Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Plasmatic

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1960
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from softwareNerd in means, motive, opportunity as standard of proof   
    I think that the criteria can establish necessary but not sufficient reasons for guilt...
  2. Like
    Plasmatic reacted to Harrison Danneskjold in Owning Land?   
    You misunderstand.  It seems to me, from everything I've read above, that your largest obstacle to understanding this is not a lack of information but just bad information.  So I don't point that out to be aggressive at all; it's a totally understandable thing, anyway; I point it out in order to help you solve it.
    And if it seems to you that I'm not thinking properly then please, tell me about it.  It won't be pleasant, of course, but if it should help me to think more correctly then you'll have given me an enormous benefit.
     
    Well, as SN observed, Marx conceived of the Labor Theory of Value.  That theory states that "value" comes from using your muscles, which isn't true.  While most of our stuff requires someone to use their muscles, somewhere along the line, there are only a few ways in which "labor" will actually create "value" and any other way will be a total waste of energy.
     
    Now, you've been talking about "value" as being produced by your mind and your muscles, and those words are true but I don't think you're using them to mean what they should mean (particularly because of your reaction to CT's point that nothing is fundamentally manmade).  And not only do I think that, I think it's because you're actually using those words to refer to the Labor Theory; most likely unintentionally.
     
    That's why I suspect that it may help to actually drop the technical terms for the moment and try to reason about it with concrete examples.  If that's wrong then don't hesitate to tell me so. 
     
    Thank you for noticing; I thought so, too (except for the 'error' part, of course).
     
    Actually, basically anyone can; the question is whether they should.
     
    Most people would consider it 'selfish' to break into someone's house and steal their stuff; selfish and practical.  If you've read Atlas Shrugged then you probably know that isn't quite right, but it doesn't seem like you know exactly why.
     
    If you don't already know all of that, in clear and explicit terms, then that's the first thing to address.
     
    That's a shame because it opens the core of this right up.
     
    Would it be moral for someone to rearrange your entire house without asking you, as long as they didn't break anything?
  3. Like
    Plasmatic reacted to Nicky in Inequality is the enemy of growth. Discuss   
    The cause of the variance in land prices in an area is the variance in the past actions of the land owners in that area. If they built companies, tall buildings, infrastructure on their lands, the price will be high, if they didn't, the price will be low.
    One thing is for certain: if the land was unowned, no one would've built anything on it. Not unless the state, which would become the de facto owner of the land in the absence of private property rights, also assumed ownership of the population (which is what happens when communism or fascism are implemented as a replacement for the property rights system socialists abolish).
    The "reasoning" is in the mind of the producer, who freely agreed to work for the landlord. He did it because, for some reason, he thought doing so would benefit him. The underlying motivation for allowing people to freely make that choice is the belief that humans are capable of rational thought, and acting in their rational self interest.
    Marx is only right if the producer was wrong. His claim rests on the assumption that people who work for others by their own free will, for either a wage or a share of the profits, are generally wrong, and that some mystical force he terms "the people" would be able to make far better decisions for them.
     
    The "psychological state" of individuals who resort to sarcasm and jibes is contempt for their subject. When somebody's position is absurd and stupid enough, satire is the best way to show it.
    And sarcasm and jibes are not what passive aggressiveness is. Doesn't seem like you know what passive aggressiveness is. So you should probably stop saying it.
  4. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from Nicky in Inequality is the enemy of growth. Discuss   
    Ironically in the previous thread Snerd said:
  5. Like
    Plasmatic reacted to Dante in Why Is Dr. Robert Stadler the "Guiltiest Among You"?   
    He delivered the power of science into the hands of those people that wielded political power.  His name single-handedly led to the creation of the State Science Institute (an institution whose evil nature is gradually revealed over the course of the book).  Recall the passage when he is introduced as a character: "At the age of forty, Dr. Robert Stadler addressed the nation, endorsing the establishment of a State Science Institute.  "Set science free of the rule of the dollar," he pleaded. The issue had hung in the balance... The name of Dr. Robert Stadler acted upon the country like the cosmic rays he studied; it pierced any barrier.  The nation built the white marble edifice as a personal present to one of its greatest men."
     
    As the novel progresses, we (along with Dr. Stadler himself) gradually begin to discover the true nature of the State Science Institute that Stadler has created.  The ultimate dramatization of this is Project X, a weapon that the Institute builds for the (totalitarian) government in the novel.  Although the scientists that build it claim that it will be used to preserve peace and quash rebellion, by this point in the novel we know the true totalitarian nature of the government for whom this weapon was built.  This situation is basically analogous to the scientists who worked on building the atomic bomb for the Germans during WWII.  Those scientists knew, better than anyone else, the requirements that the human mind be free to think and pursue its own vision, and yet they use the products of science and reason to empower those who would destroy that freedom.  This is one of the themes of the novel, that there is no division between the scientists here and the politicians.  You can't just hide behind the excuse that, "I'm a scientist; I never actually hurt anyone."  It is the responsibility of each individual to know to what purpose his labor is being put.  Dr. Stadler defaults on this responsibility, and ends up enabling an evil government to create a weapon of mass destruction.
  6. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from splitprimary in DIM applied to future trends in future world superpower's   
    Daniel Dennet made the claim in a debate against Dinesh Dsousa that athieist are the most rapidly growing demographic. Anyone look into this and how it figures with a religious dominance in the world?
  7. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from Eiuol in Determinism seems...silly.   
    I reccomend Diana Hsieh's paper Mind in Objectivism on this topic:

    http://www.philosophyinaction.com/docs/mio.pdf
  8. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from FeatherFall in Police Militarization / Use of Force   
    At least 8 people I grew up with were at sometime officers. I can tell you that the amount of evidence that would be against officers from having lapel cameras on is at least even with the amount for them. I personally wish that it was required because I know how corrupt they can be. An honest officer would only benefit from having his every encounter recorded.

    This is not to say that I think police shouldn't have good hardware to meet the challenges they face. A question is, at what point does the situation become a national guard issue? If the threat requires certain tools that are usually for "military" applications, where is that line and does meeting that level of threat mean the guard should be involved anyway?

    If this has been addressed, can someone point me to the post?

    Edit: I agree with Nicky in #2 on what is excluded (missiles, tanks, grenades etc.) and with Aleph1 in #3 on the tactics being the most important issue.
  9. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Discussing Metaphysical Priority   
    Harrison, I didn't quote your " * " comment in my response but your " ** " comment. I wasn't responding to the color blind statement but to the second one that said, "Whether anything is ever truly universal". Your caveat above would have been a different thing. The previous iteration would make axioms superfluous because knowledge of axioms do exactly that. ( state what is true in all context, irreducibly)
     
    Edit:
     
    Harrison said:
     
     
    As stated, your right. I should have asked what he thought was wrong with the evidence-model for simple substances. 
  10. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Discussing Metaphysical Priority   
    I haven't forgotten this thread but I need some time to respond to SL and Harrison further. Will try to do so tonight.
  11. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in Discussing Metaphysical Priority   
    SL said:
     
     
    This is exactly what my distinction is in fact about. Notice, I have repeatedly rejected the notion that the sense of primacy-priority is about "importance". The ontological distinction Oism makes about the Primacy Of Existence is about causal chains not about levels of existence or importance. When Ms. Rand says that an entity has characteristics that are more fundamental or that consciousness is a "dependent"  She is answering the question "What had to come first?", not "what exists more or less?", or "what is more important?".
     
    Notice, that when the axiom of the Primacy of Existence is introduced it is stated as synonymous with "existence exist" and then immediately a discussion of causal chains begins.   
     
    from Philosophy: Who Needs It?
     
    In metaphysics the answer to the question, "What comes first, existence or non existence?" is "Existence exist. Existence cannot come from non-existence".
     
    To the question, "what comes first entities or attributes?" is "entities are their attributes, therefore there never was a time when redness existed before the entity which is red"  So, the answer to the question, "which comes first entities or consciousness?" is "Entities are the only primary existents and while there may have been a time when consciousness didn't exist and there may be a time when there are no more conscious entities there never was or will be a time when there are no entities."
     
    In the sense of fundamentality of characteristics, the answer to the question. "which comes first walking or legs" is "function follows form". 
     
    In ethics, the answer to the question, "What comes first, self or others?" is "Self, because groups are groups of individuals and life comes first, or, is the cause of value."
     
    Notice, right after the above section in PWNI Ms. Rand starts talking about what is "impossible" without that "by means of which" something else comes to be the case.
     
     
     
     
    Consciousness exists by means of the entity which has the form, by means of which, consciousness is caused. Mind is not over matter because mind is caused by matter.
     
    Only concrete entities have independent existence, that is,  entities are causal primaries.
     
    Nothing about this has anything to do with imputing a teleological concept of method like "evaluation" to mind independent existence...
     
    I will relate this to the thread this discussion was taken from in a bit.
  12. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Is my table a table?   
    Harrison said:
     
     
    Yeah I wasn't sure what he was wanting to say about "absolute understanding" so I stated as much with my own qualification that Oist advocates absolutes.
  13. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Existence exists subsidiary thread   
    llya said:

    It's becoming clear that you intend to find whatever way you can to take some symbols used by Oism and make them into something completely nonsensical in order to appear to justify your own ridiculous mysticism.
    You have no idea what a measurement is either...a measurement is measurement of something! You take measurements, not create them. Measurement is an abstraction from the metaphysically given. It appears you are confused by equivocating measurement with a standard of measurement. You have no understanding of the difference Rand makes between the "metaphysically given" and "the man made".

    llya said:

    Now your equivocating physics with physical along with metaphysics. Provide an instance of conflating particulars with universals. I mean an actual quote! You have no idea what a contradiction is either.
    You actually want to reject the claim that both atoms and the entity that is comprised of them exists? I know there is no more than existence because existence is everything, that is, I know what existence means....

    llya said:

    More conflation of physical with physics...
    You don't go to a dictionary to figure out what Oist mean by metaphysics. Nor does a rational person rely on dictionary.com for philosophical guidance. That definition of metaphysics is a conflation with epistemology. The original use of meta does not in any way mean "in consequence of" or "about". It just meant that Andronicus placed Aristotle's discussion of "first philosophy" AFTER the book on physics. No where does Rand claim that metaphysics comes after physics in a sequential way! Metaphysics is the foundational science at the root of all other science! Your referring to a modern usage by non Oist cannot be used as a foil against Oism because thats not what we mean!

    There should be a rule for people like you that after claiming so many retarded things about Oism that you have to supply a quote as an instance to support your arbitrary and obviously contradictory claims......
  14. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from Repairman in Neo-Objectivism   
    Complete and utter nonsense! Starts with a hallucination of "universal energy" as a child and then builds on quantum mysticism. Energy is not a substance. "Patterns" are not entities but relationships amongst entities, and "wholeness" is a description of systems of entities not a metaphysical primary. llya this forum is not for the promotion of pseudo scientific garbage or you attempts to "subvert Objectivism". (Which used to be against the forum rules and would get u kicked out) Your wasting your time.
  15. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from dream_weaver in Key to Induction: Distinguish General and Universal   
    Mikee said:
     
    In the book mentioned by Dante, Mills a System of Logic, Prof. McCaskey and his colleague said:

     
    Now think on frank's comments:
     
    And then relate this to Dr. Peikoffs words:
     
    And then read Prof. McCaskey's comment on his blog:
     
    Meaning, logic, language, conceptualization and induction are all inseparable....
  16. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from dream_weaver in Does Objectivism integrate philosophy and science well?   
    Illya said:
    I claim that your categorization of mysticism is not mine and that makes you waste time beating strawmen. Your essential characteristic of mystic is not mine, and you don't understand the generative context of differentiation that the units of mysticism and religion presuppose and this makes you a context dropping misintegrater on this issue. You have made these units synonymous with the difference that made them necessary and that they presuppose.

    Illya said:
    You have come to a forum based on objectivism after reading Ayn Rands works and you are surprised by the boldness of an Oist expression of that same philosophy? You don't even seem to have grasped my claims. The fact that your response is completely lacking a response to the relevant charge of strawman is evidence of this. And boldness on a particular issue is not synonymous with , or evidence of the belief that one is omniscient. Another strawman.... The solid ground is that Ms Rand clearly was talking about something different than you are criticizing.

    Illya said:
    What you fail to grasp is that the context of differentiation that mysticism and religion presupposes cannot be a source of "overlap" because difference is antithetical to similarity. What's more is you are ignoring that Ms Rand's criticism of mysticism is one that presupposes that difference. I gave you that basis already, the difference in the method of justification.

    Illya said:
    I already did the work but you have your eyes on a strawman.

    Illya said:

    Your point?


    Illya said:

    Beg the question much? Oist don't separate fact and value and the quote you opened this thread with should have told you that you and Oist don't agree on the relation of emotions to facts... Until you figure this out you will never understand why "HeartMath" is nonsense to Oist.


    Illya said:
    You love to create strawmen based on your own equivocations and impute them to others condescendingly. Its pretty funny really. Civilization and industry are not synonymous. The rest is you affirming the consequent of a nonsensical strawman.

    Illya said:
    You can make whatever arbitrary differentiation you want but that doesn't make it correspond to facts or provide you with the ability to define a concept in a way that makes the generative context the units were abstracted from valid. What essential characteristic of your categorization makes "mysticism" responsible for these alleged goodness's?

    Illya said:

    No, you do not know how to identify when your units are not someone else's when you address their comments.(context dropping) A connection is a connection, neuronal or not. There is no such thing as a unidirectional connection neuronal or otherwise. Are you actually claiming that organs are not connected to the rest of your body? You confuse the difference between cells and organs with the difference between a connection and autonomy and therefore create more strawmen! I never claimed that the heart doesn't have neurons!
    Try again?


    Illya said:
    Some physical theories are unscientific and their age has nothing to do with that! This cute little century stawman is meaningless. Truth is timeless. My view of controversial issues in science is in the category of novelty and a recognition of the differences between fact and theory. Try again?

    Illya said:
    Already have...
    Illya said:
    Newsflash, there is no other kind of evaluation! Appealing to the values of consensus is simply a failure to evaluate on that issue. Again you fail to address the Oist justification-position for judgment-sanction. You gonna enter this fight?

    Illya said:
    You clearly don't understand what Sheldrake said that I am referring to. His nonsensical view that things don't do what they do because of what they are but because they currently have that "habit" is a rejection of the law of identity as it relates to causality. A habit is something you can fail to do, is contingent, Identity is not something that can fail to obtain.....However the differences between you, Sheldrake, the heartmath nonsense and Oism is indeed centered around Ontology. The graph in this videos snapshot
    Shows the essential problem with this difference. The video is full of instances of making false differentiations based on terrible ontological distinctions.

    Illya said:

    Quote me stating any such stupidity!

    Illya said:
    It would help if we had the same criteria for evidence, Illya. This is central to our differences and the debate you are failing to engage in.


    Illya said:

    Nowhere did I claim that mystics are not men. What's more is these are two different units nonetheless! You are mixing your to's and from's all together in your equivocation on concepts-units=misintegration.

    ITOE said:
    Edit: I want to add to the essential trait of mysticism the treatment of emotions as tools of cognition. This is implicit in the use of them as justifiers in the "pure conscious experience" notions of mystics... (And the heartmath bullshit)
  17. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from Repairman in Does Objectivism integrate philosophy and science well?   
    Illya said:
    I claim that your categorization of mysticism is not mine and that makes you waste time beating strawmen. Your essential characteristic of mystic is not mine, and you don't understand the generative context of differentiation that the units of mysticism and religion presuppose and this makes you a context dropping misintegrater on this issue. You have made these units synonymous with the difference that made them necessary and that they presuppose.

    Illya said:
    You have come to a forum based on objectivism after reading Ayn Rands works and you are surprised by the boldness of an Oist expression of that same philosophy? You don't even seem to have grasped my claims. The fact that your response is completely lacking a response to the relevant charge of strawman is evidence of this. And boldness on a particular issue is not synonymous with , or evidence of the belief that one is omniscient. Another strawman.... The solid ground is that Ms Rand clearly was talking about something different than you are criticizing.

    Illya said:
    What you fail to grasp is that the context of differentiation that mysticism and religion presupposes cannot be a source of "overlap" because difference is antithetical to similarity. What's more is you are ignoring that Ms Rand's criticism of mysticism is one that presupposes that difference. I gave you that basis already, the difference in the method of justification.

    Illya said:
    I already did the work but you have your eyes on a strawman.

    Illya said:

    Your point?


    Illya said:

    Beg the question much? Oist don't separate fact and value and the quote you opened this thread with should have told you that you and Oist don't agree on the relation of emotions to facts... Until you figure this out you will never understand why "HeartMath" is nonsense to Oist.


    Illya said:
    You love to create strawmen based on your own equivocations and impute them to others condescendingly. Its pretty funny really. Civilization and industry are not synonymous. The rest is you affirming the consequent of a nonsensical strawman.

    Illya said:
    You can make whatever arbitrary differentiation you want but that doesn't make it correspond to facts or provide you with the ability to define a concept in a way that makes the generative context the units were abstracted from valid. What essential characteristic of your categorization makes "mysticism" responsible for these alleged goodness's?

    Illya said:

    No, you do not know how to identify when your units are not someone else's when you address their comments.(context dropping) A connection is a connection, neuronal or not. There is no such thing as a unidirectional connection neuronal or otherwise. Are you actually claiming that organs are not connected to the rest of your body? You confuse the difference between cells and organs with the difference between a connection and autonomy and therefore create more strawmen! I never claimed that the heart doesn't have neurons!
    Try again?


    Illya said:
    Some physical theories are unscientific and their age has nothing to do with that! This cute little century stawman is meaningless. Truth is timeless. My view of controversial issues in science is in the category of novelty and a recognition of the differences between fact and theory. Try again?

    Illya said:
    Already have...
    Illya said:
    Newsflash, there is no other kind of evaluation! Appealing to the values of consensus is simply a failure to evaluate on that issue. Again you fail to address the Oist justification-position for judgment-sanction. You gonna enter this fight?

    Illya said:
    You clearly don't understand what Sheldrake said that I am referring to. His nonsensical view that things don't do what they do because of what they are but because they currently have that "habit" is a rejection of the law of identity as it relates to causality. A habit is something you can fail to do, is contingent, Identity is not something that can fail to obtain.....However the differences between you, Sheldrake, the heartmath nonsense and Oism is indeed centered around Ontology. The graph in this videos snapshot
    Shows the essential problem with this difference. The video is full of instances of making false differentiations based on terrible ontological distinctions.

    Illya said:

    Quote me stating any such stupidity!

    Illya said:
    It would help if we had the same criteria for evidence, Illya. This is central to our differences and the debate you are failing to engage in.


    Illya said:

    Nowhere did I claim that mystics are not men. What's more is these are two different units nonetheless! You are mixing your to's and from's all together in your equivocation on concepts-units=misintegration.

    ITOE said:
    Edit: I want to add to the essential trait of mysticism the treatment of emotions as tools of cognition. This is implicit in the use of them as justifiers in the "pure conscious experience" notions of mystics... (And the heartmath bullshit)
  18. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in How is love explained?   
    Frank said:

    We have a concept for that, its pity, not love. Imagine a valentines card where you could substitute "pity" for the word love.....No thanks!
  19. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from dream_weaver in How is love explained?   
    Frank said:

    We have a concept for that, its pity, not love. Imagine a valentines card where you could substitute "pity" for the word love.....No thanks!
  20. Like
    Plasmatic reacted to human_murda in Difference between human emotions and animal instinct   
    You'd know all about that won't you? Your information should come handy now:
     
     
    Prove logically why getting rid of instincts (if that is what actually happens) is not necessary to evolve the kind of consciousness humans possess. In other words: state precisely all the contradictions that arise assuming instincts need to be got rid of to evolve human consciousness. (You need to analyse first the nature of human consciousness and then state the proof).
     
     
    I don't need "abundance of evidence". Just any one will do. Also hypothesizing infinitely (which most psychologists do nowadays), with barely one or two experiments designed to test them does not constitute "abundance of evidence". There is also an "abundance of evidence" for the born-gay theory and it is all just infinite hypothesizing with no time to verify them or challenge them.
     
     
    You know, "tendency" is such a huge package deal that can be used to sanction any whim, undefined feeling or motivation (which is its purpose). And talking as though it as a fact that only a "tendency" is required for you to act, is pandering to all irrationality (notice how people use explanations like this only when they have no proper justifications for their actions when challenged to bring up with some), by basically having "scientists" say: "You see, you don't need to know all the motivations for your actions. We at FutureLabs [not referring to any real lab] have it all worked out for you. Just blindly follow whatever you feel, because that's the way evolution meant it to be". You see, reason requires you to properly define all your premises and acknowledge all its consequences. A "tendency" is the proper territory and realm of an irrationalist. Reason requires you to pursue clearly defined goals, which require clearly defined actions. "Tendency" is neither here nor there. To be more precise: it does not have an identity. The result of accepting "tendency" as a motivation is not a harvest of all the time-tested evolutionary guideways. The result is to psychologize yourself and to accept all subconsciously accepted premises (which is the basic problem with immoral humans by the way - this is a significant problem. Meanwhile, you act as though reality does not require strict adherence to logic and anything goes) as inborn and immutable. It is essentially a way out of resolving your inner conflicts and doubts. You may claim your "tendency" can be properly analysed and then meet the requirements of reason, but then it stops being a tendancy.
     
     
    "not a result of nurturing or societal conditioning." So, according to you, all mothers are just waiting to dispose their babies at the nearest doorstep and are only prevented from doing so by their instincts? You talk as though instincts are the only way to explain this obviously paradoxical behaviour that confounds all reason. Humans don't even have any instinct to eat (no, hunger is not an instinct and hunger does not create paddy fields). Why would they have an instinct to mother children?
  21. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from Nerian in What are the implications of existence regarding plasma?   
    Frank said:

    Absolute non-sequitor.... The concept existence applies to everything that exist. A perfect example of why physicist (and physics students) need philosophy of science.
  22. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from dream_weaver in $100 Finders fee: Can you name a full-time activist for Reason?   
    Its a testament to Burgess' integrity that he is paying based on the ambiguity created, but Randi clearly doesnt fit in my book....
  23. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from Prometheus88 in How do you juggle between your idealism and realism?   
    Edwin, I totally understand your predicament. The fact is, justice is a result of the recognition of reality. I constantly ask myself, "why keep bothering with these self deluding parasites? Should I just stop trying to be culturally active? ". On your quid pro quo , "Look at how effective predatory egoist are at achieving cooperation from sheeple"..... Culturally, ridicule and "thinking shallow and talking loud" seem to be the way to advance in most environments. I just have that inescapable conscience that I cant disconnect from pride and happiness in my self. I watch other productive folks with integrity constantly be used and discarded when the tribally preferred shows up. How often have you actually seen mature thinkers change their mind?

    Edit: I have a quibble with this "alpha" thing. I am what most people would call an alpha and I have the same complaints you mention otherwise.... Especially the pilfering of my ideas by secondhanded parasites who claim them as their own..
  24. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from Edwin in How do you juggle between your idealism and realism?   
    Edwin, I totally understand your predicament. The fact is, justice is a result of the recognition of reality. I constantly ask myself, "why keep bothering with these self deluding parasites? Should I just stop trying to be culturally active? ". On your quid pro quo , "Look at how effective predatory egoist are at achieving cooperation from sheeple"..... Culturally, ridicule and "thinking shallow and talking loud" seem to be the way to advance in most environments. I just have that inescapable conscience that I cant disconnect from pride and happiness in my self. I watch other productive folks with integrity constantly be used and discarded when the tribally preferred shows up. How often have you actually seen mature thinkers change their mind?

    Edit: I have a quibble with this "alpha" thing. I am what most people would call an alpha and I have the same complaints you mention otherwise.... Especially the pilfering of my ideas by secondhanded parasites who claim them as their own..
  25. Like
    Plasmatic reacted to dream_weaver in Ayn Rand- Absolutes   
    One can appreciate Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's opening paragraph on Postmodernism:
    That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning.
     
    While apparently indefinable, it is not indescribable. For those having no truck with the reaffirmation through denial, a friend of Miss Rand once said:
    that today's attitude, paraphrasing the Bible, is; "Forgive me, Father, for I know not what I'm doing - and please don't tell me."
     
    The law of causality guaranties the outcome of the rebellion against identity. In the meantime, postmodernism just provides another way to separate those who know A is A, from some others that wish it were not so.
×
×
  • Create New...