I define Fascism as any political policy which favours the merger of state and corporate-economic powers in alignment to state driven directives. I agree with this, therefore I am a Fascist and unafraid to say so.
I don't think you're understanding the terms you use .
Neo-marxism was a turn to the earlier works of marx due to the practice of theory found in "communist regimes" . Po mos don't trow that everything is a social construct .
@SonytoBratsoni I am used to being accused of lacking knowledge by proponents of junk philosophy. Since your comment is entirely driven by ad hominems I will not waste my time here.
@RockingMrE (cont) Oh, and you are muddying the waters too, which is another blatant tactic I am used to by those offended by their favourite junk philosophy being deconstructed.
@RockingMrE Um..are you willing to listen to me ? I bear no ill will . 1) You accuse me of muddying the waters , where did I do this ? 2) I did not make one ad-hominem . I said that neo-marxism was a movement focused on the early writings of marx ( examples : MichaI Kalecki , Paul A. Baran , Herbert Marcuze ) , this has nothing to do with po mo. 3) I also said that po mos don't consider that everything to be a social construct ( in the sense of being mere cultural conventions ).
@SonytoBratsoni Well I am saying that I disagree. Postmodernism is hugely influenced by Marxism. If you disagree then that is your choice. But I have done ample research into this, and I am confident of my position. Social construction is also a major part of modern leftist philosophy, especially when we consider that feminist theory is a postmodern philosophy.
@RockingMrE Thanks for listening to me instead of immediately blocking me.
1)I do think you're partially right here . Po mos critiques of capitalism are influenced by the writings of max.
2) Social construction (in epistemology) is a claim about the nature of our mental constructs ,not a convention in the sense that "gravity is a construct so I can fly".
3)Feminist theories have spawned different perspectives ,no academic one that I'm aware of says"biology is irrelevant/manmade"
@SonytoBratsoni I don't block people who are civil and prone to open, amicable discussion. I beg to differ about feminist theory. It's entirely driven by the idea that gender is a social construction, and that masculine patriarchy is the problem. Feminist theory is also predominently driven by Marxist philosophy too. Remember it was Engels who talked a lot about oppression of women, and ending the family. Postmodern feminist philosophers like Simone De Beauvoir were hugely influenced by this.
@RockingMrE I too appreciate openness . Nevertheless , I don't see how Simone De Beauvoir could be classified as a po mo feminist . She did indeed say "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" , however she went on to distinguish gender (social and cultural identification) and sex (biological dimension). In the first chapter of Second Sex , she acknowledges and discusses biological data . I don't find anything anti-scientific about it .
@SonytoBratsoni (continued) Perhaps , you are confusing postmodern feminism with feminist that like to pull differentiation and constructs out of their ass .
@SonytoBratsoni I don't think I'm confusing these things. If you browse the sheer quantity of links, info and vids that I've catalogued on my channel you will see how extensive my research is. Postmodernism, modern feminism, marxism; all are forms of neo-marxism, and are heavily driven by what some people "cultural marxism". Existentialism makes up a large percentage of this too. There are semantical issues that distinguish areas, but they are minor compared to what binds them. (cont)
@RockingMrE I would also add that the whole gender and sex angle is conjecture that doesn't align with what we now understand about human sex, and indeed sexuality. The simplest way to explain this would be to say that society is a reflection of sex, not the other way around. See my video "Decosntructing Gender Studies" for more.
@RockingMrE Ok , I've finished watching your other video and have to comment that I find the origin of disagreement being the various semantical fields that the word "gender" occupies. You explain the genetic and hormonal components that give rise to sexual orientation and how certain gender roles are based not a cultural influences but on biology . But gender in G.S. is used as identity ,while you use it as sexual identity .
@SonytoBratsoni The trouble with the GS interpretation is that it always wrangles around various language to arrive at a conclusion of the feminist narrative; women oppressed, men oppressive. It is not inclusive, and it is also dated in a scientific sense. People are always closely in tune with biology, and it is modernity that allows us to move away from the restrictions of male and female roles.
To be fair , this oppression narrative was true for the most part of history's grand narrative . De Beauvoir's main book was written in the 40's and it incorporated the biological knowledge of the time. Sure , some feminists try to paint our time as oppressive to women but I do indeed think the number and reach of them is exaggerated by you.
I also believe that GS do challenge how we think about the biological dimension in relation to the sociocultural dimension.
@SonytoBratsoni The oppressive narrative is biased, and totally ignores the disposability of men in history as providers and protectors, like soldiers via the draft, or working in dangerous jobs like mines. I don't know why you feel it's accurate, but I truly hope you're not the type that simply refuses to acknowledge anything but the feminist angle. What's more irritating is when leftists clam to support working class men, and then throw them to the lions when it comes to feminist theory.
This is just what i think, i think that a good amount of white people hate nature, you always have the groups of them that are trying to appose what they are.
Yeah, so called postmodernism is nothing more then old jewish Frakfurt school subversive propaganda of moral relativism. It has been extremely destructive to western society basic values, such as family, faith, patriotism and culture.
I love this! These postmodernist bullshitters are a plague on humanity and need to be ridiculed into nonexistence. Alan Sokal is a great hero of mine for exposing these idiots for the pompous phonies that they are. Enthusiastically subscribed, my friend.
great vid, good to have some scholarly insight along with a few hot guitar licks --- even far lefties like chomsky seem to be getting sick of post modernism and ultra PC cockwashing
@robertkeeganwalker You've made nothing but a bunch of absolute statements here without directly addressing my points in the slightest. That reaks of disingenuous intent. You should read Orwell's essay on Nationalism to get a more nuanced understanding of fascism. Postmodernists are leftists, and Marxism is part of this philosohical view. For someone who reverts to words and labels repeatedly you seem to be very quick to decide what is correct - which indicates intellectual dishonesty.
@RockingMrE "Absolute statements"? By saying a label, that you've used, is inadequate, when applied to another label, that you used?
And there you go and do it again, say I haven't read something you have (which I have) and say:
"For someone who reverts to words and labels repeatedly you seem to be very quick to decide what is correct - which indicates intellectual dishonesty."
That's you man. All I did was say some labels were inadequate. You should read, etc.
@robertkeeganwalker Do you honestly think that I buy any of this "you can't label this way" bs? All the while you are free to make absolute statements, just like the Communists of USSR. And then your ilk deny your leftist stance. One glance on your channel shows you are just a Pyrrho stooge. You have nothing constructive to offer - I should have blocked you from the beginning given that you are so transparent.
what you do here is ignore the material relativity of physics and it's impact on cognition and what we can understand of reality, and pretend a bunch of social scientists occupy the space AFTER the modern (romantic, destiny driven) era.
If you don't understand why all properties are relative, you are staying away from science I suppose.
That a bus has a relative velocity, and this can kill you, doesn't make the velocity absolute, you merely wish this.
well, post modernism is not one thing except a reaction to the dawn of the Standard Model in science, which is just as much a new understanding of the objective world as it is a cognitive assertion that we obviously get out information through physical senses which provide a subjective experience.
Can you deal with the fact that velocity is not a property in your objectivity, if not try again later.
@pyrrho314 Velocity is not a fact in my objectivity (as though the world is not an objective thing in its own right)? This is a strawman argument. Think of the calculations a cat has to do to leap across a ledge. If it miscalculates the distance and the "velocity" it has to travel, and any other number of mental calculations to make its body cover the distance then it would fall. If the world suffered from "other minds" then I'm sure you can imagine how many accidents we would have.
@RockingMrE (cont) If your next comment is anything like you first two I am blocking you - your relativist fallacies are irksome at best and downright irritating at worst. You need to start living in the real world son. I suggest you move on.
Time is relative in modern physics. Units of time are used in pretty much every area of physics, so almost the entirety of the physical world is subject to relativity. Distance, velocity etc. All relative.
@IdaMiaDot That's an is-ought fallacy and you truly haven't got a clue what you are talking about. The fact that time is sometimes measured in units has NOTHING to do with it being relative in an absolute sense. Time, distance, velocity etc are all empirically definable within the context of what they are being applied to. This is not relative. You are simply attempting to create a relative conclusion without a context to apply it to. You're an idiot.
@RockingMrE : the thing is I'm materialist, but the world is not made of "objects". The idea of an object is just an ancient theory about what the material world consists of. With physical relativity we know it's not objects. With objects, all their properties are inherent, built in, things like velocity, in an objective system, are properties of objects, not of RELATIONS.
@pyrrho314 You are confusing your terms. Physics is part of the LAWS that govern the material universe. The objects that exist within that universe are subject to those laws but are seperate "things" in their own right. Look up realism on wikipedia if you want to see what I am referring to. This is all basic science that even a layman should know.
@RockingMrE : no, I'm not. I'm famliar with realism. There are a variety of technical issue here that affect a good understanding of how reason works, and how the world works, and the difference between the two at this time.
Physics has only theories... calling them laws is part of the modern, classical era. It's simply not the case that they can't be broken... calling them laws doesn't change that. Of course they are broken, that's why we are still looking for better theories, eh?
@pyrrho314 "Of course they are broken, that's why we are still looking for better theories, eh?"
Another misconception and logical fallacy I'm afraid. Perceptions and conceptions can evolve with more info, and physics is easily the most cutting edge area of science, but how on earth does this validate idealism? The answer is it doesn't. The laws of time and space are objectively defineable. What law can be broken? Time? Gravity? Perhaps they can be manipulated, but never broken.
@RockingMrE : I'm a materialist, not an idealist. You claim they are objectively definable but one, that has yet to be done, and is a claim you have to demonstrate, and two, we already know the definition is relativistic, as in General Relativism, not the bogey relativism you imagine.
@pyrrho314 No law of physics can be broken - it can only be manipulated. I suggest you go and read some high school science textbooks. Materialism, Idealism, Relativism, Sophism et al - you all base your conlusions on unproven conjecture that belongs in the middle ages. You have no respect for science and you're no better than astrologers. Conversation over - you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
@adamswise If you are attempting to goad me into a whole charade about truth being subjective, as I have endured on this comment section repeatedly, then I suggest you move on because I will not invest any more time in such idiotic arguments that compare to the perceptions of a newborn baby.
I just watched you video and it is interesting, but I *strongly* disagree with your characterization of Nietzsche as a (proto-) postmodernist. This will sound odd, and I'm willing to back this assertion in dialog, but, I've come to see Nietzsche as one of the most, if not the most, sound thinkers. Again, I realize this may sound strange, given the idiocy of historical, traditional interpretations of his work, but, I'll stand by it... -Cheers.
@hartforest All are free to give their opinions on this channel when they are as courteous as yours here. But the more I learn about Nietzsche the more I realise he was the father of postmodernist thought - whether he and his supporters would accept the title or not. Much like Marx, Neitzsche paved the way for those that were inspired by him. Neitzsche inspired a perversion of reality, particularly via moral nihilism. I will dedicate a video to this because it deserves attention.
@RockingMrE I disagree. One of Nietzsche's main concerns was nihilism, particularly that which is embedded in Socratic/Christian thought. The main, and I think the *only* theme of Nietzsche's work, and one that runs throughout his life, was that of the total and joyful affirmation of reality, or life. It was this total approbation which drove his critiques and I don't see how anyone can argue against it. You either accept reality or you don't.
@hartforest Nietzsche feeling that man can define his own purpose is one I can side with, but he goes way too far with his interpretation of truth, and I'm afraid his views were a major inspiration for an attack on rationalism. You say about Nietzsche accpted reality, but in fact he was more interested in arguing that there was no objective truth - which of course is nonsense.
@RockingMrE Nietzsche never denied truth as a constitution or as an activity, but he did deny Plato's (and traditional philosophy in general) assertion that 1) truths were static and unchanging *things* since we, living, and thus changing ourselves never encounter anywhere in reality anything in an unchanging manner. Plato himself had to "locate" his Forms, ("truth") outside of the world precisely because of this fact and his term "einai" is such a locative term. We never encounter stasis...
@RockingMrE 2) Nietzsche rightly pointed out that Plato "stood truth on her head in denying perspective, the basic condition of all life." Why did N say this? Precisely because we are ephemeral limited bodies with no access to omniscience or omnipresence. This is why, I think, he thought the natural sciences were so important. But while they addressed the "physical world" they left us little room for our revaluations which is the "why" of his "Frohliche Wissenschaft"...
@RockingMrE 3. Language is always metaphorical including terms like "objective" and "truth," particularly when you engage language going back to etymological roots which he did as a philologist. Our knowledge is language based, which means it will be naturally rhetorical in a very deep sense. For instance, even in a more or less rational dialog, we seek to, in the very least, persuade the other to give our thoughts expressed, a listen and consideration, do we not?
@RockingMrE As such, most "postmodernists" have never been in the least "Nietzschean" since they've never accepted the real. I'd recommend Clement Rosset's _Joyful Cruelty_ to better understand where I'm coming from.
@hartforest Nietzsche's "perspectivism" and "moral nihilism" were far too subjective. Many people state that Marx was misrepresented by the USSR, much like Nietzsche and Nazism, but we have to ask whether this was a result of philosophical flaw. Regarding language and reality - a tree is still a tree regardless of what you call it - language is secondary to axiomatic fact. Too many use the strawman position that knowledge expands to support the conclusion that objective knowledge is (cont)
@RockingMrE impossible. Knowledge is an ever-growing process - but this in no way supports a position where objective knowledge is impossible. Quite the contrary - we are simply expanding our objective understanding of reality. I will leave you with this:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." ~ William Shakespeare.
@RockingMrE Furthermore, N, explicitly says that knowledge is not only "an ever-growing process" but that it is language dependent and is more so as knowledge grows. Language is how knowledge is transferred amongst and between people, who are always perspectival. This isn't "subjectivism." There's no way around this unless you can prove to me, people are disembodied and/or inhabiting the same place. Never has the latter been shown to be true, yet it is the premise of traditional "truth" concept.
@RockingMrE I think your assertion that N was a "moral nihilist" arises from the historical confusion between "morals" and "ethics," the latter of which Nietzsche never really spoke of or criticized. You may think this is only semantic, but I'd posit that N the philologist understood the differences between them. Perspective isn't "subjectivism." I know of no person who is disembodied or unplaced. That would be a fact, would it not? What Plato, according to Nietzsche, was doing...
@RockingMrE ...was to demand a singular perspective of truth as "seeing correctly", which is demonstrably false, can never be true, and a lie, since we cannot inhabit the same place simultaneously. As such, Plato rejected reality for a metaphysical fiction. Nietzsche never says, anywhere to my knowledge, men cannot know truths, but that it can only appear to us through the perspective we are, through language, and never outside reality, one facet of which we are each a perspective. That's a fact
@hartforest I still stand by my psoition that perspectivism is a subjective ideology given that it concludes that any objective fact as impossible. I also vehemently disagree with any position that states language is essential to truth as well - language is a secondary component. The universe is distinct, regardless of what we call that which resides within, and irrespective of whether we understand them at any given time, which is open to expansion via new discoveries and accomplishments.
@RockingMrE "A tree is a tree" yes, but N. isn't arguing otherwise. What he did say is that the concept "tree" is derived from multiple interactions with many concrete, but differentiated, trees. The concept is derived from our perception not vice versa. "Tree" has no reality "in itself." There is no such thing as a concrete concept "tree," which is only derived from actual existent trees and set into language. The concept is *not* more real than the trees which appear to us. That's his gist.
@hartforest There is a concrete concept of a tree, regardless of what we understand it to be at that given moment, and regardless of what we call it. Every fibre of that tree is made up of a singular component. Consider the protons within that tree. We could change their names - but nonetheless they still fulfill the same role. Thus this is semantics, and ultimately solves nothing, other than to create unnecessary confusion, and answers no true questions - it is anathema to (cont)
@RockingMrE rational philsosophy to suggest otherwise. Clearly we differ given that I am a philosophical realist, and you are obviously of the relativist mindset. Might I suggest you check out my blog on "Defining Objective Morality" too, because again, this is not so relative. However, I am unable to reply on blogspot at the moment due to faults.
@RockingMrE I guess I don't understand how it is "relativist" to posit that we are bodies; we are situated in a place; we perceive so therefore are inescapably perspectival; perception/perspective is simultaneously objective/subjective not either/or objective/subjective; concepts, knowledge and language are bound; we speak; truth is a human concern not that of the universe;... I think I've made some pretty irrefutable claims. If they are refutable please demonstrate how they are.
@RockingMrE On the "concrete concept": Did humans then somehow perceive the "thing" of concept prior to encountering actual trees, or did the concept emerge after such encounters? You seem a bit at odds here. Neither our knowledge of the "protons" that make up the tree nor the concept could have arisen without actual trees and our perception/experience of trees first! There is no need to hold the concept or knowledge in higher valuation than the trees. Yet, this is tradition.
@hartforest I think we are not going to agree on this matter quite simply because, like I said, you are a relativist in the philosophical sense, and you tick all the boxies for this school of thought. I am however a realist, and am in agreement with the likes of Aristotle and Rand. You feel you have given irrefutable arguments, but to me you have used semantics to rearrange a few home truths, such as the tree being discovered before the atom. But this is irrelevant when you understand (cont)
@RockingMrE realism, where reality exists independent of observers. Thus atoms exist whether you discover them or not, and has a set function within the universe however you define them, via language, culture, or anything else. It is helpful to understand HOW things work, but it makes no difference to the universe whether we understand things or not - the universe just keeps on going. I am happy to leave it there and agree to disagree, because too often realists and relativists fall into (cont)
@RockingMrE I'm sorry but nowhere did I assert that atoms exist only when and because we discover them. In fact, I was careful *not* to assert such an absurd claim. What I did say is that there is no evidence whatsoever, those atoms concern themselves about the "truth" of their own existence. Again, if you can prove otherwise by all means do so. Truth is a human concern, but it is not to be confused with the fact of existence, particularly if you, as an Objectivist, believe A=A.
@RockingMrE If you take A=A as your primary axiom then: Truth is either the universe, the totality of all existing things or it is not. If it is the totality of all existing things, and "subjective" and "objective" both exist, then they must be considered, and valued as, equally true. In the case of man both are inescapable aspects of being human regardless of our valuations about them.
Morality: Either it exists independent of man or it does not. The latter claim is absurd. It concerns man
@hartforest A always = A, so reality is always objective. Thus it is your perception that suffers from human concern given that you focus on language, culture, or solipsism, like a child yet to discern that life exists outside of its own observable reality. We can GROW to understand reality, though reality is still objective even before we do this. Morality is objective too if you accept that no one is born with greater authority, and thus we are all are born equal. (cont)
@RockingMrE If you disagree then you must somehow believe in a benevolent force that gives moral authority to one group over another, which of course there is no objective evidence for. I find your arguments to be rather esoteric to be honest. Reality is objective - and it is YOUR relative understanding of reality that suffers from a rather humanly simplistic failure to accept that this exists independently of human thought. I truly hope we can go our own way (cont)
@RockingMrE after this because it is clear that you are very much an idealist, and I simply do NOT agree with this philosophical school of thought given that I am an realist and a rationalist. I give you another opportunity to agree to disagree. Take care.
@RockingMrE Once again, I never once stated, all reality is dependent upon human thought or "subjectivity" for its existence. But, the question is, do you consider subjects as real? If so, they too are objective since only subjects relate to objects for any account of truth. You are confusing the fact of existing with truth claims. Subatomic particles show no evidence of a pursuit and criteria of their truth, they simply exist. Therefore, truth is a concern, has meaning, only to human subjects.
@RockingMrE A true statement: 2+2=4. I can repeat this all day and have really said nothing at all. I'm left asking: Who cares?...Four of what? Only what we call a "subject" can relate four things, see the pattern and make such a statement, and vice versa, since only a subject can make true statement about four things. The things show no evidence of concern how they are grouped and what statements are made about them, including there truth! Subjectivity is inescapable for any account of truth.
@RockingMrE The account of truth is one of the most distinguishing characteristics of being human. The attempt to displace "truth" as lying "out there" beyond humans is anti-human, anti-life, since no evidence has surfaced that the rest of existence shares this distinguishing trait. It simply exists. It seems to me a metaphysical fiction quite apart from reality as we live it, within reality, as real existences.
@RockingMrE Lastly, every science is perspectival. While the scientific method is used to validate experiments, every science has a *focus* (literally a term of perspective). Thus much of biology doesn't focus upon particle physics. This neither invalidates biology, even though particles seem to be the "fabric" of reality itself, nor makes the reduction to particle physics the best approach. Nor does it make "bios" unreal. See the work of William Wimsatt (Philosophy of Biology) for illustration.
@hartforest This type of argumentation is akin to mental masturbation. You have resolved nothing with your reasoning, and thus have come to no conclusions other than the fact that you have no answers to any questions that are not based on relativism. I’ve heard these arguments before - it is conjecture of the highest order, and esoteric garbage that proves nothing. You need to learn to understand that the world exists outside of your solipsism, and if you can’t respect the laws of reality (cont)
@RockingMrE then I suggest you go and walk in front of a bus and see just how “perspectival” science is then. This sort of philosophy disgusts me, and is akin to Winston being told that 2+2 = 5. Your method of deduction has been outgrown by rationalism, and it's pathetic how you repeat your fallacies ad nauseum to ware people down. Move on - you are not wlecome on this channel. I've given you ample chance to move on peacefully - I will not engage with such fallacies endlessly. Blocked.
I'm not sure what your problem is with the fascist comment though - it is certainly apt when dealing with this philosophy pretending to care about individuality.
@RockingMrE You're welcome. Well, the purpose of fascism was not really to suppress individuality, to create a conform mass of people, or something of that sort. That's a scurrilous portrait of it. I'm not a fascist myself, but the truth about fascism is much more nuanced than just pure totalitarianism in every aspect of life.
@bjorinn I would argue that the fundamental goal of fascism is to suppress individualism in favour of the collective, though of course there are different facets of this ideology. I'm planning to make a video about this because in particular people associate fascism with the far right, as though there is no leftist alternative. Anlther misconception is that fascism only occurs via nationalism, though the definiition of nationalism varies, especially according to an Orwellian perspective.
@RockingMrE I guess we have different views on that ideology then. Anyway, I'll subscribe to your channel and will be looking forward to your video. Perhaps we could continue this debate there, where it's more on topic.
I've had similar troubles while conversing with leftists. It's an awful lot like what I imagine trying to have a conversation with the cast of Looney Toons would be like. Anyway, good, sound logic here. Good work.
@7:44 2 types of Atheists? Atheist is a single answer to a single question. It's not a world view. There are currently 3 worldviews to which an Atheist can subscribe. Pre-modernism; Modernism; Postmodernism and variations of these 3. If you want to see a complete world view check my profile. As you can see if you don't gneralise and quantify all the different values there are many combinations possible.
@AlainG80 You've contradicted yourself. You say Atheism is not a worldview and yet you claim there are 3 worldviews in the next sentence. I could also argue YOU are generalising with only 3 distinctions. Your liberal logic fail to break down reality is rampant. You are clearly a pseudo-intellectual sprouting psychobabble akin to typical leftist jargon and I suspect you found my channel via the PC crowd that repeatedly behave in this fashion. You are obviously just trying to annoy me. Blocked.
postmodernism, existentialism structuralism, post this post that and the rest of the of the philosophical mambo jambo are to science what alchemy is to chemistry.
The fact that 21st century ppl still pay attention to the armchaired psedoscientists is alarming.
For any philosopher that promotes dogmas and theories, without following the standard scientific path of validation, the very least one can be is suspicious and hesitant and NOT adopt their ideas and promote them as gospel.
@AmetReloads Funny that the moron tattooskin would hold that position, taking in mind that he vows that gender is genetically determined for transsexuals.
Another case of liberal cretard.
Consistency is apparently too much to ask from liberals.
Be aware my friend,the liberal fundamentalist ,is just another manifestation of the long tradition of RedGuards.Reality is an obstacle to their delusional world of make believe, and no mean is unethical to discredit and silence dissenting views.
@AmetReloads I welcome your common sense - trying to find rational people in this mire of leftist dogma is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Leftists will argue that milk is green if it suits their obsession with social engineering.
@RockingMrE Yes you are. I've read quite a bit of Foucault (btw he's one of the Post-Structuralists that defended capitalism). Foucault was no more a cultural marixst than Albert Camus was a communist (he was criticized by he contemporaries like Sartre for being against Communism).
@ladyattis Like I said, look at my links. You cannot base a whole philosophy on the idea that life is basically a social construct, and that there is no objective truth, ignoring the multitude of other evidence led fields of human endeavour that disprove this. My links support my views, and the central theme of Postmodernism is how I describe it in this vid.
@RockingMrE Furthermore I need to add that Postmodernism is a leftist philosophy, regardless of whether others deviate here and there. Were Netizsche or Freud Marxists? No. But this is irrelevant to the fact that Postmodernists are leftists that want to implant their fallacious theories, inspired by the Frankfurt School and critical thoery - a leftist thinktank. You sound like someone closely associated with Postmodernism tbh, and I have no desire to "convert" anyone.
@RockingMrE Life is a social construct in terms of values, pursuits, and narratives. Also, you continue to operate on the fallacy of hasty generalization as to say that X population has Y attribute without sufficient evidence. The exceptions I noted are sufficient to prove that the rule is insufficient (that all PoMos are leftists). I suggest you read beyond Rand and Peikoff. Even David Kelley would be a good start.
@ladyattis Even narratives, pursuits, and values are not all based on social constructs. In fact science is telling us more and more that it isn't. The only thing that guides my life IS evidence, and you repeatedly fail to check my links that show this, instead trying to misdirect me by dragging me into your axioms. I have presented my evidence for this vid, and you haven't provided anything but conjecture.
@RockingMrE (cont) I'm blocking you. I refuse to be harassed by people who cannot present coherent arguments based on logic and reason. You do not have the right to hound me with logical fallacies. TA TA.
@RockingMrE i dont particularly like pomo but rand is much worse..
the only part of 'science' (i think by that you mean the hard sciences?) that i know something about is physics and i can assure you that physics doesn't have solid foundations, not ever.
@mirabileamavi Science is the search for absolute knowledge. Though we may not understand something today, that doesn't mean we wont understand it tomorrow. Either way you need to be more specific if you want your points to carry weight. As for your point about Rand, emotive language is not a solid argument.
@RockingMrE ok a few things, scientific realism is by no means the dominate view in phil of science and even the realists don't subscribe to such an extreme view of science. solid arguments need some understanding of symbolic logic.. even then, they are not 'absolute' solid.
anyhow, how about this: rand have contributed nothing to science, and nothing to logic and mathematics, yet the philosophers whom she dislike are huge contributors to both fields.
@RockingMrE so to refute that claim, you only need to show how rand had made contributions to those fields. physics probably isnt that important regarding rand, but since she claim to be a champion of reason and yet had made no contribution to logic.. and not understanding the most basic logical features.. (existence exists is a tautology and yet says something substantive?) is a little strange.
@mirabileamavi First off Rand DID contribute to logic and reason. Here is a great link to show a breakdown of her philosophy:
andrej. com/ objectivism/
There is simply too much info to refute in this regard, so you'll have to keep up with my channel to see my views here, and my next blog will delve into this.
The logical fallacy that many make when they attack scentific realism is the idea that without absolute understanding of everything it is flawed or pointless. This is a (cont)
@RockingMrE strawman because you're first assuming that without absolute knowledge realism is less valid. or even completely invalid. Objective knowledge is actually an expansion of old information in a constant process, gradually developing our understanding of reality - there is no absolute end goal as such. Also, anything that is unprovabe is irrelevant - we cannot prove there is a God, so it is irrelevant. Logic and reason are the only reliable methods to measure and define reality.
@RockingMrE we must mean different things by logic... i'm talking about symbolic formal logic, logic as such, i.e. the kind that makes the computer possible. and no, you only need to name one contribution to logic, i.e. russell's principia, frege's begriffsschrift.
even scientific realism need unprovable things, remember the munchhausen trilemma? anyways the theory is not a search for reality per se, but state that we already have a lot of the reality in our basket i.e. atoms really exists.
@mirabileamavi What is unprovable today is common knowledge for tomorrow. History tells us so. Consider a man of the medieval era being transported to our time and you will see what I mean. It is destructive to resign humanity to the futility of the search for "proving the unprovable", though the "unprovable" cannot be elevated to objective truth until there is evidence to substantiate it. Those who do not respect this open the floodgates for irrational exploitation.
There's a lot from the old left (esp Karl Marx) that I find highly valuable, but I also firmly reject the "tabula rassa" school of anthropology.
I don't think this is totally an "either/or" issue.
I'm also glad to see that you espouse tolerance for persons who are not "typical" - which is precisely where so called "social conservatives" get things so wrong.
@DemokraticRepublican You're right - it isn't an either/or issue. BUT there ARE central tendencies that many on the left want to bypass when pushing their theories of social construction.
You cannot turn a rooster into a chicken by politically indoctrinating it and don't let any butch strutting bull hen or gender confused capon tell you any different.
You don't realize it; but, you just did me a great service. (grin)
I want to thank you for so-clearly and so-concisely putting-into-words what I have bveen trying to properly (wordwise) formulate (in my own mind) for my impending conversational engagement with "My-area's-" -Skeptics and -Freethinkers Meetup groups (for them) to chew on (many of who are PM-, feminist-, anti-Objective- -type Atheist.
Thx, & wish me luck (j/k)... ...I'm goin' in -- guns (intellect) ablazin'!
Sorry bad rushed typing- rationalism neurologically formed IF subjective qualia does not get in the way. - huh actually this typo is kind of prove of what I just put!
@theGreaserrr To be honest the research I have uncovered indicates that Postmodernist philosophy is basically ALL based on the idea that objective truth is impossible due to social constructs. There is no other stance other than this overall. Check out my wiki link and see what i mean. Not all Existentialists are Marxists, but all Postmodernists are part of a group sometimes referred to as NeoMarxism.
Yo MRE!regards! I am almost moving (1st to 2nd of oct)- already been wandering about 2 video ideas, but will give sometime to be sure they fit your mindset- now my question inspired on this video
-if i am really driven by my skepticism and find real trouble in ignoring the relativity of my interpretations,not all the time,i am able to have an absolutist stance, but maybe even then i question myself if its not a mistake.
so am i in anyway under the post-modern disease/spell??hehe :D fun question
@Ricosophy It's okay to question reality, but upholdng Rationalism, reason, and logic is what separates subjectively inclined philsophy from the objective ;-)
1) All scientific theories & categories are social in that they are conceptual constructs through which we understand & manipulate reality; put simply: no minds = no science! What gives science epistemological validity (or claims to objective truth) are such grounds as: meaningfulness, predictive-value, usefulness, measurability, consistency... etc. One such grounds science clearly has greater epistemological power than belief or faith. (cont'd)
2) Yet any claims that such grounds constitute or 'grasp' reality in absolute – is where the cautious, nay the rational, mind must break away – for that way scientism lies!
On the other hand the position that such epistemological grounds constitute nor 'grasp' no part of reality results in adle-brained post-modern subjectivism.
Thus the question to what extent does science 'read truth off of reality' is a complex one which neither naïve realism nor naïve subjectivism solve. (cont'd)
3) Yet accepting this in no way denies the importance, utility & nobility of science itself.
OAP: yes you are 100% correct there are 2 types of atheist! I've been arguing the same thing for some time now: whilst Atheism has a long & noble tradition this new crop are little more that Marxist politicised PC cultists... Which I think speaks volumes about our current education system... Sadly.
@CeltoSaxonKnight I disagree about "Scientism", which we've disagreed on before. I've also said before that the term Scientism is used to downplay the importance of Science when compared to subjective philosophies like metaphysics. I would add that if you do not value Rationalism then you open the floodgates for the subjectively inclined to destroy ANY form of objectivity. This is what theists need to learn to understand. Solipsism leads to suppression of truth through ideas like (cont)
@RockingMrE I agree if you are not open to hearing objectivism and rationalism then you are getting your voice from somewhere else! This seems to run pandemic now in ever more increasing circles!
So objectivism and rationalism construct reality do they? Or perhaps, one may suppose, they are constructed within reality and thus are necessarily lesser than that reality - thus contingent, not necessary! Or at least necessarily of the lesser understanding of contingent beings that is? Meaning no epistemic surety, surely? Else how your certainty?
@CeltoSaxonKnight That one is easy- the genesis of objectivism is formed outside of reality, we then bring this into being through having rationalism neurologically formed is subjective qualia does not get in the way of this. Then subjectivism will subvert objective reality from forming. That is how I am certain, philosophy does not believe in democracy it takes deconstruction of dogma to be an objective realist. Hope that answer your question!
Indeed we have disagreed on this subject before... I do not downplay the importance of science unless you wish to insist science is all? But that quickly is defeated by the very idea of non-science – which you must accept given your oppositional socio-political stance!
The question is about warrant. Firstly how justified are scientists to claim their theories & constructs are 100% true? Secondly how justified to claim all knowledge should be tenable to science? (cont'd)
Thirdly how justified to claim all of reality should be tenable to science?
Ultimately if satisfactory warrant cannot to these cannot be given, then the case is not closed. I hold science in high regard & esteem, but it is a human endeavour thus flawed – can humans do you suppose attain any necessary perfection?
I make no compact with post-modernism, nor theism incidentally, here - but with reason alone!
@CeltoSaxonKnight Absolute knowledge is basically impossible to attain - you can never know everything about reality, though we are learning more all the time. But to strive for perfection is what drives the endeavour for truth. If people wish to postulate over what they cannot prove then I say let them - as long as they do not expect their views to hold warrant alongside that which can be proven. If we stray from this then nothing is sacred - a bit like in 1984 when Winston is told that 2+2=5.
@RockingMrE Hey taking a leaf out of your upload if speed of light is a sexist equation then 2+2=5 must be a feminist equation. So tell me MrE did Crustyworldwithin really block you from her channel. I was so laughing about epoch at the end of that upload I nearly pissed myself. She is such a loser and epoch is a Schizophrenic!
@apekillssnake Yeah Krissy blocked me because I stood up to the pathological liar named Eopyk
I am convinced Eopyk has Existential/Philosophical/Solipisism OCD :-D (google it). I am done with that group to be honest - it's time we called them out for what they are - liars.
@RockingMrE Oh yeh, you can see when you talk to him he is not right, and when you see him commenting elsewhere he kind off compounds that people are against him, what is with this love you x stuff he puts to persons all the time. If you ask me he's "old greg" heaven forbid that society became 1984 styled completely- you would not want to be tied to a chair in epochs cellar- that is why I avoided speaking with him because I could tell straight away something was not right with him!She's nuts too
@RockingMrE What is funny is when he said my psychologist and psychiatrist have not said I am any of those things, I thought is that your PRO transgender please dont kill yourself-if we agree with anything you say type psychiatrist that are all about the persons progress! When he constantly kept trying to hammer home his points after he knew you were blocked but it took a while for him to come down from that place did he end it by himself saying he was not a soloips (not solipsist)was pure gold!
@RockingMrE Lol, I am indeed a fellow guitar player--- Of course I have yet to post videos of my playing so I'm not going to be overly critical. Don't get me wrong, your guitar playing is skilled, but seems rushed... haha, I'm sure nobody cares about these details, but as a guitar player I guess I'm the exemption.
again, great videos, great playing, really enjoy your videos!
@RockingMrE "metronome comment seems like a low blow to me :-P" haha, I feared it would come across that way, it was intended as constructive criticism but I guess it's hard not coming across as a dick in the process.. Let's just leave it at that, maybe I will continue criticizing your playing when I post my own playing, haha!
@BoethianAcolyte You don't like the way I approached the discourse? That's very vague, but if you feel offended then you shouldn't be subscribed to this channel because I'm done with hodling back given the amount of nonsense I've had to deal with from certain people on YT. Good luck to you too.
@RockingMrE Yeah, I unsubbed. Doesn't seem like you want to have any dialogue with people who disagree with you, and that isn't really what I'm interested in. It's nothing personal, but the attitude here is just off, and I don't really want to make a fuss or anything, but I thought I at least should let you know. Take care.
@BoethianAcolyte You don't want to make a fuss? To answer your point on debate - I debate with people all the time, and have done with you. But this isn't a prerequisite for ignorance and passive aggression. Some clearly don't like it when they find others expect evidence for views, or proof to invalidate central tendencies. These people have the audacity to accuse others of logical fallacies, conpiracies, or mirepresentation - ironic. Yep, people like this should just unsub. Take care too.
@EuropaPhoenix I think that as long as people respect rationalism they can overcome those wishing to destroy the search for scientific and verifiable evidence. I do not believe that Postmodernism can survive either, not while science is making breakthroughs all the time involving our understanding of inate biology in the animal kingdom.
@delgande Ultimately fascism is any ideology that denies the existence of anything that disagrees with it. Sure, traditionally this was defined by nation or race, though there is no reason why this is the only thing it would entail. Thus many feel that ANY ideology that silences or attempts to destroy anything that disagrees with it is a form of fascism - aka femo-fascism being a description of how Feminists hate it when anyone disagrees with them, actively attempting to silence opposition.
@RockingMrE there must be another word to describe such behaviour, that is,destroying all that disagrees. calling something fascist is just name calling and an easy thing to do as fascists in history have crushed opposition, but they were not the only people who have done that.
also, as communists want equality for all, but that does not make them democratic in any way. they may both want equality, one wants civil equality and the other economic equality, but that does not make them the same.
@RockingMrE please be aware that in the last part of my comment I was not being serious when I compared communism and democracy, and by democracy I meat the idea of equality embraced in democratic nations, but there is not a lot of room for comments on youtube. I believe authoritarian may be a better word to describe them.
I define Fascism as any political policy which favours the merger of state and corporate-economic powers in alignment to state driven directives. I agree with this, therefore I am a Fascist and unafraid to say so.
EuropeanWatchman 1 day ago
I don't think you're understanding the terms you use .
Neo-marxism was a turn to the earlier works of marx due to the practice of theory found in "communist regimes" . Po mos don't trow that everything is a social construct .
SonytoBratsoni 2 weeks ago
@SonytoBratsoni I am used to being accused of lacking knowledge by proponents of junk philosophy. Since your comment is entirely driven by ad hominems I will not waste my time here.
RockingMrE 2 weeks ago
@RockingMrE (cont) Oh, and you are muddying the waters too, which is another blatant tactic I am used to by those offended by their favourite junk philosophy being deconstructed.
RockingMrE 2 weeks ago
@RockingMrE Um..are you willing to listen to me ? I bear no ill will . 1) You accuse me of muddying the waters , where did I do this ? 2) I did not make one ad-hominem . I said that neo-marxism was a movement focused on the early writings of marx ( examples : MichaI Kalecki , Paul A. Baran , Herbert Marcuze ) , this has nothing to do with po mo. 3) I also said that po mos don't consider that everything to be a social construct ( in the sense of being mere cultural conventions ).
SonytoBratsoni 2 weeks ago
@SonytoBratsoni Well I am saying that I disagree. Postmodernism is hugely influenced by Marxism. If you disagree then that is your choice. But I have done ample research into this, and I am confident of my position. Social construction is also a major part of modern leftist philosophy, especially when we consider that feminist theory is a postmodern philosophy.
RockingMrE 2 weeks ago
@RockingMrE Thanks for listening to me instead of immediately blocking me.
1)I do think you're partially right here . Po mos critiques of capitalism are influenced by the writings of max.
2) Social construction (in epistemology) is a claim about the nature of our mental constructs ,not a convention in the sense that "gravity is a construct so I can fly".
3)Feminist theories have spawned different perspectives ,no academic one that I'm aware of says"biology is irrelevant/manmade"
SonytoBratsoni 2 weeks ago
@SonytoBratsoni I don't block people who are civil and prone to open, amicable discussion. I beg to differ about feminist theory. It's entirely driven by the idea that gender is a social construction, and that masculine patriarchy is the problem. Feminist theory is also predominently driven by Marxist philosophy too. Remember it was Engels who talked a lot about oppression of women, and ending the family. Postmodern feminist philosophers like Simone De Beauvoir were hugely influenced by this.
RockingMrE 2 weeks ago
@RockingMrE I too appreciate openness . Nevertheless , I don't see how Simone De Beauvoir could be classified as a po mo feminist . She did indeed say "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" , however she went on to distinguish gender (social and cultural identification) and sex (biological dimension). In the first chapter of Second Sex , she acknowledges and discusses biological data . I don't find anything anti-scientific about it .
(continued)
SonytoBratsoni 2 weeks ago
@SonytoBratsoni (continued) Perhaps , you are confusing postmodern feminism with feminist that like to pull differentiation and constructs out of their ass .
SonytoBratsoni 2 weeks ago
@SonytoBratsoni I don't think I'm confusing these things. If you browse the sheer quantity of links, info and vids that I've catalogued on my channel you will see how extensive my research is. Postmodernism, modern feminism, marxism; all are forms of neo-marxism, and are heavily driven by what some people "cultural marxism". Existentialism makes up a large percentage of this too. There are semantical issues that distinguish areas, but they are minor compared to what binds them. (cont)
RockingMrE 2 weeks ago
@RockingMrE I would also add that the whole gender and sex angle is conjecture that doesn't align with what we now understand about human sex, and indeed sexuality. The simplest way to explain this would be to say that society is a reflection of sex, not the other way around. See my video "Decosntructing Gender Studies" for more.
RockingMrE 2 weeks ago
@RockingMrE Ok , I've finished watching your other video and have to comment that I find the origin of disagreement being the various semantical fields that the word "gender" occupies. You explain the genetic and hormonal components that give rise to sexual orientation and how certain gender roles are based not a cultural influences but on biology . But gender in G.S. is used as identity ,while you use it as sexual identity .
SonytoBratsoni 2 weeks ago
@SonytoBratsoni The trouble with the GS interpretation is that it always wrangles around various language to arrive at a conclusion of the feminist narrative; women oppressed, men oppressive. It is not inclusive, and it is also dated in a scientific sense. People are always closely in tune with biology, and it is modernity that allows us to move away from the restrictions of male and female roles.
RockingMrE 2 weeks ago
@RockingMrE
To be fair , this oppression narrative was true for the most part of history's grand narrative . De Beauvoir's main book was written in the 40's and it incorporated the biological knowledge of the time. Sure , some feminists try to paint our time as oppressive to women but I do indeed think the number and reach of them is exaggerated by you.
I also believe that GS do challenge how we think about the biological dimension in relation to the sociocultural dimension.
SonytoBratsoni 2 weeks ago
@SonytoBratsoni The oppressive narrative is biased, and totally ignores the disposability of men in history as providers and protectors, like soldiers via the draft, or working in dangerous jobs like mines. I don't know why you feel it's accurate, but I truly hope you're not the type that simply refuses to acknowledge anything but the feminist angle. What's more irritating is when leftists clam to support working class men, and then throw them to the lions when it comes to feminist theory.
RockingMrE 2 weeks ago
This is just what i think, i think that a good amount of white people hate nature, you always have the groups of them that are trying to appose what they are.
XBlackWolf10 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Yeah, so called postmodernism is nothing more then old jewish Frakfurt school subversive propaganda of moral relativism. It has been extremely destructive to western society basic values, such as family, faith, patriotism and culture.
Quex01 1 month ago
What a nice poststructuralist narrative of a discourse of postmodern paradigm!
Quex01 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love this! These postmodernist bullshitters are a plague on humanity and need to be ridiculed into nonexistence. Alan Sokal is a great hero of mine for exposing these idiots for the pompous phonies that they are. Enthusiastically subscribed, my friend.
hznfrst 1 month ago
great vid, good to have some scholarly insight along with a few hot guitar licks --- even far lefties like chomsky seem to be getting sick of post modernism and ultra PC cockwashing
hieraxhideo 1 month ago
@hieraxhideo Glad you liked it. If you are interested in deconstructing leftist philosophy then check out the playlist on my channel page.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
This guy clearly does not know what the fuck he is talking about.
willhum 2 months ago
@willhum Such an inciteful post. So much information to clarify your position.
RockingMrE 2 months ago
lol you completely missed the point of the whole concept...
kblflivingston 2 months ago
@kblflivingston I love the way people like you make statements without a sound logical context to apply it to.
RockingMrE 2 months ago
Postmodernists aren't Fascists. So much of this is mind-bogglingly annoying
robertkeeganwalker 3 months ago
@robertkeeganwalker You've made nothing but a bunch of absolute statements here without directly addressing my points in the slightest. That reaks of disingenuous intent. You should read Orwell's essay on Nationalism to get a more nuanced understanding of fascism. Postmodernists are leftists, and Marxism is part of this philosohical view. For someone who reverts to words and labels repeatedly you seem to be very quick to decide what is correct - which indicates intellectual dishonesty.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE "Absolute statements"? By saying a label, that you've used, is inadequate, when applied to another label, that you used?
And there you go and do it again, say I haven't read something you have (which I have) and say:
"For someone who reverts to words and labels repeatedly you seem to be very quick to decide what is correct - which indicates intellectual dishonesty."
That's you man. All I did was say some labels were inadequate. You should read, etc.
robertkeeganwalker 3 months ago
@robertkeeganwalker Do you honestly think that I buy any of this "you can't label this way" bs? All the while you are free to make absolute statements, just like the Communists of USSR. And then your ilk deny your leftist stance. One glance on your channel shows you are just a Pyrrho stooge. You have nothing constructive to offer - I should have blocked you from the beginning given that you are so transparent.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@robertkeeganwalker no, they are just completely useless idiots
hieraxhideo 1 month ago
Postmodernists, I don't think, are Utopians. If they were, in my understanding, they'd be bad ones
robertkeeganwalker 3 months ago
Postmodernists are not Marxists
robertkeeganwalker 3 months ago
Seriously, dude, you're so out of your depth here. Why are you throwing around these words? I'm not even sure you have a handle on them.
robertkeeganwalker 3 months ago
The Sokol paper was accepted by a non-peer-reviewed journal.
zzzaaayyynnn 3 months ago
@zzzaaayyynnn It was still accepted into the journal, and no doubt there were "experts" who agreed to it.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
what you do here is ignore the material relativity of physics and it's impact on cognition and what we can understand of reality, and pretend a bunch of social scientists occupy the space AFTER the modern (romantic, destiny driven) era.
If you don't understand why all properties are relative, you are staying away from science I suppose.
That a bus has a relative velocity, and this can kill you, doesn't make the velocity absolute, you merely wish this.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
well, post modernism is not one thing except a reaction to the dawn of the Standard Model in science, which is just as much a new understanding of the objective world as it is a cognitive assertion that we obviously get out information through physical senses which provide a subjective experience.
Can you deal with the fact that velocity is not a property in your objectivity, if not try again later.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 Velocity is not a fact in my objectivity (as though the world is not an objective thing in its own right)? This is a strawman argument. Think of the calculations a cat has to do to leap across a ledge. If it miscalculates the distance and the "velocity" it has to travel, and any other number of mental calculations to make its body cover the distance then it would fall. If the world suffered from "other minds" then I'm sure you can imagine how many accidents we would have.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE (cont) If your next comment is anything like you first two I am blocking you - your relativist fallacies are irksome at best and downright irritating at worst. You need to start living in the real world son. I suggest you move on.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE Everything is relative.
Time is relative in modern physics. Units of time are used in pretty much every area of physics, so almost the entirety of the physical world is subject to relativity. Distance, velocity etc. All relative.
IdaMiaDot 3 months ago
@IdaMiaDot That's an is-ought fallacy and you truly haven't got a clue what you are talking about. The fact that time is sometimes measured in units has NOTHING to do with it being relative in an absolute sense. Time, distance, velocity etc are all empirically definable within the context of what they are being applied to. This is not relative. You are simply attempting to create a relative conclusion without a context to apply it to. You're an idiot.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE : the thing is I'm materialist, but the world is not made of "objects". The idea of an object is just an ancient theory about what the material world consists of. With physical relativity we know it's not objects. With objects, all their properties are inherent, built in, things like velocity, in an objective system, are properties of objects, not of RELATIONS.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 You are confusing your terms. Physics is part of the LAWS that govern the material universe. The objects that exist within that universe are subject to those laws but are seperate "things" in their own right. Look up realism on wikipedia if you want to see what I am referring to. This is all basic science that even a layman should know.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE : no, I'm not. I'm famliar with realism. There are a variety of technical issue here that affect a good understanding of how reason works, and how the world works, and the difference between the two at this time.
Physics has only theories... calling them laws is part of the modern, classical era. It's simply not the case that they can't be broken... calling them laws doesn't change that. Of course they are broken, that's why we are still looking for better theories, eh?
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 "Of course they are broken, that's why we are still looking for better theories, eh?"
Another misconception and logical fallacy I'm afraid. Perceptions and conceptions can evolve with more info, and physics is easily the most cutting edge area of science, but how on earth does this validate idealism? The answer is it doesn't. The laws of time and space are objectively defineable. What law can be broken? Time? Gravity? Perhaps they can be manipulated, but never broken.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE : I'm a materialist, not an idealist. You claim they are objectively definable but one, that has yet to be done, and is a claim you have to demonstrate, and two, we already know the definition is relativistic, as in General Relativism, not the bogey relativism you imagine.
Newton's Laws of motion can be broken.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 No law of physics can be broken - it can only be manipulated. I suggest you go and read some high school science textbooks. Materialism, Idealism, Relativism, Sophism et al - you all base your conlusions on unproven conjecture that belongs in the middle ages. You have no respect for science and you're no better than astrologers. Conversation over - you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
excellent video, subscribed.
atlaspressed 4 months ago
based on your hormones example and your response to tattooskin or whatever his name was, you are missing the point of the philosophy
adamswise 4 months ago
@adamswise If you are attempting to goad me into a whole charade about truth being subjective, as I have endured on this comment section repeatedly, then I suggest you move on because I will not invest any more time in such idiotic arguments that compare to the perceptions of a newborn baby.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
I just watched you video and it is interesting, but I *strongly* disagree with your characterization of Nietzsche as a (proto-) postmodernist. This will sound odd, and I'm willing to back this assertion in dialog, but, I've come to see Nietzsche as one of the most, if not the most, sound thinkers. Again, I realize this may sound strange, given the idiocy of historical, traditional interpretations of his work, but, I'll stand by it... -Cheers.
hartforest 4 months ago
@hartforest All are free to give their opinions on this channel when they are as courteous as yours here. But the more I learn about Nietzsche the more I realise he was the father of postmodernist thought - whether he and his supporters would accept the title or not. Much like Marx, Neitzsche paved the way for those that were inspired by him. Neitzsche inspired a perversion of reality, particularly via moral nihilism. I will dedicate a video to this because it deserves attention.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE I disagree. One of Nietzsche's main concerns was nihilism, particularly that which is embedded in Socratic/Christian thought. The main, and I think the *only* theme of Nietzsche's work, and one that runs throughout his life, was that of the total and joyful affirmation of reality, or life. It was this total approbation which drove his critiques and I don't see how anyone can argue against it. You either accept reality or you don't.
hartforest 4 months ago
@RockingMrE And such joyful approbation is completely inarguable from the outset. Cheers.
hartforest 4 months ago
@hartforest Nietzsche feeling that man can define his own purpose is one I can side with, but he goes way too far with his interpretation of truth, and I'm afraid his views were a major inspiration for an attack on rationalism. You say about Nietzsche accpted reality, but in fact he was more interested in arguing that there was no objective truth - which of course is nonsense.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Nietzsche never denied truth as a constitution or as an activity, but he did deny Plato's (and traditional philosophy in general) assertion that 1) truths were static and unchanging *things* since we, living, and thus changing ourselves never encounter anywhere in reality anything in an unchanging manner. Plato himself had to "locate" his Forms, ("truth") outside of the world precisely because of this fact and his term "einai" is such a locative term. We never encounter stasis...
hartforest 4 months ago
@RockingMrE 2) Nietzsche rightly pointed out that Plato "stood truth on her head in denying perspective, the basic condition of all life." Why did N say this? Precisely because we are ephemeral limited bodies with no access to omniscience or omnipresence. This is why, I think, he thought the natural sciences were so important. But while they addressed the "physical world" they left us little room for our revaluations which is the "why" of his "Frohliche Wissenschaft"...
hartforest 4 months ago
@RockingMrE 3. Language is always metaphorical including terms like "objective" and "truth," particularly when you engage language going back to etymological roots which he did as a philologist. Our knowledge is language based, which means it will be naturally rhetorical in a very deep sense. For instance, even in a more or less rational dialog, we seek to, in the very least, persuade the other to give our thoughts expressed, a listen and consideration, do we not?
hartforest 4 months ago
@RockingMrE As such, most "postmodernists" have never been in the least "Nietzschean" since they've never accepted the real. I'd recommend Clement Rosset's _Joyful Cruelty_ to better understand where I'm coming from.
hartforest 4 months ago
@hartforest Nietzsche's "perspectivism" and "moral nihilism" were far too subjective. Many people state that Marx was misrepresented by the USSR, much like Nietzsche and Nazism, but we have to ask whether this was a result of philosophical flaw. Regarding language and reality - a tree is still a tree regardless of what you call it - language is secondary to axiomatic fact. Too many use the strawman position that knowledge expands to support the conclusion that objective knowledge is (cont)
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE impossible. Knowledge is an ever-growing process - but this in no way supports a position where objective knowledge is impossible. Quite the contrary - we are simply expanding our objective understanding of reality. I will leave you with this:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." ~ William Shakespeare.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Furthermore, N, explicitly says that knowledge is not only "an ever-growing process" but that it is language dependent and is more so as knowledge grows. Language is how knowledge is transferred amongst and between people, who are always perspectival. This isn't "subjectivism." There's no way around this unless you can prove to me, people are disembodied and/or inhabiting the same place. Never has the latter been shown to be true, yet it is the premise of traditional "truth" concept.
hartforest 4 months ago
@RockingMrE I think your assertion that N was a "moral nihilist" arises from the historical confusion between "morals" and "ethics," the latter of which Nietzsche never really spoke of or criticized. You may think this is only semantic, but I'd posit that N the philologist understood the differences between them. Perspective isn't "subjectivism." I know of no person who is disembodied or unplaced. That would be a fact, would it not? What Plato, according to Nietzsche, was doing...
hartforest 4 months ago
@RockingMrE ...was to demand a singular perspective of truth as "seeing correctly", which is demonstrably false, can never be true, and a lie, since we cannot inhabit the same place simultaneously. As such, Plato rejected reality for a metaphysical fiction. Nietzsche never says, anywhere to my knowledge, men cannot know truths, but that it can only appear to us through the perspective we are, through language, and never outside reality, one facet of which we are each a perspective. That's a fact
hartforest 4 months ago
@hartforest I still stand by my psoition that perspectivism is a subjective ideology given that it concludes that any objective fact as impossible. I also vehemently disagree with any position that states language is essential to truth as well - language is a secondary component. The universe is distinct, regardless of what we call that which resides within, and irrespective of whether we understand them at any given time, which is open to expansion via new discoveries and accomplishments.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE So, do you believe truth is a concern of the "universe" or of humans?
hartforest 4 months ago
@RockingMrE "A tree is a tree" yes, but N. isn't arguing otherwise. What he did say is that the concept "tree" is derived from multiple interactions with many concrete, but differentiated, trees. The concept is derived from our perception not vice versa. "Tree" has no reality "in itself." There is no such thing as a concrete concept "tree," which is only derived from actual existent trees and set into language. The concept is *not* more real than the trees which appear to us. That's his gist.
hartforest 4 months ago
@hartforest There is a concrete concept of a tree, regardless of what we understand it to be at that given moment, and regardless of what we call it. Every fibre of that tree is made up of a singular component. Consider the protons within that tree. We could change their names - but nonetheless they still fulfill the same role. Thus this is semantics, and ultimately solves nothing, other than to create unnecessary confusion, and answers no true questions - it is anathema to (cont)
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE rational philsosophy to suggest otherwise. Clearly we differ given that I am a philosophical realist, and you are obviously of the relativist mindset. Might I suggest you check out my blog on "Defining Objective Morality" too, because again, this is not so relative. However, I am unable to reply on blogspot at the moment due to faults.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE I guess I don't understand how it is "relativist" to posit that we are bodies; we are situated in a place; we perceive so therefore are inescapably perspectival; perception/perspective is simultaneously objective/subjective not either/or objective/subjective; concepts, knowledge and language are bound; we speak; truth is a human concern not that of the universe;... I think I've made some pretty irrefutable claims. If they are refutable please demonstrate how they are.
hartforest 4 months ago
@RockingMrE On the "concrete concept": Did humans then somehow perceive the "thing" of concept prior to encountering actual trees, or did the concept emerge after such encounters? You seem a bit at odds here. Neither our knowledge of the "protons" that make up the tree nor the concept could have arisen without actual trees and our perception/experience of trees first! There is no need to hold the concept or knowledge in higher valuation than the trees. Yet, this is tradition.
hartforest 4 months ago
@hartforest I think we are not going to agree on this matter quite simply because, like I said, you are a relativist in the philosophical sense, and you tick all the boxies for this school of thought. I am however a realist, and am in agreement with the likes of Aristotle and Rand. You feel you have given irrefutable arguments, but to me you have used semantics to rearrange a few home truths, such as the tree being discovered before the atom. But this is irrelevant when you understand (cont)
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE realism, where reality exists independent of observers. Thus atoms exist whether you discover them or not, and has a set function within the universe however you define them, via language, culture, or anything else. It is helpful to understand HOW things work, but it makes no difference to the universe whether we understand things or not - the universe just keeps on going. I am happy to leave it there and agree to disagree, because too often realists and relativists fall into (cont)
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE conflict due to completely different views of reality. Take care and catch you soon.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE I'm sorry but nowhere did I assert that atoms exist only when and because we discover them. In fact, I was careful *not* to assert such an absurd claim. What I did say is that there is no evidence whatsoever, those atoms concern themselves about the "truth" of their own existence. Again, if you can prove otherwise by all means do so. Truth is a human concern, but it is not to be confused with the fact of existence, particularly if you, as an Objectivist, believe A=A.
hartforest 4 months ago
@RockingMrE If you take A=A as your primary axiom then: Truth is either the universe, the totality of all existing things or it is not. If it is the totality of all existing things, and "subjective" and "objective" both exist, then they must be considered, and valued as, equally true. In the case of man both are inescapable aspects of being human regardless of our valuations about them.
Morality: Either it exists independent of man or it does not. The latter claim is absurd. It concerns man
hartforest 4 months ago
@hartforest A always = A, so reality is always objective. Thus it is your perception that suffers from human concern given that you focus on language, culture, or solipsism, like a child yet to discern that life exists outside of its own observable reality. We can GROW to understand reality, though reality is still objective even before we do this. Morality is objective too if you accept that no one is born with greater authority, and thus we are all are born equal. (cont)
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE If you disagree then you must somehow believe in a benevolent force that gives moral authority to one group over another, which of course there is no objective evidence for. I find your arguments to be rather esoteric to be honest. Reality is objective - and it is YOUR relative understanding of reality that suffers from a rather humanly simplistic failure to accept that this exists independently of human thought. I truly hope we can go our own way (cont)
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE after this because it is clear that you are very much an idealist, and I simply do NOT agree with this philosophical school of thought given that I am an realist and a rationalist. I give you another opportunity to agree to disagree. Take care.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Once again, I never once stated, all reality is dependent upon human thought or "subjectivity" for its existence. But, the question is, do you consider subjects as real? If so, they too are objective since only subjects relate to objects for any account of truth. You are confusing the fact of existing with truth claims. Subatomic particles show no evidence of a pursuit and criteria of their truth, they simply exist. Therefore, truth is a concern, has meaning, only to human subjects.
hartforest 4 months ago
@RockingMrE A true statement: 2+2=4. I can repeat this all day and have really said nothing at all. I'm left asking: Who cares?...Four of what? Only what we call a "subject" can relate four things, see the pattern and make such a statement, and vice versa, since only a subject can make true statement about four things. The things show no evidence of concern how they are grouped and what statements are made about them, including there truth! Subjectivity is inescapable for any account of truth.
hartforest 4 months ago
@RockingMrE The account of truth is one of the most distinguishing characteristics of being human. The attempt to displace "truth" as lying "out there" beyond humans is anti-human, anti-life, since no evidence has surfaced that the rest of existence shares this distinguishing trait. It simply exists. It seems to me a metaphysical fiction quite apart from reality as we live it, within reality, as real existences.
hartforest 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Lastly, every science is perspectival. While the scientific method is used to validate experiments, every science has a *focus* (literally a term of perspective). Thus much of biology doesn't focus upon particle physics. This neither invalidates biology, even though particles seem to be the "fabric" of reality itself, nor makes the reduction to particle physics the best approach. Nor does it make "bios" unreal. See the work of William Wimsatt (Philosophy of Biology) for illustration.
hartforest 4 months ago
@hartforest This type of argumentation is akin to mental masturbation. You have resolved nothing with your reasoning, and thus have come to no conclusions other than the fact that you have no answers to any questions that are not based on relativism. I’ve heard these arguments before - it is conjecture of the highest order, and esoteric garbage that proves nothing. You need to learn to understand that the world exists outside of your solipsism, and if you can’t respect the laws of reality (cont)
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE then I suggest you go and walk in front of a bus and see just how “perspectival” science is then. This sort of philosophy disgusts me, and is akin to Winston being told that 2+2 = 5. Your method of deduction has been outgrown by rationalism, and it's pathetic how you repeat your fallacies ad nauseum to ware people down. Move on - you are not wlecome on this channel. I've given you ample chance to move on peacefully - I will not engage with such fallacies endlessly. Blocked.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
...not models of the general population!
Very well said!
But "fascists"? Haha.. you have yet some steps to take to objective truth... ;)
bjorinn 4 months ago
@bjorinn Thanks for the compliment.
I'm not sure what your problem is with the fascist comment though - it is certainly apt when dealing with this philosophy pretending to care about individuality.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE You're welcome. Well, the purpose of fascism was not really to suppress individuality, to create a conform mass of people, or something of that sort. That's a scurrilous portrait of it. I'm not a fascist myself, but the truth about fascism is much more nuanced than just pure totalitarianism in every aspect of life.
bjorinn 4 months ago
@bjorinn I would argue that the fundamental goal of fascism is to suppress individualism in favour of the collective, though of course there are different facets of this ideology. I'm planning to make a video about this because in particular people associate fascism with the far right, as though there is no leftist alternative. Anlther misconception is that fascism only occurs via nationalism, though the definiition of nationalism varies, especially according to an Orwellian perspective.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE I guess we have different views on that ideology then. Anyway, I'll subscribe to your channel and will be looking forward to your video. Perhaps we could continue this debate there, where it's more on topic.
bjorinn 4 months ago
@bjorinn Okay. Here's an interesting link, though I particularly recommend Orwell's essay on Nationalism:
fvdb. wordpress. com/ 2010/04/27/ communism-and-fascism-the-twin-evils-of-collectivism/
RockingMrE 4 months ago
I've had similar troubles while conversing with leftists. It's an awful lot like what I imagine trying to have a conversation with the cast of Looney Toons would be like. Anyway, good, sound logic here. Good work.
VirikNavarro 4 months ago
@VirikNavarro Yeah, talking with Daffy, Bugs, Samity Sam, et al, is a lot like talking to this group of subjectively inclined crazy varmints :-D
RockingMrE 4 months ago
great vid
buckodcelt 4 months ago
@buckodcelt Thanks :-)
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@7:44 2 types of Atheists? Atheist is a single answer to a single question. It's not a world view. There are currently 3 worldviews to which an Atheist can subscribe. Pre-modernism; Modernism; Postmodernism and variations of these 3. If you want to see a complete world view check my profile. As you can see if you don't gneralise and quantify all the different values there are many combinations possible.
@8:16 That sentiment is rethorical nonsense.
AlainG80 4 months ago
@AlainG80 You've contradicted yourself. You say Atheism is not a worldview and yet you claim there are 3 worldviews in the next sentence. I could also argue YOU are generalising with only 3 distinctions. Your liberal logic fail to break down reality is rampant. You are clearly a pseudo-intellectual sprouting psychobabble akin to typical leftist jargon and I suspect you found my channel via the PC crowd that repeatedly behave in this fashion. You are obviously just trying to annoy me. Blocked.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
postmodernism, existentialism structuralism, post this post that and the rest of the of the philosophical mambo jambo are to science what alchemy is to chemistry.
The fact that 21st century ppl still pay attention to the armchaired psedoscientists is alarming.
For any philosopher that promotes dogmas and theories, without following the standard scientific path of validation, the very least one can be is suspicious and hesitant and NOT adopt their ideas and promote them as gospel.
...
AmetReloads 5 months ago
@AmetReloads Funny that the moron tattooskin would hold that position, taking in mind that he vows that gender is genetically determined for transsexuals.
Another case of liberal cretard.
Consistency is apparently too much to ask from liberals.
Be aware my friend,the liberal fundamentalist ,is just another manifestation of the long tradition of RedGuards.Reality is an obstacle to their delusional world of make believe, and no mean is unethical to discredit and silence dissenting views.
AmetReloads 5 months ago
@AmetReloads I welcome your common sense - trying to find rational people in this mire of leftist dogma is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Leftists will argue that milk is green if it suits their obsession with social engineering.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
You're confusing Structuralism with the rest of post-modern thought.
ladyattis 5 months ago
@ladyattis No I'm not. Check my links.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@RockingMrE Yes you are. I've read quite a bit of Foucault (btw he's one of the Post-Structuralists that defended capitalism). Foucault was no more a cultural marixst than Albert Camus was a communist (he was criticized by he contemporaries like Sartre for being against Communism).
ladyattis 5 months ago
@ladyattis Like I said, look at my links. You cannot base a whole philosophy on the idea that life is basically a social construct, and that there is no objective truth, ignoring the multitude of other evidence led fields of human endeavour that disprove this. My links support my views, and the central theme of Postmodernism is how I describe it in this vid.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@RockingMrE Furthermore I need to add that Postmodernism is a leftist philosophy, regardless of whether others deviate here and there. Were Netizsche or Freud Marxists? No. But this is irrelevant to the fact that Postmodernists are leftists that want to implant their fallacious theories, inspired by the Frankfurt School and critical thoery - a leftist thinktank. You sound like someone closely associated with Postmodernism tbh, and I have no desire to "convert" anyone.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@RockingMrE Life is a social construct in terms of values, pursuits, and narratives. Also, you continue to operate on the fallacy of hasty generalization as to say that X population has Y attribute without sufficient evidence. The exceptions I noted are sufficient to prove that the rule is insufficient (that all PoMos are leftists). I suggest you read beyond Rand and Peikoff. Even David Kelley would be a good start.
ladyattis 5 months ago
@ladyattis Even narratives, pursuits, and values are not all based on social constructs. In fact science is telling us more and more that it isn't. The only thing that guides my life IS evidence, and you repeatedly fail to check my links that show this, instead trying to misdirect me by dragging me into your axioms. I have presented my evidence for this vid, and you haven't provided anything but conjecture.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@RockingMrE (cont) I'm blocking you. I refuse to be harassed by people who cannot present coherent arguments based on logic and reason. You do not have the right to hound me with logical fallacies. TA TA.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@RockingMrE i dont particularly like pomo but rand is much worse..
the only part of 'science' (i think by that you mean the hard sciences?) that i know something about is physics and i can assure you that physics doesn't have solid foundations, not ever.
mirabileamavi 5 months ago
@mirabileamavi Science is the search for absolute knowledge. Though we may not understand something today, that doesn't mean we wont understand it tomorrow. Either way you need to be more specific if you want your points to carry weight. As for your point about Rand, emotive language is not a solid argument.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@RockingMrE ok a few things, scientific realism is by no means the dominate view in phil of science and even the realists don't subscribe to such an extreme view of science. solid arguments need some understanding of symbolic logic.. even then, they are not 'absolute' solid.
anyhow, how about this: rand have contributed nothing to science, and nothing to logic and mathematics, yet the philosophers whom she dislike are huge contributors to both fields.
mirabileamavi 5 months ago
@RockingMrE so to refute that claim, you only need to show how rand had made contributions to those fields. physics probably isnt that important regarding rand, but since she claim to be a champion of reason and yet had made no contribution to logic.. and not understanding the most basic logical features.. (existence exists is a tautology and yet says something substantive?) is a little strange.
mirabileamavi 5 months ago
@mirabileamavi First off Rand DID contribute to logic and reason. Here is a great link to show a breakdown of her philosophy:
andrej. com/ objectivism/
There is simply too much info to refute in this regard, so you'll have to keep up with my channel to see my views here, and my next blog will delve into this.
The logical fallacy that many make when they attack scentific realism is the idea that without absolute understanding of everything it is flawed or pointless. This is a (cont)
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@RockingMrE strawman because you're first assuming that without absolute knowledge realism is less valid. or even completely invalid. Objective knowledge is actually an expansion of old information in a constant process, gradually developing our understanding of reality - there is no absolute end goal as such. Also, anything that is unprovabe is irrelevant - we cannot prove there is a God, so it is irrelevant. Logic and reason are the only reliable methods to measure and define reality.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@RockingMrE we must mean different things by logic... i'm talking about symbolic formal logic, logic as such, i.e. the kind that makes the computer possible. and no, you only need to name one contribution to logic, i.e. russell's principia, frege's begriffsschrift.
even scientific realism need unprovable things, remember the munchhausen trilemma? anyways the theory is not a search for reality per se, but state that we already have a lot of the reality in our basket i.e. atoms really exists.
mirabileamavi 5 months ago
@mirabileamavi What is unprovable today is common knowledge for tomorrow. History tells us so. Consider a man of the medieval era being transported to our time and you will see what I mean. It is destructive to resign humanity to the futility of the search for "proving the unprovable", though the "unprovable" cannot be elevated to objective truth until there is evidence to substantiate it. Those who do not respect this open the floodgates for irrational exploitation.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@theGreaserrr Very nice way of summarising this discussion. Glad to have your sub and welcome aboard :-)
RockingMrE 5 months ago
There's a lot from the old left (esp Karl Marx) that I find highly valuable, but I also firmly reject the "tabula rassa" school of anthropology.
I don't think this is totally an "either/or" issue.
I'm also glad to see that you espouse tolerance for persons who are not "typical" - which is precisely where so called "social conservatives" get things so wrong.
DemokraticRepublican 5 months ago
@DemokraticRepublican You're right - it isn't an either/or issue. BUT there ARE central tendencies that many on the left want to bypass when pushing their theories of social construction.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
You cannot turn a rooster into a chicken by politically indoctrinating it and don't let any butch strutting bull hen or gender confused capon tell you any different.
youmaus 5 months ago
RME,
You don't realize it; but, you just did me a great service. (grin)
I want to thank you for so-clearly and so-concisely putting-into-words what I have bveen trying to properly (wordwise) formulate (in my own mind) for my impending conversational engagement with "My-area's-" -Skeptics and -Freethinkers Meetup groups (for them) to chew on (many of who are PM-, feminist-, anti-Objective- -type Atheist.
Thx, & wish me luck (j/k)... ...I'm goin' in -- guns (intellect) ablazin'!
B-)
drochalsey 5 months ago
Sorry bad rushed typing- rationalism neurologically formed IF subjective qualia does not get in the way. - huh actually this typo is kind of prove of what I just put!
apekillssnake 5 months ago
@theGreaserrr To be honest the research I have uncovered indicates that Postmodernist philosophy is basically ALL based on the idea that objective truth is impossible due to social constructs. There is no other stance other than this overall. Check out my wiki link and see what i mean. Not all Existentialists are Marxists, but all Postmodernists are part of a group sometimes referred to as NeoMarxism.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
Yo MRE!regards! I am almost moving (1st to 2nd of oct)- already been wandering about 2 video ideas, but will give sometime to be sure they fit your mindset- now my question inspired on this video
-if i am really driven by my skepticism and find real trouble in ignoring the relativity of my interpretations,not all the time,i am able to have an absolutist stance, but maybe even then i question myself if its not a mistake.
so am i in anyway under the post-modern disease/spell??hehe :D fun question
Ricosophy 5 months ago
@Ricosophy It's okay to question reality, but upholdng Rationalism, reason, and logic is what separates subjectively inclined philsophy from the objective ;-)
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@MassEFR34k Thank you sir :-)
RockingMrE 5 months ago
1) All scientific theories & categories are social in that they are conceptual constructs through which we understand & manipulate reality; put simply: no minds = no science! What gives science epistemological validity (or claims to objective truth) are such grounds as: meaningfulness, predictive-value, usefulness, measurability, consistency... etc. One such grounds science clearly has greater epistemological power than belief or faith. (cont'd)
CeltoSaxonKnight 5 months ago
2) Yet any claims that such grounds constitute or 'grasp' reality in absolute – is where the cautious, nay the rational, mind must break away – for that way scientism lies!
On the other hand the position that such epistemological grounds constitute nor 'grasp' no part of reality results in adle-brained post-modern subjectivism.
Thus the question to what extent does science 'read truth off of reality' is a complex one which neither naïve realism nor naïve subjectivism solve. (cont'd)
CeltoSaxonKnight 5 months ago
3) Yet accepting this in no way denies the importance, utility & nobility of science itself.
OAP: yes you are 100% correct there are 2 types of atheist! I've been arguing the same thing for some time now: whilst Atheism has a long & noble tradition this new crop are little more that Marxist politicised PC cultists... Which I think speaks volumes about our current education system... Sadly.
CeltoSaxonKnight 5 months ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight I disagree about "Scientism", which we've disagreed on before. I've also said before that the term Scientism is used to downplay the importance of Science when compared to subjective philosophies like metaphysics. I would add that if you do not value Rationalism then you open the floodgates for the subjectively inclined to destroy ANY form of objectivity. This is what theists need to learn to understand. Solipsism leads to suppression of truth through ideas like (cont)
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@RockingMrE Postmodernism - you are making a deal with the devil so to speak ;-)
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@RockingMrE I agree if you are not open to hearing objectivism and rationalism then you are getting your voice from somewhere else! This seems to run pandemic now in ever more increasing circles!
apekillssnake 5 months ago
@apekillssnake
So objectivism and rationalism construct reality do they? Or perhaps, one may suppose, they are constructed within reality and thus are necessarily lesser than that reality - thus contingent, not necessary! Or at least necessarily of the lesser understanding of contingent beings that is? Meaning no epistemic surety, surely? Else how your certainty?
CeltoSaxonKnight 5 months ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight That one is easy- the genesis of objectivism is formed outside of reality, we then bring this into being through having rationalism neurologically formed is subjective qualia does not get in the way of this. Then subjectivism will subvert objective reality from forming. That is how I am certain, philosophy does not believe in democracy it takes deconstruction of dogma to be an objective realist. Hope that answer your question!
apekillssnake 5 months ago
@RockingMrE
Indeed we have disagreed on this subject before... I do not downplay the importance of science unless you wish to insist science is all? But that quickly is defeated by the very idea of non-science – which you must accept given your oppositional socio-political stance!
The question is about warrant. Firstly how justified are scientists to claim their theories & constructs are 100% true? Secondly how justified to claim all knowledge should be tenable to science? (cont'd)
CeltoSaxonKnight 5 months ago
Thirdly how justified to claim all of reality should be tenable to science?
Ultimately if satisfactory warrant cannot to these cannot be given, then the case is not closed. I hold science in high regard & esteem, but it is a human endeavour thus flawed – can humans do you suppose attain any necessary perfection?
I make no compact with post-modernism, nor theism incidentally, here - but with reason alone!
CeltoSaxonKnight 5 months ago
@CeltoSaxonKnight Absolute knowledge is basically impossible to attain - you can never know everything about reality, though we are learning more all the time. But to strive for perfection is what drives the endeavour for truth. If people wish to postulate over what they cannot prove then I say let them - as long as they do not expect their views to hold warrant alongside that which can be proven. If we stray from this then nothing is sacred - a bit like in 1984 when Winston is told that 2+2=5.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@RockingMrE Hey taking a leaf out of your upload if speed of light is a sexist equation then 2+2=5 must be a feminist equation. So tell me MrE did Crustyworldwithin really block you from her channel. I was so laughing about epoch at the end of that upload I nearly pissed myself. She is such a loser and epoch is a Schizophrenic!
apekillssnake 5 months ago
@apekillssnake Yeah Krissy blocked me because I stood up to the pathological liar named Eopyk
I am convinced Eopyk has Existential/Philosophical/Solipisism OCD :-D (google it). I am done with that group to be honest - it's time we called them out for what they are - liars.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@RockingMrE Oh yeh, you can see when you talk to him he is not right, and when you see him commenting elsewhere he kind off compounds that people are against him, what is with this love you x stuff he puts to persons all the time. If you ask me he's "old greg" heaven forbid that society became 1984 styled completely- you would not want to be tied to a chair in epochs cellar- that is why I avoided speaking with him because I could tell straight away something was not right with him!She's nuts too
apekillssnake 5 months ago
@RockingMrE What is funny is when he said my psychologist and psychiatrist have not said I am any of those things, I thought is that your PRO transgender please dont kill yourself-if we agree with anything you say type psychiatrist that are all about the persons progress! When he constantly kept trying to hammer home his points after he knew you were blocked but it took a while for him to come down from that place did he end it by himself saying he was not a soloips (not solipsist)was pure gold!
apekillssnake 5 months ago
Great videos man, but you need to work a bit with a metronome, ; p
Sivels 5 months ago
@Sivels "but you need to work a bit with a metronome"
And you would know about that would you? :-P
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@RockingMrE Lol, I am indeed a fellow guitar player--- Of course I have yet to post videos of my playing so I'm not going to be overly critical. Don't get me wrong, your guitar playing is skilled, but seems rushed... haha, I'm sure nobody cares about these details, but as a guitar player I guess I'm the exemption.
again, great videos, great playing, really enjoy your videos!
Sivels 5 months ago
@Sivels Lol - I'm not going to go into my musical background but the metronome comment seems like a low blow to me :-P
Cheers for the video compliment, though I will be hunting down some of your guitar playing now :-D
RockingMrE 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RockingMrE "metronome comment seems like a low blow to me :-P" haha, I feared it would come across that way, it was intended as constructive criticism but I guess it's hard not coming across as a dick in the process.. Let's just leave it at that, maybe I will continue criticizing your playing when I post my own playing, haha!
Sivels 5 months ago
As I attend college, I can't tell you how much I have encountered this pseudo intellectual babble known as post modernism.
TselkeNoddles 5 months ago
whether not weather! Sorry
apekillssnake 5 months ago
The walk of shame!
apekillssnake 5 months ago
With all due respect, I don't like the way you've approached discourse here, so I am taking the walk you suggested. Good luck, man.
BoethianAcolyte 5 months ago
@BoethianAcolyte You don't like the way I approached the discourse? That's very vague, but if you feel offended then you shouldn't be subscribed to this channel because I'm done with hodling back given the amount of nonsense I've had to deal with from certain people on YT. Good luck to you too.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@RockingMrE Yeah, I unsubbed. Doesn't seem like you want to have any dialogue with people who disagree with you, and that isn't really what I'm interested in. It's nothing personal, but the attitude here is just off, and I don't really want to make a fuss or anything, but I thought I at least should let you know. Take care.
BoethianAcolyte 5 months ago
@BoethianAcolyte You don't want to make a fuss? To answer your point on debate - I debate with people all the time, and have done with you. But this isn't a prerequisite for ignorance and passive aggression. Some clearly don't like it when they find others expect evidence for views, or proof to invalidate central tendencies. These people have the audacity to accuse others of logical fallacies, conpiracies, or mirepresentation - ironic. Yep, people like this should just unsub. Take care too.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
It's a very interesting video. I didn't know most of your arguments... post-modernism is worse than I thought.
I don't think this ideology can survive. It will disappear in the trash bin of history, sooner or later, because the facts won't go away.
EuropaPhoenix 5 months ago
@EuropaPhoenix I think that as long as people respect rationalism they can overcome those wishing to destroy the search for scientific and verifiable evidence. I do not believe that Postmodernism can survive either, not while science is making breakthroughs all the time involving our understanding of inate biology in the animal kingdom.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
I don't think you should call them fascist, they're not nationalists and fascism is strongly against marxism
delgande 5 months ago
@delgande Ultimately fascism is any ideology that denies the existence of anything that disagrees with it. Sure, traditionally this was defined by nation or race, though there is no reason why this is the only thing it would entail. Thus many feel that ANY ideology that silences or attempts to destroy anything that disagrees with it is a form of fascism - aka femo-fascism being a description of how Feminists hate it when anyone disagrees with them, actively attempting to silence opposition.
RockingMrE 5 months ago
@RockingMrE there must be another word to describe such behaviour, that is,destroying all that disagrees. calling something fascist is just name calling and an easy thing to do as fascists in history have crushed opposition, but they were not the only people who have done that.
also, as communists want equality for all, but that does not make them democratic in any way. they may both want equality, one wants civil equality and the other economic equality, but that does not make them the same.
delgande 5 months ago
@RockingMrE please be aware that in the last part of my comment I was not being serious when I compared communism and democracy, and by democracy I meat the idea of equality embraced in democratic nations, but there is not a lot of room for comments on youtube. I believe authoritarian may be a better word to describe them.
delgande 5 months ago