What can be gained by viewing the meaning of everything as the opposite of the truth?

[Gottservant]

What can be gained by viewing the meaning of everything as the opposite of the truth? I went to a very well respected lecturer's lecture on this subject and heard that the meaning of everything could be learned in this way. I never saw the connection.

Any thoughts?

 

[EverlastingMan]

Erm, nothing . . . besides maybe a more than healthy dose of relativism.
Could you elaborate a bit?
And I suppose we should regard "truth" as the opposite of truth according to this chap?

 

[The Nihilist]

I agree with EverlastingMan. What?

 

[Gottservant]

Well, that was the philosopher's line! He was the guy behind deconstructionism: the idea that you could pull a text apart and show that it actually meant the opposite of what the text writer was trying to say. If you said "forgive me", actually you meant "forget what I am saying", etc.

The point was that we agree to let things mean what we think they do, but actually they don't really mean what we think they do (you know, when we think we are "letting" them mean what we think we are). I never really got it.

The philosophy is the reasoning behind today's postmodernist attitude to many things. When I read in the bible Isaiah 41:24 - Show Context "Indeed you are nothing, And your work is nothing; He who chooses you is an abomination." I think of deconstructionism and postmodernism, actually. Yet it is a leading choice at universities for the study of contemporary culture!

 

[variant]

Well, that was the philosopher's line! He was the guy behind deconstructionism: the idea that you could pull a text apart and show that it actually meant the opposite of what the text writer was trying to say. If you said "forgive me", actually you meant "forget what I am saying", etc.

The point was that we agree to let things mean what we think they do, but actually they don't really mean what we think they do (you know, when we think we are "letting" them mean what we think we are). I never really got it.

The philosophy is the reasoning behind today's postmodernist attitude to many things. When I read in the bible Isaiah 41:24 - Show Context "Indeed you are nothing, And your work is nothing; He who chooses you is an abomination." I think of deconstructionism and postmodernism, actually. Yet it is a leading choice at universities for the study of contemporary culture!

Derrida is a bit dense and unrewarding, and I've never liked him. I think he confuses more issues than he makes clear.

However the idea behind postmodernism is questioning reality, and how we perceive it. It is healthy to be skeptical of how we grasp what we call truth.

Epistemological certainty is not healthy, which is one of the reasons I question the assertions behind religious thought.

I've never bought into it myself, I still fall into an empirical school of thought, because I find science more useful than endless questioning and mental sorting with no real regard to what they are trying to accomplish, that goes with todays philosophy.

 

[Gottservant]

It is one thing to be trying to grasp the nature of truth. It is quite another to be asserting that truth can be subverted by the attempt to understand it. The latter is closer to what Derrida was doing than the former.

In any case, it can't be true that we actually mean the opposite of what we say. If that were true one could say "nothing was communicated" and actually mean "everything was communicated" yet where would everything that was communicated be? It would be nowhere because the truth remains that "nothing was communicated" (irrespective of any effort to be poetic about how else it could be put, "everything" being the nothing or some such thing).

 

[Bernie02]

Epistemological certainty is not healthy, which is one of the reasons I question the assertions behind religious thought.

Huh? Is 'epistemological certainty' even possible outside any but the most rudimentary propositions? There's understandable comfort in clinging to particulars, but materialism still doesn't provide all our answers.

 

[variant]

It is one thing to be trying to grasp the nature of truth. It is quite another to be asserting that truth can be subverted by the attempt to understand it. The latter is closer to what Derrida was doing than the former.

Attempts to attain the truth can indeed be subverted by an attempt to understand it. Derrida is right about that.

But that is a fact of life, and we should try to understand it anyway.

Truth can be grasped in a limited capacity by limited beings such as us, and being unsatisfied with that will get you nowhere. Being unsatisfied with the inabsoluteness of reality, is simply being unsatisfied with reality.

In any case, it can't be true that we actually mean the opposite of what we say. If that were true one could say "nothing was communicated" and actually mean "everything was communicated" yet where would everything that was communicated be? It would be nowhere because the truth remains that "nothing was communicated" (irrespective of any effort to be poetic about how else it could be put, "everything" being the nothing or some such thing).

As I said, I think Derrida muddles more than he makes clear. He often turns things around in a manner that is completely unnecessary, and frankly counterproductive.

Huh? Is 'epistemological certainty' even possible outside any but the most rudimentary propositions? There's understandable comfort in clinging to particulars, but materialism still doesn't provide all our answers.

That is poor wording on my part.

It should read "a feeling" of epistemological certainty. Some people feel certain of things that they can not be certain of.

 

[Bernie02]

That is poor wording on my part.

It should read "a feeling" of epistemological certainty. Some people feel certain of things that they can not be certain of.

Understood. But I'm not sure why you seem to suggest that religious beliefs are different than any other kind of belief. I've dialoged with at least an equal number of dogmatic atheists who hold, in their own minds, a certainty that their position is certain. Come to think of it, I've also debated with some who try to impose uncertainty as the only certain view of reality. At the end of the day, everyone is certain about some things. Moral of the story seems to be that everyone finds their own philosophic/religious hook to hang their hat on in a world where certainty is a fleeting thing.

On the other hand, maybe some religionists have found something that has the look and feel of a ray of certainty in this subjective sea of ambiguity we're all swimming around in and are justified in clinging to it.

 

[variant]

Understood. But I'm not sure why you seem to suggest that religious beliefs are different than any other kind of belief. I've dialoged with at least an equal number of dogmatic atheists who hold, in their own minds, a certainty that their position is certain. Come to think of it, I've also debated with some who try to impose uncertainty as the only certain view of reality. At the end of the day, everyone is certain about some things. Moral of the story seems to be that everyone finds their own philosophic/religious hook to hang their hat on in a world where certainty is a fleeting thing.

I singled out religion because religion requires a fairly high level of imposed certainty and dogmatism.

I agree it does exist to certain degrees elsewhere.

Religion was only one very good example of what I was talking about, that doesn’t mean I couldn’t have spoken of others.

On the other hand, maybe some religionists have found something that has the look and feel of a ray of certainty in this subjective sea of ambiguity we're all swimming around in and are justified in clinging to it.

That would be a good idea of why they do it.

It is a personal opinion of mine that clinging to what you want to be true because you can't deal with the alternative is intellectually unhealthy.

That though, is a personal value judgment. So, take it for what it is worth.

 

[Bernie02]

It is a personal opinion of mine that clinging to what you want to be true because you can't deal with the alternative is intellectually unhealthy.

That though, is a personal value judgment. So, take it for what it is worth.

I do...the argument can be also be true when tossed over from the other side of the fence.

As Napoleon's bro Kip would say, "Peace out."