Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Postmodernism is anti-reason and anti-modernity.
Is postmodernism also against the philosophy of naturalism, against the natural sciences and against technology?
Here I define postmodernism as an intellectual movement which questions the legacy of European Enlightenment philosophy and starts from Nietzsche, and goes to Heidegger, to the "French Theory" (Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Lacan).
As far as philosophy of naturalism - yes, all the thinkers you mentioned did not think naturalist / empirical / positivist philosophy () should be taken seriously.
As far as science and technology, the dominant trend is anti-scientific, with some interesting exceptions. I would say postmodernism is 70% anti-scientific, and 30% pro-scientific.
Nietzsche was pretty ignorant of modern science and technology, Schelling and Hegel lived 50 years before him, but they understood it better.
Heidegger was very anti science and anti technology. He thought that scientific / mathematical investigation of nature that Husserl was so excited about is artificial, it is a result of 2000 year long distortion of the understanding being. Authentic understanding of being is by looking at phenomena and how they unfold themselves to us in experience. Any other approach (especially Plato's forms / ideas) covers up being, and leads to mistaken doctrines such as scholasticism, platonism, modern mathematics and analytic philosophy. In "Being and time" he starts with Dasein, which is the foundation of ontology as he saw it, then there is the question of being as equipment, and finally there is being as substance, on which mathematics and modern science are based. This last way of accessing being is derived, artificial, and not primordial, we only get it when our equipment breaks / does not work as expected. Also Heidegger wrote an big essay on technology and all the negative ways affects everything.
Foucault was a Nietzsciean, and for him knowledge is always linked to power. Science is yet another way that the non-elites get oppressed. It is always hierarchical and dominant. Especially psychiatry. Technology is as such is oppressive, he would probably think of modern day IT as an extension of the all seeing eye. As far as I know he did not talk about modern physics / maths.
It is hard to classify Lacan as a postmodernist, and he was neutral towards technology. In seminar 3 he says that the Symbolic order does function in ways that resemble some advanced calculating machines (those early computers). He did not care about physics, but he was interested in topology, game theory and set theory.
Deleuze was pro-science. He was very knowledgeable in biology. He was against oppression and vertical control, but he was for "horizontal" technology that does not oppress. Interestingly, his concept of rhizomatic organization anticipates the internet. This de-centralized network is a perfect example of technology that Deleuze was for. In his Anti-Oedipus" he described humans as 'desire-machines'.
Derrida was not interested in the subject of technology, and it is probably safe to say his view was close to Heidegger's.
Nietzsche was questioning Christianity and not modernity. It was Foucault who rehabilitated his legacy after WWII when his reputation was mud. Personally, I think he should have left it there.
Post-modernity is not anti-reason but nor is it anti-modern. It questions modernity critically as it sees that as another grand narrative and it sees all grand narratives as suspect. It is a modern form of scepticism.
Post-modernity is not anti-technology but it critically evaluates our relationship with technology and especially the modern religion of eulogising technology as well as progress.
