Your philosophy on life.

[whynaut]

Niniva

Every argument supplied by one side can just as easily be applied to the other side and if you are indeed right then justice is a myth and morality is a bust and doesn't truly exist and therefore your actions are never your own fault so no matter what heinous crime you commit you will never be accountable for it.

Too start with the easiest to defend: yes. There is no absolute reality and therefore justice and morality are indeed a myth. If I kill someone, what makes it wrong? Is it something written down on our DNA, or perhaps God wrote it on a mountain side? It is just an action. An action that just some people (not even all people, or necessarily most people) who decided it was wrong. People make laws against it, but does an action inherently become "good" or "bad" because someone wrote it down?

Niniva

This may be true but it can ONLY be true if ALL of those things are true. That is to say, if there is a common "right/wrong" or "rule" or "concept of reality" that is temporally consistent (that is to say is unaffected by a 'change' in the general order of man) then the whole theory comes crashing down.

The problem is...you don't know this and you could never possibly know it. The "rules" for metaphysical reality cannot be wholly known as you cannot know if what has happened in the past could have possibly turned out differently or if the way it happened was truly the way it would always happen.

Show me one consistent rule, and I will agree with you. You believe that because you don't know something exists it could be true, I submit that if you don't know something exists than it cannot not be true. Of course that falls in with your next complaint with postmodernism which is that it believes in relativity.

I cannot disagree with you there because subjectivity is a cornerstone of the philosophy. But what you and I will likely not agree on, is that if reality can only ever be observed subjectively then the universe, for all intents and purposes, is subjective. To assume that there is some underlying mechanism outside of our perceptions is presumptuous and, in its own way, is subjective also.
If you had a large glob of puddy and claimed that there was a wooden box inside it, it would mean very little if you could never prove that there was a box inside no matter how much you twisted and molded the puddy. Whether there is or is not a box becomes irrelevant because you can only ever play with the puddy.

I do not claim to "know" anything because the entire basis for postmodernism is that you can never know anything. You can only ever act on your perceptions (which we all seem to agree are subjective). But the mistake most people make who are not postmodernist is that they believe that postmodernism is the philosophy of nothing. This cannot be further from the truth. Postmodernism is the philosophy of skepticism: to hold back and wait to see if there really are any inherent truths before we guess wildly in the dark. The only problem is that we have never found any yet.  

[Niniva]

Quote:

Too start with the easiest to defend: yes. There is no absolute reality and therefore justice and morality are indeed a myth. If I kill someone, what makes it wrong? Is it something written down on our DNA, or perhaps God wrote it on a mountain side? It is just an action. An action that just some people (not even all people, or necessarily most people) who decided it was wrong. People make laws against it, but does an action inherently become "good" or "bad" because someone wrote it down?

To start with the easiest to defend is to start with nothing. Technically speaking if there is no rule to act then no action you take is ever consistent...including your thoughts and so your arguement is self defeating in that no matter what you attempt to say you are only ever right by complete coincidence and so even if you attempt to defend the idea it would be a futile attempt as even to say "Morality is a myth" is a claim of truth....it either is false, or it is true and thus is false....you cannot have it both ways.

There are many actions which have always been considered a consistent rule within humanistic society. I submit the most obvious that I have found...and that is theivery. There is no society ever in recorded history wherein there has been no rule agains stealing.

Not to mention your thoughts are incoherent also because you make a claim that morality is not objective, that people are not thinking of other when they act and this may be true 100% of the time, but it is certainly true some of the time so to make a blanket statement about all of humanity and history and the order of human behavior is incoherent and is not taking in all the data.

Quote:

Show me one consistent rule, and I will agree with you. You believe that because you don't know something exists it could be true, I submit that if you don't know something exists than it cannot not be true. Of course that falls in with your next complaint with postmodernism which is that it believes in relativity.

Several rules come to mind.....gravity for one....laws of energy and thermodynamics....mathmatical rules which can hardly be contested...are they also relative? Or are the a priori truths?
I have also already mentioned theivery...as that is a consistent moral rule throughout human history.

Quote:

I cannot disagree with you there because subjectivity is a cornerstone of the philosophy. But what you and I will likely not agree on, is that if reality can only ever be observed subjectively then the universe, for all intents and purposes, is subjective. To assume that there is some underlying mechanism outside of our perceptions is presumptuous and, in its own way, is subjective also.

The part of this that we are differing on here is the "for all intents and purposes" part. Assuming that no matter what "actually" is makes no difference and so we should forget about that and simply stick to what we percieve is a fallacy. It's an attempt to stifle knowledge, the search for Truth and is a way of subjectively being ok with whatever actions you do because no rules exist and so you are free to no feel guilty. The problem here is....no matter what you say or do you STILL feel guilty. No matter how justified the action is it still incites metaphysically unavoidable phenominon in you or anyone else that cannot simply be explained away. Human emotion, while not a tool to be used within arguements...still must be dealt with. Why is it then....that there are rules at all? Why is it we are dilluded into believing in Morality at all if there is none? I'm not buying the "because someone wrote it down" idea because people have always had a system of right and wrong before even Hamurabi's code was ever written down...something guided their actions, something incites loyalty within us all, calls us to act on the behalf of those we love...why do we do that then if it is all a myth?

Quote:

If you had a large glob of puddy and claimed that there was a wooden box inside it, it would mean very little if you could never prove that there was a box inside no matter how much you twisted and molded the puddy. Whether there is or is not a box becomes irrelevant because you can only ever play with the puddy.

This example is flawed as I can "say" there is a box and it is no more provable then if there "is no box" as you would argue. But neither of us can be right until we begin playing with the puddy. There is no knowledge in seeing the puddy and saying "Well there's no box there...I'm satisfied with what I see." But you are just as in the dark about the reality of things as I am....the difference is that I dig my hands in and look for the box...look for evidence of the box. I can find evidence and say "SEE?! There is a box in there." And you would shrug your shoulders and say, "What box? This isn't a box it's just a suggestion that there might be a box." And you are right...thats true....but I submit also that there is also no evidence to suggest that there is no evidence to suggest that there is no box now. What amunition do you have to combat that the box exists other then "well thats not a box"? Perceptions? Perceptions can be decieved. So are you telling me that when I see a mirrage that the mirrage is real? Even though it fades three seconds later and you realized it was never there......according to your arguement that mirage WAS really there, because I percieved it and thus it was a part of reality?

Quote:

I do not claim to "know" anything because the entire basis for postmodernism is that you can never know anything. You can only ever act on your perceptions (which we all seem to agree are subjective). But the mistake most people make who are not postmodernist is that they believe that postmodernism is the philosophy of nothing. This cannot be further from the truth. Postmodernism is the philosophy of skepticism: to hold back and wait to see if there really are any inherent truths before we guess wildly in the dark. The only problem is that we have never found any yet.

Yes....skepticism is necessary but in truth a postmodernist does nothing....they sit and wait for proof content with the idea that their reality is complete through their own perceptions but "to hold back and wait to see if there are any inherent truths" is a failed endeavor. Is it more wise to sit in a boat and wait for it to drift to the island on the horizen...or is it more wise to row toward the island? It seems irrational to me to make no attempt to find inherent truths...and then expect that you will find them. So technically speaking postmodernism...while useful as a check to foundationalists and modernists in the skeptical sense...is literally the philosophy of doing nothing....sitting and waiting for truth to appear magically? How do we find truth if we sit back and wait for it?

I agree that claiming to "know" things is a genuine mistake. But to say that no truth exists outside of perceptions when you haven't even looked for it is also a mistake.  

[whynaut]

While I find our conversation stimulating Niniva, I think that we have gotten off topic from what this thread is about. Though because I have much to say in response to your post (and I am sure you will have something to say in response to my response) I will make a new thread titled:
Postmodernism? which will being with my initial response to your last post and where you are welcome to respond in kind.  

[Part of the boundless]

Free will:

I believe that we have free will, whether things will work out for us is another story.

do we exist:
I have explored the feeling of nothingness and it is something I never wish to explore again. Thus feeling what non-existance would be like I must exist to feel the opposite of nothingness.

what is the meaning of life:

Do as much as you can with as much time as you have.

what is the purpose of life
Faith wise I would say as preparation as a ******** up mind wise: A metamorphosis of sorts, as our bodies decay we become wise [some of us] eventually we die and a soul is released. Were it goes I have no idea.

what should we do with life
become as strong as possible, mentally and physically and to become loving to all those around you. This however does not mean that you cannot be firm.