>Postmodernism, the school of "thought" that proclaimed "There are no truths, only interpretations" has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for "conversations" in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster.— Daniel Dennett, the greatest philosopher in history.He has been proven right, again and again - in his philosophy, in his disproof of religion. You cannot stop his arguments, they counter all of yours like an unstoppable bulldozer. Within 100 years no one will believe in God except those in asylums, and we will have our fun with the fire hoses on religiontards.
>>17416048He looks like he's about to die any die now. Ill pray for him to find God so he doesnt end up in Hell.
>>17416048> "There are no truths, only interpretations"Who exactly claimed this? Seems like a misinterpretation of postmodernism.
>>17416048That’s just like, your opinion man
>>17416067He died like a year ago, anon.Frankly, it was a bit ridiculous to watch some christians lick their figurative chops imagining an old man being tortured.
>>17416048On the contrary, attaching yourself to false "hyper truths" is a surefire way to never find the actual truth devoid of any hyperreality. Being uncertainly right is better than being certainly wrong.
>>17416048Dennet cannot even get his Own philosophy past Basic observation.He was a pseud that came up with bullshit philosophy because he was afraid any other options would Not discredit Religion enaugh.Someone Post the „you are not conscious m“ basedjak
>>17416068>Pre-modernismFirst we determine what is real (god for instance), then we determine how man can know (church for instance), then we determine how man must live (listen to the church)>ModernismFirst we determine how man can know reality (science), then we use it to test our environment and find out what's real (objective reality) then we decide how people should live (man's mind is his primary tool of survival so initiating force is evil).>PostmodernismFirst we decide how people should live (emotional arguments) and then we decide what is real and what isn't according to how we feel.
atheists just have an anti-chastity fetish ,and want to deflower pre-teen virgin girls (being themselves adults)
>>17416387>atheists are sex pests>therefore let rabbi schlomo nibble your childs foreskin
>>17416048>settling for "conversations" in which nobody is wrongbut these nitwits very clearly think everyone is wrong but them.
>>17416385>Postmodernism is when feelingsDunning-Kruger take.
>>17416501Pre-modernism is when religionModernism is when sciencePost-modernism is when the previous 2 are no longer deemed reliable. When the arbitrarily chosen objective *and* the discovered objective itself is rejected, the subjective is all that remains. Ergo, your feefees.
>>17416387The majority of children in the most Christia nations are born out of wedlock. Christbeaner cope.
>>17416501Deafening silence.
>>17416511>Subjectivity = emotional argumentsDunning-Kruger take.
>>17416624Using the subjective to try and ascertain the objective is, yes, quite literally using your feefees. That's why science tries to ascertain the objective by removing the subjective (1 humans experience of it) from the equation. You need to be able to replicate something in a controlled environment to rule out subjectivity and arrive at an objective truth (water boils at 100% for instance). It happens regardless of human experience because the mind (human experience) does not influence reality. It merely reflects it to your consciousness.tl;dr: a rock is a rock whether you feel good or bad about it, therefore there is no reason to believe the subjective has any influence on the objective.
>>17416635100 degrees celsius instead of % lol, my bad.
>>17416635Also if you feel like the subjective does hold some influence over reality than I'd like you to "feel" really hard that I'm going to stop posting. And then I'm not gonna.
Is he feeling it yet?
>>17416635Subjectivity pertains to information that exists in the subject. It's not just limited to emotions, but perceptions, experience, imagination, et cetera. Emotional arguments are the fallacious appeal to feelings in favor of logic. Logic can still be applied to subjective information without appealing to pathos. Subjectivity has as much to do with pathos as objectivity has with ethos.
>>17416679Subjectivity exists in the brain. It has no effect on that which is outside the brain. Yes, you can hallucinate being attacked and stab an innocent next to you in a state of panic, your subjectivity "influenced" reality. That does not mean we should therefore listen to hallucinations. Testing remains key to stick to objectivity.
>>17416685>Testing remains keyTwo words: Mary's Room.
>>17416694>Jackson would eventually call himself a physicalist and say, in 2023, "I no longer accept the argument"ebin
>>17416273this is the way
>>17416699Physicalism does not deny qualia as much as it reinterprets it.
>>17416722Which I've already stated here (>>17416685)>Subjectivity exists in the brain. It has no effect on that which is outside the brain.
>>17416694what a stupid argument. of course mary will learn new things when she sees color the first time: she'll learn how her perception of the world changes as the result of having seen colors. the entire argument boils down to the unspoken assumption that until we understand subjective experience, it has to be assumed to be non-physical.
>>17416722>does not deny qualia as much as it reinterprets itSame as Dennett, lol.
>>17416733What exists outside of the brain is inherently meaningless without interpretation in the brain. Every objective phenomenon is ultimately categorized at the mercy of the subject.A chair isn't an object described by a certain arrangement of specified atoms, but by the utility it serves based on the subject's constructed worldview.
>>17416764Still. does. not. mean. the. subjective. influences. the. objective.
>>17416765So?
>>17416773So postmodernism is bullshit.
>>17416778That's your misinterpretation.
>>17416782What is the "right" interpretation of postmodernism?
>>17416785In this context, it would be that there is no such thing as unfiltered objective information. It's not that there isn't an objective reality not influenced by subjectivity, but that any truth claim about it is ultimately not objective.
>>17416802Objective truth can be known, as I've said earlier using the scientific method. We can objectively say that water boils at 100 degrees celsius. We made up celsius to interpret objective fact for our brains, sure. That does not mean that water does not boil on that temperature. We can objectively state that it is happening. We are both conversing on this website. That is something which is objectively happening right now. Man *can* know objective truth and claim that.
>>17416785Subjectivity, pluralism, and the critique of established truths. This is not an assertion that “truths do not exist”, which would also be the truth of some kind. It's about realizing that all assertions are made with an agenda and bias, and should be sussed accordingly. In the game of Among Us, even a “trustworthy guy” can turn out to be an imposter pushing bullshit. In the game of life, bullshit can come from science, from religion, from ideology. If you question them, it doesn't mean you don't believe in “objective truth”. It's just a straw man invented by those who pretend that their claims are objective truth. Once you question an such “objectivist” or “fundamentalist” once, they immediately label you as “post facto”, “post truth”, or a “conspiracy theorist”.
>>17416875>postmodernism is when windowdressing skepticismDunning-Kruger take.
>>17416830What is Celsius? It's a metric defined by the properties of water. What is water? It's a form of matter used to define our metric of temperature. What is temperature? It's a property of matter measured with Celsius.These are all constructs that exist in a web of relations and are understood by the mapping onto one's own subjective experience of reality. This mapping of constructs ensures that there is a medium in which the conceptions of different individuals can find commonality. Postmodernists take this to the logical conclusion and end up calling everything a construct. Constructs aren't wrong or evil as many would suggest, but they aren't true per se either.
More than a decade ago I observed the major difference between philosophy and other disciplines on a large internet forum. We had separate subfora for biology, computers, physics etc. All the amateurs on those fora were reasonably polite and helpful to each other. The Philosophy forum was Waffle House in full swing: meanness, name-calling etc. Now I see the same here. What the fuck is wrong with you guys, too insecure to have a decent discussion? So you think the other guy knows less than you, is that a reason to go full subhuman? What it seems like is that you think of all this as a competition to establish hierarchy, ultimately giving home to such individuals who do not even have or care for the necessary knowledge, but who nonetheless join the fray by simply mimicking the other arrogant ones. You could definitely improve the world by hanging yourselves, but just shutting up or at least trying to stick to the topic instead of framing every disagreement or misunderstanding as proof of inferiority of your opponent would also go a long way.
>>17416905if everything is a construct, then the word has no meaning, it conveys zero information.
>>17416905Water boiling at a 100 degrees is not a construct though. It is objective fact. The only reason we assign words and descriptions is so that our subjective brain can comprehend objective reality. But they have to be based in objective fact to make any sense at all. Otherwise I can just say "mailboxes and crocodiles are the same".
>>17416048>Within 100 years no one will believe in God except those in asylums, and we will have our fun with the fire hoses on religiontards.10 years, not 100Our machines are almost ready
>>17416909Peak post-modernism, emotional to a tee.
>>17416909Wanna know the difference? In computers we discuss what progamming language we like best and why. In philosophy I have to discuss how to best live a life with someone who wants the entire world to convert to islam or die because a 2000 year old warlord lied about a floating jew telling him shit. You wanna realize how stupid your peers are? Discuss philosophy with them.
>>17416919>>17416915>mailboxes and crocodiles are the sameYou could redefine any word as you please, but that's also inherently changing the construct. Constructs have meaning that we and only we imbue them with, which we do with the assistance of tools like the scientific method and logic as opposed to wishful thinking and superstition. Postmodernism doesn't oppose science, it just doesn't "privilege" it.
>>17416963The only worth a "construct" has is the degree to which is adheres to the objective reality we live in. We don't construct anything, we discover it.
>>17416968The worth a construct has is the utility it offers and the cognitive dissonance is purges.
>>17416988And those are both only applicable if the "construct" adheres to physical reality.
>>17416990physical reality is itsefl a social construct.....
>>17417000Have a free (You). Do you realize how I know you are not the person I was talking to? You're just that dumb.
>>17416990What physicality does money have? It may be a bank note, or it may be electrical charges on a solid state disk somewhere in a datacenter.We as a society have accepted that money is a construct, and that enables us to be more flexible without contradicting ourselves all the time. The physical reality of money is ultimately irrelevant as long as it adheres to our construct.
>>17417032It's a layer of abstraction so we don't have to trade chickens on the market, that's true. It still has to be backed up with actual value be that work/resources or gold or some shit, otherwise Venezuela happens.
>>17417047The point a postmodernist would make is why we should stop at money arbitrarily. There is no point where you have meaning without any abstraction. The bank note is a construct, gold coins are a construct, et cetera.And yes, they would also argue that gender is a social construct, but that doesn't mean it is whatever you want it to be. Self-IDing people are literally appealing to emotions. You don't get to say that you feel like a dilator should only cost a dollar either just because money is a construct.
>>17417088We should stop at money because that's where the value-based foundation ends.I'd go a step further and ask "show us a gram of gender". It doesn't exist, sex as decided by chromosomes does. How people cope and seethe to interpret that is up to them. To me, post-modernism is a way for people to remove their responsibility for interpreting reality correctly. Everything is "up to interpretation" meaning that physical reality will always be this vague untouchable thing. Is that just what people who claim to espouse post-modernism wrongfully believe according to you?
>>17416830>We can objectively say that water boils at 100 degrees celsiusAt sea level. It boils at different temps at different altitudes, in fact it's how mountaineers can judge their altitude holy shit, objective reality my ass.
>>17417047>It still has to be backed up with actual valueTh eUS civil war was run on fiat currency and the US dollar has been worth a dollar since 1970 because fuck you. It was de-linked from gold about then. Debt has been commodified and used as a currency, as long as everyone agrees the construct stands and no amount of physical backing is needed because influence, agreements and military and economic hegemony.
>>17417135> I'd go a step further and ask "show us a gram of gender".Behold, a bottle of gender! If sex can be defined by chromosomes why can't be gender be defined by hormones?
>>17417165>water boiling at different altitudes due to physical differences means reality is subjectiveI admit I learned new information, but your conclusion is wrong
>>17417181Because there is no reason to call it two different things. Even a post-modernist would admit sex refers to the biological reality while gender would refer to that person's "perceived role in society".
>>17417195> Because there is no reason to call it two different things.Gender Disphoria exists and reason enough.
>>17417225If I really feel I should've been born with wings I would have body disphoria. Has nothing to do with what is physically possible.
>>17416048how is it any disproving of religions ?"there are no truths only interpretations"its like denying the argument by denying the debate like what are we arguing for if everything is but emotions
>>17416067>he disagrees with me?>gosh, I sure hope the supreme creator doesn't torture him in the afterlife for committing the crime of disagreeing with me
>>17417135>I'd go a step further and ask "show us a gram of gender". It doesn't existShow us a gram of gamers. Is it the gamepad, or is it the stockings? Is it the cheetos, or is it the HRT?
Both the modernist and postmodernist are retards. The modernist holds onto the law on non contradiction and believes that what he observes is in-fact, objective. However, he also believes that he cannot know objective reality outside of his sense perception, for all he knows the world could truly be in black and white and not color. There’s a contradiction here. The postmodernist rightly points this out but then abandons the law of non contradiction shortly after, making his initial critique of the modernist irrelevant. From there the postmodern man falls into a world of chaos where he too is unable to know truth and falls into an abyss of nihilism.
>anons STILL believe qualia are realmidwits everywhere
