Humanism

[Simon Paynton]

You can be a neo-Marxist.

[Davis]

It’s ironic Simon because you really fit the intellectual profile of someone who would claim to be a post-modern-Marxist…so I guess it all makes sense. I’ll concede the point that someone can CLAIM to be a post-modern-Marxist. Just as a 16 year old white teenager from America can CLAIM to be a Mongolian-astronaut. Well…good for your guys. You can believe whatever contradictory impossible bullshit you want. Have fun with that…whatever purpose it serves you.

[Unseen]

People have a talent for making diverse and seemingly incompatible things fit together. Sartre, whose existentialism is all about the inescapable primacy of the individual somehow also became a Marxist. Marxism subsumes the individual into the collective. The two philosophies could hardly be more incompatible it would seem, yet they both key in on the person as a responsible being. Both ask “Who are you? What are your values? What will you become?”

Actually, though, postmodernism like modernism and the renaissance is a period, not a philosophy, so trying to compare or blend them with a doctrine or dogma like Marxism makes a fundamental category error, does it not?

[Simon Paynton]

From Wikipedia: “critical theory“:

Postmodern critical theory analyzes the fragmentation of cultural identities in order to challenge modernist era constructs such as metanarratives, rationality and universal truths, while politicizing social problems “by situating them in historical and cultural contexts, to implicate themselves in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and to relativize their findings”.

Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it. Horkheimer wanted to distinguish critical theory as a radical, emancipatory form of Marxian theory, critiquing both the model of science put forward by logical positivism and what he and his colleagues saw as the covert positivism and authoritarianism of orthodox Marxism and Communism.

Therefore, post modern neo-Marxists are a thing.

Do they really believe that anything is as true as anything else?  I don’t know, but that seems doubtful.

[Simon Paynton]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Do they really believe that anything is as true as anything else?

Maybe it depends on how you define “truth”.  If it means “corresponding to reality” then it can’t be relative or a matter of opinion.  But if it means “corresponding to perceptions” then it can mean anything you like.

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Simon Paynton wrote:

Do they really believe that anything is as true as anything else?

Maybe it depends on how you define “truth”. If it means “corresponding to reality” then it can’t be relative or a matter of opinion. But if it means “corresponding to perceptions” then it can mean anything you like.

Some would argue that perception IS reality. The only reality you have, anyway.

[Simon Paynton]

Off the top of my head, I believe that the post-modern conception of truth or reality is to do with subjective, personal reality or perception.

So, in the sense you give, they are not wrong to say that truth is relative or subjective.  Actually, I’m not sure what “relative” truth means.

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Off the top of my head, I believe that the post-modern conception of truth or reality is to do with subjective, personal reality or perception. So, in the sense you give, they are not wrong to say that truth is relative or subjective. Actually, I’m not sure what “relative” truth means.

So, you’re saying (even if you don’t know it) that post-modernists are Berkeleyan idealists. “To be is to be perceived.”

Truth means “that which is the case,” so relative truth would be “that which for you is the case,” right?

[Davis]

No…it covers one structuralist who analyses Marxism. That doesn’t make him a post-modern Marxist. ,Heesh Simon. Pay attention.

[Simon Paynton]

Truth means “that which is the case,” so relative truth would be “that which for you is the case,” right?

Yes, if “relative” means “subjective”.  Anyway, it’s a view point that has some merit, i.e., usefulness, because it’s empathic.  If you want to help to change someone’s world, find out what their world is.  I can see the point of thinking like that.

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Truth means “that which is the case,” so relative truth would be “that which for you is the case,” right?

Yes, if “relative” means “subjective”. Anyway, it’s a view point that has some merit, i.e., usefulness, because it’s empathic. If you want to help to change someone’s world, find out what their world is. I can see the point of thinking like that.

So now you’re a utilitarian idealist.

[Simon Paynton]

I’m not sure that people’s needs fall neatly into categories of physical and non-physical.  If ethics means helping in response to need, and helping in response to the consequences of our actions towards others (fairness), then the need to thrive is both physical and psychological.

[Davis]

 If ethics means helping in response to need

That isn’t what it means. That’s something you made up. I think, redefining an entire sub-branch of philosophy, before you’ve even read a single book about ethics, is not the best approach. Perhaps reading a book on ethics is the best first step. I’ll recommend a book…you can read an introduction to ethics before you start redefining it. If you give me an email I can even send you a PDF of a short introduction to ethics. It won’t take much effort and will summarize quickly and well the history of and main moral systems from past to now.

[Davis]

Relative truth.

Ugh. Gross. Why? That is the starting place of anti-learning. It is for those who are afraid of knowledge.

[Simon Paynton]

I’ll recommend a book…you can read an introduction to ethics before you start redefining it. If you give me an email I can even send you a PDF of a short introduction to ethics. It won’t take much effort and will summarize quickly and well the history of and main moral systems from past to now.

OK, I’m all ears.  Can you give the name of it, and I can Google it?

I’m arguing that human ethics consists of: 1) helping; 2) fairness; 3) obligation to others.  Can you think of any different categories of behaviour, that makes up ethics?  These are based on cooperation, and there’s a whole different family of sexual ethics to do with patriarchy and male domination of society (i.e., female subjugation and sexual control are seen as good, traditionally, but not necessarily in modern times).

[Author]

Posts