The Fall of Western Civilization

Post Reply New Topic

Well, the issue is with erasing it. Does our society have a way of cleansing itself from these things? I don't think it really does.... but then again, I hate the notion of society. The way that these things can be cleaned away effectively is through public school induced brainwashing. If ya get 'em when they are young, they will think whatever ya want 'em to.

Postmodernism isn't the only philosophy going against rational thinking though, human nature stands against rationalism.... well, from my perspective, I don't see most rationalists as truly rational.

I'm not sure I agree that racism is inborn; I would say it is generally learned.



Of course, government cannot erase deeply held prejudices with a stroke of the pen. It can dismantle structural racism (Jim Crow laws, Apartheid laws, etc). And it can start a transformational process - the US military was a leader in integration, because a) they needed recruits, and b) the decision came down through the chain of command.





Postmodernism doesn't really deal with scientific questions at its core - it deals with sociological issues. Societies do not display the mechanistic predictability of cells grown in a petri dish or nuclear particles smashed into each other. But the idea that those in power use their power to try and define the debate to increase their power is an idea that holds up well when looking at societies. So that is one place that post-modernism can start.

Not that I am a post-modernist. But when postmodernists ask if medical research in our universities has been shaped and biased by money from pharmaceutical companies seems like a good question. When post-modernists analyze the dot-com bubble or the sub-prime bubble, there are some very interesting and useful questions that get asked.

I don't see how post-modernists are displaying the characteristics they condemn, as you suggest. You seem to be saying that because they say their way is better, that is bias, and any type of bias is equivalent to racism. One might also say that all Democrats and all Republicans and all Libertarians are doing the same, because they are part of a political party, and they have biases or preferences. Or that people that had a good experience with Toyota (or whatever brand) who always buy Toyota are morally inferior because they think that one company is superior and others are inferior.

Postmodernism doesn't really deal with scientific questions at its core - it deals with sociological issues. Societies do not display the mechanistic predictability of cells grown in a petri dish or nuclear particles smashed into each other. But the idea that those in power use their power to try and define the debate to increase their power is an idea that holds up well when looking at societies. So that is one place that post-modernism can start.

Not that I am a post-modernist. But when postmodernists ask if medical research in our universities has been shaped and biased by money from pharmaceutical companies seems like a good question. When post-modernists analyze the dot-com bubble or the sub-prime bubble, there are some very interesting and useful questions that get asked.

I wasn't really aware that post-modernism really did much to answer anything. Postmodernism seems to be a rejection of most truth and epistemology which would seem to argue against science significantly.

IMO, the problem is with attempting to turn rationalism and logic into a foundationalist philosophy. All evidentiary systems are based on some kind of alethiology.

Many scientists, especially social scientists, have recognized the problems with the hermeneutic circle (the interdependency of parts and wholes) and have moved from positivism to post-positivism. Similarly, a recognition of the limits of rationalism would lead one to a post-rationalist standpoint.

Postmodernism is not a coherent position. It is more of a questioning attitude to modernity (or to certain aspects of modernity). About the closest one comes to a postmodern philosophy is Lyotard's idea of the incredulity of metanarratives. However, there is also postmodern art, postmodern literature, and postmodern architecture - none of which has much in common with Lyotard.

Well, no philosophy can really form a good foundation because foundational premises do not exist.

Meh, I don't really see that as much of an issue. Epistemology is flawed, and at a fundamental level we can't ever really necessarily know anything.

I agree, which is foundationalists are in the minority in academia (in most all fields).

IMO, we can observe the tropes (attributes) of particular phenomena, but the "this-ness" of particulars, assuming there is such a thing, is hidden from us.

I actually like foundationalism. Even though the foundations may be horribly untrue, I still think that without premises the notion of truth is impossible.

Anything we note is still based upon a foundation though. Even what we see with our eyes may not be actual information and to process that information we must still use a number of assumptions that may or may not be true no matter what path we take when processing it. I dunno, perhaps I assume that without reason we cannot process data and because reason cannot function without premises, we still effectively end up back at foundationalism.

Which foundationalism? These days, foundationalism is generally associated with essentialism, the idea that there are universal quiddities behind all observable phenomena. The problem is, of course, that no one has ever seen them. They are simply speculations.

The question is: Do I need to make assumptions which go beyond my observations? I would say, no, I do not. I can observe similarities between entities (like individual human beings), and draw grounded conclusions, without postulating a universal human essence (like "human nature").

I mean the basic epistemological theory. I don't think we can necessarily have proper foundations, but mankind is going to work based upon foundations anyway so we may as well use the ones we work with.

You need to assume that your observations are valid and that the logic by which you see similarity is valid. Both of those are basic beliefs, and you are going to derive truth from them using this logic:

The problem with foundationalisms is that they are difficult, or impossible, to be tested. Sigmund Freud's psychological philosophy has largely been abandoned and replaced with Emil Kraepelin's genetic and biological nosology. Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs has no status at all among most researchers.

There is nothing wrong with making assumptions. The problem is with assumptions which cannot be tested. That is how psychiatry developed around the philosophy of Freud. The field is only now coming to its senses.

The foundational assumptions can never be tested though. If they could be tested then why on earth make them a foundation? I will agree that our pursuit of truth should be tailored to the criterion we seek when finding truth, but that does not mean we know truth in either fashion. I still think there is a foundation underneath every approach.

IMO, the problem is with attempting to turn rationalism and logic into a foundationalist philosophy. All evidentiary systems are based on some kind of alethiology.