When this postmodern “the truth does not exist” bullshit reaches the government, this is what happens. Totalitarianism follows, because people can’t organize against power if they can’t communicate or trust each other under a flood of lies. It is like inflation, but for facts instead of currency.
Conservatives believe that the rejection of the idea of objective truth is in reference to gender identities and the idea that it’s bad to murder people for being the wrong religion and not their willful ignorance of actually provable reality.
Postmodernism is largely a reaction against the intellectual assumptions and values of the modern period in the history of Western philosophy (roughly, the 17th through the 19th century). Indeed, many of the doctrines characteristically associated with postmodernism can fairly be described as the straightforward denial of general philosophical viewpoints that were taken for granted during the 18th-century Enlightenment, though they were not unique to that period. The most important of these viewpoints are the following.
There is an objective natural reality, a reality whose existence and properties are logically independent of human beings—of their minds, their societies, their social practices, or their investigative techniques. Postmodernists dismiss this idea as a kind of naive realism. Such reality as there is, according to postmodernists, is a conceptual construct, an artifact of scientific practice and language. This point also applies to the investigation of past events by historians and to the description of social institutions, structures, or practices by social scientists.
Postmodern philosophy denies naive realism, and with good reason. The fact that reality is socially constructed is a generally accepted truth in sociology and psychology. No serious scientist in the 21st century denies it.
In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.
Several prominent social psychologists have studied naïve realism experimentally, including Lee Ross, Andrew Ward, Dale Griffin, Emily Pronin, Thomas Gilovich, Robert Robinson, and Dacher Keltner. In 2010, the Handbook of Social Psychology recognized naïve realism as one of “four hard-won insights about human perception, thinking, motivation and behavior that … represent important, indeed foundational, contributions of social psychology.”[5]
Many philosophers claim that it is incompatible to accept naïve realism in the philosophy of perception and scientific realism in the philosophy of science. Scientific realism states that the universe contains just those properties that feature in a scientific description of it, which would mean that secondary qualities like color are not real per se, and that all that exists are certain wavelengths which are reflected by physical objects because of their microscopic surface texture.[19]
And many post-modernists reject scientific realism as well, choosing to believe we live in a void made up of pop-science understandings of the observer effect and other forms of mystical thought.
I’m going to pretend you didn’t just build a strawman, and pretend you accurately described postmodernist beliefs, and tell you many scientists and epistemologists also believe what I’m pretending you described.
The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition
Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Both Fascists and Nazis worshiped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
Guess who said this:
“Works of art which cannot be understood in themselves but need some pretentious instruction book to justify their existence will never again find their way to the German people.”
21st century fascism (ok, I’ll call it neofascism to distinguish it from historical fascism) incorporates postmodern elements to distract and divide, it adjusted to new media, internet and social media. TV and radio was one-to-many, so fascists just needed one narrative. Now they want you to get lost in the pretentious instruction book and bickering whether elon’s nazi salute was a nazi salute or not…
Anyway, what I’m saying is I think Habermas’ approach to communication is very useful and Rorty’s pretty useless to making sense of the world. But you can probably combine them both by using different methodologies to try to come to a conclusion about the truth, instead of just saying “the truth does not exist” and agree to disagree.
Which sources do you want, like examples? You know the examples. Something happens that goes against their schizo editorial line: either they find another scandal to distract from it, or they find the one expert that can twist the story to make it look good (e.g. climate deniers, antivaxxers)? They may produce an artificial controversy to pretend that there is disagreement among them. Multiple contradictory narratives aimed at different subaudiences that disagree with each other and plain manufactured stories…but I don’t watch it that much.
And since I don’t know who I’m talking to, there is no point in investing too much time into this. But if you read Habermas and Rorty, you could try to see what I mean…or not… :)
When this postmodern “the truth does not exist” bullshit reaches the government, this is what happens. Totalitarianism follows, because people can’t organize against power if they can’t communicate or trust each other under a flood of lies. It is like inflation, but for facts instead of currency.
If fascism is when postmodernism, how come fascists hate postmodernism?
because they didn’t control the lies.
Postmodernism is lies?
sometimes
Source?
reality.
Sounds to me like you’re the one telling lies
reality disagrees
“alternative facts”
Conservatives believe that the rejection of the idea of objective truth is in reference to gender identities and the idea that it’s bad to murder people for being the wrong religion and not their willful ignorance of actually provable reality.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/postmodernism-philosophy
Postmodern philosophy denies naive realism, and with good reason. The fact that reality is socially constructed is a generally accepted truth in sociology and psychology. No serious scientist in the 21st century denies it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism_(psychology)
And many post-modernists reject scientific realism as well, choosing to believe we live in a void made up of pop-science understandings of the observer effect and other forms of mystical thought.
I’m going to pretend you didn’t just build a strawman, and pretend you accurately described postmodernist beliefs, and tell you many scientists and epistemologists also believe what I’m pretending you described.
Okay buddy post-reality 👍
Do they? e.g. putin loves it.
Guess who said this:
21st century fascism (ok, I’ll call it neofascism to distinguish it from historical fascism) incorporates postmodern elements to distract and divide, it adjusted to new media, internet and social media. TV and radio was one-to-many, so fascists just needed one narrative. Now they want you to get lost in the pretentious instruction book and bickering whether elon’s nazi salute was a nazi salute or not…
Anyway, what I’m saying is I think Habermas’ approach to communication is very useful and Rorty’s pretty useless to making sense of the world. But you can probably combine them both by using different methodologies to try to come to a conclusion about the truth, instead of just saying “the truth does not exist” and agree to disagree.
Can you explain how Fox News is postmodern using sources?
Which sources do you want, like examples? You know the examples. Something happens that goes against their schizo editorial line: either they find another scandal to distract from it, or they find the one expert that can twist the story to make it look good (e.g. climate deniers, antivaxxers)? They may produce an artificial controversy to pretend that there is disagreement among them. Multiple contradictory narratives aimed at different subaudiences that disagree with each other and plain manufactured stories…but I don’t watch it that much.
And since I don’t know who I’m talking to, there is no point in investing too much time into this. But if you read Habermas and Rorty, you could try to see what I mean…or not… :)
Okay, now provide a source that, say, twisting news stories to look good is a part of postmodernist philosophy.