Accidentally became a postmodernist

[Anonymous No.15263427]

I wish I never read this shit. Now I believe that reason is the flimsiest of tools,
that morality is a bullshit construct,
that identity is to a very large extent something completely made up,
that achieving objective truth is an utter impossibility,
that practicality and serving one's needs always needs to take priority over what ones considers the truth,
that self-preservation, and getting what I want are the only two things worth serving.

I cannot function like this. What do I read to un-brainwash myself?

[Anonymous No.15263444]

>>15263427
>achieving objective truth is an utter impossibility,
are you sure about that?

[Anonymous No.15263447]

>>15263427
Read kant

[Anonymous No.15263451]

How does practicality and serving one's needs follow from it? I'd argue that a person becomes less of a machine and more human by disregarding ideologies.

[Anonymous No.15263464]

>>15263427
>practicality and serving one's needs always needs to take priority over what ones considers the truth,
>self-preservation, and getting what I want are the only two things worth serving.
If you actually believed these things and
>I cannot function like this
was actually true, then you would stop believing them

[Anonymous No.15263490]

>>15263427
just live in the present, like all women & poos do

[Anonymous No.15263516]

>>15263427
Who did you read, anon? Unfortunately it is difficult going back once you've peeped over the horizon. Even though I don't have the same post-apocalyptic mindset of Baudrillard, he certainly made me reconsider just what exactly the trajectory of "society" is (there I go again, I just can't help it with the quotation marks). The only way to break the coding is to ultimately learn how to speak meaningfully THROUGH the materials of postmodernity, to learn how to use irony and rhetorical distance to say things that otherwise could not be thought outside of it. You have the entirety of history ready-to-hand. While this inevitably makes everything stale and dead on arrival, it also means there are an inexhaustible number of relations to explore between ideas. So (in the spirit of the postmodern), simply pick and choose which ideas fulfil your desire to "un-brainwash" yourself. I can't tell you which ones will help, because they're all artificial anyways, but truth is no longer relevant if all that matters is utility.

[Anonymous No.15263540]

>>15263447
Kant is quite literally responsible for all this shit

[Anonymous No.15263549]

>>15263447
The categorical imperative presupposes that reason (and therefore morality) serves man better than irrationality. This is not always correct. You can do the logical/right thing, and get pummelled by someone that doesn't give a shit about you and has more power than you. Even worse, 3 weaker irrational people, acting out their whims can fuck you up, even if each has half your strength. Power is what runs the world, not reason.

>>15263451
By this, I mean "acting on any whims I have and to my needs as I currently understand them, with no concern other than my survival".

>>15263444
Sad fact is, I am a scientist. As others in the field can attest, collecting data is one thing, but interpretation thereof is highly subjective.
If you can apply this to hard statistics, you can apply it to all other situations.

[Anonymous No.15263561]

>>15263427
If you're alive today, you can't not be postmodern.

The world is postmodern, and you live in the world, so your existence is postmodern.

[Anonymous No.15263603]

>>15263427
OK OP I was where you are rn a while ago.

What you gotta get is that this pomo shit is very far down the line of philosophical development. Unfortunately, and mind you they would probably argue against what I'm saying here, but its my experience that people only really understand this shit when they understand what it really was that the Postmodernists are rejecting. He's no postmodernist but I think this is a good example for you, take Nietzsche. He spends a good chunk of time just railing on Socrates and Christ, and its easy to take it as "LOL FUCK LOGIC AND TRADITION".

>achieving objective truth is an utter impossibility
But *WHO* wants objective truth? Who *wills* objective truth? Who taught you that you needed this?

[Anonymous No.15263632]

>>15263464
It's causing cognitive dissonance as we speak. That's why I posted.

>>15263490
Contrary to what you think, I'm far from a woman, a basedboy or a faggot.

>>15263516
Derrida, Baudrillard. You were unironically helpful. I'd rather forget about the whole thing though, but believing in truth or rationality now feels like reviving a dead body or trying to believe in Santa.

>>15263561
Ok.

[Anonymous No.15263646]

>>15263427
>that practicality and serving one's needs always needs to take priority over what ones considers the truth,
>that self-preservation, and getting what I want are the only two things worth serving

Read actual postmodernists, anon, very few believe this. Foucault, Derrida, Butler and others all have significant writings on ethics. in fact postmodernists sometimes get accused of being too obsessed with ethics by other schools.

[Anonymous No.15263675]

>>15263549

Sounds like a paranoid conclusion. Disbelief in idiologies is liberating, understanding how systems of control has got us by the balls makes one want to shrug it all away. One response to it could be disbelief in everything, and becoming a hedonist.

But if you think that becoming a hedonist is not something you want, then why persist in that direction? Isn't hedonism just a counter-ideology? Why not be a hedonist today, a romantic tomorrow and so on? Why adopt one ideology?

Another thing is that self-preservation looks a lot more interesting when you add virtues to it, like love, eudemonia. Note that I'm not saying you try to come up with a way of 'love' but rather just participate in as many forms of love as you can. You can accomplish all of this while also working towards self-preservation.

All of these options, and many more, open up once you give up any one-true-way-to-live.

You can't let yourself be wrapped up in ideology games anon, even if it's a counter-ideology.

[Anonymous No.15263678]

>>15263549
>The categorical imperative presupposes that reason (and therefore morality) serves man better than irrationality.

So, you didn't read Kant. Do it

[Anonymous No.15263701]

>>15263603
No, if you're old enough to post here, it is not easy to think Nietzsche says "fuck logic and tradition".
At this point, I only care about truth insofar as it gets me what I want. Same goes for reason. Many people (mistakenly) hold truth and reason as ideals though.

[Anonymous No.15263737]

>>15263632
Just like with nietzsche, when the world around you deteriorates in large structural meaning, you have to go out of your way to find meaning personally to you, in your direct every day life. The actions you take. The skills you hone. The things you collect. The crippling knowledge that everything is a sham and power structures run the world is really not helpful when you don't do anything with your life. You'll keep living and letting this thing weigh you down to a point of crippling anxiety. I'd suggest reading non-philosophy for this. I'd read books about whatever your career or hobby is, as well as deep work & make it stick. I know it seems like this is a shallow suggestion, but I think you can find a beauty and sacredness that has been gone in the world when you manifest your will upon something. The act of creating. The act of taking something and making it better can really be an enlightening experience. We spend so much time in the metaphysical realm that the reality of the daily life we live, even if it may all me a sham if we think about it too much, still happens. You are still going to eat. You are still going to do something to make money to keep a roof over your head and to put food on the table. These may be societal constructs that need not exist, but they do. So I suggest you create. Find some joy and pride in taking a thing, be you a doctor, a lawyer, a woodworker, a writer, a blacksmith, or whatever, each profession has immutable characteristics to the things they work with that you must struggle to overcome. It ejects the idea of self onto another object or concept that you must struggle with yourself with a result. You may want to call bullshit at me and other anons are going to rip apart what I'm saying. But when was the last time you made a good meal, or played a song for another person, or finished a project building something? Tell me this before you dissect my argument.

[Anonymous No.15263768]

>>15263427
>now i believe that reason is the flimsiest of tools
How about killing yourself, you fucking degenerate?

[Anonymous No.15263838]

>>15263427
Read postmodernists like Deleuze and Baudrillard and they will destroy all this nonsense. Or read Neitzsche. The only way out is through, anon.

[Anonymous No.15263841]

>>15263737
This isn't a shallow answer. Maybe all there is, is the pleasure of overcoming difficulty, a job well done, followed by social celebration. I've suspected it for a long time, but I always wished I would find substance in lofty ideals and virtues. I see now that there is likely none. I understand you like you wouldn't believe, and if someone calls you a brainlet, that's also bad news for me.

>>15263768
If I was a loser, I would. By an interesting turn of events, I am not.

[Anonymous No.15263847]

>>15263632
It wouldn’t cause cognitive dissonance if you actually believed truth doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous No.15263862]

>>15263549
>If you can apply this to hard statistics, you can apply it to all other situations.
are you sure about that?

[Anonymous No.15263942]

>>15263841
I think many things are needlessly complicated and useful information can be gleaned from many different sources. I felt almost like a jordan peterson type when I wrote that, but I think there's some truth to it, or at least actionable steps that can help improve your life relative to the life you lead. But I also think that post modern writers had some good things to say about how society functions as a whole. I've had to start political conversations with others (not /pol/, like, real people) setting out rules of discussion of those actions that are material and relevant actions that could be taken and those discussions are are ideologically fueled. Without setting ground rules to the discussion it can always be asked "why" to a point where there is no meaning anymore. I think you can find virtue in both your daily life and the ideological aether. Suppose for example labor unions. I find the support of labor unions to be a nice compromise. It directly effects those around me and the people I concern myself with on a daily basis, and it also takes it's roots from an ideological framework. I'm not advocating for full on socialism because that becomes simply a mind game and not a practical application of theory to relevencies of my life. Getting paid more and having better benefits at the expense of the corporation that has been profiteering off its customers and employees because of a long series of legal frameworks and opinions written by long dead judges. It's a fine balance. Again only an example, not trying to force my opinion on anything. It could be applied to white power and all that fascist shit too. Applicable daily steps. It's hard to come to terms with the fact that we are so tiny. We are raised on great man theory from a young age and when post modernist thought not only shatters the sociological histories we know, but also the meaning and drive that comes from patriotism and other fundamental propagandist ideals, it becomes a struggle to even get out of bed. I get it anon, but I think there's a lot of progress to be hand in looking at your immediate surroundings for a while and slowly coming to conclusions about the OUGHTS after you determine the IS's.

[Anonymous No.15263964]

The only way out is through.

> that practicality and serving one's needs always needs to take priority over what ones considers the truth,
that self-preservation, and getting what I want are the only two things worth serving.

Even these things are bullshit. You must complete your going under and become a true nihilist. And, then go even further.

[Anonymous No.15263966]

>>15263862
To your defence, using analogy to deal in absolutes is bad form on my part. Let me elaborate: I can tell you that raw data, the outcome of experiments and thus our way of understanding the world, can be interpreted in such different ways where the same dataset can point to either direction. Fewer than half of all medical literature published is even barely reproducible, did you know that? For fields like psychology/psychiatry, the vast, vast majority of studies cannot be reproduced.

Meaning: our most rigorous way of looking for the truth, the scientific method, only provides approximations, and not even good ones at that matter. So worshipping ""truth"" is a fool's errand, because to the human experience, this concept cannot be perceived.

[Anonymous No.15263972]

>>15263701
Your wants are bullshit too, hallucinations. You haven't discarded everything yet.

[Anonymous No.15263987]

>>15263966
>completely misses the obvious point twice
>psychfags are stupid so truth doesn’t exist
I’m not surprised that the postmodern sophists managed to sucker you in

[Anonymous No.15264018]

basically read critique of pure reason and you'll simmer down

[Anonymous No.15264030]

you're correct that you cannot function like this. No one can function within the bounds of complete postmodernist nihilism. This is why you will revoke these claims quite soon.

[Anonymous No.15264054]

>>15264030
You can. Ultimately everything we've done post our evolutions to sapiens-sapiens is arbitrary. Life will sort itself, we became vampiric organisms.

[Anonymous No.15264062]

>>15263964
>>15263972
This doesn't sound like a fun journey

>>15263987
Enlighten me then. If I'm such a brainlet, that there is some obvious fault with my thinking process and I can't even notice it, spare some of your IQ points and help me out. All there is, is avoiding pain and seeking pleasure, and the best way to get there is power, not reason. Truth is a bullshit concept, so is identity to a large extent, reason is flimsy and unreliable, virtues are delusions. There is no right and wrong, only "practical for me" and "impractical for me". Tell me where I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.15264089]

>>15264062
Read We Have Never Been Modern.

The book is an "anthropology of science" that explores the dualistic distinction modernity makes between nature and society. Pre-modern peoples, argues Latour, made no such division. Contemporary matters of public concern such as global warming, the HIV/AIDS pandemic and emerging biotechnologies mix politics, science, popular and specialist discourse to such a degree that a tidy nature/culture dualism is no longer possible. This inconsistency has given rise to post-modern and anti-modern movements. Latour attempts to reconnect the social and natural worlds by arguing that the modernist distinction between nature and culture never existed. He claims we must rework our thinking to conceive of a "Parliament of Things" wherein natural phenomena, social phenomena and the discourse about them are not seen as separate objects to be studied by specialists, but as hybrids made and scrutinized by the public interaction of people, things and concepts.[2][3]

[Anonymous No.15264090]

>>15264062
>All there is, is avoiding pain and seeking pleasure, and the best way to get there is power, not reason.
Not him but what the fuck is this? Do you really believe that shit lol.

[Anonymous No.15264234]

>>15264090
Have you ever seen someone lose an argument because they were unpopular with the present crowd?
Have you ever lied at a job interview about your rational intentions for wanting the job?
Would you tell a lie to avoid getting yourself killed?

Think about what I wrote, and think about your behaviour. Not your beliefs, your behaviour.

[Anonymous No.15264273]

>>15264234
But what does that has to do with seeking pleasure and avoiding pain? What you described is just convenience.

[Anonymous No.15264285]

remove marketing and you remove postmodernism

[Anonymous No.15264345]

>>15263451
There is nothing more human than following ideologies. Why would a machine care about ideology?

[Anonymous No.15264356]

>>15263427
What did you read exactly?

[Anonymous No.15264385]

>>15264273
What is convenience apart from seeking pleasure and avoiding pain ;)

No one bases his actions purely on the ideals of truth and reason. Actions are amalgam of the desperate need to avoid pain and seek pleasure, and of identity. Identity itself is mostly made of thin air, chance and external stimuli, and can encompass "virtues". Identity itself is malleable and generally goes out the window when faced with the reality of undergoing pain, or of achieving great pleasure. And that is how people "change".

[Anonymous No.15264427]

read about taoism and baudrillard

[Anonymous No.15264493]

>>15263942
plz leftypol...

[Anonymous No.15264588]

It's like if you ever needed a reason to ignore all philosophy forever, read this thread. How has a
ANY of this actually affected your life at all. Like what do you actually do differently? How measurably different are your behaviors or thought processes or mood? Aren't you all just a bunch of fucking early 20s losers with nothing going on am no job prospects or girlfriends?

This is so pathetic

[Anonymous No.15264599]

>>15264588
>someone suggested labor unions are the key to living a fulfilling life
Holy shit imagine being such a pretentious retard that you can type that out seriously and believe all your philosophical reading has got you anywhere at all

I'm laughing so fucking hard

[Anonymous No.15264602]

>>15264493
s-sorry anon, I can't help it sometimes. J-just trying to help.

[Anonymous No.15264611]

>>15264385
>Actions are amalgam of the desperate need to avoid pain and seek pleasure, and of identity.
Without a solid basis in psychiatry such claims are as broad and inaccurate as saying that the air is made from gods breath. Philosophy does not prepare you to understand the actual basis of human action so stop acting like a fucking authority

[Anonymous No.15264628]

>>15264385
>guys help my philosophy is making me want to die wat do
idk man die? Have fun?

[Anonymous No.15264636]

>>15264588
OP here. I'm a debt-free doctor in training with a relatively normal social life. I used to love getting shit done, reaching high and being a moral person. Po-mo has been like a cancer creeping into my mind since I first read about it. I find it hard to give a shit anymore, and I don't like it.

Stop projecting. Philosophy is necessary without religion.

[Anonymous No.15264649]

>>15264611
I'm literally a doctor you fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.15264652]

>>15264636
>Philosophy is necessary without religion.
According to whom? How can you make such a goddamn ridiculous claim and pretend you've gained something from your reading

[Anonymous No.15264666]

>>15264652
You don't think Nietzsche was right about the problem of the death of god? I think any person with half a brain can see it.

The only issue now is its solution.

[Anonymous No.15264670]

>>15264649
So are you saying that your training gives you insight and not philosophy and also you're making an appeal to authority. Or what the fuck is your point? Great post. Much intelligence.

[Anonymous No.15264672]

>>15263427
that doesn't mean anything you fucking retard. what is 'bullshit construct' and what makes it a bullshit construct over others and how do you have the power to decree it as such? for one, it's not such a bullshit construct that it can be invented from nothing at any time. rather all is bound to cultural development and the ideas already present in your system, which postmodernism feeds from too.

[Anonymous No.15264677]

>>15264385
>>15263427
Ok, brainlet, here's the deal. If you say that
>. Actions are amalgam of the desperate need to avoid pain and seek pleasure...
Then why do you make yourself suffer the psychological pain of this existential crisis? Clearly, if you didn't care for concepts like truth and you didn't need the existence of right and wrong, you wouldn't be suffering about it. So, it does seem important to you that truth exists and that you CAN distinguish right from wrong, good from evil. And yet you think that it doesn't. But wouldn't a creature that only cared about avoiding suffering just ignore the non-existence of truth? And apparently you can't just accept that there is no objective reality and just PRETEND like the world is real. Like most normal people do. That would surely lessen your suffering, and yet you feel the need to exist in a world with a knowable Truth. Why is that?

[Anonymous No.15264679]

>>15264666
>dead man said it so it's true
Another appeal to authority. I think we can see the extent of your intellect and thought. Thanks for clearing this all up for the board.

[Anonymous No.15264684]

>>15263427
>that self-preservation, and getting what I want are the only two things worth serving.
ok i didn't see this part you're fucking retarded. that is a moral decree, a completely unqualified and unnuanced one. you are actually braindead.

[Anonymous No.15264708]

This is crazy. The OP or doctor or whatever he claims to be is a total retarded person. No wonder he is in such a "quandary" lol

[Anonymous No.15264783]

I think I got a couple people upset. Let's see what I can set straight.

>>15264670
My training gives me insights which are reflected in the philosophy I read. Empirical evidence is better than no evidence.

>>15264672
Truth is a bullshit construct because it can only be approximated, and with significant imprecision. Approximated truth is untruth, rendering the whole concept useless.

>>15264677
I'll be honest with you. I want to care. I really do. Not being able to give a shit about anything beyond what serves me, makes me feel like I'm missing some higher aspect of humanity freely available to everyone else. I also don't like the fact that I'm a scientist and I keep seeing how flimsy reason and truth are.

To address your question, it pisses me off to not live in a world of facts. It makes me feel desolate, without anything sturdy to grab on. And I don't think everyone else is just pretending. Many are convinced they are living by their ideals (as I was), and they seem pretty content about it.

[Anonymous No.15264814]

>>15264783
Let the thread die at this point. Try again another time, pretending to be someone people want to talk to.

[Anonymous No.15264831]

>>15264599
I was giving unions as the example that came to mind that materially effects ones life that has themes of a higher ideology but is grounded in actionable steps. Reading books and killing Jews can be just as fulfilling. I don’t really care. The point being the yearning for being part of something larger than one’s self in a world that doesn’t care. It’s the absurd, yo.

[Anonymous No.15264833]

>>15264679
You know you can actually read a book and evaluate the arguments in it right? Can you read?

>>15264708
"I understand the words, but not the meaning, so he is retarded." You're just proving my point.

>>15264684
Less of a moral decree, more of biological hardwiring. Despite you calling me names, I understand your position, but I disagree with it.

[Anonymous No.15264906]

>>15264385
>What is convenience apart from seeking pleasure and avoiding pain ;)
Convenience and pleasure are not same. Getting high on heroine is pleasurable but not convenient to you. Lifting may cause you pain but is ultimately convenient for you.

Also those are all dependent of POV's. Sacrificing yourself to save 1000 people is not conveninet to you but could be convenient to those 1000 people and to a lot more (by extension), thus more general convenience is obtained with the second option.

[Anonymous No.15264940]

>>15263427
globalization is a bit of a buzzword

[Anonymous No.15264973]

>>15264783
If this really makes you suffer, then here's a few points. The statement: "Truth doesn't exist" is an absurd statement. Because if truth did exist, then it would be plain wrong. If it didn't exist, then that statement would be true. But then at least one truth would exist, the statement "Truth doesn't exist". Which would make that statement false. Thus removing the single truth that exists. Thus making the statement true. And so on, and so forth. Same goes for "Truth does exist, but it's unknowable." If you're right, then you surely know at least this truth. Which makes that statement false. Repeat until you run out of memory, you filthy biological computer. Therefore, the only logically consistent thing to say would be "Truth exists, and truth is knowable"
>>15263862
>>15263444
And it just so happens this is the actual point this guy was trying to make but you ignored, because idk, you were way too absorbed in your self-pity and existential crisis.
Second point is, let's say you don't know if truth exists, and you ignored my first point. So, at this point we only know that truth eiter exists, or it doesn't. Whatever the case is, none of your actions can change it, since you're not God. In that case whether or not truth exists doesn't matter! Because, if it does, then you can search for it and live a fulfilling life. Or if it doesn't, you can still believe that it does, and then live a fulfilling life by searching for the truth and just believe that it exists.

Actually, looking over these things, just focus on the first point. "Scientist" my ass. Stop repeating you're a scientist in every post to give your retarded opinions some false value.

[Anonymous No.15265005]

>>15264783
>Approximated truth is untruth, rendering the whole concept useless.
No, it's exactly that: an approximation of real truth. And it's useful because it can help you make decisions that lead to intended outcomes correctly most of the time.

[Anonymous No.15265006]

>>15264906
Getting high on heroin is convenient for getting your emotions under control and not killing yourself in your collapsing life. Lifting is the most convenient available way of improving your appearance and getting laid. Ultimately, if you choose to engage in either of the behaviours, you believe that they will net you more pleasure than pain.

You can trace any behaviour back to the "seek pleasure - avoid pain" algorithm, or to the need of consistency with the identity of one's self. Try it with yourself. Finally, there is only on POV in your life. Yours.


>>15264814
Bad manners

[Anonymous No.15265104]

>>15264783
> Approximated truth is untruth, rendering the whole concept useless.
Oh mister scientist, please calculate the area underneath this curve. What science did you study? Gender science?

[Anonymous No.15265129]

>>15265104
Kek

[Anonymous No.15265139]

>>15265006
Hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.15265154]

>>15264973
Insufficient argumentation.
What I am saying is: "the concept of truth is invalid". And it is invalid in the same way that dividing by zero is invalid. Not "nonexistent", which would render it a paradox. If it does exist, it is something completely out of our ability to grasp, measure and interact with. Therefore, there is no sense thinking about it.

>>15264973
"If you can't change something, no need to worry about it because it's out of your hands. If you can, then no worries because you can change it!". Interesting idea from the ancient stoics, but practically impossible to live by. Otherwise worrying would have been eliminated for two millennia.
The reason I bring up I'm a scientist, is because people regard science as an rarely-fallible sharp tool of reason, whereas in reality more than 50% of accepted work is garbage, not even an acceptable approximation of what's going on.

[Anonymous No.15265171]

>>15265154
>If it[truth] does exist, it is something completely out of our ability to grasp, measure and interact with.
Is this statement true?

[Anonymous No.15265188]

>>15265104
>>15265129
Math isn't a science beloved friends. It's a theoretical tool.
If this were experimental data, it would unavoidably have error, which would get even larger when calculating the integral. I would therefore find an approximation of the truth, thus an untruth.

It's okay, I know not everyone finishes high school.

[Anonymous No.15265245]

>>15265171
Truth is either non-existent or if it does exist, it is something completely out of our ability to grasp, measure and interact with.

I hope that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.15265258]

>>15265154
>Insufficient argumentation.
If true == null no amount of argumentation will be valid for you. In fact, you cannot even consistently make that statement itself.
>What I am saying is: "the concept of truth is invalid". And it is invalid in the same way that dividing by zero is invalid. Not "nonexistent", which would render it a paradox.
You are making a logical statement when you say "the concept of truth is invalid". If truth is invalid, then making that statement itself is invalid. Same logic applies as if you said "truth doesn't exist". So it only makes sense to say "the concept of truth is valid"
>If it does exist, it is something completely out of our ability to grasp, measure and interact with. Therefore, there is no sense thinking about it.
Yet another logical statement. And again, to say that we cannot know anything for certain and for it to be true, you MUST know for certain that we cannot know anything for certain. Which leads us to another absurdity. So it follows that the other option, that if truth exists it must be knowable, necessarily has to be true.
Sophist nigger. Explain to me how we can exchange any meaningful information without the concept of truth? Fuck that, how can YOU hold any meaningful information in your brain without truth? Shit, nigger, greeks figured out this garbage way before they had internet, split the atom or sent a man into space. Stop being retarded.

[Anonymous No.15265277]

>>15265245
Maybe our definitions of truth are not even remotely close.
But to me it sounds like you are constantly making truth claims and saying at the same time you can't interact with it.
Are any of your posts true? If it's not within your ability to determine whether they are or not, why make them?

[Anonymous No.15265381]

>>15265258
Yes, the paradox of postmodernism is that it uses reason to dismantle truth, and then by extent reason.

The answer is that we don't exchange any meaningful information. Some person says something, always at least partially shaped by factors beyond his control. Then the receiver, accepts the message and interprets it as best he can, also influenced by factors beyond his control. This renders discussion, at best, a struggle to agree on a situation that can hopefully be reproduced by action, most of the time. No truth involved. Rational discussion is also an invalid term, because humans are not, and will never be rational beings, because reason demands the existence of an objective truth. Of course, usually "meaningful" discussion is little more a power struggle regarding who can have the most influence over the each other / the crowd. Hope this answers it.

[Anonymous No.15265402]

>>15263444
based and subtledpilled

[Anonymous No.15265404]

>>15265188
Faggot, I doubt you finished middle school, let alone the highest of schools.
Let's say I printed out that image, cut out the A figure and gave it to you, asking your scientific highness to measure it's area. And you had a ruler to measure some points, and you knew the imprecision on that ruler. And you measured some number of points, did some math and had some result for the area of that figure. Let's say it came out to 50 cm^2 +- 1cm^2
Now here's a question. Is it possible that the actual area is 50.05 cm^2? Yes! Is it possible that the actual area is 49.05 cm^2? Also yes. Is it possible that the actual area of that figure is 1000 km^2? Trick question, you don't even believe that the actual area exists. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.15265431]

>>15265006
>Ultimately, if you choose to engage in either of the behaviours
But you may not choose getting high on heroin. In general, you don't choose to engage in any of your addictions and they are clearly not convenient for you, even if they are pleasurable.

There are also a lot of actions you may do without thinking/knowing if they are convenient to you. The "seek pleasure - avoid pain" only works in a very basic level for a human being. I wish things were so simple, but they're not.

[Anonymous No.15265437]

>>15265381
Except that as soon as we agree on a set of axioms suitable for a situation, we can communicate with absolute rigour and the message retains it's defining core.

[Anonymous No.15265470]

>>15265404
Based

[Anonymous No.15265489]

>>15265381
>Yes, the paradox of postmodernism is that it uses reason to dismantle truth, and then by extent reason.
Well, if you admit your reasoning is self-contradictory and absurd, then maybe, just maybe, you should take it with a grain of salt and not let it change your entire outlook on life? It seems to me like you fell for one of those """math tricks""" when they make you think that the sum of all positive integers is -1/12. Somebody pulled a fast one on your worldview, and you fell for it like an idiot.

[Anonymous No.15265565]

>>15265404
My proposal was never that truth does not exist.

For any given situation, truth is either non-existent or if it does exist, it is something completely out of our ability to grasp, measure and interact with.

When it comes to value judgements, e.g. what is right or wrong, truth does not exist, because all these concepts are made up bullshit.
When it comes to the physical reality, truth is something completely out of our ability to grasp, measure and interact with. Therefore, there's no use thinking about it, and it's as good as an invalid concept, like dividing by zero.

Despite all your troubles, you couldn't tell me how much the area is. Saying it's somewhere between value X and Y is just an estimation of the truth, and therefore not truth itself. You could give me an estimate with error. You would mix infinite untrue numbers with one true
one and present it to me as the truth. That is not correct.

[Anonymous No.15265671]

>>15265489
I can tell you feel that you like truth and reason, but all I read is polemic arguments in your message.

Also, do you seriously believe that there are no contradictions or absurdities in the universe? I would argue that there's a lot more of those than anything that makes linear sense.

[Anonymous No.15265689]

>>15263540
no, this guy did it

[Anonymous No.15265723]

>>15265565
>For any given situation, truth is either non-existent or if it does exist, it is something completely out of our ability to grasp, measure and interact with.
Yeah, maybe for you, retarded nigger faggot. With scientists like you, no wonder 50% of all scientific work is shit, as you say.
>You would mix infinite untrue numbers with one true one and present it to me as the truth
Dumbass, you just proved my point. You just admitted that there is one TRUE number that is the answer to the question.
>Despite all your troubles, you couldn't tell me how much the area is. Saying it's somewhere between value X and Y is just an estimation of the truth, and therefore not truth itself. You could give me an estimate with error. You would mix infinite untrue numbers with one true
>one and present it to me as the truth. That is not correct.
We KNOW that the area COULD be 50 cm^2. We KNOW that the area CANNOT be 1000 km^2. We also KNOW that the area IS AT LEAST 49 cm^2 and IS AT MOST 51 cm^2. If our tools improve, our precision improves also. There is also some evidence that spacetime itself might have a discreet indivisible unit, instead of being continuous. So it is entirely withing possibility that we COULD at some point in the future measure EXATCLY the area of that piece of paper.
The value of the statement "that figure has an area of 1000km^2" == false. The value of the statement !("that figure has an area of 1000km^2") == true. There is objective truth we can measure, we can interact with and is completely within ours, or at least mine, ability to comprehend.
If you are too much of a brainlet to understand how this is TRUTH, then I think we're done here.

Also, riddle me this, Batman:
>For any given situation, truth is either non-existent or if it does exist, it is something completely out of our ability to grasp, measure and interact with.
For the situation of you saying "For any given situation, truth is either non-existent or if it does exist, it is something completely out of our ability to grasp, measure and interact with", is the truth or falsehood of that statement also "omething completely out of our ability to grasp, measure and interact with"

[Anonymous No.15265743]

>>15265671
Name one contradiction in the universe.

[Anonymous No.15265764]

>>15265671
Yeah, that's all well and good, but can you please directly answer my question instead of trying to slip away?
>Well, if you admit your reasoning is self-contradictory and absurd, then maybe, just maybe, you should take it with a grain of salt and not let it change your entire outlook on life?

[Anonymous No.15265888]

>>15265723
Bad manners.
Firstly, the question you originally set out to answer was "What is the true area of this square?". You now see that this question cannot be answered and you resort to alternatives, which is a good start.

Now, you are setting out to prove to me that the concept of truth is something we can interact with. The way you do this, is by taking an untruth, and saying that the statement "untruth is untruth" somehow represents your ability to interact with truth. You neglect to say that there are infinite untruths for a given situation, and only one truth. Therefore, approach by exclusion is pointless, and your argument is void.

Regarding your last question, again you're asking me why I'm asserting my opinion like it's the truth, while I argue that the concept of truth is useless. Yes, po-mo has a contradiction of using reason to debunk truth and by extension reason. But the universe is full of contradictions.

[Anonymous No.15265952]

>>15265888
>But the universe is full of contradictions.
Name one you faggot

[Anonymous No.15265980]

>>15265743
>>15265952
Are you both literally retarded? Fermi paradox? GZK paradox? Do they ring no bells?

[Anonymous No.15265991]

>>15265980
>retard doesn’t even know what contradiction means
Awful thread. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.15266065]

>>15265980
>Fermi paradox is a contradiction
>I'm a scientist by the way
lmao

[Anonymous No.15266098]

>>15264783
>Truth is a bullshit construct because it can only be approximated, and with significant imprecision. Approximated truth is untruth, rendering the whole concept useless.

This is shit a 14 year-old would say. You may as well have said, "If you ain't first yer last."

[Anonymous No.15266136]

>>15265888
>Bad manners.
I'm pretty sure you're arguing in bad faith, and you're just pretending to be retarded. Which is worse than bad manners.
>Firstly, the question you originally set out to answer was "What is the true area of this square?". You now see that this question cannot be answered and you resort to alternatives, which is a good start.
That was an example of how approximations of the truth can be a useful tool to understand things. I ran with it when you started spewing bullshit as a counter-example to your misunderstanding of how science works, and what is an error.
I see now that you don't understand how continuous numbers work either, so I'll give you a very easy example with discreet numbers. Let's say your friend has an apple, just one. I know you don't have any friends, but imagine that you do. If I ask, does your friend have one apple, is it true or false? If I ask, does your friend have two apples, is it true or false?
>Now, you are setting out to prove to me that the concept of truth is something we can interact with. The way you do this, is by taking an untruth, and saying that the statement "untruth is untruth" somehow represents your ability to interact with truth. You neglect to say that there are infinite untruths for a given situation, and only one truth. Therefore, approach by exclusion is pointless, and your argument is void.
How would I know that the piece of paper is NOT 1000km^2, if I had no way of interacting with the truth? If that were the case, then there would be no way for me to say that.
>Regarding your last question, again you're asking me why I'm asserting my opinion like it's the truth, while I argue that the concept of truth is useless. Yes, po-mo has a contradiction of using reason to debunk truth and by extension reason. But the universe is full of contradictions.
If it has a contradiction, then the conclusion it reaches is not necessarily true. Therefore, it cannot be used as an argument to prove anything.
>But the universe is full of contradictions
Please name one.

[Anonymous No.15266152]

>>15265991
>>15266065
We have no good way of explaining either of these phenomena. We have unproven theories, but nothing concrete, and it doesn't seem we'll be getting anything concrete either. Of course, when we usually encounter a paradox, we simply alter our made-up, approximating formulas to account for it, and call it a day.

>>15266098
You misunderstood. Read this. >>15265565

[Anonymous No.15266172]

>>15265980
The Fermi Paradox isn't a contradiction, it isn't even a paradox, it's basically just a thought experiment...

[Anonymous No.15266212]

>>15266152
>Of course, when we usually encounter a paradox, we simply alter our made-up, approximating formulas to account for it, and call it a day.
I thought you said you were a scientist, why the fuck are you badmouthing the scientific method? In what way is it a paradox when you see some new data that makes you re-think your theory?

[Anonymous No.15266242]

>>15266152
>a phenomenon that isn't fully explained yet is a contradiction
if you're not lying about being a scientist you should literally kill you are self; like another anon said no wonder studies can't reproduce if retards like you are doing them

[Anonymous No.15266245]

>>15266136
You excluded only one out of infinite possible values. There are still infinite possible values left for the truth, and you have not made a step of progress. Despite all your name calling, you can't argue for shit, which is sad. It further proves my point that most arguments work out polemically, to assert power over one's opponent and attract the crowd, without much effort in rationality. Simply because the latter doesn't work very often.

When you are talking about apples, you leave physics and measures of reality and go into man-made concepts. Apple is simply a rough name we gave to similar looking collections of cells. What is an apple? Have fun defining that with scientific accuracy and get back to me. Then we can count.

[Anonymous No.15266317]

>>15266172
>>15266242
A phenomenon not explained by our models of understanding the world, is, by definition, a contradiction to our model of understanding the world. I recognise the limitations of the scientific method. I hope you understand that if you give yourself the right to amend your model every time you encounter something unexplained, while there are infinite unexplained things to encounter, your model is an *approximation* of the truth, therefore untrue. It is not objective truth, and it never can be, due to inherent human limitations.

>>15266242
Stick to the humanities, these are difficult thoughts

[Anonymous No.15266328]

>>15266317
>A phenomenon not explained by our models of understanding the world, is, by definition, a contradiction
no it isn't you fucking moron

[Anonymous No.15266345]

>>15266317
>A phenomenon not explained by our models of understanding the world, is, by definition, a contradiction
>People like this frequent the same board as me.
I'm moving to reddit, see you nerds.

[Anonymous No.15266421]

>>15266245
>You excluded only one out of infinite possible values. There are still infinite possible values left for the truth, and you have not made a step of progress.
I wouldn't be able to do even that, if I were not able to interact with the truth. And yet, if you throw any value you want, I can say with certainty if it CAN or CANNOT be the answer to the problem. In fact, I can say that no number in ] -inf; 49[ or ]51, inf[ can be the answer to the problem. And that the the answer is necessarily a number in [49, 51]. This is how continuous numbers work, sorry your post-modernist teachers didn't explain this to you.
> Despite all your name calling, you can't argue for shit, which is sad. It further proves my point that most arguments work out polemically, to assert power over one's opponent and attract the crowd, without much effort in rationality. Simply because the latter doesn't work very often.
>Waaah, mommy somebody called me a nigger on the internet!
Of course it doesn't work, when the other nigger is saying he doesn't know what an apple is. If you weren't pretending to be retarded, I wouldn't call you retarded. Also, it doesn't further prove your point at all, just because our argument is polemic, doesn't mean that most are. Also, as long as humanity (or aliums) exists there will be an infinite number of arguments, how can you count them all and say that the number of arguments that are polemic is greater than rational arguments? HURR INFINITY BIG NUMBER, ME NO CAN COUNT ONE BY ONE DURRR. WHAT IS APLE GURR
>When you are talking about apples, you leave physics and measures of reality and go into man-made concepts. Apple is simply a rough name we gave to similar looking collections of cells. What is an apple? Have fun defining that with scientific accuracy and get back to me. Then we can count.
You know what an apple is. Stop being a fucking faggot. In case you don't want to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple
Can we agree on this?

[Anonymous No.15266455]

>>15266317
>doesn't understand basic English vocabulary
>bamboozled so hard by baby's first sophistry that it literally ruined his life
>still somehow endlessly smug and condescending
This thread was pretty good b8 but there's no way you're not a /lit/izen trying to make STEMlords look as autistic and empty-headed as possible

[Anonymous No.15266578]

>>15266421
You won't get anywhere without a scientific definition. "Common sense" and assumptions are not allowed if we are going to be precise. I won't accept loose definitions when attempting to define the truth (or lack thereof).
Fact of the matter is, you cannot define what an apple is if you tried. Even with the best definition you and a team of biologists could possibly come up with, there is always a chance you may end up with an outlier, due to, for example, a genetic mutation in that particular apple. So it may be in your best interests to get it back to physics and things that can be "objectively" measured.

>>15266455
Imagine not being able to disprove "baby's first sophistry" and resulting to ad hominem to achieve feelings of superiority.

[Anonymous No.15266613]

>>15266578
Fine, I'll define it if you want. But only if you first define every single word that you used in this thread, including the word "define". Of course, with the same scrutiny as you want to apply to me, so no common sense or some such nonsense. Oh, and don't use other English words, as you know those are social constructs, so we wouldn't want to be imprecise, or I wouldn't understand you.

[Anonymous No.15266699]

>>15266613
I know it's self-defeating, and that's the problem with po-mo. There is no practical way to live functionally with it. That's why I made the thread. However, going against to its main arguments is not easy. The subjectivity of truth, and by extension reason, has been bothering me, because I do have empirical evidence of it.

Now, you could argue that a school of thought that condemns reason, using reason for it, is by default making a void argument, since it acknowledges the value of reason by using it in the first place. I have no argument against that. But if this "obvious" flaw was so critical, why the hell did po-mo even take off the ground and permeate academia to this day?

[Anonymous No.15266720]

>>15263737
not the same anon but i´m happy i´m doing the advice you tell here and that i figured this out by myself, it means that i´m walking in the right path to achieve fullfilness in life

[Anonymous No.15266788]

>>15266699
It really is just sophistry. I don't know why this happened, maybe it's one of those "Emperor has no clothes" situations. Most people in academia aren't that smart beyond their chosen subject, and as you mentioned, some are not smart even IN the subject of their choice. I shit you not, I had a biology teacher that was a creationist, saying things like "if you throw a clock at the wall and break it, in a million years it will make a new clock, or so the science says o-ho-ho".
So if you cannot refute the arguments against it then I would say you would have to ask someone who unironically believes this drivel to try and defend it.

[Anonymous No.15266791]

>>15264062
> not a fun journey

Then literally just forget nihilism/pomo and believe whatever you want to believe. You don't need to be committed to schizo ramblings.

[Anonymous No.15266806]

*ahem*

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » mxvabIoSIE No.15266823]

>>15263427
if you aren't already a firm and staunch man of faith then don't even fucking bother, pomo is your only hope really. atheists have absolutely no reason to believe in things like morality or tradition or even "truth" or "meaning"

[Anonymous No.15266973]

>>15266806
Got more?

[Anonymous No.15267004]

>>15263427
The creator of your shitty graphic can't even spell "lose" correctly, why would you trust them?

[Anonymous No.15267038]

>>15266823
Unsurprising that an awful take comes from a trip

[Anonymous No.15267099]

>>15265404
based

[Anonymous No.15267640]

Shit thread, gay OP, meaningless discussion, idiotic fallacies committed by braindead people who actually believe them

So, the usual /lit/

[Anonymous No.15267967]

>>15263427
Move into Radical Orthodoxy, avoid Weak Theology.

[Anonymous No.15268208]

>>15265404

[Anonymous No.15268238]

>>15266152
>Of course, when we usually encounter a paradox, we simply alter our made-up, approximating formulas to account for it, and call it a day.
Oh noes we might actually be discovering the truth using the scientific method. Woe us.

[Anonymous No.15268457]

>>15263427
Become christian and read plato

[Anonymous No.15268460]

>>15266578
>ad hominem
actually logical fallacies are cool and valid because reason is fake; I win and you’re dumb

[Anonymous No.15268512]

>>15263427
Read Peirce,

[Anonymous No.15268571]

>>15264385
ok trasimaco

[Anonymous No.15268594]

Congrats! Now you can spend some time figuring out that postmodernism is none of these things. Good luck :)

[Anonymous No.15268605]

>>15263632
You didn't do a very good job at reading Derrida

[Anonymous No.15268612]

>>15263516
Irony and rhetorical distance are just strategic ways of avoiding mastery or authority in speaking with others

[Anonymous No.15268620]

>>15263646
Yes it is odd that "postmodernism" differs so much from what postmodernists actually wrote. It might be an American thing

[Anonymous No.15268629]

>>15263701
>he "knows" what he wants

Calling bullshit on that one m8

[Anonymous No.15268655]

>>15268620
It's because they purposely wrote nonsense. And the followers pattern matched the nonsense with marxism.

Righties think that's intentional, I think it's accidental. Americans aren't smart enough to read French philosophy and realize it's just a game the French play with each other.

[Anonymous No.15268661]

If you dont wanna become a christcuck you can just read epicuro (if ur ego isnt to fragile to read a "minor philosopher") he confronted upfront many ideas that would become postmodern monoliths and reconciled them with a cientific, atomistic view of the world
if u wanna become a christcuck just read anselmo's da veritas and be happy

[Anonymous No.15268663]

>>15268655
Brainlet squad reporting for duty

[Anonymous No.15268679]

>>15268663
I mean it's just too predictable, the whole point of writing nonsense is so you can claim that anyone who points out it is is a brainlet. Derrida was all about that.

It's disturbing how much the French philosophical scene of the time is similar to 4chan in some ways.

[Anonymous No.15268683]

>>15268661
btw anyone who claims epicuro was a hedonist didn't read epicuro and was happy just reading about him

[Anonymous No.15268691]

>>15268679
Sorry it's actually a massive cope

[Anonymous No.15268700]

>>15268691
Believe in neo-sophistry if you want. I don't really care.

[Anonymous No.15268712]

>>15268700
What? This post doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.15268714]

>>15266806
thats a very dumb chart my friend

[Anonymous No.15268720]

>>15268700
If you're having trouble understanding Derrida I might be able to help you

[Anonymous No.15268739]

>>15268720
not him but redpill me on derrida

[Anonymous No.15268806]

>>15263561
So what follows? And what sort of point are we converging to?

[Anonymous No.15268814]

>>15263675
What does a man look like who grew up outside of control?

[Anonymous No.15268841]

>>15268814
Like a beast. Because that's what he is.

[Anonymous No.15268854]

>>15263427
You misinterpreted post-modernism, likely because you're an American being fed American misinterpretations of post-modernism. Besides, if you had actually adapted to such anti-structuralism, you'd be able to just stop caring about post-modernism since it is just another structure anyway. If you were as far gone as you claim, you'd realize knowledge itself is quite literally a construct.
I suggest you get out of the humanities - especially the American canon - and go study STEM for a while. Take some pure mathematics courses. Cool your head and come back to the humanities later.

[Anonymous No.15268881]

>>15265188
>hey, did you know that science is fundamentally limited and isnt actually truth at all?
Yea, you, me, and every other high schooler whose read I Fucking Love Science memes. Scientists and mathematicians accept that they aren't producing objective truths. Only pseuds like you can't handle that the partial-truth science and mathematics produces still works for the vast majority of shit we use it for.

[Anonymous No.15269129]

>>15268854
OP said he's a doctor/scientist. He's STEM-adjacent, at the very least. If he didn't think knowledge was just a construct, he wouldn't have made the thread.
>>15268881
Honestly, I'd make an exception for pure theoretical mathematics, completely devoid of real-life ambiguities. Everything else is half-truths, especially statements relating to humans.

[Fra !!Zn8Cuaa4gcE No.15269140]

>>15263427
Good.

[Anonymous No.15269141]

>>15269129
>Chemistry is half truths
Rationalists get the bullet too.

[Anonymous No.15269159]

>>15263444
We already achieved objective truth when God created the universe, if it was even created at all. What you really want is a human morality.

[Anonymous No.15269226]

>>15269141
If chemical compounds always affected the human body in the same way, we wouldn't need 7-foot-long PILs, so yes, chemistry concerning the body is half-truths. :^)

[Anonymous No.15269231]

>>15269226
Who cares about humans? Bunch of entitled fucks.

[Anonymous No.15269257]

Taipei by Tao Lin or Infinite Jest. In both of these books all of the characters just serve themselves for what they want and find it adds up to complete failure. But neither of these books offer a proper 'solution' to what you're maybe looking for, they just take a hammer to post-modernism, all the while they're both considered post-modern books.

[Anonymous No.15269348]

>>15263427
There will always exist truth. What serves us is truth.
You might have another concept of truth but don't let that distract you from the fact that the evolution of our concepts of truth have brought progress and have eliminated or alleviated many sources of suffering in our lives.
Everyone seeks the truth, even postmodernists.

[Anonymous No.15269884]

>truths
>facts

perhaps there's a difference?

[Anonymous No.15269898]

>>15263549
>The categorical imperative presupposes that reason (and therefore morality) serves man better than irrationality.
You could have read the title and not come to that conclusion

[Anonymous No.15271061]

>>15268714
why?

[Anonymous No.15271730]

>>15263427
I don't know why you would un-postmodern yourself. Post-modernism makes too much sense once you admit to the fact that it never advocates that physical reality is subject to mental processes.

If you admit, as you have done, that PoMo just extends from a deep belief in logical positivism, and empiricism, applied to the problems of how to live philosophically in the world, then you realize that nobody else has a leg to stand on other than analytic philosophers.

[Anonymous No.15271918]

>>15268612
You don't understand what I'm saying at all. They are not "strategies", they are the preconditions of the postmodern sign-exchange. To have any "mastery" at all, one needs to be a speculator of illusions, since authenticity is just another sign that can be exchanged for something else of equivalent value if it does not serve your portfolio well.

[Anonymous No.15273539]

Bumpizzle, my nizzle.

[Anonymous No.15273807]

>>15264636
Funny, I'm a young doctor too and had found myself in the same spot, not long ago. The despair ceased as I distanced myself from most of my readings at the time (mostly Lacan and other psychoanalysts), and started reading different things. Most people have no clue of how it is to understand the world in this postmodern view, even though we're all immersed in it, and that should be a sign of hope for you. Disconnect yourself from most of the news and contemporary political bulshit and turn yourself to the canon. Reading Victorian era and pre-modern American literature, as well as classic science books (Hippocrates, Darwin) saved me from this shitty state. Also, even tho Nietzsche is basically who started all of this, I find him immensely revigorating and full of life. Anyways, what residency are you applying to?

[Anonymous No.15274631]

>>15263427
>baby’s first nihilistic phase
Imagine being this gullible.