'Postmodernism' as Existential Threat.

[constant escape]

so the move is, politically, as a power struggle. against the formulation of universalism, as cover

Yeah so one argument would be for a minimally partisan universalism, which is what was mentioned upthread about temperance. Whatever your ideology, seek out ways it can be more informed.

 

[luka]

Yeah so one argument would be for a minimally partisan universalism, which is what was mentioned upthread about temperance. Whatever your ideology, seek out ways it can be more informed.

but this is weak.

 

[constant escape]

And that wouldn't be a universalism, proper. Arguably, it would be a sort of universalist handling of a plurality of truths. Which, if there is any cosmic purchase to the dialectical method, would gradually, if violently, reconcile in one way or the other, toward some kind of equilibrium.

 

[vimothy]

for me all I really have to do to refute universal truth is ask "if it exists, what is it? who decided that's what it is and that it's universal?"

thats an argument that basically says universalism doesnt live up to its own claims to be universal, it's not an argument against universalism as a principle

 

[constant escape]

The fabric would be universal, with a variety of patches that manage to find their optimal integration into the fabric. The values/truths wouldn't necessarily be uniform or held as universal.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

thats an argument that basically says universalism doesnt live up to its own claims to be universal, it's not an argument against universalism as a principle

if universalism isn't universal, how is it different from relativism?

 

[luka]

And that wouldn't be a universalism, proper. Arguably, it would be a sort of universalist handling of a plurality of truths. Which, if there is any cosmic purchase to the dialectical method, would gradually, if violently, reconcile in one way or the other, toward some kind of equilibrium.

for a start it doesnt hold against bad actors

 

[vimothy]

I'm not saying its not universal

 

[constant escape]

And my response to that would be to feel out as much of the bad territory as possible, and establish pathways for the bad actors that allow them to preserve their integrity while minimizing the harm they do.

edit: but this can arguably only be carried on for so long. The point is that all values are valid, only some are more informed than others, and they are all being informed differently, albeit from the same master toolbox.

 

[vimothy]

I'm saying that your argument, that it makes presumptions about who is included in the category of universal, presupposes the same moral calculus

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I'm not saying its not universal

I am

but also, if "universalism doesn't live to its claims to be universal" how is it universal?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

that it makes presumptions about who is included in the category of universal

that's not really my main argument, tho it is also accurate

my argument is that unless you're an omnipotent being how can you make claims to universality

how you can you know that the universal exists, let alone what it is, as a finite being?

 

[vimothy]

in that case, its not

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Berlin must have been a religious believer then?

 

[vimothy]

that's not really my main argument, tho it is also accurate

my argument is that unless you're an omnipotent being how can you make claims to universality

how you can you know that the universal exists, let alone what it is, as a finite being?

well, idk these are complicated questions

do you think that all ppl are equally deserving of life?

 

[constant escape]

that's not really my main argument, tho it is also accurate

my argument is that unless you're an omnipotent being how can you make claims to universality

how you can you know that the universal exists, let alone what it is, as a finite being?

Perhaps a useful qualification for a universalism is an -ism that manages to preserve the whole field of possible positions and values, validating them all, contradictions intact.

 

[constant escape]

Thats what I'm gunning for with all the talk of superpositioned ideologies and completeness-at-the-cost-of-inconsistency, and if it can all somehow be expressed as a tenable -ism. Not that it would need to be articulated that clearly, but it would certainly make it more appealing/marketable.

 

[luka]

marketable is not the issue, it has to be be philosophically impregnable ffs

 

[constant escape]

Yeah marketability is a marginal concern, all things considered.

 

[luka]

you can either embrace relativism in which case there is no argument against slavery, FGM, etc or you find a valid basis for universalism. its that simple.