Wow. Culture question here: Is that how the Swedes do "Questions & Answers" at the end of a lecture or interview? Several people ask their questions and then the speaker answers them? Instead of question then answer, repeat. Or did somebody just not know what they were doing in this case?
That Thomas Gür wants to outshine the guess invited is rather embarrassing... If he asks a question and actually need an answer, why isn't he then quiet?
Four questions: 1. Is there such a thing as absolute morality, meaning can something be objectively wrong? 2. Is it ever right for a human being to torture human babies, for no other reason than to entertain oneself? 3. If you decide that envoking relativism and post-modernism when it suits your political agenda is morally right; would you consider it to be right if someone opposed to you did the same thing, and what makes you the arbiter of which is the most moral political stance? 4. Isn't postmodernism and relativism simply tools that serve as extensions of peoples personal feelings about things?
Postmodernism is indeed self-contradictory. As it claims absolute morality while rejecting absolute morality. Like Higgs said, this contradiction is hidden by its proponents. For the postmodernist, the aim is not to be self-consistent, but to gain power over all discourse. Thus postmodernism is more similar to a theology rather than a philosophy. It rejects the whole idea of philosophy which is scrutiny and critical thinking, and replaces them with arguments based on empty faith and preconclusions.
+Fredric B "Absolute" and "objective" do not mean the same thing. If something was absolute there would be no possibility of doubt. For example, within normal ordinary arithmetic, it is absolute that 1 plus 1 is 2. If something is objective then it is based on observation of reality (the object) and knowledge and understanding of reality. As such, objective knowledge can be wrong, even if it is done correctly according to (for example) the scientific method. For example, you may reasonably believe that stress produces stomach ulcers. This would be objective knowledge. But it is wrong, since stomach ulcers are the result of bacteria. So, with that in mind, yes, there is objective morality. It consists of doing that which allows humans to thrive. Torture is obviously contradictory to human thriving.
I really wish he would've gone on to analyse post-modernisms critique of society & culture as that is their priority target post 60's counter revolution, the destruction of the family, dissolution of the homogeneity of anglo saxon nations in terms of demographic constituents, playing semantics or attempting to dissociate human beings behaviour from their biology - i.e. gender and sex distinctions which are the actual social constructs that they always bullshit on about
I guess the reason why post-modernists will always side with, what appears to be the "loser" in a power struggle, comes back to their axiom of relativism. Language is a weapon and the world is made up of factions of winners and losers, where all winners must have gotten to the position they occupy through the manipulation of this weapon. Their position of dominance, privilege, or success or whatever you want to call it, _demonstrates_ that you have tilted a sum-zero game in your favor illegitimately. It is in their pursuit to validate this position that they claim that there's no such thing as innate differences between gender, sex, race, intellect etc as well, because if that is true you are in a better position to argue that all outcomes are a result of oppression.
Academic postmodernism (@ 25:00) also does not address the harsh reality of degenerate gamblers and their mob creditors. Never ask: "What is money, anyway?" as a rejoinder to mob creditors...:):):)
Should be mandatory viewing in Swedish schools or schools generelly
He should write a new book: Beyond Post Modernism
Wow. Culture question here: Is that how the Swedes do "Questions & Answers" at the end of a lecture or interview? Several people ask their questions and then the speaker answers them? Instead of question then answer, repeat. Or did somebody just not know what they were doing in this case?
Such will be managed by the Speaker who perhaps for sake of time fields several questions at once
So you've seen this before? Are you from there or somewhere else? (Or are you just guessing? heh)
Im swedish and I've never seen a q&a done like this, nope.
Thanks. (By the way. I'm a mutt like most Americans but I'm mostly Swedish on my Mom's side.)
If this was a cultural problem here in Sweden, it would'nt be our worst. ;)
That Thomas Gür wants to outshine the guess invited is rather embarrassing... If he asks a question and actually need an answer, why isn't he then quiet?
My thoughts exactly! Although a bit late.
Four questions:
1. Is there such a thing as absolute morality, meaning can something be objectively wrong?
2. Is it ever right for a human being to torture human babies, for no other reason than to entertain oneself?
3. If you decide that envoking relativism and post-modernism when it suits your political agenda is morally right; would you consider it to be right if someone opposed to you did the same thing, and what makes you the arbiter of which is the most moral political stance?
4. Isn't postmodernism and relativism simply tools that serve as extensions of peoples personal feelings about things?
Postmodernism is indeed self-contradictory. As it claims absolute morality while rejecting absolute morality. Like Higgs said, this contradiction is hidden by its proponents. For the postmodernist, the aim is not to be self-consistent, but to gain power over all discourse. Thus postmodernism is more similar to a theology rather than a philosophy. It rejects the whole idea of philosophy which is scrutiny and critical thinking, and replaces them with arguments based on empty faith and preconclusions.
Freedom Warrior Everything is relative, except the fact that everything is negative. Baffling.
+Fredric B "Absolute" and "objective" do not mean the same thing. If something was absolute there would be no possibility of doubt. For example, within normal ordinary arithmetic, it is absolute that 1 plus 1 is 2. If something is objective then it is based on observation of reality (the object) and knowledge and understanding of reality. As such, objective knowledge can be wrong, even if it is done correctly according to (for example) the scientific method. For example, you may reasonably believe that stress produces stomach ulcers. This would be objective knowledge. But it is wrong, since stomach ulcers are the result of bacteria.
So, with that in mind, yes, there is objective morality. It consists of doing that which allows humans to thrive. Torture is obviously contradictory to human thriving.
Nice argument against abortion, thanks!
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. A false assumption means the answer is always true regardless.
4. Yes.
I really wish he would've gone on to analyse post-modernisms critique of society & culture as that is their priority target post 60's counter revolution, the destruction of the family, dissolution of the homogeneity of anglo saxon nations in terms of demographic constituents, playing semantics or attempting to dissociate human beings behaviour from their biology - i.e. gender and sex distinctions which are the actual social constructs that they always bullshit on about
I guess the reason why post-modernists will always side with, what appears to be the "loser" in a power struggle, comes back to their axiom of relativism. Language is a weapon and the world is made up of factions of winners and losers, where all winners must have gotten to the position they occupy through the manipulation of this weapon. Their position of dominance, privilege, or success or whatever you want to call it, _demonstrates_ that you have tilted a sum-zero game in your favor illegitimately. It is in their pursuit to validate this position that they claim that there's no such thing as innate differences between gender, sex, race, intellect etc as well, because if that is true you are in a better position to argue that all outcomes are a result of oppression.
Riktigt kass text - går inte att läsa. Synd.
Academic postmodernism (@ 25:00) also does not address the harsh reality of degenerate gamblers and their mob creditors.
Never ask: "What is money, anyway?" as a rejoinder to mob creditors...:):):)