Are you referring to the physical objects, the mathematics that describes them, the observations that are purportedly shared between observers, or the predictions made by scientific models. — Adam's Off Ox
If two scientists disagree on a conclusion drawn from a set of observations, is that conclusion still objective? — Adam's Off Ox
If every data point has some error with respect to the model that is based on that data, is the error objective? — Adam's Off Ox
Besides that, would you be willing to describe what make up the constituents of reality? — Adam's Off Ox
Is reality made up of physical objects? What about the mathematical formulas that describe those objects? — Adam's Off Ox
Completely true, but what is empiricism if not appeal to the things we have in common between our sensory experiences, and a commitment to sorting out why we sometimes have different ones? — Pfhorrest
One can posit objective moral law, but it has little explanatory power compared to the assumption of an objective physical reality which obeys physical law. — Kenosha Kid
Every experiment is physical. It involves physical humans handling physical apparatus. — Kenosha Kid
Moral law isn't supposed to be explanatory. It's not descriptive, but prescriptive. — Pfhorrest
Would it be fair to say the ontology of things encountered in mathematical study do not all correspond to physical objects which are seen, felt, heard, smelled, or tasted? Do I leave something out of what you are trying to say when I make that distinction between mathematical phenomena and "lived" (i.e. physical) phenomena? — Adam's Off Ox
Here's my take: Post-modernism is a total willingness to deconstruct. Usually this leads to themes like irony or absurdity. Why? Because when you deconstruct something that is assumed to be a monolithic "thing", it is actually seen for just a convention. To be real basic here.. Take any classic sitcom (Leave it To Beaver, Fully House, The Cosby Show.. or whatever variation from countries around the world).. That is modernism.. There is a structure.. family has value.. life has lessons... things can get solved..etc. Now think of The Simpsons, Seinfeld, The Office, etc.. It deconstructs the conventions we take seriously and then sees the absurdity in it, often using irony and satire to show you how silly it is to take these conventions as serious in the first place. — schopenhauer1
I believe absolutely everything can be quantified including the personality of people. — tilda-psychist
I believe there is a connection between everything including apples and oranges (don't compare apples to oranges). Some things have a one to one relationship, some a linear relationship, some a inverse exponential relationship and some things an exponential relationship. Then you have things like bell curves. Ofcourse we have to also consider constants and coefficients. — tilda-psychist
I believe absolutely everything can be quantified including the personality of people.
— tilda-psychist
Quantification is nothing more than mediation with mathematics. And since it is possible for the thinking individual to mediate anything in life, all it takes is a basic knowledge of mathematics for one to quantify shit.
I believe there is a connection between everything including apples and oranges (don't compare apples to oranges). Some things have a one to one relationship, some a linear relationship, some a inverse exponential relationship and some things an exponential relationship. Then you have things like bell curves. Ofcourse we have to also consider constants and coefficients.
— tilda-psychist
Everywhere I look, wherever I see a relation between two or more otherwise independent things, I see an imposition and a synthesis of convention - that is, every connection I see in life has been placed there in some manner by mankind. That is why I believe there is no natural and necessary relation between any two things in life, including the relation between a thing and its identity. Yet there is a practicality with convention, a dependabilty from its having been tested, and many conventions are so intuitive that their relating of things is practically seamless despite the fact that the relating of anything to anything else is essentially a process of mediation - an artificial relation. — Merkwurdichliebe
i can see why you believe this. Alot of what i believe stems from religion and to some extent pan-psychism and scientific determinism (~Fate). — tilda-psychist
i can see why you believe this. Alot of what i believe stems from religion and to some extent pan-psychism and scientific determinism (~Fate).
— tilda-psychist
Same with me, my thoughts here are closely tied in to my religious belief. At the core of it, I believe anything in life is only related to anything else indirectly - through mediation. Yet I make one reservation (which I can only justify by virtue of the absurd): that there is actually one thing that can relate directly to other things in life (requiring no mediation), it is the subject (qua. the thinking, existing individual). — Merkwurdichliebe
But what's important is that there's a hero in The Office - Jim's a 'good guy, even though he's a dick sometimes, but ultimately his heart is in the right place when the dust settles.' There isn't one in the other two. It's a reconstructive effort, though a questionable one. — csalisbury
I believe I am a subject, and I believe in other subjects, and though it is impossible to objectively prove that there is no such thing as subjectivity, I know Banno will try. One thing I do know, if you begin doubting subjectivity, you will eventually face yourself in solipsism, and such demonic masturbation I prefer to avoid. — Merkwurdichliebe
Yes. I can understand that what eventually became the "Postmodern" movement was intended as a correction to unwarranted assumptions and reliance on cold Reason to the exclusion of warm Emotions. Much of the negative criticism was well-founded. But, I don't understand the alternative vaguely-defined non-rational methods that seem to have replaced the analytical methods of Logical Positivism.Gnomon, I believe part of Postmodernism movement/Existentialism (19-20th Century) and Phenomenology (20th) were developed in response to the limitations or gaps left from Logical Positivism. — 3017amen
p0m0 amounts to a relativism so radical it refutes itself, which many adherents (i.e. contemporary sophists & cliteratti) seem to celebrate as a feature (i.e. post-rational(?), post-logo/phallo-centric(???)) rather than as a bug (e.g. vicious circularity, etc). — 180 Proof
Great analysis overall. I'm going to evince my own "look at the camera/eye roll" moment now and mention that I remember seeing a video about (the very epitome of literary criticism of post-modernism perhaps?) David Foster Wallace talking about this very idea that The Simpsons/ Seinfeld doesn't have as much a narrative hero (maybe an anti-hero or near-hero at best in Homer or perhaps Lisa?). They mentioned The Office as trying to "reconstruct" a sort of moralistic (sentimental?) post-modernism missing in the first two. — schopenhauer1
i certainly don't doubt that subjective truth exists. This may seem counter-intuitive but i would argue that embracing the concept that objective truth exists allows for the concept of the moral victory. On the other hand if we take the pursuit of objective truth out of hand it can destroy the concept of moral victory. I'm sure you would agree striking a balance in anything is important. — tilda-psychist
When is one to be ironic and one to be authentic? Is there a good balance? — schopenhauer1
:lol: .. I am not accusing you of nicking the YouTube video.. I just instantly saw a parallel there when I saw what you wrote.. Here is the video I was referring to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2doZROwdte4 — schopenhauer1
I'ma respond, just too late for me to dig in tonight. Hit you back during my work-from-home new-systems office training tomorrow. — csalisbury
Interesting presentation of some fairly complex stuff. But doesn't this video kind of miss Wallace's point about the ineffectiveness of irony? His main problem is not with irony/irreverence/self-referentiality itself but with the fact that where these were effective literary techniques in the 60s and 70s, by the 80s they had been completely co-opted by television and marketing strategies (also on television). The critical force of irony is hollowed out because we've been trained in the arts of thinking ironically by television. By aiming to convey sincerity (the gooey and embarrassing and frankly unfortunate but honest aspects of living) he doesn't turn away from irony but rather passes through it, to the other side, where 'lived experience' shines through again. Maybe Brief Interviews with Hideous Men is a good example: where he uses irony as a form of speaking to allow the shittiness of everyday decisions/actions gain relevance/relatability. The Office and Community may have similar objectives insofar as both are ironic and sincere. But isn't this just another example of exactly what he was originally arguing against: that television has the power to co-opt ways/modes of thinking/experiencing the world, where we always experience that world in absolute solitude, completely alone and by its mediation, always at a distance, never IN it. At least with shows like arrested development, it's always sunny and seinfeld, the void is recognizable as a form of experience. With the 'sincere' ones you mentioned, the soft irony and self-referentiality, are techniques used to draw the viewer towards a false sincerity which, in the end, just covers up the emptiness of our lives in world conditioned by total connectivity and total isolation. Pretty sure DFW just wants us all to make friends and be nice to them.
— Aubrey Grant from YouTube comments
i certainly don't doubt that subjective truth exists. This may seem counter-intuitive but i would argue that embracing the concept that objective truth exists allows for the concept of the moral victory. On the other hand if we take the pursuit of objective truth out of hand it can destroy the concept of moral victory. I'm sure you would agree striking a balance in anything is important.
— tilda-psychist
I like where you're taking this. I don't deny objective truth exists, I just hold it to be a different (and a lesser) kind of truth than subjective truth.
I would disagree that the moral victory relies on objective truth. For starters, there are myriad conflicting moralities based on corresponding objective truths, which in turn, can do nothing to reconcile their differences. So, I can only surmise that when you mention the concept of the moral victory depending on objective truth, you are referring to a "might makes right" scenario in which the superior morality is capable of total domination, and of enforcing its ethics upon all others.
As I see it, the moral victory depends on subjective truth. That is to say, it does not come in one's subscription and adherence to personal principle or an ethical code, the moral victory depends on the decisiveness of the subject; the moral victory comes in the moment of choosing how one will act, and choosing rightly insofar as right is determined by subjective truth. — Merkwurdichliebe
Be ironic toward the made-up hifalutin' nonsense, and be authentic toward the simple, fallible things of genuine value. Try for truth, try to do good, and in doing so tacitly assume through your actions like they are attainable, never impossible, but also never guaranteed. If someone thinks either is guaranteed, roll your eyes at them. But also roll your eyes at those who think either is impossible. Just get to work, realizing it might be hopeless, but try anyway.
Jim rolls his eyes at the camera over all the office bullshit, but he still does an honest day's work. — Pfhorrest
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.