Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Lumpy-Passenger-1986 t1_ispyhdy wrote

I suppose it depends on your interpretation of the truth. I for one don’t view societal expectations as truth because each society has different truths, and thus no one will ever know which truth is “THE TRUTH”. It may also depend on spiritual belief. If you don’t believe there is a higher power, than maybe there is no truth. Each society creates their list of rights and wrongs yet no society is right or wrong because it doesn’t matter. If you do believe in a higher power, than the truth may only come from them, and no one will actually know the actual truth until they meet their maker.

1

Maker623 t1_isq03hd wrote

"If you don’t believe there is a higher power, than maybe there is no truth." But then you'd be saying the truth is that there is no truth. I agree that no one can know for sure all aspects of THE TRUTH, I think it's just easier to focus on objective reality, like the exuberant list I mentioned in my post (trees, heat, stars, etc). Imagine society if everyone had different interpretations of everything in existence.... We'd all be dead tomorrow "nuclEar exploSions will give Us iMMortaLity!"

1

Lumpy-Passenger-1986 t1_isqcr02 wrote

It’s a paradox I suppose. If the truth is that their is no truth. It’s the same thing. The statement in itself can’t be proven true or false because it is both true and false. If we are talking very literally, than if everyone sees a different truth than either nothing would happen because no one could agree on anything, or anything and everything could happen. As for objective reality, for some people even reality isn’t reality. The philosophical idea of solipsism is the idea that the only thing that you can be certain truly exists is your own mind. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I believe that, but it’s an interesting thought that there are people that are not sure anything is true or real, even their own body. I guess that because the idea of truth can be subjective, anything or nothing could be any truth of any kind depending on your point of view.

1

Maker623 t1_isqjvr4 wrote

"I guess that because the idea of truth can be subjective, anything or nothing could be any truth of any kind depending on your point of view."

I know some people think this way, but truly if society functioned on these beliefs, then everything we know would cease to operate. Courtrooms, marriages, nuclear power plants, you know.

"here's a video, photo, dna test, and witnesses all proving you committed the crime"

"all wrong"

"and your evidence to prove this?"

"it's my truth, and mine is just as valid as yours..."

"wow! well then, have a nice day! :) "

​

Or the classic :

"I'm a 9ft tall, 300 year old Martian from Uranus!"

"umm no, you're Bob. We've been friends for years"

"My truth is just as valid as yours >:( "

"oh, well hi Martian!"

​

​

What's your belief on Postmodernism, do you support it fully, partially, or reject?

1

Angryleprechaum t1_isrks3y wrote

The truth is like ice cream. You eat what you like and ignore the consequences, because after all it’s just ice cream. Some cultures like different ice creams than others, and that doesn’t mean any particular ice cream is better. Sure, you’d like to say the ice cream with cyanide in it is worse ice cream in some sort of objective sense. But you cant, because its ice cream

1

Lumpy-Passenger-1986 t1_istkwb7 wrote

I guess my stance on post modernism is complicated. I agree with it to an extent, but looking at it as a realist I can only comment based on how I see the world working. Your arguments make many valid points, but you look at them from a viewpoint where the ideology is trying to exist in the overall societal thought process. If our society was built off of the beliefs of post modernism instead of what it actually was built off of, than it all could work very well because we as humans would redirect how we understand things based on those beliefs. Basically we could have adapted. But because post modernism is clashing with modern beliefs of society, it’s seems more likely to be ridiculous. It’s like objectivism. People say objectivists can’t live in the real world, and that’s not entirely true. They have a hard time living in the world that we created, and thus must try to live like that against the majority. If time had been different and somehow the founding fathers had decided to build the USA with a different philosophy in mind, it could have been just as successful as people imagined. So I guess I have a question for you now. Do your views and beliefs line up with overall society? Because if they came from and were influenced by said society, than that society’s truth is your truth. But In my mind, this does not make it the absolute truth. And as long as there are even just a few people who believe differently than the only logic post modernism defies is YOUR logic. Because there is no absolute truth and we as humans will most likely never know as we can only comprehend so much, than logic itself could also be questioned and argued with. Please know that I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with you because as we both agreed, we will never actually know who is right or wrong. Now from a purely scientific perspective (assuming it is 100% accurate and is hypothetically speaking the ABSOLUTE TRUTH) than post modernism makes absolutely no sense. But from a perspective based off of beliefs, ideology, and knowing that you don’t really have THE TRUTH, than the arguments made hold enough weight for me to take it somewhat seriously from an interest standpoint.

1

Gentlerwiserfree t1_it24zf2 wrote

“You are Bob” = “Your name is Robert Smith. You were born 35 years ago in Alabama, and you were 25 before you ever met someone from outside the state. When you were in high school, you heard a genre of music you friends didn’t listen to, for the first time. You liked it. When you tried to share it with your friends, they beat you up. When you were a kid, you didn’t really like football all that much, but social norms say you’re not valid if you don’t like football. So you forced yourself to pretend you like it. Your friends still bring up that “crazy Chinese song” you showed them that one time 20 years ago, and make fun of it, adding more and more racist caricatures about Chinese people to the story year after year (when the song was actually Korean).

You know you can’t leave Alabama, because no one from your town can. Everyone believes this, believes they’re better off staying, believes that anyone who wants to leave is crazy, a traitor. Your parents wouldn’t let you go to college. You ended up following in the same sort of aimless jobs they did their whole lives. Nothing around you excites you — not like the videos you watch online, in secret. If anyone knew about them, you’d never be able to show your face outside again. Society teaches you to be ashamed of sex, though your male friends are always sharing sexual videos and saying abusive things about women, and their wives are forced to put up with it, because their mothers told them that the only alternative is to be single, and that’s the worst thing ever. But your videos aren’t even sexual, so why are you ashamed? They’re just different types of music that your friends don’t understand. Places in the world that you can’t travel to, because you’re stuck in Alabama. Documentaries about interesting things that happened in history, in distant parts of the world. Why is it wrong to like these? Why should they hurt you for it?

You don’t know why. You just know that they will.

You just know that it’s wrong for Bob from Alabama to want to travel to Poland or Peru. You know that it’s wrong for Bob from Alabama to like music from Korea or Romania. You know that it’s wrong to want to wear colors besides grey. You know that it’s wrong to not want to watch football. It’s wrong to drink wine instead of beer, or to not drink at all.

All of these things that don’t seem wrong… well, they aren’t wrong objectively. They’re just wrong for you because you were born as Bob in Alabama.

And you’ve been taught by your town all along that these things are not for you.”

“Well, I’m actually not Bob from Alabama” is one attempt at breaking free from those limits.

And it’s not necessarily a bad one.

Moving to another city and changing your name, and lying about where you’re from does not necessarily mean perjuring yourself if it comes to that.

(See also — about a billion crime dramas where the red herring is the smooth, well-set, probably mafia-tied businessman whose lies have nothing to do with the crime at hand — what he’s really trying to hide is that until two years ago, he was Bob from Alabama.)

Making an online persona where you can live a different life is also not a bad outlet, though it doesn’t solve the real issue.

The real issue is that it is okay for that person to want to do those things, no matter where they were born.

And obviously, that’s a mild example.

1

Gentlerwiserfree t1_it22txo wrote

None of them is “the truth”, every society is one limited perspective. To get a full, three-dimensional view, you have to combine them all, and discover even more views, that were never enshrined as anyone’s culture. Parable of the elephant.

1