tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post4685954532383333018..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: The Left needs to abandon PostmodernismLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-77938098868492207502017-02-11T18:05:46.263-08:002017-02-11T18:05:46.263-08:00Nieztsche has a quote (Gay Science 173) which fits...Nieztsche has a quote (Gay Science 173) which fits Foucault and his ilk. Read 'leftist academics' where he says 'crowd': "Being profound and seeming profound.-- Those who know they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to appear profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something, it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water."Clinton Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18335284795006476560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-55580840890159698202015-02-06T14:32:51.986-08:002015-02-06T14:32:51.986-08:00Phil, I'd suggest you reread your Lacan. Slowl...Phil, I'd suggest you reread your Lacan. Slowly and deliberately. And make lots of notes. You obviously didn't get him. (Yeah sure, Lacan subscribing to objective truth...*chuckle*)<br />dahaunshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02098585704891226776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-59542858952236155462015-02-06T10:03:07.392-08:002015-02-06T10:03:07.392-08:00First of all, I do not say above that Lacan said t...First of all, I do not say above that Lacan said that science is untrue.<br /><br />What I said is that some Postmodernists say that <br /><br />"modern science is not true or just one “narrative” that is just as “valid” as any other"<br /><br />Frankly, you do not have to look far to see the evidence for this. <br /><br />This blogger cites actual papers where postmodernists do this:<br /><br />http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/postmodernist-attacks-on-science-based-medicine/Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-70194657404143738282015-02-06T09:24:37.028-08:002015-02-06T09:24:37.028-08:00"many of the author's you cite do believe...<i>"many of the author's you cite do believe in objective truth."</i><br /><br />Give me the names of just 4 with chapter and verse citations of where in their writings they say they support objective truth.<br /><br />And note that I was talking about modern postmodernists generally not accepting objective truth, <i>not</i> the earlier thinkers who influenced them like the structuralists or Frankfurt school or New Criticism literary theorists.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-80154928200077993462015-02-06T09:20:45.077-08:002015-02-06T09:20:45.077-08:00Objective truth is defensible under the correspond...Objective truth is defensible under the correspondence theory of truth, and can be seen easily in any simple analytic proposition: <br /><br />e.g., "All bachelors are unmarried". <br /><br />Here the necessary truth follows from definitions of word and consistent use of language. To deny this is to commit a fallacy of equivocation. <br /><br />As to objective reality, we can defend this with an argument for indirect realism. That we do not have absolute truth here is irrelevant: what we have is a synthetic a posteriori truth which can be defended, on the basis of evidence and inductive arguments, as very probably true and the best explanation we have.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-1247969010280843182015-02-06T09:14:36.143-08:002015-02-06T09:14:36.143-08:00"And you don't think that perhaps 'un...<i>"And you don't think that perhaps 'unintelligible rubbish' is in the eye of the beholder?"</i><br /><br />No. "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is rubbish.<br /><br />A lot of postmodernist writing is like this.<br /><br />Just look at the Sokal Affair to see how these idiot Postmodernists couldn't recognise gibberish when they saw it:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair<br /><br />Or for example this outstanding gibberish from Félix Guattari:<br /><br /><i>"We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously. "</i><br />http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/dawkins.htmlLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-34609836426982944782015-02-06T08:24:13.920-08:002015-02-06T08:24:13.920-08:00But again: many of the author's you cite do be...But again: many of the author's you cite do believe in objective truth.<br /><br />You aren't familiar with this stuff. Don't write about it.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-53128656244431209372015-02-06T08:18:30.634-08:002015-02-06T08:18:30.634-08:00Could I please have a direct quote from Lacan sayi...Could I please have a direct quote from Lacan saying that science is untrue?<br /><br />And when you realise that you cannot find one and have never read one will you please step back and think about what you are doing here; i.e. making criticisms of material you are not familiar with.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-32583353417060389592015-02-06T08:18:26.573-08:002015-02-06T08:18:26.573-08:00Maybe you can elaborate on your statement that the...Maybe you can elaborate on your statement that their exists an objective truth and an objective reality. I believe so as well, but I doubt that it is possible to experience nor proof either of them. As Marcuse (One-Dimensional Man, Chpt 6) writes: " Now 'events', relations' 'projections' 'possibilities' can be meaningfully objective only for a subject - not only in terms of observability and measurability, but in terms of the very structure of the event or relationship." Furthermore: "The project of cognition involves operations on objects, or abstractions from objects which occur in a given universe of discourse and action. Science observes, calculates and theorizes from a position in this universe. ... It is my purpose to demonstrate the internal instrumentalist character of this scientific rationality by virtue of which it is a priori technology and the a priori of a specific technology - namely, technology as form of social control and domination." Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17630348259409868551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-10641576043313567762015-02-06T08:16:59.764-08:002015-02-06T08:16:59.764-08:00And you don't think that perhaps 'unintell...And you don't think that perhaps 'unintelligible rubbish' is in the eye of the beholder? When I read many things I find them unintelligible. But that does not make them rubbish. I am only willing to call nonsense when I am confident that I understand them.<br /><br />This is just rhetoric, LK, backed by references from critics that buttress your own a priori views. Take a step back and look at what you're writing here. I would expect better from you.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-81420000382165804532015-02-06T06:37:17.562-08:002015-02-06T06:37:17.562-08:00Rights and moral obligations do matter, but what i...Rights and moral obligations do matter, but what if one conflicts with the other? That's where cost-benefit analysis, pragmatism, utilitarianism, and if those are sometimes taken to the logical extreme (to the point of caricature), "ends justify the means" comes into play. Where do you draw the line between the balance of the two?<br /><br />"balance", "moderation" and "pragmatism" all deal moreso with power than objective morality, and yet to me, balancing the interests of the working class with the interests of entrepreneur, corporations, creative-intellengstia-artisan classes and state, and leads to a society where people can begin to maximize their moral and "good" interactions with one another.<br /><br />Anyhow, it's probably best to take a look at the various consequentialist and utilitarian philosophies out there. Then again, Mises was a form of a utilitarian, if you can believe that.Kainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841689865415250256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-33551512763318383882015-02-06T06:09:56.839-08:002015-02-06T06:09:56.839-08:00LK, the problem is clearly that you want to kill y...LK, the problem is clearly that you want to kill your father and have sex with your mother, due to a bad experience with a mirror in early childhood.Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-22451440644282471892015-02-05T22:50:34.125-08:002015-02-05T22:50:34.125-08:00The "ends justify the means" nonsense is...The "ends justify the means" nonsense is just a caricature of consequentialist ethics. Rights and moral obligations matter.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-54643165423202155472015-02-05T20:59:02.892-08:002015-02-05T20:59:02.892-08:00Ultimately, in my view the ends justify the means ...Ultimately, in my view the ends justify the means - that is generally an idea attached onto utilitarianism (i.e. "greatest good for greatest number of people"). Seizing a local tribal leader's large storage of food to feed the tribe's starving would be viewed by many to be the moral action - you're saving lives at little expense, and to others as immoral - theft! you're stealing someone's property! To post-Keynesians, restricting the freedom of banks is worth it to prevent speculative bubbles, financial crises, or even Finance's ascendancy to political power (due to all the bad thing's usury can do) can be viewed as the "moral", "good", utilitarian, or even the GDP-maximizing course of action.<br /><br />It's not at all that I 'accept' the views of the Nazis - it's an abomination to my morality. And as a Humanist and Utilitarian, it's something that I would fight against and denounce as immoral, inhumane and (do I even need to say it?) counter-productive and against human prosperity. <br /><br />Yet, to Aliens observing human behavior and history from outer space, one group of humans murdering or genociding another group may as well be as amoral as a Lion eating his young, or a fire ant colony destroying a black ant colony.<br /><br />Which is why I would focus on the moral principles to best govern humanity and its interactions with each other. (And morality regarding animals - well that's a whole different can of worms).<br /><br />Problem is, I haven't yet read of a "pre-" or "post-" or any kind of moral philosophy that give me these kinds of answers.Kainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841689865415250256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-73836602196744084192015-02-05T19:02:00.342-08:002015-02-05T19:02:00.342-08:00The difference is that Chomsky's writing, and ...The difference is that Chomsky's writing, and English, is not nonsense. He may make unconvincing arguments or false statements sometimes, but it is not unintelligible rubbish. <br /><br />So much of Postmodernist writing is.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-26508959948030788492015-02-05T18:59:18.099-08:002015-02-05T18:59:18.099-08:00"As for morality, you seem to be a relativist...<i>"As for morality, you seem to be a relativist."</i><br /><br />I am no such thing. I reject ethical relativism.<br /><br />I think we can have a secular, objective ethics, and have sketched how we can here:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/03/thoughts-on-version-of-consequentialist.htmlLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-48963085377578340792015-02-05T18:56:07.864-08:002015-02-05T18:56:07.864-08:00"THIS IS NOT THE CLAIM. THE CLAIM IS THAT AN ...<i>"THIS IS NOT THE CLAIM. THE CLAIM IS THAT AN AUTHOR ONLY EVER HAS A PARTIAL UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR TEXT. "</i><br /><br />Even if what you say is correct, this idea is also laughable.<br /><br />In general, if these ideas existed before Postmodernism, this hardly constitutes a defence of Postmodernism or the ideas in question.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-16472342044612061832015-02-05T18:53:23.042-08:002015-02-05T18:53:23.042-08:00"THE ONLY KEY AUTHOR WHO DEALT WITH SCIENCE T...<i>"THE ONLY KEY AUTHOR WHO DEALT WITH SCIENCE TO MY KNOWLEDGE WAS LACAN. I KNOW OF NOWHERE WHERE HE SAYS THAT SCIENCE IS UNTRUE ETC."</i><br /><br />Then clearly you weren't looking hard enough.<br /><br />See Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, 1998.<i> Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science</i>. Picador, New York.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_NonsenseLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-84697673381203739582015-02-05T18:47:18.427-08:002015-02-05T18:47:18.427-08:00None of this vindicates Postmodernism, or its absu...None of this vindicates Postmodernism, or its absurd ideas, such as the non-existence of any objective truth.<br /><br />Indeed, if there is no such thing as objective truth, then nothing you say can be true.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-36235790332944745852015-02-05T16:43:42.877-08:002015-02-05T16:43:42.877-08:00The appalling cult of Chomskyian jargon was famous... The appalling cult of Chomskyian jargon was famously pilloried by the ChomskyBot, a computer program that can write a grammatically correct essay in the Chomsky style, but is literally nonsense. <br /><br />http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl<br /><br />Funny how easy it is...<br /><br />I'd say that I could build a KantBot too.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-17419570068834613622015-02-05T16:41:51.788-08:002015-02-05T16:41:51.788-08:00An awful lot can be said that psychology in genera...An awful lot can be said that psychology in general is pseudoscience.<br /><br />Didn't the DSM classify homosexuality as mental illness until the late-1970s? I don't say this for rhetorical effect. It strongly suggests that the DSM criteria are tied to social norms at any given point in time.<br /><br />But then wasn't it Lacan that said that psychoanalysis could never aspire to be a science?<br /><br />Hmm... funny that...Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-33594798436078663102015-02-05T16:26:12.321-08:002015-02-05T16:26:12.321-08:00I think the point of the post and videos is that a...I think the point of the post and videos is that all of the post-whatever "movements" are nothing by intellectual onanism. There is simply no one behind the curtain. So, you can't learn anything about reality this way; you need to use the scientific method, and live with its limitations when it comes to questions about human social interactions.<br /><br />As for morality, you seem to be a relativist. So, you must then be comfortable accepting the different view of a Jew and her Nazi guard at Auschwitz circa 1943. In short, "morality" is noting by what the stronger use to justify their abuse of the weaker. This is why the Democrats have merged with the Republicans to become nothing by shills for the < 1%, and Occupy can only make lots of noise but no real difference.<br /><br />Your desire to find an "answer" is laudable, but misguided. The answers have been known for millennia, discussed and honed by the great philosophers who came before Enlightenment. The real problem is that people want a philosophy that squares all circles and lets everyone off the hook—except the "bad guys". No, to have morals you have to make choices. And to make choices you have to have faith. And today faith is in short supply among intellectuals and academics.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-44409819395633086292015-02-05T16:13:09.745-08:002015-02-05T16:13:09.745-08:00I think the point of the post and videos is that a...I think the point of the post and videos is that all post-whatever are nothing but intellectual onanism—there is no one behind the curtain. So, these "movements" won't get you (or anyone) anywhere. <br /><br />To the extent there is an "objective reality", the scientific method is the best bet to get you there so far. But the scientific method has its own serious limits that are especially acute when trying to understand groups of humans and their activities. Pretending otherwise by using lots of $2 words won't help.<br /><br />As for morality, your position appears to be very much a relativist one that will always degenerate into an ends-justifies-the-means view. So, it would seem that you would have to be comfortable accepting the different views of a Jew and her Nazi guard at Auschwitz circa 1943 are each valid. In the end, morality simply becomes (or degenerates) into whatever the strong decides to impose on the weak. That seems pretty much what we have today.<br /><br />As to your last question, philosophy—without any "pre-", "post-" or any other modifier—used to address these questions along with theology. That was before modernism and the degeneration of philosophy into the realm of hermenutics. The real problem is that one has to accept answers, even if they limit your freedom action. And there are plenty of good answers that are thousands of years old.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-30119587281663876362015-02-05T16:09:41.935-08:002015-02-05T16:09:41.935-08:00While I'm not as interested in Philosophy as I...While I'm not as interested in Philosophy as I once was at a younger age, I did poke around a bit at the so-called "Postmodern" movement. I got the impression that much of it was filled with bloated platitudes, and I also got the impression that the bloated platitudes drowned out whatever flashes of insight they could offer. That said, I feel that Postmodernism is massively overrated, and like any other intellectual movement, shouldn't be taken *TOO* seriously by any proper thinker - regardless of his or her politics.Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-37571280258174037722015-02-05T15:28:59.412-08:002015-02-05T15:28:59.412-08:00'Postmodernism' is a category made up by i...'Postmodernism' is a category made up by its critics. Actually being familiar with many of the theories I can give a gloss on this as such... My commentary in CAPS.<br /><br />______<br /><br />Some of the pernicious ideas that Postmodernism has given rise to are the following:<br /><br /> (1) the view that there is no such thing as objective truth;<br /><br />THIS IDEA EXISTED LONG BEFORE POST-STRUCTURALIST PHILOSOPHY AND CAN BE TRACED BACK TO THE SOPHISTS OF ANCIENT GREECE. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN PRESENT.<br /><br />SOME POST-STRUCTURALISTS SUBSCRIBE TO THIS. SOME DON'T. LACAN DID NOT. NOR DID THE LATE DERRIDA (ON MY READING).<br /><br /> (2) cultural relativism;<br /><br />SAME AS POINT (1).<br /><br /> (3) following from (2) the view that there is no such thing as objective morality;<br /><br />FOUCAULT'S LAST THREE BOOKS WERE ON ETHICS (HISTORY OF SEXUALITY). LACAN GAVE A VERY FAMOUS SEMINAR ON ETHICS. AND LATE DERRIDA CONSTANTLY SPOKE/WROTE ON ETHICS.<br /><br /> (4) the view that modern science is not true or just one “narrative” that is just as “valid” as any other, and<br /><br />THE ONLY KEY AUTHOR WHO DEALT WITH SCIENCE TO MY KNOWLEDGE WAS LACAN. I KNOW OF NOWHERE WHERE HE SAYS THAT SCIENCE IS UNTRUE ETC.<br /><br />MANY POST-STRUCTURALISTS, HOWEVER, ATTACKED 'SCIENTISM'. AS DO POST-KEYNESIANS.<br /><br /> (5) the view that no text can have a fixed meaning intended by its author.<br /><br />THIS IS NOT THE CLAIM. THE CLAIM IS THAT AN AUTHOR ONLY EVER HAS A PARTIAL UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR TEXT. READERS WILL THEN ONLY HAVE A PARTIAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE AUTHOR'S UNDERSTANDING. AND SO ON. AND SO ON.<br />_____<br /><br />'Postmodernism' is a concoction of its opponents. Rarely do these opponents actually understand any of the post-structuralist writers. Hence there are never any actual criticisms of the writers.Philnoreply@blogger.com