Is it naive...

[Angela Harlem]

I mean rape and racism in the legal sense.

How many times has remorse turned into cries of rape?

How many times has someone in here said something racist, yet there are still many who supported it by saying it wasn't racist.

That's all I'm saying.

I know what you're trying to say, but isn't the example the actual black and white, and the way us faulty humans react and treat it the grey area?

 

[melon]

They walk away because they cannot make sense out of their own unshakable beliefs.

And I was told that logic and reason is the basis for progressive thought?

Don't confuse "postmodernism" with "progressive thought," because they have two distinctive philosophical origins. The latter has more in common with the futurist-leaning and "decisive" modernism.

In fact, critics of postmodernism have called it an utterly cynical and conservative philosophy. It looks disdainfully at social activism, arguing that change is not possible; while, in contrast to modernism, it also has a heavy dose of nostalgia for the past. You see this effect in how media tends to "reference" or remake older TV shows and movies, when music samples from older albums instead of creating completely new music, and when we have "revival" fashion trends, like when we say that the "80s are back in style!"

Like every philosophy, there's going to be the dark side. Modernism's dark side brought us eugenics and fascism, culminating in WWII. Romanticism and realism, in the 19th century, led to an unhealthy nationalism that also created war. I could probably go on, but these are the philosophies that have defined Western civilization over the last 200 years.

So with that, I think your response here is quite wrong. Having studied semiotics and postmodernism, I can tell you that you do tend to get a bit playful, academia-wise. That paradox just adds to the playfulness for them. That doesn't make their beliefs any less "unshakeable."

Melon

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I find Goldwater's quote to fit the glove of what I like to call Post-9/11 Modernism.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

So with that, I think your response here is quite wrong. Having studied semiotics and postmodernism, I can tell you that you do tend to get a bit playful, academia-wise. That paradox just adds to the playfulness for them. That doesn't make their beliefs any less "unshakeable."

And the fallacies of Post 9/11 Modernism have yet to be written, and as of now, may be determined by your reaction of Bush's decisions to invade Iraq/Afghanistan.

 

[AEON]

Do you think that also applies to the idea of special creation? Which is more false than instantaneous gravitation.

Like I said in another thread several months back - it is the only logical explaination for the Creatio Ex Nihilo problem.

 

[AEON]

Since we have so many self-proclaimed "absolutists" in this world, I'm no longer willing to abdicate decisiveness to the far-right.

Should the pursuit of knowing truth rely upon how many other people "claim" it?

It seems your argument above may be indirectly guilty of the ad hominem fallacy. That is - replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person/people presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

Something is True whether or not one person believes it or a billion people believe it. It is belief that changes, not Truth.

 

[melon]

Should the pursuit of knowing truth rely upon how many other people "claim" it?

It seems your argument above may be indirectly guilty of the ad hominem fallacy. That is - replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person/people presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

Something is True whether or not one person believes it or a billion people believe it. It is belief that changes, not Truth.

It's an interesting question, but it's kind of like the timeless question of the "meaning of life." If you believe in a Higher Power, it lends itself to believing that that same power has a universal truth. However, like the question of the meaning of life, to know the answer is to no longer be human.

In the meantime, the best we can do is create a fallible subjective consensus of what that "absolute truth" is. Indeed, many cultures have laid claim to "the truth," and, as a result, we've had widely different cultural practices over the millennia as a result of this. Even if you take the Bible as "absolute truth," give that same book to millions of people and you'll get widely different views of what that "absolute truth" is. That is ultimately why postmodernism made its claim about the illusion of "absolute truth," because it is technically unattainable in light of the fallibility of human thought. It is impossible to escape, no matter how thorough and how well-intentioned you are. With that, I never said that we shouldn't try and do the best we can.

Melon

 

[BVS]

No it isn't, contradiction means that one view best represents the facts and another does not.

Newtons ideas about gravity are contradicted by General Relativity, but they are not equally valid or balanced.

Objective truth does exist and there are times when people are simply wrong.

I maintain the internet is the pinnacle of the information age, ultimately a product of modernism.

You obviously missed my tongue in cheek U2 reference. It was a Zoo TV era slogan.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It's an interesting question, but it's kind of like the timeless question of the "meaning of life." If you believe in a Higher Power, it lends itself to believing that that same power has a universal truth. However, like the question of the meaning of life, to know the answer is to no longer be human.

The search for a meaning of life in the metaphysical is predicated on the assumption that life has a purpose; an obligation beyond self and to some higher cosmic order and that in itself seems to have no basis in reality. There's us; and a whole lot of empty space, our own mortality and a lot of meaningless suffering and joy - if we stop searching for the answer to a question that doesn't exist we may be more appreciative of what is here.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

It's an interesting question, but it's kind of like the timeless question of the "meaning of life." If you believe in a Higher Power, it lends itself to believing that that same power has a universal truth. However, like the question of the meaning of life, to know the answer is to no longer be human.

In the meantime, the best we can do is create a fallible subjective consensus of what that "absolute truth" is. Indeed, many cultures have laid claim to "the truth," and, as a result, we've had widely different cultural practices over the millennia as a result of this. Even if you take the Bible as "absolute truth," give that same book to millions of people and you'll get widely different views of what that "absolute truth" is. That is ultimately why postmodernism made its claim about the illusion of "absolute truth," because it is technically unattainable in light of the fallibility of human thought. It is impossible to escape, no matter how thorough and how well-intentioned you are. With that, I never said that we shouldn't try and do the best we can.

Melon

I don't think you should have to believe in a higher power necessarily to have a search for truth. But frankly, the search for moral confusion is rather popular nowadays. The enemies of the truth seekers are the cover-ups.

So while I believe there are absolutes, there is a lot left to unveil. I don't see any folly in how these two views cannot coexist. Unless of course you believe that they "absolutely" cannot.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

You obviously missed my tongue in cheek U2 reference. It was a Zoo TV era slogan.

It makes about as much sense as the "Evolution is Over" slogan. I love how the Zoo-TV era mocks the nonsense that is found in our pop culture.