Let's talk about postmodernity.

[onesteptwostep]

What is post-modernity to you? Who do you think were the characters whom gave birth to the era? When do you think of happened and what were the defining moments?

---

I'll start. To me 'post-modernity' is the current metaphysical, epistomological understanding of the world. What 'modernity' was, then, was the metaphysical foundations of Western civilization, or to define it more sharply, the Judeo-Christian metaphysical understanding of the world until personalities like Nietzsche, Darwin, and Marx came onto the world stage. What the older metaphysical understanding was, was that the beginning and the origin of the universe and existence was simply answered by a offhanded "God" did it, and that our existence and experiences while alive was meant to be within the narrative of this religion. I think the completion of postmodernity really cementing itself was when WW2 ended. That's when humanity as a collective lost its course and went into a dystopian era, which is basically the Cold War.

Anyone have other thoughts or anything to add? What problems do you see with the current ethos of the world at large? Or do you see religion as the center of current events? Or a nihilistic secularism?

What say you?!

 

[Black Rose]

I realized that life had no meaning when I was 7 years old. I was in the desert outside the house in the wilderness and it was so cloudy it was like it was totally grey/black. I stared at it till it rained and the lightning stuck all over. I stared and stared for 30 minutes. My ego was totally absent. I had no thoughts but the pure experience of a rainstorm moving across the sky. The emptiness was there but I felt no despair. It was almost like an animism but no because the agency was not there. It simply moved and everything was calm, a calm of no meaning but an experience of no ego.

Only when the ego appeared did the despair emerged. The universe is indifferent to us all. The ego consumes with finding meaning and the despair grows strong. The only way out is to give up meaning in the sense that the universe cares about you. Loose the ego and become selfless. By doing so you have not attachments to the disasters and horrible life experience. Suffering is everywhen and when you have no ego is goes away. The emotional pain ceases and since You have transcended ego it is no longer a feeling of calm through emptiness. Instead, the calm is from consciousness. Self-control allows all despair to become the hope that you aren't alone. Despair is loneliness. If I am alone the universe is indifferent but people that become conscious no long view the meaningless as despair.

The only way out of loneliness is to become an agent of caring. You cannot care for others if you do not realize selflessness. To feel the pain of people alone and in the darkness of pain. The question is that who saves the people in despair. I save them because I am not indifferent. I am and others are the ones against despair and the ones against meaningless. The rain clouds at night cannot help us. We must look to ourselves and this way we will be those above the indifference and we will bring light to the world. We exist to alleviate despair and to show how we care because if the universe does not care then why do people become converted. People are comforted and that means indifference is not absolute, despair is not absolute. Humans bring the universe purpose and meaning and there is no way the Consciousness can be denied to exist and that nihilism is absolute. Every time a person is cared for, the universe has come to help you. The Only hope is that we direct the universe we are part of.

 

[Hadoblado]

Exposure to competing grand-narratives, we now get to shop for beliefs rather than basically inheriting them. While this is really good, I don't think people generally deal well with this exposure. People tend to either choose a side defined in opposition to the views they're exposed to (left vs. right, atheist vs. religion, skeptic vs. feminism etc.), or they decide that all views are somehow equal. Both necessitate that conversations between perspectives are pointless.

 

[Black Rose]

I do not understand how reality is independent of me. Example: I chop down a tree and make a table and chair and I grow tomatoes and eat on the chair and table. Any agent of change interacts with reality by a conscious understanding of what they can and cannot do. Computers have no absolute independence from agents because of agents with ideas and thoughts to build, fix, and program them. To say an absolute independence exists is to say technology never happened nor that people are also in reality and that culture does not change reality based on communication of ideas. The Enlightenment was a cultural change that changed reality not least of the fact that we can talk to computers by voice command and someday give them agency also.

For reality to be absolutely separate from thoughts that would mean humans are not part of reality and are completely isolated from reality. Thoughts change reality because humans are not isolated from reality. I take an idealist position on reality because my thoughts have changed reality and I know they can do so again.

In philosophy, when discussing the issues of perception, idealism is a theory that states that our reality is shaped by our thoughts and ideas. Realism, on the other hand, deals with the fact that reality has an absolute existence independent from our thoughts, ideas and even consciousness.

Feb 23, 2010
Difference Between Idealism and Realism | Difference Between
www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-idealism-and-realism/

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I don't wanna talk about post-modernity, I wanna talk about random stuff that doesn't make sense.

Oh wait-

 

[onesteptwostep]

Exposure to competing grand-narratives, we now get to shop for beliefs rather than basically inheriting them. While this is really good, I don't think people generally deal well with this exposure. People tend to either choose a side defined in opposition to the views they're exposed to (left vs. right, atheist vs. religion, skeptic vs. feminism etc.), or they decide that all views are somehow equal. Both necessitate that conversations between perspectives are pointless.

I would say it's largely the social and political movements who have this stance of no negotiation or discourse. I think the traditional metaphysics, or modernity, is rooted in debate and discussion. Even Christianity has apologetics, and the best ones usually come from the modernity era. C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, for example.

 

[Hadoblado]

It's not so much that there's a lack of people willing to argue a position, as it is that discussion between different groups tends to be fruitless. There are plenty of apologists. Plenty of atheists too. I'm yet to see a mite of utility from their dialogue beyond reinforcing the beliefs of their respective in-groups.

 

[Nebulous]

Yo woah I literally have a notebook open rn w a page that's just me trying to figure out postmodernism

Here are some notes

--

It took the phrase "I think, therefore I am" and brings it to "I shop, therefore I am" / "I consume therefore I am."

There's no objective reality, no one knows the narrative or cares if there really is one. Is there god, is this conspiracy true, is this the actual nature of existence, - no one cares anymore. Screw it. Forget that.
And because there's no objective reality, the one you choose is made up of the things you want it to be, the aesthetics you want, you draw them in and then that's you. Who are you? Non existent, not real unless you pull things in, you build an 'aesthetic' (which is you.) , you consume.

Idk if this is a quote or paraphrase, uh
Jean Baudrillard- we are customers, purchasing the images attached to the products. Make believe goods which bear no relationship to the real world.
We no longer have any sense of the difference between real things and images of them.

Also:
Disillusionment with the idea of progress
Fragmentation, deconstruction, reinterpretation
Consumerism
Truth is relative
You are what you choose to consume


Listen to some vaporwave music on YouTube, smoke some weed and get a pretentious idgaf vibe going.
That's postmodernism

 

[Black Rose]

You are what you consume.
Truth is relative.

Warning, an offensive meme in the spoiler.

Spoiler

Sexual Harassment make Animekitty a sad panda

 

[verification]

Postmodernism is a theory /frame/ reference point in a lot of research in sociology, philosophy and other humanities.

It posits that ultimate or objective truths don't exist, that it's merely perspectives that are relevant. Thus when analyzing/dissecting any idea or data point it's necessary to understand the perspectives/ biases of the subjects measured and the measurers.

For example, Foucault's discussion on the modern prison system is an examination of how the concept of appropriate judicial measures changed through time, not because people became smarter or more logical but because the change suited those in power and allowed them to gain or maintain power.

To some extent most people agree with tenants of the postmodernist worldview. The questioning of authority figures and power structures (the whole point of D.Trumps campaign) is very postmodernist and critical in nature. It's why I kinda low key hate that idiots found the term and use it haphazardly to explain away everyone they don't like.

P.S postmodernists and postmodernism is very critical and opposed to consumerism. A fact that often gets them associated and linked with marxists over their shared ideas on alienation within our current economic climate. The statement "I consume and therefore I am" is a statement that would be written by and criticized by a postmodernist. Consumerism posits goodness in outside objects, postmodernism does not.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Black Rose]

Postmodernism is a theory /frame/ reference point in a lot of research in sociology, philosophy and other humanities.

It posits that ultimate or objective truths don't exist, that it's merely perspectives that are relevant. Thus when analyzing/dissecting any idea or data point it's necessary to understand the perspectives/ biases of the subjects measured and the measurers.

For example, Foucault's discussion on the modern prison system is an examination of how the concept of appropriate judicial measures changed through time, not because people became smarter or more logical but because the change suited those in power and allowed them to gain or maintain power.

If a frame must be posited to take into account the relativity of measurement of perspectives leading to the vettiing historical sources. Then to say that no objective truth exists is just to say that a complete set of frames is inaccessible to the historian. But is this really a sign that objective truth is impossible? Complete knowledge is impossible but that does not limit objective truth. For objective truth to exist all that is required is that a person has a complete understanding of a subset of reality. The societal determination that something is true is limiting because the perspectives have variation yet to base the negation of absolute truth on the fact that consensus reality is impossible is a weak argument.

In school, I learned my time's tables and more math after that. Most people agree with me because of they and I know 2+ 2 = 4. That is the consensus reality by those symbols used. The symbols do not matter the numbers do. I am hard pressed to say it is not objective truth. The Mayans had 12 numbers, We have 10 numbers in modern society. Even though they do have 12 number and we only have 10 both number systems are objective truth. This is not a plea to consensus reality as objective truth. What it is is that even with perspective measurements people can come to conclusions that are objective. Symbols and perspectives are highly linked to what objective truths exist.

The historical perspectives as constructed and deconstructed by events and other such incomplete consensus show that people do not know what happened in full and all frames of reference. It does not show that the most obvious objectives truths exist. Trump is president and that is an undeniable objective truth even if some perspectives lack the frame that says so. objective Truth must exist but not all in one frame or in most frames. Some frames contain objective truths but truth does not need to be a single unified object for it to exist. It is possible to know the full truth of part of reality from a perspective someone may have as a frame.

 

[verification]

If a frame must be posited to take into account the relativity of measurement of perspectives leading to the vettiing historical sources. Then to say that no objective truth exists is just to say that a complete set of frames is inaccessible to the historian. But is this really a sign that objective truth is impossible? Complete knowledge is impossible but that does not limit objective truth. For objective truth to exist all that is required is that a person has a complete understanding of a subset of reality. The societal determination that something is true is limiting because the perspectives have variation yet to base the negation of absolute truth on the fact that consensus reality is impossible is a weak argument.

In school, I learned my time's tables and more math after that. Most people agree with me because of they and I know 2+ 2 = 4. That is the consensus reality by those symbols used. The symbols do not matter the numbers do. I am hard pressed to say it is not objective truth. The Mayans had 12 numbers, We have 10 numbers in modern society. Even though they do have 12 number and we only have 10 both number systems are objective truth. This is not a plea to consensus reality as objective truth. What it is is that even with perspective measurements people can come to conclusions that are objective. Symbols and perspectives are highly linked to what objective truths exist.

The historical perspectives as constructed and deconstructed by events and other such incomplete consensus show that people do not know what happened in full and all frames of reference. It does not show that the most obvious objectives truths exist. Trump is president and that is an undeniable objective truth even if some perspectives lack the frame that says so. objective Truth must exist but not all in one frame or in most frames. Some frames contain objective truths but truth does not need to be a single unified object for it to exist. It is possible to know the full truth of part of reality from a perspective someone may have as a frame.

What you're positing is refered to as a view from nowhere. Essentially that the universe exists in a certain state (objective reality ), regardless of observer and that to solve any disagreement between 2 (or more) opposing views simply requires both parties approach this objective state in perception and understanding.

The problem comes A) from the assumption that such a state can be reached, which is false because ideas and facts are processed by a machine meant for pragmatic survival reasoning and not abstract objective reasoning. To put it more simply not even Einstein always thought like Einstein. Thus this leads to insular arguments where neither party is willing to budge because their perception must be the correct one. B) is a more pragmatic concern. If we accept that the objective truth is inaccessible to us what is the difference between that and objective truth not existing .

Another thing is I fear that you are mixing consensus with objective reality. 2 people agreeing that a certain distance is 1km in length does not necessitate that the distance is actually 1km in length. I'd argue that the need for consensus betrays the hypothesis of an objective reality.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[QuickTwist]

Why do I feel like I have it wrong when I think postmodernism began when we started trying to analyze everything with the scientific method? Like Nietzsche? I feel like he was where the beginning of the postmodern era, unless that was a completely new phase? Like I feel like there is a gap between what people are talking about as the postmodern era and altermodernism.

 

[verification]

Why do I feel like I have it wrong when I think postmodernism began when we started trying to analyze everything with the scientific method? Like Nietzsche? I feel like he was where the beginning of the postmodern era, unless that was a completely new phase? Like I feel like there is a gap between what people are talking about as the postmodern era and altermodernism.

Nietzsche was an influence on postmodern thought and philosophy but was not the start of postmodernism. Postmodernism as it is known today didn't come about until early 1900's to mid 1900's.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Black Rose]

What you're positing is refered to as a view from nowhere. Essentially that the universe exists in a certain state (objective reality ), regardless of observer and that to solve any disagreement between 2 (or more) opposing views simply requires both parties approach this objective state in perception and understanding.

My view is that some viewers are more objective than others. Schizophrenics as an example are the least in touch with reality so when you try and be objective with them this means their delusions get in the way. I assume there exist people with a view more in line with reality and they can rationally come to the same conclusions about reality than people with schizophrenia or any other conditions that inhibit objective perceptions, reasoning and understanding.

The problem comes A) from the assumption that such a state can be reached, which is false because ideas and facts are processed by a machine meant for pragmatic survival reasoning and not abstract objective reasoning. To put it more simply not even Einstein always thought like Einstein. Thus this leads to insular arguments where neither party is willing to budge because their perception must be the correct one.

This only makes sense if the impasse is limited to an ingrained sense of identity. Remember that for people to discover a new truth they must be open to changing their perceptions so as to be all inclusive of the thought process that is abstract objective reading. An example may be that two people have a disagreement and because they understand what is the spliter between them they must shift into an area more aligned with the other party.

When people say humans were not evolved to abstract objective reasoning I would say humans did not evolve to make video games. nor did we evolve to solve math problems or build air plains.

The notion that evolution is the only thing that defines humans is ludicrous. It negates everything we know about culture and complexity. 100,000 word exist in English yet by the postmodern logic they do not exist because they were not created by evolution. Abstract objective reasoning does not need to be created by biological evolution for it to have sound epistemological foundations.

I have no problem reasoning about abstract concepts such as the objectivity of truth. Just because I evolved from creatures that could not make abstractions as complex as mine does not invalidate my capabilities. For one thing, my verbal IQ is 132. I will not say the accuracy is high or low for test validity, but that just by measurement my language understanding is higher than 99 percent of people. Questioning that I am incapable of understanding because evolution is the basis to dismiss abstract abilities in humans makes no logical sense to me.

B) is a more pragmatic concern. If we accept that the objective truth is inaccessible to us what is the difference between that and objective truth not existing.

You are making a false dichotomy. You are saying that either all objective truth is available to humans or that none is accessible. The reason I am capable of abstract objective reasoning is not that I have access to all objective truth but that I have a good enough amount to begin to make inferences and hypothesis about what objective truth may be by abstracting upon my current knowledge. I know things and I expand what I know through experiment testing and temporary conjecture of what is absolute. My ability to know is finite but it not totally inaccessible. If it was completely inaccessible then we go back to the dichotomy that because we evolved from lower life forms that we can never know anything. This is almost Nilhistic because it is all or none. I reject this and accept that I know some objective truth. The nihilistic all or none of the truth being accessible is not found in any human that I know of. I know of no human that is God nor any human besides brain-dead vegetable that make this dichotomy valid. Human are in the middle with an accesses to at least some abstract objective truth.

Another thing is I fear that you are mixing consensus with objective reality. 2 people agreeing that a certain distance is 1km in length does not necessitate that the distance is actually 1km in length. I'd argue that the need for consensus betrays the hypothesis of an objective reality.

When I point to a building and yell everyone looks, it is a tall building. Some people will yell back, yes I see the tall building. Did our consensus make it that the tall building exists? No, it did not. But we were both seeing something. The objective reality is that the tall building exists. Consensus I have said early is a way for people to align perspectives. It is about understanding what the other person has as their perceptive and incorporating it into your perspective. Cooperation would be impossible if there was no external objective reality from which to organize society. Objective reality is no different than Objective truth. Communication is the problem because not all perspectives aline. This is not an invalidation of Objective truth. Consensus reality is simply an alignment of a certain perspective by 2 or more people. We both know this form exists, we both know I am Animekity and you are verification this is a consensus reality between us. Does this mean that because we both know each other in this limited way that this invalidates Objective truth because our perspective are in alinement? Consensus reality can be true or false when it comes to the truth we are agreeing upon. An example is that 30 percent of people believe Saddam had WMD's even after it was proven false. Another example is that 50 percent of people believe the earth is round. The Consensus is not important but the truth value of the Consensus is. Earth is a round sphere is an objective truth but communication creates a Consensus where people can talk about this truth.

The point of truth is that the world objectively exists. On this forum, people discuss what they think up things of as what they know and what can be expanded as what they know. Langauge is a Consensus of how we discuss ideas. This brings our perspectives into alinement so that we can agree on the nature of reality. Abstract objective truth is very simple to understand, I am Animekitty and you are verification. These profiles objectively exist, the people behind the profiles make objective claims. We then discuss if these objective claims are absolute.

abstract means a symbolic reference to ideas.

Absolute mean indissoluble

Absolute truth means a truth that cannot be destroyed

abstract absolute truth is:

Symbolic truth about reality that cannot be destroyed.

All language is symbolic. I can use Symbols to describe reality. The results of my findings can never be destroyed. Because even if I am gone by death or anything else. Objective reality can be measured because it never goes away. Any creature capable of reasoning exists in reality and reality does not go away. If reality exists the symbols used do not matter because what matters is if the symbols accurately model reality. The earth is a round sphere can be said in any language with their symbols. The earth is round and has existed for over 4 billion years is an absolute truth in any language. I have no idea how this is not true unless you believe the argument that we cannot know absolute truth because we evolved from a monkey.

I do not care that I evolved from monkeys, the earth is 4 billion years old is an absolute truth whether it is part of consensus reality or not. Lots of people agree with me but it would still be true even if no one agreed with me. The consensus simply makes communication easier.

 

[Black Rose]

The School of Life channel

PHILOSOPHY: Jacques Derrida

 

[verification]

My view is that some viewers are more objective than others. Schizophrenics as an example are the least in touch with reality so when you try and be objective with them this means their delusions get in the way. I assume there exist people with a view more in line with reality and they can rationally come to the same conclusions about reality than people with schizophrenia or any other conditions that inhibit objective perceptions, reasoning and understanding.



This only makes sense if the impasse is limited to an ingrained sense of identity. Remember that for people to discover a new truth they must be open to changing their perceptions so as to be all inclusive of the thought process that is abstract objective reading. An example may be that two people have a disagreement and because they understand what is the spliter between them they must shift into an area more aligned with the other party.

When people say humans were not evolved to abstract objective reasoning I would say humans did not evolve to make video games. nor did we evolve to solve math problems or build air plains.

The notion that evolution is the only thing that defines humans is ludicrous. It negates everything we know about culture and complexity. 100,000 word exist in English yet by the postmodern logic they do not exist because they were not created by evolution. Abstract objective reasoning does not need to be created by biological evolution for it to have sound epistemological foundations.

I have no problem reasoning about abstract concepts such as the objectivity of truth. Just because I evolved from creatures that could not make abstractions as complex as mine does not invalidate my capabilities. For one thing, my verbal IQ is 132. I will not say the accuracy is high or low for test validity, but that just by measurement my language understanding is higher than 99 percent of people. Questioning that I am incapable of understanding because evolution is the basis to dismiss abstract abilities in humans makes no logical sense to me.



You are making a false dichotomy. You are saying that either all objective truth is available to humans or that none is accessible. The reason I am capable of abstract objective reasoning is not that I have access to all objective truth but that I have a good enough amount to begin to make inferences and hypothesis about what objective truth may be by abstracting upon my current knowledge. I know things and I expand what I know through experiment testing and temporary conjecture of what is absolute. My ability to know is finite but it not totally inaccessible. If it was completely inaccessible then we go back to the dichotomy that because we evolved from lower life forms that we can never know anything. This is almost Nilhistic because it is all or none. I reject this and accept that I know some objective truth. The nihilistic all or none of the truth being accessible is not found in any human that I know of. I know of no human that is God nor any human besides brain-dead vegetable that make this dichotomy valid. Human are in the middle with an accesses to at least some abstract objective truth.



When I point to a building and yell everyone looks, it is a tall building. Some people will yell back, yes I see the tall building. Did our consensus make it that the tall building exists? No, it did not. But we were both seeing something. The objective reality is that the tall building exists. Consensus I have said early is a way for people to align perspectives. It is about understanding what the other person has as their perceptive and incorporating it into your perspective. Cooperation would be impossible if there was no external objective reality from which to organize society. Objective reality is no different than Objective truth. Communication is the problem because not all perspectives aline. This is not an invalidation of Objective truth. Consensus reality is simply an alignment of a certain perspective by 2 or more people. We both know this form exists, we both know I am Animekity and you are verification this is a consensus reality between us. Does this mean that because we both know each other in this limited way that this invalidates Objective truth because our perspective are in alinement? Consensus reality can be true or false when it comes to the truth we are agreeing upon. An example is that 30 percent of people believe Saddam had WMD's even after it was proven false. Another example is that 50 percent of people believe the earth is round. The Consensus is not important but the truth value of the Consensus is. Earth is a round sphere is an objective truth but communication creates a Consensus where people can talk about this truth.

The point of truth is that the world objectively exists. On this forum, people discuss what they think up things of as what they know and what can be expanded as what they know. Langauge is a Consensus of how we discuss ideas. This brings our perspectives into alinement so that we can agree on the nature of reality. Abstract objective truth is very simple to understand, I am Animekitty and you are verification. These profiles objectively exist, the people behind the profiles make objective claims. We then discuss if these objective claims are absolute.

abstract means a symbolic reference to ideas.

Absolute mean indissoluble

Absolute truth means a truth that cannot be destroyed

abstract absolute truth is:

Symbolic truth about reality that cannot be destroyed.

All language is symbolic. I can use Symbols to describe reality. The results of my findings can never be destroyed. Because even if I am gone by death or anything else. Objective reality can be measured because it never goes away. Any creature capable of reasoning exists in reality and reality does not go away. If reality exists the symbols used do not matter because what matters is if the symbols accurately model reality. The earth is a round sphere can be said in any language with their symbols. The earth is round and has existed for over 4 billion years is an absolute truth in any language. I have no idea how this is not true unless you believe the argument that we cannot know absolute truth because we evolved from a monkey.

I do not care that I evolved from monkeys, the earth is 4 billion years old is an absolute truth whether it is part of consensus reality or not. Lots of people agree with me but it would still be true even if no one agreed with me. The consensus simply makes communication easier.

Yes but the problem is no one can prove that the world, or even us, objectively exist. What we experience is not the objective world in itself but just our perception so all that is actually available to us is the perception and not the actuality of the objective reality. It's a pragmatic assumption we make that the world objectively exists because we wouldn't be able to do things without that assumption. I.e we both might percieve a 30ft building, perceive ourselves using it, being inside it etc and yet it might not be real/actual. Our perception may not reflect reality and/or reality is merely the sum of our perceptions.

The issue in positing an objective reality is that its impossible to know who's perception is the closest to objective reality. That schizophrenic you deride might in fact be the one who sees objective reality as close as humans can see it, but it's not a practical perception. We could all be hooked up to the matrix right now and it's only those with schizophrenia that can see beyond the veil, so to speak. We have no way through which to adequately confirm these assumptions regardless of how monumentally necessary they are to our society and what we humans do.

Measurements of the objective reality are nothing other than attempts by people to reach consensus regarding their perceptions. Same with the agreed upon use of symbols.

Objective reality and whether or not it exists is separate from our assumptions and consensus building, i.e the practical use/interaction between our perceptions and the objects of our perception. Animekitty and verification assume the other user exists behind another screen, assume that the symbols they trade reflect onto a shared reality in some sense and assume that the symbols used are understood and convey the intended meaning. But neither of us have proof of any of that beyond the assumption that it is the case, because it's impractical to assume otherwise. You might be a man in the China room, translating statements and giving intelligible responses without understanding anything. I might be simply a hallucination or imagination of yours. We have no real way to confirm reality.

Thus it is immoral to assume that objective truth and thus objective moral principles exist and force the imposition of those truths and/or principles on others. This to some extent is the core of postmodernist thought as I understand it.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[verification]

The School of Life channel

The video is quite interesting (though I hesitate to trust anything coming from the school of life).

I haven't yet engaged with any of Derrida's work, but I plan too.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Black Rose]

I am going back to your earlier question to answer you.

If we accept that the objective truth is inaccessible to us what is the difference between that and objective truth not existing.

It may be that what I perceive may not be the fundamental reality. I may be a person made of software inside a computer. So then I do not know what is outside of my experience, outside the computer. I must be practical because in the computer I need to eat so I need to maintain money. But I do not think this necessarily denies me the epistemological standpoint of knowing objective truths. Sence I am made of software and my world is made of software then this means myself and my environment share an ontological reality. First I exist and second the world exists and third, I can understand the rules within limits. In this way, I can know the objectivity of the world without needing to know the objectivity of the world outside the computer. I have knowledge that is objective because of a shared ontology. Not knowing what is outside my reality cannot prevent me having the knowledge I have and thus prevent the objectivity I have to disappear. This is not even pragmatic, the point is that the ontology between what I do and what happens is the same. Anything else is substance dualism. I am software interacting with software, this ontology gives me an objective view of my reality. A person on the outside would follow the same logic. The ontology of a person on the outside and the ontology of the world they exist in is objective to them because the ontology is the same.

I think Immanuel Kant believed that all humans can know is perception. The phenomenal can never know the noumenon. From my research into A.I. and the brain, I have come to a similar conclusion. Wires in the brain channel energy and in doing so shape the connections to build a map of the world. It also maps the consequences of actions that can be taken. By understanding how perception is just a map created in response to taking necessary survival actions, there should be no reason software humans cannot be made. The connections need not be physical but as a virtual network that maps a virtual world to take action in it.

I have been dealing with neurosis for a long time. But just recently began to get better. It is because my brain has begun to rewire itself increasing stress tolerance and reducing emotional reactivity. Higher resolution as increased in perceptions. Neurosis is when you cannot do what you need to do psychologically or when you force yourself to do what comes unnaturally. This messes up how your brain wires up and the map you create by perception. I have been doing meditations to fix myself. Buddhism metaphysics is in alinement with the brain simply being connections wired in the brain and that meditation can build resilience to suffering. Impermanence in Buddhism shows that the brain is not static and that by detachment we can observe the subject as something that simply changes.

A software human moves through the CPU is the same as wires in the brain directing electric impulses that in turn change how the wires redirected themselves at first, this is constant rewiring by redirecting. Paths that are used the most are reinforced.

My perceptions make a map I have of the reality I am experiencing. Absolute truth may be inaccessible to me but within my world, but I can still have absolute objectivity pertaining to the areas of my reality where I discover the rules of its operation. I can know the rules because of the shared ontology of my existence and the existence of the world. The world that is inaccessible has another ontology I cannot penetrate.

 

[verification]

I feel like at that point we'd be arguing the same thing. Personal objectivity is necessary to be alive and a requirement of any consciousness engaging with the world by design.

The problem is only in assuming that reality exists as you perceive it and then because of that assuming that there is an underlying universal morality that needs to be imposed on others, exists.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Black Rose]

I feel like at that point we'd be arguing the same thing. Personal objectivity is necessary to be alive and a requirement of any consciousness engaging with the world by design.

The problem is only in assuming that reality exists as you perceive it and then because of that assuming that there is an underlying universal morality that needs to be imposed on others, exists.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

What I came to is that if the laws of physics exist then anything can happen under those laws. People do get killed in painful ways. Animals eat animals, and people kill people. If it was morally wrong to kill, the laws of physics would operate to prevent all killings. Inside video games this is possible. Video games as places software humans exist in could have built-in, rules that stop immoral behaviors as defined by the system. Because I have not seen any effective rules that prevent immoral behavior this means the world is the original world or a historical simulation of the original world. The world has no built-in rules for morality.

Once we reach that morality is not contained in the physics and that imposing morality is wrong because of lacking rules in the system, a universal morality is absurd. Then the only guidelines we have is individualism and collectivism. Capitalism and Communism. The responsibility of the individual is to respect the autonomy of other individuals. Laws that are set up follow from the freedoms individuals legally have. Collectivism is where state control is absolute. What is permissible under state law is based on what is decided by the collective from the allocation of resources. Consumerism is disallowed.

On a personal level morality can only exist by what the individual chooses is right and wrong. Once the state is involved it becomes a matter of what the people in the government are allowed to do by the structure of government laws.

A personal morality that imposes itself on others to have the same morality will not work in a society that prevents this from happening under the law. But if the morality is imposed by the state, the state decides what is right and wrong and will force you to follow it. In an individualistic state, the state prevents any person or group within it from imposing a universal morality on anyone or any group. The collectivist society will impose any morality it wants to on any group in that society if it furthers the collectivist state agenda.

State collectivism is/can be a universal morality forced(imposed) on everyone.

Individualist governments have laws to prevent citizens and the government from imposing a universal morality.

That is almost everything but this:

I have been told by many people that I am a good person.

If I were to say a universal morality was something real, it would be that everyone should be a good person. The ambiguity of what a good person is does not mean that people lack a conception of what a good person is. Many people have a conception of what a good person is.

 

[washti]

. Many people have a conception of what a good person is.

Yeah this conception is : You are good as long as you serve me.

 

[Black Rose]

Yeah this conception is : You are good as long as you serve me.

Sounds authoritarian.
Not everyone would agree that this would be Thee correct conception.

edit

I would say a good person helps others and not just me personally.

egocentrism is not that great a thing.

 

[Cognisant]

To me postmodernism is telling the old world where to stick its values.

People deciding not to have kids for example, there's more than seven billion humans on Earth and it won't be long until there's twice as many, do we really need more people? There's that whole thing about how you shouldn't miss out on having kids, it's the greatest joy they say, well I'm sorry but have you flown a fucking plane? Have you had a three way with some twenty something hookers and a brick of cocaine? Have you done anything with your life apart from get married and have kids as soon as you finished tertiary education because that's what your parents told you to do?

Fuck old world values, fuck getting married, how many of us watched our parents constantly fight and/or get divorced, fuck getting a mortgage we were all there to witness the GFC, don't sell us the homeowner dream when student loans and property prices have never been higher, and you religious cunts can shut the fuck up too how long have we got to tolerate your out-of-touch-with-reality antiquated shit?

THAT is Postmodernsim.

 

[washti]

And isnt it great?

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

b-but what will happen to our wonderful species and the marvellous sustainable egalitarian utopia we have created?

*impregnates washti*

 

[washti]

Abomination.
*aborts beast spawn with fire* this will happen. abomination of desolation. don't.

I would say a good person helps others and not just me personally.

egocentrism is not that great a thing.

The same - You are good as long as you serve others. You just exchanged individual for collective.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

but we could have had a white picket fence and everything (

Spoiler

 

[Black Rose]

The same - You are good as long as you serve others. You just exchanged individual for collective.

If a person wants to help me it should be their choice. I would not say they are not a good person for not helping me. Sometimes I buy homeless people food with my food stamps. But sometimes I only have 15 dollars left for 10 days so I buy the homeless person I pass by nothing. If I learned how to cook I could make my food last longer. But I have problems with my sister not being organized so we cannot plan things through. I get depressed how she is. But feel the need to let her stay at my house anyway. She is 5 months pregnant with a real baby. Today I sent in the paperwork to get a restraining order on her boyfriend. He kicked my door open so now I have to lock the door by putting the couch in front of it. I am friends with both my sister and her boyfriend but they have emotional problems and cannot get along. I am not mad about the door being kicked in but this behavior from both of them needs to stop.

Someday I want to get married and have kids and live in a house with a white picket fence. I want to have good communication with my wife and I hope for her to have the same level of emotional control as I do.