What is the critique of “postmodernism” as a philosophy from an Orthodox perspective?

rusmeister said:

I reject those classifications and see them as an expression of intellectual snobbery and pretentiousness. The essential problem is the attempts to classify the human soul as a thing to be studied as a purely natural object when in fact it is super-natural; the whole reason we are not mere beasts.

Speaking of being human and fallible is an effort to excuse mistakes, error, sin, etc. When we are talking about what is true, it is important NOT to make the mistakes. It means not just being “human”, but being wrong to do so. So it is truer to say “The rest of humanity likes something a little more in error”, which is true; we are masters of self-deception, and don’t like hearing truth which displeases us.

The essential failing of these modern philosophies, whatever they call themselves, is that they reject certainty of truth in their theories. The goal is to allow the holder of the bogus “philosophy” to reject any truth that convicts him of wrong, error, or sin.

The line the Christian is supposed to hold is that certainty of the Truth founded upon faith, in the face of doubt; feeling doubt, to still choose to believe in spite of the temptation and the odds.

The last ten seconds in particular.

Click to expand...

Bold type is a clear statement of the central problem with public discourse in the US lately.

archer75 said:

Bold type is a clear statement of the central problem with public discourse in the US lately.

Click to expand...

agreed

rusmeister said:

The essential failing of these modern philosophies, whatever they call themselves, is that they reject certainty of truth in their theories. The goal is to allow the holder of the bogus “philosophy” to reject any truth that convicts him of wrong, error, or sin.

Click to expand...

Satanism under the veil of Humanism. "Do as thou wilt". Everything they do has that philosophical outlook.

Justin-H.S. said:

Satanism under the veil of Humanism. "Do as thou wilt". Everything they do has that philosophical outlook.

Click to expand...

To be fair, it was "If you harm no one, do as you will." But they have dropped the first part.

archer75 said:

To be fair, it was "If you harm no one, do as you will." But they have dropped the first part.

Click to expand...

But they still hold on to a pretense of harmlessness, at least in their own minds. I have my best childhood friend very much in mind, in case anyone thinks I'm just abstracting.

archer75 said:

To be fair, it was "If you harm no one, do as you will." But they have dropped the first part.

Click to expand...

true, but before that it was, "Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law."

brought to you by occultist and pervert Aleister Crowley.

They'll tell you themselves that they are Satanists. When people hear them say it, they brush it off as "edgy nonsense", but they're proclaiming it. And when Christians bring up the fact that they are Satanists, normies claim we are kooky conspiracy theorists when we're just taking them at their word, and connecting the dots, while the Satanists themselves play dumb and pretend it's all a big joke. Meanwhile, they're doing Satan's bidding by advocating for abortion and the dismantling of Churches.



To the outside observer, "Satanism" is a ridiculous concept to take seriously which is why we are laughed at when we do take it seriously.

"The best trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist."

It's really important to not just hang out in echo chambers, but listen to what they actually say about themselves. Our most Leftist members might confirm that perhaps that have seen Debra Messing's post. Know what THEY say, and know the answers. Otherwise, we become just like them, because they usually literally don't know what we actually say.
Do Democrats Understand What They Are Supporting? - Frontpagemag

SingularityOne said:

Thank you. This is helpful. I’ll watch this tomorrow.

It seems like you’re saying postmodernism is a reaction to the false ideas of modernism. However, it could turn back to God as the answer, but it does not and goes further into falsehood by the idea of “leveling” and the destruction of objective truth and meaning outside of the human person. Correct?

Click to expand...

I had written something longer, but lost it... Yes, that's basically correct, but I'd prefer the term 'recognition' over 'reaction,' because reaction implies an attempt to set the error straight and that's not entirely clear to be the case. It's whatever is useful, whether true, false, or half-true - useful in perpetuating whatever the individual wants reality to be.

This is a relevant podcast episode released recently.

From Satanism to Christianity - Ancient Faith Today Live | Ancient Faith Ministries

ArmyMatt said:

true, but before that it was, "Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law."

brought to you by occultist and pervert Aleister Crowley.

Click to expand...

Which they quote in children's shows, like Adventure Time.

archer75 said:

Bold type is a clear statement of the central problem with public discourse in the US lately.

Click to expand...

"Any intelligent man cannot be a party member - he sees through the party." - Nietzsche (paraphrased)

Xenophon said:

Which they quote in children's shows, like Adventure Time.

Click to expand...

icky

Xenophon said:

Which they quote in children's shows, like Adventure Time.



"Any intelligent man cannot be a party member - he sees through the party." - Nietzsche (paraphrased)

Click to expand...

That show is for kids?

archer75 said:

That show is for kids?

Click to expand...

Allegedly. Lots of kids do watch it and that's what it's rated for... seems to be aimed at hipster college students though.

From the OP link;

“Postmodern philosophy is a philosophical movement that arose in the second half of the 20th century as a critical response to assumptions allegedly present in modernist philosophical ideas regarding culture, identity, history, or language that were developed during the 18th-century Enlightenment.[1][2]Postmodernist thinkers developed concepts like difference, repetition, trace, and hyperreality to subvert "grand narratives", univocity of being, and epistemic certainty.[3]Postmodern philosophy questions the importance of power relationships, personalization, and discourse in the "construction" of truth and world views. Many postmodernists appear to deny that an objective reality exists, and appear to deny that there are objective moral values.[1]”






I think that it’s not so cut & dry to say modernist vs postmodernist, yet it’s more like concentric circles where absolutes do exist in “Circle A” but things are more disputed in “Circle B & C.” I mean seriously, who is arguing that murdering an innocent 1 yr old baby isn’t OBJECTIVELY evil (Circle A)?

Whereas other things enter gray areas (Circle B or C). The existence of Circle B and C is not a logical reason to deny that Circle A is objectively real, and objectively wrong! Circle A is objectively evil! The “Grand Narrative” that Circle A is objectively bad is irrelevant to the existence of Circle B and Circle C being more in dispute.

Jok said:

I mean seriously, who is arguing that murdering an innocent 1 yr old baby isn’t OBJECTIVELY evil (Circle A)?

Click to expand...

J.L. Mackie, Richard Joyce, etc.

Mackie's famous moral error theory argument was specifically about killing 1 yr old babies, it went as follows;

"If 'killing babies is wrong' is true, then it follows that everyone has a reason not to kill babies, however this would include the psychopath who takes great pleasure from killing babies and who is miserable when he cannot. Surely, outside of social reprisals, this psychopath has every reason to kill babies and no reason not to. Therefore, all moral claims are false." (paraphrased)

And I believe it was Michael Ruse who said something along the lines of, "Moral intuitions are equivalent to the conspiracies of the paranoiac (paranoid schizophrenic.)"

Xenophon said:

J.L. Mackie, Richard Joyce, etc.

Mackie's famous moral error theory argument was specifically about killing 1 yr old babies, it went as follows;

"If 'killing babies is wrong' is true, then it follows that everyone has a reason not to kill babies, however this would include the psychopath who takes great pleasure from killing babies and who is miserable when he cannot. Surely, outside of social reprisals, this psychopath has every reason to kill babies and no reason not to. Therefore, all moral claims are false." (paraphrased)

Click to expand...

I would say that Mackie would be missing the point on why a person comes to be called a psychopath, it’s precisely because that person’s moral compass is completely broken. So to me it seems like pointing to a person who is crippled and saying that it’s not true that it’s normal for people to walk.

Xenophon said:

And I believe it was Michael Ruse who said something along the lines of, "Moral intuitions are equivalent to the conspiracies of the paranoiac (paranoid schizophrenic.)"

Click to expand...

I’m not sure why he would equate the ability to recognize normal patterns with paranoid schizophrenia. Not sure why these people think that finding rare peculiar exceptions to a norm renders that norm as illusory

Jok said:

So to me it seems like pointing to a person who is crippled and saying that it’s not true that it’s normal for people to walk.

Click to expand...

It's called the "Argument by Disagreement.' The psychopath disagrees, therefore there is no morality.
The point is that this argument has flipped the burden of proof to you, as now you've got to explain why the psychopath is 'crippled' or 'abnormal' and set standards, such as what comprises normative, as to why that is the case and defend the validity of those standards - which you can't do with moral premises - which are then subsequently disagreed with.

There is some true basis in the argument, namely it recognizes that morality cannot be reached through either purely naturalistic means or through normative means. Uniquely moral premises, which cannot be based on the material world, are required - denying all but the material world necessitates that morality be rejected. Thus, the argument of disagreement forces the moral premises to the surface, which not being materially provable is pointed out and mocked.

It's on the same basis that Dawkins has said that there is nothing wrong with cannibalism.

Actually, there was a guy a few years back who got off on the 'I'm a psychopath' defense. Dude murdered his ex-wife in broad daylight with a chainsaw in front of his kids, and mauled one of her friends. He argued his genetic made him a psychopath and prone to such premeditated violence, and the jury accepted his argument and nullified the law.

Jok said:

Not sure why these people think that finding rare peculiar exceptions to a norm renders that norm as illusory

Click to expand...

Well, that's exactly it. That is the function of postmodernism.

Jok said:

I’m not sure why he would equate the ability to recognize normal patterns with paranoid schizophrenia.

Click to expand...

The schizophrenic is also recognizing patterns. Humans are made by evolution to do so for the survival of the fittest, being shaped to conform to behavioral patterns which cannot be epistemological linked to truth - it is merely biological algorithms at play with no meaning. Neither the moral intuition or the conspiracies of the paranoiac conform to evidence, but to previously held ideations. Thus, Ruse argues, we should reject all moral ideas.

Xenophon said:

It's called the "Argument by Disagreement.' The psychopath disagrees, therefore there is no morality.
The point is that this argument has flipped the burden of proof to you, as now you've got to explain why the psychopath is 'crippled' or 'abnormal' and set standards, such as what comprises normative, as to why that is the case and defend the validity of those standards

Click to expand...

What is a normal standard for something, and what is moral are two different things. It seems they are obsessed with going to war with the concept of clearly defined terms. If there’s an alien race who by far are predominantly psychopaths, you would be abnormal if you lived there. I would make the claim that the standard norm there is to be immoral.

Xenophon said:

There is some true basis in the argument, namely it recognizes that morality cannot be reached through either purely naturalistic means or through normative means. Uniquely moral premises, which cannot be based on the material world, are required - denying all but the material world necessitates that morality be rejected. Thus, the argument of disagreement forces the moral premises to the surface, which not being materially provable is pointed out and mocked.

It's on the same basis that Dawkins has said that there is nothing wrong with cannibalism.

Actually, there was a guy a few years back who got off on the 'I'm a psychopath' defense. Dude murdered his ex-wife in broad daylight with a chainsaw in front of his kids, and mauled one of her friends. He argued his genetic made him a psychopath and prone to such premeditated violence, and the jury accepted his argument and nullified the law.

Well, that's exactly it. That is the function of postmodernism.

The schizophrenic is also recognizing patterns. Humans are made by evolution to do so for the survival of the fittest, being shaped to conform to behavioral patterns which cannot be epistemological linked to truth - it is merely biological algorithms at play with no meaning. Neither the moral intuition or the conspiracies of the paranoiac conform to evidence, but to previously held ideations. Thus, Ruse argues, we should reject all moral ideas.

Click to expand...

Wait, does this entire thing boil down to materialistic determinism? I’m not familiar with Ethics too much. Are all of these people basically saying that if the material world allows the existence of anything at all to happen then that is proof that the existence of that thing is normal? So that anything at all that happens is self proof that it is normal? So they are saying that Good, Bad, Normal, Abnormal are all terms that have no meaning?