Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Why not? And how is postmodernism unenlightenedly all about me in the first place?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If it's all about me, then it can't be about God.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Postmodernism rejects metanarratives (big stories) and propositional truth. It focuses on the individuals story to the extent that the worldview is based on that story and not part of a community hegemony.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Postmodernism rejects metanarratives (big stories) and propositional truth. It focuses on the individuals story to the extent that the worldview is based on that story and not part of a community hegemony.

---

I don't think this is really very fair - either your definition of post-modernism is wrong or it is correct and nobody really believes it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It's pretty darn close to the definition in Wikipedia.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Why not? And how is postmodernism unenlightenedly all about me in the first place?

---

Postmodernism rejects metanarratives (big stories) and propositional truth. It focuses on the individuals story to the extent that the worldview is based on that story and not part of a community hegemony.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Considering that our known population of UK Muslims here is pretty close to zero, I'm not sure what you were expecting.

---

Our known population of Trump supporters is even lower but they still provoke plenty of outrage. I'd suggest...

• Many on the left don't want to criticise Islam because this could support anti-immigration arguments and/or racists. (Understandable enough.)
• Some on the left still do, but they are now outcast as racists.
• The ones who don't have a strong view either way (like me) just keep their heads down.
• Anti-gay Christians are an out-group to Shipmates, especially Shipmates who have experienced their prejudice first-hand.

So an Irish baker causes endless rage by not baking a cake, while over a million British Muslims actually want to return to the days of Alan Turing and it barely raises a murmur.

The relevance to this thread is that I believe ten years ago this discrepancy might have been debated openly; now it feels taboo to even mention it.

---

I don't see why it couldn't be discussed openly now, though I'm not sure why you think the Muslim angle is particularly critical. I'll bet there are a lot more than a million non-Muslim Britons who share those views, and you could probably find lots of ways of grouping people that would indicate correlations with religion or other social indicators. (I suspect ultra-orthodox Jews, for example, probably aren't too liberal in this area. Probably plenty of Christian churches in the US, too, for that matter.)

In a pluralistic society you'll always have to figure out how to live together with people of differing views, and just what allowances should be made for those holding minority views. I think you could have a useful discussion on this topic.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It's pretty darn close to the definition in Wikipedia.

---

I rather like the quote, attributed to Chomsky, "Postmodernism? I don't know what it is but I suspect it is a device created by academics to keep themselves employed."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Why not? And how is postmodernism unenlightenedly all about me in the first place?

---

Postmodernism rejects metanarratives (big stories) and propositional truth. It focuses on the individuals story to the extent that the worldview is based on that story and not part of a community hegemony.

---

What is 'propositional truth'? As opposed to truth? And how is your story unenlightened?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Postmodernism rejects metanarratives (big stories) and propositional truth. It focuses on the individuals story to the extent that the worldview is based on that story and not part of a community hegemony.

---

I don't think this is really very fair - either your definition of post-modernism is wrong or it is correct and nobody really believes it.

Most people do not reject metanarratives, most people accept that there are very strong metanarratives and that people exist "out there" who are not believing or living within the metanarrative that I'm comfortable in.

I think this idea that post-modernism rejects propositional truth is a bit of a red herring. There are very few people who think that propositional truths are by their very nature fake.

I think the majority of people are unsure about things and try to weigh what they're told. If unconvinced by something, they're most likely to just leave it and think "well I don't really understand it but it seems to do some good for that other person, therefore it doesn't seem like something for me to stick my oar in and make a big deal about trying to get them to change their minds".

That's not really saying that all metanarratives are the same and that there are no propositional truths; it is more saying that the truths offered by institutional religion don't seem to be answering the questions that I'm having and whilst I can accept that this belief has meaning for you, it doesn't have any meaning for me.

It has created space for people to bypass the boring questions of whether x idea offered by religion A is true in contrast to y idea offered by religion B and instead focus on whether I happen to like the sound of it. It is much more like a shopping centre of ideas where there are shops that I'm not interested in but am happy that they exist for people who are.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If it's all about me, then it can't be about God.

---

Why can't it be all about God as I interact with Him in my experience? This is all I know about God, but within the confines of my own skin, it's all about HIM not ME.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Why not? And how is postmodernism unenlightenedly all about me in the first place?

---

Postmodernism rejects metanarratives (big stories) and propositional truth. It focuses on the individuals story to the extent that the worldview is based on that story and not part of a community hegemony.

---

What is 'propositional truth'? As opposed to truth? And how is your story unenlightened?

---

Er you used enlightened not me.

Propositional truth suggests that there is right and wrong which is recognised in a community and is not simply the view of an individual or sub group.

Truth is postmodern terms is usually seen as "what is right from the place I see it". There's little or no reference to a communal understanding.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
If 99.9% of Christians believe that God hates fags, they're wrong.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
If 99.9% of Christians believe that God hates fags, they're wrong.

---

That's propositional truth: you can't be a postmodernist Martin!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Hmmm. Of course postmodernism isn't morally neutral, it seeks truth, which is good.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Nope, postmodernism is truer. Objectively.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Is this the point where we all start saying

"Yes, we can."
"No, you can't"
"Yes, we can!"
and so on until Mother calls us home for dinner?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Is this the point where we all start saying

"Yes, we can."
"No, you can't"
"Yes, we can!"
and so on until Mother calls us home for dinner?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And how, in Postmodernism, would you be able to reach a mutual understanding of any objective truth in the terms "Mother" and "dinner"?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[gropes toward meaning]

There was a post. Yes, I'm sure of it.

But what did it say?

Is saying... a Thing?

Can we communicate?

And who do I mean by We?

I... I? Bye.

---

Sounds like "the man who *really* rules the Universe" in the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (H2G2) books. He was a pure philosopher.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Definitions can't be true or false, only agreed-upon or not-agreed-upon. It's like axioms (postulates) in Math. You don't prove an axiom. You accept it among yourselves, and go on to prove things from it. Definitions have no truth value.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Definitions can't be true or false, only agreed-upon or not-agreed-upon. It's like axioms (postulates) in Math. You don't prove an axiom. You accept it among yourselves, and go on to prove things from it. Definitions have no truth value.

---

Well, maybe in math, but in ordinary speech many definitions are truth claims. People argue over definitions all the time.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But what are they really arguing about? Not words.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But what are they really arguing about? Not words.

---

No - usually they're arguing about the implied equivalence between two things that is created by labeling them both with the same word.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Let me throw this out there. I am a traditional Christian but I don't feel hostility on the SOF. Well, not to my traditional Christianity (except from the conservative evangelicals), just to my brash and obnoxious behavior.

Then again, my position on the dead horses issues is often at variance with my church's official position. Leading me to conclude that much, most, or all of the "hostility to traditional Christians" is actually hostility toward "traditional" views on the dead horses issues.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I did provide a non-sex stuff upthread as other markers.

---

quote:

---

1. Ordination of women (yes, I know that's a dead equine. There are bound to be several in this mix by definition);
2. the nature of marriage and roles within it;
3. authority, authoritarianism, and freedom: where to draw the lines (particularly in the public sphere)
4. authority of Scripture (particularly over one's life); (borderline)
5. proper use of Scripture and/or tradition in the church; (borderline)
6. whether there is any value in humility, obedience, and self-sacrifice (all things called by varying names, positive or otherwise, depending on what your viewpoint is);
7. whether denial of certain doctrines (such as the resurrection) are sufficient to render one either "not a Christian," or "not saved";
8. Whether one should submit to wrongheaded authority, and if so, under what circumstances;
9. The comparative value of personal liberty when compared to other social or religious goods;
10. whether intellectual freedom has any limits, or ought to have;
11. What form the relationship between church and state ought to take, and how best to bring about that state of affairs;
12. whether religion is only for the private sphere;
13. to what extent a public official or a provider of public goods (such as a chef) ought to be permitted to take actions based on personal religious standards.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Let me throw this out there. I am a traditional Christian but I don't feel hostility on the SOF. Well, not to my traditional Christianity (except from the conservative evangelicals), just to my brash and obnoxious behavior.

Then again, my position on the dead horses issues is often at variance with my church's official position. Leading me to conclude that much, most, or all of the "hostility to traditional Christians" is actually hostility toward "traditional" views on the dead horses issues.

---

- which changes no leopard spots either way of course. Furthermore, surely you've felt hostility to the way dominant Christian tradition of Mary Ever Virgin?

--------------------
Love wins

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Furthermore, surely you've felt hostility to the way dominant Christian tradition of Mary Ever Virgin?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We are arguing over 8 with regard to Trump and our wrongheaded governor, who has just cut Medicaid because he can. That is not a dead horse issue. Nor is it a "disingenuous" attempt to get in a pop at homosexuality, or OOW, or any of that stuff.

---