Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think science has a lot going for it
(a) because it can validate its' results rather than just repeat them as faith-claims
(b) it is universal. There are many religions; there is only one science.
yeah, and shut down science, meaning it all, that doesn't conform to anti-religious?
never, and I mean never, offer claims about the properties of god that may line up with science.
I think "post modernist" might just be a person that can break down what people are saying to the root notion that the person is using to form the set of beliefs that person runs their life by.
"science has a lot going for us"
vs
"scientist has a lot going for us"
Postmodernism is an intellectual stance[1] or a mode of discourse[2][3] that rejects the possibility of reliable knowledge,[4][5] denies the existence of a universal, stable reality,[6][7][8][9] and frames aesthetics and beauty as arbitrary and subjective.[10][11] It can be described as a reaction against scientific attempts to explain reality with objective certainty, recognizing that reality is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own personal circumstances. WIKI
Postmodernism is an intellectual stance[1] or a mode of discourse[2][3] that rejects the possibility of reliable knowledge,[4][5] denies the existence of a universal, stable reality,[6][7][8][9] and frames aesthetics and beauty as arbitrary and subjective.[10][11] It can be described as a reaction against scientific attempts to explain reality with objective certainty, recognizing that reality is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own personal circumstances. WIKI
ok, list those for a set traits of a person.
rejects the possibility of reliable knowledge
denies the existence of a universal, stable reality
can be described as a reaction against scientific attempts to explain reality with objective certainty
why would I listen to this person past, listening and moving on?
rejects the possibility of reliable knowledge
denies the existence of a universal, stable reality
can be described as a reaction against scientific attempts to explain reality with objective certainty
why would I listen to this person past, listening and moving on?
You would not listen, but many do.
Their views on what is beautiful are disturbing.
I shall be interested to hear their rationale for being correct.
Incidentally I thought your piece of Jungian archetypes was interesting. I used to think that Jung was out of his mind, but I've modified my views a lot on that. But i was puzzled by you point about memes. The instinctive ones, such as Jung's archetypes are surely hardwired into the DNA. Educated instinct is overlaid on the capacity to learn and is not itself in the DNA and might not be the sort of thing to be genetically transmitted, but then such memes (Dawkins talking about indoctrinated ideas) wouldn't be anything to do with Jungian archetypes, surely?
Postmodernism is an intellectual stance[1] or a mode of discourse[2][3] that rejects the possibility of reliable knowledge,[4][5] denies the existence of a universal, stable reality,[6][7][8][9] and frames aesthetics and beauty as arbitrary and subjective.[10][11] It can be described as a reaction against scientific attempts to explain reality with objective certainty, recognizing that reality is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own personal circumstances. WIKI
On initial sight looks wrong to me. Whatever is going on in the human mind, nature has a reality of its' own never mind what we think about it. Humans of course can approach human values, aesthetics and so -on however they like, but that is nothing to do with scientifically -verified reality.
You probably did the right thing, Btw in ignoring Arach's predictably obsessive-bias post and just post what you wanted to explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
You would not listen, but many do.
Their views on what is beautiful are disturbing.
There is not much more disturbing that Picasso's " Les Demoiselles d'Avignon". It is a different approach to beauty? is it even supposed to be beauty, or a celebration of ugliness? Is Picasso messing with our heads by pressing the libido button and the repulsion button at the same time?
I doubt that Postmodernist views on the human standards on 'beauty' would upset me very much.
Incidentally, I saw that Arach posted some sense. It has to be said.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-09-2019 at 07:36 AM..
I shall be interested to hear their rationale for being correct.
Incidentally I thought your piece of Jungian archetypes was interesting. I used to think that Jung was out of his mind, but I've modified my views a lot on that. But i was puzzled by you point about memes. The instinctive ones, such as Jung's archetypes are surely hardwired into the DNA. Educated instinct is overlaid on the capacity to learn and is not itself in the DNA and might not be the sort of thing to be genetically transmitted, but then such memes (Dawkins talking about indoctrinated ideas) wouldn't be anything to do with Jungian archetypes, surely?
I don't know enough to differentiate a long standing MEME from a Jungian archetype. However, short lived new memes are not archetypes. Archetypes are interesting because they are often depicted in fiction novels and hence one can learn a lot from these novels even if they are fiction.
"Jung also made the suggestion of there being more than one layer making up the shadow. The top layers contain the meaningful flow and manifestations of direct personal experiences. These are made unconscious in the individual by such things as the change of attention from one thing to another, simple forgetfulness, or a repression. Underneath these idiosyncratic layers, however, are the archetypes which form the psychic contents of all human experiences. Jung described this deeper layer as "a psychic activity which goes on independently of the conscious mind and is not dependent even on the upper layers of the unconscious—untouched, and perhaps untouchable—by personal experience" (Campbell, 1971)."
The shadow is the shadow even in people that lived 2500 years ago and that is why I mentioned the Cain Abel story above. Obviously total fiction, an imaginary story, but with a message that explains the state of mind of modern mass shooters in America. That nihilism and despair that leads to suicide by cop.
As for MEMEs: It is fascinating when I see my wife behaving just like her mother. Or when I catch myself acting just like my dad.
You would not listen, but many do.
Their views on what is beautiful are disturbing.
I think I understand? My brother and I found a dog in trash bag once. Its a city boy thing. But how it was decaying was amazing. It was gross to be sure. My brother ran from the smell. and I felt bad for the dog. But the process was cool none the less.
it was almost a liquid? that was cool. The taste of punk in mouth was not.
I think people listen because they are 1/2 correct. Too many people toss out everything because they find something offensive or it hurt them in some way.
for example
1) rejects the possibility of reliable knowledge.
vs
2) rejects the possible that all knowledge reliable.
I don't know enough to differentiate a long standing MEME from a Jungian archetype. However, short lived new memes are not archetypes. Archetypes are interesting because they are often depicted in fiction novels and hence one can learn a lot from these novels even if they are fiction.
"Jung also made the suggestion of there being more than one layer making up the shadow. The top layers contain the meaningful flow and manifestations of direct personal experiences. These are made unconscious in the individual by such things as the change of attention from one thing to another, simple forgetfulness, or a repression. Underneath these idiosyncratic layers, however, are the archetypes which form the psychic contents of all human experiences. Jung described this deeper layer as "a psychic activity which goes on independently of the conscious mind and is not dependent even on the upper layers of the unconscious—untouched, and perhaps untouchable—by personal experience" (Campbell, 1971)."
The shadow is the shadow even in people that lived 2500 years ago and that is why I mentioned the Cain Abel story above. Obviously total fiction, an imaginary story, but with a message that explains the state of mind of modern mass shooters in America. That nihilism and despair that leads to suicide by cop.
As for MEMEs: It is fascinating when I see my wife behaving just like her mother. Or when I catch myself acting just like my dad.
yeah ... I think get this. Our outer brains are doing a lot of work. But out inner brains (really lower levels) and body are inputting information to that out layer and that influx of information influences our final behavior.
we are really just a set of memes passing through. Like waves on a ocean.
As an electronics engineer, I have to admit I am driven by data, empirical measurements and proof of evidence. I build a circuit, flip a switch and see the bulb light up. I think this drives me more towards an Atheist outlook as I personally see no evidence of any sort of divine being and plenty of evidence of evolution and the sheer randomness of life.
I was bought up a Christian and my interpretation of bible is, in my opinion, a blueprint of past learning and mistakes and a set of anecdotal instructions for how to live with your fellow man. As such I am OK with that.
What do you think, are engineers and science-based professions more likely to lead to an atheist outlook on things?
Purely anecdotal but nevertheless my experience; my working life brought me into close contact with many scientists, physicians and a good many engineers. My experience was that, despite engineers being the lesser number of contacts, I got the distinct impression that they were more likely to have religious beliefs that those in the hard sciences. Physicians seemed to go either way. Like I said, purely anecdotal but I had often idly thought about this from time to time. I would say those in the hard sciences are much more likely to be atheist than the general population.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Btw in ignoring Arach's predictably obsessive-bias post and just post what you wanted to explain.
