Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

Postmodern relativism believes that all truth is relative. e.g. 2+2=4 is only true because mathematicians say so. I've heard people at my Uni say this to my face.

2+2 could equal 4.3 in an "alternate number system" that's "equally valid", according to the guy I talked to.

You could totally make up a system of math that does exactly that, and it'd work just fine. However, doing so will only really confuse people and for zero benefit.

Sometimes it's useful though. We very commonly use an "alternate number system" in computing: base 16. Using letters to represent numbers; how horrifying!

We use arbitrary symbols to represent things. In that sense, yes, things are the way they are solely because someone out there says so. The concepts the symbols represent, however, do NOT change. 0xF is == to decimal 15, despite using different symbols. The concept of the number 15 remains the same.


I don't think I attacked your actual point in any way, but use better examples

[MorleyDev]

It's sad the 'some' 'most' 'those are only the loudest' etc semantics come about when its something agreed with by the party.

You can argue against ideas presented by a person or persons as part of a group, but if wording is written in such a way that it's claiming those ideas represent the whole group when they don't that is kinda silly. It goes both ways, if one person or a few people in a group claim something one argues for but isn't representative of the whole group, you shouldn't use their ideas as examples of the group.

Really we're dealing with large amounts of people who all use a single word to vaguely describe the topic of philosophical and ethical discussions. It's hard to talk about such scale effectively in anything without making the mistake of over or under generalising. Human brain and language aren't built for it. It likes to tie generalisations. How we process the world, how we grasp the concept of "chair" despite it being hard to narrow down.

It's like the whole thing with "gamers" making rape jokes that keeps fucking happening (and keeps pissing me off). It's some gamers. The people doing it are gamers, but they aren't all gamers and they shouldn't be seen as representing all games. It's a debate that needs to happen, but must be done with awareness of scale.

Likewise, it can be said that both the people presenting those ideas and some of the people who argue against them are "feminists", they just aren't all feminists or representative of a much broader movement. They may be describing ideas in the subpart of the movement, but at what point do you stop narrowing down? Does the fact that there are idiots in California mean "Humanity is dumb", "Americans are dumb", "Californians are dumb", "Idiots in California are dumb"?

[LeoLeonardoIII]

That's really great.

I remember this CD I had a long time ago of various games, can't remember any but I know there was a walkthrough for a text adventure game called Labyrinth of Time - but not the game itself - and I remember the filename ended with "walkt" so it was something like "labyrinth of time walkt".

Anyway there was a Kant generator, which would just spew out a designated number of pages of gibberish which I didn't realize at the time looked somewhat like the impermeable writings of Kant.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

@Kai The reason those methodologies were created is due to necessity. Not because the previous iterations were made by the 'wrong people' looking to 'oppress us'. That's pretty much the point here, changing methodologies because they weren't made by people with a 'proper' viewpoint is the same as handwaving all of science because it was basically all started and made by *gasp* religious people, and since I'm not religious, Sir Newton's Law of Gravity must be a religious oppression of free-thinking postmodern athiests.

Likewise, it can be said that both the people presenting those ideas and some of the people who argue against them are "feminists", they just aren't all feminists or representative of a much broader movement. They may be describing ideas in the subpart of the movement, but at what point do you stop narrowing down? Does the fact that there are idiots in California mean "Humanity is dumb", "Americans are dumb", "Californians are dumb", "Idiots in California are dumb"?

It's easier to determine what is and isn't a part of accepted philosophy as a group. How to? Reject the notions. If you do not, you accept them and allow them to settle into the extremist parts of your movement as 'dumb but we accept it because it agrees with our inherent prejudices'.

[Reelya]

From the comments: "A feminist programming language is a language that respects the agency of objects, acting upon them only upon mutual consent."

I'd just like to pop in to say that this absolutely made my day.

Postmodern relativism believes that all truth is relative. e.g. 2+2=4 is only true because mathematicians say so. I've heard people at my Uni say this to my face.

2+2 could equal 4.3 in an "alternate number system" that's "equally valid", according to the guy I talked to.

And as long as I'm here: I don't know about "equally valid," but this should be technically true via semantics. I'd be curious to see someone who insists it's true otherwise try to actually construct and use such a system, or else explain how they know it's possible.

In fact, I should probably just go read up on it sometime.

I'd say that would only be possible if you e.g. had a fractional base numbering system, as addition of whole numbers only gives whole numbers: integers beget integers.

e.g if you only add or remove whole oranges from a pile, you are never going to get a situation where you can pull out a half-orange.

See, integers and fractions are different classes of things. You only get from integers to fractions via division: add, subtract and multiply will never take you out of the set of integers, so 2+2=4.3 is wrong in any numbering system.

See, there are two levels, the levels of what the numbers "are" and how you represent them. There are infinite representations of "4", but they all represent the same essence, it's "4-ness" is not changed.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

From the comments: "A feminist programming language is a language that respects the agency of objects, acting upon them only upon mutual consent."

I'd just like to pop in to say that this absolutely made my day.

Postmodern relativism believes that all truth is relative. e.g. 2+2=4 is only true because mathematicians say so. I've heard people at my Uni say this to my face.

2+2 could equal 4.3 in an "alternate number system" that's "equally valid", according to the guy I talked to.

And as long as I'm here: I don't know about "equally valid," but this should be technically true via semantics. I'd be curious to see someone who insists it's true otherwise try to actually construct and use such a system, or else explain how they know it's possible.

In fact, I should probably just go read up on it sometime.

I'd say that would only be possible if you e.g. had a fractional base numbering system, as addition of whole numbers only gives whole numbers: integers beget integers.

The real problem is people like him expect to sit back and say some bullshit like "2+2=4 only because a mathematician says so" and then everyone else sits around thinking and doing and figuring out how or why it could be so. He's "just an idea rat".

But it's not like spurring people to think and do is of value either, in this case. It combines the pointlessness of a thought experiment with the laziness and/or incompetence of not actually doing the thought experiment.

[MorleyDev]

It's easier to determine what is and isn't a part of accepted philosophy as a group. How to? Reject the notions. If you do not, you accept them and allow them to settle into the extremist parts of your movement as 'dumb but we accept it because it agrees with our inherent prejudices'.

Because other examples of groups have done a great job at that? Tell me, are Christians against gay marriage? No, Christians aren't. Some Christians are. Maybe a lot, maybe a relative but loud few, but to say "Christians are against gay marriage" is flat out wrong, agreed?

[scrdest]

From the comments: "A feminist programming language is a language that respects the agency of objects, acting upon them only upon mutual consent."

I'd just like to pop in to say that this absolutely made my day.

Postmodern relativism believes that all truth is relative. e.g. 2+2=4 is only true because mathematicians say so. I've heard people at my Uni say this to my face.

2+2 could equal 4.3 in an "alternate number system" that's "equally valid", according to the guy I talked to.

And as long as I'm here: I don't know about "equally valid," but this should be technically true via semantics. I'd be curious to see someone who insists it's true otherwise try to actually construct and use such a system, or else explain how they know it's possible.

In fact, I should probably just go read up on it sometime.

I'd say that would only be possible if you e.g. had a fractional base numbering system, as addition of whole numbers only gives whole numbers: integers beget integers.

e.g if you only add or remove whole oranges from a pile, you are never going to get a situation where you can pull out a half-orange.

See, there are two levels, the levels of what the numbers "are" and how you represent them. There are infinite representations of "4", but they all represent the same essence, it's "4-ness" is not changed.

While it is workable, the argument still reminds me of

'How many is 2+2?'
'Heh, easy, 4'
'WRONG!'
'How much, then?'
'Zero'
'Wat.'
'See, "2" stands in here as a symbol for 1, and 1+1=2'
'...you didn't tell me that.'

It's easier to determine what is and isn't a part of accepted philosophy as a group. How to? Reject the notions. If you do not, you accept them and allow them to settle into the extremist parts of your movement as 'dumb but we accept it because it agrees with our inherent prejudices'.

Because other examples of groups have done a great job at that? Tell me, are Christians against gay marriage? No, Christians aren't. Some Christians are. Maybe a lot, maybe a relative but loud few, but to say "Christians are against gay marriage" is flat out wrong, agreed? It's a problem you see in all philosophies, especially ones with a history of directly supporting or challenging an established status quo.

Christians as an organized religion ARE against gay marriage. Individual Christians might not be, but that's not the point.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Because other examples of groups have done a great job at that? Tell me, are Christians against gay marriage? No, Christians aren't. Some Christians are. Maybe a lot, maybe a relative but loud few, but to say "Christians are against gay marriage" is flat out wrong, agreed?

Which is only proof that acceptance of a fringe view allows and even facilitates said views, turning the platform from what it was set out to be to what the loudest extreme wants it to be.

Christians as an organized religion ARE against gay marriage. Individual Christians might not be, but that's not the point.

Pretty arguable, it's easier to say the establishment itself is still ambiguous even with a rising amount of liberal-social supporters of gay marriage. It will reach a tipping point eventually, and then the movement will continue to accept anti-marriage rights activists or ostracize them completely.

[MorleyDev]

So we persist in allowing status quo? Or try and move forward as a people by being more intelligent and starting to be explicit about the lines as we speak, and encouraging others to do the same? Red pill or blue pill?

Christians as an organized religion ARE against gay marriage. Individual Christians might not be, but that's not the point.

Except there is no Christianity as an organised religion: that's my point. The Church of England, Catholism, Quakers, Mormonism...all separate, all under one umbrella term "Christianity". Some support gay marriage, some oppose it.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I think, barring a modifier in the front, we implicitly add an "In general ..." before the phrase. So if you don't mean to say "In general, Christians are against gay marriage" you might wanna add your own modifier to clear up the ambiguity.

Another way of looking at it may be that if you describe a group, the implied preface is "The group generally ..." which has nothing to do with what any specific member is like.

Take a parking lot and fill it with cars. Let's say 20% are red, 20% blue, 20% green, 20% black, and 20% white. You'd say the parking lot has a seemingly-random coloration. But what if you had 60% green, 20% black, 20% white? You could say the parking lot is mostly green with some black and white.

To really talk about it intelligently we need statistics on voting patterns of people by professed religion - including major group and subsect - as well as how closely the person feels they hew to the religion's tenets. Anyone here, even if you're employed in the hierarchy of a Christian church, doesn't actually know what Christians in general actually think without data. We all have gut instincts and inklings, which are all equally useless.

[MorleyDev]

So if we know we're going off useless information, we probably should be explicitly adding the "I reckon most" in front to avoid confusion or implied knowledge (which is what leaving it out accomplishes: Implying knowledge not speculation, which is more more aggressive an approach). For example, I'll say "Most Christians I have encountered outside of media are not against gay marriage. Those who are tend to be of older generations, generally 50+, and many of that generation I know are against or critical of gay marriage regardless of religious views."

Clearer, more effectively expressed both my intended awareness but takes more words. And then we can discuss the ideas themselves separate of the suggesters of the ideas, and judge them for their own merits and pros and cons.

 I admit I'm not always or even regularly on the ball with this, but it's something I do think is worth aspiring to at the very least.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I think unless people post sources anything given should be assumed to be opinion based on experience

Most people I've met who put themselves forth as Christian of some kind, were basically anti-gay. But it's also possible a lot of people I've met are Christians and not putting that out as central to their identities, which would throw off my numbers. You also don't know how many people are anti-gay unless they say something about it, which is a vast minority of the people I know.

Which is to say, we'd need to survey people to know what they think about stuff.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

And without surveys the only way to determine what is an isn't accepted by a group? The acceptance of the group to the notions.

[Reelya]

So we persist in allowing status quo? Or try and move forward as a people by being more intelligent and starting to be explicit about the lines as we speak, and encouraging others to do the same? Red pill or blue pill?

I think that's a false dichotomy. Holding what people in a movement say accountable doesn't equate to "persisting in the status quo".

e.g. look at Gloria Steinem's claims that anorexia kills 150000-200000 American girls per year. She's no "fringe" figure, she was the face of mainstream feminism. This statistics appears in Gloria Steinem's books, Naomi Wolf's books, was taught in gender studies courses, and was in the gender studies textbooks, and was repeated widely in the press.

The 150000 deaths per year was, and is, not just wrong (the true figure is ~150 per year) , but demonstrably ludicrous. It would work out at something on the order of 5 girls dying of anorexia per year per each of the USA's 25000 high schools. You'd be in mourning constantly, that'd be like two girls from each year dying of malnutrition - PER YEAR. Do you recall anything like that from your school days?

And what percentage of anorexia sufferers die? 10%? 1%? The true rate is more like 0.1%. You'd be looking at a situation, where if true, at least every second high school girl is anorexic. Clearly not the case in modern America.

Now, I have never heard a feminist disown these statistics once they were debunked. And saying "Gloria Steinem was full of shit" doesn't equate to "I hate feminists" or "I hate women".