The mafoofan and Thom Browne philosophies are not too unlike.

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Huh? I'm pretty certain you don't understand postmodernism. Why not go to the source and read some books?

Why do you presume I'm unfamiliar with postmodernism? If you'd like, rebut my existing arguments, or make your own, and I will attempt to rebut those.

Let's take Foucault's genealogical analysis as a starting point: he argues that an examination of existing and past norms reveals that they were not rationally derived from absolute truths, and thus, we should not pretend as if absolute truths exist, and we should each attempt to 'self-create' rather than be bound by the norms of our time and place.

This is a bad argument for lots of reasons:

1. Any analysis of the connection between social norms and absolute truths will necessarily depend on inferences as to individual psychology. Human psychology being as hazy as it is, such inferences aren't very useful for proving facts about the external world. Heck, inferences as to human psychology aren't very useful for proving facts about human psychology.

2. Moreover, even if he shows that certain norms are not rationally derived from certain absolute truths, doing so will not show that those norms might be derived from other absolute truths that are simply unknown.

3. And even if *all* existing and previous social norms can be shown not to be rationally derivable from any absolute truths, that still doesn't prove that absolute truths don't exist.

4. But the most fatal flaw of Foucault's argument is the contradictory nature of his conclusion. In order for his conclusion, that we should embark on self-creation (whatever that is), to be good advice, it must itself constitute a truth. Another way to look at it is this: (1) if it is not true that we should embark on self-creation, then Foucalt is wrong; (2) if it is true, he is also wrong.

 

[dopey]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Why do you presume I'm unfamiliar with postmodernism? If you'd like, rebut my existing arguments, or make your own, and I will attempt to rebut those. Let's take Foucault's genealogical analysis as a starting point: he argues that an examination of existing and past norms reveals that they were not rationally derived from absolute truths, and thus, we should not pretend as if absolute truths exist, and we should each attempt to 'self-create' rather than be bound by the norms of our time and place. This is a bad argument for lots of reasons: 1. Any analysis of the connection between social norms and absolute truths will necessarily depend on inferences as to individual psychology. Human psychology being as hazy as it is, such inferences aren't very useful for proving facts about the external world. 2. Moreover, even if he shows that certain norms are not rationally derived from certain absolute truths, doing so will not show that those norms might be derived from other absolute truths that are simple unknown. 3. And even if *all* existing and previous social norms can be shown not to be rationally derivable from any absolute truths, that still doesn't prove that absolute truths don't exist. 4. But the most fatal flaw of Foucault's argument is the contradictory nature of his conclusion. In order for his conclusion, that we should embark on self-creation (whatever that is), to be good advice, it must itself constitute a truth. Another way to look at it is this: (1) if it is not true that we should embark on self-creation, then Foucalt is wrong; (2) if it is true, he is also wrong.
yeah!! How come Focault never heard of Epimenides?

 

[james_timothy]

Originally Posted by bluemagic

I think mafoofan knows about this way of thinking, but chooses not to believe in it. I do believe in it.
It's just another tool in the analysis of reality. Far more damaging to the idea of absolute truths than Focault is epistemology- how we know what we know. Mix that in with quantum mechanics and the idea of absolute, out there, hard as a rock truths is in some difficulty. Why this is an issue I don't know- the existence of shared societal absolute truths, like the Constitution, then becomes as remarkable as it really should be. And the Enlightenment regains some of its shine.

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by james_timothy

It's just another tool in the analysis of reality.

Just a quick note to say that I am watching both Achilles and the tortoise.

Tortoise is in the lead. Will keep you guys updated.


- B

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Why do you presume I'm unfamiliar with postmodernism? If you'd like, rebut my existing arguments, or make your own, and I will attempt to rebut those.

Let's take Foucault's genealogical analysis as a starting point: he argues that an examination of existing and past norms reveals that they were not rationally derived from absolute truths, and thus, we should not pretend as if absolute truths exist, and we should each attempt to 'self-create' rather than be bound by the norms of our time and place.

This is a bad argument for lots of reasons:

1. Any analysis of the connection between social norms and absolute truths will necessarily depend on inferences as to individual psychology. Human psychology being as hazy as it is, such inferences aren't very useful for proving facts about the external world. Heck, inferences as to human psychology aren't very useful for proving facts about human psychology.

2. Moreover, even if he shows that certain norms are not rationally derived from certain absolute truths, doing so will not show that those norms might be derived from other absolute truths that are simply unknown.

3. And even if *all* existing and previous social norms can be shown not to be rationally derivable from any absolute truths, that still doesn't prove that absolute truths don't exist.

4. But the most fatal flaw of Foucault's argument is the contradictory nature of his conclusion. In order for his conclusion, that we should embark on self-creation (whatever that is), to be good advice, it must itself constitute a truth. Another way to look at it is this: (1) if it is not true that we should embark on self-creation, then Foucalt is wrong; (2) if it is true, he is also wrong.

Once again you focus on what you wanted to say and not what I told you, did you prepare that quote in advance? Don't debate it with me, check out many postmodernist authors and read what THEY have to say, you'll see they're a diverse bunch and, like every damn philosopher, they contradict themselves at some point, especially as their views change.

 

[dopey]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Once again you focus on what you wanted to say and not what I told you, did you prepare that quote in advance? Don't debate it with me, check out many postmodernist authors and read what THEY have to say, you'll see they're a diverse bunch and, like every damn philosopher, they contradict themselves at some point, especially as their views change.

Yeah! Can I get a witness?

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by dopey

Yeah! Can I get a witness?

Achilles now in the lead. Rather surprising, really.


- B

 

[dopey]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Achilles now in the lead. Rather surprising, really.


- B

Watching them go at it reminds me of this

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by dopey

Watching them go at it reminds me of this

I'm not "going at it" though, I don't need to be the champion of a whole part of western philosophy, it speaks for itself properly and you can discard it if you want or read it if you really wanna see what's up. I'm not going to reduce that to two guys posting on a clothing forum, it's doing a disservice to us both and to anyone reading.

 

[dopey]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

I'm not "going at it" though, I don't need to be the champion of a whole part of western philosophy, it speaks for itself properly and you can discard it if you want or read it if you really wanna see what's up. I'm not going to reduce that to two guys posting on a clothing forum, it's doing a disservice to us both and to anyone reading.
In my pants

 

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Once again you focus on what you wanted to say and not what I told you, did you prepare that quote in advance? Don't debate it with me, check out many postmodernist authors and read what THEY have to say, you'll see they're a diverse bunch and, like every damn philosopher, they contradict themselves at some point, especially as their views change.

Look, if you want to question what I've said, feel free, and we can talk about it. Is my account of Foucalt mistaken? Are my counterarguments bad? Is Foucalt irrelevant? At this point, you're just dismissing what I say without answering it, and then falling back on the insinuation that I just don't know enough.

I have no doubt that you are more familiar with the various postmodernist thinkers than I, which is precisely why I imagine you'd be exceptionally ready to rebut a general critique of postmodernism. As I understand it, postmodernism (in all its iterations) rests on the premise that absolute truths either don't exist or are otherwise unavailable. Now, if that's a wrong perception, I'm ready to be corrected. Otherwise, that's enough to understand why postmodernism is ultimately a bad philosophy: it cannot make normative conclusions without contradicting its most fundamental assumption.

As a side matter, I don't think that someone more couched in a theory is necessarily better able to critique it. Sometimes, it takes an outsider to provide perspective. For example, I am probably not the best person to ask to critique law & economics since I learned everything in law school within that framework. For me, law is law & economics. So far, it appears that everything you've said has been very much within the framework of postmodernism.

 

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Just a quick note to say that I am watching both Achilles and the tortoise.

Tortoise is in the lead. Will keep you guys updated.

Who's who? Am I the turtle? Why are you calling me a turtle?

 

[eg1]

At the risk of paraphrasing a repugnant thug, whenever I hear of postmodernism ... I release the safety-catch of my Browning.

Metaphorically, you understand -- I don't actually have a Browning, let alone any gun, being a suburban Canadian and all ...

 

[Lel]

So when comes the mafoofan/Thom Browne/Tom Ford/Black suit thread that will bring about the inevitable doom of MC?

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Who's who? Am I the turtle? Why are you calling me a turtle?

Turtle > water.

Tortoise > land.

Achilles > Hector's corpse.


- B