Help with Post modernist confusion

[enchanted]

I've fallen into the trap of post modernism and have become completely confused for a few months now (ever since Leo's video).

For example, I'm ok with Trump winning (even though I voted for Harris) because his followers simply have other values then me and values are subjective and equal under post-modernism.

Any help with this?

What are the absolutes that post modernism overlooks? Where does post modernism go wrong? 

[mmKay]

https://www.actualized.org/insights/comparing-criminal-indictments

Relativity doesn't hold up in the real world. All values are not equally valid. There are objective metrics that lead towards well-being and prosperity.

You can't claim that you don't mind violence, theft , corruption because everything is relative. When these things affect your personal life, you have serious, clear and predictable preferences.

Post modernism and relativity are only a problem for the mind. In practice not everything is relative. Being a human being comes with clear biases and preferences hence claiming " everything is relative " is delusional.

 

Edited Friday at 03:56 PM by mmKay

[enchanted]

1 minute ago, mmKay said:

https://www.actualized.org/insights/comparing-criminal-indictments

Relativity doesn't hold up in the real world. All values are not equally valid. There are objective metrics that lead towards well-being and prosperity.

You can't claim that you don't mind violence, theft , corruption because everything is relative. When these things affect your personal life, you have serious, clear and predictable preferences.

Post modernism and relativity are only a problem for the mind. In practice not everything is relative. Being. A human being comes with clear biases and preferences hence claiming " everything is relative " is delusional.

 

Great explanation, very helpful. thanks!

[Carl-Richard]

 

10 hours ago, enchanted said:

For example, I'm ok with Trump winning (even though I voted for Harris) because his followers simply have other values then me and values are subjective and equal under post-modernism.

Can you really be OK with Trump winning when it's against your values?

Instead of placing an equal sign between different things, find the things they are compatible with. After all, how do you know the Trump voters' values (and not your own) are compatible with voting for Donald Trump?

Are you assuming they voted for Trump based on some actual concrete values, or are you assuming the mere act of voting must necessarily reflect their values? Regardless, you should be able to see how some things are compatible with other things. Either you see how certain values are compatible with certain actions, or you see how the concept of "value" is compatible with the concept of "action".

Post-modernism doesn't simply put an equal sign between different things. It calls into question certain unquestioned truths by some people (e.g. the universality of some truth claims that may in fact be contextually dependent). But it doesn't erase the fact that truth claims can still apply and carry meaning within their context.

Edited Saturday at 02:03 AM by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

7 hours ago, enchanted said:

I've fallen into the trap of post modernism and have become completely confused for a few months now (ever since Leo's video).

For example, I'm ok with Trump winning (even though I voted for Harris) because his followers simply have other values then me and values are subjective and equal under post-modernism.

 

There are two big different things that usually create the confusion: 

1. Not being clear about what terms like subjective and objective means
2. Not clearing up what a given statement's truth value is depended on (what makes a statement true rather than false or what makes a statement false rather than true).

Its hard to define subjective and objective in a clear way without running into big philosophical problems, but usually to clear up the confusion in most cases (not in edge cases) the following I believe will suffice :

• By objective we usually mean something where a statement is only true if it is aligned with reality - in other words - a given statement is true or false independent from what anyones or any group of agents opinion is about that statement . So for example, the statement "dropping a nuclear bomb on yourself will kill you" is true, regardless, whether you or anyone or any group of agents think it is true or false . Or the statement "Clapping 5 times will instantly manifest 5 million dollars on your bank account" is false, regardless whether you or anyone or any group of agents think it is true or false. 
• By subjective we usually mean something like - a given statement is true or false depending on what an agent's opinion is , or what an agent thinks about that statement.
• There is a third term inter-subjective that also might be useful to bring up, where a given statement is true or false depending on what the consensus opinion is or what the consensus thinks about a given statement. This shouldn't be conflated with objective, because in this case a statment's truth value can change if a given group of people change their opinion about that given thing, but in the case of objective thats not the case.

 

Now that those terms are defined, the second layer of confusion usually comes from not being clear about what a given statement's truth value is indexed to. This is important, especially because one can make objectively true statements about subjective things and on the other hand, one can make subjectively true statements about objective things. One can also make subjectively true statements about subjective things and objectively true statements about objective things.  

I will run through 3 different statements to make it clear how the evaluation is properly done.

Statement  X : "Dropping a nuclear bomb on yourself will kill you"

Statement Y:   "Pizza is delicious" 

Statement Z: "Zurew likes chocolate" 

1. Statement Indexed to subjectivity (indexed to a given agent's opinion/values ):
   •  Statement X:  If the indexed agent's opinion is that it will kill me, then X is true ; but if the agent's opinion is that it won't kill me, then statement X is false (This would be an example of making a subjectively true statement about an objective thing). The trap that people usually  fall in here is that they automatically interpret all statements as if they would be indexed to reality, but thats not the case in this specfic case.   In this specific case we are concerned with a given agent's opinion and not about the reality of nuclear bombs. So again, if the agent in question thinks that it wont kill me, then - statement X  is false.
   • Statement Y: If the agent who evaluates the statement thinks that pizza is delicious then statement Y is true, if the agent's opinion is that pizza isn't delicious then statement Y is false (doesnt matter what any group of people think about pizza, statement Y being true or false is only dependent on the agent who evaluates the statement)
   • Statement Z:  If the agent who evaluates the statement thinks that I (Zurew) like chocolate , then it is true; if the agent who evaluates the statement thinks I don't like chocolate , then it is false. Notice here the trick is that the truth value is dependent on the opinion of the given agent ,on the one who evaluates the statement. So if Bob is the one who evalutes the statement and if he thinks I don't like chocolate (even though I do), then statement Z will be false. We are not concerned with my real opinion is (since the statement isn't indexed to me it is indexed to Bob) - we are concerned about Bob's opinion about my opinion.
2. Statement indexed to inter-subjectivity:
   • Statement X: If statement X is indexed to a given group of people's opinion and their opinion is that it will kill me, then it is true (doesn't matter if I am an outlier and I think it won't kill me , statement X will still be true, because that group of people thinks that it will kill me)  If the same group of people's opinion is that it won't kill me, then statement X is false (its false regardless that in reality it would kill me and regardless if I hold the opinion that it would kill me).
   • Statment Y: If a given group of people (the one who evaluates the statement) think that pizza is delicious then it is true (regardless what a different group of people think about it ), but if they think that pizza is not delicious then statement Y is false regardless if a different group of people thinks otherwise.
   • Statement Z:   In this case we are concerned with  a given group's  opinion about my (Zurew's) opinion. So if a given group of people think that I don't like chocolate (regardless that  in reality I do), then statement Z will be false; if they think that I like chocolate, then statement Z will be true.
3. Statement indexed to reality: 
   • Statement X: will be necessarily true  given that humans have a fragile biology and given the laws of physics. Statement X being true in this case  is independent from all opinions (it will be true regardless what any agent or group of agent think about it; and it will be true even in the scenario where  no agent or group of agent have any opinion on it).
   • Statement Y:   This case is very interesting, because I would say that pizza being delicious isn't truth apt (it cant be true or false). It doesn't have a truth value, because I don't know what delicious means indepedent from all agents. Statement Y is only meaningful if it is indexed to an agent (to an opinion) or to a group of agent (to an opinion that multiple people holds) but not to reality . So value statements cant be indexed to reality, because they are meaningless in that context.
   • Statement Z: Since I actually like chocolate, this statement is true. What we are concerned with in this specific case is making a reality based evaluation about my (Zurew's) preference. Since in reality I like chocolate, this statement is true.

The reason why clearing up indexing is necessary, is because depending on where the index is pointed at , that will change the statement's actual meaning (and by changing the meaning it can possibly change the truth value of the statement as well).

• So for example, engaging with the statement "Trump winning the election is bad". The meaning of that statement under the assumption that  it is indexed to you - means something like "Trump winning the election isn't aligned with enchanted's values" (Notice that I managed to insert something meaningful in the place of the term 'bad'). 
• If the statement "Trump winning the election is bad" is indexed to reality, then I think it is a meaningless statement and I would say that it cant be  true or false (the reason why it is meaningless in this case, is because the term 'bad' doesn't mean anything in and of itself  - it needs to be indexed to something, but since there isn't any 'badness' in reality that could be found, it isn't indexed anywhere).  its similar to saying  "Trump winning the election is gnjudfgjdfgjjgf".Because we dont know the meaning of 'gnjudfgjdfgjjgf' we cant evaluate the statement and we cant say whether it is true or false or whether it is even capable to be true or false.
• If the exact same statement is indexed to a given  value (this is what can be called stance dependence) :  Stance dependence, is when a statement is not indexed to a specific agent or  to a specific group of agents, or to reality,  but it is indexed to a given principle or value regardless if that is hold by any agent) . Lets say that value F is "Electing a felon is bad"- now we can say that with respect to value F , it is true that Trump winning the election is bad. 

Dont forget - as long as the value-statement  isn't indexed to reality, you will be good and it will be compatible with post modernism. If you clarify in what context a given value-statement needs to be evaluated ,then you will be able to have fruitful arguments with people and you don't need to constantly qualify with "but in reality it is neutral, though". So for example, you could say that "murder is bad" with respect to the maximization of love - this is a perfectly okay statement and this doesn't contradict post-modernism. Under the value of love, you don't need to concede that all actions are equally valuable - no, with respect to the value of love - murder, torture is much worse than cooking a meal for someone or giving a hug.

 

Edited Friday at 10:53 PM by zurew

[enchanted]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

What are their values useful for? What are your values useful for? What is Trump winning the election useful for? What is post-modernism useful for? Instead of placing an equal sign between different things, find their referents. 

Interesting thanks

[enchanted]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

 

There are two big different things that usually create the confusion: 

1. Not being clear about what terms like subjective and objective means
2. Not clearing up what a given statement's truth value is depended on (what makes a statement true rather than false or what makes a statement false rather than true).

Its hard to define subjective and objective in a clear way without running into big philosophical problems, but usually to clear up the confusion in most cases (not in edge cases) the following I believe will suffice :

• By objective we usually mean something where a statement is only true if it is aligned with reality - in other words - a given statement is true or false independent from what anyones or any group of agents opinion is about that statement . So for example, the statement "dropping a nuclear bomb on yourself will kill you" is true, regardless, whether you or anyone or any group of agents think it is true or false . Or the statement "Clapping 5 times will instantly manifest 5 million dollars on your bank account" is false, regardless whether you or anyone or any group of agents think it is true or false. 
• By subjective we usually mean something like - a given statement is true or false depending on what an agent's opinion is , or what an agent thinks about that statement.
• There is a third term inter-subjective that also might be useful to bring up, where a given statement is true or false depending on what the consensus opinion is or what the consensus thinks about a given statement. This shouldn't be conflated with objective, because in this case a statment's truth value can change if a given group of people change their opinion about that given thing, but in the case of objective thats not the case.

 

Now that those terms are defined, the second layer of confusion usually comes from not being clear about what a given statement's truth value is indexed to. This is important, especially because one can make objectively true statements about subjective things and on the other hand, one can make subjectively true statements about objective things. One can also make subjectively true statements about subjective things and objectively true statements about objective things.  

I will run through 3 different statements to make it clear how the evaluation is properly done.

Statement  X : "Dropping a nuclear bomb on yourself will kill you"

Statement Y:   "Pizza is delicious" 

Statement Z: "Zurew likes chocolate" 

1. Statement Indexed to subjectivity (indexed to a given agent's opinion/values ):
   •  Statement X:  If the indexed agent's opinion is that it will kill me, then X is true ; but if the agent's opinion is that it won't kill me, then statement X is false (This would be an example of making a subjectively true statement about an objective thing). The trap that people usually  fall in here is that they automatically interpret all statements as if they would be indexed to reality, but thats not the case in this specfic case.   In this specific case we are concerned with a given agent's opinion and not about the reality of nuclear bombs. So again, if the agent in question thinks that it wont kill me, then - statement X  is false.
   • Statement Y: If the agent who evaluates the statement thinks that pizza is delicious then statement Y is true, if the agent's opinion is that pizza isn't delicious then statement Y is false (doesnt matter what any group of people think about pizza, statement Y being true or false is only dependent on the agent who evaluates the statement)
   • Statement Z:  If the agent who evaluates the statement thinks that I (Zurew) like chocolate , then it is true; if the agent who evaluates the statement thinks I don't like chocolate , then it is false. Notice here the trick is that the truth value is dependent on the opinion of the given agent ,on the one who evaluates the statement. So if Bob is the one who evalutes the statement and if he thinks I don't like chocolate (even though I do), then statement Z will be false. We are not concerned with my real opinion is (since the statement isn't indexed to me it is indexed to Bob) - we are concerned about Bob's opinion about my opinion.
2. Statement indexed to inter-subjectivity:
   • Statement X: If statement X is indexed to a given group of people's opinion and their opinion is that it will kill me, then it is true (doesn't matter if I am an outlier and I think it won't kill me , statement X will still be true, because that group of people thinks that it will kill me)  If the same group of people's opinion is that it won't kill me, then statement X is false (its false regardless that in reality it would kill me and regardless if I hold the opinion that it would kill me).
   • Statment Y: If a given group of people (the one who evaluates the statement) think that pizza is delicious then it is true (regardless what a different group of people think about it ), but if they think that pizza is not delicious then statement Y is false regardless if a different group of people thinks otherwise.
   • Statement Z:   In this case we are concerned with  a given group's  opinion about my (Zurew's) opinion. So if a given group of people think that I don't like chocolate (regardless that  in reality I do), then statement Z will be false; if they think that I like chocolate, then statement Z will be true.
3. Statement indexed to reality: 
   • Statement X: will be necessarily true  given that humans have a fragile biology and given the laws of physics. Statement X being true in this case  is independent from all opinions (it will be true regardless what any agent or group of agent think about it; and it will be true even in the scenario where  no agent or group of agent have any opinion on it).
   • Statement Y:   This case is very interesting, because I would say that pizza being delicious isn't truth apt (it cant be true or false). It doesn't have a truth value, because I don't know what delicious means indepedent from all agents. Statement Y is only meaningful if it is indexed to an agent (to an opinion) or to a group of agent (to an opinion that multiple people holds) but not to reality . So value statements cant be indexed to reality, because they are meaningless in that context.
   • Statement Z: Since I actually like chocolate, this statement is true. What we are concerned with in this specific case is making a reality based evaluation about my (Zurew's) preference. Since in reality I like chocolate, this statement is true.

The reason why clearing up indexing is necessary, is because depending on where the index is pointed at , that will change the statement's actual meaning (and by changing the meaning it can possibly change the truth value of the statement as well).

• So for example, engaging with the statement "Trump winning the election is bad". The meaning of that statement under the assumption that  it is indexed to you - means something like "Trump winning the election isn't aligned with enchanted's values" (Notice that I managed to insert something meaningful in the place of the term 'bad'). 
• If the statement "Trump winning the election is bad" is indexed to reality, then I think it is a meaningless statement and I would say that it cant be  true or false (the reason why it is meaningless in this case, is because the term 'bad' doesn't mean anything in and of itself  - it needs to be indexed to something, but since there isn't any 'badness' in reality that could be found, it isn't indexed anywhere).  its similar to saying  "Trump winning the election is gnjudfgjdfgjjgf".Because we dont know the meaning of 'gnjudfgjdfgjjgf' we cant evaluate the statement and we cant say whether it is true or false or whether it is even capable to be true or false.
• If the exact same statement is indexed to a given  value (this is what can be called stance dependence) :  Stance dependence, is when a statement is not indexed to a specific agent or  to a specific group of agents, or to reality,  but it is indexed to a given principle or value regardless if that is hold by any agent) . Lets say that value F is "Electing a felon is bad"- now we can say that with respect to value F , it is true that Trump winning the election is bad. 

Dont forget - as long as the value-statement  isn't indexed to reality, you will be good and it will be compatible with post modernism. If you clarify in what context a given value-statement needs to be evaluated ,then you will be able to have fruitful arguments with people and you don't need to constantly qualify with "but in reality it is neutral, though". So for example, you could say that "murder is bad" with respect to the maximization of love - this is a perfectly okay statement and this doesn't contradict post-modernism. Under the value of love, you don't need to concede that all actions are equally valuable - no, with respect to the value of love - murder, torture is much worse than cooking a meal for someone or giving a hug.

 

Wow. Thanks