Post-modernist rejection of objective reality, truth, human nature, reason etc; or if you prefer moral and epistemic relativism, is absolutely necessary neo marxian identity politics. How else can one posit the idea, for example, that gender is a social construct; and presume to have the moral righteousness and foresight to deconstruct and remake these evolutionary concepts, without resort to post modernism? — karl stone

If the postmodern ideas would be restricted to country clubs and other special elite venues, there wouldn't be a problem.

Postmodernism is a kind of luxury that most people cannot afford, and so are bound to deride it.

This is psychological gender. Many in the lgbtq community argue that psychological gender is inborn , and can differ from one’s biological sex. This inborn gender-related brain wiring would explain extremely feminine acting males and extremely ‘butch’ females. — Joshs

The description of those behaviors is culturally specific, though.

Where I live, there are no "butch females" or "tomboys", but there are "girls that lack feminine charms and graces". No boys are "girly", but some are "weak". (Or at least, this is how it used to be when I was growing up. But more recently, many people here uncritically adopt American psychology, as if it would be universal and the only relevant one.)

It doesn't occur to me to describe any woman in terms of "she's behaving like a man", or any man as "he's behaving like a woman". Even if she "manspaces", spits, never wears skirts or makeup; even if he has a petite physique with a high-pitched voice, fine hands with fine fingernails, etc.

The way the "aberrations from the gender norm" are interpreted is not universal, not a given. I think the culture you're describing is interpreting those aberrations in a way that supports its particular ideological agenda (which is hypersexed and politically hypercorrect).

This is one of those things that a postmodernist approach allows one to see.

You may disagree that there are biologically formed intermediate genders, but what if you are wrong? What effect do you think your incomprehension might have on those around you, some of whom you may know? — Joshs

So others should be considerate, but you shouldn't have to be??

I should note that focusing on increasing our care and consideration implies that we believe we were acting carelessly and inconsiderately, which I consider to be forms of anger-blame. — Joshs

So far, the only criticisms I've encountered when it comes to postmodernism is that --they're hard to understand! lol. Then spend more time with it until one understands what the fuck they're talking about.
/.../
Just because a postmodern philosopher questioned the status quo, it doesn't mean that philosopher had made his case. The learners just willy-nilly accepted such theory because it is explained as facts, instead of an analysis. For once, let's go against the prominent philosophers and make our case. — L'éléphant

It is precisely in relation to postmodernism that it is evident that higher education should have stayed reserved for those for whom it was originally intended: the elite. The problems some people have with postmodernism are due to their plebeian mentality. When people (of lower or middle class status) pursue higher education with the intention to climb on the socioeconimic ladder, they do not have the cognitive, emotional, and cultural wherewithal needed to understand phenomena like postmodernism (or art, literature, philosophy) in all their width, depth, and flexibility.

And then there's the question who has the time? — Tom Storm

The elites do. That's why they exist.

My point is that being "open to not fully knowing" is a precarious position to be in, a liability that those who are still relatively healthy and wealthy can afford, but the rest can't.

I'm not sure I understand the nuances of your point about 'thinking this way'. Do you mean being aware of this? And what is the connection to being a weakling?

No one really cuts in front of others in grocery lines here unless they are just rude. Usually this can be settled with some words - social status is almost never an issue here but size might be.

I'm not sure if self-awareness connects to awareness of socially constructed status, unless some holds a specific value system.

But perhaps you also mean that rich people get privileges others don't get. I'm still not sure how this relates to self-awareness being for weaklings. And what exactly a weakling is? Do you mean that only those with no power practice self-refection because they are weak? — Tom Storm

I said earlier: I think being more self-aware makes one a loser, a weakling. Unless, of course, one already has a massive ego.

Do you think a poor, ugly person enjoys being self-aware, benefits from it?

Even poverty stricken homeless people philosophise. — Tate

And what good does it do them?

You seem to think that people are born innocent tabula rasas, and that they are helplessly, haplessly thrown into the jaws of propaganda that swallows them up.

I was never taught any critical skills at school or at home, and I still come up with the question, Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways?
How is that??

First of all, I don't think people are born so good and so innocent, or so weak and vulnerable as you suggest. To tie to your example, nobody is born a Christian, but people are born with varying passions. I think these determine how strongly the cultural indoctrination will take root in a particular person and in which ways.

Ingenious propaganda closely interweaves with culture to make a seamless combination so seemingly natural as to prevent native members from even questioning the legitimacy -- both existential & moral -- of the state-sanctioned, core values of the culture. — ucarr

I think you underestimate people's cunning and their propensity for keeping up appearances.
I grew up among Christians in what was a majority Christian culture then. These people mostly didn't actually believe anything they were taught at church, but they kept up the appearance of believing. They would ridicule the small minority who actually took the religious doctrines seriously.

Keeping up appearances is an art form in its own right. It's a form of self-defense.

Postmodernists' critical theory world view is the extreme form of skepticism of all things humans. I don't subscribe to it. It puts doubt on your own thinking of what's really driving cruelty, suffering, ignorance, absurdity, goodness, benevolence. They complicate issues, leaving you with confused state of mind and existence. It can be a bad prescription for hopelessness.

Sometimes I think of them as securing their lucrative posts in the academia and beyond by publishing books that won't ever give definitive answers to human issues. — L'éléphant

Elites tend to be prone to decadence.

They complicate issues, leaving you with confused state of mind and existence. It can be a bad prescription for hopelessness.

Which is one more reason why run of the mill people should not get involved with philosophy.

No, it's a description.

Believers simply hold subjective personal preferences about what they think god/s want. — Tom Storm

But they don't see it that way. They believe they are being objective, neutral. (So do most people anyway.)

Which is how we arrive at the moral quagmire of Christian ethics — Tom Storm

Sure, but whose problem is that? The Christians themselves don't seem to have much problem with it. Each group of Christians, or even each individual Christian believes that they are right, that they are beyond, subjectivity, beyond personal preferences, and that it is other people (including some Christians) who are wrong. For them, this is not a problem, nor a source of doubt or any unease.

(Personally, I think being more self-aware makes one a loser, a weakling. Unless, of course, one already has a massive ego.)
— baker

Can you expand on this? — Tom Storm

"The rich lady can cut in front of me in the waiting line in the grocery store, I must let her do so, because I am inferior, and in this world, might makes right, and there is no point in resisting this system."

Where is the ethical advantage in thinking this way?

I'm afraid @Joshs is ignoring this part of the discussion, though.

but maybe we could just be open to not fully knowing.
— Tate

But only for as long as we're relatively healthy and wealthy.
— baker

What happens if we're not? — Tate

Have you ever tried to be "open to not fully knowing" when you're in a precarious situation with either your health or socioeconomically, or even both at the same time?

8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point.
— Clarky
For the benefit of the members here, this is the euclidean geometry. — L'éléphant

So there is an infinite number of points between any two points?

I’m not against holding something to be true but I am advocating for some rigorous background checking to make sure YOUR conviction or belief it’s true isjustified to YOU and you can cite your sources and also cite why your sources are reliable and rational. Fact checking is a way to support personal beliefs. — universeness

What you're describing is epistemic egoism. It's the ideal of epistemic autonomy.
Given that we're not living in a vacuum, epistemic autonomy is not possible.

Loads of people are more powerful than me. I rarely believe anything they say. — Isaac

Like I said earlier: Neither those above oneself nor those beneath oneself are open to being convinced by the arguments one gives.

I think the existence of a power differential between people makes rational argumentation (and being convinced by rational arguments) difficult or even impossible.

Whether they are actually convinced by that argument is not given by power relationships.

It's the power relationship that prevails.

Personally, it feels awkward to me to agree with an argument given by someone more powerful than myself. Am I agreeing with their reasoning, or submitting to their power?

American vs English usage perhaps? — Isaac

Could be. My casual observations:
-- Americans use "belief" more frequently in ideological contexts,
-- "belief" is an extremely loaded term,
-- middle class people use it more often than elites,
-- in British English, "I believe" seems to often be used with the meaning 'I guess; I think so, but I'm not sure'.

No. I have in mind Kenny's "Faith, then, resembles knowledge in being irrevocable, but differs from it in being a commitment in the absence of adequate evidence" Faith is unwarranted belief.

Knowledge, Belief, and Faith. — Banno

"Unwarranted" on whose terms?
"Belief despite evidence" according to whose idea of evidence?

This is what happens when you throw out all notions of subjectivity and set yourself up as the one objective arbiter of reality.

You don't care about other people's knowledge, insights, concerns. Other people don't really exist for you. You are the one who decides what is real and what isn't, what exists and what doesn't, what is adequate evidence and what isn't. You treat your own standards as if they were the objective standards that everyone is bound to. (IOW, you're doing the exact same thing as many religious people do.)

* * *

Faith is not belief in the face of evidence to the contrary. No one has ever used the word that way as far as I know. — Tate

Some atheists do, for example.

Some atheists believe there is a lot of evidence that shows or at least indicates that god doesn't exist. They also believe that they have the only truthful take on the matter. So from the perspective of those atheists, theists in fact believe in god contrary to evidence.

Similarly, some theists claim that atheists refuse to believe in god despite ample evidence that god exists.

You can find examples of this in the theism-atheism discussions pretty much anywhere where this is discussed.

The two camps have vastly different ideas about what in particular constitutes "evidence of god", but often, they refuse to acknowledge this.

But this has nothing to do with rationality, but with the power hierarchy between the people involved, and the implications of this hierarchy. Neither those above oneself nor those beneath oneself are open to being convinced by the arguments one gives.
— baker

Well, that still leaves those of one's own class, surely? — Isaac

Within the same socioeconomic class, there is still a power hierarchy, depending on socioeconomic context. Would, for example, your boss be persuaded by rational arguments provided by you? Perhaps your colleagues would, as long as you and they are not competing for the same opportunities at work.

My point being that there are relatively few situations in life where the argument from power isn't the strongest one.

You seem to think that the Buddha and his followers are or should be Renaissance men (and that their outlook is or should be scientific materialism).

Is there free will in heaven? Yes? Is there evil in heaven? No? Then free will doesn't explain (or inevitably lead to) evil. — Art48

But only good people get to heaven, people who do no evil.

Then free will doesn't explain (or inevitably lead to) evil.

Do you know any actual monotheistic doctrine that states that evil is due to free will?
Those that I'm aware of use the notion of "misuse of free will", and some then try to explain whence the misuse.

Can we not make our own humanist laws? — universeness

But what good are they?

So our 'pro-lifer' can hold the belief that all life is sacred and also hold the belief that some life is not sacred which he will express (and possibly even rationalise, post hoc) in different ways if and when called upon to do so. If I were to look into his brain (this can't be done yet, of course) and see the tendencies wired into his neural networks, I might render his beliefs as "he believes that all life is sacred, and he believes that all life is not sacred". He would likely not render them that way (seeing how odd it sounds) but the way he renders his beliefs is just a front - a post hoc process designed to make them meet that standard required of rational discussion. — Isaac

_He_, the pro-lifer. Oh, the irony.

I've never heard of "I believe" being equated with "I'm certain", it seemed out of the blue. — Isaac

It seems to me that this is how (philosophically uneducated) people usually mean it.

Yes, the abject (and worsening) failure of the project to get people to think more rationally by using rational argument. — Isaac

But this has nothing to do with rationality, but with the power hierarchy between the people involved, and the implications of this hierarchy. Neither those above oneself nor those beneath oneself are open to being convinced by the arguments one gives.

They were a pro-lifer and now they are not. A change of mind. — Banno

Sometimes, that's the case. Other times, denial, rationalization, compartmentalization are at work.

Christian women are, officially, pro-life, but many, if not most, also routinely use contraceptives and have abortions, just like non-Christian women.
As far as I know Christians, context determines a lot. There are things they proclaim in official situations, but in some informal situation, they might claim the opposite. The whole discrepancy seems so strategic, so systematic that it's hard to believe there is some mistake or unconscious denial going on.

A similar pattern can be observed with with many other people. For example, a white American supremacist nationalist will show contempt for blacks if the topic of the discussion is US internal matters, but will prefer a black American to a white Russian or a white German if the topic of discussion are matters external to the US.

One can peacefully co-exist with one's enemy if both should so choose. — creativesoul

Then they are not enemies to begin with, so your point is moot.

Peaceful co-existence need only require that one sovereign nation respect another.

And Western countries have never respected Russia to begin with.

One can see another as the enemy of self-governance.

A country that actively seeks membership in not one but two organizations that will significantly shape the internal and external policies and actions of said country is clearly not interested in self-governance.

The hallmarks(actual results) of good self-governance are shown in the actual lives and livelihoods of the overwhelming majority. Good government produces quality lives.

People have been trying to cover up their narcissism, hatred, contempt, lack of consideration in many ways, and this emphasis on "self-governance" is the way that is in fashion now.

The same is true of individual people. One can consider another an enemy on certain terms and in certain non violent, non harmful ways. These terms and ways do not cause harm. Nor do they seek any unnecessary unprovoked offensive violence towards this enemy. Seeing another as an enemy is in itself insufficient ground for the enemy to cause retaliatory harm. So, no it is not the least absurd to be able to expect to see another as an enemy(in nice and harmless ways), and completely expect the enemy to be and remain nice and harmless.

This is nonsense.
There is no such thing as "seeing another as an enemy(in nice and harmless ways)".

Someone isn't your enemy because you call them so. But if you insist in doing so, and you take preemptive action, the other party is justified to begin to consider you the enemy (and take according action).

What you're describing here is the preference for a narcissistic one-way relationship where one party gets to define all the terms of engagement, and the other party is supposed to comply. The other party has no say. They are supposed to think of themselves the way the first party demands.

Are you a Christian?

but maybe we could just be open to not fully knowing. — Tate

But only for as long as we're relatively healthy and wealthy.

In the Buddhist context, ignorance refers specifically to the ignorance of the Four Noble Truths.
— baker

I would beg to differ; why would you think the Buddha or his disciples after him were/are so narrow minded! — Agent Smith

It has nothing to do with "narrow-mindedness", but with focus.


“Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.”
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_86.html

You're not serious.

And you didn't answer my question:

Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways?
— baker

Is it my fault the public schools give short shrift to critical thinking? — ucarr

You still didn't answer my question.

Is it my fault the public schools give short shrift to critical thinking? The public needn't be herded together as livestock if they choose to resist. You can't deny, however, that rabbler-rousers travel the fast lane to prison. Most people are so numb with misery they've gotta be reminded of their discontent.

On the other hand, state-sanctioned rabble-rousers score pots of gold for their sage pronouncements, as we've been seeing with the many tongue-waggers hawking that Replacement Theory bosh.

Why do you think this has anything to do with not being taught critical thinking in school?

If anything, I think what's lacking is the culture of the heart, morality, and it's this lack that is causing so many problems.

A person can be fluent in critical thinking, and still be a thug.

I must say, Mr. Tweedle-Dumdee Baker, you're over-civilized to a fault, considering your experience at the greengrocer. I see you're a man who shelters by blending with the crowd. "What? I should publicize myself by opposing a shrew?! Messy affair."

Why, I say, someone's got to get you seeing yourself. You're deeply ensconced within a cage bound by gold bars, but a cage just the same.

It's beyond time you got that old rascal Complacency up on his feet and shakin' a leg.

Oh dear.

Name 3 examples of such sages.
— baker

Do your own homework! — Agent Smith

Really, Smith? This low you go?

Raise the standard of living and the people having so many children will rapidly diminish. — ssu

In order to maintain the relatively high standard of living for some people, many other people have to live a relatively low standard. So that's not really a solution.

And the interesting fact: Japan hasn't had an economic crash or societal collapse. So a World with a diminishing global population might not be so bad after all.

In Japan, living a modest, minimalist lifestyle is a virtue. Not everyone there lives that way, but some do. And if too many did, that would bring problems for the economy eventually.

Plain living and high thinking not only is no more, it seems it isn't the solution some hope it would be either.

That said, legends speak of sages who had mastered the art of statistics to the point of clairvoyance! — Agent Smith

Name 3 examples of such sages.

Marxist alienation is when a person lives contrary to human nature. I think. — Tate

What is "human nature"? Who is the authority on deciding that?

why should anyone care?
— Tom Storm

This is an excellent, devastating criticism of not just post modernism, but most of what attempts to pass for ethical thinking hereabouts. Ethics is at its core about how we interact with others, hence any claimed ethic that does not tell us what to do in our relations to others is void.

The account given by ↪Angelo Cannata starts with considerations of "history" - what I might call "background" or "being embedded" - but then slides into being "subjective", opening itself up to your critique. It has failed to follow through on the fact of our shared world, reverting to some form of solipsism, and as a result fails to deal with the problem of what we ought to do. — Banno

Ought we look to others for moral guidance?

Pomo shows us the ethical advantages of becoming explicitly aware of what is already implicitly involved in sense-making. — Joshs

Please explain this further.

How is such explicit awareness of what is already implicitly involved in sense-making an ethical advantage?

How is it an advantage at all??


(Personally, I think being more self-aware makes one a loser, a weakling. Unless, of course, one already has a massive ego.)

Do postmodernists care? As long as they have tenure, they don't.
— baker

Ha! Yes, I think there are a lot of people who hold to this view. — Tom Storm

They do tend to come across as cold, aloof, uninterested, or at least what they say doesn't seem to have any real-world application. It's why we can readily understand memes like



Of course, the way we see the postmodernists also reveals what we expect(ed) of them. And this is something we can explore further, ask ourselves whether those expectations are justified or not wise or not.

I think, maybe, people mistake description for prescription — Moliere

Yes, it tends to happen.

I think we often tend to look to philosophers (and politicians, artists, etc.) for truth, for moral guidance, we tend to listen to them with the assumption that they are giving moral instruction or even moral orders (even when they don't specifically use the words "You should do such and such, you shouldn't do such and such").

I think we're often not even aware of this tendency; but it shows that it is there when we feel distinctly let down, confused after interacting with someone and not feeling any wiser afterwards.

My overall impression is that postmodernist philosophers want to shake off that role of teacher that is otherwise so often taken for granted when it comes to philosophers (and people of cultural importance). It seems that they're trying to make philosophy be about thinking, an exercise in thinking, in different modes, as opposed to being yet another form or source of ideology.

How might postmodernism be helpful in determining how we should/could live? — Tom Storm

Do postmodernists care? As long as they have tenure, they don't.
/dissing pomo

In the Buddhist context, ignorance refers specifically to the ignorance of the Four Noble Truths.

Note however, there must be a psychological term for this, negative experiences are more susceptible to hasty generalizations than positive ones — Agent Smith

Yes, it's called a sense of entitlement.

After getting bitten, people don't confuse a rope for a snake. It's that before they got bitten for the first time, they confused a dangerous snake for a harmless rope, acting in the belief that the world should be a safe place for them.

My point is that the questions asked about the nature of the Tatagatha (whether after death he exists or not etc.) on which the tetralemma in the OP is based are just this kind of complex questions demading simple answers. Someone who would understand the nature of the Tatagatha would not ask such questions to begin with.

The whole tetralemma is set up by ignorance and insisting in the tetralemma just perpetuates the ignorance. There is no mysticism to it, and no middle way, it's just ignorance.

"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four?
There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that].
There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms].
There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question.
There are questions that should be put aside.
These are the four ways of answering questions."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.042.than.html

Part of the practice is understanding which question should be answered in which way, and why thusly.