Very earnest attempt at debate underway

I've just noticed that you two tend to trade a few posts promising some kind of debate and then you try to force the conversation into whatever alley you want it to go into and then Frown's like "Nope, wheeee!!!" and then just mocks you while you both jockey for some kind of semantic victory that the other will be forced to honestly respond to for fear of looking like a coward, at which point the person who made the other blink is in control and presumably wins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJpHy0PuLrE

We already had the debate. You were watching it fizzle out.

His last reply was half hearted so mine was too. I think we both spelled out what we think on the matter in the previous posts.

Chomsky does a better job ****ting on post modernist nonsense

they speak in incomprehensible jibberish intentionally so that no one understands it

As opposed to the rest of this convo?

You both tend to be pretty half hearted after the first few rounds. We need Chula back.

I think my response before the last one was anything but half hearted. I explained exactly where I am coming from. Maybe you didn't read it or didn't care.

I'd call it 75% hearted.

Nice

I don't expect you to be self-aware about your intentions tbh.

Here's your boy Chomsky ****ting on the whole enterprise



As I recall he debated Foucault and later called him "the most amoral man I've ever met"

You're always playing pop psychologist. You should try forming a few genuine human relationships before you start diagnosing people.

And here we see the wannabe alpha much as he dicksucks the capitalists and authoritarian American presidents in hopes that he can one day rise above his humble status of community college dropout to "make something of himself".

:laughing:

U mad?

I've been nothing but nothing but nice to you, bud. What's the matter?

I was going to say that.

Yeh but in this case Chomsky was the only one making sense

As a linguist Chomsky is sometimes accused of hiding behind complexity.

I’ll give a cookie to whomever can work through his semantic equations.

He isn't hiding behind anything in his critique of post modernists. He uses very simple language to spell out how they try to dismantle any sort of attempt at finding the truth in any domain.

I mean the basic point of post-modernism is that it's trying to describe human nature and existence that is or has been previously indescribable by words due to how ****ing abstract it is, so if it sounds like nonsense then maybe it's because of how poorly words describe abstract ideas in the first place. Or am I off base?

It's not just that. They basically under value science and any sort of objective attempt at truth on the basis that these notions are being propped up by the white male dominated institutions that propagate them.

Nevermind the fact that virtually all the great post modernist thinkers were themselves white males from the very same institutions :laughing:

#FoccultHawkSuperGenius

Well of course as it would be one more thing acting as a funhouse mirror to help us understand ourselves that also distorts our self image, but the point is that we're trying to put words to things that are only somewhat less easy to describe than dreams. Or even harder, I don't know. Dreams are one person's thing whereas society is the dream of 7 billion people with wildly different dreams.

yeh and Einstein was a Jew in a time and place where that wasn't optimal. They don't care about that

more from the latter though tbh.

That’s exactly what Heidegger was saying we needed to do. Stretch the boundaries of language. Attempts to do it aren’t always going to be perfect and yeah there’s going to be baloney mixed in. Even Choms can bigot.

so you basically disagree with the Crux of their argument

I'm not scholar of post-modernism by any stretch of the imagination and I'm not even limiting this to philosophical post-modernism. I'm also considering post-modernism in art and how that relates to the concept of post-modernism in general, but I'm also not describing post-modernism as "there is no truth" as that's a silly strawman for the most part, but as: the human mind was not designed to comprehend all this **** (i.e. everything) and so it tried to channel itself down certain paths that were easier, simpler, more intuitive, and more productive, but which were also restrictive, and post-modernism tries to shed these constraints both for the betterment of humankind but also simply as a mental exercise.

I'm not actually trying to discredit them based on being white males. I just think that tactic is dishonest when they use it and so it's ironic that they are in fact white males.

When I was in college everyone called I & I a postmodernist. It was mostly about cereal box design.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ea/11/91/e...ast-cereal.jpg

I don't think so

www.allaboutphilosophy.org/postmodernism.htm

To say that post-modernism is saying that there is no truth is just saying that post-modernism is nihilism. I think the point of post-modernism is that it acknowledges nihilism, a viewpoint that divorces itself from human viewpoints totally, but actively dives into human viewpoints to examine them from a human perspective, just in a way that isn't traditional.

Nihilism doesn't call objective reality into question, only existential meaning

Again, I'm not pulling this out if my ass. Chomsky and many other critics raise the same point, and basic neutral overviews of the philosophy say something similar. At this point I'd think the onus is on you guys to cite something backing up your pov

Nihilism by definition would deny reality since muffukkin the Matrix means that there is no objective reality beyond maybe natural laws like gravity and the conservation of mass and energy.

Not that I'm acknowledging your point as having anything to do with what I said cause it didn't but maybe it had something to do with what something someone else said.

I thought the link was sarcastic.

I should ****ing hope it was.

You seem to be confusing Nihilism for phenomenology.

I mean nihilism denies anything that isn't provable. True nihilism would deny any scientific statement that wasn't axiomatic.