Lessing's Ditch

[theopoesis]

If no historical truth can be demonstrated, then nothing can be demonstrated by means of historical truths. That is: accidental truths of history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason... That, then, is the ugly, broad ditch which I cannot get across, however often and however earnestly I have tried to make the leap

Post-modernity argues that many intellectual fields are a result of particular historical processes. Specific contexts, events, decisions, discoveries, and thinkers led to a specific conclusion as part of that particular unfolding of history.

Questions for debate:

(1) Are historical events necessarily an impediment to absolute claims of truth? Is Lessing's ditch real?

(2) Are post-modernists correct in claiming that particular worldviews or intellectual fields emerge primarily out of particular histories or genealogies (or as a result of these histories or genealogies)?

(3) Does the historical embeddedness of many fields of knowledge lead to problems for the secularist? For the theist?

[theopoesis]

Can we claim that "people like power" in a way that is anything other than arbitrary? Alexander was an accidental or contingent historical event that was one among many which set Western Culture on a specific path which was oriented toward power. Other cultures and other histories seem to have produced different results. Can we say that there was anything in this path suggesting humans must like power, or could we just as easily construct an alternate anthropology were an alternate course of history taken? Could we not alter the course of history now? In other words, do we learn anything real from the historical event on which to build anything?

Please show me other cultures and other histories that show different results. Can you back up that claim?

Gift economies came immediately to mind. In these economies, basic market interactions are not based on increasing individual economic power, but on offering one's resources to another to increase his or her power.

Ascetic movements in 3rd century Egypt also come to mind. Particular groups moved away from society and gave up any power in order to live as equals or as isolated individuals.

There are all kinds of anthropological studies on contemporary societies too, ranging from Mbuti pygmies in the Congo, to Tahitians, to the Amish.

I have no idea what you mean by 'historical contingent events' and 'significant truths'. Please describe what you mean by these terms. Do they have any meaning in the real world what so ever, or are those terms gobbledygook?

Well, let's turn to a dictionary. That's often a good place to start when the meaning of a term isn't clear. Merriam Webster defines contingent as "1. likely but not certain to happen, 2. not logically necessary, or 3.a. happening by chance or unforeseen causes." Historical is defined as "of, relating to, or having the character of history". An event is "2.a. something that happens."

Putting it together, a historical contingent event is something that happens in the past that could not be described as certain to happen, logically necessary, or a product of necessity. I think that has a real meaning in the world.

For example: If you drop a ball, gravity and other principles suggest that, ceteris paribus (all things being equal), the ball will fall. This is certain to happen, so it is not contingent.

On the other hand, if you put three million people in the Mediterranean region, there is nothing logically necessary (in a deductive sense) why Alexander the Great should emerge. Is there any way that his development could be seen as certain? I don't know how we'd establish this. Therefore, it seems as if Alexander's origination is partly due to chance, or random probability, or whatever term you find more appropriate.

As for "significant truth": Merriam Webster defines significant as "1. having meaning, 2. having or likely to have influence or effect : important." Truth is a bit harder and probably needs a philosophical definition, but in terms of the dictionary: "2.a. the state of being the case, 3.a. the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality." When I wonder whether a historical contingency can lead to significant truth, I am in effect asking whether historical contingency can lead to a proposition of what is "in accord with reality" in a "meaningful" or "important" way.

Alexander was your example, not mine. I began by considering the postmodern argument that particular theories, ideas, perspectives, or paradigms are historically contingent. If these ideas are the result of chance, or developments that are not logically necessary conclusions given the reality observed, can we say that these ideas contribute any meaningful or important revelation about the facts of reality itself? That is what I meant.

Having defined that, can you respond to the argument?

Can we claim that "people like power" in a way that is anything other than arbitrary? Alexander was an accidental or contingent historical event that was one among many which set Western Culture on a specific path which was oriented toward power. Other cultures and other histories seem to have produced different results. Can we say that there was anything in this path suggesting humans must like power, or could we just as easily construct an alternate anthropology were an alternate course of history taken? Could we not alter the course of history now? In other words, do we learn anything real from the historical event on which to build anything?

Arguably, cultural "reality" is socially constructed. Humans and cultures are not like nature and do not operate according to specific uniform and mathematically measurable principles. An arbitrary past event is repeated through teaching and imitation through time until it is accepted as a cultural convention. Soon, a random contingent historical event defines and shapes all future events until such a time as a different random historical act breaks the trajectory and starts a new one. Can this arbitrary event which led to the observation of the common drive for power actually offer us any understanding of what humans are qua human being? Or does it simply describe a historical occurrence and then universalize an arbitrary contingency? That is the question.

To me, that sounds like mystical nonsense. I challenge you to show that 'Humans and cultures are not like nature', because that is exactly what they are. Humans and cultures reflect their environment, and their need for survival.

It sounds to me like the leading theories on sociology and culture. One man's nonsense is another man's education. Oh well. Maybe I can help you understand.

Nature is mechanistic operating under certain laws. Of course, our understanding of those laws might be limited, but all things being equal things in nature seem to operate in a fixed and predictable way. Whether this is deterministic or probabilistic is yet to be seen (if I understand AkithePirate).

Cultures and societies, on the other hand, have not been fully explained (or anything near it) in terms of necessary laws. I know you don't like the word necessary, so let me define it. In philosophy it is generally used as the antithesis of contingent, so I'm likely to slip up and use it again. Merriam Webster defines necessary as, "1.a. of an inevitable nature, 1.b. logically unavoidable." Nature operates in necessary ways. If you drop a ball, it is inevitable that it will fall (unless you intervene). Cultures do not seem to be inevitable.

You are correct in pointing to certain underlying currents in culture such as the need to survive that explain some of cultural phenomena. These currents can explain, perhaps, why societies of cooperating individuals come to exist, or why specialized labor emerges. However, can this need to survive explain why one culture drives on the right side of the road, but another on the left? Can it explain why one culture listens to reggae, but another salsa? Can it explain why one culture produced a Beethoven, but another produced Confucious? Can it explain why one culture produced Christianity, while another produced Daoism? Can it explain cultures exhibit different psychological trends? Japan has the hikikomoro, but the USA has cutting. Each of these events in retrospect might make some sense as part of a broader cultural history, but can you establish the necessary development of these things in one place and not another according to natural laws? That is to say, can you explain them as a result of necessity?

Every cultural and sociological study I ever read granted a degree of chance, randomness, and contingency in the development of culture. If you can develop a theory that explains all, I suggest you publish it.

And, when it comes to past events (calling it a random arbitrary event is nonsense, because you don't know it's random, or arbitrary, it just is), can we see patterns of behavior happen. Events don't just happen in a vacuum.. but it happens as a result of cultural development.

This is precisely my point. A culture develops that shapes the events in that culture. My question is, can the arbitrary nature of that culture validate the cultural events themselves as leading us to universally valid conclusions?

I know you are going to object to my use of the word "arbitrary" here as "nonsense," but I'll do a preemptive strike. Merriam Webster defines arbitrary as "3.a. based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something, 3.b. existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance."

In fact, it seems that my use of the word "arbitrary" is very sensical. I used "contingent" above to refer to that which is not "necessary" (see definitions). I argued that history is not necessary according to all leading theories and to the definitions themselves, and then I offered you the chance to propose an alternative theory. I will retract if need be in the future. Until then, since you have frequently accused me in the past of "word games" and "intentionally confusing" matters, I try to use as many synonyms in a post in hopes that my meaning will be clear. Arbitrary is a synonym for contingent. Therefore, my use of it both fits within my argument and within the specific audience: you. By using multiple words, I hoped to make myself clear, and to avoid the accusation of being nonsensical. It seems I will have to do better.

I suppose I will grant that I don't know beyond a doubt that historical events are arbitrary, but given the fact that no system exists that can even remotely approximate cultural development, I will take the lack of evidence for an ordered law-like system to be grounds for dismissing it, based on your own concessions in other threads. "That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Unless you have evidence of why specific historical events are necessary? (using the dictionary definition)

Sometimes this is due to environmental changes, other times it is due the exchange and development of ideas/technology. The term 'arbitrary contingency' seems someone is over thinking things, and trying to attribute characteristics to reality that just don't exist.

I grant that environmental changes and technological changes effect history. But I want to know whether those historical changes are necessary and universally applicable? In other words, the simple fact that something happened as a part of history in no way means that these events must happen, and in this way prevents one from claiming (on secular grounds) that a particular culture offers more truth (or valid "conclusions") than any other. For example...

Why did the first flight occur in North Carolina instead of in Bangkok? I know there are historical forces that explain this, but can you explain this event in terms of necessary laws that are similar to the laws of nature (granting that I know these laws are subject to change, but they are still verifiable and testable and falsifiable).

If you can answer this question, history might be less contingent and the problem will be sidestepped.

When terms like 'historical contingency' are used, the conversation to me becomes meaningless, because that term has not meaning to me.

Hopefully a dictionary has helped.

Science is a tool, and there are things that science does not handle.. such as 'what should ethics be', or 'should there be restrictions against <insert favorite taboo here> .

I grant that there are limits on science. I am asking whether the secularist can say anything other than science. Or, as I have asked repeatedly without an answer, is the secularist left with science and silence?

Science CAN describe the results of various ethics, and we can use data to attempt to analyse the results of things. We can see the 'unintended consequences' of attempts to enforce certain ethics.. (prohibition for example, and the war on drugs).

This is true, but this collapses ethics into a field without meaning or distinctive purpose. Ethics becomes the study of what is instead of the study of what ought to be.

The Christian, I believe, can escape this problem through the incarnation. In the incarnation, God is linked to a particular history thereby setting that history on a track that attempts to link the arbitrary contingency of past events with the actual reality of human nature qua human being, and not qua historical contingency. This is the meaning of Jesus' restoring the image of God into human nature.

Again, this sounds like total gobbledygook to me. 'Historical contingency' is nonsense.

Not according to the dictionary, sir.

As for 'restoring the image fo God into Human Nature', can you show that this is anything more than unsupported claims and wishful thinking? Can you show that this is more than rationalizing about what you want to be?

If you can't, then,.. you can't escape any problem, because your solution is based on unsupported claims, and you have no way to find out what the 'image of God' is, or the Meaning of Jesus' besides what is made up by man.

If you read the next sentence, half of what you said is unnecessary. I say "this solution is based on non-verifiable axioms." Thank you for pointing out to me and to the reader what I already grant.

You do have a shortcoming in this argument by falling into the repeated cycle of requiring evidence for axioms which, by definition, are accepted as true without evidence. If the Christian believes in the Scriptural account of the incarnation as a divine intervention into human history, the Christian, based on these beliefs, can validate or justify his or her own worldview even if it contains elements based on contingent history (which does have meaning per the dictionary). I am asking whether the secularist can validate his or her conclusions if they are based on historical contingency. You have given no sign of being able to do so, thus far.

This solution is based on non-verifiable axioms, but these axioms allow for the Christian capacity within its own framework to speak realistically about what exists as "truth" and thereby present valid "conclusions" that are not based on historical arbitraryness. I am wondering whether the secular worldview within its own axioms can construct a similar narrative of human nature (anthropology), human society (sociology), and human cultural growth (history) that is anything other than arbitrary.

How can you verify the results? If you can't verify the axioms, or show how the process works, is anything more than wishful thinking? If you can't demonstrate that the axioms are true, how do know that your claims aren't arbitrary.?

The definition of an axiom is quite clear. Let me offer you the definition of dictionary.com which is tailored to logic, which is what I am using axiom in reference to. "Axiom: 3. Logic, Mathematics . a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it."

You have repeatedly accused me of nonsense when I am using words in a perfectly clear way according to the dictionary. I must point out, though, that asking me to verify the axioms is nonsense. It is the first verifiable nonsense in this thread. By definition, axioms are not verified. They are assumed without proof. This is intrinsic to the meaning of the word, and it's really just silly for you to continue to dismiss an entire argument because axioms can't be verified. Of course they can't be! By definition, axioms are not verified. They are assumed for the sake of studying the consequences.

Here are the consequences that I am studying: If the axioms of Christian belief are assumed, can truth claims (or "valid conclusions") be drawn in fields that are historically determined? I think the answer is yes. Then, I ask, starting with secular axioms, can truth claims (or "valid conclusions") be drawn by secularists in fields that are historically determined? That is the question that is yet to be answered.

If you object to the conclusion drawn from the axioms, please do share. If, however, you object to axioms that are not verified, you will be dismissed as nonsensical and proven as such according to the dictionary. I will modify any claims that are proven to be nonsensical by definition, and I would hope you will do the same.

If the secular can make such an argument, or if the secularist can undermine the Christian perspectives on such matters granting Christian axioms, then they are on equal footing. However, if the secularist has no answer within his own axioms that bears equal weight to the Christian, then the Christian would seem to have a leg up on the secularist in terms of ability to formulate a comprehensive worldview that is something more than arbitrary.

The problem is that you can't show your claims are any better than unsupported claims , how can you show that you results are not in the same class as the 'secularist' ?

Axioms are by definition unsupported claims. I do not intend to show that they are more. What I am trying to show is that, with Christian axioms, history is not a problem. With secular axioms, it is. Unless you can refute my position with an argument that is not nonsensical (requiring verified axioms), nor false (claiming that words used according to dictionary definitions are "Gobbledygook"), I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

There are religious claims when it comes to certain Christians sects that have been shown to be false when it comes to that nature of the world, such as the literal reading of Genesis. If the Christian shows that their 'comprehensive world view' includes things that are demonstrative false, or is totally non-verifiable, how does that give them a 'leg up' on the ability to formulate a 'comprehensive world view'.

Certain sects accept falsified positions. Have I accepted any such positions? Are you debating "certain sects" or are you debating me? I will gladly grant that some Christian worldviews might be inferior to some secular ones. The question at hand, per the OP, regards history and worldviews.

I prefer that discussion be kept inline with the OP. We can talk science elsewhere (and I have). Can we talk history here? If history is not a problem for Christianity, but it is for non-theism or secularism, then it is clearly a 'leg up' on the ability to formulate a comprehensive worldview. comprehensive is, of course, defined as "of large scope; covering or involving much; inclusive:" By definition, if the Christian worldview can speak in areas of a larger scope in a non-arbitrary way, I have demonstrated that the Christian worldview is more comprehensive. I don't see where the question comes in...

When the Christian has to resort to unsupported claims, and the use of doublespeak , how does that give them a leg up?

Here you go accusing me of "doublespeak" again. If my position is so clearly wrong, why hide behind words like "doublespeak"? Argue in a way that proves me wrong. If you clearly point to an area where I am being dishonest or am lacking integrity, I will retract my claims and apologize. Otherwise, I consider this an attack on my character and an unsubstantiated one at that.

[Goat]

Can we claim that "people like power" in a way that is anything other than arbitrary? Alexander was an accidental or contingent historical event that was one among many which set Western Culture on a specific path which was oriented toward power. Other cultures and other histories seem to have produced different results. Can we say that there was anything in this path suggesting humans must like power, or could we just as easily construct an alternate anthropology were an alternate course of history taken? Could we not alter the course of history now? In other words, do we learn anything real from the historical event on which to build anything?

Please show me other cultures and other histories that show different results. Can you back up that claim?

Gift economies came immediately to mind. In these economies, basic market interactions are not based on increasing individual economic power, but on offering one's resources to another to increase his or her power.

Let's look at the wiki on 'Gift Economies, and in specific, what it says about the motivation of 'giving gift's.


Native Americans

Native Americans who lived in the Pacific Northwest (primarily the Kwakiutl), practiced the potlatch ritual, where leaders give away large amounts of goods to their followers, strengthening group relations. By sacrificing accumulated wealth, a leader gained a position of honor.


The explicit purpose of the gift is gaining a position of honor (i.e. power). The desire for power is still there.. ti is just taking a different form.

Ascetic movements in 3rd century Egypt also come to mind. Particular groups moved away from society and gave up any power in order to live as equals or as isolated individuals.

That shows that desire for power is not universal.. it's the 'alpha' and the 'beta' personality types. There are people today that are not comfortable in groups. Many of these get diagnosed with an autistic spectrum disorder (although not all). That does not say that 'Humans do not desire power'.. it just says that not ALL humans desire power.

There are all kinds of anthropological studies on contemporary societies too, ranging from Mbuti pygmies in the Congo, to Tahitians, to the Amish.

In each and every one of those groups, there are individuals that are leaders of the group. That is showing the desire of power. Some are leaders, some of followers.

I have no idea what you mean by 'historical contingent events' and 'significant truths'. Please describe what you mean by these terms. Do they have any meaning in the real world what so ever, or are those terms gobbledygook?

Well, let's turn to a dictionary. That's often a good place to start when the meaning of a term isn't clear. Merriam Webster defines contingent as "1. likely but not certain to happen, 2. not logically necessary, or 3.a. happening by chance or unforeseen causes." Historical is defined as "of, relating to, or having the character of history". An event is "2.a. something that happens."

Well, if it is historical, it happened. If it happened, the chance of it having happened is 100%... Chance or unseen causes?? Can you prove any event in history is 'chance or unseen causes'?? "Not logicallyi necessary".?? Wow.. talk about a totallyi unneeded piece of complication there. Yep,.. and when combining it 'event'.. yes, it just plain jargon, and basically meaningless. It is a phrase that comes out of a post modern generator that SOUNDS like it has meaning, but, actually does not

Putting it together, a historical contingent event is something that happens in the past that could not be described as certain to happen, logically necessary, or a product of necessity. I think that has a real meaning in the world.


For example: If you drop a ball, gravity and other principles suggest that, ceteris paribus (all things being equal), the ball will fall. This is certain to happen, so it is not contingent.

When it comes to talking about historical events, it is , in my opinion, totally meaningless. Call it jargon, call it double speak, .. to me, it is meaningless.

On the other hand, if you put three million people in the Mediterranean region, there is nothing logically necessary (in a deductive sense) why Alexander the Great should emerge. Is there any way that his development could be seen as certain? I don't know how we'd establish this. Therefore, it seems as if Alexander's origination is partly due to chance, or random probability, or whatever term you find more appropriate.

Is it? It seems to me that you can't show that the development of a powerful military figure would not emerge given the state of technology, and the amount of resources available. We see this pattern repeating many times in history. Empires arise, empires fall to be replaced by other empires. That says that it has definite factors behind it.

As for "significant truth": Merriam Webster defines significant as "1. having meaning, 2. having or likely to have influence or effect : important." Truth is a bit harder and probably needs a philosophical definition, but in terms of the dictionary: "2.a. the state of being the case, 3.a. the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality." When I wonder whether a historical contingency can lead to significant truth, I am in effect asking whether historical contingency can lead to a proposition of what is "in accord with reality" in a "meaningful" or "important" way.

More doublespeak. To me, it is trying to build up something that isn't there. An illusion, words that pretend to have meaning, and actually don't.

Alexander was your example, not mine. I began by considering the postmodern argument that particular theories, ideas, perspectives, or paradigms are historically contingent. If these ideas are the result of chance, or developments that are not logically necessary conclusions given the reality observed, can we say that these ideas contribute any meaningful or important revelation about the facts of reality itself? That is what I meant.

Well, I can see why I consider the 'post modern movement' to be pretentious and meaningless. It is trying to grasp stuff that doesn't exist, and it uses meaningless terms that pretend to communicate, yet doesn't. There isn't any 'truths'.

Having defined that, can you respond to the argument?

Can we claim that "people like power" in a way that is anything other than arbitrary? Alexander was an accidental or contingent historical event that was one among many which set Western Culture on a specific path which was oriented toward power. Other cultures and other histories seem to have produced different results. Can we say that there was anything in this path suggesting humans must like power, or could we just as easily construct an alternate anthropology were an alternate course of history taken? Could we not alter the course of history now? In other words, do we learn anything real from the historical event on which to build anything?

It sounds like an updated version about the old argument about 'How many angels can fit on the head of a pin'. It is making huge arguments and claims that, when boiled down to the essence of the claims.. doesn't do anything with reality. I find much of the 'Post Modernism' to be pretentious pseudo intellectualism.

s"]Arguably, cultural "reality" is socially constructed. Humans and cultures are not like nature and do not operate according to specific uniform and mathematically measurable principles. An arbitrary past event is repeated through teaching and imitation through time until it is accepted as a cultural convention. Soon, a random contingent historical event defines and shapes all future events until such a time as a different random historical act breaks the trajectory and starts a new one. Can this arbitrary event which led to the observation of the common drive for power actually offer us any understanding of what humans are qua human being? Or does it simply describe a historical occurrence and then universalize an arbitrary contingency? That is the question.

I think that my comments about my viewpoints about post modernism will cover this, and most of the rest of the post. I don't feel that the vast amount of post modernism is correct, and it doesn't even ask questions that have any validity. Doublespeak is the perfect description, since it pretends to communicate, but does not. I don't think it asks questions that has any validity in the real world. I don't think that when a post modernist comes up with an answer, it is anything more than something to satisfy themselves, and has no relevance to the real world.

[theopoesis]

To be honest, I am dumbfounded as to how to continue to discuss these matters. I don't know why I will carry on, but like Sisyphus I carry on.

I'm going to sidestep the issue of gift economies and such for a moment until you give pay me the respect of addressing my primary argument head on and not dismissively. Maybe we can come back to this later, because I think you selectively present evidence.

Well, let's turn to a dictionary. That's often a good place to start when the meaning of a term isn't clear. Merriam Webster defines contingent as "1. likely but not certain to happen, 2. not logically necessary, or 3.a. happening by chance or unforeseen causes." Historical is defined as "of, relating to, or having the character of history". An event is "2.a. something that happens."

Well, if it is historical, it happened. If it happened, the chance of it having happened is 100%... Chance or unseen causes?? Can you prove any event in history is 'chance or unseen causes'?? "Not logicallyi necessary".?? Wow.. talk about a totallyi unneeded piece of complication there. Yep,.. and when combining it 'event'.. yes, it just plain jargon, and basically meaningless. It is a phrase that comes out of a post modern generator that SOUNDS like it has meaning, but, actually does not

The question is not did it happen, the question is did it have to happen. Prior to the event occurring did it necessarily need to occur?

I think you are sidestepping the issue yet again because you are incapable of addressing my arguments. I do ask that if you are going to follow me around from thread to thread saying that dictionary definitions are meaningless, please spare us both the time. If you don't want legitimate dialogue, why harass me?

Putting it together, a historical contingent event is something that happens in the past that could not be described as certain to happen, logically necessary, or a product of necessity. I think that has a real meaning in the world.


For example: If you drop a ball, gravity and other principles suggest that, ceteris paribus (all things being equal), the ball will fall. This is certain to happen, so it is not contingent.

When it comes to talking about historical events, it is , in my opinion, totally meaningless. Call it jargon, call it double speak, .. to me, it is meaningless.

You've failed to substantiate this at all. You can call it meaningless, but it has a clear meaning. Your refusal to address the argument in favor of calling it "doublespeak" is the only example of doublespeak I see here.

On the other hand, if you put three million people in the Mediterranean region, there is nothing logically necessary (in a deductive sense) why Alexander the Great should emerge. Is there any way that his development could be seen as certain? I don't know how we'd establish this. Therefore, it seems as if Alexander's origination is partly due to chance, or random probability, or whatever term you find more appropriate.

Is it? It seems to me that you can't show that the development of a powerful military figure would not emerge given the state of technology, and the amount of resources available. We see this pattern repeating many times in history. Empires arise, empires fall to be replaced by other empires. That says that it has definite factors behind it.

General trends in history can be traced, but can these trends lead to the necessity of Alexander the Great in his historical particularity. Could not another empire have emerged under a different leader at a different time for different reasons with a different culture and different consequences?

As for "significant truth": Merriam Webster defines significant as "1. having meaning, 2. having or likely to have influence or effect : important." Truth is a bit harder and probably needs a philosophical definition, but in terms of the dictionary: "2.a. the state of being the case, 3.a. the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality." When I wonder whether a historical contingency can lead to significant truth, I am in effect asking whether historical contingency can lead to a proposition of what is "in accord with reality" in a "meaningful" or "important" way.

More doublespeak. To me, it is trying to build up something that isn't there. An illusion, words that pretend to have meaning, and actually don't.

Please explain why it is doublespeak. I have tried to offer dictionary definitions to help you out, but if you don't even understand them, perhaps a view from the sidelines would help?

Alexander was your example, not mine. I began by considering the postmodern argument that particular theories, ideas, perspectives, or paradigms are historically contingent. If these ideas are the result of chance, or developments that are not logically necessary conclusions given the reality observed, can we say that these ideas contribute any meaningful or important revelation about the facts of reality itself? That is what I meant.

Well, I can see why I consider the 'post modern movement' to be pretentious and meaningless. It is trying to grasp stuff that doesn't exist, and it uses meaningless terms that pretend to communicate, yet doesn't. There isn't any 'truths'.

Can I consider your claim here to be true? If it is not true, why did you present it?

Having defined that, can you respond to the argument?

Can we claim that "people like power" in a way that is anything other than arbitrary? Alexander was an accidental or contingent historical event that was one among many which set Western Culture on a specific path which was oriented toward power. Other cultures and other histories seem to have produced different results. Can we say that there was anything in this path suggesting humans must like power, or could we just as easily construct an alternate anthropology were an alternate course of history taken? Could we not alter the course of history now? In other words, do we learn anything real from the historical event on which to build anything?

It sounds like an updated version about the old argument about 'How many angels can fit on the head of a pin'. It is making huge arguments and claims that, when boiled down to the essence of the claims.. doesn't do anything with reality. I find much of the 'Post Modernism' to be pretentious pseudo intellectualism.

I have made no reference to angels, pins, or the number of angels who fit on a pin. I have made very clear and precise arguments, even offering dictionary definitions when you could not understand. Do try to keep up.

Arguably, cultural "reality" is socially constructed. Humans and cultures are not like nature and do not operate according to specific uniform and mathematically measurable principles. An arbitrary past event is repeated through teaching and imitation through time until it is accepted as a cultural convention. Soon, a random contingent historical event defines and shapes all future events until such a time as a different random historical act breaks the trajectory and starts a new one. Can this arbitrary event which led to the observation of the common drive for power actually offer us any understanding of what humans are qua human being? Or does it simply describe a historical occurrence and then universalize an arbitrary contingency? That is the question.

I think that my comments about my viewpoints about post modernism will cover this, and most of the rest of the post. I don't feel that the vast amount of post modernism is correct, and it doesn't even ask questions that have any validity. Doublespeak is the perfect description, since it pretends to communicate, but does not. I don't think it asks questions that has any validity in the real world. I don't think that when a post modernist comes up with an answer, it is anything more than something to satisfy themselves, and has no relevance to the real world.

I think you are wasting time by posting here. Why engage an argument if you refuse to acknowledge it even has meaning? Clearly, it meant something for you to take the time to respond to it.

If you won't give me the respect of treating my arguments as something other than "pretending to communicate" please just go away. It is rude, and I have no desire to debate with someone who refuses to even try to understand.

If you continue to post responses to me in every thread dismissing my words as "doublespeak" without substantiating the claims, I will have to seek outside assistance. I believe I have been more than patient.

[Goat]

If you continue to post responses to me in every thread dismissing my words as "doublespeak" without substantiating the claims, I will have to seek outside assistance. I believe I have been more than patient.

I think we are at an impass, because 'doublespeak' is defined as "any language that pretends to communicate but actually does not" , and I can not for the life of me see how the way you are using the terms have any semantic meaning. Your primary world view assumptions are so far from mine as to make communication impossible.. as far as I can see, such words as 'contingent events', and 'significant truths' have no communication value what so ever.

At this point, I think I will bow out, since arguing the whichness of why by use of wordiness is an exercise in futility.

[ChaosBorders]

I've only read the last couple of posts and do not have time to go back further, but it sounds to me like what Theopoesis is asking is whether or not present observations about human nature could merely be the result of a cultural bias caused by the accumulated differences resulting from a prototypical example that was brought about by chance early on in history.

This leads to the question of whether or not it is really a meaningful part of our nature given that events could have transpired differently and resulted in a totally different culture. (Whether events could have literally transpired differently depends on whether the universe follows a deterministic model or not, but we'll set that aside for now).

I would say that accumulated differences are most certainly responsible for our present condition, both on a cultural level and on an evolutionary level. Had things occurred differently in the distant past, then things would be very different now.

However, there is a distinction between the cultural differences observed and human nature on a biological level. I think it is a valid point to raise regarding whether any particular present observation is really a part of 'human nature' because it could largely be the result of cultural variations that have occurred over the last few thousand years rather than the evolutionary accumulations resulting from the last several hundred thousand years (or however long it's been since our species split off). Which is which though is something the field of evolutionary psychology is now trying to help determine.

Theopoesis
Apologies if I'm completely off base about what you were trying to get at. Again, I didn't have time to read more than the last couple posts. The last one of yours is very eloquently written, but I can understand why Goat is having difficulty understanding what you're trying to say. Something that may be of benefit to know (and something I frequently have to try and remind myself of as well given I am bad at this) is that writing at about an 8th grade level promotes the greatest clarity and ease of communication. So even if two highly educated individuals are talking, if one seems to be having trouble understanding what the other is saying, rephrasing and 'dumb-ing it down' may lead to better understanding.

[Goat]

I've only read the last couple of posts and do not have time to go back further, but it sounds to me like what Theopoesis is asking is whether or not present observations about human nature could merely be the result of a cultural bias caused by the accumulated differences resulting from a prototypical example that was brought about by chance early on in history.

This leads to the question of whether or not it is really a meaningful part of our nature given that events could have transpired differently and resulted in a totally different culture. (Whether events could have literally transpired differently depends on whether the universe follows a deterministic model or not, but we'll set that aside for now).

I would say that accumulated differences are most certainly responsible for our present condition, both on a cultural level and on an evolutionary level. Had things occurred differently in the distant past, then things would be very different now.

However, there is a distinction between the cultural differences observed and human nature on a biological level. I think it is a valid point to raise regarding whether any particular present observation is really a part of 'human nature' because it could largely be the result of cultural variations that have occurred over the last few thousand years rather than the evolutionary accumulations resulting from the last several hundred thousand years (or however long it's been since our species split off). Which is which though is something the field of evolutionary psychology is now trying to help determine.

Theopoesis
Apologies if I'm completely off base about what you were trying to get at. Again, I didn't have time to read more than the last couple posts. The last one of yours is very eloquently written, but I can understand why Goat is having difficulty understanding what you're trying to say. Something that may be of benefit to know (and something I frequently have to try and remind myself of as well given I am bad at this) is that writing at about an 8th grade level promotes the greatest clarity and ease of communication. So even if two highly educated individuals are talking, if one seems to be having trouble understanding what the other is saying, rephrasing and 'dumb-ing it down' may lead to better understanding.

Yes, things might have worked out differently if different events happened, but it didn't. That is like saying "I might have been rich if I won last nights lottery but I didn't. Trying to find 'significant truths' it 'what if's' doesn't have any meaning.

[theopoesis]

Theopoesis
Apologies if I'm completely off base about what you were trying to get at. Again, I didn't have time to read more than the last couple posts. The last one of yours is very eloquently written, but I can understand why Goat is having difficulty understanding what you're trying to say. Something that may be of benefit to know (and something I frequently have to try and remind myself of as well given I am bad at this) is that writing at about an 8th grade level promotes the greatest clarity and ease of communication. So even if two highly educated individuals are talking, if one seems to be having trouble understanding what the other is saying, rephrasing and 'dumb-ing it down' may lead to better understanding.

I think you are partly on target. I am asking one more thing, though... I'm not only wondering about the way that human nature relates to theories (are theories what you call "a meaningful part of our nature"), I am wondering about the content of the theories as well. If theories develop in history, and history is random or contingent, can we trust the content of these theories to be anything other than random or arbitrary or contingent?

I think theology, given its assumptions, can answer "yes" to that question concerning a theistic set of theories. I am wondering whether the secularist can answer yes.

As for the 8th grade language level, you do have a point. I'm not doing the best at that, but I am trying. I've got two problems: (1) I just came from grad school, so this is how I've been writing for three years, and habits die hard. (2) I'm trying to figure out how to express some of the most complicated philosophy in the last 300 years at an 8th grade level. I'm really trying to dumb it down, to use language very precisely, and to use as many synonyms as possible (and to use dictionary definitions where needed), but in writing quickly in some posts I have fallen short (for example using qua twice... totally unnecessary). I appreciate the tip, though.

[EduChris]

...I'm trying to figure out how to express some of the most complicated philosophy in the last 300 years at an 8th grade level...

Human brains do not usually become capable of abstract thought until early teens or later. And our brains do not become fully "online" usually until around age 30. So it is impossible to take complex, abstract concepts and "dumb them down" to the eighth grade level. Eighth graders simply do not have the mental development necessary to understand. The best you can hope for is to get something across that will sink into the undeveloped (i.e., still developing) mind so that when the development has progressed to the next level, the person will be motivated to revisit the concept again, this time with greater capacity for understanding.

I think in the case of some people, their brains develop very strongly toward concrete things, and the very strength of this development hinders their ability to ever comprehend more abstract concepts.

[theopoesis]

And our brains do not become fully "online" usually until around age 30

Does this mean I'm still going to get better at scrabble?

[EduChris]

And our brains do not become fully "online" usually until around age 30

Does this mean I'm still going to get better at scrabble?

Yes, as a matter of fact--and even more so for males than for females.

Male and female brains generally take different developmental routes. They end up (at around age 30) with the same overall capacities, but because of the different "schedule" of areas which become online at different stages of life, men and women tend to adopt different strategies in the way that they use their capacities.