Total Posts:80|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Postmodernism question

stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 1:26:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am not claiming this to be true because I do not know for sure, but I have heard that postmodernist do not believe that truth is objective, but rather it is just a matter of perspective. Is this true?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 1:41:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Mayhaps :)
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 1:59:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 1:58:11 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/1/2012 1:41:52 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Mayhaps :)


Seems like you have no idea either haha

Do any of us really have an idea?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 2:09:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 2:03:22 PM, stubs wrote:

Do any of us really have an idea?

I just want to know how a postmodernist thinks. Not whether it is true or not.

I know. Or do I?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 2:27:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 2:13:28 PM, stubs wrote:
I know. Or do I?

Are you a postmodernist?

What is postmodernism?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 3:54:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 1:26:18 PM, stubs wrote:
I am not claiming this to be true because I do not know for sure, but I have heard that postmodernist do not believe that truth is objective, but rather it is just a matter of perspective. Is this true?

Postmodernism is not about whether truth is objective or not (although it is usually associated with relativism) because postmodernists see this as an irrelevancy, and the importance is who is saying something is true, and focuses on the 'I'.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 4:04:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 3:54:51 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/1/2012 1:26:18 PM, stubs wrote:
I am not claiming this to be true because I do not know for sure, but I have heard that postmodernist do not believe that truth is objective, but rather it is just a matter of perspective. Is this true?

Postmodernism is not about whether truth is objective or not (although it is usually associated with relativism) because postmodernists see this as an irrelevancy, and the importance is who is saying something is true, and focuses on the 'I'.

I just ask because I have a friend who claims to be a relativist and he says that truth is just a matter of perspective. So I asked him if that is just his perspective or if it's actually true. Because if it is just his perspective than it is trivial, but if he says it's truth than he is not really a relativist. Please tell me if I am missing something. Thank you for your help
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 5:08:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 4:04:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/1/2012 3:54:51 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/1/2012 1:26:18 PM, stubs wrote:
I am not claiming this to be true because I do not know for sure, but I have heard that postmodernist do not believe that truth is objective, but rather it is just a matter of perspective. Is this true?

Postmodernism is not about whether truth is objective or not (although it is usually associated with relativism) because postmodernists see this as an irrelevancy, and the importance is who is saying something is true, and focuses on the 'I'.

I just ask because I have a friend who claims to be a relativist and he says that truth is just a matter of perspective. So I asked him if that is just his perspective or if it's actually true. Because if it is just his perspective than it is trivial, but if he says it's truth than he is not really a relativist. Please tell me if I am missing something. Thank you for your help

Try this. Punch him in the face and take all his personal possessions. If he says what you did was wrong or complains about hurting him just say you thought it would be funny from your perspective. And that everything that he owns or will own should be given to you because from your perspective it is the right thing for him to do.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 5:13:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I just ask because I have a friend who claims to be a relativist and he says that truth is just a matter of perspective. So I asked him if that is just his perspective or if it's actually true. Because if it is just his perspective than it is trivial, but if he says it's truth than he is not really a relativist. Please tell me if I am missing something. Thank you for your help

Try this. Punch him in the face and take all his personal possessions. If he says what you did was wrong or complains about hurting him just say you thought it would be funny from your perspective. And that everything that he owns or will own should be given to you because from your perspective it is the right thing for him to do.

That's kind of my point, but I am not sure if this is what postmodernist in general believe
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 5:43:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 5:08:56 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/1/2012 4:04:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/1/2012 3:54:51 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/1/2012 1:26:18 PM, stubs wrote:
I am not claiming this to be true because I do not know for sure, but I have heard that postmodernist do not believe that truth is objective, but rather it is just a matter of perspective. Is this true?

Postmodernism is not about whether truth is objective or not (although it is usually associated with relativism) because postmodernists see this as an irrelevancy, and the importance is who is saying something is true, and focuses on the 'I'.

I just ask because I have a friend who claims to be a relativist and he says that truth is just a matter of perspective. So I asked him if that is just his perspective or if it's actually true. Because if it is just his perspective than it is trivial, but if he says it's truth than he is not really a relativist. Please tell me if I am missing something. Thank you for your help

Try this. Punch him in the face and take all his personal possessions. If he says what you did was wrong or complains about hurting him just say you thought it would be funny from your perspective. And that everything that he owns or will own should be given to you because from your perspective it is the right thing for him to do.

That doesn't affect how politics works, social contract theory, and Thrasymarchian power.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 6:34:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 5:08:56 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/1/2012 4:04:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/1/2012 3:54:51 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/1/2012 1:26:18 PM, stubs wrote:
I am not claiming this to be true because I do not know for sure, but I have heard that postmodernist do not believe that truth is objective, but rather it is just a matter of perspective. Is this true?

Postmodernism is not about whether truth is objective or not (although it is usually associated with relativism) because postmodernists see this as an irrelevancy, and the importance is who is saying something is true, and focuses on the 'I'.

I just ask because I have a friend who claims to be a relativist and he says that truth is just a matter of perspective. So I asked him if that is just his perspective or if it's actually true. Because if it is just his perspective than it is trivial, but if he says it's truth than he is not really a relativist. Please tell me if I am missing something. Thank you for your help

Try this. Punch him in the face and take all his personal possessions. If he says what you did was wrong or complains about hurting him just say you thought it would be funny from your perspective. And that everything that he owns or will own should be given to you because from your perspective it is the right thing for him to do.

I call this the "solipsist test."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 6:41:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
As far as I can tell, the only principle that links post-modernist art, literature, theory, philosophy, and film is the idea of purposefully recognizing the presuppositions of modern society and subverting them.

For instance, you throw some paint on a canvas or put sh!t on a toilet, and you're "pointing out" how societies view of art is weird.

Or, a post-modernist film tends to involve direct addresses to the audience and other means of breaking the fourth wall with the primary intent of focusing on some presupposition about film making (like the idea of a protagonist who changes).

Post modernist theory argues that any given epistemology is, when analyzed, no more valid than any other epistemology when it comes to interpreting the "thing in and of itself" and the "qualia" (they've got a hard-on for Kant). So, "science" and "empirical truth" are only "cultural narratives" with identical validity as, say, story-telling through generations or the use of gut intuition.

The process of analyzing narratives is called "deconstruction." So, when you hear about a postmodernist talking about "deconstructionism" they are essentially saying "let's decompose this into presuppositions and then challenge those."

Unsurprisingly, post modernist theory has almost zero pragmatic use. It's main purpose is to bring awareness of the presuppositions behind cultural narratives. They have no suggestion as to "solving it." They claim the opposite, that it CANNOT be solved.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 7:12:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 5:13:38 PM, stubs wrote:
I just ask because I have a friend who claims to be a relativist and he says that truth is just a matter of perspective. So I asked him if that is just his perspective or if it's actually true. Because if it is just his perspective than it is trivial, but if he says it's truth than he is not really a relativist. Please tell me if I am missing something. Thank you for your help

Try this. Punch him in the face and take all his personal possessions. If he says what you did was wrong or complains about hurting him just say you thought it would be funny from your perspective. And that everything that he owns or will own should be given to you because from your perspective it is the right thing for him to do.

That's kind of my point, but I am not sure if this is what postmodernist in general believe

The psychology or premise of the "Postmodernist" is to endlessly debate the blatantly obvious through the most obscure, convoluted means possible to ultimately come to no conclusion or no answer or no solution to anything and then forget what they were talking about.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
The_Fool_on-The-Hill
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 9:03:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. The failure of post-modernism is that to say that everything is subjective is to make an absolute objective claim about the world and all other mind.

2. They tend to completly confuse language with reality thinking that if they define something as such, it know becomes true. Like if I define myself as strong and intellegent some how these characteristics become a reality.

3. The only things really philosophical about it is the name. It tends to be more literature then anykind of question for knowledge.

4. Its incredibly selfish in nature. In that its more of a set up so you could never be wrong about anything ever, because its just relative.

5. Relative only makes sense in context that thier are others in the world aka objective world to be relative to.

6. As a body of knowledge it fails any test of progress. There is no new knowedge added to humanity which is not just relatively so. Many of these idea are dominent through out today. This relative ethics, and relative truth. I see it as being really harmfull and stunt in growth to over the over all progress to humanity..

It heavily relies of exclusive access for subjective support subjective truth. But this is countered:
For example I may take a walk by a meadow, and see a bunny. But I was the only one to see that bunny in the meadow that day. Does that make it true that the bunny being in the meadow was only subjectively true?? Nonsense! Your mind and all still exist objectively in the absolute/objective universe. Just because others can't see exactly in your mind doesn't give you free reign on making up anything you want to be true. Even though you thought and feelings are subjective they are within the objective world.

Post-modernist make a false dichotomy in assuming that Subjective and Objective are mutually exclusive, when subjectivity is in the objective universe. Many of the writers were people who didnt fit in well with the bias of the society at the time. So it was a way of altering the way you percieve the world to make them feel apart of it. As much as we sympothise and feel sorry, we must becarefull because in the end it turn out to be complete nonsense reasoning.

The message to take away is that we should be more tolarant to differences.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 12:13:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 1:26:18 PM, stubs wrote:
I am not claiming this to be true because I do not know for sure, but I have heard that postmodernist do not believe that truth is objective, but rather it is just a matter of perspective. Is this true?

Yeah, that's a general characteristic of the ideology. Postmodernism is an approach to and idea about life that excludes abstractions and emotive behavior. Therefore, all explanations for reality are expected to be empirical and based on the physical sciences; notable works in the area were authored by philosophers like Derrida, Nietzsche, Focault and Heidegger.

What's your interest?
The_Fool_on-The-Hill
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 12:34:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 12:13:46 AM, Ren wrote:
At 4/1/2012 1:26:18 PM, stubs wrote:
I am not claiming this to be true because I do not know for sure, but I have heard that postmodernist do not believe that truth is objective, but rather it is just a matter of perspective. Is this true?

Yeah, that's a general characteristic of the ideology. Postmodernism is an approach to and idea about life that excludes abstractions and emotive behavior. Therefore, all explanations for reality are expected to be empirical and based on the physical sciences; notable works in the area were authored by philosophers like Derrida, Nietzsche, Focault and Heidegger.

What's your interest?

No explaination are not expected to be externall empirical based. You are never outside your. But philosophy of mind had that covered and so do cognitive science, by simply including emotions thoughts and feelings as parts of empirical experience. After that thier is nothing left, its nonsense there is nothing less but set of personal opinions, that should really go into the category of critical lit, or theory.. It is that philosophy which has tarnished an hurt the credibility of philosophy all together because people and scientist assume its that garbage.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 12:45:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 12:34:21 AM, The_Fool_on-The-Hill wrote:
At 4/2/2012 12:13:46 AM, Ren wrote:
At 4/1/2012 1:26:18 PM, stubs wrote:
I am not claiming this to be true because I do not know for sure, but I have heard that postmodernist do not believe that truth is objective, but rather it is just a matter of perspective. Is this true?

Yeah, that's a general characteristic of the ideology. Postmodernism is an approach to and idea about life that excludes abstractions and emotive behavior. Therefore, all explanations for reality are expected to be empirical and based on the physical sciences; notable works in the area were authored by philosophers like Derrida, Nietzsche, Focault and Heidegger.

What's your interest?

No explaination are not expected to be externall empirical based. You are never outside your.

...?

But philosophy of mind had that covered

...existentialism?

and so do cognitive science, by simply including emotions thoughts and feelings as parts of empirical experience.

Emotions, thoughts, and feelings?

I think not.

In fact, it accommodates thought only. Feelings and emotions are excluded from consideration.

After that thier is nothing left, its nonsense there is nothing less but set of personal opinions, that should really go into the category of critical lit, or theory..

No... there's always hermeneutics and the physical truths we've figured out about reality. Those are objective. Postmodernity is kind of like philosophical agnosticism.

It is that philosophy which has tarnished an hurt the credibility of philosophy all together because people and scientist assume its that garbage.

Well, because it focuses on deconstruction of literature and the forfeiture of normative rules (resulting in anarchy or nihilism as a natural state). To many, that's preposterous.
The_Fool_on-The-Hill
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 2:16:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 12:45:30 AM, Ren wrote:
At 4/2/2012 12:34:21 AM, The_Fool_on-The-Hill wrote:
At 4/2/2012 12:13:46 AM, Ren wrote:
At 4/1/2012 1:26:18 PM, stubs wrote:
I am not claiming this to be true because I do not know for sure, but I have heard that postmodernist do not believe that truth is objective, but rather it is just a matter of perspective. Is this true?

Yeah, that's a general characteristic of the ideology. Postmodernism is an approach to and idea about life that excludes abstractions and emotive behavior. Therefore, all explanations for reality are expected to be empirical and based on the physical sciences; notable works in the area were authored by philosophers like Derrida, Nietzsche, Focault and Heidegger.

What's your interest?

First of all what I am saying is not really contrasting. What I said is after accounting for those Philosophy of mind, and cognitive science, there is nothing left to be found is postmodernism but merley sets of opinions. One philosopher having no better or holding more weight then another. Derrida, Nietzsche, Focault and Heidegger are all opinion based philosopher, that in the end only end up telling thier subjective opinion.

They are part of the obscure, un grounded, opinionated, non-progressional and unconclusive line of philosophy which stem from Hegel. That is after Kant the philosophy in the northern Europe Contenent split from its rational and epistemilogic Roots, but they kept the name but changed the game. This was called Contenental which later morphs into existentialism, and post-modern garbage.

While those off the North western Europian contentent such as England and america, southern europian kept on the original philosophers quest for knowledge.
This includes philosophy of mind, analytic science, Logic, cognitive science Psychology, which didn't even consider post-moderisn a philosophy at all.


and so do cognitive science, by simply including emotions thoughts and feelings as parts of empirical experience.

Emotions, thoughts, and feelings?


I think not.(great demonstrate)

In fact, it accommodates thought only. Feelings and emotions are excluded from consideration. (great demonstrate)

The Fool: Thats hilarious you actually deleted my mention of philospohy of mind at the beginning of the sentence you are referring too to try and make my argument fit your refutation.lol That is a DDO first for me. hahahahaahha. That was quite a BOLD move!. lol Pls look up cognitive science before responding to what it isn't..
. lol Which is a part of cognitive science.

After that thier is nothing left, its nonsense there is nothing less but set of personal opinions, that should really go into the category of critical lit, or theory..

Ren: No... there's always hermeneutics and the physical truths we've figured out about reality. (I think its safe to say that you have changed topics) Those are objective. Postmodernity is kind of like philosophical agnosticism.

The Fool: Write well when you know exactly what it is and they survive my argument come back. But the post-modern Kind. is exaclty what I mean. Its vague an unclear on what it is at all its nonsense. Maybe that is where you learned to formulate arguments. Because you sound post-modern most of the time. Thats is why you are so easy to refute.

It is that philosophy which has tarnished an hurt the credibility of philosophy all together because people and scientist assume its that garbage.

.
Ren: Well, because it focuses on deconstruction of literature and the forfeiture of normative rules (resulting in anarchy or nihilism as a natural state).
To many, that's preposterous.(what are you talking about, what is preposterios? what exactly are you responding too.)

The Fool: Again just the fact that we have to speak about in terms of what it focuses on rather then a clear understanding of what it is very problem. And yes it is why people are confused about what philosophy is because they end up thinking its a matter of opinion because it gets confuse with that liturature.

Even the title Post-Modernism is and attempt to define Modernism as older and somehow existinct, rather then it actually being true. Which a semantic fallacy of which the whole philosophy ends up being.

Ren if you are going to respond to me make sure you are addressing what I am saying, I gave a slew of arguments which cover what you are saying before you said them. Make sure to address them first.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 4:41:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 9:03:52 PM, The_Fool_on-The-Hill wrote:
1. The failure of post-modernism is that to say that everything is subjective is to make an absolute objective claim about the world and all other mind.

Except many postmodernists, such as Derrida and Lacan, do NOT say this.

2. They tend to completly confuse language with reality thinking that if they define something as such, it know becomes true. Like if I define myself as strong and intellegent some how these characteristics become a reality.

Except Kierkegaard specifically separates these things and discusses the value of ontology, and Derrida and Lacan do not do this, antirealists don't see this as a problem and postmodernism, again, does not comment on this field.

3. The only things really philosophical about it is the name. It tends to be more literature then anykind of question for knowledge.

postmodernism only deals with the name, or the I.

4. Its incredibly selfish in nature. In that its more of a set up so you could never be wrong about anything ever, because its just relative.

Again, postmodernism doesn't comment on relativism, Derrida and Lacan are objective postmodernists.

5. Relative only makes sense in context that thier are others in the world aka objective world to be relative to.

That's not a separate point.

6. As a body of knowledge it fails any test of progress. There is no new knowedge added to humanity which is not just relatively so. Many of these idea are dominent through out today. This relative ethics, and relative truth. I see it as being really harmfull and stunt in growth to over the over all progress to humanity..

Except you've misunderstood it, horribly, like many people as it is a complex theory.

It heavily relies of exclusive access for subjective support subjective truth. But this is countered:
For example I may take a walk by a meadow, and see a bunny. But I was the only one to see that bunny in the meadow that day. Does that make it true that the bunny being in the meadow was only subjectively true?? Nonsense! Your mind and all still exist objectively in the absolute/objective universe. Just because others can't see exactly in your mind doesn't give you free reign on making up anything you want to be true. Even though you thought and feelings are subjective they are within the objective world.

Except that Lacan and Derrida would agree with you, who are major figures of modern postmodernism.

Post-modernist make a false dichotomy in assuming that Subjective and Objective are mutually exclusive, when subjectivity is in the objective universe. Many of the writers were people who didnt fit in well with the bias of the society at the time. So it was a way of altering the way you percieve the world to make them feel apart of it. As much as we sympothise and feel sorry, we must becarefull because in the end it turn out to be complete nonsense reasoning.

Still not relevant to postmodernism.

The message to take away is that we should be more tolarant to differences.

The message to take away is that many people misunderstand postmodernism.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on-The-Hill
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 5:18:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 4:41:02 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/1/2012 9:03:52 PM, The_Fool_on-The-Hill wrote:
1. The failure of post-modernism is that to say that everything is subjective is to make an absolute objective claim about the world and all other mind.

The Sophist: Except many postmodernists, such as Derrida and Lacan, do NOT say this.

The Fool: Aggreed the don't post-moderism is not that clear at all. It incorparates many contraditions. but I am reference to the claim made by the jest of post-modernism on subjectivity, that the orginal question was about.

2. They tend to completly confuse language with reality thinking that if they define something as such, it know becomes true. Like if I define myself as strong and intellegent some how these characteristics become a reality.

Except Kierkegaard specifically separates these things and discusses the value of ontology, and Derrida and Lacan do not do this, antirealists don't see this as a problem and postmodernism, again, does not comment on this field.

The Fool: Kieregaard is 19th century Contenental philosopher( or rather opinionator) He contradiction him self over and over partly for effect and partly for philosophy. But as I said he leaves the orginal rational/empircal epistemilogical philosophy. The critique of pure reason by kant set the limit of what we could now from pure reason alone. This of course cuts out supernatural and spiritual explanation. From a rational stand point. Hegel reacts to things saying we could know everything. Kieriguard and the rest of the continental are in reaction to Hegel down untill Nietzsche. You miss the whole point if you take them out of thier historical context.

3. The only things really philosophical about it is the name. It tends to be more literature then anykind of question for knowledge.


Post-modernism deals with name or the I.

The Fool: the name is a Physical symbol which represense reasoning at least before Post-modernist. Its definition came from Plato. So there is nothing to talk about. A I said they make a symantic fallacy like you do.

Sophist a while back "the language does something to make the contradition right.' hahahhahahha

4. Its incredibly selfish in nature. In that its more of a set up so you could never be wrong about anything ever, because its just relative.

Again, postmodernism doesn't comment on relativism, Derrida and Lacan are objective postmodernists.

The Fool: I don't think you really need me to point out that Derrida and Lacan are not all of post-moderism. Seconly most of post-modernist does!..YOu must think . before you move. ;)

5. Relative only makes sense in context that thier are others in the world aka objective world to be relative to.

That's not a separate point.

The Fool: we its and argument I put it in simple language to make it accesible.

p1 Relative presupposes a relation
p2 thus to be relative there most be at least two things that objectivly exist.
p3 subjectivity is a relation between perceptions
c therefore these perceptions must different from each other and exist in the same world aka the universe. (there you go);)

6. As a body of knowledge it fails any test of progress. There is no new knowedge added to humanity which is not just relatively so. Many of these idea are dominent through out today. This relative ethics, and relative truth. I see it as being really harmfull and stunt in growth to over the over all progress to humanity..

Except you've misunderstood it, horribly, like many people as it is a complex theory.

The Fool: I havent misunderstood it, I was generalizing it. Nor have you been able to demonstrate that I have misunderstood it. Nore have you demonstrate that you understood it and all its complexity to show how complex it is. 'One bold assertion is as good as the next.' Hegel.

It heavily relies of exclusive access for subjective support subjective truth. But this is countered:
For example I may take a walk by a meadow, and see a bunny. But I was the only one to see that bunny in the meadow that day. Does that make it true that the bunny being in the meadow was only subjectively true?? Nonsense! Your mind and all still exist objectively in the absolute/objective universe. Just because others can't see exactly in your mind doesn't give you free reign on making up anything you want to be true. Even though you thought and feelings are subjective they are within the objective world.

Except that Lacan and Derrida would agree with you, who are major figures of modern postmodernism.

The Fool: again watch the language, being call majore figures that agree doesnt make the actuallity so.
e.g. a scientist will say that he is doing science and not philosophy. But he is building theories and designing experiments. And reasoning interpretations based from theories made to make sense of the observation. The only difference is the NAME science Vs Philosophy, yet there is not demarcation in reality. Get it . Words, physical symbols we use to describe realliy. Its a fallacy to treat the WORD as actaully refering and define the actual reality. They can be false symbols but reality can't be false.

Post-modernist make a false dichotomy in assuming that Subjective and Objective are mutually exclusive, when subjectivity is in the objective universe. Many of the writers were people who didnt fit in well with the bias of the society at the time. So it was a way of altering the way you percieve the world to make them feel apart of it. As much as we sympothise and feel sorry, we must becarefull because in the end it turn out to be complete nonsense reasoning.

Still not relevant to postmodernism.

The Fool: I don;t need to get example for you too know that you are responding of emotion and not reason at all. Sorry your argument wasn't good. Move on already.

The message to take away is that we should be more tolarant to differences.

The Sophist: The message to take away is that many people misunderstand postmodernism.

The Fool: You mean the message to take away is that post-modernism is not clear by any means at all. My original message was relating to the more recent post-modernism.
The_Fool_on-The-Hill
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 5:26:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just incase you had hope..

"Postmodernism postulates that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change. It emphasises the role of language, power relations, and motivations in the formation of ideas and beliefs. In particular it attacks the use of sharp binary classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial; it holds realities to be plural and relative, and to be dependent on who the interested parties are and the nature of these interests. It claims that there is no absolute truth and that the way people perceive the world is subjective"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Fool: you might complain about the source, but it does represent he most popular understanding. Its claim all kinds of philospher. which is the very problem. The more a word refers to the more vague and useless it is. Which is the Hallmark of post-modernism. Useless, and I think even harmfull.
The_Fool_on-The-Hill
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 5:37:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Recently the notions of metamodernism, Post-postmodernism and the "death of postmodernism" have been increasingly widely debated: in 2007 Andrew Hoborek noted in his introduction to a special issue of the journal Twentieth Century Literature titled "After Postmodernism" that "declarations of postmodernism's demise have become a critical commonplace"."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 5:38:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. The failure of post-modernism is that to say that everything is subjective is to make an absolute objective claim about the world and all other mind.

The Sophist: Except many postmodernists, such as Derrida and Lacan, do NOT say this.

The Fool: Aggreed the don't post-moderism is not that clear at all. It incorparates many contraditions. but I am reference to the claim made by the jest of post-modernism on subjectivity, that the orginal question was about.

The Quetist: Except you are making apples from oranges. Postmodernism does not comment on objectivism and relativism: it focuses purely on the 'I'.

2. They tend to completly confuse language with reality thinking that if they define something as such, it know becomes true. Like if I define myself as strong and intellegent some how these characteristics become a reality.

Except Kierkegaard specifically separates these things and discusses the value of ontology, and Derrida and Lacan do not do this, antirealists don't see this as a problem and postmodernism, again, does not comment on this field.

The Fool: Kieregaard is 19th century Contenental philosopher( or rather opinionator) He contradiction him self over and over partly for effect and partly for philosophy. But as I said he leaves the orginal rational/empircal epistemilogical philosophy. The critique of pure reason by kant set the limit of what we could now from pure reason alone. This of course cuts out supernatural and spiritual explanation. From a rational stand point. Hegel reacts to things saying we could know everything. Kieriguard and the rest of the continental are in reaction to Hegel down untill Nietzsche. You miss the whole point if you take them out of thier historical context.

The Quietist: Except that the disagreements between Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel and Kierkegaard, as well as Plato, Aristotle, and even going back to Thales on what we can know is one of the founding discussions of philosophy. Furthermore, you claim Kierkegaard does contradict himself, and you seem to have left this vital information of where he does so. If we know what 'contradictions' we are talking about, we can show how this contradiction is nonexistent. Furthermore, if we're going to say any philosophy self-contradicts, it is easily Kant, not Kierkegaard (moral degeneration, for example, contradicts categorical imperatives). However, if we knew more about Kant, we could probably expose this as a non-contradiction.

3. The only things really philosophical about it is the name. It tends to be more literature then anykind of question for knowledge.


Post-modernism deals with name or the I.

The Fool: the name is a Physical symbol which represense reasoning at least before Post-modernist. Its definition came from Plato. So there is nothing to talk about. A I said they make a symantic fallacy like you do.

Sophist a while back "the language does something to make the contradition right.' hahahhahahha

You're misrepresenting my case, again. Postmodernism deals with the "I" in claims, such as the claim "I should act morally", or "I should let justice be done".

4. Its incredibly selfish in nature. In that its more of a set up so you could never be wrong about anything ever, because its just relative.

Again, postmodernism doesn't comment on relativism, Derrida and Lacan are objective postmodernists.

The Fool: I don't think you really need me to point out that Derrida and Lacan are not all of post-moderism. Seconly most of post-modernist does!..YOu must think . before you move. ;)

The quietist: The majority of Britons watch Eastenders. That doesn't mean if you're British you watch eastenders. You need to understand that correlation =/= causation, a basic fallacy. You've made problems where they don't exist.

5. Relative only makes sense in context that thier are others in the world aka objective world to be relative to.

That's not a separate point.

The Fool: we its and argument I put it in simple language to make it accesible.

The quetist: The irony of that statement.

p1 Relative presupposes a relation

Unjustified.

p2 thus to be relative there most be at least two things that objectivly exist.
Unjustified.

p3 subjectivity is a relation between perceptions

Still unjustified.

c therefore these perceptions must different from each other and exist in the same world aka the universe. (there you go);)

Doesn't logically follow.

6. As a body of knowledge it fails any test of progress. There is no new knowedge added to humanity which is not just relatively so. Many of these idea are dominent through out today. This relative ethics, and relative truth. I see it as being really harmfull and stunt in growth to over the over all progress to humanity..

Except you've misunderstood it, horribly, like many people as it is a complex theory.

The Fool: I havent misunderstood it, I was generalizing it. Nor have you been able to demonstrate that I have misunderstood it. Nore have you demonstrate that you understood it and all its complexity to show how complex it is. 'One bold assertion is as good as the next.' Hegel.

The Quetist: See 'correlation doesn't equal causation'. And I very clearly have shown what postmodernism is, multiple times now.

It heavily relies of exclusive access for subjective support subjective truth. But this is countered:
For example I may take a walk by a meadow, and see a bunny. But I was the only one to see that bunny in the meadow that day. Does that make it true that the bunny being in the meadow was only subjectively true?? Nonsense! Your mind and all still exist objectively in the absolute/objective universe. Just because others can't see exactly in your mind doesn't give you free reign on making up anything you want to be true. Even though you thought and feelings are subjective they are within the objective world.

The Fool: again watch the language, being call majore figures that agree doesnt make the actuallity so.

Neither does the majority, but you've seemed to think it does.

e.g. a scientist will say that he is doing science and not philosophy. But he is building theories and designing experiments. And reasoning interpretations based from theories made to make sense of the observation. The only difference is the NAME science Vs Philosophy, yet there is not demarcation in reality. Get it . Words, physical symbols we use to describe realliy. Its a fallacy to treat the WORD as actaully refering and define the actual reality. They can be false symbols but reality can't be false.

Yes, words are descriptive, not prescriptive of the world, but are treated as prescriptive, something which postmodernism deals with.

Post-modernist make a false dichotomy in assuming that Subjective and Objective are mutually exclusive, when subjectivity is in the objective universe. Many of the writers were people who didnt fit in well with the bias of the society at the time. So it was a way of altering the way you percieve the world to make them feel apart of it. As much as we sympothise and feel sorry, we must becarefull because in the end it turn out to be complete nonsense reasoning.

Still not relevant to postmodernism.

The Fool: I don;t need to get example for you too know that you are responding of emotion and not reason at all. Sorry your argument wasn't good. Move on already.

The Quetist: I'm wondering why you've given no precedence to what postmodernism is.

The Fool: You mean the message to take away is that post-modernism is not clear by any means at all. My original message was relating to the more recent post-modernis

The Quetist: Irony much? Modern postmodernists follow Derrida in objective postmodernism. And yes, postmodernism is complex. I have stated this many time
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 5:41:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 5:37:47 AM, The_Fool_on-The-Hill wrote:
"Recently the notions of metamodernism, Post-postmodernism and the "death of postmodernism" have been increasingly widely debated: in 2007 Andrew Hoborek noted in his introduction to a special issue of the journal Twentieth Century Literature titled "After Postmodernism" that "declarations of postmodernism's demise have become a critical commonplace"."

Yes, postmodernism is now a popular idea, and so it is being criticised more now. So? To claim that postmodernism fails is, moreover, commonplace because of the ease to criticise proponents of postmodernism, as its foundations are in literature criticism, and people such as Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein, who believed poetry was better to explain philosophy than science. Therefore, it's easy to criticise it by simply saying it uses poetic language, and therefore pathos, and look over the logos of the argument.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 6:43:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 5:26:03 AM, The_Fool_on-The-Hill wrote:
Just incase you had hope..


"Postmodernism postulates that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change. It emphasises the role of language, power relations, and motivations in the formation of ideas and beliefs. In particular it attacks the use of sharp binary classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial; it holds realities to be plural and relative, and to be dependent on who the interested parties are and the nature of these interests. It claims that there is no absolute truth and that the way people perceive the world is subjective"

http://en.wikipedia.org...


"Postmodernism postulates that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change"
Is this just an apparent reality or is it absolutely true?

"It claims that there is no absolute truth and that the way people perceive the world is subjective"
Is this just how postmoderns perceive the world or is it absolutely true?
The_Fool_on-The-Hill
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 6:59:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 5:41:23 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/2/2012 5:37:47 AM, The_Fool_on-The-Hill wrote:
"Recently the notions of metamodernism, Post-postmodernism and the "death of postmodernism" have been increasingly widely debated: in 2007 Andrew Hoborek noted in his introduction to a special issue of the journal Twentieth Century Literature titled "After Postmodernism" that "declarations of postmodernism's demise have become a critical commonplace"."

Yes, postmodernism is now a popular idea, and so it is being criticised more now. So?

The Fool: You are underestimating my philosophical knowledge and I am over estemating yours. Its probably because you do know enought but you are not realizing how Huge of a gap there is still between us. Because we dont know what we don't know. (I don;t mean that as an insult, its my best understanding of the miscommunication between us) I have told you before that I am well versed in philosophy. I hate to say anything by authorty. But lets just say you would be a student in my class.

Post-modernism have been populare and the mainstray of philosohphy for a long time. That last non-postmodern popular philosophy was the logical positivists. Since them analyitic philosophy has pretty much been working on logic, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of science. Post-modernism has always been considered unclear. Its popularity it because to the presumed egoism. aka:

1. I am never really wrong.
2. my existence is all that matter.
3. I am anything I want to be.
4 I don't want people telling me what to do.
5 There are no objective ethics I can do what I want.
6. logic is relative so no body can be absolutly right.

This generates popularity by way of appealling inner selfishness of people. And it does it through irrational argument. Its is what has shaped western ideology for the last 150 years.

The failure of post-modernism is BRAND NEW. It is just starting to be recognized amounts intellectuals that its complete nonsense.

1. It tend to not really answer anything but instead redifine the definitions instead.

2. They often refer to science or the enlightment but they are using different definitions. So they are hardly ever really responding to anything.

3. Critical lit(is based from using arguments from the Critic of Pure reason)
That is where we get the term, critical as in critical thinking. However critical lit and post-modernism are not able to with critical thinking turnn on them. They tend to attack with it, and then defend themself by saying its all relative, but then ofcourse saying something as true anyway.

Sophist: The way it tries to get around rational it to redefine rational instead. Which is nonsense because we already have a definition from the rationalist.

Sophist: Neither of these philosophers are post-modern I don't know where you learned that garbage, but its in your best interest to unlearn it.:
Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein

The Fool: as I said Kierkegaard is responding to Hegels attempt to Rationalize religion. (you are either taking him out of context or you just don't know anybetter) Post-modernism is back labelling him. But he knows nothing about them. They a

The Fool: Wittgenstein is the farthest you could possible get from post-modernism. In fact he was the Arch Logical Positivist and hates post-modernis. Remember he only publish the Tractadus the INvestigations is taken from his personal notes and put together by Other people. All he says is language is more complex then he earlier proposed. He is then Post-humously by post-moderism advocates that have no idea of what they are talking about.

Sophist: Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein, who believed poetry was better to explain philosophy than science. (This line is just complete fabricated bullsh!t!!) and its faith based anyways. Who cared what they believed, its what they can support.

The Fool: Philosohphy is not to be read like the Bible. That is a good way to sniff out a theologin in hiding. ;)

The Fool: I just gave a clear example about philosophy and science being a false Dichotomy. If you still think they are really different then you need to learn alot more philosophy. Especially Modern and enlightenment philosophy. Not the spoon fed bullSh!t you are learning.

Sophist: Therefore, it's easy to criticise it by simply saying it uses poetic language, and therefore pathos, and look over the logos of the argument.

The Fool: who and what are you refering to in this senstence?? Stop using 'pathos' and 'logos' because you not using the words properly. I have mentioned this before. To somebody how understands them its looks like somebody just learned the words out of theasurus. Because your not using them properly in a sentence.

The Fool: your not getting its not new at all. It is he most popular thats why people confuse philosophy, but its on its way down and out. Its Sophism, in the precise sense that its faulty reasoning.