Are post-modernism and relativism both threats to liberty and equality?

[MrFun]

First, I would like to say that I acknowledge that there is a whole spectrum of post-modernists and relativists who disagree among themselves in terms of philosophical arguments and ideology. Post-modernism nor relativism are monolithic and literally the same in conceptualization from one individual to another.

Having said that, when I refer to post-modernists and relativists in this thread, I mean to refer to those who take their idea(s) to such an extreme, that I think they might pose a threat to the fundamental ideas of liberty and equality.


Post-modernists and relatavists question nearly everything that is presumed to be true. They claim that science itself is a form of dogma in the way that religion was once a powerful form of dogma before the era of the Enlightenment (although we see how religion is still a powerful force even today). But this not about contrasting the dogma of religion in the pre-Enlightenment period of Western history with that of contemporary religious dogma. The point here, is that post-modernists and relatavists degrade science to a level of dogma or absolutism in the same way a number of secular intellectuals often do so with religion.

Post-modernists and relativists also often claim that even the assertion of the idea that each human person is unique as an individual is merely an idea that has nothing to do with objective reality. The value we place on the uniqueness of each individual in other words, is essentially worthless, because it has no truth in of itself.


So what does this have to do with my question as to whether or not post-modernism and relativism are a threat to liberty and equality? Well, because post-modernists and relativists question all ideas that we presume to be true, this leads them to question the fundamental ideas of liberty and equality.

Their goal of deconstructing the ideas of liberty and equality is dangerous. For future generations, in a world where post-modernists and relativists may have prevailed in having their ideas as being social norms, what types of governments can exist that would be seen as legitimate? It certainly wouldn't be free governments of republics and/or democracies.


What does anyone else think about the implications of post-modernism and relativism? Who agrees with my thoughts? Who disagrees with my thoughts?

[Sprayber]

It's midnight, I'm eating Doritos, and Ijust had sex. I have no position on this topic at this time.

[DaShi]

Liar! You're eating Fritos! Admit it!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sprayber
It's midnight, I'm eating Doritos, and Ijust had sex. I have no position on this topic at this time.

wuss

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by DaShi
Liar! You're eating Fritos! Admit it!

Doritos goes better with hot cheese dip

[MrFun]

Anyway, back to the topic.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Liberalism's most powerful legacy was the questioning of the political order. It was essential to liberalism to ask why are things structured this way. These new theorums also engage in the same questioning.

I think it is hard to hold up liberalism and then say modernism/relativism are bad because they question things.

If we do not challenge things, we stagnate.

[Odin]

Mr. Fun, I think your thinking of Post-Modernism, not Modernism.

They claim that science itself is a form of dogma in the way that religion was once a powerful form of dogma before the era of the Enlightenment

Which is why post-modernism is stupid, I bet the people who believe that crap are some desperate ivory tower philosphers who are angry because science is taking more and more of thier turf.

My criticism of extreme relativism is that it is comes pretty damn close to saying that there is nothing wrong with violating human rights because it is all relative.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Liberalism's most powerful legacy was the questioning of the political order. It was essential to liberalism to ask why are things structured this way. These new theorums also engage in the same questioning.

I think it is hard to hold up liberalism and then say modernism/relativism are bad because they question things.

If we do not challenge things, we stagnate.

But there is a difference between questioning/challenging ideas or presumed truths from that of complete deconstruction, isn't there?

I am all for questioning and challenging -- that is what brings dramatic changes in human socieites.

Deconstruction that depreciates everything on a whim however just for the spirit of nihilism and deconstruction however is a different story.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Odin
Mr. Fun, I think your thinking of Post-Modernism, not Modernism.



Which is why post-modernism is stupid, I bet the people who believe that crap are some desperate ivory tower philosphers who are angry because science is taking more and more of thier turf.

My criticism of extreme relativism is that it is comes pretty damn close to saying that there is nothing wrong with violating human rights because it is all relative.

I was thinking of post-modernism when I typed the word "modernism." I can't believe I inadverdently typed something completely different from what I thought.

Can one of the mods correct the thread title? I'm going to edit my OP.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Odin

My criticism of extreme relativism is that it is comes pretty damn close to saying that there is nothing wrong with violating human rights because it is all relative.

That is exactly what my concern is.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
But there is a difference between questioning/challenging ideas or presumed truths from that of complete deconstruction, isn't there?

I am all for questioning and challenging -- that is what brings dramatic changes in human socieites.

Deconstruction that depreciates everything on a whim however just for the spirit of nihilism and deconstruction however is a different story.

No there is a minor difference if anything. Deconstruction, in a political sphere, is trying to look at ideas and institutions and see who benefits and how.

It's like ultra cynicism in politics and more cynicism among the public towards out politicians is never a bad thing.

[Odin]

Originally posted by MrFun



That is exactly what my concern is.

That is not to say all relativism is bad, some is needed lest a society become bigoted and dogmatic, but the extreme relativism that denies any absolutes in moral behavior smacks of the nihilism that was behind the Nazis (Please ignore shameless Godwin invokation ).

[:) Smiley]

I don't know that much about philosophical Postmodernism, but architectural Postmodernism has produced loads and loads of tacky buildings that ape classical styles.

[Az]

a) Mr. Fun, you should've said "post-modernism" in the title.
b) to your question, yes.


c) to all those who somehow connect relativism to any degree to questioning political order, free-speech etc., this is perhaps the stupidest, most flawed connection, ever. The whole point, the whole superiority of dissent against authority, and free speech, is that through a level battlefield of opinions and points of view, one's society establishes the proper means and behaviors of it's survival in the short run, and more general ethical laws in the long run.

To say things like "OMG 'insert brutal dictatorship here' were against relativism" is moronic, for: a) It's a childish appeal to emotion. b) One can place a thousand of non-ethical machiavellian bastards that had basically relativistic belief of some sort.