• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Why is it wrong to oppress people?

Journey

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
261
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6
Postmodernism has sought to deconstruct every social institution, every meta-narrative (every narrative for that matter), every power structure basically because they believe they oppress people.

Yet Postmodernists deny the existence of any moral absolutes whatsoever.

So how can it be "wrong" to oppress people in a Postmodernist view?

(I ask as a concession to my limitations that if you are a Postmodernist that you attempt a clarity of language that will, I know, be difficult for you. Attempt to avoid dense, jargon-laden and obscure, "demanding interpretation" on my part. Skip the fragmented, impressionistic and void of logical connections designed to be "democratically inclusive discourse" forcing me to interpret what is being said and to take an active role in the creation of meaning. Conner, Postmodernistic Culture, p. 210.)
 
Last edited:

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
Where the hell is my Norton Anthology of Literary Theory and Criticism when I need it?! :steam:
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
That's one of the weaknesses with general postmodernism and deconstruction.

Maybe your questions could be answered by watching "Terminator 2"?

John Connor: You just can't go around killing people.
The Terminator: Why?
John Connor: What do you mean why? 'Cause you can't.
The Terminator: Why?
John Connor: Because you just can't, OK? Trust me on this.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
It's not wrong! It's just not conducive to living a life of peace and clarity.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I don't kill people because other people don't kill me. If I started killing people then other people would have no reason not to kill me. In fact, they would probably even have the justification to do so because I would then pose a danger to them.

It just makes logical sense and it has been summed up in the moral philosophy, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
 

Journey

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
261
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6
That's one of the weaknesses with general postmodernism and deconstruction.

Maybe your questions could be answered by watching "Terminator 2"?

It's not just a weakness, it's a fatal flaw.

I wouldn't expect a machine to have ethics. My problem may be expecting it of human beings. I have an answer for the Terminator. "Because God said it is wrong to murder, that is why." See how easy it is when you go with the Truth?

It's not wrong! It's just not conducive to living a life of peace and clarity.

You must be a Postmodernist. That doesn't address the question at all. Who says that living a life of peace and clarity is right or wrong? More pertinently, is that your perceived basis for deconstruction?
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
Do you want to be oppressed? besides what good does it do to oppress others? Everyone should have the chance to succeed and and the chance to fuck up in life, you can't do that if you're being held back.

I don't know if that answered you're question, it's a hard question to answer.
 

Journey

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
261
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6
I was in a rather bitchy mood yesterday. I meant everything I said, but I didn't say it in the most diplomatic way, by any means. I'll try not to start any threads on "bad" days, lol. Apologies for any offense given.

Deconstruction would be good, BTW, if they would use it on narratives like Darwinism...talk about being oppressive, it has human beings reduced to being ape descendents.;)
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Don't worry about the cranky stuff, I've had my days recently too... We all go through it. :)

Deconstruction would be good, BTW, if they would use it on narratives like Dawinism...talk about being oppressive, it has people reduced to being ape descendents.;)

Usually the opposition to Darwinism occurs solely on that grounds: People can't reconcile what they are with the thought that they just might be part of the animal kingdom.

Is that polarity necessary? Do we have to view people as either something "divinely special" that isn't naturally evolved, or else as purely animals with nothing special about them whatsoever?

For whatever reason, we do seem to have the capacity for choice on some level, or at the very least self-awareness. Even if we are just part of the animal kingdom, we are STILL unique that way.

I used to not want to believe in evolution, partly because I didn't want to believe it and partly because it didn't seem to make sense. I think, though, as technology increases and we more and more build scientific advances based on the exact same principles that evolution describes, that we'll see how plausible it actually is. The next hundred years should be very interesting in terms of social thought.

So you can deconstruct the social insinuations that evolution might have spawned, but you can't really deconstruct a process based in the real world. (That's like saying you can somehow meaningfully deconstruct a chemical reaction.) Either it works or it doesn't.


... oh yeah... most of the time, humans don't give me any better logic than a machine does. :)
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
You must be a Postmodernist. That doesn't address the question at all. Who says that living a life of peace and clarity is right or wrong? More pertinently, is that your perceived basis for deconstruction?

I try to avoid labels. My ideas are based on my own experience, usually. I don't really know much about postmodernism, to be honest.

No one says living a life of peace is right or wrong. It's a choice I make, myself. I don't impose that on anyone. The best you can do, imo, is ask people what they want. Most, if not all people, are looking for "relief" from their worries and drawing on experience, you can use argument to lead them to conclude that honoring life is a good way to find that relief.

If I still haven't answered the question, show me where I failed.
 

Colors

The Destroyer
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,276
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
How far can anyone really deconstruct anything before it becomes meaningless anyway? Sure a picture is made of pixels. Many, many of them in a photograph I can take on my digital camera. What good does it do to see the single pixels?- they make sense as a whole.

I like freedom. I wouldn't want others to intrude severely on my freedom. One way to try and influence others to not oppress me is to try not to oppress others. Of course, however, my idea of the freedom I am entitled to is shaped/formed by my knowledge of the world around me, and the social norms. I suppose you could come up with a social order in which the oppressed expect to be so- and in many historical contexts, this has been true.

Do people need freedom? I guess maybe it's tied to survival. You want the materials to survive- food, clothing, shelter, etc. And as people get more technologically advanced to get these things, freedom becomes somewhat an mix of those same urges/goals? Will think it over some more.
 

Nadir

Enigma
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
544
MBTI Type
INxJ
Enneagram
4
Well, speaking of peoples, it's not like oppression is ever judged as "right" or "wrong" -- at least, not pre-emptively. Someone has to go ahead and do it first, and then we armchair critics go "That's wrong! *handbag smack, sniff and turn away*" for all our worth. So I suppose we feel it's wrong, because it's the least we can do. Let's remember that we are for the most part observers, unless we ourselves are oppressed...

So, I don't really see why the OP's point should be characterized as a weakness in Postmodernism... I think what it *really* means with deconstruction is something along the lines of "Yo, let me deconstruct this concept, this presupposition you have, and you see how you like it. I don't really give a damn either way, but my preference is for deconstruction, and really, it might broaden your horizons too, to at least glimpse." So it's not really wrong as if implying a value judgment -- it's just not preferred. I have a feeling that postmodernism would rise against itself if it felt like it and feel perfectly comfortable doing it.
 

Journey

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
261
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6
I used to not want to believe in evolution, partly because I didn't want to believe it and partly because it didn't seem to make sense. I think, though, as technology increases and we more and more build scientific advances based on the exact same principles that evolution describes, that we'll see how plausible it actually is. The next hundred years should be very interesting in terms of social thought.

So you can deconstruct the social insinuations that evolution might have spawned, but you can't really deconstruct a process based in the real world. (That's like saying you can somehow meaningfully deconstruct a chemical reaction.) Either it works or it doesn't.

From my far too extensive study of evolution (forced on me by a Biology Major), I found that the proofs offered for it were unsubstantial. For example, all of the "evolution" hard evidence was actually explained by degeneration rather than by an upwardly evolving patterns. One of the classic proofs is the evolution of the horse's hoof coming from its 5 toed predecessor. That is degeneration, not evolution, but it is presented as evolution because it was a change process. All the "sound" and "provable" cases for evolution are actually degeneration processes. Look them up for yourself. If things have changed in the past years, tell me about it. It actually takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does in creation. The only case of something evolving I believe in was when woman came from the rib of a man. She was more evolved than he was by virtue of being more sexually complex! It took God to do this, however.

I agree with you though that true science cannot be deconstructed. I just don't believe evolution is true science.

Edahn, yes, you answered the question that was the title of the thread. But beneath the surface of that title I was really talking about questions of Postmodernist thinking, especially deconstruction. We are living in the Postmodern era. I'd really like to know your opinions on Postmodernism, not just for this thread, but as it comes more and more a part of our society it will show up in the forum more and more.

How far can anyone really deconstruct anything before it becomes meaningless anyway? Sure a picture is made of pixels. Many, many of them in a photograph I can take on my digital camera. What good does it do to see the single pixels?- they make sense as a whole.

I think this is a good point.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Well, maybe the answer is the same. A postmodernist could advocate freedom even though they understand that it's only a subjective moral value in the same way I would.
 

Journey

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
261
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6
Deconstructionism is a kind of relativism and provides the intellectual grounding for the popular relativism in society today. It is intellectually sophisticated, theoretically grounded and methodologically rigorous and corrodes the very concept of absolute truth. Veith, Postmodern Times, 1994, p 56. The problem with it is that it is flawed in it's very essence. It's motivations are in reaction to the Modernism and Humanism of the past and the perceived oppression from those philosophies. Deconstructionism is a reaction against oppression (a moral absolute, not a subjective moral value) and therein lies its fatal flaw.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Why do you say it's a moral absolute? What makes it appear that the deconstructionists maintain freedom as a moral absolute instead of something they personally strive for?
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Why is it wrong to shoot a stranger in the head?

Why is it wrong to rape someone?

Why is it wrong to lock an innocent away in a room?

Why is it wrong to frame someone?

Well, because, when you *force* your will upon and against a relative stranger, you are committing a crime against their rights to their selves, and for and within themselves, their rights to individual freedom.

There are times when *force* is fair and acceptable, i.e. parents with their children, the legal system, general code of conduct when living in a society, i.e. traffic laws.

But in general, when a person forces another to wrongly do, think, experience and feel something, the person who acts as "enforcer" is acting immorally, and is therefore committing a moral crime.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
^ This isn't a debate about moral relativity. (Thank God.) It's about investigating an inconsistency.
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
So how can it be "wrong" to oppress people in a Postmodernist view?

It's not, and it's generally somewhat accepted that certain populations be oppressed in order to accomplish worthy goals. For example, it is generally accepted that people in the military sacrifice many freedoms and liberties in order to serve a higher function. Even though our servicemen and servicewomen honorably do this willingly, they still live under very oppressed conditions. This is what makes them heroes.

Another good example is what we do to our children. Children legally hence literally live as slaves until the age of 18, but no one thinks it unfavorable.

This essentially goes back to Plato's republic - what is of greater concern: the individual or the state? It is not wrong to answer the latter.
 
Top