User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 68

  1. #11
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    I'm glad.
    me too. fuck post modernism and all it's prententious, nihilistic hypocrisy
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webslinger View Post
    Once we started doubting doubt...
    Yes?

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    The only "criticism" I have is that this sort of reductionism can't capture mixed states of perception and being which I believe we should be assessing in order to make things like aesthetics and ethics quantitative.
    What sort of reductionism are you referring to? I believe I proposed an expansion, not a reduction. Mixed states are exactly the type of thing I am advocating.

    EDIT:

    Maybe I should take another tack at what I am saying, because I think some ethos, and pathos should balance the logos in my original post:

    When I was a child, I saw the Berlin Wall fall on TV, and the end of the U.S.S.R. They credited these things to the ability to communicate through bulletin boards, sort of a similar to what happened in the Arab Spring. This played more than a small part in my decision to go into Computer Engineering. I was also quite fascinated with the ideas related to the inherent subjectivity of many things. I remember writing more than once in my journal that "Perspective matters, and it's perhaps the only thing that matters." My favorite programming language (Perl) was based largely on the postmodern leanings of its creator (Larry Wall) and the community that formed around it. I really liked "leaving the interpretation up to the reader." I loved Thomas Kuhn's ideas. I had been, for a long time, strongly influenced by postmodernism.

    But then reality set in.

    Are Russians really living free of oppression? Are the Egyptians really better of after the revolution? I certainly cannot answer those things. But one thing I do realize is that "revolution" is not all great, and brings along with it a lot of strife. What are the Egyptians going to do now that reality has set in? Is there going to be revolt against the new leader? What will happen in Syria after the war? Will a state of constant rebellion accomplish anything? They have to rebuild. What does post-modernism offer post-revolution?

    Whimsy and bucking trends can certainly be fun. But what do we have to do to eat and live?

    If "it is all subjective," how can we come to an agreement about anything? Why should we even bother? Why even try to dissuade me about my notions of postmodernism, then?

    At this point, pretty much everybody is aware of the messages of postmodernism. Everybody knows that who we are influences what we do and vice versa. So what? Now what?

    We need to live, to work, to do what we do. The Grand Narrative of No Narrative looses its value after a while. We need to grow up, and make decisions. We can see ourselves in the machine, but need to continue acting.

    Perhaps "evolution" is the better and more powerful force than "revolution" (I would say that revolutions are just punctuated points in evolution anyways). Like the tortoise and hare, perhaps the tortoise, steadily marching forward will not just get where it intends faster than the unsteady hare, but live longer too.

  3. #13

    Default

    Post-modernism is a crock of shite.

    If there were critiques of modernism to be made, and that would be fair as it was the case before, during and after what was decribed by critics as modernism, it didnt mean the end of objectivity per se.

    I dont believe that post-modernism was correct up to a certain point or any of those usual apologetics either, what was good in post-modernism was present in other forms of social criticism and what was seriously flawed in post-modernism was all of its own creating. The contrasts between the natural and social sciences with respect to post-modernism should have been its death knell and anyone associated with it from that point on should have been embarassed and ashamed. I think the whole thing arose when the intellectual left wing lost its nerve and went down a blind alley into a barren wilderness for the rest of its days.

  4. #14
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    There is more depth in these questions than I was properly address here, but I have some thoughts.

    A problem with post modernism is that it is without definition and those who identify with it refuse to define it. It makes all such analysis difficult. However, I do think deconstructionism played a great part in its formation, perhaps even the greatest part. This is why the rejection of binary logic is so fundamental to post modernism. However, I have the opposite opinion from the one expressed here, that rejection of binary logic is the dead end, which is why post modernism is a dead end.

    True and false is the lowest dichotomy from which other things can be inferred. Anything higher than a binary doesn't capture the full range of permutations and anything lower is incapable of distinction. Using binary logic is simply a matter of practicality and I would argue that a person can't really reason any other way. When a deconstructionist explains that there really is no true and false, do they ever manage it without making an argument based on binary logic? Of course they don't. They can't. In the end, if they are making any argument at all, they have to explain whether or not they think it's true or false that there's no such thing as true or false and the paradox reveals itself.

    I find your assertion about the lack of practicality of binary logic curious. I find it highly practical. I find it best for analyzing just about any situation. Math is an odd example. Doesn't even the most complex math extend, ultimately, from the most basic formal logic? In a situation that such basic logic fails, I would so assume that higher math would as well.

    That comes to another point. This is also a question of what aims you are trying to satisfy. I don't think logic can ever describe an absolute reality, but then I doubt anything can. I feel like Gödel sort of definitively placed the limit on deductive systems, while the problems with senses and intuition are too obvious to recount. I see this sort of binary logic as simply the most effective method for understanding and probably our best method of approximating reality.

    One last thing about vast and complex systems. Is it not possible that even the most apparently complex system, the one least suited for simply binary logic, is nothing more than a very large permutation that is ultimately reducible to a binary if we simply had sufficient information? I not only think that's possible, I assume it's true. In this way, the bridge is built between true and false, and close and far.

    I do think that philosophy has become mired in word analysis, but I don't think that necessarily has much of anything to do with binary logic.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    There is more depth in these questions than I was properly address here, but I have some thoughts.

    A problem with post modernism is that it is without definition and those who identify with it refuse to define it. It makes all such analysis difficult. However, I do think deconstructionism played a great part in its formation, perhaps even the greatest part. This is why the rejection of binary logic is so fundamental to post modernism. However, I have the opposite opinion from the one expressed here, that rejection of binary logic is the dead end, which is why post modernism is a dead end.

    True and false is the lowest dichotomy from which other things can be inferred. Anything higher than a binary doesn't capture the full range of permutations and anything lower is incapable of distinction. Using binary logic is simply a matter of practicality and I would argue that a person can't really reason any other way. When a deconstructionist explains that there really is no true and false, do they ever manage it without making an argument based on binary logic? Of course they don't. They can't. In the end, if they are making any argument at all, they have to explain whether or not they think it's true or false that there's no such thing as true or false and the paradox reveals itself.

    I find your assertion about the lack of practicality of binary logic curious. I find it highly practical. I find it best for analyzing just about any situation. Math is an odd example. Doesn't even the most complex math extend, ultimately, from the most basic formal logic? In a situation that such basic logic fails, I would so assume that higher math would as well.
    Yes. I am quite aware of the foundations of mathematics, and its basis in the axiom schema of some form of set theory. In theory, measurements can be reduced to some logical set of statements. But from a practical standpoint, this would be a large number of statements, and quite tedious to enumerate. Unlike other areas where we may choose not to make a translation, here, we know we can do it, and that in itself is what gives us the freedom to forgo the process for expediency.

    Also, even trained Mathematicians will have an easier time thinking about what "My bookshelf is about 1 meter tall" means in quantitative terms instead of logical terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    That comes to another point. This is also a question of what aims you are trying to satisfy. I don't think logic can ever describe an absolute reality, but then I doubt anything can. I feel like Gödel sort of definitively placed the limit on deductive systems, while the problems with senses and intuition are too obvious to recount. I see this sort of binary logic as simply the most effective method for understanding and probably our best method of approximating reality.

    One last thing about vast and complex systems. Is it not possible that even the most apparently complex system, the one least suited for simply binary logic, is nothing more than a very large permutation that is ultimately reducible to a binary if we simply had sufficient information? I not only think that's possible, I assume it's true. In this way, the bridge is built between true and false, and close and far.

    I do think that philosophy has become mired in word analysis, but I don't think that necessarily has much of anything to do with binary logic.
    I think this has to do more with the inefficient nature of words to describe things than anything else. Try to make any statement about the world in non-quantitative English alone. I believe it will take at least 2 words. Commands can take one, but that's because of the implicit "you", and it is debatable if they are statements about the world. I think most substantive things about the world will take at least 4 words (and I think I am being generous here. The redundancy in language is a good thing, and often needed to avoid misunderstanding).

    So we are looking at an encoding of one bit of information with 4 words. Of course, when we make a statement like "The car is red.", it seems like we are encoding quite a lot more than one bit of information. But that is because we believe we understand what the word "red" means. However, I think, close examination of the concept of red will show it to be a "quantitative" concept of sorts. It is a fuzzy category. It works well that way. There is a range of hues from which we are choosing. It is not entirely clear what "red" has to be, but as a fuzzy set, it is clearer.

    Yes, fuzzy logic can be reduced to normal logic. But, what I am saying is that knowing this should free us up to use the fuzzy version.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    There is more depth in these questions than I was properly address here, but I have some thoughts.

    A problem with post modernism is that it is without definition and those who identify with it refuse to define it. It makes all such analysis difficult. However, I do think deconstructionism played a great part in its formation, perhaps even the greatest part. This is why the rejection of binary logic is so fundamental to post modernism. However, I have the opposite opinion from the one expressed here, that rejection of binary logic is the dead end, which is why post modernism is a dead end.

    True and false is the lowest dichotomy from which other things can be inferred. Anything higher than a binary doesn't capture the full range of permutations and anything lower is incapable of distinction. Using binary logic is simply a matter of practicality and I would argue that a person can't really reason any other way. When a deconstructionist explains that there really is no true and false, do they ever manage it without making an argument based on binary logic? Of course they don't. They can't. In the end, if they are making any argument at all, they have to explain whether or not they think it's true or false that there's no such thing as true or false and the paradox reveals itself.

    I find your assertion about the lack of practicality of binary logic curious. I find it highly practical. I find it best for analyzing just about any situation. Math is an odd example. Doesn't even the most complex math extend, ultimately, from the most basic formal logic? In a situation that such basic logic fails, I would so assume that higher math would as well.

    That comes to another point. This is also a question of what aims you are trying to satisfy. I don't think logic can ever describe an absolute reality, but then I doubt anything can. I feel like Gödel sort of definitively placed the limit on deductive systems, while the problems with senses and intuition are too obvious to recount. I see this sort of binary logic as simply the most effective method for understanding and probably our best method of approximating reality.

    One last thing about vast and complex systems. Is it not possible that even the most apparently complex system, the one least suited for simply binary logic, is nothing more than a very large permutation that is ultimately reducible to a binary if we simply had sufficient information? I not only think that's possible, I assume it's true. In this way, the bridge is built between true and false, and close and far.

    I do think that philosophy has become mired in word analysis, but I don't think that necessarily has much of anything to do with binary logic.
    I'm not sure that deconstructionism is synomynous with post-modernism, I would also see the rejection of dichotomies and binary logic as synomynous either.

    Post-modernism is straight nihilism, all perspectives are truths and all truths have equal weight, which is a black hearted philosophical rationalisation for all kinds of crime, malevolence and deviance.

    However, deconstructionism and transcendence of dichotomies or binary logic can be employed in the services of truth seeking, where dichotomies have become obsticles to discovering some sort of truth.

    Although this is an important point, and I think it illustrates why and how post-modernism has the relationship I said it had with the break down of left wing intellectualism, it is grasped and supported in the main, in my experience, by pretty despairing individuals who have found reason to reject certain dichotomies, usually because their "side" of the argument has totally and utterly been discredited, even if its just for a time this has lead them to believe that all things are equal and all things are equally discredited.

  7. #17
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think it illustrates why and how post-modernism has the relationship I said it had with the break down of left wing intellectualism, it is grasped and supported in the main, in my experience, by pretty despairing individuals who have found reason to reject certain dichotomies, usually because their "side" of the argument has totally and utterly been discredited, even if its just for a time this has lead them to believe that all things are equal and all things are equally discredited.
    What do you mean specifically? Could you give an example?
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    What do you mean specifically? Could you give an example?
    The left wing experienced a crisis of conscience which I dont believe the right wing ever has, while the right wing has most recently experienced the sort of fragementation and factionalism that was once more exclusive of the left wing with the proliferation of schisms and different sorts of conservatisms its always had that core unshaken self belief in the prevailing truth of their ideas whether they are popular or predominant or not.

    Whereas the left wing lost faith and lost heart, its not mistake that a lot of the deconstructionists and others who kicked all this off were disillusioned marxists or so called post-marxists or dealing with the exposure of left wing criticism in its journey from theory to practical reality. So in that crisis a lot of effort once put into criticism became a criticism of criticism and to be honest absurdity.

    Its not really something for the right wing to gloat about because the left could just be a few years ahead of them in all this or the tenacity which the right demonstrates which the left has been unable to articulate in quite the same way could be a result of different levels of intelligence or interest, ie satisfaction with simpler, broader truisms.

    The most interesting things I've read in this respect where reflections on the literary qualities and styles of left and right wing writing, the left wing writing was, and often is, convoluted in style, difficult to understand, verbose, long winded and confusing, often pitched at younger readers too, while the right wing is pitched at all age groups it is repetitive and generally simplistic. Both have their faults but the left wing can be faulted more for failing in the basic goal of communicating something one person to another. Which I think is the point of politics, to convey learning, experience, understanding between people, between generations at its most developed or useful.

  9. #19
    Doesn't Read Your Posts Haight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    6,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Your critique reminds me of the general critique towards philosophy made by Wittgenstein, especially in its "Philosophical Investigations".
    I was thinking the same thing; however, I could also hear Popper telling me, pragmatically, that words are our medium for exchange. Hence, they mean everything.
    "The only time I'm wrong is when I'm questioning myself."
    Haight

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    What's next? Post-postmodernism?

Similar Threads

  1. The end of innovation?
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 04:39 AM
  2. The end of freedom of speech?
    By Sahara in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 03:45 PM
  3. Forget Big Brother: Facebook, Corporations, and the End of Free Speech
    By speculative in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 11:40 AM
  4. why is taking semester off the end of the world?
    By prplchknz in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 11-06-2009, 01:53 PM
  5. Man on the Moon: The End of Day (New Kid Cudi Album)
    By metaphours in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-02-2009, 01:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO