Post-Modernism - from "Serious Discussions"

[Undercover Monk]

So several years ago, back when I thought I was going to graduate from college with a degree in Social Science Education...(I now sell insurance isn't funny how life works.) I took a class where the supplemental material was a discussion of Christianity in the post-modern world. (Im not creating this as a religious thread just as a backdrop to my topic.) I had heard the term post-modern but never studied it before so I dug in to the readings and found it fascinating. The one problem, I thought the whole notion was utter hogwash. And I ended up being one of only two people in the class to attack the entire philosiphy.


To me the idea that tolerance and absolute truth not existing together is just annoying. I deal with this all the time with my family because I enjoying pushing peoples buttons and debating any topic. But my family and friends get annoyed everytime I disagree with them about anything. To me it seems that we have become so scared to offend people that no real cultural growth occours anywhere. The mantra has become less about understanding someones perspective and more about you believe what you want and I will believe what I want and we will just pretend differences don't exist. Why? I love differences they make life exciting.

Any thoughts on post-modernism? Or Political Correctness? stuff like that?
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning

[Jedo the Jedi]

This topic is so touchy with me. I have argued until I was blue in the face over it.

I've mellowed since. Where I fall now is 1) I believe we have been experiencing a paradigm shift over the past 15ish years, 2) I do not believe it is as significant a shift as the "post-modernists" make it out to be, and 3) post-modern is the most ridiculous classification for the shift people are trying to label. ("Post-modern" would be more appropriate for the slight paradigm shift I believe has occurred, but I would prefer just "late modern.")

Funny anecdote: whenever I would argue against people about post-modernism, they would say my responses/rebuttals were very post-modern. Those asses.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[extropalopakettle]

[MatthewV]

[MatthewV]

Out of curiosity, does a strict post-modernist allow me to make generalizations about All the people on Kodiak? All of Alaska? America?

[Deception]

[MNOWAX]

[Undercover Monk]

[The Ragin' South Asian]

Can someone define it concisely? I tried reading the wiki but it's over my head.

[Jedo the Jedi]

[The Ragin' South Asian]

[The Ragin' South Asian]

[Jedo the Jedi]

Ah. I've just never interacted with you much, so it's hard to gauge.

Anyway, I only say "used to be" because I stopped caring so much about post-modernism, and I don't really know the status of it now. Clearly, some of the things are still floating around like no absolute truth and tolerance. Those kind of go hand-in-hand from what I understand. I would imagine though that post-modernism has become more defined as we have seen the paradigm become more consistent, but that's just a guess. It might be that the nature of post-modernism is that it is never definable, in which case I will just laugh at people when they say that.

I can't answer your questions. I can say that "post-modernism" as a movement or paradigmatic shift actually began in architecture and literature. What the qualities of that was and how it grew to be an over-arching cultural pattern I have no idea.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[Jedo the Jedi]

Now, that's snarky, right? Whom is used when it's the object, so yes.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[Undercover Monk]

[Zag]

[The Ragin' South Asian]

[Talitha]

I think in the Western world we're brought up with some strong assumptions - in a nutshell we're trained to assume that there is a singular, objective and knowable truth out there. It's hard to put aside this ingrained mindset but personally I've found arguments for relativism to be too compelling to resist. There is a fantastic paper on the subject if anyone is super-interested:

Death and Furniture: the rhetoric, politics and theology of bottom line arguments against relativism by Edwards, Ashmore & Potter (1995).

[MatthewV]

I agree. One of the hardest things for people to accept is that I believe more then one religion may be correct. It is amazing how strong willed people are-- wars and genocide have happened between religions for thousands of years and people still believe their religion is the only right path. I feel it is time to give up and say "you may be right, you may be wrong. I guess I am never going to convince you to change."

[extropalopakettle]

[Undercover Monk]

[MatthewV]

[Jedo the Jedi]

He isn't making a moral judgment about their lives though, and their surety of something has no effect on its actuality.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[Undercover Monk]

MattV you misunderstand me. My fault shouldnt have used a religious example.

I as a Christian believe in a deity known to those of the christian faith as God. As a Christian their are many beliefs that are held and agreed upon as true. One of these is that only the one true God exists.

Now this either true or it isn't. If the God (as defined by christians and the bible) exists, then it follows no other deity exists as christians believe that only one God exists. If Others deities exist then the Christian God is not really the Christian God (because to be the christian God he must be the only true God.)

Hence my conclusion:
One of the statements must be true. Both can not be true at the same time. Neither can both be false as they are diametrically oppisite statements. So one is true universally and so is an absolute truth. Not trying to make an argument which statement is correct just showing that they can't both be true and they can't both be false.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning

[Zag]

Ahh, but He is God, after all.

Couldn't He/They create different realities for different people, as concerns their belief in Him/Them? So for you, your actual reality is that the Judeo-Christian God exists exactly as you imagine Him. You know that your Hindu friend is sadly deluded into thinking that there are a variety of gods, but perhaps you believe that since he is a good person, your God will forgive him.

Your friend, on the other hand, lives in a different reality bubble that intersects yours in the four dimensions of space and time, but does not intersect in the God dimension. In his reality, the God of your reality is just one of many deities (perhaps with certain delusions that he is the only one). His reality also includes reincarnation, whereas yours has a few different afterlife choices and you never come back.

Of course, your friend Zag lives in yet another reality bubble in which there are no sentient beings who aren't bound inside matter and energy. In his reality, when someone dies his consciousness simply ceases to exist.

Seriously, I agree with you that there is an absolute truth. Either one or more gods exist, or he/they don't. On the other hand, this idea of reality bubbles is not so very different from the idea that the universe is finite, both in distance and time. (Then what was there before the big bang? etc.)
_________________

[MatthewV]

One of these is that only the one true God exists. Surely this one true God could create people who will never believe in him. Is it unreasonable to believe that the only way i could achieve the ideals of your religion by not participating in it myself?

Basically think about it this way. One True God exists just as the top of a mountain exists. Getting to the top of the mountain can take many different routes. One person might be happy climbing through the rocks and scaling cliffs. And religions are like stairs. Some people walking quietly up them while others yell "There are stair over here!". Of course, nobody can see the other side of the mountain. There could even be other mountains-- you just don't know. But it is pretty obvious that if you get off the path you are on your life will be very difficult.
So are right to believe 100%. But you may be wrong.

The only way you could be sure is by practicing every religion. Which, of course, would conflict.

[Undercover Monk]

But christian God is by definition perfect and singular. so either the christians are right OR they are wrong. It doesnt really matter what I believe to be true to make my point.

I guess what it boils down to is perception does not equal truth or reality. I am partially colorblind. Many times in certain lighting a green car can look blue to me. I often match navy socks with black. But my perception of the socks being the same color does not make me look any less foolish now does it. The socks are a definable color because of impaired vision I percieve them to be something that the are not. I depend on my non impaired friends to help me in those situations I dont pretend that color is subjective (even though it is). The socks are a constant my vision is what is at fault the problem is mine not the universe.

I think the story of the Emperors new clothes also illustrates this point nicely

@MattV exactly though Im not sure on the many ways to God stuff but as far as logic and philosiphy in general yes their could be other mountains cause I could be wrong. How many problems could we solve if we admit we could be wrong.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning

[MatthewV]

Thank you. I like the religious/spiritual path I am on and my journey is easier when people around me aren't saying I will burn forever for my beliefs.

[Scurra]

I have argued something similar to Zag's reality bubbles on here before, although I think that's a neater way of putting it. I don't necessarily agree that some form of "creator" is necessary for it to be valid though.
All I know is that I believe that I live in a universe with God. It is equally clear to me that some people believe that they live in a universe without God. I think I get the best of the deal because I get both the wonders of the universe and I get God, but that's a different argument!

One of the problems I have is that I don't necessarily agree with UM's conclusion from the premise that the Christian God is by definition perfect and singular. To me, that doesn't mean that Christians are either right OR they are wrong, because that assumes that we can understand the concept of perfect and singular so completely that it renders all other arguments redundant. I am not sure that is the case. We might like to think that we do, because it contributes to our tribal bias (that "we" are right and "they" are wrong) but that's typical human arrogance at work...
(This is a partial restatement of Matthew's argument as well I think.)
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[extropalopakettle]

[Thok]

[Zag]

[Thok]

[Zag]

Not what I said at all.

If Scurra has ANY definition of God as a self-aware being of any sort, then I think he's wrong, and he thinks I'm wrong. My opinion (i.e. atheism) is really the only one that can really be pinned down, and it is directly contradictory to all of a huge range of beliefs.
_________________

[Thok]

[Undercover Monk]

ah and here we come to definitions....oy!!!


Its like me saying apples are fruits. But to refute my statement you say that you define the word apple to be a T-bone steak therefore we are both right. Poppycock I say. You cant change the meaning of a word to uphold your own belief system. Because its how I define words that matter when presenting my point.

For a more real example Zag's what if reality bubbles is not a valid proof of post-modernism because by presenting himself to others in different forms he has ceased to be the being I believe in as God.


Calling a car a plane doesn't mean you can fly to seattle in your pt cruiser.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning

[extropalopakettle]

[Jedo the Jedi]

[extropalopakettle]

Something to note about physical reality: Sometimes we don't yet know the truth about some aspect of it, and then we have competing, contradictory theories T1 and T2 (at least 2, maybe more). Then later we manage to make observations inconsistent with T2, but consistent with T1, demonstrating that T2 is false. This "reality bubble" in which T2 might have been true is then seen to have never been a "reality" bubble at all. You can believe T2, perhaps shut the knowledge of its falsity out of your mind, but to call this a "reality" bubble is disingenuous. These "reality bubbles" exist as theories about the truth, not as truths themselves, and once seen as false theories, are never confused with the truth again. If it were as if there were no absolute truth, we would somewhere see a falsified theory become true again. To never see this (and it is inconceivable that we might) is no different than that there is an absolute, independent truth, not yet fully known, but revealed piece by piece.

[Talitha]

A relativist position is not not about tolerating everything e.g. accepting that child-molestation might be an acceptable way of life and each to their own. Far from it, relativists often have very clear ideas about right and wrong, good and bad. What relativism does say is that there is no 'truth' that is self-evident (apologies to Americans). There is nothing that stands without question. Everything should be up for debate, and able to be argued. There is no bottom line beyond which you cannot challenge. I found this an uncomfortable idea at first. It is uncomfortable.

I haven't studied post-modernism closely, but this is my understanding of it. Post-modernism is a critique of who holds the power in society. Power = the ability to apply the stamp of 'truth'. For a period of human history this power belonged to the church. Then came the enlightenment and the scientific method... a wonderful development. However it has crowded out other understandings and ways of knowing so they are no longer considered even potentially valid or truthful. Empiricism has become like religion before it - it doesn't examine or question its own assumptions. And there are many assumptions that it is based on that can be questioned: materialism and universalism are a couple of them. IMO post-modernism should be welcomed as a thoughtful and useful critique that enriches human knowledge.