Post-modernist fallacy number 13 is in: the Master of the Universe!

Today I can proudly announce that we have found our post-modern fallacy (PMF) number 13! A lucky number and so central to our research into the fatal pseudo-philosophy of relativism.

Have you ever wondered about the ego inflation going on in the bl*#%y blegosphere and elsewhere in the post-modern world? Antwerp's city poet Ramsey Nasr once remarked of Dutch young men that they are arrogant little blighters whom somehow have learnt they are important (or words to that effect). Now we know why (and it isn't just their mothers that are to blame, and it surely isn't just Dutch young men! Here goes:

13. Relativist pseudo-philosophy causes ego-centrism and pompousness

It's the fallacy that denies objective truth that lurks at the very bottom of the fatal mistake (I should have known!). A young lay philosopher The Barefoot Bum summed it up as follows:

"Statements about ethics have an absolute truth-value if and only if they are stated relative to some subjective entity or property. 'Killing people for fun is wrong,' has no truth-value. 'The Barefoot Bum violently disapproves of killing people for fun.' does have truth-value (as is in fact true)."

It's the error of which Albert Einstein famously said, "do you really think the world isn't there when you aren't looking at it?". Antony Rizzi has devoted an entire book to the subject, Science before Science, a guide to thinking in the 21st century. The problem with modern science is that students don't do proper natural philosophy - think it beneath them, and for Middle Agers, Aquinas (St Thomas, a Scholastic and only one of the finest minds in history) and such - hence the basic errors and the laughable results in theoretical physics, that comes up with an unlimited amounts of parallel universes and what else have you (two membranes, I believe?).

Now that we know where that self-importance and ego-centrism stems from - each person literally the Master of the Universe - we can concentrate on two remaining mysteries: on the one hand what is with the present obsession with the trivial, and on the other the habitual and disproportionate terms of force directed at all and sundry.

When I started out with this blog I had one huge question mark: whatever has gotten into people these days. But bit by bit I find the answers to my query - thirteen of them to date - and all can be traced back to the relativist blunder as per above. George Weigel often states that ideas have consequences: well, here's your proof if there ever was one!

A small thing, huge consequences.

Post-modernism's fallacies (II)

In the first instalment of this post we looked at fallacies 1 to 5. This morning I could add a tenth problem to the list, placed conveniently on 7., sandwiched between how a person's political affinity differs from wet bathing water on 6., and on 8. the intricacies of the French Revolution.

At this stage it may be practical to remind ourselves of the definition of relativism. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:

"Relativism is sometimes identified (usually by its critics) as the thesis that all points of view are equally valid. In ethics, this amounts to saying that all moralities are equally good; in epistemology it implies that all beliefs, or belief systems, are equally true. Critics of relativism typically dismiss such
views as incoherent since they imply the validity even of the view that relativism is false. They also charge that such views are pernicious since they undermine the enterprise of trying to improve our ways of thinking"

... to which I have nothing to add. Back to my list of post-modern problems. Not all, but most of them can be directly attributed to the relativist world view and we will see indeed how pernicious and pervasive the consequences are.

6. Fact is not opinion.
It is a fact that the table is made of wood. In my opinion a red table cloth would be nice.
- You can discuss the choice of a table cloth with your neighbour, who may think a blue one would be better - and go in the end for a green one.
- The fact that it is a wooden table, cannot be changed however long the matter is debated. It is not open to interpretation; it is a fact of life and the law of nature. This may seem obvious, but it is sadly a commonly made mistake.

7. The truth about the Questionable Cause, or Causality, or the Law of Cause and Effect
Having for some time witnessed how some people are struggling with cause and effect, I was not particularly surprised this morning, to find there is a relationship with post-modern thinking. Without going deep into the basics of Aristotle's work "Metaphysics", it can be said that up to modern times causality was a law of nature and moreover, plain common sense. It was also the basis for St Thomas' proof of God's existence: matter unable to create matter, giving rise to the First Cause, a.k.a. God.
Since this state of affairs couldn't stand for the New Man, a number of philosophers and scientists have posed views to the effect that the universe is but an accident, a random chain of events (determinism) and there is no such principle as a free will (incompatibilism). The principle of free will is also often forgotten by Christians, struggling as they do with wars and holocausts that they forget are committed by humans at free will.
Nietzsche's philosophy on the meaningless universe and existentialism did the rest for a cynic world view, that is ruled by boredom and trivia.

Since ideas have consequences, with the corresponding abolition of the time-line in education (boring) and teaching instead centered around themes (fun!), it becomes apparent that some people started developing problems with Law of Cause and Effect: the understanding that cause happens prior to the effect and the effect being a reaction to the cause.
You cannot really explain without getting seriously pedantic, that when a book is on the table, and next it is on the floor, any normal, reasonable person would assume that the book has fallen off the table, on the floor. In grown up current affairs' terms, for example: the events in New York on the 11th of September 2001 (Cause) happened prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 (Effect), not the other way around.

8. Equality means, equal before the law.
During the French revolution the people called for "Liberté, Egalité et Fraternité", Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood (Solidarity). By Equality they meant, equal before the law, so as to put an end to the commonly practiced, nasty habit of class justice whereby there was one law for the people, and another for the aristocracy.

Lately we have the tendency to take equality to mean "the same" or "identical", and often not used in a legal context either. That you are not the same person as your neighbor may be self-evident and only clones are (more or less) identical. It would therefore be better to speak of equivalance when we mean to say that somebody shouldn't be giving himself any needless airs.
Even if we are all equal before the law, judges will still have to be careful and interpret the law from a legal language into a human one, taking for example human dignity and fairness into consideration. Only in totalitarian regimes is the law considered above the people. In democratic countries the law serves the people and not the other way around.

To be continued.

How'zat for psychology?

How should one form one's opinion? I'd refer to my post on how the Scholastics did that in the Middle Ages (so dark!), but because you are a lazy lot (don't take it personally: it's a fine human characteristic which keeps us out of some troubles at times (but alas into others as well), but here's the gist again: 1. pose (formulate) the question, 2. list the arguments from both sides (for and against), 3. weigh both sides for the outcome, 4. are there any possible objections to the outcome which must taken into consideration (or maybe re-think steps 2. and 3.).
So here's how people of Reason do it. But most of us, being (increasingly) unreasonable, sit for the box at night and let things "come over us", as it were. Seeing for example bleeding, crying children and hysterical women we conclude something terrible must have been done to them. We just made an opinion. We skipped however steps 1., 2. and 3. We reacted spontaneously, on basis of the emotions of seeing those women and children. We didn't formulate the question (what is going on here?) and we didn't list or weigh the arguments; it could for example very well be that they were indeed a bunch (or is it a flock) of angels, OR that a day earlier they did the same to another group of people, OR they stoned an innocent woman to death who had the misfortune of having dishonoured her family by getting raped by the Dutch uncle, OR they even might have been plotting to throw a bomb on YOU. Now that would make a difference, wouldn't it?
Let's face it, most of us form our opinions in the latter way and pick up a few arguments here and there when we have to defend our position in the unlikely event we meet someone with an opinion of his own. Let's try do it more like St. Thomas in future, and the world will become a better place. Trust me ...

On quite another note (I'll not even try to pretend there is a bridge), here's for the interior decorators amongst us (twins, pay attention!): aware of the organization 1stdibs.com? They carry a line of lovely antiques which is sold over the Internet, but they do have physical locations allover: Paris, New York, Miami, etc. There's a free monthly (?) newsletter available to keep you updated. Here's the link: http://www.1stdibs.com/search.php

Don't want to let you go without the flour of this morning's news items:
- Cleric 'meat' remarks spark fury ... Gist: if you're not wearing a bag over your head, you're asking for it!): http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/26/australia.cleric.ap/index.html

I told you (or didn't I) that the world is in reverse! But in the midst of all that, there are also sparks of hope, of people swimming against the tide of political correctness, that bane of our time (just after relativism, which is an absolute curse):
- Argentine prosecutors: Arrest former Iranian president: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/10/25/argentina.iran.ap/index.html