Post-Modernism: A paper tiger

"As brilliant as Ayn is in her own right, this certainly isn't true, unless of course frozen fire is somehow not a contradiction." Yes she is brilliant, and the correct contradiction would be a non-burning fire, not a frozen one. Thank you for making her statement stand out clearly. "In one instance you use science as a tool for uncovering "truths" but in the next juxtapose it to skepticism, which is defined as, among other things: The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general." I never said "truth" was a claim of science. I said its purpose was to increase knowledge, and that truth is a subjective claim on that knowledge by others. "I guess you would then have to define what truth means since you say truth and knowledge aren't synonymous. You either have knowledge of truth or not. That is either absolutely the case, or it is not. How can you explain this contradiction, which, really, only further solidifies my argument that such a belief system is riddled with logical fallacies." Once again; science, scepticism cannot claim truth, which is an absolute statement, as part of its processes if it wishes to retain falsification. Claim of truth: X person has a father and mother. Remember, a claim of truth is an absolute, seems like a reasonable enough statement, however.. Claim of knowledge: X person can have multiple fathers or mothers. The emphasis is on a lack of absolutes. A person may well have multiples of both. Person X possible mothers: Egg, surrogate, mother after hospital, later adoption, two lesbian parents, step mother "Postmodernism may not equate to nihilism any more that skepticism equates to postmodernism, but one is integral to the other. Think of it this way: All Floridians are Americans, but not all Americans are Floridians. It is the same with nihilism and postmodernism, as nihilism is the basis for its philosophical underpinnings. When you read Nietzsche it becomes axiomatic that one drives the other. An extreme pessimism is lauded by its adherents, but under the light of scrutiny, it is one gigantic contradiction." Again, the reason post modernism is not called nihilism/solipsism is because there are differences. Post modernism is not concerned with ‘all claims of knowledge' merely those concerning how people construct their own reality. You cannot use solipsist and nihilist arguments on the nature of reality, when postmodernism does not fully ascribe to them. You certainly cannot claim contradictions on the basis of truths when postmodernism asserts none. It does not assert its own position is correct, merely says this is what we can do. It does not say another position is wrong, it says but we can look at it from another way. Is that nihilistic pessimism? I don't think so. "Here is evidence of the contradiction! You say that skepticism does not claim "truths" but seeks to explain nature in scientific terms. So then science, we can assume, is not truth? Or is it? How can you occupy two contradictory positions and still remain coherent? If science produces truths, how can you also deny truths? Again, consummate contradiction." Repetition appears to be the order of the day. Your own definition says sceptics do not claim truths, yet you challenge that, and once again science is a method of doing something, it cannot make a claim as itself. It cannot inherently claim an absolute truth and be called science, and it does not. Science does not produce truths, it produces knowledge. "You state the above quote right after telling me that solipsism is not analogous to postmodernism. So then reality can change at the whim of a thought, I assume, schizophrenia be damned? If that is so, then reality is only within the opinion of each individual person. Yet, people have no problem saying that someone is absolutely right or wrong, all the while denying that truth isn't absolute, which, incidentally, is the case here." How solipsism is not analogous to postmodernism: Solipsism: Reality is from the self; the self is 1, that 1 is stable Postmodernism: Reality is created through interaction; interaction is through multiple sources/contexts, a person may have multiple contexts. Claims of a schizophrenic philosophy just highlight my opposite's lack of understanding. "You are, presumably, attempting to instruct me on reality, and in essence, truth. Yet you also maintain that postmodernism teaches that reality is basically only in the eye of the beholder" Well call me a scarecrow...1. i am not instructing you on reality, I am debating using the epistemological view of postmodernisms reality 2. I am not saying postmodernism teaches anything; that would be a claim of truth. Please refer to the multiple times I have stated that postmodernism shies away from exactly that. "Hume and Nietzsche were both arguably postmodernists in the way they viewed reality and truth, as they were very similar in their philosophical stances. Compartmentalizing them in to quaint little descriptions is not my intention. My intent is to expose how illogical their theories were on a foundational and basic level. Then again, if my reality says that Hume was a postmodernist, and yours says that he was not, who then arbitrates between the two?" If you wish to "expose" Hume and Nietzsche, then by all means do, in a separate debate. Your opening post: "If these debates are merely generalizations" We are not here to debate individuals by your own premises; the fact that we may have separate views (realities) on where exactly Hume sits on the scales of rationalism and postmodernism merely gives a salute to the view held within postmodernism itself. With all summation we can, I hope, both agree that it is the end of the debate and this, my opponent, is a knowledge. My thanks for an interesting debate. May you continue with appealing topics.