I'm curious about this. What are postmodern notions of individualism, and how is this distinct from the prior notion of individualism such that it makes a key distinction so we can call one form stupid and the other not stupid?
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 2
So the modern skeptic question is "how do I know I exist", and one response to that was "I think therefore I am", but the postmodern extrapolation of that appears to be "I think therefore I am therefore I am whatever I think and so is everything else because I can't actually count on anything else objectively speaking"
And the danger of this becoming a major cultural force that's separate from standard modern liberal conception of individualism is that postmodern radical individualism that doesn't even agree that objective facts exist which contributes to the "two screens" problem we've got.
Am I on the right track?
And the danger of this becoming a major cultural force that's separate from standard modern liberal conception of individualism is that postmodern radical individualism that doesn't even agree that objective facts exist which contributes to the "two screens" problem we've got.
Am I on the right track?
I made a bit of a mistake referring to it. The actual phrase is "one screen, two movies" referring to a pop politics idea that there's a disconnect between different political factions and despite living in the same world they're seeing completely different things. It seems to me that this would be a natural consequences of the rejection of an idea of objective facts, so instead of learning what data everyone has and trying to come up with a truth that integrates all the facts you have one sides subjectively held facts and the other sides subjectively held facts and you can never agree on anything because you can't even start from a remotely common data set.
I can absolutely believe that. Throw the right platitudes out without crossing the line into actually advocating anything, then you can say something two different people interpret two completely different ways.
I remember one election in the 2000s, and one of the things I said was "the worst thing a politician can ever do is actually tell you what they plan to do; if you don't say anything people can imagine whatever policy they want in your words. If you say what you're going to do then they can disagree with it".
I remember one election in the 2000s, and one of the things I said was "the worst thing a politician can ever do is actually tell you what they plan to do; if you don't say anything people can imagine whatever policy they want in your words. If you say what you're going to do then they can disagree with it".