Are you referring to the physical objects, the mathematics that describes them, the observations that are purportedly shared between observers, or the predictions made by scientific models. — Adam's Off Ox

The objective reality I was referring to is that which the theoretical model seeks to represent, rather than the objective reality of particular measurements as published in journals, which is more a historical matter. We found X. They found Y.

If two scientists disagree on a conclusion drawn from a set of observations, is that conclusion still objective? — Adam's Off Ox

There's usually two ways of doing it. You either start from an unexplained observation and build theoretical models to explain it, or you start from a prediction of a model and perform measurement to verify or falsify the prediction. The conclusions drawn from the former are about how nature must be to produce the observed phenomenon, and from the latter are about how well the model describes nature. It would be premature to make any conclusions about objective reality in the first instance. In the second, we might conclude nature either is or is not much like the model. All of it is open to challenge. There are often competing models for the same phenomena, such as in cosmology, in which case, again, conclusions about objective reality are premature. The hope is to find a test that eliminates one or more competing theories.

If every data point has some error with respect to the model that is based on that data, is the error objective? — Adam's Off Ox

Error can cover uncertainty or instrument error. Neither say much about objective reality of, say, gravity waves. They do say something about the precision and/or accuracy of the experiment.

Besides that, would you be willing to describe what make up the constituents of reality? — Adam's Off Ox

No, the most I think we can say is that, whatever objective reality may be, if it may be, and it seems it may, it behaves a bit like theoretical models in the circumstances those models have been proven successful.

Is reality made up of physical objects? What about the mathematical formulas that describe those objects? — Adam's Off Ox

Every experiment is physical. It involves physical humans handling physical apparatus. Whatever phenomenon is being studied, it must have an effect on the physical apparatus and so is physical. Whatever objective reality causes those phenomena, if there is one, must be physical to cause physical phenomena.

Mathematical models of that reality are cultural artefacts. But they are real cultural artefacts. :)

Completely true, but what is empiricism if not appeal to the things we have in common between our sensory experiences, and a commitment to sorting out why we sometimes have different ones? — Pfhorrest

Yes, so from belief to knowledge. The theorising, the methodology, the prediction, the measurement, the recording, the conclusion, and the publishing--the elements of scientific knowledge--are cultural, for sure. This is what pomo insisted.

But the holistic empirical evidence for a regular (even if just statistically so), predictable universe is not contained in one of these but in the totality of human experience of physical phenomena. That is the reason why it is simpler to assume an objective physical reality: it is the simplest possible explanation for the appearance of an objective physical reality.

Morality includes all of the cultural symptoms but it does not seem to obey objective moral laws. Moral trends are observable as in science, but their causes are evident. The similarity between progressively moral countries are most simply understood via the interactions of individuals and groups within them and between societies themselves. One can posit objective moral law, but it has little explanatory power compared to the assumption of an objective physical reality which obeys physical law.

Conversely, it would be difficult and certainly not simple to explain the appearance of objective physical reality purely in terms of scientific culture and innate capacity to science.

One can posit objective moral law, but it has little explanatory power compared to the assumption of an objective physical reality which obeys physical law. — Kenosha Kid

Moral law isn't supposed to be explanatory. It's not descriptive, but prescriptive.

Every experiment is physical. It involves physical humans handling physical apparatus. — Kenosha Kid

Why is physicality a requirement of an experiment. Why don't mental phenomena constitute that which can be studied by science?

Moral law isn't supposed to be explanatory. It's not descriptive, but prescriptive. — Pfhorrest

If moral law does not reflect something that can be observed or described, then how is it any different than rules for the sake of rules?

Something can have the opposite direction of fit without therefore being arbitrary. One could declare arbitrary laws of reality too; religions do that all the time.

I spoke already upthread about my problem with social constructivism taking all attempts to talk about facts as actual hidden power grabs, and trying to take moral discourse to be description is the same problem in reverse. There are two different kinds of reductionism that I consider tantamount to “cynicism” (an approach that can’t help but lead to nihilism of some sort), because each of them effectively refuses to consider even the possibility of answers to a certain kind of question, by insisting that that kind of question is reducible to another, unrelated kind of question.

Besides constructivism already discussed, scientism conversely attempts to reduce all questions to questions of fact, which is to say, descriptive questions, questions about reality. Questions of norms, which is to say, prescriptive questions, questions about morality, are a fundamentally different kind of question to questions of fact, to which a descriptive statement gives no answer; something David Hume called the "is-ought problem". If someone asks whether something ought to happen, a statement to the effect that something does (or does not) happen gives no answer at all to that question.

So to insist on discussing only matters of fact, and trying to twist all discussion of norms into discussion of facts, is simply to avoid answering any normative, moral questions at all, and so implicitly to avoid stating any opinion on morality at all, leaving one in effect a moral nihilist. Scientism responds to attempts to treat normative questions as completely separate from factual questions (as they are) by demanding absolute proof from the ground up that anything at all is objectively normative, or moral, and not just a factual claim in disguise or else baseless mere opinion. So it ends up falling to justificationism about normative questions (where justificationism is the primary kind of “cynicism”), while failing to acknowledge that factual questions are equally vulnerable to that line of attack. Thus such scientism is tantamount to cynicism with regards to moral questions, inevitably leading to moral nihilism.

But in my rejection of scientism, I am not at all rejecting science. I have great esteem for science and hold it to be the uniquely correct way of building true descriptions of reality. I am only against attempting to reduce all discourse to attempts at describing reality, when we clearly also do other things with our speech as well. Ordering someone to do something, for instance, is not an attempt to describe what that person is doing, and such a command cannot be factually right or wrong (although we could instead evaluate the command as normatively right or wrong). I hold moral claims to be more akin to such orders or commands than they are to descriptive claims, though they are often phrased in such as way as to project that morality as though it were a descriptive property of whatever is being evaluated; not unlike with social constructs.

Here's my take: Post-modernism is a total willingness to deconstruct. Usually this leads to themes like irony or absurdity. Why? Because when you deconstruct something that is assumed to be a monolithic "thing", it is actually seen for just a convention. To be real basic here.. Take any classic sitcom (Leave it To Beaver, Fully House, The Cosby Show.. or whatever variation from countries around the world).. That is modernism.. There is a structure.. family has value.. life has lessons... things can get solved..etc. Now think of The Simpsons, Seinfeld, The Office, etc.. It deconstructs the conventions we take seriously and then sees the absurdity in it, often using irony and satire to show you how silly it is to take these conventions as serious in the first place.

:smirk:

Would it be fair to say the ontology of things encountered in mathematical study do not all correspond to physical objects which are seen, felt, heard, smelled, or tasted? Do I leave something out of what you are trying to say when I make that distinction between mathematical phenomena and "lived" (i.e. physical) phenomena? — Adam's Off Ox

The only thing I would amend is the notion of mathematical phenomenon and lived phenomena. The former is a contradiction of terms and the latter a tautology. That is to say, life is ever and always phenomenological in each and every aspect, whereas there is no such thing as mathematical phenomenon (althought it is correct to say pure mathematics is itself a phenomenon or phenomenological) since any relation between mathematics and life is mediated by logical deliberation. It can be emphasized that, even if purely conceptual mathematics can be indirectly related to actual life with logic, it by no means is a causal necessity, hence there is no necessary relation between mathematics and life.

Here's my take: Post-modernism is a total willingness to deconstruct. Usually this leads to themes like irony or absurdity. Why? Because when you deconstruct something that is assumed to be a monolithic "thing", it is actually seen for just a convention. To be real basic here.. Take any classic sitcom (Leave it To Beaver, Fully House, The Cosby Show.. or whatever variation from countries around the world).. That is modernism.. There is a structure.. family has value.. life has lessons... things can get solved..etc. Now think of The Simpsons, Seinfeld, The Office, etc.. It deconstructs the conventions we take seriously and then sees the absurdity in it, often using irony and satire to show you how silly it is to take these conventions as serious in the first place. — schopenhauer1

Building on that: The Simpsons is removed, detatched : it's a vessel for writerly jokes imposed from without, that use the sitcom format as a canvas-sandbox to demonstrate cleverness.

Seinfeld comes just a bit later and is about living in a world where everyone knows it's all bullshit, but still has to live among the detritus. it's much more human: it's about how perennial human sexual and status games always continue, using what's at hand - and the comedy is that what's on-hand (for 90s new yorkers) is utterly disconnected from any unifying sense of value.

The Office comes even later. Michael , at heart, is a George Costanza character - but he can't admit to himself that's what he is. It's a George that can't even be real with Jerry. He's so far gone, all the charm of George is lost in Michael's compulsive need to hide he's a George.

Dwight, in a key way, is Kramer (qua the character who is unaware of the new social system and lives eccentrically in the past) except he, Dwight, is not even likeable, because the eccentric outsider archetype has been fused with the vindictive sycophant archetype.

Jim lives among it all, above it all, looking at the camera to signal 'this is nuts, and I know its nuts ---I keep working here, but I at least know it's all a joke.' That allows the romantic relationship with Pam, who also knows its all a joke, and then the series skews sentimental.

Take all those elements, add em together, and you have a decent blueprint of social mores in 2000-200ish. The hero basically eyerolls at the camera, whenever anyone else does anything (always in caricature.) He's passive as heck, and his activeness is usually shitting on dwight, and, since the writers fused any-alternative-way-of-living with sycophantic-meanspirited-and-creepy, means that the hero of the show proves his value (and thus is worthy of love) by doing his job, not taking it seriously, and demeaning people who have alternative sources of value.

But what's important is that there's a hero in The Office - Jim's a 'good guy, even though he's a dick sometimes, but ultimately his heart is in the right place when the dust settles.' There isn't one in the other two. It's a reconstructive effort, though a questionable one.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

But what's important is that there's a hero in The Office - Jim's a 'good guy, even though he's a dick sometimes, but ultimately his heart is in the right place when the dust settles.' There isn't one in the other two. It's a reconstructive effort, though a questionable one. — csalisbury

Great analysis overall. I'm going to evince my own "look at the camera/eye roll" moment now and mention that I remember seeing a video about (the very epitome of literary criticism of post-modernism perhaps?) David Foster Wallace talking about this very idea that The Simpsons/ Seinfeld doesn't have as much a narrative hero (maybe an anti-hero or near-hero at best in Homer or perhaps Lisa?). They mentioned The Office as trying to "reconstruct" a sort of moralistic (sentimental?) post-modernism missing in the first two.

Either way, it is an interesting idea regarding irony/satire. When is one to be ironic and one to be authentic? Is there a good balance?

I think if there is any "truth" to the ideas of post-modernism it might be this: We are always a creature one step removed from from primary existence. A fish swims, eats, hides, follows innate behaviors, it does not self-reflect. Even an ape or a dolphin probably doesn't go much past certain very basic communications and certain cultural learning. Humans are fully linguistic, cultural, generative, and iterative. It is hard to have a thought and then not have an analysis of that thought terms of other thoughts. It's hard to have a thought in isolation of its own self-analysis. The same goes for social things like values. It would be inauthentic not to self-analyze social and personal beliefs. But at the same token one disregards all sense of authenticity if one is fully and only ironic (which might be Wallace's complaint about post-modernism).

Seinfeld is the ultimate post-modern sitcom. In a way we are living in a post-Seinfeld world. How does one take any social situation seriously really? I find it interesting with any form of satire or social criticism, that even after seeing the humor, when people go back to "living their lives" they don't actually take the lessons with them, and go back to living as if their life is not that super set of absurd circumstances as well, but a "real serious and dignified" narrative. A less obvious version of this are people who romantically think that things like "travel", "mountain climbing", "camping", and "sky diving" or (insert any modern form of trying to signal getting back to nature, going "extreme", or being an "travelling explorer") are truly some edifying thing.. None of the absurdities of shitting in a hole (whist camping without a bathroom facility around), uncomfortable sleeping, the very fact that most people are bringing all this modern equipment to be safe and comfortable in the "wilderness". You will probably lose something on that trip, get annoyed at your friend, etc. But yeah, might have some socially created "authentic" moments hanging out with friends in a different setting than a city place or someone's residence. Anyways, I digress.. but these trivialities matter in all of this...

In a way, my authentic attempts to get people to understand antinatalism can be seen as modernist.. in that it is taken so seriously, it is really believed. Suffering is to be something to be reckoned with, and the eye rolling resumes. "Stop being so serious!" would be the major response. The modernist inverse answer to my form of modernism would be "Technology, family, and shared values will triumph over your pessimism". And so we got two schools of thought.. life is a joke, don't take it seriously, or life has values that should be cherished so stop being so pessimistic..

Anyways, to shaggy dog this shit some more...I see a weird dichotomy between the "truths" of technology and the "lived experience" of humans who bring it about. There is something absurd about a coder drinking his energy drink, playing around with lines and lines of programming language, and yet there is the knowledge that microprocessors carry currents that go on and off and allow data to be stored and used to perform computations and ultimately do tasks or present information for the end user. The absurdity of living out this life.. and the "truths" we mine from technology. There is a dull centered-ness we cannot escape no matter how much the absurdity allows us to escape and laugh at ourselves.. We can laugh all we want, at the end of the day we want that technology created from the "truths" that were created from people focusing on copious amounts of minutia on very specific subjects related to things like, I don't know, the properties of semi-conductors, the mathematics of electrical currents, the set of machine code that can be compiled into programming language code, and on and on and on to the very billions of words in academic journals on all the technology, and all the companies, and the universities, and the rest. Laugh all you want about the absurdity of your day, the dull, boring truths of specific fields will haunt you to come back and need them so you can look at your phone to watch a video of someone reacting to a video of a cat doing something funny, sitting on the porcelain throne...

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.

:wink: Join in on the fun!

Gnomon, I believe part of Postmodernism movement/Existentialism (19-20th Century) and Phenomenology (20th) were developed in response to the limitations or gaps left from Logical Positivism. — 3017amen

Yes. I can understand that what eventually became the "Postmodern" movement was intended as a correction to unwarranted assumptions and reliance on cold Reason to the exclusion of warm Emotions. Much of the negative criticism was well-founded. But, I don't understand the alternative vaguely-defined non-rational methods that seem to have replaced the analytical methods of Logical Positivism.

To me, the Enlightenment's Scientific method & mindset is flexible enough to adapt and evolve as the circle of knowledge expands *1. Even its attitude toward homosexuals and "differently-abled' people has become more politically-correct in recent years (especially since Nazi science was discredited). So, Modern Science is inherently self-correcting, but changed cultural attitudes take time. I assume that some disadvantaged & marginalized people felt an urgent need for a more inclusive Science. But, why kill the goose that laid the golden egg of material progress, just because moral progress lagged behind?

In the Venus & Mars thread, the notion of different thinking styles was raised. So, I'm wondering if the philosophical "reasoning" styles of Postmodernists, have more in common with Venus than with Mars. By that I mean, ineffable subjective feelings are given more weight than well-defined objective reasons. Just for the sake of argument, I'm wondering how many of the prominent PM philosophers were "gay" (pardon the assumption of a feminized brain). If their thinking styles a were closer to female than male, that might explain the communication gap between PoMo and Modernist philosophers, who seem to be mostly heterosexual males *2. Is this thought experiment treading in dangerous waters? :gasp:

*1 My own personal worldview is intended to expand the circle of Science --- to update its outdated materialistic paradigm --- not to undermine its rational power.

*2 The female philosophers I'm familiar with don't seem to have any problem expressing their feelings & reasons in logical & categorical syntax & semantics. So they must be well-versed in man-speak.

:ok: I've already taken my bite of the apple ...

p0m0 amounts to a relativism so radical it refutes 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). — 180 Proof

Yes, I can't see post-modernism working in anything other social situatedness, It just has nothing useful to say about "modern" themes like science, technology, material living conditions, efficient causes, etc. It has all to do with human hopes, social relations, etc.

I guess one can argue that post-modernism is realizing that the social situation is much duller, meaningless, circular, and less fulfilling as one would presume with all the technology. Technology for technology's sake, or progress seems to be unjustified fantasies. We can do technology, and do it to an expansive degree so what does this mean? The minutia mongering is needed on all levels for modern society. Yet humans are still a social creature.

Great analysis overall. I'm going to evince my own "look at the camera/eye roll" moment now and mention that I remember seeing a video about (the very epitome of literary criticism of post-modernism perhaps?) David Foster Wallace talking about this very idea that The Simpsons/ Seinfeld doesn't have as much a narrative hero (maybe an anti-hero or near-hero at best in Homer or perhaps Lisa?). They mentioned The Office as trying to "reconstruct" a sort of moralistic (sentimental?) post-modernism missing in the first two. — schopenhauer1

Double eye-roll & I'll venmo you a 20-spot if you can find & link a vid matches that description. You sure? (The closest dfw thing I can think is his discussion of 'the most photographed barn in america' from Delillo's White Noise or the bit in Infinite Jest about the cultural shift expressed in the differences between Hawaii Five-O & Hill Street Blues.)

just saw your post tho, have to crash but ill respond soon, had to quickly defend my honor.

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.

:lol: .. I am not accusing you of nicking the YouTube video.. I just instantly saw a parallel there when I saw what you wrote.. Here is the video I was referring to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2doZROwdte4

But I'm also interested in your thoughts on the other stuff I wrote about.

When is one to be ironic and one to be authentic? Is there a good balance? — schopenhauer1

Be ironic toward the made-up hifalutin' nonsense, and be authentic toward the simple, fallible things of genuine value. Try for truth, try to do good, and in doing so tacitly assume through your actions like they are attainable, never impossible, but also never guaranteed. If someone thinks either is guaranteed, roll your eyes at them. But also roll your eyes at those who think either is impossible. Just get to work, realizing it might be hopeless, but try anyway.

Jim rolls his eyes at the camera over all the office bullshit, but he still does an honest day's work.

:lol: .. I am not accusing you of nicking the YouTube video.. I just instantly saw a parallel there when I saw what you wrote.. Here is the video I was referring to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2doZROwdte4 — schopenhauer1

To quote IJ (sort of), I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?

I'ma respond, just too late for me to dig in tonight. Hit you back during my work-from-home new-systems office training tomorrow.

I'ma respond, just too late for me to dig in tonight. Hit you back during my work-from-home new-systems office training tomorrow. — csalisbury

:up:

Ok, this might be a sin against all social media, but I am going to quote the first comment on this video's comments section in YouTube, because I actually think it is damn good, and I think you would appreciate it too.

Interesting presentation of some fairly complex stuff. But doesn't this video kind of miss Wallace's point about the ineffectiveness of irony? His main problem is not with irony/irreverence/self-referentiality itself but with the fact that where these were effective literary techniques in the 60s and 70s, by the 80s they had been completely co-opted by television and marketing strategies (also on television). The critical force of irony is hollowed out because we've been trained in the arts of thinking ironically by television. By aiming to convey sincerity (the gooey and embarrassing and frankly unfortunate but honest aspects of living) he doesn't turn away from irony but rather passes through it, to the other side, where 'lived experience' shines through again. Maybe Brief Interviews with Hideous Men is a good example: where he uses irony as a form of speaking to allow the shittiness of everyday decisions/actions gain relevance/relatability. The Office and Community may have similar objectives insofar as both are ironic and sincere. But isn't this just another example of exactly what he was originally arguing against: that television has the power to co-opt ways/modes of thinking/experiencing the world, where we always experience that world in absolute solitude, completely alone and by its mediation, always at a distance, never IN it. At least with shows like arrested development, it's always sunny and seinfeld, the void is recognizable as a form of experience. With the 'sincere' ones you mentioned, the soft irony and self-referentiality, are techniques used to draw the viewer towards a false sincerity which, in the end, just covers up the emptiness of our lives in world conditioned by total connectivity and total isolation. Pretty sure DFW just wants us all to make friends and be nice to them.
— Aubrey Grant from YouTube comments

For reference to YouTube video where comment came from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2doZROwdte4

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.

Be ironic toward the made-up hifalutin' nonsense, and be authentic toward the simple, fallible things of genuine value. Try for truth, try to do good, and in doing so tacitly assume through your actions like they are attainable, never impossible, but also never guaranteed. If someone thinks either is guaranteed, roll your eyes at them. But also roll your eyes at those who think either is impossible. Just get to work, realizing it might be hopeless, but try anyway.

Jim rolls his eyes at the camera over all the office bullshit, but he still does an honest day's work. — Pfhorrest

And what is genuine value? What is an honest day's work?