To be anti-postmodernism is to reject that the concept has legitimacy.
My respectful argument may seem like a curve ball but it's all me dino got.

To be anti-postmodernism is a rejection of things artsy-fartsy. It is a decision to be rational.
http://steve-patterson.com/postmodern...

It is crap.
http://www.onpostmodernism.com/art

An "opportunist"? Not so sure. Reaching the White House is the top of the opportunity list. Once reached, why would Trump make his own life difficult by fighting every battle in front of him? Could it be that while climbing to the top, as opportunity allowed, he has become sufficiently sick and disgusted of the system to devote the rest of his life and energy to correcting the wrongs? Of course, in the ways that he knows and understands. He is not a philosopher and is unlikely an intellectual; and his life-experiences have been opportunistic, for sure. But at this point, I don't think that he is seeking any "opportunities," at least in a financial sense. His actions suggest more of dedication and a drive to do what he believes is right, which is the opposite of the term "opportunist."

In the end, all of them are failed ideologies. The only true hero is one who uncompromisingly stands for values. And not just any values, but values which are true values. Philosophers and English majors alike can talk about anti-heroes and anti-anti-heroes as much as they want, but in the end they are all people I want to avoid - not emulate.

"The ad hominem that I have to toss out is: Isn't this stuff all government funded? "
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

The above point is valid.
Scientists paid by government do not care about science, they care about money.
Another motivation for the nonsense is the false altruism of 'saving the planet'.
Unlike the harm caused by bribery, there is no end to the damage that this mushy
headed do-goodism can cause.

'Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated;
but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience.'
CS Lewis

Those 'anti-climate change voices' of whom you speak know more science than the paid shrills
calling themselves climate scientists who have concocted what they call data, made up phoney
diagrams and analysis, and squelch even their fellow alarmist believers who may question the
gravy chain.

Had I any desire to venture into mexico, been there once, albeit limited, I wasn't impressed by what I saw. I'm certain there are nicer areas BUT the what I've seen and experienced of its people here make me sour to ever going into mexico for anything but a targeted short period of time. That said, I prefer the wall in hopes that it will prevent me from having to use lethal force against the sludge which illegally comes across the border with those hoping to make a better life, also illegally coming into the US.

Taking care of what's yours is self interest. You choose to marry, you choose to have kids (most times), you choose to own land, you choose to associate, etc. Why? Because you enjoy it and you favor the idea of MINE (possession, ownership). Taking care of that which you "love" is self-interest, about as as selfish as it gets.

The postmodernists point to every advance in science as "proof" that science is "always wrong" that scientists do not know and cannot know "truth."

The seed of that is Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. They go far beyond Kuhn's work, though, and take it show that all science is just a social narrative.

The anti-climate change people are in that mode. I do not mean the ones who point to the scientific errors, the actual data, and better models. Everyone with a brain agrees that the climate changes. Moreover, it is undeniable that cities are warm spots. (Thank goodness for the warmth...) Whether and to what extent human action causes "global warming" is a different question entirely. Most of all, for us here, is the question of what to do about it, if it is real. Just because Texas is turning into a desert is no reason to deny the people of Africa refrigerators and washing machines - or to deny ourselves all of the benefits of cheap energy.

Generally speaking, the anti-climate change voices who support Trump do not know the science. They do not care about the science. They denigrate all "university intellectuals" and "government supported research" without knowing or caring anything about the specific facts. They are "right wing postmodernists."

If John Galt were an "opportunist" he would have taken Mr. Thompson's offer to become economic dictator. President Trump is, indeed, an opportunist. Placing "those he loves and his interests above all else" is opportunism. It is not self-interest.

The other shoe already fell. We just have not heard the thud yet. His Wall will wall us in. His protectionism will reward inefficiency and cost us more. His infrastructure programs will mire us in 20th century roads on the ground -- built by the same old highway contractors -- that prevent transport to the Moon, Mars, and asteroids.

(PS: swim, swam, swum.)

They are not opposed to "pure rationalism." They are opposed to all rationality.

"Rationalism" in common language is similar to "realism" in common language. But in technical philosophy, they mean opposites. Rationalism comes from Descartes, Leibniz, and the continental philosophers of the 17th century i.e., the school of thought contrary to the "pure empiricism" of Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. Both are intellectual errors because each is necessarily incomplete.

Small-O objectivism is "rational-empiricism" and capital-O Objectivism advances from that 19th century school of thought: reason and reality validate each other; they are integrated and inextricable.

The Romantic Revolution failed on many fronts because of its erroneous assumptions. It succeeded in aesthetics. The proper form of it, though is called "romantic realism." See, for example the art sold at Quent Cordair Galleries http://cordair.com/ The works of Bryan Larsen have explicitly Randian subjects.

I suggested the original sources because you got sidetracked by following dictionary definitions. As painful as they can be, reading even erroneous claims first hand is better than reading about them, especially from their detractors. Consider Ayn Rand, for example.

You are correct: it is no accident that postmodernism as a label "is a degradation of the English language." As I said above, the word analysis was abandoned for "deconstruction." They take a watch apart completely to its constituent gears and bearings and then point to the absence of a watch as proof that watches do not exist. Rather than watches, though, they do that with reason, reality, and liberty.

I don't see Trump as having no values. I do see him, as I always have, as an opportunist who places himself, those he loves and his interests above all else. I can respect that.

I've never considered him anything but a NY moderate (a moderate-left) politically. I have to admit thus far I'm quite surprised. I still can't help waiting for the other shoe to drop. Even so, watching the leftist bug-out is both amusing and comforting to see...we're in a world of hurt as evidenced from the number of useful idiot suckling off Soros' teat and the multitude of coattail drones too stupid to reason how far from the pier (the Constitution) they've swam.

You have to begin with modernity. Though its roots are in the Renaissance, the modern world is the result of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment brought the Newtonian method to human affairs and politics and economics. The results include the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Classical liberalism promoted the rights of the individual, as being inherent in the nature of the individual.

Postmodernists reject all of that. They hate the Enlightenment.

If you want to dive deep into postmodernism, you need to read the original works of Paul Feyerabend, Jacques Lacan, Jacques Deleuze, and others.

The best criticism was the famous Sokal Affair. (I wrote it up for my blog, here: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20... but you can find it in many places online. ) And there is the Objectivist book by Steven Hicks.

I think of post-modernism as saying truth is unknowable because we understand the world using models that influenced by our values. They point out how craniometry found differences in brain structure among the races, and that was later disproven. I'm not sure if they call it disproven because I think they're saying since scientific paradigms are created by flawed humans with their own cultural values, we never really know anything. Claiming to be value-neutral is just a trick to legitimate ideas. So we should pick what our values tell, and if we make observations contrary to that we need to adjust our paradigm.

I see this as just giving up, saying since we might be wrong about something let's just make up the facts we want.

I have been wondering if President Trump and his supporters subscribe to some form of this for the past few weeks. I started thinking when I read on this msg board someone say the president's critics are going regret questioning the truth of facts because Trump can just as easily say "fake news" right back. This is based on the premise that truth is a political strategy completely unrelated to objective observation. I don't know whether the people who engage in this intellectually reject the concept of reality or are simply lying.