking care of my health decided I should--and was not impressed. Meanwhile, the sexual side effects (I was miserable in public because my libido suddenly dominated my conscious existence; and it was embarrassing at times when, against my wishes, it showed; the only relief was to be at home alone with a book, some music, or something else to redirect my energy to) led me to ask to be taken off of the medication. I have avoided the stuff ever since then and will do my best to avoid it the rest of my life.

 

I do my best to avoid pharmaceutical products of any kind.

 

One of the most important changes in my life has been transcending consumer culture. Be a tourist in your hometown. Go for a quiet walk and connect with nature. In conversation bring up something new you discovered in history, philosophy, science, theology, etc. There are plenty of ways to thrive outside of consuming the products of the tourism industry, the entertainment industrial complex, digital technology, and other industries that distract us with endless mass-produced products and advertising. I will say it again: do not let the system control you; either subvert the system and use it to do good, change the system, or replace the system. Whatever you do, it is a 24/7, 365 days a year job.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

Look at what a Google search for "narcissism" and "capitalism" yielded:

 

http://www.palim-psao.fr/2018/07/all-the-lonely-people.narcissism-as-a-subject-form-of-capitalism-by-peter-samol-in-krisis-4-2016.html

[Alawyn-Aebt]

On 7/30/2019 at 5:31 PM, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

I am not aware of any thinker/theorist in any time within any paradigm who said/says "Truth does not exist".

Jean-Francois Lyotard's statement in The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, “I define postmodernism as incredulity towards meta-narrative.”

Meta-narrative is a comprehensive underlying concept regarding the universe or some feature thereof, and while I understand questioning meta-narratives is positive, they might turn out to be correct and true, therefore treating them incredulously, rather than just skeptically, would seem closed-minded and possibly wrong-headed. By saying there are no meta-narratives then that would mean there are also no set truths that hold true all the time, rather only truths as society sees them. That would mean everything is a social construct, including Postmodernism itself, meaning what Postmodernism claims can be no more true than how society classifies people into genders, it is all a social construct.

I agree that many things are social constructs, but there are things that are true; this is one reason why Modernism rules the roost of science yet it must share space with Postmodernism in the social sciences and humanities.

 

Sorry to get your thread off topic Marcin, I just wanted to reply to POMO's question.

[RakshaTheCat]

2 hours ago, Aebt said:

Sorry to get your thread off topic Marcin, I just wanted to reply to POMO's question.

Don't worry about it. It's slow topic anyway so I think interesting discussions like that are not really detracting from anything. And if it gets long, can always ask mod to split it into it's own topic I guess 😺

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

1 hour ago, Aebt said:

Jean-Francois Lyotard's statement in The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, “I define postmodernism as incredulity towards meta-narrative.”

Meta-narrative is a comprehensive underlying concept regarding the universe or some feature thereof, and while I understand questioning meta-narratives is positive, they might turn out to be correct and true, therefore treating them incredulously, rather than just skeptically, would seem closed-minded and possibly wrong-headed. By saying there are no meta-narratives then that would mean there are also no set truths that hold true all the time, rather only truths as society sees them. That would mean everything is a social construct, including Postmodernism itself, meaning what Postmodernism claims can be no more true than how society classifies people into genders, it is all a social construct.

I agree that many things are social constructs, but there are things that are true; this is one reason why Modernism rules the roost of science yet it must share space with Postmodernism in the social sciences and humanities.

 

Sorry to get your thread off topic Marcin, I just wanted to reply to POMO's question.

 

I don't know.

 

It is difficult to find sources that treat postmodern theory fairly and objectively. Almost every source that addresses the topic treats the ideas and the thinkers with absolutely no respect. Such sources often have titles like "Fashionable Nonsense" that tell you right away that postmodernism is probably not going to get a fair trial.

 

I found one source online that does treat postmodern theorists and their ideas with the respect they deserve, but I lost it (restored my phone to factory settings, or something like that) and cannot find it again.

 

Until I am able to read the original work of Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, etc. I can't really say if their work has been strawmanned or if the criticism of it is valid. But then I would still only be reading someone else's translation.

 

However, I do feel confident in saying that their work is sociological, not epistemological. In other words, "truth is culturally constructed" is an assertion about the way people behave, not the nature of knowledge/reality.