4 ms·

The problem with this type of theory is that you have to accept that everything is x-ist first, and then the speaker iterates on logic that seems internally con

The problem with this type of theory is that you have to accept that everything is x-ist first, and then the speaker iterates on logic that seems internally consistent, after you have accepted that the axioms (and conclusions) of their system of reasoning are true. The problem is that since the axioms and conclusions are negatively defined, any statement within it can seem internally consistent, so it doesn't matter they just run down the clock and rope in the credulous. The legitimacy of these critical theories seems to rest on Kripke's invention of so-called "modal logics," which I understand were initially presented as a progressive reaction in philosophy departments to the positive logics derived from maths. The criteria for logic is that it "adds up," or more accurately, our rules about logic and consistency (from Gödel, Russell, and others) were only deemed to represent reality if the logical system could represent arithmetic. Kripke seemed to propose that if you revisit and start with logics that cannot represent arithmetic, you still get consistent logical forms, which are sufficient for expressing a much larger range of phenomena. Because sure, if you produce nonsense, nonsense can represent anything. It's the definition of magical thinking, but within a couple of decades, it was being presented as the "formal" logical underpinnings for a variety of essentially marxist ideologies of different intersectional flavours, where they produce the same circular bullshit with only a few words changed, and with the same object in mind: dissolution of meaning and the destruction (neutralization) of discourse as a means to create chaos and to seize power. It is a rhetorical system for protagonizing antagonists. We can sythesize these ideologies pretty trivially and inject them into naive minds that turn them into either activists, or neutralize any resistance to them because they're just baffling gibberish with the threat of political consequences. Nobody wants to admit they have been fooled or taken, and its easier to attack the people who point it out than to admit that you have been bullied and hustled by highly trained pros. High school teachers judging middle school debate clubs aren't equipped to handle this, but theory is teaching kids to rhyme out ideologies that are entertaining, and even charismatic, but they're nothing but the same old tropes of the 20th century and its grisly consequences.

User23 3y ago
To me it sounds like you're just describing enthymemes[1]. You don't need modal logic for that, just plain old Aristotelian rhetoric. And rhetorically you can fly a whole lot of ridiculous premise under the radar in the unstated leg so it's a powerful technique. It works somewhat similarly to the technique of "assuming the sale." I don't have much to say about CRT or whatever you want to call that rhetorical program today, but it doesn't take any great analytical ability to suss out the unstated premises. And if you do it becomes pretty clear that the whole enterprise isn't exactly intellectually honest. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme
- cratermoon 3y ago
  An enthymeme is like saying "giving everyone free health care would be socialism!", and leaving out the unstated premise that socialism is bad. It's surprising how much garbage can be shoveled into an argument if it's anchored on one premise the audience believes without evidence.
- motohagiography 3y ago
  [flagged]
techno_tsar 3y ago
That's simply not true. Critical theories do not depend on modal logics, nor is your characterization of modal logics correct. Critical theory and justifications for essentially Marxist ideologies have pretty much nothing to do with Kripke, who was writing within a strict Anglo-American/analytic tradition. Kripke didn't invent any kind of magical thinking. His contribution to modal logic was that he showed, formally, its completeness (as a teenager, too). You seem to be pointing at a common critique of poststructuralist thinking as focused on the "dissolution" and "destruction" of meaning. This has a lot more to do with Derrida, who wrote strictly in a continental tradition. Critical theories do not rest on modal logics, since many of them are anti-foundationalist in nature, they would probably not rest on anything except works in the 'critical theory' canon (e.g. Marx, Adorno, Foucault, etc). Ironically, and I mean this sincerely, but if you had actually read anything by Kripke (or critical theorists), you would realize that his most famous work after completing modal logic was restructuring semantics in a way that espoused scientific essentialism (cf. Naming and Necessity). That is something critical theorists would very likely be antagonistic towards.
- motohagiography 3y ago
  I was reading about Kripke's modal logics for applications in LLM's, so I will agree that my study of them wasn't part of the indoctrination they seem to be used for in cultural studies programs. I had first encountered him in the syllabus of some cultural studies programs where modal logics were used as the formal basis and justification for the a-logical aspects of some feminist critiques in the 90s. Saying that a subset of post marxist theories are not marxist theories seems pretty standard motte and bailey. I'd refer you to James Lindsay's descriptions of how these critical theories fit together into the miasma of nonsense that is being taught to kids today, as he's done deeper work on the subject. My interest is in synthesizing it, because since it is just internaly consistent and so divorced from reality, there are likely infinite versions of it that could serve as an antidote to the pernicious indoctrination "educators," are subjecting children to. My politics are unambiguous, they are anti-Marxist, as it is not sufficent to be neutral to it's variants, and one has to actively confront it when it pretends to be anything other than a system of deception.
- calf 3y ago

User23 3y ago

To me it sounds like you're just describing enthymemes[1]. You don't need modal logic for that, just plain old Aristotelian rhetoric. And rhetorically you can fly a whole lot of ridiculous premise under the radar in the unstated leg so it's a powerful technique. It works somewhat similarly to the technique of "assuming the sale." I don't have much to say about CRT or whatever you want to call that rhetorical program today, but it doesn't take any great analytical ability to suss out the unstated premises. And if you do it becomes pretty clear that the whole enterprise isn't exactly intellectually honest. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme

cratermoon 3y ago
An enthymeme is like saying "giving everyone free health care would be socialism!", and leaving out the unstated premise that socialism is bad. It's surprising how much garbage can be shoveled into an argument if it's anchored on one premise the audience believes without evidence.
motohagiography 3y ago
[flagged]

techno_tsar 3y ago

That's simply not true. Critical theories do not depend on modal logics, nor is your characterization of modal logics correct. Critical theory and justifications for essentially Marxist ideologies have pretty much nothing to do with Kripke, who was writing within a strict Anglo-American/analytic tradition. Kripke didn't invent any kind of magical thinking. His contribution to modal logic was that he showed, formally, its completeness (as a teenager, too). You seem to be pointing at a common critique of poststructuralist thinking as focused on the "dissolution" and "destruction" of meaning. This has a lot more to do with Derrida, who wrote strictly in a continental tradition. Critical theories do not rest on modal logics, since many of them are anti-foundationalist in nature, they would probably not rest on anything except works in the 'critical theory' canon (e.g. Marx, Adorno, Foucault, etc). Ironically, and I mean this sincerely, but if you had actually read anything by Kripke (or critical theorists), you would realize that his most famous work after completing modal logic was restructuring semantics in a way that espoused scientific essentialism (cf. Naming and Necessity). That is something critical theorists would very likely be antagonistic towards.

motohagiography 3y ago
I was reading about Kripke's modal logics for applications in LLM's, so I will agree that my study of them wasn't part of the indoctrination they seem to be used for in cultural studies programs. I had first encountered him in the syllabus of some cultural studies programs where modal logics were used as the formal basis and justification for the a-logical aspects of some feminist critiques in the 90s. Saying that a subset of post marxist theories are not marxist theories seems pretty standard motte and bailey. I'd refer you to James Lindsay's descriptions of how these critical theories fit together into the miasma of nonsense that is being taught to kids today, as he's done deeper work on the subject. My interest is in synthesizing it, because since it is just internaly consistent and so divorced from reality, there are likely infinite versions of it that could serve as an antidote to the pernicious indoctrination "educators," are subjecting children to. My politics are unambiguous, they are anti-Marxist, as it is not sufficent to be neutral to it's variants, and one has to actively confront it when it pretends to be anything other than a system of deception.
calf 3y ago