What we do know, is the term was first used in 1870 by John Watkins Chapman when he suggested a new style of postmodern painting as a way to depart from French Impressionism. Later in 1914 J.M. Thompson used the term to describe a shift in attitudes and beliefs towards religion. By the 1920's the term had been adapted to include a change in music, as seen by the dawn of the big band in the Jazz and Swing era. By 1940, the greatest generation had embraced postmodernism as its mantra, as it readied itself for the dark days to follow in the conflict of WWII.
One of the central problems to understanding postmodernism is in its historical context. The question that has dodged historians for years now, is the question, what is modern? Most people would start the modern era in 1492 when Columbus discovered the New World. So are we 500 years in the modern era? Obviously that can not be true, which runs us into a linguistic obstacle, one that has plagued mankind for thousands of years. If modern means today, then how can this not be the modern era? So then if today is modern, then 1492 cannot be, and yet it is, so how can both be true? This is the very essence of postmodernism, or what we call Russell's Paradox.
As Russell tells us, it was after he applied the same kind of reasoning found in Cantor's diagonal argument to a “supposed class of all imaginable objects” that he was led to the contradiction:
The comprehensive class we are considering, which is to embrace everything, must embrace itself as one of its members. In other words, if there is such a thing as “everything,” then, “everything” is something, and is a member of the class “everything.” But normally a class is not a member of itself. Mankind, for example, is not a man. Form now the assemblage of all classes which are not members of themselves. This is a class: is it a member of itself or not? If it is, it is one of those classes that are not members of themselves, i.e., it is not a member of itself. If it is not, it is not one of those classes that are not members of themselves, i.e. it is a member of itself. Thus of the two hypotheses – that it is, and that it is not, a member of itself – each implies its contradictory. This is a contradiction. (1919, 136)
The central belief of postmodernism is that the individual is confined to the subjective view of the world around them. That it is not possible through even the construct of language to find truth, because language itself is as subjective as person who speaks. Of course, this is nothing new, we find the same inherent flaws dating back to Zeno and the epic race between the tortoise and Achilles.
The [second] argument was called “Achilles,” accordingly, from the fact that Achilles was taken [as a character] in it, and the argument says that it is impossible for him to overtake the tortoise when pursuing it. For in fact it is necessary that what is to overtake [something], before overtaking [it], first reach the limit from which what is fleeing set forth. In [the time in] which what is pursuing arrives at this, what is fleeing will advance a certain interval, even if it is less than that which what is pursuing advanced … . And in the time again in which what is pursuing will traverse this [interval] which what is fleeing advanced, in this time again what is fleeing will traverse some amount … . And thus in every time in which what is pursuing will traverse the [interval] which what is fleeing, being slower, has already advanced, what is fleeing will also advance some amount. (Simplicius(b) On Aristotle's Physics, 1014.10)As we can see postmodernism is not so unique a thing as some would like to believe. In ancient times, it was called sophistry, in the modern era David Hume pushed the argument to its very limit with his writing on radical empiricism. However, the philosophy is attractive, because if language itself is subjective, then the postmodernist is never wrong. All they need do is deconstruct an argument, take it back a step, toss in an ambiguous term and they turn apples into oranges. Allow me to demonstrate this technique.
Would you like some juice? I have apples and oranges. Either one of them can be made into juice. Now you tell me, is it orange or apple juice?
Now I imagine when people read that, the response is that you didn't give me enough information to make a determination. Yes, that is true, likewise it is true that I am just playing a game with words to be deceptive. This is the very essence of postmodernism and its impact on the world.
If truth is subjective, then truth is what the individual desires it to be. As such, postmodernism itself is beyond truth, because it means whatever the individual desires it to be. There is an irony to this, because despite the subjective nature of postmodernism. it must face an objective truth. Postmodernism is just another sophistry guised in a new garb for a changing world. And it is in this this irony postmodernism fulfills its very premise, that truth itself is self-destructive.
