iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 6:58 pm
What we need here of course is a context. One in which the modernist and the postmodernist discuss what
through the use of language can be encompassed and communicated objectively and what cannot.
Modernist? I'm not sure why the modernists need to get brought in.
One could compare with scientific realists. Or realists in general. Or folk philosophy, the mix that's out on the streets. Modernists? But it's your interest, so pursue that, then.
For example, the Supreme Court here in America just overturned Roe v. Wade. A modernist and a postmodernist discussing that. The objective facts involved that every rational man and woman can agree on, and the conflicting, subjective value judgments regarding the morality of abortion itself.
Still not sure why you are choosing modernism, that's a pretty specific period. But anyway, what do you think the modernists would have considered objective and subjective regarding that case?
Language and law. Language and ethics.
There is such a thing as human nature; it consists of faculties, aptitudes, or dispositions that are in some sense present in human beings at birth rather than learned or instilled through social forces. Postmodernists insist that all, or nearly all, aspects of human psychology are completely socially determined.
from the online Brittanica.
Again, we'll need an actual set of circumstances in order to note what either can or cannot be communicated objectively. However one intertwines nature and nurture.
Well, not if our goal was to note generalities, which is part of what we've been doing. 'either' implies you are still seeing the main split between mordernism and postmodernism.
For me, it's less nature vs. nurture and more objective truth vs. subjective opinion.
So, epistemology. For me, related to identity, it is important whether both nature and nurture affect us/are us. That we are not infinitely malleable. That some beliefs will suit each individual better than others, for example. This plays into issues that come out below.
Any postmodernists here willing to choose a context?
Are you addressing a general audience via my post? I can't say I identify as a postmodernist, though I agree with many things they have noticed. I think it's too broad a group to think they will have the same reactions to Roe vs. Wade, I mean even at the meta level of objective facts vs. subjective reactions.
Is a deontological narrative/agenda here even possible?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 1:54 amI am not sure what that sentence means. Deontological agendas seem pretty possible though agenda is an odd word choice. Or, it seems like it. Are you saying that deontological ethics are less possible than consequentialist ones? in what sense? If not why mention just deontological agendas?
Moral narrative/political agenda. How the two are acted out in regard to particular situations.
"In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action." wiki
So, you don't want a consequentialist view of abortion? To varying degrees nearly every person is at least in part consequentialist, with those on the liberal side tending to be more consequentialist, but both use consequentialist arguments in the case of abortion say. From this website we have..
https://philosophynow.org/issues/4/Cons ... d_Abortion
and just so we don't think that consequentialism is only on the prochoice side....
Peter Singer has a utilitarian attack on abortion, though oddly I can only find responses to his positiong online.
and the bulk of antiabortionists also use consequentialists arguments when it suits them. I would also argue they have unexpressed consequentialist concerns about what happens if abortion is legal and not just about the fetus.
Okay, let's take this "theory" down out of the intellectual clouds and explore it in regard to the morality of abortion. How are the personal opinions rooted existentially in dasein of the postmodernists going to be different from the personal opinions rooted existentially in dasein of the modernists? For both there is what can be communicated through language objectively and what cannot.
Well, I can't represent either one. I could take some guesses, but those categories are rather broad.
For instance, one of the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy is that biologically only women can experience it.
Not according to many on the Left nowadays, ie transpersons.
Yes, but with God on board, those on either end of the moral and political spectrum then have that crucial "transcending font" to fall back on.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:34 pm Sure, but that's either bad faith, in the Sartrean sense, or being controlled by a book and its 'expert' interpreters. That's hardly winning.
Yes, Hell is other people because other people tend to objectify us.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:34 pm Well, that may well be true, but that's a different part of Sartre. I was talking about the pain created in oneself.
Again, note a context in which we can explore this less abstractly.
Well, I did, if quickly. The relationship with a self-contradictory set of texts, the bible. This demands ignoring cognitive dissonance, which, I think causes a person to be at odds with herself. On some level they must note, but avoid noting.... that Christians in general don't seem to care about living babies. Often they were pro-nuke in the conservative belts of the US, but nuke use would lead to many dead unborn babies (and mothers) and other innocents. IOW there are context where it is ok to kill the unborn. So, what is officially deontology - thou shalt not kill the fetus - is actually utilitarian - unless it's enemy babies and we really do have to blow X up. Awareness of which would cause anxiey, so it's avoided. Along with a mass of other things that need not be noticed. People suffer the beliefs they claim to have. If you can look that shit in the face, it may be hard, but you actually suffer less. Again, the people who are anti-abortion and make noise about it don't look at all at east with themselves. This is not a necessity for a theist, but once you have a set of texts like the Bible as THE TRUTH, you have a problem, becuase of the diverse contradictory nature of those texts and this is exacerbated by how the texts have tended to be used. And the way the texts are organized and used leads to a necessity for the sinner to exist and be confronted. One can only deal with the constant anxiety by have the bad other, so these guys are very anxious, and that's a direct result of their beliefs. And one need not be what you call an objectivist to need the enemy, I should add. And secular people can also have beliefs that necessitate similar patterns. But the basic point is nah, they are not comfortable and the contradictions in the Bible (OT vs NT for example) are a constant source of contradictory positions AND attendant discomfort. No one should by their PR that they are consoled.
Now you give it a go. Explain what you see. You seemed jealous of Christians, as far as their being comforted and consoled. What is it you assume about them and their experience that makes you think they are suffering less than you? You seemed put off by my 'speculating' but I don't see how you could have arrived at your envy/criticism of them without speculating? You have said elsewhere that comfort/consolation is the foundation of their believing certain things and also that their beliefs are effective. How do you know this is their motive, without speculating? How do you know they are more comforted, in general, than non-beleivers? If it is via deduction, wow, that is speculative, because imagine all the effects and side effects of their beliefs. How could one possibly track all that, especially with deduction? Would you really want to be one of them? Could you give a specific example of a Christian who is publically actively anti-abortion whose life you'd want and trade for now? There might be one,but would that individual actually represent the group well. Again these are questions to be mulled since it's really beyond what my interest was in when joining in earlier.
And just to be doubly clear, consider those
farewell questions (on this topic) for you to mull, this isn't my interest area. I may hop in with other posters' posts or perhaps you on specific issues, but your main issue is not one I can satisfy, not being a postmodernist, nor is it of much interest to me.
But more to the point [mine] most people -- the moral and political and spiritual objectivists -- tend also to objectify themselves. And though some might see this as an example of bad faith, those who are able to take that more sophisticated Kierkegaardian leap of faith to God, are still no less the "winners" here.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:34 pm I don't know what you are trying to say here. The quotation marks around winners would seem to indicate you are agreeing with me. But the structure of the sentences before seem to indicate you are disagreeing.
Well, my use of them revolves more around the fact that winning itself here is just a subjective point of view. If you think that a belief in God provides you with an objective morality "here and now" and immortality and salvation "there and then", then, for you, it's true.
Ah, ok, maybe I misread you then. You don't see them as having it easier than you in their comfort, but rather you see them as judging themselves as winners. That I can agree with more. Of course, they need losers and to interact with them. That's how they 'know'. This pattern is of course not restricted to Christiand and is present to varying degrees in many groups, religious and secular.
And neither the modernists nor the postmodernists have access to the language needed to establish that in fact a God, the God, your God either does or does not exist.
Right?
Yeah, I don't know what that means. I sounds like you're saying their some kind of semantics problem. Or an epistemological problem?
After all, what they have faith in is that their God provides them with an objective morality on this side of the grave and then immortality and salvation on the other side of it. How is that not a great source of comfort and consolation?
Winning in other words.
Now 'winning' without citation marks. You seem incredulous that they could not be. But deduction with extremely complicated systems like a human being is extremely speculative. How do their beliefs in God actually affect them? There can be one effect in a moment, with all sorts of side effects. And then we can look at the empirical evidence. Do the anti-abortionists, the religious ones seem comfortable, more so than the opponents? Do the religious conservatives seem comfortatin and consoled or angry, irate, troubled, disconcerted, afraid of contamination, slippery sloping all sorts of arguments with all the attendant anxiety, etc. If you have beliefs that are contradictory, run against some of your own nature and the ways in which you got these ideas do not respect the learner as an agent, you have all sorts of side effects, and I think these are clearly visible when one encounters them. My experience does not match your deduction and incredulity. I think your envy is misplaced.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:34 pm You're taking them at face value. They say they believe X, so they believe X. I am sure some Christians, for example, are consoled, but I think they are fairly rare - and often quite decent people. Not people who are railing at women who get abortions. I mean, how many of the fingerpointing Christians look like they are doing well. How many seem connected well to their own body language when discussing a range of issues, from personal to political? How many seem to have much mental flexibility, iow to reframe an argument? You can smell the introjection. Which means that undigested ideas are floating around unitegrated in their personalities. They haven't chewed their food and they do not look comfortable. I am sure moments of judgment - like it is for nearly all of us - can offer moment of respite, but I think your....well, it sort of comes off as envy of them is misplaced. The are at best 'winners' as you said above, but hardly winners.
Look, each and every individual who does believe in a God, the God my God -- or in a No God spiritual path like Buddhism -- is either more or less comforted and consoled by what they believe.
Right?
I obviously don't think so. Buddhism is a complicated case, and I don't think it does either. What judgmental, anal retentive communities. But that's a tangent on a tangent for me. I think you're confusing PR and marketing for the people are actually like.
And if it is comfort you are seeking and you think they are comforted, you could always try it out until you reject the process of like some of it or keep with it.
Sure, re dasein as "I" understand it, we can go deeper into the life that they lived. We can explore the particular trajectory of experiences, relationships, access to information and knowledge etc., that predisposed them to particular points of view about a zillion different things.
But what remains the same is that "here and now" they do in fact feel comforted and consoled by what they believe.
That's speculation...
They may say it. And in moments it may be true, but I think the same set of beliefs in other moments causes them all sorts of grief. It's not a coincidence that many of them call themselves god-fearing, though I think there are a lot of other subtler and not so subtle side effects of their beliefs. And it is simply not my experience meeting them. I don't think, oh, now I've found people consoled and comforted. Irate, blaming, fearful, suppressing, holding it all together with a lot of mental suppression and confusion denial. I mean, theyre not, by a long shot, the only ones doing this, but no sorry, it neither fits my experience of them, which is not small, nor does it make sense on a theoretical level. They need the dynamic with the sinners. They are holding it together through trying not to be something, and it takes a lot of work. And there's a lot of anger and fear. And guilt and shame. I mean, there's no room to even feel into what they really want.
I mean would you really choose to be one if you could flip a switch? Their mental states are something to envy? They are actually consoled? Apart from the mindreading you'd then be sharing with me, how much do they seem that way?
Back to Roe v. Wade.
Some were "torn up" by the Supremes ruling. Others were not. They were ecstatic. Some believe they acted in "good faith" in linking their arguments to the Constitution. Others believe they acted in "bad faith" in that they construe the Constitution itself as an adjunct of their Christian dogmas.
Okay, Mr. Modernist and Mr. Postmodernist, discuss. Where are the limits of language most likely to be demonstrated here if not when the discussion comes to focus on the morality of abortion itself?
Yeah, I can't answer for those guys, and I am still not sure who you mean by modernists. I mean, I think immediately of people like James Joyce or Virigina Woolf. Modernism was primarily an aesthetic postion. Post-moderniism is both aesthetic and philosophical, including moral and epistemology.
After all, few are as "fractured and fragmented" as "I" am in regard to these things. And the one thing I suspect I do share in common with most postmodernists is the assumption that in a No God world, human existence itself is essentially meaningless and purposeless. And that's before the part where "I" tumbles over into the abyss that is oblivion for all the rest of eternity.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:34 pm meaningless to whom? I don't think there is some objective meaninglessness. I think that's a nonsensical idea.
More to the point, meaning in regard to what?
Maybe.
I know! Let's choose a context, describe what is meaningful about it to us and try to communicate that to someone who does not find it meaningful at all. Or who does find it meaningful but not in the same way.
I assume 'it' refers to existence. If someone doesn't find it meaningful, I am not going to lecture them. I don't know who your 'us' is above. I wouldn't be trying to convince them what is universally meaningful. I think that's as confused as objectively meaningless is. If they asked me what is meaningful and they didn't seem to be in a place of major depression, I would probably ask them a lot of questions about what they have found meaningful, to them. What they value.
So, how are conflicts here to be resolved? Well, there's God of course. And for others, ideology and political dogmas. Then those who embrace Kant and the rational pursuit of categorical imperatives and moral obligations. Then those who claim it all comes back to Nature. Their own rendition of what is natural or unnatural in regard to things like race and gender and sexual orientation. And the role of government. Those who insist it all revolves around "we", those who insist it all revolves around "me". The sociopaths and their "in the absence of God, all things are permitted" mentality.
Then, of course, me and the arguments I make in the OPs above.
Then you...
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:34 pm As living creatures we have our own meaning, even if it is just the primal seeking of food and shelter for the day. Those with more luck or skill will find other meaning and their existence, the individuals will not be meaningless to them. And yes, your views often seem quite postmodern. IOW given that postmodernists are a pretty motely crew your position, if placed amongst theirs would not stand out as an outlier, far from the main body of postmodernists. I think it would be right in there with the others, despite what you quoted much earlier from one of them. I mean, they have their disagreements and varied opinions. I haven't seen the big ones say they are nihilists os much, but per definition they are, most of them. In the sense that they don't believe there is THE GOOD and THE EVIL. They tend to focus on nurture, which you do, though now i know you acknowledge the effects of nature, still I see dasein mentioned over and over and in your use this seems primarily nurture. So, you'd fit in there. They have a problem with objectivists whether secular or religious. Most I've encountered do not present themselves as depressed in the way you do. But that's not great marketing, generally, and who makes much money as a philosopher? Ya gotta be careful. So, a number may well be, I don't know.
Again, this is what I call a "general description intellectual contraption".
Well that criticism, at least it sounds like one, covers much of you posting, and it's ironic that
general description intellectual contraption is an example of itself, as is most of your post here.
I could easily list concrete interests I have from social to artistic to intellectual. But you can imagine these as well as anyone. There is no point in my reeling off my person interests and desires, what I find meaning in. They are not universal, so they do not contribute to convincing others that that is where meaning lies. But to say life is meaningless is confused. And it as if you are not a participant. Is your life meaningless? How do you know this? You don't find some activities more meaningful for you than others?
What we need then is a context. Preferably one in which the circumstances revolve around "I" in the is/ought world.
A "situation" in which conflicting goods erupt. The abortion conflagration always works for me.
One in which someone here who construes him or herself to be a postmodernist chooses language to address it. And the language "I" choose.
See where that takes us...
Well, I'm not a postmoderist, though, as said, I think some of their work has been helpful and I agree with many things they've said. Of course, they disagree with each other over a lot of things. But someone else who identifies as postmodernist can perhaps jump in. Postmodernism tends towards ethical relativism. So, does that mean everyone gets to do what they want? which would be pro-choice? But then what about murder? I think the best defence for a PM would be to say there is no objective moral stance, but I don't like X, so I will fight against it, whatever X is. But I don't think there is a postmodernist position on abortion. Or better put, there isn't just one...
I'd be leery of taking Christians and any groups at face value. Further I'd be leery of taking one's own mental state as a philosophical position. The reason they seem to be winning or life seems objectively meaningless may have much more to do with your own possible depression and a depression not caused by philosophical insight but rather by your specific life conditions: social connections or lack of, work that challenges one respectfully and interestingly, and of course ghosts from the past. If you want to point at the horrible conclusions of various deductions to show that it has nothing to do with you in particular, well, that's a large part of depression: seemingly obvious deduction that constantly afflicts an individual.
Anyway, we gone quite a ways from where I entered, so I'll leave it to the postmodernists to give their position, in relation to the abortion issue, since that's what you want. Hopefully they'll be honest enough to say that their take isnot the THE postmoderist take, for obvious reasons. I'll focus on other issues that appear in the thread. Regardless of the root - true conclusions about reality or depression - good luck. I would think some postmodernist will come by, though I can't imagine one helping with either root problem.