The Instigator
Paradigm_Lost
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Spiral
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Post-Modernism: A paper tiger

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,592 times Debate No: 3421
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (14)

 

Paradigm_Lost

Pro

"[i]The new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.

Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time.

A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble.

The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.

In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.[/i]" -- G.K. Chesterton

This is the face of post-modernism which lives in consummate contradiction-- moralizing absolutely about the falseness of a moral absolute, with an allegiance to nothing but its own self-congratulatory spirit. How succinctly Chesterton gets to the heart of matter by denuding rationalism of its rationality, exposing it to the light of actual reason -- something they so earnestly raise up as an idol, but fail to conceptualize.

If one looks for internal inconsistencies as a way of uncovering flawed truth claims, how does the post-modernist view deal with its own glaring contradictions?

If post-modernists applaud tolerance as a virtue to be sought after, how do they come to grips for their own intolerance of a view that must remain cogent with the law of non-contradiction -- that two opposing principles cannot both be simultaneously right?

If these debates are merely generalizations, then I am in favor of referring to post-modernism as a paper tiger.
Spiral

Con

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~ Ayn Rand

My opponent's premises:

1. postmodernism lives in consummate contradiction

2. If post-modernists applaud tolerance as a virtue to be sought after, how do they come to grips for their own intolerance of a view that must remain cogent with the law of non-contradiction.

(the rest is just fluff)

1. postmodernism lives in consummate contradiction.

Where scepticism is an artefact of modernism, in particular science as a way of gaining knowledge, it is differentiated to post modernism in a very important manner. Modernism (including scepticism) may be content for the acquisition of knowledge for its own sake, education for educations sake (liberal education). Postmodernism however asserts that thinking (knowledge) is only useful if applied "thinking is doing." This is why scepticism is wholly consistent within postmodernism. Science, knowledge (scepticism) provides the knowledge base in which to enact desired social change (postmodernism). Morality is the rule in which we live by that keeps chaos at bay and keeps everything functioning properly -- morality exists, but there are dismembered moral systems -- a sceptic's job is to debunk this trickery. Sceptics do not denounce everything or else they wouldn't know why they are denouncing it, for what reason. They are denouncing it for reason, throwing away smoke and mirrors for logic, and using logic and reason to do so. Logic and reason are natural, not man made at all, it is an application of what already exists.

Scepticism does not claim "truths" but seeks to explain the nature of existence in scientific terms; testing, retesting, exploring new concepts, ideas, testing theories, all of that is an attempt to explain the natural universe, all natural phenomena, including human behaviour. Truth is a subjective claim; explanation of natural phenomenon is not. Science is a way of "doing" of acquiring knowledge. It is not a claim of knowledge in itself. The theory of gravity is not a scientific "truth" it is an explanation of observable natural phenomena, and as such, subject to review and testing as new knowledge arises. The goal is parsimony of theory. A theory of everything, explains nothing. To not be sceptical to claims of knowledge, results in a blas´┐Ż acceptance of knowledge. No better than religion; believing simply because you are told to.

The irony of claiming "truth" within postmodernism is fully recognised by its proponents...like scepticism it does not seek to, and therefore the two are not in paradoxical existence. Scepticism does not seek to provide truths, only knowledge; postmodernism shies away from claiming truths, including the truth of its own position. "The difficulty faced by a philosopher who, like myself, is sympathetic to this suggestion- one who thinks of himself as auxiliary to the poet rather than to the physicist- is to avoid hinting that this suggestion gets something right, that my sort of philosophy corresponds to the way things really are. For this talk of correspondence brings back just the idea that the world or the self has an intrinsic nature." ~ Rorty

Derrida's (founder of deconstructionism and closely related to postmodernism) strategy for indicating the shortcomings of metaphysical thinking was to deconstruct texts. Derrida's deconstruction was a complex response to a range of twentieth century theoretical and philosophical movements including phenomenology, structuralism, and psychoanalysis. The deconstruction of Derrida was additionally a critique and continuation of Nietzsche's negative reaction to the same and Heidegger's deconstruction of philosophy and metaphysics. The twofold charge of Derridean deconstruction aimed to expose the problem of contained discourses and shift the boundaries of metaphysics. Through deconstruction Derrida sought to expand the conceptual limits of the meaning of the text imposed by metaphysics, preferring to discover meaning in the margins of the text through open semantic play and limitless interpretation. If meaning is contextual, there is no inherent "truth". This had further reaching implications; concepts of deconstructionism, postmodernism, entered art, literature, social theory, as seen in Lewis Carol's deconstruction of narrative forms and characterisations, Salvador Dali's deconstruction of visual art, and more recently Salman Rushdie's deconstruction of meta-narratives of Islam.

My opponent's paradox is no longer; postmodernism speaks of, uses, knowledge not truths; the irony of it being otherwise far from lost to its advocates. It is not at odds with scepticism, scepticism is the firm base of its operation, and the two are complimentary.

It is explained wonderfully here: "Deconstructionism relieves me of the obligation to be right...and demands only that I be interesting." ~ Stanley Fish

2. If post-modernists applaud tolerance as a virtue to be sought after, how do they come to grips for their own intolerance of a view that must remain cogent with the law of non-contradiction.

I have already accomplished answering the first premise. So now I will dismantle his second.

Tolerance in the face of the unreasonable is possible. That is the definition of tolerance, in fact: the ability to recognize and respect other belief systems; even the belief system of intolerance. Let me give an example: You can be an atheist and be tolerant of Christian beliefs. Unconditional love can love hate. Unconditional hate can hate itself. You can respect your own disrespect. Now let us put one of these into a cogent (and I will add valid) argument; unconditional hate is hatred of everything. Hate is a part of everything. Unconditional hate has hatred for hate --- below hate is a part of everything. Cogent does not necessarily equal valid. Chesterton's arguments are fatally flawed. They are cogent, yes, but they are not valid. Their premises are not sound.
Debate Round No. 1
Paradigm_Lost

Pro

"Postmodernism however asserts that thinking (knowledge) is only useful if applied "thinking is doing." This is why scepticism is wholly consistent within postmodernism."

Yes, skepticism is consistent with post-modernism, but to what end? If you are skeptical of everything, then as Chesterton says, "By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."

"Sceptics do not denounce everything or else they wouldn't know why they are denouncing it, for what reason. They are denouncing it for reason"

Yes, for a reason, which is to suit whatever agenda they desire, which is formulated as whimsically as the direction of a breeze. Its this kind of nihilism that leads to chaos, "not keeps it at bay." It is antithetical to logic and reason. And in that glaring irony lie by the humor and the tragedy of it.

Consider the nihilistic philosopher, those post-modernists, who spends countless hours philosophizing whether or not the universe has any meaning. He writes volumes of text about the meaninglessness of it all. We could assume then that he finds much meaning in the text. The mere fact that he is avidly pursuing meaninglessness is contrary to the point of his meaningful endeavor, is it not? It shouldn't take long to figure out that he actually prefers a meaningless existence and pursues it because he wants it to be so. He obviously finds comfort in the banality of nothingness so he can exonerate himself.

The post-modernist, in all of his nihilism, believes that there is no justification for any knowledge claims in an absolute sense. They believe that nothing can truly be known with any sort of veracity. It should not take long, however, to see the flaw in their basic premise. How can he even purport such a claim if he hasn't the ability to ‘know' that knowledge is unattainable? If nothing can be verified then he should not offer any solutions, being that it means nothing. What I mean to say is, if knowledge is unattainable altogether, then what gives him the reason to question my truth?

Similarly, the post-modernist who holds fast to the solipsist argument believes that the ‘self' is the only verifiable thing anyone could know. Ironically, these are often the same people who will argue with you for hours about reality, and what's more, morality. If they are only able to acquaint themselves with reality, strictly through themselves, then what is their justification for criticizing my reality? If they do not know if there is even knowledge apart from themselves then what are they arguing about? It is this kind of illogic that unwittingly pits his own beliefs against his own beliefs, as I said, "in consummate contradiction."

My opponent claims, "Scepticism does not claim "truths" but seeks to explain the nature of existence in scientific terms."

Here is evidence of the contradiction! You say that skepticism does not claim "truths" but seeks to explain nature in scientific terms. So then science, we can assume, is not truth? Or is it? How can you occupy two contradictory positions and still remain coherent? If science produces truths, how can you also deny truths? Again, consummate contradiction.

But let me give you and the reader greater insight in to this. David Hume, the prolific Scottish skeptic and philosopher once said, "If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, 'Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?' No. 'Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?' No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

This is what he is saying: He is saying that speculation and nothing apart from science or mathematics lead to any reason. Mind you, this was his way of testing for abstract reasoning. Do you see anything wrong with his statement -- with his test?

Quite simply, Mr. Hume just failed his own test.

Everything he said was neither scientific nor mathematical. It was philosophical statement; the very thing he asserted was without foundation. He has addressed the problem he wished to eradicate with the very weapon he uses to denigrate it with! He was a philosopher who philosophized on the worthlessness of philosophy itself! Commit it then to the flames, Mr. Hume, it is but sophistry and illusion.

Surely you can see the irony in that. And this is PRECISELY what I am talking about -- consummate contradiction masquerading as genuine logic and reason. This is post-modernism at its finest.
Spiral

Con

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~ Ayn Rand

It bears repeating.

Premises:
1.postmodernism lives in consummate contradiction

2.consummate contradiction masquerading as genuine logic and reason

"Yes, skepticism is consistent with post-modernism, but to what end? If you are skeptical of everything, then as Chesterton says, "By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."
Yes, for a reason, which is to suit whatever agenda they desire, which is formulated as whimsically as the direction of a breeze. Its this kind of nihilism that leads to chaos"

Let us be clear here. Yes scientific theory is sceptical. It is sceptical in the way that aids its own purposes of assuring its knowledge claims. Knowledge is not truth. The two are distinct. Truth is a subjective claim of knowledge. A sceptic retains scepticism, not as my opponent proposes as a meaningless endeavour for its own sake, but as check system against a knowledge base at its current level. Science must have falsification built into its processes. Scientific theories are an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. It is an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such explanations confidently but conditionally; it as their best available view, until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along. This is scepticism at its finest; there can be no claims of "truth" because it is still inherently falsifiable. It is not "antithetical to logic and reason" it is exactly that. It is not some process into chaos, it is a method whereby the sceptic maintains the credibility of its claim and seeks to gain further knowledge. To be otherwise is no better than the religious zealot proclaiming on the basis of faith.

The claim of nihilism:

"The post-modernist, in all of his nihilism, believes that there is no justification for any knowledge claims in an absolute sense. They believe that nothing can truly be known with any sort of veracity. It should not take long, however, to see the flaw in their basic premise. How can he even purport such a claim if he hasn't the ability to ‘know' that knowledge is unattainable? If nothing can be verified then he should not offer any solutions, being that it means nothing. What I mean to say is, if knowledge is unattainable altogether, then what gives him the reason to question my truth?"

Firstly let me point out that nihilism is not postmodernism. There is nihilistic thinking, in some respects, within postmodernism. It is an important distinction. Deconstruction (see first post) does not create claims of "no" truths as my opponent suggests, instead deconstructionism encourages texts, bound organisations the freedom of choosing realities. I have already explained it makes no claims of truth on its own position; it makes no claims of truth on others. Nihilism is an ontological (conceptual) position about reality, postmodernism is an epistemological (theory of knowledge) position about realities. And therein lays my opponents problem. The two are not in contradiction because they are not talking about the same thing.

The claim of solipsism:

"Similarly, the post-modernist who holds fast to the solipsist argument believes that the ‘self' is the only verifiable thing anyone could know. Ironically, these are often the same people who will argue with you for hours about reality, and what's more, morality. If they are only able to acquaint themselves with reality, strictly through themselves, then what is their justification for criticizing my reality?"

Once again, let me point out that solipsism is not postmodernism. Again there is some solipsist thinking within postmodernism, and once again, the distinction is important. Differences in the nature of reality between the two are again the resolution of any apparent contradiction. Solipsism is a position of metaphysical realities outside our own, postmodernism is not. The two are not comparable in this regard. My opponent has stated, I suspect without realising, the nature of postmodernisms epistemological position of reality; that it can be created through discourse, and is contextual. We are not talking about the reality of the physical world, or our understanding beyond that. Reality for the postmodernist is the self's view in context to the environment.

On Princess Diana's death:

"Diana had been said the people's princess'. The people were, of course, the British people. Television coverage brought viewers regular pictures of the nation's grief'. The Daily mail reported ‘national grief'. And ‘the nation', in unsurpassed millions, bought the pop singer's tribute which, with typical English confusion, identified the national whole with ‘England's green and pleasant hills'." – Here we have the creation of a nations grief through the discourse of artefacts within the society; media.

"As Diana becomes publicly beatified, so the former ambivalence in public views is resolved. It is hard to recall how different her opinion poll ratings were. Then she did not have a caring persona, which is now firmly part of contemporary mythology. According to Gallop, in December 1988, only 19 percent rated Diana as ‘caring' compared with 32 percent who rated Prince Charles as ‘caring'. Of course all this has decisively shifted (Billig, 1992. Talking of the Royal Family. London: Routledge). We have the direct construction of Diana as a 'caring' person. A reality created through the discourse of a society. Its "truth" is irrelevant; the point is, is that it is contextual and created. That is postmodernism.

"Here is evidence of the contradiction! You say that skepticism does not claim "truths" but seeks to explain nature in scientific terms. So then science, we can assume, is not truth? Or is it? How can you occupy two contradictory positions and still remain coherent? If science produces truths, how can you also deny truths? Again, consummate contradiction."

As already explained above, knowledge and truth, are distinctly different. The sceptic aims for understanding not a subjective label to that understanding.

"But let me give you and the reader greater insight in to this. David Hume,... Quite simply, Mr. Hume just failed his own test."

Firstly, Hume was not a postmodernist, he sat somewhere in between postmodernism and rationalism. To use him as an example of anything otherwise is a dead argument in this debate. Secondly and as an aside, Hume was talking about the use of religious arguments and morality and had applied a value to each of the arguments presented for the reasoning on this basis.

There is no contradiction here, logic and reason are fully compliant with postmodernism and with that, I will leave it up to my opponent to find once again, something where there is not.
Debate Round No. 2
Paradigm_Lost

Pro

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." -Ayn Rand

As brilliant as Ayn is in her own right, this certainly isn't true, unless of course frozen fire is somehow not a contradiction.

"Yes scientific theory is sceptical.

Let me quote what you've said again. You stated, "Scepticism does not claim "truths" but seeks to explain the nature of existence in scientific terms."

In one instance you use science as a tool for uncovering "truths" but in the next juxtapose it to skepticism, which is defined as, among other things:

The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.

I guess you would then have to define what truth means since you say truth and knowledge aren't synonymous. You either have knowledge of truth or not. That is either absolutely the case, or it is not. How can you explain this contradiction, which, really, only further solidifies my argument that such a belief system is riddled with logical fallacies.

"Nihilism is an ontological (conceptual) position about reality, postmodernism is an epistemological (theory of knowledge) position about realities. And therein lays my opponents problem. The two are not in contradiction because they are not talking about the same thing."

Postmodernism may not equate to nihilism any more that skepticism equates to postmodernism, but one is integral to the other. Think of it this way: All Floridians are Americans, but not all Americans are Floridians. It is the same with nihilism and postmodernism, as nihilism is the basis for its philosophical underpinnings. When you read Nietzsche it becomes axiomatic that one drives the other. An extreme pessimism is lauded by its adherents, but under the light of scrutiny, it is one gigantic contradiction.

Skeptics, or at least people who refer to themselves as such, are often skeptical for the sake of being skeptical. Its become cool not just to reason, but to be skeptical of everything. For them there is often this belief within them that they are more practical, more pragmatic, and more rational than many of their counterparts. But as Chesterton here is saying is that when one becomes a critic of everything, pessimistic about all things, they run the risk of losing the very thing they are trying to prove or disprove, for the very test it assumes to warrant that skepticism soon comes full circle to where you would be skeptical of skepticism itself! For if they maintain such notions, why not then just be skeptical of what the skeptic proscribes? It is with these kind of fundamental gaffes that the whole thing breaks down.

"Reality for the postmodernist is the self's view in context to the environment."

You state the above quote right after telling me that solipsism is not analogous to postmodernism. So then reality can change at the whim of a thought, I assume, schizophrenia be damned? If that is so, then reality is only within the opinion of each individual person. Yet, people have no problem saying that someone is absolutely right or wrong, all the while denying that truth isn't absolute, which, incidentally, is the case here. You are, presumably, attempting to instruct me on reality, and in essence, truth. Yet you also maintain that postmodernism teaches that reality is basically only in the eye of the beholder. That would mean that neither of us are actually stating any truisms, as truisms would not exist absolutely, save the fact that truisms not existing absolutely would itself be a truism!

Are you beginning to see why such a system of thought lives in that consummate contradiction?

"Hume was not a postmodernist, he sat somewhere in between postmodernism and rationalism. To use him as an example of anything otherwise is a dead argument in this debate. Secondly and as an aside, Hume was talking about the use of religious arguments and morality and had applied a value to each of the arguments presented for the reasoning on this basis."

Hume and Nietzsche were both arguably postmodernists in the way they viewed reality and truth, as they were very similar in their philosophical stances. Compartmentalizing them in to quaint little descriptions is not my intention. My intent is to expose how illogical their theories were on a foundational and basic level. Then again, if my reality says that Hume was a postmodernist, and yours says that he was not, who then arbitrates between the two?

Is there any more need to point out the innumerable contradictions and logical fallacies here? We needn't be bothered by semantics and word games to try and rescue that which should have died on the doorstep of reason long ago. It fails as a philosophical notion not just because of its weakness -- indeed it is much worse. It fails because it is antithetical to philosophy. In essence it is not another epistemological theory, but because it actually emasculates philosophy itself.

Thank you for the debate, Spiral. I look forward to future debates with you.
Spiral

Con

"As brilliant as Ayn is in her own right, this certainly isn't true, unless of course frozen fire is somehow not a contradiction."

Yes she is brilliant, and the correct contradiction would be a non-burning fire, not a frozen one. Thank you for making her statement stand out clearly.

"In one instance you use science as a tool for uncovering "truths" but in the next juxtapose it to skepticism, which is defined as, among other things:

The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general."

I never said "truth" was a claim of science. I said its purpose was to increase knowledge, and that truth is a subjective claim on that knowledge by others.

"I guess you would then have to define what truth means since you say truth and knowledge aren't synonymous. You either have knowledge of truth or not. That is either absolutely the case, or it is not. How can you explain this contradiction, which, really, only further solidifies my argument that such a belief system is riddled with logical fallacies."

Once again; science, scepticism cannot claim truth, which is an absolute statement, as part of its processes if it wishes to retain falsification.
Claim of truth: X person has a father and mother.
Remember, a claim of truth is an absolute, seems like a reasonable enough statement, however..
Claim of knowledge: X person can have multiple fathers or mothers.
The emphasis is on a lack of absolutes. A person may well have multiples of both.
Person X possible mothers:
Egg, surrogate, mother after hospital, later adoption, two lesbian parents, step mother

"Postmodernism may not equate to nihilism any more that skepticism equates to postmodernism, but one is integral to the other. Think of it this way: All Floridians are Americans, but not all Americans are Floridians. It is the same with nihilism and postmodernism, as nihilism is the basis for its philosophical underpinnings. When you read Nietzsche it becomes axiomatic that one drives the other. An extreme pessimism is lauded by its adherents, but under the light of scrutiny, it is one gigantic contradiction."

Again, the reason post modernism is not called nihilism/solipsism is because there are differences. Post modernism is not concerned with ‘all claims of knowledge' merely those concerning how people construct their own reality. You cannot use solipsist and nihilist arguments on the nature of reality, when postmodernism does not fully ascribe to them. You certainly cannot claim contradictions on the basis of truths when postmodernism asserts none. It does not assert its own position is correct, merely says this is what we can do. It does not say another position is wrong, it says but we can look at it from another way. Is that nihilistic pessimism? I don't think so.

"Here is evidence of the contradiction! You say that skepticism does not claim "truths" but seeks to explain nature in scientific terms. So then science, we can assume, is not truth? Or is it? How can you occupy two contradictory positions and still remain coherent? If science produces truths, how can you also deny truths? Again, consummate contradiction."

Repetition appears to be the order of the day. Your own definition says sceptics do not claim truths, yet you challenge that, and once again science is a method of doing something, it cannot make a claim as itself. It cannot inherently claim an absolute truth and be called science, and it does not. Science does not produce truths, it produces knowledge.

"You state the above quote right after telling me that solipsism is not analogous to postmodernism. So then reality can change at the whim of a thought, I assume, schizophrenia be damned? If that is so, then reality is only within the opinion of each individual person. Yet, people have no problem saying that someone is absolutely right or wrong, all the while denying that truth isn't absolute, which, incidentally, is the case here."

How solipsism is not analogous to postmodernism:
Solipsism: Reality is from the self; the self is 1, that 1 is stable
Postmodernism: Reality is created through interaction; interaction is through multiple sources/contexts, a person may have multiple contexts.
Claims of a schizophrenic philosophy just highlight my opposite's lack of understanding.

"You are, presumably, attempting to instruct me on reality, and in essence, truth. Yet you also maintain that postmodernism teaches that reality is basically only in the eye of the beholder"

Well call me a scarecrow...1. i am not instructing you on reality, I am debating using the epistemological view of postmodernisms reality 2. I am not saying postmodernism teaches anything; that would be a claim of truth. Please refer to the multiple times I have stated that postmodernism shies away from exactly that.

"Hume and Nietzsche were both arguably postmodernists in the way they viewed reality and truth, as they were very similar in their philosophical stances. Compartmentalizing them in to quaint little descriptions is not my intention. My intent is to expose how illogical their theories were on a foundational and basic level. Then again, if my reality says that Hume was a postmodernist, and yours says that he was not, who then arbitrates between the two?"

If you wish to "expose" Hume and Nietzsche, then by all means do, in a separate debate. Your opening post: "If these debates are merely generalizations" We are not here to debate individuals by your own premises; the fact that we may have separate views (realities) on where exactly Hume sits on the scales of rationalism and postmodernism merely gives a salute to the view held within postmodernism itself.

With all summation we can, I hope, both agree that it is the end of the debate and this, my opponent, is a knowledge.

My thanks for an interesting debate. May you continue with appealing topics.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ghegeman 8 years ago
ghegeman
a true clash of titans this one
Posted by tigersandgreenweather 8 years ago
tigersandgreenweather
You people confuse me -_-" I have no idea about some of this stuff.
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
*laughs* Nicely done, Ragnar. Good to see more objectivists on the site.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
The premise that no contradictions exist in reality is silly if you think about it, because of course they don't exist in reality -- that's the whole point of a contradiction"

It's silly because it's true?

"
I don't, however, think that is what Ayn was referring to. She was saying that if you think you have a contradiction on your hands, check your premises, because there is no such thing as a contradiction. Evidently there is, conceptually since its obvious they can't exist in reality. Afterall, that's the whole point!
'

Fallacy of reification, which caused you to just contradict yourself. "Exist" means "exist in reality," a whim or a falsehood is fundamentally different from the truth, and so a contradictory idea is not itself a contradiction in reality, i.e. the assertion of a does not absolutely prevent the assertion of non-a, it simply prevents such an assertion from being rational.

Just because a poor concept is being argued for or believed does not make the reference of the concept exist.

By the way you sound like a post-modernist :D
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 8 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
"Frozen fire exists in reality?"

The premise that no contradictions exist in reality is silly if you think about it, because of course they don't exist in reality -- that's the whole point of a contradiction. The point of a contradiction is that, well, it contradicts actuality. That's the point, though. People state contradictions all the time, but posit them as if it is not a contradiction, and therefore present their claim (insert claim _____) as if it were an actuality.

So when someone says that fire can be frozen, obviously that is a contradiction. If someone posits that such a thing can actually exist, they are in contradiction. And obviously that is what they are in fact asserting, since no one would assert something positively unless they believed it were actually possible. (Well... either that or they are trolling.) :)

I don't, however, think that is what Ayn was referring to. She was saying that if you think you have a contradiction on your hands, check your premises, because there is no such thing as a contradiction. Evidently there is, conceptually since its obvious they can't exist in reality. Afterall, that's the whole point!
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Come to think of it, the statement "Contradictions do not exist in reality" does not contradict "Post-modernism is a contradictory ideology," so long as the ideology is not an accurate reflection of reality.

And if contradictions did exist in reality, Pro's position would be meaningless, so I don't know why Pro wants to dispute it...
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
As brilliant as Ayn is in her own right, this certainly isn't true, unless of course frozen fire is somehow not a contradiction.
"

Frozen fire exists in reality?
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
I wouldn't call contradicting thinkers philosophers *frowns* That's a rather big insult. It's a title we throw around where we shouldn't.
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
by "--- below" I meant to add a conclusion line below "hate is a part of everything". My bad :)
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Argumentum ad nauseum. Bad.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by revleader5 8 years ago
revleader5
Paradigm_LostSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by lisaamey 8 years ago
lisaamey
Paradigm_LostSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
Paradigm_LostSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SteamPunk 8 years ago
SteamPunk
Paradigm_LostSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by artist_elitist 8 years ago
artist_elitist
Paradigm_LostSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ghegeman 8 years ago
ghegeman
Paradigm_LostSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by MaxHayslip 8 years ago
MaxHayslip
Paradigm_LostSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by b3rk 8 years ago
b3rk
Paradigm_LostSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by tigersandgreenweather 8 years ago
tigersandgreenweather
Paradigm_LostSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
Paradigm_LostSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30