I’ll have a Bloody Mary. The Bar Keep says… “You find a girl named Mary, and I’ll bloody her up.”
The Postmodernist responds … “But that’s not what I mean.”
The Barkeep says… “It is in my worldview.”
Last night I tied into a Postmodernist who is a “Seminary Resident” at one of the local liberal churches in Charlotte and the conversation was a laugh riot. See if you agree.
Adam Droscha said,
First of all, it is psychologically impossible to completely erode one’s worldviews or structures and systems of belief.
BLM responds,
That is a magnificently large non-truth. Our whole current University systems, exceptions notwithstanding, specialize in doing just this. There are also other examples. If one is conversant with Mao’s re-education camps or any of the communist’s dealings with interrogation one knows that the statement that “it is psychologically impossible to completely erode one’s worldview is crapola. Even well-delievered propaganda can completely erode one’s worldview.
AD writes,
Secondly, (1) pretty much all ideas are purely subjective. Even concepts of metaphysical categories, absolute/objective truths, etc. are always subjectively described, or subjectively thought of…..
all worldviews are subjective. There are not premodern and modernist objective worldviews, and a singular subjective postmodern worldview. Peoples’ worldviews have always been subjective.
Bret responds,
Jacques Derrida … Michael Focault … please call your office.
Of course, all of this Adam is just your subjective opinion and so not one I need to take seriously.
Adam Droscha wrote,
Bret, psychologically speaking in the context of my conversation with Matthew, what I said is true.
Bret responds,
Well, only as your subjective worldview subjectively tells you it is true. Of course, if all worldviews are indeed subjective then any talk about true is qrxiye hiyhd auty,ty6 bnwopsm arf.
AD wrote.,
The human mind is hardwired–it was quite literally in the neurophysiology of the human body–to assimilate new information into existing frames of reference.
Bret responds,
Well, that may be the case in your subjective worldview but it is not necessarily the case in any number of other subjective worldviews.
Look, old chap, if all worldviews are subjective, as you insisted earlier, then there is no objective reference point that you and I can appeal to in order to find common meaning. In your subjective worldview, the word “colossal” could mean ‘purple’ wherein in my subjective worldview ‘colossal’ could be ‘menstruation.’
In my worldview, your statement is still nonsense as any familiarity with Mao’s reeducation camps or the work with POWs in prison camps or even any familiarity with the work of effective propaganda reveals as I noted earlier. You’re just wrong AD. Goebbel’s Ministry of Information proves that the human mind is malleable to an incredible degree. In point of fact, the novel 1984 labored to show how malleable minds were. Quick… how many fingers am I holding up?
AD wrote
Yes, critical theories and post-structural theories originate in academic circles. To say that there are university systems that specialize in “eroding one’s worldviews, or structures and systems of belief” is a pretty self-serving, sweeping, and propagandistic claim severely lacking in context and, as I’m sure, firsthand experience.
Bret responds,
You know nothing about me. Nothing about my research. Nothing about how I know about the University system. The above statement is ignorance of stilts. Not only that, you missed the part where I said: “exceptions notwithstanding.” I did not make a Universal statement. I made a general statement.
AD writes
Yes, I’m familiar with both Focault’s and Derrida’s work (which should not be flippantly lumped together), and I’ve studied both to an extent. Invoking them here changes what I said not at all.
Whose opinion you take seriously is up to you, man. But you inserted yourself into this conversation and chose to read my comments and reply. If you don’t take it seriously, go about your day. Just know the feeling is mutual.
Bret responds,
The only thing you are familiar with is your subjective opinion. In your worldview, no communication can happen because all worldviews are subjective. If all worldviews are subjective no communication can take place because the minute I receive your subjective Worldview my subjective worldview alters it into something else subjective other than your subjectivity.
And don’t you dare disagree with me because that is just your subjectivity telling you that I am wrong.
Go away … in your worldview communication is a myth.
Lol. Imagine being this immature and expecting people to take what you say seriously.
Bret, I see what you’re doing, and please understand that I’m trying to politely level with you here. In absolutely no intelligent, good faith conversation about the topics we’ve discussed here is your response considered a logical byproduct. If you are so ill educated, if your knowledge is so lacking, that you don’t know that subjectivity and objectivity are not polar opposites, and that subjective experience is essentially an a priori truism in philosophy, psychology, sociology, epistemology, communication science, and other fields, that is your own problem, man. Absolutely nothing you insinuated about communication breakdown resulting from acknowledging the subjectivity of experience and worldviews bears any reflection on reality. Good day to you, and may God have mercy in your soul.
Bret responds,
Meh … shrug … that’s just your subjective worldview talking. Come back when you have something more than a subjective opinion to offer.
It is so hilarious that you are shocked at the thought that people would take me seriously when at the same time I howling at the thought that anybody could take a ruddy thing you are saying seriously, or that you can even take yourself seriously. You freely admit that all worldviews are subjective and then expect people to take your words seriously. If everything is subjective Adam then you’re trying to communicate with me is like you being a man of water talking about a man of water in an ocean of water climbing out on a ladder of water into an upper story made of water. If all is subjective then all is the same. There is no ability to distinguish between what you mean and what I hear you as meaning. It’s water everywhere.
What you’re saying is that there is some subjectivity in your objective and some objectivity in your subjective? If that is so then you really can not call them subjective and objective but instead kind of subjective and kind of objective. But if objective gets in the subjective and subjective gets in the objective then what does subjective and objective even mean… and according to whom? By what standard can I or anybody determine how much subjectivity is allowed in the objective and how much objectivity is allowed in the subjective? And again, I say to you, this is all born of your subjective worldview. Were I to agree with you I could do so while disagreeing with you according to my subjective worldview.
You have no ground of authority Adam. No place to stand. You have turned all those fields you mentioned (philosophy, psychology, sociology, epistemology, communication science, etc.) into tarot card reading, necromancy, seances, mind-reading, and occultic levitation.
If the subjective experience is prior to any Objective then how could you possibly know what you are experiencing? You can’t talk about subjective without an objective to give identity to your subjective and you can’t whistle it either.
I’m sure you actually think that’s clever. Whenever my ignorances are exposed to me, it definitely helps my case to quit taking the conversation seriously. You should definitely keep doing that.
Bret responds,
Sorry, Dude, I don’t take the errant presuppositions of Humanism seriously. I am a Christian after all. We believe we have an objective word from God.
In the beginning, was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God.
I’m doing all I can to mock you and you think I’m taking this seriously?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh9PYtmVybU
I am curious to know how you define subjective and objective. I am inclined to think you consider them to be something other than the usual definitions, by which I mean subjective corresponds to a person’s perspective, and objective corresponds to actual reality. By the usual definitions a world view must be subjective because it pertains to how a person interprets the world – their perspective of reality rather than reality itself.
My position on subjective and objective is as you note;
“by which I mean subjective corresponds to a person’s perspective, and objective corresponds to actual reality.”
While many worldviews are indeed falsely perspectival, Worldviews though are not falsely perspectival when they are based on the Objective God and His reality legislating Word. The Christian worldview is not merely just one more possibly true and possibly false perspective it is God’s perspective and so the true or genuine perspective. This is why we are so fond of quoting the passage;
“In thy light we see light.”
Again I would appeal to another passage;
Jeremiah 2:13
For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.
Broken cisterns are false worldviews. The fountain of living waters yields a true/genuine worldview.
If all we had were worldview as subjective perspective then we could not talk about subjective perspective.