I’m not sure if this’ll answer your questions but po/mo is really a species of nominalism. That is to say, the philosophical position that the classification of entities through language is an arbitrary articulation of sign to signifier. In other words, there are no universals. For po/mo, it’s not so much that perception shapes language but rather that language determines perception. Where ideologies or interests fit in - they’re inescapable according to po/mo and any truth is going to be coloured accordingly (and thus local or partial).

Your position is more akin to a phenomenological one - ie we’re thrown into a world constructed by language and our own iterations of language shift its meaning imperceptibly while combining to create a shared meaning that will go on after we’re gone, though not in a frozen way. But a phenomenologist would argue that there are truths outside the ideological/interest framed worldview - but we can only see them in retrospect. In other words, history is open and at the moment we make a choice we don’t know how it will turn out. But our fate is to choose.

That’s probably not particularly responsive - it’s a bit difficult to do that with highly abstract epistemological/ontological discussions.

In pomo isn’t truth dynamic? And is dependent on perception at a static point and is therefore reletive truth and not ultimate truth. How can there be an absoute truth with a moving target?

And isn’t perception reactive regarding circumstance(culture/availible opinion/personal influence/motivation x time)?

And btw lanuage is dependent on perception e.g. circumstance (culture/available and personael opinion x time(sorry 2 repeat myself I’m figuring this as I go)). And thus a really a clumsy vechile to express ideas.

Then with each change of circumsatnce truth changes. Which is why it gets hijacked by vested interests. At which point morals/standards/values can be included into the mix.

The question is if ultimate truth exists is it like the old world navigation maps and we find we won’t really fall off the edge of the world, or will we never reach it.

Personally I don’t think we’re capable of expanding our thought that far.

Cheers
Moriarti

It is important to acknowledge how social, gender, political etc influences affect what we believe. But at the same time that doesn’t always mean that because some has a contrary position that it is valid. If someone tries to tell me that the Sun’s energy is not the result of thermonuclear reactions then I have good reason to think they are an idiot.

That is not to say science is privileged knowledge or immune from social influence but there are good reasons why what we think we know is close to the mark. And as I’ve taken this off on a tangent my closing remark is the Eels by 13 + over the Panthers.

This is more something that was covered earlier in your post:

“Levy states that while we can’t criticize the notions of honour that are part of the Islamic moral system we can ask its practitioners to justify the form it takes. Defenders of Islamic practices cite perceived differences in intelligence between men and women, the importance of preserving the family unit, that women can’t control their emotions and the sexual power that women have over men. These are the reasons used to justify Islamic subjugation of women. But as Levy points out, the reasons have little or no empirical justification. Levy states that “.. the justifications that we offer for our ethical systems had better be broad and as deep as our science, our psychology and our philosophy allow.”

The point is if a moral system appeals to but lacks solid empirical foundation it can be criticized.”

Of which I have no problem with. I dont so much think you cant criticise anything - you can say you think someone or something is wrong and why you think so, obviously. Just that something cant be definately wrong, you just think its wrong and you are entitled to that opinion, as is someone who takes a contrary position.

What say you Mr White?

A summary of Neil Levy’s views using Kate’s comments on the curse and blessing on relativism as a starting point is now up at my abode.

I was speaking in general terms, like the rest of you may believe there is good and evil, and even so pomo/rel isnt bad.

“Unless you want to disappear up your own subjectivist orifice, you do accept that there is a real world beyond your senses, and that truth exists, even if only in the form of natural laws.”

That was kinda what I meant when I said that the human mind cant handle a completely relativistic platform - you have to accept some stuff, but you have to be able to change them too if necessary, like if its somehow proven that water does not boil at 100C, etc.

“IMHO PoMo also tends to attract the worst kind of intellectual charlatan and onanistic neologist, but that‚Äôs not a problem with the theory so much as its followers.”

Yeah, its the people that use it and how they use it that are the problem.

Nic, if you’re a postmodern relativist there is no good or evil!

Gaby, two points:

To take your example, the raw facts about income are objective in my terms and in yours I take it. But for me, so are any events, processes, states of affairs that depend on such “brute” facts, provided relevant tokens of the former categories objectively and independently exist. To me, this case is clearly analogous to that of “electron” or any other theoretical entities the existence of which a scientific realist would allow.

I don’t see how you reason from your first point to your second, given that I can either deny or affirm that classes exist based on the same “brute” facts.

I don‚Äôt think it is correct to say that because we are dependent on perception, our perception “is inherently unobjective” as Kate wants to argue or, to similar effect, as you seem to me to be arguing, that because our language is needed to formulate concepts and names to describe and explain the world this renders it “unobjective” in a relevant ontological sense.

Because language is a shifting and constructed phenomenon and the contexts and concepts are contestable, and are contested.

Kate, Levy (IIRC) does use the subjugation of women under Islam as an example. I’ll try and find the book and summarise Levy’s conclusions sometime this evening. I found the book very interesting as Levy does contrast and explore both relativist and absolute positions through the book.

There’s a quote from one of the grand-daddies of cultural studies which says “what good is cultural studies when people are dying of AIDs?” (I can’t think of his name and I can’t be assed going through my notes). Po-mo raises the same question in me — what good is theory when people are dying in wars and of starvation?

Seriously, though I’ve studied post-modernist writings (not in great depth, more as an adjunct to communication studies), I don’t deny others selfhood, or agency, for example, and I do think there are objective facts that one cannot deny. There is this thing called gravity, there is income disparity in Australia, right now, my dog is sitting on my foot.

However, I do believe that the WAY we know things is not an objective process, and that language isn’t just a transparent signs system but one that shapes the way we perceive the world. Your perception of something is not the same as the thing itself.

It may be solpsistic to state that “I am the only I that I can experiece” or however you want to put it, but to deny that each human being experiences the world uniquely and that we can only ever imagine, not actually KNOW exactly what’s going on in someone else’s head, seems pretty obvious. As a child I always wondered if others perceived colours the same way I did — the simple fact of colour-blindness made me wonder if we all perceive colours differently, and hence, my view of the world was unique and different to everyone else’s. That’s an amazing thought, to me, that each person in the world not only experiences the world but helps create it in their own mind.

Anyway, Gaby, I don’t think we disagree, I think we’re just coming to same point from different directions.

Now, a contrarian perspective. As a feminist, po-mo is undeniably problematic because it can be used to effectively deny some of the political aims of feminists. Feminism isn’t just an academic discourse; it’s a political project which aims to dismantle control mechanisms that oppress women and children (and men, too). Po-mo can really undermine any attempt by women to improve their own and others real living conditions.

In this way, relativism is both a blessing and a curse. I say, well, I don’t believe that Muslims have the wrong end of the stick and they have the right to practise their religion how they want. But I do believe the subjugation of women under Islam is a bad thing. Where does that leave me?

I guess this all begs the question; where does one’s moral code come from? Majikthise had an interesting post on moral relativism a while back, and concluded that it’s pretty much a bunk position, that everyone has some sort of code that they apply.

I do mostly agree with you, Fydor, that science and philosophy need to be in search of absolutes. It’s worth remembering that scientists often claim to be objective, but often are not — remember all thos bunk studies in the early C20th that tried to prove that black people had smaller brains? Ah, you say, that’s not real science! Nooo, but investigating potential biases and ideological positions, and this tricky question of “who is the I doing this rsearch/writing etc etc” and questioning all human endeavours can help us untangle the absolutes from the bull****.

OK, time for a cuppa.

Do you think the existence of a force called gravity has been proven beyond doubt? Do you think water boils at 100C at sea level? Shall I reel off other stuff that science tells us is true, subject to the usual Popperian caveats?

Unless you want to disappear up your own subjectivist orifice, you do accept that there is a real world beyond your senses, and that truth exists, even if only in the form of natural laws.

Why are PoMo and relativism bad? I don’t think they’re inherently evil, but there is a good argument that adoption of a relativist mindset discourages the search for truth and absolutes, which should be a fundamental objective of science and philosophy. IMHO PoMo also tends to attract the worst kind of intellectual charlatan and onanistic neologist, but that’s not a problem with the theory so much as its followers.

There’s been some good discussion on the subject of science and knowledge over @ catallaxy.

As a result there are no “moral absolutes”, or absolutes of any other nature, only what society and individuals construct for themselves, the viability of each can be debated in an attempt to find the best possible solution. Society decides something because a critical mass of well-placed people come to an agreement, or because public opinion changes the culture, either by the affect of these well-placed people, or the other way round.

To me, it is to believe that everything is an interpretation or an opinion, and that though facts exist, they are always open to scrutiny. Believing these facts is all very well, but blind acceptance without challeging and question it from as many angles as possible is dangerous. It is the belief that no matter how certain you are about something, there is always a possibility that you may be wrong, no matter how negligeable, and they you must be prepared to be flexible should you realise your mistake. It is the ability to see actions and ideas not as themselves, but as being different and meaning different things depending on the circumstances. There is no good and no evil, there is no black and no white, there are only shades of gray.

The human mind cannot propperly function on purely relativistic platform, so some artificial “absolutes” must be created. The difference is that the nature of these are in such a way as they are much more basic and much less numerous than those with an absolutist platform. And, critically, they are open to change. Flexibility and adaptability are paramount.

I find it very difficult to explain and convey this, even to myself, and suspect it will take me a significant portion of my life to figure it all out, so this is by no means an especially coherent comment.

Ill gladly discuss this, but wont respond to anyone using the words “torture” or “Iraq”.

Objectively speaking, I’m too knackered to make sense in response so I’m also off to bed. Hope to respond properly soon.

Some of the things that exist are matters studied by the social sciences. These too are objective in the above sense and in a way no different from physical or biological things, processes or states of affairs. This allows supervenient or emergent properties.

Applying this to your example of “class” as a “social” fact, means that it can be studied as such. Of course, since class is not a natural kind, the meaning of “class” depends on conscious decision, Further, this name may not refer to anything because the thing referred to just does not exist. “Unicorn” is a banal example. “Anomie” could be another.

I also want to rigorously distinguish ontic, epistemic and semantic (truth) issues. I think that modern philosophical naturalism more than adequately deals with routes to various “anti-realisms” by way of epistemology (like Kant did) or by way of the philosophy of language (say like Whorf). Australian philosophers have made substantial contributions to the advances of philosophical naturalism.

To take your example, the raw facts about income are objective in my terms and in yours I take it. But for me, so are any events, processes, states of affairs that depend on such “brute” facts, provided relevant tokens of the former categories objectively and independently exist. To me, this case is clearly analogous to that of “electron” or any other theoretical entities the existence of which a scientific realist would allow.

I don’t think it is correct to say that because we are dependent on perception, our perception “is inherently unobjective” as Kate wants to argue or, to similar effect, as you seem to me to be arguing, that because our language is needed to formulate concepts and names to describe and explain the world this renders it “unobjective” in a relevant ontological sense.