Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Prole condescension

Re: Prole condescension
January 27, 2011, 10:24:48 PM
But that's not to say Mary Shelley was slut. I think she struck that balance whereby she maintained her identity as an independent woman while remembering her maternal responsibilities.

FUN FACT: Mary kept her husband Percy's cock heart wrapped in the pages of his poem Adonais. Metal as fvck.

Not just this forum.  This topic seems to come up everywhere.  It seems like any serious discussion I have, whether out in the world or on the net, eventually boils down to some form of this difference of view.  It seems like agreeing that there is some objective reality has to be priority one before you can even begin to debate anything else.
Wouldn't such an agreement be necessary in order to reach a conclusion? How can one arrive at an "answer" -or rather, why should one do so- if its relevance is ultimately trumped by its insignificance as merely one opinion among many? What's the point of discussing anything if all it will lead to is the various participants vocalizing their preferences?
HE WHO REAPS STORMS, SOWS WINDS. HE WHO SOWS WINDS, REAPS STORMS.

"It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this to heart."
-Ecclesiastes 7:2

Re: Prole condescension
January 30, 2011, 06:38:19 AM
The assumption is that through compromise, resolution follows a dialogue. By adding more input, more factors are weighed, making for improved results. This is a dumbification of the dubious Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic. The result is a modern ethos of mass democracy, without which, ProgressTM could not continue apace. What an intellectual abortion.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Prole condescension
January 30, 2011, 06:58:17 AM
That clarifies it a bit(for me). But I would have to counter that by simply pointing out that resolution != reality. If one opinion out of several is true, or even merely closer to the truth, any resolutions arrived at through compromise with those several other opinions will only be further from truth as a result. There will be many times when something held to be objectively true turns out to be either false or simply insufficient/misinformed - this is inevitable since none of us are omniscient. Adopting subjectiveness, in this light, strikes me as cowardly - if nobody's right, nobody's wrong, and that means you can think whatever you like without having to be embarrassed for saying something "stupid." Better to stick to your guns and defend what you believe until you either win or die trying - and when you(r ideas) do occasionally die as a result, dust yourself off, learn what the weakness was in those concepts that had just been defeated, and gain stronger ones as a result.
HE WHO REAPS STORMS, SOWS WINDS. HE WHO SOWS WINDS, REAPS STORMS.

"It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this to heart."
-Ecclesiastes 7:2

Re: Prole condescension
January 31, 2011, 07:48:29 PM
If one opinion out of several is true, or even merely closer to the truth, any resolutions arrived at through compromise with those several other opinions will only be further from truth as a result.

I agree: in finding truth, avoid compromise -- it's a political (human) construct, not in the data or the world.

Re: Prole condescension
January 31, 2011, 10:53:07 PM
Setting aside most truth in order to have compromise is just good intentions. All parties are then satisfied for a little while for a time of peace. Running around stomping out little fires as they pop up is a well meaning activity too. But because truth is neglected with our happy democratic compromising we soon get new little fires to put out.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793