James Still

What I mean by truth being a function of language is that given a statement like "The sky is blue" there are two possibilities or truth-values: true or false. The statement is true. Why? Is it because the statement corresponds to reality? Or is it true because there is widespread agreement between us in our language? Postmodernism suggests the latter and says that truth is not a function of some absolute objective standard but rather highly relative to community, culture, and language.

To be sure modernist and postmodernist alike agree that there is an existential point outside of language since "sky" and "blue" are components of the physical world. But the modernist wants to say that the truth of the statement turns on the correspondence (or conformity) of the statement to the actual physical reality. In other words, the statement is true prior to our awareness of it and our language merely reflects that fact. Thus we are in the process of discovering fundamental truths about the world around us and coming up with statements and theories to map onto and correspond with those truths.

The postmodernist rejects this maneuver toward absolute truth. He notes that "blueness" is dependent upon the limited range that humans see in the visible spectrum. At best we can say that "the sky is blue" is true only for creatures that see as we do. Also, what do we mean by the sky? "Well it's obvious!" the modernist says. True, but the point is *why* is it obvious? It is obvious because the word has a specific enough meaning and use in our language so that we can assume universally what we mean by "sky." For every proposition, there are underlying meanings grounded upon our use of language. So the postmodernist distrusts so-called "objective" points outside of language that make a statement within language true or false.

When you read postmodernists talking of "power" and "structuralism" what they mean is that these objective points outside of language are often highly-subjective biases of those in power that are masked and made to look as if they are universally true for everyone. It's one thing of course to consider something trivial like "the sky is blue" but consider a proposition of absolute truth like "God exists and has a plan for your life." Is this statement true because of some absolute objective standard? Or is its truth highly-relative and subjective, sustained by a power structure and made to appear objective? Now you see why Christianity fears postmodernism so much and wants to destroy it. Christian "truths" have not been true because of correspondence to reality but because of the raw projection of power throughout modernity.

You can find quite a bit of information on postmodernism at the Open Directory source: <a href="http://dmoz.org/Society/Philosophy/Current_Movements/Postmodernism/" target="_blank">http://dmoz.org/Society/Philosophy/Current_Movements/Postmodernism/</a>

Like any other philosophical movement, a lot of published material in postmodern thought is worthless. Here's my rule of thumb: if after you've read something twice and made an honest attempt to understand the material and you still do not understand a word of it, then return it to the library and put it behind you. Probably the author doesn't know what he or she is trying to say (and if the author doesn't know you sure as hell won't know either). Or the author is under pressure to "publish or perish" and is too insecure with his peers to use ordinary language and so resorts to the sort of trendy technical terms that the <a href="http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/community/postmodern.html" target="_blank">Postmodernism Generator</a> can kick out. Never underestimate the herd instinct and pressure to conform within academic circles. <a href="http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/" target="_blank">Alan Sokal</a> demonstrated beautifully the weaknesses of strong postmodernism that flourishes in the academy. (In defense of Social Text, however, the editors and reviewers did not understand a word of Sokal's essay either and asked him to make it clearer before publication; because it was nonsense he couldn't make it any clearer and so they published it anyway thinking he was still struggling with the ideas therein.)

John Page

James:

Great post <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> , I'm following up the links right now....

Cheers, John

WJ

All!

First I agree good post but there is much information here to cover particularly from the original post. One thought out of many to add or explore which seems to capture the moment of thought [what is truth viz. postmodernism] could be expressed also in aesthetic realism:

"All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves."

The point I'd like to convey relates to *why* the 'sky is blue' in metaphor only. I don't think the postmodern man would embrace the 'alternatives' in descriptive language as either a true or false proposition. I think he would embrace paradox and the unknown as his reality. He would perhaps answer that question by saying he does not know why the sky is blue and be satisfied with its existence as such, for which its nature is not known.

In a similar vein, man's existence is irrational. It is so because it is ultimately subject to and percieved thru, subjective consciousness and Being. Though I agree that existence is both subjective and objective, by mere agreement with that fact, an emergence of "opposites" and contradicton appear in what is considered true reality. If life (conscious existence) could be only one or the other (pure objective or pure subjective) I don't think the paradox would present itself. In other words, subjectivity implies time dependence in the understanding of things, objectivity implies timeless understanding. (Or does it?)

Anyway, it seems to me that postmodernism at the aesthetic level recognizes the inner beauty of that tension (of existential reality) in declaring that neither answer (true or false) is adequate in accurately describing reality. It surrenders to the unknown and thus paints the metaphorical picture as absurdity. It is only absurd when you are required to make sense of it and express it, then you realize that you really don't know what you think you know. The mystery at the end of the universe is reserved for physical science as its heel; Piccasso's picture of the medical student is Art's version.

I suppose it is the 'criteria' that/who is to blame.

Thoughts, comments?

Walrus

John Page

Hi Carpenter:

I like the relativism here. However, I don't think this supposed irrationality of man's existence is a necessary conclusion from us perceiving through our subjective means of perception. Perhaps I don't understand your argument (because of my subjective consciousness).

Could you explain what the "metaphorical picture" is that you think absurd?

We know (something we name) reality through our experience of it. It is this experience that leads us to "be". However, our knowledge/experiences differ when compared which can lead us to think the absurd when trying to reconcile these observations. Do you see it (whatever 'it' is) much differently?

Cheers, John

WJ

Hi John!

"Could you explain what the "metaphorical picture" is that you think absurd?"

Well a couple thoughts. If something is neither/ nor, is it rational? If something is truly unknown or [never thought to be or concieved as] unknowable, how do we even know this for sure?

Back to Keats...'truth is beauty, beauty is truth'. Perhaps the answer 'i don't know' is neither a 'truth value' in itself that determines whether 'i don't know' is either true or false, it just is. (IE, because Formal Logic cannot handle anything other than true or false statements.)
And because it just is, the aesthetic postmodernist might say it's beautiful. The word beautiful captures its existence, its reality. He then is happy with this conclusion and seeks no further answer.

So, perhaps the aesthetic reality exists here and now; a decision can't wait about one's reality if asked about it or asked to express it. A positive statement or response is required from humans. The snapshot in time is therefore or can only be absurd resolution of objectivity and subjectivity or reality. How do we express and percieve this quality of our reality?

For instance, some scientists believe that mathematics is/are beautiful when it so eloquently and perfectly describes the laws of nature. Yet, there is mystery, paradox and the unknown existing within the universe. By our standards, we cannot claim that it is completely rational. Consciousness and matter remain a legitimate metaphysical philosophical enterprise. Pure reason is not understood or I should say is open-ended. Consciousness has not been explained

Perhaps in metaphor, all the postmodernist' can say then is that beauty is truth. The word beauty is a substitute word where there is no 'real' truth or JTB. Is the essence of our existence beautiful? Is our motivation 'to be' motivated by the beauty in the world and our Kantian perceptions of it? Do we surround ourselves with beautiful things? Why?
EDIT; Is 'silence' beautiful when two people seemingly agree on what is percieved to be true about themselves or something they just did/together?

I'm trying to get inside the mind of the aesthetic observer....

Walrus

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

John Page

By definition we cannot know the unknowable, but at least we can admit the possibility. I'm sure that rational comes into it.
You are an aesthetic observer. I could suppose a (evolutionay? Darwinian?) function for beauty in leading us toward some subconsciously devised desire.

Here's a theory. We can apprehend the utility to us of things that exist in the external, physical world. We can intersubjectively quantify and analyze how that utility is achieved (e.g. paper wraps stone). However, our minds inculcate intermediate results that are (hitherto?) inexpressible in written language. (e.g. we impute the probable flight paths of the stone and the paper aeroplane). Our subconscious informs our conscious self that some intermediate results are "better" than others without providing a detailed explanation (for there is no mechanism to do so).

From the above, our preferences emerge and we describe such forms as nice, beautiful etc. The flight path of the paper aeroplane is more beautiful than that of the stone. The form of some aeroplane's is more pleasing than others. Hence our instinct for beauty, why we are drawn to it and the curious relationship between objectivity and aestheticism.

Does this make sense? (I just made it up)

Cheers, John

WJ

Hi john!

I have to run and will continue this tommorow, but I couldn't help but point this out:

"By definition we cannot know the unknowable, but at least we can admit the possibility. I'm sure that rational comes into it."

I thought you denied the necessary existence of the synthetic apriori?

As always, my good friend....
Walrus

John Page

Hi Walrus!

Yes, but conjecture is demonstrably possible.

BTW a typo "By definition we cannot know the unknowable, but at least we can admit the possibility. I'm not sure that rational comes into it."

Cheers, John

WJ

BTW, Keith!

When you mentioned art as an expression of both subjective and objective elements, I think it ties with the notion that the artist's task is to express that actual 'moment' of (contradiction)existence and what it is like to experience existence *now*. Thus more postmodernist thinking:

"The subjective thinker finds great difficulty in living a single idea. The objective thinker roams indifferently from idea to idea. The subjective thinker attempts to put together the particular (his own reality) and the universal (the ideal norm). The objective thinker, on the other hand, considers universals in their relation to one another, but not in relation to himself. For the subjective thinker, contradiction is real; the either/or of ethical choice is ever-present. For the objective thinker, contradiction is overcome in "pure being"; the either/or gives way to the both/and. Subjective existence implies interest, passion, partiality, striving, and decision. Objective existence indicates disinterest, dispassion, impartiality, and suspension of striving and decision. The objective thinker lives a postponement and a parenthesis. The subjective thinker lives each moment in the light of universal principle. For the objective thinker, eternity is already here. For the subjective thinker, eternity is hereafter, in the future."

If aethetics and art is [represents] passionate existence, what is science? Thoughts?

Walrus

WJ

John!

I think Kant's theory of knowledge about the world relates to the effectiveness of math but the sythesis *requirement* of the subject herself or subjective existence and the importance/contradiction thereof. The conradiction is inescabale because it is contradiction that makes us think the way we think:

- Kant's contribution: our mind inevitably synthesizes (organizes) the impressions that it receives, arranging them into a preset order so that we can make sense of, and understand, our world.

- Our mind performs this synthesizing activity without our being aware of it (unconsciously). But, we can become aware of it and understand it. That is the job of transcendental philosophy, for our mind to become aware of its own synthesizing activity. This in Kant's version of recollection (Socrates, Plato) and his interpretation of the saying that the goal of philosophy is to know thyself.

- Once we know exactly how our mind organizes the impressions that it receives, we are in a position to know how any and all things that we ever have impressions of will be arranged. We can know the blueprint, the form, of all possible objects of experience, not just the things that we have actually experienced so far in our life.

- We have more extensive knowledge than empiricists like Hume suppose: we can know in advance (a priori) what the structure of the phenomenal world (all possible objects of experience) is. Thus, for example, we can know that any things we ever have impressions of will be located in space and in time, and arranged in the order of causes and effects.

- But, we have less extensive knowledge than rationalists like Descartes suppose: we have no way of knowing what the world is like apart from the way our mind organizes the impressions it receives. We have no way of knowing what the noumenal world is like. We have no way of knowing, for instance, whether it is fundamentally materialistic (as atomist philosophies teach) or fundamentally idealistic (as Platonic-Christian philosophy teaches).

- In terms of anything that we ever have experienced, or will experience, we have no knowledge of the existence or non-existence of:
(A) our own free will;
(B) our soul's immortality;
(C) God.
These, of course, are matters of importance for morality and religion.

- Since it does not contradict anything that we actually do know, we are free to believe in the reality of these three things as needs be. To the extent that being committed to living a moral life requires us to believe in (A) our own free will, (B) the immortality of our soul, and (C) the existence of God, these are matters of rational faith. That is to say it is perfectly reasonable to believe that they exist even though we have no knowledge that they do.

{end quote}

Again, the mystery at the end of the universe-consciousness.

Wali