It's easier to make fun of Irigaray than it is to engage the ideas of Derrida and Foucault of course.
This thread is such a disappointment, it does not deliver.
The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism
by cofty 99 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Ruby456
slim, Irigaray's thought re evolution is remarkably insightful regarding sexual reproduction - she affirms Darwinian evolution for example. I don't understand why Dawkins and Gaad want to make fun of her? could it be that they feel threatened by her feminism? - there is no need to be so afraid
-
slimboyfat
Don't know I can't say I've ever read Irigaray or Spivak, Kristeva and so on. Or Lacan for that matter. They're a different sort of thing from Foucault and Derrida as far as I can see. I agree the world is constructed not found, and I guess this has implications for feminism and so on. How we describe physical forms and events is shaped by power for definite. Some theorists may have made fools of themselves talking using scientific discourses they didn't properly understand. But it works both ways. Dawkins makes a fool of himself talking about poststructuralism for sure.
-
bohm
In my experience, most pomo thinking revolve around the idea that language is both very important in terms of understanding the world and that language is somehow ill-defined or not objectively definable.. In my opinion this misses the very simple observation that language easily allows us to communicate complex ideas with high fidelity and this type of common-sense view of language has been and remains important to understand the world -- both if you are a 6 year old or a scientist.
Sure, pomo allows a certain way to talk about language and a certain standard for what constitute "proper" use of language and definitions that allows us to undercut language as a useful tool. Using this way of thinking one can then go on to prove (within the assumptions of pomo) that 1+2 might be 54 and the sun is flat or that a banana is worth the same as Microsoft. I suppose that might count as some sort of accomplishment, but so what? how does this make us any smarter? How can this be used to anything useful?
A person might say this way of thinking about language gives him or her satisfaction, that the idea that one can think up a way in which one can say that ones sockdrawer might be the gateway to Narnia is a deeply satisfying experience, but to me this is just undercutting the utility of language. Having a conversation on those premises reminds me of Ray McCooney
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMagY_CQopA
Where I think I would really disagree with pomo is that in my experience, people who promote extreme pomo views are not being consistent at all. SBF might say on one thread that we are wrong to say the sun is round, but in the next he is saying all sorts of factual thing about the real world like that the WT taught this or that previously.. the pomo standard of no objective truth is not as I see it being applied evenly at all and this does not seem honest. Pomo is more like something that get's pulled out on occasion to annoy Cofty or other scientifically minded people and when the job is done we are right back at using words with their usual meaning (apples are round, pizzas a circular and drain cleaner is not a kind of gravy); often this derision of ordinary language and it's use can happen simultaneous on two different threads which just seem bizarre.
I suspect this is true of most pomo writers who believe that all sorts of questions have objective answers when it suits them (what is my salary at the university? Is my spouse seeing someone else? did the mechanic repair my car? is my child ill?).
-
slimboyfat
In my opinion this misses the very simple observation that language easily allows us to communicate complex ideas with high fidelity and this type of common-sense view of language has been and remains important to understand the world -- both if you are a 6 year old or a scientist.
Constructionists accept the ordinary use of language and respect its usefulness. What we object to is the idea that this usefulness equates to identity with reality. This distinction is what we are getting at. It is important because if you view descriptions of the world as useful/useless rather than true/untrue then it enables you to adapt to new circumstances, reject intolerance, and avoid dogmatism. Please see page 231 of this book available on Amazon's look inside.
Your further comments misunderstand my view of ordinary language. I accept it, use it, and find it helpful. Constructionism in no way demands that we give up using words in their everyday sense. What it means instead is a recognition that the everyday sense of words can be overturned at any time.
It's an approach to language a bit like wishing for a sterile operating theatre. We would want the theatre to be completely sterile for our operation. In the real world a 100% sterile theatre cannot be achieved. That doesn't mean we give up and say what's the point of attempting a sterile environment if it's not 100% possible.
With language, the aim to understand and to be understood is a worthwhile goal. That we realise this will never be acheived 100% and that all utterances are subject to revision is no reason to give up communicating.
-
Ruby456
I agree. The title and op of this thread implies that there is a master language that others are borrowing and misusing. As I have shown different branches of science have the same problem - evolutionary psychologists and evolutionary biologists for example, using the same language to say different things to the public.
-
bohm
SBF: Okay, just a few clarifying questions:
Constructionists accept the ordinary use of language and respect its usefulness. What we object to is the idea that this usefulness equates to identity with reality.
Two questions: Firstly, when a person say "the earth is round", that would then be a true statement in ordinary language? So if you were to object to it, you would in principle have to prefix your objection as: "Not speaking inordinary language then.."? If this is not the case, what determines ordinary language?
I agree words and abstract concepts are not reality.
What it means instead is a recognition that the everyday sense of words can be overturned at any time.
That's an interesting idea. What is the evidence that it is true? Could you outline a plausible scenario in which the everyday sense of the word "banana" could be overturned? Like an actually plausible everyday scenario where the everyday usage of "banana" would become something quite different?
I would object and say that since the everyday meaning of words remain quite stable over time, the "overturning" of the meaning of a word is a rare occurrence and when the meaning of a word changes it is usually insignificant as the two speakers realize they are talking about different things and therefore begin to use synonyms.
It's an approach to language a bit like wishing for a sterile operating theatre. We would want the theatre to be completely sterile for our operation. In the real world 100% sterile theatre cannot be achieved.
Okay but here is the problem: Cofty (for instance) don't step into the operating theater. He stays outside where words have the common-sense meaning and where you too are living most of your life. But then once in a while you choose effectively to analyze what Cofty says from the "operating theater" perspective despite you knowing well enough that Cofty is making common-language statements. Can you see why this might be a bit annoying?
-
slimboyfat
Stripped of context no description makes any sense. All utterances are dependent on context. The statement that "the earth is round" makes sense and is useful to humans living in the 21 century. It may be less useful to a worm or to an angel or to a human living 200 years from now. The grounds on which they may object to the utterance may not even be intelligible to us. We are so throughly immersed in the world as we construct it that the possibility of seeing it otherwise can be difficult. And yet history teaches us this happens all the time.
Please see the video above and substitute "bottle" for "banana". I can see you genuinely want an answer to this question and there is a very good explanation of the concepts of constructionism in the video that addresses the point you are making. "Banana" is indeed a socially constructed concept.
To bring this discussion right to focus and demonstrate its relevance, the point of insisting on the distinction between language as a useful tool and language as corresponding to reality, consider the situation which prompts most of these discussions here: acceptance of evolutionary theory.
For many people leaving JWs, acceptance of evolutionary theory is a positive move for all sorts of reasons. It signals a new openness to views of the world that are forbidden by JW ideology. It marks closer alignment with mainstream thinking in modern society. It can free us up from worry and anxiety that may result from a literal reading of the Bible. All those things are excellent. But Cofty won't leave it there. Even if someone has left the JWs and is comfortable still believing in creationism, Cofty finds this unacceptable on the grounds that, while they may be happy, and it may be working for them, it is nevertheless not "true". As if what is "true" is the real point here. Cofty finds satisfaction in the idea that he has finally discovered how the world "really" is and insists that others must accept this as "true" or else be labelled ignorant. What is truly ignorant is the idea that the world is such that particular descriptions of it are what is important in life, rather than how useful those descriptions are for us getting on with things.
-
cofty
Very helpful post bohm thank you.
Cofty finds this unacceptable on the grounds that, while they may be happy, and it may be working for them, it is nevertheless not "true". As if what is "true" is the real point here. - SBF
It is.
Evolution is not a useful narrative it is a fact.
Those who reject it are either ignorant of the evidence - like the worm who thinks the earth is flat - or they are lying to themselves for reasons of religious superstition.
If we could replay time backwards we actually would observe our ancestors all the way back to fish and then back further to LUCA.
This has very significant implications in other areas of life. I will never apologise for presenting the evidence and refuting those who mock it out of self-imposed ignorance and fear.
SBF - I suspect you are not even sure that the Watchtower are wrong in any meaningful sense. You simply find their narrative to be less useful to you than you once did. Is this a fair characterisation?
-
slimboyfat
How can you be sure the worm's view is ignorant and ours is faithful to reality? Or put it another way. What if there are beings that are as much more intelligent than humans than humans are compared with the worm. They need not be supernatural, they could have evolved. Would they necessarily view and describe the nature of the earth the same as we do? If our view of the earth is to be preferred to the worm's because we are more intelligent, how can you rule out the possibility that a superior intelligence may view it differently still?