Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11299
Still unclear on this. When we had a real Civil War the participants were bound by defined geographical territories and wore uniforms. How am I supposed to know who I am supposed to be fighting?
In our post-modern world where every person is their own source of truth and condemns all who don't think as 'myself', you will be fighting everyone.
Yes, of course that is correct.Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:55 am By the way, in that "bipartisan" wargaming group... call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure it was John Podesta's group who said that if the Democrats lost the West Coast would secede and there would be large-scale "street violence."
I'm glad you used the word "post-modern". That word / phrase had confused me for decades!Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:47 amIn our post-modern world where every person is their own source of truth and condemns all who don't think as 'myself', you will be fighting everyone.
I've never understood postmodernism either. Best I can tell it means things don't need to make sense any more.yankees60 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:09 amI'm glad you used the word "post-modern". That word / phrase had confused me for decades!Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:47 amIn our post-modern world where every person is their own source of truth and condemns all who don't think as 'myself', you will be fighting everyone.
If you look at the post above you, the word "modern" was used. And, it was used in the context in the exact same way I have always thought it meant -- "current".
Therefore, if "modern' means current, present, now.....how can we ever NOT be in the present or now?
Vinny
https://www.britannica.com/topic/postmo ... philosophypp4me wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:37 amI've never understood postmodernism either. Best I can tell it means things don't need to make sense any more.yankees60 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:09 amI'm glad you used the word "post-modern". That word / phrase had confused me for decades!Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:47 amIn our post-modern world where every person is their own source of truth and condemns all who don't think as 'myself', you will be fighting everyone.
If you look at the post above you, the word "modern" was used. And, it was used in the context in the exact same way I have always thought it meant -- "current".
Therefore, if "modern' means current, present, now.....how can we ever NOT be in the present or now?
Vinny
In other words, the definition could have stayed exactly the way it is except using a different title for it rather than the confusing POST-modern? The definition nowhere explains how one gets to a point wherein we now no longer live in the present. Wouldn't a better title have been to fit the title have been: "post-objectivism" or "anti-objectivism". I just don't see anything in the definition that says that we no longer live in the now, which would seem to somehow go against one of Einstein's ideas regarding his theory of relativity?Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:36 pmhttps://www.britannica.com/topic/postmo ... philosophypp4me wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:37 amI've never understood postmodernism either. Best I can tell it means things don't need to make sense any more.yankees60 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:09 amI'm glad you used the word "post-modern". That word / phrase had confused me for decades!Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:47 amIn our post-modern world where every person is their own source of truth and condemns all who don't think as 'myself', you will be fighting everyone.
If you look at the post above you, the word "modern" was used. And, it was used in the context in the exact same way I have always thought it meant -- "current".
Therefore, if "modern' means current, present, now.....how can we ever NOT be in the present or now?
Vinny
A few brief excerpts:
Postmodernism, also spelled post-modernism, in Western philosophy, a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.
The descriptive and explanatory statements of scientists and historians can, in principle, be objectively true or false. The postmodern denial of this viewpoint—which follows from the rejection of an objective natural reality—is sometimes expressed by saying that there is no such thing as Truth.
Postmodernists deny that there are aspects of reality that are objective; that there are statements about reality that are objectively true or false; that it is possible to have knowledge of such statements (objective knowledge); that it is possible for human beings to know some things with certainty; and that there are objective, or absolute, moral values. Reality, knowledge, and value are constructed by discourses; hence they can vary with them. This means that the discourse of modern science, when considered apart from the evidential standards internal to it, has no greater purchase on the truth than do alternative perspectives, including (for example) astrology and witchcraft.
In the 1980s and ’90s, academic advocates on behalf of various ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious groups embraced postmodern critiques of contemporary Western society, and postmodernism became the unofficial philosophy of the new movement of “identity politics.”
Of course we can only live in the now. But that is a truth statement. A postmodernist might disagree, and if you were a postmodernist you could not agree with his statement or you would suddenly have become a modernist - or premodernist.
I'm not at disagreeing with their right to come up with some philosophy as to how they believe. I'm disagreeing with the imprecision of their words. Do they first repudiate the commonly accepted definition of the word "modern"? After all of this I need to see if it still means what I think that it means. And, it still means what I have always thought that it means: "relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past."Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:14 pmOf course we can only live in the now. But that is a truth statement. A postmodernist might disagree, and if you were a postmodernist you could not agree with his statement or you would suddenly have become a modernist - or premodernist.
I think you have it described rather well!yankees60 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 6:08 pmI'm not at disagreeing with their right to come up with some philosophy as to how they believe. I'm disagreeing with the imprecision of their words. Do they first repudiate the commonly accepted definition of the word "modern"? After all of this I need to see if it still means what I think that it means. And, it still means what I have always thought that it means: "relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past."Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:14 pmOf course we can only live in the now. But that is a truth statement. A postmodernist might disagree, and if you were a postmodernist you could not agree with his statement or you would suddenly have become a modernist - or premodernist.
It is not my intention for you to agree with the following (though I think you will)....how we are supposed to then know what any words a "post-modernist" mean when they can create words / phrases that don't align with logic?
Vinny
Pretty much so, yes.
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Yes, thank you! It is the name I'm having problems with. Not commenting at all on the philosophy.Xan wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:42 pm I think Vinny's main point is that it's pretty stupid to use "modern" to describe a particular philosophy. What happens when you then move on to a different philosophy? You end up with something even stupider like "post-modern". I'm not even talking about the philosophies themselves, just the names.
Unless it's part of the post-modern philosophy for words to have no meaning. In which case I'm absolutely criticizing the philosophy.
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
