THE LIMITS OF DISCOURSE II

A Conversation with a Moral Relativist [Postmodernist]

JUE CHHAKCHHUAK: The unexpressed implication of this piece is that critics of constructivism [incl. Both social constructivism and social constructionism] are by and large ignorant and wrong. The video makes no mention of Foucault, Derrida, Judith Butler etc. whose theory are, for the most part, the target of much of the criticisms of constructivism that we find on social media today. So what does this mean? It means that when critics (cough JP cough) attack constructivism they are not talking about "collective intentionality" or "ontologically subjective entities" that have "objective status functions". Rather they are talking about postmodern ‘subjectivity’ and 'relativism'. This video is an equivocation of the term "social construction" to defend a facet of constructivism that is for the most part regarded as ridiculous even by philosophers of constructivism like John Searle.

KEVIN A: Could you explain what you mean by "postmodern subjectivity and 'relativism'" What aspects of it do you consider ridiculous?

JUE CHHAKCHHUAK: Gladly, I'll try to put it in the crudest way possible - Postmodernism believes in 'your truth', 'his truth', 'her truth', 'their truth' etc. (sorry for excluding other genders. Honestly, they proliferate so fast I just can't keep up with them) at the expense of 'the truth'. Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong about believing in the multiplicity of truth. However, if multiplicity is taken to be absolute at the expense of objectivity, then it becomes a problem.

The postmodernist project, however, is not to valorize the individual subject. Rather it tries to put an end to the notion of the individual subject as the arbiter of truth and values ('de-centring the subject' would be the appropriate postmodern term). Here, we are talking about truth and values that pertain to the personal level of everyday human experience. It basically means you don't judge others by your personal values and truth, because that would be [epistemically] oppressive.

Regarding personal everyday experience, the postmodernists believe that desire is revolutionary and radically subversive; as such society has to repress these desires with an acceptable normative structure. One example of such a structure is the family system! A family institution is such a system that controls individual desires. It is a place where certain social structures are produced and reproduced through parental roles, sibling rivalries and the imposition of gendered identities. They believe that society establishes social harmony not through enabling collective action that results from rational debates, but by preventing individual and collective desires from being allowed their full potential. In other words, society is a repressive regime, and to break free from it, one has to adopt a 'de-centred self' that does not subscribe to any of the centres that have been established by society [institutions and systems that have led us to this moment in history] by removing oneself from those centres that dictate truth and value!!!

About relativism, postmodernists believe that every culture has a 'regime of truth': a set of discourse and semiotic structures that determine truths and values. As such truth and values should not be judged on/from a universalist or objective epistemology (like the ones advocated by modernity: reliance on reason, objective science and human rights). This is why people are defending the subjugation of women in certain cultures because the criticism is based on a universalising value system that really has nothing to do with the epistemology and value system of the culture that is subjected to such criticism. Unless you are embedded in such culturally specific 'regimes,' you can never understand other cultures, and you have no right to talk about them let alone criticise them!

Anyway, I have gone on way longer than I had intended to, so I'll stop here by leaving you a link to a debate on Postmodernism in which a postmodernist claims that an apple can fall up towards the sky depending on your perspective!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=loGG5nrVIsM&t=2133s [This is a debate between Thaddeus Russell, author of “A Renegade History of America, and Stefan Molyneux, author of “Against the Gods?”]

KEVIN A: None of that sounds particularly ridiculous to me. People have differing values, and everyone thinks that their own values are the correct ones. Finding common ground morally cannot be done using science, and a lot of systemic stuff is hard to study objectively. Objectivity is a good heuristic, but it doesn't tell us anything about morality. "Human rights" is only one conception of morality and not one on which there's complete consensus.

We cannot judge people brought up in oppressive societies for actions that result from that oppression but we can still accept that those actions are harmful, and work towards ending that oppression, based on our own values.

Society will always infringe on personal liberty. Judging when it is and isn't good to do so is also contentious. If postmodernists are really saying that we shouldn't have any identities based on societal norms, then they aren't really identitarians at all. No one who identifies as any race, gender, or sexuality can be a postmodernist the way you present it, and that's what most of the non-TERF left, and most of the people on the right complain about as well.

I'm sure plenty of postmodernists use relativity to come to conclusions you find ridiculous, or to outright deny things they can verify, but I'm pretty sure this idea that postmodernism is about calling a circle a square because that's "your truth" isn't accurate.

JUE CHHAKCHHUAK: "People have differing values, and everyone thinks that their own values are the correct ones."

This is not necessarily wrong, but if we are unable to change, or at least compromise in the face of (value) systems that are more suggestive of better human conditions because of our cultural affiliations, that would be dogmatic tribalism.

"Finding common ground morally cannot be done using science, and a lot of systemic stuff is hard to study objectively. Objectivity is a good heuristic, but it doesn't tell us anything about morality."

Objectivity, by its nature, is impartial, and neutral - because it relies on strict and stringent (scientific) methodology and logical reasoning/analysis. With that being said, a scientific study of human conditions under different (value) systems throughout the different stages of history could objectively reveal the kind of morality and values that should be perpetuated and the kinds that should be rejected. It will, to a great extent, be able to objectively tell us the fallacy or the truthfulness of any moral claim.

Liberal democratic societies that rely on reason, science and extol humanism aren't as oppressive or as bad as the logo-centre-fearing postmodernists make them out to be. In fact, the world is getting better and better because of the values that have been put forth by modernity during the Enlightenment. This is not a matter of opinion, it's a fact.

"Human rights is only one conception of morality and not one on which there's complete consensus."

There will never be a complete consensus, but that doesn't mean we should refrain or shy away from defending or promoting it.

"We cannot judge people brought up in oppressive societies for actions that result from that oppression but we can still accept that those actions are harmful, and work towards ending that oppression, based on our own values."

By accepting that certain actions are harmful we have already passed [moral] judgment. There is no way around that no matter how much you meddle with your semantics. Like I've said before, postmodernism believes that endeavours towards ending oppressions that are considered to be culturally innate are Universalistic, homogenising and oppressive.

"If postmodernists are really saying that we shouldn't have any identities based on societal norms, then they aren't really identitarians at all."

I should've specified here. My bad. With regards to the rejection of existing systematic norms, this is meant for individuals living in Western capitalist societies. However, what I have said earlier still holds. Individuals are taught that society operates through centre-subscribing heteronormativities. However, if you belong to say a minority culture or community that had once been colonised, you have to champion your culture to challenge or counter the dominant culture that is imposing its culture and values. Hence, the criticisms that postmodernism is self-contradictory. The same self-contradiction that runs through its claim that 'there is no absolute truth' (which automatically renders the claim itself to be a falsity) runs through it.

"I'm sure plenty of postmodernists use relativity to come to conclusions you find ridiculous or to outright deny things they can verify, but I'm pretty sure this idea that postmodernism is about calling a circle a square because that's "your truth" isn't accurate."

Postmodernists don't just call a circle a square. No, they call a circle a square, a triangle, an equilateral triangle etc. all at the same time. It depends on your perspective! Perhaps your surety is based on your common sense rather than on, say, an objective reading (which the postmodernists claim is impossible) of postmodernism.

KEVIN A: "Liberal democratic societies that rely on reason, science and extol humanism aren't as oppressive or as bad as the logo-centre fearing postmodernists make them out to be."

It would be nice if those were actually things the people criticizing postmodernism valued. It seems like the only thing those people are actually concerned about is losing cultural Christianity; they just pretend liberal democracy, capitalism, reason and science wouldn't exist without it whenever it's convenient. Sure, there are a few people on the left who are fine with humanism and simply consider some postmodern ideas as anti-humanist, but they always grapple with the ideas, as opposed to the right, who think every policy on the left they don't like is a slippery slope to totalitarianism.

"Accepting that certain actions are harmful means that we have already passed [moral] judgment."

I guess as long as judgment doesn't automatically include any particular actions, that's true. But the broader idea is that we can only judge people from the perspective of their culture. So in a culture where beating your wife is the norm and you were raised to believe that as well, we can't consider you immoral for doing so. It's basically the same idea as not blaming the white people who lived two centuries ago for owning slaves at the time. The whole "everyone is racist" thing isn't a moral judgment at all, either. You are only a bad person for being racist if you are racist beyond what culture can explain.

"Endeavours towards ending oppressions that are considered to be culturally innate are regarded as universalist, homogenising and oppressive."

So why are these people trying to end the culturally innate "patriarchy" in the U.S.? I think you're confusing the common idea that a cultural majority cannot truly be oppressed, and therefore has no oppression to fight in the first place, with the silly idea that cultures like Islam should not be changed. Women are a cultural minority in Islamic cultures, so Islam still needs reform/replacement in those countries, but Muslims in the U.S. are irrelevant as oppressors because they are too few in number and power to oppress anyone. Therefore when a Muslim comes into the U.S. they change from oppressor to oppressed. It is not "importing oppressors" like people might think.

"The same self-contradiction that runs through its claim that 'there is no absolute truth'"

It isn't a contradiction. 'there is no absolute truth' is a subjective or relativist truth, not an absolute one. There is no absolute truth from my limited perspective, though it may exist anyway.

"Perhaps your surety is based on your common sense rather than on, say, an objective reading (which the postmodernists claim is impossible) of postmodernism."

It's more based on my observation of these people who are supposed to be called postmodernists. Perhaps postmodernism as written wants to and will entirely destroy Western civilization. But postmodernism as it's practiced by the people who are supposed to be destroying society doesn't seem particularly society-destroying. And there's way too much non-postmodernist stuff that these people think for me to say that they are even postmodernists in many cases.

JUE CHHAKCHHUAK: "It would be nice if those were actually things the people criticizing postmodernism valued. It seems like the only thing those people are actually concerned about is losing cultural Christianity; they just pretend liberal democracy, capitalism, reason and science wouldn't exist without it whenever it's convenient."

Seriously? OMG!! This is a very general sweeping statement. Can you give at least one example of this?

"Sure, there are a few people on the left who are fine with humanism and simply consider some postmodern ideas as anti-humanist, but they always grapple with the ideas, as opposed to the right, who think every policy on the left they don't like is a slippery slope to totalitarianism."

Again, all very general-sweeping statements. Chomsky is a lefty, his criticism of postmodernism is not about its 'anti-humanism'. First of all, he considers it to be charlatanism. He also thinks that their 'discourse-power' analysis of culture and society is absurd. The big takeaway from his criticism, however, is that postmodernism is FAKE. A fake intellectual discourse that has nothing to offer except for its jargon. I don't know the political affiliations of people like John Searle, Daniel Dennett, Quine, and Richard Dawkins, but one thing that I do know is that they are atheists, and their criticisms of postmodernism are not about its 'anti-humanism'. Rather, their criticism is concerned with its epistemology - the idea that 'perspective' (to oversimplify) is the arbiter of truth and knowledge, its anti-scientism, its obscurantism, its relativism etc. What their criticism is NOT concerned with is the preservation of "cultural Christianity", whatever that is.

"So in a culture where beating your wife is the norm and you were raised to believe that as well, we can't consider you immoral for doing so. It's basically the same idea as not blaming the white people who lived two centuries ago for owning slaves at the time."

Just because white people were not blamed for owning slaves two centuries ago does not mean that their practice of slavery was right during that time. It was considered to be immoral, and that was why the civil war happened. We should not have to wait for two centuries for some cultures to let go of their traits that are detrimental to the welfare of a certain section of its members. We should not have to wait for two centuries for some cultures to end their discrimination of some of their members based on their biological disposition. We should not have to wait for two centuries to consider 'wife beating' 'immoral', period.

"So why are these people trying to end the culturally innate "patriarchy" in the U.S.? I think you're confusing the common idea that a cultural majority cannot truly be oppressed, and therefore has no oppression to fight in the first place, with the silly idea that cultures like Islam should not be changed."

Much to your dismay, I am not confused. The criticism of this supposed "culturally innate patriarchy in the US" (haha) does not come from other foreign cultures, it comes from within the culture itself. So the criticism is not considered to be Universalist or homogenising because the criticism is not an imposition of foreign cultural values. The fact that I have to explain this is annoying, and it actually says a lot about what you actually know, or rather don't know about postmodernism. The rest of this particular paragraph deals with what you 'think' to be what I think, which is not the case, so there is no need for me to respond.

"It isn't a contradiction. 'there is no absolute truth' is a subjective or relativist truth, not an absolute one. There is no absolute truth from my limited perspective, though it may exist anyway."

I have a face, I have a palm!! This is annoying! Anyway, you can tap dance all you want around it, but it is still a logical contradiction irrespective of what you believe, or what your perspective is. The entire history of analytic philosophy is a proof of that.

"It's more based on my observation of these people who are supposed to be called postmodernists."

Examples?

"But postmodernism as it's practiced by the people who are supposed to be destroying society doesn't seem particularly society-destroying."

These people believe that they are doing the world a great service despite their anti-universalism. However, whatever it is that you happen to think or believe from your "limited" perspective" (your entire argument on this feed is based solely on "I guess", "I think" etc) the fundamental assumption under which even the most pragmatic postmodernist operates is the 'discourse-power' analysis, which argues that every societal (esp the west) structure is based on centres that oppress and hence should be deconstructed to establish a utopia. And we all know the history of utopia, don't we?

PS- Please look into the topic before you actually 'guess', 'believe', or 'think' on/about it. It's annoying when I actually have to explain (by stating the state of affairs and state of things about the topic) and then you respond without any knowledge of even the most rudimental arguments of Pomo. No ad hominem is intended here. But, if it is received in that vein, I do not really care, because it's not about 'perspective' but about facts and truth.

KEVIN A: My generalizations were not intended to be that. I didn't communicate my actual ideas correctly there. I don't have a large enough sample size to say anything about the broader population at all. My point is that postmodernism isn't the root problem you're complaining about. Moral relativism is. That is why I initially asked about subjectivity and relativism; there's no point in discussing the finer points of postmodernism with someone who disagrees strongly with moral relativism, and I never really intended to talk about postmodernism in the first place. Postmodernism isn't a monolith, either. There's no "one" postmodernism just like there's no "one" Christianity.

I'm not a postmodernist, nor am I interested in defending parts of it I don't agree with. But I'd like people to dismiss postmodernism purely if and when it comes to bad conclusions, not just because it's relativistic, and to not assume that all moral relativists are postmodernists. You won't convince a moral relativist that postmodernism is bad by complaining about moral relativism, for example (not that you haven't argued against postmodernism as well)

I'd preface this by saying that you might have different definitions of "absolute" and "objective", but mine are "universal across time and space" and "independent of the perceptions", respectively, which seem to be the standard definitions.

Each of us has our own consciousness, and the fact that our experiences mostly coincide doesn't imply that objective or absolute truth actually exists, or that our perspectives will always coincide in the future. It is not a logical contradiction to acknowledge that anything we believe could be contradicted in the face of new evidence. And anything that could in theory be falsified under some set of future observations is not an absolute truth. The only exception is the existence of our personal consciousnesses themselves, since if even they no longer exist at some point, we will still never observe that to occur, and so I'm fine with considering each person's sole absolute truth. That only gets you as far as solipsism, though. You have to believe more than just "I think, therefore I am" to get further than that, and those further jumps are always subjective and arguable. But even the absolute truth of my own consciousness is not an absolute truth to anyone else, so it isn't an objective truth.

My viewpoint is a subjective one. Nothing I experience can be objective, by definition. If I am a brain in a vat, then nothing that I would call "objective reality" would even exist. So at the very least, no aspect of this objective reality can be absolute. If there are absolute truths, we can never know them.

Science doesn't need an assumption of objective reality to make good predictions; objective reality comes out of science as a good prediction model without us assuming it. I don't pretend that every possible interpretation is equally likely or useful. Some predictions work and some don't. Ones that assume an objective reality tend to work better than ones that don't, so I believe in objective reality in a pragmatic sense, despite the possibility that anything could in theory change at any moment. It isn't anti-science to acknowledge that atoms cannot be said to surely have objective existence, for example.

I believe that utilitarianism is the most accurate theory of morality, though that is a subjective opinion, and I don't know exactly how to value human consciousness. I'm aware of how little I can really know about other people, so I still respect their moral decisions as much as I can. I'm not going to force someone to abort a child just because I would in their situation, for example. Utilitarianism is optimal but too slow and inefficient to use in practice, especially when we lack information, so moral heuristics are necessary for practical applications.

I have no problem with arguments for various different heuristics, and agree with many of them. In most cases, we lack so much information that even trying to make the utilitarian calculation is pointless, and we need wiggle room for cases where being wrong is disastrous. I assume that the ends don't justify the means unless I have strong evidence to the contrary. That's why I currently don't think there's any way we can create a utopia. Maybe communism could work if it wasn't the result of a violent revolution, but there's no path there with any empirical support, so I'm not really a communist. I support equality and sufficiency of outcome, but there's no way to do that either as far as I can see, so the heuristic of equality of opportunity will have to do.

The only thing I have an issue with is the idea that any of these heuristics are absolute or objective. They might even be optimal in a Kantian sense, but they are not by definition optimal. They are still subjective moral theories with subjective axioms, as is mine. I'm just willing to admit it.

JUE CHHAKCHHUAK: "My point is that postmodernism isn't the root problem you're complaining about. Moral relativism is."

Moral relativism IS postmodernism.

"...and I never really intended to talk about postmodernism in the first place."

Only that you've been talking about it up till now.

"Postmodernism isn't a monolith, either. There's no "one" postmodernism just like there's no "one" Christianity."

Exactly, there are many facets to postmodernism, probably more than you can even imagine, and many of these facets are contradictory to each other. But fundamentally it is not difficult to locate or pinpoint an overarching attitude that connects the dots between them. Eg: their hostility towards metanarratives, their disdain towards (the absolutism of) scientific truth, their belief in the specificity of truth etc.

"I'm not a postmodernist, nor am I interested in defending parts of it I don't agree with. But I'd like people to dismiss postmodernism purely if and when it comes to bad conclusions, not just because it's relativistic, and to not assume that all moral relativists are postmodernist."

If you can't see the erroneous epistemological and ethical conclusions that are predicated on relativism, well, you're on your own. No more pomo, right? Just epistemology.

"You won't convince a moral relativist that postmodernist is bad by complaining about moral relativism, for example (not that you haven't argued against postmodernism as well)"

Yes, I won't convince a moral relativist that the crux of "moral relativism" - There is no absolute truth - is a logical contradiction by putting forth sound arguments, let alone by complaining! 

And I see "no point" in this conversation.

"Each of us has our own consciousness, and the fact that our experiences mostly coincide doesn't imply that objective or absolute truth actually exists, or that our perspectives will always coincide in the future...It isn't anti-science to acknowledge that atoms cannot be said to surely have objective existence, for example."

You seem to have lots of issues with scientific objective epistemology. If that is your play you would do well to rely on Popper's falsification (you slightly did there), the null hypothesis, the Duhem-Quine thesis - underdetermination of data - Web of belief etc. rather than partly relying on and partly rejecting the Cartesian doubt. But believe me, you are beginning to sound like one of those theists who would go all out on scientific objective epistemology just to save face. I'm not saying you are.

Yes, everything that we know is the result of electrical charges interpreted by the brain, but there is no reason to believe that the brain's interpretation is inaccurate, well not unless you believe in a demonic entity tempering with your senses. There could definitely be glitches, but despite that, we have worked it out pretty well so far, haven't we? It is actually a leap of faith to argue that our sensation-based consciousness that accounts for everything beyond the Cartesian dictum [which, by the way, has no sensory basis] is mere subjective conjectures. Why doubt the objectivity of epistemology about the phenomenal world that we are conscious of through the senses (and the categorizations made by the mind) just because the noumenal world is off limits. Why reject such epistemology that is directly pertinent to our condition of existence just because it does not incorporate information about things that we can and will never know, things that have no pertinence to our condition of existence? Why reject such epistemology just because new pieces of information might (and will be) be acquired in the future?

As per Quine, even if new pieces of information that override the existing epistemology are acquired that doesn't mean that such existing epistemology will be rejected because knowledge does not exist in isolation but rather in an intricate system of a web and the web will, like it always has, make the necessary rearrangement to fit the new information. It would be far better and far more advantageous to our condition of existence if we take the objective reality of our sensory perception seriously rather than reject it because it could all potentially be meaningless or oppressive because it is just a leap of faith or subjective conjectures.

And oh, I hope that your experience of sunlight is associated with that of warmth in your highly subjective consciousness like it is for every other consciousness out there. Oh, wait, the experience itself could all be a simulation by a brain in a vat!!! Hehe

"I believe that utilitarianism is the most accurate theory of morality, though that is a subjective opinion, and I don't know exactly how to value human consciousness...Utilitarianism is optimal but too slow and inefficient to use in practice, especially when we lack information, so moral heuristics are necessary for practical applications."

But do you have a problem with applying "pragmatism" here? An objective study of the facts, data and statistics of the human conditions throughout the different dispensations of history clearly tells us which moral, political, and economic system works. It's not perfect; well forget that it's never going to be perfect. If only we were pragmatic about it, the moral dilemma and uncertainty could easily be solved, and it would also enable us to work to improve the systems and beliefs that work.

"I'm aware of how little I can really know about other people, so I still respect their moral decisions as much as I can. I'm not going to force someone to abort a child just because I would in their situation"

Respecting and being tolerant of others' subjective moral beliefs is all well and fine, but if those subjective moral beliefs entail deconstructing systems and beliefs that have done a pretty good job of uplifting the human condition, and if they entail ripping institutions like the family to establish a utopia, then forgive me, but I am not going to respect such subjective moral idiocy.

"The only thing I have an issue with is the idea that any of these heuristics are absolute or objective. They might even be optimal in a Kantian sense, but they are not by definition optimal. They are still subjective moral theories with subjective axioms, as is mine. I'm just willing to admit it"

Again, where is your pragmatism?

RARITY SPARKLE: This video doesn't mention those people because they didn't define "social construct", they only drew from the information by the people quoted here. Also, if "critics" (cough JP cough) of social constructivism use the term "social construct", then it's only logical to defend what "social construct" means, and not what those people (according to you) refer to when using the term. Why is this video " an equivocation of the term "social construction" to defend a facet of social constructionism", if Jordan Peterson misuses the term to criticise that's not even the definition of the term, then it is not an equivocation of the term "social construction" to attack a completely different thing?

Now, about your second comment, the fact that multiple interpretations of reality can be asserted does not mean that every interpretation is objectively valid… I don't know how this is something so hard to understand for you, people, especially if we've been familiar with this for thousands of years. Think of something as a short story, the fact that there's no such thing as a perfect short story, that contains everything good and nothing bad does not impede us from appreciating different short stories and deciding which are good and which are bad, same things happen here. If you see a lion attacking an elephant and your interpretation of that is that "an ancient comet will pass by the moon" or something nonsensical, we would know you're wrong, if you, on the other hand, interpret that as that a carnivore animal eats another animal", then you're interpretation is correct, and we all know it. The same thing happens with postmodernism.

Please watch this, it's so good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya-kIBby-cM

JUE CHHAKCHHUAK: "This video doesn't mention those people because they didn't define "social construct"

They may not define social constructionism per se, but they deal with the process of how everything is constructed socially through 'discourses' that employ science, medicine, religion, language etc. to come up with the entire status quo. You see, they are called social constructionists for a reason, and the reason is as I’ve stated.

"...they only drew from the information by the people quoted here"

What do you even mean here? Do you mean to say Derrida's "Logocentrism" and "metaphysics of presence" are based on the people and theories mentioned here? Do you mean to say that the Foucauldian concept of "discourse", Lacan's "symbolic stage" etc. are based on these people and their theories mentioned here? Judith Butler used JL Austen's concept of the "performative" but her entire theory reeks of Foucauldian discourse.

"Also, if "critics" (cough JP cough) of social constructivism use the term "social construct", then it's only logical to defend what "social construct" means, and not what those people (according to you) refer to when using the term."

Facepalm. When critics of social constructivism (cough JP cough) attack constructivism they are attacking the social construction theories of the aforementioned people that have nothing to do with the people and the theory mentioned in the video.

It is like defending a criticism of football (aka soccer) for its lack of physicality by talking about how physical football (American football with helmet etc.) is rather than making points about the physicality of football (soccer)!

"Why is this video "an equivocation of the term "social construction" to defend a facet of constructivism", but if Jordan Peterson misuses the term to criticise that's not even the definition of the term, then it is not an equivocation of the term "social construction" to attack a completely different thing?"

It is as blunt an equivocation as can be for the reason I've stated above. Savvy? Jordan Peterson never, and I say never misuse the term social constructionism. He is simply criticising social constructionism as put forth in postmodernism, whereas the social constructionism mentioned in this video is not even close to postmodernism. They (theories mentioned in this video) are more closely affiliated to the analytical tradition than to the continental tradition - to which postmodernism belongs.

Now with regards to your second paragraph- Do you even understand, even just slightly, what I’m talking about in my second comment?

“…the fact that multiple interpretations of reality can be asserted does not mean that avery interpretation is objectively valid”

That’s what I’ve been saying, duh! There isn’t anything wrong per se about believing in the multiplicity of interpretation, but that belief should not be at the expense of objectivity or rather the outright denial of the possibility of true or right interpretations. I don't know how this is something so hard to understand for you! I really don’t.

“…if you see a lion attacking an elephant and your interpretation of that is that "an ancient comet will pass by the moon" or something nonsensical, we would know you're wrong, if you, on the other hand, interpret that as that a carnivore animal eats another animal", then you're interpretation is correct, and we all know it. Same things happen with postmodernism.”

You have no idea at all whatsoever what you’re talking about, do you? “The same things happen with postmodernism.” Like no idea at all, do you? “…if you see a lion attacking an elephant and your interpretation of that is that "an ancient comet will pass by the moon". If your interpretation happens to be such a case, you will not be corrected; you will not be laughed at, rather you will be revered for ‘transcending the heteronormativity that’s encoded by society’. I know It’s jaw-dropping, and it’s hard to believe, but that's just how it is with postmodernism.

Please refrain from argumento ad ignorantium. You’re only embarrassing yourself.

Rose black: @Jue Chhakchhuak where is this objective reality? Do you know what epistemology is?

Jue Chhakchhuak: @rose black "I Know that I know nothing" haha.

Rose black: @Jue Chhakchhuak Well I'm not even sure i know that much lol

Jue Chhakchhuak: @rose black Well, good luck with that. Hehe

rose black: @Jue Chhakchhuak the statement presupposes the existence of a self just ask. unfortunately circular.

Jue Chhakchhuak: @rose black You just enrolled in a first sem UG philosophy course or something? Well, I'll let you in on a little secret, I am the only objective reality. How? 'cause I say so! Everything else is just my solipsistic projection!

Rose black: @Jue Chhakchhuak your question is irrelevant. You've presupposed the existence of a self again, of some essence. Objective reality implies essence. I'm just someone who comes from a phenomenological/Buddhist perspective (which is worth reading into). In many ways, everything is your own projection as all experience is filtered through the senses and thus subjective i.e. dependent on 'you'. Obviously, this all feels well and real and we should operate as such and treat other living beings with compassion - I'm just saying there is no objective way of knowing for us. It could all be a dream, simulation, illusion, etc. and while that thought may seem scary, it can also be very liberating.



Jue Chhakchhuak: @rose black Haha My question? It's sarcasm, my bad, I should've clarified. My comment, too, is sarcasm. Anyway, I don't really have the luxury to discuss here whether or not I really exist, but I will say this; My solipsistic projection of reality disproves your "phenomenological/Buddhistic" projection of reality. It's sarcasm, I am not really a solipsist. But seriously though, I think you'll like solipsism. You should look into it.

Rose black: @Jue Chhakchhuak Oh, no worries. Sarcasm doesn't read well on the net - someone should really get on finding a solution to that. I've heard of the irony mark but it doesn't seem like it conveys emotion that well. There's the SpongeBob mEmE < at least I think that's where the upper/lower case thing comes from and that's alright but still. & yeah I'm aware of solipsism, thx anyway tho.