|
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Don't want to be pissing anyone off here, but I've always thought of existentialism as a lot of bollocks. I mean, the idea itself has some merit, but it's been twisted and distorted far too often in order to qualify unprovable theories or notions using the relativist fallacy. |
Well I was speaking more of postmodernism/poststructuralism
| quote: | | The word "table" may be a human creation, but no matter what you call it, it's still a table in the physical sense. Changing its name doesn't change what it is. |
I was suggesting it was constantly undergoing construction, rather than "created". A table to you is slightly different to a table to me. Of course there must be some consensus other wise communication would be impossible/pointless.
| quote: | | Science may be full of "subjective" definitions and terms, but it's still based on observable behaviour, and that behaviour doesn't change no matter how the science is applied. One might say that the birth of quantum physics proved classical physics "wrong", but that's not correct; classical physics still perfectly explains physical behaviour on a macro scale, which is exactly what the science was intended to do. Quantum mechanics just explains how classical mechanics work on a subatomic level, it doesn't show up classical mechanics as "subjective" or prove it to be any less "true." |
Scientific discourse is far less objective than it first appears. I had some great material on this I'll dig it up later
| quote: | | Maybe that example seems irrelevant, but my point is, it's easy to get caught up in semantics about truth, but simply stated, the difference between objective and subjective truth is exactly what you'd expect: objective truth is based on the object, subjective truth is based on the subject (i.e. yourself). I think it's stretching it a bit to say that only the most ignorant people think an objective truth exists. |
But objects don't exist in a vacuum and when we observe them we inevitably impose our own definitions on them and construct them.
| quote: | | Deeply philosophical topics are supposed to be debated with accepted logical principles, not used to trivialize them. Unfortunately, certain topics seem to exist for the sole purpose of defying common logic... |
Just to play devil's advocate... are you sugesting science can be used to asess philosophy, yet philosophy can't be used to analyse science?
Again... I highly value logic and science and usually approach arguments from that direction... but i have recently begun to see some value in the postmodern paradigm.... Just provoking some thought (aka stirring up shit)
___________________
"my son will be a gienues(sp?)" - Originally posted by Googooly
"many species of bear give blowjobs." - Originally posted by Sunsnail.. NOW CONFIRMED BY PHOTO EVIDENCE!
"astroboy is brave and gentle and wise." - Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
"ew! i wouldn't go anywhere near a homeless dudes butthole... not even if i was sodomizing him with a poison ivy cactus dildo" - Originally posted by lücid
"also can someone post the link to my mom's forum, thank you!" - Originally posted by miamitrance04
"dude man its not me its what the world does to me. Trust me I'm a normal person people just constantly fuck with me." Originally posted by ********
"I can see Lira getting a hard-on already. And believe me, Brazilian ass rape is the worst." - Originally posted by Meat187
|