Everything is linked to economics and resources in my opinion.
— tilda-psychist

Would you be willing to expand on this? Specifically could you explain what 'everything' refers to? Also can you explain how you use the phrase "everything is linked" ? — Adam's Off Ox

Later on i replied with the following:

In short you admitted that objective truth exists. We could all argue which percentage of objective truth is actually really objective truth. Most people would argue relationships matter and then we could all argue how much relationships matter in relation to things that are typically argued to be practical matters (things completely separated from human relationships). As long as two people both agree that subjective truth and also objective truth exist, how much is left in an argument over post-modernism is up to how much energy the two people want to expend arguing/debate about it. Unless you have some side topic in relation to post-modernism, i have no reason to continue the debate at this point in time.

On a saddle an ant could travel all the way around the saddle and come back to the same spot. Are we sure the scientific method has been used to prove some of this stuff to show the shape of the universe? We are both aware that if you have a long equation with many variables, coefficients and constants, if just one variable is missing it can throw off the whole equation. I suppose it would be an act of faith for us to assume that in 10 years future Scientists will by and large agree with modern scientists.

↪tilda-psychist

So if the universe had positive curvature, it would be like a sphere- spatially finite/bounded, if you traveled far enough you'd eventually end up back where you started. But if the universe has either zero curvature (flat) or negative curvature (hyperbolic, so like a saddle), it would be spatially infinite- you could travel indefinitely far and would never return to where you started. So far as our best measurements go, the universe appears to be geometrically flat- so spatially infinite. — Enai De A Lukal

In a spatially infinite universe, would there be a center of the universe?

I am going to be 35 in November (am a Scorpio). Life seems harder and harder to fully understand as one gets older. It's almost as if death is saying "give up on truth before it's too late, but not before" — Gregory

I would argue its pretty hard to get killed. If you want to live a long life (as you well know there are no certainties) play video games, go to work and exercise. Driving a car is dangerous. Eating healthy helps too.

We have evolved to look as we are today through natural selective pressures in an environment conducive to life.

Few of our physical qualities are particular to humans. Generally, most traits are common to many species because they endure the same environments; intensity of sunlight, gravitational forces, composition of the atmosphere, abundance of certain elements etc. We have skin with certain UV absorbing pigments, hair for insulation, eyes at the front of our heads for hunting, the list goes on.

Now let's make an assumption for a moment. The assumption is that the exact conditions we observe on earth are the only ones that permit the emergence of life. That is to say that earth somehow fits with a very narrow and defined spectrum of conditions that will allow it to have biology.

The right amount of gravity, air pressure, magnetism, distance from the star and type of star etc.
Now if that set of conditions always leads to the same environmental pressures one could deduce that probably the same niches will develop and the same level and type of biodiversity will emerge in roughly similar order; unicellular- marine - amphibious - reptilian- mammalian and so on. Meaning that a humanoid niche will eventually emerge.

If that is the case shouldn't all aliens be very similar to humans; ie. Have hands, facial and body hair, similar skin etc. Thus is excluding their potential to be more advanced and genetically modified. I mean in a natural state, I think an alien would just look like another race of humans even if a bit peculiar perhaps. — Benj96

In order for an intelligent alien to rival us, i agree that they would have to be similar to us. However a derivative of cockroaches will probably out live humans in my opinion. This is in consideration of the premise "all things held equal". I think we assume very often what traits guarantee ultimate adaptability and cockroaches and things like cockroaches are the most similar to bacteria and viruses. Bacteria and Viruses are the best animals or creatures if you prefer the term creatures at survival. Once again this is in consideration of the basic premise of "all things held equal".

The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms" ---Socrates
— Gnomon

Is this even true? I like Hegel and he never defines his terms. He lets you figure the puzzle out for yourself. He wanted clear conceptions though the way Descartes wanted them, although Descartes was far smarter as a mathematician than Hegel. On the other hand, Hume and the Greek skeptics speak of a joy to be found through being very confused that I identify with. I don't know if it's moral to enjoy such a pleasure, but it seems natural to me and is part of my search for wisdom. Like Hegel, I want to know everything and nothing at the same time.

Enough..

I wanted to ask: is post-modernism simply relativism rehashed? Is it simply joy in confusion? — Gregory

The definition of 4 according to the dictionary is 3 + 1. You can probably guess what the definition of 2 based on that previous example.

Its hard understand more complex concepts if we don't have a partial or full grasp on more basic concepts.

Post-modernism is generally associated with a rejection of objective truth. I'm sure i'm missing something with that overly simplistic definition so you could probably get a better picture of post-modernism by using wikipedia.

As you might be aware anyone can alter or write up a wikipedia document. I used to use philosophy forums in my early 20s.

In short you admitted that objective truth exists. We could all argue which percentage of objective truth is actually really objective truth. Most people would argue relationships matter and then we could all argue how much relationships matter in relation to things that are typically argued to be practical matters (things completely separated from human relationships). As long as two people both agree that subjective truth and also objective truth exist, how much is left in an argument over post-modernism is up to how much energy the two people want to expend arguing/debate about it. Unless you have some side topic in relation to post-modernism, i have no reason to continue the debate at this point in time.

Are you familiar with Noah Harrari? He wrote a book called "Sapiens". If you don't feel like reading the first 4 chapters of his book then just watch 2 or 3 of his books on youtube.

He basically says humans were able to dominate the planet by embracing legal fictions such as money and human rights and also fictions such as religion.

I disagree with him on alot of stuff but i feel it should be required reading in highschool.

i certainly don't doubt that subjective truth exists. This may seem counter-intuitive but i would argue that embracing the concept that objective truth exists allows for the concept of the moral victory. On the other hand if we take the pursuit of objective truth out of hand it can destroy the concept of moral victory. I'm sure you would agree striking a balance in anything is important.
— tilda-psychist

I like where you're taking this. I don't deny objective truth exists, I just hold it to be a different (and a lesser) kind of truth than subjective truth.

I would disagree that the moral victory relies on objective truth. For starters, there are myriad conflicting moralities based on corresponding objective truths, which in turn, can do nothing to reconcile their differences. So, I can only surmise that when you mention the concept of the moral victory depending on objective truth, you are referring to a "might makes right" scenario in which the superior morality is capable of total domination, and of enforcing its ethics upon all others.

As I see it, the moral victory depends on subjective truth. That is to say, it does not come in one's subscription and adherence to personal principle or an ethical code, the moral victory depends on the decisiveness of the subject; the moral victory comes in the moment of choosing how one will act, and choosing rightly insofar as right is determined by subjective truth. — Merkwurdichliebe

You could probably argue that Hollywood sometimes promotes post-modernism. If it 10 years 90% of Hollywood or mass media movies promote post-modernism as well as far left liberal ideals, you could thus say that most of humanity has chosen a new set of subjective truths to be objective truths.

Considering economics and money and also resources is tied into everything, i believe this will happen whether i win this argument either way. I'm just cutting to the chase right now. I believe the conservatives have conservative options but they reject conservatism because they would also at the same time accept that their own biases are the main cause that our society is not conservative. I could sit here and argue with you about post-modernism but i believe our society's acceptance of post modernism stems from a lack of true conservatism among conservatives. Everything is linked to economics and resources in my opinion.

i'm taking the post down. I'm adding what you said to my journal. Thats fascinating. Send me a private message if you want to know why i took the post down. again.

I'm reading through what you wrote right now. Do you want me to repost the OP? I guess i'll go ahead and repost the OP.

I believe I am a subject, and I believe in other subjects, and though it is impossible to objectively prove that there is no such thing as subjectivity, I know Banno will try. One thing I do know, if you begin doubting subjectivity, you will eventually face yourself in solipsism, and such demonic masturbation I prefer to avoid. — Merkwurdichliebe

i certainly don't doubt that subjective truth exists. This may seem counter-intuitive but i would argue that embracing the concept that objective truth exists allows for the concept of the moral victory. On the other hand if we take the pursuit of objective truth out of hand it can destroy the concept of moral victory. I'm sure you would agree striking a balance in anything is important.

i can see why you believe this. Alot of what i believe stems from religion and to some extent pan-psychism and scientific determinism (~Fate).
— tilda-psychist

Same with me, my thoughts here are closely tied in to my religious belief. At the core of it, I believe anything in life is only related to anything else indirectly - through mediation. Yet I make one reservation (which I can only justify by virtue of the absurd): that there is actually one thing that can relate directly to other things in life (requiring no mediation), it is the subject (qua. the thinking, existing individual). — Merkwurdichliebe

i guess.

And if we're talking infinities, it is also consistent with a good body of empirical evidence that the universe is geometrically flat and thus (spatially) infinite. Once again, nature/reality not overly interested in our metaphysical prejudices- if it wants to be infinite, that's what its going to be and we can either get hip with it or gtfo. — Enai De A Lukal

I'm certainly not saying your wrong. When people say the universe is flat, does that imply it has a center or that it curves around itself and there is no center. I actually tried to look this up but couldn't find an answer, atleast not as of yet. Does that also imply if you head in one direction in the universe you'll end up back at the same spot or does that imply the opposite?

I believe absolutely everything can be quantified including the personality of people.
— tilda-psychist

Quantification is nothing more than mediation with mathematics. And since it is possible for the thinking individual to mediate anything in life, all it takes is a basic knowledge of mathematics for one to quantify shit.

I believe there is a connection between everything including apples and oranges (don't compare apples to oranges). Some things have a one to one relationship, some a linear relationship, some a inverse exponential relationship and some things an exponential relationship. Then you have things like bell curves. Ofcourse we have to also consider constants and coefficients.
— tilda-psychist

Everywhere I look, wherever I see a relation between two or more otherwise independent things, I see an imposition and a synthesis of convention - that is, every connection I see in life has been placed there in some manner by mankind. That is why I believe there is no natural and necessary relation between any two things in life, including the relation between a thing and its identity. Yet there is a practicality with convention, a dependabilty from its having been tested, and many conventions are so intuitive that their relating of things is practically seamless despite the fact that the relating of anything to anything else is essentially a process of mediation - an artificial relation. — Merkwurdichliebe

i can see why you believe this. Alot of what i believe stems from religion and to some extent pan-psychism and scientific determinism (~Fate).

We're pretty sure Dark Matter is a particle of some sort. Dark Energy may be the energy of space itself. How does materialism even begin to explain how moving electrons across synaptic gaps in certain ways gives rise to conscious experience? The only things I've been seeing lately are vague handwavings about integrating information or lame attempts to define conscious experience out of existence. There's been no actual progress on how non-conscious stuff can produce consciousness since Descartes.

Since we've known that brains produce consciousness for a long time now, shouldn't we be closer to an actual explanation? At what point do we begin to question the premise "brains produce consciousness"? Do we reject it if there's no explanation in 100 years? 1,000 years? 10,000 years*?

*by then the question will no doubt be "Does X produce consciousness?" where X is whatever machine we've invented to replace brains. — RogueAI

i agree. This is one of the reasons i've embraced pan-psychism. There are over 11 forms of pan-psychism.

I believe absolutely everything can be quantified including the personality of people.

I believe there is a connection between everything including apples and oranges (don't compare apples to oranges). Some things have a one to one relationship, some a linear relationship, some a inverse exponential relationship and some things an exponential relationship. Then you have things like bell curves. Ofcourse we have to also consider constants and coefficients.

If we started categorizing each of those 12 eggs and tried to fit each of those 12 eggs into a categorization system where there were 100 categories based on different features of those eggs, there would be at most 12 different categories for that dozen or perhaps all 12 fit into 1 category. The only way for 100 of those categories to be represented would be for there to be something like 8 or 9 categories. And yes i'm too lazy to do the math for how many dozen eggs it would take to meet 100.

Should most or all things be quantified, probably not, but i think it expands our own minds when we acknowledge that absolutely everything can be quantified. Have you ever played a game like World of WarCraft? That is a fairly complicated game and the truth of the matter is that game could be made a whole lot more complicated.

You have your 3d engine and all the various things related to the 3d engine. Then on top of that you have the extreme complexities dealing with role playing games and also modern role playing games. Once again the game could have been made alot more complicated. Are you familiar with the games Arma 2 and Arma 3? These are dynamic battle field games. In 100 years these games will be looked upon by some as simple. For me i'll probably never code games this complicated.

@Adam's Off Ox

true.

I think where we disagree is whether or not absolutely everything can be quantified including human personalities.
— tilda-psychist

I do disagree that everything can be quantified. How much do I love my daughter? How good is sex?

What is the likelihood my wife is angry tomorrow? What number measures her anger.

I don't believe mathematical models provide the same descriptions as qualitative observations.

Your post is 217.9134 true. — Adam's Off Ox

i'm not sure there is a point in arguing with you. Its not that you are dumber than me but that you don't see everything as a system.

I believe there is a connection between everything including apples and oranges (don't compare apples to oranges). Some things have a one to one relationship, some a linear relationship, some a inverse exponential relationship and some things an exponential relationship. Then you have things like bell curves. Ofcourse we have to also consider constants and coefficients.

The quickest way to become irrational is to reject the idea that objective truth exists. I'm sure i'll be accused of being irrational for whatever reason.
— tilda-psychist

I find you to be rational here. I think that for a postmodernist, rationality is not a requirement though.

I didn't see you respond to someone else in this way. I would have to argue we are in agreement not disagreement. Once again i only replied to your reply to me. I didn't see all the posts that were posted
— tilda-psychist

So if we never know the truth, exactly, what value is there in saying it is objective?

I'll explain my view a little further. I consider the things that we call true to be sentences. If you are saying something is true, you are referring to a sentence or text or model.

And when it comes to the sentence, we only compare the symbols of the sentence to some other phenomenal experience. We say the sentence is true because it jibes with experience. But then the true-ness is not a relationship with the thing-in-itself. We never arrive at noumena.

Now, you may say that you and I experience the same underlying thing, but that goes beyond what we can know. We don't even know we have the same experience of phenomena. All we have are the shared sentences that come between us.

But shared sentences with unverifiable phenomena or noumena are not a model for objectivity. We are merely comparing subjective experience. Here the term intersubjectivity better describes what we are modeling. We have to leave objectivity as unnattainable or at least unknowable.

I don't say "There is no objective truth," but rather just avoid using the word objective, where intersubjective is really what is happening. We can leave the discussion of the terms "There is" and "truth" for another time. — Adam's Off Ox

I think where we disagree is whether or not absolutely everything can be quantified including human personalities. I believe absolutely everything can be quantified. However i wouldn't argue that everything or even most things should be quantified.

All that being said NASA actually doesn't come to exact answers but they come closer to the truth than Chevrolet does when they pursue the truth.

If you are saying that the pursuit of what is commonly called the objective truth can hurt everyone in the end, then i agree with you. The pursuit of the truth can sometimes be detrimental to society but not pursuing the truth can also be detrimental to society sometimes. I believe in scientific determinism which is a form of fate, all of our opinions and actions are outside of our control.

↪tilda-psychist ...showing how
mathematical truth is purely conceptual, as such it has no relation to life
— Merkwurdichliebe
is wrong. — Banno

oh thanks. Yeah i agree with you.

We could start by buying a dozen eggs. — Banno

What is this in reference too?

2 + 2 is definitely equal to 4
— tilda-psychist

With respect to chosen mathematical axioms. I can give you an axiomatic mathematics in which 2+2=4 is unjustified.

1. There does not exist an empty set 0={}.
2. Etc. — Kenosha Kid

Please explain further.

mathematical truth is purely conceptual, as such it has no relation to life and hence no objective actuality, which means nothing can be apprehended as an objective truth through pure mathematical deliberation (if there is such a thing). — Merkwurdichliebe

i disagree. I don't know how we would prove each other wrong.

But you agree then, we never know the truth — we only arrive at an approximation? — Adam's Off Ox

I didn't see you respond to someone else in this way. I would have to argue we are in agreement not disagreement. Once again i only replied to your reply to me. I didn't see all the posts that were posted.

Are you saying objective truth doesn't exist?
— tilda-psychist

Can you explain how we arrive at "objective truth", whatever that is? — Adam's Off Ox

I agree that absolute truth or objective truth is very hard to obtain more often than not but i don't think it benefits any person to say it doesn't exist. Absolutely everything can be quantified including human personalities. Are you familiar with sampling in reference to compact discs (wave files)?

2 + 2 is definitely equal to 4 but to measure the degree to which African Americans were victimized in their enslavement in the antebellum years would be very hard to nail down to an exact value. Its not that that sort of thing can't be quantified, however its that it would be extremely hard to quantify. The best you could get for something like that is a ball park figure similar to how software developers quantify the efficiency of an algorithm.

The quickest way to become irrational is to reject the idea that objective truth exists. I'm sure i'll be accused of being irrational for whatever reason.

Consider the relationships between Post-Structuralism, Deconstruction, Postmodernism (1966-present.)

What I enjoy reading about is the distinctions between the logic of language and the meaning of words. I think it was Derrida who wanted to deconstruct meaning by making a point about the meanings of words used in a sentence; he called it free play ( see below example). Similarly, I think Nietzsche argued that the very basics of knowledge and language is [not necessarily] not a reliable system of communication. Here are some examples about ambiguity in the deconstruction of a sentence:

Time (noun) flies (verb) like an arrow (adverb clause) = Time passes quickly.

Time (verb) flies (object) like an arrow (adverb clause) = Get out your stopwatch and time the speed of flies as you would time an arrow's flight.

Time flies (noun) like (verb) an arrow (object) = Time flies are fond of arrows (or at least of one particular arrow).

Probably not the best example, but the point is that rational forms of truth are limited to things like the logic of words and language. But truth and fact well up into our lives exceeding such verbal formulation. And Phenomenology, is one example of that (contemporary philosophy). — 3017amen

added to my journal. Don't have time to go through it right now.

Are you saying objective truth doesn't exist?
— tilda-psychist

Absolutely not. There exists both subjective and objective truth. We can't escape it. In principle, if we had a material world with no subjective observers, then one could argue that objectivity is the only thing that exists. But then that would present a paradox. Similarly, you could be like the Idealist and argue that only the mind exists, and therefore all is subjective.

In my opinion, the important takeaway from post-modernism is the value of being willing to make those distinctions between subjectivity and objectivity, both metaphysically and ontologically. Subjective truth's and objective truth's are also interesting in that they span the concepts found in logic and epistemology as well. — 3017amen

I agree.

You don't have to be a fundy extremist to accept that objective truth exists.

Are you saying objective truth doesn't exist?

The funny thing is religionists are very often the ones who ones who reject post-modernism.
— tilda-psychist

Indeed. Particularly the Fundy extremist. — 3017amen

Do you know what post modernism is? It deals with saying all or most things are subjective truth and that there is no objective truth.

I like to be productive with my time.
— tilda-psychist

You are not forced to be here. — Banno

oh.

its not a really a technical conversation.

i addressed the issue above.

I'll give you an example:

p0m0

doesn't show up on google or bing as post modernism.

"p0m0 amounts to a relativism so radical it refute itself,"

That about summarizes what you were saying. To many people what you were saying is obvious after they've spent alot of time discussing this issue. Many of us have been discussing post modernism for a long time. When i'm on a philosophy forum i'm usually required to be coherent and would be accused of being snobbish if phrased things the way you did. However in our defense people who use forums like this tend to prefer technical terms.

I like to be productive with my time.

Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
— Samuel Beckett°

My 2 bits - insofar as Modern philosophy (Modo) proposes° solutions to the 'criterion' & 'demarcation' problems which, on pain of vicious circularity, such proposals° are necessarily noncognitive, Postmodern philosophy (p0m0) reduces (1) nonphilosophical cognitivity (truth-values) to philosophical noncognitivity (meaning-uses) and then (2) noncognitivity as such to mere narrative, or textual, form (i.e. institutional norms aka "power") - without warrant, or noncognitively. :gasp: :shade:

For decades I've asked "Why? To what end?" As if Modo isn't also inherently pyrrhonian (re: categorical dis/beliefs), critical° (re: antinomies, meta-nonsense) & fallibilist (re: truth-claims). Like nihilism (though not even a specimen of that dis-ease), p0m0 amounts to a relativism so radical it refute itself, which many adherents (i.e. contemporary sophists & cliteratti) seem to celebrate as a feature (i.e. post-rational(?), post-logo/phallo-centric(???)) rather than as a bug (e.g. vicious circularity, etc).

:mask: — 180 Proof

if you wrote a book like that, no one would buy the book. For someone to interpret that they would have had to have sat for 15 minutes looking up each term. I'm sure you'll have some explanation for why i'm the dumb one but go ahead.

You essentially wrote your answer like it was math proof or like the user was reading object oriented code like a Java program.

Introduction : I'm starting with a post from a thread, on the topic below, that had already run it's course. But I have only recently had the opportunity to dialogue with posters who seem to be arguing from a Postmodern worldview. PM never had much influence in my part of the world, so I had to do some quick Google research in order to begin to understand what the "PM posters" were talking about --- since they carefully eschewed defining terms.

Personally, I have had no formal training in philosophy, so I don't fall into any of the usual sub-categories, except possibly the Pragmatists. And that is mostly because of my interest in Science, not because I am a disciple of Pierce. I assume that the PM critique of Modernism was justified, but I fail to see any positive basis for a 21st century worldview.

So, in this thread I'm trying understand the appeal of the blatantly antiscience, and vaguely anti-reason, Postmodern philosophy. Here's a quote, referring to Focault, from a book surveying the varieties of philosophical thinking : "the relationship between power and knowledge, and how the former is used to control and define the latter. What authorities claim as as 'scientific knowledge' are really just means of social control." IOW, Science is Politics???


From the other thread : "What's the use of discussing philosophy without definitions?"

I have also been puzzled by some poster's aversion to defining terms. But I gradually came to suspect that it's due to a recent (20th century) split in the philosophical community that has been labelled as Analytic vs Literary, or Modern vs Postmodern. It may also be viewed as Reductive vs Holistic. I try to integrate analytical objective methods with holistic subjective intuition in my own personal worldview. But to see them as implacable enemies seems to require a desperate Win-Lose Good vs Evil attitude toward the world.

Postmodernism was just beginning to become a "thing" in my part of the world as I graduated from college. At the time, and in my field of Architecture, I found the PM approach incomprehensible. So I went out into the real world, and forgot it as a passing fad. Until, 40 years later, I began to see PM terminology and attitudes popping-up on this forum. Therefore, I'm assuming that some posters were influenced in college by the holistic Literary doctrines of PM. Am I wrong in attributing the ambiguity of some forum "arguments" to Postmodern influences?

In the last few weeks, I've made an attempt to understand where these PM posters are coming from. But they don't seem to be able to explain their avoidance of defining terms, except to imply that to "carve reality at its joints" is an arrogant or hubristic assumption that the continuum of reality can be broken down into reductive parts by those who are embedded in the system. As I noted, if that is so, then Science is impossible and Philosophy is fictional. Instead, the PM attitude seems to be more Political, in the sense that "truth" is whatever the powers-that-be say it is. Hence, PM philosophers seem to be trying to tear-down (deconstruct) the bastions of Modernist oppression, including Science and Capitalism.

After some extended dialogues with what I'm calling "PM posters", I got the feeling of ennui that I associate with the play Waiting For Godot. It's a sense of Nihilism, meaninglessness and pointlessness of life. That may not be the way they feel, but it's my frustrated impression of a vague undefined disorganized hopeless worldview. Yesterday, I watched a Netflix movie, Everything Beautiful is Far Away, that gave me the same Godot feeling. There was no plot to speak of, just aimless people wandering in the desert for no apparent reason, except they didn't like to live in the polyglot multicultural confusion of the city. What little dialogue that passed between them was focused on pragmatic issues like food & water, or a hypothetical (mythical) lake of water in the desert as a possible destination.

Is this ambiguous worldview just a minority trend in philosophy, or is it the wave of the future? Am I a dinosaur who believes in a rational world where motley people can communicate and coexist? Should I try to read Wittgenstein and Foucault? Or is it too late for me? :worry: — Gnomon

Post-Modernism is rejecting reason and rational thinking. Post-modernists typically reject post-modernist thinking when it benefits them and accept it when it benefits them. An example of this is an air traffic controller at an airport has to reject post-modernism. The philosopher on sites like this can get away with anything they want and speak all the non-sense they want.

The funny thing is religionists are very often the ones who ones who reject post-modernism.

The absolute truth may be very hard to get sometimes but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You assumption is that because Scientists can't predict all the behaviors of particles means that they aren't based on cause and effect.
— tilda-psychist

Quite the opposite. Scientists can do the predictions despite there not being a cause. The electron in a double split will go right or left with a 50% probability, but there is no cause for it to go one way rather than the other.

It is very strange to find agnostics and atheists who also reject the concept of absolute truth.
— tilda-psychist

Ah, so are you yet another who needs causation in order to bolster a religious conviction? — Banno

i guess.