7 ms·

>But post modernist throry gives insane people the thought that they can write anything and it becomes justified, because narrative coherence can not exist anyw

>But post modernist throry gives insane people the thought that they can write anything and it becomes justified, because narrative coherence can not exist anyways. That's not really the argument (and there is no coherent "unity" of postmodernism anyway, Foucault, Derrida, and Lacan, even if they all occupied the same intellectual spheres, had different projects). If there is an argument, its that by dint of its "place in discourse," any statement adds and also modifies every other statement in the great network of social life, so the moment you begin to talk about anything or interpret anything you begin to move away from the thing. But the idea of an original, pure object of critique is seen as suspect to begin with as well, since such a notion is always composed with further discourse, which, in a sense, replaces the object of discourse and negates it. The fact that there are these "definite negations" in language, every time we speak, is not taken as some great horror but instead is meant to be affirmed as an act of human creativity: there is no bottom to our logic, but we nevertheless always discover more and add to it! To try and enforce normative constraints on what is deemed logical also in the end constrains the limits of discourse and intelligibility: it limits the very possibilities of how we could order our society, and claims that the one we live in, which is currently grinding young men into meat in eastern Europe for the profits of large arms manufacturers, which arbitrarily targets and imprisons the most impoverished and downtrodden of its citizens and forces them into slave labor, which participates in the regular everyday exploitation of labor and suppresses and controls any resistance to its hegemony with constant propaganda and moralism for the weak, and direct violence towards the strong and well-organized--it claims THAT society is always somehow "logical," "rationally organized," and "the best system that exists." If we accept that this totalitarian nightmare society as the best that we can have, then we are effectively nihilists and we have abandoned any idea that we have the power to make a better, stronger, more creative, more free, more fulfilling life for ourselves.

constantcrying 3y ago
>That's not really the argument How are you defending post modernism and at the same telling me what is and isn't the argument. >To try and enforce normative constraints on what is deemed logical also in the end constrains the limits of discourse and intelligibility: In that world all thought is incoherent. Pure anarchy reigns if people can not decide whether 2+2 is 4 or 5. It isn't that I don't agree with the breakdown in centralized universal narratives, which lies at the core of postmodernism. But the only discipline which has succesfully grappled with it is mathematics. In all other disciplines it has largely reduced conversations to people talking about nothing, not even caring that they are only talking about mutually incoherent topics. >it claims THAT society is always somehow "logical," "rationally organized," and "the best system that exists." I agree, but if your conclusion from seeing the scientific socialism (inherited from the French revolution) is that coherence leads to human eradication then pure anarchism is the only consequence. The correct lesson would be to accept that narratives of "scientific government" inevitably exist to obscure power structures and create willing democratic populations who abdicate all individual thought to "experts".
- DiscourseFan 3y ago
  I know Mathematics is respected for introducing notions of context-free grammar for recursive definitions, so everything could always be defined rigorously, but even that requires the Axiom of Choice for it to make sense in set-theoretical terms, and many, many people in math and theoretical physics simply like the ZFC because of its so-called "aesthetic beauty," and not because we might produce better or more interesting results by holding onto notions of context-free grammars. Every time you start doing a ZF-C, you get some very cool formulas and proofs even if they are "messy." Quantum Field Theory is messy, still gives us workable results (I'm not an expert on physics or anything btw, so don't dig into that statement to much). The entire point of what you are arguing against (which I will not even claim is some unified postmodernism), is that even inventing a core of logical principles stipulates a certain logic of power that both enforces and obscures itself at the same time as natural and/or necessary. It can't be natural...most of our highly-educated know that already, so instead its a political necessity: like you said, if we abandon these standards "Pure anarchy reigns." But while "people can't decide if 2+2 is 4 or 4" seems like something totally ridiculous, I'm sure you're aware that if we were to treat it as a cyclic group of 4, with the order of the set of positive integers, and we set 1,2,3, as equivalent to our base-10 1,2,3, but "5" to represent in our new group (which would not normally be a member of Mod(4), btw) what we represent as "0," then 2+2 can easily equal 5. That is something that completely conforms to group theory, and I'm sure one can just as easily prove it in set theory or ring theory. And yet it would've been entirely impossible to write intelligibly without the context it is sitting in. We must let go of this drive for some higher laws or some political necessity of logical structures: as I said, this amounts to Nihlism! Let us create ugly proofs, messy theorems, things that push the boundaries of intelligibility! Your aesthetic beauty and political necessity will turn into my excremental shit!
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    >I know Mathematics is respected for introducing notions of context-free grammar for recursive definitions, so everything could always be defined rigorously, but even that requires the Axiom of Choice for it to make sense in set-theoretical terms Complete nonsense. You do not need AC for CFG. The fact thar CFG can be programmed proves that, as literally nobody disputes finite AC. >and many, many people in math and theoretical physics simply like the ZFC because of its so-called "aesthetic beauty," and not because we might produce better or more interesting results by holding onto notions of context-free grammars. CFG exist with and without ZFC. AC is equivalent to Zorn which implies every VS has a basis. AC is enormously important to many Analysis and functional analysis results. You got it the wrong way around people rail against AC because it is equivalent to well ordering and well ordering is obviously false (my oppinion). >Every time you start doing a ZF-C, you get some very cool formulas and proofs even if they are "messy." What? Every proof in ZF-C is trivially a result in ZFC. What are you on about? Do you not understand that adding an independent axiom (true here) just adds more provable statements? >The entire point of what you are arguing against I am specifically arguing against people like you who are hallucinating mathematical results and talking about them as if they had a shred of knowledge about them. This is embarrasing. >then 2+2 can easily equal 5 This is literally just redefining what "=" means. It is a linguistic amiguity in mathematics that operators are "overloaded". Garbage tier argument. >That is something that completely conforms to group theory, and I'm sure one can just as easily prove it in set theory or ring theory. You are delusional. Do you have any idea what group theory, set theory or "ring theory" are? SPOILER: all statements in group theory are statements in set theory. Do you even know what a ring is? >We must let go of this drive for some higher laws or some political necessity of logical structures: as I said, this amounts to Nihlism! First and foremost you need to stop talking about mathematics. This is why postmodernists are dangerous, you make grand proclamations about things you have no idea about.

constantcrying 3y ago

>That's not really the argument How are you defending post modernism and at the same telling me what is and isn't the argument. >To try and enforce normative constraints on what is deemed logical also in the end constrains the limits of discourse and intelligibility: In that world all thought is incoherent. Pure anarchy reigns if people can not decide whether 2+2 is 4 or 5. It isn't that I don't agree with the breakdown in centralized universal narratives, which lies at the core of postmodernism. But the only discipline which has succesfully grappled with it is mathematics. In all other disciplines it has largely reduced conversations to people talking about nothing, not even caring that they are only talking about mutually incoherent topics. >it claims THAT society is always somehow "logical," "rationally organized," and "the best system that exists." I agree, but if your conclusion from seeing the scientific socialism (inherited from the French revolution) is that coherence leads to human eradication then pure anarchism is the only consequence. The correct lesson would be to accept that narratives of "scientific government" inevitably exist to obscure power structures and create willing democratic populations who abdicate all individual thought to "experts".

DiscourseFan 3y ago
I know Mathematics is respected for introducing notions of context-free grammar for recursive definitions, so everything could always be defined rigorously, but even that requires the Axiom of Choice for it to make sense in set-theoretical terms, and many, many people in math and theoretical physics simply like the ZFC because of its so-called "aesthetic beauty," and not because we might produce better or more interesting results by holding onto notions of context-free grammars. Every time you start doing a ZF-C, you get some very cool formulas and proofs even if they are "messy." Quantum Field Theory is messy, still gives us workable results (I'm not an expert on physics or anything btw, so don't dig into that statement to much). The entire point of what you are arguing against (which I will not even claim is some unified postmodernism), is that even inventing a core of logical principles stipulates a certain logic of power that both enforces and obscures itself at the same time as natural and/or necessary. It can't be natural...most of our highly-educated know that already, so instead its a political necessity: like you said, if we abandon these standards "Pure anarchy reigns." But while "people can't decide if 2+2 is 4 or 4" seems like something totally ridiculous, I'm sure you're aware that if we were to treat it as a cyclic group of 4, with the order of the set of positive integers, and we set 1,2,3, as equivalent to our base-10 1,2,3, but "5" to represent in our new group (which would not normally be a member of Mod(4), btw) what we represent as "0," then 2+2 can easily equal 5. That is something that completely conforms to group theory, and I'm sure one can just as easily prove it in set theory or ring theory. And yet it would've been entirely impossible to write intelligibly without the context it is sitting in. We must let go of this drive for some higher laws or some political necessity of logical structures: as I said, this amounts to Nihlism! Let us create ugly proofs, messy theorems, things that push the boundaries of intelligibility! Your aesthetic beauty and political necessity will turn into my excremental shit!
- constantcrying 3y ago
  >I know Mathematics is respected for introducing notions of context-free grammar for recursive definitions, so everything could always be defined rigorously, but even that requires the Axiom of Choice for it to make sense in set-theoretical terms Complete nonsense. You do not need AC for CFG. The fact thar CFG can be programmed proves that, as literally nobody disputes finite AC. >and many, many people in math and theoretical physics simply like the ZFC because of its so-called "aesthetic beauty," and not because we might produce better or more interesting results by holding onto notions of context-free grammars. CFG exist with and without ZFC. AC is equivalent to Zorn which implies every VS has a basis. AC is enormously important to many Analysis and functional analysis results. You got it the wrong way around people rail against AC because it is equivalent to well ordering and well ordering is obviously false (my oppinion). >Every time you start doing a ZF-C, you get some very cool formulas and proofs even if they are "messy." What? Every proof in ZF-C is trivially a result in ZFC. What are you on about? Do you not understand that adding an independent axiom (true here) just adds more provable statements? >The entire point of what you are arguing against I am specifically arguing against people like you who are hallucinating mathematical results and talking about them as if they had a shred of knowledge about them. This is embarrasing. >then 2+2 can easily equal 5 This is literally just redefining what "=" means. It is a linguistic amiguity in mathematics that operators are "overloaded". Garbage tier argument. >That is something that completely conforms to group theory, and I'm sure one can just as easily prove it in set theory or ring theory. You are delusional. Do you have any idea what group theory, set theory or "ring theory" are? SPOILER: all statements in group theory are statements in set theory. Do you even know what a ring is? >We must let go of this drive for some higher laws or some political necessity of logical structures: as I said, this amounts to Nihlism! First and foremost you need to stop talking about mathematics. This is why postmodernists are dangerous, you make grand proclamations about things you have no idea about.